The silence of the suits


See article

Readers' comments



Is the Economist becoming a mouthpiece of the Republican campaign? Please note, contrary to what you write:

1. Obama did not ignore the bipartisan debt reducing commission (Simpson-Bowles). Republican intransigence to tax increase for the very rich, which the commission had recommended meant that the commission's recommendations remained still born!

2. Obama has NOT over-burdened business with regulations! Capitalists tend to frown upon any attempt by government to make them responsive to the needs of consumers. Even increasing the font on medicine packages so consumers can actually see and read warnings is deemed a no-no by business. The fact is, Obama saved capitalism and the world financial system which has brought untold profits to those obsessed with a campaign for his defeat. The Economist once believed Obama had saved capitalism!

Obama will win the elections in spite of such negative reporting by your writers!!!


Ungrateful people. Corporate America should be thanking Obama for saving the economy when he won in 2008. John McCain would not have been so generous with the bank and auto bailouts and we would be talking about a much higher unemployment rate today.

Alex Kilgour

Wall Street CEO's are mad at Obama?

How about how mad the 99% are at the Wall Street CEO's? If this was Survivor they'd all be voted off the island.

Michael Dunne in reply to Alex Kilgour

"Wall Street CEO's are mad at Obama?"

Really a bizarre state of things since Obama's administration had been very friendly to big finance (look at his appointees)

And saved it essentially by continuing policies of the prior administraiton.

At the debate last night, they should have pressed Obama on how he was different from George Bush when it came to the economy, just for laughs.

On the serious side, the narrative presented by the Economist here seems a bit strange. If there is really antipathy amongst the leading circles of CEOs and financiers, then one really has to question their grip on reality and judgement.

I am not a supporter of Obama, but the guy took time off from his agenda (health care reform notably) to continue and extend bailouts that enormously benefitted the financial industry and the automotive industry.

He helped save their hides.


Is Jack Welch's desperate accusation really worth quoting? I'm sorry, but this article read as a smear piece against Obama.

He bailed out Goldman Sachs for christssakes. They should be the last to complain.

Connect The Dots

There was a young college student who asked Mitt Romney about his poor employment prospects at the Town Hall Presidential Debates.
Mitt reassured the student--after lengthy speechifying about how bad the Obama Administration has been--
=> that in the end that, Mitt would hire him.
And that is how Mitt created one job, in a made-for-tv moment.
That is the Power of being a Billionaire!
That's Mitt, buying votes one at a time. Literally BUYING VOTES.
Now if only Mitt could hire 30 million other unemployed college educated people,
=> then I think he deserves to be president.


"Will the silence of the suits affect the outcome of the election?"

The campaign finance laws now allow for individuals to donate unlimited amounts with guaranteed non disclosure. Any smart business man would try to influence the election from "Behind the Curtain," thus hedging against retaliation if the chosen candidate loses.


One question that Romney asked last night, and that neither candidate provided a decent answer for:

Why do business in America?

It is not clear to me that Obama's policies encourage corporations to do business domestically. This may mean that, however good his policies are for the individual worker, they will have a muted effect for the nation as a whole. It may also be bad news for employment figures.

I also found the infatuation with small businesses a little over the top. If half of Americans work for a small business, half do not. Where is love for the successful corporation?

HsiungNuisance in reply to shubrook

Let them hire back the 1 in 7 (real unemploymenet number) people without jubs, and they will be heroes again. End the global labor arbitrage and they will be celebrated. Simple as that. If success does not equal employment, then why be friendly?
But I did find the article interesting and informative. One needs to hear the real perceptions of even the folks one may not like. I will have to read Woodward's latest book now.

Michael Dunne in reply to shubrook

"Why do business in America?"

That is pretty simple, like:
- Largest economy in the world
- Has one of the wealthier populaces
- Scores well on transparency and rule of law (i.e., not too much corruption)
- Noworry about getting your stuff ripped off
- Skilled workforce
- Some of the lowest EFFECTIVE tax rates that people seem to overlook
- Lower energy costs than most (at least for some regions

And about a thousand other reasons that I dont' have time listing. All contradicting BS (a seemingly points ripped off from other sources) from Thomas Friedman and his earth is flat groupies.

Small business possibly creates 70% plus of jobs. And it can be important. Small business in aggregate helps the German and Japanese economies too, even in manufacturing, with the mittlestand and chushoo kigyoo respectively. It is the matter of having a healthy business ecosystem.

Generally deemed a healthier situation than having small businesses beaten about by multinationals, plutocrats/cartelists or state owned corporations.

Read "The Limits of Covnergence" if you care to hear more about the benefits of SMBs, or interactions between them and other groups, in countries like S. Korea, Spain and Argentina in the 1990s. Really a good read.


It's great to see that things don't change once you're out of the university system: If you dare to speak in favor of a conservative candidate or policy in public, you're automatically labeled, discredited, and badgered by those of the (ironically) liberal mindset. Only now it's not one's peers and professors who turn against you; it's the people with the power of posting links and hurling caustic remarks from behind a username.

