Don't let anybody tell you that corporations and businesses create jobs.

[KevinKohler]

Yes, you need demand to sustain but the demand also has to be monied individuals or it also won't sustain. Sometimes, and this is where R&D and invention comes into play, there is a demand that no one even knows exists yet. So I would go with business, and the financial backers create the seed of jobs, and demand acts like water and fertile soil where the jobs grow and flourish.

Close.

No one pays or executes R and D on things, services, or ideas that aren't in demand. Inventors sit around note problems, and strive for ways to fix them. They listen to their friends and neighbors, or just forums online, about specific issues, and try to get a gauge on how large the issue is, how much demand there is for a fix.

Other areas, the demand is always there. Higher, faster, farther, bigger, smaller, so on and so forth.

 

[gdgyva]

The business owner is one third of the equation, with demand being the other two thirds. Demand gets split into two parts. Which is to say, the want, as in, do people want it, and ability to pay/procure. Both are equally important.

you ever hear the phrase, "when there is a will, there is a way?"

when someone really wants something, he/she will try to figure out a way to acquire it

now if it is a NEED rather than a want, they will do just about anything

people that are starving will figure out a way to get food

people create demand by existing....there are certain needs that must be met

 

[KevinKohler]

you ever hear the phrase, "when there is a will, there is a way?"

when someone really wants something, he/she will try to figure out a way to acquire it

now if it is a NEED rather than a want, they will do just about anything

people that are starving will figure out a way to get food

people create demand by existing....there are certain needs that must be met

And those demands are obvious. You will always be able to pay for water, because when you can't, you die. Thus no longer needing to pay for water.

I was thinking of other things. We would be a sad and economically depressed nation indeed if all most of us could afford, and thus demand, are basic needs.

Let me ask you, is there more demand for a base model Ford Focus, or for a Ford GT super car?

 

[gdgyva]

And those demands are obvious. You will always be able to pay for water, because when you can't, you die. Thus no longer needing to pay for water.

I was thinking of other things. We would be a sad and economically depressed nation indeed if all most of us could afford, and thus demand, are basic needs.

Let me ask you, is there more demand for a base model Ford Focus, or for a Ford GT super car?

more demand for the cheaper more affordable car

But...if given the option....and price was no objection, would people make the same choice?

of course not....

the demand to see concerts is huge....but not everyone can afford the admittance

wants come after needs....at least for most people with common sense

 

[Lutherf]

There was demand for better portable means of communication long before the cell phone. Same for all of the examples you listed.

A lot of kids never experienced the CB radio craze or played with walkie talkies.

 

[KevinKohler]

more demand for the cheaper more affordable car

But...if given the option....and price was no objection, would people make the same choice?

of course not....

the demand to see concerts is huge....but not everyone can afford the admittance

wants come after needs....at least for most people with common sense

Exactly.

So saying that a 22 year old waiter from the sticks who has a Ferrari cal lender on his fridge, who owns every one available on Forza 5, equals demand for a Ferrari 458 Italia is a bit false. It's gonna be a long time, if ever, for his desire to equal quantifiable demand.



In other words, your prospective customer has to have money to burn in order for you to sell them stuff.

 

[KevinKohler]

A lot of kids never experienced the CB radio craze or played with walkie talkies.

Even before that. Some used signal fires on tall hills or mountain tops. Some used smoke signals, etc. You get the idea.

 

[KevinKohler]

Example...if someone invents and markets teleportation...they are not creating demand for teleportation...they are MEETING an existing demand for faster, better transportation.

 

[KLATTU]

There has to be a point to the OP. Damned if I know what it is.

the point was to guess who said it.

 

[ocean515]

Demand creates jobs.


Businesses that create jobs for which there is no demand don't stay in business very long.

Nonsense.

Henry Ford is said to have commented: If I asked my customers what they want, they would have said faster horses.

We know where Ford Motor Company is today.

Steve Jobs tells a similar story.

There is no question demand is critical, but it is most certainly not the nexus of job and business creation.

 

[KevinKohler]

Nonsense.

Henry Ford is said to have commented: If I asked my customers what they want, they would have said faster horses.

We know where Ford Motor Company is today.

Steve Jobs tells a similar story.

There is no question demand is critical, but it is most certainly not the nexus of job and business creation.

They didn't demand faster horses, that was simply their limited interpretation of their then and our current demand for faster, better transportation.

 

[KevinKohler]

the point was to guess who said it.

I would guess either Hitlary or Panders....ahem, Sanders.


And they would be 1/3 wrong.

 

[KLATTU]

Nonsense.

Henry Ford is said to have commented: If I asked my customers what they want, they would have said faster horses.

We know where Ford Motor Company is today.

Steve Jobs tells a similar story.

There is no question demand is critical, but it is most certainly not the nexus of job and business creation.

When liberals say demand creates jobs, they usually are talking about customers who have money.Which of of course is a given. The question ten becomes,: " how do they get money in the first place?"
Their answer is usually taking it from wealthy people and redistributing it to others. and as we all know, robbing Peter to pay Paul will always have a fan in Paul. Typically there are quite few more Pauls than Peters.Then they justify this by saying that wealthy people are inefficient stewards of capital thus it need to be ' freed' from them and give to those will put it to productive use ( ie spend it). Remember the only economically productive use of money according to liberals is spending it.

 

[blaxshep]

Remember the only economically productive use of money according to liberals is spending it.

..... and man are they good at that!

 

[gdgyva]

They didn't demand faster horses, that was simply their limited interpretation of their then and our current demand for faster, better transportation.

you are saying demand basically exists, and all new technology does is shift it from one product to another

i dont agree with that entirely

sometimes it is entirely NEW technology

something that never existed before....something we didnt know we COULD have before

so in that case, NEW demand is created, not just moved from one product to another

and demand grows....and ebbs....as the cycles of the economies flow

demand for new cars has gone from 10 million cars a year to 16 million cars a year, and then backwards, and forwards again

sometimes it goes to older products, and sometimes to newer products

tell me....was there a demand for life insurance before a company actually started selling it?

how could there be....people didnt know it was possible....new product, new demand

 

[blaxshep]

you are saying demand basically exists, and all new technology does is shift it from one product to another

i dont agree with that entirely

sometimes it is entirely NEW technology

something that never existed before....something we didnt know we COULD have before

so in that case, NEW demand is created, not just moved from one product to another

and demand grows....and ebbs....as the cycles of the economies flow

demand for new cars has gone from 10 million cars a year to 16 million cars a year, and then backwards, and forwards again

sometimes it goes to older products, and sometimes to newer products

tell me....was there a demand for life insurance before a company actually started selling it?

how could there be....people didnt know it was possible....new product, new demand

You think people didn't want to make sure their families were taken care of in the event of their death before life insurance, .... absurd.

All they did was fill a demand that had no supply.

 

[ocean515]

They didn't demand faster horses, that was simply their limited interpretation of their then and our current demand for faster, better transportation.

That is simply the way the demand side people like to dismiss the argument. They didn't know any better means there was no demand until the demand was created by creating the product. No product, no demand.

This chicken/egg argument is as old as prostitution. I won't convince you which came first, and you won't convince me.

 

[EvaPeron]

Demand creates jobs.


Businesses that create jobs for which there is no demand don't stay in business very long.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg - without businesses demand is unmet.

 

[KevinKohler]

you are saying demand basically exists, and all new technology does is shift it from one product to another

i dont agree with that entirely

sometimes it is entirely NEW technology

something that never existed before....something we didnt know we COULD have before

so in that case, NEW demand is created, not just moved from one product to another

and demand grows....and ebbs....as the cycles of the economies flow

demand for new cars has gone from 10 million cars a year to 16 million cars a year, and then backwards, and forwards again

sometimes it goes to older products, and sometimes to newer products

tell me....was there a demand for life insurance before a company actually started selling it?

how could there be....people didnt know it was possible....new product, new demand

Yes, there was. It's why brothers in arms would take care of the families of their slain brothers.

Almost all older cultures have a tradition like this.

So, yes, demand for the continued care taking of ones family after they die, preceded life insurance, which is nothing more than one attempt at fulfilling that demand, if only in the most basic, economic way.

 

[KevinKohler]

Which came first, the chicken or the egg - without businesses demand is unmet.

And yet, we are getting policy, and have been getting policy, that presumes that the answer is, the chicken comes before the egg.

 

[EvaPeron]

True, but I think the core of this argument is that Capitalists seem to think the Owners and businesses are the sole creators of jobs, the reality there is a lot of requirements to creating jobs, they are just a cog in the machine. In the end though without demand its a non-starter.

And sorry liberals, government jobs are negative jobs. It takes jobs to pay the taxes that government uses to "Create jobs" it is incredibly inefficient and a net loss to the economy.

But also, without jobs individuals / others can't create demand. You've got to have money to create a demand and you've got to have a job to earn money. And, often it is the product that creates the demand, not the demand that always creates the product. ie: I didn't know to demand a cell phone until someone a long while back or someones thought to create it.

 

[jet57]

Demand creates jobs.


Businesses that create jobs for which there is no demand don't stay in business very long.

Demand creates immigrant labor.

 

[KevinKohler]

That is simply the way the demand side people like to dismiss the argument. They didn't know any better means there was no demand until the demand was created by creating the product. No product, no demand.

This chicken/egg argument is as old as prostitution. I won't convince you which came first, and you won't convince me.

Which is fine. Because I think it's broken into three things. Demand, which is two parts...want, and ability to pay...and production/supply.

My problem is, for the last 30 years or so, we've been in acting policy that assumes that "if you build it, they will come". Well, that hasn't been working out. Alan Greenspan, the wizard himself, has admitted, before God and country, that this was, is, wrong.


Why can't you?

 

[gdgyva]

Yes, there was. It's why brothers in arms would take care of the families of their slain brothers.

Almost all older cultures have a tradition like this.

So, yes, demand for the continued care taking of ones family after they die, preceded life insurance, which is nothing more than one attempt at fulfilling that demand, if only in the most basic, economic way.

and no one made any money until a company decided to meet the demand by offering a product and CREATING jobs

yes....people wanted to buy it after they knew it was available....

but first someone had to MAKE IT available

and in doing so, they created a market, and jobs

 

[Aberration]

Which is fine. Because I think it's broken into three things. Demand, which is two parts...want, and ability to pay...and production/supply.

My problem is, for the last 30 years or so, we've been in acting policy that assumes that "if you build it, they will come". Well, that hasn't been working out. Alan Greenspan, the wizard himself, has admitted, before God and country, that this was, is, wrong.


Why can't you?

It worked for Apple. It worked for Intel. It worked for the kid who deep fried Twinkies.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk