Don t Let Anybody Tell You That Businesses Create Jobs

[Iceweasel]

Wait till you hear who. Bill Clinton was just at a Grimes event and he said "Senators create jobs...."

Dumb and dumber have spoken.

 

[JoeNormal]

"
Appearing at a Boston rally for Democrat gubernatorial candidate Martha Coakley on Friday, Hillary Clinton told the crowd gathered at the Park Plaza Hotel not to listen to anybody who says that “businesses create jobs.”

Hillary Don t Let Anybody Tell You That Businesses Create Jobs

....and you Lefty pusillanimous puss pockets will lap this right up.

Not that I give a shit about Hillary but I can't help but think that in context, the real message of this would be different.

 

[Antares]

has Bubba been asked about Hillary's flub yet?

You might hope he isn't. He'll say the same thing....and end the "controversy". She is right. If you fuckers were interested in doing the right thing....this wouldn't even be a thread.

LOL, we don't give a flying **** what you or ANY other dumb **** lefty thinks is "right".

 

[bripat9643]

Businesses don't create jobs. Consumer demand creates jobs.

Therefore, it's more important to have well compensated workers than successful businesses.

This really isn't complicated to people who haven't sold out to the Koch Brothers.

Businesses produce the products that consumers demand so they do provide jobs

Businesses also drive consumer demand by producing products then convincing people they need those products which creates jobs. And IMO this is the larger part of the equation because most of the shit people buy are more convenience than necessity
So you see it is not as simplistic as you think

Anyone who has actually owned and operated a business of any significant size, or anyone who has ever been in a position of authority or responsibility in a company of any size, knows that a business will often have to invest in capital, human or otherwise, in anticipation of demand.

Yeah, that's a big risk, just one of many risks a business has to take. Every day. That's such a normal part of doing business that it's amazing this is even an issue.

The whole "business only hires when there is demand" meme is so silly and simplistic and naive and ignorant that trying to communicate with someone who actually thinks that is usually an abject waste of time.

.

"Ahem!!!! AHEM!!!

Ladies and gentlemen.......I wish to invest your money in a new widget. It is a great widget. Trust me. I cannot forecast demand for this widget. I have no idea if we will be able to sell even a single widget. I think we might......but then again.....we might not.

But....we are going to have to hire 100 new workers to make lots of these widgets! Isn't that wonderful?!!"

It happens all the time, shit-for-brains. Steve Jobs didn't pay any attention to marketing surveys. He created products that he liked. His rational was that if he liked them, then so would the public. Most people don't realize that something might be a good product to own until they see someone else using it.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Businesses don't create jobs. Consumer demand creates jobs.

Therefore, it's more important to have well compensated workers than successful businesses.

This really isn't complicated to people who haven't sold out to the Koch Brothers.

Businesses produce the products that consumers demand so they do provide jobs

Businesses also drive consumer demand by producing products then convincing people they need those products which creates jobs. And IMO this is the larger part of the equation because most of the shit people buy are more convenience than necessity
So you see it is not as simplistic as you think

Anyone who has actually owned and operated a business of any significant size, or anyone who has ever been in a position of authority or responsibility in a company of any size, knows that a business will often have to invest in capital, human or otherwise, in anticipation of demand.

Yeah, that's a big risk, just one of many risks a business has to take. Every day. That's such a normal part of doing business that it's amazing this is even an issue.

The whole "business only hires when there is demand" meme is so silly and simplistic and naive and ignorant that trying to communicate with someone who actually thinks that is usually an abject waste of time.

.

"Ahem!!!! AHEM!!!

Ladies and gentlemen.......I wish to invest your money in a new widget. It is a great widget. Trust me. I cannot forecast demand for this widget. I have no idea if we will be able to sell even a single widget. I think we might......but then again.....we might not.

But....we are going to have to hire 100 new workers to make lots of these widgets! Isn't that wonderful?!!"

It happens all the time, shit-for-brains. Steve Jobs didn't pay any attention to marketing surveys. He created products that he liked. His rational that is if he liked them, then so would the public. Most people don't realize that something might be a good product to buy until they see someone else using it.

That would be bullshit. Thanks, though.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Businesses don't create jobs. Consumer demand creates jobs.

Therefore, it's more important to have well compensated workers than successful businesses.

This really isn't complicated to people who haven't sold out to the Koch Brothers.

Businesses produce the products that consumers demand so they do provide jobs

Businesses also drive consumer demand by producing products then convincing people they need those products which creates jobs. And IMO this is the larger part of the equation because most of the shit people buy are more convenience than necessity
So you see it is not as simplistic as you think

Anyone who has actually owned and operated a business of any significant size, or anyone who has ever been in a position of authority or responsibility in a company of any size, knows that a business will often have to invest in capital, human or otherwise, in anticipation of demand.

