Robert Rubin, crony capitalism and an argument for a populist, pro-market agenda

No one embodies the dangers of crony capitalism more than Robert Rubin. I was reminded of this when reading a provocative new book called A Capitalism for the People: Recapturing The Lost Genius of American Prosperity by an economist named Luigi Zingales. It’s an excellent read, a populist screed that will resonate with Occupy Wall Street, the Tea Party and anyone who worries that corporate power is deployed in Washington to benefit the well-to-do at the expense of most everyone else.

Rubin’s story illustrates the trouble with the unholy alliance of big business, big government and wealthy elites that rule today’s Washington. Few who travel the Amtrak corridor have a more elite pedigree: An Eagle Scout, Robin’s resume includes a Harvard B.A., a Yale Law degree, a brief stint as a Wall Street lawyer, a top job at Goldman Sachs, seven years in Washington as an economic advisor and Treasury Secretary to President Clinton, followed by a triumphant return to Wall Street, as a director and chair of the executive committee at Citigroup.

As Zingales tells the story, Rubin during his years in Washington was a leading advocate for financial bailouts, beginning in 1994 when the collapse of the peso jeopardized Mexico’s ability to repay big lenders including Goldman and Citi. Mexico avoided default but, as Zingales writes, “this move eliminated fear among lenders, and fear is an essential element in financial markets: it disciplines financial decisions.” To function properly, market capitalism needs to be about losses as well as gains, a lesson any investment banker should understand. But Rubin went on to support IMF bailouts for Thailand, South Korea, Indonesia and Brazil, each of which shielded US lenders from losses–emboldening them to take future risks as they came to believe, correctly, that governments would not permit them to take heavy losses. Here were the beginnings of “too big to fail.”

Zingales has a nice analogy about bailouts, comparing them to grandparents who spoil their grandkids when they parents want to discipline them:

Grandparents have an incentive to spoil their grandchildren, since they benefit from the grandchildren’s gratitude and from the momentary peace–but they are unlikely to suffer the long-term consequences of the kids’ bad behavior (partly because they aren’t around as much, and partly because they die sooner). In much the same way, policy makers are happy to bail out firms and countries because they benefit from the momentary improvement in the economy and from the gratitude of saved business–but they’re unlikely to suffer the long-term consequences because they will be out of office by the time the perverse results occur.

Meantime, Rubin opposed other efforts to rein in the banks. Along with Alan Greenspan and Larry Summers, Rubin beat back efforts by Brooksley Born, the head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, to regulate the over-the-counter derivatives, including the credit default swaps that later contributed to the 2008 financial crisis. Rubin and Summers also argued successfully for the repeal of the Glass-Steagal rules that for the most part prohibited banks that held government-insured deposits from engaging in risky and speculative investments.

His work done, Rubin exited the government for Citigroup from which he earned $126 million during the 2000s. During the 2008 financial crisis, Citi was favored with a $25 billion infusion of equity under TARP, $20 billion of equity from the Treasury and another $306 billion more in government guarantees of its so-called toxic assets. Citi never sleeps, the slogan goes, but its directors, including Rubin, evidently did, as the Wall Street Journal noted. Or at least he slept until the time came to seek a rescue from Washington.

In another land–one where the press was more aggressive, and power brokers like Rubin were held accountable for the damage they help to cause–this set of actions might send a man into hiding, or at least retirement. Not so here–he remains a respected voice in Washington and a Harvard trustee. Indeed, Rubin has now earned honorary degrees from Harvard, Yale, Penn and Columbia, fully half of the schools in the Ivy League. (Why Princeton, Dartmouth, Brown and Cornell have passed him over, so far, is anybody’s guess.)

I write this not to single out Rubin, who quite probably believed he was doing the right thing, as did his successors at Treasury, Hank Paulson (who I wrote about in 2008 and came to respect back) and Timothy Geithner. But, as Zingales argues, many of us who believe that capitalism and robust markets and  competition can be powerful forces for good have become complacent about the dangers of well-meaning but corrupt elites who have rigged the system for their own benefit — with corporate bailouts, vast expenditures on lobbying (a staggering $3.3 billion in 2011), regulations that protect entrenched interests, tax policy that favors the rich, the ever popular “public-private partnerships” that transfer wealth from public coffers to private owners and an ever-expanding array of market-distorting subsidies for farmers, manufacturers, automakers, oil and coal companies and, yes, the wind and solar power industries, too. [click to continue...]

Shari Arison’s simple mission: Doing good

Shari Arison, an Israeli-American billionaire and philanthropist who is said to be the richest woman in the Middle East, presides over an array of global businesses that employ more than 24,000 people.

There’s Bank Hapoalim, one of Israel’s largest banks. There’s Shikun & Binui, a leading infrastructure and real estate firm with projects in Europe, Latin America and Africa as well as Israel. There’s Miya, a fast-growing water efficiency company with projects all over the world. And there’s Salt of the Earth, Israel’s leading salt producer.

They would seem to have little in common. But all of them, she says, share a purpose: Doing good. “Doing good on a personal level and on a collective level — for our company, for our customers, for our employees, for our nation and the world,” she says.

Well, sure–we all want to do good, don’t we? Most every company wants to make products that are useful, create jobs, help its people to flourish and generate wealth for its owners. No corporate executive, except for the occasional scoundrel, sets out to exploit people.

What sets Arison apart is her willingness to put that sense of purpose front and center, and talk about how it guides her business, philanthropic and civic activities–sometimes in ways that leave her vulnerable to critics.

I recently met with Arison and Efrat Peled (left), who is the chairman and CEO of Arison Investments when they visited Washington. Shari, who is in her mid 50s, inherited most of her wealth from her father, Ted Arison, the founder of Carnival Cruise Lines; she is a self-taught executive. Peled, who is in her late 30s, is a CPA with a graduate degree from the Kellogg School at Northwestern. Neither has direct operating responsibility for companies in the Arison group, but Peled sits on the board of the bank, the construction company, the water company and the salt company. They both have a say in hiring top executives, where they seek leaders who share their values. [click to continue...]

Tim Mohin: Changing business from the inside out

When I went to college, people with a strong social conscience went into politics or government, joined the Peace Corps, taught school, or became public-interest lawyers or doctors– in other words, they did just about anything but go into the business world. That’s no longer true, thank goodness. Today’s students understand that business can be a force for good and my  friend Tim Mohin — we serve together on the board of Net Impact — has written a new book called Changing Business From the Inside Out: A Treehugger’s Guide to Working in Corporations that helps business people, as well as students, understand how they can have a positive impact inside corporate America. Tim, who is currently direct of corporate responsibility at chip-maker AMD, previously worked on social-responsibility issues at Apple and Intel. His book has been heralded as “essential reading for anyone who wants to build a meaningful career”  by Aron Cramer, the CEO of Business for Social Responsibility. Here is a guest post from Tim about that offers a sneak peek at the book.

Like jumbo shrimp or military intelligence, “corporate responsibility” is considered an oxymoron by  many. People are skeptical of corporations and with good reason. Massive corporate scandals ranging from the 2008 mortgage meltdown, to the BP oil spill, to the recent headlines about Wells Fargo and Barclay’s have left a trail of destruction. The cost to repair the damage has been borne by society in the form of taxpayer-funded bailouts and environmental cleanup. Growing distrust in corporations boiled over last fall, sending young people into the streets in the Occupy Wall Street movement. So, at a time when trust in corporations has reached an all-time low, why is interest in corporate responsibility at an all-time high?

Even before the Occupy protesters set up their camps, corporate behavior was under intense scrutiny.  Regulations like “Sarbanes Oxley” and “Dodd-Frank,” required greater levels of transparency, a trend that has been fueled by social media and the Internet.  For more than a decade, companies in all industries have voluntarily published corporate responsibility or sustainability reports. CorporateRegister.com allows you to search 41,238 corporate responsibility reports across 9,153 companies, a number that has been steadily increasing.

Maybe there is a cause and effect here. The corporate scandals of the past have shown by painful example, just how quickly a company’s reputation, and brand value, can be damaged. Company employees, customers and shareholders know more, and increasingly care more, about corporate behavior.   So in today’s world, smart business leaders know that investing in ethical behavior is money well spent.

More important, I believe, is the need of every company to attract and engage talent.  A new younger generation of leaders is rising in corporate America,  and many of them bring social and environmental values to the job and will only work for responsible companies.

My new book, Changing Business from the Inside Out, delivers practical advice to this new group of committed business people. They recognize the power of business to drive positive change in the world. Changing Business From the Inside Out is “field guide” of practical tips, hard-won wisdom and leading edge concepts for people interested in a career in corporate responsibility. Here are the top five tips from the book: [click to continue...]

Nature Valley? Read the fine print.

Visit the website of Nature Valley and there’s no mistaking the message. The company, which is a unit of food giant General Mills, makes granola bars, protein bars, nut clusters and cookies that are invariably displayed against a backdrop of mountain ranges, forests, ski slopes and seascapes. Nature Valley supports our national parks. Nature Valley is “proud to be the official natural granola bar” for the US ski team and the PGA.

Everything–from the company’s name to the “100% Natural” label an its products–just screams natural and, in case you still don’t get the point, there is this:

Though much has changed since Nature Valley introduced the world’s first granola bar in 1975, one thing hasn’t: no matter how many new flavors we create, you can be assured that with Nature Valley you’re always getting The Taste Nature Intended®.

The Taste Nature Intended. Really? Try finding high-fructose corn syrup, high-maltose corn syrup, and maltodextrin in nature. You can’t. But they’re all in Nature Valley snacks.

“Natural” is probably the most overused word in food marketing. To combat the misleading marketing, the Center for Science in the Public Interest last week filed a lawsuit against General Mills accusing Nature Valley of “unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising” as defined by California law and seeking damages on behalf of consumers who bought the project, thinking the ingredients were natural. [click to continue...]

Can shopping save the world? Maybe not, but it can help.

The activist and filmmaker Annie Leonard, who created an Internet sensation back in 2007 with her 20-minute animated movie The Story of Stuff — it’s been viewed more than 15 million times — is back with the new video called The Story of Change.

In the video, she urges “viewers to put down their credit cards and start exercising their citizen muscles” to build a more just, sustainable and fulfilling world.

Turning for inspiration to Gandhi and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., she argues that buying “green” is no substitute for the hard work of political organizing.

“The solutions we really need are not for sale at the supermarket,” she says.

The movie runs for about six minutes. Take a look:

The idea that we need to take political action to deal with big environmental and social problem is both inarguable and unremarkable. It should be obvious that we can’t shop our way to the regulation of carbon pollution or to a more equitable tax system.

But I think Leonard has it exactly backwards when it comes to the power of consumers. Like many on the left, she seems to see the economy into “people” (good because we pursue health, happiness, well-being) and “corporations” (bad because they pursue profits, exploit and pollute). But, for the most part, we get the corporates that we deserve. Those that meet the needs of people thrive. Those that fail to satisfy will wither away. Put simply, the power of consumers is formidable.

That’s why I think that environmental and social activists ought to devote more, not less time, to changing consumer behavior. The food we eat, the cars we drive, the size of the houses we build and buy and other choices we make have significant global environmental consequences–particularly because Americans are, on a per capita basis, among the biggest polluters on the planet. [See my 2010 blogpost,  Can behavioral economics help save the planet?] [click to continue...]

Friends of coal: “Big Steamed Bun” and “Most Handsome Guy”

Here’s a cautionary tale about petitions–which are increasingly becoming a substitute for real political activity, thanks to social media.

Last fall, a group called Citizens for Recycling First submitted a petition to the White House website. These folks don’t focus on recycling bottles or newspapers; they support the recycling of coal ash, the waste left after coal is burned. Their petition asked the administration to “protect coal ash recycling” by enacting disposal rules that do not designate coal ash as a “hazardous waste.”

