Anyone else get the sense.....

[leatherneck]

that business leaders aren't real fond of President Obama? In my line of work, I deal with a fair number of small and middle size business executives and a few large business executives. While not unanimous, most of them feel that President Obama's administration is not business friendly at all.

 

I wonder if the reluctance of businesses to hire employees isn't due in part due to their concern about his administration as it is as much about the uncertain economy. I wonder if a Republican is elected that is pro-business that the business leaders feel much more comfortable with, businesses will start hiring. I sense that is the case from what I hear from the people I speak with.

 

So much of the economy and market is psychological. As they say, the market hates uncertainty. If business leaders feel confident in the leadership of the country and that such leadership with be pro-business, they are willing to stick their necks about more and make hires. More hires means more people with spending money. More spending money means more consumption. More consumption creates great demand for products.

 

Optimism of the business executives will go a long way to straightening out this economy. Is it all that is necessary? No. But it would help out a lot.

[Clyde]

What seems to be their fear that is keeping them from hiring?

 

I agree that optimism will help. I'm not sure a R in the White House changes that SIMPLY because of Congress and their current status. We've entered the phase of "let's do what is best for the party first." I'm not sure what will have to happen to get that changed.

[Bert]

What seems to be their fear that is keeping them from hiring?

 

My guess would be the fear of additional regulation, taxes or similar legislation which would eat away at the possible rewards of taking a risk and expanding which generally leads to more hiring and therefore such legislation would lessen the incentive to take such a risk.

[Clyde]

My guess would be the fear of additional regulation, taxes or similar legislation which would eat away at the possible rewards of taking a risk and expanding which generally leads to more hiring and therefore such legislation would lessen the incentive to take such a risk.

 

Have those been proposed or discussed? In other words, is there a rational reason for the concern?

[doomer]

Businessmen/women will act in their own and/or the best interest of their company. Who is President directly does not matter. What does matter is level of certainty upon which long-term decisions can be made. Right now, investors, businesspeople and most of us feel very uncertain about the economy. Many companies, bitten hard in the Great Depression of 2009 have installed internal controls to assure that their cost structures are more flexible to allow for breakeven profitability at lower sales volumes than are currently being experienced. This is happening accross the economy and across the world and is a major constraining factor for economic and job growth.

 

To sustain the recent growth, the best opportunity is to deal with those factors that are creating the uncertainty....instability in the financial industry, uncertainty over aggressive government controls, the deficit, etc.

[Randy Parker]

Have those been proposed or discussed? In other words, is there a rational reason for the concern?

 

I was under the impression that the Congressional left was wanting some form of tax increases during the debt ceiling debacle, particularly for the oft-mentioned "over $250,000" crowd, which I would think encompasses some small businesses. I could be wrong, but I feel like they were disappointed because increased revenues were off the table. While that may not directly relate to the President, I could see the concern if that is the case.

[Clyde]

I was under the impression that the Congressional left was wanting some form of tax increases during the debt ceiling debacle, particularly for the oft-mentioned "over $250,000" crowd, which I would think encompasses some small businesses. I could be wrong, but I feel like they were disappointed because increased revenues were off the table. While that may not directly relate to the President, I could see the concern if that is the case.

 

The $250k tax discussion has been going on since the 2008 campaign season. The economy has been struggling for longer than that.

 

If I'm a business owner and I think I can grow my business by adding personnel I'd only do so if I thought the benefits gained were going to far outweigh the cost of hiring that personnel. Unless the owner thinks there is going to be a huge jump in his/her tax rate then I can't see why that fear would hold me back from growing my business. Unless the govt goes to taxing 100% of income then there is still going to be a gain for the owner if his/her hunch is correct.

 

In addition, I'd challenge that owner on his/her understanding of how the process works. As we've seen the POTUS doesn't always get what he wants and it's getting worse.

[Clyde]

I think LN is correct in what he is sensing. I'm just not sure if it's 100% rational.

[leatherneck]

I think LN is correct in what he is sensing. I'm just not sure if it's 100% rational.

The market and confidence in the economy if often times completely irrational. Fear and concern become a self-fulfilling prophesy. But so does certainty and confidence. Which is exactly the point I am making: if the business leaders believe that the next President is pro business and can lead well enough to get the necessary number of people in Congress to support his agenda, it will go a long, long way to restoring the economy. If you believe it, you can achieve it.

[Clyde]

The market and confidence in the economy if often times completely irrational. Fear and concern become a self-fulfilling prophesy. But so does certainty and confidence. Which is exactly the point I am making: if the business leaders believe that the next President is pro business and can lead well enough to get the necessary number of people in Congress to support his agenda, it will go a long, long way to restoring the economy. If you believe it, you can achieve it.

 

A bit simplified for me but your argument has merit. However, in order to believe that you also have to believe Congress will change.

 

Any thought on what the pertinent issues are to them? Or is it just a general malaise?

Edited August 17, 2011 by Clyde

[Clyde]

For the record, the "simplified" comment was not aimed at the thinking of LN. It was simply stating that the concept is at a very high level and it doesn't mention the other more detailed aspects that go with it. I don't want anyone to think I was questioning the mental acuity of my friend of the Fort.

[leatherneck]

A bit simplified for me but your argument has merit. However, in order to believe that you also have to believe Congress will change.

 

Any thought on what the pertinent issues are to them? Or is it just a general malaise?

 

No offense taken to the simplified comment. I do believe that enough of the Congress can change. Not all; but enough.

 

I know I've probably harped on this point, but President Obama lost the ability to lead anything but at best a small number of Republicans when he crammed Obamacare down the throats of the Republicans. When he did so, he lost the ability to change the way Republicans feel about attacking the deficit. Call it childish; call it stupid of the Republicans, but the political reality of it is that President Obama made a HUGE tactical mistake with Obamacare and has severely hindered his ability to get the support of any thing but the most liberal Republicans. Hence I believe if a Republican with pro business appeal can get elected and he or she doesn't make the same mistake of alienating the moderate Democrats in Congress, that Republican President can change Congress or at least enough members of Congress to take the steps need to restore the confidence of the American business leaders.

 

Here's a pretty good column from the WSJ on how the Republicans were treated: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704117304575138071192342664.html

[Clyde]

No offense taken to the simplified comment. I do believe that enough of the Congress can change. Not all; but enough.

 

I know I've probably harped on this point, but President Obama lost the ability to lead anything but at best a small number of Republicans when he crammed Obamacare down the throats of the Republicans. When he did so, he lost the ability to change the way Republicans feel about attacking the deficit. Call it childish; call it stupid of the Republicans, but the political reality of it is that President Obama made a HUGE tactical mistake with Obamacare and has severely hindered his ability to get the support of any thing but the most liberal Republicans. Hence I believe if a Republican with pro business appeal can get elected and he or she doesn't make the same mistake of alienating the moderate Democrats in Congress, that Republican President can change Congress or at least enough members of Congress to take the steps need to restore the confidence of the American business leaders.

 

Here's a pretty good column from the WSJ on how the Republicans were treated: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704117304575138071192342664.html

 

I agree.

 

Poor tactic. Should have started off with something in regards to jobs.

 

Poor of the opposition to stonewall everything and put politics in front of what's best for the country. I look for that to happen should a R become POTUS as well.

[leatherneck]

I agree.

 

Poor tactic. Should have started off with something in regards to jobs.

 

Poor of the opposition to stonewall everything and put politics in front of what's best for the country. I look for that to happen should a R become POTUS as well.

 

Agree with the first two points; not sure I'm ready to agree on the third point. If an R gets elected and quickly crams down a piece of legislation that all Dems are against but can't stop, then I agree with you. However, if an R gets elected and takes a more moderate approach and doesn't try to cram down very conservative legislation, I think it's possible he/she could gain the support of moderate Dems. I really hope we get the opportunity to see if I'm right.:thumb:

[mcpapa]

As a rule, it's been my experience that C of C types aren't often happy with Democratis presidents. They don't endorse them and they don't like them.