Hacker News Reader

Comment by skrowl | Hacker News Reader

Job creation is the ultimate philanthropy. A handout lasts until you spend it, but a job is lasting income.

The idea that rich people create jobs is a pernicious myth. Rich people don't create jobs. Only increasing demand creates jobs.

And new ideas can create demand that didn't previously exist.

Clearly the truth is exactly on one extreme or the other and fits exactly into one of the two dominant political narratives.

Wrong. Tesla and SpaceX employ many thousands of people. Elon keeps his wealth as equity in these companies, and not as cash. This is producing far more jobs than your Socialist redistribution schemes.

Musk actually seems like a pretty good example of a wealthy guy creating jobs that probably wouldn't have existed, if Musk didn't have the money to risk on his vision.

> Socialist redistribution schemes

Is Elon a Socialist or Fascist for the ~$500M Tesla got from the DoE or ~$2B from NASA to prop up that welfare space program?

So explain the credit crisis?

All savers, even if they aren't founders/owners of companies themselves, create jobs by keeping their money in the financial system. Whether by owning stocks, bonds, private equity funds, or savings accounts, the resources are allocated to where they are needed most. When that whole system dries up, you get a credit crisis.

Obviously, yes, demand is important. Confidence crises can wreak havoc.. but simply saying demand is the only thing that's important is ludicrous when dealing with such a complex and dynamic system.

What relevance does the credit crisis have?

Pointing out that markets require liquidity has nothing to do with the fact that there needs to be some sort of real economic value to sustain jobs.

It's not just rich people handing out jobs and deciding whether or not we should keep factories or companies open or not.

Capital is part of markets (granted a vital part). It's not the only, nor the most important part.

Never said it was the only part. My point was that when credit dries up, jobs are lost.... i.e., supply causing problems.

Lots of reasons for why credit can dry up, but the idea that jobs are only a function of demand is ludicrous.

> So explain the credit crisis?

A bunch of bankers conspired to defraud credulous investors by selling them worthless mortgages as A-rated investments. This massive influx of capital into a non-productive sector of the economy nearly caused the entire system to collapse. These bankers then used the political influence bought with the money they made in order to shift the cost of their fraud onto the taxpayer.

Really, it's not that hard to understand. The only thing that is hard to understand is what this question has to do with the matter at hand.

Your entire understanding of the credit crisis is deeply flawed.

1) Savers do not create jobs. Spenders create jobs. When you get a situation where people would rather save their money than spend it (ie. Japan) then you get deflation, and the economy contracts leading to lost jobs. This is why Japan is trying desperately to increase inflation through Abenomics.

2) To explain the credit crisis would take a lot more than just a few paragraphs, but your fundamental statement that it was caused because people stopped parking their money in financial instruments is just wrong.

Your understanding of my point is deeply flawed.

1) Saving in itself does not create jobs, but savers allow for jobs to be created.

2) Not my fundamental statement at all.. My point was that the supply of credit (significantly shrunk due to reasons beyond a few paragraphs) can kill jobs.

I'm a right-wing-leaning centrist, and I do not believe in the trickle down theory that you are implying. Making rich people richer, and allowing poorer people to feed off of the morsels and crumbs leftover does not create a balanced society. There will always be rich people, and there will always be poor people, but thinking that if you bias towards the rich people society will somehow get better is a horrible delusion.

I don't think anyone figures it makes the most balanced society, they just see it as the most realistic way to help the people at the bottom of the structure. Basically applying "Rising tide lifts all boats" in the opposite direction as the liberals, tops-down instead of bottoms-up.

Based on every single piece of study, this is categorically false. The only people that have benefited, most recently since the credit crisis, was the rich. That means that the "rising tide" barely lifts poor peoples' boats, while it raises rich people's boats significantly. If that were the case, then do you still think that trickle down economics is worthwhile? Or is there a more efficient allocation scheme where poor people benefit just as much as rich people?

You're cherry picking a period which actually helps to make sliverstorm's point: The last few years have been categorized by significant increases in taxes, and regulatory burden, which cause uncertainty in the business environment and more pain for the middle class.

Unfortunately, historically, all the evidence supports the 'rising tide lifts all boats' argument. While growth 'at the bottom' has slowed compared to the top, it's still growing. There are plenty of theories for why this is the case, but the data is is there.

So presumably if billionaires reinvest the wealth they have accumulated in new jobs rather than keeping it to themselves then we will live in a better society? (At least in your model)

Paying for something to be done isn't necessarily job creation, though it beats hoarding

Well, a variety of charity work could generate jobs in their respective fields.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com