(01-02-2019 03:04 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-02-2019 02:43 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-02-2019 02:31 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-02-2019 02:25 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-02-2019 02:22 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I'm only focusing on one year in relation to the data I'm speaking to, the repatriation, not the overall effect of the tax cut. I'm well aware, as I've indicated many times already, that it's still too early to judge the effects of the corporate tax cut.

And my only point is that such information is pretty much irrelevant to the primary purpose and impact of the law.

Wait...so now the repatriation is pretty much irrelevant??? Silly me...I thought you had been arguing otherwise for years.

No, that's not what I'm saying, and you know better than that. What I'm saying is that "only focusing on one year" is irrelevant to an evaluation of long-term impact.
I'll thank you in advance not to go building straw men.

Of course...but I'm also not focusing on only one year regarding the tax cut.

Sorry, I guess I misunderstood, "I'm only focusing on one year..."

(01-02-2019 03:16 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-02-2019 03:04 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-02-2019 02:43 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-02-2019 02:31 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-02-2019 02:25 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  And my only point is that such information is pretty much irrelevant to the primary purpose and impact of the law.

Wait...so now the repatriation is pretty much irrelevant??? Silly me...I thought you had been arguing otherwise for years.

No, that's not what I'm saying, and you know better than that. What I'm saying is that "only focusing on one year" is irrelevant to an evaluation of long-term impact.
I'll thank you in advance not to go building straw men.

Of course...but I'm also not focusing on only one year regarding the tax cut.

Sorry, I guess I misunderstood, "I'm only focusing on one year..."

It's all good!

(01-02-2019 02:43 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I'll thank you in advance not to go building straw men.

Now here you go taking away half of his posting skills. Now all he has left to use is moving the goalposts.

(01-02-2019 11:45 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-31-2018 03:48 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(12-31-2018 03:08 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-31-2018 11:45 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  So Trump's prediction looks fairly solid considering, 3 quarters in, 600billion has been repatriated.

Quote:But investment bank JPMorgan said the flows were on “a rapidly decelerating trajectory”.

Well yeah.... you eventually run out of money to be returned to the country at the current rates....

but once the money is here, you collect taxes on its earnings every year.... and the money is invested in projects here, which you generally collect taxes on as well.

It's not the moving of the money here that is the big economic event... it's the KEEPING of the money here for years that is the big economic event.

JP Morgan is talking about the floor under the stock market and share buybacks broadly.... not talking about earnings from specific companies. Said differently, they're talking about stock prices, not the economy

And what does any of that have to do with trump's projection of $4T, which UofM says "looks fairly solid" when we're only at .6T so far after a whole year?

You'd have to ask UofM and Trump. I didn't address it because you didn't ask me to. You asked about the rapidly declining rate.

I suspect as others have that 1) Trump over-estimated and 2) that even within that, he probably counted the annual number and then used the money multiplier and/or an estimate of how long before other countries lowered their rates and we starting losing the money again. The repatriation of money is a one time event, but it has wide and potentially long term implications.

But the REAL question is this... Why is the left more concerned that it's 'only' 600byn in 3 quarters rather than $4 trillion when they ignored it for a decade and even argued that it would be a negative/wouldn't happen at all? UofM calls it fairly solid... I really have no point of reference to agree or disagree.... nor do I know what timeframe Trump envisioned. It seems politicians like 10 year numbers when they're trying to make a number sound big. It's still a substantial number of 'new' money and there is no reason to think that it will stop, just because it slows. It could be 50byn/quarter for the next decade?? Who knows.

It's sort of like 50 people saying Hillary will win the election and one guy saying that Trump will win and it won't be close... and then when Trump DOES win and it's only modestly close, the other 50 guys saying... well, yeah... but you said it wouldn't be close.

(01-02-2019 10:00 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(01-02-2019 11:45 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-31-2018 03:48 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(12-31-2018 03:08 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-31-2018 11:45 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  So Trump's prediction looks fairly solid considering, 3 quarters in, 600billion has been repatriated.