Thank you for writing an article that went against the grain and dared to speak of something controversial. Every hot-headed comment calling it something other than thought-provoking is a point in your favor.


This poll conducted by the FT & The Economist (16th Aug 2012) shows "... 37 per cent (of businesses in North America) said Mr Obama would be better compared with 33 per cent for Mr Romney." The link to the article:

Also from the article: "TWICE as many of the 1,700 executives in the survey said a victory for Mr Obama would be better for the global economy than said the same for Mr Romney".

So why does the article above make no mention of this poll? The Economist has a bit of a hidden agenda in this election ...

Melissia in reply to Michael Dunne

Actually, a better objection would be-- was it just an isolated writer, or the magazine itself?

The Economist has some writers that are blatantly pro-Romney, and are fully willing to lie and misrepresent in their articles to promote him. Most of their writers, however, attempt to stay neutral.

Michael Dunne in reply to Melissia

Actually I thought I missed something. The election is less than a month away. Seems the Economist then is foot dragging or getting ready to duck providing an endorsement.

As for possibly pro-Romney writers, I am not too sure blatant biases are on display, flaming away. There have been points in certain articles where I was like, "how did you arrive at that", or "do you seriously buy that"

This bit on business and Obama for instance does have the scent of hanging around and indulging in some cognitive dissonance with the boss men too much.


was...once upon a time...a famous (dem) CA pol who said-- if you can't guzzle their liquor, "enjoy" thier women, cash their checks then turn around and screw em in the next hour, you aren't ready to play in this league.

Obama shoulda known, no matter how nice he was, that the CEO class would head back to their paid for party before the next round...

Come Jan the perp walks may begin...that'll be must watch TV, indeed!


Good to hear that Goldman Sachs hate Obama - he must be doing something right if those shysters are angry.


Seriously? Citing 'You didn't build that'? You're completely missing the point. He was talking about roads and bridges, saying businesses didn't build roads and bridges, that ALL of us did. And yet you take the point of view of a Republican talking point? What the hell?

stiubhert in reply to CaelestisFilius

YUP...but ain't the real tragedy the missed opportunity to say- "Hey! Really THEY (the CEO types) didn't build ANYTHING...

...their EMPLOYYES DID. And the workers keep it all running, and fix it if it breaks down!"

If this campaign had been run Bosses v. Workers (not Unions, but just all workers) would we need to take polls anymore? Slam dunk dropped and punted...

Puntmeister in reply to CaelestisFilius

Yeah, I had the same reaction.

The way Fox News "Cut & Pasted" the supposed Obama quote was shameful, if not criminal. I would expect a more credible news source like the Economist to at least refrain from taking up the fraudulent quote, let alone calling out Fox on their fraud.




Another chump article. Surely, even the TE knows that GS donates to both parties, and more to the GOP, just in case. And does he think that all Obama supporters are blind to the obvious facts a)the Dubya Financial debacle inheritance which blew up in GWB last year, leaving Obama the greatest financial crisis since the Depression as a welcome mat? or b) that the GOP controlled Congress followed their lobbyists´instructions and played politics for 4 years to the detriment of the American people? This is all very tiresome. America will vote, and if they continue on the wrong path, well you will reap just what you sow..

DanPendleton in reply to Alan101

Obama will be re-elected. That is a foregone conclusion. What also needs to happen in Nov. is for the do-nothing obstructionist teabaggers to be thrown out of office and replaced with Dems. Otherwise, Obama's re-election will be meaningless.

hohan in reply to DanPendleton


Ask yourself one question why were dems voted out of power in 2010? Answer, they really stink at running things.. nearly all broke states are run by dems and that's no coincidence.. Obama ran against McCain and Bush II's legacy if you can't win in that scenario you really should hang it up.. Now he's had 4 years 2 in which he owned all of Congress and couldn't pass a single budget.. He's good on paper and infront of the camera but he's no leader..

Melissia in reply to hohan

Actually, a large number of the most in-debt states are Republican. For example, Texas is has the third largest amount of debt of any state in the nation.

GOP states also often take quite a lot in terms of government money as well.

Dr Lou

I follow this stuff rather closely and continue unclear about the ongoing blithe commentary about the Wall Street/CEO's 'anger' with Mr Obama and increased focus on Mr. Romney. And Romney's status as a real businessman is similarly misleading.

Romney has never run a business...he hasn't had to schedule workers; manage and prioritize inventory; deal with and negotiate complex benefit and labor issues; compete with the store down the street, on the other side of town or in cyberspace; consider profit/loss ratios; apply for and manage small business loans and resources; provide customer service to ALL customers rather than a very small and enormously wealthy slice; deal with turnover, training and day to day supervision...and on and on and on.

Money was Romney's only 'product' and he generated it via massive loans from banks as well as federal government tax and finance loopholes and even, on one important occasion, from a federal bailout process. Sometimes the targeted business benefited and many more times, they and their employees did not. Romney's 'success' was not the health of the target company but the payback to a very small subset of the so called 1%...his own investors.

As a 'businessman,' Romney's model is highly skewed.

