Korporate America

I'm (very reluctantly) willing for the sake of this conversation to say you are correct. I still think you are very wrong to say that the purpose of the business was to hoard cash. Hoarding cash by the pirinciples, I can see, but by the business itself, no.

What explains the recent rise in cash hoarding?

I still maintain they are hoarding cash because they are very unsure as to the level of payoff they can acheive by investing either in capital or HR.

 

Stated in plain english.
Which BTW, I think many people are already aware of, America has borrowed so much money from foreign 'governments' they practically if not literally own us. I'm imagine you would say that's an oversimplification.

The start of this thread was about Korporate America.
So what does their hoarding have to do with the gov, gov debt, etc...?

 

I would say its mostly do to with deregulation of SEC policies and the application of the international powers over the trustees and administrators here but also because of the upcoming collapse of the fed note to be replaced by whatever. they do it cause they can. but mostly because they are hypothecating on a much higher level by re-recycling all of the old "debts" into super duper mega big ass funds.

 

well the government debt is part of the currency being traded. didn't you know that every time you cash a check, sign a trust instrument you create more debt? yes, definitely an oversimplification but that's ok, because you are really persona non grata but thats another story. but the result of claiming to be the sole beneficiary of any property in the near future is probably not a good idea as someone will want your future labor for life on the spot..

 

I had thought a similar thing.
Are they holding onto this cash because they are expecting the shit to hit the fan big time.

but your mention of this:
" but mostly because they are hypothecating on a much higher level by re-recycling all of the old "debts" into super duper mega big ass funds"

are you saying they are considering the possibility of buying out the foreign creditors? The US will be worthless as will the US debt and will be made available for sale on a sort of secondary foreign debt market?
If that's the case then you know what, effin genius. If that is the case, I would much rather have Korporate America buy out our debt to other countries than to be owned by the foreign countries.

Of course now I'm wondering what is the drawback or limitation of being owned by Korporate America. Again, if that is what you're saying they're hypothecating.

 

How can you buyout the foreign creditors with the credit paper that they iussued to you in the first place? the internationl grantors and creditors, the real grantors, do not want fed notes as they are just worthless pieces of paper that they created. corporate america or the US is already owned...because it too is a corporation...

 

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvSJY3Xiwdg


"and its gone!"

 

well, it's not like Korporate US (it seems like that should be expanded to global Korporate governments) haven't created seemingly impossible deals before.

so what's the point in having conversations like this or for that matter, people like you having all this knowledge?

So people like me, we're supposed to just keep living our lives, do the 9-5, pay our bills, save a pittance, and hope that when my body starts giving out I will at least be able to have a peaceful death? Hopefully after my family dies so I will have at least done my best to (at least would have tried) to put smiles on their faces?

All for what? Because the only purpose of a business in the first place is to hoard cash? By any means necessary?

And what of people like you?

 

if one were to be able-to have the power-to take those reserves, and restrict how they were spent...then, yes. you could fund SS for awhile.

but...why WOULD you?

i DO ask myself frequently 'what good is this supposed advance?'.

completely apart from SS or any o fthe welfare programs, completely apart from this false humanitarianism which, in the end, is not about 'humanitarianism' in any case...

why do we want to feed 'the hungry'? really. why do we want to 'redistribute income'? what 'good' do we think is going to come from giving $1100 a month to 'granny jones'?

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/quickfacts/stat_snapshot/

she starves slower? is the solution really to give her enough to barely buy decent food and pay her rent? what long term good is that to society? would 'the mass' be better off if we let all those who cannot swim, sink?

putting aside emotion-yes, i realize that most people don't even recognize that emotion is driving them, so they won't put aside anything...but will recoil in horror at the thought of doing any real thinking-what the fuck good is all this so-called 'humanitarian aid'? do we give aid to pakistan, to the homeless, to 'whomever'...so that they can be a future problem for us? duh. fucking stupid americans.

so why would you take anything from anyone to give to someone else? who gave anyone the right to do so? a bigger cannon? public opinion? god? 'coz i'm the mommy and i said so!'? the atheist bible? the catholic church? v. i. lenin? john fucking lennon? the dead have a great grasp on some of us, don't they....are is it the living who have the grasp? or is it our own intrusive egos and thoughts about 'what is right!'?

 

Would it be preferable for all Corporations to be sitting on huge debts like the Federal government instead? Maybe if the government would get out of the way Corporations might begin to put their money to work in ways that would benefit the economy by creating jobs that they can afford.

 

i just heard on the radio that Apple has more cash (assets on the correct side of the balance sheet or 'liquid cash not assayed against debt') today than the feral government. made me laugh....'goverdebt' is now the proper spelling.

 

You either value private property or human rights more. You clearly value private property, and that's fine. But you shouldn't assume that giving legal precedence to private property rights over human rights is any less a "government interference" than, for example, giving some money to those who cannot obtain food.

 

Why must it be either/or? It is governments duty to protect, not to provide both equally. Giving, money, food, or anything else is a function of societies, people and charities, and not something government should be allowed to mandate and exercise to its, and elected politicians advantage.

 

Hold on, the argument was aganst redistribution so we are dealing with a very simple issue. And to simplify things, in the context of what reb was arguing it is best to have an either/or outcome.

So assume I am sitting on a mound of apples. You either enforce private property law (government intervention) or provide for the needy (government intervention). The outcome depends on which is valued more, is it not? If so, what is "good" depends on that value system, NOT one is bad because it is intervening. I feel we need to establish this before we proceed.

 

1. Better for who?

2. Assuming you are sitting on a mound of apples, if legally obtained them, or produced them yourself they are your property. It is governments duty to protect your private property rights, intervening when someone takes or tries to take your property away from you. As the property owner you are entitled to dispose of your property, apples in this case which have time limited value, as you choose. Among your choices are sales to a willing consumer at a price agreeable to both parties, donation free of cost to others, or you could simply destroy them as they are your property. Your rights of ownership are not diminished by the needs of others, and it is the rare individual who would choose to destroy something rather than give it away. It is governments duty to protect rights, and not become emotionally involved in attempting to bring about equality in distribution by taking from some and giving to others.

Human needs are not human rights. Someone who willingly refuses to do anything at all to provide for their needs should not feel that their rights are being violated. If government aid programs were to be tied to government work programs for all those who are able bodied, providing only the bare necessities of life, might more people look to find more rewarding means of providing for their needs, reducing the numbers looking to government, and ultimately the taxpaying workers as the provider?

 

i don't need government intervention for either of those outcomes. your presumption that 'i must have government' is not a necessary precursor to my having property, or to giving to the needy. what the government values is of no consequence to me. since private property law is not enforced equitably (see other threads on imminent domain, property taxes, etc..) nor is charitable giving enforced equitably (government programs do not discriminate to what is truly 'needy'-they simply hand out money to anyone who 'qualifies' by a set standard which is 'countable income' or some other criteria thought up by half witted bureaucrats and social engineers), your initial idea is not secure enough to proceed upon, walsh.

let's go from the basics. if you are sitting on a mound of apples, and no one else wants them bad enough to either disable or kill you to take them, you have no problem. if you are either fit or armed well enough, or have enough 'money' to bribe people who are fit or armed well enough, you have no problem.

the problem occurs when someone wants your apples and you cannot either hide them or defend them. the word 'government' does not need to apply to this scenario. the word 'more capable opponent' does. alternatively, perhaps you came by these apples, because you wandered under the tree just at ripening...and picked them...but you do not have the will to defend them to begin with....nor do you have the impetus to give them to some other hungry person. you get knocked in the head, and your apples are gone. the fact that you label the head knocker 'government' makes no difference in the action. you might label the head knocker 'helen keller' or any other name with the same result. your apples are gone.

in a non-human world, the apples are simple...you can either keep them or not, or defend them or not. in the human world, people want to ascribe all sorts of 'philosophy' and social justice and lalalala to the keeping of apples. bullshit. you can either keep your apples, and have the grace to give some to the needy, or not.

drop out 'government' and all the faux bull shit....if you have apples or any other commodity that has any value...if you share, or do not...if you are forced or not...that is what happens. redistribution, social justice...simply nice sounding names for having your goods taken by a larger force against your will. rationalization of the theft is meaningless.

now that i drive by that word 'law' again, it winds up my spring...the law as practiced in the world anywhere is not equitable. law is another false concept of the powerful, fed to the powerless to make them 'feel' better. the law is used to separate people who have no power from their apples.

you cannot make an 'either/or' situation out of a multiple variable actuality. there are far more than x possible outcomes even using apples as the commodity. if you have $10,000...how much can be taken in the name of 'social justice' or whatever stupid ass concept that would make some fool feel warm and fuzzy before the holder of the money decides 'fuck you'? if you have 100 apples, and i take 50 by force, are you 'ok with that'? if i take the whole 100, how do you 'feel'? if i tell you i'm going to dry them and store them in my freezer, do you feel one way, but if i tell you i'm going to give them to widow jones who has50 starving children because she spreads her legs for the community elders at will, how do you feel? if i share them with blind sampson down the road, do you feel better? none of this is going to make you apple pie, is it? is any of it 'just' because i use some different rationalization? to start with, those were YOUR apples....the words have no food value....and aren't even good fertilizer.

fuck it. don't touch my apples. i'll decide who i want to share with....don't give me some label or philosophy. i don't care about it.

 

I agree w/ you. Eliminating emotion from the equation would very likely result in policies where the old, poor, sick, etc... would float of into some unknown region never to be heard from again.

IMO, one thing that needs to be considered is that those w/ hoards of cash did in part acquire them on the backs of the society who paid for their goods and services.
Have I really gotten the same benefit from the TV I bought from big business as they have from my contribution to their cause?
If I did, then wouldn't the 1000s of others who also bought that TV be collectively well of as that corporation?
The corporation that can afford to fund million dollar retirement plans and executive physicals.

 

we were told to get out there and spend our money so that the economy would flourish. While we were told to do this were we given huge tax breaks? Did those tax breaks give us the ability to fatten our bank accounts?

Korporate America needs to get out there and spend that money.
Korporate America needs to have the incentives taken away that enable them to declare their income in overseas accounts and avoid income taxes.

 

America is not run by the US government.
She is ruled by Korporate America.
These politicians that everyone wants to complain about are nothing but sock puppets. You have power hungry people (the politicians) making laws that benefit the money hungry people. They have enough money to give to the politicians who make laws so they can make even more money. Every one gets want they. Even the pawns get flashy video games and auto tuned songs of the week.

 

I think your figure is lower than actual, I believe it's over $60 billion per month and growing. But you seem to have only produced evidence that government manages money poorly and corporations, such as Apple do so much more wisely.

Having retired a couple of decades ago, and looking at my company provided pension and social security payments, my annual Social Security income is 11% of what was collected from both me and my employer. That means that after just 9 years I had collected an amount equal to what had been collected on my behalf. To date I have collected 165% of what was collected in taxes. My company pension only amounts to 1.4% of my total earnings while working, and represents an additional 21% additional cost of having employed me to date. While I suspect my previous employer will have little trouble providing my pension until my death, I have my doubts about the government doing so except as a result of borrowing.

So you would recommend bankrupting Apple, who could only fund Social Security payments for a little more than a month, and who would you target next? And once every corporation has been bankrupted, where do you turn next?

Maybe it would be better for us to take bids on running the government instead of electing persons, most of whom have no economic sense at all, to do so?

The math is simple, and as the figures thrown around can be easily placed in a spreadsheet program, why not do so projecting into the future just a decade will produce startling results that cannot be rationalized.

Throw in Medicare, medicaid, and the numerous other social programs government has created, and just maybe the more intelligent among us will begin to see that government is not doing anything to solve a problem but only increasing the pace toward achieving a 'real' crisis.