So how is employment an Obama problem?

[shintao]

Who’s Sitting On $1 Trillion In Cash

As economic recovery lags, companies see few reasons to spend
October 27, 2010 | By Paul Ausick

It’s common knowledge that U.S. companies are sitting on a large pile of cash. Moody’s estimates that pile to be worth $1 trillion. It must be a comfortable place to sit, too, because there seems little enthusiasm for whittling the size of the pile down.

Economic Recovery Lags And Companies Aren't Spending | InvestorPlace

 

[loosecannon]

Obama kind of made it his problem when he promised that if the stimulus was passed unemployment would remain below 8%.

Remember Obama was only elected in the first place because the economy tanked on the eve of the election.

Live by the recession, die by the recession.

 

[Mini 14]

It isn't.

UNemployment is another story for the Bastard in Chief.

 

[shintao]

It isn't.

UNemployment is another story for the Bastard in Chief.

And the Trillion dollars sitting idle in corporate hands? Are you getting the big picture here?

 

[Oddball]

Ever ask yourself why they're sitting on those resources?

Didn't think so.

 

[del]

Ever ask yourself why they're sitting on those resources?

Didn't think so.

probably for the same reasons i'm holding onto mine.

 

[shintao]

Ever ask yourself why they're sitting on those resources?

Didn't think so.

Oh, yeah I did. You see I know by making less, they can sell less for more as an item become scarce in a capitalist market, and make a bigger profit. And if there is a complaint to making less, the government will subsidize their sorry asses and give them bonuses for hiring.

 

[The T]

Ever ask yourself why they're sitting on those resources?

Didn't think so.

Oddball? They don't have the propensity to ask themselves such questions. It is out of the realm of their knowledge, and curiosity...you're asking too much of thier simple minds...go easy dude...

 

[shintao]

Ever ask yourself why they're sitting on those resources?

Didn't think so.

probably for the same reasons i'm holding onto mine.

I am into land investment, so I am spending mine.

 

[The T]

Ever ask yourself why they're sitting on those resources?

Didn't think so.

Oh, yeah I did. You see I know by making less, they can sell less for more as an item become scarce in a capitalist market, and make a bigger profit. And if there is a complaint to making less, the government will subsidize their sorry asses and give them bonuses for hiring.

"Translation: "I cannot make it out there on my own...and cannot compete therefore I have to have Government come in and fuck it all up for everyone..."

Don't you know SHITHEAD that is how business is born? I suppose that you HATE competiton...

You have a limited view, and limited history knowledge.

 

[Oddball]

Ever ask yourself why they're sitting on those resources?

Didn't think so.

Oh, yeah I did. You see I know by making less, they can sell less for more as an item become scarce in a capitalist market, and make a bigger profit. And if there is a complaint to making less, the government will subsidize their sorry asses and give them bonuses for hiring.

That just shows you could put the sum total of your understanding of business and economics on a matchbook cover.


Or maybe they're scared to hell of the current bunch of ideologue despots in the District of Criminals, and are holding their cards until some people with a little more respect for the people who earn the profits, which employ the people, whose paychecks get taxed, to support the ideologue despots in the District of Criminals....

 

[The T]

Ever ask yourself why they're sitting on those resources?

Didn't think so.

probably for the same reasons i'm holding onto mine.

I am into land investment, so I am spending mine.

Right into oblivion. No Bailout for you.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Ever ask yourself why they're sitting on those resources?

Didn't think so.

Oh, yeah I did. You see I know by making less, they can sell less for more as an item become scarce in a capitalist market, and make a bigger profit.

Sounds like a zero sum idea, rather than one that will bring larger profit.

If I sell one item for $10 profit, or 10 of them for $1 profit each, I'd rather sell the 10. Makes the same for me, and gets my brand out there more.

 

[The T]

Ever ask yourself why they're sitting on those resources?

Didn't think so.

Oh, yeah I did. You see I know by making less, they can sell less for more as an item become scarce in a capitalist market, and make a bigger profit. And if there is a complaint to making less, the government will subsidize their sorry asses and give them bonuses for hiring.

That just shows you could put the sum total of your understanding of business and economics on a matchbook cover.


Or maybe they're scared to hell of the current bunch of ideologue despots in the District of Criminals, and are holding their cards until some people with a little more respect for the people who earn the profits, which employ the people, whose paychecks get taxed, to support the ideologue despots in the District of Criminals....

Shitao will never understand your brilliant historic Logic...at least it hasn't yet after repeated tries...

 

[The T]

Ever ask yourself why they're sitting on those resources?

Didn't think so.

Oh, yeah I did. You see I know by making less, they can sell less for more as an item become scarce in a capitalist market, and make a bigger profit.

Sounds like a zero sum idea, rather than one that will bring larger profit.

If I sell one item for $10 profit, or 10 of them for $1 profit each, I'd rather sell the 10. Makes the same for me, and gets my brand out there more.

Bravo!

 

[Londoner]

People don't get it.

