Wayne Parker

23 Comments on “John Stossel – Who Creates Jobs?”

1. ElJefer
   December 22nd, 2011 at 1:27 am

   Is the Keynesian saying we should take people’s money, then give it back and have them spend the money they already had?

2. Solverwiz
   December 22nd, 2011 at 2:08 am

   Big government can create jobs.  But, so do earthquakes, hurricanes, forest fires and even window breakers. The question is, “At what cost?”

3. gabsave
   December 22nd, 2011 at 2:57 am

   Yaron brook talks non sense. Its always demand that fuels supply.

4. jovelnom
   December 22nd, 2011 at 3:52 am

   government’s job creation= tax increase. I dont know whats so hard to understand. The only way, i repeat the only way that a government “creates” jobs without increasing taxes is by minimize the regulations to corporations.

5. jpzxcvbnm
   December 22nd, 2011 at 4:50 am

   This is really a debate between Keynesian and Supply Side Economics.

6. sga86
   December 22nd, 2011 at 5:32 am

   I wish they’d include Gary in the debates, he’s much younger than Ron Paul. RON PAUL 2012!!! END THE FED!!

7. RnBramwell
   December 22nd, 2011 at 6:21 am

   @mcbain434444 They buy into it because it seems to be altruism, whereas leaving people alone seems selfish and therefore immoral. Selfishness is good —when properly distinguished from pursuing or taking the unearned.

8. vincentca2004
   December 22nd, 2011 at 7:21 am

   Inflation is the problem, industries are born out of inflationary policies with a resulting consumer demand which would not have been there if those policies were not enacted and the free market was kept as such. When recessions hit as inflation is slowed down consumer demand for those same industries shrinks drastically which gives the government the excuse to “stimulate” the economy even though the cause of this misallocation of resources is inflation or stimulation itself.

9. mcbain434444
   December 22nd, 2011 at 8:18 am

   why does anyone buy into the Keynesian argument. It has failed in every place it has been implemented.

10. shodanxx
    December 22nd, 2011 at 8:22 am

    @fzqlcs

    consumers choose what they want to buy
    they decide what should be produced and how much of it

    if they can’t or won’t produce as much, what they will buy will change but what is bought can only be decided by a consumer

    so consumers drive demand

    people who have no money are not consumers

11. seppsters
    December 22nd, 2011 at 9:18 am

    More jabs for everyone.

12. fzqlcs
    December 22nd, 2011 at 9:23 am

    @shodanxx No. Production creates wealth. That wealth is used to hire workers and create jobs. When people have jobs and income that buy things, which stimulates economic activity. People cannot trade if they have no wealth. Consumption is the result of people having income, not the initial driver of prosperity. America’s focus must be to stimulate production, not on consumer spending. The tail does not wag the dog.

13. fzqlcs
    December 22nd, 2011 at 10:19 am

    @LDub01031994 Solyndra did pretty much that.

14. robvar83
    December 22nd, 2011 at 10:59 am

    RESTORING THE AMERICAN DREAM: Search for free millions of jobs on the largest #1 job site worldwide, with over 50 million unique visitors and 1 billion job searches per month and is available in more than 50 countries and 26 languages, covering 94% of global GDP. We have jobs in every state county and city in the US. Plus job and resume posting. Find the job that interest you today.

    To get started just Google ( Jobs Linked To You ) then start seraching millions of jobs.

15. Shonenut213
    December 22nd, 2011 at 11:33 am

    Arizona is NOT a “free-market” it is facist corporatism. The only reason their is so much private sector institutions there is because corporate cronies bribed government officials to destroy the corporations competition.

16. UtubeMyAccountName
    December 22nd, 2011 at 12:17 pm

    @shodanxx If the power is sold below cost, there is no way the (is it a corp or is it govt, you said corp this time) is making a profit. That’s what below cost means.
    This is a slush fund (the so-called trust fund).
    If it’s not the lowest cost way to provide energy, then how does it benefit everyone? How does it benefit anyone?
    I’m not making any judgments about the service, as I don’t know anything about it. I’m just pointing out logistical impossibilities.

17. shodanxx
    December 22nd, 2011 at 12:59 pm

    @UtubeMyAccountName
    because of it, everyone in Québec gets below cost electricity, both citizens and industry

    also the Hydroquebec corporation is profitable and recently
    it sold some of its investment at a profit and that was transferred to
    a “a trust fund set up by the province to alleviate the impact of public debt on future generations” (whatever that means ?)

    it might not be the lowest cost way to harness the energy but at least this way it directly benefits everyone

18. UtubeMyAccountName
    December 22nd, 2011 at 1:34 pm

    @shodanxx Do they allow competition? I mean is there a private alternative to compare prices. I mean if you have a monopoly on a service, it’s nearly impossible to not profit.
    Also, it was the Quebec taxpayer who built those hydroelectric power stations, not the Quebec govt. Which is another problem with govt services, you have to pay for them at least twice, and in many cases (like this one for example), continuingly. Not good.

19. shodanxx
    December 22nd, 2011 at 1:37 pm

    wait what, consumers don’t drive demand ARE YOU KIDDING ME ?

20. shodanxx
    December 22nd, 2011 at 1:49 pm

    @UtubeMyAccountName

    hmm, how about the government of Québec that built and maintain profitable hydroelectric power stations ?

    are not the people who work there gainfully employed ?

21. Itugen88
    December 22nd, 2011 at 1:59 pm

    Gary Johnson and Ron Paul should run together. For sure.
    Otherwise I’d say Paul/Napolitano.

22. groam6666
    December 22nd, 2011 at 2:43 pm

    I’m in the process of starting a small out of the home business. All the state and federal red tape is fine, but it’s the local ordinances that’s breaking my back. I have to go in front of the planning board to get the local license, which for them to hear about my wish to start a at home is business is 400 dollars, and that’s without the promise I’ll get their permission. The city agent I talked to told me to ignore the ordinance and try not to get caught..n

23. opacid
    December 22nd, 2011 at 2:57 pm

    David Callahan is a moron. I talked to owner of the local store about it. He had to hire an accountant to deal with this bullshit, and his prices went up. So he had to hire someone he didn’t need b4, but now we gotta pay more. That’s job creation? How about lowering taxes so people spend more, which creates more jobs, because they need to create more? No, let’s enforce the need for an unneeded job through government regulation. Retards…

Leave a Reply