Politics determines who has the power, not who has the truth.
Paul KrugmanRead
Wealthy Americans who benefit hugely from a system rigged in their favor react with hysteria to anyone who points out just how rigged the system is.
Interpretation
The wealthy often resist acknowledging systemic inequalities that benefit them.
This quote highlights the tendency of wealthy individuals to react defensively when confronted with the reality of social and economic inequalities. Krugman suggests that those who are advantaged by a 'rigged' system may express outrage or denial when their privilege is called into question, thus highlighting a disconnection between their lived experiences and the struggles faced by others in society.
In practice
In a speech addressing economic disparities, one might use this quote to emphasize the resistance of the wealthy to recognizing their privileges.
Politics determines who has the power, not who has the truth.
Our popular economics writers, however, are not in the business of giving their readers a ringside seat on the research action; with no exception I can think of, they use their books to do an end run around the normal structure of scholarship, to preach ideas that few serious economists share. Often, these ideas are not just at odds with the professional consensus; they are demonstrably wrong, and sometimes terminally silly. But they sound good to the unwary reader.
The raw fact is that every successful example of economic development this past century ... has taken place via globalization.
It’s not about the budget; it’s about the power...So will the attack on unions succeed? I don’t know. But anyone who cares about retaining government of the people by the people should hope that it doesn’t.
The economics profession went astray because economists, as a group, mistook beauty, clad in impressive-looking mathematics, for truth.
The goal in the end is not to win elections. The goal is to change society.
To a person of analytical ability, perceptive enough to realise that mathematical equipment was a powerful sword in economics, the world of economics was his or her oyster in 1935. The terrain was strewn with beautiful theorems begging to be picked up and arranged in unified order.
In a very weak economy, when you say 'cut government spending,' what you mean is you're laying off school teachers and you're de-funding various programs that put money into the economy. This means you have more unemployed people that then draw unemployment benefits and don't pay taxes.
European officials thought that austerity was part of what they called their 'convergence policies,' of trying to bring countries together. Instead, it actually made things worse. There's more inequality within countries and more disparity across countries.
The first requisite of a sound monetary system is that it put the least possible power over the quantity or quality of money in the hands of the politicians.
During the two centuries since the publication of 'The Wealth of Nations,' the main activity of economists, it seems to me, has been to fill the gaps in Adam Smith's system, to correct his errors and to make his analysis vastly more exact.
It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.
Subscribe for the occasional hand-picked quote. No noise.