so the job creators are sitting on their money and not creating jobs?
this means we should give them even more tax cuts so they can not create even more jobs right?

quickdraw: Man everything is all farked up.

Hobodeluxe: so the job creators are sitting on their money and not creating jobs?
this means we should give them even more tax cuts so they can not create even more jobs right?
It isn't that simple

They have to much cash on hand....BUT they also have to much debt that if the debt all goes bad they don't have close to enough cash on hand.

So if they loan it out they have more debt (and more debt at a unfriendly level of risk)

They also have new government regulations that make it harder for them to give out money to loans (which make new loans riskier)

quickdraw: Man everything is all farked up.

quickdraw: Man everything is all farked up.

that's what happens when you have a populace who don't understand the basics of economic principles and allow themselves to be deceived by con men.

the thing that drives job creation is demand. the thing that increases demand is for the middle and lower class to have more money to spend. those at the top don't increase demand. they are not job creators. they are wealth accumulators. they are middlemen in the process. parasites actually. they employ the people who produce things and sell to those who buy things but they themselves are only leeching off the work of others. and the more wealth that is held in fewer hands is actually detrimental to the system. they don't care if demand drops as long as they can lay off enough people to keep their profit margin the same. and if they can they'll take our money and give it to a foreign laborer to make more things and services to sell us. if they can't they'll just sit on it or use it to speculate on necessary commodities like oil and food and drive the price up.

quickdraw: Man everything is all farked up.

quickdraw: Man everything is all farked up.

karasoth: Hobodeluxe: so the job creators are sitting on their money and not creating jobs?
this means we should give them even more tax cuts so they can not create even more jobs right?
It isn't that simple

They have to much cash on hand....BUT they also have to much debt that if the debt all goes bad they don't have close to enough cash on hand.

So if they loan it out they have more debt (and more debt at a unfriendly level of risk)

They also have new government regulations that make it harder for them to give out money to loans (which make new loans riskier)

they are responsible for that debt. they lobbied hard and spent a lot of money to get those deregulations that allowed them to over extend themselves and make risky loans. because they knew that they could
A:bundle those debts and hide them then pass them off like a hot potato to other parties (usually pension fund managers and such) or

B: if things really went south they were too big to fail and the taxpayer would cover them for 100 cents on the dollar.

Do you remember when the bankers paid back their "bailout" loans at a profit to the taxpayer? Apparently subby doesn't.

Subby is also too lazy to read TFA or too stupid to understand it. The money that the article refers to isn't the bank's capital or profits, its deposits that belong to depositors.

Droves of consumers and businesses unnerved by the lurching markets have been taking their money out of risky investments and socking it away in bank accounts, where it does little to stimulate the economy.

So consumers and businesses aren't using their cash to stimulate the economy in risky assets, but are preferring to place it in banks. Banks have limited investment opportunities as well, and are in a justified derisking mode after the financial crisis, therefore don't want more depositor money.

Hobodeluxe: quickdraw: Man everything is all farked up.

that's what happens when you have a populace who don't understand the basics of economic principles and allow themselves to be deceived by con men.

the thing that drives job creation is demand. the thing that increases demand is for the middle and lower class to have more money to spend. those at the top don't increase demand. they are not job creators. they are wealth accumulators. they are middlemen in the process. parasites actually. they employ the people who produce things and sell to those who buy things but they themselves are only leeching off the work of others. and the more wealth that is held in fewer hands is actually detrimental to the system. they don't care if demand drops as long as they can lay off enough people to keep their profit margin the same. and if they can they'll take our money and give it to a foreign laborer to make more things and services to sell us. if they can't they'll just sit on it or use it to speculate on necessary commodities like oil and food and drive the price up.


Agreed.

But there are some disagreements on the best way to redistribute the money.

Many people say "we have to raise taxes on the top 1%" this is a means to an end, not an end in itself. Because you are never going to raise taxes such that you wipe out the rich, nor do you want to. The point is to have more money on hand to spend on useful things. Some favor direct wealth transfer to the lower classes. This has some merit but I'd prefer it be spent on things like infrastructure improvement (what happened with that?) useful jobs training, education, perhaps better healthcare and retirement benefits.

A very high corporate tax that completely exempts any spending on development here (building new factories and the like), and total employee compensation up to a certain amount (maybe 150k per person, everything over that is taxed heavily) may also help. That would shift the balance somewhat towards spending money rather than sitting on it and would provide a slight disadvantage to excessive CEO pay.

This is why purveyors of "OMG - better buy you wheel barrow because hyper-inflation is coming" are wrong.

but the tea party, with their opposition to the bailouts, is clearly just a bunch of racists...

and ows, with their opposition to the bailouts, is clearly just a bunch of communists...

"If you had more money than you knew what to do with, would you want more?"

That phrase could come back to haunt you, Mr. Banker-Guy

vpb: were able to do this because the government regulations that prohibited financial institutions from owning mortgages and rating agencies at the same time were repealed.

Do you want to try that sentence again?

watson.t.hamster: Hobodeluxe: quickdraw: Man everything is all farked up.

that's what happens when you have a populace who don't understand the basics of economic principles and allow themselves to be deceived by con men.

the thing that drives job creation is demand. the thing that increases demand is for the middle and lower class to have more money to spend. those at the top don't increase demand. they are not job creators. they are wealth accumulators. they are middlemen in the process. parasites actually. they employ the people who produce things and sell to those who buy things but they themselves are only leeching off the work of others. and the more wealth that is held in fewer hands is actually detrimental to the system. they don't care if demand drops as long as they can lay off enough people to keep their profit margin the same. and if they can they'll take our money and give it to a foreign laborer to make more things and services to sell us. if they can't they'll just sit on it or use it to speculate on necessary commodities like oil and food and drive the price up.


Agreed.

But there are some disagreements on the best way to redistribute the money.

Many people say "we have to raise taxes on the top 1%" this is a means to an end, not an end in itself. Because you are never going to raise taxes such that you wipe out the rich, nor do you want to. The point is to have more money on hand to spend on useful things. Some favor direct wealth transfer to the lower classes. This has some merit but I'd prefer it be spent on things like infrastructure improvement (what happened with that?) useful jobs training, education, perhaps better healthcare and retirement benefits.

A very high corporate tax that completely exempts any spending on development here (building new factories and the like), and total employee compensation up to a certain amount (maybe 150k per person, everything over that is taxed heavily) may also help. That would shift the balance somewhat towards spending money rather than sitting on it and would provide a slight disadvantage to excessive CEO pay.

use the money to create work programs. rebuild the infrastructure,create jobs and increase demand on the economy all in one fell swoop. that's what we did in the 30's. that's what we should do now. that and tighten up regulations by reinstating Glass Stegall and other safeguards we put in place the last time this happened. We have a roadmap for getting out of this place.

impaler: karasoth: They also have new government regulations that make it harder for them to give out money to loans (which make new loans riskier)

So since it is harder to give out loans because of higher standards placed on the borrower, that help insure the borrower is less risky, is making the new loans riskier?

fark it all. risky loans resulting from lowered regulations is what got us here.

Hobodeluxe: watson.t.hamster: Hobodeluxe: quickdraw: Man everything is all farked up.

that's what happens when you have a populace who don't understand the basics of economic principles and allow themselves to be deceived by con men.

the thing that drives job creation is demand. the thing that increases demand is for the middle and lower class to have more money to spend. those at the top don't increase demand. they are not job creators. they are wealth accumulators. they are middlemen in the process. parasites actually. they employ the people who produce things and sell to those who buy things but they themselves are only leeching off the work of others. and the more wealth that is held in fewer hands is actually detrimental to the system. they don't care if demand drops as long as they can lay off enough people to keep their profit margin the same. and if they can they'll take our money and give it to a foreign laborer to make more things and services to sell us. if they can't they'll just sit on it or use it to speculate on necessary commodities like oil and food and drive the price up.


Agreed.

But there are some disagreements on the best way to redistribute the money.

Many people say "we have to raise taxes on the top 1%" this is a means to an end, not an end in itself. Because you are never going to raise taxes such that you wipe out the rich, nor do you want to. The point is to have more money on hand to spend on useful things. Some favor direct wealth transfer to the lower classes. This has some merit but I'd prefer it be spent on things like infrastructure improvement (what happened with that?) useful jobs training, education, perhaps better healthcare and retirement benefits.

A very high corporate tax that completely exempts any spending on development here (building new factories and the like), and total employee compensation up to a certain amount (maybe 150k per person, everything over that is taxed heavily) may also help. That would shift the balance somewhat towards spending money rather than sitting on it and would provide a slight disadvantage to excessive CEO pay.

use the money to create work programs. rebuild the infrastructure,create jobs and increase demand on the economy all in one fell swoop. that's what we did in the 30's. that's what we should do now. that and tighten up regulations by reinstating Glass Stegall and other safeguards we put in place the last time this happened. We have a roadmap for getting out of this place.

