Robert Reich's Blog

Robert Reich was the nation's 22nd Secretary of Labor and is a professor at the University of California at Berkeley. His latest book is "Supercapitalism." This is his personal journal.

My Photo
Name: Robert Reich

Latest book, "Supercapitalism," is now out in paperback. For copies of articles, books, and public radio commentaries, go to www.robertreich.org. This blog is available as an RSS feed. Public radio commentaries are now available as a podcast.

Thursday, June 26, 2008

Why the Stock Market Had a Terrible Day

The big surprise is why anyone should be surprised the stock market dropped 3 percent today. The immediate trigger was the price of oil moving above $140 a barrel for the first time. A secondary trigger was yesterday's decision by the Fed not to reduce interest rates. (Some conservatives maintain it was the Fed's failure to RAISE them that caused today's ruckus on Wall Street, because global investors took it as a sign they could do better by investing elsewhere than the U.S., which caused the dollar to drop. They're wrong. The recession is the biggest worry for everyone, including global investors.) Another was the implosion of the US autos sector, and additional writedowns by major Wall Street banks.

But behind all of this is the one fundamental fact that economic analysts would rather not dwell on: American consumers are at the end of their ropes. High energy prices have contributed to it, as have high food prices. Consumer confidence is plunging. Housing prices are still dropping, which means the piggy banks of home equity and refinancing are closing.

But without consumers, there's no one to buy all the goods and services we create. Sure, big American companies are doing fine abroad, but foreign sales can't sustain them. Nor can exports. Hence, bond defaults by companies are up. Earnings are down.

What to do? Two things. We need an expansive fiscal policy that stimulates the economy with infrastructure spending -- especially mass transit, levees, and bridges, as well as investments in green technologies.

We also need a more progressive tax system that puts more money into the hands of the middle class and working class -- which will spend it. Economists Thomas Saez and Thomas Piketty have recently calculated that even excluding capital gains, 75 percent of the pretax income growth between 2002 and 2006 went to the best-off 1 percent of American families. Had they had more recent data, I'm sure they'd find the same or more through 2008. But the rich don't and won't put their burgeoning incomes back into the U.S. economy. They don't consume at nearly the same rate as everyone else because they already have most of what they need. And they don't necessarily invest their growing income in America. To the contrary, they invest it around the world wherever it can get the highest returns. And because consumer purchases are slowing here, there's less money to be made by investing here. Full circle.

68 Comments:

Blogger docyoast said...

Dr. Reich, the USA IS already in recession. GDP growth says very little. GDP growth per capita says all the more. The US population has been growing at a faster pace than the economy, ergo: less money to divide among everyone. This has been going on for quite some time.
Your economy as a whole can shrink, but when the capital is divided among fewer people, their quality of life is bound to improve. That's what it's all about.

Thursday, 26 June, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bush is spending my taxes ($2 trillion including est cost of 50 years of vet care) oversees in a protracted occupation.
I'm sending some of my other money to the oil Cartel.
Bush and the Muslims are wringing me dry.
Bush and his republican war mongers should focus on rebuilding this country and re-establish some democracy here at home, but that won't happen.
THAT IS WHY WE NEED CHANGE IN WASHINGTON

Thursday, 26 June, 2008  
Anonymous Alex Birch said...

The USA has been in a recession for a while. The USA has been losing productivity for a while (the joys of outsourcing and the nebulous methods to define how that improved our productivity.) The USA has lacked real GDP growth for a while, if you consider inflation has been hovering around 9% for the past 4 years.

This administration has been selling the farm to live high on the hog. The Iraq War could be the tipping point in our history.

The USA has been in denial for a while. Dropping interest rates is like curing an alcoholic's problem with happy hour. We should spend money on infrastructure.

Thursday, 26 June, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dr. Reich is the most level-headed economist of our generation. He should write a book. He hits the nail right on the head by saying put the money in the hands of those that will spend it. That is what this country needs, it is the only option we have.

Thursday, 26 June, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with a number of things but most importantly I agree with spending on mass transit. Getting good efficient means of transportation is a great investment to put some folks to work, get others to work, and update a basic requirement for any economy.

I took the train from Paris to Avignon in about two and half hours, it takes three and a half to go from Boston to NYC - that needs to be changed!!

Thursday, 26 June, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"We need an expansive fiscal policy that stimulates the economy with infrastructure spending "

Let see the stock market is over valued and needs to correct back below 8500 which it is in the process of doing, that is not an excuse to run up gov't spending on worthless projects when we are currently running a 500B shortfall as it is. The fact that our tax system favors the top 5% is certainly not news and good luck prying much out of those folks.
As you mentioned Americans have way too much debt and that is usually solved by default, which is going on at a good clip in the mortgage market and will also pick up with auto and other large consumer binge items that nobody really needed.
Large gov't spending isn't going to solve the debt load of American consumers nor will increased consumer spending.

Thursday, 26 June, 2008  
Blogger notsofast said...

Robert said...
"A secondary trigger was yesterday's decision by the Fed not to reduce interest rates."

The rate cut junkies don’t need one final binge. It’s time for rehab! lol

ec

aw

On a more serious note: Economic planners generally don’t care much about the working poor and the poor preferring instead to focus on the middle class or consumers. Lowering interest rates even further would be devastating to the most vulnerable who are increasingly being squeezed by wrenching food and energy inflation. The effects on the middle class are brutal as well. Please carefully think through calls for additional rate cuts.

Thursday, 26 June, 2008  
Blogger Jack Lohman said...

Nothing is going to change until we bring our jobs back home. That can be done with tariffs on imported goods. Painful, perhaps, but necessary.

