Big Business’s Pile of Cash Keeps Growing


T

aking advantage of current regulatory “uncertainty” and ultra-low interest rates, large U.S. corporations have amassed a pile of cash worth about $1.6 trillion or about 6 percent of their total assets.

Yet small businesses and individuals have a difficult time tapping into the low rates because banks refuse to lend them money.
This conundrum is the opposite what the Fed had in mind as it has kept rates near zero for the past two years. Doing so was supposed to encourage lending and economic activity which would spur more jobs. But the opposite is happening — the ultra low rates actually are serving as a brake on jobs-creation and keeping the recovery anemic.
To be sure, some of the bloggers on Bacon’s Rebellion, would have you believe (and I mention no names), that this spate of cash hording is simply because U.S. business is fearful of new regulations put forward by President Barack Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress.
Culprits include Dodd-Frank which finally regulates financial services and ObamaCare which promises medical insurance coverage for all citizens and bans such atrocious practices by the managed care industry of denying people coverage because of what the insurers define as “pre-existing” conditions such as high blood pressure. Of course, the vast majority of regs for ObamaCre haven’t even been written yet, but that doesn’t stop the fear-mongers.
It could be that the reason big companies are grabbing cash could be as simple as one word — greed. From their perspective, it is better for the corporation to grab all the cash it can at rates that may not be around again for years. The intent might be to borrow to invest in capital equipment and research & development, but why bother? If anyone squawks, raise the specter of “regulatory uncertainty.” Enjoy the good money run as long as you can! Get the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Fox News and the Wall Street Journal to do your blocking!
Back two years ago, I was helping out as a financial services blogger for bnet.com. That was during the worst of the financial crisis and I was up every morning at 5 a.m. surfing the Web for clues. As more banks, especially those who bet on subprime plays, panicked, credit everywhere froze up. The Treasury Department under Henry (Bazooka in his pocket) Paulson desperately tried to shore up balance sheets and confidence so that money could get moving again. The Fed under Ben Bernanke kept rates low, low, low to encourage liquidity, lending and stave off disaster.
Ironically, disaster appears to have been kept at bay. But big firms have gamed the system and horde cash. Little guys (small business makes up most jobs in the U.S.) can’t get credit two years later.
And the some of the bloggers on Bacon’s Rebellion whine about the “uncertainty” of Obama regulation. Someone is laughing all the way to the bank here and they ain’t in Richmond’s West End.
Peter Galuszka

Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

34 responses to “Big Business’s Pile of Cash Keeps Growing”

  1. Well, if I'm a lender I don't want to lend at low rates, so I demand Less risk and higher credit standards. If I'm a company that is able to get cheap money I'm still not doing it just to have a stash that I'm paying for. I must have a near term plan for putting it to work. And with low interest rates almost any plan is better than sitting on money that isn't paying anything.

  2. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Wake up and smell the flowers, Ben.

    Every Enterpirse that has a chance is doing just what Prudential has done since the Johnson years with the military death benefit funds.

    Read Reich: Enterprises are established to make money, not to do good. Regulations are the only thing they understand.

    Observer

  3. Larry G Avatar

    Oh but Observer…

    when agencies make money – they do good…..

    ask Jim Bacon…

    🙂

  4. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "Oh but Observer…

    "when agencies ( Larry, do you mean 'Agencies' aka, governance entities or do you mean 'Enterprises' which is what Observer is talking about?) make money…"

    If you are suggesting that that when Enterprises "make money – they do good….." this is contrary to the reasons that Enterprises exist as documented by Reich and by McKibben.

    If you think Bacon would fall for the foolishness of Ben Friedman ("The Moral Consquences of Economic Growth") you are selling him short. He read "The Cultural Contridictions of Capitalism" when he was an undergraduate and is way ahead of such foolishness.

    CJC

    ask Jim Bacon…

    🙂

  5. Larry G Avatar

    worth reading:

    " What Would Keynes Say Today?"

    excerpts:

    Opposition to Keynesian ideas remains fierce in many quarters.


