I was previously unaware of this exchange until I heard it referenced last week. If anyone knew about creating jobs, it would have been the CEO of one of the most successful American companies ever.
QuoteSteve Jobs found himself frustrated by President Barack Obama's lack of resolve, but the two eventually found common ground over education reform, his new biography has revealed.
"I'm disappointed in Obama, he's having trouble leading because he's reluctant to offend people or piss them off," Jobs said of the President. "Yes, that's not a problem I ever had."
Political deadlocks annoyed him, such as when the Republicans blocking the "Dream Act" — which Jobs said should be amended to give foreign engineering students visas to work in the United States.
"The president is very smart, but he kept explaining to us reasons why things can't get done," Jobs said. "It infuriates me."
Jobs said the Obama administration was not business-friendly and said it was impossible to build a factory in the United States due to regulations and unnecessary costs. Apple had 700,000 factory workers employed in China, where it was much easier to build and run a factory, Jobs said. He said Obama was "headed for a one-term presidency" if the administration didn't improve.
Jobs also said the American education system was "hopelessly antiquated" and crippled by teachers' unions. Apple's factories, for example, needed 30,000 skilled engineers — something the U.S. education system was not producing. He suggested the President completely overhaul the system and proposed an 11-month school year with days that lasted until 6 p.m.
"You can't find that many in America to hire," he said. "If you could educate these engineers, we could move more manufacturing plants here."
Obama apparently took the advice to heart. He would tell his aides "we've got to find ways to train those 30,000 manufacturing engineers that Jobs told us about." The two spoke over the phone a few times after their first meeting in October, and Jobs even offered to help create Obama's political ads for his 2012 campaign. Jobs said at the time he wanted to do for Obama what the "It's morning in America" campaign did for Reagan's re-election in 1984.
Obama had not personally been in contact with Jobs or Apple until that meeting. Jobs' first tango with the administration came in the form of a congratulatory call from Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, on the eve after Jobs unveiled the iPad.
Jobs initially refused to meet Obama, saying he did not want to be a token interview that Obama could "check off" of his list. Jobs insisted that Obama personally invite him to a meeting, but finally relented after his son Reed persuaded him.
When asked about the Obama administration's involvement in the uprisings that took place during the Arab Spring earlier this year, Jobs said, "You're f*cked if you do and you're f*cked if you don't."
Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-10-24/tech/30315512_1_obama-administration-president-barack-obama-manufacturing-engineers#ixzz227mQFufV
Quote from: Conan71 on July 30, 2012, 11:41:24 AM
I was previously unaware of this exchange until I heard it referenced last week. If anyone knew about creating jobs, it would have been the CEO of one of the most successful American companies ever.
And Romney's record on off-shoring is any better? Srsly?
Yes, pesky regulations like wage and hour laws, storm and waste water handling, and other limits on pollution. Foxconn would be illegal here, and that's quite alright by me.
Quote from: Hoss on July 30, 2012, 11:43:31 AM
And Romney's record on off-shoring is any better? Srsly?
You miss the point entirely.
Re-read the emboldened points of why Steve Jobs said Apple off-shored 700K jobs to China: it's the high cost of regulation and unnecessary costs. According to other accounts of the meeting, Jobs warned Obama he would be a one term president.
Wait, those apple jobs where in China long before Obama took office. Jobs can hope that the president could do better, but to think that there is some causelity is false.
Ps. Our universty system is turning out those engineers, BTW, even if they are transfer student from China. :)
Quote from: jacobi on July 30, 2012, 12:10:01 PM
Wait, those apple jobs where in China long before Obama took office. Jobs can hope that the president could do better, but to think that there is some causelity is false.
Ps. Our universty system is turning out those engineers, BTW, even if they are transfer student from China. :)
He was making the point that the US government is choking the creation of jobs which is why those plants were built in China. No one is making a point that Obama was responsible for those regulations.
The take-away is political leaders should be listening to leaders of industry if they really care to understand how the government can remove barriers to job growth. We can ignore what business leaders are saying at our own peril.