Then we need to get the corruptive influence of campaign contributions out of the political system. If politicians are to be beholden to their funders, those funders should be the taxpayers. For $10 per taxpayer per year we could eliminate the $3000 per taxpayer given to the special interests that fund the elections.

Jack Lohman
http//MoneyedPoliticians.net

Thursday, 26 June, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

But without consumers, there's no one to buy all the goods and services we create.

That's the problem. We're a consumption economy (70%) that must borrow $2 Billion a day from the rest of the world. It's going to take some pain to turn this around. We might as well start some time.

The Iraq War could be the tipping point in our history.

Sure, please tell that to Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Spain, and France that are going through very similar (if not worse) problems right now, but without the same war expenditures. The problem that all of these countries share is that we all have a very high standard of living that was propped up by layers of leveraging, 30 years of it in fact; in contrast, see Germany.

Thursday, 26 June, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Barclays Capital said in its closely-watched Global Outlook that US headline inflation would hit 5.5pc by August and the Fed will have to raise interest rates six times by the end of next year to prevent a wage-spiral. If it hesitates, the bond markets will take matters into their own hands. "This is the first test for central banks in 30 years and they have fluffed it. They have zero credibility, and the Fed is negative if that's possible. It has lost all credibility," said Mr Bond.

Thursday, 26 June, 2008  
Blogger Jim Jordan said...

This blog is the most reliable source for economic updates period. Thanks. Hopefully Dr. Reich will be in the next cabinet.

Thursday, 26 June, 2008  
Blogger Dr. Steven J. Balassi said...

This post has been removed by the author.

Thursday, 26 June, 2008  
Anonymous Dr. Steven J. Balassi said...

One point Dr. Reich left out was the non housing debt. Consumers have maxed out their credit cards, student loans, etc. We are at a point where there is no easy money left to purchase items with. On top of all this, banks and credit card companies are tightening lending standards due to the recent credit crisis.

This recession may be a long one. Consumers can’t get to much more money and they are having to pay more for food and gas. Eventually, this will hurt the job market.

Thursday, 26 June, 2008  
Blogger SBVOR said...

See this comment.

Thursday, 26 June, 2008  
Blogger SBVOR said...

Dr. Steven J. Balassi,

Does this chart agree with your assertion?

Where is the flaw in my analysis?

Thursday, 26 June, 2008  
Blogger SBVOR said...

A quantification of the wisdom of lower marginal tax rates is found here.

Thursday, 26 June, 2008  
Blogger Shadow said...

People are so dramatic when markets go down. It's not the end of the world.

Friday, 27 June, 2008  
Anonymous Frank Thomas said...

Dr. Reich,

Your economic recovery prescription is something I've been writing about for months. However, with exception of desperately needed lower-middle class tax rate cut(Obama's $1000 is far too litttle) offset by a progressive tax rate increase, you give no further specifics on HOW TO PAY for the investment programs and needed tax credits for Alternate Fuels, Fuel Efficiency, (Hybrid cars) etc. -- without further exploding our Deficits and deflating the Dollar. You seem to be relying totally on new job generation... which takes time in a deep recession cycle especially.

Here are some other ideas to help offset tax revenues losses -- until compensating tax reveunues from Investment generation of new jobs eventually and "Multiplier effect" kick ... and a likely protracted Recession reverses course to better times.

1. Reduce Defense Spending back to 3.5% of GDP and negotiate with Iraq for Repayment of some past and all future military support services and money spent on Iraq's infrastructure; share more load more with rest of world; eliminate wasteful spending and duplication.

2. Double miserly low federal gasoline tax (less than 20% of what the Dutch pay)to help pay for infrastructure investments; implement a Road Tax on vehicles (except heavy trucks) in 2010 that varies depending on the Weight of the vehicle. Use tax funds to help pay for infrastructure investments;
lower-middle class can easily pay for these taxes with reduction in their tax rates noted above and with tax credits offered for cars with hybrid engines (which are also more energy efficient)

3. Offer and/or extend a 5-10 year Tax-Free status or significant Tax Credit for startup firms engaged in R&D and new product applications related to Alternate Fuel technology or innovative products that Conserve energy. Pay for this partly with a "Windfall Profits" tax on oil firms or higher taxes on oil firms that do not step up drilling activities on existing +130 millions of acres of federal leases.

4. Offer taxpayers a tax credit for increasing Savings which will help improve banking system liquidity to finance investments in good and bad times. This lost tax revenue will be paid for
by increased flows of money for solid Investment projects.

5. Like WWII's spirited success with Uncle Sam's Bonds when the economy was down, consider floating attractive U.S. bonds to individuals and companies for an INVEST IN AMERICAN EDUCATION action. Better to do this and pay the interest to Americans to the Chinese for this investment financing.

I don't think we're at the stage of having to open all doors to SPEND money as if we're close to a 1929 Depression crisis than a recession crisis exacerbated by reckless cheap money and Debt expansion encouraged by snake-eye lending policies.

The current serious situation isn't helped knowing we've had 20 years of stagnant lower-middle class wages ... but it's no time to press the Money Printing and disastrous Debt Expansion panic buttons that got us into this mess in the first place.

We need to come to a new equilibrium in our Economic Model that better balances Consumption, Investment and Savings in the new world of escalating commodity prices and scarce natural resources.

An intelligently integrated package of tax credits, fuel/road tax increases, income tax reforms to vastly improve lower-middle class net incomes, budget cuts, tax-free status, U.S. bonds for education, for example -- all as a foundation for aggressive Investment spending in infrastructure and Education as well as tax stimuli for Alternate (green) Fuel and Fuel Efficiency and Conservation actions.

This requires a complex balancing of the Debits and Credits with government insuring a fair playing field and incentive policies for steering the ship towards short and long term structural recovery ... while leaving the rest to market forces.

It's time for cool heads, for exploiting the brains of the Best and Brightest in the Sciences, Humanities, and in your field of Economics.

Friday, 27 June, 2008  
Anonymous Frank Thomas said...

Dr. Reich,

Correction point 5 last sentence:

Better to do this and pay the interest to Americans than to the Chinese...

Friday, 27 June, 2008  
Anonymous Frank Thomas said...

Dr. Reich,

I forgot to add that, unlike Obama, I'm not advocating Balanced Budgets for near term -- only that the current absolute annual Deficits of +-$300 billion NOT BE EXCEEDED.

Balanced budgets together with aggressive Public Spending amidst a protracted recession and accelerating commodity prices (also contributing to lower GDP growth and tax revenues)) are an impossibility, in my view.

It will take 3-5 years to get to a sound financial position.
Meanwhile, Public Investment is a necessity as well as improving net income of wage earners and expanding the Safety Net (unemployment compensation) and support for job training for those who lose their jobs.

That's why we need some creative balancing of Inflows and Outflows to keep Deficits from worsening during the costly Transition to a structurally more Stable Economy in over next few years.

Many may disagree with me, but I think a more stable equilibrium to strive for in our Economic
Model over next few years, is to see Consumption at 63-65% of GDP (vs. 70% today); Investment at 6-8% of GDP (vs. less than 4% today); and Savings at 4-5% of GDP (vs. Zero today).

Friday, 27 June, 2008  
Blogger Jack Lohman said...

Frank, much of what you say makes sense, but our politicians are bought and paid for by the special interests that will block any measures that benefit anybody but themselves. Only when the public finances the campaigns will politicians own up and be the managers they were elected to be. At $10 per taxpayer per year that would be a bargain. Otherwise a few comments on your post.

1) Makes sense

2. Road and gas taxes just add bureaucracy and are passed on to American consumers anyway. Best to simply increase the progressivity of personal tax rates. We need less government bureaucracy, not more.

3. R&D tax credits make sense, but better would be eliminating all taxes on corporations that manufacture their product in the US. Make it up in personal taxes since “corporate taxes” and “windfall taxes” are passed on to consumers anyway.

4. Makes sense

5. Makes sense

See: http://www.wicleanelections.org

Friday, 27 June, 2008  
Blogger David said...

thanks for blogging, dr. reich!

I've heard you on NPR and frankly thought you should have been elected to office in Mass. when you tried...but then again there is a disconnect between academics and politics it seems. I think you were the best that the Clinton administration had to offer as it was a pretty Republican-lite administration IMO. Larry Summers is proof of that!

I am interested in evening out so-called payroll taxes more evenly across the income spread. Conservatives love to spout that the "Rich" pay so many taxes and yet they mostly ignore the Social Security fund that is currently the biggest banker for the Federal Govt. And Medicaid goes to mainly wealthy pharma and medical combines. 15 percent of every worker's income is taken and often isn't returned as workers in general don't live as long as 'investors'. And conservatives while ignoring the income to the govt. from Social security then put Social Security as the major Entitlement in their debit column.

It's infuriating that this deception keeps going on that the investor class pays most of the taxes ....and yet they put little into payroll taxes compared to the rest of us.

Friday, 27 June, 2008  
Anonymous Frank Thomas said...

Jack Lohman,

Thanks for good feedback, but you may want to think through implications of point 3 carefully.

Friday, 27 June, 2008  
Blogger Jack Lohman said...

Frank, here are my thoughts on taxes. I'd welcome your feedback.

http://www.throwtherascalsout.org/taxes.htm

Friday, 27 June, 2008  
Anonymous Jay said...

It seems to me that "stimulus" is generally a euphemism for "debt". Although I understand the desire to keep the economy humming with stimulus, it seems that most of our problems stem from having gone to that well too often in the past.

Friday, 27 June, 2008  
Blogger SBVOR said...

DocYoast claims (without substantiation):

“GDP growth per capita says all the more. The US population has been growing at a faster pace than the economy, ergo: less money to divide among everyone. This has been going on for quite some time.”

The data say:

1) From 2000 to 2007, the US population grew by 7%

Source: US Census Bureau

2) From 2000 to 2007, Real GDP grew by 18%

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis

BUSTED!

This is just one more example demonstrating that the entire ideology of the Left is PURE MYTHOLOGY!

Friday, 27 June, 2008  
Anonymous silverfox said...

Why is it that we are quick to critize the military for planing to fight yesterday's wars while we fail to apply the same thinking to judging the proposals of economists and intellectuals?

Robert Reich fails to comprehend that this is the 21st century and there have been massive changes in the nature of the global economy pretty much minimizing the effectiveness of most of his proposals.

1. More jobs are lost due to technology than to outsourcing. A large amount of US manufactured goods today are made by machines and not by people. Factory automation, robotics, computer controls, etc.

2. Much wealth today is not the physical element of the goods but rather the intellectual property exclusively owned by a tiny percentage of people. Patents, celebrity endorsements, copyrights, etc. represent the majority of the price we pay for many goods and services today. Witness the $80.00 retail price we pay for sneakers made in China for $2.00 manufactured cost but bearing a sports superstar's name. Not a lot of job creation here.

3.The rise of multinational corporation ownership and manufacturing, which makes it difficult to define an " American" corporation. Best example is the typical automobile with components made all over the world and stock sold equally on a half dozen international stock markets.

4. The growing global recognition of the importance of education, coupled with the internet and the widespread use of English language, means knowledge work can be performed anywhere in the world and therefore increased investment in education does not insure the work will stay in any particuliar country.

5. Near unlimited global competition for limited global resources. If China were to achieve a per capita oil consumption comparable to that of the US, they alone will need the entire world's supply of oil.

6.And of course global competition. If a product or service does not have to be created at the location of sale, it can be made anywhere in the world, generally for the lowest possible cost.

Considering all the above, massive federal investment in infastructure may work short term as public works projects, but there is no reason the believe the long term effect will be new job and wealth creation.

There is an expression that " we can't go home", meaning we can not restore the 'good old days'. Proposing a repeat of what we did in the past in a different economic and political world
does not contribute value to what should be a much more creative and innovative national debate on our most pressing nationaal challenge.

Friday, 27 June, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dr. Reich, the National Center for Policy Analysis issued a report dated 2008-01-21. One central finding of the report is as follows, “The top 1 percent of income earners pay more than one in every three dollars the IRS collects in taxes. From 1986 to 2004, the total share of the income tax burden paid by the top 1 percent of earners grew from 25.8 percent to 36.9 percent, while the total share of the tax burden paid by the bottom half of earners fell from 6.5 percent to only 3.3 percent.”
Obviously, a more progressive tax system has not been working.
Dr. Reich, it is time to address the real issue. The issue is not more tax or less tax. The issue is the devaluation of the dollar, and the effect that has on Americans’ purchasing power. The issue is responsible spending by government and citizens alike. Wasteful government spending will have to be paid for by all Americans, sooner or later, via devaluation of the dollar (which is now occurring). Our policy therefore should be carefully conducted to not penalize the savers and investors, but instead reward and promote that behavior. This is the only cure to the long term devaluation of the dollar, and resulting diminishment of Americans’ purchasing power. More consumption is not the answer…that is part of what created the problem. Living within our means is the answer. Let’s develop policy that promotes this behavior.

Friday, 27 June, 2008  
Blogger Jack Lohman said...

If the issue is the devaluation of the dollar, then we can certainly cast blame to Bush, whose tax giveaways to the wealthy converted a $300B surplus to a $600B deficit, trashed the dollar bill and drove the economy into ruins.

And incidentally mastered wasteful government spending by paying private contractors in Iraq ten times more than what our own troops would have cost.

Yeah, we need change.

Friday, 27 June, 2008  
Blogger SBVOR said...

This post has been removed by the author.

Friday, 27 June, 2008  
Blogger SBVOR said...

Myth:
“we can certainly cast blame to Bush, whose tax giveaways to the wealthy converted a $300B surplus to a $600B deficit, trashed the dollar bill and drove the economy into ruins”

Fact:
Tax revenues increased sharply after the 2003 Tax Cuts.

Fact: The economy has slowed slightly, but it is not in a recession and, contrary to media propaganda, it is most certainly not in “ruins”.

For the objective, quantitative facts about tax cuts, click here.

For the objective, quantitative facts on what’s driving deficit spending, click here and review the latter charts.

I’m REALLY fed up with the OBVIOUS lies and the blatant propaganda from The Left.

Friday, 27 June, 2008  
Blogger Art A Layman said...

sbvor:

I doubt that many here would be opposed if you took your "fed up" and moved on to a blog much more in keeping with your political views.

Is there a Fantasy Island blog?

Friday, 27 June, 2008  
Blogger Jack Lohman said...

Guys, I just really didn't realize it. I "thought" we were having problems, along with the rest of the public.

See Are we having fun yet?

Friday, 27 June, 2008  
Blogger SBVOR said...

The ease with which Leftists smugly and blindly swallow and regurgitate their propaganda never ceases to amaze me.

Friday, 27 June, 2008  
Blogger SBVOR said...

Okay ladies & gentlemen, trot out the predictable Moral Equivalence argument. I’m waiting patiently.

Friday, 27 June, 2008  
Blogger Jack Lohman said...

Yeah, SBVOR, this is one "leftist" that voted for Bush Sr once and Bush Jr twice, so I really do deserve to be called stupid.

Friday, 27 June, 2008  
Blogger SBVOR said...

Jack,

I have no idea who you voted for (and never will). Nor would it prove anything if I did.

What I know for sure that the link you provided is drowning in misleading and overtly Marxist propaganda.

Friday, 27 June, 2008  
Blogger SBVOR said...

Jack,

Add an extra "is" to my previous comment.

Friday, 27 June, 2008  
Blogger Art A Layman said...

sbvor:

Are you sure? Do you know what the meaning of "is", is?

Friday, 27 June, 2008  
Anonymous Lincoln said...

Exactly right. We need a more progressive tax system that puts more money in the hands of the consumers who will actually spend it.

We need to counteract the elistist views from the right who believe (wrongly) that the wealthiest Americans know best how to spend/invest money and should therefore have the nation's wealth re-distributed toward them.

Friday, 27 June, 2008  
Blogger Richard H. Serlin said...

I'd like to comment on Paul Krugman's column today here. I hope you don't mind.

Krugman writes:

"Why are politicians so eager to pin the blame for oil prices on speculators? Because it lets them believe that we don’t have to adapt to a world of expensive gas."

I think perhaps even bigger reason why Republicans want to blame speculators for sky high gas costs is that they don't want the public to put the blame where it's really due – on them.

For decades Republicans have constantly blocked Democratic attempts to increase fuel mileage and many other efficiency and conservation measures. They've also constantly blocked or cut spending on alternative energy, all the while mindlessly chanting "Free market". The economics community had proven long ago that there are many situations and ways where a government role can add greatly to efficiency, wealth, and welfare, but this is a party that long ago refused to think beyond slogans. They acted as though not being simple-minded was a vice, liberal and un-American, when in fact, thinking, and believing in science, evidence, and logic is one of the things that made this country great, and the richest and strongest in the world.

Now we're paying a big price for Republican ideology in energy and so many other things. Had the Democrats not been outvoted, filibustered, and vetoed from enacting their "big government" mileage, conservation, research, and other energy measures over the last almost three decades, gasoline might be less than half its price today, and mileage more than twice as high, making the gas cost per mile less than a quarter of what it is now.

And, of course, it wouldn't hurt that this would have starved the terrorists, and some of the worst authoritarian regimes in the world, of money, and greatly decreased the momentous risks of global warming, trivial benefits that aren't taken into account by the magical free markets By the way, such things are called externalities by serious academic economists..There they go again, those elitist, liberal, academic economists and scientists with their fancy book learnin'.

Friday, 27 June, 2008  
Blogger SBVOR said...

Lincoln,

By definition, redistribution of wealth involves either charity of the use of force.

A lower marginal tax rate means that the top 20% pay a larger percentage of the total tax and the bottom 80% pay a smaller percentage of the total tax.

And, a lower marginal tax rate means a rising tide that lifts all boats while, owing to the Laffer Curve, also increasing tax revenues.

IF, in the process, the most productive members of our society are lifted higher than the least productive members of our society, that does NOT equate to forcible redistribution of wealth!

But, to suggest government should “correct” that “problem” IS clearly central to Marxist doctrine.

Friday, 27 June, 2008  
Blogger SBVOR said...

Richard H. Serlin,

1) Republicans are not blaming speculators, the Leftist media and Senate Democrats are.

2) Any fool knows the price of oil is a simple function of demand exceeding supply.

3) Fuel efficiency has already increased dramatically.

4) And that is why our growth in demand has remained nearly flat while the demand from the rest of the world has exploded. There is little we can do to offset worldwide demand.

Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less!

Friday, 27 June, 2008  
Anonymous Frank Thomas said...

Art.....Jack

Tax Revenues under BUSH Jr. decreased about 6% annually from 2000 to 2003 because of economic slowdown. They increased 10% annually from 2003 to 2008 (estimate). The 8 year increase in Bush's term is averaging about 3% annually. Of course , tax revenue growth is expected to fall off sharply in coming months.

Now here comes the BIG Catch-22 where unprofessionals and manipulators play politics with figures. The Sbvors claim the Bush tax cut started the much stronger rate of increase in tax revenues after 2003. NOT QUITE TRUE!

The period 2000-2006 was the Greenspan cheap money period which exploded total credit market debt to over 320% of GDP (compared to historical rates in the 150% range)by 2007. This is the period that the Savings rate went from 3.3% of GDP to ZERO. This is the period that credit card debt soared. This is the period US households began selling assets and borrowing on assets to support their Consumption ... all helped along by snake-oil lending practices and deregulation gone berserk.

So all of this bad policy stimuli was what primarily caused the jump in personal spending and tax revenues after 2003. Of course, as I've written earlier, this game of printing cheap money has inevitably crashed down on us, as its foundation is merely based on spending an "illusionary wealth."

So, it wasn't the Bush tax cut that raised tax revenues during 2003-2006 ... it was mainly the soaring household debt and drop in the 3.5% Savings rate to Zero for those lower-middle class households trying to keep up thier standard of living. The latter got next to nothing of the Bush tax cuts even though it was and still is well-known that the lower-middle class has long been the victim of a negative rate of wage growth in real terms for over 20 years.

So TRICKLE DOWN propaganda is just that ... propaganda and nothing more. When will we ever learn that fact? That's why households have been enticed the last few years to supplement stagnant incomes by cheap debt cocaine to point where spending is over 130% of National Income.

Another factor supporting GDP and tax revenue growth in this period has been the huge investments in war materials for Iraq and Afghanistan.

As I've said a couple of times, I hope to get some simple Tables out on our National Budget performance history under different Presidencies. It's time our leaders got street smart with all the facts, rather than half the facts.

Politicians do this all the time. It's what's undermining policy clarity and integrity in managing taxpayer money in the interests of all Americans. The net result is that the public is in the fog and doesn't really see

Friday, 27 June, 2008  
Anonymous Frank Thomas said...

Art.....Jack

Correction in final paragraph:

...the public is in the fog and doesn't really see or believe much that's being told them, except by acceptance on blind trust or political loyalty.

Friday, 27 June, 2008  
Blogger SBVOR said...

Frank,

Even if we assume all of your utterly unsubstantiated BS is true, how do you explain the FACT that, between 1960 and today, the marginal tax rate dropped from 91% to as low as 28% while tax receipts as a percentage of GDP actually went up?

Hint: It’s called the Laffer Curve.

Friday, 27 June, 2008  
Blogger Jack Lohman said...

Richard, we aren't paying only for the transgressions of Republicans, Democrats have also blocked attempts to increase fuel mileage. Why? Because they were paid to do so by the automobile industry. It's called campaign cash, and as long as we allow our corrupt political system to exist, that's the way it will be.

The only redeeming part of the story is that American automakers are now paying the price as Asian carmakers improved efficiency while the US auto fat cats "won." A classic case of be careful of what you ask for.

Friday, 27 June, 2008  
Anonymous Betsy L. Angert said...

Dearest Secretary Reich . . .

I thank you for your thoughts. I am grateful to read a treatise that addresses a multiplicity of concerns, all of which have haunted me for years.

When American corporations think it apt to lay off workers in order to increase stock prices, they forget the unemployed are consumers. Who (in this country) will buy their products if they have no earnings. Cars are costly. Food is dear. Fuel takes a bite out of a tight budget.

What we see in the auto industry occurs in most every business. Universities hire adjunct faculty. Corporations retain consultants. Cities, States, every locality uses the services of part-time employees. Large companies cut benefits and 401K matching plans. No one is safe. Americans scrimp and do not have enough to save. The infrastructure suffers. So too does the health of those who live with stress.

When people are not the priority, we all pay for the ills of exorbitant profits. With no work, or little job security, common folks barely function.

I understand why people whose pocketbooks are empty cry out, "No new taxes." Yet, I think it unwise for lawmakers to appease the electorate who employ them. Perhaps, humans no matter their profession think immediate gratification is good.

I believe offers of (gas tax) holidays, reduced levies, or levees built cheaply, promises of a renewed oil supply are folly. It seems to me the America people are their own worst enemies.

I invite your review and reflection on essays that endeavor to discuss what is a complex quandary.
United Auto Workers [UAW] Are Everyman; The American Experience
Let Them Eat Oil
The Elections and Ethics; Gas and Gratification

Betsy L. Angert
BeThink.org

Friday, 27 June, 2008  
Blogger Jack Lohman said...

It's clear. We need more tax cuts for the wealthy. Look at the evidence SVBOR has provided.

Saturday, 28 June, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I disagree with the notion that the Fed should have raised rates. The most important measure of inflation is the value of the dollar. The current Fed policy of maintaining rates below the inflation rate has seriously weakened the dollar.

This economic problem is a demand side problem. Lowering rates when people have too much debt and can't take any more does not help, it hurts.

Lowering the value of the dollar hurts working class people more than higher interest rates do. Food costs more and so does energy and that is where most working class people spend their money.

The Fed should raise interest rates and the treasury should defend the dollar. Inflation is much higher than the published rate and it is time the government dealt with it.

Saturday, 28 June, 2008  
Anonymous Frank Thomas said...

Sbvor,

I'm well aware of the Kennedy and Reagan marginal tax rates cuts in 1965 and l981. The cuts stimulated the economy because the progressive rates of 90% and 70% were insanely progressive, so Reagan's move to reduce latter to 50% made a lot of sense... but no sense for 85% of wage earners who got much less after-tax improvement than the top 10%.

But Reagan's administration had extremely high Deficit levels in 6.6% of GDP range because of exploding Defense expenditures and fact tax rate cuts for lower-middle class didn't put much after tax earnings in peoples'pockets, in contrast to the top 10% earners.

This combined with very high personal credit card and other debts caused the lower-middle class to use small tax savings to reduce their debts rather go on another consumption spurt. RESULT: exploding Deficits
which later forced Bush Sr. to necessity of increasing taxes.

The Laffer Cure is "Laughable" in addressing how our system is encouraging the Concentration of wealth , high Debt levels and living for the moment.

As stated above, the problem was that the after-tax effect of Reagan''s cuts on the after tax earnings of lower-middle
class income earners was "marginal" at best.

The same was true for Bush Jr.'s tax cuts going mainly to the top 10%, knowing lower-middle class incomes have been stagnant for two decades and the Debt craze was on as result of Greenspans's cheap money policies.

If you look at the after-tax earnings effects of Bush Jr.s tax cuts on the lower-middle class, you will see they were miniscule. So we encouraged the imprudent activity of increasing Debt as a result of inadequate earnings by bulk of the working population.

Bush tax cuts enriched the already rich while the rest of the population resorted to cheap money Debt proliferation to supplement stagnant income growth. That was the main cause of an improvement in tax revenues during 2003-2006. And, of course, like Reagan, our Deficits have exploded under Bush due to similar policy combination of exploding Defense spending while cutting taxes for the rich.

So the Laffer Curve is not God's answer to our economy when it subtly postures that our future economic stability depends on increasing the marginal after-tax earnings of the top 10%-- who have an army of financial advisors to help them exploit tax loopholes and tax deferred gimmicks - while encouraging petty after-tax improvements for other 90% who become dependent on Debt and have little access to 401(k)s or financial planning... so they resort, for example, to spending huge sums on lottery tickets (reputed to average about $650 per household) which is highly regressive.

Combine this with stagnant wage growth, an explosion of Debt that inhibits social mobility and destroys lives as evidenced by credit card debt almost quadrupled from $240 billion in 2001 to $937 billion in 2007, an average annual increase of 26%.

The tax code should do more to encourage Savings across the whole range of income earners while finally giving some meaningful after-tax earning relief to the lower-middle class. What has been happening I call financial decadence that is causing a sharp financial polarization in our society.

Again, using Holland as an example, tax rates are progressive but the government and people are extremely frugal and prudent in Debt management; Employment is steady at 5%, Savings are in 6% of GDP range, GDP consistently grows in 2-3% range without volatile changes, government and personal Debt levels are low,and there's a sensible safety net for good and bad times.

So how do Laffer Curves explain this? Kennedy also said, "A mistake is not a mistake until you refuse to recognize it."

We have many things out-of-balance in our Economic Model and economic dogmatism of your sort contributes nothing creative on how to correct equitably these imbalances ... solutions that will provide greater structural economic stability which do not necessarily translate into the obsolete formula of faster and faster growth by lower and lower taxes to the rich and corporations. Today, corporations already contribute a relatively low 12% of total tax revenues compared to 50% contributed by individuals.

So, as an independent businessman all my life, I love low taxes but I also love the Edmund Burke values of Prudence, Fairness and Community ... not a country corrupted by wealth or a Debt game that steers costs to future generations.

Saturday, 28 June, 2008  
Blogger Jack Lohman said...

Excellent points Frank. Tax cuts to the rich, so they can invest in outsourcing more jobs to foreign companies, rewards the campaign contributors but not the lower income folks that make up the demand side of the economy. There are some who won’t be happy until the rich have it all and the poor have to scrape for food. They should try living in Mexico.

Yes, we do have many things out-of-balance in our Economic Model, and that’s because we have a corrupt political system that is funded by the fat cats that like it just the way it is.

Jack Lohman
http://MoneyedPoliticians.net

Saturday, 28 June, 2008  
Anonymous Frank Thomas said...

Dr. Reich,

There are many complexities and interrelationships of the policy tradeoffs of tax cuts, selective tax increases, tax incentives, budget cuts to keep Deficits and Dollar from going South ... while regenerating economy with a Marhall Plan investment attack on Alternate Fuels/Fuel Efficiency/Conservation and our Social-Infrastructure.

These circumstances force me to say we need some very bright, objective people -- not only politicians or data analysis organizations with their own political agendas -- using advanced knowhow from the Sciences/Humanities/Economics to thoroughly review and computer Model Test economic policy package options. This includes assessing some party's pet policy rationals, like "Laffe Curves" or some other "Cure-All" economic policy theory.

The economic imbalances, energy/commodity supply-demand, and fiscal policy conditions are vastly different today -- compounded by the absolute certainty of long-term oil/gas/commodity price escalations with resultant Boomerang effect on Dollar's value. The Catch-22s on our nations'social-economic harmony would challenge even Einstein!

We are in New Territory requiring other creative policy approaches plus just the right touch of tried and tested policies for the right results.

Our Puritan values of frugality and spending what you earn to build for the future in a fair playing field have disintegrated. To what extent we get back to these values will determine whether we come out of the deep social-economic MESS we are in now and for some time.

Saturday, 28 June, 2008  
Blogger Art A Layman said...

jack:

Can you imagine the fantastic growth in tax revenues and economic growth if we lowered the marginal tax rates for the top 1% to negative rates?

Maybe, so not to confuse the issue we raise marginal tax rates on the top 1% to 95% and then add a tax surcharge rate of -110%.

Gracious, in only a year or so we could pay back all the Iraq War debt.

Saturday, 28 June, 2008  
Blogger Jack Lohman said...

I don't know exactly what you are proposing, Art, but neither extreme is good. But we seem to be headed toward one extreme in the ownership of wealth. I think that's dangerous and will ultimately result in anarchy. Perhaps not in my lifetime, but I fear for my kids and grandkids.

Saturday, 28 June, 2008  
Blogger Art A Layman said...

jack:

What I was proposing was facetious. It was, however, the logical extension of Laffer's and sbvor's argument, admittedly to the point of absurdity.

It was essentially arguing that if lower marginal rates, on the wealthy, lead to greater tax revenues and increasing GDP, then actually turning over government revenues to the top 1%, through negative tax rates, should solve most of our problems.


You have to forgive sbvor. He's great at finding all these pretty graphs that he thinks substantiate his arguments but he doesn't really understand them and therefore can't see the fallacy in his premise.

He is at best, comic relief.

Saturday, 28 June, 2008  
Blogger Jack Lohman said...

Thanks for the clarification, Art. I see far too many so-called "think tanks" and bloggers who receive "grants" from individuals or companies to push their agenda of greed to better pad their pockets. How much more money do they need? Is one yacht and five vacation homes not enough?

Saturday, 28 June, 2008  
Blogger Art A Layman said...

sbvor asks:

Frank,

Even if we assume all of your utterly unsubstantiated BS is true, how do you explain the FACT that, between 1960 and today, the marginal tax rate dropped from 91% to as low as 28% while tax receipts as a percentage of GDP actually went up?


Now sbvor has a pretty graph that displays his premise. In 1960, income taxes as a % of GDP were 7.9%. In 2007 the same ratio was 8.5%. Son of a gun! He's right!

Wait a minute though. You can raise a question as to whether that statistic really means anything at all, but let's assume it's valid. Since 1960 GDP has increased, in real, chained 2000 dollars, by 462%. If we had flat income taxes then the relatively constant ratio would make sense. Since we have a progressive tax rate structure and assuming a rising GDP portends rising incomes, one would guess that the growth in income taxes compared to GDP would reflect a far greater increase.

Going a little further and we find that at the end of 1960, our "all employee nonfarm base" was 53,743,000. December 2007 finds our "all employee nonfarm base" at, 138,078,000. Folks, that is a hell of a lot of additional wage earners and taxpayers. Surely all those additional taxpayers, with progressive rates, would have increased income taxes as a percent of GDP more than a mere .6% in a perfect world.

Another thing that sbvor's fancy graph points out but he fails to mention is that in 1980, income taxes as a percent of GDP were at 9.4%. So in this Valhallic post-Reagan inauguration period we have seen income taxes as a percent of GDP decline by .9%. If the ratio means anything at all and if we accept sbvor's premise that the ratio proves a positive, methinks that decline disproves his theory.

In another post he sends us the the St. Louis Fed site. Here he presents us with another graph proposing that from 2000 through 2007, due to Bush's tax cuts, "tax revenues" have shown a significant rise, thereby establishing that lowering tax rates on the wealthy increases tax revenues. Alas, during that period, individual income taxes rose by $159.0 billion, a 15.8% growth rate; Social Security and other tax receipts rose by $220.7 billion, a 27.1% increase. Corporate tax receipts rose by $162.9 billion, a 78.6% increase. Corporate taxes would have nothing to do with personal marginal tax rates.

So of the total increase in federal government receipts from 2000 to 2007, $542.7 billion, 70.6% had nothing to do with marginal rate reductions.

The graph is impressive but sbvor failed to realize that total "federal receipts" is not the same as "individual income tax receipts".

Now we have to cut sbvor a little slack. It is hard to be an expert on economics, climatology, oil drilling/production, tax revenues, GDP and God knows what else, without getting a little confused from time to time. One would hope he would get a little confused with less frequency but his confusion provides a smile for all the rest of us.

Saturday, 28 June, 2008  
Blogger Jack Lohman said...

Art, if a little tax break for the rich is so powerful, just imagine what zero taxes for the rich would do for us. Let the little guy pay for the infrastructure while the rich guys build more wealth and jobs for us peons. :-)

Perhaps that could work if they were not building those jobs in China or India.

Saturday, 28 June, 2008  
Blogger Art A Layman said...

jack:

No doubt we "little people" should pay for infrastructure repairs. We are the ones who use that infrasructure. The wealthy fly everywhere.

I was proposing not only zero taxes for the wealthy but through negative rates we could give them back more than they paid in. Either way I could see nothing but "blue skies" for our culture.

As a hedge though, it might be advisable to take a course in Chinese.

Saturday, 28 June, 2008  
Blogger kayxyz said...

For all the fear-mongering about Iraq and the separate issue of the Taliban, remember, the military is one of the biggest users of oil, and you never hear about military use of oil, needed to conduct the war in Iraq.

The Financial Ninja, who is Canadian and who owes no phony allegiance to anyone in the US has a picture of Alan Greenspan as the person to blame. I remember reading Greenspan's comments that because the housing bubble was taking place around the world, he had to keep US interest rates low. My question: the US is the world's largest economy, so what other country around the world had housing booms that Ala Greenspan felt he had to compete with? My answer: no other country was responsible.

Sorta like George W Bush's last election campaign slogan was "let us finish the job we started in Iraq" but the job is nowhere near finished if McCain wants to stay there another 100 years. Of course, if Obama is elected President, he can send McCain and Bush as ambassadors to Iraq. Let them live in the Green Zone with their families.

Of course the stock market had a bad day. Inflation will be the tool Bernanke uses to keep Social Security and Medicare solvent.

Saturday, 28 June, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tax the rich. They've got the most wealth, can afford it, and have gained the most from the commons. For them to not willingly share is moral greed. Greed is sometimes criminal. Criminals are sometimes prosecuted and sentenced. Sometimes there is justice.

Saturday, 28 June, 2008  
Blogger Bruce Barnes said...

It should be criminal that through capital gains breaks and FICA taxes, we pay more taxes on the money we earn through work than on passive investment income. As THE WALL STREET JOURNAL reported, a recent study found that the top .01% or 14,000 American families hold 22.2% of wealth — the bottom 90%, or over 133 million families, just 4% of the nation’s wealth. “Over the past 30 years, most of the increase in America’s wealth has accrued to those who need it least. In 2003 the top 5% of households took 21.4% of the income, up from 16.6% in 1973. A survey for Time/CNN in 2000 showed that 19% of Americans believed they were in the top 1% of earners.”
Income is not a measure of being rich, net worth is. The wealthiest 1-percent of households have more assets than the lowest 95 %, $18 trillion. Since the total individual assets are $55 trillion. The wealthiest 5 % own about 67% of the individual net worth in the USA. Shouldn’t the top 5 % be paying 67 % of the total income taxes collected by the federal government, instead of 58.8 % or the top 10% of taxpayers paying only 69.7% of the total. So to say, “A relatively small proportion of the U.S. population pays a disproportionately large percentage of federal income taxes.” is very misleading.
Lower income taxpayers must report all of their earned income and the wealthier people only report what they have to. According to “Free Lunch” pages 82-83, by David Cay Johnston, “On his 1998 income tax return, which he made public, Bush reported a long-term capital gain of almost $17 million from the Rangers sale. Based on the stake he bought he would have earned a bit more than $2 million.”
“The IRS issued a directive in 1993 that is relevant to Bush’s tax return. “A partnership capital interest for services provided to, or for the benefit of, the partnership is taxable as compensation.” The 10 percent share the partners gave Bush is just what the IRS procedural guide described. It should have been taxed as compensation, not as a long-term capital gain on an investment. The top rate for compensation in 1998 was 39.6 %, plus another 2.9 percentage points for the Medicare tax.
In spite of this clear directive, Bush treated the entire $16.9 million from the Rangers deal as a long-term capital gain. He paid only the 20 percent rate on such gains. The result was that after paying taxes Bush pocketed $3.7 million more than the law, and the IRS directive, seem to allow. Treating such compensation as capital gains is, however, widespread and not often challenged by the IRS.”
The 50 top hedge fund managers made $29 billion dollars in 2007. That’s an average of over $500 million dollars per person taxed as capital gains of only 15 % that should have been taxed as compensation.

Thursday, 03 July, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sell Italian bonds. Italian public debt has reached a record high at 1646,7 billion euros.It is worse than 1992 when the country went very near to declare default(insolvency)

Sunday, 06 July, 2008  
Blogger ........................... said...

also, one more factor is the outsourcing which is indirectly affecting the inflation....

Monday, 07 July, 2008  
Blogger kennedy said...

Dropping interest rates is like curing an alcoholic's problem with happy hour.Let see the stock market is over valued and needs to correct back below 8500 which it is in the process of doing, that is not an excuse to run up gov't spending on worthless projects when we are currently running a 500B shortfall as it is.
===================================
kennedy

sale by owner

Sunday, 12 October, 2008  
Blogger jack said...

It is very bad to be happened like this,but sometimes these are common to happen,The fact that our tax system favors the top 5% is certainly not news and good luck prying much out of those folks.
====================================
james

sale by owner

Sunday, 12 October, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

徵信, 徵信社, 感情挽回, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 感情挽回, 外遇沖開, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 女人徵信, 外遇, 外遇, 外遇, 外遇

徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信網, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信,

Thursday, 12 February, 2009  

Post a Comment

<< Home