Sounds like a China problem

You’re the one moving the goal posts so you can continue to suck off 1%ers

What makes you say that?

True! Good catch

How is this beautiful data, or interesting, more than shilling for Shein?

How's that electric working out for ya... https://newsroom.aaa.com/2019/02/cold-weather-reduces-electric-vehicle-range/

Explain to me how giving higher wages supports giving conglomerates more power?

I mean how come whenever the little guy gets money people are sooo pissed off. But when we call out the rich people misusing their wealth it's okay, because they "know" how to spend money "better"

I Mena the little guy already gets punched down at. Punch up for God's sake. Shareholders = the wealthy

Waterfall chart

Except Nepal was never a part of the British Raj...

[removed]

Your data doesn't say what you claim it does.

This is also a fundamental misunderstanding of what buybacks do. Do you think dividends enrich investors undeservedly? Same thing.

A couple things to point out. #1 Apple spent about $300 billion in costs of revenue and operating costs which is more than they spend in stock buybacks. That’s not conveyed in the chart since the chart just has net income. #2 when a company does a stock buyback, they’re literally buying back their shares. ‘Normal’ tax rules apply if you’re a stockholder selling your shares back to Apple as part of their share buyback.

What is this kind of chart called?

This is however not how business works. I am pretty sure Apple Pay’s pretty well. As for r&d, they spent a shitload already. And you don’t want to start another series of conglomerates like we had in the 70s and 80s, when utilities owned malls and rental car companies. That’s not good for anybody. Lastly, you would also have to stop special dividends, which is not not going to happen. Basically buybacks are a good way to return to cash to shareholders to reinvest in other companies.

So, those upper plots do not accompany a t-test?

And people think oil companies make too much money.

[removed]

Or they could, I don't know, not use oppressed labor to make their products? Why do you think tech is the only place apple can spend their income?

Thanks! - Here's what I came up with, using just the GBIF data: https://robslink.com/SAS/democd104/endangered_species_map.htm

You're hopeless. Goodbye

I don't disagree with anything you've said.

[deleted]

>It is literally illegal for them to not do what's going to provide the best return to shareholders.

Yes, management famously only takes decisions that are best for the company. All they have to do is pinky swear that they believe they are acting in the best interests of the company.

>nobody is doing a stock buyback to personally enrich themselves.

Well, except for the ones who are.

>Do you think there's a difference between owners and shareholders?

No? God forbid people use synonyms!

>Cashing out means selling shares

No, not necessarily.

>doing a buyback relies on the market to uphold the current valuation and increase the share price to keep the market cap level

So what?

>If the market thinks insiders are only doing the buyback to 'cash out' and that it's not in the best interest of the corporation, that won't happen.

"The market" thinks Bitcoins are worth $16,524 and that Gamestop increased in value more than 50-fold in a few months' time.

And the CEO and investors make 400times that amount.

Plus why not pay the frontline workers, customer support, etc. more if ur so butthurt about software engineers making money. Apple has more than just software engineers running it u know?