Tuesday, October 28, 2014
Plutocrats Against Democracy
http://seattletimes.com/html/opinion/2024865485_paulkrugmancolumnplutocratshongkong26xml.html DUE 3 NOV 2014. What reasons does Krugman state to support the claim that the wealthy fear democracy? What tactics do they use to relate this belief to the public? What is their goal? Do you believe that their fears are correct? Why or why not.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The reasons that Krugman state that support the claim that wealthy people fear democracy are because it will make the rich less rich and help those who lower incomes. Leung Chun-ying believes 50 percent of the population would vote for bad policies because they do not make enough money. Their goal is to cause the public to fear democracy as they do because they have a fear that the poor will vote for left-wingers who will tax the rich, hand out largesse to the poor, and destroy the economy.
ReplyDeleteTheir fears are incorrect because it has been proven in the past. Nations that are advanced are so because they had welfare states since 1940s. These welfare states have stronger support among their poorer citizens but they are not not suffering from tax and spend death spirals.
Krugman states that the wealthy fear democracy and he backs up this claim by giving a testimony from Leung Chun-ying, a politician in Hong Kong. Krugman also claims that the wealthy fear democracy because that would make "the rich less rich." The people who vote in a democracy are mostly the people with lower incomes who need more help but provide less for the country. Krugman organizes this article by first providing a background of the problem, then explaining what the problem is, and finally proposing several answers. The answers include propaganda, racial diversions, and making government policies fail. I do not believe their fears of becoming less rich are correct because of the fact that this scenario happened before, in the 1940's, when many countries were on welfare and their economy did not spiral down.
ReplyDeleteKrugman states that the wealthy are afraid of democracy and supports his statement by providing information from the "Beijing-backed leader of Hong Kong", Leung Chun-ying. She thinks that the population would vote for detrimental policies in the government that would make the wealthy lose money. People with lower incomes are stated to support the democracy's decisions. In turn, with lower incomes, they provide less for the country.
ReplyDeleteThe tactics that are used to spread the belief would be propaganda, racial diversions and affecting the government's policies. The goal is to is to cause the population to be wary about their decisions for a democracy, which could not only affect the wealthy but also those who have low incomes.
I believe that the wealthy's fear is incorrect because countries have become a lot more capable to situations similar to the welfare states in the 1940s. The welfare states showed the government and to the public that the economy did not suffer during the 40s where the states supported their poor.
To support his claim that the wealthy fear democracy, Krugman uses Leung Chin-ying's and Paul Ryan quotes and by saying that they believe democracy will make "the rich less rich." Leung thinks that people with lower income should not be able to vote because they would be in favor of "bad policies." Paul Ryan said that the lower 60 percent of earners are a threat, calling them "takers" implying that they receive more from the government than they contribute. These points all support Krugman's argument.
ReplyDeleteTo relate this belief to the public, they use propaganda, racial and ethnic divisions, and ensure that government programs fail. They relay this belief to voters using propaganda saying taxing the rich and assisting the poor will hurt the economy. Another strategy is using racial and ethnic divisions by saying that government aid only goes to "Those people" which is wildly false. A third strategy and perhaps the worst of all, is facilitating the failure of government programs or even causing them never to exist at all. Their goal is to undermine democracy and create government/government policy that favor the wealthy while disregarding the poor.
I believe that their fears are not correct in the slightest. As Krugman says that many states established substantial welfare systems in the 1940s, which have not failed. Welfare provides a minimal level of well-being and social support for all citizens yet Republicans try to sabotage this system. It is in no way right to refuse to allow poorer citizens to be unable to sustain the lowest standard of living when wealthy people have more money than they know what to do with. Their fears are rooted in their selfish desire and is simply irrational.
According to Krugman, the wealthy seems to fear democracy because it will support the individuals who have lower incomes while making the individuals with higher incomes less rich. Leung Chun-Ying states that 50% of the population would prefer to vote for the less preferable policies since they do not make enough money off their income. This is mainly because they wish to cause fear and panic in the public of democracy since the rich individuals have an intense fear that the poor individuals will vote for the left-wingers who will then start taxing the rich while also handing out largesse to the poor and also destroy the economy.
ReplyDeleteSome strategies that Krugman states that could be used to spread the belief include propaganda, racial distinctions, and making sure that government plans fail. These strategies have one common goal, which is to cause the entire population to be cautious about their decisions and votes for a democracy since it will affect both the rich individuals and poor individuals. In my opinion, their fears are incorrect because there have been many other countries that show how capable they are in handling these similar situations that involve welfare. These countries have proven that their economies did not suffer during the 1940s where their welfare programs supported the poor individuals.
Krugman states that the wealthy fear democracy because those that aren’t as wealthy can vote for policies and laws that would provide more benefits for them and fewer benefits for the rich. They say that low-income workers will vote to push all the taxes on the wealthy while taking whatever they want for themselves. They use propaganda to tell the public that taxing the rich and helping the poor will create an “economic disaster” and that providing tax cuts to “job creators” will create prosperity for all. They also make use of ethnic and racial divisions, claiming for example that liberals only seek to help those of the same ethnicity as them. Finally they make sure that government programs fail, so that voters never learn that things could change. Their goal is to avoid being “taxed in to oblivion” as they believe low-income voters will only vote on policies that will do just that. I think that their fears are incorrect. History has proven that welfare and support for the poor doesn't result the economy collapsing.
ReplyDeleteKrugman’s main defense to the reasoning behind the wealthy fearing democracy lies in the belief that it will make “the rich less rich.” The Hong-Kong leader, Leung Chun-ying believes that people with lower incomes shouldn’t vote because they would be in favor of “bad policies.” Chun-ying goes on to say that his lower 60 percent are “takers” because he is implying that they receive more from the government than they give. The fears are incorrect because it is no way right to refuse to allow the lower citizens to be unable to sustain the lowest standard of living when wealthy people have more money than they can use efficiently.
ReplyDeleteKrugman outlines the hypocrisy of the plutocrats – not to be confused with all conservatives or all Republicans. Rather, there is a “top 0.1 percent [that] is paying quite a lot more in taxes right now than it would have if Romney had won,” and these people are upset. He even compares the current state of the top percent to that of Leung Chun-ying, the Beijing-backed leader of Hong Kong, who didn’t want open voting because of the loss in money to the rich – an exaggerated but truthful parallel. The wealthy fear democracy because they will lose money and control – they will lose their place in a plutocracy.
ReplyDeleteTo stop this, the most basic principle is finding an excuse to assume their control. As Krugman explains, “Tell voters, often and loudly, that taxing the rich and helping the poor will cause economic disaster, while cutting taxes on ‘job creators’ will create prosperity for all.” Put up false stereotypes of a liberal and then make it harder for the poor to vote by making voter IDs and other cost-linked ideas. This really reminded me of the poll tax not too long ago.
I do believe that these plutocrats have something to fear in democracy: not only will they lose money; they will lose power. But as it stands, I don’t believe that these money-makers will ever really lose power, since they’ve amassed so much wealth. I can’t see how it would deteriorate; people always find a way to bypass the system.
Krugman makes the claim that the wealthy fear democracy by citing the conflicts of interest between the wealthy and the poor. Krugman reveals this by quoting Leung Chun-ying who says that he would like to prevent the poor from voting on government policies. The conflict of interest arises because the wealthy will want to vote for policies that will help them retain or increase their wealth, while the poor will want to vote for policies that will help them get out of poverty at the expense if the rich. For this reason Krugman makes the claim that the rich would want to suppress democracy so that they could have policies that benefit them be implemented.
