• 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'

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.



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.



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.



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.

It isn't absolutely necessary that demand exist. Sometimes there is no demand, until a product is produced. The automobile is a perfect example.
 
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.

Demand can be 0, and it wouldn't require all the humans being dead either. They'd just not have to demand (or want to pay for) anything.

A system where everyone was 100% self-sufficient, would have no demand, for example. As would a system where everything that everyone could possibly want is given to them, that'd also have no demand.

Frankly, it's an extreme boundary case that probably can't exist in reality.

Just demand isn't going to make any jobs. It'll be just unfulfilled demand. Until someone decides to fill that demand, is there going to be a job. It may be one person, or it may be many people, but in both cases its a job. The mere fact that demand is getting fulfilled by someone else creates a job.

The two are so intertwined, it doesn't seem to make any sense to me to consider them separate. Sure, in some theoretical sense, but not in anything that is remotely connected to any sort of reality known to man.

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.



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.



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.
 
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.



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.



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.



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.

It seems like you want to ask the question which came first, the chicken or the egg? Business or demand? A fine esoteric debate but in the real world and in the here and now business creates jobs and then jobs create demand which then create more business and the cycle continues to spiral up. Ever notice how supply comes first in supply and demand?
 
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

If not business then who? The only other choice is gov isn't it?
 
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.

Of course it addresses your point. It addresses it quite precisely. There was no large scale demand until that demand was created by investors putting capital at risk in the hope it would pay off. Did people like race cars? They seemed to. Crowds were attending the Daytona Beach races. Would they flock to a banked track to watch cars race at speeds never seen before? They didn't know. The first race required a mix of cars from different classes when many drivers decided the track was unsafe. This is a classic case of supply at risk searching for demand. Same thing happened with many of the technological breakthroughs we take for granted today. From Microwave ovens to cell phones. All risk against no demand.

I understand the demand meme that forms the foundation for the living wage agenda requires reality to be suspended, but that doesn't change the facts.
 
apdst said:
It isn't absolutely necessary that demand exist. Sometimes there is no demand, until a product is produced. The automobile is a perfect example.

But there was a demand--namely, for unfussy travel. Compared to a horse and carriage, motor vehicles were a bit more reliable and cheaper to operate.

This isn't to say, of course, that automobiles didn't create further demands, which, I've argued above, can be distinguished from demand. However, without the initial demand, automobiles wouldn't have gone anywhere (meant, in this case, both figuratively and literally). Or, more perspicaciously, without a demand that people had the ability to pay to fill, automobiles would never have caught on. So the demand, and the ability for those with the demand to fill it, have to be present.

Our main problem is that Americans aren't filling as many demands because they lack the means. This is how vicious cycles get started (well, one of a couple of ways). To fix it, we need to take actions that directly affect how much wealth customers have to spend.
 
eohrnberger said:
Demand can be 0, and it wouldn't require all the humans being dead either. They'd just not have to demand (or want to pay for) anything.

Well, it's logically possible that people could exist and want absolutely nothing. So in that sense, of course, you're correct. However, it seems to be the nature of human beings to want some things. A person whose belly is full of food today will be hungry tomorrow. A person who is healthy today will be ill and require medicine tomorrow. A person who needs no shelter because it's a nice temperate day will one day be in blazing heat, pouring rain, or freezing cold. And so on.

eohrnberger said:
A system where everyone was 100% self-sufficient, would have no demand, for example.

No, there would still be demands. Everyone would just be satisfying their own demand.

eohrnberger said:
Just demand isn't going to make any jobs. It'll be just unfulfilled demand. Until someone decides to fill that demand, is there going to be a job.

Then ask yourself this: would any business (that actually stays in business for very long) create a job to fill a demand which wasn't there? Would any business (that actually stays in business for very long) create a job to fill a demand for which people couldn't possibly pay enough to create profit? And what happens to businesses that flout those rules?

Again, I get that (at least in our economic model) business is what goes about filling the demand. And this isn't all. Businesses are what "spin up" demands (plural) from subsistence level economies to industrial and post-industrial economies such as the one we enjoy.
So long as we have such a thing as private ownership (not something with which I want to do away), we'd be foolish to not allow business to thrive. But in fact, one principle effect of taking my point seriously is that businesses should begin to thrive more, because they'll have more customers with more money to spend.

eohrnberger said:
The two are so intertwined, it doesn't seem to make any sense to me to consider them separate. Sure, in some theoretical sense, but not in anything that is remotely connected to any sort of reality known to man.

I think at least some of what I've said is in rough agreement with this notion. However, sometimes theory is rather important. Theories that are tolerably accurate can tell us what to do when something goes wrong. And that's the kind of point I'm making. We shouldn't be so confused about what has gone wrong in our economy. We need to take direct steps to help there be more customers with the ability to pay for their demands. Do that, and we'll get back in a virtuous cycle. Do it not, and we'll keep swirling around the rim of another vicious cycle.
 
lifeisshort said:
It seems like you want to ask the question which came first, the chicken or the egg? Business or demand? A fine esoteric debate but

No, my point is more subtle but also entirely practical. Businesses without customers are dead, and customers are people with demands and the ability to pay for them. If we want a virtuous economic cycle, then we need policies that encourage people to have demands, and that protect their ability to pay for them. We've done ****-poor on this last bit for well-nigh 50 years, and now we're seeing the results.

The same pattern has played out again and again throughout history. When too much wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few, one of two things happens: immediate collapse, or protracted tyranny protected by force, and then collapse. The solution is simple: rebalance wealth, and then keep it in balance.
 
ocean515 said:
Of course it addresses your point. It addresses it quite precisely.

No, it does not.

ocean515 said:
There was no large scale demand until that demand was created by investors putting capital at risk in the hope it would pay off.

People didn't like to enjoy things prior to NASCAR? That just sounds silly.

ocean515 said:
Did people like race cars? They seemed to.

Yes, but WHY did they enjoy them? Why were race cars something that it could be predicted people would enjoy? Answer those questions without conceding the point, if you can. If you can't, then it seems to me the point should be conceded anyway.

ocean515 said:
Same thing happened with many of the technological breakthroughs we take for granted today. From Microwave ovens to cell phones. All risk against no demand.

There was no demand to cook food quickly? There was no demand to talk to friends and family when they weren't at home or work? If you answer in the affirmative, I say that's just nuts. Of course there were such demands.

What you're doing is confusing the demand for the product that fills it. If your claim is that the invention of a product creates the demand for it, we only need look at products which sold well, but which have been superseded by others that fill the same function. For example, casette tapes sold well until CDs came along. You can't say there was no demand for casette tapes and remain consistent with your view. But then, if the demand was for cassette tapes, why aren't sales of cassette tapes still going strong?

The reason is pretty obvious: the real demand is for hi-fidelity portable recording media. And that, in turn, is just a modulation of a more basic demand for things that make life enjoyable.
 
But there was a demand--namely, for unfussy travel. Compared to a horse and carriage, motor vehicles were a bit more reliable and cheaper to operate.

This isn't to say, of course, that automobiles didn't create further demands, which, I've argued above, can be distinguished from demand. However, without the initial demand, automobiles wouldn't have gone anywhere (meant, in this case, both figuratively and literally). Or, more perspicaciously, without a demand that people had the ability to pay to fill, automobiles would never have caught on. So the demand, and the ability for those with the demand to fill it, have to be present.

Our main problem is that Americans aren't filling as many demands because they lack the means. This is how vicious cycles get started (well, one of a couple of ways). To fix it, we need to take actions that directly affect how much wealth customers have to spend.

There was no demand for cars. In fact, cities and towns banned the use of them in the beginning.

It wasn't until the benefits they represented began to create demand that these early laws began to change. The automobile, along with a long list of technological advances, are perfect examples of demand, and by extension jobs, being created through business investment at risk, searching for a reasonable return in profits.
 
No, it does not.



People didn't like to enjoy things prior to NASCAR? That just sounds silly.



Yes, but WHY did they enjoy them? Why were race cars something that it could be predicted people would enjoy? Answer those questions without conceding the point, if you can. If you can't, then it seems to me the point should be conceded anyway.



There was no demand to cook food quickly? There was no demand to talk to friends and family when they weren't at home or work? If you answer in the affirmative, I say that's just nuts. Of course there were such demands.

What you're doing is confusing the demand for the product that fills it. If your claim is that the invention of a product creates the demand for it, we only need look at products which sold well, but which have been superseded by others that fill the same function. For example, casette tapes sold well until CDs came along. You can't say there was no demand for casette tapes and remain consistent with your view. But then, if the demand was for cassette tapes, why aren't sales of cassette tapes still going strong?

The reason is pretty obvious: the real demand is for hi-fidelity portable recording media. And that, in turn, is just a modulation of a more basic demand for things that make life enjoyable.

To simplify the reply, I'll just respond to one statement you made.

People didn't like to enjoy things prior to NASCAR? That just sounds silly.

What an absurd statement. That is not even in the realm of what I posted. By reaching into the ridiculous bag for a reply, it's obvious any further effort is pointless.

Thank you for the exchange.
 
But there was a demand--namely, for unfussy travel. Compared to a horse and carriage, motor vehicles were a bit more reliable and cheaper to operate.

This isn't to say, of course, that automobiles didn't create further demands, which, I've argued above, can be distinguished from demand. However, without the initial demand, automobiles wouldn't have gone anywhere (meant, in this case, both figuratively and literally). Or, more perspicaciously, without a demand that people had the ability to pay to fill, automobiles would never have caught on. So the demand, and the ability for those with the demand to fill it, have to be present.

Our main problem is that Americans aren't filling as many demands because they lack the means. This is how vicious cycles get started (well, one of a couple of ways). To fix it, we need to take actions that directly affect how much wealth customers have to spend.

There can't be a demand for a product that doesn't exist.
 
And if you actually consider that past a talking point, she's absolutely right. Demand by consumers (whether they be other businesses or individuals or MIC) create the need for more product or service and then the business fills that need with more employees. DEMAND by CONSUMERS creates jobs, and not a damned thing else.

Wow, talk about something out of context, that sure is. That's like saying a woman giving birth creates jobs. Well, I guess somewhere down the road it leads to more demand.

Demand doesn't create jobs, it's just a piece of the puzzle. It stays demand until someone decides that they are going to fill that need and come up with a product or service that is in demand. I forgot the part where government comes in and saves the day. Oh, wait, forget it.
 
ocean515 said:
There was no demand for cars.

I never said there was. Indeed, I've been at some pains to explain that there aren't demands for specific products just as such. There is demand for the product which best fills a need--but notice that that phrase is entirely general. The demand isn't for some specific product, it's for whatever does the trick. And so the creation of some specific thing cannot be what creates demand.

ocean515 said:
In fact, cities and towns banned the use of them in the beginning.

Yes. This seems like a point in my favor. See below.

ocean515 said:
It wasn't until the benefits they represented began to create demand that these early laws began to change.

Wait a minute: the benefits they represented? I thought it was just automobiles that generated demand for them, in your view. The benefits of which you speak are abstract and accrue to any specific product that does the same thing, or that fills the same needs better, or more needs at an instant.

Businesses don't create benefits. They create products which confer benefits. But what are benefits without demands? A benefit is something that fills a need. Without the need--i.e. the demand--there can be no benefit.


The automobile, along with a long list of technological advances, are perfect examples of demand, and by extension jobs, being created through business investment at risk, searching for a reasonable return in profits.
 
ocean515 said:
Ash: People didn't like to enjoy things prior to NASCAR? That just sounds silly.

Ocean: What an absurd statement. That is not even in the realm of what I posted. By reaching into the ridiculous bag for a reply, it's obvious any further effort is pointless.

What's so ridiculous about it, exactly? That's the need that entertainment of any kind meets--i.e. the demand it fills. People want to enjoy life, and entertainments are invented to help us do that. Without that need, and without the ability for people to pay for entertainments, there wouldn't be NASCAR, football, chess, video games, theater, music, or other such.
 
If you have no job and no money you demand nothing. If you have a job created by business you have money and you demand goods and services your attempt to put the cart ahead of the horse is nuts

This is a chicken/egg... though I agree that businesses take the first step.

... of course, if the business has no demand for its product/service, it has nothing.... and you have no job. Businesses create jobs in anticipation of a demand (or increasing) demand for a product or service. If their bet is correct, then a real job exists. If their bet is incorrect, that job will be very short lived.

Demand for a product/service depends on a market; which depends on income; which depends on the buyer having a job. Of course, the more that buyer has a good job, the more likely their is demand for product/service.
 
apdst said:
There can't be a demand for a product that doesn't exist.

As I have been at pains to explain, there isn't demand for any product. There are demands for products, but only in virtue of the demand they fill. That is, the demand is only for something general--some device or service which fills a particular need.
 
As I have been at pains to explain, there isn't demand for any product. There are demands for products, but only in virtue of the demand they fill.

Spin it how you want, but it's not 100% about demand. Sometimes, someone creates a product and sells it. Was there a demand for chia pets?
 
I never said there was. Indeed, I've been at some pains to explain that there aren't demands for specific products just as such. There is demand for the product which best fills a need--but notice that that phrase is entirely general. The demand isn't for some specific product, it's for whatever does the trick. And so the creation of some specific thing cannot be what creates demand.