I think Steve Jobs makes valid points about how American regulations and cost of doing business can't compete with China. I do think that he overly blames Obama for the problem. China has been stealing jobs from America for a long time. The union wages are part of the problem, but more importantly, Chinese workers are always going to be cheaper.
I believe in President Obama and hope to give him four more years to work on this issue. The first term he conceentrated on ending a war, capturing or killing bad guys around the world, and fixing a broken health insurance industry.
I have read that before. My biggest take-away was his comments on education. We see that every day.
Quote
"The president is very smart, but he kept explaining to us reasons why things can't get done," Jobs said. "It infuriates me."
Rereading this, I find this bit interesting. I find it important to know what is possible so that I can focus my efforts on that, rather than beating my head against a wall. Apple did, also. They did not set out to make an iPhone 4 in 2007 because that wasn't possible for them, so they built the original iPhone, even though it was behind the times in basically every way that a cell phone can be behind, aside from the large-at-the-time screen. As more became possible, both for them and in general, they did things like create their app store, build a 3G phone, and so on. Focusing on that which was impossible at the time would have made them miss their window of opportunity to make a big splash.
The original iPhone was half baked on release day, but it catapulted them into the market in a big way anyway because they focused on what they could do and did it well.
Quote from: nathanm on July 30, 2012, 08:11:29 PM
Rereading this, I find this bit interesting. I find it important to know what is possible so that I can focus my efforts on that, rather than beating my head against a wall. Apple did, also. They did not set out to make an iPhone 4 in 2007 because that wasn't possible for them, so they built the original iPhone, even though it was behind the times in basically every way that a cell phone can be behind, aside from the large-at-the-time screen. As more became possible, both for them and in general, they did things like create their app store, build a 3G phone, and so on. Focusing on that which was impossible at the time would have made them miss their window of opportunity to make a big splash.
The original iPhone was half baked on release day, but it catapulted them into the market in a big way anyway because they focused on what they could do and did it well.
That's what Apple has been good at: Quit talking about why you can't do something and instead figure out how to do it even if it's not perfect in it's first incarnation.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 30, 2012, 10:05:10 PM
That's what Apple has been good at: Quit talking about why you can't do something and instead figure out how to do it even if it's not perfect in it's first incarnation.
What they've been bad at is dumbing down the hardware/software so much that technical people hate it (me, and many other geekheads who prefer Android over IOS for..well, just about anything...except for the iPod).
Quote from: Conan71 on July 30, 2012, 10:05:10 PM
That's what Apple has been good at: Quit talking about why you can't do something and instead figure out how to do it even if it's not perfect in it's first incarnation.
Wow, what delicious irony. You do realize you also just described PPACA? And that you reinforced my point precisely? Apple looked at what they wanted to do, decided it was impossible and went for the next best thing.
Up is down, I guess.
Quote from: nathanm on July 30, 2012, 10:28:27 PM
Wow, what delicious irony. You do realize you also just described PPACA? And that you reinforced my point precisely? Apple looked at what they wanted to do, decided it was impossible and went for the next best thing.
Up is down, I guess.
Please note that Apple did not invent a new corded land line device in this case. Next best thing or wrong direction is still evidently in the eye of the sponsor or opposition.
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 30, 2012, 10:46:21 PM
Please note that Apple did not invent a new corded land line device in this case.
No, they initially invented a feature phone with a big screen and a good browser. It didn't sell very well. Later, they turned it into a smartphone with a big screen and a good browser and it began selling like hotcakes.
Quote from: nathanm on July 30, 2012, 10:55:54 PM
No, they initially invented a feature phone with a big screen and a good browser. It didn't sell very well. Later, they turned it into a smartphone with a big screen and a good browser and it began selling like hotcakes.
At least they started with the correct path, unlike another example.
(Please note that I do not think that
everything about Obamacare is wrong or bad.)
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 30, 2012, 11:06:34 PM
At least they started with the correct path, unlike another example.
Feature phone was the wrong way, hence their reversing course.