ReplyDeleteKrugman makes the claim that the rich relate this belief to the public in various ways. The first way that Krugman says the rich relate this idea to the public is by warning the people about the dangers of a welfare state. Krugman says that the rich do this by saying that if the rich were overtaxed, then jobs would be lost. Krugman also says that they display the argument that giving people entitlements will make them lazy. The other ways that Krugman says that the rich portray their image of plutocracy to the public is by preventing welfare policies from taking place, and by utilizing ethnic and racial lines in America.
If Krugman is correct in his premise that the rich want a plutocracy, then it would be logical to conclude that the rich should have legitimate fears about poor people voting.
Personally, I do not believe that The rich secretly want a plutocracy. I also think that even if they did, they would not be capable of ever achieving it, at least in America. I think that the Constitution is a sound, binding document that will ultimately protect a citizen's ability to vote. I do not accept the notion that all fears about the dangers of entitlement programs, and the idea of ensuring fiscal responsibility is propaganda for a plutocracy. I also feel that Krugman needs stronger warrants for the conclusion that the rich are secretly pushing for a plutocracy. Simply saying that a push for voter ID laws are solely to hurt the poor, and that all free market view points are propaganda is ridiculous.
To support his claim that wealthy people fear democracy, Krugman states the idea of Leung Chun-ying in which he states that the people with an income lower than $1,800 a year will be mostly voting upon policies that will ultimately make the rich less rich and provide more aid to those with lower incomes. So in turn Leung worries about the 50 percent of Hong Kong’s population that would vote upon bad policies, which would have close relations to Mitt Romney’s 47 percent of Americans who do not pay income taxes.
ReplyDeleteTactics that these wealthy people use to spread these beliefs would include propaganda, racial and ethnic divisions, and to make sure that government programs fail. When it comes to propaganda they tell the voters that taxing the rich and helping the poor will result in economic disaster. In racial and ethnic division it is said that government aid only goes to these certain ethnic groups. And lastly these wealthy people try to make government programs fail; hence the people will never come to know that they existed in the first place. Their goal is to overrun the government and crate their own policies that favor the wealthy percentile rather than aiding the poor. I do not believe that their fears are correct because back around the 1940’s all advanced nations has had welfare states and were not crashing into a downward spiral.
First off, it is rather ammusing to be reading one of the outhors of our books actually writing a post somewhere. I find it unbearably cute of you Ms. Meachum. Now lets get down to buisness. Krugman opens his post using the example about Hong Kong. The officials over there do not want to allopw the public to vote, because if they do they will vote for policies that will benefit them. (Hmmm.... Isn't that the idea of Democracy?) After stating that, he generalizes that idea into an almost universal fear all leaders have: the choice of the lower class. If the lower class, or those with low incomes, vote together in a fair stage, they will most likely try to balance the inequality in income. And that is why democracy is so feared. However, thinking that is as ridiculus as thinking the sun will blow up tommorow: it very well could happen, but experience and predictions tell us it won't , and if it does what can we do, we cant really chane things. Granted, if the folks with ower income completely got rid of the divide income inequality then that could mean serious economic trouble - of the kind that ends in wars and the destruction of the great United States. But again this is all wishwash, as a great portion of those people with low income here in the United States are actually not poor, in fact they are rather wealthy (just not nearly a fourth as wealthy as the top 10%). Almost every educated American knows that there is a need for inequality, a knowledge comonly reffered to as "fear of communism." So while Republicans go ape-crazy over the democracy of our naion amd preach the supremacy of the wealthy, they do so covering their statements, so that "We rich shouldn't pay more taxes," sounds like "Job-makes shouldn't pay more taxes." And i needn't to remind you what Huxley and Orwell thought about the poor not having a say, both possible outcomes of this "plutocratic" ideal. However, what the republicans and the comunist Chinese preach will never happen. Very much like the sun exploding, it hasn't exploded jet, and it dosen't look like it will explode, and if it explodes we are all scrwed anyways.
