Hillary Clinton on Jobs: Governments Make Them

According to Hillary Clinton, businesses do not create jobs.

I know Clinton is a Leftist (or a power-hungry climber who finds support in Leftist rhetoric), but I still can’t believe she said it:

“Don’t let anybody tell you, you know, it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs. You know that old theory, ‘trickle-down economics? That has been tried, that has failed. It has failed rather spectacularly.

“You know, one of the things my husband says when people say ‘Well, what did you bring to Washington,’ he said, ‘Well, I brought arithmetic’”

How can a rational person respond to a slogan that is so delusional? It signals that speakers and applauding listeners are engaged in their own fantasy and are at war with anyone who would remind them of reality. The pretense that Bill Clinton was loyal to arithmetic is just a pretense coating a daydream. (See this NY Times story for the context of her remarks.)

hillary oligarchy

[See also: “CNN Whitewashes Congress, Dems; Pretends Government Creates Wealth.]

First of all, if “trickle down” is so wrong, then why does Hillary endorse it? Pushing interest rates through the floor so that Wall Street can make lots of money in the hope that the people on Wall Street will invest in jobs is precisely the policy that the Federal Reserve has been ardently pursuing. This has been the economic suicide policy under George W. Bush and Barack Obama. See George Will’s stellar analysis on this point.

Obama’s speech denounced “trickle-down ideology” and deplored growth that “has flowed to a fortunate few.” But the monetary policy he favors — very low interest rates, driving money into equities in search of higher yields — is a powerful engine of inequality. Since the Dow closed at 7,949 on Inauguration Day 2009, it has doubled , benefiting the 10 percent who hold 80 percent of directly owned stocks. The hope is that some of this wealth will trickle down.

If a tenth of the people own four fifths of the directly-owned stocks, then Quantitative Easing and Below Zero interest rates are a way of directly dumping money into their pockets.

Hillary is of the same kind of faithful Wall Street bulldog. She is obviously and openly bought and paid for by the big banks. The way the media and the Democrats obscure the issue (in an obvious and transparent way that no one has any excuse for believing) is by pretending that all wealthy people get and maintain their wealth in the same way. But there is a super-rich subculture that would be more than happy to pay a pittance in higher tax rates while continuing to get “economically stimulated” by the Political-Banking complex. A handful of welfare benefits are just a bribe to allow them to continue to destroy the economy and enrich themselves.

Technically, of course, it is customers who create jobs. But someone has to foresee the customers’ desires. That is a risky prediction to make. So many of those who think they can forecast consumer demand will find out that they were wrong and lose money. Someone has to be willing to take a risk and make an investment in production. Thus, while customers create jobs in the abstract, in practical experience the role belongs to entrepreneurs.

This brings us to another issue that Clinton’s delusional speech can’t explain. From the time a business opens until it closes in bankruptcy, the employees continue to get paid. Amazon was not a profitable company for years and years, but the employees were still paid a regular salary. So not only do businesses create jobs, they even do it at a loss in some cases. Of course, it only lasts as long as they can hope and try to turn a profit, but most of that risk never touches the employee—again, it only affects them at the point of layoffs or business closings.

Clinton seems to think that government creates jobs. But that would be the ultimate trickle-down economics. The government gathers all money and power to itself on the theory that prosperity and empowerment will trickle down to the middle- and lower-classes.

That “trickle-down economics” ought to be rejected.