4 ms·

Why would there be competition, and why would any company take that deal, when it cannot benefit from it?

by jdasdf 4y ago

vxNsr 4y ago
Why wouldn't it benefit? the idea would to be prevent giving a handout to the shareholders through unethical means. When you sign a contract with someone you are bound by the contract, for some reason you and most company executives are having trouble understanding that. They all (you) think, "if I can take someone else's money and run, then I should, my word and agreements be damned." That anathema to a civil society. I'll address your disingenuous reply to me above over here: Stock buybacks and executive bonuses are things you give out when the company is doing well -- through its own means, not when you get charity from the government because you screwed up for 30 years and failed to invest and innovate. If intel which had record profits last year and revenues in excess of $70billion needs a handout because it doesn't have the money to invest in the US, then it shouldn't be allowed to reward it's owners and failed executives until the US government gets a return on its investment. It takes 5 years to bring a fab online and 5 years to see the economic impact of that new fab, so 10 years before they're allowed to start rewarding their owners again. Or return the money early and then you can do stock buybacks, and phat exec bonuses.
- jdasdf 4y ago
  > Why wouldn't it benefit? the idea would to be prevent giving a handout to the shareholders through unethical means. When you sign a contract with someone you are bound by the contract, for some reason you and most company executives are having trouble understanding that. They all (you) think, "if I can take someone else's money and run, then I should, my word and agreements be damned." That anathema to a civil society. Can you explain to me how shareholder benefit from such a deal when the deal is preventing them from benefiting from it? Why would shareholders (the owners of the company) ever voluntarily take such a deal? No one is saying agreements shouldn't be fulfilled, but I'd like to note that you still haven't explained why the company should ever take such a deal, when it does not benefit the shareholders (you know, the ones the company is supposed to be working for) >Stock buybacks and executive bonuses are things you give out when the company is doing well -- through its own means, not when you get charity from the government because you screwed up for 30 years and failed to invest and innovate. Why do you believe that's the case? Stock buybacks (like dividends) are merely ways to put cash from the right pocket (the companies bank accounts) into the left pocket (the bank accounts of the shareholders), shareholders own the cash all the same. There is nothing immoral or wrong about them.

Why would there be competition, and why would any company take that deal, when it cannot benefit from it?

by jdasdf 4y ago

Why would there be competition, and why would any company take that deal, when it cannot benefit from it?

Why wouldn't it benefit? the idea would to be prevent giving a handout to the shareholders through unethical means. When you sign a contract with someone you are bound by the contract, for some reason you and most company executives are having trouble understanding that. They all (you) think, "if I can take someone else's money and run, then I should, my word and agreements be damned." That anathema to a civil society. I'll address your disingenuous reply to me above over here: Stock buybacks and executive bonuses are things you give out when the company is doing well -- through its own means, not when you get charity from the government because you screwed up for 30 years and failed to invest and innovate. If intel which had record profits last year and revenues in excess of $70billion needs a handout because it doesn't have the money to invest in the US, then it shouldn't be allowed to reward it's owners and failed executives until the US government gets a return on its investment. It takes 5 years to bring a fab online and 5 years to see the economic impact of that new fab, so 10 years before they're allowed to start rewarding their owners again. Or return the money early and then you can do stock buybacks, and phat exec bonuses.

jdasdf 4y ago
> Why wouldn't it benefit? the idea would to be prevent giving a handout to the shareholders through unethical means. When you sign a contract with someone you are bound by the contract, for some reason you and most company executives are having trouble understanding that. They all (you) think, "if I can take someone else's money and run, then I should, my word and agreements be damned." That anathema to a civil society. Can you explain to me how shareholder benefit from such a deal when the deal is preventing them from benefiting from it? Why would shareholders (the owners of the company) ever voluntarily take such a deal? No one is saying agreements shouldn't be fulfilled, but I'd like to note that you still haven't explained why the company should ever take such a deal, when it does not benefit the shareholders (you know, the ones the company is supposed to be working for) >Stock buybacks and executive bonuses are things you give out when the company is doing well -- through its own means, not when you get charity from the government because you screwed up for 30 years and failed to invest and innovate. Why do you believe that's the case? Stock buybacks (like dividends) are merely ways to put cash from the right pocket (the companies bank accounts) into the left pocket (the bank accounts of the shareholders), shareholders own the cash all the same. There is nothing immoral or wrong about them.