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]Bernardo de La Paz
(57,595 posts)27. You will be unable to explain a coherent true understanding of your bizarre theory.
Simply repeating your statement, as you have done, is tantamount to an admission you have nothing. Since you have not responded to my points, we may assume that perhaps you have not read them, or do not understand them, or you have nothing.
Go ahead, try. Or accept that you have nothing. An emotional reaction based on old tropes is not a coherent or true understanding.
Remember the premise: "If a company has more money than it can invest at the time". Companies would prefer to invest in new production or new markets or even new products, but that is not always possible.
Try. Maybe you will learn something in the discussion.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
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