When companies do stock buybacks:

That is money that the company no longer has to invest in things like: capital equipment, employee compensation, saving money for a rainy day, starting new projects that might mean new revenue sources, etc.

In a free-market system, capital needs to go where entrepreneurs are most confident it will produce returns. Stock buy-backs are part of that process.

If a company determines that its business is not the most useful place for the capital it has accumulated, returning that capital to investors is a good thing to do. The investors then buy stock in other companies that do need the capital. That capital is invested in "things like: capital equipment, employee compensation, saving money for a rainy day, starting new projects that might mean new revenue sources, etc." (This is the same money that Mr. Goodman says is just sitting there, doing nothing." Capital spending creates jobs, too.)

When a company does a buy-back, it right-sizes its capital base. That's why the price of the stock goes up. The stock price increase that accompanies most buy-backs seems to be "simple math," but it isn't. If a company buys back too much stock, it becomes under-capitalized, its credit rating suffers, the stock price falls, and shareholders lose money. The buy-back raises the stock price if, but only if, it's the best use of the money.

Meanwhile, the claim that buy-back money avoids taxation is simply wrong. The profits are taxed whether they are distributed or not. Indeed, the gain realized by selling shareholders is taxed, too, so the buy-back actually generates revenue.

In general, this article is leftist claptrap. But even leftist fools can use true facts in their benighted arguments. Mr. Goodman is simply misinformed, at best. Maybe if he understood that buy-backs create investment by re-deploying capital and that the buy-back payments generate tax revenue, he might change his views. As if.