Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Is this correct that..
banks and companies are sitting on trillions of dollars <-- largely true
and not spending / investing this... <--open to subjective interpretation
Or is this just liberal spin? <--largely false; but still open to subjective interpretation
Is this correct that banks and companies are sitting on trillions of dollars and not spending / investing this..Or is this just liberal spin.?
Why don't you go look at their 10 Filings. They file them every quarter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novadhd5150
How about hiring some new employees or something to that effect?
Why would banks hire more employees? Banks are already over-staffed and trying to dump labor.
Why would you borrow money to hire employees? You do that at start-up. Once you're running you rely on, um, evil profits to hire more employees.
You can start your own business. There's a thread somewhere here from 4 years ago where I said if you wanted to work, you'll have to work as a temp or start your own business. I think we're almost there (and I said that before Obama was even president).
Yes, banks are sitting on large piles of cash reserves that they are not lending or spending on expanding operations and hiring. They are behaving this way because we demanded they do it. After the meltdown in 2008, banks were bailed out with taxpayer TARP money, and were subjected to stress tests, which resulted in the government raising the capital requirements that banks now have to abide by. In other words, they got caught short of cash reserves and had to take taxpeyer bailouts, which made everyone angry, so we told the banks they had to raise more cash and keep it in the vaults in case of another meltdown so that they wouldn't need more taxpayer money. They've done that, and now we question why they don't loan it all out or hire people with it??
They can't have their money for safety and use it too, can they?
Why don't you go look at their 10 Filings. They file them every quarter.
Why would banks hire more employees? Banks are already over-staffed and trying to dump labor.
Why would you borrow money to hire employees? You do that at start-up. Once you're running you rely on, um, evil profits to hire more employees.
You can start your own business. There's a thread somewhere here from 4 years ago where I said if you wanted to work, you'll have to work as a temp or start your own business. I think we're almost there (and I said that before Obama was even president).
I wasnt just referring to banks, but corporations.
Also banks invest dont they, do they really need to sit on billions of dollars in reserves? They need to loan the money to small business so they can hire .
the average cash-to-assets ratio more than doubled over our sample period, from 10.5% in 1980 to 23.2% in 2006.
this document goes into some of the particulars, about why firms have been holding more cash over the past 30 years.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
