U.S. companies hoarding almost $1 trillion cash: Moody's

[cory777]

Source: Reuters

NEW YORK (Reuters) – U.S. companies are hoarding almost $1 trillion in cash but are unlikely to spend on expanding their business and hiring new employees due to continuing uncertainty about the strength of the economy, Moody's Investors Service said on Tuesday.

As the economy stabilizes companies are also more likely to spend on share repurchases and mergers and acquisitions, Moody's added.

Companies cut costs, reduced investment in plants and equipment and downsized operations in order to boost cash holdings during the recession. As the corporate bond market reopened many companies also boosted cash levels by selling debt and refinancing near-term debt maturities.

Nonfinancial U.S. companies are sitting on $943 billion of cash and short-term investments, as of mid-year 2010, compared with $775 billion at the end of 2008, Moody's said. This would be enough to cover a year's worth of capital spending and dividends and still have $121 billion left over, it said.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20101027/bs_nm/us_corporates_cash_moodys

---

News that Matters http://activistnews.blogspot.com/

[Newsjock]

1. We can't buy your shit if you don't pay us

Then again, they really don't care whether we buy their shit anymore. They're much more focused on China, India, et al. We're merely an annoyance, about as significant as a housefly.

[elleng]

2. They 'care' about what their 'owners' care about, that is, their stockholders,

to whom they can provide dividends. If those 'owners' want them to make stuff, they will; if their owners want them to make stuff in the U.S., they will.

[quakerboy]

4. Is that really true anymore

my understanding is that there have been several court rulings in the past few years that held the rights of CEO's to do what they felt best with company money while not being challenged by anything so pesky as stockholders.

[24601]

71. Isn't that what a "fiduciary responsibility" requires? And aren't there

criminal and civil sanctions for knowingly violating it?

[BadgerKid]

39. I think they're OK with that.

Income from sales abroad. Help stagnate the domestic market by not giving into lowering prices in the face of decreased demand. Since domestic economy isn't moving, there's no reason to hire workers. Rinse and repeat.

At least that's what it appears to be to this armchair economist. In other words, I think part of why the "global market" has come to be is that businesses aren't as likely to get dragged down when economic cycles turn downward. Globalized businesses would be able to hedge different countries' markets against each other to maximize profit.

[dkf]

3. The fed is looking at possibly $2 trillion in quantitative easing.

Krugman thinks we need $8-$10 trillion to get the job done.

[txaslftist]

35. Whew. That'll drive my grocery bill through the roof.

[ProfessionalLeftist]

5. I think of it as a form of extortion.

They want a Republican administration and are going to sit on their money until they get one. Why would they help Obama succeed? I don't think so.

[madokie]

12. That is exactly whats going on

The chin and boner too first thing both said was that that they wouldn't do anything to help this president, same as was said by the puklicon's when Clinton was elected

How is that governing I ask

[KansDem]

143. "How is that governing I ask"

Molly Ivins said it best: "Republicans don't want to govern; they want to rule."

[Waiting For Everyman]

6. Best proof ever that "trickle-down" doesn't happen. n/t

[GreenTea]

7. The ten year tax cuts for the rich produce no jobs - just wealthier assholes hiding money

in off-shore accounts, Swiss banks and investing in corporations with outsourced slave labor (and buying mansions all over the world, buying the latest his & her's super jets and who can have a big enough yacht that they can land their jet on the yacht...that's the next goal for the greedy hoarding sick selfish rich a big enough yacht to land their jet - who will be first - fuck our country)!

[no_hypocrisy]

14. And extending those tax cuts only gives the corporations more money to hoard

instead of paying down the deficit.

[tridim]

8. I don't get it. What's the point?

[Blue_Tires]

15. they get to cry poverty and complain at how tough things are

due to the current "anti-capitalist" president and congress...

[Freetradesucks]

40. The point is that they are "for profit" business's

And in the current atmosphere, they do not feel safe investing the money. Everything from more government regulation to trying to figure out what the new health care law is going to cost them is causing them to be cautious.

Profit is what provides for new jobs and expansion of business, this is an economic fact.

