Wow was that stupid.

Jobs was not a jobs creator? Really? Part of that creation is the VISION and the willingness to take the risk to implement that vision. His vision created products that had ZERO demand because they did not yet exist. He built a pretty damned large company based on that.

This is what entrepreneurs do. Even the author poo-poos his own VISION that a publication was needed to cover that specific subject, for which there was a demand...thus creating the 75 jobs to implement that vision.

Sure, if not a single person has money to create a market, then a demand economy is going to have a problem. Assuming that all entrepreneurs do not pay a living wage is also stupid, unless he's admitting that his 75 employees work for tips.

Stupid.

Now, if you want to tackle the specific topic that these people need additional tax incentives to create more jobs, that's 1) a more on point discussion and 2) one where I might agree that additional incentives are not necessary...but to simply say that the small business economy does not create jobs is simply an idiotic assertion. Yes, demand is necessary...but in many cases these folks create their own demand set. Its not like there is zero money floating about in this country.

Photo caption on Jobs...not a job creator.

The base assumption is that the economy starts at Demand=0.

This is an absurd baseline assumption (I call it stupid).

Ferchrissakes, the inventor of shamwow found a market...in a "down economy".

Yes, there has to be someone to sell the product to...yes this is a demand economy...but to pretend that the starting point is Demand=0 is, yes Virginia, stupid.

"Take away the available funds -- like in the island example -- and there's no demand. "

D'uh. That creates the assumption D=0. A stupid assumption.

And shifting demand, depending on where that demand shifts from and to can create net positive jobs.

And your limit of 2 options is woefully inadequate. There are..just to name a few...

3) grow the macro economy
4) increase the population
5) change the tastes and preferences of the population (the steve jobs example, btw)
6) reduce general price levels (especially for staples...the OPPOSITE of what is happening..and one of the places where Krugman is wrong (to leap threads).

Jobs DID create demand. He changed peoples preferences..and did so with Veblen goods (higher demand in part due to higher price...think Gucci)

I'm not disagreeing that a demand based economy needs demand to exist. I'm saying his "millionaire island" concept is stupid..and proves nothing.

Reduce price of staples...

Let's see...stop using corn to make ethanol. One example. Stop paying farmers not to grow. Invest in agricultural land restoration. Drill, baby, drill. To name a few.

Grow macro...invest in PRODUCTIVE resources (something our gov has failed to do) . Then you pay down the resulting debt with the increase in revenues over time. (see above re: restoration...drilling...cross country pipelines (new add)..all not on table or actively opposed..all net job additions=increased net income=economic growth.) Instead, they've added backdoor bailouts.

And increasing desire or changing and defining taste was your number one with a caveat. Your number one added "with savings". And if you think Jobs never created demand...then how did he sell ipod 1? It never existed prior to his (company's) invention of it. It certainly was not "needed". If you assume his actions netted no demand, then no new invention would ever succeed. If I don't demand it now, then I should not demand it ever. Straight logical progression.