Carl Icahn: Trump can stop this 'idiocy' with overregulation
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/09/carl-icahn-trump-can-stop-this-idiocy-with-overregulation.html
Donald Trump's special advisor on regulation, Carl Icahn , told CNBC that he believes the president-elect can stop what he considers to be foolishness in regulation in the United States.
Icahn, a frequent critic of some Obama administration rules, told CNBC's " Fast Money " on Monday that before Trump's victory, he thought "this country was going downhill fast," adding that he still thinks there are problems.
"I really backed Donald. Number one, I think he's smart and I think he's one of the few people that can really shake up the establishment and stop what I consider to be almost idiocy with this overregulation," Icahn said.
The billionaire investor said, however, that there is good regulation and that he supports regulation of Wall Street. But generally, regulations have "run amok," he said.
Icahn, a major fossil fuel investor, has frequently criticized Obama administration energy restrictions. He previously told CNBC that he supported Trump's choice of Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, who has battled the current president's EPA and expressed doubts about how much humans affect climate change. Icahn previously said the EPA was one of the worst-run agencies he had ever seen.
Icahn argued that by cutting back on regulations, businesses will no longer feel that "they are at war with the government." He said that change in sentiment will be a "great thing for our economy and it will create jobs because it will create investment."
— CNBC's Jacob Pramuk contributed to this report.
Tags
Who is online
70 visitors
We haven't seen this much optimism from the business community in a very long time.
Exactly what federal regulations are we talking about and who is being regulated? "Over regulation" is turing into a mindless word people are repeating.
Welcome back, AP.
"Over regulation" is turing into a mindless word people are repeating.
Yes, especially all those small business owners who haven't been able to get a loan in 6 years, not to mention the prospective homebuyers who can't get a mortgage. Of course, to purchase a new home, there needs to be new home construction. But there are myriad new laws relating to homebuilding.
If you're searching for something mindless, perhaps you should take a look at the economic growth over the last 8 years. Even from the depths of the recession, we can only muster 2% growth per year, and a large increase in low wage jobs. This anemic growth is mainly attributed to one particular thing.
All together now.
Over regulation.
Mindless, indeed.
''not to mention the prospective homebuyers who can't get a mortgage. ''
Jonathan this isn't correct. Is it more difficult than at the height of the insanity of no doc loans. Yes it is and it should be. If you have a job and decent credit there is no problem in getting a home loan.
Hey K,
I'm only speaking out of direct knowledge. I'm acquainted with a number of people who have been held up, and who remain held up in the approval process, despite having more than adequate financials and presenting a suitable downpayment.
As I am speaking out of direct knowledge...I had no problem getting a home loan for a second home. They are building home around my primary residence and the buyers are having no problem getting loans.
Perhaps in your area it's a problem but in the areas that I have property there is no problem at all getting a home loan.
Like with the term "fake news", "Over regulation" has mindlessly parroted without anyone giving specifies. What you mentioned is NOT a deterrent to small businesses, at least from the federal level. If you are referring to OSHA, EPA, Labor, you'll need to get a lot more specific. The image below is FYI.
It's regulations like this. Think of the fleet milage limits the government imposes on auto manufacturers.
Obama Administration Finalizes Historic 54.5 MPG Fuel Efficiency Standards
What does that have to do with "small businesses?" Nothing. It has everything to do with larger corporate businesses. I'm all for regulations that can save lives, protect the environment and shield the consumer from unscrupulous companies. Do you thing if these regulations are rescinded, those companies will pass those savings on to the consumer? Not a chance. They will only increase their profitability at the risk of their lives and well being. of US citizens.
I think it will help them to be more competitive in the global economy we live in. The auto companies can't make a profit building small cars in this country. Chryslers long term plan is to only build trucks and suvs in this country. Small businesses are often suppliers to large businesses.
So what? You are bringing up a union rant. This has nothing to do with Federal regulations.
The fleet milage increased with Obamas new regulations. It's the regulations that are forcing the companies to build small cars not demand. It is driving business out of the country. US auto makers cannot make profit building small cars here. Small businesses are often suppliers to these large businesses.
The industry has known for decades that domestic manufacturers struggle to make a profit on small cars in the U.S.
In recent years, automakers that include General Motors, Honda, Hyundai, Nissan, Mazda, Toyota and Volkswagen have announced plans to either expand existing plants or build new ones in Mexico. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles also has said it is considering an expansion of its production there.
The number of auto jobs in Mexico reached 675,000 last year, a 40% increase from 2008. U.S. auto jobs increased 15% over the same period to more than 900,000, according to the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor.
Be that as it may, I am confident that Trumps persuasive powers will induce other auto manufacturers to reinvest in manufacturing without changing the protections the American people enjoy.
Like with the term "fake news", "Over regulation" has mindlessly parroted without anyone giving specifies.
I believe that I gave you specifics, mentioning my personal experiences relating to business and personal acquaintances.
What you mentioned is NOT a deterrent to small businesses, at least from the federal level. If you are referring to OSHA, EPA, Labor, you'll need to get a lot more specific. The image below is FYI.
Naturally, I cannot argue with statistical data in and of itself. That said, a key contextual point that's missing here is the arc of regulation that America has experienced in the last 8 years. On day one, we had X number of regulation. After 8 years, we have Y number of regulations. Yes, there was a watershed event that gave rise to the need for an increased level of scrutiny and yes, regulation. But these regulations gave rise to more and more regulations, to the point where it had obvious impact on our ability to even touch a 3% rate of growth for any sustained time period. This, coming off a horrendous financial implosion, is unconscionable.
That was my point.
Two examples, subjective at that, does not make a case.
Without getting into any specifics, the rest of what you say sounds like your opinion. There is absolutely no way I would allow either party, carte blanche authority, to rescind such regulations without a hearing on how it will benefit the tax payer and consumer.
Without getting into any specifics, the rest of what you say sounds like your opinion.
But more readily obtainable than your illustrations.
There is absolutely no way I would allow either party, carte blanche authority, to rescind such regulations without a hearing on how it will benefit the tax payer and consumer.
On the other hand, would you have allowed the President to exercise the carte blanche authority that he did in signing a plethora of Executive Orders that created a significant number of regulations, with so many of them signed after November 8th of this year?
1. But more readily obtainable than your illustrations.
2. On the other hand, would you have allowed the President to exercise the carte blanche authority that he did in signing a plethora of Executive Orders that created a significant number of regulations, with so many of them signed after November 8th of this year?
1. Since you brought it up, can you obtain them? I would be interested.
2. I'm not an Obama fan. However, I have no objections to certain EO's that are in the best interest of the tax payer and consumer. Could you point out any of his EO's that are harmful to the US citizen?
I don't believe that we were discussing harm with regard to cumbersome quantities of regulation. We were discussing how it impedes the country's ability to move forward in a growth oriented manner.
When you can specify those regulations that encumber the well being and health of the American people, let me know. Dropping regs just to increase corporate profitability, is not in the best interest of American citizens.
''
Icahn, a major fossil fuel investor, has frequently criticized Obama administration energy restrictions.
Of course he does, is it that difficult to grasp the concept of ''over regulation'' coming from a major fossil fuel investor.
Here in New York, we are overregulated by the state laws and they keep making more, because that's what politicians do. I'd love to see a commission with the charge of removing rules that are outdated, that are no longer used by anyone because people don't generally travel by horseback or carriage, etc.
I agree with that Spike. Law that are outdated need to be removed.
I can agree with you on this. As a business owner, the state of Wisconsins' regulations are the pits. Following closely are county and other municipal urdinances which are money grabbing annoyances. Federal regs? For me, no problem.
United States Nfib Business Optimism Index 1975-2017 | Data | Chart
The NFIB Business Optimism Index in the United States increased to 105.8 in December of 2016 from 98.4 in the previous month and well above market expectations of 99.6. It is the highest figure since December of 2004 as business owners expect better business conditions in the next six months (a net of 50 percent compared to 38 percent in November) and higher sales (31 percent from 20 percent). NFIB Business Optimism Index in the United States averaged 97.81 Index Points from 1975 until 2016, reaching an all time high of 107.70 Index Points in July of 1983 and a record low of 80.10 Index Points in April of 1980.
United States Nfib Business Optimism Index Notes
This is an older article about Obama's ideas for the economy. It was bad then and the only difference is it has gotten worse. This article is from the highly left leaning site The Daily Beast but the facts are within the article itself. Some of the people who know economics are in this article. This must have been before the Daily Beast were told they were to only publish praise for Obama. This is well worth the read.
The Elite Turn Against Obama
Lloyd Grove
07.07.10 6:46 AM ET
You’d think the well-heeled and enlightened eggheads at the Aspen Ideas Festival—which is running all week in this fashionable resort town with heady panel discussions and earnest disquisitions involving all manner of deep thinkers and do-gooders—would be receptive to an intellectually ambitious president with big ideas of his own.
In a way, the folks attending this cerebral conclave pairing the Aspen Institute think tank with the Atlantic Monthly magazine might even be seen as President Obama’s natural base.
Apparently not so much.
“The real problem we have,” Mort Zuckerman said, “are some of the worst economic policies in place today that, in my judgment, go directly against the long-term interests of this country.”
Obama’s top economic adviser, Larry Summers , and his departing budget director, Peter Orszag , can expect heavy weather when they land in Aspen later this week to make their case to this civic-minded clique of wealthy skeptics.
“If you’re asking if the United States is about to become a socialist state, I’d say it’s actually about to become a European state, with the expansiveness of the welfare system and the progressive tax system like what we’ve already experienced in Western Europe,” Harvard business and history professor Niall Ferguson declared during Monday’s kickoff session, offering a withering critique of Obama’s economic policies, which he claimed were encouraging laziness.
“The curse of longterm unemployment is that if you pay people to do nothing, they’ll find themselves doing nothing for very long periods of time,” Ferguson said. “Long-term unemployment is at an all-time high in the United States, and it is a direct consequence of a misconceived public policy.”
Ferguson was joined in his harsh attack by billionaire real estate mogul and New York Daily News owner Mort Zuckerman . Both lambasted Obama’s trillion-dollar deficit spending program—in the name of economic stimulus to cushion the impact of the 2008 financial meltdown—as fiscally ruinous, potentially turning America into a second-rate power.
“We are, without question, in a period of decline, particularly in the business world,” Zuckerman said. “The real problem we have…are some of the worst economic policies in place today that, in my judgment, go directly against the long-term interests of this country.”
Zuckerman added that he detects in the Obama White House “hostility to the very kinds of [business] culture that have made this the great country that it is and was. I think we have to find some way of dealing with that or else we will do great damage to this country with a public policy that could ruin everything.”
Ferguson added: “The critical point is if your policy says you’re going run a trillion-dollar deficit for the rest of time, you’re riding for a fall…Then it really is goodbye.” A dashing Brit, Ferguson added: “Can I say that, having grown up in a declining empire, I do not recommend it. It’s just not a lot of fun actually—decline.”
Ferguson called for what he called “radical” measures. “I can’t emphasize strongly enough the need for radical fiscal reform to restore the incentives for work and remove the incentives for idleness.” He praised “really radical reform of the sort that, for example, Paul Ryan [the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee] has outlined in his wonderful ‘Roadmap’ for radical, root-and-branch reform not only of the tax system but of the entitlement system” and “unleash entrepreneurial innovation.” Otherwise, Ferguson warned: “Do you want to be a kind of implicit part of the European Union? I’d advise you against it.”
This was greeted by hearty applause from a crowd that included Barbra Streisand and her husband James Brolin. “Depressing, but fantastic,” Streisand told me afterward, rendering her verdict on the session. “So exciting. Wonderful!”
Brolin’s assessment: “Mind-blowing.”
In a session Tuesday morning, Silicon Valley guru Michael Splinter piled on. “From an industry standpoint, it’s below what a lot of people in industry have viewed as the solution to the jobs problem,” Splinter, president of the Applied Materials solar energy company, complained about Obama’s economic performance. He was speaking to an agreeable audience in an interview with Atlantic Media owner David Bradley. “When I talk to venture capitalists, their companies are starting to move their manufacturing operations out of the United States…Our corporate tax rate, on a worldwide competitive basis, is just not competitive. Taiwan is lowering their rate to 20 to 15 percent in order to stay competitive with Singapore. These countries have made it their job to attract industry. You don’t get that sense here in the United States.”
The consensus was similar in an afternoon panel discussion on the decline of the American middle class. “He said jobs were going to be his No. 1 priority—there’s a huge disconnect between Washington and what’s going on out in the country,” nominal Obama supporter Arianna Huffington said. “The president’s economic team kept talking about a ‘cyclical’ problem. Larry Summers said jobs were a lagging economic indicator. All these things are simply wrong. The president put all his trust in the wrong economic team—an economic team that didn’t understand what was happening.”
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
Read it before it disappears. Just try a search in Google and you may see what I mean.
Search Google: The Elite Turn Against Obama
It doesn't come up in my Google search like many other things I've had before. The same with YouTube. Don't trust the government search engines as your only means of getting information.
Read it before it disappears. Just try a search in Google and you may see what I mean.
Search Google: The Elite Turn Against Obama
It doesn't come up in my Google search like many other things I've had before. The same with YouTube. Don't trust the government search engines as your only means of getting information.
Why do you say that?
Thank you for posting this John. If the elite turned against BO that means he was their bitch. No surprise to me but I thought you may want to take note. The things they said about his policies are also true. Sometimes the truth hurts.
Best I can do John.
Maybe they know you wouldn't post it and I would. LOL
It really doesn't matter anyway. The two comments I've put on here are really the only two comments that have any real information to base opinions on from factual sources and we'll see if anyone actually reads them I guess.
Let me update.
It really doesn't matter anyway. The two comments I've put on here are really the only two comments that have any real information to base opinions on from factual sources and we'll see if anyone actually reads them I guess.
At least at the time I put those two comments up. Now I see some information has been added since then.