[pc86]

For the life of me I can't figure out what point your trying to make. These things are new so we should ban them? Some people will say these are good even though they're new?

"In the grander scheme" interstate highways and air travel and scuba diving are new too, what about them?

[zbentley]

Only that they are all quite new, but are frequently defended as if they are integral components of the country since time immemorial.

As you say, on balance some of them are good/should be preserved, and some should be reconsidered.

[pc86]

Fair point; but to take one of the less divisive ones in your list, I don't think I've ever heard someone say that stock buybacks are integral components of the country. I have, however, heard pretty convincing arguments that the government should not in general prevent a company from spending its money the way it sees fit. It's not a straight line from "stock buybacks are generally bad" to "the government should ban them," and it seems to me a pretty consistent opinion to think both that stock buybacks are bad and that the government should not have anywhere near enough power to prevent companies from doing them if that's what they want to do.

[zbentley]

Similarly fair point.

I think there's a wide regulatory spectrum available between "ban something outright" and "completely lassiez-faire noninterventionist approach". For stock buybacks, that spectrum includes (and I don't have a specific pitch or favorite in this non-exhaustive, non-mutually-exclusive list):

- Requiring federal approval before a buyback event in excess of a certain value or capitalization percentage, similar to the way that mergers can be curtailed by regulators.

- Restricting the volume of buyback activity per year/quarter.

- Imposing different taxation behavior triggered by buybacks or as a percentage of buyback value.

- Giving the government preferential purchase opportunities in the event of a buyback for large companies (I.e. "you can buy back 10% of your capitalization, but the government reserves the right to instead purchase half of that--5% of your capitalization--at the buyback rate"), under the rationalization that, if you're huge and doing well enough for a buyback event, then you're doing well enough that the public interest should have influence over your business's future.

Previous HN discussions of this topic, selected non-rigorously:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22616197

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21762582

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20664553

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22606733

[bigfishrunning]

What I've never understood is: how is stock buyback not the same thing as paying down outstanding debt? You sell stock to raise money, and doesn't it make sense to return that money when there's a surplus?