Originally posted by Bardock42
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.
Let me be clear. Who creates jobs if corporations and buisness do not?
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Let me be clear. Who creates jobs if corporations and buisness do not?
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.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
People.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.
I find it odd she speaks against major corporations while they accept $1 billion in corporation and business money
Excellent point by the Blaxican.
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.
Originally posted by red g jacks
this is some chicken and egg shit tbhthe 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.
Its absolutely absurd that she said it in the first place.
Yes?
Originally posted by Time Immemorialno, 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.
Its absolutely absurd that she said it in the first place.Yes?
Originally posted by red g jacks
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.
Agreed!
Originally posted by Time ImmemorialShe's not wrong. Trickle-down economics is idiotic and doesn't work.
She said something stupid.Do you bite the hand that feeds you?
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?
Originally posted by Tzeentch
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?
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).
Give his book a go:
http://cup.columbia.edu/book/978-0-231-14948-8/the-matthew-effect
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.
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.
Originally posted by Bardock42
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.
Meh, that's about as good as we can put it.
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. 馃檪 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?"
Bam...I just found the grand unified theory.
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.