Wealthy people and corporations have so much money they don't know what to do - Sensationalist Headlines

https://www.axios.com/money-companies-investors-assets-buybacks-dividends-f0a4d79b-bfa7-4205-9d27-f09b50266307.html?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=organic&utm_content=1100 A truly bizarre trend is having an impact on the economy — wealthy people and corporations have so much money they literally don't know what to do with it. At a time when growing income inequality is fueling voter discontent and underpinning an array of social movements, the top 1% of earners and big companies are holding record levels of unused cash. U.S. companies raked in a record $2.3 trillion in corporate profits last year, while the country's total wealth increased by $6 trillion to $98.2 trillion (40% of which went to those with wealth over $100,000). So, where is all the money going? The IMF notes large companies around the world are overwhelmingly and uniformly choosing not to reinvest much of it into their businesses. They're hoarding it in cash and buying back stock. Companies made a record $1.1 trillion in stock buybacks in 2018 and are on track to surpass that number this year. But they still have record cash holdings of close to $3 trillion. Wealthy households and individuals are pouring money into asset managers, betting on companies that lose $1 billion a year, bonds from little-known Middle Eastern republics, and giving hot Silicon Valley start-ups more venture capital than they can handle. The top 1% of U.S. households are holding a record $303.9 billion of cash, a quantum leap from the under $15 billion they held just before the financial crisis. The Fed's quantitative easing program pushed the cost of borrowing money to next to nothing for nearly a decade, allowing companies to splurge on debt for mergers and acquisitions and to boost revenue. At the same time, globalization allowed them to reduce labor costs, meaning that gains effectively were returned as profit and used by public companies to boost stock prices.

Oh they know what to do... milk more money out of the poorer

you could pay some of it back in taxes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OoJLJF5aMQ

OOOOO BOO HOO LEMME PLAY A SAD SONG FOR YOU ON THE WORLDS SMALLEST VIOLIN

A boat for my dog's hairdresser's boat it is!

Maybe we should take it and distribute it amongst the population of the country thereby improving the quality of life of everyone living in it? oh wait fuck that's socialism/communism and that's bad and evil nvm, but hoarding money whilst everyone else if getting more poor is not lol

They have all of eternity to spend it in the afterlife.

If we could change the law requiring corporations to make all their decisions purely in the interest of the stockholders that would be great. Reminder that that particular gem is the result of legislation, not of free market activity.

I wish I could stop being butthurt by the elites. Can't help it.

Afaik stock buybacks are a great way to make your company more valuable very fast because it reduces the amount of shares outstanding. So your stock price goes up because you got less stock available to buy. So it makes your company look like it's doing great to people who base everything off the stock market. Selling stock is a great way to make loads of money real fast to do things like build factories or otherwise expand the business. One your business is making money on its own you can buy back the stocks to raise your value and regain more control from shareholders over your company. But issuing more stock to sell more often hurts the value of the stock and makes shareholders upset, also is suspicious if you're doing it a lot because you shouldn't have to raise that much money unless you have a big expansion outlined like a company like Tesla. Expanding and raising tons of money to do business is really the only reason to go public with your stock, so once your company is at a place where you're making tons of money on your own, you don't really need to have that many shares out. So they buy them back. Shareholders who sell back get money, company gets more control and a quick boost in value. Everyone happy. In theory. At uni I had a class where you ran a mock company with a team over a simulated 7 years. My companies strategy was to go hard, we sold a bunch of shares and we sold like 60m in bonds every year (they weren't due for 10 years, and the game was 7 years, so who cares). We used the money from the debt and shares to rapidly build the business and corner some niche markets, and then used the profits we made to buy back most the shares and bonds on turn 7 to make the value of the company explode. We finished top of the class and in the top 15% worldwide (the game was played concurrently around the world) For a few years it looked like we were doing awful and burning. The professor expressed concern. Then in the last 3 or so years we exploded past everyone in value and profits. I wish I could translate this success to my real life but I have yet to find someone who will give me tens of millions of dollars off a promise.

