The McKinsey Quarterly writes to supposedly debunk the myth where taxes and regulations poses as key obstacles to small businesses:
Many business leaders will tell you that taxes and regulation are the biggest barriers to starting up and enlarging small businesses. It’s true that some regulations and laws have inhibited the growth of small businesses; the Sarbanes–Oxley Act, for instance, had the unexpected consequence of discouraging some companies from making initial public offerings, a step typically followed by a burst of hiring. But taxes and government oversight are not the primary barriers to stimulating the growth of small businesses. In the latest recession, their owners pointed to a lack of market demand as the primary problem, as well as an inability to obtain financing
In reality, the alleged inadequacy of consumer demand are no less than symptoms of invisible but real underlying causes.
The perception of the lack of consumer demand as the main culprit to business or even economic deficiencies represents a populist Keynesian fallacy. As the great Friedrich A. von Hayek explained (Unemployment and Monetary policies, p.40; hat tip Professor Don Boudreaux) [bold mine]
The conquest of opinion by Keynesian economics is due mainly to the fact that its argument conformed to the age-old belief of the businessman that his prosperity depended on consumer demand. This plausible but erroneous conclusion was derived from his individual experience in business, namely, that general prosperity could be maintained by keeping general demand high. Economic theory had been rejecting this conclusion for generations, but it was suddenly made respectable by Keynes. And since the 1930s it has been embraced as obvious good sense by a whole generation of economists brought up on the teaching of his school. Thus for a quarter of a century we have systematically employed all available methods of increasing money expenditure, which in the short run creates additional employment but at the same time leads to a misdirection of labor that must ultimately result in extensive unemployment
The policies of inflationism, aimed at increasing “money expenditures”, that has prompted for the large scale or clusters of “misdirection of labor” and resources that “must ultimately result” in capital consumption which gets to be manifested as “extensive unemployment” and consequently, the dearth of consumer demand.
In short, boom bust cycles fosters what mainstream sees as lack of demand.
Additionally, regulations that prevent markets from “clearing” or allowing markets to coordinate resources and labor towards consumer preferences also poses as unseen but real hindrance to additional consumer demand.
High taxes divert resources from production to consumption, thereby decreasing capital investments that suppresses income and eventual demand.
Bailouts and subsidies too or the transference of resources from productive to politically preferred unproductive areas (e.g. Obama’s green energy projects) also results to wasted resources, high costs to taxpayers, crowding out, diminished capital investments and subsequently a paucity of demand
Lastly, arbitrary regulations have been the major obstacles to business creation or expansion.
Some real life examples: In Georgia, policemen shut down a child’s lemonade stand (due to lack of permit) and in Chattanooga City Tennessee, a pedicab project has been shelved simply because state officials didn’t like it.
Of course, there are many more instances of economic repression from political agents. Deprivation of livelihood from political interference, signifies as a source of the lack of demand. No income, No spending.
Bottom line: The world does not operate on a vacuum. People just don’t act because they wake on one side of the bed and feel either confident or anxious. People’s actions are driven by incentives (and not by moods or by animal spirits).
Lastly, effects must not mistaken as the cause.