Actually, "The Rich" Don't Create Jobs

B_crackoff

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Posts
1,726
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
73
You guys are utterly amazing. You've upended the whole marketing discipline. Indeed there is no need for marketing, advertisement, sales, etc. Just put it out there and watch it fly off the shelf simply because it's there and people have money or is it wealth we're calling it. Amazing.

The rich do create jobs, money magically appears and creates demand. Thank God for the rich entrepreneurs. God created them so that we might praise them. Where are their boots so I may lick them, their rings that I might kiss them? They have brought us out of the caves and into the light.

You can't market or sell anything before you have a product or service to offer.

E.g. I train up a whole bunch of kids to do backroom office stuff, or seamstress stuff in the 3rd world, & prove that they can do it proficiently & at a lower cost than in the West - in the absence of trade tariffs - that will create its own demand.

You either want a globalized economy, or you do not - free trade, or protectionism.

The problem, as I have stated, is that, not only all those rich people, but also our own Governments, invest in developing countries where labour is cheaper, & labour laws less restrictive.

The problem isn't one of personal taxation, but a lack of investment domestically. The only way that that can be re-addressed is via trade tariffs, domestic innovation & efficiencies, reducing & unsecuring foreign investment, whether through the banking sector or Govt, & limiting personal funds transfers out of the domestic economy.

The enemy is still the financial system. It legally SUPPLIES credit on a fiat currency, & its sole purpose is to create more opportunities for debt to exist & interest to be charged upon it.

The US is practically exhausted, yet your tax dollars (well, National Debt) are enabling financial companies to create brand new debt slaves in another part of the world. Those places will boom as a result of this, while the West will stagnate or bust.

If you tax the rich more, the rich will just leave - & don't forget that both they, & the financial sector are the main sponsors of both political parties.

I'd prefer a 20% compulsory national investment bond (instead of taxation) for higher earners, held for decade terms, to encourage domestic investment, & make the rich have a greater stake in the lives of their countrymen.

However, apparently Nationalism is bad - caring about your fellow countrymen & their prospects etc. But in a globalized economy - that is the only thing that will protect any community - otherwise you'll just have to immigrate.
 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
sargon20 - Some people are actually saying that? Supply creates its own demand? Why not tell that to the failed musicians who have a stack of a few thousand CDs lingering in their basement? Or how about the failed fashion designer who now has a garage full of fabric and boxes of t-shirts since nobody liked their designs?

Wow... just wow. LOL!!!
 
D

deleted15807

Guest
Actually probably the best answer comes when there is an equitable distribution of wealth, then everyone spends, most are employed to meet that demand, the rich get richer but everyone working accumulates goods, property and wealth. This country has never prospered until progressive tax structures were in place. Now, Warren Buffet says he pays the same taxes as his secretary, and this obviously doesn't seem to be working.

We are now officially a Plutocracy, according to Citibank. If you're comfortable with that, do nothing. Here's a link to that Citibank article. Knowledge is power.

Citigroup Oct 16, 2005 Plutonomy Report Part 1

This is exactly how they've wanted to divide up the country since the 'Reagan Revolution'. The haves and the have-nots. And the have-nots don't have because they are lazy and irresponsible. While the rich are simply God's people. They work hard. They are responsible. There values should be all our value's. The class warfare is over and they won.

sargon20 - Some people are actually saying that? Supply creates its own demand? Why not tell that to the failed musicians who have a stack of a few thousand CDs lingering in their basement? Or how about the failed fashion designer who now has a garage full of fabric and boxes of t-shirts since nobody liked their designs?

Wow... just wow. LOL!!!

I know. I was thinking of all the swampland throughtout the country. All we need is wealth and boom SOLD. It may be shit but as long as there is wealth....SOLD. As long as there is wealth shit has value.
 

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,616
Media
50
Likes
4,782
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
The rich do create jobs, money magically appears and creates demand. Thank God for the rich entrepreneurs. God created them so that we might praise them. Where are their boots so I may lick them, their rings that I might kiss them? They have brought us out of the caves and into the light.

The rich man in his castle,
The poor man at the gate,
God made them high or lowly,
And ordered their estate.

