Sure, but back in those days (the 50s, 60s, 70s) two things were true about the company that bore the AT&T name: 1. They invested in research that benefited the whole industry with Bell Labs, and 2. they built out and maintained the infrastructure well.
Today they're just operating with the most cynical approach, where they extract the maximum amount of value out of a network built by our grandfathers' generation, only doing capex in the most targeted areas where the ROI will be instantaneous. (new subdivisions, and specifically ones where they can get the HOA to bake in their services to the HOA fee). I used to live in a large urban tower and AT&T did finally come in with fiber, in 2017, on that condition. They'll be cash flow positive from Day 1 because 100% of the homes in that tower are customers, and they literally can't cancel their service (or more specifically their payment).
Yeah that's the vibe I got. More accurate headline: "ATT has been beneficiary of government action. ATT says it won't build new fiber to some dsl customers."
Theoretically, you'd need to raise less capital once the business is established.
Money paid out to some retiree who doesn't even know that they hold shares through their retirement or pension plan is money not put into company bank accounts to fund future business endeavors.
Actually, speaking of the retiree, I don't know what it is, exactly, that the modern shareholder brings to the table that justifies their returns, especially in situations where they receive a dividend. The vast majority of shares of most publicly-traded companies are held by financial institutions who have a fiduciary duty to account holders. That means that, at the drop of a hat, they need to be able to exit their position on a given equity and put the money into something that either earns more money or loses less of it. They have as little attachment to the stock, and thus the business fitness, of the company as is possible. This means they don't care how things are going at the company. In a society that puts a lot of essential services, goods, and infrastructure in the hands of publicly-traded corporations, this means no one cares how things are going at the institutions holding up massive parts of society. See Boeing and their QC woes over the last decade while also noting their importance to American national security.
I'm not saying seize the means of production. I'm saying "stop putting all of the money into places where it does no good". That's simple as giving a pay raise without a corresponding price increase to offset the costs to shareholders, who often have no real association with the enterprise.
The entire premise of an economy is people exchange money for goods and services. Instead of having money available for that exercise, we've locked a lot of the value produced into equities that are left mainly as unrealized gains. The unrealized gains must continuously go up while the ability for people to participate in the economy by spending money that they earned has gone down, because they receive less of the share of their labor.
and the energy investment is so drastically lower that my brain can afford to finance the pre-revenue charges of rinsing, cutting the ends, and pulling off a paper towel, so I eat way more of them.
I'm a credit union member and... idk I've become disillusioned. Their products and rates are consistently worse than national banks. I won't feel like I'm sharing in anything. The execs seem to get good comp though.
