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

281–290 of 412 posts

Re: Why Are Corporations Hoarding Trillions?

#281

Post by nitrogen »

reddytowns wrote: post #263
asift wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Provide free contraceptives alongside the free money.

Re: Why Are Corporations Hoarding Trillions?

#282

Post by Joof »

tedks wrote: post #126
npalli wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The US is out of demand How is the US out of demand? Peak consumption years of population are between twenties and fifties and the biggest cohort of US demographics - the millennials - is just getting started. They crossed over the Boomers last year and now are the largest group. Behind them the younger (Gen Z) equally large in size is ready to backfill in another 15 years. It is true that demand from Boomers is do…

>the biggest cohort of US demographics - the millennials - is just getting started As a millennial, this is hilarious to me. I hope your startup doesn't depend on millennials consuming ANYTHING. The best you can MAYBE achieve is having people disable their adblocker.

Most people I know either don't have much money or have a lot and don't care to spend it.

Re: Why Are Corporations Hoarding Trillions?

#283

Post by pavedwalden »

reddytowns wrote: post #263
asift wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I've never bought the idea that welfare recipients would bear children strategically. Surely after the first child, they'd realize that this was a difficult way to increase their top-line income. Not sure where I'd look for data on this, but my gut feeling is that poor people who have a bunch of poorly-cared-for-children get pregnant because they're bad at planning ahead, not because they've been inventivized by a subsidy.

Re: Why Are Corporations Hoarding Trillions?

#284

Post by throwaway_1010 »

forgetsusername wrote: post #212
throwaway_1010 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Un-invested money can still earn interest or be put into other profitable, but less risky vehicles. I do not know any professional traders or investors that put 100% of their money for investments in one trade.

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

Yeah, those aphorisms, with their pathetic grains of truth, what a fool I am.

Re: Why Are Corporations Hoarding Trillions?

#285

Post by betenoire »

nradov wrote: post #265
jmorrow977 wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 me…

You are suggesting what already exists, plus a guarantee. How does your guarantee change behavior? We already have the expectation of payoff for success, that's how we got to this point to begin with.

Re: Why Are Corporations Hoarding Trillions?

#287

Post by Retric »

hueving wrote: post #225
Retric wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Government spending often involves a huge number of well paid workers. The phrase "Good enough for Government work." started because governments often have very high standards. ex: Compare accessibility on the web between government websites and startups. It's been diluted for various reasons that basically boil down to indirect corruption. PS: One of the odd things is just how poor people used to be. Work minimum wa…

That's not what that phrase means at all. "good enough for government work" is akin to "close enough", a reference to the half-assed nature of most government work.

That's what we take it to mean today. And sure it was used in a negative context as early as 1960, but was first used in 1906.

Remember historically most people where poor by our standards. Yes, the things that survive where of high quality, but a lot of junk did not make it. Consider what a 'sod' roof meant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sod_roof#/media/File:Norskfolk...

Now picture such a thing without modern materials to keep dirt from falling on you. Granted, the floor is often hard pack dirt anyway and done well it's ok. But, again poor and minimally trained.

PS: Sure, if you where rich or competent you could go beyond that standard and there was plenty of high quality stuff made. But, the average farm house, private trail, foot bridge etc... was crap.

Re: Why Are Corporations Hoarding Trillions?

#288

Post by savanaly »

ryandrake wrote: post #19

Looks like the TL;DR of this article is: "Corporate leadership, being so much smarter than the rest of us dummies, sees something big on the horizon coming. They're saving all their cash so they can later invest because "the next transformative innovation could be just around the corner". Apparently they're smart enough to hoard all this cash, but not smart enough to know exactly what that transformative innovation i…

The interesting thing is that by letting it sit in a bank account they really are throwing a bone to the employee. Not their employees in particular, but all users of US currency (which is the sort of people their employees are) are wealthier by X if a corporation hordes X, under the quantity theory of money.

Re: Why Are Corporations Hoarding Trillions?

#289

Post by rayiner »

charlesdm wrote: post #239
jmorrow977 wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm all for higher taxes on capital, maybe with some exceptions on the amount of capital gains tax to pay on your first €10m. But honestly, a wealth tax is just demotivating. Not every wealthy person invests their new found riches. It makes sense only to tax gains from investments, but only gains. Not making money on your capital? No problem, you don't pay. If you are, you do pay extra tax. I don't even think it's a…

I think wealth is a very natural thing to tax. The state creates and guarantees to protect a property right in land/personal effects/corporate equity/etc. In return, it taxes you 1-2% of the value of that property right each year.

Re: Why Are Corporations Hoarding Trillions?

#290

Post by savanaly »

spikels wrote: post #286

HN is a terrible place for conversations about complex economic issues. Many comments seem to be both confused about basic concepts and trying to make political arguments. Not a recipe for enlightenment.

Since economics touches our every day lives so often, people often think they have a lot to say on the subject but underestimate how little they know. Imagine if you got the same group of people with the same educational background from HN together (college-educated, usually, but not a specialist) and had them debate unsettled questions in geology or astrophysics. Surely not a single original or useful insight would come of it unless an actual geologist or astrophysicist happened to stop by, and I think economics is closer to those subjects than some people realize.
Post reply on HN