Americans Are Losing Trust In All U.S. InstitutionsPolitics / US Politics May 05, 2012 - 01:56 PM GMT
The signs are everywhere: Americans have lost trust in our institutions.
The Chicago Booth/Kellogg School Financial Trust Index published yesterday shows that only 22% of Americans trust the nations financial system.
Robert Shiller said Monday:
Our whole economy has been affected by variations in confidence. Central banks are sort of trusted, but the actions they have often affect peoples confidence by appearance rather than substance. Were not in the most trusting mood now.
The National Journal noted last week:
Seven in 10 Americans believe that the country is on the wrong track; eight in 10 are dissatisfied with the way the nation is being governed. Only 23 percent have confidence in banks, and just 19 percent have confidence in big business. Less than half the population expresses a great deal of confidence in the public-school system or organized religion. We have lost our gods, says Laura Hansen, an assistant professor of sociology at Western New England University in Springfield, Mass. We lost [faith] in the media: Remember Walter Cronkite? We lost it in our culture: You cant point to a movie star who might inspire us, because we know too much about them. We lost it in politics, because we know too much about politicians lives. Weve lost itthat basic sense of trust and confidencein everything.
After a 50-year decline, just 14 percent of respondents in a 2011 Gallup Poll said that the federal government could be trusted a great deal
Gallup reported last month that for the second year in a row Americans said that gold is the safest long-term investment. This shows that Americans dont trust the government. Specifically, as Time Magazine points out:
Traditionally, gold has been a store of value when citizens do not trust their government politically or economically.
- A tiny percent of Americans believe that the U.S. government has the consent of the governed
- A higher percentage of Americans believed in King George of England during the Revolutionary War than believe in congress today
- Many Americans disbelieve the governments rosy statements about the economy
- An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll from November found that 76% of Americans believe that the countrys current financial and political structures favor the rich over the rest of the country
- The U.S. financial system is so corrupt and unregulated that many dont believe the government and businesses promises to follow the rule of law and simply wont do business here anymore
Its not just the U.S.
As the Economist reported in January, trust in institutions is plunging worldwide:
The latest annual trust barometer published by Edelman, a PR firm, on January 24th [finds that] overall trust has declined in the leaders of the four main categories of organization scrutinizedgovernment, business, non-governmental organizations and the media. Of the 50 or so countries examined, 11, nearly twice as many as last year, are now judged sceptical, with less than 50% of those polled saying they trusted these institutions. Trust in Japanese institutions plunged to 34%, from 51% in 2011, not surprising given the handling by leaders of the Tsunami and its aftermath. But the collapse in trust was even more striking in Brazil, the country in which trust was greatest in 2011, at 80%, but now, following a series of corruption scandals, has slipped to 51% (admittedly, still above America and Britain, among others).
This headline slump in trust is due, above all, to the public losing faith in political leaders. In 2011, across all countries, Edelman found that 52% of those polled trusted government; this year, it was only 43%. Government is now trusted less even than the media . Trust in business fell slightly, from 56% to 53%, as did trust in NGOs, which still remain the most trusted type of institution, at 58%, down from 61% in 2011. As in previous years, the barometer is based on a poll of what Edelman calls informed people, which typically means professional and well-educated, though this year for the first time the views of the informed were benchmarked against a poll of the public as a whole. For each institution, the broader public was even less trusting than the informed, with government trusted by 38%, business 47%, NGOs 50% and the media 46%.
Lack of Trust Is Killing the Economy
Top economists have been saying for well over a decade that trust is necessary for a stable economy, and that prosecuting the criminals is necessary to restore trust. Indeed, as we have repeatedly noted, loss of trust is arguably the main reason we are stuck in an economic crisis notwithstanding unprecedented action by central banks worldwide.
Economist Daniel Hameresh writes:
A number of economists have shown recently that income levels and real growth depend upon trusttrust greases the wheels of exchange.
In 1998, Paul Zak (Professor of Economics and Department Chair, as well as the founding Director of the Center for Neuroeconomics Studies at Claremont Graduate University, Professor of Neurology at Loma Linda University Medical Center, and a senior researcher at UCLA) and Stephen Knack (a Lead Economist in the World Banks Research Department and Public Sector Governance Department) wrote a paper called Trust and Growth, arguing:
Adam Smith observed notable differences across nations in the probity and punctuality of their populations. For example, the Dutch are the most faithful to their word. John Stuart Mill wrote: There are countries in Europe . . . where the most serious impediment to conducting business concerns on a large scale, is the rarity of persons who are supposed fit to be trusted with the receipt and expenditure of large sums of money (Mill, 1848, p. 132).
Enormous differences across countries in the propensity to trust others survive
Trust is higher in fair societies.
High trust societies produce more output than low trust societies. A fortiori, a sufficient amount of trust may be crucial to successful development. Douglass North (1990, p. 54) writes,
The inability of societies to develop effective, lowcost enforcement of contracts is the most important source of both historical stagnation and contemporary underdevelopment in the Third World.
If trust is too low in a society, savings will be insufficient to sustain positive output growth. Such a poverty trap is more likely when institutions -
both formal and informal which punish cheaters are weak.
Heap, Tan and Zizzo and others have come to similar conclusions.
In 2001, Zak and Knack showed that strengthening the rule of law, reducing inequality, and by facilitating interpersonal understanding all increase trust. They conclude:
Our analysis shows that trust can be raised directly by increasing communication and education, and indirectly by strengthening formal institutions that enforce contracts and by reducing income inequality. Among the policies that impact these factors, only education, and freedom satisfy the efficiency criterion which compares the cost of policies with the benefits citizens receive in terms of higher living standards. Further, our analysis suggests that good policy initiates a virtuous circle: policies that raise trust efficiently, improve living standards, raise civil liberties, enhance institutions, and reduce corruption, further raising trust. Trust, democracy, and the rule of law are thus the foundation of abiding prosperity.
A 2005 letter in premier scientific journal Nature reviewed the research on trust and economics:
Trust plays a key role in economic exchange and politics. In the absence of trust among trading partners, market transactions break down. In the absence of trust in a countrys institutions and leaders, political legitimacy breaks down. Much recent evidence indicates that trust contributes to economic, political and social success.
Forbes wrote an article in 2006 entitled The Economics of Trust. The article summarizes the importance of trust in creating a healthy economy:
Imagine going to the corner store to buy a carton of milk, only to find that the refrigerator is locked. When youve persuaded the shopkeeper to retrieve the milk, you then end up arguing over whether youre going to hand the money over first, or whether he is going to hand over the milk. Finally you manage to arrange an elaborate simultaneous exchange. A little taste of life in a world without trustnow imagine trying to arrange a mortgage.
Being able to trust people might seem like a pleasant luxury, but economists are starting to believe that its rather more important than that. Trust is about more than whether you can leave your house unlocked; it is responsible for the difference between the richest countries and the poorest.
If you take a broad enough definition of trust, then it would explain basically all the difference between the per capita income of the United States and Somalia, ventures Steve Knack, a senior economist at the World Bank who has been studying the economics of trust for over a decade. That suggests that trust is worth $12.4 trillion dollars a year to the U.S., which, in case you are wondering, is 99.5% of this countrys income.
Above all, trust enables people to do business with each other. Doing business is what creates wealth.
Economists distinguish between the personal, informal trust that comes from being friendly with your neighbors and the impersonal, institutionalized trust that lets you give your credit card number out over the Internet.
In 2007, Yann Algan (Professor of Economics at Paris School of Economics and University Paris East) and Pierre Cahuc (Professor of Economics at the Ecole Polytechnique (Paris)) reported:
We find a significant impact of trust on income per capita for 30 countries over the period 1949-2003.
Similarly, market psychologists Richard L. Peterson M.D. and Frank Murtha, PhD noted in 2008
Trust is the oil in the engine of capitalism, without it, the engine seizes up. Confidence is like the gasoline, without it the machine wont move.
Trust is gone: there is no longer trust between counterparties in the financial system. Furthermore, confidence is at a low. Investors have lost their confidence in the ability of shares to provide decent returns (since they havent).
In 2009, Paola Sapienza (associate professor of finance and the Zell Center Faculty Fellow at Northwestern University) and Luigi Zingales (Robert C. McCormack Professor of Entrepreneurship and Finance at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business) pointed out:
The drop in trust, we believe, is a major factor behind the deteriorating economic conditions.
As trust declines, so does Americans willingness to invest their money in the financial system. Our data show that trust in the stock market affects peoples intention to buy stocks, even after accounting for expectations of future stock-market performance. Similarly, a persons trust in banks predicts the likelihood that he will make a run on his bank in a moment of crisis: 25 percent of those who dont trust banks withdrew their deposits and stored them as cash last fall, compared with only 3 percent of those who said they still trusted the banks. Thus, trust in financial institutions is a key factor for the smooth functioning of capital markets and, by extension, the economy. Changes in trust matter.
They quote a Nobel laureate economist on the subject:
Virtually every commercial transaction has within itself an element of trust, writes economist Kenneth Arrow, a Nobel laureate. When we deposit money in a bank, we trust that its safe. When a company orders goods, it trusts its counterpart to deliver them in good faith. Trust facilitates transactions because it saves the costs of monitoring and screening; it is an essential lubricant that greases the wheels of the economic system.
In 2010, a distinguished international group of economists (Giancarlo Corsetti, Michael P. Devereux, Luigi Guiso, John Hassler, Gilles Saint-Paul, Hans-Werner Sinn, Jan-Egbert Sturm and Xavier Vives) wrote:
Public distrust of bankers and financial markets has risen dramatically with the financial crisis. This column argues that this loss of trust in the financial system played a critical role in the collapse of economic activity that followed. To undo the damage, financial regulation needs to focus on restoring that trust.
Trust is crucial in many transactions and certainly in those involving financial exchanges. The massive drop in trust associated with this crisis will therefore have important implications for the future of financial markets. Data show that in the late 1970s, the percentage of people who reported having full trust in banks, brokers, mutual funds or the stock market was around 40%; it had sunk to around 30% just before the crisis hit, and collapsed to barely 5% afterwards. It is now even lower than the trust people have in other people (randomly selected of course).
In his influential 1993 book Making Democracy Work, Robert Putnam showed how civic attitudes and trust could account for differences in the economic and government performance between northern and southern Italy.
Political economist Francis Fukiyama wrote a book called Trust in 1995, arguing that the most pervasive cultural characteristic influencing a nations prosperity and ability to compete is the level of trust or cooperative behavior based upon shared norms. He stated that the United States, like Japan and Germany, has been a high-trust society historically but that this status has eroded in recent years.
Chris Farrell notes:
Trust matters. Its kind of like a recipe or a software protocol that allows for economic exchange and all kinds of innovation.
Theres compelling evidence that both higher levels of trust in institutions and a belief in the general trustworthiness of individuals in society carry large economic benefits. Sociologists, political scientists and economists have all showed in an impressive body of research that higher levels of trust increase trade and even foster economic growth,.
Dallas Fed president Richard Fisher said last year that a growing distrust of the nations political institutions is keeping businesses on the sidelines.
Forbes notes in March that a lack of trust was one of the main factors hurting the Greek economy:
There are a number of issues that have contributed and exacerbated the levels of distrust. For instance, Greece, with the help of Goldman Sachs, concealed the state of their finances for over a decade until they ran into this major debt crisis. Because they failed to disclose the extent of their financial problems, the EU and other players in the global credit market are extremely reluctant to cooperate or put faith in the representations made by the Greek leadership.
If the leadership in Athens cannot reestablish trust with the citizenry and develop open and honest communication amongst themselves, their constituents, and the individual leaders of the financial institutions involved, the agreements they make will not even be worth the paper they are written on.
Ken Eisold an internationally respected authority on the psychodynamics of organizations writes:
Most of us view trust as valuable and desirable, something that improves the quality of our personal lives. We seldom take the next step and view it as indispensable, a vital ingredient in society and in the economy. But all credit is based on trust, and the fundamental problem in a credit crisis is not just the lack of liquidity but also the absence of trust, the trust that is essential to all financial transactions.
But the problem is not that people should be more blindly and naively trusting. The problem as Eisold points out is that the institutions have to act in a more trustworthy manner:
The essential point is not that people need to be encouraged to trust. Most of us want to trust and have the basic capacity to trust. We need institutions that are trustworthy.
No Economy-Revving Optimism Without Trust
Economist Robert Higgs who has studied the effect of World War II on the economy in great detail argues that it was optimism, rather than stimulus spending, which got us out of the depression:
The performance of the war economy broke the back of the pessimistic expectations almost everybody had come to hold during the seemingly endless Depression. In the long decade of the 1930s, especially its latter half, many people had come to believe that the economic machine was irreparably broken. The frenetic activity of war productionnever mind that it was just a lot of guns and ammunitiondispelled the hopelessness. People began to think: if we can produce all these planes, ships, and bombs, we can also turn out prodigious quantities of cars and refrigerators.
The transformation of expectationsjustify an interpretation that views the war as an event that recreated the possibility of genuine economic recovery. As the war ended, real prosperity returned.
Unlike after WWII, Americans now are pessimistic (even though weve been various wars against third-rate countries far longer than we were in WWII) and our expectations are stuck in the gutter.
Perhaps because we dont trust our government, our big corporations or our other institutions to do anything very helpful for the country. Indeed, we dont trust our government, big corporations and other institutions to even allow a fair playing field where we have a chance of competing fairly to get ahead on our own initiative.
Why should we work harder, invest more or spend more when we dont trust that we might have a bright future?
Prosecuting the Criminals Is Necessary to Restore Trust
Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz says that we have to prosecute fraud or else the economy wont recover:
The legal system is supposed to be the codification of our norms and beliefs, things that we need to make our system work. If the legal system is seen as exploitative, then confidence in our whole system starts eroding. And thats really the problem thats going on.
I think we ought to go do what we did in the S&L [crisis] and actually put many of these guys in prison. Absolutely. These are not just white-collar crimes or little accidents. There were victims. Thats the point. There were victims all over the world.
Economists focus on the whole notion of incentives. People have an incentive sometimes to behave badly, because they can make more money if they can cheat. If our economic system is going to work then we have to make sure that what they gain when they cheat is offset by a system of penalties.
Robert Shiller said recently that failing to address the legal issues will cause Americans to lose faith in business and the government:
Shiller said the danger of foreclosuregate the scandal in which it has come to light that the biggest banks have routinely mishandled homeownership documents, putting the legality of foreclosures and related sales in doubt is a replay of the 1930s, when Americans lost faith that institutions such as business and government were dealing fairly.
There will have to be full-scale investigation and cleaning up of the residue of that, before you can have, I think, a return of confidence in the financial sector. And thats a process which needs to get underway.
Galbraith also says that economists should move into the background, and criminologists to the forefront.
Government regulators know this or at least pay lip service to it as well. For example, as the Director of the Securities and Exchange Commissions enforcement division told Congress:
Recovery from the fallout of the financial crisis requires important efforts on various fronts, and vigorous enforcement is an essential component, as aggressive and even-handed enforcement will meet the publics fair expectation that those whose violations of the law caused severe loss and hardship will be held accountable. And vigorous law enforcement efforts will help vindicate the principles that are fundamental to the fair and proper functioning of our markets: that no one should have an unjust advantage in our markets; that investors have a right to disclosure that complies with the federal securities laws; and that there is a level playing field for all investors.
Nobel prize winning economist George Akerlof has demonstrated that failure to punish white collar criminals and instead bailing them out- creates incentives for more economic crimes and further destruction of the economy in the future. Indeed, William Black notes that weve known of this dynamic for hundreds of years. And see this, this, this and this.
And when Zak and Knack quoted above discuss enforcing contracts, raising civil liberties, and reducing corruption, they are talking about enforcing the rule of law, which means prosecuting violations of the law. Likewise, when they refer to enhancing institutions, they mean regulatory and justice systems which enforce contracts and prosecute cheaters.
And when Zak and Knack promote reduction of inequality, that means prosecuting fraud as well. Specifically, as I recently pointed out, prosecuting fraud is the best way to reduce inequality:
Robert Shiller [one of the top housing economists in the United States] said in 2009:
And its not like we want to level income. Im not saying spread the wealth around, which got Obama in trouble. But I think, I would hope that this would be a time for a national consideration about policies that would focus on restraining any possible further increases in inequality.
If we stop bailing out the fraudsters and financial gamblers, the big banks would focus more on traditional lending and less on speculative plays which only make the rich richer and the poor poorer, and which guarantee future economic crises (which hurt the poor more than the rich).
