***Post is By Tony Wikrent***
About a decade ago, mostly back in 2006 and 2008, we used to write a lot about a North Carolina multimillionaire congressman named Robin Hayes. The district he represented, NC-08, is now mostly NC-09, the one where a Trumpist candidate was caught rigging the ballots last year, causing the election to be voided…. Hayes was a freak. One of the reasons he lost so badly to Kissel in 2008 was because he accused then candidate Barack Obama of “inciting class warfare” and claiming that “liberals hate real Americans that work and accomplish and achieve and believe in God.” That brought him a lot of attention and he not only denied that he ever said it, he also accused the media reporting his remarks “irresponsible journalism.” Unfortunately for Rep. Hayes, someone made a tape. When that was released Hayes simple denied that he denied the statement. Kissel beat him by ten points.
Instead of just letting him quietly slip away into obscurity, the North Carolina elected him chairman of the state party, a two year term. They elected him again in 2016. Today Hayes was in court, having been indicted by a federal grand jury on a variety of charges for funneling bribe money to the re-election campaign of North Carolina Insurance commissioner Mike Causey.
It was actually wealthy entrepreneur and Republican Party mega-donor Greg Lindberg who was being investigated when the FBI stumbled upon Hayes. Lindberg would write $40 checks to the DCCC on the same day he wrote $500,000 checks to the Republican Party of North Carolina. He’s contributed million of dollars to the GOP in recent years and was the state party’s biggest single donor and is the money-bags behind the state’s crooked Lt. Govenor, Dan Forest, who is running for governor next year.
Strategic Political Economy
Taibbi: On Russiagate and Our Refusal to Face Why Trump Won
This is long, for Taibbi, but an absolute must-read.
The 2016 campaign season brought to the surface awesome levels of political discontent. After the election, instead of wondering where that anger came from, most of the press quickly pivoted to a new tale about a Russian plot to attack our Democracy. This conveyed the impression that the election season we’d just lived through had been an aberration, thrown off the rails by an extraordinary espionage conspiracy between Trump and a cabal of evil foreigners.
This narrative contradicted everything I’d seen traveling across America in my two years of covering the campaign. The overwhelming theme of that race, long before anyone even thought about Russia, was voter rage at the entire political system.
The anger wasn’t just on the Republican side, where Trump humiliated the Republicans’ chosen $150 million contender, Jeb Bush (who got three delegates, or $50 million per delegate). It was also evident on the Democratic side, where a self-proclaimed “Democratic Socialist” with little money and close to no institutional support became a surprise contender.
The media doesn’t talk much about working-class America. But when it does, it mainly has one thing to say about it: that it’s entirely white, male, and very right-wing. All those things are lies….
Central to this story is the decline of labor reporting, once a mainstay of major dailies. Today, by contrast, as Martin puts it: “A conference gathering of labor/workforce beat reporters from the country’s leading newspapers could fit into a single booth at an Applebee’s.” Of the country’s top twenty-five newspapers, he notes, a majority no longer covers the workplace/labor beat on a full-time basis, and the landscape for such reporting appears to be even bleaker on television (one 2013 survey cited by Martin, for example, reveals that only 0.3 percent of network TV news in the years 2008, 2009, and 2011 covered labor issues).
Abigail Disney: What It’s Like to Grow Up With More Money Than You’ll Ever Spend
[The Cut, via The Big Picture 4-1-19]
In what ways did your dad change, other than having a jet?Actually, having a jet is a really big deal. If I were queen of the world, I would pass a law against private jets, because they enable you to get around a certain reality. You don’t have to go through an airport terminal, you don’t have to interact, you don’t have to be patient, you don’t have to be uncomfortable. These are the things that remind us we’re human….
How did the jet change your dad? It wasn’t just the plane, but it’s not a small thing when you don’t have to be patient or be around other people. It creates this notion that you’re a little bit better than they are. And for the past 40 years, everything in American culture has been reinforcing that belief. We say, “Job creators, entrepreneurs, these are the people who make America great.” So there are people walking around with substantial wealth who think that they have it because they’re better. It’s fundamental to remember that you’re just a member of the human race, like everybody else, and there’s nothing about your money that makes you better than anyone else. If you don’t know that and you have money, it’s the road to hell, no matter how much stuff you have around you….
They did a study at the Chronicle of Philanthropy years ago where they asked people who inherited money, “What amount of money would you need to feel totally secure?” And every single one of them, no matter what they had, named a number that was roughly twice what they inherited. So that’s what you need to know about money, right? If that is your primary measure of success or value in life, then good luck with that, because it will never feel good.
Thinking Beyond Monetary Policy and Banking Regulation to Manage the Next Economic Downturn [Roosevelt Institute, via Naked Capitalism 4-4-19]
Our corporate sector is broken. Corporations aren’t making productive investments or putting the more than $1 trillion of firm-level debt toward growth-inducing uses, such as research and development (R&D), capital investments, or better compensation for our workforce. Instead, they’re putting more and more funds, largely financed by debt, toward rewarding shareholders, which is reaching upwards of $2.9 trillion since 2012 through a combination of stock buybacks and takeovers of non-financial corporations….
… Irene Tung, from the National Employment Law Project (NELP), and I found that the restaurant industry spent more on payouts to shareholders, in the form of buybacks, than it made in profits—ultimately funding buybacks through debt and/or cash reserves. Buybacks actually totaled nearly 140 percent of net profits in the restaurant industry alone. “Leveraged buybacks”—the issuance of new corporate debt in order to fund stock buybacks—is more pervasive and contributes to the highly skewed economy we have today. McDonald’s, for example, could have paid each of its 1.9 million workers almost $4,000 more a year if the company redirected the money it spends on buybacks to workers’ paychecks instead….
Unless we fix our broken corporate sector—which means rectifying today’s high-profit, low-wage economy—banking regulation, securities laws, and monetary policy can only go so far. We need to think outside banking regulatory levers and instead implement solutions that encourage the kind of corporate behavior that prioritizes productive activities that grow the real economy—corporate behavior that supports higher wages, better jobs, and new business development, for example. To redirect our corporate sector to the productive, growth inducing activities we seek, we need to rein in corporate power by raising taxes on corporations, the financial sector, and capital; revamping our antitrust laws to break up concentrated and anticompetitive market power; and reforming the laws that govern corporate decision-making.
We also need policies to rebuild worker power. Workers are a key stakeholder within firms and across our economy at large, who play a critical role in generating corporate value. Bold policy solutions are necessary to rebalance economic power and ensure that workers—who are investing in companies with their own labor on a daily basis—have a voice in the firm and agency over their lives. This includes policies that give workers a say over how corporate boards are structured, including who sits on them. This also must include building countervailing power for workers by promoting workplace unionization, encouraging bargaining across industries, and protecting workers’ rights to engage in collective action—most notably, the right to strike.
The Stupid Idiot’s Guide to the Future of Uber and Lyft
[Splinter News 4-2-19]
….from a “business” perspective, it is fair to say that Lyft and Uber’s main function is to take money from the world’s savviest investors and use that money to offer everyone subsidized rides. Lyft lost nearly a billion dollars just last year, and Uber’s losses are even more staggering. And this is with the benefit of being able to exploit drivers by treating them as contractors rather than employees—something that could very well change one day, and which would raises costs considerably….
You do not need to be a financial genius to see that the only real path to profitability for Lyft and Uber is to raise prices so that rides actually bring in more money than they cost…. there are basically three possibilities, which we will list forthwith:
1) The Bad (For Uber and Lyft, Not Necessarily For Society) ScenarioAfter burning through literally tens of billions of dollars from venture capitalists and sovereign wealth funds and institutional investors and all the world’s smartest people, it finally becomes clear that these companies cannot reach profitability, because once they finally raise their prices high enough to allow them to make $$$, people are much less enthusiastic about calling a car….
2) The Medium ScenarioAfter putting the taxi industry out of business through clever and semi-dirty regulatory arbitrage, Lyft and Uber become, essentially, the taxi business all over again, as regulations and organized labor catch up to technology. This business is moderately profitable and stable but not really anything that would necessarily inspire all this, you know, hype. Congratulations, tech geniuses—you spent decades tearing down and then rebuilding the taxi business, arriving back where you began.
3) The Good For Uber and Lyft and Definitively Bad For Society ScenarioThe long-term plan of these companies succeeds: they destroy public transportation in America. Lured by cheap, subsidized rides, bus and subway ridership falls for years, leading governments to reduce and then more or less cease investment in new public transportation, which makes existing public transportation worse, creating a feedback loop that further incentivizes choosing Uber over the train. Once it becomes clear that public transportation has been crippled in major cities, ride-sharing companies can start raising their prices in peace, safe from competition. The companies will then at last become wildly profitable—by, in essence, extorting the public for transportation services that our dysfunctional government is not providing.
An excerpt from Joseph Dorfman’s The Economic Mind in American Civilization
….a wide and deep-ranging distinction between “business” and “industry” and a broad view of the nature of “institutions.”
Veblen discerned that the high command of the “institution” of modern capitalism was vested in the most powerful of financiers, who by controlling the flow of credit to important industries were able to manipulate them for their own ends… more directly concerned with the material contribution of society. In this high command was reflected most clearly and extremely the spirit of pure gain (monetary) or pecuniary profit, entirely abstracted from material efficiency or service.
On the other hand, the all-important “institution” making material progress was “technology,” the state of the industrial arts.
The industrial arts, in Veblen’s sense, were not only the arts proper but the habits, skills, transmission of skills, and the opportunity to develop and advance them. It was not physical capital or labor, let alone funds, which were to Veblen the great productive factor, but the cumulative growth of the technological habits of thought that comprised the machine process; without this intangible element physical instruments and labor would be of little use. Productivity was therefore an indivisible social phenomenon, not an individual one, a function of the given technology.