Former GE CEO Jack Welch made waves last week claiming—with zero evidence—that the Obama administration manipulated the unemployment report that showed joblessness dropping to 7.8 percent last month.
Now that’s kooky. But it’s not too surprising coming from Welch (whom I was writing this post about even before his conspiratorial tweet).
Take for example the latest Fortune column by him and his wife Suzy about “Why you shouldn’t hate business.” They lede with the bogus “You didn’t build that” meme and base the whole column on the straw man that Democrats and liberals (read: Obama) “hate business.”
Look, you can be critical of too big to fail Wall Street banks, Walmart, and the fossil fuel industry without hating business. You can oppose industrial concentration and question the outsized political power of corporate America without wanting a Politburo to central plan all production.
But why are there so many people who are critical of Big Business and suspicious of business interests?
One of the big reasons why Americans don’t trust corporate America like they used to is Jack Welch himself.
Some call the kind of cut-throat, winner-take-all capitalism that has taken hold over the last 35 years or so “Jack Welch capitalism.” The Economist, no lefty rag, for one, is one of them.
Welch wasn’t called “Neutron Jack” for nothing. He got that nickname firing tens of thousands of workers, often outsourcing the work overseas. Jack Welch capitalism discarded other stakeholders like workers and the community to focus almost exclusively on delivering short-term value to shareholders. He was the face of the downsized economy and the end of the social compact between businesses and their workers. He fought to keep GE from cleaning up the Hudson River after it dumped more than a million pounds of carcinogenic PCBs over thirty years ending in 1977, and because his company was responsible for 52 Superfund sites, challenged the law’s constitutionality.
Unfortunately for Welch’s legacy and for the rest of the country, while shareholder capitalism has made the wealthy wealthier, it has largely failed the economy as a whole.
It’s worth noting that the stock market, which Welch as much as anyone helped turn into end-all-be-all measure of corporate performance, is up 70 percent under Obama. In George W. Bush’s eight years, it fell 25 percent.
And as Barry Ritholtz points out regarding the BLS nonsense, “GE’s Jack Welch Knows About Cooking the Books,” from years of managing the company’s earnings to make sure they hit estimates.
Worst of all, perhaps, is that this stuff just isn’t smart. Take this on anti-business sentiment among the elites:
Finally, and perhaps most pernicious because of its outsize influence, is the hostility toward business that radiates from the intellectual elite — the opinion leaders in journalism, academia, and government. To them, business is rotten because it’s just so completely unfair. Otherwise, how do you explain the success of the party animal who lived down the hall in college?
You know what we mean. You have a group of people who once took their studies very seriously and protested for social justice in their free time. After graduation, they took jobs where they felt they could fight the good fight. That was all well and good until 10 or 15 years out, when they started hearing stories about the obnoxious loudmouths who majored in playing the angles and minored in beer pong. These “lightweights” (in their view) had struck it rich on Wall Street. And not by making the world a better place. No — simply by showing up and chumming around.
This would be grade-D stuff on Fox Nation, much less in Fortune magazine.
Despite all this, Welch was and still is a business press hero. It’s long past time to rethink that one.

Call it "winner-take-all capitalism" if you want, but don't pretend that big businesses are evil merely on account of their being big. Companies such as GE benefit from protective federal regulations and other govt-granted privileges; such firms would fail regularly if fully exposed to free-market competition. The problem is that the govt has the power to grant said privileges in the first place. In free-market capitalism, there are only voluntary exchanges wherein both parties win; fraud and contract violations are punished, not rewarded. In corporatism and fascism, there are arbitrary and coercive exchanges wherein the govt-connected firms get their cakes and eat them too; fraud and waste are rewarded. The latter is what "has taken hold over the last 35 [sic] years or so." Btw, the real unemployment rate is probably closer to triple the "official" number. Feel free to avoid discussing that meaty matter, as you already take every other federal-govt declaration as The Gospel.
#1 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Mon 8 Oct 2012 at 08:50 AM
Who's the true believer, Dan? Sounds like somebody been drinking the libertarian "if we fail to look, nobody will cheat" cool-aid. Sorry, but the free market rewards corruption all the time. If only you could dig up John D. Rockefeller and ask him (and he would tell the truth about his record for once). Apparently, you couldn't read about Jack Welch cooking the books.
Or is your example of free markets taking over the world based on China? You know, the place were Wal-Mart loves to create full time jobs (very full time jobs are actually at Wal-Mart)? You know, China where a corrupt, dictatorial government is in league with corrupt business people to which it gives every government advantage? You know, the China that's sucking in all free marketeers like you with the illusion of short term profit until it owns you all? You know, the China that emulates you better than you'd like by selling you substandard - sometimes dangerous - wares and playing by anything but fair market principles? What is the free market doing about that? Wallowing in it! After all, all the pigs like a good mudhole. But I guess you don't like that term fair market, since by free market you apparently mean free to lie, cheat, and steal in a way that would make any politician blush.
