Fighting Corporate Abuse: Beyond Predatory Capitalism

People are angry about corporate abuses: tax avoidance, asset stripping, fat cat salaries and bonuses and much else. Corporate capitalism has lost its moral compass and its social values. It has plunged the world into recession and austerity and contributed to growing social inequality. The prevailing focus on shareholder value has placed short term profit ahead of constructive investment. The current structures of corporate law and practice are clearly in need of radical reform.

And yet the underlying principles of corporate law providing for external investment in enterprises which combine the labour of workers to produce goods and services are not inherently wrong. They have worked over the years to increase prosperity and living standards in many countries. What is needed is a realistic and pragmatic programme to eliminate abuses and promote fairer and more productive alternative corporate structures.

Fighting Corporate Abuse: Beyond Predatory Capitalism is the title of a new book (See which explains in detail how abuses have been carried out through complex corporate structures and how they can be controlled. It is written by the Corporate Reform Collective which was formed to highlight and promote essential reforms in corporate law and practice, as outlined in the Corporate Reform Manifesto.

The Manifesto calls on the major parties and pressure groups to commit to a set of action points in advance of the 2015 election, for the incoming British government to implement here in the UK and to press for in international bodies. Details are included on the separate Corporate Reform Manifesto page where supporters are invited to reply.

The Royal Mail Rip-off Continues

Estimates vary of the extent to which taxpayers were ripped off when the Royal Mail was privatised. Experts quote nice round figures like a billion pounds, or two and a half billion. Precision is impossible, but clearly the taxpayer’s loss was pretty enormous. It was a cock-up. Or maybe it was intended.

For three decades, UK governments have acted as liquidators of state assets. By raising cash, these disposals have enabled the administrators to continue in government till the next election, beyond which no politician needs, apparently, to concern themselves. It looks like pretty standard bankruptcy practice.
Read the rest of this entry »

Defending the System

What do Hillsborough, Lance Armstrong, Jimmy Saville, Lady Butler-Sloss and the Institute of Economic Affairs have in common?

The United Kingdom is a more or less congenial place to live. It is fairly tolerant, generally law abiding and by reasonably non-violent by today’s standards, with the expression of extreme views really not very welcome. UK is like its weather: far from perfect but relatively moderate. And yet! That very tolerance permits of exploitation, so long as it is not too explicit, overt and extreme. Such a system is surely worth conserving and defending.
Read the rest of this entry »

More Big Six energy rip-offs

The Big Six energy suppliers must be desperately worried. Dermot Nolan, boss of energy regulator Ofgem, is demanding that they explain to customers why they have not lowered gas and electricity prices following wholesale price reductions. They are quick enough to stick them up when wholesale prices rise; they must explain why they don’t cut them when wholesale prices fall. Not only that, but Ed Davey, energy secretary, says they need to ensure they pass on savings to customers as quickly as possible. The Big Six must be quaking in their boots. Or perhaps not!

They don’t pass price reductions on, for the very obvious reason that they don’t have to. Energy supply was privatised because of a simplistic and profoundly misinformed belief in the automatic efficiency and effectiveness of for-profit business and a complete lack of comprehension of what constitutes a competitive market.
Read the rest of this entry »

Who will defend the British interest?

Since this was first posted time ran out for Pfizer. However, the opportunistic justification for the acquisition will almost certainly remain, so they can be expected to return in six months or so time.

British manufacturing, science and R&D, is again subject to attack with Pfizer’s proposed takeover of AstraZeneca. The deal is reported as threatening 30,000 British jobs and a substantial part the UK economy’s manufacturing added value, as well as severely damaging British leadership in drug research and production. All this, with the dogmatic encouragement of the British government. David Cameron simply affirms the government’s neutrality over the deal, but expresses satisfaction with Pfizer’s promise not to act against British interests for the first five years after acquisition – a time scale beyond which he appears to have little interest. George Osborne’s pleasure with the deal is clear in that it demonstrates yet again the extent of his business ‘friendliness’. Only Vince Cable demurs, suggesting weakly that we’ll need to look at the detail.

At this point in time it is unclear who will defend British interests against such damaging takeover. The thirteen directors of AstraZeneca are the first line of defence. They are collectively responsible for the success of the company and will no doubt all have contractual agreements requiring them to act in the best interests of the company at all times and to declare any possible conflict of interest. However, their rejection of Pfizer’s improved GBP63bn bid was simply on the grounds that it substantially undervalued the business. That price hardly reflects the tax avoiding potential of the newly created combine, never mind AstraZeneca’s pipeline of experimental drugs and cancer treatments which is reported to be substantially superior to Pfizer’s, and the potential for stripping out and realising AstraZeneca’s assets, a talent which Pfizer has previously demonstrated.

So an improved offer can be expected shortly. How then will AstraZeneca’s directors respond if they believe they have achieved the best possible price?
Read the rest of this entry »

Taxation and Growth

The proposition that taxation stifles growth feels like it should be true. A business that is being heavily taxed won’t have as much to invest in its future growth. For the past forty years at least, the idea has been generally accepted, and successive governments have acted accordingly. However, at the macro level, the evidence suggests something quite different. There have been several studies of the long term effects of different levels of taxation. Data from the UK, the United States, Europe and OECD have all shown similar counter-intuitive correlations. The latest, an American Congressional Report, reviews American taxation and growth over the sixty years from 1950.

Between 1950 and 1970 the average top marginal income tax rate was just under 85% and annual GDP growth just shy of 4%. From 1971 to 1986 average top tax rate was 52% and GDP growth just under 3%. From 1987 to 2010 average top tax rate was 36.4% and GDP growth 2.85% [Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) and the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center.]
Read the rest of this entry »

Capitalism to the Rescue

There are an increasing number of live initiatives for making the capitalist system more sustainable and equitable. Improving environmental, social and governance performance would be steps in that direction. Transparency in terms of measuring and reporting progress would also be important. Including content on sustainability and equitable governance in the mandatory curriculum for all secondary, further and higher education students might start to change the general understanding of these critical issues. Creating an alternative system of ethically focused capital markets and enlightened financial institutions might challenge the financial sector to a more enlightened capitalism role.

These initiatives are all positive and worthwhile. But if the generally held core belief persists, that a successful economy depends on people all seeking to maximise their own material self-interest, such innovations will remain niche, if they remain at all. Their impact could be both limited and short-lived.
Read the rest of this entry »

The Real Worth of Co-operation

When all the dust has settled, it will be seen that the Co-operative Bank fiasco will have only added strength to co-operative governance and the co-operative ideal.

The origins of the co-operative movement go back to the industrial revolution and Robert Owen’s mill village at New Lanark. It was common practice then for mill owners to pay employees in funny money which was only exchangeable at the company shop where prices were fixed for the benefit of the owner. Owen’s employees at New Lanark were paid in real money and the company shop sold goods to employees at their cost price. That was the forerunner of the 1844 Rochdale Pioneers, the basic idea being to offer an alternative to being fleeced by the mill owners.

Since then we seem to have come full circle. The Duke of York has just hosted JPMorgan and clients for dinner and entertainments at Buckingham Palace. That is only days after Morgan’s agreed settlement of their $13bn fine for the fraud and criminality, now customary in the banking world, which caused the current crisis. Morgan’s CEO Jamie Dimon and colleagues may be under criminal investigation, but the Duke of York is clearly advised that these are only formalities and won’t lead anywhere. Morgan’s settlements, now totalling around $19bn, as with the other banks’ fines, are simply the fees that have to be paid for participation in fleecing the general population
Read the rest of this entry »

The Next Crash and the Greens

The Chancellor of the Exchequer is generally pictured as commander of the economy, driving it through a dangerous jungle at the edge of Armageddon, threatened by mortal danger on all sides. Whether he is conceived of as a hugely intelligent and skilful driver, or an ill-informed purveyor of omnishambolic damage, is a matter of political opinion. The fundamental error is in the estimation of his power to control the economy. What makes economies robust is not the wisdom of chancellors, but the industry of people, their creativity, their desire for progress and their need to eat. Their co-operative inputs to the many enterprises, private and public, which make up the economy, are what drives it forward.

At most, the Chancellor’s power extends to steering round relatively gentle corners and having some slight influence over speed in order to achieve some counter to the effects of the terrain it has to cover. More decisive action is almost invariably based on false assumption and riven with unforeseen consequences. The effectiveness of the Chancellor’s limited powers depends on the ability to see dangers far ahead and to make adjustments accordingly. But the economic ideology which drives this coalition government is a particular handicap to achieving such foresight. As Chicago Nobel laureate Professor Robert Lucas, devout Friedmanite and star of neoclassical orthodoxy, told the Queen, the best economic theory can do is predict that such events as the 2007-8 crash are unpredictable.
Read the rest of this entry »

Why the ‘big six’ energy suppliers are “ripping off” consumers

David Cameron has recently claimed to know a thing or two about economics. So why is he surprised the privately owned ‘big six’ energy providers appear, as Ed Milliband put it, to be “ripping off” consumers? It’s not that they are particularly evil, unethical or exploitative, but that they are dominated by the same economic ideology which led the Thatcher government to privatise gas and electricity in the first place and which Cameron claims to understand. And that same ideology dictates that it is the legal duty of those private companies to maximise shareholder wealth. Such maximisation necessarily involves them in taking decisions which result in the disadvantage of parties other than shareholders, including, as far as they feel is judicious, their customers. So why is Cameron ‘disappointed’?

It is the ideology of Milton Friedman, simplistic populariser of the neoliberal belief. A cornerstone of the ideology is Friedman’s “empirical generalisation that it costs the state twice as much to do anything as it costs private enterprise, whatever it is.” The message was often stated. That particular quote is from a lecture Friedman gave to the Institute of Economic Affairs, free market think tank lobbyists, much loved by Margaret Thatcher, some 18 months after she had become leader of the Conservatives. The only supporting evidence offered by Friedman was that his son had pointed it out to him. If it turned out not to be true the basic justification for privatisation would be shown as quite spurious.
Read the rest of this entry »