Visit Your Local PBS Station PBS Home PBS Home Programs A-Z TV Schedules Watch Video Support PBS Shop PBS Search PBS

   
the Online NewsHour
E-mail This Page Print This Page
the Online NewsHourChevronIntelBNSF RailwayBank of AmericaToyotaMonsantoCorporation for Public Broadcasting
BROWSE BY
REGION
TOPIC
RECENT PROGRAMSLOCAL TV LISTINGSSUBSCRIPTIONSTEACHER RESOURCESSEARCH


REGION: North America
TOPIC: Business & Economy
Online NewsHour
The Business Desk with Paul Solman

« Previous Entry | Main | Next Entry »

Why are we not focusing on stimulating consumer spending?

Name: Bjorn Houston
City & State: San Jose, Calif.

Woman shopping; AP photo

Question/Comment: Hello, Paul. I am certainly no economist (as my question will show), but I learned in business school (to my surprise at the time) that two-thirds of GDP is the result of consumer spending, not corporate or government spending. If that is true, why are we focusing on "bailing out" or stimulating the banking sector with the $700bn? Why are we not focusing instead on stimulating consumer spending?

How to accomplish this stimulation is, of course, a separate question, but would not this changed perspective of assisting the "demand-side" rather than the "supply side" result in a discussion that would give us taxpayers the potential of receiving a bigger bang for our bail-out buck? Rather than simply averting a crisis by sluffing off the \'toxic assets\' of the banking sector onto us taxpayers, we would be looking to really stimulate the general economy. If we're going to spend $700 billion anyway, why not maximize its effectiveness?

Paul Solman: The argument is that the world's governments had to do something FAST and mailing out stimulus checks to consumers is anything but. Nor is it clear people would actually spend the extra money - consume, that is - instead of saving it.

The problem was/is a credit crunch: banks not lending. That means businesses and consumers are not able to borrow; that means consumption has stopped in its tracks. So, first and foremost, the idea is to replenish the banks and get them lending.

George W. Bush adopted as a motto "the ownership society." He advocated PRIVATIZATION: of social security and medical care. NOT part of the program - or even a bad joke at dinner -- was NATIONALIZATION, with which he is now more than flirting. You have to figure that, given his ideology and with as much negative public reaction as he was sure to get, the President and his advisors were scared out of their socks. So they went for the quickest fix possible.

-- Posted October 21, 2008 | Comments (7) | Permalink

TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Why are we not focusing on stimulating consumer spending?.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/mt4/mt-tb.cgi/760

7 Comments

Gary said:

Yeah..one quick fix..then another and another while they hold onto our money...buying up more banks, consolidating their wealth. Sounds like they need BA: Bailout Anonymous!


 
Josiah said:

If the goverment wanted to kick start the economy stimulating consumer spending would make sense and could be done through goverment issued credit cards at low rates. This would allow many people to purchase vehicles, use as a down payment to buy a home, pay off higher interest rate loans (Freeing up money for personal consumption rather than high interest rates)it would also be money that consumers would only get if they used it. While it may have many consequences it would in fact help stimulate the economy. When you consider the Billions of dollars being pumped into the banking system, this equates to thousands of dollars for every citizen.


 
Mark Anderson said:

We don't need any more "stimulating" in any way, shape, or form. The real economy is NOT driven by consumption, but by SAVINGS.

The reason why there is a "credit crunch" is because there is a "savings crunch."

With negative real rates of interest for so long, we burned through capital and savings. The government is not allowing us to save, by "stimulating" us more and more. Thus, we are still burning through capital and savings. We are living through a slow-motion run on real wealth. People just haven't figured this one out. When they do, look out.

Every additional penny the federal government spends only hastens the day when the food shortages start.


 
Dean Moorhead said:

Mr. Solman,
Last night, Oct. 21st, an interview you held with two gentlemen discussed the possibility of a MAJOR economic downturn in the economy. Unfortunately I missed the comlete address given to access the video. Will you please e-mail me the correct information so I may watch the complete interview.
Thank you,
Deann Moorhead


 
Jacki Ackerman said:

Why can't we have a "stimulus pkg" that would promote less consumer debt. i.e. If the stimulus is spent on existing debt, then it is tax free. If it is spent on anything other than existing debt, then tax it as regular income.

The money would be going back into the system, and people who are in financial crisis would have a chance to get their heads above water.

Im no economist, and I understand it is not quite this simple, but the concept makes sense to me.


 
George said:

It remains unclear that Mr. Solman's opinion that a stimulus package wouldn't work if consumers simply put the money in a bank to save. Banks are not required to keep the total value of checking and savings account in real dollars, just a portion of that.

So if you put your money in a bank instead of spending the cash directly, the bank will lend the money you deposited to credit worthy recipients of:

1. A business, home, or auto loans; Or,

2. Another bank


 
Steve Selengut said:

How To Stimulate Consumer Spending And Jumpstart The Economy

My survey produced an interesting anomaly--- several respondents felt that excessive consumer spending was the primary cause of the economic problems we face today, and that spending is not to be encouraged.

But the root problem they were correctly speaking to is the source of the spending money, not the spending itself. Spending is essential for demand creation, and increasing demand is what produces jobs.

So why we ask, does government remove the dollars from the economy before they accomplish the demand stimulus "thingie" (highly technical economics jargon)? Nearly half the survey responses observed that consumption taxes (The Fair Tax) are far more productive/creative than income taxes.

The other half wants to replace the IRC (Internal Revenue Code) with a Flat Tax on all forms of income. Both suggestions are simple, and quantum leaps better than anything being seriously considered by congress--- "seriously" being the operative word.

A combination of the two--- priceless, but later!

The single, easiest, fastest, biggest, consumer-spending instant winner bonanza is not even a twinkle in an old politician's eye--- there are far too few new politicians. Replace the Social Security Retirement Program with a plain vanilla pension plan, pre-funded by smaller, mandated employee contributions.

The current methodology is simple: it takes money out of our pockets (and our employers) puts it though governmental blenders, and spits out IOUs for a meager benefit at retirement. Why not let the private sector provide pension benefits to all employees under the direction of a trimmed down Social Security bureaucracy?

How? By purchasing Social Security Retirement Income Annuities (SSRIAs). Google "A Capitalist's Social Security Reform" for the nitty-gritty details, but here's what we accomplish:

We stimulate spending immediately by only withdrawing 3% of income from 300 million pockets and pocketbooks, and nothing from employer treasuries. We provide demand-push spending money and reduce demand for consumer credit.

And, looking forward an article or two, we collect a tax on every dollar spent in the economy--- except those for food, healthcare, and higher education; even from our friends and neighbors in the Underground and Internet economies.

There are several other ideas on the more-spending-money-in-consumer-pockets agenda, and some thoughts about consumer confidence. It's tough to be confident, for example, when you click the links between congress and business lobbyists.

It's tough to be confident when we see Wall Street control its regulators, constantly produce the same speculative garbage, and reward its senior employees and sales persons from the carcasses of mutilated shareholder-owners and "hostaged" taxpayers.

These confidence destroyers can be dealt with, but first the rest of the story, on increasing consumer spending without credit abuse:

One: Reduce the interest rate on all mortgages at least twenty-five basis points, and adjust monthly payments accordingly. The banks owe us, and will make-up the difference from increased business activity.

For the rest of the article, please google the title.

Steve Selengut
sanserve (at) aol.com
http://www.kiawahgolfinvestmentseminars.com
Author of: "The Brainwashing of the American Investor: The Book that Wall Street Does Not Want YOU to Read", and "A Millionaire's Secret Investment Strategy"


 

Leave a comment






 

 

Archive

November 2009
Sun  Mon  Tue  Wed  Thu  Fri  Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30          
 

 
» See All Entries

Paul Solman on Twitter

NewsHour economic coverage is funded by a grant from: The Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
ABOUT US | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS / FEEDS: 
POD|RSS
Funded, in part, by:ChevronIntelBNSF RailwayBank of AmericaToyotaMonsantoCorporation for Public Broadcasting
            Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station.
PBS Online Privacy Policy

Copyright ©1996- MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. All Rights Reserved.