Barack Obama appointed GE's Jeff Immelt to head up his advisory panel to create jobs. No doubt Immelt knows how to do it. GE's employment is up by 36% since he was named boss back in 2000. Next time, however, Obama might want to think about putting someone in charge who creates jobs in this country.
Mark Graban says
I wish politicians on both sides of the aisle would give up on the notion that they “create jobs.” That’s self-important BS, unless they mean their own bloated Congressional staffs or the regulatory and government jobs they create.
Only in politics can you take actions that kill jobs and then claim that you’re working to create jobs.
Chet Frame says
I understand that you disagree with the President’s choice. I agree with you on that. But tell us why you headed your article with the name “Bamo?”
Bill Waddell says
Chet,
Because it seemed to appropriately reflect how little respect I have for the man.
Appointing the head of the company that is (1) the poster child for trashing American manufacturing having killed over 100,000 jobs, but (2) spends more on lobbying than any other American company reflects just how little respect Obama deserves.
Note that I am not scorning the office of the Presidency of the United States – just the mockery this particular man has made of that office.
Bill Waddell says
Dave,
The lean principle of showing respect for people means that everyone is entitled to a presumption of respect. When people demonstrate that they are unworthy of the respect we have shown them, all bets are off. It certainly does not mean we should show respect for anyone at any level who puts personal political and financial gain over the welfare of the organization, which is the only reasonable explanation for Obama naming someone so wholly unqualified as Immelt to such a position.
Dave says
@Mark-What about the 100’s of thousands of people working designing/building/testing/maintaining fighters, tanks, warships etc for the military? It would seem that they are working at jobs created by government demand for a product.
-Dave
Rich says
@Bill,
As long-term reader of your blog (I’m a big fan), and as an economic right-winger, I’m interested in educated opinion around economics and business processes. I have a dilemma though;
If Immelt’s appointment was a simple mistake, surely making a mistake is not a worthy reason to withdraw respect. We all make mistakes, I’m sure yourself included… and an eye for an eye would leave the whole world blind (perhaps even as blind as partisan politics).
If on the other hand, Immelt’s appointment was an act of deliberate corruption, as you seem to be stating, personally as a reader I’d want to see either evidence, action, or silence. If you’re stating that the President is corrupt then why are you sitting on your hands? Without evidence or action this just sounds like partisan gossip, and as a reader I’m not interested in that.
Obviously it’s your call whether to approve, or reply to, this comment, and I appreciate that you can’t let readers dictate your writing. On the other hand the purpose of a comments section is to share views and give feedback, so I have.
With respect.
Bill Waddell says
Rich,
Of course your comment was posted. The only censorship of comments here are the rare cases in which a comment is laced with obscenities, and the frequent cases in which the comments are submitted by spammers.
Concerning Immelt and Obama, let’s consider the facts:
1.GE is the single biggest spender on lobbying, having thrown better than $39 million at Washington last year, including massive amounts to organizations controlled by Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and other friends and allies of the President. Both Immelt personally and GE as an organization contributed the maximum allowed under the law to Obama’s last campaign.
2.GE was the recipient of close to $300 billion in TARP money.
3.GE has been the beneficiary of additional billions in contracts related to government subsidized energy projects
4.GE has destroyed and outsourced more American jobs than any other entity.
5.Immelt has talked a very good game but thus far GE has created very, very few manufacturing jobs since he offered up his mea culpas and made his pronouncement about the importance of American manufacturing.
Now perhaps Obama is wholly ignorant of all of this and is merrily tripping along oblivious to who he is dealing with, which would mean the President is very, very ignorant.
Perhaps is very aware of this, but believes Immelt is sincere in his apologies and grandiuos plans for a whole new GE and believes that all of the money headed is way is purely a reflection of the ideology of good people at GE, which would mean the President is very, very naïve.
Or perhaps the President is just an old-fashioned Chicago politician, selling power and influence to the highest bidder, which would make the President very, very unethical.
I think a reasonable person would look at the options and conclude that Immelt’s appointment is a combination of all of the above. No matter which scenario, or combination of them, is true –ignorance, naivety or an absence of ethics, it is impossible for me to see why the President deserves respect for this appointment.
david foster says
Obama’s economic philosophy appears to be neither classical capitalism nor classical socialism, but rather something that could be called corporatism or economic fascism. Large companies are allowed to remain nominally private, but operate under close government direction. Companies outside the charmed circle are doomed to remain small and unimportant if they don’t outright fail. The key factor in the success or failure of any business is the approval or disapproval of the political rulers.
