Paul Krugman had a good, but incomplete, column early this month in the New York Times. His thesis: money corrupts. He admitted that it's a cliché even as he pointed toward scientific studies to back it up. These studies confirm that, compared to the less affluent, the rich are more likely to cheat and less likely to pay attention to social norms.
It's possible that most people are likely to bend the rules when they aren't afraid of getting caught. The rich feel safe from prosecution, compared with the poor, so they may be more likely to act selfishly. It's human nature. But then Krugman changes subjects and switches to the influence that extreme wealth can have on politics, and how 200 wealthy families have given about half of all campaign funds so far in the 2016 presidential run. I share his concern about the influence of money on politics.
Krugman returns to his original point--money makes you callous and crude--and he cites Trump as a perfect example. "His billions have insulated him from the external checks that limit most people's ability to act out their narcissistic tendencies." And so on.
I live and work mostly among "the one percent", and the majority of the people I know, including some of the very wealthiest people in the country, are scrupulous and caring. They are talented, smart--and often lucky--and a number of them do lack empathy. Many may not recognize how we are heading toward an economic cliff, and how the middle class is not treading water, but is drowning in household debt. It saddens me that they continue to live in a bubble, socially insulated from what's happening to most Americans, but they are good people. They may find ways to live in denial, clinging to the quality of life they cherish, for good or bad. Yet being blind isn't the same as being bad. Many of them are fully aware of what the country is facing, but don't know what to do about it.
So far, Krugman's piece makes total sense. But fortunately, for the sake of our society, he doesn't tell the full story. In fact, many are acting to avert a crisis. Case in point, an associate of mine: Paul Tudor Jones, II. He's a billionaire who founded a non-profit called Just Capital, pushing to create a whole new mindset about what makes for a great corporation. He's doing everything he can to save our way of life by narrowing income inequality and the opportunity gap. He isn't ignoring the need for profit, but he want to promote long-term growth--a more abundant future--earned through practices and policies that foster opportunities for owners, consumers and employees.
Go back a few decades and you'll find an even more remarkable initiative of his: a philanthropy that funnels every penny of every donation to help poor New Yorkers. Its goal is to root out and eliminate poverty in my home town. That's a big task. The Robin Hood Foundation also applies business principles to protect its investments, measuring results and reallocating funds to get the best outcomes. This foundation offers grants to support more than 240 different nonprofits in New York City and the surrounding region in four areas: early childhood, education, jobs and economic survival.
I know dozens of others among the richest percentiles, people who, to a meaningful degree, give much of their wealth and time to help those less fortunate. So yes, wealth and riches can corrupt. But those faces of evil are no match for the benevolent cohort that includes Paul Tudor Jones, Ken Langone, Bill Gates, and so many others using their wealth to make the world a better place. Obviously, we need more of them. Good people, wealthy or not, need to join the game and make this country a fairer, more just place for all.
Peter Georgescu is the author of The Constant Choice. He can be found at Good Reads.