Live data from Hacker News

Why Are Corporations Hoarding Trillions?

nytimes.com

351–360 of 412 posts

Re: Why Are Corporations Hoarding Trillions?

#351
post #217

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…

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.

Actually it is much harder to tax income than wealth hence why there is so much tax avoidance. The simplest way is tax the asset directly and let who ever owns it pay the tax. The block of land is taxed, the bank account is taxed, the bond is taxed, the factory is taxed, the truck is taxed, the cow is taxed, the patent is taxed, the copyright on a movie is taxed, etc, etc.

If you did this you would not need a very high tax rate (my guess is something around 1%) and it would encourage efficient allocation of assets. Of course the owners of all these assets won’t be happy and since they are very powerful this idea has zero chance of ever being adopted.

Re: Why Are Corporations Hoarding Trillions?

#352

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…

> So nobody really knows what to do about a capital glut and a demand shortage.

Sure they do. The concept of "Unlimited Wants" and Thorstein Veblen's "Pecuniary Canons of Taste" pretty much wrap up a capital glut. Spend it. Money flows somewhere. A demand shortage is not necessarily permanent (horse carriages vs automobiles withstanding)...that's one of the many reasons why the word pivot exists in YC vernacular. Everyone/everything living consumes. There are demands that are fundamental, and demands that are extraordinary. A market exists for all demands, no matter how small or how large. Demands = needs small or great. If you are selling buggy whips in the automobile age, yeah, you might have a demand shortage...so think and pivot. Absolutes have a place in extremum; an exercise left to the reader.

Re: Why Are Corporations Hoarding Trillions?

#353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The poor would love to have newer cars, consume more services, have nicer homes, etc. So then how are we producing more than we need?

The poor would love to have newer cars, consume more services, have nicer homes, etc. So then how are we producing more than we need? People regularly die from starvation, but the world produces more than enough food to feed everyone. It is a problem of distribution.

To say this is merely a problem with distribution is absurd.

There are hundreds of thousands of vacant homes in San Bernardino, there are many thousands of homeless that could easily be transported there. If those homeless were to move into those homes they would soon be evicted or arrested and imprisoned. This is an issue with ownership, not distribution. Much food from local restaurants, cafes, and grocery stores is thrown out every day as it nears expiration. Thousands of hungry would love to enjoy this food rather than waste it. This food could be donated or even left out for people to scavenge, yet it ends up in locked dumpsters. Again, this doesn't sound like a distribution problem but instead a problem with ownership.

We do produce more than we need, if need is conditioned on ability to pay.

Re: Why Are Corporations Hoarding Trillions?

#354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been thinking along similar lines recently. One counter to this argument is that as this process of overpopulation (relative to useful jobs) begins to happen, standard of living decreases.* As standard of living decreases on average, people start to have less children. So the imbalance is somewhat self-correcting, it's just that human lives are getting to be longer while the time between inventions that obviate…

> As standard of living decreases on average, people start to have less children That seems counter to all actual evidence doesn't it? The places with the poorest standards of living have the most children and visa verse.

I think he's talking about people who are at a decent standard of living that becomes reduced, thus the potential parents not "wanting to bring a child into this troubled world."

Re: Why Are Corporations Hoarding Trillions?

#355

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…

Yes, but also:

> Corporations, it seems, may have amassed at least a good chunk of that $1.9 trillion in mysterious savings because the stock market is rewarding them for it.

What's the rationale for that? Perhaps low cash reserves correlates strongly with poor outcomes, and the association gets extrapolated into meaningless territory. But if there's so much cash, why not increase dividends?

Re: Why Are Corporations Hoarding Trillions?

#356
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…

Yes! And further, consumer credit is maxed out. Henry Ford knew that he had to pay his workers enough to buy his cars. But since the 70s, it's become sufficient that they be able to borrow enough. It's been a good run, but ...

Re: Why Are Corporations Hoarding Trillions?

#357

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

How many software developer jobs do you need? 1222 sounds like it would provide quite a bit of choice. Plus, there's probably fewer people looking for those jobs in Portland. Not to mention the fact that the salary is 20% higher in SF, but rent is 60% higher in SF [1]. I'd say that's a pretty big win for Portland.

[1] http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?coun...

Re: Why Are Corporations Hoarding Trillions?

#358
We are at peak globalization, which is to say, we are at peak oil production. In order to expand growth for multinational agencies, the world has to have access to more oil. However, as the world demands more oil, the price of oil goes up to reflect that demand. As the price of oil goes higher, it impacts the ability to engage in globalization. Right before the 2008 catastrophe, Brent crude was at over $100/bbl and the world was at maximum extraction capability.

For those that don't know, a bbl is a blue barrel, which holds 42 US gallons of petroleum. When used, this will generate 13.6 kWh per gallon, or 571.2 kWh per barrel.

As a reference and in ideal conditions, the 2014 Tesla Model S 85 utilizes 0.380 kWh per mile travelled. Or, if the conversion technology was in place, a single barrel of oil can move the Model S 1503.15 miles. And that's only two to four people. The moment you start moving the goods and freight in the volume required to keep the prices low enough for mass consumption, that number drops dramatically. And if you raise the price of that oil while oil production itself is at maximum extraction across the entire globe, you will drive the price of modern civilization to almost unbearably expensive.

This is all to say growth cannot be separated from increased oil consumption. At our period in time, globalism requires more oil than it can extract to sustain its multiple decade streak of growth. Our previous consumption has pumped demographic capacity to the hilt within the confines of energy extraction. And once the Chinese come online and start demanding oil for their billions, we will have a full-blown oil shortage. This has prompted shale expansion, but that in turn has prompted nasty geopolitical strife between Saudi Arabia and Iran which is resulting in a cartel move to slash prices to flush out early stage competition. As the cartel reacts defensively in this environment, the world will be deprived of more and oil production to achieve the next level of global integration. This is why Russia is aggressively muscling its way around the Arctic and the Mediterranean. It's why China is moving into Africa. It's why the USA continues to support Saudi Arabia at all costs, no matter how many Arab nations get destabilizes and destroyed.

You need a tremendous amount of oil to sustain globalism, let alone provoke additional growth, and right now, the spigots are not flowing like they used to. No amount of monetary policy can fix that because ALL of American monetary policy is deeply pegged to global oil consumption.

Companies simply cannot grow when the world cannot grow, and so, they are awaiting the inevitable nationalizations of their global adventures with as big of a war chest as they can assemble.

Re: Why Are Corporations Hoarding Trillions?

#359

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…

> Where do we get the money from? It doesn't really matter, there's plenty of it sloshing around. That's like saying "Restaurants have food, and there are homeless people in the city, so why can't we distribute the food from the restaurant to hungry homeless people in the city?". If you were to distribute foods from the restaurant to the hungry people in the city, then these restaurants won't produce that food, becau…

I used to manage a restaurant. All unmarketable but edible waste went to homeless shelters. Remaining inedible but unspoiled food went to pig farmers. Remaining spoiled food went to composting facilities. Our target market loved all of those policies.

Re: Why Are Corporations Hoarding Trillions?

#360

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…

Japan did massive fiscal stimulus ("bottom up") and capital injections ("top down") from the BoJ and it still has crawled compared to other economies. China has for years done intense injections into its economy (both top and bottom down), with worker training programs, state owned enterprises, etc; and now they became so reliant on the artificial demand created by their own government that they have huge slack in in…

"If the government bought wheat, for instance, to keep its price high and keep farmers employed; then burns it, this creates asset misallocations, though it is technically creating demand (this still happens to this day.)"

This has been done successfully but without the burning. Just keep the price stables buying when the price fall and selling when the price goes up.

The idea of a buffer should be easy to understand here in HN. It can be done with all kind of things: http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=23578

This "creative destruction" doesn't look very rational, don't you think? Is it not the goal of an economy to provide a good life for the human beings in that economy?

We should be able to do better than destroy capital in order to start again the game, but this time with less people owning more of the pie.

Post reply on HN