Archive for the ‘corporate privilege’ Category

Measuring the costs of political corruption

Trying to do some investment research, I got diverted to a couple of articles from the Review of Financial Studies.

In Corruption, Political Connections, and Municipal Finance, the authors assert that “Higher state corruption is associated with greater credit risk and higher bond yields.”  They apparently can measure the corruption and the cost; however the actual article is behind a paywall. I wonder if their results allow us to estimate how many dollars Illinoisans pay in higher debt service due to our political culture, or if the current estimate of “lots and lots” is sufficient.

Do Politically Connected Boards Affect Firm Value? might not seem to be a question worth asking, but it’s nice that academics have, they say, hand-classified corporate board members as “politically connected” to either of the two dominant U S parties. They find that nomination of a politically-connected individual to a board tends to increase stock prices, and that after the 2000 election, stocks associated with Republican boards went up, whereas those associated with Democrats went down.  Again, I cannot see the original article.

How corporate taxes caused the crash

Well, not entirely, but the deductibility of interest and the nondeductibility of dividends certainly encouraged corporations to borrow more than they otherwise would have.  Combined with tax incentives, interest payments were effectively subsidized more than 100%, as explained here.

Why are drug costs so high?

Apparently the cost of research and development isn’t the cause.

Large drug companies simply can’t afford to keep spending as much as they are now, when about 10% to 20% of revenue goes to R&D

That’s 10-20% of drug company revenue, not including the markup your pharmacy and “health insurance” company add.  I wonder how much of the remaining 80-90% is spent, directly or indirectly, on lobbying and enhancing their privileges.

Why campaign contribution limits can’t work

This is from House Banking Committee Chair Barney Frank, specifically on the subject of whether car dealers should be subject to regulation in regards to auto loans, but the significance is much more general:

“I have not had a problem because of campaign contributions. The problem is democracy: it’s people responding to people in their districts: community bankers, realtors, auto dealers, as I said, end users, insurance agents.”

“The local auto dealers are very popular in their districts,” Frank says. The more an interest group can make an issue district-specific and the more it can relate on an everyday level, Frank argues, the better it will do. “That’s why the realtors always beat the bankers. The bankers sit and they go [Frank makes a dour face, leans back in his chair and tightly folds his arms, miming an aloof posture]. The realtors are out there joining the Kiwanis and sponsoring little league.” The same is true with John Deere, dairy farmers and other back-slapping boys from back home.

How can we overcome this? Of course Realtors are going to support their own interests, ditto farmers [or, more likely, farmland owners], and other groups. One solution would be for us to treat government as a service administering common assets for the common benefit, rather than a means of transferring wealth to ourselves or our favorite groups.  Not easy, but at least it’s right.

Also relevant to this article, HGS students may remember this passage from Social Problems (1883).

The map of the United States is colored to show States and Territories. A map of real political powers would ignore State lines. Here would be a big patch representing the domains of Vanderbilt; there Jay Gould’s dominions would be brightly marked. In another place would be set off the empire of Stanford and Huntington; in another the newer empire of Henry Villard. The States and parts of States that own the sway of the Pennsylvania Central would be distinguished from those ruled by the Baltimore and Ohio; and so on. In our National Senate, sovereign members of the Union are supposed to be represented; but what are more truly represented are railroad kings and great moneyed interests, though occasionally a mine jobber from Nevada or Colorado, not inimical to the ruling powers, is suffered to buy himself a seat for glory.

Compare to this, from the  Huffpo article, Frank talking about his 71-member(!) committee:

“What’s happening now is the pro-regulation forces are being out-grassroots-ed by the antis,” Frank says. One member, he says, represented tons of title insurance companies. Another came from the headquarters of credit unions. A third’s district is home to LexisNexis; another to Equifax. Each of those entities received special treatment because their representative sits on the committee — and the more members on the committee, the more special treatment is needed.

HT, Felix Salmon

Ripping off PBGC, too

I guess no one should be surprised at this; I’m just noting for my own information that

GAO found that 40 executives for 10 companies received approximately $350 million in pay and other compensation in the years leading up to the termination of their companies’ underfunded pension plans.

However, it’s all perfectly legal.

GAO did not find any illegal activity with respect to  executive compensation on the part of either the 10 companies or the 40 executives under review.

pdf summary here, complete report here.

Big Enough to Break Up

This is so sensible that I can’t imagine it will pass.

We urge the immediate enactment of the Too Big to Fail, Too Big to Exist Act, which directs the treasury secretary to compile a list of those financial institutions that are too big to fail in the next 90 days, and to break up these banks and insurance companies a year after the legislation is signed into law

You can sign Sen. Bernie Sanders’ petition for it.

Via Barry Ritholz.

Climate change uncertainty

It seems the Obamatons are much like the Bushies in their ideological approach to scientific issues, just using a slightly different ideology. This story, which I found on slashdot, made it into the New York Times, though not onto NPR nor what’s left of the Chicago Tribune as far as I can tell. The suppressed paper is here.  I’m not qualified to evaluate it, but it does support my doubts that restriction of greenhouse gas emission will prevent undesirable climate change.

According to the Times article, it was released thru the “Competitive Enterprise Institute,”  which hardly enhances its credibility, but probably helped get it some attention.

Madagascar update

Last fall I mentioned a deal between Korean conglomerate Daewoo and the gov’t of Madascar, for the former to get half a Belgium’s worth of farmland at basically no charge. Turns out it was more controversial than I thought, caused a revolution, and the new government has revoked the deal. But, as the linked article explains, similar deals are proceeding in several other countries.

This information comes from farmlandgrab.org (“Governments and corporations are buying up farmland in other countries to grow their own food – or simply to make money”), via Alanna Hartzok.

You needn't mention Henry George…

…to be a Georgist. Michael Hudson’s analysis and forecast of bailout developments is helpful in understanding who benefits, and how it will be packaged to appear as homeowner aid.  One of his recommendations is clearly Georgist:

It is easy enough for fiscal policy to prevent a new real estate bubble. Simply shift the tax system back to where it originally was, on the land’s site-rental value. The “free lunch” (what John Stuart Mill called the “unearned increment” of rising land prices, a gain that landlords made “in their sleep”) would serve as the tax base instead of burdening labor and industry with income taxes and sales taxes. This would achieve the kind of free market that Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill and Alfred Marshall described, and which the Progressive Era aimed to achieve with America’s first income tax in 1913.

Hudson, like Kinsley and a few others, disdains the modern Georgist movement tho he seems to accept the validity and applicability of George’s (and modern Georgists’) analysis.

Thanks to Alanna Hartzok for the tip.

"There was no credit crisis"

This isn’t from some radical leftwing, libertarian, or Georgist journal.

One reason things didn’t fall apart when Congress didn’t immediately act as Paulson and Bernanke demanded [in September '08], may be that there wasn’t any danger of a meltdown in the first place. So say three senior economists working at the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, who in October examined the Fed’s own data, and concluded in an article titled Facts and Myths About the Financial Crisis of 2008 that the claims that interbank lending and commercial lending had seized up were simply not true. “Bank lending to consumers and to non-financial companies had not ceased, and banks were lending to each other at record levels,” says V.V. Charri, an economist at the Minneapolis Fed.

– Dave Lindorff

Thanks to Econospeak.