Greenwich’s Eddie Lampert has views on job creation

From the WSJ:

In a letter to his shareholders, Edward S. “Eddie” Lampert, chairman of Sears Holdings, summed up how Washington’s political obstacles may impede a robust recovery:

“Sears Holdings shares the stated goal of many public officials of creating jobs. But, we don’t believe that we need large government programs to generate these jobs. Public officials often fail to recognize the obstacles they place in the way of job creation. For example, over the past year proposal after proposal has been put forward to reform health care, reform the financial system, increase taxes, and add regulations, all with the intention of making the United States a better and stronger country.

“Yet, as a business, trying to understand which of these proposals might become law, what their impact might be on business prospects and competition, and what additional costs they might impose creates a great deal of uncertainty. It has led our management team and board (and I am sure those managements and boards of other companies) to spend inordinate time trying to determine which investments we should make, defer, or cancel and which jobs to create, maintain, or eliminate. The removal of this uncertainty and the constant drumbeat of new threats against various businesses would go a long way to allowing American entrepreneurial energy to be unleashed.”

6 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

6 responses to “Greenwich’s Eddie Lampert has views on job creation

  1. just_looking

    In the same article, Lampert also mentions the oddity of paying sale tax in a store but not online (Amazon) which I also believe is not right. Sales tax should be collected on all eligible transactions, weather online or in stores or catalog 800’s. By making a tax fair it is a little easier to pay, and if this “change” were made to include all applicable channels it could be (should be) accompanied by a lower RATE at the same time. Yeah, I know, keep dreaming…

  2. Anonymous

    lampert is pulling his punches because he’s writing as the ceo of a public company. in private, his condemnation of the job-killing initiatives from washington would be far stronger, i would guess.

  3. ” …trying to understand which of these proposals might become law, what their impact might be on business prospects and competition, and what additional costs they might impose creates a great deal of uncertainty…”

    I agree. I am trying to decide if I should sell my place in OG for a larger house with more land, but am uncertain about the proposed CT property tax that was mentioned a couple of weeks ago. If this tax goes into effect, I am not willing to trade up to a bigger tax liability. So for now, I am waiting to see if taxes go higher and Greenwich prices go lower…

  4. Greenwich Ex-Pat

    I posted about the effects of uncertainty on the economy a couple of days ago. People won’t spend money when they’re uncertain or lack confidence in the transaction. Hence, no recovery until people are confident about the future. Government intervention in the housing market is really mucking things up.

  5. Anonymous

    Eddie should thank some of his major investors like Geffen who helped elect the moron commie-in-chief

    Like any investor making public comments, Eddie’s talking his book and begging for his own handouts and special treatment from community organizers

    Sales taxes and income taxes vary across states; arbitrage should be allowed amongst more efficient locales and distribution modalities

    Bricks and mortar retailing is Luddite stuff that’s rarely most efficient for consumers or taxpayers (or environmentalists)…