Here is how trickle-down economics was defined to me in 2006 at the time of the tax break (from Wikipedia):

Trickle-down economics" and the "trickle-down theory" are terms in United States politics to refer to the idea that tax breaks or other economic benefits provided to businesses and upper income levels will benefit poorer members of society by improving the economy as a whole.

I was replying to the poster who first mentioned the term, and he/she was stating the fact that what OP quoted was taken out of context. I think that was a fair subject to bring up from the original post.

That pretty much sums it up. Except that it's spelled "entrepreneurs".

Wasn't there another American politician that recently said something, "All you business owners out there, you didn't build your business."

If we keep electing people who have no real management experience (i.e., U.S. Senators), we'll keep getting people who will bend the rules of economics for their own ideological purposes, and who don't have a clue how to make things happen. Ideology is the worst reason to elect someone president. A pragmatic thinker who has run a large and complex enterprise is the only person I'll vote for for president. That means someone from the business world or a governor. The person who spoke the words quoted in the original posting was an excellent senator representing N.Y, but has no track record of ever managing anything other than her own political empire.

The fact is that demand is what creates jobs. The businesses simply hire people to meet the demand. Demand is largely created by a strong middle class buying goods and services. Corporations and businesses don't "create" jobs for the better good of the country or the citizens, they hire people to do the work that is required to meet the demand. Sprint Corp. just announced layoffs of over 700 employees in the K.C. area - they did not uncreate those jobs because they didn't believe in capitalism, but quite the contrary, they responded to low demand for their services.

So, if we follow your logic then here's what happened as but one example .... millions of people woke up one day and created demand for the iPhone, and in fact did that without even knowing what an iPhone was or realizing that they even wanted one. Thus, Steve Jobs and Apple just did some admin and engineering things but certainly don't get any credit for creating jobs. Is that really how you think things work??

Well that's quite a jump in logic in portraying how I think things work!! Of course innovative products create demand - had the IPhone flopped and demand was not there, jobs would have been cut.

Maybe "create" was not really the correct word. There is no denying, though, that businesses are the ones who employ the masses. I have never heard of anyone who is homeless for instance, hiring anyone no matter what the demand or lack thereof of products/services. Businesses, large and small, employ the workers, not the other way around.

May I ask...who or what creates that demand you speak of that is creating jobs ?

Ummmmh....consumers?

Good grief! Demand is created by companies producing products or providing services that the customer needs, wants or craves. It is enhanced by good marketing, but unless the product is exemplary, or in some cases cheaper than the competition, the demand will not be there. The company produces the products or provides services that they are confident will fill the demand. Some succeed, some fail despite their best efforts. Apple did not start with 20,000 employees out of some hope that demand would be there, or some altruistic desire to employ a large number of people.

Two of my three children co-own a Healthcare staffing agency. It is highly successful and the top agency in the Kansas City Missouri area and all of Kansas. They have never created a job! They add employees when it becomes evident that the demand for their services is too great for the current employee base. They currently employ over 300 people, but they had to cut jobs in '07-09, because the economic effect on the facilities they serve caused them to use less staff. They don't add jobs, or cut jobs, for any reason other than to meet the demand on a very good and needed service they provide. Some of the best corporations have had failed initiatives, which caused them to cut jobs or at the least, not add jobs. Ford Motor Company had the worlds best designers, engineers, and marketing people in '58 when they introduced the Edsel. Coca Cola had the best research, chemical engineers, and a huge advertising budget when they introduced New Coke. Even the finest companies don't always win - when they don't jobs are lost, when they do, jobs are added. Consumers decide who wins and who loses.

I am a a conservative, a business owner, and I enjoy sharing the profit with carefully chosen businesses or individuals who benefit while providing needed services.
I create jobs by supporting other businesses, and we all as homeowners who hire services, create work opportunities.
We are revolutionizing the economy of three counties. Yay for us!

And as a heads up, I recently hired a nightmare dog sitter in my home and learned more about being careful than I wanted to know, so do be careful.

Actually the term "job creators" is a well funded marketing ploy, funded by billionaires to convince middle Americans to join with them philosophically, to keep taxes at historically low rates on the wealthy, to their (middle Americans) ultimate detriment. I can't recall the term "job creators" even used in the vernacular until the last few years. It was created by political marketers and has obviously been quite effective.

Good for you Kitty, and a perfect example of whence I speak. You "share" your profit with carefully chosen businesses who benefit while providing needed services. You create jobs by being a consumer both as a business and an individual - my point precisely.

Indigent Creators
 

To vilify business owners is just wrong. To create a strata of society that feels they are owed Government subsidy to survive is wrong. To enslave economically challenged humans by disabling them with welfare is wrong. To rob people of an incentive to stand up for themselves and become independent and work hard to make their own way is wrong.
I stand against the creation of A class of people who don't need a job.
I would like to coin a new term:

Indigent Creators

Hi Sandtrap: Where to start? Depends? first tell me what is American today? Nations are so intertwined owing to the global access to stock markets, methods of manufacturing where something is assembled in country A another portion in country B . Another issue is how these products are labeled. e-merge advertises as built in America but all of its parts are manufactured in China with the assembly here.

Then we have the issue of competitive advantage where it is wiser to purchase from country A because country B simply can't compete.

But the kicker for all of this is how do you get everyone to play on a level laying field?

It certainly may make sense for America to buy foreign oil at a specified time for some future advantage or because the costs are less. These are business people who are trying to maximize profits and what makes sense to you and me may mean a bad business deal for them.

If only it were as simple as buy America. One area I hadn't touched was the effect American unions have on competition.

As a consumer I want utility for my dollar (period)

Hahaha!

Oh Oh, Apple may have to un-create some jobs.


Yahoo Finance
Walmart, Home Depot reject Apple Pay

AXP 86.21 -0.19 (-0.22%) BBBY 65.54 +0.30 (+0.46%)

CVS and Rite Aid have fired the latest salvo in the imminent battle in the mobile pay system. The two chains have already stopped accepting Apple Pay, which was released just a week ago.
• Apple Pay caught in the crossfire as CVS, Rite Aid block the app
• Apple Nay

Remember pet rocks? Now who do you suppose created a demand;albeit short term for pet rocks? The company that packaged and advertised for them and the more demand they creating the more they packaged and when the fad ended they created another fad. A corporation consists of two essential actors entrepreneurs (the correct spelling is for Doc Boogie's sake) and management.
An entrepreneur is gifted with marketing ideas and may or may not be a good manager and hires people to manage his/her ideas and management creates the taste for the product like with slogans such as "Stay thirsty my friends".

If a corporation succeeds everyone based on a hierarchy advances and widens and grows . Income inequality is a political ploy and is the subject for another thread. I am staying close to the topic as there are other side issues that come into play but we are better served to save them for other threads

Entire Speech
 

I believe this harkens back to your comments about companies, while good companies, having less than stellar strategies.

Apple has sold approximately 40 million iPhones in the last month. Those folks wanna use Apple Pay; me included. Therefore, Rite Aid, CVS and others have just thrown 40 million potential customers to the curb.

Walgreens is loving every minute of this! If you read about CurrentC, which is the competing mobile payment scheme [that CVS is promoting], you'll see why they are destined to fail in this endeavor.

One last thing....CVS and others are dependent upon Apple and Google to distribute their apps for their pay system. How long do you think their CurrentC app will remain in the Apple App Store or the Google Play Store?

Eissen seems all abt consumer demand...am I hearing you, E.?

e

The late GREAT John F Kennedy stated " A rising tide lifts all boats"!

:BigApplause:

I have been back tracking trying to figure out who the heck I have been working for all these years. Now I am totally confused. Who exactly does create jobs?

In reading some of the posts, it occurred to me that some have still not figured out that the question originally raised in this thread about who creates jobs is in effect rhetorical … that is to say it has an obvious answer. Entrepreneurs and business do in fact create jobs. The irony is that’s a byproduct of their primary objective which is to make a profit. But, while one can accurately say demand is needed for sales, or that raw materials are needed to make products, one then has to get wrapped in a pretzel like fashion to deny the obvious about who actually “creates” the jobs. That is what capitalism is all about actually … creating wealth where none existed before, and with jobs as a by product. The rub is, when it does that, income will always be distributed in an unequal manner because talent and motivation is distributed unequally. That’s the part that irks a lot of people and which then gets them to use code words like (evil) billionaires and such which basically plays to the green monster known as envy.

But, lest we get off on a tangent, I offer an unimpeachable source to support my contention about who creates jobs. To wit, the (famous female person) who originally made the comment “…corporations and jobs don’t create jobs” has now admitted that contention was in fact a gaffe.

A news article today says this person has “…mopped up her botched statement from a rally in Massachusetts last week, making it clear she’d misspoken and hadn’t intended to deliver a fresh economic policy message…. the former (position held) had meant to talk about tax breaks for corporations and businesses in that sentence, which led into a line about how trickle-down economics had “failed spectacularly” — a sentiment she has long held. The overall context was clear that she had left words out of a sentence; the comment made little sense without it.”

In sum, while we can argue about “trickle down,” and tax policy and such, it’s pretty hard to convincingly argue against the obvious about who actually creates jobs.

What happened to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Semantics. Few if any billionaires are evil, but some are looking out for their selfish interests to the detriment of the masses.

Denial

Don’t let anybody tell you that it’s corporations and businesses that create ...
 

Nothing at all happened to them. The principles described above go hand-in-hand and are inseparable.

It's working.

Perhaps now we're into semantics
 

Perhaps now we are talking about Semantics – how would you define “selfish interests”? In your case, I would define it as recognizing that in order to make a profit I need to create a product or service that is of equal or greater quality than that created by XYZ company and offered at a better (at least perceived) price than the competition. That is what business is about.

“. . . . . . to the detriment of the masses”? If one or millions see value in the above company’s product/service and purchase it and the company makes a profit, how were the “masses” hurt? The company made a profit, the consumer acquired a value but how was that mysterious “masses” that you speak of, harmed?

The selfish interests are in keeping income tax rates at historical lows, and even lowering them further on the top earners, keeping capital gains rates low, and ridding themselves of pesky regulations that force them to protect consumers and the environment. Those are detrimental to most of the rest of us in making our tax burdens higher, increasing the national debt, and losing consumer and environmental protections. Many of these wealthy individuals are spending large sums of money in an often successful attempt to buy elections and politicians. Their money and resulting influence draw their benefactors to champion their issues, which at least some might otherwise not. They also buy huge amounts of airtime in marketing their interests to the masses causing many to falsely believe that those interests coincide with their own. Obviously it has been working for them.

Don’t let anybody tell you that it’s corporations and businesses that create ...
 

So you're saying that more stringent regulations, higher taxes, and the resulting bigger government are the solutions to economic woes. Hmmmm.

You know that trickle down economics has been tried and it failed. The idea of cutting taxes to the very wealthy and giving huge tax breaks to huge corporations does not trickle down to the poverty stricken people. It does not create more and more jobs but creates only a super rich class and corporate giants.

When they are asked to pay their fair share of taxes, they take their profits offshore and outsource the jobs to cheap labor markets.

Come on, folks, this practice of huge tax breaks does nothing for the middle class and lower class except to create a huge division.

Economics 101 is available. I passed economics with high marks. Did you?

Don’t let anybody tell you that it’s corporations and businesses that create ...
 

And as we all know, in times of high taxation and elimination of tax breaks, poverty was all but eliminated.

Economics 102...Reality.

The Peculiar History of Arthurdale - C.J. Maloney - Mises Daily

American experiment in socialism..by Eleanor roosevelt

If you worked for the government all of your life or were tenured in education, you won't have the same views as people who have worked in business. Economics101 is good, but so is chess, Monopoly, MSP&T and common sense.

Risking your own money and taking on the responsibility of people who work for you is another life and opens up other views.

People who work for corporations and rise through the ranks and are reading this know that success in the private sector is NOT easy and requires long hours and toeing the line in morals and ethics for every corporation I have known. You didn't drink excessively or fool around sexually or you were not promoted or thrown out in the corporations that paid our bills. I am sure that wasn't true of all of them, but that isn't how businesses continue to stay alive.

Big companies are forced to go offshore because they aren't given tax breaks here. They have to stay competitive. I guess the government could make the soap and eliminate Proctor and Gamble but I just feel in my heart they would screw it up.

I don't understand why anyone is anti business and FOR more government controls. I think Capitalism is the best way to run things. JUST about ANYONE who is normal and healthy can become rich if they work hard enough in this country, and I mean HARD enough...and not take off days to take their kids on field trips or stay home because they are sick....they can become very successful...so that people can make fun of them and talk about them as if they were unscrupulous and awful.

It is NOT sinful to be financially successful. All corporations are NOT corrupt.

When you give over ANYTHING to government control, you can expect a higher level of waste and misuse of the money.

I recently read a book called "Thrive" by Dan Buettner that was enjoyable and extremely interesting.. I would recommend it highly.

The book discusses the "happiest" nations on earth. Denmark is at the very top! It is a country that has an equal tax rate of about 60 percent! The citizens are all given free medical care, free education through college or trade school, extreme low unemployment rate, there is encouragement to find the career you like, and there is a feeling of contentment even with such a high tax rate.

Another place discussed in the book is the city of San Luis Obisbo, CA. Their city planners and our Developer are on the same page on designing a town. Rather amazing to see all the similarities.

The USA was ranked about number 20 on the happiness chart, if I remember correctly. Singapore was ranked higher than the US.

Click on NPR... Excerpt from the book Thrive by Dan Buettner.



http://www.npr.org/books/titles/1379...es-way#excerpt