Stock Market
Gambling with economic security
The "universal investor society" is a bad idea whose time has passed
A trader on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange. (Credit: Reuters/Brendan McDermid) Is the problem with capitalism that there are too few capitalists? Is the solution to encourage every American to get into the stock market? Before the tech bubble burst at the beginning of this century, I thought this was an interesting notion that deserved careful consideration. Mea culpa. Today, after two disastrous stock market crashes in less than a decade, I think that the idea of “the investor society” or “the ownership society” or “universal capitalism” (defined narrowly as encouraging wider individual ownership of stocks and bonds, as opposed to broadly, to include proposals for sharing profits from public resources or sovereign wealth funds) is a profoundly misguided idea. The proponents of universal shareholding in the 1990s were right that more Americans should share in the gains from economic growth, which have gone disproportionately to the owners of capital and overpaid CEOs. But the method of spreading the gains by encouraging individual working Americans to risk their money in the stock market was ill-conceived.
During periods of rapid asset inflation, whether the assets be stocks and bonds or houses, it is tempting to conclude that the middle class and poor, as well as the rich, should be able to enjoy the benefits of asset appreciation. In such an era, like the 1990s, the warnings of realists are drowned out by the claims of optimists that the rise in stock market or house values is a permanent trend, not an unsustainable bubble. The failure to recognize the stock market bubble for what it was encouraged schemes to increase the ownership of stocks and bonds by America’s high-school educated, working-class majority. The utopian dream was that, in addition to earning income by means of wages, every American could be a capitalist, supplementing wage income with income from capital gains. The fact that, during the bubble, stock market returns outpaced the virtual returns from “investment” in Social Security created converts for the libertarian scheme of partly or wholly replacing Social Security with tax-favored individual retirement accounts invested in the stock market.
That this was madness was argued by a lonely few at the time. By now its lunacy should be apparent to everyone but die-hard libertarians and stock market touts in the financial press. Appealing as it seems, “universal capitalism” — the idea that middle- and low-income Americans can or should rely for a substantial part of their incomes on investments in the stock market — is bad for ordinary Americans and the American and world economies as a whole.
Proponents of universal individual stock ownership often view it as a supplement or replacement for public income maintenance programs, of which the most important are Social Security and unemployment insurance. Likely Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney recently praised the libertarian idea of private unemployment insurance accounts. Diverting Social Security payroll taxes into the stock market is another right-wing idea which, like Count Dracula, repeatedly rises from the dead.
But public income maintenance programs are far less volatile than stocks and bonds, particularly at the federal level. The federal government has a diverse, continental tax base. And it can borrow more easily than the states to meet its obligations during downturns like the Great Recession. Average Americans can count on Social Security and the federal contribution to unemployment insurance far more than they can expect the stock market to be up at the exact moment when they are fired or have to retire.
This is not liberal propaganda. It is common sense. Any rational person would prefer the security of government-funded retirement and unemployment insurance to the insecurity of private retirement accounts and unemployment accounts. The truth is that Social Security and government unemployment insurance are far better deals than the universal capitalist alternatives.
In addition to being a bad deal for ordinary people, the push to increase stock market participation by the majority of Americans has had bad effects on the economy as a whole. At the root of the volatility of the global economy in the decades leading up to the crash of 2008 was an excess of global savings and too little wage-enabled consumption by ordinary people in developed and developing nations alike. This problem had many causes, including the strategy of Asian mercantilist countries of suppressing the incomes of their workers and the diversion of the gains from economic growth in the U.S. into rewards for shareholders and CEOs rather than higher wages for workers.
One factor in macroeconomic instability was federal tax policies that encouraged employer-based pension funds, in the 1940s and 1950s, and then Roth IRAs and 401K’s, beginning in the 1970s. These tax incentives channeled enormous amounts of money from working Americans into mutual funds. This money—at least what was left, after the brokers had extracted their hidden fees — added to the oceans of money sloshing around in search of unrealistically high returns, producing a pattern of ever more severe booms and busts.
Among other harmful effects, Wall Street management of the retirement money of millions of Americans, whether in the form of employer or union or public pension funds or IRAs and 401K’s, contributed to the culture of short-termism in the American business community. Answerable to flighty investors demanding high short-term returns, CEOs neglected the long-term health of one American company after another, in order to goose quarterly earnings reports by dismantling and offshoring industrial capacity, slashing wages and benefits, or engaging in financial machinations (some of them criminal, as in the case of Enron).
Last but not least, the fantasy of the investor society has had a corrosive effect on the ethics of Americans. The unspoken premise is that it is not enough to work hard in order to get ahead. Average Americans as well as the rich few must gamble in the stock market as well. To their detriment, millions of Americans whose wages failed to keep up with economic growth bought into this Wall Street-peddled fantasy of a nation of day traders and house flippers. They and the rest of us are still paying the price for the corruption of American morals by the get-rich-quick mentality.
It is time to wake up from the daydream of the investor society and face reality. The bubbles were just bubbles. No serious economic expert expects the next few decades to be a golden age of rapid growth capable of enriching janitors with stock market accounts as well as tycoons.
The United States is not a nation of capitalists. It is a nation of wage earners with a minority of capitalists. The only genuine capitalists — individuals who can live entirely from their investments — are a minuscule minority in the U.S. and all other so-called capitalist countries. Having a modest amount of retirement money in a mutual fund does not make anyone a capitalist except in the Wall Street Journal’s Op-Ed pages. For the foreseeable future, few Americans will derive any significant income from capital gains during their working lives, just as few will derive more than a small portion of their retirement income from sources other than Social Security including 401K’s. Right-wing propaganda about an emerging “capitalist majority” to the contrary, America is and will remain a nation of wage earners dependent on pay-checks and public social insurance like Social Security and unemployment insurance.
In the name of dealing with the federal budget, there is a well-funded push in Washington for cutting Social Security and forcing Americans to rely more for retirement on 401K’s and other tax-favored accounts. This conventional wisdom manages to be stupid and crazy at the same time. Given the dangerous volatility of the stock market, the truly prudent course would be to expand risk-free Social Security payments to most Americans, while reducing or phasing out tax breaks for volatile, risky stock market accounts funded by employer pensions or private savings accounts.
Businesslike prudence counsels an effort to shrink the failed, volatile private retirement savings programs and expand the more secure public retirement system. The expansion of the low-risk Social Security program, proposed by Steven Hill among others, can be paid for with higher payroll taxes or a mix of payroll taxes and general revenues, including increases in income tax revenues that follow the capping or eliminating of IRAs, 401K’s and similar poorly performing, tax-favored private retirement programs.
Just as private investments are a poor substitute for Social Security, so the promise of capital gains is a poor substitute for wage increases. Low- and middle-income Americans need higher wages or greater, secure public benefits, or both, not the promise that they can supplement their low wages or inadequate benefits with day trading — a promise that in hindsight looks like a sick joke.
Libertarian ideologues will continue to lobby in favor of replacing public social insurance with private accounts in the stock market; that is what they are paid to do, by the Koch brothers and their other donors. And self-styled “budget hawks” — most of whom are ideological conservatives posing as pragmatic centrists — will continue to claim falsely that the U.S. cannot afford Social Security in its present form, much less in an expanded form that would increase American retirement security while reducing macroeconomic volatility. Finally, fund managers on Wall Street will continue to salivate at the prospect of replacing part or all of Social Security payroll taxes with voluntary or compulsory “individual mandates” pressuring Americans to buy the risky products they peddle and to pay the Wall Street middlemen their fees.
Do not be fooled by this well-funded propaganda. Americans need higher wages and more generous, secure public benefits, not schemes to encourage them to compensate for lousy pay and inadequate benefits by gambling in the risky stock market. Some ideas really do fail the test of history. After two catastrophic stock market crashes in less than 10 years, the once-fashionable idea of the investor society gets a failing grade.
Michael Lind’s new book, "Land of Promise: An Economic History of the United States", will be published in April and can be pre-ordered at Amazon.com. More Michael Lind.
Occupy Wall Street takes on the stock market
Evicted from park, the movement vowed to shut down the financial trading center. Salon reports from scene VIDEO
Pine and Broadway Justin Elliott is a reporter for ProPublica. You can follow him on Twitter @ElliottJustin More Justin Elliott.
Why is Wall Street so afraid of Europe?
Because what happens in Germany and Greece is a bigger threat to the U.S. economy than anything Congress could do
One of the worlds heaviest waves breaks in Tahiti The sense of panic and confusion in Europe seems to grow by the hour. Let’s review the last day or so of events.
- Germany’s economics minister warned that, to save the euro, Greece might have to go through some sort of “insolvency procedure.” Bloomberg News promptly reported that there is now a “98 percent” probability that Greece will default.
- An Italian bond sale went badly, forcing Italy’s borrowing costs sharply higher. Investors were heartened, however, by the news that Italy’s foreign minister was begging China to bail out the country with a significant investment. This was the same foreign minister who had previously warned against China’s “reverse colonialism.”
- The price of insuring against the default of bonds issued by Portugal, Italy and France jumped.
- Bank stocks in France tanked. French banks own about $57 billion in Greek debt — and much, much more in Spanish and Italian debt.
- German Chancellor Angela Merkel smacked down her own economics minister, and declared that she wouldn’t allow Greece to go into “uncontrolled insolvency.”
- “I think we will do Greece the biggest favor by not speculating much, but instead encouraging Greece to implement the commitments it has made,” Ms. Merkel told RBB Inforadio, a public broadcaster in the Berlin region. “What we don’t need is unrest in the financial markets — the uncertainties are already big enough,” she said.
- Merkel’s promise calmed the waters — for the moment. French bank stocks — and the U.S. stock market — suddenly rebounded.
Andrew Leonard is a staff writer at Salon. On Twitter, @koxinga21. More Andrew Leonard.
Here we go again: Another big down day for Dow
Despite hopes that the worst was behind the stock market, index closes down more than 400 points
A trader strides across the floor of the New York Stock Exchange at the closing bell, Tuesday, Aug. 9, 2011. The Dow Jones industrial average closed up 429.92 points. (AP Photo/Richard Drew)(Credit: AP) Just when Wall Street seemed to have settled down, a barrage of bad economic reports collided with fresh worries about European banks Thursday and triggered a global sell-off in stocks.
The Dow Jones industrial average fell 419 points — a return to the wild swings that gripped the stock market last week.
Stocks were only part of a dramatic day across the financial markets. The price of oil fell $5, gold set another record, the 10-year Treasury hit its lowest yield, and the average mortgage rate fell to its lowest in at least 40 years.
Continue Reading CloseEuropean bank stocks battered by liquidity fears
The Dow index is down 4 percent an hour before market close
Specialist Michael O'Mara, center, works with traders at the closing bell, on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange Friday, Aug. 12, 2011. A wild week ended relatively calmly on Wall Street Friday as the Dow today gained 126 points to 11,269 and the S&P was up 6 points, while the Nasdaq composite added 15 points. The key averages were down 1 percent or more for the week. (AP Photo/Richard Drew)(Credit: AP) European bank stocks tanked Thursday as fears over the anemic pace of the global economic recovery and the institutions’ ability to get access to funding intensified.
Most bank stocks across Europe were underperforming in already fragile markets, with British bank Barclays and French bank Societe Generale leading the way down, ending the day with losses of 11.5 and 12 percent, respectively. Germany’s Commerzbank fell 10 percent.
Analysts said the plunge seemed to be, at least in part, a reaction to increasing signs that banks are struggling with liquidity — or access to the cash they need to run their day-to-day operations. Banks typically fund their activities with very short-term loans, and the seizing up of the credit markets where they get those loans was one of the hallmarks of the 2008 crisis. First banks refused to lend to one another, and eventually companies and consumers weren’t able to get loans.
Continue Reading CloseShort-selling banned in 4 European countries
France, Italy, Spain and Belgium disallow the practice in an effort to calm markets
President of the European Central Bank Jean-Claude Trichet listens to a journalist's question during a news conference after a council meeting in Frankfurt, central Germany, Thursday, Aug. 4, 2011. The European Central Bank decided to keep the main interest rate unchanged at 1.5 percent. (AP Photo/dapd, Mario Vedder)(Credit: AP) France, Italy, Spain and Belgium are banning short-selling on select stocks amid efforts to calm market turmoil that has sent bank shares gyrating wildly and aggravated worries about Europe’s huge debts.
The European Union’s markets supervisor, the ESMA, announced the move late Thursday night after boosting surveillance of stormy markets earlier in the day. The move capped two days of whipsaw trading that saw French banks’ market value fall and rise by billions of euros.
In a short sale, a trader hopes to make a profit by betting on the decline in the price of a share. The practice has been blamed for contributing to market volatility.
Continue Reading ClosePage 1 of 27 in Stock Market