- Dodd-Frank “rollback” nips around the edges only [Victoria Guida and Zachary Warmbrodt, Politico, Diego Zuluaga, Cato] Study on law’s impact on small businesses and banks [Michael D. Bordo and John V. Duca, NBER via Tyler Cowen]
- “In Defense of Cash: Around the world, governments are trying to kill paper money. It’s a terrible idea.” [William J. Luther, Reason]
- U.S. Department of Labor: shareholder resolutions demanding environmental, social, or corporate governance changes can run counter to best interest of investors, and sponsors should not pretend otherwise in weighing fiduciary duty [Ike Brannon, Cato] “Corporate social responsibility” is not politically neutral [Stephen Bainbridge] More: Burchell Wilson, Economics 21;
- How to improve the CFPB, assuming that abolishing it isn’t on the agenda [Diego Zuluaga, The Hill]
- Lingering federal prohibitions doom state-legal cannabis to the plight of an unbanked industry [documentary screening and video of Cato panel with Matt Wood, Julie A. Hill, John Hudak, Jeffrey Miron, and George Selgin]
- “Mortgage Interest Deduction Reform Worked; Sky Isn’t Falling” [Vanessa Brown Calder, Cato]
Filed under: CFPB, corporate governance, Dodd-Frank, illegal drugs, mortgages
6 Comments
The cashless concept has spawned something here at home called the “Better Than Cash Alliance, with the United Nations Capital Development Fund, the U.S. Agency for International Development, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Omidyar Network, Citi, Visa, and Mastercard all reportedly donating $1.5 million or more per year.”
Might be all you need to know. Two problematic agencies, two charities for a veneer of altruism, and the real power behind the movement – banks that collect cashless transaction fees.
“Corporate social responsibility” always always means leftist causes. It never means encouraging marriage, hard work, responsibility, church-going, or starting a business.
Confused on the corporate governance thing, and not just about why is the Department of Labor opining (doesn’t seem an issue that “labor” is an appropriate label for). Are they saying shareholders (those are owners, right?) aren’t allowed to have goals with their equity besides profits?
@Steve–
They are saying that pension fund managers, representing employees with a wide spectrum of political opinions, should stick to the common goal of profits.
Specifically, the managers are legally under a fiduciary obligation to act in the fund beneficiaries’ interests. Although other government entities (or courts) take the lead regarding fiduciary obligations of other types of fund managers, the Labor Department gets involved in pension management since that is considered a labor issue.
So it’s not really DOL talking about corporate governance and shareholder initiatives per se as much as it is DOL talking about the duties of pension fund managers? That makes sense. I am no longer confused about that item.