[bunderbunder]

Let me first just throw out that you seem to largely be reacting to extrapolations you've made upon what I wrote, rather than the statement itself. Perhaps you'd be able to read a little more clearly if you took a moment to wipe the spittle off the monitor. That said, let me attempt to rephrase:

If you look at it on more of a macro scale, then yes everything you're saying is trivially obvious. All that, and the money so-and-so accumulates gets saved in a way that makes it available for loans which in turn are spent on goods and services, which creates jobs, etc. etc.

However, the "job creators" rhetoric is carefully focused on a micro scale, very much in order to avoid the way such things tend to disappear once you allow all that interconnectedness to be considered. Cutting out as many complicating factors as possible also makes it more appropriate for the 'sound bites' rhetorical arena in which it operates. Such an argument can't be challenged by just wildly throwing a list of nuances at it. Nuance doesn't work there; it'd be like trying to use incendiary weapons in an underwater fight. Hence, my observation on it was meant to be similarly blinkered, in order to better tailor the response to the proposition.

[simplefish]

I...see. Let's recap:

You said that wealth should not be equated with job creation. I said that this was wrong, and it should be. You admit that this is true (and indeed, that it is "trivially obvious"). But your say that other people often simplify this true argument so that, while still correct, it lacks "nuance", and this means that you are justified in making untrue arguments against it.

That certainly clarifies things. I withdraw my criticism and apologize for my ill-considered tone.