Why Are Corporations Hoarding Trillions?

Post by RobertoG » Fri, Jan 22, 2016, 8:20 AM UTC

armenarmen wrote: post #189

stickfigure wrote: post #187

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.

Post by ksec » Fri, Jan 22, 2016, 8:40 AM UTC

jmorrow977 wrote: post #153

Animats wrote: 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…

And a major reason workers are spent out is because of high rents. If the US would build enough housing in the major employment centers that the highly skilled workers wouldn't spend 90% of their after-tax income on fixed expenses, they'd have more money to spend to drive other businesses. All the disposable income is being sucked into rents, and eventually that will make the economy run slower and slower, fewer sale…

Post by ryanlol » Fri, Jan 22, 2016, 8:49 AM UTC

bsder wrote: post #336

ryanlol wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The government might not be powerless, but exercising such power would be disastrous. Also, >After a couple million in losses Leads me to believe you don't really understand the numbers we're talking about here. That's missing at least a couple of zeros.

Not at all. Shareholders would begin screaming at the management to pay the taxes almost immediately. Losses wouldn't even make it to $100 million before management was replaced.

Post by Scarblac » Fri, Jan 22, 2016, 8:58 AM UTC

jaycroft wrote: post #353

mehwoot wrote: post #317

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? 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 i…

Post by digbyloftus » Fri, Jan 22, 2016, 9:27 AM UTC

refurb wrote: post #235

jganetsk wrote: post #204

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?