Clinton's seemingly disqualifying remarks...a question.

[CBradSmith]

To me, on its face, this is absolutely a disqualifying remark. If it is to be believed (that she believes what she said), then it indicates she has zero fundamental understanding how the world works. It hints of living in the bubble too long. Washington D.C. must be a real mindfuk.

Was there context to this that ameliorates how thoroughly incorrect (and potentially detrimental to the country with her as a governing executive) her assertion is? Because on it's face, that is about as looney and detached from reality as they come.

(As a related aside, I see this as a little different than Obama's "you didn't build that remark" as he could (successfully) claim that he was alluding to "community" or whatever as the driver of a successful business. While it was gibberish, from a certain perspective, it wasn't 100% incorrect (buisnesses do need customers). This, however, directly states that businesses nor corporations create jobs. I don't know how this can be mistaken or a context provided (however vague and spinnish) that adds something tangibly redeemable.)

 

[Popinski]

I really think that Obama was alluding to infrastructure like roads and bridges that allow customers access to a business. It just came out wrong, and the GOP ran with it. At least I think that was the context of his speech. There is no excuse for what Hillary said. This will definitely bite her in the butt.

 

[CBradSmith]

Originally posted by Popinski:

I really think that Obama was alluding to infrastructure like roads and bridges that allow customers access to a business. It just came out wrong, and the GOP ran with it. At least I think that was the context of his speech. There is no excuse for what Hillary said. This will definitely bite her in the butt.

That too, and I agree for the most part regarding his statement.

And her statement, on its face, should bite her in the ass. Obviously it won't with the left third of the country, but it should give pause to most of the "middle."

 

[MegaPoke]

You mean this?

"Don't let anyone tell you that corporations or businesses create jobs"

I would love to see one of the true believers spin this statement to make some sense.

 

[07pilt]

I don't see what the big deal is. Taken in context, she was weighing in on trickle down economics. It was just a refutation of the "job creators" rhetoric of 2-3 years ago. The point being that the number of jobs in this country is determined by the amount of sales in this country not by how nicely we treat business owners.

 

[Popinski]

Originally posted by 07pilt:
I don't see what the big deal is. Taken in context, she was weighing in on trickle down economics. It was just a refutation of the "job creators" rhetoric of 2-3 years ago. The point being that the number of jobs in this country is determined by the amount of sales in this country not by how nicely we treat business owners.

Of course you don't. I own a small business that creates 6 jobs. I see a huge problem with her statement.
This post was edited on 10/27 2:25 PM by Popinski

 

[aix_xpert]

Originally posted by Popinski:

Originally posted by 07pilt:
I don't see what the big deal is. Taken in context, she was weighing in on trickle down economics. It was just a refutation of the "job creators" rhetoric of 2-3 years ago. The point being that the number of jobs in this country is determined by the amount of sales in this country not by how nicely we treat business owners.

Of course you don't. I own a small business that creates 6 jobs. I see a huge problem with her statement.

This post was edited on 10/27 2:25 PM by Popinski

Pilt must believe that the government would have created those jobs if you hadn't.

Justin

 

[07pilt]

Originally posted by aix_xpert:

Originally posted by Popinski:

Originally posted by 07pilt:
I don't see what the big deal is. Taken in context, she was weighing in on trickle down economics. It was just a refutation of the "job creators" rhetoric of 2-3 years ago. The point being that the number of jobs in this country is determined by the amount of sales in this country not by how nicely we treat business owners.

Of course you don't. I own a small business that creates 6 jobs. I see a huge problem with her statement.

This post was edited on 10/27 2:25 PM by Popinski

Pilt must believe that the government would have created those jobs if you hadn't.

Justin

Uh, if simply having employees is all it takes to be a job creator then the government is a massive job creator.

Jobs are created by supply and demand. Business and corporations aren't sorcerers that conjure jobs out of thin air. It could just as easily be argued that Popinski's customers create 6 jobs, not the other way around. If Popinski's customers went away all 6 of those jobs would go away. If Popinski went away his customers would probably patronize another business, that would then have to hire people to keep up with the added sales.

 

[long-duc-dong]

Originally posted by 07pilt:

Uh, if simply having employees is all it takes to be a job creator then the government is a massive job creator.

Our government doesn't "create" shit.

 

[CBradSmith]

Originally posted by 07pilt:

Originally posted by aix_xpert:

Originally posted by Popinski:

Originally posted by 07pilt:
I don't see what the big deal is. Taken in context, she was weighing in on trickle down economics. It was just a refutation of the "job creators" rhetoric of 2-3 years ago. The point being that the number of jobs in this country is determined by the amount of sales in this country not by how nicely we treat business owners.

Of course you don't. I own a small business that creates 6 jobs. I see a huge problem with her statement.


This post was edited on 10/27 2:25 PM by Popinski

Pilt must believe that the government would have created those jobs if you hadn't.

Justin

Uh, if simply having employees is all it takes to be a job creator then the government is a massive job creator.

Jobs are created by supply and demand. Business and corporations aren't sorcerers that conjure jobs out of thin air. It could just as easily be argued that Popinski's customers create 6 jobs, not the other way around. If Popinski's customers went away all 6 of those jobs would go away. If Popinski went away his customers would probably patronize another business, that would then have to hire people to keep up with the added sales.

