Hungary Blocks €90 billion E.U. Loan for Ukraine: Holding the E.U. Hostage

It is one thing for a dog’s tail to lead; even worse is the situation in which the tail refuses to let the dog walk or run. The staying power of the principle of unanimity in the European Council and the Council of the E.U. enables any one of the state governments to block federal policy and law. Such a blockage makes the tyranny of a minority look tame. In contrast, qualified-majority voting ensures that enough of a majority—a “super-majority”—is in place that the resulting minority should lose. The notion that every state government must be “on board” for the E.U. to enact a policy or law is misplaced because governmental sovereignty in that Union is “dual” because both the E.U.’s federal level and the state governments have at least some sovereignty. The same is true of American federalism. Neither the E.U. nor the U.S. is a confederation of sovereign states; only in such a federation does the principle of unanimity fit.

Facing an uphill electoral contest in two months, Hungary’s sitting prime minister, Viktor Orbán, had one of his ministers, Peter Szijártó, announce on 20 February, 2026, “We are blocking the €90 billion EU loan for Ukraine until oil transit to Hungary via the Druzhba pipeline resumes.”[1] This is an obvious example of a part putting its own interest ahead of the whole, which includes not only the E.U. but also the entire world-order, given Russia’s non-provoked aggression in Ukraine for years with impunity. Regarding the E.U., the implication that a federal program should be in the particular interests of each state in order to go forward reduces the E.U. to a mere aggregation in which every part must be satisfied and thus federal action is severely constrained even at the expense of the E.U. itself, meaning the collective interest that goes beyond the aggregate of the particular interests of the states.

Besides the systemic problem in allowing each of 27 states to block federal action and even statements, Hungary’s use of its veto to block the loan demonstrates that the governor of an E.U. state is perfectly capable of wielding the veto power immaturely and irrationally. Szijjártó claimed “Ukraine is blackmailing Hungary by halting oil transit in coordination with Brussels and the Hungarian opposition to create supply disruptions in Hungary and push fuel prices higher before the elections.”[2] In other words, the E.U. state was blaming Ukraine. The problem with that narrative is that the “Druzhba pipeline, which dates back to the Soviet Union, was damaged after it was hit by a Russian strike and that has impacted transit.”[3] That the strike had been unprovoked and Ukraine was in the midst of massive power outages due to other Russian strikes seem not to have registered in Budapest. Ukraine was “in the midst of a difficult winter, with gruelling temperatures below zero. Russia’s constant pounding with missiles and drones means a large part of [Ukraine’s] energy infrastructure has been destroyed and cannot cope with the heating needs of civilians.”[4] Was Ukraine to drop everything to fix the pipeline that Russia had damaged? Rather than make this claim, the governor of Hungary could have weened his state off Russian oil. The rationale for the veto is thus dubious at best, and this in turn raises the question of whether the governors of the E.U. states are capable of having a veto at the federal level, especially as one of the rationales for the E.U. is to forestall war from breaking out between states or between a state and a foreign country. This rationale is but one of ways in which the interests of the whole—the European Union—are not mere aggregates of the particular interests of the states, for none of the states has a mandate to look out for peace throughout the E.U.

That Hungary even has a veto over the loan is a stretch because the E.U. states of Hungary, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic had successfully been granted federal exemptions from contributing financially to the €90 billion loan. It was “subject to unanimity” nonetheless “because it amends the E.U. budget rules to allow borrowing” for a foreign country.[5] That the E.U. allowed exempted states to vote nonetheless is, I submit, yet another indication that the E.U. was still too wedded to the principle of unanimity and the states were too unwilling to give up that power. That Hungary’s use of that power in this instance was so wrong-headed, for Russia rather than Ukraine was responsible for the non-functioning pipeline, adds urgency to the point that the E.U. should finally confront the question of whether to reform itself by expunging the confederation-fitting principle of unanimity.

---

1. Maria Tadeo and Jorge Liboreiro, “Hungary Blocks €90 Billion Loan for Ukraine over Damaged Pipeline as Tensions Escalate,” Euronews.com, 20 February, 2026.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.

The E.U.’s Hungary Overreaching on Sovereignty: International Trade

Sovereignty is not a word to be casually used, especially if in overreaching. In both the E.U. and U.S., state governments have overreached at the expense of the delegated competencies or enumerated powers of the respective Unions of states. The Nullification Crisis in the U.S. and de facto unilateral refusal of the E.U. state of Hungary to observe E.U. law both demonstrate how the overreaching by state governments can compromise a federal system.[1] In the E.U. the refusal to do away with the principle of unanimity in the European Council and the Council of the E.U. enable and even invite such overreaches at the expense of the E.U. itself, and its distinctly federal officials. Even a state government’s pursuit of it’s state’s economic interests does not justify holding the E.U. hostage. The case of supporting Ukraine in the midst of the invasion by Russia is a case in point.

The full essay is at "The E.U.'s Hungary Overreaching on Sovereignty."

---

1, In 1832-1833, the government of South Carolina held that the U.S. tariffs of 1828 and 1832 were null and void within the state. “The resolution of the Nullification Crisis in favor of the federal government helped to undermine the nullification doctrine,” which holds that states have the right “to nullify federal acts within their boundaries.” Britannica.com (accessed August 25, 2025). I submit that the European Court of Justice could do worse than declare the same with regard to state laws, including the refusal of a governor or state legislature to implement federal directives, that are in violation of E.U. law and regulations. Monetary sanctions by the European Commission have not been a sufficient deterrent. If either de facto or de jure nullification becomes the norm, then it would only be a matter of time before the Union dissolves and the states could once again take up arms against each other.

