Gibson Guitar CEO Speaks Out on Gov't. Persecution
CARPE DIEM
Professor Mark J. Perry's Blog for Economics and Finance
Friday, October 21, 2011
About Me
- Name: Mark J. Perry
- Location: Washington, D.C., United States
Dr. Mark J. Perry is a professor of economics and finance in the School of Management at the Flint campus of the University of Michigan. Perry holds two graduate degrees in economics (M.A. and Ph.D.) from George Mason University near Washington, D.C. In addition, he holds an MBA degree in finance from the Curtis L. Carlson School of Management at the University of Minnesota. In addition to a faculty appointment at the University of Michigan-Flint, Perry is also a visiting scholar at The American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C.
Previous Posts
- World Trade and Output Reach New Record Highs
- The "Brent Oil Premium" Could Be Another Factor Th...
- Wall Street Protestors Come to K Street in DC
- Markets in Everything: Peer-to-Peer GM Carsharing
- Navigating the Bureaucracy to Start a Food Truck
- Thursday Positive Economic News Roundup
- Let's End the Antiquated, Job-Killing Sugar Shaft
- The Rust Belt Comes Back to Life: Shale Gas Revolu...
- Washington DC Has Highest Median Household Income,...
- Markets NOT in Everything: No Gas from 11pm-7 am
6 Comments:
Can Obama be this stupid? It is one thing to go after companies that idiot voters do not like but another to go after an icon like Gibson. What happens when the company moves a plant abroad because it cannot afford to have its lower margin products made in the US? Would Obama be happier if the guitars were made in India?
VangelV: Can Obama be this stupid?
It's very doubtful this was due to any action of the President. You might complain of government overreach without claiming that everything the government does is due to the direct acts of the President.
In any case, we'll just have to wait and see what evidence the government has.
It's very doubtful this was due to any action of the President. You might complain of government overreach without claiming that everything the government does is due to the direct acts of the President.
But it is the responsibility of the President. He should have shut down any efforts to use American police action (which is what this is) to investigate compliance to Indian labour laws. The same is true of the EPA overreach. He can't escape blame by arguing that he does not know all of the details of stupid actions undertaken by ideologues in that department.
In any case, we'll just have to wait and see what evidence the government has.
The government has already said that Gibon violated no laws. It is time for a big apology and for a payment that covers the damages done to the company. The cash can come out of the budget of the agencies that made the error. I am sure that a lot can be saved by firing the incompetent employees who recommended and authorized the action.
VangelV: But it is the responsibility of the President.
Actually, the President can't interfere with ongoing investigations.
VangelV: The government has already said that Gibon violated no laws.
Do you have a citation for that?
VangelV: But it is the responsibility of the President.
Actually, the President can't interfere with ongoing investigations.
Actually, the President can make sure that the agencies follow the law and that they do not go after innocent companies.
VangelV: The government has already said that Gibon violated no laws.
Do you have a citation for that?
The government admitted that it has carried out a raid two and a half years ago without charging the company with any wrongdoing.
VangelV: Actually, the President can make sure that the agencies follow the law and that they do not go after innocent companies.
Culpability is determined by process, that is, by investigators taking evidence before an independent magistrate and court. Political interference in the process violates due process.
VangelV: The government admitted that it has carried out a raid two and a half years ago without charging the company with any wrongdoing.
We didn't ask you to repeat your claim, but to substantiate it. Just curious as we're not too familiar with the details of the case.
Post a Comment
<< Home