CONFIRMED!: Rich People DO Create the Jobs

[cbirch2]

As I've already pointed out, the money and effort required to open a store front, obtain the requisite licenses and tax use permits, jump through the other various and sundry regulatory hoops, and hire the help -all of which has to happen before demand #1 is fulfilled- is expended by the relatively wealthy business operator.

And as I've already pointed out, that's not in dispute nor does it address what I have been saying. That money WILL NOT be expended unless it's believed that demand is sufficient that the products or services to be offered as a result will sell.

While demand may well keep the doors of the business open, the consumers do absolutely none of the hiring, firing or any other aspect of the job creation, at the point where those actions are carried out.

No, they don't themselves DO these things, but they are the REASON why these things are done. Without adequate consumer demand to justify them, these things WON'T be done.

Oh really?...Who demanded the airplane, telephone or the fucking Frisbee, before their invention?

Totally irrelevant. Its not that government should provide demand for the invention of new products; although historically the government has made important research investments. The problem is the businessess wont hire if demand for their products isnt high enough.

Ever taken a microeconomics class?

Demand determines your level of output. A business will, or should if it has the money, hire until it can match that level of output. This is the problem. Comprehende?

 

[daveman]

Ah the poor rich ! they have forms to fill out? and regulations? and all they get is billions in corporate welfare and free ride from taxpayers. poor poor rich!

Can you be specific or are you just ranting to cover up that you cant be specific?

Most importantly, the rich are saintly because they got rich through capitalism, i.e., by enormous contributions to our society. Henry Ford, for example, made millions, for making billions in automobiles available to the world's population.

Also, please note that rich guys like Jobs and Gates create jobs and the products that got us from the stone age to hear, not the poor janitors at their companies. Stealing and taxing money from them harms us all because they are the ones who know how to use it most productively.

First off I deny they are "job creaters" they are more like opportunists,much like a thief. Jobs and Gates do not deserve a free ride off of taxpayers.

And poor people do?

 

[daveman]

And as I've already pointed out, that's not in dispute nor does it address what I have been saying. That money WILL NOT be expended unless it's believed that demand is sufficient that the products or services to be offered as a result will sell.

No, they don't themselves DO these things, but they are the REASON why these things are done. Without adequate consumer demand to justify them, these things WON'T be done.

Oh really?...Who demanded the airplane, telephone or the fucking Frisbee, before their invention?

Totally irrelevant. Its not that government should provide demand for the invention of new products; although historically the government has made important research investments. The problem is the businessess wont hire if demand for their products isnt high enough.

Ever taken a microeconomics class?

Demand determines your level of output. A business will, or should if it has the money, hire until it can match that level of output. This is the problem. Comprehende?

Perhaps you should ask Bernie Sanders to introduce legislation mandating every company hire 10% more workers immediately.

Because, you know, the business owners are just not hiring out of spite. Right?

 

[Dragon]

Oh really?...Who demanded the airplane, telephone or the fucking Frisbee, before their invention?

People who wanted to travel quickly, talk to other people long-distance, or play with a cool toy. And, more importantly, people who had the money to buy plane tickets, phone service, and Frisbees.

 

[kwc57]

Business wont hire if there isnt enough demand for their products.

Imagine that scenario, what would it look like? Well you'd see corporations and businesses sitting on huge sums of cash, businesses not hiring anyone.

Wow sounds familiar.

And in that scenario yes government should spend money to create demand to provide jobs to have businesses pay their workers (who can then consume). Youd have to assume an multiplier of at least 2. Thats on the low side.

With interest rates this low we would need a pathetically low multiplier for stimulus to not be effective. Something like 1.05, which is almost impossible.

The problem is demand, its obvious to anyone that watches, and the solution is certainly government spending.

Point out for the rest of the class the part of the constitution that says the government is responsible for "creating demand". Go ahead, we'll wait. What, you can't find it? Really? I wonder where it went? Maybe it's hiding behind an article or an amendment.

 

[Dragon]

Point out for the rest of the class the part of the constitution that says the government is responsible for "creating demand".

The Constitution doesn't explicitly spell out ANY responsibilities for the government, except on such technical matters as when to hold elections. But it doesn't follow from this that the government should do nothing.

The Constitution does have a section which spells out the powers of Congress, and two of those authorize the government, in various ways, to uphold demand if we through our representatives decide this is something desirable. This does not say that Congress MUST uphold demand (which was the silly question you actually asked), but it does clearly say that it MAY do so.

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; . . .

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"

Article I, Section 8.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Ah the poor rich ! they have forms to fill out? and regulations? and all they get is billions in corporate welfare and free ride from taxpayers. poor poor rich!

Can you be specific or are you just ranting to cover up that you cant be specific?

Most importantly, the rich are saintly because they got rich through capitalism, i.e., through enormous contributions to our society. Henry Ford, for example, made millions, by making billions in automobiles available to the world's population.

Also, please note that rich guys like Jobs and Gates create the jobs and products that got us from the stone age to here, not the poor janitors at their companies. Stealing and taxing money from them harms us all because they are the ones who know how to use it most productively to create jobs and products.

Okay.......I'll bite.......

What has Grover Norquist contributed to this country?

What have the Koch brothers contributed? Are they "job creators"? Because the Koch brothers cut many jobs from their company to increase their personal wealth. I think the number they cut was around 24,000.

 

[kwc57]

Point out for the rest of the class the part of the constitution that says the government is responsible for "creating demand".

The Constitution doesn't explicitly spell out ANY responsibilities for the government, except on such technical matters as when to hold elections. But it doesn't follow from this that the government should do nothing.

The Constitution does have a section which spells out the powers of Congress, and two of those authorize the government, in various ways, to uphold demand if we through our representatives decide this is something desirable. This does not say that Congress MUST uphold demand (which was the silly question you actually asked), but it does clearly say that it MAY do so.

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; . . .

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"

Article I, Section 8.

Nice try, but no cigar.

 

[cbirch2]

Oh really?...Who demanded the airplane, telephone or the fucking Frisbee, before their invention?

Totally irrelevant. Its not that government should provide demand for the invention of new products; although historically the government has made important research investments. The problem is the businessess wont hire if demand for their products isnt high enough.

Ever taken a microeconomics class?

Demand determines your level of output. A business will, or should if it has the money, hire until it can match that level of output. This is the problem. Comprehende?

Perhaps you should ask Bernie Sanders to introduce legislation mandating every company hire 10% more workers immediately.

Because, you know, the business owners are just not hiring out of spite. Right?

No they are just not hiring because there isnt enough demand for their products....

Wtf are you talking about duuuuude?

 

[cbirch2]

Business wont hire if there isnt enough demand for their products.

Imagine that scenario, what would it look like? Well you'd see corporations and businesses sitting on huge sums of cash, businesses not hiring anyone.

Wow sounds familiar.

And in that scenario yes government should spend money to create demand to provide jobs to have businesses pay their workers (who can then consume). Youd have to assume an multiplier of at least 2. Thats on the low side.

With interest rates this low we would need a pathetically low multiplier for stimulus to not be effective. Something like 1.05, which is almost impossible.

The problem is demand, its obvious to anyone that watches, and the solution is certainly government spending.

Point out for the rest of the class the part of the constitution that says the government is responsible for "creating demand". Go ahead, we'll wait. What, you can't find it? Really? I wonder where it went? Maybe it's hiding behind an article or an amendment.

O sorry lets just not save the economy because the consitution doesnt specifically say the government can.

The constitution sets an awesome ground work but that doesnt mean it should be used as an excuse to not do totally rational things you dont agree with. Its not like the government is violating the bill of rights. When the constitution was written we didnt have international banking institutions and systemic risk, so its not quite fair to say that the government should just butt-out. Thats like saying the constitution doesnt mention airplanes so we shouldnt have the FAA. Im sure the constitution doesnt say the FDIC should insure deposits, its still a pretty good idea though.

 

[Dragon]

Nice try, but no cigar.

[Fart]

(The above is a translation of your response's coherent and rational content. I suggest trying again.)

 

[cbirch2]

Nice try, but no cigar.

[Fart]

(The above is a translation of your response's coherent and rational content. I suggest trying again.)

Lol as if we need the constitution to explicitly authorize this. The government has money and it can spend it however it wants, as long as its not infringing on other explicitly stated rights.

If the government wants to burn your tax money it can. Thats cause for outrage, but its not unconstitutional.

 

[kwc57]

Business wont hire if there isnt enough demand for their products.

Imagine that scenario, what would it look like? Well you'd see corporations and businesses sitting on huge sums of cash, businesses not hiring anyone.

Wow sounds familiar.

And in that scenario yes government should spend money to create demand to provide jobs to have businesses pay their workers (who can then consume). Youd have to assume an multiplier of at least 2. Thats on the low side.

With interest rates this low we would need a pathetically low multiplier for stimulus to not be effective. Something like 1.05, which is almost impossible.

The problem is demand, its obvious to anyone that watches, and the solution is certainly government spending.

Point out for the rest of the class the part of the constitution that says the government is responsible for "creating demand". Go ahead, we'll wait. What, you can't find it? Really? I wonder where it went? Maybe it's hiding behind an article or an amendment.

O sorry lets just not save the economy because the consitution doesnt specifically say the government can.

The constitution sets an awesome ground work but that doesnt mean it should be used as an excuse to not do totally rational things you dont agree with. Its not like the government is violating the bill of rights. When the constitution was written we didnt have international banking institutions and systemic risk, so its not quite fair to say that the government should just butt-out. Thats like saying the constitution doesnt mention airplanes so we shouldnt have the FAA. Im sure the constitution doesnt say the FDIC should insure deposits, its still a pretty good idea though.

So from your perspective, the constitution is pretty worthless I guess? I mean if you believe the government should get involved in whatever they feel like because it's a "good idea", they should just go ahead and do it, correct? Do you even understand how our government is "supposed" to work? Because what you describe ain't it.

 

[cbirch2]

Point out for the rest of the class the part of the constitution that says the government is responsible for "creating demand". Go ahead, we'll wait. What, you can't find it? Really? I wonder where it went? Maybe it's hiding behind an article or an amendment.

O sorry lets just not save the economy because the consitution doesnt specifically say the government can.

The constitution sets an awesome ground work but that doesnt mean it should be used as an excuse to not do totally rational things you dont agree with. Its not like the government is violating the bill of rights. When the constitution was written we didnt have international banking institutions and systemic risk, so its not quite fair to say that the government should just butt-out. Thats like saying the constitution doesnt mention airplanes so we shouldnt have the FAA. Im sure the constitution doesnt say the FDIC should insure deposits, its still a pretty good idea though.

So from your perspective, the constitution is pretty worthless I guess? I mean if you believe the government should get involved in whatever they feel like because it's a "good idea", they should just go ahead and do it, correct? Do you even understand how our government is "supposed" to work? Because what you describe ain't it.

Thats quite the stretch. Did i ever say the constitution was worthless?

What part of the constitution forbids the government from spending money to buy local goods? Hmm?? It would be pretty strange if the government buying lumber from a lumber company was unconstitutional.

 

[daveman]

Totally irrelevant. Its not that government should provide demand for the invention of new products; although historically the government has made important research investments. The problem is the businessess wont hire if demand for their products isnt high enough.

Ever taken a microeconomics class?

Demand determines your level of output. A business will, or should if it has the money, hire until it can match that level of output. This is the problem. Comprehende?

Perhaps you should ask Bernie Sanders to introduce legislation mandating every company hire 10% more workers immediately.

Because, you know, the business owners are just not hiring out of spite. Right?

No they are just not hiring because there isnt enough demand for their products....

Wtf are you talking about duuuuude?

There's no demand for products because few people have discretionary income. Democrats repeatedly demonstrate they have no interest in getting people back to work (because that would require getting government out of the way of business). The left wants more and more people dependent on government, because a vote for Dems is a vote for free goodies.

 

[cbirch2]

Perhaps you should ask Bernie Sanders to introduce legislation mandating every company hire 10% more workers immediately.

Because, you know, the business owners are just not hiring out of spite. Right?

No they are just not hiring because there isnt enough demand for their products....

Wtf are you talking about duuuuude?

There's no demand for products because few people have discretionary income.

Dead on accurate!

Democrats repeatedly demonstrate they have no interest in getting people back to work

Well to be fair, i would argue the same thing about republicans. The only concern they have is to gut the public sector, as if the private sector is fine and the only problem is government. Thats quite the spin on the crisis.

(because that would require getting government out of the way of business).

And the extent to which this is the problem can be debated. Certainly businesses would make more money if there were no minimum wage laws, or dumping violations. But is this the root problem right now, or is the recession being used as a means to an end? The economic problems might be eased somewhat through relaxation of regulation, but that isnt the root cause of the problem.

The left wants more and more people dependent on government, because a vote for Dems is a vote for free goodies.

Lol. You've got a pretty well thought out idea of how the world works there dont you? I'm not counting on welfare recipients for a vote, and i dont get aid from the government in any way. So why, in your mind, am i a democrat?

I might ask you why anyone making under 250k a year would ever vote republican...

I want government to buy products and services from american businesses during a recession. Apparently in your mind that means every american is dependent on some socialist welfare system. In my mind thats textbook economics.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

the solution is certainly government spending.

Yes for sure, we're $15 trillion in debt but the solution lies in being $20 trillion in debt. And, we must get there by dropping money from helicopters since there are no shovel ready projects. Liberalism is a deadly joke.

 

[ABikerSailor]

the solution is certainly government spending.

Yes for sure, we're $15 trillion in debt but the solution lies in being $20 trillion in debt. And, we must get there by dropping money from helicopters since there are no shovel ready projects. Liberalism is a deadly joke.

No shovel ready jobs? Check into the TIGER program sometime. California has over 90 million in shovel ready jobs, but they've only got the funding for 1/30th of that.

Sorry, but with the way the infrastructure is crumbling, we've got plenty of jobs that are ready to go, they just need funding.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Sorry, but with the way the infrastructure is crumbling, we've got plenty of jobs that are ready to go, they just need funding.

thats what Obama thought too:

Obama: "No Such Thing as Shovel-Ready Projects" - Political ...Obama: "No Such Thing as Shovel-Ready Projects" - Political Hotsheet - CBS News - Similar
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
Oct 13, 2010 – Obama: "No Such Thing as Shovel-Ready Projects" ... would go to "shovel-ready" projects -- projects that would put people to work right away. ...

besides its far faster to just drop the money from helicopters if you want to create a bubble stimulus and another recession.

 

[cbirch2]

the solution is certainly government spending.

Yes for sure, we're $15 trillion in debt but the solution lies in being $20 trillion in debt. And, we must get there by dropping money from helicopters since there are no shovel ready projects. Liberalism is a deadly joke.

Lol in your mind things work like that.

The rest of us will have conversations in the real world.