Chardo - I work for a living - I don't have time to read everything you throw into the mix. The fact that that site shows that video tells me it is biased.

Let me give you a little bit of insight regarding the wealthy. Folks with a lot of wealth have but two choices on that wealth, spend (consume) or invest. Either way, however they do either, creates jobs. Governments create jobs too, only they do it by providing a basic service that people want, or they do it by t***sferring wealth from one to another - and that other consumes what has been t***sferred to them. The problem then, on a macro scale, is that the consumption side of the economy is encouraged, but at the expene of the production side of the economy. When the production side is under stimulated, there is less "wealth" to go around, therefore all do with less.

Let me give you a little bit of insight regarding the wealthy. Folks with a lot of wealth have but two choices on that wealth, spend (consume) or invest. { OK, so far}

Either way, however they do either, creates jobs.

{ How so? How does investing create jobs? They will grow their portfolio and eventually spend some of it, but when, how much, and will that amount be greater that what they would have otherwise spent}

Governments create jobs too, only they do it by providing a basic service that people want,

{OK, and those government workers, largely middle class folks spent their earning, putting it back into the economy, and also pay taxes….so far so good}

….or they do it by t***sferring wealth from one to another - and that other consumes what has been t***sferred to them.

{ By this I assume that you mean by a downward redistribution through a progressive income tax, and social welfare programs? If so, that’s also good because those folks also spend that money and pay taxes, although…and I’ll save you the trouble here, they may not have a net liability for federal income tax}

The problem then, on a macro scale, is that the consumption side of the economy is encouraged, but at the expense of the production side of the economy.

{ Now this is where you lose me. How is that the case? You’re advocating supply side economics which production or supply is the key to economic prosperity and that consumption or demand is merely a secondary consequence. In my view, and the view of many, that is totally illogical and unworkable. No capitalist/business owner/ job creator is going to increase supply unless there is a market for the goods and services. They are not going to hire people unless to do so is profitable. Why would they. If the middle class consumers, who spend almost all of what they have on necessities they will spend more if they have more. Not so with the wealthy who tend to hoard it}

When the production side is under stimulated, there is less "wealth" to go around, therefore all do with less.

{The wealth does not “go around” Even if more goods were produced by the business owners, which will not be the case, the wealth won’t “go around” if the consumers do not have the means. That’s why tax policy must favor the middle class who are the real job creators. Now I know that you are in business…do you own a business? If so, do you hire people and produce more of wh**ever you do on speculation, without knowing if there is a market? In any case, I’m sure that you know more about business than I do since I spent most of my life in the public sector, but that does not mean that I don’t know a few things. I strongly suspect that your view are driven more by ideology that practicality. It would be great if you could view the TED video and explain to me exactly what is there that you disagree with, that you can refute.}

Your question of how investing creates jobs shows a significant lack of understanding economics. When one invests in order to grow their portfolio - in a market economy - there is but one way to achieve that. That way is to use that investment to create value - goods and services that private consumers are willing to pay for. I am not aware of a single way to increase a portfolio without increasing value, nor any way to increase value without doing so through people at some level - and thereby creating jobs.

I wonder if intellectual integrity required you to ask the same question of Obama when he wanted to increase "investment" to create jobs.


Yes, it is true that government workers and those who benefit from government redistribution are also consumers of goods and services. It is also true that businesses only provide goods and services in anticipation of a market demand for the output. However, if one wanted to manage an economy based on your understanding of it, one would provide the means for all to consume much more than they currently do, thereby - in your scheme - creating all kinds of demand and therefore jobs.

The fault in that thinking is by ignoring the generation of goods and services while focusing on the distrubution of it, one significantly reduces the goods and services to be generated - and therefor available to be distributed. That is why history invariable shows those government who strive to redistribute wealth succeed in distributing poverty.

Meanwhile, investment in producing goods and services invariably create more available to distribute. As governments make the efficient generation more difficult, and the rewards for achieving them less attractive, less is generated and therefore available for consumption. One of the sublties missed so often when people complaing about barons in business and such is the simple reality that they continuously produce more goods and services while lowering the cost of those. Even Rockefeller - look at what people spent to light their homes before he entered the oil business, how few of them could even afford a whale oil lamp - and then the cost us using kerosene lamps and how the lower cost made if affordable for so many more people.

I do not own, but do manage - and have managed other, a manufacturing companies. Let me assure you that it is rare for any manufacturing company, or other business, to not invest in anticipation of demand. However, that anticipated demand is a function of not only how much money people may have to spend on it (and that discretionary income is net of taxes), but on how cost effective the product will be - and what net return on the investment can be expected.