I believe that is the point of tax differentials between income and investment gains; investing is not saving in the short run it is spending.
Investing is not saving, that is true. The point though is that investments allow for others to get a piece of the action and then they in turn have money to save/spend as they see fit.
Are you sure? In the US, savings is heavily income correlated.
Yes, but only slightly. Consumers with more money have money to spend and savings capital left over, this puts money in banks for lending which allows those with less income to borrow towards aguiring their own needs. When you take off the top those under it will have necessarily less to aquire as investing/saving are adjusted to changes in disposable income.
To a point. Autonomous consumption revolves around various elasticities. For example, increases in gasoline taxes do not marginally decrease sales.
Necessity. Necessities are always met first, gasoline is a necessity for most businesses when you factor sales forces driving to meet clients, distribution, meetings, etc. So of course that demand is inelastic, however elastic demands such as luxuries will suffer when the costs of inelastic demands become burdensome so those sectors see a dropoff in demand. In essence, it is one cog affecting the other.
In the short run, production is limited based on time, resources, population, and opportunity costs.
Which has nothing to do whatsoever with the potential inherent in capitalist models. The resources are finite but opportunities to gain access to such are not.
You left out ability/talent:2razz: Remember, burgers do not serve themselves!
Actually, no I didn't. Ability/Talent likewise can be altered and gained. **** jobs such as flipping burgers and other MW jobs should be considered as starting points, there are always those who will be there to replace others promoted or otherwise advancing in their personal careers........the idea is to advance and not settle for that job in perpetuity.
The wealthy are going to maintain a relatively similar pattern of consumption regardless of economic contractions. At lower and lower incomes and wealth levels, consumption is far more sensitive to cyclical downturns. The wealthy are going to spend regardless of the economic climate, the same cannot be said for the entire spectrum. Which is why tax breaks to those who have low disposable incomes is more beneficial during downturns.
Completely untrue. The wealthy have the most to lose in a risk adverse market and at a much higher percentage, they are the most likely to curb spending while those at the very bottom are the most likely to have no lattitude as they are making every dollar stretch to meet necessities, if anything they would be the most likely to have static expenditure ratios and almost no savings.
The Bush tax cuts combined with rebate checks induced deficits.
No, the inability to curb spending did that. Revenues to the government increased but so did spending. Both must be done for the rebates to have been effective.
The market is lacking demand due to cyclical and structure labor market imbalances.
Incorrect, the market lacks demand due to lack of confidence, labor market imbalances have zero to do with it as the labor market is a contractually agreed upon pay scale. No one is forced into "low" paying jobs, they accept it. Not the market's fault.
Demand drives confidence.
Other way around, Keynes was completely wrong on that. Without confidence demand drops because there is no way of knowing if the ability to obtain will be met. It is human nature afterall that drives markets and not the theoretical math models of Keynsian economics.
Health care services will replace a great deal of lower skilled manufacturing in the coming years; until this transition there will be a slow recovery in labor markets.
This is false. Health jobs on all end of the spectrum are high paying models, under the current climate they will pay less, yet another cog in the wheel broken by Washington. The above was a complete fallacy.