Share

The Bear Is Cool: Overcoming Fears of Falling Stock Prices

by: Dean Baker, t r u t h o u t | Perspective

photo
Wild swings and huge overall losses on the trading floors in New York and accross the world have roiled the wealthy elite. While the effects will be felt on main street, Dean Baker says that the fallout will be similar to "destroying $10 trillion in counterfeit bills." (Photo: Brendan McDermid / Reuters)

    The stock market's historic plunge over the last year has pushed the news media into a state of near hysteria. News shows and headlines routinely roll out the scorecard on the market's new lows in the same way they might list the victims of a terrorist attack. Sad faced commentators do their best to assure us that better times lie ahead, even if they can find little reason for hope in the latest economic data.

    The economic data are indeed grim, but the plunge in stock prices need not be a major cause of concern to the bulk of us who have little or no stock. The basic story is that the stock market is paper wealth, just like bonds, dollar bills or other financial assets. The strength of the economy depends on its ability to produce goods and services, not sheets of paper.

    Even though the stock market has fallen by close to 50 percent, the economy still has the same capacity to produce computers and planes, to provide health care and education, and to develop new software and drugs. The economy is every bit as productive after the market collapse as it was before the collapse.

    The plunge in stock prices destroyed paper wealth (lots of it). This is bad news for the relatively small group of people who had considerable stock wealth. However, for the bulk of the population, who own little or no stock, even including mutual funds in retirement accounts, the decline need not be cause for concern, since it has little direct impact on the economy.

    While there is a popular myth about firms selling stock to finance new investment, in reality the stock market has rarely been an important source of investment capital. Therefore, there is little reason to expect that the plunge in stock prices will have a substantial direct impact on investment or the economy.

    There can be a substantial indirect impact of the plunge on the economy. People consume based in part on their stock wealth. Close to $10 trillion of stock wealth has been destroyed in the last year. This implies a falloff in annual consumption on the order of $300 to $400 billion. Unless this demand is replaced, it will amplify the drop in consumption resulting from the collapse of the housing bubble.

    But, we would be telling a similar story if the FBI had discovered and destroyed 10 trillion dollars worth of counterfeit dollar bills. This would be very bad news for the people who held the counterfeit money. The destruction of these counterfeit bills would also lead to a sharp falloff in demand. The people who had their counterfeit bills seized would suddenly be much poorer, and therefore would cut back their spending.

    But the destruction of counterfeit currency need not hurt the economy, nor does the loss of stock wealth. The key part of the story is that the government must act to sustain demand. The most obvious route to sustain demand at the moment is through a large stimulus package.

    Unfortunately, the Bush administration refuses to take the economy's plight seriously, but a large stimulus package will be the first agenda item of the new administration when it takes office in January. If President Obama commits the government to spending another $500 billion a year, or more if necessary, it can offset the loss in demand created by the fall in stock prices and the collapse of the housing bubble.

    Of course there will be other damage created by the loss of this stock wealth. Most importantly, the plunge in stock prices has left many public and private pension funds severely under-funded. The federal government can temporarily allow for somewhat more liberal accounting standards in the case of private funds and provide limited support for state and local governments trying to keep their funds solvent. We can ensure that retirees will receive the pensions they were promised.

    There will be other people who will be hit by the loss of stock wealth, including tens of millions of workers with defined contribution retirement funds. This is unfortunate and points to the problem of the defined contribution pension system. Workers are forced to bear risk to an extent they probably did not recognize and almost certainly did not want.

    One of the many items on the national agenda should be the repair of the private pension system so that all workers have access to a secure form of retirement savings. The plunge in value of retirement accounts should be a painful lesson to tens of millions of hard-working people that they should never trust Wall Street or the politicians it owns.

    However, the most immediate story of the market crash is that it is a redistribution of wealth that goes overwhelmingly in the direction of the less wealthy. The plunge has destroyed claims to the nation's wealth by the very wealthy in the same way that destroying $10 trillion in counterfeit bills held by mostly by the wealthy would destroy their wealth.

    The key point going forward is to use government spending to ensure that demand remains strong. That way, the rest of the country need not suffer along with the formerly wealthy.

  

»


Dean Baker is the Co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. CEPR's Jobs Byte is published each month upon release of the Bureau of Labor Statistics' employment report.