I agree with the supply and demand part of what you're saying, but it's a complete Captain Obvious notion and statement.

Government can create jobs, generally those that are government created fit into 1 of 2 buckets a) the creation of the position that is "desired," but either on the aggregate there is no "mark up" or value add that the private sector will directly provide/purchase (ex: organized military), or b) administrative jobs, and really, I can't think of a 3rd type unless it's simply an industry that's been regulated away by government due to the perceived risk of leaving those roles in the hands of private industry. Administrative in nature and those jobs where the government serves as a conduit for aggregate representation of demand or insolating against a specific risk seem to be where government maximizes its role.


Businesses are all conduits of destructive power organized to reward those of greatest efficiency (which can be quantified in a number of ways - operational efficiency, logistical efficiency, economy of scales, innovation).

So let's get to the crux of what your tone seems to imply, and if I am misreading your tone, I'd like you to clarify so that I am hearing you clearly. As I read your wording and content, I hear a discounting of the operations that businesses, corps, entrepreneurs perform within whatever environment they enter. I believe I specifically see you discounting the risk associated with the venture or the firm. Am I hearing that correctly?

That's my first question. Second would be, does "government" experience (on the whole) that same risk? Against the backdrop of risk, are they similar?

Circling back to original intent of OP, what do you feel Hillary is communicating, what's the message and (broader) audience, and if one were to capture true intent from her statement and unfold it into legislative and executive action, how would that manifest itself?

On the whole, do you agree with her statement?

 

[aix_xpert]

Originally posted by 07pilt:

Originally posted by aix_xpert:

Originally posted by Popinski:

Originally posted by 07pilt:
I don't see what the big deal is. Taken in context, she was weighing in on trickle down economics. It was just a refutation of the "job creators" rhetoric of 2-3 years ago. The point being that the number of jobs in this country is determined by the amount of sales in this country not by how nicely we treat business owners.

Of course you don't. I own a small business that creates 6 jobs. I see a huge problem with her statement.


This post was edited on 10/27 2:25 PM by Popinski

Pilt must believe that the government would have created those jobs if you hadn't.

Justin

Uh, if simply having employees is all it takes to be a job creator then the government is a massive job creator.

Jobs are created by supply and demand. Business and corporations aren't sorcerers that conjure jobs out of thin air. It could just as easily be argued that Popinski's customers create 6 jobs, not the other way around. If Popinski's customers went away all 6 of those jobs would go away. If Popinski went away his customers would probably patronize another business, that would then have to hire people to keep up with the added sales.

If Popinski (and his 6 clients) didn't create something to sell, then those customers would do without, or would pay more in time, money or customer service to get a product elsewhere. Popinsky chose to take a risk and invest in starting a business which created 6 jobs. Without that investment (or a similar one by another company), those jobs would not exist. As to your government remark, you are right. The government does create jobs. Unfortunately, they do so by enacting regulatory costs into the industry which add monetary costs (taxes), beauracracy and ineffeciencies, which offset those added jobs.

Justin

 

[Popinski]

Originally posted by 07pilt:

Originally posted by aix_xpert:

Originally posted by Popinski:

Originally posted by 07pilt:
I don't see what the big deal is. Taken in context, she was weighing in on trickle down economics. It was just a refutation of the "job creators" rhetoric of 2-3 years ago. The point being that the number of jobs in this country is determined by the amount of sales in this country not by how nicely we treat business owners.

Of course you don't. I own a small business that creates 6 jobs. I see a huge problem with her statement.



This post was edited on 10/27 2:25 PM by Popinski

Pilt must believe that the government would have created those jobs if you hadn't.

Justin

Uh, if simply having employees is all it takes to be a job creator then the government is a massive job creator.

Jobs are created by supply and demand. Business and corporations aren't sorcerers that conjure jobs out of thin air. It could just as easily be argued that Popinski's customers create 6 jobs, not the other way around. If Popinski's customers went away all 6 of those jobs would go away. If Popinski went away his customers would probably patronize another business, that would then have to hire people to keep up with the added sales.

When I bought my business 9 years ago, there were 2 employees. My business has grown greatly since then because I like to think that we do an excellent job. I could have maintained the status quo here and kept employment at 2 jobs. Instead, I worked hard, grew this business, and now I need 4 more employees. So according to your line of thinking, I had nothing to do with the increase in demand at my business?

Let's look at another example. Say I create a new product, and it is amazing. Everyone wants one. Now I need to hire 1000 new employees to mass produce it. If I didn't create this product, those 1000 jobs would not exsist. Consumers would have kept the $100 that I charge for the product. They may have used this $100 to buy other things. Maybe they would go to a restaurant, buy some clothes, etc... The overall effect on these other businesses would be minimal since each consumer's $100 would be spread around in different industries. Likely, no jobs would be created. Some consumers may even save the $100. So, who created the 1000 jobs? The consumers? No, I created the demand and created the 1000 jobs.
This post was edited on 10/27 4:32 PM by Popinski

 

[07pilt]

Originally posted by CBradSmith:
I agree with the supply and demand part of what you're saying, but it's a complete Captain Obvious notion and statement.

Yeah I didn't expect it to be so controversial.

Originally posted by CBradSmith:
Businesses are all conduits of destructive power organized to reward those of greatest efficiency (which can be quantified in a number of ways - operational efficiency, logistical efficiency, economy of scales, innovation).

Good point. Most businesses actively try to create as few jobs as possible while still meeting demand.

Originally posted by CBradSmith:
So let's get to the crux of what your tone seems to imply, and if I am misreading your tone, I'd like you to clarify so that I am hearing you clearly. As I read your wording and content, I hear a discounting of the operations that businesses, corps, entrepreneurs perform within whatever environment they enter. I believe I specifically see you discounting the risk associated with the venture or the firm. Am I hearing that correctly?

Look, I am in no way trying to discount what businesses do. They are important and serve a function.... but they don't create jobs anymore than any other factor in the economy does.

Originally posted by CBradSmith:
That's my first question. Second would be, does "government" experience (on the whole) that same risk? Against the backdrop of risk, are they similar?

This isn't a very clear question. I would say that a corporation and government have more in common with each other with regards to risk than with an entrepreneur. If a corporation takes a risk and there is low return on investment then probably some people lose their jobs. If a government takes a risk and directs a nation's productivity and resources towards something and certain level of welfare isn't returned then probably some people lose their jobs. If an entrepreneur messes up they lose their "job" but also probably much of their own money.

Originally posted by CBradSmith:

Circling back to original intent of OP, what do you feel Hillary is communicating, what's the message and (broader) audience, and if one were to capture true intent from her statement and unfold it into legislative and executive action, how would that manifest itself?

On the whole, do you agree with her statement?

My reading of her message is was that the economy isn't suffering from a lack of business and corporations it is suffering from a lack of customers. This harkens back to the "job creators" rhetoric of 2-3 years ago that said we can't tax business because they will quit creating jobs (which is pretty obviously false). In terms of how her comment would manifest itself policywise, it would be increased taxes on business and the rich, increased minimum wage, lower taxes on the middle class, more education assistance, possibly even more protectionist trade policies, etc (I don't think she would do any of these things if actually in power).

I agree with the sentiment that the economy is suffering from a persistent shortfall of demand, but I disagree with raising taxes on anyone.

 

[07pilt]

Originally posted by aix_xpert:
If Popinski (and his 6 clients) didn't create something to sell, then those customers would do without, or would pay more in time, money or customer service to get a product elsewhere.

I would even submit that the dollar value of the utility lost the customer is exactly equal to the profit Popinsky makes, and that total loss of to the economy in this scenario would be equal to the work that Popinsky does, but way less than 6 jobs.

Originally posted by aix_xpert:
Popinsky chose to take a risk and invest in starting a business which created 6 jobs. Without that investment (or a similar one by another company), those jobs would not exist.

Like I said, I don't dispute that businesses and entrepreneurs play a role.

Originally posted by aix_xpert:
The government does create jobs. Unfortunately, they do so by enacting regulatory costs into the industry which add monetary costs (taxes), beauracracy and ineffeciencies, which offset those added jobs.

Tell me how the government hiring a teacher, postal worker, or soldier enacts regulatory costs?

 

[07pilt]

When I bought my business 9 years ago, there were 2 employees. My business has grown greatly since then because I like to think that we do an excellent job. I could have maintained the status quo here and kept employment at 2 jobs. Instead, I worked hard, grew this business, and now I need 4 more employees. So according to your line of thinking, I had nothing to do with the increase in demand at my business?

Where did that increased demand come from? Either your market grew or you gained market share (which means your competitors are laying off 4 employees). If it is because your market grew at the expense of other markets for other good or services then there are probably 4 employees being laid off in another industry. If your market grew, but not at the expense of other markets, then how on earth are you responsible for that?

The point is not that you have nothing to do with it, just that you don't have everything to do with it. You can't have your business without customers and customers can't have your business without you. It is a virtuous cycle and everyone deserves a pat on the back, but not one should be hogging the credit.

Originally posted by Popinski:
Let's look at another example. Say I create a new product, and it is amazing. Everyone wants one. Now I need to hire 1000 new employees to mass produce it. If I didn't create this product, those 1000 jobs would not exsist. Consumers would have kept the $100 that I charge for the product. They may have used this $100 to buy other things. Maybe they would go to a restaurant, buy some clothes, etc... The overall effect on these other businesses would be minimal since each consumer's $100 would be spread around in different industries. Likely, no jobs would be created. Some consumers may even save the $100. So, who created the 1000 jobs? The consumers? No, I created the demand and created the 1000 jobs.
This post was edited on 10/27 4:32 PM by Popinski
WOW.

Good point though, inventors are also important.

 

[Tulsaaggieson]

Business can exist without government. Government can't exist without business.

When the government creates a job it does so at the expense of the tax payer. It cannot create jobs based solely on taxing it's self, as it would spiral into debt. It must feed off of the business model as it creates jobs from nothing.

Raw goods are extracted from the land. Taxed
Raw goods are made into materials. Taxed
Materials are into products. Taxed
Products are sold on the open market. Taxed

Every aspect supports government continuation. This model can exist without government.

Government can create jobs, paid for by businesses. I have never seen a government create a job paid for by government produced money.

