Grocer A&P Files For Bankruptcy Protection

From the San Francisco Chronicle

The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., the 101-year-old U.S. operator of almost 400 supermarkets under names including Waldbaum’s, The Food Emporium and Pathmark, sought bankruptcy protection after failing to successfully compete with wholesale clubs and drugstores.

The retailer, which also runs stores under its own name, Super Fresh and Food Basics, had $8.8 billion in sales for the year ended in February, according to its website. Yesterday, it listed assets of $2.5 billion and debt of $3.2 billion in a Chapter 11 filing in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in White Plains, New York. A shift in consumer spending at wholesale clubs, supercenters and drugstores hurt sales in the quarter ended Sept. 11, A&P said in a regulatory filing.

“We have taken this difficult but necessary step to enable A&P to fully implement our comprehensive financial and operational restructuring,” Chief Executive Officer Sam Martin said in a statement yesterday. “We could not complete our turnaround without availing ourselves of Chapter 11.”

The Great Recession claims another victim. The downward pressure of the unemployed as well as the long term declining manufacturing base will continue to claim victims.

James Pilant

Why The Tax Cut Deal Isn’t Cutting It. (via Rortybomb)

Rortybomb is great. I wanted to take a paragraph out and quote him but I couldn’t pass up the graph, so, I reblogged.
Give him a read. It’s richly merited.

James Pilant

Why The Tax Cut Deal Isn't Cutting It. I want to be sold on this tax cut deal on the economics, but the more I look at it the less I'm impressed with it. According to Ezra Klein, the White House is circulating this diagram around the Hill.  James Kwak dissects this chart and the narrative that "Obama won" on this deal; I'll do the same.  Let's take the "What We Got" apart. Child Tax Credit From the Republican Pledge To America (pdf): …these looming tax hikes will hurt every family i … Read More

via Rortybomb

Laissez-Faire: The Cure for Corporate Socialism by Steven Durel (via In Libris Libertas)

Adam Smith
This is one of the more clever articles you are likely to read on the web. The author believes that if the corporations are cut off from their unfair advantages gained by tax policy, subsidies, etc., the nations’ condition will improve dramatically. I cannot disagree. He is quite right.

However, he goes further and argues for laissez-faire. I’m sorry. I’ve had enough of laissez-faire to last several life times. I firmly believe that there must be regulation. However, I believe that a balance between “free enterprise” is the right course, a sort of conditional laissez-faire.

Nevertheless, this is a fine article and well worth your time to read.

James Pilant

One of the biggest problems that we can all see moving into the 21st Century is the amount of political power wielded by the world's corporations—particularly the American and European ones. Corporations, through bribery and lobbying, often steer the large tanker of government policy, both foreign and domestic, in their favor. Whether through trade regulations like NAFTA or by initiating imperialist wars on resource-rich nations, corporations hav … Read More

via In Libris Libertas

Kleptocrats

Paul Krugman

These days, we’re living in the world of the imperial, very self-interested individual; the man in the gray flannel suit has been replaced by the man in the very expensive Armani suit. Look at the protagonists in the global financial meltdown, and you won’t see faceless corporations subverting individual will; you’ll see avaricious individuals exploiting corporate forms to enrich themselves, often bringing the corporations down in the process. Lehman, AIG, Anglo-Irish, etc. were not cases of immortal hive-minds at work; they were cases of kleptocrats run wild.

I like the word, kleptocrat. It captures the sound of what it is, someone who can’t resist the lure of money, no matter what the cost.

The 21st Century might well be a hundred years devoted to kleptocracy in America. That’s pretty sad.

Do we have choices? Yes, but not the ones most people think of.

There is no return to a simpler moral age. There may be spots in American history where this virtue or another was more predominant than now but I promise you the trade offs are not anything you would want to play with.

What needs to be done is a combination of looking forward and looking backward, a fancy way of saying we should learn from experience but not react identically.

What am I talking about? Well, we’ve had kleptocracy before, roughly 1918 to 1929 maybe as late as 1931. We reacted by changing the balance of power between industry and government, imposing a large regulatory structure so as to never let the disaster happen again. Once that structure was abandoned, we fell into the trap once more. Except this time the force of the financial industry is such that no power moved to the government. We are at a stand still in the same spot where disaster struck in 2007.

There are three things that need to be done.

One – Corporations are creatures of the state, nothing more. They have the same living essence as a can opener if not less. The usurpation of human power by these moble documents is a pathetic farce a child can see through.

Return corporations to organizations under law, not as persons, as contracts. (which is what they are)

Two – Return morality to the law. First enlarge and enforce the duty of fair dealing, honesty and loyalty in business agreements. Those already exist in case law and often in statutory law. Let them be reborn as an integral part of contract law. But more than this, let us also revive the doctrine of unconscionability. The fees and contracts imposed on Americans regularly violate the basic standards of fairness. It is time to rein in those practices. If a practice “shocks the conscience,” a business, a corporation, shouldn’t be doing it.

Three – Give the owners of the corporations some say in what they do. Right now, a CEO and a board of directors are essentially unencumbered by oversight. The actual owners of the corporation have little say in the operation, major decisions and salaries of a company that are supposed to own. Isn’t a basic element of capitalism that the owner of property should be able to exercise rights in it?

That’s a start. Really, we’ve already been through these kinds of crisis before. Generally we know what to do. But there is no willpower, intelligence or wisdom to do it.

James Pilant

Rogue Columnist Recommended Reading!

From the Rogue Columnist

The shelves groan under the number of books written about the financial crisis, its aftermath, causes and needed fixes. My favorites are Freefall: America, Free Markets and the Sinking of the World Economy, by nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz; 13 Bankers: The Wall Street Takeover and the Next Financial Meltdown, by Simon Johnson and James Kwak; Crisis Economics: A Crash Course in the Future of Finance, by Nouriel Roubini and Stephen Mihm, and Aftershock: The Next Economy and America’s Future, by Robert Reich. It’s a soup-to-nuts telling of the bought-off politics, bad policy, deregulation and greed that brought on the crash, to the steps we must take in order to save ourselves. Not that we will.

I recommend these books a well. I particularly recommend Joseph Stiglitz.

Happy Holiday Reading!

James Pilant

Obama Staffer Finds New Job – Citibank!

From Huffington Post

Citigroup Inc named U.S. President Barack Obama’s former budget director as a senior global banking adviser on Thursday, strengthening its ties to high-profile former officials the same week the bailed-out bank finished shrugging off U.S. government ownership.

Peter Orszag, currently a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, is Citigroup’s second hire of a former senior government official this month. Last week the bank hired Carlos Gutierrez, former Commerce Secretary under President George W. Bush, as a vice chairman for its institutional clients group.

Orszag, who had worked as director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Obama, left the White House in July. He was one of the president’s most prominent advisers and remains well-connected in U.S. political circles.

As a presidential adviser, wouldn’t he have a played an important perhaps critical role in the bailout (TARP)? Would it be likely that he had a role in making sure there has been no prosecution of the crimes committed by the banking sector during the past two years? Wouldn’t etc., etc?

Is this pathetic or what? How long has this deal been in place? Did he always know there was a warm place for him at Citibank? Or was it just part of the expectations of the job? What’s he going to get, 5 mil, 7 mil, not counting stock options, the company car and the other goodies?

What is this? What is this place where the people who are supposed to be protecting us are the employees of banks, apparently on some kind of rest cure in the oval office until returned to duty?

Wasn’t this supposed to be a different kind of Presidency, you know not run by lobbyist? Well, they keep the lobbyists at a comfortable distance – inside the White House.

James Pilant

Jon Stewart Explains Aftermath Of Budget Deal

Jon Stewart
From the Huffington Post

(Click the link to see the video.)

Have people been too hard on President Obama? On Thursday night’s “Daily Show,” Jon Stewart approached this topic based on the American people’s response to the President’s recent tax cut deal. At his most recent press conference, you didn’t even need to have the sound on to see how annoyed Obama was.

Stewart pointed out that Obama has always been frustrated with Republicans, but now it seems like he’s become disillusioned with his own supporters. At the press conference, he defended his compromise with Republicans that even the richest Americans would keep their tax cuts and unemployment benefits would be extended. When Obama said it was like the public option battle all over again — no one caring if a much-needed bill was passed because of one compromise that was made — you could really see how frustrated he was.

As always with Jon Stewart it is difficult to add anything to what he has to say, so I’ll let the video say it.

By the way, I am troubled by the not clear connection between this and business ethics. But the tax structure and unemployment are vital elements of the business world and whether or not these actions are just and moral. Should the wealthiest of Americans get a tax cut when so many are unemployed? That’s a business ethics question. At what point is there a shared bond between Americans requiring even a minimal sacrifice? That’s an ethics question.

James Pilant

Can A Nation Still Succeed After Letting The Banks Fail? Yes!

James Saft
<This is James Saft, a columnist for Reuters.

From Reuters – em>

Iceland’s remarkable return to growth shows once again that in this crisis the best policy is often the one that will make international partners most angry.

Having been reviled and chastised when it refused to make good the outsize debts of its banks, Iceland this week capped a striking turnaround when it announced that its economy expanded by 1.2 percent in real terms in the most recent quarter, its first such rise in two years.

This is in stark contrast to Ireland, whose pliability and inability as a member of the euro zone to act unilaterally leaves it with a still crashing economy which must service ever more debt by making ever deeper cuts to public spending.

Iceland, which sailed into the crisis in 2008 as essentially a small fishing fleet with a massive hedge fund attached, looked its predicament square in the eye and followed a set of policies seemingly designed to tick off both its friends and enemies, doing its small but mighty best to beggar its neighbors by letting its currency crash, imposing capital controls and, crucially, refusing to make whole the global creditors of its three failed international banks.

While an International Monetary Fund and multilateral package was eventually agreed, and a deal with Britain and the Netherlands over debts from Icesave Bank are currently being hammered out, Iceland’s leaders, at least the current ones, seem convinced that making bank creditors share its pain was the right course.

“The difference is that in Iceland we allowed the banks to fail. These were private banks and we didn’t pump money into them in order to keep them going; the state should not shoulder the responsibility,” Iceland’s president, Olafur Grimsson, said last month, tweaking the nose of EU officials who are insisting that Ireland make good all senior creditor calls on its own distended banking system.

“Bondholders should not rely on the government stepping in and bailing them out,” Iceland Central Bank governor Mar Gudmundsson said last week. “They should do their due diligence.”

“I think the Irish are accepting that they were probably too fast in guaranteeing the whole liabilities of banks. Now this is turning out to be a big burden because the assets of these banks turned out to be much worse than they thought.”

Indeed. Though Iceland has a 6.3 percent budget deficit this year, it is on track to soon record a surplus, while Ireland’s deficit this year is 32 percent if the cost of bank bailouts is included. Similarly, Iceland’s unemployment rate has fallen by almost a quarter to 7.3 percent, as against more than 14 percent in Ireland.

Iceland let its banks fail and refused to use public funds to save them. Now, they are making an economic comeback.

They held the shareholders responsible for what their corporate leadership did. Isn’t that bizarre? That you could make people who own banks pay for the losses they incurr? Now we here in the United States suffer with a exceptionally healthy profitable financial sector now sitting on hundreds of billions of dollars it was expected to loan to small businesses and they have paid not one farthing for the terrible crimes they have committed.

James Pilant

Obama To Lower Corporate Tax Rate!

From Reuters

Democrats and Republicans should begin a conversation next year about a broad overhaul of the tax code that would involve lowering rates while eliminating tax breaks for favored groups, President Barack Obama said in an interview broadcast on Friday.

The Republicans now have a majority in the House. Shouldn’t this have been something done during the first two years?

Obama said any effort to streamline the multilayered U.S. tax code would be challenging but if successful, it could set the stage for more robust growth.

Okay guys, I’ve been around the block a few times and when ever someone talks about simplifying the tax code, the middle class is about to get nailed hard. By the way, “robust growth” is a code word for lower corporate taxed and business benefits like subsidies.

Tax reform is an idea backed by many in the business community who say the current corporate tax structure puts American firms at a competitive disadvantage.

For “many in the business world,” read every corporate lobbyist is salivating like a hungry German Shepherd in front of filet mignon.

“Typically, the idea is, simplifying the system, hopefully lowering rates, broadening the base — that’s something that I think most economists think would help us propel economic growth,” Obama told National Public Radio in an interview. “But it’s a very complicated conversation.”

Verbiage – means nothing.

“So what I believe is, is that we’ve got to start that conversation next year. I think we can get some broad bipartisan agreement that it needs to be done. But it’s going to require a lot of hard work to actually make it happen,” he said.

For “work” read continuous concessions stretched out over months so that the lack of backbone, resolve and political intelligence of the Obama White House will be fully revealed.

“Change You Can Believe In.” Yes, in the same way I believe in post-apocalyptic waste lands.

Explain this to me. For decades large corporations have been directly evading, off shoring their corporate headquarters, sometimes just not paying taxes, and blackmailing every State, county and city humanly possible to cut their taxes, so we reward them with lower rates?

And here I am again trying to teach business ethics to my students who will observe the real life machinations of our President, which means, I get to say, “Okay, do the right thing, everyone from the President on down will reward the other guys, but you still be good.”

Then I get to go into “good for your soul” argument which is pretty much all I got left at that point.

Writing a business ethics web blog under this Presidency has all the benefits of being a medieval flagellant.

James Pilant

Another Business Ethics Blog!! Evaluation of Ethics (via Something About Business)

Something About Business is subtitled, The Pursuit of Ethically Successful Business. The blog has been up since September. Below is a representative selection. There are a good number of postings there now. September is fairly new, at least, to me. So, let us all welcome Wes Connolly by visiting it and reading some of his stuff! May he post a thousand times and make the business world a better place! Good luck, Mr. Connolly.

James Pilant

Evaluation of Ethics We have to learn from the mistakes of our past. In looking back in history, we are witnesses to the destructive effects of unethical leadership from companies like Enron, Tyco, WorldCom and various banks. These companies not only brought a mess to their own businesses but to our whole country as well. So how did this happen? And what can we do? Well what we have to do is be more ethical. This basically means just doing the right thing. In a busin … Read More

via Something About Business