Monday, September 03, 2012

Good for Melissa Harris-Perry!

Yes, I'd rather be rich and deal with those risks than poor and face their risks.

I agree with Melissa Harris-Perry that a white person's view on race is a great predictor about how that white person views "welfare."

8 Comments:

At 1:30 AM, Anonymous hip703 said...

1. "Yes, I'd rather be rich and deal with those risks than poor and face their risks."

Monica Mehta never contended that "being" wealthy is risky. She merely said that to "achieve" wealth in business, one must take risks, which is a truism. Harris-Perry's tirade/rebuttal that poor people also face risks is a classic red herring.

2. "I agree with Melissa Harris-Perry that a white person's view on race is a great predictor about how that white person views 'welfare.'"

That is a genetic fallacy to the extent you imply that being against welfare makes one a racist.

 
At 6:49 AM, Blogger Mitchell J. Freedman said...

Let's take the second part first.

I was speaking about the way in which one's attitude toward race infects one's view of welfare. If one thinks it's mostly blacks on welfare, it is because one is racist. If one thinks welfare mothers are just popping out babies, it is because one is racist. If one thinks most of the federal government money in the 1960s and 1970s, for example, went to welfare, it is because one is racist. One may say, Oh maybe they are ignorant. Maybe so, but listen to the way the statements are made by people, as I have over 4 decades. It is about "blacks" (and before that the n-word) in nearly every instance. I get Perry's rage here and have it myself at the continued ignorance of welfare demographics and spending.

On the other hand, libertarians I have read in Reason magazine, the Cato Institute, etc. over the years tend to be familiar with the reality of welfare demographics and spending, but stand foursquare against it as much as ethanol subsidies.

Mehta was saying both getting and being rich, and not just the one. And Mehta also talked of the small business owner making up to $250,000 as if that is what Obama and Perry were talking about in wanting to increase the federal income tax. Their proposed federal tax increases would not begin on the margin until the sum after $250,000. That was particularly dishonest on the part of Mehta, though that was lost in the banging on the table by Perry...:-)

 
At 6:14 PM, Anonymous hip703 said...

1. Re: welfare. Fair enough. Even is we assume that all racists are against welfare, it is logically fallacious to conclude that everyone who is against welfare is a racist. Fallacy of then undistributed middle, and genetic fallacy. If I were teaching a class on logic, I would assign the class to watch MSNBC, which has become a den of race-baiters, and FoxNews each night.

2. Re: risk. Nowhere in the exchange did Ms. Meta say that "being wealthy" is risky. She merely stated that one way to achieve wealth is to take risks in starting your own business.

“Some of us go to Dairy Queen, and some of us start businesses,” Ms. Mehta said. Well put.

And I admire her for standing up to the four others. (Typical unbalanced MSNBC panel; but an improvement from Olbermann, who never had on anyone that disagreed with him).

Keep up the good work on my favorite leftist blog.

 
At 7:58 PM, Blogger Mitchell J. Freedman said...

And considering she was talking about poor people going to Dairy Queen, as if being poor is a walk to the ice cream shop, that's what set off Melissa Harris-Perry. ..I don't think that was well put. It was the arrogance of the elite.

 
At 9:26 PM, Anonymous hip703 said...

You don't think it's well put because you did not read what she actually said. She was not singling out poor people. She said some "of us" go to Dairy Queen, and some "of us" start businesses.

And I do not understand how starting one's own business makes one an "elitist."

 
At 10:01 PM, Blogger Mitchell J. Freedman said...

Hip,

She was making it sound like we're all at the same place and some walk over to Dairy Queen and some start a business. When one is poor, one is in a whole different place. Just walk a poor neighborhood and notice no grocery stores of any large size, no banks, but only check cashing places, boarded up places, etc. It ain't the same for "us."

She is the elitist. The business person who starts a business could be Steve Jobs or Mitt Romney, only one of whom was an elitist, and it was not Jobs. I'm not saying Jobs was a saint, either, just that he did not fit with that term like Mitt did.

 
At 10:32 PM, Anonymous hip703 said...

"She was making it sound like we're all at the same place and some walk over to Dairy Queen and some start a business."

Sorry to rain on your metaphor, but she said what she said and was precise in her language. She was not singling out poor people.

What is with the attack on her? We all agree that poverty is not desirable. That being the case, don't we want to encourage the formation of risk capital?

Re: Steve Jobs. He's not an elitist? Why, because you approve of his politics? Oh, please. Amazing how all the people that identify with the Occupy movement give Jobs a pass. Is it because, while they are chanting "down with capitalism." the iPhone stashed in their back pocket is just too cool to denounce?

Noam Chomsky, of all people, would find your excepting Jobs interesting. Even the dissent has been commodified! ("What is the app I need to download to buy the $25 Che Guevara t-shirt? Does it come in khaki, or black only?").

Let's not forget that one of the reason Apple has a $632.72 billion market cap, $27.65 billion of cash sitting on the balance sheet (and no debt), and $27.05 billion in annual free cash flow is because Apple has outsourced to China the manufacturing of its products.

And, um, not to come full circle on you, but Dairy Queen is wholly owned by Berkshire Hathaway, which is run by the other non-elite elitist of whom you approve, you know, the one who uses his government connections to engineer the purchase of Goldman Sachs and Bank of America warrants.

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/f/frank-dissent.html

 
At 5:53 AM, Blogger Mitchell J. Freedman said...

Hip, your parsing is forgetting the entire discussion was about welfare, and poor people. Her comment seen in that context, was pretty clear.

As for Jobs and Buffett, at least they recognized at some point they had enough money to be taxed more. I had no love for Jobs on several issues, and Buffett is definitely anti-union. However, in our fascistic political climate, it just looks like they are more decent than they are. And they are, or in the case of Jobs, were, more decent than a lot of political and economic leaders.

Your last word if you wish...

 

Post a Comment

<< Home