Why Wall Street Socialism Will Fail

Posted April 15, 2008 | 11:52 AM (EST)



Show your support.
Buzz this article up.

Socialism, we are told, is the naiveté of youth, and a fallacious economics the United States has luckily spurned. The late Seymour Lipset, an well-known academician, penned a book in 2001 entitled It Didn't Happen Here: Why Socialism Failed in the United States.

Alas, nobody ever told the leaders of American finance. Whereas the old style of socialism elected no more than a handful of mayors and congressmen, Washington has now embraced a new variety that could not be more different in its class consciousness and privileged sponsorship.

I am talking, of course, about the collectivization of financial risk being promulgated by the Federal Reserve Board and the U.S. Treasury Department and applauded in pin-striped precincts from Park Avenue to Pacific Heights. Described as Wall Street Socialism by the gauche and more precisely identified as the "socialization of risk" by sophisticates, the new fashion leaves the profits of finance in private hands as of yore. It is only the "risk" -- of collapsed currencies, flawed speculation, busted hedge funds or the greedy misjudgments of large banks or brokerage firms -- that is quietly taken up by government entities and all too often shifted to taxpayers who do not understand the pompous phraseology but know full well that Washington will never bail out their hardware store or the widget plant where their son works.

This has been going on for decades -- a major reason why finance has grown and prospered so much compared with most other industries. But it's only been so boldly and shamelessly embraced in the last few weeks. The Federal Reserve insists that "inter-connections" require rescuing large institutions that might knock down other entangled financial dominoes. However, these would not have been so cocky or so inter-connected in their web-spinning if the Fed had not allowed so much greed and gamesmanship for so long. Ex-Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan is often singled out as a culprit, but most of what he did was what most of the financial sector wanted. They, too, loved making 4th of July speeches about the glories of free enterprise and free -- market profits while counting on the government to collectivize the perils of risk. Big, fat and dumb financial institutions could count on being big, fat and bailed-out.

There was a time in the annals of American finance when this kind of practice would have been unacceptable -- indeed, serious economists like Joseph Schumpeter recognized that "creative destruction" was part of a vital capitalism. Painful as the depression of the early 1930s was, its creative destruction so revitalized U.S. finance and enterprise that by 1950, the U.S. economy was the kingpin of the post-World War Two world, vital and vibrant.

Even the sharp 30% Wall Street correction in 1969-1970 turned out to be a financial purge that refreshed. In the period between 1969 and 1970, the twenty-eight largest hedge funds saw 70 percent of their assets disappear, and roughly one hundred brokerage firms were acquired or disappeared. Then came the 1980-82 period, when Federal Reserve Board chairman Paul Volcker broke the back of runaway inflation by putting the stock market and the U.S. financial system through the wringer with interest rates that hit a brutal 18 percent. Adjusted for inflation, the Dow-Jones Industrial Average lost some nearly half of its value between 1978 and its bottom in the summer of 1982. Business Week even ran a famous cover story on "the death of equities." However, far from falling into a grave, equities rose for two decades in what became the biggest bull market in American history.

But this is where Risk Socialism began to rear its head. The dangers of creative destruction in the marketplace were rejected. Bail-outs and government intervention became the norm. Big investors were upheld through everything from foreign currency bail-outs to the rescue of major banks. In 1998, the Federal Reserve arranged a bail-out of a well-connected hedge fund and now in 2008 it's katy-bar-the-door in Washington aid for the financially undeserving. And hardly anyone stops to figure out that the quarter-century suspension of anything resembling creative destruction or traditional market forces is the culprit. The inevitable chimera of economic collectivization is coming undone.

Will ordinary Americans pay much of the price? Almost certainly. Should they blame what happens on marketplace forces? No, because the historical operation of such forces has been stymied and suspended. Should they blame the political and financial proponents of Risk Socialism? Yes, because the longtime genius of American capitalism may be on its 21st century deathbed.

Kevin Phillips's new book, Bad Money: Reckless Finance, Failed Politics and the Global Crisis of American Capitalism, was just published by Viking.



Comments
229
Pending Comments
0

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

Hint sample
View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 Next › Last » (3 pages total)

I believe that the kind of government and economic system we have now actually emulates communism in that the government lately has consisted of criminals seeking to steal the assets of the people and employ them for their friends such as exxon and chevron and enron or to use the nation's resources for their purposes. We had a major bubble under both Clinton and Bush.

How many of those square automobiles do you see running around? That's about the same percentage of people who are enjoying the present economy!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:26 AM on 04/21/2008


The state subsidized home equity loans and a bubble formed in the value of homes - no surprise there.

Now we are told that we have to hold these prices up at an artificial level or doomsday will arrive. Actually, it is more likely that doomsday, of sorts, willl arrive if the socialist policies of George Bush and
Wall street win out and home prices are maintained at artificially high levels.

It's kind of odd. You can't get an apartment in Manhattan, where Wall Street is, under $1 Million but we are told the sky is falling.

Something doesn't square.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:37 PM on 04/20/2008

If socialism is so great, why don't you folks give all your wealth to the state, and just rely on welfare payments and work-projects to direct your life? Surely you'd be much happier with a central planner making your decisions?

Oh that's right, we all assume that under socialism, we'd still have freedom of choice. But socialism hates property, and without property, what rights do you have? You and your things are owned by the state, so they can search you. They can tell you to go to war and fight and die for something you might not agree with, if you even understand the reasons you're being forced to risk your life. But its not just war. Progress requires risk. Lives will have to be sacrificed. In a free market, someone might take the risk, if the potential reward is enough. But what can you offer a socialist to risk his life? Why, the continuation of their life, of course, which means you'll have to coerce some people to be good socialists. Well, as long as I'm the one holding the gun, I guess socialism might be ok.

So...?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 06:03 PM on 04/20/2008

THE POOR DO GIVE ALL THEIR WEALTH TO THE STATE AND THE CORPORATIONS JUST TO LIVE.

GUNS ONLY SCARE PEOPLE WHO HAVE SOMETHING TO PROTECT. WHAT IS A LIFE IF YOUR ALWAYS POOR AND HUNGERY. GUNS DON'T SCARE POOR PEOPLE. GETTING SICK SCARES POOR PEOPLE .

AYN RAND WAS KNOW AS THE HOUSEQUEST WHO WOULD NEVER LEAVE. SHE LOVED TO LEACH OFF THE WEALTHY WHO USED HER BOOKS AS A REASON TO SCREW THEIR FELLOW AMERICANS.
IT IS JUST A BOOK DUDE.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:04 PM on 04/20/2008

"Prove Me Wrong", you have already proven yourself wrong by showing you do NOT have the slightest clue what socialism is. Hope you stay away from the military, public schools and Social Security. We wouldn't want that evil "socialism" to infect you.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:41 PM on 04/20/2008

So...try to generate some thought of your own rather than parroting from an Ayn Rand website. You don't have to internalize everything you read/hear. We can actually think freely, and for ourselves--make our own connections.

Ask yourself why promoting your ideology requires straw-man versions of "socialism," for starters.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:44 PM on 04/20/2008

why do we still demonize the idea of socialism? it seems even something as horrid as, say, a monarchy seems to get more sympathy

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:21 PM on 04/20/2008

Socialism is demonic, that's why. What other system robs from the productive, and gives the product of their theft not even to the poor, but to themselves, in return for their services as redistributors of wealth?

At least in a monarchy, the ruler would like to please his people long enough to increase prosperity, and of course, to avoid assassination. But really, few monarchs have as much control over their population as democratic socialists.

In America's version, a socialist can get elected, steal millions from the poor, give it to the rich, and leave office for an even better paying job for the company he gave welfare to.

Not that I would like either socialism or a monarch to replace the fascism America now enjoys. I would prefer anarchic liberty, or less radically, constitutional liberty.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:23 PM on 04/20/2008

"Socialism is demonic, that's why."

lol..........

"What other system robs from the productive, and gives the product of their theft not even to the poor, but to themselves, in return for their services as redistributors of wealth?"

The fact capitalism is a system based on coercive theft of workers' product is the whole reason socialism began, as a reaction.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:47 PM on 04/20/2008

Socialism is not demonic. Socialism is not thought all the way through. Just like most other theories about economy.

However, what you are complaining about here is not socialism, what you are complaining about is an oligarchy.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:52 PM on 04/20/2008

So, socialism doesn't steal from the productive, or give to the unproductive, by force?

I am complaining about centralized power of all types. Now you know me.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:28 PM on 04/20/2008

Capitalism centralizes power as well via concentration of wealth, so the point is moot.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:51 PM on 04/20/2008

What other system robs from the productive, and gives the product of their theft not even to the poor, but to themselves, in return for their services as redistributors of wealth? I would say capitalism, as we know it today, does just that. Look at the number of CEOs who are raking in billions while the companies (and shareholders) they lead, are losing money. If the financial market is being supported in the manner the current one is, business is really on welfare. Guess they learned from agribusiness.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:51 PM on 04/20/2008

Then you admit that those CEO's are not capitalists, because their earnings are not based on profits, but on backroom deals and bailouts.

The current system is not capitalism. Its been interfered with far too much already to call it free-market. The remnants of capitalism are the only thing keeping the system afloat, but as soon as they get rid of those, we'll really hate what they've taught us to call capitalism, and we'll demand socialism, or whatever they're calling what they want to feed us then.

It is a fallacy that every interaction has a winner and a loser. A fair trade has two winners. If a third forces one hand, then we have intervention, and the trade is not fair. Not even if we call it NAFTA, CAFTA, or any other FTA. Free trade needs no agreement. I only requires interested traders.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:19 PM on 04/20/2008

Sigh......., you still don't get it do you?
What we have is not socialism, nor capitalism, we have a text-book case of FASCISM.
It was Mussolini that defined Fascism as "the merging of the state and the corporation" and that is what we have right now; Government by the corporation, and for the corporation. All of the other facets of Fascism are also present; a Hyper-masculine culture, Hyper-Nationalism (masquerading as Patriotism) and elevation of the Military from it's position as a respected necessity, to near deification. We also have the resurgence of Fundamentalist religions (of all faiths.)
Turn off the MSM and open your eyes. The signs are all there.
All we need now is a "Reichstag fire" event and then the elections will be canceled. You'll see..............

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 06:40 PM on 04/20/2008

The beast is fascism. It is staffed with socialists.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:16 PM on 04/20/2008

Historically it's been staffed with capitalists. That history's a bitch aint it.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:52 PM on 04/20/2008

...It stands not on the supposition that kings are the favourites of heaven; that their power is more divine than the power of the people, and unlimited but by their own will and discretion. It is not built on the doctrine that a few nobles or rich commons have a right to inherit the earth, and all the blessings and pleasures of it: and that the multitude, the million, the populace, the vulgar, the mob, the herd and the rabble, as the great always delight to call them, have no rights at all, and were made only for their use, to be robbed and butchered at their pleasure. No, it stands upon this principle, that the meanest and lowest of the people, are, by the unalterable indefeasible laws of God and nature, as well intitled to the benefit of the air to breathe, light to see, food to eat, and clothes to wear, as the nobles or the king.

It was probably completely unthinkable to John Adams that the American public would become such willing sheep as to continually be shorn by the "ar aristocratic classes". John Adams had nothing but contempt for speculators and even renounced his own son for indulging in it.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:40 AM on 04/20/2008

This is nothing new. My dad died in 1997 at the age of 80. He used to refer to it as "socialism for the rich, free enterprise for the poor."

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:28 PM on 04/17/2008

Love your dad!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:52 PM on 04/20/2008

FREE ENTERPRIZE AS LONG AS THE POOR STAY POOR.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:13 PM on 04/20/2008

Continued: its repressive tactics

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:51 AM on 04/18/2008

Your dad was absolutely correct, but there is a 21st century twist to his wisdom. We now have socialism for the five percent at the top and, we have free enterprise (the on your own system) for everyone else. Again, Mr. Phillips is quite good at analyzing a problem, but he does not ever offer solutions.

Mr. Phillips touches very lightly on the fact that this elite socialism is born out of ordinary corruption. The fundamental problem in the US is the concentration of political power brought about by the concentration of wealth. The concentration of wealth is brought about by the rigging and manipulation of the system in collusion with the permanent political class.

Mr. Phillips knows well that democracies do not survive when the national wealth is so outrageously distributed as it is here in the US. To continue the present system, the ruling class will need to continue

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:49 AM on 04/18/2008

Actually, it looks to me like he HAS proposed a solution. He came out and said let Bear Sterans and others collapse. I may not agree with everything that Mr. Philips as said (I'm more of a socialist than he is, as well as more of a regulator) but he is right about this one. We need to allow the economy to correct itself. Unfortunately, this has been put off for so long by bad fed policies, as well as by bad governmental policies, that it will LOOK like a crash, and will feel like a crash!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:24 PM on 04/18/2008

You are right! Kevin wants the government to let these banks fail so that their successors will know not to engage in the business that is too risky to call free enterprise. What we are doing today is called gambling and Uncle Sam is the house guaranteeing that all bettors will not be losers until the till is dry and the system is broken!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:33 PM on 04/20/2008

Respectfully LeftRight, that sounds more like a cop out, than a system change. Using the Bear Sterns analogy, we can pretty well figure out that such an approach will only cause the same individuals to move their tents elsewhere and evolve into perhaps, Lion Sterns. Again, no fair distribution of the national wealth, no democracy.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:58 AM on 04/19/2008

I didn't say that it was a GOOD solution, I said that it was a solution. Kevin Philips is a TRUE free-marketer, in that he feels the gov't should ALWAYS stay out, not just when they are cutting regulation.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:04 PM on 04/19/2008

The standard meaning of the word solution is: "The correct response to a problem." I insist, KP has offered nothing that practically any undergraduate could have provided. I had expected more from him.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:13 AM on 04/20/2008

But he thinks that his solution will work, therefore he has proposed a solution!

Here, you don't like what he's said? I will give you a solution:

We should just take all the money from those who have more than $1 Million and then distribute that money to the rest of us. There's a solution, but it won't work, it's just as dumb as the one that KP suggested, but it IS A SOLUTION! You don't like it, please give your OWN!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:55 PM on 04/20/2008

What you have assumed KP has offered in the way of a solution is merely a trip into the unknown. By no stretch of the imagination can it be called a solution. Again, he has offered nothing that history can verify as a reasonable course of action. It is as idiotic as your analogy.

It's not up to me to offer a solution, he is the one who has been granted the space on HuffPo, he has the obligation to come up with some ideas the make sense.

Your defense of KP, though admirable, does not contribute to the serious discussion at hand. Your stance is so untenable that I am wondering whether you have a personal interest in this fallen academic.

It is sad, but KP no longer has anything worthwhile to contribute, retirement beckons.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 06:53 PM on 04/20/2008

Please actually read the words that I'm typing, as you have obviously not done so before!

Kevin has proposed a solution. It is a bad solution, which will cause just as many problems as what he is complaining about. I am not defending him, I think that his ideas are moronic at best.

The reason that I even said anything is that you complained that he was simply stating a problem without a solution, and now you are saying that YOU don't need to create a solution, either! Somewhere, some time we need a solution to the F**CKUP that is our economy!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:41 PM on 04/20/2008

Isn't it; "Wall Street National Socialism"?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:00 AM on 04/17/2008

Wall Street National Socialism with Earmarks.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:54 PM on 04/20/2008

Ooh. You're brutal!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:56 PM on 04/18/2008

Having thought,now I will "speak". Any economic system which pays a go-between to go from the producer to the consumer (a "brocker"), is pretty much destined to eventually fail, due to the slow drain on resources from those middlemen. Not saying that there is anything wrong with being an agent or a representative, just opinining that this should not be your primary function in society, but rather something you contribrute from the heart to the benefit of MAN . If this concept escapes you, don't bother ressponding.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:32 AM on 04/17/2008

Read 'I, Pencil' (http://www.econlib.org/LIBRARY/Essays/rdPncl1.html) and tell me we don't need middlemen. Surely someone's contribution is to bring some of the different contributions of the creative folks of the world together into more useful, higher-order creations? How else would a pencil, expertly made of materials from around the world, on expertly made machinery, in a plant large enough to do it to scale, ever get into your hands?

If your calling is to make the best pencil you can, and you manage to make a better one than can be bought now, on your land with your own resources, for less than you can now buy a pencil for, but there were no middleman system, no one but you and your immediate neighbors would likely ever even know about your wonderful creation, because there would be no middleman - he would be off somewhere creating his own awkward pencil. Or milking his chickens. Or something. Anything but taking your better pencil to the people who need it most.

So whose world is better for having no middlemen?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:49 PM on 04/20/2008

... too much paper... not enough fruit.