The Creative Destruction of Sears

Dennis Sanders

Dennis is the pastor of a small Protestant congregation outside St. Paul, MN and also a part-time communications consultant. A native of Michigan, you can check out his writings over on Medium and subscribe to his Substack newsletter on religion and politics called Polite Company.  Dennis lives in Minneapolis with his husband Daniel.

Related Post Roulette

91 Responses

  1. Brandon Berg says:

    I’m not seeing a problem here. Apparently Lambert ran the numbers and judged Sears to be worth less than the sum of its parts. If he was correct, he was right to start selling off parts. If he was wrong, his hedge fund will lose money.

    Why do you think this is a bad thing?Report

    • Philip H in reply to Brandon Berg says:

      Well for starters some of us object to the obscene idea the generating ever more profit in ever shorter time frames – which is what happened here – is a good thing. We don’t believe long term economic stability is compatible with sell it, sell it all NOW. And frankly, we object to the near monopolies in retail this creates, since Sears and KMart closing now leave only Target and Walmart in that retail sector. You can’t sustain competitive markets by forcing all the competitors out of business. Or so I’m told.Report

      • Pinky in reply to Philip H says:

        A near-monopoly is a company that holds nearly 100% of the market. It’s not when nearly one company holds 100% of the market. That’s an oligopoly, and it can be competitive. It probably doesn’t matter if it’s two or four companies that run the majority of one distribution system, particularly since we have more mega-size specialty stores (Cabela’s, Michaels, Ikea, et cetera) along with small stores and online availability.Report

      • Swami in reply to Philip H says:

        As a one-time executive for Sears (around 40 years ago), I strongly agree with BB. It was a mercy killing. The assets of the company were wisely repurposed to better and more efficient uses.

        Profit isn’t “obscene,” it is a feedback mechanism that resources are being used wisely, in this case by being sent to where they can be used better. I will take long term economic vitality over sclerotic economic stability, and in this case I would much rather buy from Amazon than Sears. Cheaper, better, more variety, more convenience, and better service.

        Sears was a dinosaur decades ago, and could not be killed off soon enough for pills and soap.Report

    • DensityDuck in reply to Brandon Berg says:

      “Apparently Lambert ran the numbers and judged Sears to be worth less than the sum of its parts…Why do you think this is a bad thing?”

      if he were selling the parts to someone who could make better use of them, that would be one thing

      but what he’s doing is grinding the parts into meal and selling the product as pig foodReport

      • Dark Matter in reply to DensityDuck says:

        The land and store locations is better off being controlled by other companies/stores. That sounds a lot like “better use of them”.

        Locally they didn’t bulldoze 20% of the Mall.Report

        • DensityDuck in reply to Dark Matter says:

          (but the land and store locations aren’t being controlled by other companies/stores, they’re just sitting vacant)Report

          • Brandon Berg in reply to DensityDuck says:

            I just looked up the location of the Sears store where I used to shop, and the building is currently being used by a Coca Cola distributor. I don’t remember the exact location of any other Sears stores. Anybody else want to check on the ones you remember and report back?

            People don’t like leaving money on the table. I’m sure that there are a handful of locations in depopulating areas where nobody could find a good use for a former Sears store. But if nobody can find a good use for the location, then it was probably a money sink for Sears. Lambert is motivated to get a good price for this real estate, and buyers are motivated to get value for their money. The only person who has an incentive for a bunch of valuable real estate to sit idle is Shoulberg, because it makes for a sexy story.Report

        • Oscar Gordon in reply to Dark Matter says:

          I’m sure New London was certain Susette Kelo’s property was going to be put to better use.

          But that’s a bit of a non-sequitur. The question is, was killing Sears/K-mart really the most efficient market result, or was it merely the most profitable for one person? Since Lambert basically cut the feet out from under the company, we can ask the question, “Could the corporation have been made profitable again?”

          Given the market wasn’t really given a say in this, it’s wrong to suggest that the result is the proper functioning of the market.Report

          • DavidTC in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

            The question is, was killing Sears/K-mart really the most efficient market result, or was it merely the most profitable for one person?

            So let’s think about this logically: Entrepreneurs go into business to make money. They do this by starting with cash, get a property, set up a business, start selling things, and eventually turn a profit. Capital+work+luck=successful business

            That means that a successful business is, in theory, worth more than the sum of its capital.

            So, what if the owner doesn’t want to put in the work? Or can’t, because they have so much money that they end up owning a ton of businesses. So they take the existing business and go the other way, turn it back into capital.

            Because, to be clear, that’s what happened here. Sears and K-Mart didn’t ‘fail’. They only ‘failed’ because large amounts of money were extracted from them, and no effort was put into keeping them afloat. Basically, it’s the opposite of being an entrepreneur, it’s negative entrepreneur-ism.

            I don’t know what we mean by ‘efficient market result’, but if we think ‘Taking some capital and starting a business with it’ is a _good_ thing , then ‘taking a business and taking it apart for capital’ is…a bad thing, right?

            In fact, I’m pretty sure that ‘Taking some capital and starting a business with it’ is such an apparent social good that we make laws making it easier, it’s something constantly harped upon how we need to reduce regulation to allow it. Honestly, it seems to be the main ‘social good’ promoted by not only the right, but the left also.

            Seems weird we don’t seem to have any rules about doing literally the opposite, running the process backwards. It would be like if we spent tons of effort and money on healthcare, setting the collective health of the population as the major goal of society…but didn’t make it illegal to stab people.Report

            • Dark Matter in reply to DavidTC says:

              Seems weird we don’t seem to have any rules about doing literally the opposite, running the process backwards.

              We don’t have laws against it for the same reason we don’t have laws against selling Twenty dollar bills for Ten dollars.

              Capital+work+luck=successful business

              That means that a successful business is, in theory, worth more than the sum of its capital.

              That, exactly.

              Someone in the position you describe (i.e. has a successful business and doesn’t want to work), can sell the business for more money (and certainly less work) than it would take to dismantle the company.

              Here someone bought a “successful” business, and put in years of effort and a lot of work dismantling it. For that to happen suggests the company was a lot less successful than described.

              There is a very hard working horse worth a lot of money. Someone bought it (paying a fair price), and sold it to a glue factory. He also made a lot of money doing so. The description is self contradicting.Report

              • DavidTC in reply to Dark Matter says:

                Someone in the position you describe (i.e. has a successful business and doesn’t want to work), can sell the business for more money (and certainly less work) than it would take to dismantle the company.

                Ah, no, see, Sears is bankrupt. Aka, it owes more than it is worth.

                And it owes that because the current hedge fund owners forced it to take on a ton of debt _while at the same time_ the owners pulled a lot of money out of the company for themselves.

                https://www.huffpost.com/entry/opinion-sears-bankruptcy-hedge-funds_n_5bc4b346e4b0bd9ed55c8a58

                In fact, the hedge fund _itself_ has loaned a lot of money to Sears…and they’re first in line to collect. Their loans are written that way. None of the other creditors are going to get anything.

                And while the hedge fund was doing it, they managed to make the company look really good, so much so that they were able to unload a lot of stock to unwitting investors. Which didn’t matter…they had already saddled the company with a bunch of crippling loans.

                It’s a neat trick. If you have a mortgage, you might want to try it: Just open a new bank, take out a second mortgage _from_ your bank that you make sure has priority over your original mortgage, then disassemble your home and sell it piece by piece. At some point, the entire thing falls apart, what is left of your home is sold at auction, and you are first in line to collect the proceeds.

                …oh, wait, normal people can’t open banks and that wouldn’t be allowed anyway. Only Finance(TM) gets to do crap like that.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to DavidTC says:

                Lampert took over in 2013.

                Sears’ decline seems to predate Lampert’s control by 20-40 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sears#Decline

                There’s a large margin of error here and it’s possible the situation is exactly as you describe.

                It’s also possible the ship was going to sink no matter who was in charge and the captain of a sinking ship always looks bad and creates negative opinion pieces.Report

    • Jay O'Sham in reply to Brandon Berg says:

      Lambert put people and practices in place to ensure maximum profitable destruction of the company. The company, employees, and loyal customers never had a chance. The price and value was not based on what COULD be done to maximize profit and viability of SEARS as a good and strong company, the price and value was engineered to slowly and profitably bleed away the company. In one sense, the Hedge Fund actively perverted the value and investment of Share Holders.Report

  2. InMD says:

    On the one hand I think Sears and most of this sort of retail is doomed due to advancements in technology no matter what. Target is alive in my estimation in large part because it is in fact pretty good at e-commerce. Wal-Mart, scourge of small town main streets that it is, at least is getting goods and services to a lot of places they might not otherwise be.

    That said I do think there’s a real issue here that needs to be addressed at some point. It’s all well and good where becoming wealthy is a (good) byproduct of skill or the development of some human advancing or value creating enterprise. I’ve been following this story for awhile and it’s not remotely what Lampert did here. The approach makes society and the country worse off and there’s nothing wrong with noticing that.Report

    • Philip H in reply to InMD says:

      The approach makes society and the country worse off and there’s nothing wrong with noticing that.

      Sure there is – if you notice things like this, then you are noticing why libertarian economic thought and social policy might not actually work in the real world. Some people will object to that curtain being pulled that far back.Report

      • Jaybird in reply to Philip H says:

        If we could put sociopaths who mouth socialist platitudes in charge of things for a while instead of the sociopaths who mouth capitalist platitudes, we could really turn things around.Report

      • Dark Matter in reply to Philip H says:

        The “real world” outcomes most certainly are not always great.

        However putting the gov in charge of this instantly means companies are forced to make choices based on political sensitivity and political outcomes rather than economics.

        Coal mines and coal miners are politically powerful. If we take into account “all stakeholders” then we need to “invest” lots of gov money to expand them.Report

        • InMD in reply to Dark Matter says:

          I’d like to think we can find a happy place between central planning or a straight up spoils system and lavishly rewarding the operation of magic wealth extracting algorithms increasingly detached from the physical realities of economic activity. It’s all about incentives.Report

          • Dark Matter in reply to InMD says:

            For all outcomes? It’s possible to cherry pick examples of non-ideal outcomes and proclaim a total restructuring would deal with that.

            OJ got away with murder, we should totally restructure the entire system.

            However if you’re trying to proclaim that you want something other than central planning, change the incentives for example, then what incentives would you like to change and what are the other outcomes?Report

            • InMD in reply to Dark Matter says:

              Well for one, I’m not basing my views on a single example, so let’s put that aside, nor am I suggesting some sort of outcome-based system. I also said in my comment I thought Sears was probably not long for this world anyway.

              What I am wondering is whether some system of taxation or financial regulation isn’t possible that discourages the purchase of an asset to loot it for short term profits instead of build or grow it. Maybe it’s a very high tax on that kind of earning, or at least some relatively long waiting periods before you can do it.
              Maybe there’s some ‘skin in the game’ requirements. I’m open minded about this. But in either case there’s a legitimate public interest in encouraging the former and discouraging the latter.Report

        • Chip Daniels in reply to Dark Matter says:

          What would happen if we put government in charge of setting tax policy?Report

          • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

            I imagine that government would outsource tax policy to lobbyists.Report

          • Dark Matter in reply to Chip Daniels says:

            Our tax code is not humanly understandable because of it’s complexity and carve outs and political interference.

            I don’t see where you’re trying to go with this example.Report

            • Chip Daniels in reply to Dark Matter says:

              The decisions that Sears made were guided in part by the incentives created by things like the tax code.

              To caution against “putting the government in charge” is to ignore that a very large source of the outcomes of the marketplace are already things over which the government is in charge.

              A market fundamentalist could have written this essay and argued that Sears was killed by the government policies which created the incentives which guided Lampert’s decisions.

              But of course the incentives and complexity of the tax code was deliberately created by the very businesses who use it.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Lots of wisdom there. Whenever I see a wide dysfunctional economic outcome, the first thing I check is what the gov is doing.

                There are absolutely market failures and things the market doesn’t handle well. Having said that, clueless gov policy is often the driving factor.

                Edit: And gov policy is something we can in theory change while the laws of economics really isn’t.Report

    • Marchmaine in reply to InMD says:

      This is a look from another angle on the Marchmaine 21st century Distributist critique in that it isn’t so much that Lambert is winding down Sears, selling off real-estate and physical assets… it’s that Lambert isn’t really entitled to those Assets; or more accurately, he’s entitled to a portion of those assets he’s willing to buy, but the long-term value those assets were procured with ought to unwind *also* to Sears labor.

      This story is the 21st century story writ large… people who aren’t really ‘inventors’ or ‘entrepreneurs’ or even ‘makers’ * are using access to capital and leverage to siphon wealth that is in excess of their investment or risk.

      Sears should perhaps die a graceful (or maybe ungraceful) death and folks can make money on the way down… but that wealth should also be unwound to the folks who created it in the first place — even if it’s just in fractional amounts.

      * I have a different critique for ‘entrepreneurs’ building pyramid model returns… it’s related but slightly different.Report

      • InMD in reply to Marchmaine says:

        Maybe that’s the way to deal with it. Like it isn’t hard to see there is a very important difference between what Sears and Roebuck were doing in 1890 or whenever and what Lampbert is doing.

        And it’s something we can think about writ large. We don’t have to love the personas of the Musks or Bezos of the world or think they should be relieved of complying with basic obligations to protect their workers to still understand there is a real contribution or creation happening that is totally inapplicable to guys who run hedge funds.Report

      • Oscar Gordon in reply to Marchmaine says:

        Yep. It wouldn’t stop someone like Lambert from killing a company they bought, but it would reduce the wealth they could extract in the killing, and allow enough of it to disperse to other stakeholders to reduce the incentive. Or at the very least, cushion the blow for labor and the local economies that are impacted.Report

        • Marchmaine in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

          Tweak the incentives, tweak the behavior… and if the incentives still align, then the behavior distributes the gains more broadly… or maybe in this case cushions the loss such that new options open up.

          There’s no model where Tax Policy does anything useful here. Increasingly Tax Policy is just becoming some sort of talisman we wave around imaging it can fix things.Report

      • Kazzy in reply to Marchmaine says:

        “…are using access to capital and leverage to siphon wealth that is in excess of their … risk.”

        This, as a layperson, seems the crux of the matter.Report

      • Rufus F. in reply to Marchmaine says:

        This story is the 21st century story writ large… people who aren’t really ‘inventors’ or ‘entrepreneurs’ or even ‘makers’ * are using access to capital and leverage to siphon wealth that is in excess of their investment or risk.

        There’s a lot to unpack in this comment, but it really does resonate at the moment.Report

  3. Jaybird says:

    How many Lamperts do we have?

    What are they in charge of?Report

  4. Chip Daniels says:

    Market fundamentalism- by that I mean the idea that, left untouched, market forces will always leads to a beneficial outcome for society- is really just a form of magical thinking like socialism.

    Market forces are viewed as like the laws of physics, entirely beyond the reach of human action. If this sounds familiar, it should because it is the precise and literal mirror image of socialism, which holds that market forces can be ignored at will and shaped entirely by human choices.

    Both are entirely faith-based and require a suspension of empirical fact and evidence.Report

    • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

      Market forces are kinda like laws of physics.

      And just like the laws of physics, you can use them to make a gun, a claymore mine, or a nuclear bomb.

      “Maybe we shouldn’t let people shoot innocent people.”
      “Right there with ya.”
      “We should have house to house searches for guns.”
      “By people who are, presumably, armed?”Report

    • Saul Degraw in reply to Chip Daniels says:

      Market fundamentalism has a much bigger propaganda outfit behind it because of all the people who have or think they have made their fortunes because of it. I remember lots of defenses of just in time shipping during the early pandemic shortages. I suspect that just in time shipping is going to remain an iron law long after the pandemic is over.

      There was an article I read a few weeks ago on how a lot of junior bankers tried to revolt against the conditions of the industry. One CEO tried to impose more humane conditions but was undercut by every manager below her declaring “these rules do not apply to my team.” The article ended by noting that the class of 2021 had increased applications to I-banking, management consulting, etc.

      It is very hard to argue against money and I am not convinced Hawley and the New Right are sincere in their allegedly populist critiques of corporate America and (((finance))).Report

    • LeeEsq in reply to Chip Daniels says:

      A more accurate description of what market fundamentalists think is that market forces are something that humans tamper with at their own peril. They don’t believe that we can’t do things to change the economy. They just believe the results and consequences will be worse than intended for everybody.Report

    • Pinky in reply to Chip Daniels says:

      Lee is right, and this is one of the reasons why I have trouble believing you ever read any Kemp or National Review. These aren’t minor misunderstandings on your part. You don’t get to them by considering both sides and being persuaded that one is right; you get to them by never having heard one of the sides.

      ETA: Lee actually overstates it a bit, in that the assumption is that the unintended consequences will outweigh the intended.Report

      • Chip Daniels in reply to Pinky says:

        Yes, I used to believe this, that markets are like ecosystems and governments are like human induced pollution.
        That, left in a pristine state of nature, the market ecosystem will self correct.

        Eventually I understood that there is no such thing as a pristine date of nature, that “self correcting” means that entire species or even entire planets can die out, or that economies can crash without delivering any good outcome.

        And still later I realized this analogy also has the flaw that it sees humans, or governments as separate from the ecosystem when in fact humans are co-creators of the ecosystem, just as the government is a co-creator of the market.

        Hey, you know who helped me with this? Jack Kemp, with his idea of Enterprise Zones, where the government would aggressively intervene in the market to deliberately plan and manage resources.

        You know where I got the term “co-creator”‽
        From Catholic Social Teaching, where labor is held to be, not a commodity to be bought and sold, but a calling, where humans take from the bounty of natural resources and through our labor become “co-creators” with God of our world.

        I don’t know why you find the liberal argument so mystifying since, as Haidt correctly notes, it draws from the same strands as conservatives.Report

        • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

          “self correct”

          This is not the same thing as “doing what we want it to do”.

          It’s more like “create a new equilibrium”. Perhaps even “create several unstable equilibria on the way to a new stable equilibrium. Pity about the guillotine incident.”Report

        • CJColucci in reply to Chip Daniels says:

          But Chip, you can’t possibly understand yourself. Or at least your former self.Report

          • Chip Daniels in reply to CJColucci says:

            Its that whole false consciousness thing..

            A Proud Boy was rabble rousing on a streetcorner.
            “Come the Trad revolution all men will have docile stay at home wives!
            All men will have large trucks!
            All men will work at manly jobs like steel factories!”

            A man piped up- “But I rather like my outspoken wife, I prefer a Prius, and my job as a counselor fulfills me.”

            The Proud Boy looked at him a second and said softly, “Come the Trad revolution you’ll do as you’re g*ddam told.”Report

        • Pinky in reply to Chip Daniels says:

          Then you used to believe something that less than 1% of conservatives used to believe, and less than 1% of conservatives believe today. You can’t fairly characterize your views as those held by conservatives. I can’t go back in time and make you correctly understand conservative thinking, nor can I stop you from being a liberal today, but I’ve got to point out that your current descriptions of conservative thinking don’t match conservative thinking.

          I mean, the whole point of Kemp’s enterprise zones was to designate areas as free from government intervention. Lower taxes, reduced regulation. Ideally, the burden would be lifted from everyone, but you’ve got to prioritize the areas that need the most help. That’s not to say that government can do no good, but the default position has to be that areas with high regulation and low prosperity can be aided by reducing government. So basically, every single thing you wrote about conservative thinking is exactly backwards. Not about whether conservatism works, mind you, but about what conservatives think.Report

          • Chip Daniels in reply to Pinky says:

            I also came to the realization somewhere along the line, that what I heard Reagan saying was different than what other people heard.

            I heard his campaign announcement speech as a thrilling vision of a small decentered Jeffersonian America, of peace through strength and prosperity through freedom.

            Other people listening to that same speech heard an old white man yelling about states rights.

            In Neshoba County, Mississippi.

            So, yeah. Maybe I wasn’t a Republican like other people were Republicans. Maybe I heard what I wanted to hear and closed my eyes to the things that didn’t fit.Report

            • Pinky in reply to Chip Daniels says:

              Reagan announced his campaign in November 1979. He spoke in Neshoba in August 1980. Only left-wing sources call the Neshoba speech his “campaign announcement”. I mean, he’d won the nomination the month before, and was already campaigning with Bush at the time. So either you’re misremembering the speech you heard in the same way as liberals present it, or you never really did have that experience.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Pinky says:

                Let me rephrase then:

                I heard his campaign speech as a thrilling vision of a small decentered Jeffersonian America, of peace through strength and prosperity through freedom.

                Other people listening to that same speech heard an old white man yelling about states rights.

                In Neshoba County, Mississippi.Report

              • Pinky in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                You eliminated one of the liberal talking points, and I’m supposed to believe the rest of the liberal talking points match your experience? I don’t think you have ever listened to the speech, because the only people who think it was yelling about states rights are liberals who never heard it. The theme of the speech is federalist, but there was one line (I don’t even think it was an applause line) specifically about states’ rights.

                The speech was significant because the Democrats dominated the South, and a Californian was running against a Southerner. Reagan demonstrated that his themes could play in the South.

                I personally think the “innocent conservative turns idealistic liberal” story you tell isn’t true, because you can’t describe events in the timeline or beliefs (then or now) as a conservative might view them. Lee is certainly a liberal, but he can state conservative beliefs coherently. If he wanted to, he could post a convincing “I used to be conservative” comment. You can’t.

                You stumbled upon the speech three months before the election and thought it was a campaign announcement, then listened to it and thought it was optimistic because you didn’t know that Southerners used to be racist, then heard Kemp talk about cutting back government in the cities and realized that liberalism should create more government because that’s what Kemp wanted and also because now you figured out that Southerners are racist? That’s the narrative you’ve presented. My guess is you heard of Reagan and Kemp and they seemed nice but you were 12 and then you’ve digested all the liberal talking points and convinced yourself that this was an intellectual journey. You sprinkled in Catholic social teaching and name-dropped Haidt thinking it’d complete the picture. Not one word of it sounds authentic.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Pinky says:

                Now that I have been confronted in this Struggle Session, I confess.

                My life memories are false and your explanation of them is indeed true.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                I will always enjoy remembering the Evangelicals who disagreed with the text by telling me “I know in my heart that…” and they went with what they knew in their hearts over what was written on the page.

                Sometimes in red text.

                I now realize that I will never be as happy as those who know things in their hearts.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                Another inflection point for me was when James Pinkerton, a conservative pundit, wrote an essay called The Conservative Case For Gay Marriage.

                My epiphany was that an argument for or against virtually anything could be made from either the liberal or conservative position.

                Not that they were all equally valid or plausible.

                But, like Haidt, I realized that simply by stressing one virtue like “Family” or “Community” over other virtues like “Disgust” or “Tradition” a given proposition could switch from unacceptable to acceptable.

                This allowed me to see that all the virtues needed to be balanced against each other, and not to simply accept that conservatism or liberalism was a set of inflexible positions.Report

              • Pinky in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                See, I know how you feel. I used to be a socialist, and it was all “cannibalism, cannibalism, cannibalism”. I once attended a Sanders rally and he put on that spinning hat and just flew around the room. But that’s when I realized that free trade helps *both* countries. And all I’m asking you is to acknowledge the same.Report

        • Dark Matter in reply to Chip Daniels says:

          Jack Kemp, with his idea of Enterprise Zones, where the government would aggressively intervene in the market to deliberately plan and manage resources.

          Let’s define an Enterprise Zone.

          An enterprise zone is a geographic area that has been granted special tax breaks, regulatory exemptions, or other public assistance in order to encourage private economic development and job creation. They are used most often to promote the revitalization of a city neighborhood.

          https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/enterprise-zone.asp

          The theory sounds pretty neat, it can work (see China). However the big disadvantage is it’s tempting to create a separate and special bureaucracy to deal with it and micro-manage.Report

          • Chip Daniels in reply to Dark Matter says:

            It was a wonderful idea, in that it used conservative tools like tax cuts towards liberal ends like diversity, equality, and inclusion.
            Remember that the chief beneficiaries were very deliberately black people, inner city people and those on society’s margins.

            As it turned out the actual application could never match the dream for a lot of reasons, mostly that the vanishing industrial base had more to do with global factors than domestic tax rates.

            But the idea that the government was not a disinterested bystander, but an active agent in altering the outcomes of the economy was potent.
            And in retrospect it was the first fissure in my break from conservatism.Report

            • Dark Matter in reply to Chip Daniels says:

              In theory, these tax breaks aren’t directed towards “the vanishing industrial base”. In theory some new Fortune 500 would locate there like they do in Ireland.

              In practice, efforts to “help” the inner city came with mountains of paperwork and micromanagement just to prove we’re not serious about reducing the footprint of government.

              But the idea that the government was not a disinterested bystander, but an active agent in altering the outcomes of the economy was potent.

              The lesson I get from it is the gov sucks at picking winners and losers.

              There are too many ways to game the system and startups don’t have the bandwidth to justify the creation of every job to armies of bureaucrats.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Dark Matter says:

                And yet government goes right on picking winners and losers . . . .Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Philip H says:

                Yup. Explaining to politically powerful “losers” that it’s on them to make their lives better is a really hard sell.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Dark Matter says:

                If special tax breaks for blighted areas are an example of “picking winners and losers”, then can we say the same thing about special tax rates for capital gains income versus wage income?

                Truth is, economic conservatism ALSO likes the idea of government being an active agent of altering the outcomes of the economy.

                Because in fact, government has a pretty good track record of using the various tools like tax rates, tariffs, land use decisions, and subsidies to produce good economic outcomes.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                If special tax breaks for blighted areas are an example of “picking winners and losers”, then can we say the same thing about special tax rates for capital gains income versus wage income?

                This is one of the stronger arguments for simply taxing capital gains as normal income. The real problem is it flies in the face of a progressive tax code which we also want. A long-term investment which pays off all at once may represent decades of work.

                The simplest and most efficient tax code would be a flat tax on everything.

                government has a pretty good track record of using the various tools like tax rates, tariffs, land use decisions, and subsidies to produce good economic outcomes.

                The gov is a massive tool for enabling economic activities. Sound economic policy can be world changing.

                The problem is when that tool gets used for political purposes. Hey, the gov can create prosperity, why can’t it also be used to eliminate inequality and injustice?Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Dark Matter says:

                “Prosperity for all” instead of “Prosperity for me and my cronies” is explicitly a political idea.

                Even with supposedly “nonpolitical” government actions like highways and stadiums, there are obvious political beneficiaries and impacts. Sometimes these are good, sometimes they aren’t.

                Rather than trying to remove politics from politics, maybe its better to assess the proposed outcomes individually instead of issuing a blanket ideology.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                “Prosperity for all” instead of “Prosperity for me and my cronies” is explicitly a political idea.

                This is proclaiming all of economics is a sub-branch of politics.

                This is also proclaiming that since everything is political, the policies I want have equal validity.

                …maybe its better to assess the proposed outcomes individually instead of issuing a blanket ideology.

                That’s fine. I’m all in favor of “blanket ideologies” being over ridden by specific exceptions.

                However big picture the gov has a very poor record of picking economic winners and losers. If we’re going to try to do this again, we should have some understanding of why previous efforts have failed and what will be different this time.Report

      • LeeEsq in reply to Pinky says:

        I don’t believe in what the market fundamentalists believe, I’m just stating their beliefs more accurately. My actual belief is that the economy could be tampered with rather safely for the most part.Report

  5. Great piece. I agree with your assessment that Sears didn’t die, it was murdered. The phenomenon you highlighted here is one of the reasons we should take the FIRE out of the economy, by which I mean finance, insurance, and real estate. It wasn’t that long ago that all of those activities were considered “extractive”, or what is described by the economic term rent-seeking. By definition, all these were excluded from important economic statistics as they did not generate growth.

    A movement arose forty years ago to redefine economic statistics to include destructive acts like the systematic dismemberment of Sears as growth, but if you look at what happened here you can see that changing the definition didn’t change the reality of what happened. But the redefinition gave valuable cover to those who profit from the dismemberment.Report

  6. LeeEsq says:

    A lot of market fundamentalist talk comes across as very Panglossian. Everything that happens in the market is the best for all possible markets. Rubbish, utter rubbish.Report

  7. LeeEsq says:

    Another one of my issues with market fundamentalist thought is that they really aren’t good at handling the worst behavior of business people and corporations like the United Fruit Company basically creating a serf society in Central America to feed the American appetite for bananas.Report

    • Chip Daniels in reply to LeeEsq says:

      Until there is a “labor shortage” and the ungrateful serfs stop working, in which case the government must Do Something.

      News Item:
      American workers are in line for their biggest wage increase in a decade…
      https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/12/08/wages-2022-raises-inflation/

      Hard to see how the administration survives this awful news.Report

    • Dark Matter in reply to LeeEsq says:

      handling the worst behavior of business people and corporations

      The answer is that behavior should be outlawed. Ergo child labor and the rest of “the worst” behavior is illegal.

      The problem is Lambert seems to have decided Sears either wasn’t salvageable or that it shouldn’t be saved. Other than scale, I’m not sure how that makes him different from me deciding my small business couldn’t/shouldn’t be saved.Report

      • Philip H in reply to Dark Matter says:

        He didn’t decide it was unsalvageable – he bought it with the intention of taking it apart, making a much as possible on sales of the pieces and then bolting, leaving whatever was left (including the labor) to fend for itself. He was after a wealth transfer and nothing more.Report

        • Dark Matter in reply to Philip H says:

          That is the narrative.

          To be fair I have not been following this one closely and it’s possible that he engaged in an Enron style looting and fiscal mismanagement. Maybe the narrative is right.

          However there is an absence of evidence here, dogs that aren’t barking. It’s been a lot of years and there doesn’t seem to have been more legal interest/challenges than you’d expect from a large company dying. If he is an Enron style looter, unlike them he seems to have stayed within the legal lines.

          Locally I stopped going to Sears for much because of Wal-Mart.Report

    • James K in reply to LeeEsq says:

      That’s an odd statement to make in a context when you’re asserting a large corporation should be supported and protected at all costs, while the “market fundamentalists” are saying it should die.Report

  8. So if say, a car company is losing money left and right, it’s not beneficial for the economy. The car company should cease business which would free up capital like factories and labor that can now be used in more profitable businesses.

    But if a car *ride* company that uses THE WEB is losing money left and right, it’s rewarded with a market cap of 72 billion dollars. Just imagine if they used blockchain!Report

  9. Les Cargill says:

    There is the Vonnegut riff – “and the world moved on”.

    The Millenials are now the dominant generation and I expect they were going to associate Sears with their parents taste no matter what. Amazon presents more unknown-ness and novelty and the latency is lower. WalMart is different from both of those. Then it becomes “just the way things are done.”

    I had a computer monitor fail yesterday and had to make a trip to a big box store for a replacement. I’d forgotten how bizarre and agorophobic the experience was. It was stressful. It reminded me of watching the local news – somebody out there thinks this is actually how things should work.Report

  10. James K says:

    Nothing you’ve outlined here strikes me as untoward in any way Dennis.

    You’re probably right that Lampert never meant to save Sears. But some private equity firms are like that – they specialise in breaking companies down instead of building them up. Salvage is a necessary part of the process – not every business can be saved.

    There are, broadly speaking, two kinds of Private Equity Investors, let’s call them fixers and wreckers. Fixers buy ailing companies they think they can improve, attempt reforms and if they succeed the business improves, its share price rises and they can sell it at a profit. The wreckers are less optimistic, they buy a company and break it to bits – spinning off any profitable divisions, and liquidating the rest as efficiently as possible i.e. they deliberately kill the company, but really its a coup de grace.

    So why don’t I think a fixer could have saved Sears – the best evidence is that none of them tried. Fixers can afford to bid more for a company than wreckers can sicne they expect to leave the company worth more than the assets that comprise it, while wreckers won’t get more than the value of its assets, and in practice get somewhat less (liquidation destroys some value no matter how careful you are). That means that fixers outbid wreckers – if a wrecker wins the bidding its because no fixer was willing to bid against them i.e. no fixer though they had a reasonable chance of fixing the company.

    You assert that Sears could be saved, but your evidence is scant – just because it can succeed in other countries doesn’t mean it can succeed in the US – every country is different and a model that works in one place and time won’t necessarily work in others. Meanwhile, all the people with the resources and expertise to rescue Sears passed on the chance. Maybe you’re right and they are all wrong, but that’s not the smart way to bet.

    I get Sears means a lot to you, but nostalgia is a poison, and its one that will kill us all if we keep consuming it at the rate we are now. Creative destruction allows new ideas to flourish, and it allows new up-and-comers to topple old powers and established monopolies. A world without it would not only be less prosperous but also more unequal.Report

  11. Douglas Hayden says:

    Nearly thirty years ago, I left the comfy confines of Cleveland to attend college in Dayton. There, I discovered the joy of shopping at Meijer’s: A department store and a grocery combined! We didn’t have anything like that in northeast Ohio. Not until a new combined department store and grocery was built in Brooklyn, the first of its kind in our area: The Super K-Mart. It even had its own gas station in the parking lot.

    Twenty years later, the Super K-Mart closed down and was razed. Perhaps ironically, the Broadview Heights K-Mart’s been replaced by the first Meijer’s in our area.

    I feel like the whole ‘there was nothing to save’ narrative loses some oomph when K-Mart was among the lead in redefining the modern big box store. They were in position to keep up with the Targets and Wal-Marts. They had the real estate to expand. As far as e-commerce, Amazon and Ebay have been around for over twenty years, there was plenty of time for Sears / K-Mart to catch up like pretty much every other big box retailer has done.

    Instead, Lampert augured the company into the ground, with the apparent consent of the board, and made out like a bandit in the process. The age where a Van Swearingen brother could make a risky investment and lose it all are gone, there is no failure at the higher tax brackets anymore. Stocks must go up, even if we have to funnel money straight out of the Fed and national treasury to keep them rising. Even the incompetent among us can still stay afloat as long as they have the money and credit, and they always have the money and credit.

    All the people who made their careers at Sears or K-Mart? Well, thoughts and prayers. But its not like we’ll ever wind up like them, right?

    Right?Report

    • My impression of K-Mart over the years was that they didn’t ever particularly care about their customers. Things always seemed to be dirty and disorganized and especially poorly lit: dim and the cheap fluorescent bulbs that made everything look purple or green. Good ideas, perhaps, but miserably executed.Report

      • Dark Matter in reply to Michael Cain says:

        Wiki has a mention on how in the 1990s Sears destroyed a lot of the technology and infrastructure that Amazon needed to create in the 1990s.

        That would be 20+ years before Lampert took over.Report

      • Douglas Hayden in reply to Michael Cain says:

        That’s not too wrong, the Super K certainly wasn’t as bright and shiny as the Wal-Mart down the street. Still, there’s a local discount grocer that is pretty much the same, and they’re still successfully in business even with the recent expansion of Aldi’s all across the city.Report

        • One-offs can get away with a lot of things that big national chains can’t. My local daily paper ran a story the other day about a mom-and-pop grocery that’s being sold now that mom and pop would like to retire. I’ve been by it a couple of times — it’s dim, and run down on the outside, and probably sort of grungy on the inside. It’s also in an old part of town only several blocks from campus, with no parking to speak of, but a ton of local foot and bicycle traffic.Report