From Business Insider:
Here’s something to keep in mind as you follow this evening’s congressional debate over the debt ceiling.
According to the latest daily statement from the U.S. Treasury, the government had an operating cash balance of $73.8 billion at the end of the day yesterday.
Apple’s last earnings report (PDF here) showed that the company had $76.2 billion in cash and marketable securities at the end of June.
In other words, the world’s largest tech company has more cash than the world’s largest sovereign government.
That’s because Apple collects more money than it spends, while the U.S. government does not.
Way to go Washington.
Let Steve Jobs manage the budget instead of John Boehner. I'd bet he'd find more than $1 billion in spending to cut.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMore than a billion? Which plan doesn't cut at least a trillion?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAll of 'em.
They "promise" to cut a lot of money later, like 10 years from now. That doesn't count.
And Reid's plan saves over half its money by zeroing out all money for Iraq and Afghanistan, which either would happen anyway in Iraq (so, that doesn't produce savings in the future), or will not happen in the case of Afghanistan (in which case the money actually gets spent, not saved). Pretty illusory "savings" on which he relies.
"1 Trillion" in savings? Wanna see the junk in my storage unit? I could sell it to you, apparently, at a significant markup over the original MSRP.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo one of the things Apple does in figure out ways to increase its revenues. Apparently the GOP would not have a place in that company.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe difference is that Apple only increases its revenues by offering something of value to the customer. It doesn't increase its revenues by pulling up the credit cards used by its customers previously, and just charging them all an additional $30 surcharge.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThank you for pointing that out to our commerce-challenged friend.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWow, there are so many more directions to take that:
- Apple got its revenues through voluntary exchange, not forced collectivization
- the gubmint's revenues far exceed Apple's, and still it can't manage the balance sheet
- Apple can be held criminally liable if it lies to its investors, while politicians seem unable to speak the truth about where the money goes...
We can go on and on.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's your last comment that, for me, is most instructive.
It's not sophistry or hyperbole to describe our own government's accounting methods as criminal. In fact, if Congress applied the rules that they make for the "regular" world to themselves, then our federal courts would be flush with government defendants charged with dozens upon dozens of violations of federal financial transparency laws.
After prosecutors were done there, they could move onto the Social Security scheme. If a private citizen ran his own private "retirement" account the same way the government runs Social Security, life in prison would be the likely outcome.
The Federal Government was (and is) Bernie Madoff before Bernie Madoff was Bernie Madoff.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuseso obviously in the minds of establishment Republicans this means it's time to borrow!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's always Spending Time in the minds of Establishment Republicans---thus Bill Kristol's most recent hissy fit.
The Gravy Train is OVER.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe purpose of Apple is to make money, the purpose of the government... well, that's been mutated over 200 years, but it's not to make a profit from fleecing it's citizens.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAlso worth pointing out that Apple keeps approximately half of that cash offshore to avoid U.S. tax law covering earnings in offshore entities. We should have a tax system that attracts capital to the U.S. but the opposite is the case... welcome to the Department of Growth Avoidance.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMuch as I admire Apple and loath the USG, the comparison is not apt. The Federal government is not a business; if it had a large cash savings on hand, that would imply they've brought in too much money via coercive taxation. Better they should simply be forbidden by law to borrow at all, except in a true national emergency like a major war.
(Of course, the fact that it is $14+ trillion in debt is literally insane, but that's a different matter.)
The Federal Government should always be poor, so the people can be rich.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe "ugh" part here should be the fact that Apple has more than $70 billion in a war chest and refuses to pay shareholders a dividend.
Corporation after corporation hoards cash instead of serving shareholders. They use their record profits to buy their competition.
Not all of the economic woes in this country are caused by the government.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf you don't like the way Apple (or any company) does business, you are free to sell your shares and stop doing business with them. Perhaps you should consider this course of action.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAre you saying you've held apple stock over the past several years and are unhappy?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMore nonsense from the 'Why can't we run the country like a business' crowd.
They hate the Federal government but fantasize about a Washington-as-dictatorial-superman-CEO.
Why not just shut down and sell off nonproducing states and relocate their populations.
Call it populism for the golf set.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Call it populism for the golf set."
Remind me which welfare program George Soros is enrolled in?
Or Richard Rubin? Or John Corzine? Or Tim Geithner? Or Larry Flynt?
You know, all those indigent progressives.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@Teflon: The only concern I would have is that Steve Jobs would make entirely the *wrong* cuts......
@Boozhwa: Exactly right. And, Apple doesn't borrow money just to pay its employees.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSteve Jobs wouldn't attempt to save his way to prosperity; he'd raise revenues!
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse