As my grandfather used to say “I have never seen a safe full of $ in a funeral procession” and “cemeteries are full of indispensable people”. He had to quit school at 13 to work but was a wise man. Billionaires are an aberration. Period.
27
Don't we already have a billionaire businessman in the White House? How's that working out?
17
Not to worry. Hard to imagine Bloomberg eating corn dogs in Iowa.
12
I'm reminded of Ronald Reagan who famously proclaimed to a gathering in Berlin; "....Tear Down This WALL".
Do ya think maybe...................?
3
America is fed up with millionaire communists who spread hate, division and shameless class warfare.
6
Krugman is a smart guy but the truth he refuses to face is that 60 million plus people voted for Trump because they thought Trump really was a billionaire and had made all that money with his "genius" instead of with his father's nefarious schemes to get rich. And why do Trump supporters continue to believe Trump is qualified to be president? It’s because a ruthless billionaire named Rupert Murdoch allows FOX News to constantly lie to the public with their rubbish “news.” Billionaires are not a new criminal class. There have always been "the rich" in America, but our laws are so skewed in their favor that they keep getting richer while everyone else is stuck in financial quicksand. Ending Citizens United would be a good place to begin and controlling the Senate so real tax changes can be made would be a starting point. Warren can do both but not before hundreds, if not billions, of GOP dollars will be spent to turn her into some horrible "socialist" villain who is determined to fight for the working class while FOX News turns her into a gorgon to be roasted in hell. Do not underestimate FOX News and other right-wing media sources that make Bloomberg, Gates and even Bezos look like Boy Scouts compared to their hatred of real American values - honesty, fairness, regards for everyone even if they are "different” and a commitment to be one country where equality makes us stronger.
33
Medicare for All should be Medicare Advantage for All. It satisfies the insurance folks, keeps people employed, makes the transition smooth from private to public plans that we are familiar with - HMO, PPO, POS, etc.
8
Sorry, but the Presidency is not for sale to the richest bidder.
2
I don't know where Bloomberg gets his nerve running as a Democrat.
He should have just tried to Primary Trump and then lose against Warren who he is so afraid of and thinks is un-electable...
14
Billionaires kill democracy. Neoliberalism has led to the greatest disparity in wealth in human history. We can`t go on like this - just as we must reverse the drastic effects of man-made climate change we must reverse the socioeconomic division caused by rabid capitalism.
20
What, no mention of Donald Trump--the billionaire (at least he claims he is) con man President who has done incalculable damage to our country?
5
The echo chamber you describe is real. Having worked with MRB, his team is comprised of yes men who respect “the boss,” make sarcastic jokes about “the pitchforks” that will come for them in the absence of his charity, and know darn well where their bread is buttered. It also computes that in matters of policy and philanthropy, he mainly asks the opinions of those he currently funds or might potentially fund, thus never having to entertain a dissenting perspective. Bloomberg is yet another charlatan who will further disenfranchise the electorate and damage the credibility of democratic institutions.
5
The Russian Lenin--with his Marxist idea, that our elected political leaders are somehow controlled, behind the scenes, by a cabal of billionaires--teased an American supporter, Colonel Raymond Robins, in 1918, that Americans should, instead, elect the billionaires directly to high office. . . . "If you really believe in your banking system," Lenin asked him, "Why don't you send Mr. Morgan to your United States Senate? Why do you send men who know little about banking . . . and protect the bankers . . . and pretend to be independent of them? It is inefficient. It is insincere." A hundred years on, our billionaire class appears to be taking the arch revolutionary's advice.
10
You didn't seem to "get to Michael Bloomburg..."? Though I agree with the argument here, its seems like you hit your word limit for the column perhaps and didn't tie it back specifically to him as promised.
1
Typical left-wing bloviating by this bloviating Krugman. Why should a billionaire have to justify his wealth in terms of social utility? Many billionaires can demonstrate that they have added to the public weal by invention, employing thousands of workers, creating new products, etc. examples: Bloomberg, the Waltons, Gates, Zuckerberg, etc. But so what? Billionaires didn’t amass their wealth by stealing it from others. They needn’t justify themselves or their wealth. Zealous and bitter socialists like Krugman display envy and anger and malice. They should go back to their caves.
5
Krugman has become quit the mind reader, lately. He knows what billionaires, wall streeters and Bloomberg think. I prefer hard economic analysis to psychology, myself. But I am sure Krugman is confident in whatever he does since he gets his feedback from those that read his column. Based on the comments they are a bunch of whiners who want to take money from someone else and give it to themselves. As long as Krugman is on board with that, which he is, he will get a lot of support.
2
"Later that night: 1789"
Please, please, for the love of all things good, do NOT start the revolution without me
As I read up on Bloomberg, I can't help but notice what an opportunist he is and one who has no core values.
He was a lifelong Democrat...until he ran for mayor when he became a Republican. If he was such a great New York mayor, he did so as a Republican and I am surprised that Democrats want this for their nation. Then, he was an Independent and now, he is back to being a Democrat. He should just run on the Green Party and cover all of his bases.
The biggest difference between me and Michael Bloomberg is that my name is not found in Jeffrey Epstein's little black book.
5
When Donald Trump decided to run, there were countless comments, stories, articles about his inability to be elected. Yet look at where we are now.
The recent poll by the NY Times, even if it doesn’t really take into account the young voters, shows that he is not really being challenged by any Democrat so far in key states. Let’s be realistic: he could win again.
America doesn’t need billionaire saviors, but it has already elected one — and it’s very likely he will make it again. All the people hating Hillary cleared the path for his victory and it sure looks like they will help him again. Democrats really need to stand united and support the best possible option who can beat Trump. Sanders and Warren are too polarizing for the moderates and Biden comes with a lot of baggage. Who can really lead this race and challenge Trump? Let Bloomberg try his best.
6
As far as I can tell, Elizabeth Warren is worth something like $12,000,000. And the socialist (or is it "socialist"?) Vermonter, well, he's worth about $2,000,000. So it isn't as if these people are living the experiences they profess to care about. In truth, people who are far removed from the lived lives of everyday people can often have a strikingly accurate awareness of what those lives are like.
Virginia Woolf was born silver spoon in hand, but had no trouble seeing and depicting the lives of people whom she had little direct experience with, with striking accuracy. Poor people often care little about poverty, except as it concerns themselves; and they certainly don't see themselves as brothers in arms with members of other ethnicities or beliefs, in some great struggle against the Capitalist Class, no matter how often academics try to force-fit reality into their fictive categories.
I think it's a rather bad idea to assume that someone thinks a certain way or understands certain experiences, or doesn't, just because of his or her fortune. Leveling tendencies are ubiquitous in human history, but those who have them don't ipso facto serve the poor well. Such tendencies, in fact, serve no one well. Being pragmatic and practical, and understanding that social-justice impulses often lead to really bad economic policy, kinda matters in the real world.
Not every problem can be put down to "the rich."
3
And liberal economists who lean way left are producing what? Bloomberg may not be the answer but he will change the landscape if he runs. He has already.
5
Didn’t we already experience the “billionaire businessman” as president? In terms of the inflated stock market and millions of minimum wage jobs, he’s done ok but incarcerating children on the border, bankrupting individuals over healthcare care bills has been trump’s specialty. I think I am happy with Elizabeth Warren; she won’t get everything she talks about but I can’t have 4 more years of trump.
6
What would the Founding Fathers think about today's preponderance of billionaires? I am guessing not much, and they would most certainly ask the current SC in what way does allowing exorbitant wealth without estate taxes in any way an Originalist belief.
You do know we were opposed to allowing wealth to be passed along for generations as the antithesis of Democracy, as it will only end with a new ruling aristocracy.
1
In relative terms we’ve had billionaires for thousands of years.
There seem to be three trends, more or less related:
-The super wealthy have become much wealthier, which is to say they are accumulating much more money; the longer time goes on, the more they seem to have, to the extent that the 400 richest Americans collectively have over $1 trillion (put another way, that's $1,000,000,000,000).
-The vast middle class--characterized as those who have slightly more than enough for food, clothing, shelter and a few luxuries--have never been closer to ruin than now; 40% of the country can't cover a $400 unexpected expense with cash.
-As the middle class spends virtually every cent they can get their hands on, the wealthy are spending less and less, so in effect, these vast amounts of money are being taken out of the economy. And now, it turns out, that the middle class are paying more of a share of their income for taxes than the super wealthy.
Meanwhile, the country is falling apart at the seams and municipalities have taken to incarcerating ordinary citizens for being poor in order to balance their budgets stressed by all those tax cuts. Which, it appears, is just fine to 41% of voters.
9
I wonder when it will dawn on the majority of Americans will stop buying into the monied class' mantra of the need to "run government like a business." This is more of a slogan than a solution for government operations.
And can the 1% class really say their lives would be substantially worse off if they were worth $17 billion than $107 billion (here's looking at you, Bill Gates).
Frankly, I would just like the monied class to pay the same percentage of annual income (all income) in federal taxes as I do. Until Bush II's redefinition of dividends and interest income as "special protected income categories," only long-term capital gains was afforded a reduced special tax treatment. It is relatively simple to reclassify ordinary income into dividend or interest income, and escape the higher taxation of ordinary income.
3
Fear of communism led mid-20th century titans to relent in their profit hoarding and share some of the wealth in the form of health care and living wages. Today’s oligarchs are slower to recognize that inequality threatens them, too.
9
Today's oligarchs may look back from a more radical tomorrow and wish they had accepted a little Social Democracy before things got really hot for them.
3
Time to burst GOODY-TWO-SHOES' bubble...Maslow's hierarchy of needs does not put charity at the top of the list. The Bernie "Robespierre" Sanders crowd may think otherwise,but history has shown them to be wrong.
"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one.""An injury to one is an jnjury to all." "Unless a seed dies in the ground, it will not bear fruit." . . . . Solidarity, selflessness, working to benefit others, that is what people down the ages have always admired, not self seeking, egotistical selfishness.
2
The scales of Justice are unbalanced by the weight of great wealth.
Bloomberg abused the "Occupy Wall Street" demonstrators when he oversaw what he called his "Private Army", the N.Y.P.D., whom have always defended the rich to the loss of the middle class and poor. Cops always defend those with the money.
Trump, Bloomberg, Romney, Mercer, and all the political players will not allow us to win. They have our money. They have plans for force and have been trying to instigate chaos as an excuse to rule by the guns.
2
I want to see a billionaire tax. Or even a tens-of-millions millionaire tax.
Once upon a time, not so long ago, the top tax bracket was 90%.
We should bring that back and apply it to income earned by those who already have a huge net worth. For example, you're worth $10 million or more? Any new money you make, from whatever source derived, gets taxed at 90%.
7
@MIKEinNYC I agree with taxing profit/gains, not assets.
The difficulty level of making more money should go up as one gets richer, not down as it does now. 90% is fair but $10 million is a bit low for that rate.
1
The Real Estate industry adds value through the construction trades, but the financial derivatives and finance in general add very little if the money they spend is for the purpose of trading paper. Even the social media companies have not added any real value to our economy; Facebook is useless and worse malevolent, Google is becoming an updated version of the Yellow pages, and Amazon, while it actually promotes growth through shipping and warehousing is an update of yesteryear's mail order company.
2
There is no way that this economy can continue in its present form with its increasing inequality, and more importantly, with less real value being added through innovation.
At some future date and time, civil unrest and rebellion against an egregious capitalist system will bring the house down. Maybe not soon, but eventually unless serious reformation of capitalism takes place.
6
"socially liberal but economically conservative" is a non-sequitur, if not a contradiction in terms. It's like saying I want to address climate change, but I also want my private jet.
We, collectively, can either be politically free or economically free, not both. Total economic freedom (to exploit others and amass wealth) requires a non-democratic society. Total political freedom would require a kind of super democracy. The more democracy we have, the less economic exploitation (and thus billionaires) there can be.
Alas, the democracy we have is a kind of charade - we go through the required motions, and we have the necessary institutions, but it's been hollowed out and stripped of meaning.
3
Please correct my first comment with this:
Mr. Krugman says, " but because proposing the abolition of private insurance could unnerve tens of millions
of middle-class voters."
Yes, as long as the insurance co's say so. It's just a big bluff. Over here more people are swallowing that
in spite of being covered some 99% by Medicare for all. I say 99%, because you will have to pay abt
US$ 200.- before you'll have free care, free doctor and mostly free medicine. Even the Secretary of Health
confirmed that on TV today in the newsreel that private insurance is not necessary.
But you better pay some US$10.- to 15.- per month when travelling abroad as if being ill and hospitalized
you may otherwise will be charged you more than Medicare will cover.
A number of years ago I had the chance at a social gathering to ask a newly minted billionaire, founder of one of the big internet companies, how they had succeeded. They shared that they had a good idea, that they had worked hard ... but the fundamental reason they succeeded and so many other had failed is that at four distinct moments, four different external factors fell their way. External factors that hard work or smarts had no influence on. In other words, they got lucky, four times straight and ended up defeating their competitors and dominating the market.
I so appreciated their honesty and candor -- sure they were a part of it, but so much of their wealth/"success" was product of random luck. SImilar to the random luck of lottery winners.
And to that, why oh why do we as a society convey such moral value to billionaires or wealth in general? Especially extreme fortunes mostly created in the gambling game of venture capital, startups, and stock options. And why do we think this 'lucky class' has what it takes to run our country? Do we really want gamblers leading our nation?
4
Well played Paul. This will probably be the critical dilemma of our time along with Climate Change. You can have great wealth in the hands of a few or a Democracy. You cannot have both.
465
@Michael W. Espy Yes! You sure got this in a few words!
8
@Michael W. Espy Why can't we have both?
2
He governed NYC very well?
He sure did. Enough to get him a third term by manipulating the City Council and it’s rules. By re-zoning NYC and displacing many residents in favor to give his developer buddies more property in which to make a fortune. By nanny stating attempts on soda, but allowing Snapple to be sold in the schools. By totally mismanaging the school system because he’s so far removed from the realities of the economic and social stability needs of students and their families. By micromanaging the teachers and attacking the union by expanding charter schools to benefit his buddies invested in that type of education.
Arizona? You have no idea.
3
I thought the Democrats were all saying with one voice, we want a candidate that can beat Trump?
Really? The few votes that Bloomberg might pick up here and there will be greatly outnumbered by those who stay home because they are uninspired. That would be the youth vote, the minority vote - especially the blacks who form the heart of our party - and any liberal Democrat who is looking wants to see inequality reduced, not reinforced.
2
Dr. Krugman, I'm afraid you're in a bit of a bubble yourself, the one in which you imagine the average American is so enamored of private insurance that the very idea of Medicare for all keeps them awake at night. Stop drinking the GOP Kool-Aid. How many people do you know that, upon qualifying for Medicare, decide that they'd rather keep on forking over $700 or $800 a month in addition to co-pays and spending caps, versus $135 per month for Medicare Part B? Part A is free. Do the math. Insurance companies have introduced unnecessary complexity and bureacracy into the system of healthcare delivery and it only benefits them. In fact, as someone who has recently started on Medicare, I can tell you that while it isn't perfect, the only snags I've encountered are with the private Medicare Advantage (or part C) insurer. Nothing but trouble. It took 10 minutes to fill out the paperwork for Medicare, both part A & B. 10 days later, I had a decision, and my Medicare card. It took hours of wading through insurance company jargon & doubletalk to finally decide on a part C plan. That was nearly a month ago, and I'm still trying to straighten it out. Kick out private insurers except for cosmetic procedures or things like private suites. And tightly regulate them. They're parasites & they've been feeding on the healthcare system for too long. Instead of imagining insurance separation anxiety, start making the case for a system free of corporate corruption.
10
the wealth disparity today compares to those times in European history when a recession produced revolution.
We MUST cap the rich. Better for the affluent to pay some money they don't really need in taxes than have their houses burned down.
Time for the rich to wake up and pay a little back.
4
Mike Bloomberg maybe sincere in his desire to prevent Donald Trump from being reelected. And he's quite concerned about Joe Biden's weak debate performance. So he convinced himself to become the "savior." But this altruism is tightly mixed with his ego, to relish the trappings of the presidency.
However, in yesterday's CNN Townhall meeting Biden performed quite commendably. If he announces a younger running mate indirectly at least early enough, he should be able to take the nomination, away from Elizabeth Warren.
1
Fuggitbout the numbers behind this guy's name. I'll vote for him because he governed NYC very well. He happens NOT to be just another lawyer/senator that is good at telling us what we want to hear. Any man or woman that can actually, pragmatically govern would be quite a (positive) change...and boy-howdy, do we ever need such.
45
@jwillmann
Maybe, but I have no idea what he wants to do policywise.
“I am a moderate” is not enough by any stretch of imagination, it is just silly.
6
@CarolinaJoe The man has literally written books laying out in detail what he wants to do policy-wise. Check out his book "Climate of Hope" regarding his ideas for responding to global warming. And if that is not enough, he had 12 years of public policy experience and decisions that you can analyze, while he ran the City of New York (which, if it was a state, would be the 4th largest in the country). And if that is not enough, he has written dozens of opinion pieces on Bloomberg Views, describing his policy ideas on everything from Brexit, to healthcare, to DACA, to polio vaccines. In reality, you would be hard-pressed to find a candidate that has better documented what he wants to do policy-wise.
10
I agree - and, while South Bend is at the opposite end of the governing-at-scale spectrum, Mayor Pete fits your criterion nicely. That’s to take nothing away from Mike Bloomberg, who has a lot to offer as well. But there’s a lot to be said for a smart, pragmatic, empathetic veteran-leader who’s under 40...
7
The question is "Do they know?" The real rot caused by inequality is affecting the entire economy. Those best shielded by their wealth don't seem to see the writing on the wall. The big picture is bleak, but finance and property are outside the framework. Ancient infrastructure, soaring costs of basics, etc. are essentially undermining the future.
Wealth is tricky. Asset values can crash, hard, in financial turmoil. Real money gets wiped out when an economy hits a crunch. 2008 was the first time the entire middle class, which was wealthy by any standards, had been hit by a major meltdown, and it didn't do well.
At that time, the super-rich stuck their noses out of their palaces and said, "Oh, did something happen...Oh, is that all?" and that was it. They didn't think it was a problem for them, and that level of disconnect is a serious issue. Worse, they didn't see any ramifications in a truly mangled capital asset base for so many people, and obviously didn't think it could happen to them. It's hard to believe these guys, good or at least not mediocre as human beings, really get the message and see the future risks clearly.
All due respect to Mr. Bloomberg, and at least he's a real billionaire, not somebody who swipes millions from charity, but The Lone Billionaire isn't the fix as a credible image. The sharp savvy guy who knows the economy, his other forte, is the better working model.
2
Mr. Krugman says, " but because proposing the abolition of private insurance could unnerve tens of millions of middle-class voters."
Yes, as long as the insurance co's say so. It's just a big bluff. Over here more people are swallowing that in spite of being covered some 99% by Medicare for all. Even the Secretary of Health say 99%, because you will have to pay abt US$ 200.- before you'll have free care, free doctor and mostly free medicine. Even the Secretary of Health confirmed that on TV today in the newsreel that private Insurance is not necessary.
But you better pay some US$10.- to 15.- per month when travelling abroad as if being ill and hospitalized you may otherwise will charged you more than Medicare will cover.
1
"So, do billionaires in general make vast contributions to society?"
Look at Jared and Ivanka, they are good examples of billionaires who have contributed absolutely nothing to society.
5
If people understood Medicare For All, they would know they can go to virtually any doctor, including the doctors they currently see. They will have no premiums, no deductibles, no co-pays, and no bills. They will not have to get prior approval for procedures. They will not have to pay for their medications. They can go to the dentist and eye doctor without having to pay anything. They can even see a psychologist, psychiatrist, or other mental health professional without any out of pocket costs.
This should sound pretty good to everyone, including people who like their insurance.
I am one of those people. My wife's employer has an excellent policy . But we still pay around $5,000 out of pocket for our family of 4. I'd rather pay that in taxes and know we won't lose or have to change coverage if my wife loses her job.
Meanwhile all Republicans have to offer is, well,.... Nothing.
10
Why is everyone getting hysterical about Medicare for all? It can't happen unless and until Congress passes it into law. By then it will be sliced and diced, like President Obama's plan.
Meantime, most of western Europe has medical care, and sometimes, housing, for everyone, and not wasting money on a wall.
2
People are fed up with wealth inequality. A trillion dollars to bail out Wall Street and not a dime for Main Street. The message was clear: if you’re a huge multinational corporation then you get bailed out under the premise of being ‘too big to fail.’ Everyone else doesn’t matter.
117
@Mike L
With all respect, that's wrong.
There was a bipartisan agreement to bail out the banks, when they were all failing simultaneously and the economy was losing each month 100,000 jobs more than the previous month, simply because that was objectively the only way to avoid a Great Depression.
A bailout, however, is a LOAN.
And as soon as Obama took over, he made the banks pay back within a couple of years already, AND with interests.
So the government ended up with MORE money than what it had lent.
Obama then added the Recovery act. The bailout was twice an amount of $400 billion. The Recovery Act was $878 billion. And THAT money wasn't a loan, but direct tax credits, tax cuts (50% of it) and subsidies (the other 50%) to Main Street.
It's both taken together, the CBO has shown, that has allowed Obama to turn a -8% GDP into a decade-long, steadily growing +2% GDP (annual average; he had quarterly results of +4% too), and to turn an economy that was shedding 700,000 jobs a month when he came in, into an economy that added jobs for the longest consecutive period in decades. Today still, you don't see ANY Trump dent in the evolution of the unemployment rate at all (and Trump of course didn't create an annual +4% GPD either, contrary to what he promised ...).
And then there's Obamacare, which increases taxes on the wealthiest and saves an additional half a million American lives a decade.
Truth matters ...
23
@Mike L
"Bailing out Wall Street" is not just sending a check to finance companies in Manhattan. The federal government's actions saved a multi-trillion dollar world economy by providing some backup grease to unlock the fear in the system. Anyone living in the country benefited in some way, either directly or indirectly. If you owned any stock or had any retirement account, you definitely benefited. If you had a mortgage, you benefited. If you bought groceries or used an ATM that year, you benefited. And this idea that Main Street did not benefit from the absurdly lenient monetary policy of the past 12 years is ludicrous. Let's also be clear that hundreds of thousands, if not millions, were cheerily "earning" money flipping homes and property without much guilt before the collapse of the entire credit/mortgage sham system. Those flippers with no-income verification loans were as much a cause as any Wall Streeter.
6
@Ana Luisa ... then why did the richest get richer during 'their' bailout and the working class' income barely improved?
How did the wealthiest tax increase from O-care?
I love the man O to this day, who I voted for twice, but his infrastructure plan to provide jobs was a mess and fell flat.
Truth matters to one who states such, which is relative to their perception, its relative. Its your truth.
4
What about if the "lefties" end accepting the presence of high cost private health insurance companies that the rich may use? Would this made them more acceptable to the US public?
2
Fiscal conservatism paired with social liberalism results in mainly lip service rather than actual solutions to our problems.
2
Anyone who's managed to become a billionaire has had at least a shot at living a pretty darned good life. That's why they'll be OK when the rest of us take every cent, minus a modest 'thank you' stipend, and put it towards useful things. Thanks, billionaires, for gathering all that money together. And good luck to you.
4
I´ve said before. Fritz Lang´s film Metropolis should de shown in all elementary schools along the country.
3
I’m not likely to vote for a person when confronted with a two term limit as mayor defied the will of the people and served a third term.
By the way all the “charity” that billionaires “ give” away, it’s a tax dodge, they get to choose who gets the money instead of the government, and often they make truly stupid choices.
They aren’t giving away their money, they’re giving away the taxpayers money and taking credit for it.
14
With regard to the suggestion that medicare for all could "unnerve tens of millions of voters," I would suggest that such voters must be people who have not yet aged into the current medicare. Once I aged in, my insurance cost (which was relatively modest thanks to my wife's early retirement plan) dropped substantially. The only thing I don't like about medicare is that we must buy Part C and D coverage from private insurers. The Bernie/Liz programs would expand medicare to eliminate the need for such private coverage and we would find ourselves in the lovely situation of the French or the Dutch. If "tens of millions" are unnerved by such a prospect, a little research or education would eradicate their concerns. The only losers in such an arrangement are big health insurance, big pharma, and big alleged "nonprofit" health care providers, all of whom should get honest jobs.
8
We're no looking for a billionaire per se. That's a distortion of the truth. We're looking for someone of stature, competence, strength and the ability to put trxmp out to pasture. If that's a billionaire, so be it. Making income or wealth an issue is no different than making ethnicity, gender or national origin an issue. I may very well support Bloomberg, I don't know. But I know, by virtue of his status, he won't run afoul of the emoluments clause.
5
The basis for the money of every person of wealth is in exploitation of those who make and/or buy their products or being fortunate at gambling. So, basically, they got to be ultra rich from being lucky, charging too much, or paying too little.
5
From my viewpoint, the Bloomberg candidacy is America's chain saw nightmare - somebody clones Trump, grabs a chain saw, cuts the clone down to 5'2"; and we get to choose between the two greedy creatures in 2020. Nice!
4
Watch the movie comedy "Trading Places" to see how the rich view the world.
2
Hey, the evidence is out there right now. Donald Trump claims to be a "billionaire". (that may or may not be true since he is a notorious liar and nothing Trump says can be accepted as fact). Assuming Trump is a billionaire, we can definitely say that this billionaire has diminished American society much more than any president since the nation was founded.
2
Medicare for All can work if the individual $138 I pay per month is also paid by all participants. Keep Medicare Advantage plans, too, and the medical insurance industry will not be decimated. I’d like to hear Sanders or Warren, or any of the candidates talk about this.
1
If Amazon paid every employee $10 more per hour from 1995, the cost would amount to less than $42 billion*, less than half Jeff Bezos current net worth of $100 billion.
He may have needed the money back in 1995, but he doesn’t today, which is why Elizabeth Warren is asking him to chip in now with a wealth tax.
If he had paid employees significantly more, the business culture would have changed and more companies would have paid more - in order to get good employees. Employees would have paid more taxes and probably put more money in the marketplace. We might not have needed a wealth tax.
Fortunately for Bezos going forward, he can save on his future wealth taxes by significantly raising employee wages, today.
(*Sum of # of employees per year * 1800 avg. annual hours per employee * $10)
5
@Art Dream on. Bezos has recently cut health care benefits to almost 2,000 part-time workers at Whole Foods. “to better meet the needs of our business..." This just weeks after he signed on to a Business Roundtable statement pledging to invest in workers, including "providing important benefits."
I honestly don't understand how he can look at himself in the mirror. It's absolutely disgusting.
11
@Art - Bezos called Bloomberg a couple of months ago and asked him to run. Then, he spent a million dollars locally to defeat the Democratic Socialist city-councilwoman who was protesting against him and the lack of taxes his company pays.
1
Whether it's Bloomberg, we need to win. Warren, Bernie and perhaps Biden and Buttigieg don't stand a chance in the battleground states. All the rest (one of whom I would definitely vote for) won't win in the primaries.
Bloomberg, being a social liberal and fiscal conservative IMHO has the best chance of defeating Trump. As usual, the Dems have put themselves in a circular firing squad and will only have themselves to blame if Trump gets 4 more years.
Anyone but Trump might require a compromise.
3
I'm going to blame the people who voted for that maniac if he gets 4 more years. Why is it never their fault?
Krugman is wrong that the fiscal conservatism/social liberalism combination lacks "popular appeal." A substantial number of Americans agree with that worldview (which even Krugman recognizes is "perfectly coherent"). The problem is that there is no political infrastructure to support it, which is really more of an accident of the historical evolution of our two-party system than anything else. Stanford political scientist Jonathan Rodden explains this dynamic quite well in his recent book, "Why Cities Lose." As Rodden points out, in many other countries that do not adhere rigidly to a two-party system (e.g., Australia), there is a socially liberal, fiscally conservative option for voters, and that party usually does quite well, particularly in affluent parts of cities and inner-ring suburbs.
On this point, economist Krugman should have consulted a political scientist.
3
@oregon_trail Fiscally conservative and socially liberal - I agree - is how most people classify themselves. Nearly everyone wants to spend money efficiently (and most will leave their neighbors free to do as they want).
Mr. Krugman is defining fiscal conservatism here specifically as 'against major tax increases on the wealthy and big expansion of social programs". - These two items aren't popular. No one rallies to 'Let's Raise Taxes" but they do to "Free College".
Medicare for All will save Americans money - we spend twice the global per person average - this is fiscal conservatism. And its social liberal - you can see any healthcare provider you want.
1
To give a sense of the extreme wealth of the top billionaires I did some back of the envelope calculations. If Jeff Bezos, valued at around $112 billion, spent $1 million every day - 365 days a year - it would take just under 307 years to exhaust his fortune. Why should any one person be allowed to amass this much wealth?
9
Why is bloomberg's wealth his defining characteristic.
He was a very good mayor. Very eloquent and obviously cares about people. Just saying. Some of us vote for the man not the optics.
5
@The Ed - lol, New Yorkers tell me Rudy was a good mayor, too. I think maybe New York needs to raise its bar:)
6
For those who don't remember; "ending roughly in 1980" happens to coincide with the beginning of Ronald Reagan and "trickle down" voodoo economics. Just wait to see what happens to inflation due to the ballooning deficit when the current clown is out of office.
4
I worry in particular about the politics of Medicare for All, not because of the cost, but because proposing the abolition of private insurance could unnerve tens of millions of middle-class voters.
How so?
The abolition of private insurance is forced upon millions of middle-class voters every year ... when they turn 65.
Or are there tens of millions of people over 65 that still have private insurance that I don't know about?
....
In the last 30 years, Big Business coopted Unions by letting them gain control of the health insurance companies that service their members. That's the politics that Mr. Krugman fears.
As for everone in those unions and everyone else in society - we all will go on Medicare and usually at first opportunity. I know quite a few people right now waiting on it in order to retire.
3
@Tim Kane Good point Tim - at 65 we say goodbye to current insurance. And thanks, I hadn't thought about the unions losing their edge with health insurance changes. I think Mr. Krugman is right that voters feel 'unnerved'.
We need to counter the unnerving, and give voters confidence and courage about Medicare4All. No changes come between you and healthcare providers. The proposed change is only where to send our health coverage premiums. What voter loves their insurance premiums? Maybe the billionaire for whom this cost is like a splinter, while it’s a cancer for the minimum wager.
Not all billionaires are the same. Let's wait and see what Mr. Bloomberg has to say as a candidate and then we can condemn his candidacy or endorse it, my money is on endorsing.
5
Bloomberg 2020 is clearly the best way to both beat Trump and get meaningful things done for the US and the world at-large starting in January 2021.
Do Americans want continued polarization or not? If the climate is totally destroyed, because of tribal politics, what is achieved? Republicans, Democrats, and Independents all need to come together if great things are going to happen before time runs out.
Bloomberg 2020 makes the most sense to me.
