Jump to content

American Corporations Sitting On 2 Trillion In Cash.


Rambler
 Share

Recommended Posts

I was watching Bill Bradley this weekend on Meet the Press when he was bringing up the fact that if Corporations would spend just 1/4 of that amount, that unemployment would go down to the low 5% `s. Do any of you see Obama finding a way to get Corporations to losing up the purse strings by offering to extend the Bush tax cuts or by dangling any other carrots in front of them, or do you see Corporations waiting for a Romney Presidency to unleash the hounds?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 151
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I was watching Bill Bradley this weekend on Meet the Press when he was bringing up the fact that if Corporations would spend just 1/4 of that amount, that unemployment would go down to the low 5% `s. Do any of you see Obama finding a way to get Corporations to losing up the purse strings by offering to extend the Bush tax cuts or by dangling any other carrots in front of them, or do you see Corporations waiting for a Romney Presidency to unleash the hounds?

Of course this is something you here all the time about the companies hording cash and making record profits but what they don't tell you is that they are also sitting on record amounts of debt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Deisel

Corporations are sitting on cash, knowing that if Obamacare or another term will cost them dearly. They are not venturing in because this administration has overregulated them out of existance. Capital gains is the highest in the world here, hence many corps are moving out of the country. Ask GE, and many others. Heck Trek now has moved operations outside of US control because of the overregulation and tax burden.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny how low tax rates, lax regulations, and near 0% interest rates isn't sparking corporations and the wealthy to spend their wealth on job creation. Clearly the only way to make them have any incentive to spend is to lower tax rates and weaken regulations even more! Doing the same thing that got us into this mess even more will get us out of it!

Any rational person would look at this situation and realize supply side economics have hit the wall like Keynesian policies did in the late 1970s. Continuing these policies is not only total idiocy but is doing little more than making the problem worse. Regulatory power needs to be increased along with tax rates on top earners, among many other things.

Corporations are sitting on cash, knowing that if Obamacare or another term will cost them dearly. They are not venturing in because this administration has overregulated them out of existance. Capital gains is the highest in the world here, hence many corps are moving out of the country. Ask GE, and many others. Heck Trek now has moved operations outside of US control because of the overregulation and tax burden.

Can you name a single new regulation that has weakened corporate power?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny how low tax rates, lax regulations, and near 0% interest rates isn't sparking corporations and the wealthy to spend their wealth on job creation. Clearly the only way to make them have any incentive to spend is to lower tax rates and weaken regulations even more! Doing the same thing that got us into this mess even more will get us out of it! Any rational person would look at this situation and realize supply side economics have hit the wall like Keynesian policies did in the late 1970s. Continuing these policies is not only total idiocy but is doing little more than making the problem worse. Regulatory power needs to be increased along with tax rates on top earners, among many other things. Can you name a single new regulation that has weakened corporate power?

This is the first one that comes to mind.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/on-energy/2011/07/20/obama-anti-coal-energy-agenda-would-hurt-america

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As much as Obama would like higher taxes, higher spending, and more regulation I believe he likes living in the White House more and will give on some major legislation he has always opposed in order to get corporations to free up some of this cash and get the economy moving. Right now corporations have stuck the middle finger up at Obama and are just standing pat. I predict Obama will offer major concessions this summer in order to keep his job (like any typical politician).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Deisel

Funny how low tax rates, lax regulations, and near 0% interest rates isn't sparking corporations and the wealthy to spend their wealth on job creation. Clearly the only way to make them have any incentive to spend is to lower tax rates and weaken regulations even more! Doing the same thing that got us into this mess even more will get us out of it!

Any rational person would look at this situation and realize supply side economics have hit the wall like Keynesian policies did in the late 1970s. Continuing these policies is not only total idiocy but is doing little more than making the problem worse. Regulatory power needs to be increased along with tax rates on top earners, among many other things.

Can you name a single new regulation that has weakened corporate power?

Dodd Frank. Lets start there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As much as Obama would like higher taxes, higher spending, and more regulation I believe he likes living in the White House more and will give on some major legislation he has always opposed in order to get corporations to free up some of this cash and get the economy moving. Right now corporations have stuck the middle finger up at Obama and are just standing pat. I predict Obama will offer major concessions this summer in order to keep his job (like any typical politician).

The point I made was that conditions are, to Chicago school economists, for corporations to start spending heavily on the economy and yet they are not. They continue to sit on the money. If they refuse to spend on the economy to create jobs and increase their own wealth in the long term purely out of spite of the government then I am even more firmly on the side of increased regulations. If corporations are going to hold the country hostage like that then they have clearly garnered too much power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A good deal of coal plants across the country were on the way to being replaced anyway and God forbid there are regulations to reduce toxic pollutants released by such plants. This also reminds me of a political cartoon... Nv5wj.jpg

I wont tell you that the coal industry doesn`t need to improve in some areas (such as remaining fly ash and slurry pits), but the stacks burn fairly clean. I would like to see an eventual transition way from coal myself but not in a way that tries to gut the entire industry while emerging technolgies are still in their infancy. Coal is plentiful, provides alot of jobs, and produces energy at economically competitive rates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point I made was that conditions are, to Chicago school economists, for corporations to start spending heavily on the economy and yet they are not. They continue to sit on the money. If they refuse to spend on the economy to create jobs and increase their own wealth in the long term purely out of spite of the government then I am even more firmly on the side of increased regulations. If corporations are going to hold the country hostage like that then they have clearly garnered too much power.

Its not "holding America hostage" that is their intent, corporations are in the business of making money and when the profits are uncertain, so goes the investing. Nothing will kill investing more than uncertainty and when you throw in potentially higher taxes as well as Obama care (which almost noone knows the ramifications of this), not to mention Europe and high gas prices you get an investor who puts a death grip on his cash.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wont tell you that the coal industry doesn`t need to improve in some areas (such as remaining fly ash and slurry pits), but the stacks burn fairly clean. I would like to see an eventual transition way from coal myself but not in a way that tries to gut the entire industry while emerging technolgies are still in their infancy. Coal is plentiful, provides alot of jobs, and produces energy at economically competitive rates.

So, what you're saying is that since the coal smoke is "fairly clean," it is better to not regulate toxic pollutants like the mercury it releases to save the plants that release the most pollutants? I don't understand that argument at all. Those regulations do not kill an entire industry in the hyperbolic fashion it was described in that article, it simply closes the doors on the plants that are dangerous the areas they are in. You should look up the Chinese cancer cities if you want to figure out why doing this is a necessity for the general health of the population.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its not "holding America hostage" that is their intent, corporations are in the business of making money and when the profits are uncertain, so goes the investing. Nothing will kill investing more than uncertainty and when you throw in potentially higher taxes as well as Obama care (which almost noone knows the ramifications of this), not to mention Europe and high gas prices you get an investor who puts a death grip on his cash.

The first thing that came to mind...

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/03/29/how-the-affordable-care-act-helps-the-us-economy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is crazy they are sitting on that much cash. I guess they are uncertain about the future, but if they don't hire people then people won't buy their goods/services. You need a few major companies to take the plunge and start hiring. Then again they have probably made a lot of that money overseas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Deisel

The point I made was that conditions are, to Chicago school economists, for corporations to start spending heavily on the economy and yet they are not. They continue to sit on the money. If they refuse to spend on the economy to create jobs and increase their own wealth in the long term purely out of spite of the government then I am even more firmly on the side of increased regulations. If corporations are going to hold the country hostage like that then they have clearly garnered too much power.

#1. Its there MONEY, not the govt. They can do with it as they see fit. They respond to share holders, boards, and do not owe anyone a job, or anything else. #2. Corps are sitting on money, because its prudent to do so when they are afraid of the regulatory costs being implemented and Obamacare. Get this thru your head. The govt produces Nothing. Companies rise and fall on their own merit and are not supposed to function as a catalyst for Govt. expenditures or job fares.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Deisel

You mean the law that has done next to nothing to address the problems it was supposed to address? Dodd-Frank needs to be scrapped and replaced by a reenacted Glass-Steagall Act.

That would be even worse. You will run the housing business into the ground 1st off and then there goes the ship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That would be even worse. You will run the housing business into the ground 1st off and then there goes the ship.

Those poor banks, what will they do if they can't control both spectrums of the industry and thus rig the system in their favor? It's not like commercial banks that are in the investment side of the industry has ever led to situations where they lent out more than they're worth to people who shouldn't get the loans.

Oh wait...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bottom line: Corporations will spend that cash and hire more workers if they feel it could result in MORE cash. Under good economic conditions and a government that didn't see profit as evil that would be the case.

Conditions are already optimal for them to spend under the Chicago school economic theory (ie. supply side economics) currently employed, but they simply are not. Either that means we have reached a point like we did in the late 1970s where we need a shift in economic policy or the corporations are trying to hold the country hostage to push political agenda. And before he complains: Yes, Snak, I know you tried to respond to this but you have a clear lack of understanding of the subject at hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Deisel

Conditions are already optimal for them to spend under the Chicago school economic theory (ie. supply side economics) currently employed, but they simply are not. Either that means we have reached a point like we did in the late 1970s where we need a shift in economic policy or the corporations are trying to hold the country hostage to push political agenda. And before he complains: Yes, Snak, I know you tried to respond to this but you have a clear lack of understanding of the subject at hand.

Holy cow. We are under OPTIMAL spending conditions....????? THe world markets are colapsing, unemployment is out of control. Over regulation is driving business's into the ground and a ton of other historical negatives abound, and THE CHICAGO way says SPEND and stick your neck out? How moronic is your sense of business?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...