It doesn’t matter if it is Warren or Biden or Sanders, etc.
This election cycle will feature throwing dirt by conservatives of epic proportions. It worked in 2016 and Trump will triple the effort in 2020. Made up stories that will paint democrats as criminals and communists.
Are liberals ready for that, or maybe at some point, they start doubt their own judgement. Just like in 2016?
2
Any of the Uber-rich who back Trump had better be prepared for their reputations to be trashed and themselves vilified. Even the lowliest of them could be taxed at 40% and still have tens if not hundreds of millions. Their attitude is nothing but naked greed and arrogance. They're scared to death of Warren, that's why she's my candidate.
18
Dems got a real problem. They got Trump on the ropes and may end up running a left wing zealot against him.
3
They may not like Warren, but they detest Sanders.
5
Krugman - on point and excellent as always.These Wall Street and Tech Company Titans. It's all about their sick, unethical, immoral egos. These people are monsters and in any sane society they would be shunned, marginalized, possibly incarcerated for the safety of all others. They are dangerous animals who will destroy everything and all who stand before them or get in their way. They are destroying our planet, and they want us to thank them for it and lick their golden boots as well.
11
Wow. All these personal attacks. The rich don't like warren because they can read a spread sheet, understand a budget, and do math. Warren's economic plans are grounded in fiction -- they can never work because the math is all wrong.
5
What's it going to take for the wealthy, the ignorant, the arrogant, the ill logical too come to grips with reality?
1
I cannot fathom any patriotic American - with a lick of sense - voting for a second term for Trump.
They might have had an excuse in 2016; saying they didn't know, but now! The world knows who this corrupt, treasonous, lying person really is.
I love Warren and what she stands for, but I will vote for anyone who isn't named Trump. "Vote Blue, No Matter Who"
16
C'mon readers~!
Paul is promoting an "anonymous source". Just as have all the other media propaganda outlets.
It's a political ad~!
Paul even alludes to this towards the end of his Op-Ed. He knows how the game is played. Because he is part of it. Just as last pres. election.
Wall Street isn't "afraid" of Warren. They donated to her senatorial campaign repeatedly. They donated to her after she'd already won her 2nd term, knowing she'd be running for Pres. (so much for representing Mass.) $10.4 million of her "small donor" pres. campaign came from these same Big Monies donors. The same Big monies that she'd said she'll take again, once the primary gimmick is over. Her "small donors" is just a marketing ploy. Just like this anonymous source handing Warrens campaign the perfect sound bite..."they hate me 'cause I'll make them pay~!"
Baloney.
Warrens been signaling for weeks she's ready to pivot to the center. Her "plans", all written by DEMOS/her daughter, are all watered down policy cribbed from the Left's candidate. Like her waffling on M4A; it is now "access" to better health care. She's now calling M4A a "framework", not a bill. Sorry Liz, it actually is a bill!
Be aware of Corp. Attorneys, who use weasel words and say one thing in private, and another on the stump.
Wake up people~!
You're being played. Again!
By the same cast of characters, using the same tactics, backed by the same establishment and Big Money.
It's a propaganda; a political ad.
4
______ vs.The Petty Alt Faux News?
I don't understand how faced with accurate information they continue to spout false information that supports policies that work against their readers and listener's best interests.
And lie.
I support EW because she won't lie to us.
Social Democratic Capitalism can work for everyone. But I think the team matters. Harris, Attorney General, Inslee, EPA, Bernie, Health and Human, and so on.
EW is the: it's the ______, stupid...best choice candidate.
President Warren would manage the most effective team.
Why are evangelicals working against their followers? Why do news orgs lie to their tribes? Why are Republicans fake conservatives?
4
There is plenty of blame to go around when it comes to the monumental egos in the financial industry. And it's not just because Democrats are as likely as Republicans to talk about "job creators."
The reality is that a lot of things have become consensus bipartisan positions that shouldn't have. The leadership of both parties loves to talk about "the health of the economy" as if there is some clear connection between Wall Street numbers and normal people's actual lives. Politicians on both sides of the aisle talk about "win-win solutions" that preserve a "seat at the table" for industry and the wealthy regardless of whether or not they deserve to be there.
As a nation, we've been sucking up to rich (mostly) white business (mostly) men for at least 50 years. If they've got comically thin skin and dangerously large egos, it's not that difficult to understand why.
3
“When your rich they think you really know...” - Fiddler on the Roof, “If I were a rich man”
They re they rich. They think they really know. And some how the Great Recession wasn’t their fault. They were right all along.
In truth they were rich all along and they got that confused with being right and being virtuous.
If Christianity is the true religion, they will be waiting on the homeless in the afterlife. That would be fun to watch.
2
The inflated egos of the super-wealthy fool them into thinking that THEY will control the dictator, not the other way around. That's, of course, foolishly false, as History has shown us down the ages.
People like the Krupps thought they'd control Hitler. They were wrong.
Gazprom showed that Russian billionaires aren't safe if they cross Putin.
Nobody crosses Erdogan in Turkey.
They are far better off under Warren than Trump, but are too puffed up with their egos and self-importance to know it.
7
I’m not surprised that many plutocrats would switch to a thoroughly corrupt Trump rather than Warren (or, say, Sanders). After all, Trump presented them with the gift of his 2017 tax cut while suppressing IRS enforcement resources. They aren’t looking much past their next quarterly financial statements. The “jobs” part of the “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act” — not so much.
11
I do not know why so many people who hate Tr ump would
rather vote for him than fr Warren. The y call he r a socialist. But all he r views are not those of a true socialist . Her support of Medicare for all will eventually come, with or without Warren. I,myself.do not know how the goverment would pa y for it. Yet,very other country has Health insurance for all and yet no one calls them socialist.
As for a tax on the extreme wealthy. They are few and far between. Even Buffet talks about how the wealthy need to pay their way. Yet, no one calls him a socialist .
Unfortunately, I believe that Trump has unfairly hurt Biden. People do not like to vote for a person who has been tainted, even if what is said is untrue.
To me it feels like 2016 where,,again, I may not have a choice of voting for someone I truly Like. I must vote as it is my duty as an American citizen. My forefathers fought for this right. People tell me "to hold my nose " and vote.
3
Is it really about egos? Many of the ultra wealthy voted for Trump the first time around (and helped fund his campaign) since they wanted their tax bill. This was true even here in Manhattan, where they knew him personally, and knew how unqualified he was for the presidency:
The area from Fifth to Park avenues, between East 60th and 64th streets, home to some of the most expensive real estate in the world, gave the most support for Trump in the neighborhood — 28.7 percent, or 119 ballots.
Most ultra wealthy whether in tech or on Wall Street will vote in their own self interest, unlike the 99%.
9
Warren's proposal for a 15% investment income tax to bolster Social Security would strongly impact many more folks than just billionaires--i.e., anyone with $250k-plus incomes. Wondering why we're not hearing more about this.
3
If you are actually counting the numbers and types of folks who dislike Warren please share with us the full count which I suspect goes far beyond the “plutocrat- count”. For starters since these plutocrats also unlike most of us manage to create a significant number of jobs in the economy a good share of their employees actual and potential are likely to dislike her for reasons not to different from why the “plutocrats” do. And so on...Sharing the full count will help us better assess your argument.
3
Do you really believe if there was a wealth tax making Multi multi millionaires a tad poorer that they stop expanding their businesses?
10
@Pundit
That’s servitude. Workers worry about their increasingly meager salaries and thus allow more money being transferred to their “job creators”?
How does it ends?
5
Although Krugman has dramatized Wall Street's fear of Warren the real issue is who do Republicans really represent? How Trump managed to convince so many financially struggling voters in the USA that they should gamble on him draining the swamp still astounds me and frightens me. If people cannot recognize a super-sized charlatan who can really protect them? Are there really that many gun-hugging citizens, Evangelicals without moral common sense, women hating anti-abortionist and climate hating deniers to put Trump back in the oval office in 2020? Living in NYC made it easy for me to dismiss Trump as someone who would lose when the rest of the country got an earful of his infantile language that is 100% lie based and his lack of any presidential qualifications. But the way the GOP rallied to his side once he was elected should teach us a simple truth: he did not do it alone. With Putin, Moscow Mitch and Low Bar Barr Trump has managed to break every law he comes up against and trample on every value Americans supposedly hold important. So Warren has a plan for Wall Street but does anyone have a plan for the lack of political acumen that is being spread by GOP politicians, Fox No-News, right wing radio media pundits and Trump Cool-Aid drinkers?
10
What this article dances around is the fact that the right wing takes a very long view. (And anyone who supports trxmp is no democrat.) They may lose one now and then, but as long as the long-term trend is in their direction they are happy. Currently the trend has been to their liking. They would prefer a straight line, but they tolerate the occasional dips. It's a recipe for success - and a scorched earth populated by serfs.
5
Wouldn't it be great to have Trump face off against a bright blonde who has his number and knows how to communicate complex policies to the masses instead of another old white man who stumbles along with last century's ideas like himself?
Would Elizabeth know what to do if Trump tries that stalking trick on her like he did on Hillary? You bet she would.
11
Why settle for a second hand copy when you can get the real thing. Vote Bernie Sanders in 2020!
4
@Peter Walker
EXACTLY~!
One is going to be a repeat of the same old same ol'.
The same establishment cast of characters. Backed by the same Big Money that is supposedly "afraid of her". (an anonymous source quoted by Paul; ie, campaign staff...)
Bernie isn't a corp. attorney using lawyerese to waffle on policy's. Warren is exactly that. Bernie isn't going to pivot to the center. Warren has already begun.
I'll take the original every time.
Cheap knock offs are never as good.
Bernard Sanders; the real deal.
4
I hate to state the obvious here but it's also because she is a "she". These fat cats hate to hear the truth from a male candidate, much less a smart, scholarly, teacher woman like Warren who probably reminds them of their mothers that harped on them to clean their rooms and study hard (let's face it our mothers were largely right). In short, they hate her because she touches a nerve. That is precisely why I love her. She's a truth teller and a prophet. I hope the country is smart enough to listen.
167
@Katie
I love her not because she touches a nerve, but because she really does understand precisely how this country is rigged in favor of the Trumps of the world and she really does understand exactly what needs to be done to counter that rigging.
Any Democrat who switches to support Trump now never truly believed in the principles which now animate the Democratic party. Those who supported Trump last time around were deplorables. Those who continue to support this traitor are both deplorables and traitors.
22
@Katie
You're buying the propaganda.
Krugman is pushing an anonymous source that conveniently handed Warrens campaign a needed sound bite.
These "fat cats" donated to her senatorial campaigns.
They are eagerly awaiting to donate to her pres. campaign once this "small donor" gimmick is over. As Warren has already stated will happen in the general.
As the NYT reported previously, Warren has taken secret meetings with Wall Street CEO's. She's held fund-raisers at their Martha's Vineyard summer homes.
As Politico stated months ago, Third Way, Corp. and the Dem. establishment have all begun to promote Warren as the "compromise candidate they can work with".
Momma schoolmarm is an act. Just as her fauxgressive "plans" are an act.
Warren is a high-priced corp. attorney. Backed by Big Money and promoted by Big Media with propaganda sound bites like this one by Krugman quoting an anonymous source.
Truth teller and prophet?
How about political opportunist playing the rubes in an election year.
I hope the country is smart enough to see thru this same old bait 'n switch, brought to you by the very same cast of characters, advised and backed by the very same Big Donors, and staffed by the very same establishment that brought you Hope 'n Change and I'm with her.
6
@Katie I heard a Republican TV pundit suggest the Republicans should drop Trump and nominate Nikki Haily(sp?). He claimed pols showed her beating any Dem. Republicans could then claim the first woman president.
2
Not only do we have the new threats of cyber-attacks from "Ukraine", but the same old tried and true attacks (Willie Horton, the Southern Strategy, Sex and the Married Democrat, and so on). The Dem's keep bringing up the most feared issue of all- Income Inequality. Capitalism American Style means we must suffer through periodic economic nose-dives, after which there's a re-balancing so that the middle class can make a decent living. But the cost of making things work again causes enormous damage. I remember Bush-2 getting on Television every day warning that the Investment Banks had somehow run out of cash and we had to give them billions of taxpayer dollars to keep them solvent. The DJIA was dropping so fast it took your breath away. And this wasn't half as bad as the Depression of 1929, with 25% unemployment. So if Warren becomes the nominee she'll have my vote. But I worry a bit about her style- on Colbert recently she acted so overly enthusiastic when she came out on stage, wanting to, instead of doing the interview, just taking a selfie with everyone in the studio audience instead. Really, Ms.Warren? And the interview was just the same campaign rhetoric I've heard over and over again, rehearsed down to the last comma and period- zero spontaneity, waving and smiling so hard I thought her arm and face muscles might give way. She's smart and she can run the numbers, but I don't see a statesman or someone who can deal with the rest of the world.
2
I'm a big fan of Senator Warren for president and an even bigger fan of the proposed wealth tax as outlined by Professors Saez and Zucman.
I have no doubt that the wealth tax has the potential to fund very badly needed public investments with far-reaching consequences for our competitiveness and for the well-being of our citizens.
The big question is, how on earth will we manage to ensure that the money is spent wisely. It could easily vanish in a cloud of nouveau reconstruction programs, coordinated by lobbyists and financiers along with well-meaning but ineffective members of government.
To be fair, Jamie Dimon raised this question. and I'm glad he did. It's at least as important as the question of whether we need a wealth tax.
5
Hogwash.
What worries people like me (not wealthy, but aspiring to become wealthy) is that Warren appears to believe that government can (and should) solve every problem. She has a plan for everything - from eliminating student debt (unfair giveaway to many who made bad decisions) to eliminating private health insurance (what effect will this have on quality?).
I am a Harvard Law graduate, and I know that she is smart. Too smart, in fact, to not recognize and acknowledge that eliminating the private marketplace for healthcare will introduce a whole new set of problems. Surely she recognizes that, although people dislike insurance companies, they also dislike government bureaucracy. Instead of insurers telling you no, the government will be telling you no - unless she is suggesting that every treatment for every condition will be covered, which surely can't be the case!
4
@Citizen
Don't you wonder why every other advanced country has a form of universal health care, with systems ranked much more highly than ours for outcomes, yet costing much less? Just why exactly can't we do that here?
10
@Citizen
She obviously doesn't have a "plan for everything", nor does she believe that all problems should be solved by the government. I have to admit that I don't even understand how you can believe things like that.
As to the two things for which she has a plan: why don't you first read it, before trying to refute it?
Studies show that the level of education in countries where access is free, and the level of healthcare where it is affordable for all, are higher than in the US.
In that case, what's your excuse to do nothing instead ... ?
It's as simple as that. No need to go to Harvard to read those studies and see the results for yourself ...
7
@Citizen
Capitalism only works if there is legitimate competition. Example: auto industry with 14 manufacturers.
Health care and education don’t belong in market place. You just can’t have 5 hospitals or 5 schools to chose from. In emergency you go to the nearest one. It doesn’t mean that you don’t have private hospitals and private schools, it just mean that these are regulated as any other essential services.
5
In a Warren Presidency, mental health coverage will be included in all health insurance plans, so even the super-rich could get therapy for their bruised egos.
8
It's starting already. Todays article in this paper speaks of the problems with taxing the super rich. The reasons are quite incredible:
1.Reduction of investments. What investments, infrastructure, medical, environmental, what?
2.Reduction of charities, like the Sacklers and the drug epidemic?
3.Divorces to reduce taxes, not worthy of a comment.
4.Gaming of the "system" to avoid taxes. Very good!
7
People think that the "poor" who dislike Warren somehow don't know what they are doing. But life is more than economic policy, and people often intuitively understand the undertone of thought and policy.
For many people of blue collar origin, there has always been a concern that the federal government reflects East Coast interest and instituitions. Something may sound good in theory, but organzational and regional capture often disempower people inspite of the good intentions. This disempowerment often occurs in this country due to lack of diversity in/and the education of the elites. One needs go no further than the Ivy League to see this:
*All 9 judges of the Supreme Court hale from Harvard or Yale.
*The Obama administration (Which I liked for many reasons, although progressive critics made many valid points), only 25% of the administration had public college undergraduate or graduate degrees.
If we really want policies to last AND empower people, developing policies from a diverse group of peoples AND thinkers is vital. It is critical that those in the federal government understand that how we solve problems is as important as the policies to solve the problems. In the long run, you never know who will run an agency, Richard Condray, or Mick Mulvaney?
Warren, coming from Harvard and Massachusetts, would do well to read Chuang Tsu about the dangers of not understanding human behavior and the centralization of policy and laws.
5
This story has only been reported in one place and it's entirely unverified. As far as I know only Paul Krugman has picked it up and run with it.Click on "reportedly" in his second paragraph to see how little there is. I don't doubt that some do fit the bill, but I doubt that there are many. Judging by the story's currency on social media, it does make an effective ad for Warren, but that so far seems the extent of its credibility. I say this despite Warren being in my opinion the best or among the very few best candidates.
4
Spot on, Professor Krugman.
Being a Massachusetts liberal who knows our Senator well, I too worried that Professor Warren perhaps wasn't "likable enough" to win.
Being a radical moderate, I too worried that she was just a bit too "far to the left."
I know see that I was wrong about both: she's likable indeed (and why should that matter, really?); she's just where she should be, policy-wise; and I wager that she'll be our first female president.
Even though I and others fortunate enough to be in an upper percentile will pay more in taxes because of this, I say, bring it (and her) on!
230
Obama promised to go after Wall Street, but he didn't (and it cost him the Congress as his dejected base stayed home).
Trump promised to go after Wall Street, but he didn't (and he packed his cabinet with Wall Street swamp creatures), but his supporters haven't noticed that yet..
Warren is promising to go after Wall Street, and we voters still hope.
The constant here is that voters, all voters, realize that the financial industry rules their lives and buys laws favorable to themselves, corporations and the rich. Those same voters won't vote for anyone who doesn't promise to change this situation, so they all promise (Hillary did too), but so far, none follow through, Wall Street feeds Congress, therefore Congress won't do much, if anything.
I bet on Obama, now I'm betting on Elizabeth Warren, Charlie Brown didn't give up, I won't either!
261
Obama was so asleep at the switch in the census year election that his presidency was nullified by gerrymandering after 2010.
13
@bobdc6
I’m betting on Bernie because he will NOT take corporate money. I’ve already donate eight $27.00 to him.
11
@bobdc6 I don't think Americans think all that much about the financial industry. Warren is a bad bet to take Trump out of the White House.
3
The skills needed to get elected head of state have little in common with the skills needed to actually do the job. Trump was a TV persona with little relevant experience for the job. We gave him the job because we bought his act. Boris Johnson leapt from the TV screen into the job of Prime Minister. Neither seem to be up to it now. The Democratic 'debates' are not debates in any sense of the term. They are parallel auditions, sales presentations and job interviews. We dwell on Bernie's angry demeanor, Warren's schoolmarm presentation. TV conditioned us to accept those TV values. But The job isn't lead in a forty-eight month sitcom. We deserve this.
4
One may question the details of Warren's tax on wealth proposal, but the proposal itself is anything but new. I invite skeptics to peruse with me the taxation rules established every five years in the late seventeenth and eighteenth centuries by the organized Roman Jewish Community. Possessions, including even uncollected credits (minus the value of debts), were taxed at 5%. The possessions of those with means, that is, which embraced about 120 of a total 800 families. The rest were deemed too poor to tax. Sound familiar?
6
Anybody who has been in the vicinity of wealthy people knows that they have a very different attitude regarding politics. They really believe that they should be able to pick the politicians and policies they like and get their way, without much regard at all for the welfare and opinions of those less fortunate. Politicians like Warren scare them because they don't hold them in higher regard than working people. What do they want? Revolution? Time for compromise!
4
Being hated by Wallstreet is an electoral plus. Wallstreet hated the Donald for obvious reasons and that was certainly part of his appeal. Of course he ended up cuddling up to them but he was definitely the Republican Wallstreet wanted least. The Tea party hates wallstreet, though they were easily coopted by them. Wallstreet hates Bernie, which is one of the reasons a septogenarian socialist almost beat Ms Clinton. EVERYBODY hates wallstreet, but wallstreet. If you're gonna win the nomination and the presidency, Wallstreet better hate you.
The age of strangulation by triangulation is pretty much over.
4
My opinion: it is not her policies that make her so attractive ;after all all politicians must eventually bend to realities. Rather it is her resemblance to Eleanor Roosevelt both in terms of her appearance and waspish celerity.
The contrast with President Bozo only heightens the effect.
2
A part of the super-rich's fear of Warren is ego, but a lot of it is their perception of a real threat going forward. For many super-rich, it's not enough just to be able to live the high life. Money is a way of keeping score, and there's no limit to how much they want. And it's not just a matter of how much they have now, but how much they can get in the future.
Warren would work to construct a fairer society, and a re-distribution of society's resources towards the rabble would be a clear threat to the future earnings of the super-rich. They know, for example, that Warren understands Wall Street very well, and will do her best to regulate the casino that will otherwise subject the world to periodic financial catastrophes that effect everyone except those lucky few with enough stashed away in Switzerland or the Caymans.
1
Oligarchical wealth may largely be the product of specific times and political climes. Radical political change may not threaten net worth, but it may very well deprecate the influence of oligarchs themselves...
1
It is quite possible to be a Democrat who is horrified by Trump and also dislike Warren. I am puzzled by the way that Warren supporters seem to think that she is the only alternative to Trump. There are lots of other interesting, qualified Democratic candidates still in the race (and a few who have already dropped out). I do not like Warren because of the policies she advocates, not because I am an evil selfish Wall Street 1%er (for the record, I am not in the 1% or a banker/financier). I really wish the media would give more time to the middle tier of candidates.
That said, I will "Vote Blue, No Matter Who"
4
Beyond taxes, the great fear of capitalists is for the common folk to see government as a force for good in their lives, rather than the all-encompassing evil they've been warned about for the last forty years - and against which capitalism stands alone as their last defense.
1
Warren 2020 : the right person, the right time. She's just what we need now. Keep rising.
5
I support and will enthisiastically vote for Elizabeth Warren. My intuition tells me that she will become one of our greatest presidents. And I relish the opportunity to stick it to the ultrawealthy for the immoral worship of $$$ over our own fellow humans, the environment, and the animals of the planet.
7
“it’s good to have the right enemies.” A flowing mantra. A lovely T-shirt. But perhaps not when the enemy is ourselves! When the enemy is choosing to be complacent about... Complicit with...When the enemy, as daily personal choice, contributes to daily empowering of a WE-THEY violating, corrupting, culture. Whatever ones financial resources. Whatever one’s actions used to make a difference that can make a much needed sustainable difference for the wellbeing of ALL of US. Not just words.
This article explores selected psychological concepts, constructs, processes and potential outcomes, as well as financial states which sharply differentiate diverse people.
It would have been useful and stimulating to also explore “ personal accountability” as a norm, value, ethic amidst ranges of have and have-not lifestyles.
Wonkiness into charisma? I don’t think so.
Warren (Sanders too) are making a lot of promises they can’t keep (sometimes these are called lies). A wealth tax being used to transfer wealth to the “People” (in the form of ‘social ‘ programs) is ideologically problematic and likely would be DOA in Congress.
Warren casting herself as Robin Hood isn’t charismatic, it’s electorally fatal. Stealing from the rich to feed the poor isn’t a cultural norm I want to see in this country, anymore than the current norm of not taxing the rich. But just think of all those trillions (or so they say) floating around Washington, what a windfall! For the poor? Don’t hold your breath!
Tax Reform is needed badly but a wealth tax is not it...unfairness has a way of creeping into all of our lives with unintended consequences. What about those Powerball winners, what about the entrepreneurs who’ve succeeded beyond their wildest dreams, what about professional sports...the list goes on...back to the drawing board with the wonkiness. Being as Blue as I can be, I’m not ready for Socialism, Democratic or otherwise; let’s hear about wonky turning into reality; charisma be damned.
3
Interesting that some professional sports leagues have a "luxury" tax to level the playing field so to speak but it's verboten in the real American economy. The team owners are all capitalists I believe and the leagues seem to be doing fine.
5
Electorally speaking, the best thing that could happen to Warren is to have Wall Street go after her. In the absence of hostile competition she looks a bit like a feisty, if relatively harmless, college Professor. But the active angry opposition of the plutocrats would give her critique more bite than it might have ordinarily. It would put red meat on the bones of her otherwise academic populism. She might even be able to start appealing to the working class.
Btw, Wall Street, the malefactors of great wealth and Big media hate Bernie way more than Warren; hate him so much they are trying to bury him by not mentioning him, ignoring him or claiming that his candidacy is collapsing. Which is fine with us, Bernie's not doing great, but he's not losing support either. Steady in the polling between 15-20% and we're not going anywhere. And best, he is still capable of making the liberal wing of the Ruling Class really sick with worry. And as we all know, stress kills.
3
Dear Ms. Warren, wear that Wall Street disdain as a badge of honor.
4
Dr. Krugman is correct: the very wealthy have very big and very fragile egos. They harbor enormous senses of entitlement.
I saw this behavior firsthand during my career at a major corporation. Top executives regularly bemoaned the "entitlement mentality" in employees when granting a 2.5% wage increase, but saw nothing wrong with having the company pay for security systems and whole-house generators at their homes. One could legitimately ask why the shareholders should pay for these things when these executives were earning compensation packages well over a million dollars a year.
Elizabeth Warren's ideas and plans are about bringing back a capitalist system that distributes the benefits more widely, akin to what created the great American middle class of the 1950's - 1970's. Why is that a bad thing?
3
If you have been a woman in high position in a mostly male world you understand fully Elizabeth Warren's persistence. Yes, she is brilliant, very intelligent in many respects (not just cognitively), courageous etc. etc. but she also has not forgotten her roots and speaks with clarity so all can understand. Yes, she will persist.
3
I would love to have a beer with Warren -- so much, that I would actually drink beer, which I generally do not.
2
If you are Pelosi and you see Warren coming up in the polls, you go for impeachment. This is what is called a slam dunk. Trump in an orange jumpsuit is more appealing to a lot of people than the idea of Warren in the Oval Office.
If you think the Democrats in the House have given Trump a hard time, wait till the Republicans in the Senate get their hands on President Warren.
1
LIES! Her tax policies, notably increasing social security tax on those making over 250k would hurt plenty of merely upper-middle-class people. I'm 33 and, with my wife and child, make 500k combined and live in NYC where we pay outrageously high taxes. We're IN NO WAY RICH and have modest savings (neither of us could stop working). Elizabeth Warren's SS plan would DESTROY OUR WAY OF LIFE. There, I said it.
4
@Maximus
You write that you are "33 and, with my wife and child, make $500,000 combined and live in NYC ... We're IN NO WAY RICH."
Can't speak for any of my fellow 7 billion plus earthlings, with a median annual household income of just $9,733 (to your half a million annual take), but your SCREAMING really convinced me.
3
I am a big Warren fan and hope she wins the whole thing; she is by far the most qualified candidate to address the challenges of our time. However it pains me to see both Warren and Sanders belittle and demonize wealthy people solely because of their wealth. This creates the underpinnings of a class divide that is unhealthy, antagonistic and unproductive, Trumpian even in its dynamic. She and Bernie should both be appealing to reason to the entire spectrum of Americans in order to restore economic fairness, opportunity and equality in America and narrow the wealth gap that is slowly killing the "goose that laid the golden egg".
1
We have all been deluded about the importance of money, and none more so than the wealthy who slave for more and more and more.
I wish I had understood money was not so powerful when I was trying to help my daughter through some rough times. The money was no friend to her at all!
Perhaps the plutocrats are like the fellow handing out Scientology pamphlets on the corner. How to you face the fact that your dedication and life’s work were poured into a fallacy?
Time to put money back in its place, just one thing among many helpful to human life. Not the answer!
When are we going to realize that the Ultra-wealthy are not American patriots. Their only god is money, and their only country is money. The strange part of all this, (Paul Krugman hit the nail squarely here) is that they will never keep their money under a Trump government. He is too volatile, and he is sloppy with his money and ours, and eventually theirs (wall street). I have grown weary of the short-sighted and greedy.
# Warren 2020
Warren, and Sanders, are threatening to remove the amplifiers that keep Wall Street and the wealth behind it in power, what ever party is elected - see Predator Nation (my summary http://www.robsstrategystudio.org/awfcasfw.htm)
To me, President Trump's election is in part the result of many administrations working to support Paul Volcker's strong dollar vision. This required Democrats to ignore the working class - who they replaced with big donors from Wall Street.
The big question to me is: do Warren, or Sanders, have a plan to ensure the US stays powerful relative to other countries? FDR designed a system that leveraged US military wins into an economic network that worked until Nixon. But Japan, EU and China are becoming more powerful through that infrastructure and US working class is stressed.
A huge amount of American wealth is now in the hands of a very small percentage of the population. It is time for the pendulum to swing back a little. The rich know this is not sustainable, but how do they save face.
The problem for the mega-rich is that the people they used to engineer this situation ( the GOP) became hooked on power and also became rich by taking their percentage.
The GOP has now been fully taken over by the Tea Party, which is a political alignment of racists, bigots, the NRA, misogynists, alt right, evangelicals and the rest of deplorables. Trump Supporters.
There is no way back for the GOP. They got Trumped.
1
Wasn't it Obama who lionized Jeff Immelt and made him a top economic advisor? Yea, that Jeff Immelt, the "brilliant job creating" (/S) CEO of General Electric who was actually most successful at Tax Evasion and taking government handouts. If Wall Street felt slighted by Obama I have a really tiny violin for them.
A country girl from the bottom came out all the way to the top to lead the top 1 percent and the rest to the right direction, fair , just and enriching the bottom.
I think American patriots should be prepared for anything now - including the shedding of blood. This entrenched order will not go easily. We are talking about high motivated type A's who have tasted success. They will die hard. We must be prepared to die in the effort to kill them.
I'm just saying, this won't be easy, sit on your couch and vote. Even if we can get HER over the finish line, the fight will be severe. This entrenched order includes the bishops of the Churches of the Republican Way. Our national religion is infected with this disease we must conquer. This will be a fight. But a huge reward for all mankind is the prize.
Plutocrats' egos are almost as fragile as academics'.
Bruce Springsteen distilled this column well 40 years ago in Badlands:
Lights out tonight, trouble in the heartland....
Poor man wanna be rich,
Rich man wanna be king,
And a king ain't satisfied 'til he rules everything,
Gonna go out tonight and find out what [we]'ve got..
Yes we need to go out and find out what we've got before they take it all from us, our money, our dignity and our freedom.
I want names. I want to know the businesses they're associated. Broadcast them. Let's shun and shame them.
Some recent polls have indicated Senator Warren would beat President Trump. I wish they'd extend their analysis to the Electoral College, because, as we well know, the United States doesn't have election by direct popular vote (to the astonishment of many outside the U.S.), it's ultimately the E.C.
Senator Warren knows how the system works, much to the dismay of the wealthy. If she wins the election and could get a Democratic Senate along with the Democratic House, we might see some real, and needed, reform.
At some point, throwing a lot of money on one side or the other of an election brings diminishing returns; so, even with the dubious Citizens United decision, I don't think money alone can win an election.
Although I am late to this comment party I feel compelled to point out to the few who will see this that we need to stop equating great wealth with other things like great intelligence and moral character.
Many of the super wealthy came to their fortunes through a combination of lucky timing and an ability to do one thing very well.
Some acquired theirs through schemings and manipulations of the tax code.
Either path suggests such individuals might not have the intellectual heft or moral compasses needed to understand a concept like “the common good”.
1
Krugman implies a very important point here, although he doesn't explicitly say it. Our phony meritocracy, epitomized by Wall Street bankers, has essentially become just a new birthright aristocracy. They are no more justified in holding their positions of power than were the members of the ancien regime.
