There has been much recent discussion of the topic and I apologize (to RA, among others) for being late to the party.  Here is one piece by Yves Smith in the NYT and here is an Economist symposium on the topic, with many first-rate contributors.  Overall I am puzzled at the nature of the worry here.  Corporations with cash surpluses are not destroying real resources, nor are they stuffing cash in their mattresses.  They are investing in financial assets.

Take a financially conservative corporation, which holds its surplus in the form of T-Bills.  If it bought the T-Bills fresh at auction, that's lending money out to the government and the capital is still deployed.  Isn't that called…in some circles…stimulus?  (I've even heard the multiplier might be 1.4!  Or does only the borrower get credit and not the lender?)  It's trickier if the corporation buys the T-Bill on the secondary market, but still a) someone else has the money now, and b) this resale opportunity encourages other investors to buy freshly created T-Bills, thus putting capital in the hands of the government.  In terms of final effect, there should be a near-equivalence between buying old and new T-Bills.

Of course you might think the government is not spending this money well, but that's the problem of the government, not the corporate surpluses, which indeed are being invested.  I ran a surplus this last year and paid off some of my mortgage; does anyone think I destroyed net real resource investment?  (In fact I redistributed profits away from the financial sector, I suspect, which is good for the real economy at this point.)

If velocity is too slow for a social optimum, is it the corporations — who strive to rapidly invest excess cash in the till — who are at fault?  Even if corporations are not helping matters, are they doing anything worse than passing off a hot potato?

You might make an external cost argument.  Perhaps each corporation does well by holding T-Bills, but the system as a whole suffers under the encroachment of state power and public sector expansion.  That's not an argument which many proponents….do I even need to finish this sentence?  

It is perfectly fine to claim that we have a sectoral misallocation and that high corporate cash reserves are a symptom of this problem, for instance maybe there is too much lending to the safer, commercial paper-issuing big corporations and not enough lending for higher-yielding, riskier start-ups (no one knows which risks to take), or whichever story you wish to tell.  I hold a version of that view myself, but it's very different from believing that high cash reserves are stifling investment per se.

By the way, these high cash reserves are one reason why I don't think Alex's nominal wage stickiness story explains current unemployment.

Why is it so frequent that economists take Keynes's analysis of sitting on currency and apply it to savings and investment?

File under "Yet another discussion of the Junker problem."

As I’ve said before, if we’re going to cut spending on retirement programs then it makes much more sense to reduce Medicare outlays by $1 than to reduce Social Security benefits by $1. Social Security benefits can be used to buy health care, and reducing Medicare spending could reduce system-wide health care costs. What’s more, if we’re going to cut spending on retirement programs then such cuts should be broadly shared and not exclusively inflicted on younger people. Such moves are both fairer and more credible. Last, if you want to cut Social Security benefits you should just cut Social Security benefits. Reducing outlays via the mechanism of a higher retirement age is going to mean that the incidence of the cuts falls most heavily on people with physically taxing–or simply boring and annoying–jobs. It’s one of the most regressive possible ways of trimming spending.

That's from Matt Yglesias.

Low-denomination U.S bank notes change hands until they fall apart here in Africa, and the bills are routinely carried in underwear and shoes through crime-ridden slums.

Some have become almost too smelly to handle, so Zimbabweans have taken to putting their $1 bills through the spin cycle and hanging them up to dry with clothes pins alongside sheets and items of clothing.

It's the best solution – apart from rubber gloves or disinfectant wipes – in a continent where the U.S. dollar has long been the currency of choice and where the lifespan of a dollar far exceeds what the U.S. Federal Reserve intends.

Zimbabwe's coalition government officially declared the U.S. dollar legal tender last year to eradicate world record inflation of billions of percent in the local Zimbabwe dollar as the economy collapsed.

The U.S. Federal Reserve destroys about 7,000 tons of worn-out money every year. It says the average $1 bill circulates in the United States for about 20 months – nowhere near its African life span of many years.

That's one way to conduct a countercyclical monetary policy, namely put old bills in the wash.  Yet it is tricky because velocity should decline as well.  (Do they get the proper degree of monetary endogeneity?  Is this actually a free banking model?)  Rather than unloading your money quickly, you have other options:

Zimbabweans say the U.S. notes do best with gentle hand-washing in warm water. But at a laundry and dry cleaner in eastern Harare, a machine cycle does little harm either to the cotton-weave type of paper. Locals say chemical "dry cleaning" is not recommended – it fades the color of the famed greenback.

The full article is here.  For the pointer I thank Jeremy Davis.

The NHTSA had volunteers drive a test track in cars with automatic lane departure correction, and then interviewed the drivers for their impressions. Although the report does not describe the undoubted look of horror on the examiner’s face while interviewing one female, 20-something subject, it does relay the gist of her comments.

After she praised the ability of the car to self-correct when she drifted from her lane, she noted that she would love to have this feature in her own car. Then, after a night of drinking in the city, she would not have to sleep at a friend’s house before returning to her rural home.

From CSV.  The Peltzman effect doesn’t mean that improvements in safety are always negated but it does remind us that we can never ignore the human response.