By lowering the wages and benefits of the middle class (in order to give the owners lower operating costs), the Reagan Revolution cut the middle class out of the loop. This diverted the lion's share of profits over the last 30 years to the upper class. This ended the broadly shared prosperity which allowed the postwar middle class to consume and drive the economy and send their children to college. The war on labor meant that money would become highly concentrated in the hands of the owners or "suppliers" (supply side economics). So much so that there was too much money chasing too few investment opportunities, which is why Wall Street had to invent ponzi derivatives to keep up with the demand for higher returns. On the other end of the economic spectrum you have the consumption classes, whose wages stagnated while their support programs and benefits were cut. Given this, how could the middle class afford to drive the consumption economy? Where would they get the money? Answer: credit. In order to cover up the fact that all the money was getting stuck on top -- where it was dynastically transferred through inheritances, or stuffed into the pockets of politicians, or poured into think tanks and opinion management -- the Reagan Revolution built the largest credit/debt economy in history, and both parties played along [Indeed, what politician would ever admit to the middle class that they could not live better than their parents?]

Fueling the middle class with credit eventually broke the bank (even though the wealthy walked away with incredible interest payments)

Why on earth would the trillions of dollars of looted money be reinvested into an economy with bankrupt consumers and zombi banks? Where is the incentive? The postwar structure FDR put in place to fuel middle class demand is gone, and the credit used to keep consumers afloat has dried up. Decades of job loss, as well as wage and benefit freezes, have finally come home to roost. There is no more money circulating through the real economy. It became over-concentrated in the pockets of people who couldn't possibly spend it all.

America grew billionaires at the expense of drying up the buying power of the very people who drove the economy.

People don't get. We made the suppliers wealthy beyond their wildest dreams, but we choked the people who actually buy things. The wealthy don't have to expose their golden parachutes to any market risk -- they don't have to reinvest. They already live like royalty, as will their heirs. The game is over. This is exactly how great nations die. They are progressively looted by a small class of people who gain control over the political and information systems. Our country was looted. The great middle class consumption economy died when Reagan decided to transfer all the money to the wealthy. America bought into the voodoo. The money never trickled down. Credit was used to hide the corpse of the failed trickle down policies. And now the credit is gone, leaving the corpse -- the bankrupt America consumer . . . on his way to Washington with a pitchfork, looking for something that doesn't exist: government, which is merely a bogus holding of corporations, something used to absorb risk and populist anger.

 

[The T]

People don't get it.

By lowering the wages and benefits of the middle class (in order to give the owners lower operating costs), the Reagan Revolution cut the middle class out of the loop. This diverted the lion's share of profits over the last 30 years to the upper class. This ended the broadly shared prosperity which allowed the postwar middle class to send their children to college. This meant that money would become highly concentrated in the hands of the owners or suppliers. So much so that there was too much money chasing too few investment opportunities, which is why Wall Street had to invent ponzi derivatives to keep up with the demand for higher returns. On the other end of the economic spectrum you have the consumption classes whose wages stagnated, and their support programs and benefits cut. How could the middle class afford to drive the consumption economy? Answer: credit. In order to cover up the fact that all the money was getting stuck on top, where it was dynastically transferred through inheritances, or stuffed into the pockets of politicians, or poured into think tanks and opinion management, the Reagan Revolution built the largest credit/debt economy in history.

This eventually broke the bank.

Why on earth would the trillions of dollars of looted money be reinvested into an economy with zombi consumers and banks? Where is the incentive? There is no demand and there is no more credit. The middle class has been bankrupted by decades of job loss, as well as wage and benefit freezes.

People don't get. We made the suppliers wealthy beyond their wildest dreams. They don't have to expose their golden parachutes to any market risk. They already live like royalty, as will their heirs. The game is over. This is exactly how great nations die. They are progressively looted by a small class of people who gain control over the political and information systems. Our country was looted. The great middle class consumption economy died when Reagan decided to transfer all the money to the wealthy. America bought into the voodoo. The money never trickled down. Only credit. And the credit is now gone too.

Highlighted ERROR...

Class Warfare.

*FAIL*

 

[Trajan]

Ever ask yourself why they're sitting on those resources?

Didn't think so.

Oh, yeah I did. You see I know by making less, they can sell less for more as an item become scarce in a capitalist market, and make a bigger profit. And if there is a complaint to making less, the government will subsidize their sorry asses and give them bonuses for hiring.

Oh yea exactly, that's why Henry ford never put automobiles within reach of anyone but evil rich folk....

 

[xotoxi]

Ever ask yourself why they're sitting on those resources?

Didn't think so.

probably for the same reasons i'm holding onto mine.

You have a trillion dollars?

Did I ever tell you that I consider you to be a great friend?

 

[RadiomanATL]

Ever ask yourself why they're sitting on those resources?

Didn't think so.

probably for the same reasons i'm holding onto mine.

You have a trillion dollars?

Did I ever tell you that I consider you to be a great friend?

Did I ever tell you that del was actually my big brother?