• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hillary: 'Don't Let Anybody Tell You' That 'Businesses Create Jobs'

This is sort of a re-do of Obama's (businessmen) "don't do it alone". And they don't: usually they go through banks etc for loans: sometimes - a lot of times - through government loans, they have to have people to help get them up and running etc. Hillary's point is that businesses don't create jobs - out of thin air -if that were so, there'd be a lot more jobs available every day: if the corps and the wealthy created jobs there'd be zero unemployment in this country and the great depression wouldn't have happened. She's not making an anti business stament, but more telling a great truth; that without demand and spending power business is really nowhere and I think that is very true. Try and see through partisanship to what's really going on here. Mind you - I'm not a Hillary fan by any stretch of the imagination, but reality is just that. A business cannot be created unless it has a place to go and a reason to hire people.

yes, hillary may have been trying to re-visit the 'you didn't build that (by yourself)' discussion
but she failed in her efforts
she failed when she presented that businesses do not create jobs
identify a demand and supply it. that is what businesses do. and businesses create jobs in the process. exactly the opposite of what hillary tried to explain to us
and in the process she revealed that her feet are made of clay
 
This confuses demand with demands. There are only a few very basic things that count under the first heading--food, water, medicine, clothing, entertainment, love, comfort...that's pretty much it. These all really come down to just two things: what we need to survive, and what we need in order to want to continue to survive. Perhaps more basically, what keeps us alive, and what makes us happy. NASCAR is just a specific instance of the latter.

Before NASCAR, there was demand for things that make us want to continue to survive. NASCAR helps fit the bill for some people--they enjoy it, the enjoyment makes them happy for a while, and happiness is a reason to live. The point is that this demand existed before NASCAR; NASCAR merely filled that demand as a concrete exemplar. That seems about right to me: clearly, if NASCAR didn't do anything that has to do with making us happy or keeping us alive, no one would have anything to do with it. The fact that, for any given product, we can see what about it makes us want more, and that thing is always logically prior to the product, or demand for the product, seems like a pretty good argument for this point.

I think the mistake is to confuse demand for happiness with what NASCAR did.

Clearly, NASCAR, and more specifically Bill France Sr, believed he could add to the pool of things that make people happy by, in his case, putting everything on the line to see if he could accomplish that. The demand for such a venue as Daytona International Speedway did not exist. He took capital, under his personal belief that he could add to the happy pool. NASCAR is the result. The demand was created, where it didn't exist before.

A perfect example of how demand is created, and a perfect example of how a big government liberal like Hilary Clinton will forever remain completely clueless on the concept.
 
yes, hillary may have been trying to re-visit the 'you didn't build that (by yourself)' discussion
but she failed in her efforts
she failed when she presented that businesses do not create jobs
identify a demand and supply it. that is what businesses do. and businesses create jobs in the process. exactly the opposite of what hillary tried to explain to us
and in the process she revealed that her feet are made of clay

You just said it for me: no job exists unless there's a demand for it.
 
You just said it for me: no job exists unless there's a demand for it.

too bad hillary did not say it that way for you
then you would not have to defend her indefensible words
 
yes, hillary may have been trying to re-visit the 'you didn't build that (by yourself)' discussion
but she failed in her efforts
she failed when she presented that businesses do not create jobs
identify a demand and supply it. that is what businesses do. and businesses create jobs in the process. exactly the opposite of what hillary tried to explain to us
and in the process she revealed that her feet are made of clay

Well said.

I think she was playing to the crowd, but I think she screwed up.

The people who liked her comments are probably already going to vote for her...the big government lovers/big business haters. So she gained little there it seems.

It is the rest of America she needs to convince, convince them that she understands the American economy. And that comment will be played over and over and it makes her sound macroeconomically ignorant.
It does not matter what context she said it in, the comment was flat out wrong. Of course businesses create jobs. And since demand is an emotion, it cannot create jobs as emotions cannot create anything. It's ridiculous to even suggest otherwise.
Sure, for 13 year olds and Keynesian fanatics, it's fine to say. But for POTUS candidates, it makes her look (IMO) rather silly and ignorant.

People love quick sound bites and that comment she made will, IMO, stay with her for a long time.

I would be quite surprised if that did not cost her more potential votes then it won her.
 
Last edited:
too bad hillary did not say it that way for you
then you would not have to defend her indefensible words

She knew what she was talking about; that's my point.
 
Oh please. You just want Hilary to be wrong; but public demand for products and services is what creates jobs and businesses.

You just can't seem to grasp the fact that the public can't demand any good or service unless the public is employed. Maybe you think if everyone worked for the gov that would give people money to spend, is that your premise here?
 
She knew what she was talking about; that's my point.