 

[JimmyBob]

Originally posted by Tulsaaggieson:

Business can exist without government. Government can't exist without business.

When the government creates a job it does so at the expense of the tax payer. It cannot create jobs based solely on taxing it's self, as it would spiral into debt. It must feed off of the business model as it creates jobs from nothing.

Raw goods are extracted from the land. Taxed
Raw goods are made into materials. Taxed
Materials are into products. Taxed
Products are sold on the open market. Taxed

Every aspect supports government continuation. This model can exist without government.

Government can create jobs, paid for by businesses. I have never seen a government create a job paid for by government produced money.

You just lost my "ignore list"; too logical.

 

[MegaPoke]

This thread is hilarious.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[Headhunter]

I believe that every unproductive wasteful government bureaucrat costs numerous private sector jobs because of the resources taken out of the economy to fund the position.

 

[anon_ph7vrsh7abnty]

This has to be the smarmiest response I've ever read. Ever.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[CBradSmith]

Pilt,

The firm is a conduit of creative destruction and production, and in a competitive, relatively free market, the more efficiently value is passed through to the consumer, the more value that firm retains to itself by providing superior ROR to its stakeholders. Those entities that cannot compete sufficiently, fail, and capital is re-allocated.

A defining characteristic of a "job" is an activity where one trades their time and labor (defined broadly) for compensation. In most of the world, this is a paycheck.

If it isn't the firm creating jobs, serving as a competitive conduit of creative destruction and production behaving as the most efficient vehicle to meet consumer demand in the face of scarce resources, then what creates the jobs?

Don't say supply and demand. That is an insufficient answer.

 

[MegaPoke]

Jobs are created by supply and demand. Business and corporations aren't sorcerers that conjure jobs out of thin air. It could just as easily be argued that Popinski's customers create 6 jobs, not the other way around. If Popinski's customers went away all 6 of those jobs would go away. If Popinski went away his customers would probably patronize another business, that would then have to hire people to keep up with the added sales. [/B]

Your supposition here is that Popinski doesn't provide a unique service or product, without which demand for that item would not exist. You might be right about some chain retail storefronts, but you are incredibly wrong about actual SMALL BUSINESSES, built from the ground up. It's about a lot more than supply and demand, and the demand is often created by networking, marketing and balls out hard work. You assume that his products and services are identical to those provided by his competition. Unless he owns a chicken restaurant on Memorial between 111th and 91st in Tulsa, you are way off. If he does, you are probably right. There's like 10 chicken restaurants there.

Anyway...

There absolutely is zero context in which her statements make sense, but bravo for the effort. Safe to assume you've never taken on the risk or unimaginable time investment of starting a business yourself?
This post was edited on 10/28 4:42 PM by MegaPoke

 

[MegaPoke]

I would even submit that the dollar value of the utility lost the customer is exactly equal to the profit Popinsky makes, and that total loss of to the economy in this scenario would be equal to the work that Popinsky does, but way less than 6 jobs.

Again, you don't factor in the value or created demand and ability to increase intangible quality of life or improved efficiency in other businesses by whatever unique product or service he provides. Which reminds me, you still have no idea what Popinski even does, but you know it would balance out if he just ceased to exist?

I'm sorry, but you are (I think) much smarter than that.

 

[HighStickHarry]

I hate people who pick a side just to be a jerk and then try verbal gymnastics to make a point. Pilt you are so full of mularky it is disheartening to know people like you exist.

 

[07pilt]

Originally posted by CBradSmith:

Don't say supply and demand. That is an insufficient answer.

Why?

Answer this: why did we lose so many jobs in 2008? Was it because businesses suddenly disappeared? If you are going to argue that businesses create jobs you have to tell me why they forsaked us in 2008 and quit creating jobs.

 

[07pilt]

Originally posted by MegaPoke:

Your supposition here is that Popinski doesn't provide a unique service or product, without which demand for that item would not exist.
That is absolutely not my supposition. You are right that item specific demand can be created by firms, but that demand in turn reduces demand for other items (his gain is someone else's loss). Aggregate demand isn't created by businesses. Thats why sales go down when the economy slumps.

Originally posted by MegaPoke:
You might be right about some chain retail storefronts, but you are incredibly wrong about actual SMALL BUSINESSES, built from the ground up. It's about a lot more than supply and demand, and the demand is often created by networking, marketing and balls out hard work.
I am sure he works very hard and he and his customer's both benefit greatly from his hard work... but that doesn't make him a job creator.
Originally posted by MegaPoke:

There absolutely is zero context in which her statements make sense, but bravo for the effort. Safe to assume you've never taken on the risk or unimaginable time investment of starting a business yourself?
This post was edited on 10/28 4:42 PM by MegaPoke
Uh, yeah the next twenty seconds of context makes statement make sense. She clearly clarifies that she was refering to trickle down economics.

I actually have started a business but for some reason it didn't give me a god complex or make me completely myopic about the economy. Go figure.

 

[racernhra]

Originally posted by 07pilt:




I actually have started a business but for some reason it didn't give me a god complex or make me completely myopic about the economy. Go figure.

No, being an ultra-left wing liberal did that for you. Go figure.

 

[N. Pappagiorgio]

Originally posted by 07pilt:


I actually have started a business but for some reason it didn't give me a god complex

Then what did?

