 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Do companies HAVE cash?
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Do companies HAVE cash? From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Nov 11 - 02:51 PM One staple of the discussion here is that companies are sitting on mountains of cash and refusing to use it to create jobs. Perhaps this is of interest to those who want to know why. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-corporate-cash-pile-isnt-163940462.html "Even if companies used cash to pay off what they owe, they would be left with plenty of debt — in fact, an amount equal to 83 percent of all the goods and services they produce, according to Federal Reserve data for incorporated businesses. That's an improvement from March 2009, the low point of the Great Recession, when companies owed 95 percent. To stay afloat, companies tapped credit lines at banks, increasing debt while they were bringing in less money. They burned through cash to meet expenses. Before the recession, though, you have to go back at least six decades to find a time when companies owed so much compared with what they produce, says Andrew Smithers, a London consultant who has written extensively about debt. In short, American business is awash in cash like a man who borrowed from a bank is rich. He may have plenty of money in his pocket, but he still has to return it." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do companies HAVE cash? From: gnu Date: 17 Nov 11 - 02:57 PM "He may have plenty of money in his pocket, but he still has to return it." Apparently not, for some, according to the US government. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do companies HAVE cash? From: beardedbruce Date: 17 Nov 11 - 03:15 PM gnu, Did you bother to look at the article? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do companies HAVE cash? From: gnu Date: 17 Nov 11 - 03:29 PM bb... nope. I am just a pea-brain trying to make a joke about the bailouts. Does my attempt at a joke make any sense if I read the article? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do companies HAVE cash? From: John MacKenzie Date: 17 Nov 11 - 03:37 PM I haven't read the article either |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do companies HAVE cash? From: gnu Date: 17 Nov 11 - 04:40 PM But... where's yer joke, G? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do companies HAVE cash? From: Bill D Date: 17 Nov 11 - 04:45 PM I read the article. I even read this part of it. "The financial picture is at least better for the biggest, publicly traded firms. Non-financial companies in the Standard & Poor's 500 are making more money than ever and adding to their cash fast. It's middle-sized and small companies that appear to be most vulnerable." So... there are companies that are heavily in debt...and there are those whose cash falls into the definition of 'surplus'..(even though no one thinks they have enough or too much). I would imagine, though the article doesn't break it down, that a large portion of that 3 Trillion belongs to the 2nd group. I am fascinated by the way everyone is waiting on everyone else to hire someone, so that those consumers can afford to buy their products. (I am relatively sure GE and Shell Oil and some others with record profits have some cash.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do companies HAVE cash? From: Bobert Date: 17 Nov 11 - 05:14 PM Mr. Condon never discloses how much cash these folks actually have on hand but that its "$358 billion more cash than they had at the start if the recession in December, 2007"... Hmmmmmm??? Wes Ginny Algebra... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do companies HAVE cash? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 17 Nov 11 - 05:27 PM A good article, perhaps over-simplified, but those who have no idea of how business is conducted won't read it. The bailouts were also misunderstood. Without them, companies, especially the usual whipping boys, banks and large concerns like General Motors, would go bust, taking the savings of investors down with them and also throwing even more people out of work. Given a hand up, most of the money has been returned, and the rest is on the way. A few of the worst did collapse, and have been absorbed by more fortunate concerns. The inexcusable failure of government to set proper guidelines, and yes, the lure of great profit for their stockholders, caused a massive collapse. Luckily, in Canada, the statutes were in place and the regulated banks did not have to borrow to keep afloat. The extremely low interest rates worldwide, as pointed out in the article, although perhaps necessary in the short term (10 years?), have created a catch 22 situation. Contributing to this and previous collapses is the poor name economic studies have in the schools and with the public; something boring to be suffered through and forgotten, although money management is important to everyone. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do companies HAVE cash? From: Bobert Date: 17 Nov 11 - 05:33 PM As a leftie, I don't have any problems with the bailouts... I have problems with the sumabiches who got bailed out being so f'n greedy and spending so much energy trying to turn the US into a 3rd world country... I mean, these guys should have waived their bonuses and worked toward trying to make our economy more equitable for all Americans... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do companies HAVE cash? From: GUEST,999 Date: 17 Nov 11 - 06:11 PM Q's remarks are cogent as are Bobert's 5:33 PM post. Recession is NOT the time for CEOs and others on the top of the ladder to be offered or accept bonuses. I trust the people who allowed that to happen have been fired, terminated, deep sixed, etc. This crap about departure clauses wherein employees are given millions to go away because they screwed up big time tends to leave investors and employees feeling a bit left out of the loop. The tendency over the last forty years has been to treat employees as people who should feel they are lucky to have a job. That shit's gotta change. And soon. I don't let some unions off the hook for malpractice, either. There is seldom a need to kill the goose wot's laying the eggs. While the article addresses the need of companies to borrow, it doesn't really address things that will be needed to fix the issues. I worry about that kind of 'cash' laying around where it can be transferred to an off-shore account and be played with on the market. Then when the company goes tits up, a few folks leave the country and live in comparative luxury while investors and employees are left holding the bag. I once suggested at a 'union' meeting that we offer government a voluntary 10% wage cut to hang onto a few thousand teachers. The real cost to most teachers would have be more than bearable because the real cut was about 6.5% in after tax money. I never have given a rat's ass what my gross salary was. I have cared about the lower right-hand corner because that's what I have to spend, invest or whatever. Idea shot down because it might impact pensions to the tune of $150/year. DOH. I have suggested to government that we go to a flat tax rate and even millionaires have to pay the flat rate. Hell, yeah, like millionaires will want to do that. Why not? They ain't paying any as it is, so what benefit is a flat rate to them? Of course, I see things differently. I see doctors, for example, as being really important when I need a doctor. But when I need a plumber, I need a plumber. The exorbitant fees from doctors are unconscionable. Of course, when they require thousands a month just for insurance because someone who has a scar after surgery is going to sue them, guess what? That cost id added to their fee, and we know who pays for that. Sorry to rant. I read the article, and while it's partly true, it misses the mark because it's an apologist view. I don't feel all that much sorrow for people who get billions because they have been allowed to mismanage the entire economy of their companies or their respective countries. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do companies HAVE cash? From: Jack the Sailor Date: 17 Nov 11 - 06:31 PM "One staple of the discussion here is that companies are sitting on mountains of cash and refusing to use it to create jobs. " Really? A staple of discussion? Really? Are there current threads on this topic? Bernard Condon, AP Business Writer, obviously a shill for the monied interests, as others have pointed out, is lumping every business into the same pot. Yes there are businesses that are struggling. It is a downturn after all. But there are a lot of businesses sitting on cash. I don't believe that they should be forced to spend it to stimulate jobs. But if they don't open the pocket books to hire people, that windfall would do a lot of good in helping to pay down the deficit. Maybe it is time to look at corporate subsidies and tax rates. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do companies HAVE cash? From: Bobert Date: 17 Nov 11 - 06:44 PM Yeah, JtS... I read the article and Condon never said how much cash they are sitting on... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do companies HAVE cash? From: Greg F. Date: 17 Nov 11 - 08:56 PM Just more of the usual Beardie BS. Predictable & boring. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do companies HAVE cash? From: gnu Date: 17 Nov 11 - 10:51 PM Greg F... your 17 Nov 11 - 08:56 PM post does not add to the discussion. It is an empty and personal attack. It's childish and inane. It's worse than my attempt at a poor joke. No offense meant... just pointing out the facts in case you were not aware. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do companies HAVE cash? From: Jack the Sailor Date: 17 Nov 11 - 11:53 PM No it is not a personal attack. Not by the definition of another thread. He his talking about the BS. Not the person. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do companies HAVE cash? From: Donuel Date: 18 Nov 11 - 12:25 AM I have been spending time following the money. For some time I would get close and then a great opaque event horizon with Hedge funds at its core made it impossible to see any further. Yes we know Corporations have cash, their middle men CEOs have cash, owners of the banks have cash... but where do the trillions go marching by the dozens? And why are they asking all the ordinary people in the world to pay for their gambling debts? We all basicly know why but I KNOW HOW IT IS DONE AND WHERE THE $ GOES. In the next post I will show you where it goes by using the example of the MF Global failure. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do companies HAVE cash? From: Greg F. Date: 18 Nov 11 - 08:48 AM Greg F... your 17 Nov 11 - 08:56 PM ... is an empty and personal attack. It's childish and inane... just pointing out the facts in case you were not aware. No, Gnu - its a comment on the posting , the factual content thereof, and the predictability of same due to past posting history. The character and content of the postER is another thing entirely - possibly germaine and related, but I made no comment on that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do companies HAVE cash? From: Bobert Date: 18 Nov 11 - 09:06 AM Yeah, Doneul... You got it... The banks aren't making loans so how can they be posting all these profits without doing so??? Hmmmmmmmm??? I think we're back to the smoke & mirror days... We have derivatives and credit default swaps and all kinds of insider bullshit so-called "products" that banks do with one another and every time they pull off these transactions they take out commissions... What today's bankers have become is "bank robbers"... They suck out assets and say theu earned them??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do companies HAVE cash? From: gnu Date: 18 Nov 11 - 02:07 PM "Just more of the usual Beardie BS." is not a personal attack on Beardis? Bullshit. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do companies HAVE cash? From: Richard Bridge Date: 18 Nov 11 - 03:04 PM The assertion that it is a staple here that companies in general are sitting on mountains of cash is a lie. It is an Aunt Sally, a typical neo-fascist debating trick. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do companies HAVE cash? From: JohnInKansas Date: 19 Nov 11 - 11:01 AM The writer of the first article cited ignores how businesses (and others with significant assets) work. If a company, or a wealthy person, has uninvested funds, it is imperative that the funds be "put to work." The usual method is to "loan" it to someone who needs liqiuidity. This is commonly done by investing in equity stock, bonds, and other instruments that will return - with interest - the amount of the loan/investment. Another way of "investing" the money is to purchase, install, and employ capital equipment that will employ workers, and/or to hire workers so that the profit from their production will provide an income. The "loan equity" for a "loan" (or stock investment) to someone else is an amount that can be offered as security for borrowing sufficient "cash" for the liquidity required to continue their operations of "investing" and/or "producing," either of which produces an "income." One cannot, in most cases, borrow and acquire debt without assets. The relatively unusual exception is to seek "venture capital," that offers a return based on the vague promises of a future profit. In the case of "debts receivable," it often is possible to borrow more than the equity/asset value; and recently for large (commercial) debt instruments, a ratio as low as 1.4 or so has applied generally, but in the past the debt/equity ratio has been as high as at least 3 to 1. The article linked by BB says: U.S. companies are sitting on $358 billion more cash than they had at the start of the recession in December 2007, according to the latest Federal Reserve figures, from June. But in the same period, what they owed rose $428 billion. This is a ratio for new investment and borrowing of 428/358 or 1.9, and indicates only that either a) companies are not borrowing as much as they ordinarily could, or that b) the lenders are less willing than usual to lend. A reason for not borrowing as much as possible would be the expectation that "liquidity" for the funds must be maintained with the expectation of a different investment within a fairly short term. In other words, the company could spend it's million dollars in order to pay costs of operation, or can invest the million and borrow 1.9 million using the investment as security. Since the originally invested million is presumed to produce earnings (not included in the article's propaganda) that income should reasonably be expected to offset any interest cost of the borrowing in about the reciprocal of the ratio of credit/equity current at the time of the corporate borrowing. It has nearly always been the case that corporations can borrow amounts in excess of their "capital equity," since they have accounts receivable, and estimates of productivity as additional assurance for the loans. The absoulte amount of corporate debt is meaningless, and the current debt to equity ratio is about as low as it's been in the past century. Corporations can choose whether to invest in jobs, and increase their productivity; or they can reinvest the excess of their borrowing in "safe havens" like stocks and bonds, or real estate. The US Chambers of Commerce (and others) have adopted the recommendation of "no new jobs" until their buddies are back in control, and the "investors" have apparently accepted that recommendation; which is the ONLY reason few jobs are being created. Most of the "investments" in which the "new cash" is invested are at least "semi-liquid" and the "cash" will be recovered as soon as the companies decide to help the economy instead of squirreling it away until "that ...1 man ...2 is out of the White House," as at least 5 candidates have stated in speeches within the past 3 months. 1 poignant pause while half the audience assumes "he's about to say N****r." 2 poignant pause to allow that half of the audience to assume "he really wanted to say N****r." (The other half the audience won't get the joke, having not lived where that prejudice is as strongly dominant.) Saying it without saying it permits plausible deniability, in case the rest of them catch on. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do companies HAVE cash? From: Little Hawk Date: 19 Nov 11 - 12:23 PM I don't think too many people are under the impression that companies are sitting on piles of cash. I'm certainly not. I think that most companies are woefully short of cash and up to their ears in debt. (as is the case with much of the general population as well) That's become the lifestyle in North America, encouraged by the lending institutions, credit cards, and other ways of enabling people to buy stuff NOW that they can't pay for until later (if at all...) Seems to me that both companies AND the general public have developed the very bad habit of living out on a shaky limb of accumulated debt. This happened because lending institutions were de-regulated in such a way that they were allowed to lend out vastly more money...fictional money...than they had in real deposits...and people and companies got addicted to borrowing that fictional money...unreal in origin, but very real in its effect. Its effect is the burden of debt and interest charges, and that benefits the lending institutions but impoverishes the rest of the society and causes inflation. The initial effect of de-regulation was to stimulate a great deal of commercial activity, since there was a lot of lent money available to fund it. Thus, Reagan's de-regulation appeared to be good for the economy...in the short run. But in the long run it created a burden of debt that became unsustainable. So it blew up the bubble, as happens with pyramid schemes, and you know that the bubble will eventually burst, and most people will lose out. That's what has happened repeatedly in this "boom and bust" scenario of capitalist economies, but it happened with a vengeance in 2008, and we're still stuck in the fallout from that. It's simple: live beyond your means, and you will eventually find yourself bankrupt. Allow banks to lend out vastly more money than they have on deposit, and most people (and companies) will live considerably beyond their means...and that will lead inevitably to a financial collapse...which will hurt both consumers and companies which market to consumers. Canada was very fortunate, simply because Paul Martin (a former finance minister) resisted pressure to de-regulate the Canadian banks when he was Prime Minister (which wasn't for very long). The Canadian economy, however, is so intimately tied to the US economy that when the USA gets financially ill, Canada does too. So we have not gone unscathed by the recent financial meltdown in the USA...but at least our banks are healthy and stable. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do companies HAVE cash? From: Greg F. Date: 19 Nov 11 - 12:41 PM "Just more of the usual Beardie BS." is not a personal attack on Beardie? Nope, sorry. I'm commenting on the content of his post. Even if I were not, last I knew truth was an absolute defense to libel. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do companies HAVE cash? From: Jack the Sailor Date: 19 Nov 11 - 12:42 PM "I don't think too many people are under the impression that companies are sitting on piles of cash. I'm certainly not. I think that most companies are woefully short of cash and up to their ears in debt. " Little Hawk. It is absolutely a fact that US companies are sitting on piles of cash. corporate-cash-hoard-in-the-trillions-moodys People are "under that impression" because it is a fact. The problem with the article and with what you seem to be saying. Is lumping the hoarders and tax dodgers in with the struggling business as if they were all one entity called "companies." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do companies HAVE cash? From: Jack the Sailor Date: 19 Nov 11 - 01:53 PM Greg, describing it as BS is an opinion, albeit a supportable one. After all, this is the BS section. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do companies HAVE cash? From: Bobert Date: 19 Nov 11 - 02:20 PM It's not "most companies" that have stockpiles of cash... It's the Fortune 500 companies that are drowning in the stuff... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do companies HAVE cash? From: Jack the Sailor Date: 19 Nov 11 - 02:43 PM Many of them. By no means all. Most of the cash the are sitting on is overseas awaiting a sweetheart tax deal with the Republican Congress and President they are trying to purchase for 2012. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do companies HAVE cash? From: Bonzo3legs Date: 19 Nov 11 - 03:34 PM Most of our client companies have bank overdrafts! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do companies HAVE cash? From: Little Hawk Date: 19 Nov 11 - 03:40 PM I don't doubt that some of the really big corporate players are doing exactly as you say, Jack. I was thinking more of the business community in general. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do companies HAVE cash? From: BTNG Date: 19 Nov 11 - 04:32 PM Just chaecked the tin box in the safe, yup we have cash! LOL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do companies HAVE cash? From: gnu Date: 19 Nov 11 - 05:05 PM Greg F...."Nope, sorry. I'm commenting on the content of his post. Even if I were not, last I knew truth was an absolute defense to libel." No, you are not ONLY commenting on his post. You are commenting on the content of his PREVIOUS posts and telling the readers that his previous posts are bullshit, thereby making an overall statement which is INDEED libel and indefensible. At best, it provides all readers with a display of YOUR demeanour... rude... at best. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do companies HAVE cash? From: Greg F. Date: 19 Nov 11 - 05:13 PM You are commenting on the content of his PREVIOUS posts and telling the readers that his previous posts are bullshit Which, in the aggregate, the vast majority of them are. By all means refer to them to refresh your memory. No news is good Gnus, apparently. I stand by the truth defense, absolutely. Gnight, Gnu. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do companies HAVE cash? From: Jack the Sailor Date: 19 Nov 11 - 05:22 PM Gnu. I don't agree with Greg trying bait Bruce like that, but libel suit for calling something "BS" in the BS section would be laughed out of every court in the known universe. Its the BS section. According to the rules on this forum EVERYTHING below the line is BS. On the other hand, I would appreciate it if Greg would stop baiting bruce. But I sincerely doubt that he will. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do companies HAVE cash? From: Greg F. Date: 19 Nov 11 - 05:37 PM I'd be happy to, Jack - just so soon as he stops posting right-wing blogoshit, Rush Limbaugh's vomit, Faux News' propoganda & etc. as fact. Having a difference of opinion as to the interpretation of a body of factual information is one thing; bullshit presented as fact is quite another. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do companies HAVE cash? From: Jack the Sailor Date: 19 Nov 11 - 05:41 PM You know everyone on the forum who cares already knows what bruce posts. I used your tactic for a while with bruce, who is, in person, a pretty nice guy. I believe that reacting to him like that tends to encourage him. Keep in mind that it part of a nation wide plan to get people to react and bring others to their level. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do companies HAVE cash? From: Greg F. Date: 19 Nov 11 - 05:46 PM No argument with any of that, Jack, & I'll have to take yer word on the 'pretty nice person' assessment, however difficult that may be to believe; but i think you put your finger on it, that Bruce is baiting ME & others here by continually posting mountains of bullshit rather than the other way 'round. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do companies HAVE cash? From: Jack the Sailor Date: 19 Nov 11 - 05:49 PM One behavior reinforces the other. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do companies HAVE cash? From: dick greenhaus Date: 19 Nov 11 - 06:54 PM Well they have less cash than they had before giving out those stupefying bonuses to (presumably)reward managers who have fucked up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do companies HAVE cash? From: gnu Date: 19 Nov 11 - 07:00 PM Youse are all full a shit. Bunch a kids on a playground spitting at each other. And that is easily proven. Grow the fuck up. Max provides you a service. Show some respect. And, at least get it right... it's "gnightgnu". gnightgnu |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do companies HAVE cash? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 20 Nov 11 - 08:28 AM If you owe so much money that the people you owe it too can't afford to lose it, that generally comes to the same thing as being rich. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do companies HAVE cash? From: Greg F. Date: 20 Nov 11 - 10:14 AM Youse are all full a shit. Now THAT'S a personal attack. ;>) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do companies HAVE cash? From: Bobert Date: 20 Nov 11 - 10:45 AM I donno, Greg... Seein' as the statement addressed everyone "Youse are all", it falls more in the category of collective attack... But, hey... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do companies HAVE cash? From: Leadfingers Date: 20 Nov 11 - 11:17 AM It was recently announced that the AVERAGE pay rise fir Company Directors in UK was 49 per cent !! Just remember that according to Dear Mister Cameron we are "All in this together!" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do companies HAVE cash? From: John MacKenzie Date: 20 Nov 11 - 01:06 PM I still haven't read the article! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do companies HAVE cash? From: GUEST,999 Date: 20 Nov 11 - 01:08 PM "If you owe so much money that the people you owe it too can't afford to lose it, that generally comes to the same thing as being rich." When you owe the banks $10,000 they own you. When you owe the bank $10,000,000 you own them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do companies HAVE cash? From: Jack the Sailor Date: 20 Nov 11 - 01:34 PM I have to say, that the definition of personal attack on this forum seems arbitrary, and it always has been. Sorry to use you as an example Gnu, but this is the example at hand. Does anyone have any doubt who Gnu was attacking? I don't think so. So why wasn't the post deleted? Because no one was specifically referenced? Maybe, but that just leaves a loophole for abuse. Because no moderator has seen the comment? Maybe, but unlikely. Because the moderators agreed with the sentiment? I wouldn't blame the moderators for this reason. They are only human. But I feel a rule works better as a rule if it is applied equally to all. A lot of people can feel they are justified in getting personal. No doubt Gnu feels that, from his point of view, he has good reason. But other people sometimes feel that they are justified in attackinganother even though the moderators might not agree. If their comment is deleted and Gnu's is not, well that just makes trouble for everyone. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do companies HAVE cash? From: Jack the Sailor Date: 20 Nov 11 - 01:54 PM 999, I think that is true on the $10,000,000 scale. On the 100,000,000 to billions scale, the lobbying effort seems to be what matters. Look at the boondogle that Paulson and Wall Street pulled off. "If you don't bail us out, it will be impossible to get loans." So we bailed them out. And it is impossible to get loans. The fucking Secretary of the US Treasury, a couple of years removed from heading Goldman Sachs stood up and said, "If there is no bailout there will be a panic." The bailout just happened to perfectly coincide with Goldman Sach's "strategy". It is the Secretary of the US treasury's job to prevent panics. Not to use theme in a hostage situation with the US Economy held hostage. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do companies HAVE cash? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 20 Nov 11 - 03:04 PM Googling quickly finds the Moodys report on the approx. $1 trillion held in cash by North American businesses. The reason is the poor growth forecasts and high government debts which make companies afraid to hire or invest. The problem is global, but America and Europe are most affected. There is a catch 22 situation here, in that when investing is low, the cost of keeping the structure going (debt) is high. The biggest hoarders are Cisco, Microsoft, Google, Oracle, Pfizer and Ford. Technology firms hold approx. $207 billion, [harmaceuticals $124 billion, energy $105 billion and consumer products $101 billion. Twenty companies hold 37% of the total. Much of the rest is scattered among smaller businesses and banks. Banks are loaning money, much of it to governments in Europe and U. S. (including smaller units like cities, counties, states, etc.). Solutions? I dunno, ask our politicians. I think the snake oil salesmen are all in politics and religion nowadays, take your pick of their proposals- Happy election 2012 ! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do companies HAVE cash? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 20 Nov 11 - 03:54 PM If you say "I think what you are saying/doing is foolish" or even simply "what you are saying/doing is foolish" it is not a personal attack. If you say "you are a fool" or even "I think you are a fool" is is a personal attack. On which principle, gnu's comment "Just more of the usual Beardie BS. Predictable & boring" shouldn't be counted as a personal attack. Close, but the ball never went over the line. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do companies HAVE cash? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 21 Nov 11 - 02:08 PM Even more disturbing, McGrath, is that much of this thread is devoted to sniping. Only two or three contribute anything factual to the subject question. Of course, I try- (Kaff, kaff, kaff). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Do companies HAVE cash? From: Jack the Sailor Date: 21 Nov 11 - 03:12 PM Q, As someone who has a very good idea how business is conducted and a a familiarity with US "conservative" propaganda, I can show how your first post has done nothing to ad to the discussion on this thread. I can use concrete examples to prove that it is NOT a good article. Unless the definition of "good" article you use includes reliance on a weak straw man argument and muddying the waters rather than enlightening. Certainly this is the least accurate statement on this whole thread. "A good article, perhaps over-simplified, but those who have no idea of how business is conducted won't read it." |
