

The Angry Rich - terra_t
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/20/opinion/20krugman.html?src=me&ref=general

======
zzzmarcus
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.

~~~
knowtheory
I think you're mostly right but not quite all the way there.

These people are basically being told that they've hit their limit. Society
has hit it's limit. They have been reaching for the American dream, and by
everyone else's standards they've achieved it. But they think, as society's
golden children, that they shouldn't have to make any sacrifices on their
journey (while asking everyone else to sacrifice to bail them out).

That's really what it is. They're being told they can't have everything, and
they are apoplectic about it, and are taking it out on the bearer of that
message. It's kind of a sad temper tantrum. Unfortunately it may drag America
back into the mire from which Culture Warriors like Sarah Palin and Bill
O'Reilly plan their verbal asymmetric warfare.

The really galling part about all of this nonsense (at least when it comes to
bankers) is the notion that they weren't complicit in creating the situation
that we're in, that requires everyone to cut back. This isn't something that's
being done to them. This is a direct result of the consequences that our
society chose to do, two wars, massive tax cuts to the wealthy, all deficit
spending. This has a good explanation:
[http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2010/09/in-which-mr-deling-
res...](http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2010/09/in-which-mr-deling-responds-to-
someone-who-might-be-professor-todd-henderson.html)

~~~
jacoblyles
You are aware that the main audiences for Palin and O'Reilly aren't exactly
ivy league silver spooners, right? And that their audiences in general opposed
the bailouts? You are lumping together everyone that doesn't agree with you
and attributing to them positions that they do not hold.

------
thyrsusmaximon
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
Oh, so it is ok to take away what someone else's earnings because you know
better than they do?

~~~
niels_olson
In a complex society with specialized occupations like "entrepreneur",
"economist" and "congress-critter"? Yes. BTW, how's DARPAnet working for you
these days?

~~~
viggity
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.

------
jacoblyles
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.

~~~
hristov
Then you should perhaps point out the good arguments of the other side.

~~~
jacoblyles
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.

~~~
evgen
Too many different logical fallacies and false premises here to even start, so
we will just jump straight to the end:

> most rich people vote Democrat, so his entire argument [...] is questionable
> to start with.

Not even close to correct. Gender, age and state of residence are good proxies
for voting patterns, but none is better than wealth/income. The rich, as a
class, support republican candidates. The basic rule is that rich states vote
Democrat, rich people vote Republican.

~~~
jacoblyles
>Too many different logical fallacies and false premises here to even start

Keep in mind that I am merely stating that an argument exists, an not making
it per se. I am questioning Krugman's rhetorical strategy of assuming that no
reasonable disagreement exists.

The only data I can find puts people making over $125,000 as 46% Democrat and
51% Republican in 2004[1]. Of course, this was before the banner Democratic
years of 2006 and 2008 when Barack Obama beat McCain in campaign contributions
3 to 1 among employees of large Wall Street banks.

So you're right, it more even than I thought. Rich people probably went
Democrat in 2008 and may swing Republican again in what is shaping up to be a
huge year for team GOP.

[1]Ugly google
link:[http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&s...](http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&sqi=2&ved=0CBsQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nd.edu%2F~cwolbrec%2FPartyID.pdf&ei=IeyXTJnHKdDuOaiUvOwM&usg=AFQjCNEzmQ3F8E5-KLgn8hfPpM66lfqJIw&sig2=ssFkh3gYdEKGdKvxzZjUoA)

[2]-[http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&...](http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=n00009638)

-[http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&...](http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=n00006424)

~~~
evgen
$125K/year may be "rich" in Kansas, but is lower middle class in California.
Try breaking the data out on a state-by-state level and the pattern becomes
blindingly obvious: those at the top of the per-state income scale vote
Republican, regardless of which state they are in. (And the reason Dems picked
up all those Wall St. contributions was because Wall St. is not stupid and
knew which way the wind was blowing; bankers knew it was better to try to buy
a bit of leniency than annoy the people who would be writing the new financial
regulations)

The authors of the book Red State, Blue State have all the data you need to
answer this question, and they helpfully blog various tidbits and state
breakdowns on various issues like this.

~~~
com
It is so not lower middle class in California.

While the couple earning that in the Bay Area may be doing it hard, the
difference between that and the lifestyle of the poor is immense.

There is a fairly thick layer (my bet is at least 35% of the population) of
middle class people between your Californians on $125k and hopelessly
hardscrabble folk on the breadline.

Edit: it looks like it might be a little higher percentage, actually, if we
extrapolate from old data from the 2000 census
<http://ccsre.stanford.edu/reports/report_13.pdf>

------
bradleyland
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
_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
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.

~~~
lutorm
It's true that if I had grown up in the US and not in Sweden, I might be more
tax-averse than I ended up being... There is a difference between what you get
_in practice_ for paying your taxes in the US and the _principle_ of taxation
in general.

One of the things that amaze/frustrate me about the US taxes is that noone
ever suggests that maybe the military budget could be cut by 50% or so...

~~~
nollidge
Oh, people suggest it often enough, but they're successfully shouted down
afterward (which is probably why you haven't really heard of them).

------
bediger
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
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?

------
nadadenada
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.

