You're conflating managerial economics with macroeconomics. CEOs at publicly traded companies aren't hired to enhance the long-term productive capacity of the f

You're conflating managerial economics with macroeconomics. CEOs at publicly traded companies aren't hired to enhance the long-term productive capacity of the firm ("growing the economy"); they're there to calm investor nerves and make the stock sexy. Those only have a very slight correlation to the overall health of the economy. Microsoft grew revenue and profits under Steve Ballmer, but the stock stayed flat, so he had to go. It'd be great if public companies could grow market share by beating competitors by with better prices or service, but that takes long-term strategic planning and no surprises from government, activist investors, suppliers and employees. CEOs don't have that kind of time, so they reach for familiar tools: restructuring (mass firings), selling off parts, and yes, share buybacks, because these tools move the needle that matters. During their quarterly earnings calls, they answer to Wall Street analysts, who represent the interests of shareholders, not employees or economic policymakers. As for "economic illiteracy", the very concept is nonsensical. Every economy is structured differently and what's "sensible" changes over time. If you asked a US economist whether they thought zero interest rate policy (2008-2022) was a good idea, they'd think you were talking about a communist society with a desperate government trying to manufacture growth. But this is how every western economy largely operated after the Great Recession. They'd probably take a dim view of venture capital as well, considering its portfolio strategy ignores operational profit targets in favor of IPO windfalls. That's how you end up with abominations like SPACs, where companies can go public with a fraction of the financial transparency that would otherwise be required.