If corporations are engaging in a "capital strike"

[Zalatix]

Perhaps it's time to break this strike. Time to slap some serious taxes in response.

What would FDR do?

[leftyohiolib]

1. good luck getting it past the house

[hack89]

2. Who says they are engaging in a capital strike? nt

[The Magistrate]

3. They Do, Sir

Their actions certainly make it obvious, and when people whose business it is to invest decline to do so, but simply hold cash, then it is quite proper to view them as 'on strike', particularly when many state demands to be met in national policy and law before they will resume their work.

[hack89]

5. That cash is invested

they are simply not investing it where you want them to invest it. Just where and why should they invest this money understanding that their sole goal is to make money for their shareholders?

[The Magistrate]

6. Not Really, Sir

Short term roll-overs and the like are not viewed as investment, but as parking cash.

One expects you know this, and are simply being deliberately obtuse, because you find it awfully difficult to speak in support of any progressive of liberal view, particularly in economic matters.

"Saint Entrepreneur and the Blessed Share-Holder can go fuck themselves with the rest of the Church of the Free-Marketeer."

[hack89]

7. So where should they be investing

understanding their fiduciary duties under the law? Where will they make more on their investments?

[badtoworse]

11. I vote raising a valid point

Parking cash short term while waiting for the right investment opportunities is sound practice that, as an investor and shareholder, I would expect corporate management to engage in. Corporate management has a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders, no one else.

[Selatius]

47. Sometimes the board of directors would rather make no investment if that means the least loss.

And the board of directors is typically comprised of the biggest shareholders of the company. Their decision is pretty final on the matter.

[HughBeaumont]

8. I vote "deliberately obtuse"!

Parked/uncirculated money = holding the economy hostage = holding American progress hostage.

Also, The Owners, Inc. can stop pretending to be "offended" at President Obama's supposed unfriendliness to Big Business . . . only the biggest slobbering, Kool-aid drinking jackhole buys that line.

[hack89]

12. What exactly should they be investing in?

what if they are in an sector with slow demand? If I depended on exports to Europe, I would not be in any hurry to expand until I see how the Euro mess straightens its self out. If I was a home builder or an associated industry, I would not expand until I saw the glut of foreclosed homes off the market and demand for new construction growing.

You cannot buy demand.

[badtoworse]

13. You're missing the point

Many on this board cannot accept the fact that corporations are supposed to act in the interests of their shareholders. If you accept their point of view, then the investments should support their agenda regardless of whether the shareholders get hurt. By that standard, your question is irrelevant.

[Zalatix]

29. Sociopathy is written into most corporate charters.

[badtoworse]

32. How so?

[Zalatix]

33. This link describes it as well as I could.

http://attempter.wordpress.com/2011/03/09/corporations-are-sociopaths

Sociopaths are people who are completely devoid of any sense of empathy or caring. Other people simply don’t exist other than as things to be manipulated and consumed, with no more emotional consideration than when you unwrap a candy bar, throw out the wrapper, and devour the calories. Everyone regards such individuals with horror, except where it comes to business and politics, where suddenly the existence and tolerability, even desirability, of sociopathy becomes controversial.

I’m not writing about this sociopathy of the elites themselves today, or about the bizarre collective sociopathy of masses which often exempts, accepts, and celebrates it. Such issues, however, do go toward the general critique of representative government in itself, and from there to elitism in itself. (I define the term elitism as the tolerance of or desire for the existence of hierarchical elites, especially in politics and the economy.)

What I want to briefly lay out here is the fact that corporations are inherently sociopathic. By their intrinsic design and imperative they must aggressively and relentlessly seek to sociopathically manipulate and consume. We’re all familiar with the corporation’s legal duty to maximize profit at the expense of all other values. Henry Ford was successfully sued by his shareholders for trying to overcome the inherent contradiction of capitalism by paying his workers a wage sufficient to sustain themselves as consumers. While there’s some question of how far this duty extends in principle, in practice it’s always interpreted to mean that corporate management, no matter what its subjective view of things, should always be doing every legal thing it can, no matter how morally evil it may be. Where an evil would be illegal, the corporation’s duty is to get the law changed. In practice the corporation should always be pushing the envelope where it comes to bribery and extortion. And even every other law is supposed to be broken if management thinks they can get away with it or make some patsy take the fall. So in the end the barrier of legality isn’t supposed to exist either.

...

[badtoworse]

37. A slanted, broad brush generalization and basically, a crock of shit

Do all Socialist or Marxist governments have the same human rights record as Stalin's?

I've worked for 8 different companies over a 40 year period and none were even close to what the article described. Most of the experience was in the electric power business, both domestic and international. Yes, we were certainly trying to make a profit - that is why we were hired, but every company I've been involved with had a set of core values that flowed from morality and the ethical treatment of our staff, our clients and the public.

The highest priority at the companies where I've worked has been and still is the safety of our workers. Power generation can be dangerous and we go to great lengths to provide our operators with the best training, safest operating procedures and most effective personal protection equipment available. We would not have done that if we just looked the other way and assumed the workers knew the risks when they took the job.

Respect for the environment is a similarly high priority and anyplace I've ever worked complied with the spirit of the law (filing reports with the environmental regulators and doing the cleanup), even when we knew there was no way we would have been caught had we not done so. I'll spare you the details, but I will say that I've never seen a situation where anyone attempted to cover up even a minor incident. If you article were true, we would have gotten away with whatever we could, but we didn't even try to.

I could go on about the support the local communities (charities, food banks, etc.), the training to deal with coworkers, partners, clients and the public honestly and fairly. For the last year, I've work at an investment bank advising them on investments in the energy sector and I'm amazed at how far the bank goes to insure that its clients' interests are the highest priority, i.e., higher than the bank's.

A couple of anecdotes: In the mid-90's, the company I worked for bid on a taking over a power plant at a copper smelter in southern-Peru. The plant had a substantial amount of friable asbestos that was a clear hazard to the men working there (Yeah, there are some corporations whose safety standards are low). We included the money to remove the asbestos in our bid, not because we were legally required to do so (we weren't), but because it was the morally right thing to do. Asbestos removal is expensive and we lost the bid, but no one had the slightest regret or had any second thoughts about it. Another time, we bid on a project in the Middle-East and became aware that one our foreign partners had made questionble payments (bribes) to a local official - we were out of that consortium the same day. If every corporation were as you described, we wouldn't have done either of those things.

The bottom line is the article you posted is bullshit as far as I'm concerned. Are there bad actors in the corporate world? Of course there are, but most (at least in my experience) have a moral compass. That "banality of evil" comment was particularly insulting - people in the corporate world aren't Nazis. I've worked with scores of people well enough to know if they are moral and ethical - the vast majority are and the inference they aren't is crass

[Zalatix]

61. With all due respect, pish tosh.

If any of those companies you worked for even lasted long, they probably got out-competed or bought out by psychopaths.

In corporate America, some people always bow out of becoming assholes - they just get shoved aside by those who do.

That article is highly credible.

[badtoworse]

77. What makes you an expert?

Do you have any experience working in private industry?

[HughBeaumont]

14. And your way DOESN'T WORK and ISN'T WORKING. Greed is failing America.

Not every corporation that's in a short-term rollover is in a slow-demand sector.

Maybe it's not the corporations that are the ones that need to "buy demand". Maybe there needs to be more government stimulus to repair our horribly damaged infrastructure, which they can contract out to private companies, providing real work that's not "make work". Demand CAN be created, there's just no political will to do it so much as there's political will to continue useless money-wasting occupations and giving wealthy people cash that they don't need instead.

If every corporation's "Fiduciary Duty" is to their shareholders only, explain Costco. Explain worker co-ops across the country. Explain risk-averse large banks who think long-term and are also publicly traded. I'm quite positive those shareholders would want to go whiskey-throttle and go where the tax isn't (profit) and do whatever it takes to maximize it, but why don't they?

[hack89]

17. Costco? A non-union corporation with $4 billion in cash reserves

and a relatively affluent customer base that amply rewards its shareholders? What about them?

http://seekingalpha.com/article/713541-buy-costco-a-retailer-for-all-economic-environments

[librechik]

16. they should be using part of that capital to hire people and give back to the community

which offers them such a pleasant business environment--the US of A.

[hack89]

19. What about shareholder value and stock value?

not only do the millions with 401Ks depend on those stock values but so does everyone on a government or company pension. What do you think pension funds are invested in?

Jobs are not the only issue here.

[hack89]

20. Hire just for the sake of hiring?

what if the company does not have adequate profits to pay for those new people? Not every company is doing well. Not every company is flush with cash.

[Zalatix]

18. Lots of companies are refusing to hire workers and instead working their existing forces harder.

[hack89]

21. This is common in a recovery

Last edited Tue Jul 17, 2012, 12:04 PM - Edit history (1)

soon they will reach the point where either they have enough confidence in the future to higher more people or they decide the future is not certain enough to hire more.

Every company wants to expand - that is where the profit is. They can only push an existing workforce so far. And the danger to them is that if they push too hard, when the economy does recover they will experience an exodus of experienced workers looking for a better place to work.

[Zalatix]

22. Yes and no.

It is common to a lesser extent than recent "recoveries" which have uniquely been largely jobless recoveries that have been cut short by another big downturn.

So companies treat workers, especially grunt workers, like crap, knowing full well that the economy won't put them at risk of an employee's market. Even PhD holders are out of work now. Engineers, too.

We've been in a perpetual employer's market since 2001.

[hack89]

23. Part of the issue is that the US manufacturing economy has fundamentally and permanently changed

low-tech, labor intensive manufacturing is gone and will never come back. US manufacturing is doing well but it is making high-tech capital goods that require a significantly smaller but higher skilled work force.

The challenge (for which I don't have an answer) is how to reabsorb all these workers that use to work in manufacturing. Their jobs are not coming back and yet many lack the skills/education they need to find new jobs of equal pay. This is where government intervention and assistance is desperately needed.

[Zalatix]

24. Not true. We can use tariffs to bring back low-tech manufacturing.

The problem is not entirely education. We have engineers that can't find work, and people with PhD's in science-related fields who cannot find work.

We can't reabsorb all these workers without low-tech manufacturing. There simply aren't enough jobs without that sector. We have to get back low-tech manufacturing or this problem will be permanent in nature.

[hack89]

25. If we were completely self sufficient in all necessary raw materials and components, maybe.

but we are not. Other countries will simply use tariffs against us.

It is a pipe dream that somehow cheap consumer goods will be once again made in America. "Cheap" is the operative word.

[Zalatix]

27. Okay, so if the tariff us, they lose.

We import a whole HELL of a lot more than we export. That means other nations lose more income than they gain by blocking us.

"Cheap" manufactured goods is not cheap. It costs us jobs.

[hack89]

30. So the answer is to further impoverish the 3rd world?

right makes right? A little economic arm twisting and everything will be as good as gold.

[Zalatix]

31. Better than they keep impoverishing us.

Sorry, but my country and my people's working class comes first. I don't budge on that. Ever.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

34. I have not seen such a continuous string of Chicago School-influenced

business school B.S. in one place in a long time.

The economy and the Holy Sacred Almighty Markets That We Are Not Worthy To Regulate, Amen, are not abstractions. They are the sum of the actions of individuals. Individuals can change their actions. Other individuals are affected by things that happen as the result of these actions. Some individuals, due to their great wealth or power, can screw over the rest of us in ways that are downright sociopathic.

My father's hometown is the headquarters of a nationally known company, still privately held, that is highly profitable and yet treats its workers decently. If business is slow, the owners make the sacrifice to avoid laying off workers, since they are by far the largest employers in town.

Conventional b-school wisdom says they should be in trouble, since they are going against the financial interests of the shareholders, the founders' descendants. But no, they're doing great.

I (and some of my friends who know Japan even better than I do) trace Japan's "lost decade" not only to a burst real estate bubble but to their adoption of "international" (i.e. cutthroat American) business practices, with the resulting foreign outsourcing, reluctance to hire any but temporary employees, and killing of local businesses by voracious retail and restaurant chains.

It's interesting, isn't it, that the countries in northern Europe that are doing the worst or that went through crises are precisely the ones that adopted conservative economic policies: Iceland, Ireland (once the poster child for conservative economics, now with double-digit unemployment), Britain (in a double-dip recession), and Latvia (trying to balance its budget on the backs of the poor and middle class with a 25% VAT).

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

35. No, we will lose too.

All the tariffs in the world don't do any good without import substitution, unfortunately for import substitution to actually occur demand for the tariffed good has to survive the effects of price elasticity of demand relatively intact and a domestic supplier has to be able to provide a good of equal quality in the first place.

[Zalatix]

36. We're losing already. Jobless Americans don't buy iPads.

Unless they steal them.

Sorry to kill your war against American workers so quickly. Have a nice day!

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

40. Please explain the next step after imposing punitive tariffs.

How will you address price elasticity sapping demand for the affected goods?

How will you address inflation in inelastic goods? Price Controls?

Okay... how will you address the shortages resulting from price controls on the above goods?

How will you addressed the devaluation of savings and spending power?

Stagflation wasn't fun...

[Zalatix]

42. Two words to answer all of that: rising wages.

As for the devaluation of savings... that's happening now. Offshoring American jobs devalues the dollar, inherently.

Seriously... must you continue your fight AGAINST the American working class?

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

44. Because... Scrooge McDuck is going to throw open the doors to the money bin?

You aren't helping the working class with poorly informed rants calling for some of the most catastrophically discredited economic policies in history.

So how are you going to bring about these rising wages that will presumably comfortably outstrip inflation?

[Zalatix]

45. Scrooge McDuck could just get the fuck out and move to China, renounce his citizenship.

Or we could tax his money away and force him to hire people and use his money or lose it.

You aren't helping the working class with your pro-China rants or your ridiculous defenses of offshoring.

Worse than that, history laughs in your face. China's middle class exploded when they instituted tariffs against America and devalued their Yuan against the dollar. See, you keep running away when your ignorance gets exposed by that basic historical fact. China did exactly what you said cannot happen.

You done attacking American workers now?

PS: I also noticed you have nothing to say to the fact that offshoring in and of itself contributes to the devaluation of the dollar. You know I'm going to keep mentioning that over and over again, right?

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

46. China is more than compliant with their WTO tariff reduction obligations

And many US exports to China are completely tariff free. The outstanding issues are substantially superficial and don't really affect any high volume trade. We have similar dick waving contests with lots of countries, we had one with Canada over frozen pizza.

Further, Chinese monetary policy is already moving towards a free floating exchange rate, but like everything that has occurred in China over the last forty years it has been gradual. Although when the Chinese loosened it last in May the Yuan actually fell slightly. In the long run China does need a stronger currency for their own ends and this is recognized - but it is a double sided risk. As just mentioned - when China let the Yuan float slightly - it fell. There is a recognition in most places that turning currency traders loose with the Yuan when there is prevailing skepticism about China's true economic performance might not bring about a better result. Therefore nobody argues too strongly against status quo.

The only thing holding down the US dollar is our colossal federal debt and a lack of global confidence that the republicans will properly service the debt. The balance of trade does not significantly devalue hard currencies in large economies. In small or weak economies the balance of trade is more important as it is a means to attain hard currency. There is no shortage of US dollars in the US economy, there are few things the US imports in any quantity that are not themselves priced in dollars globally.

If you think the savior of the US workforce is repatriating crap jobs operating injection molding machines you are insane. Tariffs did nothing to protect US industries from near collapse long before free trade. The rest of the west figured this out fifty years ago - ironically enough in response to a fear of American industrial hegemony. We on the other hand jammed out to John Cafferty records and smashed beer cans with our foreheads and shook our fists at the sky and an ethereal foreign menace occasionally.

But by all means, please explain how in your proposed regime you will address price elasticity of demand for goods suddenly much more expensive and therefore undesirable (aka not generating much new employment), address the inflation of essential goods and or address the shortages of those goods resulting from price controls that seem likely to be your preferred course of action.

The British figured this out more than a 150 years ago, the British had imposed severe tariffs on imported grains after the end of the Napoleonic wars when European grown grain was once again available to the British market thanks to the collapse of Napoleon's Continental System. For their efforts there were riots in the cities and several markets in London were burned to the ground. As the cities grew and the population was cut-off from subsistence agriculture the tariffs came to be seen as nothing more than a spectacular act of cruelty inflicted on the urban population. Ultimately even the most conservative elements came around because they feared the continuation of the policy in light of the great famine could incite a revolution.

[Zalatix]

49. Too fucking little, too fucking late.

The many years of Chinese tariffs against American products have already done critical damage to this economy. You know as well as I do that China's lowering of tariffs now and their slow floating of their currency does NOT undo the damage they did decades ago by fucking us over with their protectionist policies. It doesn't even come close.

If you think the savior of the US workforce is repatriating crap jobs operating injection molding machines you are insane.

And if you think that sending jobs overseas doesn't destroy the middle class in America, you are insane. And clueless, too.

But by all means, please explain how Americans who are unemployed and earning $0 an hour are going to purchase anything at all. In fact, you can take your explanation and offer it to one of our 620,000 homeless people who can't get off the streets, or our 12 million unemployed (lowball estimate), who can't find work, because of offshoring. But you won't tell them to their faces, because you know what everyone's going to say to you: your arguments are insane.

What Britain found out 150 years ago is the exact opposite of what China found out now: their tariffs never ruined them. You have yet to address this discrepancy. Funny how your argument about England exposes the basic fact that dependency on imports is a bad thing. America learned that the hard way when the Arabs embargoed us in the 1970s. I'm sure you were around to remember that, right?

Nor can you address the fact that trade deficits are what's killing Europe now. Worse yet, because Greece imports their medicine instead of making it domestically, their currency dives are starving them of desperately needed medication. Dependence on imports almost killed Greece. That's totally unpossible in your world. Yeah, I already know you won't answer this.

By the way I see you also failed, once again, to address the fact that offshoring jobs INHERENTLY CONTRIBUTES to the devaluation of the dollar, and also as a result, inflation. What is keeping you from talking about this? Perhaps you also know that offshoring also CONTRIBUTES to the national debt. These are basic economic facts that you do not understand. Confidence in America's ability to service the debt has nothing to do with the damage being done to our currency by offshoring. Those two problems are two separate issues. You lack the economic knowledge to understand this basic fact.

You have no argument here except that the American working class must continue to suffer. And America's working class is increasingly telling you not just NO, but HELL NO.

We will fight offshoring and we will put an end to it. Take this very seriously: the working class is now fighting back.

PS: I'm not sure if you truly understand how big this rebellion is. Notice how Mitt Romney is on the run from being labeled as an outsourcer of American jobs? No politician is rushing to have your back on this anymore. You need to get familiar with the concept of a lost cause: your cause is just that. LOST.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

52. Perhaps you could identify these goods (preferably by HTS code)

And again, I will ask you to explain how you will address severe inflationary externalities if your proposed policy.

What the British figured out 150 years ago was forcing the general public to subsidize politically favored industries by way of punitive tariffs was really fucking unpopular. This was also an opinion shared by notorious Republican demagogue FDR who campaigned against your beloved Smoot-Hawley tariff.

You also really need to make an effort to both read (in their entirety) and comprehend links before you post them. If you don't understand them - ask someone to explain them to you. I would like to say it makes you look ignorant - but your posts are already synonymous with ignorance.

The problems in Southern Europe are both that they are ungovernable and every budget has to pander to the multitude of regional and eccentric parties elected to the parliament - if they even pass a budget before the government falls again. And they combine national passions for the welfare state and tax evasion. And Greece as a signatory to WIPO can't just start domestically producing patented drugs as you suggest.

You have no argument here except that redemption by escalation of some of the most destructive policies in history are supposedly America's only hope. And the working class will be pretty fucking pissed if their next blu-ray player is more expensive because you want to raise the cost of living and seem to believe if by magic wage growth is going to comfortably outstrip the inflation of your creation.

[Zalatix]

54. So your whole point is "if we hire Americans, we create severe inflationary madness".

That's just... hilarious.

You show your ignorance by being unable to show where the links contradict me. They don't. They make your point quite idiotic, especially when you claim that hiring American workers creates severe inflationary externalities.

I'm not going to need to address " severe inflationary externalities" involved with hiring American workers, because there will be none. None, of course, that won't already be created by engaging in the offshoring that you propose we should continue. You obviously either cannot read the links I posted, or you have no counter argument and your comments here are little more than a tantrum.

Once again, the lessons that Britain supposedly learned were overturned in China when they started hiking up trade barriers against America. Their middle class exploded as a result. Oh and let's not get into China's subsidies. You can't address that. You ran away from this historical fact last time; so I'm going to make sure I keep repeating it.

That's your problem here. Your argument got smacked down by the proven fact that offshoring jobs creates the kind of currency devaluation and rising foreign-held debt that CREATES the inflation you fear the most. Your entire argument is built upon the laughable and ridiculous claim that hiring Americans creates severe inflationary externalities. That's not going to fly on Earth or any other world.

Your posts are the ones that are synonymous with ignorance. And denial.

Oh and by the way, we the people just smacked the shit out of one of your outsourcing heroes, Ralph Lauren . In 2014 they're making their suits in the USA. We're winning this war against outsourcing, slowly. I told you this revolution is nation-wide. You're running out of time to find a way to sell your free trade snake oil.

Your argument is 100% wrong, from start to finish. It is ignorant, it is laughable. And it has been thoroughly, redundantly debunked. by a number of people. And you are convincing absolutely no one.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

55. No... sweeping tariffs are inflationary

Outside of some independent and severe deflationary influences.

There is a very simple reason that most trade disputes confine themselves to seemingly random token widgets. (Such as vehicles almost nobody in China buys in the first place, or solar panels almost nobody in the US buys in the first place) There isn't a government on earth that wants to do unleash inflation. And if you want to talk about China... their middle class has exploded since they began rolling back tariffs which was a condition for their entry into the WTO. The greatest period of income growth in modern China began around the turn of the century. In that time US exports to China have increased almost 450%.

If your blog skimming isn't far enough along to articulate a plausible solution to the inflationary nature of your proposal there probably isn't much further to discuss. Unfortunately arguments supportive of your proposed policy are mostly going to be published in Spanish and written in the 1970's.

[Zalatix]

56. Wow, you just keep repeating the same errors and half-truths repeatedly.

China's middle class exploded when they STARTED lowering tariffs? That's incredibly wrong. Their middle class has been growing for decades, ever since we started moving factories there. Which was the direct cause of their currency manipulation and tariffs. And our imports from China have exploded by over 1,000% in the same time period you're talking about. Yet another example of your half-truths. China's GDP growth SLOWED when they started rolling back tariffs.

And I don't skim blogs. It is an established fact that when you outsource jobs overseas you are increasing the national debt and devaluing your currency. You have no counter-argument to this except "I don't believe it". All of my cites support this. You haven't posted even one cite to support yourself.

As for arguments that support me? I can find one IN ENGLISH that supports me. The source might surprise you. It won't be surprising, of course, that you're wrong. Again.

By the way - America is getting tired of outsourcing. The revolution is on. Methinks you might not find this country very hospitable to the things you support.

Say hi to Ralph Lauren for me.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

62. So the greatest period of growth for the Chinese middle class was prior to 1997?

1997 being when the Chinese negotiated massive tariff reductions as a condition of entry to the WTO.

Well, if you want to run with that it would be among the less alarming of your delusions...

Until the very recent past the Chinese middle class was overwhelmingly government bureaucrats and professionals. Chinese factory workers are overwhelmingly peasants.

And once again I have to encourage you to read and comprehend links before posting them. Krugman's argument (not a big fan, but whatever) - which isn't well fleshed out in that article is that to encourage China to allow the Yuan to float a tariff should be imposed based on the perceived discount the Yuan is trading at. Subsequent to this China did allow the Yuan to float slightly and it fell. (oops!) This has roughly nothing to do with your boilerplate argument about across the board tariffs not being inflationary or but if they are rising wages (because... tariffs will bring out the benevolent side of the 1%, who faced with lowered margins will throw open the money bin and give everyone a raise) will cover it.

[Zalatix]

64. No, I said that China's growth started prior to 1997.

I have no delusions - however, you have some serious intellectual dishonesty issues.

As for Krugman - once again you show you either are dishonest, or you have no idea what you are talking about. Just like you tried to deny the fact that outsourcing American jobs overseas devalues the dollar and contributes to the national debt.

I am sure you also know that President Obama just recently slapped tariffs on China because of their subsidies of Chinese solar panel companies. And he also took on China regarding their retaliatory tariffs on American vehicles.

As I said, I suspect the problem here is that you are not comprehension-challenged, but rather being intellectually dishonest. You obviously are not a working class person who is at risk of losing your job. If you did ever lose your job to foreign outsourcing you wouldn't be spouting this nonsense. You have something to gain from protecting this ruinous mentality that hiring American workers somehow causes ruinous inflationary chaos and doom and gloom.




Once again, Sen. Walter Sobchak, I remind you that we Americans are not going to tolerate this war on American workers any more. We will put an end to offshoring and we're rejecting the so-called arguments the free traders are putting forth. The louder the free traders get, the worse off they will be. We have run out of tolerance for descending into an import-dependent nation like Greece.

Oh and have I forgotten to add: to hell with the WTO? Well, I did now!

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

66. These tariffs are political theater on both sides

Tariffs like these are imposed for political reasons and targeted where they have minimum impact but high visibility. They blow over and are forgotten - everyone has a domestic audience to pander to and useful idiots lap it all up.

And I know a little something about Americans. a) I am one and b) I have lived around them for going on forty years. And while they will tolerate their teeth rotting out of their head and hernia belts. They won't tolerate a manifest government policy that raises the price of consumer electronics. Cars will be upside down and in flames if there isn't a $99 whatever on Black Friday.

You heard it here first, Obama 2nd Term Foreign Policy Priority One: Free Trade with European Union.

[Zalatix]

67. No, you don't know Americans very well.

If you did, you would look around you and see how little we tolerate foreign outsourcing anymore. It's in the streets, and you can also see it here on the DU. Rarely a day goes by without someone complaining about outsourcing, and guess whose side is on the majority? Not the ones who support outsourcing. You have also seen this in real life, too. Don't even try to deny that.

President Obama is waging a big INSOURCING campaign. And... political theater? Really? China is getting punished because they subsidized the hell out of their solar industry to drive ours out of business. That's not political theater. And you calling people useful idiots for supporting OBAMA'S response to China's trade warfare is hilarious considering that the useless idiots in town are the ones who support offshoring and who oppose tariffs. Fortunately, those useless idiots are losing power and losing support. Fast.

As for your "hiring Americans will cause inflation" theory, since you don't know how to give up, I will explain to you a very heart breaking reason why your theories are harmful not only to America, but the world, too. If we raise tariffs, you say we will cause inflation. This is wrong, of course, no matter how many times you repeat it, but also, going by your reasoning, if foreign countries raise wages, this will also cause inflation. Whether it's the result of a Government policy or not, price increases are price increases. This is why the United States Government went to Haiti recently and fought to prevent Haiti's government from raising the minimum wage for their garment workers. A raise in their minimum wage would make clothes exported to the United States more expensive. This is the consequences of your logic, in the real world.

To keep goods cheap for Americans, foreign people must be made to work for shit wages. That's the dark side of your argument. If foreign people start being paid American-level wages, in your universe, inflation will run rampant, just like if we had tariffs, and people will turn cars upside down and light them on fire.

Hello, reality check. Nobody's going to overturn cars and engage in MASS PROTESTS over a rise in the price of iPads. If they were going to do that, we would be in the middle of a revolution right now over gasoline prices. In 2008, John McCain and Hillary Clinton even pushed for a gasoline tax holiday in the middle of $4.00+ gasoline prices and it never got traction even as candidate Barack Obama opposed the tax holiday. You don't even want to know what Government taxes do to gasoline prices in Europe. Your argument is all sorts of wrong, and debunked from many different directions.


We need less $99 whatever on Black Friday and more people with good paying jobs. Free trade does not create good paying jobs for America. It destroys jobs. We've lost millions of manufacturing jobs - what has replaced that? A handful of better paying jobs and a vast majority of jobs that are lower paying service crap.

THIS is why we Americans are no longer tolerating offshoring. This is why we slapped the taste out of Ralph Loren's mouth over this shit. This is why we're kicking the shit out of Mitt Romney. You don't get on television in America and tout your support of offshoring anymore. You get stomped, HARD, if you do. Hoo-rah. The revolution is on.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

68. I love DU... but...

The attitudes presented here are poorly representative of mainstream offline Democrats much less the American public.

If DU was representative the cars would be on fire because somebody said "chick" on a reality show.

[Zalatix]

69. LOL, denial is your friend. You don't meet many friends of offshoring in real life, either.

And your claims about what you see in reality are suspect given the fact that you said there'd be cars overturned and burning if $99 sales stopped happening.

Not to mention the fact that you keep denying that offshoring raises the debt and devalues the dollar, even though you've been shown this repeatedly.

Nobody in this country is tolerating this offshoring shit anymore. The people who defend offshoring are all out of ammo. Free traders have nothing, the gig is up.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

70. Your recognition of sarcasm is as strong as your reading comprehension and or attention span

Free Traders are going to get agreements with the EU and possibly Japan from Obama's second term. That is far from nothing - free trade with Europe has been the Holy Grail since FDR signed the Reciprocal Tariff Act in 1934.

Nothing is fighting a holding action against imports only to see price elasticity and or automation wholly wipe-out your perceived gains even if you got your way.

If you want to do something relevant read all the French economic and industrial literature from the 1960's you can find. Europe already figured all this out when they thought the big bad American hegemon was going to reduce them to a continent of lingerie and beer exporters.

[Zalatix]

71. Once again you fail to make a coherent argument.

Free traders are going to get run out of the country. It is likely that all of these free trade agreements will be repealed when we're done.

America has never benefitted from free trade agreements. They have all cost us more jobs than they have created. And they all raise our debt and devalue our dollar.

If you want to do something relevant then quit spouting this nonsense, because as you can tell nobody but you is listening to it anymore.

[Zalatix]

72. I bet you won't even cringe at this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=post&forum=1002&pid=952112

Read it and let it sink in.

This is why free trade is going to lose. Badly.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

73. Really dude, you need to read more than the first sentance before posting a link

But I will wait for the vengeful wrath of the cheeto and mountain dew stained John Edwards t-shirted hordes none the less.

[Zalatix]

74. Your "you need to read" comebacks are getting weak. Don't you get tired of constantly being wrong?

Your pals over at Bain Capital are taking a monstrous beating over the same cause you keep fighting for. Don't you get the message yet? No one wants free trade anymore. No one.

Oh and since you keep avoiding the issue I'm going to keep repeating this. Forever.

Outsourcing American jobs overseas devalues the dollar and contributes to the national debt.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

75. You can post those links to your hearts content

The first one spells it out in plain english in the final paragraph, what might happen vs. what has actually happened and why.

The second article is just stupid because it makes the ridiculous assumption that there is a zero-sum game involved and any capital outflow is 1:1 forfeited economic growth. This is a ridiculous statement because much of the demand for the imported goods was driven by price elasticity in the first place. The consumer spending boom was driven by people spending cheap money on cheap junk - this growth would not have occurred without low-cost goods and cheap money which would have been sapped by his primary argument below.

The meat of the article about foreign government borrowing is nonsense, particularly what it would have done to interest rates, except he frames that as having been positive.

So much money, at such low interest rates, would not have been available if we had confined ourselves to domestic sources of funds; the upwards pressure on domestic interest rates would have choked off government borrowing at some point.

Sounds like something Grover Norquest would say... That would have pushed the US into default. If we are going to run trillion dollar deficits for the foreseeable future that would be a disastrous policy amounting to a permanent liquidity crisis as government borrowing would potentially suck all the air out of the room. If the rest of the world wants to underwrite our profligate spending - well good on 'em.

Globalization has been an ongoing process for millennia, if you want to champion the US becoming road-kill in a changing world that is up to you. Thankfully the President and Mr. Kirk are slightly more pragmatic than whiners calling for revolution from their parents basement.

[Zalatix]

76. Now it's you who need to learn to read.

Last edited Mon Jul 16, 2012, 11:48 AM - Edit history (1)

The article did not say "what might happen vs. what has actually happened and why." It says that things look okay IN THE SHORT RUN, but go badly in the LONG RUN, when you do too much offshoring, a line we've crossed long ago.

The second article is by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. I believe their credibility exceeds yours. And your claim that this growth would not have existed without cheap junk? And cheap money? Hello, this was all PHONY growth - the consumer spending you speak of was heavily based on exploding consumer debt. You mean to tell me that you deny this? You can't be that unaware of the facts. Seriously, you think rising consumer debt wasn't a huge part of our so-called growth in the last 10 years?

Edited to add: I also notice that you failed to address my totally valid and logical point that in order for Americans to keep having access to the cheap goods that you talked about here, foreign workers' wages must remain low. Thus you are also responsible for DEFENDING the impoverishment of other nations. I see you had nothing to say about the US Government fighting against better wages for Haitian garment workers. I wonder why you bypassed that.

Obviously what you continue to fail to understand is that the problem isn't globalization, it is the race to the bottom that is the problem. America is going to become roadkill because we are bleeding jobs, while other nations (see: China and Mexico) are not. No country can continue to sustain trade deficits like we do, nor can they continue to bleed jobs like we do. You do not deny that we are replacing millions of high-paying manufacturing jobs with mostly low-paying service jobs and a smattering of high-paying jobs. You claim that America cannot survive without globalization - but we cannot survive by continuing to replace high paying jobs with mostly unemployment or low-paying crap. You can't address this. This destroys your argument.

And those of us who are calling for revolution are in fact not doing so from any basement. We're out in the streets with Occupy Wall Street while the free traders are doing the free and unpaid work of Bain Capital and the US Chamber of Commerce. Most of them are hiding now because America is not tolerating this bullshit anymore.

The revolution is happening right now. Look at Obama is doing to Mitt Romney. Look what we did to Ralph Lauren. It's happening and it's spreading. The people who agree with offshoring are being driven underground. Nobody ever gets out now and touts their record of sending jobs overseas. That hurts.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

85. And again you demonstrate you don't actually read anything before posting it,

Or at the very least you get so worked up you can't communicate clearly.

The FIRST link was to a simplistic macroeconomics textbook blurb reproduced by the SF Fed, the SECOND link was some rebuttal a dude sent to a free newsletter chalk full of terrible ideas from both the left and right. Why are you posting Grover Norquest propaganda here anyways? Presumably if you read they article you might have moved on and found another when you reached the "starve the beast" paragraph.

I freely acknowledge the growth of the last decade wasn't worth shit - but you can't have both ways. You can't argue that the growth represented a direct proportionate loss to the US economy and would have occurred proportionately based on something other than people buying cheap crap with their HELOC's but at the same time acknowledge it was completely contrived.

And the most revolutionary thing Occupy has done is piss on the sidewalk. And if the Free Traders are in hiding Ron Kirk is doing a piss poor job of it...

[Zalatix]

86. Now you're discrediting a blurb by the SF Fed Reserve? And now you're fabricating stuff, too.

You dismiss it by calling it 'simplistic'? Is that the best you've got?

The second link was NOT some rebuttal a dude sent to a free newsletter link. It turns out that the link actually expired a few days ago. So your claim is in fact a lie. You're so desperate now that you not only are avoiding salient points but you are also making up lies. But ever since you accused me of "not reading the material I post", you've been smokescreening. You're mad because you can't take me off course or off-message with your attempts to distort the truth.

It just so happens that I also have a backup link by PBS about this subject. It says the same thing that I've been saying.

Paul Solman: Trading with those outside the United States means selling to them and buying from them. When we spend more abroad than we earn from abroad, THAT is a trade deficit.

Why is it important? Because the money has to come from somewhere and for years, we've been borrowing it.

Does it relate to our national debt? Yes, by a slightly circuitous route. When we spend more abroad than we earn, the rest of the world has more of our dollars than we have of their currencies, right? What do they DO with our dollars? They can buy ASSETS in America like the Japanese used to: Rockefeller Center, the Pebble Beach golf course, Columbia Pictures. They can buy U.S. stocks. And/or they can LEND us back the dollars, for which they get - to use 'Guys and Dolls' terminology - our "marker": our Treasury bills, notes, and bonds - our IOUs.

Now it's your turn to learn how to read.

As for growth? Most of the growth has gone to the 1%. That is directly due to the fact that they sent so many manufacturing jobs overseas. Americans bought tons of cheap Chinese crap that breaks inside of a year or a few months, and threw it on landfills. Most of that growth came from borrowing and people had to borrow because their wages stagnated and the cost of living kept going up. The growth might have happened to a lesser extent if we kept more jobs in America and people didn't have to go into debt to make ends meet - and it would have been more evenly distributed.

Once again, I also notice that you failed to address my totally valid and logical point that in order for Americans to keep having access to the cheap goods that you talked about here, foreign workers' wages must remain low. Thus you are also responsible for DEFENDING the impoverishment of other nations. I see you had nothing to say about the US Government fighting against better wages for Haitian garment workers. I wonder why you bypassed that.

PS: Nice attack on Occupy. We all know party you're REALLY on the side of, and it ain't the Democrats.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

90. You are a liar

The second link that you misrepresent as having come from from SF Fed was in fact from a publication called Industry Week. The link that was truthfully from the SF Fed is indeed simplistic but did itself acknowledge that for all practical purposes the value of the dollar is derived from the investor preference for US dollar assets.

And you picked a great paragraph to post because it explicitly points out that much of the foreign outflow is itself re-invested in the US.

And while it might not jive with your particular world view those factory jobs in the developing worth that people get so worked up are a hell of a lot better than working the fields for even less.

And if you do indeed believe I am a Republican, you might want to bring that to the attention of the administration. The Democrats are not the party of drum circles, pissing on the sidewalk and getting pepper sprayed by fat cops.

[Zalatix]

91. Your argument is getting downright confused and frantic, not to mention weak and downrightdishonest.

You lied when you said any link I posted was some rebuttal a dude sent from a newsletter link. Now you are getting confused when you say much of the foreign outflow is being invested here. If that were the case we wouldn't have so much foreign-owned debt - about $1.2 trillion in China's hands alone.

Your argument has been one long winding road of errors and frantic evasive action. Which is understandable since so few people share your support for offshoring anymore.

As for whether you are a Republican or not, your views are in fact aligned with the US Chamber of Commerce. You most certainly share the Republican viewpoint that giving American jobs to Americans is somehow bad for America. Your disdain for Occupy Wall Street is also a dead giveaway.

Occupy Wall Street has changed the entire political discussion in this country. They've made Democrats fight back. They are far more than just your Republican-inspired nonsense of "drum circles, pissing on the sidewalk and getting pepper sprayed by fat cops".

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

97. So you now effectively admit you didn't read the article... internet cache is a wonderful thing

The free market, on its own, will neither limit the accumulation of excessive debt nor redress the excess once it has been created.

By Ian Fletcher, senior economist, Coalition for a Prosperous America

Aug. 15, 2011

Note: This article rebuts Free Markets Make Trade Deficits Disappear

Ian Fletcher: Some Dude
Industry Week: Not the SF Fed
And finally: "Note: This article rebuts Free Markets Make Trade Deficits Disappear"

So did you read the article or not?

Occupy Wallstreet hasn't done anything other than rehabilitate the rights favorite dirty hippy memes.

[Zalatix]

98. Once again you admit you don't COMPREHEND what you say you thoroughly read.

Ian Fletcher, on a number of occasions, explains that TRADE DEFICITS increase the NATIONAL DEBT. Which is EXACTLY what I have said.

He said it again right here, and it is the same as what he has said before:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-fletcher/americas-trade-deficit-is_b_823785.html

To understand trade deficits, just think through the logic below, step-by-step:

Step 1) Nations engage in trade. So Americans sell people in other nations goods and buy goods in return. ("Goods" in this context means not just physical objects but also services.)

Step 2) One cannot get goods for free. So when Americans buy goods from foreigners, we have to give them something in return.

Step 3) There are only three things we can give in return.

3a) Goods we produce today.
3b) Goods we produced yesterday.
3c) Goods we will produce tomorrow.

This list is exhaustive. If a fourth alternative exists, then we must be trading with Santa Claus, because we are getting goods for nothing. Here's what 3a) -3c) above mean concretely:

3a) is when we sell foreigners jet airplanes.
3b) is when we sell foreigners American office buildings.
3c) is when we go into debt to foreigners.

3b) and 3c) happen when America runs a trade deficit. Because we are not covering the value of our imports with 3a) the value of our exports, we must make up the difference by either 3b) selling assets or 3c) assuming debt.

If either is happening, America is either gradually being sold off to foreigners or gradually sinking into debt to them. Xenophobia is not necessary for this to be a bad thing, only bookkeeping: Americans are poorer simply because we own less and owe more. Our net worth is lower.

In short: my reading comprehension is good. Yours? Not so much.

Your rants about Occupy Wall Street are getting more off-base by the day, and more in line with Republican talking points. Occupy COMPLETELY changed the political discourse and you know it.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

99. Did you or did not not dishonestly attirubute his missive to the SF Fed?

You said your source for his stave the beast rant, a republican talking point if there ever was one... was the SF Fed.

and your little list is missing a big one, stock. Those foreign devils buy a lot of stock. And while Boeing was until recently single largest exporter by value, it turns out they aren't the only exporter. In 2011 our largest export was hydrocarbons.

And how exactly has Occupy changed the political discourse? When they fairly militantly refuse to even engage it.

Something tells me a future Sarah Palin, probably named Victoria Secret Upgrayedd probably won't offer a brutalized account of the Occupy Guitarmy march from Philadelphia to New York when incorrectly citing a major historical event.

[Zalatix]

100. I didn't dishonestly do anything.

And if the purchase of American stocks is so great then why are we indebted to China to the tune of over $1 TRILLION... with a T?

Now can we put an end to your war against American workers?

Occupy Wall Street has gotten our attention back on the 99%. Nobody even cared about the 99% issue until they got out in the streets. We were headed for austerityville in a rocket car before they showed up. Several labor unions have also joined forces with Occupy, including the Transport Workers Union and the SEIU.

You might also want to read this
http://www.thenation.com/blog/165883/occupy-effect

Although I already know you will try and spout more Republican anti-OWS talking points.

[Zalatix]

78. 'Made In America' Policies Hugely Popular, Survey Shows - Yeah, we're hiding in our basements.

NOT.

http://news.yahoo.com/made-america-policies-hugely-popular-survey-shows-210425838--abc-news-politics.html

While President Obama and Mitt Romney bicker over whose policies will send more jobs overseas, there is one side of the job creation coin that both candidates agree on: that the government should do its darndest to keep manufacturing jobs in America.

Unlike many of the job proposals both candidates are pushing, "Buy America" policies that encourage the government to buy products that are made in the U.S. whenever possible are hugely popular across party lines, according to a national survey commissioned by the Alliance for American Manufacturing and the United Steelworkers.

"On the federal level if we can expose where we can see tax dollars leaking overseas we can reverse it because there is the political will to do that," said Scott Paul, the executive director of the Alliance for American Manufacturing.

Overwhelming majorities of people from all political parties said they supported "Buy America" policies that would mandate that taxpayer money can only be used on goods that were made in America.

Nearly 9 out of 10 Republicans and Independents and 91 percent of Democrats said they support "Buy America" preferences, according to the survey,which was conducted by the Democratic-leaning Mellman Group.

Now who's hiding in their parents' basement? It sure as hell ain't the anti-offshoring movement. We're 90% of America. Where does the free trade side stand now?

[Zalatix]

50. In fact, your argument also justifies replacing workers with prison labor, too.

See how it fits!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002934652

[CreekDog]

81. Tarrifs arent punitive anymore than sales taxes are

Ate you buying into that meme too?

[The Magistrate]

26. Tariffs Should Be Used To Eliminate Benefit From Cross-Border Wage Differentials, Sir

Imported items should be charged a tariff equal to the difference between the wage paid for labor in the item and wage that would have been paid ( defined as prevailing wage, or as a percentage over the legal minimum wage ) in the importing country.

[CreekDog]

80. This is not a common recovery

[hack89]

82. The uncertainty in Europe is real

if you believe that a potential Spanish, Greek and Italian economic meltdown will have global repercussions then you had better be very sure that future demand will be there before expanding.

[meaculpa2011]

48. In the late 70s, early 80s...

I worked for a company that consistently ranked in the top five of America's Most Admired (evil Big Pharma).

During peak time, we put in extra hours and effort. During lean periods, we got comp time. In the run up to a major product launch, we all put in long hours with lots of travel. My first day on the job I had lunch with the GM of the division. He told me to think long and hard before adding head count, because...

"When we take on a new hire we have a lifetime responsibility to that person."

Hiring full-time people today, just to lay them off next month is irresponsible. Doesn't matter whether you're the Fortune 500 or the neighborhood pizzeria. I've worked many "temp" jobs that were for a month or so. I always knew the score up front.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

58. One look at his favorite group tells you that.

One expects you know this, and are simply being deliberately obtuse, because you find it awfully difficult to speak in support of any progressive of liberal view, particularly in economic matters.

[2ndAmForComputers]

65. An aside.

I find it hard to believe a person will punch the "D" in a voting booth when there's a big, fat, tasty, juicy "R" right next to it that agrees with EACH AND EVERYTHING in their world view.

Just generic musings about human behavior on my part. No more, no less.

[Cary]

51. There is no demand for additional goods and services

We are in a liquidity trap. If we were not in a liquidity trap and if the American consumer was not being pinched, corporations would invest in order to produce new capacity to meet the demand. But the American consumer is being pinched and doesn't have the disposable income.

You don't see any shortages of goods and services, do you? So why should corporations invest in new capacity?

And why would the purposely cut their noses off to spite their faces? It is true that their lack of investment actually does lower demand but that's less direct than orchestrating a strike. GDP = Consumer S;pending + Investment + Government Spending + Exports - Imports, so increased investment would raise GDP and thus, by definition, raise demand. But businesses are not going to get out in front of this in current conditions. That's way too much to expect.

This is why the government is the consumer of last resort, not business or consumers. This is why it is a liquidity trap. Saving is greater than investment because real interest rates are lower than zero. There is a huge demand for Treasury Bills even though the interest is almost nothing and that's a global demand. The only way out of this is increased government spending and the absolute worst thing for this is austerity.

And this is why "conservatives" are traitors. They value their stupid ideology over the welfare of our nation and they are foisting their really stupid austerity on us simply by their blind adherence to their stupid ideology and their hatred and their fear.

[rrneck]

4. I don't know that it's a strike.

Actual strikers have to sacrifice and assume some risk. Corporations just keep making money in derivatives markets, hedge funds and the rest of their own private economy until they can get more crooked politicians in office to steal what little we've got left.

It's not really a capital "strike" so much as a capital "fuck you".

[HiPointDem]

10. extortion, i'd call it. "we control the money spigot and we're going to keep it shut until you

give us what we want" = cheaper labor, fewer public services, lower taxes.

fuck them all.

[rrneck]

28. +1000000. nt

[badtoworse]

9. If FDR were smart,...

...he would have figured out why other countries were so much more attractive places to invest and done things to make the US more competitive. He would have looked at trade agreements that gave countries like China an unfair advantage and fixed that problem. He would have looked at the tax code and made changes to make it more difficult to keep profits offshore that should legitimately be taxed here. He would also have made changes to the tax code to make the US more competitive vs other taxing countries and make it less punitive to repatriate profits that were legitimately earned offshore.

I doubt he would raised marginal tax rates anymore than he did (the 1935 Tax Act closed loopholes and raised marginal rates to 75%. This helped pay for a lot of his programs.) He would not have seized corporate assets because he would have known that the government does not have the power to do that.

[fascisthunter]

38. he was obviously much much wiser than you will ever be, Chumly

and more of a patriot, and empathetic to other human beings than I think you ever could be... sad.

[badtoworse]

41. I'm comfortable in my own skin; I contribute substantial time and money to charitable causes

I want the economy to grow and I want people in the US to have good paying jobs. More than anything, I blame the government for the mess we are in now and I don't believe that more government spending and a larger public sector will solve the problem. I believe we need to grow the private sector in this country or we will wind up taxing more and more out of shrinking economy just to slow down the economic decline. We will never see economic growth under that scenario. How does that make me unpatriotic or not empathetic?

You say he was wiser than I am and you may be right. What do you think FDR would have done today?

[UnrepentantLiberal]

60. Do you think the WPA was a good idea?

[badtoworse]

83. I don't have an informed opinion on the WPA

In my experience, private industry operates at lower cost than a government run operation.

I would not support such an approach today because it would almost certainly become permanent. We need to expand the private sector, not the public sector.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

84. That tells me all I need to know.

[sabrina 1]

87. Are you serious?

In my experience, private industry operates at lower cost than a government run operation.

Can you provide some examples of this? Eg, in the HC industry? Considering that Government run programs such as Medicaid have an overhead cost of 3% while up to now, the Private Health Insurance Industry costs us nearly 30% in overhead, you know so that the profit margin for basically doing nothing but acting as middlemen with their hands out for public funds, ten times the amount of the Government run program, I'm not following your logic at all.

[econoclast]

15. Kind'a a straw man I think

While I hear a lot about the "pile of
Corporate Cash" sitting on the sidelines, and how it is nearly 2 trillion dollars .... I never hear about the other side of the balance sheet.

So I took a peek at the Fed's report Z.1

My back of the envelope calculations for non-financial corporations as of first quarter 2012.....

I get cash and securities of 1.76 trillion vs credit market debt of 8.14 trillion. That is a cash to debt ratio of about 21.6%

Looking back at 2005. .... The peak of the bubble..... And I get cash and securities of 1.55 trillion vs credit market debt of 5.74 trillion. That is a cash to debt ratio of about 27.2%

So, yeah, they have more cash. BUT they have even more debt. Since the ratio of cash to debt is lower than it was at the peak of the bubble, it seems that they are operating on a much thinner cash cushion than before. Much thinner than I would expect.

[lonestarnot]

93. eeeek.

[limpyhobbler]

43. I skimmed through this thread and

will just say I think that it's not enough that companies fulfill their legal responsibility to their owners/shareholders.

They also have (or ought to have) some additional responsibility to the community.

If they are hoarding money in a way that hurts the country, we should step in an take corrective action.

[B Calm]

57. amen

[SickOfTheOnePct]

63. Maybe they should have a responsibility to the community

But they don't, unless they choose to on their own.

[fascisthunter]

79. that's why we need corrective action

[MNBrewer]

53. Capital Punishment

[eridani]

59. Not really--they've just succeeded at one of their major long-term goals

--that is, massively stripping discretionary income from the 99%. So they don't invest in making anything because they destroyed their customer base, and there aren't enough potential customers out there.

[ananda]

88. Nationalize and seize all corporate assets.

nt

[Zalatix]

89. Now, somebody is finally talking revolutionary action!

A poster after my own heart!

[RB TexLa]

92. People and institutions are going to sell off any company spending cash assets

at this time. People are doing the same thing companies are. Cash is king during any time of uncertainty. I put more than half my pay in savings and there is no way I am spending it.

[Zalatix]

94. How's that doing against inflation?

[RB TexLa]

95. By savings I don't mean exclusively DDAs

And not having the money due to spending it would do real bad against inflation. Much, much worse than having it.

[Zalatix]

96. Pity that those who lost their jobs to offshoring have no money to save.

Cue the "I don't give a shit about them, and if you do, you're a John Bircher" response.