Someone else respond-please

I just can’t stand it, I just can’t stand it.
Concerning “where do jobs come from”. The answer is apparently not from people with ideas for things that hopefully have value for others. Nope, its’ from either requirements of government or from poor people.

From Representative Ellison:

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) tells MSNBC regulations create jobs because a business will have to hire people to help them comply with the new requirement.

“I think the answer is no,” Ellison said when asked if he believes regulations kill jobs. “And here is why: When we talked about increasing fuel efficiency standards, the industry responded, and they need engineers and designers and manufacturers, and they need actually more people to help respond to the new requirement.”

“I believe if the government says, look, we have got to reduce our carbon footprint, you will kick into gear a whole number of people that know how to do that or have ideas about that, and that will be a job engine. I understand what you mean, because if anything adds a cost to a business, you could assume that that will diminish that business’s ability to hire. But I don’t think that’s actually right. I think what businesses want is customers and what — if they are selling product, if they have a product to sell they will do well even if they have some new regulations to meet,” the Congressman said.

But we’re not done.
This is from my local paper…..I’m going to remove the writer’s name because really – how much shame can one man handle?

Consumers, not employers, are the job creators.

There’s a lot of interest in helping “job creators” in these difficult economic times, but many people misunderstand who the job creators are. Employers don’t create jobs. Customers create jobs.

Employers only hire people when it is the only way they can meet the demand for their products or services. It’s the customers who really create the jobs with their purchases.

So how can we quickly increase customer demand for products and services? Economists understand that spreading money around won’t create jobs unless people spend the money. Saving it doesn’t help.

Now if you give money to the poor, they will spend it almost immediately, because they are in desperate need of many things they haven’t been able to afford. This stimulates employments, and then the previously unemployed quickly spend their new income for the same reason, and that creates more jobs, and son on, and the economy recovers.

But if you give money to the rich, who usually have more money already than they choose to spend, little will be spent in the near future with most of it ending up in a savings account or stocks and bonds, which will do nothing to create jobs in the near term when jobs are needed.

Now, this is silly, but if you were to tax the rich and drop the money from airplanes over poor neighborhoods, that would really boost demand, jobs and the economy. But of course there are better ways to distribute the money to those who need it and will spend it.

The point is, long-term policies asice, the quickest solution to an economic recession is to transfer money from the rich to the poor, and that will ultimately benefit everyone, possibly even the rich. We just need to use a rational process for doing it.

Advertisement