Changes

The debate over who really creates jobs can be thought of as an extension of the debate over the effectiveness of [[supply-side economics]] versus demand-side economics. Proponents of supply-side economics believe that reducing economic barriers (e.g. [[taxes]], [[regulation]]) to produce [[goods]] and [[services]] leads to more [[supply]] and economic growth. This is analogous to their belief, in the context of employment, that if corporations, small businesses and individuals are able to retain as much as their wealth as possible, then their capacity to supply [[capital]] and goods will create demand and lead to job creation.

The debate over who really creates jobs can be thought of as an extension of the debate over the effectiveness of [[supply-side economics]] versus demand-side economics. Proponents of supply-side economics believe that reducing economic barriers (e.g. [[taxes]], [[regulation]]) to produce [[goods]] and [[services]] leads to more [[supply]] and economic growth. This is analogous to their belief, in the context of employment, that if corporations, small businesses and individuals are able to retain as much as their wealth as possible, then their capacity to supply [[capital]] and goods will create demand and lead to job creation.

Proponents of demand-side economics and [[Keynesian Economics]] believe that the capacity for supply is not enough, and that there needs to be [[demand]] for goods and services in order to drive the need for supply and create economic growth. They also believe that money in the hands of the middle and lower classes is more effective at creating this demand because their money has more "velocity" (i.e. it gets re-spent more often). In the context of job creation, they believe that even if taxes on corporations, small businesses and wealthy individuals are reduced, these parties will not necessarily spend the extra money they retain on creating jobs. Note that Keynesian Economics has largely been disproven<ref>Cook, Christopher. "Does Keynesian economics (Obamanomics) logically refute itself?" September 6, 2011. Western Free Press. http://www.westernfreepress.com/2011/09/06/does-keynesian-economics-obamanomics-logically-refute-itself/</ref>, meaning that the demand-side arguments for job creation have little credence.

Proponents of demand-side economics and [[Keynesian Economics]] believe that the capacity for supply is not enough, and that there needs to be [[demand]] for goods and services in order to drive the need for supply and create economic growth. They also believe that money in the hands of the middle and lower classes is more effective at creating this demand because their money has more "velocity" (i.e. it gets re-spent more often). In the context of job creation, they believe that even if taxes on corporations, small businesses and wealthy individuals are reduced, these parties will not necessarily spend the extra money they retain on creating jobs, especially if there is no demand for their goods or services.<ref>Blodget, Henry. "Finally, A Rich American Destroys the Fiction That Rich People Create The Jobs." December 12, 2011. Business Insider. http://www.businessinsider.com/rich-people-do-not-create-jobs-2011-12</ref> Note that many people claim Keynesian Economics has been disproven<ref>Cook, Christopher. "Does Keynesian economics (Obamanomics) logically refute itself?" September 6, 2011. Western Free Press. http://www.westernfreepress.com/2011/09/06/does-keynesian-economics-obamanomics-logically-refute-itself/</ref>, which would mean the demand-side arguments for job creation have little credence.

===Government===

===Government===