Moreover, both conservatives and liberals agree that we need to prosecute financial fraud. As Ive previously noted, fraud disproportionally benefits the big players, makes boom-bust cycles more severe, and otherwise harms the economy all of which increase inequality and warp the market.
Of course, its not just economists saying this.
One of the leading business schools in America the Wharton School of Business published an essay by a psychologist on the causes and solutions to the economic crisis. Wharton points out that restoring trust is the key to recovery, and that trust cannot be restored until wrongdoers are held accountable:
According to David M. Sachs, a training and supervision analyst at the Psychoanalytic Center of Philadelphia, the crisis today is not one of confidence, but one of trust. Abusive financial practices were unchecked by personal moral controls that prohibit individual criminal behavior, as in the case of [Bernard] Madoff, and by complex financial manipulations, as in the case of AIG. The public, expecting to be protected from such abuse, has suffered a trauma of loss similar to that after 9/11. Normal expectations of what is safe and dependable were abruptly shattered, Sachs noted. As is typical of post-traumatic states, planning for the future could not be based on old assumptions about what is safe and what is dangerous. A radical reversal of how to be gratified occurred.
People now feel more gratified saving money than spending it, Sachs suggested. They have trouble trusting promises from the government because they feel the government has let them down.
He framed his argument with a fictional patient named Betty Q. Public, a librarian with two teenage children and a husband, John, who had recently lost his job. She felt betrayed because she and her husband had invested conservatively and were double-crossed by dishonest, greedy businessmen, and now she distrusted the government that had failed to protect them from corporate dishonesty. Not only that, but she had little trust in things turning around soon enough to enable her and her husband to accomplish their previous goals.
By no means a sophisticated economist, she knew that some people had become fantastically wealthy by misusing other peoples money hers included, Sachs said. In short, John and Betty had done everything right and were being punished, while the dishonest people were going unpunished.
Helping an individual recover from a traumatic experience provides a useful analogy for understanding how to help the economy recover from its own traumatic experience, Sachs pointed out. The public will need to hold the perpetrators of the economic disaster responsible and take what actions they can to prevent them from harming the economy again. In addition, the public will have to see proof that government and business leaders can behave responsibly before they will trust them again, he argued.
Note that Sachs urges hold[ing] the perpetrators of the economic disaster responsible. In other words, just looking forward and promising to do things differently isnt enough.
As Wall Street insider and New York Times columnist Andrew Ross Sorkin writes:
They will pick on minor misdemeanors by individual market participants, said David Einhorn, the hedge fund manager who was among the Cassandras before the financial crisis. To Mr. Einhorn, the government is not willing to take on significant misbehavior by sizable firms. But since there have been almost no big prosecutions, theres very little evidence that it has stopped bad actors from behaving badly.***
Fraud at big corporations surely dwarfs by orders of magnitude the shareholders losses of $8 billion that Mr. Holder highlighted. If the government spent half the time trying to ferret out fraud at major companies that it does tracking pump-and-dump schemes, we might have been able to stop the financial crisis, or at least wed have a fighting chance at stopping the next one.
Of course, the Europeans have been trying to avoid fraud prosecutions as well.
On the other hand, Iceland has prosecuted the fraudster bank heads (and here and here) and their former prime minister, and their economy is recovering nicely because trust is being restored in the financial system.
Indeed, even evangelical leader Pat Robertson agrees:
Pat Robertson discussed the banking crisis and glowingly spoke about how Iceland jailed many of the bankers who devastated their nations economy by taking out fraudulent loans. Robertson hailed the Nordic nation for its actions and said that Americans should deal with the financial crisis in the same way.
They are putting people in jail. Prime ministers are being indicted. They are going after banks. The people said the banks are ripping us off. We dont like what they did, and they brought our country to ruin. Suddenly, Iceland is turning around and they look like a big success story!
We could start putting all of those bankers in jail. There was not one banker prosecuted and so many people were lying, and so-called no-doc loans and liars loans, and none of them have been held accountable.
Iceland is leading the way and their GDP is growing, and all of a sudden, they were in a terrible mess, terrible mess, and look what is happening!
© Copyright Washingtons Blog, Global Research, 2012
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this article.
© 2005-2015 http://www.MarketOracle.co.uk - The Market Oracle is a FREE Daily Financial Markets Analysis & Forecasting online publication.