I did not watch the video. I did check out some sites of Nick Hanauer’s

http://nick-hanauer.com/

http://truepat.org/

I disagree with viewing "fair" by how much is taken from a group as a percentage. "The "rich" pay less of their income as a percentage, that isn’t fair." I prefer to view how much is contributed. I know it varies some from year to year, but year in year out the top 5% of income tax filers pay more than 50% of the income tax collected. That seems to me like the "rich" are contributing more than their "fair" share.

I also disagree with his underlying premise that big government is good. Instead of increasing taxes on the rich to support the current level of governemnt, reduce the size of government so the "non-rich" will pay at the same rate as the rich. My personal experience and observation is that government is inefficient.

Mr Hanauer has shown he can create or increase value. He has shown he can increase pillow value with his involvement in Pacific Coast Feather Company. While involved with that company it grew substantially. I am guessing they hired at least 1 or 2 employees growing from several million to $300 million dollars in sales.

He has shown he can create framing value by founding Museum Quality Framing Company. Unless he is personally driving around to their 60 locations with a mitre saw and a truckload of wood, he directly created jobs.

During his involvement with Amazon.com from 1995 to 2000 they created distribution value. And Amazon hired thousands of people during that time.

Mr Hanauer could create more jobs with his money more effectively than the government. I’m not saying he has to buy 365 shirts or pants every year to create more jobs. That’s just silly.

If he thinks education is lacking, he can take his money and create a school. He can use that school to experiment with teaching techniques. If he finds a way to teach better he can then share that information with the world so everyone can improve their own school systems. Oh and in the process he will create jobs.

It’s late here so I’m stopping for now.

I find Nick’s logic flawed.

He says he’s not a job creator, but I’m sure he has a team of lawyers & tax accountants he supports. Granted they don’t produce anything of value, but they are jobs nonetheless. I’m really tired of "the rich" saying "my taxes are too low". Then stop taking all the deductions or cut the IRS a check for what you feel is fair. If he really believes government is the best vehicle to create fairness, then put up or shut up. I would like someone to explain how giving the government more money (tax the rich) creates jobs.

There is more than just being a consumer to job creation. Was he paid to give that speech? What about the venue, the backstage crew, lights & sound crew, roadies, people that cleaned the place afterwards. Those people’s jobs were a direct result of him. Or do those not count as jobs? Does he do his own yardwork, or does he have a landscaping crew. Who services and maintains cars? Does he travel at all? What does he eat for dinner, Top Ramen or Kobe beef? Just because he doesn’t own 3000 cars or buy 300 pair of pants in a year doesn’t mean there aren’t people who depend on him and his money for their livelihood.

Being allowed to keep the money one has rightfully earned (no matter what income level) should not be demonized. Comparing the difference between the highest paid and the middle class is not a winning argument. I’m sure most of the high earner work more than the 40 hours a week most middle class workers do. If I’m entitled to some of their income, then in all fairness they should be entitled to some of my time. After all, money is really just an exchange of some my finite time on the earth. If I can get more money for the same amount of time, then I richer than someone who commands less because of their skill set.

Last point is that EVERY job I have ever had, I have worked for someone with more money than me (ie rich). I can’t think of anyone that has ever gotten a job from a poor person.

His first argument, as I understand, on this segment is want creates jobs. That business to be better able to fulfill those wants is forced to hire. Am I getting him correctly? While I’ve not heard it stated this way he is correct, coming at it from the back door in my opinion. Want or the lack of something is what business responds to. You find something that everyone wants but no one builds and you have filled a nitch with your company. Timex Watches being a prime example of that.

At a time when everyone wanted a wrist watch but few could afford one Timex came up with a way to manufacture them for pennies. Sure it discombobulated after a year but who gave a crap, you bought another. You had your watch and Timex made millions making and selling them.

His second argument is that Government, via Taxation, rises up the middle and lower classes. Reducing the amount of wealth the Uber Rich have and redistribute it to the less fortunate. And this makes Government the one fulfilling their needs, the business “Making”, jobs responding in a last ditch effort to the needs and demands of its customers, us.

Isn’t this Social Welfare by any other description? What he advocates in this talk is the Robinhood syndrome (my new name for Socialism). Taxation and Regulation to enrich the less fortunate, making the world “Fair”. A level playing field for all…. FAIR….Down with the mean wealthy, up with the filthy masses. Fair.

“Fair”, this is one of the most overused words in our language. I believe it’s the most Obscene of all four letter words and should be banished right along with all the others the “PC” mongers have seen fit to exile. It’s now used to validate thievery sanctioned and perpetuated by governments on their people. But that’s for a different diatribe.

So, exactly what is he suggesting Government start manufacturing to meet the needs of its customer base. It must produce something to justify responding in that “Last Ditch” manner he talks about. Are these jobs going to be …. Wait …. Don’t I remember the left decrying efforts to make the “Less Fortunate” actually work for their share of the Dole. Yes by god that’s exactly what happened when Utah started making recipient’s work for the general good. It was inhumane and damaged their fragile self-esteem. Being out there, sweeping streets and picking up trash. Demeaning them to maybe want to do something drastic like get a job. Oops, there’s another four letter word.

The only other thing left is for Government to expand welfare. Come to a decision on what constitutes a “Fair” level of “Earnings” (there’s another play on words) and institute that as the Minimum take home. Christ, we may actually get money back rather than having to pay year after year on our measly 107 large.

What’s it going to be, are we going to be indentured to those on the bottom or are we going to be free to grab the golden ring and keep it.

Hell there’s no clear definition, politically, of Rich. We keep asking the Pol’s, what is rich. How much do you have to make to get into that vilified segment of the population? Is it just that ½ of 1 percent at the very top? Or are those making 200 large also rich, or 100 or 75. Answer that question and we have a place to start the discussion.

Isn’t California discussing taxing held Assets (Real Estate and personal property) over a million currently as a way out of their troubles? Is that what constitutes a Millionaire.

I guess I’m saying this guy is nothing new, more of the same. Feel good with no substance. If he really thinks this way my advice would be to write a check. The IRS accepts contributions as well as taxes paid.

I think the argument is government as the primary source of job creation or private industry. I also think the argument is whether the rich should pay more because they earn more.

I love the idea of greater taxes for the rich. I also think government is far more important to the average citizen than business is. That is just my opinion.

"RadicalP" wrote: I think the argument is government as the primary source of job creation or private industry. I also think the argument is whether the rich should pay more because they earn more.

I love the idea of greater taxes for the rich. I also think government is far more important to the average citizen than business is. That is just my opinion.

Flesh it out, why do you think as you do. To say it is one thing to defend it is another. Convince us that your right.

"RadicalP" wrote: I think the argument is government as the primary source of job creation or private industry. I also think the argument is whether the rich should pay more because they earn more.

I love the idea of greater taxes for the rich. I also think government is far more important to the average citizen than business is. That is just my opinion.

The "rich" certainly do pay more in actual dollars and as a percentage of their income. How much of the money that I EARN do you feel entitled to? 10%,50%,100%?

The posts so far have skipped over two valid points Nick briefly mentioned.

1. Consumers create demand for services or goods, the volume of this demand determines the size of the workforce employed to economically meet the demand and show a reasonable profit for the company. The company that has developed an effective sales program will increase sales [demand] and at some point require additional employees. I believe this is called capitalism.

2. Spiraling cost of consumer goods, The reasons for increasing costs for services or salable goods are far too numerous to list but I would wager the primary is the desire for more money. The employe wants better wages, the manager {s} want increased profits, The government wants more in taxes, etc.

I have to say I am loving the dialogue being discussed in this post. It is also good to hear the viewpoint from so many different people. I’m just going to touch on a couple of different replies to the posting.

"Stephen C" wrote:
I guess I’m saying this guy is nothing new, more of the same. Feel good with no substance. If he really thinks this way my advice would be to write a check. The IRS accepts contributions as well as taxes paid.

Like most of us that works, I’m sure he does write a check to the IRS because that is one of the two things we must all eventually do – pay taxes and die. However, I am wondering why you say there was no substance to what he says. Don’t you agree that there would be no business without consumers to purchase goods. I don’t care how great of a business person you are without customers you won’t be in business for long. And that is what grabbed me about his speech. When you say why isn’t the GDP growing or why isn’t the economy growing? Using his analogy we currently have millions of job creators lacking funds because the don’t have jobs. Now before some of you go blaming Obama for the problem, I just want to stay on this topic for a minute. If the consumers don’t have money, they won’t be able to purchase a business’ products. Most smart business managers/owners will only hire the minimum number of employees they need to employ to stay in business and only when the demand for their product can’t be met with the employees will they have to hire a few more employees. Hence, I believe the gentleman just might have a point – that you and I not the wealthy are job creators. Business owners either gain their funds for building their businesses from banks or shares in their stocks (both of are usually made up of middle class families and the rich). The wealthy are being touted as the top 2% of Americans and as Nick pointed out he only owns three car not three thousands. That would be the common man that purchased most of the vehicles being purchased in our country. We the middle class and the poor are the engine that makes this country run. At least that is what I believe Nick was saying in his speech. Which I found as an interesting concept.

"Chuckman" wrote:
I disagree with viewing "fair" by how much is taken from a group as a percentage. "The "rich" pay less of their income as a percentage, that isn’t fair." I prefer to view how much is contributed. I know it varies some from year to year, but year in year out the top 5% of income tax filers pay more than 50% of the income tax collected. That seems to me like the "rich" are contributing more than their "fair" share.

If he thinks education is lacking, he can take his money and create a school. He can use that school to experiment with teaching techniques. If he finds a way to teach better he can then share that information with the world so everyone can improve their own school systems. Oh and in the process he will create jobs.

I have heard this stated about several different individuals, yet I haven’t see one individual provide proof to back up this statement about the top tier Americans pay more in taxes than anyone else. On average yes, Donald Trump definitely pays more tax dollars to the government than I do. However, I believe since their are so few of them compared to the rest of us, I find it unlikely that the top 2% pay more than the 98%. I like facts, show me some facts – not more repeated statements. As for him using his money to build schools, how do you know he isn’t. Look at people like the Gates and Mr. Buffett, they put their money where their month is, however, it doesn’t mean that they have to give away their every penny in order to use their first amendment rights.

I don’t think most people are resentful of the rich. I know I’m not. I admire people who take their ideas and go out to create a business. We need them for sure. However, I don’t know why the ultra wealthy complain about taxes. Obama has lowered taxes since several times since he has come into office – that’s a fact that is easy to check. The top 2% are paying some of the lowest taxes they have every paid and still Romney want to pay even less. And I want you to think about one more thing. Mitt Romney paid approximately 14% in taxes on his capital gains. Which has been reported out that he really paid less than that because he used so many tax loopholes and money stashed away that he really isn’t paying that much. Most Americans (poor and middle class alike) can’t use half of those loopholes. We need to talk about tax reform – really.

I’ve already stated that he’s correct without a market for your goods there’s no reason to make them. I disagree with the premise that you tax the haves giving it to the have nots as a way of jump starting the economic cycle. It turns into a vicious circle. Government does not create jobs. Again Government creates nothing, it manufactures nothing. Government can only take. And Government can only turn people into dependent slaves. 47% +- of all working age people, not working for the Government (Legislative, Judicial or Administration), are recieving monthly checks from the Government for some program or the other.

When that number gets above 50%, as I beleive the Liberals want, you and I the ones working for a living will become slaves to those unwilling to provide for themselves.

"Devilique" wrote: I find it unlikely that the top 2% pay more than the 98%. I like facts, show me some facts – not more repeated statements..

Go here for charts and graphs that show how much of the overall tax burden falls on the upper tiers … http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2704794/posts
In short these charts clearly show that in 2007 the upper 10% paid 71% of all Federal Income Taxes. The Top 1% paid almost 25%. and the bottom 40% paid nothing, zip zilch nada. Did you know what if you make 100 large your in the top 25% and at 150 you punched thru the 93 percentile fast approaching 94. I’m in the top 6 % and didn’t know it. No God Damn wonder they take so much from me, I’m rich and didn’t know it, go figure.

As for you assertion that Barry has cut taxes to the Rich and upper middle, I’ll throw the Bull Shit flag. Cite chapter and verse. Give me what you want which is proof.

Here, I’ll make it easy this is a list of all the Individual cuts that were contained it one of the Stimulus bills. Not a one was aimed at the REAL middle class, well maybe #8 if you could afford to buy a new car.

Individual Tax Cuts:

1. "Making Work Pay" Tax Credit (Sec. 1001, Page 195). In tax years 2009 and 2010, the Making Work Pay provision will provide a refundable tax credit of 6.2 percent of earned income up to $400 for individuals and up to $800 for married taxpayers filing joint returns.

2. Increase in the Earned Income Tax Credit (Sec. 1002, Page 198). Go to the stimulus bill for all the details, but it essentially expands this benefit for the working poor.

3. Increased Eligibility for the Refundable Portion of Child Credit (Sec. 1003, Page 199). In 2009 and 2010, families who don’t earn enough to pay income tax would be eligible to claim the $1,000 child credit.

4. "American Opportunity" Education Tax Credit (Sec. 1004, Page 199). Increases the Hope Scholarship Credit to $2,500.

5. Refundable First-time Home Buyer Credit. (Sec. 1006, Page 202). This extended and increased the first-time home buyer tax credit from $7,500 to $8,000.

6. Temporary Suspension of Taxation of Unemployment Benefits (Sec. 1007, Page 203). This exempts from taxable gross income the first $2,400 of unemployment benefits.

7. Tax Credits for Energy-Efficient Improvements to Existing Homes (Sec. 1121, Page 208). This provides up to a $1,500 tax credit for qualified energy efficiency improvements.

8. Sales Tax Deduction for Vehicle Purchases (Sec. 1008, Page 203). This allows people to write off state and local sales taxes related to the purchase of a new vehicle costing up to $49,500.

9. Premium Credits for COBRA Continuation Coverage for Unemployed Workers (Sec. 6432, Page 348)

10. Economic Recovery Credits to Recipients of Social Security, SSI, Railroad Retirement and Veterans Disability Compensation Benefits (Sec. 2201, Page 336). This was a $250 payment for senior citizens, disabled veterans and disabled people living on Social Security benefits.

11. Computers as Qualified Education Expenses in 529 Education Plans (Sec. 1005, Page 202). This allows college students to write off the expense of computers and software, provided it’s for educational purpose and not for games.

12. Plug-in Electric Drive Vehicle Credit (Sec. 1141, Page 212). Allows purchasers of plug-in electric vehicles to write off up to $5,000 of their purchase (depending on the power of the battery).

13. Tax Parity for Transit Benefits (sec. 1151, Page 219). This relates to an increased exclusion amount for commuter transit benefits and transit passes.

14. Health Coverage Tax Credit Expansion (Sec. 1899, Page 309).

Now where are the Tax cuts for the rich and upper middle class in all of this. And don’t try to include the Bush Tax Cut Extensions in this bit. It wasn’t a cut, you can’t cut what your not getting to begin with. He would have had to let them expire and then brought them back naming them the Barry Tax Cuts.

"Devilique" wrote:
I have heard this stated about several different individuals, yet I haven’t see one individual provide proof to back up this statement about the top tier Americans pay more in taxes than anyone else.

2009 top 5% paid 59% of income tax collected

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/09inratesnap.pdf

2008 top 5% paid 59% of income taxes

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/08inratesharesnap.pdf

2007 top 5% paid 60.6% of income tax collected

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/10winbulinincome.pdf

2006 top 5% paid 60.1% of income tax collected

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/09winbulinincome.pdf

2005 top 5% paid 59.7% of income tax collected

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/05inrate.pdf

"Devilique" wrote: As for him using his money to build schools, how do you know he isn’t. Look at people like the Gates and Mr. Buffett, they put their money where their month is, however, it doesn’t mean that they have to give away their every penny in order to use their first amendment rights.

I mentioned education because he is involved in it.

http://nick-hanauer.com/

If he founded the Nick Hanauer School of Innovation of Issaquah, WA he probably would have mentioned it.

Mr Hanauer has a track record of increasing value in the businesses he has been involved with.

Government has a track record of doing a poor job of the majority of things they are involved with.

If he is concerned with education, create a better school. Make it a for profit school. Gather investors. Gather resources to create a better way to teach. Produce a better product: an educated student. Then if he is feeling generous give away his blueprint for free so other schools both public and private can better themselves through the increased value he created.

I disagree with him. I never said or suggested he doesn’t have the right to advocate his beliefs.

I have enjoyed all of these posts and am delighted to read intelligent discussions. 😀

"Stephen C" wrote: [quote="Devilique"]I find it unlikely that the top 2% pay more than the 98%. I like facts, show me some facts – not more repeated statements..

Go here for charts and graphs that show how much of the overall tax burden falls on the upper tiers … http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2704794/posts ….As for you assertion that Barry has cut taxes to the Rich and upper middle, I’ll throw the Bull Shit flag. Cite chapter and verse. Give me what you want which is proof.

I’m sorry, but I’m trying to stay away from partisan websites so I’m not even going to address the information you found on the freerepublic.com site. However, irs.gov is a different story.

"Chuckman" wrote: [quote="Devilique"]
I have heard this stated about several different individuals, yet I haven’t see one individual provide proof to back up this statement about the top tier Americans pay more in taxes than anyone else.

2009 top 5% paid 59% of income tax collected

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/09inratesnap.pdf

…..

You’re pointing to the top 5%. The President is talking about letting the Bush tax cut expire on the top 2% and if I were to look at the irs.gov pages you have listed most have the top 1% paying less than 20% of the taxes taken in with the bottom 50% paying over less than 15% with the rest being paid by people in the middle. Given you example I wouldn’t say the wealthy are paying most of the taxes and since most have accountants that find loopholes to hide the bulk of their assets, I would say they are paying as much as most of us that can reap the benefits of most of those loophole and have to pay payroll taxes and states taxes on most of our purchases.

"Stephen C" wrote:
Now where are the Tax cuts for the rich and upper middle class in all of this. And don’t try to include the Bush Tax Cut Extensions in this bit. It wasn’t a cut, you can’t cut what your not getting to begin with. He would have had to let them expire and then brought them back naming them the Barry Tax Cuts.

I can’t say I agree with you on this one. He could have let them expire two years ago, which would have raised their taxes so I do count them as a tax break for the rich. A two year reprieve. However, I didn’t say he lowered it for the wealthy I only stated that he did lower the taxes. Now he wants to extend the tax breaks for 98% of American and the Republicans want to hold those 98% hostage for the benefits of the top 2%; by the why that includes most of them – funny how that works out.

I wonder if anyone remembers the 90s when President Clinton tax rates left American with a SURPLUS which he handed over the to President Bush (43). President Bush said American needed to give the top tax bracket a tax break and in turn it would trickle down to the poor. He didn’t mention that it would add hundred of millions to the deficit which is still occurring. Had we only kept the Clinton tax rate we would be a lot better off than we are. If it wasn’t for the Afghanistan and Iraq war the Clinton tax rates would have us way closer to being deficit free. But, no need in going way back there because we are where we are and we have to find a way to fix our current situation.

"Devilique" wrote: I can’t say I agree with you on this one. He could have let them expire two years ago, which would have raised their taxes so I do count them as a tax break for the rich. A two year reprieve. However, I didn’t say he lowered it for the wealthy I only stated that he did lower the taxes. Now he wants to extend the tax breaks for 98% of American and the Republicans want to hold those 98% hostage for the benefits of the top 2%; by the why that includes most of them – funny how that works out.

I find it amazing that your willing to give this guy credit for keeping these cuts in place when he fought tooth and nail to allow them to expire. It was only thru the insistence of the Republicans that they are still with us. Remarkable. I guess he was directly responsible for the Iraqi troop surge working as well. A policy he fought against while in the Senate. Strange how it worked in spite of him and the Democrats. What was it ole Horse face Hillary called General Petraus again. Oh yea, he personally killed Osama as well.

and yet you want nothing to do with accurate Data because it might come from a not left leaning think tank. If the data is inaccurate show me where. Again name your sources please. You asked for data, I provide it and you discount it without even trying to disqualify it. Wow………………..

If you want to go back to Clinton tax rate, then you have to also go back to Clinton spending levels. You can’t have it both ways.

BTW part of what made Clinton successful was gridlock. When politicians can’t agree on how to spend my money, its good for my wallet.

My earlier statement was the top 5% of income tax filers consistently pay more than 50% of the income tax collected. I backed up my statement.

"Stephen C" wrote:
I find it amazing that your willing to give this guy credit for keeping these cuts in place when he fought tooth and nail to allow them to expire. It was only thru the insistence of the Republicans that they are still with us. Remarkable. I guess he was directly responsible for the Iraqi troop surge working as well. A policy he fought against while in the Senate. Strange how it worked in spite of him and the Democrats. What was it ole Horse face Hillary called General Petraus again. Oh yea, he personally killed Osama as well.

and yet you want nothing to do with accurate Data because it might come from a not left leaning think tank. If the data is inaccurate show me where. Again name your sources please. You asked for data, I provide it and you discount it without even trying to disqualify it. Wow………………..

Yes, I am because the Republicans Congressmen and women can’t force the President to sign legislation, they can acquire 2/3 of the votes needs to get around him, but they can’t make him sign it. But what did he get in return for sign the extension, the repeal act of "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" and he got Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act. Name calling won’t make your right so I just can’t understand why you insistent on hurling insults, they are truly beneath you and not beneficial to a good dialogue. He didn’t personally kill Osama, however, he did fulfill a campaign promise that if he had creditable information as the President he would give the order to kill Osama even if it meant he had to invade a foreign country’s border without their permission. It took a lot hard work from both DoD civilian and military personnel to collect and analysis the data needed and present it to the president and his cabinet in order to make an informed decision. Had the Navy Seals mission gone bad like it did for President Carter in Iran and President Clinton in Somalia he wouldn’t even dream about re-election. As it stands, he is more hawkish than President Bush was; which totally takes the Democrats can’t protect American slogan away from Republicans.

As far as the data from the freerepublic.com goes, the reason I didn’t want to discuss the charts is because they did not have any citation stating where the data was coming from they were the displayed in the charts. I too can create a website and post charts displaying any data I want to put in them to make my point, but it doesn’t make it accurate. The irs.gov I believe would be accurate because it is an official site for tax information since they actually collect the taxes.

Also when I looked at the home page for freerepublic.com I found SEO tags such as "BangList Aliens StatesRights WOT HomosexualAgenda GlobalWarming Corruption Taxes Congress Elections Fraud MediaBias GovtAbuse Tyranny Obama NaturalBornCitizen FastandFurious GunRunner ACORN TalkRadio CopyrightList Rally WalterReed TeaParty TeaPartyExpress TeaPartyRebellion FreeperBookClub RINOFreeAmerica RomneyTruthFile Elections." This makes me think the site may have some bias. I am trying to stay away from left or right websites that have their own agendas.

"sevenout" wrote: If you want to go back to Clinton tax rate, then you have to also go back to Clinton spending levels. You can’t have it both ways.

BTW part of what made Clinton successful was gridlock. When politicians can’t agree on how to spend my money, its good for my wallet.

Are you saying you are willing to go back to the Clinton tax rate if Democrats agree to curtail spending to the Clinton spending levels? I would hope that if the offer were really put on the table, that both sides would really sit down at a table and use that dirty word Speaker Boehner said he refuses to say – compromise. The republicans will never go for it. When the President tried to come up with a grand bargain with Speaker Boehner in cutting the deficits and cutting back on some of the spending the speaker couldn’t or wouldn’t do it. Every time the President tries to meet Republicans in the middle of even to the right of the middle that put their hands out as if to shake his hand and then just as he is reaching for it they slap him in the face. For instance the Affordable Care Act (ACA). A lot of the things in the health care act were Republicans ideas. It just kills me how the Republicans keep saying Repeal and Replace and yet when asked what will they replace it with they can’t say. Just that they want to start all over again. My next post will address demonstrate just how similar the ACA is to the health care proposal the Republicans say they want to see pass.

If gridlock is what you like then your pockets should be really heavy by now because it is gridlock you are getting. Only it is the American people that is suffering now. The House of Representatives has not even discussing any bills on creating jobs; instead they keep bring up abortion bills, repeal and replace health care bills. Soon they will be taking another break (I believe this will make their 10 week of break this year). Where are the jobs bills? Gridlock its hard at work.

I have to say you guys are really making me do some work trying to address all of your points. Thanks for the education

Back to the original premise that consumers (middle class) are the job creators not the business owners (the rich). This is really the tail wagging the dog. The old saying is "build a better mousetrap" not "buy a better mousetrap." If someone has a better idea, consumers will appear. 2 examples come to mind.

Remember delivery pizza 25 years ago. It took an hour, on a good night. Then Dominos said 30 minutes or less or its free. They were a hit. Nevermind that the pizza had a cardboard crust and catsup for sauce, people bought it. The more people bought, the more jobs were created. The consumer didn’t create 30 minute delivery, someone at Dominos did. They also were will to put their money where there mouth was and it paid off for them. With a better mousetrap, the world beat a path to their door.

What about Starbucks? Overpriced coffee, but what they sold was the experience. You got to feel like a big shot ordering your own version. Then they did something unheard of, they started competing with themselves. There a places in Seattle where right across the street from Starbucks is another Starbucks. WTF? Nobody does that! But it works for them because the created a demand and consumers came. Now you can’t swing a dead cat in Seattle without hitting an espresso stand.

Please name one private business model (not one artificially propped up by government) where consumers created the business first. Where the world beat a path to their door and then they built the better mousetrap. Doesn’t happen. Product first, then create a demand in the consumers mind (marketing), then hope after consumers try it they like it enough to come back. Consumers can’t purchase what isn’t there.

Like I said in an earlier post …. Find something everyone wants but nobody supplies, you’ve just filled a nitch and are going to make millions.

"sevenout" wrote:
Please name one private business model (not one artificially propped up by government) where consumers created the business first. Where the world beat a path to their door and then they built the better mousetrap. Doesn’t happen. Product first, then create a demand in the consumers mind (marketing), then hope after consumers try it they like it enough to come back. Consumers can’t purchase what isn’t there.

When dealing with basic survival needs: food, clothing, shelter; the consumer was there before the business.

But it is all very symbiotic. Innovation had to occur so that a surplus could be produced to be available for trade.

Oh and the demand for flamethrowers came first:

But we have flamethrowers. And what this indicates to me, it means that at some point, some person said to himself, "Gee, I sure would like to set those people on fire over there. But I’m way to far away to get the job done. If only I had something that would throw flame on them." Well, it might have ended right there, but he mentioned it to his friend. His friend who was good with tools. And about a month later, he was back. "Hey, quite a concept!" WHHOOOOOOOOSSHHH! And of course the army heard about it, and they came around. "We’d like to buy about five hundred-thousand of them please. We have some people we’d like to throw flame on. Give us five hundred thousand and paint them dark brown. We don’t want anyone to see them." – George Carlin

George Carlin came up with some of the funny routines out of some of the most mundane topics/issues. He was a great comedian who is truly missed.