4
@Doug M - What on earth is Bloomberg going to do about global warming? Hop into his helicopter and fly around New York burning 72 gallons of fuel per hour because he is too good for the subway? Fly his private jet to his Barbados home twice a month because he is to good to hitch a ride on Greta Thunberg's boat? Hop into his gas guzzling cars rather than buy a Tesla (he can actually afford one and has the money to install recharge stations all the way to Barbados).
Like Trump, he sees one thing - money.
4
@tom harrison
You might benefit from looking at what Obama recently said about woke purity etc.
Bloomberg has more potential to do good in this regard -as president- than anybody else on the planet. Dismiss him at your peril.
Also, do you really think that Bloomberg, at his age, needs to run for president to protect his status as a very wealthy individual? Come on – any wealth tax that somebody like Elizabeth Warren could put forth wouldn’t make a dent in Bloomberg‘s lifestyle or desires.
I’m an independent centrist who feels politically homeless. Bloomberg has the best chance to help the country and the world. Sorry, but I’m convinced of this. Purist rigid ideology on the left or the right won’t change my mind.
Bloomberg is definitely the most adult person in the room. He’s a serious player who could do a lot of good and bring people together to get things done.
Bloomberg 2020!
3
Mr. Krugman. It isn't that Bloomberg is a billionaire. It's that he is a centrist with sound policies and a vision for the future. He also happens to be an excellent leader -- which made him a billionaire.
5
The sign on a neighbor's lawn says it well "Any coherent and rational Adult in 2020". Krugman completely misses the point behind Bloomberg's potential run. He wants to make sure that Trump loses and he is willing to do what it takes to make that happen. You can only imagine how happy Trump is to see all these columnists condemning Bloomberg. They help him move one step closer to a second term.
6
@Jim Sherriff - Just one month ago, almost everyone in these comments swore up and down that only Joe Biden could beat Trump..and now everyone is abandoning Uncle Joe thanks to Trump and his Ukraine call.
2
@tom harrison
No, I abandoned Biden due to his stumbling debate performances, lack of new ideas, and failure to grasp that today's Republican party does not want to work with him on anything.
2
If a brain surgeon earns 20 times as much as me, it makes sense (skill, education, supply / demand). However, the wealth of Jeff Bezos is one million times the wealth of an average American his age. Obviously that's absurd; no one can be that smart or productive. Our internet economy, high-speed stock trading algorithms, have made a laughingstock of Adam Smith's invisible hand. The worst part is the leverage that multi-billionaires have to make unilateral bad decisions affecting the rest of humanity (cf: Koch brothers and climate change).
15
@ghsalb Very good observation. What I would like to add is that our system allows it. If I take money from my 401K account I have to pay regular taxes on it, and a lot of it is a capital gain accumulated over time. If, let's say Mr. Bezos has a capital gain, he pays different (reduced) rate on it. I wonder when the populace will wake up and realize that "we the people" pay for all the wars, bailouts, wasted money, military, and God knows what
7
@ghsalb - I disagree on your first sentence but then I get called all kinds of names for my economic beliefs.
If a culture, like New York, wants pizza delivery and Starbucks everywhere requires a LOT of menial labor. We either pay these people a lower standard of life claiming that those jobs were not meant to live on or we guarantee that everyone lives a good life in our society.
I live in Seattle and if every barista in the city quit their job today so they could become surgeons, Amazon would come to a screeching halt.
Our immigration/border mess is due to our society always wanting cheap labor so we can live the good life. Some American dream.
Doctors talked to me about brain surgery a few years back. I stopped them mid-sentence and said, "no way I would let Ben Carson cut my head open and he is your best". I can go without brain surgery. But I type this sipping a mocha breve and I could not start my day without such signs of a rich culture.
No one in our society does anything that is of more value than others. If you start down that hole then you can wake up one day without delis, pizza parlors, Chinese takeout, and the like.
We have poor people simply because we have mentally ill people called billionaires who hoard...and they are never content in acquiring more junk.
3
With all due respect to Krugman the economist, the coming election is about "saving America and saving the world" from the danger that Trump poses - impulsive and vindictive, his "fire and fury, locked and loaded" mentality. John Kelly and Rex Tillerson saw "the danger" up close, and they wanted to save the country. Erratic behavior in the White House is an embarrassment, but it can also be a tragedy if the country is drawn into a military misadventure.
5
Take my situation for example. Almost 40 years ago, my husband and I were building a retirement home with a $50,000 bank loan and got it weather tight, all plumbed ad electrified, super insulated and a wood furnace next to the natural gas. we had finally made it. Our children would now be solidly middle class in the town where we made our home for a decade.
This attracted the element that saw we were without power, no connections, no relatives, and the social worker I spoke to used my complaints to undermine my life, using suggestions and coercive hypnosis to remove us from our home. The bank told my husband he could not do body work in the basement, and even tho we had not considered any law suit against the school for a brain trauma my 7 year old suffered, we were shooed out of town. We were current on our $300 monthly mortgage payment, even felt low stress being able at last to have breathing room. The future looked bright.
This could only have happened if there was collusion between social workers, the cops and even the town elements like the bank. Of course, I cannot prove it. That's why they chose us. That and the fact they consoled themselves with my body man husband being able to work in any junk building--exactly what I complained to the social worker about--and teach the boys body work---the Dalit trade of America---they only had to get rid of me to make it work. Unlimited power exercised by limited people.
The more scared the billionaire class gets of Warren, the more convinced I am that she is the right person for the job.
23
@R - Its having the same effect on me.
3
I do not know if we can categorize the rich in straight terms. Kennedy had wealth but a healthy skepticism to his social class. Obama had little wealth but a pedigree of education and closeness to the middle and lower classes. And both political smarts and ability to connect. Some people rise to the challenge of leadership, money or not. Having your own airplane is convenient but does not impress me. That is true.
9
Forbes estimates Elizabeth Warren's net worth at $12 million, give or take. I realize that this is not billionaire level wealth, but it's not exactly your everyday working class level, either. So at what level is a person's overall wealth too much to be in touch with the common person? She's not exactly missing any meals or mortgage payments, is she?
7
@nyshrubbery Most or many of us Warren &/or Bernie supporters aren't saying that everyone should make $15/hour. The point is to tax fairly.
Bloomberg should not be dismissed because he is a successful businessman. He demonstrates the capacity to right a wrong. Steady a sinking ship - which this Country currently is. To those who beat Hillary with the "not progressive enough" stick - you are equally responsible for the current nightmare. Don't do the same in 2020.
10
Paul is right about billionaires. Credible scientific studies have verified it. Power and wealth corrupts. If one can sidestep the corruption, one will still suffer from epic blind spots. What Bill Gates said the other day was beyond silly. All the same, Gates is good people. And so is Elizabeth Warren--who should, in my view, stop behaving like a Sanders minion. I like her precisely because of the entirety of her record which the Sanders peeps are now pillorying her for. As for Michael Bloomberg, he is a legitimate candidate. His policies vis-à-vis gun control, women's rights (i.e., abortion), among other things, are more progressive than Sanders'. He was a successful mayor of one of the largest cities in the world. He started from nothing and built a successful company. Speaking of which, the house that Bill Gates grew up in is (was) just down the street from us. A little white bungalow on 1/8th of an acre that looked to be all of 2,000 square feet in size. At the time that neighborhood was still mostly folks from the naval base just down the hill. Bill was born into a family that believed in education--that is, he was born into opportunity--but he was not born into ostentatious wealth or privilege. Bill has blind spots also because (in my view) he is somewhere on the autism scale.
The scientific literature on power is covered nicely here:
https://www.npr.org/2018/06/29/624607771/who-gets-power-and-why-it-can-corrupt-even-the-best-of-us
6
@Robert - lol, a "little white bungalow of about 2,000 sq ft" in Laurelhurst still costs about 2 million dollars. I just checked the real estate listings for the neighborhood.
William Henry Gates III grew up wealthy by anyone's standards. His father was a prominent attorney and his mother was on the board of directors for First Interstate BancSystem and The United Way of America. His grandfather was a national bank president. He went to a private prep school.
Bloomberg doesn't consider the first few primary elections (and by extension the voters who live there) as worth his time and energy. His analytic style may win some minds but no way is he winning any hearts... And if you haven't noticed, that's kind of what this political moment is all about. I hope Bloomberg loses a fortune on his failed campaign and in doing so, learns a good life lesson about human behavior. He sorely needs it.
6
Support, donate, and vote Warren 2020.
We already have way too many of these giant egos.
11
This country doesn’t need a ‘savior’ of any sort, rich or poor.
Billionaires are like rock stars or movie stars. A few individuals get immense rewards because of a major success, and the rest of the musicians and actors go hungry for want of a paying gig. Feast or famine, and the feasters are celebrated for their superiority.
5
One of the main problems we have as Americans is that we confuse wealth with wisdom. Wealth is no qualification for political office in no small part because the wealthy often know the cost of everything but the value of nothing...to anyone but themselves
11
The Democratic Presidential Primary does need a billionaire who publishes his taxes.
Bloomberg is quite probably a real billionaire and having his tax declaration in the public record would be an effective contrast to Trump's evasions.
My guess is that a true tax declaration by Trump would reveal him to be a money launderer who is not a billionaire.
3
Why don't we do the bidding for the office of President just as we do for other governance issues? Let us invite bids for POTUS and obviously only the richest of the rich can qualify to bid. The highest bidder (so far, 13 billion dollars bid by Bloomberg) will have to deposit the amount in cash by November 4th in to the US Treasury. Perhaps, we could do the real business deal honoring globalization- invite bidders from all over the world. We might get a much higher bid that way. Of course, POTUS will have to pay from his/her pocket for renting the White House, the President's plane, and for all the security expenses and travel and for maintenance and staff salaries.
And then do the same for all the cabinet positions and for SCOTUS positions. At least, we can raise some revenue for the public infrastructure.
At least, the whole process can be wholly transparent. Of course, same process for the Senate and the Congress!
4
I have no interest in defending billionaires. But this column has some questionable assertions.
There is no doubt the U.S. economy was humming for much of the post WWII period through the 1960's. After all. WWII destroyed Europe and Japan, China and India were still slumbering. The U.S. stood supreme.
But Prof. Krugman suggests this was because of higher taxes on the rich. Taxes were lowered during President Reagan's term in the 1980's.
As a senior citizen I can attest to the fact that the 1970's were not so good, despite higher taxes on the rich. Unemployment, GDP growth and inflation proved problematic. Contrary to Prof. Krugman's assertions,
"The growth in multifactor productivity showed two distinct patterns: 2.0 percent
per year from 1948 to 1973, but only 0.1 percent per year from 1973 to 1981." Bureau of labor Statistics.
So don't be so certain higher taxes will cure everything. In fact ongoing globalization has helped the poor in much of the world, just not in the U.S.
2
@David Rapaport
Essentially, 1941 thru 1972 were the age of demand side economics. In 1972-1973 we ran into demand side saturation. So 1970s was transition era.
When you get too much demand relative to supply, you get inflationary recessions (stagflation per 1970s). At that point more demand side policy bias will not be efficacious. At that point you have to switch to supply side bias - which we did in 1981.
In 1998 we hit supply side saturation. Policies that favor supply at that point are no longer efficacious - you get deflationary/lowflationary recessions. Also you get investment bubbles - because there's too much supply there's low ROI on investment so when some subsector does offer high ROI money floods into it creating a bubble - such was the case in 1998 dot com investment bubble.
We should have switched back to demand side policy bias in 1998-2001 instead Bush poured the coals on supply and that lead to the Great Recession.
Essentially we are 20 years late on implementing demand side bias. The only candidate advocating such in 2016 was Sanders. When an Economist put his program thru the standard model it generated growth off the charts. Meanwhile millenials are getting tired of working at starbucks just to get health insurance.
Ultimately demand comes from wages, so demand bias policies put upward pressure on wage by granting workers greater bargaining power. At your age, I'm sure you remember the vigor of the 1960s. It can be that way once again.
3
As you point out, the beginning of the end for the growth in working/middle class wealth was years before 1980.
But designating 1980 as the beginning gives more rhythm to Krugman's various polemics.
2
Ethics/Morality/Values, what have you, are a middle class characteristic: the poor can't afford them & the rich don't need them.
Poor & rich people that exhibit middle class values/ethics/morality become 'middle class heros' like Horatio Alger or from the other end of the spectrum Warren Buffet.
In the middle class Catholic church I attend they occasionally bring in speakers to hammer home the anti-abortion message from time to time & plenty of people in the pews shake their head up & down. They don't bother sending the same speaker down into the ghetto nor out to lecture the folks in the Hamptons. That bate won't work in those waters with those kinds of fish. They're trying to nudge the overton window on abortion to the right & that only stands a chance in the middle class where people don't always vote their self interests out of concern for ethics/morality/values.
The GOP has 1 prime directive: the ever greater concentration of wealth&power on behalf of the wealthy&powerful. To win elections they have to get people to vote against their self interest. They used to do that by posing as protectors of middle class morality.
Back in 2013 or 14 the U.S. census announced that the middle class had fallen below 50% for the first time in decades: a milestone measuring GOP success @ concentrating wealth but I wondered how the GOP would ever win elections w/out a 50%+ as middle class ethics seekers.
The answer came in 2016: Trump. The Trumps of the world are their new reality.
4
@Tim Kane I guess you think billionaires are Republicans. So what about Soros, Cuban, Steyer, Bloomberg, etc?
@Jackson
Of course I don't think all billionaires are GOPers. See "It's a Wonderful Life" - its a primer on American civics. Not all the rich are Mr. Potters, some are Sam Wainwrights.
Those folks are a version of the middle class heroes I mentioned above.
The GOP is really only the home to Money&Power junkies.
Most of the affluent are at least vaguely aware that concentration of wealth is the greatest destroyer of civilizations, empires, and great states (See the fall of Rome in Nobel Laureate D. North's "Structure & Change in Econ History" pages 100-115). (Also see Ancient Egypt's New Kingdom, Byzantium before 1071, Medieval Japan, Hapsburg Spain, Bourbon France, Romanov Russia, Coolege/Hoover America [triggering the Great Depression, rise of Naziism, WWII, Holocost], Bush II triggering the Great Recession).
But Junkies have to have another hit from the power&money crack pipe and anyone that' known an addict, knows they can spawn endless justifications for their doing so - they have so many resources that they spawn entire industries & media empires to panhandle them. The difference between most junkies & Power&Money junkies is that the latter never hit rock bottom, instead all of society does as the list of collapsed empires above would suggest.
I'll ask: Why isn't multifactor productivity more relevant to our current political discussion? That's not a technological question. MFP is at the heart of all our inequality concerns. We're theoretically working more efficiently and producing more. However, you wouldn't know it from our typical household's economic duress. What gives?
I can remote into work in a way unimaginable in 1980. And yet, somehow, I lead a less secure life than my parents. I'm more likely to die young. My children are uncertain to inherent a habitable planet at all. Technology is clearly not the responsible party. Problematic but not determinate.
So where is this cherished bubble that exudes such influence? I have a bag of feathers and I'm heating up the tar,
3
@Andy Why are you more likely to die young?
Bloomberg is several cuts above the billionaires Krugman describes. Bloomberg has done a lot of good. He made his money supplying financial data to Wall Street, not by working in the financial industry.
4
Exploitation of wage and salary workers is built into the capitalist system. They all produce the value of their wages in a mere fraction of the time they work, the rest is confiscated by a system of legalized robbery known as capitalism. There is no such thing as benevolent capitalism. That's a fairy tale promoted by all of organs of the capitalist political state from birth to death. See www.slp.com for economic democracy.
9
Thank you, you are so right B!
2
@Bernard
In history, the concentration of wealth preceded the collapse of Ancient Egypt's New Kingdom, Rome (west), Byzantium (Rome East in the 50 year run up to 1071), medieval Japan, Hapsburg Spain, Bourbon France, Romanov Russia, Coolidge/Hoover America (triggering the rise of Hitler, WWII, Holocost), Bush II (triggering Great Recession) - call it the doom continuum.
The 18th and early 19th century saw the introduction of a combination of liberalism + rule by law + free contract + capitalism (using money as investment to make money) + industrialism + ltd liability corporation.
This was a bold new age of progress. So the question was, had humanity escaped the Doom Continuum? This is the topic that Marx cast his analytical eye upon. What he found was that in industrial capitalism, ROI was 4% while economic growth was only around 2%. This meant that the new age was still subject to the Doom Continuum. Marx's analysis was fairly highly nuanced, though his Rx were less so - but he did believe that disequilibrium could be mitigated. Keynes however did provide a more nuanced Rx to mitigate against the disequlibrium (which we did for some time with strong unions, high taxes, high estate taxes and a higher inflation sealing target point). For Marx having pointed out the disequalibrium, the right has had nothing but emnity for him - as if he had not point it out it wouldn't be true. Its the classic shoot the messenger. Most of Warren or Sanders Rxs would be very helpful.
@Bernard I think you mean www.slp.org
The more I think about the problem of vast wealth and it's damaging effects on democracy, the more progressive taxation makes sense. From their personal lives to their personalities, it's clear to me that billionaires barely (if ever) know what's best for themselves, much less for America. Centralizing wealth in their hands is irresponsible. I believe a government by the people, for the people is a much better custodian.
At some point along the way, we Americans forgot that the American Dream isn't about earning a billion dollars. It's about living a meaningful life with your family. It's about having leisure time to spend with that family. And yes, it's about owning a decent home and having a job you enjoy, but not necessarily five mansions and a seven figure salary. It's about Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness, none of which require a billion dollars, or any significant wealth at all really.
Stop idolizing wealth, America. It's an unhealthy obsession. Tax the billionaires and use that wealth to rebuild our crumbling public infrastructure and services so the 99% of us who aren't billionaires will have more freedom to pursue the real American Dream.
9
I remember George W. Bush saying after his disastrous invasion of Iraq that the Iraqi oil was a national resource that would be used for the benefit of all Iraqis. I wondered why it should be any different in the US?
8
American aristocracy (the landed gentry and the Robber Barons) are much much worse than the hereditary British aristocracy by any measure. Magna Carta of 1215, charted by the barons and forced the king to sign it, "declaring the sovereign to be subject to the rule of law and documenting the liberties held by “free men,” the Magna Carta provided the foundation for individual rights in Anglo-American jurisprudence."
But we put our "elected" President above the rule of law and immune to criminal indictment and prosecution even when he violates our Constitution with impunity. He even claimed that he could shoot and kill a man on 5th Avenue and not lose a single vote or be subject to criminal prosecution!
6
@Subhash Reddy You have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. King John was forced to sign it but then totally ignored it. And violations of the Constitution are you referring to? American aristocracy is not referred to as landed gentry since millions of us own homes - that’s a British thing.
As one of the 30 million Americans who are too poor to afford the health insurance policies offered on our states' "Affordable" Care Act exchanges -- yet too "rich" to qualify for reduced premiums -- I am not the least bit "unnerved" by the idea of abolishing private health insurance. Far from it.
14
@Frank F
If you can afford rent or a mortgage in Santa Monica, why should you get reduced prices on anything?
The rest of us are supposed to subsidize you living at the beach?
Puh-leaze...
No, we don't need a tycoon savior.
We need another peanut farmer.
301
@Panthiest And if that peanut farmer happens to also be a nuclear physicist, all the better.
Carter was criticized for being too technocratic and relying too heavily on executive orders instead of legislative initiatives. That criticism may have been warranted in the late 70s, but today's congressional logjams suggest executive action and wonkery may be the only way to get anything done.
26
@Panthiest
Except for the Camp David Accords, Jimmy Carter was a failed president.
1
Be careful with nuclear physicists in politics. Angela Merkel, Germany‘s chancellor, is one.
2
I have one very wealthy friend. We were buddies in High School & I was best man at his wedding long before he became very wealthy. He's vision is as myopic as you describe. He thinks drilling for oil is a gift to mankind & is very defensive about income inequality, saying "I always took care of my employees." He seems to feel that only people like him know whats best for the country ( makes me think of the song from Li'l Abner movie " What's good for General Bullmoose is good for the USA") He's a good & kind guy, but he simply can't see outside his bubble.
7
@Doug
Can you see inside his bubble?
'including many self-identified Republicans, want to see higher taxes on the rich and increased spending on social programs; however, quite a few people combine these sentiments with racial hostility and social illiberalism, which is why they seem to vote against their own economic interests.'
This is rubbish. Krugman wants to say that most Republicans are racists and endorse socially dysfunctional USA which is patently false.
People mostly pay attention to the economy and there is palpable fear that the socially desirable redistribution of wealth (taxing the rich toffs) will lead to less jobs and poorer economy. This may be right, since those people, who do not care for the economy nowhere near as simple people since they are well-stuffed for decades, can start waging some kind of 'war' on the government they do not like.
Thus, first things first, some one like Obama, more effective and agile though, rather than grenade throwers, you know who they are.
Americans love money, so why be angry at millionaires and billionaires? Not jealous, right?
We love fairness more....
Spinning reality, as usual, but right about one thing, implied, America does not want a Marxist president.
1
"Repeat and elaborate and disseminate: So, do billionaires in general make vast contributions to society? To make that case, you don’t just have to argue that they’ve earned their wealth by doing productive things. You have to argue that their wealth is just part of what they’ve added to national income.
And that’s a hard argument to make when you look at how most billionaires have made their money. After all, many of them struck it rich in finance and real estate."
Yes! as I've noted, all these billionaires aren't producing exponentially more than teachers and firefighters and the police and nurses etc. etc.
Re: Sanders & Warren being too radical, Mr. Krugman knows better. There _will_ be a transition (if either wins), people won't lose their chosen doctors, yes, it'll take perhaps several Democratic administrations & congresses to catch up with the rest of the 1st (and 2nd) world.
How about a dialog page between Krugman and Robert Reich? I think that could clarify a lot of the misinformation (purposely?) being tossed out regarding Medicare for All.
3
Was FDR too radical? No. Bernie is our FDR. He will win and bring this country back to democracy.
5
Billionaires who give larger dollar figures to charity are giving only a tiny fraction of their money to help the world. Their fortunes continue to grow. People like Warren Buffet figure it is best to continue to grow their pie during life, and give it to charity at death. This is so sad. Warren won't experience the benefit of his gift in action - and it could have been working decades ago. The cliche billionaire will try and give most of their money to their family, sharing almost nothing on a % basis with others. Excluding political contributions, the Koch brothers' roughly $1.5MM in gifts to charity is only 5.35% of a $28 billion net worth. If I were a billionaire, my goal would be to die with a few million bucks in the bank, giving the rest away and making the world a better place. If billionaires won't share with the less fortunate, they need to be made to share.
3
Charity is necessary in systems where government does not equalize the playing field, so everyone is taken care of. But since socialism has been turned into a dirty word, billionaires can look like a decent human being by donating money to good causes. The fact that they are being repayed by tax-deductions for charitable donations (often larger repayment then the donation itself) is hardly mentioned. They only look the part, but are not worthy in and of themselves.
3
@Ibero70 Thanks. We have socialism here in the form of Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. We overlook the homeless and many other areas. Billionaires look the other way on most ailments in our world.
1
Bravo!
2
People should tone down the rhetoric. This is how pogroms get started.
2
Amazing week watching these selfish jerks show how little they care about their fellow human beings.
3
Only in lib/wacko, never-ending class warfare world does the following statement even need to be said, "Billionaires aren’t necessarily bad people, and most of them probably aren’t." Well duh!!!! The qualifiers "necessarily" and "probably" are for the blind followers of this liberal rag, as where in the world does the idea that because you have great financial wealth somehow magically translates to being a "bad" person?! The left's never-ending politically motivated class warfare battle cry is STRICTLY based upon obtaining votes from the profoundly ignorant who's lives are engulfed in jealousy and envy toward those with great financial wealth-just absurd. The dem/left politicians understand that about one percent of the population view themselves as "rich" so when you attack those "evil" rich you are manipulating the other 99-percent strictly to gain their vote. Only the extreme ignorant buy into this juvenile jealousy/envy related manipulation, as the government/politicians who are notorious for profound money mismanagement would love to take more control over other people's money so they can WASTE it on their inefficient/wasteful special interests and entitlements for those who don't work. Repulsive.
2
@CW
In my view, being a billionaire does translate to being a bad person, because a good person would not have been greedy enough to accumulate that much in the first place. A good person would have shared generously with their employees, their communities, and their nation all the way along. You can't take it with you.
13
@CW
See graph #2 at: bit.ly/EPI-study
@Nikki Absurd. On a percentage basis, I’m certain that you have similar greater wealth than the poorest in third and fourth world countries. Should they view you as evil because you haven’t “shared generously” your relative wealth to them? How dare your standard of living and wealth be tremendously above those poor people, you evil person you. Absolutely ridiculous.
1
The billionaires have already "rode in," to save the day. They own the place lock, stock and barrel. This is what you get, when power is put in the hands of the few.
Warren scares the heck out of them, not because they will lose money, but because they will lose the power to enact their limited vision.
259
@Walter Ingram
Yep. When you have as much money as Gates or Bloomberg, its no longer about the money, but rather what the money buys you. Which for multi billionaires is the ability to buy control of the nation.
25
@John Lonergan I think people who live NYC or who are intimately familiar with NYC are better people to speak to this. Look at T's lawyer. He was regarded as a good mayor by some, and look what happened there.
3
@Walter Ingram So, how many of you donate support Warren......?
Will you vote for Warren.?
Well, you should.
4
The question of how these individuals became billionaires is mentioned in every discussion. So too is fairness, and usually economic policy (at a macro level).
Missing is discussion of how billionaires remain billionaires. Truth is no person can hold onto his claimed property by himself. The property only exists because the rest of agree that it exists. Property is integral to the social contract, and that’s a living document subject to revision. No billionaire has a preordained or God-given right to remain one. There is no natural law that requires humans be governed by a king.
5
“But the idea that America is just waiting for a billionaire businessman to save the day by riding in on a white horse...is just silly.”
Much respect to Mr. Krugman for still hanging on to his optimism, I just can’t help but notice how much of America seems to be in it for the rapture. Who doesn’t love a good revelation?
“When the Lamb broke the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth living creature saying, ‘Come.’ I looked, and behold, an ashen horse; and he who sat on it had the name Death; and Hades was following with him. Authority was given to them over a fourth of the earth, to kill with sword and with famine and with pestilence and by the wild beasts of the earth.”
I wish Hillary Clinton would run!
Neoliberalism is what got us Trump and oligarchy. No more, thank you.
3
I know Mike. I hired Mike. I know his private charity, his decency and his personal insecurities. I happen to like the man. I liked him June 16, 1966, when he turned down Goldman and Bob Mnuchin for us. Salomon Bros was Mike’s kind of firm. We traded bonds. Mike had no money. Goldman Sachs offered 50% more. He came to Solly to report to me. I was learning. The guy favored integrity. Still does. We met when he had nothing. If he runs, if the circular firing squad staffed by the usual finds Mike a better bet, if an honest convention debate propels Mike Bloomberg, he will get my vote. Econ. Nobel Paul Krugman might ask Mike for lunch and pick up the check. They might learn from each other. Paul, do you want Trump? Can we educate this nation of latter-day racists? Prejudice against the wealthy is not attractive, Paul. Mike may be our best chance.
4
We're not waiting for a billionaire to become president (again). We just need somebody who will defeat Trump, and Warren/Sanders and likely Biden do not look ready to do that.
3
Speak for yourself, Mr. Krugman. I don't care if the Savior is a tycoon but I would like someone to "save us."
2
Democracy is not a spectator sport. Save yourself. Look around outside your bubble. Help save democracy from oligarchy. Thank you for your consideration.
1
Given the fact that most of the left is unelectable I don’t understand the lefts desire not to try something else. Do you really think you will prevail in the next four years under Trump?
4
As a liberal, I hate watching other liberals clamor over each other to categorically denounce those running in the democratic primaries. The last thing we need is to be fighting over who is and isn't "OK" to vote for. Stop with the purity tests. Let the primaries play out, let the voters decide, and let's unite around getting rid of Trump.
3
Regarding the menace of socialism. The US already has a skeletal version of the sort of social democracy that exists in most European countries, Republican Party determination to demolish even this notwithstanding. So let's start with an aggressive initiative to re-scope, repair, better fund and better administer the social safety net we have in place, especially the ACA. I interact regularly with the SSA and Medicare and have developed an appreciation for the competence and dedication of the professionals who help me out, despite being resource-stretched to the breaking point. So let's give them the resources and funding they need to more effectively serve our national community. The US alleged "free market" simply isn't equipped to handle this, despite the cracked-brain pronouncements of the likes of the Libertarians or Prager "University".
3
We need 'leaders' for our nation regardless of their background.
If wealthy leaders (like John Kennedy) are where the 'best and the brightest' come from; then why would we hold their money against them (most NYT readers will regardless).
Moreover, our government needs 'outside expertise' to improve its performance and to hire more 'career politicians' like Biden or Bernie may not be the answer. Our society needs strong leaders regardles of their background. Senator Romney comes to mind on this last point.
1
Bloomberg has picked up the mantle of the US to fight climate catastrophe, supported small cities on coasts, largely funded victory against Guns, elevated the role of the arts in our society, paid for emergency help in the islands after last hurricanes! In my mind he IS acting presidential while DT lies, extorts, and kills our national and international organizations, health care, EPA and the things we put together to improve life during my 74 yeArs. I'm a liberal progressive and I want to win...I feel really no o e is better suited as an executive, visionary, and global citizen than he.
5
@Denver Plus, he gets to save a whole bunch of money.
From Fiddler on the Roof's "If I Were a Rich Man": ...if you're rich, they think you really know..." From my former mother-in-law who was raised in deep poverty in the deep South: "If you're so smart, why aren't you rich?"
I don't know how so many voters got fooled that D Trump's business experience qualified him for any government leadership positions; his Birther craziness and business bankruptcies should have prevented his nomination and electoral college election - I blame GOP primary voters a lot since the US strongly tends to switch parties in the WH every 8 years. So the GOP nominee had a big advantage just from that pattern.
Another pattern is that the jobs of Governor or Mayor or POTUS are "executive" positions and people who've been "executives" i.e. in charge of organizations are often better suited for the job, which partly explains Trump's unlikely victory.
Humanity is best served by "the more you know, the more you don't know" humility. Do Schultz or Bloomberg have that humility, ability to learn and govern?
I don't begrudge anybody's wealth unless it was gained illegally; I do begrudge them if not using it for humanity's sustainability and overall benefit. I believe Bloomberg's accomplishments in life in business and governance are far ahead of other DEM candidates, but I don't want a candidate older than, say, 55. Where are you, the B Obama or JFK of 2020?
2
Mr. Krugman manages to lay out a perspective on Bloomberg and other ultra-rich that completely ignores the fact that Bloomberg has given away nearly 7 billion dollars to various causes and academic institutions (disclaimer: my daughter received her Master's in International Halth from Johns Hopkins).....a complete picture requires the acknowledgement that in today's world, philanthropy plays an enormous part in supporting research, public health and the arts.....
1
Better a billionaire like Bloomberg, who has proven extreme competence in his private life (you don't get to be a billionaire, by being incompetent), and ably managed the toughest city on Earth as mayor, than a hectoring schoolmarm who never held an executive role, who lied about her own heritage to advance her ambitions, who wants to bribe voters with other peoples's money.
7
@Richard New York is nowhere near being the toughest city on earth. Try Kabul.
1
@Richard
If you don't get to be a billionaire by being incompetent, then how did Trump amass his 'billions?'
1
Limitless money in the hands of government is a lot scarier than limitless money in the hands of individuals.
The only thing that trickles down to us common folk is the rich peeing on our heads,
8
What no body says is that by Bloomberg entering the race he is splintering the Democratic vote even further. The more candidates, the fewer votes each one can get. Moreover, what does he bring to the race? Money, a big ego and political experience are not enough. Is his candidacy just a personal vendetta against the current occupant of the White House? While we must have a strong Democrat on the ballot, I don’t think Bloomberg has broad enough appeal to succeed in his quest for the presidency.
10
Seeking great wealth is a practice inside the bubble, an utterly self possessed activity. Charity is the means they use to prevent rebellion against themselves. Steal what belongs to everyone - defend it with the law and other nefarious means.
Bill Gates responded to questioning about Jeffrey Epstein, "I made a mistake in judgement." In the self reflective bubble of ego, life is all about ME and my "special" people. Only within the billionaire bubble could the acts of a pedophile be normalized - is that the kind of "judgement" we need? These are not our "star" people. They are our social and political death stars.
8
@Thomas
May the Force be with us!
1
Well Paul, Trump's 40% believe HE is their billionaire savior. They won't let go of that no matter what.
3
"I’m not saying that the U.S. public is necessarily ready for the likes of Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders. I worry in particular about the politics of Medicare for All, not because of the cost, but because proposing the abolition of private insurance could unnerve tens of millions of middle-class voters."
Tens of millions of people are more than unnerved because they have zero health insurance. Even those tens of millions who do have "private insurance" are unnerved because the premiums and out of pocket costs are so high. The tens of millions of uninsured and under-insured are unnerved because they fear that one illness or accident could push them into bankruptcy or even homelessness.
Middle class voters understand that "private insurance" is profiteering on the backs of sick people. They are ready for the likes of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren who are addressing this huge issue. BTW, billionaires know nothing about being unnerved over the high cost of health care.
6
To be quite honest, I don't think ANYONE needs to have $50 million, or 3,000 times that amount ($150,000,000,000.00) as Jeff Bezos does. It's absurd.
I was born in the 50s. I think Howard Hughes was the only "billionaire" I'd ever heard of, except maybe the Greek shipping magnate that Jackie Onassis married. There were plenty of "rich" people. There were mansions in Beverly Hills and huge estates in NY and New England and elsewhere. There were private jets, private clubs, private parties, etc.
But no one person had enough wealth to dictate national policy, like we do today (Koch Brothers, anyone?)
I'm with Elizabeth Warren to the extent that I agree we should tax the billionaire class out of existence. The logic? The billionaire class could not exist without the infrastructure that is built and maintained by the rest of us. Higher taxes is a price for the privilege of being wealthy in the United States.
Let's stop making it unpopular or unacceptable to make this clear: we should not have billionaires. And I really think nobody needs even $5 million, but I am trying to be open-minded about $50 million.
15
Don't forget that global trade is only possible due to the taxpayer-funded US Navy. The alternative being, for example, Apple providing naval security for all those shipping containers full of iPhones.
8
I've read magazine articles from the 1950's about the vanishing "super rich" class, due mainly to the Great Depression catastrophe they brought upon themselves and everyone else and the consequent steep progressive tax curve. Miserable merely rich guys having to chauffeur themselves in Cadillac Coupe de Villes. How quaint!
2
@Scottapottomus
And I suspect when the wealth confiscations start the dollar amount you approve of will be just a bit above what you have, Scott, so you don’t have to cough up a dime.
So maybe not everyone is ready for Medicare for all. What would happen if we, say, lowered the qualifying age for Medicare to 60 tomorrow. I wonder how many people would abandon their private insurance. Maybe they would be happy to not ever have to worry again about losing their insurance along with their job. Maybe they would have to pay a somewhat higher premium than those 65 or older, but it still might be less than what they are paying for employer provided insurance. And it would definitely be lower for those whose employers provide only high deductible, expensive plans.
It seems that the sentiment of fear of losing private insurance has overtaken the discussion these days. I say let's try an experiment with a lower qualifying age and see what happens. I'd bet money that it would be overwhelmingly popular. And if there was an option to stay put, even better.
And BTW, why aren't employers supportive of universal health care insurance? I would think they would be glad to be rid of the expense and administrative burden.
6
As most people know, the top 1% of taxpayers pay more taxes than the bottom 90% combined. Make it the top 2% and maybe nobody else would pay any taxes at all?
2
@Tom no rich people in the US dodge taxes via offshore tax havens ? sounds like paradise.
3
In this column, you must be thinking about Warren and Bloomberg.
I do admire Elizabeth Warren. She seems to be smart and appears to be about the only democratic candidate who has an idea what to do if she gets elected.
But quality of a president is not simply being an idea person. The president must have the ability to persuade the public to accept his or her idea. And the president is also an administrator. It takes some experience and talent. Sam Rayburn once said about Kennedy administration "I'd feel a lot better if some of them had run for sheriff just once"
I am not sure if Warren demonstrates this quality. It is not enough to say I have the wonderful idea for the country. She must persuade others.
As to Bloomberg, I do not know much about him. I am not endorsing him. But he seems to have some experience in running the sheriff's office in his former life.
For the last 40 or 50 years, the rich and super rich exerted disproportionate influence on the country. The rich do not necessarily support their own interest. FDR did not.Teddy Roosevelt didn't. We don't know how Bloomberg will act. At this point, I would give him the benefit of doubt.
The remarkable thing is that the US is the only country in the world that could effectively tax the rich. All other countries (e.g. France) who tried have seen many of their ultra-rich move their fortunes and/or residencies to other countries.
Why would it work here? Citizenship-based taxation and FATCA.
The latter now has over 100 countries and over 300,000 foreign financial institutions report the balances and earnings of US taxpayers from bank accounts, investments or other financial holdings to the US Internal Revenue Service (IRS) each year.
The Supreme Court so far has held off Republican attempts to repeal it, but if Elizabeth Warren becomes president I wouldn't be surprised a manufactured case is quickly taken up.
2
Maybe we need a billionaire to call out fellow billionaires to stop whining. I am skeptical of the feasibility of Warren's tax plan but we do have to do fix or slow down the increasing inequality. Otherwise, billionaires will go the way of millionaires and we will be talking about who the trillionaires are as our schools and roads fall into greater disrepair.
1
As Senator Elizabeth Warren pointed out several years ago, the wealthiest people utilized the very same infrastructure to gain their wealth that all Americans paid for. They could at least say "Thank You" for all the help they received along the way AND they could simply pay more taxes in a ratio similar to but slightly less than that which they were enriched by that infrastructure. The "slightly less" bonus would be payback for their risk taking, if any, and the luck it brought them. Having been around since WWII, I don't think they would pay any more for their riches than they did in the Sixties, when the entire country benefited from what we built together.
5
The harder billionaires fight being taxed at a fair rate, the more I would support more extreme policies that tax them into the middle class. They horde more resources than they could possibly use in a world where the resources are limited and there is no reasonable, logical, or ethical justification for that.
8
Dear Mr. Krugman,
On the same front page as your OpEd is the article "The country's largest Nurses Union will endorse Bernie Sanders for President".
I guess they aren't scared of Sanders and Warren's idea of Medicare for All, just like Europeans wouldn't give up their version of that for over half a century now.
Forward people, not backward.
5
To state that many voters combine left-wing economic views with racism or social illiberism, understates the relevance of identity politics. Many people are driven by an urge for recognition that transcends their need for material well-being. They will therefore turn against perceived liberal elites that they do not feel respected by, even if those elites propose policies that will improve their economic wellbeing. And will follow a leader that appears to understand them, even if his actions show the exact opposite. This is the challenge liberals have to address: show that they understand and respect white, rural America, not only have a plan for them.
The greatest threat confronting us is not wealth inequality
It’s climate change
And Mike Bloomberg gets an A plus plus plus on the issue
Bloomberg 2020
5
I'm mostly committed to Vote Blue No Matter Who, but Bloomberg would be the one exception. Since I don't live in a battleground state, if a billionaire were the Democratic nominee, I would either vote for a write-in candidate for president or not vote for president at all. I would not stay home, because it's equally important to vote for down-ballot Democrats if not even more important, so I would show up to vote for them. But no billionaires ever. (If I lived in a battleground state it would be different, but NY is not going to be close).
2
@ Nikki-
I am not from a battleground state, either. But if I am forced to vote for Bloomberg should he win the nomination, I won’t just be entering the ballot box holding my nose – I’ll need to be wearing a full-on respirator to protect myself from the stench of his name on the ballot. And no, I will never, ever in my life vote Republican. And given the enormous lesson from 2016, I will not stay home, either. But if Bloomberg does advance, I will not be happy at all. As a matter fact, I can’t say I’m happy with the democratic field overall as it is.
2
Through President Obama Democrats, while getting a majority of the vote have only been able to put in the presidency candidates who were socially liberal and fiscally conservative. What Trump has shown is that the base of the Republican Party is not fiscally conservative just racist in its desired allocation of government programs.
It was with Reagan, deficits don't matter, destruction of unions, elevation of shareholders over all other corporate stakeholders, and tax cuts over and over for the really rich that let America from having one billionaire, Harry Helmsey, to the many we have today.
1
Prof Krugman
Thank you for this insight. You are particularly well situated to address this phenomenon as, after your work on global economy (in times of international peace) was recognized with the Nobel prize in Economics, you may have found people flattering you, and seeking your opinions on a host of other issues.
Can one make an argument that such awards should somehow be shared with less fortunate economists, perhaps by giving them "micro fame units."? Or by removing 6% of the recognition every year.
A majority of the billionaires aren't bad people. But some are. Perhaps, the distribution of good & bad billionaires is about the same way as it's among more gifted intellectuals.
But when gifted people, especially political leaders are bad, as far too many in history, the havoc they can create is horrendous.
Rich people generally work harder. But their affluence has little correlation to their hard work. They tend to be more intellectually gifted. They're very lucky. Luck probably is the critical factor that made them rich.
Another factor is exploitation. When you exploit a situation like JP Morgan buying Baer Stern in 2008, the exploited is hard to be pinpointed. Whereas, if you acquire a row of foreclosed houses on auction, and force the occupants of 25 families to vacate, the agony of those women & children who were just put out on the street is agonizing.
I thought, a rule of thumb view is that few get rich by hard work. To become rich you have exploit & you have to be lucky. Hard work in general can only get you a decent living.
In a democracy, the best way to help the unlucky & weak is by taxation and divert the collected taxes to the needy.
But there are practical difficulties to implement taxation; Since the Reagan era, which we're still in, taxing the rich has become unwholesome. Elizabeth Warren's plan is bad for winning in 2020. But with Joe Biden or Pete Buttigieg's plans, after winning, when the populace is ripe, step by step introduce Warren's plans.
1
When the problem is a billionaire business man, more of the same, would get us a stable genius, that may be enough, but we do want more.
Legitimate billionaires like Bloomberg, Bezos, Gates and Buffet probably have added at least as much to the rest of the economy as they have earned.
The wealthy we should be critical of are those who have benefitted from government bailouts. I'm thinking of the shareholders and partners of Bear Stearns, AIG, Citigroup, Bank of America Corp, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Goldman Sachs, and all the other beneficiaries of TARP, and the Fed's Maiden Lanes I, II, and III, etc.
2
@Hu McCulloch
They paid it all back with interest so actually the taxpayers made money on the deal.
3
@Driven
Free options are a valuable gift, even if the options turn out not to be exercised. These firms were so far in the hole that they should have paid back far more than just the risk-free interest rate.
Before TARP, for example, Goldman Sachs took out a preferred stock deal with Berkshire Hathaway that paid a 10% dividend plus valuable stock rights. Thanks to TARP's below market 5% money, GS was able repay BH early.
2
And we avoided the kind of recession other countries are still struggling to recover from.
America is not waiting for a Billionaire (or indeed, for any of the politicians from the last 20 years who are all wealthy or protectors of the wealthy classes).
It's just that wealthy people have an unfair advantage as candidates. They can create their own invincibility by refusing to go away when they poll weakly. (Couple that to selling fantastic lies, and you have Trump.)
There may be a billionaire bubble. But enlightening the billionaires won't solve anything. Billionaires are the knowing beneficiaries of all that is unfair and corrupt. They will not change the unfairness or remove the corruption.
Social justice warriors have no idea how things really work, so they can't fix it. People who do know are selected many times over for their loyalty. Just witness the loyalty demanded of Mulvaney by Trump; Mulvaney can't even invite a court to intervene.
It's this loyalty to corrupt systems that NY Times readers exhibit, and it's killing us.
I don't understand why billionaires are so concerned with protecting their oceans wealth. I don't understand why they think it's okay for the middle class to pay for everything. If I lost one of the zeros on my income, it would be devastating. I'd have to apply for government assistance and get a second job. If Bloomberg loses one, he might sell a tie, but I doubt he'd notice.
4
@Stephen
The middle class hardly pays for everything. The wealthy pay much more and you should say thank you.
It is their wealth—not yours.
People like Michael Bloomberg, Warren Buffett and Bill Gates are great exceptions, most multi-millionaires and billionaires are not benevolent but we never hear from them as their stories don't inspire. But they do influence politics in a big negative way in their favor.
We can't have billionaires and an election process that allows huge sums of campaign financing at the same time. That creates legalized corruption. John Roberts will be remembered as the small minded partisan who gave us Citizens United.
Big campaign financing contributions are only intended to obtain a favor that goes against what is good for ordinary people later. Otherwise, there's no point of course. But the Trump administration has taken that kind of clientelism to new lows, not caring about preservation of nature or even deaths due to a toxic environment.
I'm not sure we will be able to fix the system. Will the DNC with its superdelegates let us have Elizabeth Warren?
2
@Anne
If the DNC does give you Elizabeth Warren, the voters will probably give you Trump back again in November, for all his obvious faults.
1
We need to return to the tax schedule under the Eisenhower administration, when the highest tax bracket paid north of 90%. In those days, a single middle-class wage-earner could support a family of five, paying the mortgage on a three-bedroom, two bath home, and owning at least one car. A high-school graduate could pay a year's tuition at the state university with the income from a summer job. Ike was the last good Republican president.
4
I’m not convinced that multiple bubble layers shield ultra-wealthy people from reality. If they’re so clueless, why do they need to buy the house next door (to keep it empty) in their gated communities? Why do they hide themselves?
The answer is that they know. They know how toxic their wealth is to the society as a whole. They might not admit so out loud, but they know. They know, just like white South Africans knew what was going on during apartheid. They feign ignorance, but it’s an act.
I don’t respect some kind of right to have a billion dollars while half the population is struggling to survive. I’m outraged by that kind of inequality. No one needs a billion dollars. I’m doubly outraged at Leon Cooperman crying on TV over what a measly 6% tax “would do to his family,” while millions of families in this country can’t afford medicines and good food.
Extreme wealth is bad for its owner’s mental health. It’s bad for the nation and bad for the world. People like Mr. Cooperman should think of Warren and Sanders as kindly therapists who are trying to help them.
3
@Valerie "kindly therapists who are trying to help" are usually not forced on people.
Its thinking along those lines that forced Trump on you. Valerie is quite right in my opinion.
The wealthy need to learn from history and realise that we're heading for a "let them eat cake" reckoning. Unfortunately money is the one thing you can never have enough of. You can have too much air, water, food, cars, houses, children, etc. but money, nope. Always have to have more because there is never enough. That is why I'm not holding out hope that anything will change in runaway inequality without some sort of major disruption.
3
I am certainly not waiting for a tycoon savior but I am hoping for someone of stature with a proven track record of actually running things and who does not spout whacky ideas. Bloomberg has those characteristics in my opinion. The fact that he is a multi-billionaire gives him the ability to throw virtually unlimited amounts of money into his campaign. I hope and pray he runs, because there is no one in the present sorry line-up who is electable, with the possible exception of Joe Biden, and there are many issues with him. One of the reasons I like Bloomberg is that I think he will garner considerable Republican support from those of us who are utterly repelled by Trump. Against any of the present line-up of Democratic candidates Trump wins.
4
We are founded on the principle that any American born here can become President. There is no restriction on race, gender, religion.
Wealth is also not a disqualifying factor. The arm chair analysts keep asking for a unicorn candidate: moderate, probably white, military experience beneficial, not wealthy, has govt experience, knowledge of foreign policy, etc. That candidate doesn’t exist. We need a president that complements his/her shortcomings with talent in his cabinet.
1
How can a society fail to agree that every one of its citizens should have the medical care they need, and that those who have benefited the most from the economic and political system ought to pay the most into it?
How can a society that fails to adequately look after its construction workers, garbage collectors, nurses, school teachers and others so gratuitously reward those who participate in morally bankrupt speculation and hucksterism?
I have no idea.
4
@Jacob L.
They do pay the most into our system already.
All the job categories you mentioned make enough to live.
@Jacob L.
The Warren-Sanders promise of "No More Than Medicare for Anyone" is a sure loser.
"At Least Medicare for All" might win votes, but that's not what they're proposing.
1
"Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio
A nation turns its lonely eyes to you..."
As Simon and Garfunkel sang, the nation is still looking for someone to save it, someone who could possible throw out the rancid partisanship that has infected our national psyche like a cancer and just...get the job done.
Bloomberg? It is not hard to imagine that he has been seething inside since he saw the pretend billionaire success, Trump, sweep in and get both the nomination and the presidency. How could this be? How could one of the biggest fakers in New York pass one of the true successes of the city like he was sleeping beside the road?
As Ross Perot back in 1992 to the first Bush, if Bloomberg could jump in and just cause Trump's defeat, that would be enough, most likely. Since he can't find a way to do that, he's going for the bigger prize.
Billionaires, as a class, have nothing to tell us that anyone needs. We were in trouble already. Our "ruling class" of graduates from elite schools, like Obama and company, are out of touch sufficiently on their own power. The Great Recession and the greatest drug disaster in American history, the opioid crisis, didn't hit their class, so they failed to grasp the full impact and failed to respond. If they had done better, Trump would have stayed in his pathetic role as a brand salesman.
Bloomberg is likely to be a footnote in 2020 unless he has a true vision of America's future to offer. Doubt it.
This is becoming silly. The specter of a Bloomberg candidacy has stirred more critics in the democratic party than in the right... The guy ran NYC (US largest city) for 12 years and did a much better job than his liberal successor Bill de Blasio. He's a genuine climate activist and a loud defender of women rights and other progressive causes. He's a pragmatic guy who's interested in giving back. Why calling him an egomaniac? Because he succeeded in business by building a financial information and media giant company from scratch? Because he was effective in running a megacity without fuss for 12 years? I think we deserve the politicians we have and your kind of "analysis" will help us have 4 more years of Trump...
6
The poorly educated look for happiness in material things. Billionaires stand for the highest manifestation of what they seek, and probably appear to them as flawless symbols of their own desires. Who better than to stand as a model for all of us and run our country? And as the plutocracy gains more power and levels up to oligarchy, the vicious cycle of ignorance and struggle continue with even fewer avenues for escape.
2
Have a look at the latest Scientific American for an article about an economic analysis of the unequal distribution of wealth. It shows that all of the concentration of wealth that we observe would inevitably happen by pure dumb luck - even in the ideal free market with no external or internal advantage to anyone.
3
You wrote: "But the idea that America is just waiting for a billionaire businessman to save the day by riding in on a white horse . . . is just silly." You are slaying a straw man. It would be silly to say that America wants a billionaire president because he or she is a billionaire (who thinks that?), but why would anyone think that a senator who has never worked in the private sector, or never did anything more demanding than be a law school professor, or developed executive skills as the mayor of Burlington, would be a good president?
1
Trump is a billionaire and he got elected.
1
I think there is a wealthy class that is just as deleterious as the billionaires, that is the lumpen wealthy. In fact the whole American system of consumption and greed is at fault and it is promoted by the executive aristocracy class.
And I have a thought about Bloomberg: the article leads to a non sequitur. It is fair to condemn the self-absorbed billionaire class etc. but Bloomberg is not necessarily of the white knight mindset but rather the Boy Scout doing a good deed. He has certainly done that a lot.
"American economic history since World War II falls fairly neatly into two halves: a first era, ending roughly in 1980, during which progressive taxation, strong unions ..."
The end of the post-war boom started in 1973. Those boom years were sustained by a robust manufacturing base in this country that provided good jobs to semi-skilled and skilled labor. While there was some recovery in years afterwards, the writing was on the wall. But saying the prosperity ended in 1980 does make for a better polemic.
Unions in the US? You support 'em right? Quick show of hands, how many of you drive a vehicle assembled in the US by union labor?
That class does not include Toyota, Honda, Nissan, BMW, Mercedes or Tesla. Some of my UAW member friends would say those vehicles are assembled by "scab labor".
Now for all you union supporters out there, please join me in a chorus of "Solidarity Every Once in Awhile Forever!".
We made consumer choices that directly impacted the labor picture here in the US.
"quite a few people combine these sentiments with racial hostility and social illiberalism, which is why they seem to vote against their own economic interests."
How goes the desegregation of NYC's racially segregated public school system? Leading by example? Talk to my former neighbors and friends about the "social liberalism" of forced busing in Detroit and how it impacted "their own economic interests". Please do so. Don't worry, that scheme won't be foisted on NYC.
@Jp That time period is also when globalization started....
@Kohl :Yes, particularly with highly fuel efficient Japanese autos. After the first oil embargo the writing was on the wall.
And yes, they're great cars.
I don't understand how a group of voters with t-shirts reading "better Russian than Democrat" can be afraid of democratic socialism??
3
"...when you're rich, they think you really know."
Tevya
Fiddler on the Roof
1
Billionaires have started to believe their own press releases.
2
Oh c'mon.. Everyone knows that if we tax the super rich they'll all stop wanting to be rich. They'll all be standing in line to get in line to be poor!
OHHH..the tragedy of it all!
Can anyone even imagine the horrors of rich families having to live like the rest of us? Just think of how miserable we'll all be in the Bloombergs of the world ever had to live in a modest 2 bedroom apartment with"BUGS!" I can't even imagine the horrors that might be imposed on the rest of us! Just imagine if some rich dude ever had to get out of his limo to change a flat tire! His hands MIGHT actually get dirty and then where would we all be?
1
Years ago, I remember trying to convince my dad that George W. was not up to the job, and that moderate Republican orthodoxy was being subverted and driven to extremes by an entitled and selfish cohort of rich elites that didn't necessarily share their old school wealthy parent's sense of noblesse oblige or service for country. My moderately conservative dad didn't believe me when I said I thought they would eventually sell us all short and just escape to their private islands if things went south. I was somewhat exaggerating at the time to make my point — but I was prescient in my youthful fear of the future. Oh, to have my moderate, ethical, intelligent and compassionate dad and his like back at the helm! I weep for our country.
Goal number 1: Beat Trump. Goal 2: Win the Senate. It feels a little like rolling the dice on the current crop of Dems. I believe Bloomberg would easily win the general election and help in down-ballot races. Pete, Andrew & Elizabeth/Bernie are interesting, but I think the gamble with them could result in 4 more years of Trump. We can't afford four more years.
A decent VP running with Bloomberg could help with African American voters.
2
I think Bloomberg is in fact what we need. Unfortunately I have to agree, he probably can't get help the democrats help themselves. Make no mistake about it, the democratic party options, other than Bloomberg all share one feature: none of them are likely to beat Trump. That means you're hanging your hat on impeachment doing the work that the Access Hollywood tape, Stormy Daniels, Russia "collusion" etc. etc. failed. I don't see that being a smart bet.
I think there's a sufficient coalition of people (in the general) who would vote for a guy who has a track record of success in both private enterprise and government and who respects property rights but wants to increase the safety net, raise taxes on the rich and increase environmental regulations. Biden doesn't seem up to it, and Warren and Sanders are not getting elected. Their plan to soak billionaires may sound nice if you're not a billionaire, but if you think the government can completely upend longstanding notions of respect for property rights without down range effects you really haven't thought through the issues. I say anyone with a job or who owns stock would start feeling a strong pinch almost immediately if Warren/Sanders plan came into being as vast sums of money now in the US economy gets withdrawn and moved to other countries in the blink of an eye.
1
If they want to sell their stuff here, or participate in this market, they should have to pay taxes.
They can, of course, move to China...I’d love to see how that works out.
Billionaires are like the guy who shows up at lunch, orders the most expensive stuff on the menu, and then tells you he forgot his wallet. They rely on the American military to protect their businesses, American roads to transport their goods, and American education to educate their workers.
We need to tell them they can either pay for what they eat or wash a LOT of dishes.
3
Being Canadian and a Physician I have no extensive experience with private health care and so don't really get the politics of what is being proposed here, but it seems that Medicare for all - that want it - would be more of a vote winner than threatening to completely up end the existing system. For a family of four, Health care coverage in the US costs about 4 times what it costs the same family in Canada, although ours is covered by taxes which is anathema to many Americans. In the face of publicly funded coverage the appeal of private, more extensive plans may diminish, but why give the GOP a stick with which to beat you in an election by shouting about healthcare for all and the abolition of private plans?
4
Ok as an insurance exec, let me pipe in. The federal government does not have the ability to handle a gazillion new health care claims. "Medicare for all" will involve the nationalization of private insurers and the people that work handling the claims, managing the cases and all the other things that an insurance company does, but for paying premiums. Some employers will want to offer more than "medicare for all" to attract and keep employees. I suspect that is Bernie and Warren put their minds to it they could come up with a plan to administer "medicare for all" as a guarantee, and allow employers to pile on top offering additional coverages. Insurance premiums are very much like taxes...does that inform you at all on the idea of socialism?
1
@Powderchords As an insurance exec would like your position to be eliminated, the job is unnecessary and adds zero value.
Everyone pilling on billionaires complains about the extreme concentration of wealth that their existence represents. Reduced taxation since Reagan certainly played a role. Missing in this critique is the “how” they got there.
Extreme concentration in the form of corporate oligopoly means that your local bank feeds Dimon’s pockets, not the local bank president, who lives in the neighborhood, needs the local schools to educate his future employees, the local hospital to remain viable and the local cops to be well paid. That’s how small towns die.
The rich then have little incentive to live and spend in these communities. Their capital is better served investing in China. And buying the politicians that preserve the system.
2
@Chuckles
Also why the tax laws are tilted toward the rich. An ordinary wage earner pays a higher tax rate than someone who stays home and lives off dividends and capital gains. Businesses can take a tax deduction for depreciation. A blue collar worker can't take a deduction for wear and tear on his or her body from decades of hard work.
2
"It’s not hard to see why: Great wealth attracts people eager to tell an extremely rich man"
And what when government has all the money? Presumably corruption is the next step for the very same "not hard to see why" reason -- it's called human nature. But a corrupted billionaire looking out for himself is tiny in comparison to the money in government, where they LOSE (overspend, borrow to increase the debt to be repaid by the future with interest) $1 trillion each year, which would fully wipe out a large number of billionaires each year. The surest way to go bankrupt is to spend your wealth and increase your debt.
1
Under Warren's plan, apparently, billionaires would be worth considerably less than they are now. Gates might only be worth $30 billion instead of $80, or whatever. Now imagine if that money and that of others had instead flowed through the system over the last 40 years--highways, bridges, infrastructure to deal with climate change, students without massive school debt, universal health care, a leader in renewable energy. It's not like the money disappears. It just gets used for other than a particular billionaires own interests and charities.
3
There is almost no countering this narrative that success - in this case, wealth - corresponds to merit. It is almost a religion in America: the Protestant ethic. It is hardest on the poor and unsuccessful because they tend to believe that they, too, are only getting what they deserve. (And, of course, other people also think this about them.) I imagine that this is why Warren's "you didn't build that" comes across as heresy, and all the evidence supporting her statement only makes people more angry.
2
Money begets money at a faster clip than society grows economically. Isn't that what Thomas Piketty demonstrated? So, through virtually no effort, multi-millionaires can become billionaires who will someday become trillionaires who will then control 99% of the wealth of the world. The other 8 billion of us will split the tiny fraction the uber rich haven't yet sopped up.
We need to prevent the formation of runaway fortunes in the first place, and tax the dickens out of those already in place. A good start would be to return to the days of truly progressive marginal income tax rates we had after World War II with a wealth tax and a heavy estate tax.
But, if we had a crystal ball and learned that Michael Bloomberg was the only one who could defeat Trump, then I would enthusiastically support him.
2
It’s the same old story, and that story is Gyges’ Ring. It’s not that only good men can be trusted with gigantic power: it’s that nobody can.
Something to do with power being inherently corrupting, and the rot getting worse as you get closer to absolute power, I believe.
Doesn’t matter what kind of power you’re talking about, at some level. So HOW you made your money (even if you discount what making money does, or what unconsidered changes new tech creates) doesn’t change Krugman’s point: that much money and power warps the ol’ brain in very predictable ways.
You don’t need to know Tom Steyer (who can’t be bothered to think about the consequences of what he’s doing, or the money he’s wasting that could go into voter registration) to see it. Jist think about the haughty, disconnected way YOU behave at the airport, when you land in that impoverished country, get into that special tourista line to clear customs, and don’t even see all the locals clutching taped-together boxes of diapers and cheap gifts.
And no, since you don’t ask, small donations don’t immunize St. Bernie. Money’s money—and a lot of his notions are just as haughty, just as disconnected, as Trump’s. I prefer them, of course, but that doesn’t change the underlying question of money and power.
Few people will disagree with your analysis of billionaire politicians. Now we need to focus on the rest of the Democratic field.
Please convince Elizabeth Warren that her inflexible position on Medicare for all is going to re-elect Trump. She is so intelligent and rational in every other way, how is it she doesn't see this? Of course she has good reasons, but American voters don't have the attention span to understand them, and are scared to death of the unknown future that she proposes.
6
As someone who earns their living by providing services to the uber wealthy for the past 30+ years, I got to know many of them fairly well - considering my Blue-Collar position in life.
They have an obvious sense of empowerment by the simple notion - they can have any material thing they desire and can be anywhere in the world at any time they like.
The billionaires, and I should also include those many with hundreds of millions as well to this club.
A few are kind and generous . . . . a very small few !
I experience a; "don't you know who I am" personality on a daily basis . . . and YES - I know exactly who they are.
I also know they have lost all contact with what "our real world is" -
Yes, some pay their employees well, most seem to pay as little as possible - if they can get away with it.
Ideas such as universal healthcare for all - mean nothing for the wealthy - as they do not need it -
They do not care if the roads and bridges are fixed - they helicopter to their private jets and do not sit in traffic.
My understanding of how the GOP treats their wealthy donors is to offer the riches of our country, those riches which were earned with the blood of countless "Regular Americans" - and simply hand it over to them in trade for keeping them in power - until there is nothing left to steal from the American People.
7
@Leonard Dornbush
It reminds of those kings who said they rule by God's will!
God didn't kill off the opposition.
No one is a self-made successful businessman. Did they install the bricks, conduit, and toilets?
1
"... even though as someone who successfully ran New York he has a much better case to offer."
It's widely taken for granted that Bloomberg ran NY "successfully, " but it's not that straightforward. A few things that he ran very badly: Preservation of affordable housing and enforcement of tenant protections; Police respect for constitutional rights to freedom from unlawful search and seizure and freedom of assembly (e.g., mass illegal arrests of political protesters, unfettered "stop and frisk"); investment in public transit; zoning and public review of real-estate development; shelter for homeless people; Public education.
He also gets tremendous credit for things he didn't actually do. For instance, the trajectory in crime reductions clearly had nothing to do with how he ran the police department, as this trend has occurred under 4 mayors with wildly different approaches. He also did not manage the City's finances at all differently from prior mayors. Nothing has changed since the early 80s in the City's fiscal practices. Literally, nothing.
He did a few things better than other mayors. He was much better at technology. His basic approach to decision making was more information driven and less panic/politics/paranoia driven than his predecessors. He understood the risks of climate change and planned for it. He spent money on parks.
This does not make for a better case than the others. Willingness to buy the nomination makes for a worse case.
1
“ … proposing the abolition of private [health] insurance could unnerve tens of millions of middle-class voters.”
WHAT ??? It is estimated that the average American family spends about one-fifth of their income before taxes on health care.
In Canada, Provincial Governments run the central payer health care system which is paid by income taxes by ALL which is PROGRESSIVE to the insured versus the present insurance company-based system for health care in the US which is REGRESSIVE to the insured. It is regressive in that a given policy with identified benefits will have a set price and this price is to be paid by all persons whether they are rich or poor. As a result, the rich buy the Cadillac versions and the poor the Skateboard versions … or nothing!
Under the present insurance company-based system for health care in the US, these companies treat their customers like cash cows and their administration costs are much, much higher. This is because they spend much of their time doing battle with clients on costs and procedures … and they always prioritize and will only approve the lowest cost options keeping profits up and shareholders happy … but not the patient, who is not the priority !!!
3
Billionaires will all one day die, and they won't be able to take their money with them. So why not do something to change society before society comes to change them?
3
The activities of the so-called robber barons from the Civil War through the Great Depression actually promoted economic growth and higher wages. Yet the Vanderbilts, Carnegies, Rockefellers etc. were not considered Presidential timber by themselves or anyone else. Today's crop, whether "tech," finance, real estate or retail, have considerably less to brag about. Civilian control of big money is as is needed as civilian control of the military.
1
Speaking as a former long-time Republican, I love Elizabeth Warren. She is smart, has some good plans, and has demonstrated the ability to implement them (example CFPB) despite great resistance.
Her attitude that "you don't get what you don't fight for" is precisely what is needed in a President. And BILLIONAIRE Tom Steyer would be a good addition to her administration, either as VP, or economic advisor.
3
"I worry in particular about the politics of Medicare for All, not because of the cost, but because proposing the abolition of private insurance could unnerve tens of millions of middle-class voters."
Our neighbors to the north are not moaning and groaning about their health care and should we enact a similar system, I suspect those "tens of millions of middle class voters" would soon come around.
4
@Ian MacFarlane If we can devise a way to ease into Medicare for All, with a buy-in option for everyone that wants it, that would overcome a lot of semi-legitimate short-term resistance.
If such a program was enacted and if employers were to provide incentives for their employees to enroll in Medicare, I doubt it would take long to accomplish a complete conversion.
I have Medicare (with a Plan F supplement) and can attest that it is as good as, or better than, any employer-sponsored health insurance I have ever had----- and I have had some of the best.
5
@Ian MacFarlane
The Republicans are experts in promoting fear of change.
Yes, it is interesting that in all those countries which have something similar, there are no mass movements to revert to private systems again.
3
In 2016 I was very disappointed in your attacks on Bernie Sanders and support of Hillary Clinton, the elite’s “choice”. This election cycle you sound less elite and more grounded - bravo.
But please stop adding to the hysteria of Medicare for all as something we can’t afford. Health Care should be a given for every citizen, not an industry based on profits accumulated by denying coverage.
Significant change in our country’s priorities are necessary for our country to survive. I’m not convinced the “moderate” candidates incremental changes or billionaires efforts to calm the masses will result in anything meaningful or long lasting.
I see two authentic candidates in the race who do not change their positions based on focus groups or the latest polls, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders.
1
@Gus You do recognize that we west coast folks have NO power in presidential elections, right? And you do understand that another 4 years of trump and a GOP senate could literally bring the country to total destruction? So accepting these factors-- why on earth are you so avid in your support of two people who will not win?
They don't have to wait they think they have living proof of it right now. Obamacare was a quantum leap. so was Social Security. And now Medicare for all is at least 2 quantum leaps maybe more. Like all quantum leaps it involves risk and will have its detractors. But if MFA can succeed where Obamacare failed in not only achieving true universal healthcare but in lowering the cost of healthcare then it will be a quantum leap worth taking. And let's not lose sight that Obamacare currently stands repealed in full and that the next higher court appears to be prepared to uphold that decision. Will Chief Justice Roberts come to the rescue yet a third time?
1
The problem with being "socially liberal but economically conservative" is that economic conservatism inevitably undermines a socially liberal agenda by fueling working class resentment against racial and LGBTQ minorities. Working class Whites see government and societal initiatives aimed at addressing injustices against people of color and LGBTQ people at the same time that they see their own problems going unrecognized and unaddressed. If you champion the rights of minorities but oppose raising the minimum wage, you're giving right-wing racists more class resentment grist for the mill. I'll happily admit that minorities face more problems than working class Whites do in this country, but parity isn't the point. The point is that the problems that working class people of all colors face are just as real.
Taking class completely out of the equation also warps and distorts socially liberal arguments. For example, I've read a number of op-Eds in this paper that state that Whites - just Whites, no class qualification - get affirmative action through legacy admissions. That's true, but misleading, because I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of Whites in this country would be happy to see legacy admissions go. Why? Because legacy admissions only help wealthy Whites, to the disadvantage of the rest.
A billionaire is -- to use the programmer's jargon -- a bug, not a feature. As bold and bright as Bill Gates' (for example) early decisions and actions were, the single man's contribution to Microsoft's eventual multi-billion valuation is overly compensated. Mostly because of the distribution of shares. Society never gets it's cut, as it were, even though it is that society which allowed for corporations at all and which provides all the infrastructure and the capital environment for any success in the first place. If "winners" don't want to pay on the back-end (taxes), then all players should pay on the front-end, with a fair share of equity of every corporation being held by the public at large. Fix the Billionaire Bug.
2
I'd also like to point out that, aside from everything else that disqualifies him, Bloomberg managed to wrangle a third term in a supposedly two-term limited mayoral office. That is not an encouraging sign even if you like him and his policies--it's what small-time autocrats do. Also, in regard to taxing the rich more, as well as the companies that have managed to shield all their income from taxes--we should make the case that the reason they have all that money is in large part due to the educational system, infrastructure, freedom of ideas, and patent security of the United States. In other words, they have benefited mightily from our system and its various public elements, so they owe it to the U.S. to "pay it forward" if you like. They didn't do it by themselves and they didn't succeed without a lot of help (including from underpaid and overworked employees), so they need to pay up. It's only fair.
1
Anyone in the physical or biological sciences will tell you that for work to be done, a gradient must exist. Pressure gradients, temperature gradients, concentration gradients: the flow from higher to lower powers work.
So too with money. When concentrated and allowed to flow, it can achieve more (e.g., build highways, bridges, tunnels; fund research) than if it were spread evenly throughout a population.
So where should money be concentrated? In individuals or government? Government. For one, done correctly (fairly) it will concentrate more money (and therefore can do more work) than even thousands of wealthy individuals. For another, government utilises the gradient, i.e., it lets the money flow, so that work can be done, while wealthy individuals simply let it sit in individual accounts - perhaps assisting here and there with this or that pet project, but doing very little at all for the population at large.
2
Marx used these kinds of pseudo-scientific analogies (and some even dumber) too, and they were pretty silly in “Capital,” too. It’s just capital, okay? Doesn’t flow, really, and it most def does not think or feel.
@Robert
Correct. it doesn't flow. It trickles.
Up.
For the past 40 years.
In the USA, that is.
Paul, one rare exception I see to your disdain for billionaires in politics is Tom Steyer. He would make a good VP for Elizabeth Warren, because he knows that the only way we are going to get (some) of the reforms Elizabeth wants is to first take back control of our government from corporations and billionaires.
I also like the fact that he prioritizes Climate Change above all else----- and he is right. If we do not halt CO2 emissions world-wide that are increasingly causing climate disasters, then little else will matter in 10 years time.
3
To me the best use for a billionaire's wealth in this particular political era is to support viable candidates who are most likely to be able to win against Trump in 2020.
2
The people who worry about losing their private insurance don't understand Medicare. As a 78 year old white male, I love Medicare.
6
@libdemtex AND those that think they will lose - also don't understand costs currently paid thru paychecks will (or should) be added back to NET PAY - and corporations will be able (or should) put the costs of Health Benefits back into salaries. IT WILL BE A HUGE COST SAVINGS to Companies. AND small businesses.. and individual business owners.
4
Geez, you would think an economist would have actually tried to calculate the net value that some of these billionaires have provided instead of using objective, anecdotal evidence to come to the conclusion that they do not provide any value. I'll take a shot.
Google has over 100k employees with the median salary being $197k. Hard to say that there is no value in that.
Why is it everyone either ignores or doesn't understand the role really wealthy people play in society in giving back through philanthropy. Krugman ignores it and he, as an economist, has to intuitively understand the other side of an argument. That is his training. The socialists running for president simply never understood it. Take away that wealth, and the poor in this country, and around the world will suffer even more without foundations in perpetuity avoiding domestic politics and giving critical aid right where it is needed most. One figure I have interpolated is $100 billion a year in philanthropic and in-kind assistance to poor in just the United States. Did I say this idea of over taxing and destroying personal wealth is stupid?
@Pooch Philanthropy would not be necessary if the wealthy paid their fair share in the first place. Billionaires shouldn’t be allowed to pick and choose where they want their share to go. None of the rest of us get to do that.
Philanthropy is just another way for the greedy to exert their power and control over the rest of us while trying to salvage their reputations for all the evil they’ve done.
Carnegie destroyed his competition, had union members murdered, refused to pay a living wage, and treated his workers like slaves. But we’re supposed to be eternally grateful for the libraries he built using his stolen money.
This is the same thing that happens today. Workers are treated like dirt and then are expected to be grateful for the crumbs the wealthy throw to them.
We don’t need or want philanthropy. We need and want justice and fairness.
4
@Pooch So, just because they are obscenely rich, they get to decide who gets help and who doesn't.
2
@Pooch
Oh, how did the U.S. ever manage before there were so many billionaires?
2
After two and a half years of Donald Trump and his moneyed greed in office , it's hard to understand how Americans could be so gullible as to believe another billionaire might come along and save this country by merely taking his place.
One might have thought the hard lessons would've been learned when it comes to egotistical moneymen who see power as their birth right, no matter how they choose to wield it --even if it compromises our Democracy.
Apparently not.
1
Bill Gates is the exemplar for billionaires with "runaway egos".
His unqualified meddling in the public education system has done much harm and virtually no good. His role in coercing the adoption of the Common Core standards and the misuse of standardized testing to threaten teachers and schools will take a generation to undo.
5
@rab
Can you really blame Bill Gates alone for all that?
@D. Smith
Bill and Melinda were not alone, but they played a major role. Their billions bought the bulk of the CC propoganda. Other culprits include David Coleman (now head of the College Board) and Arne Duncan, to name just a few.
1
I got this from another site but it is worth sharing. Instead of running for president, Mayor Bloomberg, consider buying Fox News and cleaning house? Calm the viewers. Spread truth and unity.
10
I look at it this way-- these billionaires are generally very smart people who work 24/7. If they're interested, they deserve as much a shot as any of the professional political crooks currently on deck. I'd support Bloomberg in a heartbeat.
2
@Steve
"...billionaires are generally very smart people who work 24/7" is true for someone like Donald Trump whose father gave him 400 million dollars?
1
I daresay, its getting to the point where the oligarchy in this country can pay their fair share the easy way or the hard way. Don't forget, when it comes to revolutions, Americans have felt perfectly comfortable with tar and feathers.
3
Bloomberg and the other billionaires are not just rich, but super duper rich, so it’s worth reading this NYT article---
“Warren Would Take Billionaires Down a Few Billion Pegs. Her tax proposals would significantly curb the gigantic fortunes of America’s richest families over time.”
By Patricia Cohen Nov. 10, 2019
Quote: "If Warren’s wealth tax had been in effect since 1982, then "Bloomberg would have had $12.3 billion instead of $51.8 billion.
Bill Gates would have had $13.9 b in 2018 instead of $97 b.
Jeff Bezos, the world’s richest person, would have had $48.8 b last year instead of $160 b.
Warren Buffett would have had $10.4 b rather than $88.3 b.
Mark Zuckerberg would have $32.5 b instead of $61 b.
The 400 people on Forbes list of the country’s wealthiest, each would have an average worth of $3.1 b, down from the current $7.2 b.
(She uses data from U of CA economists Saez and Zucman.)
"For fans (of Warren’s tax plan) it is a long-overdue effort to rebalance an economic system that has lavished outsize riches and political power on a tiny band of winners while stranding a vast majority of Americans in jobs that can no longer cover the cost of essentials like housing, education and health care.
A few billionaires favor a moderate wealth tax: George Soros, Liesel Pritzker Simmons, Ian Simmons, Chris Hughes, Nick Hanauer and 13 others."
PK, plz devote a column to them. Our media should publicize their views, during this Trump regime.
3
It's simple. Billionaires ARE the enemy of the people period.
4
If a Billionaire really wanted to do something good for America in the political arena, they should find a plumber or a manicurist, or taxi driver, or a Nurse...
...and provide them with enough money to run a campaign on whatever polices that person thinks is important. Just provide the money and lets see what a "common person" can do.
Not a rich guy and not a talk out of both sides of your mouth life time politician.
That is what a Billionaire could do if they had any brains and loved their country.
3
But every "good" American is waiting to be "saved" by becoming a tycoon?
1
If a dem runs on abolishing healthcare trump will win. That simple.
4
@Joe doaks That make absolutely zero sense, nobody is abolishing health care.
1
Nice column- should be required reading for all billionaires and their acolytes.
I agree with KellyAnn Conway's husband. The best thing Bloomberg or any other billionaire can do for this country is to buy Fox News and end its pro-Trump disinformation campaign.
4
Let’s “Burst the Economist Bubble”, Paul. How many really high paying taxable jobs has Bloomberg created? How about Gates, Bezos, Buffet and others? The answer is hundreds of thousands of jobs and billions upon billions of tax revenue. How many jobs have you created? None. Based upon this calculation, simple economics, your income is taxed far too little because you create nothing. Opinions don’t matter. Job creation does. Look at it this way, if there were no economy, there would be no field of economics and you would have no job. You think far too narrowly.
@Richard
Tax payers, in the aggregate, create jobs. Any fascist is very good at creating jobs. As long as people exchange goods and services, there is an economy.
Say what you want about “billionaires!” There are plenty of good ones and plenty of bad one’s...just like every other “group” on this earth.
Sure, the bad ones like the Koch brothers throw their money around but unless people who that money is offered to actually allow themselves to be bought and paid for, all that money is just so much fancy paper with portraits of presidents on it.
If I was offered a million dollars to burn my neighbor’s house down I wouldn’t do it even if I was assured that law enforcement would look the other way. Would you??!! And that’s my point. Everyone’s MAIN anger should be directed at the people who sell out when they know better. If everyone resisted all these megabuck “bribes”, billionaires would be limited to one man (woman) one vote just like we “peons!”
So please, hate ONLY those corrupt billionaires for offering the bribes. But hate just as much those who take them!
1
What kind of greed-head do you have to be to put the amount of effort and time into accumulating billions of $s. I guess it is an addiction like anything else. Once you get that adrenaline of making, say, $50 million, you can't stop until you get to a billion, and then 2 billion, etc.
That must be why they are all panicking. We are going to cut into their stash of their drug. By this time they need more and more and will fight to the death to maintain it.
We put druggies in jail (shouldn't, but we do) or have them go to rehab. Let's create rehab for billionaires where they can wean themselves off their billions and learn to live on say $50 million/year.
2
@RAH
Compound interest solves the problem of become a billionaire once you've gained a few hundred million.
"But the idea that America is just waiting for a billionaire businessman to save the day by riding in on a white horse — or, actually, being driven over in a black limo — is just silly.
No. We really are waiting for that. Drive over all the billionaires with black limos. And then have the limos back up and drive over them again. :-)
1
Where was all the criticism when some thought Oprah might run?
@Lindah , answer: Oprah could win. That's why many (including me!) supported this pipedeam. Bloomberg doesn't have "it."
This makes me wonder. I was always taught by the main stream media just before the near depression recession of 2008 that it was the best and the brightest that made America what it is. In fact without them there would be no America. You see as the media would say "they deserve every penny that they so deservedly earn". Then came the crash and I was so amazed to find them before the trough of the common citizen taxpayer wanting a much needed bailout through the taxes paid by their indentured servants me and you. And guess what their wasn't a single one of them that was aware of how the economy and their company was related. No they absolved themselves of all responsibility " who me that's preposterous". So now the simple minded buffoon, the common citizen, isn't smart enough to even put 2 and 2 together to figure out who was really responsible. Well one of the current democratic socialist candidates, Elizabeth Warren, has put her finger right on it an guess what they still think we can be fooled. There is nothing special or undefinable when it comes to knowing that anybody with a billion or more dollars has manipulated and denied others of their fair share of the pie. If they think that they are going to get away unscathed, unfortunately for the rest of us common folk they certainly will. Look at the history of every country, have the cronies really ever lost their power and wealth? Their treachery and deception will be dealt with on the "Day of the LORD".
1
@JLC
What makes you think that the "best and the brightest" includes billionaires. Donald Trump's father gave him 400 million dollars. After that, he only needed compound interest to become a billionaire.
Better a billionaire than Lizzie.
I love billionaires, I could eat a whole one right now.
Here we go once again.
I'm gong to keep posting this until you publish it!
"That is, they are for racial equality and LGBTQ rights, but against major tax increases on the wealthy and big expansion in social programs. And that’s a perfectly coherent point of view." -P. Krugman
This describes all of the $tatu$ Quo, coroporado Dems like $tatu$ Quo Joe Biden, Mayor Pete and Senator Klobuchar.
You have to hand it to Republicans. When they take power they do stuff - most of it is extremely harmful to the environment, the working class, poor and elderly, but they do stuff. They aren't just $tatu$ Quo caretakers like the above.
Democrats need policy proposals that substantively change the lives for the better of the working class, poor and elderly. This is why we need a Green New Deal, Medicare for All, a living wage and free college.
If Dems don't deliver on those policies, you can consign them to the dustbin of history.
"No, America isn’t waiting for a tycoon savior."
In your opinion, Paul, what is America waiting for?
1
@hm1342 Paul. Prof. Krugman surely believes no one is smarter than himself, and that if just did what he thought best, all would be well.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/08/14/democrats-must-reclaim-the-center-by-moving-hard-left-219354
Nick Hanauer is an example to the contrary. Let's be sure that we don't demonize the "rich" that want us all to succeed.
I'm shocked that Krugman actually proffers that his is an "unscientific sense".
Actually, 70% of Amercians support Medicare for All. This is probalby one of the reason so many Democratic candidates said they supported Bernie's bill in the first debate.
https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/412545-70-percent-of-americans-support-medicare-for-all-health-care
1
Romney made the argument for the top .0001 % in 2012- they are the economic gods who give us food, clothes and shelter. Without them we die in the wilderness, gnashing stones for supper.
The opposing theory, most clearly offered by Sen S, is they are vampire drones, sucking the energy out of We, the actual founders of the feast. Which weltanschauung best fits the our utilitarian interests?
What we have to posit a priori is that wealth is power and concentration of wealth concentrates power...we may not be in a "Five Families" situation, but 50 may not be far off.
&, when we add in our national dilemma, that wealth buys administration and law (including tax policy), we get to the crux- what is to be done? Romney says- feed the beast. Socialism? Feed on the beast. Tax them back into the middle.
But is that enough? Will that fix the fact that most systems feed the elders while beggaring the youngers with children
(hence greatest economic needs)?
And then we have that perpetual wealth making machine- the stock market. Fed by dumb bunny paycheck monies the Casino wheel can be fixed to constantly produce more "wealth", going mostly to the top %. And forcing corps to hike the bills for the rest of us. How to fix that, without a major crash (maybe no way...)?
More Immediately we must get woke to the fact that the rich are doing well with Pres T, and vote their $s for their portfolios.
Fear Dem sheep in wolf pelts. Or the unwitting judas goat...
First off, enough of the citing of polls showing low numbers for Bloomberg, I have a half-eaten hoagie in my fridge that is older than his candidacy. Wait till people actually hear what he has to say.
Secondly, I think being a billionaire resonates with a lot of voters who don't read the New York Times, let alone some guy named Paul Krugman who writes for it. ( I know who Paul Krugman is, I'm just saying.) A lot of ostensibly sane Trump supporters used to cite as a positive Trump being a billionaire as if to say that if he could be a billionaire he must know what he is doing. Well, in Bloomberg's case that is actually a valid line of reasoning.
Lastly, I could care less that he is a billionaire. Therefore, the entire premise for this article is meaningless to me. He is a centrist who prioritizes climate change and gun control. If he mentions overturning Citizens United I'm going to personally throw him a parade on my street in my underwear.
2
@C. M. Jones
Trump is a billonaire partly because his father gave him 400 million dollars. Then all he needed was compound interest. It's obvious that Trump dosn't know what he's doing.
1
"Billionaires need not apply."
Thanks Paul!
1
So, Mr. K, when are you going to "get to" Michael Bloomberg?
I'm gong to keep posting this until you publish it!
"That is, they are for racial equality and LGBTQ rights, but against major tax increases on the wealthy and big expansion in social programs. And that’s a perfectly coherent point of view." -P. Krugman
This describes all of the $tatu$ Quo, coroporado Dems like $tatu$ Quo Joe Biden, Mayor Pete and Senator Klobuchar.
You have to hand it to Republicans. When they take power they do stuff - most of it is extremely harmful to the environment, the working class, poor and elderly, but they do stuff. They aren't just $tatu$ Quo caretakers like the above.
Democrats need policy proposals that substantively change the lives for the better of the working class, poor and elderly. This is why we need a Green New Deal, Medicare for All, a living wage and free college.
If Dems don't deliver on those policies, you can consign them to the dustbin of history.
Once again.
I'm gong to keep posting this until you publish it!
"That is, they are for racial equality and LGBTQ rights, but against major tax increases on the wealthy and big expansion in social programs. And that’s a perfectly coherent point of view." -P. Krugman
This describes all of the $tatu$ Quo, coroporado Dems like $tatu$ Quo Joe Biden, Mayor Pete and Senator Klobuchar.
You have to hand it to Republicans. When they take power they do stuff - most of it is extremely harmful to the environment, the working class, poor and elderly, but they do stuff. They aren't just $tatu$ Quo caretakers like the above.
Democrats need policy proposals that substantively change the lives for the better of the working class, poor and elderly. This is why we need a Green New Deal, Medicare for All, a living wage and free college.
If Dems don't deliver on those policies, you can consign them to the dustbin of history.
Bloomberg "successfully ran New York."
Trump successfully ran... from the IRS, the law, military service, the truth, all facts, scrutiny, Mueller, two wives, several businesses into the ground... (so far).
1
$107,000,000,000
Even toddlers know they have to share.
2
No calloused hands on Wall Street.
one of the major problems is money in politics. as paul points out it all started with reagan, union busting, lack of anti trust prosecution, increased military spending, trickle down(flood up) "vodoo economics". but if you look at it, it all starts with nov 22, 1963 in dallas. that gives you lbj, civil rights (the loss/flip of the southern democrats into republicans) and vietnam which gives you nixon (by way of rfk assasination, chicago riots against vietnam and law and order backlash) which gives you watergate. and voters said i am voting for the other guy who is not dirty and you get mr clean (and ineffectual) dark horse jimmy carter. he makes america look like a weak fool with the iranian hostages and the economy is tanked via high interest rates (vietnam spending inflation overhang/backlash) and you get reagan & the bushes( because you can't trust a democrat to defend the usa) and 20 years of tax decreases, increased military spending and war mongering/crimes (iraq) & incompetent war leadership (iraq, nation building in the graveyard of empires: afghanistan). the two kennedy asassinations and carter get you to the end of obama. you only get trump due to the additions of facebook, twitter, reality tv, google,the internet & social media and it's exploitation by the trolls, the wealthy (citizens united) and the russians. toss in the end of the fairness doctrine, fox news, carl rove, roger ailes, anti washington backlash, hilary: deplorables, emails, voila: trump.
Krugman is only a multimillionaire, so his doctrines are unassailable. They made money because most people are greedy fools who want cell phones and designer handbags.
Keep feeding the envy and jealousy machine.
There is an insatiable appetite.
Hey, America.
Pieces like this is exactly why Donald Trump is getting a second term.
You see, billionaires are not the problem, the system of governance in the U.S.A (and worldwide) is the problem, because the system of governance is the foundation to everything in our environments, so unless that changes — nothing will!
No country on this here earth is a true democracy, inequality thrives everywhere, even in “progressive” Scandinavia, because most systems are what I’d like to call “political allegories” — they are presented as one thing, but if you look closer, you’ll see what they really are.
The truth is: America is a demagoguery presented as a democracy.
It’s almost impossible to ameliorate such a system, because it has become the status quo — not only in the U.S. — but worldwide.
Sure your politicians are talking about dismantling the billionaire class, but it’s all lip service, because those politicians are backed by the billionaire class — for as long as that relationship exists, nothing will change.
There’s too much money in American politics, and ethics erode when the almighty dollar and all of its grand promises is presented to a morally precarious human being such as a politician.
The U.S. Dollar is like the BT’s from Death Stranding.
The system over there will always create winners and losers, that’s what makes America AMERICA...
...but most importantly, that’s what makes the world AMERICA.
1
Just because some one has money
Doesn't mean they will make things sunny
Socrates said no businessman to lead
Its only money they bleed
Congress is full of rich men
How much and when
The people voted for daddy Warbucks
He raided the Treasure of their bucks
Adam Smith warned never trust a businessman
He'll not protect you from the capitalist plan
The rich tell you they know whats best
Past performances is the test
Bloomberg has my vote!!
Please tell me where I send him send him my Bank Routing Number and my Account Number.
1
So Bloomberg’s candidacy is something “only a billionaire could believe.”? I think you’re the best columnist there is, Mr. Krugman, but...Trump won.
2
Using the term 'Wealth Inequality" in American Politics is disingenuous....we remain the most prosperous nation and also the nation with the BEST wealth distribution. Look around your real world and tell me I'm wrong.
....
I say the the serious problem in the USA....is that we are taxing the Wrong Things. "Fair Tax"? Hooey.....no such thing.....taxes are inherently UNfair.......thats why we call it a "tax"!! It TAXES our patience with the Govt.
....
Proposal:
1. Eliminate Offshore Banking....it serves no positive purpose in the Modern World of instantaneous transfers of banking funds via electronic communications.
2. Create a new Tax Treatment for any and all businesses set up to work inside the govt. Lobbyists, Defense Firms, Contractors, NGOs, everyone inside the beltway.....TAX'em......UNfairly. Also they must have a physical office and employees in every US district they seek to do business in.......
3. Want REAL campaign reform? Tax Campaign Contributions....SuperPACs PACs, Elizabeths Warren's Tax Free Campaign FUNd.....etc, etc.
4. Go where the money is being made......TAX the INTERNET.....again.....unfairly.
Bloomberg won’t even get to the Buttigieg level, “strong fourth” in the polls.
1
At the current pace, the top 10% of households will have 100% of the wealth in the U.S. 33 years from now. Billionaire or not, you'd have to be living in a bubble to think this is sustainable.
Source: https://www.dallasnews.com/business/personal-finance/2019/08/04/at-this-rate-the-rich-could-truly-have-it-all-just-33-years-from-now/
1
Karl Marx is taboo in the USA . it is as if you were talking about the Devil ! Worse than the Devil.
One only need look at the billionaire who presently resides in the White House to know that they are not, and will never be, saviors.
Get the money OUT of politics!
Medicare for All is Warren's kryptonite, and she brings it into the situation herself.
What could be simpler than Medicare Opt-in, as a slogan and a goal? Details would have to be worked out, but plans are her strong suit.
A crying shame, really.
2
Billionaires have so much money because they don't share. Both of cash and control.
I know many wealthy, successful, self-made entrepreneurs that love to create wealth and run a company, but decided early to include others on their journey and create wealth and success for many, not only themselves.
It's a mindset called sharing.
1
I am not in favor of completely eradicating private insurance for those who have it. But I still would vote for Sanders or Warren over Trump.
As far as Billionaires are concerned, lucky them. I do not begrudge their wealth. I begrudge the fact that they are not fairly taxed. End of story.
3
I am struck by the Calvinist strain in American thought. The idea that the proof that god has chosen you is that you are rich.
We have an example in the man in the white house, who is seen by godly folks as the chosen one, why? Because he is "rich".
Very wealthy people also come to see themselves as specially anointed, maybe not by god, but by some inner quality that sets them apart from the undeserving poor.
The secular version of that idea is, of course, in the thoughts of Ayn Rand - who is considered a prophet by many in the Republican Party.
That we have billionaires who see themselves as saviors is not a surprise.
1
Let's face it. American capitalism by its very nature has a built-in bias towards the rich and powerful. And if left alone without regulation and controls, results in what we now see, a rich oligarchy resulting in the fact that a small percentage at the top owns more wealth than the bottom 50 percent.
But that is not the bigger rot. The bigger rot is how politics works in America and what people need to do to become elected officials, and the whole name of the game is to become willing or unwilling advocates for the rich and powerful.
Today we are at a crisis point, perfectly symbolized in the election and reign of terror of Donald Trump, himself a proclaimed billionaire.
The fact that our election system is also under attack, both by foreign powers and our own politicians (think voter suppression) means that all things taken together, the chances of our democracy surviving are increasingly slim.
There are days like these when as an older citizen I take some comfort in not going to be around that much longer. But I feel sorry for my grandchildren.
2
With opinions like this, I am sure you would be missed dearly. Stay as long as you can please, your sense of right and wrong is exceptionally necessary.
I'll be apparently the lone, late voice of dissent.
I'm the sole owner and sole long-term employee of my own small business. I pay a lot in taxes, and I employ a few short-term employees who use my business as a springboard to better jobs and greater careers.
Between Google, Yahoo, my iPhone, Microsoft software, and Amazon (ugh!), my personal and professional productivity, as a sole business owner, have outperformed any solo business owner of 25 years ago. I have saved hundreds of thousands of dollars by using these tech giants' resources to solve problems that teams of workers could not have solved in the past.
I am hardly alone in this. That's why tech tycoons have made so much money: millions of people like me benefit greatly by using their products every day.
I might find individual billionaires personally obnoxious or offensive, but it seems that they are wealthy primarily because they have figured out how to meet the extremely demanding needs of millions of consumers.
1
Please show some examples where it has worked. Few and far between. Many more failures than successes. Let's stop kidding ourselves.
1
But the one multi-billionaire who successfully ran a complex government is Michael Bloomberg.
Parallels can be drawn between the 'fall of communism' in Russia, and the 'fall of democracy' here in the US: not much of stretch if you think about it.
Communism, like pure Socialism, means the state owns the means of production. In the US now, the giant Corps basically own the means of production, and it is getting worse with the Wall St on-going market consolidations. With the power that comes from owning the means of production comes political and economic power over all.
We have our own oligarchs, as Russia does: Tell me what happens here if they don't approve of it. The entire GOP is at their beck and call. Signs: Gates is afraid of Warren and what she represents: Bloomberg steps in hoping to represent this class and protect it's power. Compared to those two, Trump is a pauper. But, Trump is in power and we can see directly that his aim is to disassemble our what Bannon calls the 'administrative' state. Anarchy? No, Putin style government instead.
2
As a Medicare recipient, I am sympathetic to the possibility of Medicare for All. I have one major reservation, though.
If the idea is that private insurance should be eliminated, I agree with that. The unnecessarily ridiculous high costs of insurance premiums should be excised from the system. And, employers should like that, as they pay a large portion of those premiums.
Whether that is likely to happen is what gives me pause. Employees who have employment related insurance coverage should logically also be for eliminating that burden on their employers, even if their taxes would have to be raised in order to pay for the Medicare for All. Thir employers would just compensate their employees more, wouldn't they? This is where the proposal breaks down.
Is there any chance that employers will convert the savings they realize by not having to provide insurance coverage for their employees into dollar for dollar raises in employee wages? No way, unless the law were to compel them to. What are the chances of that? Not likely.
So, the only class of people who gain by eliminating job based health insurance are the employers - not the employees, who would be stuck with higher taxes to pay for M4A and the same lower wage scale with which to pay them.
1
It’s fashionable to think that billionaires all live in a bubble but I can’t imagine Bloomberg as mayor of New York for twelve years not realizing and being aware of the needs of the less fortunate in his city.
6
Most of our economic ills can be traced back to Reaganomics, which the GOP adheres to, to molly coddle their rich donors.
They seem to forget trickle down was aptly named... the vast bulk of the spoils were kept at the top 1% and the rest were fed a trickle!
Not all billionaires are bad people, of course not, but they cannot seem to understand the insecurities and struggles of the common man. And unfortunately a small but sufficient fraction of them have involved themselves politically... they influence enough people in a single party to draw all the benefits they need. Think Koch brothers and their control of the GOP!
They just need enough to tip the scales in the legislature and judiciary. They have the propaganda machine to amplify their message, all of which essentially they control. Then they coopted the conservative ideas and here we are. At their mercy.
The irony is they could still be rich and wealthy, and yet remove this chronic, stifling, stressful poverty and inequality. That is exactly what Warren and Sanders are proposing.
Imagine that just the top 3 billionaires own nearly a third of a trillion dollars in wealth! Why do they feel so insecure?
1
Dr. Krugman - If somebody were to say Nobel Prize and fame are not good for your reality sense? Democrats need to stop playing identity politics. That is what gave us Trump. There is nothing wrong with being a self-made billionaire. I welcome Mark Bloomberg to the race. I am eager to listen what he has to say about how he is going to defeat Trump.
The bubble inside a bubble has a name - "shell companies."
Warren should burst that billionaire bubble by proposing to end all shell companies and confiscate the wealth of shell companies whose ultimate beneficiary refuses to claim the assets or identify himself. See how fast the ultimate beneficiaries identify themselves to claim the confiscated wealth - or not, in the case of kleptocratic authoritarians and those who can't prove the wealth used legitimate or appropriately taxed.
All those empty "shell" condos on billionaire's row with no obvious owner - sieze it until the ultimate beneficiary claims and identifies himself and demonstrates that the wealth was legitimately obtained and taxed.
My guess is that Warren would be able to recover more than 2% per year on the tiny portion of wealth the wealthiest are willing to admit to - and avoiding it being taxed at 2%. There is no other way to force these people to disclose their entire wealth, source and if it had been properly taxed.
The 2% tax on accumulated wealth should be called "restitution" to society for 40 years of freebies and tax giveaways to the rich at society's expense.
Yes Paul, the super rich are self deluded into believing the better off are better than the masses, studies prove it, and simple observation, when you can peek into the gated mansions, maybe get an interview, also proves it.
University of California conducted studies that examined the way social class measured in wealth, occupational prestige and education effects empathy. Researchers observed drivers at a four-way intersection. People driving luxury cars cut off other cars instead of waiting their turn the most often, regardless of the driver being a man or a woman. It didn’t matter what time of day it was or how much traffic.
And oh those taxes, very bad, so say the billionaire class generally. So in a voting democracy how can folks be foolish that they vote in tax slashers who cut them off in traffic? Advertising is brainwashing, and obviously it works. 'Money is speech and corporations are people.' Until those edicts are swept away by constitutional amendments, the wealth gap will get larger not smaller.
1
michael bloomberg did great things for new york im sure he could do the same for america if we gave him the chance
4
Nicely done.
You mean we need to allow billionaires to exist because $999,999,999.99 just isn't enough?
Every time Gates opens his mouth to whine like a toddler I have less respect for him. He’s rapidly approaching zero respect.
Dr Krugman--you never mentioned Michael Bloomberg at all in your lengthy opus.
You seem to be rationalizing the greed and ignorance inherent in the inequality that billionaires enjoy.
There is no decency in greed and ignorance no matter how expensive your aftershave smells.
1
A billion dollars is an astronomical amount of money. Anyone who desires that much wealth , and more of it , is clearly mentally ill and sociopathic, but then again man is the weirdest animal of all. Imagine a squirrel hoarding a billion nuts , or a lion killing a whole herd of a thousand wilderbeast in one go....for what ?!
2
My own unscientific sense tells me that Delores DeLago -no matter how rich she may be by her own talents and efforts- would be a much better occupant of Mar-a-Lago and of the ‘Summer White House’ than that one currant [pun intended]. Ms. DeLago’s motives might be as fishy as the currant’s, but in an entirely different way -and much more humane, for some reason. She certainly understands the consequences of the the notion of ’trickle down’, and I will mention the notions of racism and ethnicity.
“a-Lago for DeLago! a-Lago for DeLago!! a-Lago for DeLago!!!”
All these marxists who are criticizing the capitalis system are anti American .Even the name of Karl Marx should be banned and illegal to write or pronounce.
The "Capital " books should be gathered and burnt .
@JPH
"Where books are burned, in the end, people will also be burned." - Heinrich Heine 1823
Is that what you want?
@S W Hanna It was cynical.
I read and admire the work of Marx.
But I know it is taboo here in the USA.
1
When Bloomberg was mayor, the streets were clean, Jews were not attacked on the streets daily in Brooklyn, people paid their subway fare, public schools didn't promote racial ideology over teaching children, the subway wasn't a complete disaster, and the homeless didn't get away with whatever crimes they wanted to commit. He was a great executive. He has more experience as an executive than every Democrat running, which includes his time running a massive corporation. You, Mr. Krugrman, are a professor. You know nothing about what it takes to actually lead an organization.
1
Waiting for a tycoon savior?
Ahhh, Paul, we’ve already got one and contrary to your own 2016 election night predictions of impending marketplace doom, most of us are doing okay.
Now, could you please do something about Trump, Obama and our bi-partisan congress giving hundreds of millions of dollars in aid to the corrupt and incompetent government of Ukraine.
Impeachment buffoonery notwithstanding, our placing American made Javelin anti-tank missiles on Russia’s very border is the height of irresponsibility. No Washington DC/New York City power elite like yourself seems capable of writing this. I just did.
". . . being driven over in a black limo. . ." Not Mike. He hovers over the whole mess in a private chopper. Mike is, truly, above it all.
Couldn't agree more. That white horse doesn't exist anymore—it has grayed and even blackened into the shadow of Oligarchy. Unfortunately the New York Times is part of the problem. Your paper has decided who the choices are, based on the DNC and the rest of the media. Ever heard of Michael Bennet? With all due respect (I am a fan), you would do more good Mr Krugman, to write an essay on the candidate(s) who can win that are not repeated ad nauseam in your paper.
Driving Miss Daisy is now Voting for Crazy Rich.
Sad.
What is tiring, really tiring is people like you who are rich and in the top 1% telling everyone else not to listen to the rich. You are rich so we should not be listening to you. You Mr Paul have been wrong about every single issue since you won you Nobel and how you did that is beyond me. Someone who is rich doesn't effect anyone from succeeding in America. It doesn't stop them from getting a eduction, a job or making money. How someone who is supposed to understand economics believes that there is only a limited # of dollars in the pot and if someone is rich another person can't make it is beyond me. That is how 8 year olds think. Not only that I am really tired of liberal, rich folks tell people what to do. Paul, sell everything you worked for, give it to the poor and start living with the poor or in some 400 sq foot apartment. Otherwise, like the rest of the liberals who do nothing but talk and never walk, please just be quiet you never say anything important or intelligent.
@Glenn The obscenely rich (which Krugman is not) "buy" laws and policies (nationally and locally), that definitely effect whether people get an education and/or a job.
If you start out poor, like Steven Jobs, and become a billionaire because you create something novel , worth while and unique - yes, you deserve it
It is good for the country, and employment
If you are a billionaire because you inherited it - no
If you are a billionaire because you are good a money shuffling on Wall Street - you should do with less, say a few millions.
Unfortunately, that is politically not feasible. Read up on how Schumer prevented hedge fund managers to be taxed like you and me. He worked hard to have them pay LESS
NY Times
In Opposing Tax Plan, Schumer Breaks With Party
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/washington/30schumer.html
And thanks to him, to this day, their top federal tax is 23.8%
If you wonder why, click here
https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/contributors?cid=N00001093&cycle=C
More Krugman's chumming for NYT commenters. Except for an update to include the latest entries into the Democrats Derby (Bloomberg), this article adds nothing to his previous ideas. Copy-paste is so much faster, professor.
1
Nailed it!
Whether Bloomberg is a billionaire or not doesn't have much relevance for me. The fact that he built a real business and was mayor of NYC is what's relevant. The far left is having their heyday, but Elizabeth Warren will lose badly. I hope Bloomberg pulls it off, but maybe the far left pipe dreamers need a dose of reality and we need to experience Trump beating Warren handily.
American patriots who overthrew the British were skeptical of aristocracy that's developed in our country, the principal reason we pay politicians a salary. They didn't want aristocrats with free time to govern us.
Medicare for All is not as disruptive as Krugman states if we create a single, public insurance program based on a non-profit administration that's comprehensive and portable. The payment side can be single payer as many candidates propose or multi-payer like French and German residents enjoy.
Germans pay about 15% of salary, evenly split between employer and employee for the social security system that includes medical care, about what Americans contribute in payroll taxes. Germans are not penalized for pre-existing conditions that limit access to insurance, they have no deductibles, and if they lose their job, they don't lose their health insurance. Germans can choose any doctor that participates in the public system as Americans could with a similar system.
Imagine the savings we'll see when Medicare covers the medical portion of workers compensation like Canada. Many US firms pay over 50% of payroll for workers comp. American auto, home, liability and workers compensation policies will become less expensive, good economic and social policy.
Medicare for All will never require people to remain paupers for Medicaid or limit their income for ACA subsidies, aka welfare.
Americans may be receptive to the German system. We still have time to get it right.
1
So now we only hate the billionaire. Millionaires like Bernie are really socialists. I think not. This conversation reminds me of Lesley Stahl's questioning of Jamie Dimon on 60 minutes and asking him if he is making too much. He runs a worldwide company that employs 275000 people and earns less than basketball player or a pop star.
3
Go ahead, billionaires, have your say, but remember you ARE only the 1%. Let the other 99% of us vote for whoever WE want.
1
The "Me" decade of the eighties has continued on with gusto. I am one who believes that billionaires should not exist, at least on a moral level. To have such an excess of money when there are people all around you going bankrupt after getting a serious illness, or being evicted because they chose food instead of rent, is something that I personally could not live with. Should the government be the one to control that people ask?
I see no other way to do it.
2
"...proposing the abolition of private insurance could unnerve tens of millions of middle-class voters"
The reason that is true is exactly what Democrats don't get. The Obama to Trump voters want to be included in the top half, rather than think they have more in common with the bottom half. Many think that Medicare for All will mean their health coverage is no longer top half. They see themselves sitting with the scuz in a poor public hospital waiting room. The fact that so many Americans are content with the bottom half having nothing, not even enough to pay for an unexpected car repair, and identify with crude rich guys who deny climate change and say they earned it all is America's horror story.
1
Here is a thought 2% of wealth over 50 million is likely less than the gains earned on that wealth per year. Unless the investor is very bad at it like Trump of course (wink wink). So what are they losing? Is less than exponential growth of their wealth really so bad?
1
We need to stop with the cult of admiration for the billionaire class in America. Even where they do good work like Bill Gates, what they do doesn't change a system that is always stacked in their favor. With gobs of money they find it easy to purchase politicians. With that access they have laws crafted so that they can continue to concentrate wealth in their hands.
What has happened recently is that parts of the American public are starting to wake up to the fact that the vast concentration of wealth in a few hands is not healthy for our democracy. The trickle down arguments are no longer working because most of us know better. The billionaire class needs to start paying their fair share in taxes and we need to start electing people that will fight their greed and avarice. We also don't need any more billionaires as president.
It is time we take our country back from these plutocrats. This doesn't mean we will take all of their wealth. That is nonsense, but what it does imply is that they and their businesses will be taxed in a manner that leaves the nation with enough to provide all with education, healthcare and decent housing. The system that exists is unjustly skewed in their favor and that imbalance needs to be rectified.
2
Don't forget that many billionaires ($1,000,000,000) "earned" their wealth running gambling casinos, which used to be the territory of the mob.
Their customers line up saying, "here, take my money".
Counting the daily take is hard work. But the hours are good. And yearly interest (even at 2%) amounts to $20,000,000.
Why is it that "Medicare for All" requires elimination of private insurance? Current Medicare functions fine with Advantage and Supplemental Policies. I am sure that anyone who wanted to forgo Medicare and have their own policy would find someone to sell it to them. Saying that "Medicare for All" requires the elimination of private policies just scares people for no purpose. Making "Medicare for All" actuarally sound certain requires the assumption that everyone participate and that everyone contribute, but that does not require eliminating a persons right to contract for something else. That might not be a wise financial decision, but people make unwise financial decisions every day. If that's what they want to do, why should we care. We just have to make sure that they can't opt out, just the same as we don't allow people to opt out of supporting the military or the local court system.
4
Income inequality and climate change are essentials requiring a long game, when most citizens are living play to play. Sadly almost all of our elected representatives are in the 1% - would that working folks would take turns -a la jury duty- to steer the ship of state- bu that is not our reality- so who among our Forbes stable is trustworthy?. In the Bloominator we have a billionaire with vision and a public health major. While Dr. Krugman's points are true, there is something to be said for a life in charge of the bullpen of activity that builds a billion dollar business- a good qualification for the big cleanup after 4 years of reckless ego in the china shop.
It angers me when I read that robber baron-like companies end up each year not paying any income tax.
For those of us on a fixed income, it has to be fixed pretty small in order to not pay any income tax.
The youngest presidential candidate and no doubt the least wealthy - Pete Buttigieg - has a much more mature and sensible approach to Medicare For All - For all who want it, and doesn't require abolishing private insurance. He needs more coverage by the media.
1
It seems that the uber rich now want to get in on running our country. Actually they can do whatever they decide to do. They can afford to just buy most small countries but that doesn't mean they should be able to buy a position in ours. Just because they can run a financial business Empire doesn't mean they know how to properly navigate a Democracy through the shoals of the world. Making money by fiat is not a Democracy it is a Aristocracy.
Bloomberg is the only candidate in this race that I'm genuinely excited about. I'd be all inn on Mayor Pete, but he's too young....
1
Of greater importance to humanity is our collective will to act in reducing the harmful effects of climate change, which will wreak havoc and misery on the world if it isn't slowed and reversed.
If the rich should use their fortunes to help fund solutions to the climate crisis, they could make a better claim to deserving such wealth. "Much is expected from those to whom much has been given." And no, spending $50 million on yachts, $100 million of art work, $80 million on apartments, and many millions on funding politicians who protect your wealth is not helping humanity one bit.
3
I don’t understand the concern over Pete b’s age. By your thirties I feel you’ve probably experienced most of life’s challenges, debt, health, family, death, divorce etc. If he was 47 vs 37 how would he be different in any major way? What is the magic number? If age is so important then Biden is the obvious candidate. As a fifty something democratic voter, I find Pete b’s thirty something status a refreshing departure from another out of touch senior citizen.
We not only suffer from the concentration of wealth in this country; but, the concentration of political power in the Executive Branch. The Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of government are supposed to be coequal; at least that is the way are Constitution was envisioned. They are not. How did things get out of whack? Look to the American voter for the answer. Too many have become apathetic, complacent, and too willing to be misled. A participatory Democracy only works when the voters participate. Too many do not. A bigger percentage of voters has started to get engaged as they did in 2018 and changed the composition of the House. The Senate will take a little longer as only one in three Senators face election. Getting rid of Mitch McConnell is a necessity there. The judicial will take a decade or better to flush out many of the poor choices pushed through the system by McConnell. It is self evident that trump needs to go, but with whom will he be replaced? While it is almost self-evident that the Citizens United ruling needs to be undone, a strong electorate can blunt the worst excesses brought on by the flood of special interest cash flowing into the political system, which in fact is what gives the obscenely wealthy their undue influence on our political system.
1
"...quite a few people combine these sentiments with racial hostility and social illiberalism, which is why they seem to vote against their own economic interests."
The thing is, since at least the 1990's, Democrats have not done much to differentiate themselves from Republicans on economic issues. Sure, they are more willing to raise taxes, but only at the margins. And until Sanders ran in 2016, they were all scared to be labeled "tax-and-spend liberals." Remember Clinton's Reinventing Government initiative? It was basically outsourcing GS jobs to contractors. So now the owners of the contracting firms make their fortunes by paying the people who actually do the work less than a government employee would make for doing the same job. Remember Obama's flirtation with a "grand bargain" in order to get a budget passed? And neither party did anything to prevent the misery associated with jobs lost to free trade agreements. So if working class people who are struggling financially like what the GOP is saying on social issues, I can see why they would just throw up their hands and either stay home or vote for Republicans, since they know neither party is looking out for their economic interests. Maybe this time around Warren and Sanders can at least get some of them to reconsider.
1
I object to Bloomberg running because it risks taking primary support from the kind of moderate candidate the Democrats need to minimize chances of looking to Trump and to maximize Congressional gains. Moreover, he's a very moderate moderate .
However, general arguments against super wealthy Presidents falter in the face of the fact that super wealthy Teddy Roosevet is, excepting Lincoln, the most Progressive President ever elected as a Republican and that super wealthy FDR defines the gold standard for accomplished Progressive reform.
1
It appears that Mr. Krugman has negatively judged Mr. Bloomberg using as the only metric the amount of money he has. It's as if, in Krugman's view, people (read men) with too much money need not apply for the office of the Presidency. Sounds like reverse discrimination to me. Come on Paul, you can do better than this. Judge the man on his ideas, his temperament, or his character. But don't disqualify him solely because he's made more money than the rest of us.
1
"I worry about the politics of Medicare for All because the abolition of private insurance could unnerve tens of millions of voters." Me too, especially voters getting employer provided insurance. How about instead abolishing private insurance, we eliminate the unfair tax advantage of employer provided insurance by making payments by individuals for insurance (private or a gov option) deductible, require employers to offer employees the option of taking the cost of their insurance in cash in lieu of insurance, offer a gov option and let the market work it out.
@Jeff Atkinson It's as simple as who gets the bill. Employers will have to pay into Universal Health, so they will make a contribution as before. The difference is that an employee will not be so beholden to staying with a job they may hate because of "benefits" therefore not being as productive, because we will all be covered. Also, If this is a "Medicare for All" plan, you would have most doctors taking this insurance, because they will have to. As it stands it is a labyrinth as far as in-network, out-of network with private insurance, and many many people DO NOT GO TO THE DOCTOR BECAUSE OF HIGH DEDUCTIBLES. This will change. Yes there will be a transition phase, but a lot of people switch from private plans to Medicare every day. I think a lot of people just bristle at any kind of upheaval in their lives, and can't deal with anything different. In order for Universal to truly work, it needs to be just that. I'm in because I'm sick of the health insurance giants, and all the bloat.
@duvcu Apparently you think the Dems have "tens of millions of voters" to risk. Dr. Krugman isn't so sure. Neither am I.
I never understood the rush to remove taxes on the wealthy. Repeatedly high income earners show they have no appreciation for the country that allows to be wealthy.
Why should dividends and capital gains (above a low level that a weekend investor might make) be taxed at so low a level? Those who make robust income from capital ought to be paying taxes at standard rates. And 'carried interest' the same.
Post Citizens United, the wealthy buy their Congressmen who kick back campaign donations in the form of tax cuts. How is that not the same as bribery?
5
Or to put it another way, taxes on income earned from actual work should not be taxed at a higher rate than income earned from not working.
Billionaires are a anomaly and should be looked at as a problem not admired. If you had one lightbulb in your house drawing more and more power while the rest got dimmer you would remove that bulb and throw it away.
3
In the ~4minutes it would take Bill Gates to read a Krugman piece, he would have "earned" very roughly $100k, which is about 1.6 times the median US income. That's every 4 minutes. He could easily "earn" a million bucks just watching cat videos.
Not picking on Bill, but try and tell me that the quality of life for him and his ilk would be desecrated if they had to read two Krugman pieces to "earn" $100k. What if they only earned $10k every 4 minutes? Would innovation and entrepreneurship evaporate?
2
What is democracy for if not a way for the masses to enable a redistribution of wealth?
Really....think about it.
One person, one vote.....is SO POWERFUL as a tool to redistribute wealth.
@EC
If only we could get there for real from here!
You write "the idea that America is just waiting for a billionaire businessman to save the day ... is just silly."
But isn't that exactly what happened in 2016?
1
@wt
Except that no matter what he claims, he isn't a billionaire.
Name another billionaire who needed to claim bankruptcy 6 times.
I don’t get it.
Democrats pretty much ignored white working class America which caused them to lose to Donald Trump.
Now they are demanding to ignore any white billionaires who actually have the money and message needed to win back those voters.
We seem to want to ignore all the people who could help beat the clear and present danger that is in office now.
Can we stop with the nonsense?
The country is at stake here.
1
@Jane
Oh wait. Then it wasn't the Dems that passed the ACA? Working Joe stiff has been so highly misled and misinformed by, oh yes, the vast (well funded) right-wing conspiracy that their heads are still spinning. And with plenty of help from abroad.
1
See the NTT article this past week on how hospitals are suing middle class patients who can’t afford to pay their bills, the article feathered people who had private insurance but had huge deductibles and copays.
Businesses are by their nature autocratic. That is how they are run. Hard to believe anyone thinks this prepares one to lead a democracy. (Exhibit A is in the White House now.)
2
"Immense wealth isn’t good for your reality sense."
Bravo!
Bloomberg has $52 Billion? His bubble is on another planet. A nice guy, supports good causes, but he hasn't heard the rumble of concern about, um, too-old guys and he is 77?
2
We’ve been here before and F. Scott Fitzgerald documented it all in “The Great Gatsby”.
1
An excellent column, but it won't reach enough voters to counteract all the facebook propaganda the kochmills are spewing out. You need to complement your writings with a few punchy memes every day. Sadly, memes are our century's level of political discourse.
1
“because proposing the abolition of private insurance could unnerve tens of millions of middle-class voters”
Who are all these “middle-class” voters who “could” be unnerved by the abolition of private insurance???
As a middle-class voter I would LOVE to have government run health care, and I know that many others would too IF they were given accurate information about it rather than being constantly subjected to scare tactics.
I grew up in Iowa in the 60’s and 70’s and I know how the private insurance industry there and elsewhere came to be all about huge profits and NOT about health care.
I am sick to death (pun intended) of the limited coverage, limited choice of doctors, co-pays, deductibles, and endless paperwork and double talk, and I have insurance that is supposed to be good.
There are many things that a moral society would never allow to be run for profit:
Health care
Education
Prisons
Military
Etc.
We need to get back to the idea that the government protects the people, not the corporations. Vote Warren!
3
How different would PK’s critique be if he were a billionaire? Economist, heal thyself...
1
I agree - not the cost or the wealth tax, it is losing ones health insurance that will freak everyone out. Forget Bloomberg- VP Biden will make a good President- let’s get behind him and move on.
1
Medicare for all would leave exactly nobody without health insurance. How is that a difficult concept?
Dr. Krugman deftly explains why many of the super-rich are befogged by believing that their gigantic wealth gives them special political acumen and potency.
1
How are we still discussing this? Yes, we need laws and taxes to curb the egos of the extremely “successful” amongst us, lest they forget how they got there. We fought off inequality against the British then Thomas Jefferson fathered five children he let grow up in slavery. This wasn’t because he believed in some self-evident truths: he had a billionaire’s estate to run and subjugating others is very very profitable.
2
30% percent of America won't vote no matter what.
25% percent of America will vote for the very stable genius no matter what.
15% percent of America want a socialist Democrat
15% percent of America want a centrist Democrat
The final 15% pecent of America, can stay home or nose-holding vote for the genius or a Democrat or vote their own convenience.
One can make a case that America isn't waiting for a either.
1
Socialism for the rich. Vulture Capitalism for everyone else.
2
To me, billionaires are parasites and tax evaders, and it amazes me that people can be so greedy. I can't even stand Bill Gates, because he uses his charities to avoid paying taxes. I'm frankly sick of subsidizing billionaires when there are so many poor, sick, and homeless people, when millions of animals are being killed in shelters, when the infrastructure is crumbling. I can't see billionaires doing a single thing to solve any of our problems, but I am guessing that they have done much to contribute to this country's ills. They won't even pay their employees a living wage, so the taxpayers have to subsidize their employees with public assistance (Waltons, Bezos). How vile can you get? I can imagine these people being overthrown in another country. Only a third world dictatorship is as bad as this.
1
My personal opinion is that the high levels of wealth causing such widespread angst, and its concomitant inequality, are created by intelligent, highly capable, Sociopaths. None of what that ilk has been trotting out lately as arguments objecting to being the logical targets of that angst has changed my opinion in this.
In fact, it's deepened my conviction that we, the social "we," have made a fundamental error in conflating their success for themselves as somehow a social good for us all. It's not.
To be fair it can be, when that person is good and tries in their fashion to give back. But most of them are true Sociopaths. They're selfish, self-centered people. The current POTUS leaps first to mind. Go figure that society thought he would be a good attempt at rectifying the situation. A rich guy to save the whole. How stupid is THAT, eh? Go figure.
Anyway, ultimately any ascension to the highest social circles by that ilk, when they reach a level where it is their leadership and say that holds sole sway, it cannot end well for that society. It never does.
Today's reality is the proof to the logic.
John~
American Net'Zen
2
Worship of Golden Calf and, to a lesser extent, of good looks has been always a driving spring of US politics. I do not see it changing, no matter what the press pundits and punditasters write, all along the political spectrum from the socialist Sandersites to the ultra-reactionary Trumpians.
Look, all this is nothing new. It has been going on for centuries.
In "Wealth and Democracy," Kevin Phillips points out that there is a feedback in economic distribution because as the rich get richer, they use their wealth to get more power. They then use their power to get more wealth & so on. In the olden days they hired gangs of thugs called knights to extort money from the peasants & merchants. Today they hire politicians to pass laws that benefit them financially.
There seems to be a tipping point where this process becomes impossible to reverse. When inequality becomes bad enough, the country soon goes down the tubes. He gives several examples, e.g. the 18th century decline of the Dutch Republic, 14th century Venice, but history is replete with other examples.
According to Phillips, the great success of America has been that before the tipping point was reached, something has always happened that reverses the flow of money upwards, e.g. the rise of unions, FDR's reforms.
Today, we have an opportunity to reverse the flow of mpney to the Super Rich. Two candidates, Sanders and Warren, see the problem and have realistic proposals to do just that.
Please support them.
PS The most recent poll on M4A for I have seen was from Hill.TV and the HarrisX polling company. It found that 70% of Americans supported M4A.
(https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/412545-70-percent-of-americans-support-medicare-for-all-health-care)
2
It should be illegal to be a billionaire.
1
Trumpy, the Hater President and Fake Billionaire granted himself and his family a million dollar tax cut. He plans on granting himself another million dollar tax cut. The middle and working classes received less than a $100.00 tax cut. Trumpy plans on repealing Obamacare if reelected. The working people of this country will lose their health insurance coverage.
Bloomberg's traits and positions don't rank high on the selection criteria for candidates to the Democrat Party:
Former Republican
Well to the Right of Biden
Major Proponent of Racial Profiling
Opposes Taxing Great Wealth
Supports Cutting Pensions, Benefits and Job Security for Public Workers
Spends Most Weekends at His Resort
Michael Bloomberg's biggest asset, for the rest of us, as opposed to himself, is his competence. We, the American people, desperately need a chief executive who is good at being exactly that, a chief executive. Commander in Chief may be part of the presidency, but not the most important. Mussolini famously made the trains run on time, but with certain other problems. Take a look at the United States, and then look at other advanced democracies. Now take a look at New York City in 2001, and then in 2013. Michael Bloomberg is supremely competent without odious policies. Right now, that is exactly the type of president we need.
1
Think about it! A Narcissistic, misogynyistic, racist, faux billionaire who bought losing sports teams, losing casinos, created a bogus university , sold bogus steaks extraordinaire, or set up a bogus charity as his personal piggy bank,among many other business failures, got lucky and was turned into a reality tv star for the feeble minded, decided one day that he and only he could lead the USA. Why would millions of voters take a chance on such a person? Let's not do it again either with him or with any other billionaire. Public service should be lead by public servants or leaders who care about our common good.
Dr. Krugman is right, we do not want or need another one of these types to lead our country. Who we need are people like him or Tom Friedman, I.e. smart, worldly, bonafides who wish to see our country become again a great society that we can be proud of.
The electorate need to be redirected from shiny object type candidates like these billionaires, back to candidates who know government, economics, history, geopolitical reality and who have demonstrated high standards and ethical behaviors.
