False dilemma fallacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
You can't attribute the existence of "jobs" exclusively to "businesses" or exclusively to "consumers", because "trade" definitionally requires the existence of two parties.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
You can't attribute the existence of "jobs" exclusively to "businesses" or exclusively to "consumers", because "trade" definitionally requires the existence of two parties.
It's not about putting all the blame on one side or the other, it's about the factual question of whether a particular policy improves or worsens the job situation.
> only consumers can set in motion this virtuous cycle of increasing demand and hiring.
>the true job creators are consumers
It's a tad nonsensical, all economic exchanges definitionally require the existence of two parties to occur, both parties are essential regardless of the good or service being traded. One can easily take the opposite position to the speaker, that production precedes consumption, because in the state of nature man must first produce and labor for his or her own survival before surplus exists with which to trade. Either way, it's not a sufficient basis for asserting normative proposals in regards to tax policy.
The only thing I can see not working this way would be an extreme version of kickstarter, where consumers would put out a bounty for a specific product or service and have businesses form to provide it. At that point, they would be more actively "creating jobs."