Posted on 02/18/2014 9:23:35 AM PST by nickcarraway
Harvard economist, occasional Republican economic adviser, and avid social Darwinist Greg Mankiw has produced the latest in his series of passionate defenses of the financial prerogatives of the ultrarich. In his most recent New York Times column, Mankiw begins with the relatively sympathetic case of gazillionaire actor Robert Downey Jr. Nobody is upset that Downey earned $50 million to appear in The Avengers, he posits. Therefore, Mankiw proceeds to argue, nobody should be upset with the incomes of other extremely rich people.
One sleight of hand in Mankiw’s column (as Paul Krugman points out) is his easy leap from the relatively unobjectionable way Downey earns his fortune to the way other executives — especially those in finance, who represent an enormous chunk of the very rich — earn theirs. If you don’t like Downey’s movies, you can choose not to attend them. If you don’t like the financial industry siphoning off your 401(k) or plunging the world economy into a massive crisis destroying trillions of dollars and ruining the lives of millions of people forever, you don’t have as much recourse.
Mankiw wants us to ignore the serious moral problems embedded in the rentier class – such as the Wall Street titans joking in secret gatherings about their reliance on bailouts – and think of the one percent as Iron Men, to whom we owe admiration and gratitude. But even if we consider Mankiw’s chosen example on its own terms, the Iron Man problem does not take us where Mankiw wants to go.
Mankiw presents Downey’s income as the perfect synecdoche for the debate over inequality: “Does his compensation strike you as a great injustice? Does it make you want to take to the streets in protest? These questions go to the heart of the debate over economic inequality, to which President Obama has recently been drawing attention.”
Actually, these questions are peripheral to the debate over income inequality. Obama is not proposing any laws that would prevent Downey from earning $50 million to appear in a comic-book movie.
The first step of my plan: partial expiration of the Bush tax cuts.
But there is somebody who considers Downey’s income a great injustice: Greg Mankiw. As Mankiw has insisted time and time again, Obama’s tax policies unfairly seize too great a share of Downey’s income and spend it on people less deserving than Downey. Indeed, Mankiw’s work suggests he believes society’s cruel exploitation of Downey and his economic peers is the single most compelling social wrong in the world today.
Have Obama’s confiscatory tax policies discouraged Downey from sharing his talents with the world? Apparently not — he is already filming another Avengers sequel. If we followed Mankiw’s urgings and reduced Downey’s tax rates, would he give us even more films? That seems hard to believe. Does Downey himself even begrudge his current tax burden? I don’t know the answer, but the fact that he donated to Obama’s reelection, the failure of which would have spared him from his current onerous rate, suggests he probably does not.
So what does Downey tell us about the inequality debate? Is the conclusion, as Mankiw implies, that because millions of people flock to his performances, that he should have more money?
The richest one percent, Mankiw informs those New York Times readers he considers too dense to grasp this fact, “contribute many millions in federal taxes, and other millions in state taxes. And those millions help fund schools, police departments and national defense for the rest of us.”
That’s nice. But the issue is that Mankiw thinks they’re contributing too much to fund schools, police, and national defense. The relevance of Robert Downey Jr. to the inequality debate is as follows: Mankiw and the party he works for propose that Downey (or his heirs) should enjoy finer luxuries than he currently does – a few more classic cars, perhaps another vacation home – and that the rest of us should either pay more to the government or get less from it.
Who’s paying for Obama’s “finer luxuries”, Chait-head?
This is an apples and oranges comparison. He’s comparing the rich as an individual (Robert Downey) with the rich as an industry (the finance industry). The better comparison would be comparing Hollywood with Wall Street. Each are equally dangerous.
“avid social Darwinist”
The left has a serious misunderstanding about what social Darwinism actually is.
They look at the evolution of species, and “survival of the fittest”, and understand that involves the death of the weaker individuals.
Then they extend that to sociology, and mistakenly believe that “survival of the fittest” means the death of the weaker individuals.
That’s simply wrong. Social Darwinism isn’t about the survival of the fittest individuals, but of the survival of the fittest behaviors. In this context, “survival of the fittest” means the death of the weaker behaviors.
It’s not the weaker individuals that social Darwinists want to die, but their self-destructive behaviors.
There is no such thing. People earn what they qualify for. IOW, what they are equal to. End of 'debate'...............................
I'm happy for him, he's a genuine nice guy in real life and except for the Obama donation (which I'm skeptical about, btw) I say more power to him. He' fully self supporting through his own contributions - Pass It On.
atc23 in Hollywood
YES! THe sophistry was startling!
Assuming Tony Stark was real, what some academic or journalistic leftist has to say is irrelevant.
Because liberalism has become such a sham, Tony has only to give enough to the Democratic Party to ensure his survival.
For the time being, anyway. If enough people who hated him gave to the DNC, he'd better watch his back (when he's not wearing his suit, anyway).
Excellent.
“If you don’t like the financial industry siphoning off your 401(k) or plunging the world economy into a massive crisis destroying trillions of dollars and ruining the lives of millions of people forever, you don’t have as much recourse.”
Jonathan can’t seem to quite figure out how they manage to do all of that, nor can he figure out who they support in politics. Maybe if we experience another 4 or 5 bubbles, he will start to figure it out. I doubt it. Jonathan is an emotionally driven little fool.
Hear hear!
“It’s not the weaker individuals that social Darwinists want to die, but their self-destructive behaviors.”
Exactly!
——and that is why the constant indoctrination to destroy Virtue (Excellence) in our children. This Flipping Good and Evil—and erasing Christian Ethics will destroy Virtue/Merit/Free Enterprise—that excellence and flourishing, that is only possible by being virtuous.
Individualism with Virtue is NOT conducive to slavery ever.
All they need to do is get rid of the “Negative Affirmation” votes and proxies. Then let the share holders take care of it.
Big Difference between A list actor, or A list athlete and an A list Executive of a public corporation.
Things you don’t know or may have suspected ... Board Members and CEO’s can be just as corrupt as the common beltway politician.
Read my sig.
when was the last time the left excoriated Soros?
Don’t look now, Jonathan Chait, but Obama wants to invest your retirement for you with his MyRA initiative. Good luck on that one! Out of the frying pan, into the fire.
When it comes to corruption, Obama is all about eliminating the middle-man and taking the business direct.
In private corporations and enterprises I would agree. In public corporations Common Shareholders are manipulated, lied to and tricked as much as the Electorate is.
Example: Around the 1990 Era, AT&T hired a CEO who fired 10k employees, closed down over 2 dozen business units over the course of 6 months, then stepped down for over $10M bonus plus his contracted compensation.
Executive compensation that requires a public shareholders vote should have their pay capped. There is way too much inbreeding in the corporate board world.
“survival of the fittest behaviors. In this context, “survival of the fittest” means the death of the weaker behaviors.”
And that’s why they hate it - because this allows natural consequences to occur for behavioral choices, and those consequences (and benefits) prove, in reality, that their worldview is absolutely wrong - all cultures are NOT equal, and there is one, especially, that works BEST.
How true.
Of course, the sole appeal of liberalism is to ensure a continuation of these selfsame weak and stupid behaviors by those in the base of the Democrat voting bloc to garner their votes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.