Time to get money out of politics.
Bam. Done. Mic drop. Thank you for speaking some common sense. If only all these wealthy and entitled men would listen. The Democratic field is as big as it needs to be.
I think all American billionaires should be required to run for POTUS. Every time.
@William Fordes
This made me laugh!
That said, I'd take Bloomberg any day over trump. All we need is someone who can win. With the new EPA regs further devaluing science, we need ANYONE who will tackle the climate change issue immediately and with the full weight of the federal government.
And trump is and always will be a narcissistic ignorant sociopath and the people who support him and vote for him are actual worse.
1
I'm not looking for a billionaire. I am just looking for someone with the guts, confidence, smarts, experience and policies to take down Trump. That's all I care about this coming election. Bloomberg seems more viable to me than Sanders, Warren or Biden right now. Why the two 'kill pieces' on Bloomberg from Blow and Krugman appearing in the NYT? Why not wait and see how Bloomberg appeals to the Democratic primary electorate first, and listen to what he proposes? And remember, Mr. Krugman, Bloomberg is someone who actually delivers and who is and has been a leader. He is not just a senator who works in a body with 99 other senators, kicking political footballs back and forth.
When Trump is gone, then around 2022 I will start getting real picky about Democratic candidates for future elections. Not now.
I like to think that I will be electing an ethical person, who understands that she/he is serving people, that his/her civic duty is for the citizens and not the special interests. Bloomberg is a fair man, he was the best mayor we had in NYC, he learned from his mistakes quickly, he was transperent, he is a' no non sense', man, he is well liked by everyone, and he pays his taxes! he is not a thief, he works hard, he surrounds himself with the best and the brightest, he is analytical, a problem solver. It is not just winning the presidency that is going to save this country, democrats needs to reform, regroup, and focus on issues such as fixing this awful gerrymandering, eliminating electoral college, vote registration. I rather have an astute, capable sharp man like Bloomberg leading Democrats , than any of the other candidates, i.e elder civil servants who keep repeating same slogans, academics who are dead set on their plans, inexperienced bureaucrats, and the blundering ineffective elder politician not popular with minorities and women. Also Bloomberg is not intimidated by the mafiosi gangsters who now are ruling America, by those who now are in the White House and in the Senate. You should think twice Mr Krugman please: Forget that he is a billionaire, he is also a a self made man, an ethical man, and he cares, he cares for Democracy, for the Constitution, he is the most intelligent among those candidates, that is what matters.
1
Bloomberg would be good for the job not because he's a billionaire but because he is sensible, knows how to run organizations efficiently and productively, and gets things done.
That's a big part of why he's a billionaire. Unlike Trump, who made his fortune from people losing their life savings gambling at casinos, which was just fine with him.
There are billionaires and there are billionaires. Painting them all with one condemnatory broad stroke is unworthy of this columnist. But as Cher once sang about miniskirts, the billionaire's the current thing, aha.
1
But does Paul think Waren can win the WH, the senate and bring together the people ?
Bloomberg might do it - Michael Bennet might be even better able to.
Quite so. Another point is that businesses usually are run as dictatorships. Do we want a president who's used to functioning as a dictator?...Oh, wait, maybe we know something about that...
Marx elaborated that the ultimate end of capitalism is total destruction.
Marx is taboo for Americans. Even scholars don't read Marx .
Marx was a highly educated philosopher ( a logic thinker ) who analyzed the internal mechanisms of the capitalist economy.
There is no such deep analysis elsewhere except Weber.
For example he foresaw from England where he was a German journalist with Engels the unevitable coming of the US civil war he was writing about. Because of the investments of British industrialists in the cotton plantations in the American south.
Have any of these people seen the place Michael Bloomberg grew up in? Anyone know how he started his business and built it? Anyone ready to start their own business?
Go to Medford and Brighton, then let’s talk.
Request: Enjoy reading your editorials! Could you consider an article which incorporates taxation. If a billionaire doesn't take significant income out of his company, is it really causing inequality? Why not just adjust personal income taxes so that the super wealthy pay thru the nose when they pull money out of their companies, they don't get as many deductions, and there is full taxation on their wealth when they die. Liberals could have it both ways: They are not attacking the money making businesses but they are distributing income. I would like to see ideas like this explored. Thanks.
Michael Bloomberg gave $1.8 billion to Johns Hopkins University in a single contribution.
although I don't think Paul is an icon in the Trumposphere I would like to suggest that one consider, strictly as a thought experiment Trump shopping for groceries, or pumping his own gas, or shoveling the walk. Hey who's the fat guy?
Hmmm, wonder if Elizabeth Sanders would be able to pull away from the pack in the polling numbers if New York Times op ed columnists did not refer to her as "better than suicide" as she was so generously referred to in a recent NY Times column. Wow, nice to see the Times trying to keep misogyny with regard to female candidates in check.
And no, Mr. Krugman, political egotism in billionaires is not "mostly a male thing". While there are certainly less female billionaires, the percentage of them who are guilty of that is most like roughly the same. Billionaire lenses blur reality for every gender.
On what planet is it OK for one person to have a billion dollars while others can barely survive? Not earth. Let them live on Mars like many are hoping to do someday. Our world will be a better place without them.
Paul, you need to sit Bret Stephens down and force him to need your article. Hard to do, I know, trying to make the willfully blind see what they refuse to see, bit perhaps this article may make a dent. Congrats, it's a keeper.
Well, in fact half of America believed in it and still believes in it. Of course, there are billionaires add there are billionaires. We manage to put the most narcissistic one in the White House. Don't tell me about the wisdom of the American people. We are gullible fools.
1
Bloomberg and the other billionaires are not just rich, but super duper rich, so it’s worth reading this NYT article---
“Warren Would Take Billionaires Down a Few Billion Pegs. Her tax proposals would significantly curb the gigantic fortunes of America’s richest families over time.”
By Patricia Cohen Nov. 10, 2019
Quote: "If Warren’s wealth tax had been in effect since 1982, then "Bloomberg would have had $12.3 billion instead of $51.8 billion.
Bill Gates would have had $13.9 b in 2018 instead of $97 b.
Jeff Bezos, the world’s richest person, would have had $48.8 b last year instead of $160 b.
Warren Buffett would have had $10.4 b rather than $88.3 b.
Mark Zuckerberg would have $32.5 b instead of $61 b.
The 400 people on Forbes list of the country’s wealthiest, each would have an average worth of $3.1 b, down from the current $7.2 b.
(She uses data from U of CA economists Saez and Zucman.)
"For fans (of Warren’s tax plan) it is a long-overdue effort to rebalance an economic system that has lavished outsize riches and political power on a tiny band of winners while stranding a vast majority of Americans in jobs that can no longer cover the cost of essentials like housing, education and health care.
A few billionaires favor a moderate wealth tax: George Soros, Liesel Pritzker Simmons, Ian Simmons, Chris Hughes, Nick Hanauer and 13 others."
This strange species of billionaire who would pay more taxes should be publicized on our media, as a role model.
"they are for racial equality and LGBTQ rights, but against major tax increases on the wealthy and big expansion in social programs. And that’s a perfectly coherent point of view."
Is it? Because racial minorities and LGBT people are just as much caught up in economic vicissitudes, and often more vulnerable. A billionaire with vague promises.. that's a no.
Loveya Proffesor Krug, I always enjoy your columns and thoughts.
We already tried the billionaire businessman to "save the day". How's that been working out?
My favorite French saying: 'Behind every fortune is a crime.'
Anxiously awaiting your promised review of the feasibility of Warren's health plan. Good luck with that. Just want to make sure she is not lying to the American people and you give it your seal of approval. Only radio silence so far.
1
Best estimates from a Google search is that there are 621 billionaires in the United States with a combined wealth of $8.7 trillion. Elizabeth Warren estimates that her medicare for all will cost between $28 and $32 trillion over ten years. The national debt has skyrocketed past $22 trillion. So in the grand scheme of things, billionaires aren't the panacea that the socialists and liberal left make them out to be.
2
Thank Prof Krugman for eloquently pointing out the charade of Bloomberg and his elk.
I wonder if Sen Warren can take a page from Bill Clinton book and a do a 180 degree triangulation. Specifically, if she soften her Medicare-4-all plan and point out it's only a blueprint for what she aspire to do as president, if she have majority in both chambers. Then say if I don't then I will do my best to enhance and expand ACA.
I think that will ease lots of fear.
3
"And that’s a hard argument to make when you look at how most billionaires have made their money. After all, many of them struck it rich in finance and real estate."
More prevalent than making billions in finance and real estate is unearned wealth. That is, dynastic wealth. That is, inherited wealth.
Estimates on how much of the Forbes 400 members' wealth vary, and can be hidden, but most place that number between 30 and 60 percent.
Of course every billionaire in the world will give you some kind of a boot-strap yarn. Including the one currently living in the White House.
3
At the bottom of any discussion about billionaires and the super-rich is this: How much is enough? There are literally hundreds of books and research studies demonstrating that what people value most in and life and what contributes most to "happiness" and "satisfaction" has very little to do with money.
From these perspectives, the super-rich would be actively working to donate the vast majority of their wealth to helping other people. A couple of billion of dollars out of $70 billion is no sacrifice. It's mostly free publicity.
1
It's really necessary to say btw that someone like Bill Gates made clear last week that his concerns are for his money, rather than the country's best interests when he said he'd vote for Trump rather than a democrat that would tax the decadently wealthy. That was not a very smart things to say -
That places Bill Gates among some very unsavory characters...
3
It’s nice to see the world has changed a bit. When I was fired from the IRS in 2005 for refusing to illegally backdate stock options (tax fraud and embezzlement) for billionaires, everyone laughed at me and refused to raise a finger to help me or themselves.
I am a little worried, though. The wealth tax is the fairest Tax. The income tax was originally imposed only on the very wealthy. But that changed drastically over the decades. I worry that what starts out as a wealth tax on the wealthy will become what the income tax is - a tax on everybody but the wealthy.
3
I am one of those who don't like the existing field of democrats. Either they are too much to the left, too inexperienced or too lackluster. Mike Bloomberg donates to democrats and liberal causes. If he wants to put forth his ideas and vision to the country and competes for votes, why not welcome him?
1
People who are "understandably" nervous about giving up their private health insurance in favor of a single payer should seek out someone over 65. Virtually all of them have given up their private or employer-provided insurance for some version of Medicare. Virtually everyone following along behind will eventually do the same. Medicare for All speeds this up. Meanwhile, that cherished private health insurance hangs by a thread. Employer-based coverage goes away when you lose your job (even if you have to quit because of illness or injury). It changes at the whim of the employer or the provider or both. Private insurance is protected to some degree by the Affordable Care Act, but this could disappear through a court decision or congressional action from one day to the next.
Supreme Court decisions have narrowed the path forward. A public option works best if coverage is universally required; otherwise, people opt out of coverage, trusting their luck to fate, creating what actuaries call "adverse selection" and driving up health care costs for all. But our Constitution, as interpreted by the Roberts court, doesn't permit the imposition of a universal coverage requirement. What is allowed is taxation, so that is where the implementation plans have to go to achieve the fundamental goals of universal coverage and reduced health care costs. Detractors from Medicare for All, including Prof. Krugman, tend not to talk about this.
There is a saying, "Behind every great fortune is a great crime."
Yesterday while reading the advise of a well-known investor and hedge fund manager who is 70 years old and has a "self-made" fortune of 19 billion dollars, I did the math:
He was able to accumulate an average of $270 million dollars each and every year of his life.
Big numbers are hard to grasp, but that is not conducive to democracy.
4
Bloomberg I suspect expects that he may not get the Democratic nomination, rightly so too. But there is the scenario with him in the race in which he will try to sabotage Warren and Sanders. He may even run as an independent if needed - even if it results in the GOP winning. Michael is about Michael's interests first of course, and that his identity wrapped around his fortune, and all his wealthy head-in-the-clouds friends.
Bloomberg simply wants to make sure they do not win, and that their ideas do not become popular.
3
"With great power comes great responsibility." - Ben Parker, Spiderman, 2002.
"Greed, for lack of a better word, is good." - Gordon Gecko, Wall Street, 1987.
If billionaires do anything well, it is getting more money. If billionaires do anything good, it is not through getting more money but in using it for a world which is better and not just one tilted more in their favor.
It isn’t your money!!!!
Lets all just calm down and eat cake.
1
The real problem with the "billionaire class" and their "millionaire" subordinates (I mean, does it REALLY make a difference between $500 million and a billion?) is that in this time and place we equate "richness" with "smartness". In other words, a vast array of people in America believe that if you're wealthy you must be smart. And the opposite is also true for a vast majority of Americans - if you're poor you must be ignorant or lazy. Both are wrong and need to be corrected.
The other issue is that most billionaires and millionaires seem to believe they hit a home run with their success when they really STARTED on third base. I remember not too long ago there was some arguments about "you didn't build that" which (as usual) was taken out of context and twisted by our wealthy friends (and their political surrogates the Republicans). The issue isn't necessarily that these successful people didn't create their own wealth. The issue is that they believe, sincerely and unequivocally, that they did it all on their own and as such should be celebrated, venerated, and praised. The height of ego.
5
Thanks, Paul. Too bad you didnt write this column in 2016, before just under half of America voted for the phony billionaire "businessman" in a black limo thinking he WAS going to save the day. Do enough of them still believe it?
1
Can we please stop worshiping these greedy sociopaths, these are truly evil people.
2
A lot of these billionaires also consider themselves to be very logical, scientific people, with analytical minds. Bloomberg has been labeled a technocrat. Gates, Zuckerberg, et. al. are basically coders who had a vision and made it big - enormously big. The thing is, coders know that in programming when you write a routine, applet, etc. that works poorly, or breaks something else, you need to fix it or abandon it all together.
Well, the idea that slashing taxes on the wealthy and large corporations results in higher economic growth and results in 'a tide that lifts all boats', is atrocious economic 'code' that has been implemented over and over again for almost 40 years now. GDP growth has been lower and what growth there has been has accrued only to the top 10%, and the Lions share of that to the top 1%.
In programming parlance, it's a bug that should've been found and eliminated 25 software versions ago.
3
Instead of our esteemed professor writing that universal, comprehensive single-payer heath coverage would unnerve the millions with private insurance, he should be writing columns explaining why this program would benefit those millions, the tens of millions under insured or without coverage, and the economy as a whole. There are economists, albeit lacking the prestigious Nobel prize, who have dedicated themselves to this important task.
This old guy with Medicare and a supplemental, discovered last month that a necessary medication had its co-pay jump from $47/month to $110/month without warning. (I had to resupply recently in a European country with universal coverage. I paid retail, 103 euro; but the pharmacist said it would be free if I were covered in his country.) I also just found out that the new, improved shingles vaccine, though recommended, isn't covered. My PHP would have to bill me $160 for each of two injections!
So, Prof. Krugman, tell me why I should be "unnerved" by M4A. I'll pay a little more in taxes, as under Sen. Sanders proposal to do way with coverage denials, copays, deductibles and the insurance bureaucracy for the right of health care for myself and every American.
Please, Professor, don't just opine -- teach!
2
Demonizing wealthy people who have played by the rules, even if you don't like the rules, is a losing strategy for the left. Bloomberg has had a very admirable career and certainly has a more reasonable understanding of our economic challenges than the populists empty sloganeers Warren and Sanders. Anybody but those two sure losers.
2
I resent your use of 'billionaire" as if it is a dirty word. For someone to establish a business, create wealth and jobs, to pay one's taxes ( at whatever level they were mandated) and to spend not insignificant portions of his or her wealth on charitable causes and then, more or less being cursed for this hard earned success is terrible.
I personally have a low opinion of professors who spend their lives surrounded by wonkishness, who do not really produce anything and lecture everyone around them. And I think that the bubble that really needs to burst is the Professor bubble. Aren't you capable of discussing Bloomberg's life, experience and capabilities, or lack thereof without throwing populist darts at his fortune ?
3
I remember thinking that even Obama didn't quite get what was happening to the middle class because his fortunes were rising when so many others' were falling. So I guess it follows that billionaires don't quite get it.
They ought to try harder, though. They ought to consider that by and large countries that are rich in petroleum have less democracy, less economic stability, and more frequent civil wars than countries without oil because of their extreme wealth disparity.
Of course our economy doesn't depend just on oil, but why can't the rich see that wealth disparity is a real problem here, too? Do they really feel that interfering with what they see as the natural order of things will somehow stifle genius? Can't they see that the natural order of things is lawlessness -- that laws are made by man to create well-functioning societies?
If we reward geniuses by deregulating them, by allowing the accumulation of great wealth and creating tax loopholes, how are we not also rewarding the corrupt and obscenely wealthy who got rich only through greed and ruthless ambition? Is there an easy way to distinguish between a 'stable genius' and someone who is in it just for himself?
Are billionaires so arrogant they believe they have gotten where they are on genius alone and that they can be our saviors? What will save us is not yet another rich man with a Messiah complex, but the realization that if society functions only for those at the top, we are headed for big trouble.
3
A straw man argument, that America is just waiting for a billionaire businessman to gallop in and save us all, is also a silly one. Not only are people not waiting but the billionaire in the race so far isn't promising salvation either. Actually, I'm hearing salvation from some of the non-billionaires with big programs. None of those who trash billionaires talk about ability. Is it not possible that some billionaires, maybe a few, are very able individuals, quite likely to perform duties of president far better than someone from Congress whose achievements have centered around getting reelected? So far the anti-billionaire arguments sound flat to me, this one too, mostly promoting hostility and suspicion between economic classes, a specialty as well of Sanders and Warren.
I agree that the word billionaire has been spoiled by most billionaires and that that level of success could warp a person's sensibilities to the point that they don't see the negative points of income inequality. They are a 0.01% minority in this country, there is no way they deserve the tax breaks, the tax havens or tax dodges. Convincing Republican middle class people that their interests don't align with this exclusive club would take a big needle to burst the even bigger bubble of indifference, ignorance and misinformation. The kind of a needle a camel could get through the eye of.
Paul could not agree more with the statement that 10’s of millions of Americans shudder at the thought of losing private health insurance. Their is no way Warren beats Trump after that truly stupid statement about ending private health insurance.
I know she is not stupid but saying that in a country where currently anyone under 65 only has private health insurance boggles my mind. I’m for a national health insurance plan but the really really hard part is the transition from a fully private to a combination of the two similar to Australia where I have lived so I understand how the two can work together.
1
If there's one thing I've learned from being around wealthy people, it's that competition is much fiercer at the top. Competition for power for status and yes, for wealth comparison. You'd think people who had more money than they could spend in their lifetime, or their children's children's lifetime would be sufficient to satiate, but it's not. Being wealthy only raises the stakes! One only has to look at the art world or jewel encrusted gewgaws that the wealthy gobble up trying to keep up with the Joneses (or better, to surpass them.)
The presidency is the glittering jewel in the crown for the uber wealthy. The biggest bauble in the land. Capturing it makes one the undisputed king of the world. For a small minded, egocentric or defective person with money, it's a disaster for the rest of us. Because that kind of person is only interested in the crowning status it brings to him/her. The presidency (and public office in general,) should be one of public service, not self-serving.
We all know how corruptive money can be. Added to unchecked power, it creates unimaginable evil.
1
Time to trash billionaires? This subject has come up mainly because Michael Bloomberg showed some interest in seeking the Democratic nomination. Yet, he's not committed to doing so, in fact he's said nothing. It's not like a lot of billionaires are in the race either. I"m aware of one among the Democrats and Steyer isn't claiming to know salvation for America. What alarm about billionaires misses is that a few of them may be very high-ability and capable people well suited to be president. No, being a billionaire in itself does not make one qualify and shouldn't. But ability in a billionaire may be quite unique and should be part of the discussion.
Billionaires in a bubble? Maybe, maybe not. But let’s remember that history is there for us to learn from.
The Constitution was written by patricians. And they held the reigns for decades. Even Jackson, who unleashed popular democracy, was an extremely wealthy man. The champion of Progressivism was a Roosevelt. As was the people’s President during the Depression. More recently, there’s JFK and the Bushes.
Any cogent argument about the role of the 1% in American government needs to reflect upon the big picture, not just Trump and the ex-Mayor of New York. The subject spans our history. And is complex. Obama doesn’t tell us much about the black experience. And Hillary tells us even less about women in America.
The 1% wrote the rules of the game. And over the years, they have frequently held the reigns. They are here there and everywhere. And today that their influence exceeds their numbers is a monumental understatement. Arguing that they are unfit is knee jerk and ignores the big picture. There’s the world as you describe it and there’s the world as it is.
Warren, as a law professor teaching bankruptcy law and an author writing about consumer issues is somewhat of an economist riding in on a white horse to save us, the people, and one wonders why more people aren't saying so. She created a consumer protection bureau when they said it couldn't be done, that is, successfully went from concept to reality and saw real world results. If she went from concept to reality on medicare you can bet it wouldn't be done in one tweet with no input from anyone, the way Trump conducts his wars. The democratic state is the 'billionaire' that can save us if only we or she can get hands on it before the republicans trash it into bankruptcy just like their president who uses bankruptcy for personal gain.
It is unfortunate, but too many people equate one’s earnings with one’s worth as a person. Money can’t buy character, but it can buy influence p.
Financial billionaires are the scourge of society. Most of their wealth is gained from privileged information and techniques unavailable to ordinary investors and citizens, such as 'flash trading'. Their wealth is then 'protected' and increased by an army of lawyers and accountants matching their evasive skills against a weak and understaffed IRS.
The fact that the 'system' still allows billionaires to park their funds in tax-free, Delaware offshore accounts is gross injustice. The fact that billionaires are less likely to get audited than ordinary citizens is proof that 'democracy' has transformed into 'kleptocracy'. Maybe Elizabeth Warren IS the answer.
1
Fine Paul but you seem to be ignoring the criminal aspect of the problem. Many billions(trillions?) of dollars were made during the derivatives boom of the early '00s, much(most?) of it illicit. Essentially none of the big players suffered criminal penalties anywhere near proportional to the damage caused - and literally no jail time. These criminals now populate our billionaire class and are making money for themselves and their bankers through money laundering with payday and student loan scams, Perhaps their greatest fear of Warren is not taxation but a crack downt on these operations.
1
Yes. billionaires have immense power, and that's decidedly undemocratic.
The only billionaire I would ever consider voting for would be someone who was "a traitor to his class" like FDR. I don't think he was a billionaire but probably he was the equivalent of one for his time. And he was able to effectively fight the forces of organized money for close to 15 years. They hated him and he welcomed their hatred. Michael Bloomberg = Donald Trump Redux.
1
Many of these people have more money than they can ever spend. OK, what if half as much was also more money than they can ever spend? Or, for some of them, what if a hundredth of what they have would be MMTTCES.
If one billion, (for most of us: MMTTCES), made you the richest person alive, would that be enough?
It's a game, but real people are suffering, and the worst is that those suffering aren't really in the game. What will it take for them to admit that they just want it so others can't have it?
1
Dr. Krugman, you are dead wrong. Mike Bloomberg is a self made man and his brilliance/leadership skills made him what he is today. It has become a fashion to blame the billionaires for every problem in the world. Yes, there are many crooks who made money by cheating and fraud. Putting everyone in the same basket is absolutely wrong. You also forgot his contributions for the society. He is unique because of his progressive ideas and executive management skills.What’s wrong with Mr. Bloomberg funding his election. Our current political system is rotten which forces politicians to beg for money to win election. They are bought before they land in Congress. At least, Bloomberg will be able to run the administration with honesty and integrity unlike the competition who will sell out to special interest groups. In addition, we need a leader with solid real life executive experience to clear the mess and chaos created by Trump, his cronies and family. We need a leader who can unite us and reach out to voters in the general election. Unlike the candidates with pipe dreams, Bloomberg can deliver and win the election.
1
There is unbridled greed in the world, much of it centered in our own country. Meanwhile as a nation we have thousands living on the street, lower scores in every indicator of education and well being than other industrialized nations, a tax system designed for the wealthy , a corrupt biased judicial system and supreme court, a racist law enforcement system , a higher education system guaranteed to perpetuate wealth, malnourished schoolchildren, and a health care system only for the wealthy and politicians. All of the above which could be ameliorated by amoral billionaires paying their fare share instead of angrily screaming about how it is so so unfair to them.
1
Warren, as a law professor teaching bankruptcy law and an author writing about consumer issues is somewhat of an economist riding in on a white horse to save us, the people, and one wonders why more people aren't saying so. She created a consumer protection bureau when they said it couldn't be done, that is, successfully went from concept to reality and saw real world results. If she went from concept to reality on medicare you can bet it wouldn't be done in one tweet with no input from anyone, the way Trump conducts his wars. The democratic state is the 'billionaire' that can save us if only we or she can get hands on it before the republicans trash it into bankruptcy just like their president who uses bankruptcy for personal gain
What kind of country do we want to live in? At CVS I saw a mother with a sick child gasp and leave the medicine on the counter. Our elderly ration their meds. US has the highest infant mortality rate of any first world nation. Our young start out in life yoked to high interest debt. Children go hungry. (If you don’t believe that’s possible in the richest nation the world has ever known, come to the Bronx). And don’t we want modern fast public transit like other first world nations have?
We can tax the rich. They will still be filthy rich. But maybe we will be able to afford to fund lunch for all children, hot meals for all our shut in elderly, and health care for all.
2
@Zejee Yes, I think you are right.
I would want to add more. There must be something that will cause the rich and those who worship the rich to take notice. My reaction when I mention hungry children, sick children is anger. A man screamed "I want children to be fed" and ran at me when I said I thought our children should have food and medicine. This is common here.
And, oh, the "socialism" evil.
Reasonable people can disagree on if billionaires should exist. I don’t really have a problem with them. My problem is with people inheriting that wealth.
You should earn what you get, not be handed it. We need a very high wealth transfer tax to insure that people are earning their way through life, not coasting on mommy and daddie’s hard work.
This hating on the rich leads no where. It is pushing a line of envy. These billionaires. employ a lot of persons. How many does EW or PK employ.
They should pay more but not try to take away what they have. EW cannot win in middle America and we all know this.
...and it’s not just billionaires. Anybody with any real savings places their nest eggs in mutual funds etc that are nothin but soulless, money grubbing agents that do the dirty work that investors will not do.
The business community is far more dangerous than Prof. Trump imagines. Knowing those in my industry, they will go to immense lengths to get their way. Down the road, that means funding militias, the Tea Party, and other far-right movements to build a popular base to enforce an oligarchy.
This is nothing new. Francisco Franco could not overcome his political opponents using his army alone. He had to rely on a broad base of muscle.
So any attempt to redress Reaganomics is going to get very very ugly.
1
A significant number of American voters are wholly fascinated by wealth, greedy enough to put aside their reason, and ethically transactional. They don't vote who they are but who they wish they were. Trump's vulgarity, his impunity and invective is a feature of what his perceived wealth provides. Democrats are less inclined to buy the billionaires faux salvation but take away private health care or significantly redistribute wealth and suburbanites will flee. What's "bad for business" and is "bad for me" is a toxic combination for any Democrat winning the presidency, even when the current president is a criminal.
1
Wealth inequality is obscene and a threat to democracy. It is unnatural in its unbalanced uselessness. Money hoarders is all they are, sick and crazy.
1
Billionaires are wimps. I can't believe anyone listens to all their whining about how much Warren would tax them or how much that would hurt productivity. As if they would even notice having a few hundred million less dollars. I can't even comprehend a hundred million dollars. What a bunch of babies. Keep them out of the White House, both Trump and Bloomberg. Close the loop holes and raise their taxes to very very high levels. I'm thinking marginal tax rate on the 90% for the top bracket, a high estate tax, and a 5% wealth tax on billionaires. Because AOC and Warren are too nice.
1
What America needs right now:
(#1) A Democratic presidential candidate with broad appeal who will beat Trump.
(#2) A Democratic Party with sensible, balanced policies that will attract voters to a more sensible space.
(#3) Constitutional reforms to protect democracy and reduce the impact of big money interests on elections and political outcomes.
Naive, wet-behind-the-ears, alienating, free-lunch socialism of the type Warren and Sanders propose is not the answer because it always fails when it runs out of other people's money.
Leon Cooperman, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, etc. promises to give all their wealth away to charity, so why is it so hard to give away 2% or even 6% of their wealth to Uncle Sam for the country every year. After all, they continue to make at least that percentage every year on their wealth.
Giving to charity is to give to part of society. Give to the government is to give to all of society. Isn't that better?
A bunch of cry babies or dishonest gift givers?
1
A billionaire is a thief committing the most absurd fraud upon the rest of us. An Equities Trading gorged guy first with the always inevitable info-era ticker-tape deserves enough to buy the Presidency? A polity so run is not a Republic. It's an Oligarchy.
Billionaires get to be that way for a variety of reasons: Smarts and business acumen, unusual talent (like athletics or entertainment), a great invention or innovation, spotting trends before others, marketing savvy, inheriting family money that they invest wisely, being in the right place at the right time and, sometimes, dumb luck.
Some of them are great, kind and generous people (Warren Buffet). Others are odious human beings (Jeffrey Epstein). Others were born into it (Donald Trump) or married into it (Betsy DeVos, who also was born into it). But the idea that the mere accumulation of money makes one a icon worthy of worship and a potential U.S. president is ludicrous.
Apparently, when devoid of the ability to truly judge a person, some people fall back on money as a talisman for success because it can be readily counted. Unfortunately, there is no ready measure of character, judgment, intelligence, leadership skills and empathy. When we look to Washington every day we are reminded of this.
1
Glad to know that Mr. Krugman is not worried about the cost of M4ALL, which would be rather silly since it actually is cheaper than what we have now for the consumer and gives complete care with no co payments, deductibles and fear of getting kicked off after reaching a cap as happens in private insurance. And the collective relief that all are covered is huge in terms of stress levels. But to buy into the lie that it would be too traumatic to switch from private insurance to M4ALL is right wing and insurance companies propaganda. Other countries managed and never went back. And no one will miss the trauma and run a rounds and tricks that private insurance companies inflict on people for greater profits, I promise you. Not to mention the staggering expense, all of which adds to great stress which is not good for the health.
Are you saying that Americans are big sissies and do not have the courage to switch to something that is much better and cheaper for them? Are you calling us sniveling cowards? Oh my!
I do commend you for drawing a pretty accurate Billionaire picture. I love that Bezos is supporting Bloomberg. Billionaires made in America by the lowly workers and our infrastructure now against what and who helped them succeed. Seems fair. What is that Tolstoy short story about a man is to be given all the land he can walk as long as he returns to his starting point by sundown? His greed takes him too far to get back by sundown and he dies trying.
2
Interesting fact: in the year 2000, the US had 49 billionaires; in 2018, that number had grown to 607.
Another interesting fact: in the year 2000, our Fed deficit was $6.1T, now the debt has exceeded $22T.
