TPMCafe
« Who's running? David Harris of AJC declines to debate Walt and Mearsheimer | Home | My piece on the decline of the Israeli peace movement »

Losing Faith in Financial Markets

user-pic

The myth of the rational market caused plenty of mischief when it was applied to personal finance. Those of us that followed the advice to invest our kids' college savings in index funds in the late 1990s, when the S&P 500 was at 1400, see the appeal of a "gap year" now that the index is below 900.

But the spread of financial thinking has caused collateral damage for the culture. Many of us came to view just about everything as an investment--from a college education that was an investment in our "human capital," to houses that were essentially options on the real estate market, to communities that had more or less "social capital" (depending on how many bowling leagues they hosted).

This is a big shift in American society. Generations of Americans looked to a career at corporations like General Motors or AT&T as the surest path to financial security and prosperity. After the bust-up takeovers of the 1980s and the shareholder-driven restructurings of the 1990s, that path was closed. In place of the corporation, Americans were instructed to look to the stock market for economic salvation. Through 401(k)s and mutual funds, most households ended up being invested in the market. And through securitized mortgages (and auto loans, student loans, credit card debt, insurance settlements...), most households ended up being "issuers" as well. (I describe the causes and consequences of this shift in my book Managed by the Markets.)

George Bush's "ownership society" initiative sought to ratify this shift, seeking to privatize Social Security by getting even more household savings invested in the stock market. Some of the characters that Justin Fox describes in his book went along for the ride, as a rational market surely would not let us down. Who can forget that dark comic masterpiece, the Economic Report of the President 2006 (pdf)? Responding to the concern that the American savings rate had turned negative for the first time since the 1930s, and that retirement security was at risk, the Report offered reassurance: "The decline in an often-cited aggregate personal saving rate may not be cause for much alarm for retirement preparedness. Much of this decline can be attributed to spending triggered by wealth increases from capital gains on housing and financial assets." In other words, as long as house prices and stock indices keep going up--as they always do--we will be fine.

We've now seen the consequences of our near-religious faith in financial markets. In the long run, housing prices and the stock market will return. But in the long run, as Keynes might have said, we're still waiting to retire.


4 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

I think you make some great points. But there's one area where I give the other side, if indeed there's another side at work, some due -- I don't want to work at GM for my entire life. That sounds like a safe but also boring way to earn only middling financial stability. I have larger immediate needs than a job like that would ever provide, and I don't just mean need for money, but need for creative freedom.

user-pic

The efficient market hypothesis tells you how to invest in the stock market; it doesn't say you must invest in the stock market. Compare, the equity premium puzzle which strongly suggests that you should.

The efficient market hypothesis states that at any particular time all stocks are valued on the basis of all available information upon which those valuations are based. Thus, a stock picker is fooling himself in thinking that he can do better than the market as a whole.

New information will change the valuations but there's no way to tell if you should by GE at $10 or GOOG at $400 since that new information will have changed the prices of the stocks, appropriately.

user-pic

When we see articles like this, it is often a sign that the time has come to reinvest.

I'm no stock market pro, but this is one of those signs.

user-pic

I don't want to pick on you, Jerry Davis, but I have been alarmed recently at the demise of the relative pronoun who.

Your second sentence starts, "Those of us that followed the advice..."

It should be, "Those of us who followed the advice..."

I see this all the time now. The word "who" is virtually disappearing from the language. And it's not an improvement.

-- ARG

Leave a comment

Advertisement
Please disable your adblocker!
Ads are how we pay the bills!

Subscribe

The Coffee House
TPMCafe's regulars

House Brew
From Your Cafe Editor

Special Guests
Big names and big brains

Special Features
Pressing topics and trends

Table for One
An expert's week-long talk.

All Reader Posts
TPM readers discuss.

Book Club Calendar

Coming Soon



Nov. 30-Dec. 4



January 12-16



« Book Club ArchiveFull calendar »

Recent Reader Posts

All Reader Posts »





Masthead

Editor-in-Chief
Josh Marshall

Site Editor
Lila Shapiro

Intern
Versha Sharma



Subscribe to TPMCafe's feed.
Subscribe to TPMCafe's reader blog feed.

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address