Think how much of the money you spend that goes to a person or entity that is much wealthier than you are.

Compare that to how much of your spending ends up in the pocket of someone poorer than you.

I reckon the ratio is about 95/5.

I am sitting here at the local watering hole having a couple. When I leave I will tip this lovely young lady $20.

Do I make more than the owner of the watering hole … maybe. I damn sure make more than the hostess.

In the morning I will stop and get a cup of coffee from a mom and pop shop for $5. Do I make more than the owner, most likely.

At the end of the pay period my employer will pay me. They certainly have more money than .

Money moves and it moves in all directions, always has and always will.

The strange part of this interaction is the guy sitting next to me just bought me a shot, because it is Tuesday and his pocket is full. By the end of the week he will ask me to spot him $50, and I will.

The decisions he makes determines his lifestyle and although he walked across the street to get here past my new car he sits here and spends his check on buying drinks for others.

Great guy, will always be broke.

And although his politics are whack, he is very typical of those who cry about “others” taking what is “his”.

Just as those who think the “corporations” are stealing and hoarding.

XOM has never bought me a beer and asked for money to loan 3 days later. They have bought me a drink at the expo downtown.

Different strokes.

The bank will lend it to somebody/company etc. who in turn will spent it on something etc.....

As well, I doubt Exxon Mobil(no "e" ) would simply stick it in a bank, they would also spend it on something.

Neither use benefits the greater economy.

flowing through the economy (which was the original topic).

Both benefit the greater economy.

the company for the long term in exchange for a momentary money high for upper management and stock holders.

If a company has more money than it can invest at the time, it can buy back stock, which raises the price of the stock. The higher stock price makes it possible to borrow money later or sell stock later to raise money when an opportunity for investment arises.

They are not a failure. It is not a "money high". They don't waste productivity. The money goes into the economy where it can be productive. And the enhanced stock value can bring money back later when it can actually be used by the company.

Simply repeating your statement, as you have done, is tantamount to an admission you have nothing. Since you have not responded to my points, we may assume that perhaps you have not read them, or do not understand them, or you have nothing.

Go ahead, try. Or accept that you have nothing. An emotional reaction based on old tropes is not a coherent or true understanding.

Remember the premise: "If a company has more money than it can invest at the time". Companies would prefer to invest in new production or new markets or even new products, but that is not always possible.

Try. Maybe you will learn something in the discussion.

the world go 'round.

It can be deployed later when opportunity arrives.

the dissemination of the rewards. The gap widens.

I was beginning to think you didn't, with how you were defending stock buybacks etc. as if they were equivalent to direct spending by everyday consumers.

Now, just to confirm, tell me which you think would have a more of a positive impact on our economy: (a) giving billions of dollars to the richest companies and individuals or (b) giving billions of dollars to families making less than $100k/year?

It's why the tRump orientation trying to sell billionaires as the engine of job creation is so ignorant. The Big Billionaire Bill does the opposite, ballooning the deficit and debt to give a gift to billionaires who are likely to park it in art and gold and bitcoin crap.

Per Krugman:

Rich people don't spend extra money, they invest it.

Yes, I'm a musician & audio geek.

Sorry.

Feller goes to an inn for ale. After a bit he has the urge to pee.

He leaves his pouch on the bar and the innkeeper sees a gold coin of value.

The impulse is too great and the innkeeper snatches it and pays the waitress her back-pay.

The waitress is delighted because her grocer has been hounding her for gold she owes him and she is finally able to pay up.

The grocer, likewise, pays his debt with the cobbler.

In his turn the cobbler is able to get square with the blacksmith.

The blacksmith is delighted to reimburse the hooker he had been boinging.

The hooker pays her back rent to the innkeeper who manages to slip the gold back into the pouch just before the stranger returned from the outhouse.

So: Everyone's debts have been paid, no one lost gold, no one gained gold. Every one is satisfied.

Wait. What?

Investing is a form of money in motion.

Investing in a startup pays the salaries of the engineers until sales start coming in. Salaries are money in motion.

Who makes their beds, cooks their food, cleans their toilets, etc.?

". . . they don't employ anyone . . . ."

I believe unemployment is still pretty much at an all time low, as I type.

I worked for one of those monsters for 20 years, myself and the other 20K $100K+ a year peeps should have known better.

Who do you think. Employs the majority around the world?

2025 XOM Capex is almost 30B. I don't think they're parking it. It would destroy their business.

Exxon Mobil (note spelling is not "Mobile" ) makes money from oil, not bank interest. To get that oil they have to invest in science, engineering, discovery, assessment, extraction, and delivery. They accomplish those things by investing the money that comes in.

Also, to say "in the bank making them interest and doing nothing for the economy" is really stupid and ignorant. The money the bank loans to home buyers (good for the economy) comes from deposits. Many people, including poor people, are invested in oil companies through pension funds and retirement accounts through banks.

The real way to make the point that the Threads capture is trying to make is as follows:

Poor people spend money that comes in pretty much right away (money in motion), to meet expenses and keep creditors at bay. Those things are taken care of by tiny parts of billionaires' incomes. The rest of the money either gets invested (money in motion) or is parked in land (though real estate can be developed and used) or artwork or other non-productive assets. That money is not money in motion. It does not produce anything and does nothing for the economy.

that money in motion generates some amount of sales tax (and income tax) which pays for roads, schools and other necessary infrastructure...... oh.... and research which generates even more.... well, maybe not anymore.

The economy thrives when money is in circulation. This is a great example of why Top-down (supply side economics) has not and never will work - as that money gets parked.

Adding to this - the top multiplier of money spent vs actual money flowing through the economy is SNAP (food stamps). For every $1 that is spent, ~$1.60 flows through the economy.

Building bottom up and middle out - not the discredited top down - is how the economy thrives.

Thanks for the thread.

$30 billion in planned capital.
They're paying around $4 dividend per share on around 4 billion shares. Another $16 billion.
They pay over $12 billion in payroll.
And, they buy around $100 billion (yes with a B) of crude oil per year.

That's just 4 expenses and they total nearly $160 billion, on $350 billion in total pretax revenue.
This Threads post shows a cluelessness of how businesses function.

is one clue that post is dumb.

the stock would be worth less than zero.

Silly, uninformed OP.