President Obama today named GE Chairman Jeffrey Immelt to head the White House Council he has served on over the past two years under the leadership of former Fed Chairman Paul A. Volcker. This advisory body, originally named the Economic Recovery Advisory Board, lacked traction with the White House and, as a consequence, declined in political significance even as the stature of Mr. Volcker soared among those in the country who value sound and independent thinking over political calculation and sail-trimming.
As author of the major element in the Financial Reform legislation enacted last year that would directly address, in part, the huge risks to our financial system caused by proprietary activities of large banks -- the eponymously named "Volcker Rule" -- Mr. Volcker might easily have been seen by Wall Street as a formidable foe. At the outset of President Obama's term, the White House surely would have known him to be seen that way, for his record of putting national welfare ahead of private interest is a long and distinguished one.
Somehow, in one of the most remarkable PR tricks in this writer's memory, Republican leadership convinced the press, and through it, a large share of our nation's citizens, that the President had been deliberately, and effectively, anti-business. Many business leaders joined in this libel, including Jeffrey Immelt, in a speech last summer in Rome. In fact, this claim is patently false. However, in the nation's Capitol, where mirrors enlarge clever fallacies until they appear to be true, the President has chosen to respond by seeking to endear himself to business. To that end, he has undertaken a number ofsteps that carry him into an ever-tighter embrace of all to which the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, that lowest common denominator of the business community, aspires.
And so, rising like a Phoenix, the defunct Economic Recovery Advisory Board is reconstituted with Big Business at its helm, new membership in support and a new name to capture the President's emerging affection for job creation. It could work. It might work under Jeffrey Immelt's leadership, although he is better known for creating jobs off-shore than onshore. Since 2005 GE has shed 27,000 jobs, shrinking from 161,000 to 134,000 in 2009. And, of course, Big Business is not the place that economists would naturally think of first as the most promising place to generate jobs.
When Franklin D. Roosevelt entered the White House in 1933,there were some 18 million destitute Americans needing help. To address this problem, and the growing number of those out of work, he was quick to bring to Washington not a leader of big business but Harry Hopkins, a social worker whose mission in New York State had been to provide relief for the unemployed. The principal vehicle for addressing these problems was the Works Progress Administration, or WPA as it became known, an agency that under Hopkins' leadership and FDR's vigorous support, achieved lasting monuments to its success in meeting human suffering with the offer of work.
It is hard to imagine a WPA II becoming a priority of Mr. Immelt's Council, although that is precisely what, as a matter of first and highest priority, it should do. Alas, any examination of the history of our Government's handling of the unemployment problem under President Herbert Hoover between the Great Crash and FDR's inauguration, reveals parallels to what President Obama did today that are unnerving to the extent they predict how the phoenix-like Council on Jobs and Competitiveness will behave under the leadership of Big Business.
In 1930, President Hoover appointed Colonel Arthur Woods to head a committee on unemployment known as the "President's Emergency Committee for Employment." Woods was a distinguished public servant, not of the size of Paul Volcker but formed from the same mold of personal integrity. He had served with distinction as Police Commissioner for New York City. His Committee functioned from October, 1930 to August 1931. During that time it investigated the plight of the unemployed and the degree to which states and municipalities could cope. It recommended Federal relief in a highly textured report to the President. Hoover spoke to Congress soon after receiving that report, on December 2, 1930, rejecting its findings and blaming foreigners for the depression. "The fundamental strength of the Nation's economic life is unimpaired," he announced.
Economic conditions worsened. Unemployment grew. On August 19, 1931, President Hoover appointed Walter S. Gifford, President of the American Telephone and Telegraph Company, to head a new advisory committee titled the "President's Organization on Unemployment Relief". At the time, ATT was of equal or greater stature than GE is today, and Mr. Gifford was a model representative of Big Business. Mr. Gifford proved as steadfast as President Hoover was to the principle that the problems of unemployment were to be solved, if at all, by states and municipalities. These men feared national responsibility more than they feared national unemployment. Only time will tell whether this past is the tragic prologue to our future.
