7 ms·

The Angry Rich

61 points by terra_t 16y ago

thyrsusmaximon 16y ago
The Economist (a magazine that is very pro-business) had an interesting article recently about social psychology experiments that showed that the rich are less able to enjoy the day to day pleasures of life. And this effect also happens among people temporarily made relatively rich (say given $100) or even just shown pictures of money. The need of our economic system to keep people consuming creates advertising indoctrination that pulls our attention away from what really satisfies: Day to day relationships with other people and the details of our life. Excess wealth is more a matter of aggressively possessing things that other people don't have than enjoying those things for themselves. It leads to an empty narcissism that leaves the rich unsatisfied and without empathy for the victims of their greed. And frustrated and angry and in search of scapegoats.
- viggity 16y ago
  Oh, so it is ok to take away what someone else's earnings because you know better than they do?
  - niels_olson 16y ago
    In a complex society with specialized occupations like "entrepreneur", "economist" and "congress-critter"? Yes. BTW, how's DARPAnet working for you these days?
    - viggity 16y ago
      I'm happy to pay (reasonable) taxes for needs that cannot be easily serviced by private industry. That isn't what my post was about. The post I was replying to was trying to insinuate that having "excess wealth" leads to being unhappy and therefore (in the context of the OP) it is ok to tax the rich more because it will make them happier in the end. And that is a bullshit reason for taxing someone.
- CapitalistCartr 16y ago
  I've known several dozen wealthy people and none of them are like that. Not one. All of them were older, and paid little attention to the 'consumer culture' that advertising promotes. Most of that advertising was through channels that target the young (under 45) crowd because they are the ones best influenced by it.
bediger 16y ago
For a while last year, and into this year, the Denver Post newspaper would put a little side-bar by Krugman columns, advising people that the "Cafe Hayek" web site could provide an anti-dote to Krugman's editorial. They did this for no other editorials. After reading this column, I finally understand why.
- pmb 16y ago
  And yet, I am confused. I read lots of right-wing op-eds and left-wing op-eds. Why would this particular more-left-than-right op-ed deserve to be treated differently?
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
bradleyland 16y ago
Krugman makes me so angry, not as someone who is rich, but as someone who understands the difference between earned and entitled: "... consisting of people who feel that things to which they are entitled are being taken away." If I am rich in America, chances are that either I, or my family before me, earned the money in the most effective free market known. I'm not saying it's perfect, but it's the best we've got. The assertion that I should be able to keep what I have earned is not entitlement. Entitlement is the assertion that I have a right to something, without regard for effort or trade. I am entitled to keep what I have earned. Taking my earnings is a moral wrong. There is no two ways about it. It is no more right to take a dollar from a man who has a hundred of them than it is to take a dollar from a man who has one.
- lutorm 16y ago
  I am entitled to keep what I have earned. Taking my earnings is a moral wrong. There is no two ways about it. It is no more right to take a dollar from a man who has a hundred of them than it is to take a dollar from a man who has one. Just to be clear, you are stating your moral opinion. There is nothing inherent about these opinions. Just like my opinion that if you are rich you have likely benefited disproportionately from and made use of the structures of society that made it possible for you to get rich, and as such it's perfectly reasonable to ask you to contribute from your wealth to the upkeep of society is also just an opinion. And speaking of moral wrongs, what about the moral obligation to help people those who are less fortunate?
  - il 16y ago
    I just want to point out that most of the taxes you pay in the US do not go to the upkeep of society you may benefit from (which we can define as schools, police, education, etc). Most of your tax money either goes to propping up a bloated military-industrial complex, maintaining bases overseas, counterterrorism ops, foreign aid to oppressive regimes, etc etc. If you're a pro-tax liberal you're probably against high defense spending, but you're perfectly happy to keep funding it with your tax dollars. Just food for thought. EDIT: If you want to quibble, the majority of discretionary spending is military(not counting Social Security/Medicare). Since that's where your income tax dollars go, it's a reasonable argument to make.
jacoblyles 16y ago
Krugman is such a hack. He never acknowledges the good arguments of the other side. Always makes it seem like the other side is full of drooling selfish evil idiots. Can't stand reading the man's columns.
- olegk 16y ago
  So you think it's great that rich get taxed at 15% and the poor/middle class at roughly 30-40%? I'm pretty sure among you and Krugman, you're a hack.
  - sokoloff 16y ago
    A significant portion of the poor are taxed well below 15% on a average basis, with a non-trivial fraction below 0%. I'd be hard-pressed (as would you) to concoct a "poor" person's tax return with an average rate of roughly 30-40%.
- hristov 16y ago
  Then you should perhaps point out the good arguments of the other side.
  - jacoblyles 16y ago