Comments

This is a moderated forum. Β It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

Those pieces of paper had

Those pieces of paper had value, and they are a gamble. That is why we need real social security and not investments on Wall Street for retirement. Over all, after serious research, the stock market is just plain a risky investment. It's like Las Vegas, sometimes you win, but mostly you lose. My only investment is in vacant land with low taxes, it's the safest bet for investment. Those were not counterfeit bills, just risky ones, and they do represent a lot of wealth that was earning income and being spent in the economy. And I understand that a lot of people are going to have to put off their retirements until they accrue more savings for it.

Hmmmm....As a person

Hmmmm....As a person approaching rapidly my supposed retirement years, I have struggled to keep up with the inflation that is built into the financial paper game. How does Baker propose to resolve that economic glitch? I was burned some by financial planners who all decided to go for setting most folks interested in staying a bit ahead of inflation by investing in Mutual Funds and turning over around 1 percent to the planner for helping a moderate/conservative growth person build toward the statistical future of a modest 5 or 6 % growth nest egg. Baker is right that model sure has not followed the history of financial growth since the 1930's boasted. Older boomers such as myself who trusted the paper money game have been severely burned, not once now but twice since 2000. Boom and Bust cycles seem to be the norm and getting closer together, taking us on a roller coaster that ends in losses that cannot be regained in time for any retirement before aged 70 plushow many more years? I for one, am done with the game that leaves the richest gamers stepping out with the cash early enough to stay wealthy while the rest of us who bought in with some hope of a small measure of security, out in the cold. My planner said to stay in back in September, that there were some really smart people who knew how to solve this crisis on top of it. She has been a planner for 40 years and now admits she had no idea that financial markets could fall apart so completely. This was said as I took out the 50% devalued cash that was what was left of my IRA, less than where it was in 2000. Fortunately I suspected it might go this way and kept 60% of my post tax hard earned dollars in cash instruments. Still those barely hold their own with inflation. Is deflation the way out for those who hang on to cash??

Three cheers for Dean Baker

Three cheers for Dean Baker and the "Cool Bear" piece! I couldn't agree more heartily with this perspective (one that is sorely lacking in the mainstream media mania over the so-called "collapse"). That said, I have two additional points of my own to add to the mix: 1) Much of the so-called "decline" is measured only against very short term markers -- as in "stocks have plunged X% from their high four years ago." If we measure against a "bubble" the results will always look shocking. That may sell more papers and bring more eyeballs to CNN, but it says little about the true longterm health of the economy. 2) We're spending trillions, literally, to prop up an ailing old economy that desperately needs transformation to something more sustainable (both in economic and ecological terms). Having turned away the old-think GM CEOs in their private planes, we should take a look in the mirror ourselves: we are all guilty of trying to shore up an obsolete system which would/should have collapsed years ago under its own weight -- absent artificial govt subsidies and "rescues" -- and will collapse regardless of how many trillion paper dollars we use to shore up the levies. "It's a Hard Rain's Gonna Fall."

I assure you my losses are

I assure you my losses are very real. Between my Sept '08. IRA statement and yesterday I am down $63,500 and I didn't have a huge amount to start with. I'm retired and this money---what's left of it---is my future. There is no way I can survive on Social Security so this 'wealth' is a matter of eating and having shelter in my old age. It's all very, very real to me.

This analysis fails to take

This analysis fails to take into consideration that not everyone who is invested in the stock market it rich. There are many investors with modest portfolios who will be ruined by the collapse of the stock market. Their only crime was to invest in companies that are well run and productive, but whose stock has collapsed along with the others who deserve to collapse. These people wll no longer be able to buy cars, new driers and washers and other items that make up what is left of America's manufacturing sector. The main problem with the bail out is that it may go to companies in the process of shipping jobs overseas, like GM. So lets no go overboard about minimalizing the impact of the market collapse.

What universe do you live

What universe do you live in? I am not the only one of my fellow retirees who would be starving on social security payments if it weren't for a nest-egg of savings invested in part in the stock market. Try seeing how much you can rely upon private sector pensions, without a 401K (invested in stocks). To dismiss the destruction of marketable paper assets as akin to the burning of counterfeit money, with no more effect on the economy, is just ignorant. I know no other word for it. Have you never heard of the debt to equity ratio, and how it determines the borrowing ability of corporations that make our products and pay our wages? Have you not seen how businesses cannot pay suppliers or make payroll on occasion without borrowing? Are you unaware that shareholders get unhappy at declining share prices, and executives then cut wages or the labour force in order to boost profits and (attempt to) recover share price? You do refer to the "wealth effect" without resorting to its name. But the effect isn't linear: it becomes more severe as wealth destruction proceeds. Consumers stay home, retail withers, shops close, workers are laid off. All because invested savings are disappearing. You've heard of the "multiplier effect" - well, it works on the way down just as it does on the way up.

This article rings false. A

This article rings false. A lot of middle class retirees or people who actually save for retirement have a substantial percentage of retirement funds tied up in stock. This will delay or prevent retirement of some who can still work and push others toward poverty. Some who have barely begun to save for their own retirement will end up taking care of parents who would have taken care of themselves.

Yaaaaay, Dean Baker,

Yaaaaay, Dean Baker, somebody finally had the wisdom, guts, whatever to say what the reality is. Falling stock prices have nearly zero adverse impact on the Company the represent a portion of. There IS adverse impact on the value of top management stock options which is really what the shrieks are all about. I believe stocks should be very sound instruments that represent a pro rata share of the worth of the tangible assets owned by the company with the earning of those assets received by this class of stockholders. There is way too much hype that drives speculation in the stock market whic is based on only that, Hype.

A naive view. stocks down,

A naive view. stocks down, companies falter, lay-offs, retirement accounts down, can't sell your home, too much debt... Your's is a very uninformed viewpoint.

I am in retirement, and the

I am in retirement, and the losses are very real to me. I am not wealthy. I have social security, and withdrawals from my consolidated IRA. That's it. It is too late for me to go back into the labor market, I hung up my lawyer's license to save money, the clients were turned over to others long ago, there is no going back. Maybe i can be a WalMart greeter, perhaps that would be real enough for the author. Geezz!! Get real, Mr. Baker! Will you hire me?

Dean Baker, Plenty of

Dean Baker, Plenty of "ants", like myself, who are not wealthy, nonetheless put money in our retirement funds by simply not spending every cent we earned. We are hurt when the market tanks, and are not mollified when "grasshoppers" like you gleefully dance around saying, "See, I told you saving money was stupid! Now you don't have any more than I!" I still have a few years before retirement, so I plan to leave that money in the accounts, and hope the market improves. Nonetheless, people like you give liberals a very bad name. I think you should just call yourself either a grasshopper or a Communist.

Love it, Baker is one of few

Love it, Baker is one of few who has courage to say this. Problem is we have thrown Trillions to rescue the banks. Stocks will rise and fall. Wait five years and you will get your money back if the "real" economy can get back on sound footing. The banks are the problem, Citi will suck the money out of Mainstreet like a tornado.

People fear that money is

People fear that money is losing its value. First the United States bought much more than it spent, leading to piles of cash in other countries. This did them no good so they invested it, often in US markets. It seemed that the price of houses always went up and the investors went there too, driving up the value, allowing US citizens to borrow on whatever equity they had. The US then spent billions and billions of borrowed money on Iraq. The rise in the price of gas was the breeze that blew over this house of cards, and we now realize that this money is not worth what we thought it was. Welcome to the morning after.

This is the most uninformed

This is the most uninformed article I have sen published in truthout. The author must be living in an alternate universe. I am a union official with a union that has a defined contribution pension fund. We were in the top 1 percent as far as funding goes. Now everyone is worried about whether or not they can retire. Tens of millions of workers have funds in stocks. What does the author suggest poeple do with their hard earned savings? Put it in your mattress? This money is my hard earned savings. When others were buying new cars or fancy clothes, I was putting money away for my retirement in a couple of years. Now I could end up working fora number of years. Thanks a lot!

Democracy Now showed Noam

Democracy Now showed Noam Chomsky saying Dean Baker was our best economist...Good enough for me..I like the comparison made that if the rich lost billions of conterfit money,the rich would be harmed,,

Are you crazy? I worked

Are you crazy? I worked hard for my money and saved in a 401K. That and social security are all I have now in my retirement. Some of my 401K was in stocks. I have lost 80,000 and am having to live on social security now. You try that! I can't sell my house, my expenses are cut to the bone. Don't tell me it's not real.

