Hillary: "Businesses don't create jobs"
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 07:57:43 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election
  Hillary: "Businesses don't create jobs"
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3
Author Topic: Hillary: "Businesses don't create jobs"  (Read 2922 times)
Maxwell
mah519
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,459
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: October 26, 2014, 07:42:25 PM »

Yeah, it'll have as much effect as "you didn't build that". Remember when the GOP staged their entire convention around that flop of an attack? That was adorable.

This is obviously way worse than "you didn't build that". Thankfully for her, she said it two years out, so it won't have much effect.

How? It's the exact same thing. An out of context quote "proving" that they hate business and capitalism or whatever. I still remember all the Republicans cheering that "you didn't build that" sealed Romney's victory as Obama revealed his anti-business communist roots.

I'm not sure it will have less effect though, since you can't go below zero.


"You didn't build that", although awkward is true.
"Businesses don't create jobs" is plain wrong.


Yep. This.
Logged
All Along The Watchtower
Progressive Realist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,426
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: October 26, 2014, 07:50:14 PM »

If you actually watched the video, she was clearly talking about "trickle-down" economics. You know, the Republican Party's brilliant idea that giving rich people more money will make everyone richer.

"It has been tried..and it has failed."

I don't see how this is controversial, unless you're a dumb or you're trying to divert attention away from the Republican Party's dismal record at job creation.

Logged
tpfkaw
wormyguy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,118
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.58, S: 1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: October 26, 2014, 07:50:24 PM »

She's absolutely right. Consumer demand creates jobs which is not directly in businesses control.

Actually, precisely the opposite. How much demand was there for iPhones, before Apple invented them? (Or, for that matter, how did the fact that iPhones were being supplied affect demand for Blackberries?)

A ton. The demand for cellphones was huge before the iPhone, which it supplanted, and landline phones had huge demand prior. A nice landline phone used to be a Christmas gift back in the old days.  The iPhone was created to built on consumer demand for phones that were cooler and more technologically advanced than the last.

I'm not going to bother reading the rest of your post because it derailed already.

What's the price of an iPhone in 1997? It's impossible to know, because that market did not exist. What's the price of an iPhone in 2007? $399

Supply reveals demand. It is impossible for demand to reveal supply without time travel. To claim otherwise is pure economic quackery on the same level as the labor theory of value or the ideas of Warren Mosler.

If you don't understand the economic concepts I'm talking about, I would suggest you take my word for it instead of making yourself look foolish.
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: October 26, 2014, 07:56:20 PM »

How about some context here?  If you actually listen, she never made a factual statement, that business do not create jobs.  She didn't say those words, "businesses don't create jobs."   She was quickly paraphrasing conventional wisdom and she was struggling for the right word at that moment.

So, you can play this stupid gotcha game.  But, if you feel the need to get outraged whenever someone says anything vaguely provocative for any reason, you're as bad as those angry senior citizens who comment on news articles.  There's certainly no reason to get your knickers in a knot about this minutia yet anyway.
Logged
King
intermoderate
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,357
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: October 26, 2014, 10:26:43 PM »
« Edited: October 26, 2014, 10:29:19 PM by King »

She's absolutely right. Consumer demand creates jobs which is not directly in businesses control.

Actually, precisely the opposite. How much demand was there for iPhones, before Apple invented them? (Or, for that matter, how did the fact that iPhones were being supplied affect demand for Blackberries?)

A ton. The demand for cellphones was huge before the iPhone, which it supplanted, and landline phones had huge demand prior. A nice landline phone used to be a Christmas gift back in the old days.  The iPhone was created to built on consumer demand for phones that were cooler and more technologically advanced than the last.

I'm not going to bother reading the rest of your post because it derailed already.

What's the price of an iPhone in 1997? It's impossible to know, because that market did not exist. What's the price of an iPhone in 2007? $399

Supply reveals demand. It is impossible for demand to reveal supply without time travel. To claim otherwise is pure economic quackery on the same level as the labor theory of value or the ideas of Warren Mosler.

If you don't understand the economic concepts I'm talking about, I would suggest you take my word for it instead of making yourself look foolish.

Except there were attempts by companies like Palm and even Apple with the Newton to supply the world with a iPhone/iPad-like technology by 1997 and nobody wanted it. You can't just artificially create demand because of a magic supply of new inventions that people may not need yet or may not afford.

It was not Applie's brilliant iPhone which expanded the cellular phone market but consumer shifts, such as a social decision to make every member of the family and not just the adults own a smart phone socially acceptable which expanded the consumer base. It was all on the people, not on the supplier.

Supply may reveal demand but that does not necessarily create a job. It creates a prototype.

Appeal to magical "I know more economic concepts than you" authority is false, I have studied economics fairly extensively in my years, but also pointless as anyone who has delved into the subject knows there's been an economic school constructed and extensive academic paper written for every point of view ever to exist.
Logged
pepper11
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 767
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: October 26, 2014, 11:31:32 PM »

how can some of you possibly say that her statement is correct. where are all of you working everyday? You are either working for a business or working for the government, or possibly yourself. Government creates jobs and businesses create jobs. She sounds crazy saying things like this. Does she think everyone is a federal or state employee?
Logged
Bacon King
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,822
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.63, S: -9.49

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: October 27, 2014, 04:57:05 AM »

"Which came first, the supply or the demand?" is just a stupid semantics argument IMO
Logged
Nichlemn
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,920


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: October 27, 2014, 07:48:41 AM »

I mean if we're getting super semantic-y, technically nobody does anything because numerous other factors in the universe coming together needed to happen. Bill Clinton didn't do anything as President, since it was a manifestation of the preferences of voters and the incentives of the US democratic system, according to the logic of some here.
Logged
Lief 🗽
Lief
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,876


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: October 27, 2014, 02:07:12 PM »

I look forward to Republicans once again basing their entire campaign on defending businessmen against an out of context gaffe made by their opponent.