    But Keynesian ideas are also relevant to a wide range of other issues, including the political stalemate we face in the United States and the growing economic success of China.

    Uncertainty makes it difficult for individuals to effectively coordinate their decisions. When deep recessions hit, businesses become reluctant to invest because they already have more capacity than they can use. Households can’t buy much because their incomes are low due to unemployment and reduced wealth.

    The government, however, can kick-start the economy through increased spending and investment. The resulting increase in economic growth can make it possible to pay back the debt incurred.

    Economists often disagree on the interpretation of these ideas, as well as their merits.
    ..
    Conservative economists like Robert Barro of Harvard University insist that increased government spending will have little positive effect, and that increased deficits will create bigger problems than they solve. Keynes would sharply challenge this view and insist on the need for greater fiscal stimulus.

    ..

    Policy prescriptions cannot be implemented unless they garner sufficient political support.

    In today’s global economy…Multinational firms can easily relocate to low-wage, low-tax havens.

    With one click of a mouse, shareholders can move their capital out of the United States into mutual funds invested entirely in emerging markets, including China.

    In other words, the cross-class coalition that supported strong state participation in the United States economy in the post-World War II has come undone.

    If Keynes were around today, I think he would emphasize a supreme irony of Neoliberalism: No country has taken better advantage of free trade than China, with its controlled currency and strong industrial policies, including huge public investments in renewable energy technologies.

    China’s state capitalist regime has borrowed Keynesian theory from the West and garnered huge profits from it.

    ….the whole article is worth reading:

    http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/04/what-would-keynes-say-today/

  6. Larry G Avatar

    worth reading:

    " What Would Keynes Say Today?"

    excerpts:

    Opposition to Keynesian ideas remains fierce in many quarters.


    But Keynesian ideas are also relevant to a wide range of other issues, including the political stalemate we face in the United States and the growing economic success of China.

    Uncertainty makes it difficult for individuals to effectively coordinate their decisions. When deep recessions hit, businesses become reluctant to invest because they already have more capacity than they can use. Households can’t buy much because their incomes are low due to unemployment and reduced wealth.

    The government, however, can kick-start the economy through increased spending and investment. The resulting increase in economic growth can make it possible to pay back the debt incurred.

    Economists often disagree on the interpretation of these ideas, as well as their merits.
    ..
    Conservative economists like Robert Barro of Harvard University insist that increased government spending will have little positive effect, and that increased deficits will create bigger problems than they solve. Keynes would sharply challenge this view and insist on the need for greater fiscal stimulus.

    ..

    Policy prescriptions cannot be implemented unless they garner sufficient political support.

    In today’s global economy…Multinational firms can easily relocate to low-wage, low-tax havens.

    With one click of a mouse, shareholders can move their capital out of the United States into mutual funds invested entirely in emerging markets, including China.

    In other words, the cross-class coalition that supported strong state participation in the United States economy in the post-World War II has come undone.

    If Keynes were around today, I think he would emphasize a supreme irony of Neoliberalism: No country has taken better advantage of free trade than China, with its controlled currency and strong industrial policies, including huge public investments in renewable energy technologies.

    China’s state capitalist regime has borrowed Keynesian theory from the West and garnered huge profits from it.

    ….the whole article is worth reading:

    http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/04/what-would-keynes-say-today/

  7. Enterprises are organized to make money. That is how and why we have an economy. Enterprises are not organized to do good. That is why we have govt.

    TC EQUALS PC + EC + GC

  8. Larry G Avatar

    I think "good" is a subjected word … for sure…

    What's a better, more accurate description of why Govt does that private industry won't or can't?

    It can't be security if we can buy security guards and body guards…

    It can't be transportation if private industry could run toll roads…

    It can't be schools if private industry can run schools and they do..

    So what is it that govt does?