 

[MegaPoke]

You are right that item specific demand can be created by firms, but that demand in turn reduces demand for other items (his gain is someone else's loss). Aggregate demand isn't created by businesses. Thats why sales go down when the economy slumps.

Gross simplification and totally inaccurate. First, aggregate demand is a macro-economics principle, not a microeconomics (i.e. how it refers to Popinski, his product, his specific market and the jobs he's personally created) principle.

His product may be something that is recession proof. Slumping economies do not negatively affect the sales of all products and services.

And his product may be totally unique - as in... there are no similar alternatives if it does not exist, or that existing similar alternatives only exist as imitations of his ground breaking original.

To help you understand this, imagine you've got $100 in your pocket. You have no plans for it, assuming you'll have to spend it on gas or food over time. You find yourself at Lowes to pick up some brackets for a DIY project and see Popinski's product on an end cap display. You only at that unique moment of self awareness realize that this product he's brought to market can fix a problem you had that you didn't even realize a solution had been invented for. You happily spend your $100 on the product and go on your way, finding other recourses to pay for your gas and food. Now if that thing had not existed, you had no plans to immediately spend that money. Therefore he created the demand himself. Personally.

I am sure he works very hard and he and his customer's both benefit greatly from his hard work... but that doesn't make him a job creator.

Yes, if the result is that he works so hard that he grows to the point that he needs to hire additional help, it does in fact make him a job creator. Jobs aren't a zero sum thing. You seem to believe that if one job goes away, another equitable job springs up. That's not how it works. Otherwise, unemployment numbers would be static and would not go up and down (mostly down) under Obama Shaloma ding dong.

Uh, yeah the next twenty seconds of context makes statement make sense. She clearly clarifies that she was refering to trickle down economics.

Uhhhhhhh.... I listened to the next 20 seconds and it was more of a set up for some pithy story about Bill bringing arithmetic to the White House. Just really smarmy, oily bullshit as usual.

It in no way made sense of what she said - in any way - at all. Just a way to get the quote out there, nothing more.

Her quote has nothing to do with trickle down economics. it has to do with her setting the stage for future agendas regarding the next big buzzword (ready for it?) income inequality. Someone like HC doesn't drop a turd like that without knowing the next play, so it's kind of funny when the minions run with lame excuses like you have right here. It must be hard as hell to drink koolaid with that hook in your mouth.

I actually have started a business but for some reason it didn't give me a god complex or make me completely myopic about the economy. Go figure.

If you start a business, build success, create jobs and deliver product and service to satisfied, loyal customers you are doing something powerful and positive. Being aware of your place in making that happen isn't a god-complex. It's called confidence. It's basically what gives some people the balls to go down that path in the first place. Pretty weak in my opinion to insult people who take risk, generate revenue and create jobs for being self-aware enough to know their part in the process and not suck government's schlong or give credit where it is not due.

 

[CBradSmith]

I had a nice answer typed out (kinda lengthy) and wanted to sit on it before sending.

Internet explorer closed. Lost.

But generally, I'll be a co-signor to what Mega said. Pilt you're just not worth the time anymore. You've damaged your brand to the point...you're just not worth it.

You're smart enough to know better than to exercise the mental gymnastics needed to make any of what you say even remotely believable, but instead you're demonstrating that you're smarmy enough to persist....and even throw in mean characterizations while you're at it for good measure. Stand up guy, that Pilt. First Dr's are greedy fukers, now business owners think they are Gods. You sound 100% jaded dressed up in just enough coherency to pass off as balanced and sometimes introspective.

This thread would have ended the moment you said something like "Hillary wasn't the most articulate in expressing that, because OBVIOUSLY corps, government entities, and businesses create jobs which is good for our economy, I think she was trying to make more of a general statement about the inefficiencies of trickle down economics. Not her best moment." Oh, you may have received a little pushback, but at least that is within the realm of believability, and you don't expose yourself as a mean-spiritied hack defending the indefensible.

 

[07pilt]

Originally posted by MegaPoke:

Gross simplification and totally inaccurate. First, aggregate demand is a macro-economics principle, not a microeconomics (i.e. how it refers to Popinski, his product, his specific market and the jobs he's personally created) principle.

Exactly, and job creation is a macroeconomic phenomenon, which I guess is my point. To "creating" a job isn't the same as employing some one. Creating a job is adding a job to the economy in aggregate. All the marketing and hard work in the world only changes what slice of the aggregate demand pie you are getting.

Originally posted by MegaPoke:

His product may be something that is recession proof. Slumping economies do not negatively affect the sales of all products and services.

And his product may be totally unique - as in... there are no similar alternatives if it does not exist, or that existing similar alternatives only exist as imitations of his ground breaking original.

None of this matters. If the economy slumps some one's sales go away. And jobs are lost.

Originally posted by MegaPoke:

To help you understand this, imagine you've got $100 in your pocket. You have no plans for it, assuming you'll have to spend it on gas or food over time. You find yourself at Lowes to pick up some brackets for a DIY project and see Popinski's product on an end cap display. You only at that unique moment of self awareness realize that this product he's brought to market can fix a problem you had that you didn't even realize a solution had been invented for. You happily spend your $100 on the product and go on your way, finding other recourses to pay for your gas and food. Now if that thing had not existed, you had no plans to immediately spend that money. Therefore he created the demand himself. Personally.

