General Discussion

Bernardo de La Paz

(57,178 posts)

19. Wrong. Stock is just a form of currency: a liquid asset that can be switched to cash and back.

Mon Jun 2, 2025, 10:59 PM

Jun 2

If a company has more money than it can invest at the time, it can buy back stock, which raises the price of the stock. The higher stock price makes it possible to borrow money later or sell stock later to raise money when an opportunity for investment arises.

They are not a failure. It is not a "money high". They don't waste productivity. The money goes into the economy where it can be productive. And the enhanced stock value can bring money back later when it can actually be used by the company.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

39 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Threads: Guy pays me $50 for a speaker [View all] LiberalArkie Jun 2 OP

Excellent. Midnight Writer Jun 2 #1

Well .... Lurker Deluxe Jun 3 #29

Except the bank doesn't sit on it ("for decades"). Disaffected Jun 2 #2

Like stock buy backs and dividends to stock holders. flashman13 Jun 2 #3

Both of which though keep the funds mobile and Disaffected Jun 2 #5

Stock buybacks inject money into the economy because the stock has to PAID for. Likewise dividends Bernardo de La Paz Jun 2 #14

Stock buy backs waste productivity. They represent a failure to strengthen and build flashman13 Jun 2 #18

Wrong. Stock is just a form of currency: a liquid asset that can be switched to cash and back. Bernardo de La Paz Jun 2 #19

No they don't. They are a form of corporate cancer. Enough said. flashman13 Jun 3 #25

You will be unable to explain a coherent true understanding of your bizarre theory. Bernardo de La Paz Jun 3 #27

Ah yes, but cash in action(the flow) is what makes cachukis Jun 3 #31

Exactly. If it can't be put in motion, then plow it back into the company, if you have confidence in the company Bernardo de La Paz Jun 3 #32

High brow. But the abuses seem to abound in cachukis Jun 3 #33

Yes, the disparity in wealth and income btwn the 1% and the 50% is a big unsustainable problem. . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Jun 3 #34

So you DO understand the multiplier effect! W_HAMILTON Jun 3 #35

Obviously b) giving to families. They will spend most of it in relatively short order. Bernardo de La Paz Jun 3 #36

Yes -- and that's the point the OP was making. W_HAMILTON Jun 3 #37

I direct you to my first post in this thread, #12. OP has a point but their argument does not make their point. . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Jun 3 #38

You get it. So many don't. . . .nt Bernardo de La Paz Jun 2 #13

That's also why "Trickle Down" is bullshit JoseBalow Jun 2 #4

Nothing wrong with investing. The bullshit in "Trickle Down" is parking bucks in real estate and artwork. . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Jun 2 #15

My first thought was "What was the speaker?" CaptainTruth Jun 2 #6

I understand. I wondered something similar... "Who was the speaker?" littlemissmartypants Jun 2 #9

In another time: Codifer Jun 2 #7

Money in motion. You get it. Bernardo de La Paz Jun 2 #16

Except someone is a thief. nt. druidity33 Jun 3 #21

Excellent point and on top of that, they don't employ anyone, at least not in the numbers companies did 50 years ago n/t Cheezoholic Jun 2 #8

But... littlemissmartypants Jun 2 #10

Who exactly is the "they" in PoindexterOglethorpe Jun 3 #26

Nice to know Lurker Deluxe Jun 3 #30

2025 XOM Capex GladysKravitz Jun 2 #11

Welcome to DU. Good first post. You get it. . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Jun 2 #17

Welcome to DU LetMyPeopleVote Jun 3 #23

There is a point but the example is Bogus and Untrue and Ignorant of basic economics Bernardo de La Paz Jun 2 #12

Another plus is Codifer Jun 2 #20

Yes - the Velocity of Money Ruby the Liberal Jun 3 #22

They're Parking Money In A Bank? ProfessorGAC Jun 3 #24

"The restaurant owner gives it to the waitress," greyl Jun 3 #28

If Exxon "Mobile" made profits by way of savings accounts Dreamer Tatum Jun 6 #39