Skip to main content

View Diary: Corporations Repatriating Cash After Dodging Tax Laws (47 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I dunno (0+ / 0-)

    just intuitively, it seems like having more money in this country is better than having less money.

    You know, just in case at some point one of those companies or other recipients of the $$s decided to use it to create jobs.

    But I'm not an economist - maybe it *would* be better to have all that going on overseas.

    •  but of course (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      trumpeter

      that's not the point being made in the diary. You did read it completely before jumping into the comment fray, yes?

      •  The point being made in this diary (0+ / 0-)

        seemed to be that the pharmaceutical industry was in complete meltdown mode.

        Which kinda elicits as "well duh - what do you expect will happen if you put McDonald's executives in charge of it?" response.

        I don't really get how conflating that with the repatriation of funds into the USA makes much sense.

        But I'm still eager to find out if anyone can explain it!!

        •  Merck's revenues were up (0+ / 0-)

          when it announced it would layoff 17,500 employees.  The point is that they combined positions and slashed jobs after acquiring Schering-Plough.  

          Hope. It is the quintessential human delusion, simultaneously the source of your greatest strength, and your greatest weakness.

          by The Anomaly on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 10:03:45 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes, laying off 17,500 is almost certain (0+ / 0-)

            to increase short term profitability (and provide hundreds of millions in the way of bonuses to the executives who dreamed up this scheme).

            OTOH, it's almost a certain death knell to these companies over the longer term that have no compelling new products coming on line and are being squeezed by generics and everyone and their cousin screaming about high drug prices.

            The point being, they'd be doing this with or without the ability to repatriate foreign funds.  In fact, they have been for the past 10 or 15 years.

            •  No, profits were already way up (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              DocbytheBay, trumpeter

              in 2008, before the merger and layoffs.

              Hope. It is the quintessential human delusion, simultaneously the source of your greatest strength, and your greatest weakness.

              by The Anomaly on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 10:18:27 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  According to the link you just gave (0+ / 0-)

                profits were actually quite a bit lower (in Europe to boot, so how that applies to this thread is confusing!) than in the previous several years.

                In any event , massive layoffs and mergers have not been a recent event that plagues Big Pharma, they've been a regular feature for several years already.

                •  Merck's profit did not rise in 2009 (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  trumpeter

                  From what data do you draw the argument that Merck's profits increased after their acquisition of Schering-Plough?

                  According to the stats published on their website, their profit did not rise.

                  Hope. It is the quintessential human delusion, simultaneously the source of your greatest strength, and your greatest weakness.

                  by The Anomaly on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 10:34:03 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Your (new!) link shows approximately (0+ / 0-)

                    similar profitability over the past couple of years, which is quite astounding considering the global financial meltdown we've all been hearing about . ..

                    To look at things another way, the following link provides annotated stock prices (click on the 5 year option):

                    http://www.wikinvest.com/...

                    You'll see that the stock bottomed out right about when the merger went through and rose steadily for many months thereafter (surely long enough for the executives in charge to cash in their stock options for a sizeable profit).

                    •  You are confirming my rebuttal (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      lunachickie

                      that Merck's profit did not rise after layoffs.  The key issue is that the tax loopholes are not benefiting American workers, or creating jobs.  Just the opposite, in fact.

                      Hope. It is the quintessential human delusion, simultaneously the source of your greatest strength, and your greatest weakness.

                      by The Anomaly on Thu Dec 30, 2010 at 11:13:51 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site