Soon after, the group collected 5,400 signatures and said on its blog:

Citizens for Recycling First has succeeded in gathering 5,000 signatures for its petition on a new White House website that promises a response from the Obama Administration.

Citizens for Recycling First is grateful to everyone who participated in getting friends, family and associates to sign the petition. The American Coal Ash Association and National Ready Mixed Concrete Association were particularly helpful in reaching out to their members.

The 5,000 signatures were particularly hard to gather because the White House website was frequently overloaded and unresponsive to people trying to sign.

Subsequently, a nonprofit called the Environmental Integrity Project took a closer look at the signatures and saw that about 2,000 of the names were in Mandarin. EIG hired a translator to dig a bit deeper and found that “the vast majority of the Chinese names in the petition are not authentic.” Many appeared to be generated by software, and they described food items or used other terms not commonly used as surnames.

Among them: Steamed Bun, Older Sister, Steamed Bun Little Sister, Small Steamed Bun, Big Steamed Bun, Big Bear, Big Grey Wolf, Little Duck, Little White Rabbit, Yellow Tiger, Come to China Big, Come to China Cat, Come to China Donkey, Come to China Little Girl, Handsome Six, Handsome Eight, Handsome Good Looking, Handsome Dragon and the Most Handsome Guy.

In a press release, Environmental Integrity Project Director Eric Schaeffer said:

If coal ash is so important to American jobs – as its Congressional supporters insist – why would the industry submit a petition with so many names in Chinese characters?

I called John Ward, chairman of Citizen for Recycling First, to ask him what was going on.

“I don’t know what happened,” he replied. “We put a petition on the White House website. We don’t have any control after that.”

“I have no idea how the Chinese characters showed up there. I’m starting to think that we got pranked.”

I have no idea what happened either. But I’m increasingly wary of so-called grass roots activities. Petitions? Letter-writing campaigns? Surveys? Polls?

Unless they come from reputable organizations–and even then–call me a skeptic.

We work to make an impact

Today, I’m in San Francisco at a board meeting of Net Impact, a great organization of college and MBA students and young professionals who aim to use their careers to tackle the world’s big problems. Recently, working with Rutgers University, Net Impact did a national study to see what students and professionals most value in a job.

The study, called Talent Report: What Workers Want in 2012 [PDF, download], found that the opportunities to make a social and environmental impact at work is linked to job satisfaction. Below is an infographic that highlights some findings. You can click on the graphic and it should get bigger.

CEOs, take note!

 

Anti-hunger, pro-soda: Are you kidding me?

About one in seven Americans — 46 million of us — get help from SNAP, the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program formerly known as food stamps. The government spent about $78 billion on SNAP last year. Participants collect about $133 per person per month. SNAP is a valuable safety net that deserves support, for many reasons, outlined here.

But, by  some unverified estimates, about $4 billion of SNAP money [distributed via electronic benefit transfer, or EBT, cards] is spent on soda; the government won’t say how much is spent on soda, or anything else. Reasonable people can disagree about whether soda should be taxes. But it’s hard to see why we should be subsidizing it.

It’s no surprise that Coke, Pepsi and the American Beverage Association oppose efforts to stop SNAP money from being used to buy sweetened, carbonated drinks. But they are joined in their opposition by anti-hunger groups like Feeding America and the Food Research and Action Center, as writer-consultant Michele Simon noted in her recent report,  Food Stamps: Follow the Money: Are Corporations Profiting from Hungry Americans? [PDF, download]

Do these advocacy groups really believe that poor people in America will be better off if they can use SNAP benefits to buy soda?

Or are they being swayed by the money they get from the food industry? [click to continue...]

Soda, obesity and your tax dollars at work

Should food stamps be used to purchase soda? Here’s what a U.S. Senator said when Congress debated that question:

I do not want to include Coca-Cola or Pepsi-Cola or any of that family. I like them myself, but I do not believe they should be permitted to be substitutes for milk. They are not valuable for the diet. They can be a waste of money especially for young people. Personally, I think it is a great mistake to include them…

I want to help the poor and hungry and not sacrifice them for Coca-Cola….These have no nutritional value—none at all… Actually, they are bad for kids, rather than good for them. I hesitate to use such language, but the only benefit I can see in the present language is that it will increase the sales of the Coca-Cola and other cola and soft drink companies.

Senator Douglas

That was Paul Douglas, a liberal Democrat from Illinois, speaking in 1964 — decades before Americans began to worry about an obesity epidemic. Of course, he lost the argument, and the food stamp program, now known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP, has been used to buy sugary soft drinks (although not alcohol or tobacco or fast-food meals) ever since.

Douglas is quoted in a new report called Food Stamps: Follow the Money: Are Corporations Profiting from Hungry Americans? [PDF, download] The report, by Michele Simon, an author, lawyer and consultant whose website is Eat Drink Politics, come as debate is picking up the role of soda in the obesity crisis.

“The federal government should not be fueling America’s epidemic of diet-related chronic disease with taxpayer money,” Simon told Reuters last week.

Her report is timely because SNAP is the biggest title in the five-year $480-billion Farm Bill now on the Senate floor.  SNAP expenditures grew to $72 billion in 2011, up from $30 billion four years earlier.

It makes some silly points (yes, lots of SNAP money is being spent at Walmart, but so what?) and a couple of useful ones.

First, the government has so far refused to disclose how the SNAP money is being spent, although the data is electronic and should be available. [click to continue...]

Sustainable business, at the White House

Thanks to my friends at GreenBiz, I wangled an exclusive invitation to cover a business gathering earlier today [June 12] at the White House. The meeting itself didn’t produce much in the way of excitement or surprises, but it was noteworthy because the companies on hand weren’t asking the government to leave them alone–they were asking for more regulation, and taxation, and investment, to bring about a more just and sustainable economy.

The group that organized the meeting, the American Sustainable Business Council (ASBC), was started a few years ago by Jeffrey Hollender, who was then CEO of Seventh Generation. Here’s my how story begins:

Corporate executives lobby Washington every day.

Not many come to plead for higher taxes and stronger regulation.

This week, though, a group called the American Sustainable Business Council (ASBC) convened in our nation’s capital to issue A Business Call for a New Economy that is built around “triple bottom line” principles, shared prosperity and environmental stewardship.

The ASBC members–about 125 showed up for a couple of days of meetings–are supporting, among other things, higher taxes on big companies, closing overseas tax havens, tax credits for renewable energy, EPA regulation of greenhouse gas emissions and stricter regulation of chemicals.

In the Business Call for a New Economy [PDF, download] , the group says it wants to preserve the efficiency and dynamism of markets, while curbing what it calls capitalism’s “destructive tendencies” toward “overuse of resources” and “extremes of wealth and poverty.”.

“When too few have too much and too many have too little, society cannot be sustained,” said Roger Smith, CEO of American Income Life, a fast-growing insurance company that provides life insurance to working families. “On the public policy side, the key word is investing. We are not going to cut our way to shared prosperity.”

“I am a big, big believer in unions, and a big, big believer in the collective bargaining process,” Smith said.  Unions help build a strong middle class which is good for business, he said.

The ASBC was started in 2009 by Jeffrey Hollender, the former CEO of Seventh Generation, and David Levine, an entrepreneur, in part as a counterweight to conservative corporate lobbies like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Its members were welcomed to the White House (actually, the Executive Office Building) today [June 12] by officials from the Obama administration; tomorrow they’ll visit Congress. The ASBC, a coalition of state and local business networks, says it represents 150,000 business and social enterprises, many of them small businesses that don’t have the time or resources to lobby. Among the better-known companies on hand in D.C. were Stonyfield Yogurt, Eileen Fisher, New Belgium Brewery and BetterWord Telecom.

You can read the rest here at GreenBiz.