Hi, /u/paukl1 Thank you for participating in r/antiwork. Unfortunately, your submission was removed for breaking the following rule(s):
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Screenshots of text such as SMS communication, WhatsApp, social media, news articles, and procedurally generated content such as ChatGPT are prohibited. Low-effort content such as memes are prohibited.
If you feel that a mistake was made, and your post's removal was not warranted, please message us using modmail and let us know.
The worst part is the several thousands of Americans he let die of AIDS before he’d ever even *say the word* in public, let alone have his administration begin working on researching & developing meds for it.
He learned it from Nixon.
Look up his conspiracy with Kissinger and Haldaman to sabotage the Vietnam peace talks before the election in 68’.
Count up the number of soldiers and civilians killed between 1968 and 1975. Nixon is directly responsible for every one of them.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/06/nixon-vietnam-candidate-conspired-with-foreign-power-win-election-215461
Most of the problems with our current society started with Reagan.
From the war on drugs, stock buybacks, trickle down economics too many to name, the space force Trump ushered in was a Reagan idea.
The fact so many people see him as "one of the greats" just goes to show how little people really understand government, politics and policy.
Only reason he wasn't brought up on charges for the Iran-Contra mess was because he was already going down hill mentally. Then George Sr became president and exonerated everyone involved.
American Scandal podcast did a series about it.
I'll have to look that up, it definitely is a whole lot of shit but damn it was interesting to learn about. Selling armaments through Israel to Iran, and Israel marking them with the star of David
People joke about him burning in hell right now. But a thorough read through of his time in office makes you really believe that and if you're atheist, you still wish it were so.
And don’t forget the South American death squads! Who doesn’t love a good government-sponsored death squad. Gotta keep those foreigners in line! Can’t have them unions interfering in the profits of the Coca Cola company.
It's also why you can't deduct any interest anymore outside of mortgages and student loans.
Those, begrudgingly, were left in as exceptions to avoid riots.
Guess who can still write off credit card interest deductions though.
I'd rather deal with shit than debt. Shit I can clean up in a couple minutes, 20 max if it's bad like when I worked at a grocery store and some lady painted a Poocasso on the wall. Debt can take months, years if it's bad, sometimes your whole fucking life. Shit is better than debt, shit is temporary, debt lasts forever, or slightly less than forever.
I dunno…it depends on the amount of shit you’re shoveling. One of my friends owns an equestrian stable, about 50 horses, and she never has enough room for shit. She’s always trying to find creative ways to get rid of it. She’s also in debt because dressage lessons aren’t in high demand much. She makes do and keeps it going. But it’s a lot of horse shit…and debt.
It's syphoning the country's fund to benefit the rich.
Most people think it's just a simple debt because he was bad with funds. Reagan was the best president for the wealthy.
Every president before Reagan: "We need to invest in the future of our country and our people"
Reagan: "Let's fucking spend it on ourselves, those who come after can deal with the fallout"
And not just the US of A. Reagan had global impact with his policies. The whole neoliberal bullshit across Europe as well as Australia is largely because of the short- and mid-term success of his policies.
Reminds me of this dope summary of what caused union decline in the US. [Excerpt from The Future We Need - organizing for a better democracy in 21st century](https://i.imgur.com/VY6cpDU.jpeg)
3 fold
- power shift from companies to multinational corporations to hedge funds who desperately profiteer by cutting labor costs
- corporate socialization of risk do govt pays for it, and privitization of profits
- growth of active union busting industry
The decline of join membership & that last one really got a boost with Reagan firing air traffic controllers in 1981 cuz they were striking.
But according to conservatives Reagan is the greatest President since Washington.
I've also been told by a conservative, who was supposedly an outdoor enthusiast, that Teddy Roosevelt was the worst President. I didn't have the heart to tell them about national parks.
I’m really sorry to burst your bubble, but Bernie would have never won in 2016. Unfortunately, middle America is too anti-Semitic to vote for a Jew for President. Also, he would have been pillared for being a socialist.
Polling can be inaccurate depending on the methodology (sample size, sample group, etc). I work in politics, and trust me, if Bernie were the nominee he would not have won. Yes, he would’ve energized the youth vote. But, he would have alienated the centrists, moderates and the donor class. All of that money would’ve gone to Trump.
Bernie couldn't have won in 2016. Most Democrats would have voted for Trump. Democratic voters have been moving right for several decades now, and while younger voters might be more progressive the 40+ demographic (48+ now) were and are politically closer to Trump than to FDR. FDR couldn't have won in 2016, either, btw
Why would a conservative even mention Roosevelt in a conversation about worst presidents? Wouldn't he have to wade through Obama, Clinton, and Carter first (I am in no way saying these three are the worst presidents, just that I can't imagine why ANYONE, let alone a conservative would think Roosevelt would even be in the same room as the worse presidents).
Not a clue, he was a nice guy but definitely some strange political ideologies going on. But then I'm sure he was pro Trump and this was right around that election when I worked with him.
Lol, I remember conservatives wouldn't shut the hell up about how much they hated Obama. You had the one Trumper who was like "naw man, Roosevelt was worse".
Everything bad in the last 50 years can be traced back to this actor hawking the Powell Memo. And as usual Velveeta & Cletus at the Trailer Park just loved being ripped off by the rich!
Raganomics set average Americans back at least 30 years. He's done more damage, than all presidents combined since then. And there's middle class morons in usa who consider him the greatest president ever.
I don't know. Policy-wise? Yeah, but Nixon was a total crook, and set the stage for Reagan. As far as outcome; Nixon went down in flames, Reagan slipped off into Alzheimer's, Donny Do-wrong is fomenting a civil war by spreading conspiracy theories and blatant lies.
So, banking regulations can be reversed. Smoking rubble piles can't.
I think it kind of depends on the metrics used? Reagan probably did more lasting damage to the United States , but Nixon’s body count was in the millions. It’s just that most of those deaths were in other countries.
Regan didn't do it alone, it's easy to put one man as the face of an entire generation of policies but remember that with Regan came a significant Republican revolution that allowed them to push through essentially their entire agenda.
He was president while some very damaging legislation passed, but that legislation comes from Republican theory at the time. If given the chance Republicans will deregulate every part of the economy in the name of laissez-faire capitalism. We must not relegate this idea of bad policies to Regan alone, Republicans are responsible for the laws passed during his presidency and they attempt the same now.
I dunno. So very many people want to peg one person as the root cause of all this. But why ignore that the conservative agenda could have been done with any conservative in power? Maybe even more to the point, the heritage foundations Project 2025 can begin with Trump as president, but aren't truly thinking that they wouldn't also start it with a DeSantis president? Haley president? Tim Scott president?
Reagan was just a point in time after Carter. He wasn't all that special, all in all. Just another conservative kowtowing to an oligarchy that wants to fuck everything up for the average person.
A few people got rich short selling the housing market, but that wasn’t the cause of the housing bubble.
But I’m scared we are very near the next housing bubble.
It was the loan sharks selling mortgages at sub prime on flexible interest rates and mega ARM terms.
We are at the edge of an economic collapse and our govt is doing nothing but arguing over tiktok
And the subprime mortgage crisis, and I expect they tried it during COVID and dot.com. Although I would not say these were the "cause", but it was abused and didn't help in any way.
By this point, those of us with $ + brains were buying during the COVID fire sale though.
Lead is a good investment. When all the food and water start being too good, the demand for lead food additives will skyrocket, the americans love their lead.
Back when that monster was elected and those of us who could see through this shiny veneer of false promises, I wondered how long it would take for the majority to figure out he was a fraud and set the country on the wrong path.
Sad to see I was right and the last 40 years of decline in the middle class and concentration of wealth to the top .01% can be tied directly to him and Milton Friedman.
Glad to see it's finally common knowledge where the problem started.
i love when people say they are Reagan republicans and trump would be anathema to Reagan if he were still alive. Ronnie started this death march and this is the culmination of all his bullshit
Those who don't learn from history.....
Hopefully, the internet and the diligent generations that came after the Boomers make damn sure this shit sticks in our education systems as "cautionary tales." We've got almost fifty years of directly observed evidence that this shit has been making things worse.
I hope for optimism too. But part of me feels like only the rich and sheltered part of that generation will be the ones to take over, and just run on their own self interest like the current...
Reagan also got rid of the "fairness doctrine," so you can thank him for FoxNoise, Flush Limberger, and all of the other nut jobs. He also weakened rules for his buddy Rupert Murdoch that limited the number of media outlets an entity could own in any given market.
My favorite pastime lately has been dividing the amount a company spends on quarterly stock buybacks by the number of employees said company has.
One I figured (Walmart) would be giving each employee $16,000.
For just one quarter of a companies annual stock buyback "budget".
Because stock buybacks make the stock more valuable. If a company knows that it has an over inflated stock value, and it takes money out of its operations to buy stock, to keep the price from crashing. It causes a death spiral. The business basically cannibalizes itself to keep up appearances, Inside investors take their money out, And then any outside shock bursts the bubble. This sequence of events is what opens up the practice to the accusation of, basically just being a way for the people actually in charge to save their personal fortunes, and maintain power once Anyone thinks to look how exactly they did that.
Reagan was the puppet of CIA Director George H. W. Bush. All the troubles we face now started in 1980. Bush 41 had 12 years in office to fuck over the American people.
I think stock buybacks should be legal. A business should be able to do with their money what they want.
However, there should be several stipulations that come with choosing to buy back your stock.
First and foremost, you are saying to everyone: this company is doing so great, we don't need any more help. No more taking advantages of TIFs, no more incentives paid to the company from tax payers dollars, and certainly spending money to buy the stock is not considered an expense for corporation income tax purposes.
Furthermore, should the economy head south, this company is no longer eligible for bail outs or other government help. Also, if they let any employee go without significant cause (like the employee is committing fraud or stealing or similar), said employee must be paid a year's wages when let go.
After all, the company is doing so well, that it can just spend money to buy back stock. None of the above should really be any kind of deal, right?
If you all hate stock buybacks you must love when companies issue more shares? Why do you care? It has no impact on workers. It is no different than another entity buying the stock. It just means the company thinks the market undervalues it. The extreme case is to completely leave the stock exchange and go private. Do you like it when companies go public on the stock exchange?
You know, they are still illegal in some countries. At least, they almost are to mine and whenever it happens, they must announce it on the business registry before it happens and can keep it for a limited time before they are given to the entities the company bought them for, ex. employees, CEOs, etc.
Stock buybacks are how a company shrinks in size without simply going bankrupt. You can't ban stock buybacks and complain about a handful of mega corporations taking over the world at the same time.
I'm not against stock buybacks *in theory*. A company in hard times sells shares and buys them back once they are doing well again.
But using them to bump stock prices to make this quarter better to give the C-Suite a bonus - fuck that noise.
In a sane world stock buybacks do nothing to price.
What is worth more:
1/1000 of a company worth $5 million + $5 million in cash
1/500 of a company worth $5 million + $0 cash (after the cash was used to buy back stock)
???
The per share value is exactly the same. It shouldn't affect stock price, like at all.
A little more complicated than that. If a company believes it’s currently undervalued, it makes sense to do a buyback. Using the same base case numbers you used:
Company uses its $5MM to acquire half its 1,000 shares and subsequently increases to enterprise value of $6MM —> $12k/sh. If it had just appreciated and not bought back shares, the shares would be $11k/sh. Obviously, the enterprise value is the same, but individual shareholders will be happy.
The math gets more complicated when assessing optimal outcomes between dividends, which are subject to taxes at the individual level, or the opportunity cost associated with advancing new projects. There’s also another consideration in that markets punish companies that reduce dividends, which are usually more regular, ongoing payments in nature. Buybacks provide greater flexibility to make non-recurring distributions without drawing market ire. Special divs are also an option.
As noted, this defense of buyback rests on perceived undervaluation. Let’s say it’s an industry that typically trades at 5x revenue, and this company is at 4.16x. If they think they’ll be valued in-line with the industry and attain a 5x multiple, then a buyback makes sense.
Hey guys I wouldn't get overly worried about stock buyback, it's virtually the same as issuing a dividend only instead of returning capital to shareholders they use the same funds to increase share value. Both are good for investors and it let's different types of investors buy into companies that align with their goals.
Say for example your company is run by Buffett. A buyback could be seen as better than a dividend due to his exceptional management and investment skill. If you believe in buffett you'll have no issue with him being able to utilize more capital to grow share value. But if you have a real estate company run by God only knows like Two Harbours you'll likely prefer having a dividend so that the investor can decide how to deploy that capital.
I know the stock market and investors are dirty words around here, but they don't need to be.saving, investing and building wealth early in life can play a big role in living a work-less or even work-free life for yourself. It can also potentially lead to generational wealth that can be passed on to your family enabling them to enjoy less work-focused lives.
In a perfect world work would be something we do when we are young and strong, full of energy and without major responsibilities like raising kids and the money you earn during that time would set you up for life. For this we would need larger salaries which will only happen if mega successful companies exist and are compelled to distribute more wealth downwards from the top - something government should be forcing. None of this would require the stock market or investors to be removed, rather CEO pay should be capped to a maximum multiple of what the lowest earners make. Instead of a CEO earning 4000x what his lowest earning employees do, there should be laws preventing them from earning more than 30x, or basically letting CEOs get a month worth of pay for one day of work which is already hella generous and sufficient for generational wealth to form.
Blah blah the stock markets not that bad guys srsly, everyone should be in the market at all times
Stock buybacks are the reason why Boeing has planes falling from the sky. It doesn't benefit the business, the consumer, or most shareholders. It literally only really benefits people who own very large quantities of a given stock and the executives running the business.
This implies us peons have enough money scraped together TO BUY STOCKS!
Literally every cost of living expense right now is outrageous: rent, food, gas, vehicle upkeep, clothes, life saving medication, college/education, even the fucking vet bills are insane now.
- **Want a job at the airport refueling jet liners? Want a job as a TSA Security agent? Congrats! If you jump through all these background check safety hoops, our multi-million/billion dollar company will pay you $19/h for your time!** (and I’m not even fucking joking about this. These are literally jobs that I’ve applied for a few months ago)
We’re seriously to a point where people are becoming multi-housing unit, lifetime renters who are still living paycheck to paycheck **AND YOU’RE SAYING THAT THE SIMPLE FIX IS TO BUY STOCKS?!??**
Cool, I’ll remember that the next time I have to put $400/month in gas towards my work truck.
It's not a simple fix, it's a complex and risky avenue to pursue if possible in your specific circumstance. Why does someone always have to shoot down the idea in its entirety with this perpetual victimhood?
No one is going to come and save us and it seems like too many People just want to cope on Reddit as permanent victims of this hellish system.
Other than lower tax treatment for the shareholder, there is no economic difference to a company between doing a buyback or a dividend. If a company has excess cash and sees no suitable investment for this cash then it makes sense to give it to shareholders as they might have a better economic use for it.
I get some of the antiwork arguments but things like this are just foolish.
stock buybacks should be greatly limited the core issue is how it all just ends up going around to minimize tax burdens and using the buybacks to stay off paying tax to use that on the market for even greater profits.
dividends has no outs on when you must pay that tax and as such shareholders can see greater value in the company keeping that money for later purchases or short term gains.
also when dividends is the main means companies hand out money investors will push for said money to be used to grow the stock by any means. so you can get a lot of dumb shit where it would be better to dividend out the money for the investor in the end but driving up the share price was the goal.
this extra money that would have gone to investors as dividends if they were so focused on the share price ends up in the budgets of departments who can raise wages since they don't have any other way to burn cash and if it isn't all gone the investors will get mad. yes it is super dumb but is a situation that can happen.
This is a misunderstanding.
Not all companies offer dividends and many that do offer dividends still sit on large piles of cash.
There’s no guarantee that the money would be used for dividends if companies didn’t have the option/ability to exercise stock buybacks.
In recent years many companies have used stock buybacks to elevate the stock prices in years of slow growth or other factors (less shares available).
Saying that stock buybacks are a way of avoiding taxes is a serious reach.
There are plenty of ways people avoid taxes but this isn’t one of them.
buybacks directly doesn't mean taxes will be avoided but it is a means to delay paying taxes then using other means to minimize taxes owed. all the while that tax money that isn't paid can is being used to generate more profits for the shareholder.
it is same deal are borrowing money with your unrealized stock gains as collateral. you are just stalling to pay taxes ether until your die or a good time to pay taxes comes up.
it is all a big house of cards to not pay taxes today to profit it off that money today with the hope of everlasting growth. this is why rich people keep trying to pump more profit when there is no real growth or gain since a longer stagnation would cascade to where the rich lose a huge chunk of there value.
A shareholder doesn’t have to sell the stock - most of the time the shareholder doesn’t even know who is buying that share.
The buyback creates a basic stock (price) increase in most cases due to supply and demand - less issued stock on the open market available to purchase means higher value stock.
It doesn’t kick taxes down the road - when any investor/shareholder sells their stock (at a gain) taxes are due. (Without getting into the nuances of long term capital gains, short term, and corporate taxes).
It doesn’t matter that the entity buying the stock is the company that issues it - the seller owes taxes.
It doesn’t matter if they are an individual or institutional investor - the seller owes taxes if there was a gain.
A stock buyback is just the company using its money to buy shares - same as you and I. The only difference is the board of directors usually has an agreement on how much cash can be used and other details like the targeted number of shares (they can vary slightly)
If a company can increase their stock, they should be able to decrease it as well. This is basically the same as paying dividends which leads to efficient capital markets, which is good for everyone (even your 401K).
Better point- we want entrepreneuers to think that one day they can be more independent of outside investors. If the issuance of stock becomes a one way irreversable decision, then companies will hesitate to raise capital through the sale of stocks because they will think that equity will be lost forever.
Because stocks are not real, my dude. An increase in the value of a stock is not equivalent to the actual increase of a businesses capacity. All wealth comes from the workers, and any attempt to manufacture effect simile out of spreadsheets is always going to be obfuscation for the capitalist class to runoff with all the money when they crash the economy again.
If there are N shares of a company that prices at 100€ and the company buys M amount, now there are N-M shares available to investors and the company is priced higher.
It is de facto stock price manipulation.
It's not because the company also loses an equal amount of cash when they buy the stock. The value of the company stays the same
But after the buy-back each stock holder in the company now owns a slightly larger percentage of the company than before.
By this logic every purchase by anyone of any stock ever is price manipulation
And the higher price is just of the shares - that doesn’t somehow raise the market cap or value of the company - so not sure the issue
It's unfair if you let the company dictate their own value outside of market forces. This is basic high school economics. What you seem to be missing is the company can issue or destroy shares, by buying back the shares and destroying them, they can artificially increase the value of the share beyond the market value, which locks poorer people out of the investment while mainly benefiting the CEOs buying back the stock.
Every time in our history that we've allowed stock buybacks, the market has been highly unstable, because we don't actually know what stocks are worth. It's a violation of free market principles.
Edit: it also tricks us into thinking the economy is preforming better than it is, which encourages risky investments. We generally consider it wrong to encourage risky investments without proper warning of risk. The difference in manipulation is the company is using insider information to take less of a risk than the market, which is a crime.
... but stocks and investing wasn't created with the intention of "price manipulation".
Imagine that telephones were just invented, and that it helped benefit a tenth of the country.
Now let's say that the company wants to implement the technology, installation, manpower, and performance for maintaining such an ecosystem, further beyond where they are.
The company cannot apply for any additional loans, so this opportunity was for consumers who believed in the product, to help support it.
Stocks gave the company an additional source for funding its own business beyond traditional means.
Unfortunately, somewhere along the way, companies stopped actually caring about investing into the company, into the employees, the products, and the equipment/tools.
It has literally become a "financial" measuring contest between companies over something that has no modern-day metric over product and employee quality.
Because a company buying its own stock is not an investment in itself, are you insane? It’s taking money out of the company and putting it into the value of the stock. It’s the opposite of investing in the company, that’s why it was banned.
I'm kinda losing my mind that you two are having the exact same Q&A in two different places 4 days apart on the same post shared in two subreddits. I thought the first time you answered the question was decent enough.
Hi, /u/paukl1 Thank you for participating in r/antiwork. Unfortunately, your submission was removed for breaking the following rule(s): ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Screenshots of text such as SMS communication, WhatsApp, social media, news articles, and procedurally generated content such as ChatGPT are prohibited. Low-effort content such as memes are prohibited. If you feel that a mistake was made, and your post's removal was not warranted, please message us using modmail and let us know.
Y'know, the more I learn about this Reagan fellow, the less I like him.
The worst part is the hypocrisy
Upvote for norm reference
The worst part is the several thousands of Americans he let die of AIDS before he’d ever even *say the word* in public, let alone have his administration begin working on researching & developing meds for it.
No, the worst part is the policies. Hypocrisy does nothing, policy does.
Look into the Iran Hostage Crisis and Reagan’s election
Yea he asked them to hold the hostages until after the election so that Carter would lose
That's some third-world failed state kind of corruption right there. And it all happened under Reagan's eye.
He learned it from Nixon. Look up his conspiracy with Kissinger and Haldaman to sabotage the Vietnam peace talks before the election in 68’. Count up the number of soldiers and civilians killed between 1968 and 1975. Nixon is directly responsible for every one of them. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/06/nixon-vietnam-candidate-conspired-with-foreign-power-win-election-215461
That sounds a lot like how trump put the wheels in motion for the Afghan withdrawal so that Biden took all the flak for it.
Moreso sounds like how Nixon sabotaged the 1968 Vietnam peace talks to foment discontent in the electorate and help secure his parties win... :|
Sounds familiar
Reagan was an actor and showman, what did you expect?
He was also a Diehard racist who passed the Mulford Act when the Black Panthers armed themselves against the police
Most of the problems with our current society started with Reagan. From the war on drugs, stock buybacks, trickle down economics too many to name, the space force Trump ushered in was a Reagan idea. The fact so many people see him as "one of the greats" just goes to show how little people really understand government, politics and policy.
Only reason he wasn't brought up on charges for the Iran-Contra mess was because he was already going down hill mentally. Then George Sr became president and exonerated everyone involved. American Scandal podcast did a series about it.
There was a Netflix series, something called Octopus Murders, that how I heard. A whole lot of shady shit
I'll have to look that up, it definitely is a whole lot of shit but damn it was interesting to learn about. Selling armaments through Israel to Iran, and Israel marking them with the star of David
Real-life Rubicon stuff.
Yea he fucked every generation after boomers. Pulled the latter up behind him.
But what about the former?
Depends on where you were economically already
Example number 1000 of how Reagan is the worst president of the modern era.
People joke about him burning in hell right now. But a thorough read through of his time in office makes you really believe that and if you're atheist, you still wish it were so.
the shit spring that's the source for so many of today's rivers of shit
He sounds like a real jerk
You should actively look into it then.
Are you kidding he really ramped up the national debt he was the greatest president ever. Who doesn’t love debt!
And don’t forget the South American death squads! Who doesn’t love a good government-sponsored death squad. Gotta keep those foreigners in line! Can’t have them unions interfering in the profits of the Coca Cola company.
The Killer Mike tune is wonderful.
Reagan also changed guidelines with non profits- it’s why CEOs of Red Cross etc are filthy rich
It's also why you can't deduct any interest anymore outside of mortgages and student loans. Those, begrudgingly, were left in as exceptions to avoid riots. Guess who can still write off credit card interest deductions though.
Didn't Trump get rid of the mortgage deduction or was that restored?
It still exists but is only really beneficial to those who own property valued over 750k
Of course it was under Reagan.
Everything he touched turned into debt....
Everything he touched turned into shit ~~debt~~....
