"Only dull people are brilliant at breakfast"
-Oscar Wilde
Brilliant at Breakfast title banner "The liberal soul shall be made fat, and he that watereth, shall be watered also himself."
-- Proverbs 11:25
"...you have a choice: be a fighting liberal or sit quietly. I know what I am, what are you?" -- Steve Gilliard, 1964 - 2007

"For straight up monster-stomping goodness, nothing makes smoke shoot out my ears like Brilliant@Breakfast" -- Tata

"...the best bleacher bum since Pete Axthelm" -- Randy K.

"I came here to chew bubblegum and kick ass. And I'm all out of bubblegum." -- "Rowdy" Roddy Piper (1954-2015), They Live
Monday, April 30, 2007

Remember "What's good for General Motors is what's good for the country"?
Posted by Jill | 5:50 AM
In 1952, Charles Wilson, the head of General Motors and later Dwight D. Eisenhower's Secretary of Defense, uttered the famous quote "What is good for the country is good for General Motors, and what's good for General Motors is good for the country." This quote inspired cartoonist Al Capp to create General Bullmoose, a parody of the ruthless character. One of Bullmoose's favorite quotes is, fittingly for the Bush years, "Don't do anything crooked unless it's legal."

Ever since working Americans decided to buy the promise of supply-side economics without stopping to consider the metaphorical implications of a policy known as "trickle down", they have been waiting for the largesse given to corporate executives to result in higher compensation for them. Instead, no matter how much the fear of outsourcing and downsizing has spurred Americans to be more productive, that productivity never seems to retult in more jobs and more wages.


Last fall Edward Lazear, the Bush administration’s top economist, explained that what’s good for corporations is good for America. “Profits,” he declared, “provide the incentive for physical capital investment, and physical capital growth contributes to productivity growth. Thus profits are important not only for investors but also for the workers who benefit from the growth in productivity.”


Unfortunately, these days none of what Mr. Lazear said seems to be true. In the Bush years high profits haven’t led to high investment, and rising productivity hasn’t led to rising wages.

The second of those two disconnects has gotten a lot of attention because of its political consequences. The administration and its allies whine that they aren’t getting credit for a great economy, but because wages have been stagnant — the median worker’s earnings, adjusted for inflation, haven’t gone up at all since the current economic expansion began in 2001 — the economy feels anything but great to most Americans.

Less attention, however, has been given to the first disconnect: the failure of high profits to produce an investment boom.

Since President Bush took office, the combination of rising productivity and stagnant wages — workers are producing more, but they aren’t getting paid more — has led to a veritable profit gusher, with corporate profits more than doubling since 2000. Last year, profits as a share of national income were at the highest level ever recorded.

You might have expected this gusher of profits, which surely owes something to the Bush administration’s pro-corporate, anti-labor tilt, to produce a corresponding gusher of business investment. But the reality has been more of a trickle. Nonresidential investment — that is, investment other than housing construction — has grown very slowly by historical standards. As a share of G.D.P., nonresidential investment remains far below its levels of the late 1990s, and it has been declining for the last two quarters.

Why aren’t corporations investing, and what does the lack of business investment mean for the economy?

It’s possible that sluggish business investment reflects lack of confidence in the economic outlook — a lack of confidence that’s understandable given the bursting of the housing bubble, which has already caused G.D.P. growth to slow to a crawl.

But as Floyd Norris recently reported in The Times, there is a more disturbing possibility. Instead of investing in physical capital, many companies are using profits to buy back their own stock. And cynics suggest that the purpose of these buybacks is to produce a temporary rise in stock prices that increases the value of executives’ stock options, even if it’s against the long-term interests of investors.

It’s not a far-fetched idea. Researchers at the Federal Reserve have found evidence that company decisions about stock buybacks are strongly influenced by “agency conflicts,” a genteel term for self-dealing by corporate insiders. In the 1990s that kind of self-dealing often led to excessive investment, which at least left a tangible legacy behind. But today the self-interest of management may be standing in the way of productive investment.

Whatever the reasons, we now have an economy with incredibly high profits and surprisingly low investment. This raises some immediate, short-run concerns: with housing still in free fall and consumers ever more stretched, optimistic projections for the economy depend on vigorous growth in business investment. And that doesn’t seem to be happening.


In any case, next time someone tells you that any action that might reduce corporate profits a bit — like actually enforcing health and safety regulations or making it easier for workers to organize — will reduce business investment, bear in mind that today’s record profits aren’t being invested. Instead, they’re being used to enrich executives and a few lucky stock owners.

And this will not change as long as Americans continue to allow Republicans to point at illegal immigrants, saying "Look over there!" -- DOWN the economic ladder, instead of at the corporate fatcat -- the General Bullmoose -- picking their pockets from above. This will not change as long as Americans continue to believe the discredited promises of whatever variation of supply-side economics that's fashionable today. And this will not change as long as Americans continue to elect representatives from both parties who do the corporations' bidding instead of that of the voters.

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
Anonymous steve meyer said...
As long as corporations can coerce politicians, we're in trouble. The underlying problem is one of individual ethics. If politicians do not act ethically to represent "the people" than the business of government becomes promotion of the individual politician's interests. If business cannot get anything done without the consent of government, of business is led by unethical people like Enron's management, then the systematic corruption we see will continue and voters are not likely to get back in control of our country.