And They Pretend Ms Palin is Stupid

Ms Clinton trumps everyone on the stupid-meter.

If there is any justice, listen to Ms Clinton. This has to be one of the top 10 stupidest things said by a politician, “business doesn’t create jobs”. Honey, the only thing creating jobs are businesses.

And she doubles down with “trickle down doesn’t work”. Uhm, “trickle down” is Democrat slang for growth. And if you think growth doesn’t help, then why aren’t we all stone age subsistence farmers? Oh, we’re doing quite a bit better. Why? Hmm, that would be that growth thing.

If anyone votes for her now, they’re deluded.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

9 comments

  1. Boonton says:

    bullshit, consumers and demand create jobs, nothing else.

    You can have jobs without corporations, you can even have jobs without businesses (individual tradesmen are not technically businesses). You cannot have jobs without customers.

  2. Mark says:

    Boonton,
    Yes, but if there are no jobs, there are no government jobs. And saying consumers and demand create jobs isn’t exactly agreeing with Ms Clinton, who will go even so far to feel growth doesn’t help everyone.

  3. Mark says:

    Boonton,
    But you are right, just by saying “business create jobs” a lot of background has to happen. You need currency, property rights, &c. The state doesn’t create any jobs, but it makes the environment where jobs can be created possible (or impossible). You just happen to be in the party that likes to make job creation less possible and at the same time pretend that’s a good thing (by pretending things like Ms Clinton as linked).

  4. Boonton says:

    Yes, but if there are no jobs, there are no government jobs. And saying consumers and demand create jobs isn’t exactly agreeing with Ms Clinton

    I don’t see how this relates to anything Ms Clinton said. She was talking about her support for raising the min. wage, not creating gov’t jobs. Demand creating jobs is pretty basic to how things work.

    But you are right, just by saying “business create jobs” a lot of background has to happen. You need currency, property rights, &c. The state doesn’t create any jobs, but it makes the environment where jobs can be created possible (or impossible).

    Bullshit. Take drug dealer in Singapore. You have no rights to the currency you earn, no rights to have your property protected by the courts, no rights to sue for breach of contract, no rights to sue for payment of debts. On top of that, the gov’t is constantly trying to hunt you down and will kill you if it convicts you. That’s pretty much as bad as it can get for what you can call an ‘unfriendly regulatory environment’. Yet if there are people who want to buy illegal drugs in Singapore I can guarantee you there are people whose ‘job’ it is to supply them.

    I will take it another step, I don’t think you can find any real example of a recession caused by poor regulation. Frustrating regulation and policies do not cause the business cycle, they decrease the amount that can be produced with the available resources. The USSR, for example, had no real unemployment problem. Its problem was getting its factories to make the right stuff and getting its stores to put the right things on the shelves for the right prices. If you want to say bad policies raise costs and lower income I could go along with that, but that’s not the message communicated by the ‘do things for business crowd so we can create jobs’ and in that respect Hillary is correct to take it on.

    You just happen to be in the party that likes to make job creation less possible and at the same time pretend that’s a good thing

    As evidenced by the remarkable pattern of Red States besting Blue’s in economic performance or job creation?

  5. Mark says:

    Boonton,

    Bullshit. Take drug dealer in Singapore. You have no rights to the currency …

    Beep. Stop right there. Currency. Hmm. You have currency without a state, property rights, &c? Oh, wait. You don’t.

    She was talking about her support for raising the min. wage, not creating gov’t jobs.

    In part you are right. I misread her statement as “business creates no jobs” and inverting that to business creates all jobs, which is wrong. You (and I) do not work for the state. We work for a, … wait for it …, business. That job was made possible (created) by the business for which you work. Simple as that. Oddly enough the next day Ms Clinton retracted and admitted that yes, businesses do indeed create jobs and she further (dug a hole) by saying was trying to make a statement against outsourcing.

    Increasing the min. allowed productivity per worker is a bad way, as you know, to create demand.

    I will take it another step, I don’t think you can find any real example of a recession caused by poor regulation.

    Dial the way back machine to … 2009. Housing loans and regulations associated with such have been strongly implicated in that crash. Dial it back a few more years, and you get the Savings/Loan recession in which the private loan industry regulations released but the guarantees left in place. Try again.

    Frustrating regulation and policies do not cause the business cycle, they decrease the amount that can be produced with the available resources.

    And I don’t disagree. Growth however is what makes everyone richer. That was the statement. Nothing about regulation per se. Policies that discourage growth are the problem I am pointing at. Nothing else.

    If you want to say bad policies raise costs and lower income I could go along with that, but that’s not the message communicated by the ‘do things for business crowd so we can create jobs’ and in that respect Hillary is correct to take it on.

    Given that her clarification said she was “against outsourcing” … you’d then have to realize she is “for” tariffs, protective embargoes, and restricting international trade. Which economist thinks that is the best strategy. I’ll wait.

  6. Mark says:

    Boonton,

    As evidenced by the remarkable pattern of Red States besting Blue’s in economic performance or job creation?

    I live in Illinois. One of the bluest state of all. That conceit is very amusing.

  7. Boonton says:

    Beep. Stop right there. Currency. Hmm. You have currency without a state, property rights, &c? Oh, wait. You don’t.

    Remember you said:

    You need currency, property rights, &c. The state doesn’t create any jobs, but it makes the environment where jobs can be created possible (or impossible).

    Well no. If people want to pay for drugs in food, they can provided you need food for yourself and are willing to accept it as payment. In Iraq and Syria there are makeshift refineries that can take oil and produce a tanker truck’s worth of fuel. ISIS now is making money using them but for generations oil has been smuggled around this area to eventually get converted to currency in world markets. Think of Star Wars Ep. 1 where the merchant doesn’t care about Republic credits, needs something ‘more real’.

    So yea the gov’t of Singapore helps establish a standard currency there and that’s helpful for drug dealers…but if the gov’t destroyed the official currency I’m sure that wouldn’t stop drug dealing.

    Dial the way back machine to … 2009. Housing loans and regulations associated with such have been strongly implicated in that crash. Dial it back a few more years, and you get the Savings/Loan recession in which the private loan industry regulations released but the guarantees left in place. Try again.

    Weasal association there. My position is that the business cycle will happen in any and all trade based developed economies. Since all such economies will have some type of regulation it will always be possible to delcare that this or that boom or bust could be tied to this or that regulation. Since you’re never going to have an economy without regulation, you’re never going to be able to demonstrate what you’d need to demonstrate….that you could abolish the business cycle either by abolishing all regulation or by finding some magical form of ‘right regulation’ that is just right.

    Growth however is what makes everyone richer. That was the statement. Nothing about regulation per se. Policies that discourage growth are the problem I am pointing at. Nothing else

    Except that wasn’t the statement in question, the statement in question was ‘create jobs’. You can have plenty of jobs with little or negative growth. You can have a lot of growth but fewer jobs.

    Given that her clarification said she was “against outsourcing” … you’d then have to realize she is “for” tariffs, protective embargoes, and restricting international trade. Which economist thinks that is the best strategy. I’ll wait.

    You could be against outsourcing by simply opposing any tax or regulatory loopholes that may inadvertantly favor it. You can’t assume she was advocating a Ghandi-like policy of auturky unless you can show me additional statements she made illustrating just that.

    I live in Illinois. One of the bluest state of all. That conceit is very amusing.

    Ahhh yes, the mathmatician will sing to me the virture of sample size n=1. sigh…

    Reality check, there seems to be no relationship between growth or jobs by red or blue state. Even worse, if you back out resource extraction energy jobs/growth, red states look even less productive despite the fact that they are politically dominated by what you claim is a jobs/growth friendly regime.

    The conclusion here then is either regulatory variation in the US has little potential to dramatically alter the economy or the differences between the parties in terms of regulation are a lot of hot air.

    I tend to favor 60% of the first and 40% of the second. Ask economist what types of regulation are growth/job unfriendly and they will probably cite licensing regimes, trade restraints, zoning laws. Ask Republicans what types of regulations they will reform to help the economy and the answers you get is making life easier for Wall Street banks, reducing inheritance taxes, etc. Their ‘reforms’ are mostly about playing to the limited economic interests rather than boosting the economy as a whole. Look at the two small business types that donate heavily to the Republican Party…car dealerships and real estate brokers. Two industries that are essentially created by regulation and laws limiting competition.

  8. Mark says:

    Boonton,
    You are all (really all all all) over the place. Look. Ms Clinton, first said (a) business do not create jobs. This is untrue. Demand is a need for commerce. This is fulfilled by business, which in turn creates jobs. You and I work for a business which created a job for us. Statement (a) on its face is stupid. The stuff you’re saying about cycles and recessions is irrelevant. It wasn’t brought up by me or Ms Clinton. She didn’t say “businesses don’t create jobs, because recessions occur”.

    You could be against outsourcing by simply opposing any tax or regulatory loopholes that may inadvertantly favor it. You can’t assume she was advocating a Ghandi-like policy of auturky unless you can show me additional statements she made illustrating just that.

    Don’t be silly. The reason companies outsource is you can get a day’s labor in China for $3. Or $6 in the Philippines. And so on. This isn’t about loopholes. It’s about getting work for a lower cost. You know that. I know that. Ms Clinton may or may not know that, given that she thinks the best way to compete with a low wage overseas is to raise the minimum productivity levels here (btw, did you see that McDonald’s is putting in “self-checkout” kiosks further cut their labor costs. You do realize that is driven in part by high labor costs).

    Ahhh yes, the mathmatician will sing to me the virture of sample size n=1. sigh…

    The differences between the states and red/blue and economic conditions. Correlation is not causation. You know that. I know Democrat rule can be crap on steroids. That was the point.

    Ask economist what types of regulation are growth/job unfriendly and they will probably cite licensing regimes, trade restraints, zoning laws. Ask Republicans what types of regulations they will reform to help the economy and the answers you get is making life easier for Wall Street banks, reducing inheritance taxes, etc.

    and … Democrats say for growth you need higher taxes, increased min wage, trade restraints (see unions), licensing regimes (unions again). Indeed they don’t want growth, they want “equality”, forgetting that growth is what is the driver of making the poor wealthier. The reason you and I (basically middle class) are better off than we were 300 years ago is … growth, not “less inequality”. Don’t pretend that the Democrats are the party of loosening those restrictions, licensing regimes, trade restraints &c. They aren’t. Look who donates to the Democrats unions and trial lawyers. Hmm.

  9. Boonton says:

    .Don’t be silly. The reason companies outsource is you can get a day’s labor in China for $3. Or $6 in the Philippines. And so on. This isn’t about loopholes. It’s about getting work for a lower cost.

    Output is made by capital and labor together. A days labor on a tractor is not the same as a days labor with a donkey. If it was the US would have no jobs at all since no amount of tax cuts and regulation lifting is going to make it affordable to compete with $6 a day jobs.

    Ms Clinton may or may not know that, given that she thinks the best way to compete with a low wage overseas is to raise the minimum productivity levels here

    Ohhh so you do know that Ms Clinton was not endorsing a policy of “tariffs, protective embargoes, and reducing international trade”? Well that’s very strange you would claim in the previous comment that she was. See you’d be a better writer if you could, when it comes to politics, try to give up the dishonesty drug. You don’t seem to need dishonesty when you write about religion, why so lacking in confidence?

    The differences between the states and red/blue and economic conditions. Correlation is not causation. You know that. I know Democrat rule can be crap on steroids.

    Errr, you wrote:

    You just happen to be in the party that likes to make job creation less possible and at the same time pretend that’s a good thing

    So I’m sorry but if you are asserting that Democratic policies make job creation less possible then you should be able to point to a correlation, which you can’t. Forget causation, you don’t even have a correlation. That’s a huge problem for you.

    Democrats say for growth you need higher taxes, increased min wage, trade restraints (see unions), licensing regimes (unions again). Indeed they don’t want growth, they want “equality”, forgetting that growth is what is the driver of making the poor wealthier.

    Then it should be very simple for you to point to a correlation of very Blue states being more equal but suffering from less growth. What is so hard about that? I have no idea what you mean by ” I know Democrat rule can be crap on steroids.” Are you saying that a state that is Democratic may have bad policies but their effect may be masked by good luck or other factors? Sure but there’s 50 states that range all the way from very blue to very red. It would be highly unlikely that unrelated good luck just happened to benefit all the blues just enough to offset the correlation and causation you claim exists.