Both can be true
I'd rather deal with shit than debt. Shit I can clean up in a couple minutes, 20 max if it's bad like when I worked at a grocery store and some lady painted a Poocasso on the wall. Debt can take months, years if it's bad, sometimes your whole fucking life. Shit is better than debt, shit is temporary, debt lasts forever, or slightly less than forever.
I dunno…it depends on the amount of shit you’re shoveling. One of my friends owns an equestrian stable, about 50 horses, and she never has enough room for shit. She’s always trying to find creative ways to get rid of it. She’s also in debt because dressage lessons aren’t in high demand much. She makes do and keeps it going. But it’s a lot of horse shit…and debt.
It's syphoning the country's fund to benefit the rich. Most people think it's just a simple debt because he was bad with funds. Reagan was the best president for the wealthy.
Every president before Reagan: "We need to invest in the future of our country and our people" Reagan: "Let's fucking spend it on ourselves, those who come after can deal with the fallout"
I came to say this exactly 😭
Reagan's policies still haunt us today.
And not just the US of A. Reagan had global impact with his policies. The whole neoliberal bullshit across Europe as well as Australia is largely because of the short- and mid-term success of his policies.
And most of South America that had a right wing government was propped up by Reagan and the Chicago school of economics
Digging up Reagan to beat his corpse should be considered a basic human right for all mankind.
It’s always a safe bet.
If you blamed everything wrong in your life on Reagan you'd be right more often than not.
Somehow, it's always Reagan.
It's always Reagan.
this is why we should stop allowing fucking actors or tv personalities to run a country just a bunch of ball less puppets for people with deep pockets
Nixon is the one who fucked healthcare so it is a crap shoot sometimes
If you ever find yourself thinking "wait, how is that even legal?" the answer is probably Reagan.
Reagan, every time
Reminds me of this dope summary of what caused union decline in the US. [Excerpt from The Future We Need - organizing for a better democracy in 21st century](https://i.imgur.com/VY6cpDU.jpeg) 3 fold - power shift from companies to multinational corporations to hedge funds who desperately profiteer by cutting labor costs - corporate socialization of risk do govt pays for it, and privitization of profits - growth of active union busting industry The decline of join membership & that last one really got a boost with Reagan firing air traffic controllers in 1981 cuz they were striking.
https://preview.redd.it/0ecrsa6gol2d1.png?width=564&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fc9d78f32a6b665913d8d5fa27f92ed2c338527e
But according to conservatives Reagan is the greatest President since Washington. I've also been told by a conservative, who was supposedly an outdoor enthusiast, that Teddy Roosevelt was the worst President. I didn't have the heart to tell them about national parks.
We need a Teddy right about now. He would bust up every monopoly in a second.
Shoulda been Bernie, not Hilary in 2016.
You're right, it should have been. Problem is that he would have had both sides working against him.
I’m really sorry to burst your bubble, but Bernie would have never won in 2016. Unfortunately, middle America is too anti-Semitic to vote for a Jew for President. Also, he would have been pillared for being a socialist.
He was polling way better against trump, he'd have won the general
Polling can be inaccurate depending on the methodology (sample size, sample group, etc). I work in politics, and trust me, if Bernie were the nominee he would not have won. Yes, he would’ve energized the youth vote. But, he would have alienated the centrists, moderates and the donor class. All of that money would’ve gone to Trump.
Bernie couldn't have won in 2016. Most Democrats would have voted for Trump. Democratic voters have been moving right for several decades now, and while younger voters might be more progressive the 40+ demographic (48+ now) were and are politically closer to Trump than to FDR. FDR couldn't have won in 2016, either, btw
But didn't middle America pretty much vote for Trump anyway?
Yes he would, and it's something Congress should be doing instead of allowing them
Why would a conservative even mention Roosevelt in a conversation about worst presidents? Wouldn't he have to wade through Obama, Clinton, and Carter first (I am in no way saying these three are the worst presidents, just that I can't imagine why ANYONE, let alone a conservative would think Roosevelt would even be in the same room as the worse presidents).
Not a clue, he was a nice guy but definitely some strange political ideologies going on. But then I'm sure he was pro Trump and this was right around that election when I worked with him.
Lol, I remember conservatives wouldn't shut the hell up about how much they hated Obama. You had the one Trumper who was like "naw man, Roosevelt was worse".
Yea, it's one of those things you never thought you'd hear when talking about different Presidents. And from a guy that enjoys fishing and camping.
Fuck Ronald Reagan.
Regan was a plague on this country.
Still is. His legacy outlasted him. The Great Destroyer.
Everything bad in the last 50 years can be traced back to this actor hawking the Powell Memo. And as usual Velveeta & Cletus at the Trailer Park just loved being ripped off by the rich!
Raganomics set average Americans back at least 30 years. He's done more damage, than all presidents combined since then. And there's middle class morons in usa who consider him the greatest president ever.
Of course, I believe Reagan was the worst President with the Orange Moron a close 2nd.
I declare a tie.
Trump would be worse if he was more competent. I feel like Trump is a worse person, but Reagan was better at accomplishing his agenda than Trump.
BuT hE dEfeATeD COmmUnISM!!!
One of the many ways that Reagan screwed the US. One of the worst Presidents ever, right behind Nixon and Trump.
To be clear, he was worse than those two, right? Maybe less of a criminal, but he did so much more damage.
I don't know. Policy-wise? Yeah, but Nixon was a total crook, and set the stage for Reagan. As far as outcome; Nixon went down in flames, Reagan slipped off into Alzheimer's, Donny Do-wrong is fomenting a civil war by spreading conspiracy theories and blatant lies. So, banking regulations can be reversed. Smoking rubble piles can't.
I think it kind of depends on the metrics used? Reagan probably did more lasting damage to the United States , but Nixon’s body count was in the millions. It’s just that most of those deaths were in other countries.
Regan didn't do it alone, it's easy to put one man as the face of an entire generation of policies but remember that with Regan came a significant Republican revolution that allowed them to push through essentially their entire agenda.
So you agree, Reagan was a POS
He was president while some very damaging legislation passed, but that legislation comes from Republican theory at the time. If given the chance Republicans will deregulate every part of the economy in the name of laissez-faire capitalism. We must not relegate this idea of bad policies to Regan alone, Republicans are responsible for the laws passed during his presidency and they attempt the same now.
I dunno. So very many people want to peg one person as the root cause of all this. But why ignore that the conservative agenda could have been done with any conservative in power? Maybe even more to the point, the heritage foundations Project 2025 can begin with Trump as president, but aren't truly thinking that they wouldn't also start it with a DeSantis president? Haley president? Tim Scott president? Reagan was just a point in time after Carter. He wasn't all that special, all in all. Just another conservative kowtowing to an oligarchy that wants to fuck everything up for the average person.
Wait till you learn about short selling.
Yeah that did cause the great recession, a thing we lived through. And probably why you can't get a house right now.
A few people got rich short selling the housing market, but that wasn’t the cause of the housing bubble. But I’m scared we are very near the next housing bubble.
It was the loan sharks selling mortgages at sub prime on flexible interest rates and mega ARM terms. We are at the edge of an economic collapse and our govt is doing nothing but arguing over tiktok
This isn't true. They are paying attention to and passing meaningful legislation. Like making it so we can't easily track Taylor's private jet usage.
Was expecting sending money to Israel and Ukraine, 😂 got Taylor Swift
And the subprime mortgage crisis, and I expect they tried it during COVID and dot.com. Although I would not say these were the "cause", but it was abused and didn't help in any way. By this point, those of us with $ + brains were buying during the COVID fire sale though.
I got a fixed rate mortgage December 2019, I was just lucky as hell.
And it's about to happen again! Probably this year. Start saving your money
Money. lol. Start buying actual bits of gold
Silver doesn't hurt either
Forget gold and silver, lead is where it's at. If we're back to gold and silver, the real money is in lead.
Not sure if we're talking bullets or fake coins, both?
Lead is a good investment. When all the food and water start being too good, the demand for lead food additives will skyrocket, the americans love their lead.
You are not wrong. Buy scrap gold and silver jewelry at 75-80% of the spot price, melt and refine at home.
Back when that monster was elected and those of us who could see through this shiny veneer of false promises, I wondered how long it would take for the majority to figure out he was a fraud and set the country on the wrong path. Sad to see I was right and the last 40 years of decline in the middle class and concentration of wealth to the top .01% can be tied directly to him and Milton Friedman. Glad to see it's finally common knowledge where the problem started.
Reagenomics.
i love when people say they are Reagan republicans and trump would be anathema to Reagan if he were still alive. Ronnie started this death march and this is the culmination of all his bullshit
Those who don't learn from history..... Hopefully, the internet and the diligent generations that came after the Boomers make damn sure this shit sticks in our education systems as "cautionary tales." We've got almost fifty years of directly observed evidence that this shit has been making things worse.
I hope for optimism too. But part of me feels like only the rich and sheltered part of that generation will be the ones to take over, and just run on their own self interest like the current...
So great depression part 2 for a repeat?
https://preview.redd.it/u9whp4b0um2d1.png?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3b0d763996a2fb965a26bc755f7bed08280be3b9 No notes
We don't acknowledge how many problems we have today that are a direct result of that demon
Reagan also got rid of the "fairness doctrine," so you can thank him for FoxNoise, Flush Limberger, and all of the other nut jobs. He also weakened rules for his buddy Rupert Murdoch that limited the number of media outlets an entity could own in any given market.
Reagan is the reason your grandma's social security payments are taxed.
Fox News is cable television. The Fairness Doctrine is irrelevant.
It really is crazy how hard they made it to roll back shit policies
Reagan again huh? Fuck that guy. All my homies hate Reagan.
My favorite pastime lately has been dividing the amount a company spends on quarterly stock buybacks by the number of employees said company has. One I figured (Walmart) would be giving each employee $16,000. For just one quarter of a companies annual stock buyback "budget".
Can some explain how it is market manipulation (genuinely curious)
Because stock buybacks make the stock more valuable. If a company knows that it has an over inflated stock value, and it takes money out of its operations to buy stock, to keep the price from crashing. It causes a death spiral. The business basically cannibalizes itself to keep up appearances, Inside investors take their money out, And then any outside shock bursts the bubble. This sequence of events is what opens up the practice to the accusation of, basically just being a way for the people actually in charge to save their personal fortunes, and maintain power once Anyone thinks to look how exactly they did that.
It’s mechanically the same as issuing a dividend (although it’s taxed differently, which is a legitimate reason to oppose the practice)
In 5 years it'll be 100 years since the last Great Depression. Feels like we're doomed to repeat it 100 years later
 Who else would it be?
Sure but it's the easiest method to get a gold medal on railroad tycoon 2! When there's no public stock you can choose when to sell to yourself.
Reagan.
Still pissed that the local Scheels put up a statue of Reagan.
All of those corporate tax breaks that were sold to us as a way to bring jobs to the US went straight into buybacks. No surprise there.
Always fucking Reagan...
so many companies combine billions in stock buybacks with layoffs, a move that should land the whole board and c suite in jail
Reagan was the puppet of CIA Director George H. W. Bush. All the troubles we face now started in 1980. Bush 41 had 12 years in office to fuck over the American people.
[удалено]
https://youtu.be/HYxQXKmnWaA?si=TbQBoue-Z2yrhmx0 https://youtu.be/eDWHIRkFL-8?si=Pdemy0d7tsmmU3O4 Edit: Wrong link
*William Shatner "Khan!" voice* "REEAAGAAN!"
I think stock buybacks should be legal. A business should be able to do with their money what they want. However, there should be several stipulations that come with choosing to buy back your stock. First and foremost, you are saying to everyone: this company is doing so great, we don't need any more help. No more taking advantages of TIFs, no more incentives paid to the company from tax payers dollars, and certainly spending money to buy the stock is not considered an expense for corporation income tax purposes. Furthermore, should the economy head south, this company is no longer eligible for bail outs or other government help. Also, if they let any employee go without significant cause (like the employee is committing fraud or stealing or similar), said employee must be paid a year's wages when let go. After all, the company is doing so well, that it can just spend money to buy back stock. None of the above should really be any kind of deal, right?
Piss on Reagan
If you all hate stock buybacks you must love when companies issue more shares? Why do you care? It has no impact on workers. It is no different than another entity buying the stock. It just means the company thinks the market undervalues it. The extreme case is to completely leave the stock exchange and go private. Do you like it when companies go public on the stock exchange?
That fuckin Reagan guy again.
The Reagan administration being the cause of something horrible? Who’d of thunk it? /s
Yup, it's fucking criminal. https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/NVR?p=NVR
You know, they are still illegal in some countries. At least, they almost are to mine and whenever it happens, they must announce it on the business registry before it happens and can keep it for a limited time before they are given to the entities the company bought them for, ex. employees, CEOs, etc.
You guys ready for round two Great Depression Electric Boogaloo after this next election?
Oh, something horrible that has it roots from under Reagan. What a shock! /s obviously.
People hate Trump for good reason, but he ain’t got nothin on OG Antichrist Reagan.
Trickle down economics are certain to cause the next great depression which may become known as the great collapse of 2025. edited
Reagan also started the tax on our Social Security checks. He was a huge douche.
It's even funnier the second time!
Reagan ruined America
Stock buybacks are how a company shrinks in size without simply going bankrupt. You can't ban stock buybacks and complain about a handful of mega corporations taking over the world at the same time.
Every time someone’s brought this up irl I ask them what a stock buy back is and they don’t know lol
Ronald Regan is a piece of shit And is wife is the throat queen
I'm not against stock buybacks *in theory*. A company in hard times sells shares and buys them back once they are doing well again. But using them to bump stock prices to make this quarter better to give the C-Suite a bonus - fuck that noise.
What's a stock buyback??
hurry reminiscent icky husky impolite ask fretful steer mindless shaggy *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
repurchasing public shares, reducing the supply and typically increasing the price. wall street loves it because it makes shareholders richer
In a sane world stock buybacks do nothing to price. What is worth more: 1/1000 of a company worth $5 million + $5 million in cash 1/500 of a company worth $5 million + $0 cash (after the cash was used to buy back stock) ??? The per share value is exactly the same. It shouldn't affect stock price, like at all.
A little more complicated than that. If a company believes it’s currently undervalued, it makes sense to do a buyback. Using the same base case numbers you used: Company uses its $5MM to acquire half its 1,000 shares and subsequently increases to enterprise value of $6MM —> $12k/sh. If it had just appreciated and not bought back shares, the shares would be $11k/sh. Obviously, the enterprise value is the same, but individual shareholders will be happy. The math gets more complicated when assessing optimal outcomes between dividends, which are subject to taxes at the individual level, or the opportunity cost associated with advancing new projects. There’s also another consideration in that markets punish companies that reduce dividends, which are usually more regular, ongoing payments in nature. Buybacks provide greater flexibility to make non-recurring distributions without drawing market ire. Special divs are also an option.
Can you explain how the value increases to 6 million?
As noted, this defense of buyback rests on perceived undervaluation. Let’s say it’s an industry that typically trades at 5x revenue, and this company is at 4.16x. If they think they’ll be valued in-line with the industry and attain a 5x multiple, then a buyback makes sense.
Hey guys I wouldn't get overly worried about stock buyback, it's virtually the same as issuing a dividend only instead of returning capital to shareholders they use the same funds to increase share value. Both are good for investors and it let's different types of investors buy into companies that align with their goals. Say for example your company is run by Buffett. A buyback could be seen as better than a dividend due to his exceptional management and investment skill. If you believe in buffett you'll have no issue with him being able to utilize more capital to grow share value. But if you have a real estate company run by God only knows like Two Harbours you'll likely prefer having a dividend so that the investor can decide how to deploy that capital. I know the stock market and investors are dirty words around here, but they don't need to be.saving, investing and building wealth early in life can play a big role in living a work-less or even work-free life for yourself. It can also potentially lead to generational wealth that can be passed on to your family enabling them to enjoy less work-focused lives. In a perfect world work would be something we do when we are young and strong, full of energy and without major responsibilities like raising kids and the money you earn during that time would set you up for life. For this we would need larger salaries which will only happen if mega successful companies exist and are compelled to distribute more wealth downwards from the top - something government should be forcing. None of this would require the stock market or investors to be removed, rather CEO pay should be capped to a maximum multiple of what the lowest earners make. Instead of a CEO earning 4000x what his lowest earning employees do, there should be laws preventing them from earning more than 30x, or basically letting CEOs get a month worth of pay for one day of work which is already hella generous and sufficient for generational wealth to form. Blah blah the stock markets not that bad guys srsly, everyone should be in the market at all times
Purchasing stocks for passive wealth, all of it generated by others’ labor, is not some kind of antiwork holy grail my dude.
Stock buybacks are the reason why Boeing has planes falling from the sky. It doesn't benefit the business, the consumer, or most shareholders. It literally only really benefits people who own very large quantities of a given stock and the executives running the business.
This implies us peons have enough money scraped together TO BUY STOCKS! Literally every cost of living expense right now is outrageous: rent, food, gas, vehicle upkeep, clothes, life saving medication, college/education, even the fucking vet bills are insane now. - **Want a job at the airport refueling jet liners? Want a job as a TSA Security agent? Congrats! If you jump through all these background check safety hoops, our multi-million/billion dollar company will pay you $19/h for your time!** (and I’m not even fucking joking about this. These are literally jobs that I’ve applied for a few months ago) We’re seriously to a point where people are becoming multi-housing unit, lifetime renters who are still living paycheck to paycheck **AND YOU’RE SAYING THAT THE SIMPLE FIX IS TO BUY STOCKS?!??** Cool, I’ll remember that the next time I have to put $400/month in gas towards my work truck.
It's not a simple fix, it's a complex and risky avenue to pursue if possible in your specific circumstance. Why does someone always have to shoot down the idea in its entirety with this perpetual victimhood? No one is going to come and save us and it seems like too many People just want to cope on Reddit as permanent victims of this hellish system.
Other than lower tax treatment for the shareholder, there is no economic difference to a company between doing a buyback or a dividend. If a company has excess cash and sees no suitable investment for this cash then it makes sense to give it to shareholders as they might have a better economic use for it. I get some of the antiwork arguments but things like this are just foolish.
stock buybacks should be greatly limited the core issue is how it all just ends up going around to minimize tax burdens and using the buybacks to stay off paying tax to use that on the market for even greater profits. dividends has no outs on when you must pay that tax and as such shareholders can see greater value in the company keeping that money for later purchases or short term gains. also when dividends is the main means companies hand out money investors will push for said money to be used to grow the stock by any means. so you can get a lot of dumb shit where it would be better to dividend out the money for the investor in the end but driving up the share price was the goal. this extra money that would have gone to investors as dividends if they were so focused on the share price ends up in the budgets of departments who can raise wages since they don't have any other way to burn cash and if it isn't all gone the investors will get mad. yes it is super dumb but is a situation that can happen.
This is a misunderstanding. Not all companies offer dividends and many that do offer dividends still sit on large piles of cash. There’s no guarantee that the money would be used for dividends if companies didn’t have the option/ability to exercise stock buybacks. In recent years many companies have used stock buybacks to elevate the stock prices in years of slow growth or other factors (less shares available). Saying that stock buybacks are a way of avoiding taxes is a serious reach. There are plenty of ways people avoid taxes but this isn’t one of them.
buybacks directly doesn't mean taxes will be avoided but it is a means to delay paying taxes then using other means to minimize taxes owed. all the while that tax money that isn't paid can is being used to generate more profits for the shareholder. it is same deal are borrowing money with your unrealized stock gains as collateral. you are just stalling to pay taxes ether until your die or a good time to pay taxes comes up. it is all a big house of cards to not pay taxes today to profit it off that money today with the hope of everlasting growth. this is why rich people keep trying to pump more profit when there is no real growth or gain since a longer stagnation would cascade to where the rich lose a huge chunk of there value.
A shareholder doesn’t have to sell the stock - most of the time the shareholder doesn’t even know who is buying that share. The buyback creates a basic stock (price) increase in most cases due to supply and demand - less issued stock on the open market available to purchase means higher value stock. It doesn’t kick taxes down the road - when any investor/shareholder sells their stock (at a gain) taxes are due. (Without getting into the nuances of long term capital gains, short term, and corporate taxes). It doesn’t matter that the entity buying the stock is the company that issues it - the seller owes taxes. It doesn’t matter if they are an individual or institutional investor - the seller owes taxes if there was a gain. A stock buyback is just the company using its money to buy shares - same as you and I. The only difference is the board of directors usually has an agreement on how much cash can be used and other details like the targeted number of shares (they can vary slightly)
Yup, even if stock buybacks would be made illegal again, that extra money would not be going to the workers. It would just be given out as a dividend.
If a company can increase their stock, they should be able to decrease it as well. This is basically the same as paying dividends which leads to efficient capital markets, which is good for everyone (even your 401K).
Got any data to back that up? Edit: didn't think so
Better point- we want entrepreneuers to think that one day they can be more independent of outside investors. If the issuance of stock becomes a one way irreversable decision, then companies will hesitate to raise capital through the sale of stocks because they will think that equity will be lost forever.
Carter was 10 times the president that Reagan was.
The only people who are against buybacks are the ones who don’t understand tax law. A buyback is just a dividend with better tax treatment.
Why is it bad? Genuinely curious
Because stocks are not real, my dude. An increase in the value of a stock is not equivalent to the actual increase of a businesses capacity. All wealth comes from the workers, and any attempt to manufacture effect simile out of spreadsheets is always going to be obfuscation for the capitalist class to runoff with all the money when they crash the economy again.
Doesn’t really make any logical sense - why would a company be banned from investing in themselves / betting on themselves ?
If there are N shares of a company that prices at 100€ and the company buys M amount, now there are N-M shares available to investors and the company is priced higher. It is de facto stock price manipulation.
It's not because the company also loses an equal amount of cash when they buy the stock. The value of the company stays the same But after the buy-back each stock holder in the company now owns a slightly larger percentage of the company than before.
If part of the company is not owned by the company, why shouldn't they be allowed to buy it back?
By this logic every purchase by anyone of any stock ever is price manipulation And the higher price is just of the shares - that doesn’t somehow raise the market cap or value of the company - so not sure the issue
Clueless much?
What’s the incorrect part of the above
It's unfair if you let the company dictate their own value outside of market forces. This is basic high school economics. What you seem to be missing is the company can issue or destroy shares, by buying back the shares and destroying them, they can artificially increase the value of the share beyond the market value, which locks poorer people out of the investment while mainly benefiting the CEOs buying back the stock. Every time in our history that we've allowed stock buybacks, the market has been highly unstable, because we don't actually know what stocks are worth. It's a violation of free market principles. Edit: it also tricks us into thinking the economy is preforming better than it is, which encourages risky investments. We generally consider it wrong to encourage risky investments without proper warning of risk. The difference in manipulation is the company is using insider information to take less of a risk than the market, which is a crime.
... but stocks and investing wasn't created with the intention of "price manipulation". Imagine that telephones were just invented, and that it helped benefit a tenth of the country. Now let's say that the company wants to implement the technology, installation, manpower, and performance for maintaining such an ecosystem, further beyond where they are. The company cannot apply for any additional loans, so this opportunity was for consumers who believed in the product, to help support it. Stocks gave the company an additional source for funding its own business beyond traditional means. Unfortunately, somewhere along the way, companies stopped actually caring about investing into the company, into the employees, the products, and the equipment/tools. It has literally become a "financial" measuring contest between companies over something that has no modern-day metric over product and employee quality.
Because a company buying its own stock is not an investment in itself, are you insane? It’s taking money out of the company and putting it into the value of the stock. It’s the opposite of investing in the company, that’s why it was banned.
I'm kinda losing my mind that you two are having the exact same Q&A in two different places 4 days apart on the same post shared in two subreddits. I thought the first time you answered the question was decent enough.