4 ms·

I don't understand why you're being downvoted. I think this is an interesting point. They're not cycling that money back into the economy, they're holding onto

I don't understand why you're being downvoted. I think this is an interesting point. They're not cycling that money back into the economy, they're holding onto it. Which, in general, is considered bad for the economy, no?

chooseaname 6y ago
> They're not cycling that money back into the economy, they're holding onto it. I'm no economist, but this seems counter to what we've been told since Reagan.
mcphage 6y ago
> They're not cycling that money back into the economy, they're holding onto it. I definitely agree with you here, but my point was slightly different—they can't even use that money to improve their products. They're successful beyond compare but that doesn't even do them much good, let alone anyone else.
perl4ever 6y ago
Their money doesn't represent resources sitting idle. The whole point of the financial system is that there isn't $X trillion idle. The securities they own are claims on stuff other people are using. Talking about cycling it back into the economy is nonsense, because it isn't, can't be, taken out.
- mcphage 6y ago
  > because it isn't, can't be, taken out Well, they do when they issue stock buybacks and dividends.
  - perl4ever 6y ago
    How can that be? At the time the money is paid, nobody knows what the recipient will use it for. So how can anyone be taking any specific material stuff "out" of the economy? Apple doesn't pay dividends in, say, eggplants. If you buy some with your dividend, they haven't been taken out of the economy any more than anything that's consumed.