Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Dean Baker: Suppose We Had Invested Social Security in the Stock Market?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
marmar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-26-08 04:41 PM
Original message
Dean Baker: Suppose We Had Invested Social Security in the Stock Market?
from The American Prospect:



Suppose We Had Invested Social Security in the Stock Market?

The WSJ is too polite to ask this question, but I'm not.

--Dean Baker


from the Wall Street Journal:

Stocks Tarnished
By 'Lost Decade'

U.S. Shares in Longest Funk Since 1970s;
Credit Crunch Could Prolong Weakness
By E.S. BROWNING
March 26, 2008; Page A1

Over the past 200 years, the stock market's steady upward march occasionally has been disrupted for long stretches, most recently during the Great Depression and the inflation-plagued 1970s. The current market turmoil suggests that we may be in another lost decade.

The stock market is trading right where it was nine years ago. Stocks, long touted as the best investment for the long term, have been one of the worst investments over the nine-year period, trounced even by lowly Treasury bonds.

The Standard & Poor's 500-stock index, the basis for about half of the $1 trillion invested in U.S. index funds, finished at 1352.99 on Tuesday, below the 1362.80 it hit in April 1999. When dividends and inflation are factored into returns, the S&P 500 has risen an average of just 1.3% a year over the past 10 years, well below the historical norm, according to Morningstar Inc. For the past nine years, it has fallen 0.37% a year, and for the past eight, it is off 1.4% a year. In light of the current wobbly market, some economists and market analysts worry that the era of disappointing returns may not be over.

Until last fall, many investors had viewed the bursting of the tech-stock bubble as a nasty but short-term setback. The market had resumed its upward march, reaching new highs in October. ............(more)

The complete piece is at: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120649226977964203.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
enid602 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-26-08 04:49 PM
Response to Original message
1. SS
Edited on Wed Mar-26-08 04:51 PM by enid602
If Social Security had invested in ANYTHING (other than a stack of worthless federal IOU's sitting in a safe), it would have considerably more in terms of assets than it has now. At 53, I've got a promise to receive $1400 bucks (I think that's it, according to the last letter I have from SS) a month, but my IRA already has about 20 years of my current salary in it. Let Social Security do what it will, but please, people start an IRA/401K with your very first job, and always contribute.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ret5hd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-26-08 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. What makes a t-bond less valuable than a stack of dollar bills of the same denomination?
what makes that iou more worthless than money? they are both backed by the same govt.

And if that particular govt happens to default on either its bonds or currency, what, exactly (please please tell us), will that precious stock market of yours be worth?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
enid602 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-26-08 05:22 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. SS
From what I've read, SS did not go out on the open market and purchase T-bonds to hold. Rather, the government issues them an IOU (I really don't know if they're more or less liquid than T-bonds) every time they borrow money from SS. I don't think SS has ever claimed to be investing the money it collects from us. Rather, it's an inter-generational promise; the boomers paid out to the WWII generation, and the Gen-X-ers will pay out to the boomers. Obviously, SS's ability to sustain the upcoming retirees will depend a lot on demographics, future economic growth and politics; i.e., whether or not the next generation will honor the pledge they're saddled with.

As far as my own investments, they're a mixture of equity (40%) and bond (60%) mutual funds; I have no funds invested in either the stocks or bonds of any particular corporation or country. Furthermore, those two categories are divided up between dollar (35%) and non-dollar (65%) assets, to minimize the effect of corporate or sovereign defaults in any particular country. This split also minimizes the effect of exchange rate changes, as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-26-08 05:51 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. SS TF currently holds a combination of short-term certificates of
indebtedness & longer-term special interest bonds. There's nothing unique about this: inter-governmental borrowings & special funds (e.g. highway funds) are managed the similarly.

Nor does the government going into the "open market" to buy a government bond give that "open market" govt bond some special magic. It's the same borrowed money & promise to pay.

They're only "worthless" if certain parties succeed in convincing you they are, just as other govt bonds might be, or dollars, or lumps of gold.

You're quite right: SS gives a percent of current earnings to retirees, in return for the promise that the same deal will take place in the future.

If you think about this, it's the only way a universal retirement system can possibly be funded, & it can't "go broke" unless its purposely broken.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
enid602 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-26-08 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. thx
Thanks. What we really need is a government that spends its money wisely so it has enough money to pay for all of its needs. Ultimately, trillion dollar tax cuts for the wealthy and trillion dollar elective wars will ultimately hamper our ability to meet our obligations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-26-08 06:34 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. I'll second that. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 12:36 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC