Did you ever just ask yourself, what do those rich folks really, in their heart of hearts, want? Why do they spend so much money buying politicians to coddle them so outrageously?
The obvious answer is: they want more. More bonuses, more cars, more houses, more luxury travel, stuff like that. But that can't be the whole answer. I mean, after your first $50 or $100 million, making more money just isn't going to affect your life that dramatically.
Research on human psychology provides a clue. Because it turns out that people judge their status on a highly relative scale: it's not just "how am I doing?"—it's more like "how am I doing compared with other people?" Or, to put it a bit more bluntly, what's the fun of being rich if everybody else is rich too?
That explains some things…
I took a look at a paper that Paul Krugman cited approvingly in a recent blog post. It's by his Princeton colleague Larry Bartels, and it's entitled Partisan Politics and the U.S. Income Distribution.
There's this fascinating passage in the abstract of Bartels' paper:
[in the post-war era] Democratic presidents have produced slightly more income growth for poor families than for rich families, resulting in a modest decrease in overall inequality. Republican presidents have produced a great deal more income growth for rich families than for poor families, resulting in a substantial increase in inequality. On average, families at the 95th percentile of the income distribution have experienced identical income growth under Democratic and Republican presidents, while those at the 20th percentile have experienced more than four times as much income growth under Democrats as they have under Republicans. These differences are attributable to partisan differences in unemployment (which has been 30 percent lower under Democratic presidents, on average) and GDP growth (which has been 30 percent higher under Democratic presidents, on average); both unemployment and GDP growth have much stronger effects on income growth at the bottom of the income distribution than at the top.
Let's unpack that a bit.
• On the whole, Democratic presidents have done a much better job of managing the economy, with much lower unemployment and much higher GDP growth. The Democratic "rising tide" really does lift all boats, especially the little ones that most of us paddle around in.
• If you're in the 95th percentile of income, near the top, it hasn't made any difference which party was in the White House: you've made out fine either way. But those at the bottom of the heap have done much better under Democrats.
• Despite the fact that Democrats are by far the better economic managers, rich people persist in supporting Republicans.
Here's what that tells me: the fact that poor people struggle under Republican rule isn't a bug, it's a feature. Because it's not enough for the rich if they do well: other people have to suffer.
So it makes perfect sense that we should cut Social Security while giving the rich an unaffordable tax cut. It's a twofer: more pain at the bottom and more goodies at the top. In fact, it's a Trifecta: ballooning the budget deficit will have the added "benefit" of eventually creating a financial crisis. Then the rules of Disaster Capitalism kick in, and they'll be able to gut all social programs and reduce the lower classes to peonage. Really, it will make hiring servants so much easier: they'll be so grateful for the pittance they earn.
You say the economy is bad? Not really a problem as long as the little people suffer worse than their masters. And you know what's really neat? The Republican lip service to "social issues" like abortion and the "war on Christmas" is the perfect ruse to keep the attention of the lower classes focused away from the screwing they're getting.
Is this a great country or what?