OFFLINE

President Barack Obama called on U.S. businesses on Saturday to do more to boost the economy by hiring more workers and making investments.

The government has an obligation to make the United States the best place to do business, by providing the best schools, incentives to innovate and the best infrastructure, he said, but added that businesses also have to do their part.

"If we make America the best place to do business, businesses should make their mark in America," Obama said in his weekly radio address. "They should set up shop here, and hire our workers, and pay decent wages and invest in the future of this nation. That's their obligation."

“Government and businesses have mutual responsibilities,” he said. “If we fulfill these obligations together, it benefits us all. Our workers will succeed. Our nation will prosper.”




okay, just, wow. first off, the president is right about one thing. if america is the best place to do business, then companies will set up shop here. so what does it say that companies have been fleeing our shores for decades now? perhaps that america isn't the most attractive place to do business?

but really, to me, these quotes seem to highlight obama's vision of crony-capitalism/state-capitalism/economic socialism/the chinese model, in which government and enterprise are in business together. mutual responsibilities? are you kidding me? the only responsibility a business has is to its shareholders. the only responsibility business has is to make money. that's their only reason for being in existence. not to hire workers and make investments just to be nice. it's not their job to improve our country, that's the government's job. businesses doesn't owe anything to anyone, other than to turn a profit. if there's a need for more workers (i.e. if there business is booming), then they'll hire more workers. if there's a reason to invest (i.e. the promise of future returns), then they will invest. but not to make the country a better place. they're not elected to get people to work.

how about next time you go to mcdonald's, you buy an extra big mac, even though you don't need it, because that will help put more mcdonald's employees to work. or better yet, maybe you pay for two pounds of meat at the deli, but only get one pound, because that will help put some butcher to work. i mean the world just doesn't work that way.

OFFLINE

Please God ... I pray that Americans wake up in 2012 and end this nightmare.

OFFLINE

hmmmmm, well..... blah blah blah blah..... blahblahblah blah.....

Obama sounds like the teacher in the Charlie Brown cartoons.

OFFLINE

I have very little understanding of worldly economics so I apologize in advance if my question is absurd.

Regarding whether or not America is good for business, how much does a foreign worker's willingness to work for far less than American workers play a part in the overall health of America being good for business?

OFFLINE

It was the topic of the last couple of weeks.  He touched on it lightly during the State of the Union speech, last week he was talking to a couple of large companies with their Startup America program, today to the Chamber.  Most of it is just ra-ra,  it ends with some kind of tax incentive he is proposing later this week concerning job creation.  Just doing it to hit the base that wants all talk to be about jobs and put everything else after.

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:

...the only responsibility business has is to make money. that's their only reason for being in existence. not to hire workers and make investments just to be nice. it's not their job to improve our country, that's the government's job. businesses doesn't owe anything to anyone, other than to turn a profit. if there's a need for more workers (i.e. if there business is booming), then they'll hire more workers. if there's a reason to invest (i.e. the promise of future returns), then they will invest. but not to make the country a better place. they're not elected to get people to work...

I used this line, or something close, when they were working on expanding the tax cuts recently.  Then it was the right-side view that government cannot make jobs.  The tax cuts for those in the upper echelon had to keep theirs because they would take that money to make jobs.  Am I now to believe that those small businesses owners are just stuffing their own accounts and saying it's the government's duty to create jobs?

I thought they were all going to expire...which I still think is better in the long run view.  But if all of them weren't going to end, then all of them should be extended for hopefully just a short time.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Keith Larson:

I used this line, or something close, when they were working on expanding the tax cuts recently.  Then it was the right-side view that government cannot make jobs.  The tax cuts for those in the upper echelon had to keep theirs because they would take that money to make jobs.  Am I now to believe that those small businesses owners are just stuffing their own accounts and saying it's the government's duty to create jobs?

not sure if i misspoke, or if you're taking things out of context, so let's see if we can clear this up. of course the government can't create wealth or jobs, as it simply siphons money away from the private sector. so yes, it falls on the private sector, but the point is, businesses don't just hire people and make products for no good reason. there has to be a market for commerce to occur, which is where the government comes in. how does the government help create an environment for trade to take place? simple; by getting out of the way. by reducing its scope, and by extension, reducing the tax burden. by lowering interest levels, which is another example of getting out of the way.