If companies can not turn a profit, they can not expand and hire new employees.

[tridim]

42. If the money isn't in the system, it's useless.

I think they're trying to starve the economy, simply because they hate Obama.

And you think it's business as usual? BS.

[depakid]

52. The simpler, more rational explanation is lack of demand

[hack89]

78. If the money is gaining interest then it is not useless.

you just don't like the use they put it to.

[redwitch]

82. Um, they are sitting on a trillion dollars.

Isn't that, like, profit?

[hack89]

83. And they will spend it when it makes sense to.

there is too much uncertainty right now - they don't want to piss it away.

[hughee99]

9. Isn't this sort of cash normally used to finance takeovers

or to prevent one? How much cash would they normally have on hand in a better economy? I know my old company held cash or readily available money (short term investments) to fend off potential buyers. If they felt vulnerable, they'd buy back their own shares, driving the price up and making the company far less attractive for a takeover.

[bobburgster]

10. They'll spend.....

when the republicans take control of the government.

[young but wise]

20. Yep, seems that way to me. Fuckin' assholes.

[Kurovski]

11. Are they waiting for Repukes to get back in?

Keep waiting.

[FreakinDJ]

13. Last time they did that they invested heavily in China

[Odin2005]

16. "We've got ours, FUCK YOU!"

[SammyWinstonJack]

18. Pretty much.

x(

[Kingofalldems]

17. Teabag crowd seems to have no problem with this

[Evasporque]

19. Hey! That is for executive bonuses! Come on people...

you know the drill...beg for big tax breaks and union concessions or cut jobs and move plants, get tax breaks and union concessions, profit goes up...then cut jobs, move plants overseas, profit goes up again, stock goes up, stockholders happy, execs get big bonuses....only a the privileged few win!

YAAYYYYY!!!

[Amerigo Vespucci]

21. Amidst record unemployment, US companies hoard $1 trillion of cash

Source: The Raw Story

NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. companies are hoarding almost $1 trillion in cash but are unlikely to spend on expanding their business and hiring new employees due to continuing uncertainty about the strength of the economy, Moody's Investors Service said on Tuesday.

As the economy stabilizes companies are also more likely to spend on share repurchases and mergers and acquisitions, Moody's added.

Companies cut costs, reduced investment in plants and equipment and downsized operations in order to boost cash holdings during the recession. As the corporate bond market reopened many companies also boosted cash levels by selling debt and refinancing near-term debt maturities.

The US unemployment rate, meanwhile, sits at a whopping 9.2 percent. (A graph of the unemployment rates state by state can be found here).

Read more: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/10/record-unemployment-companies-hoard-1-trillion-cash/

[OHdem10]

22. And the Republicans think they need more tax cuts.

[lunatica]

23. But foreclosures are booming again

[USA_1]

24. Another $12-20 Trillion Sheltered Overseas

The fact that Obama refuses to confiscate that sum via Executive Order to why the recession has been unnecessarily prolonged. Because of this, the Dems will lose much of the upcoming election. Therefore, such a loss is volitional.

[The Croquist]

37. Executive Order? Have you ever heard of the Constitution?

Since when does an executive order give the President the power to seize the assets of an individual or company because he doesn't like what they are doing?

Amendment V - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Article. I.
Section 1.
Section. 7.

Clause 1: All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Sorry but Obama simply doesn't have that power.

[USA_1]

43. President Roosevelt Executive Order 6102

He seized gold owned by elitists.

[hack89]

45. He forced them to sell it to the government, you mean?

so the elitists were still just as wealthy - their wealth was just in a different form

Looks like it still met the spirit of the Constitution, don't you think?

"nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

[USA_1]

56. ...

"nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Congress passed confiscatory acts in 1861 and 1862 which freed slaves in Washington DC and compensated the owners. However, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation did not give compensation.

[The Croquist]

58. Emancipation Proclamation?

You think seizing 1 trillion dollars of private money is the same thing as a rebellion against the country?

Exactly what limit do you think the Presidency has? Should he be able to nullify elections, laws, the 22nd amendment (term limit for the Presidency)? How about reinstating slavery? That ought to be a winner.