Ian Fletcher is the author of "Free Trade Doesn't Work: What Should Replace It and Why"
As the typical commentators in this community are declaring, Ian Fletcher's article is of enourmouns signicance. It forces us to face this truth.
That China rather stealthily has declared TOTAL economic and monetary warfare upon the US and its democratic allies.
Quote “- - - it is a game China has been playing for decades now while the U.S. pretends the game doesn't even exist.”
The Fletcher article posits correctly that, in this stealthy war, China does not hold all the cards and China’s advantages could be effectively countered by the USA with some help from its allies.
Robert J. Samuelson’s column in Jan. 24 issue of the W. Post should be required reading in this Country! In this “war”. China has pulled out all the stops. It attacks the US economy from all directions. Example: The solar panel industry: “China’s share of global production jumped from 9% to 48%” (from 2005 to 201) though its government actions including enormous subsidization of the product.
There is not room or time right here to itemize all of the devices used to carry on this “war” such as theft and forced absorption of intellectual property, etc. etc. etc.
If we the USA fail to recognize the total warfare and adopt aggressive counter policies, we are done fore..
To pay for some of this place a 10% tax on all fossil fuel energy sales such tax going up 1% every month for at least a few years.
This will lead to more and better paying jobs while at the same time encouraging better management of corporate spending. If corporations did not pay income taxes where would they put the money they suddenly had? They could invest it in physical plant, leading to more jobs, they could give out dividends, leading to more taxes to government from share holders and more money for share holders who will spend it and therefor create a need for more workers. They could put money in hole in ground- vault, not a good option since value of money will drop over time and is costly to guard. All the other things that they might do with the money will either result in more jobs or a better standard of living.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leo-w-gerard/build-more-autos-overseas_b_205023.html
He read in a newspaper about a $100 million wind farm to be built near his daughter's house in Arizona. The 30 wind turbines are to be manufactured by a company from India and the huge towers are to be constructed in Mexico. Vest wants to know why GE can't make those turbines. If the American company did the work, they'd probably buy the copper wire for the turbines from an American company. And that company might buy the ore to make the wire from his mine - or some other downed U.S. copper mine, putting some Steelworker back to work. If there's one cent of tax breaks or stimulus money in this wind farm, then it's doubly outrageous to employ Indian and Mexican workers.
Have you had enough yet, Progressives?
Ben Bernanke used the taxpayer as a credit-card to bail out GE, along with British and foreign banks to the tune of 3.3 Trillion in fresh bail outs post-initial TARP bail outs.
The best thing to happen would be for this CEO to step down and not accept President Obama's appointment as recognition of his responsibility in the bail out crisis of worthless derivatives and credit-default swaps through his company.
Then the President should re-appoint Volcker but this time ask him to lobby Congress for the restoration of Glass-Steagall so the taxpayer obligations towards GE's bail outs are wiped out.
If any companies hirer a person they know they'll have to give a competitive wage, possibly coverage for HC. I mean some companies/biz dont give any vacay/holiday pay or bonuses, maturnity leave, or perks. ..."Just a flatout be happy that your working" attitude.
I think the real hope come in two ways..1. New companies/biz in the Green sector jobs that should pay a high decent wage. 2. Companies in general simply decide to reinvest in its employees and make a them a value, while their profit gains to personal and shareholders drops some. How many companies are willing and able to do that?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-k-black/obama-embraces-the-econom_b_811487.html
Because a guy who run's a Kinko's franchise can persuade the major corporate CEOs who are the ONLY people with enough power and size to start hiring and putting people back to work.
really?!?!?!!?
"Harry Hopkins, a social worker whose mission in New York State had been to provide relief for the unemployed. The principal vehicle for addressing these problems was the Works Progress Administration, or WPA as it became known, an agency that under Hopkins' leadership and FDR's vigorous support, achieved lasting monuments to its success in meeting human suffering with the offer of work."
Try using the words 'meeting human suffering with the offer of work." in all conversations.
But the Obigbusinessama has no intention of ending any human suffering.