Toss me a bone, then! Write off as a charitable donation every week, something like $1,200 each time will be perfect.

the problem is so huge that even if these guys literally just gave all of their money away, they'd probably make it back in a month, or a week we've gotten to the point where if these guys want to contribute to society with their wealth, it would practically become their job to give money away constantly

What if we had currency with half-life?

Bad idea, nobody would be able to purchase anything costing 3 or more.

surely the free market will correct itself and that money will end up in the hands of poor people eventually

That's called wealth tax. It's been proposed a few times iirc, but economically right-leaning governments block it of course.

Not as long as governments fail to actually regulate the corps and also prevent market failure; their sole market responsibility, which they are not currently doing.

Remember, rich people, you can't eat that money. But when we're starving and there's nothing else to eat we're coming for you. You can avert that future anytime you want, just like Ebenezer Scrooge. If only ghosts were real, some of these 0.1% cunts need to feel fear again.

Come the UK and say you'll run some ferries.

You don't event need a boat or any ports!

I'd happily take a couple of million off of your hands.

Jeff Bezos has enough money to change the course of history, let's give him more tax breaks.

forgive me for posting an image but... https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/217414/fedac184-e595-442d-9e1c-676d85d05dd2/image.png you'd think with so much money, rich people would have no problem with tossing what's a drop in the bucket for them to deal with stuff like flint's water crisis for a quick image boost, but no, they gotta complain about having too much money instead

Same news outlet also has this: How depreciating money could save the global economy

Flint's water crisis has been fixed for a while https://www.npr.org/2019/04/25/717104335/5-years-after-flints-crisis-began-is-the-water-safe They have some of the cleanest water in the country now I have no idea why this is still being brought up as an example

I mean, some have. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1017149641991680002?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1017149641991680002&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2018%2F10%2F08%2Fus%2Felon-musk-flint-schools-water-filtration-trnd%2Findex.html https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/08/us/elon-musk-flint-schools-water-filtration-trnd/index.html He's been working with Mari Copeny (@LittleMissFlint) to fix places that are still reporting contaminated water above EPA levels. https://twitter.com/LittleMissFlint/status/1109232680703586305 In reality, the situation in Flint is much improved despite still getting treated like it hasn't improved at all due to distrust in the government. Recent tests indicate the water is well below emergency levels. https://www.michiganradio.org/post/new-tests-show-improvement-flint-water-quality In early 2016, the highest risk homes, with lead service lines, were testing at 20 parts per billion. The federal action level for lead is 15 parts per billion. The latest testing found four parts per billion in the 90th percentile of the highest risk homes “People need to understand that once all the lead service lines are removed from the city of Flint there’s still an issue with premise plumbing,” says Oswald. “That is the plumbing on the inside the homes that may have leaded solder. They may have older fixtures that have brass components that can have some lead in them.” The federal and state governments have spent more than $400 million helping Flint recover from the water crisis. There's a lot of distrust in the government, understandably. Which still fuels the calls for action in Flint. But the reality is there are many other cities and towns in the US with worse water quality that are not getting as much attention as Flint. The plumbing infrastructure is aging and out of date. Places and homes still using lead pipe or lead products, run-off from god-knows-what ending up in water supplies, etc. Flint is a poster child for a crisis that is nationwide. For example: The drinking water in Pittsburgh, a city of 305,704 people, fluctuates between 10ppb of lead, to 30 ppb of lead. As previously mentioned. Flint is currently at 4 ppb. The national action level is 15 ppb. https://images2.minutemediacdn.com/image/upload/c_crop,h_1123,w_2000,x_0,y_111/f_auto,q_auto,w_1100/v1554921495/shape/mentalfloss/550096-youtube_0.jpg But that's not what the thread is about and I digress. It's just that it always gets me when people bring up Flint like absolutely nothing has been done.

Good thing TRUMP is working for the SMART WORKING CLASS like me! /s Really though, nobody that matters will think this is a problem. We're living in a nightmare.

as much as rich people are hoarding the fuck out of money, i'm seeing a bubble on social media calling for rich people to be guillotined and it's kinda scary. yeah, rich people are fucking crazy rich, but if we live in a democracy we shouldn't vote for the party that reinforces the policies that keeps things the way they are.

How naive of you to assume that either of the two parties dont reinforce the status of the wealthy