Quote:But investment bank JPMorgan said the flows were on “a rapidly decelerating trajectory”.

Well yeah.... you eventually run out of money to be returned to the country at the current rates....

but once the money is here, you collect taxes on its earnings every year.... and the money is invested in projects here, which you generally collect taxes on as well.

It's not the moving of the money here that is the big economic event... it's the KEEPING of the money here for years that is the big economic event.

JP Morgan is talking about the floor under the stock market and share buybacks broadly.... not talking about earnings from specific companies. Said differently, they're talking about stock prices, not the economy

And what does any of that have to do with trump's projection of $4T, which UofM says "looks fairly solid" when we're only at .6T so far after a whole year?

You'd have to ask UofM and Trump. I didn't address it because you didn't ask me to. You asked about the rapidly declining rate.

No, I didn't. As per the norm, you chose to comment on my comment to another poster with information unrelated my comment. I didn't ask either of you anything. Rather, I merely reiterated the fact the per JP Morgan, the flows are on a rapidly decelerating trajectory.

(01-02-2019 11:45 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-31-2018 03:48 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(12-31-2018 03:08 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-31-2018 11:45 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  So Trump's prediction looks fairly solid considering, 3 quarters in, 600billion has been repatriated.

Quote:But investment bank JPMorgan said the flows were on “a rapidly decelerating trajectory”.

Well yeah.... you eventually run out of money to be returned to the country at the current rates....
but once the money is here, you collect taxes on its earnings every year.... and the money is invested in projects here, which you generally collect taxes on as well.
It's not the moving of the money here that is the big economic event... it's the KEEPING of the money here for years that is the big economic event.
JP Morgan is talking about the floor under the stock market and share buybacks broadly.... not talking about earnings from specific companies. Said differently, they're talking about stock prices, not the economy

And what does any of that have to do with trump's projection of $4T, which UofM says "looks fairly solid" when we're only at .6T so far after a whole year?

I'd say we're doing pretty well on that front. $600 billion will create a lot of jobs, no matter how it is applied. Let's take the worst case, that it's all spent on stock buy-backs, and the former stockholders put it all in the bank. That's $600 billion more that banks have to lend to fund startups, expansion of exiting businesses, and large consumer purchases. And that's bad because? And remember, that's worst case.

(01-03-2019 11:54 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-02-2019 11:45 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-31-2018 03:48 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(12-31-2018 03:08 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-31-2018 11:45 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  So Trump's prediction looks fairly solid considering, 3 quarters in, 600billion has been repatriated.

Quote:But investment bank JPMorgan said the flows were on “a rapidly decelerating trajectory”.

Well yeah.... you eventually run out of money to be returned to the country at the current rates....
but once the money is here, you collect taxes on its earnings every year.... and the money is invested in projects here, which you generally collect taxes on as well.
It's not the moving of the money here that is the big economic event... it's the KEEPING of the money here for years that is the big economic event.
JP Morgan is talking about the floor under the stock market and share buybacks broadly.... not talking about earnings from specific companies. Said differently, they're talking about stock prices, not the economy

And what does any of that have to do with trump's projection of $4T, which UofM says "looks fairly solid" when we're only at .6T so far after a whole year?

I'd say we're doing pretty well on that front. $600 billion will create a lot of jobs, no matter how it is applied. Let's take the worst case, that it's all spent on stock buy-backs, and the former stockholders put it all in the bank. That's $600 billion more that banks have to lend to fund startups, expansion of exiting businesses, and large consumer purchases. And that's bad because? And remember, that's worst case.

Just one problem. As has been shown time and time again, corporations having more money does not magically create jobs! Buying back stock does not magically create jobs. Corporations, and any business really, adds jobs when they have product to sell. and you need people with money to buy those things. If waqes are remaining fairly stagnant and inflation occurs, it's not going to have all that much effect on jobs.

Just looking at my corporate employer, they got the huge tax cut, sold a portion of the business and now have mountains of cash on hand, yet we just went through a fairly decent sized reduction in our workforce. And in my sector, we are developing a new product requiring more work from all of us, yet we are not hiring and are not getting raises over our standard yearly COLA.

(01-03-2019 02:08 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-03-2019 11:54 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-02-2019 11:45 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-31-2018 03:48 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(12-31-2018 03:08 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

Well yeah.... you eventually run out of money to be returned to the country at the current rates....
but once the money is here, you collect taxes on its earnings every year.... and the money is invested in projects here, which you generally collect taxes on as well.
It's not the moving of the money here that is the big economic event... it's the KEEPING of the money here for years that is the big economic event.
JP Morgan is talking about the floor under the stock market and share buybacks broadly.... not talking about earnings from specific companies. Said differently, they're talking about stock prices, not the economy

And what does any of that have to do with trump's projection of $4T, which UofM says "looks fairly solid" when we're only at .6T so far after a whole year?

I'd say we're doing pretty well on that front. $600 billion will create a lot of jobs, no matter how it is applied. Let's take the worst case, that it's all spent on stock buy-backs, and the former stockholders put it all in the bank. That's $600 billion more that banks have to lend to fund startups, expansion of exiting businesses, and large consumer purchases. And that's bad because? And remember, that's worst case.

Just one problem. As has been shown time and time again, corporations having more money does not magically create jobs! Buying back stock does not magically create jobs. Corporations, and any business really, adds jobs when they have product to sell. and you need people with money to buy those things. If waqes are remaining fairly stagnant and inflation occurs, it's not going to have all that much effect on jobs.

Just looking at my corporate employer, they got the huge tax cut, sold a portion of the business and now have mountains of cash on hand, yet we just went through a fairly decent sized reduction in our workforce. And in my sector, we are developing a new product requiring more work from all of us, yet we are not hiring and are not getting raises over our standard yearly COLA.

Of course it doesn't mean that every single employer will add to the workforce. It means that as a whole, the economy would add jobs.

Eventually, they will do something with that cash and put the money to work. It doesn't make sense for a company to sit on a ton of cash unless they are expecting an economic downturn of some kind.

(01-03-2019 02:08 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Just one problem. As has been shown time and time again, corporations having more money does not magically create jobs! Buying back stock does not magically create jobs. Corporations, and any business really, adds jobs when they have product to sell. and you need people with money to buy those things. If waqes are remaining fairly stagnant and inflation occurs, it's not going to have all that much effect on jobs.
Just looking at my corporate employer, they got the huge tax cut, sold a portion of the business and now have mountains of cash on hand, yet we just went through a fairly decent sized reduction in our workforce. And in my sector, we are developing a new product requiring more work from all of us, yet we are not hiring and are not getting raises over our standard yearly COLA.

So where does all that cash go? To tomato cans buried in the yard? Probably not. More likely to banks who then loan it to businesses and individuals to buy things that it takes jobs to make. So money inevitably increases jobs somewhere.

And as far as demand, with demand stimulus you get more people going to WalMart to but TV sets made in China. With supply side, she of this TV sets--or something--ends up being made here. As long as the jobs you add are in retail, wages are going to be flat, because retail jobs don't add much value. Production jobs do add value, so production is where employers can pay higher wages. So if you want wages to go up, add production jobs.

If you want a nation full of people greeting each other at Walmart and delivering pizzas to each other, then focus on demand. If you want wages to go up, focus on supply.

(01-03-2019 02:12 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(01-03-2019 02:08 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-03-2019 11:54 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-02-2019 11:45 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-31-2018 03:48 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Well yeah.... you eventually run out of money to be returned to the country at the current rates....
but once the money is here, you collect taxes on its earnings every year.... and the money is invested in projects here, which you generally collect taxes on as well.
It's not the moving of the money here that is the big economic event... it's the KEEPING of the money here for years that is the big economic event.
JP Morgan is talking about the floor under the stock market and share buybacks broadly.... not talking about earnings from specific companies. Said differently, they're talking about stock prices, not the economy

And what does any of that have to do with trump's projection of $4T, which UofM says "looks fairly solid" when we're only at .6T so far after a whole year?

I'd say we're doing pretty well on that front. $600 billion will create a lot of jobs, no matter how it is applied. Let's take the worst case, that it's all spent on stock buy-backs, and the former stockholders put it all in the bank. That's $600 billion more that banks have to lend to fund startups, expansion of exiting businesses, and large consumer purchases. And that's bad because? And remember, that's worst case.

Just one problem. As has been shown time and time again, corporations having more money does not magically create jobs! Buying back stock does not magically create jobs. Corporations, and any business really, adds jobs when they have product to sell. and you need people with money to buy those things. If waqes are remaining fairly stagnant and inflation occurs, it's not going to have all that much effect on jobs.

Just looking at my corporate employer, they got the huge tax cut, sold a portion of the business and now have mountains of cash on hand, yet we just went through a fairly decent sized reduction in our workforce. And in my sector, we are developing a new product requiring more work from all of us, yet we are not hiring and are not getting raises over our standard yearly COLA.

Of course it doesn't mean that every single employer will add to the workforce. It means that as a whole, the economy would add jobs.

Eventually, they will do something with that cash and put the money to work. It doesn't make sense for a company to sit on a ton of cash unless they are expecting an economic downturn of some kind.

I think it's safe to say most large corporations are definitely expecting an economic downturn of some kind. If not, they'd be negligent to their shareholders.

(01-03-2019 02:20 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-03-2019 02:12 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(01-03-2019 02:08 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-03-2019 11:54 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-02-2019 11:45 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  And what does any of that have to do with trump's projection of $4T, which UofM says "looks fairly solid" when we're only at .6T so far after a whole year?

I'd say we're doing pretty well on that front. $600 billion will create a lot of jobs, no matter how it is applied. Let's take the worst case, that it's all spent on stock buy-backs, and the former stockholders put it all in the bank. That's $600 billion more that banks have to lend to fund startups, expansion of exiting businesses, and large consumer purchases. And that's bad because? And remember, that's worst case.

Just one problem. As has been shown time and time again, corporations having more money does not magically create jobs! Buying back stock does not magically create jobs. Corporations, and any business really, adds jobs when they have product to sell. and you need people with money to buy those things. If waqes are remaining fairly stagnant and inflation occurs, it's not going to have all that much effect on jobs.

Just looking at my corporate employer, they got the huge tax cut, sold a portion of the business and now have mountains of cash on hand, yet we just went through a fairly decent sized reduction in our workforce. And in my sector, we are developing a new product requiring more work from all of us, yet we are not hiring and are not getting raises over our standard yearly COLA.

Of course it doesn't mean that every single employer will add to the workforce. It means that as a whole, the economy would add jobs.

Eventually, they will do something with that cash and put the money to work. It doesn't make sense for a company to sit on a ton of cash unless they are expecting an economic downturn of some kind.

I think it's safe to say most large corporations are definitely expecting an economic downturn of some kind. If not, they'd be negligent to their shareholders.

So then, what your company is doing is a good thing?

(01-03-2019 02:20 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-03-2019 02:12 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(01-03-2019 02:08 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-03-2019 11:54 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-02-2019 11:45 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  And what does any of that have to do with trump's projection of $4T, which UofM says "looks fairly solid" when we're only at .6T so far after a whole year?

I'd say we're doing pretty well on that front. $600 billion will create a lot of jobs, no matter how it is applied. Let's take the worst case, that it's all spent on stock buy-backs, and the former stockholders put it all in the bank. That's $600 billion more that banks have to lend to fund startups, expansion of exiting businesses, and large consumer purchases. And that's bad because? And remember, that's worst case.

Just one problem. As has been shown time and time again, corporations having more money does not magically create jobs! Buying back stock does not magically create jobs. Corporations, and any business really, adds jobs when they have product to sell. and you need people with money to buy those things. If waqes are remaining fairly stagnant and inflation occurs, it's not going to have all that much effect on jobs.
Just looking at my corporate employer, they got the huge tax cut, sold a portion of the business and now have mountains of cash on hand, yet we just went through a fairly decent sized reduction in our workforce. And in my sector, we are developing a new product requiring more work from all of us, yet we are not hiring and are not getting raises over our standard yearly COLA.

Of course it doesn't mean that every single employer will add to the workforce. It means that as a whole, the economy would add jobs.
Eventually, they will do something with that cash and put the money to work. It doesn't make sense for a company to sit on a ton of cash unless they are expecting an economic downturn of some kind.

I think it's safe to say most large corporations are definitely expecting an economic downturn of some kind. If not, they'd be negligent to their shareholders.

And I think that is more due to the well documented negative impact of the tariffs. If our farmers are going broke with unsold grain sitting in elevators and warehouses, that has to put a crimp on the economy as a whole. I oppose the tariffs. See, I can think independently about issues, instead of blindly following personalities.

(01-03-2019 02:20 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-03-2019 02:12 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(01-03-2019 02:08 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-03-2019 11:54 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-02-2019 11:45 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  And what does any of that have to do with trump's projection of $4T, which UofM says "looks fairly solid" when we're only at .6T so far after a whole year?

I'd say we're doing pretty well on that front. $600 billion will create a lot of jobs, no matter how it is applied. Let's take the worst case, that it's all spent on stock buy-backs, and the former stockholders put it all in the bank. That's $600 billion more that banks have to lend to fund startups, expansion of exiting businesses, and large consumer purchases. And that's bad because? And remember, that's worst case.

Just one problem. As has been shown time and time again, corporations having more money does not magically create jobs! Buying back stock does not magically create jobs. Corporations, and any business really, adds jobs when they have product to sell. and you need people with money to buy those things. If waqes are remaining fairly stagnant and inflation occurs, it's not going to have all that much effect on jobs.

Just looking at my corporate employer, they got the huge tax cut, sold a portion of the business and now have mountains of cash on hand, yet we just went through a fairly decent sized reduction in our workforce. And in my sector, we are developing a new product requiring more work from all of us, yet we are not hiring and are not getting raises over our standard yearly COLA.

Of course it doesn't mean that every single employer will add to the workforce. It means that as a whole, the economy would add jobs.

Eventually, they will do something with that cash and put the money to work. It doesn't make sense for a company to sit on a ton of cash unless they are expecting an economic downturn of some kind.

I think it's safe to say most large corporations are definitely expecting an economic downturn of some kind. If not, they'd be negligent to their shareholders.

Any prudent organization will do that regardless, but they don't like it because, as a rule, cash is a terrible earning asset. Why do you think banks hate having to hold so much capital post crises? It's the right thing to do, but all companies would prefer to deploy that cash which in turn, ultimately in the aggregate produces jobs.

(01-03-2019 02:37 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-03-2019 02:20 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-03-2019 02:12 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(01-03-2019 02:08 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-03-2019 11:54 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I'd say we're doing pretty well on that front. $600 billion will create a lot of jobs, no matter how it is applied. Let's take the worst case, that it's all spent on stock buy-backs, and the former stockholders put it all in the bank. That's $600 billion more that banks have to lend to fund startups, expansion of exiting businesses, and large consumer purchases. And that's bad because? And remember, that's worst case.

