locke essay

In his article, Now That’s Rich, Paul Krugman discusses the state of the wealthy in America. He provides a critical account of the work ethic of the 1 percent, asserting that many of the country’s wealthy do not work in proportion to the money they have. He states, “The goal of [promoting the rise in college graduates] is to soften the picture, to make it seem as if we’re talking about ordinary white-collar professionals who get ahead through education and hard work. But many Americans are well-educated and work hard…Yet they don’t get the big bucks.” This claim illustrates a disparity in the economic system: hard work does not equate financial success. Krugman expands on this by explaining that wealth acquired by this group of people was only achieved because money they inherited. “These days a lot of top money managers’ income comes not from investing other people’s money but from returns on their own accumulated wealth—that is, the reason they make so much is the fact that they’re already very rich.” Krugman demonstrates a cyclical pattern of accumulated wealth, leaving no room for individuals of lower means to reach this status. Moreover, the advantage of the rich leads to a society that is “dominated by wealth,” and increases the gap between the rich and every one else. Krugman ultimately points out the hypocrisy of the rich’s resistance to increased taxes and asks his readers to think critically about how the rich arrived where they are. 
 Upon reading Krugman’s article, I find myself both agreeing and disagreeing with the arguments he makes. The income disparity between the rich and poor is an issue as it perpetuates a society run by the few rather than the majority. If the 1 percent, or .01 percent, have the majority of p...

... middle of paper ...

...this responsibility is blurred in a money economy because money never spoils, so there is no definite line on how much is considered excess. I do believe that individuals have a responsibility to one another as citizens, which is why government is important in regulating these responsibilities. However, it has no justification to take away that which rightfully belongs to another man.

I find that many of the arguments Krugman raises infringes on the right to an individual’s property. He argues that the rich are undeserving of their praise as “economic heroes.” While I agree that there is an injustice in the influence of the minority rich over the majority, these individuals have taken advantage of what they were given, and worked themselves into this position. It would be wrong to take that away.

Works Cited

Kramer, Isaac. "The Portable Enlightenment Reader."