You just yada yada'd the important parts. How do I find other resources to pay for food and gas? I had no plans on spending that money? Was I going to burn it instead?

Originally posted by MegaPoke:

Yes, if the result is that he works so hard that he grows to the point that he needs to hire additional help, it does in fact make him a job creator. Jobs aren't a zero sum thing. You seem to believe that if one job goes away, another equitable job springs up. That's not how it works. Otherwise, unemployment numbers would be static and would not go up and down (mostly down) under Obama Shaloma ding dong.

Jobs aren't zero sum, they move with the macro economy, not with Popinski's business success. There are three ways his business can grow: He can increase his market share, which is directly taking sales from his competitor's. His business can be so great that his market actually grows at the expense of other markets (food and gas in your previous example) which is directly taking sales from other industries. Or the entire economy grows, which is a macro economic phenomenon that he has nothing to do with.

Originally posted by MegaPoke:

Uhhhhhhh.... I listened to the next 20 seconds and it was more of a set up for some pithy story about Bill bringing arithmetic to the White House. Just really smarmy, oily bullshit as usual.

It in no way made sense of what she said - in any way - at all. Just a way to get the quote out there, nothing more.

Her quote has nothing to do with trickle down economics. it has to do with her setting the stage for future agendas regarding the next big buzzword (ready for it?) income inequality. Someone like HC doesn't drop a turd like that without knowing the next play, so it's kind of funny when the minions run with lame excuses like you have right here. It must be hard as hell to drink koolaid with that hook in your mouth.

"Don't let anybody, don't let anybody tell you that, ah, you know, it's corporations and businesses that create jobs. You know that old theory, trickle-down economics. That has been tried, that has failed. It has failed rather spectacularly."

Yep nothing at all to do with trickle down economics.

Minions, Koolaid, Hook? Come on. I know this is calculated red meat for the populist wing of the party (most will never trust a Clinton anyway) but you might want to inform everyone else that thinks this is a "disqualifying remark" or a gaffe.

Originally posted by MegaPoke:

If you start a business, build success, create jobs and deliver product and service to satisfied, loyal customers you are doing something powerful and positive. Being aware of your place in making that happen isn't a god-complex. It's called confidence. It's basically what gives some people the balls to go down that path in the first place. Pretty weak in my opinion to insult people who take risk, generate revenue and create jobs for being self-aware enough to know their part in the process and not suck government's schlong or give credit where it is not due.

Powerful and positive no doubt, but you are delusional if you think that you are creating jobs. Does it just not sound powerful enough to say that you employ people?

 

[07pilt]

Originally posted by CBradSmith:

But generally, I'll be a co-signor to what Mega said. Pilt you're just not worth the time anymore. You've damaged your brand to the point...you're just not worth it.

You're smart enough to know better than to exercise the mental gymnastics needed to make any of what you say even remotely believable, but instead you're demonstrating that you're smarmy enough to persist....and even throw in mean characterizations while you're at it for good measure. Stand up guy, that Pilt. First Dr's are greedy fukers, now business owners think they are Gods. You sound 100% jaded dressed up in just enough coherency to pass off as balanced and sometimes introspective.

I know I have won when people stop being responsive to arguments and complain about the smarm.

Originally posted by CBradSmith:

This thread would have ended the moment you said something like "Hillary wasn't the most articulate in expressing that, because OBVIOUSLY corps, government entities, and businesses create jobs which is good for our economy, I think she was trying to make more of a general statement about the inefficiencies of trickle down economics. Not her best moment." Oh, you may have received a little pushback, but at least that is within the realm of believability, and you don't expose yourself as a mean-spiritied hack defending the indefensible.

"I don't see what the big deal is. Taken in context, she was weighing in on trickle down economics. It was just a refutation of the "job creators" rhetoric of 2-3 years ago. The point being that the number of jobs in this country is determined by the amount of sales in this country not by how nicely we treat business owners."

For being so indefensible I find my position pretty damn defensible. You would think

 

[MegaPoke]

I know I have won when people stop being responsive to arguments and complain about the smarm.

Or it could be that they've decided you aren't interested in an actually discussion because you have just put on your cheerleader skirt and aren't actually "responding" to arguments yourself with anything other than predictable party spin.

And that you are smarmy.

 

[07pilt]

Originally posted by MegaPoke:
I know I have won when people stop being responsive to arguments and complain about the smarm.

Or it could be that they've decided you aren't interested in an actually discussion because you have just put on your cheerleader skirt and aren't actually "responding" to arguments yourself with anything other than predictable party spin.

And that you are smarmy.

And this is how I know I have won the argument with you. You start calling people minions, cheerleaders, and dismiss legitimate arguments as "predictable party spin" when the arguments aren't partisan at all.

I'll cop to smarmy though.

Now if you will excuse me I'm off to find other recourses for food and gas.

 

[Tulsaaggieson]

"Or it could be that they've decided you aren't interested in an actually discussion because you have just put on your cheerleader skirt and aren't actually "responding" to arguments yourself with anything other than predictable party spin.

