The video of this one question is 1 min 53 sec long. You should watch it.
I will post the transcript just the same.
Transcript
LINDA McMAHON: A follow-up, Mr. Blumenthal. You've talked about you want to incentivize small businesses. Tell me something, how do you create a job?
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL: A job is created, and it can be in a variety of ways, by... a variety of people, but principally by people and businesses in response to demand for products and services. And the main point about jobs in Connecticut is we can and we should create more of them by creative policies. And that's the kind of approach that I want to bring to Washington.
I have stood up for jobs when they've been at stake. I stood up for jobs at Alderman Motors when GM wanted to shut down that automobile dealership. I stood up for jobs at Pratt & Whitney when that company wanted to ship them out of state and overseas. I stood up for jobs at Stanley Works when it was threatened with a hostile takeover.
I know about how government can help preserve jobs. And I want programs that provide more capital for small businesses, better tax policies that will promote creation of jobs, stronger intervention by government to make sure that we use the 'Made in America' policies and 'Buy America' policies to keep jobs here rather than buying products that are manufactured overseas, as WWE has done.
McMAHON: Government, government government.
Government does not create jobs. It's very simple how you create jobs. An entrepreneur takes a risk. He or she believes that he creates goods or service that is sold for more than it costs to make it. If an entrepreneur believes he can do that, he creates a job.
video can be seen here,
http://freedomeden.blogspot.com/2010/10/linda-mcmahon-dick-blumenthal-debate.html
"While Blumenthal fumbled and bumbled his way through a simple question, McMahon nailed it.
She clearly stated what's required for success in business -- freeing entrepreneurs rather than restricting them and making them slaves of government. She explains the difference between achieving the American Dream and being held back by a massive, all-controlling government.
Dependency on the government isn't a founding principle of our nation.
America is about freedom from oppressive government control.
Blumenthal is for big government and less personal power.
McMahon is for empowering the individual, what once was known as the American Way."
Originally posted by utherpendragonIt is an error to conflate “entrepreneur” with an individual. In, say, General Electric Corporation, who is “the” entrepreneur? Who has unequivocal authority to “take a risk”? Who is the residual claimant for profit—and loss? How about Bank of America? How about Mondragon?
[b]The video of this one question is 1 min 53 sec long. You should watch it.
I will post the transcript just the same.
Transcript
LINDA McMAHON: A follow-up, Mr. Blumenthal. You've talked about you want to incentivize small businesses. Tell me something, how do you create a job?
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL: A job is created, is for empowering the individual, what once was known as the American Way."[/i][/b][/b]
Publically-held business corporations essentially “collectivize” the entrepreneurial function (and diversify the risk across owners who may not themselves perform any entrepreneurial role). Similarly, there is no inherent reason that governments cannot perform entrepreneurial roles—whether they are socialist, fascist, democratic/republican, whatever: this is simply an economic question here. In a sole dictatorship, such a role may not be “collectivized”; in other forms of government, it will be. In a democratic republic, government managers are (or should be) ultimately answerable for economic losses to the electorate—just as the managers of a publically-held corporation are (or should be) ultimately answerable to the stockholders. In either case, due to the diffusion of “ownership” and the separation of “ownership” and (entrepreneurial) control, adjustments are cumbersome and subject to significant lags.
So, yes, governments can create and sustain jobs—and have. (Note that I am not referring to any specific government, or type of government, or historical example—though it is not difficult to cite some offhand, from antiquity to modernity.) If governments cannot, for some inherent economic reason, perform the entrepreneurial function, then neither can business “collectives” (of corporate or cooperative form). Relative success or failure is an empirical (not theoretical or ideological) question.
Originally posted by vistesd
It is an error to conflate “entrepreneur” with an individual. In, say, General Electric Corporation, who is “the” entrepreneur? Who has unequivocal authority to “take a risk”? Who is the residual claimant for profit—and loss? How about Bank of America? How about Mondragon?
Publically-held business corporations essentially “collectivize” the entrepren ...[text shortened]... e form). Relative success or failure is an empirical (not theoretical or ideological) question.
It is an error to conflate “entrepreneur” with an individual. In, say, General Electric Corporation, who is “the” entrepreneur? Originally posted by vistesd
Thomas Edison
Originally posted by vistesdAre you seriously suggesting, with a debt of $13 trillion, that the US government is being run by entrepreneurial government managers who view themselves as answerable for economic losses?
It is an error to conflate “entrepreneur” with an individual. In, say, General Electric Corporation, who is “the” entrepreneur? Who has unequivocal authority to “take a risk”? Who is the residual claimant for profit—and loss? How about Bank of America? How about Mondragon?
Publically-held business corporations essentially “collectivize” the entrepren ...[text shortened]... e form). Relative success or failure is an empirical (not theoretical or ideological) question.
Originally posted by utherpendragonYes, I understand the historical basis (and that there are other individual entrepreneurs out there). The question is: do the corporations that are the inheritors of that continue to perform any further entrepreneurial function? How long after Edison (or any other) do we credit current job creation to that one person? Do we credit any corporate business with job creation? (I think we do.)How about Bank of America?
A. P. Giannini,
I'm really not interested in a debate between "government and Edison" (or GE and Thomas Jefferson), but the question of entrepreneurial function in corporate/collective organizations.
Originally posted by spruce112358No. I am suggesting (1) that governments can perform an entrepeneurial function, and (2) that governments can, and have, created jobs.
Are you seriously suggesting, with a debt of $13 trillion, that the US government is being run by entrepreneurial government managers who view themselves as answerable for economic losses?
Now, (1) may depend on whether or not any collective/corporation can perform entrepreneurial functions (that is, one argument would be that they cannot).
What I said was that, in a democratic republic form of government the "managers" are or should be ultimately answerable to the public, for all economic policies. They are if they can be unelected for their faults. I am not saying that they don't attempt to escape that.
Would you suggest that the managers of Enron viewed themselves as diligent managers who were answerable to the owners? The most rigorous market view does not say that managers are all honest or diligent, or that all entrepreneurs succeed or do not make egregious errors; the most rigorous market analysis says that they will be answerable--disciplined--in the long run. The more extensive and complex the organization, the longer the long run is apt to be; with regard to the government, it is likely to be no less than an election cycle, and likely more. But that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
I am also not arguing that any corporate/collective can peform the entrepreneurial function as efficiently as an individual sole proprieter. I thought that was implicit in my mention of cumbersomeness and time lags. On the national level, dictatorship may be more efficient than a democracy (Mussolini did make the trains run on time).
EDIT: The fact that any given government, at any given time, fails in its entrepreneurial endeavors is no more an argument against my thesis than the failure of any individual entrepreneur would be an argument against entrepreneurship per se. Just as the failure of any given business corporation is an argument that no business corporation can succeed.
Originally posted by vistesdThe entrepreneur had the vision. The entrepreneur started GE and Bank of America.
Yes, I understand the historical basis (and that there are other individual entrepreneurs out there). The question is: do the corporations that are the inheritors of that continue to perform any further entrepreneurial function? How long after Edison (or any other) do we credit current job creation to that one person? Do we credit any corporate business ...[text shortened]... fferson), but the question of entrepreneurial function in corporate/collective organizations.
Not a Government bureaucrat.
If not for the original entrepreneur these mega corporations who employee hundreds of thousands,such as GE and Bank of America would not exist.
Originally posted by utherpendragonOkay, so once they exist. Is it your argument that no entrepreneurial function is performed by the "bureacrats" of a large corporation? (That would be an interesting argument, and I'd give it due thought.) If so, how do any such corporations currently create jobs? Or do they?
The entrepreneur had the vision. The entrepreneur started GE and Bank of America.
Not a Government bureaucrat.
If not for the original entrepreneur these mega corporations who employee hundreds of thousands,such as GE and Bank of America would not exist.
I'm not interested in debating points here, Uther. I think it's an interesting discussion. In our current economic environment, I think that large corporations can't simple be treated as if they were single-propieterships run by one individual entrepreneur--and that is the alternative to government functions.
Still, I don't think you can deny that governments (efficiently or inefficiently) create jobs. You might argue that they cannot do it as efficiently as ungoverned markets, but that is not what was claimed in the OP.
Originally posted by vistesdI agree, government does "create" government jobs. As inefficient as they are.
Okay, so once they exist. Is it your argument that no entrepreneurial function is performed by the "bureacrats" of a large corporation? (That would be an interesting argument, and I'd give it due thought.) If so, how do any such corporations currently create jobs? Or do they?
I'm not interested in debating points here, Uther. I think it's an interest ...[text shortened]... t do it as efficiently as ungoverned markets, but that is not what was claimed in the OP.
But not the type of jobs (private sector) that stimulates an economy as the OP was referring too.
Okay, I’ve got to pack it in for the night. I’ll try to check in the next day or so. If you really wanted to focus on something other than the nature of entrepreneurship, then I don’t want to hijack your thread over that point. I would be interested in your thoughts on entrepreneurship in a publicly-held corporation with separation of (diffuse) ownership and managerial control—especially if your coming from an Austrian School perspective.
Originally posted by utherpendragonAh, we cross-posted. The question is: in what sense are private-sector jobs more "stimulating" than public-sector jobs, per se? That seems to be a long debate among partisans of different economic schools of thought. (I recall Henry Hazlitt, long ago, making an argument along your lines...)
I agree, government does "create" government jobs. As inefficient as they are.
But not the type of jobs (private sector) that stimulates an economy as the OP was referring too.
Again, got to pack it in, now. Sorry if I hijacked your thread; I've just been working on this stuff recently, and the give and take is helpful.
Originally posted by utherpendragonLOL.
[b]The video of this one question is 1 min 53 sec long. You should watch it.
I will post the transcript just the same.
Transcript
LINDA McMAHON: A follow-up, Mr. Blumenthal. You've talked about you want to incentivize small businesses. Tell me something, how do you create a job?
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL: A job is created, ...[text shortened]... is for empowering the individual, what once was known as the American Way."[/i][/b][/b]
Uh, Dick, a simple "I don't know" would have sufficed.