Mrs. Comrade Clinton has spoken.... businesses don't create jobs... must be the govt

[werepossum]

I tried to clarify and simplify later on. I hope I did.

What you posted the first time was fine and needed no clarification. There are simply some people who refuse to believe that that government cannot create prosperity by just taking enough money from enough people and giving it to enough other people. Therefore whenever it does not work, the only possible explanation is that not enough money was redistributed. In reality, that premise is at least as outdated as the premise of tax cuts bringing lasting prosperity. It's just that people seize on something simple.

 

[Zaap]

China is a prime example of what...

...government know-it-all created "prosperity" on steroids looks like.

Hacks like Hillary would create a monstrosity of a system every bit as bloated and insane if given free reign.

 

[ivwshane]

His point was that demand alone doesn't create jobs. If President Hillary announces that she's going to give out a hundred billion dollars in other people's money (or more likely, borrowed money) next month then some businesses who get that money in trade will hire and others won't. If your labor is cheap, fairly inelastic, and easily trained, then it makes sense to create jobs, with the understanding that those jobs will last only as long as the redistribution. If your labor is not cheap, not reasonably inelastic, and/or not easily trained, then for that redistribution it makes no sense to create jobs because the redistribution will be over before your new labor becomes productive.

That may have been what he meant but that is not what he said, he could have easily clarified what he meant within one post, he didn't.

Again he said, "demand never creates jobs", which I'm sure you'd agree is a ridiculous claim to make.

 

[dphantom]

Hillary has issued a clarification:

"On Monday, Clinton said she “short-handed” her point about the failure of trickle-down economics.

More from Clinton on Monday, via Politico: “Our economy grows when businesses and entrepreneurs create good-paying jobs here in America and workers and families are empowered to build from the bottom up and the middle out — not when we hand out tax breaks for corporations that outsource jobs or stash their profits overseas.”


Somewhat like the "clarification" for the dead broke comments in June.

Not sure why she is talking about trickle down anyway since we have been in a keynsian economy for at least the last 6 years and arguably a bit longer.

 

[senseamp]

...government know-it-all created "prosperity" on steroids looks like.

Hacks like Hillary would create a monstrosity of a system every bit as bloated and insane if given free reign.

Supply side economics. Build it, and they will come. Not.

 

[ElFenix]

His point was that demand alone doesn't create jobs. If President Hillary announces that she's going to give out a hundred billion dollars in other people's money (or more likely, borrowed money) next month then some businesses who get that money in trade will hire and others won't. If your labor is cheap, fairly inelastic, and easily trained, then it makes sense to create jobs, with the understanding that those jobs will last only as long as the redistribution. If your labor is not cheap, not reasonably inelastic, and/or not easily trained, then for that redistribution it makes no sense to create jobs because the redistribution will be over before your new labor becomes productive.

If you're under full employment the 'redistribution' should be designed to get you up to it, and as you pull back you stay at full employment so long as you don't yank the rug out from under it. The 'redistribution' is more like shifting gears.

 

[ElFenix]

Businesses can create their own demand by inventing a product people want.

If you build it, they will come, just means you're fulfilling demand that was there, even if untapped.

 

[Zaap]

Supply side economics. Build it, and they will come. Not.

Do you ever do anything but spout platitudes you don't comprehend? China runs like your fondest nannystate wet dream.

http://www.businessinsider.com/chinas-ghost-cities-in-2014-2014-6

I think it's important to remember, too, that the ghost city phenomenon in China is partially due to how local governments are forced to finance themselves. Local governments in China are in a perpetual cash squeeze because they have to hand over a bulk of their tax revenue to the central government and because the central government often orders localities to build all sorts of infrastructure projects but Beijing often neglects to help with funding. Because the Party owns all of the land in China, local governments solve their funding problems by seizing land from their poorest residents, giving them a paltry sum in return, and then they sell the land to developers, essentially flipping real estate on a massive scale. Of course this has the added benefit of raising GDP figures, increasing the chance that local leaders will be promoted within the Party.

 

[Matt1970]

If you build it, they will come, just means you're fulfilling demand that was there, even if untapped.

A lot of times people don't know they want something till they see it. That is businesses creating the demand and therefore creating the jobs. How many time have you seen something in a store or on a commercial and you just had to have it? Was the demand there before you saw the product?

 

[Vic]

Capital makes it possible to create jobs, but other than guarding the capital and counting the capital does not in and of itself create jobs. Someone has to step up and risk that capital to create a job. But kudos for understanding a very important and often neglected part of economics - without capital and the will to risk it, many jobs cannot be created.

Gee, thanks... I think.

Under the ideal capitalist economy, all capital would always be at risk (with any 'safe havens' ie bonds paying negative real interest rates, like they are now). Thus encouraging owners of capital to keep their assets invested (and creating jobs), no 'will' required.

 

[Vic]

A lot of times people don't know they want something till they see it. That is businesses creating the demand and therefore creating the jobs. How many time have you seen something in a store or on a commercial and you just had to have it? Was the demand there before you saw the product?

Did the business build the roads that the consumers took to get to the store where they saw the product that, upon seeing, they demanded to buy? Or the massive electrical infrastructure required to broadcast the commercial?
How do consumers have the money to buy the product that creates the job if they don't already have a job in the first place?

You are seriously arguing the chicken and the egg without even realizing it.

 

[glenn1]

Hillary has issued a clarification:

"On Monday, Clinton said she “short-handed” her point about the failure of trickle-down economics.

More from Clinton on Monday, via Politico: “Our economy grows when businesses and entrepreneurs create good-paying jobs here in America and workers and families are empowered to build from the bottom up and the middle out — not when we hand out tax breaks for corporations that outsource jobs or stash their profits overseas.”


Somewhat like the "clarification" for the dead broke comments in June.

Not sure why she is talking about trickle down anyway since we have been in a keynsian economy for at least the last 6 years and arguably a bit longer.

Better - still a political opinion rather than fact but a defensible one rather than nonsensical unlike her original statement. For someone whose job is being a politician she sure doesn't speak elegantly or precisely. How hard is it to link the cause and effect words you're arguing (trickle down doesn't work or create jobs) rather than the agent of the effect (corporations)?

 

[glenn1]

Did the business build the roads that the consumers took to get to the store where they saw the product that, upon seeing, they demanded to buy? Or the massive electrical infrastructure required to broadcast the commercial?
How do consumers have the money to buy the product that creates the job if they don't already have a job in the first place?

You are seriously arguing the chicken and the egg without even realizing it.

How does roads or electricity lines being built therefore oblige everyone to support a welfare state? The entire "it takes a village" concept is a crock of shit.

 

[Matt1970]

Did the business build the roads that the consumers took to get to the store where they saw the product that, upon seeing, they demanded to buy? Or the massive electrical infrastructure required to broadcast the commercial?
How do consumers have the money to buy the product that creates the job if they don't already have a job in the first place?

You are seriously arguing the chicken and the egg without even realizing it.

Did I say they couldn't do it without the roads and electrical infrastructure? Please stop with the government and roads. Did I say, or even imply that we don't need a government building roads? BTW, the government didn't earn the money to build the roads, that's our money doing that. They just collect it in taxes and do the things we elect them to do. And without businesses making money and paying taxes and also paying it's employees that pay taxes, there is no money to make those roads.

 

[tracerbullet]

Alert, alert - a politician says a few sentences, people read them without having seen the rest of what was said, then make 8+ pages of arguments on their assumptions about what else might have or not been said and what she meant.

Did I miss anything?

 

[Vic]

How does roads or electricity lines being built therefore oblige everyone to support a welfare state? The entire "it takes a village" concept is a crock of shit.

And Kaczynski was a perfect libertarian until he used the postal service..

I've never said that anyone should be obliged to support a welfare state. Ever. But if you don't want to pay into it, then kindly stop taking from it. Thank you.

 

[Matt1970]

Alert, alert - a politician says a few sentences, people read them without having seen the rest of what was said, then make 8+ pages of arguments on their assumptions about what else might have or not been said and what she meant.

Did I miss anything?

Ya, you missed the fact that what she said was absolute horseshit.

 

[ElFenix]

A lot of times people don't know they want something till they see it. That is businesses creating the demand and therefore creating the jobs. How many time have you seen something in a store or on a commercial and you just had to have it? Was the demand there before you saw the product?

The demand was there just like oil was in the ground until someone tapped it.

 

[Vic]

Did I say they couldn't do it without the roads and electrical infrastructure? Please stop with the government and roads. Did I say, or even imply that we don't need a government building roads? BTW, the government didn't earn the money to build the roads, that's our money doing that. They just collect it in taxes and do the things we elect them to do. And without businesses making money and paying taxes and also paying it's employees that pay taxes, there is no money to make those roads.

Do you even know what money is?

And where did I say government 'earned' the money to build the roads? I will agree though that, like any business, they provided a demanded product and a fee was charged. If you don't like paying for them, then don't drive on them.

 

[Vic]

The demand was there just like oil was in the ground until someone tapped it.

Exactly. People have always wanted the products that our industry creates. Those products simply weren't available before now. We want more too. Hell, I want an electric car with 600 hp that drives 1000 miles before recharging in 5 minutes and then I want to vacation on Mars. After that, I'm interested in the cure for old age.

 

[glenn1]

Do you even know what money is?

And where did I say government 'earned' the money to build the roads? I will agree though that, like any business, they provided a demanded product and a fee was charged. If you don't like paying for them, then don't drive on them.

LOL, if you don't like corporate subsidies don't take a job from them. See how fun this is?

 

[Vic]

LOL, if you don't like corporate subsidies don't take a job from them. See how fun this is?

Are you arguing with someone else?

 

[lopri]

...government know-it-all created "prosperity" on steroids looks like.

And this isn't?

Or have you heard of New Deal?

 

[lopri]

For those who prefer laissez-faire economy, there are lots of countries in the world that you might want to consider in Africa and South America, where private armies fight over territories, humans are sold for labor and organs, children are required to work in toxic environments, seniors are left in the middle of jungle or desert by family, etc. If you have enough money for private everything, though, those places may provide you with a heavenly experience.

Libertarians never want to talk about how laissez-faire actually fared in history, let alone in modern global economy. They of course want to talk about Communism without acknowledging that most European social democracy maintain great standard of living (such as dramatically lower crime rates) with much more egalitarian policies than those of the U.S.

Then they sometimes turn around and say that minimum wages in the U.S. prevents U.S. labor from competing against China. It's as if they had a brain the size of amoeba's.

Granted those kind of libertarians are not the ones who are taken seriously in academy or policy groups, but it is oh-so-common in real life to run into such nonsensical arguments.

 

[glenn1]

For those who prefer laissez-faire economy, there are lots of countries in the world that you might want to consider in Africa and South America, where private armies fight over territories, humans are sold for labor and organs, children are required to work in toxic environments, seniors are left in the middle of jungle or desert by family, etc. If you have enough money for private everything, though, those places may provide you with a heavenly experience.

Libertarians never want to talk about how laissez-faire actually fared in history, let alone in modern global economy. They of course want to talk about Communism without acknowledging that most European social democracy maintain great standard of living (such as dramatically lower crime rates) with much more egalitarian policies than those of the U.S.

Then they sometimes turn around and say that minimum wages in the U.S. prevents U.S. labor from competing against China. It's as if they had a brain the size of amoeba's.

Granted those kind of libertarians are not the ones who are taken seriously in academy or policy groups, but it is oh-so-common in real life to run into such nonsensical arguments.

Isn't there some poor white trash who dropped out of high school and had multiple children out of wedlock you should be getting all moist about giving a big fat government check to?