Rich people don't create jobs nor do businesses large or small..

Venture CapitalistSays:The middle class are the job creators

Take a minute to watch this short 5 minute clip. I think you will be amazed at what this guy has to say.. and he is right.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45755883...70921#47470921

Full youtube video if you don't want to watch it through MSNBC

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBx2Y5HhplI

The idiots here cannot understand a 1%er because they aren't a part of the 1%. They just think they'll eventually get "undumb" and become one.

The idiots here cannot understand a 1%er because they aren't a part of the 1%. They just think they'll eventually get "undumb" and become one. Originally Posted by Little Stevie

You are a dumbass Little Blind Boy. Folks earning an annual household income of $250,001 are not 1%ers.

Barack Obama's plans to target individuals earning more than $200,000 a year for tax rises has provoked a furious backlash from Republicans who say the President is ruining the future of America's children.

Individuals earning more than $200,000 a year and families earning more than $250,000 - around one in 50 households - are likely to be left worse off by the proposed changes to the U.S. tax system.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...250k-more.html

Jobs are only created by government and unicorn farts, everybody knows that.

There is only one thing that creates jobs.....The economy

The first TED talk I have seen that I thought was a waste of time. His analysis is way to simplistic. Any conclusions drawn from it would most likely be incorrect.

He is exactly right, the economy is like a eco system.. Once you get that simple concept, the all this wealth creators crap gets thrown out the window. That is just a political slogan that needs to be debunked. Without demand , there are no jobs.

He is exactly right, the economy is like a eco system.. Once you get that simple concept, the all this wealth creators crap gets thrown out the window. That is just a political slogan that needs to be debunked. Without demand , there are no jobs. Originally Posted by WTF

yep, that pretty much proves that Keynesian economics is correct. without creating demand people wont buy new cadillacs even if they were priced @ $100 each.

Jobs are only created by government and unicorn farts, everybody knows that. Originally Posted by Iaintliein

Then someone better be feeding those unicorns Ranch Style Beans and chili in large quantities because the government is not doing squat.

The guy is right about a number of things, but I think it's necessary to fill in a few blanks.

He says that there's all sorts of overheated demagoguery by politicians claiming that even the slightest tax increase on high income earners will "kill jobs." He's right about that, it's obviously an exaggerated claim. And I don't think people running for office do themselves any favors when they make such statements. Of course, many of them have pledged fealty to Grover Norquist, so they've sort of backed themselves into a corner.

On the other hand, some people on the other side need a reality check concerning how much additional revenue increasing taxes on the wealthy would produce. Returning rates to the Clinton-era levels on the top 1% (anyone earning more than about $380K/year, more or less) would only raise a fraction of one percent of GDP, while our fiscal deficit is over 8% of GDP.

He speaks of increasing "demand", but we need to ask the question, "Demand for what? More crap imported from Asia and sold at Walmart?"

Someone mentioned Keynesian economics. I maintain that what we have been trying to practice today is not really Keynesian economics, but rather pseudo-Keynesian economics. Keynes was not some wild-eyed radical who preached that it's a great idea to create endless budget deficits in order to stimulate the economy. On the contrary, he had a number of rather conservative instincts. He strongly believed that budgets should be balanced in good times, and that deficits should be very temporary measures that should only be used to get you through the critical period during a severe downturn, and only within the framework of understanding that there would be a clear path toward restoration of fiscal balance.

But I think there's another important point. Not only did Keynes dislike structural deficits, he abhorred trade deficits, repeatedly counseling that the British should never, under any circumstances, run sustained negative balance-of-payments deficits with anyone else.

But just look at us now. It's pretty pathetic. Fifty years ago, we made almost everything we consumed. If you bought a TV, a pair of shoes, a suit, or almost anything else, it was probably made in the USA. In the 1970s, a number of professors and opinion writers started saying that we needed to "export capitalism" to the rest of the world, and that thereby everybody could become richer. Free trade is wonderful in theory, at least in the event that all your trading partners aspire to similar levels of wages, health care, retirement benefits, environmental protections, etc. -- you know, comparative advantage and all that.

But what if workers elsewhere are willing to (or are forced to) work for wages amounting to a tiny fraction of what it takes an American to support a family? The answer is obvious.

So I think one of our highest priorities should be to fix trade practices that are slowly bleeding our nation to death. I realize that means a lot of consumer goods (which many people buy too much of, anyway) might cost more, but wouldn't that be more than offset by the fact that we wouldn't have to finance all the unemployent benefits for people who aren't working because millions of jobs have been offshored?

The guy is right about a number of things, but I think it's necessary to fill in a few blanks.

He says that there's all sorts of overheated demagoguery by politicians claiming that even the slightest tax increase on high income earners will "kill jobs." He's right about that, it's obviously an exaggerated claim. And I don't think people running for office do themselves any favors when they make such statements. Of course, many of them have pledged fealty to Grover Norquist, so they've sort of backed themselves into a corner.

On the other hand, some people on the other side need a reality check concerning how much additional revenue increasing taxes on the wealthy would produce. Returning rates to the Clinton-era levels on the top 1% (anyone earning more than about $380K/year, more or less) would only raise a fraction of one percent of GDP, while our fiscal deficit is over 8% of GDP.

He speaks of increasing "demand", but we need to ask the question, "Demand for what? More crap imported from Asia and sold at Walmart?"

Someone mentioned Keynesian economics. I maintain that what we have been trying to practice today is not really Keynesian economics, but rather pseudo-Keynesian economics. Keynes was not some wild-eyed radical who preached that it's a great idea to create endless budget deficits in order to stimulate the economy. On the contrary, he had a number of rather conservative instincts. He strongly believed that budgets should be balanced in good times, and that deficits should be very temporary measures that should only be used to get you through the critical period during a severe downturn, and only within the framework of understanding that there would be a clear path toward restoration of fiscal balance.

But I think there's another important point. Not only did Keynes dislike structural deficits, he abhorred trade deficits, repeatedly counseling that the British should never, under any circumstances, run sustained negative balance-of-payments deficits with anyone else.

But just look at us now. It's pretty pathetic. Fifty years ago, we made almost everything we consumed. If you bought a TV, a pair of shoes, a suit, or almost anything else, it was probably made in the USA. In the 1970s, a number of professors and opinion writers started saying that we needed to "export capitalism" to the rest of the world, and that thereby everybody could become richer. Free trade is wonderful in theory, at least in the event that all your trading partners aspire to similar levels of wages, health care, retirement benefits, environmental protections, etc. -- you know, comparative advantage and all that.

But what if workers elsewhere are willing to (or are forced to) work for wages amounting to a tiny fraction of what it takes an American to support a family? The answer is obvious.

So I think one of our highest priorities should be to fix trade practices that are slowly bleeding our nation to death. I realize that means a lot of consumer goods (which many people buy too much of, anyway) might cost more, but wouldn't that be more than offset by the fact that we wouldn't have to finance all the unemployent benefits for people who aren't working because millions of jobs have been offshored? Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

+1

Hanauer said that it would be a good thing to tax the rich so the government could invest in projects that will benefit it us all. That's bullshit. If the government gets more revenue, there is a debt to be paid which will be on the books for generations. There is no money to "invest" in anything.

I'm not opposed to taxing the rich, but it won't do any good. It will be like peeing your pants in a dark suit. It will give you a warm feeling, but nobody will notice.

Other than that, I thought his analysis was pretty good.

I'm not opposed to taxing the rich, but it won't do any good. It will be like peeing your pants in a dark suit. It will give you a warm feeling, but nobody will notice.

Do you know this from experience?

I'm not admitting anything, and the fact that I always wear dark pants has nothing to do with this.

Well when they asked Bob Dole if he wore boxer or briefs he replied "depends"