« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

General Electric’s Jeff Immelt–A Uniter, Not a Divider

By: LaborUnionReport (Diary)  |  May 11th, 2011 at 01:30 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

There’s been a lot written over the last couple of years about the Obama administration‘s crony capitalism. Other than ‘spooky dude’ George Soros, there is, perhaps, no better embodiment of an Obama crony in capitalist’s clothing than General Electric’s Jeff Immelt.

With Immelt sitting at the right hand of Obama and GE’s ability to avoid paying taxes, Immelt has had the distinction of being able to unite both the Right and the Left against his company As FreedomWorks’ Tabitha Hale pointed out recently:

Immelt bet the farm on GE’s green enterprise, at the expense of American jobs. Now that he is realizing the political ramifications of advocating policies that will bankrupt our country and continue to put Americans out of work, he’s started to walk it back.

Immelt’s unique ability to unite the Right and the Left against GE was also pointed out to him personally by FreedomWorks’ Kristina Ribali during GE’s recent shareholder meeting in Salt Lake City.


“Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.” —Benito Mussolini

_________________

“I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as ABC, hold up truth to your eyes.” Thomas Paine, December 23, 1776

X-posted.

Follow laborunionrpt on Twitter

 

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • earlgrey

    Tabitha didn’t need to sound nervous (or maybe that was just the sound system). I bet that was the best question Immelt got.

    • http://www.laborunionreport.com LaborUnionReport

      ..

      • earlgrey
  • judgebean

    I haven’t looked that close at Immelt, The one I have been following is Dave Cody, CEO of Honeywell, used to called Allied Signal. When Obama put this guy on his Deficit Redutation Committee all is lost, Currently all jobs in Honeywell that can be sent to China are either there or on the way. Note the new plant put up just outside Peking, put up with tax breaks from this country and the technowledge greedy Chinese. Tracing the straw purchases of honeywell divisons from other countries, shows some enemies are domestic.

    • gunslingr45

      to know. I need a new thermostat.

    • http://theheartlander.wordpress.com/ heartlander

      One attitude I’ve retained from my Gandhian days is skepticism toward transnational corporations. Things like this bear that out.

      The Left is evil because it stands for Big Government. But people on the right have been slower to wake up to the potential for evil on the part of Big Business. The big transnationals such as G.E. are not primarily loyal to this entity called the United States of America. By law, they are obligated first and foremost to their shareholders. They have to seek the greatest possible return on investment, otherwise they’re not doing right by their stockholders. But that means packing up and moving to China.

      What’s the answer? I’m not an expert in corporate law so I can’t tell you. But the Right, to be credible — and to do right by American families — needs to work on figuring out some way out of this conundrum.

      • taylerdog23

        A corporation’s single most important responsibility is to its shareholders. People forget this. People may not like it, but that’s capitalism. I expect the highest possible return on every single investment in my portfolio.

        Although I agree that unemployment is a problem, I accept the fact that jobs will go overseas as long as it means I get a greater return on my investment. My stock in GE went up almost 30% last year thanks to their solid performance, wise tax planning and also some luck on my part in terms of when I bought in. I expect GE to do everything it can, within the law, to continue to perform this well financially.

        At the end of the day, there is no such thing as corporations doing “right by America’s families.” Corporations must be free to do what they deem best, within the bounds of the law, in order to maximize returns for investors. Anything short of that is socialism.

        • Menlo

          Your “within the law” qualifier seems to contradict your position. How is a corporation not “allowed” to do anything within the law?

          That’s kind of like the Chinese government saying that their people have freedom of speech and worship “within the law.”

          • taylerdog23

            I was saying that a corporation CAN do whatever they want *within* the bounds of the law.

            What was unclear/non-sensical about that?

          • Menlo

            The argument is about what the law should be. What you would call “socialism” does allow corporations to do what they want “within the law” because such “socialism” would be the law.

