The general purpose of all business should be to innovate and grow, developing technologies, employees and products, delivering value to customers and shareholders as well as for the common good (which includes for future generations living on this planet), through their operations in competitive markets. This is a worthwhile aim from which the economy as a whole and the general population should benefit. That is the arguable aim of ‘light touch regulation’. It is ‘light’ so as to avoid the bureaucratic strangulation of competition and the benefits that flow from it.
But there is a huge flaw in this reasoning. The basic assumption is that unregulated markets are competitive. But the reality is somewhat different. While most markets are competitive when they first emerge, as they mature, the most successful players achieve greater market shares and in due course become dominant. Such markets are not at all competitive, but are in effect controlled by monopolistically empowered leviathans. Continue reading The Importance of Competitive Markets
The TTIP is a series of trade negotiations, being carried out mostly in secret, between the EU and US apparatchiks, acting for Trans-National Corporations (TNCs), intended to reduce the regulatory barriers to trade on big business. The powers being negotiated include the sovereign powers of individual nations which might be used to protect entities involved in such as the provision of education and health.
Six widely expressed objections are:
1. It threatens privatisation of the NHS
2. It will impose laxer US food regulations on the EU, eg allowing GM foods in EU
3. It will impose London’s lax banking regulation on the rest
4. It threatens to reduce personal data privacy (eg Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement – ACTA being brought back by the back door having been democratically rejected in EU)
5. It will cause job losses as lower US labour standards and trade union rights applied in EU
6. It is anti-democratic – the Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) arrangements, which are part of TTIP, will enable TNCs to sue governments if their policies cause loss of profits.
With TTIP being negotiated in secret, people do not have the opportunity to debate and vote. Once implemented, it will be extremely difficult to undo.
But it is much worse than that.
Continue reading Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership Revisited
The Friedmanite Neoclassical Economic Belief System (FNEBS) now dominates the developed and developing world. It is taught across the globe in business schools and universities. It is the orthodox wisdom among the Self-Perpetuating Industrial, Financial, Media, Academic and Political Establishment (SPIFMAPE).
The SPIFMAPE is the shadowy presence in our economy which has the real power and resources to ensure its continued dominance. It includes those Industrialists corrupted by the pursuit of wealth, Financiers who pay the £billions of fraud fines as the necessary entry fee, the Media controllers who shape the news to their advantage, Academics who accept ‘research’ income for conformist enquiry and teaching, and those Politicians nurtured within the SPIFMAPE, warmly accepting the FNEBS, otherwise referred to as in the ‘Westminster bubble’.
Those who know the FNEBS appear to really believe in it; and those who don’t know it, accept it as a truth. However, J K Galbraith identified such matters as ‘institutional truths’: that is not a truth at all, but a downright lie that people must buy into if their careers are to progress within their chosen institution.
Continue reading TTIP – Plutocratic Victory
In this election campaign, much is being made of whether or not the main UK Parties are business friendly. The fire sale of British owned assets, euphemistically nominated as foreign direct investment, is held to indicate that the UK is ‘open for business’. Over the past 35 years, company after company and industry after industry has been sold off to foreign ownership. The same has been achieved with the sell-off of public assets, the latest example being Eurostar, and public services and utilities which have been privatised and in the majority of cases sold to foreign owned entities.
It all has nothing to do with being ‘open for business’. The political motivation is to achieve a short term (ie relating to the next election) economic gain, completely ignoring the long term costs. The short term stats appear to be all that matters, so they can be quoted ad nauseam in media interviews.
Being seen as business friendly is clearly conceived as being worth either a lot of votes or a lot of money. So Parties shrink from confronting or challenging in any way what they conceive of as “business”. They appear ‘intensely relaxed’ about business people getting ‘filthy rich’. They seem tolerant of tax fraud on a massive scale. They shrink from regulation of markets. They are in awe of the financial sector. They talk about support for the SME sector, but do little. It seems they simply do not understand what business is about. Why should they? They’ve none of them been near it except for photo-opportunities.
Continue reading UK ‘Open for Business’
When Ebay announced its intention last week to sell off PayPal, it was giving into the so called ‘activist investor’, Carl Icahn, who had been calling for the deal for months. The Financial Times reported Icahn’s victory statement calling “for PayPal to look to consolidate the payments industry further, either through acquisitions or a merger, to fight off competition from newcomers.” That such an individual should so openly declare war on competition, with total impunity, surely means the establishment has won.
In the not too distant past such anti-competitive moves were illegal. They were recognised as against the public interest and were prevented in the UK by bodies such as the Office of Fair Trading and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. Moreover, where such anti-competitive corporations had been established, they could be dismantled, and were, notably in the United States. Competition was recognised as the spur to innovation and improvement, which was for the common good. That lesson had been learned from the 1929 Wall Street crash and subsequent great recession.
Continue reading The Final Victory of the Establishment?
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.
Continue reading More Big Six energy rip- offs
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.
Continue reading Who will defend the British interest?