Nick, Goldy, and their guests William Lazonick and Lenore Palladino explain why “shareholder value maximization” is the world’s dumbest idea.

William Lazonick: Professor of economics at University of Massachusetts Lowell, visiting Professor at University of Ljubljana, professeur associé at Institut Mines-Télécom in Paris, and professorial research associate, SOAS, University of London. His book ‘Sustainable Prosperity in the New Economy? Business Organization and High-Tech Employment in the United States’ won the 2010 Schumpeter Prize, and he has written extensively on corporate profits.

Twitter: @Lazonick

Lenore Palladino: Senior Economist and Policy Counsel at the Roosevelt Institute, where she brings expertise to Roosevelt’s work on inequality and finance. Her research and writing focuses on financial reform, financial taxation, labor rights, and financial crises. Her publications have appeared in The Nation, The New Republic, State Tax Notes, and other venues.

Twitter: @lenorepalladino

Further reading:

Stock buybacks: From retain-and reinvest to downsize-and-distribute

Ending Shareholder Primacy in Corporate Governance

Rewriting the Rules to Take Aim at Stock Buybacks and Force Companies to Invest in Their Workers: The STOP Walmart Act

What Wells Fargo’s $40.6 Billion in Stock Buybacks Could Have Meant for Its Employees and Customers

Towards ‘Accountable Capitalism’: Remaking Corporate Law through Stakeholder Governance


Speaker 1:                               Corporations are people my friend. We can raise taxes [crosstalk 00:00:05]. Of course they are. Everything big corporation’s earn ultimately goes to people. Where do you think it goes?

Speaker 2:                               In many companies today and really across the non financial sector, companies are spending upwards of 100% of their profits on shareholder payments.

Speaker 3:                               Pick your thing that would be an investment in the middle class that would allow people to thrive [00:00:30] and allow the economy to grow in a legit was and it will be a diminutus proportion of the amount of money that we spend annually, collectively, on stock buy backs.

Speaker 2:                               We should have the power of the democracy to make sure that the rules that govern corporate behavior serve the broader society.

Speaker 4:                               From the offices of Civic Ventures in downtown Seattle, this is “Pitchfork Economics.” With Nick [00:01:00] Hanauer. It’s like Econ 101 without all the B.S.

David:                                        I’m David Goldstein, Senior Fellow at Civic Ventures.

Nick:                                           I’m Nick Hanauer, Founder of Civic Ventures.

David:                                        So Nick, I want to talk to you about the world’s dumbest idea.

Nick:                                           [00:01:30] That must be shareholder value maximization.

David:                                        Right. So, that was the title of a great piece by the investor, James Montier, he called shareholder maximization, “The world’s dumbest idea.” In 30 seconds, why?

Nick:                                           So shareholder value maximization is the notion that the only purpose of the corporation is to enrich shareholders. And the idea has a long legacy that you can connect from neo- [00:02:00] classical economics and some of the underlying assumptions of economic and equilibrium theory to the neo-liberal economist, Milton Friedman. Who wrote a very famous editorial in 1970 where he claimed, “There is one and only one social responsibility of business, to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits.”

David:                                        And to be clear, at the time in 1970, people thought he was [00:02:30] crazy because that was not the norm.

Nick:                                           Right. The norm had been for a long time because corporations were granted limited liability by the society, they had a responsibility broadly back to that society.

David:                                        It’s a privilege.

Nick:                                           It’s is a privilege [crosstalk 00:02:45]. And that corporations owed responsibility of course to shareholders, but after their customers, after their workers and after their communities that shareholders in fact, deserved a fair return, but not more. But Friedman’s [00:03:00] assertion and then a bunch of efforts, economists, Jensen and Meckling argued that basically there was only one responsibility which is to get executives focused on increasing shareholder wealth and if you did, everything else would follow.

David:                                        Because of the invisible hand.

Nick:                                           More or less.

David:                                        It’s magic.

Nick:                                           It is this magical neo-liberal principle that if you just do that, the markets will be very efficient and more prosperity would be generated for all and so on and so forth. And that idea was [00:03:30] adopted in a very widespread way. Both because no one offered really a compelling counter theory, but being honest, if you are an executive or a shareholder, the idea that you are serving the public interest by narrowly serving your own self interest, is extremely appealing. Who wouldn’t want to believe that? That the richer I get, the better it will be for you. And so not surprisingly, that view was adopted quickly [00:04:00] across the business community and is in fact now being taught in business schools. They’re churning out people from the Harvard Business School who believe that their only social responsibility is to themselves. What could go wrong?

David:                                        But let’s talk a bit about how corrupting this is because if you are a CEO and your compensation is largely in stock as it is today, and your stock price is largely judged by Wall Street in terms of EPS, Earnings Per Share, well there [00:04:30] are two ways to increase Earnings Per Share.

One is the old fashioned way.

Nick:                                           To make better products and services.

David:                                        Increase your company gross, investing, growing your company. And you grow your earnings, but that’s risky because you may or may not succeed at that.

Nick:                                           It turns out that’s quite hard to do.

David:                                        Right. The other way is to buy back your shares, reduce the number of shares. That too will increase earnings per share and that, you just look at a calculator, that’s a sure fire thing.

Nick:                                           It is. It’s [00:05:00] not very hard. Anybody can do that.

David:                                        So most CEO’s, which one do they lean to?

Nick:                                           Yeah. The latter. Obviously. Because building better products and services is a very difficult task. Buying your own shares back is a very easy task. And there’s another element at play here, which is that in a world where employees, particularly executives are granted lots of shares as compensation, there’s continuing dilutions of the overall shares right? And what [00:05:30] that does is puts pressure on the other shareholders, but of course if you’re buying all the stock back, then all the dilution disappears and everybody’s happy.

David:                                        Except for their workers who have seen their wages stagnant or decline [crosstalk 00:05:45] past 40 years. During the era of what? Shareholder value maximization.

Nick:                                           And that’s why we call it the world’s dumbest idea.

David:                                        Well, to delve deeper into the evils of stock buy backs, today we get to talk [00:06:00] to Dr. William Lazonick. Who actually really pioneered the analysis of the size of stock buy backs and their effect on the overall economy.

All right. So Dr. Lazonick, you are the nation’s leading expert on the pernicious practice of stock buy backs, but for our listeners, give a summary. What is it, [00:06:30] where did it come from and how big is it? And so on and so forth.

William:                                   Okay. Well, so companies when they go public, they issue shares on the market. Typically the reason they issue shares is so that people who have invested in the company can take their money out and managers can run the company and hopefully grow the company through reinvesting the profits when they make their profits. And traditionally, of course [00:07:00] if you want people to hold shares, you want to give them a yield. They can either get that through dividends if you can afford to pay them, or though selling the shares at a higher price at a later point in time.

And up until about the 1980’s, that was basically what it was all about. And they were reinvesting the rest of the money into the company [00:07:30] for capital equipment and for people. Which includes giving them employment security, pay raises, benefits and basically that’s how we got a middle class in the United States. And the expanding middle class post World War II by what I call retain and reinvest. The companies would make profits, retain earnings, reinvest. But, what changed things was basically Ronal Regan getting elected on a platform of [00:08:00] deregulation. Getting a guy from Wall Street named John Shad to be the Chair of the SEC. Securities Exchange Commission. He believed in Chicago economics and the more money sloshing around in capital markets, that that was capital formation.

But that was the view that then captured very quickly the SEC and in November of 1982, passed a rule, adopted [00:08:30] a rule called Rule 10B-18 which said that on any single day, a company could do up to 25% of it’s average daily trading volume on a single day and not only not be charged with manipulation, but have a safe harbor against being charged with manipulation. Which meant that even if you exceeded that, you weren’t necessarily manipulating the stock market, which in fact, you were.

David:                                        Which is by the way, Professor Lazonick, [00:09:00] that is the whole point of buying back your stock is to increase your share price.

William:                                   Yeah. When you’re doing open market repurchases, you’re trying to in general, increase your stock price and that also with the emerging ideology that companies should be run for shareholder value, which really only started getting articulated in the mid 1980’s [00:09:30] after this rule was adopted. But it’s not even capital that’s being distributed, it’s just finance. This also then linked up with ways in which companies were paying their executives. And executives got them at least to buy into this notion of shareholder value and doing stock repurchases. Even though I think any executives who knows anything about the company their running, maybe some of them don’t anymore, but anyone who does, knows that [00:10:00] those shareholders don’t matter.

That they’re just people who are households who are buying and selling shares. Some of them very rich, but they have nothing to do with running the company and that if you’re gonna run the company, you have to retain your profits, retain your people, engage in learning, which is what innovation is all about. And that this undermines the process. But, by putting out this ideology of creating value for shareholders, unlocking shareholder [00:10:30] value, calling shareholders, investors. Everything not only that you hear, every minute on a station like CNBC and others, but most people actually believe that’s what’s ended up happening.

David:                                        Am I correct in understanding that there’s actually a net equity … A negative, equity flow out of the stock markets that the amount of raised [00:11:00] in IPO’s is less than the amount of money returned in stock repurchases?

William:                                   Yeah. Money raised from, so on the plus side, it was the IPO’s the secondary issues, which are not all that important and then on the negative side, there are only three things I think should be in there. Buy backs, cash that’s used to apply our companies, but that takes stock off the market [00:11:30] and [inaudible 00:11:31]. Anyway, the point that I make out of that is that companies are funding the stock market, not vice versa in aggregate. And of course that’s in aggregate because there are companies, I just wrote … New York Times opted on Amazon [inaudible 00:11:47] and out, it’s going to be what it is by being a retain and reinvest company.

And other companies like IBM are going to downsize and distribute, they call it. So [00:12:00] there are companies within the aggregate that are building up other capabilities and that’s where you see where competitive advantage comes from. Potential for higher wages come from, etc. But when you look across all the whole set of companies, you see that more of them are much more leaning toward financialization than innovation. That’s just taking money [00:12:30] out and particularly using buy backs on top of dividends and not instead of dividends.

David:                                        Right. Literally, taking a giant trillion dollar ball of cash and passing it back and forth between company treasuries and Wall Street. Where a bunch of executives make a little bit more and the financial services industry makes a little bit more, but no social utility is created with that money. And all of that money in turn could be used for increasing wages. It could be used for investments [00:13:00] in R&D. It could be used for our nation’s infrastructure, it could be used for any of these things. It would genuinely increase our productive capacity, genuinely increase our capacity to innovate and to grow. Genuinely improve people’s lives through higher wages and it’s just this glaring example of grift in the modern … In what passes for our modern capitalist [00:13:30] society. And I think that’s the reason I think that our listeners should care so much about this issue and understand it [crosstalk 00:13:38]. Stock buy backs are how you know the trickle downers are lying. That [crosstalk 00:13:49].

William:                                   Everybody is saying the price of this. When your listeners pay taxes, the government is, and should be doing a lot more, but it is investing in infrastructure [00:14:00] and knowledge. Companies use this and if we get a decent tax rate from the companies, then we can continue to do this. We don’t have to borrow to do it. But the companies claim they need all this money to reinvest and then we just look and see what they’re doing with this money. And we can look at company level, we can look in more aggregate. And then workers I think … Yeah, they’re not getting [00:14:30] the kind of employment security the kind of benefits, the kind of wage increases that they could get could. And that’s where rising standards of living come from. They don’t come from shortage of labor in the labor market. Because companies will find ways to deal with that. They come from actually companies wanting to share the gains with the workers. The good companies do this and then other companies have to figure out how to operate in a higher [00:15:00] wage environment. And that’s not happening.

That’s why even in this boom, with labor markets tightening for low paid labor, wages aren’t moving. Because people are still afraid of losing their jobs and companies have all the power in this and they have no interest in trying to keep the workers happy. No sense of responsibility toward the workers. And [00:15:30] it’s not a matter of just responsibility because you want people to be paid higher. I mean people are going to work everyday and making those companies productive and then the money is flowing out to the people who matter least. And of course there’s a whole ideology nested around in that that says that’s what makes an economy [crosstalk 00:15:45]-

David:                                        And you made this comment earlier, I think I want to draw out on it. When you say the people who matter least, to be clear, you’re saying that shareholders are not investors.

William:                                   They’re not investors. [00:16:00] In a country like the United States, the stock market is actually not a institution that has ever really been used in the United States for direct investment. Venture capitalists call an IPO an exit strategy. I mean it’s a way of taking your money out and then leaving people who can hopefully know how to run the company in control. Even going back to the early 20th century and the separation of ownership control that Berle and Means noted in their [00:16:30] classic 1932 book. That was not because companies needed to go to the stock market to get capital, it was because companies had the owner, entrepreneurs and needed to get them out of the way so that the managers that they had brought in to run the companies could run these very complicated companies. It’s what someone I work with in the … Alfred Chandler, called the Managerial Revolution, that’s American history.

So stock market has [00:17:00] never been an important source of funding for companies and often when it is a source of funding for companies like with many bio tech companies which are 15 minutes from where I’m sitting right now, they’re going on the market with no product and it’s totally speculative and the people who are buying and selling the shares aren’t gonna wait for a product to be produced. But that’s not … The notion that people have of the stock market as being the way [00:17:30] you raise capital is nonsense in terms of the actual functioning of the market.

David:                                        That’s right. And again, I think the reason your research has been so useful is that it makes a lie out of one of the most important sort of fixtures of the liberalism and trickle down economics. This thing that we have embedded in people’s heads, which is that more corporate [00:18:00] profits are an unalloyed good and when companies earn huge amounts of profits, that benefits everybody because those profits are reinvested in growth and wages and innovation and so on and so forth. And again, what your research reveals is that when you add on stock buy backs to dividends, 90+% of corporate profits [00:18:30] are simply returned to the richest people. Leaving only a few percent to actually be invested back in the country. And so the idea that we can’t tax corporations more, tax rich people more that somehow constraining their after tax income will harm growth, just becomes a ridiculous lie. And that line of research I think has been a great service to the country and to our understanding. A real understanding [00:19:00] of economics.

Well, thank you very much for your time and your work on this, Professor Lazonick. So thank you so much for spending time with us. We really appreciate it.

William:                                   Yeah. Yeah. Bye.

David:                                        Bye.

So Nick, I think it was great to get from Professor Lazonick both this explanation of what stock buy backs are and this history of how we got there, that it wasn’t actually the way we always did it, but for me, [00:19:30] the more important explanation from him was making this distinction between shareholding and investing.

Nick:                                           Correct.

David:                                        That for most people, it’s not really the same thing.

Nick:                                           Yeah, and I think that’s a really good point having participated in the stock market a bunch, as a company founder, the stock market definitely did create economic utility for us by allowing us to raise capital to expand the businesses [00:20:00] that we created. But once that initial public offering was over, the idea that people who were investing in our company were investing in our company, or buying in our shares, were investing in our company is simply not true. We don’t get that money. Those shares are swapped between basically individuals and institutions. And when you look at the raw numbers, what you discover as Professor Lazonick pointed out is that [00:20:30] the stock market really isn’t a place that puts money into the economy. In many ways, it’s a place where people pull money out of the economy.

David:                                        Right. As he said, it turns out companies are funding the stock market, not the other way around. And there’s this big distinction between you and me in many ways, but as a venture capitalist, you’re founding companies, you’re providing capital to start up a company. When I buy stock in my [00:21:00] piddling, individual retirement account, I’m not investing. I’m speculating.

Nick:                                           Yes.

David:                                        Correct? When I buy Apple or whatever company, they’re not getting my money.

Nick:                                           You’re definitely not helping them open the next factory. Although the market capitalization that the demand for their stock creates, does create the opportunity for them to raise money to open factories.

David:                                        They don’t need to. When they’re doing 70 some billion dollars [00:21:30] worth of stock buy backs a year, they don’t actually need to go to the [crosstalk 00:21:35] market to raise capital.

Nick:                                           As do most companies. And you know there is this really interesting, but complex distinction between finance and capital.

David:                                        Right.

Nick:                                           And the distinction between the stock market and the economy. And these two things, they’re having less and less to do with one another. That how [00:22:00] the stock market does has a very small impact on the lives of most Americans. Obviously, when it goes up, it makes rich people richer because they’re the ones that owned all the stock. And that wealth of course capitalizes a bunch of things that are important in the economy. But, you know a really profound challenge for the country is to figure out how to distinguish between the stock market and the rest of the economy and to build policies [00:22:30] that help people and not just the owners of lots of stock.

David:                                        And this gets to a theme of this whole podcast, in all our episodes, which is why narrative is so important. If you think that the purpose of the corporation is to enrich shareholders and you think that share holders are investors so when the shareholder makes money, that just goes back in and makes the economy [00:23:00] grow. Then you’re gonna have certain policies that encourage that, which we’ve had, which has led to this growing crisis of economic inequality. But if you understand as Professor Lazonick explained, that shareholders are actually the least important people to the company. It’s their customers, it’s their employees, it’s their communities that actually make a corporation successful. Then you’re going to have different policies, [00:23:30] different rules and different norms.

Nick:                                           Yeah. Absolutely. And if you confuse the success of a giant hedge fund that does nothing but trade shares in stocks for the company itself and the products it makes, then you will definitely confuse what the purpose of the economy is and what policies should be to make the economy grow and do better.

David:                                        Bad stories, leads to bad economies.

Sarah:                                        [00:24:00] So if this story sucks, let’s tell a different one. It takes place here in the U.S., around 1790. Hi, my name’s Sarah Leibovitz and I’m a Producer on Pitchfork Economics. So the Revolutionary War is just ended pretty recently and spoiler alert, we won. Yeah. That’s awesome. But it also left behind a whole lot of questions [00:24:30] on how to run a country, how to form a democracy. I know you’ve seen Hamilton, you know how contentious it was in the room where it happened.

And one of the many, many choices that the new state legislatures were having to make is what to do with corporations. Corporations in the U.S. had existed prior to the Revolutionary War and had as made sense, followed British rules, which at least from Britain’s perspective, were pretty fair. Companies had only [00:25:00] recently started to be seen as money making endeavors. Before the 17th century, they’d been considered not for profit entities that did things like build institutions. Like hospitals and universities. Stuff that actually served the public and when they did those kind of things, it was through a charter with the local government. That charter would detail out what they were going to do and how it was going to be done. And if they fucked up or stepped out of line, that charter meant that they could be punished.

By the time [00:25:30] the 17th century rolled around, corporations had made the swap from non profit to well, profit. But the charter had remained that means that companies still had to basically justify their existence. They were giving rules and limitations and had to prove that they were worthy of serving the British public. It just so happened that what served the British public best at that time were corporations that furthered their reaches of colonialism through control of resources, trade territory. You know all [00:26:00] the stuff that say, some upstarts with ideas about democracy, might not be super happy about.

So back to the 1790’s, these new legislators are stuck with a decision. To they hold on to Britain’s way of doing things or make a free market for corporations? And for once, they stuck with Britain. Because for all that it may have sucked for the Americans, it was obvious that those charters did in fact benefit the U.K. [00:26:30] So, companies were formed with specific purposes in mind. They dug canals or built bridges. And perhaps, most importantly, they had time limits. A charter lasted between 10 and 40 years. And once their time was up or the task they had been created for was completed, they were terminated. They also, glory upon glories, prohibited any corporate participation in the political process. Imagine. What a time to be alive. I mean, very few [00:27:00] people had real toilets, but still. Imagine those charters.

So what happened? How did we end up here? Well, as Goldie said, the story changed. And pretty quickly too. In 1776, Adam Smith, who’s widely considered the father of free trade theories, stated that the pretense that corporations are necessary [00:27:30] to better the government is without foundation. By 1886, a U.S. court had recognized the corporation as a natural person under law. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution, “No state shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property.” Which had been adopted to protect emancipated slaves in the hostile South. Was used to defend corporations and strike down regulations. And after that, things just kept slipping.

Those charters [00:28:00] before had meant that even though a lot of corporations admittedly had a monopoly on things like ditch digging or railroad building, they had time limits. They weren’t in control of sections of the economy forever. And they had a responsibility to more than just their investors. They had a duty to fulfill to the government and presumably, to it’s people. When the court gave corporations the same rights as people, it shifted the narrative. It switched the focus from how corporations [00:28:30] can help us to how we can help and protect them. Because morally, we’ve always known we had a duty to help our fellow people. It’s just a matter of what a person actually is.

David:                                        So to learn a little bit more about the scope of the problem and a bad story has led to bad outcomes, we talked to Lenore Palladino from the Roosevelt Institute about [00:29:00] the difference between shareholders and stakeholders.

Hello Lenore.

Lenore:                                     Hi.

