LawTalkers  

Go Back   LawTalkers > General Discussion > Politics

» Site Navigation
 > FAQ
» Online Users: 39
1 members and 38 guests
Hank Chinaski
Most users ever online was 4,499, 10-26-2015 at 07:55 AM.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-19-2019, 12:55 PM   #3391
Replaced_Texan
Random Syndicate (admin)
 
Replaced_Texan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Romantically enfranchised
Posts: 13,913
Re: Um...

Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield View Post
Why? Why?

Again. If I might ask...

Okay, so —

No. There is no excuse. Even if you grew up in a family full of closeted racists, this is insane.

In fact, put aside the racism thing... I’ve dressed as a sheik for Halloween. And we were fucked up. And I wore eye make up. But it was Bowie shit. What kind of person says, “Honey, while you’re doing the eyes... How about painting me in brown face? It’ll be the hit of the party!”

No. No. No one ever— no one with half a fucking brain, ever, ever does this. If not because it’s been offensive for, uh, forever, but also because it’s seriously fucking hard to remove that much makeup! “Oh, this’ll be a gas. I’ll pass out and wake up having destroyed someone’s carpet and covered in acne from clogged pores! Epic fun!”

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/18/w...brownface.html
I went to a Halloween party two years ago where not one but two people wore blackface. Both claimed it was ok because they were specific people and not a race as a whole.
__________________
"In the olden days before the internet, you'd take this sort of person for a ride out into the woods and shoot them, as Darwin intended, before he could spawn."--Will the Vampire People Leave the Lobby? pg 79
Replaced_Texan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2019, 12:57 PM   #3392
Replaced_Texan
Random Syndicate (admin)
 
Replaced_Texan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Romantically enfranchised
Posts: 13,913
Re: Castro

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall View Post
Would like to, but apparently you need to subscribe, which is against my religion. Cut-and-paste?

TM
I googled the title and reached this link. It might get you there.
__________________
"In the olden days before the internet, you'd take this sort of person for a ride out into the woods and shoot them, as Darwin intended, before he could spawn."--Will the Vampire People Leave the Lobby? pg 79
Replaced_Texan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2019, 01:18 PM   #3393
sebastian_dangerfield
Moderator
 
sebastian_dangerfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Monty Capuletti's gazebo
Posts: 24,286
Re: Um...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan View Post
I went to a Halloween party two years ago where not one but two people wore blackface. Both claimed it was ok because they were specific people and not a race as a whole.
I grew up around a fair amount of racists. Most weren't overt, but some were. Some were quite flagrant about it (classic Archie Bunker sorts).

Even in that environment, people would have lost their minds if they saw a person in blackface. It'd be seen as insane - the kind of shit you just cannot do.
__________________
All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.
sebastian_dangerfield is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2019, 01:45 PM   #3394
Icky Thump
Registered User
 
Icky Thump's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,780
Re: Um...

Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield View Post
I grew up around a fair amount of racists. Most weren't overt, but some were. Some were quite flagrant about it (classic Archie Bunker sorts).

Even in that environment, people would have lost their minds if they saw a person in blackface. It'd be seen as insane - the kind of shit you just cannot do.
It is good to know that I’m not the only one who is glad that neither I nor anyone I know (or associate with) would ever even consider for a second that this was something to do.

I don’t know what kind of fucked up ivory tower or gated community someone would have to grow up in to consider this for even a second.
__________________
You can breathe, you can blink, you can cry. Hell, you're all gonna be doing that!
Icky Thump is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2019, 02:30 PM   #3395
Adder
I am beyond a rank!
 
Adder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 16,505
Re: Um...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Icky Thump View Post
It is good to know that I’m not the only one who is glad that neither I nor anyone I know (or associate with) would ever even consider for a second that this was something to do.

I don’t know what kind of fucked up ivory tower or gated community someone would have to grow up in to consider this for even a second.
Apparently one where nobody told you you shouldn't be doing that the first two times...
Adder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2019, 02:56 PM   #3396
Tyrone Slothrop
Moderasaurus Rex
 
Tyrone Slothrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 31,233
Re: Um...

Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield View Post
Why? Why?

Again. If I might ask...

Okay, so —

No. There is no excuse. Even if you grew up in a family full of closeted racists, this is insane.

In fact, put aside the racism thing... I’ve dressed as a sheik for Halloween. And we were fucked up. And I wore eye make up. But it was Bowie shit. What kind of person says, “Honey, while you’re doing the eyes... How about painting me in brown face? It’ll be the hit of the party!”

No. No. No one ever— no one with half a fucking brain, ever, ever does this. If not because it’s been offensive for, uh, forever, but also because it’s seriously fucking hard to remove that much makeup! “Oh, this’ll be a gas. I’ll pass out and wake up having destroyed someone’s carpet and covered in acne from clogged pores! Epic fun!”

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/18/w...brownface.html
So odd to hear Sebby sound so much like Ms Slothrop.
__________________
“It was fortunate that so few men acted according to moral principle, because it was so easy to get principles wrong, and a determined person acting on mistaken principles could really do some damage." - Larissa MacFarquhar
Tyrone Slothrop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2019, 03:14 PM   #3397
ThurgreedMarshall
[intentionally omitted]
 
ThurgreedMarshall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 28,020
Re: Um...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan View Post
I googled the title and reached this link. It might get you there.
Nope.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder View Post
Apparently one where nobody told you you shouldn't be doing that the first two times...
[Note, this is directed at no one specific.] So this might be weird coming from me, but some of this shit is just white person-bubble naiveté. The casual racism that comes from stereotypes cultivated from a complete lack of exposure and understanding, mixed with completely homogenous neighborhoods and a one-note perspective entertainment industry (fuck, society at large), creates a solid foundation of bullshit like this because there was only one voice ever being represented.

I grew up in the 70s all over the place and in the 80s in fucking NYC. I went to school in MN. The standard for how everyone was viewed, discussed, judged, whatever, in all of these places, was a white person's. That perspective was everything, all the time. That's why people's skin color or culture or heritage or nationality was a costume that white people think they can wear for fun. It's why Bugs Bunny or Tintin could outsmart dark-skinned, big-lipped savages or why Speedy Gonzales' cousin was a walking stereotype of a lazy Mexican. It's why the girl and boy next door brings up a very specific picture of who that person is in your head to this day. It's why when you picture a doctor or lawyer or accountant in your head, it's always a white person. And why, when you hear, "thug," you picture a black man.* People of color have spent decades upon decades asking for this shit to change--to be respected--because of shit like this. The push-back is exhausting.

"How am I supposed to keep track of what you want to be called?"
"Ugh. I can't say anything anymore because of all this bullshit political correctness!"
"Don't be so sensitive all the time!"
"Now I have to worry about micro-aggressions?"

This is all the same shit. Whenever people of color are like, "Hey. You think we can be treated the same as you guys?" white people lose their minds. The next time you hear someone talk about how overly-PC the world is or how stupid the concept of "woke" is or how new pronouns are so stupid, think about this shit. It's all related. It's all the same fucking shit.

But as a person of color, I'll take someone like Trudeau who has grown and seems to genuinely care very much about people of color and inclusion over the innumerable quiet assholes who fight for nothing but their wallets any day.

TM

*I was talking fantasy football the other day and the white dude who was talking about how guys who were holding out were thugs this and thugs that couldn't comprehend why what he was saying was the height of fucking racism. He probably thinks I'm overly sensitive because I walked straight the fuck away from him.
ThurgreedMarshall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2019, 03:34 PM   #3398
sebastian_dangerfield
Moderator
 
sebastian_dangerfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Monty Capuletti's gazebo
Posts: 24,286
Re: Um...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop View Post
So odd to hear Sebby sound so much like Ms Slothrop.
Sounds like you've a damn fine partner there. Smart. Take her advice over your own.

(PS: What's she say about Biden being the only possible Trump vanquisher?

...I thought so.)
__________________
All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.
sebastian_dangerfield is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2019, 04:01 PM   #3399
Tyrone Slothrop
Moderasaurus Rex
 
Tyrone Slothrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 31,233
Re: Um...

Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield View Post
Sounds like you've a damn fine partner there. Smart. Take her advice over your own.
All three of us agree.

Quote:
(PS: What's she say about Biden being the only possible Trump vanquisher?

...I thought so.)
I think she sees Biden like a glacier: Old, white, slow-moving, and slowly melting.
__________________
“It was fortunate that so few men acted according to moral principle, because it was so easy to get principles wrong, and a determined person acting on mistaken principles could really do some damage." - Larissa MacFarquhar
Tyrone Slothrop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2019, 04:05 PM   #3400
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Registered User
 
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Government Yard in Trenchtown
Posts: 19,395
Re: Um...

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall View Post
Nope.

https://www.ft.com/content/5a8ab27e-...7-807ebd53ab77

“While each of our individual companies serves its own corporate purpose, we share a fundamental commitment to all of our stakeholders.”*

With this sentence, the*US Business Roundtable, which represents the chief executives of 181 of the world’s largest companies, abandoned their longstanding view that “corporations exist principally to serve their shareholders”.*

This is certainly a moment. But what does — and should — that moment mean? The answer needs to start with acknowledgment of the fact that something has gone very wrong. Over the past four decades, and especially in the US, the most important country of all, we have observed an unholy trinity of slowing productivity growth, soaring inequality and huge financial shocks.*

As*Jason Furman of Harvard University and Peter Orszag of Lazard Frères noted in a paper last year: “From 1948 to 1973, real median family income in the US rose 3 per cent annually. At this rate . . . there was a 96 per cent chance that a child would have a higher income than his or her parents. Since 1973, the median family has seen its real income grow only 0.4 per cent annually . . . As a result, 28 per cent of children have lower income than their parents did.”


So why is the economy not delivering? The answer lies, in large part, with the rise of*rentier capitalism.*In this case “rent” means rewards over and above those required to induce the desired supply of goods, services, land or labour.*“Rentier capitalism” means an economy in which market and political power allows privileged individuals and businesses to extract a great deal of such rent from everybody else.

That*does not explain every disappointment. As Robert Gordon, professor of social sciences at Northwestern University, argues,*fundamental innovation slowed after the mid-20th century. Technology has also created greater reliance on graduates and raised their relative wages, explaining part of the*rise of inequality. But the share of the top 1 per cent of US earners in pre-tax income jumped from 11 per cent in 1980 to 20 per cent in 2014. This was not mainly the result of such skill-biased technological change.

If one listens to the political debates in many countries, notably the US and UK, one would conclude that the disappointment is mainly the fault of imports from China or low-wage immigrants, or both. Foreigners are ideal scapegoats. But the notion that rising inequality and slow productivity growth are due to foreigners is simply false.


An Amazon warehouse in the UK. The platform giants are the dominant examples of monopoly rentiers
Every western high-income country trades more with emerging and developing countries today than it did four decades ago. Yet increases in inequality have varied substantially. The outcome depended on how the institutions of the market economy behaved and on domestic policy choices.*

Harvard economist Elhanan Helpman ends his overview of a huge academic literature on the topic with the*conclusion that “globalisation in the form of foreign trade and offshoring has not been a large contributor to rising inequality. Multiple studies of different events around the world point to this conclusion.”*

The shift in the location of much manufacturing, principally to China, may have lowered investment in high-income economies a little. But this effect cannot have been powerful enough to reduce productivity growth significantly. To the contrary, the shift in the global division of labour induced high-income economies to specialise in skill-intensive sectors, where there was more potential for fast productivity growth.

Donald Trump, a naive mercantilist, focuses, instead, on bilateral trade imbalances as a cause of job losses.*These deficits reflect bad trade deals, the American president insists. It is true that the US has overall trade deficits, while the EU has surpluses. But their trade policies are quite similar.*Trade policies do not explain bilateral balances. Bilateral balances, in turn, do not explain overall balances. The latter are macroeconomic phenomena. Both theory and evidence concur on this.


The economic impact of immigration has also been small, however big the political and cultural “shock of the foreigner” may be.*Research*strongly suggests that the effect of immigration on the real earnings of the native population and on receiving countries’ fiscal position has been small and frequently positive.

Far more productive than*this politically rewarding, but mistaken, focus on the damage done by trade and migration is an examination of contemporary rentier capitalism itself.*

Finance plays a key role, with several dimensions. Liberalised finance tends to metastasise, like a cancer. Thus, the financial sector’s ability to*create credit and money finances its own activities, incomes and (often illusory) profits.

A 2015*study by Stephen Cecchetti and Enisse Kharroubi for the Bank for International Settlements said “the level of financial development is good only up to a point, after which it becomes a drag on growth, and that a fast-growing financial sector is detrimental to aggregate productivity growth”. When the financial sector grows quickly, they argue, it hires talented people. These then lend against property, because it generates collateral. This is a diversion of talented human resources in*unproductive, useless directions.


Again, excessive growth of credit almost always leads to crises, as Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff showed in*This Time is Different. This is why no modern government dares let the supposedly market-driven financial sector operate unaided and unguided. But that in turn creates huge opportunities to gain from irresponsibility: heads, they win; tails, the rest of us lose.*Further crises are guaranteed.

Finance also creates rising inequality. Thomas Philippon of the Stern School of Business and Ariell Reshef of the Paris School of Economics*showed that the relative earnings of finance professionals exploded upwards*in the 1980s with the deregulation of finance. They estimated that “rents” — earnings over and above those needed to attract people into the industry — accounted for 30-50 per cent of the pay differential between finance professionals and the rest of the private sector.*


US president Donald Trump, a naive mercantilist, focuses on bilateral trade imbalances as a cause of job losses © Getty Images
This explosion of financial activity since 1980 has not raised the growth of productivity. If anything, it has lowered it, especially since the crisis. The same is true of the explosion in pay of corporate management, yet another form of rent extraction. As*Deborah Hargreaves, founder of the High Pay Centre, notes, in the UK the ratio of average chief executive pay to that of average workers rose from 48 to one in 1998 to 129 to one in 2016. In the US, the same ratio rose from 42 to one in 1980 to 347 to one in 2017.*

As the US essayist HL Mencken wrote: “For every complex problem, there is an answer that is clear, simple and wrong.” Pay linked to the share price gave management a huge incentive to raise that price, by manipulating earnings or borrowing money to buy the shares. Neither adds value to the company. But they can add a great deal of wealth to management. A related problem with governance is conflicts of interest, notably over independence of auditors.

In sum, personal financial considerations permeate corporate decision-making. As the independent economist Andrew Smithers argues in*Productivity and the Bonus Culture, this comes at the expense of corporate investment and so of long-run productivity growth.*

A possibly still more fundamental issue is the decline of competition. Mr*Furman and Mr*Orszag*say there is evidence of increased market concentration in the US, a lower rate of entry of new firms and a lower share of young firms in the economy compared with three or four decades ago. Work by the*OECD*and*Oxford Martin School*also notes widening gaps in productivity and profit mark-ups between the leading businesses and the rest. This suggests weakening competition and rising monopoly rent. Moreover, a great deal of the increase in inequality arises from radically different rewards for workers with similar skills in different firms: this, too, is a form of rent extraction.


A part of the explanation for weaker competition is “winner-takes-almost-all” markets: superstar individuals and their companies earn monopoly rents, because they*can now serve global markets so cheaply. The network externalities — benefits of using a network that others are using — and zero marginal costs of platform monopolies (Facebook,*Google,*Amazon, Alibaba and*Tencent) are the dominant examples.*

Another such natural force is the network externalities of agglomerations, stressed by Paul Collier in*The Future of Capitalism. Successful metropolitan areas — London, New York, the Bay Area in California — generate powerful feedback loops, attracting and rewarding talented people. This disadvantages businesses and people trapped in left-behind towns. Agglomerations, too, create rents, not just in property prices, but also in earnings.*

Yet monopoly rent is not just the product of such natural — albeit worrying — economic forces. It is also the result of policy. In the US,*Yale University law professor Robert Bork argued in the 1970s that “consumer welfare” should be the sole objective of*antitrust policy. As with shareholder value maximisation, this oversimplified highly complex issues. In this case, it led to complacency about monopoly power, provided prices stayed low. Yet tall trees deprive saplings of the light they need to grow. So, too, may giant companies.*


Some might argue, complacently, that the “monopoly rent” we now see in leading economies is largely a sign of the “creative destruction” lauded by the Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter. In fact, we are not seeing enough creation, destruction or productivity growth to support that view convincingly.

A disreputable aspect of rent-seeking is radical tax avoidance. Corporations (and so also shareholders) benefit from the public goods — security, legal systems, infrastructure, educated workforces and sociopolitical stability — provided by the world’s most powerful liberal democracies. Yet they are also in a perfect position to exploit tax loopholes, especially those companies whose location of production or innovation is difficult to determine.*

The biggest challenges within the corporate tax system are tax competition and base erosion and profit shifting. We see the former in falling tax rates. We see the latter in the location of intellectual property in tax havens, in charging tax-deductible debt against profits accruing in higher-tax jurisdictions and in rigging transfer prices within firms.*

A 2015*study by the IMF*calculated that base erosion and profit shifting reduced long-run annual revenue in OECD countries by about $450bn (1 per cent of*gross domestic product) and in non-OECD countries by slightly over $200bn (1.3 per cent of GDP). These are significant figures in the context of a tax that raised an average of only 2.9 per cent of GDP in 2016 in OECD countries and just 2 per cent in the US.*


Brad Setser of the Council on Foreign Relations shows that US corporations report seven times as much profit in small tax havens (Bermuda, the British Caribbean, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Singapore and Switzerland) as in six big economies (China, France, Germany, India, Italy and Japan). This is ludicrous. The*tax reform under Mr Trump changed essentially nothing. Needless to say, not only US corporations benefit from such loopholes.

In such cases, rents are not merely being exploited. They are being created, through lobbying*for*distorting and unfair tax loopholes and*against*needed regulation of mergers, anti-competitive practices, financial misbehaviour, the environment and labour markets.*Corporate lobbying overwhelms the interests of ordinary citizens. Indeed, some studies suggest that the wishes of ordinary people count for*next to nothing in policymaking.*

Not least, as some western economies have become more Latin American in their distribution of incomes, their politics have also become more Latin American. Some of the new populists are considering radical, but necessary, changes in competition, regulatory and tax policies. But others rely on xenophobic dog whistles while continuing to promote a capitalism rigged to favour a small elite. Such activities could well end up with the death of liberal democracy itself.


Members of the Business Roundtable and their peers have tough questions to ask themselves. They are right: seeking to maximise shareholder value has proved a doubtful guide to managing corporations. But that realisation is the beginning, not the end. They need to ask themselves what this understanding means for how they set their own pay and how they exploit — indeed actively create — tax and regulatory loopholes.

Read more by Martin Wolf
CHIEF ECONOMICS COMMENTATOR
The looming 100-year US-China conflict
Brexit means goodbye to Britain as we know it
Donald Trump’s boom will prove to be hot air
They must, not least, consider their activities in the public arena. What are they doing to ensure better laws governing the structure of the corporation, a fair and effective tax system, a safety net for those afflicted by economic forces beyond their control, a healthy local and global environment and a democracy responsive to the wishes of a broad majority?

We need a dynamic capitalist economy that gives everybody a justified belief that they can share in the benefits. What we increasingly seem to have instead is an unstable rentier capitalism, weakened competition, feeble productivity growth, high inequality and, not coincidentally, an increasingly degraded democracy. Fixing this is a challenge for us all, but especially for those who run the world’s most important businesses. The way our economic and political systems work must change, or they will perish.

About Martin Wolf
As the FT’s chief economics commentator, Martin Wolf paints on a wide canvas. He focuses on the world economy, and has paid particular attention to globalisation, financial crises and, more recently, trade wars. Pro-market but pragmatic, he ranges broadly and skilfully from the challenge of climate change to the rise of populism, and even the prediction that interest rates would remain very low for a very long time.

Follow Martin Wolf with*myFT*and on*Twitter.

The FT is free to read today. You can share this article using the buttons at the top.*
__________________
A wee dram a day!
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2019, 04:06 PM   #3401
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Registered User
 
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Government Yard in Trenchtown
Posts: 19,395
Re: Um...

So you miss all the charts and stuff this way but get the basic article.
__________________
A wee dram a day!
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2019, 04:36 PM   #3402
ThurgreedMarshall
[intentionally omitted]
 
ThurgreedMarshall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 28,020
Re: Um...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy View Post
So you miss all the charts and stuff this way but get the basic article.
Thank you. Replaced Texan also pdf'd me the article, so I'm good.

I will say that I have been screaming this tidbit from the article for 12 years now: "In sum, personal financial considerations permeate corporate decision-making. As the independent economist Andrew Smithers argues in Productivity and the Bonus Culture, this comes at the expense of corporate investment and so of long-run productivity growth."

TM
ThurgreedMarshall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2019, 04:53 PM   #3403
sebastian_dangerfield
Moderator
 
sebastian_dangerfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Monty Capuletti's gazebo
Posts: 24,286
Re: Um...

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall View Post
Thank you. Replaced Texan also pdf'd me the article, so I'm good.

I will say that I have been screaming this tidbit from the article for 12 years now: "In sum, personal financial considerations permeate corporate decision-making. As the independent economist Andrew Smithers argues in Productivity and the Bonus Culture, this comes at the expense of corporate investment and so of long-run productivity growth."

TM
Limit buybacks severely.

Warren, in her policy planks, should just take the last 20 yrs of IBM financials and make it Exhibit A to the suggested bill. “All of the type and character of the buybacks here in this exhibit will be illegal.”
__________________
All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.

Last edited by sebastian_dangerfield; 09-19-2019 at 04:56 PM..
sebastian_dangerfield is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2019, 05:01 PM   #3404
ThurgreedMarshall
[intentionally omitted]
 
ThurgreedMarshall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 28,020
Re: Um...

Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield View Post
Limit buybacks severely.

Warren, in her policy planks, should just take the last 20 yrs of IBM financials and make it Exhibit A to the suggested bill. “All of the type and character of the buybacks here in this exhibit will be illegal.”
Bonus culture and overpaying CEOs. You cannot tell me that the difference in talent levels between someone you pay $10 million/year and someone you pay $60 million isn't negligible. I refuse to believe that people commanding those salaries are worth anywhere near the difference between their salary packages.

Also, bonus culture on Wall Street will destroy us all. What is the personal risk to someone taking huge gambling risks with company assets? If you lose, the company (and/or taxpayer) pays. If you win, you get returns that are inordinately huge. We are right back where we were. Front-loaded salary packages will destroy us all (unless Amazon does it first).

TM
ThurgreedMarshall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2019, 05:31 PM   #3405
Tyrone Slothrop
Moderasaurus Rex
 
Tyrone Slothrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 31,233
Re: Um...

Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield View Post
Limit buybacks severely.
I don't get what's wrong with buybacks, conceptually. Is it not essentially like paying a dividend? If a company doesn't have a good way to re-invest its cash, why not let it give the cash back to its shareholders?
__________________
“It was fortunate that so few men acted according to moral principle, because it was so easy to get principles wrong, and a determined person acting on mistaken principles could really do some damage." - Larissa MacFarquhar
Tyrone Slothrop is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.0.1

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:08 AM.