I spent some time interning for an editor, so the first thing I noticed about the article was how it was put together. I wasn't able to find any errors, which leads me to think the work was carefully proofread before publishing. This comforts me. I hope this indicates he's a professional and hence knows what he's talking about.
Krugman starts off by sharing his initial feelings toward an article written by a “leftest rag.” This article made claims that Krugman found “outrageous.” Apparently it annoyed him enough that he started doing some research. If the article had been written by an obscure publisher he probably wouldn't have, but it was published in Business Week, and since Krugman associates credibility with that publication, he couldn't just dismiss the assertions.
Even though Krugman didn't want to believe it, he had to accept the facts based on the credibility of the publisher. So he does further research and shares his findings with us. He notes data put forward by respected economists and shares how their information is backed by the Congressional Business Office.
All of these details in Krugman's article give it credibility in my mind. I believe he is making a valid argument and he sounds like he knows what he's talking about. I agree with his logic. When the government reduces taxes for the wealthy and removes assistance from the lower classes, it makes it less likely that someone from the lower classes can have the opportunity to advance to a higher class.
However I also feel like this article is a nag article. One in which the writer complains about the system instead of looking at the bright side. Our country's government isn't so corrupt that it can't function. Its structure helps to prevent a lot of these crafty plots from succeeding. The government system works something like an ongoing battle between the rich and the poor. Its a delicate balancing act that has worked rather well if you compare it to other forms of government. I prefer to look at the glass as half full, rather than half empty.
Of course I believe that it could be better. People could stop being selfish; we could stop fighting and killing each other; we could put aside our differences and accept each other without expecting each other to change. We could all pitch in to feed the hungry (and not keep the donations for ourselves); we could all give a little. There are so many crimes that we are all guilty of. Criticizing the government, which is a system put in place to keep our selfishness under control, isn't going to change anyone.
Last I checked our world isn't perfect. We just have to work our butts off to succeed and there will always be selfish people who try to take everything for themselves. We can't judge them. If we start doing that and decide that we have the right to take what they have, then democracy and the freedom to succeed will disappear. Nobody will try to be better because as soon as they succeed, everyone will be waiting at the end of the race to take away the trophy.
Let's just hope that if we work hard and become successful and make lots of money, that we will look back at how things were before. It's too easy to get comfortable in our ease and luxury and forget that there's real suffering outside our comfy little worlds and we can do something about it.
