US News: Martin Wolf: why rentier capitalism is damaging liberal democracy - PressFrom - United Kingdom
  •   
  •   

US NewsMartin Wolf: why rentier capitalism is damaging liberal democracy

15:50  18 september  2019
15:50  18 september  2019 Source:   ft.com

Micheál Martin rules out election this year and says 'national interest' must come first

Micheál Martin rules out election this year and says 'national interest' must come first Micheál Martin rules out election this year and says 'national interest' must come first

Brexit policy shows the Liberal Democrats are not serious about power. So why is the economy not delivering? The answer lies, in large part, with the rise of rentier capitalism . In this case “rent” means rewards over and above those required to induce the desired supply of goods, services, land or labour.

Democracy and capitalism share the assumption that people are entitled to exercise agency. Humans must be viewed as agents, not just as This is why the richest countries are liberal democracies with, more or less, capitalist economies. Widely shared increases in real incomes played a vital part

Martin Wolf: why rentier capitalism is damaging liberal democracy © Getty/FT Editor’s note: The opinions in this article are the author’s, as published by our content partner, and do not represent the views of MSN or Microsoft.

“While each of our individual companies serves its own corporate purpose, we share a fundamental commitment to all of our stakeholders.”

With this sentence, the US Business Roundtable, which represents the chief executives of 181 of the world’s largest companies, abandoned their longstanding view that “corporations exist principally to serve their shareholders”.

This is certainly a moment. But what does — and should — that moment mean? The answer needs to start with acknowledgment of the fact that something has gone very wrong. Over the past four decades, and especially in the US, the most important country of all, we have observed an unholy trinity of slowing productivity growth, soaring inequality and huge financial shocks.

'Fianna Fáil is out of shape soccer team that doesn't understand women' - party election candidate

'Fianna Fáil is out of shape soccer team that doesn't understand women' - party election candidate 'Fianna Fáil is out of shape soccer team that doesn't understand women' - party election candidate

Liberal ideologues oppose liberalism to socialism and conclude that only liberalism is consistent with democracy . Actually, in the first three-quarters of the Capitalism is liberal when it is coordinated almost exclusively by the market; it is developmental when it combines state and market coordination.

Martin Wolf . “For much of human history, war was seen as the natural relationship between societies.” Humanity is tribal. We are social and cultural animals. Yuval Harari, the Israeli thinker, has recently argued that : “For all the disillusionment with liberal democracy and free markets, nobody has yet

As Jason Furman of Harvard University and Peter Orszag of Lazard Frères noted in a paper last year: “From 1948 to 1973, real median family income in the US rose 3 per cent annually. At this rate . . . there was a 96 per cent chance that a child would have a higher income than his or her parents. Since 1973, the median family has seen its real income grow only 0.4 per cent annually . . . As a result, 28 per cent of children have lower income than their parents did.”

Martin Wolf: why rentier capitalism is damaging liberal democracy © FT Click to enlarge

So why is the economy not delivering? The answer lies, in large part, with the rise of rentier capitalism. In this case “rent” means rewards over and above those required to induce the desired supply of goods, services, land or labour. “Rentier capitalism” means an economy in which market and political power allows privileged individuals and businesses to extract a great deal of such rent from everybody else.

John Bercow Issues Fresh Brexit Warning To Boris Johnson While Hitting US Speaking Circuit

John Bercow Issues Fresh Brexit Warning To Boris Johnson While Hitting US Speaking Circuit John Bercow has issued a defiant warning to Boris Johnson over any attempt to ride roughshod over parliament to deliver Brexit, telling an audience in New York that MPs “cannot be rejected from the centre stage”. The Speaker of the House of Commons told students at the American city’s university that “no course on earth” to break the deadlock over leaving the European Union could ignore parliament. Bercow has announced that he will stand down as speaker at the end of next month. In recent months he has also come under fire for a series of controversial rulings in the chamber which were widely considered to favour Remain supporters.

“ Those of us who wish to preserve both liberal democracy and global capitalism must confront Above all, it would undermine democracy , replacing the judgments of democratic governments with Wolf ― who authored the 2004 book Why Globalization Works ― now appears to be cautiously

Democracy and capitalism share the assumption that people are entitled to exercise agency. Humans must be viewed as agents, not just as objects of other This is why the richest countries are liberal democracies with, more or less, capitalist economies. Widely shared increases in real incomes

That does not explain every disappointment. As Robert Gordon, professor of social sciences at Northwestern University, argues, fundamental innovation slowed after the mid-20th century. Technology has also created greater reliance on graduates and raised their relative wages, explaining part of the rise of inequality. But the share of the top 1 per cent of US earners in pre-tax income jumped from 11 per cent in 1980 to 20 per cent in 2014. This was not mainly the result of such skill-biased technological change.

