Writing for the New York Times recently, economist Paul Krugman once again demonstrated that a Nobel Prize does not necessitate rational thinking. In a characteristically over-the-top opinion column, “The Angry Rich and Taxes,” Krugman enumerated and denounced the evils of the “very privileged.”
Granted, Krugman is known for his vitriolic and fiercely partisan columns, and he has no compunction with regard to fervidly expressing his political inclinations (his blog is appropriately titled “The Conscience of a Liberal”), but Krugman’s recent piece concerning the reaction of the “wealthy” to slated tax increases transcends the limits of mere self-expression – it represents the promotion of a caustic and counter-productive attitude for our society. In fact, the primary motivation of this particular work appeared not to be a reasonable discussion of the “Bush Tax Cuts” (which, in his defense, appeared as a subtext), but rather an attack on the character of just about any household with a high annual income.
Based on his beliefs concerning personal and social responsibility, Krugman’s worldview and policy suggestions are not fundamentally irrational (though certainly debatable). The issue in this instance, however, is that Krugman applies unfair platitudes without thought to the collateral damage.
In the recent column, the “rich” are categorically mocked and portrayed as greedy and insensitive for taking measures to pressure Congress to extend the tax cuts offered to all income levels at the beginning of the Bush presidency. While individuals toward the top of the income distribution that have reacted strongly, perhaps to the point of overreaction, to signs of future tax obligations, Krugman exploits the natural human propensity to protect one’s welfare, criticizing those drives in the successful and ignoring the same impetuses in the rest of the population.
For instance, he implicitly argues that moves by specific wealthy individuals are indicative of a broader campaign, propagated by the country’s top earners, which seeks to greedily protect their interests. As a qualifier, I am neither endorsing nor denouncing the specific taxes in question. That said, the rational acts of self-expression by the “rich” are no more malignant or parsimonious, and perhaps less so, than, say, strikes by certain labor or professional unions. Additionally, Krugman fails to provide any evidence that egocentric behavior is positively correlated with increased economic resources. Based on personal observation, self-interest is an aspect of the human condition that is not limited to any particular subculture or socioeconomic class. In short, in a period marked by political polarization and ideological divide, Krugman employs unduly divisive tactics in an attempt to promote his agenda.
Perhaps more disconcerting even than Krugman’s unwarranted tirade is the broader trend toward the demonization of well-to-do citizens and businesses for the purpose of political expediency. Despite constant insinuations (and occasionally explicit claims) to the contrary from leaders in public office, large corporate entities and economically successful individuals are not inherently negative or destructive. Admittedly, the same selfishness seen at the level of an individual can manifest itself in business, but the majority of consequences – including innovation, services provided, and employment growth – stemming from profit-seeking should be cultivated and encouraged, not vilified and stifled.
So, while Krugman ridicules the “wealthy” for concerns of affording tuition payments, and public figures of every inclination rip at the social fabric for their own ends, it’s important to realize that ultimately we are all in the same proverbial boat; and although poking holes in the bottom of the vessel may garner attention, our country’s social and economic progress is accelerated by concerted, united action and hindered by unnecessarily acrimonious provocations of class conflict.
Nate Nicholas is a Weinberg junior. He can be reached at [email protected].
