Steve Wynn unloads on Obama and explains why there are no jobs.

[fskimospy]

The fact that 25% of businesses that responded said that they are not hiring because of uncertainty about government policy is still pretty bad. I saw a presentation by Alan Greenspan a few months ago. He used a variety of metrics to argue that the poor economic performance is the result is result of lack of investment in long term projects, short term economic activity is growing at a decent rate. IMO this confirms the idea that uncertainty in general is one of the major problems we are facing.

I personally saw a lot of work dry up in the energy industry after Obama was elected. There is so much threat of regulation that no one will build anything that they don't absolutely have too, unless it's one of his pet projects like solar. It's really amazing how much the government is directing the economy at this point.

They weren't businesses, they were economists. Uncertainty in general seems to be the problem, but again, according to economists it is uncertainty in the level of demand they will be facing in the future.

In exactly what ways do you think the government is directing the economy in a substantially greater way than it was in say... 2006? Please be specific. The reality of it is that Obama has been party to a modest increase in regulation over Bush, but Bush was a large decrease in regulation from Clinton. There hasn't been some sudden and new government super regulation of the economy or anything.

 

[thraashman]

The fact that 25% of businesses that responded said that they are not hiring because of uncertainty about government policy is still pretty bad. I saw a presentation by Alan Greenspan a few months ago. He used a variety of metrics to argue that the poor economic performance is the result is result of lack of investment in long term projects, short term economic activity is growing at a decent rate. IMO this confirms the idea that uncertainty in general is one of the major problems we are facing.

I personally saw a lot of work dry up in the energy industry after Obama was elected. There is so much threat of regulation that no one will build anything that they don't absolutely have too, unless it's one of his pet projects like solar. It's really amazing how much the government is directing the economy at this point.

But regulation is necessary no matter what anyone says. Hell, since Obama has been President there have been two major US oil spills (Deep Horizon and Yellowstone). And the energy industry thinks that there's too much regulation? Prove you can be responsible and perhaps that regulation will go away, but they're not doing a good job. And then there's the article in the OP, this asshole is actually proving one of the Democrats' points. Companies don't need the money from decreased taxes or tax breaks the Republicans want to give them, they're sitting on cash. Giving them more won't spark them to do anything except sit on even more cash. The only thing creating political uncertainty in this nation is crazy people getting any power like anyone who is in the Tea Party.

 

[boomerang]

McDonalds sells coke which has caffeine, an addictive substance. Is McDonalds and every other venue that sells a product with caffeine discredited as well? That is really weak of you to try to discredit a guy who runs a company that employs tens of thousands of people based on the primary source of income being gambling. A legal form of entertainment in Nevada and other parts of the country.

And it isnt like listening to the drug dealer on the corner. Because what the drug dealer is doing is illegal and subject to the police harassment. Unlik Wynn, who is running a legitimate legal business.

Remember who you're dealing with here. Nearly every post of his is a borderline psychotic rant.

 

[Genx87]

They weren't businesses, they were economists. Uncertainty in general seems to be the problem, but again, according to economists it is uncertainty in the level of demand they will be facing in the future.

In exactly what ways do you think the government is directing the economy in a substantially greater way than it was in say... 2006? Please be specific. The reality of it is that Obama has been party to a modest increase in regulation over Bush, but Bush was a large decrease in regulation from Clinton. There hasn't been some sudden and new government super regulation of the economy or anything.

It goes hand in hand. Business doesnt want to hire because they dont know where the govt is going. People dont spend because they dont know if they will be employed tomorrow because business is uncertain. Demand is down which hurts business expansion.

It doesnt have to be any new regulation but the threat of regulation\intervention. Cap n Trade, Healthcare reform, increasing income and corporate taxes. All of these are costs people and business have to account for and will slow their spending to prepare for it.

Are you spending like it is 2005-06? If not, why? I am building a buffer and not spending or investing right now. Why? Because I have no idea where we are going as a country. And as such my confidence in being employed is way down. Me not spending that money hurts demand. Multiply that across millions of households.

