SI
SI
discoversearch

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: puborectalis who wrote (754454)11/24/2013 11:32:48 PM
From: joseffy1 Recommendation

Recommended By
FJB

  Respond to of 1583389
 
Obamacare ‘the greatest act of punitive liberalism’ Democrats have imposed on America



To: puborectalis who wrote (754454)11/25/2013 9:21:40 AM
From: Brumar891 Recommendation

Recommended By
FJB

  Respond to of 1583389
 
New monopoly cards for the age of Obama



To: puborectalis who wrote (754454)11/25/2013 10:03:22 AM
From: Brumar891 Recommendation

Recommended By
FJB

  Respond to of 1583389
 
General Electric’s Crony CapitalismMises Daily: Monday, November 25, 2013 by Hunter Lewis




This is an adaptation of chapter 10 from Hunter Lewis’s book Crony Capitalism in America: 2008-2012, available in the Mises Store.

During the presidential campaign of 2012, an online commentator observed that President Obama had not met with his Jobs Council for six months. How could this be, the commentator asked, when jobs were foremost on the president’s agenda? The answer was not hard to discover.

The Council was headed by General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt, a noted Obama political backer. Other members included Penny Pritzker, an heiress who served as Obama’s fssinance chairwoman in 2008, and Richard Trumpka, president of the AFL-CIO, one of the largest Obama campaign contributors. The group was established after the 2010 mid-term election losses as a device to emphasize the administration’s focus on jobs but, more importantly, to recognize political allies and campaign donors and prepare for the 2012 presidential election. This was more or less acknowledged when, after the president’s re-election, it was disbanded, despite the persistence of high unemployment.

Why had the president chosen General Electric’s Immelt in particular as the head of this campaign arm? For one reason, Immelt was sympathetic to the president’s brand of state-led capitalism. He had gone so far as to say of China in a television interview: “The one thing that actually works, state run communism, may not be your cup of tea, but their government works.” [1]

In addition, employees of General Electric as a group had been Obama’s ninth largest campaign contributor in 2008, donating $529,855. These donations in part reflected the company’s close and indeed symbiotic relationship with government in finance, defense, green energy, television, technology, and export, and its status as a primary beneficiary of the administration’s stimulus bill. It was impossible to say where the government stopped and General Electric began and vice versa.

Even more importantly, the government rescued the company from what seemed likely to be bankruptcy in 2008–2009. It also let the company off with an exceptionally mild slap-on-the-wrist fine of $50 million for cooking its books in the late 1990s and 2000s, when there might instead have been a large fine and criminal fraud charges. [2] As a further indication of its exceptionally close ties, the Obama administration inserted language into the late 2012 fiscal cliff bill that enabled the company to avoid paying much federal income tax. [3]

How had General Electric come to be in need of a government rescue during the Crash of 2008? For most of its history, the company was considered the bluest of blue chip firms, the last company that anybody would have expected to be in need of a rescue. Prior to the Crash of 2008, it enjoyed the highest possible score from the financial rating agencies. There was a problem, however: the rating was undeserved, perhaps the result of rating agency myopia, perhaps some behind-closed-door deal.

GE Capital, the company’s finance arm, was the fastest growing part of the company. By 2007, it contributed almost 40 percent of revenues and almost half of the profits. It generated these revenues and profits by using the company’s triple A financial rating to borrow money at rates even lower than paid by banks for short periods of time and then relending for longer periods to consumers, including sub-prime borrowers. This was a classic house of cards. It should have resulted in the company’s bankruptcy. But when, in September 2008, GE ran out of credit, and the survival of the company suddenly became doubtful, Immelt knew what to do.

David Stockman, budget director under President Reagan and professional investor, described what happened:

The nation’s number one crony capitalist — Jeff Immelt of GE — jumped on the phone to Secretary Paulson and yelled “fire!” Soon the Fed and FDIC stopped the commercial-paper [short-term corporate debt] unwind dead in its track by essentially nationalizing the entire market. Even a cursory look at the data, however, shows that Immelt’s SOS call was a self-serving crock.

So in the fall of 2008, the US supposedly stood on the edge of an abyss, with a likely shutdown of the entire financial system, and a Depression from which we might never emerge. But this was actually just hyperbole, a way to scare President George W. Bush and members of Congress. No wonder the former said that “I’ve abandoned free market principles to save the free market system.” To say something so foolish in public in a television interview, he must have actually believed it.



$19.00$12.95


Secretary Paulson is also alleged to have said, after receiving Immelt’s desperate call in September 2008, that he realized the crisis had now spread from Wall Street to Main Street. But he must have known that GE was, by that time, the very embodiment of Wall Street, despite being headquartered nearby in Connecticut. No doubt “helping Main Street” provided good cover for, among other things, saving Paulson’s Goldman Sachs.

By the time the Obama administration arrived, GE spent more money on lobbying than any other company. Immelt was asked first to join the President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board and then, as we have noted, to chair the Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. When the administration’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began enforcing new rules to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the very first exemption was granted to a GE-powered facility, the Avenal Power Center in California. [4] Meanwhile, GE built a part for General Motors’ electric car, the Chevy Volt, a favorite project of the administration that had been given hidden subsidies of as much as $250,000 per vehicle along with buyer tax credits. [5]When that proved insufficient to get the car sold, the government bought thousands of Volts for its own fleet.

It was potentially embarrassing to the administration that GE outsourced so many jobs overseas. For example, when Congress outlawed old-fashioned incandescent light bulbs, partly at GE’s urging, manufacture of the new fluorescent bulbs was moved from GE’s light bulb plants in Ohio and Kentucky to China. Also potentially embarrassing, but little known, was that the fluorescents contained mercury, an environmental hazard, and that some of the Chinese workers had reportedly been poisoned by exposure to it. [6] None of this, however, kept GE from benefiting, directly or indirectly, from what may have been billions in Stimulus Act grants.

http://mises.org/daily/6596/General-Electrics-Crony-Capitalism



To: puborectalis who wrote (754454)11/25/2013 10:37:11 AM
From: Brumar891 Recommendation

Recommended By
TideGlider

  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1583389
 
Up to 90% of Italian gynecologists refuse to abort babies as abortion rate continues to drop
by Hilary White

  • Wed Nov 13, 2013 18:13 EST


  • ROME, November 13, 2013 ( LifeSiteNews.com) – A new report from the Italian government has revealed that the abortion rate in the country is continuing to decline at the same time as 80-90 percent of Italian gynecologists are refusing to abort babies – the highest number on record.

    The report by the Ministry of health on the implementation of Law 194, “on voluntary interruptions of pregnancy,” found the abortion rate throughout the country had dropped in 2012 by 4.9 per cent compared to the previous year (106,000 abortions, down from 111,000). The abortion rate has been falling steadily in Italy since 1982 when it hit a peak of nearly 235,000.


    The Italian abortion rate is at its lowest level in decades, while the number of gynaecologists refusing to perform abortions is at its highest.

    The report shows that the numbers of conscientious objectors among health care workers has also increased steadily, to its current peak of almost 90 percent of gynecologists in the region of Campania and over 80 percent in all of Southern Italy.

    In response to this report, the Letta government has announced the establishment of a board that will monitor individual hospitals and physicians.

    Meanwhile, an Italian national labour union, known for championing far left political causes, has asked that only doctors who who are willing to perform abortions be eligible for employment in the public health system.

    Together with International Planned Parenthood Federation European Network, the Confederazione Generale Italiana del Lavoro (CGIL) twice submitted complaints, in August 2012 and January this year, to the European Committee on Social Rights of the Council of Europe against the broad use of the Italian abortion law’s conscience provision.

    Those complaints are receiving renewed attention in light of the government’s new report.

    In the complaints CGIL accused doctors of following their “subjective” sense of right and wrong in opposition to the rights of women as outlined in the European Social Charter, and called for rules that would allow only doctors willing to perform abortions to be employed by the state health system.

    The pro-abortion groups face an uphill battle, however, since no international European treaty has ever identified abortion as a “human right,” while there has been ample legal tests of the rights, explicitly defined in the European Convention on Human Rights, of conscientious objectors to refuse to commit abortions.

    A resolution of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in 2010 stated, “No person shall be compelled to practice the removal of a child or an embryo, and no one may be discriminated against in any way as a result of his refusal to carry out abortions.”

    Giacomo Rocchi, a judge of the Supreme Court, a member of Lawyers for Life, also pointed to the absence of any evidence showing that in Italy women have been denied abortions because of a shortage of physicians.

    Rocchi was in Strasbourg in June in response to the complaint application, representing the Association of Italian Catholic Gynecologists and Obstetricians, the Association of Italian Catholic Doctors, the Forum of Family Associations and the Italian Confederation of Family Advisory Bureaus of Christian Inspiration.

    The Italian Health Department’s own statistics show that in 95 percent of cases requested abortions are carried out within three weeks, while 90 percent are not considered medically urgent. Rocchi said that the proposal only to allow competitions for public placements by doctors willing to perform abortions would be a blatant case of discrimination.

    “So objectors would be discriminated against for exercising a constitutional right,” he told Tempi.it, “recognized by the European Convention on Human Rights.”

    “In addition, if the doctor, once hired, decided to stop practicing abortions, he would be fired and then he would be denied the opportunity to follow his conscience and his faith.”

    “A state that allows the killing of innocent children already has a democratic deficit,” Rocchi continued. “And it would be even more serious if the Committee were to decied for CGIL: forcing doctors to practice abortion by law would be a measure of a totalitarian state.

    “Luckily, any decision of the Committee in this direction would have an effect only of exhortation and would not be binding on our country.”

    lifesitenews.com