Intel CEO: Things Need to Change in the U.S.

[hiruu]

But didn't Bush provide tax cuts to them...and it we ended up with the ENTIRE global economy nearly collapsing? Is Otellini telling us that a majority of his $1 bln more cost is TAXES and REGULATIONS...show me the numbers, or I'm calling a bullshit flag. The driving cost is LABOR LABOR LABOR...so it's just nonsense to try and say that it's otherwise without data.

 

[Guest]

I wonder what Noam Chomsky would say about this. And what is a problem to have taxes being use for school or social services.
It's seems anyway that there people here selling the free entreprise system with to much appetite.

 

[jsc]

liquidchild at 08/25/2010 10:49 PM wrote:
"... wall street is almost all rightwing...HMMM IF it looks like a duck, smells like a...."
Yeah, that's why, during the last election cycle, they mostly supported liberal Dem candidates.

 

[elbert]

Agreed so the US needs to work more on protecting its market from outsourcing. Tariffs need to make up for the 1 billion so company's will not outsource. IE to sale goods on the us market there should be no advantage if the products is made out of the country.

Note that most rich fat cat politicians have investments in these outsourced company's so don't look for this change.

 

[elbert]

Tweaking the tariffs so the government can collect more tax off outsourced good. The government would have more room to lower taxes on business producing goods in country. We are losing labor jobs and our market is suffering from this lose.

 

[theubersmurf]

So vague about the cause, so bitter about having been investigated...Poor Paul? Will he make enough for that fifth mansion? Only time will tell I suppose.

 

[wawa sxm]

[citation][nom]ordcestus[/nom]Please do your research instead of just pulling out talking points. If corporations have more money they use it with new jobs or other investments. Those jobs are most often middle class jobs and without lowering those taxes then those jobs couldn't have been made or worse they might have been lost. The economy boomed during much of bush's years and the collapse was because of irresponsible mortgages mostly not greed.[/citation]

Where have you seen corporations make more jobs because they get more money?? thats not reality, reality is the small business owners thats creating most jobs...bush tax cuts wasnt sustainable, its great and all but like most republicans they dt understand if you cut a revenue something has to change elsewhere.....and you pay a lot of taxes because the employees are protected...granted if they are that high well it probably needs an overall as in europe employees have much more garanteed benefits then in the states....thats why oboma gotta push a green bill, companies will suffer but its those that their future was questionable....green innovation and leadership has to come from the states or get use to china beeing top dog

 

[tommysch]

[citation][nom]TommySch[/nom]SOx SUCKS![/citation]

Does any of the morons who thumbed me down have any idea what SOx is?

 

[Enkidu98]

http://www.businessinsider.com/us-wealth-inequality-2010-7

More to look at.

I totally support Business, but I believe the blind support provided the 'Corporation' is misguided.

Corporations are NOT citizens. They are constructions with very few legal restrictions and one goal. Profit. Profit as the primary goal means do things that are damaging to the extent you can get away with them, as long as there is profit. People will say, "But their profit goes to shareholders'... No, not really. Look at the charts posted in the link above. The percentage of people actually having shares of significant worth is very small. Most of the shares are held by other corporations, who have lobbied congress to change the rules about trading stocks so that now the vast majority of all trades are done not by people, but algorithms on computers. WORSE we have given them the LEGAL RIGHT to process their own trades before human trades. So that they can actually see a trend, and then get in BEFORE the trend, so that they can profit. Sure its fractions of a cent, but that is fractions of a cent they essentially steal because they cut in line and only made the decision to cut in line because YOU got in line to begin with.

Add to this our ample evidence that the profit motive overrules everything. Just look at Google. 'Do Not Be Evil'? And yet each new press release from Google appears to be eroding this. Do you think that as soon as Sergei Brin is no longer involved Google will continue to even pay lip service to not being evil? Do you think for one moment if Carly Fiorina was made CEO of Google that no more evil would be done? Or would they use their vast collected data of your access to a 'free' internet and make a profit selling YOUR information they have no real right to and doing it without your informed consent?

Corporations aren't citizens, they aren't people, they deserve NO rights like 'freedom of speech' etc. Because UNLIKE citizens, they can not be held accountable for their evil acts. Sure, they can be 'fined' but nothing is ever done that can be done to a human. A human violates another humans civil rights, that human can be locked up in jail. A Corporation does it and they can go on with business as usual, pay a fine, and then pay additional money to have congress reduce that fine AND the chance to get fined again in the future for similar acts.

Corporations act AGAINST the best interests of the nations that spawned them. Do you think a Google would have appeared from Soviet Russia/Deconstructed Soviet Bloc States? Would most of the major US companies really have been able to grow to the level they have in environments outside of the US? To some extents they could have, but their unrestrained access to what was an educated populace with a superb infrastructure system and a set of laws that protected intellectual property rights etc is an environment that benefits them unlike most every other nation on the planet.

And then, once they get to a certain size (multi-national) they start behaving contrary to the best interests of the 'mother' that spawned them. Shipping jobs elsewhere, shipping the technology and know-how elsewhere as well. Shipping it to places WITHOUT any respect for their people, their rights, or your rights. The standard arrangement with the Chinese is such that anything you put in china, they will essentially steal and nationalise in a short time because you give them complete and unfettered access to all your corporate advantages. They then duplicate this and give the knowledge to a state run company or just take over yours.

This is neither good for America nor the corporation itself but short term profit goals and quarterlies outweigh logic and common sense.

And the worlds wealth further concentrates amongst a very small few.

 

[TEAMSWITCHER]

I am so very tired of these Super Wealthy companies complaining about how costly it is to do business in the US. What, billions of dollars in profit not enough for you? Or is it the fact that Americans want to keep your cancer causing semiconductor making materials out of our streams, rivers, and lakes? How many people does a modern FAB employ? Maybe 10? Running at maximum capacity. They are almost complete automated production facilities - we're not talking about a lot of jobs.

Americans politicians need to stand up to these corporate morons. Paul, go ahead and move your damn company out of the US, move all your workers too. You can do live in the Middle East with all the other tyrants, or you can move to China where freedom is squashed for any chance to make a dollar.

Well just tax your crappy CPU/GPU imports to make them cost you the same anyways. If the US is so bad for business then get the Hell out!!

 

[pcfxer]

Good for him, the same goes for Canada.

 

[joebob2000]

[citation][nom]TommySch[/nom]Does any of the morons who thumbed me down have any idea what SOx is?[/citation]

Should have said Sarbox. Everyone knows/cares what that is

The bottom line here is that the cost and standard of living in the US is higher than any other country, therefore anything done here will be more expensive. You can shrink the government (something neither political party is interested in) but that still is only a fraction of the cost associated with doing business in the US.

Otellini is basically saying externality (look it up) is irrelevant and a "good government" should make it possible to run a factory in the US as cheaply as Mexico, Malaysia, Thailand, China, etc. This is simply not possible. Who here is a US resident and OK with sickening air quality, undrinkable water, and destroyed landscape? Guess what, the residents of those countries (or at least their goverment) is OK with it, and that's why it costs less.

But don't let honesty get in the way of a good Obama-bashing session. Why not just pull out all the stops and call him a socialist-marxist-fascist-communist-manchild-immigrant-muslim like the rest of the right-wing noise machine?

 

[tolham]

everyone agrees taxes need to be cut, but cutting taxes means cutting spending and where to cut spending is where everyone disagrees. the military is costing us $700+ billion a year, but when you mention making a cut back in the military, the right-wing throws their arms up and starts spewing hate speech. when you mention cutting back on social programs, the dems get upset that you want to stop giving free money to their voters. we have to dramatically cut back the military and the social programs and we need legal safeguards against deficit spending. until both sides admit that they're overspending and agree to cut waaaaaay back, we the people are stuck with an out of control govt.

 

[tolham]

in addition to the above, we have to deflate the US dollar. china has a huge labor force and they're much cheaper than US labor. the fact that the dollar is much stronger than the yuan(sic) makes it very hard for us to compete with them. even without the housing bubble, we still would have entered a recession due to stiff competition from china.

