Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Are Corporations Hoarding Trillions?

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 412 posts

Re: Why Are Corporations Hoarding Trillions?

#211

Post by elenorelange »

BrianEatWorld wrote: post #201
lkrubner wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are assuming the answer. (The old phrase for this was "begging the question"). Someone could easily ask "Why don't the landlords, who get all that money from rent, spend it on something, and thus drive growth?" And you can easily answer that: the wealthy spend less of their income, they save more, therefore the high profits from rent increase the savings glut, etc, etc, etc. But you should state the answer direct…

In your example, aren't you implying that landlords and other wealthy individuals aren't simply not spending, but actually hoarding cash? Most wealthy individuals aren't holding cash, they put the money in a savings account or investment that has a return. This money appears to be held to most people, but even money in a savings account makes its way back into the economy by affecting the reserve requirements of bank…

when people say hoarding they mean saving. when they say saving they mean putting it in a savings account.

you are assuming that people are completely stupid.. like you seem to be implying that people in this thread literally think that Apple has a big aircraft hanger filled with dollar bills. Not even the dumbest people in the world think they. They think of hoarding as putting money in the bank.

Re: Why Are Corporations Hoarding Trillions?

#212

Post by forgetsusername »

throwaway_1010 wrote: post #95
forgetsusername wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's the same reason I save my money: for opportunities when prices are low. So then you buy low, and no longer have money saved for even lower opportunities. The logic of this plan doesn't make sense. You can't both be saving for and spending on opportunities, and you have no way of knowing when or what opportunities might arise. > Most people with any kind of money think this way. According to...?

The logic of this plan is basic and has stood the test of time in any multi-party market. You can save and spend at the same time, I do it all of the time, it's called budgeting. You are mired in theoretical perfection, absolutism, and a misunderstanding of how to profit from investing or trading. On the Street this "plan" is referred to as "Keeping the Powder dry". You don't [rationally] blow the whole keg of powder…

>"On the Street this "plan" is referred to as "Keeping the Powder dry".

Oh, I know what it's called "On the Street". And it's bull.

>You can save and spend at the same time, I do it all of the time, it's called budgeting."

Huh?

>$2k at a current market/stock low and keep the rest "dry".

But why just $2k? That might be the bottom, and then you've missed out putting those dollars to work.

>What is your investment strategy? Invest at the market/stock highs?

I can't predict the highs or the lows, just like you can't, so it's not part of any strategy I implement.

>According to...people that have actually invested.

You mean me? I've even done it for a living, with other people's money. Imagine that.

>Always be comfortable with losing what you invested, because you might lose it.

I get it now, you're just a random spouting aphorisms you've read.

Re: Why Are Corporations Hoarding Trillions?

#213

Post by Jtsummers »

seiji wrote: post #124
koolba wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A modern "new deal" for elder care would also do the trick.. Oh please no! Boomers have already pillaged and mortgaged the futures of the youth enough already. The last thing we need is for them to stick it one more time with a new set of unpaid indefinite obligations. For a simpler approach, just give everybody $X (00 or 000?) either one off or repeatedly. It's as progressive as it gets and at least some youth wil…

unpaid indefinite obligations I'm pretty sure elder care isn't indefinite. Maybe we end it after this current generation of old people (our parents/grandparents) are no longer around. One of the biggest social problems we'll face in the next 10 years is millions of people with dementia who can't take care of themselves just... existing. What do we do? One fun story I've heard is a doctor gave an old woman with full b…

There will always be old people and their numbers (as a percentage of the population) are only set to increase.

At least until we start hosting Carousel.

Re: Why Are Corporations Hoarding Trillions?

#214

Post by elenorelange »

linkregister wrote: post #195
dsp1234 wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Portland, OR, my healthcare is 4% and my 2k+ house in the burbs (30 min commute) is At $3500/mo (about $750k house), there are over 500 house available right now[0] just in the actual city of Portland (not including suburbs). And that's just limiting it to 2bd 1.25ba (and above) detached houses (not including condos, duplexes, etc) It's totally possible to work and live somewhere other than California. [0] - https…

Aren't you leaving out the most important differentiation between Portland and SF? The amount of available jobs and their salaries is vastly different in each location. One minute of searching for "software developer" on indeed.com: SF: 7,223 jobs, median $95k Portland, OR: 1,222 jobs, median $80k

interesting that based on his numbers the extra $15k in SF is not enough to make up for the rent.

and the guy in portland has a house!

Re: Why Are Corporations Hoarding Trillions?

#215

Post by ojbyrne »

sgt101 wrote: post #99
chatmasta wrote: post #69

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the geopolitical advantages of hoarding cash. A big pile of untaxed, uninvested cash represents a significant political bargaining chip for the corporation in control of it. Apple can extract more from negotiations with the US government, for example, when it's holding $100b USD offshore. Quite simply, that money is leverage. Over the next several decades we will see the decline of…

I think it's a liability. The US government can at any time tax that cash, and if Apples execs refuse to pony up then they can have fun in jail. If the US government decide to do that....