This hymn was a staple of the English school system at least until the early 1980s, sung by generations of five-year olds who have no idea what "lowly" or "estate" means. It is of course terribly non-PC. But it does express the reality that we need the rich as well as the poor - and that they are both God made and equally valued in God's scheme. The poor (and the rich) will always be with us. We need to work hard to secure equality of treatment and equality of rights for everyone - but the role of the rich (and that of the poor) is essential. In the words of the hymn "How great is God Almighty, Who has made all things well!" Praise is due to God, not mankind - but a bit of respect towards humanity - rich as well as poor - is perfectly in place. So yes Sargon20 I hope you do show due respect to the people whose hard work and ability creates jobs and the comforts of our society. It isn't about boot-licking or ring-kissing but seeing worth in human beings.
 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
So yes Sargon20 I hope you do show due respect to the people whose hard work and ability creates jobs and the comforts of our society. It isn't about boot-licking or ring-kissing but seeing worth in human beings.

You do realize, all anyone has to do is have a viable skill, incorporate a business and convince people to work for you. From a simplistic level (without paying attention to any of the specifics), that's how easy it is to "create a job".

We look at the big corporations because they have lots of money, therefore they can do it on a grand scale. But they don't because they only do it when they deem it necessary to make themselves more money... not because our society needs them. So how about we educate the poor, working class and middle class people so they can work among themselves? Let them create their own small businesses and teach them how to create a reasonable business plan so they can sustain a life necessary to maintain living in a modern society.

Just a thought... I'm sure as hell ain't waiting for Wal-Mart to open their doors to the public at near minimum wage level earnings.
 
Last edited:

vince

Legendary Member
Joined
May 13, 2007
Posts
8,271
Media
1
Likes
1,674
Points
333
Location
Canada
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
Yes I just love having my boots licked. What other reason would I have for working 62.5 hours a week? On Saturdays as the boys go home, I stand at the front and they each give my boots a lick as they go out the door. First the left one, then the right one. And if they mix it up and do the right one first, I kick them.

As far as supply creating it's own demand, just look no further than the TV industry. They can put whatever drivel they want on there and the masses (for the most part) will sit and 'consume' it.
 

B_crackoff

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Posts
1,726
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
73
sargon20 - Some people are actually saying that? Supply creates its own demand? Why not tell that to the failed musicians who have a stack of a few thousand CDs lingering in their basement? Or how about the failed fashion designer who now has a garage full of fabric and boxes of t-shirts since nobody liked their designs?

Wow... just wow. LOL!!!

Yeah, I don't think that you fully understand the concept. Supply creates the demand not necessarily for a single unique product or service, but for similar stuff as well. It also doesn't mean ALL supply.

Something supplied may be poorly executed, & supplied better than someone else. Exactly how much money did Baird or Goodyear make? Fuck all!

Technical innovations & advancements clearly demonstrate supply creating its own demand e.gThe wheel, the steam engine, the window frame, glass, TV, computers - & who the fuck needs an Xbox? - blah,blah,blah.

Exactly how much shit do people have in their home that they don't actually need, & could, if bought purely for funcional value alone, be purchased at a cheaper price. Do you buy the first shirt you see, or the shirt offered(supplied) that you like?

That's supply creating demand guys - it's why women have 50 pairs of shoes, & guys dream of $100,000 cars.

Today's fiat capitalism is all about supplying stuff that no one needs, that no one can really afford, financed by money they have to borrow.

If people only bought what they needed, the whole system would come off the rails.
 

phillyhangin

Experimental Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Posts
207
Media
3
Likes
19
Points
103
Location
Philadelphia, PA
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
That's supply creating demand guys - it's why women have 50 pairs of shoes, & guys dream of $100,000 cars.
Actually, it's called "manufactured demand": Someone creates something that the market didn't call for, then they hire a marketing firm to generate a demand that didn't exist by trying to portray the useless product as "the must-have such-and-such of the season." That's how fashion designers can release a new design line every season: This season's clothes don't suddenly become obsolete, but by portraying them as "out-of-fashion" ("Oh, Simone, really! That's SO last Wednesday!"), they convince people to buy new clothes that they don't need. So it's not that supply creates demand, it's that someone used marketing to create a demand for something that would not have otherwise sold.

There are limits to manufactured demand, though: If the product is utter crap, no one will buy it at any price. I just saw a late-night commercial (during a recent bout of insomnia) where the chief sales pitch for the dietary aid in question was "buy one bottle at $.95, we'll send you SIX FREE!" No, that's not a typo. What that says is that some "genius" had an idea for a new dietary supplement that no one wanted, and when they realized that they couldn't sell it, they had to resort to practically giving it away on late-night TV. Oh, and they were offering free shipping too.

Technological innovations are a different story. Technological innovations create new market niches because things that were not possible before the innovation have now become possible, or things that were difficult before the innovation have become easier. People respond to those new opportunities and demand for the technology that enables those opportunities grows. However, if the technological innovation isn't really doing anything useful - say, a Slinky or Yo-Yo - you still need to resort to marketing to create a demand for what would otherwise be considered frivolous.

Today's fiat capitalism is all about supplying stuff that no one needs, that no one can really afford, financed by money they have to borrow.

If people only bought what they needed, the whole system would come off the rails.
Very true. But again, just because someone manufactures something doesn't mean that there will be demand for it; unless the product actually fills an open niche in the market (or creates new ones), it'll just sit there. The best they can hope for is to use marketing to persuade people that the product has more value than it does, but that's not the product creating the demand, it's the marketing campaign.
 
Last edited:

B_crackoff

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Posts
1,726
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
73
AVery true. But again, just because someone manufactures something doesn't mean that there will be demand for it; unless the product actually fills an open niche in the market, it'll just sit there. The best they can hope for is to use marketing to persuade people that the product has more value than it does, but that's not the product creating the demand, it's the marketing campaign.

It's still all supply side economics - Say's Law etc! The fact you have to market something new doesn't detract from the fact that you are supplying something new. As I mentioned earlier, even innovating a product does not mean that you will be the one to garner its success. Don't existing businesses & products also market? No product - no marketing.

Fill a niche? - create a niche - then rip that up & make it essential, isn't that the entrepreneur's dream!:smile:

Ever worked in offices that suddenly had a Feng Shui guru coming around?:smile: Ever seen those fishes eating the dead skin off your toes? Even a shop front is marketing, but they're all non essential, & relatively new - & fulfilling what?:smile:
 
Last edited:
D

deleted15807

Guest
As far as supply creating it's own demand, just look no further than the TV industry. They can put whatever drivel they want on there and the masses (for the most part) will sit and 'consume' it.

If that were true there would never be a need for Nielsen ratings or cancellations. Since whatever we put on people will watch.
 

Drifterwood

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Posts
18,677
Media
0
Likes
2,811
Points
333
Location
Greece
The flow of money within an economy creates jobs. The theory is then twofold; if you are spending more money (presumption that you are rich) then you are creating more jobs, and secondly that individuals spend their money better than it going through a second tier of government administration as tax dollars.

A very simple opinion would be that the UK and Europe puts too much through the Public Sector and that the US spends it on things that Democrats would rather see elsewhere.

Entrepneurs look to create wealth either by supplying something new, or supplying something more attractively to the existing market. I would distinguish entrepneurs from the "rich" by their Return on Capital capability. My guess would be that entrepneurs run businesses during a stage where they generate a 25% + ROC. You stop being an entrepneur IMO, when your business matures to say 15%.

Rich people sitting on their existing investment assets would probably look to get up to 15% ROC - above this you move into the dodgy territory of market manipulation etc etc. Not so rich people, Middle Class perhaps, generally get lower returns from less aggressively managed portfolios. This money does all create jobs or support jobs and the creaion of wealth and its flow through the system.

If you don't have excess wealth to invest, but enough to get by, you are still creating jobs etc when you spend what you have.
 

phillyhangin

Experimental Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Posts
207
Media
3
Likes
19
Points
103
Location
Philadelphia, PA
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
It's still all supply side economics - Say's Law etc! The fact you have to market something new doesn't detract from the fact that you are supplying something new. As I mentioned earlier, even innovating a product does not mean that you will be the one to garner its success. Don't existing businesses & products also market? No product - no marketing.
Yes, you do have to market a product in order to sell it, but if the product is actually useful, you can sell it with objective marketing because people will see the use of it and want it (think of the benefits of a washing machine versus hand-washing your clothes) - the demand is created by the perceived utility of the product not simply because the product is on offer; if the product is not perceived as objectively useful, you need to tie it to some subjective needs or fears ("If you don't buy this, you'll die alone and friendless like the loser you are!") in order to move it.
Fill a niche? - create a niche - then rip that up & make it essential, isn't that the entrepreneur's dream!:smile:

Ever worked in offices that suddenly had a Feng Shui guru coming around?:smile: Ever seen those fishes eating the dead skin off your toes? Even a shop front is marketing, but they're all non essential, & relatively new - & fulfilling what?:smile:
True, that's the entrepreneur's dream, but it only works if the product actually meets a genuine need or can be connected through marketing to a genuine need. And that's the big problem with supply side economics: The need comes first, and then the product either fulfills that need or the marketing team creates the (often false) impression that it does. If the product doesn't actually meet a need and the marketing team fails in their attempt to persuade people that it does, then the product doesn't sell no matter how low the price ("Buy 1 for $.95 and we'll send you SIX FREE!"). So it's not the supply that creates the demand, it's the demand that determines whether or not people respond to what is on offer.

To take your examples: Feng Shui addresses the need to have control over one's environment and to use that control to create a better life; fish that eat dead skin cells off your toes address the need for personal hygiene with an emphasis on convenience ("It was so difficult to wash my toes before, but now, with New Exfoliating Piranhas, my life is so much better in every possible way!"). The product or service on offer doesn't actually meet the need in question (Western Feng Shui has little if anything to do with the original Chinese system of aligning buildings to take best advantage of the building site, and I sincerely doubt that New Exfoliating Piranhas boost personal hygiene in any noticeable way), but the marketing behind those products makes it seem as if they do, hence people use these products and services; had the marketers failed to connect these products and services to genuine needs, they would not have sold even at rock-bottom prices.
 

B_Marius567

Sexy Member
Joined
May 30, 2004
Posts
1,913
Media
0
Likes
30
Points
258
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
The Rich maybe hiring nanys, janitors, pool boys.

the poor make more jobs becuse the poor have to spend all there money just to get by.
 

mushroomhead7in

Legendary Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Mar 10, 2010
Posts
30
Media
68
Likes
1,047
Points
218
Location
Detroit (Michigan, United States)
Verification
View
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Well, duh! Pointing out the obvious there. Especially when you are using Fox News Channel as a source. Everyone knows Fox is not real news it's just a right wing propaganda machine.


Since the financial collapse and the resulting loss of millions of jobs the top-down message has been 'the rich create jobs' so we better give them what they want( zero regulations, zero taxes, etc) if we, the non-rich, want our jobs back.

Fox & Friends Still Pushing Myth That Tax Cuts For Rich Create Jobs


  • Hume: "When's the last time one of these poor people offered you a job?"
  • Thompson: "I've never been hired by a poor person."
Alas it's just not true:

Actually, "The Rich" Don't "Create Jobs," We Do.
 

B_crackoff

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Posts
1,726
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
73
the marketing behind those products makes it seem as if they do, hence people use these products and services; had the marketers failed to connect these products and services to genuine needs, they would not have sold even at rock-bottom prices.

What you are suggesting is a marketing led product creation, which is not how all products came into being - that takes capital, a team, & an empty office waiting for ideas to fill it to begin with. E.g...

YouTube - ‪The Secret of Marketing‬‏

Deely bobbers? Troll pencil erasers?

I feel here, that we simply must agree to disagree:biggrin1:. We could spin this endlessly back & forth!:biggrin1: You don't work in sales & marketing do you?
 
Last edited:
D

deleted15807

Guest
Well, duh! Pointing out the obvious there. Especially when you are using Fox News Channel as a source. Everyone knows Fox is not real news it's just a right wing propaganda machine.

It's not just Fox News. Have you read the comments?:eek:
 

phillyhangin

Experimental Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Posts
207
Media
3
Likes
19
Points
103
Location
Philadelphia, PA
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
What you are suggesting is a marketing led product creation, which is not how all products came into being - that takes capital, a team, & an empty office waiting for ideas to fill it to begin with. E.g...
I did say that some products come into being when there is an unmet need, whereas today, most products come into being because someone says "Hey, look at this! Isn't this NEAT? Troll pencil erasers! :eek: I bet if we made a million of these things, we'd get rich in no time..."; those products then have to be tied through marketing to an existing need, however tenuously, in order to sell (unless they are self-evidently useful, in which case they tend to sell themselves).

I feel here, that we simply must agree to disagree:biggrin1:. We could spin this endlessly back & forth!:biggrin1:
I think that's best for the sanity of everyone else! :wink:

You don't work in sales & marketing do you?
I did - briefly - and I still feel unclean... :crazy2: :wink:
 
Last edited: