LogFAQs > #928789092

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, Database 5 ( 01.01.2019-12.31.2019 ), DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	billionaires earned their weal-
1337toothbrush 10/15/19 8:07:08 AM #168:	Broseph_Stalin posted... Are you trying to find stuff for me to debunk? First of all, Vox is claiming stock buybacks were "discovered" in the 1930s as a way for companies to inflate their stock prices and "hang on to their wealth while the rest of the country suffered from a depression". This is a lie. The first stock buybacks occurred in the 18th century, they're as old as the US itself. In fact, regulations at the time actually forced some companies to buy back their stock. Why? The public simply didn't trust the small group of wealthy and powerful individuals running these companies to handle all that excess cash. Kind of funny that the people complaining about stock buybacks today are the same type of people who mandated stock buybacks to begin with. Stock buybacks were made illegal after the market crash for shits and giggles then, huh? I'm going to need a source on your claim that stock buybacks were mandated and for that purpose. Broseph_Stalin posted... The second point Vox is making is that stock buybacks are a kind of magic trick to manipulate stock prices without actually making your company more productive or investing in R&D. We know that isn't true for a number of reasons. Corporate spending on research and development is at all-time highs and unproductive companies wouldn't have much money to spend on buybacks in the first place. Source? Also, corporations having even more money to invest in R&D on top of stock buybacks doesn't mean that buyback money couldn't be put to better use. Broseph_Stalin posted... Companies that are particularly productive might actually find themselves with more cash than they even need for optimal investment. This often leads to "empire building", investing in unlucrative projects that end up hurting long term growth. Stock buybacks can prevent this from happening. It's also worth noting that Vox does the "graph corporate profits and worker wages without including non-monetary compensation" thing in this video lol As scar said, they could pay their employees more. The non-monetary compensation argument is stupid because most of it is due to ridiculously inflated health care costs. It is also dubious because the "equivalent value" doesn't take into account whether employees actually use it. I have an amazing healthcare plan that's worth a lot, but I barely use it because I'm healthy. --- https://imgur.com/a/FU9H8 https://imgur.com/ZkQRDsR - https://imgur.com/2x2gtgP <cite>1337toothbrush posted [p:928789092] in billionair... [t:78082189]...</cite> <quote>Broseph_Stalin posted...</cite> <quote>Are you trying to find stuff for me to debunk? First of all, Vox is claiming stock buybacks were "discovered" in the 1930s as a way for companies to inflate their stock prices and "hang on to their wealth while the rest of the country suffered from a depression". This is a lie. The first stock buybacks occurred in the 18th century, they're as old as the US itself. In fact, regulations at the time actually forced some companies to buy back their stock. Why? The public simply didn't trust the small group of wealthy and powerful individuals running these companies to handle all that excess cash. Kind of funny that the people complaining about stock buybacks today are the same type of people who mandated stock buybacks to begin with.</quote> Stock buybacks were made illegal after the market crash for shits and giggles then, huh? I'm going to need a source on your claim that stock buybacks were mandated and for that purpose. Broseph_Stalin posted...</cite> <quote>The second point Vox is making is that stock buybacks are a kind of magic trick to manipulate stock prices without actually making your company more productive or investing in R&D. We know that isn't true for a number of reasons. Corporate spending on research and development is at all-time highs and unproductive companies wouldn't have much money to spend on buybacks in the first place. </quote> Source? Also, corporations having even more money to invest in R&D on top of stock buybacks doesn't mean that buyback money couldn't be put to better use. Broseph_Stalin posted...</cite> <quote>Companies that are particularly productive might actually find themselves with more cash than they even need for optimal investment. This often leads to "empire building", investing in unlucrative projects that end up hurting long term growth. Stock buybacks can prevent this from happening. It's also worth noting that Vox does the "graph corporate profits and worker wages without including non-monetary compensation" thing in this video lol</quote> As scar said, they could pay their employees more. The non-monetary compensation argument is stupid because most of it is due to ridiculously inflated health care costs. It is also dubious because the "equivalent value" doesn't take into account whether employees actually use it. I have an amazing healthcare plan that's worth a lot, but I barely use it because I'm healthy. --- https://imgur.com/a/FU9H8 https://imgur.com/ZkQRDsR - https://imgur.com/2x2gtgP</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1