Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Possibly because supplementing a single minimum wage part time job with government benefits produces a more secure economic environment for their families? Employers that can't pay a living wage shouldn't expect government to subsidize their failures.And it's not Walmart who is costing us that t is the people who choose to work part time MW wage jobs and then use too easy to get government subsidies to make up the difference
You're the one presenting two opposing options as the only possibilities when that isn't the case:What shareholders want is capital to be used efficiently or returned to them. Buybacks are a more tax efficient way of returning capital to shareholders
corporate profits which could have gone to 'higher wages or increased investments in plants and equipment or in public investment,' such as infrastructure, all of which would have increased consumer demand, the engine of economic growth..."
the federal government could take from the shareholders
Fuck. Off. Go get your own money and stop trying to steal from others.
Not quite. All that extra cheap money comes from QE which in turn comes from taxes or printed money.So?
No business is required to use it's profits for higher wages or investments in equipment.
we are back to the old chestnut : what other people do with their money is none of your business.
Wouldn't that money be better spent expanding the business ( creating more factories or distribution points) and therefore creating more jobs?If companies weren't buying back their stock, they wouldn't be paying their employees more or investing more. They'd be paying higher dividends to their shareholders.
Why?
Because that's what shareholders want.
Shareholders are the owners of the company. They will determine what will be done with their profits.
Buybacks are the most tax efficient way to return profits to shareholders. If buybacks were banned, companies would merely increase the dividends to shareholders with the cash they would have otherwise used for buybacks.
That Nader and Hanauer think wages would be higher or there would be more jobs if there weren't buybacks merely demonstrates how utterly clueless they are.
You're the one presenting two opposing options as the only possibilities when that isn't the case:What shareholders want is capital to be used efficiently or returned to them. Buybacks are a more tax efficient way of returning capital to shareholders
"Between 2003 and 2012, stock buybacks amounted to an astounding 54% of corporate profits which could have gone to 'higher wages or increased investments in plants and equipment or in public investment,' such as infrastructure, all of which would have increased consumer demand, the engine of economic growth..."
Government could tax shareholder capital more efficiently and rebuild public infrastructure.
Billionaire Hanauer Hammers Stock Buybacks The Nader Page
Which, according to Michael Hudson, has benefited US stock and bond owners almost exclusively:Not quite. All that extra cheap money comes from QE which in turn comes from taxes or printed money.
"Shareholders wanted their profits redistributed back to them."Shareholders wanted their profits redistributed back to them. The money that would have been used to buy back stock would have been used to pay dividends.
Not quite. All that extra cheap money comes from QE which in turn comes from taxes or printed money.So?
No business is required to use it's profits for higher wages or investments in equipment.
we are back to the old chestnut : what other people do with their money is none of your business.
Wouldn't that money be better spent expanding the business ( creating more factories or distribution points) and therefore creating more jobs?If companies weren't buying back their stock, they wouldn't be paying their employees more or investing more. They'd be paying higher dividends to their shareholders.
Why?
Because that's what shareholders want.
Shareholders are the owners of the company. They will determine what will be done with their profits.
Buybacks are the most tax efficient way to return profits to shareholders. If buybacks were banned, companies would merely increase the dividends to shareholders with the cash they would have otherwise used for buybacks.
That Nader and Hanauer think wages would be higher or there would be more jobs if there weren't buybacks merely demonstrates how utterly clueless they are.
Unless... unless there is no market for their products in which case doing the buyback would surely be more proffitable.
And in an economy that is driven by consumer spending, business volume can't expand sufficiently when 1% to 10% of all consumers feel entitled to 95% of all income gains.You don't expand for the sake of expanding you expand when the business volume warrants it
[ when 1% to 10% of all consumers feel entitled to 95% of all income gains.
it not a question of feeling entitled its merely something that happened when liberals drove all the middle classs jobs away with the highest taxes in the world.
Do you understand??
it not a question of feeling entitled its merely something that happened when liberals drove all the middle classs jobs away with the highest taxes in the world.
Do you understand??
Do you?
The biggest thing killing the middle class?
Is the middle class not caring about anything but the lowest price when buying goods.
If just 10% of Americans stopped buying cheap foreign-made products when they can - our unemployment and underemployment problems would be solved.
Jeans and Shorts Made in USA by the All American Clothing Co
Made in America GE Appliances
Still Made in USA.com - American-Made Home Appliances
Lenox Made in America
It is not hard to find American made Products, you just have to look beyond Walmart.
The biggest thing killing the middle class?
Is the middle class not caring about anything but the lowest price when buying goods.
If just 10% of Americans stopped buying cheap foreign-made products when they can - our unemployment and underemployment problems would be solved.
Jeans and Shorts Made in USA by the All American Clothing Co
Made in America GE Appliances
Still Made in USA.com - American-Made Home Appliances
Lenox Made in America
It is not hard to find American made Products, you just have to look beyond Walmart.
dear, if it made sense to buy just American we could just pass a law to make imports illegal. As a typical liberal you lack the IQ to understand why we allow free trade between individuals cities states regions and countries. Do you want to learn?
4) You might note I said if just 10% of Americans would consider buying American goods.... I never said, or insinuated we shut our borders.
4) You might note I said if just 10% of Americans would consider buying American goods.... I never said, or insinuated we shut our borders.
if it made sense we could simply pass a law baning 10% of imports. Do you know why both liberals and conservatives believe in free trade?
"Supply-side economics is a school of macroeconomics that argues that economic growth can be most effectively created by lowering barriers for people to produce (supply) goods and services as well as invest in capital."do I understand what, dopey liberal. How will you learn if you are afraid to try?
