Daily Kos

The REAL motive behind Social Security privatization...

Sun May 15, 2005 at 10:09:52 AM PDT

This analysis has been brewing in the back of my mind for a while, and finally surfaced fully formed while I was shredding reports on my 401K for last year.

A number of rationales have been provided for SS privatization: the funding crunch, the "ownership society", better rates of return, etc.  Also it has been described as "welfare for Wall Street".  But none of these address what would be really going on and who the real beneficiaries would be...

Think about what SS Privatization would mean to the stock market and mutual funds.  Tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars would be pouring into the market, as much or more as when 401Ks began to be popular.

This would, given a relatively stable economy, result in a general bubble in stock prices.  This would be presented as benefitting everyone.

However, there is a subtle wealth transfer mechanism going on here.  Those who were already holding large shares of funds or large blocks of stocks would reap the benefit of the rising prices, while those who were late comers to the market (i.e., those working class folks whose SS money was fueling the bubble) would essentially see the buying power of their investment diluted in the price surge, much as inflation dilutes their purchasing power with respect to goods.

Thus the more affluent would reap a huge capital gain, while the working and middle class would receive a distinctly smaller capital gain that would only materialize over a much longer period of time.  Therefore, privatization would result in a large net transfer of wealth from the working and middle class to the asset-owning class.

In that sense, SS privatization would be a giveaway to the rich that over time would potentially be on a par with some of the tax cuts they have received from the Chimperor and his minions.  And this is an aspect of the whole scheme that nobody seems to be talking about.

Tags: (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 56 comments

  •  Tip Jar... (4.00 / 16)

    If you would be so kind...   ;-)

    -9.00, -5.85
    Wherever you go, there you are. -- Buckaroo Bonzai

    by Wintermute on Sun May 15, 2005 at 10:08:58 AM PDT

    •  not "in [a] sense" (none / 1)

      that's what it's all about.  And that's been obvious from day one . . .
      •  and people are believing this crap! (none / 0)

        It shocks me!  

        "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." George Santayana

        by Street Kid on Sun May 15, 2005 at 10:28:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  If so obvious... (none / 0)

        Why hasn't anyone on the left been trumpeting this aspect of the scheme?  I don't recall seeing any real discussion about it.  (Maybe I missed it, I allow for that.)

        -9.00, -5.85
        Wherever you go, there you are. -- Buckaroo Bonzai

        by Wintermute on Sun May 15, 2005 at 10:32:34 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  don't remember if (none / 1)

          this came up in Harper's or Atlantic Monthly, but I do remember reading something about this aspect of the Bamboozle not very long ago.

          The Bu$shites have a real problem with this: If the privatized accounts are truly private, then the contributor should have complete control? If not, then why wouldn't allowing an increase in 401(k)'s be the answer?  So far no answer from Bush.

          If the private accounts aren't really private, but are funds managed by Wall Street brokerages (Barclays,etc) then it's just the government telling you, the individual citizen, where and how to invest.  Not a good selling point for the Great Ownership Society if we don't get to actually own something.

          •  Link??? (none / 0)

            "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." George Santayana

            by Street Kid on Sun May 15, 2005 at 10:50:22 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'll do a little digging today (none / 1)

              but the article I remember was from one of the print editions. I'll see if I can help, but I don't want to promise what I can't deliver.
            •  Here are some links (4.00 / 2)

              and it was Harper's.

              Harper's Magazine Social Security time line
              good review of the "calendar" of the Bamboozle.

              Thomas Frank's article in Harpers good reading here too.

              The Jackpot: Michael Hudson, Harper's Magazine April 1, 2005
              source

              "The one sure mark of a con, though, is the promise of free money. In fact, the only way the stock market is going to grow is if we the people put a lot more of our money into it. What Bush seeks to manufacture is a boom--or, more accurately, a bubble--bankrolled by the last safe pile of cash in America today. His plan is a Ponzi scheme, and in that scheme it is Social Security that is being played for the last sucker". (emphasis mine)

        •  possilbe reasons (4.00 / 2)

          The repubs are using fear to sell the ponzi scam.  And, it has been very successful--I am one of the more cynical people on the face of the earth.  However, I also receive SSD/I (I am a traumatic brain injury survivor and, like many people with disabilities, I do not physically apppear to have a disability.)  Iam apprehensive re:what would happen to my already limited $$'s if this crap goes thru.  (I depend on various social programs for survival, not to live, to survive and believe me, there is a hell of a difference.)

