5 ms·

U.S. balance now less than Apple cash

55 points by lacker 15y ago

hugh3 15y ago
Dude, I have more cash on hand than the US Government.
- hugh3 15y ago
  NB Not strictly speaking true, but ask me again next week. (Also, my net worth is positive, whereas theirs is negative to the tune of thirteen figures.)
  - aquark 15y ago
    Not exactly -- does the Federal govt even keep a balance sheet that shows assets - liabilities? How do you value the Federal assets? What's the going rate for a second hand air craft carrier?
    - w1ntermute 15y ago
      > What's the going rate for a second hand air craft carrier? Whatever an African dictator's willing to pay for it?
      - DrJokepu 15y ago
        More likely a European middle power that doesn't have the capacity to build one. France has a single usable active aircraft carrier. The United Kingdom has no usable aircraft carriers at the moment. HMS Invincible was decommissioned years ago, HMS Illustrious was modified recently so that it can only handle helicopters and Harriers except that Harriers have been decommissioned and all the helicopters are busy in Afghanistan. HMS Ark Royal has been decommissioned. HMS Queen Elizabeth won't be ready before 2020. Germany has no aircraft carrier. The problems caused by the lack of aircraft carriers in Europe were clearly demonstrated during the recent conflict in Libya. I wouldn't be surprised at all if one of the European countries would be interested in purchasing or leasing a carrier. The United States would obviously never sell such a ship to a random third world dictator but I don't see why wouldn't they sell it to one of their allies.
        w1ntermute 15y ago
        > The United States would obviously never sell such a ship to a random third world dictator You might be surprised by the lengths that the United States (covertly) goes to to please third world dictators in its quest for global hegemony.
    - jdminhbg 15y ago
      I know you're just trying to make a point, but the value of an aircraft carrier is most likely infinitesimal compared to the value of land the Federal government owns. I think the Feds are probably in the black, though not in liquid assets.
    - _delirium 15y ago
      Also, what's the value of the ability to print infinite numbers of dollars? I'd imagine that, in dollar-denominated terms, it's quite large...
dfischer 15y ago
Apple is killing it. It's insane how much money they're making now. Not only that, I think they're half valued.
charlesju 15y ago
The United States government does not need cash on hand. It can just make money out of thin air. It's called quantitative easing.
shawnee_ 15y ago
There are only two things that a company can do with its profit: 1. Invest the proceeds back into the company. 2. Pay profits out to the shareholders. That is it. These days, companies tend to do more of #1 and less of #2 -- they define "investing the proceeds back into the company" as increasing the salaries / benefits of the company's top executives. Historically, the US government foresaw this problem of too much power in the hands of too few people, both in the government itself, and in the private sector. When the Federal Income Tax was originally implemented it stated that all businesses would be liable for taxes, and only the wealthiest people (read == the "moguls", back in the day) would be responsible for paying taxes (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2783480 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2783480). Think about the underlying brilliance of this plan: income taxes are tiered, based on profit (the more you make, the more you pay). If a company was making excessive profit, it could do one of two things to "decrease" the tax burden: hire more people, or create a "market" for stocks that can reward the common Joe. The original income tax laws laid out would have allowed a company to pay someone $100K (in 2011 dollars) tax-free. However, that $100K, if kept as "profit" for the company would be subject to Corporate income tax. (Q: Guess who voted NO on letting shareholders vote on executive compensation? (Jul 2009)) Hint - http://www.ontheissues.org/ http://www.ontheissues.org/ ) (A: the speaker of the House). When shareholders aren't allowed to regulate their "ownership" of a company (especially when it's just tiny percentage), they don't get a say on how those profits are used, and executive salaries continue to bloat. Those at the top whine, complain that they are the "job creators", and should not be subjected to such taxation. But this is exactly what is supposed to happen: their salaries would not be so high if the companies they controlled were not doing so well. If they're doing well, they should be either hiring more people (people with jobs would be less reliant on government assistance), OR gradually increasing the well-being of shareholders by paying out dividends to those who own only a tiny fraction of the company. But, it's not working out like that. The checks and balances that the founding fathers put into place to prevent the notion of absolute power corrupting absolutely have become weighted down by the greed of a few.
- stretchwithme 15y ago
  The government did not have the foresight to tax away the wealth of the wealth. They saw a way to collect money without a popular revolt and they went for it. And they had to change the Constitution to do it. It seems the founders are the ones with the actual foresight. They knew that government tends to expand its power and consume more and more of the people's resources, so they tried to keep it small and restricted.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
losethos 15y ago
Somehow, I don't think Apple is in the sights of the liberals who hate corporations.
tnorthcutt 15y ago
That's because Apple collects more money than it spends, while the U.S. government does not.
xradionut 15y ago
Who needs cash when you have large numbers of nuclear weapons for leverage?
davidedicillo 15y ago
I wonder what would happen if a country like U.S. would say "Ok, we failed, fk democracy, from tomorrow we hire Steve Jobs (or any CEO of that caliber like Jeff Bezos) to run the country. Senate and House can go home, we don't need them."
- Cushman 15y ago
  It'd be nothing new. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Caesar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Caesar Edit: That article has a few appropriate quotes, actually. During his early career, Caesar had seen how chaotic and dysfunctional the Roman Republic had become. The republican machinery had broken down under the weight of imperialism, the central government had become powerless, the provinces had been transformed into independent principalities under the absolute control of their governors, and the army had replaced the constitution as the means of accomplishing political goals. With a weak central government, political corruption had spiraled out of control, and the status quo had been maintained by a corrupt aristocracy, which saw no need to change a system that had made its members rich.
  - gte910h 15y ago
    This actually had been done a couple times before. The person who actually did it most completely was not Caesar, but instead Sulla (the generation before Caesar). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucius_Cornelius_Sulla http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucius_Cornelius_Sulla They were called the Cornealian Laws. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucius_Cornelius_Sulla#Dictatorship_and_Constitutional_Reforms http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucius_Cornelius_Sulla#Dictator... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Reforms_of_Lucius_Cornelius_Sulla http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Reforms_of_Luciu... Caesar did similar things, but in the other direction, and less like the guy specified.
    - Cushman 15y ago
      It certainly has a rich tradition! Although I don't think it's accurate to say Sulla took power more completely than Caesar did... Remember that Dictator was an actual office in the Republic, normally time limited, and that Sulla voluntarily resigned the post where Caesar took it all the way to Dictator for Life.

