5 trillion in thevaults

Jccarlton · Post by **Jccarlton** » Sun Jul 22, 2012 2:13 pm

The reality is this. When you stop innovating you don't grow. If you pile up cash like Scrooge McDuck in his moeny bin, somebody's goings to want to steal it. If you tax dividends to death all you do is freeze up the cash. So what does 5 trillion on piled up cash tell you?
http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/at-w ... ch-company

Teahive · Post by **Teahive** » Sun Jul 22, 2012 4:54 pm

Peter Thiel wrote:And it's like a bank that generates enormous cash flows every year, but you can't issue a dividend, because the day you take that $30 billion and send it back to people you're admitting that you're no longer a technology company.

I'm not sure why a lack of investment ability should mean that a company is no longer a "tech company". There's only so much you can invest in R&D in a company of a certain size and set of expertise, and growing that takes time.

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Sun Jul 22, 2012 6:48 pm

Sounds like Thiel is just ignorant of the times. Most companies, especially banks, are sitting on cash because they're afraid to grow when they don't know what is going to happen with the economy. They're likely continue to do so until the next election. Google is however continuing to pursue their glasses which we ought to see come to market next year, after a few more apps and abilities have been added.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/story ... 55873080/1

choff · Post by **choff** » Sun Jul 22, 2012 9:30 pm

Google goggles will be fun tech, but if you take all the cash out of circulation and just sit on it, the economy stagnates and nobody can buy them. The big companies have to realize at some point that they are the economy, and they are waiting on their own selves to start growing again.

hanelyp · Post by **hanelyp** » Sun Jul 22, 2012 11:13 pm

If you take money out of circulation, whatever money remains in circulation takes on greater value. You are simply denying yourself whatever value is represented by the money you're not using. Insufficient money in circulation is not the problem behind the current economic slow down.

If you don't know what the government is going to do to you, when the chief executive has practically declared the wealthy and successful as enemies, you hunker down and avoid taking risks. Innovation is risky. Without risk takers and innovators, the economy grinds towards a stop.

Teahive · Post by **Teahive** » Mon Jul 23, 2012 8:07 am

hanelyp wrote:If you take money out of circulation, whatever money remains in circulation takes on greater value. You are simply denying yourself whatever value is represented by the money you're not using.

The largest part of this money probably isn't out of circulation, though, it's invested in something. I do agree, though, that those companies should rather return the money to investors.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Mon Jul 23, 2012 11:48 am

If you take money out of circulation, whatever money remains in circulation takes on greater value.

That would only be true if the money had been burned.
With it sitting in a vault, it is still there.

Insufficient money in circulation is not the problem behind the current economic slow down.

Actually it is exactly what it the problem.

randomencounter · Post by **randomencounter** » Mon Jul 23, 2012 1:41 pm

Skipjack wrote:
If you take money out of circulation, whatever money remains in circulation takes on greater value.
That would only be true if the money had been burned.
With it sitting in a vault, it is still there.

If the money stops circulating it really is deflationary, even if the money itself still nominally exists.

If it hasn't been "burned" then it can become inflationary just as quickly if it is pulled out of the vault and put back into circulation.

Insufficient money in circulation is not the problem behind the current economic slow down.
Actually it is exactly what it the problem.

Certainly a large portion of it. A "consumer driven" economy with a declining percentage of the circulating money in the hands of potential consumers isn't going to do so hot.

choff · Post by **choff** » Mon Jul 23, 2012 3:29 pm

If they don't put it into circulation, eventually some administration is going to figure out they're the only ones left that have real wealth to tax, and start doing just that.

ScottL · Post by **ScottL** » Mon Jul 23, 2012 10:29 pm

randomencounter wrote:
Skipjack wrote:
If you take money out of circulation, whatever money remains in circulation takes on greater value.
That would only be true if the money had been burned.
With it sitting in a vault, it is still there.
If the money stops circulating it really is deflationary, even if the money itself still nominally exists.

If it hasn't been "burned" then it can become inflationary just as quickly if it is pulled out of the vault and put back into circulation.

Insufficient money in circulation is not the problem behind the current economic slow down.
Actually it is exactly what it the problem.
Certainly a large portion of it. A "consumer driven" economy with a declining percentage of the circulating money in the hands of potential consumers isn't going to do so hot.

This is indeed the current problem. The uncertainties around the current administration are a red herring, an excuse at best*. The truth is the haves will continuing having and continue to accumulate, regardless of which side of the aisle you're on. Research has repeatedly shown the more you have, the more you want, and the more likely you are "break rules" to get it. Both sides are different parts of the same machine with the same goal in mind.

* Recent "Democrat" legislation attempts were to raise taxes on companies that out-source a majority of their jobs vs huge tax benefits for those who do not. Of course it was struck down by Republican's in the Senate after they had largely come up with the idea, but like I said, same goal in mind.

choff · Post by **choff** » Fri Jul 27, 2012 2:54 am

Actually, if this report is accurate, if the top .2% of the global population were paying taxes on what they hide offshore, the government debt problems of the world would be well in hand.

http://www.businessinsider.com/new-esti ... 004-2012-7

necoras · Post by **necoras** » Fri Jul 27, 2012 8:45 pm

Arguing that Google isn't investing in new tech is startlingly ignorant. Google got lucky in that they bet on (and developed) the right technology at the right time. It's a similar case with Apple, though that was more of an issue of bullying the right industries in the right manner.

Google's using their acquired wealth to build out a *fantastic* fiber network (at least it's advertised as such. We'll see how well the deployed product is), innovative display/interactive technologies (Goggles), and, perhaps the most impressive product of all, 100% autonomous cars. They're pushing for new technologies.

Apple's a bit different. They haven't actually developed new technology in decades. The iPod already existed (mp3 players), they just tweaked it and added catchy ads. The iPhone was impressive, but it wasn't that big of a shift from existing devices at the time. The biggest hurdle there was getting the carriers to take their foot off the technological throat, and let a tech company dictate the software on a phone rather than a communications company. AT&T saw an opportunity and took it. They got *huge* numbers of new subscribers... and didn't do anything. Verizon, Sprint, and T-Mo pushed forward with Android (Google again) and then... all four have been trying to claw back control ever since.

The iPad should have existed a decade before it did. The only reason they didn't was because all of the tech companies tried to make flat desktops, not because the idea wasn't obvious. Google should have put out an Android tablet immediately along with the G1 when they saw how popular the iPhone was. They didn't, and Apple won that battlefield.

My point here is that all of Apple's innovations were incremental. Google's are largely breakout technologies, particularly the cars.

Now, whether or not they're spending enough money on this research is a different argument. But to say that Google isn't developing new technology just isn't true.

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Fri Jul 27, 2012 9:28 pm

Well you can just as easily say wearable computers and head mounted displays go back more than a decade too. It is the quality of the implementation that makes all the difference and Apple's quality really does make it stand apart--always has. Yes, there were smart phones before the iPhone, but the iPhone rules for a reason--it was a whole generation beyond what anyone else had considered. Same with the iPad. It was and is a full generation beyond all it's competition. Much of the reason for this was the apps created for the new functionality, and the same will be true with the Goggles. It depends entirely upon the apps, whether they'll be useful or not. The actual display is nothing new. Making them into a wearable computer that's utility justifies it's price and place in the market is the real key.