14 ms·

Apple now holding more cash than USA

150 points by JacobAldridge 15y ago

thaumaturgy 15y ago
Supply-side economists, take note.
- cdonnellytx 15y ago
  Unfortunately, they will take note of it as "run the government like a business", which tends to be how supply-side economists would prefer the government to be run anyway.
  - orijing 15y ago
    They want lower revenues for the government. I would hope that it's not the same philosophy for their businesses.
    - fourspace 15y ago
      No, they want spending to be less than or equal to revenues. That's the only rational way to run a business.
      - JacobAldridge 15y ago
        "That's the only rational way to run a business." Actually, it's not - ask any business that's taken funding, borrowed to invest, or even run an overdraft as part of their low season. Spending less than or equal to revenues is one way to run a business, especially a small business that you only intend to grow incrementally (if at all). Borrowing to invest for faster growth is a very rational way to run a business in many situations (market opportunity, large personal vision etc). Again, I'm just addressing the business analogy - here's my politics disclaimer http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2822770 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2822770
        fourspace 15y ago
        To clarify, I meant over the long term. If you're not making profits or at least breaking even over the long term (spending <= revenues), you're out of business. The problem with the US is that they aren't just borrowing in a low season, they're borrowing every season.
        kwis 15y ago
        If my business could borrow at the same rates as the US government I would take on as much debt as possible, in perpetuity.
        tomjen3 15y ago
        But you would properly build or create something with it. That is the problem the US have -- they don't create anything.
    - JacobAldridge 15y ago
      They also want a smaller scope for the government. So it's not like saying 'I want to run this business but bring in less money', it's more like saying 'I want to run a smaller business, so what departments can we do without'. Smaller business may actually make more profit (read: be more efficient) than the larger one. I try not to claim a political preference left or right[1], but to prevent confusion I do feel they're trying to make this 'business' much smaller than it needs to be. [1] My political preference is merely that politicans are like diapers. They need to be changed regularly, and for the same reason.
      - entangld 15y ago
        Does part of corporate "efficiency" include billions of dollars in bonuses? That doesn't seem very efficient to me. The effect of large bonuses on the cost of administration seems a bit high.
apress 15y ago
Of course, there's actually a much deeper and more important connection. The huge cash hoards of Apple, Google, Microsoft and other big multinational corporations are a direct outgrowth of clever tax strategies they use to shift profits to low-tax countries and avoid US taxes. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/27/us-microsoft-tax-idUSTRE76Q6OB20110727 http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/27/us-microsoft-tax-i... Corporate tax payments as a percentage of total tax revenues are low and historically low compared to the size of the economy. http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Tax-VOX/2011/0209/Corporate-tax-only-a-piece-of-tax-revenue-pie http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Tax-VOX/2011/0209/Corporat... http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=263 http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Doc...
- kevin_morrill 15y ago
  It's a bit strange to call it shifting when the profits were made overseas. And it's no surprise they'd keep it off shores once they've made it, since they'd have to give up 35% of it to bring the money inside the U.S.
  - apress 15y ago
    This is not about profits made overseas, say like selling iPhones in China This is the use of complex strategies, like creating a shell company in the Isle of man that "owns" intellectual property and "licenses" it to the US subsidiary for a fee that just happens to equal most of the profits on US sales. The profits go to the tax haven and never come back.
    - tomelders 15y ago
      In this instance, to my knowledge, Apple isn't using shell companies. It has iTunes set up in Luxembourg, but that's a very real company. And each country has it's own Apple subsidiary which again are real companies in their own right. I'd say that it's hardly tax avoidance, since they pay their taxes in the countries where the revenue is generated. No one in their right mind would give up 35% of their wealth simply to move it to a different country, and nor should they.
grannyg00se 15y ago
"the country has an operating cash balance of $73.7bn" How is this so? I thought the annual budget was in deficit. Quite significantly, in fact. And not to mention the country has a massive debt. Although I understand how that may not affect the operating cash balance. The headline definitely seems like it could be used as a sound bite for corporate tax increase commentary.
- JacobAldridge 15y ago
  The difference (in very simplistic terms) is Budget v Cash flow. Think like a business - I might need to borrow funds to cover all my costs this year, but when I make a sale that's still cash coming in. See the graph here - http://www.slate.com/id/2299845/ http://www.slate.com/id/2299845/. "you will also see some spikes in revenue after borrowing is maxed out. This can be attributed to many things - an influx of tax revenue, profits from the Federal Reserve's holdings, and the general movement of funds and debt between accounts." Also, if the funds you borrow are sitting in an account while you wait to pay future bills, you may have a deficit but a positive cash balance. (Of course, it's not quite that simple. Borrowings in a business are normally a liability on a balance sheet, though the interest and repayments would affect the budget.)
- rauljara 15y ago
  To use a terrible analogy that doesn't hold up under close scrutiny but is sufficiently accurate to answer your question: Just because you spend more than you earn using your credit card doesn't mean you don't have money in the bank. You can also use your credit card to put cash in your bank account. The US doesn't hand people treasury bonds to pay them. It uses treasury bonds to put money in its treasury. Then it pays its operating expenses out of the treasury. If the treasure runs down to zero, it can't pay any of its expenses, but it will almost certainly never run down to zero. It gets in new revenues all the time (even without borrowing). Just not enough to meet all of its expenses.
- hugh3 15y ago
  A compulsive gambler, already hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt, goes to a loan shark to borrow another five hundred bucks. He now has an operating cash balance of five hundred dollars, while still having a net worth of minus six figures.
entangld 15y ago
How do giant stacks of uninvested cash in corporate coffers improve the economy? I wish someone could explain this.
- thematt 15y ago
  Those "corporate coffers" you refer to are real investments. Apple is not going to settle for getting a 0% return on the cash it holds. It has to put the money somewhere. It's going to invest it in something, whether it be stocks, bonds, or a bank account of some type...all of which benefit the economy in a different way.
lawlit 15y ago
What will happen to the American if the congress does not vote on the rise ?
- tomelders 15y ago
  No one can say for sure. It's a doomsday scenario that no one is really prepared for. The only thing anyone can say with any certainty is that the next president of the USA will be a Republican, because that's what this is all about. Destroy the economy, blame the incumbent, and scoop up the next election.
  - hugh3 15y ago
    Not really. One thing we can be grateful for is that neither party really wants a default, because neither party is confident that it would be the electoral beneficiary. It might seem that Republicans would get the benefit, but this fact in itself provides a reason for people to blame Republicans if things go bad, since they'll assume (as you appear to be doing) that they caused the default in order to get the benefit. This makes it pretty much a wash -- if bad things happen, both sides will blame the other and we can't quite see in advance how it'll all play out in the court of public opinion.
  - brown9-2 15y ago
    Disagree strongly. If catastrophe happens, voters just may remember who caused it. I'd like to come back to this comment in 16 months.
    - tomelders 15y ago
      Oh if only that were even remotely realistic, what a wonderful world this would be, full of love and joy and happiness, instead of the miserable, hate filled and self destructive reality we actually live in. Adlai Stevenson said it best: When a supporter told him he "had the vote of the thinking man", he replied "Thank you, but I need a majority to win." It's funny because it's true. It's also very very sad, because it's true. The vast majority of the voting public are idiotic to the point of absurdity. Let's take a trip down memory lane and look at some of the mind numbingly stupid things many and most of the american electorate believe/believed. Health Care reform = Death Panels & Socialism Bill Clinton was/is a serial killer. Gay Marriage is immoral Al Gore claimed to invent the internet. Al Gore invented the internet. 18% of people believe Obama is a muslim. That's up 7 points on the previous year. 34% of people DON'T know that Obama is a Christian. 45% of republicans believe Barrack Obama was born outside of the United States. 99% of republicans believe John McCain was born IN the United States. Global warming is a myth/hoax. There is a god. I'll save the best till last. The following are all conscious lies, that came out of the mouths of US politicians, and were believed by significant amounts, if not the majority of the US electorate: Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11 Iraq and al-Qa'ida were working together Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa Iraq was trying to import aluminium tubes to develop nuclear weapons Iraq had WMDs Iraq had missiles that could reach the UK Saddam Hussein had the wherewithal to develop smallpox US and British claims were supported by the IAEA inspectors Iraq was obstructing the inspectors Iraq could deploy its weapons of mass destruction in 45 minutes Troops would face chemical and biological weapons Iraq's oil money would go to Iraqis And the coup de grâce! WMD's were found in Iraq, or to quote Bush precisely from may 30th 2003: "Those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons - they're wrong. We found them." All lies, every single one of them. You see, here's the rub: The truth doesn't matter one teeny tiny incy wincy little bit. No where on the face of this planet do electorates vote on truth, or even policy. They have no long term memory. And heaven forbid they ever change because it would be impossible to win a majority if they did. All the republicans want to do is destroy Barrack Obama. There's no plan B, they have no idea what they would do if they did destroy him and they don't care how much damage they do in the process. It's a scorched earth policy. But if they do force a default and ruin the global economy, come the next election it wont matter whose fault it was because that wont be the story. The story will be whatever the republicans want it to be. It will be a lie, and things will be so bad, people will be so angry, that they'll believe it.