Speculators and Price Volatility: The Case of Gasoline

According to The Huffington Post, “Oil prices took a nosedive [on May 5, 2011] in a historic selloff, erasing weeks of gains and indicating that the months-long climb in energy prices may have hit a ceiling. Crude oil plunged 10 percent as startled investors unloaded their positions and a weeklong decline accelerated into an outright freefall. The price of U.S. crude went from triple digits to double digits, falling below $100 after opening at close to $110. Brent crude, a European benchmark, lost $12 at one point in a sell-off that exceeded the one following Lehman Brothers' collapse.”  The question, for course, is why, the answer of which can lead us to consider some public policy recommendations. Understanding the previous price rise is a first step both to answering this question and for evaluating public policy solutions.

The price of oil had been increasing, according to the Huffington Post, “as fighting escalated in the Middle East and investors feared a supply shortage.” Even as the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries was pledging to correct any oil supply disruption, the price of a barrel of crude continued to rise. Before the drop, Brent was up 50 percent compared to the same time the year before. Indeed, the rise could not be explained in terms of actual supply being threatened, as Libya represented only 2 percent of world supply at the time.

The fear was likely of a domino-effect that could potentially compromise even Saudi crude—as if Sunni protesters in Bahrain would spill over into Saudi Arabia (rather than tanks from the latter “spilling over” into Bahrain).  The fear, in other words, may have been exaggerated—even facilitated by speculators taking advantage of the general sense of instability in the Middle East. "Clearly these markets were overblown," said Nariman Behravesh, chief economist of IHS Global Insight. "We've been saying all along the fear factor has probably added 10 to 15 dollars to the price of a barrel." The ensuing “freefall” might have been a correction for this “fear factor.”

However, that the oil-price drop was accompanied by other commodities and even stocks could suggest that larger forces were involved. According to Reuters, “World stocks fell and the 19-commodity Reuters-Jefferies CRB index dropped more than 4.9 percent, heading for its biggest weekly decline since December 2008.” An oil-centered drop alone could be expected to result in higher stock prices as expected lower gas prices would be expected to have a stimulating effect on the U.S. economy. So it would appear that broader factors were at play—things that could have triggered the fear-correction.

Reuters reports that “(w)eak economic data from Europe and the United States fed concerns that have battered commodities all week. German industrial orders fell unexpectedly in March while U.S. weekly jobless claims hit eight-month highs, sparking a fourth day of profit taking in early trade. . . . Additional pressure came from news OPEC was considering raising formal output limits when it meets in June to convince oil markets it wants to bring prices down and reverse the impact of fuel inflation on economic growth.” However, it is not clear that the market was being so rational.

"This is just a market that rolled over and started feeding on itself," said John Richards, head of North American strategy for the Royal Bank of Scotland, according to the Huffington Post. "There was no triggering single event of news that would account for this. It's just much more the market's own internal dynamics taking prices down here," Richards added. “Internal dynamics” sounds a lot better than “feeding on itself.” The latter implies a growing disjunction between price and the “underlying” supply and demand for the commodity, whereas the former intimates a self-sustained system tending to equilibrium. 

Broadly speaking, the question may be whether a market for X tends internally to a homeostatic state of equilibrium or a schizogenic condition wherein a maximizing variable breaches any equilibrium-enforcing features. In ecological terms, by analogy, the question is whether a species tends to maximize its growth even at the expense of the overall ecosystem. In terms of the oil commodity market, the question is whether people simply betting on the price without any intended future use effectively divorce the market price from the actual and expected supply and demand. Moreover, does the disjuncture increase such that the betting acts as a maximizing variable at the expense of any equilibrium-tending mechanisms of the market itself?

Even if the “freefall” drop in the price of oil evinces a return to equilibrium closer to supply and demand, the disjuncture itself caused people to put off vacations and spend less on even necessities, and generally feel poorer. There is thus an ethical question regarding the legitimacy of betting on a commodity that people need. This includes not only oil, but food as well. Specifically, is the freedom to bet on necessities (even if necessities in the short run) worth the ensuing harm to consumers? Moreover, is trading on a commodities market inherently intended or designed for bets or, more narrowly, to arrive at a price whereby consumption demand meets supply? What, in other words, if economic liberty undoes the purpose of a market?

According to Bart Chilton, a top regulator at the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), the number of speculative bets on oil and food were at record levels at the time of the price increases in both oil and food. President Barack Obama created an oil market fraud group in April to provide enhanced regulatory scrutiny of potential fraud and manipulation in the oil futures and derivatives markets, but most speculation was perfectly legal at the time so the reach of the group was rather limited in comparison to the problem.

Eric Holder, the U.S. Attorney General, wrote in a letter to the group, "Of course, there are lawful market forces that lead to price fluctuations and to differences between wholesale and retail price trends in these markets.” He urged the group “to identify whether fraud or manipulation played any role in the wholesale and retail markets as prices increased. If wholesale prices continue to decrease, fraud or manipulation must not be allowed to prevent price decreases from being passed on to consumers at the pump." However, manipulation in the form of betting was legal at the time. Even so, the financial reform bill passed in 2010 requires the CFTC to craft rules reining in excessive speculation. Nevertheless, citing inadequate market data, the agency failed to meet a key deadline on those rules in early 2011.

Accordingly, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT) sent a letter to President Obama on the day of the “freefall” urging that regulators impose limits on oil speculation. “There is mounting evidence that the skyrocketing price of gas and oil has nothing to do with the fundamentals of supply and demand, and has everything to do with Wall Street firms that are artificially jacking up the price of oil in the energy futures markets,” Sanders wrote. “In other words, the same Wall Street speculators that caused the worst financial crisis since the 1930s through their greed, recklessness, and illegal behavior are ripping off the American people again by gambling that the price of oil and gas will continue to go up.” The question is whether “artificially jacking up” prices of commodities that people need ought to be illegal, and, if so, whether such a law could even be enforced.

Should futures traders be required to take delivery and use the commodity they have purchased? If so, people seeking to hedge risk may not be able to do so. Is not the “too big to fail” story about too much risk? Perhaps other means of hedging could be used. Furthermore, it may be that the government officials were not going far enough structurally. Were they to have incorporated anti-trust law, applying it strictly, perhaps a more competitive oil market would obviate the baleful effects of speculators. Even if there would be some opportunity costs in the reduced economies of scale enjoyed by oil companies (and gas stations), a market mechanism running on more competition would be worth that cost to the particular firms. The common good outweighs that of individual companies.

In going after “excessive” speculation or oligopolies, the devil may be in the details. For example, regulation may be difficult to write—assuming the corporate lobbyists do not obstruct it from even getting to that point (e.g., the failure of the CFTC to issue regulations)—not to mention enforcement. In a system of corporate capitalism, moreover, representative democracy may not be able to provide a homeostatic remedy after the horse has run out of the barn.

Sources:

Matthew Robinson, “Oil Crashes 10 Percent in Record Rout,” Reuters, May 5, 2011.

William Alden, “Oil Prices Plunge in Record Sell-Off,” The Huffington Post, May 5, 2011.

Zack Carter, “Eric Holder to Fraud Squad: Oil Price Plunge Should Benefit Consumers,” The Huffington Post, May 6, 2011.

Auto vs. Oil Industries on Emission Standards: Putting a Part Above the Whole

When a company or an entire industry skips over the good of the whole—the public good—in lobbying for legislation that only reflects the needs or desires of individuals (qua consumers only), the society itself (and even the Earth) is slighted and thus more at risk. For the good of the whole is more than just the cumulative needs and desires of individuals in part because the latter do not take into account the wider effects of their choices. When an individual company or industry takes this point into account and rebuffs favorable legislative proposals because they would do too much damage to society and/or the planet, social responsibility is at hand. Companies or industries that do not are thus irresponsible from the standpoint of the whole, which, through government, is justified in keeping an eye on them (especially in making transparent their efforts to influence legislation and regulation. The American auto and oil industries can be distinguished in this regard.

“When the Trump administration laid out a plan” in 2018 that would have eventually allowed “cars to emit more pollution, automakers, the obvious winners from the proposal, balked. The changes, they said, went too far even for them.”[1] Too far even for the obvious winners—an amazing statement, considering that companies and industries generally try to get as much as they can in terms of deregulation and favorable laws.

Another industry, however, fueled by the efforts of Marathon Petroleum, “was pushing for the changes all along.”[2] The campaign’s main argument “for significantly easing fuel efficiency standards” was “that the United States [was] so awash in oil” that energy conservation need no longer be a worry.[3] This statement blatantly misses the point that the standards that were in place then were also to reduce emissions of CO2 from what they would otherwise have been from entering the Earth’s atmosphere.

Interestingly, the American oil industry must have missed the memo on the continuing increases in the emissions.

In fact, 2017 saw a record amount of emissions added to the atmosphere; the Paris Accord in 2015 was already proving to have been a failure.  Issued in early October, 2018, a “landmark report” from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change “paints a far more dire picture of the immediate consequences of climate change than previously thought.”[4] The report states that if “greenhouse gas emissions continue at the current rate, the atmosphere will warm up by as much as 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 degrees Celsius) above preindustrial levels by 2040, inundating coastlines and intensifying droughts and poverty.”[5] This was the context in which the oil industry was running “a stealth campaign to roll back car emissions standards.”[6]

The industry’s rationale reduced everything to the needs and desires of individual customers with no consideration of the impact on even them, not to mention humanity—including possibly its very survival. “With oil scarcity no longer a concern,” Americans should be given a “choice in vehicles that best fit their needs,” read a draft of a letter that Marathon helped to circulate to members of Congress over the summer. Official correspondence later sent to regulators by more than a dozen lawmakers included phrases or sentences from the industry talking points, and the Trump administration’s proposed rules incorporate similar logic.”[7] Of course, that a “quarter of the world’s oil is used to power cars, and less-thirsty vehicles mean lower gasoline sales” was not missed on either Marathon or its industry as a whole.[8] But the notion of a whole apparently stopped at the industry level; externalities beyond that, even one bearing on the future of mankind, were apparently of no concern.

Marathon Petroleum even “teamed up with the American Legislative Exchange Council, a secret policy group financed by corporations as well as the Koch network, to draft legislation for states supporting the industry’s position. [The] proposed resolution, dated Sept. 18, describes [the then] current fuel-efficiency rules as ‘a relic of a disproven narrative of resource scarcity’ and [urges that ‘unelected bureaucrats’ shouldn’t dictate the cars Americans drive.”[9] The resolution’s language doubtlessly included the council’s talking points, which, in staying on the “resource scarcity” rationale for standards, neglect the obvious link between emissions and climate change. Furthermore, the smack on “unelected bureaucrats” demonstrates no regard for government as standing for the interests of the whole when externalities from cumulative individual decisions are too much from the perspective of the whole. To be sure, with industries swaying legislators and regulators in democracies, laws and regulations can indeed benefit a part at the expense of the whole, but this deplorable flaw does not negate the need to protect the whole from parts from exploiting conflicts of interest. Unlike the auto industry, the oil industry sought to exploit its conflict of interest by putting its narrow interest ahead of that of the whole where the whole supposed to be paramount—in the halls of government.

I suggest, therefore, that heightened scrutiny is warranted where a company or industry (or the business sector—still but a part of the whole) seeks to influence lawmakers, regulators, or the general public in line with the private (profit) interest. This is especially needed in a culture that is generally in line with its business sector’s values. People and government officials alike in such a culture (such as that of the U.S.A.) find it difficult to realize the need to see that such conflicts of interest are not exploited. In fact, in my book, Institutional Conflicts of Interest, I argue that a conflict of interest is inherently unethical even if it is not exploited. A few other scholars on the subject argue in contrast that if a conflict of interest is not exploited, no harm is involved, but I contend that another reason exists why arrangements or situations that include conflicts of interest are unethical. I actually met one of those scholars on the Loyola campus in Chicago, but once in his office, I found he only wanted to talk about Obama. So much for scholarly exchanges.

---

1. Hiroko Tabuchi, “The Oil Industry’s Covert Campaign to Rewrite American Car Emissions Rules,” The New York Times, December 13, 2018.

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid.

4. Coral Davenport, “Major Climate Report Describes a Strong Risk of Crisis as Early as 2040,” The New York Times, October 7, 2018.

5. Ibid.

6. Hiroko Tabuchi, “The Oil Industry’s Covert Campaign to Rewrite American Car Emissions Rules,” The New York Times, December 13, 2018.

7. Ibid.

8. Ibid.

9. Ibid.

Foreign Policy in International Business: BP Trading a Libyan Terrorist for Libyan Oil

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, D-NY, claimed in July of 2010 that the UK government should investigate what role BP played in Britain’s decision to free Abdel Baset al-Megrahi in August 2009. Al-Megrahi is the only person convicted of carrying out the 1988 bombing of a Pan Am airliner in which 270 people were killed over Lockerbie, Scotland. This is not to say that he acted alone. In February, 2011, Gadhafi's justice minster, Mustafa Abdel-Jalil, who resigned in protest against Gadhafi's massacre of unarmed protesters, told a Swedish newspaper that Gadhafi had ordered the attack. Abdel-Jalil also claimed that Megrahi threatened to "spill the beans" unless his return to Libya were secured. It would appear that BP, a publically-traded stock corporation, played a vital role between Gadhafi and the British government. If so, then aside from Gadhafi's sordid role, this case presents us with an issue of business ethics. Specifically, does a corporation, which is essentially private wealth but with responsibility befitting the power that comes with such wealth, cross a line when its employees engage in foreign policy? The ethical problem inherent in interfering in a juridical sentence is troubling enough; if an unelected corporation becomes so powerful that it can affect international relations between (and foreign policies of) countries, then the issue involves not only business ethics, but also democratic governance. As the line between private and public blurs, the respective bases of legitimacy can become conflated or transposed.

In May 2007, BP signed a $900 million exploration agreement with Libya. Also that month, Britain and Libya signed an agreement that paved the way for al-Megrahi’s release from a Scottish prison. A spokesman for BP has admitted that people at the company lobbied the British government over the prisoner transfer deal with Libya in late 2007, but the company’s spokesman denied that the lobbying played any role in the government’s decision to release al-Megrahi nearly two years later. Senator Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., argued that ”the whole thing has deep circumstantial evidence that points to the fact that there was a trade-off — release the terrorist in exchange for an oil contract.” Schumer and three other US senators — Kirsten Gillibrand, Robert Menendez and Frank Lautenberg — wrote to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asking that the State Department investigate whether BP had a hand in the release. “Evidence in the Deepwater Horizon disaster seems to suggest that BP would put profit ahead of people — its attention to safety was negligible and it routinely underestimated the amount of oil gushing into the Gulf,” they wrote. “The question we now have to answer is, was this corporation willing to trade justice in the murder of 270 innocent people for oil profits?” The answer appears to be “yes.”

In an interview with the Daily Telegraph (September 4, 2009), Jack Straw admits that when he was considering in 2007 whether the bomber should be included in a prisoner transfer agreement (PTA) with Libya, Britain’s trade interests were a crucial factor. When asked in the interview if trade and BP were factors, Mr Straw admits: “Yes, [it was] a very big part of that. I’m unapologetic about that … Libya was a rogue state… . We wanted to bring it back into the fold. And yes, that included trade because trade is an essential part of it and subsequently there was the BP deal.” In short, BP employees have admitted to the lobbying and Jack Straw has admitted that BP’s contract was a factor—the two sides meet and the knot is tied.

Analysis:

Even BP’s lobbying effort was not decisive in the exchange agreement, the involvement of BP managers even as they and BP stood to gain from an oil exploration contract evinces a conflict of interest that should have been barred by ethics guidelines at the company. Moreover, the company had no standing in the prisoner exchange matter such that it had any business in lobbying. At most, the legal person legal doctrine and the associated “money as free speech” doctrine pertain to a company’s main business. The doctrines ought not give a company all rights of citizens because corporate charters are delimited to particular domains or functions. Furthermore, to expect a company to put ethics ahead of profits is to conflate a firm with a human being.  To be sure, a company is made of people (and capital). However, the association is focused rather pointedly on one thing: maximizing shareholder value through profits. Accordingly, managers know legal requirements, whereas ought and should are more difficult to translate into cost-benefit analyses. In other words, a company is like a shark in that both are single-minded feeding machines. To expect a machine to obviate its next feeding because of an ought is to treat it as something other than what it is.  I suspect that as onlookers we tend to project our own values onto company managements—even companies themselves—instead of coming to terms with what a company is.  It is a feeding machine with one directionality and an expansive appetite, which includes venturing into other domains such as (hypothetically)  lobbying for an exchange of prisoners in exchange for a lucrative oil contract. In other words, companies are designed to transgress even their own charters. They are like Hal in the film 2001—the computer that took on a life of its own. Ideally, a company would convert anything in a given society into a commodity, with price being the universal measure. The US senators are objecting, in effect, to the commodization of the prisoner exchange, and to the “boundary issues” of BP.

The “so what” of this analysis is the following: it is particularly dangerous for a company or industry to be so powerful that it can unduly influence a government both in terms of a judicial sentence and in relation to other countries. Given the expansive nature of a company, society must have a means of keeping corporations within their proper domain of providing goods and services.  In a plutocracy (rule by wealth),  private wealth is the basis of government. This is not the case in republics, which are characterized by representative democracy.

Sources:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38256677/ns/world_news-africa/
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/megrahi-threat-to-reveal-truth-over-lockerbie-1.1087516?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

The Saudi Crackdown: A Cause for Market Confidence

The Saudi government sought to confiscate cash and other assets worth as much as $800 billion in ostensibly cracking down on corruption in late 2017. More than 60 princes, officials, and business practitioners were initially detained. Both the figure and the number of arrests reflect merely “the initial stages” of asset seizures and arrests, according to a Saudi spokesman.[1] It was not long before 500 had been detained.[2] I submit that both the swiftness and scope left international investors and foreign businesses in Saudi Arabia unnecessarily rattled. Doubtless uncertainty as to the real reason for the crackdown unnerved the business elite. Corruption was endemic in the Saudi political economy, so the sudden need to crack down on it understandably left people to wonder as to the real reason, which, as it turns out, was nothing for business to fear.

The first point to make regards the spuriousness of the prime facie anti-corruption motive. At the time, Saudi laws “included little or no regulation of the sprawling royal family and its closest clients.”[3] For example, a major Saudi investment firm founded by one of King Salmon’s sons and then chaired by another owned “a significant stake in a conglomerate” that did “extensive government business.”[4] Indeed, princes “were known for borrowing money and simply never paying it back, which nearly led to the collapse of the National Commercial Bank.”[5] Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, curiously one of the detainees, told the American ambassador in 1996 that a handful of senior princes controlled billions of dollars in off-budget programs.”[6] Bringing about accountability in princely self-aggrandizement at the expense of the government can only be an oxymoron when said government belongs to the royal family. To apply democratic accountability would only be to demonstrate a foreigner’s base ignorance of the Saudi political economy.

The New York Times observed at the time that “if corruption is defined as private profit at the public expense, the practice is so pervasive that any measures short of revolutionary change may appear to be selective prosecution.”[7] Such change was clearly not in the cards. Doubtless the Crown Prince, who headed the anti-corruption force, shielded his allies and supporters and took advantage of the opportunity to take some detractors out of play, but his motive likely went beyond merely consolidating power, given the precariousness of the economy’s oil-dependency in the twenty-first century amid global calls for lower use of fossil fuels. Indeed, being dependent on any industry is not sound economic practice for any government or ruling family.

Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman said that going after corruption at the highest level would be necessary to moving the Saudi economy off its dependence on oil, but the pervasiveness of “unlawful gain”—as if the law touched the royal family—undermines the claim. Were the Crown Prince determined to rid the political economy of corruption, an entirely new system would be needed; such a prospect would indeed legitimately raise caution-flags among investors and businesses, but they needn’t have worried as corruption itself was still safe in Saudi Arabia given the continuance of the royal family as the economic and political sovereign.

The riddle as to the actual motive is solved once it is realized that the assets seized would go to the state, and thus be available for investment to diversify the economy. The prolonged period of low oil prices had “forced the government to borrow money on the international bond market and to draw extensively from foreign reserves, which dropped from $730 billion at their peak in 2014 to $487.6 billion in August” 2017.[8] Eurasia Group, a political risk advisory firm, claimed that the crown prince needed “cash to fund the government’s investment plans.”[9] Like other countries in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia was facing time pressure to diversity economically while oil-money could still make it possible. The low oil prices simply meant that more than on-going oil revenue would be needed. So rather than being spooked by the uncertainty unleashed in the dramatic crackdown, investors and business practitioners having an interest in the Saudi economy should have felt more secure, for a diversified economy enhances stability for the long term.

---

[1]Margherita Stancati, “Saudis Target Up to $800 Billion in Assets,” The Wall Street Journal, November 8, 2017.

[2] Nicholas Kulish and David Kirkpatrick, “Arrests Reveal Blending of Kin and Kingdom,” The New York Times, November 8, 2017.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid.

[8]Margherita Stancati, “Saudis Target Up to $800 Billion in Assets,” The Wall Street Journal, November 8, 2017.

[9] Ibid.

Russia's Putin Embraced BP

The Russian state-owned company, Rosneft, reached separate agreements in October 2012 to buy TNK-BP from BP and a group of Russian billionaires. According to the Wall Street Journal, the deal represents “an acquisition that promises to reshape the Russian oil industry in favor of the state-owned company.” The Russian federal government was set to own or control nearly 50% of the Russian oil industry. Lest it be supposed that the legacy of inefficient state enterprise might compromise that industry in Russia, the state would have the benefit of literally sitting on the same board with representatives of the experienced oil producer from the private sector. By implication, the traditional dichotomy between public and private could be further blurred, such that the easy labels of “socialism” and “capitalism” may become less and less relevant or useful (except in the rhetoric of American presidential contests). Rosneft itself is a case in point of privateness and publicness coming together with a shared vocabulary or at least financial aim. Before addressing this point, I present the basics of the deal itself.

Robert Dudley, CEO of BP, talking with Vladimir Putin at the Kremlin.   Source: Telegraph

According to the Wall Street Journal, “(u)nder the terms of the transaction, BP will receive $17.1 billion in cash for its 50% stake plus shares representing 12.84% of Rosneft, worth $9.7 billion on the bid date. It will then use $4.8 billion of that cash to purchase an additional 5.66% of shares Rosneft from the Russian government, taking its total holding up to 19.75%, BP said in a statement. . . . BP will get two seats on Rosneft's nine-person board as part of the deal and expects to be able to account for its share of Rosneft's earnings, production and reserves on an equity basis.” Rosneft would acquire the other half of TNK-BP for $28 billion from the AAR consortium of Russian oligarchs. “Rosneft will finance the transactions, which have a total cash value of $45.1 billion, from a combination of existing cash resources and new borrowings.”  In short, we’re talking about a lot of money—a lot at stake. In other words, the implications of the deal deserve a lot of attention and analysis.

Expanding on the traditional notion of interlocking directorates, BP would be sitting on the board alongside officials or representatives of the Russian government. The latter would be able to nurture and develop contacts in the corporate world and BP would have access in Russia far beyond Arctic exploration rights.  That is to say, collusion could become worse, and this could undercut the public interest in the interest of private gain—private here applying both to corporate retained earnings and government coffers. That is to say, government itself could become more “private” and less “public,” leaving the public interest without a proper guardian or advocate.

The deal gives the Russian state an interest in the well-being of a foreign private company. This in turn would give the company some leverage in terms of Russian regulations. In other words, BP could use its alliance with the state to essentially “capture” Russian regulatory agencies. "This is a good, big deal, not only for the Russian energy sector, but also for the Russian economy," said Russian President Vladimir Putin, after a meeting at which he approved Rosneft's acquisition of TNK-BP in a meeting with the company's Chief Executive, Igor Sechin. The Russian president would thus have an interest in protecting BP as well as the joint venture. That is to say, from the standpoint of the bipolar dichotomy of “socialism vs. capitalism,” the cosy relationship proposed in Russia puts government and private ownership literally in the same room and having the same financial purpose. Mutual back-scratching would be almost inevitable, not only concerning the interests of the Russian state and BP, but also particular government officials and company executives.

Lest it be thought that privatizing the nearly 50% of the Russian Oil industry that would be controlled by the Russian state would be preferable—this option being more in line with the traditional “public vs. private” paradigm—it can be asked whether Russian oligarchs are preferable to Putin’s state. The tradeoff might come down to one of whether the state is really distinct from organized crime in Russia. There might not be much of a difference, with the exception that state-corruption is slightly more transparent. Even if the distinction is meaningless practically speaking, it can also be asked whether the oligarchs deserve their wealth and profits, especially if they came out of cheap post-Soviet sell-offs based on connections. For that matter, the anti-democratic response of Putin can cause one to ask whether his government deserves the added revenue. The Wall Street Journal reports, “A Rosneft takeover of TNK-BP would bring the Russian state's control over oil production to nearly 50% and mark a major milestone in Mr. Putin's reassertion of Kremlin control over the strategic oil sector, much of which was sold off in the privatizations of the 1990s to well-connected tycoons like AAR's owners. Since Mr. Putin came to power in 2000, the tide has turned the other way in an industry the Kremlin depends on both as a source of international influence and more than half of all tax revenues.” One might ask whether Putin deserves this even as he represses political opposition—even arresting a major figure following a “documentary” on television produced by the state. Faced with the abuses that more wealth and BP-connections might give the Russian president,  a reasonable person might be left with the conclusion that neither Putin’s pals nor his government is worthy of owning vast wealth; the world envisioned by Adam Smith as against the concentration of great wealth might come out the winner, even if only in the world of thought.

In addition to the downside, which may admittedly be so abstract and contrary to the status quo to be of any practical effect,  it is also worth pointing out that putting government officials and business managers in the same room could enhance both the efficacy of government regulation and corporate public affairs departments.  That is to say, knowing the otherness of the other could improve how one relates to the other “above board.”

Being on the same board, government officials or their representatives in Russia would no doubt see up close how private business executives “think” (i.e., the logic of business), while executives in the private sector (at BP) would gain a better understanding of the political calculus of government officials. That is to say, business and government would take one step closer together from that of “arm’s length” transactions and the regulatee-regulator relationship. Understanding how the other thinks is indeed a good thing where two parties must interact (e.g., regulation). At the very least, the efficacy of government regulation could in principle be enhanced as it could be put in sync with how managers think.

Understanding how business managers use regulation strategically—even preferring more regulation because it is easier for one’s own company than one’s competitors to comply—can enhance a regulator’s ability to craft regulations that achieve the desired public-policy outcome.  In other words, being able to anticipate the policies that business managers would enact in reaction to a proposed regulation can give the regulator a sense of the outcome up front. The regulation can thus be tailored with the anticipated reaction in mind such that the outcome sought would stand a better chance of resulting. A regulator could anticipate, for example, how managers would attempt to circumvent the proposed regulation, and the latter could be adjusted to close off that possibility.  A Russian official who has seen BP executives in action on Rosneft’s board could say to a regulator of another industry, “No, that won’t work; they would only do X to get around it. I know how they think.”

In terms of corporate public affairs departments (and corporate lobbyists in general), feedback from a company executive who knows how government officials think could advise on how to appeal to them on their own terms. A BP executive with experience with Russian government officials on Rosneft’s board could say to the director of BP’s government affair’s department in Russia and even another country, “If you really want the legislator to pay attention, bring up X because X is likely to be on his or her mind.” That is to say, fit the company’s strategic objective within the political calculus. Knowing the otherness of the other is necessary both to regulators in crafting more effective regulations that are not undercut by the other and to corporate public affairs directors who want to influence legislators and regulators.  As discussed above, however, there is also a downside, and it should not be disregarded either.

In summary, the modern world of extensive territorial empires and great concentrations of private wealth in the form of corporations can leave the individual business practitioner and the small investor in the dust along with the public at large. There is indeed value to public policy and government regulation in government officials deepening their understanding of how business executives think. Similarly, corporate public affairs departments could use more insight on how government officials tick. At the same time, the financial stakes and related cosy relationships as evinced in the proposed deal in Russia increase the risk of collusion at even personal financial benefit at the expense of the common wealth and general welfare of the people and even society at large. Putin might conclude, for example, that what is good for BP is good for Russia. This represents a very dangerous step (similar to “What is good for GM is good for the U.S.”) away from democracy in the direction of plutocracy. The question is perhaps less on whether the old “public vs. private” world is antiquated than whether government is really still government—governing the whole in the interests of the whole rather than certain parts—and whether large corporations are still private. On the latter point, it is worth remembering that Clive of the East India Company had a private army in Bengal at his disposal and the title of governor from the state. Indeed, the notion that the CEO of a private company would also be the governor of a territory might give us pause in reflecting on the governmental power that a large public-private partnership might have in Russia.

Source:

Selina Williams and James Marson, “Rosneft to Buy Entirety of TNK-BP,” The Wall Street Journal, October 22, 2012.

Vertical and Horizontal M&A: A Bias in Antitrust Policy?

The Obama Justice Department developed a track record in challenging horizontal mergers and acquisitions—those in which a company buys a direct competitor—in industries that are already highly concentrated. In deals that are not between direct rivals, such as those that occur in vertical integration, the Obama Administration approved the deals, albeit with the imposition of legally binding restrictions on the acquirer’s ability to use its “in house” supplier to engage in unfair competition.
As one example of unfair competition through the use of a purchased distributor, Standard Oil under John D. Rockefeller bought a company that owned and operated pipelines through which oil was transported. Besides using the company to obtain competitive information, he made sure that higher rates were charged to competitors—even though who had no other means of transport available. Where practicable, going by pipeline was preferable to barges and railroads from a cost standpoint—although Rockefeller obtained substantial rebates from the railroads (from his volume or market power—this point is subject to debate). In addition, the railroads granted Standard Oil drawbacks—a cut from the railroad’s business in servicing other customers, including competitors of Standard. Given Standard’s sheer volume, the rationale went, trains being used to haul others’ product were not available for Standard and thus represented a cost in terms of foregone volume transported. Even so, from the ethical standpoint of fairness, both the rebates and especially the drawbacks were subject to substantial critique—especially that of Ida Tarbell, whose text (History of the Standard Oil Company, 1904) on Rockefeller’s helmship of Standard was scathing.
More than a century later, the Obama Justice Department allowed Comcast to take control of NBC Universal and Google to buy travel software maker ITA Software. The government’s rationale is that companies can save money from synergies and thus lower prices for consumers (or increase salaries, retained earnings or dividends). Even in a competitive market, however, the “lower prices” scenario seems to have doubtful validity, given tacit collusion on price, non-price means of competing, and executive managers’ interests in increasing their compensation and keeping investors happy.  Similarly, by the way, reducing companies to being “job creators” is not only reductionistic; it also demonstrates an ignorance of what businesses are designed to do (i.e., earn profit by selling widgets—jobs being merely a means).
Moreover, the assumption that “legally binding restrictions on the acquirer’s ability to use its prize to unfairly harm competitors” are a sufficient means of checking or thwarting baleful consequences from what is an institutional or structural conflict of interest seems to be highly tenuous, in my opinion. Just as water in a stream “seeks” ways to go downstream even when temporarily blocked (and a cat obstructed from food laid out continuously seeks ways to get around the obstacles), the managers of company A that owns company B, which acts as a supplier or distributor for competitors of company A, will doubtlessly (and inevitably) seek ways around the restrictions. In the parlance of trade, such ways are known as “non-tariff barriers.” They are notoriously difficult to stop (think: stop the cat).

                                                                                WSJ

In conclusion, the Obama administration’s differential treatments of vertical and horizontal mergers and acquisitions evince a bias caused by understating the strength of a structural conflict of interest that is inherent in one company buying a distributor or supplier that services competitors of said company. Perhaps the underlying culprit is an understating of the more sordid aspects of human nature combined with an overstating of the efficacy of government regulation. If highly concentrated, massive stocks of capital, such as are evinced in banks or companies that are too big to fail, represent a risk both to competitive markets and to representative democracy, then not only should both vertical and horizontal mergers and acquisitions be subject to higher hurdles, but also existing companies that are too big to fail should be broken up, as the U.S. Supreme Court broke up Standard Oil a century ago.

Source:

Thomas Catan and Brent Kendall, “After AT&T: The New Antitrust Era,” The Wall Street Journal, December 21, 2011. 

Vertical and Horizontal M&A: A Bias in Antitrust Policy?

The Obama Justice Department developed a track record in challenging horizontal mergers and acquisitions—those in which a company buys a direct competitor—in industries that are already highly concentrated. In deals that are not between direct rivals, such as those that occur in vertical integration, the Obama Administration approved the deals, albeit with the imposition of legally binding restrictions on the acquirer’s ability to use its “in house” supplier to engage in unfair competition.
As one example of unfair competition through the use of a purchased distributor, Standard Oil under John D. Rockefeller bought a company that owned and operated pipelines through which oil was transported. Besides using the company to obtain competitive information, he made sure that higher rates were charged to competitors—even though who had no other means of transport available. Where practicable, going by pipeline was preferable to barges and railroads from a cost standpoint—although Rockefeller obtained substantial rebates from the railroads (from his volume or market power—this point is subject to debate). In addition, the railroads granted Standard Oil drawbacks—a cut from the railroad’s business in servicing other customers, including competitors of Standard. Given Standard’s sheer volume, the rationale went, trains being used to haul others’ product were not available for Standard and thus represented a cost in terms of foregone volume transported. Even so, from the ethical standpoint of fairness, both the rebates and especially the drawbacks were subject to substantial critique—especially that of Ida Tarbell, whose text (History of the Standard Oil Company, 1904) on Rockefeller’s helmship of Standard was scathing.
More than a century later, the Obama Justice Department allowed Comcast to take control of NBC Universal and Google to buy travel software maker ITA Software. The government’s rationale is that companies can save money from synergies and thus lower prices for consumers (or increase salaries, retained earnings or dividends). Even in a competitive market, however, the “lower prices” scenario seems to have doubtful validity, given tacit collusion on price, non-price means of competing, and executive managers’ interests in increasing their compensation and keeping investors happy.  Similarly, by the way, reducing companies to being “job creators” is not only reductionistic; it also demonstrates an ignorance of what businesses are designed to do (i.e., earn profit by selling widgets—jobs being merely a means).
Moreover, the assumption that “legally binding restrictions on the acquirer’s ability to use its prize to unfairly harm competitors” are a sufficient means of checking or thwarting baleful consequences from what is an institutional or structural conflict of interest seems to be highly tenuous, in my opinion. Just as water in a stream “seeks” ways to go downstream even when temporarily blocked (and a cat obstructed from food laid out continuously seeks ways to get around the obstacles), the managers of company A that owns company B, which acts as a supplier or distributor for competitors of company A, will doubtlessly (and inevitably) seek ways around the restrictions. In the parlance of trade, such ways are known as “non-tariff barriers.” They are notoriously difficult to stop (think: stop the cat).

                                                                                WSJ

In conclusion, the Obama administration’s differential treatments of vertical and horizontal mergers and acquisitions evinced a bias caused by understating the strength of a structural conflict of interest that is inherent in one company buying a distributor or supplier that services competitors of said company. Perhaps the underlying culprit lied in understating of the more sordid aspects of human nature combined with an overstating of the efficacy of government regulation. If highly concentrated, massive stocks of capital, such as are evinced in banks or companies that are too big to fail, represent a risk both to competitive markets and to representative democracy, then not only should both vertical and horizontal mergers and acquisitions be subject to higher hurdles, but also existing companies that are too big to fail should be broken up, as the U.S. Supreme Court broke up Standard Oil in 1913.

Sources:

Thomas Catan and Brent Kendall, “After AT&T: The New Antitrust Era,” The Wall Street Journal, December 21, 2011. 

Skip Worden, God's Gold, available in print and as an ebook at Amazon.  (Source for material on Rockefeller)

On structural conflicts of interest, see Institutional Conflicts of Interest, available in print and as an ebook at Amazon. 

Disentangling a Worsening Trade Deficit: Sector-Specific Industrial and Macro Economic Policy

he U.S. trade deficit rose 9.6% in January, 2017, to the highest level since 2012. The gap of $48.5 billion of exports exceeding imports looks daunting, yet the story is more complex at the sector level.[1] According to Neil Irwin of The New York Times, “What really matters is not whether the trade deficit is rising or falling. What matters is why?”[2] Distinguishing macro factors such as a strengthening dollar from sectoral strengths and weaknesses is thus necessary.

 The Port of Oakland. (source: Jim Wilson/NYT)

In the automotive sector, a $1.3 billion increase in exports corresponds to a $900 million increase in imports—essentially a draw. The $2.1 billion more in exports of industrial supplies is favorable, suggesting that that sector is doing well, but exports of civilian aircraft fell by $611 million, and other high-tech capital goods were also down, while imports of consumer goods—notably cell phones—increased by $2.4 billion. Boeing may simply have had a bad month, though it is also possible that Airbus had been out-competing its American competitor. The numbers on electronics add to the general perception that the U.S. is not competitive in such manufacturing. Industrial policy could address the possibility that automation and tax incentives (and penalties on American companies producing abroad only to import the finished goods back to the domestic market) could rectify this weakness in the American economy. 

Meanwhile, the balance of trade in services worsened by $5.3 billion. The fact that the money that foreign travelers spend in the U.S. on hotels and restaurants counts as exports suggests that a strengthening dollar could have been in play.[3] The Federal Reserve’s monetary policy was thus in play, for rising interest rates mean a strengthening of the dollar. Industrial policy may thus be less relevant here.

“A big piece in the rise in imports was crude oil and other petroleum products. They were up by a combined $2.2 billion.”[4] Exports also increased, by $1.2 billion, so this sector obviously contributed significantly to the overall trade deficit. To be sure, an increase in the price of oil favored producers, but this matter is dwarfed by the strategic national-security goal of self-sufficiency on fossil fuels. In terms of industrial policy, an expansion of domestic sources of oil and refining capacity may have been advisable at the time—not so carbon emissions would increase, but, rather, so imports of oil could drop.

In short, analyzing changes in a trade deficit requires distinguishing sectors, and, moreover, discerning where industrial policy recommendations are in order from cases in which macro political economic policy is at issue. Ideally, sector-specific industrial policies and macro policies are “on the same page.”

---

[1] Neil Irwin, “The Huge January Trade Deficit Shows Trump’s Hard Job Ahead,” The New York Times, March 7, 2017.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.