Stop Walmart Act


How many Apple workers qualify for public assistance?
 
He did. The government does not have this authority.

The government doesn't have have the authority to regulate? Since when?
It isn't regulation. It is tyranny and beyond the authority of the Federal Government.

The Stop Welfare for Any Large Monopoly Amassing Revenue from Taxpayers Act is far from tyranny.
It is very much tyranny. Not only will it NOT stop payments to targeted demographics, but it will also increase payments to more people as jobs are lost. In addition, no company can be held liable for the misspent public trust by elected officials.

The entire argument that because Wal*mart does not pay a wage that keeps people off of public services, makes Wal*mart responsible to the public for those payments is ludicrous.

Would the payments stop if Wal*mart ceased to exist?

They would not, which means they are independent of what any business does.

Your argument is that a company that misspends corporate subsidies shouldn't be held accountable?
No. Maybe you should get a handle on what it is you are talking about.

No company is responsible for what the government does for political favor. Sanders, like all such tyrants, wants to use the power of the government to extort money from the private sector to hold political power.
 
The government doesn't have have the authority to regulate? Since when?
It isn't regulation. It is tyranny and beyond the authority of the Federal Government.

The Stop Welfare for Any Large Monopoly Amassing Revenue from Taxpayers Act is far from tyranny.
Antitrust Laws And You

The three major Federal antitrust laws are:

  • The Sherman Antitrust Act
  • The Clayton Act
  • The Federal Trade Commission Act.

That is the legal path........not forcing companies to pay a set wage that is not uniform in this country.

The Stop Walmart Act will be a nice addition.
Snow balls chance in hell.........would be the correct phrase.

I don't know that to be a fact. The last election should be a wake-up call to Republicans.
 
Horseshit. The reason companies buy back stock is to artificially inflate the stock price in order to inflate executive compensation. Those executives either have bonuses based on the stock price, or they have options. By using company money to retire stock they write themselves a raise without doing a damn thing. Anyone with half a damn brain can figure this out. Corporate stock buybacks should be banned, PERIOD.

lol

Thanks for that, Karl Marx.

Corporate boards want to incentivize management to raise their stock price. That's because the owners of stock want the price to go up. So they incentivize management to increase the price of stock by giving them stock options.

Your ranting is retarded.
 
It isn't regulation. It is tyranny and beyond the authority of the Federal Government.

The Stop Welfare for Any Large Monopoly Amassing Revenue from Taxpayers Act is far from tyranny.
Antitrust Laws And You

The three major Federal antitrust laws are:

  • The Sherman Antitrust Act
  • The Clayton Act
  • The Federal Trade Commission Act.

That is the legal path........not forcing companies to pay a set wage that is not uniform in this country.

The Stop Walmart Act will be a nice addition.
Snow balls chance in hell.........would be the correct phrase.

I don't know that to be a fact. The last election should be a wake-up call to Republicans.
Mid Terms are always against the incumbent............did you take the Senate..........oops...........Hasn't happened for the GOP since 1934.

Perhaps you should be worried in the next one.............LOL
 
They should be outlawed from buying back their shares and retiring them, which is what a stock buyback is. If you had even a minimal education in finance or business you would know that. But then again, you don't have to go to a university to learn such things, but you do have to pull your head out of your ass.

I have an MBA, a CFA, have been a portfolio manager, have worked with corporate governance and boards far more than you have.

And your anti-capitalist rantings are retarded.
 
First, no one has explained to me how it is "investing" in anything when a company indulges in stock buybacks, well other than investing in ARTIFICALLY inflating the stock price. It is artificial because it has no basis in the performance of the company. Your claim that it increases the earnings per share is proof positive of how it is artificial. There is no change in the performance of the company, there is no expansion, no capital investment, no increased market share for the companies products, no increased efficiency in the operations of the company, NOTHING but a bit of pencil pushing and poof, an increased earnings per share. I mean if I exchange four quarters for a dollar have I increased anything? Stock buybacks are the same damn thing. And that return of capital to the shareholders, well yeah, like a severance package is a return to an employee. The only way you get that severance package is if you leave the company, the only way you get that return on capital is if you sell your stock, same thing.

Like I said, for the long term investor a stock buyback is not a good thing. It is a sign of a company giving up. They have no acceptable capital investment opportunities so they use their cash to buy back stock. Hell sometimes they actually borrow money to buy back stock. Hell yeah, I would be selling my stock back to that company. If they want to return money to their shareholders why not increase the dividend or provide a temporary "bonus" as a dividend. Does that not increase the value of the stock? Does the dividend yield not mean anything anymore? Oh wait, executive compensation is not based on the dividend yield of a stock now is it?

Stock buybacks should be banned because, in the larger scheme of things, they do far more damage than any temporary benefit they might provide. They are one of the root causes of the increased wealth inequality, a driving force behind lackluster wage growth, a principal factor in the lack of capital investment over the last generation, and the driving force behind ballooning executive compensation. Not to mention a contributing factor in the bankruptcies of not just Sears, but many other now failed companies.

Buying back stock isn't "artificially inflating the stock price" Karl.

There is no magical number of stocks outstanding.

If a board believes a company's funds would best be put to use by buying back stock than investing in the business, then that's what a company should do.

The idea that a company should only issue stock but never buy back stock is fucking retarded beyond belief.
 
Last edited:
The Walmart seven are taking the company private.

You're lying.

Why are they buying all of their stock back?

Because you're incredibly bad at math.

Walmart doesn't need investors.

And?

What and? Walmart doesn't need investors.

Kinda late to decide that.
They have billions and billions in market cap.
 

Forum List

Back
Top