Home / Economic Conditions / Sales Declined in March
Print Friendly and PDF

Sales Declined in March

Written by Gary North on April 30, 2013

If the economy is growing, why are sales down?

Consumers are cutting back or barely staying even. But corporate profits (earnings) are high. How is this possible? Cost-cutting. How? They are not hiring.

Cost-cutting is a good thing, as long as you are not the source of the savings. With unemployment over 11 million, cost-cutting is not good news.

The likelihood of a major reduction in unemployment is low. Consumers are staying tight with their wallets. Businesses are staying tight with their job offers.

The rate of U.S. economic growth is expected to slow for the rest of the year.

Continue Reading on www.cnbc.com

Print Friendly and PDF

Posting Policy:
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.

6 thoughts on “Sales Declined in March

  1. Seymour Kleerly says:

    Corporations have slave labor now couldn't care less about America. Profits are their GOD.

  2. Just think: If no profits were made, no product would be made. Hope you have a garden.

  3. Seymour Kleerly says:

    Profits are at an all time high, along with worker productiveity and CEO salaries! Can you say EXCESSIVE!

  4. Unemployment is continuing to drop consistently, so now you're resorting to raw numbers to make it seem more dire than it really is. More Gary North fear-mongering since he's got nothing else of substance to provide.

    Want to know what caused a decline in sales? The sequester – pushed forth by "austerity" hawks, based on a spreadsheet that's been found to be inaccurate and flawed. Thanks Boehner! You screwed up yet again.

  5. Tancred says:

    The economy isn't about producing jobs, which are only a byproduct of delivering what consumers want. Consumers must therefore have jobs producing what other consumers want. If consumers don't want more of something, there will be no jobs added to produce it.

    Indeed, as efficiencies are introduced, fewer jobs are required to produce the same quantity of goods or services. This is why a vastly more powerful computer today costs less than a grand, whereas ancient PCs first introduced cost several thousand (back when that was real money).

    Consumers think this a good thing. They don't mind profits going to companies producing this result. Their shopping behavior makes this obvious. There is nobody (literally nobody) calliing on government to produce computers. This is because everyone knows a computer produced by government would steadily escalate in price in order to "create jobs". Gradually falling prices are not "deflation". They are what's expected to happen in a market free of interventionist government favoring cronies and innovating efficiences of production. This is also how premium goods initially available by price only to the elite become ordinary consumer goods available to virtually everyone.

    Creating "jobs" isn't the duty of business because it isn't the duty of consumers. Get over it.

  6. Tancred says:

    A modest correction of this inept phrase above: "[…] and innovating efficiences of production."

    … which should have read: "[…] and free to innovate efficiences of production."