> The stranglehold of this doctrine of “shareholder-value maximization” over corporate decision making has been a leading cause of ... sagging productivity.
lol...maximizing shareholder value is a cause of sagging productivity? Do these people even read their own words before they publish them?
This whole 'stock buybacks are evil' meme is beyond silly. The only difference between dividends and stock buybacks is tax efficiency. So yes, corporations are avoiding some tax burden by doing this, and that may be a bad thing - so change the tax policy. But there's no reason to expect stock buybacks are the cause of anything other than a slightly lower tax bill, and, predictably, this article doesn't even bother to try to make the actual case otherwise. It just makes a bunch of blanket, baseless and unsupported assertions.
It's seriously irritating the absolute garbage that gets published in places like the NYT these days. This article doesn't even try to make its case. It just pushes a narrative with innuendo and bald assertions. How can something like this possibly get past their editors?
lol...maximizing shareholder value is a cause of sagging productivity? Do these people even read their own words before they publish them?
This whole 'stock buybacks are evil' meme is beyond silly. The only difference between dividends and stock buybacks is tax efficiency. So yes, corporations are avoiding some tax burden by doing this, and that may be a bad thing - so change the tax policy. But there's no reason to expect stock buybacks are the cause of anything other than a slightly lower tax bill, and, predictably, this article doesn't even bother to try to make the actual case otherwise. It just makes a bunch of blanket, baseless and unsupported assertions.
It's seriously irritating the absolute garbage that gets published in places like the NYT these days. This article doesn't even try to make its case. It just pushes a narrative with innuendo and bald assertions. How can something like this possibly get past their editors?