5 ms·

> What is exactly wrong with share buybacks? AOC presents a good argument against Buy Backs from Big Pharma which incentives CEO's who's compensation is tied t

by mythz 7y ago

> What is exactly wrong with share buybacks? AOC presents a good argument against Buy Backs from Big Pharma which incentives CEO's who's compensation is tied to stock price, which as a result she attributes as the cause of rising costs of health insurance: https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1154794058272972801 https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1154794058272972801 Although Big Pharma doesn't operate in a natural economy where products are priced at optimal demand / supply for max Revenue. Instead their cost is hidden from the end-user, absorbed by insurance companies and amortized across all plan holders with rising cost of health insurance. In the long-term Buy Backs shouldn't increase a companies value as it's just trading one Asset for another, i.e. it's cash reserves for shares in their own stock, they'd choose to do this if they've maxed out their R&D budget (very healthy at $14B) and if they believe their share price is undervalued, which at a 17 P/E is significantly lower than all other FANG stocks. They could try and follow in AMZN's footsteps and try to expand into all areas outside of their core competency, but it's not their style which is to do a few things and do them well. IMO it's due to protecting and not wanting to dilute the high appeal of their Brand and Products. The result of which they've ended up with an excessive amount of capital and no effective place to invest it, although IMO they should've invested a lot more in content like Netflix a lot sooner than they have with Apple TV+.

briandear 7y ago
Are we taking AOC seriously on anything related to economics? Even Politifact has called her out on her misunderstanding of unemployment. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/jul/18/alexandria-ocasio-cortez/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-wrong-several-counts-abou/ https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/jul...
- mythz 7y ago
  > Are we taking AOC seriously on anything related to economics? AOC has at least studied economics at Boston University and has made it a goal to go after corruption and corporate greed. Just because the source isn't coming from Wall St or Corporate America doesn't make it invalid. It's not clear how much of the research behind her reasoning and arguments come from her or her team, either way if you have a counter argument that contradicts her points make them, you've added nothing of value with your prejudices in trying to disparage the source. Parent was asking what's wrong with Buy Backs, to which she's presented a negative side-effect of them that you wouldn't hear from Wall St who stands to benefit from them.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    AOC has at least studied economics at Boston University and has made it a goal to go after corruption and corporate greed. Another presidential candidate said he would “clear the swamp”. How did that work out?
    - mythz 7y ago
      > Another presidential candidate said he would “clear the swamp”. How did that work out? She's never been a presidential candidate, but what do the words of a pathological liar have to do with anything? That no-one can be trusted and everyone will always do the opposite of what they say they'll do? If you've followed the House meetings AOC has participated in you would've noticed that she's been committed to exposing corruption and corporate greed that she's brought to light. She's also taken a public pledge to refuse any corporate PAC money that she's highlighted (in another House Meeting) was a common cause of corruption. So I'll take her word over a serial liar who's been favorable towards companies, lobbyists and foreign nationals that frequents his hotels and earned him more than $80M in revenues. Regardless this thread has become unnecessarily political. Her point was about the negative consequences of Buy Backs.
      - scarface74 7y ago
        Okay. Let’s make it a little less political. When good intentions meet reality where each house of representative member spends more time fundraising than working (https://www.termlimits.com/congress-fundraising-priority/ https://www.termlimits.com/congress-fundraising-priority/) and since more states are Republican than Democrat - meaning that the Senate doesn’t represent the people in proportion to the population (every state has two Senators regardless of population), what are the chances that a Democratic President will get anything done? Obama’s administration had almost no personal legal issues, was much more popular than the current administration and still couldn’t get much done after the first two years.
        mythz 7y ago
        > Okay. Let’s make it a little less political... What are the chances that a Democratic President will get anything done? This has instead segued into predicting the hypothetical effectiveness of a unknown future Democratic President... I'm Australian so it's not going to affect me, but from the outside it looks like the U.S. has, with the assistance of a foreign adversary, unknowingly elected a corrupt, cheating, racist, inept pathological lying demagogue as its head of government. If he's elected again after showing his true colors, the rest of the world's going to think the majority of the US population is complicit and in-support of his views. Personally I'd say give a Democratic President a chance at restoring decorum to US politics. In terms of effectiveness, IMO U.S. major problems with cost of Health Insurance, Gun Laws and frequent Massacres wont be resolved within my lifetime. They might have a chance with Health Insurance as Obama was able to implement ACA and it looks like its one of Sanders and Warren's major campaign promises to implement Medicare for all, but they should be able to make progress on their other campaign promise of reducing Wealth Inequality. Warren is especially motivated on reining in Wall Street [1]. [1] https://medium.com/@teamwarren/end-wall-streets-stranglehold-on-our-economy-70cf038bac76 https://medium.com/@teamwarren/end-wall-streets-stranglehold...

by mythz 7y ago

briandear 7y ago

Are we taking AOC seriously on anything related to economics? Even Politifact has called her out on her misunderstanding of unemployment. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/jul/18/alexandria-ocasio-cortez/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-wrong-several-counts-abou/ https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/jul...

mythz 7y ago
> Are we taking AOC seriously on anything related to economics? AOC has at least studied economics at Boston University and has made it a goal to go after corruption and corporate greed. Just because the source isn't coming from Wall St or Corporate America doesn't make it invalid. It's not clear how much of the research behind her reasoning and arguments come from her or her team, either way if you have a counter argument that contradicts her points make them, you've added nothing of value with your prejudices in trying to disparage the source. Parent was asking what's wrong with Buy Backs, to which she's presented a negative side-effect of them that you wouldn't hear from Wall St who stands to benefit from them.
- scarface74 7y ago
  AOC has at least studied economics at Boston University and has made it a goal to go after corruption and corporate greed. Another presidential candidate said he would “clear the swamp”. How did that work out?
  - mythz 7y ago
    > Another presidential candidate said he would “clear the swamp”. How did that work out? She's never been a presidential candidate, but what do the words of a pathological liar have to do with anything? That no-one can be trusted and everyone will always do the opposite of what they say they'll do? If you've followed the House meetings AOC has participated in you would've noticed that she's been committed to exposing corruption and corporate greed that she's brought to light. She's also taken a public pledge to refuse any corporate PAC money that she's highlighted (in another House Meeting) was a common cause of corruption. So I'll take her word over a serial liar who's been favorable towards companies, lobbyists and foreign nationals that frequents his hotels and earned him more than $80M in revenues. Regardless this thread has become unnecessarily political. Her point was about the negative consequences of Buy Backs.
    - scarface74 7y ago
      Okay. Let’s make it a little less political. When good intentions meet reality where each house of representative member spends more time fundraising than working (https://www.termlimits.com/congress-fundraising-priority/ https://www.termlimits.com/congress-fundraising-priority/) and since more states are Republican than Democrat - meaning that the Senate doesn’t represent the people in proportion to the population (every state has two Senators regardless of population), what are the chances that a Democratic President will get anything done? Obama’s administration had almost no personal legal issues, was much more popular than the current administration and still couldn’t get much done after the first two years.
      - mythz 7y ago
        > Okay. Let’s make it a little less political... What are the chances that a Democratic President will get anything done? This has instead segued into predicting the hypothetical effectiveness of a unknown future Democratic President... I'm Australian so it's not going to affect me, but from the outside it looks like the U.S. has, with the assistance of a foreign adversary, unknowingly elected a corrupt, cheating, racist, inept pathological lying demagogue as its head of government. If he's elected again after showing his true colors, the rest of the world's going to think the majority of the US population is complicit and in-support of his views. Personally I'd say give a Democratic President a chance at restoring decorum to US politics. In terms of effectiveness, IMO U.S. major problems with cost of Health Insurance, Gun Laws and frequent Massacres wont be resolved within my lifetime. They might have a chance with Health Insurance as Obama was able to implement ACA and it looks like its one of Sanders and Warren's major campaign promises to implement Medicare for all, but they should be able to make progress on their other campaign promise of reducing Wealth Inequality. Warren is especially motivated on reining in Wall Street [1]. [1] https://medium.com/@teamwarren/end-wall-streets-stranglehold-on-our-economy-70cf038bac76 https://medium.com/@teamwarren/end-wall-streets-stranglehold...