The Neocon Economy

Discussion in 'Politics' started by unlawflcombatnt, Sep 8, 2005.

  1. unlawflcombatnt
    Offline

    unlawflcombatnt Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Bush supply-side pseudo-economic policies are destroying our economy. It would take all of about 20 minutes to explain to someone how his economic mismanagement is worsening the economy, in addition to the complete absence of logic to his economic policies. His policies are actively worsening life for the lower 98% at present. And they will make 100% of us poorer in the future.

    Tax cuts for the affluent, and other "supply-side" giveaways make no economic sense. Many people aren't aware of this, because it does take a little time to explain. But not very much. So I'm going to try here.

    Our country became the world's most powerful economy under administrations that practiced "Demand-Side" economic policies. In general, demand-side economics centers on consumer spending and demand. Profits are made when goods are sold, not when produced. Industrial production is driven by DEMAND for goods made from that production. Consumer spending creates the demand for that production. Without demand, there is no production. That's because there's no benefit to that production. No profits can be made from unsold production.

    Consumer demand is the ONLY factor that increases job and wage growth. Demand for goods also creates demand for labor to produce goods. Increased demand for anything increases the price. Thus, increased demand for labor increases the price of that labor. In other words, it increases wages. It also increases hiring. Demand increases the number of people working, as well as the wages of those people working.

    If more workers are working and average wages are higher, it increases the aggregate (or total) demand for goods in our country. Aggregate Demand, when measured in dollars, is the ultimate limiting factor of industrial production. Aggregate Demand in dollars is total spendable dollars available to consumers. (Republicans hate the concept of Aggregate Demand. It conflicts with their "alternate reality" economic theories.)

    Again, aggregate demand for goods is the engine that drives our economy. It drives production, hiring, and wage increases. The demand cycle has a self-perpetuating effect. As labor/consumer income increases, so does the demand for goods. That's because consumers have more money to spend. This increased demand further increases labor demand. Which further increases wages and hiring.


    Supply-side concepts have never been accepted by a large number of economists. What I mean here is that they are not even accepted as a valid economic theory. Many economists refuse to call supply-side policies a theory. Some refer to them as "voodoo economics." Supply-side policies are essentially economic mythology. They are a completely illogical set of ideas that were concocted to justify tax cuts for the rich. The major proponents were not even economists. Most were actually journalists, such as Robert Bartley, the late editor of the Wall Street Journal.

    Let me try to show the error of some supply-side propaganda. A major point is about tax cuts for the rich. This is supposed to stimulate investment. That investment is supposed to go into building production facilities and increasing production (supply). There is an obvious problem here. What if consumer spending doesn't necessitate increased production? If consumer spending doesn't keep up with supply, that investment money is completely wasted. Profits are made by SELLING products, not producing them. Un-sold goods do not "grow" our economy. (Neither do increased CEO salaries.)

    Another less important, but even more illogical assumption, is that if you tax people less, they will produce more. It may be true that high-end taxpayers would have more money to invest. However, that's where the truth ends, and the fantasy begins. Even acknowledging that smidgeon of truth, the benefit of that money is questionable. The extra investment money is supposed to lead to increased goods production(supply). Again, there is no benefit to producing more goods than consumers can pay for. This increased investment money is useless unless demand necessitates increased production.

    There is also a definite negative to these supply-side fantasies. Increasing the deficit to fund these cuts increases inflation, as well as devaluing the dollar. That means consumer dollars are worth less. So consumers will buy less. And provide less demand for goods, causing less demand for labor. Which starts us on another self-perpetuating downward spiral.

    The big picture is this. In order for production to increase, demand for production must increase. Consumers need to have enough spendable wealth to purchase increased production. Inreasing production without increasing consumer spending is putting the cart ahead of the horse. The cart isn't going to "push" the horse forward. And manufacturers aren't going to "push" consumer spending forward. Only consumers can drive our economy. They provide the demand that "pulls" production forward. Remember the old adage: "Necessity is the mother of invention." So it is that "Demand is the mother of production." Demand for goods leads to increased production of those goods. However, supply of goods does not increase demand. Unsold goods are worth absolutely $0.


    Demand-Side Economics were almost universally accepted until the mid-1970's. However, sometime in the 70's, supply-side mythology was born. (Under a rock, in a dark cave.)

    Today we're seeing the fruits of supply-side mythology.
    Consumer income has decreased during Bush's "economic reign-of-terror." Tax cuts for the top 2% favor investment, not consumer spending. Though consumer income was obviously declining, Bush decided his rich friends needed more money to "grow" the economy. According to Bush, they would produce more goods and increase production capacity. Also, as Bush dishonestly claimed, they would hire more workers.

    Does this make any sense? Will a company hire more workers just because they have more money? Do they hire more just because they can afford to? No, absolutely not. They only hire workers when they NEED them. No amount of corporate giveaways will increase hiring, unless demand for production increases, which increases demand for labor to provide that production.

    Let me give an example. Let's say I'm a doctor who sees 6 patients per day. I need one nurse. What if my new friend, George Bush, gives me $1 million because he likes me. (for some unknown reason.) Will I hire more nurses? Of course not. I don't NEED more nurses. They won't increase my profits any, and they will cost me money. So I'm not going to hire them.

    Let me change the example. Let's say I'm the same doctor, and my ex-friend, George Bush, takes back the $1 million. He then gives it to the potential patients who live around my office. Now more people can afford medical care. Now I have 30 patients per day. Am I going to hire more nurses? Yes, indeed. Because now I NEED more nurses. The DEMAND for nurses has increased. Hiring more nurses will increase my profits.

    In the above example I hired more nurses only when I NEEDED them. I hired none when I didn't need them, even though I could afford them. Being able to afford hiring of nurses had no effect on hiring. Demand for their services did. This increased demand was due to increased consumer income. Increased consumer income ALWAYS increases aggregate demand. (It may effect demand for individual products differently. But is still increases the sum total of demand for goods and services produced.)

    In the above example, nurses spendable income increased because of demand increase. In turn, their income increased aggregate consumer income. This increases demand for the goods they buy, and the labor that produces those goods. It helped the entire economy as a result.

    Again, increased consumer income increases demand for production. But how does consumer spending increase, if consumer income decreases? It increases through credit and borrowing. Current consumer spending has been maintained through increased borrowing and credit card spending. To phrase this differently, it has been maintained by consumer "deficit" spending. And this is becoming an increasingly larger portion of consumer spending. A lot of this deficit spending has been financed by the artificially increased value of homes, and the resulting increase in home equity loans. Interest rates have almost a direct effect on the market value of homes. The higher the fraction of buyer's cost going to financing, the less the market value of the home. This is because the seller receives a smaller fraction of the total payment. If interest rates are low, the seller receives a higher fraction of the buyer's payment.

    Let me give a brief illustration. Let's say I want to buy a home. Let's say I am a perfect example of all potential buyers in my area. I'm willing to pay $300,000 total for a home. This includes all finance charges, as well as principal payment. Let's say the total financing costs $150, 000. That means the seller will get the other $150,000. That means the market value of his home is $150,000, because that's what he actually gets.

    Let's change the finance charges. I'm still only willing to pay $300,000 total for the home, including all finance charges. But the finance charges are only $50,000 now, because of a lower interest rate. The seller now gets $250,000, instead of $150,000. The market value of his home is now $250,000. The market value of his home has increased $100,000 because of a reduced interest rate. The reduced interest rate accounts for 100% of the increase in market value. This increases the equity, and increases the amount he can borrow off this equity.

    Lowered interest rates have greatly increased home equity values. They have also greatly increased the amount of money that can be borrowed off this equity. This money has made a significant contribution to consumer spending during the last 4 years. Current estimates are that it contributes $200-300 billion per year to our $12 trillion GDP. This is 1.5 to 2.5% of our GDP. Borrowed money has prevented consumer spending from sinking. As interest rates rise, home equity values will decrease. Money borrowed from this reduced home equity will also decrease. The contribution to consumer spending from this money will also decrease.

    From this, it becomes obvious that consumer demand cannot be maintained by this consumer deficit spending. We are nearing the limit now. We are going to reach this limit in the near future. The home-refinancing loan bubble, and its contribution to consumer spending, is about to burst. When it does, consumer spending and demand will drop. And they will continue to drop, because this is also a self-perpetuating cycle. As consumer demand for production decreases, so will the demand for labor to provide that production. As a result, hiring will decrease and layoffs will increase. This will further decrease consumer income, and the spending that comes from that income.

    We need to change our economic course. We can't let Republicans distract us from major issues. We can't let them waste our time with discussion right-wing planted distractions. Subjects such as steroids in baseball, the Robert Blake trial, Michael Jackson, and Terry Shiavo provide cover for what the Republicans are really up to. Corporatization of social security and extension of tax cuts for the rich affect all of us. Job loss to the cheap slave labor of foreign countries affects all of us. Let's not help provide cover for the Bush/Snow/Greenspan "economic axis-of-evil."

    Clinton was right. It is "the economy stupid." Let's not let the Republicans convince us otherwise.


    unlawflcombatnt

    _________________
    Investment does NOT create jobs. It only "allows" for their creation. Increased Demand for goods creates jobs, because it necessitates hiring of workers to produce more goods. Investment "permits" job growth. Demand necessitates it.

    Building a factory does NOT create jobs. Demand for factory production creates jobs. Goods are not produced if there is no demand for them. Without demand for goods, there is no demand for workers to produce them. Without demand, no amount of investment creates jobs.
     
  2. Said1
    Offline

    Said1 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2004
    Messages:
    12,087
    Thanks Received:
    937
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Somewhere in Ontario
    Ratings:
    +937
    Nice plug for your blog.
     
  3. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    Isn't consumer demand totally dependent on what a consumer can afford to buy? If taxes are so high and production and labor costs are so high, the ability of the consumer to actually purchase and item diminishes--even if he is Willing to pay for something doesn't mean he can afford to.
     
  4. GotZoom
    Offline

    GotZoom Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2005
    Messages:
    5,719
    Thanks Received:
    366
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Cordova, TN
    Ratings:
    +366
     
  5. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,537
    Thanks Received:
    8,161
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,153
    There are two problems with your analysis:

    1)History has shown that tax cuts works. You allow people to keep more of their own money and they will spend more of it in ways they find productive. It worked when Reagan did it in the 80s. It worked in New York when Guiliani cut the city taxes. It worked in 2001 when the President cut taxes. Tax cuts stimulate the economy. And whats more by stimulating the economy they bring in more tax revenue. It's a simple analysis of the Laffer(sp?) curve

    2)The fact is, the so called rich is essentially anyone who actually works for a living. If you have two pairs of shoes, a daily change of underwear, and can eat 6 straight meals if you chose to, you are rich.

    Oh and welcome to the board. Hopefully you arent just a troll looking for hits to the website and will bother to actually discuss things with people.
     
  6. unlawflcombatnt
    Offline

    unlawflcombatnt Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    You're 100% right. If that's the only point I got across, my post was very worthwhile. Unless assisted by credit or borrowing, consumers can purchase no more in dollars than they actually have. Which means that aggregate consumer income limits consumer spending, and the demand for production it creates. If aggregate consume income declines aggregate consumer spending and production demand will also decline. As production demand declines, so does demand for labor to provide that production. The result is further decline in wages, spending, production demand, and labor demand. (Again, this all assumes that consumer spending is not being propped up by borrowing, which of course it is at present.)

    Job loss --> consumer income loss --> consumer spending decline --> consumer demand for production decline --> decline in demand for workers to provide production --> More job loss.


    I'm not sure how you're relating high labor costs to diminished ability of consumers to purchase goods. The labor costs themselves are essentially the same as wages, which provides consumer income. Production costs limit how much business can lower prices, and still make a profit. But the price of the good is determined by what consumers are willing to pay, not how much it costs to make the product. A business will charge $100 for an item, if most consumers are willing to pay it. It doesn't matter whether their production costs were $1 or $60. They'll charge $100 if they can.

    In contrast, if consumers are only willing to pay $70 for the item, the company will sell it for $70. If they try to sell it for more, consumers simply won't buy it. Again, it makes no difference whether it cost $1 to make, or $60. Consumers determine the price.

    If it costs $120 to make, the company simply won't make the product. They cannot raise the price above what consumers are willing to pay.

    So what limits the amount consumers are willing to pay? The limits of what they are willing to pay is limited by how much they actually can pay. In other words, it's limited by how much money they have. That money is largely the result of labor/consumer wages. Thus, aggregate consumer income places an absolute top limit on aggregate dollar value of sales. Consumer income limits the dollar value of the entire consumer market. Decreased consumer income decreases the size of that market.

    Aggregate consumer income, and the aggregate spending it finances, provides the absolute limit to our economic growth. Profits are made by SALE of goods, not production. Without sale of product, there is no profit. Without profit, or at least anticipated profit, there is no demand for investment. As such, consumer spending is the limiting factor of economic growth, as well as the limiting factor of investment.
     
  7. archangel
    Offline

    archangel Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Both parties are guilty of the above...Trilateral Commission" ring a bell...shadow government...of which the Bushes,Cheney,Condi,Clintons etc etc all belong to! Heck even Colin Powell belongs! :shocked: :wtf:
     
  8. unlawflcombatnt
    Offline

    unlawflcombatnt Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
     
  9. Hobbit
    Offline

    Hobbit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    5,099
    Thanks Received:
    420
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Near Atlanta, GA
    Ratings:
    +421
    Demand side economics is only truly useful in a failing economy, where there is no money in the hands of consumers. Supply side, and cutting taxes across the board, stimulate a stable economy and actually raise tax revenue over time. Basically, an economy is stimulated by the introduction of more financial capital into the market. Demand side economics is best when the end-users of products can no longer afford them. The government then starts welfare and work programs to give consumers the money they need to purchase goods. Right now, the economy is doing well. However, as demand increases, the price of goods goes up, stagnating the economy. Introducing tax cuts around the board (with, believe it or not, the smallest percentage went to the rich, but since they pay more, they got a bigger break in raw numbers) puts money in the hands of both consumers and producers. When the producers get the money, they can make more goods, increasing the supply and lowering the price. They can also hire more employees and give their current ones raises, and they can increase stock dividends. This all puts money in the hands of the consumers. In an already good economy, this is the best approach.
     
  10. theim
    Offline

    theim Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,628
    Thanks Received:
    234
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Madison, WI
    Ratings:
    +234
     

Share This Page