Inequality Rules

Eduardo Porter in the NY Times business section, always interesting to read, reminds us that inequality is not simply a minimum wage issue.  Citing Joseph Stiglitz’s latest book, “The Great Divide” (W.W. Norton & Company), he writes:

It includes the steady tightening of intellectual property rights and the rise of finance, with its lavish rewards for activities of dubious social value. It includes the furious consolidation of industry, which has reduced competition across the economy.

Professor Stiglitz is particularly incensed by the Obama administration’s attempt to include investment pacts in trade agreements it is negotiating with Asia and Europe, which would allow multinationals to sue governments for compensation if regulation hurts their profits.

Another commentator, Shi-Ling Hsu at the Florida State University College of Law, that that a huge piece of the inequality puzzle is being missed:

 the role of law in distributing wealth.” Subsidies, tax treatment, legal protection and other mechanisms conspire to aid the wealthy while often serving to damp economic gains.

Grandfathering existing businesses to protect them from new regulation is a classic way to protect profits, shielding incumbent businesses and deterring new entrants that would face costlier regulations. Granting water rights to whoever first uses the water amounts to another gift to business that can entail large social costs. (In California, for example.)

Read it all.  Good thought points

$2.1 Trillion Withheld from Contributing to Nation’s Well Being

These corporate guys are like teenagers partying at what was once a nice location, tossing junk into the lakes, roaring up and down the roads, turning them into washboards and reading only beer can labels instead learning new and better ways of making the stuff of human nutrition.

Keep their profits off-shore, avoid taxes, contribute to the collapsing of the U.S. infrastructure and education of the young so that eventually the economic ecosystem that enabled their phenomenal growth collapses, and they along with it.

Eight of the biggest U.S. technology companies — including five from the Silicon Valley — added a combined $69 billion to their stockpiled offshore profits over the past year, even as some corporations in other industries felt pressure to bring cash back home.

Microsoft Corp., Apple Inc., Google Inc. and five other tech firms now account for more than a fifth of the $2.1 trillion in profits that U.S. companies are holding overseas, according to a Bloomberg News review of the securities filings of 304 corporations.

The total amount held outside the U.S. by the companies was up 8 percent from the previous year, though 58 companies reported smaller stockpiles.

There are mounting calls to bring back the military draft of young people so that “everyone has a stake” in the decisions to go to war or not.  I say, draft the corporations and the profits they make due not only to their own genius, hard work and good luck, but to the societal, legal and governmental structures that made it possible, and which all need on-going maintenance.  Take that away and the U.S. will soon look like an untended neighborhood, with abandoned houses, broken windows, listless residents and no way to find a way out.

Ecosystem Services

James Surowiecki of the New Yorker, brings to our attention the concept of wealthy countries paying for ‘ecosystem services’ as one tool in the vast array needed to mitigate climate change and associated environmental destruction.  As in many things, Norway is showing by example.

It was notable when Norway announced a deal with Liberia: Norway will give Liberia up to a hundred and fifty million dollars in aid, in exchange for which Liberia will work to stop the rapid destruction of its trees.

Liberia has much of what remains of West Africa’s rain forest, but logging is rampant. The initiative is not an act of charity but a trade: Liberia gets income, which it needs; Norway gets to preserve biodiversity and take a small step against climate change. A similar deal that Norway struck with Brazil years ago helped slow deforestation there. Economists call arrangements of this kind “payments for ecosystem services,” and they follow a rationale known as the Coase theorem. In 1960, the economist Ronald Coase argued that bargaining between parties could, under certain conditions, produce a mutually beneficial and efficient solution to problems like pollution. Trying to force Liberia to stop chopping down trees (by using, say, sanctions) would be high-handed and probably ineffective. Paying Liberia to do so makes both sides better off.

… For the West, which is historically responsible for most of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere today, paying developing countries to make the transition away from carbon is not only the right thing to do but also squarely in our self-interest. Greenhouse gases emitted in Africa harm us as much as those emitted here. “If Africa just burns the coal and oil that it has at home in order to industrialize, it’ll do trillions of dollars of damage…

Good, thoughtful stuff

Slashing Spending Increases Deficits

Economists Paul Krugman, Brad DeLong and even Larry Summers have long argued that cutting government spending during a recession is bad policy — and have pointed to the failure of such policies in Europe as proof.  Now new evidence supports them.

The fundamental economic question of the last five years has been a simple one: how much does stimulus work? The answer, according to a new paper by Daniel Riera-Crichton, Carlos Vegh, and Guillermo Vuletin, is much more than we previously thought. And that means austerity has also hurt more than we thought — so much so that it might even be self-defeating.

That’s right: cutting spending in a slump might actually make debt problems worse.

…This leaves us in an upside-down world where smaller deficits might actually make our debt problems worse. When interest rates are zero, spending cuts can cripple the economy so much that GDP falls more than the government saves. And that means the debt-to-GDP ratio might increase even though government spending is decreasing — like it has in Greece. That’s why the IMF thinks infrastructure spending would almost pay for itself right now,

WonkBlog: Washington Post

So let’s get it on!  The American Society of Civil Engineers gives the U.S. a D+ for its infrastructure effort.

More Bunko-Steerers in the Health Care Fight

“The television ad sponsored by the advocacy arm of the National Federation of Independent Business featured a small-business owner in Arkansas, frustrated at what he said are the higher bills he has seen since the Obama administration’s health care plan went into effect — and pointing blame at Senator Mark Pryor, a Democrat considered one of the most vulnerable incumbents facing re-election this fall.

“But the largest chunk of the money donated to the nonprofit group’s advocacy came not from small-business owners, but rather from health insurance companies trying to repeal a health care tax, the most recently available federal tax records show.

“The largely hidden role of the for-profit health insurers highlights the increasingly confusing world of campaign finance, as nonprofit groups like theNational Federation of Independent Business and its Voice of Free Enterprise program can keep their donor lists secret, and then present their carefully crafted message, financed in large part by big business, as if it is coming from, perhaps, a more sympathetic voice.

NY Times

China and Change

Eduardo Porter in the NY Times, recently focusing on climate change in his Economic Scene column, [here and here, here and here] takes a look at China, which even though it has announced steps larger than those of the US has a larger problem, and solving it will not be easy:

A coal heating plant in Beijing

A coal heating plant in Beijing

In Beijing, He Jiankun, an academic and deputy director of China’s Advisory Committee on Climate Change, told a conference that China, the world’s largest greenhouse gas polluter, would for the first time put “an absolute cap” on its emissions.

However, he soon clarified

 He was not announcing policy in Beijing. “I’m not a government official, and I don’t represent the government,” he said.

Though Porter’s article is about China, he comments on the US as well, perhaps too easily thinking it has turned some sort of corner and will, by example, bring others along.  His point, however, is that even if the US were to start sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere tomorrow, China (and India) are enormous parts of the necessary solution.

It is well known that preventing a climate catastrophe requires China’s participation: The country accounts for over a quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions. Over the next 20 years, China’s CO2 emissions will grow by an amount roughly equal to the United States’ total emissions today, according to the latest baseline forecast by the Energy Information Administration, released last year.

But the scale of China’s challenge is less well grasped. It might be best understood by slicing the growth of CO2 emissions into four driving forces: the expansion of the population, the growth in people’s incomes, the amount of energy needed to produce a dollar of income, and the amount of CO2spewed for each unit of energy used.

Even assuming that China’s population does not grow at all over the next 30 years, that the energy efficiency of its economy increases at a faster pace than most developed and developing countries and that it manages todecarbonize its energy sources faster than pretty much anybody else, China would still be emitting a lot more carbon in 2040 than it does today, according to E.I.A. calculations.

NY Times; Eduardo Porter

Myanmar Sailing on the Tourist Dollar

“Myanmar has been rejuvenating from the impact of travel sanctions imposed by European countries three years ago and is emerging as a favored travel destination in Asia.

“According to the Ministry of Hotels and Tourism of Myanmar, tourism has become a major source of the country’s fiscal income and the country is expected to receive three million travelers in 2014.

“Before 2011, only fewer than 800,000 tourists visited Myanmar every year on average.

*

“Chinese visitors have accounted for a large proportion in the total number of foreign visitors to Myanmar. In many scenic spots and souvenir markets, signboards written in Chinese are seen everywhere. In the most famous Aung San souvenir market in Rangon, the number of visitors may top 100,000 and most of them are Chinese

SolarNews

All this emphasized by the glowing report in The Wealth Scene.

And those pesky Royhinga, rioting Buddhists?  The Kachin rebellion?  Keep on moving, nothing to see….

Burma rakhine-fire-water_2245212k

GOP — Kicking the Poor, Again

WASHINGTON — A proposal to raise the federal minimum wage to $10.10, an underpinning of President Obama’s economic agenda and an issue that Democrats hope to leverage against Republicans in the midterm elections, failed in the Senate on Wednesday.

The vote was 54 to 42, with 60 votes needed to advance the measure.

All but one Republican voted to sustain a filibuster against the measure, saying that the increase would damage the fragile economy and force businesses to cut hundreds of thousands of jobs.

NYT

Buffet Blows and Opportunity

Joe Nocera has a pithy column about Warren Buffet (Saint Buffet) and a blown opportunity to do the very kind of good he has spoken about.

“The way to get big shots to change their behavior is to embarrass them.”

But when the opportunity came to join a shareholder instigated protest against enormous, and unreasonable, pay packages at Coca Cola, where he sits on the board, he passed it up.

Why?  It seems it was too embarrassing to embarrass others, his friends.

Buffett showed was how impossible it is for directors — even billionaires known for speaking their minds — to rock the boat. The need for collegiality trumped good corporate governance. As it almost always does.

How sad. If Warren Buffett won’t use his unparalleled clout to rein in excessive compensation, how can we expect anyone else to?

Uff

Economic Elites Rule

From Talking Points Memo:

Asking “[w]ho really rules?” researchers Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page argue that over the past few decades America’s political system has slowly transformed from a democracy into an oligarchy, where wealthy elites wield most power.

Using data drawn from over 1,800 different policy initiatives from 1981 to 2002, the two conclude that rich, well-connected individuals on the political scene now steer the direction of the country, regardless of or even against the will of the majority of voters.

TPM

TPM does an interview with one of the authors, Professor Martin Gilens of Princeton.

If you had 30 seconds to sum up the main conclusion of your study for the average person, how would you do so?

I’d say that contrary to what decades of political science research might lead you to believe, ordinary citizens have virtually no influence over what their government does in the United States. And economic elites and interest groups, especially those representing business, have a substantial degree of influence. Government policy-making over the last few decades reflects the preferences of those groups — of economic elites and of organized interests.

You say the United States is more like a system of “Economic Elite Domination” and “Biased Pluralism” as opposed to a majoritarian democracy. What do those terms mean? Is that not just a scholarly way of saying it’s closer to oligarchy than democracy if not literally an oligarchy?

People mean different things by the term oligarchy. One reason why I shy away from it is it brings to mind this image of a very small number of very wealthy people who are pulling strings behind the scenes to determine what government does. And I think it’s more complicated than that. It’s not only Sheldon Adelson or the Koch brothers or Bill Gates or George Soros who are shaping government policy-making. So that’s my concern with what at least many people would understand oligarchy to mean. What “Economic Elite Domination” and “Biased Pluralism” mean is that rather than average citizens of moderate means having an important role in determining policy, ability to shape outcomes is restricted to people at the top of the income distribution and to organized groups that represent primarily — although not exclusively — business.

An interesting addendum to this study is a brief article by Kathleen Geier for the Washington Monthly in which she calls attention to a White House meeting with teen-age billionaire philanthropists:

Today’s New York Times — in the Fashion and Style section, but of course! — reports on a White House meeting of “100 young philanthropists and heirs to billionaire family fortunes.” Some of the people quoted in the article are as young as 19, and they are from family names you’ll recognize: Marriott, Pritzker, Rockefeller, etc.

The whole article is creepy beyond belief. Let me count a few of the ways: And, do read!

Of course it’s nice that the young want to find good ways to help others but the point of living in a democratic society is that we-the-people should be deciding the major items on the agenda.  If the wealthy want to help around the edges, fine.  But when the billionaire few call the shots what you get is what they want.