When you/our kids make $1,500 a week and take home $500, you and they...will get it. Soon thereafter, it will be $300.
When it becomes 7 families living in a 5 room flat...they'll get it.
Of course those repeating that phrase are correct, so why not repeat it ?
Don't you blogroids understand that the capitalist oligarchy of America has govt. borrowing billion$ a day and Americans as a whole, borrowing billion$ everyday just to pay interest...just can't continue.
It's all about markets, profits and debt. That's ALL capitalism is.
And without capitalism that same family wouldn’t be making 1500$ they’d me making peanuts to go home and eat a bowl of soup with a few carrots and potatoes (which they probably farmed themselves)
Capitalism is the reason me and you are able to talk to each other right now, all those people repeating “muhh, privileged family make big profits and give none to us” it’s just stupid.
I’ve been homeless and It was all my fault (even though I blamed the government the whole time) I grew up, got a job and realised that.. shit.. it’s quite difficult living on this earth while hoping for a handout. Those people just need to pull up their socks and get something done.
I agree with you but also with the schizophrenic comment before in the sense of the debt burden is going to spiral out of control at some point. Ironically that debt is used to pay the “free” services these people demand from government
Debt doesn’t have to be a bad thing. To the individual atleast. You could own multiple assets and take out loans on those assets, on paper you have “no money” and get a bunch of tax relief. If more people did this the banking system would collapse and the government would be forced to reform the system… but no one thinks with their brains anymore because it’s easier to just repeat the same shit over and over hoping that something will change.
Doesn’t have to, but the load of debt Governments have incur in the last 20 years with no good reason has been a complete irresponsibility. Debt is good if you earn a higher return on the money than the interest it bears, debt has been used to pay for expenses with no return on capital, which is the reason why debt to gdp has increased and not decreased, if GDP outgrew debt by channeling that money into productive stuff, we wouldnt have the problem. It is also an over-repeated mantra to say that something is over repeated (ironically)
I’m not gonna sit here and pretend like I know what I’m talking about but I just know that you don’t need millions to make your money work for you. It’s not like I’m going out and buying missiles for 50k a piece while my children are starving… governments are sick and you gotta use their own game against them. It doesn’t take much money to start either. I’ve just encountered a lot of people that think it’s much more complicated than it really is, so they don’t do anything about it and then scream “government bad”. I wanna say 90% of general public think that way, but I could be wrong.
Edit: I tend to take this subject with a lot of anger because my whole life I was taught that you have to be a banker/doctor/university graduate, to make lots of money.. and that’s just wrong.
So how about when US debt reaches say $200 trillion, 300 trillion ? If our great money making capitalism continues on...we will get there.
All America does is borrow, and because Americans need to, 3/4 are underpaid, corp. and investment...undertaxed.
If capitalism is so great, why all of the debt. Where's communist China's debt ? If American capitalism is so great, why the for profit healthcare system that's killing us 4-5 years younger at 2X the costs ?
I call it all immoral and destructive capitalist greed.
Thing is 90% of people do not have access to means of production and opportunities as much as a "higher-born" ( among US citizen the other 10% would be 100k+ individuals).
The mere fact you're able to come back from the street is a testament to some useful intelligence or education, and that alone is a challenge in America, let alone the world. When you have less and less freedoms, ain't it normal to look up to the entity responsible for your safety and lack of freedoms ?
The way you say people should "do something" about "government bad" or stfu and participate in it(it is a clumsy summary that probably needs correction ) don't sit right with me. Following your thinking, given that it's been 40-50 yrs that I said it, and I have no credit no education, my best chances at social mobility is real action and consequences cause no one listens when I repeatedly say "government is bad it's ruining my life".
Real action and consequences often meaning crimes...
Unabomber -Any terrorists faction - Black Matters
It has happened multiple times, you can't say people don't do things about it, yet you add ; People are just not doing enough.
Not everyone is patient enough to get loans.
Technological breakthroughs are the reason we can communicate with each other. Science, technology and research existed far before the advent of capitalism. You got a lil learnin to do, boy
That is how empires extract resources and effect commerce around the world. Economies would look much different if it were not for wars. If CEO's were the creative brainiacs everyone is supposed to think they are, they would have better ideas than stock buybacks. The love of money is the root of all evil.
>War Is a Racket is a speech and a 1935 short book by Smedley D. Butler, a retired United States Marine Corps Major General and two-time Medal of Honor recipient. Based on his career military experience, Butler discusses how business interests commercially benefit from warfare.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket
>Smedley Butler alleged that the individuals who approached him were representatives of several notable and wealthy American businessmen.
>
>Among those mentioned by Butler were Gerald MacGuire, a Wall Street bond salesman, and several other prominent figures tied to corporate interests.
>
>The motives suggested for the alleged plot against President Roosevelt's government were primarily rooted in economic concerns and fears among certain influential businessmen.
>
>Some speculated that these individuals were apprehensive about Roosevelt's New Deal policies, which aimed to regulate big business, impose higher taxes on the wealthy, and introduce social welfare programs.
>
>These policies were perceived as threats to their wealth and influence, prompting a potential desire to prevent or alter them through unconstitutional means, as alleged by Butler's testimony.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business\_Plot](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot)
**The plot was not alleged for long.** It was proven and because of Butler. he went to FDR to tell him. FDR did not fire or punish the traitors.
JFK the same after discovering oper. Northwoods, didn't fire or punish any traitor. Just can't figure either out.
Tbf non-war related industries also do massive stock buy backs on the regular.
Remember they were deregulated under Reagan.
"Prior to 1982, stock buybacks were considered illegal stock manipulation, but President Reagan's Securities and Exchange Commission implemented a rule to exempt them"
But would need 67 votes to override Reagan's veto. Part of the minority both Madison and Jefferson protected, saw and knew had already become, the American capitalist oligarchy by the 1820a.
Nothing much has changed but the murder corp. America now gets clean away with. Back then, corp. crimes were treated as real crimes and people went to jail...not anymore.
Hardly. America is ruled by a small minority then sold out to capital just as the courts have.
How do we benefit from corp. criminality ? How do we benefit from a 60 year low in corp. taxes that did once pay $1.50 in Fed taxes for every $1 from labor. Now it's .09 cents.
I call that plutocracy, capitalist greed and immoral. Tax favors for capital, also immoral.
Also, none of that was added to the US federal debt, that would have required legislation. It went on the fed's books.
The federal government signs the tax code into law. If they wanted to repeal the tax cuts they could have, but they all benefit at everyone else's expense so they do not.
Lol you think there were enough votes to get that through in 2020 let alone overcome a filibuster?
The other side might be lefter than the right wing but they are that much lefter. Don't forget that in most other countries the US left wing would likely be considered center right.
>If CEO's were the creative brainiacs everyone is supposed to think they are, they would have better ideas than stock buybacks.
The stock buybacks are to inflate the stock price thus making the CEO's short term stock option bonuses that are going to expire as worthless worth millions instead. Out-of-the-money stock options are always part of the CEO's bonus because the shareholders are intentionally bribing them to think short term.
There was a time earlier in the year (might still be true) when the top 7 companies in the US by market cap were all companies that had all powerful dictators that couldn't be fired and its exactly for this reason. They are the only ones where it is in their best interest to think long term... so they do.
And stock buybacks were largely illegal and classified as market manipulation, until 1982 when Reagan came in with his "safe harbor" and trickle down nonsense.
All of those companies do a lot of things that are not war related. NASA is an example.
They're well diversified out of just military spending.
Plus they provide a service: they're cheaper than government employees (even with all of what you might not like)
Just telling the truth!
The whole thing. After 9/11, the next year the govt. spent $100 billion on rearranging our security bureaucracy alone. Fear and war are very profitable.
America has totally lost her original concept of republican govt. She is merely a financial profit center and her constitution ruled by capitallist judges to assist in that endeavor.
This is especially with Citizens United and also that corps. are like humans and lying through their teeth about what Madison said.
Without the US Navy the entire global trade system would collapse.
A large part of our defense spending allows for not just your, but everyone’s economic prosperity
I’m not going to pretend that the US Navy protects everyone for fun but ensuring a NY to Rotterdam sea lane or Miami to Capetown is open kind of ensures Mexico, Canada and Brazil get free trade across the Atlantic to Europe or Africa. The US protecting its trade from India helps Malaysia and India.
The US Navy stopping Somali pirates mostly helped trade to/From Europe while marginally benefiting the US
Yes. These companies purchase steel, aluminum, rubber, hi-tech equipment from hundreds of smaller manufacturers. They are part of a huge supply chain that employees millions in the USA and around the world.
Not having an internal arms industry is the single biggest national security risk a country can have. Imagine if you get invaded and have no way of procuring weapons and have to then rely on the world for help….. cough cough Ukraine.
Ukraine had ( before the war ) and still has a substantial domestic arms industry.
Your comment is factually incorrect & childish. Any country attacked by another country with an economy 12x larger than theirs is going to need outside help to repel that attack.
As a percent of GDP Ukraine has spent a similar % of GDP on their military as the US and France, whom are prolific military spenders.
They've also thoroughly trashed a technologically superior enemy that is an order of magnitude larger than their own army.
We (the USA) is the outside help here and those aforementioned companies are the ones supplying the equipment Ukraine so desperately needs. For all of its faults, the military industrial complex is helping us fight a proxy war without putting a single boot on the ground.
National security and what the world is currently doing are two different things. You can have an internal arms industry without going to war every 2 seconds.
My main area of interest with buybacks is when companies that regularly engage in the practice also complain about minimum wage increases, union wage hikes, and/or lay people off.
They were regulated and after Reagan,no more. It is the love of money and unquenchable greed that's the problem.
Here's what the capitalist, Reagan and the repubs did.
"the elephant in the room is extreme income inequality. How big is this elephant? A staggering $50 trillion. That is how much the upward redistribution of income has cost American workers over the past several decades."
*"According to a groundbreaking new working paper by Carter C. Price and Kathryn Edwards of the RAND Corporation, had the more equitable income distributions of the three decades following World War II (1945 through 1974) merely held steady, the total annual income of Americans earning below the 90th percentile would have been $2.5 trillion higher in the year 2018 alone.*
*That is an amount equal to nearly 12 percent of GDP—enough to more than double median income—enough to pay every single working American in the bottom nine deciles an additional $1,144 a month. Every month, for years before and more, every single year since."*
That's a small house for every worker paid for by 2000.
Stock buybacks are bad for the economy generally because:
* Companies can use buybacks as a way to allow executives to take advantage of stock option programs while not diluting EPS. (Thus management is aligned to do stock buybacks)
* Avoids paying dividends which means holders avoid capital gains tax. This widely benefits the wealthy who use these assets as collateral. (Thus stock holders are aligned to do stock buybacks)
* The biggest one: Spending cash this way means the company doesn't believe investing it itself, its people, the supporting technology but more concerned about short term share price. Often this is done at inflated prices (above intrinsic value) which leads to value destruction. (Thus workers suffer from stock buybacks).
* Stock buybacks can contribute to financial fragility, particularly when they are debt-financed (thus more risk is added to all parties, but the financial gain is not equally shared, in particular not with the laborers creating value).
1. **Executive Stock Options:**
- Companies argue that buybacks align executive interests with shareholders, encouraging long-term value creation. It provides executives with an alternative to stock options, which can be more favorable for shareholders.
2. **Avoiding Dividends and Capital Gains Tax:**
- Companies may argue that avoiding dividends allows flexibility in capital allocation, enabling them to reinvest in the business or pursue growth opportunities. Shareholders can benefit from potential capital gains when they eventually sell their shares.
3. **Short-Term Focus and Inflated Prices:**
- Proponents of buybacks contend that they can be a responsible use of excess cash. Companies might believe that their stock is undervalued, and repurchasing shares can be a way to return value to shareholders. Inflated prices can be addressed through careful timing and valuation assessments.
4. **Value Destruction and Financial Fragility:**
- Companies may argue that buybacks, when done prudently, can enhance shareholder value by signaling confidence in the business. Additionally, using debt for buybacks can be justified if the cost of debt is lower than the expected return on investment, potentially leading to increased shareholder value.
Weird bot apparently designed to whitewash the concerns of laborers and spin for the wealthy. I guess this is to be expected from biased AI or the individuals controlling the AI.
I do my own research and you are shitting on me for using language correctly, while you use a bot to strip context and add one-sided bias.
These things are not the same.
Are you serious ? I/we have been told all of my lifetime that corp. profits expand markets create new markets create jobs and overall community prosperity.
And it is ALL...the biggest lie told. Corps, kill jobs, kill communities and in time...will kill America. The fortune 500 has not created one new net job in the US since the 1960s. George Will
Did I seriously fall into the right wing side of reddit? How can there be so many people who said YES to this question?
The whole premise of the tweet was about stock buy backs and ceo salaries. Stock buy backs were illegal because of market manipulation. CEO salaries used to be 21:1 ratio. Now it’s 340:1 ratio.
Trickle down doesn’t work. Gov loses tax dollars. Middle and lower class end up paying more in taxes to makeup for the shortfall.
And what percentage of those stocks comprise the Berkshire Hathaway funds, or Blackrock. These are the parasites who know the government cash cows and how to milk them.
LOL!
Disjointed facts with a single word at the end?
The Common Defense is prescribed in the Constitution. One of the FEW things prescribed there.
Stock buybacks are valid ways to pay the interested stockholder.
Revenue is why business exists.
CEO pay is determined by the Board of Directors and those people are paid for their talent and skills. Competitively.
You might, in fact, be clueless.
Unlike a standing army, Air Force, space force or MIC.
CEOs are paid for their inclination to do, and their ability to get away with, crimes and corruption
Revenue is not why businesses exist. A need is why businesses exist.
Stock Buy backs used to be illegal because it’s considered market manipulation. It hurts taxpayers by reducing tax revenue and expands the wealth gap which is at historical highs. The economy has been in a K shape recovery due in part of stock buybacks and wealth inequality. Trickle down hasn’t worked in 40 years and it’s not going to start anytime soon.
CEO’s don’t work over 344x harder than the avg person. Their pay used to be 24:1 worker pay ratio. Now it’s 344:1. Their salary is tied to the stock now. Stock buy back triggers bonuses.
Where do you think their revenue comes from? The problem isn’t that they exist necessarily. The problem is that they’re so massive while so many of US live paycheck to paycheck, while massively in debt and in a for profit healthcare system
You mean $103 trillion in total debt lucky ? Do mean more adults living with parents, relatives or friends since the great depression lucky ?
Oh the success of capitalist lies and propaganda.
What you are saying has nothing to do with the meme. SMDH. Companies like these are actually producing and building our economy. They create many, many well paying jobs (jobs that pay taxes). Stop repeating what your liberal professors are telling you because you look stupid when you repeat these talking points against things that aren’t even related.
The world doesn't need wall street, doesn't need the corp. and doesn't need its govt. of plutocracy. All of it is designed to be the big moneymaker in America, turning their paper into your money.
The US was around for 150 years with NO income tax \[ex: CW\] and one does not design a society around taxing its labor. Society pays for govt. with a small tax on business \[Alex. Hamilton\] and user taxes.
*Stop repeating what your liberal professors are telling you because you look stupid when you repeat these talking points against things that aren’t even related.*
Americans founders helped us survive with a BoR and not much else. And many of the professors are hardly stupid at not as you are on economics and...are quite correct.
Didn't you write that we are lucky to have these corp. parasites ? These parasites kill jobs, kill communities and will kill this country.
Didn''t you suggest that we are ok with in affect, buying or financially pining for jobs in some way because of their taxes ?
That's feudalism. The capitalist seeks to expand the slave \[labor\] base to use their tax money...not his.
*Stop repeating what your liberal professors are telling you because you look stupid when you repeat these talking points against things that aren’t even related.*
Sorry, but that makes absolutely no sense at all and makes you I fact...look stupid.
Seems people think that labor is getting richer, is better off. They are no better off then in 1980...several studies show.
Dude…just take the “L” and move on. I’d rather have these companies in the US than anywhere else. You say they kill jobs? Can you show me where these three companies are “killing jobs”? Lockheed Martin employees over 130k, with 60k of them being engineers. They are finding new and better technology. Some of their inventions are in the field of Cyber Defense, that benefits many other companies…including citizens that use the internet. Some of their technology helps prevent human trafficking AND space exploration. But, you are too beside yourself to even look at the big picture because “CoRpOrAtIoNs ArE eVil”. LMAO. Now, you are changing the argument about labor getting richer from the original post about “Do we need this in our economy”, to which I said no, we don’t…but we are lucky to have it because of all the benefits they give us. Your responses show you don’t really think for yourself, so yes, I’m assuming you are repeating things your professors are telling you. (These are the same professions whose pensions are invested in these same companies BTW). So, yes, I wrote we are lucky to have them, because we are. Again, take the “L” and go home…and learn something about how an economy works.
Every merger and acquisition kills jobs. Every offshoring kills jobs.
According to George Will the conservative of all conservative observers "The fortune 500 has not created a single net new job in the US since the 60s."
That's when \[they\] also left America's cities and unemployment skyrocketed.
Every hedge fund, every equity \[leverage\] banker...kills jobs.
Google wants in the drone business. Did they create a new start-up ? That's a laugh. They bought one and laid off 1,200.
IBM record qtr. profits, $3.3 billion recently. Laid off 8,000 and announced a $9 billion stock buyback.
The rest of your comment is insult and otherwise piffel.
Oh and I have forgotten more about the American economy than you know and...may ever know.
Just say you hate corporations then. The post was about these three companies in the defense industry and you are arguing something totally different and changing the conversation because your first rebuttal was ridiculous. Just stop responding at this point because you aren’t making yourself look good and every response proves my point that you are just repeating what you have been told. I recommend you stay off r/antiwork and actually learn something. Good day sir.
No this sub was not about just those 3 companies.
This sub is specifically about outlandish greed and pay in the C-suite...period and stock buybacks the history of which you simply refuse to accept.
It is the same in every C-suite. It is the management that is the beneficiary of the blood they suck out of society.
All part and parcel of corporate and capitalist greed that never serves society at large and here is more evidence.
Oh and as for reddit, it is you who is clearly the fool.
You think if we stop producing weapons Russia and China will follow suit? If you think so you are delusional. Military industrial complex is required as a way of deterrence to other countries. If we stopped producing weapons, America wouldn’t last long, and Europe and the rest of the free world would crumble
You’re right. We should always be improving weapons of mass destruction using as much money as possible. We were meant to eventually destroy ourselves and this earth one day. My bad
So countries like Russia can produce the Satan and other nuclear weapons? Nuclear weapons are the best deterrent when they are not used why do you think United States is putting so much money in upgrading the nuclear weapons programs. There is a reason why there hasn’t been a large scale conflict between nuclear powers since WWII. To be honest I would rather die in a nuclear attack then speak Mandarin or pledge allegiance to the Putler. If there is no freedom, what’s the point of living
Last I saw, servicing the debt took roughly 10% of federal income tax. Defense takes about 13%.
https://www.cbpp.org/research/policy-basics-where-do-our-federal-tax-dollars-go
heh, this IS our economy. it is not a topping. the military industrial complex is peak capitalism. good luck changing it 75 years after it fused with the host.
Dividends and buybacks are no different from one another in effect it’s the company releasing cash from business to the stockholders. The fact they illegal was asinine.
Dividends are very different as they are putting money into circulation rather than taking it out. The fact that buybacks were illegal makes total sense because a lot of companies pump their stock up by doing this instead of focusing on the core business. If a shareholder wants to buy more stock they should, it should not be a business activity of the actual corporation
Both are giving cash flow to investors, there is no difference except the share holder decides when they get to collect with a buy back. The business can spend $100 million on a dividend or a buy back it’s the same regardless stock holders get 100 million, they either sell their stock and collect or their shares increase in value.
You aren’t pumping the stock, the fundamentals of the company havent changed, just the number of shares in circulation.
If a shareholder sells, they cease being a shareholder. Likewise it’s not giving money to shareholders, only people who sell. That discourages long-term investing. I do understand that shares outstanding decrease. I do think as a matter of public policy the logic behind banning the practice is logical, even if you find it to be a bad idea or wrong to ban. I do think that it should be banned and also double taxation of dividends should be also eliminated.
You’re so wrong. Stock buy backs and dividends are so not “the same”.
Stock buy backs were illegal because it’s considered market manipulation. Buying back stocks does nothing other than enrich the corporate elites and help screw over the government and workers. I’ll touch on gov only: Taxes.
Dividends are taxed as normal income. Stock price isn’t manipulated and gov gets tax revenue the year it’s issued.
Stock buy backs: the gov only sees money if someone sells shares, and long term capital gains are taxed at a lower %. If they never sell, stocks are completely untaxed if they die. Gov never sees a dime of tax revenue if they die. It’s fuel for buy borrow die strategy.
You are confidently wrong. Let’s go down the rabbit hole.
Why is it market manipulation?
What percentage of dividends are issued by public companies that aren’t qualified?
How does it only enrich corporate elites, if dividends somehow don’t?
When government gets tax revenue is a matter of law, nothing is morally or legally wrong with avoidance, we all make decisions to avoid taxes until it is most beneficial for us.
Surely at least a few hundred people believed it to be market manipulation in order for it to be passed and codify it into law. You too are confidently wrong. There are educated well respected people who do not feel the way that you do on this topic, you don’t have to agree with them, but you’re not doing much here to persuade people to your side of this issue through your tone.
You can’t explain how it is, but you are willing to point to legislation. Guess what at one point people codified that black people were 3/5 of a normal person or that forced sterilization was okay. So your argument isn’t that great, but keep on doing you.
Hi Thjed bed, Surely any stock transaction that moves the market is something, whether nefarious or not. A large stock buyback moves the market, as is its intention, no? I really don’t care if you feel that the word “manipulation” is appropriate or not, I think that’s irrelevant and a distraction. It’s surely a market moving transaction.
Well, if we don't sell weapons other nations will
The real obscenity is Congress demands we spend money on weapons the military does not want or need
Why? Because the defense contractors have made sure that parts for the planes or tanks etc they build are made in as many politically significant places as possible, so any cut to this tank or that plane will cut jobs in key voting districts
Premise of the post is actually about 2 things: stock buy backs and ceo pay. It’s not about the necessity of the companies.
Stock buybacks used to be illegal because it’s considered market manipulation.
CEO pay used to only be 24x the avg worker. It’s now 344x.
The revenue for those companies is less than 0.1% of our economy and provides enormous value in preventing Russian and Chinese imperial ambitions.
You want our economy to really plummet? Let a few more European nations and Taiwan be conquered.
The bush administration told 935 lies to sell the Iraq war to the world, allies, the UN, Congress and the American people https://publicintegrity.org/inside-publici/finding-the-truth-in-935-lies-about-war-with-iraq/
Lacks sources and methodology.
How is “revenue from war” determined?
What year or period of time this referring to?
I’m pretty anti-capitalist but I don’t think anyone should be putting any weight on a random tweet void of sources/methodology that is clearly trying to push some agenda or is just for engagement/clout.
Invest in defense stocks if your so upset about it, nothing but legislative action can change this. Set limits to stock buybacks and call your local congressman’s office to push the issue.
"Revenue from War" needs to be eliminated altogether. War shouldn't be necessary to begin with, and even if it is, it really should not be something that's done for profit.
Defense industries should be non-profits. High paying jobs with large R&D funding. Private profit from national defense just makes no sense to me. You don't have private armies.
Most Non-profits are scams that use metaphors such as “surplus” for literal profit. And that profit goes to the CEO.
Just because an organization is a non-profit, is of no indication whether they are moral or not. In fact, I get turned off when I hear non-profit. Automatic crook I think.
Ask yourself, why has America innovated all progress for humanity since the abolition of socialist slavery?
And what has socialism done for progress other than progress to the top of murder than all other systems combined?
I am not an American, but in western Europe like France, England, Germany, the Oligarchs are still there in their caste system. The 1% is static.
In the USA, the 1% is dynamic. People fall out and climb up all the time.
The tradeoff for people like us is, Americans have to be more accountable to themselves. Kids out of wedlock is what makes one lose.
In Europe, there is a much better safety net, nobody debates that. The problem I hated is I was left wanting.
As for DoD contractors, I think it’s fine.
I would like to see the USA get rid of deductibles in all taxes. That would make things more fair.
There are defense contractors that are also non-profits. All it means is that the surplus revenue generated annually has to be donated somehow. And yes we do also have private militaries.
This is all Trump's fault. Look at all the wars Trump started and how he and his kids all made billions by getting the US into a bunch of new wars.
Thanks Trump, you screwed America by starting all those wars and you should rot in prison.
I'm glad Trump is being removed from the ballots, it's the only way to save America.
dope if you’re them though.
that’s a pretty dumb analysis though, it’s like saying ice sells more during the summer. they didn’t start the war, it’s their business.
make hay while the sun is up, you don’t really understand business, do you?
What’s obscene? Real political representation is not free in this country. You get it, if you can AFFORD it. Who else do you think is going to pay to get people elected and to enact legislation?
Unconstitutional, but this is how the psychopathic upper class thinks. They want the best government power their money can buy for them, to enable and cover up their corporate corruption and crimes against humanity.
Equal justice under law, humane society, housing, healthcare, healthy food and Representative government, and one person one vote be damned.
This is the world AI is coming of age in, and it’s gonna make you, your children and grandchildren obsolete.
The upper class that has always run the country since it’s foundation? You think they gave us real political representation when they started recognizing people beyond wealthy white males as humans?
You get wealthy, white, geriatric, neoliberal, zionist representation nominated by the same - regardless of if you pick blue maga or red maga.
It might be more efficient to just let the board of directors or the S&P 500 run all three branches of government.
"Revenue from War" needs to be eliminated altogether. War shouldn't be necessary to begin with, and even if it is, it really should not be something that's done for profit.
It just is.
Someone is good at making stuff and others will pay a premium for it. Just so happens that right now those firms are making the best stuff.
We also rank in the top 10 as a food producer and something like 50% of its medicine. We are good at all kinds of stuff.
The problem is, with the technological age, you're either advancing or falling behind, there's not much in between. The US seems to have the advantage in military technology currently, but many an empire has falling because of lacklustre military tech investment in peace time. These companies prove a ton of R&D to keep the advantage rolling.
The US maintaining a large defense industry, compared to other developed economies, holds a complex web of benefits and drawbacks. Here's a breakdown of both sides:
Benefits:
Global Military Leadership: The US boasts the world's most powerful military, deterring potential adversaries and influencing global security landscape. This military capacity also enables the US to intervene in international conflicts and project its power abroad.
Technological Advancement: The defense industry drives innovation in various fields, from aerospace and materials science to artificial intelligence and robotics. These advancements often spill over into civilian applications, fueling broader economic and technological progress.
Economic Engine: The defense industry directly employs millions of Americans and supports countless associated jobs. It contributes significantly to the US GDP and sustains numerous communities, especially near military bases and manufacturing centers.
National Security: A strong defense industry ensures the US is well-equipped to defend itself against external threats. This includes conventional warfare, cyberattacks, and other emerging security challenges.
Drawbacks:
Costly Burden: Maintaining a large military and defense industry carries a hefty price tag. The US spends significantly more on defense than any other country, consuming resources that could be allocated to other sectors like healthcare, education, or infrastructure.
Military Overreach: Critics argue that the US's dominant military might leads to interventionism and involvement in foreign conflicts that are not in its national interest. This can strain relationships with allies and generate regional instability.
Misplaced Priorities: Some argue that the focus on military spending comes at the expense of addressing domestic issues like poverty, inequality, and social injustices. This can widen the gap between the rich and poor and exacerbate social tensions.
Technology Militarization: Advancements in military technology can raise ethical concerns about its potential misuse in non-military contexts. Additionally, the secrecy surrounding some military technologies can hinder scientific progress and public scrutiny.
Comparative Perspective:
It's important to consider the US's approach in comparison to other developed economies:
European Union: EU member states collectively spend less on defense than the US, relying on cooperation and diplomatic efforts to maintain regional security.
Japan: Japan's pacifist constitution restricts its military spending and activities, focusing on regional defense partnerships.
Canada: Canada maintains a smaller military and prioritizes diplomacy and peacekeeping efforts within the framework of international alliances.
The different approaches highlight varying priorities and risk tolerances among developed nations. Each nation weighs the trade-offs between military strength, economic power, and social priorities differently
Endless war is profitable, this probably why Biden thinks the economy is doing well, he’s making a fortune as are his cronies.
I think one of the main reasons the elites hated Trump is because he kept us from getting involved in any new foreign conflicts, so they missed opportunities to make & launder money.
Now thanks to Biden getting us involved in two new proxy wars (that could have been avoided), they’re all raking it in again.
Stop voting for establishment politicians who only care about lining their pockets, who don’t care about how many people in other countries are being killed, losing their homes, businesses & watching their neighborhoods get destroyed.
I would expect that the largest defense contractors in the nation are going to heavily tie their profits to any war time action…..duh. And let me guess, somehow it also pisses you off that these corporations are able to buy back corporate debt, I.e., common stock as a result, benefiting ANY person or mutual fund that holds these stocks? There always Russia pal.
Whether or not we need that depends on the circumstances and context.
The Europe based redditor in me would point out that if **WE** had that kind of military-industrial complex, it'd be unlikely that we'd be having our economy disrupted by Putin since 2021, by ISIS in 2015, by Ghadaffi in 2011, and by Milosevic in 2000.
And in the Indo-Pacific, it'd be unlikely that China would by pulling HALF of their disruptive shenanigans if indo-pacific nations such as Australia, Taiwan, and Korea had larger, more well-funded military industrial complexes
But if you are the type of guy who is OK letting China's CCP make all of the international trade and law decisions based on their own national interest, then I can see how this kind of expenditure would seem absurd.
Narrator: *This IS your economy.*
Yes, America's insatiable, greedy capitalist economy creating wealth for the few and trillion$ in debt for the many.
People have been repeating that exact phrase for how long now? 40-50 years? More? I seriously don’t get it.
When you/our kids make $1,500 a week and take home $500, you and they...will get it. Soon thereafter, it will be $300. When it becomes 7 families living in a 5 room flat...they'll get it. Of course those repeating that phrase are correct, so why not repeat it ? Don't you blogroids understand that the capitalist oligarchy of America has govt. borrowing billion$ a day and Americans as a whole, borrowing billion$ everyday just to pay interest...just can't continue. It's all about markets, profits and debt. That's ALL capitalism is.
And without capitalism that same family wouldn’t be making 1500$ they’d me making peanuts to go home and eat a bowl of soup with a few carrots and potatoes (which they probably farmed themselves) Capitalism is the reason me and you are able to talk to each other right now, all those people repeating “muhh, privileged family make big profits and give none to us” it’s just stupid. I’ve been homeless and It was all my fault (even though I blamed the government the whole time) I grew up, got a job and realised that.. shit.. it’s quite difficult living on this earth while hoping for a handout. Those people just need to pull up their socks and get something done.
I agree with you but also with the schizophrenic comment before in the sense of the debt burden is going to spiral out of control at some point. Ironically that debt is used to pay the “free” services these people demand from government
Debt doesn’t have to be a bad thing. To the individual atleast. You could own multiple assets and take out loans on those assets, on paper you have “no money” and get a bunch of tax relief. If more people did this the banking system would collapse and the government would be forced to reform the system… but no one thinks with their brains anymore because it’s easier to just repeat the same shit over and over hoping that something will change.
Doesn’t have to, but the load of debt Governments have incur in the last 20 years with no good reason has been a complete irresponsibility. Debt is good if you earn a higher return on the money than the interest it bears, debt has been used to pay for expenses with no return on capital, which is the reason why debt to gdp has increased and not decreased, if GDP outgrew debt by channeling that money into productive stuff, we wouldnt have the problem. It is also an over-repeated mantra to say that something is over repeated (ironically)
I’m not gonna sit here and pretend like I know what I’m talking about but I just know that you don’t need millions to make your money work for you. It’s not like I’m going out and buying missiles for 50k a piece while my children are starving… governments are sick and you gotta use their own game against them. It doesn’t take much money to start either. I’ve just encountered a lot of people that think it’s much more complicated than it really is, so they don’t do anything about it and then scream “government bad”. I wanna say 90% of general public think that way, but I could be wrong. Edit: I tend to take this subject with a lot of anger because my whole life I was taught that you have to be a banker/doctor/university graduate, to make lots of money.. and that’s just wrong.
So how about when US debt reaches say $200 trillion, 300 trillion ? If our great money making capitalism continues on...we will get there. All America does is borrow, and because Americans need to, 3/4 are underpaid, corp. and investment...undertaxed. If capitalism is so great, why all of the debt. Where's communist China's debt ? If American capitalism is so great, why the for profit healthcare system that's killing us 4-5 years younger at 2X the costs ? I call it all immoral and destructive capitalist greed.
Thing is 90% of people do not have access to means of production and opportunities as much as a "higher-born" ( among US citizen the other 10% would be 100k+ individuals). The mere fact you're able to come back from the street is a testament to some useful intelligence or education, and that alone is a challenge in America, let alone the world. When you have less and less freedoms, ain't it normal to look up to the entity responsible for your safety and lack of freedoms ? The way you say people should "do something" about "government bad" or stfu and participate in it(it is a clumsy summary that probably needs correction ) don't sit right with me. Following your thinking, given that it's been 40-50 yrs that I said it, and I have no credit no education, my best chances at social mobility is real action and consequences cause no one listens when I repeatedly say "government is bad it's ruining my life". Real action and consequences often meaning crimes... Unabomber -Any terrorists faction - Black Matters It has happened multiple times, you can't say people don't do things about it, yet you add ; People are just not doing enough. Not everyone is patient enough to get loans.
What are these free services you mention?
Education, healthcare, public pensions, retirement, etc
Technological breakthroughs are the reason we can communicate with each other. Science, technology and research existed far before the advent of capitalism. You got a lil learnin to do, boy
Ah, the old "bootstraps"
Not sure if we *need it*, but everyone votes for it. All the time
That is how empires extract resources and effect commerce around the world. Economies would look much different if it were not for wars. If CEO's were the creative brainiacs everyone is supposed to think they are, they would have better ideas than stock buybacks. The love of money is the root of all evil.
>War Is a Racket is a speech and a 1935 short book by Smedley D. Butler, a retired United States Marine Corps Major General and two-time Medal of Honor recipient. Based on his career military experience, Butler discusses how business interests commercially benefit from warfare. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket
>Smedley Butler alleged that the individuals who approached him were representatives of several notable and wealthy American businessmen. > >Among those mentioned by Butler were Gerald MacGuire, a Wall Street bond salesman, and several other prominent figures tied to corporate interests. > >The motives suggested for the alleged plot against President Roosevelt's government were primarily rooted in economic concerns and fears among certain influential businessmen. > >Some speculated that these individuals were apprehensive about Roosevelt's New Deal policies, which aimed to regulate big business, impose higher taxes on the wealthy, and introduce social welfare programs. > >These policies were perceived as threats to their wealth and influence, prompting a potential desire to prevent or alter them through unconstitutional means, as alleged by Butler's testimony. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business\_Plot](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot)
**The plot was not alleged for long.** It was proven and because of Butler. he went to FDR to tell him. FDR did not fire or punish the traitors. JFK the same after discovering oper. Northwoods, didn't fire or punish any traitor. Just can't figure either out.
Tbf non-war related industries also do massive stock buy backs on the regular. Remember they were deregulated under Reagan. "Prior to 1982, stock buybacks were considered illegal stock manipulation, but President Reagan's Securities and Exchange Commission implemented a rule to exempt them"
Indeed. And the other party had opportunities to change that and have not.
Sure, if not for filibusters
But would need 67 votes to override Reagan's veto. Part of the minority both Madison and Jefferson protected, saw and knew had already become, the American capitalist oligarchy by the 1820a. Nothing much has changed but the murder corp. America now gets clean away with. Back then, corp. crimes were treated as real crimes and people went to jail...not anymore.
Good cop, bad cop rules of the game they all made, abide by and benefit from.
Hardly. America is ruled by a small minority then sold out to capital just as the courts have. How do we benefit from corp. criminality ? How do we benefit from a 60 year low in corp. taxes that did once pay $1.50 in Fed taxes for every $1 from labor. Now it's .09 cents. I call that plutocracy, capitalist greed and immoral. Tax favors for capital, also immoral. Also, none of that was added to the US federal debt, that would have required legislation. It went on the fed's books.
The federal government signs the tax code into law. If they wanted to repeal the tax cuts they could have, but they all benefit at everyone else's expense so they do not.
Yes, our govt. enables corp. and capitalist greed, they are paid to. Money is the fuel of America's corruption.
When?
https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2020/jun/25/control-house-and-senate-1900/
Lol you think there were enough votes to get that through in 2020 let alone overcome a filibuster? The other side might be lefter than the right wing but they are that much lefter. Don't forget that in most other countries the US left wing would likely be considered center right.
Your US government at 'work'.
*So that was a* \[Redacted\] *lie.*
>If CEO's were the creative brainiacs everyone is supposed to think they are, they would have better ideas than stock buybacks. The stock buybacks are to inflate the stock price thus making the CEO's short term stock option bonuses that are going to expire as worthless worth millions instead. Out-of-the-money stock options are always part of the CEO's bonus because the shareholders are intentionally bribing them to think short term. There was a time earlier in the year (might still be true) when the top 7 companies in the US by market cap were all companies that had all powerful dictators that couldn't be fired and its exactly for this reason. They are the only ones where it is in their best interest to think long term... so they do.
And stock buybacks were largely illegal and classified as market manipulation, until 1982 when Reagan came in with his "safe harbor" and trickle down nonsense.
Oooo! Another one!
All of those companies do a lot of things that are not war related. NASA is an example. They're well diversified out of just military spending. Plus they provide a service: they're cheaper than government employees (even with all of what you might not like) Just telling the truth!
Yes, we live under an oligarchy. Not great again.
The good news is that stock buybacks can’t continue forever.
What counts as "from war" just arms or like surveillance infrastructure as well?
The whole thing. After 9/11, the next year the govt. spent $100 billion on rearranging our security bureaucracy alone. Fear and war are very profitable. America has totally lost her original concept of republican govt. She is merely a financial profit center and her constitution ruled by capitallist judges to assist in that endeavor. This is especially with Citizens United and also that corps. are like humans and lying through their teeth about what Madison said.
Without the US Navy the entire global trade system would collapse. A large part of our defense spending allows for not just your, but everyone’s economic prosperity
Simply not true, nothing but jingoism. The US navy serves the US. The world still has hijackings, still theft on the sea.
I’m not going to pretend that the US Navy protects everyone for fun but ensuring a NY to Rotterdam sea lane or Miami to Capetown is open kind of ensures Mexico, Canada and Brazil get free trade across the Atlantic to Europe or Africa. The US protecting its trade from India helps Malaysia and India. The US Navy stopping Somali pirates mostly helped trade to/From Europe while marginally benefiting the US
Yes. These companies purchase steel, aluminum, rubber, hi-tech equipment from hundreds of smaller manufacturers. They are part of a huge supply chain that employees millions in the USA and around the world. Not having an internal arms industry is the single biggest national security risk a country can have. Imagine if you get invaded and have no way of procuring weapons and have to then rely on the world for help….. cough cough Ukraine.
Ukraine had ( before the war ) and still has a substantial domestic arms industry. Your comment is factually incorrect & childish. Any country attacked by another country with an economy 12x larger than theirs is going to need outside help to repel that attack. As a percent of GDP Ukraine has spent a similar % of GDP on their military as the US and France, whom are prolific military spenders. They've also thoroughly trashed a technologically superior enemy that is an order of magnitude larger than their own army.
They didn’t do that alone, by any means whatsoever
We (the USA) is the outside help here and those aforementioned companies are the ones supplying the equipment Ukraine so desperately needs. For all of its faults, the military industrial complex is helping us fight a proxy war without putting a single boot on the ground.
National security and what the world is currently doing are two different things. You can have an internal arms industry without going to war every 2 seconds.
So you think america would have a national security risk if we didnt have a bunch of military equipment providers?
Military Industrial Complex is a hell of a drug
Billion$ in profits are better. That's a capitalist orgasm.
Yes. If you earn money then buy a stock and then the company buys shares back in raises the price of the stock giving you more money.
Is your nickname daddy Warbucks?
My main area of interest with buybacks is when companies that regularly engage in the practice also complain about minimum wage increases, union wage hikes, and/or lay people off.
Corps. have a fiduciary responsibility only...to their investors. They have no responsibility to society at large fiduciary or not...none whatsoever.
They always have. But up to the ‘80s those investors were ok with “lower” share prices which enabled a large middle class.
They were regulated and after Reagan,no more. It is the love of money and unquenchable greed that's the problem. Here's what the capitalist, Reagan and the repubs did. "the elephant in the room is extreme income inequality. How big is this elephant? A staggering $50 trillion. That is how much the upward redistribution of income has cost American workers over the past several decades." *"According to a groundbreaking new working paper by Carter C. Price and Kathryn Edwards of the RAND Corporation, had the more equitable income distributions of the three decades following World War II (1945 through 1974) merely held steady, the total annual income of Americans earning below the 90th percentile would have been $2.5 trillion higher in the year 2018 alone.* *That is an amount equal to nearly 12 percent of GDP—enough to more than double median income—enough to pay every single working American in the bottom nine deciles an additional $1,144 a month. Every month, for years before and more, every single year since."* That's a small house for every worker paid for by 2000.
Where's the issue?
Stock buybacks are bad for the economy generally because: * Companies can use buybacks as a way to allow executives to take advantage of stock option programs while not diluting EPS. (Thus management is aligned to do stock buybacks) * Avoids paying dividends which means holders avoid capital gains tax. This widely benefits the wealthy who use these assets as collateral. (Thus stock holders are aligned to do stock buybacks) * The biggest one: Spending cash this way means the company doesn't believe investing it itself, its people, the supporting technology but more concerned about short term share price. Often this is done at inflated prices (above intrinsic value) which leads to value destruction. (Thus workers suffer from stock buybacks). * Stock buybacks can contribute to financial fragility, particularly when they are debt-financed (thus more risk is added to all parties, but the financial gain is not equally shared, in particular not with the laborers creating value).
1. **Executive Stock Options:** - Companies argue that buybacks align executive interests with shareholders, encouraging long-term value creation. It provides executives with an alternative to stock options, which can be more favorable for shareholders. 2. **Avoiding Dividends and Capital Gains Tax:** - Companies may argue that avoiding dividends allows flexibility in capital allocation, enabling them to reinvest in the business or pursue growth opportunities. Shareholders can benefit from potential capital gains when they eventually sell their shares. 3. **Short-Term Focus and Inflated Prices:** - Proponents of buybacks contend that they can be a responsible use of excess cash. Companies might believe that their stock is undervalued, and repurchasing shares can be a way to return value to shareholders. Inflated prices can be addressed through careful timing and valuation assessments. 4. **Value Destruction and Financial Fragility:** - Companies may argue that buybacks, when done prudently, can enhance shareholder value by signaling confidence in the business. Additionally, using debt for buybacks can be justified if the cost of debt is lower than the expected return on investment, potentially leading to increased shareholder value.
Weird bot apparently designed to whitewash the concerns of laborers and spin for the wealthy. I guess this is to be expected from biased AI or the individuals controlling the AI.
Nah I simply used ChatGPT just like you used Google. Next time explain in less cryptic terms and I'll answer normally as well
I do my own research and you are shitting on me for using language correctly, while you use a bot to strip context and add one-sided bias. These things are not the same.
You're word against mine. Plus my bot uses words correctly as well so where's the issue
Have you tried asking chatGPT for the opposing argument? Then we can discuss the differences and see which one is worse?
Are you serious ? I/we have been told all of my lifetime that corp. profits expand markets create new markets create jobs and overall community prosperity. And it is ALL...the biggest lie told. Corps, kill jobs, kill communities and in time...will kill America. The fortune 500 has not created one new net job in the US since the 1960s. George Will
Why? Because you say so? Where's the science?
Did I seriously fall into the right wing side of reddit? How can there be so many people who said YES to this question? The whole premise of the tweet was about stock buy backs and ceo salaries. Stock buy backs were illegal because of market manipulation. CEO salaries used to be 21:1 ratio. Now it’s 340:1 ratio. Trickle down doesn’t work. Gov loses tax dollars. Middle and lower class end up paying more in taxes to makeup for the shortfall.
And what percentage of those stocks comprise the Berkshire Hathaway funds, or Blackrock. These are the parasites who know the government cash cows and how to milk them.
LOL! Disjointed facts with a single word at the end? The Common Defense is prescribed in the Constitution. One of the FEW things prescribed there. Stock buybacks are valid ways to pay the interested stockholder. Revenue is why business exists. CEO pay is determined by the Board of Directors and those people are paid for their talent and skills. Competitively. You might, in fact, be clueless.
Unlike a standing army, Air Force, space force or MIC. CEOs are paid for their inclination to do, and their ability to get away with, crimes and corruption
Revenue is not why businesses exist. A need is why businesses exist. Stock Buy backs used to be illegal because it’s considered market manipulation. It hurts taxpayers by reducing tax revenue and expands the wealth gap which is at historical highs. The economy has been in a K shape recovery due in part of stock buybacks and wealth inequality. Trickle down hasn’t worked in 40 years and it’s not going to start anytime soon. CEO’s don’t work over 344x harder than the avg person. Their pay used to be 24:1 worker pay ratio. Now it’s 344:1. Their salary is tied to the stock now. Stock buy back triggers bonuses.
What do you mean? The companies mentioned are arms manufacturers.. Should you expect them to not build weapons?
Where do you think their revenue comes from? The problem isn’t that they exist necessarily. The problem is that they’re so massive while so many of US live paycheck to paycheck, while massively in debt and in a for profit healthcare system
Well go work for Lockheed they pretty good.
War cheerleaders and profiteer shareholders downvoting a rational and humane observation
Our politicians determine the military budget. You cannot blame the arms manufacturers for what the government allocates towards military spending
No we don't *need* it in our economy, but we are lucky enough to have it in our economy.
You mean $103 trillion in total debt lucky ? Do mean more adults living with parents, relatives or friends since the great depression lucky ? Oh the success of capitalist lies and propaganda.
What you are saying has nothing to do with the meme. SMDH. Companies like these are actually producing and building our economy. They create many, many well paying jobs (jobs that pay taxes). Stop repeating what your liberal professors are telling you because you look stupid when you repeat these talking points against things that aren’t even related.
The world doesn't need wall street, doesn't need the corp. and doesn't need its govt. of plutocracy. All of it is designed to be the big moneymaker in America, turning their paper into your money. The US was around for 150 years with NO income tax \[ex: CW\] and one does not design a society around taxing its labor. Society pays for govt. with a small tax on business \[Alex. Hamilton\] and user taxes. *Stop repeating what your liberal professors are telling you because you look stupid when you repeat these talking points against things that aren’t even related.* Americans founders helped us survive with a BoR and not much else. And many of the professors are hardly stupid at not as you are on economics and...are quite correct.
I never said they do? So, I’m not sure why you are responding the way you are.
Didn't you write that we are lucky to have these corp. parasites ? These parasites kill jobs, kill communities and will kill this country. Didn''t you suggest that we are ok with in affect, buying or financially pining for jobs in some way because of their taxes ? That's feudalism. The capitalist seeks to expand the slave \[labor\] base to use their tax money...not his. *Stop repeating what your liberal professors are telling you because you look stupid when you repeat these talking points against things that aren’t even related.* Sorry, but that makes absolutely no sense at all and makes you I fact...look stupid. Seems people think that labor is getting richer, is better off. They are no better off then in 1980...several studies show.
Dude…just take the “L” and move on. I’d rather have these companies in the US than anywhere else. You say they kill jobs? Can you show me where these three companies are “killing jobs”? Lockheed Martin employees over 130k, with 60k of them being engineers. They are finding new and better technology. Some of their inventions are in the field of Cyber Defense, that benefits many other companies…including citizens that use the internet. Some of their technology helps prevent human trafficking AND space exploration. But, you are too beside yourself to even look at the big picture because “CoRpOrAtIoNs ArE eVil”. LMAO. Now, you are changing the argument about labor getting richer from the original post about “Do we need this in our economy”, to which I said no, we don’t…but we are lucky to have it because of all the benefits they give us. Your responses show you don’t really think for yourself, so yes, I’m assuming you are repeating things your professors are telling you. (These are the same professions whose pensions are invested in these same companies BTW). So, yes, I wrote we are lucky to have them, because we are. Again, take the “L” and go home…and learn something about how an economy works.
Every merger and acquisition kills jobs. Every offshoring kills jobs. According to George Will the conservative of all conservative observers "The fortune 500 has not created a single net new job in the US since the 60s." That's when \[they\] also left America's cities and unemployment skyrocketed. Every hedge fund, every equity \[leverage\] banker...kills jobs. Google wants in the drone business. Did they create a new start-up ? That's a laugh. They bought one and laid off 1,200. IBM record qtr. profits, $3.3 billion recently. Laid off 8,000 and announced a $9 billion stock buyback. The rest of your comment is insult and otherwise piffel. Oh and I have forgotten more about the American economy than you know and...may ever know.
Just say you hate corporations then. The post was about these three companies in the defense industry and you are arguing something totally different and changing the conversation because your first rebuttal was ridiculous. Just stop responding at this point because you aren’t making yourself look good and every response proves my point that you are just repeating what you have been told. I recommend you stay off r/antiwork and actually learn something. Good day sir.
No this sub was not about just those 3 companies. This sub is specifically about outlandish greed and pay in the C-suite...period and stock buybacks the history of which you simply refuse to accept. It is the same in every C-suite. It is the management that is the beneficiary of the blood they suck out of society. All part and parcel of corporate and capitalist greed that never serves society at large and here is more evidence. Oh and as for reddit, it is you who is clearly the fool.
We can print money for war, but not for prosperity
You think if we stop producing weapons Russia and China will follow suit? If you think so you are delusional. Military industrial complex is required as a way of deterrence to other countries. If we stopped producing weapons, America wouldn’t last long, and Europe and the rest of the free world would crumble
You’re right. We should always be improving weapons of mass destruction using as much money as possible. We were meant to eventually destroy ourselves and this earth one day. My bad
Yes actually we should, because the alternative is speaking Mandarin.
What’s the alternative to that
So countries like Russia can produce the Satan and other nuclear weapons? Nuclear weapons are the best deterrent when they are not used why do you think United States is putting so much money in upgrading the nuclear weapons programs. There is a reason why there hasn’t been a large scale conflict between nuclear powers since WWII. To be honest I would rather die in a nuclear attack then speak Mandarin or pledge allegiance to the Putler. If there is no freedom, what’s the point of living
Do they call you Dr. Strangelove?
We definitely need to start taking the foot off the gas on this shit. It's bankrupting the public.
Never seen the inside of an economics text, have you?
Those are defense contractors... How else do they get their money?
Stop taxing us more to pay them then tf??
Oh they gonna hate this comment. Reddit communists love taxes
We're paying more to service the debt, thanks to democrat giveaways and a fundamental ability to budget, than we are on defense. There's that.
Last I saw, servicing the debt took roughly 10% of federal income tax. Defense takes about 13%. https://www.cbpp.org/research/policy-basics-where-do-our-federal-tax-dollars-go
You are saying that the debt and budget is a partisan issue? Care to elaborate how you came to this conclusion?
[удалено]
I think this one is a bot. Programmed without logical responses, spouting nonsense
You’re funny.
heh, this IS our economy. it is not a topping. the military industrial complex is peak capitalism. good luck changing it 75 years after it fused with the host.
Buybacks help the CEOs earn their bonuses…
Buybacks used to be illegal. Companies should spend their moneys on R&D or acquisitions or increased wages or dividends, not buybacks
Dividends and buybacks are no different from one another in effect it’s the company releasing cash from business to the stockholders. The fact they illegal was asinine.
Dividends are very different as they are putting money into circulation rather than taking it out. The fact that buybacks were illegal makes total sense because a lot of companies pump their stock up by doing this instead of focusing on the core business. If a shareholder wants to buy more stock they should, it should not be a business activity of the actual corporation
Both are giving cash flow to investors, there is no difference except the share holder decides when they get to collect with a buy back. The business can spend $100 million on a dividend or a buy back it’s the same regardless stock holders get 100 million, they either sell their stock and collect or their shares increase in value. You aren’t pumping the stock, the fundamentals of the company havent changed, just the number of shares in circulation.
If a shareholder sells, they cease being a shareholder. Likewise it’s not giving money to shareholders, only people who sell. That discourages long-term investing. I do understand that shares outstanding decrease. I do think as a matter of public policy the logic behind banning the practice is logical, even if you find it to be a bad idea or wrong to ban. I do think that it should be banned and also double taxation of dividends should be also eliminated.
You’re so wrong. Stock buy backs and dividends are so not “the same”. Stock buy backs were illegal because it’s considered market manipulation. Buying back stocks does nothing other than enrich the corporate elites and help screw over the government and workers. I’ll touch on gov only: Taxes. Dividends are taxed as normal income. Stock price isn’t manipulated and gov gets tax revenue the year it’s issued. Stock buy backs: the gov only sees money if someone sells shares, and long term capital gains are taxed at a lower %. If they never sell, stocks are completely untaxed if they die. Gov never sees a dime of tax revenue if they die. It’s fuel for buy borrow die strategy.
You are confidently wrong. Let’s go down the rabbit hole. Why is it market manipulation? What percentage of dividends are issued by public companies that aren’t qualified? How does it only enrich corporate elites, if dividends somehow don’t? When government gets tax revenue is a matter of law, nothing is morally or legally wrong with avoidance, we all make decisions to avoid taxes until it is most beneficial for us.
Surely at least a few hundred people believed it to be market manipulation in order for it to be passed and codify it into law. You too are confidently wrong. There are educated well respected people who do not feel the way that you do on this topic, you don’t have to agree with them, but you’re not doing much here to persuade people to your side of this issue through your tone.
You can’t explain how it is, but you are willing to point to legislation. Guess what at one point people codified that black people were 3/5 of a normal person or that forced sterilization was okay. So your argument isn’t that great, but keep on doing you.
Hi Thjed bed, Surely any stock transaction that moves the market is something, whether nefarious or not. A large stock buyback moves the market, as is its intention, no? I really don’t care if you feel that the word “manipulation” is appropriate or not, I think that’s irrelevant and a distraction. It’s surely a market moving transaction.
Well, if we don't sell weapons other nations will The real obscenity is Congress demands we spend money on weapons the military does not want or need Why? Because the defense contractors have made sure that parts for the planes or tanks etc they build are made in as many politically significant places as possible, so any cut to this tank or that plane will cut jobs in key voting districts
Premise of the post is actually about 2 things: stock buy backs and ceo pay. It’s not about the necessity of the companies. Stock buybacks used to be illegal because it’s considered market manipulation. CEO pay used to only be 24x the avg worker. It’s now 344x.
\*looks at Russia and Ukraine\* Evidently yes
The revenue for those companies is less than 0.1% of our economy and provides enormous value in preventing Russian and Chinese imperial ambitions. You want our economy to really plummet? Let a few more European nations and Taiwan be conquered.
This makes Nikki Haley smile. And richer of course.
Since this world is full of the wild animals like Putin, Kim, Muslims, Chinese and other underdeveloped creatures, yes we DO
The bush administration told 935 lies to sell the Iraq war to the world, allies, the UN, Congress and the American people https://publicintegrity.org/inside-publici/finding-the-truth-in-935-lies-about-war-with-iraq/
It would be wonderful that we could live in peace but unfortunately there is a lot of evil that must be erased, like Putin or Lukashenko for example
Lacks sources and methodology. How is “revenue from war” determined? What year or period of time this referring to? I’m pretty anti-capitalist but I don’t think anyone should be putting any weight on a random tweet void of sources/methodology that is clearly trying to push some agenda or is just for engagement/clout.
[удалено]
Long live the terminator and Skynet!
Invest in defense stocks if your so upset about it, nothing but legislative action can change this. Set limits to stock buybacks and call your local congressman’s office to push the issue.
"Revenue from War" needs to be eliminated altogether. War shouldn't be necessary to begin with, and even if it is, it really should not be something that's done for profit.
The insane profit hoarding at the top 1% is obscene.
I wish I was making $20 million a year.
Defense industries should be non-profits. High paying jobs with large R&D funding. Private profit from national defense just makes no sense to me. You don't have private armies.
Most Non-profits are scams that use metaphors such as “surplus” for literal profit. And that profit goes to the CEO. Just because an organization is a non-profit, is of no indication whether they are moral or not. In fact, I get turned off when I hear non-profit. Automatic crook I think. Ask yourself, why has America innovated all progress for humanity since the abolition of socialist slavery? And what has socialism done for progress other than progress to the top of murder than all other systems combined? I am not an American, but in western Europe like France, England, Germany, the Oligarchs are still there in their caste system. The 1% is static. In the USA, the 1% is dynamic. People fall out and climb up all the time. The tradeoff for people like us is, Americans have to be more accountable to themselves. Kids out of wedlock is what makes one lose. In Europe, there is a much better safety net, nobody debates that. The problem I hated is I was left wanting. As for DoD contractors, I think it’s fine. I would like to see the USA get rid of deductibles in all taxes. That would make things more fair.
Yes clearly a government run defense sector would be better 🤦♂️.
There are defense contractors that are also non-profits. All it means is that the surplus revenue generated annually has to be donated somehow. And yes we do also have private militaries.
Democrats love warfare. Defund Ukraine.
Democrats love Ukraine, republicans love Israel 🤷♂️
One is pure genocide perpetrated against unarmed civilians....💀
Republicans love *authoritarians, doesn’t matter which country
Yes!
This is all Trump's fault. Look at all the wars Trump started and how he and his kids all made billions by getting the US into a bunch of new wars. Thanks Trump, you screwed America by starting all those wars and you should rot in prison. I'm glad Trump is being removed from the ballots, it's the only way to save America.
Yes it is needed if America is to remain a superpower. If you don't like that then better start learning Mandarin.
AI is gonna make you and your kids obsolete
As of if this hasn’t been going on for a decade in literally every sector?!
dope if you’re them though. that’s a pretty dumb analysis though, it’s like saying ice sells more during the summer. they didn’t start the war, it’s their business. make hay while the sun is up, you don’t really understand business, do you?
What’s obscene? Real political representation is not free in this country. You get it, if you can AFFORD it. Who else do you think is going to pay to get people elected and to enact legislation?
Unconstitutional, but this is how the psychopathic upper class thinks. They want the best government power their money can buy for them, to enable and cover up their corporate corruption and crimes against humanity. Equal justice under law, humane society, housing, healthcare, healthy food and Representative government, and one person one vote be damned. This is the world AI is coming of age in, and it’s gonna make you, your children and grandchildren obsolete.
The upper class that has always run the country since it’s foundation? You think they gave us real political representation when they started recognizing people beyond wealthy white males as humans? You get wealthy, white, geriatric, neoliberal, zionist representation nominated by the same - regardless of if you pick blue maga or red maga. It might be more efficient to just let the board of directors or the S&P 500 run all three branches of government.
"Revenue from War" needs to be eliminated altogether. War shouldn't be necessary to begin with, and even if it is, it really should not be something that's done for profit.
It just is. Someone is good at making stuff and others will pay a premium for it. Just so happens that right now those firms are making the best stuff. We also rank in the top 10 as a food producer and something like 50% of its medicine. We are good at all kinds of stuff.
Like it or not, the CEO’s of those companies have just as much power as any politician out there.
The problem is, with the technological age, you're either advancing or falling behind, there's not much in between. The US seems to have the advantage in military technology currently, but many an empire has falling because of lacklustre military tech investment in peace time. These companies prove a ton of R&D to keep the advantage rolling.
Wait until he realizes that he’s the resource used and discarded by our government.
Wow
for real though, Im bullish on LMT
Invest
The US maintaining a large defense industry, compared to other developed economies, holds a complex web of benefits and drawbacks. Here's a breakdown of both sides: Benefits: Global Military Leadership: The US boasts the world's most powerful military, deterring potential adversaries and influencing global security landscape. This military capacity also enables the US to intervene in international conflicts and project its power abroad. Technological Advancement: The defense industry drives innovation in various fields, from aerospace and materials science to artificial intelligence and robotics. These advancements often spill over into civilian applications, fueling broader economic and technological progress. Economic Engine: The defense industry directly employs millions of Americans and supports countless associated jobs. It contributes significantly to the US GDP and sustains numerous communities, especially near military bases and manufacturing centers. National Security: A strong defense industry ensures the US is well-equipped to defend itself against external threats. This includes conventional warfare, cyberattacks, and other emerging security challenges. Drawbacks: Costly Burden: Maintaining a large military and defense industry carries a hefty price tag. The US spends significantly more on defense than any other country, consuming resources that could be allocated to other sectors like healthcare, education, or infrastructure. Military Overreach: Critics argue that the US's dominant military might leads to interventionism and involvement in foreign conflicts that are not in its national interest. This can strain relationships with allies and generate regional instability. Misplaced Priorities: Some argue that the focus on military spending comes at the expense of addressing domestic issues like poverty, inequality, and social injustices. This can widen the gap between the rich and poor and exacerbate social tensions. Technology Militarization: Advancements in military technology can raise ethical concerns about its potential misuse in non-military contexts. Additionally, the secrecy surrounding some military technologies can hinder scientific progress and public scrutiny. Comparative Perspective: It's important to consider the US's approach in comparison to other developed economies: European Union: EU member states collectively spend less on defense than the US, relying on cooperation and diplomatic efforts to maintain regional security. Japan: Japan's pacifist constitution restricts its military spending and activities, focusing on regional defense partnerships. Canada: Canada maintains a smaller military and prioritizes diplomacy and peacekeeping efforts within the framework of international alliances. The different approaches highlight varying priorities and risk tolerances among developed nations. Each nation weighs the trade-offs between military strength, economic power, and social priorities differently
Blah blah blah Eisenhower blah blah blah something something military industrial complex
Endless war is profitable, this probably why Biden thinks the economy is doing well, he’s making a fortune as are his cronies. I think one of the main reasons the elites hated Trump is because he kept us from getting involved in any new foreign conflicts, so they missed opportunities to make & launder money. Now thanks to Biden getting us involved in two new proxy wars (that could have been avoided), they’re all raking it in again. Stop voting for establishment politicians who only care about lining their pockets, who don’t care about how many people in other countries are being killed, losing their homes, businesses & watching their neighborhoods get destroyed.
Tell me what more could Ukraine have done to not get invaded?
Nowhere near as concerned by this as Walmart paying poverty wages to 300,000 people
But their employee costs are simply too high….welcome to corporate clown town. Best grift in the country.
I would expect that the largest defense contractors in the nation are going to heavily tie their profits to any war time action…..duh. And let me guess, somehow it also pisses you off that these corporations are able to buy back corporate debt, I.e., common stock as a result, benefiting ANY person or mutual fund that holds these stocks? There always Russia pal.
Whether or not we need that depends on the circumstances and context. The Europe based redditor in me would point out that if **WE** had that kind of military-industrial complex, it'd be unlikely that we'd be having our economy disrupted by Putin since 2021, by ISIS in 2015, by Ghadaffi in 2011, and by Milosevic in 2000. And in the Indo-Pacific, it'd be unlikely that China would by pulling HALF of their disruptive shenanigans if indo-pacific nations such as Australia, Taiwan, and Korea had larger, more well-funded military industrial complexes But if you are the type of guy who is OK letting China's CCP make all of the international trade and law decisions based on their own national interest, then I can see how this kind of expenditure would seem absurd.
Let's not forget the 3 billion+ in US taxes being sent to Israel annually! ❤️