My 401(k) retirement

My 401(k) retirement portfolio lost 25 percent of its value before I temporarily parked my savings in fixed return funds. I'm 50 years old and have some prospect of recovering that loss. But, what about my 63 year old boss who has lost FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS? Is that just a paper loss? Should he be comforted by the fact that we still have the capacity to produce? There is a difference between facing the risks of the market and suffering the consequences of unregulated greed. This is not a loss of paper wealth. It's a trashing of the American way of life. And, in the end, I'll end up paying big time for corporate leaders whose only interest was the value of their golden parachute.

Bubble-pops transfer wealth

Bubble-pops transfer wealth upward. When you survey the ruins of a popped bubble, you see approximately as much wealth as existed before the bubble began, but it is distributed differently: vastly in favor of the rich, not the poor or the middle. This is because the creation of the bubble is a long process which generates a huge number of "deals" and fees earned by the professionals running the Ponzi scheme. The wealthy therefore benefit far more than others from a bubble. Sure, they take a big hit by definition when the bubble bursts, but what remains is distributed much more in their favor. This is why you received prior comments from retired people whose 401k's have evaporated. These should evoke outrage; nothing 'cool' about them at all.

I would like to see Dean

I would like to see Dean Baker respond to some of the criticisms of his analysis in the reader comments here, which sound valid. I saw Mr. Baker interviewed tonight on the PBS Newshour and was glad he noted that Larry Summers has a checkered history in helping to create the conditions for a deregulated financial system, but I am confused by his conclusion in this article that the plunge in stocks doesn't hurt "the vast majority" who don't own stocks. I'm on disability and live on less that $25,000 per year, and I have just lost more than half of what was until recently a $30,000 IRA held in a mutual fund. I'm sure I'm not that unusual. I may have been stupid not to see it coming, or in not acting sooner, but I'm certainly not "cool" over what's happened.

Although it totally sucks

Although it totally sucks that so many lost so much of their 401Ks, the bottom line is that the stock market has always been a gamble, and the house - whether it's 'Wall Street' or the casino - always wins. Like any pyramid scheme, those at the top walk away large - the rest get busted (aside from the few 'winners' allowed to keep the bustees playing the table.) From this point on, anyone who trusts their money in any 'plan' connected with thieves and gamblers can't say they didn't know better.

Having watched my own

Having watched my own "investments" particularly closely with a raised brow, I've noticed companies which I've been a shareholder such as a big oil company who have been having record profits have hardly produced the same spectacular results for me as a shareholder.... do the math, I dare you. I've watched enough good solid companies that I've had a stake in go down the tubes after takeovers, mergers and spinoffs to have seen a disturbing pattern. The more I watch the more I see skimming and draining of profits by the insiders leaving a corpse for the common investors to pick over. It's corporate piracy and until it is widely recognised and prosecuted as other serious crimes this will continue. This is a rigged game and if you don't know who the stooge is in the game it's probably you! The well has been poisoned and just about everyone but the insiders are going to get sick from this economy. Stockholder or not. Baker, wake up. What, 401's and IRAS don't lose money for us "regular folks"? Get real. It's not the truly rich people who will pay. To the contrary, the 1% club will do just fine, it's the rest of us who should worry. And it's those who have been foolish enough to think they are "rich" because they can buy on credit all the status symbols of "having arrived" who are going to be the most unpleasantly surprised, They'll stand in the bread lines along side all the rest of us who saved, "invested" and acted responsibly (at least what used to be considered responsible) in this fake economy we've been running on. Tulip bulbs anyone?

Dean is right, the stock

Dean is right, the stock market is a casino that we were all forced to be a part of by the ruling employer class. As a result, we had to invest in 401ks, rather than having a true national system of social security adequate to fund our retirement. We must also learn how the Social security trust fund has been used, beginning with Reagan, to mask our true debt, and not build up our trust fund, while the military industrial complex continued to eat up our trust fund, and the wealthiest 1% got rich off the rest of us during the last 30 years.

The stock market is now back

The stock market is now back to where it was in March of 2003. What happened in March of 2003 ? Oh yeah, Shock & Awe over Baghdad. They don't say that 'war is good for the economy' for nothin. The only way to prevent this sort of volatility is to get out of the wargames that fuel it in the first place.

"...not a major concern..."

"...not a major concern..." what planet does Mr Baker live on ? To me and to a lot of people around me this little" destruction that need not hurt the economy" has had a very palpable impact! So,what, we are all just a minority of morons who should have seen it coming....? Even so time was lacking for rapid action because we had to...work.

Chomsky is right, Dean Baker

Chomsky is right, Dean Baker is one of our best economists. The problem with all the (understandable) outrage expressed by readers is not Baker's "callousness", but the trap they all fell into: trusting Wall Street with their retirement savings. The Scam, properly capitalized to show its pervasiveness in capitalist societies, is getting people to believe in the innate goodness of corporate leadership. Which is like believing "reverends" or buying a used car from Honest Bob. The Scam is multiplied by tax policies favoring so-called retirement accounts such as 401k, which were and are pushed by the same politicians whose political existence is funded by the financial industries.

This isn't like destroying

This isn't like destroying counterfeit bills, because anyone who got out of the market at it's top has a windfall. Those of us who didn't sell then are stuck with investments we made that have now turned into "counterfeit" bills, if you like. Many of us, including members of the non-elite, lost out in this latest round of gambling.

could Mr. Baker speak to the

could Mr. Baker speak to the issues raised in the comments?

I see no discussion of

I see no discussion of dividends. Somewhere in the back of my mind is thought that the only reason to own stocks was to get a concrete return. A stock was worth what it could return in the form of dividends. I am 78 years old and learned about this as a young man working in the security business. If you live on dividends,it only really hurts when they get cut. Financial disruption can cause that to happen.

Although this article is

Although this article is broadly true, it ignores human values. I have never been a speculator but I have been forced to invest, as the company I worked for dropped defined benefit plans and went to a 410K-equivalent the year before I went to work there. Now people who had the defined benefit plan are going to be OK but even with my well-diversified savings I will suffer. S&L's went under, annuities go kaput, CD interest is below inflation, stocks crash and money lost is never recovered. The reality is that many of those of us who are now in our 50s and 60s or older are facing financial ruin. I have lost ten years worth. Realistically speaking, I do not have 10 years of employment at top wage to get it back. I have been prudent, I have been diversified, I have not speculated. I am being destroyed by those who were imprudent, and did speculate. These people have stolen form me.

What many of you Baker

What many of you Baker bashers fail to see in his article is the key fact that the productive capacity of our economy is still intact, tangibly speaking. There are many, many things we can be doing that will provide jobs and good paying incomes. What happened during the Friedmanomic period is that the US started believing it could produce intangible wealth out of nothing while it shipped a great deal of tangible production to China et al. For example, Rubbermaid bent to the will of Walmart and this nation's #1 plastic injection molder was sold to China. That was really stupid. Peak oil is a very real threat to the world economies. We got a taste of it this last summer when it shot a dart into the housing balloon (that Baker predicted way back in the mid 90s, I would add). Now we need to begin producing things right here again, and as close as possible, as logic would dictate. So, if you bought into the defined contribution fantasy, I'm very sorry, but as you can see it was all a lie as some of knew it was. That was the hard lesson part. One thing about living in a shit for wages state like Idaho, is that some of us learned not to trust anything that isn't real. I did not marry, have kids, do not use a credit card and saved like mad whenever I could. I own my home straight out and bike almost everywhere. I garden and buy local food when I can. That's going to be the new reality.

What Mr. Baker is missing is

What Mr. Baker is missing is that it doesn't matter if there is still 'capacity' or not. As the 'counterfeit' bills are destroyed, spending decreases lowing the ability of companies with 'capacity' to sell their goods and services. For those who have lost, you should have known when the 'supreme' court threw the election to Bush in 2000. Bush was a business idiot and he said he was going to run the country like a CEO. Everything he has touched has turned to dust. Bush wanted to do away with social security 'as we know it' and make people invest in the stock market - Bush wanted to force people to gamble. I sold everything when Bush came into office and bought physical gold, so I'm a happy camper. In short, Mr. Baker says the productive capacity of our economy is still intact. What does that matter if no one has money to spend?