I'd say the best thing the govt could do is to get out of the way and not threaten to raise costs. Nobody knows what any of these possible regulations will cost. Even the assholes who are wanting to pass it.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

But regulation is necessary no matter what anyone says. Hell, since Obama has been President there have been two major US oil spills (Deep Horizon and Yellowstone). And the energy industry thinks that there's too much regulation? Prove you can be responsible and perhaps that regulation will go away, but they're not doing a good job. And then there's the article in the OP, this asshole is actually proving one of the Democrats' points. Companies don't need the money from decreased taxes or tax breaks the Republicans want to give them, they're sitting on cash. Giving them more won't spark them to do anything except sit on even more cash. The only thing creating political uncertainty in this nation is crazy people getting any power like anyone who is in the Tea Party.

I'm not talking about drilling. I'm talking about the fact that the Obama administration has basically banned coal power plants by refusing to permit them. I'm not the biggest fan of coal, but I don't like the fact that he is basically using the permitting process to legislate. That's Congress' job, not his. Other examples include the NLRB action against Boeing, and the Yucca mountain stalling.

The perception among many business leaders is that Obama is very radical in several areas, and this does affect their investment decisions.

 

[fskimospy]

It goes hand in hand. Business doesnt want to hire because they dont know where the govt is going. People dont spend because they dont know if they will be employed tomorrow because business is uncertain. Demand is down which hurts business expansion.

It doesnt have to be any new regulation but the threat of regulation\intervention. Cap n Trade, Healthcare reform, increasing income and corporate taxes. All of these are costs people and business have to account for and will slow their spending to prepare for it.

This argument doesn't work though, because it presupposes that worries about regulation are what's causing the lack of hiring when the entire question is 'what's causing the lack of hiring'? What's the evidence for this? Can you point to a piece of evidence by which we could prove or disprove this assertion? Should sectors most likely to be regulated be hiring substantially more slowly?

The lack of demand is pretty clear and pretty hard to argue against. About 2 out of 3 economists (and myself as well) don't see evidence that a nebulous fear of future regulation is the cause for companies being unwilling to invest. Taxes and other costs to business have gone DOWN in the 2.5 years under Obama, not up.

Are you spending like it is 2005-06? If not, why? I am building a buffer and not spending or investing right now. Why? Because I have no idea where we are going as a country. And as such my confidence in being employed is way down. Me not spending that money hurts demand. Multiply that across millions of households.

I'd say the best thing the govt could do is to get out of the way and not threaten to raise costs. Nobody knows what any of these possible regulations will cost. Even the assholes who are wanting to pass it.

Yes I'm spending at the same levels as 2005-2006, but my personal experience isn't really relevant. Once again, people's confidence in their employment would definitely hold back their consumption, but there's not a lot of evidence that regulation is causing that.

 

[soundforbjt]

Wynn's not investing couldn't have anything to do with the fact that Vegas is in a slump just like everywhere else could it? Naw, it's the President's fault....

 

[fskimospy]

I'm not talking about drilling. I'm talking about the fact that the Obama administration has basically banned coal power plants by refusing to permit them. I'm not the biggest fan of coal, but I don't like the fact that he is basically using the permitting process to legislate. That's Congress' job, not his. Other examples include the NLRB action against Boeing, and the Yucca mountain stalling.

The perception among many business leaders is that Obama is very radical in several areas, and this does affect their investment decisions.

That's simply untrue. The Obama administration has raised the standards for coal plants, but they had to do that because the federal government's old rules on the subject were struck down by the courts for being too lenient. ie: The courts ruled that the EPA was abdicating its responsibility. The rules just went into effect, and the first permit under them was approved just a few days after.

Yucca Mountain has nothing to do with Obama, that is an issue which has been around for a whole lot longer than he has.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

That's simply untrue. The Obama administration has raised the standards for coal plants, but they had to do that because the federal government's old rules on the subject were struck down by the courts for being too lenient. ie: The courts ruled that the EPA was abdicating its responsibility. The rules just went into effect, and the first permit under them was approved just a few days after.

Yucca Mountain has nothing to do with Obama, that is an issue which has been around for a whole lot longer than he has.

The Yucca Mountain issue has been around, but the Obama administration breaking at least the spirit of the law in their handling. How many coal plant permits has Obama issued?

 

[HomerJS]

Just one opinion.

The CEO of Honeywell was on ABC this past Sunday and said the problem with business hiring is a demand problem.

