Of course most of the rich have less empathy, no conscience, do not respect societal norms or laws, and are more likely to cheat... Unfettered capitalism rewards all of the above...
7
There are many liberal journalists who detest Sheldon Adelson, his contributions to Republican candidates and his affinity for Israel. The Editorial Board of the NY Times is conspicuous by its presence among them. He is routinely referred to them as a "mogul," a noun favored by the Times to describe rich Jewish businessmen who support Republicans.
Mr. Adelson is also disliked by many people outside the newspaper business. Prof. Krugman joins the list of Mr. Adelson's most ardent detractors today. All of these worthy souls are free to start and purchase newspapers of their own and to publish whatever they like on the internet. And contribute as freely as they like to liberal candidates and causes.
Mr. Adelson, it seems to me, is entitled to as much freedom of the press as anyone else.
Mr. Adelson is also disliked by many people outside the newspaper business. Prof. Krugman joins the list of Mr. Adelson's most ardent detractors today. All of these worthy souls are free to start and purchase newspapers of their own and to publish whatever they like on the internet. And contribute as freely as they like to liberal candidates and causes.
Mr. Adelson, it seems to me, is entitled to as much freedom of the press as anyone else.
Indeed you don't need to confirm this from statistical experiments. For poverty reduction in the materialistic advanced societies it is fashionable to refer to the science of economics, laws of economic growth supposed to promote worldly well-being.
Opposite is more true. Contemporary economics is much more “idealistic” tend to live in an one-dimensional world of statistics and equations that do not accurately reflect human values and aspirations in actual live in world.
Throughout the history of religion, wealth and spirituality have often appeared to be in conflict with one another. One of the most well known Christian verses supporting this notion is Jesus Christ’s aphorism that “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God”
Like other religions, Indic religions are sometimes criticized for encouraging a non-materialistic way of life that goes against the grain of our main desires and motivations. If we want to reduce poverty, we are referred instead to the science of economics, which has discovered the laws of economic growth that promote worldly well-being.
In contrast to the calculating individualism that neo-liberal economics presupposes, Indic religions are more down-to-earth in its understanding of the sources of human ill-being and well-being. Its approach is also more similar to the way most pre-modern communities have understood well-being, and “undeveloped” societies today still do.
Opposite is more true. Contemporary economics is much more “idealistic” tend to live in an one-dimensional world of statistics and equations that do not accurately reflect human values and aspirations in actual live in world.
Throughout the history of religion, wealth and spirituality have often appeared to be in conflict with one another. One of the most well known Christian verses supporting this notion is Jesus Christ’s aphorism that “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God”
Like other religions, Indic religions are sometimes criticized for encouraging a non-materialistic way of life that goes against the grain of our main desires and motivations. If we want to reduce poverty, we are referred instead to the science of economics, which has discovered the laws of economic growth that promote worldly well-being.
In contrast to the calculating individualism that neo-liberal economics presupposes, Indic religions are more down-to-earth in its understanding of the sources of human ill-being and well-being. Its approach is also more similar to the way most pre-modern communities have understood well-being, and “undeveloped” societies today still do.
8
Pathology is the accurate word ...Narcissistic Personality Disorder is on the rise everywhere.
22
How shall we award these their privilege to bestow their amassed fortune intact and unassailable to their progeny?
One dollar, one vote. Our new future.
One dollar, one vote. Our new future.
12
Now that you have money--know that happiness is not here.
10
Wealth without wisdom could turn out to be a curse.When the persons make up ,from early on embodies a healthy dose of humbleness, humility and a moral fabric ( like those embodied in the fine tradition of say a Judo-Christian Teachings or teachings of Budha,etc. ) that serves as a scaffolding to our whole good character, is solid, having a command on wealth can be +vely transformative. Folks like Bill gates, George Soros, Ted Turner,etc have used their wealth to make lives better to millions and millions. When 1 looks at Countries like Iraq,Iran,Nigeria,DRC, CAR,Syria,Libya,S.Sudan etc. all r blessed, at least with vast natural resources.But when those who have a say on it are those with thuggish mentality and do not tap on the their Educated's intellect, do not give their people proportional participation or ask the best expert advice life there goes down the tube and the despots eventually face an ignominious end.As you pointed out when some one has enormous wealth and the person feels that that alone entitles him or her to have the final say on critical matters that invites disastrous consequences.The problem you mentioned is present in most places.One main reason for Economies in many nations plunge is mis use of resources.All these Nutty I.Extremist groups,in the domains they control, they empty Banks, confiscate citizens' jewellery,pocket all oil money but when they get kicked out, as they eventually will be, the domain is totally flattened and ruined.TMD, a #s Guy.
1
We here in Israel have had and are going through the Adelson treatment. Sadly it seems we deserve what we get but the rest of the world should be more careful.buying a paper is only a beginning for him . It is a tool in his hands to control ,influence and intimidate. This is not a yellow journalist making money but a successful and dangerous tycoon seeking ultimate control and protection from all. Here in Israel he seems to be untouchable but then he already has our government in his pocket. None would dare criticize him, he owns them all.
22
So maybe there is something to the influenza defense. It would explain a lot about The Donald.
6
The people who do the WORK, the ones who actually do, they are the most important component of our society.
21
It's easy to criticise than offer solution.P Krugman knows that political donation laws in the US allow money to pay a critical and cynical role in US politics.He should have proposed useful and meaningful changes that will prevent the ills he write about.
Not all super rich is cynical predisposed;examples of B Gates,M Zuckerberg,W Buffet etc are doing good beyond the US with their gargantuan wealth.
Super rich Democrats are equally indulgent in using wealth to support their political causes .It's the political system that stinks,period...cheers
Not all super rich is cynical predisposed;examples of B Gates,M Zuckerberg,W Buffet etc are doing good beyond the US with their gargantuan wealth.
Super rich Democrats are equally indulgent in using wealth to support their political causes .It's the political system that stinks,period...cheers
3
Light cannot escape from a black hole. As the economic ideology of your country propagates only the law of ego-centrism among America's children how can you be surprised when the biggest black holes show us to be the hardest suckers?
11
Dr. Krugman destroys any credibility he might have by his continuous efforts to attack Republicans while pretending that no Democrat examples exist. Adelman's influence on Republicans are placed in the worst possible light, while he ignores Billionaire Tom Steyer who has required Democrats to bow before him and his pet project of killing the Keystone Pipeline. Billionaire Bloomberg has been just as willing to throw his money around as any Republican in support of his own ultra-liberal policy views. If Dr. Krugman wants to argue that money in politics is a bad thing, he is free to do so. But he insults our intelligence to argue, in effect, that only Republican money in politics is negative.
10
The points raised are interesting but they don't only apply to rich people. They apply to people with power and influence as well. Mr. Krugman is an example. An influential Nobel Prizing winning economist with and ax to grind whose agenda clouds his objectivity and who uses in influential position to further his agenda. He does not own the NYT but he has great influence by virtue of his position. Everything he writes is anti-conservative and anti-republican. Everything! Is there not some pathology there that is worth exploring? How can one philosophy or one party be the root of all evil. No blame is ever put at a democrat's doorstep. They pathology and delusions from privilege that come from wealth also come from influence and power. Those in glass houses should not throw stones.
8
Thank you, Dr. Krugman, for this excellent column.
I'm not a huge fan of those "separated at birth" side-by-side photos, because often there isn't much of a resemblance.
But I've got to admit that Trump and Mussolini seem to be cut from the same genetic material -- in more ways that one.
Like this:
http://alittlereality.blogspot.com/2015/10/trump-mussolini-in-their-own-...
I'm not a huge fan of those "separated at birth" side-by-side photos, because often there isn't much of a resemblance.
But I've got to admit that Trump and Mussolini seem to be cut from the same genetic material -- in more ways that one.
Like this:
http://alittlereality.blogspot.com/2015/10/trump-mussolini-in-their-own-...
7
How about a definition of wealth for a change
So easy to rant against large targets
Watching Jimmy Fallon ...pretty sure he falls into wealth category
So easy to rant against large targets
Watching Jimmy Fallon ...pretty sure he falls into wealth category
2
Whether or not you agree with Krugman, applaud his willingness to name names. Too often, critiques of the wealthy and powerful fail to name names.
"Hedge fund managers." "CEOs". "Trust funders." Exactly who are we taking about? Exactly how are they abusing their power? Most commentators lack the courage to tell us . For most of the super-wealthy, anonymity is the key ingredient to abuse of power.
There are exceptions. Trump is a shameless lunatic. Most people, however, are neither shameless nor crazy. The willingness to name names and call out specific behavior is a powerful deterrent.
The rich and powerful absolutely do cheat the system more than others. At work, breaking securities laws if they know there's no nearly no chance of being caught and publicly punished by the SEC or FINRA. At home, doing their kids' homework (or paying others to do it) when they know the private schools to which they send their kids need money far more than they need to respect their own honor codes. And on and on. Anyone who spends any time in the world inhabited by the super-rich and powerful sees the behavior.
It's an absolute certainty that our nation will rot and crumble if we allow our political system to be controlled a handful of oligarchs.
"Hedge fund managers." "CEOs". "Trust funders." Exactly who are we taking about? Exactly how are they abusing their power? Most commentators lack the courage to tell us . For most of the super-wealthy, anonymity is the key ingredient to abuse of power.
There are exceptions. Trump is a shameless lunatic. Most people, however, are neither shameless nor crazy. The willingness to name names and call out specific behavior is a powerful deterrent.
The rich and powerful absolutely do cheat the system more than others. At work, breaking securities laws if they know there's no nearly no chance of being caught and publicly punished by the SEC or FINRA. At home, doing their kids' homework (or paying others to do it) when they know the private schools to which they send their kids need money far more than they need to respect their own honor codes. And on and on. Anyone who spends any time in the world inhabited by the super-rich and powerful sees the behavior.
It's an absolute certainty that our nation will rot and crumble if we allow our political system to be controlled a handful of oligarchs.
16
And now Soros is going around saying he made a mistake to give five million to Obama. The reason, he says, is that he hasn't gotten the access to Obama that he paid for.
The problem with the money in politics argument is that it is made most loudly by liberal newspapers such as the one that pays Krugman. They don't want anyone else influencing elections. That is also the reason the Adelson purchase of the Las Vegas paper so rattles them (How many articles have you seen on this subject in recent days? Honestly, not since Murdoch went into tv have so many feathers been ruffled. When was the last time a newspaper purchase got such press?): The right is beginning to learn the left's little newspaper and magazine game.
The problem with the money in politics argument is that it is made most loudly by liberal newspapers such as the one that pays Krugman. They don't want anyone else influencing elections. That is also the reason the Adelson purchase of the Las Vegas paper so rattles them (How many articles have you seen on this subject in recent days? Honestly, not since Murdoch went into tv have so many feathers been ruffled. When was the last time a newspaper purchase got such press?): The right is beginning to learn the left's little newspaper and magazine game.
2
A repub. for23 years, I had to abandon the party.
The party of Palin and Trump has no room for me.
Just who do they want to make it better for?
They truly just want more for themselves. Let's not pay for infrastructure. Someone else will. I don't want to pay my share to make America a better place, I cannot pay those bills, I will declare bankruptcy -- 4 times. Ludicrous. Someone needs to redefine what a winner is.
I cannot stand these people, I cannot be in their group.
The party of Palin and Trump has no room for me.
Just who do they want to make it better for?
They truly just want more for themselves. Let's not pay for infrastructure. Someone else will. I don't want to pay my share to make America a better place, I cannot pay those bills, I will declare bankruptcy -- 4 times. Ludicrous. Someone needs to redefine what a winner is.
I cannot stand these people, I cannot be in their group.
31
Krugman is right on--as usual.
18
Are you running out of material? I'm curious if you've actually read the "serious social science" you cite in your article, Paul. Since I wanted to read the research for myself, I followed your link and it took me to a Time article from 2013 titled "Wealthy Selfies: How Being Rich Increases Narcissism." The Time article at least told me the name of the journal, but failed to mention which year/volume/etc. Time did provide a link to the statistics... Okay, actually the "statistics" hyperlink in the Time story takes you to a 2013 story in the business section of The Atlantic titled "Why the Rich Don't Give to Charity." In this story, the author doesn't even bother to mention the journal, and certainly doesn't provide a link to the research. Since I am a "scientist" (assuming degrees in chemical and nuclear engineering qualify me for that title), I was interested in seeing how the experiments were conducted. Social Science research is (in my opinion) notoriously subjective since the manner in which the research is conducted can influence greatly the outcome. So did Paul or anyone posting in favor of taking more of what I and other producers earn read it? I didn't think so.
Keep following Krugman and the democrats down this path of self-imposed self-righteous envy people. At the end of it, you will find that envy, hate, and misery are your enemy, not capitalism or producers.
Keep following Krugman and the democrats down this path of self-imposed self-righteous envy people. At the end of it, you will find that envy, hate, and misery are your enemy, not capitalism or producers.
5
The current presidential sweepstakes will be mainly influenced by Citizens United and the media's biased reporting.
A man running for office like Bernie Sanders and ignored by a major U.S.newspaper such as the NYTimes, can therefore be destroyed regardless of his ability to do a good job. And where and by whom the money goes during the election does not permit a people's choice for president.
This is why democracy will no longer have a say in how the nation is run nor can it respond to what its citizens need to survive.
Collapse will follow including those who hold the reins of power, unless an overwhelming majority come out of the shadows and to the rescue in the nick of time.
I desperately hope it is not something that only happens in the movies.
A man running for office like Bernie Sanders and ignored by a major U.S.newspaper such as the NYTimes, can therefore be destroyed regardless of his ability to do a good job. And where and by whom the money goes during the election does not permit a people's choice for president.
This is why democracy will no longer have a say in how the nation is run nor can it respond to what its citizens need to survive.
Collapse will follow including those who hold the reins of power, unless an overwhelming majority come out of the shadows and to the rescue in the nick of time.
I desperately hope it is not something that only happens in the movies.
26
Not sure what is trickling down from the top of the economic ladder. But it really doesn't smell so good.
29
Thanks, Dr Krugman, for a New Year's breath of fresh air. Please keep it up. But watch out for that Connecticut newspaper...
13
"And the result is the face you keep seeing on your TV."
sorry, but i gave up on commercial TV--including news--a long, long time ago. entertainment for the masses? perhaps. entertainment for me? definitely not. vote with your feet and wallet, despite what others might do.
donald who?
sorry, but i gave up on commercial TV--including news--a long, long time ago. entertainment for the masses? perhaps. entertainment for me? definitely not. vote with your feet and wallet, despite what others might do.
donald who?
3
the real question we should all be asking and there is no good answer to this question is? Where is this country going with little or no checks or balances on those running that are trying to call themselves republicans. Our country is in big trouble for a lot of reasons, but we need to get some sanity from our politicians. I do not see that happening though.
6
I find it hard to take many of these comments seriously.
The uberwealthy are just like us -- except they have more money. There are a lot more of us in the lower middle class, and the upper lower class, than there are of them.
If they declare class warfare, will we fight back, or just get back to work to keep them wealthy?
As Joe Hill said, don't waste time mourning -- organize!
The uberwealthy are just like us -- except they have more money. There are a lot more of us in the lower middle class, and the upper lower class, than there are of them.
If they declare class warfare, will we fight back, or just get back to work to keep them wealthy?
As Joe Hill said, don't waste time mourning -- organize!
23
Restraining the political power of billionaires is the issue, so the objection "Oh yeah, but what about George Soros!" is actually completely besides the point... even in the unlikely event that you're right that Soros is as big a problem as the Kochs, the central point remains unchanged.
15
The Atlantic had an excellent article in the past week or so about corporate culture, specifically the culture at Volkswagen. It seems that a high salary can get between a person and their conscience. If you have to choose between a job and your integrity - well, jobs come and go, but you have your character the rest of your life; still, if you have a steep mortgage and have taken on a lot of obligations, character can appear to be a mighty expensive indulgence. Ideally a person never has to make that choice. Sadly, they sometimes do.
6
I was recently corrected by a friend when I quoted a verse from the Bible (1 Timothy 6:10). I said, "Money is the root of all evil." My friend said, "Look it up," and when I did I read, " The love of money is a root of all kinds of evil." Two new thoughts came to me after thinking about this for a while. One, money in and of itself is not evil. In fact, many people with generous hearts participate in helping others by donating their money, their time, their skills. Two, those who love money will create all kinds of evil trying to get more, and if the lovers of money gain or buy political power, they can create economic evils, social evils, military evils, environmental evils, and so on. Then this thought: Why do sincere Christians believe such political evildoers that only want political power to support the rich?
8
While we're at it let's not forget all the filthy rich social 'liberals' in Hollywood, who advertise in the NY Times, run Wall Street who vote democrat, enjoy all the slave labor illegal immigrants our uber leaders flood into the USA and tax loopholes that the Republicans do, generally agree with them on almost everything that benefits our American few percent nobility, while slandering intimidating most into silence that do not agree with their Cosmopolitan globalization Utopian never quite gets here fantasy as racists, Nazis, xenophobes, intolerant, disturbing, insensitive, afraid of change mean white old working class people, populists ....
8
Great comment.
Adelson? Try George Soros.
Adelson? Try George Soros.
1
"A licentious and mutinous people may easily be brought back to good conduct by the influence and persuasion of a good man, but an evil-minded prince is not amenable to such influences, and therefore there is no other remedy against him but cold steel." - Niccolo Machiavelli
14
To add one hoary truism to another: Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Actually, it was said in 1887 by Lord Acton: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Acton, a Roman Catholic, refused to let the despotic Catholic bishops of the past off the hook, merely by virtue of their being bishops.
"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority."
http://history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/165acton.html
Actually, it was said in 1887 by Lord Acton: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Acton, a Roman Catholic, refused to let the despotic Catholic bishops of the past off the hook, merely by virtue of their being bishops.
"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority."
http://history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/165acton.html
3
The wealthy believe that they are superior and chosen in my experience. They genuinely believe that their hard days work is worth 100 times even 1000 times more than someone at the bottom of the ladder. Both people may have gone to college, and get up every morning and spend their day working to exhaustion for a business. The rich man may have more help, less risk, more perks, but he still feels entitled to the lions share. In my experience, these folks seem to suffer from delusions of grandeur, have strong feelings of entitlement and superiority..and I am astounded at the amazing lack of empathy in many cases. And they don't even know that it's missing. I suspect there must be physiological component to their condition.
26
One of my proudest moments in reflecting the past 12 months involved leaving a company because I felt like I could no longer be of value to the company. In reality, the company was going through another major expansion, being no exception to the record year of mergers and acquisitions. I've decided that I'm at an age where I should give back and pass the baton, not be lured by any more materialistic means. I agreed to stay on part-time to help out the transition for another few months. At the exit interview, I was asked, if it's not the competitive pay that the company was offering, and they are among the top 10% for compensation and benefits, then what is it about the company that had prompted me to leave? Looking at the chairman, I sensed his impatience for a wrong answer on my behalf so he could justify my immediate termination, despite being there for more than a decade. My wife had prepped me in coming into the interview to not express any opinion about the company other than what is purely about me.
So with all probity, I said to him that he should know me by now. It is my personality to always just wanting to help out people. That was the end of the conversation. Simple. Period. I had replayed this interview thousands of time in my mind, each with a sense of affirmation, a sense of relief, a liberation from trying to be the top producing dog, a sense of normalcy.
It is not normal to be rich not because the rich can't be normal.
America is what it wants to be.
So with all probity, I said to him that he should know me by now. It is my personality to always just wanting to help out people. That was the end of the conversation. Simple. Period. I had replayed this interview thousands of time in my mind, each with a sense of affirmation, a sense of relief, a liberation from trying to be the top producing dog, a sense of normalcy.
It is not normal to be rich not because the rich can't be normal.
America is what it wants to be.
10
Many comments here express little hope of reversing the erosion of our democracy as the 0.1% uber-rich tighten their control of the government through dark money in politics and the acquisition of media for right wing propaganda purposes. The year 2016 may be the last opportunity to arrest the slide toward corporate fascism in the United States. Totalitarian government by the the super wealthy for the super wealthy. The key will be getting out the vote. If the Millennial generation which is now the largest voting block can be motivated to look after their best interests, if the minorities and women can be galvanized to fight against GOP racism and misogyny, if Democrats can remain united and not fragment over Hillary/Bernie then there could be a chance to take back our government for the people We must get out the vote in 2016 as never before!
30
All one has to do to make an honest assessment of this nation, is to
stand back and compare this country in 2015 to 1945. I was aware
and cogent both dates, and I can tell you frankly, that that the difference
will take your breath away. We have become too interested in
accumulation and consumerism, and less interested in the quality of
life, which we have lost forever.
stand back and compare this country in 2015 to 1945. I was aware
and cogent both dates, and I can tell you frankly, that that the difference
will take your breath away. We have become too interested in
accumulation and consumerism, and less interested in the quality of
life, which we have lost forever.
33
Anybody who has accumulated massive wealth and therefore power and still needs more is a security addict. They need their fix as much as somebody addicted to a substance and they'll do whatever they need to, to get it, destroying everything good that’s in their path.
The problem isn't only with them, it's with that element of society that not only doesn't recognize that they are monstrously neurotic addicts, but actually holds them up as models to emulate.
It enables them, participates slavishly in their aggrandizement of power and wealth. And looks the other way when they abuse that power.
Trump and the Koch brothers are bad enough but Adelson seems to be in another league altogether, which is terrifying. He's heavily mired in controlling a portion of the press in Israel and influencing (for which read brainwashing) public opinion, and clearly wants to do the same in the US.
The Las Vegas Review-Journal sale was conducted in a very underhanded way. The whole story has far-reaching tentacles and it's all about control and blocking journalistic integrity.
We shouldn’t let this one go. We expect Third World countries run by dictators to have no freedom of the press, but we need to open our eyes. It’s happening here.
Thank God for journalists like Paul Krugman who are utterly incorruptible.
The problem isn't only with them, it's with that element of society that not only doesn't recognize that they are monstrously neurotic addicts, but actually holds them up as models to emulate.
It enables them, participates slavishly in their aggrandizement of power and wealth. And looks the other way when they abuse that power.
Trump and the Koch brothers are bad enough but Adelson seems to be in another league altogether, which is terrifying. He's heavily mired in controlling a portion of the press in Israel and influencing (for which read brainwashing) public opinion, and clearly wants to do the same in the US.
The Las Vegas Review-Journal sale was conducted in a very underhanded way. The whole story has far-reaching tentacles and it's all about control and blocking journalistic integrity.
We shouldn’t let this one go. We expect Third World countries run by dictators to have no freedom of the press, but we need to open our eyes. It’s happening here.
Thank God for journalists like Paul Krugman who are utterly incorruptible.
33
How much was Obama's 2013 Hawaii vacation? 8 million. You are right the people in power in the US are just like third world dictators.
2
What do billionaires want? They want more. This isn't anything new. It's called wealth defence and goes back to the Middle Ages at least. What was the Magna Carta if not wealth defence by the barons?
The founders of our nation were very concerned about protecting wealth and rigged the system in favour of the rich by limiting the vote to male land holders and the electoral college was a firewall against the rabble electing the wrong man. For any of this to change Citizens United must be struck down and real campaign finance reform has to happen. If not forget about democracy. Unfortunately the mass of the population is either illiterate and uneducated or brainwashed. I have little hope.
The founders of our nation were very concerned about protecting wealth and rigged the system in favour of the rich by limiting the vote to male land holders and the electoral college was a firewall against the rabble electing the wrong man. For any of this to change Citizens United must be struck down and real campaign finance reform has to happen. If not forget about democracy. Unfortunately the mass of the population is either illiterate and uneducated or brainwashed. I have little hope.
21
"Wealth can be bad for your soul."
The evidence is everywhere. Does Donald Trump even have a soul?
Wages and taxes are both too high, according to Trump.
Of course "wages" does not describe what Trump and Sheldon Adelson and Jamie Dimon etc etc etc earn. They are supposed to pay taxes, however.
The sad part is that Trump's crowds are composed of "wage earners" who are angry and fearful but don't understand what has hit them or what Trump is really saying.
The evidence is everywhere. Does Donald Trump even have a soul?
Wages and taxes are both too high, according to Trump.
Of course "wages" does not describe what Trump and Sheldon Adelson and Jamie Dimon etc etc etc earn. They are supposed to pay taxes, however.
The sad part is that Trump's crowds are composed of "wage earners" who are angry and fearful but don't understand what has hit them or what Trump is really saying.
23
If the comments that I read on other websites are any indication, regular folks are sick to death of the rich getting preferential treatment, to wit, there are the laws for them, and the laws for the rest of us. Ours are almost Draconian, or at the very least Dickensian, but theirs let them off the hook for the most blatant of crimes and misdemeanors. We may not mind that they are rich, but what we do mind is that they can get away with murder with nary a slap on the wrist. If politicians want to actually do something about income inequity, in my opinion, the best place to start would be there, with legal inequity.
20
Of course we know that the ultra-rich and ultra-obnoxious do not suffer from their greed or egotism in any way which diminishes their unseemly appetites. They are more closely allied to sociopaths because of their indifference to other people or ordinary norms. Reform is impossible, but punishment which deters their behavior is possible: shaming and shunning. They, their wives, children, and grandchildren--all those who suffer from "affluenza"--should receive continuous and widespread adverse publicity in every facet of their lives and, until they are ostracized, their friends should come in for the same treatment.
12
Egomaniac Krugman failed to mention the most destructive billionaire of them all, George Soros. He funded horrifying humanitarian disasters, so-called color revolutions, the latest disaster being Ukraine. He funded regime change within sovereign nations without remorse about human bloodbaths so long as his puppets, coordinated with the Pentagon and NATO, took reigns. He also funded the Ferguson mess and countless other force-oriented change agents. More than half of the top 25 billionaires are liberals (source: Politico), heavily influencing Democrat policies, and yet egomaniac Krugman only mentions his enemies.
Billionaire, banking and corporate influence are what voters reacting against when they support Sanders and Trump. This country desperately needs the demolition of both right and left wing establishments. I just wish a different persona was around to do the work, and I'm afraid that Sanders isn’t tough enough. Trump may just achieve single-payer healthcare, and foreign policy non-interventionism.
Obama has shown himself to be oriented towards despotism - the soon-to-be executive order, end-running representatives of the people of our democratic republic, to force gun control, is the latest example. Well, maybe a Trump shot at that despotism stuff, without being beholden to big power interests, might just be a good thing for this country.
Billionaire, banking and corporate influence are what voters reacting against when they support Sanders and Trump. This country desperately needs the demolition of both right and left wing establishments. I just wish a different persona was around to do the work, and I'm afraid that Sanders isn’t tough enough. Trump may just achieve single-payer healthcare, and foreign policy non-interventionism.
Obama has shown himself to be oriented towards despotism - the soon-to-be executive order, end-running representatives of the people of our democratic republic, to force gun control, is the latest example. Well, maybe a Trump shot at that despotism stuff, without being beholden to big power interests, might just be a good thing for this country.
16
It is a well-known fact that Americans favor more stringent gun control than we have today. For example, universal background checks and bans on military style assault weapons are strongly favored. Unfortunately, the "representatives of our people" like the NRA and gun lobby more than the people they represent. Something to do with uncontrolled money in campaign finance . . . The suggestion that the clearly fascist Trump as a less despotic alternative to President Obama is truly fascinating. Only in the RW echo chamber does the suggestion that our president is despotic have any legs. This from the Party of "No" . . .
25
He funded the downfall of the Iron Curtain. I guess some people consider that a horrifying humanitarian disaster.
7
What an odd, fact-free post.
15
One thing that should never be on the market in a capitalist society is a politician. The grade-school ambition often expressed by this nation's youth of becoming President is, unfortunately, too often a false one. The road to the White House is not paved with hard work and competence, but with ill-gotten wealth.
4
I have taught children in poverty, and millionaire's children. I will teach children in poverty over those same elementary kindergarteners with iPhones, iPads and one hundred dollar bills found under their pillow from the tooth fairy, any day. I absolutely agree with David Brooks that there is less empathy not only with the children, but evidenced daily from the parents. It is truly sad that those with money do not know how to parent because they think money can buy it all...
15
Narcissistic personality disorder seems to be a highly admired trait by these people.
9
Krugman for President! He's the most reasoned political advocate in the US. It is time that intelligence is recognized as a virtue and not as a cultural flaw.
14
This is yet another example of Professor Krugman playing the "wealth envy" card. And when he complains about others of being self-centered, he should look in the mirror first.
7
I didn't see any wealth envy in this column. It was just pointing out the corrupt and egotistical examples. Krugman didn't mention them, but I'm sure he respects wealthy who are more open minded and generous and use their wealth and influence for good rather than selfish things.
12
Krugman has just provided a number of examples of wealthy right wing people trying to buy the political process, something that he does not have anything like the resources to pull off, even if he were interested in doing so, so your attempt at accusing him of being equivalent to them actually rings entirely false, and obviously so. So what were you thinking?
8
There's no wealth envy in this article. You're projecting your own emotions onto Prof. Krugman.
20
First, one has to have a soul. Many do not believe
soul exists. It is convenient to think this way.
soul exists. It is convenient to think this way.
5
Democracy - never by bent back or neck.
1
Humans are a species of gregarious, highly competitive and aggressive ape. Our closest relatives are chimps and bonobos. Like chimps, humans are driven by competition over access to scant resources to compete aggressively with each other more often than to cooperate like bonobos.
We're much more like chimps than bonobos, but many here evidently would like us to be more like bonobos. Other humans resent the apex apes that lord it over the rest of us, in part because the former have failed to shin up the greasy trunk to make it to the top of the tree. This is understandable. Failure to become the victor makes the losers bitter.
Relative to those grinning down at me from the top of the tree, I am not privileged, pathological or powerful. Now I’m old and enfeebled, I accept, am resigned and am largely indifferent to my emasculated status. I still get roused to righteous indignation, however, on behalf of the most badly treated underchimps, and I hope I always will.
Never completely trust any chimp or human. If it suits it and if it can, either one will rip your face off in a moment actually or metaphorically. The most dangerous type of predatory human or chimp is not the most overtly aggressive ape but the ape in disguise – the ape that would like to have you believe that it's really a bonobo.
There will never be justice in the human jungle. It’s the way we are.
We're much more like chimps than bonobos, but many here evidently would like us to be more like bonobos. Other humans resent the apex apes that lord it over the rest of us, in part because the former have failed to shin up the greasy trunk to make it to the top of the tree. This is understandable. Failure to become the victor makes the losers bitter.
Relative to those grinning down at me from the top of the tree, I am not privileged, pathological or powerful. Now I’m old and enfeebled, I accept, am resigned and am largely indifferent to my emasculated status. I still get roused to righteous indignation, however, on behalf of the most badly treated underchimps, and I hope I always will.
Never completely trust any chimp or human. If it suits it and if it can, either one will rip your face off in a moment actually or metaphorically. The most dangerous type of predatory human or chimp is not the most overtly aggressive ape but the ape in disguise – the ape that would like to have you believe that it's really a bonobo.
There will never be justice in the human jungle. It’s the way we are.
8
Thank you for your thoughtful (albeit, long-winded) declaration that civilization is a delusion... posted on the internet, at the New York Times web site.
But you know, democracy isn't quite dead yet, and some of us may feel like trying to keep things from completely crashing and burning. You can thank us later.
But you know, democracy isn't quite dead yet, and some of us may feel like trying to keep things from completely crashing and burning. You can thank us later.
7
Pessimism & Cynicism Is Unhappily My Reality.
Commentators here are duly frustrated if not angry.
Hercules is a colorful ancient Greek story but aka "bubba-misehs."
We should positively yearn for great leaders whom hold great ideals and seemingly have the qualifications & skills to implement good.
A great leader I'll define as an exceptionally gifted mortal: yet then try to name one without personal flaws if not problematic/impossible goals/ideals.
I'll not secretly confess to giving-up hope, though, my fellow mawkish Hercules fans, don't let me pour miserable dread on your at least semi optimistic New Year parade forum.
Commentators here are duly frustrated if not angry.
Hercules is a colorful ancient Greek story but aka "bubba-misehs."
We should positively yearn for great leaders whom hold great ideals and seemingly have the qualifications & skills to implement good.
A great leader I'll define as an exceptionally gifted mortal: yet then try to name one without personal flaws if not problematic/impossible goals/ideals.
I'll not secretly confess to giving-up hope, though, my fellow mawkish Hercules fans, don't let me pour miserable dread on your at least semi optimistic New Year parade forum.
1
No question about it. Jerkigarchy. I'm not clear. If I had, say, 32 million, what would be my tax rate? I'm assuming, given Republicans in Congress, That the rate is too low. Once upon a time it was 40%.
One serious problem is that most Americans, regardless of party, have no interest in how economies work and taxes are paid. Complaints regarding taxes abound, but no public protest emerges from it.
Jane Taras Carlson
One serious problem is that most Americans, regardless of party, have no interest in how economies work and taxes are paid. Complaints regarding taxes abound, but no public protest emerges from it.
Jane Taras Carlson
2
Perhaps it's true the the uber-rich one percent is now or soon to be the dominant force in our politics and culture. However I've worked self employed and at small and medium mom/pop businesses (20-200 employees) and found it difficult to thrive, to get ahead or earn raises. They also seemed rife with personality and privacy issues. Then I was hired by huge multinational firms and was surprised to be treated respectfully and professionally. Managers
were professional and trained, compensation reviews are regular and ample, and there was far more flexibility in many areas of worklife.
I'm not a fan of trickle down economics but my experience seems to differ from current media attention to big business and wealth in the U.S.
were professional and trained, compensation reviews are regular and ample, and there was far more flexibility in many areas of worklife.
I'm not a fan of trickle down economics but my experience seems to differ from current media attention to big business and wealth in the U.S.
5
Prof. Krugman has given voice to the unspoken feelings of many of us who cringe at the mere sight of these spoiled egomaniacs. That they have had success in the political domain gives rise to disgust and loathing but also a sense of helplessness. While we reject what these very rich stand for and certainly will not cast votes for them or their candidates there is not much else we can do.
Except, that is , to conjure up, root for and hope that a karma of sorts impacts their power and perhaps even bring about a reversal of fortune. I have always been fond of the word 'comeuppance'- an old term that says what it means. But the word originated with even additional significance. Back in the day, 'coming up' meant to come up before a court or judge for judgment. While the phrase 'come-upping' was once synonymous with flogging. It would be sweeter still for these men to come before the law and be judged and if necessary flogged for their transgressions. Perhaps only a public flogging could neutralize the bombastic egos on display.
Except, that is , to conjure up, root for and hope that a karma of sorts impacts their power and perhaps even bring about a reversal of fortune. I have always been fond of the word 'comeuppance'- an old term that says what it means. But the word originated with even additional significance. Back in the day, 'coming up' meant to come up before a court or judge for judgment. While the phrase 'come-upping' was once synonymous with flogging. It would be sweeter still for these men to come before the law and be judged and if necessary flogged for their transgressions. Perhaps only a public flogging could neutralize the bombastic egos on display.
5
"Marching towards oligarchy?" This country has always been an oligarchy, and now more than ever. The guys that conceived and drafted the constitution were big time land and slave owners
9
The worst thing I have heard after all of this bluster and bullying was from a millennial who was fed up with the system and wasn't going to vote! So they have won. Isn't this the situation that was in Germany it doesn't take many to vote in a dictator. Is that where we are headed? In another article about women over 50 not finding employment...isn't that what the GOP wants is for women to go back to the kitchen, deal with rape, marital abuse and take it because they don't want women bosses. But I am worried as state by state take away women's rights, that young women think that they don't have to do anything as their rights will always be there because they don't know of the 150,000 women dying a year when Margaret Sanger opened up Planned Parenthood. These things are not taught in our history books. As the song goes, When will we ever learn...
18
Narda, your statement about the "150,000 women dying a year" is confusing. It sounds like you are blaming Planned Parenthood for their deaths. You must mean that the women were dying of botched abortions, until oral contraceptives and safe abortions became a reality.
Great comments and reality. Besides Adelson owing the newspapers in Nevada, he owns one of the main conservative right wing newspaper in Israel. He is not only controlling politics here but abroad, one of the most disgusting human been in earth. I have several Israeli friends that hate him for his yellow newspapers and support of Netanyahu.
20
Each of us has and are entitled to our opinion on whom should be the next President. That is the way our system works. If the people want Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton so be it. Because of the incredible polarization of right and left, we should be able to have the person and style that the majority wants. But, as the adage goes," be careful what you wish for.." Our country is at a pretty remarkable election..... right or left will set in place a pathway into the 2020's --- think about that future as you vote... But remember to vote, this is the biggest selection ever(?).
6
65% of Billionaires are Democrats.
5
Are you suggesting that Democrats are better job creators? So what this fuss is all about?
5
Prove it.
2
No, he threw a dart at the board and got "both sides do it", and he's trying to go with it.
1
But how do we explain 'good' billionaires like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet?
3
Ok, but what about wealthy people who become philanthropists? Are you saying wealth alone corrupts? If so, what about the charitable works of stars in Hollywood, like Angelina Jolie, Brad Pitt, Leonardo DiCaprio, etc? What about Bill Gates? What about, for that matter, FDR or JFK? This seems very wooly as an argument, Paul, sorry to say.
6
They're exceptions, but they're marvelous exceptions, proof that a better outlook is possible, at least sometimes. FDR was not a man of the people, but he was a man for the people.
i suppose this is why the Right hates George Soros; he provides the annoyance of a good example (Mark Twain).
i suppose this is why the Right hates George Soros; he provides the annoyance of a good example (Mark Twain).
2
Working class people are tricked by the donor class using culture issues that appeal strongly to them. The result is, the donor class get the low taxes that they want, and are permitted to drive labor costs down with immigrant workers and offshoring and so on. The working class get to indulge their dislike of folks even lower on the economic ladder by letting the social safety net fray, limiting the availability of medicaid and food stamps etc., which the donor class also loves, since it relieves pressure to tax. Plentiful availability of guns, threats to shut down government, calls to defund Planned Parenthood, and attacks on 'out groups' like Muslims all work as 'feel good' issues that will lure the working class into support for the donor class.
That's my answer to the critical 'what's the matter with Kansas' question.
Given that diagnosis, what to do? I'd argue that "socialistic" remedies are dead in the water because that kind of imagery and language can not receive broad popular support on a gut level in America, yet. I'm inclined to suspect that an effort to make the working class comfortable by pandering to some of their prejudices might actually peel them away from the donor class who already use these techniques. I wonder if a Trump-STYLE candidate could be needed as a Trojan horse to win support for social safety net repair.
Example: Sanders supports gun ownership. Is this a strategic positive for a candidate with his agenda? It may very well be.
That's my answer to the critical 'what's the matter with Kansas' question.
Given that diagnosis, what to do? I'd argue that "socialistic" remedies are dead in the water because that kind of imagery and language can not receive broad popular support on a gut level in America, yet. I'm inclined to suspect that an effort to make the working class comfortable by pandering to some of their prejudices might actually peel them away from the donor class who already use these techniques. I wonder if a Trump-STYLE candidate could be needed as a Trojan horse to win support for social safety net repair.
Example: Sanders supports gun ownership. Is this a strategic positive for a candidate with his agenda? It may very well be.
8
There is no candidate that's opposed to gun ownership. Hillary is trying to get some mileage out of Sanders opposition to the Brady Bill, but it's not like he's opposed to tighter gun regulation.
"But his billions have insulated him from the external checks that limit most people’s ability to act out their narcissistic tendencies".
Amazing Paul Krugman. Why don't you decide first whether campaign contributions are good or bad and then come back.
Amazing Paul Krugman. Why don't you decide first whether campaign contributions are good or bad and then come back.
3
This is grossly overstated. Lots of big money-and-privilege has been pushed at politics with no effect, remember the appeal of that great sucking sound? Remember George Romney? Edward Kennedy?
What about all the money Hollywood pours into Democratic causes?
The liberal elite never acknowledges its own stranglehold on elevated public debate, from public and most major broadcasting to the NYT to east coast magazines of opinion to the campuses, it's a virtual one-stop-shop of opinion. Woe be to those who don't go along.
Adelson has every right to fund whatever lawful causes he wishes, and I respect the way he came from nothing, as commenter A. Stanton pointed out.
This is just whining, frankly.
What about all the money Hollywood pours into Democratic causes?
The liberal elite never acknowledges its own stranglehold on elevated public debate, from public and most major broadcasting to the NYT to east coast magazines of opinion to the campuses, it's a virtual one-stop-shop of opinion. Woe be to those who don't go along.
Adelson has every right to fund whatever lawful causes he wishes, and I respect the way he came from nothing, as commenter A. Stanton pointed out.
This is just whining, frankly.
4
So, you're going with the "there's no difference between the left and right", except that there is actually a difference, the right has never seen a wealthy privilege it doesn't like, and the left--even the wealthy left-- is proposing to restrain it.
This is essentially a tautology: "Adelson has every right to fund whatever lawful causes he wishes". The question is what should be lawful?
(We also might question whether Adelson's wealth came to him through lawful means, but leave that aside for now.)
This is essentially a tautology: "Adelson has every right to fund whatever lawful causes he wishes". The question is what should be lawful?
(We also might question whether Adelson's wealth came to him through lawful means, but leave that aside for now.)
12
The root cause of "Narcisstocracy" and "Jerkigarchy" is the professional pol, a self-selected, power-hungry corrupt or corruptible mediocrity. The solution is term limits/citizen-statesmen.
The catch-22, of course, is that instituting term limits requires the pols to commit political suicide.
The catch-22, of course, is that instituting term limits requires the pols to commit political suicide.
7
You need a law that states that any estate worth more than say 5 Million dollars will have any excess taxed at 100% and that the portion left to immediate heirs will be similarly taxed IOW if you want wealth you actually have to go out amd earn it yourself not inherit it.
4
Oh my, 5M is a price of many homes here in BA, so if parents die kids should go homeless?
3
Doug, why do I "need" that law? Once someone has earned THEIR money themselves why should it go to the government to be given out to whomever the politicians decide "deserve" it instead of the person who earned it deciding that? And why have your law stop at $5 million? Why not just have a 100% estate tax on everyone? That way if anyone wants anything they have to go out and earn it. At least everyone except your socialist government and all the people they decide to give the money to. What exactly do the recipients of the government redistribution have to do to "earn" the money that the government confiscates from the wealthy that earned it??? I certainly don't feel I have more right to the wealth that Steve Jobs earned than his family does... Why do you do???
1
"Why not just have a 100% estate tax on everyone?" Okay, you talked me into it.
1
Let's get back to our roots. Thomas Jefferson warned us that a country "cannot preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance". Maybe it's time for a little old-fashioned resistance, American style. Those on the right so fond of harking back to our founding fathers, take note. Jefferson further proclaimed "God forbid we should ever be twenty years without a rebellion".
8
This is a democracy. The wealthy can't directly buy government officials. We have a narcisstocracy because we vote for the representatives of the wealthy. Why? Because we are vulnerable to propaganda-- despite most of us believing we aren't.
See Jacques Elllul's book Propaganda. His coverage of the subject has never been surpassed.
So why doesn't someone combat the propaganda? Well, some "one" does, Paul Krugman for example. But there is a lot of propaganda-- far too much for a few people to combat successfully. We are immersed in propaganda almost 24/7/365.
Also, there is NO ONE with the resources, the motivation & the willingness to confront the whole of the propaganda head on & to broadcast the truth to as many people as e.g. Fox Noise reaches. So, even when propaganda is confronted, the impression given is that a pundit or 2 got a fact or 2 wrong, or misrepresented something because they have an ax to grind. The true picture of our immersion is hidden.
PK, as an economist, does what he can to combat economic propaganda, for the small percentage of voters who read his columns. Tom Steyer combats propaganda on the environment. Given the industry he worked in, he likely wouldn't confront the economic propaganda we are immersed in. But it would likely be cheaper for him to combat the whole cloth of propaganda, rather than just one piece of it.
Dems can't confront Right Wing propaganda either, because it would anger their donors.
See Jacques Elllul's book Propaganda. His coverage of the subject has never been surpassed.
So why doesn't someone combat the propaganda? Well, some "one" does, Paul Krugman for example. But there is a lot of propaganda-- far too much for a few people to combat successfully. We are immersed in propaganda almost 24/7/365.
Also, there is NO ONE with the resources, the motivation & the willingness to confront the whole of the propaganda head on & to broadcast the truth to as many people as e.g. Fox Noise reaches. So, even when propaganda is confronted, the impression given is that a pundit or 2 got a fact or 2 wrong, or misrepresented something because they have an ax to grind. The true picture of our immersion is hidden.
PK, as an economist, does what he can to combat economic propaganda, for the small percentage of voters who read his columns. Tom Steyer combats propaganda on the environment. Given the industry he worked in, he likely wouldn't confront the economic propaganda we are immersed in. But it would likely be cheaper for him to combat the whole cloth of propaganda, rather than just one piece of it.
Dems can't confront Right Wing propaganda either, because it would anger their donors.
4
reCHICKENLOVER: As l'oncle Raoul(Raoul Salan,former c-in-c of French forces in Indochina then Algeria who then deserted to the OAS to keep Algeria French, and whom I knew better in retirement when I interviewed him at length in his "hotel particulier"in the 1970's in Paris,was wont to say, "C'est ainsi!"Salan was a visionary, and although a "soldat de métier,"understood that in life some things never change, in this case the stratification of society, in which the rich get richer and the middle and lower strata become impoverished. Recommend that Chickenlover read V.S.Naipaul's "Return of Eva Peron," based on the true story of Michael Malik,self described revolutionary whose efforts to build a successful, prosperous commune in Guyana resulted in his own death at the hands of the police who then proceeded to burn the commune to the ground. Naipaul concludes that those at the summit of the socio economic scale intend to remain there, and are not taking any chances. Are the middle classes better off now than in 2008 when Obama took office?Unlikely. Yet how many millions of believers who had faith that the c-in-c's efforts at social engineering would help them,now realize that the status quo and income inequality are here to stay?
1
"The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all." -- G. K. Chesterton
18
Arrogance and entitlement... such a hideous combination and yet we have
current oligarchs who seem to think it is ok to put a price tag on democracy. These uber donors exact a high price for their favors in terms of what
they are buying for their tax deductible money... the nation's conscience!
The thought that I, the taxpayer, ultimately pay for the uber donations of the oligarchs makes me sick. THey use taxpayer money like a giant candy jar, and they dig in with both hands!
current oligarchs who seem to think it is ok to put a price tag on democracy. These uber donors exact a high price for their favors in terms of what
they are buying for their tax deductible money... the nation's conscience!
The thought that I, the taxpayer, ultimately pay for the uber donations of the oligarchs makes me sick. THey use taxpayer money like a giant candy jar, and they dig in with both hands!
3
I wonder if the idea that rich people think differently isn't putting the horse behind the cart. I suspect that it is more likely that unscrupulous people are more likely to become rich. Our system seems to financially reward the greedy, the immoral, and the egotistical.
12
"extreme wealth can do extreme spiritual damage."
It appears excess in any 'rational' system leads irrevocably to evil rather than the betterment of humankind. In each case the political elite protect their own 'Gold Standard' determining their affect is of great benefit rather than the reality it informs. It underlines a truth 'more' of anything even 'purity' tends to lead to infamy.
"Regardless of religious identification, frequency of religious practice, household spirituality, and overall religiousness were inversely predictive of children’s altruism (r = .161, p < 0.001; r = .179, p < 0.001; r = .173, p < 0.001, respectively..... Globally, children have been and continue to be predominantly raised in households where religion is discussed, and oftentimes it provides fundamental guidance for everyday living and moral behavior......religiosity affects children’s punitive tendencies when evaluating interpersonal harm. Interestingly, this result is in sharp contrast with reports that patterns of moral judgments made by subjects with a religious background do not differ from those who are atheists....children raised in religious households, who are perceived to be more empathetic and sensitive to justice, are in fact less altruistic to their own class mates"
The Negative Association between Religiousness and Children’s Altruism across the World, J Decety, JM Cowell, K Lee, R Mahasneh… - Current Biology, November 05, 2015
It appears excess in any 'rational' system leads irrevocably to evil rather than the betterment of humankind. In each case the political elite protect their own 'Gold Standard' determining their affect is of great benefit rather than the reality it informs. It underlines a truth 'more' of anything even 'purity' tends to lead to infamy.
"Regardless of religious identification, frequency of religious practice, household spirituality, and overall religiousness were inversely predictive of children’s altruism (r = .161, p < 0.001; r = .179, p < 0.001; r = .173, p < 0.001, respectively..... Globally, children have been and continue to be predominantly raised in households where religion is discussed, and oftentimes it provides fundamental guidance for everyday living and moral behavior......religiosity affects children’s punitive tendencies when evaluating interpersonal harm. Interestingly, this result is in sharp contrast with reports that patterns of moral judgments made by subjects with a religious background do not differ from those who are atheists....children raised in religious households, who are perceived to be more empathetic and sensitive to justice, are in fact less altruistic to their own class mates"
The Negative Association between Religiousness and Children’s Altruism across the World, J Decety, JM Cowell, K Lee, R Mahasneh… - Current Biology, November 05, 2015
2
That was one study reporting small differences after playing the 'dictator game' - hardly comprehensive or conclusive but golden for people who want to confirm preexisting biases...
1
I despair.
No hope ...
Help!
No hope ...
Help!
2
Actually, Paul, I would suggest that the jealousy and anger your political side foments and promotes is terrible for people's souls. The wealthy more than carry their weight in donations to good causes - and I don'r mean Hillary ''donating'' a few million to her own foundation as a good cause.
But the ideology that replaced economic thought in Paul's world years ago must always have a villain and the Number One target for socialism is always the relatively successful.
What, one person in twelve is a one percenter at least once in their lives? So what? And socialism in charge of a country is the top killer of innocent civilians worldwide? So what? Paul works on commissions and dull or capitalism ain't paying enough even if it IS the number one way for the poor worker to improve the lives led by his/her family.
But the ideology that replaced economic thought in Paul's world years ago must always have a villain and the Number One target for socialism is always the relatively successful.
What, one person in twelve is a one percenter at least once in their lives? So what? And socialism in charge of a country is the top killer of innocent civilians worldwide? So what? Paul works on commissions and dull or capitalism ain't paying enough even if it IS the number one way for the poor worker to improve the lives led by his/her family.
5
Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system in the world. But in Pauls world that doesn't matter.
Paul primary prescription is vilification.
Paul primary prescription is vilification.
1
I'm always astonished at the level of pure hatred that Prof. Krugman's writings draw forth. He is not a socialist, and he is not anti-capitalism. But you know that already. This is just hate talking
7
Reading to Mr. Krugman emerge some main questions. Some American people need political education to elect the right President? It's necessary a political pedagogy from the political parties? Some American people need to know who really is going to build our destiny as a nation? It's Mr. Trump the right man or he is sick?. For me these are main questions.
Just as Adelson couldn't behave properly in a court room, Trump could not be president. Running the government is nothing like running a business (like it or not). Trump would be so frustrated after, say, a week; he would quite. While you need an ego to become president, you can't be a megalomaniac. And Trump is definitely a megalomaniac!
To me, the psychopathology of great wealth is best reflected in the alleged reply of JP Morgan to the question, "How much more do you want?" His answer, "Just a little more."
Replace "Trump" with "Clinton" and you have the same pathology, but a column that would never be published in this newspaper.
2
I still regard myself, in terms of basic "values," a "conservative." However, I must acknowledge that Prof. Klugman has proven perhaps the most thoughtful defender of sensible, humane economic and political values around, as evidenced once again in today's column. Strikingly unlike the, often bought, politicians and bloviators on the "right," he generally over the years has been accurate in his economic predictions, surely a mark of true insight into the real nature of national issues. Unbiased "conservatives" need to heed the voice of our true realist commentators, whatever their political label. Certainly such advice would have prevented some of the disastrous foreign and domestic trends of the last twenty years when so many rightist advocates have in fact been corrupted (hardly too strong a word) by just the sort of bribery, the proper term, Krugman continues to be at pains to identify.
6
We get it. Krugman doesn't like rich people - or at least those with conservative leanings. Of course, he forgets that ultra-liberal George Soros basically tried to take down the Bank of England. Billionaire Tom Steyer apparently wants a heavy carbon tax that would destroy American manufacturing and increase everyone's energy costs.
Guess everyone should pass Krugman's class on political correctness before doing things like popularizing the PC and inventing life saving medicine.
Guess everyone should pass Krugman's class on political correctness before doing things like popularizing the PC and inventing life saving medicine.
7
"...a heavy carbon tax that would destroy American manufacturing and increase everyone's energy costs."
Better to continue destroying the atmosphere with excess greenhouse gases, I guess. "No, please don't harm the economy. Better to harm our planet instead." Why people think it's OK for certain energy businesses to privatize profits while socializing the negative side effects is beyond comprehension.
Better to continue destroying the atmosphere with excess greenhouse gases, I guess. "No, please don't harm the economy. Better to harm our planet instead." Why people think it's OK for certain energy businesses to privatize profits while socializing the negative side effects is beyond comprehension.
13
I think he means destroy in the geological timescale, not the metaphorical one. Wait.. it still doesn't make sense!
1
Jon's problem is the reality that temps are actually down during the past 80 years while CO2 has expanded its tiny share of the atmosphere.
Thus the greenhouse crisis blows completely up, and your only remaining crisis is how the rich benefit from poor leaders like Obama. When eco-screamers decide that water vapor is one of their enemies, the sane take a pass on listening.
Thus the greenhouse crisis blows completely up, and your only remaining crisis is how the rich benefit from poor leaders like Obama. When eco-screamers decide that water vapor is one of their enemies, the sane take a pass on listening.
2
This is a very cogent analysis. The bigger question is: what's the solution? Who or how can these issues be comprehensively addressed? Where's our modern day FDR?
5
Cogent? Based on one study. Where is the consensus? In Paul's mind? Or his mindset?
1
"Where's our modern day FDR?"
The last thing we need is another American dictator.
The last thing we need is another American dictator.
2
You repair the wealth disparity by getting poor workers a job. The crisis for socialists is that jobs means employers hire, and they only hire when the economic prospects for the workplace are predictable. Obamacare being changed every time it bumps into liberal politics is NOT predictable.
Just wait until millions more get hit broadside by Obamacare mandates THIS year. Goodbye, Democrat politicians.
Just wait until millions more get hit broadside by Obamacare mandates THIS year. Goodbye, Democrat politicians.
2
What's really perverse are the working class people who think a billionaire marketer of high end real estate has their best interests in mind.
By successfully neutering government, at least in peoples' minds, Movement Conservatism has removed its counter weight and convinced all the middle aged white people that they too can be billionaire marketers of high end real estate if only government would get out of their way.
When that result fails to appear, middle aged white people turn to booze, heroin and suicide, as many published studies have documented.
By successfully neutering government, at least in peoples' minds, Movement Conservatism has removed its counter weight and convinced all the middle aged white people that they too can be billionaire marketers of high end real estate if only government would get out of their way.
When that result fails to appear, middle aged white people turn to booze, heroin and suicide, as many published studies have documented.
9
Please site your sources of published studies, although I am a middle aged white person who has not yet turned to booze, heroin, or suicide and whould like to peer review these studies.
1
One of several articles:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/03/health/death-rates-rising-for-middle-a...
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/03/health/death-rates-rising-for-middle-a...
Liberal: a person who believes economic success is determined by luck.
Conservative: a person who believes economic success is the result of hard work and skill.
At the end of a finance class once, I put on the board a) Hard work and skill, b) Crime, and c) Luck. Then I asked the students to rate the importance of these factors to building wealth. They believed the most important factor was hard work and skill. I tried to make the case that success was 95% luck, but I gave a nod to Balzac, who said "at the heart of every great fortune lies a great crime".
They didn't agree with my contention even when I tried to point out that I was including genetic endowment, parenting and family as part of luck.
It IS luck though. Just as insurance exists to indemnify against risk and bad luck, something like "reverse insurance" should exist to return resources to the common pool when good luck has blessed some individual with a huge windfall. Yes, wealthy individuals will resist because a) they all believe their success comes from their own efforts, and b) they can use their resources to resist strongly.
But that's what I think should happen: "reverse insurance".
p.s. Let me offer one amendment: what do we do about the force of incentive? It is like an illusion, but conservatives are right: it still has vast power. People have to be engaged in helping themselves through belief that they can succeed. That requires the prospect of earning and keeping a fair reward.
Conservative: a person who believes economic success is the result of hard work and skill.
At the end of a finance class once, I put on the board a) Hard work and skill, b) Crime, and c) Luck. Then I asked the students to rate the importance of these factors to building wealth. They believed the most important factor was hard work and skill. I tried to make the case that success was 95% luck, but I gave a nod to Balzac, who said "at the heart of every great fortune lies a great crime".
They didn't agree with my contention even when I tried to point out that I was including genetic endowment, parenting and family as part of luck.
It IS luck though. Just as insurance exists to indemnify against risk and bad luck, something like "reverse insurance" should exist to return resources to the common pool when good luck has blessed some individual with a huge windfall. Yes, wealthy individuals will resist because a) they all believe their success comes from their own efforts, and b) they can use their resources to resist strongly.
But that's what I think should happen: "reverse insurance".
p.s. Let me offer one amendment: what do we do about the force of incentive? It is like an illusion, but conservatives are right: it still has vast power. People have to be engaged in helping themselves through belief that they can succeed. That requires the prospect of earning and keeping a fair reward.
9
Nice, if it is all luck then we should not even complain about the lack of jobs, just sit on our behinds and wait until we get lucky. Who cares about the education too if it is all luck, lotsa savings here by not going to schools. Krugman himself just got lucky with his Nobel too so it is not about his smarts anyway. I just wonder what is the source of this magic luck so I can drink from it.
2
Bill Gates. Warren Buffett. Larry Ellison. Jeff Bezos. Charles and David Koch. Mark Zuckerburg. Sam Walton. Steve Jobs. Larry Page. Oprah Winfrey. Donald Trump.
Blaine, show me the name on the above list that "genetic endowment, parenting and family" or luck played a predominant role in their obtaining wealth. A single one? The closest you show are the Koch brothers who bought their father's business for $1.1 billion in 1983 and grew it to its current $115 billion with 60,000 employees. I can show you 11 out of 11 that obtained wealth through hard work, risk and innovation.
Blaine, show me the name on the above list that "genetic endowment, parenting and family" or luck played a predominant role in their obtaining wealth. A single one? The closest you show are the Koch brothers who bought their father's business for $1.1 billion in 1983 and grew it to its current $115 billion with 60,000 employees. I can show you 11 out of 11 that obtained wealth through hard work, risk and innovation.
2
DL, you need luck in the following areas:
1) You need genetic luck to give you raw smarts and an able body. I have a cousin who is retarded. I was lucky, she was not.
2) You need to be born in the right place. You should choose to be born in America rather than Afghanistan probably. But this is something you cannot 'choose'....so it is luck.
3) You need to be lucky in the parents you are born to. Again, you can't choose, but if you could, you would want parents who provided emotional and other support, who took steps to educate you properly. But you can't choose.....so it is luck.
4) Perhaps your parents are well up on the socioeconomic scale. Better for you if they are. But you didn't pick the parents you were born to, so i call that luck.
5) Besides a good education, good parents would give you a strong work ethic, and a good character generally. We see rich kids in the news sometimes who get in trouble and waste their lives. They did not choose the parents who failed them in that way. They were unlucky.
6) And finally, after the wheel of life has randomly awarded to you health, brains, strong parenting in a prosperous country, and the kind of encouragement that teaches you how to work hard and apply your gifts.....after you are given the good luck of this wonderful foundation, you STILL have to understand that your efforts in life are subject to luck, in work, in marriage, etc..
So to help you to have the luck you want, all I can say is work hard!
1) You need genetic luck to give you raw smarts and an able body. I have a cousin who is retarded. I was lucky, she was not.
2) You need to be born in the right place. You should choose to be born in America rather than Afghanistan probably. But this is something you cannot 'choose'....so it is luck.
3) You need to be lucky in the parents you are born to. Again, you can't choose, but if you could, you would want parents who provided emotional and other support, who took steps to educate you properly. But you can't choose.....so it is luck.
4) Perhaps your parents are well up on the socioeconomic scale. Better for you if they are. But you didn't pick the parents you were born to, so i call that luck.
5) Besides a good education, good parents would give you a strong work ethic, and a good character generally. We see rich kids in the news sometimes who get in trouble and waste their lives. They did not choose the parents who failed them in that way. They were unlucky.
6) And finally, after the wheel of life has randomly awarded to you health, brains, strong parenting in a prosperous country, and the kind of encouragement that teaches you how to work hard and apply your gifts.....after you are given the good luck of this wonderful foundation, you STILL have to understand that your efforts in life are subject to luck, in work, in marriage, etc..
So to help you to have the luck you want, all I can say is work hard!
2
Well said, Mr. Krugman. However, the power of the relatively few and wealthy is not a new theme in the United States. The U.S. continues to struggle in its quest to remain the bastion of liberty and opportunity in the world; a country to be emulated by others. By unabashedly increasing the disparity between haves and have-nots, between those who wield important influence and those who do not, the U.S. risks devolving itself from an admired economic and military superpower to a quasi banana republic oligarchy as identified by one of America's own sons, the writer, O. Henry.
4
Democrats want to fix this JUST a little bit, because there is great power to be wielded in being able to enrich the wealthy part of the time.
As with political money, what they want to do is keep the wrong party out of both things. This is one reason that we hear hate-the-rich hourly from the NY Times and Hollywood.
As with political money, what they want to do is keep the wrong party out of both things. This is one reason that we hear hate-the-rich hourly from the NY Times and Hollywood.
2
I cannot think of a concept that would be more repugnant to the Founding Fathers than "Money = Free Speech", championed by the Roberts court.
The road to oligarchy has been charted and paved by the SCOTUS, and paid for by the 0.1% and there is nothing - nothing - that can be done. Article like this one are basically venting steam. Until the taxes on the 0.1% are back up to pre-Reagan times and the incentive for the Big Money to take over the political process is minimized, things are only going to get worse.
The road to oligarchy has been charted and paved by the SCOTUS, and paid for by the 0.1% and there is nothing - nothing - that can be done. Article like this one are basically venting steam. Until the taxes on the 0.1% are back up to pre-Reagan times and the incentive for the Big Money to take over the political process is minimized, things are only going to get worse.
13
@muezzin,
You think that overturning Citizens United is utterly impossible?
1-1-16@8:37 pm est
You think that overturning Citizens United is utterly impossible?
1-1-16@8:37 pm est
1
All it would take is one change on the Supreme Court to get Citizens United overturned and the Voting Rights Act reinstalled. It is the most important reason in the world to vote, we need a democrat in the White House to appoint Supreme Court justices so we don't get anymore Roberts, Scalias and Thomas'. There's still a chance to save this country but people have to go to the polls - there is no other way.
5
I suggest that Prof. Krugman be more cautious in his declaration that rich people are more selfish and egotistical. The article he cites by Piff et al has come under statistic criticism (Francis), suggesting there is considerable controversy surrounding the replication of this particular investigation as well as the majority of studies in the Social Sciences. Furthermore, interested readers are referred to a field experiment published in PLoS One (an open access journal) entitled "Lost letter measure of variation in altruistic behaviour in 20 neighbourhoods" which suggests just the opposite results to that observed by Piff et al viz., lost letters are LESS likely to be returned in poor compared to rich neighborhoods. The rich may be more selfish but it certainly remains to be demonstrated.
6
The Kochs and their donor network plan to spend roughly $750 million on the 2016 campaign, the WSJ reports.
you call this democracy ?
who are you kidding, yourselves ?
you call this democracy ?
who are you kidding, yourselves ?
16
Obama and HIS network of oligarchs spent a BILLION on each of his races. You have been played again, George Lucas fan. Wipe off your view-screen before you crash.
Liberals always raise the most cash and try the hardest to destroy the opposition.
Liberals always raise the most cash and try the hardest to destroy the opposition.
3
I'm a small time contributor to one of the major candidates. Tomorrow I'm going to call up their headquarters and ask for a lunch date to talk about some issues that are important to me. Would I get a lunch? Now if Adelson, Koch or any other Billionaire wanted a lunch would they get it?
14
@WinCanMan,
Regarding your first question, could you settle for a polite form letter? Having said that, Clinton's people put a chance to win lunch with her to discuss issues, in a family member's email inbox for a fee. I'm quite serious. And no, our funds are quite limited, so we didn't take that chance.
Regarding your second question, would that depend on the candidate? There's one candidate who gives me the impression that they're allergic to the Kochs and their ilk.
1-1-16@8:47 pm est
Regarding your first question, could you settle for a polite form letter? Having said that, Clinton's people put a chance to win lunch with her to discuss issues, in a family member's email inbox for a fee. I'm quite serious. And no, our funds are quite limited, so we didn't take that chance.
Regarding your second question, would that depend on the candidate? There's one candidate who gives me the impression that they're allergic to the Kochs and their ilk.
1-1-16@8:47 pm est
2
I think Bernie would. He certainly would plead his case and who knows?
1
Why do the rich act the way they do? Because we allowed them by being passive and a bunch of ignoramus, particularly those who routinely keep voting for their so called representatives who are the lapdogs of the billionaire class. Most of these elected officials, the majority of republicans and selected democrats, routinely protect the interests of the oligarchy and keep coming with legislation animus to the interests of the common man and woman. Slowly but surely America is becoming a banana republic with little traces of a real system of democracy.
8
OK, the article well describes the problem. What can the voters do about it? Their choice is restricted to the candidates approved by the oligarchy. Most citizens don't bother to vote anyway. Revolution?
3
What's interesting to observe is this collective waking up that's going on in America -- I think we're we're going to see some really interesting surprises, starting with February primary season.
We're going to see a sea change this year of voters taking this collective anger and disgust and getting really involved. Whether this will make a difference or not, whether it is too late to change a corrupt system that was intended to be a 'government of the people, by the people, for the people' remains to be seen. But what 2016 will be is a highly charged, unpredictable, unsettling election year - and as it should be.
Those candidates who cling to establishment politics on both sides of the aisle will likely not win.
We're going to see a sea change this year of voters taking this collective anger and disgust and getting really involved. Whether this will make a difference or not, whether it is too late to change a corrupt system that was intended to be a 'government of the people, by the people, for the people' remains to be seen. But what 2016 will be is a highly charged, unpredictable, unsettling election year - and as it should be.
Those candidates who cling to establishment politics on both sides of the aisle will likely not win.
4
Just the fact that Bernie has done as well as he has-- even if Hillary takes the nomination-- is pretty remarkable. And it doesn't look like anyone in the clown car could beat either of them in the general election, that's also pretty remarkable.
2
There seems to be largely three types of commentors: the openly biased, the less openly biased, and the neutral or "pox on all your houses" cynics. The older I get (currently 58), the more I find myself in the third camp. But I try to resist cynicism to stay engaged; believing, as I do, the admonishment by Jefferson that democracy will only survive with an engaged citizeny.
Great or unchecked power is an intoxicant too heady for most. Cheney and Rumsfeld come to mind. Restraint of the FCC, in allowing media consolidation, was too weak under Colin Powell's son. Powell was too weak to resist Cheney and the invasion of Iraq. Power, so tempting, is too easily abused. That is human nature and unarguable. The media is our only loud watchdog. The checks and balances were in place and we let them be relaxed by Congress. Just as with Glass-Steagle. As Krugman suggests, the fox is in the henhouse.a
Great or unchecked power is an intoxicant too heady for most. Cheney and Rumsfeld come to mind. Restraint of the FCC, in allowing media consolidation, was too weak under Colin Powell's son. Powell was too weak to resist Cheney and the invasion of Iraq. Power, so tempting, is too easily abused. That is human nature and unarguable. The media is our only loud watchdog. The checks and balances were in place and we let them be relaxed by Congress. Just as with Glass-Steagle. As Krugman suggests, the fox is in the henhouse.a
7
but these uber-wealthy billionares, the ruling class, put Obama into office. Twice.
8
... and here I thought it was McCain and Palin, then Romney and Ryan, who had the backing of the "uber-wealthy billionares."
I must not be reading the right news sources.
I must not be reading the right news sources.
4
These feral rich and their despotic capitalism should have its limits.
Let them own all of the gold, mansions, jewels, yachts, art, etc. but the buying up of water rights around the world is what should worry us most.
We can't allow a handful of wealthy plutocrats and their minions to control what is most precious- clean and abundant water. And this includes the Bush family dynasty and their purchase of 100,000's of acres of land in Paraguay.
Look it up. And the fracking business thing is just as outrageous and insane.
Nobody should have this much control over natural resources, ever.
Let them own all of the gold, mansions, jewels, yachts, art, etc. but the buying up of water rights around the world is what should worry us most.
We can't allow a handful of wealthy plutocrats and their minions to control what is most precious- clean and abundant water. And this includes the Bush family dynasty and their purchase of 100,000's of acres of land in Paraguay.
Look it up. And the fracking business thing is just as outrageous and insane.
Nobody should have this much control over natural resources, ever.
13
It doesn't take great wealth to become what you describe, essentially a little King surrounded entirely by those who do your bidding. This type of personality is the bully, usually self-employed, often employing or supporting family members, so that everyone is dependent on him. A controlling manipulative person over the years becomes a full-blown capricious tyrant. And his "good side" ends up being overshadowed by the harsh, domineering side. It has more to do with power than money.
2
Some people call conservative people "low information" voters. They are not low information. They are directed information voters. Many groups within the democracy-destroying ALEC/Koch brothers/Wall Street/u.s.chamber of commerce/radical religious right/nra/major media corporate conglomerate send their supporters ballots that are filled out with who to vote for. Often BIG employers tell their employees who they have to vote for if they want their jobs. Occasionally I hear Alex Jones or Rush Limbaugh (by accident) and simply cannot believe that some of their listeners ask they for LIFE advice. It's really quite sad. However, what we do need is Progressive Voters Guides for each state, put out by groups like University Social Studies groups or some other groups who are unaffiliated with a party (and non commercial) to help people know who to vote for instead of the ones the money is behind. Local elections have become very important every time and, of course, so have the federal elections.
1
I have said this for years and I know I am going to get laughed at for putting this out there on the pages of the NY Times but in order to create a more egalitarian society there should be a limit on how much income a person is allowed to make.
Once you exceed $3 million in a year, every dollar above that should be taxed away for distribution to the needy and/or civic improvements such as roads and schools. I know one of the arguments against this will be that it destroys the incentive to produce and innovate and I think that is complete and utter garbage. Good work is its own reward and if you can't live and be satisfied with your life on an income of $250k a month then you have a serious ego problem.
What would I feel if I were in that income category and the government took every dollar of mine above $3 million? Civic pride, something which has completed disappeared from the landscape of American society.
I also know that the administration of such a fund with billions of dollars would be subject to all sorts of waste and corruption by egomaniacs in Congress and local government officials, but that is a problem to be addressed once such a fund is established.
Until this kind of altruistic attitude is championed through social media to people at all levels of income, we stand no chance of realizing the potential for greatness which lies dormant in our nation decade after decade.
Once you exceed $3 million in a year, every dollar above that should be taxed away for distribution to the needy and/or civic improvements such as roads and schools. I know one of the arguments against this will be that it destroys the incentive to produce and innovate and I think that is complete and utter garbage. Good work is its own reward and if you can't live and be satisfied with your life on an income of $250k a month then you have a serious ego problem.
What would I feel if I were in that income category and the government took every dollar of mine above $3 million? Civic pride, something which has completed disappeared from the landscape of American society.
I also know that the administration of such a fund with billions of dollars would be subject to all sorts of waste and corruption by egomaniacs in Congress and local government officials, but that is a problem to be addressed once such a fund is established.
Until this kind of altruistic attitude is championed through social media to people at all levels of income, we stand no chance of realizing the potential for greatness which lies dormant in our nation decade after decade.
13
in socialist countries this is achieved by taxation
in america, wealth is worshiped
in america, wealth is worshiped
7
Thank you for the laugh!
1
Now that Rupert Murdoch has bought National Geographic, I will not be renewing my subscription. I doubt that I will be alone as I am sure I'm not the only one who believes its mission will no longer be the same.
13
murdoch bought and ruined th london times, th wall street journal, and natgeo, among others
he has th reverse Midas touch
he has th reverse Midas touch
10
Don't forget the morally depraved millionaires that support the liberal agenda, like George Soros. And by the way, the Clinton's are now rich, by nefarious means and are also questionable moral standing. Alas, I forget this is Krugman, who cannot make an honest argument if his life depended on it.
5
Blaming spoiled egomaniacs lets this column yet again criticize Trump and the Gop baddies. They deserve it, but it diverts from criticizing the system that inspires, nurtures and excuses egomaniacs. Our system is there to be looted, in cahoots with congress tethered to big money to keep their jobs. Is that verboten to discuss?
The big money is investing in Hillary also. This system can’t change unless liberals focus on it, and inspire the public to demand more public financing of elections. But now many liberals avoid it for some reason, and the efforts to reverse Citizens United are kept dark.
Public financing is never discussed in our media, and the many countries that use it to sustain their democracies might as well be on another planet.
We have to discuss why this is kept in the background.
The big money is investing in Hillary also. This system can’t change unless liberals focus on it, and inspire the public to demand more public financing of elections. But now many liberals avoid it for some reason, and the efforts to reverse Citizens United are kept dark.
Public financing is never discussed in our media, and the many countries that use it to sustain their democracies might as well be on another planet.
We have to discuss why this is kept in the background.
8
Uhm, hey Paul. What's high-end art?
3
It's incredible. Political propaganda of Mr. Trump seems to be folkloric part of national elections 2016.
2
The political institutions and the entire economic and social power structures are so utterly corrupt, that at this point there is no rational appeal that can be made to the nascent (increasingly depraved and ruthless) oligarchy. The only hope we have is for average people to start forming parallel social structures, and by taking the following steps:
1. Stop subjecting yourself to corporate-owned TV programming, especially the news. The effects are the same as psy-ops weaponized propaganda.
2. Withdraw your support from the corporate state by boycotting corporate chains (as much as humanly possibly) and transferring your spending towards locally-owned, independent businesses, collectives, and co-ops.
3. Connect with people in your neighborhood and start organizing parallel social structures to include every important area including work, housing, the use of technology as a mechanism for shared prosperity.
4. Accept the fact that we have become an increasingly oppressive and corrupt oligarchy. That step is very important.
1. Stop subjecting yourself to corporate-owned TV programming, especially the news. The effects are the same as psy-ops weaponized propaganda.
2. Withdraw your support from the corporate state by boycotting corporate chains (as much as humanly possibly) and transferring your spending towards locally-owned, independent businesses, collectives, and co-ops.
3. Connect with people in your neighborhood and start organizing parallel social structures to include every important area including work, housing, the use of technology as a mechanism for shared prosperity.
4. Accept the fact that we have become an increasingly oppressive and corrupt oligarchy. That step is very important.
11
Voters would do well to look at political history and take note of the fact that the worst tyrants, history's past and present day warlords, have all been bullies. All of them. They were pathological bullies. So if looking back and thinking about what this problem was or is, it does seem obvious that these unbalanced personalities never should have got into positions where they were making decisions as to who gets to live or die. Because it is always the same, the bully's game, his primary interest is to lower people beneath him and then raise himself. That is what drives him. Nothing else matters. So mistakenly thinking that a bully is someone who can get the job done is extremely dangerous. There is never a good reason for taking a risk with these people. They destroy everyone around them.
3
One only has to look at the road behaviour of drivers of large, expensive SUVs (Audi in particular...) to see the effect of wealth on ordinary humand mind.
7
Prof Krugman writes about privilege, pathology, power to again warn of the harm the Gop inflicts. As if many of his readers would ever vote for them. But he leaves it at that. And uses his expanding wise crack vocabulary--- Narcisstocracy? Jerkigarchy? Last week it was Cruzify and Trumpenfreude. Most amusing, PK! If a bit sophomoric.
Instead please, sir, could he devote some space to a few specific solutions? Just a bit on the proposals of the Democratic candidates---you know, Hillary and the One Who Shall Not Be Named? Their pros/cons after their recent debate would be more constructive than yet again reciting the Gop plutocrat's pathologies, which we have been stuffed with by now, in the Times and on TV.
The DNC’ s Debbie Schultz is accused of limiting the Dem debates so that nothing could harm Hillary’s chances of winning. But HC really does have the nomination. I wonder why Mr. Krugman is obviously ignoring the Democratic candidate’s proposals? Can’t Hillary stand any analysis and reader comments? She’s pretty tough.
Instead please, sir, could he devote some space to a few specific solutions? Just a bit on the proposals of the Democratic candidates---you know, Hillary and the One Who Shall Not Be Named? Their pros/cons after their recent debate would be more constructive than yet again reciting the Gop plutocrat's pathologies, which we have been stuffed with by now, in the Times and on TV.
The DNC’ s Debbie Schultz is accused of limiting the Dem debates so that nothing could harm Hillary’s chances of winning. But HC really does have the nomination. I wonder why Mr. Krugman is obviously ignoring the Democratic candidate’s proposals? Can’t Hillary stand any analysis and reader comments? She’s pretty tough.
4
"But HC really does have the nomination."
Bernie called Clinton's decibels too high
She put him in a male-chauvinist sty
She labeled him sexist
Forgetting her nexus
To the foulest antifeminist guy.
I don't think Mr. Clinton on the loose or his 20th-century "war on women" spouse will play well with the savvy 21st-century women of NH.
4
@Marian,
That's pretty good. Are you trying to take on Larry Einsenberg?
1-1-16@9:05 pm est
That's pretty good. Are you trying to take on Larry Einsenberg?
1-1-16@9:05 pm est
2
"Narcisstocracy" Love it ! What most of us forget, and especially the billionaires, is what they have accumulated would not be possible without the numerous, and frequently ultimate, sacrifices made by many "small" people, to secure our homes and country. The the U.S. wars of the last 60 years have predominately been ones that worked to the advantage of the rich and disadvantage of the poor and middle class. To help counter-act this, our tax system should be administered like insurance. Our government protects our lives and assets, and we should all pay a percentage of our wealth (each year) in return.
1
Fortunately there are some enlightened billionaires such as Bill Gates and Warren Buffet and George Soros. Mr.Trump and Mr.Murdoch, and Sheldon Adelson represent the negative who made their fortunes with some shady deals, and are now using their power to influence voters. They will be only remembered for their greed and corruption.
1
CONTINUED: Our incompetent, corrupt and buyable Congress is not he firewall it was meant to be. It will eventually destroy this great experiment called democracy.
4
So who would you support for President, Mr. Krugman? Bernie Sanders, who is screaming everything you write from the rooftops, or Hillary Clinton, who has the experience and, yes, the connections to actually do something about it?
1
Again it seems that readers will sooner get blood from a turnip than any concrete and positive political-action directive from our esteemed Krugman, who appears comfortably habituated to repeatedly reminding the congregation of societal faults, without ever leaning so far into any conflict as to suggest solution or remedy.
This is what I witness every day in my law practice. People with lots of power and money are most often the ones who disregard their agreements, use technicalities to evade responsibility, undervalue other people's contributions and try very hard not to pay anyone anything they don't absolutely have to. People who don't act this way are rare (and make great clients)!
184
If you want to see dishonesty, try doing tax returns for people availing themselves of the Earned Income Tax Credit. Social security numbers come out of the woodwork. Accounting fees unpaid. Not all that great a demographic either.
That said, I'm always shocked to hear how wealthy neighbors don't pay their landscaping bills or skimp on payment to the nannies who spend all day and night with their children. If you have the money, pay them already!
That said, I'm always shocked to hear how wealthy neighbors don't pay their landscaping bills or skimp on payment to the nannies who spend all day and night with their children. If you have the money, pay them already!
1
I believe that the religion of capitalism has created a version of hell on earth. The deadly sins are now whole virtues. The pleasures of consumerism and accumulation make the rich gluttonous and the rest of us, particularly the poor who respect and envy the uber-wealthy, guilty of sloth and wrath. We may be doomed by it, but capitalism may have to run its course before we are liberated from it.
2
case in point the Bush family. from willy Horton to slandering John McCain to not serving appropriately in the national guard to torturing prisoners all to satisfy their nurtured egos and pretend they are manly. self identity issues abound. what useful purpose do I serve is their inner conflict since they know what all of us know that they have been given all they have because of their name from degrees from prestigious universities to ownership in baseball teams to governorship to president. never earned anything thwy have or had as the rest of us must. oligarchy isn't the problem it's desire for monarchy that's the problem. all these morons what to be king and queens and tzars and any other entity with absolute power. God help our grand and great grandchildren.
2
The Clintons: crony-capitalist crooks quintessential
Their dark-money growth's exponential
Bernie's money's transparent His honesty's apparent.
Only Bernie is presidential.
(Make Clinton inconsequential!)
Their dark-money growth's exponential
Bernie's money's transparent His honesty's apparent.
Only Bernie is presidential.
(Make Clinton inconsequential!)
6
I think "idiocracy" is a better discription.
5
I don't understand the anecdote about Judge Gonzales. When another Sheldon, namely Sheldon Cooper, tried it he went directly to a jail cell. I can't grasp how that didn't happen in this case as well, if this account is accurate.
2
I agree with the other posters who have pointed out that Hilary is the perfect illustration for today's Krugman diatribe.
3
Your description of our "dear"and "pathetic joke" (my terminology) Donald as a "blowhard and a bully" is probably more to the point. Hopefully that becomes more obvious, and soon.
A government of, by, and for the wealthy. In what used to be one man, one vote, Citizens United has gone a long way toward making it one man and however many shares of government said man owns.
In 1938 in a speech before Congress, FDR had a word for the privatization or corporatization of the normal functions of government (i.e., the Postal Service). He called it 'fascism.' And as we see the wealthy oligarchs in our society try to buy government through everything from a privatization of a for-profit mercenary military to TSA border control and airport security to the post office to space exploration, it is becoming harder not to notice this march on fascism.
A good first step toward reversing this trend would be a return to a conscript military, or in lieu of mandatory military service a year of national service. This would put everyone's skin in the game and reemphasize the notion of shared community and shared sacrifice, something that is sorely lacking in today's for-profit mindset.
Besides, admit it, wouldn't you really like to see someone like Martin Shkreli or the 'affluenza teenager' going on a 15-mile forced march with a 50-lb. rucksack on his back? Nothing works better toward restoring a shared sense of community than getting bailed out by others for the blisters on your feet. It might also give our legislators deep pause first before committing the nation's military to every foreign adventure imaginable, especially when their own kids are at risk.
In 1938 in a speech before Congress, FDR had a word for the privatization or corporatization of the normal functions of government (i.e., the Postal Service). He called it 'fascism.' And as we see the wealthy oligarchs in our society try to buy government through everything from a privatization of a for-profit mercenary military to TSA border control and airport security to the post office to space exploration, it is becoming harder not to notice this march on fascism.
A good first step toward reversing this trend would be a return to a conscript military, or in lieu of mandatory military service a year of national service. This would put everyone's skin in the game and reemphasize the notion of shared community and shared sacrifice, something that is sorely lacking in today's for-profit mindset.
Besides, admit it, wouldn't you really like to see someone like Martin Shkreli or the 'affluenza teenager' going on a 15-mile forced march with a 50-lb. rucksack on his back? Nothing works better toward restoring a shared sense of community than getting bailed out by others for the blisters on your feet. It might also give our legislators deep pause first before committing the nation's military to every foreign adventure imaginable, especially when their own kids are at risk.
4
"a return to a conscript military, or in lieu of mandatory military service a year of national service"
Not a good idea, the military would have more people than they could effectively use and for too short a time to train them effectively.
Not a good idea, the military would have more people than they could effectively use and for too short a time to train them effectively.
1
The rich are buying not just Republicans.
NY Times, today :
Hillary Clinton Raised $37 Million in Last 3 Months
"The campaign declined to say what percentage of the $37 million it brought in the fourth quarter came from small contributions."
NY Times, today :
Hillary Clinton Raised $37 Million in Last 3 Months
"The campaign declined to say what percentage of the $37 million it brought in the fourth quarter came from small contributions."
6
One has to ask of the rapacious rich, "What hole in their lives are they trying to fill? What emptiness are they unable to escape from?"
Actually, they are to be pitied, if owning everything is never enough.
They may lack empathy. But, somewhere in the back of their minds they have to know that by grabbing everything in sight, they are depriving many, many people of basic necessities (like health care or a decent education.) What kind of life is that? A sad and pathetic one.
Actually, they are to be pitied, if owning everything is never enough.
They may lack empathy. But, somewhere in the back of their minds they have to know that by grabbing everything in sight, they are depriving many, many people of basic necessities (like health care or a decent education.) What kind of life is that? A sad and pathetic one.
7
Affluenza?
2
The wealth itself doesn't necessarily twist people's attitudes, but we all know that people who decide to pursue extreme wealth have something wrong with them.
The fact that they value the money so much is the problem. These are the kinds of parents who give their kids expensive toys rather than the priceless and preferred gift of their time and attention. These are the kinds of people who have not learned to appreciate the simple life of love and intangible joys. They pursue the accumulation of material goods rather than a sense of honor and dignity. These are humans who fail to see what they are missing. They think they have power when they just have stuff....
It's often a personality disorder and an emotional learning disability...
The fact that they value the money so much is the problem. These are the kinds of parents who give their kids expensive toys rather than the priceless and preferred gift of their time and attention. These are the kinds of people who have not learned to appreciate the simple life of love and intangible joys. They pursue the accumulation of material goods rather than a sense of honor and dignity. These are humans who fail to see what they are missing. They think they have power when they just have stuff....
It's often a personality disorder and an emotional learning disability...
2
This is why the "estate tax" (death tax) is such a moral levy; it provides the most direct mechanism to prevent spoiled children from inheriting immoral empires.
5
Does anybody not think the Republicans are the party of the 1%?
This question is independent of what you think of Democrats.
Just answer the question regarding Republicans.
This question is independent of what you think of Democrats.
Just answer the question regarding Republicans.
3
True dat. God save us all.
2
Love it when people comment that all those oligarchs deserve to run rampant over the rest of us because they worked sooooooooo hard and earned their fortunes. No. There are tons of people working very hard every day who barely even make ends meet, let alone make millions. Let's not pretend that people are somehow automatically virtuous because they have worked hard to earn the money. Sometimes their "work" involves shady deals and stepping on the little guy. Virtue and earnings are not identical.
17
We need to remember many billionaires did not earn a dime of their vast fortunes, they inherited it. One third of the Forbes 400 were born to the list. The reason why we started a massive inheritance tax was to stop oligarchy. We need to go back to a 92 percent tax on the very wealthy just to pay off our huge national debt. A debt that started growing massively ;with the 'trickle down' experiment. Teddy Roosevelt who started the inheritance tax would be disgusted at what the Republican party has become, a party that exists to serve the rich.
3
Conspicuously absent from Krugman's latest rant about the "morally debased rich" is any mention of George Soros, Bill Gates, and Hollywood billionaires that fund the dangerous ideology that Krugman espouses.
5
Maybe it's because those billionaires aren't doing what you claim. If you think he is in error, then go ahead and post your examples.
4
When did moderation and a sense of balance toward the common good become dangerous ideaologies? I guess Christ was on to something.
3
Left-wing billionaire Warren Buffet has denounced the way the rich have been winning the class war. Let me know if you can find a right wing billionaire that's actually interested in restraining the power of the rich.
This "both sides do it" stuff gets really old. You want to fix government? Vote the Republicans out of office. It worked for California, it'll work for the United States.
This "both sides do it" stuff gets really old. You want to fix government? Vote the Republicans out of office. It worked for California, it'll work for the United States.
1
The lessons of the French and ( most obviously ) The Russian Revolutions have been lost on many Americans . Perhaps they were never learned at all . As George Santayana is famously quoted " Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it "
4
Replacing the Tsar with Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin and Co. didn't work out so well as has been shown in any history book.
3
Well , you missed the point , That communism failed , was not the issue . This was about what precipitated both the French and Russian Revolutions . Concentrated wealth in the ruling class ( Think the Romanov Dynasty ) and gross inequality was the issue , exactly what is being repeated in the United States today .
4
Even if the GOP fails to take the White House JERKIGARCHY will enter common usage by the end of the year.
The Jerkigarchy.
That would be the odious Trump all by himself.
The problem with billionaires is that they don't pay enough taxes, but we can fix that, right?
That would be the odious Trump all by himself.
The problem with billionaires is that they don't pay enough taxes, but we can fix that, right?
4
We will always have rich and poor, what really needs to change is our tax system. There are simply too many accounting loopholes that favor the rich and squeeze the middle class. For 25 years I've been hearing congressional sound bites on "tax reform" and every year the wealthy 1% amass more money and everyone else gets the shaft!
Can somebody please answer this question.. Why is it so difficult to craft sensible and fair tax policy? There's got to be an idea or formula somewhere!
Can somebody please answer this question.. Why is it so difficult to craft sensible and fair tax policy? There's got to be an idea or formula somewhere!
6
It's difficult because the rich don't want to give up their gains over the past 30 years and have bought their lackeys in Congress to ensure. Get rid of them, Democrats included, if necessary.
2
If I recall my American History lessons correctly, the American Revolution was fought, in part, to rid the colonists from the tyranny of the monarchy and oligarchs. It is traditionally un-American to prop up an elitist class.
Even with the current tax hike on the super-rich we still have much work ridding ourselves of the institutionalized classicism working its way into so much of our lives. When the working class poor support the rich as policy makers, they do so at their own peril. Many, apparently, do so hoping that they too will someday will someday join the wealthy elite.
Bernie Sanders is the one voice in the current field of candidates who has and will ever be working to rectify this very same condition the colonists themselves fought against. Hillary Clinton, is the only other candidate who may heed some of his words as president. The rest of the field, given their current rhetoric and policy suggestions, will have us return to a pre-American revolution classicism. Please enter the voting booth with this perspective for the good of all.
Even with the current tax hike on the super-rich we still have much work ridding ourselves of the institutionalized classicism working its way into so much of our lives. When the working class poor support the rich as policy makers, they do so at their own peril. Many, apparently, do so hoping that they too will someday will someday join the wealthy elite.
Bernie Sanders is the one voice in the current field of candidates who has and will ever be working to rectify this very same condition the colonists themselves fought against. Hillary Clinton, is the only other candidate who may heed some of his words as president. The rest of the field, given their current rhetoric and policy suggestions, will have us return to a pre-American revolution classicism. Please enter the voting booth with this perspective for the good of all.
12
it is an old saying but we get the government we deserve. We keep voting against our own interests and then whine about the results. For example, Kentucky recently elected a governor who has vowed to shut down the state's health exchanges, stop enrolling new people in Medicaid and is considering rolling back Obamacare and take away health insurance from more than 100,000 people. He did not hide his intentions, he ran his campaign vowing to do exactly what he is doing and won anyway.
The oligarchs have won and we allowed them to do it.
The oligarchs have won and we allowed them to do it.
15
They took our pensions under Reagan, and it's been all downhill since then. We thought the boss was our friend, and our hard work and honesty would lead us to success, as we were taught by our post-war prosperity parents. We forgot what the robber barons do when they have a chance. But they didn't forget; they were waiting, and we should have recognized them then.
5
Most democracies are representative democracies, whereby votes are usually for parties who propose candidates for various government positions.
By their nature, representative democracies these days require lots of funding to get heard, which opens itself up to corruption. There are usually constitutions to check the power of representatives, but even this can be open to abuse as proven by our own Supreme Court.
By their nature, representative democracies these days require lots of funding to get heard, which opens itself up to corruption. There are usually constitutions to check the power of representatives, but even this can be open to abuse as proven by our own Supreme Court.
5
If all these Republican billionaires control the country, how did an African-American Democrat from Chicago get elected President of the United States? How did President Obama defeat Mitt (private equity) Romney in 2012?
How does income inequality today compare to the income inequality when President Obama took office in 2009? Much greater inequality today it seems. Too big to fail banks are bigger, even after Dodd-Frank. The leading Democrat running for President does not want to reinstate Glass-Steagall.
How does income inequality today compare to the income inequality when President Obama took office in 2009? Much greater inequality today it seems. Too big to fail banks are bigger, even after Dodd-Frank. The leading Democrat running for President does not want to reinstate Glass-Steagall.
7
Figures don't lie, liars figure.
2
Can someone tell me the Republican plan to:
1) fix health care
2) reduce poverty
3) reduce drug use
4) reduce unwanted pregnancies
1) fix health care
2) reduce poverty
3) reduce drug use
4) reduce unwanted pregnancies
10
Can someone show an inner city that has been exclusively Democrat controlled for decades that has tackled those issues or any issues for that matter ?
1
No.
2
If you really don't know the answer...
1) Make it more profitable.
2) Don't. Abolish the minimum wage, crush the unions and make sure there are plenty of people desperate enough to work for peanuts under horrid conditions. Besides, there have to be poor people for the rich to measure their affluence against. Call it the "starvation standard".
3) Bring back the profitable "war on drugs" and keep the populace scared to death of the menace of addicted fiends.
4) Slut-shaming.
1) Make it more profitable.
2) Don't. Abolish the minimum wage, crush the unions and make sure there are plenty of people desperate enough to work for peanuts under horrid conditions. Besides, there have to be poor people for the rich to measure their affluence against. Call it the "starvation standard".
3) Bring back the profitable "war on drugs" and keep the populace scared to death of the menace of addicted fiends.
4) Slut-shaming.
2
We can see a vast difference between the almost pathological greed and obsession with power of traditional "Wall Street" capitalists as opposed to the detached relationship with wealth of the younger generation of "Silicon Valley" entrepreneurs. This is something that gives me hope for the future.
Most of the "Silicon Valley" billionaires seem to be motivated something other than the unadulterated "Wall Street Greed"; for most of them money is just a byproduct of success. And most importantly, their technology-oriented mindset makes them more willing to invest in research projects that will benefit all of humanity (climate change and renewable energy are two examples - how many Wall Street thugs give a hoot about these issues?).
My hope is that we will eventually get rid of the old generation of vicious oligarchs and their worldview; in other words, the Silicon Valley must eventually replace Wall Street as the main locus of financial power in the USA. How do we achieve this? For starters, we must prevent the GOP from taking back the White House at least for the next 4 presidential terms.
Most of the "Silicon Valley" billionaires seem to be motivated something other than the unadulterated "Wall Street Greed"; for most of them money is just a byproduct of success. And most importantly, their technology-oriented mindset makes them more willing to invest in research projects that will benefit all of humanity (climate change and renewable energy are two examples - how many Wall Street thugs give a hoot about these issues?).
My hope is that we will eventually get rid of the old generation of vicious oligarchs and their worldview; in other words, the Silicon Valley must eventually replace Wall Street as the main locus of financial power in the USA. How do we achieve this? For starters, we must prevent the GOP from taking back the White House at least for the next 4 presidential terms.
4
They dream of writing a "killer app" that will get them a yacht slip next to Larry Ellison's.
2
I want Paul Krugman to cheer up.
Income inequality is over.
According to NYT articles from 2015 and the Obama WH:
ISIS is contained.
The Trump campaign is over because of his remarks about McCain and Mexico.
Income inequality is over because Obama raised tax rates on wealthy Americans who don't pay taxes anyway.
And you can keep your plan if you like it.
Cheer up Krugman, Obama's got this.
Income inequality is over.
According to NYT articles from 2015 and the Obama WH:
ISIS is contained.
The Trump campaign is over because of his remarks about McCain and Mexico.
Income inequality is over because Obama raised tax rates on wealthy Americans who don't pay taxes anyway.
And you can keep your plan if you like it.
Cheer up Krugman, Obama's got this.
6
If you can do anything more than bash President Obama, I still don't have a clue what it might be.
5
And what is the Republican plan for all those problems?
They don't have any plan for inequality, health care or Trump.
And the Republican plan for ISIS is what Obama is already doing.
They don't have any plan for inequality, health care or Trump.
And the Republican plan for ISIS is what Obama is already doing.
1
Why don't you quote Obama saying those things, pal? The straw is giving me allergies.
1
To support PK's thinking, there was a joint Brits and Aussie study in 2014 called "Does Money Make People Right Wing and Inegalitarian?" The answer was "yes." Lottery winners, who have gained their wealth through nothing at all other than sheer luck, quickly come to think of themselves as being superior to others to as having earned their good fortune. They become mean spirited and move, of course, to the right.
9
Yeah, this is a good point, I think there's another bit of delusion underlying that one though: gamblers think that they have a psychic ability to detect when they're hot. Someone with a brain looks at a successful lottery winner and thinks "but that was just luck", the lottery winner doesn't actually have much of a brain-- we're talking about people who play the lottery, remember-- and attributes the win to their greater sensitivity to signs and portents or whatever, and their willingness to trust their luck at the right moment.
Paul
Establishment politicians sit behind every crisis this country has ever known. The corruption of Capitalism by politicians has compromised people of every level from devalued currency, tax laws so convoluted that accountants and lawyers have to sift through endless drivel. The super wealthy have only played the game establishment politicians have devised.
Liberal policies, laws and regulations are the smoke screen of government dependency. They have politicized and undermined every institution .
Establishment politicians sit behind every crisis this country has ever known. The corruption of Capitalism by politicians has compromised people of every level from devalued currency, tax laws so convoluted that accountants and lawyers have to sift through endless drivel. The super wealthy have only played the game establishment politicians have devised.
Liberal policies, laws and regulations are the smoke screen of government dependency. They have politicized and undermined every institution .
4
"...around half the contributions came from fewer than 200 wealthy families."
WHOOPS! Doctor Paul should have said around half the dollars, not half the contributions.
WHOOPS! Doctor Paul should have said around half the dollars, not half the contributions.
8
Solidarity, Now.
4
The left seeks to destroy incentive as an americal "ideal", as BHO tefers to us, and replace it with envy. Myhow far we have come in 8 years. All of our woes are "the
Other", his own brand of jingoist xenophobia.
Other", his own brand of jingoist xenophobia.
6
I really hope you are wealthy. Otherwise, sheesh...
1
Give me a break. Mr krugman obviously favors the democrats and is simply lashing out at those evil billionaires - well, actually only the republican billionaires. I'm sure he thinks the democratic billionaires are great people with great minds and deeply compassionate.
9
When Democratic billionaires start warping our political system to their economic interests, we can start going after them. Happy?
4
Let us return to the progressive income tax of the 1940s and 1950s. We had more than 15 distinct income brackets and the upper brackets paid more than 70%. Lower income and middle classes still paid something, but equal to or less than what they pay today. That PROGRESSIVE tax scheme paid for a robust US infrastructure while still leaving enough for many to make their fortunes.
This was a redistribution of income, to provide an infrastructure that benefited all (not handouts for the poor).
Today's "affordable housing crisis" is also being driven by extreme economic stratification. A more PROGRESSIVE tax scheme would mean less economic stratification. Developers would build housing for the middle as the middle would be growing instead of shrinking.
This was a redistribution of income, to provide an infrastructure that benefited all (not handouts for the poor).
Today's "affordable housing crisis" is also being driven by extreme economic stratification. A more PROGRESSIVE tax scheme would mean less economic stratification. Developers would build housing for the middle as the middle would be growing instead of shrinking.
10
Don't the Democrats ever do anything wrong, Prof. Krugman?
9
Undoubtedly they do but this article is about the corrosive effect of wealth on human character.
4
I suppose this means you are giving a pass to Slick Willie, Slick Hillie, George Soros, the Kennedy's, Roosevelts, And yourself, Mr Krugman? Just checking
11
A Krugman Klassic!
5
I do wish the professor would explain what he means by the word "spiritual." I can never tell what people are referring to, and it seems that no two people use it to refer to the same thing.
2
Plenty of truth here but if Mr. Krugman to exclude mention of, for example, Hillary Clinton, he is letting his agenda interfere with his logic. Mrs. Clinton is certainly wealthy and has run in economically advantaged and politically powerful circles for a long enough time that the differences in attitude between her and Trump are not huge.
11
Bernie Sanders is a safer pick than Hillary in this regard, but Hillary is making the right noises about restraining Wall Street and what not, and Krugman has talked before about evidence that politicians really do try to follow through on their promises.
So no: there is no "agenda" interfering with "logic" here-- Hillary Clinton may be rich, but she is not one of the rich people destroying American democracy, and voting for Hillary may not fix all ills but it'll work better than voting for the Trumpster, and playing the "false equivalence" card like this is really getting old.
So no: there is no "agenda" interfering with "logic" here-- Hillary Clinton may be rich, but she is not one of the rich people destroying American democracy, and voting for Hillary may not fix all ills but it'll work better than voting for the Trumpster, and playing the "false equivalence" card like this is really getting old.
2
While I agree with Dr. Krugman's thesis, his tunnel vision again skews right, i.e., he fails to include the Clintons in his discussion.
This is doubly annoying as the Clinton example illustrates the thesis so perfectly: the magnitude of their corruption varies directly and exponentially with their wealth. Their latest scam (as billionaires) makes their 90s White House quid pro quo (when they were "bankrupt) look like, (if you’ll pardon the oxymoron), penny ante treason.
This is doubly annoying as the Clinton example illustrates the thesis so perfectly: the magnitude of their corruption varies directly and exponentially with their wealth. Their latest scam (as billionaires) makes their 90s White House quid pro quo (when they were "bankrupt) look like, (if you’ll pardon the oxymoron), penny ante treason.
9
Was this latest scam before or after Benghaziemailgate, and how does Vince Foster fit into this? Please do enlighten us.
The wealthiest 1% get richer, faster than anytime in US history on Barack Obama's watch. ISIS kills James Foley on television and Obama makes a 40 second comment and returns to golfing on Martha's Vineyard as part of his celebrity presidency. Obama fetes the uber-rich at private WH events as poverty rates soar in the Black community...
And somehow this is all the GOP's fault.
Uh okay...sure guys.
And somehow this is all the GOP's fault.
Uh okay...sure guys.
7
Correlation is not causation. Please give a specific act the President signed into law or an executive order with the explanation of how that increased the top 1% share of the wealth. Thank you.
15
Congress makes tax law. One would think a barrister would know that.
And if Obama is responsible for Foley's death and shouldn't be playing golf then do you RWNJs finally put responsibility on the Bush/Cheney bubblers for 9/11? Please, don't answer, it's rhetorical.
And if Obama is responsible for Foley's death and shouldn't be playing golf then do you RWNJs finally put responsibility on the Bush/Cheney bubblers for 9/11? Please, don't answer, it's rhetorical.
1
Do you think the Republicans are the party of the rich, the 1%?
Just what is "spiritual damage"?
Citing an ineffable thought such as this covers more territory and excuses more criminality than anything I've read outside copies of a Sunday sermon.
The damage is monetary, far from spiritual and comes with a social impact that is as criminal as pistol whipping victims of armed robbery.
Appeals to conscience are, as they have always been, a cover promoted by the very minds which write the laws protecting the theft we call capitalism.
The excuses are made to protect and cover what any person who accepts the social contract knows is an otherwise egregious lie.
Call the men and women who accumulate vast amounts of wealth anything you want, they remain simple greedheads who, beyond themselves, their friends and their families have no regard for any social contract.
The majoruty of us are pawns in a game whose rules are constantly rewritten by those who understand financial laws are made to protect the wealth of the contemporary kings and their entourage.
Those cited in this column are the spoken names of the obvious stars while an army of lesser known but often wealthier hire congressional stagehands to shuffle props behind the curtain.
There is only one solution to ending this "ugly spectacle" which is to replace the cast and this can only be done, as those now in power know and practice, by voting.
Citing an ineffable thought such as this covers more territory and excuses more criminality than anything I've read outside copies of a Sunday sermon.
The damage is monetary, far from spiritual and comes with a social impact that is as criminal as pistol whipping victims of armed robbery.
Appeals to conscience are, as they have always been, a cover promoted by the very minds which write the laws protecting the theft we call capitalism.
The excuses are made to protect and cover what any person who accepts the social contract knows is an otherwise egregious lie.
Call the men and women who accumulate vast amounts of wealth anything you want, they remain simple greedheads who, beyond themselves, their friends and their families have no regard for any social contract.
The majoruty of us are pawns in a game whose rules are constantly rewritten by those who understand financial laws are made to protect the wealth of the contemporary kings and their entourage.
Those cited in this column are the spoken names of the obvious stars while an army of lesser known but often wealthier hire congressional stagehands to shuffle props behind the curtain.
There is only one solution to ending this "ugly spectacle" which is to replace the cast and this can only be done, as those now in power know and practice, by voting.
2
The plutocracy culls public advocates in the nomination stage so there will be nobody to vote for.
You're probably right Steve and my thought about more of us voting is, when considering the process we have come to accept, actually a bit naive.
No sarcasm intended, but I am a product of immersion in the real heroics of my parents as well as aunts and uncles who served in both civil and military capacities during WW2 where the social beast Hitler and his lieutenants were an easy target.
My regret is that my children, like those of most of us, will be the ones who suffer.
The biggest problem with our society is the fiction of unearthly reward which is accepted by most, even to the point where one of my sons, the child of a devout atheist actually commited himself, albeit temporarily, to the tenets of the uniquely American invention of Joseph Smith.
Perhaps reason will out, but my fear is humanity will destroy itself before accepting the mental step we must take to accept our part in a random universe.
No sarcasm intended, but I am a product of immersion in the real heroics of my parents as well as aunts and uncles who served in both civil and military capacities during WW2 where the social beast Hitler and his lieutenants were an easy target.
My regret is that my children, like those of most of us, will be the ones who suffer.
The biggest problem with our society is the fiction of unearthly reward which is accepted by most, even to the point where one of my sons, the child of a devout atheist actually commited himself, albeit temporarily, to the tenets of the uniquely American invention of Joseph Smith.
Perhaps reason will out, but my fear is humanity will destroy itself before accepting the mental step we must take to accept our part in a random universe.
1
I am in general agreement with PK's assessment, but fairness compels me to note that many wealthy individuals and families have contributed greatly to this country's culture and arts with magnanimous support of local symphonies, art museums, opera troupes, and many other activities. This is evident in New York, Chicago and Los Angeles, but also in smaller cities such as Cleveland, Ft. Worth, and here in Cincinnati, where a vibrant arts scene is the legacy of wealthy families devoting large portions of their fortune to sustain the Symphony, the Opera, the May Festival, and myriad other civic and community organizations.
Yes, the uber wealthy can be boorish snobs, arrogant and insufferable. But not all of them, by a long shot.
Yes, the uber wealthy can be boorish snobs, arrogant and insufferable. But not all of them, by a long shot.
5
Sorry. We're bored with cable, and we've got witches to burn.
Right on Mr. Krugman!
7
1/12/2016 2:32 pm
Paul happy new year 2016!
I agree with your economic analysis in general. I disagree with your sociological and legal analysis in general.
Why? Well for exsample, we can always undo the riches collected by the billionaires with the stroke of a pen on some piece of legislation. On the other hand we can’t simply order out the 10 million and growing plus illegal immigrants by the stroke of a pen. Ditto, welfare fecundity, etc.
I do strongly disagree with Trump on the inheritance tax. We don’t have a royalty in this country as yet. Removal of the inheritance tax would create classes of people who would never ever have to work again; royalty without any attendant responsibility. Not good for them or the country.
Until rich people can find a way to take it with them when they die, an inheritance tax seems like a fair balance of passing on their wealth without creating a royal class. This is one area where I disagree with Trump strongly, but paragraph 2 trumps this concern which is why I cheer the narcissistic bastard on.
Paul happy new year 2016!
I agree with your economic analysis in general. I disagree with your sociological and legal analysis in general.
Why? Well for exsample, we can always undo the riches collected by the billionaires with the stroke of a pen on some piece of legislation. On the other hand we can’t simply order out the 10 million and growing plus illegal immigrants by the stroke of a pen. Ditto, welfare fecundity, etc.
I do strongly disagree with Trump on the inheritance tax. We don’t have a royalty in this country as yet. Removal of the inheritance tax would create classes of people who would never ever have to work again; royalty without any attendant responsibility. Not good for them or the country.
Until rich people can find a way to take it with them when they die, an inheritance tax seems like a fair balance of passing on their wealth without creating a royal class. This is one area where I disagree with Trump strongly, but paragraph 2 trumps this concern which is why I cheer the narcissistic bastard on.
4
"We" cannot undo the riches with "the stroke of a pen" if those who write the legislation (Congress) do not write that bill. And, if those legislators find their way to Congress through the largess of these billionaires, it's unlikely they will. Therin lies the most important element of PK's column - the greed personal interest of a small number of extremely rich people go a long way toward determine who these legislators actually represent - us, or the 1%?
3
I have seen such phenomena for some time, where "working class" people admire the rich and look down on the poor, often otherwise disconcertingly out of character. They are reasonably comfortable with what they have though ostensibly yearn for more. They embody what has been referred to as the authoritarian personality, worshiping those above them, despising those below, a characteristic amply present in Nazi Germany. a la the old Eric Fromm analysis. If these people were to truly experience deprivation they might begin to see things a different way, but the owner/wealthy class has discerned this tableau and plays it well enough to maintain equilibrium and to stay in power. The sad thing is that the poor aspire to the working class and adopt their world view out of shame and fear of further punishment.
2
If the New York Times endorses Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders, then they have a lot of common sense columnists, including Paul Krugman, who they should fire because from the Editorial board point-of-view they are writing nonsense. Of course, what makes the most sense is for the Times to give more and stronger support to Sen. Sanders who has not been bought by any billionnaires or millionaires and is basing his campaign on returning the country's focus to the lower classes who need government support the most.
11
Paul, you should know better than to assume that correlation implies a particular form of causation. In this case it could well be that some of the effect is that those who are "less likely to exhibit empathy, less likely to respect norms and even laws, more likely to cheat" find it easier to get rich. Like wealth itself, those traits may be somewhat heritable. So it's possible that rich people tend to be horrible even if the wealth doesn't make them that way. Or it could be like you say. Or both.
2
All of Mr. Krugman's remarks are dead-on. So why doesn't he use the opportunity to plug a certain Mr. Sanders who is consciously avoiding taking money from said oligarchs and is further trying to incite a political revolution to pull the power cord from the same?
12
I think Krugman's take is than Bernie and Hillary are both saying similar things at this point, and the differences between them pale in significance when you look at the clown car.
Krugman concludes that "the biggest reason to oppose the power of money in politics is the way it lets the wealthy rig the system and distort policy priorities." While I agree with much of what Krugman writes, too often we see these hints of the boundaries Krugman himself must work within in mainstream (corporate-owned) media; i.e., if he trespasses these boundaries, he'll be moved (by this media) out to their "lunatic fringe." Otherwise, he simply would have said here what is in fact accurate: The biggest reason to oppose the power of money in politics is the way it lets the wealthy CREATE the system and WRITE the policy priorities. (Sorry for the caps; italics aren't possible.)
3
_italics_
There are good people out there. There are good people everywhere frankly but the world is corrupted with the lesser ones. The ultra-mega high class believes to be superior. In every civilization the richer people have always considered themselves the better half. The richer become power ridden when there is no one to stop them; yet you cannot hold someone back who has worked hard. And yes rich people work there way around things which make worse like taxes. But who has it the worst politically? Not the lower classes. They are compensated from the government and the parts of the middle class as well. The lower upper class and upper middle class have it worse. When people are deprived of basic needs and they are treated in a worse way how can it be said they are good and have empathy. They can be cruel and jealous and they are that way to people higher than them. And a major problem with a lot of the population is non educated people. The rich have been educated better so they think they know more. If everyone really went hard into an education there wouldn't be so much of this taking place. Others should get chances. Anyways what I am trying to say is that rich people can be good and bad but to truly understand a situation it should be considered from both ends.
"people are deprived of basic needs and they are treated in a worse way"
You are describing the *poor*, Ms.Hassan, and not any aspect of the middle class.
"If everyone really went hard into an education"
How would it be possible for "everyone" to "go hard into education"? One way would be for there to be a fully-funded, public, educational system from pre-school through graduate school, with highly-paid teachers treated with the utmost respect and not looked down upon as people not intelligent enough and not capable enough to reach a higher rung in society. You're familiar with the sneering saying, "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach," of course. Football coaches are the only notable exception.
You are describing the *poor*, Ms.Hassan, and not any aspect of the middle class.
"If everyone really went hard into an education"
How would it be possible for "everyone" to "go hard into education"? One way would be for there to be a fully-funded, public, educational system from pre-school through graduate school, with highly-paid teachers treated with the utmost respect and not looked down upon as people not intelligent enough and not capable enough to reach a higher rung in society. You're familiar with the sneering saying, "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach," of course. Football coaches are the only notable exception.
1
With zero behind him but brand name and TV shows, the media created Trump, gave him wind and legs.
The privilege to pathologically ruin the minds of the mass of people who go to the media trough 24/7, in exchange for profits generated by viewership, is held by advertisers and media outlets. They are far more responsible than a couple of billionaires. Blame them. Oh wait, you work for them, never mind.
The privilege to pathologically ruin the minds of the mass of people who go to the media trough 24/7, in exchange for profits generated by viewership, is held by advertisers and media outlets. They are far more responsible than a couple of billionaires. Blame them. Oh wait, you work for them, never mind.
2
I always find it hilarious in articles like this in the NYT et al, that Prof. Krugman and others only notice the examples and misconduct of the super wealthy's influence in the GOP. We're to ignore the donations and misdeeds, including international insider trading convictions, of George Soros. Or the fact that over the last 3 election cycles Democrats have recieved more donations from Wall Street companies, CEOs and millionaires than the GOP. Or the fact that a higher % of the country's billionaires donated to Democrat candidates and causes than to Republican ones in the last two elections. And are we really going to make the case that Trump has a bigger ego and more belief that he is above the law than the Clintons??? Does money, as Prof. Krugman eludes, have a strong tendency to corrupt ones worldview, actions and empathy for the less fortunate? Absolutely. The Bible records Jesus making the same point in Matthew 19 as does Paul's letter to Timothy...2000 years ago. But only Krugman and the NYT editorial board see it as exclusive to one political party. Maybe that is just reflective of their own narcissism in believing that their brand of liberalism is always right and their own surrounding themselves with "sycophants" that share their political views. Maybe if they spent some time around people outside of the Ivy League and NYC they might understand why many of their values are in the minority, but associating with such people would be beneath them. Warped egos?
6
There are wealthy people who are smart enough not to fund anarchism and nihilism.
2
So your take is that Soros has been corrupted by his wealth in the same way as Trump? In that case we shouldn't vote for Soros.
And when we look into ways of restraining the power of billionaires, we should be very careful not to exclude left-wing billionaires.
Meanwhile, electing democrats is really and truly a good strategy for restraining the power of the wealth.
And when we look into ways of restraining the power of billionaires, we should be very careful not to exclude left-wing billionaires.
Meanwhile, electing democrats is really and truly a good strategy for restraining the power of the wealth.
"Serious social science"? That's an oxymoron. Far too many 'serious' social science studies of late highlighted in the media have later been shown to be shoddy efforts at putting a scientific veneer on the SJW narrative of the moment. No surprise Krugman cites a 'study' that purports to support his own biases.
5
Oh yeah? Do you have a "study" showing that studies are worthless?
Yes, the scientific process is flawed, nevertheless it works better than empty cynicism.
Yes, the scientific process is flawed, nevertheless it works better than empty cynicism.
1
Several years ago my husband took a job typing a thesis for a student who was a child of the group we call the .0001%. This guy had rented an office for the project and employed people to do his research. He came into his office for about an hour a day to make personal calls and check on progress. He talked about the poor guys in his class who had to do their own work. The guy was evidently extremely "successful" - and everyone being afraid to challenge him because of the consequences.
This is another example of what we're talking about when we consider income disparity. I'm thinking that if we don't address it soon, we will be living in a very very different sort of society.
This is another example of what we're talking about when we consider income disparity. I'm thinking that if we don't address it soon, we will be living in a very very different sort of society.
9
According to this author's opinion, wealth can be bad for your soul. He knows this because the conclusion comes from "serious social science, confirmed by statistical analysis and experiment. " One thing you don't need statistical science to confirm is living in poverty also can damage your soul. Alcoholism drug addiction poisons lives, because you don't have the money to pay for health care diseases fester without treatment. malnutrition eats at your stomach. Work is necessary because you have to pay the bills so education is put on a back burner and as a result your job opportunities are limited. One thing for sure is if someone living in poverty is offered some economic assistance and a way out their life's conditions, two things they are not going to worry about are statistical analysis and harm to their souls because they might become wealthy.
4
All things considered in your writing, I wonder if it is really possible to become wealthy through honesty. It just seems as though one would have to bend the rules and at times act unethically to amass a fortune.
3
Twelve hundred comments and running. Too many to read and nothing will come of them until we all get off our arses as do something. Talk is cheap and the powerless are the currency.
5
Back to the age of royalty.
Benevolent despots were rare.
Still not a good thing.
(On the plus side, Sheldon Adelson is a very old man.)
Benevolent despots were rare.
Still not a good thing.
(On the plus side, Sheldon Adelson is a very old man.)
3
Thirty and forty years ago we had passionate citizen advocates working hard on campaign finance reform. Just like with reproductive rights, those passionate advocates are now white-haired and worn out. Where are the new crusaders?
The crickets chirp.
The crickets chirp.
5
Wealth is bad for your soul because you have to twist your mind justify your wealth to yourself when you can see so much suffering all around you. You have to close your mind to that suffering. Close your mind to the people working three jobs, barely making ends meet and hardly having any time wth their children. Close your mind to the schools that are falling apart, the people who can't afford to go to the doctor, the elderly who choose between buying food and buying medicine.
Somehow, you have to convince yourself you are entitled to fabulous clothes, cars, houses and vacations while almost everyone else is entitled to nothing. And that takes a toll on a person.
Somehow, you have to convince yourself you are entitled to fabulous clothes, cars, houses and vacations while almost everyone else is entitled to nothing. And that takes a toll on a person.
9
The people who can least afford children evidently don't know what a luxury they are.
The key issue is that there aren't many superrich, but yet they seem to control a large share of voters.
These voters aren't offended by the superrich, their political power, bluster or anything else.
Rather, these voters are afraid that so-called liberals will raise their taxes and give their money away to people they don't like, mostly, minorities and immigrants. That's why the Romney victory map in the last election looked very much like the 1848 Slave States and Territories map.
This is their core belief and there may even be a kernel of truth within it. It remains unshakable even in response to hard evidence about where the bulk of their money is actually going. Or, IMO, why economic fairness is necessary for a stable society.
This core belief takes on a penumbra related to distrust of government -- based on the corollary that liberals will spend other people's money on foolish liberal dreams, like stopping climate change, burdening business with unnecessary regulations, health care for poor people or violating their religious beliefs by advocating for abortion.
Thus far, no candidate or government official has been willing to address this directly.
These voters aren't offended by the superrich, their political power, bluster or anything else.
Rather, these voters are afraid that so-called liberals will raise their taxes and give their money away to people they don't like, mostly, minorities and immigrants. That's why the Romney victory map in the last election looked very much like the 1848 Slave States and Territories map.
This is their core belief and there may even be a kernel of truth within it. It remains unshakable even in response to hard evidence about where the bulk of their money is actually going. Or, IMO, why economic fairness is necessary for a stable society.
This core belief takes on a penumbra related to distrust of government -- based on the corollary that liberals will spend other people's money on foolish liberal dreams, like stopping climate change, burdening business with unnecessary regulations, health care for poor people or violating their religious beliefs by advocating for abortion.
Thus far, no candidate or government official has been willing to address this directly.
2
I may be simply restating the obvious but I will anyway. Corporate inversions and offshore funds "hidiing" is perfectly legal at this moment. The fact that these actions by uberwealthy folks are merely reacting to their desire to keep more of what they have is secondary. Let's be nakedly honest, if you had some millions and learned you could pay others to legally help you retain more of what you have, would you hesitate to protect your holdings? By the way, does anybody else think it's a bit strange that Congress seems to move very very slowly when it comes to initiatives that might make it simpler for the IRS to collect from the uberwealthy what we all assume is their fair share? There are no ethics or morals in capitalism so why should anyone be shocked at these outcomes?
119
Easier to complain about "income inequality" than to actually change the tax code.
Democrats aren't fools. They know this issue is one that provides lots of cover and provides a two-fer: They get to blame and bash republicans while not having to actually do anything because as problem definitions go, it's quite nebulous, intentionally so it seems.
Democrats aren't fools. They know this issue is one that provides lots of cover and provides a two-fer: They get to blame and bash republicans while not having to actually do anything because as problem definitions go, it's quite nebulous, intentionally so it seems.
I wouldn't mind paying higher taxes right this moment, though I'm far from a millionaire, if I thought it would actually bring us to a better nation.
6
They've done more than move slowly. They've drummed up a phony scandal to demonize the IRS for their low income constituents and used that excuse to further defund and in the budget, included barring the IRS from investigating political groups using 501c(4)s. The little people cheer their knee-capping the IRS when in fact all Republicans have done is make it harder to collect from the wealthy. Cynical and brilliant.
6
The Affluenza outbreak reaches pandemic proportions.
10
This also reminds me of some neighbors who are landlords and who have a "no dogs" rule for their tenants because, I am told, they bother people. But yet they have a dog of their own which spends 80% of its time outside barking. People shouldn't be able to buy the right to to behave differently than other people. If you want to start paying ME as compensation then maybe we can talk.
3
The info in the link to the Adelson newspaper is dumbfounding.
Krugman may say there are sycophants surrounding the rich. I call them toadies.
It's really frightening that there are people like this managing corporations that own local media...but, not a surprise.
Krugman may say there are sycophants surrounding the rich. I call them toadies.
It's really frightening that there are people like this managing corporations that own local media...but, not a surprise.
2
Consider how Donald Trump reduced climate crisis and urgent need for action to his distress at not being able to use hairspray (hair gel globs and then you have to take another shower).
3
There doesn't seem to me to be anything special about money per se that results in narcissism. When people spend all their time thinking about and pursuing a certain goal, whatever it is, they tend to lose touch with the rest of the world that isn't in their immediate circle of acquaintance. It happens to artists, politicians, scientists, etc. when any threat is perceived to their stock of the relevant "currency-" popularity, power, respect, esteem, etc. They all tend to get pretty vain and narcissistic. It's human nature to want more, no matter how much you have. Mr. Krugman's diatribes are most useful if they are used to strengthen resolve to change the system, but it seems to me to be counterproductive to nourish mere resentment.
That's not to say that we should sit back and let billionaires run the U.S.; It's our biggest domestic problem, with the possible exception of (the interrelated) poverty. I'm just saying that if we understand the psychology involved, as Mr. Krugman starts his article referring to, we might actually be better able to deal with the problems of money in politics than if we just indulge in homogeneous rage. Let's not repeat either the French Revolution or Fascism please.
That's not to say that we should sit back and let billionaires run the U.S.; It's our biggest domestic problem, with the possible exception of (the interrelated) poverty. I'm just saying that if we understand the psychology involved, as Mr. Krugman starts his article referring to, we might actually be better able to deal with the problems of money in politics than if we just indulge in homogeneous rage. Let's not repeat either the French Revolution or Fascism please.
2
"I been rich and I been poor, and believe me, rich is better." Louis Armstrong
(I think)
(I think)
4
It's better (and easier) to be rich and unhappy than poor and unhappy.
2
Here's a thought experiment for everyone: Do the Koch brothers donate money to the Bernie Sanders campaign? To Hillary's? If not, why not? I'm asking the question to challenge the idea that money influences politics, to the extent that everyone here thinks it does.
2
Here I quote but I can't recall whom, "The majority of Republicans of the lower economic strata live like paupers but vote like millionaires and billionaires." They simply don't realize that they are doing themselves a disfavor by voting on many matters against their own self interest.
Yes, ignorance can surely be blissful but, long term, its consequences cannot be avoided.
Yes, ignorance can surely be blissful but, long term, its consequences cannot be avoided.
2
"" They simply don't realize that they are doing themselves a disfavor by voting on many matters against their own self interest."
you are making an assumption that the above statement is true. it is not the case e.g. the nanny state is good for the recipients in the very short run but in the intermediate run it stops growth and eliminates opportunities for growth for nearly everyone.
you are making an assumption that the above statement is true. it is not the case e.g. the nanny state is good for the recipients in the very short run but in the intermediate run it stops growth and eliminates opportunities for growth for nearly everyone.
4
Zee Man, we don't vote like millionaires though we're paupers. We vote our morals regardless of our net worth. And our morals tell us it's wrong to take what belongs to others, whether it's directly stealing from another or taking what others have earned through "progressive" taxation. Just because it may be in my self- interest to use the force of government and majority vote to take away what someone else has earned... It doesn't make it right. And that belief shouldn't be contingent on how much or how little money I have.
4
Taxation pays for the Interstate Highway System, Dams, public parks, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Taxation pays for vaccinations for all children, free of charge. That keeps children from dying of many diseases prevalent before vaccinations were developed, e.g. Salk Vaccine to prevent polio. Public health clinics are paid for with taxation. Schools are paid for with taxation. If you would prefer to live where there is no taxation, move to Somalia.
4
Reading the article and the Comments section, it appears the second American Revolution might be about to take off. It's great to see the old spirit of Freedom and Liberty still alive and kicking.
1
I have seen the future, and at the moment it looks like a cross between Soilent Green and Rollerball.
3
Dear NYTimes,
After reading quite a few of the newer comments, I suggest you check and do not publish comments that have no basis in fact. People are entitled to their opinions, but those opinions really should be grounded in facts. When a comment contains outright lies, the opinion attached to it is just propaganda.
After reading quite a few of the newer comments, I suggest you check and do not publish comments that have no basis in fact. People are entitled to their opinions, but those opinions really should be grounded in facts. When a comment contains outright lies, the opinion attached to it is just propaganda.
1
Never before in the course of human history have so many working people given so much to so few parasitic hereditary oligarchs.
Ain't predatory capitalism great?
Ain't predatory capitalism great?
7
I would say as a general rule, keep billionaires out of politics. Trump supporters claim he is beholden to no one because of his billions. Does this imply he has the interests of less-than-extraordinary Americans at heart? The same faulty logic was applied to Michael Bloomberg, who bought himself three elections. Whose interests did he serve when he doled off whole stretches of the city to his greedy pals, like party favors? A vastly transfigured landscape, unaffordable by the unlucky majority was the result. Did anyone at one of his soirees ever tell him he's going too far? What do you think?
2
For a long time, the moneyed classes kept the paupers out of politics and away from the voting booth. I guess some people are more than happy to keep the other guy away from politics, so long as your guy is permitted into politics. Some democracy.
1
I had a father who was an old style Tory businessman and politician. As a businessman he was astute and a model employer giving away large amounts and supporting such a myriad of causes it was only after his death I learned he had been president of the SPCA.
In politics he sought to expand social protections, the Diefenbaker government bringing in national hospital insurance as a predecessor of the medicare achieved by the succeeding Liberal government of Lester Pearson. As a parliamentarian he helped expel South Africa from the Commonwealth and was a good friend of Doug Jung, the first Chinese-Canadians elected to Parliament.
He had such broad tolerance that he did not object when his younger son, me, worked for the socialist party candidate opposing him.
Ernie had an older son who was an Ayn Rand acolyte, and he advised me that he had named this son as his executor but that I would have to watch him because son number one wanted our beautiful Okanagan home for himself alone. Kopje, our home, had a half-mile of lakeshore.
This was 1975. The estate is not yet fully distributed as the executor has spent a half-million on lawyers.
I have a daughter with special needs. To get money for her, older son said I had to sign off on his estate management which had brought ruin to Kopje. He is worth at least $20 milllion and his occupation physician-investor. As a Randian, he is devoid of empathy the opposite of Ernie our dad.
In politics he sought to expand social protections, the Diefenbaker government bringing in national hospital insurance as a predecessor of the medicare achieved by the succeeding Liberal government of Lester Pearson. As a parliamentarian he helped expel South Africa from the Commonwealth and was a good friend of Doug Jung, the first Chinese-Canadians elected to Parliament.
He had such broad tolerance that he did not object when his younger son, me, worked for the socialist party candidate opposing him.
Ernie had an older son who was an Ayn Rand acolyte, and he advised me that he had named this son as his executor but that I would have to watch him because son number one wanted our beautiful Okanagan home for himself alone. Kopje, our home, had a half-mile of lakeshore.
This was 1975. The estate is not yet fully distributed as the executor has spent a half-million on lawyers.
I have a daughter with special needs. To get money for her, older son said I had to sign off on his estate management which had brought ruin to Kopje. He is worth at least $20 milllion and his occupation physician-investor. As a Randian, he is devoid of empathy the opposite of Ernie our dad.
9
For me, the most egregiously sickening example of the pathology you cite in your column was the Koch Brothers relentless, dishonest and mean spirited campaign to derail the Affordable Care Act before it thankfully became law.
I'll never forget that absolutely despicable and disturbing tv commercial that had "Uncle Sam" holding a medical device in an OB-GYN's office that was somehow supposed to symbolize the "government takeover" of health care.
What else can possibly explain a sick effort like that to deny affordable health care to people by brothers that are multi billionaires other than a complete lack of empathy.
Unfortunately, this kind of attitude is far from unusual, goes with the territory, and is something that is completely impervious to shaming.
You can't appeal to these individuals humanity, as they really don't have any.
If you want to change things, you just have to go out there and fight them with everything you've got.
I'll never forget that absolutely despicable and disturbing tv commercial that had "Uncle Sam" holding a medical device in an OB-GYN's office that was somehow supposed to symbolize the "government takeover" of health care.
What else can possibly explain a sick effort like that to deny affordable health care to people by brothers that are multi billionaires other than a complete lack of empathy.
Unfortunately, this kind of attitude is far from unusual, goes with the territory, and is something that is completely impervious to shaming.
You can't appeal to these individuals humanity, as they really don't have any.
If you want to change things, you just have to go out there and fight them with everything you've got.
224
It gets difficult when the government ties one of your hands behind your back.
2
If you want less money in politics, might I suggest you consider shrinking the size of government? It takes big bucks to ward off big government, which has too easy access to a lot of taxpayer money.
Someone has to put the brakes on an ever expanding government, and it sure won't be those who profit from it in some way, including the liberal "pundocracy," which includes Krugman.
Someone has to put the brakes on an ever expanding government, and it sure won't be those who profit from it in some way, including the liberal "pundocracy," which includes Krugman.
2
Do liberals never tire of twisting words to suit their own ends ? Gues Alinsky is required reading these days ? "What else can possibly explain a sick effort like that to deny affordable health care to people by brothers that are multi billionaires other than a complete lack of empathy."
If I give away all of my money, then I am sure that some people with little would otherwise have more. But is my decisions not to impoverish myself and my family "denying" those these goods and services that they would have purchased ?
No. To deny someone of something implies that absent your presence, they could have obtained health insurance (or any other service). That's not the case here ! Many people could not afford health insurance - and the problem was made worse by Obama throwing every bell and whistle into the policy.
That is tragic. So is their inability often to put food on the table or a roof over their heads. But my choice to ask them at least to get an education and strengthen their family in order to help themselves isn't denying them services ... it's asking people to at least help take care of themselves rather than making a bad situation worse.
If I give away all of my money, then I am sure that some people with little would otherwise have more. But is my decisions not to impoverish myself and my family "denying" those these goods and services that they would have purchased ?
No. To deny someone of something implies that absent your presence, they could have obtained health insurance (or any other service). That's not the case here ! Many people could not afford health insurance - and the problem was made worse by Obama throwing every bell and whistle into the policy.
That is tragic. So is their inability often to put food on the table or a roof over their heads. But my choice to ask them at least to get an education and strengthen their family in order to help themselves isn't denying them services ... it's asking people to at least help take care of themselves rather than making a bad situation worse.
"We can have democracy in this country or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can`t have both."
--Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis
Doesn't matter if great wealth is in hands of liberals (e.g. George Soros) or in hands of conservatives (e.g. Charles Koch), "great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few" replaces (representative) democracy with oligarchy, plutocracy, "aristocracy of wealth" (T. Jefferson).
"This disposition to admire, and almost worship, the rich and powerful, and to despise, or, to neglect persons of poor and mean condition...is...the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiment."
Adam Smith ("father" of capitalism), "Theory of Moral Sentiments"
--Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis
Doesn't matter if great wealth is in hands of liberals (e.g. George Soros) or in hands of conservatives (e.g. Charles Koch), "great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few" replaces (representative) democracy with oligarchy, plutocracy, "aristocracy of wealth" (T. Jefferson).
"This disposition to admire, and almost worship, the rich and powerful, and to despise, or, to neglect persons of poor and mean condition...is...the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiment."
Adam Smith ("father" of capitalism), "Theory of Moral Sentiments"
5
So the only billionaires are Republicans? Yeah, right.
7
Nope, that is not the point, but thank you for playing. Unfortunately your "both sides do it" card is easily, uh, trumped.
1
Some rich guy just bought the Eye of the Needle and had it widened.
8
"The affluent are, on average, less likely to exhibit empathy, less likely to respect norms and even laws, more likely to cheat, than those occupying lower rungs on the economic ladder."
Chicken or Egg argument - All those traits maybe not be just the effect of their wealth, but also the cause of it.
Chicken or Egg argument - All those traits maybe not be just the effect of their wealth, but also the cause of it.
5
Why no mention of Soros or Steyer?
4
Soros, Steyer and Warren Buffet have all stated that the rich should pay higher taxes. Warren Buffet even testified to that in front of Congress. Rockefeller gave away a lot of money, and built public venues we still have and use: Rockefeller Center. The Vanderbilts also used money for public projects. Warren Buffet donates a lot of money to projects for the public good. It is too early to see what the recent Google billionaires will do.
2
Basically you're saying you are OK with rich people buying politicians as long as they are Democrats and/or believe in raising taxes.
No the point is that the Republican Rich are destroying American democracy, and the democratic rich are not, and no one is proposing policies that will effect rich people only if they're Republicans, so your entire objection is moot.
But you got to say "both sides do it", so now you can go home feeling Very Serious.
But you got to say "both sides do it", so now you can go home feeling Very Serious.
2
Your newspaper published Adelson's request for cheaper foreign labor, and he didn't even have to buy it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/11/opinion/sheldon-adelson-warren-buffett...
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/11/opinion/sheldon-adelson-warren-buffett...
3
Well, Paul Krugman isn't doing so badly in the "wealth' department, so I don't know what he's talking about unless it's about himself.
8
That's different! It's compassionate wealth!
Anyway, you probably didn't attend an Ivy. Know your place.
Anyway, you probably didn't attend an Ivy. Know your place.
1
(1) The level of wealth earned by a Krugman is on a totally different scale than that inherited by a Koch; (2) no one is suggesting we raise taxes only on Republican rich people.
2
Re: Privilege,Pathology and Power
Good writing can make even the most evident and well documented phenomena interesting to read.
Good writing can make even the most evident and well documented phenomena interesting to read.
1
America sold its soul a long time ago, Paul. And there does not seem like there will be a way to buy it back either.
4
The American ideal is upward mobility. The American reality is the most class-stratified wealthy democracy with a ruling class taking everything.
Wages are low and falling for 30 years. Blame the unions, except the U.S. has the lowest unionization rate. Blame the Mexicans and immigrants except they work low-paid jobs by and large.
Blame welfare except the U.S. has the lowest income security programs of all major wealthy democracies.
Only Bernie talks of the real cause of American despair: An economy rigged from top to bottom to favour the financial overclass which makes millions while paying little to no taxes. Parasitic plutocrats are draining the lifeblood and hope from the precariat and much of the "middle class" is a couple of paychecks away from disaster, There is no social safety net because the upper class is devoid of empathy not only for the 100 million underclass but also for the working and lower middle class who are toast.
So the low-wage, lower educated middle class takes the lunatic, callous rantings of Fox and Rush for their guidance and hate. But a life of fear and hate is not worth living so they kill themselves.
The mortality rates of the lesser-educated middle-aged white males has been rising, their life expectancy falling, and their suicide rates skyrocketing.
Wages are low and falling for 30 years. Blame the unions, except the U.S. has the lowest unionization rate. Blame the Mexicans and immigrants except they work low-paid jobs by and large.
Blame welfare except the U.S. has the lowest income security programs of all major wealthy democracies.
Only Bernie talks of the real cause of American despair: An economy rigged from top to bottom to favour the financial overclass which makes millions while paying little to no taxes. Parasitic plutocrats are draining the lifeblood and hope from the precariat and much of the "middle class" is a couple of paychecks away from disaster, There is no social safety net because the upper class is devoid of empathy not only for the 100 million underclass but also for the working and lower middle class who are toast.
So the low-wage, lower educated middle class takes the lunatic, callous rantings of Fox and Rush for their guidance and hate. But a life of fear and hate is not worth living so they kill themselves.
The mortality rates of the lesser-educated middle-aged white males has been rising, their life expectancy falling, and their suicide rates skyrocketing.
16
Sir, it has always like that. Some rare times it is less hard or cruel or violent. That is the nature of power as many have described through History, including Hanna Arendt. No Socrates nor Buddha, nor Joshua of Nazaret, nor Confucius has as yet taught much to humankind. We humans need the certainty of domination or power to alleviate the suffering of our mortality. Alas, in vane! But we keep on trying, no matter the suffering inflicted on others.
Privilege extends beyond wealth. Whether a comedian, clergy, athlete, politician, police, or wealthy it appears those who believe because of their community status are free to behave any way they want, do, without regard to the impact on anyone but themselves. Our interdependence is hurt, seriously damaged, by those who ignore constraints upon behavior thinking only of their business or their sexual interests or their future election or their racists views or ... From continuing damage to our environment to ignoring infrastructure maintenance to hurting and killing people we are so self absorbed that care for the soul of our planet is seldom considered. We weep for a government unable to hold us to higher standards and a Supreme Court which does little to seek justice and make us better.
10
When the current Supreme Court, led by Scalia, declared that corporations were people in Citizens United, thereby giving corporations the same rights to free speech as individual citizens, the Court reached a low equaled by the Dred Scott Decision, declaring slaves to be property. That made it legal to hunt down escaped slaves; it placed a bounty on escaped slaves, so a captured slave meant money. We haven't had a liberal Court since the Warren Court.
2
Is the surprise issue really that we have ultra rich, self-interested myopic people in our society, or that we allow them to unduly influence elections? Who could have voted for that?
Every democracy votes itself more in benefits than the populous is willing to pay for. We can have virtually every nordic-style social program possible, if we reduce the military to levels spent by Scandinavia, but not both. God forbid we have a national, public comprehensive debate about how government spending should be apportioned, within a defined budget.
The government has far more economic influence than any uber wealthy person. Where is PK's scrutiny of government spending? Think William Proxmire. Government bureaucracies are not charity, despite other intentions, they usually result in accretive self perpetuation.
Every democracy votes itself more in benefits than the populous is willing to pay for. We can have virtually every nordic-style social program possible, if we reduce the military to levels spent by Scandinavia, but not both. God forbid we have a national, public comprehensive debate about how government spending should be apportioned, within a defined budget.
The government has far more economic influence than any uber wealthy person. Where is PK's scrutiny of government spending? Think William Proxmire. Government bureaucracies are not charity, despite other intentions, they usually result in accretive self perpetuation.
4
One should look carefully at cause and effect. Isn't it possible that immoral people are more likely to acquire wealth than moral people? They become immoral before they become wealthy.
Can society do anything about that? The people that follow the rules get left behind. Is that good? Should we then allow those immoral people to control the government? Citizens United?
Can the society move forward without the greed and immorality? Or is that just a price we have to pay? Why do we place such high status on the wealthy and immoral at the expense of those who follow the rules?
Can society do anything about that? The people that follow the rules get left behind. Is that good? Should we then allow those immoral people to control the government? Citizens United?
Can the society move forward without the greed and immorality? Or is that just a price we have to pay? Why do we place such high status on the wealthy and immoral at the expense of those who follow the rules?
5
I am beginning to believe that government is the problem.
Not because it is evil, but because hierarchies are so easily subverted. First, there are lies withint the hierarchy to protect itself and the well-being of its inhabitants. And then there are lies told as wealth begins to co-opt the hierarchies and bend them to their will. I do not mean civil bureaucracy alone, but also legislative, judicial, and even military branches.
It is as if the environment you live within turns itself against you; and you are loathe to believe it, because you can't imagine what lies outside the walls.
What we have here is a governmental system restructured overall for good, though always short of ideal, finally crumbling before accumulated wealth that was allowed to accumulate when the hierarchy's most basic rules against accumulation were eliminated.
I am sorry to say that before us all lies one of the greatest struggles of the last three thousand years: the switchover to a largely non-hierarchical, distributed system of governance which cannot be easily captured by privilege at key points. This form of government will continuously argue with itself. It won't be 'efficient," necessarily, except in time of crisis. But can you even say that much about what we have now. New tech, and new ways of thinking, and necessity, will make it necessary.
It's a terrible thing to have to go through. But will we survive if we don't? Will we even have the will to face global climate change?
Not because it is evil, but because hierarchies are so easily subverted. First, there are lies withint the hierarchy to protect itself and the well-being of its inhabitants. And then there are lies told as wealth begins to co-opt the hierarchies and bend them to their will. I do not mean civil bureaucracy alone, but also legislative, judicial, and even military branches.
It is as if the environment you live within turns itself against you; and you are loathe to believe it, because you can't imagine what lies outside the walls.
What we have here is a governmental system restructured overall for good, though always short of ideal, finally crumbling before accumulated wealth that was allowed to accumulate when the hierarchy's most basic rules against accumulation were eliminated.
I am sorry to say that before us all lies one of the greatest struggles of the last three thousand years: the switchover to a largely non-hierarchical, distributed system of governance which cannot be easily captured by privilege at key points. This form of government will continuously argue with itself. It won't be 'efficient," necessarily, except in time of crisis. But can you even say that much about what we have now. New tech, and new ways of thinking, and necessity, will make it necessary.
It's a terrible thing to have to go through. But will we survive if we don't? Will we even have the will to face global climate change?
4
American society turned against big business in the late 19th and early 20th century in large part because those who controlled industries, like railroads and steel, couldn't stop themselves from squeezing the last penny out of customers. Railroads were in the catbird seat because they knew farmers were, among others, desperate to use their lines. Crops in the field meant nothing unless they could move to market. The railroad barons overplayed their hands, as did others, like John D. Rockefeller and Standard Oil. Too much power in too few hands: always the same result.
We should remember those days. They were important learning opportunities for what happens to "the little guy" up against the power of big corporations.
We have become a capitalist nation that relies more and more on theft for profits. Fees are piled on to bills and the customer has almost no way of getting them removed. If you try, you get the chance to speak to someone in India or elsewhere who doesn't understand your complaint and who isn't allowed to do or resolve anything.
The way we are headed, a complete take over of American democracy by corporate power should be wrapped up by 2036. Our role will be to serve the needs of the corporations and their owners. The power to fine citizens, beyond phony added fees, is now being tested in various ways, including the toll roads in N. Virginia near DC. One motorist faced thousands of dollars in corporate "fines" because a few unpaid tolls.
We should remember those days. They were important learning opportunities for what happens to "the little guy" up against the power of big corporations.
We have become a capitalist nation that relies more and more on theft for profits. Fees are piled on to bills and the customer has almost no way of getting them removed. If you try, you get the chance to speak to someone in India or elsewhere who doesn't understand your complaint and who isn't allowed to do or resolve anything.
The way we are headed, a complete take over of American democracy by corporate power should be wrapped up by 2036. Our role will be to serve the needs of the corporations and their owners. The power to fine citizens, beyond phony added fees, is now being tested in various ways, including the toll roads in N. Virginia near DC. One motorist faced thousands of dollars in corporate "fines" because a few unpaid tolls.
15
Its more dangerous than an ordinary oligarchy. It's plutocracy, from the name of the ancient Greek god of wealth and "rule, strength, or authority." In 1909 H.G. Wells, in 'New Worlds for Old,' pointed out the same kind of moral dilemma Krugman writes about today:
Instead of struggling to diminish the burden of public expenditure which educates and houses, conveys and protects him and his children, [the middle-class] ought rather to increase it joyfully, while at the same time working to transfer its pressure to the broad shoulders of those very rich people who have hitherto evaded their legitimate share of it. The other course is to continue his present policy of obstinate resistance to the extension of public property and public services. In which case these things will necessarily become that basis of monopolistic property on which the coming Plutocracy will establish itself. The middle-class man will be taxed and competed out of independence just the same, and he will become a salaried officer just the same, but with a different sort of master and under different social conditions. . . .
Which is the better master--the democratic state or a "combine" of millionaires? Which will give the best social atmosphere for one's children to breath--a Plutocracy or a Socialism? That is the real question to which the middle-class man should address himself (171-72).
Instead of struggling to diminish the burden of public expenditure which educates and houses, conveys and protects him and his children, [the middle-class] ought rather to increase it joyfully, while at the same time working to transfer its pressure to the broad shoulders of those very rich people who have hitherto evaded their legitimate share of it. The other course is to continue his present policy of obstinate resistance to the extension of public property and public services. In which case these things will necessarily become that basis of monopolistic property on which the coming Plutocracy will establish itself. The middle-class man will be taxed and competed out of independence just the same, and he will become a salaried officer just the same, but with a different sort of master and under different social conditions. . . .
Which is the better master--the democratic state or a "combine" of millionaires? Which will give the best social atmosphere for one's children to breath--a Plutocracy or a Socialism? That is the real question to which the middle-class man should address himself (171-72).
10
This couldn't happen without the cooperation of the poor and middle class, specifically poor and middle class whites. The oligarchy has set up and reinforced narratives that all taxes are used for transfers from whites to non-whites. The other myth that they sell is that we live in a meritocracy. Until these myths are shattered the oligarchy will continue to accumulate power.
18
Correct.
The Republicans have shown true genius in getting middle class and below earners to vote against there own economic self-interest.
The democrats can't seem to counter effectively.
The Republicans have shown true genius in getting middle class and below earners to vote against there own economic self-interest.
The democrats can't seem to counter effectively.
3
The wealthy? Want you to value their money but ignore their values. Instead people should have the opposite point of view.
Too many rich people (men and women) are control freaks, certain the world owes them simply because of their vast wealth. A case of huh what? Which is why Krugman's words ring true.
You get what you (and who you) vote for. Too many people get shnookered by messaging bought by those swimming in money to get what they want. Most of the wealthy lucked out (eg: stock options, stock market, inheritance) but feel entitled to control everything, including the political process (The SCOTUS helped their cause with Citizens United which though the name implies otherwise, tears apart the political system).
More Americans need to be educated about policies that these supposedly qualified candidates will implement. It'll be good for the wealthy, not the masses and they count on that ignorance to get traction (see Trump for any doubts).
Too many rich people (men and women) are control freaks, certain the world owes them simply because of their vast wealth. A case of huh what? Which is why Krugman's words ring true.
You get what you (and who you) vote for. Too many people get shnookered by messaging bought by those swimming in money to get what they want. Most of the wealthy lucked out (eg: stock options, stock market, inheritance) but feel entitled to control everything, including the political process (The SCOTUS helped their cause with Citizens United which though the name implies otherwise, tears apart the political system).
More Americans need to be educated about policies that these supposedly qualified candidates will implement. It'll be good for the wealthy, not the masses and they count on that ignorance to get traction (see Trump for any doubts).
6
Here's a thought for 2016: What will things look like in, say, the U.S., in 2116?
It is hard to believe that the U.S., much less the planet counting all (current) 200+ independent countries, will persist indefinitely with huge income inequality. At some point, more egalitarian income sharing (we will not call it "redistribution"), will take permanent, institutionalized form. "Poverty" will not exist, i.e., everyone will have access to a decent amount (value) of goods and services. The details of how this will all evolve remain to be seen, but this is the only path forward for humanity. Hey, the U.S. could and should be the "leader" in designing the way forward.
My main point: Let's not get caught up perpetually in what's happening now (Sheldon Adelson?!?). Let's find a way to think and act long-term. How about 2516 if not 2116? Only a few more minutes in Earth's projected lifespan.
It is hard to believe that the U.S., much less the planet counting all (current) 200+ independent countries, will persist indefinitely with huge income inequality. At some point, more egalitarian income sharing (we will not call it "redistribution"), will take permanent, institutionalized form. "Poverty" will not exist, i.e., everyone will have access to a decent amount (value) of goods and services. The details of how this will all evolve remain to be seen, but this is the only path forward for humanity. Hey, the U.S. could and should be the "leader" in designing the way forward.
My main point: Let's not get caught up perpetually in what's happening now (Sheldon Adelson?!?). Let's find a way to think and act long-term. How about 2516 if not 2116? Only a few more minutes in Earth's projected lifespan.
2
I don't think narcissistic, bullying, or pyscho/sociopathological behavior is limited to the very rich. I've seen it time and time again in the workplace where managers and their ambitious sycophants who equally lack integrity feel entitled to lie, cheat, skirt rules and laws, and otherwise engage in unethical behavior. These people also treat other employees like dirt or worse. So many people I know are on anti-depressants just to make it through the persistent awful treatment in the workplace. I think this is legacy of the recent economic "downturn."
9
Sure, but Krugman's point is that the superrich are both 1.) prone to putting themselves in situations where the normal checks on such behavior are absent, and 2.) disproportionately empowered in our current political system. This means the horrible personalities of (some of) the superrich are a problem for public life, as opposed to, for example, the two jerks who got into a fight on a subway car I was in yesterday.
11
The kiss-up kick-down pecking order really is Hell on Earth.
5
This miserable workplace dynamic is pretty common, and existed long before the economic down-turn -- probably starting shortly after one person first began to work for another. The effect of enormous scale is that it threatens an entire society, rather than the mental health and happiness of an individual or small group of employees.
3
If massive individual greed and narcissism on the scale in evidence in individuals like Adelson and Trump were to be viewed by society for what they are; mental illness, perhaps a medical cure or treatment could be developed that would alleviate the suffering that it imposes on the society.
9
they use to have state mental institutions where greedy kin would put their eccentric relatives to relieve them of their wealth.
are you trying to revive those bad ole days?
are you trying to revive those bad ole days?
1
GOP = NPD, or narcissistic personality disorder
1
Unfortunately, the mega rich have already demonstrated what their influence does to public schools. See what Eli Broad is doing in Los Angeles, and what the hedge funders who sit on charter boards and underwrite multimillion dollar advertising campaigns to influence public opinion do. See how many former DOE employees are happily employed by organizations whose funding comes from those billionaires, who come up with flawed "research" to show how well privatizing public schools is working. Some billionaires may "hate Mr. Obama", but many others are thrilled that he allowed them undue influence in public education.
11
"o. See how many former DOE employees are happily employed by organizations whose funding comes from those billionaires,"
should those former DOE employees be charged with treason and be forthrightly dealt with?
for the record public education is a disgrace and badly in need of competition.
should those former DOE employees be charged with treason and be forthrightly dealt with?
for the record public education is a disgrace and badly in need of competition.
2
Everything we operate in this country favors wealth. The only way to compete is with a vote. My concern is that the influence of money creates such a pressure to exert influence that the pandering pulls in less savory social issues which border on theocracy which in an extreme for will effect freedom of expression.
5
This should be a great teaching moment in US history to make clear why the original US states refused to ratify the US Constitution until it was amended to explicitly deny Congress any power whatsoever to enact laws based on establishments of religion, otherwise known as faith-based beliefs.
2
What concerns me, in addition to all that Paul has pointed out, is that we may be suffering from a collective failure of imagination. There so many areas in which work needs to be done and where we are lagging behind so many nations in the world. We know that our car culture is unsustainable, but we ignore work on more efficient mass rapid transit systems. We know that our political system is near failure, but there is no movement to work towards improving the situation - by supporting candidates who are best suited to fix it and actively campaigning against the status quo.
We still have the best research and educational institutions in the world and attract the best talent, but I fear that we are coasting. Coasting on the highs that began with in the middle of the 20th century. If we do not start thinking of ways to recharge, if we do not fight against the oligarchy that we currently have, we are going to see a reverse brain drain ... one that can only be helped by the insane rhetoric coming from the GoP candidates.
It is possible to defeat the power of money, but it's not going to happen by sitting back and hoping. We're going to have to use the tools we have - our electoral power and influence over those who represent us - to rid ourselves of the tyranny and indifference of oligarchy. If not, dark times await.
We still have the best research and educational institutions in the world and attract the best talent, but I fear that we are coasting. Coasting on the highs that began with in the middle of the 20th century. If we do not start thinking of ways to recharge, if we do not fight against the oligarchy that we currently have, we are going to see a reverse brain drain ... one that can only be helped by the insane rhetoric coming from the GoP candidates.
It is possible to defeat the power of money, but it's not going to happen by sitting back and hoping. We're going to have to use the tools we have - our electoral power and influence over those who represent us - to rid ourselves of the tyranny and indifference of oligarchy. If not, dark times await.
17
I am reminded of my political science professor's comment on the Iron Law of Oligarchy, "The many never rule, the power of ruling is in the hands of the few." It does not seem that much has changed except that the few may becoming fewer.
3
"Empathy" is the word that comes to my mind as well.
I recently went to buy cable subscription and have to wonder how some aged persons, for whom TV is one of the few entertainments in life, can afford a $150 monthly bill to get the programming they want, even if they don't watch 120 of the 130 channels they are coerced into buying.
Yet there is Marco Rubio crawling for a handout before the huge cable monopolies, the most publicly despised of all corporations, who must comb the streets for the worst sadists on earth to put their pricing menu in place. The monopolies only get bigger and bigger and too much aint enough when it comes to their bottom line.
Is it this bad in other countries?
I recently went to buy cable subscription and have to wonder how some aged persons, for whom TV is one of the few entertainments in life, can afford a $150 monthly bill to get the programming they want, even if they don't watch 120 of the 130 channels they are coerced into buying.
Yet there is Marco Rubio crawling for a handout before the huge cable monopolies, the most publicly despised of all corporations, who must comb the streets for the worst sadists on earth to put their pricing menu in place. The monopolies only get bigger and bigger and too much aint enough when it comes to their bottom line.
Is it this bad in other countries?
18
Russia comes to mind.
1
I'm not sure about other countries but we just cut DirecTV from our household bills. We are going to make a list of each time we miss it and then we'll decide if that's how we want to continue spending $1500 a year.
1
Paul coined a wonderfully descriptive new word that perfectly fits the unspoken Republican plan for America: Narcisstocracy! And his royal majesty the Donald may insult his way to the top of the right wing lunatic dung heap, but never his way to the Presidency...at least I sure hope we haven't sunk that low.
I've seen the studies Paul refers to, showing that as one gets more and more they come to deceive themselves into believing they deserve even more than that, and start lying and cheating; human nature or not, the result of unregulated capitalism is oligarchy, it is the neo-feudalism ruining middle America. Tattoos and heroin for the little people, the never enough earthly delights for the few who pull the strings.
I've seen the studies Paul refers to, showing that as one gets more and more they come to deceive themselves into believing they deserve even more than that, and start lying and cheating; human nature or not, the result of unregulated capitalism is oligarchy, it is the neo-feudalism ruining middle America. Tattoos and heroin for the little people, the never enough earthly delights for the few who pull the strings.
16
My late father used to say, back in the 60's and 70's, that our democracy had been irredeemably corrupted by money; that politicians had necessarily forfeited their souls for money by the time they were running for office. Even he might be surprised at the magnitude of the problem today, despite being a physicist familiar with the mathematics of exponential growth...
17
What is truly bad is when super-rich hedge fund people like George Soros and super-rich financiers such as Robert Rubin take over the left-wing party.
Then they ensure that extremely affluent columnists are hired who push only issues like global warning and fiscal stimuluses for trains, green subsidies, and the hiring of members of Democratic political machines in government.
Such columnists praise a health plan that is little more than expansion of Medicaid,, and they have no empathy at all for middle income who were promised a good health plan in 2008 that was sacrificed on the altar of concern for the deficit. They treat with scorn the cars and interstates that hundreds of millions use and would never propose a second 95 going north and south that average Americans desperately need.
And then when the suffering middle income try to express their pain, such columnists call them simple racists and nothing more.
The 30 year cycle beginning in 1992 has been just awful. The poltiically active on left and right in the 1960s--the New Left and the Goldwaterites--overwhelmingly rejected the Old Left's belief in government. Ayn Rand was the heroine both of left and right. That is how they have ruled. Hopefully the cycle from 2020 to 2050 based on those who suffered from 2007 to 2017 will have a different perspective.
Then they ensure that extremely affluent columnists are hired who push only issues like global warning and fiscal stimuluses for trains, green subsidies, and the hiring of members of Democratic political machines in government.
Such columnists praise a health plan that is little more than expansion of Medicaid,, and they have no empathy at all for middle income who were promised a good health plan in 2008 that was sacrificed on the altar of concern for the deficit. They treat with scorn the cars and interstates that hundreds of millions use and would never propose a second 95 going north and south that average Americans desperately need.
And then when the suffering middle income try to express their pain, such columnists call them simple racists and nothing more.
The 30 year cycle beginning in 1992 has been just awful. The poltiically active on left and right in the 1960s--the New Left and the Goldwaterites--overwhelmingly rejected the Old Left's belief in government. Ayn Rand was the heroine both of left and right. That is how they have ruled. Hopefully the cycle from 2020 to 2050 based on those who suffered from 2007 to 2017 will have a different perspective.
12
So a Republican leaning billionaire is OK, but a Democratic leaning billionaire is the worst.
Solid analysis.
Solid analysis.
3
You honestly think that at some point since about 1968 we've had a Left with serious clout in this country? That Soros and Rubin run it? That their heroes have ever included Ayn Rand?
My goodness, that's silly. We haven't had a Prez anything like as far Left as Bush was Right since, what, Roosevelt?
My goodness, that's silly. We haven't had a Prez anything like as far Left as Bush was Right since, what, Roosevelt?
6
Robert, Nixon was far more liberal than anything since. Bush had a prescription drug program that Obama cut. Greenspan, who knew them both intimately, said Bush was to the left economically from Clinton. Obama is certainly to the right of Bill Clinton (but not Hillary, who really still is the Goldwaterite activist she was in 1964.)
On Ayn Rand, they would not admit it, even to themselves,
but they absorbed her attitude to government and the virtue of pursuit of self-interest (she called it selfishness) as much as the right. I am finishing a book on this, and she had an enormous influence linking the need to reduce government power with a condemation of the draft as she went to campus to campus with invitations from left and right.
And, Fran, a country is suppose to have a conservitive party and I don't resent its supporters as much.. It should be like Eisenhower and Nixon, not their severe critic like Goldwater was. The Republicans have been taken over by the Goldwaterites. But a democracy is also supposed to have a left-center party. Rubin and Soros have, in fact, made the Democrats very conservative on economic questions--to the right of Reagan on tax questions and deregulation, although probably not on social programs for the poor. (The New Democrats are terrible on middle income, and Krugman worst of all New Democrats on them.)
On Ayn Rand, they would not admit it, even to themselves,
but they absorbed her attitude to government and the virtue of pursuit of self-interest (she called it selfishness) as much as the right. I am finishing a book on this, and she had an enormous influence linking the need to reduce government power with a condemation of the draft as she went to campus to campus with invitations from left and right.
And, Fran, a country is suppose to have a conservitive party and I don't resent its supporters as much.. It should be like Eisenhower and Nixon, not their severe critic like Goldwater was. The Republicans have been taken over by the Goldwaterites. But a democracy is also supposed to have a left-center party. Rubin and Soros have, in fact, made the Democrats very conservative on economic questions--to the right of Reagan on tax questions and deregulation, although probably not on social programs for the poor. (The New Democrats are terrible on middle income, and Krugman worst of all New Democrats on them.)
The underlying issue is that our "representative democracy" no longer works. Our so called "representatives" do not have the voters interest at heart and simply sell their votes to the highest bidder. We should think about getting rid of the political class all together and implement "direct democracy". It may sound far fetched but it may also be the only way to save our democracy and by extension our country.
5
The US no longer knows what a responsible fiduciary is.
Everyone has their own personal interests. Very few have the capacity to put them entirely aside to represent the interests of others.
Everyone has their own personal interests. Very few have the capacity to put them entirely aside to represent the interests of others.
3
Were government less involved in the business of picking winners and losers, politicians would have less to sell. And, the identity of the Buyers, whether in the Soros camp or the Koch camp, makes relatively little difference. Many invest protectively on both sides of the political aisle.
1
The voters don't understand anymore than the representatives are bought --- why else would a Medicare recipient be running around with a sign warning about government handouts? Can't let them handle things.
The uberrich seem to forget that the social and governmental systems in the nation in which they live makes possible protection of their businesses and other assets from seizure by robber bandits. As well, tax dollars provide protection of the nation in which they gain and store their wealth. Even if they store their wealth in a Caribbean island nation, that nation is protected by the USA. I.e., the uberrich get a great deal out of living within our nation. Consider that the waterways through which they run their ultraluxurious yachts are maintained by taxpayers. The bridges that allow their sailboats to pass under are provided at taxpayer expense.
So, the uberrich owe a lot more in taxes simply based on the facts above. They also have a moral debt to pay higher taxes.
Those of us in the top 3-5% of income already have had our taxes raised substantially. The top 3%-0.5% are still getting away with paying too little in taxes--because that is the class of people who buy elections of Congress (both parties) and the POTUS (both parties) and buy off taxation with their largess to susceptible persons of both parties.
So, the uberrich owe a lot more in taxes simply based on the facts above. They also have a moral debt to pay higher taxes.
Those of us in the top 3-5% of income already have had our taxes raised substantially. The top 3%-0.5% are still getting away with paying too little in taxes--because that is the class of people who buy elections of Congress (both parties) and the POTUS (both parties) and buy off taxation with their largess to susceptible persons of both parties.
14
The US is the laboratory where plutocrats learned how to play governments against each other to float above them all.
3
Sadly, I wonder if the sociopathological don't rise up to the top of all human hierarchies? Was Joseph Stalin an example of virtuous mental health? We need to get rid of this insecure human need we have to run toward those leaders who seem to have unshakable belief in the rightness of their own answers. Rule by the broadest of concensus, with as many viewpoints as possible contributing to solutions seems far better.
5
I don't think people can understand the problem of narcissism in government until they have held an elected office. I was elected to City Council, then mayor, of our small town. Again and again I ran into plain obstructionism because my male colleagues would derail important votes because they did not want to admit they had been wrong on a previous issue. I quickly learned the art of politics . . .threats, public humiliations, name calling, and back room deals. More than once the president of a local bank or chamber of commerce was sent to "talk sense into me". My law partners were contacted and asked to "get me in line." I bailed before the end of my term, and I think most ethical people trying to make their way up the political ladder today would do the same.
12
Frightening. I am sorry that you had to resign.
1
Did you forget the clueless citizens who drone on forever at public hearing about the most elementary issues? (Amnesia can be a blessing, eh?)
1
This should be a revolutionary moment in America. But alas, there's no well-organized vanguard to lead it and the people are not ready.
The elites have successfully turned the people against one another - whites against blacks, settled immigrants against new entrants (yes, we're all immigrants bar the natives), worker against worker etc. In so doing the elites have successfully consolidated their power.
America used to be a revolutionary country. Now it's settled into an immovable feudal conservatism.
The elites have successfully turned the people against one another - whites against blacks, settled immigrants against new entrants (yes, we're all immigrants bar the natives), worker against worker etc. In so doing the elites have successfully consolidated their power.
America used to be a revolutionary country. Now it's settled into an immovable feudal conservatism.
27
Bernie Sanders is leading a revolution against the oligarchy.
Support him.
Support him.
10
I believe that one of the core reasons that so many people vote against their own economic interests is that they have difficulty seeing the big picture of the economy and honestly do not see exactly where they are on the map compared with the rich, superrich, and the beyond-rich multi-billionaires buying influence over the whole nation. And because of this they over identify with the rich and have unrealistic expectations of their own upward mobility.
Those that do have some wealth believe that Republicans will protect their wealth, again, unrealistically identifying with billionaires who stash their own money in tax havens around the world which denies our government of revenue then the billionaires buy influence to push for fiscal austerity and places the blame on social programs and “entitlements”. Never mind we pay into Social Security.
If politicians can bailout the big banks they can pay back Social Security funds by restoring higher taxes on the rich, and then restrict Congress from dipping into the Social Security funds. Taxes have been raised on the rich but I am not convinced it was enough.
Those that do have some wealth believe that Republicans will protect their wealth, again, unrealistically identifying with billionaires who stash their own money in tax havens around the world which denies our government of revenue then the billionaires buy influence to push for fiscal austerity and places the blame on social programs and “entitlements”. Never mind we pay into Social Security.
If politicians can bailout the big banks they can pay back Social Security funds by restoring higher taxes on the rich, and then restrict Congress from dipping into the Social Security funds. Taxes have been raised on the rich but I am not convinced it was enough.
17
There is a pathology of the extremely wealthy, those who want to use their vast fortunes to distort the fundamental democratic process: one man one, one vote; a nation of the people, by the people and for the people. Their "disease" causes a blindness to the destruction taking place of the same nation that has made their accumulation of wealth and power possible. This is indeed the ultimate narcissism, historically known as killing the goose that laid the golden egg. The corporate fascism they bring upon us all leads to endless war, and poverty for the majority of the population. Is this the world they wan to leave for their children? That is pathological.
12
As long as government has the power to influence business, there will always be second rate crooks who want to influence government. Take away the governments power to influence business and business will not have incentive to influence government. That should be obvious. And it is the platform of the Libertarian party.
Republicans want laws that favor their cronies.
Democrats want more government laws so they can put some in their pocket. But of course Paul Krugman can't see that. Or doesn't want to. Just like the media whose business would disappear if the only news was "today all is well".
Republicans want laws that favor their cronies.
Democrats want more government laws so they can put some in their pocket. But of course Paul Krugman can't see that. Or doesn't want to. Just like the media whose business would disappear if the only news was "today all is well".
6
Libertarianism is the same as influence peddling, which buys an unregulated market.
2
Seems we need a revolution, a sort of amputation to separate ourselves from the super-rich, let's call them the monarchy, in order to create a new nation in which all men are created equal, let's call it "united states," and in which everyone gets a fair shake at providing for themselves and their families, including health care and education. Why can't we try something like that?
10
That ideal works at the outset as in 1776 but as an economy matures and the non-achievers are left increasingly behind a gap will naturally develop. At this late stage there's no turning back, nor should we want to. After all, what's the point of achievement if it's going to be erased very so often.
Thomas Jefferson called these "an aristocracy of wealth".
But would you accept the same wages as Chinese workers do?
Yep, empathy, fair play and respect for the law are for suckers and losers. That's the capitalist credo, US-style. Hence the elevation of the gangster into a key cultural icon, symbol of the real despotism of capital shorn of its pretensions. Its ultimate and terminal political form is fascism. Its progenitors are presently on the rise throughout the so-called "advanced" capitalist world. That is what one is to watch for in this new year, and in the new years to follow.
10
This is a democracy. The wealthy can not directly buy government officials. We are in a narcisstocracy because we vote for the representatives of the wealthy. And we vote for them because we are vulnerable to propaganda-- despite most of us believing we are not.
See Jacques Elllul's book Propanganda for coverage of the subject that has never been surpassed in the decades since he wrote the book.
So why doesn't someone combat the propaganda? Well, some "one" does, Paul Krugman being a case in point. But there is a lot of propaganda-- far too much for a few people to combat successfully--given that we are immersed in propaganda almost 24/7/365.
Also, there is NO ONE with the resources, the motivation & the willingness to confront the whole of the propaganda head on & to broadcast the truth to as many people as e.g. Fox Noise reaches. So, even when propaganda is confronted, it looks/sounds as if a pundit or 2 got a fact or 2 wrong, or misrepresented something because they have an ax to grind. The true picture of our immersion is hidden.
PK, as an economist, does what he can to combat the economic propaganda, for the small percentage of voters who read his columns. Tom Steyer combats propaganda on the environment. But, given the industry he worked in, he likely wouldn't confront the economic propaganda we are immersed in.
Dems can't confront the Right Wing's propaganda either, because it would anger their donors, which overlap with the donors to the GOP.
See Jacques Elllul's book Propanganda for coverage of the subject that has never been surpassed in the decades since he wrote the book.
So why doesn't someone combat the propaganda? Well, some "one" does, Paul Krugman being a case in point. But there is a lot of propaganda-- far too much for a few people to combat successfully--given that we are immersed in propaganda almost 24/7/365.
Also, there is NO ONE with the resources, the motivation & the willingness to confront the whole of the propaganda head on & to broadcast the truth to as many people as e.g. Fox Noise reaches. So, even when propaganda is confronted, it looks/sounds as if a pundit or 2 got a fact or 2 wrong, or misrepresented something because they have an ax to grind. The true picture of our immersion is hidden.
PK, as an economist, does what he can to combat the economic propaganda, for the small percentage of voters who read his columns. Tom Steyer combats propaganda on the environment. But, given the industry he worked in, he likely wouldn't confront the economic propaganda we are immersed in.
Dems can't confront the Right Wing's propaganda either, because it would anger their donors, which overlap with the donors to the GOP.
9
Yes, and the NYT suppressed Noam Chomsky's opinions for decades. He had great insight into the money -corporate complex if anyone could find where he was writing it.
3
@larry, You miss the point. The wealthy can't directly buy government officials. They can determine who runs for elective office through campaign contributions and if you look at Congress, you will find many effectively "bought" representatives and senators. I would refer you to Larry Lessig's book Lesterland for more on this.
People may be vulnerable to propaganda, but as long as campaign contributions and advertising are equated with free speech, the free speech of the wealthy will drown out the free speech of everyone else. This means that when there is a political contest, it ends up being between the interests of different cliques of rich people. The interests of ordinary Americans may not be considered by either side. In my opinion, that's the reason for the popularity of Donald Trump and Ben Carson in the Republican Party. The vast majority of Republican voters aren't wealthy and vote for Republicans due to social issues, religion, fear mongering and vague promises of getting government off people's backs. After the election, the Republicans renege on policies benefiting ordinary people. Democrats are guilty of this too, but to a lesser extent.
People may be vulnerable to propaganda, but as long as campaign contributions and advertising are equated with free speech, the free speech of the wealthy will drown out the free speech of everyone else. This means that when there is a political contest, it ends up being between the interests of different cliques of rich people. The interests of ordinary Americans may not be considered by either side. In my opinion, that's the reason for the popularity of Donald Trump and Ben Carson in the Republican Party. The vast majority of Republican voters aren't wealthy and vote for Republicans due to social issues, religion, fear mongering and vague promises of getting government off people's backs. After the election, the Republicans renege on policies benefiting ordinary people. Democrats are guilty of this too, but to a lesser extent.
1
Legitimizing propaganda runs deep. For capitalist democracies (that's us) refer to Charles Lindblom's "Politics and Markets" (unfortunately out of print).
A number of commentators create a false equivalency by arguing that Democrats and Republicans alike get so much money from the already rich and influential, so much so that it doesn't matter which ends up in office. For that, I have just one word: Iraq. Had Gore been seated, our nation would not have been embroiled in an incredibly senseless and wasteful war in Iraq. Never mind the Supreme Court appointments that have tilted power even further to the already rich and powerful. No. Elections matter. Party affiliation and ideology matters, greatly.
20
One wonders. It brings to mind Al Gore's speech excoriating Bush Sr. for not finishing Saddam off. He went on and one about how Saddam's survival placed the US in grave danger.
Best to remember that the democrats' anti-war position took hold only after public opinion polls starting showing a decline in support for the war. No one read these polls better than Kerry, which is how his "I was before it before I was against it" came about. Even while troops were there fighting, democrats were reading tea leaves and abandoning their positions of support.
Best to remember that the democrats' anti-war position took hold only after public opinion polls starting showing a decline in support for the war. No one read these polls better than Kerry, which is how his "I was before it before I was against it" came about. Even while troops were there fighting, democrats were reading tea leaves and abandoning their positions of support.
2
If Al Gore were seated, it is very likely we would be looking at a completely different world today. Imagine if 9/11 were prevented, imagine if we did not start the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, unleashing Islamic jihadism as Osama Bin Laden desired. Global warming would have been addressed earlier and the Supreme Court would not have undermined United States from allowing unrestrained money in politics, to voter suppression, to tax cuts, that along with an unfunded war, drove us to incredible deficits with nothing in return. Let alone the 2008 great recession as a result of of a policy that resulted in inadequate economic regulation The decision of the Supreme Court to stop counting votes in Florida was a global historical inflection point of almost unimaginable proportion.
5
Most Democrats that I know, resisted the call to war. We were waiting for the weapons inspectors to find the weapons of mass destruction, that were never there. We knew this was Bush's folly; avenging Daddy and going one step beyond. There were protests all over the country. Now, we know for sure that was the worst, damn idea in our history, by the SCOTUS selected president and his appointed minions.
4
"Narcisstocracy", a wonderful coinage. Do we credit Paul Krugman? If not please tell us who.
To Krugman's point: I suggest the "narcisstocracy" includes the enablers, those who lick the boots of the powerful; like the White House flacks who encouraged or acquiesced without challenge in drawing a "Red Line" in Syria. And of course, the Political Foundations, such as Heritage, which produce short order analyses, cooked to the taste of the Super-Rich. Include also, the lucrative climate denial industry, which puts food on the table of people who profess not to believe that when it rains it pours.
To be sure this class, many of whom may actually believe what they peddle, lives off the crumbs of the billionaires. but without these people, the Super Rich would not have the public megaphone to go with their campaign contributions.
To Krugman's point: I suggest the "narcisstocracy" includes the enablers, those who lick the boots of the powerful; like the White House flacks who encouraged or acquiesced without challenge in drawing a "Red Line" in Syria. And of course, the Political Foundations, such as Heritage, which produce short order analyses, cooked to the taste of the Super-Rich. Include also, the lucrative climate denial industry, which puts food on the table of people who profess not to believe that when it rains it pours.
To be sure this class, many of whom may actually believe what they peddle, lives off the crumbs of the billionaires. but without these people, the Super Rich would not have the public megaphone to go with their campaign contributions.
12
The system is a pecking-order, where one gains the power to kick down by absorbing kicks from above. It is not just narcissistic, is it sado-masochistic.
3
But Billionaires should be loving Obama, because under Obama income inequality has only grown. And as a bonus, the Too Big To Fail Banks have only gotten bigger under Obama.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/opinion/nicholas-kristof-reagan-oba...
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/opinion/nicholas-kristof-reagan-oba...
17
Dr. K, writing in the Great Tradition of Adam Smith, is essentially a "Moral Philosopher." Thanks, Doc.
2
Obama is responsible for an economic structure delivered by Saint Ronald Reagan a generation ago? Obama is responsible for the banks when a corrupt, petty, and obstructionist congress blocked every statutory attempt to reform Wall Street? Obama is responsible for the extreme right wing of the Supreme Court which gave us Citizens United?
I wish once, just once, a member of the party of "personal responsibility" would take responsibility for the severe damage they have caused our country. I refer to the obvious, i.e. the fraudulent and grotesquely expensive wars, and the economic unfairness which they celebrate.
I wish once, just once, a member of the party of "personal responsibility" would take responsibility for the severe damage they have caused our country. I refer to the obvious, i.e. the fraudulent and grotesquely expensive wars, and the economic unfairness which they celebrate.
15
Interesting comment by MJV.
When Obama fails, it's Congress' fault.
When Obama succeeds, he did it all by himself, without Congress.
I wish just once, an Obama supporter would show a trace of integrity.
Obama had a Dem controlled Congress for the first TWO YEARS of his presidency, and used it to bail out Wall Street and save the big banks. Then Obama strutted around Washington DC boasting about his pen, phone and ability to violate the Constitution and circumvent Congress.
But now that the failed Obama presidency is winding down, we see the whitewashing, scapegoating Obama apologists out in force.
When Obama fails, it's Congress' fault.
When Obama succeeds, he did it all by himself, without Congress.
I wish just once, an Obama supporter would show a trace of integrity.
Obama had a Dem controlled Congress for the first TWO YEARS of his presidency, and used it to bail out Wall Street and save the big banks. Then Obama strutted around Washington DC boasting about his pen, phone and ability to violate the Constitution and circumvent Congress.
But now that the failed Obama presidency is winding down, we see the whitewashing, scapegoating Obama apologists out in force.
4
DCBarrister: If you would like to disagree with anything I actually wrote, I would love to read your coherent arguments.
Sadly, your basic facts are wrong, When you trash Obama for using his first two years to "bail out Wall Street and save the big banks," you are referring to the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 and associated Troubled Asset Relief Program, both created and signed into law by George W. Bush in October 2008. Please note that Obama did not become president until January 2009.
This basically extends my point. Not only does the party of "personal responsibility" refuse to accept responsibility for anything, but they specifically try to blame others for problems which they have provably created.
And how, specifically, has Obama violated the Constitution? I know this has become the fabric of right-wing vitriol, but endless repetition does not make it true.
Contrary to what you suggest, I am not an Obama apologist. But I am a citizen of the fact-based world who too often is sickened by the hysterical, petty, gratuitous, and relentless trashing of this president by the hardly-loyal opposition. If in the last 7 years ANYONE has heard a single Republican say something complementary about Obama, please share, because I haven't.
That, as well as the current circus on the primary trail, are why increasing numbers are finding the Republican Party ridiculous.
BTW, I intended my original reply for the prior commenter, not J. D. Sorry J.D.!
Sadly, your basic facts are wrong, When you trash Obama for using his first two years to "bail out Wall Street and save the big banks," you are referring to the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 and associated Troubled Asset Relief Program, both created and signed into law by George W. Bush in October 2008. Please note that Obama did not become president until January 2009.
This basically extends my point. Not only does the party of "personal responsibility" refuse to accept responsibility for anything, but they specifically try to blame others for problems which they have provably created.
And how, specifically, has Obama violated the Constitution? I know this has become the fabric of right-wing vitriol, but endless repetition does not make it true.
Contrary to what you suggest, I am not an Obama apologist. But I am a citizen of the fact-based world who too often is sickened by the hysterical, petty, gratuitous, and relentless trashing of this president by the hardly-loyal opposition. If in the last 7 years ANYONE has heard a single Republican say something complementary about Obama, please share, because I haven't.
That, as well as the current circus on the primary trail, are why increasing numbers are finding the Republican Party ridiculous.
BTW, I intended my original reply for the prior commenter, not J. D. Sorry J.D.!
2
Mr. Krugman would do well to look in the mirror and read his op-ed to himself. He is just as self-centered and narcissistic as the billionaires he attacks. And, by the way, it should not surprise anyone that he makes no mention of any Democratic billionaires, as if they don't exist or don't try to buy elections. You need to look no further than California and its politics to see this. Look at how the billionaires in San Francisco or Santa Monica have bullied the farmers and middle class in the Central Valley. But Mr. Krugman doesn't dare mention that for fear of upsetting his loyalists.
If Mr. Krugman is truly concerned about money and politics, he should focus on that issue and not solely on the Republican party. Mr. Krugman, find that mirror and lecture yourself.
If Mr. Krugman is truly concerned about money and politics, he should focus on that issue and not solely on the Republican party. Mr. Krugman, find that mirror and lecture yourself.
13
Ok, Ray, tell yourself that there's no difference between the people funding Democratic candidates and Republican ones. In 2012, 57% of Obama's donations were under $200, while only 24% of Romney's were. In contrast, 40% of Romney's contributions were the maximum allowed, $2500. In SuperPAC spending, the top 10 SuperPACs included 9 Replican SPs, spending 392 million dollars, and one Democratic SuperPAC, which spent 67 million dollars.
If you look at OpenSecrets.org for the list of contributors to outside groups in the 2012 election cycle, you find that the top 3 contributors together: Adelson family, Simmons family and Robert J. Perry, gave 142 million dollars to Republican causes. The next 2 were Democratic contributors (Fred Eychaner and Michael Bloomberg) gave a total of 26 million dollars. That's a ratio of about 7 to 1. That's significantly different.
Maybe the narcissist is you.
If you look at OpenSecrets.org for the list of contributors to outside groups in the 2012 election cycle, you find that the top 3 contributors together: Adelson family, Simmons family and Robert J. Perry, gave 142 million dollars to Republican causes. The next 2 were Democratic contributors (Fred Eychaner and Michael Bloomberg) gave a total of 26 million dollars. That's a ratio of about 7 to 1. That's significantly different.
Maybe the narcissist is you.
3
Billionaire farmers control most of the water in California, Ray. Don't you know where you are?
5
You are factually incorrect. Because of the drought those who have had long standing water rights are being suspended by Brown. The state of California is more concerned with sending millions of gallons into the Delta to protect the Delta Smelt than honoring water rights of farmers who could use that water to water crops. As it is at one point eggs were over $5 a dozen.
My fear is that if someone like a Trump should get the presidency some day, they will put in place other billionaires to run things (Ikahn, Welch etc.) and we will see the finish of the plan for the wealthy to take all our national resources for themselves.
10
Icahn "lent" Trump $20 million before accepting Trump's offer to be Treasury Secretary.
Trump makes Dean Skelos look like Abe Lincoln.
Trump makes Dean Skelos look like Abe Lincoln.
4
Happy New Year from Capitol Hill!
Just thought I'd mention something to you.
Barack Obama appointed General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt as his "jobs czar." Immelt as you may recall is the guy who raked in 14 billion dollars and paid $0 taxes, and this "other billionaire" was put in place by Obama to run things...or given the Obama presidency, "ruin" them.
Just thought I'd mention something to you.
Barack Obama appointed General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt as his "jobs czar." Immelt as you may recall is the guy who raked in 14 billion dollars and paid $0 taxes, and this "other billionaire" was put in place by Obama to run things...or given the Obama presidency, "ruin" them.
1
You're right, but Obama himself is not an oligarth. It's one thing to hire billionaire businessmen to help with government, it's another to have them all the way up the line and at the top. Obama has been a great gatekeeper. God help us if we don't get another one.
1
You don't need to be in the billionaire class to fall into this category of privilege, pathology and power.
The silver lining (if there is one) is that the majority of Americans want a President who deeply understands and is willing to act on this egregious inequality, together with Americans to turn the ship around. It requires authenticity, empathy and commitment to buck establishment politics. It requires knowing what many Americans are facing - and that's not spending 100k on a weekly summer rental for a vacation in the Hamptons.
NYT needs to dig a little deeper into why Americans on both sides of the aisle are saying Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are not going anywhere.
The silver lining (if there is one) is that the majority of Americans want a President who deeply understands and is willing to act on this egregious inequality, together with Americans to turn the ship around. It requires authenticity, empathy and commitment to buck establishment politics. It requires knowing what many Americans are facing - and that's not spending 100k on a weekly summer rental for a vacation in the Hamptons.
NYT needs to dig a little deeper into why Americans on both sides of the aisle are saying Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are not going anywhere.
7
Yes, the "wealthy" rig the system, but to generalize the "wealthy" into a term that can be kicked about like communists or terrorists or subversives is sophistry way below the level of a typical Krugman column.
4
We have the law to protect us. What a joke.
4
I hope you've trademarked the words "Narcisstocracy and Jerkigarchy: Dr K.
Happy New Year.
That an obvious portion of the Trumpsters "heroic" image is the fact he dosent need anyone's money should allow his followers with at least high 2-digit IQs to make the logical leap that its precisely that anon, filthy money from unnamed corporations and individuals, Kochs and Adelmans the only names people know for sure, that make His Hero-ness a "hero" (w/o a gun) in the first place.
Here's an opportunity for a left wing dirty money person to backhandedly "back" Trumpster, playing up the fact the there;s too much dirty money in politics, and thats why they should nominate him. Have the paramedics on call too b/c there will be heart attacks in alot of boardrooms and lets not forget, the too many DC "consultant class" parasites who live off that same concept.
Happy New Year.
That an obvious portion of the Trumpsters "heroic" image is the fact he dosent need anyone's money should allow his followers with at least high 2-digit IQs to make the logical leap that its precisely that anon, filthy money from unnamed corporations and individuals, Kochs and Adelmans the only names people know for sure, that make His Hero-ness a "hero" (w/o a gun) in the first place.
Here's an opportunity for a left wing dirty money person to backhandedly "back" Trumpster, playing up the fact the there;s too much dirty money in politics, and thats why they should nominate him. Have the paramedics on call too b/c there will be heart attacks in alot of boardrooms and lets not forget, the too many DC "consultant class" parasites who live off that same concept.
Wealth detached from reality is bad not only for the soul but for the planet. Nobody, not even the superrich, is going to like the result. But we are all too addicted to our entertainment and habits, and hypnotized by media to think reality isn't real, to draw back from the precipice.
Been rereading Philippe Squarzoni's Climate Changed, a bit out of date (2013) but it spells out the detail efficiently and the sum is staggeringly dangerous. Here's one extract:
"The politics of financial liberalization driven by Reagan and Thatcher changed the nature of the world economy. The free circulation and the fluctuation of foreign currency made it possible to earn money without having to pass through the real economy via the production or exchange of goods or merchandise through speculation.
"A considerable financial power started to emerge above and beyond national borders; the priorities of high finance were imposed at all levels. Shareholder returns became the driving factor, so they were put ahead of everything else. The government's share, salaries, social protections, all other revenues are squeezed to maximize shareholder revenue.
"Company closures, unemployment, pressure on salary levels, these became the goals ... lead[ing] to demoralization and societal disarray.
"This continual expansion of the power of the financial world results in more and more predation of people and social organizations, as well as of nature and nonrenewable resources." (quotes from Rene Passet)
Been rereading Philippe Squarzoni's Climate Changed, a bit out of date (2013) but it spells out the detail efficiently and the sum is staggeringly dangerous. Here's one extract:
"The politics of financial liberalization driven by Reagan and Thatcher changed the nature of the world economy. The free circulation and the fluctuation of foreign currency made it possible to earn money without having to pass through the real economy via the production or exchange of goods or merchandise through speculation.
"A considerable financial power started to emerge above and beyond national borders; the priorities of high finance were imposed at all levels. Shareholder returns became the driving factor, so they were put ahead of everything else. The government's share, salaries, social protections, all other revenues are squeezed to maximize shareholder revenue.
"Company closures, unemployment, pressure on salary levels, these became the goals ... lead[ing] to demoralization and societal disarray.
"This continual expansion of the power of the financial world results in more and more predation of people and social organizations, as well as of nature and nonrenewable resources." (quotes from Rene Passet)
3
This is why no economists can be found to explain why stable yield curve monetary policy is the foundation of stable economies. All the money is made from raking off from artificially-induced fluctuations and volatility.
5
Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Is it that the wealthy are more likely to cheat and disrespect law, or that those who cheat and disrespect law are more likely to become wealthy? Regardless, if we want to change the outcome itself, we must pass tax laws and regulations that make it much too expensive to cheat.
5
"The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to be governed at all."
-- GK Chesterton
-- GK Chesterton
1
if the people calling themselves conservatives were consistent, they would not have allowed george w bush to undo the budgetary changes made under bill clinton. the only people who are actually trying to work toward the benefit of the majority of the people are democrats. had the republicans not abandoned reality entirely, i would not say that. surely any sane person with children would work to mitigate the worst effects of global warming. apparently, rich people can feel free to deny immense realities while further enriching themselves.
8
Paul, Please have a look at "Clinton Cash" by Peter Schweizer. It was sold out at Labyrinth Books in Princeton and I had to order it. They said they moved a lot of copies. Ralph Nader is recommending it. Maybe a source for another op-ed?
5
Well, , , happy new year, America.
2
nancy pelosi owns 10000s of acres of land near the texas border.
ted turner owns more than half of patagonia on the chiliean side of the border. there was never a new tax on the rich that ted kennedy didn't favor. of course the kennedy family and ilk were grandfathered.
talk about uber rich on the left. their hypocrisy and power lunging knows no limits.
ted turner owns more than half of patagonia on the chiliean side of the border. there was never a new tax on the rich that ted kennedy didn't favor. of course the kennedy family and ilk were grandfathered.
talk about uber rich on the left. their hypocrisy and power lunging knows no limits.
7
Links please. Google provided nothing about Pelosi owning thousands of acres at the border. Turner said he bought land to make sure it was never developed. You speak of these wealthy people with disdain, yet these very same people stand up for the rights of all, as opposed to the wealthy few.
2
Think one second.
If Trump is elected president in 2016, late night shows ratings will be skyrockets.
Choose America , between a dry 4 year of late night shows or spectacular mocking of presidential politics which never seen in US history.
If Trump is elected president in 2016, late night shows ratings will be skyrockets.
Choose America , between a dry 4 year of late night shows or spectacular mocking of presidential politics which never seen in US history.
Republican government
of the billionaires,
by the billionaires,
for the billionaires,
of the billionaires,
by the billionaires,
for the billionaires,
10
What baffles me is that the SCOTUS enabled this with their Citizens United decision. Have they too been "influenced" by these same people? Is there another explanation for this otherwise bizarre, basically anti-American decision?
My search for an alternate explanation keeps coming up empty.
My search for an alternate explanation keeps coming up empty.
8
Certainly there is a sense of entitlement among the affluent and it can get out of hand, e.g., the Texas Afflueza Teen and his mother. But, one should be more concerned by the much larger population who feel entitled to higher wages without higher productivity and to "free" food, drugs, etc., paid for from everyone else's pockets (including the rich). One may feel greater respect and sympathy toward the panhandlers populating our urban street corners. At least they are making some effort other than complaining that they're not receiving their "entitlements."
4
Are you actually saying that it's okay to let people starve if they don't meet your standard of productivity? Is that true for senior citizens, children, the disabled? Should people actually die because they can't afford drugs they need?
5
I assume you reward the panhandlers for their enterprise with generous donations.
4
Our biggest danger, it seems to me, is the loss of hope that many profess here. There is much to do that must be done. Getting ready for anti-gerrymandering legislation, for one, is huge; working for change at the state level, for another. Just like in life, if you look at the overall picture you will never start. Look at the small steps and they will add up.
4
We we have the "Best government money can buy." You've heard of the saying that there's the federal government, and then there's the permanent government. The permanent government are the people with the money to overrule anything we the people vote on or for.
3
How does this apply to the Clintons? Looks to me like they are exhibiting undesirable traits, like acting above the law, that comes with extreme wealth.
8
Right. Terrific piece. After reading the first paragraph, I now know why Donald J. trump is such a xenophobic, arrogant fascist. He has more rungs under him than the rest of us. Thanks for the clarification!
Ah, but what of the wealthy who started with nothing and came from poverty? Did they suddenly become cheaters, lose their empathy and discard their norms? Were their minds erased of all memories of having to struggle and climb their way to prosperity?
Stereotyping the rich is a silly exercise.
Stereotyping the rich is a silly exercise.
5
The capacity to do it seems to go to some people's heads.
1
But not stereotyping those who made it off the expense of others.
1
Handsome is as handsome does.
Paul, this is a great piece. Thanks for the info about Adelson and about lack of empathy. But why not talk about the elephant in the room, the only candidate who isn't bowing and scraping before these creeps -- Bernie Sanders?
9
Historically plutocratization has been the greatest enemy of civilization. The Roman Republic knew this, and came equipped with tough anti-wealth laws. Wealth above some limit was simply outlawed.
However, the Second Punic war caused havoc; the Roman elite got killed, while a new elite of greedsters acquired wealth (mostly by renting space inside fortifies cities which Hannibal could not take, to impoverished peasant refugees). After the war, in a few years, Rome lashed back at Hannibal’s allies, and carved a global empire. Globalization led to plutocratization: the wealthiest could escape Roman law overseas. They quickly became so rich, they could pass laws friendly to extreme wealth.
This is how Rome went down. When a plutocracy rules, not only depravity reigns, but so does stupidity. Thus as plutocracy overwhelmed Rome, the people was made stupid by the passions it was conditioned to have: “Paenem unde Circenses” (Bread and circuses), as Juvenal put it in 100 CE. The increasing stupidity of the fascist empire made it increasingly unable to take the right decisions not just financially or in economics, but also in education, health care, or even military matters.
All the West is experiencing the same syndromes now. It’s not happening just in the USA. Plutocracy is global, legislation is local. We are at the stage where the plutocrats are imposing legislation friendly to them, through the Supreme Courts, or private tax systems (as the NYT explained a few days ago.).
However, the Second Punic war caused havoc; the Roman elite got killed, while a new elite of greedsters acquired wealth (mostly by renting space inside fortifies cities which Hannibal could not take, to impoverished peasant refugees). After the war, in a few years, Rome lashed back at Hannibal’s allies, and carved a global empire. Globalization led to plutocratization: the wealthiest could escape Roman law overseas. They quickly became so rich, they could pass laws friendly to extreme wealth.
This is how Rome went down. When a plutocracy rules, not only depravity reigns, but so does stupidity. Thus as plutocracy overwhelmed Rome, the people was made stupid by the passions it was conditioned to have: “Paenem unde Circenses” (Bread and circuses), as Juvenal put it in 100 CE. The increasing stupidity of the fascist empire made it increasingly unable to take the right decisions not just financially or in economics, but also in education, health care, or even military matters.
All the West is experiencing the same syndromes now. It’s not happening just in the USA. Plutocracy is global, legislation is local. We are at the stage where the plutocrats are imposing legislation friendly to them, through the Supreme Courts, or private tax systems (as the NYT explained a few days ago.).
8
Wow! And when I started reading I thought you were writing about Bill Cosby.
7
In order to take this topic from surface to core, you need to include skin privilege which is the conduit for the transmission of privilege, pathology and power, both practical and perceived. As how many people would be willing to give that up in exchange and THEN you'd be on to something real.
1
We don't have enough people to hate. At one time it was the communists, now it's the Muslims and the Billionaires came in at the end, after having manipulated and deflected peoples anger and hatred until they amassed too much wealth to hide behind. Your fellow man is envious of them and wants a piece of the pie. My experience is that they don't stick together and will betray each other.
1
Adelson and Trump's moral corruptness can only match who adulate them. Those average people willfully following them, what about their pathology.
Society as a whole match up each other Adelson , Trump and their supporters , they are not better than each other,
For the remaining of us, if we keep them in minority is good for America, if they gain majority of support ,it corrupts our main values deeply.
That is the responsibility of average American, you cannot blame for the rich.
Praise Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and Elon Musk and Warren Buffet etc.
it is all about choice.
Society as a whole match up each other Adelson , Trump and their supporters , they are not better than each other,
For the remaining of us, if we keep them in minority is good for America, if they gain majority of support ,it corrupts our main values deeply.
That is the responsibility of average American, you cannot blame for the rich.
Praise Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and Elon Musk and Warren Buffet etc.
it is all about choice.
1
Bill Gates is rich and still has common sense. He has a foundation dedicated to saving lives all over the world - the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
Mark Zuckerberg has lots of money and has given big contributions to schools, hospitals and other worthy causes.
The rich are not like you and me. They do have a lot more money. But all rich people do not have their common sense distorted by wealth. Some rich people are ordinary people like you and I.
Rockefeller's foundation funded the development of high-yield rice, wheat and corn, saving countless lives. He was the richest person who has ever lived. He believed he had a moral obligation to help people.
Mark Zuckerberg has lots of money and has given big contributions to schools, hospitals and other worthy causes.
The rich are not like you and me. They do have a lot more money. But all rich people do not have their common sense distorted by wealth. Some rich people are ordinary people like you and I.
Rockefeller's foundation funded the development of high-yield rice, wheat and corn, saving countless lives. He was the richest person who has ever lived. He believed he had a moral obligation to help people.
5
Rockefeller Republicans are extinct now.
2
I read an interesting article on sociopathology. On one hand, our prisons are full of people who have expressed their personalty disorders through violence. On the other hand, we have CEO's and politicians who do their damage upon society in a seemingly more socially acceptable manner. However typed the pathology is the same.
6
This is America's lowest class: these scummy, self-centered, superficial oink-oinks whose carbon footprints are filled with the excreta of their over-consumption.
The nitwits who vote for them buy into the moral simplemindedness that having money means that one is good and deserving. And they vote for guys like Trump under the marketed illusion that they can themselves be one of the big pigs one day. (Hey, not a chance folks. They're not going to share with you, and you won't be able to take it away from them...except perhaps by voting with, rather than against, your self interests.)
The nitwits who vote for them buy into the moral simplemindedness that having money means that one is good and deserving. And they vote for guys like Trump under the marketed illusion that they can themselves be one of the big pigs one day. (Hey, not a chance folks. They're not going to share with you, and you won't be able to take it away from them...except perhaps by voting with, rather than against, your self interests.)
2
Look at US state lotteries promoting being "filthy rich" just like Sheldon Adelson's casinos. Public policy is utterly heedless of its psychological effects in the US.
3
Steve--No argument from me on this one. And look where the lotteries sell tickets--what neighborhoods.
1
http://m.democracynow.org/stories/15820
Someone else has started to report on this issue, it is the obligation of news media to protect the public.
Leaving journalistic integrity aside and lets talk in the langauge of paid media.
Your customers pay a subscription to the NY Times to undertake these endeavors, we need the papers resources to uncover corruption in our society.
This election year represents a clear moral obligation where there must be an imperiative to protect us your customers and the public at large.
Someone else has started to report on this issue, it is the obligation of news media to protect the public.
Leaving journalistic integrity aside and lets talk in the langauge of paid media.
Your customers pay a subscription to the NY Times to undertake these endeavors, we need the papers resources to uncover corruption in our society.
This election year represents a clear moral obligation where there must be an imperiative to protect us your customers and the public at large.
2
if americans had had th sense to never allow private money in election campaigns th wealth of donors would be a non point
what possible end could private election money have other than to buy elections
everything is for sale in america, and now youree whining that th rich have stolen your elections
what possible end could private election money have other than to buy elections
everything is for sale in america, and now youree whining that th rich have stolen your elections
For a foreshadowing of what this portends here if left unchecked, one need look no further than the largely disastrous political and economic environment in central and south America where I am regularly reminded that only 20-30 families in each society "matter".
5
To be scrupulously fair, Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway was an extremely large investor in The Washington Post, for decades. Berkshire Hathaway continues as the owner of the Buffalo News, as well.
4
Neither the Post nor Buffet are crazy, which is more than one may say for the Washington Times and Sun Myung Moon.
1
Not until the Democrats are able to craft a message that speaks to the mind and the heart and the gut and get that message out, will there be much change in electoral politics. That and maybe a new version of the Fairness Doctrine, which was unceremoniously dumped by who else, Ronald Reagan. The GOP goes for the gut and research has shown that the gut rules the head and heart.
2
I wonder if there is a connection between the processes that give us open-carry gun laws, corporations that count as people, and this march that Krugman describes towards oligarchy ... All frightening.
5
The same folks fund all three long-term projects.
2
In other words, the story of the Clintons.
8
The Clintons and their enablers prefer their political money and influence buried within big organizations like "foundations".
Free speech and open displays of wealth being used to express it are not of interest to the Clintons or progressives for that matter.
Free speech and open displays of wealth being used to express it are not of interest to the Clintons or progressives for that matter.
2
Not exactly. In a recent NYT article, we learned that while in law school in 1972, Bill was working for the McGovern campaign while Hillary was working under cover in the south to expose tax evading racist private academies. What was Trump doing other than using his father's millions to make more?
2
The pathologies of great inequality are there for all to see, though we are grateful to Professor Krugman for highlighting them. The cure is equally obvious: Bernie Sanders and the campaign for a “political revolution.”
4
I never will understand why Bill Gates and many others are deserving of the massive wealth that they have accumulated.
Who has an extreme sense of entitlement? Not most of us...
Who has an extreme sense of entitlement? Not most of us...
3
Paul, pal, your parents lied to you.
Wealth is not synonymous with bad behaviour. In fact quite the opposite is true: Wealth is evidence of a life of productive contribution into the marketplace.
They also lied about the relationship of money and votes. Today, people aren't watching traditional TV; therefore, votes can't be bought as easily. Hence the poll results on Trump; Bush; etc. Trump's spending has been peanuts. You're going to have to come up with a new theology, Paul, if you want to gain any credibility. Just sayin.
Wealth is not synonymous with bad behaviour. In fact quite the opposite is true: Wealth is evidence of a life of productive contribution into the marketplace.
They also lied about the relationship of money and votes. Today, people aren't watching traditional TV; therefore, votes can't be bought as easily. Hence the poll results on Trump; Bush; etc. Trump's spending has been peanuts. You're going to have to come up with a new theology, Paul, if you want to gain any credibility. Just sayin.
6
Bill, pal, you have misread the lay of the land and misunderstood what you saw.
Regroup and reconsider.
The fact that Americans are spending their time watching "reality tv" and playing video games instead of "traditional tv" and reading books is precisely why it's easier to buy votes today than 30 years ago. Americans are divorced from reality (real reality, that is) and tend to buy into what's loud and outrageous.
As for wealth and its mirror into personality and character, you make an awfully broad and inclusive statement when you opened you post. Think it over.
Regroup and reconsider.
The fact that Americans are spending their time watching "reality tv" and playing video games instead of "traditional tv" and reading books is precisely why it's easier to buy votes today than 30 years ago. Americans are divorced from reality (real reality, that is) and tend to buy into what's loud and outrageous.
As for wealth and its mirror into personality and character, you make an awfully broad and inclusive statement when you opened you post. Think it over.
2
Apparently running casinos, being Bernie Madoff, being born rich and carving up neighborhoods to sell off the pieces, making $300 million for being fired after the biggest Medicare fraud in history and then buying the Florida governorship, and presiding over coal mines that have killed thousands, choked rivers, and poisoned the skies are now all to be considered "productive contribution."
2
Well, I'm not against wealth, but I don't think your wealth should come at the expense of another man, and so many times, today, it does. It used to be or it seemed, many of the wealthy were a class of people who did good for others, without taking, without asking, now it seems they just take, even from their own children. (You don't like that part, but it is true!) (Both sides bought the greed!) And, even when they do decide to give, it's only after they have taken, and it seems their name must be emblazoned across the sky (or at least a building), while man wishes they would have just paid us a decent wage, so he could have known what it meant to be living and not worried all his life. Thanks for the building to save me from the disease you created! But here we are --- I guess we all get what we deserve!
2
If Prof. Krugman is worried that his wealth is detrimental to his soul he can give it to me, I have no worries.
4
Once again, Krugman demonizes only super-rich Republicans, without ever mentioning wealthy democrats, who are doing the same thing. Does Krugman actually expect us to believe that the all of the Wall St. billionaires are only Republicans? There are just as many Democrats as Republicans hiding their money in the Cayman Islands.
6
I do appreciate how Professor Krugman shines light on the personality traits of the plutocrats. I was especially delighted with his word play, word invention, at the end of his essay in which he seeks to coin a term that characterizes the nature of some ego-centric elites. I would add, on a more sinister note, that the word we need to elevate, and use when appropriate, when it fits, is fallacracy. The ability to spin a lie, or reason fallaciously and make it sound reasonable, is a hallmark of people in power. However, to be fair, we are all prone to tell a lie, but when millions of dollars are riding on a single truth, or lie, one can see how important mis-information is for advancing a cause, or simply holding onto power.
3
You must meant Truthiness
2
And apathy among vast swaths of the American people continues, as does ignorance . . . The tools a democracy needs to thrive have been so eroded over the past thirty or so years that it is not at all clear our society will be able to hold off the transition to a fascist government of, by, and for the richest of the rich.
The media is not without blame. Senator Sanders is trying hard to bring this issue of plutocracy's creeping influence to the public ear and eye, but he is studiously ignored in favor of coverage of Trump's latest outrageous comment.
The Supreme Court has facilitated this anti-democratic trend with its unconscionable campaign finance decisions, as well as its ratification of antitrust arguments that have led to disastrous concentration in every industry and its support of extremist religious notions that "freedom of religion" means a general exemption from the law.
Congress is full of people who are so lacking in moral fiber that they willingly, eagerly, seek and accept the bribes of the super-rich and care nothing about the needs and desires of the vast majority of Americans. Of all American institutions, this one is the most lost to the corruption of plutocracy.
One of the country's two major political parties is a tool of the super-rich, and that is all, while the other views its prospects as being dependent on mollifying them just a little bit less. Neither show any interest in repairing our democracy.
Disaster looms.
The media is not without blame. Senator Sanders is trying hard to bring this issue of plutocracy's creeping influence to the public ear and eye, but he is studiously ignored in favor of coverage of Trump's latest outrageous comment.
The Supreme Court has facilitated this anti-democratic trend with its unconscionable campaign finance decisions, as well as its ratification of antitrust arguments that have led to disastrous concentration in every industry and its support of extremist religious notions that "freedom of religion" means a general exemption from the law.
Congress is full of people who are so lacking in moral fiber that they willingly, eagerly, seek and accept the bribes of the super-rich and care nothing about the needs and desires of the vast majority of Americans. Of all American institutions, this one is the most lost to the corruption of plutocracy.
One of the country's two major political parties is a tool of the super-rich, and that is all, while the other views its prospects as being dependent on mollifying them just a little bit less. Neither show any interest in repairing our democracy.
Disaster looms.
10
well put, spot on
The billionaires we read about are usually self-made. Old money keeps quiet and clips its coupons. It should come as no surprise that people who rise to the top of the economic heap are aggressive and self-centered. The meek may inherit the Earth, but the Type-A runs it.
The same goes for politicians. Exactly which POTUS, regardless of party, was a self-effacing, humble person?
There are many reasons to change our political system so that it becomes less of an oligarchy, but expecting that the humble and self-aware will take office is foolish.
The same goes for politicians. Exactly which POTUS, regardless of party, was a self-effacing, humble person?
There are many reasons to change our political system so that it becomes less of an oligarchy, but expecting that the humble and self-aware will take office is foolish.
5
"Exactly which POTUS, regardless of party, was a self-effacing, humble person?"
Jimmy Carter?
Jimmy Carter?
8
Current President?
1
I'd like draw attention to the many comments here that harangue Dr. Krugman for ignoring Democrat billionaires. It is truly an American conservative logic which would suggest we should not hear about the sins and abuses one class unless we produce and equal number of sinners and abusers from another class.
14
I think it's a sociopathic tendancy to fail to see a distinction between billionaires who use their wealth to benefit themselves vs others. That tendancy is lack of empathy.
7
If only they practiced Noblesse Oblige. Like FDR did.
2
Not at all. When Dr. Krugman is biased in his factual statements it detracts from his message.
Most hedge fund guys I know - and I know several - are liberal Democrats. Many started out at Goldman or Morgan, discovered they couldn't make enough money there and went to work at a fund where they pay a straight 25% tax on their incomes.
Most hedge fund guys I know - and I know several - are liberal Democrats. Many started out at Goldman or Morgan, discovered they couldn't make enough money there and went to work at a fund where they pay a straight 25% tax on their incomes.
5
Sure seems to me that the GOP coalition is falling apart. Elites spend and spend on the likes of Romney and Jeb! and fail to take the White House. They have trouble with statewide Senatorial elections as well.
They keep thinking they can bamboozle their fellow partisans but their policies are crashing to the ground all around them. There's always lots of talk about ending Social Security but the GOP rank and file wants it strengthened even expanded.
Hedgies are dropping like flies because their returns stink that means their money is going away too.
No, the elite can still swing states and elected judgeships and even House seats but overall their not what they once were.
They keep thinking they can bamboozle their fellow partisans but their policies are crashing to the ground all around them. There's always lots of talk about ending Social Security but the GOP rank and file wants it strengthened even expanded.
Hedgies are dropping like flies because their returns stink that means their money is going away too.
No, the elite can still swing states and elected judgeships and even House seats but overall their not what they once were.
3
Yep, those hedgies just play a zero sum game against each other anymore.
You say Obama has hurt the super-rich. But he had a chance to punish many of the super-rich crooks, who stole our money through the banks. He didn't do anything.
19
It was President Obama's Attorney General who confessed he couldn't find a way to prosecute the bankers. "No Drama Obama" didn't get too worked up about them either. For all his thoughtfulness and intelligence, he could not come up with one potential strategy for going after the bankers.
4
Whch chance would that be? send the Marines?
1
Don't forget one of the first things he declared was that he wouldn't investigate the lies that got us into Iraq among many other things Obama failed to do. Anti-trust is another.
2
There's something more to be feared than theatrical narcissism. The pharmaceutical industry is the biggest on the planet. Its influence is growing by leaps and bounds, as are the deadly chronic diseases that its vaccines and other GMOs cause and its "medicines" only make worse. What about the oligarchs of the biotech world who are in the process of implementing a medical/agricultural totalitarianism with the active aid of the New York Times and other mainstream media? Obama and Hilary Clinton are in bed with Monsanto, and just about everyone is in bed with Big Pharma. At least Trump had the courage to say the truth about vaccines and autism. If I bother going through the nearly meaningless drill of voting at all, I may vote for Trump just for that reason.
3
On top of ignorant voters believing the GOP hype, you have the youth and intellectual aristocrats enabling the rich with their apathy; that the system is too corrupt and broken. Well just as there is a Trump there is a Sanders and as long as people like Bernie participate in 'the system' ---I'll vote.
6
Oh well, Paul Krugman mails in another opinion piece. When writing about billionaires influencing election how can you mention Adelson and Singer without also mentioning Steyer and Soros? I guess Mr. Krugman is more interested in a leftist agenda than honest commentary. Happy New Year,
10
I am surprised Mr. Krugman left out Jeb!?! Bush in this column. Bush also personifies what's wrong with the rich. He thought that amassing the biggest war chest and having the most lucrative SuperPac would secure the Republican nomination. His ignorant and pathetic performance on matters of important public policy showed potential voters that he's really not ready for the office of POTUS. I'm a Democrat so I don't have a voice in the Republican primary, but I'm glad to see that Bush3 is so low in the polls. We cannot afford to have such an entitled, privileged rich boy in that office
5
I don't care what anybody else has as long as I have roof over my head in a nice neighborhood of my choice and good food to eat. unlike the editorial board of the NYT, with its race based social agenda i.e. diversity programs, the super rich are not trying to take it way from me.
as to pathology when you are poor certain actions will be deemed to be crazy. when you are rich it will be deemed to be eccentric. that is life.
as to pathology when you are poor certain actions will be deemed to be crazy. when you are rich it will be deemed to be eccentric. that is life.
5
Difference is, very few crazy people can buy up your neighborhood, scream at you till you have to move, and make a handsome profit selling the joint you lived in.
4
Did anyone bother to read Nobel Laureate Krugman's link to the "serious social science" that used statistical analysis and experiment to prove his opening argument that "Wealth can be bod for your soul."?
Dr. Krugman's source was an article in Time that reviewed a study by a Berkeley psych prof. The subjects of the study were "hundreds of undergraduate psychology students and 100 adults selected from online sources". No real Billionaires were studied, no real Republicans were studied, no real narcissists were studied. This is what passes for serious social science research.
It is disingenuous, if not intellectually sloppy and lazy, of Mr. Krugman to appeal to a slipshod research sham to lend authority to his personal opinions about those who have more wealth than he has managed to grab.
Besides that, his neologisms are not catchy.
Dr. Krugman's source was an article in Time that reviewed a study by a Berkeley psych prof. The subjects of the study were "hundreds of undergraduate psychology students and 100 adults selected from online sources". No real Billionaires were studied, no real Republicans were studied, no real narcissists were studied. This is what passes for serious social science research.
It is disingenuous, if not intellectually sloppy and lazy, of Mr. Krugman to appeal to a slipshod research sham to lend authority to his personal opinions about those who have more wealth than he has managed to grab.
Besides that, his neologisms are not catchy.
10
From the latest Hillary Clinton email release, New year's Eve:
"In another exchange, Billionaire George Soros, a major donor to liberal causes, confided to a former Clinton aide that he made the wrong choice in supporting Barack Obama in the 2008 primaries over Clinton.
Soros told Neera Tanden during a dinner sponsored by Democracy Alliance, a liberal group, that he "regretted his decision in the primary — he likes to admit mistakes when he makes them and that was one of them," Tanden told Clinton in a May 2012 email. "He then extolled his work with you from your time as First Lady on."
Tanden also said Soros had been "impressed that he can always call/meet" with Clinton on policy issues but he hadn't yet met with Obama. Soros has been a major donor to Priorities USA, a pro-Clinton Democratic super PAC."
Care to comment Mr. Krugman, or do liberal billionaires not count?
"In another exchange, Billionaire George Soros, a major donor to liberal causes, confided to a former Clinton aide that he made the wrong choice in supporting Barack Obama in the 2008 primaries over Clinton.
Soros told Neera Tanden during a dinner sponsored by Democracy Alliance, a liberal group, that he "regretted his decision in the primary — he likes to admit mistakes when he makes them and that was one of them," Tanden told Clinton in a May 2012 email. "He then extolled his work with you from your time as First Lady on."
Tanden also said Soros had been "impressed that he can always call/meet" with Clinton on policy issues but he hadn't yet met with Obama. Soros has been a major donor to Priorities USA, a pro-Clinton Democratic super PAC."
Care to comment Mr. Krugman, or do liberal billionaires not count?
7
I don't see how one could read "Audacity of Hope" without concluding that Mr. Obama hoped to be a kinder and gentler Republican.
4
It is sad to see that Hillary Clinton, who could have been welcomed as the first woman president, is contaminated with the insidious PPP 'selfish gene' [using Richard Dawkins' terminology].
The only candidate who offers an altruistic serum to fight this devastating social disease is Bernie Sanders — a catalyst and positive agent to reboot the American experiment with democracy.
The only candidate who offers an altruistic serum to fight this devastating social disease is Bernie Sanders — a catalyst and positive agent to reboot the American experiment with democracy.
16
Nobody will do it alone.
3
True, it must be a popular revolution — "and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
2
It appears to me that rampant ignorance within the ranks of the American public is at the root of our present, most pressing problem, that being the purchase of the right to rule by the wealthiest among us.
For the past 20 years, give or take, and most particularly the last half-dozen, I have listened more and more carefully to the everyday conversation of average American citizens as they went about their daily lives, as well as at social gatherings and in business environments. As a result, I have grown more and more baffled and discouraged by what I hear from the very great majority of those expressing opinions regarding politics, foreign events and/or policy, racial relations, and too many other issues to go into here. The depth and breadth of the ignorance displayed, as well as the willingness to accept as their sources of information the rantings and bellowings of bellicose, crude, bigoted, and generally foul-minded politicians and talk radio/tv buffoons is astonishing. And, the inability of the average man on the street to put his finger to an unlabeled map of the Middle East, the one place on Earth that is the current engine driving most of what he fears, and correctly identify more than one country, is almost laughable.
Does the average American read books or real newspapers today? Do they watch anything on tv more challenging than Real Housewives of (name your favorite) or Dancing With The Stars?
I'm afraid that we're getting what we deserve.
For the past 20 years, give or take, and most particularly the last half-dozen, I have listened more and more carefully to the everyday conversation of average American citizens as they went about their daily lives, as well as at social gatherings and in business environments. As a result, I have grown more and more baffled and discouraged by what I hear from the very great majority of those expressing opinions regarding politics, foreign events and/or policy, racial relations, and too many other issues to go into here. The depth and breadth of the ignorance displayed, as well as the willingness to accept as their sources of information the rantings and bellowings of bellicose, crude, bigoted, and generally foul-minded politicians and talk radio/tv buffoons is astonishing. And, the inability of the average man on the street to put his finger to an unlabeled map of the Middle East, the one place on Earth that is the current engine driving most of what he fears, and correctly identify more than one country, is almost laughable.
Does the average American read books or real newspapers today? Do they watch anything on tv more challenging than Real Housewives of (name your favorite) or Dancing With The Stars?
I'm afraid that we're getting what we deserve.
11
Unfortunately, we're all getting what some of us deserve. My heart goes out to the young and to all those who have fruitlessly opposed these depredations over the years.
2
I believe there is nothing fair about our current political system. The people are brainwashed or forced-fed a limited menu of packaged cult-inducing personalities, created by media that only care about the bottom line, not of news-of-facts, rather, 'truthiness of half-facts'. These half lies are meant to reinforce most people's limited knowledge of the world and to reinforce their prejudices. That's why Rush Limbaugh gained such fame and gave birth to the Tea Party and the Donald, both of whom prey on the public's obsession with success and wealth, and that everyone else is made to feel worthless, disenfranchised and powerless.
I think the problem with the system is not everyone's dreams of wealth and security, rather it is the power brokers wealthy-fascist's view that wealth at any cost should never be questioned.
What are we left with? Has most of our society devolved into a plutocracy run by narcissist jerks - as Mr Krugman terms it - a Narcisstocracy? Jerkigarchy?
We need a different system. A system where protections for individual consumers are just as important as fair business practices. A system where individual health care and retirement does not bankrupt people or business. And everyone pays their fair share to fund it, and to incorporate solid disincentives to abuse the systems. I think that's what a successful democracy for business' and individual's is all about.
I think the problem with the system is not everyone's dreams of wealth and security, rather it is the power brokers wealthy-fascist's view that wealth at any cost should never be questioned.
What are we left with? Has most of our society devolved into a plutocracy run by narcissist jerks - as Mr Krugman terms it - a Narcisstocracy? Jerkigarchy?
We need a different system. A system where protections for individual consumers are just as important as fair business practices. A system where individual health care and retirement does not bankrupt people or business. And everyone pays their fair share to fund it, and to incorporate solid disincentives to abuse the systems. I think that's what a successful democracy for business' and individual's is all about.
2
The notion that the poor are lazy came over with the pilgrims who acquired land by disenfranchising American Indians that did not believe individuals could own areas of the planet earth. Given the Republican Party's relentless 150-year contempt for the poor, it is time to reject its hate-mongering candidates for office and begin disenfranchise the 0.1 percent who bribe them.
10
So what is new? The Greeks had human behavior pegged long ago, hence we have the tales of Narcissus and Midas. We homo sapiens, like our simian relatives love our shiny objects. The problem is that we humans have evolved to the point where our love of wealth, luxury and ease is leading to the destruction of our nation and the planet. Too many believe that wealth is a sign of superiority and an affirmation that they are different from the unwashed masses. To some of the religious among us, wealth is a sign that god has favored such a man or woman. But as Don Quixote so astutely observed that when we are dead, whether we be popes, priests, kings, etc. we are all the same in the grave, dead, stripped of all the accouterments of wealth and position. Its too bad that Quixote's message can't be pounded in the heads of the narcissistic wealthy, with hope that they then realize that we are all in this leaky boat together, and that sharing and making society more equal is a goal that benefits all, including them. However, I don't have much hope, as avarice is a powerful drug which seems to blind those afflicted against any recognition of their own end and humanity's plight.
10
Eventually the people will see the truth and there may be a second American Revolution that will make the French Revolution seem like a mere protest. The rich may have the money but the people have the numbers and will have very little to lose the way the trends are going in America. The military is primarily made up by the lower economic classes and I doubt if they would stop the people who are struggling to free themselves from the oligarchy that is destroying people's hopes of a better tomorrow. People need to wake up to the fact that neither the Democratic or Republican parties care about them.
5
The determinative issue is whether a [mercenary army" will fire on its fellow citizens.
After Viet Nam, the Army leadership and not only got rid of the draft and its potential mix of soldiers coming through the services, but managed to hood-wink a lazy media by "embedding" reporters, giving them a comradeship with their units and a lack of interest in exposing corruption and atrocities,
The latest turn for iill. is the reported fact that many command personnel are raving born again christian idealogues.
The Army & police forece always have existed to protect property and the owner class-rather than a people's revolution, we're more likely to have a right-wing military coup.
After Viet Nam, the Army leadership and not only got rid of the draft and its potential mix of soldiers coming through the services, but managed to hood-wink a lazy media by "embedding" reporters, giving them a comradeship with their units and a lack of interest in exposing corruption and atrocities,
The latest turn for iill. is the reported fact that many command personnel are raving born again christian idealogues.
The Army & police forece always have existed to protect property and the owner class-rather than a people's revolution, we're more likely to have a right-wing military coup.
1
True, O'Brien. And the web of surveillance and the means of disruption of dissent go far to ensuring that any efforts to rebel will be answered with dreadful power. Even now the president claims the power to strip up of citizenship and our Constitutional rights by muttering "terrorist". And the next presidents will claim that power, too. It's looking mighty grim.
Serious social science, et? According to Mr. Brian Nosek's research at UVA, much of the "research" and "science" in Psychology has failed the most basic requirement of true scientific method...it cannot be reproduced. And among the journals with the highest degree of "results" that cannot be validated is the journal that Mr. Krugman refers to as "serious" research. It appears that bias runs rampant in this area...publication bias leading the pack. Shock and awe. results, Controversial results, particularly those that happen to coincide with the general liberal bent of the media. So it goes with the deep yearning for celebrity among academia, including that of this author.
5
Science has long known that what is readily reproduced happens automatically without thinking.
Perhaps too many people underestimate how much damage supposedly "neutral" TV channels do when they feel obliged to exaggerate the "untruths" of Democrats to balance the outright lies of Republican candidates. I was disgusted with CBS news when they dragged Pres. Clinton's lie about Monica Lewinsky into a discussion of Trump's wild lie about thousands cheering when the twin towers went down. What?! And Bernie Sanders was accused of lying about the effects of global warning on jihadist behavior, which is a theory posited by respectable researchers.
I don't believe that the journalists dredging up these dishonest and odious false equivalents are alone in their unethical behavior--it's greedy corporate owners of the TV channels who are insidiously inserting visuals that suggest that everyone is equally dishonest--so don't listen to Democratic candidates.
I don't believe that the journalists dredging up these dishonest and odious false equivalents are alone in their unethical behavior--it's greedy corporate owners of the TV channels who are insidiously inserting visuals that suggest that everyone is equally dishonest--so don't listen to Democratic candidates.
9
Protecting the reputation of a lady was once the most legitimate reason for a man to lie.
1
If you have studied history at all you know where this leads. The kings of Europe, Emperors of Rome, China and Japan, et al, did not all of a sudden become sovereign monarchies with divine rights, they fought, connived and bought their families' ways into it. Today we call it oligarchy and it is the super rich and their corporations which fight against our Constitution, connive, and buy our government.
Money is power and power corrupts so why are we surprised that so many who have money end up insensitive and indifferent to others. They look at those who have not "made it" as weak, stupid, foolish, ignorant people and those regular folk that vote for the candidates that these people put forth prove their views. Respect is earned and those that stand up to these tyrants in the making are the real heroes, they have not drunk the Kool-Aid so to speak and understand that having money is just having money. People like Trump who did nothing for his but be born in the right family are the ones our forefathers rebelled against. Yeah you can buy a bunch of stuff and buy some dubious loyalty with but, so what! We all go to the grave and having loving people around when you do is more important than buying people around you who are just waiting to hear the will and possibly in your final weakness trying to hurry your demise along.
That so many of the rich are not nice people isn't any news. Just read the history of Rome, Russia, China, France, and England. It is an old story.
Money is power and power corrupts so why are we surprised that so many who have money end up insensitive and indifferent to others. They look at those who have not "made it" as weak, stupid, foolish, ignorant people and those regular folk that vote for the candidates that these people put forth prove their views. Respect is earned and those that stand up to these tyrants in the making are the real heroes, they have not drunk the Kool-Aid so to speak and understand that having money is just having money. People like Trump who did nothing for his but be born in the right family are the ones our forefathers rebelled against. Yeah you can buy a bunch of stuff and buy some dubious loyalty with but, so what! We all go to the grave and having loving people around when you do is more important than buying people around you who are just waiting to hear the will and possibly in your final weakness trying to hurry your demise along.
That so many of the rich are not nice people isn't any news. Just read the history of Rome, Russia, China, France, and England. It is an old story.
2
I've harped on this before: We in the U.S. have a plutocracy (rule by the rich), not an oligarchy.
And...I've always found it interesting that the word "Pluto" (in plutocracy) comes from the Greek god of the underworld, Hades (or Hell). Fitting?
Another thing I've observed over my considerable lifetime is this quote I made up: "Those who seek power (and money) are often the last ones who should have it." They are, in general, not "nice" people. Again...as Paul implies, the rich probably fit in here.
And...I've always found it interesting that the word "Pluto" (in plutocracy) comes from the Greek god of the underworld, Hades (or Hell). Fitting?
Another thing I've observed over my considerable lifetime is this quote I made up: "Those who seek power (and money) are often the last ones who should have it." They are, in general, not "nice" people. Again...as Paul implies, the rich probably fit in here.
2
Here's another example: Warren Buffett using loan shark tactics and sky high interest rates on the folks buying mobile homes from Berkshire Hathaway.
2
I agree with the article, but I do not see a problem. Obama won the last two elections, the Republican brand is self destructing, and Hillary is poised to win by letting the others beat themselves, saving her big guns for when it will count. The big money interests are wasting their money, proving that business success does not map to good political judgment. The system is working, why fix what isn't broken?
4
You don't see the problem because PK, as always, only discusses one side of the issue, ignoring the billionaires backing liberal dems. They are not doing this out of altruism.
1
Sheldon's problem isn't free speech. It's using his newly bought paper to go after a judge he didn't like.
2
I agree with Gwbear that much of the electorate is voting against its own interest when supporting people like Trump. I don't know what the short term solution to that problems is. The long term solution is, of course, MUCH better civics and history education. Is the strength of the Bernie Sanders campaign a possible sign that significant numbers of thoughtful people are beginning to sense that developing oligarchy is a deeply troubling problem in our political life ?
8
Hillary and Bill are in your group of the super rich and monstrously self interested. They may not have billions of dollars but as far as their power goes, they fit the bill.
13
You underestimate Clinton corruption and thereby, Clinton wealth. I would be shocked if the Clintons did not have billions squirreled away in nuncupative deals & unnumbered Swiss accounts, just in case any of those looming RICO charges hit the fan. Add to that nest egg, the Foundation loot. With a Foundation pass through of under 10%, what's the Fuoundation"s is the Clintons'.
Why bow down to serious social science, if there is such a thing , as some bow to whatever holy book they follow . The end result is the righteous condemning the sinner or psychopath or sociopath or whatever serious social science calls them. Sad indeed when the best and brightest feel all have to do is put on the big hat and robes to win their arguement.
I await a serious social science study on just what is the human soul and why the rich don't have one. When you're done with that please do something about brain cavity capacity of Republican vs progressives .
I await a serious social science study on just what is the human soul and why the rich don't have one. When you're done with that please do something about brain cavity capacity of Republican vs progressives .
1
The human soul is the software our brains develop from the experience of living. All conscious creatures develop unique approaches to the contexts of their lives, once born, not just humans.
All rich people have souls too. But they can differ radically in how they feel about their luck.
All rich people have souls too. But they can differ radically in how they feel about their luck.
Downton Abbey is in its sixth and final season, we are still fascinated by the rich, Americans know that politics and money have always been inseparable and since at least FDR’s time liberals have sung the song of class envy but nobody will hum along. Mr. Krugman asks “OK, but why do we care”. We don't.
2
The problem isn't that wealthy people tend to be uncaring and self-serving, but rather, that uncaring and self-serving people are more likely to become wealthy, and for them, no amount of wealth is ever enough.
8
Bad boys in sharp suits.
You think the rich love religion? No, they only hijack religious rhetoric because they need the votes of the less educated, trusting folk.
That is the foundation of the Republican Party.
How can the Dems survive without money?
Regulation, fairness and justice across the board.
Take our country back.
You think the rich love religion? No, they only hijack religious rhetoric because they need the votes of the less educated, trusting folk.
That is the foundation of the Republican Party.
How can the Dems survive without money?
Regulation, fairness and justice across the board.
Take our country back.
4
Let me share a piece of Scripture that goes to the heart of the problem described by Professor Krugman:
"And after the Lord God had created the gila monster, the black widow spider, and the asp, with that residuum of malice and evil that remained in the world, from it He fashioned the Republican Party."
-- From the Gospel of Catfish Williams, the last Democratic Party organizer in the Blue Ridge.
"And after the Lord God had created the gila monster, the black widow spider, and the asp, with that residuum of malice and evil that remained in the world, from it He fashioned the Republican Party."
-- From the Gospel of Catfish Williams, the last Democratic Party organizer in the Blue Ridge.
1
"Capitalism is the legitimate racket of the ruling class."
Al Capone
Al Capone
16
The theme of the last few years has been income inequality and while many agree that it is a serious societal problem, the gap continues. A blowhard billionaire is ahead in the Rebupkican polls, Shelon Adleson held his grovel fest for his millions, Rubio is being supported by a millionaire in Florida, Jeb! Is propped up by Bush Sr and Dubya's cronies and it goes on and on.
In the meantime, they support polices against the middle class, convince many through their Fox News mouthpiece that it is in their best interest ( cause if you just work hard and add on a a few more minium wage jobs, you too will be rich).
What is frustrating to me is despite all of the articles I have read about income inequality, I see little hope to change it. How do the "masses" mobilize and institute policies that benefit the whole spectrum of American society?
I can only hope that at some point the voters will come to their senses and vote in politicians who promote policies that work for most of us, not just the rich. Not looking promising.
In the meantime, they support polices against the middle class, convince many through their Fox News mouthpiece that it is in their best interest ( cause if you just work hard and add on a a few more minium wage jobs, you too will be rich).
What is frustrating to me is despite all of the articles I have read about income inequality, I see little hope to change it. How do the "masses" mobilize and institute policies that benefit the whole spectrum of American society?
I can only hope that at some point the voters will come to their senses and vote in politicians who promote policies that work for most of us, not just the rich. Not looking promising.
4
Although these studies use the social science MO of game situations and brief role playing setups, recent results of these experiments suggest that participants in these experimental situations develop decreased empathy when they win at the games/tasks and began to see themselves as "winners" and successful. In other words, it seems as your good fortune increases your empathy and compassion tend to decrease.
If money were merely a medium of exchange instead of itself a fertile commodity, none of this hoodoo would be possible. See "Chicago Plan" and "Chicago Plan Revisited," both on Wikipedia. I suppose we've gone far beyond the point where that would be possible. But treating the monetary system itself as inherently private wealth is what gives those with capital the ability to breed the financial monstrosities depicted in the film "The Big Short." Public institutions like the Federal Reserve Board are like a dinghy's rudder on an ocean liner (even when the Fed actually tries to rein in the financial sector, rather than inject it with steroids, has happened during the Greenspan years).
1
Dr. Krugman describes the expanding hoarding of wealth and political power by the few, their arrogance and their taking of ever more of the nation's wealth.
What he only gently alludes to is that oligarchy eventually leads to anarchy.
But the oligarch blithely thinks like King Louis the XVI who looked out his balcony to the loud disturbance in the streets below on Bastille Day and casually remarked to a duke at his side, "Is it another bread riot?"
The duke responded, "No Sire. It is revolution."
Let us hope that our oligarchs give some consideration to the health of the nation, as well as their own, before anarchy.
What he only gently alludes to is that oligarchy eventually leads to anarchy.
But the oligarch blithely thinks like King Louis the XVI who looked out his balcony to the loud disturbance in the streets below on Bastille Day and casually remarked to a duke at his side, "Is it another bread riot?"
The duke responded, "No Sire. It is revolution."
Let us hope that our oligarchs give some consideration to the health of the nation, as well as their own, before anarchy.
3
So vote for Bernie.
13
This is the perfect companion piece to the article on the Incarnation of Jesus. For as long as humans have been writing literature and discussing philosophy, it has been clear that it is harder for a rich man to pass through the eye of a needle than to enter the kingdom of God, and that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Every generation is shocked to find that this is indeed true. Our current crop of Republican candidates and our political system is a morality play demonstrating exactly these ideas. It is up to the meekest among us, and every single voter to step up to inherit the earth.
6
Can't wait to read the stirring defenses to oligarchy and the oligarchs in the comment section.
Unfortunately, there will be nothing new. The same Randian mythology used to justify greed.
Unfortunately, there will be nothing new. The same Randian mythology used to justify greed.
11
If only we would deal with this problem.
It is one of the root causes of so much misery in the world.
We need a new economic structure that would discourage evil rather than reward it.
This would be the greatest technological breakthrough imaginable.
We could do it, but only if we really decided to.
It is one of the root causes of so much misery in the world.
We need a new economic structure that would discourage evil rather than reward it.
This would be the greatest technological breakthrough imaginable.
We could do it, but only if we really decided to.
6
This country can't even pull the money plug on con-artists who claim to know what God thinks.
4
Psychopaths have three traits in particular that effect the rest of us:
1. They are thoroughly obsessed with domination, power and control. Not only must they be as dominant as possible, the people they dominate must be either completely fooled, thoroughly degraded or both.
2. They are very good at acquiring power and dominance because they are very good at manipulating and deceiving others. One of their most sinister tools is a wicked combination of flattery and demonization, effusively flattering the target while demonizing and dehumanizing third party adversaries and scapegoats. Call it toxic flattery. This tactic infests right wing oligarchic political culture. It's an unusually effective and destructive propaganda tactic. The dehumanizing hate it induces makes the brain euphoric and immune to facts and logic.
3. Once they acquire power psychopaths are ultimately incompetent at exercising it. Because they only think of themselves, they destroy everything they touch. They will self-destruct, but not until they have done unconscionable and even irreparable damage.
The lynchpin here is dehumanization, first as instrumentalities in the service of dehumanizing greed, then as dehumanized adversaries and scapegoats in dehumanizing hate.
The key to resisting this ultimately apocalyptic process is recognizing and rejecting dehumanizing greed and dehumanizing hate.
1. They are thoroughly obsessed with domination, power and control. Not only must they be as dominant as possible, the people they dominate must be either completely fooled, thoroughly degraded or both.
2. They are very good at acquiring power and dominance because they are very good at manipulating and deceiving others. One of their most sinister tools is a wicked combination of flattery and demonization, effusively flattering the target while demonizing and dehumanizing third party adversaries and scapegoats. Call it toxic flattery. This tactic infests right wing oligarchic political culture. It's an unusually effective and destructive propaganda tactic. The dehumanizing hate it induces makes the brain euphoric and immune to facts and logic.
3. Once they acquire power psychopaths are ultimately incompetent at exercising it. Because they only think of themselves, they destroy everything they touch. They will self-destruct, but not until they have done unconscionable and even irreparable damage.
The lynchpin here is dehumanization, first as instrumentalities in the service of dehumanizing greed, then as dehumanized adversaries and scapegoats in dehumanizing hate.
The key to resisting this ultimately apocalyptic process is recognizing and rejecting dehumanizing greed and dehumanizing hate.
12
It serves Paul Krugman's agenda to portray America as being deeply divided by class or socio-economic status.
The trouble is that there is no deep gulf. Race and religion, yes; and of course partisanship. But class -- surprisingly little.
Alan Abramowitz analyzed data from the 2012 American National Election Study, "one of the most widely used and respected academic surveys of the American electorate," he says.
The findings: Upper and lower-income Americans did not differ very much in either their presidential voting decisions or their opinions on a variety of major policy issues including government spending.
Take the 2012 presidential election. A larger share of the sample surveyed with incomes of $30,000-50,000 voted for Romney than did voters with incomes of $150,000 and above. http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/the-minimal-class-...
But it's an election year, so the soundbites will keep coming.
The trouble is that there is no deep gulf. Race and religion, yes; and of course partisanship. But class -- surprisingly little.
Alan Abramowitz analyzed data from the 2012 American National Election Study, "one of the most widely used and respected academic surveys of the American electorate," he says.
The findings: Upper and lower-income Americans did not differ very much in either their presidential voting decisions or their opinions on a variety of major policy issues including government spending.
Take the 2012 presidential election. A larger share of the sample surveyed with incomes of $30,000-50,000 voted for Romney than did voters with incomes of $150,000 and above. http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/the-minimal-class-...
But it's an election year, so the soundbites will keep coming.
6
"Narcisstocracy? Jerkigarchy?"
I think I'd call it jerkilopoly.
I think I'd call it jerkilopoly.
1
One could switch the word "oligarch" with "nobility" and the behavior and action of the upper class becomes all too familiar with to a person here in The Old World. Thinking of all the people fleeing the oppression of the nobility and courts of Europe through out the centuries - in pursuit of Life, Liberty and Happiness - only to see the rise of a new aristocracy - alas!
11
The rule of privilege can only be maintained by the submission of the ruled masses. This unfortunate, interdependent relationship is notable even among Americans fascination with the British royal family. This tendency to admire and look up to wealth and privilege is not new.
5
Cheer up: capitalism will start to die this year. I know, sounds preposterous. I've been watching the approaching oligarchy for decades and it will most likely be clearly seen that Unregulated "free market" Capitalism, the underlying source of the oligarchy/plutocracy along with election corruption, will start to seriously undergo a decline.
Capitalists in the United States are scared stiff. Just look at the economic headlines these days, the Paris Climate Agreement (with its excellent "keep it in the ground philosophy), the growth of independent economic institutions, etc.
A quote from The Guardian this year: "Without us noticing, we are entering the postcapitalist era. At the heart of further change to come is information technology, new ways of working and the sharing economy. The old ways will take a long while to disappear, but it’s time to be utopian. As with the end of feudalism 500 years ago, capitalism’s replacement by postcapitalism will be accelerated by external shocks and shaped by the emergence of a new kind of human being. And it has started."
That Guardian article is essential for progressive minds; see it here.
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jul/17/postcapitalism-end-of-capit...
Capitalists in the United States are scared stiff. Just look at the economic headlines these days, the Paris Climate Agreement (with its excellent "keep it in the ground philosophy), the growth of independent economic institutions, etc.
A quote from The Guardian this year: "Without us noticing, we are entering the postcapitalist era. At the heart of further change to come is information technology, new ways of working and the sharing economy. The old ways will take a long while to disappear, but it’s time to be utopian. As with the end of feudalism 500 years ago, capitalism’s replacement by postcapitalism will be accelerated by external shocks and shaped by the emergence of a new kind of human being. And it has started."
That Guardian article is essential for progressive minds; see it here.
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jul/17/postcapitalism-end-of-capit...
5
Not only is it going to get uglier over the course of the year ahead, it will do so because of five right-wing Supreme Court justices who, in "Citizens United", legally declared that corporations are people and money is speech.
What makes it even worse is that a significant portion of the richest people in the United States have inherited their wealth. They can't empathize with those who work because they themselves have never had to. This applies to Donald Trump, the Koch Brothers, and pretty much the entire Walton family.
God help our democratic republic in this election year.
What makes it even worse is that a significant portion of the richest people in the United States have inherited their wealth. They can't empathize with those who work because they themselves have never had to. This applies to Donald Trump, the Koch Brothers, and pretty much the entire Walton family.
God help our democratic republic in this election year.
12
what is the purpose of telling us Vets thanks for your service to this country when we allow money to influence politics and allow a Trump style bully run for office? I don't get our mindset here in this country. So do we stand for freedom and justice or are those just words we like to throw out to impress the rest of the world? I am always baffeled when I see my family members who are all union guys and would otherwise be making peanuts if they weren't, support a guy like Trump!! You think he wants unions?? I served my country and give back as much as possible and appreciate the kind words by so many with their thank you but I rather you keep your thank you and start forcing all politicians to act like the soldiers, Marines, sailors and airman who have given their lives for this freedom and stop voting for people like Trump. Semper Fidelis
10
Unfortunately, it is not just the Trumps, Adelsons and Kochs whom we must worry about. Big money controls both sides. For example, see Mr. Saban's relationship with Mrs, Clinton. Could his huge contributions to her campaign and his devotion to a foreign government, Israel, have anything to do with her one-sided position on US relations with Israel and her pledge to invite Netanyahu to the White House during the first month of her administration. Her fealty to Saban and the Israeli Lobby ( at the expense of American interests) is one reason I, a longtime feminist, cannot support her for president. A second reason is her fealty to another group of oligarchs, the guys on Wall Street.
7
I can´t stop laughing! How dare you taddle tale only on the billionaire Republicans as if Democtats not only are mass meda owners but also conform a long list of donors that don´t want the Obama days to say adieu. Conservatives like Merkel, Rajoy, Cameron have avoided their countries to suffer. e.g. Rajoy took Spain out of a financial crisis, severe unemployment and a stagnant economy. e.g. 2 You didn´t mention Slim who owns this tabloid and is 1 of the wealthiest men on Earth. But. of course, he´s so Liberal. Please be more unbiased, and taddle tale on everybody.
4
The comment that Merkel has supposedly prevented suffering by the German people would be laughable if the situation weren't so dire for retirees, because of all the austerity measures she has instituted on their backs with HARZ IV. Germans may be comparatively better off than other Europeans, but that is due to a system in place before she took office. Merkel is the Herbert Hoover of Germany--tax the life out of people and withhold funding for social programs needed to help those who can no longer make ends meet.
1
Money and politics, and no mention of the Clintons or George Soros. We may be in a new year, but it's the same old Krugman. More 10b-5 violations, more deception, half-truths and biased commentary.
11
Explain how Soros or the Clintons manipulate the political system to their economic advantage. If Soros is a narcisist, he's the quietest one in history.
5
How about calling it plutocracy or aholarchy?
2
There are BILLIONS involved in buying our democracy today -- and, when there is that much money involved, there are illegitimate and illicit, if not illegal, activities going on underneath. The only thing we can hope for is that real journalists uncover and report these activities to a level that highlights the scandal and stirs the American people to amend the constitution. Because, thanks to our Supreme Court selling our democracy with the overturning of McCain/Feingold, a constitutional amendment is the only way to fix this mess -- will the people prevail?
8
So much for Hillary for President. Yuck. She is way too rich, and I shan't listen to Oprah ever again, nor Ms.Huffington, who's also mega-rich. Equality, like in Venezuela where there are bread lines, is the way to go.
4
Some good points about the behavior of SOME rich people.
But some people who have money are magnanimous. I find myself thinking of Bill and Melinda Gates.
Come on...with social media available for nothing to almost everyone, a point brought into graphic relief during the political uprisings comprising the "Arab Spring" and many other examples, the political process is available to everyone not merely the super rich.
Is there too much influence from a lot of money? Yes.
But the many can defeat the few. Vote.
But some people who have money are magnanimous. I find myself thinking of Bill and Melinda Gates.
Come on...with social media available for nothing to almost everyone, a point brought into graphic relief during the political uprisings comprising the "Arab Spring" and many other examples, the political process is available to everyone not merely the super rich.
Is there too much influence from a lot of money? Yes.
But the many can defeat the few. Vote.
6
There is a ray of light, albeit a dim ray, in this travesty. Only Republican bi$$ionaires carry this regressive gene. Progressive and liberal bi$$ionaires do not use their wealth to contort democracy. Right, Paul?
4
The Supreme Court messed up badly. Money is not speech. Money is power. Our shrinking system of checks and balances is relying far too much on the ethics of rich people. And how do people react when they feel manipulated? By supporting outsiders like Sanders and Trump. I hope that at some point the system corrects itself and brings back some of the checks and balances we used to have.
3
Professor Krugman writes: "Take someone whose personality might have been merely disagreeable under normal circumstances, and give him the kind of wealth that lets him surround himself with sycophants and usually get whatever he wants." In Plato's dialog *Gorgias*, one of the characters praises the life of the brutally unjust tyrant Archelaus as a model for the best sort of life because the tyrant is in position to secure whatever he sees fit to possess. In response, Sokrates offers a distinction between getting what one wants versus getting what one desires to have, arguing that the tyrant may only present us with the appearance of great power, not the reality, since the tyrant cannot reliably get what he/she wants. Sokrates remarks that everyone always only wants what is good (beneficial) whereas, in ignorance, one may often desire things that are bad (harmful) for oneself. Lacking knowledge, one may not recognize the good and so choose what is harmful instead. For Sokrates--and Plato--the answer is always education that produces knowledge (from which may spring wisdom and excellence). To live well--to live a virtuous life--takes understanding; wealth is neither a sufficient nor a necessary condition for the good life.
I suppose it's worth reminding ourselves that Sokrates was executed in democratic Athens.
I suppose it's worth reminding ourselves that Sokrates was executed in democratic Athens.
4
"Wealth can be bad for your soul."
Perhaps producing enough wealth to fully and adequately support one's self and family can be a sign of a "good" soul. I expect the prisons are full of people who produce little wealth often coming from parents that did not produce enough wealth to support their families. Attending schools serving families that generally don't care about getting the most out of the education they are provided.
In that regard, perhaps the inability to produce wealth and bad character can be at least loosely related.
Perhaps producing enough wealth to fully and adequately support one's self and family can be a sign of a "good" soul. I expect the prisons are full of people who produce little wealth often coming from parents that did not produce enough wealth to support their families. Attending schools serving families that generally don't care about getting the most out of the education they are provided.
In that regard, perhaps the inability to produce wealth and bad character can be at least loosely related.
Could be but probably not.
2
Is wealth/value created by labor or only by the entrepreneur?
2
"Is wealth/value created by labour or only by the entrepreneur?" I was not speaking about the super rich but rather about people producing more typical levels of wealth compared to those, who largely through their own choices are supported by others.j Choices like not making much of their education, or not getting a minimum wage job when they are young and having children after they marry and have a more substantial job.
The reason so many people of ordinary means support pro-rich policies is because they see themselves as belonging to the upper class in terms of ability and diligence, and so believe they would become as wealthy as those in that class, if only the system were even more skewed to the rich.
3
"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires."
- Ronald Wright
- Ronald Wright
4
About 20% of Americans believe they are firmly in the top 1%.
7
I note that Mr. Krugman is focusing his usual venom on the super rich and avoiding criticizing the ordinary rich like himself. He states that "The affluent are, on average, less likely to exhibit empathy, less likely to respect norms and even laws, more likely to cheat, than those occupying lower rungs on the economic ladder" without offering the slightest proof. No Democrats get mentioned - I guess they are the exception since they are devoted to the poor. Think George Soros or the Clinton Foundation.
9
Yes, there are Democrats with large fortunes. They show at least a modicum of interest in their fellow co-habitants on this earth.
But oligarchy is a wrong form of government, Democratic, Republican or Libertarian.
But oligarchy is a wrong form of government, Democratic, Republican or Libertarian.
5
That's right. The Clintons and Soros are different because they have used their wealth to benefit others than themselves.
1
Why do you think he exempts the merely affluent? Seems one point is the more affluent the more detached people tend to become. Why do you say he provides no proof? He provided links - did you not read them? And regarding Dems, I'm sure Soros & Clinton have these same issues but their public policy is inclined towards helping the disadvantaged not taxes cuts for the advantaged. Maybe that's why he does not refer to them?
2
Unfortunately, Paul Krugman doesn't really rise above anecdote in this essay. And the anecdotes are limited to extremes like Sheldon Adelson and Donald Trump. But Hillary and Bill Clinton (together worth on the order of $120 million) are part of the problem, as are many other good liberal(-ish) millionaires and billionaires -- George Soros, Bill Gates, and so on.
Moreover, we live in a country where, as the Times reported recently, people making $200 and more suffer under the delusion that they are hard done to, that they are middle class. We have judges who think 'affluenza' is a defense. And, astonishingly (as Thomas Edsall reported earlier this year), some social science indicates that Americans have responded to greater inequality by moving the the right politically.
We live in a culture that lionizes wealth and fame (consider how long Bill Cosby got away with his crimes). By extension, Americans treat gross, crippling inequality as a national virtue, something to be proud of.
Moreover, we live in a country where, as the Times reported recently, people making $200 and more suffer under the delusion that they are hard done to, that they are middle class. We have judges who think 'affluenza' is a defense. And, astonishingly (as Thomas Edsall reported earlier this year), some social science indicates that Americans have responded to greater inequality by moving the the right politically.
We live in a culture that lionizes wealth and fame (consider how long Bill Cosby got away with his crimes). By extension, Americans treat gross, crippling inequality as a national virtue, something to be proud of.
13
Seems a bit like Game of Thrones without the dragons.
1
Once in a while a biblical passage is perfect---'It's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven.'
4
It's so cute, Krugman is concerned about some folk's souls.
3
Egomaniacs in politics. Great that you're finally getting to Obama...even if you're about 10 years too late. Great work!
4
I think he said Trump.
2
This reads like reheated Marxism. The expiration date on this philosophy has long passed. Stereotyping the affluent and condemning their souls are remarkably weak arguments for socialism. There are many vices that tempt man - unearned wealth is one, covetousness is another. Larger and more powerful governments - even those that claim legitimacy on the basis of achieving a plurality - are no less likely to be corrupt than any other institution. No thank you.
5
Marxism? You over react my friend. A quick solution would be to limit political donations. We don't even need a Socialist party for that, just honest good faith people - Republicans & Democrats.
2
This is one of your best pieces and this coming from a life long Republican. That is, until the self delusional and self absorbed on the religious right gobbled up the Party. What has happened to our colleges and universities that they do not teach ethics to those who had no chance to absorb such concepts growing up? It is the flawed ethics of some of the super rich, super evangelical or super entitled that will most likely undermine our democracy.
7
Plutocracy: Bad For Soul & Intelligence
So what happens when these bad people have the power? Well, the god of hell, Pluto, rules (It was known before as “Hades”, and later as “Satan”, or “Shaitan” in Islam). Oligarchy means “rule of the few”. Plutocracy means rule, not just of wealth, but viciousness. It also entails stupidity.
Those who have so much power cannot justify it, except by saying, first to themselves, that they are exceptionally good (and thus the others are relatively bad, as demonstrated by the fact that they are less able).
This is why plutocrats call themselves “philanthropists”. Plutocrats claim their souls are innocent, and examples of all what’s best about humanity. One of the attributes of Pluto was invisibility. Plutocrats also hide the obvious in plain sight. Through the media they control all over, they claim that the private moral system they use, founded, as it is, on greed and a high idea not just of themselves, but also of greed itself, should be the template of world morality.
It’s not just ethics which is affected. Intelligence itself also is, as the top decisions are taken only under the influence of a few brains. Actually, the main interest of democracy is that, when The People (demos) rules, all minds rules, all ideas get debated, and all these debates create new ideas. When only a few brains are allowed to take part, much fewer ideas appear.
Historically, plutocracy has been the greatest enemy of civilization.
So what happens when these bad people have the power? Well, the god of hell, Pluto, rules (It was known before as “Hades”, and later as “Satan”, or “Shaitan” in Islam). Oligarchy means “rule of the few”. Plutocracy means rule, not just of wealth, but viciousness. It also entails stupidity.
Those who have so much power cannot justify it, except by saying, first to themselves, that they are exceptionally good (and thus the others are relatively bad, as demonstrated by the fact that they are less able).
This is why plutocrats call themselves “philanthropists”. Plutocrats claim their souls are innocent, and examples of all what’s best about humanity. One of the attributes of Pluto was invisibility. Plutocrats also hide the obvious in plain sight. Through the media they control all over, they claim that the private moral system they use, founded, as it is, on greed and a high idea not just of themselves, but also of greed itself, should be the template of world morality.
It’s not just ethics which is affected. Intelligence itself also is, as the top decisions are taken only under the influence of a few brains. Actually, the main interest of democracy is that, when The People (demos) rules, all minds rules, all ideas get debated, and all these debates create new ideas. When only a few brains are allowed to take part, much fewer ideas appear.
Historically, plutocracy has been the greatest enemy of civilization.
7
In my almost year of subscribing to the NY Times I have yet to read about a rich oligarch who is bad that backs the democratic party. Seems like only the oligarchs that are right wing are the bad guys. I guess only good oligarchs backed Obama (Soros?? the currency manipulator)? Therefore, does Krugman have a problem with all rich people or just the ones that he doesn't like?
11
Are there other examples besides the apparently ubiquitous Soros? One hears of the Kochs and Adelsons and Murdochs and so on, but only Soros seems to appear in the "you're one too" arguments here. And of course, none of those arguments actually address the policies that these wealthy men pursue, which is Krugman's point here.
4
Rich people who seek influence to further their own interests favor Republican policies, even when are buying off Democrats. Hard to understand?
4
So what, Mr. Krugman, is the difference between the super rich trying to influence policy and the editorial board of the NYTimes trying to influence policy. You try to influence policy with your editorials! It seems you and the NYTimes don't like any competition!
7
There's a difference, quantum, between trying to persuade through argument and simply bypassing the democratic process by paying for service of politicians in your pocket--a difference between a democratic republic and an oligarchy.
12
I believe you've nailed it. Political pundits don't like their privilege and power diminishing either. They've gotten quite used to their influence.
When shall we begin the debate on the power and privilege of elitist pundits?
When shall we begin the debate on the power and privilege of elitist pundits?
2
I'm convinced there is no ideal form of Government because any of them would still involve self centered people.
Everyone likes Capitalism until the Capitalists rule.
Nobody likes Communism, Socialism, or Military rulers either.
So are we stuck with the best form of Government?
They are all Pirates in the end.
I am alarmed at how easily the general public succumbs to leaderships' stirring of hatred, anger, and bigotry towards others. Somehow I hope Trump wins to punish Americans for being so shallow minded and hateful. It would be a very harsh lesson learned whose memory would linger for hundreds of years that might prevent oligarchical leanings in the future.
Man sometimes has to suffer to learn.
Everyone likes Capitalism until the Capitalists rule.
Nobody likes Communism, Socialism, or Military rulers either.
So are we stuck with the best form of Government?
They are all Pirates in the end.
I am alarmed at how easily the general public succumbs to leaderships' stirring of hatred, anger, and bigotry towards others. Somehow I hope Trump wins to punish Americans for being so shallow minded and hateful. It would be a very harsh lesson learned whose memory would linger for hundreds of years that might prevent oligarchical leanings in the future.
Man sometimes has to suffer to learn.
1
The goal of an economy needs to be an optimally functioning culture and society.
In America, our economic structure has greed as it's foundation - a "survival of the fittest" philosophy.
It is a culture that rewards the most predatory and corrupt among us.
It has been understood for millenia that "Radix malorum est cupiditas" - greed is the root of all evil.
The pervasiveness of corruption in our society shows that we still don't have the willpower to conquer greed.
In America, our economic structure has greed as it's foundation - a "survival of the fittest" philosophy.
It is a culture that rewards the most predatory and corrupt among us.
It has been understood for millenia that "Radix malorum est cupiditas" - greed is the root of all evil.
The pervasiveness of corruption in our society shows that we still don't have the willpower to conquer greed.
4
The 12/29/15 articles in the NYTimes "For the Wealthiest, a Private Tax System That Saves Them Billions" is much more telling about the extent of their power and the abject corruption of politicians. Justice Brandeis's choice oligarchy or democracy, but not both has come to pass. We have chosen money as our one true God. When they finally have nothing more to offer for the masses than cake, I hope it's a nice chocolate cake.
8
Paul, Paul, Paul,
After years of reading your Opinion's may I call you Paul?
I think everything you state in this opinion is correct. It is also sad that people are just to dumb or wrapped up in their lives to notice. If they did, they would ignore the money and vote for people that would put a bit into the mouth of those people.
But they will not. At some future date they will lift their heads up, or their children will, and see that they are living in a society that is no longer organized by 'We The People" but by "The Few of Them".
At that point the only option will be total submission or open revolt. Both will be ugly for everyone.
After years of reading your Opinion's may I call you Paul?
I think everything you state in this opinion is correct. It is also sad that people are just to dumb or wrapped up in their lives to notice. If they did, they would ignore the money and vote for people that would put a bit into the mouth of those people.
But they will not. At some future date they will lift their heads up, or their children will, and see that they are living in a society that is no longer organized by 'We The People" but by "The Few of Them".
At that point the only option will be total submission or open revolt. Both will be ugly for everyone.
2
I wonder how many people reading this have their minds changed, or are most of us all ready convinced of the evil of our system. Maybe someone will admit they have begun the slow path to rethinking their support for the GOP and the support of policies that only benefit the rich. I wonder
Mr. Krugman, I note that you have only chosen Republicans as examples of wealthy bad behavior.
6
More money comes from fewer people on the Republican side. Look at the figures.
1
On the other hand, we have the Gates and Zuckerbergs who seem to be pretty good eggs.
1
It's about blame and anger.
If the electorate is constantly fed a diet that there is a "someone" responsible for their circumstances, the inevitable result is Trump and his ilk.
If the electorate is constantly fed a diet that there is a "someone" responsible for their circumstances, the inevitable result is Trump and his ilk.
1
Hot tips for the cake eaters, you can only sit on one toilet at a time and you never see a hearse pulling a trailer.
4
Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations" asks, Do Kings sleep better? (worried by affairs--of state and venereal disease). Do they have healthier diets? (high on the hog means more sat fat and clogged arteries). Are their families better? Are they loved better? Do they live longer? Are their lives less stressful?
No, Smith answered, to all. Why then are their wealth and power so sought after?
Veblen answered--"invidious comparisons"--envy. The high-hoggers need to be envied--need--are dependent on-- low-hoggers to think their lives superior--whether they really are or not. Masters are impossible without slaves or servants. Their higher quality of life depends mainly on the belief that others think they have a higher quality of life.
Fortunately the others are eager to do so. And also eager to suck up to them--defer to and obey them--regardless of their knowledge or competence--hoping for a few perks to trickle down.
And so the hoi polloi recognize the political and legal authority of property, tax and labor law--making the monied princes and paupers second class citizens.
No, Smith answered, to all. Why then are their wealth and power so sought after?
Veblen answered--"invidious comparisons"--envy. The high-hoggers need to be envied--need--are dependent on-- low-hoggers to think their lives superior--whether they really are or not. Masters are impossible without slaves or servants. Their higher quality of life depends mainly on the belief that others think they have a higher quality of life.
Fortunately the others are eager to do so. And also eager to suck up to them--defer to and obey them--regardless of their knowledge or competence--hoping for a few perks to trickle down.
And so the hoi polloi recognize the political and legal authority of property, tax and labor law--making the monied princes and paupers second class citizens.
4
CNBC has done a few programs about people who rip off the rich for profit. So many wealthy people want the best jewelry/art/etc that they buy fakes so they can brag to their friends about their expensive stuff when in fact they were taken in and made fools of.
1
"Narcisstocracy? Jerkigarchy?"
The word Mr. Brooks is looking for is kakistocracy, government by the worst.
The word Mr. Brooks is looking for is kakistocracy, government by the worst.
3
I would argue that the same could be said of the media.
4
'Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority, still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority.'
Funny how well Acton understood your point 128 years ago. Tragic how the 'great men are almost always bad men' portion gets left out in almost every case.
Funny how well Acton understood your point 128 years ago. Tragic how the 'great men are almost always bad men' portion gets left out in almost every case.
7
Leaving aside from the moral and political arguments, having economic policies that favor the rich are ultimately bad for the poor, the middle class, and the rich. By and large, the states that have the highest taxes, the highest minimum wages, the most access to education and health care, and the best infrastructure have the strongest economies, the least crime, and the highest quality of life.
The game "Monopoly" is capitalism at its purest, with the game ending when one player owns all the property and has all the money. It is not in the interest of the wealthy to win the game, it is in their interest to invest in keeping the game they are good at going. Similarly, the NFL would go down the tubes if the referees were paid by one of the teams. Seriously, is there any politician that denies climate change that doesn't have a financial interest in having that belief?
The game "Monopoly" is capitalism at its purest, with the game ending when one player owns all the property and has all the money. It is not in the interest of the wealthy to win the game, it is in their interest to invest in keeping the game they are good at going. Similarly, the NFL would go down the tubes if the referees were paid by one of the teams. Seriously, is there any politician that denies climate change that doesn't have a financial interest in having that belief?
11
I wonder about those who seem ready and eager for the likes of Trump to be President. What's in their minds?
Sometimes I think we collectively are entering steadily further and further into the Heart of Darkness. Primitive impulses rule over us more and more. We are becoming savages dependent more and more on external structures, institutions, Weber's Iron Cage of Reason, to keep us from running completely amok. Less and less under sway of inner guidance, less and less masters of our own inner domains. No visions of divine sweetness and light. That Cassandra of Our Age, Nietzsche warned: the wolf of nihilism is at the door and keeps coming back.
But then, I am only a bug.
Sometimes I think we collectively are entering steadily further and further into the Heart of Darkness. Primitive impulses rule over us more and more. We are becoming savages dependent more and more on external structures, institutions, Weber's Iron Cage of Reason, to keep us from running completely amok. Less and less under sway of inner guidance, less and less masters of our own inner domains. No visions of divine sweetness and light. That Cassandra of Our Age, Nietzsche warned: the wolf of nihilism is at the door and keeps coming back.
But then, I am only a bug.
6
It reminds me of what i read about Germany in 1933 i.e. frustrated, angry 'little' people making the wrong choices.
4
As usual, Professor Krugman hits the nail on the head. Our politicians are up for sale thanks to the republican elite as represented in congress and on the Supreme Court. It has become naive for regular Americans to think their elected representatives at the federal level and in some states will actually represent their interests or even the collective interests of the country. The wealthy own the Republican Party and much of the news media. How do we end a corrupt system when the people we must rely on to end it are themselves corrupted?
3
Most frightening is the lack of "conscience" among Americans in general. A total disregard for fairness and justice has permeated society in general; not only among the virtue of selfishness class. The intention to do what is good and what is right (as our President initially prescribed) failed because hate prevailed and no one stopped that specific disease from spreading.
The New Year seems a good time for reflection about who we are.
The New Year seems a good time for reflection about who we are.
9
It takes an exceptional individual to stand up to the plutocratic sociopaths who are summarily gifted with ring kissing servility from Congressmen to parking valets. Even the often benignly perceived Gates & Buffett think they can engineer public policy exclusive of the tax laws designed by their henchmen.
Year after year, we hear proposals for a flat tax, requirements that struggling wage earners start sacrificing even more & pay federal tax to "have skin in the game." There are examples of people earning 12K a year paying more state tax than multi-billion dollar corporations, who've paid zero.
It's evident that the working class requires labor union leaders, public & private, with all the arrogance & gravitas of those from the past to match the current sway held by those of a reborn aristocracy, the new masters of another Gilded Age.
Year after year, we hear proposals for a flat tax, requirements that struggling wage earners start sacrificing even more & pay federal tax to "have skin in the game." There are examples of people earning 12K a year paying more state tax than multi-billion dollar corporations, who've paid zero.
It's evident that the working class requires labor union leaders, public & private, with all the arrogance & gravitas of those from the past to match the current sway held by those of a reborn aristocracy, the new masters of another Gilded Age.
10
And it's likely certain that those who earn $12k are a greater burden on the infrastructure and social programs and their employers and neighbors than the wealth ever will be. It is beyond obscene that someone who achieves greatness, like Mark Zuckerberg, has a tax liability of $2,000,000,000 because he put out an IPO. No one individual, much less generations of an entire family should ever be expected to fill the trough that is government to that extent. A multi-million dollar CEO shouldn't pay the same rate as her secretary because she doesn't impact public facilities. A CEO who is chauffeured to their office in a company car isn't using the publicly funded subways. A CEO who helicopters to their summer home isn't crowding the LIE. And while at that summer home, they aren't using Orchard Beach. Their kids who are chauffeured to their private school by their nanny in the family SUV aren't using publicly funded schools or school buses. At 18 they'll likely attend private universities at full price rather than the secretary whose kids will attend...you guessed it...publicly funded colleges.
Pk finally is getting it right. Move beyond economic theory and look at individual behavior. His thinking is in line with a long history of looking at the unethical selfish behavior of those at the top, as tolerated or endured by those less fortunate. Go read any haftorah and these elements are in place.
It only takes a few sick narcissistic elite to ruin any village.
Those looking up at these few are usually incapacitated or emotionally distracted by their own circumstances to act correctly and collectively.
It only takes a few sick narcissistic elite to ruin any village.
Those looking up at these few are usually incapacitated or emotionally distracted by their own circumstances to act correctly and collectively.
7
As voters, workers and consumers we are blameless victims of a rigged system. We can stop pointing at each other and calling each other names. Dr, Krugman wisely wrote about wealthy people who never hear the word,"no." They see citizens like you and me are seen as sheep. Privilege, pathology and power is the byproduct of our political finance system, where money has become free speech. Now the richest no only have the loudest voice - they seem to own the elective process. Even the flow of our nation's financial liquidity is done behind closed doors and we are left crumbs. It's another rigged part of our system and it's called a moral hazard, and we're now living in immoral times. Look in your heart to see that greed and hatred comes from untethered monopolies and those who are compelled top win. Mr. Trump is but a symptom.
7
But then, of course, there was FDR. And his family wasn't exactly poor.
7
Yet, look at the damage he wrought on our economy, removing capital to fund Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid while interfering in the natural balance of salaries through wage laws.
ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE!! Natural balance exists in your imagination!!
1
Unfortunately, in addition to wealth, power and stature are also key issues here as can be seem in the absurd behavior of our politicians. They are not all wealthy, but their egos and self importance leads them to care more about their own positions and well being, rather than what is best for the voters overall. It is a sad state.
2
If you worry about the centralized power of the federal government, about socialists and communists picking winners and losers, you should be at least as worried about power centralized in the hands of billionaires, especially when they have out-sized influence on the central government.
Centralizing decision making in the mega-rich, letting corporations write legislation and make policy, including a foreign policy (which is historically about protecting the interests of multinational corporations) is fascism.
If you want to spread power among the people, then we need to not only limit the power of government, but also limit the power of those that manipulate markets and government to steal our productivity and turn it into their personal power base.
They talk about free markets, but then they load the dice so that they rarely lose. And when they do lose, the rest of us have to bail them out. We let them privatize their wins and socialize their losses.
If you are against centralized power, stop idolizing centralized power brokers.
Centralizing decision making in the mega-rich, letting corporations write legislation and make policy, including a foreign policy (which is historically about protecting the interests of multinational corporations) is fascism.
If you want to spread power among the people, then we need to not only limit the power of government, but also limit the power of those that manipulate markets and government to steal our productivity and turn it into their personal power base.
They talk about free markets, but then they load the dice so that they rarely lose. And when they do lose, the rest of us have to bail them out. We let them privatize their wins and socialize their losses.
If you are against centralized power, stop idolizing centralized power brokers.
9
Let's not confuse correlation with causality. It is entirely possible that many of the wealthy class got there by exhibiting sociopathic behavior. Which is to say that they amassed their fortunes by stepping over the bounds of decency and lawfulness that less wealthy people recognize as being binding on themselves. As one example, scholarly studies have shown a very high prevalence of sociopathy amongst Wall Street bankers and traders. So, for some, being an A-hole may be a prerequisite for, rather than an result of, attaining great wealth.
20
The tactic of personal attack on Mr. Krugman ("he's jeaous!"; "what about his own net worth? he's a hypocrite!"; "he writes for a newspaper, he has influence too!") to undermine his disturbingly compelling observation of the confluence of wealth/power/politics smacks of a terrible desperation to remain in denial about our current circumstances as a country. He makes a useful observation: that rich people are often shielded from the consequences of their very bad behavior (whether these consequences be informal social checks or through legal apparatus). What appears to be acceptance or endorsement of repugnant, morally questionable behavior is actually acquiescence because the power to respond meaningfully and quickly is so maldistributed in our society. What PK delineates is complex and scary: a system that thrives on financial insecurity for most people, a terror of being alienated from those few who remain with access to resources, thus weakening the ability or will to challenge power. I urge people to leave jealousy out of this arsenal of responses to those who articulate this circumstance. You may not agree with his analysis, but PK is trying to raise awareness about the deterioration of basic human decency in the midst of economic inequality. Stop for second and let yourself hear it.
21
As long as the road to power and control in government for most politicians is paved with unlimited campaign contributions from the super rich, and most Americans aren't interested in immersing themselves in understanding the details of complex policy legislation, Congress will remain bought and paid for by the people who are able to control government policies by buying the loyalties of elected officials.
7
Krugman is pulling punches. EVERY politician in DC is compromised by money with perhaps the exception of Sanders and a few others. The most powerful are the most compromised because we, the voters, have been influenced by the millions/billions of dollars behind them and voted them into office. We have created and enabled the nexus of power and money every time we pull the lever and vote for them. The Bush, Kennedy and Clinton dynasties are exhibit A in this process.
You want change?
Then quit voting for people who have millions and billions in a war chest to get elected. That is the buying of power and those politicians have been bought and are selling out your interests. They will offer you shiny trinkets in exchange for you giving up everything else.
You want change?
Then quit voting for people who have millions and billions in a war chest to get elected. That is the buying of power and those politicians have been bought and are selling out your interests. They will offer you shiny trinkets in exchange for you giving up everything else.
18
I'm not sure all the prescriptions everyone offers will work. Even if we could make changes in the makeup of Congress, these oligarchs have lawyers at their disposal and the ability to move their money offshore not to mention their residences. That could make the situation worse.
As much as I'd like to tar and feather them, we're going to have to include them in the solution.on
As much as I'd like to tar and feather them, we're going to have to include them in the solution.on
2
Perhaps billionaires are different, but my family has, if anything, become more generous as our income and assets have grown. True, I don't always put money into the Salvation Army kettle or give to charities when asked at store checkouts, but that is because we give through payroll deduction to our local food bank every pay period, and our tax rate is such that we do not want to pay it on any of our donations. Compassion is wonderful, but does those in need little good if one does not have the means to help.
In reading your columns, I often recall a mathematics class in which we were to solve linear equations of some magnitude. The professor would go through the standard algorithm for the solution on the board, all very precise except for the last square in the matrix, in which he would write W.I.T., which, he told us, stood for Whatever It Takes; in other words, whatever was required to make the contents of that square agree with the contents of the other squares according to the rules. As a citizen and taxpayer, I realize that our economy is very complex, but I just want to know what would be required of each of us in additional taxes and tradeoffs to ensure that no person would have to live in poverty, that each child would receive a free appropriate education, that everyone would have a job and enough healthy food to eat, etc. In short, I want to know what the Whatever It Takes calculation is, because only by knowing that will we know whether such a thing is feasible.
In reading your columns, I often recall a mathematics class in which we were to solve linear equations of some magnitude. The professor would go through the standard algorithm for the solution on the board, all very precise except for the last square in the matrix, in which he would write W.I.T., which, he told us, stood for Whatever It Takes; in other words, whatever was required to make the contents of that square agree with the contents of the other squares according to the rules. As a citizen and taxpayer, I realize that our economy is very complex, but I just want to know what would be required of each of us in additional taxes and tradeoffs to ensure that no person would have to live in poverty, that each child would receive a free appropriate education, that everyone would have a job and enough healthy food to eat, etc. In short, I want to know what the Whatever It Takes calculation is, because only by knowing that will we know whether such a thing is feasible.
8
Thoughtful comment and powerful sentiment. As good as the article.
2
Very good question Kathleen. I'm afraid the answer is " more". Almost every social transfer program we have started out small, morphed into large, and is on its way to larger. If you ask a liberal what is the maximum tax rate anyone should pay, you're usually hard pressed to get an answer because they don't want to get pinned down. "More" is always the eventual answer.
Like you we try to be compassionate. My wife and I find ourselves donating more and more, even in retirement. We're happy to do that, but I wish some of those on the liberal side with wealth would address local problems with their own donations instead of always prescribing the use of other people's money. Which, as Maggie Thatcher famously said, one eventually runs out of.
Like you we try to be compassionate. My wife and I find ourselves donating more and more, even in retirement. We're happy to do that, but I wish some of those on the liberal side with wealth would address local problems with their own donations instead of always prescribing the use of other people's money. Which, as Maggie Thatcher famously said, one eventually runs out of.
1
According to Bernie Sanders, a fair and just tax system where everyone pays according to their means to pay.
According to Grover Norquist of Americans For Tax Reform we should all pay lower taxes. Grover has the signatures of about 99% of all the GOP
It's our choice.
According to Grover Norquist of Americans For Tax Reform we should all pay lower taxes. Grover has the signatures of about 99% of all the GOP
It's our choice.
In the Bible Jesus said it was harder for a wealthy man to get to heaven than for a camel to go through the eye of a needle. Then there is the parable of the "Good Samaritan". The truth is that Biology is Darwinian. The stuff that makes men/women wealthy is the same stuff that makes them arrogant, aggressive and obnoxious. If we had no civilization and no rules we'd have Genghis Khan or Somalia.
So we should hate the wealthy right? Well, no! They are on balance the more gifted among us. Their vision, intelligence and persistence is what makes us great. But that also gave us Royalty, Dictators and Brutal leader. Our current society blunts the achievement and hubris or these men and women in exchange for stability. I think that to belittle the achievements is not productive. However, income disparity is the enemy of stable Democracy. The poor will have gifted progeny and they will rise up against the suppressors.
Wealth and Power are equal, biologically.
Democracy gives voice to less gifted and damps that biological social drive. That is the major reason Churchill called it the worst system except for all the other known systems.
The Romans had a system of honoring the wealthy an powerful. They gave their names to streets and buildings and made statues in their honor. We have given names and statues to politicians not achievers.
We should be careful not to hate the gifted but we can't go back and give them all the money and all the power.
So we should hate the wealthy right? Well, no! They are on balance the more gifted among us. Their vision, intelligence and persistence is what makes us great. But that also gave us Royalty, Dictators and Brutal leader. Our current society blunts the achievement and hubris or these men and women in exchange for stability. I think that to belittle the achievements is not productive. However, income disparity is the enemy of stable Democracy. The poor will have gifted progeny and they will rise up against the suppressors.
Wealth and Power are equal, biologically.
Democracy gives voice to less gifted and damps that biological social drive. That is the major reason Churchill called it the worst system except for all the other known systems.
The Romans had a system of honoring the wealthy an powerful. They gave their names to streets and buildings and made statues in their honor. We have given names and statues to politicians not achievers.
We should be careful not to hate the gifted but we can't go back and give them all the money and all the power.
2
Roman plutocrats paid for their own statues in public places.
1
in a truly Darwinian economy, armed robbery would be legal
got a problem w that ?
well, do you ?
got a problem w that ?
well, do you ?
1
"They are on balance the more gifted among us."
A gifted mathematician, engineer, artist, physician, craftsman, teacher, etc. Is not automatically destined for wealth, so I'm not clear to what "gift" you may be referring here.
And, from society's perspective, is it in fact a gift?
...Andrew
A gifted mathematician, engineer, artist, physician, craftsman, teacher, etc. Is not automatically destined for wealth, so I'm not clear to what "gift" you may be referring here.
And, from society's perspective, is it in fact a gift?
...Andrew
4
The system should not allow the rampant income inequality that has been expanding the gulf between those at the top and those at the bottom for decades. Any leader or candidate who does not address how the system causes this is certainly a leader or candidate who favors the system that causes it.
Too many low income and often low education level right wing extremists who decry "income redistribution" do not understand that it is their incomes that are being redistributed upward toe multi-national CEO's and off-shore to lower paid workers who, let us be honest, rarely provide the kind of customer service a person in one's own city might provide simply because the customer has the option of showing up in person.
Too many low income and often low education level right wing extremists who decry "income redistribution" do not understand that it is their incomes that are being redistributed upward toe multi-national CEO's and off-shore to lower paid workers who, let us be honest, rarely provide the kind of customer service a person in one's own city might provide simply because the customer has the option of showing up in person.
3
I read "The Rich and The Super Rich by Ferdinand Lundberg when I was a freshman college student in 1969. I suggest reading it or re-reading it today to prove that the more things change, the more they remain the same!
2
In 1979, when my husband was in his thirties, he worked at a start-up owned by a very wealthy and powerful executive at one of the biggest brokerage houses on Wall Street. When my husband decided to quit after two years, this man searched my husband's phone calls, found one that could be construed as either talking to a vendor or a competitor and used that fact to file an injunction against my husband's leaving. The case would have eventually been thrown out of court but since we had a total of $20,000 in capital and my husband's boss had millions, lawyer's fees would have quickly bankrupted us. It was at this point, we lost all illusions about equal justice under the law. As wealth distribution has become more skewed, the situation has only deteriorated.
27
This is why I'm convinced that the general election will be between one candidate representing the rich from the right, and another representing the rich from the left. Unless a majority of Democratic voters this primary season prove me and all the stories about Hillary Clinton's unstoppable momentum wrong, the richest be able to sit back in comfort while the working class wonders what new steps will be taken to finish us off once and for all. Looks grim.
3
Unrestrained capitalism leads to consolidation of power and influence. Markets become dominated by oligopolies and government becomes feudal and overall weak.
There is simple way of preventing money from directly influencing politics. Ban ALL forms of contributions to political campaigns. Restrict ALL campaigning activities such as public statements and debates to a common government internet website. It is cheaper than prime time television and can accommodate a large number of contenders without crowding out anyone because of time or resources.
Upon quitting, government officials and employees must be banned from working for industries and foreign interests over which they had oversight and influence.
There is simple way of preventing money from directly influencing politics. Ban ALL forms of contributions to political campaigns. Restrict ALL campaigning activities such as public statements and debates to a common government internet website. It is cheaper than prime time television and can accommodate a large number of contenders without crowding out anyone because of time or resources.
Upon quitting, government officials and employees must be banned from working for industries and foreign interests over which they had oversight and influence.
4
It is a scientific fact that "wealth when very great tends to convert men into useless drones." Darwin, Descent of Man, p. 91.
A human solution:
1. Require superwealthy to move to Manhattan with two measures: exempting the superwealthy from taxation if they move to Manhattan; confiscating all of their wealth if they do not.
2. Imposing the death penalty on any superwealthy person who leaves Manhattan.
A human solution:
1. Require superwealthy to move to Manhattan with two measures: exempting the superwealthy from taxation if they move to Manhattan; confiscating all of their wealth if they do not.
2. Imposing the death penalty on any superwealthy person who leaves Manhattan.
2
At the risk of sounding nostalgic, during the middle of the last century, here were many very wealthy families and individuals in this country, and while most likely took advantage of different kinds of loopholes to avoid taxation, they still bore a significantly greater proportion of the tax burden (i.e., the means for supporting our government and programs that are directed at the common good ) than the wealthy do today. And, the AMT of old was designed to ensure that the wealthy who availed themselves of the tax loopholes of yore paid a minimum percentage of their income toward our common tax burden. And then came Reagan. He is a hero among the GOP not just because of the very specific things he "accomplished," but because he transformed the entire political system. The AMT was turned on its head, and affects far more ordinary citizens than it does the wealthy and uber wealthy taking advantage of tax loopholes. He forged a relationship with the NRA to persuade SCOTUS to ignore the critical leading phrase of the second amendment ("a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state"). He set the stage for Citizens United, which put the nail in the coffin of our (formerly) representative government. And he set in motion the GOP's chief strategy: make sure the electorate is as uneducated and ignorant as possible, so they can be convinced easily to vote against their interests. Perhaps an oversimplification, but the transformation is profound, and scary.
10
Thank you Paul.
Please keep it up.
Someone has to speak the truth, plainly and directly.
Please keep it up.
Someone has to speak the truth, plainly and directly.
8
Fits Hil and Bil to a T.
3
Except they ain't got that much, and made it without the benefit of inheriting. You know--that dream we hear so much about from the Right?
2
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.” - John Steinbeck
26
This is an outstanding article defining the abuse of 320 million by 200 rich men.
What is needed today is Teddy Roosevelt who had the mettle to break the bone of mega slavers. Regrettably, President Obama lacks the courage of a Republican. As President Roosevelt stated, “It is hard to fail, but it is worse never to have tried to succeed.”
What is needed today is Teddy Roosevelt who had the mettle to break the bone of mega slavers. Regrettably, President Obama lacks the courage of a Republican. As President Roosevelt stated, “It is hard to fail, but it is worse never to have tried to succeed.”
7
PK's opinion on the subject would be more credible if, for once, he was able to incorporate the obvious "Clinton" perspective into his argument. What...they and their cronies are somehow above it all? Once again, conspicuous in its absence.
1
A long-gone Republican uncle who admired Taft and despised President Eisenhower lived in a Wall Street Journal political environment, which somehow didn't keep him from running a successful business (car dealership) and, more important, managing his inheritance. His father had done exceedingly well by investing in General Motors.
We simply seem to have more of that sort of cocooning now. I know people who think inflation is raging and the 2012 election was a matter of massive fraud, the sort that's being remedied in the southern states.
We simply seem to have more of that sort of cocooning now. I know people who think inflation is raging and the 2012 election was a matter of massive fraud, the sort that's being remedied in the southern states.
5
This is all so bizarre. When there is no longer a middle class but only the rich and poor, who is going to be able to purchase the products that the rich produce to keep themselves rich. Seems they are shooting themselves in the foot. They will soon only have one another to compete with and won't that be a hoot.
5
The truly rich produce money, not products. Thus there is no concern as to whether their putative products will or can be purchased, but very great concern that their money might be kept from accumulating of its own weight or worse, be taken from them in some fashion they cannot resist.
7
There is one thing missing from Paul Krugman's argument, which is this: wealth in itself is not bad so long as it is "bred" to be used with moral, social and political responsibility and with an eye to the common good. In this country -- think only of the Roosevelt family -- Theodore, Franklin, Eleanor -- or of the founding fathers (Washington, Jefferson, etc.) -- or of the Kennedys or William Fulbright, etc. America was born and has been sustained by an entire tradition of democratic elites. The real failure of our time is that the social reproduction of such elites has ceased and failed, and the question is why?
4
greed breaks iron
3
Because except for the liberal-minded ones who go into politics, th second generations of the Carnegies, Astors, Kennedys and whoevers are pretty much all worthless brats.
You know: they're orecisely what Jefferson et al told us over and over was the prob with even the very best kings?
You know: they're orecisely what Jefferson et al told us over and over was the prob with even the very best kings?
Is it not ironic that in Obama's 7 years the rich have gotten SO much richer?
Apparently PK knows of no rich Democrats in America. Start with Clinton family - they've made hundreds of millions producing nothing but words.
Oh, and by the way, the rich folks also give gobs of charity and of course create jobs for millions of people.
Apparently PK knows of no rich Democrats in America. Start with Clinton family - they've made hundreds of millions producing nothing but words.
Oh, and by the way, the rich folks also give gobs of charity and of course create jobs for millions of people.
5
Actually, the Clintons are worth about $55 millin all told. i'm not worried about their ability to git through the winter, but it's hardly Trump-level wealth...even if you go by what the Donald's actually worth rather than what he says he's worth.
But often the charity given by the rich was made off the backs of their woefully underpaid employees. Employees that often are so underpaid they require government assistance to make ends meet and to feed their poor kids.
The Walton's pop to mind. The Walton's whose only qualification for "earning" their tens of billions of dollars, was to become a Zygote. Yet they squeeze their employees daily to fill their already bloated bank accounts. So stop with the genuflecting...we ain't buying it...how can we? We're all broke.
The Walton's pop to mind. The Walton's whose only qualification for "earning" their tens of billions of dollars, was to become a Zygote. Yet they squeeze their employees daily to fill their already bloated bank accounts. So stop with the genuflecting...we ain't buying it...how can we? We're all broke.
2
allowing the rich egomaniac to influence economic policies is like allowing the fox to take care of the chicken farm.
4
More than anything, wealth makes people feel superior and better than. It's a false feeling that numbs the empathy gene and leads to compounding insulation. In the end these people are taken care of, but not too happy. Happiness comes from humility and unselfish giving. The uber rich give with a caveat and have no idea what it feels like to be left out in the cold. If our government keeps catering to their meal tickets, the majority will be left out in the cold.
2
Mr. Krugman. The subjects of your conversation are obviously disgusting and ugly. Thank you for making us aware of such happenings in the world.
However, it appears from the structure of your article that you systematically study and follow these people. Uberly powerful people all across the globe. You feign surprise at these happenings but surely these things must have been going on for the majority of your 62 years. Why speak out now?
Maybe discussing these people and bringing attention to your article is your only way of making peace. Maybe its true, that the billionaires and yourself are after the same thing: power over other people?
However, it appears from the structure of your article that you systematically study and follow these people. Uberly powerful people all across the globe. You feign surprise at these happenings but surely these things must have been going on for the majority of your 62 years. Why speak out now?
Maybe discussing these people and bringing attention to your article is your only way of making peace. Maybe its true, that the billionaires and yourself are after the same thing: power over other people?
1
Dr. Krugman continues to point out the Republicans as having the most wealth in the U.S. But why does he ignore the fact (and it IS a FACT) that MOST of the wealth in the U.S. is held by the Democrats? Oh wait, I just remembered, he permits the Dems to acquire trillions of dollars in ill-gained wealth, much of it not taxed, but he does not want to allow the same privilege to the Republicans.
3
Love to see the slightest proof of that one, just in case it isn't clear that Krugman's point is nobody should have this combo of loot and power.
1
I don't have the figure for "wealth in the US" or the knowledge of what measure of wealth you're using (please cite the source of your "fact"). But of the 50 wealthiest families, 56% are republican, 14% democratic, and 30% split in the family. http://www.forbes.com/sites/katiasavchuk/2014/07/09/are-americas-richest...
1
Through Fox News and other media outlets, the wealthy manipulate the willing by selling them faux patriotism "wrapped in a flag and carrying a bible", while at the same time disparaging government. These people have effectively been brainwashed. They really believe the wealthy do have their best interests at heart, like some people who have been held captive come to believe their captors are really their friends.
3
Here is a link to a Times op-ed from someone who saw first hand the pathology of greed. The author makes a convincing case that the rich may suffer from something very much like a disease of addiction.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/19/opinion/sunday/for-the-love-of-money.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/19/opinion/sunday/for-the-love-of-money.html
3
I had expected Prof. Krugman to mention Ethan Couch and his mother Tonya. It does him credit that he resisted the temptation. But given the offense a good number of readers have expressed at this morning's column, I can't resist. Michael Brown makes himself obnoxious by walking down the middle of a public street and winds up shot to death. Ethan Couch kills several people while driving a pick-up drunk, and leaving a friend paralyzed and brain-damaged, and he gets a 10-year suspended sentence on the grounds that growing up wealthy (and white) has made him sick. He then gets videoed at a drunken party, and flees to Mexico. Anecdotal evidence, I know, but telling just the same.
7
Not so fast, Professor.
Nobody can disagree with avarice being bad for your soul, if the teachings of ALL religions are to be considered. But only those in a position to _remember_ the difference the options that they have, when they opt to be cruel or greedy or possessive or obsessive, know the difference between making the "correct" choice and the "incorrect" one.
I'm afraid the distinction is well founded, clear and almost impossible to deny.
If I am a middle manager who has the option of, for example, charging my customer more than is fair, paying my employee less than is fair, evading taxes, finding a lower cost overseas territory, being extortionate or otherwise "avaricious," there are very few cues in popular social culture that tells me that that is wrong.
What are my choices in this scenario ? Am I to put my faith in my maker doing right by me as a result or am I to take charge of my fortune as it is presented in front of me and forget that I owe anybody anything ?
Years of social evolution in the recent past have led to the present state of affairs. Picketty has a lot of it right. Oligarchy is subject to the Iron Law that Robert Michels' outlined a long time ago.
Why are we surprised ?
Yes we need organization and a "proper counter-message". But I bet you that greed is a better driver of organized crime than is virtue.
We are lucky that we have better people leading us now, including the Pope. But let us be realistic in our expectation of what is possible.
Nobody can disagree with avarice being bad for your soul, if the teachings of ALL religions are to be considered. But only those in a position to _remember_ the difference the options that they have, when they opt to be cruel or greedy or possessive or obsessive, know the difference between making the "correct" choice and the "incorrect" one.
I'm afraid the distinction is well founded, clear and almost impossible to deny.
If I am a middle manager who has the option of, for example, charging my customer more than is fair, paying my employee less than is fair, evading taxes, finding a lower cost overseas territory, being extortionate or otherwise "avaricious," there are very few cues in popular social culture that tells me that that is wrong.
What are my choices in this scenario ? Am I to put my faith in my maker doing right by me as a result or am I to take charge of my fortune as it is presented in front of me and forget that I owe anybody anything ?
Years of social evolution in the recent past have led to the present state of affairs. Picketty has a lot of it right. Oligarchy is subject to the Iron Law that Robert Michels' outlined a long time ago.
Why are we surprised ?
Yes we need organization and a "proper counter-message". But I bet you that greed is a better driver of organized crime than is virtue.
We are lucky that we have better people leading us now, including the Pope. But let us be realistic in our expectation of what is possible.
1
Money is insulation. Have enough and it will protect you from almost any calamity; even the consequences of your own actions. You can do good or do harm and, either way, you will never have to worry about your next meal. One or two people I've known were insulated to the point where they could not perceive the needs of others. When a natural-born bully is insulated to this extent he can't help himself and people who fawn over the wealthy in the hopes that money rubs off on them are no help. You can't talk to them about it because they just can't comprehend it. After all they're rich and everyone loves them.
Our problem is a cultural one. We love money too much. We fantasize about what we'll do when we win the lottery and see it as a panacea for all our problems and the instant gratification of all our desires. Hence we admire the rich too much and are too likely to give them a pass as long as it supports the illusion that we, too, will get rich.
The solution? Stop regarding wealth as alpha and omega of life. It creates as many problems as it solves. Just because they're rich doesn't mean Trump, Adelson or the Kochs are going to solve your problems or make you rich. More likely, they will solve their problems without ever getting around to what you need to improve your life. Its better to see the world beyond yourself and doing what you can to make life better for yourself and others. Look for leadership from those who would balance the needs of the many and the few.
Our problem is a cultural one. We love money too much. We fantasize about what we'll do when we win the lottery and see it as a panacea for all our problems and the instant gratification of all our desires. Hence we admire the rich too much and are too likely to give them a pass as long as it supports the illusion that we, too, will get rich.
The solution? Stop regarding wealth as alpha and omega of life. It creates as many problems as it solves. Just because they're rich doesn't mean Trump, Adelson or the Kochs are going to solve your problems or make you rich. More likely, they will solve their problems without ever getting around to what you need to improve your life. Its better to see the world beyond yourself and doing what you can to make life better for yourself and others. Look for leadership from those who would balance the needs of the many and the few.
8
well put
about th only thing money cant directly affect is your health
however, th rich often lead a healthier lifestyle, bc they can afford whatever it takes to stay well
and in sickness, they get th best of care
there is no despair deeper than being poor and sick
about th only thing money cant directly affect is your health
however, th rich often lead a healthier lifestyle, bc they can afford whatever it takes to stay well
and in sickness, they get th best of care
there is no despair deeper than being poor and sick
10
Thomas Jefferson must be turning in his grave at the sight of this new class of moneyed "aristocracy" that destroys the American democracy. Adam Smith would invite the ones claiming to be "capitalists" to read his Theory of Moral Sentiments, which, truth be told, is the frame work on which Bernie Sanders' policies rest, as are the ones advocated by you Paul Krugman, and Joseph Stieglitz too. Capitalism without empathy is akin to bringing back kingship and lordship and the fight to wrestle more of the loot, which loot begets more loot, as Thomas Picketty ample shows. So, the choice is ours: do we need a moneyed aristocracy to run our lives or a democracy that promotes social justice and helps lift all boats??
4
Jefferson would be the equivalent of a billionaire today. And what if today property owners were the only ones allowed to vote?
1
Actually, Jefferson died pretty much broke. Try again.
2
Jefferson died a bankrupt.
2
Perhaps if we could get meeting notes from the Founders, we'd find that the system of "checks and balances" they created was actually meant to be one of "cheques and account balances". That at least seems to be the interpretation of the Roberts court and their ruling that helped further the campaign finance monstrosity we suffer with now.
2
We need a nobility. In England, the royals and get a degree of deference. The public pays them for official tasks and they earn a good deal of respect for doing good works. In the colonies, we have no such social stars, so we imbue hollywood types, playboys and rich people with that deferential status. Rather than accepting a public stipend, these people take money from us in less obvious ways, yet they owe us nothing: not good policy or good advice or even a good role model. As a nation, we need public heroes to tell us what is right and we have none -- certainly not politicians.
1
How can you write a column about greed and political corruption and not mention the Clintons? Bill deregulated Wall Street and then got rich on the $250,000 speeches to Wall Street 1%ers, Hillary fought for the banks and the 1% in the Senate and flogged he "Clinton Foundation" as Secretary of State.
Trump and Adelson are greedy swine, but so are the Clintons.
Trump and Adelson are greedy swine, but so are the Clintons.
5
Is Clinton a billionaire? Has he been lobbying for lower taxes on himself?
3
The Clintons appear to be worth maybe $55 mil between them--fear not, they'll manage--and I would suggest that making mone from books, lectures, and some wheeling-dealing is way different from making money by inheriting it, and having Saudi partners who swoop in and bail you out, and tearing up communities to piece off the properties, and running casinos.
One thing these folks will never admit is that most of them used the commons in their rise to great riches (unless of course, it was inherited wealth). Transportation infrastructure, water, and other factors paid for by public tax dollars helped them rise, without there being any perceived or actual need for them to pay back their poorer members of the society; this is a contributor to their narcissism that is usually overlooked.
Dr. Krugman, I wish that you could overcome the omerta of your employer by pointing out that, based on the facts, Senator Sanders is really the only believable candidate in this realm, quite simply because he continues to run his campaign on the hard-earned dollars of folks like myself, whose 10-buck contributions are a significant chunk of cash in the context of overall income/resources; Bernie has also resisted the advances of billionaires and super-PACS. All the others do not walk the walk.
Dr. Krugman, I wish that you could overcome the omerta of your employer by pointing out that, based on the facts, Senator Sanders is really the only believable candidate in this realm, quite simply because he continues to run his campaign on the hard-earned dollars of folks like myself, whose 10-buck contributions are a significant chunk of cash in the context of overall income/resources; Bernie has also resisted the advances of billionaires and super-PACS. All the others do not walk the walk.
12
This analysis for which there is solid scientific foundation, puts the second amendment in a whole new light.
4
Except, when they come to get you your gun will not help you. You will hear a click on the floor, turn to see the flash bang as it blinds you, and before you can see again, you will be surrounded by SWAT. If you do lift a gun, you will be riddled with bullets.
Only non-violent action can stop the domination of the billionaires. War does not create democracy. Democratic action: educating your self and others, writing to media and government, forming groups of people that work together to change people's opinions, and creative protests are the only way to create democracy.
They have way more guns than we do. It is the first amendment that needs to be exercised.
Only non-violent action can stop the domination of the billionaires. War does not create democracy. Democratic action: educating your self and others, writing to media and government, forming groups of people that work together to change people's opinions, and creative protests are the only way to create democracy.
They have way more guns than we do. It is the first amendment that needs to be exercised.
1
Happy New Year, Mr. Krugman, may you continue to speak truth to power, especially the egomaniac oligarchy in control of our government and financial system.
2016 will be the year that will decide the future of our still great nation. It is likely the corporate / military / industrial alliance will be successful in getting their latest representative into the White House, and the policies that grew inequality into the monstrosity it is, will continue, and grow more and more onerous.
I have some little hope that Sanders will surprise the owners of our future, and destroy their innate avaricious desires, but I fear if he should make it into the White House, he will be co-opted by the oligarchical alliance, and rendered ineffective.
Whatever opportunity exists to return to a truly representative government can only be realized, if we the long suffering masses, realize the nature of our formidable power, use it in every election, local, state, and national, and at last, wrest control of our future from these heartless creatures seeking to complete their several decades drive to subjugate mankind.
Time is not on our side.
2016 will be the year that will decide the future of our still great nation. It is likely the corporate / military / industrial alliance will be successful in getting their latest representative into the White House, and the policies that grew inequality into the monstrosity it is, will continue, and grow more and more onerous.
I have some little hope that Sanders will surprise the owners of our future, and destroy their innate avaricious desires, but I fear if he should make it into the White House, he will be co-opted by the oligarchical alliance, and rendered ineffective.
Whatever opportunity exists to return to a truly representative government can only be realized, if we the long suffering masses, realize the nature of our formidable power, use it in every election, local, state, and national, and at last, wrest control of our future from these heartless creatures seeking to complete their several decades drive to subjugate mankind.
Time is not on our side.
5
There may be a causation problem with Krugmans premise. It is not necessarily that wealth leads to moral failure, but it may be that a failed morality facilitates wealth aggregation.
4
There are many liberal journalists and people in the newspaper business who loathe Sheldon Adelson, his contributions to Republican candidates and his affinity for Israel. The Editorial Board of the NY Times is conspicuous for its presence among them. Prof. Krugman joins the ranks of his detractors today.
All of these worthy souls are free to start and purchase newspapers of their own and to publish whatever they like on the internet. And contribute as freely as they like to liberal candidates and causes.
Mr. Adelson, it seems to me, is entitled to as much freedom of the press as anyone else.
All of these worthy souls are free to start and purchase newspapers of their own and to publish whatever they like on the internet. And contribute as freely as they like to liberal candidates and causes.
Mr. Adelson, it seems to me, is entitled to as much freedom of the press as anyone else.
3
"Mr. Adelson, it seems to me, is entitled to as much freedom of the press as anyone else."
Exactly! If Adelson were to buy up every media source, that would really just be "freedom of the press." Nothing wrong with "freedom of the press." Anybody who can't see that hates freedom!
Exactly! If Adelson were to buy up every media source, that would really just be "freedom of the press." Nothing wrong with "freedom of the press." Anybody who can't see that hates freedom!
2
Mr. Adelson should be indicted for racketeering arrested, and thereafter, he is entitled to a fair trial, and upon conviction, incarceration in one of his own investments, to wit, one of our privately owned prisons, and placed in the general prison population.
That will start us on the road to levelling the playing field.
That will start us on the road to levelling the playing field.
4
I think it's hilarious to see the Right hold up Sheldon Adelson, a hustler with some interesting gaps in his Wikipedia timeline sho made his loot running casinos, as an exemplar of moral virtue.
1
This just in, Ebeneezer Scooge's response via the Koch Brothers:
"Bah! Humbug!"
And reached as he was about to dive back into his pile of money, Scrooge McDuck added:
"Quack! Quack!"
"Bah! Humbug!"
And reached as he was about to dive back into his pile of money, Scrooge McDuck added:
"Quack! Quack!"
I'd like to know how much Krugman is wiling to give up of his wealth. He's more than willing to take other people's money but I will bet he has the finest tax attorney money can buy to shelter it and put him in the lowest tax bracket as possible. I think Krugman, with all of his hubris and reminding us of his resume, is envious because they have what he never will. And that eats at him
To suggest that this phenomenon is mutually exclusive to Republicans is laughable. I guess Democratic billionaires Walton, Kaiser, Buffett, Pritzker, Sabin, Crown, Hearst, Gates, Allen, Ballmer, Zuckerberg, Steyer, Bloomberg, are exempt from Krugman's comments Glad we cleared this up
These redundant columns show Krugman is fast running out of things to say. It's about time
To suggest that this phenomenon is mutually exclusive to Republicans is laughable. I guess Democratic billionaires Walton, Kaiser, Buffett, Pritzker, Sabin, Crown, Hearst, Gates, Allen, Ballmer, Zuckerberg, Steyer, Bloomberg, are exempt from Krugman's comments Glad we cleared this up
These redundant columns show Krugman is fast running out of things to say. It's about time
2
Hate to break this, but with the possible exception of Zuckerberg (who just essentially gave HIS loot away, too) none of the people on your list seems to behave like a spoiled, bellowing child at least eight days a week.
By the way, what was your objection to capitalism, again?
By the way, what was your objection to capitalism, again?
2
Once again PK hits the nail on the head, but as usual there are those who accuse him and the NYT of this, that and the other thing, who comment about how PK, NYT, and assorted politicians who do not lean to the right are far left wing. Really? If you want to read far left wing commentary the NYT is not where you're going to find it. PK is a columnist and a Nobel winning Economist. He knows how to construct an argument without using terms like "really,really great." Read Krugman, then read Brooks, and then exercise your own thought process. I usually agree with Krugman but find a lot of value in reading Brooks and most of the other contributors to the OP-ED section. I am tired of hearing all these comments that automatically relegate anyone with a progressive point of view to the far left wing. McCarthy may have been shamed and some of the people whom he blacklisted may have been allowed to resume their careers, but far too many Americans are still caught up in the left vs. right, red menace mindset of the post WW II era. They either forgot or never knew that it was a Republican (Eisenhower) who warned us of the dangers of corporate political power and the military industrial complex in his farewell address. And most Americans if they are aware of his address never focus on how he closed it:
" We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full..."
" We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full..."
5
Paul,
This self absorption reminds me of the South Carolina lawmaker during the ante bellum era who said, utterly without irony, "Give me slavery or give me death." He was so insulated from other perspectives in the close minded south, that he was incapable of seeing how this sounded to people in the rest of the country.
This self absorption reminds me of the South Carolina lawmaker during the ante bellum era who said, utterly without irony, "Give me slavery or give me death." He was so insulated from other perspectives in the close minded south, that he was incapable of seeing how this sounded to people in the rest of the country.
4
I'm a senior living on social security. However, I manage to treat myself to an upscale pool with a spa (my one luxury). I overhear conversations in the spa about homelessness, racism and poverty by mostly affluent people. Some of the comments: "They like their lifestyle." They don't want to work, just get a handout." "Why should the government help anyone?" "They can get a scholarship, if they want to go to college" "They're criminals; that's why the jails are filled with them (blacks and hispanics). And it goes on.....For many in this country, the "American Dream" has turned into a nightmare - vote for Bernie!
10
We live in the age of "tax cuts in a time of war." That is plutocratic morality. The Kochs get their tax cuts and someone else's child fights their wars. Happy New Year, Paul, darling and keep giving 'em hell.
3
Good lord. How much are we talking about? $50 million, $2 billion? The richest people that I have personally interacted with have been really nice folks. And why not? One family had 5 or 6 kids, all in the best of schools, and the kid my son's age was one of the nicest, most polite kids I've ever met. He went to college at one of the service academies.
This week in the NYT we have learned that all white people are racist, all black people can't do college math, and now all rich people are bad. I can't wait for next week.
This week in the NYT we have learned that all white people are racist, all black people can't do college math, and now all rich people are bad. I can't wait for next week.
3
Actually what those of us who actually read the articles learned was that being immensely wealthy tends to encourage osychotic behavior and oathological narcissism, but you go right ahead.
1
Comparisons of any American candidate to the leader of the third Reich all fail on one central point of the criminal chancellor's life and personality. Hitler went through the trench warfare of World War I. He lived in shelters which incorporated the bodies of the dead in their outer covering. He lived with shelling, privation, the death of friends, noise and shock of bombardment. He was wounded and received the iron cross for his work as a messenger. I do not praise him however. I mention these things because they show how the young idealistic Corporal was desensitized to death. Not one of today's candidates has gone through a similar experience. I might be willing to share a foxhole with Kasich or Graham but they are gone. Any of the dems could share my fighting hole. They are not perfect, but they seem steady and flexible without being flighty.
4
I don't believe Prof Krugman mentioned Hitler or his henchmen. Perhaps you misread Narcissism for Nazissm ?
And the leading Democratic candidate is significantly different? She is an arrogant, narcissistic billionaire-in-training with no empathy for the toiling classes. She and her husband have successfully cultivated cozy connections with the very rich on her side of the political divide as her entree into the moneyed, power elite. The pathology described by Mr. Krugman is not just a Republican disease.
2
The Big Short. It should be required viewing for every American. It perfectly spells out what the oligarchs did, fraudulently ruining the global economy. And one person went to jail. How did that happen? Our gov't let it happen. Which gets us back to your point, Professor.
If a Republican takes the White House, go to cash. They cannot be trusted. The signs are there. New products are being launched as we speak that will allow for the bundling of mortgages. History repeats itself. What is astounding is that 1. Wall St. would go there again. 2. our gov't allows it. And all because of a bought off Congress. Although, there is fault here for the Obama administration. They could have pursued cases and the did not. It was and is shameful.
If a Republican takes the White House, go to cash. They cannot be trusted. The signs are there. New products are being launched as we speak that will allow for the bundling of mortgages. History repeats itself. What is astounding is that 1. Wall St. would go there again. 2. our gov't allows it. And all because of a bought off Congress. Although, there is fault here for the Obama administration. They could have pursued cases and the did not. It was and is shameful.
6
They bid up a bubble, then when everyone else buys in, they sell high popping the bubble, and when everyone panics (including the mutual funds that run your retirement) they buy at rock bottom. It doesn't matter to them that the popping bubble puts a giant hole in the economy, because they just transferred another big pile of wealth from your account to theirs.
Even when caught red handed wrecking the economy through fraudulent action, they don't face any consequences.
The stock market is now a giant bubble that was paid for by $2.5 trillion from the Fed (which they were supposed to invest productively but didn't). Soon they will bust that bubble. When they do, don't panic.
Even when caught red handed wrecking the economy through fraudulent action, they don't face any consequences.
The stock market is now a giant bubble that was paid for by $2.5 trillion from the Fed (which they were supposed to invest productively but didn't). Soon they will bust that bubble. When they do, don't panic.
1
From his many columns it does seem to me Professor Krugman is consumed by the privileges and power of the ultra rich in Presidential politics. Personally, I don't think about them that much. and here's why. Money has an influence, but it can't buy elections. Want proof? Who has raised the most Republican money in this cycle? Jeb Bush. Remember that old adage about how you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink? In fact one of Donald Trump's "assets" is that he is so rich he is independent of the big money guys. He's running on his own, and if you don't like him don't vote for him. Same with former Mayor Bloomberg, who did a pretty decent job in NYC (though his privilege enabled him to stay one term too long). And from the left, is it any different from the Clintons who have made over $100 million without every having a job, just giving "speeches" off their years of "public service". Who do you think paid for those "speeches"? What the big money can buy is lobbyists, it's Congress where they do their worst. So we all know power corrupts. It can be money, it can be politics (remember Richard Nixon?). I suppose it might also be having the power to write columns in the NY Times.
4
The Clintons are not "left."
1
They are more than Ted cruz, but then, so was Ghenghis Khan.
1
An ugly spectacle, indeed. What is disappointing is that average citizens think some government agency is protecting their interests, when in fact government works for the oligarchy. This what deregulation means. Agencies tasked with doing oversight have been captured by the billionaire boys club in financial institutions, corporations or by their "charitable" foundations. Govt agency oversight disappears or becomes too onerous to fight against an army of corporate lawyers. Privatization of public assets further shields the oligarchs from accountability and deepens the grip they have over public policy.
Ever since the 1980s & the Reagan presidency, average citizens have lost more and more protections from these billionaire boy's rapacious greed. The EPA, Dept of Education, National Labor Relations Board, FCC, etc. have been politicized into stalemates, defunded by congress, and staffed with industry flacks who rig the regs. The ubiquitous attacks on the IRS can only be interpreted as the oligarchs need to hide the rich data bases of their financial skulduggery.
The 99% can no longer count on government protections. The only groups targeted for accountability fill our exploding prisons and are walking the unemployment lines for organizing resistance.
"Make a law, make a business"
http://www.dunwalke.com/
Ever since the 1980s & the Reagan presidency, average citizens have lost more and more protections from these billionaire boy's rapacious greed. The EPA, Dept of Education, National Labor Relations Board, FCC, etc. have been politicized into stalemates, defunded by congress, and staffed with industry flacks who rig the regs. The ubiquitous attacks on the IRS can only be interpreted as the oligarchs need to hide the rich data bases of their financial skulduggery.
The 99% can no longer count on government protections. The only groups targeted for accountability fill our exploding prisons and are walking the unemployment lines for organizing resistance.
"Make a law, make a business"
http://www.dunwalke.com/
6
Alderson's political influence is not only felt here in the U.S. but also in Israel, where he owns a newspaper and is a staunch political supporter of their conservative right. The real question is how do we stem the tide of such individual power and influence. My vote would be for transparency, but our congress seems willing to stifle that approach with amendments to the new budget. The last hope is insightful, published opinions such as this one. Lets hope that the Alderson's of the world do not buy the NY Times.
4
Well Paul you told half a story but seems you forgot the Clinton empire. What about Hillary and wall street? She is no better or perhaps worse than any other politician. Probably the only way we will ever get out from under this tier system is to elect an outsider of the political world of both parties.
3
Thank you SCOTUS (Citizens United)
4
The Supremes have ruled that if you got the money, you can get away with anything. Time for the rest of you serfs to tow the line they set down.
5
Uh, no, just that you are entitled to free speech, regardless of its form of expression. Object to the content of that speech by all means, but please don't limit anyone's right to express it.
Perhaps we should be asking what pathology drives people to limit free speech? Or is it a loss of power and privilege that has so many on the left so rattled?
Perhaps we should be asking what pathology drives people to limit free speech? Or is it a loss of power and privilege that has so many on the left so rattled?
Agree, but what can be done about it? As long as you have the Rush Limbaughs out there convincing the sheep that Trump, the Koch Brothers and others are looking out for their best interests and lying to them reasons to hate Obama I don't see how we can get this snowball from getting bigger.
Articles like this from Dr. Krugman are excellent and factual however the less educated like Trumps followers and others that vote in masses don't read this information or are told not to by the GOP.
Articles like this from Dr. Krugman are excellent and factual however the less educated like Trumps followers and others that vote in masses don't read this information or are told not to by the GOP.
4
If only George Carlin was here to add "serious social science" to his list of such classic oxymoronic phrases as "military intelligence" and "jumbo shrimp".
The link provided goes to TIME magazine, which leans on this Piff study from 2013.
http://psp.sagepub.com/content/40/1/34.full.pdf+html
Wealth and the Inflated Self: Class, Entitlement, and Narcissism
Let's just say that any extrapolation of this paper to the souls of billionaires is going way beyond the range of the actual experiment.
Most of the studies were of undergrads, and the study focused on "social class" as measured by their parents educational attainment and a guess at their income. Above $150,000 per year was the top slot, so there was a plenty of room for the progeny of non-billionaires.
The one study that used adults found online volunteers willing to participate for a chance at a $50 gift certificate. Of course I am only guessing, but I doubt many billionaires or their spouses were enticed. Probably not a lot of millionaires, for that matter.
But Boo the Rich! The science is settled!
The link provided goes to TIME magazine, which leans on this Piff study from 2013.
http://psp.sagepub.com/content/40/1/34.full.pdf+html
Wealth and the Inflated Self: Class, Entitlement, and Narcissism
Let's just say that any extrapolation of this paper to the souls of billionaires is going way beyond the range of the actual experiment.
Most of the studies were of undergrads, and the study focused on "social class" as measured by their parents educational attainment and a guess at their income. Above $150,000 per year was the top slot, so there was a plenty of room for the progeny of non-billionaires.
The one study that used adults found online volunteers willing to participate for a chance at a $50 gift certificate. Of course I am only guessing, but I doubt many billionaires or their spouses were enticed. Probably not a lot of millionaires, for that matter.
But Boo the Rich! The science is settled!
1
"It's harder for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven." I guess the idea has been around a little longer than the study you mention.
1
"Ill fares the land, to hastening ills a prey
where wealth accumulates and men decay."
From "The Deserted Village" by Oliver Goldsmith almost 250 years ago. But few of us listen.
where wealth accumulates and men decay."
From "The Deserted Village" by Oliver Goldsmith almost 250 years ago. But few of us listen.
5
Why, oh why, do so many Americans on the bottom of the economic ladder vote against their own interest?
They seem to rather vote for their picked and chosen misinterpreted beliefs from their 'good' book and the Constitution, instead of for the welfare of their family.
To paraphrase a former president, it is not about the economy, stupid. It is about the education, stupid.
They seem to rather vote for their picked and chosen misinterpreted beliefs from their 'good' book and the Constitution, instead of for the welfare of their family.
To paraphrase a former president, it is not about the economy, stupid. It is about the education, stupid.
5
We need to vote for higher taxes on the rich (close loopholes & raise top rates). To make that happen, we need strong Democratic majorities in the House & Senate. (The Dems aren't all perfect, but they're a lot less friendly to these billionaires - witness how virtually all of the billionaire contributions go to GOP candidates.)
Despite the occasionally vicious comments by Bernie supporters, any one of the three Democrats running for President - Sanders, O'Malley or Clinton - would be miles better on this issue than any of the Republicans. So - vote, & get your family & friends to vote. They have a lot of money, but we have a lot more people - voters - on our side.
Despite the occasionally vicious comments by Bernie supporters, any one of the three Democrats running for President - Sanders, O'Malley or Clinton - would be miles better on this issue than any of the Republicans. So - vote, & get your family & friends to vote. They have a lot of money, but we have a lot more people - voters - on our side.
8
Thank you, Carol, for expressing my sentiments so well.
While there are some Democratic politicians who openly embrace the Oligarchy - Gov. Cuomo is especially shameless - most Democrsts challenge the Oligarchy, while EVERY Republican politician embraces, protects and empowers the Oligarchy every waking hour of their political lives.
While there are some Democratic politicians who openly embrace the Oligarchy - Gov. Cuomo is especially shameless - most Democrsts challenge the Oligarchy, while EVERY Republican politician embraces, protects and empowers the Oligarchy every waking hour of their political lives.
3
Dr. Krugman: As you know, correlation is not causality. Isn't it just as possible that being a sociopath (lack of empathy, disrespect for norms, and a proclivity to cheat) is what leads to higher incomes and wealth in the first place? Given how lightly the American justice system treats white collar crime and how ripe for abuse some niches of our economy are (e.g. finance and pharmaceuticals), it's not a surprise that sociopaths gravitate to where bad behavior is rewarded so lucratively.
7
Sheldon Adelson is a bad man. He is an 82 year old man whose days on earth are numbered. His last wish is to get America involved in a war in Iran. Why is it that all the Republican candidates are dying for his money and endorsement? Sure they want the cash but my guess is they will do whatever it takes to grant the 82 year old Adelson his last wish and start war with Iran. The media is covering this but why not track the absolute worship these candidates are engaging in to get Adelson's cash and blessing.
7
Humble suggestion. Why don't you Oligarchs just pick a state and buy it. Then secede from the union (I doubt if the Supreme Court would stop you), write your own constitution, call it what ever you want, and import workers at low wages. I'm sure it would be cheaper than trying to buy the existing members of congress. Check Google there is probably a list of states available at fire sale prices.
6
Good idea, I would strongly suggest Texas.
2
"Why don't you Oligarchs just pick a state and buy it."
They did: Wisconsin.
"Then secede from the union (I doubt if the Supreme Court would stop you), write "
Why? They can have all of it and, even better, they can have it while convincing the morons that they're living in the greatest, most free nation on the face of the Earth (that they're destroying).
They did: Wisconsin.
"Then secede from the union (I doubt if the Supreme Court would stop you), write "
Why? They can have all of it and, even better, they can have it while convincing the morons that they're living in the greatest, most free nation on the face of the Earth (that they're destroying).
2
The oil guys are shaking us to our foundations, and we can't make them stop. The Corporation Commission told Sandridge Energy to stop some injection wells after 4.5 earthquakes linked to them, and the company said, "Eh, we don't think so." And all the Commission can do is say that the rules depend on self-regulation by companies, so okay. The bought state legislature has passed a law that no county or city can pass regulations to keep the oil guys out. That's the price of pleasing the moneyed interests, and it's not just your money, it's your home, land, and maybe life. And they don't care one bit, not a bit.
Bernie Sanders aside, there's no coming back from where we find ourselves now. One of the cartoons in another feature in today's Times observes for 2016 that despair is the new hope, them I'm fantastically hopeful.
1
When General Grant was criticized for drinking, Lincoln said "find out what brand he drinks and I'll send a case to all my generals." The message being, of course, whatever is driving this man to succeed (after several years of "monstrously self-centered" military leadership), if it could be bottled, should be given to his other generals. If humility and empathy could be bottled, we'd have a better world. Someone please send Trump a truckload.
Google "CEO" and "perks", or "corporate jet", and you'll be inundated with articles citing examples of what Professor Krugman reminds us is a real problem. Even Forbes complains about "5 Outrageous CEO Spending Abuses and Perks". Entitlement is a real problem, but not the kind of entitlement that helps poor people put food on the table or get proper medical care, the wasteful, shameful kind that Forbes shrugs at and Krugman condemns.
Google "CEO" and "perks", or "corporate jet", and you'll be inundated with articles citing examples of what Professor Krugman reminds us is a real problem. Even Forbes complains about "5 Outrageous CEO Spending Abuses and Perks". Entitlement is a real problem, but not the kind of entitlement that helps poor people put food on the table or get proper medical care, the wasteful, shameful kind that Forbes shrugs at and Krugman condemns.
7
The biggest problem, as I see it, is that the dominant political conservatives have managed to convince us that the poor receiving welfare are gaming the system, getting things or free that the rest of us have to work for. And there is NOTHING, NADA, out there to demonstrate otherwise.
I never hear a single dandidate talk about the percentage of our taxes going to our military ... and not the soldiers, the contractors and lobbyists. Never any images if exactly how much the weakthy get for fee or HOW. It's too complicated to put into an explanatary video? The Big Short took a tiny step ... but even that was a complicated movie. We need films about exactly how our politicians are coerced ... not just dialogue saying they are. A TV series about what lobbyists do. How legislation is passed.
Only our movie stars, TV executives and movie-makers can correct the image so engrained in our psyche.
I never hear a single dandidate talk about the percentage of our taxes going to our military ... and not the soldiers, the contractors and lobbyists. Never any images if exactly how much the weakthy get for fee or HOW. It's too complicated to put into an explanatary video? The Big Short took a tiny step ... but even that was a complicated movie. We need films about exactly how our politicians are coerced ... not just dialogue saying they are. A TV series about what lobbyists do. How legislation is passed.
Only our movie stars, TV executives and movie-makers can correct the image so engrained in our psyche.
4
Well said, Dr. Krugman. Now to get the rest of the population to awaken!
1
Exactly right, PK. And let's be perfectly clear why the 0.001% are "investing" so heavily in the political process: it's because that's were the returns on investment (ROI) are the highest.
They are making, very simply, a "rational" economic decision. Supremely cynical, perhaps, but entirely rational in economic terms.
Nevertheless, the 0.001% should not be blamed for taking advantage of the rules. It's those who write the rules (and interpret their constitutionality) who are the individuals ultimately responsible for delivering the generous ROI. The 0.001% know this to be the case. Their accountants, lawyers, lobbyists know this to be the case. And the rule-writers themselves know this to be the case. Maybe one day the media and the voter will realize it too.
They are making, very simply, a "rational" economic decision. Supremely cynical, perhaps, but entirely rational in economic terms.
Nevertheless, the 0.001% should not be blamed for taking advantage of the rules. It's those who write the rules (and interpret their constitutionality) who are the individuals ultimately responsible for delivering the generous ROI. The 0.001% know this to be the case. Their accountants, lawyers, lobbyists know this to be the case. And the rule-writers themselves know this to be the case. Maybe one day the media and the voter will realize it too.
4
Paul Singer’s comment might be true. There are two economies: those for the rich and those for the rest of us. In the rich economy, cash flows are in torrents; for the rest of us, it trickles. Perhaps he speaks of the rich economy. The one with secret underground channels even the IRS can’t accurately trace.
The rich no longer worry about Main Street, the other economy. We can’t change the tax system to encourage them to join our economy. Why? Because the rich own the government, a government that has found ways to rig the election process so that our votes don’t count anymore.
We are not alone. Democracies have been effectively destroyed in Romania, Hungary, Russia and even Germany and Great Britain. The rich rule with an iron hand. The corporate press do their bidding. Only the Scandinavian countries have maintained a society where the voices of the people are anything but a muffled grown.
The rich no longer worry about Main Street, the other economy. We can’t change the tax system to encourage them to join our economy. Why? Because the rich own the government, a government that has found ways to rig the election process so that our votes don’t count anymore.
We are not alone. Democracies have been effectively destroyed in Romania, Hungary, Russia and even Germany and Great Britain. The rich rule with an iron hand. The corporate press do their bidding. Only the Scandinavian countries have maintained a society where the voices of the people are anything but a muffled grown.
8
[Read Sarcastically]: The important thing is that, according to our highest court, I have the same 'free speech' rights as the Sheldon Adelsons and Paul Singers.
2
The problem? Even President Obama and you yourself are at the high-end economic stratum, even if you're not billionaires. The president has failed to protect the interests of the working class and the poor, and your ideology has also, Mr. Krugman. Let's face it, few public figures are really advocates of the underclass--Bernie Sanders, Ralph Nader, Naom Chomsky and a few others excepted.
2
if politicians aren't independent they govern badly, if at all.
the ship of state, politics, is at its plimsoll/loadline limit,
another cargo of the ready and only its funnels will on view
at the wharf.
the ship of state, politics, is at its plimsoll/loadline limit,
another cargo of the ready and only its funnels will on view
at the wharf.
The behavior described in this column shows up at all levels. Money is power, and power corrupts. You get big frogs in big ponds - and in smaller ponds as well.
These people are going to be surrounded by sycophants as a matter of course; big egos love flatterers and reward them. Of more concern are the people who gravitate towards them because they see them as strong leaders. One man's bully is someone else's Protector and Dispenser of Justice - someone who brings order to a world these people find threatening, something they feel powerless to cope with on their own.
Once these followers find that strong leader to fill the hole in their lives, they willingly give them unquestioning loyalty, and start viewing the world in terms of Us versus Them. They follow their emotions: facts that contradict what they feel about their leader and what he/she tells them about the world are rejected.
These people are not necessarily evil in themselves - but when they gather around a sociopath, they become extensions of that person's ego. They can't be reached from outside; it takes something they perceive as betrayal before they'll abandon their leader. It's why so many GOP voters are turning to 'outsiders' - they feel betrayed. Too often, they'll shop around for another who can fill that void within. Ted Cruz is counting on this, hoping for Trump to stumble.
Minions gathering around cartoon villains can be entertaining; they are much less so in the real world.
These people are going to be surrounded by sycophants as a matter of course; big egos love flatterers and reward them. Of more concern are the people who gravitate towards them because they see them as strong leaders. One man's bully is someone else's Protector and Dispenser of Justice - someone who brings order to a world these people find threatening, something they feel powerless to cope with on their own.
Once these followers find that strong leader to fill the hole in their lives, they willingly give them unquestioning loyalty, and start viewing the world in terms of Us versus Them. They follow their emotions: facts that contradict what they feel about their leader and what he/she tells them about the world are rejected.
These people are not necessarily evil in themselves - but when they gather around a sociopath, they become extensions of that person's ego. They can't be reached from outside; it takes something they perceive as betrayal before they'll abandon their leader. It's why so many GOP voters are turning to 'outsiders' - they feel betrayed. Too often, they'll shop around for another who can fill that void within. Ted Cruz is counting on this, hoping for Trump to stumble.
Minions gathering around cartoon villains can be entertaining; they are much less so in the real world.
2
I was surprised and disgusted to learn that Steve Jobs would often park at spots reserved for the disabled.
It's probably safe to say that majority of wealthy are jerks.
It's probably safe to say that majority of wealthy are jerks.
6
Ho hum, Krugman’s petty partisan politics as usual. The corrupting influence of money on our democracy is just as bad with Democrats, i.e. the ClintonCashes, as it is with Republicans. Obama’s protection of the banksters from the pitchforks provides another glaring example. It has become almost irrelevant who is president now – the 1% will win regardless, at the expense of the 99%. Only an honest media accurately informing Americans of how bad the problem is could ever make any kind of difference; and most are just as corrupt as the political parties they are joined at the hip with.
3
There may be some confusion here as to cause and effect. Does wealth make you pathologically self centered, or is being greedy and narcissistic instead a pre-requisite for becoming wealthy in a system which rewards the ruthless?
6
Buying politicians is small potatoes compared with they way we have let them own and consolidate pubic media. As you see in this piece, when in trouble, Citizen Adelson just buys the newspaper of record. End of story. Back in the early 90's Australian media giant Rupert Murdoch was given the keys to American media by the FCC and since then has literally brainwashed a large portion of working Americans into the odd belief that somehow their interests are the same as his.
In the end ownership of media is better than owning politicians. What we now call "conservative media" is wholly owned by the rich and powerful who have created the fantasy world that underlies the ridiculous claims of the Trump and the rest of the republican climate deniers and science unbelievers, etc.
In the end ownership of media is better than owning politicians. What we now call "conservative media" is wholly owned by the rich and powerful who have created the fantasy world that underlies the ridiculous claims of the Trump and the rest of the republican climate deniers and science unbelievers, etc.
5
Let's call it what it is. It might have even already been analyzed as such by the comments of others here. Our nation is now officially endangered. It has a potentially terminal disease. The collective American soul has malignant cancer. One of the causes and/or the symptoms is that many business "leaders," with the collusion and support of our politicians--though one could argue it is the reverse--evince many of the behaviors of the sociopath. Megalomania. No humility. No remorse. No empathy. Toxic condescension of anyone who disagrees with them, crosses them or opposes them. The willingness--even the happiness--to inflict harm on rivals, associates, antagonists, even the public at large, to get what they want, and to do so without second thoughts or regret. Simply because they can, and knowing that there will be few imminent consequences.
To rid ourselves of this rot, we need not just an end to Citizens United and other colossal "legal" loopholes that enable the abuse of our processes by those who pay huge bucks to rig the game--up to and likely including buying decisions in the highest courts--for a far greater payoff; an end to or reversal of the rollback rape of voting laws; we need not just to reduce the swarms of corrupting lobbyists crawling over the corpse of what was once a deliberative Congress; but these "folks" need psychologists to identify the poisonous egos that sooner or later will lead the U.S. to domestic and/or foreign disaster. Happy New Year.
To rid ourselves of this rot, we need not just an end to Citizens United and other colossal "legal" loopholes that enable the abuse of our processes by those who pay huge bucks to rig the game--up to and likely including buying decisions in the highest courts--for a far greater payoff; an end to or reversal of the rollback rape of voting laws; we need not just to reduce the swarms of corrupting lobbyists crawling over the corpse of what was once a deliberative Congress; but these "folks" need psychologists to identify the poisonous egos that sooner or later will lead the U.S. to domestic and/or foreign disaster. Happy New Year.
2
My own theory is the chicken-egg debate. I grew up with the oft repeated childhood admonition "Cheaters Never Prosper!" Now, at age 63, I realize cheaters often DO prosper. I'd take it further and speculate that most prosperous people have a strong background of cheating. So I'm not sure if wealth corrupts, but rather corruption is typically rewarded with wealth.
6
The self centered egomaniac that Krugman dislikes (Trump, and Adelson) are evil but those he likes (Clintons and Obama) are kindhearted. Oh I see. Thanks for clearing that up.
1
State of the Union. 10 days ahead of the event
2
There may be some privilege, pathology and power at work within this newspaper.
I looked to post a comment on this very column at 3AM EST, but it wasn't available to me, yet Ms. Regas, who I admire and respect, living on the West Coast had access to these words at midnite in my time zone.
Doesn't strike me as egalitarian and is, at the least, as frustrating as the disparities pointed out by Mr. Krugman.
I looked to post a comment on this very column at 3AM EST, but it wasn't available to me, yet Ms. Regas, who I admire and respect, living on the West Coast had access to these words at midnite in my time zone.
Doesn't strike me as egalitarian and is, at the least, as frustrating as the disparities pointed out by Mr. Krugman.
1
You certainly pick very significant, even key issues. Thanks for that. The dilemma is: How do these very important views get translated in a way to influence regular folks who don't read the New York Times editorial section. Put grossly, how can these views be Trumpized! It's a question of propaganda I think. It's also very much an unanswered question, I think. Look at Hillary Clinton. Besides who she is and what her general views are, she hasn't gotten any ideas out to the people, much as she tries. Propaganda. We know Trump's immigration policy. What is Clintons!? I'm sure she has said many times, but she has not communicated once!
1
The Clintons fit the definition of plutocrats but Krugman has to stay clear of that fact.
1
Ok.. let's not blame Republicans for this.
Let's focus our energies on overturning austerity trickle down economic policies that concentrate wealth, lower wages and spread poverty - which just happen to be at the core of every Republican political platform for the past 50 years.
Let's focus our energies on overturning austerity trickle down economic policies that concentrate wealth, lower wages and spread poverty - which just happen to be at the core of every Republican political platform for the past 50 years.
3
I have posted this before. My ancestors came to this country to escape feudalism. Don't expect their descendants to meekly submit to it now. Does the French Revolution and the guillotine ring a bell? I would rather we fix this problem with ballots rather than bullets.
4
I wonder whether American voters earning less than $100,000 per household per year think that the top 1% of 1%: (a) is laudable, heroic and deserving of the privileges that allow them to own politicians, take total control over the laws of the land that govern taxes, property, inheritance, capital gains in their favor, (b) is justified, by virtue of possessing and amassing wealth, in demanding a two-tier system; the top feeds unabashedly, unapologetically at the government teat, the bottom bravely faces rugged individualism, and (c) they think (a) and (b) because, any minute now, at the end of a thunderbolt, they will have the exact same privileges; i.e., they are a flash of thunder away from Donald Trump.
All of what the good professor says is true; what is mysterious is why this is tolerated in a country that believes strongly in its moral and intellectual superiority (or am I the only person who has heard people proclaim "this is the greatest country in the history of the universe?).
Kalidan
All of what the good professor says is true; what is mysterious is why this is tolerated in a country that believes strongly in its moral and intellectual superiority (or am I the only person who has heard people proclaim "this is the greatest country in the history of the universe?).
Kalidan
3
This election will be a pivotal bellwether for the rest of the 21st century. Can America recover from its greatest flirtation with oligarchy since the early 1900's? Do we further deregulate the rich and powerful? Do we risk privatization and eventual dissolution of Social Security and Medicare? Can the accelerated dismantling of labor protections be reversed and modernized? With the next 25 years of Supreme Court rulings in play as well, voting in 2016 may be the single most important public act of our lives.
7
If we want to understand how the superrich think about themselves, look no further than Mr. Trump: He is never wrong; he is always belittling others; he is belligerent; his ideas are fantastical and his proposals grandiose and absurd. He is, in fact, your typical, precocious, spoiled 6 year old. The rich, at least those who have inherited their wealth, simply never have to grow up. Hence the sociopathy.
What about the rich who have not inherited their wealth, but have, in the immortal words of John Housman "eeeearned it?" Hedge fund managers, for instance, now occupy that rare strata at the very tip of the top 1% of household wealth. Do these people have the same pathology? Well, they certainly think they are special, having found a way, mostly through mathematics, around regulations designed to keep the playing field level. Here, the pathology precedes the wealth. In other words, such a lust for money that they would indeed devote their lives to a profession that really has no value other than the creation of wealth for themselves. A zero sum game where their gains come at another's loss and the pie never gets bigger.
So how do we fix it? For the already wealthy, increased inheritance taxes. For the masters of the universe who create wealth without value, maybe an increase in the tax on income from what we colloquially refer to as gambling. With members of the "lucky sperm club" (Trump describing Baron Hilton) running the country, it won't be easy.
What about the rich who have not inherited their wealth, but have, in the immortal words of John Housman "eeeearned it?" Hedge fund managers, for instance, now occupy that rare strata at the very tip of the top 1% of household wealth. Do these people have the same pathology? Well, they certainly think they are special, having found a way, mostly through mathematics, around regulations designed to keep the playing field level. Here, the pathology precedes the wealth. In other words, such a lust for money that they would indeed devote their lives to a profession that really has no value other than the creation of wealth for themselves. A zero sum game where their gains come at another's loss and the pie never gets bigger.
So how do we fix it? For the already wealthy, increased inheritance taxes. For the masters of the universe who create wealth without value, maybe an increase in the tax on income from what we colloquially refer to as gambling. With members of the "lucky sperm club" (Trump describing Baron Hilton) running the country, it won't be easy.
6
Since Paul Krugman has so perfectly described the pathologies of our increasingly empowered and entrenched Oligarchy I will jump right to my recommended Policy prescriptions:
1. Public funding of elections at all levels of government.
2. Overturning Citizens United and implementing strict yet reasonable limits on campaign contributions, including all political and "public interest" campaign spending.
3. Full disclosure of all political and "public interest" campaign spending.
4. Serious penalties against union busting since organized labor provides a counter balance to runaway corporate power.
5. A 75% federal income tax on all excessive income, including capital gains. No loopholes or deductions on excessive income.
Excessive: In excess of 100 times the median family income. Our collective goal should be to make the whole concept of "billionaire" an obsolete relic of our second guilded age before we all came to our senses.
1. Public funding of elections at all levels of government.
2. Overturning Citizens United and implementing strict yet reasonable limits on campaign contributions, including all political and "public interest" campaign spending.
3. Full disclosure of all political and "public interest" campaign spending.
4. Serious penalties against union busting since organized labor provides a counter balance to runaway corporate power.
5. A 75% federal income tax on all excessive income, including capital gains. No loopholes or deductions on excessive income.
Excessive: In excess of 100 times the median family income. Our collective goal should be to make the whole concept of "billionaire" an obsolete relic of our second guilded age before we all came to our senses.
15
The economic and political fall-outs from the Meltdown will reverberate throughout the American society for decades to come. The sternest and most well deserved criticisms have been directed to the economic and political elite class which, based on recent articles appearing in this publication, remain in dangerous willful denial of the seething anger within 98% of Americans. It seems a conundrum for a billionaire real estate developer to be the leading candidate of a major national political party given the social climate until you consider the establishment political class is held in even more contempt then economic elites.
The nationwide popularity of Senator Bernie Sanders Democratic presidential bid, along side to his political identity as a Democratic Socialist, also indicates millions of Americans no longer convinced Free Market Capitalism is in their best interests. Some segment of economic elites, here and in Europe, have spoken out about the dark clouds gathering and have suggested another variant of capitalism, Inclusive Capitalism, offers a possible alternate economic framework. In the popular media, Nick Hauer's piece in Politico* have sounded a warning.
Hopefully, 2016 will be a watershed year which is marked by a turn in the course of American macroeconomic and politics. But few are holding their breaths
*http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming...
The nationwide popularity of Senator Bernie Sanders Democratic presidential bid, along side to his political identity as a Democratic Socialist, also indicates millions of Americans no longer convinced Free Market Capitalism is in their best interests. Some segment of economic elites, here and in Europe, have spoken out about the dark clouds gathering and have suggested another variant of capitalism, Inclusive Capitalism, offers a possible alternate economic framework. In the popular media, Nick Hauer's piece in Politico* have sounded a warning.
Hopefully, 2016 will be a watershed year which is marked by a turn in the course of American macroeconomic and politics. But few are holding their breaths
*http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming...
2
And then there are budding sociopaths like Ethan Crouch, whose novel "affluenza" defense kept him out of jail when he killed 4 people while driving drunk. But even probation wasn't good enough for him. He had to flee to Mexico so he could be free to continue to drink and drug without consequences. I can't wait to see what kind of deal he gets this time.
5
When was the US ever a real democracy?
And what drives US foreign policy?
Slavery, Indian wars, exploitation in every corner of the world.
No right to claim leadership in decency or morality my friends.
The money boys are in charge.
What's next on the agenda?
And what drives US foreign policy?
Slavery, Indian wars, exploitation in every corner of the world.
No right to claim leadership in decency or morality my friends.
The money boys are in charge.
What's next on the agenda?
8
Um, it's a republic.
Adelson is not the only one with gangster ties. Marco Rubio's brother in law (married to his sister) was convicted in 1989 of selling $15 million of cocaine. Rubio in 2012 wrote a letter to the Florida real estate licensing board testifying to the sterling character of the man, asking he be issued a license despite his past. The $15 million has never been recovered.
11
My congrats to the commenters here who note that voters need to wake up. Yes, the rich can have more political power, and the Supreme Court can make for bad politics when it chooses, but the ballot box is real.
Our financial policies are complex, but higher taxes on high income, large capital gains, and perhaps even very high wealth are relatively simple -- if we have the political will. That means not only voting for the right candidates. It requires demanding that our candidates make tax reform a high priority in the first place.
The super wealthy will always be with us, and some will always behave badly. Let's change what we can and leave the greedy ones to their own sad misery.
Our financial policies are complex, but higher taxes on high income, large capital gains, and perhaps even very high wealth are relatively simple -- if we have the political will. That means not only voting for the right candidates. It requires demanding that our candidates make tax reform a high priority in the first place.
The super wealthy will always be with us, and some will always behave badly. Let's change what we can and leave the greedy ones to their own sad misery.
7
Professor Krugman excels in giving wordy definitions of the word "redistribution."
Until I ( lower 99%), get a large check from Professor Irwin Corey, OOPS! I meant Professor Krugman (upper 1%), his goofy explanations have 0% credibility. However, I find them entertaining, but very wordy. Are you on some kind of paid by the word, Charles Dickenson contract? Anyway, Cool Socialism went out of style a long time ago, along with Warren Beatty
and his stupid movie "Reds." Wow, was that a Poochie. So to summarize: Send me a check, or Zip It Flannelmouth.
Until I ( lower 99%), get a large check from Professor Irwin Corey, OOPS! I meant Professor Krugman (upper 1%), his goofy explanations have 0% credibility. However, I find them entertaining, but very wordy. Are you on some kind of paid by the word, Charles Dickenson contract? Anyway, Cool Socialism went out of style a long time ago, along with Warren Beatty
and his stupid movie "Reds." Wow, was that a Poochie. So to summarize: Send me a check, or Zip It Flannelmouth.
5
So - when does Adelson bankrupt Trump? And why exactly is it that Trump can't seem to get - or hold on to - that pesky Las Vegas gaming license?
3
Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.
H. L. Mencken
US editor (1880 - 1956)
H. L. Mencken
US editor (1880 - 1956)
7
Hey Paul when are you going to admit most of these people are Democrats? Besides who are you to judge since you have done much the same as a former member of the Enron Board and getting paid six figures to do little of nothing. Hypocrisy is a poor fitting suit.
4
I don't think Professor Krugman needs me to tell him what to write, but it would be a marvelous gift to his readers if he explained oligarchy, its history in the world, its dangers, and whether the United States can ever hope to recover and climb back up the slippery slope oligarchs have consigned the nation to slide.
12
Money in politics is, sadly, the most up-to-date perverted example of capitalism: if you have enough money you can buy what you want. I'm no anti-capitalist, but if the current trend as noted by Dr. Krugman bothers one at all, ignoring that truth is counterproductive to changing the situation.
Federally funded elections, however difficult to structure, are the only real solution. We've failed at trying to cap direct expenditures by the campaigns themselves.
And while I don't hate the super wealthy by definition, there's still this: “...for an instant, she stared directly into those soft blue eyes and knew, with an instinctive mammalian certainty, that the exceedingly rich were no longer even remotely human.” ― William Gibson, Count Zero
Federally funded elections, however difficult to structure, are the only real solution. We've failed at trying to cap direct expenditures by the campaigns themselves.
And while I don't hate the super wealthy by definition, there's still this: “...for an instant, she stared directly into those soft blue eyes and knew, with an instinctive mammalian certainty, that the exceedingly rich were no longer even remotely human.” ― William Gibson, Count Zero
3
Americans, if we cede power of our government to those most able to buy it, even if you admire their hard work in building their wealth, we are no longer a Democracy. Period.
14
Sadly, I fear that we have already ceded this power. We are no longer a democracy, or a democratic republic. We are a plutocracy and an oligarchy.
1
The poor work harder than the wealthy. The wealthy make sure of that. And most of the wealthy contributed little to acquire great wealth. Many of the wealthy -- especially from the finance and FIRE sectors -- have made negative contributions to society.
Are you kidding, Mr. Krugman? I say again...are you kidding? This is the type of adolescent drivel one would expect a college freshman writing--in an attempt to please a liberal professor--a one-sided, unsophisticated diatribe.
When ignorant people make blanket comments about entire groups of people ("watch the Blacks who come into your store", or "watch your kids around gay men"), we call it bigotry. There, we've said it--Krugman is a crass and ignorant "Wealth Bigot".
I'll ask you, Mr. Krugman, ever heard of Carnegie Melon University--or visited one of the thousands of the Carnegie Libraries? How about the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation? Ever counted the billions donated to good causes by the Koch Brothers? How about Oprah's schools in Africa? I could go on, but any intelligent person might get the point--we are the most generous nation on earth--by the strength of what our wealthy people donate to charity.
One more time, Mr. Krugman, really? All wealthy people are evil and selfish--in the face of all their good works? Well...only I suppose when suffering from the willful form of blindness you are afflicted with.
This is the type of ridiculous and hysterical junk one can expect whenever we combine hatred and ignorance into an agenda--and then provide a zealot with a forum. Honestly, I simply cannot believe the NY Times, as left-wing as it is, can print this foolishness.
When ignorant people make blanket comments about entire groups of people ("watch the Blacks who come into your store", or "watch your kids around gay men"), we call it bigotry. There, we've said it--Krugman is a crass and ignorant "Wealth Bigot".
I'll ask you, Mr. Krugman, ever heard of Carnegie Melon University--or visited one of the thousands of the Carnegie Libraries? How about the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation? Ever counted the billions donated to good causes by the Koch Brothers? How about Oprah's schools in Africa? I could go on, but any intelligent person might get the point--we are the most generous nation on earth--by the strength of what our wealthy people donate to charity.
One more time, Mr. Krugman, really? All wealthy people are evil and selfish--in the face of all their good works? Well...only I suppose when suffering from the willful form of blindness you are afflicted with.
This is the type of ridiculous and hysterical junk one can expect whenever we combine hatred and ignorance into an agenda--and then provide a zealot with a forum. Honestly, I simply cannot believe the NY Times, as left-wing as it is, can print this foolishness.
5
Carnegie toured Scotland giving away church organs while his partner Henry Clay Frick crushed the Homestead Steel strike in 1892.
3
These men made their fortunes thanks to the power the political class gave them to keep their monolopolies intact, thereby causing incalculable damage to societies. It seems to support the point rather than refute it. I guess we should be grateful for the breadcrumbs they leave behind.
1
"Ever counted the billions donated to good causes by the Koch Brothers?"
Billions, huh? What else could America need? The ultimate, super accurate, all-encompassing societal metric. One dollar, one vote, man!
"All wealthy people are evil and selfish..."
Did he say that?
Billions, huh? What else could America need? The ultimate, super accurate, all-encompassing societal metric. One dollar, one vote, man!
"All wealthy people are evil and selfish..."
Did he say that?
1
Primary voters will get a chance to tell Trump "You're fired!"
8
The deranged narcissists that Krugman described, summoned their politicians and ordered them to help craft a mega-trade deal that will extend from the South Pacific up to Japan. The deal would enshrine investor rights as sacrosanct, above all other considerations and, should anyone dispute this little arrangement, the narcissists requested a special court packed with judges who back investor supremacy, to settle all disputes.
Krugman has several times come out in favor of the TPP, and he is a long time supporter of NAFTA - going so far as to sacrifice his credibility by writing an ode to sweatshop labor* (at the time, many liberals where reluctant to embrace the exploitation of the poor for profit, but Krugman helped set them free from any pangs of conscience). Given Krugman's efforts on behalf of the "pathologically self-regarding" narcissists he describes, doesn't that qualify him as one of the "sycophants" who surround the narcissists and help them get whatever they want?
* Krugman's attempt to sugarcoat 14 year olds working 16 hour days for pennies and then forced into retirement in their late 20s because their productivity has peaked:
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_dismal_science/1997/03/in_pra...
Alas, there must still be some pockets of conscience among the liberal elite - the TPP contains specific (though entirely unenforceable) labor and environmental safeguards.
Krugman has several times come out in favor of the TPP, and he is a long time supporter of NAFTA - going so far as to sacrifice his credibility by writing an ode to sweatshop labor* (at the time, many liberals where reluctant to embrace the exploitation of the poor for profit, but Krugman helped set them free from any pangs of conscience). Given Krugman's efforts on behalf of the "pathologically self-regarding" narcissists he describes, doesn't that qualify him as one of the "sycophants" who surround the narcissists and help them get whatever they want?
* Krugman's attempt to sugarcoat 14 year olds working 16 hour days for pennies and then forced into retirement in their late 20s because their productivity has peaked:
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_dismal_science/1997/03/in_pra...
Alas, there must still be some pockets of conscience among the liberal elite - the TPP contains specific (though entirely unenforceable) labor and environmental safeguards.
3
And, it must be said, spokespersons for that self-absorbed plutocracy are routinely given space on the NYT op-ed page to explain that inequality is a liberal hoax and the real victims of society are insufficiently revered billionaires.
Our oligarchs buy not only politicians, but whole university departments and policy institutes. They even want to run and rule the public schools.
What will it take for comfortable well-paid professionals, corporate media and the Academy, many of whom are on the payroll, to finally tell the public the truth and pursue sound public policy?
Our oligarchs buy not only politicians, but whole university departments and policy institutes. They even want to run and rule the public schools.
What will it take for comfortable well-paid professionals, corporate media and the Academy, many of whom are on the payroll, to finally tell the public the truth and pursue sound public policy?
7
Ever since Ronald Reagan made it glamorous to pursue wealth for it's own sake, with no circumspection regarding the public good,and lopped off the top tax bracket for the wealthy, this country has been hurtling toward where we are now: a smug bully willing to justify any military undertaking in terms of defending "our way of life", culturally bereft, getting more stupid by the decade,a plutocracy where even the leading Democratic candidate has no plan to reverse the long term economic consequences of the "Reagan Revolution". It is way past time for Bernie Sanders; sadly, he will not get elected. Elizabeth Warren, I'm counting on you to pick up Bernie's mantle when the time comes.
11
The U.S. Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and such other founding documents do define and set forth ideals & institutions for our
governing structures.
Anything/everything can be changed by Amendments and re-interpretations.
What--I suppose thanks by way of Aristotle's POLITICS--we have are elements of democracy, oligarchy, plutocracy et al simultaneously.
This imperfect system is (I suppose) actually designed to synthesize its contradictions, and meanwhile we will have injustices & wrongful excesses/messes to reform/rectify.
Horrible Civil War happened when consensus common sense didn't.
The Colorado, California, Washington and Oregon marijuana "experiments"
can at least now be openly evaluated from various angles/perspectives.
NEWS: One in 3,000 deaths in New Hampshire of all places is allegedly by (semi-legal?) opioid overdose.
What I want to find out if there are equivalent overdose opioid death statistics out west, because I hereby hypothesize there aren't, because of their courageous, rational marijuana legalization.
governing structures.
Anything/everything can be changed by Amendments and re-interpretations.
What--I suppose thanks by way of Aristotle's POLITICS--we have are elements of democracy, oligarchy, plutocracy et al simultaneously.
This imperfect system is (I suppose) actually designed to synthesize its contradictions, and meanwhile we will have injustices & wrongful excesses/messes to reform/rectify.
Horrible Civil War happened when consensus common sense didn't.
The Colorado, California, Washington and Oregon marijuana "experiments"
can at least now be openly evaluated from various angles/perspectives.
NEWS: One in 3,000 deaths in New Hampshire of all places is allegedly by (semi-legal?) opioid overdose.
What I want to find out if there are equivalent overdose opioid death statistics out west, because I hereby hypothesize there aren't, because of their courageous, rational marijuana legalization.
1
Let's not forget the Clinton's with net worth supposedly north of 100 million. While not in the category of Trump and Adelson, most of the readers of even the NY Times don't have anywhere near that level of money. Spoiled egomaniacs with sycophants around them? Check. Don't think they have to obey the rules and laws that the rest of us do? (Disbarment, lying under oath, emails, etc.) Check.
I respect Paul Krugman immensely, he is my favorite columnist here, but the balance is just as one sided as Fox News, albeit with more facts. But omission is a transgression as well.
Perhaps we could elect a candidate not from a privileged background with Ivy league attitude and connections someday. Someone like the rest of us 99 percent.
I respect Paul Krugman immensely, he is my favorite columnist here, but the balance is just as one sided as Fox News, albeit with more facts. But omission is a transgression as well.
Perhaps we could elect a candidate not from a privileged background with Ivy league attitude and connections someday. Someone like the rest of us 99 percent.
6
Hmm...
Have you considered Obama? What about Bill Clinton when first elected? Eisenhower? Truman? All from relatively modest backgrounds, "like the rest of us 99 percent".
Have you considered Obama? What about Bill Clinton when first elected? Eisenhower? Truman? All from relatively modest backgrounds, "like the rest of us 99 percent".
1
That "someone" is called Bernie Sanders.
2
I'm very concerned with what happens to regular people like Bill Clinton who definitely grew up in the 99 percent but then goes to Yale. I wonder if the axis of Evil revolves around Harvard, Yale, Princeton...the IVY's.
Obama did come from privilege. He grew up going to most exclusive private school in his state, etc. etc.
It has been since Jimmy Carter since we have not had someone in the White House from Harvard or Yale (President or Vice President). During that time the explosion of wealth disparity has grown. I wonder how strong the correlation is....
Obama did come from privilege. He grew up going to most exclusive private school in his state, etc. etc.
It has been since Jimmy Carter since we have not had someone in the White House from Harvard or Yale (President or Vice President). During that time the explosion of wealth disparity has grown. I wonder how strong the correlation is....
Those of us who do not have the kind of wealth that the Koch brothers possess just do not appreciate just how difficult their lives are. When one is worth what they are, assuming they do not earn one penny from their mines and companies, they have to spend between two and three million bucks every waking hour of every day just to keep from accumulating more money. And that is just from after tax earnings on their previously accumulated investments.
Those of us who actually work for a living can't comprehend how difficult that is.
Say you wanted to spend an hour deciding if you wanted to buy a new yacht or another Rolls Royce. During that hour of indecision, through no action on your own, you have added another several million in unspent dollars to your purse. That's a serious problem and can lead to awful anxiety. First of all, you have to continuously be buying more purses and then more ship yards just to store the ever growing collection of container ships to store the purses .
We really should try to put ourselves into their Gucci loafers before criticizing them. Shucks. There I go again. While deciding whether the loafers should have tassels or not, they had amassed another several million bucks that they have to try to hide or buy more judges and politicians.
These guys really have it tough. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they can't understand why we don't feel sorry for their terrible plight.
Those of us who actually work for a living can't comprehend how difficult that is.
Say you wanted to spend an hour deciding if you wanted to buy a new yacht or another Rolls Royce. During that hour of indecision, through no action on your own, you have added another several million in unspent dollars to your purse. That's a serious problem and can lead to awful anxiety. First of all, you have to continuously be buying more purses and then more ship yards just to store the ever growing collection of container ships to store the purses .
We really should try to put ourselves into their Gucci loafers before criticizing them. Shucks. There I go again. While deciding whether the loafers should have tassels or not, they had amassed another several million bucks that they have to try to hide or buy more judges and politicians.
These guys really have it tough. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they can't understand why we don't feel sorry for their terrible plight.
366
I keep offering to relieve the Koch Brothers of at least five to seven days' worth of their worries, alas they haven't yet taken me up on my generous offer. Just can't tear themselves away from agonizing over a new yacht or Rolls Royce, I guess.
2
you got to be kidding?
Just do what Trump does: marry fashion models every 5 years and get divorced. You can wipe clean a large % of your wealth away in one stroke. Rinse and repeat.
1
You do not have to be a billionaire to suffer from the rich man syndrome. Rich and greedy will do. You may be the richest person in town or a wealthy CEO or owner of a small business. You only need to be in the rich persons club where you are superior, entitled and always right. Wealth is your sward and shield and it buys power and toadies and sycophants. You have contempt for those who are not rich. They live in different worlds. They don't have to play by the rules or tell the truth.
In 40 years of law practice I was never rich so I was polite to judges, respectful to juries and represent the client I had, which was sometimes a wealthy person or a corporate big wig or a CEO from a foreign company. Almost always corporations payed my fee. One president of a Korean company came to my office to be deposed before trial. He had flown in with 4 assistants. When he entered my conference room he refused to sit because he always sat at the head of the table and my table was round. When I told him that when he was seated that place automatically became the head of the table. He smiled, nodded and sat down as though that was obvious.
Some believed that they were above the law and I had to explain the jury would see it and if you insult the jury you will lose your case. All of these guys thought that their wealth put them above the law and that there should be special rules for them. Low and behold there now are and there now is, and they want to pick or be our next president.
In 40 years of law practice I was never rich so I was polite to judges, respectful to juries and represent the client I had, which was sometimes a wealthy person or a corporate big wig or a CEO from a foreign company. Almost always corporations payed my fee. One president of a Korean company came to my office to be deposed before trial. He had flown in with 4 assistants. When he entered my conference room he refused to sit because he always sat at the head of the table and my table was round. When I told him that when he was seated that place automatically became the head of the table. He smiled, nodded and sat down as though that was obvious.
Some believed that they were above the law and I had to explain the jury would see it and if you insult the jury you will lose your case. All of these guys thought that their wealth put them above the law and that there should be special rules for them. Low and behold there now are and there now is, and they want to pick or be our next president.
10
As more of Paul's opinions focus on wealth inequality, I find it very strange bordering on grotesque he avoids the Sanders’ dilemma. The media, liberals in general and Krugman notwithstanding - have created a self conflict of what I call ‘attention deflection amplification’. The more Bernie’s message and local popularity hit home, the more the avoidance. Indeed his pole numbers reflect all this. What a strange irony being played out. Doesn't it stand to reason if your main concern for the country rests on income inequality per say, that you would promote a candidate who espouses that value? Not "avoid" him. The more PK blabbers about Trumps' narcissist sociopathic proclivities, the more insincere and empty Mr. Krugman’s column becomes.
4
The ugly spectacle of oligarchical rule by the monstrously self-centered is going to continue regardless of whether Trump or Hillary are elected. That is why Bernie Sanders, who beats Trump, head-to-head, deserves everyone's support.
6
I find it funny that now that the Republicans control both houses of Congress, a majority of the Governor positions and the Legislatures at the State level, the only way this could happen is for the system to be rigged. It couldn't be because the people disagree with Mr. Klugman, because he is always right. He tells us that every week. It must be that the system is rigged. Until, of course, the Democrates win an office, then it is certainly the voice of the people. It is so wonderful that we have him to explain to us when it is really the people talking and when it is not.
1
Paul Krugman IS always right. Thank goodness we have his voice to contradict and expose the FOX Not News propaganda which is at the heart of your nonsensical comment.
1
After reading some of the posts here, I can't help but wonder how many of them are paid-for posts from the uber-rich.
9
The alternative is a worse indictment on America -- that there are actually people who defend the obscene influence and nauseatingly sociopathic behavior of the plutocracy. And it's the most probable.
7
This was pitch perfect. or maybe a perfect pitch. Up steps Ca$ey to bad. & stee rike 3, you are otta here. If only it was that easy. But great piece nonetheless. Inflation in general caused by rising Hamptons real estate and high end art. How utterly stupid can you get. Interestingly enough John Mack showed up on one of the business shows the other day. I could not believe how the two reporters fell all over themselves to ingratiate themselves to one of the causes of the mortgage melt down. It was truly sick. Krugman may be a cheerleader but he isn't a sell out. Thanks for a great opening to new year on planet earth.
3
So "affluenza" runs rampant among the rich. Net worth is a proxy for right values and behavior. Romney's 47% comment is mantra not aberration. ...The 200 paying over 50% is the smoking gun.
But the real question is why so many of us are inebriated by shows of great wealth, caught up in the vortex of Republican spin and vote against our own best interests. Pundits in these pages and elsewhere give 7 reasons: (i) adept issue "framing", (ii) white/male/elder frustration with loss of power and values, (iii) the American Dream and an outsized appreciation for wealth, (iv) intellectual laziness reinforced by vested interests, (v) controlled media, (vi) scapegoating, and (vii) racial/class bias--keeping 'those people' from benefiting even at the cost of doing harm to one's own cohort.
The common denominator is $$. Those who have accumulated great fortunes are using them to perpetuate their own good fortune and biases. The cost of paying for the 'framers', running parties, controlling media, buying votes and winning elections is prohibitive for all but the wealthiest. The Supreme Court, thanks to Bush, now includes enough justices willing to give the vote to the 'people' that adorn our currency to turn democracy upside down. Let's hope the Democrats are less in thrall of great wealth and can seriously address income inequality when they take the White House. But don't hold your breath--too much of Congress already has a price tag.
But the real question is why so many of us are inebriated by shows of great wealth, caught up in the vortex of Republican spin and vote against our own best interests. Pundits in these pages and elsewhere give 7 reasons: (i) adept issue "framing", (ii) white/male/elder frustration with loss of power and values, (iii) the American Dream and an outsized appreciation for wealth, (iv) intellectual laziness reinforced by vested interests, (v) controlled media, (vi) scapegoating, and (vii) racial/class bias--keeping 'those people' from benefiting even at the cost of doing harm to one's own cohort.
The common denominator is $$. Those who have accumulated great fortunes are using them to perpetuate their own good fortune and biases. The cost of paying for the 'framers', running parties, controlling media, buying votes and winning elections is prohibitive for all but the wealthiest. The Supreme Court, thanks to Bush, now includes enough justices willing to give the vote to the 'people' that adorn our currency to turn democracy upside down. Let's hope the Democrats are less in thrall of great wealth and can seriously address income inequality when they take the White House. But don't hold your breath--too much of Congress already has a price tag.
5
The older I get, I become convinced, as agent Smith stated in The Matrix, humans are a virus. We act so often against our own interest, and behave so destructively, we may just do ourselves in, in a few hundred more years.
2
Most Americans think that getting very, very rich comes from an innate superiority. Most Americans respect, if not admire rich people.
3
I think The US has blown through Oligarchy and is well headed to 'strongman' territory, irrespective of checks and balances that really don't mean much other than a ruse to continue the plundering.
4
Who has more power, a millionaire contributing to a political campaign or Mr. Krugman with the influence and prestige of a column in the NY Times? Who has employed more people, contributed more to their communities, and has a better understanding of how businesses grow and function? Krugman or those he derides?
I suspect the problem Mr. Krugman sees is not so much one of the public losing power to the rich, but of Mr. Krugman not wanting to share that power with people he deems spiritually damaged by their proximity to filthy lucre.
The solution many advocate for lessening the influence of wealthy on politics is public financing. Inevitably this would result in less political speech (advertising), fewer insurgent campaigns, and more control of government by intellectual elites.
Donald Trump, who I would not vote for under any circumstance, is not where he is in the polls because of his wealth. To this point he has spent very little of it on his campaign. He is ahead for the simple reason that he agrees with large portions of the public who don't agree with the likes of Mr. Krugman on a variety of issues. It is they who worry Mr. Krugman, not the spirtual damage being done to the rich.
I suspect the problem Mr. Krugman sees is not so much one of the public losing power to the rich, but of Mr. Krugman not wanting to share that power with people he deems spiritually damaged by their proximity to filthy lucre.
The solution many advocate for lessening the influence of wealthy on politics is public financing. Inevitably this would result in less political speech (advertising), fewer insurgent campaigns, and more control of government by intellectual elites.
Donald Trump, who I would not vote for under any circumstance, is not where he is in the polls because of his wealth. To this point he has spent very little of it on his campaign. He is ahead for the simple reason that he agrees with large portions of the public who don't agree with the likes of Mr. Krugman on a variety of issues. It is they who worry Mr. Krugman, not the spirtual damage being done to the rich.
2
Trump's "large portions of the public" consists of 35% of Republican Primary voters which, if the Republican base is 40% of the total electorate, amounts to about 15% of all likely voters in November. Not exactly overwhelming. Your personal attack on Krugman is unwarranted absent evidence that running a business actually qualifies one for political office. George W. Bush was a businessman with an advanced degree in business. How did that work out for us? Have a happy new year.
1
Paul Krugman has described what could be viewed as a politicized form of "affluenza."
It's a form that not only blindly seeks more riches but also more influence, control, and power--over us. This inwardly/outwardly destructive dis-ease is described in a book, I discovered, with a powerful title. A title that's more philosophy in a bottle which describes it's impact on the heart and soul and lives of those afflicted; those who seek happiness through outward blind pursuits for more (in a way it can't be achieved) rather than inner transformation (the only way it can.)
It's called "The Golden Ghetto: The Psychology of Affluence."
If politicized affluenza didn't negatively impact the rest of us through it's ability to purchase votes and thus define the self-centered, self-serving direction of our country and the negative impact on so many lives, those afflicted (like Adelson and even Trump) could be looked at with pity and compassion. But that can require too much a stretch.
It's a form that not only blindly seeks more riches but also more influence, control, and power--over us. This inwardly/outwardly destructive dis-ease is described in a book, I discovered, with a powerful title. A title that's more philosophy in a bottle which describes it's impact on the heart and soul and lives of those afflicted; those who seek happiness through outward blind pursuits for more (in a way it can't be achieved) rather than inner transformation (the only way it can.)
It's called "The Golden Ghetto: The Psychology of Affluence."
If politicized affluenza didn't negatively impact the rest of us through it's ability to purchase votes and thus define the self-centered, self-serving direction of our country and the negative impact on so many lives, those afflicted (like Adelson and even Trump) could be looked at with pity and compassion. But that can require too much a stretch.
3
For a long time now, Paul Krugman has been trying to legitimate his hatred of the rich.
Now he tells us that his prejudice is backed up by "serious social science."
LOL. That sounds just like the claim you'd expect to see in a commercial for a weight-loss program.
The study Krugman references was published in Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin. Well, recently Tilburg University psychologists Yoel Inbar and Joris Lammers published the results of a series of surveys conducted with approximately eight hundred social psychologists—all members of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, the publishers of -- you guessed it -- Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin.
The vast majority of the respondents identified as liberal. No surprise there. What was most shocking was the respondents' candor about their political bias. Over all, close to nineteen per cent reported that they would have a bias against a conservative-leaning paper; twenty-four per cent, against a conservative-leaning grant application; fourteen per cent, against inviting a conservative to a symposium; and thirty-seven and a half per cent, against choosing a conservative as a future colleague (see The New Yorker, Oct. 30, 2014).
So spare us the hypocrisy about "serious social science." This isn't social science; it is just a pseudo-scientific fig leaf to cover Krugman's naked envy and his attempt to stir up a class war.
Now he tells us that his prejudice is backed up by "serious social science."
LOL. That sounds just like the claim you'd expect to see in a commercial for a weight-loss program.
The study Krugman references was published in Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin. Well, recently Tilburg University psychologists Yoel Inbar and Joris Lammers published the results of a series of surveys conducted with approximately eight hundred social psychologists—all members of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, the publishers of -- you guessed it -- Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin.
The vast majority of the respondents identified as liberal. No surprise there. What was most shocking was the respondents' candor about their political bias. Over all, close to nineteen per cent reported that they would have a bias against a conservative-leaning paper; twenty-four per cent, against a conservative-leaning grant application; fourteen per cent, against inviting a conservative to a symposium; and thirty-seven and a half per cent, against choosing a conservative as a future colleague (see The New Yorker, Oct. 30, 2014).
So spare us the hypocrisy about "serious social science." This isn't social science; it is just a pseudo-scientific fig leaf to cover Krugman's naked envy and his attempt to stir up a class war.
2
Can you something significant conservatives have been right about, Mr. Maitland? Go ahead and try. I don't think you can and be able to make a case for it that stands up to serious examination.
Most intelligent people have just reached the point that there's as much justification in wasting time considering a conservative interpretation as there is in considering the opinion of a CEO on heart surgery, or astronomy, or mathematics, or any technical topic.
Conservatives have simply wrong about everything for too long, and they don't intend to adjust their thinking despite being wrong.
You've earned the disrespect.
Most intelligent people have just reached the point that there's as much justification in wasting time considering a conservative interpretation as there is in considering the opinion of a CEO on heart surgery, or astronomy, or mathematics, or any technical topic.
Conservatives have simply wrong about everything for too long, and they don't intend to adjust their thinking despite being wrong.
You've earned the disrespect.
3
Mr. Krugman doesn't hate the rich. He is simply a highly capable partisan (who can argue almost any position credibly) doing his part as a foot soldier in the Democratic Party's war on "income inequality."
When his party changes focus, so shall he.
When his party changes focus, so shall he.
All I see from your side is abuse of the word "liberal" to catogorize your critics as irrelevant.
1
After all, he had both houses of congress by large margins. He could have fixed our tax system right then but he chose, instead, to mess up our medical system. Bad mistake because in 2010 he lost his majority in the House. Yet, he still didn't get the message that people didn't like congress passing major legislation they hadn't read or vetted---the infamous "We have to pass the bill to find out what's in it" by Ms. Pelosi. Idiot statement of the 21st Century.
So, while we both agree that vast wealth confers unfair advantages (The 400 Families article in the NYT this week) I find you lack perspective when it comes to the Dem's. They, too, have very, very rich people who want to make policy, although they are not elected to do so. We are doomed to having Hillary, that's clear. More incompetency on a bigger stage.
"A leader, A leader, my vote for a leader". Alas, Plato was right. Competent people refuse to run so we are condemned to be governed by incompetents.