Live data from Hacker News

Why Are Corporations Hoarding Trillions?

nytimes.com

261–270 of 412 posts

Re: Why Are Corporations Hoarding Trillions?

#261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not "trickle down" economics, which is not actually a real thing at all. That's a nonsensical political term that the Democrats seized upon during Reagan's "supply side" economic policy; which has beginnings much earlier than Reagan, and likely older than Jean-Baptiste Say's formulation. There isn't an idea that alone "capital drives growth," that's an idea that Keynes came up with by misreading Jean-Baptiste…

There is a school of economics, sometimes called the "freshwater school" (from the Chicago School and Milton Friedman) which claims you can't run out of demand. This is a classic position. But productivity is now so good that we can run out of demand. Classically, countries ran out of land, labor, capital, or management before they ran out of demand. There were occasional recessions, but that wasn't a permanent condi…

What to do about it: a basic income.

Re: Why Are Corporations Hoarding Trillions?

#262
post #88

The US is out of demand. Workers are spent out. Thus, there's no need to increase output, because nobody has the money to buy it. The US has huge excess manufacturing capacity, thousands of malls which could handle more traffic ("there's always parking at Sears", a rather pathetic ad), and services which could handle more business. There's a glut of capital, plenty of available unemployed or underemployed workers, no…

All this money could be potential demand if companies invested it. The company I work for is sitting on a pile of cash while at the same time seeing a downtrend in revenue, buying back shares and paying out dividends. In theory the company should be investing this money in building future products, but it's not.

It's a combination of many factors. CEOs and management aren't motivated to invest in the long term of companies. A lot of big companies are structured so it is very difficult for them to apply capital in a way that facilitates growth. They are risk averse. This is esp. true when there is an air of global economic uncertainty like we've had over the last decade or so. This produces motivation to have a large capital safety buffer (because e.g. if you don't have capital you wouldn't be able to borrow it). In turn this compounds the problem. We are in a low inflation environment so you can sit on your money without losing much value. Tax considerations force capital to remain where it can't effectively be used so US companies don't bring their cash back to spend in the US because they are trying to save the tax.

Individuals are also very cautious because of economic uncertainty. If I look at myself I find myself spending less and trying to save more. I don't buy things I don't really need. If I felt more secure I might spend more money.

Re: Why Are Corporations Hoarding Trillions?

#263
post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not claiming I have a panacea here, but wouldn't either a more aggressive minimum wage or a basic minimum income raise the ability for more people to act on the desire to buy? I assure you the demand for tons of stuff exists, but the means to buy it does not. Back in 2013, HuffPost ran an article pointing out that had minimum wage kept up with inflation, it would be $10.50/hr and actually more like $21 if it had kept…

That often cited minimum wage statistic also just so hapens to start at a time when minimum wage was near it's all time high on an inflation adjusted basis. Why do you suppose that is? A basic income is a far better solution than our current mess of bureaucratic welfare programs that are both inefficient and rife with harmful unintended consequences for those they intend to support. Milton Friedman's "negative income…

One thing I don't understand about basic income is how to deal with children. If the parents get the basic income of a child, then that will incentivize some people to have more kids simply to get more money.

If you don't give basic income for kids, then people with a lot of kids won't be able to live.

Of course, you can adjust the amount between the too extremes of full basic income and no basic income for kids, but just because you have a target standard of living and give the parents money to meet that for the kids, doesn't mean the parents aren't going to turn around and spend that money on themselves. They might not care that their kids are in poverty as long as they get the drugs/alcohol/new car/fashionable clothes or whatever.

As you already stated, bureaucratic welfare programs don't work, so what is the solution here?

I've never seen this discussed, and it seems like a major oversight of the basic income proponents.

Re: Why Are Corporations Hoarding Trillions?

#264
post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's quite funny. If the US blocked a company from it's market, that company would collapse practically overnight. The US is the most profitable market in the world with the EU running not too far behind. Think about Alibaba--it's profit is about connecting Chinese sellers to the profitable markets in the US and EU--not about connecting to other Chinese suppliers.

But the US can't just block offshore companies from its market without absolutely destroying its economy. What do you think would happen if the US suddenly decided that no company can do business in the US without paying taxes to the US for their offshore profits?

You only have to injunct one. After a couple million in losses, they'll pay up. At that point, the threat of injunction would simply get the other ones to pay.

Or, you start seizing domestic property to pay taxes on the foreign assets.

Do NOT assume the government is ever powerless. It is always bigger than you.

Re: Why Are Corporations Hoarding Trillions?

#265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a school of economics, sometimes called the "freshwater school" (from the Chicago School and Milton Friedman) which claims you can't run out of demand. This is a classic position. But productivity is now so good that we can run out of demand. Classically, countries ran out of land, labor, capital, or management before they ran out of demand. There were occasional recessions, but that wasn't a permanent condi…

Instead of injecting money top-down through the Federal Reserve and large banks, they could inject it bottom-up in selected industries. Invest $1 trillion in biotech. Some will succeed and produce amazing advances. Most will fail, but they'll still drive employment, education, services, etc. targeting that industry, driving down the cost of inputs to the biotech sector for decades. Of course, this can be done not com…

We don't want governments trying to pick winners, or generally even having an industrial policy at all. Their track record has been far worse than private investors. And politically it's impossible to justify when a large government investment fails. For example, look at Solyndra.

At better approach to stimulating demand would be to offer a cash prize or a guaranteed purchase contract for specific innovations that meet defined criteria. For example, what if the US federal government offered to purchase 10 million doses of a 90%+ effective Zika virus vaccine at $100 per dose? I'll bet that would encourage private investors to take a gamble.

Re: Why Are Corporations Hoarding Trillions?

#266
post #98

According to this Bloomberg article, companies have $2.1 trillion sitting offshore for tax reasons [1]. They're probably waiting for Congress to let them bring home the cash, tax-free. However, the last time that happened (2004), it was done to encourage companies to create jobs. Instead, they spent it buying company stock. [2] 1 - http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-04/u-s-compan... 2 - http://www.theguar…

It may be sitting offshore for tax reasons, but even if it were sitting here (with higher taxes), it'd be sitting. Parked. Hoarded. Illiquid. Whatever you want to call it. Tax rates are the proximate cause here; what we really need to look at is the cost of capital, and why companies deem there to be no productive investment use for that excess cash.

Re: Why Are Corporations Hoarding Trillions?

#267

If the companies spent their savings, rather than hoarding them, the economy would instantly grow, and we would most likely see more jobs with better pay. The article makes it sound like these dollars are somehow being removed from the economy. If they're put in a bank, the bank loans it out to someone else. If they buy treasury bills, the government then takes the money and spends it. Even if all this money was conv…

> If they're put in a bank, the bank loans it out to someone else. If they buy treasury bills, the government then takes the money and spends it. good call, this is Econ 101 stuff that most people just don't know. Saving money in a bank or government bonds is not the same as locking it in a vault or burying it in your backyard. It is still out moving around in the economy.

I think difference between savings and investment (or consumption) is in reversibility. Savings are reversible, basically if you "invest" in any liquid enough assets that keep value, then you save. Investment (and consumption) is irreversible, once you made the decision, it's done deal - somebody does the work, energy is spent, entropy is produced and so on.

That's why, contrary to mainstream economic opinion, it is useful to save. Saving lets you react to investment from competitors, by postponing the decision after they made their move. This gives you advantage (power) if you're big enough.

Re: Why Are Corporations Hoarding Trillions?

#268
post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A basic minimum income is the right answer, but not for the purpose of increasing demand. People demanding to increase demand is utterly silly. We have succeeded as a civilization: we are providing far more than we could ask for. In the big picture, what does increasing demand really do for us? But there's definitely a need to reduce poverty. And there's a need to allow ourselves to stop working as hard as we do. A b…

We have succeeded as a civilization: we are providing far more than we could ask for. Really? There is nothing you could improve in the human condition that would make life better?

Of course there is. The point is, we've reached the stage of our advancement when, on aggregate, we produce more than we actually need. Our current issues are with distribution of what is being produced.

Re: Why Are Corporations Hoarding Trillions?

#269
An alternative narrative. This is classical economic group behavior near the top of a bubble. The fed has long goosed its lending programs with cheap money, in an effort to stimulate investment, and to avoid the spectre of spiraling deflation that they were worried would happen after the short deflation of 2009. Capitalists have then, rationally gone out in search of investments to yield a return. However, innovation is a limited resource at any given time, and we're close to tapping out on the amount of possible innovation. Moreover, realizing the full capacity of innovation is limited by the structure of society, wherein identifying entrepreneurs with actual potential is overtaken by identifying artificial 'signals' or 'tropes' of entrepreneurs: lots of false positives, charlatans, people with connections, or people who just got lucky once, are getting money, yields are decreasing.

Accordingly, as capitalists identify that it is becoming difficult to find real investments, their investment behavior decreases, just as the Fed is starting to pay banks to hold cash, to shore up reserves and make banks appear more resilient in the face of their "stress tests". This is artifical disinflation, but the worst type, because normally deflation helps the poor, but by the very mechanism of the current disinflation, it's going to the top. (Austrians: Why is giving money out disinflation? Because in this case it's tied to not lending, and private lending-based monetary expansion has a multiplier effect).

What to expect down the line:

A minor economic crisis as happens occasionally (black swans) will start triggering capitalists to start spending their cash reserves. As this spending hits the market, prices will go up, triggering inflation measures to start accurately reflecting the pent up monetary expansion that the Fed has undergone over the past 8 or so years. As the price of goods goes up, it will no longer make sense to hold onto cash, and moreover, the smart move will be to start investing in goods producers that can take advantage of these increasing prices.

We'll have an inflationary spiral spanning say 2016-2018. Don't worry, it won't be a Wiemar-republic level crisis, but it certainly will not be pleasant for the poorest Americans.

I probably have some details about the macroeconomics wrong, so we shall see whether my prediction comes true. I welcome counter-explanations, and corrections to what I have to say.

Re: Why Are Corporations Hoarding Trillions?

#270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not claiming I have a panacea here, but wouldn't either a more aggressive minimum wage or a basic minimum income raise the ability for more people to act on the desire to buy? I assure you the demand for tons of stuff exists, but the means to buy it does not. Back in 2013, HuffPost ran an article pointing out that had minimum wage kept up with inflation, it would be $10.50/hr and actually more like $21 if it had kept…

Chances are that land rents and goods prices would adjust to soak up the gains in wages. No guarantees there, though.

You index it to inflation of course.
Post reply on HN