Companies don't make decisions on hiring based on taxes, they base it on demand for their products/services. If consuming/spending stops the economy collapes. That holds true in good times and bad.

Taxes are at their lowest in 50 years and we are still in deep doo-doo.

 

[Naeeldar]

This argument doesn't work though, because it presupposes that worries about regulation are what's causing the lack of hiring when the entire question is 'what's causing the lack of hiring'? What's the evidence for this? Can you point to a piece of evidence by which we could prove or disprove this assertion? Should sectors most likely to be regulated be hiring substantially more slowly?

The lack of demand is pretty clear and pretty hard to argue against. About 2 out of 3 economists (and myself as well) don't see evidence that a nebulous fear of future regulation is the cause for companies being unwilling to invest. Taxes and other costs to business have gone DOWN in the 2.5 years under Obama, not up.

So how do you address the excerpt from the investor meeting then? The guy has a huge history of support democrats and he is blasting the current administration and quite frankly all of DC.

I myself work for a tech firm that provides support contracts to large corporations. I work on the Account Management side and I'm involved directly and in directly with about 120 companies right now 60 of which are Fortune Client and another 40 are large enough but HQ is overseas.

The range of clients spans from Hospitals, Federal Govt, State Govt, Fortune 50, 100 and 500 companies. Every single industry you can imagine Energy, Airline, Engineering, Medical, Retail, Financial, Insurance, Print, Trash Companies.

Guess what? With all these massive companies some of them having record breaking years only a handful are investing. The rest are seeing massive projects on hold. CIO's no longer making budgetary decisions, the CFO is the one to make the decision which is what happens during times of economic uncertainty.

Is there any hard policy that anybody can point to (other than obamacare but that itself has stalled)? There is not. But it's a perception issue and in the business world perception is everything. Large corporation are just not sure what is to happen next. Additional regulations on wall street (not just financial gets impacted here) more healthcare regulations? Higher taxes? All these things have to be accounted for and so they wait to see what happens next.

The administration needs to improve the perception or nobody is going to invest. It's that simple. Cause quite simply what Wynn is saying is echoing true across a range of industries and is very similar what I am hearing today.

 

[fskimospy]

So how do you address the excerpt from the investor meeting then? The guy has a huge history of support democrats and he is blasting the current administration and quite frankly all of DC.

I myself work for a tech firm that provides support contracts to large corporations. I work on the Account Management side and I'm involved directly and in directly with about 120 companies right now 60 of which are Fortune Client and another 40 are large enough but HQ is overseas.

The range of clients spans from Hospitals, Federal Govt, State Govt, Fortune 50, 100 and 500 companies. Every single industry you can imagine Energy, Airline, Engineering, Medical, Retail, Financial, Insurance, Print, Trash Companies.

Guess what? With all these massive companies some of them having record breaking years only a handful are investing. The rest are seeing massive projects on hold. CIO's no longer making budgetary decisions, the CFO is the one to make the decision which is what happens during times of economic uncertainty.

Is there any hard policy that anybody can point to (other than obamacare but that itself has stalled)? There is not. But it's a perception issue and in the business world perception is everything. Large corporation are just not sure what is to happen next. Additional regulations on wall street (not just financial gets impacted here) more healthcare regulations? Higher taxes? All these things have to be accounted for and so they wait to see what happens next.

The administration needs to improve the perception or nobody is going to invest. It's that simple. Cause quite simply what Wynn is saying is echoing true across a range of industries and is very similar what I am hearing today.

In your post you didn't point to a single piece of information that would indicate that fear of future government regulations were the reason for which these companies were unwilling to invest as opposed to seeing a climate of weak consumer demand over the next several years, other than one guy saying it in a conference call where he's trying to explain why his business is tanking along with the rest of Las Vegas. (and Vegas isn't tanking due to government regulation, it's tanking because it was the mother of all bubble cities)

EDIT: To be more clear, there may be specific cases where businesses find themselves constrained by regulation or have the perception of such, but there isn't really any evidence that it's the case for our larger economy, especially when such an obvious lack of demand exists.

 

[fskimospy]

The Yucca Mountain issue has been around, but the Obama administration breaking at least the spirit of the law in their handling. How many coal plant permits has Obama issued?

The new rules just went into effect, so counting the number of them at this point seems a bit silly. They had to be changed due to a court order that found the old ones had basically just been written by the industry, and so we'll see eh?

EDIT: Also, Obama's EPA rule on Yucca Mountain is also consistent with what was found to be required by another court order against Bush's EPA that found its rules were impermissibly lax.

 

[RbSX]

Stop hitting the crack bottle, it's like what's working for a lot of the other developed world, e.g. Germany, Canada, Australia and many other places with socialized health care, high regulations, and other stuff simply 'can't work' work in the USA is preposterous.

 

[Genx87]

This argument doesn't work though, because it presupposes that worries about regulation are what's causing the lack of hiring when the entire question is 'what's causing the lack of hiring'? What's the evidence for this? Can you point to a piece of evidence by which we could prove or disprove this assertion? Should sectors most likely to be regulated be hiring substantially more slowly?

The lack of demand is pretty clear and pretty hard to argue against. About 2 out of 3 economists (and myself as well) don't see evidence that a nebulous fear of future regulation is the cause for companies being unwilling to invest. Taxes and other costs to business have gone DOWN in the 2.5 years under Obama, not up.

The lack of demand is a result in consumers not having a high confidence level in their job, or their outlook in general. And a part of that problem is the threat of increased costs on business and people. Cap n Trade(unknown cost), higher income and corporate taxes(unknown cost), Obamacare(unknown cost). Which then filters back to the consumer in a poor outlook. Like I said, it goes hand in hand. I dont need a study to tell me this. As far as I am concerned, this is common sense stuff. Govt policy directly and indirectly affects people and business spending decisions.

Yes I'm spending at the same levels as 2005-2006, but my personal experience isn't really relevant. Once again, people's confidence in their employment would definitely hold back their consumption, but there's not a lot of evidence that regulation is causing that.

If we were friends off this board. You would be the only one of my friends who is spending like they were before the shit hit the fan.

 

[fskimospy]

The lack of demand is a result in consumers not having a high confidence level in their job, or their outlook in general. And a part of that problem is the threat of increased costs on business and people. Cap n Trade(unknown cost), higher income and corporate taxes(unknown cost), Obamacare(unknown cost). Which then filters back to the consumer in a poor outlook. Like I said, it goes hand in hand. I dont need a study to tell me this. As far as I am concerned, this is common sense stuff. Govt policy directly and indirectly affects people and business spending decisions.

But that's the thing, you do actually need evidence. Surely we can agree on some metrics that would allow us to figure out if a fear of regulation is the actual cause as opposed to just basing our policy decisions on what our gut says.

If we were friends off this board. You would be the only one of my friends who is spending like they were before the shit hit the fan.

Well then I'm either remarkably successful, or remarkably foolish! Either way, I'm remarkable!

 

[GuitarDaddy]

WOW! Stop the fucking presses! A fat cat Casino owner blames Obama for the bad economy and is afraid the evil socialist will increase his taxes. And ProfJohn professes he is an economic genius :biggrin: I guess next up you will tell me that insurance company execs predict economic collapse if Obama is re-elected.

OP you are truly inspirational in your unrelenting hackery

 

[Naeeldar]

In your post you didn't point to a single piece of information that would indicate that fear of future government regulations were the reason for which these companies were unwilling to invest as opposed to seeing a climate of weak consumer demand over the next several years, other than one guy saying it in a conference call where he's trying to explain why his business is tanking along with the rest of Las Vegas. (and Vegas isn't tanking due to government regulation, it's tanking because it was the mother of all bubble cities)

EDIT: To be more clear, there may be specific cases where businesses find themselves constrained by regulation or have the perception of such, but there isn't really any evidence that it's the case for our larger economy, especially when such an obvious lack of demand exists.

Your right I did not and I'm not going to provide details of the companies I manage who are making record profits. But when companies are pulling in millions and billions of dollars a quarter in profit a quarter but not reinvesting it, that tells you a lot.

Lots of companies are sitting on A LOT of cash. I ask you this question, why?

 

[halik]

It goes hand in hand. Business doesnt want to hire because they dont know where the govt is going. People dont spend because they dont know if they will be employed tomorrow because business is uncertain. Demand is down which hurts business expansion.