 

[Enkidu98]

Per this test... (http://www.newsweek.com/photo/2010/08/24/dumb-things-americans-believe.html) if you answer yes to any of the following questions, you likely should not even be in this discussion and you should go back to drooling on your blocks and crapping your diapers and let the big-people talk:

Do you think Barack Hussein Obama is a Muslim?
Do you believe in the Theory of Evolution? (Corollary, who is widely acknowledged as its originator?)
Do you believe warlocks/sorcerers exist?
Do you believe in ESP?
Do you believe in Ghosts?
Do you believe in Astrology?
Do you believe the PPACA (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) Created 'Death Panels'?
Do you believe Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11 attacks on the US?
Do you believe George Bush was involved in the 9/11 attacks?
Do you believe Saddam had amassed WMD's?
Do you believe the Sun revolves around the Earth?
Is Judaism older than Islam or Christianity?
Can you find Iraq on a map?
Can you find Afghanistan on a map?
Do you know which continent the Amazon river is on?
Was the First Amendment intended to apply to even radical or extremist fringe groups?
Are teachers allowed to lead prayers in school?

Non yes|no questions:
How many of the seven dwarves can you name?
How many Supreme Court Justices?
How many of the '3 Stooges' can you name?
How many branches of government do we have in the US, and can you name them?

Again, if you answered yes to any of the first set of questions, consider yourselves ineligible to discuss pretty much anything regarding the rest of us.

 

[Enkidu98]

Dammit - I fail my own test.

Was the First Amendment intended to apply to even radical or extremist fringe groups?

That was intended to be NOT intended to apply.....

 

[kjm15213]

[citation][nom]ordcestus[/nom]Please do your research instead of just pulling out talking points. If corporations have more money they use it with new jobs or other investments. Those jobs are most often middle class jobs and without lowering those taxes then those jobs couldn't have been made or worse they might have been lost. The economy boomed during much of bush's years and the collapse was because of irresponsible mortgages mostly not greed.[/citation]

And what about hiring people when there is no demand and a drive by individuals to reduce debt in the US rather than consume makes good business sense? Why would I hire more people to make a product that no one wants at rates I can already produce and the probable future shows less consumption? There is a push towards more M&A activity and Intel recently bought a company they think will help with their innovation. Most probably, this will actually reduce jobs because of reduction in overlap during integration.

If you look at the sectors of unemployment within the US it is mainly manufacturing and construction. If you did your research you would see that the big loses that came from the Bush recession was a reduction in manufacturing jobs due to efficiency and technology. To say that it is only tax related as to why these jobs are not being produced in the US is a talking point. There is not the same level of labor required to do these jobs as there had been in the past; look at auto manufacturing as an example.

As for corporations spending, they have nearly $2 trillion ( http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Earnings-Solid-So-Why-Wont-cnbc-1802514482.html?x=0&.v=1 ), but they are not stupid so they save it. They are also increasing their funds by issuing bonds at record low interest rates. You don't make money on producing products that people won't buy and you don't hire labor to make these products that no one will buy.

As for Otellini, does it sounds anything similar to this with Israel?

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/business/netanyahu-to-intel-want-money-promise-to-stay-in-israel-1.262601

Realistically companies are going to move facilities to the areas where they know their manufacturing processes will be secure and do it at the lowest cost to them. Large corporations are very good at avoiding taxes, but labor cost and health care cost will lower the desire to hire currently.

 

[eccentric909]

[citation][nom]Enkidu98[/nom]Per this test... (http://www.newsweek.com/photo/2010/08/24/dumb-things-americans-believe.html) if you answer yes to any of the following questions, you likely should not even be in this discussion and you should go back to drooling on your blocks and crapping your diapers and let the big-people talk:

Do you believe in the Theory of Evolution? (Corollary, who is widely acknowledged as its originator?)[/citation]

Why wouldn't someone answer "yes" to that? In fact, from the article, it leads you to believe you should be saying yes, since only 39% of americans believe in evolution and 55% know that it is Darwin's theory.

To mark the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth, Gallup thought it might be a good idea to poll Americans on their beliefs of the British naturalist's theory. But the results must have had Darwin spinning in his grave, since only 39 percent of Americans believed in the theory. The good news: only a quarter said they didn't believe it; the remaining portion either didn't have an opinion or didn't answer. (Also, only 55 percent correctly linked Darwin's name with the theory.) However, it appears that views may, um, evolve: younger people believe in evolution at far higher rates than older ones.

Perhaps that one should have been cut out of your list?

