Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
How many homeless poor people have ever given you a job?
That questions like that sometimes are accepted and are frequently unchallenged is a mystery, given that in ...
...
Still, the question quoted above has no foundation in any context of the world of work. Period.
The facts prove that DEMAND creates OPPORTUNITIES which create jobs. Pretending supply creates jobs is like believing in Santa Claus - more embarrassing with age.
One side of the problem is that the statement is made from double ignorance. [snip supporting anecdote]
I personally know a person that was homeless and created a number of jobs. *He started by hand washing cars, eventually renting an unused car wash. *He managed to grow the business to the point of employing a number of people.
It is extremely difficult. *During an down economy, profit and credit are zero at the bottom of the economy. *Growth requires the smallest level of investment just to pay this months rent to keep the business open for the month. *Accumulating enough to cover seasonal variations is extremely hard.
This is exactly why economic growth requires a smooth variation across income levels without to large of a range. *A reasonable level of economic growth is highly dependent upon there being extra resources available across the population.
You're right.... poor people create more jobs....
Glad you agree. It really is quite simple, the rich buy one loaf of bread, the poor, because there are many more, buy a thousand loaves of bread. The farmer succeeds, the bread company succeeds, the store succeeds, and the workers succeed. Soon with lots succeeding we have a middle class full of success. This weekend I am among the rich and while they are usually nice people, the idea they create jobs always sticks in the back of my mind. Funny how myths, while myths, gain believers and remain in place in spite of being contrary to common sense.
How do you define rich? If you define rich by President Obama's standards then your examples of the farmer (at least some farmers), the owner of the bread company and the owners of many stores are defined as rich people. They are rich people who provide jobs.
The concept really makes no sense at all. The poor can buy bread if they are first given the money to buy the bread. They do not make dough, or bake, or clean the pans. They contribute nothing to bread baking. Following this line of reasoning, is it possible for a baker to be successful if he must pay the customers to buy his product? If he gives more people money to buy his bread will that make him successful? Of course not.
No it isn't and the idea is totally absurd.
To the censorship point: this is not an example of censorship. It is an example of a private institution deciding on what it is going to publish. Does anyone really need to explain what the basic difference is in a public entity declaring that something cannot be printed/shared over a private entity choosing what it is going to publish?
By your standard expressed in the OP, I can demand that my favorite show being cancelled is censorship. Such a concept is absurd.
As far as the concept that you are trying to declare censored:
The idea that simple demand creates jobs (by creating supply) is equally absurd. Twenty years ago there was zero demand for iPads yet today there is quite a demand there. Was that because poor people suddenly realized that they wanted tablets? No, of course not. It was because some rich people created a product through investment and research that people would want. Then there is demand for all kinds of products that simply do not exist but there is no one that has invented them or created the supply yet. Simply put, to state that the right create jobs ignores the basic fact that you need buyers to make money yet to demand that the poor create jobs ignores the fact that there needs to be a rich man or woman behind them financing the creation of that business or product. In essence, both are wrong. The entire system stand and all levels are required in it. Both capital is required for the creation of the product and the consumers are required for the consumption of that product. Products do not simply magically appear because the poor want them and customers do not magically appear because the rich have money. The system must be taken as a whole or you end up with these worthless arguments that try and ignore massive parts of the process that crates products and jobs.
That questions like that sometimes are accepted and are frequently unchallenged is a mystery, given that in ...
...
Still, the question quoted above has no foundation in any context of the world of work. Period.
The facts prove that DEMAND creates OPPORTUNITIES which create jobs. Pretending supply creates jobs is like believing in Santa Claus - more embarrassing with age.
One side of the problem is that the statement is made from double ignorance. [snip supporting anecdote]
I personally know a person that was homeless and created a number of jobs. *He started by hand washing cars, eventually renting an unused car wash. *He managed to grow the business to the point of employing a number of people.
It is extremely difficult. *During an down economy, profit and credit are zero at the bottom of the economy. *Growth requires the smallest level of investment just to pay this months rent to keep the business open for the month. *Accumulating enough to cover seasonal variations is extremely hard.
This is exactly why economic growth requires a smooth variation across income levels without to large of a range. *A reasonable level of economic growth is highly dependent upon there being extra resources available across the population.
Two things...
While my ignorance knows few bounds, it stops short of believing that your anecdotal carwash king was homeless by the time they were filing all the forms the government requires of fully legal businesses. Great story of success, though.
Your last sentence proves the idiocy of supply side voodooness whether through corporate welfare through a bobbleheaded old B actor and New Dealer fooling halfwits into believing he was cutting spending or a proudly big spending liberal pissing a trillion or so down the state and local government drain. Tax receipts or public debt being paid into the top is Keynesian whether halfwits call it supply side or admit it is welfare by another name.
Without resources on Main Street, there isn't going to be a recovery of the kind most Americans above about forty are thinking might happen. It can't happen because ALL of the money paid out of the US Treasury to corporations and to state and local government went to the wrong people for the wrong reasons. If Reagan or Obama had enough sense to fight for tax reform, say, making the first $40k or so (in 2012 dollars) income tax free, the recession of 1981 would have ended in six months instead of eighteen and the current mess would already be over as a middle-class destroyer. The mess would still be there, but it wouldn't be as catastrophic to the bottom 33% of wage earners in the US.
To recap: every MAJOR economy in history was based on demand. Demand is to economies what location is to real estate. That is how it has always been. That is how it shall always be. Whether it is diamonds or pet rocks or health care, without demand supply is no guarantee of anything.
Next.
Define rich - is this censorship - add propaganda
Defining the rich, those who because of the American system of democracy and free enterprise earn over 300 thousand or have assets exceeding several million including lots of liquid assets. That would be my definition. Three homes and two Bentleys may help too. Most people reading this would be happy earning 80 to 120 thousand but I would not define them as rich. Upper middle maybe.
But the rich or wealthy who manage the message of corporations, or simply own assets that provide millions in earning, are the people who often try to control the message, aka censorship. I think the limitation of censorship to only an enforcing entity, government for instance, misses the point. Censorship takes many forms.
A personal observation: if you are watching TV and President Obama is making a speech of some importance, or addressing some timely issue turn to Fox. If you were watching Fox you would not even know he was speaking. I counted several times these past couple of years when this was the case. Now of course someone will say this is not censorship, I would disagree. Now watch Fox when some story or presumed scandal is unfolding. Weird how the slant changes. Of course this is America and Fox is free to bash our President, I just wish they were just a bit more honest about it. They pretend BS is truth and then engage in a circle jerk of sorrowful loss. One wonders how they get through each day.
OK where's propaganda come in? Is Propaganda censorship? That's a tough question because when you have either the money or the position of power, you can censor ideas simply by ignoring it or giving alternate ideas. I'm gonna leave this question open for now.
Propaganda regardless of truth works if it fits a worldview. From here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/writing/103530-fact-paradox-and-random-musings.html#post4213979
"Propaganda does not deceive people; it merely helps them to deceive themselves." Eric Hoffer
"The 20th century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: The growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy." Alex Carey
But the rich or wealthy who manage the message of corporations, or simply own assets that provide millions in earning, are the people who often try to control the message, aka censorship. I think the limitation of censorship to only an enforcing entity, government for instance, misses the point. Censorship takes many forms.
The only kind of censorship that affects jobs is the censorship of new ideas and/or products....
For one, Big Oil Companies, and the Big Three Auto Makers have been buying up "new ideas" for years and years and preventing better, more efficient was of transportation............