55 points by lacker 15y ago

hugh3 15y ago

Dude, I have more cash on hand than the US Government.

hugh3 15y ago
NB Not strictly speaking true, but ask me again next week. (Also, my net worth is positive, whereas theirs is negative to the tune of thirteen figures.)
- aquark 15y ago
  Not exactly -- does the Federal govt even keep a balance sheet that shows assets - liabilities? How do you value the Federal assets? What's the going rate for a second hand air craft carrier?
  - w1ntermute 15y ago
    > What's the going rate for a second hand air craft carrier? Whatever an African dictator's willing to pay for it?
    - DrJokepu 15y ago
      More likely a European middle power that doesn't have the capacity to build one. France has a single usable active aircraft carrier. The United Kingdom has no usable aircraft carriers at the moment. HMS Invincible was decommissioned years ago, HMS Illustrious was modified recently so that it can only handle helicopters and Harriers except that Harriers have been decommissioned and all the helicopters are busy in Afghanistan. HMS Ark Royal has been decommissioned. HMS Queen Elizabeth won't be ready before 2020. Germany has no aircraft carrier. The problems caused by the lack of aircraft carriers in Europe were clearly demonstrated during the recent conflict in Libya. I wouldn't be surprised at all if one of the European countries would be interested in purchasing or leasing a carrier. The United States would obviously never sell such a ship to a random third world dictator but I don't see why wouldn't they sell it to one of their allies.
      - w1ntermute 15y ago
        > The United States would obviously never sell such a ship to a random third world dictator You might be surprised by the lengths that the United States (covertly) goes to to please third world dictators in its quest for global hegemony.
  - jdminhbg 15y ago
    I know you're just trying to make a point, but the value of an aircraft carrier is most likely infinitesimal compared to the value of land the Federal government owns. I think the Feds are probably in the black, though not in liquid assets.
  - _delirium 15y ago
    Also, what's the value of the ability to print infinite numbers of dollars? I'd imagine that, in dollar-denominated terms, it's quite large...

dfischer 15y ago

Apple is killing it. It's insane how much money they're making now. Not only that, I think they're half valued.