I don't want to blow away your fragile world view, Dan, but the truth is that once a business becomes a corporation it has accrued onto itself so much power that it's pretty immune to free market blowback against any unethical and often illegal practices. By then, it doesn't really need government support. That's just icing on the cake. Just more pennies for Scrooge. What do you think corporations do with those tax breaks that the right wing constantly is bribed to give them? They use it to put little guys like you, Dan, out of business. That's when guys like you suddenly start complaining about big business, rather than saying "Sie La Guerre" about Laissez Faire.
It's like the great political comedian Mort Sahl put it 50 years ago, "You should ask your grandparents about capitalism. It was a pretty good system. Now we have monopoly and restraint of trade." P.S. he didn't mean government restraint of trade. Only nowadays it would have to be your great grandparents. Soon no one will remember Adam Smiths vision at all.
What do you thinkthe free market business owner wants? To join the world of "Corporatism". And what do you think Corporatism wants? To eliminate all competition. In order to avoid being punished by the free market. A little flaw in in the logical practicing of his "competitive" system that Adam Smith didn't anticipate. That's the litlle "free marketeers" vision, too. Because even though capitalism is the best economic systerm we know, Adam Smith's vision as perverted by today's capitalists - even the smallest ones - is that the only logical result is to strive for the top. Unfortunately, it doesn't take a genius to see that one of the best ways to get there and stay there is to crush the opposition by hook or by crook. After all, the Jack Welch's of the world will tell you that you can't get anywhere without taking risks, and free market blowback only occurs to cheaters who get caught. And it doesn't occur to free marketeers who have crushed the opposition, since the free market has nowhere else to turn. Perhaps you should preaching to your own choir.
BTW, the real unemployment numbers were 3 times hire under Bush, too, since he helped cause them. Actually people dropping off the unemployment roles began in the phony boom of Ronnie the Raygun, as did steadily decreasing wages. Except for those of con men like Jack Welch. Who says it doesn't pay to cheat? That's the real "meritcoracy".
#2 Posted by mediaman13, CJR on Mon 8 Oct 2012 at 10:20 AM
Keep tweeting, Jack. You're a lesson to us all.
Not the lesson you think, but a lesson nonetheless.
#3 Posted by Harry Eagar, CJR on Mon 8 Oct 2012 at 04:00 PM
No. It's the govt-subsidized or govt-regulated actor, with his perverse incentives or false sense of security, who'll "fail to look," resulting in losses suffered by many unwitting, unwilling people, whereas the individual whose private capital is on line is vigilant lest a loss is suffered unto himself and whoever is voluntarily invested.
Here you're employing the perfection fallacy, as if there is a perfect market where nobody cheats or breaches contract and gets away with it. Thing is, you don't dare try to disprove that govt's policing failures dwarf those of the market. But thanks for arguing my point: for every scenario in which you damn "capitalism," there is excessive govt regulation or govt intervention in general.
Monopoly is not a free-market phenomenon, but rather a result of govt-granted privilege, regulations, and other govt-enforced barriers to competition. I, too, used to think Rockefeller was always a "robber baron," until I bothered to read the scholarly history. Ironically, the oil industry became anti-competitive as a result of the "antitrust" suits (and ensuing regulations) that were initiated by Rockefeller's "rent-seeking" competitors soon after the turn of the 20th.
#4 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Mon 8 Oct 2012 at 04:09 PM
I have to say, I was set ahead of the curve on the erosion of ceo culture and the elevation of greed over sustainable enterprise by this book:
http://www.amazon.com/At-Any-Cost-General-Electric/dp/0375705678/ref=sr_1_13?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1349728345&sr=1-13
which I stumbled upon by chance. A worthier read on Welch and the American way post 1980 than 90% of the sycophantic dreck written about the guy. GE's story under Welch is really America's story under finance, a story in which American business stopped being about making things and more about making paper and pushing debt.
Which is why GE of today is more about GE capital than it is about GE lightbulbs. Ideas don't make money like debt - customers are fickle, but borrowers you can own for their lifetime.
It's a sick sort of innovation.
#5 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 8 Oct 2012 at 04:46 PM
More on Jacky and GE by Thomas O'Boyle here:
http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/mm2001/01july-august/julyaug01interviewoboyle.html
Good reasearch in the original piece by the by, Mr. Chittum.
#6 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 8 Oct 2012 at 04:51 PM
Dan, Dan, Dan, you've never learned that "reading is fundamental". I refuted your points, didn't prove one of them. More hilariously, you didn't prove one of your points in either post. Your only example is that you believe that corporations like G.E. would go out of business without the government. That's a knee slapper! Let's try and unravel your self delusional web, shall we?
"whereas the individual whose private capital is on line is vigilant lest a loss is suffered unto himself and whoever is voluntarily invested." Dan, my dear ostrich, you head is so far in the sand that you actually believe I couldn't cause the server to crash with examples of private capitalists that weren't diligent. Dan, or should I say Linus, it's such a simple concept that I despair that you can't see it through the screen of your safety blanket. Everybody in the world, except that those daily drink the Scrooge Kool-Aid - I assume this happens when they're counting their coins - realizes that the "Great Recession" was caused by "diligent private capitalists" buying phony paper, backed by phony "insurance" paper, without government help. If government was so undiligent, we'd be living in post-apocalyptic caves now. The very state of the world we live in today refutes you Dan.
If that doesn't you convince you Dan, here's one more of thousands of examples: Jamie Dimon. Can you loan me 2 billion, Dan? Oh, I forgot, you believe that that's because they're government protected, though there's no evidence that applied in this case. It was straight malfeasance, unchecked by private "dilligence" and unprotected by goverment. Or perhaps you care to explain all those unincentified private investors - many "dilligent" small, private capitalists who "diligently" put their funds in the hands of Bernie Madoff and are now screaming because there wasn't effective government protection - something they never thought about when they blithely handed it over. After all, to directly quote, he was one of "their kind".
The original column is about the blowback against big business journalism which deifies the rich, even slobbering uncritically over every word of controversial figures like Jack Welch. It isn't about government intervention in business at all, but those like you hate to pay taxes SO much, feel compelled to shoehorn into every discussion. How's that Kool-Aid taste anyway, Dan? Bitter? Or is your story that you tried to start a small business a time or two and were crushed by bigger "dilligent" capitalists. Must be the government's fault.
I never damned capitalism, Dan - there's that pesky reading thing again. As I said, corporations acrue the power to crush primarily without the assistance of government, that's just the icing on cake. Maybe you'll read that this time, or go back and reread it from last time. It's just that you don't want to admit that that's as bad for capitalism as the scenario you paint. Probably worse. I agree, government shouldn't cover up for big business, it should protect the little guy. I also asked why you big government hating free enterprisists love to do business with the biggest government, unfreeist enterprisists of all, China. And answered my own question by saying it's to accept the short term bribe of profits while selling your soul to them in the long run. Actually America's soul. Hypocritical, maybe?
It's you, not I, that believe in the myth of perfection. You believe in the myth that, if the government would just go away, all would be free enterprise Nirvanna. That the free market where people "cheat and break contracts and get away it" can correct all ills. Your words, not mine, I only changed the plurality. Yet, you wouldn't hesitate to running screaming to the government if somebody broke one of your contracts.You wouldn' t wait for the free market to correct for it.
Dan, you're hatred of government is pathological. You've actually talked yourself into believing th
#7 Posted by mediaman13, CJR on Tue 9 Oct 2012 at 01:35 PM
Whoops, exceeded the word total. It's so easy when people give you so much grist for the mill.
Dan, you're hatred of government is pathological. You've actually talked yourself into believing that only the post facto actions of the government caused the damage of the "Robber Baron" period. Or perhaps those "social historians" you mentioned demonstrated the same "dilligence" in reading the historical evidence that you've shown in reading both Mr. Chitturn's column and my original post. The damage of the robber barons included putting hundreds of small business "competitors" out of business through methods monopolistic and often illegal even in those lax times, causing economic turmoil through stock manipulation and other types of phony paper (sound familiar?), and even retarding America's free market industrial growth by the elimination of those competitors and by causing the failure of several otherwise healthy railroads. All of these things occurred BEFORE the government took a hand, not after.
The Robber Baron period is the ultimate proof of what I said that monopoly needs no government assistance.On the contrary, it's the ultimate refutation of your unsubstantiated theory (unlike me, you only gave one even remotely concrete and actually ludicrous example in 2 posts) that it's only or even primarily caused by government assistance. Those who strive for monopoly will try gain it by "hook or by crook" and won't be deterred or impeded by a lack of government assitance, just as they weren't in the Robber Baron period.
Nobody on this page said big business was evil. That's one of your delusions. We only said it shouldn't be treated as saintly.
#8 Posted by mediaman13, CJR on Tue 9 Oct 2012 at 01:42 PM
Jack Welch is already receiving job offers...
http://mankabros.com/blogs/chairman/2012/10/09/manka-bros-would-like-to-offer-jack-welch-a-job/
#9 Posted by Jill, CJR on Tue 9 Oct 2012 at 09:05 PM
"First, the number of unemployed dropped by 456,000, the largest September one month decline in the history of BLS data dating back to 1948. In addition, the number of employed jumped by a stunning 873,000, the largest September one-month gain in the history of BLS data. How is this possible in an economy experiencing the weakest recovery since the Great Depression?"
"Rarely in September, do the number of employed increase. In fact, in the 64 Septembers since 1948, the number of employed has increased only six times. In four of those six instances, the increase in employed was less than a 100,000. But this September, the increase in the number of employed was a whopping 775,000, nearly five times greater than the previous high. "
The Most Fishy September Unemployment Rate in 64 Year History of BLS, Since 1948
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IV9NzX-Iebc
#10 Posted by Jack Jackson, CJR on Wed 10 Oct 2012 at 08:39 AM