AD: Mesquite Gaming

The most popular online news source, publishing news as it happens in Mesquite, Nevada. * 702.346.6432 * barbara@mesquitecitizen.com * Barbara Ellestad, Publisher * ALL Content Copyright 2011-2014

Friday, August 01, 2014
MESQUITE NEWS 
SPORTS 
HIGH SCHOOL SPORTS 
OPINIONS 
WRITER'S CORNER 
COMMUNITY 
CONSUMER NEWS 
MARKETPLACE 
INTERACTIVE 

This week's poll

Has the NSA gone too far in its data collection efforts?

Yes, they need to stop
No, they are keeping us safe
I don't care

View Poll Report

 Keywords:
one or more words required
all words required
forced & ordered phrase
Multi forced & ordered phrase
words with exceptions
Help
 
 Issue date:
Date Format: dd-mm-yyyy

   
Sesame Street Helps Define Economy
Posting Date: 06/18/2012

Terry Donnelly

In 1961 Joseph Heller published “Catch-22,” a satirical and absurd novel set during World War II. The title emerged from the story and into common usage as the reason for a problem being unsolvable due to a condition within the problem itself. Specifically–pilots may not be excused from flying bombing missions due to insanity because to request such relief in and of itself proves one’s sanity.

A month ago I devoted my column to putting the national deficit on the back burner because it is imperative to spend money to enhance the economy. My opinion goes unchanged. However, the call to spend less and not borrow, even with terrific rates available to our country, continues. With help from Mr. Heller and the classic children’s television show “Sesame Street,” I’ll give it another shot.

When business is unwilling to spend money, the government must. That is the function of government in a capitalistic society–do what business cannot or will not. President Obama and liberals understands this, but the conservative faction demanding a deficit reduction now does not.

I took one economics class in high school plus two in college. Even this basic course of study has made two aspects of our current situation perfectly clear. First, any one business is dependent upon others buying products or services that are being sold. If we all quit spending money all at once, there will be no economic growth because no business will be selling any goods. Due to austerity I won’t buy anything from you resulting in you having no money to spend in my store. We both go down–sure as anything a Catch-22.

Secondly, if the economy is sluggish, big business, even if they are receiving record profits to line the coffers, will be queasy about hiring and expanding due to the–wait for it–sluggish economy–sure as anything another Catch-22.

Here’s another look from a different angle. “Sesame Street” occasionally airs a segment of the show called, “Which one is not like the others?” They will show an apple, a tomato, and a carrot. Which one is not like the others? The carrot–because it is not a fruit.

In economics, the three posers are: personal debt, small business debt, and national debt. National debt is not like the others because it is a

shared debt, much of which is owed to ourselves. The government will not go out of business just because of debt. Both small businesses and individual families will.

Supply side economists force an unnecessary Catch-22 into this conundrum. The theory suggests that taxes and regulations be cut and lucrative incentives given to big business. Those monetary gains will then trickle down creating jobs and the economy will flourish. President George H. W. Bush rightly called it “Voodoo economics.” Big businesses create record profits due to government actions, but will not hire and expand. They keep the money because demand is low.

The people who buy most of the stuff are the middle and lower classes due to sheer numbers, plus the fact they spend 100 percent of their earned income to survive. They still have no jobs, ergo, no money to spend resulting in low demand.

This Catch-22 is avoidable by simply eliminating the middleman. Don’t give the money to the already rich and wait for it to percolate–get the money directly into the hands of the two economic entities whose debts are like one another.

Given jobs, families have money so they buy more goods and pay more taxes. Small businesses make more profit, so they hire, produce goods and, presto–pay more taxes.

Government can create good short-term jobs in construction plus make it easier for states to return public servants to their jobs. Even if money comes as welfare or bailout, it gets spent and creates demand. The economy may still be weak due to debt, but demand is the only condition big businesses seem to care about before hiring and expanding.

Big business may squirm out of paying taxes, but if they hire and expand, the beneficiaries of their growth will also send money back to the government via taxes. These actions will mitigate any government spending. Soon our economy is humming. Then is the time to work to reduce the deficit, not when money needs to be spent.

The money can’t trickle down fast enough. We can’t wait for “by and by the jobs will come”–that is a quote worthy of a Grimm fairy tale.

By the way–sitting in that high school economics class is my answer to the question every one of us over 50 has on the tip of our collective tongues, “Where were you when you heard on Nov. 22, 1963?”

 

Commentary
  • Posted Date: 06/18/2012
    Terry, Thanks for this excellent and accurate definition of the operations of our federal government economy. The differences between personal/small business budgets and national government budgets is why there are TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT fields of economics – 1 = Microeconomics, that is the study of small economies where the person/business is in control and making decisions based solely on their own wants and needs and 2 = Macroeconomics, where governments’ economies must make decisions and policies based upon the wants and needs of their general populations as well as the position of their economy’s in the world marketplace where it exists. These are two VERY DIFFERENT situations. Keynesian macroeconomics has been proven to work and supply-side (also known as Voodoo economics and tricle-down economics) has been proven as a failure – why would we even consider trying it again!
    By: John
  •  
  • Posted Date: 06/18/2012
    One other addition to this article is that when poor free-trade policies are enacted, the corporations that are making record profits send the jobs that are required to meet demand to other countries where the workers are basically enslaved and work for a few dollars a day under deplorable conditions. These policies result in a “race to the bottom” to see which country can have the lowest standard of living. The answer to the question “where are the jobs” is that they are in India, China, Vietnam, Cambodia and Pakistan. If you want to fix the unemployment problem faster quit allowing the companies that sell products to us to have “free trade” to manufacture everything in the places where the laborers are paupers and then bring it to the USA free of duties or tariffs – unless we aspire to live in a country where the richest 1% of the owner/investor class live like kings and the other 99% of us live at the poverty line level. That is where we are headed until we quit letting the richest corporations and individuals make all the rules! The merging of government and corporate power structures is the definition of fascism.
    By: John
  •  
  • Posted Date: 06/18/2012
    Great posts. The economic problems in our society are obvious to anyone that cares to look. The big question is, "How do we facilitate change in a Government bought and paid for by the Corporations?" If there are any suggestions, let's hear them. Otherwise, these will be the good old days to our grandchildren!
    By: Andrew
  •  
     
    Name  
    Email  
    Opinion (2000 Characters)  
    Publish My Opinion    
     
    CAPTCHA Image
    Reload Image
     
     

            Get our toolbar!