Consumers create jobs.

[GreatDay]

Look at that upper left, if only this went back more:U.S. National Debt Clock 2000

That site's always a lot of fun but it's a bit heavier on the hype than fact.

The US NATIONAL DEBT has $5,702,879,423,534, but the US treasury's site says it's $11,176,851,754,468.88. Another issue is they got private debt increasing. It's not. You and I may have elected spendthrifts to run the Federal Gov't, but in our private lives most of us have been paying off debts for years. Here's a graph of how it's been going:

yep I can see where you like to skip on those Clinton years too, OK I admit it Bush was better at fucking stuff up than anyone thought was possible....

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

CONSUMERS CREATE JOBS.

How stupid and perfectly liberal. The earth has 7 billion people and so 7 billion consumers. If consumers create jobs what don't they; why are we in a depression?????? Do the liberals want a law forcing people to reproduce so we'll have more jobs???????????????

See why we are positive a liberal will be slow, very very slow.

 

[Rshermr]

CONSUMERS CREATE JOBS.

How stupid and perfectly liberal. The earth has 7 billion people and so 7 billion consumers. If consumers create jobs what don't they; why are we in a depression?????? Do the liberals want a law forcing people to reproduce so we'll have more jobs???????????????

See why we are positive a liberal will be slow, very very slow.

Wow. How profound, Ed. Of those 7 billion, how much are the people of Somalia buying? You know, ed, your libertarian wonderland. If only you had a brain. Here, check this site out. It may help:


Study: Conservatives are Stupid Racists « rjjrdq's America II

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Wow. How profound, Ed. Of those 7 billion, how much are the people of Somalia buying?

too stupid !! according to the theory that consumers create jobs the consumers of Somilia are buying enough to create jobs in Somilia!! the theory says consumers create jobs, not that consumers who buy x create jobs!!

Do consumers create jobs or did Steve Jobs!! Over a liberals head???

 

[Rshermr]

Wow. How profound, Ed. Of those 7 billion, how much are the people of Somalia buying?

too stupid !! according to the theory that consumers create jobs the consumers of Somilia are buying enough to create jobs in Somilia!! the theory says consumers create jobs, not that consumers who buy x create jobs!!

Do consumers create jobs or did Steve Jobs!! Over a liberals head???

Not at all, oh ignorant one. As usual, you have no clue, which is typical of a Libertarian. Which makes you a con tool. And incapable of critical thought.
Both Steve Jobs and consumers created jobs. But jobs created only a few. And had it not been for consumers buying his product, there would have been no ongoing company called Apple. Check the history of Apple, dipshit, they almost died several times over the years. And, by the way, the "theory that consumers create jobs" is simply part of an actual theory, called supply and demand. And it is clear that consumers create jobs, had you ever understood that theory, dipshit. Sorry, I should not call you names. You are to be pittied. It is not your fault that you are stupid.

Here, this may help:

Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice - Yahoo! News

 

[Katzndogz]

Liberals believe that if we give people money, they will be consumers and thus create jobs.

That's why, in the liberal mind, it is entirely possible to have a successful economy by having a crew dig a hole and another one to fill it in. As long as they are paid to do so, and then will become consumers themselves.

 

[antagon]

CONSUMERS CREATE JOBS.

How stupid and perfectly liberal. The earth has 7 billion people and so 7 billion consumers. If consumers create jobs what don't they; why are we in a depression?????? Do the liberals want a law forcing people to reproduce so we'll have more jobs???????????????

See why we are positive a liberal will be slow, very very slow.

Supply and demand is circular. Supply=Demand in an instant and perfect market, right?

Liberals/keynesians and supply-side conservatives chase their tails over this stuff.

The real argument is whether an unfettered market would lead to hoarding at the supply-side extreme, or whether easy money to the masses will illicit glut in the social-state.

 

[antagon]

Liberals believe that if we give people money, they will be consumers and thus create jobs.

That's why, in the liberal mind, it is entirely possible to have a successful economy by having a crew dig a hole and another one to fill it in. As long as they are paid to do so, and then will become consumers themselves.

All of what you are criticizing is true. You can give tax-money to broke-folk and they'll spend more of that money than a wealthy person would. In turn, the demand in the market would make wealthy folks more money than they would have made than if they didn't pay most of the taxes. Moreover, that commerce will require more jobs to facilitate. The key is that profits were made.

That's the way welfare works. And it does work to that effect. Welfare is additionally quite similar to digging a ditch and filling it in, except that our existential calling to work is not even attended to.

 

[Katzndogz]

Liberals believe that if we give people money, they will be consumers and thus create jobs.

That's why, in the liberal mind, it is entirely possible to have a successful economy by having a crew dig a hole and another one to fill it in. As long as they are paid to do so, and then will become consumers themselves.

All of what you are criticizing is true. You can give tax-money to broke-folk and they'll spend more of that money than a wealthy person would. In turn, the demand in the market would make wealthy folks more money than they would have made than if they didn't pay most of the taxes. Moreover, that commerce will require more jobs to facilitate. The key is that profits were made.

That's the way welfare works. And it does work to that effect. Welfare is additionally quite similar to digging a ditch and filling it in, except that our existential calling to work is not even attended to.

That's the way it worked in Greece, Spain and Italy. It just didn't work very well as we can see.

 

[Rshermr]

Wow. That is a stupid post. I know of no liberals that think that we should give away money. I do know many economists that believe that in a bad economy, it is a good idea to create jobs doing usefull things, like infrastructure. Which creates jobs for the unemployed, work for private contractors, increases demand for products, all of which lowers unemployment. You know, as Reagan did after his tax decreases drove unemployment to over 10.8%. Then, he borrowed enough to tripple the national debt, and oversaw 11 tax increases, and spent on projects to help the unemployment problem. It worked, which could tell you something, should you care to learn anything.

 

[antagon]

Liberals believe that if we give people money, they will be consumers and thus create jobs.

That's why, in the liberal mind, it is entirely possible to have a successful economy by having a crew dig a hole and another one to fill it in. As long as they are paid to do so, and then will become consumers themselves.

All of what you are criticizing is true. You can give tax-money to broke-folk and they'll spend more of that money than a wealthy person would. In turn, the demand in the market would make wealthy folks more money than they would have made than if they didn't pay most of the taxes. Moreover, that commerce will require more jobs to facilitate. The key is that profits were made.

That's the way welfare works. And it does work to that effect. Welfare is additionally quite similar to digging a ditch and filling it in, except that our existential calling to work is not even attended to.

That's the way it worked in Greece, Spain and Italy. It just didn't work very well as we can see.

That's not what happened with the PIIGS. Every 'developed' nation is set up with a system like this. 'Social infrastructure'. No exception to that, whatsoever.

 

[antagon]

Wow. That is a stupid post. I know of no liberals that think that we should give away money.

Let's keep it real.

 

[Oldstyle]

Wow. How profound, Ed. Of those 7 billion, how much are the people of Somalia buying?

too stupid !! according to the theory that consumers create jobs the consumers of Somilia are buying enough to create jobs in Somilia!! the theory says consumers create jobs, not that consumers who buy x create jobs!!

Do consumers create jobs or did Steve Jobs!! Over a liberals head???

Not at all, oh ignorant one. As usual, you have no clue, which is typical of a Libertarian. Which makes you a con tool. And incapable of critical thought.
Both Steve Jobs and consumers created jobs. But jobs created only a few. And had it not been for consumers buying his product, there would have been no ongoing company called Apple. Check the history of Apple, dipshit, they almost died several times over the years. And, by the way, the "theory that consumers create jobs" is simply part of an actual theory, called supply and demand. And it is clear that consumers create jobs, had you ever understood that theory, dipshit. Sorry, I should not call you names. You are to be pittied. It is not your fault that you are stupid.

Here, this may help:

Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice - Yahoo! News

Since you "claim" to be an economist, Rshermr...you should be aware that what really creates jobs is the belief that if a product or service is provided that a profit will be realized. You can have HUGE demand for something but if a profit cannot be realized by providing that good or service then that good or service will not be produced or not produced for long. Consumers only create jobs if the price they are willing to pay for goods or services is high enough that someone can realize a profit from providing them.

 

[Oldstyle]

That's the amusing thing about liberals who rant about "Trickle Down Economics". In reality there is no such thing. In reality it is a "trickle up" situation. When I decide that I think I can make a profit selling widgets...before I make a dime "in" profit, I first need to buy raw materials to make my widgets...I need to lease factory space in which to set up the machines I've bought to make my widgets...I need to hire the management to oversee my employees...I need to hire and train the people to make my widgets...I need to hire advertisers to get the word out to consumers about my wonderful product...I need to hire shipping companies to get my product to the marketplace.

And after doing ALL of that...I might actually realize a profit...a profit that has very slowly "trickled up" to me! Yet you people rant about trickle down economics like I had that profit in my pocket right from the start and stingily doled it out to those under me. It's actually the other way around.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

had it not been for consumers buying his product, there would have been no ongoing company called Apple.

OMG!! only a liberal can be that stupid. Yes dear without consumers there is no Apple!! Without water air earth fire boron and zinc there is no Apple but consumers water air fire boron and zinc are very very common!! Steve Jobs conversely is very very very rare and so must be recognised and treated like gold which is also very rare.

Even wonder why the USSR produced no Steve Jobs? Because idiot liberals like you lacked the IQ to make important distinctions between water and great Republican capitalists!!

 

[antagon]

That's the amusing thing about liberals who rant about "Trickle Down Economics". In reality there is no such thing. In reality it is a "trickle up" situation. When I decide that I think I can make a profit selling widgets...before I make a dime "in" profit, I first need to buy raw materials to make my widgets...I need to lease factory space in which to set up the machines I've bought to make my widgets...I need to hire the management to oversee my employees...I need to hire and train the people to make my widgets...I need to hire advertisers to get the word out to consumers about my wonderful product...I need to hire shipping companies to get my product to the marketplace.

And after doing ALL of that...I might actually realize a profit...a profit that has very slowly "trickled up" to me! Yet you people rant about trickle down economics like I had that profit in my pocket right from the start and stingily doled it out to those under me. It's actually the other way around.

Trickle-up is the basis of Keynesian economics and the OP topic 'consumers create jobs'. Add profits there, too. Trickle-down, pejorative usage aside, is the reminder that burdening income so much as to strangle profits literally takes the desire to invest out of the economy, no matter the demand.

 

[Oldstyle]

Is there even such a thing as a true "Trickle-down" effect? Quite frankly I don't see it. Money always goes out first before it returns as profit...if it ever does return. The whole theory of "trickle down" economics is something coined by people without a clue as to how economics really works.

 

[antagon]

Is there even such a thing as a true "Trickle-down" effect? Quite frankly I don't see it. Money always goes out first before it returns as profit...if it ever does return. The whole theory of "trickle down" economics is something coined by people without a clue as to how economics really works.

The idea that the interests of employers are aligned with the interests of employees is trickle-down. Its a term that's been criticized, but there's validity there.

 

[Oldstyle]

Is there even such a thing as a true "Trickle-down" effect? Quite frankly I don't see it. Money always goes out first before it returns as profit...if it ever does return. The whole theory of "trickle down" economics is something coined by people without a clue as to how economics really works.

The idea that the interests of employers are aligned with the interests of employees is trickle-down. Its a term that's been criticized, but there's validity there.

With all due respect, Antagon...I don't think you're correct. By law employees receive pay in return for their providing labor to an employer. The employee will receive that pay whether or not the business realizes a profit from the investment that an employer makes. There is no "trickle down" taking place...it's ALWAYS "trickle up". As an employer I'm constantly controlling my costs trying to realize a profit. I don't have the luxury of telling my employees that they will only be paid if I make a profit. If I do I'm going to end up in court or worse in jail.

 

[antagon]

Is there even such a thing as a true "Trickle-down" effect? Quite frankly I don't see it. Money always goes out first before it returns as profit...if it ever does return. The whole theory of "trickle down" economics is something coined by people without a clue as to how economics really works.

The idea that the interests of employers are aligned with the interests of employees is trickle-down. Its a term that's been criticized, but there's validity there.

With all due respect, Antagon...I don't think you're correct. By law employees receive pay in return for their providing labor to an employer. The employee will receive that pay whether or not the business realizes a profit from the investment that an employer makes. There is no "trickle down" taking place...it's ALWAYS "trickle up". As an employer I'm constantly controlling my costs trying to realize a profit. I don't have the luxury of telling my employees that they will only be paid if I make a profit. If I do I'm going to end up in court or worse in jail.

Supply-side economics from which trickle-down has been coined refers to the disposition of profits or retained earnings themselves. It proposes that apart from the obligations you are calling out, that your judgement with your profits will further benefit people like your staff to the same or greater extent than robin hood style government policy.