Businesses don't create jobs?

[Benko]

I heard a quote the other day that I liked:
"I get my news from comedy channels, and my comedy from cable news."

Eerily similar to a pre-WWII Russian joke:  "Izvestia nye pravda, Pravda nye izvestia" which literally translated means "There is no truth in Izvestia and no news in Pravda".  Izvestia is Russian for "news", which was also the name of the newspaper run by the Soviet government.  Pravda is Russian for "truth", which was also the name of the newspaper run by the Communist party. 

A modern US equivalent (without the pun) might be "Fox has no truth, and PBS has no news".  Unfortunately, Fox does not call itself "News" (although it was owned by News Corp until News Corp renamed itself 21st Century Fox - so the pun almost holds here) and PBS is not actually owned by the government (and its name does not mean "truth").

Pravda was a newspaper which hid the truth to cover up for the gov't.  So your natural analogy is Fox news?  And not the NY Times? 

[moda0306]

There's also message dissemination; Democrats are good at it and Republicans fail utterly. Remember when Obama said "You didn't build that, somebody else made that happen!"

Here, re-familiarize yourselves: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKjPI6no5ng

Watch it again! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKjPI6no5ng

What an incredible thing for a sitting president to say!

That clip should have been played on TV and distributed by every right-wing blogger for YEARS. It should have been turned into internet memes. There should have been bumper stickers, T-shirts, the works. It should have been burned into everyone's mind that the president thought that nobody deserved credit for their own successes--a shockingly offensive, out-of-touch piece of loony leftist garbage that is outrageously far out of the mainstream!

Instead, the Republicans let it die out in a few weeks. Opportunity lost. The Democrats don't let opportunities like that go. This thing with Hillary is another opportunity. Watch them flub it in the same way.

I'm surprised at you're interpretation of all this.

1) republicans HAVE been using this... Abundantly. Usually by not playing the whole video and just the part where he says, "if you run a business, you didn't build that." 

2) Obama's analysis on this point is spot on. You've got some people out there who think that in spite of the system they were born into, all the amazing things others have figured out, all the risks their customers run by not hoarding money, and all the infrastructure that greases the wheels of their commerce, that they are fully responsible for their success. That their rugged individualism and little else got them where they are. It's pretty nauseating.

Now are there similarly pointed analyses we could make of liberals who bitch and moan about their lot in life??  Absolutely!!

But when given a chance, republicans botch it all up.  Romney was right about the 47% not paying federal income tax.  But he forgot to mention that that tax makes up about 25% of the total tax base (if memory serves), and that the rest are a hell of a lot more regressive. And what he got TOTALLY wrong was this ridiculous idea that "the 47%" all vote for democrats. WAY off.

The "You didn't build that" quote has been used to tremendous success by the right by not playing the full quote. I guess I don't understand how when played in full, it is anything but 99% accurate, if a little bit abrasive.

[Pointedstick]

2) Obama's analysis on this point is spot on. You've got some people out there who think that in spite of the system they were born into, all the amazing things others have figured out, all the risks their customers run by not hoarding money, and all the infrastructure that greases the wheels of their commerce, that they are fully responsible for their success. That their rugged individualism and little else got them where they are. It's pretty nauseating.

[...]

The "You didn't build that" quote has been used to tremendous success by the right by not playing the full quote. I guess I don't understand how when played in full, it is anything but 99% accurate, if a little bit abrasive.

I completely disagree. Acknowledging the things that shaped us and the environment we inhabit should in no way detract from our personal successes. The very concept is insulting to me, and should be to you, too. What if I told you, "well, you may be happily married, but you shouldn't feel good about your efforts to win a mate. It was really society that shaped your wife into someone who would be appealing to you, and society that implanted in both of your minds notions of monogamy, marriage, and love. You didn't fall in love with her! You didn't marry her! Somebody else made that happen!"

Insulting and fallacious or no?

[moda0306]

PS,

Marriage is a private act. It has social consequences, and obviously stats manage the licensure (right or wrong).

But the nature of business in a society has huge public policy implications.  People can be proud of their successes. But if you want to deny that your customers are taking a risk when they buy your product if it isn't a need... Or if you want to deny all the infrastructure that makes the current level of commerce possible, then 1) you're woefully incorrect, an 2) your woefully incorrect conclusions are going to make for horrible public policy conclusions.

