Robert Reich was one of the men responsible for the horrible living conditions of the working poor and working classes. You're either willfully ignorant, incredibly unintelligent, or intentionally malicious

elaborate on that argument. if it's convincing, we can agree that he's being a hypocrite. doesn't change the fact i agree with his current message, and that quoting him doesn't mean i'm licking his boot.
you need to learn how to make an actual argument. emotional screeching and silly ad hominems won't cut it, buddy.

Stock buybacks are an investment in the business by owners of the business. To buy stock someone has to sell stock, ergo the $14 billion obviously doesn't disappear, as Robert Reich is implying, it went into the hands of willing sellers who are now free to invest and spend.

A stock buyback is equivalent for all intents and purposes to a special dividend. Lowe's is a company run for profit, so giving each employee a $47,000 bonus doesn't make a whole lot of sense. To be against Lowe's returning profit to ownership (e.g. by buying back stock) you'd have to be against private or public companies being run for profit.

do you generally believe in fairy tales, or only those told to the economically illiterate by corporate media?

I'm sure that sounded very clever in your head.

When a company buys back stock, they purchase it from existing shareholders. Those (now former) shareholders are free to do with the proceeds as they wish. Public companies are run for the benefit of the shareholding owners, and must be legally by fiduciary rules in place. A public company cannot disburse billions to employees, for no expected return, without violating the fiduciary duty they have towards shareholders who jointly own the risk of the venture. Where stock buybacks are a poor idea, and they sometimes are, the owners of the company are the one's who are most directly impacted. It's their wealth that's being squandered in the form of a poor investment in a poorly run company.

You think small businesses if their area is regional can deliver what amazon can? Are you serious? Amazon sells over 12 million different products
You think a small business is going to have access or warehouse that type of inventory or even a very very very minor fraction of?

I'm all for support local here and there but let's work in reality.

This post was edited by SBD on Aug 28 2023 05:53pm

And? So? If amazon was broken into, say, 100 small businesses, they could carry 10,000 products each.

Look, I know that amazon provides goods in a way that cannot be replicated/replaced by smaller businesses. However, I feel that the benefit we are talking about outweighs the negatives. Personally I would be ok with having say, a limited selection of products, as long as by breaking up amazon we could create many millionaires out of ordinary people.

This post was edited by JessiWan on Aug 28 2023 06:56pm

The world wouldn't end if all the major distributers suddenly went bankrupt or were split apart. It would restrict the global economy for awhile but everything would settle down fairly quickly as governments encouraged new distribution companies to fill any vacuums and divied up the remains of the giants. The world doesn't revolve around Amazon. Nothing Amazon does fills a need, only wants.

A new giant would form, one acquires the other, and the snowball forms.

If it was allowed to it certainly would.