ReplyDeleteThe reasons that Krugman state that support the claim that wealthy people fear democracy are because it will make the rich less rich and help those who lower incomes. Tatics Krugman uses are Leung Chin-ying's and Paul Ryan quotes and by saying that they believe democracy will make "the rich less rich." Leung thinks that people with lower income should not be able to vote because they would be in favor of "bad policies." They use propaganda to tell the public that taxing the rich and helping the poor will create an “economic disaster” and that providing tax cuts to “job creators” will create prosperity for all. They also make use of ethnic and racial divisions. I think that their fears are incorrect, it has been proven in the past. Advanced Nations are so because they had welfare states; Support for the poor doesn't result the economy collapsing. These fears are created due to selfish principles of remaining rich rather than a lesser rich.
ReplyDeleteThe reasons that Krugman states to support the claim that the wealthy fear democracy are that open voting will lead to the impoverished masses voting for people and policies that will make the rich less rich and help the poor become less poor, “there is always an undercurrent of fear that the great unwashed will vote in left-wingers who will tax the rich, hand out largesse to the poor, and destroy the economy.” The tactics they use to relate this belief to the public is propaganda. They tell the voters that “taxing the rich and helping the poor will cause economic disaster, while cutting taxes on “job creators” will create prosperity for all” which is not true as historically it is seen that “All advanced nations have had substantial welfare states since the 1940s” but these welfare states are not the cause of a huge economic downfall. They also establish racial and ethnic divisions that urge the white majority to vote for the programs that will help the poorer class- one of mainly minorities. Their goal in doing this is to protect the wealth of the upper class while ignoring the needs of the poorer classes. I believe that their fears are completely wrong. As it was pointed out in the article, the welfare states of Europe have not fallen into economic distress because they passed policies that helped the poor that were caused by other reasons. Also, by helping the poor, the economy will increase, as it is the consumer that creates jobs. With more people having the ability to buy products the economy will increase for everyone.
ReplyDeleteKrugman says the wealthy fear democracy because that democracy will lead to open voting, which will lead to the poor voting for policies that will help themselves, and prehaps tax the rich more. The wealthy fear that the masses will vote left-wing. The wealthy use tactics like propaganda to drive fear into those that do not vote right-wing. Stuff like "taxing the rich will destroy jobs," and "reducing taxes on the rich will create jobs" are repeated constantly to the public masses. With these tactics they aim to drive fear into the public into voting conservative. I feel that their fears are incorrect due to past examples. Beginning in the 1940s, many advanced nations have been welfare states and have strong support among their poorer constituents. Also currently in Kansas they decided to cut taxes to the rich, and the predictions of increased growth have not really worked out.
ReplyDeleteKrugman states that the wealthy fear democracy because it would cause them to lose their money and use their money to help out the poor. Krugman supports this claim with a testimony from Leung Chun-Ying saying that democracy will make “the rich less rich.” Leung Chun-Ying also thinks that people with low incomes should not vote because they would be in favor of “bad policies.”
ReplyDeleteThey relate this to the public by using propaganda saying that taxing the rich and hurting the poor will not be beneficial for the economy. Krugman also illustrates this Plutocracy by saying that the rich try preventing welfare policies from taking place.
I think that their fears are incorrect because there have been welfare nations in the past and the economy did not crash. So because it has not happened in the past I do not support the idea.
Krugman supports his claim that the wealthy fear democracy by using quotes from the wealthy that suggest a fear of democracy. After stating these quotes, Krugman explains how those quotes support his claim that the wealthy fear democracy. He used quotes from Leung Chun-ying, Mitt Romney, and Paul Ryan that all suggested not everyone should be able to vote and the wealthy should be treated better than everyone else.