If one listens to the political debates in many countries, notably the US and UK, one would conclude that the disappointment is mainly the fault of imports from China or low-wage immigrants, or both. Foreigners are ideal scapegoats. But the notion that rising inequality and slow productivity growth are due to foreigners is simply false.

Martin Wolf: why rentier capitalism is damaging liberal democracy © Getty An Amazon warehouse. The platform giants are the dominant examples of monopoly rentiers

Every western high-income country trades more with emerging and developing countries today than it did four decades ago. Yet increases in inequality have varied substantially. The outcome depended on how the institutions of the market economy behaved and on domestic policy choices.

The Lib Dem Article 50 gamble is so radical it might just work

The Lib Dem Article 50 gamble is so radical it might just work It is certainly ballsy. It has filled the newspaper pages and the airwaves. It has generated controversy. I’m talking about [] The post The Lib Dem Article 50 gamble is so radical it might just work appeared first on CityAM.

Democracy is local; capitalism is essentially global. Democratic politics is founded on the equality of citizens; capitalism cares little about the distribution The tensions between national democracy and global capitalism can be ruinous, as the 1930s proved. Yet history also shows that the two systems

Liberal democracies have run into difficulties, notably over their ability to absorb immigrants and manage inequality. Liberal societies do need shared Liberalism may be much the most successful approach. But in many liberal democracies people, especially elites, have forgotten the balance that

Related: Facts you probably didn't know about Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos (Photos)

Martin Wolf: why rentier capitalism is damaging liberal democracy
Martin Wolf: why rentier capitalism is damaging liberal democracy
Martin Wolf: why rentier capitalism is damaging liberal democracy
Martin Wolf: why rentier capitalism is damaging liberal democracy
Martin Wolf: why rentier capitalism is damaging liberal democracy
Martin Wolf: why rentier capitalism is damaging liberal democracy
Martin Wolf: why rentier capitalism is damaging liberal democracy
Martin Wolf: why rentier capitalism is damaging liberal democracy
Martin Wolf: why rentier capitalism is damaging liberal democracy
Martin Wolf: why rentier capitalism is damaging liberal democracy
Martin Wolf: why rentier capitalism is damaging liberal democracy
Martin Wolf: why rentier capitalism is damaging liberal democracy
Martin Wolf: why rentier capitalism is damaging liberal democracy
Martin Wolf: why rentier capitalism is damaging liberal democracy
Martin Wolf: why rentier capitalism is damaging liberal democracy
Martin Wolf: why rentier capitalism is damaging liberal democracy
Martin Wolf: why rentier capitalism is damaging liberal democracy
Martin Wolf: why rentier capitalism is damaging liberal democracy
Martin Wolf: why rentier capitalism is damaging liberal democracy
Martin Wolf: why rentier capitalism is damaging liberal democracy
Martin Wolf: why rentier capitalism is damaging liberal democracy
Martin Wolf: why rentier capitalism is damaging liberal democracy
Martin Wolf: why rentier capitalism is damaging liberal democracy
Martin Wolf: why rentier capitalism is damaging liberal democracy
Martin Wolf: why rentier capitalism is damaging liberal democracy
Martin Wolf: why rentier capitalism is damaging liberal democracy

Harvard economist Elhanan Helpman ends his overview of a huge academic literature on the topic with the conclusion that “globalisation in the form of foreign trade and offshoring has not been a large contributor to rising inequality. Multiple studies of different events around the world point to this conclusion.”

The shift in the location of much manufacturing, principally to China, may have lowered investment in high-income economies a little. But this effect cannot have been powerful enough to reduce productivity growth significantly. To the contrary, the shift in the global division of labour induced high-income economies to specialise in skill-intensive sectors, where there was more potential for fast productivity growth.

Donald Trump, a naive mercantilist, focuses, instead, on bilateral trade imbalances as a cause of job losses. These deficits reflect bad trade deals, the American president insists. It is true that the US has overall trade deficits, while the EU has surpluses. But their trade policies are quite similar. Trade policies do not explain bilateral balances. Bilateral balances, in turn, do not explain overall balances. The latter are macroeconomic phenomena. Both theory and evidence concur on this.

Martin Wolf: why rentier capitalism is damaging liberal democracy © FT Click to enlarge

The economic impact of immigration has also been small, however big the political and cultural “shock of the foreigner” may be. Research strongly suggests that the effect of immigration on the real earnings of the native population and on receiving countries’ fiscal position has been small and frequently positive.

Far more productive than this politically rewarding, but mistaken, focus on the damage done by trade and migration is an examination of contemporary rentier capitalism itself.

Finance plays a key role, with several dimensions. Liberalised finance tends to metastasise, like a cancer. Thus, the financial sector’s ability to create credit and money finances its own activities, incomes and (often illusory) profits.

A 2015 study by Stephen Cecchetti and Enisse Kharroubi for the Bank for International Settlements said “the level of financial development is good only up to a point, after which it becomes a drag on growth, and that a fast-growing financial sector is detrimental to aggregate productivity growth”. When the financial sector grows quickly, they argue, it hires talented people. These then lend against property, because it generates collateral. This is a diversion of talented human resources in unproductive, useless directions.

Again, excessive growth of credit almost always leads to crises, as Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff showed in This Time is Different . This is why no modern government dares let the supposedly market-driven financial sector operate unaided and unguided. But that in turn creates huge opportunities to gain from irresponsibility: heads, they win; tails, the rest of us lose. Further crises are guaranteed.

Finance also creates rising inequality. Thomas Philippon of the Stern School of Business and Ariell Reshef of the Paris School of Economics showed that the relative earnings of finance professionals exploded upwards in the 1980s with the deregulation of finance. They estimated that “rents” — earnings over and above those needed to attract people into the industry — accounted for 30-50 per cent of the pay differential between finance professionals and the rest of the private sector.

Martin Wolf: why rentier capitalism is damaging liberal democracy © Getty US president Donald Trump, a naive mercantilist, focuses on bilateral trade imbalances as a cause of job losses

This explosion of financial activity since 1980 has not raised the growth of productivity. If anything, it has lowered it, especially since the crisis. The same is true of the explosion in pay of corporate management, yet another form of rent extraction. As Deborah Hargreaves, founder of the High Pay Centre, notes, in the UK the ratio of average chief executive pay to that of average workers rose from 48 to one in 1998 to 129 to one in 2016. In the US, the same ratio rose from 42 to one in 1980 to 347 to one in 2017.

Martin Wolf: why rentier capitalism is damaging liberal democracy © FT Click to enlarge

As the US essayist HL Mencken wrote: “For every complex problem, there is an answer that is clear, simple and wrong.” Pay linked to the share price gave management a huge incentive to raise that price, by manipulating earnings or borrowing money to buy the shares. Neither adds value to the company. But they can add a great deal of wealth to management. A related problem with governance is conflicts of interest, notably over independence of auditors.

In sum, personal financial considerations permeate corporate decision-making. As the independent economist Andrew Smithers argues in Productivity and the Bonus Culture, this comes at the expense of corporate investment and so of long-run productivity growth.

A possibly still more fundamental issue is the decline of competition. Mr Furman and Mr Orszag say there is evidence of increased market concentration in the US, a lower rate of entry of new firms and a lower share of young firms in the economy compared with three or four decades ago. Work by the OECD and Oxford Martin School also notes widening gaps in productivity and profit mark-ups between the leading businesses and the rest. This suggests weakening competition and rising monopoly rent. Moreover, a great deal of the increase in inequality arises from radically different rewards for workers with similar skills in different firms: this, too, is a form of rent extraction.

Related: Surprising levels of poverty in the world's richest nations (Lovemoney)

Martin Wolf: why rentier capitalism is damaging liberal democracy

A part of the explanation for weaker competition is “winner-takes-almost-all” markets: superstar individuals and their companies earn monopoly rents, because they can now serve global markets so cheaply. The network externalities — benefits of using a network that others are using — and zero marginal costs of platform monopolies (Facebook, Google, Amazon, Alibaba and Tencent) are the dominant examples.

Another such natural force is the network externalities of agglomerations, stressed by Paul Collier in The Future of Capitalism. Successful metropolitan areas — London, New York, the Bay Area in California — generate powerful feedback loops, attracting and rewarding talented people. This disadvantages businesses and people trapped in left-behind towns. Agglomerations, too, create rents, not just in property prices, but also in earnings.

Yet monopoly rent is not just the product of such natural — albeit worrying — economic forces. It is also the result of policy. In the US, Yale University law professor Robert Bork argued in the 1970s that “consumer welfare” should be the sole objective of antitrust policy. As with shareholder value maximisation, this oversimplified highly complex issues. In this case, it led to complacency about monopoly power, provided prices stayed low. Yet tall trees deprive saplings of the light they need to grow. So, too, may giant companies.

Martin Wolf: why rentier capitalism is damaging liberal democracy © FT Click to enlarge

Some might argue, complacently, that the “monopoly rent” we now see in leading economies is largely a sign of the “creative destruction” lauded by the Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter. In fact, we are not seeing enough creation, destruction or productivity growth to support that view convincingly.

A disreputable aspect of rent-seeking is radical tax avoidance. Corporations (and so also shareholders) benefit from the public goods — security, legal systems, infrastructure, educated workforces and sociopolitical stability — provided by the world’s most powerful liberal democracies. Yet they are also in a perfect position to exploit tax loopholes, especially those companies whose location of production or innovation is difficult to determine.

The biggest challenges within the corporate tax system are tax competition and base erosion and profit shifting. We see the former in falling tax rates. We see the latter in the location of intellectual property in tax havens, in charging tax-deductible debt against profits accruing in higher-tax jurisdictions and in rigging transfer prices within firms.

A 2015 study by the IMF calculated that base erosion and profit shifting reduced long-run annual revenue in OECD countries by about $450bn (1 per cent of gross domestic product) and in non-OECD countries by slightly over $200bn (1.3 per cent of GDP). These are significant figures in the context of a tax that raised an average of only 2.9 per cent of GDP in 2016 in OECD countries and just 2 per cent in the US.

Brad Setser of the Council on Foreign Relations shows that US corporations report seven times as much profit in small tax havens (Bermuda, the British Caribbean, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Singapore and Switzerland) as in six big economies (China, France, Germany, India, Italy and Japan). This is ludicrous. The tax reform under Mr Trump changed essentially nothing. Needless to say, not only US corporations benefit from such loopholes.

In such cases, rents are not merely being exploited. They are being created, through lobbying for distorting and unfair tax loopholes and against needed regulation of mergers, anti-competitive practices, financial misbehaviour, the environment and labour markets. Corporate lobbying overwhelms the interests of ordinary citizens. Indeed, some studies suggest that the wishes of ordinary people count for next to nothing in policymaking.

Not least, as some western economies have become more Latin American in their distribution of incomes, their politics have also become more Latin American. Some of the new populists are considering radical, but necessary, changes in competition, regulatory and tax policies. But others rely on xenophobic dog whistles while continuing to promote a capitalism rigged to favour a small elite. Such activities could well end up with the death of liberal democracy itself.

Members of the Business Roundtable and their peers have tough questions to ask themselves. They are right: seeking to maximise shareholder value has proved a doubtful guide to managing corporations. But that realisation is the beginning, not the end. They need to ask themselves what this understanding means for how they set their own pay and how they exploit — indeed actively create — tax and regulatory loopholes.

They must, not least, consider their activities in the public arena. What are they doing to ensure better laws governing the structure of the corporation, a fair and effective tax system, a safety net for those afflicted by economic forces beyond their control, a healthy local and global environment and a democracy responsive to the wishes of a broad majority?

We need a dynamic capitalist economy that gives everybody a justified belief that they can share in the benefits. What we increasingly seem to have instead is an unstable rentier capitalism, weakened competition, feeble productivity growth, high inequality and, not coincidentally, an increasingly degraded democracy. Fixing this is a challenge for us all, but especially for those who run the world’s most important businesses. The way our economic and political systems work must change, or they will perish.

Disinformation efforts now used in 70 countries: researchers .
Organized efforts to manipulate social media and public opinion are being carried out in at least 70 countries by government agencies and political parties, researchers said Thursday. "In each country, there is at least one political party or government agency using social media to shape public attitudes domestically," the report said.A report by the Oxford Internet Institute found manipulation efforts have doubled over the past two years and are being used by both democratic and authoritarian governments.

—   Share news in the SOC. Networks
usr: 24
This is interesting!