Yes. This seems like a point in my favor. See below.



Wait a minute: the benefits they represented? I thought it was just automobiles that generated demand for them, in your view. The benefits of which you speak are abstract and accrue to any specific product that does the same thing, or that fills the same needs better, or more needs at an instant.

Businesses don't create benefits. They create products which confer benefits. But what are benefits without demands? A benefit is something that fills a need. Without the need--i.e. the demand--there can be no benefit.


The automobile, along with a long list of technological advances, are perfect examples of demand, and by extension jobs, being created through business investment at risk, searching for a reasonable return in profits.

As evidenced in my previous post, it's obvious your opinion on the issue is such that you will invent whatever view that is necessary to support your position and the larger agenda behind the demand meme. You're all over the place with your statements as you attempt to support your understanding of demand and how it is created, and have gone as far as to counter your own points as you go.

Again, that approach makes any further exchange on my part an exercise in futility.

Thanks again for the exchange.
 
apdst said:
Spin it how you want

I'm not spinning anything.

apdst said:
but it's not 100% about demand.

I never said it was. I claim only that demand is more fundamental than supply.

apdst said:
Sometimes, someone creates a product and sells it. Was there a demand for chia pets?

No, and there never has been. There's a demand for things that entertain. People bought chia pets because they're entertaining.

What people with your view cannot explain is this: if there is demand for specific products, why are products superseded? Chia pets are still around. People bought them, so there clearly was demand for them (assuming for a moment there can be demand for products). If there was demand for chia pets as such, where'd it go? On my view, the demand was for things that entertain, and when chia pets were no longer entertaining, people stopped buying them.
 
Last edited:
ocean515 said:
As evidenced in my previous post, it's obvious your opinion on the issue is such that you will invent whatever view that is necessary to support your position and the larger agenda behind the demand meme. You're all over the place with your statements as you attempt to support your understanding of demand and how it is created, and have gone as far as to counter your own points as you go.

If any of that were true, it would be easy for you to show it. You'd be able to answer the questions I posed with reasonable replies I couldn't answer. You'd be able to go back through my posts and show where I made one claim, and then its negation later. Instead, you've stopped engaging, and now you're just slinging ad hominems.
 
No, my point is more subtle but also entirely practical. Businesses without customers are dead, and customers are people with demands and the ability to pay for them. If we want a virtuous economic cycle, then we need policies that encourage people to have demands, and that protect their ability to pay for them. We've done ****-poor on this last bit for well-nigh 50 years, and now we're seeing the results.

The same pattern has played out again and again throughout history. When too much wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few, one of two things happens: immediate collapse, or protracted tyranny protected by force, and then collapse. The solution is simple: rebalance wealth, and then keep it in balance.
Rebalance wealth? That seems like a different subject altogether. I think you mean take money out of rich peoples bank accounts and pass it out like Halloween candy to the poor so they will spend it. That would be a very short term bubble that would burst as the rich we're bleed dry
 
lifeisshort said:
Rebalance wealth? That seems like a different subject altogether. I think you mean take money out of rich peoples bank accounts and pass it out like Halloween candy to the poor so they will spend it. That would be a very short term bubble that would burst as the rich we're bleed dry

No, that's not what I want to do. I think it would be better to make policies which help inflate the middle class, and incomes generally for people in the lower 98% or 95% of the population, and which brings the wealth and income gap back into something like the proportions they had in the 1950's or early 1960's.
 
No, my point is more subtle but also entirely practical. Businesses without customers are dead, and customers are people with demands and the ability to pay for them. If we want a virtuous economic cycle, then we need policies that encourage people to have demands, and that protect their ability to pay for them. We've done ****-poor on this last bit for well-nigh 50 years, and now we're seeing the results.

The same pattern has played out again and again throughout history. When too much wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few, one of two things happens: immediate collapse, or protracted tyranny protected by force, and then collapse.
The solution is simple: rebalance wealth, and then keep it in balance.

no. it is NOT a simple solution. at least not a simple one to achieve
your 'solution' would require those who have amassed significant wealth to relinquish it for the benefit of those who have little/no wealth

if this were to be accomplished, share with us how you would then maintain that balance of wealth
my expectation is that most of those without wealth but who acquired assets by unearned gift would soon lose that newfound currency
without a change in one's underlying behavior, such as absence of motivation, taking actions towards immediate gratification rather than a willingness to await delayed gratification, and a general ignorance of asset management, would return those recipients to the positions they are in today
 
Back
Top Bottom