bripat9643: Dumbest liberal statements in USMB "Demand creates jobs"

[Oldstyle]

Even the ridiculous notion that job CREATORS create jobs just for fun and out of the goodness of their divine hearts proves that it starts with demand. The CREATORS demand a profit for anything they invest in. "Losing money" is out of the question.

It's no coincidence Republicans call them "job CREATORS".

Actually...what's ridiculous is the notion that someone would invest their precious capital simply because there is demand for some product or service. Savvy investors want to know two things...what's my return on investment...and how much of a risk am I taking? In reality there may be ZERO demand for a product or service yet an investor might very well risk capital if they were convinced that the profits would be large if a market for the product or service was developed. How is THAT possible if demand is the driving element of job creation? Duh?

 

[bripat9643]

Even the ridiculous notion that job CREATORS create jobs just for fun and out of the goodness of their divine hearts proves that it starts with demand. The CREATORS demand a profit for anything they invest in. "Losing money" is out of the question.

It's no coincidence Republicans call them "job CREATORS".

Yes, deanie, job creators do expect to make a profit. They never claimed, as liberal politicians claim, that they are doing it purely out of the goodness in their hearts - bless their souls.

The question you need to answer is "so what?" What difference does it make why they do it? Actually, doing because they want to make a profit is a far better motive than the one the politicians claim. Nothing is a better guarantee of performance than the profit motive. After all, how many people actually expect politicians to come through on their claims?

 

[bripat9643]

Even the ridiculous notion that job CREATORS create jobs just for fun and out of the goodness of their divine hearts proves that it starts with demand. The CREATORS demand a profit for anything they invest in. "Losing money" is out of the question.

It's no coincidence Republicans call them "job CREATORS".

Actually...what's ridiculous is the notion that someone would invest their precious capital simply because there is demand for some product or service. Savvy investors want to know two things...what's my return on investment...and how much of a risk am I taking? In reality there may be ZERO demand for a product or service yet an investor might very well risk capital if they were convinced that the profits would be large if a market for the product or service was developed. How is THAT possible if demand is the driving element of job creation? Duh?

That's exactly what happened in the case of the iPhone and the iPad.

 

[rdean]

Even the ridiculous notion that job CREATORS create jobs just for fun and out of the goodness of their divine hearts proves that it starts with demand. The CREATORS demand a profit for anything they invest in. "Losing money" is out of the question.

It's no coincidence Republicans call them "job CREATORS".

Actually...what's ridiculous is the notion that someone would invest their precious capital simply because there is demand for some product or service. Savvy investors want to know two things...what's my return on investment...and how much of a risk am I taking? In reality there may be ZERO demand for a product or service yet an investor might very well risk capital if they were convinced that the profits would be large if a market for the product or service was developed. How is THAT possible if demand is the driving element of job creation? Duh?

That's exactly what happened in the case of the iPhone and the iPad.

Not really. Americans have wanted a Dick Tracy communication/information miniature device since the concept was introduced in 1931 with the Dick Tracy cartoon.

Too bad that's your only example. And one so easily debunked.

Worse, if you had read other comments, you would have known this talking point had already been debunked by Camp.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Only in your mind. You have failed to answer the OP or my question. No matter how much you deflect, demand for services or products is what creates jobs in any economy.

Izzatrite?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...n-usmb-demand-creates-jobs-5.html#post9177111

Yup, azrite

There is only one difference between a bad economist and a good one: the bad economist confines himself to the visible effect; the good economist takes in account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen.

Demand is the foreseen key in the equation.

The problem here Camp, is that you have no grasp of economics at all. You are a partisan hack, seeking to force your partisan zeal into the mold of macro-economics. Bad or good is irrelevant - you have no clue.

You make utterly stupid statements that defy basic principles. This isn't a matter of disagreement, Keynes vs. Friedman, this is a matter of abject ignorance. Before you can advocate turns and multipliers, you need to grasp what the business cycle is, what saturation means, what equilibrium is, etc. You lack the rudimentary foundation and superimpose your partisanship to fill the void.

