Take Ben Stein for instance. The guy is pissed off. And yet, he was born to a presidential advisor and had quite the head start in life. He'll never see it that way mind you. But I'm pretty sure his own father would disagree with his latest rants. Don't take my word for it, read this:
http://www.progressive-economics.ca/2006/06/09/adam-smith-di...
[T]he people who wear the Adam Smith tie are not doing so to honorliterary genius. They are doing so to make a statement of their devotion to the idea of free markets and limited government. What stands out in WofN, however, is that their patron saint was not pure or doctrinaireabout this idea. He viewed government intervention in the market with great skepticism. He regarded his exposition of the virtues of the free market as his main contribution to policy, and the purpose for which his economic analysis was developed.
Yet he was prepared to accept or propose qualifications to that policy in the specific cases where he judged that their net effect would be beneficial and would not undermine the basically free character of the system. He did not wear the Adam Smith necktie.
These cases were numerous, and some of them are surprising. I give here a list, certainly incomplete, largely derived from Viner’s article on Smith written for the sesquicentennial of the WofN. (The parentheses are mine.)
The government could legitimately do the following:
– Protect the merchant marine and give bounties to defense-related manufacturing industries.
– Impose tariffs on imports in order to bargain for reduction of tariffs by other countries.
– Punish, and take steps to prevent, dishonesty, violence and fraud. (Does this include the SEC, and would prevention of violence justify measures to assist ghetto youth?)
– Establish indicators of quality of goods, such as the sterling mark for silver. (Does this justify the Food and Drug Administration, the Federal Trade Commission and the Consumer Product Safety Commission?)
– Require employers to pay wages in cash rather than in kind. (Could the government conversely require employers to pay part of wages in the form of health benefits?)
– Regulate banking.
– Provide public goods, such as highways, harbors, bridges and canals. (What about railways, airlines?)
– Run the post office. (Also telephone, the information highway?)
– Grant patents and copyrights.
– Give a temporary monopoly to a trading company developing commerce in new and risky regions. (Is this industrial policy, managed trade?)
– Require children to have a certain level of education.
– Provide protection against communicable diseases.
– Require the streets to be kept clean. (Environmentalism?)
– Set a ceiling on interest rates.
– Impose discriminatory taxation to deter improper or luxurious behavior.
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 nicely counters the rich's complaints about tax burden:
I would attribute the recent anger of the rich, and their tea party proxies, more to greed than rational self-interest. I see the present greed as irrational because it creates the potential of political blowback that will likely imperil the greedy in the long term.
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.
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 them out).
That's really what it is. They're being told they can't have everything, and they are apoplectic about it, and are taking it out on the bearer of that message. It's kind of a sad temper tantrum. Unfortunately it may drag America back into the mire from which Culture Warriors like Sarah Palin and Bill O'Reilly plan their verbal asymmetric warfare.
The really galling part about all of this nonsense (at least when it comes to bankers) is the notion that they weren't complicit in creating the situation that we're in, that requires everyone to cut back. This isn't something that's being done to them. This is a direct result of the consequences that our society chose to do, two wars, massive tax cuts to the wealthy, all deficit spending. This has a good explanation: http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2010/09/in-which-mr-deling-res...
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.
Except the government tends to heavily subsidize the rich. I'd be happy to get rid of taxes, earmarks, bailouts, pork, etc. I don't expect that to happen without the aid of a collapse, though.
"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 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.
Krugman believes that the government can, and will, spend money in a way that benefits society as a whole more than the people who earned it would if they were allowed to keep it. The rich disagree.