Privilege, Pathology and Power: Wealth can be bad for your soul.

[Photographer]

Paul Krugman writes...

Wealth can be bad for your soul. That’s not just a hoary piece of folk wisdom; it’s a conclusion from serious social science, confirmed by statistical analysis and experiment. The affluent are, on average, less likely to exhibit empathy, less likely to respect norms and even laws, more likely to cheat, than those occupying lower rungs on the economic ladder.

And it’s obvious, even if we don’t have statistical confirmation, that extreme wealth can do extreme spiritual damage. Take someone whose personality might have been merely disagreeable under normal circumstances, and give him the kind of wealth that lets him surround himself with sycophants and usually get whatever he wants. It’s not hard to see how he could become almost pathologically self-regarding and unconcerned with others.

So what happens to a nation that gives ever-growing political power to the superrich?

Modern America is a society in which a growing share of income and wealth is concentrated in the hands of a small number of people, and these people have huge political influence — in the early stages of the 2016 presidential campaign, around half the contributions came from fewer than 200 wealthy families. The usual concern about this march toward oligarchy is that the interests and policy preferences of the very rich are quite different from those of the population at large, and that is surely the biggest problem.

But it’s also true that those empowered by money-driven politics include a disproportionate number of spoiled egomaniacs. Which brings me to the current election cycle.

<snip>

Worth the read: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/01/opinion/privilege-pathology-and-power.html?ribbon-ad-idx=6&src=trending&module=Ribbon&version=origin&region=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Trending&pgtype=article

[ryan_cats]

1. Yet

Yet a Nobel does wonders for your credibility.

[LittleBlue]

2. Poor article by his standards

And it’s obvious, even if we don’t have statistical confirmation, that extreme wealth can do extreme spiritual damage.

Paul, what's a spirit? And what use are generalizations after admitting you have no objective proof to back this up?

The rich are looking out for their own self-interest, the same as almost every other living creature.

Undoubtedly the worst article I've ever read from him. Is the NYT really going to the clickbait model?

[Igel]

3. Krugman should win the Nobel Prize.

For the completely novel and innovative insight that power corrupts.

Well, only certain kinds of power corrupts, and even then it apparently only corrupts certain kinds people. Krugman himself is obviously immune to such corruption, as are those of like mind with him. /snark off/


Actually, there's a bit more to it: If you're ego-maniacal and narcissistic, you're going to present yourself as confident and capable. You believe yourself to be confident and capable. Others accept this self-assessment, and most often will assume that you are capable and will make a good leader so they give you power. And that further corrupts you.

So people very often voluntarily set up narcissists and ego-maniacs as their leaders. Ideally, two things happen: (1) this error can be rectified as soon as it's noticed and (2) people are clear-eyed when it comes to identifying crappy leaders that they've set up.

Sadly, (1) is sometimes difficult to do--election cycles and such being what they are. And the fact that leaders control the levers of power and most often use them to preserve power and, when possible, extend their power. After all, they're confident that they're good and confident that they have the capability of using power for good things. That's true from a garbage truck supervisor to Mao and Stalin and Hitler.

Worse, (2) is even harder to do, since to admit error is to be humiliated, to come to recognize one's error quickly is un-human, and often once we humans set up leaders we protect and defend those symbols and those that wield power in ways that benefit us (whoever else it may hurt).

[brer cat]

4. Exhibit A

would be the parents of Ethan Couch.