    The Conservatives will tell you that govt is more about taking money from those that earn it and giving it to others who don't….

    right?

  9. We had toll roads and PE screwed up. Private prisons have not done so well either.

    It is the "if" that gets you.

    We get regulation and government when we get tired of being screwed and chiseled by business. We get bad regulation when we ignore Total Costs equal business costs + Social Cost + Govt Cost.

  10. "Read Reich: Enterprises are established to make money, not to do good. Regulations are the only thing they understand."

    ==================================

    For once I agree with Obserer.

    Only problem is that there are a few things the Regulators don;t understand, also.

  11. James A. Bacon Avatar
    James A. Bacon

    Peter, you said in your post, "It could be that the reason big companies are grabbing cash could be as simple as one word — greed. From their perspective, it is better for the corporation to grab all the cash it can at rates that may not be around again for years."

    Exqueeze me. This makes no sense. Why would corporations build up huge cash hoards, which they proceed to invest at near-zero interest rates, out of *greed*? I think fear and uncertainty are more plausible motives.

    True, some corporations are issuing bonds to restructure their long-term debt at favorable rates, but that does not explain the huge build-up in cash positions.

  12. Groveton Avatar

    Observer (and Reich) are right. Enterprises are not people. They are a collection of assets jointly owned by people known as shareholders. The shareholders are willing and voluntary owners who seek to increase their own wealth through their holdings in the corporation.

    Anybody who buys shares in a public company in the hope of "doing good" is on the wrong track. If you want to "do good" you should donate your money to charity rather than use it to buy shares in a for-profit enterprise.

    Only liberals can call enterprises greedy and think it's an insult. Of course they are greedy – and so are their shareholders. All the hundreds of millions of them.

    The question isn't whether they are greedy or not … it's why they are holding cash.

    Economic uncertainty is the biggest reason. Maybe Obama and his henchmen play some small role in that uncertainty, maybe not. Unfortunately for Obama critics (such as myself) the current poor economic climate is pretty global and Obama doesn't rule England, France or any of the other countries which should be sucking up corporate cash if Obama was the only problem.

    The optimism of a full throated recovery ended in late spring among those with experience. The global economic options for the next 12 months vary between continued anemic growth and full blown double dip. There is no consensus for a healthy recovery.

    Therefore, why should profit seeking companies waste their cash chasing demand that will not appear?

    Now a completely separate question – why can't small businesses get loans? It has nothing whatsoever to do with large businesses hoarding cash. Mr. Obama has proven that he's willing to create cash out of thin air in quantities nobody could have ever believed. There are three reasons why small businesses don't get loans:

    1. They are not credit-worthy. Think about it. A small business needs a loan because it isn't generate enough cash for its ongoing needs. Yet, the next 12 months look economically bleak. why would you loan money to a company operating a a cash flow deficit with tough times ahead?

    2. The banks have been forced to increase their reserves. New regulations require banks to have a greater asset to loan ratio. So, money comes in but it can't go out. Maybe this is a good idea over the long run but it stifles lending over the short run.

    3. Obama and Bush were wrong. They guessed that lending money to financial institutions to improve liquidity would keep the financial institutions afloat. Probably right. However, they also implicitly assumed that the recovery would be in full swing before the financial institutions started paying back the funds. Oops.

  13. Larry G Avatar

    " Therefore, why should profit seeking companies waste their cash chasing demand that will not appear?"

    you mean that tax cuts won't get them to create more jobs for the demand that is not there anyhow?

    " However, they also implicitly assumed that the recovery would be in full swing before the financial institutions started paying back the funds. Oops. "

    where did you get this idea?

    I think, to be fair, that since none of this has happened for 60+ years that not Obama and not any of his advisors could tell you with any degree of certainty WHEN the recovery would happen MUCH LESS how much recovery we would have.

    Bush was an idiot.

    Bush had no clue what was happening… and if he did – why did he not act BEFORE things went to hell in a handbasket?

    and the Republicans? HEY!! Deficits don't matter.. and tax cuts create jobs.

    QED.

    Who would have thought that a one term Senator would be thrown a situation that has happened only once before in our history, 60+ years ago and that because he has not put it all back together and running like a top in 18 months that he's a failure?

    Can you see John McCain dealing with this?

    Or John Baoehmer?

    or New Gingrich?

    I can.

    We'd be in the second great depression in our history – and the worst – with 25% unemployment and these idiots talking about more tax cuts to the wealthy as "stimulus".

  14. Larry G Avatar

    I sometimes feel bad about calling Bush an idiot …..but then I get over it pretty quick.

    Obama had 18 months to fix the worse CF in 65 years.

    Bush had 7 years to watch it unfold then appears at the microphone with Paulson at his side …sighing about how he doesn't like the plan but we have no choice.

    And folks like Groveton – use Bush in the same sentence with Obama….

    8 years vs 18 months.

    Bush starts with a surplus and ends with the worst economic disaster in 65 years and … "it's not his fault".

    Obama comes in while the building is still burning and he's a failure after 18 months.

    Where do you folks get your insight?

    do you admit just a tad bit of a double standard on judging the two men?

    just a tiny bit?

  15. Groveton Avatar

    "where did you get this idea?"

    Uhhhhhh …. Recovery Summer?

  16. Groveton Avatar

    "Who would have thought that a one term Senator would be thrown a situation that has happened only once before in our history, 60+ years ago and that because he has not put it all back together and running like a top in 18 months that he's a failure?".

    Pearl Harbor attack – Dec. 7, `1941
    WTC/Pentagon attack – Sept. 11, 2001

    A new president has to deal with something unexpected that hasn't happened in 60 years?

    Yes, Larry … that's very unique to Obama.

    There is no recovery happening Larry … only more stagnation.

    The White House today said that Obama – Clinton was "not on the table" for 2012. Maybe not. However, Clinton – Biden might be the Democrats' best chance by then.

    I think the odds of Obama not seeking re-election are growing by the day.

    He is hopelessly over his head.

  17. Larry G Avatar

    18 months? "recovery summer" was an ironclad promise?

    Given the circumstances of the meltdown do you think ANYONE could render with any accuracy a prediction?

    I find this amusing and maddening.

    We have the worst meltdown in 65 years and we have folks acting like promises were made about the timing and quality of the recovery.

    AND….. AND….

    if those perceived promises are WRONG – the the 18-month administration is a failure…

    and on this – we call ourselves an Obama critic?

    geeze….

    surely if you can give that idiot Bush 8 years to screw things up you can give Obama half that long.

    I can't put my finger on why but I have never in my life seen such a double standard on any two leaders…..

  18. Groveton Avatar

    Obama claimed that unemployment would not reach 8% if Congress enacted the stimulus.

    Looks like he was right. Unemployment is headed to 10%.

    Did Bush force Obama to call last summer "Recovery Summer"? Did Bush force Obama to claim that unemployment would stop at 8% with the stimulus.

    Sorry, Larry but you man is sinking in his own quagmire now.

  19. Larry G Avatar

    " Obama claimed that unemployment would not reach 8% if Congress enacted the stimulus."

    how could ANYONE make that claim Groveton given those circumstances?

    this is truly idiotic.

    If the man actually did make that PROMISE – then he's an idiot but I seriously doubt that he "promised" but instead folks like Hannity did and the right wing picked it up and it landed on your tongue also.

    Let's see the cite.

    get the transcript.

    If not.. then fess up that you made it up.

  20. Groveton Avatar

    So. Larry – what's your vote?

    Was the Obama Administration lying or just incompetent?

    Remember – this is Obama's own review panel.

