The Mutualist Economy: Associate Director Future of Capitalism a New Deal for Ownership the Mutualist Economy: a New Deal for Ownership
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ABOUT THE AUTHORS: Nils Gilman Vice President of Programs Yakov Feygin The Mutualist Economy: Associate Director Future of Capitalism A New Deal for Ownership The Mutualist Economy: A New Deal for Ownership Executive Summary This essay proposes a new model of personal and public wealth building that can address the current crisis of inequality in the United States. We place contemporary American wealth inequality into its historical context by tracing how federal government policies have worked to support personal and public wealth building across three periods: the First Industrial Revolution of the mid-19th century, the Second Industrial Revolution of the early 20th century, and the Information and Communication Technology revolution of the late-20th century. We then suggest a series of potential governmental policies that can help to ensure a more equitable wealth distribution in the future. Our proposed “mutualist” model of political economy would allow for the large-scale diffusion of productivity gains that may follow the installation of deployment of the next wave of general-purpose technologies. This new social contract will move beyond the welfare state’s focus on insurance toward a more radical notion of shared ownership of returns on capital via universal individual capital endowments and new public investment channels that control shares in firms and intellectual property. Table of Contents Executive Summary . 2 The Morrill Land Grant Act and the Homestead Act: The First Universal Basic Capital . 8 The New Deal and the Birth of Middle-Class Wealth Building . 10 Wealth and Technical Change in the Neoliberal Political Economy . 13 Personal Wealth Building under Neoliberalism . 15 Public Wealth Building under Neoliberalism . 17 The Limits of the Neoliberal Paradigm . 19 A New Deal for Wealth . 23 New Models of Public Wealth-Building . 25 New Models of Personal Wealth-Building: Universal Basic Capital . 27 Toward a Mutualist Political Economy . 28 Endnotes . 30 Figures / Tables Figure 1: Compensation vs . Productivity . 3 Table 1: Waves of Technical Change and Economic Governance . 4 Figure 2: The Distributional Financial Accounts of the United States . 5 Figure 3: Returns on Wealth-Building Assets . 6 Figure 4: The REA’s Legacy . 12 Figure 5: Sources of Productivity Growth . 17 Figure 6: Housing and Non-Housing Wealth . 18 Figure 7: Wealth Disparities Grow Over a Lifetime . 19 Figure 8: Disparate Returns on Different Forms of Retirement Plans . 20 Figure 9: Declining Retirement Funds . 21 Figure 10: Inequality in Retirement Savings . 22 Drs . Gilman and Feygin thank Leila Lorenzo for her extraordinary work in providing research assistance with this paper . 2 Nils Gilman and Yakov Feygin ver the past few decades, capitalism has the era of financial globalization has been a conquered the world. Market economies time of extraordinary growth in aggregate global are now established in virtually every prosperity.1 Ocountry on earth. Since the turn of the century, The dominant mode of economic governance aggregate global wealth has nearly tripled, over this period has been what we refer to as from $112 trillion to $325 trillion. Dramatic new “neoliberal,” which we define as the political technological innovations have created a myriad prioritization of capital appreciation over wage of new consumer gadgets and services, and growth. Prioritizing capital gains and holding trade and finance have forged an integrated wages in check provided the corporate profits global economy. Moreover, poverty has plunged: necessary to fund the first stage of the information since 2000, the number of people worldwide and communication technology (ICT) revolution. living in extreme poverty (defined according to These processes significantly increased the “international poverty line” of $1.90/day of productivity growth in the last decades of the 20th income) has fallen from about 30% to less than century. Those in favor of this model of economic 9% of the world’s population. By any standard, governance argued that gains to capital, by Figure 1: Compensation vs. Productivity Compensation vs Productivity 300% 250% 200% 150% 100% 50% 0 1948 1951 1954 1957 1960 1963 1966 1969 1972 1975 1978 1981 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 2011 2014 2017 Compensation Productivity Josh Bivens and Laurance Mishel, “Understanding the Historic Divergence Between Productivity and a Typical Worker’s Pay: Why It Matters and Why It’s Real,” Economic Policy Institute (blog), accessed 27 May 2019, https://www epi. org/publication/understanding-the-historic-divergence-between-productivity-and-a-typical-workers-pay-why-it-mat. - ters-and-why-its-real/ . 3 The Mutualist Economy: A New Deal for Ownership increasing total wealth, would ultimately benefit all If the combination of stagnation and consumer- stakeholders.2 The idea was to build an “ownership price inflation, so-called stagflation, defined the society,” in which the middle class would share economic governance crisis of the 1970s, the in growing prosperity by directly owning capital crisis of our era is characterized by “stag-quality,” assets. For the American middle class, this asset combining stagnation and inequality. This stag- has primarily been housing, which has appreciated quality is not only about growing disparities in rapidly in value over the last four decades. Even income, but more importantly, about the inequality though wages stagnated, borrowing against of access to asset ownership. Just as overcoming the growth in the nominal value of one’s house the stagflation of the 1970s entailed a radical offered middle-class households a way to maintain overhaul of the institutions of capitalist economic consumption levels.3 management, resulting in the institutionalization Despite the success of this model from the of neoliberalism, so overcoming stag-quality mid-1980s through the early 2000s, there is now necessitates another re-invention of capitalist a consensus that the American neoliberal model institutions. Above all, it requires reshaping how of economic governance has exhausted its assets are distributed to include all those that have possibilities. The economic dynamism spurred by participated in their creation, not just those who the first wave of the ICT revolution ended in the commercialized them. dot-com and subsequent housing bubbles, which In this essay, we take a historical approach, in turn precipitated the Global Financial Crisis of maintaining that while technological innovation is 2007-2008 and the Great Recession of 2008-9. central to the evolution of capitalism, what matters Since then, economic growth has remained slow more are the institutions governing ownership and uneven: whereas annual productivity growth claims to the wealth generated by technological since the end of WWII has averaged around 2.3% and business innovation – in essence, how since the Great Recession productivity growth technologies become capital and who can make has averaged only 1.3%.4 A decade of economic claims to the resulting cash flows. We contend that stagnation, asset price inflation, and consequently the central challenge of contemporary economic growing inequality has destroyed the ability of the governance is to design new institutions of asset American middle class to build personal wealth. ownership that give ordinary people access to Table 1: Waves of Technical Change and Economic Governance Dates Governance Core General Purpose Personal Wealth-Build- Public Wealth-Building Model Technologies ing Institutions Institutions 1860s-1900s Liberalism Textiles, Railroads, Homesteading Land Grant Colleges Factories, Canals 1920s-1960s Corporatism Steel, Electricity, 30-year fixed mortgage Electrification, Automobiles, corporate wage Petrochemicals, bargaining Assembly Line 1970s - now Neoliberalism Microprocessors, Tele- Financialized Housing DARPA communications, Internet, 401(k)s SBIR Knowledge work 2020s? Mutualism Biotechnology? Baby Bonds? SWFs? Artificial Intelligence? Postal Banking? Public Intellectual Renewable energy? Government Retirement Property? Cryptocurrencies? Accounts? Public Investment Banks? 4 Nils Gilman and Yakov Feygin Figure 2: The Distributional Financial Accounts of the United States wealth creation at its source. Rather than wait for A. Real Estate Ownership by Income Group wealth to be produced in an unequal way, and 100% then attempt to use tax policy to redistribute that 80% Top1 wealth, our institutions should “pre-distribute” 60% Next9 that wealth at the point of its production through 40% Next40 the mutual ownership of wealth-producing assets. 20% Bottom50 Such institutions should be designed both to 0 accelerate productivity growth and to ensure the wide distribution of the fruits of this growth. 1989:Q3 1990:Q4 1992:Q1 1993:Q2 1994:Q3 1995:Q4 1997:Q1 1998:Q2 1999:Q3 2000:Q4 2002:Q1 2003:Q2 2004:Q3 2005:Q4 2007:Q1 2008:Q2 2009:Q3 2010:Q4 2012:Q1 2013:Q2 2014:Q3 2015:Q4 2017:Q1 2018:Q2 Our paper considers the following: first, we B. Pension Entitlements and Savings by Income Group examine how the American government has 100% historically developed policies to promote the 80% Top1 broad distribution of wealth. Second, we evaluate 60% Next9 why our current approaches are no longer working 40% Next40 as intended. Third, we propose a new “mutualist” 20% Bottom50 approach to wealth-sharing that we believe can 0 improve the governance of an economy whose 1989:Q3 1990:Q4 1992:Q1 1993:Q2 1994:Q3 1995:Q4 1997:Q1 1998:Q2 1999:Q3 2000:Q4 2002:Q1 2003:Q2 2004:Q3 2005:Q4