I P and the Petro-Kleptocracy

Florida journalists Robert Block and Mark K. Matthews see it as a conflict of interest that a former Marathon Oil Director, who still owns over half a million dollars worth of Marathon stock, is working to prevent NASA, which he heads, from developing a method of creating oil from waste, algae, and seawater, while absorbing CO2.  The scandal apparently is that the suspect, Charlie Bolden, sought advice from Marathon before seeking to delay the project.

Buried deep in the text is the note that Marathon has its own “proprietary microbe” to produce ethanol from wood chips. Whereas, one hopes, that a successful NASA project would produce technology available to all.

I suppose Bolden wanted, not to kill the project, but only to slow it until Marathon’s attorneys can figure a way to monopolize the “intellectual” “property” which it produces.  Am I cynical?

btw, I think Tribune Company still owns the Orlando Sentinel, where this article was produced, but there is, so far, no sign of it in on Chicagotribune.com.

Debt trolls

One (of several) good arguments for eliminating, or at least drastically scaling back, patents, is the existence of patent trolls, entities whose sole business is trying to hinder the diffusion of innovation. They buy patents believed to have little value, and try to intimidate actual productive individuals or companies into licensing them.  If you’re, say, a manufacturer, and a troll offers you a license for a few thousand dollars, you might just pay up to avoid the expense and risk of defending yourself.

Now, we have debt trolls.  These are (per second page of this article) “well-funded, aggressive and centralized collection firms, in many cases run by attorneys, that buy up unpaid debt and use the courts to collect.”  The reason it’s news is that, in Minnesota and some other states, taxpayer-funded police, jails, and courts are used to arrest the alleged debtor and collect the debt. It’s not exactly debtor’s prison, but it is going to jail because you’ve failed to pay what you (presumably) owe.

via Naked Capitalism.

Are tariffs even more regressive than I thought?

Tariffs– fees charged by the U S Government for the import of goods– are designed to protect politically-powerful interests who would otherwise be unable to compete as profitably with foreign producers.  So they are regressive in the sense that politically-powerful interests are likely to be relatively wealthy.

But according to this article, tariffs are also regressive in the sense that their direct impact on the poor exceeds that on the wealthy. “Luxury goods have very low tariffs, while cheap clothes, underwear, shoes and household products have much higher rates.”  Several examples are cited; I have no idea whether they’re typical.  Both the Cato Institute and the Democratic Leadership Council are quoted in support, an official of the former calling tariffs “our most regressive tax that the federal government imposes.”

Patent Absurdity

New (to me, anyhow) video from Luca Lucarini about software patents.  I already knew that patents seem to stifle innovation in most fields, diverting resources into trolling and defenses.  I didn’t know that programmers have an incentive not to keep track of patents which they might infringe, because ignorance apparently reduces the penalty for infringement.

California retrieves TIF funds for “education”

Faced with fiscal strains similar to ours, California legislators observed that TIF funds weren’t particularly well-used, and are taking them to fund government schools.  Since Illinois TIFs are authorized by the State it seems that the State could control or limit them, and divert the funds to some more effective use (not necessarily the schools).

Of course, if this reform got serious support, I suppose the TIF authorities would promptly find it necessary to sign long-term contracts with connected developers or consultants, to be paid out of anticipated cash flows, so it might take quite a while to have any effect.  And anything beyond the next election is too far away to see.

How we’re subsidizing the big banksters

This will not be news to most of us, but here’s a nice summary posted on Yahoo’s Tech Ticker.  Banksters borrow from the Federal Reserve Bank at zero (or from savers at practically zero), lend to the U S Treasury at 2% or 3% (by buying U. S. Bonds), and pocket the difference. Courtesy of the taxpayers, and especially those of us who have saved.  (Yeah, I know many folks don’t pay federal income taxes, but isn’t everyone entitled to a share of what the government could fund if it wasn’t paying the banksters?)

A percentage of a lot is quite a bit

Here are a couple more examples of troubles we wouldn’t have under a just economic system.

Mortgage servicers incentivized to prevent mortgage modification. Many commentators have pointed out that, if the value of a property declines below the market value, and the homeowner is unable to pay, the lender is better off agreeing to reduce the principal to an amount consistent with current values.  (This is true even in the absence of any government-funded incentives.) So why does it rarely happen? It’s because lenders, apparently to conform to bizarre federal tax rules, have given up the right to modify loans.  Only the mortgage servicer, an independent company (tho sometimes a subsidiary of a big bank),  has the right to do that.  But the mortgage servicer is paid based on a percentage of the outstanding principal, thus has no incentive to help reduce it.  (Cash incentives offered under a recent federal program apparently aren’t large enough to matter.)

The geoist perspective: If land values were fully taxed,  real estate prices never would have bubbled, and mortgages would cover only the cost of the house, not the cost of the land it occupies.  Therefore mortgages would be smaller, perhaps rarer, and the whole problem of numerous underwater homeowners could never have occurred.

A little extra sleaze for municipal bonds. When a municipality (or, for that matter, any organization) issues bonds, they choose an underwriter who, for a fee, agrees to get all the bonds sold.  The issuer may choose the underwriter by open bid or by negotiation.  Academic research shows that, in the latter case, interest rates tend to be 17 to 48 basis points (hundredths of a percent) higher.  So how were 85% of the $378 billion in municipal bounds issued last year underwritten? By negotiation, which seems in theory to be costing taxpayers several billion dollars over the life of these bonds.   And that 85% includes 100% of bonds issues by the City of Chicago.  No one familiar with local government will be surprised at the reason: “[T]he city and its aldermen want to reward those who support public officials and politically connected charities.”

The geoist perspective: Most public debts are issued to benefit the underwriters and bond purchasers. At best, the funds are used for improvements that increase land values. Therefore, capital investments should be paid thru a tax on land values. If the landowner who benefits hasn’t enough cash to pay her share, she may need to borrow privately to cover it, but the general public should not be liable. If the improvement does not increase land rents enough to justify its cost, then it is not worth doing.

Much more information about both of these outrages is provided in the source articles, which you should read unless it would make your head explode.

Terms & Conditions: Souls for Sale

For just one day (April 1, of course) a UK merchant added to their terms and conditions which every on-line purchaser is required to accept:

…you agree to grant Us a non transferable option to claim, for now and for ever more, your immortal soul. Should We wish to exercise this option, you agree to surrender your immortal soul, and any claim you may have on it, within 5 (five) working days of receiving written notification…we reserve the right to serve such notice in 6 (six) foot high letters of fire, however we can accept no liability for any loss or damage caused by such an act.

Purchasers were offered an opt-out checkbox, but apparently only 12% checked it.

Of course nobody reads the terms and conditions.  (Actually, I have met one person who claims to; I didn’t ask him whether he had actually purchased anything on-line.)  On more than one occasion I’ve found the link to terms and conditions didn’t work, or made no sense, have notified the vendor and usually received an updated link or a correction.

Investing risk vs. return: Henry George was right

Back in the ’70s when I learned about investing, we sophisticated folks understood that financial markets are “efficient” and the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) would guide us.  You could reduce your risk somewhat by having a diversified portfolio, but to get a higher return you’d have to accept more risk of loss.  Of course there was no Internet, no easy way to check this for ourselves, but I did get access for a time to a remote terminal connected to a computer which supposedly allowed me to test this theory.  I did so, and the results were consistent, tho today I certainly can’t remember the details.

So when I first read Progress & Poverty in the ’80s, I was a bit troubled by this from Book III Chapter 4: Continue reading Investing risk vs. return: Henry George was right