A Rich American Destroys The Fiction That Rich People Create The Jobs

Pro progressive propaganda. This is an example of the 'appeal to authority' and you carefully choose the 'authority' that happens to say what you want. Not good on your part but par for the course on these kinds of forums.

 

The authority presented an argument, why don't you try to address it? Or the argument of other people in this thread?

 

That needs to be said... over and over... and over and over... because it IS true.

 

Consumers create the demand. People with money create the businesses or people with the idea borrow money from people with money and create the business. Liberals just take all they can get and produce nothing worthwhile.

If a liberal were to want a job, and I know that's ridiculous, I would suggest he go hang out at the homeless shelter. Oh, wait, that pretty much describes OccupyNitwits, doesn't it.

 

Any fool knows that jobs in America are created by small businesses that are not "rich".

The big corporations employ people too - but the people they employ are in China, India, Malaysia and Vietnam, not in America.

 

Consumers don't create jobs. Businessmen in a healthy economic environment create jobs. Consumers help to sustain jobs.

 

By revenues, I meant tax revenues collected by the federal govt, and that is not false.

No matter what the tax rates, the revenues collected remain the same.

The Truth About Tax Rates

 

Businesses? Possibly. Businessmen? Absolutely NOT!! This is a question which has split people for the longest time, and one that does not have an objective answer. Does supply drive demand, or does demand drive supply? I personally think it is the latter, and believe logic is more on my side. However, it is not something you can isolate a variable for to find out. So we will go on endlessly disagreeing, but we should at least agree on the proper players. It is businesses on the supply side, and consumers on the demand side. Not businessmen on the demand side!!

 

businessmen produce goods and services in response to perceived consumer demand. Jobs are an afterthought.

No businessman opens a business with the intention of creating jobs.

 

Austriac school and similars won't agree with you, that supply generates demand. I don't agree that, I agree the same that you.

Ah it is interesting see how this debate is completely different from the one that I had in a news site of Spain, that is where I saw this article.

 

Stupid post and opinion.

Consumers don't create, they consume. By definition. Consumers are simply the reason that "the rich" justify taking the risks with their capital to create businesses that meet the demand that they perceive consumers have.

How is this not obvious to even the most rancid troll?

 

I can see you are trying to use some nuance here, but you seem to have failed. First of all, of course middle class people create an overwhelming majority of new businesses. With that out of the way, you seem to not even be disagreeing. Yes consumers demand things, and suppliers respond. However, the former needs to happen, before the latter will. Otherwise we will see a situation like we have now in this country, where taxes are at historically low levels, corporate profits are at historically high levels, and yet we have high unemployment. It is because there is deficient demand. It pretty much puts to bed the absurdity that is supply side economics.

 

Agreed. I am engaging in 'nuance' insofar as to illustrate that these middle class people are considered "the rich" by those who argue against "the rich".

Because they do not stay middle class if they actually create a business that succeeds.

That isn't the point of the OP. The point of the OP attempts to diminish the obvious fact that demanding isn't difficult; supplying is.

Causation/Correlation fallacy. Our taxes are not at historically low levels regardless, but I doubt you will break ranks with automatons who deliriously claim otherwise. AMT alone has guaranteed that, but a simple reading of the metrics of collection prove that regardless the marginal rates, what people actually pay has remained about the same.

It has been virtually impossible to actually collect more than about 18-19% of incomes; this is fact.

No it doesn't - and you do not understand supply-side economics at all if you think so. Supply-side economics understands that demand never disappears; it simply goes unrealized if economic distress results in illiquidity. Supply-side understands that entrepreneurs will take risk to meet demand, but also understands that across-the-board tax cutting is critical to induce a relaxing of buying habits in the consumers which simultaneously stimulates entrepreneurs to meet demand that is perceived as a result.

Both are obviously important, but supply is more difficult to induce, due to the risk involved.

 

Even so, if it is CONTINUALLY clear, that consumers are unable to purchase from available "supplies" or "inventory"... then there is a serious problem that "business" alone cannot resolve or correct on its own.

People need to be ABLE to purchase (consume) things, in order for those operating within private enterprise to NEED more employees. These PLUTOCRATS (super-smart elites amongst the 1%) gaming the wealth and economic structure of America are fueled by GREED and interest in making a quicker, easier buck; the (literal) evil (or potential for the same) represented there... is greater than any PUBLIC policy which leans in favor of those within the Middle-Class (99%).

 

i don't know how they could pass this rich create jobs hog wash as real

without wealthy consumers there are no businesses

 

Correct.

Pipe Dream #1: You can get things for "Free".

Pipe Dream #2: If no one is buying your "product", you can make money.

There is supply, demand and the CONSUMER is mainly the Middle-Class; not people who simply make money off of gambling with money. Really, a nation relying on that, is a lot like hoping that some guy you sent into a CASINO with 20 bucks, will come back out with 35 or 60 buck for you; especially if you don't have ANY darned idea as to his actual skills or the rules/odds of the game he's playing.

We need to be HONEST and accept that what we manufacture and consume, is and will be the most stable things about our economy. Investments are fine indeed, but not the Wall Street "Casinos" we've lost so much money investing in.