Quote from: nathanm on July 30, 2012, 11:28:39 PM
Feature phone was the wrong way, hence their reversing course.
At least it was a phone. They didn't start with a geiger counter connected to the AT&T land line.
Quote from: nathanm on July 30, 2012, 10:28:27 PM
Wow, what delicious irony. You do realize you also just described PPACA? And that you reinforced my point precisely? Apple looked at what they wanted to do, decided it was impossible and went for the next best thing.
Up is down, I guess.
We weren't discussing PPACA, but since you managed to weave it into the conversation:
I suppose you've missed it when I've said I hope the ACA does improve the level of healthcare for all Americans but I'm doubtful it will really change outcome and here's why:
All this does is increase access to healthcare via insurance or expanded eligibility for Medicaid. Insurance is not healthcare, it's simply a way to pay for it. Getting people to take a more proactive approach to their health in the first place by eating healthier, exercising, not using tobacco, and using alcohol in moderation is what will improve "outcomes", longevity, and reduce mortality rates.
I'm hoping that increased access to healthcare providers will result in more people getting annual check ups and following up with healthy lifestyle changes when they are recommended.
Look at our obesity rates in this country as well as our general indifference to personal health vs. other countries, and I'm simply not very optimistic this changes anything. I hope I'm wrong. I hope PPACA is a smashing success so long as it doesn't bankrupt the country.
Why is what Jobs said about difficulty in communicating with Obama on his terms even legitimate? I still see this errant attitude that success in one field or endeavor indicates potential success, knowledge and insight in a completely different field. Never met a pilot who didn't think he was the best driver on the road because of his skills in flying. Two different areas, two different skill sets. At the very least it shows lack of respect for others positions.
This is like a disease that Americans are misdiagnosing. We think because Romney was a success in accumulating capital in the private market and utilizing it to amass wealth is somehow the right credentials for operating a publicly funded governmental system. Jobs was impatient, demanding, creative and working within a small sphere of the business world. You can be that way in the private world and do well. Try to run government like that and you lose big. Congress is not like a board of directors.
I'm sure it was culture shock for both men to realize that they couldn't do each others jobs. But here, in Tulsey, in the ground central of red culture, its an indictment for only one of them.
Quote from: AquaMan on July 31, 2012, 11:30:46 AM
Why is what Jobs said about difficulty in communicating with Obama on his terms even legitimate? I still see this errant attitude that success in one field or endeavor indicates potential success, knowledge and insight in a completely different field. Never met a pilot who didn't think he was the best driver on the road because of his skills in flying. Two different areas, two different skill sets. At the very least it shows lack of respect for others positions.
This is like a disease that Americans are misdiagnosing. We think because Romney was a success in accumulating capital in the private market and utilizing it to amass wealth is somehow the right credentials for operating a publicly funded governmental system. Jobs was impatient, demanding, creative and working within a small sphere of the business world. You can be that way in the private world and do well. Try to run government like that and you lose big. Congress is not like a board of directors.
I'm sure it was culture shock for both men to realize that they couldn't do each others jobs. But here, in Tulsey, in the ground central of red culture, its an indictment for only one of them.
And Jobs would have turned to you and said:
"And you don't have a clue either!" ;)
But taking your point to heart, why would you think someone like President Obama, who has never worked in the corporate world would have the slightest clue what small business, large corporations, and their role economy needs to prosper?
Quote from: Conan71 on July 31, 2012, 11:50:45 AM
But taking your point to heart, why would you think someone like President Obama, who has never worked in the corporate world would have the slightest clue what small business, large corporations, and their role economy needs to prosper?
I've worked in the corporate world. So that means I know more about running the country than someone who hasn't?
Quote from: Conan71 on July 31, 2012, 11:50:45 AM
And Jobs would have turned to you and said:
"And you don't have a clue either!" ;)
But taking your point to heart, why would you think someone like President Obama, who has never worked in the corporate world would have the slightest clue what small business, large corporations, and their role economy needs to prosper?
I would have knocked Jobs on his donkey.
I will take your point to heart. One job, the corporate world, is a subset of the larger world. As Mullin Plumbing has proved, most anyone can take a business and overcome its previous owners failures with dedication, a little good financial management and hard work. Yet, you wouldn't expect Mullin to do any better in Europe than Romney has done. And if Mullin screws up a plumbing job its not a tragedy. So many good examples of successful businessmen who simply cannot fathom life outside their subset but never let it stop them from trying to educate others that their way is the only successful way.
The other job, is all encompassing in its effect on everyone on the planet. It requires knowledge of anthropology, psychology, organizational dynamics, government systems, law, history, communications, technology, religion and on, and on. Because, if the president screws up it could mean multiple tragedies.
Bush was a great businessman so we're told. He put us into two wars and a financial meltdown. Carter was a poor president so we're told yet he was a successful peanut farmer.
Yeah, too bad Obama didn't get an MBA.... like Dubya.
Let's see....
Herbert Hoover was a businessman (mining & investments worth $4 mil, once quoted as saying
"If a man has not made a million dollars by the time he is forty, he is not worth much"), Franklin Roosevelt was not...
Harry Truman was a businessman (albeit a poor one), Ike Eisenhower was not...
Jimmy Carter was a businessman (wealthy peanut farmer) , Ronald Reagan was not...
George H.W. Bush was a businessman (founded Zapata Petroleum, which ultimately became Pennzoil), Bill Clinton was not....
Sorry Mitt Romney, Good Businessmen Rarely Make Good PresidentsBusinessmen like Warren Harding, Herbert Hoover, and the Bushes went on to be some of the worst presidentsBy Peter Allan
February 17, 2012
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2012/02/17/sorry-mitt-romney-good-businessmen-rarely-make-good-presidents
QuoteWe have had 20 presidents in the modern era (i.e., since 1900). Five of those had significant business careers before entering politics. Unfortunately for Romney, the results are not good for the businessmen.
None of the great or near-great presidents—Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, or Woodrow Wilson—was a businessman. Truman was a failed businessman (a haberdasher) before entering politics, but that hardly constitutes a ringing endorsement of Romney's claim for private sector ascendency.
For that matter, none of the better-than-average presidents was a businessman either. In this category think of Presidents John F. Kennedy, Dwight Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan, Lyndon Johnson, and Bill Clinton.
Probably the most successful president with real business experience (and success) was George H.W. Bush. Before going into politics he founded Zapata Petroleum, which ultimately became Pennzoil. Bush 41 ended up a one-term president unable to kick-start an economy in a recession and seemingly out of touch with the problems of the common man. Sound familiar?
It gets worse from here. Jimmy Carter, another one-term president beset with economic woes, was a success in agribusiness (peanut farming) before getting into politics. He generally falls into the lower half of the historians' rankings.
And then we get the big three—the men widely considered by historians to be the worst presidents of the modern era: Warren G. Harding, Herbert Hoover, and George W. Bush. One left the country on the verge of a depression, one left the country in a depression, and one presided over such corruption and ineptitude that despite the failings of the other two he still manages to get the lowest ranking of them all. And yet all three made millions of dollars in the private sector before entering politics. All three were successful businessmen (a newspaper publisher, a mining tycoon, and the owner of a professional baseball team). Bush 43 even went to Harvard business school, like Romney, and like Romney promised to bring business principles to the Oval Office.
With this kind of track record, maybe voters should apply some market principles to the core Romney Rationale and choose a different brand of dog food.
Quote from: TulsaRufnex on July 31, 2012, 12:49:23 PM
Yeah, too bad Obama didn't get an MBA.... like Dubya.
Let's see....
Herbert Hoover was a businessman (mining & investments worth $4 mil, once quoted as saying "If a man has not made a million dollars by the time he is forty, he is not worth much"), Franklin Roosevelt was not...
Harry Truman was a businessman (albeit a poor one), Ike Eisenhower was not...