bottom line, the government can't manipulate the markets toward prosperity. at best, all this does is create bubbles. artificial booms, that inevitably lead to busts. the more the government inserts itself, the more it tampers with "the natural order." capitalism must be looked at as nature is. survival of the fittest. as in nature, there are going to be winners and losers. one may see a baby bird that's fallen out of it's nest and want to pick it up so it will be safe. but what they don't see is the mother bird returning only to reject the baby because it now smells like a human. one may see a baby rabbit being chased by a fox and try to save it. but what it doesn't see is the fox's cubs starving to death because there's no dinner. one may see a hungry bear and want to feed it, but what they don't see is the park ranger having to put the bear down because it's become to "friendly" toward humans. the more you try to tinker with the natural order, the more unintended consequences you unleash.

there will be downturns, and upswings. by trying to fix the downturns, all the government does is prolong them, delaying the upswing that WILL COME, if you wait for it. by trying to prolong the upswings, all the government does is create a sharper dropoff when the bubble bursts.

OFFLINE

I was agreeing that the only time businesses will hire workers is when there is a demand for workers.  The continued tax cuts to the richest echelon was fought for by saying that that money would add jobs.  I disagree with that assumption.  I also think that while at times there are spending problems, there are times when there are income problems.

And that get out of business way stuff is played out.  In the end it's usually dramatic failure.  More than 30 years of deregulation and reliance on self-regulation by financial institutions, championed by former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan and others, supported by successive administrations and Congresses, and actively pushed by the powerful financial industry at every turn, had stripped away key safeguards, which could have helped avoid catastrophe.

Offshore oil drilling companies will keep safety upmost in mind...after all it's their equipment, their loss of revenue, their cost of clean up, their loss of publicity.  Right....

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Keith Larson:
I was agreeing that the only time businesses will hire workers is when there is a demand for workers.  The continued tax cuts to the richest echelon was fought for by saying that that money would add jobs.  I disagree with that assumption.  I also think that while at times there are spending problems, there are times when there are income problems.

And that get out of business way stuff is played out.  In the end it's usually dramatic failure.  More than 30 years of deregulation and reliance on self-regulation by financial institutions, championed by former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan and others, supported by successive administrations and Congresses, and actively pushed by the powerful financial industry at every turn, had stripped away key safeguards, which could have helped avoid catastrophe.

Offshore oil drilling companies will keep safety upmost in mind...after all it's their equipment, their loss of revenue, their cost of clean up, their loss of publicity.  Right....

the problem isn't that there's been this unprecedented era of footloose and fancy free, unregulated economics. the problem is that government and business have gotten a little too cozy with each other. the BP oil spill didn't occur because there was no regulation, it occurred because mineral management service was corrupt and in bed with the oil companies. a u.s. inspector general report found widespread instances of MMS executives accepted gifts, money, sports tickets, drugs, vacations, and jobs from numerous oil corporations. inspections were a wink-wink affair, and hundreds of waivers were granted that allowed the oil companies to bypass safety protocols.

the housing market collapsed because of all these low income housing requirements of the community reinvestment act. banks were pressured into giving loans they otherwise wouldn't have. they were required to use "flexible and innovative" lending practices. fannie and freddy were pushed to lower their downpayment and credit requirements. the housing market became the only pillar of our economy, and everyone, including the government, wanted to keep it going as long as they could. again, meddling.

we are now in this state of crony-capitalism, or "the chinese model," in which government and industry are in partnership. the markets haven't been left to themselves for a long time. it's not as if the government has just turned a blind eye and let the markets run free, they've gotten in on the action. the government now tries to control and manipulate the markets, and set the tone.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Shawn Ishness:
I have very little understanding of worldly economics so I apologize in advance if my question is absurd.

Regarding whether or not America is good for business, how much does a foreign worker's willingness to work for far less than American workers play a part in the overall health of America being good for business?

Objectively ...

Because of a number of factors, most notably unions, regulations, and taxes, America has become more of a consuming nation that can no longer compete on the basic manufacturing side of the equation.

That's why manufacturing jobs and American businesses have relocated out of country.

So domestically, (what I think should be) the obvious solution is to address the causes.

But the government solution is to pour more gas on the fire ... to unionize more, to raise taxes more, and to regulate more.