Tag Archives: big business

America’s shoplifting panic

Recently I purchased a small bottle of dishwashing liquid for less than $2 at a Walgreens in Center City Philadelphia, and I had to call a clerk to unlock it a Plexiglass case and get it for me. I also notice that shelves are oddly empty in many stores, and I have certainly seen and heard the stories about shoplifting and “flash mobs”.

As always, I like journalism that provides some data to back up storytelling and anecdotal evidence. So kudos to CNN here:

Shoplifting reports in 24 major cities where police have consistently published years of data — including New York City, Los Angeles, Dallas and San Francisco — were 16% higher during the first half of 2023 compared to 2019, according to the Council on Criminal Justice analysis.

However, excluding New York City, the number of incidents among the remaining cities was 7% lower.

CNN

The article also provides some interesting context on past “shoplifting panics”, including one in London when women first ventured into public in significant numbers. People believed they were stealing for the thrill of it. I would speculate that it may have been more a question of whether they had access to cash or what their husbands may have thought about them spending said cash. Then there was a hippie shoplifting panic in the 1960s. And now we have a “breakdown of law and order in cities” narrative fueling the current one.

The article also talks about the enormous pressure on brick and mortar retailers to compete with online sales. I suspect this narrative provides them some convenient leverage in negotiating with landlords, insurers, and local politicians. I also wonder if shoplifting has always gone on but modern surveillance technology means insurance companies are more easily aware to quantify it, and it is just more prevalent than they thought.

the CFPB

Simon Johnson says the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has actually been doing a good job up until now of, well, protecting consumer finances.

The CFPB was established by the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial-reform legislation to do exactly what its name implies: protect consumers in their various financial transactions. A new agency was needed because existing regulators, including the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, had manifestly and repeatedly failed to protect consumers from abuses, such as deceptive and fraudulent mortgage-lending practices, some of which were at the heart of what went wrong in 2007-08.

As Elizabeth Warren (then a consumer advocate, now a US senator from Massachusetts) powerfully pointed out, there was a lot more protection for people buying toasters than for someone taking out a 25-year mortgage. Finance is complex, and a lot of devils could be, and were, hidden in the details. The CFPB was designed, above all, to bring greater transparency to consumers’ financial transactions – actually a very pro-market contribution.

And the CFPB has done exactly what Congress designed it to do. So far, the Bureau has arranged for the return of almost $12 billion to 29 million consumers. At the same time, banks are reporting record profits – on the order of $171 billion, according to the latest data. The CFPB is good for business, or at least for the straightforward, transparent business of traditional lending.

Unfortunately, all this seems likely to end as Trump has appointed someone to head the agency who is actually against the agency’s existence, not unlike his approach to the environment, housing, and education. Johnson seems to think the public will catch on to this and punish the Republicans politically when the little guy starts to get hurt by it. I don’t know, it probably depends on the timing. Nobody wants to see another financial blow-up, but if it has to happen mid-2020 seems as good a time as any.

free trade and big ag

When I think of the controversial side of trade, I tend to think of manufactured goods being produced cheaply abroad and imported to the U.S. But there is also a huge global trade in food and agriculture, and the U.S. is a huge player in it, both in exports and imports. It is not only big business but big politics too. This industry has lobbied heavily for trade deals like NAFTA and TPP. This Mother Jones article has a lot of interesting facts and figures. Okay, maybe Mother Jones is not a completely apolitical non-partisan voice, but this article has a lot of links you can follow up on if you want to draw your own conclusions from the raw data.

It’s interesting, we have a nominally business-friendly administration elected by voters in rural states that seems hostile to the priorities of politicians bought and paid for by the biggest and most powerful business lobby in those same rural states.

Nation on the Take

In Nation on the Take, Wendell Potter and Nick Peniman talk about the extent to which the U.S. political system has been hijacked to serve the interests of big business.

On campaign finance:

It is the knowledge that an elected official has of who is writing the check, who’s going to be there if and when this person decides to run for reelection, that they can expect another campaign check if they have demonstrated that they are voting the way the donor wants…One of the things I used to do in my job in the insurance industry was administer the political action committee and there’s a lot of thought that goes into who you write checks to, and you want to make sure that you’re writing checks to people who can be persuaded to see things from your perspective and vote for the things that you want them to or vote against things you are not supporting when the time comes.

On the finance industry:

Their contributions have been extensive and continue to be so and certainly the legislation that was finally approved by Congress, the Dodd-Frank Act, and other pieces of legislation that have been proposed to regulate the financial industry were written to a large extent by the lobbyists for financial institutions. And we point out in the book how the interest of the banks and mortgage companies were served first, and the challenges and the difficulties that a lot of average homeowners are having even yet today to keep their homes out of foreclosure… I remember watching Bill Moyers’ show a number of years ago when he had Gretchen Morgenson on, the chief financial reporter for The New York Times, and when she was asked whether or not Dodd-Frank had tackled the big stuff, she said, “No, absolutely not. It hasn’t and we could likely have another financial crisis as a result.” And when asked why, she said, “Because the banks have hundreds of lobbyists in Washington and the American people have none.”

On the pharmaceutical industry:

Despite the promises that Barack Obama had made when he was running for president that at the very least Medicare should have the ability to negotiate with drug companies to lower prices for Medicare beneficiaries — and he also campaigned on making it lawful for Americans to reimport medications from Canada where drugs are a lot cheaper — despite those campaign promises, President Obama gave both of those up under intense pressure from the pharmaceutical industry to be able to get something passed…Yes, few people realize that even though the pharmaceutical industry talks a great deal about how much they spend on research and development, the companies spend far more on sales and marketing than research. In fact, most of the research is done at taxpayers’ expense by governmental or quasigovernmental entities like the National Institutes of Health and universities that get funding from the government. So much of the research is done at the taxpayers’ expense, and rightfully so. But the companies themselves spend relatively little on research. They take the research typically and invest in the development of medications but most of the prescription medications are developed at publicly funded institutions. And in a sense we pay twice as a consequence. We pay for the research as taxpayers and of course we pay dearly whenever we need the medication.

On the food industry:

We want our kids to eat healthy, period. That should just be a no-brainer, a fait accompli in a good society. But instead, because of the power of money in politics, it becomes hyperpoliticized, a massive battle with all kinds of very powerful people who make a lot of money trying to manipulate the food items that show up on our kids’ plates at their school cafeteria.

innovation units within big companies

According to the BBC, some big companies are forming small internal units to act more like startups:

Kassir Hussain, director of connected homes at British Gas, says Hive was founded on the “lean start-up principles” espoused by Eric Ries in his book The Lean Startup: How Today’s Entrepreneurs Use Continuous Innovation to Create Radically Successful Businesses.

In practice, this means developing a product or service step by step, constantly consulting with customers so that money isn’t wasted on features they will not want. Each stage of development is tested – so-called “validated learning” – so that future success is almost built in to the process. Normal management structures don’t apply.

“We believe that job titles can actually prevent co-operation and teamwork,” says Mr Hussain. “It’s about encouraging an entrepreneurial mentality throughout the business. Hive’s product development is in days and weeks, not months and years.”

Hive’s Active Heating system, which lets you remotely control your home heating via smartphone, now has about 80,000 customers. But the service could not have come about from within British Gas’s complex corporate structure, Mr Hussain believes.

“Nearly three-quarters of Hive’s business is staffed by people with digital backgrounds from outside the group,” he says.

I see a few lessons here. First, the group has outsiders. Second, it is protected from the internal bureaucracy. Third, it has permission to take risks, which implies permission to fail. But it tries to limit the size of failures by staying in constant touch with customers. Not mentioned here is the idea that it has adequate resources, but that must be the case.

The other important question is how you would take this concept that seems to work well with consumer products and apply it to other sectors like, say, services or government.