    I vote for incompetent by the way.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703735804575536042567062622.html?mod=WSJ_hps_MIDDLETopStories

  21. Groveton Avatar

    This took 30 seconds to find …

    "
    Back in early January, when Barack Obama was still President-elect, two of his chief economic advisers — leading proponents of a stimulus bill — predicted that the passage of a large economic-aid package would boost the economy and keep the unemployment rate below 8%. It hasn't quite worked out that way. Last month, the jobless rate in the U.S. hit 9.5%, the highest level it has reached since 1983.".

    http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1910208,00.html

    Is Time magazine run by tea party operatives too Larry?

    The article was written 15 months ago. Unemployment is still between 9 – 10%.

    Your man is failing Larry.

  22. Groveton Avatar

    Why cash is building on the balance sheet rather than being invested in new productive capacity:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703298504575534341401915382.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLETopStories

    When customers stop buying it's a bad time time to build more factories.

    Letting the Bush tax cuts expire won't improve consumer spending.

    Unless consumer spending improves companies won't invest their cash and create more jobs.

    If there aren't more jobs consumer spending will continue to shrink.

    This is how a deflationary spiral happens.

    If Obama drives the country into deplation he will have surpassed the previous record for presidential economic incompetence – Jimmy Carter's Stagflation.

    How many terms did Carter serve again?

  23. Larry G Avatar

    a "prediction" by advisors is a "promise" from the President?

    when you don't know how bad off the economy is and you certainly don't know where the bottom is why would anyone say that a projection or a forecast or an estimate constituted a "promise"?

    why would you do that?

    Virtually everyone and their dog knows that the very best that they could do would be a seat-of-the-pants estimate.

    Do we think that estimating economic recoveries is an exact science where you plug in the numbers and out pops the answer?

    and we base our criticism of an administration on this kind of thinking?

    holy moly.

    no wonder the country is in the mess it is in when ordinary folks seriously cannot tell the difference from a WAG and a "promise" and after one of the worst recessions in the history of the country.. our complaint is that "you promised".

    holy moly….

    and on this we decide the Prez is a one-termer.

    wow.

    and an oil spill response proves that he broke his 8% "promise"?

    good googly moogly

    why would anyone with half a brain actually BELIEVE that to start with much less use it as a weapon to "prove" the Prez is incompetent?

  24. Larry G Avatar

    " When customers stop buying it's a bad time time to build more factories.

    Letting the Bush tax cuts expire won't improve consumer spending."

    except they want to extend them for the people who will spend …

    this is what the stimulus is about.

    but we don't know the depth of the recession Groveton.

    We can and do guess but we simply don't know how bad and won't for a while.

    You're acting like we should know PRECISELY the current status of the economy and fix it pronto.

    BUSH …he KNEW the economy was in trouble – he had YEARS of DATA that told him and what exactly did the man do about it?

    Obama may end up a one term Prez but have you noticed of the last two Prez which one is respected around the world and which one hides out at his ranch?

  25. Groveton Avatar

    Larry:

    When a president is screwing up at the velocity of Obama you can't wait for a main site article to post comments about the screw ups.

    In January, 2009 Obama's henchmen touted the stimulus bill. They claimed passing the bill would cap unemployment at 8%. Do you seriously propose that Obama didn't know what his advisors said? Or, that they spoke in contradiction to what the boss wanted them to say? Do promises from the Obama Administration only count when the promises are read off the teleprompter by Obama himself? Side note: On Oct 4 Walter Mondale, speaking on CNN, asked Obama to ditch the "idiot boards" (i.e. the teleprompters). When did Mr. Mondale join the Tea Party?

    Recovery Summer? Here is the actual press release – "Administration Kicks Off 'Recovery Summer' with Groundbreakings and Events Across the Country".

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/administration-kicks-recovery-summer-with-groundbreakings-and-events-across-country

    Do you think this was the recovery summer? Do you think that Rush Limbaugh hacked into the White House web site and wrote the recovery summer non-sense.

    "You're acting like we should know PRECISELY the current status of the economy and fix it pronto.".

    Interesting comment. But Obama did claim to know the current status of the economy. Unemployment would top at 8% and the recovery would be underway in earnest in he Summer of 2010.