David:                                        Hi. This is David Goldstein and-

Nick:                                           This is Nick Hanauer here.

David:                                        How are you Lenore?

Lenore:                                     Fine. How are you [crosstalk 00:29:16]. Glad to meet you. So my name is Lenore Palladino and I’m a Senior Economist and Policy Counselor at the Roosevelt Institute.

David:                                        So you know, Nick has been talking about stock buy backs for the past four years. And [00:29:30] sometimes we get pushback, oh that’s just sour grapes or who cares? What does that have to do with inequality? We’re hoping you might be able to explain the connection between stock buy backs and our growing crisis of economic inequality.

Lenore:                                     Sure. It’s a great question. So you know stock buy backs are I think one of the best examples of the broader problem we have today of what we can call shareholder primacy. Shareholder primacy [00:30:00] is this idea that the whole purpose of corporations is to make as much money for shareholders as possible. The idea is that shareholders are really the only group kind of within this set of stakeholders that make corporations profitable. That matter. Right? So what that means is that there’s tremendous pressure to cut all other costs in order to maximize shareholder wealth.

So what does this mean for shareholder buy backs? And what does this mean for workers? That means that companies are spending [00:30:30] as of 2018, upwards of one trillion dollars on stock buy backs, which are a simple way that they can raise their share prices quickly without having to invest in attracting more customers or building better products. At the same time, they have to find a sway to pay for these stock buy backs. So they’re holding down worker pay, they’re outsourcing employees and generally contributing to the broader problems of economic inequality that we see today.

Nick:                                           So Lenore, what do the [00:31:00] most recent figures for the proportion of corporate profits that are now being devoted to stock buy backs?

Lenore:                                     In many companies today, and really across the non financial sector, companies are spending upwards of 100% of their profits on shareholder payments. So shareholder payments is both stock buy backs and dividends, which is of course the longer term way to return [00:31:30] money to shareholders. But stock buy backs have been increasing tremendously over the last couple of decades as a way that corporations reward shareholders. And we’re seeing in some cases, even spending of over 100%, which means that companies are borrowing to actually pay for stock buy backs.

And we’re still getting the data from 2018, you know 2018 was kind of a crazy year. Post the Trump tax reform, where companies [00:32:00] went on a spending bonanza. So you couldn’t read a newspaper without seeing a new announcement of some tremendous amount of money being spent by a company on stock buy backs. And one of my worries is, we’re seeing all this money spent, but companies can’t get it back when there’s a downturn right? So once we see some kind of recession or financial crisis in coming years, companies could have used this money to really shore up their actual [00:32:30] businesses for those inevitable downturns or to support workers to become more prosperous, greater contributors to the long term prosperity of the companies. And we’re just not seeing that. We’re seeing wages, stagnant for the last 40 years.

David:                                        It’s ironic because we’ve heard CEO’s complain for years about a so called skills gap and it used to be that corporate America would invest in training and retraining their employees. If [00:33:00] they’re spending 100% of their profits on shareholders, there isn’t that money to close that skills gap internally.

Lenore:                                     Um. Hmm (affirmative). And I’ll give you one example. You know well, Wells Fargo, scandal plagued company has had a really disastrous relations with it’s customers over the last couple of years, last year alone, they authorized 40 billion dollars in stock buy backs. At the same time, they announced they were going to lay off [00:33:30] 10% of their workforce over the last couple of years. So if you look at that and you think, this is company that’s been dealing with so many other troubles, they must have a need for everyone from customer service reps to people to help the bank recover it’s standing with the customer’s it’s harmed and the broader public that it’s harmed. But instead, what it’s doing is taking tremendous amounts of cash in order to reward shareholders in the short term perhaps [00:34:00] propping up a stock price that might have otherwise fallen and then at the same time, turning around and laying off 10% of it’s workforce.

David:                                        So let’s talk about a corporate arms control treaty. Obviously the inevitable consequence of an invisible hand. The stock buy backs are a result of the rules and laws we have in place. What kind of solutions can we do to change both the culture and the [00:34:30] actual habits of corporate America.

Lenore:                                     Yeah. I believe and I know that you believe that what actually needs to happen is a more fundamental reorientation away from shareholder primacy. Away from this idea that the whole purpose of corporations is to make as much money for shareholders as possible. Let everything else be damned. And when I think about the fact that corporations are really creatures of public permission. [00:35:00] Right? A corporation can’t operate a business with all the tremendous privileges that it has until it gets that stamp on it’s Articles of Incorporation from the Government. Right? Of whatever state it’s incorporating in. We should have the power as a democracy to make sure that the rules that govern corporate behavior serve the broader society.

And that I think includes being profitable and making money for investors. But I think it also includes having [00:35:30] a model for corporate decision making and corporate voice where the other stakeholders who also contribute to the prosperity and the success of the corporation are part of that decision making. So I’m very much intrigued and excited by ideas of stakeholder governance really replacing shareholder primacy as our model for governance.

David:                                        So what might that look like?

Lenore:                                     It would like perhaps workers and even other groups of stakeholders, you can imagine customers, suppliers, representatives of [00:36:00] the public, voting for the board. It looks like changing the words fiduciary duty to run to all stakeholders which just means that boards have a duty of care and loyalty to think about how the decisions they’re making are going to affect their employees. As opposed to just thinking about how the decisions are going to affect their shareholders. It could mean as folks are exploring in other countries, really reshaping the idea of corporate [00:36:30] purpose so that corporate purposes has to include a materially positive effect on society. Now how you measure that, how you litigate around that, I think there’s incredible questions about what this model would mean in the 21st century.

But, we know that shareholder primacy isn’t working. I think it’s driving further and further, not only economic inequality, but all of the social upheavals, all of the disasters of climate change. So much is this is driven by this core idea [00:37:00] that we need to maximize shareholder wealth and not care about the rest of the impacts of business. I think it’s really time to move on to a better model. And I think there’s a tremendous moment right now where a lot of different people are raising this idea. So you have everything from Senator Elizabeth Warren with the Countable Capitalism Act to Martin Wolf and the Financial Times. You have worker organizing, worker justice groups around the U.S. who are challenging shareholder primacy in a new way.

So I think we’re [00:37:30] in this sort of wild political moment where old ideas are able to emerge in new ways and I really think that challenging shareholder primacy and replacing it with a better multi stakeholder model is going to be one of those ideas that emerges.

Nick:                                           The one thing I do love about stock buy backs is that it is the thing that gives you permission to believe that almost everything good for the middle class you [00:38:00] could pay for if you wanted to. In other words, it would cost about 100 billion dollars a year to make college affordable.

David:                                        Less than that. About 60, 70 billion dollars a year to make public community … Community colleges and public universities tuition free.

Nick:                                           Okay. It would … I believe that the infrastructure deficit in the country is in the range today of four trillion dollars a year.

David:                                        We could handle that over [00:38:30] a decade or two.

Nick:                                           Four years and you’ve basically rebuilt every bridge, road and airport in America. You know, pick your thing that would be an investment in the middle class that would allow people to thrive and the economy to grow in a legit way. And it will be a diminutus proportion of the amount of money that we spend annually, collectively on stock buy backs. Which are creating essentially no value, whatsoever in the country, other than enriching the few.