ridruejo 15y ago
Can't wait to see what iBama will look like :)
Alex3917 15y ago
To be fair, just about everyone reading this will probably have more cash than the USA in another week or two.
- binbasti 15y ago
  At this burn rate, it's more like 3 days... http://www.zerohedge.com/news/treasury-cash-drops-15-billion-overnight-516-billion-5-billion-sgp-bills-roll http://www.zerohedge.com/news/treasury-cash-drops-15-billion...
rickdale 15y ago
If you have $1 you are holding more cash than the US.
- nivertech 15y ago
  If you have $1 and don't have a mortgage or other debts
  - rickdale 15y ago
    I said more cash, not more worth or value. Thanks for the downvotes, great to see everyone is using their noggins these days.
nhaehnle 15y ago
A corporation holding cash means they're not investing as much as they could according to supply-side economic thinking. This should make people reflect on the state of the economy. While it's true that some companies just like to hoard cash (e.g. Microsoft), this may just be the symptom of a bigger problem. With consumers low on cash due to the recession, it simply makes no sense to invest any more. This in turn guarantees that consumers will stay low on cash because a lot of slack remains in the job market.
- funthree 15y ago
  Apple forbid they'd bring those manufacturing jobs to the US and actually pay some Californians a decent wage and help their own country. http://harryjerry.com/tech/how-apple-products-are-made-in-foxconn/ http://harryjerry.com/tech/how-apple-products-are-made-in-fo... http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=usunemployment&ctype=l&strail=false&nselm=h&met_y=unemployment_rate&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=state&idim=state:ST060000&ifdim=state&tdim=true&tstart=633592800000&tend=1309323600000&icfg&uniSize=0.035&iconSize=0.5 http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=usunemployment&#...
  - jodrellblank 15y ago
    Aren't companies legally required to act in the vest interests of shareholders? Overpaying for production out of patriotic racism doesn't seem to fit that mould.
    - wisty 15y ago
      No. Some free-market fundamentalists say that companies should have an ethical obligation to maximize profit for their shareholders. I think the law says that companies are required to follow their constitution. Generally, the board of directors interprets that constitution, and then tells the CEO what to do. Shareholders may be able to vote to change the constitution, but this would be covered by the company's constitution. I think non-profits can be companies. That would be a very clear example of companies that are not legally required to act in the interests of shareholders.
- 15y ago
jasongullickson 15y ago
So...when's the buy-out?
ck2 15y ago
Steve Jobs only pays 15% taxes which is probably part of it. (seriously, this is a fact http://seekingalpha.com/article/183086-steve-jobs-thrives-on-dividend-income http://seekingalpha.com/article/183086-steve-jobs-thrives-on... ) Take money from USA consumers, pour it into China manufacturing. They certainly aren't the only ones doing it but add them all up and you'll start to understand the problem.
- nkassis 15y ago
  Waren Buffet was talking a while back about how it's ridiculous that he pays 17% taxes when his secretary pays over 30%. He's not a big fan of the current capital gain tax.
- tomjen3 15y ago
  And how many millons does he pay more than you? Stop whining about the wealthy. Steve earned his money, you have no right to them.
  - tty 15y ago
    >Steve earned his money, you have no right to them. Are you implying Steve earned all the money Apple has?
rexreed 15y ago
What exactly will Apple do with this cash other than buy billion-dollar patent portfolios? Are there potential big acquisition deals in the works that make sense?
timedoctor 15y ago
The government will get the money eventually through increased taxes or through printing more money and deflating the value of the apple "cash" pile. All the Government has to do is to print money and they can take Apple's money without Apple being able to do anything about it!
- dangrossman 15y ago
  Nothing says Apple must keep the money in the form of US dollars in a bank account. If it's sitting in any kind of investment that tracks inflation, printing money won't take the money. If they choose to keep it in other currencies, printing money won't take the money.
angelortega 15y ago
It's time to nationalize Apple, sell its assets and use the money to take off of the crisis.
- Wentz 15y ago
  Sarcasm?
  - angelortega 15y ago
    Just kidding, but some people aren't just able to accept a joke about Apple. All this does not make my initial comment less true, though.
anmollll 15y ago
some companies are massive they have really grown over the years. http://www.video2dvd.zoomshare.com http://www.video2dvd.zoomshare.com

