Comparing economic development

Statesa.gifIn this NRO op-ed, Greg Kaza compares the economies of Texas and Arkansas over the past generation and concludes that talent and capital really do react logically to choices:

State Line Road is the boundary that separates the Arkansas and Texas sides of Texarkana, a border town that is sometimes described as ìthe Gateway to the American Southwest.î State Line, to the casual observer, is merely another road separating two states. But for those in the neighborhood, the road represents something of a great divide.
Of course, on the cultural side of the ledger, we have the date that will live forever: December 6, 1969. Thatís when the top-ranked Texas Longhorns edged the second-ranked Arkansas Razorbacks, 15-14, in a dramatic college football game witnessed by President Richard M. Nixon and George H.W. Bush, a congressman at the time. ìThe Game,î as it is known locally, is still talked about on both sides of State Line Road.
But in terms of economic growth, the divide is much more lopsided: Employment growth in Texas has been significantly higher than in Arkansas during periods of economic expansion. The population in Dallas has nearly tripled in the post-WWII period, while the population in Little Rock has barely doubled in size. Per capita personal income in Texas is 94 percent of the U.S total. In Arkansas itís 77 percent of the nationís total, a level that has hardly budged since the 1970s.
The list of statistical disparities is long, and thereís a good reason why: While Arkansas and Texas share a common border, each taxes income and capital in radically different ways.
Arkansas has a top income-tax rate of 7 percent, the highest among the bordering states. Texas, however, does not impose an income tax. The imbalance is the same for capital gains: Arkansas taxes them. Texas does not.
As a result, we can see a very basic economic principle at work: Talent and capital always will flow toward higher returns.

Read the entire piece.

Never underestimate a potential lawsuit

donimus4.jpgLooks as if I was wrong that CBS doesn’t have at least a colorable argument that it had grounds to terminate Don Imus’ contract for cause. This NY Times article reports that CBS has refused Imus’ demand to pay him the balance of the compensation under the contract and that Imus is preparing to sue CBS for terminating Imus’ contract for cause. Apparently, CBS is relying on a provision of the contract that appears to shift some termination risk to Imus if he made a controversial statement on the air that placed the network at risk of regulatory sanction.
Although different jurisdictions have varying standards for deciding such cases, CBS would have a tough case to make if Texas law controlled the dispute. CBS encouraged Imus’ offensive statements for years before his insult of the Rutgers women’s basketball team blew up in Imus and CBS’ collective faces. My bet is that the case is settled before too long with Imus taking a small discount for what he is owed under the contract in the settlement. But not before the lawyers on both sides take their cut. ;^)

The Big Fight

De%20La%20Hoya%20v%20Mayweather.JPGThe sad state of boxing in the U.S. is such that it has become rare that a professional bout generates much interest from the casual fans of the fight game who only check in for a truly big fight. But one of those special events is happening tonight in Las Vegas as WBC super-welterweight champion Oscar De La Hoya and Floyd Mayweather battle for the super-welterweight title. The bout will be shown on HBO pay-per-view for around $50 and has been the subject of a slick HBO documentary miniseries, “24/7,” that has followed the camp preparations of both boxers.
This is a particularly interesting fight because De La Hoya personifies strength and power in the ring while Mayweather is one of the speediest boxers of all-time. Mayweather, who is 30, is younger by four years and smaller than De La Hoya, but he is the WBC welterweight champion, is undefeated in 37 professional contests, has held world titles in four weight divisions, and is widely considered to be the best overall boxer in the fight game at this time. His nickname is “Pretty Boy Floyd” because virtually no one ever lays a glove on his face.
On the other hand, the older De La Hoya (38-4) has been known as the “Golden Boy” since he won a gold medal in the 1992 Olympics and has taken on virtually every good fighter in the 150 or so pound weight classes since that time. Although not as fast as Mayweather, De La Hoya certainly is not slow by any means and combines superb balance with one of the most lethal left hooks in boxing. Only two non-heavyweight fights have generated over over one million pay-per-view purchases and they both involved De La Hoya. This fight will be the third and will almost certainly generate the most pay-per-view purchases of any non-heavyweight fight.
One of the interesting subplots to this fight is that Mayweather’s father has been De La Hoya’s trainer for the past six years and offered to train De La Hoya for this fight against his son for a cool $2 million. De La Hoya thought about it, but ultimately declined because he decided that the arrangement would just be too weird. Maybe so, but that is precisely the type of spice that looks to make this fight special even for folks who do not tune in the fight game much.

