Apple Does Not Have More Cash Than The US Gov't; Stop Saying That It Does
from the please-make-it-stop dept
It seems that there's a fun, but stupid, game that the press has picked up on in this whole debt ceiling debate (egged on by some in the government) that, thanks to the debt ceiling, Apple has more cash than the US government. As we get closer to the debt ceiling cut off, other mile markers are being highlighted as well, including the claim that Bill Gates has more money than the US government.This is wrong. And it is stupid. Please stop repeating it.
The US government can print cash. It does not run out of cash. The numbers being talked about concerning the debt ceiling represent an artificial limit, set by the government, on how much the US can borrow (debt) in order to finance its operations (set in a budget by the federal government itself). What the Apple comparison treats as government "cash" is just the difference between what the government is (artificially) permitted to borrow and what it has borrowed already.
None of this has anything to do with how much cash the government has on hand. Comparing the distance to the debt ceiling with the amount of cash anyone has is comparing two totally different things, and while it sounds nice, it's a silly political ploy and it makes you look silly. A more accurate comparison would be of something like how much money I have in my wallet right now to how much money Bill Gates' arbitrarily promised his wife he would take out of the bank this year. The comparison is totally meaningless and stupid. Please stop making it.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: cash, debt ceiling, us government
Companies: apple
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Oh thank goodness
The government budget is not like business or family budgets. It just doesn't work like that. The fundamentals of finance and civics will pretty much spell that out.
Unfortunately those subjects aren't covered in normal US public school curricula.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh thank goodness
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
confused
If the government can print cash why does it have to borrow?
Please explain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: confused
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: confused
Have you ever considered that there's absolutely no difference in effect between the government 'borrowing' a billion dollars, and the government just printing a billion debt-free dollars for themselves?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: confused
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: confused
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: confused
Economics is an extremely complicated subject. With all the determining factors and forces it looks more like spaghetti than the source code of Windows did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: confused
To priint money you are creating a bill of exchange against something that may not exist. Since cash is just a means of exchange that allows you to purchase something you require NOW instead of waiting for a barter system to work. To use this means of exchange the Real property (and this property can be labour) must actually exist.
If it doesn't exist then you are devauling everything else that exists in your market, thereby creating inflationary problems where the actual value of the exchange medium (cash) is less than the actual value/worth of the product wanted. The opposite is true if there is not enough cash.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: confused
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: confused
http://mises.org/images/archived/1930sHyperinflationWheelbarrow.jpg
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: confused
The government can also borrow or raise taxes - all these things take resources away from other economic players (printing money causes inflation, which is effectively a tax on cash holdings). Borrowing is usually preferred, all things being equal, because, being voluntary, it creates less kickback. Printing money, although always possible, is the last resort because it undermines the ability to borrow later. Usually a government will try to print enough money to cover economic growth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: confused
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: confused
Also borrowing is used to regulate appreciation and depreciation of the currency with varying degrees of success, but it is also used as a reduction factor for risk, by spreading the shit(debt) around with bonds, that the government more then once forced others to accept in paying, some countries are not happy about that crap, that is why they are creating baskets of currencies to trade on the international market to reduce dependence on the dollar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh thank goodness
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Oh thank goodness
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh thank goodness
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
Add $45 trillion in unfunded obligations (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt
Unfortunately, our children will be paying this off over the next 40 years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Oh thank goodness
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Buzzkill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Buzzkill.
I thought the punchline to this article was going to be that Apple AND Microsoft combined have more money than the government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Buzzkill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"A more accurate comparison would be of something like how much money I have in my wallet right now to how much money Bill Gates' arbitrarily promised his wife he would take out of the bank this year. The comparison is totally meaningless and stupid. Please stop making it."
Since I can't hit lol at the article I'm gonna hit lol at my own post with the quote =/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:Federal Reserve is a Federal as the Federal Express
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I see lots of people making this point in the comments. It is not accurate. The Federal Reserve, while independent, is very much a part of the government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You can repeat it as many times as you'd like. Doesn't make it any less incorrect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
EXACTLY!!!!
Donald Trump once said when he was burdened with 900 million dollars in debt: He was walking along the street he met a poor beggar, and in that moment Trump told himself “If that man had nothing then he is richer than me by 900 million, because at least he had no debt.”
So yes - Apple and Microsoft and this anonymous coward who is broke but debt-free all have more money than the government, and when it comes time to pay this debt off, we're going to find that the USA is owned by China and all the other countries that have been buying up our interests like a fire sale!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: EXACTLY!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I've got...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I've got...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I've got...
Nah, you need a full tank of gas, a half pack of cigarettes, it has to be dark out and you need to be wearing sunglasses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike's Lying
Macro and Micro Economics are the same thing. That's why they're called, "Economics."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike's Lying
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Mike's Lying
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Mike's Lying
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cash Hoarders Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Inflation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please explain how you're going to compensate me for doing what you want rather than what I want.
Doing things that other people want me to do but which I'm not inclined to do is called "employment", and it involves "payment".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I would venture guess that your "compensation" would be not having those with extensive knowledge in economics calling you a idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Nor should it have any value to anyone, IIRC. I think I learned that in grade school. . .something about sticks and stones vs. words?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ayep, 'bout figgered.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Wait. Let me get this thread straight. You are saying that you refuse to stop repeating something that is completely wrong and meaningless unless someone pays you to stop repeating it?
Wow. Are you a Washington lobbyist or something like that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And "You're a big stupid doody-head if you don't!" is not compensation. It's just a weak, whiny, ill-raised, ill-behaved, spoiled little brat's attempt at emotional bullying.
IME, when people attempt to defend behavior like that, it's because they're dependent upon it themselves, and the more they are, the more and harder they attempt to defend it. Because they perceive the normal, sensible adult criticism of it as a threat to their manipulative little gravy trains, and they'd rather try to tear someone else down than put in the actual normal, sensible adult effort needed to actually compensate other people for doing things for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No-one deserves to get paid.
You whining like a crack-addled two-year-old is getting boring now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also, what part of "'You're a big stupid doody-head if you don't!' is just a weak, whiny, ill-raised, ill-behaved, spoiled little brat's attempt at emotional bullying," did you not understand the first time?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Doing things that other people want me to do but which I'm not inclined to do is called "employment", and it involves "payment".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're still just trying to change someone else's behavior with the kindergarden threat of "I'm gonna call you mean names if you don't!" It doesn't matter what your intentions are; the form is the same regardless.
And yes, that makes it a weak, whiny, ill-raised, ill-behaved spoiled little brat's attempt at emotional bullying.
And if you don't like that. . .YOU stop doing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Did you go back and read this after you wrote it? What you just said is basically "You're trying to do X. It doesn't matter that you're not really trying to do X, because your words look very much like those of someone trying to do X."
And once again, I am not trying to influence you. If you want to continue doing what you are doing, go right ahead. It's kind of amusing, really.
And if you don't like that. . .YOU stop doing it.
You repeating the same mantra over and over again really does not bother me. Plus, shouldn't you be offering me money now, because you're telling me to do something I don't want to do?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Is it that you're just so clinically abusive that you do it for the sheer enjoyment of saying mean things about other people?
Unfortunately for your attempt at argument from consistency, I was not telling you what to do. I was merely pointing out that if your own behaviors are causing you distress, you can prevent that distress by refraining from those behaviors.
Your failure is a disappointment for me too, since valid arguments from consistency are automatic capitulations. I.e., if you're going to argue that I'm right -- which you necessarily must to argue from consistency -- then okay, fine by me; I'm right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But why else would you keep trying to put me down? Because you do keep trying to hit me with put-downs.
Just trying to help you see how you're coming off.
Unfortunately for your attempt at argument from consistency, I was not telling you what to do.
"And if you don't like that. . .YOU stop doing it" is much more telling me what to do than "And acting like you're going to get paid to stop saying stupid things is called "being an idiot", and it involves "people calling you an idiot"." is telling you what to do.
if you're going to argue that I'm right -- which you necessarily must to argue from consistency -- then okay, fine by me; I'm right.
I am challenging you to be consistent. You think you should be paid when someone tells you to stop doing something, so I asked if you believed I should be paid when someone tells me to stop doing something. Now you're trying to claim you didn't tell me to stop doing something, which IMO is weaseling out of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's all a smoke screen anyway
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's all a smoke screen anyway
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How am supposed to live in a world where I can't accept everything I hear on the news as fact? The government should really control the media so that we don't have this kind of problem anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: lol srsly?
Go back to China.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please explain.
Because it's in debt to the federal reserve, along with bons owed to investors (China holds a LARGE amount of these; thus the 'debt' to China). At one point, bankers thought it would be a good idea to hold a financial gauntlet over the American people - and here we are..
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=193828.0
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Not as private as most businesses, but certainly not "government".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also, using wikipedia as a reference doesn't make nasch look nearly as stupid as your own words make you look.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Whos best interest do you think a past president of a bank has? The interests of a bank it used to run or the american people for which he/she is now responsible for?
Tell me now your tired of FED conspiracy thoeries. Do more research on the process before you speak.
Also take a look at the world bank and tell me how that isnt corrupt while you at it.....genious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Economics 101
If not... This causes what we all know as "Degradation of the American Dollar"
You know where the Euro is worth more than the US dollar right now... while the Canadian currency is not far behind the US dollar if not equates it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Economics 101
That was true when we were on the gold standard, but that hasn't been true for many years. The US dollar is now a fiat currency.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The US government doesn't print money, the Federal Reserve does.
The cash on hand that the US government has right now is less than the cash on hand Apple has.
That is why the debt ceiling must be raised; because the US has to borrow more in order to fulfill its obligations.
Masnick is just mad because this points out how incredibly wealthy a tech company got selling things like devices that store pirated music. And he is desperate to save the sinking ship that is his piracy apologist business model.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
-10 for missing out on a trolls greatest ability. Godwins Law!
Troll better next time... But rememeber it's not whether you win or lose, its more that your a loser
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Aug 1st, 2011 @ 12:59pm
We borrow money for many reasons...how many countries that we borrow from are we at war with? Or at risk of a war?
This debt logic goes back to the civil war. We could live debt free but 200 years ago we decided not to for many good reasons. First if china attacks us we won't repay debt. Does that make there money worth less? Yes because they now have less income. Does it make our cash available to fund a war go up? Yea... of course the real issue is not if we borrow but how we use that money. Don't forget the USA has oil reserves that are worth many times what apple has in cash on hand. If there is massive inflation apple could end up having the equivalent of $1000 in cash.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Budget cuts
No plan under serious consideration cuts spending in the way you and I think about it. Instead, the “cuts” being discussed are illusory, and are not cuts from current amounts being spent, but cuts in projected spending increases. This is akin to a family “saving” $100,000 in expenses by deciding not to buy a Lamborghini, and instead getting a fully loaded Mercedes, when really their budget dictates that they need to stick with their perfectly serviceable Honda. But this is the type of math Washington uses to mask the incriminating truth about their unrepentant plundering of the American people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Budget cuts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Budget cuts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You are being way too glib
This statement is factually incorrect: "What the Apple comparison treats as government 'cash' is just the difference between what the government is (artificially) permitted to borrow and what it has borrowed already."
As is this one: "None of this has anything to do with how much cash the government has on hand."
The cash figure is the amount of money left ON HAND at the end of each day in the government's coffers after all spending and revenue from all sources (borrowing, tax receipts, fines, etc) is accounted for. The calculation has nothing to do with the debt ceiling. The debt ceiling could be raised by $2 trillion in one moment and the cash balance would not change one cent. Once the government went out and sold some T-bills and the proceeds came in, that exact amount would be added to the cash. It's not that complicated.
By your logic, Apple doesn't have $76 billion in cash because it could borrow more or maybe it has less because it could spend some of it tomorrow? If Apple couldn't issue debt because of a law or a contractual agreement or a restriction in prior borrowing, would that just be an "artificial" limit?
Do you remotely understand that the Federal Reserve is an independent arm of the government that has little to do with the federal budget as it expands and contracts the nation's money supply via the banking system in an effort to stimulate employment and keep inflation low?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You are being way too glib
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You are being way too glib
LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You are being way too glib
If the government orders them to do something will they not have to abide by it?
Could congress not dissolve the Federal Reserve and recreated it as a federal things?
That distinction is just cosmetic, the Federal Reserve can be private, so what it still forced to fallow what the government says it should do.
Laws and regulation LoL
Are you kidding me, in the real world that is not a problem since the government is the one responsible for enacting those laws and regulations and they have a lot of room to do it at discretion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You are being way too glib
If the government orders them to do something will they not have to abide by it?
My understanding is no, they do not have to follow instructions from, for example, the executive branch. Congress has "oversight" over them, but doesn't ratify their decisions.
Could congress not dissolve the Federal Reserve and recreated it as a federal things?
Of course.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You are being way too glib
Congress makes a law that it can't borrow more than some ceiling, and then has a "crisis" when it spends more. Absurd, particularly when you consider that Congress itself appropriated (spent) that money already.
Further, some scholars opine that in fact once Congress has passed an appropriation, they've implicitly raised the debt ceiling. Therefore one way out of this "crisis" is for the President to simply ask the Federal Reserve to go ahead and sell more bonds. Poof!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That is all.
PS: Read your comments, you may learn something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't care what "they" call it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://youtu.be/2MgWVBp_Oso?
http://youtu.be/-05OfTp6ZEE?hd=1
For those who actually want to understand this mess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Guess Who Owns the Most U.S. Debt? Not China
http://seekingalpha.com/article/246958-guess-who-owns-the-most-u-s-debt-not-china
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The gov takes, not makes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How about comparing financial solvency instead? Let's see, Apple seems to be doing fairly well, and the US government has about $14 trillion in debt and is considering going even further into debt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sure. That's a perfectly reasonable argument. I don't disagree that the US is horribly managed from a fiscal perspective. But the whole claims about how much "cash" it has is so incredibly misleading. What shocks me is how many people here in the comments think it's accurate.
It's not. Comparing the government's "cash" to Apple's "cash" are comparing two totally different things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Apple has a shit load of cash and NO DEBT. They are solvent. The U.S. Treasury has relatively very little cash and a shit load of debt.
Simply comparing cash stacks is missing the picture, but comparing cash stacks when the U.S. Government has significant near term funding needs and questionable ability to raise more cash through issuing debt is a valid consideration.
People who think that saying “Apple has more cash than the USG” means Apple is better off for just that reason alone, are similar to people that would think a companies valuation would be lower on a $10 stock than a $20 stock without looking at the shares outstanding or the balance sheet. The point: It is significant that the U.S. Treasury has less cash than Apple given all of the other circumstances… but it is also a headline grabber.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lol!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
US Government does not print cash
As I understand it, the US Government does not print cash. Only the Federal Reserver does this. And the Federal Reserve is privately owned. (Neither the US citizens nor the US Government have control of their own money.) The money the US government gets is loaned to them from the Federal Reserve and we the people are supposed to be responsible for paying this money back along with all the interest - to the private Federal Reserve.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh no blowback --- Mike
Masnick, who are you trying to convince ?
It does not appear to be your readers, it appears to be more you are trying to convince yourself !!!
How is that working for you ? are you there yet ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh no blowback --- Mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
P.S. Fact is that Apple does have more apples than the US government. ;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Federal Express was created by an act of Congress, is subject to Congressional oversight, and has a board of directors appointed by the President of the US?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apple does not have more cash than the government...
Do you expect to pay for the financial mess this country is in or do you expect to defer it to your kids or grand kids???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
yeah but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Saying that is like saying
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Correction: The US Government has NO money
So yes Apple DOES have more money than the Federal Government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IMO
John Joe Citizens is paying more to keep the US's economy from sinking while corporations like Microsoft and Apple are not.
If I could afford to pay a health care system that is manditory don't ya think I'd have Private insurrance?
God forbid rich people pay what John Joe Citizen contributes in equal taxes.... Imagine how poor the country would be if corporations and/or the rich paid exactly what some jackass who makes $20,000/year pays.
We wouldn't have 1/2 of the problems we have now.
The government is leaning on the average citizen who can't afford private insurance while giving tax breaks to the corporations and rich.
That my friends is "The American way of life."
Get used to it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apple and Bill Gates
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Usa cash ? Apple
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Usa cash ? Apple
You just demonstrated that you completely misunderstood the article. Or maybe only read the headline, I don't know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]