Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Affordability Crisis and AI: Kelso’s Universal Capitalism

As costs rise and AI reshapes work, Louis Kelso’s universal capitalism offers a path to shared prosperity and a stronger American Dream.

Opinion

Affordability Crisis and AI: Kelso’s Universal Capitalism

Rising costs, AI disruption, and inequality revive interest in Louis Kelso’s “universal capitalism” as a market-based answer to the affordability crisis.

Getty Images, J Studios

“Affordability” over the cost of living has been in the news a lot lately. It’s popping up in political campaigns, from the governor’s races in New Jersey and Virginia to the mayor’s races in New York City and Seattle. President Donald Trump calls the term a “hoax” and a “con job” by Democrats, and it’s true that the inflation rate hasn’t increased much since Trump began his second term in January.

But a number of reports show Americans are struggling with high costs for essentials like food, housing, and utilities, leaving many families feeling financially pinched. Total consumer spending over the Black Friday-Thanksgiving weekend buying binge actually increased this year, but a Salesforce study found that’s because prices were about 7% higher than last year’s blitz. Consumers actually bought 2% fewer items at checkout.


Moreover, according to an analysis by Mark Zandi from Moody's Analytics, consumer spending has been driven largely by high-income households, with the top 10% accounting for nearly half of all spending. "That group has always accounted for a much larger share of spending, but that share has risen significantly over time, and now is the highest it's ever been," Zandi told CBS News.

While partisan sides fight over whether there is an affordability gap, other experts predict it could worsen significantly as we enter the AI age. If intelligent machines are increasingly able to do more and more human jobs, workers' bargaining power to capture their fair share of the accumulating wealth will diminish. Wages will likely continue lagging behind economic growth and price increases. It’s like a hamster on the wheel, chasing its own tail, trying to keep up. So what’s the solution?

The Kelso alternative of universal capitalism

Interestingly, several decades ago, an American original named Louis O. Kelso proposed an innovative way to help every American have a bigger share of the economic pie. Kelso was an economic trailblazer and financial genius who, in the 1970s, proposed a new approach to a more broadly shared prosperity that broke with the usual “Tax the rich and redistribute the income” model that became popular in the US, Europe, Canada, and elsewhere.

Instead, to a national audience that heard Kelso through interviews on shows like 60 Minutes with Mike Wallace and profiles in the New York Times and Time, and through his bestselling book The Capitalist Manifesto, Kelso proposed spreading ownership of capital assets to everyday Americans. In an economy where the top 10% of affluent Americans own 93% of all stocks, he proposed that more Americans should own more stock, so that they, too, could benefit from rising profits in successful companies and from the innovation of new technologies, which often drive the rising profits.

Louis Kelso called his vision “universal capitalism.” His philosophy was rooted in the same principles that had motivated America’s founders like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Alexander Hamilton, and the Populist movement of the late 19th century, who were strong proponents of widespread property ownership -- in the form of land -- as a catalyst for both economic liberty and political freedom. But in Kelso’s plan, farmland was replaced by stock ownership in valuable companies.

Worker-owners for a “piece of the action”

Pie in the sky, you say? Louis Kelso demonstrated the viability of his vision with his invention of what is known as the employee stock ownership plan (ESOP). Today, ESOPs are used by some 6,300 businesses, including Walmart, Lowe’s, Southwest Airlines, Recology, and Publix Super Markets, to financially empower 15 million worker-owners who are compensated with stock in the companies they work for, in addition to their wages. That’s a greater number of workers than those who are labor union members.

Kelso’s ESOP legislation in the 1970s attracted broad support from the right and the left, from leading Democrats and Republicans, including Presidents Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon, and today is still supported by both Democratic and Republican party platforms – even as Kelso’s ideas were scorned by mainstream economists, like Milton Friedman.

While ESOPs benefit the employees of a particular company, Kelso proposed other financing vehicles as part of a broader call for universal capitalism designed to provide ownership of key capital assets to more people. For example, Kelso adapted one of his financing techniques, a Consumer Stock Ownership Plan (CSOP), to help a co-op of nearly 5,000 struggling farmers in California’s Central Valley secure a bank loan to purchase their own fertilizer plant. The bank loan was repaid from the fertilizer plant's future profits. That got the farmers out from under the exploitative boot heel of the oil companies that monopolized the fertilizer industry. The farmers paid off the bank loan in record time, even as they saved a billion dollars by drastically reducing fertilizer prices.

Kelso also had plans for how to use his financing mechanisms to not only house the poor but to turn them into owners of their own homes. One of Kelso’s original plans became what is known today as the Alaska Permanent Fund, which allows every Alaskan to share equally in the state’s oil wealth, an early and successful example of Universal Basic Income. Without Kelso’s influence, there would likely be no IRAs, 401(k)s, and other savings vehicles that eventually were birthed out of the “shareholders for all” movement that he spawned. He had another plan, called a General Stock Ownership Plan (GSOP), that would have created a kind of sovereign wealth fund in which a portfolio of stock investments on behalf of large populations of Americans would provide a second income stream for those people, beyond their wages, out of the future returns on those investments.

The role of technology in wealth creation

Kelso anchored his initiatives in a deep understanding of the economic impacts of new technologies and scientific innovation. Kelso was one of the first to fully grasp the ramifications of the insight that French economist Thomas Piketty made famous 40 years later—that the rate of return on capital investment naturally exceeds the economic growth rate, and therefore the rate of wage increases. Kelso recognized that capitalism has a natural bias toward the concentration of ownership, particularly of the machines and technologies that drive productivity and profits. Consequently, financial wealth accumulates much faster than wage income, and that’s why the small 10 percent elite of wealthy investors get richer while the 90% of wage-earners tread water or worse. As the US stands on the cusp of an AI revolution dominated by a handful of tech companies, Kelso’s warning about the negative impacts when only a small handful of wealthy investors benefit financially from technological advancement has never been more urgent.