The Lord Browne Affair

Lord%20Browne.jpgIt was not one of the mainstream media’s better weeks as the vultures have been circling the carcass of former BP chairman and CEO Lord Browne’s business career after the lurid Daily Mail was finally allowed by an English court to reveal that Browne had engaged in a homosexual affair with a younger man. Lord Browne has resigned in disgrace, but there is much more to this story than the headlines that most of the mainstream media is passing along.
Turns out that the Daily Mail has been pursuing for over a year a story to out the 59 year old Browne, who had built a fine reputation while rising through the management ranks of England’s largest company. A private man who has never married and still lives with his mother, Lord Browne had a four year relationship with a 27 year old Canadian with the surreal name of Jeff Chevalier, who Browne had supported in a small business that, of course, folded.
So, what was Chevalier’s response to Lord Browne’s generosity? Cozying up to the Daily Mail for some “Kiss n’ Tell” money at the expense of Browne’s private life.
Lord Browne didn’t react well initially to this attack, but it was understandable that the top executive of a huge, multi-national energy concern wanted to keep a private homosexual relationship out of the media glare while he is responsible for dealing with many foreign executives who don’t have particularly tolerant views toward such relationships. Matt Parris summed this point up well:

When Lord Browne told his shaving mirror, that it was not in the interests of BPís shareholders that his gay private lifestyle became public property, he was not imagining the problem. One can only imagine what Vladimir Putin thinks about gays ñ but this was a statesman whose confidence Browne (and BP) needed. The Arab and Muslim world has no problem with secret homosexuality, but every kind of problem with acknowleged and proclaimed homosexuality.

As a result, Lord Browne panicked and perjured himself about where he met Chevalier, claiming that he met him while “out jogging” rather than in a gay chat-room. Even though he quickly recanted and apologized, that mistake in judgment ended up costing Browne at least $20 million, his reputation and a sterling business career.
The Daily Mail’s self-serving justification in outing Lord Browne was that he was “misusing BP’s resources” in helping Chevalier and, thus, it was in the BP shareholders’ interests for Lord Browne’s private life to be exposed. But an internal BP investigation found that allegation to be baseless. Sure, Browne should not have lied, but the only reason he was placed in that position in the first place was that the Daily Mail decided that he deserved to be outed because he was rich, powerful and gay.
So, a proud and talented executive was not allowed to go on managing the largest British company while maintaining the privacy of his personal life, publicity of which was not in his company’s interests for the reasons noted above. That he was not allowed to do so is a poor reflection on English society, in general, and the Daily Mail, in particular.

Big Jim’s testimony at the Black trial

Jim%20Thompson.jpgBig Jim Thompson, the former governor of Illinois, followed fellow Hollinger International director and audit committee member Marie-JosÈ Kravis to the witness stand in the criminal trial of Conrad Black this week. Thompson testified that he was just as clueless as Mrs. Kravis about approving the non-compete payments to Black that are the basis of the criminal charges against the Canadian businessman and author.
As you might expect, things did not go smoothly for Thompson on cross-examination in attempting to explain how he “skimmed over” $60 million in non-compete payments to Black and several of his associates that were liberally disclosed in a dozen corporate documents that Thompson approved and signed. Mark Steyn — who has been doing an extraordinary job of blogging the Black trial — sums up the scene this way:

Governor Thompson’s daily stipend for attending a couple of short audit and board meetings at Hollinger on Feb 25 2002 and remembering nothing about them five years later: $18,000.00
Chicago juror’s daily stipend for sitting through eight hours of testimony and being expected to pay attention rather than “skim” it: $45.00
Entertainment value of watching a four-term governor and star witness melt down on the stand: Priceless.

The Nanny State on overdrive

dogs.jpgA nice couple with a couple of adopted young chidren also enjoys adopting rescue dogs ó those dogs that are ignored, abandoned, malnourished, and mistreated. After two of the family dogs passed away, the couple decides its time for a family outing to the local SPCA to adopt a new dog for the family. The couple picks out a lovable St. Bernard, but the SPCA representatives balk at approving the couple’s request to adopt the dog. Interesting interaction results, but the bottom line is that the couple has “been declared fit to adopt two baby girls, but unfit to adopt a dog.” Read the entire incredible story.

Regulating incompetence? Or incompetent regulation?

Marie%20Josee%20Kravis.jpgLet’s see if I’ve got this straight.
As a member of the Hollinger International board of directors and audit committee, Marie-JosÈ Kravis, wife of Henry R. Kravis of Kohlberg Kravis Roberts fame, approves $60 million in non-compete payments that go to former Hollinger CEO Conrad Black and several of his associates. Given the context in which they were paid, the non-compete payments to Black were not particularly unusual or wrong.
The federal government then decides to prosecute Black and his associates on the theory that they misappropriated the $60 million from Hollinger. Probably in fear that she might also be indicted, Mrs. Kravis tells the feds that she didn’t realize what she was doing in approving the non-compete fees in favor of Black, et. al. The two other members of the audit committee said the same thing.
Subsequently, Mrs. Kravis and other Hollinger directors receive Wells Notices from the SEC for being negligent in approving the non-compete payments for Black. The typical SEC sanction in such manners is a ban from serving as an officer or director of a publicly-owned company, usually for life and at least for five years.
As a result, Mrs. Kravis agrees to testify for the government against Black and admits that she didn’t realize what she was doing in approving the $60 million in non-compete fees in favor of Black and the others.
The SEC then withdraws its Wells Notice to Mrs. Kravis.
So, the SEC threatens to ban Mrs. Kravis from being an officer or director of a publicly-owned corporation because she is an incompetent director, and then withdraws the threat when Mrs. Kravis confirms that she is an incompetent director.
And Conrad Black’s freedom and storied career hangs in the balance.
A truly civil society would not tolerate such a travesty.

Rearranging the deck chairs at TSU

tsu2.gifSo, the regents who Texas Governor Rick Perry appointed to oversee Texas Southern University have now all resigned as a result of the latest edition of the chronic scandals at the institution. Governor Perry now plans on appointing five new regents, although it remains unclear where he is going to find five saints to step into the current TSU mess. Plus, there is no reason to think that Governor Perry’s new regents will be any better equipped to deal with TSU’s problems than Governor Perry’s former regents.
Governor Perry’s response is the typical band-aid approach to dealing with TSU’s problems that have been the norm for decades. As noted earlier here, TSU’s problems are systemic and cannot be resolved without rethinking and redefining the university’s purpose. Based on Governor Perry’s approach, you can count on that we will be discussing the next scandal at TSU in a few years.
As a matter of fact, it didn’t even take that long.
Update: The former TSU chief financial officer who was involved in the most recent TSU scandal was convicted today of misapplication of fiduciary property over $200,000. The jury is now hearing the sentencing phase of the trial.

Changing history

Debakey050307.jpgThe NY Times’ medical reporter, Lawrence Altman, M.D., tells the story of how Houston’s famed heart surgeon Michael E. DeBakey changed the course of history by persuading the late Boris Yeltsin that he could survive heart bypass surgery after the Russian president had suffered a heart attack in the fall of 1996. The surgery saved Yeltsin’s life and allowed him to live for another decade.
Of course, there are some who would argue that Dr. DeBakey efforts did not change history for the better.

Well, at least UT’s football players
can’t be bought that cheap

student-loans-monay.jpgDoes anyone else get the feeling that The Daily Texan student reporters are having a ball covering the University of Texas Office of Student Financial Services scandal?
In its latest article on the scandal, the Texan reports that the financial services office rated student-loan firms based on “treats” and other meals provided to university officials. In internal reviews of their lists of lenders that were recommended to students, UT financial-aid officials rated the loan companies based on a number of criteria, including “visibility,” which was defined as “based on the number of lunches, breakfasts and extracurricular functions for entire OSFS staff.” One document titled “Lender Treats” listed a “Hula Hut Happy Hour” provided by one lender and a lasagna lunch contributed by another.
Last month, UT put Lawrence Burt, its associate vice president and director of student financial aid, on paid leave after it was reported that he owned an interest in the former parent of Student Loan Xpress Inc. (now a unit of CIT Group). For his part, Burt has stated publicly that his interest in the company had nothing to do with UT funneling student loan business to the company. And, yes, Student Loan Xpress Inc. was rated “very good” in free meals and functions in a recent financial services office review.
The UT investigation comes in the wake of a larger investigation by the new Lord of Regulation, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, who announced earlier in the week that six more universities have agreed to settle deceptive-trade-practice claims involving undisclosed payments from firms on preferred-lender lists. A half-dozen or so financial aid officials remain under investigation for taking payments from student loan firms.
My goodness, all this over some lasagna and happy hours? If Cuomo and the institutions were interested in really taking on some real corruption on college campuses, then they would be doing something about this.