And that you are smarmy."

^^^^^^
Yup, but the fact that he's smarmy is a back seat issue.

 

[CBradSmith]

Originally posted by 07pilt:

Originally posted by CBradSmith:

But generally, I'll be a co-signor to what Mega said. Pilt you're just not worth the time anymore. You've damaged your brand to the point...you're just not worth it.

You're smart enough to know better than to exercise the mental gymnastics needed to make any of what you say even remotely believable, but instead you're demonstrating that you're smarmy enough to persist....and even throw in mean characterizations while you're at it for good measure. Stand up guy, that Pilt. First Dr's are greedy fukers, now business owners think they are Gods. You sound 100% jaded dressed up in just enough coherency to pass off as balanced and sometimes introspective.

I know I have won when people stop being responsive to arguments and complain about the smarm.

Originally posted by CBradSmith:

This thread would have ended the moment you said something like "Hillary wasn't the most articulate in expressing that, because OBVIOUSLY corps, government entities, and businesses create jobs which is good for our economy, I think she was trying to make more of a general statement about the inefficiencies of trickle down economics. Not her best moment." Oh, you may have received a little pushback, but at least that is within the realm of believability, and you don't expose yourself as a mean-spiritied hack defending the indefensible.

"I don't see what the big deal is. Taken in context, she was weighing in on trickle down economics. It was just a refutation of the "job creators" rhetoric of 2-3 years ago. The point being that the number of jobs in this country is determined by the amount of sales in this country not by how nicely we treat business owners."

For being so indefensible I find my position pretty damn defensible. You would think

Jobs in this country are only partially attributed to the amount of sales. The other side of the ledger is cost balanced against required retained earnings and payout (investor return). Cost includes taxes, regulated costs, etc. The overall business environment, successful risk management, and innovation are all keys to job creation. A crowd of 100 zombies wander into town all wanting to eat brains, a demand. They have the ability to pay. Some want 5 brains, some want 1 brain, and so on. Jobs don't just suddenly appear. A person has to recognize demand, weigh the payoff for taking the risk of serving this brains. Can he/she do it at a cost that is worth their time and risk? They gotta source the brains, hire security to keep the zombies a safe distance, set up a store front, staff up, next they have to determine if the demand is sufficient that the markup will not only cover costs, but also exceed the risk free rate of return. Maybe the cost of labor, borrowing, security (anything) is too high. Maybe when taxes are taken out, the shop wouldn't bring in enough to make it worth the while of the owner who has other alternatives of what to do with his/her time and money.

To be clear, "supply and demand" doesn't create jobs. There are conduits that creates jobs. Hillary (and you) don't recognize this.

How you treat businesses matter, per your last obtuse statement. Note inversions. Note why they are happening.

I detect an "eat the rich (and their precious businesses too)" mentality from you." That's not good for this country.

 

[07pilt]

Originally posted by CBradSmith:
Jobs in this country are only partially attributed to the amount of sales. The other side of the ledger is cost balanced against required retained earnings and payout (investor return). Cost includes taxes, regulated costs, etc. The overall business environment, successful risk management, and innovation are all keys to job creation. A crowd of 100 zombies wander into town all wanting to eat brains, a demand. They have the ability to pay. Some want 5 brains, some want 1 brain, and so on. Jobs don't just suddenly appear. A person has to recognize demand, weigh the payoff for taking the risk of serving this brains. Can he/she do it at a cost that is worth their time and risk? They gotta source the brains, hire security to keep the zombies a safe distance, set up a store front, staff up, next they have to determine if the demand is sufficient that the markup will not only cover costs, but also exceed the risk free rate of return. Maybe the cost of labor, borrowing, security (anything) is too high. Maybe when taxes are taken out, the shop wouldn't bring in enough to make it worth the while of the owner who has other alternatives of what to do with his/her time and money.

So who created these jobs? All the business owners were already there the whole time, but yet when the zombies show up all these jobs are created. I can't really figure out why you would make up a fictional scenario that supports my point? If it was to show that businesses and entrepreneurship are key components of the economy, I have said as much throughout the thread.

Originally posted by CBradSmith:
To be clear, "supply and demand" doesn't create jobs. There are conduits that creates jobs. Hillary (and you) don't recognize this.

What would you say is the difference between a job creator and a job conduit?

Originally posted by CBradSmith:
How you treat businesses matter, per your last obtuse statement. Note inversions. Note why they are happening.

Inversions are happening because our laws are structured to make them profitable. Have any of the companies that have inverted also announced massive hiring sprees now that they are paying so much less in taxes?

Originally posted by CBradSmith:
I detect an "eat the rich (and their precious businesses too)" mentality from you." That's not good for this country.

You are reading a lot into my words. I have repeatedly acknowledged that business and corporations are important to our economy, and have explicitly denounced the idea that increasing taxes on businesses and the rich is a good idea.