Owners By the Millions

In today’s world of unbalanced inequality, of the 1% vs the 99% riven with populist grievances, universal capitalism is more relevant than ever. Kelso’s economic vision advances the common-sense notion that the vast majority of Americans should be owners of the businesses in which they work, as well as of the economy in general. Interestingly, Kelso, who was a corporate attorney by profession, was not some leftie liberal. His own politics could best be described as libertarian-humanitarian. And he was also anti-communist but critical of American capitalism. In fact, he thought that, during the economic doldrums of the 1970s, he was saving capitalism from the allure of communism/socialism.

The Kelso vision is urgently relevant today because it is a story about economic fairness and the future of the American Dream. During a time of federal retrenchment and cash-strapped states and cities, Kelso’s creative financing vehicles are increasingly being discussed as potential ways to fund housing, college tuition, public ownership of utilities, universal basic income, public transportation, and even reparations to slave descendants, without dipping into the public treasury.

With the US seeking a politically viable way to move past toxic populism into a new era of bipartisanship, the time is ripe to reintroduce Louis O. Kelso and his “positive populist” vision to new generations.


Steven Hill was policy director for the Center for Humane Technology, co-founder of FairVote and political reform director at New America. You can reach him on X @StevenHill1776.


Read More

Meta Undermining Trust but Verify through Paid Links
Facebook launches voting resource tool
Facebook launches voting resource tool

Meta Undermining Trust but Verify through Paid Links

Facebook is testing limits on shared external links, which would become a paid feature through their Meta Verified program, which costs $14.99 per month.

This change solidifies that verification badges are now meaningless signifiers. Yet it wasn’t always so; the verified internet was built to support participation and trust. Beginning with Twitter’s verification program launched in 2009, a checkmark next to a username indicated that an account had been verified to represent a notable person or official account for a business. We could believe that an elected official or a brand name was who they said they were online. When Twitter Blue, and later X Premium, began to support paid blue checkmarks in November of 2022, the visual identification of verification became deceptive. Think Fake Eli Lilly accounts posting about free insulin and impersonation accounts for Elon Musk himself.

This week’s move by Meta echoes changes at Twitter/X, despite the significant evidence that it leaves information quality and user experience in a worse place than before. Despite what Facebook says, all this tells anyone is that you paid.

Keep ReadingShow less
artificial intelligence

Rather than blame AI for young Americans struggling to find work, we need to build: build new educational institutions, new retraining and upskilling programs, and, most importantly, new firms.

Surasak Suwanmake/Getty Images

Blame AI or Build With AI? Only One Approach Creates Jobs

We’re failing young Americans. Many of them are struggling to find work. Unemployment among 16- to 24-year-olds topped 10.5% in August. Even among those who do find a job, many of them are settling for lower-paying roles. More than 50% of college grads are underemployed. To make matters worse, the path forward to a more stable, lucrative career is seemingly up in the air. High school grads in their twenties find jobs at nearly the same rate as those with four-year degrees.

We have two options: blame or build. The first involves blaming AI, as if this new technology is entirely to blame for the current economic malaise facing Gen Z. This course of action involves slowing or even stopping AI adoption. For example, there’s so-called robot taxes. The thinking goes that by placing financial penalties on firms that lean into AI, there will be more roles left to Gen Z and workers in general. Then there’s the idea of banning or limiting the use of AI in hiring and firing decisions. Applicants who have struggled to find work suggest that increased use of AI may be partially at fault. Others have called for providing workers with a greater say in whether and to what extent their firm uses AI. This may help firms find ways to integrate AI in a way that augments workers rather than replace them.

Keep ReadingShow less
Parv Mehta Is Leading the Fight Against AI Misinformation

A visual representation of deep fake and disinformation concepts, featuring various related keywords in green on a dark background, symbolizing the spread of false information and the impact of artificial intelligence.

Getty Images

Parv Mehta Is Leading the Fight Against AI Misinformation

At a moment when the country is grappling with the civic consequences of rapidly advancing technology, Parv Mehta stands out as one of the most forward‑thinking young leaders of his generation. Recognized as one of the 500 Gen Zers named to the 2025 Carnegie Young Leaders for Civic Preparedness cohort, Mehta represents the kind of grounded, community‑rooted innovator the program was designed to elevate.

A high school student from Washington state, Parv has emerged as a leading youth voice on the dangers of artificial intelligence and deepfakes. He recognized early that his generation would inherit a world where misinformation spreads faster than truth—and where young people are often the most vulnerable targets. Motivated by years of computer science classes and a growing awareness of AI’s risks, he launched a project to educate students across Washington about deepfake technology, media literacy, and digital safety.

Keep ReadingShow less
child holding smartphone

As Australia bans social media for kids under 16, U.S. parents face a harder truth: online safety isn’t an individual choice; it’s a collective responsibility.

Getty Images/Keiko Iwabuchi

Parents Must Quit Infighting to Keep Kids Safe Online

Last week, Australia’s social media ban for children under age 16 officially took effect. It remains to be seen how this law will shape families' behavior; however, it’s at least a stand against the tech takeover of childhood. Here in the U.S., however, we're in a different boat — a consensus on what's best for kids feels much harder to come by among both lawmakers and parents.

In order to make true progress on this issue, we must resist the fallacy of parental individualism – that what you choose for your own child is up to you alone. That it’s a personal, or family, decision to allow smartphones, or certain apps, or social media. But it’s not a personal decision. The choice you make for your family and your kids affects them and their friends, their friends' siblings, their classmates, and so on. If there is no general consensus around parenting decisions when it comes to tech, all kids are affected.

Keep ReadingShow less