CEOs of large, high profile companies like Intel tend to be averse to making strong political stands, especially during election season. They understand that their companies can quickly become targets for regulation that can end up costing shareholders millions (or billions of dollars). Most CEOs tend to throw some money at candidates who are expected to win and keep their heads down. Which is why Intel CEO Paul Otellini’s total evisceration of Obama’s understanding of the economy in the middle of an election season was such a shocking breath of fresh air today.
“The decisions so far have not resulted in either job growth or increased confidence. When what you’re doing isn’t working you rethink it and I think we need to rethink some plans,” he said at the Intel Developers Forum in San Francisco.
Otellini credited the White House for listening to him and other business leaders. “I really think they’re trying,” he said, adding that he doesn’t think there is anti-business sentiment from the administration.
But Otellini said the $787 billion economic stimulus package passed last year has not done enough to solve problems in the job market. He argued that money not yet spent from that program might be better off allocated elsewhere and took the administration to task for focusing on short-term projects.
“It doesn’t seem to be working the way it is. Swimming pools in Mississippi are not going to create lasting jobs.”
** snip **
Otellini is also one of the first Fortune 500 CEOs to speak publicly about President Obama’s newly proposed $350 billion economic recovery plan. He said that proposal, which includes tax breaks for businesses and research and development incentives, is not the right plan either.
The way Otellini sees it, Washington must decide what the industries of the future are. “We still subsidize trains and agriculture — industries of the 19th century. We should decide what’s important to us going forward and make sure we’ve got the education system in place and the capital incentive system in place to do the investment here.”
Otellini also said that a major problem for companies is that they are being held back by high corporate tax rates.
Otellini says it costs Intel (INTC, Fortune 500) $1 billion more to build a factory in the U.S. than abroad because of a lack of U.S. tax incentives. The company has a multi-billion dollar factory slated to open in China this October.
“You have to weigh the advantages of working here, the security of working here in this country…against that billion dollars.”
Otellini questioned why global business leaders would want to do business in the U.S. due to the cost, saying it is critical to incentivize foreign countries to invest in America. “Our corporate taxes are twice what they are in the rest of the world. You want corporations to invest here.”
Gee. It seems that one party was talking about the corporate tax rate being too high all the way through the 2008 election. The other was busy talking about penalizing ExxonMobil for making too much profit. The end result is that when the financial sector tanked, the party in power did nothing to change the corporate tax rate and instead spent billions of dollars on “shovel ready” projects; i.e., completely unnecessary construction projects. These provided some level of short-term boon to construction companies, who built the projects in question and then were promptly left standing around twiddling their thumbs again. Meanwhile, companies with sustainable business practices and profitability like Intel move more and more American jobs overseas because of the hostile business climate that Barack Obama and his cronies don’t even understand, much less know how to fix.
Until America elects an administration and a Congress that has a better plan for fixing the economy than confiscating money from profit (read: job) producers like Intel and throwing it at farm subsidies and construction make-work, you can count on Austan Gooslbee being right: double-digit employment will be a more-or-less permanent feature.
so, yea, what's the big deal?
This is not a simple matter of temporary inconvenience. If you agree to pay interest on a loan from them you are enslaving yourself. It is very simple, and they don't want you to know that.
The loan money you agree to pay back did not exist until you signed the dotted line. In fact, it will never 'exist'. When you purchase a home or a car you agree to make payments until the loan is completely paid off, paying an 'agreed' interest rate, a premium, for the convenience of taking control of the home or car without paying in full. But no money is ever exchanged. The loan document is essentially an agreement that if you stop making payments the bank will have to take over, potentially at a loss. Either way the third party, such as the original owner of the home, or Toyota, in the case of a car, is paid in full by the bank - the third party is no longer involved. They have received full payment. But you, my dear consumer, are now a slave.
Why use such a term as slave? Because you are working for someone that never worked for the money in the first place. They 'printed' it. They increased the number of zeros on their ledger because you have agreed to make payments on that money, but it never existed in the first place. That is, the Federal Reserve has the ability to increase the money supply and then pass it on to their 'member' banks: Wells Fargo, Citi, Bank of America, etc. These banks will only take a loss if you stop making payments - and they threaten you with a lower FICO score, which is always fluctuating and at risk of identity fraud anyway, if you decide not to play anymore. So how is this slavery? You are paying interest on money they did not work for. But you had to sweat to get the money to pay that interest. Your sweat goes to these bankers without them doing a thing. If enough of your fellow consumers stop making payments the house of cards falls and the big bank gets a bailout. The small banks just get their assets gobbled up by the big banks; no bailout.
If you, my dear consumer, attempt to create money out of thin air you are put in jail. You are a cheat. But not them. They can create all the money they need, raising this so-called debt ceiling, creating programs like TARP, and other 'bailouts' for risk-taking banksters. That's right. They get your sweat in the form of interest payments, you slave, and they get to take risks because Glass-Steagall has been repealed, and if they fail, you, the taxpaying consumer, get to become the primary investor in their failure: the bailout. They threaten collapse, chaos, and even war if the don't get their bailout from the taxpayer. And then they turn around and lend you, the consumer, money at 10, 20, 30%.
So what is pragmatic? How about a system that cannot be manipulated? How about a system in which losers actually lose and are not allowed to play anymore instead of given huge bonuses?
That system, is a gold-backed system. Keynes is popular in the current time because he speaks the language of bankers and politicians - not the People. There should be no such thing as inflation. Inflation is at best a hidden tax (increase the money supply to fund inefficient programs, sweetheart deals, and risky investments waiting for a bailout) because the value of the money under your mattress is devalued - you can't buy as much anymore. Why should anyone ever! be content to have less money the next day. You can buy X for $10 today, after inflation it will be $11. Why would you ever want that? How is that ever good? This is no mere inconvenience - it really is theft. So these financial scientists (bankers) and politician friends have devised a near perfect system of control. And because you can't inflate gold (it can't be copied, duplicated, or printed) it's 'value' stays constant. A gold coin will always have a specific weight and purity according to the standards of the mint it came from. That's what's in the Constitution - not an extra-governmental (private) instiution that can create as much money as it needs to maintain control!
Banking should be boring. They should accept deposits and charge money for keeping it safe in their vaults. But don't they pay depositors interest, you ask? Why would they pay you to keep your money safe when you can come in and get it back anytime you like? You can't run a business like that! The point of paying interest on a deposit is because the depositor agrees to allow the banker to loan the money to someone else. But that's not how it works, you say? Exactly. Because everybody knows that if enough depositors come to get their money the house of cards collapses and the FDIC has to step in. This should never happen. There should be no such thing, generally speaking, as a bankrun. A bank will fail if they make too many risky loans. That is, if a banker fails to properly evaluate the 'creditworthiness' of the individuals applying for loans. If too many loans go sour the banker fails and all of his assets are purchased by those making loans that are less risky. No need to ask Keynes what he thinks. Banking should not involve economics, which is really about the effects of human choice. Banking is math. If you deposit money, and you want to be able to get it the next day, you must pay the banker a fee for safekeeping. If you agree that your money can be lent to another, trusting the judgment of your banker, then you should receive part of the profit - and you cannot get it the next day, because it has already been lent! How can you possibly retrieve something that is not there? You banker would think you are an idiot to request money you agreed to lend! But that's what an honest system would work. Instead, we have an 'unlimited' system. It stops working properly if you apply gravity. Ron Paul's 26 year attempt to audit the Federal Reserve is almost more of an inside joke. He already knows that the Federal Reserve is evil - but he has a hard enough time deflecting attempts from the media to portray him as a lunatic as it is - he wants the public to perceive what a mudfight will ensue if they actually knew how the system works.
So growth would be slower. But it is inherently stable. Individuals are likely to take less risk, and they are less likely to get a loan that they probably won't be able to pay back. People sharpen their pencils. People look for other ways to finance their plans by seeking out friends, family, neighbors, etc instead of bankers. The free market is the market in which there is no restriction. But we do not have a free market. We have banksters hiding behind green curtains telling us what is best. The more stable the system the less money the banksters make. They make more money gaming the system: booms and busts - and we start to hear these pompous, paid economists (bankster apologists) tell us they couldn't see this was going to happen, and we all nod our heads, "Nobody saw this coming." So because the banksters never work for any of this money it is in their best interest that you, the simple-minded, ever-trusting consumer is in a perpetual state of paying interest. They are less interested in being paid in full than they are having you pay with your sweat.
Bankers control. Consumers always pay. Maybe you already explained all this to your girlie, my fellow FR-hater, and there is much more, but ask her what has always happened when enough people become apathetic to evil. The reason the founding fathers didn't get around to explaining the free market in the Constitution is because it is the lack of restriction. Real liberty. Let coined precious metals be the pinnacle of our economic system - everything else can be bartered. It keeps the bankers at bay.
I leave you with two quotes, from men of opposite character, that say the same thing using different words:
Obama: Fox <b>News</b> Has A Point Of View That Is 'Ultimately <b>...</b>
President Obama has given a lengthy interview to Rolling Stone publisher Jann Wenner for the upcoming issue of the magazine. The cover story is titled Obama Fights Back and boy does he ever. At least where Fox News is concerned.
LinkedIn Beefs Up Company Profiles With <b>News</b> Feeds, Career Data <b>...</b>
We recently wrote about the fast growing number of company profiles on professional social network LinkedIn (the network has over one million to be exact). Launched in April, the company profile gives organizations a centralized profile ...
Michelle Malkin » New Scapegoat for a Lousy Economy: Fox <b>News</b> is <b>...</b>
New Scapegoat for a Lousy Economy: Fox News is Hogging All the Success.
halloween costumesObama: Fox <b>News</b> Has A Point Of View That Is 'Ultimately <b>...</b>
President Obama has given a lengthy interview to Rolling Stone publisher Jann Wenner for the upcoming issue of the magazine. The cover story is titled Obama Fights Back and boy does he ever. At least where Fox News is concerned.
LinkedIn Beefs Up Company Profiles With <b>News</b> Feeds, Career Data <b>...</b>
We recently wrote about the fast growing number of company profiles on professional social network LinkedIn (the network has over one million to be exact). Launched in April, the company profile gives organizations a centralized profile ...
Michelle Malkin » New Scapegoat for a Lousy Economy: Fox <b>News</b> is <b>...</b>
New Scapegoat for a Lousy Economy: Fox News is Hogging All the Success.
CEOs of large, high profile companies like Intel tend to be averse to making strong political stands, especially during election season. They understand that their companies can quickly become targets for regulation that can end up costing shareholders millions (or billions of dollars). Most CEOs tend to throw some money at candidates who are expected to win and keep their heads down. Which is why Intel CEO Paul Otellini’s total evisceration of Obama’s understanding of the economy in the middle of an election season was such a shocking breath of fresh air today.
“The decisions so far have not resulted in either job growth or increased confidence. When what you’re doing isn’t working you rethink it and I think we need to rethink some plans,” he said at the Intel Developers Forum in San Francisco.
Otellini credited the White House for listening to him and other business leaders. “I really think they’re trying,” he said, adding that he doesn’t think there is anti-business sentiment from the administration.
But Otellini said the $787 billion economic stimulus package passed last year has not done enough to solve problems in the job market. He argued that money not yet spent from that program might be better off allocated elsewhere and took the administration to task for focusing on short-term projects.
“It doesn’t seem to be working the way it is. Swimming pools in Mississippi are not going to create lasting jobs.”
** snip **
Otellini is also one of the first Fortune 500 CEOs to speak publicly about President Obama’s newly proposed $350 billion economic recovery plan. He said that proposal, which includes tax breaks for businesses and research and development incentives, is not the right plan either.
The way Otellini sees it, Washington must decide what the industries of the future are. “We still subsidize trains and agriculture — industries of the 19th century. We should decide what’s important to us going forward and make sure we’ve got the education system in place and the capital incentive system in place to do the investment here.”
Otellini also said that a major problem for companies is that they are being held back by high corporate tax rates.
Otellini says it costs Intel (INTC, Fortune 500) $1 billion more to build a factory in the U.S. than abroad because of a lack of U.S. tax incentives. The company has a multi-billion dollar factory slated to open in China this October.
“You have to weigh the advantages of working here, the security of working here in this country…against that billion dollars.”
Otellini questioned why global business leaders would want to do business in the U.S. due to the cost, saying it is critical to incentivize foreign countries to invest in America. “Our corporate taxes are twice what they are in the rest of the world. You want corporations to invest here.”
Gee. It seems that one party was talking about the corporate tax rate being too high all the way through the 2008 election. The other was busy talking about penalizing ExxonMobil for making too much profit. The end result is that when the financial sector tanked, the party in power did nothing to change the corporate tax rate and instead spent billions of dollars on “shovel ready” projects; i.e., completely unnecessary construction projects. These provided some level of short-term boon to construction companies, who built the projects in question and then were promptly left standing around twiddling their thumbs again. Meanwhile, companies with sustainable business practices and profitability like Intel move more and more American jobs overseas because of the hostile business climate that Barack Obama and his cronies don’t even understand, much less know how to fix.
Until America elects an administration and a Congress that has a better plan for fixing the economy than confiscating money from profit (read: job) producers like Intel and throwing it at farm subsidies and construction make-work, you can count on Austan Gooslbee being right: double-digit employment will be a more-or-less permanent feature.
so, yea, what's the big deal?
This is not a simple matter of temporary inconvenience. If you agree to pay interest on a loan from them you are enslaving yourself. It is very simple, and they don't want you to know that.
The loan money you agree to pay back did not exist until you signed the dotted line. In fact, it will never 'exist'. When you purchase a home or a car you agree to make payments until the loan is completely paid off, paying an 'agreed' interest rate, a premium, for the convenience of taking control of the home or car without paying in full. But no money is ever exchanged. The loan document is essentially an agreement that if you stop making payments the bank will have to take over, potentially at a loss. Either way the third party, such as the original owner of the home, or Toyota, in the case of a car, is paid in full by the bank - the third party is no longer involved. They have received full payment. But you, my dear consumer, are now a slave.
Why use such a term as slave? Because you are working for someone that never worked for the money in the first place. They 'printed' it. They increased the number of zeros on their ledger because you have agreed to make payments on that money, but it never existed in the first place. That is, the Federal Reserve has the ability to increase the money supply and then pass it on to their 'member' banks: Wells Fargo, Citi, Bank of America, etc. These banks will only take a loss if you stop making payments - and they threaten you with a lower FICO score, which is always fluctuating and at risk of identity fraud anyway, if you decide not to play anymore. So how is this slavery? You are paying interest on money they did not work for. But you had to sweat to get the money to pay that interest. Your sweat goes to these bankers without them doing a thing. If enough of your fellow consumers stop making payments the house of cards falls and the big bank gets a bailout. The small banks just get their assets gobbled up by the big banks; no bailout.
If you, my dear consumer, attempt to create money out of thin air you are put in jail. You are a cheat. But not them. They can create all the money they need, raising this so-called debt ceiling, creating programs like TARP, and other 'bailouts' for risk-taking banksters. That's right. They get your sweat in the form of interest payments, you slave, and they get to take risks because Glass-Steagall has been repealed, and if they fail, you, the taxpaying consumer, get to become the primary investor in their failure: the bailout. They threaten collapse, chaos, and even war if the don't get their bailout from the taxpayer. And then they turn around and lend you, the consumer, money at 10, 20, 30%.
So what is pragmatic? How about a system that cannot be manipulated? How about a system in which losers actually lose and are not allowed to play anymore instead of given huge bonuses?
That system, is a gold-backed system. Keynes is popular in the current time because he speaks the language of bankers and politicians - not the People. There should be no such thing as inflation. Inflation is at best a hidden tax (increase the money supply to fund inefficient programs, sweetheart deals, and risky investments waiting for a bailout) because the value of the money under your mattress is devalued - you can't buy as much anymore. Why should anyone ever! be content to have less money the next day. You can buy X for $10 today, after inflation it will be $11. Why would you ever want that? How is that ever good? This is no mere inconvenience - it really is theft. So these financial scientists (bankers) and politician friends have devised a near perfect system of control. And because you can't inflate gold (it can't be copied, duplicated, or printed) it's 'value' stays constant. A gold coin will always have a specific weight and purity according to the standards of the mint it came from. That's what's in the Constitution - not an extra-governmental (private) instiution that can create as much money as it needs to maintain control!
Banking should be boring. They should accept deposits and charge money for keeping it safe in their vaults. But don't they pay depositors interest, you ask? Why would they pay you to keep your money safe when you can come in and get it back anytime you like? You can't run a business like that! The point of paying interest on a deposit is because the depositor agrees to allow the banker to loan the money to someone else. But that's not how it works, you say? Exactly. Because everybody knows that if enough depositors come to get their money the house of cards collapses and the FDIC has to step in. This should never happen. There should be no such thing, generally speaking, as a bankrun. A bank will fail if they make too many risky loans. That is, if a banker fails to properly evaluate the 'creditworthiness' of the individuals applying for loans. If too many loans go sour the banker fails and all of his assets are purchased by those making loans that are less risky. No need to ask Keynes what he thinks. Banking should not involve economics, which is really about the effects of human choice. Banking is math. If you deposit money, and you want to be able to get it the next day, you must pay the banker a fee for safekeeping. If you agree that your money can be lent to another, trusting the judgment of your banker, then you should receive part of the profit - and you cannot get it the next day, because it has already been lent! How can you possibly retrieve something that is not there? You banker would think you are an idiot to request money you agreed to lend! But that's what an honest system would work. Instead, we have an 'unlimited' system. It stops working properly if you apply gravity. Ron Paul's 26 year attempt to audit the Federal Reserve is almost more of an inside joke. He already knows that the Federal Reserve is evil - but he has a hard enough time deflecting attempts from the media to portray him as a lunatic as it is - he wants the public to perceive what a mudfight will ensue if they actually knew how the system works.
So growth would be slower. But it is inherently stable. Individuals are likely to take less risk, and they are less likely to get a loan that they probably won't be able to pay back. People sharpen their pencils. People look for other ways to finance their plans by seeking out friends, family, neighbors, etc instead of bankers. The free market is the market in which there is no restriction. But we do not have a free market. We have banksters hiding behind green curtains telling us what is best. The more stable the system the less money the banksters make. They make more money gaming the system: booms and busts - and we start to hear these pompous, paid economists (bankster apologists) tell us they couldn't see this was going to happen, and we all nod our heads, "Nobody saw this coming." So because the banksters never work for any of this money it is in their best interest that you, the simple-minded, ever-trusting consumer is in a perpetual state of paying interest. They are less interested in being paid in full than they are having you pay with your sweat.
Bankers control. Consumers always pay. Maybe you already explained all this to your girlie, my fellow FR-hater, and there is much more, but ask her what has always happened when enough people become apathetic to evil. The reason the founding fathers didn't get around to explaining the free market in the Constitution is because it is the lack of restriction. Real liberty. Let coined precious metals be the pinnacle of our economic system - everything else can be bartered. It keeps the bankers at bay.
I leave you with two quotes, from men of opposite character, that say the same thing using different words:
corporate reputation management
Obama: Fox <b>News</b> Has A Point Of View That Is 'Ultimately <b>...</b>
President Obama has given a lengthy interview to Rolling Stone publisher Jann Wenner for the upcoming issue of the magazine. The cover story is titled Obama Fights Back and boy does he ever. At least where Fox News is concerned.
LinkedIn Beefs Up Company Profiles With <b>News</b> Feeds, Career Data <b>...</b>
We recently wrote about the fast growing number of company profiles on professional social network LinkedIn (the network has over one million to be exact). Launched in April, the company profile gives organizations a centralized profile ...
Michelle Malkin » New Scapegoat for a Lousy Economy: Fox <b>News</b> is <b>...</b>
New Scapegoat for a Lousy Economy: Fox News is Hogging All the Success.
eric seiger dermatologistObama: Fox <b>News</b> Has A Point Of View That Is 'Ultimately <b>...</b>
President Obama has given a lengthy interview to Rolling Stone publisher Jann Wenner for the upcoming issue of the magazine. The cover story is titled Obama Fights Back and boy does he ever. At least where Fox News is concerned.
LinkedIn Beefs Up Company Profiles With <b>News</b> Feeds, Career Data <b>...</b>
We recently wrote about the fast growing number of company profiles on professional social network LinkedIn (the network has over one million to be exact). Launched in April, the company profile gives organizations a centralized profile ...
Michelle Malkin » New Scapegoat for a Lousy Economy: Fox <b>News</b> is <b>...</b>
New Scapegoat for a Lousy Economy: Fox News is Hogging All the Success.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_18/b4032066.htm
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_18/b4032066.htm
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_18/b4032066.htm
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1999/10/25/267811/index.htm
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1999/10/25/267811/index.htm
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1999/10/25/267811/index.htm
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_18/b4032066.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment