Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Threads: Guy pays me $50 for a speaker [View all]ProfessorGAC
(73,928 posts)24. They're Parking Money In A Bank?
$30 billion in planned capital.
They're paying around $4 dividend per share on around 4 billion shares. Another $16 billion.
They pay over $12 billion in payroll.
And, they buy around $100 billion (yes with a B) of crude oil per year.
That's just 4 expenses and they total nearly $160 billion, on $350 billion in total pretax revenue.
This Threads post shows a cluelessness of how businesses function.
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:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations

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
You will be unable to explain a coherent true understanding of your bizarre theory.
Bernardo de La Paz
Jun 3
#27
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
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
Obviously b) giving to families. They will spend most of it in relatively short order.
Bernardo de La Paz
Jun 3
#36
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
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
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
There is a point but the example is Bogus and Untrue and Ignorant of basic economics
Bernardo de La Paz
Jun 2
#12