[darawk]

> But he did make that argument in the article

No, he actually didn't. He did not articulate the idea that buybacks cause an increase in overall shareholder remuneration. You read that into what he said, but he didn't actually say it.

> I'm not saying the argument is right or not. I'm saying your outright dismissal of the entire premise as garbage and a meme not worth considering is wrong.

I stand by it. The argument is terrible and financially illiterate, even if you grant him the implied argument you make for him.

[aslkdjaslkdj1]

The line I quoted was from the article. It's a summary of the argument from the much longer paper. It's not an implied argument. I repeat the quote from the article below.

>A company’s profits are, however, the financial foundation for investments in productive capabilities, first and foremost in employees. Investment in training and retaining employees is the key to productivity growth and innovation, for individual companies and for the economy.

[darawk]

That quote is just an explanation of what you can do with profits. It doesn't say anything about buybacks diminishing investment in R&D. Secondly, net income and profit are not the same thing. If a company is allocating more profit to buybacks, that doesn't funge against R&D or employee salaries. It funges against dividends and retained earnings.