Category Archives: The destruction of the middle class

Illustrating How Infrastructure Deals Result in High Fees and Diminished Service

It isn’t hard to understand why infrastructure deals (the sale of government owned assets to private investors) are inherently a ripoff. We’ve had such a vogue for private contracting that a lot of services that are almost certainly more cheaply run by the government (e.g., logistical support for the military as proven by Iraq profiteering by Blackwater) that it’s a pretty safe assumption that most assets now held by government bodies are the the sort of thing that it makes sense for the government to own: high cost to build, long lived, not terribly complex to maintain assets.

Infrastructure investors like to see returns in the mid to upper teens. The deals are complicated to put together, so the fees are high. The deal needs to generate enough to pay the fees and generate the required returns. Since it is pretty much impossible to run something like a parking meters “smarter”, the usual course of action is a combination of increasing charges to the users (taxpayers who in the past used it for free or much less) and cut maintenance costs.

The Sydney-based investment bank Macquarie pioneered this business. Reader Crocodile Chuck pointed us to one of its latest capers. From the Sydney Morning Herald:

A New “Whocoulddanode” Defense, This Time of Coddling Banksters in the Crisis

I hate shooting the messenger even when he lets us know that he is a tad invested in the information he is conveying, but sometimes it is warranted. Floyd Norris now tells us that maybe it wasn’t such a good idea to have been so generous to the banks during the crisis. He cites the usual reasons: the recovery is shallow, the officialdom missed the opportunity created by the crisis to restructure the financial system, sparing bondholders created moral hazard, and we are now stuck with banks in the driver’s seat. His lament, as the headline accurately summarizes, is “Crisis Is Over, But Where’s The Fix?”

The problem is that his account is larded with a rationalization of the decisions made at the time to treat major financial firms with soft gloves:

At the time, rescuing seemed more important than reforming. The world economy was breaking down because of a lack of financing. Trade flows collapsed, and companies and individuals stopped spending. It seemed clear that halting the slide was critical…

A surprising citadel of that second-guessing is at the International Monetary Fund, where researchers this week concluded that the rescues “only treated the symptoms of the global financial meltdown.”

“Second guessing” is simply misleading.

Al Jazeera on Egypt’s Revolt Against Neoliberalism

An article by ‘Abu Atris’ on Al Jazeera (hat tip Richard Kline) confirms an argument made by Matt Stoller in recent post, namely, that the rebellion in Egypt is not merely political but economic, and specifically in opposition to neoliberal policies. This so-called “Washington Consensus” reached its apex of influence in the 1990s

The article focuses on the individuals and groups that profited handsomely during the implementation of “reforms” that syphoned money to the top of that society at the expense of the rest, and how the one beneficiary that remains in a position of influence, the military, might play its cards. In addition to providing a window in some of the dynamics at work in Egypt, it also provides a vivid description of the nature and destructive impact of a neoliberal economic program. It is not hard to see that America has already gone a long way down that dark path.

Matt Stoller: The Liquidation of Society versus the Global Labor Revival

By Matt Stoller, a fellow at the Roosevelt Institute. His Twitter feed is http://www.twitter.com/matthewstoller.

Today, the city of Providence, Rhode Island sent out layoff notices to every single teacher in the city. Every single one of them. If you want to understand why this is happening, why wages in the US keep getting cut, this chart tells the story.

That’s the number of strikes since 1947. What you’ll notice is that people in America just don’t strike anymore. Why? Well, their jobs have been shipped off to factory countries, their unions have been broken, and their salaries until recently have been supplemented by credit. It’s part of a giant labor arbitrage game, that the Federal Reserve and elites in both parties are happy to play. Strike, and you’re fired. Don’t strike, and your pay is probably going to be cut. Don’t like it? Sorry, we can open a plant abroad. And we have institutions, like the IMF, to make sure that we get goods from those factory-countries, and get them cheap.

Bill Fleckenstein and Dylan Ratigan Discuss Commodities and “Individually Smart, Collectively Stupid” Regulators

This is a particularly crisp and straightforward discussion between money manager Bill Fleckenstein and Dylan Ratigan about central bank actions and commodities inflation. Enjoy!

Consumer Stress Continues to Rise While DC Goes into “Mission Enough Accomplished” Mode

The officialdom has moved on to a new form of theater, namely legislative mud wrestling, which serves as a useful distraction from the failure to deliver on what ought to have been the first order of business, namely reining in the financiers. As we’ve said repeatedly, cleaning up the banking system is a necessary precursor for recovery from a serious financial crisis. Instead, whether by dumb luck or design, enough Americans have become fixated with various forms of jealousy over advantages they believe their neighbors have (whether accurate or not) that it is providing a great smokescreen for the oligarchs to continue their looting.

The fact that the economy has moved up up from a serious trough is hailed as a recovery. But to the vast majority of Americans, the talk of better times rings hollow. The top echelons are back to spending smartly, and Wall Street bonuses for 2009 and 2010 were lavish.

But even though spending economy-wide perked up in December, some question whether it was savings fatigue rather than a return of consumerism.

Why Liberals Are Lame

The chattering classes of the left are encouraged by the spectacle of 14 Wisconsin state senators having the intestinal fortitude to deny the governor a quorum for a budget vote that includes provisions to strip most state employees of virtually all of their collective bargaining rights. They were in turn emboldened by large scale demonstrations in the capitol, which seemed to get their momentum from the fact that students, rather than taking the day off when teachers called in sick so they could protest, turned out in large numbers to support them.

Don’t underestimate the ability of the Democrats to trade this opportunity away. All the defecting Senators are asking for is to slow down the process and negotiate the bill. Sounds reasonable, right?

As someone who been party to deal-making, the problem with being reasonable and measured is that that only works with fair-minded and/or experienced opponents. Being non-negotiable is not only terribly effective (you throw a tantrum and then make only token concessions to let the other side save a teeny bit of face), it also takes comparatively little in the way of bargaining skills.

The right wing, for the most part, has made being unreasonable and non-negotiable part of its branding. The left, peculiarly, has not adapted. And the result is that it too often winds up ceding way more ground than it needs to.

Many readers will point out that this ineffectiveness serves as useful protective cover, particularly with the Obama Administration. It has repeatedly sought to have its cake and eat it too, by appealing to as much as possible of the traditional Democratic base (which they figure they can abuse, since it has nowhere to go) while also playing up to corporate backers. The true state of play has reached the point that even purveyors of leading edge conventional wisdom like Jeffrey Sachs are now willing to say that we have two center-right parties in the US.

But this, while true, misses an underlying pathology.

Boeing’s Multi-Billion Outsourcing Fiasco

We’ve repeatedly said that offshoring and outsourcing are often not the big cost-savers that the industry promoting them, Wall Street, and the stenographers among the business press would have you believe.

Direct factory labor is typically just north of 10% of the cost of most manufactured goods; for cars, we are told it’s 13%. Even if you can extract meaningful savings there, you have significant offsets: the upfront cost of re-orgainzing production (which in the outsourcing scenario include hiring costly outsourcing “consultants” and paying attorneys to paper up the deals), higher ongoing managerial costs, higher shipping and related inventory financing costs. Yes, there are cases like Apple where outsourcing has been a big success, but there are also others where the benefits have been underwhelming and have come at considerable costs to US workers, communities, and the economy (see a very good long form discussion by Leo Hindery).

Moreover, these cost savings come with higher risk.

Mubarak’s Billions Beyond the Reach of Law

My mother is not so dumb. I’m visiting her today, and showed an economic analysis of the looting in Egypt by Gamal Mubarak and his cronies to her. The reaction:

That’s terrible. Those bloodsuckers. No wonder he didn’t want to leave. He wanted to make sure his money was safe first.

Turns out she was spot on. As I know by virtue of having read Nicholas Shaxson’s Treasure Islands (out in the UK, due to be published here in April) on tax havens, the world of “offshore” banking is vastly larger and more untouchable than most people realize. He describes in considerable detail about how buffers are built in so that funds become untraceable, and have further protections (as in if the authorities walk in to shut down a banking operation, the money can be moved through rapidly through several banking centers so it cannot be found, much the less seized).

And the de facto offshore banking protectorates of the US and the UK appear to be the state of the art. As George Monbiot observed:

James Galbraith: Deficit Hawks Down – The Misconstrued “Facts” Behind Their Hype

By James K. Galbraith, a Vice President of Americans for Democratic Action who teaches at the University of Texas at Austin. Cross posted from New Deal 2.0.

Economist James K. Galbraith goes behind the scenes at a Pete Peterson gathering of deficit hawks to see what they have to say.

The Fiscal Solutions Tour is the latest Peter G. Peterson Foundation effort to rouse the public against deficits and the national debt — and in particular (though they manage to avoid saying so) to win support for measures that would impose drastic cuts on Social Security and Medicare. It features Robert Bixby of the Concord Coalition, former Comptroller General David Walker and the veteran economist Alice Rivlin, whose recent distinctions include serving on the Bowles-Simpson commission. They came to Austin on February 9 and (partly because Rivlin is an old friend) I went.

Mr. Bixby began by describing the public debt as “the defining issue of our time.” It is, he said, a question of “how big a debt we can have and what can we afford?” He did not explain why this is so. He did not, for instance, attempt to compare the debt to the financial crisis, to joblessness or foreclosures, nor to energy or climate change. Oddly none of those issues were actually mentioned by anyone, all evening long.

UK About to Implement Massive Tax Break for Banks; Is the US Far Behind? (Updated)

The UK is about to implement a tax code change that amounts to a massive subsidy for large corporations, most of all big banks. The remarkable bit is that this is taking place when the UK is projected to fall short of its budget targets, at a time when the government professes to take that sort of thing seriously. Although we don’t hew to the logic of austerity in the wake of a financial crisis (the better course of action is to encourage debt renegotiations/writedowns, and offset the contractionary impact with fiscal stimulus), a big tax break is contrary to the official policy stance.

For those in the US who have steered clear of the budget drama on the other side of the pond, a story from from the Financial Times just over a week ago will give you a sense of the state of play:

George Osborne says he has little option but to push on with the harshest public spending cuts in living memory because a reversal would alarm the bond markets and plunge Britain into “financial turmoil”.

Guest Post: Leverage, Inequality, and Crises

By Michael Kumhof, Deputy Division Chief, Modeling Unit, Research Department, IMF and Romain Rancière, Associate Professor of Economics at Paris School of Economics. Cross posted from VoxEU

Of the many origins of the global crisis, one that has received comparatively little attention is income inequality. This column provides a theoretical framework for understanding the connection between inequality, leverage and financial crises. It shows how rising inequality in a climate of rising consumption can lead poorer households to increase their leverage, thereby making a crisis more likely.

The US has experienced two major economic crises during the last century – 1929 and 2008. There is an ongoing debate as to whether both crises share similar origins and features (Eichengreen and O’Rourke 2010). Reinhart and Rogoff (2009) provide and even broader comparison.

One issue that has not attracted much attention is the impact of inequality on the likelihood of crises. In recent work (Kumhof and Ranciere 2010) we focus on two remarkable similarities between the two pre-crisis eras. Both were characterised by a sharp increase in income inequality, and by a similarly sharp increase in household debt leverage. We also propose a theoretical explanation for the linkage between income inequality, high and growing debt leverage, financial fragility, and ultimately financial crises.