Clinton: ‘Don’t let anybody tell you it’s corporations and businesses that create job

[kilgram]

Clinton:‘Don’t let anybody tell you it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs’
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/25/hillary-clinton-dont-let-anybody-tell-you-its-corp/

Well, what do you think of these declarations?

[Polecat]

She probably believe what she is saying because she has never in her life done an honest day's work.

[Common]

Shes right and shes wrong, they do create jobs but theres no trickle down they dont allow it by having stripped everything they could from employees.

Today having a job means you stand still you dont move forward. It keeps you from going backwards. They have stagnated pays taken pensions.

The song and dance of far right conservatives for anything middleclass and the poor is.
"WE CANT AFFORD IT" let it be anything for the richest americans and corps and they have to have it to either create jobs or if they dont it stifles jobs. One big BS story that I dont buy.

[Chris]

Yes, dammit all, only government creates job! We all know that. :rollseyes:

[kilgram]

Yes, dammit all, only government creates job! We all know that. :rollseyes:
But neither is true that corporations create jobs.

Jobs are created by workers providing goods and by these workers buying good produced by themselves or other workers. It is a circle.

And sometimes, corporations provide to the workers the means of production to be able to produce in some economic systems like the capitalist based in private property.

[Mac-7]

Madam Coattails, aka the Cookie Lady is not always a reliable source of wisdom.

[Polecat]

But neither is true that corporations create jobs.

Jobs are created by workers providing goods and by these workers buying good produced by themselves or other workers. It is a circle.

And sometimes, corporations provide to the workers the means of production to be able to produce in some economic systems like the capitalist based in private property.
Do you have a job?

[Polecat]

I ask because you describe a cottage industry idea.

[PolWatch]

kilgram is right (imho). People demand something (goods/services), corps provide, corps pay workers, workers purchase. If corps were able to completely eliminate workers, there would be no one able to purchase goods/services and no need for corp. Since creation of a corp depends on need, then the consumers are the creators of jobs.

[Chris]

But neither is true that corporations create jobs.

Jobs are created by workers providing goods and by these workers buying good produced by themselves or other workers. It is a circle.

And sometimes, corporations provide to the workers the means of production to be able to produce in some economic systems like the capitalist based in private property.


Work is created by action that contributes time, plan, effort.

Jobs are provided by businesses who hire people to work.

That's generally how people talk. It's not my job to clean my house, it's work. My job is working for a company in exchange for pay and benifits.

[Chris]

kilgram is right (imho). People demand something (goods/services), corps provide, corps pay workers, workers purchase. If corps were able to completely eliminate workers, there would be no one able to purchase goods/services and no need for corp. Since creation of a corp depends on need, then the consumers are the creators of jobs.


Generally, in economics (non-Marxist) supply creates demand. :)

[Polecat]

kilgram is right (imho). People demand something (goods/services), corps provide, corps pay workers, workers purchase. If corps were able to completely eliminate workers, there would be no one able to purchase goods/services and no need for corp. Since creation of a corp depends on need, then the consumers are the creators of jobs.

I would have thought that to be pretzel logic at one time but you make the circle Kilgram described crystal clear.

[PolWatch]

Generally, in economics (non-Marxist) supply creates demand. :)

so, if you have it, people will buy it...even if they didn't know about it before it was available? hmmm, sounds like modern pharm...create a drug & then a disease for it!

[Polecat]

so, if you have it, people will buy it...even if they didn't know about it before it was available? hmmm, sounds like modern pharm...create a drug & then a disease for it!

Yup. Today people spend almost every cent they make on crap they do not really need. Cell phones were nifty but unnecessary when they first came out. Now they are more essential than food or medical care.

[kilgram]

Generally, in economics (non-Marxist) supply creates demand. :)
And that is illusional. Demand or some necessity creates that supply.

If there is no necessity of that product there is no demand, whatever the supply.

[PolWatch]

a new idea?... the producer has to have supply available before he creates demand...so we do see supply before demand...not the usual order, but does happen

[Chris]

so, if you have it, people will buy it...even if they didn't know about it before it was available? hmmm, sounds like modern pharm...create a drug & then a disease for it!

Field of Dreams.

But, yes, what would you demand unless there existed a supply? Not just pharmaceuticals, everything. That new cellphone of yours. It they didn't exist, would you have demanded one?

[Chris]

And that is illusional. Demand or some necessity creates that supply.

If there is no necessity of that product there is no demand, whatever the supply.


Necessity is outside supply and demand. Because you are human, alive, you must feed, clothe and shelter yourself. Those are facts of life. What you consume to meet that need depends on what is available. Go back 1000s of years. You live in a rice land, would you have demanded corn?

[PolWatch]

Field of Dreams.

But, yes, what would you demand unless there existed a supply? Not just pharmaceuticals, everything. That new cellphone of yours. It they didn't exist, would you have demanded one?

nope...and, in fact, went for many years without one (happily). I was bullied into it! However, that comes under the heading of unnecessary luxury. I was talking about the very beginnings of a producer/consumer system...food, shelter, etc. When society hit the point where people lived in towns and were unable to provide their own food supply, the necessity of food producers was created.

[kilgram]

Necessity is outside supply and demand. Because you are human, alive, you must feed, clothe and shelter yourself. Those are facts of life. What you consume to meet that need depends on what is available. Go back 1000s of years. You live in a rice land, would you have demanded corn?
Human have differents needs. If I don't need something I am not going to demand for it.

Needs in this case are not necessary to be basic. I can want to do exercise, a gym gives me this service. It was created from 0 but this new product supplied a need to do exercise and therefore from this need there is demand of gyms.