It doesnt have to be any new regulation but the threat of regulation\intervention. Cap n Trade, Healthcare reform, increasing income and corporate taxes. All of these are costs people and business have to account for and will slow their spending to prepare for it.

Are you spending like it is 2005-06? If not, why? I am building a buffer and not spending or investing right now. Why? Because I have no idea where we are going as a country. And as such my confidence in being employed is way down. Me not spending that money hurts demand. Multiply that across millions of households.

I'd say the best thing the govt could do is to get out of the way and not threaten to raise costs. Nobody knows what any of these possible regulations will cost. Even the assholes who are wanting to pass it.

Good point, most of my immediate money is sitting in safe investments or fdic insured vehicles.

Also as far as the demand part is concerned, you should still see increasing capital investment just given the cheap cost of financing. You base your operations based on the same demand projections as investment, so things like replacing machinery and what not should be a no brainer unless your discount rate is high (ie the other risks).

Or to rephrase:
The fact is earnings are high, so there is demand, and balance sheet cash is high also, which means the PV of investment projects is low. That is either due to a) expectation of low cashflows in the future and you'd hear about it in the guidance b) discount rate for the projects is too high, either due to expectations of inflation (again in guidance) or other risks. Since I haven't heard of people being scared of inflation or warning of low earnings ahead, the logical answer is other risks that increase the discount rate.

 

[Naeeldar]

But that's the thing, you do actually need evidence. Surely we can agree on some metrics that would allow us to figure out if a fear of regulation is the actual cause as opposed to just basing our policy decisions on what our gut says.

What metric measures fear? Short of a poll. Perception plays such a big role in business. Stating it doesn't exist because it's tough to measure is like sticking your head in the sand.

I think the better question is why are companies reinvesting in growth when they are pulling in record profits and sitting on cash?

 

[fskimospy]

Your right I did not and I'm not going to provide details of the companies I manage who are making record profits. But when companies are pulling in millions and billions of dollars a quarter in profit a quarter but not reinvesting it, that tells you a lot.

Lots of companies are sitting on A LOT of cash. I ask you this question, why?

Because they don't see markets with sufficient demand in them to warrant investment. I think that is really beyond arguing, right? People here are saying it is because of a regulatory environment, and so I'm asking for evidence of this.

Steve Wynn is trying to explain why his business in Vegas is going down the shitter, but it's because Vegas is going down the shitter. Wynn's casinos aren't having trouble because of federal regulation, it's because the average amount of cash people were gambling there decreased by about 33% since the recession started.

 

[CPA]

Two richest men in the world are liberals, supported Obama and more Dems than Repubs, and are for estate taxes, progressive tax systems, et al:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wabUDKCOKQ#t=1220
http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.c...tt-600-billion-dollar-philanthropy-challenge/

Don't tell Dave that. In his world, all rich people are ruthless, greedy Republicans.

 

[fskimospy]

What metric measures fear? Short of a poll. Perception plays such a big role in business. Stating it doesn't exist because it's tough to measure is like sticking your head in the sand.

I think the better question is why are companies reinvesting in growth when they are pulling in record profits and sitting on cash?

There should be specific industries more susceptible to these regulations that should see markedly worse job performance and investment, etc. Not all industries are affected the same, and so through these differences we should be able to at least compile some evidence.

If you're arguing that we should just axiomatically accept that our poor job performance is due to federal regulation, why don't we just accept that it's due to the will of the flying spaghetti monster? Blindly declaring something without evidence is a poor way to craft public policy.

 

[Pens1566]

Yes, I'm sure that Wynn is holding back because of Obama and not because people can't afford to take that trip to vegas and blow $$$ at his tables.

 

[CPA]

Does this really explain why the vast majority of businesses in this country aren't hiring.. Companies that don't have CEO's, shareholders, and boards... Do you think they give a rats ass about the political environment... they care whether or not customers are walking through their doors with money to spend. Not to mention it sure seems like he is directing his comments towards every asshole in DC right now, not just the one in charge.

uh, yes they do care. But your philosophy is interesting. Just like the Dems, you only believe that the Revenue side is important. Expenses are just, if not more important in today's environment, as Revenue.