Romney is now threatening to start a trade war with China while recreating massive military spending using a Cold War standard which American can't support and would not be an appropriately forward thinking military strategy regardless. Neither he nor his VP candidate, Paul Ryan, have offered any specific strategies for his 'revenue neutral' tax reductions or alternatives to health care reform (which would be, despite GOP disinformation to the contrary, VERY supportive of small business development). Much of Mr. Romney's economic platform will dramatically add to America's debt to the ill health of businesses and the consumers who support them.

Obama fed zillions of dollars to Wall Street as part of TARP, seems to have kept the Justice Department from a wave of valid prosecutions of key Wall Street/CEO figures and had the foresight to 'bail out' GM and the auto industry...a strategy deplored at the time by Romney but was remarkably effective none-the-less.

It is also time for the media to stop its misuse of Obama's statement 'you didn't build that.' However inelegantly said, that comment was not even a remote slight to the efforts and investments of small and large business owners but to the FACT that without public and government-driven infrastructure (from highways and transportation to local police and international security, public education, medical systems, patent and copyright name but a very few), those same businesses would not be sustainable.

Profits are at an all time high, tax rates at an all time low and unions have largely been neutralized. While the wide sweep of evolving regulations probably should be reviewed, their need is unquestioned. My concern is that for Romney and his backers, America is yet one more take-over project which like the range of business managed by Bain, may...or may not...come out ahead.

It might be time for the media to do some actual homework and provide a more thoughtful view of what is actually going on.

Dr Lou in reply to Dr Lou

From an article in this week's Economist:

"Over the past 30 years incomes have soared both among the wealthy and the ultra-wealthy. The higher up the income ladder, the bigger the rise has been. The result has been a huge, and widening, gap—financially, socially and geographically—between America’s elite and the rest of the country."

There most definitely is a redistribution of wealth in the U.S. but it is hardly being focused from the wealthier to the less wealthy by Obama. This redistribution is being led, instead, by a small core group in the GOP and continues to move huge amounts of money and liquidity from the middle working classes up to the wealthiest of the wealthy.

That small business can't grow or survive when its principle consumers have less money to spend and weaker employment potential should be clearly understood by Wall Street, the CEOs and Mr Romney...if, of course, that was their true emphasis. And while this trend started prior to Obama's presidency, other than give it some lip service, he has done little to alter these trends and lots to keep them solidified.

So, I'll need a much better explanation as to why '...corporate America’s affection for Mitt Romney is the love that dare not speak its name.'

Dr Lou in reply to Dr Lou more key point from the same Economist article to add to my above post #2...

"More than 90% of all income gains since the (most recent) recession ended have gone to the top 1%."

Yes...there is an unhealthy redistribution of wealth in the U.S. to the wealthiest that has not only continued but even surged during the Obama Presidency.

And Wall Street is unhappy, exactly, why?

Kanner in reply to Dr Lou

Wall Street is extremely nervous.

They broke the economy once already, can't trust themselves not to do it again, and it's not much fun having all that money if everyone hates you.

Barak Obama's 'crime' against business is not being an aggressive cheer leader for the super rich.

jouris - old account in reply to Dr Lou

Having only ever worked in finance, Romney is under the illusion that finance is all there is to running a business. He simply cannot wrap his head around the fact that, in real businesses, Finance is only one department -- and far from the most important one.


“Conservatism should be more than a defense of the vested interests…” – David Frum

Defense of vested interest has no party preference. Thus the actions described, "Bosses don’t want to stick their heads above the parapet, because they think Mr Obama will win, says a private-equity executive. They can read the odds on", makes perfect sense.


WE honestly believe the current situation sited by this article. If Romney represents the business Tycoons of America, does Obama represent the poor middle class who want business to return to America..
The profit of the few is killing the U.S.A. We need a leader with a vision not a profiteer...


The kind of companies whose business model viability hinges on the difference between Obama's 38% income tax rate and Romney's 35% one, are probably exactly the kind who is ran by people who consider the area between those two tax rates is somehow the delineation between "free market capitalism", and outright communism.


In early 2009, I had to put my brother-in-law on "suicide watch", so distraught he was over the declining fortunes of the large international partnership where he was, and still is, a managing partner. Last month, he told me that his firm had never been so profitable, business so good, prospects so bright, and, by the way, he would be voting for Romney because the Obama administration had been so anti-business.

Anti-business? I asked. You got to be kidding. You have never had it so good. He gave a hem here! A ha there! And a few more hemmings and hawings, but finally we got to the truth of it. He had making more money than ever, had started to calculated his tax bill, and decided he didn’t want to pay it, a tax bill, I reminded him, that was based on a lower a marginal rate than he had ever paid over his entire career.

So when I hear the "suits" complaining about Obama, what I really hear is bunch of self-aggrandizing whiners who hate paying to support those functions in a civilized society that actually enables their success; the schools, the roads, the police protection, the soldiers who protect their trading routes, the justice system that protects their property rights, all those people and institutions that keep the wolves at bay and frees them to concentrate on making more money.



Products and events


Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines

