Jerri-Lynn here. The answer to this question may seem obvious to regular readers of Naked Capitalism.
Yet for newer readers, or for those who wish to be reminded of the costs to the real economy of shady financial practices, the following post piece provides a good summary. For those interested in delving into the issue further, How Much Do Shady Financial Practices Cost You, Exactly? discusses the work of University of Massachusetts, Amherst economist Gerald Epstein and his colleague Juan Antonio Montecino, who provide dollar figures on the costs that questionable financial activities impose on U.S. families, taxpayers, and businesses. And for those who want to go even further, Epstein and Montecino’s paper, Overcharged: The High Costs of High Finance provides ample additional detail.
It’s worthwhile having this information to hand, since with Labor Day now past, the US election season kicks into high gear. And Wall Street influence and contributions will undoubtedly be a prominent topic of discussion.
By Lynn Stout, who is the Distinguished Professor of Corporate and Business Law at Cornell Law School. Professor Stout is an internationally-recognized expert in corporate governance, financial regulation, and moral behaviour. Originally published at Evonomics.
Bank executives frequently proclaim that Wall Street is vital to the nation’s economy and performs socially valuable services by raising capital, providing liquidity to investors, and ensuring that securities are priced accurately so that money flows to where it will be most productive. There’s just one problem: the Wall Street mantra isn’t true.
In the wake of the 2008 crisis, Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein famously told a reporter that bankers are “doing God’s work.” This is, of course, an important part of the Wall Street mantra: it’s standard operating procedure for bank executives to frequently and loudly proclaim that Wall Street is vital to the nation’s economy and performs socially valuable services by raising capital, providing liquidity to investors, and ensuring that securities are priced accurately so that money flows to where it will be most productive. The mantra is essential, because it allows (non-psychopathic) bankers to look at themselves in the mirror each day, as well as helping them fend off serious attempts at government regulation. It also allows them to claim that they deserve to make outrageous amounts of money. According to the Statistical Abstract of the United States, in 2007 and 2008 employees in the finance industry earned a total of more than $500 billion annually—that’s a whopping half-trillion dollar payroll (Table 1168).
There’s just one problem: the Wall Street mantra isn’t true.
Let’s start with the notion that Wall Street helps companies raise capital. If we look at the numbers, it’s obvious that raising capital for companies is only a sideline for most banks, and a minor one at that. Corporations raise capital in the so-called “primary” markets where they sell newly-issued stocks and bonds to investors. However, the vast majority of bankers’ time and effort is devoted to (and most bank profits come from) dealing, trading, and advising investors in the so-called “secondary” market where investors buy and sell existing securities with each other. In 2009, for example, less than 10 percent of the securities industry’s profits came from underwriting new stocks and bonds; the majority came instead from trading commissions and trading profits (Table 1219). This figure reflects the imbalance between the primary issuing market (which is relatively small) and the secondary trading market (which is enormous). In 2010, corporations issued only $131 billion in new stock (Table 1202). That same year, the World Bank reports, more than $15 trillion in stocks were traded in the U.S. secondary market– more than the nation’s GDP. Yet secondary market trading is fundamentally a zero sum game—if I make money by buying low and selling high, it’s money you lost by buying high and selling low.
So, what benefit does society get from all this secondary market trading, besides very rich and self-satisfied bankers like Blankfein? The bankers would tell you that we get “liquidity”–the ability for investors to sell their investments relatively quickly. The problem with this line of argument is that Wall Street is providing far more liquidity (at a hefty price—remember that half-trillion-dollar payroll) than investors really need. Most of the money invested in stocks, bonds, and other securities comes from individuals who are saving for retirement, either by investing directly or through pension and mutual funds. These long-term investors don’t really need much liquidity, and they certainly don’t need a market where 185 percent of shoes are bought and sold every year. They could get by with much less trading—and in fact, they did get by, quite happily. In 1976, when the transactions costs associated with buying and selling securities were much higher, fewer than 20 percent of equity shares changed hands every year. Yet no one was complaining in 1976 about any supposed lack of liquidity. Today we have nearly 10 times more trading, without any apparent benefit for anyone (other than Wall Street bankers and traders) from all that “liquidity.”
Finally, let’s turn to the claim that Wall Street trading helps allocate society’s resources more efficiently by ensuring securities are priced accurately. This argument is based on the notion of “price discovery”–the idea that the promise of speculative profits motivates traders to do research that uncovers socially useful information. The classic example is a wheat futures trader who researches weather patterns. If the trader accurately predicts a drought, the trader buys wheat futures, driving up wheat prices, causing farmers to plant more wheat, helping alleviate the effects of the drought. Thus (the argument goes) the trader’s profits from speculating in wheat futures are just compensation for providing socially valuable “price discovery.” Once again, however, this cheerful banker “just-so story” turns out to be unsupported by any significant evidence. Let’s start with the questionable premise that the average trader earns profits from doing good research. The well-established fact that very few actively-managed mutual funds routinely outperform the market undermines the claim that most trading is driven by truly superior information.
But even more significantly, the fact that a trader with superior information can move prices in the “correct” direction does not necessarily mean that society will benefit. It’s all a question of timing. As famous economist Jack Hirshleifer pointed out many years ago, trading that makes prices more accurate when it’s too late to do anything about it is privately profitably but not socially beneficial. Most Wall Street trading in stocks, bonds, and derivatives moves information into prices only days–sometimes only microseconds–before it would arrive anyway. No real resources are reallocated in such a short time span.
So, what does Wall Street do that benefits society? Doctors and nurses make patients healthier. Firefighters and EMTs save lives. Telecommunications companies and smart phone manufacturers permit people to communicate with each other at a distance. Automobile executives and airline pilots help people close that distance. Teachers and professors help students learn. Wall Street bankers help—mostly just themselves.
49 comments
Comments are closed.
Wall Street worships Mammon. They do his work.
To paraphrase Keynes, sociopaths need to have something to occupy their time…Wall Street…make work for sociopaths!
Wall Street does help to allocate resources and get money from those who have it to those who need it for business. Historically it has been part of a dynamic investment culture which has been a benefit to the economy. But just because steering some money through the Stock Market and investment banks is good, does NOT imply that more is always better. Right now the main problem with the economy seems to be a lack of demand. The main reason that companies aren’t expanding is that people can’t afford to buy more stuff, not because they can’t find money for investments. There will always be schemers and crooks, but they will also be drawn to the money. And with more money to invest than WS can find productive use for the schemers are having a giant party. I have seen estimates that the optimum size of the stock market is somewhere between 5-20% of it’s current capitalization.
It is a two pronged problem. And can simply be considered the logical result of Trickle Down. By favoring Wall Street style investment over investment in production and labor, our government has produced this unbalanced economy. Not just income inequality, but one where companies and people sit on mountains of “cash” and refuse to invest in anything beyond the least requirement that doesn’t provide an immediate return.
Think of a truly progressive tax and regulatory system as one that encourages “investment” in research and development, worker training, in country plants and factories, worker benefits and safety, and donations to arts and charities without strings, and punishes hoarding of cash, outsourcing and off shoring, wage depression, etc. Exactly what our economy needs and our oligarchs have fought against tooth and nail.
Yes, and if you were to consider cash, the public’s money all originated with a treasury expenditure, a “public good”, one would be tempted to tax away any such that sat unused on publicly traded companies balance sheets for more than, lets say, one quarter.
“Think of a truly progressive tax and regulatory system as one that encourages “investment” in research and development, worker training, in country plants and factories, worker benefits and safety, and donations to arts and charities without strings, and punishes hoarding of cash, outsourcing and off shoring, wage depression, etc. Exactly what our economy needs and our oligarchs have fought against tooth and nail.”
Retired CPA reporting from ground zero: That’s precisely what we had until the neoliberals got the floor.
As Scofield points out above, very little of the money that is spent on corporate bonds and equities in the secondary markets by “those who have it” end up in the hands of firm managers.
Firm managers who need money for real economic investments almost always get it from selling bond/equities to investment banks or other underwriters, prior to an IPO.
In contrast, the typical transaction in one of the secondary markets simply takes money from one rich ‘saver’ and puts it in the hands of another rich person for a piece of paper.
This, of course, is why the favorable treatment of ‘capital gains’ income by the tax code is such an outrageous fraud.
Succinct synopsis.
IMVHO, the economy has become like a ship where all the cargo has been loaded up in the crow’s nest; yeah, there’s lost of stuff up there, but even a deep keel and a thick hull can’t keep that mess balanced and moving forward.
Glad to see this post, as ‘price discovery’ is a target-rich environment for anyone sleuthing after absolute bullshit in an era of high frequency trading.
Banks are not intermediaries of funds.
BoE blog / paper: https://bankunderground.co.uk/2015/06/30/banks-are-not-intermediaries-of-loanable-funds-and-why-this-matters/
Support the NYC real estate market? Also struggling politicians need someone to turn to when their campaign finances fall on hard times. I’m sure we heartlanders, who ultimately supply that 500 billion, can all agree these are worthy goals.
Great analysis. What They Do With Your Money: How the Financial System Fails Us and How to Fix It by Stephen Davis, Jon Lukomnik, and David Pitt-Watson also helps connect the dots.
A real eye opener for me is that costs in the finance sector (generally around 1.5% – 2%) are the same as they were when the transcontinental railroad was built. Yes, there have been increases in productivity and efficiencies but those gains have gone to the industry itself, not investors. Financial sector income accounted for 4% of GDP in 1950 but 8% by 2010. While making up only 7% of the economy and creating a mere 4% of all jobs, the financial sector generates more than a fourth of corporate profits.
Review: What They Do With Your Money
Wow, I hope a follow-up post fleshes out the implications of your stats.
Recently saw the German documentary Der Banker: Master of the Universe (2013), which is basically an extended interview with a former German banker, conducted in the empty offices of a defunct German bank. He is quite blunt about targeting
muppetssmall and medium businesses and HWI torip their faces offmarket hypercomplex financial products. Highly recommended. The film, that is.If by God you mean those who answer to no one, are omnipotent, create money out of nothing and send it back into nothing, are jealous, wrathful, vengeful, know best and love you (til it really hurts you, because bootstraps, and the harder you have it the more “character” you will build)…..except if you’re another God, then of course that’s different…..
Yeah, I think that’s what HRC means.
God’s work would look more like this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleansing_of_the_Temple
Well, that’s Jesus, actually. The Old Testament God tended to be a bit different
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XhnOVsxEJM
Yeah, but YHWH apparently frowned on usury. At least between Israelites of the right flavor. And YHWH at least provided, so said Moses, the means for cleansing oneself, after getting caught committing usury or having sex with a non-human animal, stuff like that… https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Leviticus Kind of like our Department of Justice, of which the motto has since who can remember when is “Qui Pro Domina Justitia Sequitur,” a completely and fittingly obscure fragment of Latin (which I personally think means “who chases the skirts of a lady named Justitia”). https://www.justice.gov/about/doj-seal-history-and-motto
A little aside on the “usury” bit: It occurs to me that maybe the main objection our Rulers have to “Sharia Law” is that pretty much every forking aspect of FIRE activity would be outlawed by the parts of it that deal with political-economy behaviors. http://www.islamic-banking.com/islamic_banking_principle.aspx Of course, “Islamic banking scholars” are, like their brethren in the Western FIRE scams, coming up with all kinds of two-step workarounds to preserve the forms but kill the substance. But it might be nice if the mopes who fear “sharia law” could be introduced to concepts like “risk sharing” and prohibitions not just on usury but any collection of rent on money.
But like the Jubilee notion, that gets short shrift here and most places as what, “impractical?”, any suggestion that there’s a morally strong component to how other people transact is a non-starter.
And don’t get the idea that “sharia law” is “about” bearded young enthusiastic adventurous looting a$$holes with AK-47s forcing compliance with almost Mosaic behavioral constraints. Or that it is “about” battering women and children, or smashing ancient ziggurats, or for that matter, that I am some kind of “Muslim Lover that hates us for our freedoms.” I enlisted to supposedly go fight to protect those freedoms in 1966, did my duty and paid my price — still paying. Anyone following this blog knows that there is an enormous gulf (war) between what us mopes are taught in Boy Scouts and school about our blessed Constitutional Republic, which is really just an empire whose initiators and promoters and beneficiaries just happened to fall like Tatars on an entire continent of lootable wealth, where the existing populace was, like our present day mopery, neither educated nor equipped to resist the onslaught.
I have mentioned before that there is a London School of Economics centre titled the “The Paul Woolley Centre for the Study of Capital Market Dysfunctionality ”
http://www.lse.ac.uk/fmg/researchProgrammes/paulWoolleyCentre/aboutTheCentre.aspx
Woolley is on record stating that the US and UK financial industries are 2 to 3 times the optimal size.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/11/29/what-good-is-wall-street
One might believe that information about the best use of capital would flow inexpensively over the internet and the world would not need to maintain a large financial industry to direct capital flows.
And the current stock buyback records of American corporations indicate that they, seemingly, can’t find suitable uses for corporate cash, even with the help of the large financial industry, other than buying their own stock back.
If lotteries and legalized gambling are regarded as taxes on the poor, the financial industry may be regarded as a tax on all but the upper class.
But a lot of CEOs etc are compensated with stock, so stock prices are a big deal to them even though their companies don’t benefit or suffer directly when the prices change, right?
wow, is that a loaded topic. stock manipulation anyone?
It’s called “managerial capitalism”, I believe
Companies buying back their own stock was deemed manipulation UNTIL R. Reagan’s SEC chairman John Shad said it was OK in 1982.
Quote from: http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/09/14/pocketing-profits-or-reinvesting-them/to-boost-investment-end-sec-rule-that-spurs-stock-buybacks
“Back in 1981 John Shad, a Wall Street banker and Ronald Reagan backer, became head of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Shad, like the Chicago economists who influenced him, believed that a deregulated stock market was good for the economy. In November 1982 the very government agency that is supposed to regulate the stock market adopted Rule 10b-18, which instead encourages corporations to manipulate stock prices through open-market repurchases.”
Corporate stock buybacks are a relatively new phenomenon in the US market and probably took some years for volume to develop after 1982.
.
In would say that Wall Street’s obsession with the need for ever increasing quarterly profits is the very reason why companies can no longer invest in research and development, cannot invest in infrastructure or the long term and can no longer pay fair wages.
And all of this is destroying the living conditions in the very economies that we all live in.
It’s also the same reason why 88% of the Fortune 500 companies from 50 years ago no longer exist.
It’s almost as if Wall Street is about extracting as much money out of companies until they are able to be gobbled up by somebody else in a fireside sale, leaving employees to fend for themselves.
So here is my comment on this article from august 31
fresno dan
August 31, 2016 at 6:50 pm
https://promarket.org/wall-street-gods-work-even-anything-useful/
So, what benefit does society get from all this secondary market trading, besides very rich and self-satisfied bankers like Blankfein? The bankers would tell you that we get “liquidity”–the ability for investors to sell their investments relatively quickly. The problem with this line of argument is that Wall Street is providing far more liquidity (at a hefty price—remember that half-trillion-dollar payroll) than investors really need. Most of the money invested in stocks, bonds, and other securities comes from individuals who are saving for retirement, either by investing directly or through pension and mutual funds. These long-term investors don’t really need much liquidity, and they certainly don’t need a market where 165 percent of shares are bought and sold every year. They could get by with much less trading—and in fact, they did get by, quite happily. In 1976, when the transactions costs associated with buying and selling securities were much higher, fewer than 20 percent of equity shares changed hands every year. Yet no one was complaining in 1976 about any supposed lack of liquidity. Today we have nearly 10 times more trading, without any apparent benefit for anyone (other than Wall Street bankers and traders) from all that “liquidity.”
=====================================
Thing of it is, the most thirsty never get a drink….
Fuk this is like something out of “Suddenly Last Summer” by Tennesee Williams when Sebastian watched the flesh eating birds devour the newly hatched sea turtles on the beach at Encantadas.
How many people do you know named after a state? Maybe women named “Virginia”. I’ve never heard of anybody named Nebraska or Rhode Island. Certainly not Massachussets or even Indiana (except as a last name, I recall a guy named that).
***
Violet Venable: I said, “No, no, those are only birds, turtles, not us.” I didn’t know then it was us. That we are all of us trapped by this devouring creation. I couldn’t, wouldn’t face the horror of the truth……even that last day in the Encantadas……when Sebastian left me……and spent the whole blazing equatorial day……in the crow’s-nest of the schooner, watching that thing on the beach……until it was too dark to see.
And when he came down the rigging, he said, “Well, now I’ve seen Him.” And he meant God.
Psychiastrist: Do you believe he saw God?
Violet Venable: He saw the whole thing there that day on the beach. But I was like you. I said no. I refused to believe…..until suddenly, last summer, I learned my son was right.
Montgomery Clift was excellent as the psychiatrist. He was on the verge of being a lunatic himself — in and out of the movie!
They could do a remake with Hillary Clinton starring as Violet and Brittany Spears as Catherine Holly. Or maybe Whatever Happened to Baby Jane? with, again, Hillary Clinton as Jane and Melania Trump as Blanche. I’d pay money to see those.
I’d be barfing into my bag of popcorn ……
… These demigods of ‘wealth’ are toxic, and make me ill …
despite all of this, I’d still take a 10-bagger if I could get one.
Penny stocks are promising but very very hard to pick correctly. Otherwise, it often takes too long to get a 10-bagger with normal stocks. Sometimes it’s a year or more! Maybe volatility ETFs. It has to be quick. I don’t have a lot of patience for this sort of thing.
How ’bout a ‘medical’ 10-bagger instead ? ….
… quicker relief !
are you talking about Xanax?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8X7W-oPhY48
Clash of the Titans – Medusa battle (original) 1981
HRC at a late night DNC Convention Hospitality Suite?
hat tip to the late, great Ray Harryhausen
http://blog.nationalmediamuseum.org.uk/ray-harryhausen-changed-our-perception-of-medusa-forever/
It’s been suggested by historian Stephen Wilk that most people know the story of Pegasus and Medusa through Ray Harryhausen’s depiction of the mythological femme fatale in his 1981 film Clash of the Titans. …
….Indeed, Ray Harryhausen’s Medusa is one of the most recognizable characters in model-animation cinema history.
Ray designed Medusa to be “a striking yet unconventionally hideously ugly demon” – something that was completely different from what film audiences had seen before.
Who are the other two Grogon sisters?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorgon
I have my candidates..
“…185 percent of shoes are bought and sold every year.” So what do these guys do, go down into the pit and sit on the floor, take off their shoes and then auction them off to each other? This mental picture is going to haunt me for a while.
Well, J-LS, you’re a JD, shouldn’t you first provide a definition God’s (god’s?) work?
Differentially, who if anyone does God’s work?
The question more reasonably truncates to …(Do) Even Anything Useful?
“Most of the money invested in stocks, bonds, and other securities comes from individuals who are saving for retirement, either by investing directly or through pension and mutual funds. These long-term investors don’t really need much liquidity.” — Lynn Stout
This is so 100 years ago, as the most cursory research will confirm:
In the bond market, characterized by thousands of issues traded over the counter, illiquidity is the rule rather than the exception.
Millions of pixels have been spilled since the 2008 crisis, bemoaning contracting liquidity in the corporate bond market as dealers prune inventories.
This dire news has yet to reach the benighted precincts of Ithaca, New York by canal boat. Only a non-trader would make the astoundingly silly claim that investors don’t need liquidity.
Poor traders. So sorry.
What share of corporate bond money goes to socially beneficial activities?
What share of investor activity produces socially beneficial activities?
In an Oligarchy, the enrichment of the 1% (& their obedient servants in the next 4 or so %) IS the socially
beneficial activity. The primary function of society itself for Elites is as a source of, and instrument for enrichment and the projection of power.
Wall Street serves the purposes of the “Alpha” oligarchs in the FIRE sector.
Our world has rightly been described as “neo-feudal”.
(The function of what remains of our democracy seems to be essentially as a pressure valve to guide & displace social forces into “safe” pathways. The police, military & security/intelligence services act to deal with pressures & deviations which can’t be safely or conveniently guided)
I guess the “most cursory research” doesn’t include Wikipedia?
“Institutional investor is a term for entities which pool money to purchase securities, real property, and other investment assets or originate loans. Institutional investors include banks, insurance companies, pensions, hedge funds, investment advisors, endowments, and mutual funds.”
Perhaps your reading comprehension of the Lynn Stout paragraph you quoted was “most cursory”?
I noticed that too. I think his response goes in the category: “You want the truth, you can’t handle the truth”. Better we not understand this stuff or we might do something about it.
If we were to remove the rampant speculation from Wall Street, It might … just might … turn out to be a positive good. Why we allow speculations and speculators is beyond me. Granted a purchase of stock is a speculation to some degree, but its value should be based upon holding it long enough to benefit something and somebody other than the buyer, and a millisecond of time is just a tad too short.
How does this relate to the implosion of the daily fantasy sports business, in which nearly all the winnings go to a few big players armed with superior information and algorithms, while casual dopes get taken to the cleaners?
There’s a sucker born every minute.
Never give a sucker an even break.
Attributed to P. T. Barnum
I remember when the price of oil was $147/barrel while oil company presidents were saying $70-80 would be about right. How can this happen? To make money, Wall Street needs two things (1) price fluctuation, and (2) asymmetry of information. So they make both by telling retirement funds, “You’re not prudent if you don’t invest in commodities.”
There is certainly a semblance of wealth about the west. Housing has greatly improved since WWII; everyone has a car and its smart and reliable. Ownership of pleasure craft and small aeroplanes is continually increasing and the countries of Europe (and I guess North America) look manicured and idyllic.
On the other hand this is the result of the debt-based system we can never pay-off. What would be a really nice bequest to our childten and grand-children would be a debt jubilee so they can take up the stewardship of the planet without restraint and make the hard choices that we have failed to make.
Just now reading Michael Hudson’s KILLING THE HOST. Settle down in a clean, well-lighted place and read it! He lays it all out in clear. And it is chilling. The Financial “Industry” (Ha!) is akin to a vast criminal enterprise. Primarily the FIRE sectors (Finance, Insurance & Real Estate). Its business plan is financial chicanery and fraud. It serves nobody but itself. It is a parasite ravenously devouring the wealth and assets of society and leaving behind a debt-bloated cadaver. Haven’t finished the book yet, but I suspect in the end we do not live happily ever after…
Perhaps the FIRE abbreviation does not really capture the full “killing the host” nature of the USA economy.
FIRE by itself ignores a good part of the government sponsored/influenced USA economy.
I suggest the abbreviation FIREMISC which also adds in the “Military-Industrial/Security-Complex”.
With the undisclosed budget of the CIA + NSA estimated at $52.6 billion and another $23 billion for military intelligence, the TSA budget at $41.2 billion and the military spending estimated at $619 billion in 2013, the USA is dropping some serious money into MISC,
If one simply divides this approximate total (735.8 billion) by $70K (salary + benefits for USA worker), we have about 10.5 million Americans directly employed in this industry.
This is a good fraction of the 125 million American workers in Aug 2016, with multiplier effects touching many of these.
The host is under assault from other than the FIRE sector.
You say: “The Financial “Industry” (Ha!) is akin to a vast criminal enterprise.” Therein lies the problem. it is not AKIN to a vast criminal enterprise, it IS one. Understanding that distinction would put us closer to a solution.
Years ago I told Barry Ritholz that dropping a neutron bomb on southern Manhattan would improve the world dramatically and reduce crime in the US by hundreds of billions of dollars (financial fraud, insider trading, market manipulation, money laundering and drug consumption). He claimed that there were just a few bad apples, something I completely dispute.
Having worked in a few investment banks, I can tell you that everyone knows what is going on from the secretaries to the CEO. The only reason GS and JPM are not shut down and all assets seized under RICO is that they pay huge bribes to our elected officials. Of course, we don’t call these things bribes.
The Mafia did much the same thing but their overt involvement in killing, prostitution, drugs and gambling made them less defensible to most people.
Well, Wall Street is a major consumer and financier of drugs and prostitution. What they do is gambling with an edge (i.e. insider trading). As for killing, I would bet my kidneys that Wall Street is responsible for many more (factor of 100) deaths than the Mob. Think of all the suicides, depressions, illnesses, deprivation, misery and wars that Wall Street has caused in the US and abroad.
Shut down the investment banks. See what happens. Nothing but a collapse in the real estate bubble and return to a normal economy. I would love nothing more than to here a GS trader ask me, “You want fries with that?”
185 percent of shoes are bought and sold every year.
Should be shares?
An excellent book on this very topic by John McMurtry, “The Cancer Stage of Capitalism” (1999) is available free online
http://www.jaunimieciai.lt/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/the-cancer-stage-of-capitalism.pdf