Well that is great, but I wrote it clear enough.I can read in multiple languages, just not the one you wriote that gibberish in.
Is this really all you have as someone that is trained in this sort of thing? What I said is not new and anyone that is trained in economics should understand what I am talking about perfectly. If you don't, you need to go back to school.You've captured the TD essence beautifully. That's completely indecipherable. One of the things about training in Economics is that it includes training in how to present points clearly and succinctly and in a manner that a reader is apt to find familiar, even if he or she is not particularly well-versed in the subject matter. Obviously, you guys have never had any sort of training like that.
Whether you realize it or not you can't treat the ability for money of changing hands as if job creation is solely connected to this mechanic as you will find you are ignoring the human aspect of economic theory which always results in bad outcomes. Live and learn, eh?Seems like Choice #6 from the All-Purpose Meaningless Response Cheat Sheet. Whether you realized it before or not, the more times a dollar turns over per unit of time, the greater aggregate demand will be and the more jobs will be present in the economy. This is from one of the fundamental relationships of macro economics -- the money supply times its velocity equals GDP. Live and learn, eh?
If anything, telling me money changes hands and this "CAN" (thanks for leaving it out) create jobs is not ground breaking and its meaningless statement by itself.