Money just sitting there.

I suspect because many are concerned about the state of the economy and the future of the economy and the current politics in Washington. This "regime uncertainty" is leading to a slow down and extreme caution by many in investments that would create jobs. Some may even be waiting until we're through the next election to see what happens.

Or...maybe you think we should just go take all that money and spend it. Surely that will stimulate the economy.

Maybe Obama should stop creating so much market uncertainty?

I doubt that they are doing nothing with it. Just because they are not giving it to you and I does not mean the money is doing nothing.

This shows a complete lack of understanding about how business works. The money is sitting there because businesses are not confident in hiring during these times. The government has created so much turmoil and uncertainty about even the near future, they they are playing it safe. No one is going to expand in this environment.

And please, spare me your class warfare nonsense. Businesses exist to make money. If they are profitable and able to expand, they hire. You can't force them to hire. You can't force them to create jobs instead of "hoarding wealth" (as I'm sure you and few others would put it). We have to create the right environment for them and then get the hell out of the way, consistent with basic regulations to protect consumers, the environment, etc.

Bingo! Which is exactly why I've said a million times that supply-side economics does not work in a recession.

Because the money is not used, as Libertarians and certain conservatives love to claim, to create jobs or economic activity.

It works in a recession, not in a depression. We have gotten out of plenty of recessions by lowering interest rates, it just didn't work this time. When you get into this kind of situation, you need forced spending by the government (like during WWII) - and it helps if you draft all the unemployed and send them off to die (and what really, really helps is if they destroy all the other industrial powers before they die).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquidity_trap

tonton, while rates are much lower than they were say, 30 years ago....we are not engaging in supply-side stimulus. We are doing just the opposite. We're spending a shit ton on demand-side stimulus, which doesn't work well and is only temporary when it does work at all. Really, the notion that we're living in some kind of supply-side paradise is absurd.

And as for working in a recession? It's exactly what works. What doesn't work is demand-side, because it's a temporary boost that increases prices on the consumer level. Supply-side, by contrast, leads to more goods and services, which lowers consumer prices, which causes more consumption, which necessitates more jobs to produce those goods and services. It's not hard to understand. And it was proved unquestionably under Reagan, who took office in a near depression.


We're not going to have a WWII to get us out of this, e#. And supply-side is not about lowering rates. It's about increasing production incentive...increasing the supply of goods and services. It's exactly what we need now. And we're doing the exact opposite.

Lowering rates increases production, because businesses can borrow more. Exactly what do you think would convince businesses to produce more goods, when nobody is buying?

Businesses are hording money and paying off debt. If you lower taxes they will horde more money and pay off more debt. I don't think that businesses are not hiring because of government created uncertainty, they are not hiring because they know that deleveraging at both the consumer and business level will limit how stuff gets bought.

If the federal government really "got out of the way" right now, our whole house of cards would collapse - unemployment would skyrocket, the stock market would crash, housing prices would fall further, banks would go under, etc. What regulations do you think that Obama should pass to give confidence to business?

This is exactly what I believe as well.

Oh right. He's clinging to the banks while he sues them.

Obama will do whatever it takes to get re-elected. Face it, he LOVES being president.

Lowering interest rates? Yes. But that's not really a supply-side thing. As for demand, that's tricky. Lowering tax rates can work, of course. That has not been done. Instead, we're talking about raising taxes.


You are confusing correlation with causation. Businesses are not hiring because of uncertainty, not taxes. They are concerned that taxes are going to go up significantly, as well as of regulation, etc.


They are not hiring because of uncertainty. They don't see the economy improving nor do they see anything being done to create the conditions to create improvement.


Right, because it's a black and white choice like that. Another false dilemma of sorts.


Regulations? Obama is beyond hope. He simply doesn't understand how the economy works. He is entrenched in the Keynesian mindset, as are all of his advisors who come from academia. On top of this, his worldview is more along the socialized democracies of Europe. These people still believe that if the stimulus was $2 trillion instead of $800 billion, we'd be fine were it not for some "bad luck."

That said, business will not have confidence until we get away from the this band aid approach. We need major personal and corporate tax reform, a massive reduction in government bureaucracy and regulation and a pro-business administration. We also need to solve our deficit and debt problems, or at least get on the path to making them manageable. Until this happens, the economy will continue to sputter.

Look at what's happening. What has Obama done to improve the economy since taking office? Ostensibly, there was the flawed, pork-filled, mismanaged and misappropriated stimulus, the making work pay credit, help with mortgages, etc. But there has been nothing since, other than class warfare. No new tax plan. No job creation plan. Instead, we've had Nancy Pelosi claiming that unemployment benefits are a job creator. We've had the healthcare bill. We've had our "boots on the throat" of BP. And we've coupled this with massive debt that he now owns.

It's actually amusing to see you guys twiddle your thumbs and say "what should we do?" It's amusing, but not surprising. Your ideas don't work. And you've got no new ones.

An apt description of 90+% of all elected officials.

Which is why I believe that term limits need to be instituted. If you remove the lifetime job of being a career politician then the getting reelected becomes less of the point and doing your job while there becomes more eminent. At least in theory.

This is an interesting thread. I've enjoyed reading the replies and taking into account the various points of view. Several points made by SDW2001 are particularly interesting. Being a student of economics in the 1980's and getting my degree from a university department which was focused on supply side economics, he has hit on at least the high points of the theory. But we have to remember that supply side theory is just that: a theory. The theory revolves around the certainty that with a tax rate of 100%, the government would collect no revenues, as there would be no (above ground) economic activity (why would anyone work if they would have to pay 100% taxes?) And at a tax rate of 0%, the government would collect no revenues - but there would surely be increased economic activity. The secret, mystery sauce is deciding on the appropriate tax rates, across various income levels, that produce enough revenues to maintain a "functioning" government, while at the same time allowing economic growth. And depending on economic cycles and circumstances, those rates might need to be adjusted over time. What I mean is, let's say the government was collecting enough in taxes and spending was contained to the point that we were running a trillion dollar surplus every fiscal year. Let's further assume that the national debt was zero. I seriously doubt anyone would argue that tax cuts would be inappropriate in that case.

But to cut to the chase, supply side theory has never been (purely) used in the United States. By the late 1970's, it was being embraced more and more by both Democrats and Republicans. But it has never been applied as the sole fiscal policy tool. During the recessions and recoveries of the 1980's, there was a grand mix of Keynesian, Supply Side and of course, various monetary policy tools. To those who have not studied economics (or politicians ), it's often easier to claim that one variable or the other made the most contribution to moving the economy from stagflation to recovery with moderate inflation. But even the most complete factorial analyses on the subject come to different conclusions. What we do know is that the Reagan Administration employed massive deficit spending, mainly on the military (roughly 300% gain from FY1982 to FY1987). As well, Reagan spearheaded tax reform, which lowered marginal rates for most Americans. Both of these fiscal policy moves were important and effective, not so much for the nominal amounts, but because of the delta from the base and suddenness of the moves. Similar to a man having a heart attack, it's the sudden jolt from the defibrillator that may "shock" the heart back to proper functioning. Fiscal policy tends to be hampered by lags. But once the market (and the people) know the train is definitely rolling in a given direction, there can be a rational expectation effect. The downside (one of them) of both Keynesian and Supply Side theory goes back to the curve, Laffer's or others. Other than the 0% vs 100% tax rates, it is difficult to arrive at a tax rate(s) that produces cost/benefit ratios that people and politicians (assuming politicians can be considered people) agree are desirable. So whether Keynesian or Supply Side, how much money are you willing to lay on the table to get what you want? Place your bets and step back from the table!

Lastly, given that this is a demand side driven "weak spot"/recession/depression, and since the 1980's businesses have been "taught" to react to demand pull and not supply push (Six Sigma, Lean, Kaizen, etc.), I would have to question how deeply (and suddenly) taxes would have to be cut in order to have any meaningful effect on economic activity. And at least for awhile, the more you cut taxes, the bigger the deficit gets, at least in the short/medium term. As even Laffer admitted with the Bush cuts of a few years ago, if the cuts are not dramatic enough (as were Reagan's), then all you really do is lower government revenues and push up the deficit. A builder will build a house if there is a demand for it. A car builder will build a car if there is a demand for it. Lowering taxes for either will not encourage them to hire someone to build a house or a car for which there is scant demand.

So what is THE answer (let's be honest... every American, left, right or center, wants a magic bullet solution)? OK, the answer is... hold on just a second - the door bell is ringing _____________

Awesome post. Hope you don't mind if I interject here.

Since we cannot estimate by theory the effect of small changes in tax rates, we must stop relying on change as a catalyst. We must try to determine the optimal tax rates and role of government that would produce the desired effect by other means. Observation.

We have to look out into the world and see what works, and what doesn't and emulate what works.

But before we do that, we have to determine exactly what the goal is. Is it GDP with lack of concern for anything else? God, I hope not. That's exactly what got us in the mess we're in now. Can't we all agree that the ultimate goal is people's happiness? So let's look at the happiest nations on Earth and do what they're doing.

Yes, we have vast differences in demographics. We have differences in natural resources. But surely we can adjust our final position with those differences in mind, and still come to an excellent outcome.

I think the first step is that the USA must stop thinking of itself as a closed-loop system.

Just look at the big telcos - AT&T, Verizon and Sprint. Rather than fighting among themselves, which yes, while it is good training, it's time to take it to the global stage. Export all that expertise - technology, towers, base stations, billing systems, marketing strategy to the rest of the world. They've just grown lazy relying on other countries to supply them with equipment and devices while trying to squeeze more out of the average American consumer.

Some small countries like Malaysia continue to post 5% average GDP only because at least a third of the country's income comes from oil and gas exports. If this got messed up the country would collapse into Middle-East-like anarchy pretty fast.

Look at Apple. 50% of their revenue comes from outside the USA now.

At this stage in the global economic game, growth cannot come from a domestic closed system which tries to fuel the economy by issuing it's own currency to itself, in the form of more and more debt.

It's a kind of dangerous inbreeding.

Yes, use the "money just sitting there" to invest, but with a global outlook. Opportunities are plenty. I've just finished a short contract with a new Malaysian 4G telco led by two former Sprint executives and funded by a Malaysian billionaire. Another guy was a long time AOL-er and laugh as you may about AOL, he's clearly got some skills too.

The USA has the talent, innovation and, never take this for granted, egalitarian base that allows for great things to happen. Use that. I just left Malaysia (for a few years probably) because although I am a citizen I am not ethnic Malay-Muslim and therefore have no access to better loans, education, public and private sector jobs, among many other things. I have felt more racially discriminated against in my birth country than when I worked in the USA and when I was in Australia.

Yes, it may seem like South Korea, China and parts of Asia is kicking the Western world's ass but consider the lifestyles they lead. It ain't a bed of roses.

In case you were wondering, this is why 'cut taxes for corporations and the super-rich' doesn't work.


Free-market economists are snake oil salesmen. They promise you that if the very poor would just give more money to the government and use less government services, so that they can give less of their money to the government, then the lives of the poor will improve. But the only thing that improves is the parasitic mass of their bank vault.

Wow. I missed this from HSBC. Strange, I thought they were doing well... Or, they actually are doing well, which is the whole point of what you are saying.

This is trickle-up not trickle-down.

What is I think commendable about the Obama Jobs Act is he's trying to link real job hiring with tax cuts for businesses small and large. Of course, I haven't got into the nitty gritty yet.

If this is what he's doing then all I can say is, "FINALLY!"

Make those who want tax cuts put their jobs where their mouth is.

Isn't HSBC based in London?

Originally Posted by jazzguru

That would be HSBC Holdings plc, with its HQ in London, its a subsidiary of HSBC.

The bank itself is the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd, and is based in Hong Kong. For years it was called Hongkong Bank.

Ah, I see.

So Hong Kong and the other 20 countries where HSBC is exiting operations are "cutting taxes for corporations and the super-rich" and all have free-market economies?

I see. So if we cut taxes for HSBC, they wouldn't have to cut the jobs. Right? Is that what you're saying?

So would cutting taxes for HSBC have any effect whatsoever on the job cuts? Seriously?

Then why the FUCK should we cut taxes?

As was the premise of my post, you can see clearly, using plain logic, that cutting taxes for corporations has no effect whatsoever on job creation or retention.

But you weren't thinking that far.

Not at all. You are holding up HSBC as an example of why "tax cuts for corporations and the super-rich don't work".

I am telling you HSBC's reasons for cutting costs are probably much more complex than that.


You'd have to ask them. Apparently they don't feel confident enough that they will receive a reasonable return on their investments to put their money into maintaining and expanding their current operations.


Why shouldn't we?


Nice ad hom.

Taxes are only a part of the equation. Letting people and businesses keep more of their own money accomplishes very little if the economic environment is such that they'd rather sit on it than spend or invest it.

Now you get it! I'm using this admission as my new sig! You're agreeing with me!

What isn't so clear to you, however, is abundantly clear to me. The economic environment is almost always such that they'd rather sit on it.

And you ask, why shouldn't we cut taxes [when doing so accomplishes very little]? Because it cuts government revenue. What's the point in cutting government revenue for no benefit?

I didn't say we shouldn't let people keep more of their own money.

What's the point in maintaining or increasing government revenue for no benefit?

No, you wouldn't do that, ever. But you did give us incontrovertible reasoning why we shouldn't.
If you haven't noticed, we're running a tiny bit of a deficit.

You are saying that if people refuse to spend their money the way you want, they shouldn't be entitled to keep it?

I'm saying that it costs money to run a government and to provide citizens with government services. If you want to cut those services and improve the efficiency of the national government, then you have the freedom to vote for someone who intends to do the same, in this case, presumably Ron Paul. This is what you should focus on before you focus on tax cuts. First you cut spending, then, if you can cut spending enough, that is when you cut taxes. To put the cart before the horse here, as you admit, accomplishes very little.

If you or Ron Paul can convince States to provide services instead of the national government, I would definitely support such a change. But if we do that we'll see even more of an exodus from the poor, anti-welfare states to the rich pro-welfare states.

I think most libertarians (notice I use a little "l", not a big "L") realize that a free society cannot come about over night - that a transition period will be required. Ron Paul definitely recognizes this and has said so on numerous occasions.

Voting, however, will not accomplish this as long as the people at large believe it is okay to use aggression against others for their own benefit.

I still support Ron Paul, but I believe at this stage in the game, any political victories on his part are more philosophical than anything else. It's a way to send a message to the establishment that we will "not go gentle into that good night".


Yes, people who want to live off the work of others will gravitate towards the states that see no problem with taking money from others to give to them.

Others will want to live in a state where the people are allowed to keep what they have earned and do with it as they choose. And some people might even choose to help those around them without even being forced to do so by government.

They may. Let's see. And let's pay special attention to crime rates and education results. Sure, you can live in a gated community somewhere in Free Kentucky, but be prepared to be carjacked once you drive out to the city.