Yeah, that's a big risk, just one of many risks a business has to take. Every day. That's such a normal part of doing business that it's amazing this is even an issue.

The whole "business only hires when there is demand" meme is so silly and simplistic and naive and ignorant that trying to communicate with someone who actually thinks that is usually an abject waste of time.

.

"Ahem!!!! AHEM!!!

Ladies and gentlemen.......I wish to invest your money in a new widget. It is a great widget. Trust me. I cannot forecast demand for this widget. I have no idea if we will be able to sell even a single widget. I think we might......but then again.....we might not.

But....we are going to have to hire 100 new workers to make lots of these widgets! Isn't that wonderful?!!"

It happens all the time, shit-for-brains. Steve Jobs didn't pay any attention to marketing surveys. He created products that he liked. His rational that is if he liked them, then so would the public. Most people don't realize that something might be a good product to buy until they see someone else using it.

That would be bullshit. Thanks, though.

Do you even realize how ignorant you have to be to not know a single ******* thing about Steve Jobs and Apple and still say the things you do? It's PERFECT ignorance. You don't know a single ******* thing about Apple and Steve Jobs

 

[Vigilante]

 

[bripat9643]

Businesses don't create jobs. Consumer demand creates jobs.

Therefore, it's more important to have well compensated workers than successful businesses.

This really isn't complicated to people who haven't sold out to the Koch Brothers.

Businesses produce the products that consumers demand so they do provide jobs

Businesses also drive consumer demand by producing products then convincing people they need those products which creates jobs. And IMO this is the larger part of the equation because most of the shit people buy are more convenience than necessity
So you see it is not as simplistic as you think

Anyone who has actually owned and operated a business of any significant size, or anyone who has ever been in a position of authority or responsibility in a company of any size, knows that a business will often have to invest in capital, human or otherwise, in anticipation of demand.

Yeah, that's a big risk, just one of many risks a business has to take. Every day. That's such a normal part of doing business that it's amazing this is even an issue.

The whole "business only hires when there is demand" meme is so silly and simplistic and naive and ignorant that trying to communicate with someone who actually thinks that is usually an abject waste of time.

.

"Ahem!!!! AHEM!!!

Ladies and gentlemen.......I wish to invest your money in a new widget. It is a great widget. Trust me. I cannot forecast demand for this widget. I have no idea if we will be able to sell even a single widget. I think we might......but then again.....we might not.

But....we are going to have to hire 100 new workers to make lots of these widgets! Isn't that wonderful?!!"

It happens all the time, shit-for-brains. Steve Jobs didn't pay any attention to marketing surveys. He created products that he liked. His rational that is if he liked them, then so would the public. Most people don't realize that something might be a good product to buy until they see someone else using it.

That would be bullshit. Thanks, though.

Nope. That would be the simple facts. Sorry if that collides with your delusions.

 

[Dad2three]

Our largest growth period was in the 50's and 60's when taxes were much higher.

Yeah, and Europe's and Japan's infrastructure was all blown to shit due to the war, so the U.S. was about the only nation building anything.

I always laugh every time a Marxist brings up the 50s as proof that high tax rates help the economy. You're basically admitting you don't know shit about economics.

Of course there's the Clinton tax increase that did not inhibit growth and was followed by a balanced budget.

You're speaking of the Clinton Tax Increase passed just a few years before the Clinton Recession?

No, the 1993 tax increase where BJ Bill and the Dems, without a single GOPer voting for it, created 3 new tax brackets and took the top rate from 31% to 39.6% and saw the economy boom and deficit lowered. I guess when you take revenues back up near 20% of GDP, instead of less than 18% like Ronnie had, you create 4 balanced budgets, 3 after BJ Bill vetoed the GOP $700+ billion tax cut!



Yes, after Dubya was elected we saw a recession.

The claim that the economy boomed because of Clinton's tax increase is too absurd for discussion. Before anyone wastes a second of his time discussing that, please explain how tax increases make the economy grow. How does taking money from productive people and giving it to useless parasites help the economy? I'm just dying to know how anyone can rationalize this idea.

FALSE PREMISES, DISTORTIONS AND LIES, THE ONLY THING RIGHT WINGERS HAVE

The posit again

"Of course there's the Clinton tax increase that did not inhibit growth and was followed by a balanced budget"



YOUR posit was after Dems/BJ Bill's tax increase, the economy went into a recession, 7+ years later? LOL

 

[bripat9643]

Yeah, and Europe's and Japan's infrastructure was all blown to shit due to the war, so the U.S. was about the only nation building anything.

I always laugh every time a Marxist brings up the 50s as proof that high tax rates help the economy. You're basically admitting you don't know shit about economics.

Of course there's the Clinton tax increase that did not inhibit growth and was followed by a balanced budget.

You're speaking of the Clinton Tax Increase passed just a few years before the Clinton Recession?

No, the 1993 tax increase where BJ Bill and the Dems, without a single GOPer voting for it, created 3 new tax brackets and took the top rate from 31% to 39.6% and saw the economy boom and deficit lowered. I guess when you take revenues back up near 20% of GDP, instead of less than 18% like Ronnie had, you create 4 balanced budgets, 3 after BJ Bill vetoed the GOP $700+ billion tax cut!



Yes, after Dubya was elected we saw a recession.

The claim that the economy boomed because of Clinton's tax increase is too absurd for discussion. Before anyone wastes a second of his time discussing that, please explain how tax increases make the economy grow. How does taking money from productive people and giving it to useless parasites help the economy? I'm just dying to know how anyone can rationalize this idea.

FALSE PREMISES, DISTORTIONS AND LIES, THE ONLY THING RIGHT WINGERS HAVE

The posit again

"Of course there's the Clinton tax increase that did not inhibit growth and was followed by a balanced budget"



YOUR posit was after Dems/BJ Bill's tax increase, the economy went into a recession, 7+ years later? LOL

Nope. Allow me to quote:

No, the 1993 tax increase where BJ Bill and the Dems, without a single GOPer voting for it, created 3 new tax brackets and took the top rate from 31% to 39.6% and saw the economy boom and deficit lowered.
​

In other words, Clinton's tax increase made the economy boom. Now explain how a tax increase makes the economy grow. We're all dying to have a good laugh over your explanation.

 

[Dad2three]

Oh I thought you were kidding. You really believe monopolies and oligopolies are hocus-pocus? Dude, fess up are you on MJ today?

Yes, they are. Government has legally imposed all the monopolies that have ever existed. The term "oligopoly" is used by sycophantic government economists to denote the leading competitors in any industry. It's a propaganda term. It means nothing in terms of economics.

You're wrong. Here's one example OPEC - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

There are thousands of other examples, where producers collude on price to corner the market or at least attempt to and act together as a monopoly forcing out competition.

OPEC is not a monopoly. The US, Britain, and Norway are all non members but produce oil anyway.
Next.

I didn't call it a monopoly. It's an oligopoly.

It isnt that either. It's a cartel.
There are 30 non member producers vs 12 member state producers.

OPEC member countries produce about 40 percent of the world's crude oil. Equally important to global prices, OPEC's oil exports represent about 60 percent of the total petroleum traded internationally. Because of this market share, OPEC's actions can, and do, influence international oil prices.In particular, indications of changes in crude oil production from Saudi Arabia, OPEC's largest producer, frequently affect oil prices.

Energy Financial Markets - U.S. Energy Information Administration EIA - U.S. Energy Information Administration EIA

 

[Dad2three]

Of course there's the Clinton tax increase that did not inhibit growth and was followed by a balanced budget.

You're speaking of the Clinton Tax Increase passed just a few years before the Clinton Recession?

No, the 1993 tax increase where BJ Bill and the Dems, without a single GOPer voting for it, created 3 new tax brackets and took the top rate from 31% to 39.6% and saw the economy boom and deficit lowered. I guess when you take revenues back up near 20% of GDP, instead of less than 18% like Ronnie had, you create 4 balanced budgets, 3 after BJ Bill vetoed the GOP $700+ billion tax cut!



Yes, after Dubya was elected we saw a recession.

The claim that the economy boomed because of Clinton's tax increase is too absurd for discussion. Before anyone wastes a second of his time discussing that, please explain how tax increases make the economy grow. How does taking money from productive people and giving it to useless parasites help the economy? I'm just dying to know how anyone can rationalize this idea.

FALSE PREMISES, DISTORTIONS AND LIES, THE ONLY THING RIGHT WINGERS HAVE

The posit again

"Of course there's the Clinton tax increase that did not inhibit growth and was followed by a balanced budget"



YOUR posit was after Dems/BJ Bill's tax increase, the economy went into a recession, 7+ years later? LOL

Nope. Allow me to quote:

No, the 1993 tax increase where BJ Bill and the Dems, without a single GOPer voting for it, created 3 new tax brackets and took the top rate from 31% to 39.6% and saw the economy boom and deficit lowered.
​

In other words, Clinton's tax increase made the economy boom. Now explain how a tax increase makes the economy grow. We're all dying to have a good laugh over your explanation.

Yep, you keep proving how dumb you are. WHERE did I say thanks to tax increases the economy boomed? My posit, was in answer to YOURS that said it lead to a recession? Weird you don't get that


"The deficit has come down, and I give the Clinton Administration and President Clinton himself a lot of credit for that. [He] did something about it, fast. And I think we are seeing some benefits."
— Paul Volcker, Federal Reserve Board Chairman (1979-1987), in Audacity, Fall 1994


"Clinton’s 1993 budget cuts (deficit reduction, tax increases and cuts), which reduced projected red ink by more than $400 billion over five years, sparked a major drop in interest rates that helped boost investment in all the equipment and systems that brought forth the New Age economy of technological innovation and rising productivity."
— Business Week, May 19, 1997

 

[bripat9643]

Yes, they are. Government has legally imposed all the monopolies that have ever existed. The term "oligopoly" is used by sycophantic government economists to denote the leading competitors in any industry. It's a propaganda term. It means nothing in terms of economics.

You're wrong. Here's one example OPEC - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

There are thousands of other examples, where producers collude on price to corner the market or at least attempt to and act together as a monopoly forcing out competition.

OPEC is not a monopoly. The US, Britain, and Norway are all non members but produce oil anyway.
Next.

I didn't call it a monopoly. It's an oligopoly.

It isnt that either. It's a cartel.
There are 30 non member producers vs 12 member state producers.

OPEC member countries produce about 40 percent of the world's crude oil. Equally important to global prices, OPEC's oil exports represent about 60 percent of the total petroleum traded internationally. Because of this market share, OPEC's actions can, and do, influence international oil prices.In particular, indications of changes in crude oil production from Saudi Arabia, OPEC's largest producer, frequently affect oil prices.

Energy Financial Markets - U.S. Energy Information Administration EIA - U.S. Energy Information Administration EIA

So?

 

[bripat9643]

You're speaking of the Clinton Tax Increase passed just a few years before the Clinton Recession?

No, the 1993 tax increase where BJ Bill and the Dems, without a single GOPer voting for it, created 3 new tax brackets and took the top rate from 31% to 39.6% and saw the economy boom and deficit lowered. I guess when you take revenues back up near 20% of GDP, instead of less than 18% like Ronnie had, you create 4 balanced budgets, 3 after BJ Bill vetoed the GOP $700+ billion tax cut!



Yes, after Dubya was elected we saw a recession.

The claim that the economy boomed because of Clinton's tax increase is too absurd for discussion. Before anyone wastes a second of his time discussing that, please explain how tax increases make the economy grow. How does taking money from productive people and giving it to useless parasites help the economy? I'm just dying to know how anyone can rationalize this idea.

FALSE PREMISES, DISTORTIONS AND LIES, THE ONLY THING RIGHT WINGERS HAVE

The posit again

"Of course there's the Clinton tax increase that did not inhibit growth and was followed by a balanced budget"



YOUR posit was after Dems/BJ Bill's tax increase, the economy went into a recession, 7+ years later? LOL

Nope. Allow me to quote:

No, the 1993 tax increase where BJ Bill and the Dems, without a single GOPer voting for it, created 3 new tax brackets and took the top rate from 31% to 39.6% and saw the economy boom and deficit lowered.
​

In other words, Clinton's tax increase made the economy boom. Now explain how a tax increase makes the economy grow. We're all dying to have a good laugh over your explanation.

Yep, you keep proving how dumb you are. WHERE did I say thanks to tax increases the economy boomed? My posit, was in answer to YOURS that said it lead to a recession? Weird you don't get that


"The deficit has come down, and I give the Clinton Administration and President Clinton himself a lot of credit for that. [He] did something about it, fast. And I think we are seeing some benefits."
— Paul Volcker, Federal Reserve Board Chairman (1979-1987), in Audacity, Fall 1994


"Clinton’s 1993 budget cuts (deficit reduction, tax increases and cuts), which reduced projected red ink by more than $400 billion over five years, sparked a major drop in interest rates that helped boost investment in all the equipment and systems that brought forth the New Age economy of technological innovation and rising productivity."
— Business Week, May 19, 1997

I said the Bush tax increase led to a recession, Nimrod.

 

[CaféAuLait]

Hillary Clinton backpedals on claim that businesses don't create jobs




Hillary Clinton backpedals on job creation remark - CNN.com

 

[R.D.]

Hillary Clinton backpedals on claim that businesses don't create jobs




Hillary Clinton backpedals on job creation remark - CNN.com

Of course. Now let's see how her lap dogs react

 

[Dad2three]

No, the 1993 tax increase where BJ Bill and the Dems, without a single GOPer voting for it, created 3 new tax brackets and took the top rate from 31% to 39.6% and saw the economy boom and deficit lowered. I guess when you take revenues back up near 20% of GDP, instead of less than 18% like Ronnie had, you create 4 balanced budgets, 3 after BJ Bill vetoed the GOP $700+ billion tax cut!



Yes, after Dubya was elected we saw a recession.

The claim that the economy boomed because of Clinton's tax increase is too absurd for discussion. Before anyone wastes a second of his time discussing that, please explain how tax increases make the economy grow. How does taking money from productive people and giving it to useless parasites help the economy? I'm just dying to know how anyone can rationalize this idea.

FALSE PREMISES, DISTORTIONS AND LIES, THE ONLY THING RIGHT WINGERS HAVE

The posit again

"Of course there's the Clinton tax increase that did not inhibit growth and was followed by a balanced budget"



YOUR posit was after Dems/BJ Bill's tax increase, the economy went into a recession, 7+ years later? LOL

Nope. Allow me to quote:

No, the 1993 tax increase where BJ Bill and the Dems, without a single GOPer voting for it, created 3 new tax brackets and took the top rate from 31% to 39.6% and saw the economy boom and deficit lowered.
​

In other words, Clinton's tax increase made the economy boom. Now explain how a tax increase makes the economy grow. We're all dying to have a good laugh over your explanation.

Yep, you keep proving how dumb you are. WHERE did I say thanks to tax increases the economy boomed? My posit, was in answer to YOURS that said it lead to a recession? Weird you don't get that


"The deficit has come down, and I give the Clinton Administration and President Clinton himself a lot of credit for that. [He] did something about it, fast. And I think we are seeing some benefits."
— Paul Volcker, Federal Reserve Board Chairman (1979-1987), in Audacity, Fall 1994


"Clinton’s 1993 budget cuts (deficit reduction, tax increases and cuts), which reduced projected red ink by more than $400 billion over five years, sparked a major drop in interest rates that helped boost investment in all the equipment and systems that brought forth the New Age economy of technological innovation and rising productivity."
— Business Week, May 19, 1997

I said the Bush tax increase led to a recession, Nimrod.

LOL, Sure it did Bubba, NOT 12 years of GOP blowing up spending WHILE cutting revenues, even Poppy's small tax increase couldn't help/ Ever hear of Biz cycles Bubba? lol

 

[Dad2three]

You're wrong. Here's one example OPEC - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

There are thousands of other examples, where producers collude on price to corner the market or at least attempt to and act together as a monopoly forcing out competition.

OPEC is not a monopoly. The US, Britain, and Norway are all non members but produce oil anyway.
Next.

I didn't call it a monopoly. It's an oligopoly.

It isnt that either. It's a cartel.
There are 30 non member producers vs 12 member state producers.

OPEC member countries produce about 40 percent of the world's crude oil. Equally important to global prices, OPEC's oil exports represent about 60 percent of the total petroleum traded internationally. Because of this market share, OPEC's actions can, and do, influence international oil prices.In particular, indications of changes in crude oil production from Saudi Arabia, OPEC's largest producer, frequently affect oil prices.

Energy Financial Markets - U.S. Energy Information Administration EIA - U.S. Energy Information Administration EIA

So?

"Because of this market share, OPEC's actions can, and do, influence international oil prices"

 

[Dad2three]

Hillary Clinton backpedals on claim that businesses don't create jobs




Hillary Clinton backpedals on job creation remark - CNN.com

Three days after Hillary Clinton said businesses don't create jobs, she cleaned up the remark, part of a critique of trickle-down economics, explaining she had "shorthanded this point the other day."

 

[bripat9643]

OPEC is not a monopoly. The US, Britain, and Norway are all non members but produce oil anyway.
Next.

I didn't call it a monopoly. It's an oligopoly.

It isnt that either. It's a cartel.
There are 30 non member producers vs 12 member state producers.

OPEC member countries produce about 40 percent of the world's crude oil. Equally important to global prices, OPEC's oil exports represent about 60 percent of the total petroleum traded internationally. Because of this market share, OPEC's actions can, and do, influence international oil prices.In particular, indications of changes in crude oil production from Saudi Arabia, OPEC's largest producer, frequently affect oil prices.

Energy Financial Markets - U.S. Energy Information Administration EIA - U.S. Energy Information Administration EIA

So?

"Because of this market share, OPEC's actions can, and do, influence international oil prices"

So?