If we were seeing occasional buybacks obviously tied to company performance, you might have a point.
But realistically we're in a situation where that is not the case, and it's dishonest to make arguments as if it is, or to have a hand-wavy "I guess it's possible it could be bad" throwaway line at the end to dismiss the pretty obvious reality that buybacks are not being used for the purpose you yourself advocate.
Fair point! I'm not an economist by training, just a hobby/armchair economist :).
That said, this economist that some HN'er recommended seems to think earnings are strong and much of the buyback is funded by repatriated money if I understand him correctly.
The current power structure in the US believes tax cuts are always a good thing, since they put money back in the hands of individuals and companies, who will then allocate that money more efficiently than the government. They argue that with their tax breaks, companies will invest in capital improvements and raises for their workers, and individuals will spend more on consumer goods, indirectly benefiting the average worker by creating more demand for such goods.
The reality is companies that get tax breaks now use that money to do stock buybacks which pay off mostly already-wealthy investors, and the prime direct individual beneficiaries of tax cuts also are already-wealthy people, who then use their double windfall (lower tax rate + buyback profits) to throw even more money into playing the markets.
And somehow the promised benefits, of raises for workers, increased demand for the average worker's labor, etc. never actually materialize.
There are good charts floating around showing how corporate behavior has been pretty much entirely driven by the last few decades of tax policy, primarily the reduction of corporate and top individual rates, and how the changes in behavior have almost universally made economic inequality in the US much much worse than it previously was (see, for example, ballooning executive compensation while average workers' wages are stagnant or even lower than previously when adjusted for inflation, the complete decoupling of wages from productivity, etc. etc.).
More fair points. And, yes at the individual level, I agree, a higher wage, trickle up approach seems better/fairer than a trickle down approach.
However, at the macro level, the environmentalist in me worries, at the extreme end if wealth really was fully distributed and everyone was living like Richard Branson, Imelda Marcos, etc. with multiple houses in every city (each with a 4 bedroom layout, TVs and wet bar in every room and an SUV in every garage), a yacht, a private jet guzzles premium fuel and a private island, the environmental ramifications would be disastrous.
You seem to be setting up a false dichotomy where the only options are the status quo, or your extreme hypothetical.
There are other options. Some countries use taxation policy to try to set a floor through which nobody is allowed to fall, and as a side effect also limit the ceiling of how high up someone can be on the wealth continuum. Why isn't the "environmentalist" in you familiar with this idea?
The environmentalist in me is thinking a single billionaire's carbon impact is probably lower than a 1,000 millionaire's carbon impact. A single billionaire (say Warren Buffet) has a consumption of probably $200,000 a year with the remainder held in investments. A 1,000 millionaire's consumption is probably also $100,000 a year, with the remainder held in investments. So the 1,000 millionaires have basically about 500x the environmental impact than a single billionaire.
But realistically we're in a situation where that is not the case, and it's dishonest to make arguments as if it is, or to have a hand-wavy "I guess it's possible it could be bad" throwaway line at the end to dismiss the pretty obvious reality that buybacks are not being used for the purpose you yourself advocate.