Coincidence? Maybe those Bush tax cuts had their desired effects after all. Oh wait - the benefits were supposed to trickle down to the masses, not gush upward to create a bunch of billionaires. (Maybe Shrub was the worse ever president - lying to get us into an endless war that killed hundreds of thousands and not paying for it, lying about the tax cut, and finally creating the 2nd worse recession ever! Beats Trump (so far).
1
What is needed to remedy inequality is for folks to wake up and insist on an Eisenhower-era level of taxes. But it won’t happen until the economy craters big time. Like climate change, nothing will happen until the mouth breathers’ backs are to the wall.
"But the idea that America is just waiting for a billionaire businessman to save the day by riding in on a white horse."
Paul, billionaires do not run for public office, after a lifetime of prioritizing making money for themselves, to either give the impression of saving the world, or, actually trying to do that.
Rather, like Trump has done, they simply spend their time trying to make more money. I mean, all of their time.
To whit: Trump spends at least three days a week at one of his posh resorts with the government paying the tab for a couple of hundred people to join him. The amount of money he makes in one weekend of golf at one of his resorts is sickening. I think we are up to something like $350 million dollars spent just to support Trump golfing every week at his resorts. Yes?
Also: Trump advertises his properties openly, including using the G7 meeting as an opportunity to advertise one of his "gorgeous" properties.
Also, the Trump hotel in Washington D.C. simply a cash machine for him as world leaders go there to try to get money and as lobbyists go there to try to give money to get more money.
Also, Trump's daughter, Ivanka, and, Jared, are raking in contracts and properties.
So: nobody, at least not me or any billionaire, thinks that a billionaire wants to be President for anything other than..
making more money.
1
So I guess the idea here is that pounding the square peg into the round hole doesn't work.....but if you shave off 1 edge of the square that should make the peg fit? Or is it making people believe you are trying to make the square round when you full well know it won't fit anymore than a four sided square will? Hoping the people will feel better thinking you are trying to make it fit. And they will stop asking you to hit the peg with the mallet.
“Americans waiting for a billionaire businessman to ride in to save the day. . .” I also would have thought that the number of Americans willing to support such a billionaire businessman were small and insignificant, until I read the other day, all the commenters supporting Mr Bloombergs idea of throwing his hat into the ring. I was shocked that so many people would be so willing to throw out four Democrat debates, and ten months of campaigning, to give a late-arrival a respectable chance to knock off two presidential contenders in an effort to save his own skin... to save his own skin... to save his own skin...
Who said:
"God gave me my money."
"Enough money was just a little bit more."
"Don't be afraid to give up the good to go for the great."
"I've been rich and I've been poor. Rich is better."
?
It should not be about a persons net worth. It should be about what a person has done with her or his life. Generalizations about groups of folks are typically incorrect and biased.
I've said it before but it behooves repeating -- nothing is going to improve in this country until really rich people start getting really really nervous every time they feel a cool breeze on the back of their necks.
Fair points. But Bloomberg could so humiliate Trump in the financial department.
The fact that every economic comment by a random billionaire is considered newsworthy in itself should indicate how out of proportion their place in society is. In the meantime the opinions of a couple million working class folks can’t even get a hearing in the media.
1
"Political egotism is mainly a male thing?!" Whoo, baby! Not only sexist, Paul, but completely erroneous. Political egotism knows no gender bounds at all - it's an admirable bastion of equality. I won't suggest any names but how about some past and present presidential candidates, and those who toyed with the idea, just for starters?
Just now in my way of transiting from deep sleep to coffee, I realized precisely why the Republicans are and have been packing the courts of law with servants;
The Republicans fully intended to break the laws of our nation.
After having their political power bought for them by the wealthy class, the Republicans have been repealing far reaching laws and regulations. Everyone's outrage is slowly evoked day to day with dangerous actions. The Republicans not only wanted in-the-pocket Judges to get away with their agenda of deregulation and power grabs. They fully intended to pack the courts by premeditated desires to break the laws.
We will no longer have truthful redress in the courts, including the packed Supreme Court that is in on this.
The Republicans are premeditating crimes.
1
We will have to come back to your words, 12 months from now. After Trump has won again.
Paul, you're all wet. Bloomberg entered the race precisely because the candidates are faltering and there is a growing fear that Trump would win re-election. America was not waiting for a billionaire to ride in - we would be happy with Zorro if he/she were a centrist as well as honest with us.
Rich folks, based on very limited "normal" day-to-day exposure and experiences...come to believe "they know."
The Trump's are the best/worst example of this. President Trump, Jared, Ivanka...think "they know." They know how to run a country, how to facilitate a peace plan, negotiate with world powers, navigate crises and threats...right?
Another reason they think they know...is because no one ever tells them "no."
No, you don't know about that. No, you have no experience. No, you don't "play well" with others. No that's a dumb idea.
These folks are not exposed to the simple daily tasks of a visit to Starbucks, picking up groceries, gassing up, dropping off the kids, riding the subway...the daily tasks that connection us to the folks who serve us, that route us through different neighborhoods, that expose us to waits and frustrations and...reality.
However, we share in the responsibility for all this. We elevate, revere, even worship people who create new and shiny toys and services...regardless of their maturity, experience, or interpersonal skills.
I can think of Tesla, Adam Neuman, the late Steve Jobs and of course...Mark Zuckerberg; a brilliant young man who created a way for people to bypass interpersonal connection.
He had no business experience, poor interpersonal skills and little maturity...and yet we entrusted him with the personal information of a couple of billion people.
Check out Christopher Wiley's new book to see how that worked out for our democracy.
1
No one makes it to being a billionaire without help from a lot of us little people.
We already elected a self-proclaimed billionaire conning his way into the presidency. We don't need to do that ever again. Lesson learned.
1
Rob Peter, pay Paul... but the joi polloi go along with it as do even lowly politicians. We have what we don't need - supposedply compostable paper plates put in plastic garbage bags and carted to the landfill, throw out almost 300 billion in food annually (in Girls Scout we scrapped our plates into the slop bucket for the pigs... who in the early 19th C scavenged city streets. Education is and for a long time has been a joke!! -- a few exceptions not necessarily Ivy League, at any rate by college it's very late, almost too late for languages, music, physical feats. Expertise must be acquired young in many fields of endeavor. And the ridiculous consumer economy -- TV shows are pitchmen for all kinds of junque. Billionaire charitable endeavor are definitely bad as they siffon off tax dollars... the charity deduction. There is NO MORE LUXURY tax which Prof. Krugman omits from most discussions. Estate tax? Tax privileges for all sorts of things... ARGH...
Regarding those who foam at the mouth with hate when branding someone a "Socialist," are these same people aware of the fact that one of the basic tenets of Capitalism is "exploitation of the worker"?
1
Dear Paul Krugman, I was looking forward to reading your piece this morning given the headline. But, having now read it, it wasn't worth the time to read it, and I would posit that it wasn't worth the time writing it either.
Social liberalism combined with fiscal conservatism (my philosophy) is a loser?
And the cost of M4A doesn't worry you, but the electorate might be concerned with eliminating their current health insurance?
Who are you, and what have you done with Paul Krugman?
"I’m not saying that the U.S. public is necessarily ready for the likes of Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders......"
Yes, Paul, we are ready. We have been ready.
The billionaire class is now coming to the rescue of the middle class they destroyed? Spare me this irony.
I would love to make a TV ad for Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren featuring ordinary working Americans – in the majority of families who have seen their real income trend downward for decades; who could be financially ruined by a $400 emergency expense.
In my ad, those people would look into the camera and say, "I think what's good for billionaires has got to be good for me."
2
It occurs to me that anyone whose stated goal is to take the wealth from the immensely rich, by any method, will be beaten down by the great wealth available to the rich to spend on winning.
Alas, Americans are not waiting for billionaires to save they day, they are thinking they too have a chance to become one. It's like a billion dollar lottery, they have an infinitesimal chance to win but still they embrace the game, the poorest with the most to lose with the most enthusiasm, and glorify the winners.
@Robert In the U.S. optimism outsells pessimism nearly every time. If there is one thing that sets us apart from the rest of the world, it is the advantage of expecting to win. If you think you are lucky, you are. It works. That usually makes socialism a loser in American politics. As well it should.
1
Unlike Trump, Bloomberg is a more thoughtful and a more productive Billionaire. He was a very effective Mayor of NYC. He also has been very effective in helping Democratic Candidates in recent elections. In addition to his money & resources, he has the passion and the ability to make America better. America is still the Land of Opportunities. We want to improve it, but not converting it to a socialist country like France, Italy, and Spain. These European Socialists have almost a free health care and a free public college tuition, but the average salary is less than $1500 per month with very high taxes. Moreover, the percentage of people going to college is much lower in Europe than that in the US. Joe Biden is right about Elizabeth Warren. I don't want her to choose my health care. I am responsible to pay the education for myself and my children.
Consider a society ruled by the wealthy (Oligarchy) with about $160 TRILLION under "asset management" floating around. This money is not like money in our bank accounts that are ear-marked to be spend by us for our wants and needs.
This money, "under management," is run by professionals whose job it is to make this money grow. The billionaires are not necessarily thinking about anyone else or even the day-to-day spending of their money. It's all in the hands of algorithms and "handlers." This money hoard is looking for "product," either in the US or somewhere else in the world. It is looking for profits, high interest, low wages, opportunity, even opportunities to gamble with some margin of confidence. It doesn't care about the disruption it causes in the lives of people, or the existence of a community, or even the health of an industry.
It's all about the money!
3
Long ago, when I took Professor McCracken's Business Conditions course at Michigan's Graduate School of Business, he taught that the greatest multiplier (hence greatest boost to the economy) came from government spending. He was considered to be pretty conservative. Somehow the concept of conservatism has shifted from limited government and balanced budgets to low taxes on the rich and no social programs for the poor. That is not conservatism, it is greed. It is greed that led to the 2017 tax legislation, not conservatism, which would have advocated for reducing the deficit during periods of extremely low unemployment, not reducing the tax burden on the extremely wealthy.
3
The trouble with billionaires is that they exercise outsized control over the lives and fortunes of others. The important question for democracy isn't whether we should take their money away, it's whether and how we should limit their influence. It's OK if they have huge houses, million-dollar autos, and rooms full of Picasso paintings, as long as they don't get to decide who has a place to live, food to eat, access to health care, and a vote that matters.
We might need to tax them more to finance the government, because as Willie Sutton said "that's where the money is." But it's their influence and power that is the greater threat to democracy. If we can't curtail that influence, they and their descendants will own the future.
3
After Margaret Thatcher was elected in 1979, she oversaw a reduction in the top UK tax rate from 83% to 60%. The top rate then fell to 40% in 1988.
I imagine that Thatcher's argument was that at 83% the super-rich had no incentive to continue to amass capital, but at 60% they did. Then a few years later, the argument was that 60% ...
I have yet to hear a reporter ask a rich person why the US would not be better off if it could reclaim even a tenth of that person's capital. Thomas Piketty presented a carefully supported argument for not an income tax, from which historic wealth is exempted, but a small yearly tax on present wealth.
Such a tax could reclaim capital that in private hands could be either unproductive or even dangerous. When those with seemingly infinite funds choose to film misleading messages against, say, the ACA, only their wealth limits how harmful their efforts might be.
As for the wisdom of billionaires who don't know the price of bread (I'm picturing Ivanka as Marie Antoinette), we have suffered from their world view whether a rich person (GWB for example) or a person beholden to the rich (such as Reagan) inhabited the Oval. From MSNBC to Fox, the message is that capitalism is good. With no caveats.
Everything comes with caveats, so when none are offered it's logical to smell a rat. Turns out that in a capitalistic society, TV stations are run by those who believe in the accumulation of wealth. Go Mike.
As my great-aunt used to say, "Money talks."
3
I am always taken back, maybe amused is a better term, at social gatherings with wealthy acquaintances, at how ready they are to share their wisdom on almost any subject that is brought up. My educational background (Ph.D), my years of experience (45), and my books (4), mean little to these masters of the universe. When they get on a topic that I specialized in, they have no hesitation in lecturing me the topic or offering, what they term, a business solution. All of these lectures and business solutions always begin with the phrase: "trust me...."
4
@Amanda Jones
Love it.
1
American billionaires , in general , live on a different planet than the rest of the country.
They have astronomical power to redirect politics and financial decisions, that will affect every American.
Most of them belong to the greedy capitalism that has made American lives miserable , controlling healthcare, education, housing , environment , etc.
It is time they contribute more to the wellbeing of all Americans, not through charitable contributions, but paying their fair share of taxes .
I am against a billionaire getting involved in politics , we have had enough of the “ presumed billionaire “ trump .
4
Am I the only reader that thinks 'Tycoon Saviours' would be a great name for a rock band? We all agree with Paul, but the revolution is unlikely to be fought on the NYT editorial page.
We need more civil acts of disobedience against the uber wealthy, carried out with kindness and humour, with an aim to promote self reflection, humility, and a focus on the common good.
For several years, I worked to develop and manage Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation agriculture programs. Talk about hubris and always telling the donor what they want to hear so as to match the dogma. This tendency to be less engaged with messy democratic processes and participatory decision making is why private foundations giving away their wealth should be viewed with healthy skepticism.
2
For some reason everyone ignores the role of technology in wealth distribution. In the pre-Reagan glory years that liberals long for the factors of production provided a constraint on entrepreneurial wealth. In other words, for one to get rich she had to hire a bunch of people and procure space/tools/materials for her workers to produce something. As labor was an important factor of production labor unions were influential.
Today, of course, technology has changed the landscape. A small group of smart people with computers can create a successful business and wealth. Fewer employees are needed by today's entrepreneurs, and they can work virtually anywhere in the world. To attribute the current situation to tax policy is simple-minded.
Mr. Krugman, thank you for your clear explanation (as always). How are labor contributions to the outcomes enjoyed by any business calculated in terms of dollar worth? It seems to me each business sets those values, and in general, they are very low compared to the management and CEO valuations. Is it true that each laborer contributes that little value to an overall enterprise? Is there a way to objectively set a dollar value on each person's contribution?
It's so tiresome, even though easy, to defend Medicare For All when it's pointed out every other major country in the world has it. We as the richest (though with most of the wealth cornered by the few rich) country in the can't afford it? Please.
I've asked Canadians, a few Englishmen and a Frenchman what they thought of their health-care and all agreed it was good if not excellent, and dismissed the most common lie, that waiting time is too long.
4
@JFP But the rest of the developed world does not have single-payer, i.e., Medicare For All. Except for Canada and the UK, they use some combination of public/private insurance to achieve universal coverage. We could, too, and it would be a lot easier and less disruptive than MFA.
A dynamic economy doesn't run on money in the pockets of the wealthy but on money in the pockets of the middle class. The huge tax cuts for the rich lead to a phenomenal deficit, and in the end that is paid by the middle class. We are asked to pay the taxes of billionaires. That has to end.
3
I see the problem in much simpler terms. The Democrats need to nominate someone who will beat Donald Trump in the general election. Polls in the "swing states" indicate that this is not Warren or Sanders. I believe that the best thing that Bloomberg could do is to garner as much support as he can, then drop out and throw his support behind Biden.
2
@PETER EBENSTEIN MD You can't go by current polls of swing states, most of which don't vote for months. (PA's primary isn't until May). People in those states have barely paid attention, and maybe never even heard of some of these candidates.
It is obvious to many that while there is nothing inherently wrong with being incredibly wealthy, there is something wrong with the incredibly wealthy being the only people who are 'worth' anything.
Fundamentally, the argument against allowing a billionaire class to secretly rule the nation from behind curtain while their bought and paid for legislators do their bidding is due to a simple fact about money.
Money is like gravity. Once you've acquired a certain amount it starts to pull more and more things into its orbit. What we must avoid at all costs is the billionaire class piling up so much money that it collapses into a black hole. If that happens we'll find ourselves living in a dystopian science fiction movie where the government of the people has been supplanted by a government for thee but not for me.
1
Yes, billionaires have gained way too much economic and political power. To correct that, strong campaign finance reforms must be enacted. Public financing of elections is the best way.
1
Nobody is saying a billionaire is a white knight to save the day, so your premise is misguided to begin with. Bloomberg is a more moderate Democratic choice in a field that desperately needs one. He would crush Trump in a general election whereas Warren would either lose or barely win depending on how impeachment goes. She is way too far left for the general electorate.
1
Billionaires wants recognition. Instead, billion became a dirty word nowadays. So, they are trying to be politicians as if politics is a respectable word. Everyone making fun of billionaires. But no one telling them what they can do to get some recognition, short of giving away in taxes.
The oligarchs will argue that their philanthropy offsets their greed. Don’t buy it. When they shift money to their foundations, it’s funded by taxes lost. In other words, we pay for them to define their version of the good, burnish their reputations, and retain their overall power. One hand reaches into the profit pocket, the other into the philanthropy pocket, both hands have a stranglehold on power.
2
It is not that being a billionaire is necessarily a bad thing, but what we do know is that too much inequality is bad for everyone, including billionaires.
The two most dangerous books for our times are the dystopian “Atlas Shrugged” by Ayn Rand and the revelatory “The Spirit Level” by Wilkinson and Pickett.
One is a novel of ‘hero’ capitalists who destroy the world because it doesn’t give them enough respect. Selfishness is declared the highest virtue.
Foundations exist to spread this gospel of greed.
The other is a scholarly collection of research that shows by every quality of life measure, the more inequality there is in a developed country, the worse things are for everybody. It gives a strong foundation for developing government policies that would work.
It is an indictment of everything the GOP and their big money owners are trying to do. It is an indictment of our political system and our media that “The Spirit Level” has gotten so little attention.
If anyone wants to understand what Sanders’ and Warren’s policies could mean for us all, it is an essential read. (Please pick up a copy Dr. Krugman.)
Inequality of wealth and it’s twin, inequality of political power, are destroying our country and the world. The one thing Rand got right was her depiction of corrupt oligarchs and their enablers - Trump and the GOP would fit right in “Atlas Shrugged” - and not as heroes.
2
I think you were remiss not to mention people like Laurene Powell Jobs who has made quality philanthropy the centerpiece of how she manages her wealth. It could also be argued that Steve Jobs's wealth was well-earned as he created thousands of jobs (no pun intended) along the way and - let's face it - gave the world a superior product. Case in point: I have two 2011 iMac computers in my office that I haven't even turned off in over five years. They both work flawlessly.
2
The solutions seems straight forward. Make America Great Again circa 1980. Forget tax increases - call it "tax restoration" and go back to 90%+ rate (as reparations?) for a decade or so to claw back what the wealthy have evaded for 40 years that contributed to their current wealth and poverty and insecurity for the rest of us. Taxes can be lowered to a more respectable 50%-70% over time.
If Bezos, Gates, the Waltons, the Koch, Mercers, Adelsons, Dimon, et al can't get "buy" with a mere billion, there's something very wrong and unfair - notice how billionaires and alleged billionaires like the trump cry about how unfair everyone is to them?
They can't get over it - just as trump can't get over how he coned the presidency away from the majority of citizens and celebrated his win in the Oval office with the Russians. The obscenely wealthy know the way they made their wealth was not entirely legitimate, just as trump knows his 2016 win was not entirely legitimate - yet they double down on making ever more wealth like trump doubles down on his illegitimacy in 2020.
Someone still has to explain to me what is "conservative" about transferring astronomical wealth from society to the most fortunate few at the top. How is that at all democratic? They use the ruse that one's earnings goes to an undeserving neighbor when it actually goes to wealthy tax free offshore accounts - soon to be tax free onshore accounts.
At least Bloomberg has a solid constituency and base - billionaires.
1
"American economic history since World War II falls fairly neatly into two halves: a first era, ending roughly in 1980, during which progressive taxation, strong unions and social norms limited extreme wealth accumulation at the top, and the era of soaring inequality since them. "
Hmmm ... and what exactly happened in 1980 that could have caused this sea change? Oh, yeah - the election of Ronald Reagan and the adoption by the Republican Party of unbridled, insatiable greed as their one and only operating principle. Both Trump and Bloomberg are twin children of the Reagan Revolution.
3
Professor Krugman, with only 705 billionaires in the USA (as per CNBC), are they statistically relevant in a population of some 330 million? There is no question of the relative inequality when measuring such a small sample, but making a broad-based case as you do here seems highly skewed.
Paul Krugman, if you are listening, please compare Classical Economics to Neo-Classical Economics.
Please go back to Adam Smith and explain his arguments about regulations and Rents. Please explain the difference between gains from trade and profits. Please explain that the Invisible Hand was supposed to work between the butcher, the baker, and the candlestick maker, not help the East India Company against the candle stick maker.
Please explain that prices are supposed to reflect the costs of society of a good, so that resources are distributed in the best way for society, not the super rich. Please explain how externalities disconnect the price from real costs, and that the refusal to put all of the costs of fossil fuels, for example, into the price means we end up with more fossil fuels than society needs.
Please go back to Keynes and explain (again) how an economy can be stuck at a low equilibrium and that only government can raise that equilibium.
Please explain perfect market theory and how it is used to measure the efficiency of individual markets.
Please explain that Neo-Classical Economics is a giant scam that takes all of the detailed work of the real economists and throws it in the garbage, so they can claim that markets (which they renamed "capitalism" after their capital owning benefactors) are always perfect and always do the right thing.
Please explain that when markets fail that only democracy can step in to make them work, as classical economists did.
2
Americans have the bad habit of equating being smart with being wealthy. It is not rare for people to assume that the super wealthy got that way because they were geniuses and that being so smart they should be able to solve the problems of the other 99.9%. The net result of being seduced by the brilliance of great wealth is that americans vote for them in elections thinking that somehow they are going to be empathetic when it comes to issues dear to the working classes like health care , schooling, a clean environment and climate change.
The average voting american does not want to hear that billionaires spend most of their time advancing their own interests, and that the interests of billionaires are not the same as the interests of the middle and working classes. The idea that billionaires can somehow in a paternalistic way protect the interests of the average worker, nurse, doctor. lawyer, and bus driver is at best a pipe dream when the laws that are enacted by the billionaire class enshrine their rights to even greater wealth.
Health care as a right , is far from the concerns of the super rich as long as they can keep them off the legislative agendas and block funding at the state and federal level . The argument of the super rich is that america can not afford it. The argument is plausible only if one forgets that what they mean is that they believe they can not afford it... that taxes might fall on the super rich and make them slightly less rich...so sad !
5
I agree with you, although I am surprised there are not more social liberals who are economic conservatives. I wonder if those labels are sufficiently nuanced. Regarding billionaires, reducing the influence of money in politics is an important goal, in my mind. But I am interested to know if you support a 6% wealth tax and how you would justify that. The volatility of that income stream to support social programs is one problem. Setting that aside, does it make economic sense to capture 6% of wealth when the 20-year return on the stock market is just over 7% pretax? The current tax system is unfair, but would that proposal be fair as a permanent feature? This is not a rhetorical question for me.
1
I suspect that billionaires by and large are decent ordinary people when you take away the privilege that vast wealth bestows. It is noble that many billionaires like Bill Gates take on really important philanthropy.
The problem is that a "bad billionaire" has the means to follow through with a bad agenda. For example of that, look at the Koch brothers.
The average voter making $50,000 a year can have little effect beyond his or her vote. $50k doesn't buy a lot of influence. But $100 million spent on fostering a tea party cult can take over 50% of the electorate.
6
@mrc
The "average" voter is not making $50,000 a year. That is, if you are thinking "mean." The mean would include the incomes of the super wealthy. Remove those few hundred billionaires, the bunch of millionaires, and then do the math.
What does a billionaire do when he has been mayor of New York for two terms? And that two terms was the limit for service as established twice by public referendum? You buy some politicians who then override the people's will so that you can run again. Don't believe for a minute that Bloomberg doesn't think that his you know what smells different from ours, just like Trump. They mock us and mock democracy.
2
It has been said that America has an aristocracy, but based on wealth rather than on whether an ancestor helped a king murder a rival. I used to wonder how the British could swoon so over their various Princes and Princesses, but we Yanks fawn over the wealthy just as much. The rich are noble and wise, and the poor are base. We know, because the rich tell us so. Same play, different costumes.
883
@Frank O It's not a fair comparison. Monarchs were appointed; most (not all) American billionaires earned their wealth. Bloomberg in particular started from nothing.
10
@Frank O
Add to that the GOP SC Citizens United ruling, where conservatives literally allowed the wealthiest to buy their own representation in Congress (not astonishingly, it's Trump and the GOP who are indeed representing them there today).
In an aristocracy, your vote has more weight in function of how much land you own - in other words, how wealthy you are.
Aristocracies were by definition conservative, politically.
"Conservative" political parties only started to exist when the Industrial Revolution brought hundreds of millions of ordinary citizens to the big cities, where they were completely exploited by the new aristocrats, wealthy CEOs, which led to the creation of "socialist" political parties and socialism as a theory.
Those socialists fought for decent working hours and paychecks and access to education and healthcare, AND representation in parliament.
"Conservatives" were from then on politicians who wanted to literally "keep" their wealth and privileges, based on the idea that somehow, it was proof of their superior ability to govern and knowing what is right for the entire country.
Conservatism has always been founded on a massive lie.
That's why they need 24/7 Fox News fake news and a "leader" who spends his time in the White House copy-pasting the main FN lines of the day into tweets, all while passing no bills at all, except for a deficit-doubling tax cut for the wealthiest.
71
@Walker
A system that allows a handful of people to install monopolies and through the systematic exploitation of other people accumulate exceptional levels of wealth, is in every sense comparable to aristocracies.
An aristocracy is not defined by the fact that a monarch is "appointed". Presidents are appointed too. It is defined by a society where the laws of the country are such that IF you want to (and if you're lucky) you can truly hurt other people so badly that it allows you to become incredibly much wealthier than the 99%.
And yes, a system that allows CEOs to earn tons of money all while keeping wages inhumanely low and keeping access to education and healthcare away from tens of millions of hard-working ordinary citizens, IS exploiting those citizens, obviously.
The mistake that certain conservatives make here is to imagine that somehow the bills passed in DC and that created this system in the first place, would not have been passed by human beings but somehow be part of "nature".
And then, they add (= second false, and quite frankly immoral, imagination) that IF it's "natural", it must also be good and we should keep things like that.
Conclusion: in the US, no one "starts from nothing". Each and every citizen, wealthy or poor, is part of a system that "we the people" installed. And it's that system that is producing billionaires and a disappearing middle class. That's not only immoral, it's also very dangerous, as history has shown.
81
I'm not waiting for a billionaire. I'm waiting for that most impossible and rarest of creatures to run for office: a real human being with intelligence, common sense, some humility and a bit of arrogance to be our president. The creature we have sitting in the Oval Office now is none of the above. My other unrealistic wish is for the pundit class to stop writing half the truth to scare most of the people.
Medicare for all or universal access to medical care is not a pipe dream in most developed countries. The biggest reason it's a pipe dream here is because our dogmatic views on socialism which we confuse with communism and Russia. Russia never had true communism. China doesn't. Nor does any other country. What we have here is an example of extreme capitalism allowed to decimate the working classes of America.
American legislators who call universal access to medical care extreme socialism have no understanding of what socialism is. They merely like the sound of it. Guaranteed access to medical care when and where we need it without the high deductibles could be the best thing since Oreos were put on the market. If we don't act on this and other issues by getting more revenue from the uber rich we won't have a society worth protecting.
Let's not forget that rich people don't know everything there is to know about money. Look at Trump if you don't believe me.
11/11/2019 7:08pm first submit
936
@hen3ry
Thanks for pointing out the misleading dogma of communism and socialism. Indeed, every "commune" is in essence communist. And socialism is not Venezuela's problem - it is massive corruption, in spite of how wealthy that nation truly is (based on oil reserves alone). Our so called capitalistic society's problem is rampant corruption too, with both of us heading to eventual failed state status - just as Putin demands. Indeed, the wealthy have failed our state, our nation, as they continue to take too much from it.
Republicans want guaranteed trillions for their benefactors in lieu of guaranteed access to healthcare for the nation's citizens. Healthcare for all does not preclude the wealthy or those with the means from buying private VIP medical services - so it's "rich" for them to complain about the rest of us gaining some access to healthcare.
75
@hen3ry Cuts in Medicare are being made by this billionaire's administration. People I know who have a comfortable retirement do not realize that if they become bed ridden and require nursing home care they can quickly use up their retirement fund and will require government assistance. In this area I know of a successful and responsibly run retirement facility that has a long term care unit is closing down and laying off their long term care staff because of changes being made in government support for the elderly. I believe that this is because so many older adults have not saved enough to cover this type of expense and if they have taken them into their care they will be financially responsible for these patients. Just think what could happen to Medicare for All under these circumstances. In addition to the fact that I believe that many people will not vote for Medicare for All, I do believe that strengthening Obama care and making available Medicare for people who cannot afford health care with the purpose of eventually making Medicare insurance the most successful health care system and there will be no possible way for people who do not believe in Medicare for All to starve it into a decrepit system that lacks government support because of lack of public support.
23
@PAN Between elections, democrats bemoan the fact that the government is doing nothing, or very little, to help the working class - stagnant wages, out of control health care costs, student debt, , etc. This is when we hear little but praise for progressive minded politicians. Then, as the election approaches, the conservatives, well funded by Wall Street, come out again with their tried and true mantra - socialism, your taxes will go up, the national debt will skyrocket, you may loose what health care you now have. Does anyone really believe that Bloomberg will put the plight of the working class above his mission to protect the wealth of the top ten percent? His real reason for jumping into the fray at this point is to protect against a tax on his incredible wealth. Warren and Sanders represent a threat that must be nipped in the bud, and if money can accomplish that, well, no problem.
26
Is it really radical to pay the same effective tax rate as the average middle class taxpayer? I think not.
They benefitted immensely from our economic, legal and infrastructure system so they should be happy to help keep it working for everyone.
677
@Robert kennedy
It's not even radical to expect them to pay a higher effective rate. That's the way it was for 50 years prior to 1980 and after those policies helped pull us out of the Depression our economy had it's highest rates of GDP growth in our history with much higher income equality as well.
43
@Robert kennedy
yes, they _should_ be happy to pay, but they are not.
Greed, avarice, and egomania warps decision making in a way that only a billionaire can rationalize...
39
@Robert kennedy To the average person, you would think they would consider this their obligation to the country that gave them everything they have, but that's not how egotistical people think.
25
By simply calling the out-of-touch existence of billionaires a "bubble" doesn't do justice to how the "bubble" was created nor why those ensconced in it want nothing to change.
1
You forgot to mention the control that billionaires have over conservative media, their influence on mainstream media and the financing of political campaigns. This combined power, over time, is how they largely set the terms of political and economic debate. Unless we restrict campaign spending, reinstate the fairness doctrine and force advocates of trickle-down, etc. into open, impartially moderated debates the ascendency of mega capital will only increase until we are in a true plutocracy.
537
@Guynemer Giguere don't forget the control they have over liberal media, their influence on social media, consumer access and spending, and the financing of political campaigns. This combined power, over time, has set the terms of daily life for many (most) Americans, from cost and access to food, tech, clothes, books, public education, health insurance/health care, transportation and culture. Unless campaign financing and the tax structure are changed to tax billionaires and capital gains, we will continue to be ruled by an elite class of people whose power derives from their wealth.
37
That happened when they figured out how to enlist the Evangelicals.
12
@penelope
The issue there is that wealthy people lean fiscally conservative and have been convinced government should operate like a business where the good customers (people with money) should be catered to and the 'bad' customers get bad service to cut costs. Even billionaires with progressive agendas seem to believe in this paradigm and finally the most important idea, private citizens can hold their own private programs more accountable than government. It isn't about results but about power.
Basically billionaires like to be in control and even progressive billionaires want the power to have a say and collude with other billionaires and the classes of society that benefit from billionaires having power to get the most say which effectively excludes the voices of all those citizens without as much money (even those with a networth in the top 5% don't make the cut).
7
Billionaires want to shed their wealth in novel ways but nothing mundane like paying taxes. It’s patriotic to pay your fair share and they honor their success and contract with the rest of us. No man is an island.
5
"I worry in particular about the politics of Medicare for All, not because of the cost, but because proposing the abolition of private insurance could unnerve tens of millions of middle-class voters."
Private insurance is a huge part of Medicare: supplemental insurance and Medicare Advantage. So I don't see how Medicare for All would abolish private insurance. (Given that, keeping costs down will be crucial, or Medicare for All will turn into what we have now.)
If that message is communicated more clearly, then no voters need to be unnerved.
5
@Midwesterner
First it is key to understand why dozens of other countries get far better care for half of the cost per citizen.
Best Practices is when health care decisions are made by patients and their healthcare providers, together, using peer reviewed research. Best practices puts care above costs making health the number one goal.
The U.S. system puts corporate profits above health. Instead of using research to make decisions, corporate insurers randomly deny care, deny payments, and switch out medications, based on what they think they can get away with. If you have been paying premiums for fifty years and need an expensive cancer drug to survive, they will try to deny that drug if they think they can get away with it.
It turns out that Best Practices not only makes people healthier, but it makes the total cost of care lower. This is counter-intuitive for those that assume that markets are always perfect, but it is logical if you think about how health actually works, and how easy it is for bad medical decisions to explode the cost of care.
The scams run by insurance companies to boost their profits makes people sicker and drives up costs.
Besides that, when you leave people uninsured, they don't get care early, when problems are easily solved. They wait until they are so sick they have to go to the emergency room, which costs ten times as much. Meanwhile they are going to work sick, making other people sick.
Markets do many things well. Not health insurance.
1
Dr. Krugman:
It is really hilarious that "I’m not saying that the U.S. public is necessarily ready for the likes of Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders"; and you are right: people "are not ready" under the guise of " want to keep my doctor", etc.
We see in Bolivia, Evo Morales ousted in spite of having reduced drastically the misery and poverty, and having high rates of GNP growth.
People, like Revolutions, eat their benefactors.
1
The concept of making money from money goes way back in history. But it's hard to imagine that we would have arrived at a point when so much money -- and power -- would have ended up in so many hands of those who aren't monarchs, dictators, or otherwise corrupt oligarchs. Let alone in a democracy.
Greed capitalism has now become a key election issue, with Trump, and with billionaires vs Warren/Sanders, etc. But it also filters down to a residual belief that each of us is entitled to become rich by pulling up on our bootstraps -- but learning that those in power might be pulling strings to keep many from even putting on those boots in the first place.
As is often said, power is never given, it is taken. And we'll see in 2020 if the billionaires are willing to give much -- or if there are sufficient numbers of people willing to vote to take it away. Even those with modest portfolios have to be nervous that Eliz Warren would shrink their investments, whatever tax percentages she might advertise now. "Follow the money" has never had more expansive consequences.
The billionaire class must wake up to the fact that throughout history inequality - whether economic, social or political - has been the primary cause of social unrest. Over the ages it has been resolved by either the ruling/elite class supporting reform and relinquishing some of their power and wealth or denying the situation and eventually having their privilege taken away by regulation, political revolution or mass civil unrest. The United States is clearly at such an inflection point. Unless the billionaires and their enablers wake up to the advantages of backing economic and social change voluntarily they may be subject to it being imposed involuntarily.
3
Is it possible that the marginal utility of the rich is low?
Yes it’s true that many Billionaires are in favor of higher taxes so why is it so had to get it done?
Bloomberg is a friend of Wall Street and Real Estate Developers and was weak on Education, Public Housing and Mass Transit.
Oh and he flew his jet to Bermuda many weekends.
4
The professor properly cites Warren’s private-eliminating health insurance approach as a huge 2010 House Dems-style risk.
Warren might ease off of that bold left flank after winning the nomination — if for anything — the simple fact that half of the left doesn’t even trust wide swaths of Western conventional drug companies or their many brand-sponsored doctors. Forcing people away from progressive, alternative or integrated medical options and into Big Pharma’s (i.e. Johnson & Johnson’s) arms is unrealistic both far left and right of center.
@Jon Wane You point to a huge problem with these plans, the seeming failure, at least in the publicly highlighted portions of them, to address cost. For instance, Steven Brill in Time magazine in 2013 documented how hospitals often price services out of thin air. The complexity of this issue is also illustrated by the sometimes exorbitant salaries of physicians. Such salaries are justified by their need to pay back med school student loans; obviously, if that burden could be alleviated, that justification goes away. Obviously, too, this issue of cost bleeds over into other areas, so that necessities like health care and housing are rising beyond the affordability of more and more people.
So if imposing cost control is socialism, so be it. The rich will barely feel it, while the rest of us get the benefit.
2
@ Phillip, agreed. A total overhaul of the FDA towards prevention models would be the real deal.
I haven’t seen economists analyze for the people specifically which levels of wealth generate long lasting and just productivity.
1
I earned more than a good wage as real estate finance lawyer working on national and international deals during the Bloomberg reign just before the crash. Billionaires in this sector, and I’m not speaking directly of Bloomberg here, for I know no more than the public, and we all know there are worse than he is, live in a power that feeds multiple revenue streams.
Power, loopholes, investment advantage, don’t just stop prosperity from trickling, they flood upstream. Time for more than a re-set.
12
It's delightful to see Bernie Sanders' name appear in a New York Times column; there truly seems to be a Times Bernie blackout. It's also delightful to see a realistic assessment of billionaires in politics. My only quibble with Professor Krugman's excellent piece is that it ignores polling that shows 70% of American voters in favor of Medicare for all.
5
@moviebuff I have a theory that NYT was obliged to black out Bernie because the Hillary Clinton campaign aggressively demanded that from the media. A gag order on all things Bernie. So NYT columnists had no choice but to honor it and to go all out bashing Bernie as best as they could. A whiff of exception, Michelle Goldberg she alone showed a tiny bit of respect for Bernie, check the archives.
Billionaires insist that government exists to provide them with a clear road to profits and insurance against their failures, which at times collapse the economy. That is what capitalists believe. They also believe that they deserve to have capital that government backs and defends, at the peril of any and all those who are harmed by capitalist behavior. Billionaires believe that they have created all of the wealth and prosperity in the world. They also believe that their heirs deserve to keep all of the wealth that they have accumulated. Because they are billionaires they believe that they are smarter and are especially endowed with wisdom and foresight not available to non wealthy persons.
The billionaires are the heirs to the Aristocracy that we Revolted against, that democracies around the world fought against. Today, Putin is the new leader of the world’s oligarchs. He helped Trump win and said so in Helsinki. He backs Brexit and the destruction of the UK, the EU, and NATO. Putin has joined hands with oligarchs around the world to restore the aristocracy around the world and to destroy democracies. Our billionaires and the Republican Party are doing everything they can to help Putin restore plutocratic rule. Trump firmly believes that he has absolute power and his supporters agree.
Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos and the Waltons are dangerous to democracy.
5
Just now in my way of transiting from deep sleep to coffee, I realized precisely why the Republicans are and have been packing the courts of law with servants;
The Republicans fully intended to break the laws of our nation.
After having their political power bought for them by the wealthy class, the Republicans have been repealing far reaching laws and regulations. Everyone's outrage is slowly evoked day to day with dangerous actions. The Republicans not only wanted in-the-pocket Judges to get away with their agenda of deregulation and power grabs. They fully intended to pack the courts by premeditated desires to break the laws.
We will no longer have truthful redress in the courts, including the packed Supreme Court that is in on this.
6
@PATRICK This is probably the most important comment here.
2
Income and spending levels say everything about a culture's value system. We wince at suggestions that the extremely wealthy should pay much higher tax rates, yet say nothing while our researchers, educators, caregivers, healers, and protectors work for comparative peanuts. We demolish perfectly good sports arenas only to build ever more expensive ones, even as Americans living in their shadows live in abject poverty. We spends trillions on redundant and often flawed weapons systems while making deep cuts to social programs. We spend untold billions on corporate welfare, yet say that we cannot afford the same health care on offer in every other advanced country. The truth is, we worship only money.
12
Tipping point time: do we continue business as usual (pre Trump) in which the wealth gap is obscene, or do we undertake a fundamental shift toward more equality? I believe that to be the issue.
9
Why would private health insurance have to be eliminated to provide Medicare for everyone? I settled in Germany 37 years ago after two enlistments in the Air Force. We have universal mandatory coverage for all employees. It costs me about 300 euros a month. At a certain income level you can opt out. If you want premium coverage you can add to the mandatory coverage through a tailored policy from numerous private insurers. For all the treatments I have had over the years I have never seen a medical bill. Patients who need insulin have it covered and do not have to worry about how they are going to finance it. Of course our tax rates are higher but public services and healthcare function here. Americans are so uninformed about the different options that are available. But that is what you get when you swallow the Republican snake oil they have sold you for the last 40 years.
17
Great column. Extreme concentration of wealth and income makes our economy unstable and as a corollary requires many millions of Americans to live in poverty or near poverty with no wealth themselves. Impose a wealth tax on the billionaires and save our democracy and save our economy. The tax revenues can go a long way to paying for Medicare for all, free college tuition at public colleges, expanding Social Security, more housing vouchers and adequate food stamps so that no American has to remain homeless or hungry.
5
Gee, the "America" represented by the Electoral College was certainly ready to turn itself over to a self-proclaimed 'billionaire' in 2016. What else did Trump have to offer?
3
As happiness indices are now replacing GDP measurements, a person of any economic wealth or poverty running for office should have a corresponding personal happiness rating.
1
I'd begrudge Bill Gates and Billionaire Friends their billions just a little bit less if I thought these people weren't getting obscenely wealthy on the backs of tens or hundreds of thousands of "contract" workers in the "gig" economy. But they did and are.
Many who work today are merely "rented" and live from contract to contract. It's an unstable economic, social, and political environment.
14
@Fred
Bill Gates and friends get rich/got rich by hooking us all on his product and then making it useless every 18 months. Hardware, over and over again became junk, lacking memory to run his latest bells and whistles. It broke my heart when his upgrade ruined my embroidery machine and the stitch files and equipment Id purchased. Any hope of using my computer graphics background to create my own stitch files was gone. And then there was the big Desktop Suite Maker Big Name software who charged just as much for upgrades as the initial product. And then all of the schooling - for what? If Gates wants to continue parading as a philanthropist he can start reimbursing us all for what he stole — and our stupid Congress let’s them do it. The hearing with Zuckerberg here awhile ago, wasn’t that an eye opener! It’s not fair!
1
Great column. I had a minor issue with the following:
"Billionaires aren’t necessarily bad people, and most of them probably aren’t."
To the contrary, most of them probably are, and there is solid research in psychology to support that claim. Here is one of the classic papers on the subject (from Paul Piff et al.):
"Higher social class predicts unethical behavior" (2012) in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
https://www.pnas.org/content/109/11/4086
Increased wealth tends to corrupt basic moral values, because the wealthy begin seeing themselves as if they are above the law, as if the normal rules of life and society just don't apply to them. Hence why we see things like Bernie Madoff, Allen Stanford, Enron, the Wells Fargo disaster, and dozens of other prominent cases of greed ruining the lives of millions of people.
We live in a system that encourages people to be extremely wealthy or to worship those who are. All of this has a corrosive influence on our basic moral values.
13
@Valerian
Lack of a moral compass doesn't turn you into a "bad person" though, it merely makes you act bad.
And as you remind yourself, it's our entire system and culture that makes people worship and value wealth above anything else, AND that tells us that to "be someone", you have to earn tons of money.
People are social animals. They need to feel that they belong. Create a culture where belonging and identity fabrication is based on how much money you have, and certain (emotionally fragile and financially lucky?) persons will end up wanting to become billionaires.
Very interesting study though, thanks for the link.
1
I'm almost always in sync with PK's economic analyses, but in this instance I demur, if only to offer a slightly more balanced perspective.
Which is to point out that at least some billionaires, including Bill Gates and Michael Bloomberg, have directed some of their wealth to addressing existential issues that government -- and this government under Donald Trump -- refuse to address.
On example: Gates and his wife have donated millions to deal with an enormous public health issue in Africa: the scourge of disease-carrying mosquitos. To even confront the issue of eliminating often fatal mosquito-carried illnesses takes untold amounts of research and testing dollars; the Gates have stepped up significantly to wage war on pestilence.
Then there is Bloomberg's commitment to deal with climate change and mindless gun violence. These are well known activities, but we tend to dismiss the fact that he has contributed millions of his wealth on these issues.
I'll offer another, less publicized example: Bloomberg has donated billions (with a B) to his alma mater, Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, to make it one of America's premier research and medical universities.
I hope my point is clear: the excesses of the extremely wealthy are off-putting to the rest of us, absolutely. But not all ultra-wealthy are cut from the same cloth. Some, in fact, have and are providing invaluable civic leadership to the world.
2
@PaulB67. You’re right about the generosity of Gates, Bloomberg et al but, as a NYT columnist pointed out in recent days, the country needs investments in healthcare, infrastructure, etc. that only governments can make. Saving lives in Africa is noble, but someone other than Bill Gates should be deciding on priorities for that kind of social spending.
3
@Paul, I am not so sure that elected officials make better decisions.
@Paul: I grant you that other major issues require government investments; certainly that's the case with climate change. But in the case of Bloomberg, he at least has made it a defining personal issue, and I have no doubt that as President, it would be a major if not THE major policy of his Administration.
I guess what I am fumbling to say is that we shouldn't judge billionaires by the fact of their gains (unless unfairly or illegally obtained), but more on how they use their wealth.
Most people feel millionaires and for sure billionaires should pay more than they do. What makes many people skeptical is the ability to collect the money. Lawyers and accountants along with charitable foundations seem to be at one with lobbyists to make for legal loopholes. Maybe Warren will be able to stay strong enough to change that. Bernie likely would but is less electable
I may have to reread "The Great Gatsby". I'm not sure who is worse or who leads a more irrelevant life: Jay Gatsby and his wife or Trump and his minions. If anyone is an example of why being born uber rich is not a good influence on character it's our current Toddler in Chief. He not only displays a complete lack of concern for anyone but himself; he actively betrays his oath of office. We've come a long way since the days of Nixon and Watergate. Now we have a president who is, along with his party, willing to betray the country he's sworn to protect.
5
Yes, billionaires do live in a bubble. Climate chaos, if nothing else, will burst that bubble.
4
Oh you wish. The Uber wealthy will continue to sidestep the struggles the rest of us will face. They will build beautiful atriums with water and air purifiers, protected by armed guards.
1
@JessiePearl No, they will retreat to their private retreats as the rest of us die
1
Isn't it a simple as support for progressive taxation? Don't we support the idea that those with more pay more? It seems to me that taxing unearned income at a higher rate than earned income, taxing inherited income as unearned income, and thereby reducing the deficit and increasing the disposable income of wage earners would be almost universally acceptable. I don't think we should make an argument that we'll raise taxes for more social programs. Most people don't see that as getting ahead . . . just make the case for rational equitable taxation.
1
I’m convinced that the bond that drew Trump and Putin together is vast individual wealth: government by billionaires and for billionaires. It’s not fair to tarnish other billionaires w the Trump and Putin brush, but I do think it is reasonable that we look elsewhere for a president and that we be concerned about the enormous influence single vastly wealthy individuals can wield in our country.
3
"...which is why they seem to vote against their own economic interests." On the other hand, billionaires know exactly what their best economic interests are.
A billionaire in the White House, Trump or not, will have plenty of conflict of interests. By definition. Their public policies will impact their own pockets. The more the billions, the more of an impact.
5
Why insist private insurance must be abolished by law as part of Medicare for all? If a Medicare for All plan is passed that covers everything, no one would need private insurance and the market would collapse on its own. There is no reason to scare people by announcing upfront you're taking their insurance before you have passed your plan.
Pass a decent plan and let the marketplace decide if there is room for private insurance.
5
@exgrunt42
My guess:
1. it's much more expensive to install Medicare for All in two stages, as tens of millions of Americans will first want to wait and see, so those who will sign up for it will probably be the sickest, whereas insurance only works, by definition, if you have tons of healthy people paying into the collective fund too.
2. as Obamacare has shown, as long as you leave any room to Republicans to sabotage the system through abusing the fact that it's private-sector based, the GOP will do so, and might even continue to try to repeal it altogether. If the entire country moves to a totally new system, however, repealing will become much more difficult - and even more so once the more than 100 million Americans who are now on employer's plan HAVE to be on Medicare too, and can then see with their own eyes how it's better, and then start defending it politically too.
In all Western countries with universal healthcare (= all Western countries except for the US), conservative political parties don't even THINK of trying to attack or undermine it.
That's the place we have to go to.
But it IS tricky politically, indeed. So personally, I really don't know what would be best for 2020. There are very good arguments on both sides.
Taken into account how much influence fake news will once again have, however, I too would go with installing it without abolishing private insurance, at least for the first decade or so ...
2
I have nothing against billionaires per se who've made their money honestly. But I think a very pernicious factor that erodes democracy is whenever money and power are highly concentrated among a small number of people or companies (including the number one). Unfortunately, when this condition occurs it tends to persist over time.
3
I don't think of billionaires as a separate species of the human race. I don't think it's fair to lump them all together, as they are very diverse. Most of them are creative and highly successful leaders...important attributes for a Presidential candidate. Should they pay more in taxes? Probably. The real problem is our political system, which allows rich candidates to swamp the media. That is the thousand pound gorilla in the room. If we could fix our warped primary/election system, we would be having a different argument here.
2
@Marc
The question is: do we really want someone who has invested his entire life (they may all be very diverse , in a certain sense, but they're also all male ... to start with) in being "creative" when it comes to imposing monopolies and exploiting ordinary citizens by paying them ridiculously low wages (Amazon, ...) simply in order to increase his own massive wealth ... to all of a sudden do the same thing to the US?
Or do we believe that we finally need someone who really puts AMERICA first, rather than his own wealth and status ... ?
4
"So, do billionaires in general make vast contributions to society?"
Professor Krugman makes two great points that the billionaire class would have to demonstrate that their wealth is only a small part of what they’ve added to national income as well as that they’ve earned their wealth by doing productive things. But they'd also need to prove that only they and no one else could have done those productive things. Sure it''s generally admirable to seize a good oopportunity - but if someone else would have done the same thing - then how much can you really claim credit for benefiting society? I'm thinking of Bill Gates - who - to be clear I greatly admire. Not withstanding his recent comments I think he's one of the few plutocrats that has some consideration for ordinary Americans. But Gates was only one of perhaps 20 people commercially developing an operating system for PCs back in the day. Gates did a better job of seizing his opportunity to be the developer for the IBM PC which made him the unstoppable first mover in the PC software business. But, as I'm confident Gates himself would say, there would have PCs, software and the entire IT technology explosion we've seen over the past 40 years Gates or no Gates. And even at MSFT many contributed to it's success not just Gates.
Correct. I think it’s important to make the distinction that Gates’ “innovation” was primarily his willingness to be utterly ruthless in creating and exploiting a monopoly.
This included, among other things, the requirement that any computer maker who wanted to install Windows on their computers had to pay a license fee to Microsoft even if they installed an operating system from another company.
As technologists, Gates and MS were always mediocre. But in suppressing the innovation of others and locking in monopoly profits, they were unsurpassed.
We need to stop pretending that self-serving “business innovation” and genuinely-progressive technological innovation are the same thing.
Thia is not snark: Could someone who understands these things better than I do please explain to me what it is in some human beings that drives them to amass amounts of wealth that no one could productively spend in a thousand years? And that they must guard that hoard and strive for its increase ceaselessly, no matter what "collateral damage" befalls others?
6
It’s like any other challenging pursuit. Wealth is amassed because it’s there. Of course, the reason it’s there is because a strong stable government creates the conditions under which it can be created.
1
@jprfrog why did Michael Jordan want to win every basketball game he played in? At some point didn't he have enough wins, so that he could allow the other team to win? It's not about the money; the money is incidental, like the scoreline in a basketball game, a means of keeping track of achievement. What if Bill and Melinda Gates believe it will take $150 billion to eradicate disease in Africa? Should they stop striving for that wealth? Finally, the wealthy do not cause 'collateral damage' to others. The poor, addicted etc do, as they monopolize resources that could otherwise be more equitably (ie equally) shared.
2
Whenever someone says “it’s not about the money” you can be sure of one thing...It’s about the money.
The heart of the American problem of today is"Most people, including many self-identified Republicans, want to see higher taxes on the rich and increased spending on social programs; however, quite a few people combine these sentiments with racial hostility and social illiberalism, which is why they seem to vote against their own economic interests."
The Right and Left are not divided by their social goals of improving infrastructure, health care, education etc. They are divided by their view of race, religion, gender and most importantly who "deserves" the good jobs and decent life. The super wealthy and our foreign enemies use that cultural divide to foment that division to their advantage.
As for health care, most advanced countries in the world manage to have healthcare for all while still allowing a private healthcare for system for those who want to pay for it in after tax dollars.
Why some folks want to eradicate private health care so that everyone can have healthcare is part of that cultural divide. Particularly when we have multiple health cares systems in place already in this country. Everyone could be found a place in our healthcre systems.
One other characteristic that Billionaires have, not mentioned, is they have the ability to keep their eyes on their goals, may those goals be good, bad or indifferent. Unfortunately voters get confused about their desire for a good life by their cultural biasis.
1
We’ve come a long way from 2016, when Paul found all kinds of bizarre reasons to attack the candidate who actually supported policies that Paul claims to support. His current attacks on Sanders (and Warren now, too) seem mild and policy based, almost as though he is resigned to the fact that the Democratic party and the country are happily moving left.
So that’s the good news.
The bad news is that instead of directing his attacks on the Democratic centrists who support the unpopular, billionaire-friendly policies that have given us a shrinking middle class and a deranged ranter as president, he doesn’t even mention them.
Well, baby steps, I suppose.
2
@Objectively Subjective
You guys have been "attacking Democratic centrists" for decades, and it only gave us Trump and the GOP.
So why would be still believe in your strategy ... ?
All Billionaires make their money abusing the little person.
First, they do not adequately compensate their employees with wage and benefits.
Second they raise prices on their products beyond reasonable profits.
Third they with their money they are able to influence government to bend rules their way.
We have one as governor of Illinois. He promised all these wonderful things for the middle class people of Illinois. Lower taxes was one of his promises. And the first thing he did was double the gasoline taxes, double the cost of registering a car and other atrocities.
1
A "Medicare for All" type system in the USA would *not* have to mean the end of health private insurance. Look at European countries: in the UK, the NHS has near-universal support, but private health insurers have a place too, offering quicker and nicer service. For example, you can see a specialist more quickly, get surgery quicker in a private hospital, and recover in a nicer room - compared to the NHS equivalents.
1
I remember the seismic economic shift in 1983 that was so palpable we were all taking about it. Big business was where the action was, you were wasting your time trying to do anything on your own. The world was changing.
It feels like another seismic economic shift maybe happening now. Not sure the details, and I’m not making predictions. But people like Dr. Krugman are appreciated by observers like me.
Could the coming change be Americans voting more for their own economic self interest? And by that I’m not taking lower taxes, but voting for a candidate who will leverage the power of the government to help all citizens, not just a fraction? Probably not. There’s no historical evidence of that happening, and history does repeat itself.
3
Is there a charity I could contribute to - to help these billionaires?
I see many threads here conflating the arguments against wealth inequality with Marxism. In mid-century, my late father and his colleagues grew a small retail business into a major international concern with thousands of stores. He retired in the 80s wealthy but not uber-rich and watched in despair as the business he helped to build was pillaged and ultimately ruined by a small cadre of execs who extracted for themselves 100 times the top earnings my father ever received. Dad was a staunch capitalist, but were he alive today he would support a return to the high marginal tax rates that existed when he found success in business. The newest generation of business leaders are, for the most part, failing to earn he exorbitant compensation they receive.
11
"Now, not that long ago the world economy was brought to its knees by the collapse of a huge real estate bubble, which destabilized a financial system"
Krugman salutes Wall Street here by stating history backwards. It was the collapse of the financial system that created the real estate bubble to collapse not to mention the fact that it was not purely a real estate bubble as much as it was MBS (Mortgage Backed Securities) hocus pocus derivatives that did the deed.
Krugman also proves himself to be living in the punditocracy bubble which is working very hard currently to keep chanting these words every time they get a chance "..abolition of private insurance could unnerve tens of milions of middle class voters". He cites no poll or proof for this but simply states it as some kind of fact.
1
If there is a uphill battle in this world, it’s going to be convincing an American that great wealth is the Bad Guy. I’d wager that no single story has been told and retold in America more than the tale of striking it rich. Republican, Democrat, Independent, it’s in our national DNA; it’s the one thing that really unites us. If the 2020 election pits Trump against Bloomberg, how could anyone be surprised?
4
Sadly, the proposed abolition of private insurance will be the sharpest weapon Trump and his followers (the ENTIRE Republican Party) will have in 2020. It stops-cold the fear and momentum we need to lead the states back to sanity.
1
After the new tax reform act of 2017 was passed, I am surprised there was no legal action taken declaring it unconstitutional on the grounds that Americans are not treated fairly, equally. In other words, the wealthy are given preferential tax treatment. The only reason Warren is proposing an "excessive" tax rate on the highly wealthy people is to get your vote, as I'm sure it would be easier to just return the tax rates back to what they were before 2017 law, and tax income over $100million at a 50% tax rate. Not even accountants can agree on asset evaluations, so stick to income and reduce the ridiculous deductions and exemptions the wealthy enjoy, as well as offshore accounts.
1
Thank you for so eloquently and descriptively laying out the case for a Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren presidency. Sanders has been talking about this since Warren was a Republican back in the day. The transfer of wealth as noted began in the 80's under Reagan and accelerated under Clinton, increased under Bush, and cemented permanently by Obama who oversaw and orchestrated the unprecedented transfer of recovery wealth (95% of it) from the Great Depression to to upper 1%. He consolidated the banks and made them bigger and never addressed the mechanisms in place that have siphoned trillions of dollars of wealth and capital out of the middle class and up into the stratospheric 0.1%. Government, and hence democracy, is probably threatened, for the first time, by a corporate/oligarchic class that has literally bought both political parties. Yes, both parties are bought and corrupted. So they could care less as we bicker over and are distracted and stress out with identity politics, guns, abortion and immigration; the ebb and flow between the Democrats and the Republicans means nothing to them. They remain in firm control of the economic structure, not our government, you know, "We the People..." These people are probably the biggest threat to our democracy and the American way of life that we use to know and took for granted, not the Russians as they would have you fret and obsess over and shut down your critical thinking skills so that you don't focus your attention on them.
16
Brilliant understanding of how things are in this Oligarchy we call the United States of America.
As many know, it began with a vengeance the day Ronald Reagan was nominated for the Presidency, and quietly behind the scenes it was being planned a decade earlier, just before the manufactured crisis to structure the price of oil, (early 1970's) the single greatest corporate engineered undertaking which remade the modern world economy, transferring economic control to corporate America and the wealthiest Americans.
Today we are watching as the billionaire Republican and Democratic authoritarians move Heaven and earth to cement in place their brutal achievements.
While I desperately hope that Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders upsets this abominable state of affairs, I fear it may be decades too late; with Bloomberg, the sometimes Republican and sometimes Democrat, muddying the waters, artfully induced by the Republican-Lite Pelosi Schumer democrats to assist in managing the perception of the American people, "we the people" are being set up again.
2
@FXQ I don't think Vlad and Xi should be taken so lightly. It's one thing to be upset about those close to you and quite another to elevate those concerns by diminishing other worse concerns.
The problem with billionaires isn't necessarily their alternate sense of reality or the echo chamber they live in, but the disproportionate influence they have over the rest of us without countervailing force.
Everyone lives in their own little world to some degree, and many people at all levels of wealth are downright delusional. Billionaires are just amplified versions of this human trait.
The problem is that their money bends law makers to their will, leaving behind the politician's constituents, which excludes information from the democratic process.
Democracy is brilliant because it harnesses information that is in the hands of many. It acknowledges that collective knowledge is better than a single person's knowledge.
When billionaires have more weight than others, we lose information that we need to run the world.
8
If either of Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders becomes the nominee, their biggest challenge won’t be Trump, it will be Harry and Louise. And to date, Harry and Louise are undefeated.
4
In the days of Progressive Republicans (yes, there were such creatures well within living memory) your tax rate might be 80 or 90% or even more. However you did not pay that rate. You invested in your country or your industry and you created jobs and then you were rewarded for that with much lower tax rates. The key point is that you did it and then you reaped your reward.
Then came Reaganism. In Reaganism you reaped your reward because you generally promised to invest in your country and your industry.
Then came Bushism. You reaped your reward because you promised to think about investing in your country and your industry.
Now we are at Trumpism. You reap your reward because you turn your back when Trump is filling out his scorecard on the links.
Maybe it is time for a change?
8
The reality of being a billionaire is not a new one. The US constitution does not forbid anyone from being a billionaire and therefore there are more of them every year and those that are around will keep their billions no matter whether we have a Democratic president or a Republican president.
There are 2 schools of thought about self made billionaires like Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos etc. One is they had an idea or a business model and they turned it into billions. The second school of socialist thought is they made their billions by not paying their share of taxes or that our system did not tax them enough. The response of the billionaires has been we have made our billions and we are keeping it and we decide on who we give it to. I think billionaires will ultimately get their way by ensuring that those who are antagonized to them will never get a chance to get their dirty hands on their billions. I am not sure who Bloomberg is running for but from the presidential candidates and the squad carrying foul, I think that Bloomberg is running for the Billionaires and to keep the path open for other wannabe billionaires to one day be billionaires.
Money makes the mayors go. Bloomberg has to say I will solve the problems the country faces and I and my fellow billionaires will volunteer to pay for it and if billionaires leave cities than the mayors will be left with less and less money.
So I have to agree with Prof Krugman.
1
I might consider voting for any billionaire who gives away almost the entirety of his wealth (save a few million for himself) to uplift people in poverty or significantly eradicate another pressing social issue as this is both doable and likely to have far faster impact than any committee-written policy he may get through Congress years after getting elected if he is able to even do that.
4
@JBC Bezos alone could eliminate world poverty and still have billions left over.
2