          I also realize that there are people who are in worse shape $'ly than I am, although that is hard to believe.  And the repubs, beginning w/rr have been successful at using the image of welfare as the recipeint getting something for nothing and being too lazy to work.  People have bought into that one--they need to blame someone, anyone for their problems.  Others in my situation are unable or too frightened to know what to do to change the situation.  

          There also seems to be a change in society--it is now acceptable to bully/harrass someone who receives a social program.  Once, when I paid for groceries w/Food Stamps, the person behind me said, "Get a job, you're straling my taxes!"  I just smiled sweetly and asked innnocently, "Didn't I see you in church on Sunday?"

          What people do not realize, nor do they care to realize is that I, like other peole who receive SSD/I and othe social programs, the safetynet as it has been called in the past, I have worked and paid taxes, prior to my traumatic brain injury.  And when I did, a portion of my taxes went to social programs and I did not bitch about it.  

          See what I mean?

          "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." George Santayana

          by Street Kid on Sun May 15, 2005 at 10:49:54 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  can't speak for others, but (none / 0)

          I've commented it before, like:

          http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2005/4/14/131745/068/40#40

          a month ago, and many time before that.  If I can figure it out anyone can . . .

      •  I don't think thats all (none / 0)

        Employers are required now to match the SS that employees contribute.  No one has meantioned it, but I am betting that in the "privatization" employees will not be matching.
  •  excellent point . . . (4.00 / 4)

    I don't know anything about the stock market, but my dad was explaining to me that what we have now is a SIDEWAYS market, meaning not enough liquidity, so that if you already have a lot of stocks, there is no one to buy them so they can't sell them, and thus they are stuck in the market.

    If all of a sudden a bunch of inexperienced people begin buying in to the market, it gives the large stockholders the opportunity to get out with a profit before the whole thing goes to shit.

    It seems like a Ponzi scheme to me.

    •  Ponzi Palooza! (none / 1)

      "It seems like a Ponzi scheme to me."  
      You are absolutely right because that's just exactly what it is!  Big chunks of money have flowed into Wall Street over the years: mutual funds; pension funds; and now that those are maxed in, what's left?  Social Security funds!

      Those first in will reap the benefit of the new money...and so it goes.

      •  hee hee . . (none / 1)

        Ponzi Palooza--I like that!

        Should be new Dem talking point.

      •  Exactly, very Ponzi-ish (none / 0)

        And when will one of the Democrats get the cojones to stand up and call it exactly what it is?

        It's a scheme to enrich the rich--the biggest ripoff ever.

        What is the GOP going to say, that the $$ will all be "invested" in the economy, like new plants and equipment, new jobs?  That will be their line, but we all know what most rich people do with their profits--they buy up other companies and then lay off employees to "economize" or make the companies "more efficient."  Mergers and acquisitions take place, with the aim of "controlling market share" or creating monopolies.

        We must view the social security "privatization" as just as a terribly misguided scheme, very much like a Ponzi scheme.

        Let's go Democrats, say it:  it's a Ponzi scheme!

    •  Ponzi scheme?? WTF???? (none / 1)

      "...SIDEWAYS market, neaning not enough liquidity...large stockholders the opportunity to get out and make a profit before the whole thing goes to shit."

      IMO, this should be on the front page of every paper and magazine in the country!!!!

      "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." George Santayana

      by Street Kid on Sun May 15, 2005 at 10:34:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Link (none / 1)

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/4/21/17483/9097

    earlier diary after I went to an SS office, goes beautifully w/what you have written.  check it out

    p.s.  reccommended and tipped

    "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." George Santayana

    by Street Kid on Sun May 15, 2005 at 10:16:47 AM PDT

  •  And those asset-holders would always be free (none / 1)

    to sell their assets, whereas the holders of Social Security private accounts would not be allowed to sell until retirement.

    The influence of the [executive] has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.

    by lysias on Sun May 15, 2005 at 10:28:19 AM PDT

    •  Wait a second!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (none / 0)

      "...the holders of Social Security private accounts would not be allowed to sell until retirement."

      Does that mean that the SS ponzi scheme is nothing more than  a disguised subsidy for the stock marktet???????

      Correct me if I am wrong, please!

      "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." George Santayana

      by Street Kid on Sun May 15, 2005 at 10:53:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well (none / 1)

        You could probably shift your funds around, similar to how you can re-allocate your 401(k).

        There would probably be "windows," or other limits on how often you could do this - it's unlikely you would be permitted to day-trade your private account, even if the permissible investments are all fairly safe.

        But you wouldn't be able to cash out.  Your money would have to stay in the market somewhere until retirement.  Whereas the rich investors discussed in this diary would be able to get their money into the blue-chip stocks ahead of the bubble and cash out with some short-term profits, leaving the private accountholders to deal with the consequences of the receding bubble.

        •  re: probably, limits, unlikely (none / 0)

          "...won't be able to cash out...rich investors ...would...cash out w/short-term profits....private account holders deal w/consequences of receding bubble."

          And this is not apparent to those/the public who support this nonsense.

          LTE time again!

          (I've got so many going, I'm aving trouble keeping track!)

          "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." George Santayana

          by Street Kid on Sun May 15, 2005 at 11:20:44 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Sounds like a yes to my? n/t (none / 0)

          "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." George Santayana

          by Street Kid on Sun May 15, 2005 at 11:32:43 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  more like "it depends" (none / 0)

            You would not be able to "cash out" before retirement - I think this is a given - but the concept of reallocating your money would likely include the option to put 100% of it in bonds, for example.  The devil is in the details, but I don't think it's a given that if you opted for private accounts, you would be required to leave your money in the "stock market" until you retire.
  •  Let's take it a few more steps (4.00 / 2)

    Obviously, if billions of dollars of payroll taxes are suddenly invested in the stock market, there will be a bubble in stock prices.

    However, the money doesn't actually have to be there for the bubble to happen.  For example, let's say it were announced that billions of dollars in payroll taxes will be invested in the stock market next month, or 6 months from now.  Investors know that this money will most likely be invested in blue-chip, S&P 500 type stocks, and there would be a rush to accumulate these stocks in advance of the actual investment of payroll taxes.

    This is part of what Wintermute acknowledges in his diary - the savvy investors who see it coming will reap most of the benefits, and the workers whose payroll taxes are actually invested in the stock market will be forced to pay inflated, post-bubble prices.  When the bubble eventually goes away, workers will be the losers, not the winners.

    However, let's take it even one step further.  The market has known for quite some time that Bush is strongly pushing for privatization of Social Security.  It has been a major part of his second-term agenda and he continues to press for it.

    Now, if you knew that Bush was going to succeed, it wouldn't matter whether it happens next month or next year.  It would still be a good idea to accumulate those blue-chip stocks now.  Smart investors know this, and if Bush's plan were a foregone conclusion, we would see a run-up in the price of blue-chip stocks, right here and now.

    But no such thing has happened.  The market continues to languish, even as Bush aggressively promotes a plan which would lead to billions of dolalrs in new investments in the market.  There are only two possible conclusions:  Either the market knows Bush will fail, or it believes that success would not actually benefit the market.

    •  ??? another possibility??? (none / 0)

      Or, is it possible that the larger stockholders are just waiting for the sudden investment as posted upthread by voltairette???

      "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." George Santayana

      by Street Kid on Sun May 15, 2005 at 10:59:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  yeah (none / 1)

        and really, we're talking about two different groups of people here:  those whose money is mostly tied up in the stock market already (and are looking for a way to get out), and those who have some disposable assets on hand and are looking for an investment opportunity.  The ones in the latter category are the ones who will really make out like bandits if Bush's plan becomes law, at the expense of regular people who invest their payroll taxes after it's too late.
        •  another ? (none / 0)

          Larger investors would be banks, financial insititutions and other co.'s who issue credit cards, right?

          "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." George Santayana

          by Street Kid on Sun May 15, 2005 at 11:25:23 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  yeah (none / 1)

            and also, some of the largest investors are major pension and benefit funds - for example, your state pension system, your local teachers' retirement system, or police and firefighters' benefit fund.  Not all big investors are villainous entities, as this illustrates - but the point is, the winners in terms of realizing short-term market returns are going to be everyone BUT the everyday worker with his small private account.
            •  sorry, didn't mean villainous entities (none / 0)

              Was referring to soley to gains.  And, as banks as credit card co.'s will benefit by the ponzi scam, that personal responsibility shit was just a cover for a major rip-off.  I'm referring to the bankruptcy legislation. Everyone gets f*ck*d on that except the banks.

              WTF will it take for people to realize that dubya is a very rich man's president, as he has done absolutely nothing for the rest of society???

              Do you see what I mean?

              "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." George Santayana

              by Street Kid on Sun May 15, 2005 at 12:30:19 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  the market knows Bush will fail (none / 0)

      You're right...if it were a foregone conclusion then the stock market would be soaring right about now.

      Another point to remember is this: Anyone who has been in DOW JONES index funds has actually LOST money the past few years, because the overal DJIA has stayed flat or within a narrow trading range, so chances are that anyone with money in indexed funds has fallen behind the inflation rate, and hasn't saved hardly a penny for retirement, and instead has lost money.

  •  Employer Match? (none / 0)

    I've also have heard speculation that the amount diverted from the employee to private accounts would not be matched by the employer.

    This would be a HUGE tax savings for large employers.

    •  Big Ifs and Big Money? (none / 1)

      IF employers are not required to match funds; and IF employers are not held to account for the speculations and financial shell games with pension funds and can palm these off on the Pension Guarantee Benefit Fund---then major corporations will see beaucoup bucks for bottom line.
      •  If I understand your post correctly.... (none / 0)

        you are saying that employers/corporations may not be accountable for their finances.  (?)

        Maybe it's me, but that flies in the face of the shrub's demands for accountablity for everyone else.

        If I understood you correctly, there is going to be a shitload of cash.  

        And, let's take this a step further:  w/all of the cuts in social programs, the taxpayers will subsidize the very, very rich while f*ck*ng over those who need it most, under the guise of that personal responsibility crap.  And, they will end up getting screwed in the long run.

        Or am I nuts?

        "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." George Santayana

        by Street Kid on Sun May 15, 2005 at 11:07:38 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No, you are the sane one. (none / 1)

          If you were having doubts, please cease! You are the sane one. The idea that the rich should grow richer, and those of us not rich don't deserve any of their patrimony ought to be the first line of the GOP Platform.  These are the same folks who brought us World Com, Tyco, Enron, Waste Management, Long Term Capital Management, Sunbeam, Riggs, and HealthSouth!
    •  wondering: (none / 0)

      would that also apply to other benefits, i.e. health care???

      anyone heard anything?

      "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." George Santayana

      by Street Kid on Sun May 15, 2005 at 11:00:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  i would ask to take this (none / 0)

    one step beyond your current argument and think globally.  Look at the timing of the announcement that bush was going to agressively push for privatization: it came just as foreign investors started making noises about how the US market ain't what it used to be.  

    suddenly, whoosh, there's a huge cash influx to the US stock market.  Suddenly, whoosh, we look much more stable, financially.  So, privatization has two benefits: one, big subsidy for the already rich and two, falsely propping up the US economy so that we look attractive to foreign investors again.  And what happens when that investment bubble bursts?  Pre-revolution style suffering for all but the ultra-elite.

    Without another fdr, i think that where we're headed.  

    Blue House Diaries...because there's more to life than politics.

    by lapolitichick on Sun May 15, 2005 at 11:55:54 AM PDT

    •  re: global thought (none / 0)

      hell of a good point.

      And other factos to consider:  Iraq, the no-bid contracts awarded to Halliburton, other countries in the mid-east....

      What do they have in common?????  OIL!

      What is petroleum used for other than gasoline???

      JUST ABOUT EVERY PLASTIC PRODUCT IS PETROLEUM-BASED!   (just look at your keyboard!)

      What is dubya's  stance on the environment?

      HE WANTS TO DESTROY IT TO MAKE $$$$ FOR HIMSLEF AND HIS BUDDIES AND F*CK EVERYONE ELSE!!!

      Pre-revolution sufferring for all future generations!

      "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." George Santayana

      by Street Kid on Sun May 15, 2005 at 12:06:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  not *all* future generations (none / 0)

        Just those who will become so oppressed that they'd be willing to die rather than live under the oppression any longer.  My grandparents and some of my politics/history profs talk about how FDR interrupted the marxist cycle by creating social programs for the poor/needy and forcing businesses to be quasi-decent to their employees.  That has changed with all of the deregulation put into place through NAFTA and the rethugs, and so we (to my mind) are ramping up to be in the same place we were  prior to fdr.  The thing that amazes me about those in power is that they never seem to remember there are more of us than there are of them.  

        Blue House Diaries...because there's more to life than politics.

        by lapolitichick on Sun May 15, 2005 at 12:12:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  What would happen to all the new $$$ in stocks? (none / 0)

    Would it go into new plants and equipment, more jobs?

    Or would it go into mergers and acquisitions (just buying up more companies and then laying off workers to economize and make even more money by creating new monopolies)?

    •  my guess: (none / 0)

      it would go into mergers, aquisitions and go back to businesses in tax breaks.

      and the repubs will ramble on about how investment is necessary, blah, blah, blah, be patient, things will get better...and shit like that.

      anyone remember rr and the laffer curve?

      "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." George Santayana

      by Street Kid on Sun May 15, 2005 at 12:38:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Anytime you determine exactness (none / 1)

    then you should begin to search for the real reasons.

    You are correct in what you say but there are any number of really big reasons for privatization.

    One is the US Treasury bonds that represent the money being borrowed to initiate the private acounts.

    Secretary of Treasury Snow has already declared the bonds will offer a higher than normal interest rate in order to ensure their purchase.

    Some of the biggest winners will be the investment bankers that buy these bonds as stated.

    However, there are more reasons.

    1. interest rate
    2. term
    3. marketability
    4. usage

    I'm not going to get into #3 & #4 but the term of these bonds are going to create enormous profit for the investment bankers while providing safety factors regarding interest rate risk.

    Don't be fooled into thinking there is a single reason behind privatization. There are trillions of reasons. That's American dollars.

    Reality is best served in small portions and only to others.

    by 0hio on Sun May 15, 2005 at 12:59:27 PM PDT

  •  Another take: Boomers, IRAs, 401(k)s (none / 0)

    I am not disputing the possibility of your argument, but I think the purpose of privatization could be more subtle than that. Here is a scenario I worry about. I don't have data, so if anyone thinks this is crap, please point it out.

    Soon, as Baby Boomers retire, there will be an enormous and sustained draw on the stock market, which will only intensify over the next decade. New retirees will stop contributing to the stock market through their  individual retirement accounts and begin taking money out. Mutual Fund companies will need to sell off stock from their portfolios to come up with those payments year after year. Pension funds (even the properly funded  variety) will be in the same situation.

    Now, there will be new contributors entering the stock market all the time, but not in the numbers previously experienced. In short, the automatic-deduction 401(k) gravy train is going to slow down to a trickle. It's harder to pick winning stocks when the market isn't having money shoveled into it.

    And that is the point where everything could go to hell. Lots of people hold onto riskier stocks well after they should have converted their portfolios to bonds. So if retirees suddenly realize the stock market is going to produce low returns for the foreseeable future, there is going to be a sudden scramble to get out of stocks altogether. This, in turn, will scare younger people away from investing in stocks as well. Suddenly everyone is running.

    Some might argue that all that money coming out will go into consumer spending which will fuel growth in the economy. Maybe. People do buy motor homes and retirement condos when they retire, but my feeling is that their spending is overrated. They may be buying, but they are also selling. They sell their old home, maybe their old cars. For the most part, their big purchases, except for medical expenses, are behind them.

    So, maybe the privatization scheme isn't a direct hustle by the rich to get out of the market, but instead maybe it is more like "filler" to smooth over the giant pothole left by the boomers participation in the market.

    •  If I understand this correctly... (none / 0)

      the "flier" that you described, is a subsidy of the stock market.  

      Make that a government subsidy, w/all the costs involved into the transition from SS to pivate accounts.

      If your theory is correct, this flies in the face of the raditional republican phiolsophy--laizzes-faire.  

      That's why I think your theory has some possible merit, but it falls apart at the end and is a direct hustle.

      "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." George Santayana

      by Street Kid on Sun May 15, 2005 at 01:23:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Permalink | 56 comments