Gender: Unspecified Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
Well trickle-down economics are actually not effective, and while corporations play an important part in creating jobs, they are not the sole cog to be considered when looking at national economies and employment.
What Clinton no doubt meant was that LARGE corporations are not the best drivers of local economic growth and job creation. It's very simple when you consider it this way: big corporations can continue growing without needing to hire Americans by expanding into foreign markets. Smaller businesses are more likely constrained to domestic markets and so will do their hiring locally and put their money into their local economies.
__________________
“Where the longleaf pines are whispering
to him who loved them so.
Where the faint murmurs now dwindling
echo o’er tide and shore."
-A Grave Epitaph in Santa Rosa County, Florida; I wish I could remember the man's name.
"The Daemon lied with every breath. It could not help itself but to deceive and dismay, to riddle and ruin. The more we conversed, the closer I drew to one singularly ineluctable fact: I would gain no wisdom here."
Why? Would you prefer that she took the money as a bribe and said nothing critical of corporations because they paid her off?
__________________
"The Daemon lied with every breath. It could not help itself but to deceive and dismay, to riddle and ruin. The more we conversed, the closer I drew to one singularly ineluctable fact: I would gain no wisdom here."
Even if Hillary is not the person most ethically qualified to talk about money and privilege, that doesn't mean that what she's saying isn't correct. It's like Russia criticizing American foreign policy. They're often correct about the abuses they point out, even though to any reasonable person it's clear that Russia is ten times crueler and more ruthless when it comes to stuff they can get away with.
__________________
“Where the longleaf pines are whispering
to him who loved them so.
Where the faint murmurs now dwindling
echo o’er tide and shore."
-A Grave Epitaph in Santa Rosa County, Florida; I wish I could remember the man's name.
the whole thing is a cycle. saying the job creators are rich investors is only looking at one side of the coin, as is saying the consumer populace are job creators. the two are interdependent.
no, she's playing the game. the democrat's job is to suck up to the working class. make them feel important. if she was a republican she'd be giving rich investors the credit with the same line of rhetoric and the exact same tone. what's absurd is that there's still suckers that really buy this shit.
She's not wrong. Trickle-down economics is idiotic and doesn't work.
The majority of the time that we've been in this "recession" with a tanking job market, corporations have been making record-breaking profits. So if these companies are what's responsible for injecting life into America's job market, why was our economy on life-support for 5 years while they were making hand over fist?
__________________
"The Daemon lied with every breath. It could not help itself but to deceive and dismay, to riddle and ruin. The more we conversed, the closer I drew to one singularly ineluctable fact: I would gain no wisdom here."
Last edited by Tzeentch on Oct 26th, 2014 at 04:25 AM
Yes, this is called the Matthew Effect. No doubt that this is called that because the Dave Matthews band sucks so horribly (this is a joke...please don't take that comment seriously).
Anyway, I'm hoping to capitalize (pun intended) on this rich-getting-richer scheme. We aren't going to be young forever so you might want to start investing or exploring entrepreneurship.
Gender: Unspecified Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
Her words were poorly chosen, but she did not say anything outright idiotic. The amorphous idea of Businesses is, like I said, a vital part of the job equilibrium, however they don't "create" jobs in a vacuum. I agree with OV, what she was likely trying to attack are large corporations, that take US money in subsidies, or otherwise profit from US infrastructures in the past and present, and in turn ship off domestic jobs, or don't invest much at all back into the US economy.
From an economist's perspective, she's saying extremely ignorant and factually incorrect things about dem dare jorb creations. From a political strategy perspective, she's just over-simplifying to appeal to an imaginary idea of what voters want to hear.
I say don't talk down to the voters. She shouldn't oversimplify like that. She should just state reality in academic economic terms.
Here, I can state it very simply and do a better job of getting it right:
"Shit is complicated, yo. Can't just say Big Corporations, Tax Policy, Foreign Policy, Citizens, Foreign Countries, and/or Small Businesses create jobs: it is all of the above and then some. Dammit, everyone should know this shit. Why are we even talking about it? Is this real life?"
I don't think you'll find any politician say anything like that on the campaign trail simply because there's no contention in it, and if you deliver a message without contention it sounds like you're being wishy-washy. Also people have their biases when it comes to economic policy, biases they want to hear confirmed by politicians.
__________________
“Where the longleaf pines are whispering
to him who loved them so.
Where the faint murmurs now dwindling
echo o’er tide and shore."
-A Grave Epitaph in Santa Rosa County, Florida; I wish I could remember the man's name.
KMC Community Forums
Oct 25th, 2014 08:11 PM
She shouldn't oversimplify like that. She should just state reality in academic economic terms. 
