Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize-winning economist, no longer writes a column for The New York Times. Instead, he has a blog on Substack where he writes whatever strikes his fancy.

In this post, he ponders what billionaires want. Why aren’t they satisfied to have “only” $500 million? Or “only” $1 billion? I always thought that their insatiable desire for more stemmed from competitiveness, from obeisance to the maxim “He who dies with the most toys wins,” attributed to magazine publisher Malcolm Forbes. Who has the most houses? Who has the biggest superyacht? Who has a yacht to follow his superyacht?

Krugman has a different take.

He writes:

Today’s newsletter will be a bit different from my usual. In general, I do data-driven posts, mainly about economics — and that will remain the norm. But right now, as some of the worst people in America are about to take power, doesn’t feel like the time for charts from FRED. So this entry will be informal and impressionistic, based partly on things I’ve seen, partly on speculation.

So: Much of the political and business world is prostrating itself at the feet of the least-qualified man, morally and intellectually, ever to occupy the White House.

It’s understandable if not excusable why many of those declaring fealty are doing so. If you look at what has happened to Liz Cheney or Adam Kinzinger you realize that Republican politicians who stand up to Trump destroy their political careers and put themselves at real personal risk. Many businesspeople — including media owners — fear that they will suffer monetarily if they cross the new regime.

But what’s truly extraordinary is the way billionaires have been abasing themselves before Donald Trump, a spectacle highlighted by Ann Telnaes’s now-famous cartoon — the one Jeff Bezos spiked, causing her to quit the Washington Post:

PS: I strongly urge everyone to show Ann Telnaes some love by reading her Substack, getting a paid subscription if you can afford it.

Why is this self-owning by billionaires so extraordinary? Well, ask yourself: What’s the point of being rich?

Past a certain level of wealth, it can’t really be about material things. I very much doubt that billionaires have a significantly higher quality of life than mere multimillionaires.

To the extent that there’s a valid reason for accumulating a very large fortune, I’d say that it involves freedom, the ability to live your life more or less however you want. Indeed, one definition of true wealth is having “fuck you money” — enough money to walk away from unpleasant situations or distasteful individuals without suffering a big decline in your living standards. And some very wealthy men — most obviously Mark Cuban, but I’d at least tentatively include Bill Gates and Warren Buffett — do seem to exhibit the kind of independence wealth gives you if you choose to exercise it.

The likes of Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg, however, surely have that kind of money, yet they’re prostrating themselves before Trump. They aren’t stupid; they have to know what kind of person Trump is and understand — whether or not they admit it to themselves — the humiliating nature of their behavior. So why do they do it?

The answer, I believe, is that many (not all!) rich men are extraordinarily insecure. I’ve seen this phenomenon many times, although I can only speculate about what causes it. My best guess is that a billionaire, having climbed to incredible heights, realizes that he’s still an ordinary human being who puts his pants on one leg at a time, and asks, “Is this all there is?”

So he starts demanding things money can’t buy, like universal admiration. Read Ross Douthat’s interview with Marc Andreessen, in which the tech bro explains why he has turned hard right. Andreessen says that it’s not about the money, and I believe him. What bothers him, instead, is that he wants everyone to genuflect before tech bros as the great heroes of our age, and instead lots of people are saying mean things about him and people like him.

Of course, Trump’s victory won’t do anything to restore the adulation he misses, so I can confidently predict that Andreesen and others in his set will keep on whining — that there will be so much whining that we’ll get sick of whining. Actually I already am.

Or consider the Elon Musk gaming scandal. Many people in the gaming world, which is huge, believe that Musk, who claims to be an avid and expert gamer, has been faking it, either by having someone else play for him or by using a more skilled player’s account.

It’s a deeply embarrassing story, if true. And while I don’t know anything about gaming, the accusations seem credible — and completely consistent with Musk’s behavior in areas I do know something about. His attempts to pose as a budget guru and a macroeconomist have, for those familiar with even the most basic facts, been as cringeworthy as his apparent fakery in video games — although for sheer cringe value nothing matches Mark Zuckerberg’s talk about “masculine energy.”

What the gaming story suggests is something I already suspected: Musk’s frenetic interventions on behalf of right-wing, racist politicians around the world are doing real harm — he definitely helped Trump win, his influence is one reason horrible people like Pete Hegseth will probably be confirmed for office, and sooner or later Musk will end up inspiring violence. But they shouldn’t be seen as a coherent political strategy. They are, instead, efforts to fill the emptiness inside.

But what about Bezos and Zuckerberg? Both made bids to define themselves as more than their wealth, Bezos by buying the Washington Post, Zuckerberg by unveiling Threads as an alternative to Nazified Twitter. But both lost their nerve. Bezos, initially seen as the Post’s savior, ended up trashing its reputation (and readership) with his political cowardice. Zuckerberg implemented an algorithm that made Threads uncontroversial and hence irrelevant, then lobbied hard and successfully to block efforts to protect children from the clear harm social media does.

So now they are defined by their wealth and nothing more, which I believe explains their submission to Trump. Trump would probably be able to damage their businesses if they didn’t bend the knee, but that would still leave them immensely wealthy, just possibly no longer among the wealthiest men on the planet.

The problem for them is that their status as the richest of the rich is, in ego terms, all they have left, which leaves them far more vulnerable than they would be if they were just run-of-the-mill billionaires.

So as I said in this post’s subtitle, fuck-you money has become fuck-me money. And the cravenness of billionaires will have dire consequences, not just for their reputations, but for the rest of us.