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

71–80 of 82 posts

Re: The Angry Rich

#71

Post by zzzmarcus »

maigret wrote: post #55
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…

"dilution of their wealth through inflation"? Many statistics recently shown the riches have apparently never been that rich before: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/apr/25/rich-list-wea...

Sure, even though the rich have more dollars (or whatever currency) than ever, they are still affected by inflation.

Inflation means that can buy less with each dollar they have.

When the government adds to the currency without adding any actual value, usually by printing money, they're "inflating" the amount of currency available and actually making every existing dollar/pound worth less. It affects everyone, rich or poor.

It's a way of taxing without actually increasing taxes, and to my original point, rich people don't like it.

Re: The Angry Rich

#72

Post by evgen »

jacoblyles wrote: post #70
evgen wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 yea…

$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.

Re: The Angry Rich

#73

Post by com »

evgen wrote: post #72
jacoblyles wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 yea…

$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; bank…

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

Re: The Angry Rich

#74

Post by george_george »

mcantelon wrote: post #49
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…

>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. Statistically, the rich are getting richer. The middle class are the ones who should be angry as they are the demographic who have suffered the most economically in recent decades. This political cartoon nice…

The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer... but only in relative terms. In absolute terms, we're all getting richer.

It's pretty hard to argue that the lower classes are getting poorer when you compare what we had 50 or 100 years ago with what we have now: our houses are bigger, they have plumbing and electricity, they're filled with God knows how many gadgets and appliances, cars outnumber people, sugary and fatty foods that used to be considered luxuries are eaten in excess even in (or especially in) the lower classes.

We're definitely better off. If the middle classes are suffering it's because their own prosperity meant they never learnt to live within their means.

Re: The Angry Rich

#75

Post by Gormo »

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…

What does it mean to say "society has hit its limit"?

Re: The Angry Rich

#76

Post by Gormo »

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…

What are these structures of society that make it possible for people to succeed?

Society isn't some uniform, monolithic thing that exists in own right, that we either choose to participate in or not. Society is the product of actual relationships among real people. They don't depend upon external institutions as a precondition of cooperating toward mutual benefit, but establish those institutions as a consequence of doing so.

Everything we call 'society' is the result of people making the choice to interact with each other. From there, communities arise, customs emerge, and economies develop. But every tax, regulation, divisive political program, and every faction seeking to impose its narrow agenda on everyone at once just have the effect of raising the stakes of participating in society. They give people more to lose and more to fear in openly relating to others; people become less likely to form stable networks of trust and more likely to become isolated, disconnected, and paranoid.

When we so stridently pursue policies intended to 'upkeep' an abstract, taken-for-granted concept of society, we risk undermining the basis on which real, actual societies function.

Re: The Angry Rich

#77

Post by [deleted] »

zdw wrote: post #11
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 call BS on this. You were able to earn that money because: 1. You most likely live in a relatively free society most likely operating under the rule of law. 2. You were able to achieve what you did by "standing on the shoulders of giants". 3. You're most likely the recipient of an education provided by society that gave you the tools and opportunity to succeed. Now, if society says that "Because we've helped you be…

[deleted]

Re: The Angry Rich

#78

Post by mindcrime »

kenjackson wrote: post #26
CWuestefeld wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems to me like those who are voting this comment down are doing so not because the viewpoint it provides is wasting our time, or poorly expressed, or anything like that. This looks to me like nothing but shouting him down because you disagree with what he's got to say. In a case like this, I think you ought to win the battle through superior logic and rhetoric, not just by voting him down so nobody sees his thou…

You really think this is not a waste of time to read? "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." And given how extraordinary the claim is, there's not a single argument to support it. It seems like the definition of trolling. A well-reasoned argument for why we should either have no taxes or an extremely regressive tax system would b…

> And given how extraordinary the claim is, there's not a single argument to support it.

How is that an extraordinary claim?? I personally believe that it's so self-evident and obvious, that to argue otherwise would be the extraordinary position.

Re: The Angry Rich

#79

Post by lutorm »

Gormo wrote: post #76
lutorm wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What are these structures of society that make it possible for people to succeed? Society isn't some uniform, monolithic thing that exists in own right, that we either choose to participate in or not. Society is the product of actual relationships among real people. They don't depend upon external institutions as a precondition of cooperating toward mutual benefit, but establish those institutions as a consequence of…

What are these structures of society that make it possible for people to succeed?

How about enforcement of contracts, roads, and currency, to name the first three that came to mind?

But every tax, regulation, divisive political program, and every faction seeking to impose its narrow agenda on everyone at once just have the effect of raising the stakes of participating in society. They give people more to lose and more to fear in openly relating to others; people become less likely to form stable networks of trust and more likely to become isolated, disconnected, and paranoid.

I have no idea where you came up with this. It's empirically falsified just by looking at which of the populations of low-tax, laissez-faire America and high-tax, social democrat Western Europe is the most disconnected and paranoid...

Re: The Angry Rich

#80

Post by maigret »

zzzmarcus wrote: post #71
maigret wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"dilution of their wealth through inflation"? Many statistics recently shown the riches have apparently never been that rich before: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/apr/25/rich-list-wea...

Sure, even though the rich have more dollars (or whatever currency) than ever, they are still affected by inflation. Inflation means that can buy less with each dollar they have. When the government adds to the currency without adding any actual value, usually by printing money, they're "inflating" the amount of currency available and actually making every existing dollar/pound worth less. It affects everyone, rich o…

Late response... I understand the inflation, but poor people are not less affected by the inflation that the rich. Rich people can invest in more inflation-protected goods, like gold or houses. Poor people can't, they're directly hit by price increases of food or movie theaters.
Post reply on HN