Just one problem. As has been shown time and time again, corporations having more money does not magically create jobs! Buying back stock does not magically create jobs. Corporations, and any business really, adds jobs when they have product to sell. and you need people with money to buy those things. If waqes are remaining fairly stagnant and inflation occurs, it's not going to have all that much effect on jobs.
Just looking at my corporate employer, they got the huge tax cut, sold a portion of the business and now have mountains of cash on hand, yet we just went through a fairly decent sized reduction in our workforce. And in my sector, we are developing a new product requiring more work from all of us, yet we are not hiring and are not getting raises over our standard yearly COLA.

Of course it doesn't mean that every single employer will add to the workforce. It means that as a whole, the economy would add jobs.
Eventually, they will do something with that cash and put the money to work. It doesn't make sense for a company to sit on a ton of cash unless they are expecting an economic downturn of some kind.

I think it's safe to say most large corporations are definitely expecting an economic downturn of some kind. If not, they'd be negligent to their shareholders.

And I think that is more due to the well documented negative impact of the tariffs. If our farmers are going broke with unsold grain sitting in elevators and warehouses, that has to put a crimp on the economy as a whole. I oppose the tariffs. See, I can think independently about issues, instead of blindly following personalities.

I've never really said otherwise about you in all actuality. But you are a rare exception here.

(01-03-2019 02:44 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(01-03-2019 02:20 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-03-2019 02:12 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(01-03-2019 02:08 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-03-2019 11:54 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I'd say we're doing pretty well on that front. $600 billion will create a lot of jobs, no matter how it is applied. Let's take the worst case, that it's all spent on stock buy-backs, and the former stockholders put it all in the bank. That's $600 billion more that banks have to lend to fund startups, expansion of exiting businesses, and large consumer purchases. And that's bad because? And remember, that's worst case.

Just one problem. As has been shown time and time again, corporations having more money does not magically create jobs! Buying back stock does not magically create jobs. Corporations, and any business really, adds jobs when they have product to sell. and you need people with money to buy those things. If waqes are remaining fairly stagnant and inflation occurs, it's not going to have all that much effect on jobs.

Just looking at my corporate employer, they got the huge tax cut, sold a portion of the business and now have mountains of cash on hand, yet we just went through a fairly decent sized reduction in our workforce. And in my sector, we are developing a new product requiring more work from all of us, yet we are not hiring and are not getting raises over our standard yearly COLA.

Of course it doesn't mean that every single employer will add to the workforce. It means that as a whole, the economy would add jobs.

Eventually, they will do something with that cash and put the money to work. It doesn't make sense for a company to sit on a ton of cash unless they are expecting an economic downturn of some kind.

I think it's safe to say most large corporations are definitely expecting an economic downturn of some kind. If not, they'd be negligent to their shareholders.

Any prudent organization will do that regardless, but they don't like it because, as a rule, cash is a terrible earning asset. Why do you think banks hate having to hold so much capital post crises? It's the right thing to do, but all companies would prefer to deploy that cash which in turn, ultimately in the aggregate produces jobs.

Of course, but they're not going to do it just to do it. They will need to have an end game that will boost profits. So bottom line, if they have cash and don't see an investment to make with it to boost profit, they indeed will just sit on it. Of course some will continue to buy back stock and increase executive pay regardless.

(01-03-2019 10:49 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-02-2019 10:00 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(01-02-2019 11:45 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-31-2018 03:48 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(12-31-2018 03:08 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

Well yeah.... you eventually run out of money to be returned to the country at the current rates....

but once the money is here, you collect taxes on its earnings every year.... and the money is invested in projects here, which you generally collect taxes on as well.

It's not the moving of the money here that is the big economic event... it's the KEEPING of the money here for years that is the big economic event.

JP Morgan is talking about the floor under the stock market and share buybacks broadly.... not talking about earnings from specific companies. Said differently, they're talking about stock prices, not the economy

And what does any of that have to do with trump's projection of $4T, which UofM says "looks fairly solid" when we're only at .6T so far after a whole year?

You'd have to ask UofM and Trump. I didn't address it because you didn't ask me to. You asked about the rapidly declining rate.

No, I didn't. As per the norm, you chose to comment on my comment to another poster with information unrelated my comment. I didn't ask either of you anything. Rather, I merely reiterated the fact the per JP Morgan, the flows are on a rapidly decelerating trajectory.

This isn't your private forum, Einstein.... It's a public forum. You don't get to pick and choose who read and respond to you....

And how ridiculous of you to ask me what MY comment had to do with someone else's, and then complain that you weren't speaking to me.

All of which is just a deflection to make people forget that you are focusing on a rather obvious fact of ANY finite event. You eventually run out of it.

(01-03-2019 05:12 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-03-2019 02:44 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(01-03-2019 02:20 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-03-2019 02:12 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(01-03-2019 02:08 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Just one problem. As has been shown time and time again, corporations having more money does not magically create jobs! Buying back stock does not magically create jobs. Corporations, and any business really, adds jobs when they have product to sell. and you need people with money to buy those things. If waqes are remaining fairly stagnant and inflation occurs, it's not going to have all that much effect on jobs.

Just looking at my corporate employer, they got the huge tax cut, sold a portion of the business and now have mountains of cash on hand, yet we just went through a fairly decent sized reduction in our workforce. And in my sector, we are developing a new product requiring more work from all of us, yet we are not hiring and are not getting raises over our standard yearly COLA.

Of course it doesn't mean that every single employer will add to the workforce. It means that as a whole, the economy would add jobs.

Eventually, they will do something with that cash and put the money to work. It doesn't make sense for a company to sit on a ton of cash unless they are expecting an economic downturn of some kind.

I think it's safe to say most large corporations are definitely expecting an economic downturn of some kind. If not, they'd be negligent to their shareholders.

Any prudent organization will do that regardless, but they don't like it because, as a rule, cash is a terrible earning asset. Why do you think banks hate having to hold so much capital post crises? It's the right thing to do, but all companies would prefer to deploy that cash which in turn, ultimately in the aggregate produces jobs.

Of course, but they're not going to do it just to do it. They will need to have an end game that will boost profits. So bottom line, if they have cash and don't see an investment to make with it to boost profit, they indeed will just sit on it. Of course some will continue to buy back stock and increase executive pay regardless.

You are talking extremes. Sitting on cash is the LAST thing they would want to do, unless they are Apple, Inc. BTW, stock buybacks are great. They increase share price which flows down to investors who then have more income to stimulate the economy. I do agree with you that exec salaries are crazy; but that's what the market commands, so it is what it is.

(01-04-2019 09:12 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(01-03-2019 05:12 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-03-2019 02:44 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(01-03-2019 02:20 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-03-2019 02:12 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  Of course it doesn't mean that every single employer will add to the workforce. It means that as a whole, the economy would add jobs.

Eventually, they will do something with that cash and put the money to work. It doesn't make sense for a company to sit on a ton of cash unless they are expecting an economic downturn of some kind.

I think it's safe to say most large corporations are definitely expecting an economic downturn of some kind. If not, they'd be negligent to their shareholders.

Any prudent organization will do that regardless, but they don't like it because, as a rule, cash is a terrible earning asset. Why do you think banks hate having to hold so much capital post crises? It's the right thing to do, but all companies would prefer to deploy that cash which in turn, ultimately in the aggregate produces jobs.

Of course, but they're not going to do it just to do it. They will need to have an end game that will boost profits. So bottom line, if they have cash and don't see an investment to make with it to boost profit, they indeed will just sit on it. Of course some will continue to buy back stock and increase executive pay regardless.

You are talking extremes. Sitting on cash is the LAST thing they would want to do, unless they are Apple, Inc. BTW, stock buybacks are great. They increase share price which flows down to investors who then have more income to stimulate the economy. I do agree with you that exec salaries are crazy; but that's what the market commands, so it is what it is.

Never claimed they would want to do this, but again, they're not going to just spend money because they have it.