150 points by JacobAldridge 15y ago

thaumaturgy 15y ago

Supply-side economists, take note.

cdonnellytx 15y ago
Unfortunately, they will take note of it as "run the government like a business", which tends to be how supply-side economists would prefer the government to be run anyway.
- orijing 15y ago
  They want lower revenues for the government. I would hope that it's not the same philosophy for their businesses.
  - fourspace 15y ago
    No, they want spending to be less than or equal to revenues. That's the only rational way to run a business.
    - JacobAldridge 15y ago
      "That's the only rational way to run a business." Actually, it's not - ask any business that's taken funding, borrowed to invest, or even run an overdraft as part of their low season. Spending less than or equal to revenues is one way to run a business, especially a small business that you only intend to grow incrementally (if at all). Borrowing to invest for faster growth is a very rational way to run a business in many situations (market opportunity, large personal vision etc). Again, I'm just addressing the business analogy - here's my politics disclaimer http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2822770 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2822770
      - fourspace 15y ago
        To clarify, I meant over the long term. If you're not making profits or at least breaking even over the long term (spending <= revenues), you're out of business. The problem with the US is that they aren't just borrowing in a low season, they're borrowing every season.
        kwis 15y ago
        If my business could borrow at the same rates as the US government I would take on as much debt as possible, in perpetuity.
        tomjen3 15y ago
        But you would properly build or create something with it. That is the problem the US have -- they don't create anything.
  - JacobAldridge 15y ago
    They also want a smaller scope for the government. So it's not like saying 'I want to run this business but bring in less money', it's more like saying 'I want to run a smaller business, so what departments can we do without'. Smaller business may actually make more profit (read: be more efficient) than the larger one. I try not to claim a political preference left or right[1], but to prevent confusion I do feel they're trying to make this 'business' much smaller than it needs to be. [1] My political preference is merely that politicans are like diapers. They need to be changed regularly, and for the same reason.
    - entangld 15y ago
      Does part of corporate "efficiency" include billions of dollars in bonuses? That doesn't seem very efficient to me. The effect of large bonuses on the cost of administration seems a bit high.

apress 15y ago

Of course, there's actually a much deeper and more important connection. The huge cash hoards of Apple, Google, Microsoft and other big multinational corporations are a direct outgrowth of clever tax strategies they use to shift profits to low-tax countries and avoid US taxes. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/27/us-microsoft-tax-idUSTRE76Q6OB20110727 http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/27/us-microsoft-tax-i... Corporate tax payments as a percentage of total tax revenues are low and historically low compared to the size of the economy. http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Tax-VOX/2011/0209/Corporate-tax-only-a-piece-of-tax-revenue-pie http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Tax-VOX/2011/0209/Corporat... http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=263 http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Doc...

kevin_morrill 15y ago
It's a bit strange to call it shifting when the profits were made overseas. And it's no surprise they'd keep it off shores once they've made it, since they'd have to give up 35% of it to bring the money inside the U.S.
- apress 15y ago
  This is not about profits made overseas, say like selling iPhones in China This is the use of complex strategies, like creating a shell company in the Isle of man that "owns" intellectual property and "licenses" it to the US subsidiary for a fee that just happens to equal most of the profits on US sales. The profits go to the tax haven and never come back.
  - tomelders 15y ago
    In this instance, to my knowledge, Apple isn't using shell companies. It has iTunes set up in Luxembourg, but that's a very real company. And each country has it's own Apple subsidiary which again are real companies in their own right. I'd say that it's hardly tax avoidance, since they pay their taxes in the countries where the revenue is generated. No one in their right mind would give up 35% of their wealth simply to move it to a different country, and nor should they.

grannyg00se 15y ago

"the country has an operating cash balance of $73.7bn" How is this so? I thought the annual budget was in deficit. Quite significantly, in fact. And not to mention the country has a massive debt. Although I understand how that may not affect the operating cash balance. The headline definitely seems like it could be used as a sound bite for corporate tax increase commentary.

JacobAldridge 15y ago
The difference (in very simplistic terms) is Budget v Cash flow. Think like a business - I might need to borrow funds to cover all my costs this year, but when I make a sale that's still cash coming in. See the graph here - http://www.slate.com/id/2299845/ http://www.slate.com/id/2299845/. "you will also see some spikes in revenue after borrowing is maxed out. This can be attributed to many things - an influx of tax revenue, profits from the Federal Reserve's holdings, and the general movement of funds and debt between accounts." Also, if the funds you borrow are sitting in an account while you wait to pay future bills, you may have a deficit but a positive cash balance. (Of course, it's not quite that simple. Borrowings in a business are normally a liability on a balance sheet, though the interest and repayments would affect the budget.)
rauljara 15y ago
To use a terrible analogy that doesn't hold up under close scrutiny but is sufficiently accurate to answer your question: Just because you spend more than you earn using your credit card doesn't mean you don't have money in the bank. You can also use your credit card to put cash in your bank account. The US doesn't hand people treasury bonds to pay them. It uses treasury bonds to put money in its treasury. Then it pays its operating expenses out of the treasury. If the treasure runs down to zero, it can't pay any of its expenses, but it will almost certainly never run down to zero. It gets in new revenues all the time (even without borrowing). Just not enough to meet all of its expenses.
hugh3 15y ago
A compulsive gambler, already hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt, goes to a loan shark to borrow another five hundred bucks. He now has an operating cash balance of five hundred dollars, while still having a net worth of minus six figures.

entangld 15y ago

How do giant stacks of uninvested cash in corporate coffers improve the economy? I wish someone could explain this.

thematt 15y ago
Those "corporate coffers" you refer to are real investments. Apple is not going to settle for getting a 0% return on the cash it holds. It has to put the money somewhere. It's going to invest it in something, whether it be stocks, bonds, or a bank account of some type...all of which benefit the economy in a different way.

lawlit 15y ago

What will happen to the American if the congress does not vote on the rise ?

tomelders 15y ago
No one can say for sure. It's a doomsday scenario that no one is really prepared for. The only thing anyone can say with any certainty is that the next president of the USA will be a Republican, because that's what this is all about. Destroy the economy, blame the incumbent, and scoop up the next election.
- hugh3 15y ago
  Not really. One thing we can be grateful for is that neither party really wants a default, because neither party is confident that it would be the electoral beneficiary. It might seem that Republicans would get the benefit, but this fact in itself provides a reason for people to blame Republicans if things go bad, since they'll assume (as you appear to be doing) that they caused the default in order to get the benefit. This makes it pretty much a wash -- if bad things happen, both sides will blame the other and we can't quite see in advance how it'll all play out in the court of public opinion.
- brown9-2 15y ago
  Disagree strongly. If catastrophe happens, voters just may remember who caused it. I'd like to come back to this comment in 16 months.
  - tomelders 15y ago
    Oh if only that were even remotely realistic, what a wonderful world this would be, full of love and joy and happiness, instead of the miserable, hate filled and self destructive reality we actually live in. Adlai Stevenson said it best: When a supporter told him he "had the vote of the thinking man", he replied "Thank you, but I need a majority to win." It's funny because it's true. It's also very very sad, because it's true. The vast majority of the voting public are idiotic to the point of absurdity. Let's take a trip down memory lane and look at some of the mind numbingly stupid things many and most of the american electorate believe/believed. Health Care reform = Death Panels & Socialism Bill Clinton was/is a serial killer. Gay Marriage is immoral Al Gore claimed to invent the internet. Al Gore invented the internet. 18% of people believe Obama is a muslim. That's up 7 points on the previous year. 34% of people DON'T know that Obama is a Christian. 45% of republicans believe Barrack Obama was born outside of the United States. 99% of republicans believe John McCain was born IN the United States. Global warming is a myth/hoax. There is a god. I'll save the best till last. The following are all conscious lies, that came out of the mouths of US politicians, and were believed by significant amounts, if not the majority of the US electorate: Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11 Iraq and al-Qa'ida were working together Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa Iraq was trying to import aluminium tubes to develop nuclear weapons Iraq had WMDs Iraq had missiles that could reach the UK Saddam Hussein had the wherewithal to develop smallpox US and British claims were supported by the IAEA inspectors Iraq was obstructing the inspectors Iraq could deploy its weapons of mass destruction in 45 minutes Troops would face chemical and biological weapons Iraq's oil money would go to Iraqis And the coup de grâce! WMD's were found in Iraq, or to quote Bush precisely from may 30th 2003: "Those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons - they're wrong. We found them." All lies, every single one of them. You see, here's the rub: The truth doesn't matter one teeny tiny incy wincy little bit. No where on the face of this planet do electorates vote on truth, or even policy. They have no long term memory. And heaven forbid they ever change because it would be impossible to win a majority if they did. All the republicans want to do is destroy Barrack Obama. There's no plan B, they have no idea what they would do if they did destroy him and they don't care how much damage they do in the process. It's a scorched earth policy. But if they do force a default and ruin the global economy, come the next election it wont matter whose fault it was because that wont be the story. The story will be whatever the republicans want it to be. It will be a lie, and things will be so bad, people will be so angry, that they'll believe it.

ridruejo 15y ago

Can't wait to see what iBama will look like :)

Alex3917 15y ago

To be fair, just about everyone reading this will probably have more cash than the USA in another week or two.

binbasti 15y ago
At this burn rate, it's more like 3 days... http://www.zerohedge.com/news/treasury-cash-drops-15-billion-overnight-516-billion-5-billion-sgp-bills-roll http://www.zerohedge.com/news/treasury-cash-drops-15-billion...

rickdale 15y ago

If you have $1 you are holding more cash than the US.

nivertech 15y ago
If you have $1 and don't have a mortgage or other debts
- rickdale 15y ago
  I said more cash, not more worth or value. Thanks for the downvotes, great to see everyone is using their noggins these days.

nhaehnle 15y ago

A corporation holding cash means they're not investing as much as they could according to supply-side economic thinking. This should make people reflect on the state of the economy. While it's true that some companies just like to hoard cash (e.g. Microsoft), this may just be the symptom of a bigger problem. With consumers low on cash due to the recession, it simply makes no sense to invest any more. This in turn guarantees that consumers will stay low on cash because a lot of slack remains in the job market.

funthree 15y ago
Apple forbid they'd bring those manufacturing jobs to the US and actually pay some Californians a decent wage and help their own country. http://harryjerry.com/tech/how-apple-products-are-made-in-foxconn/ http://harryjerry.com/tech/how-apple-products-are-made-in-fo... http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=usunemployment&ctype=l&strail=false&nselm=h&met_y=unemployment_rate&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=state&idim=state:ST060000&ifdim=state&tdim=true&tstart=633592800000&tend=1309323600000&icfg&uniSize=0.035&iconSize=0.5 http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=usunemployment&#...
- jodrellblank 15y ago
  Aren't companies legally required to act in the vest interests of shareholders? Overpaying for production out of patriotic racism doesn't seem to fit that mould.
  - wisty 15y ago
    No. Some free-market fundamentalists say that companies should have an ethical obligation to maximize profit for their shareholders. I think the law says that companies are required to follow their constitution. Generally, the board of directors interprets that constitution, and then tells the CEO what to do. Shareholders may be able to vote to change the constitution, but this would be covered by the company's constitution. I think non-profits can be companies. That would be a very clear example of companies that are not legally required to act in the interests of shareholders.
15y ago

jasongullickson 15y ago

So...when's the buy-out?

ck2 15y ago

Steve Jobs only pays 15% taxes which is probably part of it. (seriously, this is a fact http://seekingalpha.com/article/183086-steve-jobs-thrives-on-dividend-income http://seekingalpha.com/article/183086-steve-jobs-thrives-on... ) Take money from USA consumers, pour it into China manufacturing. They certainly aren't the only ones doing it but add them all up and you'll start to understand the problem.

nkassis 15y ago
Waren Buffet was talking a while back about how it's ridiculous that he pays 17% taxes when his secretary pays over 30%. He's not a big fan of the current capital gain tax.
tomjen3 15y ago
And how many millons does he pay more than you? Stop whining about the wealthy. Steve earned his money, you have no right to them.
- tty 15y ago
  >Steve earned his money, you have no right to them. Are you implying Steve earned all the money Apple has?

rexreed 15y ago

What exactly will Apple do with this cash other than buy billion-dollar patent portfolios? Are there potential big acquisition deals in the works that make sense?

timedoctor 15y ago

The government will get the money eventually through increased taxes or through printing more money and deflating the value of the apple "cash" pile. All the Government has to do is to print money and they can take Apple's money without Apple being able to do anything about it!

dangrossman 15y ago
Nothing says Apple must keep the money in the form of US dollars in a bank account. If it's sitting in any kind of investment that tracks inflation, printing money won't take the money. If they choose to keep it in other currencies, printing money won't take the money.

angelortega 15y ago

It's time to nationalize Apple, sell its assets and use the money to take off of the crisis.

Wentz 15y ago
Sarcasm?
- angelortega 15y ago
  Just kidding, but some people aren't just able to accept a joke about Apple. All this does not make my initial comment less true, though.

anmollll 15y ago

some companies are massive they have really grown over the years. http://www.video2dvd.zoomshare.com http://www.video2dvd.zoomshare.com