Ah but the basic problem there is that nowadays whenever you try to tie social welfare to work programs you are condemned for supporting slavery. Plus people don't seem to want to work outside in general.

I agree that's what we should be doing. But making a depression era workfare program happen today is going to be pretty difficult. You would have to start creating these jobs at about the same rate you cut people from any sort of government benefits.

watson.t.hamster: Hobodeluxe: watson.t.hamster: Hobodeluxe: quickdraw: Man everything is all farked up.

that's what happens when you have a populace who don't understand the basics of economic principles and allow themselves to be deceived by con men.

the thing that drives job creation is demand. the thing that increases demand is for the middle and lower class to have more money to spend. those at the top don't increase demand. they are not job creators. they are wealth accumulators. they are middlemen in the process. parasites actually. they employ the people who produce things and sell to those who buy things but they themselves are only leeching off the work of others. and the more wealth that is held in fewer hands is actually detrimental to the system. they don't care if demand drops as long as they can lay off enough people to keep their profit margin the same. and if they can they'll take our money and give it to a foreign laborer to make more things and services to sell us. if they can't they'll just sit on it or use it to speculate on necessary commodities like oil and food and drive the price up.


Agreed.

But there are some disagreements on the best way to redistribute the money.

Many people say "we have to raise taxes on the top 1%" this is a means to an end, not an end in itself. Because you are never going to raise taxes such that you wipe out the rich, nor do you want to. The point is to have more money on hand to spend on useful things. Some favor direct wealth transfer to the lower classes. This has some merit but I'd prefer it be spent on things like infrastructure improvement (what happened with that?) useful jobs training, education, perhaps better healthcare and retirement benefits.

A very high corporate tax that completely exempts any spending on development here (building new factories and the like), and total employee compensation up to a certain amount (maybe 150k per person, everything over that is taxed heavily) may also help. That would shift the balance somewhat towards spending money rather than sitting on it and would provide a slight disadvantage to excessive CEO pay.

use the money to create work programs. rebuild the infrastructure,create jobs and increase demand on the economy all in one fell swoop. that's what we did in the 30's. that's what we should do now. that and tighten up regulations by reinstating Glass Stegall and other safeguards we put in place the last time this happened. We have a roadmap for getting out of this place.

Ah but the basic problem there is that nowadays whenever you try to tie social welfare to work programs you are condemned for supporting slavery. Plus people don't seem to want to work outside in general.

I agree that's what we should be doing. But making a depression era workfare program happen today is going to be pretty difficult. You would have to start creating these jobs at about the same rate you cut people from any sort of government benefits.

I don't agree. I think plenty of people would work on these jobs. they would pay considerably more than any welfare program.

Quadruple the taxes on corporations, banks and companies who hold more cash than is considered acceptable for operating and growth.

They wanna sit on it for the sake of sitting on it? Take some government. Its time you started pinching their coin purse and laid off the common mans.

"We just don't need it anymore," said Don Sturm, the owner of American National Bank and Premier Bank, community lenders with 43 branches in Colorado and three other states. "If you had more money than you knew what to do with, would you want more?"
===========================================================

Considering that BoA just made 8 billion dollars in ONE QUARTER of a year and they decided that isn't enough, fired 30000 people and implemented a ridiculous debit card fee so that they could make more... I'm thinking the answer is yes. Yes you'd want more.

/I'd be fine with a million.

BigTuna: Debeo Summa Credo: Do you remember when the bankers paid back their "bailout" loans at a profit to the taxpayer?

The fact that this is still a talking point is a testament to the immortality of derp.

That fact that the fact that the big banks paid back their loans at a profit is ignored by the OWSers and their sympathizers is testament to how readily partisans will ignore reality when it conflicts with their predetermined views.

vpb: Debeo Summa Credo: vpb: were able to do this because the government regulations that prohibited financial institutions from owning mortgages and rating agencies at the same time were repealed.

Do you want to try that sentence again?

How about issuing mortgages and rating agencies then? Clearer?

No, not at all. Which financial institution owned a rating agency?


poisonedpawn78: Quadruple the taxes on corporations, banks and companies who hold more cash than is considered acceptable for operating and growth.

They wanna sit on it for the sake of sitting on it? Take some government. Its time you started pinching their coin purse and laid off the common mans.

First off, the cash TFA is referring to is not the banks' cash, its depositors. But secondly, who is to determine what level of cash is acceptable and prudent. If companies are forced to dividend out/spend excess cash, and a future tightening of financial markets cuts off those companies access to cash, resulting in bankruptcy, I'm sure you'd be one of the first ones complaining that these companies were operating too recklessly

If your bank takes more money than a stranger to watch your money, then a stranger you need an Ally. Link (new window)

Yay, the banks win.

Can we start a new game now?

Hobodeluxe: karasoth: Hobodeluxe: so the job creators are sitting on their money and not creating jobs?
this means we should give them even more tax cuts so they can not create even more jobs right?
It isn't that simple

They have to much cash on hand....BUT they also have to much debt that if the debt all goes bad they don't have close to enough cash on hand.

So if they loan it out they have more debt (and more debt at a unfriendly level of risk)

They also have new government regulations that make it harder for them to give out money to loans (which make new loans riskier)

they are responsible for that debt. they lobbied hard and spent a lot of money to get those deregulations that allowed them to over extend themselves and make risky loans. because they knew that they could
A:bundle those debts and hide them then pass them off like a hot potato to other parties (usually pension fund managers and such) or

B: if things really went south they were too big to fail and the taxpayer would cover them for 100 cents on the dollar.

While I disagree with your comment about the deregulation: I agree with the meat of your comment

The Banks set up the problems they have

as for the 100 cents on the dollar, that was so the fed could bail out banks in europe and their holdings

Debeo Summa Credo: o you remember when the bankers paid back their "bailout" loans at a profit to the taxpayer? Apparently subby doesn't.

I hate this response, and I hate you for saying it.

I'll just cut n' paste this from another thread:

"This response always pisses me off. Sure, the US may have made a small 'profit' on TARP if you ignore the fact that Wall Street DESTROYED MILLIONS OF JOBS IN THE PROCESS! The damage they did to our economy is many magnitudes greater than any perceived profit we made from bailing them out.

I'm sure that's of great comfort to the millions of unemployed Americans, right?"

In short, STFU Debeo Summa Credo, you cock.

quickdraw: watson.t.hamster: I agree that's what we should be doing. But making a depression era workfare program happen today is going to be pretty difficult. You would have to start creating these jobs at about the same rate you cut people from any sort of government benefits.

I disagree. It's just a matter of PR. Pre-Reagan nobody saw unwed mothers on welfare as the scourge of society. The Reagan PR machine launched a concerted campaign to turn hungry children into villains. .

Well, Reagan came to office in 1981. Welfare as we know it only began in the mid-1960s. I'm not disagreeing or agreeing with your views on welfare, but just saying that the 'Pre-Reagan welfare era' was only about 16 years, while, the post reagan era has been about 30 years. It's not like we'd had two centuries of WIC and medicaid and other great society benefits before Reagan came along and demonized recipients.

Slackfumasta: Debeo Summa Credo: o you remember when the bankers paid back their "bailout" loans at a profit to the taxpayer? Apparently subby doesn't.

I hate this response, and I hate you for saying it.

I'll just cut n' paste this from another thread:

"This response always pisses me off. Sure, the US may have made a small 'profit' on TARP if you ignore the fact that Wall Street DESTROYED MILLIONS OF JOBS IN THE PROCESS! The damage they did to our economy is many magnitudes greater than any perceived profit we made from bailing them out.

I'm sure that's of great comfort to the millions of unemployed Americans, right?"

In short, STFU Debeo Summa Credo, you cock.

See, you dumb bastard, two things:

1- You are buying into the lie that Wall Street caused the recession all by itself, with no help from Fannie and Freddie, government, realtors, or the millions of borrowers/homebuyers that bought into the bubble, just like the banks, rating agencies, bond insurers, and investors. It was a farking bubble that burned everyone when it popped.

The financial sector played its part, no doubt, but to deny that there were many players in the build up of hte real estate bubble that caused the recession is a testament to your complete lack of understanding of economics or your ability to ignore reality when it conflicts with your own partisan views.

2 - if indeed your gripe is with Wall Street because it supposedly caused the losses of millions of jobs, and not with the bailouts (which you admit were paid back), then STFU about the bailouts. Every goddamned thread some OWS-supporting idiot complains about the taxpayer money that went to the banks in the bailout. But we know that the big banks paid back their bailout at a profit to the taxpayer and that taxpayers are better off because of the bailout money lent to banks, so this complaint is completely invalid.

Debeo Summa Credo: First off, the cash TFA is referring to is not the banks' cash, its depositors. But secondly, who is to determine what level of cash is acceptable and prudent. If companies are forced to dividend out/spend excess cash, and a future tightening of financial markets cuts off those companies access to cash, resulting in bankruptcy, I'm sure you'd be one of the first ones complaining that these companies were operating too recklessly

Have it a standard percentage of market cap at the companies quarter ends. A few things would happen with this..

If the company wants to hold more cash, they have to grow or be a growth company which will increase their stock price. This creates value for retirees that will not vanish as quickly as in the past because as the companys value begins to shrink, they will have to spend that money in some fashion or be taxed on it. Companies spending during recessions will help lesson the impact of the recession itself.

As for companies being wreckless and going bankrupt. How is that different than whats happening now? the ENTIRE banking system just went tits up...

Debeo Summa Credo: The money that the article refers to isn't the bank's capital or profits, its deposits that belong to depositors.

Hmm. I wonder where they get the working capital?

impaler: Debeo Summa Credo: 1- You are buying into the lie that Wall Street caused the recession all by itself, with no help from Fannie and Freddie, government, realtors, or the millions of borrowers/homebuyers that bought into the bubble, just like the banks, rating agencies, bond insurers, and investors. It was a farking bubble that burned everyone when it popped.

You're conflating the housing bubble with the recession. The housing bubble popping by itself, should have resulted in an economic downturn. The resulting financial meltdown, and the following massive recession, is almost entirely the fault of Wall Street. They were highly over-leveraged (a result of the big 5 banks lobbing the SEC to remove leverage ratio rules), and their liabilities in the CDS market did that. No one can pin that on FAM/FRE or homebuyers.

Though I appreciate and respect your thoughtful response, I disagree. The financial dislocation caused by the overleveraging in the financial sector did amplify the initial stages of the recession, but it was dealt with by governmental/central bank intervention. By mid-2009 stability had returned to the financial sector.

The housing bubble, both in the US and elsewhere, and the overleveraging of the consumer sector which went along with the housing bubble, it what is causing the extension of the recession and the headwinds that the economy will be facing for a long time. The construction industry isn't sitting on their hands these days because of CDOs, they're out of work because the housing market is in tatters.

Consumers are buying fewer products because their homes are down in value by at least 30% from the peak and they can no longer use their HELOCs as ATMs. Neither of these things is going to change for a long time.

karasoth: They have to much cash on hand....BUT they also have to much debt that if the debt all goes bad they don't have close to enough cash on hand.

So if they loan it out they have more debt (and more debt at a unfriendly level of risk)

You're confusing debt as a liability and debt as an asset.

poisonedpawn78: As for companies being wreckless and going bankrupt. How is that different than whats happening now? the ENTIRE banking system just went tits up...

Wouldn't it have been better if the banking system had held more cash, or loaned more conservatively, prior to the financial crisis. You guys seem to complain about banks being overly cavalier or taking too many risks on one hand, then complain when they build up a cash reserve or take too few risks on the other.

poisonedpawn78: Have it a standard percentage of market cap at the companies quarter ends. A few things would happen with this..

If the company wants to hold more cash, they have to grow or be a growth company which will increase their stock price. This creates value for retirees that will not vanish as quickly as in the past because as the companys value begins to shrink, they will have to spend that money in some fashion or be taxed on it. Companies spending during recessions will help lesson the impact of the recession itself.

Should consumers be subject to similar rules? The subject of TFA is depositors saving too much cash in banks. Should consumers be subject to maximum cash balances, so that if you hold more cash than you would need for the next few months you need to spend it?

Debeo Summa Credo: Should consumers be subject to similar rules? The subject of TFA is depositors saving too much cash in banks. Should consumers be subject to maximum cash balances, so that if you hold more cash than you would need for the next few months you need to spend it?

As soon as companies get treated with the responsibilities of real people, we can have this debate. Until then. Rain check.

Debeo Summa Credo: Every goddamned thread some OWS-supporting idiot complains about the taxpayer money that went to the banks in the bailout. But we know that the big banks paid back their bailout at a profit to the taxpayer

TARP was paid back with a profit to the taxpayer.

AIG, however, was nationalized for a very political reason: It owed the financial institutions money for all the MBSes it bought -- securites that were rated AAA, deemed equal in risk to Treasuries. Then, in an amazing move, the government opted to NOT use its leverage and honored those MBSes dollar for dollar. The loss to the taxpayer was horrific.

Also, while a lot of the Fed's programs weren't bailouts per se, flooding the banks with cash basically diluted the public's share of wealth.

When society is the issue, it's disingenuous to get pedantic. "Bailout" can be a vague term yet you're quibbling.

The difference between facts and truth is context.