Chairman of the President's Council on Jobs

ColonelHaiku

True Classic
and Competitiveness - GE's Jeff Immelt - announces a joint partnership with a Chinese company to build aircraft that will be directly competitive with Boeing. Great news for job creation... in China. This Chinese company supplies the Chinese military and - as is always the case - whoever works with China gives them access to their intellectual property.

Great optics, Mr. President!
 
Isn't GE the company that didn't pay any taxes? I wonder if they are going to pay taxes in China.
 
And Rick Perry thinks...

Ben Bernanke is almost a traitor? What must he think of Immelt?

On the other hand, this is what even fettered capitalism does-goes where its interests are and the devil take the hindmost. And it is a victory for the low tax hawks-I mean no tax is pretty low. Immelt or GE anyway were pretty candid in saying they can't afford to not do the deal if the US workerforce is to benefit by growth in the company. It is a mere nothing to read this "...and if we don't do the deal, well, your jobs are toast..." Nothing like a thinly veiled threat.
 
But the shoe....

...occasionally is on the other foot.

There was probably just as much hand-wringing in Japan as the major Japanese auto manufacturers shifted a lot of production from the home islands to the USA.
 
Yeah, we did pretty good out of that...

in some ways. I don't think the Japanese are hurt too much by offshoring their production because of their aging population-they really don't have a domestic source of labor let alone cheap labor.
It's not so clear in our case, but as the free trade pressures build towards even more open global markets American companies are just gonna go where the money is. I can't even form a clear set of questions to determine whether this is 'good' or 'bad'.
As far as the Immelt/Obama 'optics' problem is concerned, it's hard to imagine it turning out otherwise. Obama responds to more or less legitimate criticism that he appears anti-business to the business community and reacts through the always clumsy tactic of placing some icon at the head of a useless commission and then, these being businessmen, they act like businessmen and do what is in the best interest of their company and,well, you get what you get. There is just an inherent clash right now between the perceived needs of the country (jobs here and now) and the very real needs of business to do what it does-expand both markets and access to cheaper labor or cheaper operating environment.
 
Actions speak louder than words

The EPA has begun the process of issuing brand, spanking-new emissions rules that will affect coal-fired power plants, and it's been alleged that said rules will cause approximately 20% of these plants to shut down operations.

America imports nearly 2/3rds of its oil, which amounts to more than 4,000,000,000 barrels per year at a cost of nearly $450,000,000,000. This imported oil accounts for over 60% of America's trade deficit.

President Obama previously set a goal of reducing America's oil imports by 33% over the next decade, which he proclaimed we can do by “finding and producing more oil at home, and reducing dependence on oil with cleaner alternate fuels and greater efficiency.”

And yet the president continues to oppose drilling in numerous regions in Alaska (e.g., ANWR) that are estimated to have over 10,000,000,000 barrels of oil. It has also been reported that deep-water oil drilling permits are down 70% from their historical average. The Obama administration has either cancelled or roadblocked the development of oil shale leases in Colorado and Utah. The EPA foiled Shell Oil Company's plans to drill for an estimated 27,000,000,000 barrels of oil off the Alaskan coast.

There has been no new construction of nuclear power plants in 30 years.

It has been reported that 10 oil rigs have left the Gulf of Mexico since the Obama administration imposed the moratorium against deep-water drilling and several other proposed rigs were moved elsewhere, e.g., South America and off the coast of Africa.
 
And?

What's the point? That the Democrats have a different set of criteria regarding the exploitation of oil and impact of coal emissions than you do? Or that Obama is a bad man for supporting the long standing platform positions of his party?
Besides all this info is just untethered to any context and what is the other side of the issue?

Do you want completely unrestricted and unregulated expoitation of any and all energy sources and no control of emissions? If this isn't your position then all the info in your posting is just random.
 
The obvious point (at least I thought) is that we (America) ought to be doing all that we possibly can to create jobs. People are hurting... losing their jobs... the roofs over their heads. Too few are able to say they are sitting pretty in a beautiful, low-tax haven like Oregon.

You feel otherwise, you are welcomed to it.

Good God Almighty.
 
You can't just create jobs....

by the assumptions you are making. The availability and cost of oil is not a significant factor in the jobs issue. Clearly it isn't because the price of oil is following the depression of the economy not the other way around.

Let me make this clear-NOBODY KNOWS HOW TO CREATE JOBS RIGHT NOW. IT CAN'T JUST BE DONE BY SPECIFIC ACTION. TIME AND DELEVERAGING WILL MAYBE DO IT. BUT THAT WILL TAKE A LONG TIME. THE BLAME FOR THIS IS BROAD AND LARGELY IN THE PAST. WE BORROWED TOO MUCH THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE ECONOMY AND NOW THE PIPER IS ASKING TO BE PAID. IT'S NO ONE'S FAULT AND EVERYONE'S FAULT.
 
Back
Top