            Again, it’s like saying the Chinese people CAN engage in political speech “within the law.”

          • taylerdog23

            I’m not arguing what the law should be. I am generally happy with the way things are right now because I am making a lot of money from my investments, and the “law” allows me to do that. I would rather there be fewer regulations on business and lower taxes, sure, but things are working out ok right now. For me at least.

            I see where you are coming from, though, because you seem to be making an argument below for human rights, consumer safety regs, etc. I think that’s hogwash in a free-market system. Those kind of considerations should have little to no place in a business discussion unless they affect profitability. Businesses have one and only one responsibility–to make money.

          • Menlo

            Back in the slave owning south.

            Your idea of a “free market” system may be good for you personally, but to support a policy for that reason is nothing but pure evil, selfishness, and greed on your part.

          • taylerdog23

            I would say that was way below the belt and unfair, but I see where you’re coming from.

            To me it simply boils down to choice: either you want government out of the way for business or you don’t. It may sound simplistic, but deciding what role government has and doesn’t has just seems to me to be squishy.

            You’re right, my idea of a free market system works great for me personally, but that’s not the only reason I view it this way. As far as I can tell, the very premise of a “free market” demands viewing it this way. Opening the door for government involvement is a slippery slope. to socialism.

            And I’m not all about selfishness and greed–although I own stock in oil companies, I do not think they should get any government subsidies. I reject the view that eliminating subsidies will result in higher gas prices, and instead see the elimination of subsidies as something that will only affect an oil company’s stock price negatively. This would be bad for me personally because I could not see as high of a return on my investment, but I still advocate it. Just as I advocate the elimination of all government subsidies and tax breaks (child tax credit, mortgage interest deduction, ag subsidies, etc.). Government shouldn’t be picking winners in who it favors for preferential tax treatment.

            Whoa, I went off topic there! Thx.

          • Menlo

            Tax codes do need to be equally applied, and I’ll never understand why liberals and conservatives can’t unite on ending subsidies, special tax breaks, and market mandates (like health insurance, ethanol, or certain electric appliances) for corporations. Ironically, it’s one area where both parties in Congress unite in favor. Do “liberals” not care that they have championed an act that was half written by Big Pharma and the big insurance corporations they demonize?

            Obviously, your motivations for policy are different, so I was not speaking to you. However, boasting of one’s success can undermine his or her position on some regulations in much the same way as wealthy executives getting bonuses begging Congress for bailouts.

          • taylerdog23

            with your slavery allusion above. But I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and not take it personally. :)

            Nonetheless, you make some great points, and you gave a great response. Thx, dude/dudette. I’m gonna chew on some of what you said and will reply.

            You seem to be much more reasonable than most folks, for sure.

            Ultimately, I think you and I will agree on much more than we disagree on.

            Hope you have a great weekend, brother!

      • YnotNOW

        because you will only push more jobs overseas. The solution is to make OUR country business-friendly, and therefore we can compete in a free market for jobs, investment, etc.

        • aesthete
        • Menlo

          You cannot “compete” with slave labor. There are some things “the market” should not get to decide. A purely “free market” is a theoretical concept only and cannot exist in practice.

          • cordpt

            In fact, slave labour is extremely uncompetitive from an economic standpoint. If that wasn’t the case, Soviet Union would have won the Cold Ward. In fact, it wouldn’t, there wouldn’t be any Cold Ward to be won – the Nazi Germany would have won World War II.

          • Menlo

            Americans were not legally able to “outsource” labor to those countries. Such competition was pretty much banned. Just as importantly, you are dealing with different countries at different times.

          • gpclaw

            Not all of the jobs being created in China are jobs being taken away from Americans. Many jobs being created in China, are because of the growing China market, and companies desire to sell products to them. We see this in reverse every time companies like Toyota, Hyundai, Subaru, BMW, and many other auto manufacturers open factories in the US. They want to sell us cars, and their product is priced more competitively by building them in the states, rather than building them in Japan, and shipping them half way around the world. These are not jobs that were taken from Japanese workers, and given to US workers. The increase in sales required new workers, in addition to the workers already employed in Japan, meaning these are new jobs, not outsourced jobs.

