> But he did make that argument in the article

No, he actually didn't. He did not articulate the idea that buybacks cause an increase in overall shareholder remuneration. You read that into what he said, but he didn't actually say it.

> I'm not saying the argument is right or not. I'm saying your outright dismissal of the entire premise as garbage and a meme not worth considering is wrong.

I stand by it. The argument is terrible and financially illiterate, even if you grant him the implied argument you make for him.