The sinister purpose behind private accounts

As I explained before, the richest one percent need to convince the rest of America that their interests are the same as those in the top one percent. And obviously they have been very successful, because according to a poll from 2000, 39% of Americans either think their incomes are currently in the top one percent, or that they will be there someday.

Private accounts are another part of the plan to “brainwash” American voters into voting for pro-big business candidates. By forcing stock ownership upon all Americans, there will be some who will delude themselves into thinking they are part of a higher class and that they should vote for pro-big business Republicans.

Matthew Yglesias blogged about this a few days ago, and he was not convinced. He said that “[s]tocks are not, in other words, some kind of magic fairy dust that creates conservatives.” But I disagree. It’s very easy to convince people they are richer than they are. People want to believe they are better off than they really are, so they just need a little shove in the right direction.

There are two other selfish reasons why the rich like private accounts: (1) The financial services industry will make money managing the mutual funds in which people with private accounts will invest their money. (2) New inflows into the stock market will pump up stock prices, allowing the rich to sell the stocks they currently own at a bigger profit. In some ways, bull markets are like naturally occurring Ponzi schemes in which the last ones in will be the ones who get screwed the most.

Comments

[SheaNC]

The stock market is often compared to gambling, isn't it? And "risk" is a necessary element... not something many want to apply to their retirement.

The taxpayers ended up footing the bill for the savings and loan scandals, where elderly people lost their life savings. The same results are more likely occur with the republican scheme than with something more sensible.

[Bubblehead]

What I love is all of you Libs' inability to understand that the majority of this country works for public companys. What is good for Business is good for the economy.

I am not sure where this Money Envy comes from, and why it's always the "top 1%" that gets your dander up. Look at Microsoft (satan as you libs like to call them). Bill Gates has a little money. Oooohhhh, evil... he amde lots of money. BUT, Microsoft has creaated more millionaires than ANY OTHER COMPANY is US History.

Go to Redmond, WA and you can see what 1 successful company can do to it's surrounding environment. That area has money, all because of trickle-down economics.

All you leftists seem to think that anybody who has money is evil, and the only way they can NOT be evil is to give it to you. All you are looking for is robbery, but where the victim gives his money to you out og guilt, rather thaan by force.

[Fargus]

Right, right. Trickle-down economics works on the broad scale because things are all rosy in Bill Gates' neighborhood, right?

Wrong.

Personally, the thing that gets me up in arms isn't the fact that people make money and are successful. Of course they are. Of course that's going to happen, and good for them for being able to do it.

It's the nauseating income gap between the top earners in the country and even just the middle earners in the country. When a CEO makes, on average, 280 times what his average worker makes, I think we've got a problem. I don't have trouble with people having wealth, and I certainly don't think they're evil because of it. But in a society where the low is so low and the high is so astonishingly high, isn't it our duty to address that?

[Kender]

Nope....it is your duty to work hard and try to be one of the successful highs instead of a sobbing low.

[Kyle Hasselbacher]

But in a society where the low is so low and the high is so astonishingly high, isn't it our duty to address that?

Yes.

[KraftyOne]

I'm not saying take from the rich and give to the poor at all. But I also don't think that the rich have necessarily worked the "hardest". You MAY be able to make a weak argument that they worked the "smartest", but it would be weak. The truth is what most people know if they think about it. Wealth is truly a combination of three things. Working hard, working smart, and having a little bit (sometimes a lot) of luck.
I think for most people it is the luck part that upsets them. There are lots of people who have worked hard, worked pretty smart, and have just never exploded in wealth the way the truly wealthy have because they missed out on that elusive third criteria.

[Phil]

bubblehead, just because a corporation is publicly traded does not mean it is a "public company." it is still privately owned by shareholders, with the wealthy owning most shares. the major shareholders receive the dividends, not the public.

view my last post on the "socialism vs. capitalism" to see that Microsoft is a form of "trickle up." public investment for private profit. many major corporations are like that.

[Abigail]

Wealth is truly a combination of three things. Working hard, working smart, and having a little bit (sometimes a lot) of luck.

Wealth usually requires a very important fourth component, charisma. Merely being smart and working hard guarantees absolutely nothing

[Kender]

Nope abigail, I am going to go with K1 here. (a rare occurence indeed)

Charisma helps, there's no doubt about that. But charisma isn't IT.
Example: Roseanne
No charisma.
Example: Carrot Top
Stupid, but with charisma
Example: Condi Rice
Smart, hardworker charisma.

See?

[KraftyOne]

I charisma certainly helps some people. Maybe it could be viewed as either/or? One must either have charisma or luck?

A good example of a successful person who lacks almost all charisma is Bill Gates, but he certainly had some (a lot of?) luck along the way. I don't think that even under a broad definition of charisma that anyone would call Bill Gates charismatic.

[Abigail]

A good example of a successful person who lacks almost all charisma is Bill Gates

We don't really know that. Just because he's ugly and geeky looking dosn't mean he doesn't have charisma. What was Bill Gate really like behind the scenes? Maybe he's unusually gifted at motivating other geeky programmers? Maybe he's a gifted salesman? Don't judge a book by its cover.

[KraftyOne]

Have you ever watched interviews with the guy? Its only interesting because the guy is freaking smart. Otherwise, very dull. Unless he, for some completely unknown reason, only acts dull in front of the camera, but that wouldn't make much sense.
Although I will say that some people who are successful in sales shock me that they do so well because I personally wouldn't buy anything from them.

[Knemon]

"because according to a poll from 2000, 39% of Americans either think their incomes are currently in the top one percent, or that they will be there someday."

Isn't this a good thing? Doesn't it mean many americans are either content with or optimistic about their prospects?

"But in a society where the low is so low and the high is so astonishingly high, isn't it our duty to address that?"

Sure, but

(a) "So low" compared to the "low" of which other [continent-spanning, diverse] nations? compared to what period of the past?

I make less than 20k a year, and I still find myself with some disposable income. Of course, I don't have any kids ... but I do live in the most expensive area of the country (SF Bay).

(b) It's an interesting point you raise - should our goal be a Rawlsian minimax, do we want to aim for the largest middle class possible, or do we want to maximize social mobility? These are each good in their own way, but few policies will help with all three.

I happen to think a carefully regulated, gradual, partial privatization/personalization/call it what you want of SS has potential to be one of those few policies.

You obviously disagree. You could well be right. But this "brainswashing" stuff - please. It makes you sound like a 1950s Bircher. Conspiracy theories and Chomskyan propaganda models don't win elections, and they don't influence policy.