3 ms·
Actually, both capital and labour shares of output have seen a relative decline at the expense of profits. [1] Conventional theory suggests this would occur un
by chumali 9y ago
Actually, both capital and labour shares of output have seen a relative decline at the expense of profits. [1]
Conventional theory suggests this would occur under conditions of increasing market power. Most of the symptoms of this (of which decreasing investment is one) can already be witnessed. [2]
It seems therefore that the increase in share buybacks is simply one of the symptoms of the overarching market concentration narrative. Monopolists have little need to invest/innovate due to lack of competition and are therefore free to commit resources to price manipulation or further increasing their market power.
In this context any anti-buyback campaign would prove ineffective unless carried out alongside policies designed to limit market concentration and increase competition.
[1] https://promarket.org/responsible-declining-labor-share-output-michael-porter/ https://promarket.org/responsible-declining-labor-share-outp...
[2] http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.co.uk/2017/08/the-market-power-story.html http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.co.uk/2017/08/the-market-powe...
- adrianratnapala 9y agoActually, both capital and labour shares of output have seen a relative decline at the expense of profits. [1] What am I missing here. I thought "profit" simply was a shorthand for "captial's share of revenue". I tried to understand the definitions at the promarket.org link but couldn't make sense of them. I think what you are saying is that profits are being increasingly being derived by barriers to entry. That makes sense, but still those extra profits are going to be counted as captal's share of revenue.
- specialist 9y agoProfit is the surplus. How that's paid out (investors, labor, government, management/execs, etc) is another matter.