The Net As Ponzi Scheme

If history is any indication, when the irrationally exuberant bubble of the Internet-fueled stock market bursts, millions of investors — and the working poor — will be left holding an empty bag.

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


The Internet economy, with its fast companies, is poised to replace the old economy, with its slow ones.

Forget current profits. Sales are booming, and the profits will come. It’s new era economics. The result: a raging bull market.

Geeks with pencils in their shirt pockets become instant millionaires. Spend your days staring into a computer and strike it rich. In some areas, millionaires are a dime a dozen. The working poor become invisible. We’ve become a casino culture.

So, is the booming market for real, or is it a naturally occurring Ponzi scheme?

Charles Ponzi is the crook from the 1920s who told people he had a business that made money by exploiting mispricing in international postage reply coupons. In fact, there was no such market, but he took people’s money and promised them a spectacular rate of return on their investments. And he paid off the first round of investors with the money he received from the second round of investors. And he paid off the second round of investors with the money he received from the third round, until the scheme ballooned into a multimillion dollar market. Finally, the bubble burst, leaving the last round of investors holding the bag.

Sound familiar? Robert Shiller, a professor of economics at Yale University, thinks it could be a good explanation for what’s happening in the market now. Except that there is no one Charles Ponzi here. And there is no deception — the process just developed naturally. And it’s being fed by irrational exuberance, feedback loops, herd behavior, and epidemic madness.

It seems that people never learn from previous Ponzi schemes until it is too late. A couple of years ago, in Albania, for example, a gargantuan Ponzi scheme consumed a good fraction of a year’s gross national product for the country. When the scheme finally collapsed, there was rioting in the streets, the army came out and shot some protesters, and the government resigned in disgrace.

Shiller has written a new book, “Irrational Exuberance” (Princeton University Press, 2000), in which he looks at the current speculative bubble in the United States through a lens of behavioral economics. It’s not just numbers driving the market, he reminds us, it’s mass psychology, too.

And Shiller is not just another apolitical market naysayer.

He makes the point that there is a demoralization that occurs when the market bubble inflates to the degree that it has. Instant millionaires abound, but what about hard-working regular folks who toil day in and day out for a living wage, come home, turn on the tube and hear about the instant millionaires who struck it rich by signing on with this dot com or that?

“When people see others flaunting their wealth, it’s painful,” he told us recently. “It is so painful to see people devoting their lives to caring professions — school teachers, police officers, fire fighters — while someone buys into the market and gets rich. You feel like a sucker. It feels bad. Nobody wants to be a loser. Today, it seems the world is divided into winners and losers. The old feeling of solidarity with your fellow human being is eroded somehow. There was a feeling of labor solidarity. I remember hearing union songs on the radio when I was growing up in Detroit. That era is gone. If you work for your money, if you are unionizing, you are a loser.”

And it is not as if Shiller himself wrote the book out of sour grapes. As a young professor at Yale in 1982, he invested in stocks, and just got out recently, when, he believes, the market started spinning out of control.

Shiller predicts poor market performance over the next five years, with the Dow dipping to 5,000 and perhaps slowly coming back to 10,000 by 2020.

“People seem to think that the market has to grow explosively,” Shiller said. “You ask someone — what is the Dow going to be in 2020? And they say — oh, my God, 200,000. That would be the knee-jerk response. But it represents a misreading of history.”

Russell Mokhiber is editor of the Corporate Crime Reporter. Robert Weissman is editor of the Multinational Monitor. They are co-authors of “Corporate Predators: The Hunt for MegaProfits and the Attack on Democracy.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate