Ross Perot

[jack spade23]

Someone want to fill me in on the policies of Ross Perot? I have absolutely no idea on what he was about, I only know him from reruns of the Dana Carvey SNL skits. How did he get 19% of the vote? (assuming thats the correct number)Just curious.

[lehighguy]

I too am curious. I was like 10 when this happened.

[Felix_Nietsche]

I'd call him a populist. I don't think he had a core political philosophy.

He was anti-NAFTA. His claim was if the USA signed the NAFTA treaty there would be a HUGE SUCKING SOUND of American jobs going to Mexico. I believe he was also for political term limits as well. A lot of people jumped on his bandwagon because he was an anti-politician and spoke his opinions forcefully.

He hated Bush41 (father) with a passion. The funniest part of his presidential run was when he pulled out of the presidential election claiming that 'republican dirty tricksters' were going to plant lesbian pictures of his daughter before her marriage. He withdrew from his presidential run only to later change his mind and run. IS THAT BIZARRE or is that BIZARRE?

He also stuck his foot in his mouth many times which made him a target of Saturday Night Live skits.

He got 19%(?) of the vote for lots of reasons. Bush41 broke his pledge not to raise taxes so lots of republicans/independents voted for Perot because they were mad at Bush41 but didn't care for Clinton. I wonder if there are any people on this forum who would actually admit voting for him(Perot). /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[jack spade23]

Good point. Anyone here vote for him?

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]

He was anti-NAFTA. His claim was if the USA signed the NAFTA treaty there would be a HUGE SUCKING SOUND of American jobs going to Mexico.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is accurate. But, the NAFTA debate took place in 1993- the year after Perot got 19% of the vote in the 1992 election.

Perot's '92 campaign was based mostly on getting rid of the budget deficit. Although the deficit and national debt had been an issue in previous campaigns, it wasn't until Perot pounded it over-and-over with his charts and "straight talk" that it became a primary issue in the election.

The deficit/debt issue combined with Perot's "I'm not a politicial" attitude is what got him the votes.

[CORed]

My personal hypothesis is that Perot ran for the sole purpose of defeating Bush's reelection. I think he pulled out because he was afraid he would win, and reentered to be sure he pulled enough votes to ensure Bush's defeat.

[bholdr]

good post, but a few ommisions:

A: Ross Perot was/is an american billionaire from texas- he owned some energy companies, etc.

B: throughout his life he was politically active, the label 'populist' is a fitting one, but he was in the mold of william jennings bryan as opposes to teddy r.

C: his claim to fame prior to the '92 election came about during the iran hostage crisis, during which he funded a group of commandos/mercanaries to go in and get his people/employees out. Ken Follett wrote a fictionalized account of the series of events culimnating in that raid in his novel "on the wings of eagles". suprisingly, very few people that i knoe are aware of this chapter in Perot's life. (pun intended, sry)

A little history:
The early 90's were a time of dissatisfaction with the republican revoulution of the eighties, Bush lacked the common touch that Reagan had, and was seen as a wimp (hence the recent skydiving shenanigans, etc) and a 'flip-flopper' (to use a more modern term) becuse of his broken 'read my lips, no new taxes' promise. Also, the economy had crashed in 89, inflation was way up, and, (here comes the important part...) the general non-politicly-active population began to worry about the deficit (which was percived to be spiraling out of control)...

Okay, here we go again:

C: Perot's central theme to his campaign was deficit reduction. he employed many tactics that some would consider 'scare tactics', but his presentation of the facts (in 30 minute privatly funded infomercials) was, IMO, very rational and businesslike. He wanted to raise the gas tax by 50c a gallon and cut spending (mainly on defensee and welfare) drasticly, with a goal of eliminating the national debt in 20 years (ii believe that was the goal, anyway)

D: He also portrayed himself as a straight-talking, successful bussinessmen, which he was. his campaign hammered that point home, making fun of Bush as an 'insider' and clinton as a 'slick politician'- he was running on people's frustration with the two party system as much as anything else other than debt reduction.

E: He almost won, or he could have, had it not been for the BIZZARE (apologies to felix) wedding-disruption thing. wow. I believe he was at 34% in the polls vs clinton's 31% and bushI's 28% at one point. he could have won. but he choked. hard.

F: he ran again in 96, failing miserably, as the economy had taken off and the debt was reducing itself.



***

I think this is all accurate, but i was 13 at the time... feel free to correct me.

[Utah]

I believe he was proven correct on the jobs moving to Mexico.

[andyfox]

I think his vice presidential choice also subjected him to some ridicule.

One of the reasons he gave at one time for pulling out, in addition to the thing about his daughter, is that he thought his presence might send the election into the House of Representatives, and that would be a blow to the system.

Hell, I would have loved to have seen that.

[lehighguy]

No he was wrong. Job growth soared during the 1990s due to the fabulous growth in GDP. The pickup in international trade during that period was a key componet of the booming 90s.

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]
No he was wrong. Job growth soared during the 1990s due to the fabulous growth in GDP. The pickup in international trade during that period was a key componet of the booming 90s.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you actually believe this crap? I am curious.

It sounds like it is right out of a CATO Institute trade report.

[BCPVP]

Dead, are you arguing that job growth didn't soar in the 90's...?

[Dead]

Oh it did. Definitely.

But jobs have in fact gone to Mexico. Lehighguy said that they did not. It's not an argument. It's the truth.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh it did. Definitely.

But jobs have in fact gone to Mexico. Lehighguy said that they did not. It's not an argument. It's the truth.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats funny, I cant find a post where lehigh says this.

[Dead]

Utah said:


I believe he was proven correct on the jobs moving to Mexico.

Lehighguy said:

No he was wrong.


-------------------------

Sure the 90s were booming. But jobs went to Mexico.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Utah said:


I believe he was proven correct on the jobs moving to Mexico.

Lehighguy said:

No he was wrong.


-------------------------

Sure the 90s were booming. But jobs went to Mexico.

[/ QUOTE ]
If the context of what Perot said was that NAFTA would hurt the economy by losing jobs, then he would be wrong. I'm sure there was more to what Perot said than just "jobs will go to Mexico..."

[Broken Glass Can]

Perot was a kook.

Here is a paragraph from a Pro-Perot site. (http://www.famoustexans.com/rossperot.htm) They jump through hoops to blame the media for the incidents in question, but Perot's kookiness still comes through.

"Strangely, the news media also misperceived Perot, not as an outsider but as a declared presidential candidate. When he exposed a campaign dirty trick involving a fake nude photo of his daughter, journalists ridiculed him for believing anyone would do such a thing. Oddly, the media knew better than the public that Perot was very experienced in recognizing such covert activities. Perot claimed that if the photo had become public, it would have ruined his daughter's impending wedding. The dirty tactics of his would-be opponents and the biased treatment by the media caused him to reconsider whether he would run. Although he had not yet announced his candidacy, the news media accused him of abruptly withdrawing from the race after getting supporters' hopes up. When Perot later announced his candidacy, the media ridiculed him as a vacillator, conveniently forgetting his promise not to run until he was on every state ballot. As a result of the media's irresponsibility, Perot lost the support of confused voters. Nonetheless, on election day the $57 million of his own money spent on the campaign got him nineteen percent of the vote, the highest percentage for a third party candidate since Theodore Roosevelt."

[lehighguy]

Thanks for clearing that up. Dead obviously missed the crux of the issue, that jobs created - jobs destroyed = positive. But then again that's Dead.

[Utah]

I cant argue definitely because I dont have the data. However, I believe manufacturing jobs were lost en mass during the 90s and many of those jobs went top mexico. I remember reading a study showing tha tthe loss of jobs were not countered by other gains. I will now have to look for the studies.

[Felix_Nietsche]

About 15 years ago I was riding Super Shuttle to the airport and I starting talking to this older man sitting next to me. He told me he worked at IBM and that he was the salesman that took over Ross Perot's sales territory when Perot left to start EDS and become a billionaire.

Now back in the 1960s when Perot sold for IBM, sales people were NOT allowed to make more than their managers. So in his last year at IBM, Ross sold his ENTIRE QUOTA FOR THE YEAR in the first two weeks of January! So he even if he sold more business he would not make any more money. So Ross left IBM to start his own business. This man also told me that he told Perot he was making a HUGE mistake leaving IBM because he could have a very good career there. He was smiling when he told me that. /images/graemlins/smile.gif After he took over the sales territory he asked a few of his customers what they liked about Perot they said, 'He promised you the moon and stars....and he delivered'. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Another Perot story
At the EDS cafeteria it was very common for Perot to order his chicken-fried steak sit down at a table and start talking to regular employees about their perceptions of EDS. I think this was a VERY smart move because in my experience the higher a person rises in a company, the harder it is to get accurate information to make proper decisions since many middle/senior managers like to sugar coat/hide bad news.

Another Perot/EDS Story
When Perot ran EDS (and a few years afterwords) all men wore suits and MOST women did too (some women would wear dresses occasionally and that raised eyebrows). Perot was very big on people wearing suits and you had to wear you suit jacket anytime you left your office. The reason was EDS once got a contract from a Iranian (or Arab) company when the decision makers noticed the mail clerks delivering interoffice mail wearing a suit. This impressed them so much the signed a contract w/ EDS...

[lehighguy]

Loss in manufacturing < Gain in Services

Real Wages Up
Employment Up
GDP Up

I'm done talking about this.

[Utah]

I'm done talking about this.

Then why respond and follow-up with a comment that makes you sound like a total jackass?

[Dead]

Easy to say when you don't even have a real job.

Economists contribute nothing to our economy, btw. Cato Institute does nothing for it. But the corporations that contribute to it do.

[lehighguy]

Because only utter ignorance could lead to a comment like yours. You know that if you poll democrats a huge portion of them will respond that inflation went up under Reagen. It astonishes me how people can not even see what's in front of them in cold hard facts.

We have been losing manufacturing jobs in this country for the last 50 years. Mature economies cycle away from manufacturing and toward services because they are higher margin businesses. We have less factory workers and more computer scientists, civil engineers, lawyers, doctors, marketers, consultants, entreprenuers, etc. The growth of efficiency in the service sector has been the DRIVING FORCE of our economy for several decades. People in China and Mexico don't want to work in factories. They want to sit behind desks in offices. But they can't, we kept those good jobs for ourselfs, and farmed out the crap to them cause they didn't have anywhere else to turn.

I can't convince you that 2+2=4 if you don't want to accept it. I can't convince you to believe the labor department when it announces employment figures each month. So I'm not going to try. If you don't believe the employment statistics or the wealth of independent data supporting them then I can't help you. Hence, why I'm done talking about that.

[Misfire]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe he was proven correct on the jobs moving to Mexico.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then why do Mexicans keep coming here for jobs?

[CHiPS]

I saw several posts about manufacturing jobs going overseas so I will weigh in.
It is not just low tech manufacturing operations that are being moved overseas. I am an electrical engineer and I manufacture computer chips. In the last few years - and continuing over the next few years - a lot of companies are shutting down their chip making facilities here and moving overseas. I have frequent contact with our manufacturing counterparts in Asia. Here are some items to consider:
In many Asian countries, the government will put up 80% of the cost of a chip plant. That's 80% of over a billion dollars. It takes engineering brainpower to run these places. The Americans are good at developing the new technologies, but once they are transferred overseas, the Asians can keep manufacturing operations running very efficiently. People with masters degrees and PhD's in engineering make 1/3 of what their American counterparts do. There are a huge number of people in Asia that work their butts off to get into engineering jobs - it is their way to a better life. They may not have had the advantage of working in the old AT+T Bell Labs and have that high a level of creative skill, but if we give them the developed technologies they will work twice as hard as we do to keep the operation running well. Do not underestimate the ability of smart highly motivated people. We have given them what it would have taken them decades to learn, if ever. But now that we got them started, do not underestimate the loss of high level technical capability here in the US as a result.
The major driving force behind this is corporate greed. It is a complex issue, but I believe the US is making a mistake by letting this happen at the level that it is happening.
Ross Perot tried to tap into this theme and to some degree I agreed with him. His VP candidate was a great man, but at the time he was running, not a viable VP candidate for health reasons.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I believe he was proven correct on the jobs moving to Mexico.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then why do Mexicans keep coming here for jobs?

[/ QUOTE ]

The jobs that went to Mexico suck? http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/shrug2.gif

[SinCityGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
My personal hypothesis is that Perot ran for the sole purpose of defeating Bush's reelection. I think he pulled out because he was afraid he would win, and reentered to be sure he pulled enough votes to ensure Bush's defeat.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is another urban legend that gets recycled periodically (as in your post).

All exit-polling indicates that Perot drew evenly from Bush and Clinton. The only thing he prevented was Clinton getting over 50% of the vote.

Moreover, when Perot withdrew from the race, Clinton built up a huge lead over Bush in the polls. When Perot re-entered the race, Clinton's numbers dropped, Perot's numbers went up, and Bush's remained fairly static at 37% (which is what he got on election day).

[trippin bily]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe he was proven correct on the jobs moving to Mexico.

[/ QUOTE ]
I thought the mexicans were coming to america to take the jobs. Im confused

[lehighguy]

The US isn't "letting this happen". High tech jobs go oversees because of economic reasons. As long as those economic reasons exist no public policy will effectively block companies desire to outsource.

There are two main reason for outsourcing. The first is worker cost. This is a self correcting problem because wages in those countries will eventually rise as the economies of those countries grow.

The second reason is the lack of capability here in the US. We can't turn out enough engineers and scientists to meet the needs of our economy. Even many of the ones we have are immigrants, and as conditions improve in thier home country we will be able to rely less and less on that. At the heart of this problem are two things: culture and education. Our education system sucks. Absolutely blows up until college. And I don't see anyone comming up with a plan to fix it. Like SS, trying to change it makes a lot of people angry and the positive effects of such a change won't be realized for 20-40 years. So politicians don't bother. The second is cultural. American's are kinduv lazy when it comes to thinking. Putting in a lot of hours is different from thinking. Math and science are hard and require you to think, no one wants to do that because they can get along fine in easier fields. People in Asia can't, they need those jobs and will do anything to get them. However, like the cost issue I think the cultural one is somewhat self correcting: a lot of young people in Japan are lazier then thier parents because they already have a good standard of living. They won't put up with the same things. I think after a few generations of affluence they will be just as lazy as Americans.

[CHiPS]

I agree that wages will rise as economies grow, but it will be a long time before wages in Asia are equal to wages in the US, certainly a couple generations or much longer. The flip side is that wages in the US may go down to narrow the gap. So I disagree that this is self correcting in any reasonable length of time. The wage gap will be with us for a long time. Anything that lasts as long as me and my kids is a long term issue.

I agree that education before college is lacking in the US compared to other countries. As to the numbers of engineers a big factor abroad is sheer numbers and higher motivation.

But I can assure you this - there are plenty of smart engineers in this country that are loosing their engineering jobs to foreigners. Some are going into other fields - opening small buisinesses in the service sector, working for financial institutions and becoming internet poker players. A generation ago, people would work for the same engineering companies for a long time and retire with a pension. Companies now drop engineers on a dime for cheaper foreign labor, and the reaction is for many talented people to say the heck with American corporations - I'm smart enough to make it on my own. This trend is not good for the high tech manufacturing capability of the country - although it may spark some more individual creativity in the country.

One underlying issue is that this country tolerates too many crooks in top executive slots of corporations. If we held those folks to higher standards of morality overall, we would probably have a better work environment in the corporate world.

[lehighguy]

As for the first paragraph, you can't stop this. The real imbalance is that thier so poor and they don't deserve to be. That's a result of history, and it must be corrected. Your right, it will probably take two generations, but I don't see any other way we will reach a long run equilibrium that is sustainable. If you can come up with a better plan, please tell me.

You last sentence seems off topic. People at the top are crooks. THey're crooks in those foriegn countries too, often moreso. But that is independent of the underlying economic factors leading to outsourcing.