Jobs & Obama

[TulsaRufnex]

Based on that logical argument, I have an idea for the next Progressive candidate.

I post factual evidence that success in business does NOT equal success in economic policy/politics... and you reply with  

Hmmm.... if supply-side apologists could just find a businessman who isn't stiff like Romney... maybe somebody with the acting experience of Ronald Reagan... oh, wait....

Here ya go....

[AquaMan]

Hahahahaha!

Wow!  Steve Jobs, one of the most innovative American businessmen in the last 35 years, explains to the president what business needs to expand in the United States, and it's summarily dismissed in one of the biggest mental gymnastics sessions I've seen on here

You and the Gas are some hard headed guys. Even when history, logic, and common sense run against you it bounces off like ping pong balls.

Of course, I remember running into guys like you when I bought my first mac back in the late 80's and hearing how stupid I was to pay so much for a computer that couldn't compete with IBM or Compac's stuff. Apple stock went up and down like a roller coaster till he was recognized many years later as a genius by the same people who once called him the creator of computers for dummies.

[nathanm]

1)  What sort of manufacturing jobs do we want in the United States?

The kind that don't involve abusive working conditions and that have wages high enough to support at least a single person on full time work. A very low bar, really.

[Conan71]

You and the Gas are some hard headed guys. Even when history, logic, and common sense run against you it bounces off like ping pong balls.

Of course, I remember running into guys like you when I bought my first mac back in the late 80's and hearing how stupid I was to pay so much for a computer that couldn't compete with IBM or Compac's stuff. Apple stock went up and down like a roller coaster till he was recognized many years later as a genius by the same people who once called him the creator of computers for dummies.

I'm trying to figure out how you manage to cobble together something about Steve Jobs experience not being relevant to running the country out of the president seeking a meeting with Jobs to discuss job creation and the economy and Jobs coming away thoroughly convinced the president "doesn't get it".  Keep in mind, Jobs was a major Democrat donor and supporter of Obama in '08.  

Let me put this another way, if you were president and wanted to figure out what profitable corporations need to create jobs, would you seek out the advice of actual job creators and innovators like Steve Jobs to understand why job creation was not happening in the private sector (and actually listen to them and act on an amalgam of their suggestions) or rely on a bunch of academians and government wonks who have never worked in the private sector as to the solutions?

[nathanm]

I think the point is that the article you posted has no actionable items in it, aside from the constant refrain of "lower wages, lower benefits, more control over workers." When people hammer on the same points through good times and bad it's hard to believe that the problem in the bad times are actually the things they were harping on when times were good. If it was such a problem, why did it not prevent the previous expansion?

[JCnOwasso]

The kind that don't involve abusive working conditions and that have wages high enough to support at least a single person on full time work. A very low bar, really.

But a capitalist and the shareholders cannot make their fat stax when you ask for such a thing.  Case in point... Apple revenue 33B, profit 8B.  Just think what would happen if they could no longer pay that factory worker $10 a day.  They might only make 7B in profits... which would only raise the stock prices by x% instead of X%.  And just for reference... 1B in profits spread amongst 100,000 workers would be 10k.  At $10 a day working 345 days a year (because you know they only get 1 day off... on occasion) $3450.  

Apple's work in China has been "good".  It has brought many out of poverty and makes them able to support themselves and their family.  Additionally, as much as it frustrates me that these companies only pay the $10 a day, you cannot move into an area and pay 30-50 a day.  It would create an unstable economy.  

I think I am just rambling.  I had a good thought but it went to hell.  

[Hoss]

You and the Gas are some hard headed guys. Even when history, logic, and common sense run against you it bounces off like ping pong balls.

Of course, I remember running into guys like you when I bought my first mac back in the late 80's and hearing how stupid I was to pay so much for a computer that couldn't compete with IBM or Compac's stuff. Apple stock went up and down like a roller coaster till he was recognized many years later as a genius by the same people who once called him the creator of computers for dummies.

Once?  He sort of still is!  Well, with smartphones/tablets anyway.  If you want to tinker, then IOS isn't for you unless you want the pain of jailbreaking.

[nathanm]

Meh, I had to root my Nexus 7 to be able to use a damn USB stick. Not that iOS is any better on that count, but still.

[Hoss]

Meh, I had to root my Nexus 7 to be able to use a damn USB stick. Not that iOS is any better on that count, but still.

Jailbreaking is a grumble.  Rooting an Android is much easier.