I mean get a grip.

[USA_1]

67. EP

In making that declaration Lincoln determined that slaves were no longer property. The president has that authority and that is why his right to do so has been recognized to this day. Don't believe it? Look it up.

[hack89]

66. But people are not property, are they? nt

[USA_1]

68. Slaves

... were property under the law in those days.

Look it up.

[hack89]

69. So taking money from private individuals is the same as freeing the slaves?

interesting moral equivalence. Why do you like authoritarian leaders so much? Have no confidence in elected representative government?

[USA_1]

72. Interesting Comments

Everything you write is the same type of argument used by those who tried to deny Lincoln and Roosevelt the right to do what they did.

[hack89]

73. But neither case is relevant to your case.

you simply want to take peoples money just, well, because. That is not a good reason. At least FDR actually adhered to the Constitution and Lincoln was answering a higher moral purpose. You want Obama to take money from people because you don't like them.

[The Croquist]

76. Actually the Emancipation Proclamation

was justified as helping to put down an unlawful rebellion. Slaves were an integral part of the Confederate economy as were horses, mules, livestock, farms and factories. As property, the slaves were seized as were horses, mules, livestock, farms and factories. There was no moral justification needed. It was to further the war effort. The fact that they were freed was almost besides the point. As Lincoln said:

"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."

Abraham Lincoln
August 22, 1862

[hack89]

77. So Lincoln had a valid reason.

Obama taking money away from people and corporations just because he can is not a valid or justifiable use of presidential power.

[USA_1]

90. 'Valid reason'

Lincoln had one (war), Roosevelt had another (economic emergency). The latter is the same for Obama: nearly 20% unemployed (despite the reported 10%), massive debt (much of it created by the Repukeblicans), and devaluation of the dollar. Thus, he, too, is empowered to undertake this action and does not need to succumb to the wishes of the plutocratic oligarchs thereby prolonging the recession.

[hack89]

95. Aren't plutocratic oligarchs the ones that take money without due process

or regards to the law?

So tell me how US presidents can take money from foreign banks? How can he enforce this?

Answer this simple question - is this a power you would have wanted George Bush to have? I didn't think so.

[hack89]

98. How does this get people back to work?

the money should be used to pay off our massive debt.

[USA_1]

100. Overages Will be Used to finance rebuilding of infrastructure

[hack89]

105. So you take money from some companies to give to other companies

do you understand why there are many that might have a problem with this? Looks like a good way for politicians to pay off their donors.

[USA_1]

120. The government isn't a company in case you didn't know it

[hack89]

121. The government doesn't build bridges and roads in case you didn't know it. nt

[hack89]

107. Explain to me how the President can seize funds from foreign banks. nt

[USA_1]

131. Bush Seized what were reported as al-Qaeda 'assets'

... in USA via executive order. This same order immediately monitored any transactions between foreign governments and USA domestics and expanded the Treasury's power to deal with any government or agency that failed to cooperate. This means that foreign banks or governments could no longer have access to our banks or assets if they did not comply with his order. Again, such actions have more than sufficient precedent, contrary to your beliefs, . That is how Bush succeeded as did Lincoln and Roosevelt before him.

[hack89]

132. To bad parts of it were declared un-Constitutional.

so just how does the President identify exactly whose money they will seize? Is there a way for anyone on the list to appeal their inclusion? What exactly will get you on the list? Is it a closed process like the oh so accurate no fly lists?

[USA_1]

133. Which seizures were unconstitutional?

[hack89]

134. You're the expert

why don't you tell me. And while you are at it, how about answering the rest of my questions on exactly how it will be done?

[USA_1]

135. See above

Obviously, your questions have been answered. It may not be what you want to see but it's there.

As for Bush's actions, contrary to your myth making his actions were not held to be unconstitutional. You are only making this up and destroying your limited credibility.

[hack89]

136. No - my questions concerning the details

So just how does the President identify exactly whose money they will seize? Is there a way for anyone on the list to appeal their inclusion? What exactly will get you on the list? Is it a closed process like the oh so accurate no fly lists?

[USA_1]

138. IRS

The IRS has a division called the Office of Tax Shelter Analysis (OTSA). This part of the agency handles all such concerns. You may write to them in Washington DC for specific details in reply to your queries.

[hack89]

139. So we already have a process in place and don't need an EO?

sounds good to me.

You really think Obama would commit political suicide like this? Really?

[USA_1]

142. Wait & See Who won this election

if the Dems fail because the economy remains f*cked up, then blame Obama for failing to take the one step that would have killed off the recession and Republican power grab.

[USA_1]

145. THERE'S STILL TIME FOR THE 2011 ELECTION

[The Croquist]

74. I agree USA_1

They were considered property.

[hack89]

79. So do you also agree the President can take people's money

and assets on a whim without compensation or due process?

[The Croquist]

103. Not at all

I simply said that I agreed that at the time slaves were considered property. I find USA_1's arguments to be absurd, have been posting to that effect and will continue to do so.

[hack89]

106. OK - sorry for the misunderstanding. nt

[USA_1]

89. Property

The historical record clearly indicates that slaves were considered 'property' at that time. See,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott

''the Court had ruled that African American slaves had no claim to freedom. They were property, not citizens, and could not bring suit in a federal court. Since slaves were private property, the federal government could not revoke a slave owner's rights based on where he lived, thus nullifying the essence of the Missouri Compromise. ''

[Synicus Maximus]

87. Remember the EP only applied to states that were in a state of rebellion.

But the EP did not free any slave in the border states of Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, or Delaware, which were slave-holding states. For that matter Tennessee which had already mostly returned to Union control. was not named and was exempted. Virginia was named, but exemptions were specified for the 48 counties that were in the process of forming West Virginia, as well as seven other named counties and two cities. Also specifically exempted were New Orleans and thirteen named parishes of Louisiana, all of which were also already mostly under Federal control at the time of the Proclamation

[USA_1]

92. Correct

This shows how expansive and flexible the president's legal emergency authority is or can be. If anything it shows that this power is virtually without limit, contrary to the wishes of this forum's Republicans who did not have any qualms about expanding Bush's authority under the Patriot Act.

[hack89]

96. So the Patriot Act was a good thing?

or was the proper thing to do is not pass a law but simply have the President issue a series of executive orders?

[USA_1]

99. ''good thing''

Obviously, a spurious question.

[hack89]

104. But within the President's powers? nt

[USA_1]

123. That has already been answered

... look it up if you still don't believe it.

[hack89]

127. So Bush did not need a law to implement the Patriot Act?

really? He could have legally decreed the power to spy on Americans as long as he felt he had a good reason.

[hack89]

126. Self delete.

[The Croquist]

47. Self Delete

Self Delete

[ProudDad]

61. He has the power to enforce the Sherman Anti-Trust Act

but doesn't...

[The Croquist]

63. The Sherman Anti-Trust Act

allows a US President to force businesses to invest if they don't want to? Perhaps you can provide me with the exact provision that allows this.

[ProudDad]

64. The scare the shit out of them

if they don't do the right thing provision...

of the Imperial pResidency...

Of course, that might get him shot -- so he's just protecting his ass and his corporate benefactors...


My point is that if there were a will there are ways...

But with the corporate tool Obama -- there's no will...

[USA_1]

93. Sherman Antitrust Act

If plutocratic monopolies had been busted up these assets would not have been sheltered overseas and much of the economic mess we see today would not have occurred. But as you say, Obama, like so many Democrats and like their Republican counterparts, is a gutless tool of the corporate interests.

[hack89]

70. The Sherman Anti-Trust Act doesn't apply in this situation

it is hard to argue that a company not spending money is some how restraining competition.

[hack89]

41. Obama is not a third world despot. He doesn't have that power. nt

[USA_1]

44. Right Wing Said That About Roosevelt

.. but he did it.

[hack89]

46. No - FDR compensated people for their gold.

per the Constitution. Surely even you can see the difference?

[USA_1]

48. Much of those assets overseas are sheltered illegally

... and taxes remain unpaid. Therefore, the government can seize the assets under the law. All it takes is the will to do so.

[hack89]

49. All it takes is due process - not an Executive order.

you know, all those pesky details like investigations, indictments, trials and stuff?

[USA_1]

50. Roosevelt didn't wait

... neither did Lincoln when he used the same authority to make the Emancipation Proclamation.

[hack89]

51. FDR followed the Constitution

remember that compensation detail? Why is it so hard for you to accept that the President of the USA can't just take away someone's property without due process.

I am not questioning the President's power to issue executive orders. I just question your believe that it gives him the power to ignore the Constitution.

[USA_1]

55. The President Has The Authority

... this was written about by John Quincy Adams in the 1830s. That's how Lincoln and Roosevelt's actions were legally justified. It is the same authority that will justify Obama taking this action if he chosed to do so.

[hack89]

65. The President has the authority to violate the Constitution?

Really?

Why are you so eager to grant the president such dictatorial powers? Do think a president like Bush use those powers wisely?

[USA_1]

84. The Real Tyranny

... is continued poverty and illegal capital accumulation. I would not grant such tyranny to plutocratic oligarchs as politicians from both parties are granting. This is something Obama can easily stop with his pen if he had the guts to do so. And it would mean continuous wins for the Dems.

Again, it's all a matter of choice.

[Dreamer Tatum]

85. Fancy sloganeering bullshit

The President can't impose taxes, period, per the Constitution.

OK? Save the muddled Marxism.

[USA_1]

86. But He Can Confiscate Property Deemed Necessary for the good of the public

Take a few history lessons and study the Emancipation Proclamation and Roosevelt's Executive order 6102. Neither was held to be a Marxist for taking those actions. Only reich wing apologists for plutocratic oligarchs would deny that truth.

[Dreamer Tatum]

88. Sorry, I stop reading when I see "pluto-" anything

We live in capitalistic society under a well-defined Constitution. If you don't like how it restricts executive power, then move elsewhere.

[USA_1]

91. We are supposed to be a democracy, not plutocracy

Obviously you are a Tea Bagger who continues to defend the Republican takeover of the government and society. Who knows? Perhaps next week after the election you will get your wish.

[hack89]

97. Is Obama a tea-bagger because he refuses to seize that money? nt

[Dreamer Tatum]

102. Yeah...people who respect the Constitution are now called...teabaggers.

Now I know why people like you took so much offense at GWB wiping his ass with the Constitution: you were afraid there wouldn't be any clean space left for Obama's skidmarks, too.

[The Croquist]

109. That's not true

Obama hasn't put skid marks on the Constitution. That's USA_1's gripe. He wants Obama to put skid marks on the Constitution as long as it's the skid marks that he wants.

Bush skid marks bad.
Obama skid marks good.

[USA_1]

124. 'skid marks'

Evidently, you Republicans believe your own 'skid marks' are OK but not so for those from anyone else, ever what those might be.

My position is that the president as Executive Branch can take the action I have mentioned here, has already done it in 1863 and in 1932, and it will benefit society to do it again. Legal precedent has already been put in place and the courts have no choice but to recognize such actions under the legal concept of stare decisis.

Now, if you still insist that the wealthy elites can shelter their assets overseas illegally thereby avoiding tax payments, while the Federal deficit increases and the dollar devalues, and while Republican pundits continuing to make talking points by ascribing the USA's decline to the Democrats, then so be it. Have it your way.

As a consequence of your compliance with the standing order, you may count on a Republican victory on Tuesday and many more to follow. Alternately, you can change courses as people like myself have prescribed and insure victories for the Democrats and for America. The choice is yours.

[tammywammy]

114. No, we're supposed to be a republic. n/t

[USA_1]

125. Republic or Democracy ?

If we are supposed to be a republic rather than democracy, why was the Democratic party founded by our Founding Fathers Thomas Jefferson, James Madison?

[Courtesy Flush]

54. I'll assume you're trolling with that statement

But seriously, I think it would be a good idea to coax those guys into spending that money on alternative energy projects. That's a shitload of money, and it can create a lot of jobs in the private sector and build infrastructure at the same time.

[sfwriter]

25. You have to believe in teh FREE MARKET FAIRY...

...if she dies it is your fault for not giving enough tax breaks and socializing the risk of their industries.

It's the uncertainty that they might have to compete without stealing or maiming America that is holding them back. If you only BELIEVED in the FREE MARKET FAIRY, all would be well.

[no_hypocrisy]

26. You can give a corporation its tax cut but you can't make it spend the money.

[HughBeaumont]

146. +1,000,000.

Something no one seems to get in this back-n-forth.

[ck4829]

27. But let's give 'em even more tax cuts, deregulations, tax shelters, and corporate welfare!

"Uncertainty", this would be like a person being afraid to bring a disabled person's mail to him, a person who is the guy's next door neighbor.

Bunch of cowards. K&R.

[trayfoot]

28. Not to mention the millions they've blown on buying elections!

[bushmeister0]

30. Good point

"Around one quarter of the cash is held overseas and is unlikely to be repatriated to the United States, Moody's said"

. . . Except in the form of campaign donations to you know who.

[ProudDad]

59. Actually one dollar spent buying elections

by the corporations...

results in about 1000 fold return on investment...

They're all about "Return On Investment"...

The best bang for the buck there is is buying up USAmerican politicians -- at ALL levels...

[midnight]

29. Giving them record tax cuts yeilds a hoard of cash... If all persons are equal

under the constitution, let the people on mainstreet get the same right to hoard cash as the persons on wall street....

[MoonlitwingsX]

31. I've seen companies destroy a lot in my young age..

Everything from a class of people (middle class), mom n' pops,
indie farmers trying to cut out the Wal*Marts from their
lives, down to an entire ocean.  And gotten away with it.

The worst is yet to come, I think.  I dread this, but I feel
that we as a people will have to face utter disaster before
enough of us open our eyes to finally introduce radical
change.  Then we'll have to worry about the next fear-- what
[i]kind[/i] of radical change will ripple through the broken
masses?  What will we direct our anger and ultimately our
wrath towards as a people?

[KillCapitalism]

57. Last sentence of your post got me thinking

What will we direct our anger and ultimately our wrath towards as a people?

Same shit the sheeple will always direct their anger towards, blacks, democrats, liberals, hispanics, gays, muslims, the poor, etc. Even when the last of the jobs leave our shore the rich and elite will to continue to be cheered.

[ck4829]

32. K&R

[somone]

33. In other words, corporate CEOs have $1 trillion in cash available

but they need more tax cuts.

[depakid]

53. Kinda puts the lie to the supply side arguments, doesn't it?

[Life Long Dem]

34. If a business has a chance to expand why wouldn't they?

That's like saying, I can make more money but don't want to. Doesn't make any sense. So spin it against a business because they can't expand?

[ProudDad]

62. Because the "markets" are saturated

They CAN'T "expand"...

No one's buying...

so the only thing left is hoarding...?

Anyway, a $Trillion is just chump change to these capitalist fucks...

[hack89]

80. If that money is earning them interest

sounds like a prudent use of it in uncertain economic times. I don't see how smart use of capital equals hoarding.

[ProudDad]

111. Capitalism 101

Fuck the workers!!!

[hack89]

115. No

don't piss away capital - in uncertain times don't take needless risks. Why hire workers if you are not certain that there will be increased demand for your product.

[ProudDad]

116. Capitalism is...

an insane "economic" system based on the premise

that there's an infinite amount of resources to exploit...

And places to put/dump/piss away your waste...

And infinite "demand"...

On a Finite Planet...

And it's failing...

Actually, it proved a failure in the late 1920s early 1930s ...

We're just seeing the continued slide of a failed system...

Meanwhile, Capitalism rule #1 - Greed is good. Rule #2 - Fuck the workers...

[hack89]

117. To bad there is no viable alternative

at least none that has ever actually worked in the real world.

[ProudDad]

119. Just a sharing, steady state economy

One could call it Socialism...

That worked fine for over 200,000 years...

Until this recent 10,000 experiment in dominator hierarchies...

Under various failed "economic systems", systems of distribution, that reserved the majority of the resources for a few...

That's now in danger of making the Earth uninhabitable for large air-breathing creatures...

Way to go, capitalism!!!!

[hack89]

122. One can also call it a fantasy.

if you have to go back to a time before countries.

[ProudDad]

137. Piss on ALL FLAGS!!

"nations" are the most dangerous concept we have to fight -- it's one of the best weapons the dominators have to divide and conquer...

We're already overconsuming the resources of the Earth by over 50% -- it's only a matter of time before the only thing that will count will be whether your bioregion is sustainable...most "nations" should cease to exist -- good riddance...

Capitalism will be of no real use then...

You can call it a fantasy if you wish but it will come unless your dominator, capitalist friends for their own short term profit, turn the Earth into another Venus -- uninhabitable.

[Prometheus Bound]

36. I don't understand how Ford went from near bankruptcy 2 years ago to a cash balance of $22B today.

Did I miss something?

[ProudDad]

60. Outsourcing

and waving the shrunken heads in front of the (supine) Unions in order to get "concessions"...

[rrneck]

38. Wouldn't it be great if

all the overworked people that have created the trillion dollar profits from productivity had some way to get together and demand more people get hired to help them? More people getting paid means money for people to buy stuff. I thought there used to be a way to do that. It started with a "U" or something...

Nah. Lets just create another bullshit paperwork bubble and get even richer off that. The taxpayers will bail us out when we fuck that up again.

[ProudDad]

112. Gee, that's what so many of them thought when they worked their asses off for Obama (n/t)

[Initech]

75. We should force them to be on that show "Hoarders"

[lonestarnot]

94. They definitely need a spotlight.

[defendandprotect]

81. kicky

[Xenotime]

101. I see a 1-trillion dollar tax coming down on all of these companies.

Time to force them to give up the money.

[Synicus Maximus]

108. Most everyone on this tread talks like there is one or a few

companies that are holding all this money. It's not. It is thousands of businesses. Sure some may have a billion in cash, but it also includes hundreds or thousands of small businesses that are holding a few tens of thousands or a few hundred thousand in cash and medium size businesses holding a couple of million. It's a total of all the companies not just a few.

[ProudDad]

110. Nice try at capitalist apologist but ... FAIL!!!

Any company that can hoard a "few tens of thousands or a few hundred thousand in cash"...

Could HARDLY be called "small businesses"...

REAL small businesses generally are about 1 or 2 payrolls away from closing...

"NEW YORK (Reuters) – U.S. companies are hoarding almost $1 trillion in cash but are unlikely to spend on expanding their business and hiring new employees due to continuing uncertainty about the strength of the economy, Moody's Investors Service said on Tuesday."

Good news for Wall St. bad news for actual working people...

[Incitatus]

113. All companies have cash accounts.

Is this total much different than it was 10 years ago?

[ProudDad]

118. Yes...the oil that backed up the corporate capitalist system

is running out...

[paparush]

128. Trickle Down...

[Incognitus Czar]

129. So much hostility here

seriously, the companies are sitting on their money because of economic uncertainty and they don't want to lose it all for nothing, and you guys are hating them for it?

[ck4829]

140. The thing is...

The average person usually can't give a rain check or an IOU on medical bills, rent, groceries, etc. because they don't have work because companies are scared.

If people running companies want to run the economy, then they need to step up to the plate instead of cowering in their tax shelters. Right?

[Yavin4]

130. The $1 Trillion Is Due To Lack of Demand

Which is due to outsourcing jobs overseas. The majority of Indian and Chinese workers cannot afford the products and services that they generate. The typical Chinese factory worker cannot afford an IPad. The typical employed U.S. worker can. However, that typical U.S. worker is now unemployed and cannot get credit. Thus, the slack in demand.

The enitre global economy has been bifurcated into producing and consuming nations. The problem occurs when the consuming nations no longer have the means to consume.

[okieinpain]

141. i have no proof, but I have my own theories on why they are

not spending.

[Blue_Tires]

144. The cynic in me wonders if this is a replay of the '80 secret hostage deal

And if the CEOs aren't going to me just a little looser with their purse strings after tomorrow...