 

[CBradSmith]

Originally posted by 07pilt:

Originally posted by CBradSmith:
Jobs in this country are only partially attributed to the amount of sales. The other side of the ledger is cost balanced against required retained earnings and payout (investor return). Cost includes taxes, regulated costs, etc. The overall business environment, successful risk management, and innovation are all keys to job creation. A crowd of 100 zombies wander into town all wanting to eat brains, a demand. They have the ability to pay. Some want 5 brains, some want 1 brain, and so on. Jobs don't just suddenly appear. A person has to recognize demand, weigh the payoff for taking the risk of serving this brains. Can he/she do it at a cost that is worth their time and risk? They gotta source the brains, hire security to keep the zombies a safe distance, set up a store front, staff up, next they have to determine if the demand is sufficient that the markup will not only cover costs, but also exceed the risk free rate of return. Maybe the cost of labor, borrowing, security (anything) is too high. Maybe when taxes are taken out, the shop wouldn't bring in enough to make it worth the while of the owner who has other alternatives of what to do with his/her time and money.

So who created these jobs? All the business owners were already there the whole time, but yet when the zombies show up all these jobs are created. I can't really figure out why you would make up a fictional scenario that supports my point? If it was to show that businesses and entrepreneurship are key components of the economy, I have said as much throughout the thread.

You say "supply and demand" creates jobs. That is incorrect.

Originally posted by CBradSmith:
To be clear, "supply and demand" doesn't create jobs. There are conduits that creates jobs. Hillary (and you) don't recognize this.

What would you say is the difference between a job creator and a job conduit?

Education time is over. Go back over this entire thread and listen rather than dictate. You can agree to disagree, but that ultimately makes your position retarded.

Originally posted by CBradSmith:
How you treat businesses matter, per your last obtuse statement. Note inversions. Note why they are happening.

Inversions are happening because our laws are structured to make them profitable. Have any of the companies that have inverted also announced massive hiring sprees now that they are paying so much less in taxes?

This is research you'll need to do for yourself, but we both know the decisions are not driven by a need to hire more. It's to stay competitive for the array of stakeholders given the tax environment in the U.S.

Originally posted by CBradSmith:
I detect an "eat the rich (and their precious businesses too)" mentality from you." That's not good for this country.

You are reading a lot into my words. I have repeatedly acknowledged that business and corporations are important to our economy, and have explicitly denounced the idea that increasing taxes on businesses and the rich is a good idea.

Why are you asking me where are the massive hiring sprees for companies performing corporate inversions only to turn around and make this assertion? Be consistent in your allusions and implications.

To circle back yet again, for Hillary to say that "corps and businesses don't create jobs" is ludicrous. For you to explain away her sentiment is equally ludicrous. Her clarifying her remarks demonstrates as much. She claims to have mispoken. Then why are you defending the remark? I even prefaced my initial post by saying "on it's surface," allowing her the wiggle room we all knew she'd eventually take: the correction below,





"Trickle down economics has failed. I short-handed this point the other day, so let me be absolutely clear about what I've been saying for a couple of decades," she said. "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."
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/hillary-clinton-jobs-comment-112225.html#ixzz3I1v2QJPn

I consider this thread to have reached its logical conclusion. But I have no doubt you have more say, so by all means....continue.

 

[07pilt]

Originally posted by CBradSmith:

You say "supply and demand" creates jobs. That is incorrect.

I call it supply and demand, you call it zombies. Tom ay to Tom ah to.

Originally posted by CBradSmith:

Education time is over. Go back over this entire thread and listen rather than dictate. You can agree to disagree, but that ultimately makes your position retarded.

Wow are you proud of this one? Retarded? Straight up refusing to define your terms? Who is the obtuse one here?

I took the liberty to go back and look at all the times you said conduit. Strangely, it was always businesses being a conduit.

"Businesses are all conduits of destructive power organized.."

"The firm is a conduit of creative destruction and production,..."

"If it isn't the firm creating jobs, serving as a competitive conduit of creative destruction..."

Originally posted by CBradSmith:

This is research you'll need to do for yourself, but we both know the decisions are not driven by a need to hire more. It's to stay competitive for the array of stakeholders given the tax environment in the U.S.

It was a rhetorical question. No one is inverting and then going on a hiring spree, because as it turns out the reason they aren't hiring is a lack of sales not a lack of post tax profits.

Originally posted by CBradSmith:

Why are you asking me where are the massive hiring sprees for companies performing corporate inversions only to turn around and make this assertion? Be consistent in your allusions and implications.[/B]

Because taxes do affect this thing I been talking about called "aggregate demand."

Originally posted by CBradSmith:

To circle back yet again, for Hillary to say that "corps and businesses don't create jobs" is ludicrous. For you to explain away her sentiment is equally ludicrous. Her clarifying her remarks demonstrates as much. She claims to have mispoken. Then why are you defending the remark? I even prefaced my initial post by saying "on it's surface," allowing her the wiggle room we all knew she'd eventually take: the correction below,

You can call it ludicrous, but if it was that ludicrous you would think you would be able to answer my question regarding recessions, or mega would be able to answer my questions regarding demand, or you wouldn't have to invent zombies with cash in your anecdotes.

I am defending her remark after she walked it back, because I wasn't defending her in the first place. Hillary is a coward and no better than a windsock. But, this idea that if we only were nicer to businesses there would be more jobs is toxic to our political discourse on the economy and it is important to debunk.

Originally posted by CBradSmith:
I consider this thread to have reached its logical conclusion. But I have no doubt you have more say, so by all means....continue.

I would have just quit after the atrocious zombies example.