No, Obama Isn’t “Unfriendly” to Business

July 21st, 2014 at 7:20 pm

And even if he is, given the numbers they’ve been posting, with enemies like that, who needs friends?

Over at PostEverything.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

10 comments in reply to "No, Obama Isn’t “Unfriendly” to Business"

  1. Robert buttons says:

    I will avoid, for the time being, arguing numbers. I will say Wall St. Has a way of using borrowed money in conjunction with buybacks and non GAAP to swell their bottom line. They have been a bit more egregious as of late.

    But if one argues Obama is friendly towards capital the logical conclusion is that Obama is enabling inequality.

  2. Robert buttons says:

    Keynesian analysis tells us inflation is good because wages rise. Jared rightly points out real wages are FALLING. So why do we want inflation???????

  3. Smith says:

    Since the immigration bill is mentioned, I will point out as before, it is not reform. In return for relieving nearly 10 million undocumented aliens from the constant threat of deportation, it codifies a large and expanded tier of both low and high skilled labor who are denied basic rights. As many have pointed out, they are not slaves, but due to a reliance on employer sponsorship to avoid deportation, closer to indentured servants if not in fact subject to de facto involuntary servitude. This is outlawed by the 13th amendment. Immigrants shouldn’t have to trade their freedom for entrance into this country. Democrats and organized labor shouldn’t trade basic freedoms and principles for more votes and money. Over a hundred years ago, men realized a two-tiered labor system wouldn’t work, eventually one would predominate. It’s very ironic that Obama does not seem to grasp this concept. The very simple solution is to allow the same number of immigrants with no provision for employer sponsorship. Just as 100 year ago, immigrant labor would be free to bargain, strike, switch jobs, and stand up for their rights. Can’t we at least aim to be as fair and free as we were 100 years ago?

    • Smith says:

      The first reference to a two-tiered labor system should properly read “Over a hundred and fifty years ago”, meaning the north and south’s long running battle over the expansion of slavery. But a hundred years ago immigrants played critical roles in the battles of organized labor, and later in the 1930’s and 40s too. This could never happen under the current regime or after the proposed so-called reform.

  4. mitakeet says:

    I have been making the exact same arguments (likely with slightly less effect as you have been having) about Obama being pro business to a degree not seen in recent memory. The stubborn, willful ignorance of humans (Americans in particular) just amazes me to no end. If I could just live with myself I could be a televangelist, or worse, a politician, and be wealthy and powerful beyond measure.

    BTW, I used to subscribe to the Economist years ago but their clear and obvious slant and willingness to ignore data that doesn’t fit in their preconceived notions made me think it was a total waste of time to read it; I am glad to know I made the right choice over the long-term.

  5. urban legend says:

    There is a difference between being pro-business and being just another suck-up to Wall Street executives. The most pro-business economists are Paul Krugman, Jared, Dean Baker and their confreres because they realize that above everything, businesses need demand for their goods and services. Giving Wall Street executives who knew perfectly well they were perpetuating multiple frauds a 100% free pass personally — instead of, at minimum, clawing back every cent of ill-gotten gains not only from the perpetrators (who also should have been subject to huge punitive damages if not criminal liability) but also from those who received unmerited windfalls — was not pro-business. The claw-backs should have included every one of the Hamptons estates, yachts, and piece of foreign property in which the ill-gotten gains had been sunk.

    A sound business system depends on integrity and trust, and not making the perpetrators and beneficiaries bear the consequences of unethical if not criminal behavior undermines integrity and trust. The perception that the supposed agent of change who was such an inspiration in 2008 in fact was just another elitist insider buddying up with potential Wall Street donors did as much as anything to cause 2010, the biggest mid-term debacle in modern history and the reason for half a decade or more of government paralysis.

    • jo6pac says:

      Thanks, nailed it.

    • Jim says:

      I agree that financial criminals should be punished, especially those who knew full well what they were doing. It seems like Goldman Sachs escaped unscathed despite creating the market for fraudulent CDO’s. None-the-less, we can’t simply ignore the government’s role in this. They do everything to try to keep their role in this failure behind a current, but the fact remains that if the government didn’t encourage banks to make bad loans then they wouldn’t have made them. Banks were encouraged to make cheap loans available to as many people as possible via Fannie and Freddie. You can’t throw a steak to a lion and then get angry when he eats it. That’s what lions do. Still, the government hasn’t learned. This is from a month ago…

      “Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac on Monday spelled out the terms under which they will accept mortgages with down payments of as low as 3 percent from first-time buyers, but it may take time to see how many lenders will sign on to the initiative.” -

      Obviously the government hasn’t learned to stop it’s meddling. But maybe the banks have learned not to be suckered into their game. Bank of America and, I believe, US Bank have already said that they’re not going to write such loans. Let’s hope they stick to that promise. Let’s also hope that capitalism, real capitalism not crony-capitalism, stops getting blamed for all of socialism’s failures. Fannie and Freddie failed in the housing crisis. They’re socialistic organizations. The banks play by the rules; they don’t write them. But I agree to your point that the investment bankers committed outright fraud with little to no punishment.

  6. david says:

    How can anyone say Obama is unfriendly to business? Did he not bail out Wall St? Did he not negotiate favorable trade deals? And on and on.