Why fix that bridge?  Instead, tax cuts.

Why educate those kids?  Instead, tax cuts.

Why spur demand in a balance sheet recession?  Instead, tax cuts.

Why give grants to scientific research into new energy?  Instead, tax cuts.


People should be proud of their accomplishments, but humility is also a useful trait if you're going to be in the voting booth trying to decide what marginal direction government should move when bridges are collapsing and science education is being undermined.

[Pointedstick]

Excuses, excuses! I see someone trying to take credit for his successes! How nauseating! Where's the humility when it comes to yourself? Your wife? You didn't fall in love with her, somebody else made that happen. Your house? You didn't buy that, somebody else made that happen. Your accounting career? Think about all the resources others put into your education and training. Again, somebody else made that happen! This is elementary stuff here! Liberalism 101!

Your car? Somebody else made that happen.

The last tasty meal you prepared? Somebody else made that happen.

your PP? All of US made that happen!

Right? Just acknowledging all the societal inputs to your successes...

[moda0306]

I really could care less how "proud" or "humble" someone is about something until I see it start to affect their attitude about public policy... then my antannae start going up.  Even if you're on the more libertarian end of the spectrum, you're usually going to be in favor of military, police, courts, public highways, some environmental protections and patent law... perhaps even some level of social safety nets.

To even be in favor of these involves some humility as to what your rugged individualism will truly be able to buy you... that perhaps there are some other useful functions that support your own, and you're pretty damn reliant on them (I mean... why else would you be in favor of a coercive entity like government to do ANYTHING unless you saw the consequences of their non-existence).

My Grandpa was a civil engineer, and from what I hear a damn good one.  He eventually started some sort of engineering consulting business, so he saw both sides of the coin, and a respect, in the end, for all the hard technical work and cooperation that it took to make a municipality hum.  And he was from a little town in south west MN... I can't imagine the eye-rolling that certain city engineers and Manhattan go through when hearing a small business owner talk up all his successes and comment about the utter incompetence of any government personnel.

[moda0306]

Excuses, excuses! I see someone trying to take credit for his successes! How nauseating! Where's the humility when it comes to yourself? Your wife? You didn't fall in love with her, somebody else made that happen. Your house? You didn't buy that, somebody else made that happen. Your accounting career? Think about all the resources others put into your education and training. Again, somebody else made that happen! This is elementary stuff here! Liberalism 101!

Your car? Somebody else made that happen.

The last tasty meal you prepared? Somebody else made that happen.

your PP? All of US made that happen!

Right? Just acknowledging all the societal inputs to your successes...

PS... well I'm sure that a husband who finds a killer wife (in a good way) is at least somewhat humble about how lucky he is, and doesn't just trot around all day like "I deserve everything she ever gave me and more because I'm the f*king man!"  Or at least he probably should be a bit more humble.  I don't know where "excuses" come into play.  We're not talking about a failure to excuse here.  Just an acknowledgement of reality.

Perhaps that husband is thankful for all the things her parents did to raise her right.  To her family for helping her become the woman she became.  If anyone carries such an arrogant attitude towards marrying an awesome wife that he think he's earned that and more all by himself, I'd sure be annoyed by his presence.

And acknowledging inputs is not only humble, but reasonable.  If you are a business-owner in Manhattan (to give a more extreme example), and you, as well as every other business owner in the city, wrongly see the the input of the NYC government as just a bumbled mess, they're going to come to VERY incorrect policy conclusions.

This doesn't have to be about "government" (as government isn't a conscious entity to be "proud of" anyway), but respect for anyone, including a civil engineer, that made commerce more possible in your community through his work, is healthy, IMO.

To deny all this, IMO, is to grossly incorrectly measure the cause/effect relationship of various aspects of the reality around you, and the more people that vote with that grossly incorrect premise firmly planted in their head, the more bridges collapse... the more science education is undermined.

I guess it's not even arrogance/pride/humility/(insert-emotion-here) that bother me... they're just emotions... I guess I can't blaming people for feeling them.  It's the false interpretations of reality that work their way into public policy.  There's plenty of these on the left, too.  But this quote alone is pretty spot on, IMO.  And it does a meaningful amount of damage to our economy when people incorrectly interpret the reality of the inputs around them.  You don't have to appreciate them, I guess, but at least understand how your business interacts with them, and what will bring your business pain vs gain.

[Pointedstick]

Look, it's unquestionably true that each of us had help along the way to where we are today. That's, like, so blindingly obvious that it ranks up there with the profundity of declaring that water is wet. We ALL benefit from the immense stock of capital goods, the base of technology, and the permissive social institutions that were all built up by prior generations. Even back in caveman days, we all benefited from the "free" parenting offered by our cave parents and the support and protection of the tribe.

The embedded meme in Obama's comments are that we are indebted to the community for all these sorts of uncompensated resources that the community gave to us. But is this true? I don't think it is. That great teacher? Paid by property taxes or tuition partially paid by your parents. The roads? Bought and maintained by gas and income taxes your parents had to pay. And once you grow up, YOU pay for these things. The government roads I drive on are paid for by my own tax money now. These roads don't represent an uncompensated gift; they represent a capital good that I am paying for. The public school I may send my son to will be paid for by my own property taxes. There's no gift here. It's all compensated.

Somebody else certainly helped build the infrastructure that you used... and somebody else educated you... and somebody else helped maintain a safe environment for you to live in... and somebody else helped to build and maintain social institutions you rely on... but those people didn't do it for free! They were paid by you or by your parents! There's no gift here, no indebtedness, no uncompensated resources you've taken.

In fact, I would venture that the only people who ever actually give you uncompensated resources are your parents. They don't give you a bill for all the expenses you incurred when you turn 18. They give you most of the stuff you need to grow up to be a healthy person free of charge, because they love you.

So when "somebody else made that happen," no, somebody else did not make that happen, unless that person is one of your parents. But that's not what the president was saying, I don't think.

Nobody is denying other people's contributions, but because those contributions are generally compensated, there's nothing particularly special about them. They are simply transactions, just like the transaction I made with Wal-Mart the other day, exchanging a couple of bucks for a broom. Should I thank Wal-Mart for the broom? For making it available? For building a great big store where I can buy cheap Chinese goods at low prices

[moda0306]

Well of course people are compensated for their contributions.  A lot of times they're grossly underpaid for what they actually contribute, but they chose that route so I'm fine with that in some ways.

But if we're going to have functioning government services, business owners (as well as everyone else) best realize what actually contributes to their business.  It actually hurts us when people don't realize what their business relies on.  From a business standpoint, they make worse decisions... but from a public policy standpoint, they don't make

And just because your teachers were compensated doesn't mean they were compensated "by your parents."  Your parents paid in some taxes... but YOU received a free education and protection for years before being asked to take some responsibility. If you'd been abandoned by your parents as a child, you receive the ULTIMATE form of insurance... the kind that one way or another (private or public) allows you to be fed, clothed, educated and supported until you are self-sufficient.  You received that service FREE TO YOU.  Your parents contributed to the tax-base to make it possible, but if they were crack addicts who O/D'd after your birth, you would have received the same. 

... and if your next instinct is to say "yeah but it's always as a result of theft from others," I say "yes and no."  A TON of the resources that people guard as their own are simply just their, and they maximize their profit off of them.  See my Thomas Paine quote if you want a slightly more poetic version of the concept.  Long-story-short... there are systems in place that are utterly free to you as a child to ensure you grow up, and a huge part of what effectively "pays" for these systems is simply wealth that is represented by our earth's productive capacity... not someone inventing aluminum in a lab that they created from the power of their creative mind.

These systems helped you (and me).  These systems existed independently to your parents ability to contribute to them (as well as mine).  This isn't a liberal/conservative thing.  A ton of lower-class dirt balls could go a long way to realize all the systems that exist/existed around them to help them grow up a sane, sober, healthy, educated human being, as well.  It makes you a better voter and business owner to realize what inputs contribute(d) to your success.  A ton of people on both sides are really bad at this at times, and I think we are worse off as a result.  And we should always remember that at the base of it all is the massive amount of effective theft and monopolized exploitation of the resources of our earth that is part of the "wealth" that allows this.  Not just your/my parents paying taxes at gunpoint.  A lot of what we have is/was "free."  Wealth isn't just the product of individual innovation... it's a product of a bunch of stuff we sit on... and some people think putting fences around that stuff isn't theft of the commonwealth.  Well... it kind of is.