 

[Camp]

Izzatrite?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...n-usmb-demand-creates-jobs-5.html#post9177111

Yup, azrite

There is only one difference between a bad economist and a good one: the bad economist confines himself to the visible effect; the good economist takes in account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen.

Demand is the foreseen key in the equation.

The problem here Camp, is that you have no grasp of economics at all. You are a partisan hack, seeking to force your partisan zeal into the mold of macro-economics. Bad or good is irrelevant - you have no clue.

You make utterly stupid statements that defy basic principles. This isn't a matter of disagreement, Keynes vs. Friedman, this is a matter of abject ignorance. Before you can advocate turns and multipliers, you need to grasp what the business cycle is, what saturation means, what equilibrium is, etc. You lack the rudimentary foundation and superimpose your partisanship to fill the void.

Oh please, you are trying to turn a discussion about one absolute principle in regards not to economics in any specific system, but the simple principle that jobs are created by demands for goods and services in any system for the creation of jobs. Period.

You have yet to name a single job that has been created without actual or anticipated demand. Not one, in how many days to think about it? And for giving a challenge for someone to come up with that example, I become a partisan hack? Instead of you or anyone else coming up with an example, some are actually reinforcing and agreeing with the principle of demand creating jobs without even understanding that they are doing so. The i phone is a great example. The poster admits that the investors would not have invested if they didn't believe they could promote a demand for the product, hence, anticipated demand. Yet, the poster thinks this example is a good one to make his case and the subject poster of the thread agrees. They are making the case against themselves, and you, the self acknowledged economics genius can't comprehend a basic principle of job creation and a basic principle taught to elementary school children. An action causes and creates reaction. Demand is the action that creates a job, which is the reaction.

 

[Camp]

Even the ridiculous notion that job CREATORS create jobs just for fun and out of the goodness of their divine hearts proves that it starts with demand. The CREATORS demand a profit for anything they invest in. "Losing money" is out of the question.

It's no coincidence Republicans call them "job CREATORS".

Actually...what's ridiculous is the notion that someone would invest their precious capital simply because there is demand for some product or service. Savvy investors want to know two things...what's my return on investment...and how much of a risk am I taking? In reality there may be ZERO demand for a product or service yet an investor might very well risk capital if they were convinced that the profits would be large if a market for the product or service was developed. How is THAT possible if demand is the driving element of job creation? Duh?

Arguing against ones self. The poster is confirming that the investors investment is dependent on the belief that demand can be developed. That means creating a demand through market promotion of the product. That is what is known as "anticipated demand".

 

[Uncensored2008]

Come on USMB Republicans. You don't really believe that "Demand creates jobs" is "dumb". Are you really letting Teanuts talk FOR you?

rdean, you are abjectly ignorant. You have no knowledge at all of the subject at hand. That you argue from a position of complete ignorance is indeed "dumb."

 

[Camp]

Come on USMB Republicans. You don't really believe that "Demand creates jobs" is "dumb". Are you really letting Teanuts talk FOR you?

rdean, you are abjectly ignorant. You have no knowledge at all of the subject at hand. That you argue from a position of complete ignorance is indeed "dumb."

No, rdean didn't open up a wide ranging discussion about economics, he pointed out a stupid statement made by an unusually obnoxious poster and made a challenge. The challenge was a kind of obvious ambush to capture some foolish haters who he knew full well would jump into the ambush zone because they would not be able to resist the opportunity to attack him. You are just one of the knuckleheads that walked into the obvious ambush. That makes rdean way smarter than you.
I'm just along for the fun and respect of the ambush.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Oh please, you are trying to turn a discussion about one absolute principle in regards not to economics in any specific system, but the simple principle that jobs are created by demands for goods and services in any system for the creation of jobs. Period.

My point is that you don't even grasp the principles that you think you are advocating.

I detest Paul Krugman. There are many ultra-left economists that I have no issue with, but Krugman is a virus. The issue is that Krugman is an advocate of the democratic party. He presents partisan goals and dresses them in psuedo-economic terms. Then people like you, with zero grasp of economics, read his idiocy and think it's legitimate.

IF you want to be a Keynesian, then pick up a copy of "The General Theory Of Employment, Interest, And Money"

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/General-Theory-Employment-Interest-Money/dp/1467934925]The General Theory Of Employment, Interest, And Money: John Maynard Keynes: 9781467934923: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]

I'll warn you in advance, that if you do, you'll discover just how full of shit Krugman is, what a fraud he is.

My biggest problem with the leftists in the forum who claim to be advocating Keynesian economics is that you don't! You think you do, but you've never been exposed to Lord Keynes and imagine that the fraudulent idiocy you read from Krugman is legitimate economic theory - it isn't, Krugman is no more legitimate than a medium or an astrologer, he is a fraud. He has an agenda and he has no integrity, the mixture is the utter shit that you and rdean spout off about here.

You have yet to name a single job that has been created without actual or anticipated demand. Not one, in how many days to think about it? And for giving a challenge for someone to come up with that example, I become a partisan hack? Instead of you or anyone else coming up with an example, some are actually reinforcing and agreeing with the principle of demand creating jobs without even understanding that they are doing so. The i phone is a great example. The poster admits that the investors would not have invested if they didn't believe they could promote a demand for the product, hence, anticipated demand. Yet, the poster thinks this example is a good one to make his case and the subject poster of the thread agrees. They are making the case against themselves, and you, the self acknowledged economics genius can't comprehend a basic principle of job creation and a basic principle taught to elementary school children. An action causes and creates reaction. Demand is the action that creates a job, which is the reaction.

Where you imagine that you have presented some great "gotcha" conundrum, all you have really done is exemplify your ignorance of the subject.

There was no investment in the iPhone. Apple hired Steve Jobs and gave him an R&D budget, with the faith that he would direct the company toward breakthroughs. No investor was asked to back the iPhone, they merely had stock in Apple.

Jobs had the vision to realize that with proper execution and with the legendary marketing, he could create demand for the iPhone. The supply of the product with proper marketing created the demand, this is how markets work.

Your biggest issue here isn't whether Keynes was right or wrong, it's that you have no grasp at all of what markets are or how they function. You lack the foundational knowledge needed to even have an opinion.

 

[Uncensored2008]

No, rdean didn't open up a wide ranging discussion about economics, he pointed out a stupid statement made by an unusually obnoxious poster and made a challenge. The challenge was a kind of obvious ambush to capture some foolish haters who he knew full well would jump into the ambush zone because they would not be able to resist the opportunity to attack him. You are just one of the knuckleheads that walked into the obvious ambush. That makes rdean way smarter than you.
I'm just along for the fun and respect of the ambush.

Again, partisanship is not a legitimate school of economics.

 

[Camp]

There was no investment in the iPhone. Apple hired Steve Jobs and gave him an R&D budget, with the faith that he would direct the company toward breakthroughs. No investor was asked to back the iPhone, they merely had stock in Apple.

Jobs had the vision to realize that with proper execution and with the legendary marketing, he could create demand for the iPhone. The supply of the product with proper marketing created the demand, this is how markets work.

Apple invested in Steve Jobs with an R&D budget. The stock holders in Apple were the investors. Jobs created a product and as you admit, created a market. Apple nor Jobs would have developed the product without the belief and anticipation that there would be demand. You are admitting in your latest post that anticipated demand was the key element and motivation for creation of a product.
Now where is that example of the job that was created without demand in the equation.

 

[Uncensored2008]

There was no investment in the iPhone. Apple hired Steve Jobs and gave him an R&D budget, with the faith that he would direct the company toward breakthroughs. No investor was asked to back the iPhone, they merely had stock in Apple.

Jobs had the vision to realize that with proper execution and with the legendary marketing, he could create demand for the iPhone. The supply of the product with proper marketing created the demand, this is how markets work.

Apple invested in Steve Jobs with an R&D budget. The stock holders in Apple were the investors. Jobs created a product and as you admit, created a market. Apple nor Jobs would have developed the product without the belief and anticipation that there would be demand. You are admitting in your latest post that anticipated demand was the key element and motivation for creation of a product.
Now where is that example of the job that was created without demand in the equation.

Please learn to back-quote.

No investor was ever approached to finance the iPhone - it was an internal project.

Obviously Jobs had the vision to see that he could create demand.

 

[Oldstyle]

Even the ridiculous notion that job CREATORS create jobs just for fun and out of the goodness of their divine hearts proves that it starts with demand. The CREATORS demand a profit for anything they invest in. "Losing money" is out of the question.

It's no coincidence Republicans call them "job CREATORS".

Actually...what's ridiculous is the notion that someone would invest their precious capital simply because there is demand for some product or service. Savvy investors want to know two things...what's my return on investment...and how much of a risk am I taking? In reality there may be ZERO demand for a product or service yet an investor might very well risk capital if they were convinced that the profits would be large if a market for the product or service was developed. How is THAT possible if demand is the driving element of job creation? Duh?

Arguing against ones self. The poster is confirming that the investors investment is dependent on the belief that demand can be developed. That means creating a demand through market promotion of the product. That is what is known as "anticipated demand".

Wait a second...demand can be "developed"? That means it doesn't exist! So how can demand be the prime element to the creation of jobs when jobs have been created before demand exists?

The truth is...it's the anticipation of profit that prompts that investor to "develop" demand.

 

[Oldstyle]

There was no investment in the iPhone. Apple hired Steve Jobs and gave him an R&D budget, with the faith that he would direct the company toward breakthroughs. No investor was asked to back the iPhone, they merely had stock in Apple.

Jobs had the vision to realize that with proper execution and with the legendary marketing, he could create demand for the iPhone. The supply of the product with proper marketing created the demand, this is how markets work.

Apple invested in Steve Jobs with an R&D budget. The stock holders in Apple were the investors. Jobs created a product and as you admit, created a market. Apple nor Jobs would have developed the product without the belief and anticipation that there would be demand. You are admitting in your latest post that anticipated demand was the key element and motivation for creation of a product.
Now where is that example of the job that was created without demand in the equation.

You've got to be kidding! Your very own example shows that jobs were created without demand being present. Apple developed a new product because they thought they COULD create demand. And why did they take that risk? WAIT FOR IT...WAIT FOR IT...THEY TOOK THAT RISK BECAUSE THEY ANTICIPATED MAKING A HUGE PROFIT IF THEY COULD DEVELOP A NEW PRODUCT THAT DID CREATE DEMAND!!!

 

[Oldstyle]

And the proof of that isn't in successful products like the I-Phone...it's in the thousands of products that were created that were NOT successful and didn't create demand! Those products still created jobs despite a total absence of demand. Why? Because someone anticipated making a profit and risked capital.

 

[rdean]

Actually...what's ridiculous is the notion that someone would invest their precious capital simply because there is demand for some product or service. Savvy investors want to know two things...what's my return on investment...and how much of a risk am I taking? In reality there may be ZERO demand for a product or service yet an investor might very well risk capital if they were convinced that the profits would be large if a market for the product or service was developed. How is THAT possible if demand is the driving element of job creation? Duh?

That's exactly what happened in the case of the iPhone and the iPad.

Not really. Americans have wanted a Dick Tracy communication/information miniature device since the concept was introduced in 1931 with the Dick Tracy cartoon.

Too bad that's your only example. And one so easily debunked.

Worse, if you had read other comments, you would have known this talking point had already been debunked by Camp.

Thank you Dick Tracy.

 

[rdean]

And the proof of that isn't in successful products like the I-Phone...it's in the thousands of products that were created that were NOT successful and didn't create demand! Those products still created jobs despite a total absence of demand. Why? Because someone anticipated making a profit and risked capital.

You mean like a "career" job? Or a "failed" job?

What?

Huh?

 

[rdean]

Come on USMB Republicans. You don't really believe that "Demand creates jobs" is "dumb". Are you really letting Teanuts talk FOR you?

rdean, you are abjectly ignorant. You have no knowledge at all of the subject at hand. That you argue from a position of complete ignorance is indeed "dumb."

Oh I feel so bad. The way you debunked my claim that "demand" is behind "jobs".

Oh wait,

You didn't.

Nevermind.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Thank you Dick Tracy.

You'd have to thank Sony, who can't give the damned things away...

Sometimes things look good in fiction, but are not so good in real life. Smart phone watches and Barack Obama are examples.