That's right, it's you. That taxpayer. So when the student loan bubble bursts, taxpayers are on the hook.
Dispatches from District 48
Archive for the ‘The Corporate State’ Category.
That's right, it's you. That taxpayer. So when the student loan bubble bursts, taxpayers are on the hook.
There was no particularly good way to resolve the banking mess in Cyprus. But what worries me about how things played out is that there appears to be no rule of law that applies to bank failure in Europe. There should be some clear principle that guides a bank resolution - e.g. equity holders and bondholders get wiped out first, then uninsured depositors, then insured depositors. Or perhaps there is some ratio of pain between insured and uninsured depositors.
It is clear that no such rule exists across Europe (or if it does, it does not enjoy any particular force such that folks feel free to ignore it in real time). That is the real danger here. Results, however bad, should be transparent and predictable in advance, which is far from what happened in Cyprus. Without a rule of law, one gets a rule of men -- in other words, rules are set by individual whim, often based on which government or corporate interests wield the most influence.
Think I am being too cynical? Here is a detail that was new to me about the depositor haircuts in Cyprus:
A few weeks ago, the Central Bank of Cyprus published a curious set of "clarifications for the better understanding of the resolution measures." The principle of a bail-in—that uninsured creditors should suffer losses before taxpayers are on the hook—turns out to contain a few lacunae. "Financial institutions, the government, municipalities, municipal councils and other public entities, insurance companies, charities, schools, and educational institutions" will be excused from contributing to the depositor haircuts, though insurers later were removed from the exempt list.
Apparently, individual parties are lining up for special exemptions as well (much like connected corporations did with the Obama Administration to get exemptions from early provisions of the PPACA). Essentially, all bank losses will be assigned to depositors who don't have access to powerful friends in the government.
The true cost to operate Jobing.com Arena ranges from $5.1 million to $5.5 million a year, which is about $10 million to $20 million a year less than the Glendale City Council has agreed to pay hockey-related interests to manage the facility in recent years.
The net management costs, included in documents recently published on the city’s website, are bundled in the city’s solicitation for a new company to operate the city-owned arena.
Glendale council members interviewed by The Arizona Republic said they hadn’t reviewed the documents and were surprised by the figures.
“I wasn’t aware of that,” Mayor Jerry Weiers said. “Then again, I know damn good and well that the way it’s been run, they’re not putting anything extra into it whatsoever.”
This is unbelievably easy to understand . It is a hidden subsidy, and everyone knows it. The pictures of politicians running around saying "what, we had not idea" is just hilarious. The Phoenix Coyotes hockey team has the lowest attendance in the league, and loses money. In addition, the NHL, which owns the team, has committed to its members that it will not take a loss on the team, meaning that it needs to sell the team for north of $200 million. The team is worth over $200 million, but only if moved to Canada. In Glendale, it is worth $100 million or less.
The city was close to a deal a few years ago to sell the team. It tackled the team value problem by basically throwing $100 million in taxpayer money into the pot for the sale (to make up for the difference in value between the asking price and actual worth). When this encountered a Constitutional challenge (under the AZ Constitution corporate welfare is illegal though you would never know it living here) the city council disguised the subsidy in the form of an above-market-rate payment for running the arena.
So absolutely everyone knows what is going on here. This has become a massive black hole for the town of 250,000 people that achieves nothing but the self-aggrandizement of the local politicians, who feel like bigshots if they have a real major sports franchise in town. Oh, you heard that this all actually pays for itself in tax money? Hah!
The justifications for previous management deals revolved around a commitment to keeping the team in Glendale. Loyal fans pleaded with council members for the team’s future. And a council majority saw advantages, including thousands of fans trekking to their city 41 nights a year to watch hockey and spend money in the city’s restaurants and shops.
The city collects revenue associated with the team and arena through leases, parking fees and tax collections for food and merchandise sales in the nearby Westgate Entertainment District. Those figures have been on the upswing, particularly since an outlet mall opened last fall.
Total collections were $4.7 million in fiscal 2011, and reached $6.4 million through just the first eight months of the 2013 fiscal year, according to the city. That money helps pay, but doesn’t fully cover, the city’s debt to build the arena.
The town spent $300 million on a stadium and subsidized the team between $25 and $40 million a year, depending on how you count it, all to get an "incremental" $6-8 million in tax money. And by the way, just because they collect it in this area does not make it incremental -- these sales could well have cannibalized another area of town.
From a reader, comes this story of St. Louis so far refusing to grant a license to a woman who wants to operate a clothing sales truck (in a parallel to the growing food truck business). What is the official explanation for denying her a license? These government folks are refreshingly honest, not even bothering with the BS about consumer protection and jumping right to the real reason - incumbent businesses don't want new forms of competition.
NewsChannel 5 received this written explanation from Maggie Crane, the communications director for Mayor Francis Slay:
"We like the idea of fashion trucks a lot, but we still need to find out if there is a way to license mobile boutiques that does not put brick and mortar stores, who have already made substantial investments in their neighborhoods, at a disadvantage. We will also need to identify neighborhoods that will welcome them.
"We went through that process with food trucks a few years ago. Food trucks, for example, must abide by an enforceable set of rules outlining everything from safety regulations to where and for how long they can park.
"Our prediction is that the region's first legal fashion trucks will be here in the City. But, for now, they are pirates."
Note by this same logic Amazon should have been banned by St. Louis, as certainly bookstores in St. Louis had made substantial investments in their neighborhoods. In fact, one of my favorite book stores used to be in Clayton, near St. Louis, though I fear it has died (anyone know, I can't remember the name, was a large independent). In fact, that is an advantage of the Internet I had never considered -- it allows new businesses to challenge old ones without harassment by local licensing and zoning authorities.
John Ross discusses the absurd tax exemption enjoyed by major sports leagues like the NFL
I was particularly struck by this
as a tax-exempt entity, [the NFL] doesn’t pay taxes on the income that it earns. The NFL has managed to keep its income earnings a little on a low side by paying its top executives corporate-level salaries—eight NFL execs took home compensation of $51.5 million in 2010. The teams get to write off their NFL membership dues, roughly $6 million per team, for the privilege of belonging to this unusual trade association, and that money is put into a stadium fund that provides interest-free loans to teams so long as they get taxpayer financing on stadium construction and improvement costs.
So NFL teams pay dues to the NFL, and get to write the cost of those dues off on their taxes. But the NFL pays not taxes on the dues it receives It then puts these dues in a fund that the teams can use, but ONLY if they go out and extort further taxpayer gifts for their stadiums. Ugh.
Tesla Motors and Elon Musk, the folks who seem to perennially have their hands out for special government favors and taxpayer money, may have actually struck a small blow against the corporate state:
Tesla Motors Inc. says it’s won another round in its fight with established car dealers who want to stop the company from selling its electric luxury cars directly to consumers.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk says, via Twitter, that a New York judge has tossed out a suit brought by New York auto dealers who challenged Tesla’s direct sales model as a violation of the state’s franchise laws.
Mr. Musk spent Wednesday in Texas making the case for a legislative proposal to change the law to allow direct sales of electric vehicles by U.S.-based manufacturers. Texas car dealers have opposed the measure, saying it would open the door for other car makers to sell electric cars direct to customers – which could undermine the value of their franchises.
Government protections of middle men in the auto business (states generally do the same in the liquor business) are a classic example of crony capitalism. Car dealers tend to have a lot of sway with politicians, not to mention with local media for who they are generally the largest advertisers, so they are able to engineer special privileges for themselves. Congrats to Tesla for taking this on.
One potential gauge can be seen in, of all places, advertising during the Masters golf championship.
I am not a huge golf fan, but enjoy watching the Masters and the British Open (if you have never been in Britain during the Open, it is a fun experience -- people are in bars at 9AM watching). The Masters is unique among sporting events in that it eschews getting the maximum advertising check, and instead only accepts a tasteful 2-3 corporate sponsors, who run just a few minutes of advertising an hour. This year the sponsors were AT&T, IBM, and ExxonMobil.
AT&T and IBM had generally non-specific ads that played up their companies' innovativeness, telling well-heeled golf viewers that they would be a good business partner on technology issues. Exxon did something very different. They ran ads over and over about how much they cared about education, and in particular in support of common core curriculum.
In our modern mixed economy, the worst thing you can have as a corporation is a bad image. It means that politicians will look to score points for the next election by gutting you like a fish. ExxonMobil is the perennial leader on this dimension, though Walmart occasionally grabs the number one spot. So one purpose of the ads is clearly to improve its image and make people like it. It is telling that ExxonMobil does not bother to do so in its core business. There is a great story to be told about how much technology and capital must be invested over long time horizons to get gasoline as cheap as three or four dollars to the pump, but ExxonMobil has obviously given up on this message. Instead, it works to be liked on a subject, education, largely tangential to its core business.
But its strategy at the Masters seemed to go further. By actively shilling for the common core curriculum, an Obama-favored initiative to further Federalize k-12 education, they are essentially sucking up to this administration.
I and most of my family worked for Exxon. I only worked a few years at Exxon (in beautiful Baytown, Texas) but members of my family worked for Exxon their entire lives, and I have known and still know a number of Exxon execs. And I can say with good confidence that few if any of them really believe that shifting control of education from local agencies close to parents to Washington is really going to help education very much.
So, if you watched yesterday, you saw a multi-million dollar suck-up. And the pathetic thing is that it was probably a useless exercise. The bullied often try to end bullying by sucking up to the bully -- it seldom works.
If you want to get special privileges and crony handouts in Alabama, you need to have a company in one of these industries:
automotive, automotive-industry related, aviation, aviation-industry related, medical, pharmaceutical, semiconductor, computer, electronics, energy conservation, cyber technology, and biomedical industry
For example, if you are in one of these businesses, you don't need to bother to accumulate a block of land for your plant the old-fashioned way, by buying it from the current owners. Companies in these industries can now get the government to seize the land by eminent domain and hand it to them.
I am not sure why these are the favored few industries, but this list matches similar lists in other states of industries that get special tax breaks, relocation incentives, subsidies, protection from new competitors, etc. The rest of us who run unfavored businesses have to pay towards the profitability of these industries, because for some reason they are particularly good at re-electing politicians.
PS- I would add liquor wholesalers, professional sports teams, car dealers, and media companies to the list of locally favored industries.
When I read this in our local paper, alarm bells immediately went off:
A friendship cemented while working together on the state’s economic development efforts has led to a new partnership linking Roy Vallee, the former Avnet Inc. chairman and chief executive officer, with private developer Don Cardon.
Great, two folks who have focused on bringing crony corporatist benefits to selected local businesses and business relocations are going into business together. I don't know these guys, I am sure they are fine folks, but my first thought was a business that leveraged their connections with government to create private profits.
Reading further, this seems like a good guess:
The two metro Phoenix business leaders say they will collaborate on large commercial developments, including those with a special public-interest focus and those with special complexities....
Cardon spent three years at the Arizona Commerce Authority, a public-private partnership, and the predecessor Arizona Commerce Department. Aside from that, he perhaps is best-known as a driving force behind CityScape, the three-block, $1.2 billion mixed-use development in downtown Phoenix. He cites as a strength his ability to bring private and public interests together on a project.
Yep, I definitely think I am on to something:
The firm will strive to encourage a “collective vision” and “make sure projects are worthy of investment and will be successful,” Cardon said. “Everything we do will involve public value, enriching the quality of life.”
You know the type of project -- the ones where the city / state / Feds justify investing millions of taxpayer money into private projects because "they create jobs" (like those at Solyndra). In fact, the two partners are already polishing up this mantra, which I am sure we will hear over and over:
Deals typically will exceed $100 million and will create hundreds of jobs, both in the development stage and when complete, he said. The company , however, will maintain a fairly lean staff.
“We’re not a big employer, but we’ll be a job creator,” he said.
I want to make a couple of quick points:
You can't make this up. Ray Lane, the very nicely politically-connected investor whose connections to Obama are often credited with Fisker scoring millions of taxpayer money, made a video several years ago praising Obama as a great new model of venture-capitalist-in-chief.
I can't believe any intelligent human being would think that the right role for the President is to be a venture capitalist with taxpayer money, or that even if this were so that Obama would be the right person with the right skills to do it well, but I suppose trying to score hundreds of millions in taxpayer money changes your perspective.
But the funny part is the example he uses - he thinks the best evidence of Obama being a swell investor is ... Solyndra. Obviously filmed before Solyndra failed (and the US government allowed all the remaining assets to go to another set of Obama cronies), this video is hilarious.
Even in all-electric mode, the Fisker Karma gets worse mileage than an SUV (only a deeply flawed EPA MPGe rating, purposely designed to over-state electric car efficiency, hides this fact).
What a surprise -- apparently forced to make their case to private investors now rather than just DOE bureaucrats whose main criteria is "did this company support President Obama in the last election", Fisker is having trouble raising money and may declare bankruptcy.
...uh, just because
Update: Whenever I argue with people about this, I find out that we share different assumptions. Those who seem to support the bailouts assume that given some breathing space, the reckoning in Europe can be avoided. I assumed the reckoning is unavoidable, and will come either soon or at best in the next cyclical downturn. And it will be far worse in, say, 2015 than it would have been in 2010. Every time we delay the reckoning, we make it far worse.
And then there are politicians. I don't think they honestly know or care if the reckoning is unavoidable. They only care if it does not happen this minute. For politicians, the discount rate on pain is infinite. Future pain is thus always better than current pain.
The problem with [the theory that sports subsidies help the economy] is that there is scant evidence that such economic benefits actually occur. Numerous studies done over the last 25 years have found that professional sport teams have little, if any, positive effect on a city’s economy. Usually, a new team or a new stadium location doesn’t increase the amount of consumer spending, it merely shifts it away from other, already existing sources. Entertainment dollars will be spent one way or another whether a stadium exists or not. Plus, the increase in jobs is often modest at best — nowhere near enough to offset the millions invested in the projects.
It's amazing they got the local paper to print this. Most local papers would be defunct without a sports page. As a result, local newspapers generally bring to bear tremendous pressure in favor of subsidies to attract and keep new professional sports teams. Our local paper the AZ Republic tends credulously publish every crazy, stupid benefit study of sports teams on the road to promoting more local subsidies for them.
I am simply amazed at this level of cronyism enjoyed by the sugar industry -- import restrictions on cheaper world sugar, price supports, and government loans that can be paid back with excess product rather than cash.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture is likely to buy sugar in the domestic market this year in order to drive prices up and prevent defaults on loans made to sugar processors, according to a USDA economist.
The USDA estimates it would need to buy 400,000 tons of sugar to boost prices to an “acceptable level,” said Barbara Fecso, an economist at the department. A purchase of 400,000 tons would amount to about 4.4% of projected U.S. sugar production in the marketing year that ends Sept. 30.
Domestic sugar prices have been trading at about 20 cents a pound, their lowest level in nearly four years, putting companies that make sugar from cane or beets at risk of defaulting on loans they received from the USDA when prices were higher.
People talk about these supposed government subsidies for oil companies, but every time I see a list of them they are dominated by things like depletion allowances, FIFO accounting, and investment tax credits, which are either standard accounting rules that apply to all industries or tax credits that apply to all manufacturers. But Big Sugar gets real heavy-duty subsidies no one, except maybe ethanol companies and other farmers, get.
Steven Rattner, investment banker and former member of the Obama Administration, is terrified that under a proposed law companies will be able to raise money without investment bankers.
Most troublesome is the legalization of “crowd funding,” the ability of start-up companies to raise capital from small investors on the Internet. While such lightly regulated capital raising has existed for years, until now, “investors” could receive only trinkets and other items of small value, similar to the way public television raises funds. As soon as regulations required to implement the new rules are completed, people who invest money in start-ups through sites similar to Kickstarter will be able to receive a financial interest in the soliciting company, much like buying shares on the stock exchange. But the enterprises soliciting these funds will hardly be big corporations like Wal-Mart or Exxon; they will be small start-ups with no track records.
This is absolutely, classically representative of the technocratic arrogance of the Obama Administration and the investment bankers that inhabit it. I have three quick thoughts:
I predict that over that Internet entrepreneurs running such crowd-sourcing sites would develop reputation management and review tools for investors (similar to those at Amazon and eBay). Over time, it may be that these become far more trustworthy than current credit agency reports or investment bank recommendations. After all, which do you trust more -- a 5-star Amazon review with 35 responses or a Goldman Sachs "buy" recommendation on an IPO like Facebook or Groupon? Besides, it would take a very long time, like eternity, for fraud losses in a crowd-sourcing site to equal 1/100 of the investor losses to heavily regulated Bernie Madoff.
Obama and the Left want a big new infrastructure spending bill, based on twin theories that it would be a) stimulative and b) a bargain, as needed infrastructure could be built more cheaply with construction industry over-capacity.
Since this is exactly the same theory of the stimulus four years ago, it seems a reasonable question to ask: What happened to the damn money we spent last time? We were sold a 3/4 of a trillion dollar stimulus on it being mostly infrastructure. So where is it? Show us pictures, success stories. Show us how the cost of construction of these projects were so much lower than expected because of construction industry over-capacity. Show us the projects selected, to demonstrate how well thought-out the investment prioritization was. If their arguments today have merit, all these things must be demonstrable from the last infrastructure bill. So where is the evidence?
Of course, absolutely no one who wants to sell stimulus 2 (or 3?) wants to go down the path of investigating how well stimulus 1 was spent. Instead, here is the argument presented:
Much of the Republican opposition to infrastructure spending has been rooted in a conviction that all government spending is a boondoggle, taxing hard-working Americans to give benefits to a favored few, and exceeding any reasonable cost estimate in the process. That's always a risk with new spending on infrastructure: that instead of the Hoover Dam and the interstate highway system, you end up with the Bridge to Nowhere and the Big Dig.
In that sense, this is a great test of whether divided democracy can work, and whether Republicans can come to the table to govern. One can easily imagine a deal: Democrats get their new infrastructure spending, and Republicans insist on a structure that requires private sector lenders to be co-investors in any projects, deploying money based on its potential return rather than where the political winds are tilting.
This is bizarre for a number of reasons. First, he implies the problem is that Republicans are not "coming to the table to govern" In essence then, it is up to those who criticize government incremental infrastructure spending (with a lot of good evidence for believing so) as wasteful to come up with a solution. Huh?
Second, he talks about requiring private lenders to be co-investors in the project. This is a Trojan horse. Absurd projects like California High Speed Rail are sold based on the myth that private investors will step in along side the government. When they don't, because the project is stupid, the government claims to be in too deep already and that it must complete it with all public funds.
Third, to the extent that the government can sweeten the deal sufficiently to make private investors happy, the danger of Cronyism looms large. You get the government pouring money into windmills, for example, that benefits private investors with a sliver of equity and large manufacturers like GE, who practically have a hotline to the folks who run programs like this.
Fourth, almost all of these projects are sure to be local in impact - ie a bridge that helps New Orleans or a street paving project that aids Los Angeles. So why are the Feds doing this at all? If the prices are so cheap out there, and the need for these improvements so pressing, then surely it makes more sense to do them locally. After all, the need for them, the cost they impose, and the condition of the local construction market are all more obvious locally than back in DC. Further, the accountability for money spent at the Federal level is terrible. There are probably countless projects I should be pissed off about having my tax money fund, but since I don't see them every day, I don't scream. The most accountability exists for local money spent on local projects.
I cannot believe the sky-is-falling panic around the sequester. It is all so much BS. The sequester represents a trivial percentage reduction in spending down to levels we have not seen for, like, 2 years or so. But apparently everyone is getting into the act claiming the world will end if we cut a couple of percent from the growth rate of government spending. As an illustration, this is the over-wrought absurd email I just recieved:
If implemented, the US Navy directed cancellation of ship repair and maintenance due to lack of an approved Defense budget and sequestration will have a drastic impact on the commercial ship repair industry across the nation. The more than 150,000 expert ship repair professionals that have been cultivated across the nation cannot be easily replaced by a new workforce. In addition, many of our yards nationwide do both defense and commercial work. The Navy cancellations would severely undermine their ability to continue operating in a high quality, efficient manner.
The Virginia Ship Repair Association urges you to learn more and voice your concern. We have provided templates for mailing letters to your members of Congress, as well as contact lists to make phone calls. Please join us in this effort to preserve our maritime interests, protect our shipyards and secure the future of our workforce.
US Shipyards among the great pork-barrel spending stories in this country's history. Show me a shipyard with lots of defense business (e.g. Ingalls in Pascagoula) and I will show you a Senator from that state who wielded immense power on Congressional defense committees.
The story the other day that AIG was considering suing the taxpayers because the taxpayers did not give them a nice enough bailout was so vomit-inducing that I did not even look much further into it.
A couple of readers whom I trust both wrote me to say that the issues here are a bit more complex than I made them out to be. The Wall Street Journal sounds a similar note today:
Every taxpayer and shareholder should be rooting for this case to go to trial. It addresses an important Constitutional question: When does the federal government have the authority to take over a private business? The question looms larger since the 2010 passage of the Dodd-Frank law, which gave the feds new powers to seize companies they believe pose risks to the financial system.
That vague concept of "systemic risk" was the justification for the AIG intervention in September 2008. In the midst of the financial crisis, the federal government seized the faltering insurance giant and poured taxpayer money into it. The government then used AIG as a vehicle to bail out other financial institutions.
But the government never received the approval of AIG's owners. The government first delayed a shareholder vote, then held one and lost it in 2009, and then ignored the results and allowed itself to vote as if the common shareholders had approved the deal.
In 2011 Mr. Greenberg's Starr International, a major AIG shareholder, filed a class-action suit in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in Washington alleging a violation of its Constitutional rights. Specifically, Starr cites the Fifth Amendment, which holds that private property shall not "be taken for public use, without just compensation." The original rescue loans from the government required AIG to pay a 14.5% interest rate and were fully secured by AIG assets. So when the government also demanded control of 79.9% of AIG's equity, where was the compensation?
Greenberg is apparently arguing that he would have preferred chapter 11 and that the company and its original shareholders likely would have gotten a better deal. Perhaps. So I will tone down my outrage against Greenberg, I suppose. But nothing about this makes me any happier about bailouts and corporate cronyism that are endemic in this administration.
Modern pirates do not need a ship or swords or cannon, they only need lobbyists. Ever wonder how Captain Morgan rum pays for all that expensive TV advertising? They don't -- you do! At President Obama's insistence, their subsidies (along with many others) were extended in the recent "fairness" tax bill.
This story is simply unbelievable. Shareholders of AIG should have been wiped out in 2008 in a bankruptcy or liquidation after it lost tens of billions of dollars making bad bets on insuring mortgage securities. Instead, AIG management and shareholders were bailed out by taxpayers.
It is bad enough I have to endure those awful commercials with AIG employees "thanking" me for their bailout. It's like the thief who stole my TV sending me occasional emails telling me how much he is enjoying it.
Now, AIG managers and owners are considering suing the government because the the amazing special only-good-for-a-powerful-and-connected-company deal they got was not good enough.
Directors at American International Group Inc., AIG -1.28% the recipient of one of the biggest government bailout packages during the financial crisis, are considering whether to join a lawsuit that accuses the U.S. government of too-onerous terms in the 2008-2009 rescue package.
The directors will hear arguments on Wednesday both for and against joining the $25 billion suit, a person briefed on the matter said. The suit was filed in 2011 on behalf of Starr International Co., a once very large AIG shareholder that is led by former AIG Chief Executive Maurice "Hank" Greenberg. It is pending in a federal claims court in Washington, D.C....
Starr sued the government in 2011, saying its taking of a roughly 80% AIG stake and extending tens of billions of dollars in credit with an onerous initial interest rate of roughly 15% deprived shareholders of their due process and equal protection rights.
This is especially hilarious since it coincides with those miserable commercials celebrating how AIG has successfully paid off all these supposedly too-onerous obligations. And certainly Starr and other AIG investors were perfectly free not to take cash from the government in 2008 and line up some other private source of financing. Oh, you mean no one else wanted to voluntarily put money into AIG in 2008? No kidding.
Postscript: By the way, employees of AIG, you have not paid off all the costs of your bailout and you never will. The single largest cost is the contribution to moral hazard, the precedent that insurance companies, if sufficiently large and well-connected in Washington, can reap profits on their bets when they go the right way, and turn to the taxpayer to cover the bets when they go wrong.
Kevin Drum is uncomfortable that Google got off the hook on anti-trust charges merely because it was not harming consumers
Google made a number of arguments in its own defense, and consumer welfare was only one of them. Still, it was almost certainly the main reason they won, and it's still not clear to me that this is really what's best for consumers in the long run. Did Google users click on the products they highlighted? Sure. Did they buy some of the stuff? Sure. Were they happy with their purchases? Sure. Is that, ipso facto, evidence that there's no long-run harm from a single company dominating the entire search space? I doubt it. After all, John D. Rockefeller could have argued that consumers bought his oil and were pretty happy with it, so what was the harm in his controlling the entire market?
The tech industry moves fast enough that antitrust might genuinely not be a big issue there. In the end, it wasn't antitrust that hurt IBM and Microsoft. It was the fact that the industry moved rapidly toward smaller computers and then the internet, and neither company was really able to react fast enough to dominate these new spaces. Nonetheless, I'm skeptical of the tautology at the heart of the consumer welfare argument. If a company is successful, then by definition people must be buying its stuff. On this basis, bigness is simply unassailable anymore. That has broad societal implications that I suspect we're not taking seriously enough.
He seems to be arguing that we consider returning to a pure bigness standard without reference to consumer harm. I am not sure that we ever followed such a standard, but certainly today the alternative to a consumer harm standard is not a bigness standard but a competitor harm standard. Whether he knows it or now, this is essentially what Drum is advocating. We see this in the article he quotes:
But while the F.T.C. said that Google’s actions might have hurt individual competitors, over all it found that the search engine helped consumers, as evidenced by Google users’ clicking on the products that Google highlighted and competing search engines’ adopting similar approaches.
I am not sure what Drum really wants, but the result of eliminating the consumer-harm standard would be an environment where every failed company can haul its more successful competitors in front of the government and then duke it out based on relative political pull rather than product quality. It is pretty well understood out there that this anti-Google FTC claim was initiated and championed by Microsoft, certainly not among the powerless typically championed by progressives, and a company well known to have missed the boat on Internet search and which is apparently trying to do now through government fiat what it has not been able to do in the marketplace. Microsoft learned this technique from Sun and Oracle, which took Microsoft to the FTC in the famous browser case where Microsoft faced years of anti-trust scrutiny for the crime of giving the public a free product.
Already, anti-trust law is an important tool of the corporate state, to allow politically powerful companies to squash competition from those who invested less money in their Washington office. I am not a legal expert at all, but this consumer standard in anti-trust strikes me as a critical shield stopping a hell of a lot more abuse of anti-trust law.
By the way, there is a modern bigness problem with corporations that is very troubling -- we have made government tremendously powerful, giving it many tools to arbitrarily choose winners and losers without any reference to justice or rights. As private entities get larger and richer, they are better able to access and wield this power in their own favor. The libertarian solution is to reduce the government's power to pick winners and losers. The progressive answer is to regulate business more with tools like anti-trust.
But the progressive solution has a built-in contradiction, which why Drum probably does not suggest a solution. Because the very tools progressives suggest to regulate business typically become the tools with which politically connected corporations further tilt the game in their own favor. Anti-trust is a great example. We want to reduce the number of large companies with an eye to reducing corporatism and cronyism, but the very tool to do so -- anti-trust law -- has become one the corporate crony's best tools for stepping on competitors and insulating their own market positions.
And by the way, Rockefeller's Standard Oil did a HELL of a job for consumers. It was nominally punished for what it might some day hypothetically do to consumers.
Here are the facts, via Reason
Standard Oil began in 1870, when kerosene cost 30 cents a gallon. By 1897, Rockefeller's scientists and managers had driven the price to under 6 cents per gallon, and many of his less-efficient competitors were out of business--including companies whose inferior grades of kerosene were prone to explosion and whose dangerous wares had depressed the demand for the product. Standard Oil did the same for petroleum: In a single decade, from 1880 to 1890, Rockefeller's consolidations helped drive petroleum prices down 61 percent while increasing output 393 percent.
By the way, Greenpeace should have a picture of John D. Rockefeller on the wall of every office. Rockefeller, by driving down the cost of kerosene as an illuminant, did more than any other person in the history to save the whales. By making kerosene cheap, people were willing to give up whale oil, dealing a mortal blow to the whaling industry (perhaps just in time for the Sperm Whale).
So Rockefeller grew because he had the lowest cost position in the industry, and was able to offer the lowest prices, and the country was hurt, how? Sure, he drove competitors out of business at times through harsh tactics, but most of these folks were big boys who knew the rules and engaged in most of the same practices. In fact, Rockefeller seldom ran competitors entirely out of business but rather put pressure on them until they sold out, usually on very fair terms.
From "Money, Greed, and Risk," author Charles Morris
An extraordinary combination of piratical entrepreneur and steady-handed corporate administrator, he achieved dominance primarily by being more farsighted, more technologically advanced, more ruthlessly focused on costs and efficiency than anyone else. When Rockefeller was consolidating the refining industry in the 1870s, for example, he simply invited competitors to his office and showed them his books. One refiner - who quickly sold out on favorable terms - was 'astounded' that Rockefeller could profitably sell kerosene at a price far below his own cost of production.
How the recent "fairness" tax bill became a vehicle for subsidizing connected corporations.
Baucus' Finance Committee passed a bill in August extending 50 expiring deductions and credits for favored industries. At Obama's insistence, the Baucus bill was cut and pasted word for word into the cliff legislation. Set aside for a moment how this contradicts Obama's talk about "fair shares" and the need to diminish the influence of lobbyists, and look at what this raft of tax favors shows us about the Baucus Machine.
Pick any one of the special-interest tax breaks extended by the cliff deal, and you're likely to find a former Baucus aide who lobbied for it on behalf of a large corporation or industry organization.
General Electric may have been the biggest winner from the cliff deal. GE makes more wind turbines than any other U.S. company, and it lobbied hard for extension of the wind production tax credit. But more important for the multinational conglomerate was an arcane-sounding provision that became Section 222 of Baucus' bill and then Section 322 of the cliff bill: "Extension of subpart F exception for active financing income."
In short, this provision allows multinationals to move profits to offshore financial subsidiaries and thus avoid paying U.S. corporate income taxes. This is a windfall for GE: The exception played a central role in GE paying $0 in U.S. corporate income tax in 2011 when it made $5.1 billion in U.S. profits.
Peter Prowitt, formerly Baucus' chief of staff, is now an in-house lobbyist and VP at GE. GE filings show Prowitt on the lobbying teams that won wind-tax credits, electric-vehicle tax credits, and "Extension of Subpart F Deferral for Financial Services."
The examples in the article go on and on. The best way to get rich in America is not to have a great idea or work hard but to hire an ex-staffer from Senator Baucus's office.
The various cities in the Phoenix metropolitan area have spent a fortune renovating ten spring training fields for 15 major league teams. I have seen a number like $500 million for the total, but this seems low as Scottsdale spent $100 million for just one complex and Glendale may have spent as much as $200 million for theirs. Never-the-less, its a lot of taxpayer money.
The primary subsidy, of course, is for major league teams that get lovely facilities that they use for about one month in twelve.
But these subsidies always get sold on their community impact. But that economic impact turns out to be really narrow. For in-town visitors, the economic impact is typically a wash, as money spent on going to sports games just substitutes for other local spending. But these stadiums are held up as great economic engines because they attract out of town visitors:
Cactus League baseball and year-round use of its ballparks and training facilities add an estimated $632 million to Arizona economy, according to a study released Monday by the Cactus League Baseball Association.
The study found that 56 percent of the 1.7 million fans attending games this past spring were out-of-state visitors and the median stay in metro Phoenix was 5.3 nights.
Spring training accounted for $422 million in economic impact in 2012, up 36 percent from the previous study in 2007. Both were done by FMR Associates of Tucson.
One of the flaws of such studies is they never, ever look at what the business displaces. For example, for local visitors, they never look at local spending sports customers might have made if they had not gone to the game. All spending on the sports-related businesses are treated as incremental. For out-of-town visitors, no one ever considers other visitors coming for non-sports reasons who are displaced (March was already, without all the baseball, the busiest hotel month in Phoenix) or considers that some of the visitors might have come to the area anyway.
However, let's for one moment of excessive credulity accept these numbers, and look at the out of town visitors. 56 percent of 1.7 million people times 5.3 nights divided by 2 people per room is 2.52 million room nights, or at $150 each a total of $378 million. So most of their spring training economic impact is hotel room nights. This by the way is the same logic that supports various public subsidies of local college bowl games.
Which begs the question, why are we spending upwards of a billion dollars in taxpayer money to subsidize sports teams and hotel chains? If the vast majority of the economic impact of these stadium investments is for hotels, why don't they pay for them, or split the cost with the teams?
PS- as an aside, it seems that to be successful in the corporate state, one needs ready access to consultants who will put absurdly high numbers on the positive impact of one's government subsidies. It's like money laundering, but with talking points. Take your self-serving spin, hand it with a bunch of money to a consultant, and out comes a laundered "study". In this case, the "study" architects are FMR Associates, which bills itself as specializing "in strategic research for the communications industry." The communications industry means "PR flacks". So they specialize in making your talking points sound like they have real research behind them. Probably a growing business in our corporate state.
According to the New York Times, French Socialist president François Hollande demanded and received the dismissal of the editor of Le Figaro, the country’s leading conservative newspaper. If that sounds impossibly high-handed, consider the background, as reported in the Times:
The publisher, Serge Dassault, is a senator from [ousted President Nicolas] Sarkozy’s political party [and thus opposed to Hollande]. But Mr. Dassault also heads a major military contractor, and there was widespread speculation that [Figaro editor Étienne] Mougeotte’s ouster was meant to put the Dassault group in good stead with the new president.
[Since-convicted Illinois Gov. Rod] Blagojevich, Harris and others are also alleged [in the federal indictment] to have withheld state assistance to the Tribune Company in connection with the sale of Wrigley Field. The statement says this was done to induce the firing of Chicago Tribune editorial board members who were critical of Blagojevich.
Read the whole thing. He has an interesting story about Ted Kennedy passing legislation to force a change in ownership of the Boston paper most consistently critical of him.