I’ve wondered where you been. I was worried I wasn’t writing enough provocative articles :-)

Nobody can figure out how Medium decides to show you what it does and not others. To the point that the conservative community is seeking out alternatives.

The problem with downplaying the importance of creating jobs with the tax cuts is that the act is called “The Tax Cuts And Jobs Creations Act 2017”.

Granted, but this is politics, after all. The ACA stands for “Affordable Care Act”, and if you make more than 70K, it’s anything but.

Orwell taught the politicians well.

I can agree in part that CEOs can align their fiduciary responsibilities with their own greed — but only in the short run. That is why commentators are concerned that so much is being paid out in profits rather than put to long-term research and development, retained earnings as a cushion against a downturn in the economy — which always happens — and such.

Well, I agree with that, broadly. Only a very few major corporations now fund scientists to do pure research; perhaps none do. It’s all applied research, these days. Been like that for decades.

Further…yes. The Age of Government Indemnification, where the government has demonstrated its inclination to backstop failing businesses, particularly systemically important financial institutions and strategically important heavy manufacturing (steel and auto), started in 2008.

Many of “us” warned about the dangers of moral hazard back then; either they didn’t listen, or the economic dangers were so grim that they could not afford to.

Yes, perhaps my article overemphasize, for the sake of simplicity, that buybacks are bad. It is the ability of executives to secretly have their own shares bought back and to manipulate quarterly results that is the problem.

On that we agree. Not sure how to fix that. I like the idea that executive pay is tied to performance, but using the stock market as the *only* proxy for performance has always been questionable. As you’re aware, there are many business metrics internal that could be used.

It is the investors who lose because the buybacks are not actually done on the open market so that investors like you have a fair chance of getting their stocks bought back.

Mmm. At the least, the buybacks should be on in the public markets, for sure.

I expect they don’t really understand the opportunity that it gives executives to manipulate the market.

Well, remember, this is a small club. Many of these people know each other. Add up the top hedge fund managers and the CEO’s getting rich off these options, and you’re looking at PERHAPS a thousand individuals.

A shareholder is not an owner of law. That is the brilliance of the concept of the Corporation. Ownership is split.

We are not in disagreement that shareholder rights should be drastically improved.

Prior to 1970, or so, there was a greater sharing of profits with workers. It is the idea of shareholder value that is likely the immediate cause.

Interesting date there, in that 1968 was the date where US income inequality reversed its downward trend and started to climb, a trend which hasn’t changed to today.

Even a successful capitalist like Laurence Fink is having second thoughts about shareholder value.

Yes, I remember when he started on this. Caused quite a stir.

Data Driven Econophile. Muslim, USA born. Been “woke” 2x: 1st, when I realized the world isn’t fair; 2nd, when I realized the “woke” people are full of shit.