ReplyDeleteThose who "fear democracy" use several tactics to get the public to agree with them. The first, and probably most common, tactic is propaganda. The rich tell voters that taxing the job creators will create an economic disaster while cutting taxes will allow prosperity. The second tactic is to create divisions among the poorer people so they can not unite against the wealthy. The third tactic is to prevent the poorer people from knowing how things could be improved. The final tactic, which hasn't been executed very much but could gradually take place, is to prevent the poorer people from voting entirely.
The goals of the wealthy are to protect their wealth and power. Democracy offers a voice to the majority and the wealthy are the minority. The wealthy want to use their power to ensure that their voice is greater than the voice of the many. As long as they have more say in the matters of politics and taxes, they can maintain their wealth. Their fears are correct that they may be taxed more if the lower classes have more influence in politics. They are incorrect on the extent of this change. They fear losing some of their wealth but they would remain the elite regardless.
Krugman claims that the wealthy fear democracy because they don't believe that the poor would vote for the same polices as them because they would vote for policies that benefit themselves. Krugman states that Republicans would want to have the top ten percent and the bottom 90 not to vote. Krugman also puts forward the idea that the Republican party runs off political propaganda of fear that taxing the rich would destroy the economy. The conservatives tell voter often that tax cuts for the rich would create economic prosperity for all. I believe that their fears are correct that taxing the rich would create economic downturn. The reason the top 1% are there is mainly due to the fact that they think all about profits. Now if taxes on these people were raised, how many would move out of the country along with their businesses. For example Burger King bought Tim Hortons for the sole purpose of avoiding higher corporate tax rates. Would the rise in revenue even equal the income lost? Also the rise in tax rates would raise expectations for poorer families that expect the government to have more money side aside for welfare.
ReplyDeleteKrugman makes the claim of "the rich fears democracy" by quoting the Hong Kong leader Leung Chun-Ying who stated "the people with an income lower than $1,800 a year will be mostly voting upon policies that will ultimately make the rich less rich and provide more aid to those with lower incomes." He also quoted mitt Romney and Paul Ryan (republicans).
ReplyDeleteThere are many tactics that these sorts of people (aka people who fear democracy). Three methods of tactics they use are through propaganda, divisions within classes and keeping the poor ignorant. To expand on these tactics they divide the poorer class so that they cannot bind together and since they are obviously bigger in numbers possibly out them. The rich keep the poor ignorant by failing to inform them on programs that are in place that will help them and eventually get rid of them whilst the poor had no idea that they were in place.
Their goal is to remain rich and to have the poor remain poor. Their fears are incorrect because it has been proven in times past when welfare states were in effect that there was no economic disaster as the rich were implying there would be. So really their "fears" are just ploys to mask their selfish desires to remain at the 1% of this nations wealth.
Krugman makes the claim of "the rich fears democracy", which he quotes from Hong Kong leader, Leung Chun-Ying. Chun-Ying stated that "the people with an income lower than $1,800 a year will be mostly voting upon policies that will ultimately make the rich less rich and provide more aid to those with lower incomes." He continues to quote some well known republicans, such as Mitt Romney.
ReplyDeleteThese people use three methods of tactics.These are through propaganda, divisions within classes, and keeping the poor ignorant. In order to avoid them growing, their tactics include dividing the poorer class so that they cannot possibly expose them. The rich keep the poor ignorant by not informing them on programs that are in place that will help them and eliminate them before the poor knew they existed.
Their goal is to remain rich and to have the poor remain poor. Their fears are incorrect because it has been proven in times past when welfare states were in effect that there was no economic disaster as the rich think there would be.
Krugman states that the wealthy people fear democracy because they do not believe the poor would vote for the same polices as them instead the poor would vote for policies that benefit themselves. Krugman states that Republicans would want to have the top ten percent and the bottom 90 not to vote. Krugman also developed the idea that the Republican party runs off political propaganda of fear that taxing the rich would destroy the economy. The conservatives tell voter often that tax cuts for the rich would create economic prosperity for all. I believe that their fears are correct that taxing the rich would create economic downturn. The reason the top 1% are there is mainly due to the fact that they think all about profits. Now if taxes on these people were raised, how many would move out of the country along with their businesses. The wealthy wants to stay wealthy and keep the poor where they are, poor. They keep this mentality even when proven wrong.