 

[blahblah28]

He can say whatever he wants to, at the end of the day its still Intel's choice to ship their business overseas. Intel has enough money to build whatever they want, where ever they want to, they just make a s**t ton more money if they build a factory in China, or India, because they know that the Chinese and the Indians will work for almost nothing and a bowl of rice. If they built a factory in the states, besides the taxes, theyre also going to have to pay someone minimum wage, and provide health insurance. If every major Asian auto maker can afford to put up at least one factory in the states, why can't Intel choose to build something stateside as well? I'm sure that they'll get the reach around from the government just like all the other major corporations in this country do.

 

[figgus]

Everyone talking as if tariffs will fix the issue is an idiot. The government can't apply tariffs on the global market, only in the US... and the global market is where corporations are competing now.

It's not that hard to figure out, people. Ortellini is right.

 

[mj4358]

So how low should the taxes be? If he is comparing the U.S. to some developing country then, yes we will lose for the simple fact that the cost of living in America costmuch more. It's tiring to hear that we should cut taxes and then complain about the nations debt.
I dont think there is a company out out there that really wants to pay higher taxes...but when the gov does give a tax break...where did that money go? When Bush cut taxes, we still lost jobs. Meanwhile output from china stayed the same. The taxe cut went in to the investment market, not into jobs.
At what point do taxes become low enough that companies will invest in America? Should companies pay no taxes and everyone else take up the slack? And if we did lower taxes would the really trnslate into jobs?

 

[jwl3]

100% correct. Obama and these do nothing democrats never saw a tax they didn't like. The solution to everything is to tax, never to create actual wealth from innovations - like Intel is trying to do. Go too far and corporations have the ability to shift ALL their production to other countries. Unlike individuals who have family, friends, and other social attachments, corporations will be more than happy to move to countries with more welcoming tax policies.

 

[jwl3]

mj4358,

dullard, even if the corporations paid ZERO tax, the gov't would still get paid. The shareholders who made money on the stock would pay a dividend, capital gains tax. The employees of Intel would pay taxes on their income. The suppliers to Intel would pay taxes on their profit. Basically, taxes are not a ONE OFF thing. At every stage of every product (from sand to processor to computer), each company that transforms a product pays taxes. Taxes are the friction that cause an economy to slow down or seize up. They are necessary to pay for things that the general public (individuals + corporations) will not pay for (national security, policing, etc.), but beyond that, they are a huge drag on the economy. Get it?

 

[mj4358]

I [citation][nom]JWL3[/nom]mj4358,dullard, even if the corporations paid ZERO tax, the gov't would still get paid. The shareholders who made money on the stock would pay a dividend, capital gains tax. The employees of Intel would pay taxes on their income. The suppliers to Intel would pay taxes on their profit. Basically, taxes are not a ONE OFF thing. At every stage of every product (from sand to processor to computer), each company that transforms a product pays taxes. Taxes are the friction that cause an economy to slow down or seize up. They are necessary to pay for things that the general public (individuals + corporations) will not pay for (national security, policing, etc.), but beyond that, they are a huge drag on the economy. Get it?[/citation]
Get it? Do you really think that explains anything? The question was not about what taxes do you for me or whether the Gov will get thier money. It was a question of how much Tax break does Intel think they should get?

 

[mj4358]

"[citation][nom]JWL3[/nom]100% correct. Obama and these do nothing democrats never saw a tax they didn't like. The solution to everything is to tax, never to create actual wealth from innovations - like Intel is trying to do. Go too far and corporations have the ability to shift ALL their production to other countries. Unlike individuals who have family, friends, and other social attachments, corporations will be more than happy to move to countries with more welcoming tax policies.[/citation]

Silicon Valley prosperd under the Clinton administration. Googgle, Sun, Dot coms, AMD and INTEL. Plenty of inovation, Taxes were higher then....Now when Bush implemented the Tax cut (during a war mind you)...we still lost Jobs. Major companies had already shifted manufacturing overseas. H-1B visa's were given out to Indian programmers because they would work for $45-50,000 compared to $75-85,000 a yr to an American worker. And this was vouched for by Bill Gates. Intel shifted CPU design to india but maintained manufacturing in the states (New Mexico). What i see is greed...plain and simple. The fact is American employees cost too much and they have gotten great engineers in other countries at 20-40% of the cost; all the while getting a tax cut at our exspense.