2
The issue is not ego-driven at all, those who oppose Warren see her tax proposals as the tip of the iceberg. In addition to wealth taxes, higher income tax, the exclusion of some deductions, she will also seek to increase union power and attempt to break up large companies such as Facebook. She is seen as staunchly anti-business and heavily socialist in her populist policies and will be interested far more in wealth redistribution than overall wealth creation. Now, if you like what she stands for then give her your vote, she is very forthright in her positions, if you think what she proposes will kill the goose that laid the golden eggs then oppose her, but either way no one is insulted by her, they are just fearful of what she proposes and the impact it will have. It is worth noting how many popular leaders swept into power promising great wealth and power to the people, and those such as Chavez and Castro have a record that we can examine to see just how effective they were....
3
@michaelf
The problem is that those golden eggs are increasingly only laid for the few. And why exactly shouldn't the people have great wealth and power, in the richest country in the history of the world?
Warren seeks not to destroy capitalism but to move it towards a healthy balance that will actually benefit many of the rich as well as the rest of us, by providing much greater long-term stability. The best historical precedent, as Krugman points out, is FDR, who suffered blistering attacks by folks in your camp but may actually have saved capitalism by staving off more extreme measures.
And don't forget she's a powerful woman. That still scares the hell out of older white men.
4
Elisabeth Warren will be for me and many others the very right choice.
Just a little question : Could she stand firm when she will face the influence of the Industrial Military Complex which suck so much of your social product ?
The answer to this question will be THE real test of the state of your democracy. Indeed
1
I would have preferred a candidate that proposed more incremental changes and less radical ones even if they sound good at first. But, it seems that Warren will be the nominee so I'll see how things develop
2
Thank you Mr. Krugman for this fair assessment of Elizabeth Warren. She has the right combination of smarts, courage and honesty without the baggage of the last century democrats (i.e. Joe Biden), who remain silent around allowing big money to supersede individual citizens rights when it comes to elections.
2
Conservatives tend to identify as 1-percenters who are above the rest of the rabble, so I don't think Warren will poach too many Trump voters.
Warren is Hillary 2.0. She just can’t win. Biden will certainly win, and Bernie has a good shot. Please Democrats, eyes on the PRIZE. We need to WIN!
2
Having a good candidate is wonderful, but electing someone who is hated by the Wall Street wealthy is a lot harder now than when FDR was president. The Citizens United decision ensured that we have the best government money can buy. I hold no hope for free and fair elections in America as long as a wealthy few are allowed to pour unlimited amounts of cash into efforts to falsely pretend like they represent the many in order to spew deception and outright lies into the public discourse. Wake up, America! Take back your country!
1
I've said it before, I'll say it again.
"Job creator" is the most pernicious phrase in the entire country. It's a wholly absurd idea that feeds into the god complex Krugman lays out here.
There are only job fillers. No plutocrat is creating a job out of sheer benevolence. It's yet one more investment on which they expect to profit. Which is great! But it's not creating a job for philanthropy's sake.
I'm one of the little guys. But I vote. My vote is just as powerful a vote as is that of the CEO of Goldman Sachs or Amazon or Facebook or Google or Trump or Pompeo or Giuliani. In fact my immediate family is as powerful as 4 of them. My extended family is as powerful as al of them plus some.
So I'm going to vote and encourage (they actually don't need any encouragement) my family to vote.
Why don't y'all, you guys, you-uns, or however you like to be referred to? We can saunter to the polls, hum a tune, have a smile on our faces, and jump for joy once we return home. If someone in Afghanistan can vote with the threat of some suicide bomber killing them, we can vote in our neighborhoods.
Damaged psyches don’t cost money, Mr. Krugman, just time to forget and reconfigure. Wall Street didn’t cozy to FDR because FDR cozied to Stalin. How would that play out today? Warren pulls the socialist brass ring every time around the debate carousal and this leftist course is causing shudders. If Warren is the bet with Biden now on the ropes, this is a sad day indeed for Mr. Krugman, as Wall Street is quietly clapping knowing the outcome is not in doubt.
2
They should be more worried about Bernie Sanders. He has held his antplutocrat view for his entire life. Ms. Warren has come to them much more recently.
1
We are known by our enemies as well as our friends. I couldn't pick a better enemy than a Wall Street Plutocrat.
The counterfactual may state the case even better. Who would want the friendship of a Wall Street Plutocrat? Only other Wall Street Plutocrats.
Case closed.
The suggestion that rich Democrats might support Trump or stop donating if Warren is the Dem candidate because she might cost them some money is the strongest argument I've seen FOR WARREN'S ELECTION. Continue the impoverishment of the 99% for the benefit of the 1% indefinitely and what you would end up with would make the French Revolution look like a four year old's birthday party. We need limits on campaign contributions, politicians that represent their constituents rather than their contributors, and laws that treat EVERYONE equally. Wall Street warned that the sky was falling when the SEC was created. They were wrong then and they're wrong now.
Funny that you point out how Wall Street likes to think of itself as wealth and value creators, when nothing could be further from the truth. The few thousand entrepreneurs who actually create new companies are creators and, arguably, cannot be replaced. But Wall Street is a bunch of interchangeable, loud suits, any of which could easily be replace by your average smart financial professional for 1/10 the salary, and what they produce is nothing but friction and transactional costs. They don't create jobs or new ideas and have probably done more to destroy the wealth of people and organizations in their bad bets than actually create something. Tax all of them down to mere millionaires...you won't have trouble replacing them, and the replacements will likely have more scruples.
So, Warren plays to their egos and offers them name recognition for funding strategic components of her existing plans. Tie their names to restoring our belief that, if we work hard, our lives, and those of our children, will be better.
Wall street only makes money for wall street people and companies. Let them "suffer" a bit.
I would go even more to the level the playing field of wall street. Somehow we need to get the built in advantages of the wall street crowd and let the average joe also benefit. Rich people always get the IPO at an insiders price, not so the common public.
I will always have thought that the wealthy and wall streeters in general are bad for America and bad for democracy.
The author left out something important in his analysis - Ms Warren is a woman. Let's call it what it is - plain old misogyny - and that's enough on its own to foment this kind of anger from the rich and the male.
Vanity Fair has published an outstanding oral history of a series of music festivals in the late 90s called Lilith Fair - where the line up was exclusively women musicians. An entire section of the history is devoted to the hostility directed at the singers and organizers for daring to focus on female performers - most of whom were discriminated against in other concert tours because promoters would already have booked a single female act and felt their duty was done. Despite assurances the concert series would fail, it didn't - it set records for attendance and launched/ solidified the careers of many great musicians, in addition to inspiring others.
If this is happening with music, why would anyone be surprised that Ms Warren would be facing this sort of resistance in politics?
1
1) The rich believe their own press and Econ 101 understanding of free markets. They oppose regulation and taxation as an affront to the magic and efficiency of the free market, which by definition would yield the socially optimal result for us all. They straight up believe this. I think allowing people to take Econ 101 as a random elective without a boatload more context should be outlawed.
2) The rich, and really all americans, have little concept of the utter fragility of society and government/economic systems. People are starting to wake up about this, but in 2016 nobody except people who are from abroad or in a close relationship with someone who was, had any qualms about the US sliding into dictatorship. For however worldly and well traveled the rich may be, they still have that blind spot.
1
Donald Trump ran, to some extent, on changing the status quo. Along with everything else about him, this was nothing but a lie. Donald Trump is the champion of his own only, the wealthy and powerful. Everyone else only exists to serve this group, here is your low paying job without benefits, be grateful to your masters. Elizabeth Warren on the other hand, not unlike Bernie Sanders, suggests policies that will upset the status quo, which terrifies the wealthy and powerful. I find her inspiring and hope very much that she is our next President.
4
The link on financial industry contributions is worth a closer look. From that, isolating to the Obama elections:
Year Total D R
2012 $86,904,763 27% 73%
2008 $35,830,149 59% 41%
An additional M$50 appeared that had never been spent on elections before.
Donations to Ds remained about the same, donations to Rs exploded.
The danger was that wall street regulation would return to pre-Reagan norms and wall street opened their wallets. Republican pockets were filled.
Obama did very little to contain wall street.
Warren will do a lot and they know it. Expect new record contributions going to Rs in this election.
It will be a great year for TV station revenues.
2
Funny how Mr Krugman praises every single Sanders proposal-- as long as he can attribute them to someone else and then describe Sanders as either wild or irrelevant. I have nothing against Warren, my own #2, but this treatment of Sanders, which permeates the NYT, is reprehensible and testifies to fact that Sanders is the real challenge to the status quo while others mostly want to sand the rough spots.
4
Donald Trump has exposed a class of rich crooks who prey on taxpayers to get what they want, without regard for the law or ethics, and often, with the knowing acquiescence of other rich guys.
How is it that so many people hung around with Epstein? Why do our tax laws so favor extreme wealth?
Our oligarchs are not only too rich, they are corrupt. They write checks to election campaigns.
I don't think Elizabeth Warren's plan goes far enough. The last time I liked a Republican was during Eisenhower's administration when we had a 91% top marginal tax rate.
3
Every time i hear someone say, "I'm socially liberal, but fiscally conservative" as a justification for voting Republican, i literally say to their faces, "just like the German aristocracy in the 1930s." Voting (or worse, donating) based on your personal financial interests isn't just amoral, it's immoral.
4
Its not just the ultra rich that could feel financial pain if Warren is elected. More than a few people have IRAs and other accounts holding equities that could see a dramatic decline in their retirement savings. And would she really break up Amazon? Who would benefit from that? Would it decrease the cost of things people buy? And would only the ultra-rich be hurt with increased taxes?
3
@Cordell Overgaard Oh for Pete's sake. A recession is inevitable. Recessions happen and we are due for one.
Currently, our economy works for the benefit of powerful financial interests, not for regular people. And it is not sustainable. This level of inequality cannot last.
Of course breaking up Amazon and increasing taxes on the ultra-rich will cause some problems. Any major policy change has benefits and harms. The issue is whether the benefits outweigh the harms. When a few families own as much as the lower 50% of the population, things have to change.
What Warren suggests is nowhere near as bad as what could happen if this inequality goes unaddressed.
1
Elizabeth Warren is by far, the brightest, most thoughtful of all the Democrats running for president. That said, the reason the wealthy don't like her is because she vilifies the rich, including well-to-do liberals. (What does she think of FDR and JFK?)
I believe that the true divide in the country is between the bottom 60% and the upper 40%, which represents the professional class. Furthermore, I find that most people feel that anyone richer than they are has too much money. Can't help but wonder if this holds true for Warren, with her 8-figure net worth.
I do hope she gets in, but I also understand the anxiety of the well off.
@JC Stearns What is your idea of vilification? Please give an example.
Most conservatives I know personally tell me they support tax cuts for the rich because of their belief in the wealthy being "job creators." Their constant retort is "go ask a poor person for a job. Good luck."
Then I explain to them: "The rich don't wake up every day and create job openings out of the goodness of their hearts or because they feel some mutual responsibility for their fellow citizens. The only thing that creates jobs is demand, and no wealthy CEO is going to create job openings unless they see the requisite demand beforehand. The reason we are in a crisis of demand is because stagnant wages have left the poor and middle class with less money to spend, and as a result, demand has been drifting downwards since Reagan initiated trickle-down economics."
The conservative reply: "Well, that's your education talking."
6
I like Bernie. Hate his online woke army.
The only message I get from them: Bernie is the holiest, the purest, the most woke, the most Left. Since, like, forever. Therefore Bernie *deserves* the Democratic nomination.
I get that this is only a segment of his supporters, but they sure are loud.
I trust Elizabeth Warren. So I don't mind that she is, indeed, calculating and cunning and evasive. I like that she has a functional and productive relationship with the Democratic Party. To me that's a strength, not a weakness.
1
@Mikki, doesn’t matter who, Just vote Blue. Dr Paul Krugman too would be wise to not confuse democrats, just urge them to vote blue.
1
The ultra-wealthy ought to take greater pride in playing by fair rules and winning fair & square. And they really should take the most pride in truly continuing to make our country great - living up to our ideals. That would be the greatest prize of all!
@KEF Some do, but too many did not arrive at their wealth by doing things that are good for the country. And many did nothing to earn their wealth.
Great column! But when you get a chance, please address the feasibility issue about a wealth tax. Greg Mankiw's column last weekend suggested that the ability of the very rich to avoid such taxes is significant. Hence even progressive countries have cut back or abolished wealth taxes. Most still have moderate inheritance taxes, which I still think would be effective in the USA.
1
The leaders of American business have many faults, but on the whole they are intelligent men and women who have risen to their positions. Yet it seems like Ms. Warren goes out of her way to antagonize them. This makes me doubt her ability to govern successfully as president.
As for the banks and their deceptive lending practices, part of the problem lies with the greed and credulity of American consumers, just as part of the student debt problem lies with young people making poor career decisions. There is a deep reluctance in the “progressive” camp to face this honestly.
It may be true that borrowers and students are victims of circumstance, and unable to act otherwise. But so are CEOs sometimes, and I don’t think Ms. Harris fully grasps this.
4
@Global Charm Unfortunately, many people are poorly educated or gullible. It is simply a fact. That is why we need strong consumer protection policies. Why in the world should we tolerate any practices that are deceptive or lack transparency?
Who cares about the wealthy's delicate psyches? They pursued their over-arching goals--money and power--and won them. Now, their egos must be tended to? Gimme a break! They can actually hire ego-tenders.
You don't see them giving two figs for those whose egos, income or health were crushed by their greedy pursuit of their goals. They do not "give back", or "pay it forward".
I do not think the the wealthy are owed a thing -- from their workers, those whose health they've harmed through environmental destruction, those who suffer as a result of laws changed by their paid, powerful lobbyists and their enormous tax breaks.
Their delicate egos are not America's problem. Especially not when Americans face, daily, the negative consequences of the wealthy's greed.
America needs the intelligent, agile and charismatic leadership of Warren to logically lighten the burden carried by 90% of the electorate, for the benefit of the wealthiest 10%. Wealth distribution is grossly unequal. America's current oligarchical government only works for a few Americans.
And last I heard, U.S. government was to be by the people and for the people -- ALL the people.
1
Paul Krugman writes: "the superrich ... expect to be treated like kings, lionized as job creators and heroes of prosperity"
Why are these people so insecure?
Why would a hedge fund billionaire who made his money on high-frequency trading not be secure. Is it possible that deep down he knows he is in fact a crook? He knows he has never created a job outside his fund employees. He knows that what he is doing - front running the markets - is unethical and should be illegal. But he is rich, so that makes him royalty.
1
Perhaps this will precipitate the longed-for divorce between Wall Street and the democratic party leadership. Another reason to admire Elizabeth Warren.
4
One of many important points in this article is “...anyone imagining that great wealth would make them safe from an autocrat’s wrath should look at the list of Russian oligarchs who crossed Vladimir Putin — and are now ruined or dead.” Rich or poor, Americans need to stand firm in stopping our slide into abusive autocracy. Democracy needs people to work for it. Having the bravery to say no to autocracy and yes to democracy is a battle to be won again and again.
339
@Lynk I agree totally. And there are more of us than the uber-wealthy, so let's get out the vote and get our democracy back on track.
75
@Lynk
All sounds great. But my fear is that if Liz Warren or Bernie Sanders is nominated, will they turn out be another George McGovern (of 1972)?
I would be more cautious and wait for having the presidency, & both Houses of Congress in the Democratic hands before proceeding with such APPARENTLY extreme policy-proposals. If you announce such measures now, that could ruin our chances to have the WH & the majority in the Congress.
8
@A.G. This is not 1972. It is almost a half century later, and wealth inequality is at its worst since the gilded age. This kind of timidity is why Democrats lose.
21
When writing about the Roman Empire Will Durant crafted this perfect sentence:
Freedom, in the slogans of the strong, means freedom from restraint in the exploitation of the weak.
The predatory lending of our deregulated plutocrats made the Consumer Protection Financial Bureau necessary. When Elizabeth Warren managed it so brilliantly - a star was born. Our plutocrats would not need to be so worried about Ms. Warren if they had not made her so necessary.
5
I don't blame the ultra-rich for voting in their own economic interests, for tax cuts rather than tax hikes. I do blame those in the bottom 99% that vote against their own economic interests to help the plutocrats.
Face it bottom 99th percentile folks, you're better off if Warren comes in and raises taxes on the rich to help pay for your healthcare and put your kids through college.
So stop acting like the top 1% will be your friends if you vote for them. That isn't a club you'll ever be in.
520
@David Doney you're absolutely right about Americans voting against their interest but remember, drumpf didn't win the popular vote, he won by the electoral college...
I think we'd all be much better off with Warren in office, but even better than that would be a Sanders presidency.. truly a man of the people who has spent his life putting his neck out for the average working American. Too bad corporate media makes it hard for average working folks to know this...
23
Mr. Doney, you hit it. The illusion sold is that the 1% would be willing to let us in if we, the 99%, would just suck it up and get our act together.
17
@David Doney There's no harm in remembering that to get into the global top 1% only takes an income of about $34,000 a year. It's good to remember that as we question the morality of the American top 1%. Are we in the global 1% much different?
6
The threat of a Warren presidency is its corporal and temporal reminder of an immutable truth: while your power might resound to future generations, your personal power ends at the grave. No funeral procession includes an armored car.
Captains of industry will have none of that, even turning to cloning or freezing themselves in liquid nitrogen once the disease which killed them is vanquished in the unimaginably distant future.
It's quite possible the legion of cryohumans would thaw to find a world free of disease but driven underground by runaway ecologic disaster having a human population of as few as 10,000 souls who have lots of money but nothing to buy.
The earth will reestablish balance but it might take tens of thousands of years. Nature has patience; the human race does not. In that long slog, we might be visited by extraterrestrials who find a rusted "War en fo Pre i en" button amid the detritus and struggle to divine what it represents about the former earth dwellers.
It's about time that Democrats had a candidate who opposes the plutocracy of the financial industry.
And some questions: Why are investment banks allowed to own companies at all? Why are they even allowed to exist? What purpose do they serve other than to concentrate the accumulation of wealth in the hands of the very few who make everything more expensive for everyone else?
1
“...That was certainly the case for F.D.R., who reveled in his plutocratic opposition...
To effectively lead a complex beast like America, a leader must have three traits:
> Unfailingly optimistic vision
> Relentless lust and infinite capacity for detail
> Viscerally manipulative empathy
Of the three, only the third can solely get someone elected to the job...
Such folks go in, thinking they can delegate the second, and fake the first...
Never turns out well...
PS
Warren’s an absolute case study...
She’s got the first two in spades – and a million sincere selfies may put her over the top on the third...
Anyone who can reach out and touch that many – will be genuinely touched, in return...
Even the socialists would concur on that...
PPS
In their defense, the plutocrats may have a point:
https://www.newsweek.com/when-franklin-roosevelt-asked-joe-kennedy-drop-his-pants-283146
1
Why would we want to "bail out their damaged psyches?" America and the world would be a much better place without them. They contribute virtually nothing and hoard vast amounts money (in speculative investments) that could be put to far more productive ends, like raising the minimum wage to $20/hour. That would be a productive investment, since workers spend their money on goods and services, generating greater demand and growing the economy. We really do not need millionaires and I do not think that we can afford them anymore.
2
What they hate is FDR's New Deal.
1
Fat cat billionaires whose egos demand they be recognized as L'etat c'est moi had best continue in their history book to see what happened on Bastille Day and the Reign of Terror.
1
You know what Bob DiNiro said on Sunday. Regarding wall street multiply by a hundred.
1
I don't see any disadvantage to Elizabeth Warren, if Wall Street abandons her and starts supporting Trump. Can you see a better campaign ad than that of painting Trump as a minion of Wall Street? I can't. It may be enough to even pry away a few votes from his cult.
3
The plutocrats, in their greed and arrogance, have also destroyed the planet. Just one example - plastics choking the ocean, destroying fisheries, and the livelihoods of fisherfolks - guess what, they are planning on building more plants and fighting against any requirements to reduce plastics or use better recycling.
Another example - the push to make everyone into serfs, oh, excuse me, "gig workers." The push against raising the minimum wage. The push for more and more weapons contracts to the trillion dollar Defense Dept. that can't even balance their books. On and on it goes - but make no mistake about it, the plutocrats bear the lion's share of the responsibility for polluting and destroying our planet, our natural resources, and our society.
Go Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders!
3
One of Obama's errors was not to let the DOJ investigate Wall Street and if crimes were found prosecuted.
4
Not all of these billionaires are stupid enough to dump the Dems for a guy woo they wouldn't lend money too
1
"I don't make no money if my whole society goes down guggle-guggle to the bottom." said fictitious interstellar trader Nicholas Van Rijn. (Poul Anderson, Satan's World (Doubleday, 1969)) Real life plutocrats are not that smart.
Their psyche's be damned. Down with the rich and the bankers. Maybe Ms. Warren will cut them down to size. This should please everyone but those affected. This should also stir up the poor and middle class. Vote Democrat folks. Our lives and democracy depend on it.
1
My husband returned from a real estate conference last week - an annual meeting of movers and shakers in the industry and reported his peer group of executives is quite uncomfortable with Elizabeth Warren. While there is widespread dismay and concern about Trump (probably not voiced until those generous tax cuts and breaks were approved) their discomfort with Warren is now explained by Paul Krugman. Thank you for reiterating the importance of ego, and in this case, the fragile male ego in our political landscape. We saw it in 2016 with the tender male psyche of non college educated white men who easily aligned with Trump’s message and now we see it with college educated, largely white men when their self esteem and dare I say self worth is held up for criticism. Geez, get thicker skin and a few core values.
2
It is misogyny. Plain and simple.
1
These so called 'Masters of the Universe' all have been so thoroughly immersed in the world of Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" that they perceive themselves as persecuted John Galts or Howard Roarks. They feel unappreciated by the unwashed hoards who benefit from their beneficence and magnanimity. They want to be be exalted and praised for their great wealth like some Indian Maharajahs, Medieval Kings or Roman Emperors !
So in order to salve their bloated egos and preserve their massive fortunes, they will stand behind a modern day Caligula and ride off to Galt's Gulch to spite the ungrateful Plebians !
2
So the super rich are not entitled to have any political convictions other than voting their wallets? Warren has floated several policy proposals - universal forgiveness of all student loan debt and medicare-for-all to name just two - that, agree with her or not, are legitimate causes for concern regarding the potential impact on the economy, national debt, and people's ability to retain their medical professional of choice. In addition, she has obviously hitched her wagon to the progressive left of the Democratic Party. Whether that strategy proves successful or not time will tell, but it provides a legitimate basis for pause among those with a more centrist orientation. Don't get me wrong, a Warren presidency would be infinitely preferable to four more years of Trump. Nevertheless, trying to dismiss concerns expressed about the impact of Warren's policy proposals and rhetoric as no more than plutocrat bruised egos is a dishonest ploy and dangerously ignores a deeper undercurrent of trepidation regarding Warren.
2
@Julio That is an oversimplification that does not reflect what the article actually says.
Krugman is not saying that the ultrawealthy have no grounds for opposing Warren on principle. Rather, he is focusing on a smaller group of them. The crux of the article is this:
"So what would make the very wealthy — even some Jewish billionaires, who should have a very good idea of the likely consequences of right-wing dominance — support Trump over someone like Warren?"
Do you really not see the difference?
I'm sick and tired of trying to discern who might be "most electable" or "able to beat Trump." I'm going to vote for who I think is the best candidate based on her platform and credentials -- Elizabeth Warren.
To me, the fact that the super-rich despise her is one of the strongest arguments in her favor.
12
You're not wrong about the ego thing. There's also plain ol' greed. And then there's the fact that she is willing to name something that they don't want to acknowledge in themselves: their selfishness is destructive, even of their own ultimate good. No addict enjoys an intervention.
3
The rich for the most part care not a whit for democracy or this country. To threaten to support a corrupt do-nothing president if they don't get their way just shows how much contempt they have for this country and other Americans that are not in their class of wealth. Even during the Revolutionary War, merchants defied their country and traded with Britain and they will continue to be morally bankrupt as time goes on, spoiled and pampered in their various mansions and yachts. If Warren is the nominee, I intend to support her 100% and hope she is in line with FDR, supporting the majority of Americans over the super super wealthy spoiled rich.
2
Some things never change:
Theodore Roosevelt: Malefactors of Great Wealth
"Too much cannot be said against the men of wealth who sacrifice everything to getting wealth. There is not in the world a more ignoble character than the mere money-getting American, insensible to every duty, regardless of every principle, bent only on amassing a fortune, and putting his fortune only to the basest uses —whether these uses be to speculate in stocks and wreck railroads himself, or to allow his son to lead a life of foolish and expensive idleness and gross debauchery, or to purchase some scoundrel of high social position, foreign or native, for his daughter. Such a man is only the more dangerous if he occasionally does some deed like founding a college or endowing a church, which makes those good people who are also foolish forget his real iniquity. These men are equally careless of the working men, whom they oppress, and of the State, whose existence they imperil. There are not very many of them, but there is a very great number of men who approach more or less closely to the type, and, just in so far as they do so approach, they are curses to the country."
Keep up the fight.
6
Good one. Yikes.
1
Krugman continues to be a very Christian voice for truth/righteousness; always insightful and enjoyable to read; it's like you know the Republicans are scheming selfish liars but they often do it cleverly (excluding Trump) and it's great to have an intellectual(amongst many in our great independent newspapers) articulating the actual and thought crimes-- shining a light into their darkness.
I think I'm understanding the culture--the wealthy want their assets protected and enriched often at the expense of the middle class. The middle/working class whites (and white wannabes) want their racial status protected.
The Democratic party is the party of true Christians and other faiths that 'love their neighbors' and the Republicans have become the dark side party.
2
@Jack Becker MD. Why the bizarre claim that Krugman is a "very Christian voice"?
In fact, why bring in religion at all? I would guess that the Republican Party has a higher percentage of people of faith than the Democratic Party. I get your point but you don't get to decide which people are "true Christians."
I do agree that he is insightful and enjoyable to read,
If we measure her based on her enemies, she is to be admired. The list is long, and, perhaps not surprisingly, includes progressives that suggest she has stolen her platform from Sanders. My how the left demands such purity.
"The superrich aren’t satisfied with living like kings, they also expect to be treated like kings."
Brilliant! That's it in a nutshell. (Except it also applies to most of the merely very rich (i.e. just-sub-superrich) I've ever run into.) And the comparison to FDR is spot on, too. Oh, how they hated him! And all he did was save American capitalism from ruin, helping turn the US into THE global economic superpower. Warren would be good for them too, in the long run... SMH.
4
For an economist not to realize that Bernie collected the most money this last quarter, over 25 million, from the most people, and state Biden is ahead in the polls, is too ridiculous.
The polls are fictitious.
The Dems are going to win with Sanders/Warren.
You were wrong in 2016, and you are wrong again.
This just in: Krugman’s whole column is about collapsing democracy into capitalism, which is precisely what you’re doing. Pretty ironic, given your support for a socialist.
Follow the bouncing ball: St. Bernie is just not gonna be/the nominee.
America is a plutocracy bought and paid for by corporations and the rich. Elizabeth Warren isn't going to change that. If she's elected. like Obama she will find that there are limits to the power of the Oval Office. She will be obstructed by Republicans in the House and Senate and corporate Democrats.
America is no longer about freedom and opportunity, it's about greed and profits.
@Carl I am confident that she is well aware that the president's powers are limited.
Billionaires and democracy just don't mix that well.
The plutocrats should be glad it is not me with a chance for the nomination because I would propose taxing wealth over 1 billion dollars at about 95%.
Some time ago I saw a graph that showed how the different economic classes have done over the last 80 or so years.
During republican administrations the wealthy did a lot better than everyone else; but during democratic administrations they actually made more real dollars.
I read that during Obama's 8 years the wealth of the koch bothers doubled, yet their obsessive hatred of him and their support for republican sedition were on full display.
Their wealth isn't going to insulate them from the whims of a fascist dictator any more than all those guns in the hands of "real Americans" is going to stop the dictator from taking them away.
1
Thank you Paul.
Well done article.
I'm praying a lot.
1
I went to an early rally in Brocton, MA, when Ms. Warren was running for senate the first time. After her brief speech, I turned to the person next to me and said, "I want her to be my next president." I still do!
2
Who cares about the wealthy's delicate psyches? They pursued their over-arching goals--money and power--and won them. Now, their egos must be tended to? Gimme a break! They can actually hire ego-tenders.
You don't see them giving two figs for those whose egos, income or health were crushed by their greedy pursuit of their goals.
I do not think the world--their workers, those whose health they've harmed through environmental destruction, those who suffer as a result of laws changed by their paid, powerful lobbyists and enormous tax breaks--owes the wealthy a thing.
Their delicate egos are not Americans' problem. Especially not when Americans face, daily, the negative consequences of the wealthy's greed.
America needs an intelligent, agile and charismatic leader to logically lighten the burden carried by 90% of the electorate, for the benefit of the wealthiest 10%. Wealth distribution is grossly unequal. America's current oligarchical government only works for a few Americans.
And last I heard, U.S. government was to be by the people and for the people -- ALL the people.
1
As usual, Paul Krugman illuminates. However, what stood out for me in this piece was his reference to Trump's brazen totalitarian tactics against his perceived enemies. It is important to be reminded just how serious it is when a president threatens lives, threatens civil war, and threatens the senator running the investigation of him with chargers of treason. This is serious, and it is easy to overlook it as just some more irrational ranting. It is so hard to take Trump seriously that he seems more and more like a skit on a late night talk show than a president, but we have to remind ourselves that this is reality. He may be a fool who runs off at the mouth before his brain can catch up, but historically that shared trait has not impeded other dictators in their rise to power. To the contrary, a simplistic, nationalistic message, coupled with blunt and brazen brutality easily stirs the instincts of fascist followers into action.
As for Elizabeth Warren, she certainly seems to have it all. I would not discount Bernie, however. What if these two ran together?
By the way, I loved Paul Krugman's appearance on Colbert's late night show. I couldn't stop laughing at his awkward interaction with the crew member's mother who didn't understand tariffs. They certainly made an odd and weirdly amusing pair!
1
The greedy, zero sum gamers will always hate anyone who suggests they share their good fortune with the rest of the country, even though they will be left almost as filthy rich as they were before they "shared." Progressive Democrats, go get 'em! And, let's see what they have in their overstuffed pockets. I'm sure just the loose change will make a gigantic difference to more than 60% of the population. (OH yes, close the loopholes, and don't forget to really fully fund the IRS, to catch those wealthy tax evaders.) Then, our country will actually become prosperous, and maybe even respected, again.
2
Seems to me a lot political behavior (and behavior in general) boils down to whether we think of ourselves as just “me”, or as part of a “we” that we care about. All in for Warren.
1
Don't put forth another bad candidate against Trump. Democrats need to address public support not media or academia support.
If only the Democrats themselves were half the threat to the rich that Warren claims to be. A motley crew of ranters who couldn't organize a kegger in a brewery, let alone a national political party capable of acting at local, State and Federal level, they continue to bet the farm on the Oval Office every four years with lots of promises they could never deliver on, not least because many of them would violate the Constitution.
2
Warren haters are the soul of American capitalism. They think they deserve glory because they are rich.
Is the Prof suggesting that a candidate which does not approach Wall Street to listen their preferences cannot reach the White House?
PK nails it yet again. Must constantly kiss the ring. It's never just about money with these people.
So true. In order to become a president of the United States you have to be a mouse.
You can be an irate mouse, like Trump, but "their irate mouse"; a mouse after all for the moneyed plutocrats. "Democracy" is a foreign word invented in a foreign city: Athens... by the rich of their time, by the way.
Warren's best argument for her being President:
"I am the last person Wall Street wants to see in the White House."
1
Those plutocrats should be kissing our feet, considering how we bailed them out 10 years ago. What short memories wealth makes.
1
No more Wall Street bailouts.
1
Warren had my support long ago. And if the trust fund babies and hedge fund managers on Wall Street hate her, all the better. I hope she socks it to them!
2
First of all, this is why we need transparency in where money to politicians comes from. I want and need to know which companies are supporting Trump so that I can vote with my money and boycott those companies. Second, didn't a bunch of CEO's put out a statement recently acknowledging that they must do more to make the economy work for all Americans? They know the jig is up, so their hatred of Warren has to be something else. Could it be that she is a woman? Could it be they hated Obama because he is black? Racism and sexism still reign in this country. Please let us not think we are past that, not by a long shot.
1
I like Warren. My only issue is after paying income taxes for years, I am still working at 69. At this point, I don't want my taxes to go up to cover Medicare for All or free college for the masses. I already raised my kids, paid for all that stuff, and I'm sick of giving it all to the government.
Plus -- with my maturity, many of the kids in college don't need to be there. A lot of them never finish. College and health care is way too expensive, but at the same time, people who don't have skin in the game -- well you know.
Note that any president, be it Trump 2.0 or any Democrat, will be opposed even if their party is in majority in both houses of congress. Opposition can come down to one conscientious lawmaker, like McCain keeping Obamacare intact.
Consideration of candidates' plans and positions are to be taken with a grain of salt. Take for example, Trump's pledges on what he'd do on day one. Dismantle Obamacare, build that wall, lock her up, travel ban. All he's done is roll back clean air regulation, open up wilderness for oil drilling, and break up immigrant families at the border. What if he ran on those positions? He would likely still be a reality TV C grade celebrity.
Ironically, all the super-rich are doing with this extra cash is saving it for their descendants. Meanwhile, those descendants won't be able to live on Plant Earth if Trump is elected again.
And it would take much higher wealth taxes than Warren or even Sanders or even Warren, are proposing, to keep these people's wealth from growing. The only way to do that would be to tax at 100% all their wealth growth above inflation--if it is discoverable.
3
Why begrudge the ultra-wealthy? Most of them got that way through lots of elbow grease, and good honest living. In fact many of them started building up their fortunes by collecting discarded aluminum cans and bottles for recycling...or at least that is what they would have you believe.
As we continue to stumble down the road toward greater and greater wealth disparity two words come to mind - "French Revolution."
5
Warren's wealth tax should include a provision that anyone subject to the tax will receive a free, government-provided snuggle bear.
Mr. Krugman says of the ultra wealthy, "They can try to brush off someone like Bernie Sanders as a rabble-rouser." I clearly recall Krugman being in their camp during the 2014 presidential race.
2
It is the drive or ego (or whatever you may call it) that many have to be not satisfied with what they already have which leads to greater innovation, entrepreneurship and jobs for others who do not have the ability to create jobs for themselves.
An even simpler explanation, which supplements but not replace Krugman's thesis: Bernie is male and white (two pluses); Warren, though white, is female (one plus, one bigger minus).
For them fortunes are a means of keeping score.
Any reduction amounts to prestige loss, which their DNA is structured to abhor.
1
I like Dr. K, but how does he know all these supposed plutocrats? Has he taken a random sample of them and surveyed their answers and attitudes?
He may be correct in every aspect of his analysis and conclusions, but it seems more likely that he's just going on vague impressions from a few plutocrats.
In short, he seems to throw a blanket over all them, by judging from a few of them. That ain't science.
So we have here one observer's imaginative, heartfelt opinion.
(Full Disclosure: I nonetheless like to blame the rich for being rich and daring to hold different opinions. We poor people can be petty, too.)
Observing from Canada. I could not vote for Elizabeth Warren. She has shades of mania, "exaggeration of the norm". As Congress women and now as Presidential Nominee, she has no filter. always roaring to fight more.She is like a firecracker. Her approach is "Attack" when the country needs a much less caustic person. I think of her, as she is, attempting Peace Talks?
Jo Biden, bless him, he relies on Nostalgia Stories of his time with President Obama, his acumen at this time, is just not there to be in the oval office.
Bernie Sanders, bless him also, but he just talks louder about his set agenda.
My Vote were I American, would go to Mayor Pete Buttigieg, he is written about having it all, when it comes to being President. great acumen, calm, confident, understands having the "country first" People around him, and I CAN see him in Peace Talks. The country also gets a great "First Husband"
@Connie Hayes
Buttigieg, Biden and Warren, in real life, are all proposing more or less the same: common sense policies of good governance and gradual moving towards less income inequality.
You can like one "personality" better than the other, but that's not what matters, when it comes to presidential elections. It's the future of the country that's at stake, and all three of them have already proven to know how to get real, lasting progress done - and in a way that doesn't create any "revolution" or other kind of instability.
Apart from that, yes, women tend to be more emotionally explicit when they talk about what they're passionate about. My advice here would be: get used to it ... ;-)
1
@Connie Hayes, stay in Canada. Here in America no matter who we will vote blue.
'...the only people who would be directly affected by her tax proposals are those who more or less literally have more money than they know what to do with. Having a million or two less wouldn’t crimp their lifestyles; most of them would barely notice the change.' Doesn't matter how wealthy the super rich are; it's never enough, Their mantra: GET MORE, MORE, MORE, NOW!
2
I view the riches angst and terror about Senator Warren with all the sympathy and concern I have for the Mafia and their fear of the FBI and DEA. That is to say: Tough!
If we go back to the days of Reagan and his deregulation obsession we find the birth of most of our financial and class issues.
He killed unions which allowed business to run rampant over employees, local governments and us.
The easing of restrictions on financial institutions created the feeding frenzy and loansharking that almost killed our country.
Since none of us are pure and godly, we and our institutions and governments must be subject to fair and impartial oversight and regulation.
That's why the money boys fear Senator Warren. They know she knows just how to take care of business and they know their methods will not survive the bright light of an honest government.
And in my opinion, they are welcome to take their marbles and go home if they're so afraid of a girl.
7
"If Warren is the nominee, then, a significant number of tycoons will indeed go for Trump; better to put democracy at risk than to countenance a challenge to their imperial self-esteem. But will it matter?" The latter question is rhetorical. No, nothing matters to the super rick except more wealth and more things for them now. Look at the studies done on these people. They move about the world in a sort of plastic bubble of indifference. As one research study done to measure the degree of empathy of the rich puts it--"it's not that they don't care; it's that they care much less than normal people." So, really, the better question is: Will we finally have a president who treats the rich the same as any other citizen?
1
With advent of new technology and crowd funding, reliance & importance of corporate funding been reduced significantly. Role of socially polarizing issues in politics like religion and race, which political parties (mainly the Republicans in USA) tend to exploit, is also decreasing. And no one can stop it either.
Yes, I know the role of those aggressive and highly vocal Christian/Evangelical fanatics and white supremacists that political and corporate America use for long. But I tend to think that these people behave more aggressively mainly because they too realized its declining influence. Just check the data. Now atheists & agnostic Agnostic Americans are more in numbers and % of population than even Evangelicals (~25% vs 23% respectively), even though evangelicals basically control American politics while there is not a single Congressman or Senator with is openly atheist/agnostic (and that's a concern).
Corporate America and those ultra rich guys need to understand that some tax increase would leave vast majority of their existing wealth intact. But mass frustration and growing civil unrest (if not civil war as Trump warned, if he is impeached, & that reality is equally great if he's not impeached & win in 2020) would make those king class at a far worse condition. Supporting Warren would actually help them to get more stable country and more lucrative consumers to sell its products & services. But you can argue with policies but one can not argue with ideology or ego!
2
Very good points. As for how those whose need to feel in control of everything would react, see under Brothers, Koch.
I think most everyone that worked in financial institutions understood that reform was required following the 2008 subprime crisis (which was coupled with the Madoff scandal, which had nothing to do with mortgage securities).
What real financial professionals and leaders wanted was not no regulation, but smart regulation that strongly addressed the issues that caused the crisis, punished, and limited the action of, the actual culprits, and protected the system and its participants (including, of course, consumers and investors that had been unfairly affected by the crisis).
Instead, we got Dodd-Frank, which was a shotgun of every crazy regulatory proposal from the last 30 years. It addressed unrelated issues in an indiscriminating manner with really unhelpful, half-baked and incredibly over-complicated approaches. It also had a good deal of finger-wagging at all kinds of parties that had nothing to do with the crisis.
... and Elizabeth Warren found herself in the perfect position to take advantage of the moment and to hitch her wagon to the star of outrage politics surrounding the crisis. Throughout the process, she seemed more interested in winning political points than actually solving problems. It was unhelpful and got us to a terrible regulatory state that even the Obama Administration admits is not sustainable.
The skepticism of Warren is not purely cynical egotism. It also does go to her judgment and the very mixed results she achieved in her core issues.
1
Krugman, as smart as he is, has a blind spot when it comes to class conflict. In brief, contra Krugman, the rich aren't wrong here: the rise of a democratic socialist or social democratic political movement threatens their material and political class interests. Sanders totally understands this and Warren appears to as well. The Krugmans and Clintons of the world cannot shake the belief that change must come from the top down from right-thinking liberal meritocratic elites.
@Russell Bartels
The GOP built a system where only the rich have access to politicians, and that is entirely rigged in their favor.
So obviously, we'll need SOME rich people to agree that the system has to change before it can truly change.
Krugman isn't saying here that ONLY the elites can change things, he's saying that Warren is right to try to fire up ordinary citizens to engage and vote, precisely BECAUSE so many "elites" refuse to give up their wealth and put America first.
And Krugman is right too when he denounces the blind greed that drives so many wealthiest citizens.
As to your idea that ONLY material interests drive class conflicts: that's a "truncated" form of Marxism. Marx never denied that moral values and moral flaws are involved TOO. All that Krugman is saying here is that putting your wealth before your country, once you're ultra-rich, IS a moral flaw. As long as we can't recognize this fact, we can't do something about it either, so it's important to remember this, rather than to imagine that rich people inevitably put and will always put personal wealth before everything else, as you're suggesting here ...
You think Warren can fix this? We are a plutocracy. Big money owns Washington. The politicians tell their constituents what they want to hear and they do what their lobbyist puppet-masters tell them to do. Thanks to Citizens United there is no going back.
1
I really, really don't understand the rich. The last pick in the NBA draft's first round (#30) is guaranteed 1.6 million this year. That pick is likely to be 19 years old. After a working life of over 50 years I could retire right now on that much money.
The richest person I know personally is worth 8 figures but is no where near being vulnerable to Warren's wealth tax number. Yet I've heard sportscasters, people who make their money describing games I'm already watching complain bitterly about the taxes they pay.
There are few if any countries in the world where anyone can make the money that people in the US can make without breaking the law and without living in guarded compounds with personal security details. They can make fabulous (to me) money doing the very same things people used to make a lot less money to do, money on which the paid higher tax rates. Yet they talk as if they're victims at tax time. Victims.
3
The ultra-wealthy complained of rampant inflation during the recovery from the Great Recession--just look at house prices in the Hamptons!--and they were right. Sorta.
The increase in the number and wealthy of the ultra-wealthy means there are more dollars chasing the same luxury goods, so the prices go up. You can't increase the *supply* of these luxury goods because their scarcity is what defines their luxury. If it's not exclusive it's nothing! Thus the prices of Manhattan penthouses, well-known artworks, and the like skyrocketed.
So clearly we need to increase taxes on these poor plutocrats FOR THEIR OWN GOOD to drive down the hyper-inflation they're suffering under. It's only common(er) decency!
2
Most refreshing and interesting column and convinces me, almost, that Warren should be the president. My only problem is her wanting to throw out ACA. If she would back off that, I'd be all in. I am a fan of her support and ideas regarding consumers and banks and her installation of the agency now run by Trump's man, MIck Mulvaney, to the agency's inactive status now, as well as Mick's possible involvement in the Ukraine problem . She's tough and making inroads with more good plans than the others.
I admire Elizabeth Warren and I'd love to see her as President, but if Trump is to be the opponent maybe we need the gravitas of Bernie Sanders. I don't know. I hope it will become clear before the primaries.
1
Wall Street has controlled the Democratic Party since Bill Clinton's presidency. They are afraid of losing that control. Republicans will of course do Wall Street's bidding because of Republicans' ideology, but capturing and controlling the Democratic Party is central to Wall Street's power. Warren threatens that.
2
With advent of new technology and crowd funding, reliance & importance of corporate funding been reduced significantly. Role of socially polarizing issues in politics like religion & race, which political parties (mainly the Republicans) tend to exploit, is also decreasing and no one can stop it either. Yes, I know the role of those aggressive and highly vocal Christian/Evangelical fanatics & white supremacists that corporate and political America use for long to get its work done. But I tend to think that they behave more aggressively mainly because they too realized its declining influence. Just check the data. Now atheists & agnostic Agnostic Americans are more in numbers and % of population than even Evangelicals (~25% vs 23% respectively).
Corporate America and those ultra rich guys need to understand that some tax increase would leave vast majority of their existing wealth intact, while mass frustration and growing civil unrest (if not the treat of civil war, as trump warned) would make those king class at a far more troubling and economically poor condition. Supporting Warren would actually help them to get more stable & more lucrative consumers to sell its products & services.
1
The super-rich, especially those who inherited their wealth, desperately need to rationalize their unearned privileges by equating prosperity with virtue.
Rich people tell themselves they deserve more because they innately are better than poor people and workers. If the idle rich were not convinced they are superior, they would have to confess that they are deadbeats.
For those who want a complete explanation of this psychological and theological pathology, read Max Weber's seminal work, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.
I like Elizabeth Warren tremendously. Now, how do we get her elected? I wish Bernie had not gotten her to embrace Medicare for All. As much as I like that idea also, I think we need a staged approach to getting there. An entire medical insurance industry must be dealt with, and although they create a lot of problems, dumping them all at once would also create problems.
Her biggest appeal to me is her understanding of and wanting to regulate the banking and securities industries. I believe that capitalism is the best economic system, but an ethical, compassionate capitalism. Given that that doesn't always happen, we need regulations to reign in the bad guys.
Back to getting her elected, how do we get the vote our and get people to understand she has the best solutions?
2
Businessmen seem to love strongmen in a feudal autocratic Govt. That's evident at both national level & at local/state level. That's why communist countries like China, Vietnam etc became the darling of western investors. At the same time these people also love prosperous consumers who have money & willingness to spend. That's besides market's desire for a more stable sociopolitical climate. It doesn't matter if that clam is achieved by fear, torture, rampant abuse of human rights, or corruption.
Now the balance between these two aspects (sociopolitical calm & support for strong/autocratic leaders vs long term stability and lure of prosperous consumers) to run a profitable company or a growing national economy is so delicate that high growth rate & huge profit tend to falter once autocratic regimes start to lose its grip over power, challenged by growing public frustration to destabilize that relative calm. It can also due to consumers/Govt in other countries start demanding accountability, demand level playing field. Initial high growth soon follows devastation of economy under any autocratic regime, while productive functional democracies are far more stable but offer a lower but steady growth besides relatively all inclusive economic prosperity.
American plutocrats need to chose a life outside America in a more autocratic country like Putin's Russia or Xi's China. I'm sure they would not like other Western democracies much.
3
It could be that corporate opposition to Warren isn't about the small tax on wealth. It's the worry (hopefully, well-founded) that a Warren administration would move to choke off the pipeline of legislative and regulatory changes that corporations have engineered to increase the share of income that they can take.
11
This column reaffirms two things: 1. The mega-rich don't have an actual ideology or belief system beyond their own self-aggrandizement. They will switch to whatever party fawns over them more. 2. That so many of these mega-rich were previously donors to the DNC tells me why Elizabeth Warren needs to win the nomination. It's time to flush the Democratic party of its ties to the financial services industry.
6
Does it make sense to "psychologize" this debate, as Krugman does here?
The problem is that we tend to psychologize people's behavior when we don't see any other explanation anymore. You can't find a rational framework showing why people do what they do? Then they must be "ego driven".
Unfortunately, this kind of hypotheses is way too vague to be able to be verified/falsified.
They do point into the direction of a different but equally important debate, that has to do with the moral values underlying people's choices and behavior (because the presumption here is that "bad behavior" is caused by the "bad part" in us, called "ego", which actually merely says that we morally reject that behavior, and nothing more).
Thanks to the discoveries in neuroscience of the last two decades, however, we now know much better HOW to cultivate moral values in such a way that the brain starts adopting morally responsible behavior.
A brain that wasn't actively put into contact with attention and kindness training tools, day after day, will stay in a "default mode" where confusion about "the good life", as Greek philosophers called it, will be omnipresent. THAT is when people start to value personal wealth above all other things, and when they start seeing the world in such a negative way that "danger" is everywhere and only wealth can protect them.
It's this "scarcity" mentality that makes the wealthiest put personal wealth before "America". We urgently need to educate them better ...
2
@Ana Luisa Are you suggesting that Donald Trump can be reprogrammed to be a moral, upstanding President who puts the interests of the USA ahead of his own?
I think they're making a calculation:
1. We probably won't be able to find out what they're up to.
2. We probably won't be able to do anything about it if we do find out.
3. Ultimately: they matter, and we don't.
At certain moments in American history, the people have proven otherwise. So while the bulk of recent evidence supports them, it's still up to us.
The author alludes to but doesn't explore fully the psychological basis of the abhorrence that the super wealthy have for Warren. They may harbor, perhaps subconsciously, what I call "The Romanov Syndrome": a terrifying fear that if the great unwashed managed to get a foothold they will confiscate wealth, destroy privilege, and perhaps more.
4
Mr. Krugman, shaming is futile. Begin the writing of a new narrative. Opine on building out a modern transportation infrastructure, revitalizing cities and towns across our Country, creating a modern power grid. Imagine the health care and educational system that is possible, the jobs created and the consequent middle class with money to spend. Imagine all we can accomplish if we stop the hoarding of wealth and begin to carefully spend the bounty created by human ingenuity and build on it. It is time to boldly go where we have never gone before, into a magnificent future each of us filled with hope and aspiration. Enough of the handwringing hoarding of the fruits of all our labors by the Scrooge’s of the world. Embrace Elizabeth Warren and those who imagine.
9
i would appreciate dr. krugman critiquing this article from the Times:
Democrats’ Plans to Tax Wealth Would Reshape U.S. Economy
Proposals from Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have raised concerns from economists and business leaders who fear the plans would sap economic growth.
Of course, we must continue to have more billionaires and millionaires than ever before in American history. How awful if our record wealth and income gaps were shrunk and we redistributed a bit of the unimaginable wealth. Why in the world should an individual have a billion dollars or more?
1
@robert
Today, economic growth in the West is similar everywhere - whether in the US or in Denmark - whereas income inequality is massive in the US, and much lower in Denmark.
So no, income equality does NOT reduce economic growth.
What those business leaders fear is that their share of the pie would be a bit smaller, and that's it.
Don't they realize they can maintain their wealth even if they pay a bit more, simply because their customers (or the customers of the people whose money they manage) will have more money and go shopping? That's different from just sitting on the money with no good investment options. There will be more economic activity overall, investment options will open up, and everyone will benefit.
4
@Maria
You assume they are in some sort of business, but what if most of them just inherited their wealth and like to watch it increase year by year on the stock market? Would they, then, care about "customers" they don't have buying or not buying products they don't make?
Who knows? Maybe Warren is this generation's FDR. God knows we need one. Incidentally, and petty plutocrats aside, this may the most optimistic piece Paul has written in some time.
5
Taoist Chinese saying: “A man with no food has one problem, a man with plenty of food has many problems”. Today, plutocrats who have more food than ever needed, and so many problems that have nothing to do with food, or water, or housing, or healthcare, or education, or global warming, or the price of gasoline. All they want is more and more money. Like the widow’s pence parable, the rich man who gave 20,000 resents the poor widow who only gave 2 coins, all she had. America must come to terms with the lies that are foundational to Plutocracy: the wealthy create jobs, labor is a factor of production, high taxes on the wealthy hampers economic growth, wealthy people are smarter, inherited wealth is not an unfair advantage to the majority, academics from elite universities are not pandering to plutocrats.
6
It could not be more clear that American people (particularly since 2008) have been fed up with Wall Street engorging itself at the expense of working class people. I think Warren's anti-Wall Street rhetoric is wonderful, but why won't she make a steadfast commitment to forgoing high dollar fund raisers with Wall Street donors? If she is 100% convinced that she won't receive their money, would this not be an advantageous course of action?
As per Shane Goldmacher's 9/9/19 NYT piece:
"Ms. Warren has said her ban on fund-raisers only applies to the primary. Should she win the nomination, she would return to the events to compete with Republicans. (Faiz Shakir, campaign manager to Mr. Sanders, said the senator would not hold such fund-raisers if he is the nominee.)"
This all speaks to why I'll be donating, canvassing, and voting for Bernie.
Not me, us.
1
Dr. Krugman closes today's column with, "I do worry, however, how Wall Streeters will take it if they go all out to defeat Warren and she wins anyway. Washington can bail out their balance sheets, but who can bail out their damaged psyches?"
I worry about this, too. I worry about it because one of the ways these "malefactors of great wealth" tend to deal with a bruised ego is to lash out like a child who throws a tantrum when the umpire makes a call against him and threatens to "take his ball and go home."
And make no mistake, their obscene wealth gives them the opportunity to do a great deal of very real and lasting damage to the lives of those who work for the companies they inherited or to the communities in which they live.
Thinking of these entitled miscreants makes one understand the motives behind Bolshevism or the French Revolution.
1
Wow. This article surprised me because I wouldn't have thought Warren would inspire anyone's hatred. She has a warmth that's very appealing (and a sense of sincerity that is so refreshing after all the shallowness and moral depravity of Trump). Unless the plutocrats use their money to artificially sway the election, I think it's more important how the majority feel about her. Just as important as her warmth, she also has grit. I was just waiting to see if she was a viable candidate (getting rid of Trump is the most critical thing) before throwing my full personal support behind her. I always felt she was someone I could be excited about. And to be compared to FDR is certainly high praise.
10
You're the Bomb P, Dr. K!!! Once again, you've nailed the human motives that lurk within economics. Keep it up--you're the real reason I subscribe to the Times.
6
Warren for President! No one else is good enough.
5
Finally a Democrat that Wall Street hates! I never thought I'd see one in my lifetime! Maybe there is hope for America after all!
7
EPIC. 1934. Nuf said.
1
Good for you Elizabeth Warren!
There is only one thing money can’t buy ..... poverty.
3
Wall Street bad, Capitalist good?
2
The key obstacle to Warren’s candidacy isn’t the likely reaction of Wall Street. It’s overcoming the concerns of moderate independents believing that her ideas are too radical for the country. The problem is not with taxing billionaires, but with the rest of her agenda that will be portrayed as extreme socialism. Financial advisors are already warning middle income investors to expect a market decline if she wins. Even if her progressive ideas are great for the country, they will be portrayed as extreme giveaways. I suggest Krugman devotes a future column to explaining to moderates/independents why Warren’s programs aren’t too risky for them. I believe Progressives underestimate the difficulty of overcoming “socialism” labels among independents and even moderate Democrats. This could lead to Trump's reelection.
5
@@DAN The biggest scam is these people taking from our tax dollars, sure they don't pay taxes and do in some case get tax rebates but they use the system to take more, more and more from our tax coffers. The whole system is corrupted by money and power and privatization. We need to get the crooks out of government by getting rid of Citizens United and have Public Financing of elections. Shorten the election cycles so no one can buy all these politicians both in counties, states and federal government. Break up too big to fail banks and the media also. I want my local newsrooms back and a national news that isn't ran by profit motives i.e. bottom lines where it made up be good for America but it is good for our bottom line. I believe it was CBS Ceo that said that.
1
@@DAN
Warren has described herself as a capitalist.
It's not a war against capitalism, Wall St, or extremely wealthy, per se.
The problem she is identifying is raw, unrestrained capitalism, which acquires wealth through exploitation rather than innovation.
Exploitation of consumers, workers, and/ or taxpayers is where the line is drawn.
Consumers are gouged on a regular basis by pharma, insurance companies.Workers are paid as little as possible, and share none of the profits.
And taxpayers are exploited by plutocratic tax code, which currently favors the ultra wealthy.
Most of us are all three (consumers, workers, & taxpayers).
The rich should be as wealthy as they can get, as long as they stop exploiting the rest of us, and pay their fair share.
1
The audio of FDR's address is available at "FDR Audio Recordings", https://www.fdrlibrary.org/utterancesfdr
4
There's a term for this that's worth remembering uttered by a Republican (gasp!) President who reined in the Robber Barons by establishing the federal income tax. They were then, as they are now, "the malefactors of great wealth." Teddy Roosevelt was right then, and Elizabeth Warren is right now. Her proposal is relatively mild compared to what a truly hard-nosed Roosevelt (Franklin or Teddy) would do; and that's roll back all the tax cuts for the wealthy since Ronald Reagan which gave us wage stagnation for workers, and massive wealth and income inequality for the corporate elite.
5
If the rich democrats flip to Trump you are responsible another four years of assault on our democracy and not to mention on the air your children ,grandchildren, etc breath. The love of money is killing but maybe you rich fokes think you can eat it when there is nowhere to grow food .
1
In fact that same group also hated the Clintons.... and they, too, were good for the wealthy.
They're a paranoid bunch....
4
Liz Warren you have my vote. Smack down. !
Trump is afraid of the women. Ever notice?
4
Greed is a mental disorder, no matter how much the plutocrat's have it will never be enough, these people are ill.
3
Dr. Krugman, please endorse Warren. She will be a stronger nominee than either Biden or Sanders, and her program is right for us (and the rest of the world). Your endorsement would go a long way and the need has never been greater.
3
Would the 1% be happy if Warren promised to tax them heavily, but give them medals for public service? In a capitalist system, money is power and what capitalistic individuals strive for is power, not praise. This is instinctive - the desire to be at the top of the order is present in most mammals, ultimately for the advantage it gives in reproduction. The instinct is not turned off when individuals have enough for mere survival.
Things were somewhat different in WW II and afterwards, when even business leaders were willing to sacrifice for the common interest. That group behavior also is instinctive. But that attitude was eroded as the threat to national survival receded.
The power of successful capitalists simply has to be limited, by taxation and regulation. Never mind satisfying their egos.
2
Sexism and misogyny.
4
Mr. Krugman writes the most readable articles I've seen on The NY Times.
1
And let's say it. They hate her because she's a strong, smart, ambitious WOMAN. White male America can't get over its hatred of women, black Americans, Asians, Latina and Latino.... Anybody who ain't white male. They hate the redoubtable Elizabeth Warren, just to repeat, because she's a woman.
6
@John Gabriel
Addendum to my earlier post:
"For ages men had conceded the superior saintliness of women and had consoled women for their inferiority by maintaining that saintliness is more desirable than power. At last the feminists decided that they would have both, since the pioneers among them believed all that the men had told them about the desirability of virtue but not what they had told them about the worthlessness of political power." Bertrand Russell, In Praise of Idleness, 1932
What is a "weekend"?
Is Warren a demagogue?
The problem with Senator Warren is that she has plans, but displays a notable lack of success in working with the other side of the aisle to turn them into reality. The fact that she has plans is not unusual; any bona fife candidate should. Obama did. Clinton certainly did. I dare say Trump did. The issue is her ability to deliver on them.
The only thing for a snake oil salesman (Wall Street banker) to fear it the truth itself.
1
Who is Warren? Seems that was so long ago.
Yes, please do it, uber-wealthy. Show us your true colors. We need it if we're ever to cure the working class if their belief in you. Stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Trump and see if voters can tell the difference.
I disagree. I find that in my area (populated by a lot of those Wall Street types) the people who are most vocal about hating Ms. Warren are not the wealthy. They tend to be the white guys who drive pickup trucks. What is going on here? Sexism.
3
Roosevelt saved Wall Street and American capitalism and they never forgave him.
2
The ultra-rich should welcome the slogan, "Tax the Rich".
To paraphrase Trump, in days gone by the slogan would be, "Kill the Rich."
You have such a nice life, it would be a shame if something happened to it.
It bears repeating.
“There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.” — Warren Buffett
Very courageous comment about Jewish support for Trump and his far right supporters being very dangerous for Jews worldwide. But unfortunately, a little clumsily expressed which will draw fire and accusations of antisemitism. The far right Bright Bart types want to persecute Jews , while far right Christians support the Jewish state in order to ensure the biblical requirement for its ultimate destruction along with its people who remain Jewish.
1
Perhaps it's time for us all to do what FDR was accused of and start dining on roast billionaire.
The plutocrats can show who is the REAL populist.
Clinton and Obama accepted too much corrupt money from Wall Street, which the Tea Party used against then.
Hillary lost though she spent 3 times more money than Trump, but he had much more free publicity,
Being hated by Wall Street is a feature not a bug.
3
She means what she says. Bar the door, Joe.
Corollary: No Wall Street sympathy implies No White House occupancy?
1
The NYT sure does a good job protecting Krugman from opposing comments in this message board. There's barely a whisper of disagreement here.
Here's a little dose of truth from a registered Independent....
Characterizing the top 1% as some Machiavellian group of evil doers who scam the poor and live off trust funds is sloppy, silly, incorrect and narrow-minded.
Fact 1: 95% of the top 1% of earners are professionals who go to work ever day. They are doctors, lawyers, engineers and business owners. They don't hide their money in offshore accounts or drive around in million dollar cars. They work for a living and get paid well because their skills are in demand and they are experts in their respective fields/businesses.
Fact 2: There are approximately 1,800 taxpayers who have more than $500 million in assets. That's a fraction of a percent of the top earners, and many of those folks, like Bill Gates, are responsible for more philanthropy, charitable donations and programs to help the less fortunate than the rest of us combined.
In 2016, the top 1 percent of taxpayers accounted for more income taxes paid than the bottom 90 percent combined.
So keep railing against these folks if it makes you feel better.
2
They are the masters of the universe. Their great wealth proves it. How dare anyone question their virtue and their magnanimity. They are the sun that warms the earth. Without them nothing would grow or flourish and humanity would be condemned to suffer the lack of all their glorious beneficence provides.
Classic Krugman; one of his very best.
1
Greed knows no political party. Or race, religion, country of national origin, or ethnic background.
The "petty plutocrats" will do as they have always done, follow the money and anyone who can help them keep what they have and get even more.
And like many of their ilk, they fear and hate intelligent women.
1
All true but Warren is personally nasty to people who disagree with her who otherwise have no power. A trump like bad sign
3
Being rejected by the top “Wall Street” bosses might be considered a contribution in kind! Rebuke by those thieves would be a campaign contribution on steroids.
And I work on Wall Street!!!!
Go Senator Warren.
But always remember...:Vote Blue, no matter who.
1
I'm for Warren/Yang or Warren Pete ticket.
We'll know in a month if she is 15 points ahead of miscreant Trump
I'm sick of hearing what rich people think.
1
Won't this echo chamber be sooooo gobsmacked when it's their health insurance, their earnings, their wealth she attaches her utopian grab bag to! And we who detest all things liberal say, "we're with her!" We already duck the confiscatory impulse -- can you all? Unlikely if you have a paycheck...or a portfolio...or a mortgage, all the interest on which will soon be non-deductable just as in the Canadian nirvana! On paper, we are broke. And we will take every one of her giveaways paid for by all of you. Thanks!
The smartest white guys in the room filled with other white male business people. Most of these privileged rich white trust legacy boys should still be serving long sentences for their ongoing criminal fraud that crashed the economy ten years ago. Get money out of politics. Regulate the financial sector. Tax their ill-gotten gains.
3
Prof Krugman betrays his limited understanding of being a very wealthy person. Yes they may want to be lionised and worshiped but I bet that for most people, human nature is such that great wealth begets greater selfishness and paradoxically more upset when they lose "[just] a million or two" to the undeserving masses. He could have stopped writing this article and instead explore just this quirk of human nature.
1
Well, Warren seems the most well prepared of the democratic candidates, with policies that make a lot of sense....for a democracy, as it requires fighting the odious inequality the current plutocracy is so well known for. The very rich seem convinced they are entitled to what they've got, forgetting that, aside the luck, or serendipity, of being in the right place at the right time, and with all the infra-structure this society is providing, they ought to be most 'happy' by sharing the pie. But that does not seem to be the case, as the 'rich and powerful' do not feel they have to share their wealth, solidarity be damned. This is, in spite of their billions, a poverty of spirit difficult to deal with, as any democracy worth it's name does require we integrate the least among us in the system...so justice may see the light of day. And proud Trump may be among them, as petty as they come, classic reversed socialism where the rich always take from the poor, however shameful it is.
You know the quality of a person by her enemies... Warren rates Five Stars.
1
What did the world get from the Gates Foundation immunizing against diseases without promoting lower birth rates besides a planet-threatening population explosion?
1
Not only the rich don’t like Warren. There are those of us who actually think Biden and Obama policies deserve restoration first, and we all need a sense of calm and unity first in the days to come. We take global warming and our commonality as humans, one species among many facing extinction, as our primary concern. And wisdom and compassion as guides. Don’t let the pundits and economists fool you. We are all in this thing together. The stakes are higher than progressives realize, and the remedy is common decency. Biden for President.
1
This column is right on the money (pun intended), and the comparison with President Obama is apt. President Obama brought intelligence, commitment and dignity to the White House; ah but for the good old days! Sadly, President Obama's opponents constrained him from being his full self in many ways. We glimpsed the true President when he gamely engaged school children at the White House Science Fair or, with appropriate empathy, connected with federal prisoners in Oklahoma
Watching Elizabeth Warren I'm heartened that she can bring intelligence, commitment, and JOY to the White House. Whether she is sprinting and waving her way to a town hall or hugging her 600th "selfie" supporter of the day, she exudes an honest optimism and sparks joy. That optimism and joy that are connecting her to voters.
2
I was listening to 'Fresh Air' years ago and Terry Gross was interviewing this person about financial institutions. This person proceeded to explain, clearly and concisely what all the fine print on a credit card statement really meant to everyday ordinary people. It was fascinating and so well explained. Great communicator. Way smart. Must be a teacher. Whoever this was, I was immediately a fan.
At a break, Terry Gross announced that her guest that day was Dr. Elizabeth Warren.
I have been a loyal supporter since that day.
4
this column brought to mind these pithy lyrics: Poor man wanna be rich, rich man wanna be king, and a king ain't satisfied until he rules everything. (B. Springsteen)
274
@chris
"...and the king ain't satisfied until he rules everything."
Until the Whistleblower comes in and does a sting.
10
@chris
What about Dylan's:
"Steal a little and they put you in jail, steal a lot and they make you a king."
16
@chris
Yes, and this:
"They say that patriotism is the last refuge
To which a scoundrel clings
Steal a little and they throw you in jail
Steal a lot and they make you king"
(B. Dylan)
8
Lost your crystal ball? What makes you think Trump will even run in 2020? He is single handedly ensuring he will not be on the ballot, ever again.
5
Yes, and their egos are being challenged by a Black man and by a woman. "Times they are a-changing."
4
I literally dream of a Warren/Buttigieg ticket. That would be a comeuppance for the mega-wealthy and also for the evangelical Christians who sold their souls to support Trump. The prospect is awesome!
4
I’m with you, vesuviano! That has been my dream - PLEASE, from your mouth to God’s ears.
I'm currently reading Warren's "This Fight is our Fight". She's an excellent writer and is able to distill topics down to their basics. I have no doubt she'll be the nominee - assuming the Democrat elites don't cave to special interests.
1
Don't worry Paul, if nominated Warren will not be elected. Plans, promises, and talk are a dime a dozen. There is little relationship between her alleged intentions and any reality of an ability to make them happen in 2021. She may be the candidate of the (mostly white) punditocracy, twitterati, and commentariat, but those who have heard promises for ages -- such as most Blacks -- are more interested in a winner who advocates for limited objectives that may actually be enacted than a losing utopian.
The election comes down to Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and, possibly, Florida. It is absolutely irrelevant if another million people vote for a Democrat in California or another million vote for Trump in Alabama. There is really only one question to ask: how are you going to get people who did not vote for Clinton in those four states to vote for a Democrat in 2020? That's the ball game. Warren is not the answer. At the moment, a Biden/Klobuchar ticket looks best.
2
Bernie Sanders has inspired more fear and dislike, but it manifests outwardly as scorn and pity.
As always, Mr Krugman succinctly finds the truth. These people cannot accept that they are mere mortals. Only a cancer diagnosis gets through their facade. Have the rich and powerful ever been any different?
1
Maybe some of the most grievously wounded will jump out of windows. That would probably help our nation's Gini index somewhat.
"They also expect to be treated like kings, lionized as job creators and heroes of prosperity..." isn't this what for decades Capitalism has been inculcating in poor men minds?
1
One of the advantages is the current cult-like nature of the GOP and conservatism. Limbaugh says everything you see and hear is deception. Fox News does not argue the facts or the situation, the besmear the messenger and cast the flimsiest of doubt and play it up like it's a likelihood.
You're right on about ego; but it's an ego with NLP and vast voices using it on TV and radio...
I have always liked her ideas and fine mind. I had been turned off by her professorial tone, however. She seems to be working on that, and I hope she can continue to reduce it.
She is the one who is getting my cash contributions, and if the fat cats on Wall Street hate her, that will only increase my contributions and have me encourage my children to send her money too. Even $50 is worth sending.
She has the brains and moxie to beat that ignorant coward, and he knows it. If she becomes the nominee, watch him avoid any on-stage debate with her.
I do suggest that she stay off Fifth Avenue when The Toddler is in town. Just to be safe.
1
Different and excellent take on the Warren hatred which I see every time Steve Rattner is on Morning Joe.
Nevertheless, I worry that her nomination will lead to a second Trump term because the Trump campaign and Wall St will be relentless in its attacks.
2
Plutocrats with glass egos? Magical Mr. Misogyny seems like a more likely culprit.
The main problem will be the lemmings that will not be touched by Senator Warren's policies gladly following these fools over the edge.
I’m having a hard time bringing out the small violins to soothe the damaged psyches of Wall Street Titans. I’d say they can probably afford an army of therapists to help them through the dark night of the soul.
2
Their egos...and their money. She's coming to get a bigger slice of it. The Second Golden Age is over!
1
Why do the ultra wealthy hate Warren? Misogyny. She is like a mother who finally says to her wayward children, “No.” this makes them feel small. They also fear workers gaining a small foothold. After all, it is way easier to make millions when workers have zero rights or recourse.
3
"Respect" is a rallying cry among all Trump supporters --whether they are super rich, as Krugman argues, or whether they are members of the "basket of deplorables" coalition. They all want respect! Of course, it's a very childish notion of respect that animates all these Trump supporters, but psychologically, this seems to be how all these completely different groups are connected.
More than “Wall Streeters”, who are mostly financial parasites who generate money from money but never actually produce, invent or develop anything in their sorry lives, I’d be more interested to hear what the opinions about Sen. Warren are among the real entrepreneurs of the “Silicon Valley generation”.
These are the people who are really changing the world and shaping the future, people who innovate through their inventiveness and generate far more useful and productive jobs than any slimy investment banker can ever claim to.
These are also immensely wealthy people, but I bet that very few of them would ever choose Trump over Warren. And they represent the future of America. Let the “Wall Streeters” sociopaths sulk as much as they want. Who cares.
Is it the super riches egos that is the problem, or is the unfettered greed in these people, something that can never be tamed?
Just advertise their hatred. A net plus. 😭Two candidates they talked about fearing and hating— FDR, as noted. and RFK. what dies Warren have in common with those two? They understand she means to do what she says and nat we’ll find the ways to make them happen. Democrats have been quaking in their boots since Reagan. Time to let the malefactors of great wealth quake again instead.
I think you spend the big money on individually targeting get-out-the-vote efforts, these days. Placards and radio spots are passe. As are folksongs and button-fly jeans.
You almost literally buy votes one at a time.
Krugman is too kind. This group turned against Obama, because only a Republican would deliver their purchased tax cuts—one of the best investments of all time
They’re against Warren, because she doesn’t recognize what’s rightfully theirs—everything. That isn’t supposition. Read Dark Money.
2
For Pete Sakes half of a billion is still more money than these people will be able to spend in their remaining lifetime. Go Warren
A quick heuristic for all voters -
If you have decided that FDR was good for America, vote Dem.
If you have decided that FDR was detrimental to our country, vote Repub.
Just make sure your decision is based on the realities of the moment.
The finance world does not hate Warren, Mr. Krugman. Warren's tax plan would only affect 0.1% of families (See "Progressive Wealth Taxation" by Saez and Zucman from University of Berkeley). In other words, 'on the surface' Warren appeals to popular democratic politics but upon closer inspection, Warren's tax plan is not workable: Her plan is generates the same ol same ol dynamics that ends up ignoring the pool in the middle and lower class and enabling the leeways for the rich to avoid the tax plan. She is shallow, man.
Of course the Plutocrats don't like Warren. They feel jealousy toward anything - or in this case, anyone, that their ill begotten wealth can't buy and She's made it abundantly clear they can't buy her.
1
" ... but who can bail out their damaged psyches?"
I've got just a few thoughts about their psyches, none of which I can publish, but suffice to say that these insatiable wholly avaricious creatures, trembling in fear at the very real likelihood of Elizabeth Warren becoming our 46th President, deserve everything that is hurtling towards their obscene bulging pockbooks.
The future of America will be set for decades during November 2020; the question is, will the American people rise to the occasion and choose decency, respect, and genuine integrity, over the current abomination, and not fall for some orher slightly less abominable alternative.
Really weird how Americans fail to grasp that if they turn out in massive numbers, they can lay waste the dreams of the plutocrats in both parties, who repeatedly subjugate them.
There is nothing more the Trump operatives want than Warren to be the democratic winner vs Biden.They know if they eliminate Biden,they will win in 2020.There is simply no one else running that can beat Trump.If you think otherwise,there is a bridge I would like to sell you.
It's not that the finance world hates like Mr. Krugman accuses but Warren's tax plan lacks in workability because according to economist Saez and Zucman from Berkeley, her plan will only affect less than 0.1% of families (See "Progressive Wealth Taxation," Universitiy of California).
Warren may have political appeal but upon closer inspection her tax plan is merely a shallow show which leaves nothing unchanged and ignores the largely middle income sector, the poor.
1
Paul Krugman writes: "But with great wealth comes great pettiness."
It's a rare economist that combines Krugman's talent and perceptiveness with such eloquence.
Who can bail out their damaged psyches? Say that again. If Warren becomes the nominee and wins, she'd better have excellent security detail and never drive in an open convertible in Dallas...
They need not fear Warren. Trump and Mitch's SCOTUS will have the plutocracy in high gear for at least a couple more decades.
I'm usually horribly long-winded, but this is simple. It's ego.
1
Of course the plutocrats hate Warren. They measure their self-worth by how much money they have. They think they deserve the millions and billions they make. They think their wealth is due solely to their intelligence and hard work - to their superiority - and any entity that tries to take it away (i.e. the government) is the enemy. To them, taxes = theft.
To which I say to Warren, You go girl!
Of course the Democrats will select Warren. Biden's chances have been muddied by trump with the Ukraine mess.
And recently the Democrats have selected a loser.
They will do that again with Warren.
First problem with Warren is she is a woman. A significant part of the country is not ready for a woman. Thanks to Electoral College that significant part of the country is the part that selects the president.
Second her policies are too radical. People are not interested in paying for college for everyone in the United States; some of those haven't even been successful in grade school much less high school.
They are not interested in Medicare for All.
They are not interested in reparations for African Americans. That's been tried over and over again especially during the Johnson administration. African Americans need more help than giving them each a one time offering of a sum of money.
So Warren win the nomination and lose the election.
Although it is unlikely that any Democrat can win because the odds are stacked against them.
The reason is that she is threatening the oligarchy/plutocracy that runs this country. FDR was a "traitor to his class". She doesn't even belong to the "class.
“Warren inspire a level of hatred and fear among the very wealthy that I don’t think we’ve seen directed at a presidential candidate since the days of Franklin Delano Roosevelt.”
I cannot think of a better endorsement for Warren.
Vote Warren in 2020!
Vote Democratic in every election in 2020!
Save our democracy and our country!
Warren as the next FDR!
Since when is calling somebody “not likeable” sexist?
That’s like the msnbc commentator calling people sexist for supporting sanders over warren. What is going on with liberal commentators!?
I like the stances warren takes for the average joe (and jane)... wouldn’t want to be sexist, but maybe there’s other reasons for people to not like female candidates?
Like when they lie about being Native American, or seek major change in the economy (which I happen to like). I’m growing to like warren somewhat, but it’s not sexist if you don’t.
1
As an economist, you'd think Krugman would understand that people act in their self-interest. Yet he thinks hedge funders should give big to Warren because they'd never miss a "few million" in extra taxes anyway. Solid thinking there.
But it turns out Krugman is moonlighting as an amateur psychoanalist because he just knows its all about their "ego" complex, and not the millions they stand to lose. Maybe it's their feelings about their mothers.
In this case, I don't Krugman is doing well as an economist or a mind reader. The fact is
people just don't like politicians who hate them and want to take their stuff. That's a lesson Democrats have trouble comprehending.
2
We all know that Elizabeth Warren has what is called integrity. Of course Wall Street and the tycoons of this country laugh at that word. Yes, there will be shrinkage of their kingdom's, and below the belt for these insecure men. Watching Trump sweat because someone had the audacity to finally blow his hairspray crown for everybody to see is healthy for this nation.
I believe that Elizabeth Warren has the guts to turn this country around, and also set the record straight on the global catastrophe we are heading into.
1
Whenever billionaires pitch a fit because they might have to pay a bit more in taxed that barely amounts to change lost in the couch to them, I always think of this great exchange between Jack Nicholson and John Huston in Chinatown:
Jake Gittes : How much are you worth?
Noah Cross : I have no idea. How much do you want?
Jake Gittes : I just wanna know what you're worth. More than 10 million?
Noah Cross : Oh my, yes!
Jake Gittes : Why are you doing it? How much better can you eat? What could you buy that you can't already afford?
Noah Cross : The future, Mr. Gittes! The future.
While your points are well taken, don't underestimate the deep psychological strength of misogyny.
1
Goodness, she is getting opposition from some on the ultra-left, dead center, and ultra-right. They are all convincing me she may be up to some good.
1
Really, guys, do we need more reasons to hate Wall Street? C'mon, use your substantial noggins to help solve economic disparity instead of making it worse!
"Washington can bail out their balance sheets, but who can bail out their damaged psyches?"
We should not bail out their psyches or their balance sheets.
1
I would like to give a name, a diagnosis to the egoism described by Mr Krugman: The rich have libertarianism, a disease that causes sufferers to imagine that anything they want they should be able to have. They despise anyone who says otherwise, as infringing on their rights. It's a bit like the spoiled brat who wins by cheating, but insists that they won and deserve all their ill gotten gains by virtue of winning. Research Koch a bit and you will be shocked by just how different the rich are from you and me.
In 2008 following the meltdown, Adelson's holdings were about $1.8 billion. After saying that Obama was trying to destroy America and capitalism, Adelson ended Obama's presidency with a net worth of approximately $39.5 billion. Moral of the story: stop listening to whining billionaires!
1
You can take the selfie with her if you like. No one wants a politician with too many ideas. Idealists, usually young but also some aging reprobates, find this sort of faux-intellectual candidate appealing. Most of the rest of us would like to be left alone and tend to bristle at being lectured by a law teacher who demonizes the most gifted and successful among us.
Krugman sputters with abject disdain for Bernie Sanders, yet here is a cozy embrace of Warren. Please do explain the difference, professor....
I don't understand why the ultra-rich are unwilling to be fair to the people who create the value for their companies. I'm reading "Kochland" by Christopher Leonard which details how the Koch family got richer and richer by exploiting their rank and file workers and more politically powerful through multimillion dollar lobbying and buying politicians. We hope to soon fully retire and escape from a state full of Koch-owned politicians to a purple or blue state where the good of the many is valued above the $$$,$$$,$$$ of the few.
Some of the wealthy-elite have purchased the politicians. The only way to over power money is with voters. In the end it's the votes that matter. I don't believe we are yet at that place that Joseph Stalin so aptly referred to: "it's who counts the votes that matter". This is in the new triumpian universe called the "cookoo's nest", not in America
"Washington can bail out their balance sheets, but who can bail out their damaged psyches?"
Indeed.
Bernie and Liz are what the petty plutocrats have feared in every era... leaders who can see that yes, the plutocracy is littered with self regarding frauds.
Maybe Plutocrats would throw their money at Mitt Romney if Mitt decided to challenge the Donald for the Republican nomination? hypothetical.
Celebrate generosity. Criminalize greed.
1
It is rather obvious that Warren will be the Democrat nominee.
Messing with the plutocrats is a time-honored tradition in Western democracies ever since Athens and the French Revolution. Moreover, social progressiveness has been a badge of honor for both Wall Street and the Silicon, and has translated directly into hundreds of millions for the DNC.
Yet - there is only so much that people can stand as they are relieved of their money, and vilified as a tools of capitalist, white heterosexual patriarchal oppression. Sooner or later, some will realize that writing checks is an exercise in masochism.
If she wins the Democratic Party nomination Elizabeth Warren will not be President of the United States.
Unlike the nations with the most Muslims- Indonesia, Pakistan, India and Bangladesh-who had/have female heads of state/government America has never crossed that misogynist patriarchal barrier.
Unlike all of the English speaking countries- Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom America has never hsd a female head of state/government.
Warren already fell into the Trump mocking maligning and marginalizing nickname and character trap. Americans aren't craving a multitude of detailed principled policy positions.
2
Alas, the dislike of Warren is not limited to the super rich.
Other haters include many women - some of whom are every bit as sexist as men.
Every time someone tells you they don't like Warren because she sounds like a 'schoolmarm'? That's sexism. How come they don't dislike her because she sounds like the brilliant Harvard professor she is?
Schoolmarms are women. When they speak they are 'lecturing'. They don't get a lot of respect. Harvard Professors are a different matter.
Its simply no allowed for a woman to be as smart as Warren is and be acceptable to many men and many women.
Of course she's the best candidate. Duh.
1
I am a Biden guy but you have to respect the campaign that Warren is running.
Paul has always been a hot dagger in the heart of Wall Street ego; that Warren is also deadly deft with her stilettos to the same bloated target, adds ambrosia to my daily measures of political and economic joy!
This op-ed is designed to be narrow and shallow. Calling out the ultra-wealthy as the only real group that opposes Warren is like saying that neo-Nazis are the only people who support Trump. It's lazy and incorrect.
Certainly, Elizabeth Warren is a fascinating candidate. Her supporters are like sports fans - deeply in love and willing to defend her at all costs - including overlooking her faults.
Her detractors - and there are many - point to her policy ideas as unrealistic, costly and at times out of step with what the majority of Americans want. Perhaps her biggest fault is that she is so sure of herself - the I know-more-than-you professor - that her delivery is heavy handed and she's become tone deaf. Example: she has been pressed multiple times to explain how she will pay for medicare-for-all and she refuses to acknowledge what everyone knows - that middle class taxes will go up, even if health care expenses go down. I watch that and I think - she's no different from any other politician. She sidesteps the truth when it suits her.
Sorry, but I am not a fan and won't be voting for her.
2
The warnings about economic disaster with a Warren presidency is actually a self fulfilling prophecy. The powerful billionaires will be able to make sure it happens. The only antidote is to equate moral wealth with their financial success.
Great observation- with great wealth comes great pettiness. But we don't need to worry about the psyches of the super rich. We do need to worry about the millions living in poverty, without adequate health care and often without adequate housing and food. When will Americans realize that the wealthy perpetuate the myth that all can climb the economic ladder and attain great wealth? Perhaps the runaway success of state lottery programs illustrates American's beliefs that anyone can grab that pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. We need a leader who will dissuade such thoughts, encourage care and compassion for the most desperate, and counsel voters to accept the reality that helping the poorest will help the entire nation.
1
I grew up around great wealth. Some members of my family are extremely wealthy. I went to an elite prep school where many of my former classmates are incredibly wealthy. A childhood tennis partner is one of the wealthiest men in the world.
In the work I do now, I am in intimate contact with many of the wealthiest people in NY and, hence, the world.
Many of these people are not bad people. Many of them work very hard and love their families.
But vast wealth changes them all, because there is no way a person can justify having that much money, no matter how hard they work. So they have to convince themselves, and each other, that they somehow deserve it. That luck didn't play into it.
And since they deserve it -since they believe they are smarter, worked harder- they believe that they will best determine how their vast wealth should be put to "good" use.
After all, they are the innovators, the disruptors, the blessed. If they have been so anointed, they, ipso facto, would know better than governmental bureaucrats how best to make the world better.
So they pay money to attend evenings like the Robin Hood Benefit where poor children perform cute routines, and David Chappell makes them laugh, and Miley Cyrus and Coldplay sings them songs while they eat catered meals and drink wine and talk over the entertainment. All instead of just paying more in taxes to improve our educational system. Because their kids would NEVER attend a public school.
#Warren2020
14
Not disagreeing! BUT ....
What will the governance situation be after a Warren victory? McConnell (possibly sneaking back in) will declare that anything Warren sends to Congress is DOA. "One term President" pledge all over again. Rabid opposition. Many sacred cows gored, not just the wealth tax. A lot of merely wealthy stock market players are concerned about mutual funds and retirement accounts. Not unreasonable concerns.
I favor Amy Klobachar who because of her moderation MAYBE the Congress would not be rabidly opposed to her. She is experienced, smart, hard working and harder to dislike.
1
'The point is that many of the superrich aren’t satisfied with living like kings, which they will continue to do no matter who wins next year’s election. They also expect to be treated like kings, lionized as job creators and heroes of prosperity, and consider any criticism an unforgivable act of lèse-majesté.'
And we wonder why so many of them though they are quite
intelligent as a rule, don't speak out about Trump and his extreme narcissism threatening to destroy the foundations of
our democracy?
1
Her policies look great. But she does she pass what might be called the electoral "snob test"? She seems like the kind of person who would have nodded in agreement at Hillary Clinton's reference to "deplorables." And Trump is right to find preposterous her past attempts to parlay a small fraction of native heritage into her fundamental ethnicity.
3
Finally an accurate description of Warren and the type of Democrat she is. An FDR Democrat. That has a lot more meaning than a Moderate, Left or Conservative and anything in between.
There are more of us small donors, as Sanders proved last time out and I still believe that if Sanders was the Democratic Candidate he would have swamped Trump at the polls, but that is yesterday's news.
While we are not wealthy, we are voters. And there are a greater number of voters in the lower-socio profile than the Wealthy.
That said, I do not believe that all of those Wealthy donors will withhold their donations. They too care about this Country.
6
From the 1960-70's until today we have returned to a "Gilded" age. The struggle of the commoners with the Aristocracy continues after a short hiatus. The neo-Aristocracy rises in rebellion against the unfair common man.
4
Most of these people fall prey to the age-old delusion that acquiring great wealth automatically means that one is intelligent, wise, and somehow inherently superior.
When someone comes along and bursts their bubble you bet they'll be angry.
Tough.
4
Prof. Krugman, you miss the point. The rich want more, always. The fact that if you have 10 million dollars you could live very comfortably for the rest of your life is meaningless. It's all about controlling the means of production. The desire is complete control, it's not about what you can buy. If Jeff Bezos made not a dime on his money, he could spend about 13 million dollars a DAY and not run out. Imagining what he might do with 13 million dollars in a day is beside the point.
6
There is another important comparison between FDR and Elizabeth Warren. Both believed in the capitalist system and their goal was to save it from both the plutocrats and the extreme left by cleaning up its worst excesses. Thus Krugman's explanation really applies to both; the plutocrats, whether on Wall Street, Silicon Valley, Hollywood or the Hamptons, or wherever, detest having their status questioned way more than they worry about losing a few million, or even a few hundred million.
Bernie Sanders on the other hand, is among those of us who believe that the excesses of the current system have become so inbred and accepted and protected that only major structural changes can save us as a people. There was an even stronger threat of real change in the 30's when pure socialism or even communism were real threats. The plutocrats then knew that FDR was actually protecting them by protecting the system, but as Krugman notes, their fragile egos couldn't stand having their personal value questioned.
Once again, the plutocrats feel more threatened by having their integrity, prestige and public acclaim threatened and so they worry more about Warren.
5
Tip O'Neill once famously said , "all politics is local" , which I take to mean a product of its environment. Elizabeth Warren has spoken in favor of taxing the very rich and this is in part a response to the recovery from the 2008 recession that has favored the very rich and did little for the bottom 90 % of americans. Yes, the unemployment rate is near an all time low and consumer confidence relatively high though deteriorating, thus for the moment americans view their local situations as acceptable .
Trump's base has yet to graspTrump's call for lower interest rates, they have yet to understand his fear of recession and how rapidly it can turn his supporters into Warren voters. He knows his tax cuts have been largely a failure, and how the fed can go just so far to stimulate an economy .Trump's response has been to double down on China and make speeches on nationalism and the evils of globalization and is getting ready to blame Democrats for the results of his economics.
Many Democratic candidates have made the current economic situation centerpieces of their appeals, and it is important to remember that F.D.R. was in the middle of a depression when elected and it would be fair to say that the local situation of his time was ripe for his message, Warren has good ideas, and may be a bit ahead of herself, but Trump knows and is afraid that she may not be ahead of herself by much as he frets about how his base might vote in a recession in an election year.
2
I'm not raving fan about her proposed wealth tax, but I'm not necessarily opposed to it either. What bothers me the most is targeting a particular segment of society. "If you have $49 million, you're ok. But $50mm....?
I'm a much bigger fan of what the Dems in congress and Reagan did in their tax reform bill: Lower income tax rates and raise cap gains rates to be equal with income. This says two things: 1) income is income no matter from where it is derived, and 2) the wealthy get much more income from capital gains. Taxes would go down for lower and middle class people but go up on the wealthy.
these spot fixes to the tax code like Warren's proposal just seem like political hot potatoes. If you actually do reform that has guiding principals you end up with a better result.
2
Capital gains taxes are easy to avoid, you simply don’t sell assets. Warren’s wealth tax circumvents that problem.
1
Why the focus only on Warren's proposed wealth tax on the very few super wealthy people? Why no discussion about her proposed additional 14.8% tax on income above $250,000.?
3
This is my concern. Many economists doubt that her wealth tax would raise any where near the money she claims it will. Some constitutional scholars even doubt it is constitutional. So if or when the wealth-tax revenue fails to flow, where will President Warren turn to fund her the-government-is-going- to-provide-everything program? Yes, that's correct. To a whole lot of us who have assets that are a tiny fraction of $50 million and in the form of income tax hikes. Oh yes, the rich can "afford" that. But you don't need to be anywhere near rich to already be paying the top rate. And that rate is going to skyrocket.
5
@joinparis
Thank you for parroting one of the oldest - and disproven - GOP arguments against voting for Democrats.
Let me guess, these 'many' economists are probably the same ones who've been telling us for the last 40 years that lowering tax rates on the wealthy will actually increase revenue?
Take one look at our national debt to see how that prediction turned out.
6
Last year I toured several mansions in Newport, R.I., many of them belonging to foundations and such. And each one posted somewhere that the reason the wealthy no longer resided in places like these full of servants and all was the institution of the income tax. The money that went to these monoliths was now going to the government. And subsequently to the poor. It would seem the wealthy of today learned nothing from their ancestors. For the wealthy in America found other ways to corral all the wealth and have found other ways to showcase it. To think that the rest of America would watch their own value decline while yours went up and say "Fine by me" is naive. What frightens the wealthy is plain and simple that the proletariat is coming to the gates of your estate. Oh not with torches in a mob, but with a democratically elected leader with a pen. The way the founding fathers envisioned. They don't care a lick what Trump does. As long as he keeps the masses from voting. Remember Trump IS one of them.
7
Plutocrats fear Warren a lot more than Trump. He talks about helping the ordinary American and ends up helping billionaires nonetheless.
Warren is the real deal.
7
All the big guns will be out if Warren gets nominated. I like her, but we all know her platform is not guaranteed if she wins the race. If she only gets some of her platform put into place during her term, it will be a milestone to what has been going on over these last 3 years. Imagine a president who acts like a mature adult and speaks like a mature adult. There was a time when we used to expect this from a candidate, but after 3 years of chaos under teflon man and continued republican obstruction, trumps base still hasn't figured out how they are being used.
5
I will be pleased to have the EPA once again striving to protect our environment and our health.
Monsanto and Dow each gave a million dollars to Trump’s inaugural fund, and within three months their most dangerous pesticides were approved by the EPA for sale to the public.
No President prior to Trump would allow the approval of those pesticides, since they are well proven to cause permanent brain damage in children and fetuses.
Dow has already sold 40 million pounds of its most dangerous pesticide to farmers, so I’ll be waiting a while before I buy non-organic fruits and vegetables.
Only money talks in the Trump administration.
1
The rich and the financial industry is not worried about her taxes or regulations. It is the fear that she may be transferring the political power to the ordinary people by educating them. That takes away the power of the rich permanently. That is at the core of their worries.
692
@Kodali
Nonsense and conjecture. The people have always had the power. People vote for ideas, not corporations or unions or "the rich". If Warren is successful at convincing voters that her ideas are better, so be it. The wealthy aren't wealthy because they've inherited trust funds and live off the dividends. The wealthy are wealthy because they are smart, opportunistic and know how to work within the system. That won't change under a Warren presidency unless we go to full socialism and that's never going to happen. The wealthy will still make money. It's just that some more of it will be redistributed to others.
6
@John
ALL studies investigating wealth accumulation contradict the typical conservative hypothesis about wealth as "moral reward" that you're taking over here.
Just think about this for the moment: the wealthy, contrary to ordinary citizens, "know how to work within the system", you claim.
Obviously, ordinary citizens KNOW how to do so too, especially after the SC's conservative Citizens United ruling that treats corporations as human beings with ideas: you write politicians a big check, and demand in return that they pass a bill that lowers your taxes.
There's nothing complicated to understand here, so even people who never had access to high quality education, "know" how to "work within the system".
It's just that they do NOT have the money to buy politicians.
So this isn't about "knowledge" at all, it's about wealth and anti-patriotic corruption.
THAT is what Democrats want to end in this country.
The good news is that most Americans agree with them.
The bad news is that the GOP rigged the system to such an extent (through their pro ultra-wealthy bills on the one hand, and the 24/7 fake news spewing Fox News on the other hand) that it won't be easy at all for ordinary citizens to take their country back.
So Kodali is perfectly right here.
The wealthy have a "scarcity" mentality, that makes them believe that wealth is the most important value in the world AND scarce, so you HAVE to exclude most people from having real political power, if you want to remain rich
56
@John You're right about why a number of the wealthy are wealthy, but I think you are wrong about them not being concerned that Warren does not represent a transfer of power they would not like to see. Yes, the people have always had the power, but not always exercised it well or with the type of leadership Warren represents.
8
Perhaps the Wall Streeters' fear is based, not on their egos, but on fear - fear of losing their more profitable scams. For many years, a number of folks on Wall Street have made millions by inventing complex schemes to extract money from us "muppets", and convincing politicians that financial regulations were evil incarnate.
Look at how deregulating the Savings and Loan industry was followed in a few years by the S&L industry's collapse - or how deregulating the banks was followed in a few years by the 2008 banking crisis. In both these cases, the taxpayers bailed out the industry - and the politicians were easily talked into more deregulation, thus enabling the next wave of scams and perhaps another taxpayer bailout.
Unlike most other politicians, Ms. Warren both understands the need for strict regulations, and has shown she "has a plan for that." (Think of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.) . The idea of a politician they cannot easily fool is probably why some Wall Streeters fear Ms. Warren.
615
@John M
Let's avoid trying de-regulation a third time to prove that it's bad for the economy. If I had my way, we'd bring back the Banking (Glass-Steagall) Act of 1933.
14
With some notable exceptions, the very wealthiest people in this country want no regulations on how they obtain their money and no taxes paid on their gains. Let's not overthink this.
616
@runaway
THAT's how those wealthiest citizens and the GOP prefer to frame their corrupt way of governing and influencing politicians.
Let's call it "no regulations" and "small government", because then ordinary citizens will start blindly supporting it.
In real life, those wealthiest citizens need TONS of laws and rules written BY AND FOR them in order for them to become so wealthy in the first place.
So yes, this is "small government", but only in the sense that most laws are written by and for a very small minority of wealthiest citizens, as soon as the GOP starts controlling DC.
"Deregulation" only means that the government ADDS a NEW rule, which now limits the freedom of the 99% and increases that of the wealthiest 1% to do what they want to accumulate more wealth.
Because let's be honest: a rule that forces ordinary citizens to live with much more polluted water and all the diseases that go with it, limits not only their freedom but also their health and as a consequence, their ability to work and accumulate wealth themselves.
And a tax cut for the wealthiest that doubles the deficit, is a NEW law, that LIMITS the freedom of 99% of the people living in this country, as the same party that supports this kind of theft also passes bills that cut social security and affordable healthcare, in the name of reducing the deficit.
Conclusion: let's stop the Newspeak here. The GOP only puts the wealthiest first, and many wealthiest citizens only put themselves first.
36
@Ana Luisa- You're right except for one thing- if Joe Sixpack can no longer buy beer 'cause he's broke, the whole system comes tumbling down and the working poor become the working-penniless. If they require public assistance at that point, they will of course struggle to get it. Boom and Bust, over and over and over... Not only do WE suffer through a recession- the entire world suffers with us. We have to face up to the fact that supply-side (i.e.- Voodoo) economics is not just unworkable- it's horrible. Additionally unhealthy air and water is a natural consequence of this fierce struggle over wealth and power, and our priorities get completely turned around backwards. What happens to me is going to happen to you as well- this is the basis upon which our Nation's existence and continuation depends. Maybe after all is said and done, we'll just let it all slip through our hands. The cockroach may very well survive all this, but we will not.
3
I know a powerful CEO, a close family member, who attended some conference of CEOs where Warren spoke. She castigated them for making thousands of times more than their lowest paid workers. She castigated them for not having workers on their boards. She castigated them for hoarding wealth, not paying their fair share in taxes, and believing that their philanthropy made up for their selfishness. This CEO was aghast at what he felt was her arrogance for simply speaking truth to power. As Mr. Krugman posits, his fragile ego was tragically bruised. I hope you win, Ms. Warren. The stakes are so great.
1064
@Ned M.
Warren's arguments have merit. But castigating the wealthy may not be the best tact for effective change. Moreover, it may contribute to the traction of the "unlikable" trope.
Merit aside, Warren, or any Democrat for that matter, needs to win. Win! Stylist changes would make winning more likely without any changes to her policies.
21
@Brad Steele
What was interesting was that this speech was a few years before she announced. It was not a public speech, and she knew the risks of saying what she did if she had any intention of running, but spoke the truth anyway. The CEO, my relative, in fact angrily said she would never have a chance of winning the nomination without business leaders support.
What she is doing is risky, just as it was for FDR. But I believe she can get elected, I believe that once elected she will follow through on what she says, and I believe that we need her as president because the stakes have never been greater.
133
@Brad Steele
Yes, but sometimes bad behavior needs to be called out for what it is. And with inequality the hightest is been in nearly a century, now is the time.
56
As much as the Republican party has tried to establish a wealth aristocracy, America is not one. Just because the right has fooled tens of millions to believe in trickle down, supply side economics, that doesn't mean that the rest of do. And that doesn't mean those who have been fooled will continue to believe it forever.
We don't have to worship these people. They are not gods. We should worship freedom and opportunity, both of which tend to disappear under a wealth aristocracy.
Elizabeth Warren is running on an economic populist platform. Trump ran on a white nationalist populist platform. That didn't restart any of those shutterd plants in Ohio. It didn't revitalize rural America. He just boosted stock prices with massive tax cuts for the super rich.
They fear her because she will expose the ruse working class whites have fallen for under the Republicans. They will hate her till the end of time. So be it. These people still only have one vote each. It's up to the rest of us to get out there, cast our ballots and let these people complain till their heart's content behind their walled off communities.
726
@Bruce Rozenblit
I agree with you, except for "these people still only have one vote each." Maybe in an updated Jimmy Stewart movie they might have only their one vote apiece. But definitely not now. 'One person, one vote'! Nope, sorry, no, not really, in this current country of ours: it ain't 'one person, one vote' anymore exactly hereabouts. Check with Georgia, North Carolina, and elsewhere.
65
@Bruce Rozenblit have
Bruce, I get your point and I wish it were that simple.
We have to contend with the electoral college and
gerrymandering, to say nothing about the lies and misinformation out there. Agreed, we can and must change this course we are on. Listen, consider the common good and vote like our way of life depends on it, cause it does!
41
@Bruce Rozenblit Great distillation of the zeitgeist!
17
Wall Streeters are hostile to Elizabeth Warren not so much because she espouses progressive views that stand little chance of ever becoming law, but because they know she knows exactly how they have cheated average Americans over the years and has shown a willingness to do something about it. From banks manipulating debit card fees to securities firms selling high-cost products to clients when lower cost products would better serve their needs to mortgage banks and rating agencies acting unlawfully in bringing on the crash of 2008, Elizabeth Warren made it her career as a law professor to study these kinds of activities and then to successfully urge creation of a new government agency (the Federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau) that would expose them to the light of day. Before Elizabeth Warren, Wall Street was largely able to hide behind its veneer of respectability and its substantial political contributions to avoid being held responsible for its shady activities. Given the way she alone among candidates has shown a profound understanding of the way Wall Street operates and a willingness to tell the truth about it, is it any wonder that Wall Street despises her?
830
@Michael Meyer
"Wall Streeters are hostile to Elizabeth Warren...because they know she knows exactly how they have cheated average Americans over the years...". Of course! And that is a very good reason for pushing her towards becoming the next president of the US!
33
@Michael Meyer
The key will be convincing the angry, left behind blue collars to stop falling for Trump’s lies and voting against self interest. It will not be accomplished by calling them stupid.
4
The plutocrats are scared of Warren because she has their number. And she’s able to explain their grifting to the public in clear language.
Also, let’s retire the likability issue. I’d much rather have a beer with Elizabeth Warren than any other candidate in the race. I met her in the selfie line after a rally, and she is kind and warm and full of energy. She has a genuine concern for her fellow man. We would all be lucky to have her as president.
1364
@Dottie
Yes I saw her in Washington Square Park. She was so incredibly likable, beyond the amazing, rousing, oh so pertinent speech about corruption, greed and the persistence of strong women to solve the ills of our society.
Whats not to like!!!??
64
@Dottie
The “likability” issue was a mainstream media creation. They despised Gore - too much focus on policy which made them do work understanding the issues - so they did everything they could to diminish him. For example they knew Gore had never said he had created the internet but they gleefully went along with that lie instead of explaining the important role he had played in getting Congress to fund the development of the internet. Their behavior was despicable and it hurt our democracy.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2007/10/gore200710
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/general/news/2011/05/26/9654/think-again-the-times-frank-bruni-or-how-to-succeed-in-journalism-without-really-caring-about-issues/
57
@Dottie Well said!!
22
Paul, it doesn't surprise me one bit that plutocrats are opposed to Elizabeth Warren's campaign. That is one of the reasons I enthusiastically support her and will be proud to vote for her, if she is the candidate in 2020.
9
The ultra-wealthy are not fools, and have had decades to prepare for the day politicians come to plunder their wealth. All that wealth will have been hidden by the time Warren or Sanders tries to grab it. At that point, Warren/Sanders won't give up - they will just extract the wealth from the upper middle class. Let's see how NYT commentators react then.
@Richard
That's absurd.
Look at Norway, Denmark etc, which are the countries led by politicians like Elizabeth Warren.
The middle class there is MUCH stronger than here.
That's because the money taken from the ultra-wealthy gets directly invested in the middle class, remember?
Your idea that some politicians would want to "extract the wealth" from both the wealthy and the middle class doesn't correspond to any existing political reality on earth. That's because it doesn't make any sense. WHY would someone want to do that in the first place .. ? Any ideas?
An outsized ego combined with maliciousness and/or vindictiveness can be a liability in a country with a free press. As Exhibit A in the White House demonstrates daily, bad press is the worst thing that can happen to such an individual. If certain oligarchs want to trend on Twitter, that's their choice to make.
3
I see just the opposite happening. As it looks more and more likely that Elizabeth Warren could become the nominee, watch as her anti-Wall Street rhetoric softens into loose generalities. After all, her party still needs that money, if only to prove that it isn't anti-business, and even if that risks them being seen as anti-worker, and she will be pressured to cool her language while still looking like the worker's friend.
The old rule of playing to the base in the primary while playing to the middle in the general is about to be turned on its head. Wall Street need only wait.
5
@Mark Lebow
Cynicism never helped us move forward.
Yes, Democrats are working WITHIN the system to transform it.
There's no reason to despise this or reject it as "not enough". It's too easy to stand at the sidelines, yelling "not enough!" at those standing in the mud and who just managed to get us one step closer to the finish line. The only way to get there is to focus on that finish line and then work hard and celebrate each step forward.
Warren's Consumer Financial Protection Bureau already shifted millions from big banks to ordinary citizens. That PROVES that she's serious about taking on Wall Street.
And Pelosi already passed a bill (HR 1) that would seriously reform campaign financing. Before it gets signed into law, however, presidential candidates will always need Wall Street money too, because that is the system that you and I allowed the GOP to create.
The only way to get HR1 signed into law, is to start engaging, rather than imagining that only those who can change everything overnight must be "good guys" ...
4
@Ana Luisa The CFP shifting millions to ordinary systems is a rounding error compared to the amount of wealth Wall Street took from ordinary citizens during the same period. Warren is no threat to Wall Street. She's convenient cover whose meaningless regulations only help legitimize the continuing fraud.
2
@brent
With all respect, this is what I don't understand: how can you support progressive policies, and then simultaneously imagine that having an institution that for once works, and works for Main Street alone, would somehow be unimportant ... ?
You don't achieve ANY progress, history shows, if you refuse to learn how to celebrate each and every step forward.
Yes, there's much more fraud to end. The Dodds-Frank bill has been another VERY good step into that direction.
And Warren and many other Democrats already have concrete and well worked out, fact-based plans to launch the next steps.
Nothing will change though as long as we continue to allow the GOP to control DC, as we did for a decade now.
Because remember, it's not "Wall Street" that takes money from ordinary citizens, it's GOP politicians passing bill after bill that actively shifts the wealth away from the middle class and to the wealthiest 1% and Wall Street.
So if we can't collectively focus on the very cause of this problem, and let ourselves be overwhelmed by the scale of the problem, THEN and only then things cannot but get worse...
1
The "best and brightest." Wasn't that the argument in 2008? They deserved a cushion for their fall -- even though they's caused it themselves -- because the world just couldn't function without them. That whine tax hardly even covers the cost of the private jets they're forced to maintain to be present at court. They need a ruler who understands that.
1
Recall the joke, the punch line to which goes: "We've already established that, now we're just haggling over the price." That's the primary reason longtime Democratic donors can so easily switch their financial backing to Donald Trump if Elizabeth Warren is the nominee. With the likes of Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and (supposedly a sure-thing) Hillary Clinton ensconced in the White House, the ultra-wealthy knew they wouldn't pay a real price for their faux-liberal virtue signaling. In other words, they could talk the talk without having to actually walk the walk. Now that they can reasonably foresee (they are the smartest people in the room; just ask them) that under a Warren presidency they will have to give back a (perhaps substantial) fraction of their ill-gotten gains, they've established what they really are.
6
We've seen this movie before. We once had top income tax rates of 91% -- which almost no one paid. We had heavy financial industry regulation, despite which we had economic downturns and outright fraud. You can blame the lawyers (I was one). There will always be ways to avoid taxes and regulation. But aren't we better off to try keep it simpler and maybe more effective? Trump has gone too far but it's also possible to flip the other way and do harm. Many people -- not just the superrich -- don't like Warren because she always "has an answer for that" no matter what that is. Too glib. Too heavy-handed. Putin's got answers too.
2
@Richard
Warren has plans. Warren is learned, and her proposals are intended to help the average person, the poor family and not hurt the rich. The answer is not to throw in the towel and give up and let the rich own everything.
7
We do not need a candidate who hates rich people. We do not need a critic of efficiency in corporate management. Her”plans”, in my opinion, leave much to be desired. A few examples:
1. Workers have been negotiating increased health benefits in lieu of salaries. The Warren plan negates all of those compromises, by eliminating private health insurance. By the way, the Warren plan purports to fix health care. It makes a stab at insurance, but does not consider necessities such as additional physicians, health care facilities and other health care professionals.
2. Student loan debt-The lucky beneficiaries become debt-free. What consideration is given to those who repaid his or her entire debt?
3. Wealth taxes-Does Senator Warren encourage divorce to lower wealth in order to avoid the tax?
We need somber, executable policies which show good thinking, not hatred.
14
@Jerome Kellner
She does not hate rich people.
She hates the tax rules and the politics that produce unearned income and rewards it with lower tax rates.
There will be collateral damage if debt is forgiven, but there are ways to mitigate that and make it fair.
Wealth taxes are just like real estate taxes. Get used to it.
She shows really good thinking, somber temperament, and not hatred.
104
@Jerome Kellner I am sure Warren does not hate rich people. She is just trying to be a rainbow coalition populist to fight Trump's white grievance populism. Spoiler alert. White grievance populism has more targets to hate and will win the general.
1
Somber policies? That’s what you’ve got right now, hope you’re enjoying them. Warren might, just might stand for sober policies.
2
If I was Elizabeth Warren I would wear Wall Street’s hatred for me as a badge of honor! Since the 1980s, Wall Street has done tremendous damage to middle class Americans. We lost more money to their misdeeds in the 2000s than we did to the terrorists on 9-11. We can’t have affordable medicines in large part because pharmaceutical companies are beholden to Wall Street’s profit expectations. We have to fight our insurers to get the healthcare we need for the same reason. And don’t get me started on wage stagnation and the rush to globalization - again done to make sure the suits on Wall Street are kept happy.
.
The only worry is that she needs to stealthily put in place policies to prevent the petty lords and ladies of Wall Street from taking their anger out on the middle class. We all know they will - which is why they’re so powerful.
88
@ZAW Globalization is what raised well over one billion people in China, India, Brazil, Indonesia and other countries into the middle class. The fact that the Americans that lost those jobs were not looked after is a different issue.
5
@Bananahead
good for you to acknowledge that globalization left the other 75% of the populations of those countries you mention in dire poverty.
Take a closer look at population and poverty statistics.
3
@Bananahead
They were given our jobs.
The owners of machinery demanded OPEN BORDERS for their capital so that they could move it to low wage countries.
We could have used America's market clout and political power to demand that other countries protect labor, consumers, and the environment, and created a race to the top, with other countries competing to create stability and level playing fields.
Instead we created a global race to the bottom, with countries competing to be most abusive to their workers, consumers, and environment to attract investment from global corporations. Countries that refuse to go along with that are attacked politically, economically, and through covert and overt force.
Globalization is not bad. The way we globalized is bad. We need to fix the global system so that it is not dominated by global billionaires who corrupt governments and are financing the hateful, greedy, terrorist Right of the world.
The global billionaires are also trying to REPLACE us with the corporations that they have controlling shares in. They keep giving corporations the Constitutional Rights of humans, while finding exceptions to human Rights.
Slavery is illegal. Owning People is illegal. If corporations are People, they cannot be owned.
Bernie and Warren understand that the global billionaires are manipulating the economy and the government to steal from the rest of us.
Humans not corporations are citizens with Constitutional Rights and money is not speech.
2
The economist Thomas Picketty explains that the outrageous wage equality in the U.S. since 1980 (Worse than the rest of the Western world) could only have emerged due to a supportive cultural.acceptance of it. We've not only allowed it, but encouraged it with our culture. He also states it probably won't end until our national culture stops accepting it.
48
@JSI
Recently, I watched a show about China which showed their new high speed trains and other technological marvels. Why don't we have a modern, strong infrastructure?
I live in Minneapolis and about 7 years ago we had a bridge collapse into the Mississippi River and almost lost a whole pre-school class. At that time we had Tim Pawlenty as governor and his continuous message was that we had to reduce our spending. The last thing he would have encouraged was a request about a bridge that needed to be fixed. Therefore, he never got that message-- leave it to the next guy mentality. Well, the bridge didn't wait.
The Republican party doesn't sing the fiscal austerity tune anymore but they do sing the tune that says give tax breaks to the Uber wealthy. If we could change that tune to pay your fair share, maybe we could have those high speed trains and maybe we wouldn't have to wait for a bridge to collapse before we fixed it.
69
@JS You are right. We are made to fear for our well being. If you fear losing your job then you accept less than ideal health coverage as better than none. Next you stop asking for increases to the pitiful wages since something is better than nothing. The ever continuing mergers leave us nowhere else to go. It's all the same company. This is a sick way to structure society.
8
@sheila The Republican party is the white grievance and tax cuts for the rich...and then when the money is really short...ooops...I guess we have to cut social security and medicare party.
Wall Street says: if I have to pay my fair share of taxes and compete on a level playing field where I might lose, even though what I do doesn’t add any net value to the national gdp, then I won’t support you. It’s an endorsement for Warren.
102
I've been saying for months a Warren presidency would be the most labor favorable administration since FDR. Glad to hear Dr. Krugman thinks so, too.
Funny how some ultra-wealthy people are afraid of her, while at the same time trying to minimize her. But as we've all seen, there is no minimizing Elizabeth Warren.
Whenever I hear someone call Trump, and his supporters, "Populists," I shake my head. No President has been more for the top 1% than Trump. How can it not be so obvious to his labor base to see? All you have to do is look at what he's done, not what he's said.
Warren, on the other hand, will speak softly, and carry a very big stick.
202
@Scott
Quite right; it's journalists with limited courage who write "populist" when they should write "demagogue".
9
disaffected.
Alone.
Out of touch
The rich who hire managers to make 30% returns on their money, every year, and fire the ones that bring in 28%, and reward those that bring in 40% with a 2 % raise.
For them, 'community' is not outside, down he street, to where people in their city or town live. The select list allowed to tweet and email, their children, and if they have the bizarre work ethic of 16 hrs a day just so they can avoid friendships, well, they would hate anybody.
7
Those unsettled by Warren are little different from similar behavior from Trump. Like he can't take a punch, has to be the star of any event, and creates a reality based on his needs rather than what's on the ground running, the most egregious corporate behavior flows from business leadership so insulated by capital it can still believe that it's only function is to benefit shareholders and officers. This is the same thing as what Trump believes.
3
The wealthy in this country need to be challenged. They are stealing all the money and gutting the middle-class. They don't create jobs here anymore; they create them in asia and latin america. i'm seeing it in my own company. people are being laid off and the jobs are going to poor countries with low standards of living. they don't want to pay people a living wage and we don't have unions to fight these criminals. the government need to do a massive clawback. unfortunately, i don't think any candidate could actually do this, regardless of their best intentions.
3
The very wealthy do not see the potential for destruction of both democracy and their own wellbeing if authoritarianism gains a stronger hold on America, or they refuse to keep it in focus, operating in a form of denial. Either way, it is great arrogance and great cluelessness. Howard Schultz is in many respects a good example of the general phenomenon. Many who are not stinking rich but are well-off enough support Trump because of selfishness and cluelessness, motivated by a desire for tax cuts for themselves; they are also willfully gullible, convincing themselves of the lie that Trump's is great for the economy.
2
I hope Warren quotes FDR about 'welcoming their hatred'.
And I really hope she has a good voice coach and is working on building her vocal strength. She doesn't have to shout down baby donald, just not be shouted down by him.
Dan Kravitz
4
Another observation about the very rich: It seems to me that, for people who make great amounts of money, having literally more than they know what to do with is no longer the point. It becomes a matter of having more than anyone else. You may be worth two hundred million, but there's no satisfaction in that if someone else has two hundred and one; you're desperately unsatisfied; caviar is dust in your mouth. And anyone who threatens to take even a tiny amount of what you have -- what defines you -- is your mortal enemy.
5
Good riddance to the plutocrats. The thing about 0.01% of the country is it's still only 0.01% of the vote. Warren has shown she can still raise money without theirs, and you can fool some people some of the time, but you can't fool people all the time. Hyper concentration of wealth in this country is a big part of the reason our country is falling behind in so many metrics, namely infrastructure, education, and health. The wealthy may create jobs, but jobs aren't created in a vacuum, and it doesn't give them the right to horde it all without investing it in the very country that gave them the opportunity to so. Higher taxes on the wealthy polls well in all political party groups. Whatever donors that are moving who claimed they were Democrats and are willing to put their money behind the catastrophe for our country that is Trump were never really part of the party of the people, and just enjoyed the back-patting from their peers of telling others they're a Democrat.
3
Warren’s problem is not billionaires. It is Medicare for All. Having government bureaucrats pay medical bills and watching out for fraud is a bad idea. What happens to all the employees in the health care industry? How many bills that should have been paid by no fault car insurance or worker’s compensation be mistakenly paid? And worst of all, the idea will give us four years of Trump, if he does not resign.
"In truth, Obama’s rhetoric was very mild; all he ever did was suggest that some bankers had behaved badly, which no reasonable person could deny."
I believe that Obama once reminded the denizens of Wall Street that he was the only thing between them and pitchforks. And the ultra rich do not like to be reminded of pitchforks. Now, if you were in the top 1%, who would remind you less of pitchforks - Elizabeth Warren or Trump/generic Republican?
Whoever our first female president is, she's going to unleash a torrent of hatred against her. People want women to stay in "their place."
Elizabeth Warren is likeable and she's by far the best qualified candidate to help the US recover after Donald Trump. Just like FDR, she will always be hated by some and loved by others.
No other Democratic candidate even compares favorably with Elizabeth Warren. It's time for us to elect her. She'll be great and change the trajectory of capitalism in the US - just as FDR did.
7
It is not only the ultra-rich that are so afraid of Warren that may end up if not supporting Trump vote for a third party candidate. These are deeply conservative former Republicans who see in Warren everything they are against, a President who will expand the role of government to provide more social services (see Brett Stephens). They are enamored of a constipated ideology that presumes the only force for good is individual initiative and private enterprise, do-goody government only messes things up and expands a parasitic bureaucracy. Those convinced that "government is the problem" see Warren as a menace comparable to Trump.
2
Prof. Krugman wonders how Wall Street will take a Warren win. A possibility is that they would respond as they did with Roosevelt - approach a top-ranking general with an offer to carry out a military coup. This was known as the "Businessmens' Plot." The general in question, Army chief of staff Smedley Butler, dismissed John D Rockefeller and the rest. What was amazing about the affair was that no one was prosecuted.
1
I'm flat sick of the rich. We can't make sure everybody gets treated when they're sick and we have little kids who can't get lunch at school because they're behind on their lunch tab. And some rich guy, eating steak with a glass of expensive wine, is whining he might have to pay a few more taxes? The whole premise of business is paying the worker less than his output is worth. and selling that output to a customer for more than its worth. The poor will always be with us but it is getting awfully crowded in here.
4
This is brilliantly insightful and a helpful reminder that Warren can and must win without the wealthy would-be kings. It's time for America to stop worshipping the Almighty Dollar and to learn from Trump that claimed or even actual billions doesn't make a person smart, good, or valuable.
2
I'm hopeful with Warren. She's not a fool when it comes to business, and no one should really be afraid of a sensible, smart person like her. It wouldn't be a bad thing to have someone mobilizing the whole country again like FDR, pulling everyone not out of economic depression but out of this Trump funk finally.
5
This is exactly why we need "punitive" taxes on wealth. If you don't punish them, they will surely punish you.
They extract wealth, hoard wealth, rig systems to accumulate more wealth, and then fund mouthpieces and stink tanks to distract and rationalize why they should have even more wealth.
4
FDR Talking about the very same Plutocrats in 1936: "We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace--business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering. They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob. Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me--and I welcome their hatred."
4
Krugman is describing the ultrawealthy as a bunch of (in my words) sick, egocentric and insecure people, i.e., various shades of Trump.
I wonder if this debilitating condition is a continuous function of the wealth accumulated (stolen?), or does it set in promptly after a certain threshold is crossed?
I still remember a story about John Bogle (Vanguard): he was reluctant to tell his peers in the financial sector that his net worth was on the order of 'only' $100 million because they'd--get this--look down on him.
Why would they look down on him? Because he wasn't profiting obscenely off Joe Average's investments in the financial markets like the rest of the vultures. Because he wasn't a billionaire.
The American psyche is sick--we idolize wealth.
Elizabeth Warren has a plan for that...and she definitely approves the message.
4
This is rather bizarre. The only candidate who truly terrifies Wall Street is not Warren but Sanders, and the liberal left (i.e. the left that defines a center that's so far right they are now essentially Republicans) is now performing a shell game, one that attempts to buttress Warren's credentials as a true leftist by broadcasting "Wall Street is angry at her!" And here is Paul Krugman, re-circulating the same thing. Look: Warren took their money, rolled it into her "grassroots" campaign. She is anti-union (one of her biggest donors in the Senate was a union buster). Her flurry of wonky plans speaks directly to the Obama-era managerial class ("there's an app for this!"). She's backtracked on Medicare for all. She now says she won't say one way or another whether she'll accept corporate money if she wins the primary. She's explicitly said "I'm a capitalist!" Wall Street, the billionaires, the media elite (Krugman): with a Warren presidency you will all sleep a little better, relieved to have gotten rid of Trump and yet assured that the system that supports you--a support premised on brutal racial and class violence--will remain stable, intact. These are the small egos we should be worried about; these are the ones who sell us out every time.
2
"the very wealthy should be very afraid of the prospect of a Trump re-election." Indeed, look how trump's good friend MBS treated the wealthy elite in Saudi Arabia not so long ago - trump likely enjoyed that tactic visualizing himself doing the same - he already owns his own upscale prisons for the rich he can use to lock up and extort the wealthy.
Though the biggest threat to the wealthy is trump's promise to crater the economy for everyone if he is not re-elected. He'll have a couple month's as a vindictive duck after he loses the election to carry out his threat to trash a peaceful transition.
"with great [ill gotten] wealth comes great [entitled] pettiness"
Trump is certainly sexist enough, misogynist enough, racist enough, supremacist enough, hateful enough, illegitimately wealthy enough, immoral enough for Republicans to fully support him. Indeed, making Warren look smart, decent and have all the qualities Republicans hate.
Forget the beer - Warren would be a great person to have a sober and intelligent debate, discussion and ideas brainstorming session with. Trump would be an absolutely boring boar and one sided conversation - all about him, him, him and how great he is.
The Wall Street casino is rigged - no wonder they do not like Warren - she is trying to fix it by taking the "fix" out of it.
2
Great wealth is a moral corruption that will compromise nearly everyone it touches. In truth, it is wealth, and the pursuit of it that is destroying the ecosphere (the planet will be fine folks...).
Good. Let the innocent and guilty alike die in the disasters that are slowly coming into focus.
Do these guys not realize that, if anything, their association hurt the last two candidates they backed, Romney and Clinton? I don't think "Wall Street Fat Cats Fear Elizabeth Warren" will have the effect they want, either.
"some longtime Democratic donors are reportedly considering throwing their backing behind Donald Trump"
I note they are all anonymous, no names at the link. I wouldn't be so sure they will not support Warren if she is nominated, the real rich fools and grifters are already all in for Trump.
The mighty dollar is greater than the golden eagle to the wealthy class. Assets, balance sheets, and dividends are more desirable and respected than fairness and sharing to the noble class. That is a threat. She is assertative and smart. That is a threat. She is comfortable in her skin, and dresses for comfort and practicality. That is a threat. She is a woman. That too is a threat. Elizabeth Warren would be a no nonsense, informed, and respected President for the whole nation. That is a threat.
And the lies they tell themselves to keep their hoarded wealth...for example that entrepreneurs will be stifled. Making college affordable for all those young men and women will stifle entrepreneurs? Ha! They may even be able to think about creating a business instead of just paying off student loans their entire life.
If Warren is the nominee, I'll probably wake up every morning and send her 5 bucks. Maybe I'll send her 10. Suppose there are a million people like me. So yeah, she'll have plenty of money, whatever the pretentious-bean-counter class may think about her. They'll find that spending more money on Trump won't make him stink any less.
1
The cabal of billionaires behind the Trump Administration have been methodical over decades. Their goals are clear: they fund the brainwashing apparatus that mesmerizes Trump’s “core”, they run 30 State Legislatures that are out to remove health care, poison the environment, impose religious restrictions, and generally destroy democracy. They run the GOP and half the Supreme Court.
So why can’t the billionaires outside the cabal see where this is going? Why aren’t they mobilized to return sanity and put our house in order? How can they remain complacent seeing what the cabal already has accomplished and that soon they will sweep us all away?
Some can. Some are moving. But many are not awake even now. Even with past history to inform them.
2
Warren is different than Bernie - she's the revised version of Hillary. Her campaign has former Hillary employees. Plus she's making side deals with the DNC convincing them she's a tried and true capitalist without a socialist bone in her body. Warren, has numerous plans, but her big plan was to crush Bernie, just like she did in the 2016 Massachusetts primary.
Even if Bernie is forced to be a Sheepdog to run for President under the Democratic banner you don't have to be a sheep, just DON'T vote if he doesn't get the nomination.
1
Throughout our modern history, America has often elected someone who is “opposite” of the current president.
I think that one reason Biden and Warren are front runners is that they each represent in different ways an opposite to Trump.
Biden is nice and works well with others, where Trump is nasty and exploits others.
Warren is knowledgable and competent, while Trump is ignorant and incompetent.
1
Warren does not belong to the very wealthy aristocratic class. Perhaps Donald Trump doesn't either but he is an aristocratic sycophant and want a be.
So in the narrow minds of the rich runs the thought, 'How dare this upstart take my money and tell me what to do. This is where income inequality has brought us and those of us who see the unfairness of this society must support her if the rich reveal the dark hearts and will not support a candidate of her caliber.
1
These folks should realize that their status comes not from their personal worth and accomplishments but from the size of their bank accounts.
Billionaires today are a dime a dozen, and all are dwarfed by Middle Eastern wealth.
Those who fear Warren should shed their insecurity and do things good for their fellow human beings.
The insecurity and craving for love is palpable, and laughable. A lot of stuff, indeed.
1
This is pretty spongy ground for an economist to tread; I don't remember anything in Samuelson about socio-cultural pathologies or group psychological needs, aaah, Trumping the utility-maximizing drives of homo economicus.
A President Warren could probably, like Roosevelt before her, save the American economy and with it, the fortunes of her most ardent detractors. They STILL have not forgiven FDR! Go figure.
1
Trump was elected by the money of the wealthy, the gerrymandering of the Electoral College, and the votes of many of the non-wealthy. Any attempt to replace Trump needs to consider all three factors. Each of those three, by itself, is necessary to elect a Trump, but not sufficient.
I'd concentrate on the many non-wealthy (ya' know, those folks that Hillary Clinton called "deplorables"). Republicans have done for 40 years what Southern segregationist Democrats once did, ensuring that for whites who were near the bottom that there's always someone else further down the
Aram Hollman
Imagine some point in the future when you’re entering retirement. You have saved $200,000 to sustain and enjoy your golden years. (Lucky, hard working, frugal you. Only 16% of Americans reach this level of savings upon retiring.) And then there’s multi-billionaire Jeff B.. He may churlishly decide to chuck it all after Warren’s tax hits him. His nest egg is $87 billion (after the Warren tax!). If he spends $200K each and every year, his savings pot will last . . . 435,000 years.
So there it is. Just you and Jeff. Two retirees enjoying the golden years.
I suppose this is where the hard core base of Trump supporters are spouting epithets about losers, envy, and socialism. Their red-faced jeers wander off into the plowed and re-plowed fields of dusty lies about Hillary and Obama.
But even those in Trump’s sneering base know the bravado veneer of the president’s ravings will not buffer them against life’s hardships, bad luck, and plain economic facts. Dark, hard days come to all of us. The single-parent’s child care must be paid for; the granddaughter in trade school or college faces costs which continue to climb; student debt hangs heavier each year; soaring medical costs appear to have no ceiling; and retirement often ends with assisted care, memory care, or full time nursing care and $200K is wiped out faster than Jeff Bezos can build a bigger dock on one of his privately owned islands.
$87 billion if conservatively invested would spin off $4-5 billion per year in interest, dividends and growth. So an individual with that kind of stash would NEVER exhaust that stash spending $200,000 per year. Year after year, the stash would only get bigger. A wealth tax of 2-3% would only slow down that accumulation, the very rich would continue to get richer. Which is why an estate tax is needed, too.
3
I am baffled by the billionaires' objections to Warren's proposals. Don't they have enough dough to support their multiple houses, their fancy cars and their whatever else they need to make sure they are at the top of the heap? I'm pretty rich myself, but I realize I have plenty of cash and investments to live on and I don't need more to boost my ego.
My take is that the filthy rich are not just filthy in morals, but that they also have short you-know-whats. Their billions are a replacement for their sexual inadequacy. And she's a woman, no less. Another problem for men with sexual problems. Go, Elizabeth. Take 'em out.
1
The only people who like Warren are upper class college educated whites. AA and working class whites don’t like her either, albeit for different reasons.
1
@Allan
Odd statement, because she's not speaking to the 'upper class college educated whites.' I'm one of those, and she knows I'm in her camp. She doesn't have to convince me.
She's talking to and getting positive feedback from what we'd traditionally call our working class, or middle class.
wow - some burst balloons there !
when egregious wealth is no longer supported, it's a long way for those hurt egos to fall ... !
Warren may be able to overcome the plutocracy to get elected. But to actually enact her vision, e.g. wealth tax, will be much harder requiring as it will a willing Congress, including the Senate. This is where the Big Money will build a wall that actually works. It'll take more than a Warren presidency to change things.
We will never have government "by the people" until we get private monies out of election campaigns. It is not the opinions of the plutocrats, but their monies that are wrecking Democracy.
3
I and many democrats generally do not disagree with Warren's many policy proposals, however, in this election there are 3 issues that will take center stage with the average voter - climate change, healthcare and Trump. By having many answers to many issues, Warren runs the risk of drowning out her answers on the issues that will drive this election.
If people turn out in significant numbers to vote - even in the most gerrymandered and voter suppression states - we can still take back our country. Elizabeth Warren has become the clear choice to lead the big swing back we so desperately need.
Backing Warren hard is now our duty. We need to prevent the plutocracy from becoming an oligarchy.
15
The money quote in the linked CNBC article is from a hedge fund executive. They are worried that that the American public would learn from Warren that Trump's tax cut only helped the wealthy. That would be bad?!? A little info for the executive is that most of us have already figured that out. Such dishonesty from a "Democratic donor". Honestly the Democrats don't need their support. It will help clarify the message that Trump and the GOP were only looking out for the elites, who are severely outnumbered. Warren is smart to follow in FDR's footsteps and "welcome their hatred".
9
The candidate they really hate is Bernie Sanders. He's the one who re-shaped the paradigm of political topics in the 2016 campaign and continues to control the agenda in 2020. The plutocrats control the news media. If the plutocrats really hated Warren then the editors would not give her so much positive coverage. So the real question is why do the plutocrats favor Warren over Sanders? I'll leave it to others to answer this question.
5
@Robert Scull All evidence, no matter what the evidence, points to Bernie’s greatness, huh?
@Andrea R
Well, when almost all the stories about Bernie have a negative spin...even when he led Warren in 26 out of 38 polls in August (check them in Wikipedia), someone has to provide balance. I would do the same favor for Warren if she was treated the same way. In fact, I wanted Warren to run in 2016, but she did not. And l was surprised at how well Bernie did in 2016 in spite of the negative press coverage. We will have to see how things play out in the months ahead, but the voting in the first primary is still months away. I would like to see Sanders and Warren work together. I think they would make a great team. But if the media wants her to win, they need to throw some tougher questions at her before the primary season is over to measure how effectively she can take on the things Trump will be able to use against her.
Ego is at play, sure, but I bet a not-insignificant number of them are also worried about going to jail for financial crimes and tax evasion schemes that have long gone unpunished.
6
Not just the top .001 at risk. Her confiscatory inheritance tax plan would whack anyone with assets over 3.5 million (7 million) with a 45% inheritance tax. So don't try to sell the idea that it's only the super rich at risk.
1
Don't expect much sympathy for this counterview. Families who have 7 million dollars or more to pass on to their children ARE the super rich in the eyes of families who don't have $400 to cover an emergency. And please stop claiming that this "death tax," or "confiscatory policies" will hurt family farmers. The number of families who would be affected by this who own farms is a small handful per year. Just another bait and switch tactic on behalf of people who have way too much money.
9
It’s a curious, but recurring habit of the ultra-rich to resist policies that would strengthen the middle class even though that would likely increase their net worth and overcome any additional taxation. It seems they would rather load it over an increasingly impoverished majority than share the wealth in a rising GDP environment. This echoes the low income Trumpistas who often vote against their own interests.
17
If the property tax were stretched out and evened out to cover other forms of wealth, it may not attract the same visceral opposition as a ‘wealth tax’ or ‘death tax’. For most people, for most of their lives, their home is their only substantial asset, so they already pay a wealth tax. Extending the property tax would make the property tax more equitable.
That said, the Wall Streeters have a lot of nerve. For those of us with some money invested in their stocks, they charge us a percent or two of our invested assets each year just for the privilege.
7
Sorry, Dr. Krugman, but 38 years of extracting wealth from the middle and relocating it to the top is not ego but is, transparently, greed. The real fear is that the nonsense that keeps this streak alive will be brought into clear focus by Ms. Warren.
22
The Wall Street announcement made me a one thousand percent supporter of Warren! I will put my boots on the ground to help her win! What is great about that is that boots are worth a lot of money.
15
@Brian
Yes, that and votes. We need to combat Wall Street's greed with boots, dollars and votes.
1
I appreciate the problem that Dr. Krugman has with the "more money than sense" crowd, of which Trump seems to top the list. Meet people in this world and, like Trump, they seem to feel that their opinions should be valued according to the size of their bank accounts. But I do have concern that Warren's palpable contempt for them feels more like anger than "governance." Perhaps because of the way it has been framed, her tax proposals sound more like attacks on the wealthy than a rational attempt to fund the government in a more equitable way, which is a very valid goal. My issue with Warren is less about her proposals than about her style of attacking people. Looking at where she has been on impeachment, she advocated for it after the Mueller report, long before most of the Democratic leadership was ready to go down that road and I just don't see the nuanced view of political realities that seem to define, for me at least, the understanding that governing requires more than just being right.
As for Roosevelt and the wealthy, there is a famous Peter Arno cartoon about this: https://condenaststore.com/featured/come-along-were-going-to-the-trans-lux-to-hiss-peter-arno.html?product=poster -- wealthy people telling their friends: "Come along. We're going to the Trans-Lux to hiss Roosevelt." How quaint by current standards.
4
I'll be for Warren in 2020. But I'd like Paul to speculate on the economic effects of plutocrats' damaged psyches.
9
I support Warren's plan to ax wealth not income. I just wish it was 20% not 2 !
15
They hate Ms. Warren for the same reason they hate Bernie Sanders or anyone who advances Progressive ideas and policy.
I have not decided where my vote and money will go in 2020, but Ms. Warren needs to detail a couple of things to garner my trust:
1- I want to hear her detail her conversion experience from a 25 year Republican Party member to a Democrat pushing Progressive ideas. Not a sentence or paragraph, but a speech.
2- I want her to pledge in unambiguous language that she will not pull an Obama or Clinton and run as a Progressive (or use Progressive touchstones) and then run as hard and fast as possible to the center in office. We have had enough "Corporate Democrats" and it is time for someone who remembers that the Democrats are the party of working people (as in wages, before the pushback) and not the donor class from the West Side of LA and Manhattan.
21
@David Gregory
I recently heard her address issue one. In short, although she registered to vote as a Republican, she was never in politics or elected as a Republican.
I know lots of people who register at 18 and never change their party affiliation even as their views change.
As far as issue two, I don't see her being a hypocrite. She has a working class background and has always fought for consumer rights in banking, etc. I trust her, and I hope she has the support to enact her progressive agenda.
24
@David Gregory There’s no pledge she can give that would convince me. She’s been positioning herself for a pivot since she refused to endorse Sanders. Her daughter and sometime co-author began her career by founding a health insurance company and now owns a “talent group” that leads in taking the highest percentage from its clients. Bernie has no such baggage.
7
@David Gregory
Try reading her book, "The Two Income Trap." That's how she went from being a typical Republican who believes people who default on loans or declare bankruptcy are just deadbeats to being a Democrat who understands that most of those people hit a rough patch and then were run rough-shod over by our rapacious financial industry.
The problem with Obama is that he's a fantastic constitutional law scholar, not an economist. He wasn't watching what had happened to our middle class because back then our middle class was supposedly doing great! Just great! He focused, instead on getting everyone health care while getting us past the financial crisis.
2010, Republican Congress, the rest is history.
Clinton was your classic centrist Democrat who liked to give speeches as Goldman Sachs then clink champagne glasses at Davos. That's why she lost.
Elizabeth Warren, on the other hand, created the Scourge of the Republican Party--an entire agency known as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Why do you think she did that?
When people make comments like the one you just posted, I realize that there are many out there who know nothing about her. She has explained herself in detail, over and over.
Pay attention.
1
If the mega-wealthy are as smart as they like to think, they'll study history and engage in a bit of enlightened self-interest. Operative word being enlightened. But, that's unlikely. As Professor expertly explains, ego and greed are a powerful combination.
18
“Apres moi, le deluge!” is a very common attitude among the overprivileged.
If anything can sway the poor and middle class voters who have had their pockets willingly picked for 40 years, it will be the bad behavior of the oligarchs themselves. Americans have had a fawning obsession with wealth and power ever since they got forgot WHY we revolted from the British crown. Look at the MSM's cooing and carping over royal spawn and the Megan Markle spat. All it takes to see how wealth makes greed and narcissism inevitable is observation of behavior. When the plutocrats like Kochs donate its mostly to ivory tower academic or cultural institutions that will etch their names on wings and buildings - in exchange for influence on policy, curriculum and hiring. Even Bill Gates and Warren Buffet's donation of their fortune have the air of perpetualizing self aggrandizement. The only caveat to Warren's wealth tax is ensuring we have the power to seize assets in tax havens like Switzerland, the Caymans, Hong Kong, Ireland etc, where the oligarchs' immense power continues unabated. Warren is the ONLY candidate with the prescience, commitment and honor to bring about some economic justice and begin the massive transfer of wealth that needs to be accomplished to transition the US to a more stable DEMAND SIDE economy, driven from the BOTTOM UP. Such economies aren't prone to Wall Street's boom and bust, go-for-broke investment strategies that privitize gain and spread the risk to taxpayers.
30
"Americans have had a fawning obsession with wealth and power ever since they got forgot WHY we revolted from the British crown." One part of which was the support of their ownership of Black bodies (Jefferson, the great Enlightenment Man, inherited slaves aged 12 and owned 300, including his own mistress.) In the so called Revolution Washington's anger was particularly directed at the British for giving Kings Warrants (ie freedom) to slaves, seen by him as appropriation of colonists' property.
1
@Steve Fortuna
Don’t forget Delaware, Wyoming, and Texas.
One great gift which the WW2 victors gave the defeated Germans was a quite solid democratic federal structure, which has occasionally trembled a little but has stood the test of time. It is a great shame that the victors, especially Britain, the USSR and the USA, were unable to do the same for their own countries (of course such a thing would never enter anyone's head!)
It is so unlikely as to be practically impossible that the USA will ever change its arcane electoral system, so that the nation will continue to be dependent on the fairness and honesty of its leaders ... and there's the rub!
20
Warren’s home state, Oklahoma, would have never elected her to public office. Her perch is due to the common sense of the majority of people in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Today was the first time it occurred to me that I lived in Oklahoma at the same time as Warren and also ended up in Massachusetts. Now a citizen of Vermont, it occurs to me that Sanders is a poor choice. He would do a good thing by stepping aside and toning down the rhetoric. He’s like a warm-up act, good to get the crowd excited but not good enough for top billing. It may all be for naught. The divide in the country is too great. Oklahomans and New Englanders are as equally provincial and tribal as any other constituency that one may care to examine. I’m not sure where this all this leads, "but I won't smell too good, that's for sure." — Leslie Nielsen, RIP.
12
@Thomas
Sanders won the last Dem. primary in Oklahoma.
He polled beating Trump their also.
As he does this time too.
4
It was refreshing to read this Opinion because it writes with respect for Elizabeth Warren. Krugman's psychological analysis about why some billionaire donors hate her guts, is another matter. He thinks her attacks on them are too threatening to their 'kingly' self-images. I think that what they are most threatened by is that she is 'real'. Her criticism of them is legitimate. She cannot be bought off as 90% of the politicians willing are. More than willingly, that's a big part of why they're in politics: the graft, the corruption, the under the table and to the bank assembly line. She knows what she is doing, and she would implement as much as several of her plans as possible. It isn't just their 'kingly image' at stake. She'd clean things up a bit, and that could change a lot of Americans' minds, particularly young ones, about the role of government. Now that is absolutely not what the too powerful billionaires want, and it would be the change we all desperately need, a change in the balance of power.
52
As a format Wall Streeter I find the case of Warren very interesting and that this article misses the boat.
Many of my friends and colleagues who are still working in finance say they detest Trump, of course in private, but won’t vote for Warren. When asked why they reply she is way too far to the left. When asked what her policies are they admit they really don’t know but she is too far left.
If you start giving them some of the things she proposes they soften then revert too she’s too far left.
Much of what she proposes is a return to the policies that we had during the country’s greatest prosperity, such as enforcing anti trust. Many of these have been studied with the conclusion that they will begin to restore a robust middle class.
What’s ironic is that a broad based, balanced economy creates wealth for all the Uber rich will net benefit.
So, why do they hate her?
51
@Michael Weinstein
Because "She's too far to the left"
And to explain that comment -- In the US, there is a massive amount of political ignorance from the wealthy elite to the working poor.
1
@Michael Weinstein
Selfishness, greed and the failure to admit that they are members of society.
3
@Michael Weinstein
Warren's plans echo some of FDR's policies, so they are not 'very left' as you know. Her policies would aim for a fairer distribution of wealth, more access for the poor and middle-class to higher education by lowering and or eliminating debt for student loans; making health care more affordable and less discriminatory; regulation of the financial sector; strengthening SS; lowering corruption within the system, etc. In sum, she would enact policies that would serve regular folks as not since before the Reagan administration, which began to hack it all back. The billionaires to not want a change in the balance of power. They don't want a government that works for the vast majority of the American people. So, Warren doesn't so much as challenge their enormous wealth as provide more economic security, more opportunity and more power to the people.
1
So, the egos of such super-rich are fragile as Trump's but they do not Tweet about it, they react putting their money with whoever "respect" them. Good luck with Trump!
Additionally, it might not matter anyway because "These days American presidential elections are so awash in money that both sides can count on having enough resources to saturate the airwaves."
It might not depend only on the airwave saturation, nowadays it could depend more on Ukraine, Russia and, maybe Australia. If the Senate allows it. I wish for a Madam President for a long time now.
12
Very good analysis on Warren. The exact same response by the plutocrats is true for Bernie Sanders. Both candidates threaten their hold on power and control.
14
I could wish Warren wasn't doing it as a "candidate". Even FDR did it as a second-time 1936 candidate. His "change of heart" and full frontal attack of monied interests was considered a betrayal of his own patrician upper class background. First get elected, speaking to both sides. Then once in power, exercise that power for the greater good. Infiltrate & double-cross. And then be truly worthy to "welcome their hatred".
9
@JMBenoit
It is worth remember the Business Plot which was an political conspiracy in 1933 where a group of rich business men conspired to overthrow FDR and replace him with General Butler. Butler would not betray his country and the plot fell apart.
2
What the Uber-wealthy do not appreciate is the lessons of history. If Trump and the GOP consolidate power and continue to reward the wealthiest at the expense of the rest, they will be sowing the seeds of revolution the kind of which has not occurred in the US since 1860. Tragically, it CAN happen here, and the bloody lessons of 1917 Russia will be re-learned.
10
@HPower Not a chance. Gun control measures will deprive the people of a chance to fight back. That's precisely why the Uber-wealthy want to gut the Second Amendment. An unarmed population is a population of ready-made slaves.
@HPower "...they will be sowing the seeds of revolution the kind of which has not occurred in the US since..." 1776.
@HPower
Didn't the U.S. come close to "revolution" in the 1930's? A rejection of naked capitalism?
"So what would make the very wealthy — even some Jewish billionaires, who should have a very good idea of the likely consequences of right-wing dominance — support Trump over someone like Warren?"
Good question of course. But I find myself, unusually, not agreeing with Mr. Krugman on the answer. I believe that those of the .1% who have thrown in with the Republicans, are totally disinterested in Democracy. They have much more in common with their "peers" in Russia and China and the super wealthy everywhere else in the world than they do with you or me. We "The People" are an annoyance that have been barely tolerated as necessary parts of our production economy. That is rapidly changing with advent of AI and robotic automation. Wouldn't it be so much easier with a nice Oligarchy Putinesque? No more messy problems with voters getting in the way of the important business of grabbing the last crumbs of the pie, because Congress will always do what's best for cream at the top. Oh, wait you say? Isn't that already the case? Well, not quite. While our wanna be aristocracy are half-way there with the near total capitulation of the GOP, the Dems are still, for the most part, trying to make our Democracy work. The problem is in order for Democracy to work, you need all the parties to believe in the concept and follow the rules and laws. That is no longer the case in the U.S. and that is not an accident. Donald Trump is the result of the GOP co-option by the .1%. They don't care.
55
@Kevo The problem is in order for Democracy to work in the US it needs a majority of constituents in both parties to believe in the concept and follow the rules and laws. Perhaps for it to work in the US it needs a third party?
1
@Kevo: Good analysis. I'd like to extend it a bit and pose that democracies are to the global olichargy and corporations what unions are to the national right-wing parties serving corporations and the rich.
3
@Kevo
Excellent analysis, and a great joke too. Oligarchy Putinesque indeed!
"With great power comes great responsibility." told to me by my 6 year old grandson who wanted a light saber as a gift. I was against buying it for him as it was a symbol of violence.
I bragged about his wisdom the next day and colleagues laughed that it was a quote from Spiderman.
10
Warren's plans to target net worths of $50 million + is a Trojan horse, and disgruntled Dem donors are the canaries in the coal mine. The real wealth in the USA resides in the upper middle class (family incomes b/w $250,000 and $450,000 annually), a population vastly larger than the population of billionaires. That upper middle class population - their income and their wealth - is what Democrats like Warren and Sanders will need to target and plunder to pay for their programs.
4
@Richard The US needs a progressive tax table for personal income which will bring the rate of increasing federal debt in line with the rate of increasing GDP.
Across the board all of us with taxable incomes are living off the future incomes of our descendants, our posterity who have no say in the matter.
9
@Richard: I will gladly pay more in taxes if that means every boat will be lifted and poverty eradicated in the richest country in the world (if you don't look at the distribution of that richness). I will gladly pay more in taxes if that means every citizen has a sturdy roof over their head and has the security of reliable health insurance and income in retirement, lives in a healthy environment with well-maintained infrastructure, and has access to good public education and reliable public transportation and utilities.
21
@Richard
The NYT could help by reporting on taxes in other countries. Somehow some Americans believe we're being gouged. Hardly!
When I became an expat in France I left the American dream of striving for wealth and joined a culture that believed in health care for all.
If Americans were fully informed about the values of other western cultures they would be in a better position to make political choices in their own country.
53
“The chocolate making countries” of Europe have higher productivity and living standards than we do. How did we get so stupid?
1
The superwealthy may have limited impact on the presidential race, but they will certainly have much more impact on the Senate and House races. We may get a President Warren, but watch her policies crash against a continued Republican majority in the Senate that was paid for by the ultrarich.
10
What Elizabeth Warren could do if elected (and even now) is to be gracious and conciliatory toward the super rich. For example, acknowledge their role in the prosperity the country enjoys, and at the same time reminding them that the less fortunate contribute to not only the country's prosperity but also to their wealth. Maybe they'll forgive her, although I am not holding my breath.
5
@Morris G Christian niceness and kindness is not going to solve the problem. Most people do not realise that the value of what they produce, gives the employer infinitely more than they get back for their labor. There is such a thing as surplus value in what is produced, and the super rich rake it in, and make the employed earn as little as they can bare without totally breaking. Employers invest in labor, labor invests in the employers. We all know who has the greatest profits for their investments don’t we. A lot of it depends on the silent submission of the employed, and without this the whole system would not work.
21
If you tax the Uber rich excessively, they will either move their money or themselves overseas.
Don’t believe me, why do you think the British rock bands moved to the USA back in the 70s?
2
The difference is that to remain a US citizen one still needs to pay US taxes no matter where one resides. British citizens pay taxes to the country where they reside.
5
@Anonymous Yes, it boils down to this: the poor won't work if you give them too much money, and the rich won't if you give them too little. That should be engraved on the headstone of Ronald Reagan.
1
@Anonymous
Define "excessive". Do you mean more than they are willing to pay? That's a poor criterion.
It's not only the egos of the ultra-wealthy that exceed their wealth, it's also their sense of entitlement. They have created a perfect welfare state of the rich and they will fight tooth and nail to keep it.
48
@Impedimentus
The financial casino that the rich have built will eventually come crashing down. It is a true Hose of Cards.
7
Anything that threatens their status as “Masters of the Universe” is what drives their apoplexy. Warren has simply pointed out their absence of connection with the 99% of us who are at risk from their behavior.
23
I find Warren irresistible. First, she is pleasant, utterly engaged, knowledgeable and has a wealth of experience that I doubt can be bested.
But what I love most about her is the sheer sense that she will indeed help US realize the "structural" reforms, changes that will make US be more like a civilized country proportional with its immense wealth, and not the backward land where the spoils and loot go to a few while the rest have been placed under the yoke instituted by the wealthy.
Never have the words of Adam Smith in The Theory Of Moral Sentiments resonate more truthful than in Warren's narrative. Smith spoke of "their little interest", referring to the businessmen and the wealthy. Smith made a clear distinction between the general wellbeing that a wholesome society must pursue, namely investing in each and every individual in order for he/she to develop the natural talents one is blessed with and therefore be productive, contribute to the society, and...be happy!
Moreover, "their little interests" - of the wealthy - are seen as the words imply, yes, Little!, just Interests!, not something that is noble and patriotic.
Warren is both noble and patriotic. She will make a great American President. And not a day too soon!
66
Warren may be hated by Wall Street, but the elite class is more than just bankers, and others in this privileged stratum love her. She is no FDR.
1
@Jen Do u present proof of this allegation?
She’s not president yet. Let’s see...
As an American expat for seventeen years in France, the prevailing value is health care for all.
Warren also believes in health care for all.
Anyone in France who presents themselves with a medical problem will be served.
No ifs, ands, or buts!
23
@Michael Kittle Not only in France (unloved by many Americans), but also the other three European countries in which I have lived and am still living: Italy (loved by most Americans, Spain (loved by many Americans), and the UK (not very well understood by most world's inhabitants, including the Brits themselves).
4
@James K Griffin.......American visitors swarm to Paris every year where tourism is the number one industry.
President Chirac was a hero for many because he spoke out against the Bush war in Iraq.
Why do Americans dislike France?
1
@Michael Kittle I don't know why many Americans dislike the French, but the "Freedom Fries" of several years past were indicative of their dislike. Living in Lyon in 1992-1994 I noticed that the Lyonnaise even disliked the Parisians and the feeling was mutual.
Could it be the accent of the French when speaking English?
They certainly are haughty when relating to Italians, and often the same with Americans, whom they consider uncultured (often correctly!).
History demonstrates that Americans have been treated pretty fairly by the French, as compared to their treatment by the British and Germans, but this doesn't seem to be the common opinion of Americans.
2
What about Bernie? Plenty of plutocrat hatred for him, and he's been drawing explicit FDR parallels.
Does anyone really trust Warren? (Given her behind-the-scenes overtures to the Democratic establishment and her decision to do high-dollar fundraisers before her primary campaign and then again during the general election if she wins the primary...) I like her proposals, but I don't trust her, so she remains my 2nd choice. I'm also not sure what her foreign policy is.
6
@Abe Halpert I don’t recall Warren having made any mention of foreign policy thus far in her campaign. What I DO know is, she’s voted in favor of increasing Trump’s already-bloated military budget 3 times. This, along with her still-vague answers on healthcare (one of THE defining issues of this election, where is her “plan” for this?!) make her my distant, wholly compromised 2nd choice, behind Sanders. What may ultimately do her in—for me, anyway—is the now-obvious anointing of her candidacy by the media and the center-left establishment.
3
@Abe Halpert
I guess that's the point of this article: Not only are Warren's ideas supposed to be "just as radical" as Bernie's, she has to pretend to be just as hated by the oligarchs.
@Abe Halpert
So, I will ask you and @Jen below: If Sanders throws his full support behind Warren, which he is extremely likely to do as they share a similar outlook, will you vote for her, or will you stay home and sulk like Bernie Bro Babies?
Start thinking about.
The wealthy believe that taxes are for the little people.
They believe they should be exempt from taxation.
They resent anyone who asks them to pay a fair share.
44
@David Henry Sounds like a good description of Trump.
1
@David Henry The wealthy resent having to pay for anything.
I’m tired (respectfully) of the notion that we have some implied duty to treat the wealthy “fair” when they’ve been the underwriters of policies and beneficiaries of a capitalist market system that has been anything but fair to we plebeians. Eat the rich.
1
Let's hope Warren is just like FDR. Bringing back 1930s bank regulation is not only needed, but banks will still be a washed in profits, though not from stealing from their customers and the Federal government.
And the FDR type initiative that we need most is on climate change, and Elizabeth Warren knows this and will act. And her actions will partner with the private sector, something the Social Democrats have not espoused. Incentives work even better than massive government outlays (also necessary here) because everyone sees a personal benefit to participate--namely long term lower energy bills plus clean air and water and saving the planet. Saving the planet is not only stopping rapid sea level rise, but protecting biodiversity, all those ecological systems in Nature that humankind depends upon.
This should be such an easy case to make, that's it's amazing that people will listen to the oil and coal plutocrats that are doing everything they can to fight it.
And Dr. Krugman you are guilty of your own false equivalency in equating the vast amounts of money spent on elections as equal on both sides. One side is spending that money almost exclusively on smears and fearmongering.
19
OpenSecrets analyzed 2016 election spending (president and Congress) including monies expended by outside groups: $6.5B. Roughly an equal split on behalf of candidates from both parties (your criticism of Krugman is flat-out wrong). Clinton and friends outspent Trump and friends by a 2:1 margin. Trump offset that extraordinary deficit by way of benefitting from free media (corporate media) to the tune of $3B (which was not included in the $6.5B expenditure cited above). Eat the rich. All of them.
7
@Jeff Watson You missed my point--it's how the money is spent. And if you are including PACs in your corporate media, this is not free media, but direct corporate spending on behalf of a candidate through a huge loophole in the law. And there was all that foreign (illegal) money spent, primarily from Russia, to benefit Trump and the Republicans (NRA).
Inequality is at it's worst ever.Insurance premiums and deductibles are higher than ever. Millions more have lost their health insurance.
13
As Matt Taibbi noted in the Divide, from the Holder , danger of "Collateral Consequences" of lenient treatment of the rich to the "Broken Windows frivolous arrest policy". The state has treated the owners and controllers of Great Wealth as having the absolute authority of Monarchs, while the poor are treated as trash to be arrested and treated as we treat disposable garbage. Warren's implicit disparagement of great wealth removes some of this implicit veneration, and treats the opulence of the Wealthy as in part plunder of the dispossessed. Such a loss of status would likely trouble the holders of great wealth whose status switches from entrepreneurial genius to thief at least in part. If the dispossessed can vent their anger in full which was possible in the Depression, the result could be a revival of the Huey Long, "share the wealth plan" where massive fortunes could be expropriated and and distributed. Such a fear may be unwarranted but its natural outcome of a radicalism once expressed in US politics but has been quiescent since the days of the Great Depression.
6
Professor Krugman says he has met the enemy...and they are the big, big, big money guys. OK, let's say he's right...when did he realize this? In 2016 we had a candidate who said this every single day, and was prepared to take these guys on. He had a large, highly motivated movement supporting his candidacy. He was winning primaries, getting millions of votes. Yet, the good professor couldn't countenance this. He ridiculed him, suggested he was a voodoo fabulist to rival the worst of the Republican supply siders, and was discrediting the Democrat party. He...and Elizabeth Warren, too...shocked and disheartened Progressives when they endorsed Clinton, who up to that point, had made it clear that she was certified Wall Street Safe. Now he's telling us that Wall Street loathes Warren. Really? Well, I missed it. I hope Professor Krugman will fill us in on just who and why is hating on Warren. Bernie has known for decades what needs to be done and why and has never wavered. Now, he's attacked for being unchanging. Warren has shifted left rather rapidly. Her backround, aside from her work as a legal academic, is as a corporate lawyer and defender of large corporations. I'm not all that sanguine about how a Warren administration would handle economic reform in America. Most of her progressive positions have come in a flurry of recent proposals that create a new candidate. We should trust her, and Paul Krugman, more than Bernie? Convince me, and maybe you convince millions.
21
@larry
"Her backround, aside from her work as a legal academic, is as a corporate lawyer and defender of large corporations."
Aside from her work as an academic ? Except for maybe a summer internship I don't think she was ever in private practice let alone corporate law.
And I practiced corporate law for quite a long time and so what ? It was a job. It has zero to do with my political leanings. You have a very immature view of people. Spitzer practiced at Skadden. It doesn't get much more "Wall Street." Then he left, ran for Attorney General and went after Wall Street firms and bankers with a vengeance. We need someone that understands the game in order to change the rules.
If you doubt Warren's intentions consider her time running the TARP oversight committee and helping to establish the CFPB. Bernie hasn't accomplished diddly as far as protecting people from Wall Street. Warren will get things done.
13
@larry For me Bernie Sanders campaigning style is repulsive, and if he were President he would not change; he would not be effective in convincing lawmakers to adopt the programs he effuses. When I see him at rallies or in the debates, I see a wild individual who is all bluster, and one who never seems to consider the thoughts and ideas of anyone who disaggrees as worthy. No wonder he has turned off the majority of Democrats.
@larry her views are only "new" if you consider 20 years as recent.
Complete speculation and an absence of facts. Paul has, in several recent contributions, repeatedly assumed money does not matter to the very wealthy. How does he think they got wealthy?
2
@Adam
Prof. Krugman is not making a wild or even controversial assumption. Money matters less to the wealthy in the sense that they tend not to spend most of the excess capital they have — they invest it instead. (This is a well-established idea in mainstream economics, and it’s why tax increases targeted at the wealthy have less negative economic impact than tax increases targeted at the middle-class. It’s also a key assumption behind our progressive tax system and Elizabeth Warren’s proposed wealth tax.) If I’m rich and the government takes money away from me that I wasn’t going to spend anyway, I probably won’t be happy, but I would be hard-pressed to claim that it matters to me as much as lost money matters to a middle class or poor person who will likely spend every spare cent they have. Aside from the Gordon Gekko (“greed is good”) crowd, my guess is that most rich people, if pressed, would agree with this.
17
@Adam
Completely wrong.
What he consistently points out is that they have far more money than they need or use, therefore how much they have 'doesn't matter.'
What they do is call their financial advisors daily to make sure their billion dollar portfolios are growing so they can brag to the other billionaires about their net worth.
Caring about money in that way is not the same as caring about whether they have enough to maintain a lifestyle.
The arrogance of big money has dominated politics because they legally finance our elections & set limits on lawmaking.
The security and political voice of average citizens has decreased compared to previous decades.
Warren only seems left wing in our distorted politics. She'd be centrist in other democracies.
It's exaggerated to say the wealthy hate her. She was a former Repub. But she's a threat since they're used to unregulated profits and she's famous for consumer protections.
Unlimited money in elections is called 'Free Speech by our high court, in one of the biggest cons ever pulled in a democracy. Our politicians fear donors will finance a challenger if they don't play ball. This pulls the center of politics rightward.
Only now has support been building by the majority of voters to overturn Citizens United, the court decision that rationalized all this. But even with this support, our media columnists and pundits avoid it, out of some kind of warped caution.
They ignore the underlying factor that blocks reforms for most of the problems they write about.
Our system creates an arrogant donor class that's used to calling the shots, so it's hard to take that away. So the press doesn't write much on how we lag many nations in citizen security & mobility, worker protections, health care access, education funding, fair and adequate taxes, & gun safety.
Only regulated capitalism can ensure an operating democracy, instead of a pretend-democracy.
43
“She’d be a centrist in other democracies.” Is so true. How did the spin get so bad?
2
@Meredith
Excellent post.
"Warren only seems left wing in our distorted politics. She'd be centrist in other democracies. "
Absolutely true. But it's standard operating procedure for Republicans to paint all Democrat POTUS candidates as left-wing bogeymen (or women). In the same vein that it is standard operating procedure for Democrats to paint all Republican candidates as stupid. Though in the latter case there is at least some merit to the position.
2
Ultra-rich Democrats. It's almost a contradiction of terms. Let them throw their support behind Trump. Their conversion to Republicans will be out in the open at least.
7
Great column! I was born during FDR’s first term, and have studied his performance in dealing with the Great Depression and WWII. I regard him as America’s finest president. I think Warren follows in his footsteps. The ultra wealthy have no interest in the lives of average Americans. Can anyone name any child of the greedy who served in our Military? That was left for me, a son of a Scottish immigrant whose first job was in the WV coal mines.
60
Yes, it looks like Warren will be the democratic nominee.
At 70 years old she is full of energy and ideas.
She has a plan for everything and wants the wealthy to pay for everything.
Warren is a stand out and stand up politician and deserves to be the next president of the United States.
88
In finance and economics: Warren is a first class scholar and Trump is a third class pretender.
But watch out: Trump voters like to be entertained, not to be educated.
75
@Life Is Beautiful
Warren knows less about economics than Krugman. Eat the rich.
@Life Is Beautiful
Trump voters are not going to change their minds, not matter what the Democrat says.
Don't worry about Trump voters. Worry about getting the base of the Democratic Party to the polls.
3
A lot of support for Elizabeth Warren.
Bernie got there first with the policy, and is more likely to win over young people and disillusioned working class voters.
5
But Bernie is a crank. He won’t even join the Democratic Party. In some ways he’s like Trump: it’s all about him.
@jzu, we love them both. Bernie and Liz. Our kids too.
1
I disagree a little bit with PK. Siding with Trump against Warren makes rational economic sense for some wealthy business people. It's not just the wealth tax that Warren represents. A Warren (or Sanders) administration would likely mean greater oversight of corporate activity, greater regulation of markets and business activity, and the likelihood of greater corporate taxes or at least the prospect of no further tax cuts.
21
@\AJNY
If corporations or the representatives of corporations are considered people, don't they have a responsibility to act like it?
13
@JEA, Well, one response to your question is that, while the Supreme Court in Citizens United gave corporations some of the rights of individuals, large, profit maximizing corporations in a concentrated market economy have much more power than most people, have different incentives and follow different norms and rules than people.
@AJNY
Yeah. And a return to the moribund economy of the Obama years. How come NYT readers don’t get supply side economics?
Random notes:
"More than enough" isn't enough. At that level money is a way of keeping score and comparison. Pure ego. And the American Way in the Reagan Restoration.
Our culture made the uber-wealthy gods on pedestals. It should not complain about their wrath. It is godly. (And for the religious ones, twice godly then.)
I favor Warren, from a rather lackluster menu (again). But I wish she'd get her feet on the ground a titch. She needs to keep the independents and undecideds in the fold, and that will be hard if they fear their employer heath insurance, often hard won through labor negotiations, will be replaced by some unknown. If there's any central truth about the American electorate, it's that it is easily fearmongered. And we have one of the best fearmongers in the business in the Oval.
And DEBT-free college, for god's sake. Who's running her campaign, Bob Shrum?!
6
@Rocky
Why not free college? They do it in Europe. I have 5 university degrees, including 2 Masters Degrees from MIT. I never had a penny of college debt, thanks to scholarships and Uncle Sam, who sent me to school in exchange for Military service. I retired as a colonel and Vietnam vet.
27
@JSK If the US had a similar tax system to those of European nations, sure. It doesn't. The US taxpayer can't afford free college for everyone, and under our system already favoring the wealthy, it does not help stem the tide of inequality to underwrite the college educations of those who can already afford them.
How about making the free college offer about a two year Associates Degree? Get specific and get real and set limits.
I’m 70. A few years ago, I took night classes at the local community college. The classes were mixed with 18 year-olds and 80 year olds. The fees were so low, they might as well have been free. Many of the young ones missed classes. Didn’t do the work. Slept in class. We’re on their phones. One needs to be realist about college kids.
Warren was my favorite from the start--if she were a man, Biden wouldn't have a chance. As for Trump, I keep wondering when he's going to finally spin out of control and be found wrapped in a toga, wearing a tinfoil hat and haranguing frogs on the banks of the Potomac. Of course the oligarchs would simply shift to Pence, but some Trumpers might be confused enough to vote for a Democrat.
28
Persona wise Warren is my favorite candidate based on her wonkiness and forthcomong presentations. However the knee jerk responses to tax the rich for unrealistic proposals such as medicare for all concern me. She did waver in the debate when asked how her health care proposals would effect the tax rates of the middle class. Her proposal of vast change ignores the fact that majority of the population are satisfied with their coverage. Sensible approaches as advocated by Mike Bennett that build on the exisisting system make far more sense. Additionally her advocacy of labor movements ingnore some of the excess of the 70,s that played a role in the stagfation and overcorrection in support of management. I do think based on her biography she has the intelligence to modify her positions to something more realistic as evidenced by her change in bankruptcy policy that was highlighted in a new york times magazine article.
6
@gm
It needs to be repeated constantly that people do not in fact like their health care plans; they like the doctors, hospitals and care that those plans provide for them, and as long as they remain reasonably healthy, they do not want the bother of changing to a different plan or rocking the boat in any way.
But when they need a lot of medical care, and have to deal with the insane system of private insurance, deliberate obscurity and obfuscation, buck-passing, refusal of care, and, too often, appalling cruelty of the insurance companies, drug companies, and hospital administrations, they tend to stop liking their health care plans.
68
@gm...if medicare for all is so unrealistic, how come dozens of other capitalist democracies have financed it for generations? The UK since 1948, Canada since 1960 to name 2.
They have varied systems, but HC for all is centrist, not left wing. If their govts even tried to push Obamacare's high cost, big profit system on them, millions would be marching in the streets, disrupting traffic in various colored vests, until the govt backed down.
Here our manipulated voters have been kept in the dark about these role models. Krugman and others in media never explain how they work. They stay aligned with the attitudes of the Dem party which must raise money from big insurance/pharma.
Only now are we starting to see some political push for the rights hundreds of millions across the world have as normal policy.
20
@Herz
Once again, the joy of Military Service. As a Military retiree, and my spouse as a Military dependent, our healthcare plans are Medicare and TriCare. Retirees are covered by TriCare, not by the VA. Cost? $100/month which we both pay. No copays, no deductibles, no caps. Prescription drugs are free, if generic, and cheap if they are not. Our doctors are our choices. Because of rheumatoid arthritis, I get a monthly infusion of Actemra, for which the charge is about $3000 per session. I pay zero. I love it.
4
It is not just the super rich who will be against Warren.
Seniors know their Medicare coverage will be diluted under Medicare for all.
Affluent suburbanites will expect tax increases, with no additional benefits.
She does not connect even a little bit with working class whites and African Americans.
If Warren is the Democratic nominee, Trump will get re-elected.
It won’t matter what the super rich think.
10
@Tigerina
"Seniors know their Medicare coverage will be diluted under Medicare for all."
Really? I'm a "Senior" & I don't know this. What I know is that every American is entitled to the same great medical care I receive through Medicare. Every American.
2
In the mid- to long term Trump will be bad for business, and bad for that brand of American capitalism that fuels competition, innovation and middle class strength. Warren, on the other hand, is a policy-maker with strategic long term growth initiatives that will improve most American economic classes. Krugman is right that the titans of business will continue to have more than enough wealth under a Warren administration, but Warren will change the dynamic and under gird a new economy that will help revive the Great American Democratic Experiment.
23
As you can see by the most recent elections in North Carolina where many pundits thoughts Dems had a chance, in the purplish areas, and also battleground states, many fear too radical of change. Elizabeth is a much better person than Trump, but likely a worse candidate in the KEY battleground states. Ms. Warren would win more votes in California than Klobuchar. But let's support Amy Klobuchar because she will much more likely defeat Trump in Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Florida.
11
"She is proposing policies, ...that would make the extremely wealthy a bit less so. "
Nope.
Warren is proposing policies that create a 100% tax on returns to capital. A 3% tax when returns on 30 year treasury bonds are 2.2% is a 140% tax.
We see how destructive wealth taxes are by looking at Europe. These taxes raised no revenue but they destroyed an enormous amount of economic activity.
We can further see the destructive effect by comparing stock markets. The U.S. stock market is at $33 trillion while the European stock market is at $8 trillion.
What good can possibly come to the poor if the U.S. produces 30% fewer jobs over the next 30 years like Europe did over the last 30 years? Answer: none at all. No amount of welfare can compensate for the loss of jobs.
The research is unequivocal. Trapping people on welfare by increasing payments is a death sentence. Extended durations on welfare produce Opioid and other addictions, alcoholism and extremely impaired cognitive function.
Since 1980, Europe jobs have grown only 35% while U.S. jobs have grown by over 65%. Moreover, the 65% new U.S. jobs were more $ per hour and more hours per week than the 35% new Europe jobs.
5
My father, a small businessman, explained the why and how of the Capital Gains Tax in a favorable light when I was 12. I’m 70 now. For years, both he and I bought into the logic of it. At some point we both realized it was a ridiculous rationalization for not paying taxes. Preposterous even. If American capitalism is to succeed, business people need to get serious, and think more clearly for the good of the country. We have become an oligarchy which will not stand.
3
@John Huppenthal And guess what, even with all its real problems and challenges, Europe delivers a decent quality of life for a much broader section of its citizenry than the US does.
And duh, if your claims about the corrosive effects of too much welfare are correct, why is it that the capitalist paradise of the good ol' US of A is the epicenter of the opioid epidemic, NOT Europe?
Your trotting out of that argument just proves the opposite of the point you're attempting to make...
If I vote, it won't be until late evening election day and I won't make a decision until the hour I vote. I have no desire to inadvertently affect the election. I do however note that Trump always expels all his loyalists after appointing them and becoming suspicious of their loyalties. It reflects his thinking. After three years of in-the-pocket broadcasting by Fox news, Trump went against them as well. So if his Wall Street companions give him support, they should be prepared to either suffer indignations later with ensuing boycotts, or deep investigations now just gaining hold. I'm not trying to scare them. I'm simply reflecting my knowledge of human conduct.
5
Considering that in 2016 Mr. Krugman repeatedly attacked Bernie Sanders by claiming that a national health insurance system that covered everyone the same was impossible here but never explaining why it was possible in every other industrialized country, I find it rich that he now criticizes others for attacking Warren for her views.
14
@Steve it's mainly about his ego. And apparently his is still too big to admit that Sanders is still alive and well in this campaign.
13
@eeeeee At 1 million unique donors and counting, and remaining steady in the top tier, he’s more than alive and well, despite media (and ahem, those who write for them) believing that he’ll fade if they just stop saying his name!
1
I worked on Wall Street for many years and paid far too much money.
Hollywood movies of Wall Street are completely foreign to me. I worked with ethical people at senior levels and no part of the sensationalization of Wall Street rings true.
One year while I was working there, a 10% surcharge on income over $1 million was imposed. It cost me several hundred thousand dollars that year, but I did not suffer one less glass of champagne.
So the idea that a 2% charge on wealth above $50 million will impact the lives of anyone is absurd. Someone so blessed should not suffer either.
The fact is wealth is what remains untaxed. Billions can be transferred with skill from one generation to the next, and liquidity spent from the inheritance can be untaxed as well.
A dishwasher's labor is taxed at the first $1.
Payroll taxes are regressive and make up an increasing percentage of federal receipts. Passive income tax preferences are nonsensical, and the arguments for such self-serving rather than persuasive,
Senator Warren is spot on to seek a wealth tax. That must be extended to corporate taxation to fund a sovereign wealth fund. It should be based on market capitalization, and funded with stock instead of cash to avoid all tax avoidance schemes.
The sovereign wealth fund should replace the Social Security and Medicare intergovernmental trust funds supporting such, which will run dry by 2032.
This will eliminate the payroll tax once and for all, and keep benefits defined.
64
@David Parsons
I agree with most of what you said, but there is no need to mess with Social Security and Medicare except to raise the income limit on payroll taxes. They are not running dry. they are slightly underfunded during the baby boom retirements. There is no reason to panic on entitlements.
3
"But why does Warren inspire a level of hatred and fear among the very wealthy that I don’t think we’ve seen directed at a presidential candidate since the days of Franklin Delano Roosevelt?"
When you tell the rich "We're going to take everything you have!" they tend, eventually, to believe you.
1
@Decent Guy
But no one is saying they are going to take "everything" they have. They will only have to pay a very small percentage of the wealth they accumulated by virtue of a tax system they lobbied for and thus wound up paying a lower percentage tax rate than the people who worked for them. It costs money to run a country, and they should py their fair share. Even some of the wealthiest agree that our distorted wealth inequality is not good for the country, or for the economy.
26
@Decent Guy
So when has Warren told the super-rich that she is going to take everything that they have? One or two cents taken from the wealthy for every dollar they make over $50 million is probably not going to force anyone onto welfare.
@Decent Guy
She doesn't tell them any such thing. If somebody is telling YOU that, and you believe it, maybe you need to broaden your mind: try listening to Sen. Warren herself, not to the media and tweeters that misrepresent her.
I don’t see Wall Street opposed to Elizabeth. They are opposed to Bernie. Those I see who don’t want Warren - all sorts of people -see her as a hectoring Harvard professor with too many plans.
I don’t trust polls any more. They predicted Clinton's win,‘ til the final moment. Bernie 2020- that’s my plan.
13
@Ellen
I agree. Sanders has been consistent in his views on social and economic issues for his entire adult life. In contrast, Warren was a libertarian Republican until she was in her mid 40s. I still have know idea what her core principles are or even if she has any other than, as with her claim of being Native American, they are to do whatever she needs to to get ahead.
8
@Steve There is a big difference between a convert and a flip-flopper. Warren's research into what was causing people to lose their houses or go into bankruptcy is what moved her from her earlier conservative positions to her current progressive ones. I respect that. She has been very consistent in working for fair regulation and government that serves the interests of average people, not just the wealthy. She actually designed the consumer protection agency - she didn't just talk about it - so when she says she has plans, she has a track record we can look at. She brings real-world economic and political skills.
15
@Diane Helle
She was a Republican during the presidencies of Nixon and Reagan. Anyone who didn't think that the only people they cared about were the wealthy and that they appealed to voters' baser instincts must have been asleep.
If what you say is true, then I'd like her to explain why it took her so long to recognize that her positions were wrong. Essentially she's erased that past from her record. It's one thing to admit that you were wrong; it's different to pretend that you never were.
Nicely said. Billionaires are not rational operators in many circumstances, however when it come to political down payment the ROI is pretty good.
It is about pushing for incumbent advantage to keep growing their egg nest. Winning at a game by re-writing the rules mid game, buy judicial blindness when crossing the line,....
That should be illegal, but there are so many ways to bribe people that it is really hard to eliminate.
There is also a question of ego when it comes to some choices. People like to be depicted as heroes and not villains, when you get a chance to control the narrative by buying papers and helping to elected your guy, they might do it.
4
@Joel - - Terrifying is a word that aptly defines the wealth inequality that suffocates our citizens. And, I totally agree with Professor Krugman's assessment that attempts to level that particular playing field causes havoc in the psyches of the hugely wealthy 'One Percent', and Wall Street Barons. In this instance, I would add rational fear to the professor's accurate precept. Fear, - because in Senator Warren we have a presidential candidate who possesses exceptional knowledge of the financial processes and machinations of our nation - and - those of the world. As the saying goes, for so many reasons, "money is the root of all evil", and I doubt anybody can fool Elizabeth in that discipline. I am impressed with her historical, "common people" lifestyle, her grit, fearlessness, persistence, academic milestones, professorships, political accomplishments, communication skills, general brilliance, and - plans - for "We The People". She will make a superior President and World Leader returning the respect our nation will merit. And, I predict that, in her second term, she will have the grateful electoral support of the 'One %' and Wall Street ! Cordially, Don L.
6
I would rather be middle class in Norway than obscenely rich in Oman. That's the difference between progressives like Warren, who want to raise the standard of living for most, and the oligarchs who want to raise the standard of living for themselves. We want to make America more like Norway; they want to make America more like Oman.
156
@Jay Arthur
I would rather be "poor" in a Scandinavian country than middle class in any English speaking country.
Not having an adequate safety net is crippling to peace of mind.
I'm happy with a frugal life, but social welfare in the West doesn't cover even the basics of rent and food.
30
@Jay Arthur
If we want to be like Norway, we need more people like those who live in Norway. Instead, we are swiftly turning into Mexico, with mass inequality and rule by elites.
2
@Jay Arthur Exactly!
Senator Warren has the intellect and the energy to be a great President but I know from experience that it is an enormous challenge to persuade the American people and their representatives that there are policy solutions to deal with the inequities and injustices created over the last 40 years.
Just think of how difficult it will be to convince people that we can create politically acceptable income distribution and macroeconomic stability during a period of job dislocation and market discontinuities that will result from efforts to reduce the global warming threat.
The classic struggle between free enterprise and big government and other very targeted polarizing issues will provide the counter argument that will harden the Congress and provide strong legislative opposition.
Unlike FDR she does not have the backdrop of the Great Depression. Instead she is facing long standing arguments like immigration and distorted understanding of the benefits of universal health insurance, not to underplay the millions of people who work in the fossil energy business, who are becoming increasingly anxious about their financial security.
In my musings on what a President could introduce to the international community, at say a special emergency meeting of the U.N. that would create the international investment in technology and research and development to create an energy source that would produce a transformative breakthrough in the global energy market, it is a great challenge.
10
@james jordan Just a few years ago the idea that gay people could be legally married or that you could find marijuana stores in your local strip mall would have been laughable propositions. Social norms can be tripped with surprising abruptness. Who would have thought that fascism would be ascendant in this country three years ago?
@JimmyMac
Thanks for reading my comment.
I agree with your thought on social norms can be tripped with surprising abruptness. That is the framing thought in my use of the term "market discontinuities". I am concerned that the shift of the global economy away from fossil fuels will generate waves of anxiety. The shift is inevitable because with population increase we will exhaust the planet's coal oil and natural gas and I believe that climate change will eventually trigger a runaway release of global warming emissions from a thawing permafrost and potentially a release of frozen hydrates in the cold depths of the ocean. This is a tough situation to manage and I don't believe civilization or humanity is structured to deal with it.
Warren possesses intellect, guts and a sense of what is right. Her biggest issue to me is not her intentions, it is some of her prescriptions to solve our class divide.
Part of the reason our GDP is the envy of the world is that some of those giant corporations that she wants dismantled will lose their competitive edge in the global market economy. Taxing the super wealthy is coming one way or another; there is nothing wrong with lightening bank accounts a little for lucky sperm club descendants.
I hope she is bright enough to level the playing field without shrinking the entire economic pie. She has my support so long as she realizes that competition and capitalism breeding innovation is what made America great to begin with.
5
@Andrew She knows all that. Don't take too awfully seriously things that are said this early, with this many competitors she needs to distinguish herself from. It's much easier to slide a little toward the middle, esp. once you're the nominee, than it is to start sliding to left late in the game.
13
@Andrew I don't think Google, Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, and the other behemoths dominating the economy operate in competitive markets Those enormous concentrations of capital are choking the life out of our neighborhood entrepreneurs. They suck the money out of our communities and send it to their shareholders and to gigantic financial institutions far from our homes. When I lived in the South we alled it the Plantation Economy.
@ Andrew, NY. A number of smaller countries have GDPs similar to, or greater than the US. And they don’t have the enormous advantages of running the world’s reserve currency, or of being the world’s self-appointed policeman with staggering military spending.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita
The sooner the Banksters who ruin peoples lives while taking enormous profits start jumping out of windows like they were SUPOSSED to (I know, folklore, but a useful image) the better for the country.
Financial Engineering is the source of many of the problems in our country. If we are going to create a successful "mittlestand" manufacturing economy, we need to change the way the capital markets function.
11
It was not folklore. I remember in 1988, my second year in grad school in NYC, many jumped out of windows on Wall Street when the market crashed.
2
@CitizenTM The year after Black Monday? I don't recall any jumpers at all. I checked the news archives, I found a suicide but 0 jumpers.
@CitizenTM
Citation please.
Humble request to Ms.Warren from a die-hard passionate follower even before Obama days.
1) Criticize Wall Street & Corporate selfishness, nevertheless sing and praise Mr.Buffett and Mr.Gates. There are a few in the 1% club who support higher taxes and care about the country - get their support
2) List facts, with examples from WallStreet and families on how Trump's tax cut has resulted in Stock Buybacks and Dividends for the stockholders, and how it has cut into middle class and lower income taxes.
3) Keep repeating the Health Care Mantra - No Pre-existing condition rule, No Maximum Benefit Threshold, Kids coverage until 26 years, and finally "Medicare for all, who want it" .
4) Keep repeating all the Consumer Protections & Student Loan Protections removed by Mr.Trump & Ms.Convey
These address people's problems and not just Trump bashing. I see passion and sincerity in your speech and you have the natural ability to connect all the above issues to the people whom it matters the most, and motivate people to the voting booth.
My hearty wishes, Ms Warren !
101
@Sam Swaminathan
I don't trust any billionaires. I wish them no harm, except to tax back much of their loot, but do not trust them. Their interests are not aligned with the interests of most humans. Their interests are aligned with other billionaires.
Any billionaire who is actually working to help most people instead of themselves, doesn't need Warren to say nice things about them.
2
Warren, a truly remarkable woman. Rising from the ashes of OK, so to speak, to three pinnacles 1) Prof of Law at Harvard. Can you imagine yourself having the grit, the strength, and the intelligence to accomplish that, man or woman? 2) Then a seat on the US Senate. And now 3) a top candidate for President of the US. Not bad, huh?
She has managed to retain her folksy, honest persona in spite of these accolades, reminds me actually of Obama who also projects a truly solid core.
Now, with the decades old history of the GOP and our very own oligarchs raping and pillaging our country for their benefit, we have a shot at electing another FDR type who has 'plans': Tackling the rampant corruption in our govt for example. And, addressing the criminal inequality.
I hope we have the sense to see that and elect her.
78
@Harold, she is also very broad open minded. Very few people know her son in law is an Indian American film maker.
7
@Harold 4) She has an adorable dog, too.
4
Ms warren understands the financial services industry. Her criticism are well thought out. I noticed that three of comments by persons who don't want Warren use condescension when critiquing what they don't agree with. Their use of snark marks them as bloviated souls.
20
My understanding of economics is flimsy. But I do understand that one percent of the population holding most of the wealth is not a good idea. Eventually the peasants get restless and the "let them eat cake" crowd gets a headache. So I think Mrs. Warren's ideas will make us all feel better. The guys at the top can feel good about contributing to the greater good. And the peasants will be able to afford a more varied diet, thus making them less likely to go around throwing rocks through windows and banging on gates with clubs and pitchforks.
24
The 20 election must be viewed as a vote for reformation. It will take years to repair the damage the Trump gang has inflicted on this country. Free college, $1000 handouts, national health care...nope! Reconstruction comes first. Who can best get this done in 4 years?
3
@JRB
"...damage..."
Maybe, but that's not what the data says:
1 Economic growth in 2018 $630 billion versus $300 billion in 2016 versus Europe’s 210 billion
2 Full-time jobs up 3.1 million in 2018, 200% of the 1.56 million increase in 2016.
3 Manufacturing jobs up 500,000 under Trump. 2016? Down 7,000.
4 Total job openings 7.3 million up 25% from 2016’s peak 5.8 million jobs
5 Unemployed 6.0 million in 2018 versus 7.5 million in 2016
6 Stock market: $33 trillion, up $9 trillion since the 2016 election
7 Mortgage delinquency rate down 26% from 2016
8 Combined Black and Hispanic jobs set ten all-time records in 2018 at higher wages than in 2016
9 Consumer confidence highest in 20 years, up sharply from 2015 and 2016.
10 Unemployment 3.8% lowest since 1969.
11 Initial Public Offerings up 250% from 2016 to $46.8 billion in 2018
12 Real disposable personal income up $597 billion in 2018 versus $244 billion in 2016
13 Total wealth $108 trillion up $13 trillion since the 2016 election.
14 Business investment growth up $334 billion in 2018 versus $52 in 2016
15 Total federal revenues increased 3% from 2016 to 2018 after negative 1% in 2016
17 Wage & salaries up $390 billion in 2018. 2016? $255
18 1.6% inflation in 2018
19 5.7 million have escaped food stamp welfare since December 2016
20 Murder down 6.3% since Dec 2016
21 Debt service on federal debt is 1.6%, less than half of peak
22 Households able to pay all bills 82% in 2018 up from 75.9% in 2016
@JRB The University of California system had no tuition until Ronnie came along. He is the one responsible for student debt today.
R.B. Duke, We pay taxes into a pot that, in theory, should be pooled and redistributed for the common good (that extremely expensive last tax cut did most of this country no good at all).
It's entirely reasonable that the citizenry should expect a return on their taxes. It's not "freebies" to have tax dollars redistributed in a way that benefits the people who have to pay the largest percentage of their income into the system.
I'll grant you that trump is drawing his support from a very deep well of racism, misogyny, and white supremacy. Time will tell whether the well of social justice and opportunity for all is equally deep.
17
There's something much deeper going on here:
Karl Marx was right.
Class struggle is real.
The collapse of the USSR didn't change that fact.
Authoritarianism killed off Russia's version of Marxism.
There are plenty of other versions floating around, not to mention various Socialisms, like the Scandinavian Model.
The 1% are exploiting labor —everyone else — shamefully and out of simple greed. It isn't necessary at all and nothing good comes from it. Yet plenty of bad things do.
If you had to consciously devise a system that was less fair and more arbitrary than to simple base a child's relative social position upon their inheritance at birth you couldn't come up with one.
The rich mostly go to good schools and learn how to think critically — they know they're at the top of a pyramid scheme which requires slave like obedience from the masses. All those centuries of heavy on the stick and light on the carrot coming home to roost is what scares them and their ego's inflate to hide their fear of retribution.
The history of social justice has banner years, 1789, 1834, 1865, 1918, 1968, 1989 — there's another one coming, and the rich sense it, quite rightly
18
@Arthur you forgot 1981. The split between productivity and wages began its current trend beginning with Reagan
15
When the downturn happened, the bankers and investors had incredibly thin skin.
They were the only ones who were made whole, and whined the entire time.
How dare we plebes question those very serious people. I remember.
Fast forward to 2019. The only person in that elite, whiny group that I have been exposed to is...well...Trump.
I can only presume those who have insulated themselves are actually worse in their behavior, entitlement, above-the-law, lawyered up, still whiny ones are far worse than the only one who went into public service. Not all, to be sure, but, enough.
So yes, Warren, if she prevails, will be subject to some very untruthful, nasty framing. I sense that Warren is wily enough to do well despite this inevitability.
19
"some longtime Democratic donors are reportedly considering throwing their backing behind Donald Trump, corruption, collusion and all, if Warren is the Democratic presidential nominee."
I for one would definitely vote for Elizabeth Warren if she's the nominee. I would somehow mange, though difficult, to contribute the maximum allowed.
But I would rather not see her as the nominee. My fear is that, despite Donald Trump's somewhat insurmountable problems, if Warren is the nominee, there is a much greater chance for Trump's reelection.
Warren's image as a socialist who wants to tax the rich far too much is likely to backfire. It would have been nicer if she hadn't specified how she would tax wealth, etc. Once she's elected, she could come up with drastic plans, and get what she could, as president Obama got ACA; even a public option wasn't allowed.
Help with tuition for good students is necessary. But it shouldn't go any further, which may scare voters.
Medicare for All with elimination of private health insurance is scary. Be modest very much like those of Joe Biden's or Pete Buttigieg's or John Delaney's which are all practical.
Now Warren can't go back on what she has already specifically announced, "promised."
I would like to see warren as a running mate or as Treasury Secretary.
My money is on Pete Buttigieg who is amazingly gifted, self assured & fearless. True, he's gay and looks boyish.
4
@A.G.
In most advanced European nations education from elementary school through college/university is 100% free when the students attend public schools. Why should it not be the same here?
We are willing to spend over $800 billion/year for the military but not enough for public education. Isn't this a shame? Education and knowledge is what makes a nation strong.
Also, in those European nations they have some form of Universal Health Care that is similar to Single-Payer Medicare-For-All that is being espoused by Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.
When one looks closely at the numbers regarding the cost of such a health care plan, they come to realize that it is a less expensive and by far better alternative than the health care plans proposed by the other candidates, and that includes Joe Biden's or Pete Buttigieg's or John Delaney's. Health care should not be a for-profit enterprise (as it currently is now) and that is what Biden, Buttigieg, Delaney, and the others, who oppose Single Payer gMedicare-For-All, are propagating.
13
@George M.
Everything you write is sensible and logical. But the American public won't YET buy them. That's too bad. Unfortunately, that's reality.
4
@A.G.
Perhaps it is time we educate the American public.
"If Warren is the nominee, then, a significant number of tycoons will indeed go for Trump"
Right. What does that say about those other Democrats?
Tycoons are happy with those other Democrats. They won't get in the way of wealth, or privilege, or "imperial self esteem" of our wealthy few. They take the donor money and kiss the donor . . . shoe.
That is the real reason we have our economic troubles today. There was no other option on offer. If was Republican, or Republican. Kiss those donors.
12
The money hoarders don’t like her because “I got mine”.
They don’t really care about anyone else.
But everyone wants to feel secure, and since the Republican Party really started dismantling the middle class on a big scale in the 80’s, there has been a whole lot less security to feel.
And a lot of that security has moved to a very small number of people at the top, people who don’t feel any obligation to country.
Elizabeth Warren has a problem with that.
It’s not easy to get the wealthy to share once they have had government policies that reward them above all else, and for such a long time.
22
The question is, why do you hate Bernie?
His campaign platform (now and 2016) were practically ripped from your 2009 book "The Conscience of a Liberal."
The only person willing to take such a sound program and bring it into real, practical political campaign.
It seems obvious now, that had Hillary so much as selected Bernie as her V.P. she would have picked up the 90k votes she needed to win Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania.
What is it about the American elite that they cannot make their peace with the working class and allow them to match their wage gains with that of national productivity?
I've read none of your reasons for opposing Sanders that made sense. Biden probably won't make it to January so you an all the other elites have to look around and find another candidate.
I guess Warren allows you to back someone wearing the progressive label who isn't Bernie Sanders. Her positions sound progressive, but so did Obama's. There's a long history of Democrats running from the progressive left, but collecting money from the reactionary uber-elite right, and then ruling on their behalf. Warren's using small money now, but she has not committed to the same in the general.
Bernie has. He's the only progressive with credibility. 75% of the nation wants what Bernie preaches. YOu should be over joyed that some one is carrying your mantel forward. I just don't get why you don't. The reasons never make sense.
28
@Tim Kane
Warren is no Obama. Prefer Sanders, but Warren would have bailed out homeowners, not bankers, in 2009, and that matters.
9
@Tim Kane
It makes sense if you think about whom pays his bills and dangles another cabinet position in front of him.
Did you catch that this "story" is from an anonymous source? It's as if the propaganda team wrote an ad for Warren just in time for the 3rd quarter fund-raiser results come due this week.
3
@Tim Kane
Exactly. Krugman's hatred has reduced his objectivity and enlarged his repertoire of dodges.
3
Related to their arrogance, the ultra-wealthy, who threaten to support Trump if Warren is the Dem nominee - & possibly all of them, possess a serious disability in their vision. It may be related to the vision PK reveals about the impact of right-wing autocrats on financial conditions.
The real problem with the ultra-wealthy is that they do not have enough. They just don't see it.
6
Americans think that politics are a market. They think mercantilism as a culture. They are educated that way. Even their education is mercantilist and mercantilism.That is all they learn in their education : how to be part of a market and pronounce the narrative that will give them a place in that system of pre established value scale.
The ideas have absolutely no value in the USA. Concepts have no value. Analysis has no value. It is all about that catastrophe of a British psychology called "behaviorism " the best friend of capitalism and alienation.The psychology of the Self.
13
As in the case of FDR, her policies would revitalize the middle class, which in turn would increase consumption and improve business conditions. Business owners would get richer, while kicking and screaming about her the entire time. FDR, Clinton and Obama all created conditions that made economic expansion possible, and those who got rich complained the loudest. We’ve seen this movie before. This time the star will be a white woman.
44
@Roger
Agreed--but FDR was no socialist--he knew socialism wouldn't work, but he saved capitalism, despite the short-sightedness and selfishness of so many capitalists.
But no outreach to the business community to find some common ground would be a missed opportunity, given Trump's propensity to offend all constituencies and to pursue so many erratic and chaotic policies that are anathema to so many businesses. Don't assume that a Warren administration must be a natural adversary to business for her policies to enable a successful and more equitable economy. Her success may well depend on building a working relationship.
2
@Roger FDR is a sort of mythological figure. But Warren supporters revile Clinton and Obama as corporate Democrats. SShe would lose the general.
We will have an economic boom when Warren is elected. The super rich and Wall Street dont know what they are doing. They are not intelligent people. Real smarts rises up from the people, where it exists as layer of expertise. Those who work the land are smart, and those who do the little jobs are smart.
Perhaps we will have revulsion against Trump that takes hold in Iowa and Wisconsin, which Trump won, and other states. But the big money in Wall Street is not big enough to challenge that - not even close, and it wont matter. When power and wealth is conflated with Trumpism, as it should, and the people know it, and vote in their real interest, the country will change.
15
@H Smith One of the problems she presents is that she wants to actually terminate many profitable industries and replace them with industries that would require subsidies. But one thing Warren and Trump have in common is approaching their voters as victims of someone.
3
@Bananahead I hope she tempers that. And it takes congress to pass the legislation. But she does have ideas and a direction in mind.
Victims? I am not a victim of anything, neither is Warren. But many people have a hard time navigating our complex and often exploitative society. Climate change will hurt people, it has already. No-compete laws keep waged down. College costs are extreme.
1
Really? Warren wants to terminate profitable industries? You just made that up out of thin air.
And if you’re talking about the rapacious maw of the for-profit health insurance “industry”, the sooner they are replaced or reconverted to the non-profit mutual insurance model that existed before Reagan ruined everything, the better.
1
To those here disputing Krugman and disparaging Warren: How do you feel about being a personal defender of Wall Street plutocrats and their right to have $50 million plus rather than, say, a few million shy of that? I'm sure they're grateful for your efforts, but don't expect a thank you card.
To those calling Warren's proposals unrealistic: You are missing the basic premise of this article, i.e. that Wall Street hatred for her is based on her promise (and demonstrated willingness) to use some of their excessive riches to put her plans into concrete action.
Bottom line: Until you've personally done the math on her proposals, do public discourse a favor and stay away from sweeping claims about what is or is not possible.
59
@T Nicely said Mr. Krugman. However, a point you may have missed which another economist pointed out to me [and being a lawyer, I should have thought of myself] is that the the federal government has de facto placed a moratorium on criminal prosecution of Wall Street guys since the 1980's. I imagine any AG Senator Warren appointed would end that moratorium, in which case, many of these fellows [predominantly boys, I imagine] likely have much more at stake than two cents per over $50 million.
24
@T Just exactly who is his monster called "Wall Street" does it include every office in every town of Charles Schwab or Edward Jones? Every retirement fund? Every public employee pension? Or is it just the masterminds of algorithmic trading?
@Randy Baker, they should have thought about that before they engaged in those nefarious schemes. Just read about the Krupp family (thanks to another comment here) and the imprisonment of the son for mostly the elderly, ill father's lead collaborating with Hitler.
Nominating Warren would be a disaster. At the very best for Democrats it could be a 2016 in reverse where Warren squeaks by an electoral college win assuming she takes Wisconsin, Michigan and Penn. She could lose the popular vote to an impeached President. She would be very limited on who would take VP with her. There would be House seats and some Senate seats that would not want to campaign with Warren. All this because white liberals wanted to have a frolic in a historic moment. Nothing that she proposes will happen. And in addition the numbers would not add up anyway. Her 2 cents is a gimmick. Her Medicare for All will lose to Trumpcare because her candidacy would frivolously put the House in play. Her free college for the rich would be ridiculed. Her immigration position can be equated with "open borders"...see July issue of Mother Jones. I get people like to take selfies with her. So what. She gets big crowds. So what. Trump's will be much bigger. The Democrats should nominate someone Like Amy Klobuchar, who would be able to campaign everywhere in the country. Who would be helped by popular local Democrats. Who could run on an open mind to consider a wealth tax, and debt relief for the lower and middle income...and could get the 2013 Immigration Reform Bill through. Who could build on Obamacare and lowering health care costs. And frankly who wouldn't sound like she wants to put so many private sector businesses out of business.
8
She would win huge in California. There is zero chance that she would lose the popular vote to Trump (or Pence).
@Bananahead Vote in a Democratic primary like I will and vote for Amy. She is an excellent choice I gave her money when she first announced.
I will vote for Warren. And have also given her some money.
Your opinion only counts for one vote just as mine does. But you should put your monet and energy where your mouth is and give Amy some money, talk about her and put a bumper sticker on your car etc
@Bananahead Senator Amy Klobuchar projects the charisma of a tree stump. She is a neo-liberal corporate candidate a la Hillary Clinton. She can not energize and connect with the 8 to 10 million voters who turned out for Obama twice but stayed home in 2016. Wall St. & monopoly capitalists would see no change at all in their $$$$$ fortunes under a Klobuchar administration.
The cult of mediocrity has implemented the fermentation of doom for the 99 percent.
1
The very wealthy in the US are the direct creators of huge new fountains of wealth. Amazon, Facebook, Microsoft, Apple - they are all companies that didn't exist 50 years ago. These companies are the pride of American capitalism, and while they have made a few people very rich, they have also made very many people quite well-off. Moreover, they have made America the predominant tech giant in the world. Does Europe have companies like this? Does Japan?
An attack on American innovation and capitalism might well lead to economic stagnation. We would do much better to try to pull up the people at the bottom, rather than pull down the people at the top. Anyone with any sort of skills can make a decent living in the US, and those who are sharp and educated can live very well.
What we need to do is dismantle some of our monopolies in medicine, law, and education, which would cut the costs of living for everyone, and improve the skills of those in the bottom third of society. Greater equality will only come when more people are able to earn more money, and are able to make their own way independently.
1
@Jonathan. An attack on Wall Street is not an attack on the creators of great American companies, any more than Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand are the same person.
.
I have nothing but admiration for men like Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg and the late Steve Jobs: who had vision and saw it through using their own hard work and guts. The hundreds of overpaid investment bankers who create nothing themselves: not so much.
48
@ZAW So all the problems are solved by imposing a wealth tax on overpaid investment bankers. Well halleluyahh!!! I am all in with Warren. Need to get my selfie with her.
@ZAW - The vast majority of investment bankers make $500K a year and have fortunes of $10 or $15 million. If we tax people with this level of wealth, we'll tax a lot more lawyers and doctors than investment bankers.
And therein lies the problem. While the ordinary Joe can get through life without ever needing an investment banker, it is not so easy to get by without doctors and lawyers. If you want to know where your money is going, look at health costs and look at insurance costs.
Of course, no one doctor or lawyer is as rich as Bezos or Gates. But collectively, they are a much greater expense to the average person than the billionaires. You make the billionaires rich when you buy a computer or order something on Amazon, which is a voluntary act. But everyone is paying huge health insurance premiums every month, and the price of litigation is baked into every cost in the entire economy.
I'm not rich, not a Wall Streeter, and yet I still don't want Warren as our candidate. Like Sanders, she seems convinced that we can have broad-based social programs (health, higher education, etc.) without broad-based taxes. But no country does that; the social democracies of Europe rely heavily on the Value Added Tax to pay for generous social benefits, for example. A policy that relies on a few extremely wealthy (and therefore extremely powerful) people to pay nearly all the cost for services the do not need is inherently unstable. Social Security and Medicare have strong public support because beneficiaries have paid into them, so have ownership. Even if Warren could pass her spending programs and wealth tax to pay much of the cost (big if--is a wealth tax even constitutional?), it would be easy to dismantle the next time Republicans won control of the government. There are more sensible candidates in profusion.
7
@Patrick Grasso
I agree that there are mot sensible candidates, but they are not going to win the nomination. Warren probably will, and she's far more sensible than Sanders and probably more electable than Biden.
She is also smart. Like every successful Presidential candidate, she will pivot towards the center after winning the nomination (do you remember Trump promising no tax cuts for anybody earning over $250K?).
And she is a dyed-in-the-wool capitalist.
I prefer half a dozen Democratic candidates to Warren. But Hickenlooper is already gone, and neither Bullock (my first choice), Bennet, Booker, Castro et al will be nominated.
But if Warren is nominated, she will win. And her actual economic policies will be left of Obama but right of Sanders.
Dan Kravitz
28
So what if taxes go up? If that means we aren’t paying through the nose for health care or doing without, I’m ok with paying more in taxes. Those premium payments, sky high deductibles & surprise medical bills all going away will make up for the increased taxes & be much fairer, as most of the burden of high deductibles & other health care costs falls on those with the least ability to pay.
13
@Dan Kravitz Immigration will be her achilles heel. And she is not "likeable enough" with working whites.
Warren never should have obtained a faculty appointment based on a dubious claim of minority ethnicity. But that ethical lapse pales in comparison to the ethical Hades in which Trump revels.
She will scare Wall Street because she knows how regulation is done. She is not some bumbling naïf; she knows how to carve out Wall Street’s sordid underbelly, and they are right to fear it. It’s not just a few million dollars here or there at risk; it is a whole system of duping investors and regulators, and she has the competence and will to get at it.
20
@Michael McLemore
I bet when the dust dries down the 1% won't even notice anything different. Do they really need that fifth or sixth home? But for us, the other 99%, it would probably be a game changer and we would notice it.
22
@Michael McLemore Just one point of correction: She did not obtain a faculty appointment on basis of ethnic identity. That has been thoroughly investigated and debunked. I agree -- and she certainly does now -- that she shouldn't have identified as Native American. But she didn't gain anything because of it.
29
She earned her faculty position on her academic merits! And her tenure by publishing and being a talented teacher.
9
This is perhaps the shallowest analysis possible. It's not just the taxes. It's about power. Warren and Sanders Both propose ending the Power of the financial elite to dictate policy. Sanders was feared and loathed by the financial elite in 2016. But they were confident their poster child for corporate corruption would be the democratic party nominee. And we are where we are because of it.
This time around Sanders's naming and exposure of systemic corruption has put a name and a path to defeating the establishment (IE the financial elite) control of our politics. That means the Cloobeck-bros can go hose themselves when it comes to demanding policy outcomes from the party. Policy outcomes that are against the interests of workers and average Americans when it comes to Cloobeck's personal financial interests. In essence they have admitted the corruption of the democratic party. I am disappointed in Krugman. This article is either a deliberate misdirection toward the trivial or it is missing the significance of this publicity.
These threats are Yuge. Not because we should fear them abandoning the party but because they have brought out into the daylight the very taint that keeps voters away from the party. Limousine Liberals are real and use the party to thwart real progressive policy. The fight between republicans and democrats is (relatively) small potatoes. The real fight is whether we have an actual representative democracy or functional rule by the financial elite.
18
I have lot of respect for Warren’s brilliance. She did an incredible job building the Consumer Protection Agency. However, she lost my respect as she joined the chorus of other wannabe candidates offering free education, free this, free that. She is brilliant, but lacks political maturity. General electorate is very different than winning support from so called leftists. Bernie gave us Trump and he is doing that again by forcing the primary candidates to take extreme positions which will cost democrats Presidency in 2020. She may win the primary - but she will be a toast during the general election. Wish she was pragmatic to understand the true needs of the voters.
7
@Rm Bernie didn't give us Trump. Non-voters gave us Trump.
And start listening to the candidates themselves instead of commentators TELLING you what they want you to think the candidates stand for.
No one is saying we will get "free stuff" out of thin air. Just that the tax rates will be more equitable so we can go BACK to a lot of the "free stuff" we got in the 1950s, like virtually free state college education, city and county parks and recreations departments that really functioned and had summer programs, public schools that had art and music supplies and field trips that weren't paid for by selling wrapping paper and candy.
If the military can get billions of dollars for "free stuff", why can't the American people?
31
@Anise Woods The "military" are part of the American people. I am not defending what Ike called the military industrial complex, but it does create a lot of jobs. Just saying.
@Rm, majority of Bernie followers voted for Hillary came out in full force, that too. The ones who stayed back were Hillary’s own, when she didn’t campaign in WI MI and PA and took them for granted.
2
Warren proposed cure is worse than the disease. It will create suffocating amount of moral hazard and reduce insensitive to produce and innovate. Look at what some of these policies have done to CT. It turned booming, zero income tax state - into jobless, high tax ghetto with stagnating economy, inadequate public schools, and collapsing housing market. It does not work: been there, tried that.
5
@Alice Check out Kansas for the ultimate Republican way to run things. Disaster.
2
Unrelated. Inapposite.
Imagine if she brings back the United States Postal Savings System? Actual competition and real capitalism! Boggles the mind.
24
@Tim
She isn't promoting that nor signed onto the candidate who wrote the danged bill Bernie Sanders.
The Candidate backed by the Postal Workers.
2
Spot on with this article. I look forward to the excesses being reined in by Warren and normal people having a chance at a stable, comfortable life.
100
@Hannah From the number of recommends for this post (congratulations) I can only assume Trump will be re-elected.
Tax the rich? When they convinced half the people taxing them would be theft? And what about trickle down. The rich get richer so we could get richer. Some truth to that. It kind of works like that in the EU. They don't tax corporations and the wealthy like we don't. The wealth actually trickles down to the tax payers though the tax payer. If you have nothing at least you have great government benefits and not so great housing.
Try to the convince the American people to pay higher taxes like the Europeans do. The ones that have everything need to believe they worked for it. There's more money in the stock market and real estate than paying taxes.
2
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
An entire career studying how the middle class have been cheated by financial institutions.
She is the best candidate for our times, the second Gilded Age.
Warren 2020.
630
@Gustav, aww even her puppy Bailey wears a leash that says Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
precious bailey.
2
Elizabeth Warren will never be elected president.
The country is not ready to elect another academic who has all the answers for everybody... in theory. We need stability now, not a government takeover of ... everything.
Slow down already. What little changes has Warren made in Congress? She really should start there if she wants a bigger job on her plate.
Krugman might be a good economist, but he doesn't understand the American people as a whole, or our culture or politics.
7
@Midway
Obama never claimed to have "all the answers for everybody", and he never signed ANY "government takeover into law.
As to Warren: she created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, that has already shifted millions of dollars back from big banks to ordinary citizens who became victims of fraud. Since when is that a bad thing, or something that would lower rather than increase "stability" ... ?
And Obama's cutting of Bush's $1.4 trillion deficit by two thirds, and his creation of a decade-long steady economic growth (turning Bush's -8% GDP into a 2% GDP that remain the case until today), is clearly a MUCH better example of stability than what the GOP is doing to America today.
Conclusion: time for you to start doing some fact-checking, imho ...
188
@Midway
This piece isn't about Warren's election prospects; it's about the wrath of the ultra-wealthy toward her and that makes it an interesting read.
45
@Midway
Because you're not aware of the changes she made that's your short coming. But if you mean she has not proposed legislation which is innocuous that 'Moscow Mitch would allow a vote on it, I agree.
The qualifications to be a good Senator do not overlap with the Qualification to execute policy as a president.
14
We are at a demographic crossroads that is bigger than even our current crisis with Trump or the 2020 elections. Whites will soon become a majority minority. And economic inequality is reaching historic levels. These two trends threaten the exalted status of our wealthy. The Supreme Court put a thumb on the scales for the rich and powerful with Buckley v Valeo and Citizens United. And the Court just removed all restrictions on extreme gerrymandering. But even those antidemocratic decisions will not be not be enough to maintain the privileged status of the wealthy few. The 2020 election will is the last stand of the wealthy against the tide of history.
25
There is a lesson in 1932 -33, as a savvy NY lawyer, Ferdinand Pecora, created the Pecora Commission that held prolonged hearings in Congress on the excesses that Wall Street indulged in that were causes of the great depression. Basically the Glass Steagall was written out of those hearing. The hearing subpoenaed many financiers and laid out the excesses that begged for a solutions.
A properly conducted congressional hearing can inform public opinion and made remedies self evident. Pecora was a master at keeping his eye on the ball so to speak, suppressing the grandstanding of opposition politicians and exposing the egregious practices that nearly killed Capitalism. The 2008 recession never had such a learning experience and Wall Street got of with a slapped wrist.
Parenthetically I hope Adam Schiff studies Ferdinand Pecora approach.
74
It seems extremely hard to argue that money matters in presidential general elections other than as a proxy for people who will support you or volunteer. Seeing an advertisement 10 times is probably just as effective as seeing it 100. Both sides get plenty of cash to campaign a lot in a few states and a little in many more.
What could make money completely dominate presidential general elections? Eliminating the Electoral College.
Given than most of the leading candidates are over 70 and our population is aging, this change might also kill one of the contenders most years, which I guess would make money matter less. So mortality is an offsetting factor.
3
@Alan
Why can't we ditch the electoral college AND have public campaign financing. No donations to anyone.
35
Another example here of the idea of moving forward but being yourself. If Warren is the most electable candidate at the days end and makes the ticket why let some other entity make you change your mind about what you think are the right things to do. History is a good place to look for some things and the rise of F.D.R is a very good place for todays Dem's to look. At least in his time there was the pioneering use of broadcast (radio) media and he did connect.
19
Remembering how Dr. K disdained Bernie in 2016, I nearly flipped on reading this near endorsement of Elizabeth Warren - another version of Bernie, only more measured and personable, and therefore a better candidate.
He needn't worry about the Wall Streeters' fractured egos. It was after all their nemesis FDR who saved capitalism from itself. The capitalists did just fine with top tier tax percentages in the 90s, under which the nation prospered, until Lewis Powell's 1971 memo to the US Chamber of Commerce reawakened their dormant greed. The results are plain for this generation to see - a public sector eroded to the point of being dysfunctional, undermined labor rights, and a grotesque wealth gap.
20:55 EDT, 9/30
83
@mancuroc There's a more significant difference between Sanders and Warren than the two you identify, and I believe it's the reason why Krugman had/has little use for Sanders and had become increasingly impressed by Warren. Sanders is indeed a crotchety scold who's obsessed with taking down 'the billionaire class,' but apart from some recent belated efforts at making actual policy proposals regarding issues raised by other Democratic candidates, he lacks detail and substance even about his pet issues. Warren is quite the opposite, to the point that it's the biggest gag so far in this otherwise fraught prelude to the 202 election. She's got so much substance that one begins to wonder if she created a policy-making factory that runs on autopilot while she's out taking literally thousands of selfies with her supporters. Or that she has a double having all the fun as she churns out all the wonkish stuff in the stacks of a university library.
22
@mancuroc
Your "knowledge" of Warren must come from main stream media because the differences between are stark. Sanders is a socialist and Warren is a capitalist is probably the most important difference. She wants to modify, he wants to change the system. Dr K recognizes that difference.
10
@Ron M
Not too many Bernie supporters here, thanks for speaking up!
Capitalism is inherently flawed as growth threatens to burn the planet down.
Too late for tinkering, the whole system needs to change immediately.
4
What scares the burdensome-regulation-go-low-on-taxes crowd even more than any of her possible policies is that she, like Pres. Truman, can explain what got them there and why these policies, laws, and attitudes havn't been good for everyone else.
What many of them may also dread is the idea of a revitalized IRS, with enough agents to make them come clean.
And some may even be aware that the last two Harvard-type presidents who appealed to "the masses", as this group refers to the lower 9x%, were FDR and JFK.
30
@Grennan
An excellent point that people do not mention often enough. The most effective changes may be staffing up and holding to high standards all areas of federal law enforcement and regulators. That probably terrifies some of the super wealthy far more than any proposed new rules could.
24
@Alan
For some reason the Dems have never been hep enough to call out the exaggerations, stinkbombs, and other inaccuracies tossed out by the GOP and right.
The best recent example was the Obama-era issue about nonprofits--the Dems didn't explain that the IRS was seeing whether the nonprofits formed by people who spoke and wrote about using nonprofits to pay less tax were in fact using their nonprofits to pay less tax.
The only thing remotely politically-tinged about it was that folks who advocate using nonprofits to pay less tax are usually not Democrats.
9
Any American wage or salary earner who doesn't see Warren as the only candidate who is not only passionately committed to their well being but also has on deck the programs that will improve their lives needs to have their eyes examined.
260
@Phillip Usher
We don't trust her.
She will do/say anything to advance herself. Hence the strong pushback that she is Cherokee when it advantaged her.
What exactly has Warren done for the country for all her years in Congress? Enriched herself. She's fake, and most non-elite voters see right through that.
We just can't afford another academic like Obama, who made promises, enriched himself, but didn't really help the people he purported to represent. She, like Hillary Clinton, won't win. What plays to the East Cost does not play nationally. She's another divider, not a unifier. If we wanted Bernie Sanders, we'd vote for him, not the female copycat version...
10
@Midway Well, we could start with CFPB. The consumer protection agency the current White House occupant's handlers have been trying to strangle since January 2017.
36
@Midway: We can thank Warren for the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, which returned more than $12B to some 29M consumers and collected almost $600M in civil penalties in the years before Trump brought in Mick Mulvaney to cut it off at the knees. I'd say, for that alone, she has done a lot for the country.
32
Whether Warren will win the Democratic nomination has yet to be determined. But if she wins the nomination (and I am hoping that she does) and she loses the election because of the ability of the ultra rich to in effect purchase the opposing candidate, they along with everyone else will one day woe their decision.
The rise of Trump results from the lack of opportunities facing the average working American. Warren recognizes this and realizes that the uber rich have been funding the Republican party for quite a while now.
As Warren has said, even the rich need the average American to become wealthy.
What these uber rich fail to realize is that they also benefit from living in a democracy and if that democracy falls asunder, they have the most to lose.
50
This shouldn’t be surprising. The corporatist supporters of the Democratic Party aren’t necessarily interested in the liberal principles of the Democrats, but rather are interested in protecting the entrenched pro-corporate interests in the Democratic Party.
24
Dr. Krugman, I'm a fan of yours but beware of psychological arguments. Please leave those to someone else; you're an economist. What the justly popular candidacies of Warren and Sanders show, which the uber wealthy recognize, is that class warfare is well on its way, as it should be. I'm very happy to have those two in the vanguard.
24
I fully support Elizabeth Warren and would be happy if she wins the primary. But I just have to say that part of her appeal is that she is not Bernie, anyone but Bernie. The hatred by mainstream media and big business and the elite in DC is staggering and so out of proportion to anything he offers. Should Elizabeth win the Nomination, the elite will turn on her unless she can be bought. Bernie has been fighting for the people for 40 years and for the same causes, thirty years ago he was promoting gay marriage. He will not succumb to the corruption and so the elite know he will change the system that they have paid a lot of politicians to rig in their favor. He must not win. By the way, mainstream always applauds Biden or Warren when they are number one in the polls, but not Bernie, he was number one in Utah. Read that anywhere? Lagging behind Huh? I would be happy with Warren, but feel safest with Bernie being president for defeating the greedy plutocrats and their need to create greater and greater disparity in wealth distribution.
24
@cheerful dramatist
Bernie is too controversial, and comes across as unlikeable. His legislation record is not nearly as great as his rhetoric. It's Warren for me.
7
@Dr. M He is to the left of Warren I will grant you and only in this country is he controversial, in the other civilized countries with single payer and higher tax rates for the rich and good gun control he would fit right in and be applauded for his tenacity and courage and modesty. He is for me.
8
@Dr. M,
You hit the nail on the head. If you want real change, you are going to have to be controversial. Sanders is not going to get done half of what he proposes, but he will fight for it. Warren is already signaling that she is is compromising on some positions. Why compromise before you get to the negotiations? This is why there isn't significant movement on so many issues. The ACA was a step in the right direction, but there is so much more needed. Likewise climate change.
5
I think the line "with great wealth comes great pettiness" sums it up rather succinctly.
233
Warren is not an electable candidate. Her proposals are borderline insane and have minuscule chance of ever becoming a law. She is not trying to bring a divided country together, but rather seek to divide us even further. Most people don't trust the government and don't want to implement Scandinavian system. Make America better not bitter.
10
@Alice "She is not trying to bring a divided country together" Exactly how do you suggest appealing to DT's base?
38
@Alice - Do you think you could please explain to us unwashed masses why Warren's "proposals are borderline insane"?
Is it possible that people do not trust government because folks like Warren are NOT running it today? Her proposals are doing very well in the pools.
For example, look at her wealth tax which would pay for the other plans. In the latest Hill-HarrisX survey, 64 percent of registered voters said that they would support such a plan.
And frankly, as eisweino points out, how can you persuade Trump voters of anything that will move the country forward?
47
@Alice
It's always interesting that those who claim not to trust the government have a habit of voting for the least trustworthy candidates.
42
The super-rich believe they are immune from existential threats like climate change because they can pick up and find a more pleasant place to survive. They are not worried about totalitarian regimes because they think they will fit right in and do well. Look at the history of the Krupps; they are making out just fine again. They are only worried about having to share the planet with unworthies, except for having them as servants.
55
When most Wall Streets profits come from the "too big fail" guarantee and user fees, what else can the fat cats do, but hate Elizabeth Warren?
She's declaring that their not geniuses, but thieves. Which is insufferable, even if it didn't end up costing anyone money.
59
This is spot on. For most of the wealthy, let alone the very wealthy, nothing that Warren proposes, let alone anything anything that Obama ever did, threatens their right to go out and purchase that extra Bentley whenever so moved by whim. No, the animosity they direct at Warren has to do with deep emotional insecurity that senses a threat whenever anyone suggests that they aren't inherently entitled to their positions of priviledge. No small portion of their attachment to the game of amassing obscene wealth also derives from the 'score keeping' aspect of the whole thing: 'I got more toys than you, neener, neener, neener.'
111
"Petty Plutocrats" indeed, Mr. Krugman. Warren has always stood out of the pack for holding big banks accountable, as they should be. She gets it. I'm happy Liz Warren is gaining momentum, any DINOs considering a vote for Trump should be publicly shamed — simply repulsive and unAmerican.
113
@Brunella
She said she’d take corporate money. Wall Street isn’t scared of Warren at all.
2
@Ellen
Bernie and Warren are equally awesome. They should run on the same ticket. I wouldn't care who at the top.
Tearing down Warren to get Bernie is just dividing people who are on the same side. Unite the Left to beat the Right.
Warren is not corrupt. Stop accusing her.
4
Good of you to worry about their bruised egos, poor babies.
16
Republicans are apoplectic about Elizabeth Warren because she was once like them, then broke away. She was from a conservative background and a deep red state before having a political epiphany. None so dangerous to the GOP as one who has walked away from them and their ideology.
77
Not only is prosperity admirable, but in many US religious conventions, holy as well. Attacking wealth isn't just attacking egos but, in many minds, their eternal souls.
5
The real problem for Democrats is that Mr. Trump has a united party behind him, Democrats do not. His support doesn't depend on a laundry-list of freebees promised to dozens of interest groups. Democrats can't see politics any other way, to them it's just a series of calculations. It's a mystery to them how Mr. Trump can retain such solid support without Democrat-style vote-buying--he's drawing his support from a deeper well than they are.
5
@Ronald B. Duke
Trump accesses and accepts the deep well of resentment and hate of his base. He appeals to their fears and incites violence. So, yes iit is a mystery to Democrats why people would vote for destruction and negativity, rather than for someone who is trying to make our country more fair to all and our planet survivable.
4
@Ronald B. Duke
He's drawing his support from Russia and the electoral college, not the voters.
2
@Ronald B. Duke - What is this well? The Well of Racism?
4
Honestly, I think it’s all about the money; “imperial self-esteem” comes in at second place (although it certainly is there). It’s all about relative worth; even if you have more money than you know what to do with, you always want to look good compared to your wealthy neighbors.
It seems to me that a key point will be driving Trump ever more crazy over the next several months with the impeachment inquiry, in the hopes that he will continue to make serious errors, more and more. Nancy Pelosi is a strong woman who knows how to do that. So is Elizabeth Warren.
Trump is not calling the shots; he never has been. Not in any substantive way. He is just a high-level street thug. Putin and McConnell are doing the heavy lifting. And they are both far smarter than Trump. They are also far more dedicated to fundamentally changing the American political landscape.
We need to support the candidate who can free us from the insanity of Trump and his Republican cronies. I still think Biden has the best chance to win with Middle America. But I also think Warren would make the better president.
When November 2020 finally arrives, we cannot stay home. We need to vote for the Democratic presidential nominee and for Democrats for Congress. That must remain our principal goal.
41
@Blue Moon
Are the opinions of theDemocratic Establishment more important than the qualifications of the candidate. The Democratic establishment has promoted candidates who are far removed from the electorate. Biden, the protector of the financial services industry is just another uninspiring candidate. They chose Clinton who was a poor candidate because she appeared secretive and an agent of Wall Street. That is not just my opinion but of people who I know who could not vote for her and in some cases actually voted for Trump. Let's not go down that road again. Has everyone forgot that Biden is blunder prone.
2
@Ron M
Actually, I don't think Putin or McConnell advised Trump to launch into the Australia and Ukraine affairs right after the Mueller report came out; Trump's arrogant narcissism is to blame for that.
4
Many Trump 2016 voters might be glad to trade the phony populist for the genuine article.
Should Warren get the nomination, and Trump is still in office, (fingers crossed,) that would be a good way to play it.
"Wall Street hates Warren" could be an appealing slogan.
33
Dr. Krugman, Where would we be without you? You give us hope and reason. Love, One of your many fans.
39