Tax changes that are retroactive are extremely rare, mostly because they are seen as unfair - changing the rules after the game. And if you tax the offshore cash generated starting now, then corps will change their behavior to minimize tax paid.

Re: Why Are Corporations Hoarding Trillions?

#216

Post by littletimmy »

The short answer is that everyone can see the current system is not sustainable, and that any change will be potentially catastrophic. Holding cash is going long on fear, and being prepared to deal with a massive crunch when it comes.

The solution is to just force them to bring the money back into the US and invest. And not let the fear foment inaction.

Re: Why Are Corporations Hoarding Trillions?

#217

Post by Terr_ »

jmorrow977 wrote: post #183
jandrese wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the ultimate problem with "trickle down" economics. Capital doesn't drive growth. Lack of capital limits growth, but excess capital doesn't generate additional growth. Demand drives growth and 35 years of stagnant wages (wages are basically where they were in 1981) have put a chokehold on growth. This is why you have the seemingly incongruous effect of high taxes encouraging growth and low taxes stifling it.…

I'm coming around to the opinion that taxes on income are a bad idea. Income flows to people as they're trying to accumulate wealth, trying to climb from lower to middle to upper class. Higher taxes on income, especially highly progressive taxes, make it harder for people to move between social classes. The focus on income tax creates a situation where the person who makes $200k/yr but has a net worth of $0 gets taxe…

One big issue is feasibility: It's much easier to track, meter, and tax income as it changes hands than it is to track/meter/tax accumulated wealth.

Re: Why Are Corporations Hoarding Trillions?

#218

Post by dsp1234 »

linkregister wrote: post #195
dsp1234 wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Portland, OR, my healthcare is 4% and my 2k+ house in the burbs (30 min commute) is At $3500/mo (about $750k house), there are over 500 house available right now[0] just in the actual city of Portland (not including suburbs). And that's just limiting it to 2bd 1.25ba (and above) detached houses (not including condos, duplexes, etc) It's totally possible to work and live somewhere other than California. [0] - https…

Aren't you leaving out the most important differentiation between Portland and SF? The amount of available jobs and their salaries is vastly different in each location. One minute of searching for "software developer" on indeed.com: SF: 7,223 jobs, median $95k Portland, OR: 1,222 jobs, median $80k

It's obviously a smaller market. I'm just suggesting that it's possible, and providing some anecdata.

From a real standard of living, the cut in pay is overwhelming made up by the fact that I live in my own detached 2k+ sqft house on a .25 acre of land (and at significantly less than $3500/mo). Again, just looking at the city of SF directly, there are 13 homes for sale under $750k with a min of 2bd/1.25ba. Take a pay cut, have access to 40 times as many houses.

It's possible to do software development and not pay $3500. Which was what the above poster was talking about "I'd love to stop paying $3500/month in rent, but any property to buy around here has a median price of $1.2 million."

the most important differentiation between Portland and SF?

Also, the most important differentiation between Portland and SF is the weather. Anyone will skill can get a job here (I've never had to look more than a couple weeks).

Re: Why Are Corporations Hoarding Trillions?

#219

Post by rchaud »

mc32 wrote: post #144
JustSomeNobody wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much do you want to pay for goods in order for that cashier to make 40K?

Sadly, what we'll see happen is more automation, self checkout, etc. Technology will ensure low skilled workers price themselves out of the economy. This, js likely, to some degree, part of the force resulting in net negative low skills worker immigration. Too few skills (reading, maths) and now automation is coming to agriculture even fast food restaurants, and at $15 min wage, you can hire a high school dropout, if…

>part of the force resulting in net negative low skills worker immigration.

That assumes that these workers are coming from countries where opportunities for paid work are equal to or better than those available in the US, and are equally lucrative. Many workers come from communities destroyed by the drug wars, or from economies ruined by corrupt governance. If those structural factors don't see improvement, the impact on net low-skilled migration to the US won't budge much.

Re: Why Are Corporations Hoarding Trillions?

#220

Post by dsp1234 »

jeremy_k wrote: post #185
dsp1234 wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Portland, OR, my healthcare is 4% and my 2k+ house in the burbs (30 min commute) is At $3500/mo (about $750k house), there are over 500 house available right now[0] just in the actual city of Portland (not including suburbs). And that's just limiting it to 2bd 1.25ba (and above) detached houses (not including condos, duplexes, etc) It's totally possible to work and live somewhere other than California. [0] - https…

Yeah but rain. I lived in Oregon for 22 years, and I've been living in California since 2012 and although its been through a drought, let me tell you some things I don't miss after being back in Oregon for the holidays. Waking up to gray, gloomy skies, with rain pouring down. Waking up to the dark at 7am in the Winter. Sunset at 4:30. It actually gets cold haha. The summers are amazing though! You get spoiled living…

Totally agree
Post reply on HN