
Our Invisible Rich - smacktoward
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/29/opinion/paul-krugman-our-invisible-rich.html
======
rverghes
5 days ago Paul Krugman said the problem was that our rich were flaunting
their wealth.[1] Barely a week later, the problem is that the rich are
invisible.

[1] [http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/09/24/having-it-and-
fl...](http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/09/24/having-it-and-flaunting-
it/)

~~~
hristov
You should read the article you linked to more carefully. Krugman does not
criticize the flaunting of wealth at all. He is responding to an article from
David Brooks who criticized the flaunting of wealth.

Krugman's point is that David Brooks' criticism of the flaunting of wealth
does not jibe with Brooks opposition of progressive taxation.

Whatever else you may think of Krugman, he is a pretty smart guy and if you
want to try to find flaws in his arguments you should try to pay careful
attention to what he actually says.

~~~
MarkCancellieri
First he says:

"...for many of the rich flaunting is what it’s all about...So it’s largely
about display..."

Then he says:

"...the truly rich are so removed from ordinary people’s lives that we never
see what they have."

So I guess Krugman thinks that the rich flaunt their wealth for no reason,
since ordinary people never see it.

~~~
Ma8ee
They flaunt it for other rich people to see. They don't care about the rest.

~~~
MarkCancellieri
Who cares what the rich see?

Krugman is just a ridiculous hack.

------
BryanBigs
Inequality is increasing WITHIN Western societies because inequality is
DECREASING on an Earth-wide basis. The graph here shows the results in more
detail. ([http://blogs.worldbank.org/developmenttalk/the-real-
winners-...](http://blogs.worldbank.org/developmenttalk/the-real-winners-and-
losers-of-globalization))

If you are cool with the morality or utility argument that you need to take
from the haves within a country to help the have-nots/increase velocity of
money/etc., it seems to me you should at least be pre-disposed to do the same
on a world-wide basis where the inequality/need is much greater. And if you
are reading this in the US, the rich is you. Roughly $32k a year in income
makes you a one-percenter on a worldwide basis.

------
nazgulnarsil
I'm still waiting to see a justification for anti-inequality talk other than
asserting it as a moral imperative. What is the economic justification for
more aggressive taxation?

~~~
freehunter
If the country is broke, you don't get more money by taxing people without
money. If the country needs more money, ask the people who have some to spare.

~~~
smacktoward
And even if the country _isn 't_ broke, the principle still stands; if you put
the tax burden on those who can least afford it, they pay it by cutting back
on what they spend on consumer goods and services, which slows the overall
performance of the economy.

------
bwanab
For whatever reason Krugman chose to highlight the article by MacDonald. The
part of the article that had the most impact was bringing attention of Michael
Harrington's book, "The Other America" to President Kennedy. That book, for
better or worse was largely the impetus for LBJ's Great Society.

------
foobarqux
I was hoping this article was going to provide some insight into the "private"
rich -- people who are rich but don't report their income publicly -- which
would have been far more interesting.

------
lorddoig
It's important to remember that if someone's taking home a billion dollars in
pay - and they're not on the public payroll or run a monopoly/oligopoly
enabled by legislation (like, ooh, banking?) - then said person has almost
certainly contributed a staggering amount to a nation's GDP. _These_ rich
people aren't the enemy, they're national treasures.

~~~
panarky
> _and they 're not on the public payroll or run a monopoly/oligopoly enabled
> by legislation_

Aside from Larry and Sergey, who is making a billion dollars a year and does
not fit this exception?

~~~
lorddoig
Kind of the point...

