The time TED banned a talk about the fact rich people don't create jobs

[Alpha Male]

I know you're a troll and all so its kind of tiring even responding to you, but this right here is a contradiction in logic. Re-read what you wrote and compare the first sentence to the second sentence and spot the contradiction.

"Busineses create consumer demand"
"There was a demand for the new iphone"
"Steve jobs (he did not by the way but its unimportant to this point) create the iphone and start apple first"

Lets see if you can stop being an alt-right troll and sincerely look at this line of logic and realize where you went wrong.

There’s always going to be a consumer demand for more and better technology no matter what year it is


If the streets are fiending for product that doesn’t automatically will it into existence. Someone has to actually invest time, money and resources to make the product available


Steve Jobs and Apple provided the iPhone, not the consumer public

 

[Dr. Acula]

There’s always going to be a consumer demand for more and better technology no matter what year it is


If the streets are fiending for product that doesn’t automatically will it into existence. Someone has to actually invest time, money and resources to make the product available


Steve Jobs and Apple provided the iPhone, not the consumer public

So, lets go back to the original topic at hand. Whether its consumer demand or business supply that drives the creation of jobs.

If there was no demand for a service or a good, what incentive is there to create jobs? Businesses aren't bad. They are a reaction to consumer demand and in order to fulfill those demands, you need to have workers and create jobs to do it. That's great but you know that this is about a biggest issue in the way policy is implemented in this country and a particular ideology that seems to think that not only do businesses need to create jobs to fulfill demand, they need to be given surplus capital beyond that while simultaneous reducing worker protections and worker's ability to attain capital. These workers are also consumers who also drive demand. They work to consume. But you argue for policies that reduces their pay, stagnates their wages, removes social safety nets that cover hardships such as education and healthcare, and therefore make their effective income not only stagnate but decline in total. This in turn decreases demand for goods and leads to a loss of jobs, at least jobs that are truly due to lack of business and not job cutting in order to cut payroll so you can hire less workers, to do more work, in order to create a bigger profit that you can show to your shareholders who will always drive you towards the bottom line.

The overall point is that consumer demand is the egg in the chicken and egg scenario and without it you have no businesses. Wealth disparity and the attitudes people like you take towards people who dare ask for a minimum wage for example does more harm to businesses outside of the already successful ones than a higher tax that is implemented on businesses in order to provide public services said business employees are likely to use.

Consumer demand is the origin of businesses. A business that has excess capital and profit WILL NOT hire more people because of the tax cut you gave them for them to achieve that unless the demand also increases. Its a stupid ideology and there is plenty of failures to show for it.

 

[JetFueledThoughts]

who provides the service if not the business?

The point is, said services will have a need to add more jobs when the demand goes up.

Demand increasing is dependent on the average consumer having money to spend and demand things.

If a bakery only sells 3 cookies a day, they’ll never need to hire more than one baker. If demand changes to where the bakery sells 300 cookies a day, I bet more baker jobs will be added there.

 

[Alpha Male]

I’m against crony corporatism just as you are

I just don’t believe higher taxes are the answer

 

[Alpha Male]

The point is, said services will have a need to add more jobs when the demand goes up.

Demand increasing is dependent on the average consumer having money to spend and demand things.

If a bakery only sells 3 cookies a day, they’ll never need to hire more than one baker. If demand changes to where the bakery sells 300 cookies a day, I bet more baker jobs will be added there.

and you believe the path to putting more money in the pockets of consumers is by raising taxes on businesses?

 

[JetFueledThoughts]

and you believe the path to putting more money in the pockets of consumers is by raising taxes on businesses?

Not necessarily, but I DO believe that taxing businesses LESS will NOT magically create jobs.

That’s what the TED Talk, and the thread, is about. You’re reversing causality and presenting a fallacy

EDIT: But for whatever it’s worth, the scenario you presented above.. IF taxing those businesses more offsets a portion of the tax pie that citizens were responsible for? Then yes, it would put more money in their pockets, and in turn increase demand.

 

[Alpha Male]

Not necessarily, but I DO believe that taxing businesses LESS will NOT magically create jobs.

That’s what the TED Talk, and the thread, is about. You’re reversing causality and presenting a fallacy

EDIT: But for whatever it’s worth, the scenario you presented above.. IF taxing those businesses more offsets a portion of the tax pie that citizens were responsible for? Then yes, it would put more money in their pockets, and in turn increase demand.

when consumers have more expendable wealth, they spend more and invest more. correct? well what do you think happens when businesses have more expendable wealth? it’s the same principle.

 

[JetFueledThoughts]

when consumers have more expendable wealth, they spend more and invest more. correct? well what do you think happens when businesses have more expendable wealth? it’s the same principle.

It’s not the same principle. Because a consumer and a business are not the same. AT ALL.

Consumers consume.

Businesses operate to be profitable and to appease shareholders. Taking those tax cuts and lining pockets/shareholders makes a business more profitable than creating a bunch of jobs for DEMAND THAT HASN'T CHANGED.

Not to be rude but you don’t seem to get how this works.

 

[Alpha Male]

It’s not the same principle. Because a consumer and a business are not the same. AT ALL.

Consumers consume.

Businesses operate to be profitable and to appease shareholders. Taking those tax cuts and lining pockets/shareholders makes a business more profitable than creating a bunch of jobs for DEMAND THAT HASN'T CHANGED.

Not to be rude but you don’t seem to get how this works.

apple just annoucned they were investing 350 billion and creating over 20,000 jobs over the next 5 years because of tax cuts

Apple unveils plan to repatriate billions in overseas cash, says it will contribute $350 billion to the economy


what do you say to that, genius?

 

[Berniewood Hogan]

Trolls having to be taken back to Econ 101 because they got all their knowledge from Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson.

 

[Berniewood Hogan]

U.S. Sees First Net Private Employment Loss in Seven Years

Now that Trump's policies have begun to impact the real world, Americans are losing jobs.

Americans are worse off under Trump's plans than Obama's.

 

[DonKnock]

So a liberal described basic supply & demand as a feed back loop, and threw in fukk letting “rich people” keep more of their money.
Not really anything groundbreaking.



The audience didn’t like it and it came off as overly partisan so they chose not to post it...
Why is this news/a thread?

Fucc outta here with this oversimplification.

He said that supply side economics is a hoax and Republicans are going to continue to tank our economy by slashing taxes for the top 5%

 

[DEAD7]

Fucc outta here with this oversimplification.

He said that supply side economics is a hoax and Republicans are going to continue to tank our economy by slashing taxes for the top 5%

He is saying “the rich”/business owners don’t create jobs so we can tax them more.
He’s oversimplifying it.

 

[Secure Da Bag]

apple just annoucned they were investing 350 billion and creating over 20,000 jobs over the next 5 years because of tax cuts

Apple unveils plan to repatriate billions in overseas cash, says it will contribute $350 billion to the economy


what do you say to that, genius?

I'd say the tax cuts are a good cover. The fact that Apple is trying to expand their market share, get into the car business (ex: apps, security, maps, automated cars), and get into AI and quantum tells why they are actually creating 20,000 jobs and pulling in some of that cash from overseas. Also, they're trying to create the whole iPhone supply chain themselves and remove reliance from China. Especially since China, allegedly, has been counterfeiting their products and even their stores.

 

[DonKnock]

He is saying “the rich”/business owners don’t create jobs so we can tax them more.
He’s oversimplifying it.

That is a fact.

Rich people didn't get rich by spending a high percentage of their income. They hoard their money. When corporations have earnings surpluses they pass that on to the executives rather than hiring more workers or increasing wages.

You have to force them to inject money back into the economy because they've artificially stagnated wages and made entitlements that are product specific.

The poor/working class spend a very high proportion of their income, they are the ones that are heavily marketed too. That is the group you want to have more disposable income to actually buy things with.

This is on top of the epidemic of tax inverting and offshoring.