23

'It's the demand side, stupid'

Robert Reich

To view this content, Javascript must be enabled and Adobe Flash Player must be installed.

Get Adobe Flash player

Bob Moon: President Obama had a message for Congress today as he faced reporters at the White House. He challenged Republicans to go along with eliminating certain tax breaks for the super-wealthy.

Barack Obama: The revenue we're talking about isn't coming out of the pockets of middle-class families that are struggling. It's coming out of folks who are doing extraordinarily well, and are enjoying the lowest tax rates since before I was born.

At the same time, the president urged lawmakers
to extend his tax cuts for middle-income Americans. He pressed Congress to raise the debt ceiling. And he says there's an important way
lawmakers can help put more Americans back to work.

Obama: Right now, Congress can advance a set of trade agreements that would allow American businesses to sell more of their goods and services to countries in Asia and South America.

That may be one way to get more people back on the payrolls. Commentator Robert Reich has another idea: Work on increasing demand for goods and services here at home.


Robert Reich: What to do about raging unemployment? Many Republicans and a few Democrats are peddling supply-side solutions. Cut corporate taxes. Reduce the cost of capital. Cut the employer share of payroll taxes.

This is nonsense. The problem is not on the supply side.

Companies don't need financial incentives to hire. They're sitting on $1.9 trillion of cash. They don't even know what to do with it all. If they wanted to use this cash to hire additional workers, they could. Instead, they're buying back their own stock and buying other companies.

Nor is the cost of capital an issue. Capital is cheap. Companies can get bargain-basement interest rates on new loans.

Nor does it make any sense to lower the employer share of payroll taxes. This won't create jobs. Payroll taxes are not deterring companies from adding employees.

Let's get real: The problem is on the demand side. It doesn't make economic sense for businesses to hire more workers unless businesses have more customers. And they don't.

These days consumers are reluctant to buy. That's because their real wages are falling, their home values are plummeting, they're still under a huge debt load, and they're worried about keeping their jobs.

Supply-side solutions have nothing to do with any of this. They're like pushing wet noodles. The economy needs a boost on the demand side.

For 30 years now we've been hearing from "supply-side" economists say that if we reduce tax rates on the rich and on corporations -- and keep the cost of capital low -- we'll get more jobs and growth. And the benefits will trickle down to everyone else.

Well, we've tried the theory out, and little or nothing has trickled down. Tax revenues are now 15 percent of the national economy. That's the lowest in 60 years. And capital is cheaper than ever. But the economy is going nowhere.

Can I be blunt? It's the demand side, stupid.


Moon: Robert Reich was secretary of labor for President Clinton. His most recent book is called Aftershock: The Next Economy and America's Future. Next week, David Frum. Send us your comments in the meanwhile -- click on this contact link.

About the author

Robert Reich is chancellor's professor of public policy at the University of California, Berkeley. He has served in three national administrations, most recently as secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton.

Pages

Nirad Gupta's picture
Nirad Gupta - Jun 30, 2011

It would be nice to hear Robert Reich elaborate and propose specific demand-side solutions. Do we need to make the income tax more progressive? Or would it be better to use various subsidies to directly shore-up the spending power of lower-income households? Perhaps we should look at replacing the piddling minimum wage with a substantially larger earned-income tax credit. That's an idea that could appeal to businesses like WalMart and McDonalds, as well as labor groups.

June Mayer's picture
June Mayer - Jun 30, 2011

"Difference reduces cost to consumer"

@Joe....that doesn't happen.
It'll just go straight to the cash stockpile. Stock buybacks and dividends.

Geoff Robinson's picture
Geoff Robinson - Jun 30, 2011

Robert Reich is right about too much debt being the cause of current woes. What is his solution? Goose demand with stimulus spending or something along those lines? No thanks.

We had the wild party and we are experiencing the hangover. The only way out is to take the pain and get out of debt. Anything else is just trying to reinflate the bubble.

Whittier S's picture
Whittier S - Jun 29, 2011

@Mike Coon has something. The Alaska Permanent Fund takes in Royalties from Big Oil (something they "can't afford" in the Lower 48"??) to a trust. A crew, which has proven to be very smart & honest have well-invested those royalties. In October every man, woman and child resident in Alaska receives their Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD) check in a range of $1000-1500, although in 2008 it exceeded $2000.

Yep, capitalistic socialism, but it has worked because of honest management. And that socialistic half-Governor improved the socialism, too. Her one claim to fame.

Maybe all resource extraction firms that are always cheating on their royalty payments to the Fed - and on their taxes?? - could be made to contribute for the Lower 48 plus HI & Puerto Rico?

But, a simpler, much faster way to create Demand is to resurrect the PWA, WPA, CCC, etc. We have about 20M unemployed (because 1099 & Sch C workers are not counted at all). If we could get 5M unemployed back to work, they would create enough extra Demand that soon another 5M would be called back, then another 5M.

The FACTS are that Private Enterprise CANNOT create Demand, they can only satisfy Demand with Product or Service. In a Deepression (sic), only the central government working in conjunction with State and Local government can.

Any regressive who wants to dispute those statements, go research the last Great GOP Depression before you spout off.

Edward Dodson's picture
Edward Dodson - Jun 29, 2011

Robert Reich's criticism of the version of supply-side economic policies advanced (mostly) by conservative economists and policymakers is warranted. However, his own analysis of how markets function fails to distinquish been inelastic and elastic components of any market. The core problem with what passed for supply-side economics is the failure to treat nature (i.e., what political economists described by the term "land") as distinct what we produce from nature with our labor and capital goods. Land is finite, its supply is inelastic, its supply curve is verticle and, absent the full public collection of the rent of land, actually leans to the left in periods of rising prices because of the propensity to hoard or speculate rather than bring land to its highest, best use. Economics has come to generalize any behavior designed to generate unearned income flows as "rent-seeking." Doing so masks the fundamental and underlying dynamic played by land markets as the core driver of the so-called business cycle. Cheap and easy credit provided by banks and other financial institions adds fuel to the speculative fires, exacerbating the inevitable crashes when they occur. Still, the solution is to change the way government raises its revenue to capture nearly all of rent (i.e., all of the income individuals and entities gain -- as cash or as unrealized but capitalized increases in landed asset values) and reduce and eventually eliminate the taxation of the goods we actually produce and the commerce in which we engage. Removing the land cost component from our economy would bring down and stabilize prices of most goods and services and move us toward a noninflationary full employment society

Joe Sawyer's picture
Joe Sawyer - Jun 29, 2011

Payroll tax paid by company reduced

Margin of product maintained by company

Difference reduces cost to consumer

Increase ability for customer to buy

Demand up customers happy (American product more competitive in the global marketplace) equity price maintained

Government may even get more payroll taxes overall they get none from China.

So what part of reducing payroll taxes hurts?

Marty Siegrist's picture
Marty Siegrist - Jun 29, 2011

Mr. Reich is absolutely correct. The supply-side plan of lowering tax rates has been tried for decades, and has not worked, yet the anti-tax fanatics still insist (volubly, and at length) that the way to create jobs and stimulate the economy is to cut taxes yet more. This is not economic thinking, it's blind, credulous faith that flies in the face of all evidence to the contrary. And there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.

Mike Coon's picture
Mike Coon - Jun 29, 2011

I am all for increasing demand. Sadly though, reducing taxes on the unemployed does not put many dollars in their pockets.

We have a serious structural problem where employment is fleeting, wages are stagnant, and the cost of living is going up.

We need a different way to spread the wealth that still - or maybe again - rewards hard work and innovation. Make everybody owners of dividend paying equities?

Whittier S's picture
Whittier S - Jun 29, 2011

Absolutely correct. Only a pawn or shill of Big Business could utter to the contrary.

Businesses, regardless of how much Cash they have on hand, are not going to hire 1 single employee (except maybe a new son-in-law) until they see Demand for their Product or Service. Econ 101.

Unfortunately, the GOP doesn't want to admit to understanding Econ 101.

Lauren Younger's picture
Lauren Younger - Jun 29, 2011

Yes, there is a demand for products, but most people can’t afford to pay for the products that are not a necessity. I know I am not alone when I say that I am making less per hour than I did four years ago and my expenses are up because the cost of living has gone up, not because I am living beyond my means. I believe that is one reason why most people are not spending as much. If the people running the corporations took a pay cut and shared the wealth with the people working at the bottom, then we might have the ability to pay for products that are not a necessity or for more of the things that we do need. It is possible that if we all made more money we could afford to buy more which might translate into an increase in sales and an increase in profits.

Pages