Posted on 02/04/2019 1:59:38 PM PST by reaganaut1
-PJ
Two questions:
1. Who is more efficient at deploying resources and capital, Amazon or the US Government?
2. Who then is best able to make decisions about how to maximize return on capital expenditures, Amazon or the US Government?
I rest my case.
From where I sit, that's a good thing. And the stock buybacks are good, too.
When a company goes public, its sale of stock raises money for the company to invest. Obviously, the people who do that believe in the market they are selling products into, and in the ability of their company to compete in that market.What if a company management no longer sees a value proposition in betting on their ability to prosper in that market?
If you think you can, or you think you can't, you're probably right. - Henry Ford Chuck Schumer and Bernie Sanders amply illustrate the validity of Adam Smith’s observation that
The statesman who should attempt to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals, would not only load himself with a most unnecessary attention, but assume an authority which could safely be trusted, not only to no single person, but to no council or senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it.
Thanks. I was hoping to get a polite correction from someone on here who has vastly more knowledge than I do.
If they don’t already report their buybacks to the SEC, then it be more reasonable to just have them report.
If some dummy investor looks only at the price going up a bit to make a buy decision, that’s their problem.
Every dollar that escapes their grasp makes them go crazy.
Exactly. Their premise is absurd.
Both are mechanisms for transferring the money to shareholders. You know, the people who own the company.
For example "what is happening to the other 20% of the profits if they aren't going to the owners."
Most of the suggestions by the socialists increased costs and thus decreased profits. So if a company with a $100 million dollar profit distributes $80 million and retains $20 million instead spent that $20 million on projects approved by the Dems its profit would drop to $80 million. If it still distributed that $80 million to the owners then that would be 100% and the NY Times would be that much more outraged.
How about cutting wages, increasing total profits to $120 million and only give two-thirds to the owners? < /s>
Yes. Anytime anyone spends their own money in a manner unapproved by the crooks in DC, it is a crisis.
The only thing scmucker ever ran is his mouth.
We need to expose financial hypocracies
Exactly - how many folks w/o certain stocks tried to buy them and couldn’t find any available? Don’t buy stocks and don’t expect to profit from them....must be a racist/sexist/homophobic principal that hurts women/children/minorities most...just waiting for them to clarify the fine points for us.
Tax Cuts make them insane.......................
Stock buy backs are hypocrisy?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.