Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (553138)	3/4/2010 3:22:00 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	4 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573792

Ted, this whole article misses the point. Of course small businesses and entrepreneurs help grow the economy. Of course industrial consolidation is the anathema of growth. What that article fails to mention, however, is how hostile the business climate in America has become. There are lots of ways small businesses and entrepreneurs can compete against the big boys, if they're given a chance. But crushing business and environmental regulations often kill most of these dreams. Meanwhile, as big businesses start seeing a hostile climate, they look for survival and continued profitability via the old-fashioned way: by merging and banding together. Sure, they can use their weight to drown out smaller competitors, but that usually weeds out the copycats, not the innovators. By the way, the author's anti-Intel rant is just an example of one-sidedness. The antitrust lawsuit in NY state is a complete political play by Andrew Cuomo, who is seeking to make a name for himself. Antitrust matters should be handled by the DOJ or FTC, not by a single state. Meanwhile, the EU led by Neelie Kroes (a.k.a. Neelie the Terrible) was way too heavy-handed in its decision and is an example of what happens when the same person acts as judge, jury, and executioner, and also denies Intel due process. In other words, that article is heavily biased toward bringing back the New Deal. Thus, it selectively states facts that only support that position. It should have been clear in the beginning when the author used such childish language like "nada, nil, zip." That's something I'd expect from an Internet post, not a well-reasoned essay. Tenchusatsu

To: tejek who wrote (553138)	3/4/2010 5:52:36 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1573792

Who Broke America’s Jobs Machine? Longer term? "The Federal Register, established in 1936 to record all the regulations, hearings, and other matters connected with the regulatory agencies, grew, at first rather slowly, than more rapidly. Three volumes, containing 2,599 pages and taking six inches of shelf space, sufficed for 1936, twelve volumes, containing 10,528 pages and taking twenty-six inches of shelf space, for 1956, and thirteen volumes, containing 16,850 page and taking thirty-six inches of shelf space, for 1966. Than a veritable explosion in government regulatory activity occurred. No fewer than twenty-one new agencies where established in the next decade..." From "Free to Choose" pg 190 Note the expansion continued since then all the way through to today. Shorter term? 1999-2009 is a period of time containing two recessions, with a deeper recession at the end. Select an end point before the recent recession, or from after the recovery has established itself solidly, and you still see growth. Although possibly if Obama gets his way it will just be growth in government jobs. Also another longer term factor is demographics. The population is getting older, and we have more retired people, both in absolute terms, and as a percentage of the population. The problem of weak job creation certainly can’t be due to increased business taxes and regulation, since both were slashed during the Bush years. Taxes where cut. Regulation increased.