Economy
See other Economy Articles
Title: Companies hold record $837B in cash, yet won't hire workers
Source:
USA Today
URL Source: http://www.usatoday.com/money/compa ... 28_ST_N.htm?utm_medium=twitter
Published: Jul 28, 2010
Author: Matt Krantz
Post Date: 2010-07-28 10:03:35 by lucysmom
Keywords: economy, profits, jobs
Views: 10782
Comments: 21
Anyone wondering where all the economy's jobs are might want to look into piggy banks of the world's biggest companies. Cash is gushing into companies' coffers as they report what's shaping up to be the third-consecutive quarter of sharp earnings increases. But instead of spending on the typical things, such as expanding and hiring people, companies are mostly pocketing the money and stuffing it under their corporate mattresses.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: lucysmom (#0)
The smart money isn't stupid. They know that the cost of hiring a person is going up with the stupid health-care bill. They also know the with the expiration of the Bush tax-cuts the economy goes into the shitter next year.
Being a Democratic shill means you check your humanity at the door.
Jobless recovery explained?
Yeah -- Obamanomics.
Odd, don't you think, that before the Bush tax cuts the economy thrived?
Before it was "Obamanomics", it was Bushnomics.
Ha! Not that I'm a big fan of Bush, but the Clinton "recovery" was all bullshit. Nothing but paper gains. Economy went into a recession in late 2000 so if it was so good how come it went into the shitter?
Being a Democratic shill means you check your humanity at the door.
That has been the common theme on the Fox Biz news series Sat morn. 10-noon for weeks. The funny part about those shows is they always have one stupid Libtard on, sometimes a rep from the RAT party who doesn't have a clue. Especially the politcal hacks, they are the worst. They used to constantly interrupt and talk over people who made sense, I wrote a bunch of times telling them to shut the mike down on these people and last week one of them actually threatened to do it. I never knew they put in the switch. Now if Steve Forbes would pay more attention, as a Forbes subscriber I have been trying to get him to fire Quentin Hardy, head of their SF bay area operations and total loon for years. Forbes on Fox is the 11-11:30 segment.
Is it time to take out the trash? Post Date: 2010-07-14 11:48:27 by A K A Stone We know who you mean.
End of Y2K spending and the recession was shallow as capital got reallocated. The Boy Blunder tax cuts are still operative...why are we, in your words, in the shitter NOW?
Well Hell . . . Why doesn't Zero just DO something about it, then? You know - take them over? It works for GM and the Banks. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Meet the new boss The last gasp of a dying Republic is a "living, breathing Constitution."
The Boy Blunder tax cuts are still operative...why are we, in your words, in the shitter NOW? I've said this a few times so you may want to pay attention THIS time so I don't have to repeat myself. Most of the good-jobs, productive jobs, have been shipped overseas. Free Trade helped destroy the economy. There are no high-paying jobs out there. I know many computer programmers who for over 10 years can't find a job, so they gave up and literally work at Home Depot, Lowes or just went into education. Tax cuts don't help if there are no jobs. Hell, you could reduce the top tax rate to 25% and you'd still lose jobs to China.
Being a Democratic shill means you check your humanity at the door.
And there were a hell of a lot more good jobs back then. Now China, India and Mexico have taken all those jobs. This is one of the reasons we're not coming back from this recession any time soon.
Being a Democratic shill means you check your humanity at the door.
Greenspan raised interest rates three times in 2000 to slow the economy down - perhaps he overshot his goal.
Thanks for the suggestion, however, we don't do that in this country.
Much of the late 90's "growth" was due to horseshit internet stocks and the huge amount of money that went into that "soon-to-be-dead" sector. It was nothing more than a bubble. Bubbles are when resources are mis-allocated and the NASDAQ at 5000 was an incredible misallocation of funds. Bubbles are not true economic growth.
Being a Democratic shill means you check your humanity at the door.
Actually, a goodly amount of the money that was used for the "bailouts," was paid to the biggest debtors that owed major central banks around the Western World. The debtors got the money, paid off the bankers and then went belly up. This portion of the "bailouts," therefore, was a direct pay-off to the banks. The money that was not used to pay bills, instead either went to mergers and acquisitions (M&A) actions, or... right back to the Fed, to be banked in their accounts as "excess cash." Put in perspective: The Fed "loans" Chase/Morgan, say... $15 billion, at zero-interest. Chase uses $5 billion to buy up a bunch of competitors. The remaining cash, what can you do with it? I mean, nobody's asking for new debt, everyone's trying to pay their debt down... And besides, in this economy, any money you loan out, is a suckers'-bet. The market interest rates don't come close to matching inflation, much less the risk of lending... So the bank takes that $10 billion, parks it back in Federal Reserve "excess cash" accounts, where they collect interest (the amount I've been told is 3%), with no risk. Essentially, the Fed is allowing the major banks to borrow as much as they want (with no cost), park the money with the Fed, and then collect interest. On a $10B loan, that works out to $300 million of profit, with no risk whatsoever. BTW, this is also the reason why we haven't seen an explosion in inflation. The monetary base has tripled in the last couple of years, yet the cash hasn't hit the streets, because it's all parked at the Fed... You might think the original $787B "bailout" was for $787B, right...? Actually, that number only addresses how much money can be in transit at any one time. So, the banks max that number out, once the cash is sent back to the Fed reserves ("excess" cash, remember?), they come back for more... Over and over it goes... The major banks are quite literally robbing the country this way. That's why they keep announcing record profits, while the man (or woman) on the street sees none of it, and can't finance a piece of bubble-gum... We're in a period where the banks are acting like common thugs, stealing whatever they can, looting while there's still time... Does that answer your questions?
That sector is still alive today, though not all players. Amazon, for example, had a tough time getting that particular rough patch. The Fed's half-point rate increase on May 16, 2000, was supported by a 10-0 vote of the FOMC although the transcripts showed that some members said they would have preferred a smaller quarter-point increase, expressing worries that the central bank could over-shoot in the credit tightening effort. William McDonough, then the president of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, said he was concerned that the current public confidence about the economy, which had held up despite the fact that stock prices had begun to decline in 2000, could reverse rather quickly.
While claiming they're the unfortunates in need of a tax cut so they can drop a few crumbs from the table to the peeps they rob.
Exactly. If the general public understood how big of a scam is being played on them...?
That's were people like Breitbart come in - keep the peeps fighting among themselves.
That sector is still alive today, though not all players. Amazon, for example, had a tough time getting that particular rough patch. that "sector", as measured by the NASDAQ is almost 50% down from it's high. Economically, that is dead. I won't even account for inflation which means it's more than 50% down from it's high.
Being a Democratic shill means you check your humanity at the door.
Economically, that is dead. The stock market is not the economy.
#2. To: All (#0)
But instead of spending on the typical things, such as expanding and hiring people, companies are mostly pocketing the money and stuffing it under their corporate mattresses.
#3. To: lucysmom (#2)
Jobless recovery explained?
#4. To: Nebuchadnezzar (#1)
They also know the with the expiration of the Bush tax-cuts the economy goes into the shitter next year.
#5. To: no gnu taxes (#3)
Yeah -- Obamanomics.
#6. To: lucysmom (#4)
Odd, don't you think, that before the Bush tax cuts the economy thrived?
#7. To: Nebuchadnezzar (#1)
#8. To: Nebuchadnezzar (#6)
(Edited)
Economy went into a recession in late 2000 so if it was so good how come it went into the shitter?
#9. To: lucysmom (#0)
Same as the old boss
#10. To: war (#8)
nd of Y2K spending and the recession was shallow as capital got reallocated.
#11. To: war (#8)
End of Y2K spending and the recession was shallow as capital got reallocated.
#12. To: Nebuchadnezzar (#6)
Economy went into a recession in late 2000 so if it was so good how come it went into the shitter?
#13. To: Ignore Amos (#9)
Why doesn't Zero just DO something about it, then? You know - take them over?
#14. To: lucysmom (#12)
Greenspan raised interest rates three times in 2000 to slow the economy down - perhaps he overshot his goal.
#15. To: lucysmom (#0)
But instead of spending on the typical things, such as expanding and hiring people, companies are mostly pocketing the money and stuffing it under their corporate mattresses.
#16. To: Nebuchadnezzar (#14)
Much of the late 90's "growth" was due to horseshit internet stocks and the huge amount of money that went into that "soon-to-be-dead" sector.
#17. To: Capitalist Eric (#15)
We're in a period where the banks are acting like common thugs, stealing whatever they can, looting while there's still time...
#18. To: lucysmom (#17)
While claiming they're the unfortunates in need of a tax cut so they can drop a few crumbs from the table to the peeps they rob.
#19. To: Capitalist Eric (#18)
If the general public understood how big of a scam is being played on them...?
#20. To: lucysmom (#16)
Much of the late 90's "growth" was due to horseshit internet stocks and the huge amount of money that went into that "soon-to-be-dead" sector.
#21. To: Nebuchadnezzar (#20)
that "sector", as measured by the NASDAQ is almost 50% down from it's high.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]