Jimmy Carter was a businessman (wealthy peanut farmer) , Ronald Reagan was not...
George H.W. Bush was a businessman (founded Zapata Petroleum, which ultimately became Pennzoil), Bill Clinton was not....
Sorry Mitt Romney, Good Businessmen Rarely Make Good Presidents
Businessmen like Warren Harding, Herbert Hoover, and the Bushes went on to be some of the worst presidents
By Peter Allan
February 17, 2012
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2012/02/17/sorry-mitt-romney-good-businessmen-rarely-make-good-presidents
Based on that logical argument, I have an idea for the next Progressive candidate.
(http://failfun.com/wp-content/uploads/Crazy-but-Honest.jpg)
Quote from: Conan71 on July 31, 2012, 09:14:28 AM
All this does is increase access to healthcare via insurance or expanded eligibility for Medicaid. Insurance is not healthcare, it's simply a way to pay for it. Getting people to take a more proactive approach to their health in the first place by eating healthier, exercising, not using tobacco, and using alcohol in moderation is what will improve "outcomes", longevity, and reduce mortality rates.
I'm hoping that increased access to healthcare providers will result in more people getting annual check ups and following up with healthy lifestyle changes when they are recommended.
The data clearly shows that people with coverage of some sort (medicaid, insurance, doesn't really matter) are less likely to have major health problems, presumably because the major things are caught early before they become hard to treat and involve expensive hospital stays. Granted, it's even better if people eat healthily and exercise and don't smoke and on and on, but it's not really required to see a benefit from having better access to health care.
Conan, Romney's experience tells him nothing about what businesses actually need to thrive in the long term. He knows how to fatten them up for slaughter. He does not really know how to be in it for the long haul. Bain is/was one of the langoliers of the economy.
Hahahahaha!
Wow! Steve Jobs, one of the most innovative American businessmen in the last 35 years, explains to the president what business needs to expand in the United States, and it's summarily dismissed in one of the biggest mental gymnastics sessions I've seen on here.
Here, have fun with it:
(http://pointlessbanter.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/ky.jpg) (http://theexpiredmeter.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Roll-of-quarters.jpg)
Quote from: Conan71 on July 31, 2012, 02:01:43 PM
Hahahahaha!
Wow! Steve Jobs, one of the most innovative American businessmen in the last 35 years, explains to the president what business needs to expand in the United States, and it's summarily dismissed in one of the biggest mental gymnastics sessions I've seen on here.
Here, have fun with it:
(http://pointlessbanter.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/ky.jpg) (http://theexpiredmeter.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Roll-of-quarters.jpg)
Would make no difference if it was God himself. No one is holier than the anointed one.
(http://ponderingprinciples.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/obamessiah.jpg)
Quote from: Conan71 on July 31, 2012, 02:01:43 PM
and it's summarily dismissed in one of the biggest mental gymnastics sessions I've seen on here.
It doesn't take mental gymnastics to realize that the manufacturing jobs Apple pays for are not the sort we want here in this country. Not many folks here are terribly interested in taking work for $10 a day, working 12 hour days with no weekends, living in dormitories, and being woken up at 2AM because Apple decided they needed to make a change to their latest gadget and production has to be restarted right freakin' now.
So yeah, I think I'll ignore anything Jobs had to say about manufacturing and do it with a clear conscience. Now, if you'd like to relate his advice on design or even computer engineering, I'd love to hear it.
Quote from: nathanm on July 31, 2012, 02:15:08 PM
So yeah, I think I'll ignore anything Jobs had to say about manufacturing and do it with a clear conscience. Now, if you'd like to relate his advice on design or even computer engineering, I'd love to hear it.
There you go.
Quote from: nathanm on July 31, 2012, 02:15:08 PM
It doesn't take mental gymnastics to realize that the manufacturing jobs Apple pays for are not the sort we want here in this country.
I only ask out of morbid curiosity.
1) What
sort of manufacturing jobs do we want in the United States?
Quote from: Gaspar on July 31, 2012, 01:11:19 PM
Based on that logical argument, I have an idea for the next Progressive candidate.
(http://failfun.com/wp-content/uploads/Crazy-but-Honest.jpg)
I post factual evidence that success in business does NOT equal success in economic policy/politics... and you reply with ::)
Hmmm.... if supply-side apologists could just find a businessman who isn't stiff like Romney... maybe somebody with the acting experience of Ronald Reagan... oh, wait....
Here ya go....
(http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/05/02/t1larg.donald-trump-youre-fired.t1larg.jpg)
Quote from: Conan71 on July 31, 2012, 02:01:43 PM
Hahahahaha!
Wow! Steve Jobs, one of the most innovative American businessmen in the last 35 years, explains to the president what business needs to expand in the United States, and it's summarily dismissed in one of the biggest mental gymnastics sessions I've seen on here
You and the Gas are some hard headed guys. Even when history, logic, and common sense run against you it bounces off like ping pong balls.
Of course, I remember running into guys like you when I bought my first mac back in the late 80's and hearing how stupid I was to pay so much for a computer that couldn't compete with IBM or Compac's stuff. Apple stock went up and down like a roller coaster till he was recognized many years later as a genius by the same people who once called him the creator of computers for dummies.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 31, 2012, 03:18:52 PM
1) What sort of manufacturing jobs do we want in the United States?
The kind that don't involve abusive working conditions and that have wages high enough to support at least a single person on full time work. A very low bar, really.
Quote from: AquaMan on July 31, 2012, 03:58:27 PM
You and the Gas are some hard headed guys. Even when history, logic, and common sense run against you it bounces off like ping pong balls.
Of course, I remember running into guys like you when I bought my first mac back in the late 80's and hearing how stupid I was to pay so much for a computer that couldn't compete with IBM or Compac's stuff. Apple stock went up and down like a roller coaster till he was recognized many years later as a genius by the same people who once called him the creator of computers for dummies.
I'm trying to figure out how you manage to cobble together something about Steve Jobs experience not being relevant to running the country out of the president seeking a meeting with Jobs to discuss job creation and the economy and Jobs coming away thoroughly convinced the president "doesn't get it". Keep in mind, Jobs was a major Democrat donor and supporter of Obama in '08.
Let me put this another way, if you were president and wanted to figure out what profitable corporations need to create jobs, would you seek out the advice of actual job creators and innovators like Steve Jobs to understand why job creation was not happening in the private sector (and actually listen to them and act on an amalgam of their suggestions) or rely on a bunch of academians and government wonks who have never worked in the private sector as to the solutions?
I think the point is that the article you posted has no actionable items in it, aside from the constant refrain of "lower wages, lower benefits, more control over workers." When people hammer on the same points through good times and bad it's hard to believe that the problem in the bad times are actually the things they were harping on when times were good. If it was such a problem, why did it not prevent the previous expansion?
Quote from: nathanm on July 31, 2012, 04:04:05 PM
The kind that don't involve abusive working conditions and that have wages high enough to support at least a single person on full time work. A very low bar, really.
But a capitalist and the shareholders cannot make their fat stax when you ask for such a thing. Case in point... Apple revenue 33B, profit 8B. Just think what would happen if they could no longer pay that factory worker $10 a day. They might only make 7B in profits... which would only raise the stock prices by x% instead of X%. And just for reference... 1B in profits spread amongst 100,000 workers would be 10k. At $10 a day working 345 days a year (because you know they only get 1 day off... on occasion) $3450.
Apple's work in China has been "good". It has brought many out of poverty and makes them able to support themselves and their family. Additionally, as much as it frustrates me that these companies only pay the $10 a day, you cannot move into an area and pay 30-50 a day. It would create an unstable economy.
I think I am just rambling. I had a good thought but it went to hell.
Quote from: AquaMan on July 31, 2012, 03:58:27 PM
You and the Gas are some hard headed guys. Even when history, logic, and common sense run against you it bounces off like ping pong balls.
Of course, I remember running into guys like you when I bought my first mac back in the late 80's and hearing how stupid I was to pay so much for a computer that couldn't compete with IBM or Compac's stuff. Apple stock went up and down like a roller coaster till he was recognized many years later as a genius by the same people who once called him the creator of computers for dummies.
Once? He sort of still is! Well, with smartphones/tablets anyway. If you want to tinker, then IOS isn't for you unless you want the pain of jailbreaking.
Meh, I had to root my Nexus 7 to be able to use a damn USB stick. Not that iOS is any better on that count, but still.
Quote from: nathanm on July 31, 2012, 05:42:28 PM
Meh, I had to root my Nexus 7 to be able to use a damn USB stick. Not that iOS is any better on that count, but still.
Jailbreaking is a grumble. Rooting an Android is much easier.
I'm also readying to drop the hammer on the Nexus HSPA+ phone. Since unlocked from Google they're just 350, it's well better than what I can get comparable phones on contract from AT&T for.
Quote from: Hoss on July 31, 2012, 05:44:56 PM
I'm also readying to drop the hammer on the Nexus HSPA+ phone. Since unlocked from Google they're just 350, it's well better than what I can get comparable phones on contract from AT&T for.
You're more than welcome to play with mine for a bit if you want to try before you buy. I got it just before I went on vacation. (And less than a week before Google started selling it directly..mine is an import from the UAE) Second day at the resort I walked into the pool with it in my pocket, so no rear camera, but otherwise it works a treat. ;)
Quote from: Conan71 on July 31, 2012, 04:46:33 PM
I'm trying to figure out how you manage to cobble together something about Steve Jobs experience not being relevant to running the country out of the president seeking a meeting with Jobs to discuss job creation and the economy and Jobs coming away thoroughly convinced the president "doesn't get it". Keep in mind, Jobs was a major Democrat donor and supporter of Obama in '08.
Let me put this another way, if you were president and wanted to figure out what profitable corporations need to create jobs, would you seek out the advice of actual job creators and innovators like Steve Jobs to understand why job creation was not happening in the private sector (and actually listen to them and act on an amalgam of their suggestions) or rely on a bunch of academians and government wonks who have never worked in the private sector as to the solutions?
I know you Conan. You are a debater by nature. Pretty much uninterested in your opponents points except how you may rephrase them into traps, repulse them or force an answer to benefit your argument. You are good at it but it takes you away from the truth. Debating is an exercise in battle, not a search for truth.
Obama is a lawyer, and a former academician who pursued politics. He knows something about all those subjects. He also reads voraciously. Business is just not that hard to pick up. Jobs is an innovator who had up and down success with business and ended on a high note. Business genius might be gratuitous. He knows little about politics other than as a donor. Hence, his remarks.
So, it appears you have set up an imaginary meeting that neither represents what occurred nor gives any credence to our opinion as to why his remarks after a meeting with Jobs was even relevant. This guy appeared to be lecturing a president because he had access and success in his own field. He even made reference to it by suggesting that Obama would play off any meeting to his own advantage. That's ego. You bought his presentation.
A president should seek out disparate views. He has. You preferred Jobs' views and remarks as opposed to Warren Buffets' views and remarks.
I cobble pretty well too.
Not the first time we've been able to compile such data, but certainly the freshest! Unfortunately our populous has become so grossly uneducated in basic economics, and our politicians so grossly dependent on the purchase of favor and votes, that we will very likely see this same scenario again and again.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444873204577537244225685010.html?mod=rss_opinion_main
(http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/ED-AP581_artlaf_G_20120805170005.jpg)
How interesting. Every country showed a loss regardless of stimulation. Weakens your point. Perhaps if you had taken note of the relationship between the amount of government investment vs the amount of growth you would have seen that many of those who invested little, like Korea, Israel, Hungary, Switzerland, showed nearly three times that investment in loss. Those that invested more, like the US, saw much smaller declines.
There are too many other factors involved to just single out government spending during a down business cycle.....unless of course that was the only criteria that mattered to you.
Quote from: AquaMan on August 06, 2012, 08:46:18 AM
How interesting. Every country showed a loss regardless of stimulation. Weakens your point. Perhaps if you had taken note of the relationship between the amount of government investment vs the amount of growth you would have seen that many of those who invested little, like Korea, Israel, Hungary, Switzerland, showed nearly three times that investment in loss. Those that invested more, like the US, saw much smaller declines.
There are too many other factors involved to just single out government spending during a down business cycle.....unless of course that was the only criteria that mattered to you.
That makes no sense at all. The spending is a % of total GDP, and that means that it moves as GDP does, it's not an independent factor. The point remains that countries that spent the lowest % on government stimulus, averaged the lowest decline in GDP. There really is not another way to spin these numbers, but go for it!
Quote from: Gaspar on August 06, 2012, 09:00:33 AM
That makes no sense at all. The spending is a % of total GDP, and that means that it moves as GDP does, it's not an independent factor. The point remains that countries that spent the lowest % on government stimulus, averaged the lowest decline in GDP. There really is not another way to spin these numbers, but go for it!
Because you're looking for a red barn with a green filtered flashlight. No way i could accomplish the double, inverted, triple twist spin that you are master at. The two numbers are related or you wouldn't have presented them.
The bottom line is that EVERY country listed showed declines in real GDP growth whether they invested or not. Typical of a world wide business cycle downturn. The ones who invested more, not only received more bang for their buck in infrastructure development, but showed smaller declines in real GDP.
You know someone is peddling bullshit when they compare countries that have decidedly different troubles and claim some deep meaning. Further, you can be absolutely positive someone is peddling bullshit when they compare inflation adjusted numbers (like GDP growth) with non-inflation adjusted numbers (like spending growth) and do it in the precise way that would make their claims look less like bull.
Sheesh. . .did you just wake up or something? Both numbers are inflation corrected, because one is offered as a percentage of the other.
Read the article and go back to sleep.
(http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/422285_10151975150375084_549226536_n.jpg)
Wondering what took so long...
Quote from: guido911 on August 07, 2012, 11:55:58 AM
(http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/422285_10151975150375084_549226536_n.jpg)
Wondering what took so long...
Funny that you post that. . .Carter has really been redeemed by President Obama's track record. In fact, he will be making an address at the DNC convention where he will tout President Obama's leadership skills. Through his re-deployment of Carter economic policies, I think the former president perhaps views President Obama as a protégé. http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2012/08/jimmy-carter-democratic-convention-speaker-barack-obama/1#.UCFbV6mRi5Q
It should prove to fire up the base for him.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 07, 2012, 06:31:07 AM
Sheesh. . .did you just wake up or something? Both numbers are inflation corrected, because one is offered as a percentage of the other.
Read the article and go back to sleep.
No, they actually aren't. GDP is not indexed to inflation, nor is it an inflation index. GDP can fall as inflation rises, GDP can rise as inflation rises, GDP can fall as inflation falls, or GDP can fall as inflation rises. There is an inflation adjustment called the GDP deflator, but it does not work the way you seem to think it does.
Column one compares a dollar amount in 2007 to a dollar amount in 2009 in each year's dollars. Column two is indexed for inflation.
Keep on keepin' on. And when you're corrected, keep on attacking the messenger rather than reading a book or checking your numbers in FRED.
Edited to add: Oh, and I just noticed one is a percentage change while the other is a change in
rate of growth. Yet more misleading pucky.
Gaspar, regarding Laffer's chart, I happened across this article in my reading today. (still catching up from being away)
http://uneasymoney.com/2012/08/06/arthur-laffer-anti-enlightenment-economist/
Apparently the numbers can't actually be reproduced by any reasonable calculation. Moreover, there's no real theory behind it. Laffer's usual contention that government spending crowds out private spending isn't applicable in an environment where private actors are willing to lend the government seemingly unlimited sums at essentially zero interest. Instead of crowding out, it's putting the private money to use, which even the rightest of right wing economists believes is economically useful.