    Uh oh.

    Moreover, who can forget his budget from early 2009. Here's a taste …

    "The forecast is rosy from the get-go. The budget forecasters assumed that the economy would grow at a 3% annual rate starting in April and that real GDP would fall just 1.2% in 2009 from 2008. Then, from 2010 through 2013, the administration assumes that real GDP will grow at a 4% annual rate. To put this in perspective, that is twice as fast as the economy's 2% annual rate of growth between 2004 and 2008.".

    http://www.forbes.com/2009/03/09/budget-deficit-obama-opinions-columnists-spending.html

    Contrary to your comments, Obama has made lots of economic predictions since he was elected president. The only problem is that they have all turned out to be wrong.

    Now … tell me one more time why I should support his economic policies when he has proven that he thinks he knows what will happen but is habitually wrong.

  26. Larry G Avatar

    predictions and forecasts were made by people using their best judgement – for an event that most of them had never seen before and only read about.

    No one in the right mind would, in that circumstance, confuse the difference between a prediction, forecast, projection and a "promise" unless they wanted to use it an excuse for criticism to start with.

    Once you've done that – you've tipped your hand as to any semblance of objectivity.

    and the funny thing is – the bottom line is …

    that the TARP DID WORK and IS BEING PAID BACK

    and that the STIMULUS "worked" in that it even if it did not bring us 8% unemployment, it undoubtedly kept us from 20%.

    Private industry stopped spending in late 2008 if you remember.

    the markets froze.

    not just in this country – but in many parts of the world.

    TARPs and STIMULUS were employed in other countries.

    Those countries did not know with any precision the depth or length of the recession nor the quality of the recover – just as this administration did not know but did offer what they hoped would be a result.

    The proof of your position and others like you is that when asked what he should have done… I've only heard one theme – he should not have done the TARP nor the STIMULUS.

    If that had happened – most economists – even those who don't like stimulus – admit that we would have had a depression that rivaled the first.

    So you have no real ideas of what to do instead.. only hammer this guy for his bad "promises".

    and yes.. things have gotten laughable … because we've got to the point where it is ABO – anyone but Obama….

  27. The "small businesses you talk about as makeing up most of the new jobs, are actaully pretty big: we are not talking about the local shoe repair shop, but rather companies big enough to employ hundreds of people.

  28. here is a new regulation we can applaud, even Republicans may like this. My wife tells me there is a new regulation that will prevent broadcasters from blasting you ut of your chair by increasing volume when commercials come on.

  29. Larry G Avatar

    re: small business

    I notice that also.

    Groveton and his Confederates blather on about the importance of small business and how they create the bulk of the jobs and how important it is to make sure they get included in the tax cuts…

    then he does a 180 on them claiming that they are a bad risk and deserve to not get credit.

    both sides of the mouth – standard right wing blather..

  30. We can argue about whether the stimulus worked or to what degree all night.

    The fact is that no one knows, except we do know that China had a bigger stimulus and England had a smaller one, and we know what happened there.

    I don;t quite understand how one can claim that tax hikes hurt jobs but stimulus dosn't help jobs. True, stimulus jobs may not be permanent, but if PE jobs were permanent, we would not be needing the stimulus!

    Besides that, much of the stimulus money is just now hitting the streets: there was reconstruction going on in the parks I visited in Arizona – funded by stimulus money. Tat money was not wasted because it was pretty obvious they were doing work that needed done anyway.

    Likewise, I observe a lot more road crews in various places.

    15 states have reported increased sales tax revenue for Sept. over a year ago. The stock market isn;t back to where it was, at 13,000, but it is at 11,000, and the other 2k was a bubble anyway. Do we really want to go back there?

    I think it is too early to say, one way or another, but I think there is more evidence that Obama has done reasonably well, considering the hand he was dealt, than there is that he is a major screw up.

    Republicans right now seem to be long on rhetoric, theories, and catch phrases and short on facts and substatntive plans to do anything.

    Long term, the dems are going to have to agree to spending cuts and Republicans are going to have to agree to tax increases.

    BOTH.

    Neither one will work alone, and EMR is correct that the money we spend will have to be spent smarter, I just don't think EMRs plan is all that smart. But it is a joke to think that we save money by having subdivisions pay for their own roads. The user/fee – toll – congestion fee – variable parking meter idea is a useful economic thery, but its practical applications for public consumption are limited by the overhead of profit and the cost of transactions.

    There is no acceptable reason for a fire department to stand by and watch a mans house burn because he has not paid a $75 fee, any more than you let a homeless person expire of hunger or heart failure on the steps of the emergency room, or passing by a fellow mariner in distress at sea.

    It is time to stop bickering and sit down to agree on th policies and procedures we will use to set priorities. The political process is not working, and if Obama is a failure, it is a result of the process as much as it is the fault of the man.

  31. We can argue about whether the stimulus worked or to what degree all night.

    The fact is that no one knows, except we do know that China had a bigger stimulus and England had a smaller one, and we know what happened there.

    I don;t quite understand how one can claim that tax hikes hurt jobs but stimulus dosn't help jobs. True, stimulus jobs may not be permanent, but if PE jobs were permanent, we would not be needing the stimulus!

    Besides that, much of the stimulus money is just now hitting the streets: there was reconstruction going on in the parks I visited in Arizona – funded by stimulus money. Tat money was not wasted because it was pretty obvious they were doing work that needed done anyway.

    Likewise, I observe a lot more road crews in various places.

    15 states have reported increased sales tax revenue for Sept. over a year ago. The stock market isn;t back to where it was, at 13,000, but it is at 11,000, and the other 2k was a bubble anyway. Do we really want to go back there?

    I think it is too early to say, one way or another, but I think there is more evidence that Obama has done reasonably well, considering the hand he was dealt, than there is that he is a major screw up.

    Republicans right now seem to be long on rhetoric, theories, and catch phrases and short on facts and substatntive plans to do anything.

    Long term, the dems are going to have to agree to spending cuts and Republicans are going to have to agree to tax increases.

    BOTH.

    Neither one will work alone, and EMR is correct that the money we spend will have to be spent smarter, I just don't think EMRs plan is all that smart. But it is a joke to think that we save money by having subdivisions pay for their own roads. The user/fee – toll – congestion fee – variable parking meter idea is a useful economic thery, but its practical applications for public consumption are limited by the overhead of profit and the cost of transactions.

    There is no acceptable reason for a fire department to stand by and watch a mans house burn because he has not paid a $75 fee, any more than you let a homeless person expire of hunger or heart failure on the steps of the emergency room, or passing by a fellow mariner in distress at sea.

    It is time to stop bickering and sit down to agree on th policies and procedures we will use to set priorities. The political process is not working, and if Obama is a failure, it is a result of the process as much as it is the fault of the man.

  32. Larry G Avatar

    If there was no stimulus at all.. the economy would likely crash even worse than it is now

    and because of that – the deficit would increase because revenues would shrink.

    The stimulus provides jobs but how fast it gets into the economy does effect how many jobs are produced.

    Ray pointed out that some stimulus money is just now finding it's way into the economy.

    No doubt that money has not – to this point – created jobs nor reduced unemployment.

    but to say it "has not worked" is just totally bogus.

    We have roads being constructed down here with stimulus money and we have dozens more teachers and deputies that kept their jobs instead of adding to the unemployment.

    The stimulus is a loan from the future – no disputing that.

    And there are disagreements about the use of it as a policy.

    But it has been used around the world and it's an accepted policy option for dozens of countries

    countries who are not run by Obama….nor his advisors…nor are most held to the "promise" standard.

    the basic argument being advanced by Groveton is inherently unfair and without accusing Groveton – nothing personal – the argument he is using is the same exact argument that emanates from FAUX News and the right wing blogging community

    and it's in my view. inherently dishonest.

    it refuses to acknowledge that the stimulus is not just an Obama "invention" and that it's not considered "irresponsible" by economists – around the world.

    and most do understand that there is no precise correlation between the stimulus and jobs

    the SAME WAY there is no measureable correlation between TAX CUTs and Jobs.

    Significantly, Obama's stimulus has "buy American" provisions in it whereas the Bush Tax cuts are just fine in that money goes overseas to be invested in more outsourcing.

  33. Groveton Avatar

    The stimulus didn't do a damn thing.

    "I don;t quite understand how one can claim that tax hikes hurt jobs but stimulus dosn't help jobs.".

    That would be true if both corporations and individuals had the same propensity to spend the marginal dollar. The stimulus went to businesses. Since it was a one time boondoggle the businesses were hesitatnt to hire (only to have to layoff once the stimulus ended). As I've said, Obama and his people have no economic sense. They are ridiculously optimistic over the speed of a recovery. Now, they have fired all their ammo and have nothing left.

    Personally, I think consumers will start spending again before businesses start hiring again. In other words, consumers are more optimistic than businesses. If you accept that – tax hikes hurt more than stimulus helps. Yet, regardless what you think of the stimulus – tax hikes hurt. I can live with higher taxes at both the state and national level. This should be a last resort but we may be down to last resorts – over the mid term. However, the difference between an anemic recovery and a double dip recession is pretty slim. I'd look for unemployment under 8% and GDP growth consistently over 3% (say … for 4 quarters ina row) before I'd start talking about higher taxes.

  34. Larry G Avatar

    Groveton – "stimulus" is when you buy DOD contractors in NOVA ans shipyard workers in Hampton and Humvee builders in Detroit.

    that's "stimulus" and it creates jobs and puts money in the economy.

    We don't call it stimulus but it don't walk and talk any different than school teachers in Harrisonburg or school bus builders in SW Va.

    When the govt buys school buses and builds new lanes of highways..real people do the work and real people get a paycheck and real people pay their bills and buy stuff.

    It matters not one whit what the govt spends the money on – as long as the recipient does not sock it away in an account and doesn't spend it.

    We even know ..for instance, than in better economic times that too much government spending leads to an overheated economy.

    You say we'll recover because people will start spending again.

    Really? Do you mean those folks who are out of work and have no paycheck… you know the ones you say we "promised" to reduce.. that THOSE people will start spending again?

    Groveton – if they don't have a job where are they going to get the money to spend?

    You earlier, correctly, pointed out – that tax cuts won't create jobs when there is no demand for what those jobs produce – a huge contradiction in my mind to the standard Republican SCHTICK of tax cuts creating jobs – NOT!

    You also correctly pointed out that man small businesses are – at the same time – horrendous credit risks – and yet the essence of American ingenuity.

    Bill Gates – was a small businessman at one time, right?

    If Bill Gates himself tried to get a loan in this economy – most banks would send him packing.

    These would be the same banks that before the recession would have fought to see who would loan him the money, right?

    Business lost faith in the economy in 2008 and have not got it back.

    Obama is the wrong guy – right?

    How about Bush ?> would he has been the "right guy"?

    McCain?

    I doubt seriously if you believe that John McCain would have solved this issue.

    I believe that McCain would have ended up the modern day Hoover and instead of having a "weak" recovery and high unemployment right now – we would be seeing 25% unemployed and bread and soup lines.

    Republicans keep telling us that they know how to handle the economy.

    But the facts speak otherwise.

    I'm not claiming that Obama or the Dems have it all together but they did keep us from a Depression.

    The Republicans on the other hand spent 8 years watching the meltdown approach – first slowly and then at high speed.

    Tell me ONE THING that the Republicans did under Bush to head this off?

    one thing guy.

    what did they do?

    and these are the guys you want back in charge?

Leave a Reply