© 2018 Jim Spence - Harvard University is a national disgrace. The school
builds the sentiment of discriminating against Asian-Americans into the backbone
of its admissions policies. And each year a horde of unqualified students gains admission to Harvard so the university’s faculty can brainwash them with continuous flows of absurd propaganda. Ludicrous arguments
justify everything at Harvard except merit-based thought-processes.
Of course, Harvard is not the only so-called higher-education
facility in America that is destroying the ability of its graduates to think critically. However,
because it is a high profile university, it should be subjected to the utmost
scrutiny instead of getting a free pass on mass producing uninformed clowns.
The
recent machinations of Harvard grad and New York Times editor Arthur Sulzberger, including his
accommodations of unrepentant racist Sarah Jeong, also a Harvard grad who joins the Times editorial
board, are prime examples of the dangers institutions like Harvard pose to the fundamental well-being of America.
Don’t look now, another Harvard grad, Annie Lowrey is busy disgracing herself in public view. Lowrey may well be the dumbest individual to ever write columns for The Atlantic, New York Magazine, and the New York Times. Of course, the Atlantic has
published many dubious articles over the decades, but perhaps none was more
ignorant than Lowrey’s recent piece entitled “Are Stock Buybacks Starving the Economy?”
Some background is in order. Lowrey is married to Ezra
Klein, the editor of Vox and a contributor to MSNBC. Klein is a Howard Dean devotee. Nuf said. Lowrey has published a book
with a title that says it all, “Give People Money: How a Universal Basic Income
Would End Poverty, Revolutionize Work, and Remake the World.” Lowrey spreads economic ignorance like Johnny used to spread apple seeds. Sadly,
Lowery is a virtual illiterate when it comes to economics, which explains why the New York Times hired her to be an economic policy reporter.
In her Atlantic ramblings, Lowrey suggests that stock buybacks are,
“pulling money away from employee compensation, research and development, and
other corporate priorities — with potentially sweeping effects on business
dynamism, income and wealth inequality, working-class economic stagnation, and
the country’s growth rate.” Lowrey compounds her astonishing level of ignorance
by suggesting that stock buybacks cause sluggish economic growth, low productivity,
and lower pay.
Where to start when there is so much stupidity to refute.
First, anyone arguing that those who work and are productive should be given the
option by taxpayers to stop being taxpayers and instead sit back and collect a “universal income” for doing nothing, has no
clue what might contribute to longer-term competitiveness in America, as Lowrey asserts in her ridiculous book.
Furthermore, even the most basic analysis of dynamic companies in America
provides all the proof one needs that one of the most important line items on
their financial statements are the high levels of stock-based compensation. More
often than not, stock-based comp is quite substantial in dynamic rapidly
expanding companies. It is substantial for good reasons. Warren Buffett has taught us repeatedly, that employees
benefit greatly from stock-based compensation, and it is a true expense to shareholders. However, unlike anyone with any financial acuity whatsoever, Lowrey has no understanding or concern for where the cash comes from that funds stock-based comp. With colossal ignorance,
Lowrey simply complains that buybacks, “use up money that could be spent on
other company expenses.” Lowrey makes the allegation that stock buybacks, which
are often used to fund stock-based compensation, are get this…….”crowding out of
wage growth.” This is just plain stupid. Stock buybacks help increase total
compensation, which is an important part of wages. Stock buybacks to fund stock-based comp do precisely the opposite of what Lowrey claims they do.
Professional investors realize that stock grants, though
expensive to stock holders, are great for employee retention, and are absolutely necessary
to attract talent. Yes, stock grants cost shareholders money. However smart
shareholders recognize that securing the services of high value computer programmers,
sales personnel, accountants, etc. requires strong wage and stock comp incentives. Stock buybacks are the ultimate win-win situation.
Lowrey writes an astonishingly ignorant article because she
is clueless as to where the shares of stock come from that are used in
restricted-stock grants and stock-option plans. It is pathetic that the New York Times and The Atlantic are willing to pay one of the most uninformed
members of our society to write such tripe for consumption by unsuspecting
readers.
Let's circle back to Harvard. Harvard actually excludes Asian-Americans with academic talent and disciplined work ethic from admission for non-merit based reasons. With this in mind, is anyone really surprised that idiots like Lowrey emerge from Harvard and argue for universal income, i.e.......money for doing nothing of value? Not me. Harvard is America's number one fool factory.
Posts
