Socialists advocate public ownership of the means of production, whereas capitalism is simply where capitalists own the means of production. But who controls the means of production in a capitalist economy? I am currently working on a project with co-authors which looks at corporate ownership and control, and we are trying to answer the following question: are firms controlled by their owners or by managers? According to a recent post by Mark Roe, the United States is more a managerial economy than a capitalist one. A small cadre of managers and CEOs controls the means of production rather than capitalists. This gives these managers lots of influence on the economy and one has to ask whether they control the means of production in the interests of the capitalists (the owners of the means of production), never mind wider society. Increasingly, there is doubt as to whether they do either.
Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson, Amir Kermani, James Kwak and Todd Mitton have written a paper on whether firms connected to Timothy Geithner benefited from these connections. They do so by looking at how stocks of these firms reacted to the announcement that he was a nominee for Treasury Secretary in November 2008. They find that there were large abnormal returns for connected firms. Below is the paper's abstract and the full paper is available here . The announcement of Timothy Geithner as nominee for Treasury Secretary in November 2008 produced a cumulative abnormal return for financial firms with which he had a connection. This return was about 6% after the first full day of trading and about 12% after ten trading days. There were subsequently abnormal negative returns for connected firms when news broke that Geithner's confirmation might be derailed by tax issues. Excess returns for connected firms may reflect the perceived impact of relying on the advice of a small ne...