[moda0306]

And as part of this, obviously, I'd want government employees, the public, etc to know that a lot of what THEY enjoy in terms of income & stability comes as a result of the productivity of business-owners.  This is a two-way street.

[Pointedstick]

I'm not sure I'm understanding your point. Are you arguing that we need to acknowledge the inputs of others in our success--compensated or not? That interdependence is a concept worth acknowledging?

If so, then I completely agree with you. But again, this is so blindingly obvious to me that it almost seems odd to point it out. To me it simply doesn't seem all that remarkable an observation to assert that we are all benefiting from systems, social customs, technology, and capital all built up by people who came before us and who currently work to maintain them.

That's just what a culture is. All human societies do this. Some do it better than others, of course, and I thank my lucky stars that I was born in the USA instead of Iran or Haiti or Cuba or Uganda or North Korea.

[Pointedstick]

Hey PS, where would we find that tremendously insightful post of yours where you describe how the left and the right each have different models of the world, both of which are wrong in different ways?  I think of it often but I'm not even sure how to search for it.  It should be sticky someplace.

That sounds cool... but are you sure I wrote it? I don't remember that. Sounds like something I'd like to read, though.

This, perhaps?

http://gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/ot ... g-freedom/

[moda0306]

In public policy, a some business owners operate on the principle that 1) they legitimately own anything that they manipulate from one form to another, 2) a dollar of "their earnings" is better in their pocket than almost anywhere else, even at the cost of infrastructure and city services, and 3) their customers are not often (depending on the product/service being purchased) taking a large risk in purchasing their product/service, and therefore "demand" is irrelevant.

These conclusions about reality are not only false, IMO, but taking those principles to the voting booth results in worse public policy decisions.  This is essentially, IMO, what Obama is saying. 

A perfect example of this was my ex-girlfriend's uncle who worked for a masonry company.  He was a VP there.  About 40% of his business was government work, and in the midst of 2010 (if memory serves), he was complaining about all the stimulus spending.  When I asked him how significant decreases in government construction would affect his business, he said it would put his competitors out of business, thereby improving his  .  This was based on nothing other than his gut feel.  There was no analysis.  And he took this to the voting booth with him.  Just the typical rugged individualist who owes a good chunk of his economic success to government and steady aggregate demand, but doesn't to admit it, and votes in ways that's going to weaken our economy for no good reason (IMO, of course).

I agree with you on feeling lucky to have been born here.  I think misrepresenting the different inputs (both forceful/coercive and peaceful/negotiated) that got us to this point leaves us in an incorrect functional and moral position, is all.

Perhaps this is just another one of those things where we agree on most of this stuff, but some fundamental disagreement that will take 20 pages to get to is working its way up to the top of whether Obama was being a prick by saying what he did.  I think he should have been equally hard on everyone who b!tches and moans about everything wrong about their situation while a) doing all the wrong things (or nothing) to fix it, and b) insist on huge one-sided public policy changes to reinforce their incorrect belief about what the true problem in their life truly is.  This would apply to single moms, "underpaid" teachers, and retirees who felt "fleeced" in 2008 (in spite of their 90% equity investment allocation, and having saved 3% of their income their entire lives).

[Xan]

Hey PS, where would we find that tremendously insightful post of yours where you describe how the left and the right each have different models of the world, both of which are wrong in different ways?  I think of it often but I'm not even sure how to search for it.  It should be sticky someplace.

That sounds cool... but are you sure I wrote it? I don't remember that. Sounds like something I'd like to read, though.

This, perhaps?

http://gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/ot ... g-freedom/

That's definitely a good one, but I don't think that's what I'm talking about.  It was about how you, approaching things from the right, had a collision between your view that people should be self-governing and your observation that there are people out there who just can't handle life very well.  And you had examples of similar collisions that the left has against reality.  It was one of your best, really.

[dragoncar]

The embedded meme in Obama's comments are that we are indebted to the community for all these sorts of uncompensated resources that the community gave to us. But is this true? I don't think it is. That great teacher? Paid by property taxes or tuition partially paid by your parents. The roads? Bought and maintained by gas and income taxes your parents had to pay. And once you grow up, YOU pay for these things. The government roads I drive on are paid for by my own tax money now. These roads don't represent an uncompensated gift; they represent a capital good that I am paying for. The public school I may send my son to will be paid for by my own property taxes. There's no gift here. It's all compensated.

The embedded  meme isn't that these public works are uncompensated, it's that it should continue to be compensated.  With tax dollars, which is what that other party doesn't want.  If roads were somehow built by private enterprise, the cost would be disproportionately borne by those who profit from those roads.  Think how walmart pays for parking lots to get customers in the door-- maybe they'd have to build the roads to get customers in the door.  When the government builds the roads, the cost is disproportionately borne by those who do not profit.  Or at least that would be the case if we cut taxes for the rich.

I'm assuming everyone here sees that "that" in "you didn't build that" refers to public infrastructure.

Anyways, I married my daughter so I could legitimately say "I made that!"

[Pointedstick]

The embedded  meme isn't that these public works are uncompensated, it's that it should continue to be compensated.  With tax dollars, which is what that other party doesn't want.  If roads were somehow built by private enterprise, the cost would be disproportionately borne by those who profit from those roads.

That sounds like a good thing to me. Those who benefit pay. What could be fairer?

When the government builds the roads, the cost is disproportionately borne by those who do not profit.

And that sounds like a bad thing to me. Why should people who don't benefit from the roads have to pay for them? That sounds very unfair. But again, since road construction and maintenance on the state level is largely funded by gas taxes, the payees are already the ones who use the infrastructure in question. It's actually a fairly libertarian-friendly system for the tax to be much closer to a user fee than a universal tax.

I don't think Republicans are blocking state-level infrastructure spending. What they're leery of is infrastructure spending that comes from the federal government in the form of grants and mandates to the states. Whether this is the right approach or not is certainly up for debate and you may disagree with it but I don't think it's some kind of obviously stupid or outrageous position to take.

I'm assuming everyone here sees that "that" in "you didn't build that" refers to public infrastructure.

I don't think so. To clarify his point, Obama then says, "the internet didn't get invented on its own." As in, it was a collaborative effort, just like your business. If he was referring to the infrastructure, he would have said, "You didn't build all that stuff" or "you didn't build that system" instead of "you didn't build that," with the "that" logically and grammatically referring to the subject of the sentence.

[dragoncar]

The embedded  meme isn't that these public works are uncompensated, it's that it should continue to be compensated.  With tax dollars, which is what that other party doesn't want.  If roads were somehow built by private enterprise, the cost would be disproportionately borne by those who profit from those roads.

That sounds like a good thing to me. Those who benefit pay. What could be fairer?

When the government builds the roads, the cost is disproportionately borne by those who do not profit.

And that sounds like a bad thing to me. Why should people who don't benefit from the roads have to pay for them? That sounds very unfair.

That's what I'm saying.  A flat tax doesn't make sense for infrastructure.  Infrastructure doesn't only include roads, however, and not every piece has a use-based tax.

I'm assuming everyone here sees that "that" in "you didn't build that" refers to public infrastructure.

I don't think so. To clarify his point, Obama then says, "the internet didn't get invented on its own." As in, it was a collaborative effort, just like your business. If he was referring to the infrastructure, he would have said, "You didn't build all that stuff" or "you didn't build that system" instead of "you didn't build that," with the "that" logically and grammatically referring to the subject of the sentence.

Yeah, I think he garbled the sentence structure, not that he literally doesn't think business owners didn't build their business.  Do you think Romney literally likes firing people?  People misspeak.

The implication is the government funded the internet and now businesses benefit from it's existence.  I.e., Zuckerberg may have built Facebook, but he didn't build the internet.  He didn't build "that."  But he should continue to pay for it and things like it, especially since it worked out really well for him.

[Pointedstick]

Yeah, I think he garbled the sentence structure, not that he literally doesn't think business owners didn't build their business.  Do you think Romney literally likes firing people?  People misspeak.

It's not literal, of course. What I believe he meant was that the business owner benefited from the work of others and that the absence of that work would have made the business impossible to build, so those other people should get get some credit for their role in at least facilitating the success of the business.

To which I will again respond, "Duh!" Is there anybody out there who would ever possibly claim otherwise? It should be so obvious as to not even merit mentioning that everyone who achieved any measure of success was helped along the way by others. I mean, that's just part and parcel of living in a society. To make this blindingly obvious point in such an insulting and dismissive manner… I just don't understand what he was thinking.

[dragoncar]

To which I will again respond, "Duh!" Is there anybody out there who would ever possibly claim otherwise? It should be so obvious as to not even merit mentioning that everyone who achieved any measure of success was helped along the way by others. I mean, that's just part and parcel of living in a society. To make this blindingly obvious point in such an insulting and dismissive manner… I just don't understand what he was thinking.

You'd be surprised what people claim.... some people definitely need to be reminded about the "part and parcel of living in a society."  I've seen comments on this very forum that scoff at the very notion.

[Pointedstick]

You'd be surprised what people claim.... some people definitely need to be reminded about the "part and parcel of living in a society."  I've seen comments on this very forum that scoff at the very notion.

I would be very surprised at that and would want to see examples. Again, this concept is so implicit and obvious that most normal people IMHO don't really feel the need to mention it. Even the most hardcore anarcho-capitalist is going to at least admit that he's benefited from the stock of surplus capital goods produced by the previous generation that he has only "paid for" in an extremely general and indirect way. The notion that conservatives and money-oriented people tend to think of themselves as heroic individuals forging a solitary path through life not benefiting from anyone else's work is just a standard liberal stereotype buoyed by the fact that non-liberals often like talking about success and pride rather than the standard liberal fares of victimhood, self-flagellation, and guilt. To a pretty firm liberal like Obama, the absence of a focus on these subjects reveals selfishness and disbelief in the concepts of community and interdependence. I think it's complete nonsense and yet another example of how liberals misunderstand conservatives more than than the reverse (citation: Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion, which is an awesome book FYI).

[I Shrugged]

And I'll say that there is very little difference between the two parties, and just about none if you exclude Rand Paul.

I agree.  Biggest differences are on hot button issues, most of which involve identity politics and culture wars.  And a lot of that is posturing for votes.  On military policy, taxes, and spending, they are very close.

[MachineGhost]

The "walking, talking parody" comments were directed toward the last two Republican nominees, each of whom almost seemed to play right into liberals' fears and preconceptions. McCain was an elderly warmonger and Romney was a stuffy rich prick. Taken together, that pretty much encompasses what liberals think of conservatives. I long for the Republicans to nominate someone who can break out of the stereotypes and shake things up a little. Someone with more interest in freedom for all rather than bringing back a social vision that's long dead, or identifying enemies everywhere to kill. Maybe appeal to some people outside of the typical Republican demographics. Someone like… Rand Paul, perhaps.

Your only hope is Chris Christie then.  All the rest are extremists of one stripe or another, including Rand Paul.  Paul would never fly with the mainstream electors anymore than Ryan, Cruz or Gingrinch would.

Would Christie beat Hillary?  No, I believe the country wants to elect the first woman President and so it shall.

[MachineGhost]

"her email inbox was full of political spam from the Democrats. It's all the same stuff"
Unfortunately, it works.    The Big Lie, brought to you for over 60 years.....

Works on the other side too judging by what fantasies you Republicans always rail about on here.  I get such a laugh from it!

[MachineGhost]

OTOH if the right can manage real world business they should get a F'in clue about the left and how they have to be dealt with.  And PS should hire himself out as an adviser to someone or other.

There's tons of multi-millionaire Democrats that manage real world businesses.  Do you live in some kind of Republican-only bubble?  Maybe stop watching Faux News so much?  All you're doing is engaging in confirmatory bias over and over.  That is not the path to growth and evolving.

[MachineGhost]

I'm pretty sure.  No idea how to find it though.  I'll keep digging.

In-group vs out-group threats (Republicans).