Hillary Clinton - Economicus Ignorissimus

[ZiprHead]

Businesses don't create jobs. Demand (by those pesky workers) creates jobs.

 

[KeepTalking]

I have to say that it is one of the most ignorant claims I have ever heard from a politician, and politicians can be horribly ignorant.

...

What is far more obvious is that government cannot create jobs.

As noted, Hillary is an ignorant politician. What's your excuse for making ignorant claims?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I thought deregulation was a good thing. That is why the deregulated derivatives trading. We can trust them to police themselves.

So many people think that was deregulation. How cute.

So the derivatives market wasn't deregulated during the Clinton Administration?

 

[laughing dog]

You're 4 for 4 and saying "if one part breaks".

Until you make a reasonable case why the California drought is the fault of government, your response appears more bizarre than rational.

 

[dismal]

Businesses don't create jobs. Demand (by those pesky workers) creates jobs.

WTF does that even mean.

How does "demand" "create a job"?

Demand is always there. Jobs are not.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

You're 4 for 4 and saying "if one part breaks".

Until you make a reasonable case why the California drought is the fault of government, your response appears more bizarre than rational.

The drought itself wasn't. The response that exacerbated the problem was.

 

[ZiprHead]

Businesses don't create jobs. Demand (by those pesky workers) creates jobs.

WTF does that even mean.

How does "demand" "create a job"?

Demand is always there. Jobs are not.

How does a business create jobs without demand?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Businesses don't create jobs. Demand (by those pesky workers) creates jobs.

WTF does that even mean.

How does "demand" "create a job"?

Demand is always there. Jobs are not.

if demand is always there, why did new coke fail?

- - - Updated - - -

Until you make a reasonable case why the California drought is the fault of government, your response appears more bizarre than rational.

The drought itself wasn't. The response that exacerbated the problem was.

The lack of water falling from the sky?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Businesses don't create jobs. Demand (by those pesky workers) creates jobs.

No. Businesses create jobs in an effort to meet that demand.

- - - Updated - - -

You're 4 for 4 and saying "if one part breaks".

Until you make a reasonable case why the California drought is the fault of government, your response appears more bizarre than rational.

To a fair degree it is.

The fundamental cause of the drought is water-use policy that assumes there's more water available than there really is.

 

[dismal]

WTF does that even mean.

How does "demand" "create a job"?

Demand is always there. Jobs are not.

How does a business create jobs without demand?

I'm not sure what "create a job" even means. But generally a job seems to be created when an employer and an employee agree on terms. So if I must decide I'm going with the people who create jobs are employers and employees who agree on terms.

 

[dismal]

WTF does that even mean.

How does "demand" "create a job"?

Demand is always there. Jobs are not.

if demand is always there, why did new coke fail?

I'll take some new coke if you're giving it away. I'll take a swimming pool full of it. See, there's some demand right there. How many jobs did it create?

Wait, maybe Demand is not always there for anything at any price. It's almost as if there is a role for someone to figure out how to combine factors of production to produce goods and services at prices people are willing to pay

 

[laughing dog]

To a fair degree it is.

The fundamental cause of the drought is water-use policy that assumes there's more water available than there really is.

Water use policy cannot possibly cause a drought. It might cause a water shortage, but it cannot cause a drought.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Generally speaking Hillary is correct in stating that government can create jobs. Perhaps she should have said that good government policy can stimulate job creation in the private sector, which would of course be correct. Every "job" out there is a dance between government and business. Neither does it alone, unless we're talking about cooking meth or something like that.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

To a fair degree it is.

The fundamental cause of the drought is water-use policy that assumes there's more water available than there really is.

Water use policy cannot possibly cause a drought. It might cause a water shortage, but it cannot cause a drought.

What you are missing is "drought" is basically less water than normal. Unfortunately, "normal" in this part of the country is wishful thinking. If our water allocations were based on real numbers instead of fantasy the reservoirs would be going down but we wouldn't be having a big problem.

 

[laughing dog]

Water use policy cannot possibly cause a drought. It might cause a water shortage, but it cannot cause a drought.

What you are missing is "drought" is basically less water than normal.

I admit I am missing your redefinition of the term drought for ideological reasons. I think everyone else is as well.

Unfortunately, "normal" in this part of the country is wishful thinking. If our water allocations were based on real numbers instead of fantasy the reservoirs would be going down but we wouldn't be having a big problem.

Apparently you are missing the reason your part of the country does have significantly less water than normal because of the lack of rainfall. Hence the term "drought".

It is inane to claim that the lack of rainfall is due to government water policy.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What you are missing is "drought" is basically less water than normal.

I admit I am missing your redefinition of the term drought for ideological reasons. I think everyone else is as well.

Unfortunately, "normal" in this part of the country is wishful thinking. If our water allocations were based on real numbers instead of fantasy the reservoirs would be going down but we wouldn't be having a big problem.

Apparently you are missing the reason your part of the country does have significantly less water than normal because of the lack of rainfall. Hence the term "drought".

It is inane to claim that the lack of rainfall is due to government water policy.

We have less than average. We have a lot less than the "normal" that isn't anything like normal. It's the latter factor that's causing the big problem--there is several years worth of water storage, normal variations aren't a problem.

 

[laughing dog]

I admit I am missing your redefinition of the term drought for ideological reasons. I think everyone else is as well.

Unfortunately, "normal" in this part of the country is wishful thinking. If our water allocations were based on real numbers instead of fantasy the reservoirs would be going down but we wouldn't be having a big problem.

Apparently you are missing the reason your part of the country does have significantly less water than normal because of the lack of rainfall. Hence the term "drought".

It is inane to claim that the lack of rainfall is due to government water policy.

We have less than average. We have a lot less than the "normal" that isn't anything like normal. It's the latter factor that's causing the big problem--there is several years worth of water storage, normal variations aren't a problem.

There appears to a persistent ignorance here. There is a distinct difference between a water shortage and a drought. A drought may cause a shortage. Shortages can be the result of a number of factors, including water policy. But a drought cannot be caused water policy.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Until you make a reasonable case why the California drought is the fault of government, your response appears more bizarre than rational.

The drought itself wasn't. The response that exacerbated the problem was.

The lack of water falling from the sky?

"The response that exacerbated the problem" isn't the drought, and it isn't the cause of the drought either. It is what happens when a bunch of politicians get together and say "now that we have a drought, here's what we're going to do about it." It is also water policy before the drought that fails to ensure that there would be water during the drought.

The word "response", which you apparently missed, is the most important word in the sentence that you responded to.

 

[ZiprHead]

How does a business create jobs without demand?

I'm not sure what "create a job" even means. But generally a job seems to be created when an employer and an employee agree on terms. So if I must decide I'm going with the people who create jobs are employers and employees who agree on terms.

Why would an employer "create" a job if there was no demand to fill?

 

[laughing dog]

Until you make a reasonable case why the California drought is the fault of government, your response appears more bizarre than rational.

The drought itself wasn't. The response that exacerbated the problem was.

The lack of water falling from the sky?

"The response that exacerbated the problem" isn't the drought, and it isn't the cause of the drought either. It is what happens when a bunch of politicians get together and say "now that we have a drought, here's what we're going to do about it." It is also water policy before the drought that fails to ensure that there would be water during the drought.

To be fair, it is difficult to see any policy that would ensure "enough" water during a drought. At some level, some people will have to do with less, since there is literally less water.