Jack Welch, conspiracy theorist, quits

[Riot]

When your crazy conspiracy theories can't get traction in the mainstream media - quit and go with your fellow loons!

http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/...k-welch-quits/

Welch can't take the heat: I quit

By Stephen Gandel, senior editor October 9, 2012: 12:43 PM ET
Fortune Magazine


The former top GE executive says he will no longer write for Fortune following coverage of his jobs conspiracy tweet.


FORTUNE -- Jack Welch has left our building, metaphorically that is.

Welch said he will no longer contribute to Fortune following critical coverage of the former CEO of General Electric, saying he would get better "traction" elsewhere.

On Friday, Welch suggested that the Obama administration, calling them "these Chicago guys," had manipulated the monthly jobs report in order to make the economy look better than it actually is just weeks before the election. Welch has been battered by criticism since making the suggestion on Twitter.

Monday morning on MSNBC's Morning Joe, Fortune managing editor Andy Serwer said there were a number of things wrong with Welch's tweet, the biggest of which was that the economy doesn't back up the former executive's claim that the numbers were faked.

"I think it's exactly the opposite of what Jack Welch is saying," Serwer said. "Things are actually improving."

CNNMoney, which shares content with Fortune.com, ran a story on Friday covering Welch's tweet.

The piece said that even conservative economists thought Welch was wrong to question the jobs numbers.

On Tuesday, Fortune.com ran a story detailing Welch's record as a job destroyer. GE lost nearly 100,000 jobs during the 20 years in which Welch ran the company. "I never put myself out there as an employment agency," Welch told Fortune.

MORE: Obama trounces Jack Welch's jobs record

Following the story, Welch sent an e-mail to Reuters' Steve Adler and Serwer saying that he and his wife Suzy, who have jointly written for Reuters and Fortune in the past, were "terminating our contract" and will no longer be sending our "material to Fortune."

Reuters' story about Welch's tweet quoted money manager and blogger Barry Ritholtz, who said Welch's comments were laughable.

Reuters wrote that Ritholtz comments were referring to allegations that Welch regularly manipulated GE's earnings during his tenure as CEO in order to best Wall Street profit estimates.

Fortune tried to contact Welch to find out if the resignation was related to our reporting of his tweet, but Welch didn't return our phone call.

Since leaving GE (GE), Welch has become a media figure, appearing regularly on CNBC and writing opinion pieces along with his wife, which have appeared in Reuters, Fortune and elsewhere.

[phystech]

Rather shameful to call great businessmen like Jack Welch and Ken Langone "loons".


http://www.cnbc.com/id/49340679

Then again, you have no shame....

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by phystech

Rather shameful to call great businessmen like Jack Welch and Ken Langone "loons".


http://www.cnbc.com/id/49340679

Then again, you have no shame....

Remember in Welch's book when he said something to CEO's to the effect if you're not firing and replacing the bottom 10% of your workers you're not doing your job.

Of course he didn't have the ability Obama has to merge divisions and only lose jobs through attrition.

They believe in Pelosi magic. Hand out a billion and it comes back a billion and a half. It's that easy.

Go out today and spend/waste every dime of credit you have. Build a windmill, a backyard train set, bail out the stranger across the street etc. etc. The kids and grandkids will pick up the tab and interest. Be one with your government and follow their lead.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by phystech

Rather shameful to call great businessmen like Jack Welch and Ken Langone "loons".

How about "professional lying thief". More accurate, right?

And yeah - Jack Welch thinking the adminstration "cooked" the BLS stats is loony and crazy and stupid.

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by phystech

Rather shameful to call great businessmen like Jack Welch and Ken Langone "loons".


http://www.cnbc.com/id/49340679

Then again, you have no shame....

Why not? Eveything Dem around is called a "loon" and worse by every right winger on this board.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by phystech

Rather shameful to call great businessmen like Jack Welch and Ken Langone "loons".


http://www.cnbc.com/id/49340679

Then again, you have no shame....

i saw some of welch's comments in an interview. he didn't exactly come across as completely rational. he has no proof, no evidence, just a feeling. sorry, no credence should be given to 'feeling' something is off.

and when the bls comes out with low employment numbers, the same newscasters that ate it up like manna from heaven are now saying 'the bls is a sham'.
no need for consistency in the media i suppose.

Originally Posted by GBBob

Why not? Eveything Dem around is called a "loon" and worse by every right winger on this board.

like i said, we all need to be consistent. i tire of people on here crying 'wolf' when it's 'their' side being impugned. yet, nothing is said in the other direction. bob, not calling you out personally, just using your post as a way to mention it again.

people attack riot for attacking, by attacking her back. a dog chasing its tail.

[geeker2]

Jack should tweet about the new unemployment report that is hyped as a great number.

However, the report may not be as positive as the sharp drop indicates. A Labor Department economist said one large state didn't report additional quarterly figures as expected, accounting for a substantial part of the decrease.


A bit strange...joust sey en

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by geeker2

Jack should tweet about the new unemployment report that is hyped as a great number.

However, the report may not be as positive as the sharp drop indicates. A Labor Department economist said one large state didn't report additional quarterly figures as expected, accounting for a substantial part of the decrease.


A bit strange...joust sey en

It seems that for months now that they have had to revise each months report downwards. Surely everyone would be better served to get an accurate report, rather than a fast one.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Danzig

It seems that for as long as I remember now that they have had to revise each months report downwards. Surely everyone would be better served to get an accurate report, rather than a fast one.

ftfy

[Rupert Pupkin]

Here is why Welch is extremely skeptical about the job figures:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...pinion_LEADTop

By the way, it is not unusual for people on both sides of the aisle to be skeptical of these reports. Back in 2003, Austan Goolsbee, former chairman of the Obama administration's Council of Economic Advisers, commenting on a Bush-era unemployment figure, wrote in a New York Times op-ed: "the government has cooked the books."

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by jms62

ftfy

Yeah, probably more accurate than saying 'for months'.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Here is why Welch is extremely skeptical about the job figures:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...pinion_LEADTop

By the way, it is not unusual for people on both sides of the aisle to be skeptical of these reports. Back in 2003, Austan Goolsbee, former chairman of the Obama administration's Council of Economic Advisers, commenting on a Bush-era unemployment figure, wrote in a New York Times op-ed: "the government has cooked the books."

I think they do it to avoid panic and deepening of the recession. If they report the real numbers they are afraid people will go on lockdown with their wallets which will make things worse and cause more unemployment. That is just my 2 cents.