How to Fix What Ails Us
24/8/10 20:19![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsIntel's CEO, Paul Otellini, had some fairly harsh words for the folks in power this week:
This is similar, as CNet reports, to what Carly Fiorina had to say on the matter, with the difference being that Otenelli isn't running for office. But clearly the business class is less concerned about speaking up right now.
We do need to think ahead to what's going to fix the problems, though. "Unexpectedly," unemployment claims are increasing again, home sales are in decline, and the stimulus, which was supposed to save us all, has "done exactly as we expected it to", which is to mean not performed as intended at all.
So let's see - we have a failed stimulus, a looming tax hike, new costs associated with health care and financial reforms, and businesses are not spending money in anticipation of this uncertainty. What's the way out? How do we fix this problem? Where do we go from here?
Otellini singled out the political state of affairs in Democrat-dominated Washington, saying: "I think this group does not understand what it takes to create jobs. And I think they're flummoxed by their experiment in Keynesian economics not working."
Since an unusually sharp downturn accelerated in late 2008, the Obama administration and its allies in the U.S. Congress have enacted trillions in deficit spending they say will create an economic stimulus -- but have not extended the Bush tax cuts and have pushed to levy extensive new health care and carbon regulations on businesses.
...
As a result, he said, "every business in America has a list of more variables than I've ever seen in my career." If variables like capital gains taxes and the R&D tax credit are resolved correctly, jobs will stay here, but if politicians make decisions "the wrong way, people will not invest in the United States. They'll invest elsewhere."
Take factories. "I can tell you definitively that it costs $1 billion more per factory for me to build, equip, and operate a semiconductor manufacturing facility in the United States," Otellini said.
The rub: Ninety percent of that additional cost of a $4 billion factory is not labor but the cost to comply with taxes and regulations that other nations don't impose. (Cypress Semiconductor CEO T.J. Rodgers elaborated on this in an interview with CNET, saying the problem is not higher U.S. wages but anti-business laws: "The killer factor in California for a manufacturer to create, say, a thousand blue-collar jobs is a hostile government that doesn't want you there and demonstrates it in thousands of ways.")
"If our tax rate approached that of the rest of the world, corporations would have an incentive to invest here," Otellini said. But instead, it's the second highest in the industrialized world, making the United States a less attractive place to invest--and create jobs--than places in Europe and Asia that are "clamoring" for Intel's business.
This is similar, as CNet reports, to what Carly Fiorina had to say on the matter, with the difference being that Otenelli isn't running for office. But clearly the business class is less concerned about speaking up right now.
We do need to think ahead to what's going to fix the problems, though. "Unexpectedly," unemployment claims are increasing again, home sales are in decline, and the stimulus, which was supposed to save us all, has "done exactly as we expected it to", which is to mean not performed as intended at all.
So let's see - we have a failed stimulus, a looming tax hike, new costs associated with health care and financial reforms, and businesses are not spending money in anticipation of this uncertainty. What's the way out? How do we fix this problem? Where do we go from here?
(no subject)
Date: 25/8/10 19:42 (UTC)When a high school in LA costs almost half a billion dollars to build, there's major structural and ethical problems that California is having to deal with, and that does not involve squeezing more money out of people, but to better spend what they do have.
(no subject)
Date: 25/8/10 19:46 (UTC)On the other hand, if I have to choose between spending half a billion dollars on a school and spending half a billion dollars on a fighter-plane, I'm pretty sure I know which one is more important.
James Sohn, the district's chief facilities executive, said the megaschools were built when global raw material shortages caused costs to skyrocket to an average of $600 per square foot in 2006 and 2007 — triple the price from 2002. Costs have since eased to $350 per square foot.
From your own article. Also from your own article:
Sohn said LA Unified has reached the end of its Taj Mahal building spree. "These are definitely the exceptions," he said. "We don't anticipate schools costing hundreds of millions of dollars in the future."
So your statement implying that all schools in LA are costing hundreds of millions is false anyway.
(no subject)
Date: 25/8/10 19:58 (UTC)The point is, that California does not have an income problem, but a spending problem, and statist apologists like you will go out of your way to maximize the former, and minimize latter.
(no subject)
Date: 25/8/10 20:03 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 25/8/10 20:07 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 25/8/10 20:10 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 25/8/10 20:12 (UTC)