She was saying that the government creates jobs. The Leftists have been harping on that for years. It was the free market that made this country great, not the government.
 
She knew what she was talking about; that's my point.

then we part company on that point

i try to judge the speaker by what they actually said instead of what they should have said
 
She was saying that the government creates jobs. The Leftists have been harping on that for years. It was the free market that made this country great, not the government.

please point out where in her comments that she said government creates jobs, because i missed it
i look forward to your reply
 
please point out where in her comments that she said government creates jobs, because i missed it
i look forward to your reply

She claimed that private companies don't create jobs. That leaves job creation up to...?

I look forward to you completing that sentence.
 
She was saying that the government creates jobs. The Leftists have been harping on that for years. It was the free market that made this country great, not the government.

Show me where Hillary Clinton said "the government creates jobs".
 
then we part company on that point

i try to judge the speaker by what they actually said instead of what they should have said

That's fine; I just think that you're misinterpreting what she said based on your political leaning.
 
She claimed that private companies don't create jobs. That leaves job creation up to...?

I look forward to you completing that sentence.

Show me where Hillary Clinton said "the government creates jobs".

If not private companies, who's left? Who's left to create these jobs? Seems only a single other entity, and that'd be the government, unless you can list a non-private company and non-government source of jobs.
 
eohrnberger said:
That's true. In the past people did trade with each other. However, not much of that going on these days in modern economies, where the mechanism of trade is uses the intermediate of currency.

That's not relevant. The question, again, is which is more fundamental: demand, or business? In the simplest case, demand fuels production. Ergo, it is more fundamental, because production can fail. There can be demand without supply, but no supply without at least some kind of demand. Businesses are on the supply side of the equation.

I have to re-iterate what I said in my last post, however. It would be a big mistake to ignore the supply side altogether, and I understand that. We owe much of our economic development to more and more products and services filling more basic demands. But this doesn't preclude anything I've said previously--I take these points to be logically consistent, and furthermore, to provide a decent set of principles by which to guide economic policy.

eohrnberger said:
Not sure where you are getting your information from here. 20% investment payback sounds like the very top tier of the highest risk investments. The old adage, if you can't afford to lose, you can't afford to win, applies here. Especially when more normal businesses' profit rates are in the single digits.

Well, they are now, which is part of why businesses are closing down. Investors still want the returns they were getting in the 90's and early 00's, so they're moving capital out, in large part to China, India, Russia, and into some restricted markets in the U.S. that still offer those kinds of yields (often with the illusion of relative safety). This is a practical problem, and for my part, I think we ought to be ruthless about stopping it. Wealth belongs primarily to whatever produces it. It's demonstrable that society as a whole produces wealth, not individuals, and especially not individual investors.
 
Show me where Hillary Clinton said "the government creates jobs".

Surely didn't mean that NO ONE creates jobs? Because, right after that she said that trickle down economics has failed. A lie used to prop up the idiotic idea that the government creates jobs.
 
apdst said:
There's no way a business could survive on 5%.

Sure they could. Businesses can continue on 0% net profit...which, if you review my post, you'll see is what I was talking about. There wouldn't be any expansion, of course. And expansion would be very slow with just 5%; it would take a little over 15 years to double an original investment. This is why I say that 10% is better; it would take a little over 8 years to double an investment. 15 years is too slow and doesn't provide enough opportunity. 8 years to double seems about right.
 
ocean515 said:
I think the mistake is to confuse demand for happiness with what NASCAR did.

Clearly, NASCAR, and more specifically Bill France Sr, believed he could add to the pool of things that make people happy by, in his case, putting everything on the line to see if he could accomplish that. The demand for such a venue as Daytona International Speedway did not exist. He took capital, under his personal belief that he could add to the happy pool. NASCAR is the result. The demand was created, where it didn't exist before.

This doesn't address my point at all. Why was there a demand after NASCAR got started? The only reason there could be is that it filled a more basic need--i.e. a demand--that already existed. Ergo, demand, and the ability to satisfy demand, is more fundamental than supply.
 
That's fine; I just think that you're misinterpreting what she said based on your political leaning.

Yeah, that's it! :lamo
 
If not private companies, who's left? Who's left to create these jobs? Seems only a single other entity, and that'd be the government, unless you can list a non-private company and non-government source of jobs.

Now sources for jobs is whole other matter and hits the nail right on the head. Government as a source is weak in my view and shows a lack luster economy: bureaucracy is another sore spot with me. A strong economy means pleanty of demand and the jobs it creates begins the circle. And again; if the corporates and private employers created jobs we'd be up to our eyeballs in employment wouldn't we. Hillary was arguing against that right-wing meme, and she's right in my view.
 
Last edited:
That's not relevant. The question, again, is which is more fundamental: demand, or business? In the simplest case, demand fuels production. Ergo, it is more fundamental, because production can fail. There can be demand without supply, but no supply without at least some kind of demand. Businesses are on the supply side of the equation.

Seems like you are putting words in my mouth. I never said, or at least I don't believe I've said, that business trumps demand. I said that they are co-dependent on each other, in that business addresses demand by expanding, and without demand, business wouldn't and there would be no jobs for it.

I have to re-iterate what I said in my last post, however. It would be a big mistake to ignore the supply side altogether, and I understand that. We owe much of our economic development to more and more products and services filling more basic demands. But this doesn't preclude anything I've said previously--I take these points to be logically consistent, and furthermore, to provide a decent set of principles by which to guide economic policy.



Well, they are now, which is part of why businesses are closing down. Investors still want the returns they were getting in the 90's and early 00's, so they're moving capital out, in large part to China, India, Russia, and into some restricted markets in the U.S. that still offer those kinds of yields (often with the illusion of relative safety). This is a practical problem, and for my part, I think we ought to be ruthless about stopping it. Wealth belongs primarily to whatever produces it. It's demonstrable that society as a whole produces wealth, not individuals, and especially not individual investors.

So the investor and business, who take the risk, and make the investment, deserve scraps from the table, once the "wealth producers" have had their fill?

That's not really sounding like a formula for success, there. Who's going to be motivated to invest in business for a reasonable payback? Are these "wealth producers" going to be able to pony up the capital required to start the ball rolling? If so, why haven't they?
 
Now sources for jobs is whole other matter and hits the nail right on the head. Government as a source is weak in my view and shows a lack luster economy: bureaucracy is another sore spot with me. A strong economy means pleanty of demand and the jobs it creates begins the circle. And again; if the corporates and private employers created jobs we'd be up to our eyeballs in employment wouldn't we. Hillary was arguing against that right-wing meme, and she's right in my view.

Again, if not private business, who, in Hillary's view, is going to be the source or producer of those jobs?

If not private business, then it'd have to be the government, as you acknowledge, a 'weak' producer of jobs.

Since it's a binary question, an either or question, and she's not choosing private business, then, logic dictates she must think that it's the government that's the source of jobs.

Bottom line, she's full of **** on this point, and she's just pandering to the liberal / progressive / statists who believe that money grows on the government tree and falls down for them to spend, and that it's just a matter of electing the 'correct' people to government to make it happen.

That whole meme that empty the headed sheeple keep swollowing along with 'business didn't build that' is just a pile of dung.

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.
The Man in the Arena - April 23, 1910 - Theodore Roosevelt Speeches- Roosevelt Almanac

We need more people to "actually strive to do the deeds" rather than expecting government hand outs. She's pandering to those that want government hand outs. That's clear. Just as clear as that this isn't the path forward for the nation.
 
She claimed that private companies don't create jobs. That leaves job creation up to...?

I look forward to you completing that sentence.

it appears you cannot meet the challenge and show us her statement where she said government is responsible for creating jobs ... allowing us to then conclude that YOUR statement was incorrect
 
it appears you cannot meet the challenge and show us her statement where she said government is responsible for creating jobs ... allowing us to then conclude that YOUR statement was incorrect

Nice dodge. Don't tear an ACL.
 
eohrnberger said:
Seems like you are putting words in my mouth. I never said, or at least I don't believe I've said, that business trumps demand. I said that they are co-dependent on each other, in that business addresses demand by expanding, and without demand, business wouldn't and there would be no jobs for it.

But they are not co-dependent in an important and relevant sense: demand can never be reduced to zero (unless all human beings are dead), while supply can be. Demand is therefore more fundamental--the thing that needs to be around first is demand and the ability to satisfy demands. I don't know how to be any more plain.

eohrnberger said:
So the investor and business, who take the risk, and make the investment, deserve scraps from the table, once the "wealth producers" have had their fill?

I didn't say that. But investors wouldn't have anything to risk in the first place if it weren't for them being in a society. And to the extent that all businesses invoke social costs, society is taking a risk any time a business opens.

eohrnberger said:
Who's going to be motivated to invest in business for a reasonable payback?

If that's meant as a rhetorical question, as it seems to be, you may as well be arguing my case. The obvious answer is: anyone who is reasonable.

eohrnberger said:
Are these "wealth producers" going to be able to pony up the capital required to start the ball rolling? If so, why haven't they?

For reasons I've explained earlier. There's a perception that better returns for less risk can be had elsewhere. The "less risk" bit is right--there's not enough demand to provide a reasonable guarantee against business closure. The "better return" bit is also right, but needs to be remedied.
 
Back
Top Bottom