            Outsourcing can save jobs, not destroy them.. Again using my example with Japan, Toyota makes many of their individual car components in Japan, and ships them to their factories in the US. Toyota enjoys greater sales numbers in the US, because of the savings of building the cars in this country. The increased sales means greater demand for the components built in Japan, meaning more jobs.

          • Menlo

            My point is that Americans are being allowed to profit off of the exploitation, maltreatment, and abuse of human rights of other people.

            My position has little to do with a loss of jobs in this country.

          • gpclaw

            We can’t judge conditions in China, by our cultural standards. Yes, working conditions in China would be unacceptable to workers in the States, but that is irrelevant.

            What you see as exploitation of Chinese workers, I see as economic opportunity for those same workers. It is undeniable that those working in Chinese factories, are better off than they would be if these jobs never existed. If the reverse of this were true, why would they accept the jobs in the first place?

            I don’t mean to put words in your mouth, but your comments suggest that we should implement some policy to persuade the Chinese government to improve working conditions. Yes, this may improve conditions for some workers, but it would also lead to worse conditions, and an increase in poverty, for others, due to the reduction in demand for labor. There is no free lunch.

            Working conditions in China will only improve if Chinese workers demand it. This is a matter that can only be internally, with in the Chinese society. As a matter of fact, this is already taking place. Over the past year, work stoppages have occurred, as workers have demanded higher wages. Some employers have met the demands of workers, resulting in more work stoppages in other factories. The problem is working its self out, but would have been impossible if the demand for Chinese labor were not as high as it is today.

          • Menlo

            It IS for us to set limits on the ways Americans are allowed to profit in this country. Limits should be set on the conditions under which products sold here are made. Consumer safety regulations, fraud, lack of information, and deception are other issues that the market should not decide. They should not be able to worm their way out of protecting both employees and the public to make more money for themselves.

            I don’t believe the Chinese would be better off any one way than another, but I really don’t care. However, I’m sure many of them did not freely “accept” their jobs in the first place.

            Nothing is going to persuade the Chinese government to change anything. That’s why there needs to be an embargo. Americans should not be allowed to financially support it, and there should be no attempt to be respectful to a regime that is unarguably far worse than Iran or any of those Middle Eastern dictatorships.

          • gpclaw

            Please tell me how putting thousands out of work, somehow improves the economic and political conditions of the Chinese workers?

            Working conditions are no worse in China, than they are in the rest of the developing world. They are no worse than working conditions in the US, during the industrial revolution. It’s only as countries become wealthy, that they can afford the luxury of prioritizing working conditions. Their is a growing labor movement in China, and slowly but surely, they are seeing results

            Your wrong to assume that the regime in China has not made concessions to the demands of workers. Wages have increased, and were recently pegged to the cost of living. Also, as China has become wealthier, and moving away from being a purely export based economy, new industries are opening up, beyond blue collar factory work.

            Capitalism works.

          • Menlo

            I never claimed conditions would improve in China. What I’m arguing is that it’s no better one way than another. The only ones begging to differ are the top government officials and the insignificant percentage who have grown affluent by Chinese standards. Their wealth and growth (among an elite few that will never grow to a significant part of the population) has not been achieved through honest or ethical means, and Americans should not validate it.

            Apparently though you are quick to believe the spin put out by the Chinese government.

            I’d say the same of the Industrial Revolution. It should not have happened as it did and was an unfortunate part of the nation’s history much like slavery and segregation. At least that problem was not compounded by a murderous and suppressive government regime worse than present-day Iran and a centuries-old unchanging (and unchangeable) culture that had no integrity and sought to engage in deception and fraud with dangerous and deadly results for the public.

  • gunslingr45

    spanked him.