Impending disaster in Greece

Paul Krugman analyzes the debacle in Greece. Although Greeks voted barely a week ago to reject the bailout terms offered by the EU, which called for uninterrupted austerity, Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras proposed to the EU to accept almost all of the terms if there was some true financial relief. Instead, what the European Union, spurred by Germany, proposed today demanded all of the pain, and none of the gain that Tsipras sought. Indeed, Germany has essentially demanded regime change in Greece, even though Tsipras only came to office in January. As Krugman says, "It is, presumably, meant to be an offer Greece can’t accept."

The Germans, it would appear, have decided to push Greece from the eurozone. But demanding an end to Greek sovereignty and austerity as far as the eye can see is simply evil. Moreover, it negates the long-successful stand of European Central Bank (ECB) president Mario Draghi that the ECB would do "whatever it takes" to keep the eurozone intact. The ECB's reputation would be damaged greatly should crisis recur in Spain, Portugal, Ireland, etc., now that the world knows the ECB will not do "whatever it takes." This is a recipe for a new recession in Europe spreading from the EU periphery. The German demands are particularly "grotesque," as Krugman says, when you consider that Greece has already endured 25+% unemployment for three years (see chart). This is an unemployment rate that the United States never saw even at the height of the Great Depression in 1933, when it peaked at 24.9%.
source: tradingeconomics.com

However, I believe Krugman's argument actually overlooks an important point. He writes:

But still, let’s be clear: what we’ve learned these past couple of weeks is that being a member of the eurozone means that the creditors can destroy your economy if you step out of line.

His point is that eurozone membership has removed Greece's ability to exercise monetary policy autonomy and respond to its specific conditions, including via currency devaluation. Indeed, there can be no doubt that monetary union was flawed from the start. But Krugman overestimates the ability of devaluation to fix an economic crisis. At the same time, he underestimates the ability of creditors to destroy a government whose economic policies they disapprove of.

 The mega-example of this, of course, is the Latin American debt crisis of the 1980s. Mexico, Brazil, and all the other victims of this crisis (caused primarily by the U.S. Federal Reserve cranking up interest rates to astronomical levels in the late 1970s and early 1980s, which in turn caused an unprecedented rise in the value of the U.S. dollar and a global recession) were "bailed out" by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in order to prevent the collapse of creditor banks in the United States, but were subject to strict austerity, with the same results we've seen in the EU. Indeed, in virtually every Latin American country income per capita was lower in 1990 than at the start of the crisis in 1982, giving rise to the term "lost decade of development" to describe these events. Supposedly, the IMF learned its lesson after the Asian financial crisis that austerity packages didn't work. Krugman has argued this many times (one example here). Indeed, the IMF has seemed to be more of a voice of sanity in the current crisis than in either the Latin American or Asian crises. Yet, in the endgame of the Greek crisis, this seems to have fallen away, with the IMF going along with the EU on Greek austerity. Something is seriously wrong here.

But there is another important example to mention, where the IMF was not involved. This, too, was a result of the Fed-caused global recession, this time in France. After Francois Mitterrand and the Socialist Party swept to power in 1981, among the government's many policy changes was an attempt at Keynesian stimulus. However, this was met by massive capital flight. The problem was that the French franc was losing so much value that the government had to reverse its policies. For example, the franc was 4.6453 to the dollar in January 1981, but fell to 8.0442 by August 1983, 9.3041 by September 1984, and 10.0933 in February 1985. The takeaway is that even having floating exchange rates does not guarantee that you can maintain your policy independence.

Events are moving very rapidly; perhaps the EU will find a way to prevent this disaster. But at the moment, things look very grim.

Will the U.S. keep winning indefinitely? ISDS, that is

Now that Congress has given the President fast-track Trade Promotion Authority, the first agreement to be considered under these rules (no amendments allowed, up or down vote in 90 days) will be the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). As you know from previous columns, one of the most worrying aspects of the TPP is its expansion of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS), wherein private firms can bring their disputes with governments not to courts, but to international arbitration (usually through units of the World Bank or the United Nations), where legal precedent doesn't matter and appeal is all but non-existent. Moreover, as the Consumers Union has long argued (recent example here), arbitration has a well-known pro-business bias. That's why so many of your agreements with cable TV providers, financial services companies, and many more have fine print requiring mandatory arbitration, keeping you from getting your day in court if something goes wrong.

The response from the U.S. Trade Representative's (USTR) office has been, "Not to worry! The United States has never lost an ISDS case." The linked document goes on to claim that worldwide, only 1/4 of corporate plaintiffs have won cases against governments. But a new analysis by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD),* using the same data source the USTR cites, comes to a very different conclusion based on its most recent update, the 2015 World Investment Report from the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). Moreover, we can see that countries with even more trustworthy court systems than that in the U.S. have lost ISDS cases. The Rule of Law Project, an initiative of the American Bar Association, has ranked 102 countries on the administration of justice and freedom from corruption, and puts the United States at #19 with a score of 0.73. Yet #14 Canada (0.78) has already lost ISDS cases, and both Canada and #10 Australia (0.80) are currently on the hook for major new cases (Eli Lilly and Philip Morris, respectively), that would overrule decisions by the countries' respective Supreme Courts. So, even if governments have only lost 25% of ISDS cases, it's unlikely U.S. luck will hold out indefinitely, if countries with better court systems are losing.

But it's worse than that. UNCTAD's database of known ISDS cases and their outcomes shows that in all cases decided through the end of 2014, the investor won 27% of the cases compared to 36% won by the state (see Figure III.10, p. 116). But another 26% of the cases are listed as "settled," which often (but not always) means the respondent agrees to make some payment to the plaintiff to keep the case from going to arbitration. Public Citizen has a list of ISDS cases under prior U.S. trade agreements with examples of settlements that do and do not contain payments (see, for instance, NAFTA cases against Canada).

Moreover, as IISD attorney Howard Mann argues, if we separate out cases between jurisdictional determinations and determinations on the merits of the case, things look even worse for states. While only 71 of 255 cases (this excludes the "settled" cases) were concluded by a decision of the tribunal having no jurisdiction, Mann points out that all 255 cases effectively had decisions on jurisdiction, i.e., cases with final decisions had to have rulings that the arbitrators had jurisdiction. In that case, Mann says, "Investors, therefore, have won 72 per cent [184/255] of jurisdictional determinations." And of the decisions on the merits of the cases, investors won 111, or 60%, of the remaining 184 cases. This calculation suggests that states are losing ISDS disputes at a much higher rate than normally portrayed. As if that's not bad enough, the new World Investment Report finds that in 2014, of the 15 ISDS cases decided on their merits, states lost 10 (2/3) of them. In 2013, it was even worse for states, with investors winning 7 of the 8 cases decided that year (p. 126). If these higher proportions continue, obviously the proportion of investor victories will increase beyond the current 60% total.

Bottom line: The threat to regulation, democracy, and the rule of law posed by investor-state dispute settlement is very real. The U.S. Trade Rep's  reassurances that the U.S. has never lost in ISDS don't even make it likely that will continue into the future. We need to pressure Congress to vote down the TPP when negotiations conclude.


* Important disclosure: I have consulted for IISD several times since 2007 on investment incentive issues.

Cross-posted at Angry Bear.

Elon Musk has received billions in subsidies

While receiving subsidies is nothing new for the Forbes 400 or even multi-hundred millionaire pikers like Mitt Romney, a recent story in the Los Angeles Times (via Good Jobs First) shows that Elon Musk (#34 in the Forbes 400) is a champion at getting subsidies for his companies. According to the Times article, Musk's three companies, Tesla, Solar City, and SpaceX, have received a total of $4.9 billion (nominal value) in subsidies over the years. The article says that Tesla and Solar City stand out in the importance of the subsidies relative to the size of the company.

While SpaceX has received only $20 million, both Tesla and Solar City have received over $2 billion each, if you count the value of the subsidies their customers have received for buying Tesla vehicles and Solar City installations. This is more significant in the case of Solar City (about $1 billion) than for Tesla (about $321 million). Even without these sums, the companies have directly received about $3.5 billion, most notably for the new Gigafactory in Nevada and for a solar panel facility in Buffalo, New York.

Regular readers will remember that I have long argued in my books and elsewhere that these subsidies represent a transfer from average taxpayers to the much wealthier owners of the companies involved, worsening the already substantial inequality in the United States. These investment incentives have to be offset by higher taxes on others, reduced government services, or higher levels of government debt. While they are not the biggest driver of inequality, they do their part. Moreover, location subsidies reduce the country's economic efficiency: It may well have made more economic sense to locate the battery Gigafactory as close as possible to Tesla's assembly plant in Fremont, California.

While Musk refused to be interviewed for the Times story, he responded the next day on CNBC. Among other things, he argued that it was wrong to report a single figure for subsidies, which makes it seem like he received one big check. This is right as far as it goes. However, I think it would make more sense to give a single present value for the subsidies rather than the nominal value, which overstates the value of multi-year subsidies such as those for Tesla. Moreover, as Good Jobs First points out, it is perfectly necessary for taxpayers to know what their long-term liabilities are for multi-year subsidies in order to properly assess the impact on government finances.

Musk also defended the Tesla subsidies as merely necessary to make the project happen faster, rather than necessary to happen at all. Yet it conducted a multi-state auction in an all-too-common use of its location decision for rent-seeking. As I analyzed at the time, the deal was below average in terms of cost per job and aid intensity compared to other automobile facilities, and it is 13 times larger than Nevada's previously largest incentive package.

Ultimately, the Musk story is far too familiar on a number of dimensions. Most importantly, it is a tale of rent-seeking and the policy/political drivers of inequality.

Cross-posted at Angry Bear.

GE threatens to leave Connecticut UPDATED

A non-blogging friend has brought to my attention the fact that General Electric is threatening to move its corporate headquarters out of Connecticut in response to proposed tax increases in the state budget. The company, based in Fairfield, objects to increases in the taxes for data processing and corporate headquarters. Insurance companies Aetna and Travelers have also issued similar threats.

In GE's case in particular, this is pretty rich. The New York Times reports that GE made $14.2 billion in 2010 and received a federal tax refund of $3 billion. It is a company that touts bringing manufacturing jobs back from China but conveniently omits mentioning that the new jobs, in Louisville, pay $13/hour rather than the $22/hour they paid before they left for China. A model of corporate virtue it ain't, yet President Obama sees fit to lean on chief executive officer Jeffrey Immelt as one of his top business advisers.

Regular readers no doubt recall that every time a threat like this is made, vultures start to swoop in to attract the potential relocator to their state with a long list of goodies. So it should come as no surprise that a mere three days after GE first floated this idea, Tampa, Florida, has put GE in in its sights. We've seen this story many times before: Boeing and Sears immediately spring to mind. As always, the possibility of receiving relocation subsidies makes relocation less expensive and makes it more likely that a company's current home will have to give concessions to make it stay. Job piracy and job blackmail are intimately related.

As my friend points out, it's not surprising that Connecticut is running a big budget deficit. In just the past few years, according to the Good Jobs First Megadeals database (March 2015 spreadsheet update), the state gave $313.75 million to Schupp & Grochmal (2007), $89.5 million to Starwood Hotels (2009), $291 million to Jackson Laboratory (2011), $115 million to Bridgewater Associates (2012), and a whopping $400 million to United Technologies (2014). This last deal is fully 20% of the entire 2-year budget deficit facing the state, $2 billion.

A showdown is looming in this newest case of raw corporate power. Yesterday, the Connecticut legislature passed the budget, though leaders signaled a willingness to consider small changes when it comes back for a special session. The same day, however, Immelt emailed employees to let them know a task force had been set up to look into relocation.

Stay tuned!

Update: More evidence that GE is a whiny, hyper-aggressive tax avoider:  http://www.courant.com/opinion/op-ed/hc-op-cibes-ct-business-taxes-not-high-0609-20150608-story.html

May Tax-Cast is Out!

The May Tax-Cast from the Tax Justice Network is just out. Highlights include tax transparency from politicians in Pakistan and around the world, as well as an analysis of the recent UK general election.

TPP blocked, at least for now

Breaking news: The United States Senate failed to end a filibuster on giving the President fast-track negotiating authority for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), and any future deals for a six-year period.

According to The New York Times, the bill failed with only a 52-45 majority for it, when 60 votes were needed to end the filibuster. The biggest complaint among swing Democrats was that the TPP does not have enforceable provisions against currency manipulation -- such as practiced by China which, though not currently involved in the negotiations, would seem like a logical future party to the agreement. The Times reported that Japan and Malaysia are both opposed to this provision.

For the time being, then, we are spared an expansion of investor-state dispute settlement and further unnecessarily strong protections for intellectual property (patents, trademarks, copyright, etc.). Unfortunately, if the proponents of the measure can reach a compromise with a group of eight Democrats (including Ron Wyden of Oregon) on enforcement measures, then they would have the 60 votes they need.

Why subsidize data centers?

A number of authors (Good Jobs First, David Cay Johnston, me, and me, among others) have pointed out that data centers (aka server farms) in the United States create very few jobs, yet receive state and local government subsidies that routinely exceed $1 million per job. I'm sure you already know that numbers like those make me ill: the typical automobile assembly plant will receive $150,000 or so per job, and require all sorts of component facilities to feed it -- though, sadly, economic development officials often given incentives to the supplier plants as well.

So why $1 million or more per job? Data centers pay reasonably well, and the biggest are connected to famous tech names like Apple, Google, and Facebook, but it seems to me that it's hard to get around the facts that there just aren't that many jobs, and they don't require an army of supplier facilities bringing indirect jobs.

But surely the competition for jobs is so steep that governments have no choice but to subsidize them? Actually, no. Aside from the fact that $1 million per job probably gives away more than the value of the investment to the government, my investigations have turned up multiple examples of companies building data centers without incentives.

One I've mentioned here before: American Express in 2010 built a $400 million data center in Greensboro, North Carolina, without any incentives at all. The leading explanation has been that Amex had already decided it was going to close a 1900-job call center in Greensboro (announced in 2011), a move it knew would trigger clawbacks of any incentives on the 50-150 job data center -- so it didn't bother seeking subsidies. Did I mention that North Carolina has cheap electricity?

More recently, I have found four Google data centers that opened or expanded without incentives in the last few years. New and expanded facilities in the Netherlands, Ireland, Finland, and Belgium all take advantage of cooler temperatures to reduce their electricity use. While Google did not respond to my email asking whether it received subsidies for those facilities, and IDA Ireland similarly was unresponsive, the Netherlands Foreign Investment Agency did respond with a confirmation that it had provided no "state aid" (EU-speak for subsidies) to the brand-new $773 million, 150-job data center opening in Groningen province in 2017. In addition, a search of the EU's Competition Directorate case database did not reveal any Google state aid cases for data centers. Thus, it appears that none of these cases received incentives.

So why did Google demand over $140 million (present value) in subsidies from North Carolina back in 2007? I think we're looking at the "usual suspect" once again, rent-seeking. Of course, North Carolina couldn't foresee the Amex no-incentive deal that didn't happen until 2010, but now that we can see how Google and American Express do business when they have to, it's time economic development officials around the country learned to "just say no" on data centers.

Cross-posted at Angry Bear.