Hillary Clinton: 'Corporations and Businesses Don't Create Jobs'

You beat me to it. So is she an idiot like Elizabeth Warren or is she pandering to stupid voters?

 

Democrats' answers to everything is: More and More government. Hey....we need more gov't workers who sit around and watch porn for 2 to 4 hours per day, don't we??? You're okay with paying for that, aren't you?

 

There is no way this woman is running.

 

So they just magically appear when there is demand? There was no demand for personal computers when they were first created and people hired to invent them and create them. Marketing creates demand, better newer products create demand. All require investment by individuals or corporations.

 

Yes. Demand for services that businesses create and provide. See how easy that was once you think about it?

 

She looks and sounds drunk.

 

Hillary is a self-absorbed, arrogant, mean spirited,and manipulative , with NO plans for the direction of the country. Just ask slick willy !

 

You can see why Bill would chew his own foot off to get away from her.

 

Do Neoliberals have a problem with comprehension? She was referencing the idea that trickle down economics, supply side, creates jobs as opposed to people being paid enough in order to create a demand for products or services, which then causes business to add jobs. That simply allowing corporations to realize more profits actually make them create jobs, for now they have more money to spend on labor.

Leave it up to neoliberals to distort what she was actually saying. You know, that really is being dishonest. You can argue for trickle down, and lose the argument, and so one then lies and tries to make it sound like she was saying something she was not actually saying.

The same thing was done with Obama's comments awhile back. Why do neoliberals lie so much, and why is it that others cannot see through their lies? I guess because we are no longer taught how to think, but rather what to think.

Demand creates jobs. A lack of demand lays people off. In order to create jobs, the consumers have to have the money to generate demand. If you don't pay the consumers enough to create demand, you will not create jobs. This is what she was talking about for god's sake. What is wrong with the neoliberal brain? A corporation is simply responding to demand, and not creating jobs simply because they are wanting to help out others. Now granted, she could have said it better. But those who knew what she was talking about, "got it".

 

Of course, when you pay for their employment through theft of other people's property - there is no price signal to make this clear.

 

or?

.........

 

... or dismiss out of hand with minimal commentary

Something called "fiat" maybe? the equivalent of a gun in our faces with the message "pay up or else," that contrasts plainly with the voluntary nature of the private sector? Other possible answers include, waste, graft, welfare via do-nothing govjob, overstepping the Constitution?

1. Demand is created by markets full of individuals or groups exercising choice. 2. Jobs are created by interests that purchase labor in those markets. 3. Yes, many defense contractor workers are indirectly employed by the government, which runs entirely on tax revenues generated in the private sector, without a private sector, govt would have 0 revenue to do anything with, so what's your point? Not all defense contractor employees are, and there are hundreds of industries of which defense is only one.

1. Who here said this? Strawman? 2. Claiming the internet and computers were "ideas that are created by government research" is like claiming the Maserati is an "idea created by caveman research into fire and the wheel." 3. Tang is a branded private sector product, the government didn't invent it, they invented a powdered orange drink. If you don't learn anything else here, learn that distinction. An invention, in and of itself, is nothing without capital, marketing and operations. Government had no hand in ANY of those with respect to Tang.

And to reiterate 100% of that government fiat spending is the result of tax revenue originating wholly in the private sector. Government doesn't create any jobs.

Not only does government not create jobs, every government job is created indirectly by the private sector, which pays 100% of the taxes that pay 100% of government worker salaries. So it's reasonable to say that in addition to creating all jobs, corporations and businesses also create all government.

 

It's funny she's trying to play a populist while pocketing large speaking fees from Wall Street events. Hopefully someone else runs. Hillary is another corporatist Democrat, just like her husband.

 

I really don't see her winning the Democrat nomination let alone become President. And thank god for that. Republicans should be doing everything in their power to make sure she wins the nomination though, and keep the crazies such as Bachman, Santorum and Palin away from the nomination so they don't contaminate the republican party any further with the"stupid" brand.

 

Who else do the Democrats have? Seems they have already annointed here. Look at the leftist here on this board announcing her unbeatable.

 

Oh there is no doubt that socialism-ideology imbues leftists 'got it', but then again they -- just like she -- are wrong. Demand affects the cost of goods when measured against supply as in supply and demand. None of which happens without businesses creating goods or supplying services and as often as not investing their own money in marketing in order either to create demand or drive it upwards as consumers react. So just what the hell are all those socialistic and communistic economics professors teaching college students anyway? Shudder!

 

Yet as you know, he only agreed with the republicans and Pres Bush the Elder. This is the point where the democrats stopped representing the average americans, a few hundred million of them, in favor of the elites. Perot tried to tell us, and I voted for him, for I saw what was gonna to happen if dem or repub won.

The American people made a choice in that election to cut their own throats. And they cut it. But perhaps they thought Clinton would act in their best interests, and he committed treason.

 

Yet what are the real world results from the change that took place with trickle down? 60 percent of middle class income went straight to the top. That is what happens, ine real world. We expanded our middle class, brought prosperity to more americans prior to trickle down, had a better disparity in income, until trickle down was put into place. The results of both methods matter. And we know what worked better for average people, whether you will accept it or not.

Supply side failed, and the proof is there. But no one is forced to look, and so they won't.

What preceded trickle down was not socialism, so burn that straw man, please. It was a managed capitalism though so as to insure another Gilded Age would not come back. Well, it's baaaaaack!!

 

Perot shouldn't have dropped out and jumped back in. At least thats what I think I remember happening. Was just a little tike back then.

 

So, you are an egg over a chicken guy. Got it. Why does everyone forget about the efforts of the rooster?

 

Nationalism hurts consumers. If our products were superior choices, consumers would still be choosing them.

 

It would seem professional leftists believe...or more importantly, would have their legions of dull-eyed constituents believe.... that "societies" spring forth from the formulation of government.

 

Maybe we should incite another world war that destroys most other industrialized nations. Nostalgia is never accurate.

Also, why doesn't standard of living trump wealth disparity as a comparison metric?

 

She's actually trying to move left into Elizabeth Warren territory to pre-empt a run by her. She'll love corporations again when she goes to fundraise.

 

Than why am I paying employee taxes? I didn't create these jobs.