 

But is it a problem contrived by the very forces that claim to have the solution?

This is just an amorphous rant. Be specific, or there's nothing really useful to say in response.

 

The solution is to promote the Middle-Class.

It says what it needs to say. The solution CERTAINLY is NOT to further bolster the wealth of the 1%.

 

And how do you do this without violating the rights of other classes?

I reject the premise, because bolstering the wealth of the top 1% does not in any way, shape or form harm the remaining classes - that's just leftist pap you've accepted.

Regardless: how do you do this without violating their rights?

 

Come on! Are you so 'defensive' in your thinking, that I would EXCLUDE all others in suggesting what I did? I hope not. I'm only saying that we cannot weight SO MUCH in favor of the most wealthy, at the peril of those majority of Americans.

And if we do not address (seriously) the dubious imbalances which exist, it could likely destroy this nation, brick-by-brick.

It is the weighting of various elements within the game (economic system), which WE (as a nation) must address. And like it or not, we can't leave all factors as they presently are. You don't have to accept 'everything' you might think I'm suggesting... neither will I (in the face of all that has recently happened) accept that nothing 'revolutionary' should be embarked upon. Sorry, but the status quo, won't do.

Exactly what "rights" are you referring to?

The things I'm thinking/suggesting, promote more rights and freedoms for ALL Americans, by evening out the advantages PROGRAMED into the system. Now, if you think nothing or little should change, I can't make you see otherwise. Still, I'm virtually certain that Americans WILL strive to do just as I have suggested, and I suspect we (America) will be BETTER OFF for it.

 

I'll ask you again: how do you treat people equally and still provide a solution to a proclaimed problem?

And the solution is....

...still waiting...

Equal treatment under the law.

...and still, you're thinking, but not suggesting. Your response has been less than short on ideas. So far, you've done nothing more that say "we should do better!!!"

 

Look Subdermal... you may fancy yourself to be an 'expert' or 'professional' in these matters. I don't intend to be or pretend to be. Therefore, I give my GENERAL OPINIONS about where I think America should focus.

I've seen MANY experts (all capitalists, BTW) suggest MANY things. Even they do not agree, and they are KNOWN to be experts. If they disagree, then I'm certain that I can't say anything so "specific" that it will make a difference in the overall scheme of things.

I've given you and others my general view, and it is the direction I believe we should head as a nation OVERALL. So, though I'm no economic 'expert' as you seem to think someone MUST be as they discuss these things, I'll do what I always do... compare the actions or outcomes which you suggest, to what known experts suggest (and observe actual outcomes over time).

Again Subdermal... I know enough to give a general view of what I believe should be, and I don't see where your suggestions/answers are THE answers... still I respect the reality that you do have an opinion to share. Maybe you have things "right" or maybe you do not. In any case, that remains to be seen.

 

Agreed. Many times when people on the left talk about raising taxes, they include people making 363,000 dollars in the same category as a person making 363,000,000. There is absolutely no comparison. We don't need to raise taxes within the current structure, we need to reform the structure. So that our system is progressive, but that progressiveness is far more gradual.

That simply isn't true.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=456

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ner-says-top-1-percent-have-tax-rate-low-20s/

You can only support this position, because you rejected the idea that taxes are historically low rates, which they are. When accepting that, and accepting the fact that corporate profits are at historical highs, that should translate to lower prices and more jobs, or at least that is the idea. Yet that has not turned out to be the case.

 

When was the last time some rich joke kept a money hemorraging business in business after local consumers dried up and stopped buying anything from them? Sure, they may have enormous wealth, but what is their incentive to employ people and stay in business if consumers won't buy any products or services due to being dead broke. That rich guy can sit on that money all they want (thats whats happening at epic levels right now), but eventually, his money will lose its value and our nation will suffer from lack of GDP growth and lack of revenues. It hurts everyone when rich people hoard and dont' spread the wealth around by both spending and hiring. And I dont' mean give the money away, but put it into play by giving jobs and benefits to people.

If every millionaire in the country opened up and hired just 1 or 2 more employees today, they wouldn't miss a cent of that investment and it would probably stir enough economic growth to double their investment profits across the economic spectrum. It would also trim the deficit immediately (if not eliminate it) and push us into full on prosperity.

Of course, lets hear the excuses for these wealthy people not hiring, despite paying the lowest taxes on their wealth than at any time in the history of this nation.

 

Amen! You've just addressed "greed" in the most pleasant way possible. That is, the reason many (who are wealthy) do not see their errors in ALL of this, is because they are conditioned (by our very system) to be and remain greedy. Problem is, if they play by the existing RULES (laws), they are bound to win (and can be a greedy as HELL); it is human nature.

And overall, I'm suggesting that we write and apply stronger laws... to address the inevitable "greed" inherent within the economic system.

For example: Just because people have to efficiently get to where they are going on America's roadways, doesn't mean that gutting 'regulations' or having none at all is a good thing. SPEED LIMITS are up along the way, for good and essential reasons.

To me, it is the same with America's financial system... everyone should use the system, and with FEW EXCEPTIONS follow the same rules. After all, what good does it do to STACK so many rules against the middle-class (as they certainly are)?