Do you really think that in this type of economic environment that corporations would not take steps to increase consumer sales if that were possibly and financially viable?
Of course they would. What that paper you cited was talking about (in 2001) might occur when a corporation was pretty flush with sales, but not when it’s treading water in terms of moving its goods.
A corporation cannot stay alive without earnings. And it can’t keep investors without earnings, either. So its bias will always be toward increasing earnings (sales) if that is lagging.
Also, putting costs savings toward investors still helps the economy. Investors are also consumers.
I expect them to take steps that are in the best interest of their shareholders, the only group that really matters. Cutting prices doesn't do that. Increasing margin, paying down debt, raising stock prices, increasing dividends do. The fact is that none - none - of the cost savings corporations have employed so far has been used to reduce prices. Why should lower taxes be any different?
A corporation cannot stay alive without earnings. And it can’t keep investors without earnings, either. So its bias will always be toward increasing earnings (sales) if that is lagging.
And what better way to improve earnings than to cut costs and increase margins? In your world, the corporation will cut prices and pass all savings on to the customers, thus reducing gross earnings and leaving profits flat. That will cause a nosedive in stock prices. And won't that make the shareholders happy?
Also, putting costs savings toward investors still helps the economy. Investors are also consumers.
True. But the argument is that cutting taxes will result in lower prices thus offsetting the increase in taxes for the lower income people. Putting cost savings towards investors, as history has shown they will do, does not accomplish that. So it further weakens Cain's claims.