[Chris]

nope...and, in fact, went for many years without one (happily). I was bullied into it! However, that comes under the heading of unnecessary luxury. I was talking about the very beginnings of a producer/consumer system...food, shelter, etc. When society hit the point where people lived in towns and were unable to provide their own food supply, the necessity of food producers was created.

See above post on necessity.

Towns could not have formed without the supply provided by agriculture.

What we're talking about goes back much further, to the first divisions of labor, specialization and trade.

[Chris]

Human have differents needs. If I don't need something I am not going to demand for it.

Needs in this case are not necessary to be basic. I can want to do exercise, a gym gives me this service. It was created from 0 but this new product supplied a need to do exercise and therefore from this need there is demand of gyms.


Now you're talking about something completely different. Earlier was needs, now wants.


A "It was created from 0 but this new product supplied a need to do exercise"
B "and therefore from this need there is demand of gyms."

Make up your mind. A says supply created need (want, demand). B says the reverse. Once supply and demand exist they interact, of course, but it was supply that created the demand to begin with.

[PolWatch]

Looking at the subject from modern times, yes, supply can create demand...but that has only started when we began to have enough $$$ to spend on unnecessary luxury. A good idea can create demand...today. That was not always the truth...imho

[kilgram]

Now you're talking about something completely different. Earlier was needs, now wants.


A "It was created from 0 but this new product supplied a need to do exercise"
B "and therefore from this need there is demand of gyms."

Make up your mind. A says supply created need (want, demand). B says the reverse. Once supply and demand exist they interact, of course, but it was supply that created the demand to begin with.
I've explained it wrongly. I am going to rephrase it. There was demand to do exercise and gyms appeared to supply that demand.

[GrassrootsConservative]

Who else creates jobs other than businesses and corporations?

[Polecat]

Who else creates jobs other than businesses and corporations?

You miss the catch 22 posted earlier? Without the presence of the "worker" in the first place to buy the products or services the business would have no reason or means to exist.

[Alyosha]

It goes either way, sometimes marketing creates a demand that would not have existed otherwise. Who would have thought, Gosh I need a Furby!

[decedent]

Generally, in economics (non-Marxist) supply creates demand. :)

More keynsian demand side commit stuff. Only supply side economics works. If an auto company makes a car then somebody will buy it. This is why auto companies don't fail.

[hanger4]

More keynsian demand side commit stuff. Only supply side economics works. If an auto company makes a car then somebody will buy it. This is why auto companies don't fail.
Tell that to Studebaker, Packard and Stutz to name but a few.

[Mac-7]

Hillary is just following the tried and true democrat technique of appealing to the socialist base of democrats during the primaries.

if she gets nominated by the dems then she will pretend to be a centrist during the general election.

[Chris]

I've explained it wrongly. I am going to rephrase it. There was demand to do exercise and gyms appeared to supply that demand.

So people imagined gyms, demanded them, and only then were they built. Can you explain how they made this demand known? To whom? Remember, according to you, prior to demand, there were no gym builders or gym equipment manufacturers. What is the process? Sheer will power?

[texan]

One of the single dumbest things ever said by a candidate! Then the spin response comes and you think, huh?

This will be played over and over in ads by dem opponents and rupublicans should she win the nomination. I do believe she is absolutely not a shoe in anymore. Warren is a good Candidate and Biden will run, he is VP afterall.

[Mac-7]

One of the single dumbest things ever said by a candidate! Then the spin response comes and you think, huh?

This will be played over and over in ads by dem opponents and rupublicans should she win the nomination. I do believe she is absolutely not a shoe in anymore. Warren is a good Candidate and Biden will run, he is VP afterall.

Do not overestimate libs.

they are more than capable of nominating Madam Coattails.

[Professor Peabody]

Hillary is just following the tried and true democrat technique of appealing to the socialist base of democrats during the primaries.

if she gets nominated by the dems then she will pretend to be a centrist during the general election.


Hillary Clinton Corrects Fumbled “Jobs” Line

“I short-handed this point the other day.”

Ruby Cramer

SOMERS, N.Y. — When Hillary Clinton fumbled a line at a rally last Friday — “Don’t let anybody tell you that corporations and businesses create jobs” — the comment caused a minor outrage among political observers. Republicans said she’d been pandering to liberals. Democrats wondered if she’d been trying too hard to channel Elizabeth Warren, the populist senator who also spoke at the event.

“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.”

“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.”

http://www.buzzfeed.com/rubycramer/hillary-clinton-corrects-fumbled-jobs-line?utm_term=4ldqpia&bftw=pol

Hillary, Hillary.....Hillary. The days of politicking to your individual audience have been over for a long time. You just can't say one thing to one group then say something else to another and get away with it. Not in this information age.

[decedent]

Tell that to Studebaker, Packard and Stutz to name but a few.

Those auto manufacturers didn't survive because they were based in Detroit, a bastion of liberalism.

[Captain Obvious]

Those auto manufacturers didn't survive because they were based in Detroit, a bastion of liberalism.

If they were in Asia they would be fine.

[GrassrootsConservative]

You miss the catch 22 posted earlier? Without the presence of the "worker" in the first place to buy the products or services the business would have no reason or means to exist.

Alright but without a chicken there will be no more eggs.

[Mac-7]

Hillary, Hillary.....Hillary. The days of politicking to your individual audience have been over for a long time. You just can't say one thing to one group then say something else to another and get away with it. Not in this information age.

Hillary is not a smart woman or a natural politician the way bill is.

thats why I call her Madam Coattails.

but she is the next big idea of libs in the democrat party and the mainstream media and they will support her till the last dog dies.

[Peter1469]

Hillary, like most women, does not age well. Sucks for 2016.