Hacker News Reader

Comment by rtpg | Hacker News Reader

This is about revenue, but every time I see Apple's financial statements, I remember that Apple (as of June 2014) has 160 billion dollars in cash. 2 years of _revenue_ (not operating expenses, mind you, but quite a bit more). I think Bill Gates was all about having enough cash to run the company without a single sale for a year, but apparently they have a 20% profit margin, so we're looking at almost 30 months where they could continue to spend everything, not get a single dime, and be "fine".

If that's not an example of the absolute failure of trickle-down economics, I don't know what is.

View on HN

If you want to argue general economic principles, then do so [1]. Just don't cherry pick examples to prop up your perspective. I don't think anyone, even Reagan or Thatcher, would have stood behind the assertion that a luxury phone and computer maker with a hoard of cash would benefit the poor. You're attacking a strawman here.

[1] Just keep in mind that "trickle-down economics" is a political philosophy, not an economic one: http://www.tsowell.com/images/Hoover%20Proof.pdf (footnote on page 2)

>that a luxury phone and computer maker with a hoard of cash would benefit the poor.

If they were forced to re-patriate and pay taxes on that cash, how could that not "help the poor"?

>If they were forced to re-patriate and pay taxes on that cash, how could that not "help the poor"?

That would mostly benefit politicians and their beneficiaries, not exactly 'the poor'. Very little of the $$ spent by the government helps 'the poor', unless you're counting our severely underpaid military.

>Very little of the $$ spent by the government helps 'the poor

Do you have any idea what the aggregate size of transfer payments are in the US? Yes, you can point to inefficiencies all over the place, but it doesn't change the fact that there is a massive social net for the poor in the US.

Repatriate what? Income that was earned overseas?

I'm not sure what you mean by referencing trickle-down economics. I mean, what's the alternative, that Apple distibute that money to shareholders? I don't think stock buy-backs and dividends are what people mean when they say trickle-down economics.

Anyway, Apple does not have a giant vault filled with $160 billion just sitting there. That "cash" hoard is actually invested somewhere (probably numerous places) where it is doing some kind of work to provide a return, at a minimum to keep up with inflation.

If you'd like to wade into political waters, let's talk about the U.S. corporate tax system, which currently provides incentives for companies to keep international profits offshore. I would bet a significant portion of that $160 billion is outside the U.S.

One alternative is they spend that money on more employees (or raise the salaries of the employees)

The $160 billion is in easily liquidated assets (which is basically the same as cash for companies of this size), it's still being more or less useless economically.

This might come off as being a bit "waaah companies aren't allowed to be successful", but on a social responsibility level I don't get how you justify holding on to over $80 billion.

Obviously the US tax system also has things about it that contribute to this state of affairs. But even if the money could be brought back into the US tax-free , do you think Apple would be spending it? I don't know. Again, waaah Apple isn't allowed to be successful.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com