DUmmy Tries to Discuss Economics

[BamaMoose]

The great thing about this thread is that even DUmmies find fault in this attempt to bash big corporations.

LiberalArkie (18,322 posts)
Mon Jun 2, 2025, 06:36 PM
89
Recommend
Threads: Guy pays me $50 for a speaker
Guy pays me $50 for a speaker,.
I use that $50 to get dinner.
The restaurant owner gives it to the waitress
The waitress uses it on some vintage clothing
The 2nd hand shop uses it to build a new display case
The carpenter uses it to fill his tank
The gas station uses it to pay Exxon Mobile
And Exxon Mobile invests it in the bank where it will sit for decades making them interest and doing nothing for the economy.
Billionaires are hoarders that are driving prices up.

Of course, there is someone who find this OP to be brilliant.

Midnight Writer (24,111 posts)
1. Excellent.

Think how much of the money you spend that goes to a person or entity that is much wealthier than you are.

Compare that to how much of your spending ends up in the pocket of someone poorer than you.

I reckon the ratio is about 95/5.

Where in the hell does this DUmmy think the money goes when they buy something?  Do they have no clue how many different people's salaries make up a piece of every purchase they make?  Or do they think that companies are running 95% profit margins?

But reality is introduced into the thread.

Disaffected (5,619 posts)
2. Except the bank doesn't sit on it ("for decades").

The bank will lend it to somebody/company etc. who in turn will spent it on something etc.....

As well, I doubt Exxon Mobil(no "e" ) would simply stick it in a bank, they would also spend it on something.

flashman13 (1,234 posts)
3. Like stock buy backs and dividends to stock holders.

Neither use benefits the greater economy.

DUmmy tries to introduce a subject they don't understand to negate reality.

Bernardo de La Paz (56,187 posts)
14. Stock buybacks inject money into the economy because the stock has to PAID for. Likewise dividends

Both benefit the greater economy.

flashman13 (1,234 posts)
18. Stock buy backs waste productivity. They represent a failure to strengthen and build

the company for the long term in exchange for a momentary money high for upper management and stock holders.

Bernardo de La Paz (56,187 posts)
19. Wrong. Stock is just a form of currency: a liquid asset that can be switched to cash and back.

If a company has more money than it can invest at the time, it can buy back stock, which raises the price of the stock. The higher stock price makes it possible to borrow money later or sell stock later to raise money when an opportunity for investment arises.

They are not a failure. It is not a "money high". They don't waste productivity. The money goes into the economy where it can be productive. And the enhanced stock value can bring money back later when it can actually be used by the company.

Listen up flashman13, you may learn something.

flashman13 (1,234 posts)
25. No they don't. They are a form of corporate cancer. Enough said.

Nope, ain't gonna happen.

Bernardo de La Paz (56,187 posts)
27. You will be unable to explain a coherent true understanding of your bizarre theory.

Simply repeating your statement, as you have done, is tantamount to an admission you have nothing. Since you have not responded to my points, we may assume that perhaps you have not read them, or do not understand them, or you have nothing.

Go ahead, try. Or accept that you have nothing. An emotional reaction based on old tropes is not a coherent or true understanding.

Remember the premise: "If a company has more money than it can invest at the time". Companies would prefer to invest in new production or new markets or even new products, but that is not always possible.

Try. Maybe you will learn something in the discussion.

That should leave a mark.  But DUer's are rather impervious to reality.

This DUmmy gets even more ridiculous:

Cheezoholic (2,994 posts)
8. Excellent point and on top of that, they don't employ anyone, at least not in the numbers companies did 50 years ago n/t

According to Exxon's financial disclosure they have around 62,000 employees.  Add in all of their subcontractors and all the jobs they generate indirectly and they probably create 200 or 300 thousand FTE's.

GladysKravitz (1 post)
11. 2025 XOM Capex

2025 XOM Capex is almost 30B. I don't think they're parking it. It would destroy their business.

ProfessorGAC (72,961 posts)
24. They're Parking Money In A Bank?

$30 billion in planned capital.
They're paying around $4 dividend per share on around 4 billion shares. Another $16 billion.
They pay over $12 billion in payroll.
And, they buy around $100 billion (yes with a B) of crude oil per year.

That's just 4 expenses and they total nearly $160 billion, on $350 billion in total pretax revenue.
This Threads post shows a cluelessness of how businesses function.

More reality.

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/100220362076

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Plot twist: the guy who paid $50 for the speaker got that $50 from his Exxon stock dividends payment.

[Carl]

DUmmie economic theory starts and ends with "gimme".

[67 Rover]

I should have known better than to read this tread, now my head hurts .

[SVPete]

And Exxon Mobile invests it in the bank where it will sit for decades making them interest and doing nothing for the economy.

IRL, ExxonMobil (correct spelling, BTW) uses that $$ to pump, refine, and distribute the next tank of gas, or natural gas that is used to heat homes or to create fertilizers to grow food, or create plastics such as the base of your household appliances. And DU-Member Disaffected pointed out what banks do with money deposited therein.

This used to and may yet be high school Economics (a required semester-long class for me). Evidently LiberalArkie spent that semester studying female anatomy (or the exit end of the male alimentary canal?) instead of Economics.

[FunkyZero]

DUmpass forgot to mention... their coveted government taxed that money 9 times as it changed hands, taking about 20% of it each time. So each time that money changed hands, the payer had to pitch in 10 bucks of his own to make up for it, and after 9 times, government collect 90 bucks on that original 50. and this isn't' even counting sales tax.
DUmmies are DUmb as hell.
But of course, DUmmies probably don't report it, they expect you to make up the difference so we can continue to put on subsidized drag shows in Pakistan

[jukin]

A DUmbass DUchebag speaking economics is like learning entropy from a unicorn.

[SVPete]

A DUmbass DUchebag speaking economics is like learning entropy from a unicorn.

And we all know how smart unicorns are, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EPsuOEH1fY ,  .

[Karin]

"Park it in a bank for decades."  Don't they have manufacturing to do and payroll to meet?  The DUmmie economic threads have always been pure comedy gold.

ETA:  Over at the DUmmie thread, the OP is simply a copy paste of some dude on Threads.  He provided the link, so I hit it.  A whole other thread on this.  The original original, at Threads, is just as stupid and obtuse as our DUmmie pals.   

[fatboy]

Except the OP used the $50 to purchase some weed   

[SVPete]

Except the OP used the $50 to purchase some weed   

Like the title of the Cheech and Chong movie ...

[ADsOutburst]

If the Democrats had their way...

The $50 gets paid to the government in taxes.

Who knows what happens to it after that?

[BannedFromDU]

     It is interesting to me how they decry the slightest drop in the stock market as detrimental to their 401ks and IRAs, yet they are completely adamant that not one single dollar be held in the form of speculative wealth.

[BamaMoose]

I should have known better than to read this tread, now my head hurts .

Sorry about the headache.

Part of the reason I dragged this over from the DUmp was because of this thread by pjcomix
https://conservativecave.com/cave/index.php?topic=136582.0 discussing Taylor Swift buying the rights to some of her prior work.

For those that don't know the story, Swift early in her career signed away the rights to her first six albums.  Those rights were resold a couple of times and ended up being owned by a venture capital group.  She's spent the last several years bitching and moaning that some "evil men" owned her early music.  Last week she managed to buy the rights to that music for a huge amount of money (news accounts range anywhere from $360 million to a billion dollars).

The liberals are ecstatic that she now owns all her previous work.

So, Exxon who employs 100's of thousands of people, puts 10's of billions of dollars into the economy through salaries and pays billions in taxes is evil.  This year they will spend around $30 billion in capital expenditures.  And they produce a product that is just about essential to our way of life.

Taylor Swift employs dozens of people (except when she's recording or touring), puts almost no money into the economy through salaries (because most of the jobs she provides are low paying compared to a petrochemical engineer or rig worker) and pays whatever minimal taxes her accountants can get away with.  She just spent 100's of millions of dollars in capital expenditures that will not benefit anyone but herself.

So, who's the bad guy here?  The liberal icon who just gave a huge amount of money to a venture capitalist for nothing more than a little boost to her residuals or the big evil company that provides a huge economic boost and, as an added bonus, allows us to drive our cars, heat our homes and (depending on where you are) drives the turbines that provide our electricity.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

And we all know how smart unicorns are, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EPsuOEH1fY ,  .

They make ice cream...


https://youtu.be/YbYWhdLO43Q?si=spcZrqtUyaJfQHTH

[SVPete]

They make ice cream...

https://youtu.be/YbYWhdLO43Q?si=spcZrqtUyaJfQHTH

I saw one of these last Saturday at the San Jose Beer City Festival half marathon, 10K, and 5K:




FWIW, I did the 5K distance.

[Old n Grumpy]

Threads: Guy pays me $50 for a speaker
Guy pays me $50 for a speaker,.
I use that $50 to get dinner.
The restaurant owner gives it to the

Landlord for rent
The utility company for electric
The city for water, sewage, and garbage disposal
The food supplier to get more food to cook and sell
His accountant for doing taxes
His business is licenses, state and local
Pay for his employees
And if anything is left, that’s his profit

[Texacon]

     It is interesting to me how they decry the slightest drop in the stock market as detrimental to their 401ks and IRAs, yet they are completely adamant that not one single dollar be held in the form of speculative wealth.

The very same people that decry capitalism, but will brag about their yard sale finds that they mark up 1000% and put on eBay or sell in their shops.

KC