charlesju 15y ago

The United States government does not need cash on hand. It can just make money out of thin air. It's called quantitative easing.

shawnee_ 15y ago

There are only two things that a company can do with its profit: 1. Invest the proceeds back into the company. 2. Pay profits out to the shareholders. That is it. These days, companies tend to do more of #1 and less of #2 -- they define "investing the proceeds back into the company" as increasing the salaries / benefits of the company's top executives. Historically, the US government foresaw this problem of too much power in the hands of too few people, both in the government itself, and in the private sector. When the Federal Income Tax was originally implemented it stated that all businesses would be liable for taxes, and only the wealthiest people (read == the "moguls", back in the day) would be responsible for paying taxes (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2783480 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2783480). Think about the underlying brilliance of this plan: income taxes are tiered, based on profit (the more you make, the more you pay). If a company was making excessive profit, it could do one of two things to "decrease" the tax burden: hire more people, or create a "market" for stocks that can reward the common Joe. The original income tax laws laid out would have allowed a company to pay someone $100K (in 2011 dollars) tax-free. However, that $100K, if kept as "profit" for the company would be subject to Corporate income tax. (Q: Guess who voted NO on letting shareholders vote on executive compensation? (Jul 2009)) Hint - http://www.ontheissues.org/ http://www.ontheissues.org/ ) (A: the speaker of the House). When shareholders aren't allowed to regulate their "ownership" of a company (especially when it's just tiny percentage), they don't get a say on how those profits are used, and executive salaries continue to bloat. Those at the top whine, complain that they are the "job creators", and should not be subjected to such taxation. But this is exactly what is supposed to happen: their salaries would not be so high if the companies they controlled were not doing so well. If they're doing well, they should be either hiring more people (people with jobs would be less reliant on government assistance), OR gradually increasing the well-being of shareholders by paying out dividends to those who own only a tiny fraction of the company. But, it's not working out like that. The checks and balances that the founding fathers put into place to prevent the notion of absolute power corrupting absolutely have become weighted down by the greed of a few.

stretchwithme 15y ago
The government did not have the foresight to tax away the wealth of the wealth. They saw a way to collect money without a popular revolt and they went for it. And they had to change the Constitution to do it. It seems the founders are the ones with the actual foresight. They knew that government tends to expand its power and consume more and more of the people's resources, so they tried to keep it small and restricted.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

losethos 15y ago

Somehow, I don't think Apple is in the sights of the liberals who hate corporations.

tnorthcutt 15y ago

That's because Apple collects more money than it spends, while the U.S. government does not.

xradionut 15y ago

Who needs cash when you have large numbers of nuclear weapons for leverage?

davidedicillo 15y ago

I wonder what would happen if a country like U.S. would say "Ok, we failed, fk democracy, from tomorrow we hire Steve Jobs (or any CEO of that caliber like Jeff Bezos) to run the country. Senate and House can go home, we don't need them."

Cushman 15y ago
It'd be nothing new. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Caesar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Caesar Edit: That article has a few appropriate quotes, actually. During his early career, Caesar had seen how chaotic and dysfunctional the Roman Republic had become. The republican machinery had broken down under the weight of imperialism, the central government had become powerless, the provinces had been transformed into independent principalities under the absolute control of their governors, and the army had replaced the constitution as the means of accomplishing political goals. With a weak central government, political corruption had spiraled out of control, and the status quo had been maintained by a corrupt aristocracy, which saw no need to change a system that had made its members rich.
- gte910h 15y ago
  This actually had been done a couple times before. The person who actually did it most completely was not Caesar, but instead Sulla (the generation before Caesar). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucius_Cornelius_Sulla http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucius_Cornelius_Sulla They were called the Cornealian Laws. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucius_Cornelius_Sulla#Dictatorship_and_Constitutional_Reforms http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucius_Cornelius_Sulla#Dictator... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Reforms_of_Lucius_Cornelius_Sulla http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Reforms_of_Luciu... Caesar did similar things, but in the other direction, and less like the guy specified.
  - Cushman 15y ago
    It certainly has a rich tradition! Although I don't think it's accurate to say Sulla took power more completely than Caesar did... Remember that Dictator was an actual office in the Republic, normally time limited, and that Sulla voluntarily resigned the post where Caesar took it all the way to Dictator for Life.