I hope it proves just as successful as it did last time!
Logged
whanztastic
Rookie
**
Posts: 242


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: October 27, 2014, 04:04:49 PM »

Just read the next darn sentence. Ugh.
Logged
New_Conservative
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,139
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: October 27, 2014, 04:10:00 PM »

It still baffles me she would say that, I figured she wasn't starting her march to the left until after the midterms.
Logged
Slander and/or Libel
Figs
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,338


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: October 27, 2014, 06:07:27 PM »

Just read the next darn sentence. Ugh.
Logged
Obama-Biden Democrat
Zyzz
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: October 27, 2014, 06:25:28 PM »

#HITLERYWORSETHANOBAMAO
Logged
Bull Moose Base
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,488


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: October 27, 2014, 06:45:36 PM »

It's not clear gaffes have any effect. I'm not even sure Romney's 47% did and that was less than 2 months before the election not more than two years. It also came with the added power of being secretly recorded and confirming an image of him in a way this doesn't for Hillary. (Her image is being too corporate friendly.)

What I find interesting about this gaffe is it came in the same speech where Clinton was showering Warren with praise and came a day or two after Warren's Shermanesque denials of a run became a version "I don't think I'll run but maybe". It seems an obvious response to that development.  Clinton was working to not just butter Warren upend win her over but also to co-opt her populism to make a Warren run unnecessary. It's kind of funny that now Clinton and Obama have both tried to emulate Warren's "You didn't really succeed alone" riff in their presidential campaigns but in doing so, went much further to the left in their rhetoric than Warren, whose original was actually pretty moderate and in tune with mainstream opinion. Warren, in an actual campaign, would have way more appeal to moderate voters than people here are now realizing. She's a former Republican in fact.

It's a bit alarming that Hillary was so sloppy months after her dead broke gaffe but, again, I assume she'll become more disciplined as she does it more.
Logged
eric82oslo
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,501
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.00, S: -5.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: October 27, 2014, 07:08:17 PM »


Mind you that Hillary is also a former Republican. Tongue
Logged
Bull Moose Base
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,488


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: October 27, 2014, 08:08:19 PM »


Mind you that Hillary is also a former Republican. Tongue

Yeah, when she was a kid. Warren was a Republican until middle age. The "I didn't leave the party, the party left me" thing is an easier play if the change didn't happen during your teenage years. But that's all besides the point. I agree Hillary appeals to centrist voters. My point was Warren would also have more appeal to them than everyone here seems to understand. Not just because, like many people who have voted Democrat in the past couple years, she's a former Republican. But because her views are much more mainstream than people realize.
Logged
eric82oslo
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,501
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.00, S: -5.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: October 27, 2014, 09:02:29 PM »


Mind you that Hillary is also a former Republican. Tongue

Yeah, when she was a kid. Warren was a Republican until middle age. The "I didn't leave the party, the party left me" thing is an easier play if the change didn't happen during your teenage years. But that's all besides the point. I agree Hillary appeals to centrist voters. My point was Warren would also have more appeal to them than everyone here seems to understand. Not just because, like many people who have voted Democrat in the past couple years, she's a former Republican. But because her views are much more mainstream than people realize.

I agree. Most of her policy propositions have basically bipartisan support, some even overwhelmingly so.
Logged
justfollowingtheelections
unempprof
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,766


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: October 27, 2014, 09:04:59 PM »

She's right.  If she actually said that, I might change my mind about her and begin supporting her.
Logged
justfollowingtheelections
unempprof
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,766


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: October 27, 2014, 09:07:54 PM »

She needs to take an economics course.

Or maybe you should mr. libertarian.  Maximizing profit => minimizing cost of production => low wages.  So no, Walmart doesn't create jobs.
Logged
Bull Moose Base
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,488


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: October 27, 2014, 09:35:22 PM »

As expected, she's already taken this back. Also, it's weird that Ice Spear posted this gaffe and no one here commented on it for 24 hours.
Logged
Cory
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,709


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: October 28, 2014, 02:18:30 PM »

Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: October 28, 2014, 05:18:12 PM »

No one person or thing is "the economy" but the economy is "people". Businesses create jobs in the same way that Government creates jobs. There's really an infinite amount of right ways to do things but an infinite more wrong ways to do things.
Logged
Deus Naturae
Deus naturae
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,637
Croatia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: October 28, 2014, 05:38:00 PM »

She needs to take an economics course.

Or maybe you should mr. libertarian.  Maximizing profit => minimizing cost of production => low wages.  So no, Walmart doesn't create jobs.
So...those jobs appear out of nowhere? If every firm did nothing other than try to reduce production costs, literally every single consumer product would be an unusable piece of crap and literally everyone would have an annual salary of one cent. The economy is more complex than that.
Logged
Ljube
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,999
Political Matrix
E: 2.71, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: October 28, 2014, 06:08:53 PM »

There is one rule for the industrialist and that is: Make the best quality of goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible.

Henry Ford
Logged
Boston Bread
New Canadaland
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,636
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -5.00, S: -5.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: October 28, 2014, 06:12:06 PM »

There is one rule for the industrialist and that is: Make the best quality of goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible.

Henry Ford

Modern industrialists, with all their outsourcing, seem to have forgotten this lesson. Although they only learned it from the unions in the first place.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.051 seconds with 13 queries.