    While this is a general problem with Krugman, and not a problem specific to this column, people who disagree with higher rates of taxes on the rich would do so for the following reasons: 1) Efficiency concerns: decentralized allocation of capital versus political allocation of capital 2) Business cycle concerns: raising taxes in a recession was one of the things done during the Great Depression, and there's a reason it lasted 12 years. 3) Fairness concerns: The rich already give about half their income to government (depending on the state and the method by which they earn their income). How much is too much? 4) Revenue concerns: the income of the rich is highly volatile, and so is the revenue of a country that depends on heavily progressive taxation. 5) Long term economic growth concerns: Capital is more mobile than ever, and people will prefer to invest in countries with lower taxes, ceteris paribus. 6) The Laffer Curve: it has an inflection point. I'm not saying the anti-taxers are right, but any honest commentator should acknowledge that some arguments exist on the other side. But in Krugman's world, people only disagree with him because of personality flaws (angry, selfish, myopic, stupid, etc.). I can't stand the man's smug self-righteousness which he keeps regardless of how mainstream or controversial his opinion on the topic at hand. The man sold his soul to democratic socialism a long time ago to the point he pretends that no other valid worldview exists. I can't think of a single economics columnist who is more partisan or who treats his opponents with less regard. In particular, this article scans like a college newspaper op-ed. It is a simple Rah Rah piece for his side. It could have been written by a campus Marxist group. "Look at the poor rich folks, struggling to pay for their private schools and limosines". Gosh Mr. Krugman, with such incisive commentary I can see why you got that Nobel. And of course he forgets to mention that most rich people vote Democrat, so his entire argument that the rich are "angry" is questionable to start with.
zzzmarcus 16y ago
I don't think it's any mystery why the rich are angry. Whether it's right or wrong, they see it this way: "I've spent my entire life working to build wealth. I've sacrificed and it's paid off. Now I'd like to use my wealth in the way I see fit. Whether that's spending it, saving it, investing it or giving it away, it should be my decision, not a government planner's decision." Again, right or wrong, that is how the rich view the situation when they are facing increased taxes and dilution of their wealth through inflation. Whether you agree with it or not, it's not hard to understand. Krugman believes that the government can, and will, spend money in a way that benefits society as a whole more than the people who earned it would if they were allowed to keep it. The rich disagree.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- binspace 16y ago
  > Krugman believes that the government can, and will, spend money in a way that benefits society as a whole more than the people who earned it would if they were allowed to keep it. The rich disagree. Except the government tends to heavily subsidize the rich. I'd be happy to get rid of taxes, earmarks, bailouts, pork, etc. I don't expect that to happen without the aid of a collapse, though.
- vtnext 16y ago
  Another trigger for the uproar these days is the fear that Krugman and his ilk are allowed to conduct grand social experiments with the economy. Many see huge economics experiments like the Great Moderation as the cause of our ills, and expect the worst from risky proposals from economists and politicians.
- 9oliYQjP 16y ago
  Most of the rich people I have met who are "self-made" don't actually feel that angry. It's the rich people that were born into wealth who are pissed off. Take Ben Stein for instance. The guy is pissed off. And yet, he was born to a presidential advisor and had quite the head start in life. He'll never see it that way mind you. But I'm pretty sure his own father would disagree with his latest rants. Don't take my word for it, read this: http://www.progressive-economics.ca/2006/06/09/adam-smith-did-not-wear-an-adam-smith-necktie/ http://www.progressive-economics.ca/2006/06/09/adam-smith-di... [T]he people who wear the Adam Smith tie are not doing so to honorliterary genius. They are doing so to make a statement of their devotion to the idea of free markets and limited government. What stands out in WofN, however, is that their patron saint was not pure or doctrinaireabout this idea. He viewed government intervention in the market with great skepticism. He regarded his exposition of the virtues of the free market as his main contribution to policy, and the purpose for which his economic analysis was developed. Yet he was prepared to accept or propose qualifications to that policy in the specific cases where he judged that their net effect would be beneficial and would not undermine the basically free character of the system. He did not wear the Adam Smith necktie. These cases were numerous, and some of them are surprising. I give here a list, certainly incomplete, largely derived from Viner’s article on Smith written for the sesquicentennial of the WofN. (The parentheses are mine.) The government could legitimately do the following: – Protect the merchant marine and give bounties to defense-related manufacturing industries. – Impose tariffs on imports in order to bargain for reduction of tariffs by other countries. – Punish, and take steps to prevent, dishonesty, violence and fraud. (Does this include the SEC, and would prevention of violence justify measures to assist ghetto youth?) – Establish indicators of quality of goods, such as the sterling mark for silver. (Does this justify the Food and Drug Administration, the Federal Trade Commission and the Consumer Product Safety Commission?) – Require employers to pay wages in cash rather than in kind. (Could the government conversely require employers to pay part of wages in the form of health benefits?) – Regulate banking. – Provide public goods, such as highways, harbors, bridges and canals. (What about railways, airlines?) – Run the post office. (Also telephone, the information highway?) – Grant patents and copyrights. – Give a temporary monopoly to a trading company developing commerce in new and risky regions. (Is this industrial policy, managed trade?) – Require children to have a certain level of education. – Provide protection against communicable diseases. – Require the streets to be kept clean. (Environmentalism?) – Set a ceiling on interest rates. – Impose discriminatory taxation to deter improper or luxurious behavior.
nadadenada 16y ago
Here in Spain rich people are not angry, the gov don't want to increase taxes because rich people will fly away, so they are who pay less, why should they be angry? Pensioners should be the angry people, they will see their pension be lower each year (and nowadays it is extremely difficult to pay for food with an average pension) just to help government to reduce its deficit. They don't have lobbies and this year is not time for election so put more weight on the back of poor old people this is just the face of justice.

61 points by terra_t 16y ago

The Economist (a magazine that is very pro-business) had an interesting article recently about social psychology experiments that showed that the rich are less able to enjoy the day to day pleasures of life. And this effect also happens among people temporarily made relatively rich (say given $100) or even just shown pictures of money. The need of our economic system to keep people consuming creates advertising indoctrination that pulls our attention away from what really satisfies: Day to day relationships with other people and the details of our life. Excess wealth is more a matter of aggressively possessing things that other people don't have than enjoying those things for themselves. It leads to an empty narcissism that leaves the rich unsatisfied and without empathy for the victims of their greed. And frustrated and angry and in search of scapegoats.

viggity 16y ago
Oh, so it is ok to take away what someone else's earnings because you know better than they do?
- niels_olson 16y ago
  In a complex society with specialized occupations like "entrepreneur", "economist" and "congress-critter"? Yes. BTW, how's DARPAnet working for you these days?
  - viggity 16y ago
    I'm happy to pay (reasonable) taxes for needs that cannot be easily serviced by private industry. That isn't what my post was about. The post I was replying to was trying to insinuate that having "excess wealth" leads to being unhappy and therefore (in the context of the OP) it is ok to tax the rich more because it will make them happier in the end. And that is a bullshit reason for taxing someone.
CapitalistCartr 16y ago
I've known several dozen wealthy people and none of them are like that. Not one. All of them were older, and paid little attention to the 'consumer culture' that advertising promotes. Most of that advertising was through channels that target the young (under 45) crowd because they are the ones best influenced by it.

bediger 16y ago

For a while last year, and into this year, the Denver Post newspaper would put a little side-bar by Krugman columns, advising people that the "Cafe Hayek" web site could provide an anti-dote to Krugman's editorial. They did this for no other editorials. After reading this column, I finally understand why.

pmb 16y ago
And yet, I am confused. I read lots of right-wing op-eds and left-wing op-eds. Why would this particular more-left-than-right op-ed deserve to be treated differently?

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

bradleyland 16y ago

Krugman makes me so angry, not as someone who is rich, but as someone who understands the difference between earned and entitled: "... consisting of people who feel that things to which they are entitled are being taken away." If I am rich in America, chances are that either I, or my family before me, earned the money in the most effective free market known. I'm not saying it's perfect, but it's the best we've got. The assertion that I should be able to keep what I have earned is not entitlement. Entitlement is the assertion that I have a right to something, without regard for effort or trade. I am entitled to keep what I have earned. Taking my earnings is a moral wrong. There is no two ways about it. It is no more right to take a dollar from a man who has a hundred of them than it is to take a dollar from a man who has one.

lutorm 16y ago
I am entitled to keep what I have earned. Taking my earnings is a moral wrong. There is no two ways about it. It is no more right to take a dollar from a man who has a hundred of them than it is to take a dollar from a man who has one. Just to be clear, you are stating your moral opinion. There is nothing inherent about these opinions. Just like my opinion that if you are rich you have likely benefited disproportionately from and made use of the structures of society that made it possible for you to get rich, and as such it's perfectly reasonable to ask you to contribute from your wealth to the upkeep of society is also just an opinion. And speaking of moral wrongs, what about the moral obligation to help people those who are less fortunate?
- il 16y ago
  I just want to point out that most of the taxes you pay in the US do not go to the upkeep of society you may benefit from (which we can define as schools, police, education, etc). Most of your tax money either goes to propping up a bloated military-industrial complex, maintaining bases overseas, counterterrorism ops, foreign aid to oppressive regimes, etc etc. If you're a pro-tax liberal you're probably against high defense spending, but you're perfectly happy to keep funding it with your tax dollars. Just food for thought. EDIT: If you want to quibble, the majority of discretionary spending is military(not counting Social Security/Medicare). Since that's where your income tax dollars go, it's a reasonable argument to make.

jacoblyles 16y ago

Krugman is such a hack. He never acknowledges the good arguments of the other side. Always makes it seem like the other side is full of drooling selfish evil idiots. Can't stand reading the man's columns.

olegk 16y ago
So you think it's great that rich get taxed at 15% and the poor/middle class at roughly 30-40%? I'm pretty sure among you and Krugman, you're a hack.
- sokoloff 16y ago
  A significant portion of the poor are taxed well below 15% on a average basis, with a non-trivial fraction below 0%. I'd be hard-pressed (as would you) to concoct a "poor" person's tax return with an average rate of roughly 30-40%.
hristov 16y ago
Then you should perhaps point out the good arguments of the other side.
- jacoblyles 16y ago
  While this is a general problem with Krugman, and not a problem specific to this column, people who disagree with higher rates of taxes on the rich would do so for the following reasons: 1) Efficiency concerns: decentralized allocation of capital versus political allocation of capital 2) Business cycle concerns: raising taxes in a recession was one of the things done during the Great Depression, and there's a reason it lasted 12 years. 3) Fairness concerns: The rich already give about half their income to government (depending on the state and the method by which they earn their income). How much is too much? 4) Revenue concerns: the income of the rich is highly volatile, and so is the revenue of a country that depends on heavily progressive taxation. 5) Long term economic growth concerns: Capital is more mobile than ever, and people will prefer to invest in countries with lower taxes, ceteris paribus. 6) The Laffer Curve: it has an inflection point. I'm not saying the anti-taxers are right, but any honest commentator should acknowledge that some arguments exist on the other side. But in Krugman's world, people only disagree with him because of personality flaws (angry, selfish, myopic, stupid, etc.). I can't stand the man's smug self-righteousness which he keeps regardless of how mainstream or controversial his opinion on the topic at hand. The man sold his soul to democratic socialism a long time ago to the point he pretends that no other valid worldview exists. I can't think of a single economics columnist who is more partisan or who treats his opponents with less regard. In particular, this article scans like a college newspaper op-ed. It is a simple Rah Rah piece for his side. It could have been written by a campus Marxist group. "Look at the poor rich folks, struggling to pay for their private schools and limosines". Gosh Mr. Krugman, with such incisive commentary I can see why you got that Nobel. And of course he forgets to mention that most rich people vote Democrat, so his entire argument that the rich are "angry" is questionable to start with.

zzzmarcus 16y ago

I don't think it's any mystery why the rich are angry. Whether it's right or wrong, they see it this way: "I've spent my entire life working to build wealth. I've sacrificed and it's paid off. Now I'd like to use my wealth in the way I see fit. Whether that's spending it, saving it, investing it or giving it away, it should be my decision, not a government planner's decision." Again, right or wrong, that is how the rich view the situation when they are facing increased taxes and dilution of their wealth through inflation. Whether you agree with it or not, it's not hard to understand. Krugman believes that the government can, and will, spend money in a way that benefits society as a whole more than the people who earned it would if they were allowed to keep it. The rich disagree.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
binspace 16y ago
> Krugman believes that the government can, and will, spend money in a way that benefits society as a whole more than the people who earned it would if they were allowed to keep it. The rich disagree. Except the government tends to heavily subsidize the rich. I'd be happy to get rid of taxes, earmarks, bailouts, pork, etc. I don't expect that to happen without the aid of a collapse, though.
vtnext 16y ago
Another trigger for the uproar these days is the fear that Krugman and his ilk are allowed to conduct grand social experiments with the economy. Many see huge economics experiments like the Great Moderation as the cause of our ills, and expect the worst from risky proposals from economists and politicians.
9oliYQjP 16y ago
Most of the rich people I have met who are "self-made" don't actually feel that angry. It's the rich people that were born into wealth who are pissed off. Take Ben Stein for instance. The guy is pissed off. And yet, he was born to a presidential advisor and had quite the head start in life. He'll never see it that way mind you. But I'm pretty sure his own father would disagree with his latest rants. Don't take my word for it, read this: http://www.progressive-economics.ca/2006/06/09/adam-smith-did-not-wear-an-adam-smith-necktie/ http://www.progressive-economics.ca/2006/06/09/adam-smith-di... [T]he people who wear the Adam Smith tie are not doing so to honorliterary genius. They are doing so to make a statement of their devotion to the idea of free markets and limited government. What stands out in WofN, however, is that their patron saint was not pure or doctrinaireabout this idea. He viewed government intervention in the market with great skepticism. He regarded his exposition of the virtues of the free market as his main contribution to policy, and the purpose for which his economic analysis was developed. Yet he was prepared to accept or propose qualifications to that policy in the specific cases where he judged that their net effect would be beneficial and would not undermine the basically free character of the system. He did not wear the Adam Smith necktie. These cases were numerous, and some of them are surprising. I give here a list, certainly incomplete, largely derived from Viner’s article on Smith written for the sesquicentennial of the WofN. (The parentheses are mine.) The government could legitimately do the following: – Protect the merchant marine and give bounties to defense-related manufacturing industries. – Impose tariffs on imports in order to bargain for reduction of tariffs by other countries. – Punish, and take steps to prevent, dishonesty, violence and fraud. (Does this include the SEC, and would prevention of violence justify measures to assist ghetto youth?) – Establish indicators of quality of goods, such as the sterling mark for silver. (Does this justify the Food and Drug Administration, the Federal Trade Commission and the Consumer Product Safety Commission?) – Require employers to pay wages in cash rather than in kind. (Could the government conversely require employers to pay part of wages in the form of health benefits?) – Regulate banking. – Provide public goods, such as highways, harbors, bridges and canals. (What about railways, airlines?) – Run the post office. (Also telephone, the information highway?) – Grant patents and copyrights. – Give a temporary monopoly to a trading company developing commerce in new and risky regions. (Is this industrial policy, managed trade?) – Require children to have a certain level of education. – Provide protection against communicable diseases. – Require the streets to be kept clean. (Environmentalism?) – Set a ceiling on interest rates. – Impose discriminatory taxation to deter improper or luxurious behavior.

nadadenada 16y ago

Here in Spain rich people are not angry, the gov don't want to increase taxes because rich people will fly away, so they are who pay less, why should they be angry? Pensioners should be the angry people, they will see their pension be lower each year (and nowadays it is extremely difficult to pay for food with an average pension) just to help government to reduce its deficit. They don't have lobbies and this year is not time for election so put more weight on the back of poor old people this is just the face of justice.