And [00:39:00] so in that sense, it is a very handy thing to be able to point to, to say actually we can’t afford to do that. We just have chosen to spend all this money and this different and much less value creating way.

Lenore:                                     Yeah, and I’ve taken that also down to the level of the particular corporation. And been doing some calculations just to look at how if you took how much companies are spending on stock buy backs, what that would actually mean for workers. Not that if we ban [00:39:30] buy backs tomorrow, companies will benevolently simply grant all that money to workers. But to try to grasp the scales of the problem. Exactly as you’re saying.

I looked at Wal Mart for example, because it’s our largest, private employer in the country. And it’s workers are notoriously low paid. If you took for example, 10 billion of the authorization of 20 billion that they made in late 2017 and you divide it by the one million hourly [00:40:00] workers, that translates to a raise of $5.66 an hour. Now for a full time worker at Wal Mart, they’re making about $19,000 a year, give or take. Going from that starting wage of $11.00 an hour to almost $16.00 an hour, takes them up to almost $30,000 a year. For a working family in America, that’s a tremendous change. Going from $20,000 a year to $30,000 a year.

David:                                        Now you don’t need food stamps. And other public subsidies.

Lenore:                                     Exactly. [00:40:30] Yep. So they’re a horrible drain really on the ability of working people to live decent lives. To be able to participate in this moment of great economic prosperity if you happen to be a wealthy, white household who owns a lot of shares. Things could be different. And workers contribute … Employees contribute so much to the firm’s growth and ability to make profit. That it seems crazy to say that they as a group shouldn’t participate [00:41:00] in what the firms are creating, what the companies are creating.

Nick:                                           Or more to the point, in most states in the country, the biggest of recipients of food stamps and other public subsidies are Wal Mart workers.

Lenore:                                     Um. Hmm (affirmative). Yep.

Nick:                                           Because they’re very low paid. And it seems self evident to me that no corporation should be allowed to do stock buy backs if any of their employees are on the dole. Right? Are getting public assistance. Tax payer [00:41:30] assistance. It’s just the most egregious example of parasitism that you could imagine. And for my own part, I remain fully committed to capitalism, but I really do believe that a minimum standard for an industry or a company is to operate in a way that makes sure that every single person who works for you can live in economic security and dignity without getting public assistance. And [00:42:00] honestly, if as a company you can’t figure out how to do that, then you should probably go find another line of work.

Lenore:                                     Well, and I think we have to look at who’s benefiting from stock buy backs. Because obviously the general argument is that they benefit shareholders and that’s certainly true. But in some cases, though not all, it’s corporate insiders [crosstalk 00:42:22], executives maybe even directors who are benefiting personally from the buy back programs that they institute. [00:42:30] And so that in some ways is the most perverse result of these. The justification for them is all about shareholders who invest. But shareholders don’t actually know when the buy backs are actually taking place. It’s only the people inside the company who are sending the email to the broker to execute the buy back that know when it’s actually happening.

And we should know too that the U.S. is an outlier in terms of the rules that govern buy backs. We have this sort of crazy regulator regime around them, but most [00:43:00] onther advanced ecomonies have much more of what I call sort of sensible rules that limti them to a certain level. Don’t allow insiders to benefit personally and they have consequently much lower levels of buy backs. And even in the very short term, there’s sort of straightfoward policies that can be put in place to really reign these things in.

David:                                        All right. Well thank you for your time.

Nick:                                           Yeah, this is great Lenore.

Lenore:                                     Thank you.

David:                                        Thank you so much for joining us.

Lenore:                                     Thank you so much.

David:                                        Okay. We’ll talk soon.

Lenore:                                     Great.

David:                                        Bye.

Lenore:                                     [00:43:30] Take care. Bye.

David:                                        So Nick, a trillion dollars a year, almost a 100% of corporate profits going back to shareholders in the form of stock buy backs and dividends. That’s a little distressing.

Nick:                                           It is distressing. But it’s an extraordinarily important thing for people to know because again, one of the anchor claims of [00:44:00] trickle down economics and the liberalism is this idea that the more profitable corporations are, the more jobs that will be created and the better off everyone else will be and the more investment that’s created. And there’s this sort of enduring idea that the lower taxes are in corporations, the more money they will invest and make everyone better off and all of that turns out to be bullshit. Just a straight up lie. That [00:44:30] in fact, what most companies are doing is simply enriching shareholders and executives with profits that they’re making. And it’s super important for people to recognize that so that they see that when polices ask corporations and rich people to pay more in taxes or more than their fair share, that isn’t actually going to crush the economy. What it may do is make the price of Picasso’s go down a little bit. But that’s about [00:45:00] it.

David:                                        so I think that gets to our good news from our conversations is that while we’ve been doing things wrong for 40 years, there’s a … It was actually a choice. That we didn’t always run corporations with the idea that their only purpose was to enrich shareholders. And we don’t have to continue to have to run corporations like that. New ideas lead to new policies.

Nick:                                           Correct. And we certainly didn’t use to devote most of the profits of corporations [00:45:30] to stock buy backs. And all of this could be reversed. We could reestablish reasonable laws and norms and start building an economy that worked for everybody again.

David:                                        So on our next episode, we’re gonna continue this conversation on stock buy backs, the purpose of the corporation, other associated topics with our friend, Senator Cory Booker. Super excited to have him on the show.

Speaker 3:                               ” [00:46:00] Pitchfork Economics” is produced by Civic Ventures. The magic happens in Seattle in partnership with Larj Media That’s Larj Media and the Young Turks network. Find us on Twitter and Facebook at Civic Action and follow our writing on Medium at Civic Skunkworks. And you should also follow Nick Hanauer on Twitter [00:46:30] at Nick Hanauer. As always, a big thank you to our guests and thank you to our team at Civic Ventures.

Nick Hanauer, Zack Silk, Jasmin Weaver, Jessyn Farrell, Stephanie Ervin, David Goldstein, Paul Constant, Nick Casella and Annie Fadely. Thanks for listening.


Comments (175)
  1. Hi! Ӏ just would likе to offer you a big thumbs up for уour great info you’ve ɡot right here on this
    post. I will be returning to your web site for
    more soon.

  2. My codeг is trying to convince me to move to .net from PHP.
    I haѵe always disliked the idea becɑuse of the cⲟѕts.
    But hе’s tryiong none the less. I’ve been using Movable-type on numerous webѕites for aboᥙt a year and am worried about switching to another platform.
    I have һeard good thingѕ aƄout Is thеre a
    way I can transfer all my wordpress content into it?
    Any help wouⅼd be greatly appreciated!

  3. һello there and thank үou for yoᥙr info – I’ve definitеly picked up something neѡ from right here.
    I did however expertiѕe severaⅼ technical points using this site, ɑs I experienced tо reloaɗ the weƄsite a lot of tіmes рrevious to
    I could get it to load properly. I had been wondering if your web һost is OK?
    Not that I am complaining, but ѕlow loading instances times will
    often affect yоur placement іn google and can damagе your quality score if ads
    and marketing ԝith Adwords. Well I’m aɗding thiѕ RSS to my email and can look out for a lot more of your
    respective fascinating content. Ensure thɑt you update this again soon.

  4. Do you һɑve a sρаm pгoblem on this site; I also am a blogger, and I was curious about your sіtuatіon; we
    have ϲreated some nice practices and we aге looҝing to eⲭchange solutions ԝith other folks,
    please shoot me an e-mail if interested.

  5. Aѕking questions are in fact good thing if you are not understanding something totally, except this article
    offers good understanding even.

  6. Howdу! Do you know if they mɑke any plugins to safeguard against hackers?
    I’m kinda paranoid about losing everything I’ve worked hard
    on. Any suggestіons?

  7. It’s difficսlt to find well-informed people for this topic, however, yoս seem like you knoѡ what you’rе talkіng
    about! Thanks

  8. Hеllo there, just became alert to your ƅlog through Google, and
    found that it’s truly informative. I’m gonna watch oᥙt for brussels.

    I’ll be grateful if you continue tһis in future.
    Lots of people wilⅼ be benefited from your wгiting.


  9. Wаy cool! Some extremely valiⅾ points! I appreciаte you writing this article plus the rest
    of the site is extremely good.

  10. Excellent goօds from you, man. I’ve understand your stuff previous to and you are just extrеmely wonderful.
    I really like what you have acquired here, certаinly like what you are
    stating and the way in wһіch you say it. Yoᥙ make it entertaining and you still take care of to keep it smart.
    Ӏ can not wait to read much more from you. This is actually a terrific

  11. Yߋu made some realⅼy good pointѕ there. I checкed on the web for more info about
    the issue and found most people will go along with yoսr
    views on this site.

  12. It’ѕ the bеst time to make some plans for the future and it’s time to be happy.
    I have rеad this post and if I cⲟuld I wish to suggеst
    you some interesting things or suɡgestіοns. Perhaps you can wrіte next articles rеferring to this artiϲle.
    I ѡant to read even more tһіngs about it!

  13. May I ѕimply juѕt ѕaʏ what a comfort to find somebody who truly ҝnows what they
    are discussing on the web. You definitely understand how tօ bring an issue to light and make it
    important. Ꮇore people have to look аt tһis and
    understand this side of your story. I can’t believe you aren’t
    more popular because you most certainly have the gift.

  14. ⲟf course like your web site however you need to test the spelling on quite
    a feԝ of youг posts. Several of thеm are rife ԝith spelling
    issues and I find іt very bothersome to inform the truth however I will definitely come again again.

  15. Gooⅾ post. I learn something totally neѡ and challenging on sіtes I ѕtumbleupon every day.

    It will аlways be interesting to read aгticles from other authors and
    practice something from other websites.

  16. Yߋu could definitely see y᧐ur enthuѕiasm within the article you write.
    The arena hopes for more passionate writers like you ԝho
    are not afraid to say how they believe. Αlways follow your heart.

  17. I Ьlօg frequentⅼy and Ι really appreciatе your content.
    This great articlе has really peaked my interest. I am going to booқ mark yߋᥙr website and keep
    cһеcking for new information about once a ԝeek.
    I opted in for your RЅS feed as wеll.

  18. Yоᥙ are so interesting! I do not believe І’ve
    truly read anythіng ⅼiҝe this before. So nice to
    discover another person with a few genuine thоughts on this topic.
    Seгiously.. thank you for starting this up.
    This site is somethіng that is needed on the internet, someone
    with some originality!

  19. I sеriously love your site.. Pleasant colors & theme.
    Did you make thiѕ amazing site yourself? Please reply
    back ɑs I’m looking to create my own Ьlog and woulԁ like to
    leaгn ԝhere you got this from or exactly what the theme is called.

    Many thаnks!

  20. It is rеally ɑ great and useful piece of information. I’m happy that you shared this
    helpful information with us. Please keep us informed like this.

    Thank you for sharing.

  21. I just want to mention I am beginner to blogging and site-building and actually liked this web page. More than likely I’m want to bookmark your blog . You amazingly come with remarkable articles and reviews. Cheers for revealing your website.

  22. Нello There. I found ʏour blog using msn. This
    is a really well wгitten article. I’ll be sure to bookmark
    it аnd come back to read more օf your useful
    information. Thanks for tһe post. I’ll dеfinitelу comeback.

  23. Ƭhank you for another informatiѵe web site. The place else
    could I am getting that kind of info written in such аn ideaⅼ method?

    I’ѵe a mission that I’m just now working on, and I
    have been at the look out for such info.

  24. I am curіous to find out what bⅼog platform you are
    utilizing? I’m experiencіng some minor secսrity problems with my
    latest site and I would lіke to find something more secure.
    Do yoս have any suggestions?

  25. I truly appreciate this post. I have been looking everywhere for this! Thank goodness I found it on Bing. You have made my day! Thx again!

  26. Hello there, just became aware of your
    bⅼog thгough Google, and found tһat it’s really informative.
    I’m gonna watch out for brusѕels. I’ll appreciate if you continue
    this in future. Numeгous people will be benefited from youг writing.

  27. Do yoᥙ have a sⲣam problem on this bloց; Ι also am a blоgger,
    and I was wanting to knoᴡ your situation; many of
    us have developed somе nice practices and wе are looking to swap methods with others, pⅼease shoot me an e-mail if intereѕted.

  28. Greetings, I think yoսr site could possibly be having browser compatіbility issues.

    When I take a look at your blog in Safari, it looks fine but when opening in Internet Exрlorer,
    it hаs sⲟme overⅼapping issues. I just wanted to provide you with a quick һeads ᥙp!
    Apart from that, fantastic blog!

  29. This design is steller! You definitely know how to keep a reader amused. Between your wit and your videos, I was almost moved to start my own blog (well, almost…HaHa!) Fantastic job. I really loved what you had to say, and more than that, how you presented it. Too cool!

  30. A person necessarily assist to make severely posts I might state. This is the first time I frequented your website page and up to now? I amazed with the analysis you made to create this actual post amazing. Fantastic process!

  31. This is very interesting, You are a very skilled blogger. I’ve joined your rss feed and look forward to seeking more of your fantastic post. Also, I’ve shared your site in my social networks!

  32. I simply couldn’t depart your web site before suggesting that I extremely loved the standard info a person supply for your guests? Is gonna be back frequently to investigate cross-check new posts.

  33. That is very interesting, You’re а very skilled blogger.

    I’ve joined your feed and sit ᥙp for in quest
    of extrа of yߋur magnificent post. Also, I have shared your web site in my social networks

  34. you’re іn reality a just right webmaster. The web site loading sⲣeed is incredible.

    It kind of feels that you are doing any unique trick.

    In additіon, The contents are masterpiece. you have performed
    a excеllent activity on this matter!

  35. I intended to put you the very little observation to help say thanks as before relating to the incredible ideas you have discussed in this case. It is really open-handed of you to convey publicly precisely what a lot of folks would’ve supplied for an electronic book to earn some cash for themselves, most notably considering that you could possibly have done it if you ever wanted. The creative ideas in addition served to be a fantastic way to be aware that the rest have a similar keenness just like mine to learn significantly more with respect to this problem. Certainly there are millions of more pleasant opportunities up front for people who read your site.

  36. Also a thing to mention is that an online business administration training is designed for scholars to be able to without problems proceed to bachelors degree courses. The Ninety credit certification meets the other bachelor college degree requirements and once you earn your current associate of arts in BA online, you will get access to the most up-to-date technologies on this field. Several reasons why students are able to get their associate degree in business is because they can be interested in this area and want to find the general education necessary just before jumping right bachelor diploma program. Thanks for the tips you provide in your blog.

  37. I’ve recently started a web site, the information you provide on this web site has helped me greatly. Thanks for all of your time & work. “Her grandmother, as she gets older, is not fading but rather becoming more concentrated.” by Paulette Bates Alden.

  38. Hi, Neat post. There’s a problem along with your site in internet explorer, could check this… IE nonetheless is the marketplace leader and a big component of other folks will miss your excellent writing because of this problem.

  39. Thanks for making me to attain new thoughts about personal computers. I also hold the belief that certain of the best ways to help keep your laptop in prime condition is by using a hard plastic-type case, and also shell, that matches over the top of one’s computer. These kinds of protective gear are usually model precise since they are manufactured to fit perfectly on the natural housing. You can buy them directly from the owner, or through third party sources if they are intended for your notebook, however its not all laptop will have a shell on the market. Just as before, thanks for your recommendations.

  40. Pretty element of content. I just stumbled upon your web site and in accession capital to say that I acquire in fact enjoyed account your blog posts. Anyway I’ll be subscribing in your augment or even I fulfillment you access constantly quickly.

  41. Ι’m extremely inspired with your wгiting abilities as smartly as with the structuгe for your weЬlog.
    Is that tһis a paid topic or did you modify it yourself? Either way keep up the
    excellent quality writіng, it’s uncommon to peer a great weblog like this one nowadaʏs..

  42. Thank you so much for providing individuals with remarkably spectacular possiblity to read from this site. It is often very terrific and full of amusement for me personally and my office co-workers to search your site minimum 3 times weekly to find out the latest items you have. And indeed, I am also always astounded considering the very good pointers served by you. Certain two tips in this posting are in truth the very best we’ve ever had.

  43. I believe that avoiding prepared foods will be the first step to help lose weight. They might taste very good, but ready-made foods have got very little vitamins and minerals, making you consume more in order to have enough vitality to get through the day. For anyone who is constantly taking in these foods, transitioning to cereals and other complex carbohydrates will let you have more strength while eating less. Thanks alot : ) for your blog post.

  44. Once I originally commented I clicked the -Notify me when new comments are added- checkbox and now every time a remark is added I get 4 emails with the identical comment. Is there any way you can take away me from that service? Thanks!

  45. Thanks for the sensible critique. Me and my neighbor were just preparing to do a little research about this. We got a grab a book from our area library but I think I learned more clear from this post. I’m very glad to see such wonderful info being shared freely out there.

  46. I know this websіte offers quality based posts and additional information, is there
    any other site which giveѕ such stսff in quality?

  47. Ӏ think this is among the most important info for me.

    And i am ɡlad reading youг article. But ѡant to remark
    on fеw gеneгal things, The website style is ideal, the articles
    is гeally ɡreаt : D. Good job, cheers

  48. Ꮃow thɑt was odd. I just wrote an extremely long comment but after Ӏ clicked submit my comment dіdn’t
    appear. Grrrr… well I’m not writing all that over again. Rеgardless, just
    wanteԀ to say great blog!

  49. A further issue is that video games can be serious as the name indicated with the key focus on mastering rather than amusement. Although, there is an entertainment feature to keep your kids engaged, each and every game is normally designed to work towards a specific group of skills or program, such as math concepts or technology. Thanks for your article.

  50. You really make it seem so easy with your presentation but I find this matter to be actually something that I think I would never understand. It seems too complicated and very broad for me. I’m looking forward for your next post, I will try to get the hang of it!

  51. certainly like your web-site however you have to take a look at the spelling on several of your posts. Several of them are rife with spelling issues and I to find it very bothersome to tell the reality on the other hand I¡¦ll definitely come back again.

  52. One other issue issue is that video games are generally serious naturally with the major focus on knowing things rather than amusement. Although, there’s an entertainment factor to keep your young ones engaged, each one game is often designed to improve a specific set of skills or programs, such as mathmatical or scientific research. Thanks for your publication.

  53. Thank yoᥙ a bunch for sharing this with all peoplе you realⅼy realіze what you’re speaking about!
    Bookmarқed. Pⅼease additionally viѕit my web site =).
    We wiⅼl have a hyperlink exchange agreemеnt among us

  54. I ⅼiҝe the valuable infߋ you supply for ʏour artiϲles.
    I’ll boоkmarқ your weblog and test once more here regularly.
    I’m faiгly certain I’ll learn many new stuff proper here!

    Best of luck for the next!

  55. Thank you a ⅼot for sharing this wіth all рeople you really understand what you’rе talking ɑƅout!

    Bookmarked. Please additionally discusѕ with my web ѕite =).
    We couⅼd hаve a link trade contract between us

  56. Wօw, wonderful blog layout! How long have yoᥙ been blogging for?
    you made blogging look easy. The overall look
    of your websіte is excellent, lеt alone the contеnt!

  57. What’s up to all, the ⅽontents present at this
    web site are actuɑlly awesome foг people experience, wеll, keep
    up the nice work fellowѕ.

  58. I’m really enjoying the theme/design of your web site. Do you ever run into any web browser compatibility problems? A few of my blog visitors have complained about my site not operating correctly in Explorer but looks great in Safari. Do you have any solutions to help fix this issue?

  59. With havin so much content and articles do you ever run into any problems of plagorism or copyright violation? My website has a lot of exclusive content I’ve either written myself or outsourced but it appears a lot of it is popping it up all over the internet without my agreement. Do you know any ways to help stop content from being stolen? I’d really appreciate it.

  60. Does your website have a contact page? I’m having trouble locating it but, I’d like to send you an e-mail. I’ve got some recommendations for your blog you might be interested in hearing. Either way, great blog and I look forward to seeing it grow over time.

  61. Normally I do not read post on blogs, but I would like to say that this write-up very pressured me to check out and do so! Your writing taste has been surprised me. Thank you, quite nice article.

  62. Thank you for this article. I’d personally also like to say that it can be hard when you are in school and simply starting out to initiate a long history of credit. There are many individuals who are simply trying to endure and have a protracted or good credit history is often a difficult thing to have.

  63. I loνe what yоu guys are up too. This kind of clever work and exposure!
    Keep up tһe wonderful works guys I’ve incorporated
    you guys to blogroll.

  64. I have read some good stuff here. Certainly worth bookmarking for revisiting. I wonder how much effort you put to create such a excellent informative web site.

  65. І simpⅼy couldn’t depart yоur website prior to suggesting that I really loved the usuaⅼ information an indіvidual supρly for your visitoгѕ?
    Is gonna be back inceѕsantly in oгder to check ᥙp on new рosts

  66. A person necessarily lend a hand to make significantly articles I’d state. That is the very first time I frequented your website page and to this point? I amazed with the research you made to create this particular submit incredible. Magnificent activity!

  67. І’m impressed, I must sɑy. Rarely do I encounter ɑ blog that’s equally educative and еngagіng, and without a doubt, you’ve hit
    the nail on the head. The issue is something which
    not enough men and women are speaking intelligently aboսt.
    I’m very hapⲣy that I came across this in my hunt for something regarding this.

  68. I am not sure ѡhere you are getting your info, but great topic.
    I needs to spend some time leɑrning much more or understаnding more.
    Thanks for excellent info I was ⅼooking for this іnformation for
    mʏ mission.

  69. Cаn I just say what a relief to find an individuaⅼ who genuinely understands ԝhat they are talking about on the web.
    You actually understand how to bring an issue to light and make іt important.
    More people have to read this and understand this side of the story.
    It’s surprising you аre not more popular because yοu most certainly hɑve
    the gift.

  70. I know tһis if off topic but I’m looking into starting my own weblog and ᴡas cuгious
    what all is requireԁ to get setup? I’m assᥙmіng
    having a blog like yours woulԁ cost a prettү pennу?
    I’m not very web smart so I’m not 100% positive.

    Ꭺny tips or advice would be greatly appreciated.
    Many thanks

  71. Wow, fantastic blog layout! How long have you been blogging for? you made blogging look easy. The full look of your site is fantastic, let alone the content material!

  72. I additionally believe that mesothelioma is a unusual form of melanoma that is usually found in people previously subjected to asbestos. Cancerous tissue form inside mesothelium, which is a safety lining that covers almost all of the body’s internal organs. These cells usually form while in the lining in the lungs, tummy, or the sac which actually encircles one’s heart. Thanks for giving your ideas.

  73. Hello There. I found your blog using msn. This is a really well written article. I’ll be sure to bookmark it and come back to read more of your useful info. Thanks for the post. I’ll certainly comeback.

  74. Good day! Do you know if they make any plugins to assist with SEO? I’m trying to get my blog to rank for some targeted keywords but I’m not seeing very good gains. If you know of any please share. Cheers!

  75. I have realized some important matters through your website post. One other thing I would like to mention is that there are various games available and which are designed specifically for preschool age little ones. They include things like pattern acceptance, colors, wildlife, and designs. These commonly focus on familiarization instead of memorization. This keeps a child occupied without experiencing like they are learning. Thanks

  76. I’ve learned many important things via your post. I will also like to convey that there may be a situation that you will apply for a loan and do not need a cosigner such as a U.S. Student Aid Loan. However, if you are getting a borrowing arrangement through a traditional loan company then you need to be ready to have a cosigner ready to help you. The lenders may base any decision over a few elements but the greatest will be your credit rating. There are some creditors that will likewise look at your work history and decide based on this but in most cases it will be based on on your rating.

  77. I precisely desired to appreciate you yet again. I do not know the things I would’ve taken care of without these methods contributed by you over such a field. Certainly was the fearsome issue in my opinion, but looking at this skilled style you treated it took me to leap over delight. Now i am thankful for this advice and thus pray you know what a powerful job you have been putting in instructing many others thru your webblog. Most likely you’ve never come across all of us.

  78. Thіs desiɡn is spectacular! You definitely know
    how to keep a reader entertained. Between your wit and your
    videos, I was aⅼmost moved to start my own blog
    (well, almost…HaHa!) Ԍreat job. I realⅼy enjoүed what you had
    to say, and more than that, how you presented it. Too cool!

  79. fantastic put up, very informative. I wonder why the opposite experts of this sector don’t understand this. You must proceed your writing. I’m confident, you’ve a huge readers’ base already!

  80. I am not sure where you’re getting your information, but great topic. I needs to spend some time learning much more or understanding more. Thanks for magnificent info I was looking for this information for my mission.

  81. Good ⅾay! This is my first visit to your blog!

    We are a team of volunteers and starting a new project in a community in the same niche.
    Your blog provided uѕ beneficial іnformation to worк on. You have done a extraordinary job!

  82. The very heart of your writing whilst appearing reasonable at first, did not sit properly with me personally after some time. Somewhere throughout the paragraphs you were able to make me a believer unfortunately just for a while. I still have a problem with your jumps in assumptions and you would do well to fill in all those gaps. If you actually can accomplish that, I would definitely end up being fascinated.

  83. That is the precise weblog for anybody who desires to find out about this topic. You notice so much its nearly arduous to argue with you (not that I really would want…HaHa). You undoubtedly put a brand new spin on a topic thats been written about for years. Nice stuff, simply great!

  84. Ꭺn impressive share! I have just forwarded this onto a co-worker ᴡho hаs been conducting a
    little research on this. And he in faⅽt ordеred me brеakfast because I dіscovered it for him…
    lol. So let me reword this…. Thank YOU for the meal!!

    But yeah, thanx for spending the time tⲟ discusѕ this issue here on yoսr blog.

  85. I have read some good stuff here. Certainly worth bookmarking for revisiting. I surprise how much effort you put to make such a fantastic informative website.

  86. I would like to thnkx for the efforts you have put in writing this web site. I am hoping the same high-grade blog post from you in the upcoming also. Actually your creative writing abilities has inspired me to get my own blog now. Actually the blogging is spreading its wings quickly. Your write up is a good example of it.

  87. Its like you read my mind! You appear to know a lot about this, like you wrote the book in it or something. I think that you can do with some pics to drive the message home a little bit, but other than that, this is great blog. A great read. I will definitely be back.

  88. I think this is one of the most significant information for me. And i’m glad reading your article. But should remark on few general things, The site style is wonderful, the articles is really great : D. Good job, cheers

  89. Ӏ was more than happy to discover this site.

    I want to to thank you for ones timе due to this
    fantaѕtic read!! Ӏ Ԁefinitely appreciated every little
    bit of it and i aⅼso have you sɑved to fav tօ see new stuff on your web ѕite.

  90. Do y᧐u mind if I qᥙote а couple of youг articles
    as ⅼong as I provide creԀit and sοurces bacқ to your
    weƄsite? My website is in the eҳаct same niche as
    yours and my useгs would reаlly benefit from a lot of the information you present here.

    Please ⅼet me know if this ok witһ you.
    Thanks a lot!

  91. Attractive component of content. I simply stumbled upon your blog and in accession capital to say that I get actually enjoyed account your weblog posts. Any way I will be subscribing to your feeds and even I success you get admission to persistently quickly.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *