Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Angry Rich

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 82 posts

Re: The Angry Rich

#61

Post by chromatic »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #39
zdw wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the goal is to create economic activity... - Taking actions that result in rich people having more money is more likely to result in them saving or investing it, and not in them going out and spending it right now. - Taking actions that result in someone who is just scraping by having more money is more likely to result in them spending that money right now. If the goal is to get the economy moving again, I tend t…

Taking actions that result in rich people having more money is more likely to result in them saving or investing it Ummmm. What do you think that saving and investing are? Surely the rich guy isn't saving by stashing the money under his mattress, or he wouldn't have gotten rich in the first place. Perhaps he's putting the money in the bank, in which case it's going to be used to underwrite someone's mortgage, or some…

Surely the rich guy isn't saving by stashing the money under his mattress....

Perhaps Krugman is simplifying for those of us who don't have degrees in economics, but he's suggested multiple times that rich people who "save" their money somehow take that capital out of circulation.

Re: The Angry Rich

#62

Post by tomhoward »

lutorm wrote: post #9
bradleyland wrote: post #6

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. T…

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 disproportion…

To suggest that taxation equals help for those less fortunate and is therefore a moral obligation is a non-sequitur, particularly in this age of bailouts of banks and car companies.

Even if it wasn't, no moral obligation is being satisfied when such "help" is forcibly extracted.

Further, it can be convincingly argued that such forcible extraction and wasteful reallocation of wealth reduces many people's capacity and willingness to voluntarily help those less fortunate.

Re: The Angry Rich

#63

Post by jacoblyles »

hristov wrote: post #15
jacoblyles wrote: post #7

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.

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

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.

Re: The Angry Rich

#64

Post by joev »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #39
zdw wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the goal is to create economic activity... - Taking actions that result in rich people having more money is more likely to result in them saving or investing it, and not in them going out and spending it right now. - Taking actions that result in someone who is just scraping by having more money is more likely to result in them spending that money right now. If the goal is to get the economy moving again, I tend t…

Taking actions that result in rich people having more money is more likely to result in them saving or investing it Ummmm. What do you think that saving and investing are? Surely the rich guy isn't saving by stashing the money under his mattress, or he wouldn't have gotten rich in the first place. Perhaps he's putting the money in the bank, in which case it's going to be used to underwrite someone's mortgage, or some…

The banks seem to have plenty of money sitting in their coffers to loan out. I've never heard of a (healthy) bank- even smaller neighborhood banks- run into trouble because the wealthy aren't stashing all their cash into their checking accounts.

After the IPO (and other secondary offerings), "the market" usually doesn't drive a corporation's funding. Companies can make some small out of money from releasing new stock, but not counting things like bond issuances (ie, borrowing from people or banks), they don't benefit from people playing the market.

That HDTV was probably built in China, not Japan. Even so, a lot of that money stays behind, in the distribution and retail channel. Someone's got to drive the trucks from the ports to the stores, for example.

Re: The Angry Rich

#65

Post by jacoblyles »

knowtheory wrote: post #44
zzzmarcus wrote: post #19

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 r…

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 t…

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.

Re: The Angry Rich

#66

Post by zzzmarcus »

kenjackson wrote: post #46
zzzmarcus wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, unfortunately you can always find example of people who really are bastards, but the examples come from both sides. On one hand you have Keynesians who want to screw the rich out of envy and spite and have no concern for the poor, or even worse, actually want to oppress the poor to keep them as their constituents. On the other hand, you have, like in your example, capitalists who think of the poor as an inferio…

But I do think that Krugman's position has some merit. Watch the Sunday morning shows. The argument that cutting taxes for the wealthiest is not about stimulating the economy. It's about doing what is moral for the wealthy. And if you read the comments in the right-leaning blogs, you'll see a LOT, if not the majority of comments being about how these taxes go to the worst in society -- poor, Blacks, Kenyans, communis…

I agree, part of the argument of the rich is that they "deserve" to keep their riches, but what the Sunday morning shows and right wing blog comments may not highlight (I don't watch those shows or read the blogs) is the complete argument for why the rich should keep their wealth, regardless of if they "deserve" to keep it.

Of course greed and self-interest is part of the motivation for making those arguments, but most free market economists and supporters truly believe that by allowing the rich to keep their wealth that all of society will benefit. Rich, poor, everyone.

You may disagree, lots of people do since at face value it is counter-intuitive, but my point is just that a lot, probably the majority of free market supporters, actually do have the benefit of all of society in mind. They'd say that the 4% increase in marginal tax rate would actually be detrimental to the poor. Again, you may have excellent arguments for why it is better for the government to take and spend that money, but they have logical counter-arguments.

Re: The Angry Rich

#67

Post by il »

jbooth wrote: post #59
il wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm just drawing a distinction. I would describe myself as an anti tax liberal.

Eh, I think both of those are silly framings. Nobody likes paying taxes. I'm a "pro balanced budget" liberal, and that meant that throughout the Bush years I was saying "Hey, we're gonna have to pay for these tax cuts eventually", while simultaneously saying "Hey, let's cut defense and homeland security spending because at least 1/2 of it is BS that doesn't make us safer." Not like I love the idea of paying more taxe…

If nobody likes paying taxes then, why don't we as a society legislate ourselves lower taxes and cuts in defense spending?

I believe there is a famous quote about that.

Re: The Angry Rich

#68

Post by kenjackson »

zzzmarcus wrote: post #66
kenjackson wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But I do think that Krugman's position has some merit. Watch the Sunday morning shows. The argument that cutting taxes for the wealthiest is not about stimulating the economy. It's about doing what is moral for the wealthy. And if you read the comments in the right-leaning blogs, you'll see a LOT, if not the majority of comments being about how these taxes go to the worst in society -- poor, Blacks, Kenyans, communis…

I agree, part of the argument of the rich is that they "deserve" to keep their riches, but what the Sunday morning shows and right wing blog comments may not highlight (I don't watch those shows or read the blogs) is the complete argument for why the rich should keep their wealth, regardless of if they "deserve" to keep it. Of course greed and self-interest is part of the motivation for making those arguments, but mo…

I don't disagree that a rate increase _might_ be a bad thing (although I don't think it is). But I do think, that as Krugman points out, this is not the current argument.

In Reagan's era they would pitch trickle down as how everyone benefits from these tax cuts. The actual stated goal was to make life better for everyone, but starting from the top.

The current stated goal from the right is that the rich deserve the money, and the poor do NOT deserve. Not that the tax cuts will have some side benefit to the poor. Rather that we need to keep the money out of the hands of the poor. This is why the constantly use the code word "welfare" when talking to their base.

Again, there is a very rational argument to be had here. In fact, I think a rational argument would be a very boring one for most people in the US. But I think the reason that everyone is up in arms is not due to their passion for capitalism. But rather I think there's a fundamental belief that there are certain groups of people unworthy of _their_ money.

Re: The Angry Rich

#69

Post by evgen »

jacoblyles wrote: post #63
hristov wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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…

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.

Re: The Angry Rich

#70

Post by jacoblyles »

evgen wrote: post #69
jacoblyles wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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 i…

>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...

[2]-http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&#38...

-http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&#38...

Post reply on HN