This President’s personnel selection criteria appear to include a strong “Is he one of us?” test, where “one of us” is defined by things including Ivy League education, advanced degrees, speech patterns associated with the above, and deference to academia…also, a history of association with very large and important institutions. Obama would be unlikely to pick a “jobs” advisor with a state college degree who had built a $1 billion hardcore manufacturing company that few outside its industry ever heard of….Mr Immelt is probably about as far as he can psychologically go in choosing an associate from the business world.
Mark Welch says
@ Dave,
Hello, Dave. I’m not the Mark you wanted to hear back from, but I thought I’d offer my thoughts.
You have a point that the 100’s of thousands of people working designing/building/testing/maintaining fighters, tanks, warships etc for the military are jobs created by the government. However, the government is you and me. Ultmately it’s our tax dollars that pay for the manufacturing of them. I’d rather jobs were created from demand from the private sector. Just my 2 cents…
Bill Waddell says
Concerning the discussion about the military as an example of the government creaing jobs, there is no doubt the government can create jobs – one has only to drive around DC for a few minutes to know that they can and do create jobs in huge numbers. The real question is whether they can create jobs that add to the economy – jobs that create wealth.
It is a gross over-simplification (and one that I am the worst abuser of) to assert that all manufacturing creates wealth, and all service does not. Health care is a good example of service creating wealth. Wealth is generally measured in the quality of life, which is reflected by and large by material things. The wealthier nation has better food, clothing, houses, cars, big screen TV’s and other very tangible things. The wealthier nation also has better health care. Most of the value of health care is material – medicines, and medical equipment. These are the things that actually make us healthier. However, these material things are relatively worthless unless they are in the hands of and deployed by knowledgeable experts – doctors, nurses and technicians. To the extent that they are converting medical ‘stuff’ into healthier people it can be argued that medical folks, while traditionally viewed as service workers, are creating wealth.
On the other hand, military things, while often necessary, do not make us wealthier. (At least in the USA where they are used almost exclusively for defensive purposes) The only value of military stuff is that it may be used to prevent someone else from destroying or taking our wealth. It, by itself, does not add to the wealth of the nation – in fact it detracts from it.
The end of all of this is that I would argue that the government ‘creating’ military jobs, while certainly within the scope of government’s role and responsibility, does not add to the economy any more than the government creating clerical jobs in the Department of Education.
Bill Waddell says
David,
I think you are right on the money. A great example is a comment made by Neil Cavuto on Fox Business News the other day when he was discussing the Immelt assignment with Mike Huckabee. I have to paraphrase a bit due to a faulty memory, but Cavuto essentially said that, while Immelt was a poor choice having been a major TARP recipient, a major political donor, and a Washington insider, he couldn’t think of a business leader of whom who the same could not be said. Therefore, Immelt was as good as any.
The notion that better than half of the American economy, and half of the jobs, are in the hands of people who did not receive TARP money, who don’t lobby Washington in any significant way and are not connected with anyone in Washington is apparently unknown to him, or at least they are not to be taken seriously because they are not “one of us”.
Mark Graban says
Mark W. responded with what I would have said.
I’ll make an appeal that Kevin and Bill add the “notify me when others comment” feature to their blog….
Bill Waddell says
Love to help Mark, but I am merely a scribe. Kevin is the man weilding all the power and authority here.
So Kevin … its all up to you buddy.
Dave says
Bill
-I mostly agree with you in principle that the folks in the defense sector might contribute more to the overall economy if they were employed in the private sector creating things for a larger market. However, there is a large export sector in weapons and military supplies, so there’s a significant market there. I think it’s a fine line you’re walking down, these jobs and companies do create wealth, both personally and from an economic point of view. Now, whether the government is getting a good deal is a whole other can of worms I’m not opening up.
I was simply trying to point out that the statement “The government can’t create jobs” is at best, a gross oversimplification of the reality.
@David Foster-This isn’t unique to President Obama. Market concentration and monopolies have appeared many before, and will again. I suspect it’s gotten worse over the past 20 or 30 years, with the revolving door between government and the private sector.
david foster says
Dave…this is about more than market concentration or occasional corruption. Obama actually believes he and his experts have the wisdom to allocate the nation’s investment capital to the best sectors.
Mark Graban says
@Dave – OK, the government can create more government bureaucrat jobs.
Is that the best thing for our country and our economy? I’d argue no.
President Obama (let’s be respectful and use his full name and title) backpedaled on there being any so-called”shovel ready jobs”, on a related “job creation” front:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20019468-503544.html
The only thing being shoveled in DC is… well, you know. It ain’t Shinola.
The less money that the government takes from people, the better.
Bill Waddell says
Mark,
Don’t you think the respect you showed our commander in chief by using his proper name and title is just a bit undone when you go on to describe him as a back-pedaling s**t shoveler?
Not that I disagree with your description of him in any way ….
Mark Graban says
My comment was directed at most of DC, not just our President.