I'm also readying to drop the hammer on the Nexus HSPA+ phone.  Since unlocked from Google they're just 350, it's well better than what I can get comparable phones on contract from AT&T for.

[nathanm]

I'm also readying to drop the hammer on the Nexus HSPA+ phone.  Since unlocked from Google they're just 350, it's well better than what I can get comparable phones on contract from AT&T for.

You're more than welcome to play with mine for a bit if you want to try before you buy. I got it just before I went on vacation. (And less than a week before Google started selling it directly..mine is an import from the UAE) Second day at the resort I walked into the pool with it in my pocket, so no rear camera, but otherwise it works a treat.

[AquaMan]

I'm trying to figure out how you manage to cobble together something about Steve Jobs experience not being relevant to running the country out of the president seeking a meeting with Jobs to discuss job creation and the economy and Jobs coming away thoroughly convinced the president "doesn't get it".  Keep in mind, Jobs was a major Democrat donor and supporter of Obama in '08.  

Let me put this another way, if you were president and wanted to figure out what profitable corporations need to create jobs, would you seek out the advice of actual job creators and innovators like Steve Jobs to understand why job creation was not happening in the private sector (and actually listen to them and act on an amalgam of their suggestions) or rely on a bunch of academians and government wonks who have never worked in the private sector as to the solutions?

I know you Conan. You are a debater by nature. Pretty much uninterested in your opponents points except how you may rephrase them into traps, repulse them or force an answer to benefit your argument. You are good at it but it takes you away from the truth. Debating is an exercise in battle, not a search for truth.

Obama is a lawyer, and a former academician who pursued politics. He knows something about all those subjects. He also reads voraciously. Business is just not that hard to pick up. Jobs is an innovator who had up and down success with business and ended on a high note. Business genius might be gratuitous. He knows little about politics other than as a donor. Hence, his remarks.

So, it appears you have set up an imaginary meeting that neither represents what occurred nor gives any credence to our opinion as to why his remarks after a meeting with Jobs was even relevant. This guy appeared to be lecturing a president because he had access and success in his own field. He even made reference to it by suggesting that Obama would play off any meeting to his own advantage. That's ego. You bought his presentation.

A president should seek out disparate views. He has. You preferred  Jobs' views and remarks as opposed to Warren Buffets' views and remarks.

I cobble pretty well too.

[Gaspar]

Not the first time we've been able to compile such data, but certainly the freshest!  Unfortunately our populous has become so grossly uneducated in basic economics, and our politicians so grossly dependent on the purchase of favor and votes, that we will very likely see this same scenario again and again.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444873204577537244225685010.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

[AquaMan]

How interesting. Every country showed a loss regardless of stimulation. Weakens your point. Perhaps if you had taken note of the relationship between the amount of government investment vs the amount of growth you would have seen that many of those who invested little, like Korea, Israel, Hungary, Switzerland,  showed nearly three times that investment in loss. Those that invested more, like the US, saw much smaller declines.

There are too many other factors involved to just single out government spending during a down business cycle.....unless of course that was the only criteria that mattered to you.

[Gaspar]

How interesting. Every country showed a loss regardless of stimulation. Weakens your point. Perhaps if you had taken note of the relationship between the amount of government investment vs the amount of growth you would have seen that many of those who invested little, like Korea, Israel, Hungary, Switzerland,  showed nearly three times that investment in loss. Those that invested more, like the US, saw much smaller declines.

There are too many other factors involved to just single out government spending during a down business cycle.....unless of course that was the only criteria that mattered to you.

That makes no sense at all.  The spending is a % of total GDP, and that means that it moves as GDP does, it's not an independent factor.  The point remains that countries that spent the lowest % on government stimulus, averaged the lowest decline in GDP.  There really is not another way to spin these numbers, but go for it!

[AquaMan]

That makes no sense at all.  The spending is a % of total GDP, and that means that it moves as GDP does, it's not an independent factor.  The point remains that countries that spent the lowest % on government stimulus, averaged the lowest decline in GDP.  There really is not another way to spin these numbers, but go for it!

Because you're looking for a red barn with a green filtered flashlight. No way i could accomplish the double, inverted, triple twist spin that you are master at. The two numbers are related or you wouldn't have presented them.

The bottom line is that EVERY country listed showed declines in real GDP growth whether they invested or not. Typical of a world wide business cycle downturn. The ones who invested more, not only received more bang for their buck in infrastructure development, but showed smaller declines in real GDP.