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

I see it, but there's a different reason why this matters. It's the basic notion of what drives economics. This in turn gives credence to one political ideology over another.

 

Won't have the impact you think it will JP5. I mean, Obama gave the gift of:

"You didn't build that", and the morons still propped him up on his pedestal.

 

I'm laughing. I had a demand for Jambalaya Fettucine from California Pizza Kitchen yesterday. I doubt they went out and hired someone new to take ol' Piscivorous' order.

 

Just look back to history. She was anointed in 2007. Some relatively unknown from Illinois crushed her. There's nothing to say another unknown won't pop up.

 

I think obviously the free market drives the economy.
There was no government program behind the automobile, the personal computer, blue jeans, Coca Cola or any other wildly popular product you can think of. The free market finds a demand and then fills it, thereby servicing consumer needs, and in the process, creating jobs (and revenue for the government).

The free market is proactive, productive and driven by entrepreneurs. The left, that somehow thinks government is responsible for economic success, is reactionary, predatory and like a pimp, can only live off the revenue that they can coerce others to provide.

 

I want a spaceship that travels faster than light. Does that mean that someone has already built one?

 

Correct. Now it's not as politically damaging to one's reputation as a national level politician as Obama's "You did not create that," mother load of boneheaded stupidity, which only failed to sink him because the bulk of the Mainstream Media immediately rallied around their guy and began furiously engaging in damage control; but Hillary does not have that political cushion with the media, not yet. This is because most of the journalists and pundits who covered and spun for Obama freaking despised Hillary Clinton back in 2008, for a variety of reasons. No matter if they rally around the Dem Party one more time in 2016 (if she does run) and go through the motions of promoting her for THEIR party, she will never truly be their precious Anointed One; to wit they simply are not going to have her back the same way that they fanatically had Obama's back from day one.

Which brings us back to her stupidity regarding businesses. We can see at least one fanatic on this thread pretty much slamming rationality with a sledgehammer while going against all known business courses in also claiming that business does not create jobs; but this time around the fanatics who routinely urinate all over facts and logic really should not make any difference. After eight years of HURTING under Obamanomics (whatever in the hell that is) -- and still to this day who knows what the Left's precious Anointed One actually embraces as an economic plan? -- people are going to be far less inclined to embrace Hillary's version of Obama's now infamous "You did not make that," insanity.

Business does not create jobs? This seasoned politician is seriously going to run for the presidency during a continuation of hard economic times against republicans who do comprehend the fundamentals of capitalism and who do know what the hell they are talking about when it comes to what does and does not work in regards to the economy? Okay then Hillary . . . bring it on!

 

Indeed. To paraphrase an old GM quote: "We design and build cars people don't realize they want yet".

 

Yes. If you can find the right planet. Call Paul Krugman. He might be able to help you out

 

What do you think? And how do you think this possibly relates to something I have posted?

- - - Updated - - -

In our consumerist culture Madison Avenue can brilliantly create a demand for something that is utterly pointless.

 

How did anyone ever realize that they wanted to eat before marketing told them so? Sure, you can hype a product to create (false) demand. We call this "working jobs you hate to buy sh*t you don't need". Ethical business fills a demand, it doesn't create one.

 

Should be pretty obvious how it relates. Did you read the quote? "But there absolutely has to be such a thing as an automobile before someone can want one."

So, if I can't want an automobile before someone makes one, then how is it that I can want an FTL spaceship? Or a hoverboard? Or anything else that doesn't already exist?

 

Base survivalist instincts. Has nothing to do with economics, nor job creation.

 

You've answered your own question. I want a light saber. They don't exist, except in the fertile minds of George Lucas and his successors. I'll bet you there is demand for light sabers. If demand creates jobs, then there should be a lot of positions open for people to engineer, produce and market light sabers.

 

I believe that demonstrably self evident so I wonder what your point is.
Can't want a camera before camera's were developed. Can't want an airplane before an flight was a possibility....etc.etc.

It's a pretty obtuse point. You can want whatever you can think of. Personally, I'd love to have a time machine. But my chances of actually getting one are very, very, very, very slim, I'd say.
In fact so much so, that I really don't want one in any real sense of the words at all. Because to want one is just silly.

In a thread where consumerism and the free market are being discussed I'd say your question ranks up there with wondering how many angels can dance on the head of pin...it's pure pointless conjecture.

 

I will point out that a certain poster routinely does this sort of thing; starting an argument over the meaning of a definition, being repeatedly proved wrong, stubbornly continuing to assert the same thing in a variety of different ways UNTIL posters who normally get along get drawn into fruitless arguments over the meaning of 'IS' and meanwhile said poster is off doing other damage in other threads.

Just something to think about. Before continuing THIS particular argument stop and consider that the one who's initial stubbornness about up being down and in being out at very nearly the beginning of this OP thread . . . has blithely moved on content now that a couple of posters who seldom disagree are now getting 'into it'.

 

That could be any number of thread derailing Smurfs (blue trolls).

 

Well, light sabers are a bad example, as they are impossible. But, you did hit on the right idea. Demand creates jobs. And if they were possible to build, then no doubt there would be such jobs.

 

Great. Truth be told, the free market has a key part in my ideology as well. I agree with you. The freer the market, the better it is because more demand can be made. That being said when one ideology takes over and the problems that go with the ideology become too much, something must be done.

 

Yes!!!

 

Uh, no. Here's an example: I'd like a Mobile Suit Future of warfare damnit XD But no matter how many of us wish for a Mobile Suit

The costs are prohibitive.

I mean, think about it: Do you think a bunch of people protesting for X Item will all of a sudden compel businesses, industrial leaders, etc to build the items?

Opportunity Cost, Demand AND profitability all factor into a business's decision. And if any one of those three factors has singular pulling power, it's Opportunity Cost/Profitability.

Demand alone can't do crap. At worst, Demand as a singular element drives people out of business(More specifically the lack thereof). Example: Blockbuster

Major retail store, right? So, why'd it go out of business? Enter in Netflix, with more flexibility and appeal to Internet-based consumers, Blockbuster couldn't match it. Or, it could by lowering prices(but that ruins the Profit Margin.) With a weakening Profit Margin and weak Consumer Base, it was wise to sell.

I want you to take note of something: There was still a demand for Blockbuster, it wasn't zero. But it wasn't nearly enough to cover the costs of operations.
So, it bares repeating: Demand, by itself does NOT make the business

Kapeach? Understood? If it were that easy, we'd ALL be in Business.

And do you know HOW LONG it took for Commercial air flight to be a thing? You seem to think businesses are built like -snap-, showing Liberalism's great disdain for anything business. Well, let's review the record:

100 years in the making

At first it was an idea, it got funding and numerous projects later has come our development of our modern day air travel. It couldn't have skipped any steps. If people couldn't fund the airliner, world history would be very different.

Building businesses, meeting demand is NOT easy. You think it's easy in your utter contempt for businesses, and more specifically for business owners. Which begs a question: Have you ever run a business? Have you studied the field? Has the Madam? Well, no, she's a lawyer. She has NO expertise in this field. Her words(and thereby the words of the Democratic Party) have no relevance to the discussion.

This is a lot like someone unrefined in the Arts criticizing the Mona Lisa, or someone totally ignorant of classical music criticizing Mozart or Beethoven. Normally, in of itself those groups of people are irrelevant and thereby have no factor. Tragically, you seek to turn 8 years into 12 years. You therefore are 'relevant' and must be successfully debated if jobs are going to return to America.

 

No, people wanted an easy way to take pictures, therefore cameras were developed. People wanted to fly, therefore airplanes were invented. Demand preceded supply.

I'm sure many people were saying the same thing about the airplane.

The question goes to the heart of economics: who drives job creation and innovation? In both cases, it is you and me. The people who demand the product, even if it does not yet exist.

 

I'm still scratching my head on this one and can't figure out why she would have sad such a thing. I like Hilly and if she's our candidate? -- sure i'll vote for her BUT...

 

I'll do better. I'll give you four...Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, Rand Paul, or Dr. Ben Carson.

 

Personally, I would prefer a Knightmare. That being said Demand is based upon a lot of different things, like cost. That's why it's Supply and Demand. That also being said, Demand isn't based upon one or two people. It's based on the market as a whole. Nor is it static. Demand changes all the time. Once everyone demanded candles. Now, not so much.

Yes.

Hence why Demand is based upon a lot of these things because it ultimately will dictate the cost.

So couldn't we say that there was a demand for faster and no need to return movies? Thus Netflix took that demand, and created jobs because of that.

Sure. But we're not really arguing why jobs go out of fashion now aren't we? If we were, Demand could still explain that. Not enough demand, thus a contract in the company. That being said, it's about jobs in general, not about one company in particular. Think about it, didn't Netflix create many jobs as the demand increased as well?

Or any of the other industries that demand economists.

Who said that? If anything I clearly showed I understand that it takes time or the idea that Demand changes.
"The real demand would have been for the military. "-Post 71.

You're right. But we're not arguing that investment helps the process. We're arguing at the origin of jobs, in other words that first step. That first step is demand. No one would have built a plane if there wasn't a demand for it in the first place.

Good thing we're not talking about the Democrats. Also, insults noted.

Yes. You must defeat me in debate in order for millions of Americans to return to work. Am I the final boss because if I am, I want a new name.