What's new

"Businesses don't create jobs"

One thing is for sure, you've done a magnificent job in this thread of re-creating the context for whatever you've found on the www.
 
I assumed the people whose opinions I actually value already know about this. Have any thoughts? Or are you just going to be an obnoxious *** who doesn't add any content again?
 
I thought noass got banned?

And the answer to gibberish is always cheese.
 
I assumed the people whose opinions I actually value already know about this. Have any thoughts? Or are you just going to be an obnoxious *** who doesn't add any content again?

Why don't you get a personal forum? That's the sensible thing to do. Or, you should probably just PM Stoked so you two can bitch together.
 
Since that statement is utterly nonsensical, I bet she meant tax cuts don't create jobs. I know it's appealing to think (for conservatives) that she's so clueless, she doesn't even know that people work for businesses. But I don't think that's very likely.
 
Whatever Hillary said, I have this strangely strong desire to interpret its meaning without mining her long career in the public sector for evidence of meaning.









(anybody who has paid attention to my political comments will know that I loathe the Clintons. But I loathe over-reacting to gaffes from the campaign trail even more. Awesome thread.)
 
Why don't you get a personal forum? That's the sensible thing to do. Or, you should probably just PM Stoked so you two can bitch together.

I've disagreed with Stoked plenty of times.

I was merely curious what people thought. Not sure why that has you so riled up. I don't know why you're so angry all the time, but I really am sorry. I hope you get it figured out someday.
 
Since that statement is utterly nonsensical, I bet she meant tax cuts don't create jobs. I know it's appealing to think (for conservatives) that she's so clueless, she doesn't even know that people work for businesses. But I don't think that's very likely.

tax cuts for businesses, to be specific
 
I've disagreed with Stoked plenty of times.

I was merely curious what people thought. Not sure why that has you so riled up. I don't know why you're so angry all the time, but I really am sorry. I hope you get it figured out someday.

Nice backpedal

people whose opinions I actually value

You know you're here to bitch about "liberals".... don't complain about me trolling your thread if you're trolling for hi-fives.
 
Nice backpedal



You know you're here to bitch about "liberals".... don't complain about me trolling your thread if you're trolling for hi-fives.

Oh give me a break. I was honestly looking forward to seeing what OB would have to say, because I know that he typically has a pretty good knowledge of things like this. While I typically don't agree with what OB has to say, that doesn't mean I don't value what he says. I wasn't here to bitch about "liberals", just have a discussion. Maybe you only value people who have the same opinion as you, but not all of us are like that.

Now like I said earlier, I truly hope you get help with your anger problems. You aren't a happy person NAOS, I don't know why you aren't, but I hope you figure out why soon.
 
So was Hillary taken out of context? Is she right? Is she wrong? Do I care? Cheese?

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/25/hillary-clinton-business-jobs_n_6046856.html

Some context:
Don’t let anybody tell you that 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," she said in Boston.

I'd wager she had planned to say "Don’t let anybody tell you that it's tax cuts for corporations and businesses that create jobs." Anyone who has followed her career would probably realize that.

If she meant exactly what she said, instead of it being a misquote, she would be wrong, both about businesses not creating jobs, and about trickle-down economics doing away with businesses. I find it very unlikely she made both of those errors.
 
Oh give me a break.

To be fair, the way the original post was created...

itsatrap.jpg


seemed like an appropriate response.
 
I watched the whole speech from which this part is culled. I forced myself to finish watching it mainly because I cannot stand to watch political speeches, I much prefer to read the transcription later so I can skip over the BS and don't have to listen to the tone, which is often condescending and patronizing. From what she said you could take it to mean that she means that corporations do not create jobs. I didn't hear much in the way of qualifiers. But I might have missed something as I was on my phone in my car waiting for my son to get off work at McDonald's, which location incidentally added about a dozen new jobs in the last year (according to the paper). Kinda ironic, dontcha think?
 
The opposite notion, that businesses create jobs, is not entirely true. I'd say demand creates jobs, businesses facilitate the fulfillment of that demand by employing people who produce or serve that which meets the demand. No one thing can really exist without the other. As with most things a balance is required.
 
And because I read the other day there's a possibility that Jeb Bush might run for president, my thought process if he and Clinton win nominations, we'd have in the major parties a person whose husband was a president and person whose father and brother were president, can we officially change the nation from a constitutional republic to an aristocracy?
 
The opposite notion, that businesses create jobs, is not entirely true. I'd say demand creates jobs, businesses facilitate the fulfillment of that demand by employing people who produce or serve that which meets the demand. No one thing can really exist without the other. As with most things a balance is required.

Businesses create jobs in order to fulfill market demand. I don't think "demand creates jobs" is a more meaningful statement since demand is an abstract concept, and not an actor that can perform action.
 
Businesses create jobs in order to fulfill market demand. I don't think "demand creates jobs" is a more meaningful statement since demand is an abstract concept, and not an actor that can perform action.

Alright. But without demand business fails. It may be an abstract concept but it obviously has a tangible effect.

In some cases businesses create their own demand, and what we as consumers demand is often shaped by our options. I certainly don't want to minimize the role of business in the scheme of things, but business doesn't exist for the sake of business, and jobs don't exist as some benevolent effort by business to employ people for the sake of employment.
 
Alright. But without demand business fails. It may be an abstract concept but it obviously has a tangible effect.

In some cases businesses create their own demand, and what we as consumers demand is often shaped by our options. I certainly don't want to minimize the role of business in the scheme of things, but business doesn't exist for the sake of business, and jobs don't exist as some benevolent effort by business to employ people for the sake of employment.
Sure. It's all about supply and demand. What I meant was that the statement 'businesses create jobs' is fair and objective. I don't disagree with anything you're saying.
 
Top