ReplyDeleteHe supports his claim by saying two things first the low income people make up most of the voting population and second that these poor people would vote for policies that benefit the poor not those that benefit the rich at the top. The strategy that is to use the money they have to get votes which gives them two options the first just tell the voters often why you should prefer there ideology and second hire think tanks to support you. There goal is to create a profit through the laws that are going to be passed. These fears are correct because the rich already have so much say, like because the only reason we know about who's running for office is through ads which these rich people fund( more funding equals greater chance of being in the office). Then since there voting for these people into power if it's even just 51 percent then that's bad because anything can be passed that these rich people want.
ReplyDeleteKrugman claims that the wealthy fear democracy and supports this claim with a quote from Republican Paul Ryan and a Chinese politician in Hong Kong. He claims that their opposition to taxes against the rich is to achieve a plutocracy, to seize control and keep the power with the wealth. He proposes that they warn of job loss with raised taxes and entitlements leading to laziness. It is absurd to make such an accusation based upon the conservative push for more voter ID laws. The push for such laws is to prevent voter fraud, to make the elections fair. Voter fraud has taken place because there have been thousands of cases of people whom are already deceased casting a ballot in a current election. "Plutocrats" wish to make the ballots truly reflect the fair decision of the American people, where as democrats have been against defrauding the ballot.
ReplyDeleteKrugman rationalizes that there is always an undercurrent fear that the great unwashed will vote in left-wingers who will tax the rich, hand out largesse to the poor, and destroy the economy. He exemplifies his point by using Leung Chun-Ying's claim that he would like to prevent the poor from voting on governmental policies. Krugman outlines three strategies commonly used by Plutocrats to convince others to vote in their favor. Among these are propaganda-- telling voters that taxing the rich and helping the poor will cause economic disaster, making the most of racial and ethnic divisions, and making sure government programs fail so that voters never learn that things could be different. Their goal is to reduce taxes among the upper 1% and increase them on the working class, fearing that their taxes are used to support welfare systems that attempt to help poorer citizens.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that there is a good reason to fear with the belief that the wealth gap is trying to be equalized by involuntary means. However, the extent to which the situation was taken (attempting to take away suffrage rights from lower-class citizens) is extreme and unnecessary. Welfare systems have continued to exist throughout the 1900s without an economic catastrophe occurring.
Krugman brilliantly begins the article by using Leung Chun-ying, the Beijing-backed leader of Hong Kong, along with celebrated American politicians to support his claim that the wealthy fear democracy. In the eyes of the wealthy, the rich would presumably become less rich because the majority of those voting earn low incomes. Mitt Romney and Rep. Paul Ryan basically say the same thing, they are heavily concerned with low income voters.
ReplyDeleteTactics used to relate this belief to the public include propaganda, racial and ethnic divisions, and ensuring government programs fail. Propaganda would tell voters that taxing the rich and helping the poor would cause economic disaster. As for racial and ethnic divisions, government aid only goes to those people. Government programs should never come into existence so voters never learn that things could be different. Their goal is to implement policies that would favor the top one percent. The tactics mentioned in the article oppose what presumably a low income individual would think.
Their fears are reasonable, but I think incorrect. There have many nations in the past that have employed welfare programs and did not experience a major economic downfall. The wealthy does not appreciate knowing that their taxes will go to aiding low income individuals that do not contribute much to society.
According to Krugman, the wealthy seems to fear democracy because it will support the individuals who have lower incomes while making the individuals with higher incomes less rich. Leung thinks that people with lower income should not be able to vote because they would be in favor of "bad policies." Paul Ryan said that the lower 60 percent of earners are a threat, calling them "takers" implying that they receive more from the government than they contribute. These points all support Krugman's argument. Their goal is to reduce taxes among the upper 1% and increase them on the working class, fearing that their taxes are used to support welfare systems that attempt to help poorer citizens. As long as they have more say in the matters of politics and taxes, they can maintain their wealth. Their fears are correct that they may be taxed more if the lower classes have more influence in politics. They are incorrect on the extent of this change. They fear losing some of their wealth but they would remain the elite regardless.
ReplyDeleteKrugman states that the reason the wealthy fear democracy is because they fear that the poor will vote for policies that increase welfare for them and increase taxes on the rich. The wealthy believe that these policies will lead to the economy being destroyed. Right wing politicians and the wealthy utilize propaganda, purposefully let policies fail, and create an air of fear of the poor stealing money. The overall goal of the wealthy is to keep policies that hurt the top 1% from being passed. These fears are highly illogical as they do not have any grounding in fact. The selfish nature of the wealthy blinds them from making them realize that they are only hurting the economy.
ReplyDeleteKrugman states that the wealthy are scared that the poor will vote for policies that are bad, the policies would increase welfare for the "takers" and increase the taxes on the rich. Some of the tactics they use to relay this information to the public are by giving many statistics and thru books like "A Nation of Takers: America's Entitlement Epidemic". The goal that they want to achieve is to keep policies that hurt the top 1% from passing so that they may continue being rich and the top 1%. I find their facts extremely incorrect, there is only so much one can do with their money and by being greedy and hogging it all they are not helping stimulate the economy or helping those so called "takers" who really do need help and assistance.
ReplyDeleteKrugman states many reasons to support the claim that wealthy people fear democracy. He says that the rich would be less rich because the majority of the people who vote for the democratic party are the people with lower incomes because they want equality. And because the rich owns so much of the country's money they want the rich peoples' money to go to helping society.
ReplyDeleteThere are four tactics discussed in the article that people use to relate these beliefs to the public. The first tactic is: The rich tell voters that taxing the job creators will create an economic disaster while cutting taxes will allow prosperity. The second tactic is to make the most of racial and ethnic divisions to prevent the uniting against the wealthy. The third tactic is to prevent the less wealthy people from knowing how things could improve. The final tactic is simply not let the bottom 90% of the population vote.
Paul krugman argues that the wealthy fear democracy by presenting how political elitists such as Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, and other left wing politicians use propaganda, to force the hand of the economically inclined to deny the redistribution of wealth. In order to convey political ideologies to the public, these politicans use propaganda, through rehtoric venues such as public debates, campaign videos, and displays of their views of how the taxation of the "job creators" will cause the destuction of the economy.
ReplyDeleteOne thing to note is that since the 1940s, welfare systems that have been implemented has yet to crumble the economy, besides asking the one percenters to contribute more to the bulk of society (99%). As far as these fears for the future go I beleive it to some extent. To the extent where the lazy live off the system and choose legislaion that would make it easier, but isnt really essential is true. People will always vote if they see benefit they dont realize the real world effects and the long term raptures. But I strongly belive that these fears are too radical to believe in as of now, and right now I believe in everybody contributing to society, now that does not mean we should have the wealthy do everything but everybody just do their part in society.
The reasons that Krugman states to support the claim that the wealthy fear democracy are that open voting will lead to the impoverished masses voting for people and policies that will make the rich less rich and help the poor become less poor, “there is always an undercurrent of fear that the great unwashed will vote in left-wingers who will tax the rich, hand out largesse to the poor, and destroy the economy.” These politicians use tactics like propaganda to tell voters that taxing the rich and helping the poor would cause economic disaster.Their goal is to overrun the government and crate their own policies that favor the wealthy percentile rather than aiding the poor. I do not believe that their fears are correct because back around the 1940’s all advanced nations has had welfare states and were not crashing into a downward spiral.
ReplyDelete