Since a few of you discussed some of his articles without me in the links, I’ll take a stab at this one.

If you’re like me, you could use at least a brief break from talking about Donald Trump. So why don’t we talk about Ivanka Trump instead? You see, recently she said something that would have been remarkable coming from any Republican, but was truly awesome coming from the Daughter in Chief.

Let’s not talk about Krugman.  Lets instead talk about Krugman’s wife.  Tell me, does she still look at you while somebody else fucks her brains out?

Do you see why that is a ridiculous way to start a column?  Probably not.  But do continue.

O.K., this was world-class lack of self-awareness: It doesn’t get much better than being lectured on self-reliance by an heiress whose business strategy involves trading on her father’s name.

So what?  So does every politician named Kennedy.

But let’s go beyond the personal here. We know a lot about upward mobility in different countries, and the facts are not what Republicans want to hear.


The key observation, based on a growing body of research, is that when it comes to upward social mobility, the U.S. is truly exceptional — that is, it performs exceptionally badly. Americans whose parents have low incomes are more likely to have low incomes themselves, and less likely to make it into the middle or upper class, than their counterparts in other advanced countries. And those who are born affluent are, correspondingly, more likely to keep their status.

You know where this is going.  Because there must be somebody on Earth we can emulate…

Back to the “potential for upward mobility”: Where do people from poor or modest backgrounds have the best chance of getting ahead? The answer is that Scandinavia leads the rankings, although Canada also does well. And here’s the thing: The Nordic countries don’t just have low inequality, they also have much bigger governments, much more extensive social safety nets, than we do. In other words, they have what Republicans denounce as “socialism” (it really isn’t, but never mind).

Are they socialists or not?  I’m pretty sure if I point out Cuba, Cambodia, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe as socialist helloles, you’ll start talking about Sweden.  Pick one shit head.

But as to the question of upward mobility, here’s a fun snippet from OECD.

Intergenerational mobility reflects a host of factors, including inherited traits, social norms and public policies that may influence the individual’s willingness and ability to seize economic opportunities. These factors are difficult to unbundle precisely and, as regards norms and policies, to some extent reflect societal choices over institutional settings as well as differences in choices over redistribution and equity, which are likely to be valued differently across countries. Therefore, no “benchmark” mobility level can be identified in cross-country comparisons.

So comparing the country with the world’s largest economy to a tiny European ethnostate, is pardon my anglo-saxomisms, probably comparing shit to syphilis.

Which means once again, we have to point out the countries you are talking about have small, nearly homogenous populations, distributed among a few population centers.  How small exactly?  The United States has more millionaires than Sweden has people. Even then, the millionaires in Sweden appear to have inherited their wealth.  Why does Sweden have the type of “income equality” that they do?  Probably because their middle class pays most of the taxes, and if you happen to be a high earner you have incentive to leave….because the taxes there suck balls.

At any rate, here is a book I am sure you never read that explains how many of these so called “successes” are actually the result of free market reforms that have been put in place since the 70’s…when the Swedes figured out they were turning into what we now call Venezuela.  So how do you conclude?

By contrast, progressive Democrats are calling for universal health care, increased aid to the poor, and programs offering free or at least subsidized college tuition. They’re calling for aid that helps middle- and lower-income parents afford quality child care. And they propose paying for these benefits with increased taxes on high incomes and large fortunes.

Yes, because Universal Healthcare is working out in Finland.  If you need to find out how well that works out in the US, one simply need to look at how well the Veteran’s Administration is meeting the challenge of providing universal healthcare to 3-4% of the US population.  Its particularly bad if you live in a rural area.

Which I assume an asshole like you is okay with fucking over the half of the country that doesn’t vote for your preferred politicians.