Trump Wants to Work on Deporting US Citizens

[Arnox]

Trump again brings up the idea of deporting US citizens for crimes

President Donald Trump continued Tuesday to float his idea, which some legal experts say is unconstitutional, to deport U.S. citizens who commit crimes.

abcnews.go.com

Spoiler: Story

President Donald Trump continued on Tuesday to float his idea, which some legal experts say is unconstitutional, to deport U.S. citizens who commit crimes.

Speaking to the press during a tour of a migrant detention center in the Florida Everglades, the president repeated claims that there are many immigrants who are now citizens and have been committing serious crimes.

"They're not new to our country. They're old to our country. Many of them were born in our country. I think we ought to get them the hell out of here, too, if you want to know the truth," he said. "So maybe that will be the next job."

The proposal came weeks after the Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate -- a Trump appointee -- released a memo giving U.S. attorneys wide discretion to decide when to pursue the denaturalization process to "advance the Administration's policy objectives."

Some of the cases U.S. attorneys should pursue are those against individuals who have engaged in torture, war crimes, human trafficking and human rights violations, the memo says.

Legal experts have warned that Trump's proposals are unconstitutional claiming they violate the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. The issue has not come before the courts yet.

Amanda Frost, a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law, told ABC News in April that the administration could try to target naturalized U.S. citizens, who can lose their immigration status if they've committed treason or falsified information during their naturalization process. However, she said those instances are rare.

"If someone’s a naturalized citizen, there could be an effort to denaturalize that person and deport them," Frost said. "But then it would have to be that they committed some sort of fraud or error in their naturalization process. An unrelated crime could not be the basis for denaturalizing and deporting somebody."

Trump acknowledged that he didn't know if deporting U.S. citizens who are convicted of crimes is legal.

"We'll have to find that out legally. I'm just saying if we had the legal right to do it, I would do it in a heartbeat," he added. "I don't know if we do or not, we're looking at that right now."

Technically might be a nothing burger since I'm sure there is no legal way to do this, but regardless, it's still pretty disturbing that he wants this 100%. Thoughts?

 

[Lost-Zeneration-99]

What in the world is going on with politics lately? I seriously can’t wrap my head around this idea, because just go after the illegal ones only. I mean they are Illegal how hard is it to only get them. Hello does anyone read the Bill of Rights anymore? It plainly in there.

This has to be a troll on his end or something. Look you may not like the other side and they don’t like you, but they are still Americans like the rest of us. I feel our tribe of politics has made us lose sight of what makes the USA well the USA.

I will have to look more into it and see what it’s supposed to be.

 

[Arnox]

What in the world is going on with politics lately? I seriously can’t wrap my head around this idea, because just go after the illegal ones only. I mean they are Illegal how hard is it to only get them. Hello does anyone read the Bill of Rights anymore? It plainly in there.

Trump only understands hitting things with the bat. That and making deals I guess. He's not precise and he does not understand nuance.

Congress only understands money and wildly outdated conservative values/crazy dumb left-wing ideas. Also money. Did I mention money?

 

[Houseman]

Trump, who says 20,000 words a day, "floated" this idea, which only technically involves "citizens", because "anchor babies" who are purposefully born on US soil by illegal immigrants, are automatically given citizenship, which is something else he wants to abolish.

So at least be honest and tell the whole story, don't just run with the dishonest media headline. While technically true, it's not the whole story.

 

[Arnox]

Trump, who says 20,000 words a day, "floated" this idea, which only technically involves "citizens", because "anchor babies" who are purposefully born on US soil by illegal immigrants, are automatically given citizenship, which is something else he wants to abolish.

So at least be honest and tell the whole story, don't just run with the dishonest media headline. While technically true, it's not the whole story.

I think we were all aware though that Mexican illegal immigrants try to have babies over the border. But this is tossing the baby out with the bathwater. Getting rid of citizenship by birth is liking launching a nuke at a city in order to bring one building down and gives ICE WAYYYY too much power. Furthermore, border crossings (at least via Mexico) have already almost stopped now.

Trump was talking about this in context of citizens that are born from illegal immigrants committing horrible crimes, but if they're committing horrible crimes, we ALREADY have a solution to that. It's called arresting them and making them stand trial. So for what do we need to abolish citizenship by birth for? And finally, why was Trump even THINKING about doing this? And perhaps more importantly, why isn't Trump talking about and trying to execute on taxing the rich and shutting down these fucking huge corporations? Doesn't he have bigger fish to fry? Nope, instead, we're gonna have Medicaid and food stamps slashed I guess.

 

[Vendor-Lazarus]

Fake News headline. He doesn't want to DEPORT criminal citizens, he just mentioned in passing that he would like to send dangerous criminals to bigger maximum security prisons, that happens to be in another (dictatorship) country. I've seen that you got a slight case of TDS, what with this and that other thread. Is the propaganda getting to you? He's no saint, but he's not A Bad Don, either.

 

[gaijinkaiju]

illegal immigrants committing horrible crimes, but if they're committing horrible crimes, we ALREADY have a solution to that. It's called arresting them and making them stand trial.

Illegals don't deserve the same rights legal citizens do.

Trump should just enact the three D's:
Detain
Denaturalize
Deport

 

[Houseman]

So for what do we need to abolish citizenship by birth for?

Perhaps to discourage the practice of anchor babies.

why isn't Trump talking about and trying to execute on taxing the rich and shutting down these fucking huge corporations?

Because the rich are already taxed, and their tax payments, even with all the "tax cuts" they already get, make up for the majority of tax income.
"Shutting down huge corporations" is just nonsense.

You are wholeheartedly swallowing leftist propaganda, hook, line, and sinker.
I recommend you read a book on how the economy actually works:

But I must say, I like this tactic to increase engagement by pretending to be retarded. Keep it up!

 

[Arnox]

he just mentioned in passing that he would like to send dangerous criminals to bigger maximum security prisons, that happens to be in another (dictatorship) country.

The full quote from him is:

"They're not new to our country. They're old to our country. Many of them were born in our country. I think we ought to get them the hell out of here, too, if you want to know the truth, so maybe that will be the next job."

And even if it was just him talking about sending citizen criminals to foreign prisons... Why? That's also fucked up and sets a bad precedent. Commit a crime in this country and get sent to a foreign gulag. (And let's be real honest here, lads. The prisons in El Salvador are definitely some gulag shit.) If the crime is heinous enough, then they need to be put to death.

I've seen that you got a slight case of TDS

You guys have got it super easy, man. The last negative thread I made about Trump or really anything negative to do with his administration was on... April 1st. And after that, two positive threads regarding him. You guys are babied as fuck. I have actually kept pretty silent regarding a lot of the shenanigans he's gotten up to, good or bad.

If you are conservative, that's totally fine, but it doesn't mean you have to suck Trump's dick 24/7. And right now, Trump is talking about deporting US citizens, criminal or no. Tyranny in the US can now come from anywhere these days. Are you seriously telling me that all this isn't setting off any alarm bells in your mind? Do this mental exercise for me now. If it was the Democrats/Biden calling for this, would you be nearly so understanding?

Illegals don't deserve the same rights legal citizens do.

But we're not talking about illegals anymore. We're talking about legal citizens possibly getting deported in the future.

Perhaps to discourage the practice of anchor babies.

Again, the border has been pretty damn quiet for a while now. This is not needed.

Because the rich are already taxed, and their tax payments, even with all the "tax cuts" they already get, make up for the majority of tax income

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/05/23/house-republican-big-beautiful-tax-bill-favors-the-rich.html

Also, https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/historical-income-tax-rates-brackets/

In the 1950s and lower, the ultra rich were taxed a lot higher, but in the 80s with Reagan, that started getting slashed. And now it's going to go even lower with this "Big Beautiful Bill". And to offset that? Cuts to social programs.

"Shutting down huge corporations" is just nonsense.

I was slightly exaggerating there. What I was talking about specifically was breaking up monopolies. Some of these companies should be effectively shut down/majorly changed with huge fucking fines and jail-time for execs though due to violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. JUST for bare starters. There's also Nestle. One of the most disgusting companies I ever seen. Hey, remember when Boeing started offing whistleblowers? And nothing was done?

But I must say, I like this tactic to increase engagement by pretending to be retarded.

I'm a helper. :)

 

[Houseman]

In the 1950s and lower, the ultra rich were taxed a lot higher, but in the 80s with Reagan, that started getting slashed. And now it's going to go even lower with this "Big Beautiful Bill". And to offset that? Cuts to social programs.

Speaking of this, here's a free essay from Thomas Sowell, titled "'Trickle Down' Theory and 'TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH'" https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/Sowell_TrickleDown_FINAL.pdf

I haven't read it yet, but it's only 13 pages, so I'll do that shortly. I predict he'll say "Neither of these things are inherently bad, let's look at the math and the incentives and the historical data and prove it".

But we're not talking about illegals anymore. We're talking about legal citizens possibly getting deported in the future.

Like you once said:

But what is legal is not necessarily right.

If an illegal comes in and makes an anchor baby, that's legal, but not necessarily right.
It would be like if homeless people broke into your house and occupied it while you were away on vacation, and through some combination of loopholes, they have a "legal right" to stay there. You'd still be upset about it, and rightly so. You'd think that the law has failed you.

 

[Arnox]

Like you once said:

Awwwwww, you remembered what I said. I am sincerely flattered. Thank you!

If an illegal comes in and makes an anchor baby, that's legal, but not necessarily right.

I don't think I have any issues regarding the truth of what you're saying. Rather, it's much more that I doubt this administration's ability to actually make a good law concerning this that requires at least a bit of intelligence and nuance to solve. And even further, I doubt the usefulness of such an effort at this particular point right now. As said before, border crossings are now down to almost nothing. Trump and co. have FAR bigger issues to tackle now. Which they don't seem to be doing at all.

 

[Houseman]

Speaking of this, here's a free essay from Thomas Sowell, titled "'Trickle Down' Theory and 'TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH'"

After reading this, yes, my prediction was accurate, but my prediction was also based on the false premise that these things existed.

There is no such thing as "Trickle down economics", as that is a term made up by critics to attack policies they disagreed with. No one can quote anybody promoting the idea of wealth "trickling down". "Tax cuts for the rich" exist, but is also a term used by political opponents when referencing any and all "tax cuts" to "the rich", regardless of the impact it actually has on the economy.

The essay examines periods of time in the 1916-1920s and examines when "the rich" were taxed at upwards of 70%, and what happened when those rates was lowered. Tax revenue increased, because "the rich" no longer needed to avoid the high taxes by storing their money in tax shelters, and could invest it in the economy, using it to make more money.

And these investments do benefit the "lower classes". Consider the example of a factory. Money has to be invested for the building, the equipment and the workers. All this has to be in place before the factory outputs a single widget. This is made possible due to investments, perhaps by "the rich". The workers need to be paid regardless of how well the widgets sell in the marketplace. This is also made possible due to investments. The widgets don't first sell, and then the money is divided up between the workers and the company, that's not how it works.

I have personal experience with this in my own industry. Due to a combination of a change in tax laws and a change in interest rates, both of which made it more expensive for employers to employ software developers, companies started hiring fewer software developers and even laid a bunch off. I had a hard time finding work for a while, when previously, I was getting offers left and right.

What happened was that "the rich" were "taxed more", so they tightened their belts and made do with less, which meant, employing fewer people.
If only there were "tax cuts for the rich" so that they could employ more people!

No, this is not "trickle down economics", this is the true reality of incentives and disincentives that alter economic behavior.

 

[Arnox]

After reading this, yes, my prediction was accurate, but my prediction was also based on the false premise that these things existed.

There is no such thing as "Trickle down economics", as that is a term made up by critics to attack policies they disagreed with. No one can quote anybody promoting the idea of wealth "trickling down". "Tax cuts for the rich" exist, but is also a term used by political opponents when referencing any and all "tax cuts" to "the rich", regardless of the impact it actually has on the economy.

The essay examines periods of time in the 1916-1920s and examines when "the rich" were taxed at upwards of 70%, and what happened when those rates was lowered. Tax revenue increased, because "the rich" no longer needed to avoid the high taxes by storing their money in tax shelters, and could invest it in the economy, using it to make more money.

And these investments do benefit the "lower classes". Consider the example of a factory. Money has to be invested for the building, the equipment and the workers. All this has to be in place before the factory outputs a single widget. This is made possible due to investments, perhaps by "the rich". The workers need to be paid regardless of how well the widgets sell in the marketplace. This is also made possible due to investments. The widgets don't first sell, and then the money is divided up between the workers and the company, that's not how it works.

I have personal experience with this in my own industry. Due to a combination of a change in tax laws and a change in interest rates, both of which made it more expensive for employers to employ software developers, companies started hiring fewer software developers and even laid a bunch off. I had a hard time finding work for a while, when previously, I was getting offers left and right.

What happened was that "the rich" were "taxed more", so they tightened their belts and made do with less, which meant, employing fewer people.
If only there were "tax cuts for the rich" so that they could employ more people!

No, this is not "trickle down economics", this is the true reality of incentives and disincentives that alter economic behavior.

Right. Which is why when Microsoft recently reported high stock prices and good sales, they laid off a ton of the Xbox division.

Companies nowadays are so laser-focused on shareholder (which includes company CEOs in that) profits pretty much to the exclusion of all else. Any extra cent that can be given to shareholders WILL be given to shareholders, not reinvested back into the company.

Privately held companies generally escape this madness.

 

[Houseman]

Right. Which is why when Microsoft recently reported high stock prices and good sales, they laid off a ton of the Xbox division.

Companies nowadays are so laser-focused on shareholder (which includes company CEOs in that) profits pretty much to the exclusion of all else. Any extra cent that can be given to shareholders WILL be given to shareholders, not reinvested back into the company.

Privately held companies generally escape this madness.

Shareholders are the ones that invest in the company. That's what it means to "buy" a share. The investment was already made.

A company isn't literally paying back shareholders. A shareholder just wants to see the value of their shares rise. If the shareholder wants to convert that back into money, he sells his shares.

"Shareholder profits" is literally just "the valuation of the company by the market".

Have you ever bought stock? Have you ever received a check in the mail from a company as "your share" of the profits? No? There you go.
(edit: I've learned that these do exist and are called dividends, but not everybody gets them)

Please read Basic Economics.

 

[Dale Gribble]

guise pls stop arguing ok ty

 

[Arnox]

guise pls stop arguing ok ty

It's ok. Mommy and daddy are just talking.

Shareholders are the ones that invest in the company. That's what it means to "buy" a share. The investment was already made.

A company isn't literally paying back shareholders. A shareholder just wants to see the value of their shares rise. If the shareholder wants to convert that back into money, he sells his shares.

"Shareholder profits" is literally just "the valuation of the company by the market".

Have you ever bought stock? Have you ever received a check in the mail from a company as "your share" of the profits? No? There you go.

Please read Basic Economics.

Go ahead and watch this video. I'd be interested to hear what your take is on this.

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MG6tuszAIT8)

 

[Houseman]

First of all, the video starts off with (and later revealed to be wholly based on) a misunderstanding of how the economy works. Wealth is not a zero-sum game. In other words, wealth is not transferred from one party to another. There is not a fixed amount of "wealth" that is just divvyed up between us. If a CEO makes a trillion dollars, that doesn't mean he's taking anything away from others. It doesn't mean that, if he was never born, that everybody would be slightly richer or better off.

In the opening minute of the video, it tries to display the shock and outrage from average people who come to know how much more CEOs make than their average worker. One woman says "It's not fair". Why isn't it fair that a CEO should get paid what people are willing to pay him? Of course, this question is never asked.

So CEOs started getting a majority of their income as shares of the company. As previously stated in an above comment, stock isn't money, you have to sell it first, so if that's the case, then from whence cometh these calculations of how much more CEOs make than average workers? Is that number based on the dollar amount of liquid cash, or does it include stock too? Regardless, what happens when the value of the company falls? Doesn't that also mean that the CEO pay goes down? And when that happens, does the worker pay also decrease similarly? No, they continue to get paid the same, their paycheck doesn't go up or down according to the stock price, unlike the "pay" of the CEO.

Paying people with stock incentivizes them to work for the benefit of the company, not just for themselves. If the value of the company rises, so does their pay. If it falls, so does their pay. If you get paid the same regardless, what do you care about how the company does as a whole?

Stock buybacks! They used to be illegal! It's just a way for companies to artificially inflate the value of their own stock!

Well, no, that's why it's called a buyback not a takeback. Money has to be exchanged between parties. The parties agree to exchange something they want more, for something they want less, so it's fair business. If they don't want to trade, they don't have to. And once the value of the share rises, this represents another opportunity, if people don't think that the share is worth that much, or don't have faith that the company will continue to increase in value, they won't invest. The company's true value, and the value of stock, is only worth what people are willing to pay for it.

Nothing has fundamentally changed here, it's just the dollar amount per percent of ownership, where each share represents some percentage of ownership. The only thing that is adjusted is the percentage of ownership each share represents, assuming that these shares are actually removed from "play", and not just distributed to their employees as rewards (yes, the poor laborers that this video makes a sob story about can also be given shares too)

It would be like going to Costco and complaining about how their packages of eggs are more expensive because you're now buying 32 eggs instead of 12. That person is complaining about the total price, not the price per egg. These people in the video want you to look at the value of the share, not the price per percentage of ownership.

Why doesn't a company just buy back all of the stock that they can, therefore increasing the share price to the maximum? Either because they feel that the share price is already at its maximum, or because they cannot afford to. If a company buying back all it's stock was the goal, then they simply wouldn't issue shares in the first place. So we see that this is not just an unlimited money hack, this, like most things, are self-balancing.

But CEO incentives, why wouldn't a CEO just do whatever he wants to line his own pockets?
Because the value of that stock doesn't just come from nowhere, it comes from the value of the company itself, which means, what people are willing to pay for a share.

If he doesn't invest in the company, or in the workers, guess what happens to the value of the company?

The authors of this video seem to think that Lowes can just close all of their locations, shut down their website, and fire all their workers, and the stock price will continue to rise as long as the company just continues to do stock buybacks! No, that's not how it works! As mentioned earlier, it's not an unlimited money hack, the business has to live or die on the actual business being done online and in person. If the amount of investments made for the physical stores and workers are sufficient, then that's that.

"But companies did it before in 2017 the last time they got a tax cut, they're going to do it again with the Big Beautiful Bill!"
So what? This isn't a bad thing. It's not a "transfer of wealth", because it's not a zero-sum game.
If you don't like how a company spends it's money, then you become a voting shareholder, then you can have a say.

 

[Arnox]

First of all, the video starts off with (and later revealed to be wholly based on) a misunderstanding of how the economy works. Wealth is not a zero-sum game. In other words, wealth is not transferred from one party to another. There is not a fixed amount of "wealth" that is just divvyed up between us. If a CEO makes a trillion dollars, that doesn't mean he's taking anything away from others. It doesn't mean that, if he was never born, that everybody would be slightly richer or better off.

It's not necessarily the fact that CEOs are making a fuckton of money; it's that our wages have not kept up. Shareholders are getting absurdly higher and higher payouts while the pay of the standard US worker generally stagnates.

Why isn't it fair that a CEO should get paid what people are willing to pay him? Of course, this question is never asked.

It's not fair because the prices of everything are constantly rising, and the pay of the US worker hasn't increased at all to match up.

So CEOs started getting a majority of their income as shares of the company. As previously stated in an above comment, stock isn't money, you have to sell it first

Stock pays dividends. Preferred stock (over common stock) pays dividends at a both guaranteed and higher rate than common stock. Line goes up, CEOs get paid more.

Regardless, what happens when the value of the company falls?

Assuming CEOs have preferred stock and not common stock, they sell off the company assets, get paid off, and float away on a damn golden parachute to the next company they can drive stock prices up with and run right into the ground. Also, CEOs and all other people who own preferred stock probably own stock in multiple other companies, so even if they don't see a dime, they're at a point where their own wealth constantly perpetuates itself due to many other different investments. Admittedly, that's sort of conjecture, but that would be the obvious smart move to secure one's financial position indefinitely no matter what happens to the company.

And when that happens, does the worker pay also decrease similarly? No, they continue to get paid the same

No, workers just get laid off while the execs remain untouched. Layoffs are good for increasing stock price.

Well, no, that's why it's called a buyback not a takeback. Money has to be exchanged between parties. The parties agree to exchange something they want more, for something they want less, so it's fair business. If they don't want to trade, they don't have to. And once the value of the share rises, this represents another opportunity, if people don't think that the share is worth that much, or don't have faith that the company will continue to increase in value, they won't invest. The company's true value, and the value of stock, is only worth what people are willing to pay for it.

If it wasn't a problem at all as you say then why did Trump himself have to address the issue (and then promptly do nothing about it)? Also, they may not even have to buy back that much stock, relatively speaking, in order to make the stock massively increase.

Why doesn't a company just buy back all of the stock that they can, therefore increasing the share price to the maximum?

How much one buys back depends on how much they project that share price to rise. If they buy back too much, then people won't see a point in owning the stock at all since the available stock left is too meager to make a major profit with.

Because the value of that stock doesn't just come from nowhere, it comes from the value of the company itself, which means, what people are willing to pay for a share.

Shareholders are hardly the smartest people and they are not always going to buy stock based on fully rational decisions. You also now have computers handling buying and selling stock now as well, and they're using arcane and obscure algorithms to calculate which stock to buy or sell. It may be to a normal human that stock in a certain company isn't valuable, but because that company has certain indicators that meet what the computer is looking for, it buys that stock anyway. Again though, yes, this is conjecture, though you did ask me to speculate.

If he doesn't invest in the company, or in the workers, guess what happens to the value of the company?

Obviously, they're going to invest SOMETHING into the company, but they will try to keep it as much to a minimum as possible and devote all possible profits to shareholders. Line must go up. Regardless of everything, line must go up. Whatever makes line go up must be done at almost all costs. And if line doesn't go up, sell everything off and get one last fat check out of it to reward your failure.

"But companies did it before in 2017 the last time they got a tax cut, they're going to do it again with the Big Beautiful Bill!"

In order to really illustrate what the problem is today, I think I gotta have you watch another video again. Sorry, Houseman. I got a bit more homework for you. Bear with me here.

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4qqIJ312zI)

If you don't like how a company spends it's money, then you become a voting shareholder, then you can have a say.

Certainly. Do you have at least $1,000,000 to start off with?

Oh, you don't... ?

 

[Battousai]

Certainly. Do you have at least $1,000,000 to start off with?

 

[Houseman]

It's not necessarily the fact that CEOs are making a fuckton of money; it's that our wages have not kept up. Shareholders are getting absurdly higher and higher payouts while the pay of the standard US worker generally stagnates.

There is no "balance" or "ratio" that there needs to be, or should be, between the CEO and the low-level employee. Just because CEOs used to make 20x and now they make 200x, it doesn't mean that 20x is what the ratio should be.

It's not fair because the prices of everything are constantly rising, and the pay of the US worker hasn't increased at all to match up.

And yet, the US worker is doing just fine. The US worker is not homeless or starving. They enjoy Smart TVs and subscriptions to Netflix and Spotify, and have internet connections that they use to watch propaganda about "greedy CEOs" like this one.

If the US worker wasn't doing just fine, they wouldn't buy products, and then the products wouldn't sell, leading to greater supply, so the prices would come down until the US worker can afford them again.

Stock pays dividends. Preferred stock (over common stock) pays dividends at a both guaranteed and higher rate than common stock. Line goes up, CEOs get paid more.

The question still remains, when these propagandists gathered their numbers on how much a CEO makes, what are they using to calculate that? Liquid cash, including dividends, stock, or both? Including stock in that dollar amount is dishonest. Comparing dollar amounts of minimum wage to "total compensation" is purposefully misleading.

By the way, Lebron James makes more than two times in cash than the total compensation that this CEO does. Where are the people crying about him "taking wealth" from others? Where are the people saying "it's not fair?" Where are the people complaining about "greedy sports professionals"? The poor ball boys make minimum wage! Lebron makes 1,650 times that amount!!!!1

Assuming CEOs have preferred stock and not common stock, they sell off the company assets, get paid off, and float away on a damn golden parachute to the next company they can drive stock prices up with and run right into the ground. Also, CEOs and all other people who own preferred stock probably own stock in multiple other companies, so even if they don't see a dime, they're at a point where their own wealth constantly perpetuates itself due to many other different investments. Admittedly, that's sort of conjecture, but that would be the obvious smart move to secure one's financial position indefinitely no matter what happens to the company.

Oh, so now they're running these companies into the ground? Well then it's a self-correcting problem. Lowes will soon go out of business, then.
Oh, what's that? Lowes isn't failing? Well then what these CEOs are doing must not be that horrible of a thing after all.

And if these CEOs aren't seeing a dime, then why would they go through all this effort A) being a CEO, B) Doing stock buybacks, for zero return? Do stock buybacks work, or not? Do they ruin the company, or not?

CEOs crashing companies and having a golden parachute, and stock buybacks are two separate issues. Golden parachutes, and stock, are also two different things, since, if the company crashes and the stock is low, from whence cometh the money for the parachute? The two are unrelated

To quote Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell:

What has provoked special outcries are the severance packages in the millions of dollars for executives who are let go because of their own failures. However, no one finds it strange that some divorces cost much more than the original wedding cost or that one spouse or the other can end up being rewarded for being impossible to live with. In the corporate world, it is especially important to end a relationship quickly, even at a cost of millions of dollars for a “golden parachute,” because keeping a failing CEO on can cost a company billions through the bad decisions that the CEO can continue to make. Delays over the firing of a CEO, whether these are delays within the company or within the courts, can easily cost far more than the golden parachute.

No, workers just get laid off while the execs remain untouched. Layoffs are good for increasing stock price.

As you just mentioned with the golden parachute, execs get fired too, and as Thomas Sowell points out, the separation sometimes happens very quickly. Yes, sometimes workers get laid off too, for all sorts of reasons. The point I was making is that stock provides an incentives to executives to care about the success of the company, and also represents a risk for them, a risk that the common employee does not have to bear. Bigger risk, bigger reward. The employee invests nothing but his time and labor, and that is not a risk that deserves a reward.

If it wasn't a problem at all as you say then why did Trump himself have to address the issue (and then promptly do nothing about it)? Also, they may not even have to buy back that much stock, relatively speaking, in order to make the stock massively increase.

From the clip shown in the video, Trump thought that it would alter behavior in one way, but it actually altered it in a way that he didn't expect. The only problem was that Trump was wrong in his expectations.

Why would stock "massively increase" without a similarly "massive" buyback? The value (percentage of ownership) increases relative to the proportion that was bought back.

How much one buys back depends on how much they project that share price to rise. If they buy back too much, then people won't see a point in owning the stock at all since the available stock left is too meager to make a major profit with.

Yeah, that's my point, it's not an unlimited money hack, it's self-correcting and self-limiting.

Shareholders are hardly the smartest people and they are not always going to buy stock based on fully rational decisions. You also now have computers handling buying and selling stock now as well, and they're using arcane and obscure algorithms to calculate which stock to buy or sell. It may be to a normal human that stock in a certain company isn't valuable, but because that company has certain indicators that meet what the computer is looking for, it buys that stock anyway. Again though, yes, this is conjecture, though you did ask me to speculate.

Whether or not the market is "smart" or not doesn't matter. The market is made up of people acting in accordance with their own perception of their own best interest. In aggregate, the market is self-correcting. Supply and demand is self-correcting. Stock buybacks, CEO salaries, minimum wages, it is all self-correcting so long as there are minimal cartels and minimum government involvement.

I'm not asking you to speculate, any questions in my post are rhetorical and designed to point out flaws.

Obviously, they're going to invest SOMETHING into the company, but they will try to keep it as much to a minimum as possible and devote all possible profits to shareholders. Line must go up. Regardless of everything, line must go up. Whatever makes line go up must be done at almost all costs. And if line doesn't go up, sell everything off and get one last fat check out of it to reward your failure.

Yes, that is entirely predictable, even in companies that aren't publicly traded. Investments will be kept to a minimum, and returns will be maximized. Predict that everyone involved will act in their own self interest above all else.

But you still seem to be thinking of "shareholder profits" as a separate thing from "the value of the company". I bet if you framed it that way instead, it would seem less negative. The company isn't working for the profits of shareholders, as if shareholders are some 3rd party entity. No, the company is working for itself. It just so happens that when the company grows, investors are pleased.

Getting one "last fat check out of it to reward your failure" is also needlessly negative and betrays your blind hatred for those who have more than you.

If you build a company and sell it at the peak of its success, are you a failure?
If you build a company, build it up to the peak, and then sell it off when it goes downhill, are you a failure now?
In both cases, I wouldn't think so, because you built up something to the point where you can get a "last fat check out of it". It means that someone was willing to exchange money for what you've built.

I'll watch your other video later.

 

[Arnox]

I'll watch your other video later.

I'll wait until you watch it because I don't think you understand the scope of this problem at all. The video beautifully explains it.

 

[Houseman]

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4qqIJ312zI)

No, Americans aren't "entitled" to "shared prosperity". One is entitled to what they work for and what they earn themselves. There is no "sharing". If an individual wants to share what they have earned, great, but you aren't owed a percentage of the GDP just for existing. Wealth, money, income, whatever, it isn't distributed. Just because someone can own a yacht, it doesn't mean that you are worse off because of it.

Another fallacy this video makes is that it treats the rich, the average, and the poor as static. That's not true. You can be born poor, become average, and then become rich, and then become poor again before you die. You can move from one category to another.

This video just whines and complains that "the rich" (not a static class of people) get more income than "the average" do, and that this is unfair. So what? It's only a problem if you fell for Marxist propaganda and falsely believe money is "distributed" and "shared" between us, and that some people are getting more than their "fair share".

edit: Also household income is a misleading indicator, because households differ. How many adults do you have working in a household? How many generations live in a house? What cultures prefer to live with their parents and grandparents, and what cultures don't? What if someone moves out and starts their own household, and then the measured income for that household drops? Does that mean that the people living there are worse off than they were before?

Measuring individual income has none of these problems.

Stop watching Marxist propaganda. Watch this instead:

And then read the book. I've uploaded it to this site. Chapter 10: Productivity and Pay covers all this.