Hearing that billionaires are no happier than the rest of us makes me a little happier.It’s a corrupt society that produces them, and an ill-fated one that admires them. I met someone who was reputedly one himself, and had a nice trip on his yacht. He had a lot of pretty women aboard, but a lot of heart problems too, so I guess the scales balanced out. I never knew an unhappier man, because he was too rich to do what he really wanted.
I wouldn’t want to be Elon Musk for five seconds. He must be the unhappiest man alive, as well as one of the most dangerous. But then, Citizen Kane explained all that to us. As does Donald Trump, for those who no longer go the movies.
I don't think Krugman has a blind spot. He's obviously smart enough to know that money always creates insecurity. If there is a blind spot, it's the fact that the billionare class will only miss that non-life threatening deduction from their income for a split second if they're taxed more, the lawsuits being their 'work' and their need for self -justification. In the meantime, the other 98% of the world population -many of whom have no recourse to a lifetime of financial security - are in many cases surprisingly secure in coming to terms with the daily world of interaction with others whom they love and care for, and who care for and love them. A small thing such as a reduced medical cost for an illness or prescription, or assistance in fixing a leaking roof can bring them - and the world - a much more secure future.
After reading your (as usual) well-written argument, I can't help but think that you missed Krugman's big point, made in several of those quotes:
"When you have that much money, will another dollar really make you happier?"
Judging from some of the cases you bring up in response to Krugman, the opposite is the case: more money brings with it more sadness and anxiety.
I do recall seeing an academic study that, as you noted, did find that money does buy happiness — up to a point. At the time the study was run, that point was somewhere just south of $90,000 a year. Beyond that, every extra dollar produced diminishing returns until more money bought nothing other than more stuff.
I think Krugman, even if he is smug about being right, is more right than wrong when he suggests taht billionaires really don't need the money.
You wrote, “To Paul Krugman, I say: Perhaps, as you contend, the super-rich have no rational reason to feel threatened. But they do. And maybe they don’t need tax cuts for economic reasons. But they do need them for psychological reasons.”
But the psychological reasons are irrational. These people may feel threatened but there is no significant threat.
Well, Dan, this an educated and wide ranging discussion, well written and detailed, but mostly off the mark. Who cares if Paul Krugman overlooks some of the "animal spirits" of insecurity and paranoia, not to mention self serving "libertarianism" that motivates the very rich? He articulates the macroeconomic harms that excess concentrated wealth causes to all of society pretty well. He does not mind criticizing fellow economists for finding ways in their very ideologically based, rationalizing profession to justify the new robber barons who are impoverishing all of us. The solution to paranoid, unhappy, and insecure wealth (think DJT as well) is political and should not be left to mere economists. Krugman is merely the messenger, and a good one at that. It is up to us to curtail this rape of society.
From reader Eric Young:
I am more of a Milton Friedman guy myself, probably owing that to my Libertarian leanings. Friedman won the Nobel in 1976.
I always enjoy your writing, even when I do not agree.
From reader Robert Zaller:
Hearing that billionaires are no happier than the rest of us makes me a little happier.It’s a corrupt society that produces them, and an ill-fated one that admires them. I met someone who was reputedly one himself, and had a nice trip on his yacht. He had a lot of pretty women aboard, but a lot of heart problems too, so I guess the scales balanced out. I never knew an unhappier man, because he was too rich to do what he really wanted.
I wouldn’t want to be Elon Musk for five seconds. He must be the unhappiest man alive, as well as one of the most dangerous. But then, Citizen Kane explained all that to us. As does Donald Trump, for those who no longer go the movies.
From reader Rick Snyderman:
I don't think Krugman has a blind spot. He's obviously smart enough to know that money always creates insecurity. If there is a blind spot, it's the fact that the billionare class will only miss that non-life threatening deduction from their income for a split second if they're taxed more, the lawsuits being their 'work' and their need for self -justification. In the meantime, the other 98% of the world population -many of whom have no recourse to a lifetime of financial security - are in many cases surprisingly secure in coming to terms with the daily world of interaction with others whom they love and care for, and who care for and love them. A small thing such as a reduced medical cost for an illness or prescription, or assistance in fixing a leaking roof can bring them - and the world - a much more secure future.
From reader Len Lear:
Compassion for billionaires?
What a novel idea.
After reading your (as usual) well-written argument, I can't help but think that you missed Krugman's big point, made in several of those quotes:
"When you have that much money, will another dollar really make you happier?"
Judging from some of the cases you bring up in response to Krugman, the opposite is the case: more money brings with it more sadness and anxiety.
I do recall seeing an academic study that, as you noted, did find that money does buy happiness — up to a point. At the time the study was run, that point was somewhere just south of $90,000 a year. Beyond that, every extra dollar produced diminishing returns until more money bought nothing other than more stuff.
I think Krugman, even if he is smug about being right, is more right than wrong when he suggests taht billionaires really don't need the money.
You wrote, “To Paul Krugman, I say: Perhaps, as you contend, the super-rich have no rational reason to feel threatened. But they do. And maybe they don’t need tax cuts for economic reasons. But they do need them for psychological reasons.”
But the psychological reasons are irrational. These people may feel threatened but there is no significant threat.
Well, Dan, this an educated and wide ranging discussion, well written and detailed, but mostly off the mark. Who cares if Paul Krugman overlooks some of the "animal spirits" of insecurity and paranoia, not to mention self serving "libertarianism" that motivates the very rich? He articulates the macroeconomic harms that excess concentrated wealth causes to all of society pretty well. He does not mind criticizing fellow economists for finding ways in their very ideologically based, rationalizing profession to justify the new robber barons who are impoverishing all of us. The solution to paranoid, unhappy, and insecure wealth (think DJT as well) is political and should not be left to mere economists. Krugman is merely the messenger, and a good one at that. It is up to us to curtail this rape of society.