Hacker News Reader

Comment by javert | Hacker News Reader

This is just another blame-the-rich piece without any evidence. I guess blaming the rich is very popular right now.

The article is really interesting, so it's too bad he mars it with this kind of unproven, cruel and vitriolic thesis.

He makes specific points about the ways the rich have abandoned social responsibility and the knock-on effects. If you’re looking for a convenient lie, there are plenty of sources for that.

> If you’re looking for a convenient lie, there are plenty of sources for that.

Don't be nasty. Engage in legitimate conversation or be quiet.

I am interested in legitimate conversation. Ignoring key points of the article while criticizing it is not a start to that.

I think the theme is more along the lines of blame people with power, do not blame people without power. It just so happens that people who focus on accumulating money, are usually focused on accumulating power.

The overwhelmingly vast majority of "wealthy" Americans have zero political power. Zero.

I think that depends on how you define wealthy. These days I consider it a net worth of at least $500 million.

Depending on how you define wealthy yes that's true. But who DOES have political power then? And what class of wealth do they exist in?

Not sure how you can say there isn't any evidence? The wealthy most certainly donate to political causes, campaigns and opinionated non-profits. It wouldn't be a stretch to argue that such money amplifies those entities' power, thus causing societal level problems with the amplified power of their wealth.

It's not 100% valid or exhaustive proof, but at the very least shows that it's a reasonable avenue of exploring rather than shutting it down and calling it "unproven, cruel and vitriolic".

The rich don't control the two political parties. Showing that they do would be the beginning of evidence.

In fact, the Dems' agenda is anti-rich (raise taxes enormously, etc.) and the Republicans are currently controlled by non-college-educated blue-collar people.

This is obvious. If Taibbi has a counter-narrative to the obvious, that's fine, but he needs to present evidence.

I think this is just background knowledge he assumed the reader would have. Basically every national politician whose name you recognize is wealthy.

> Republicans are currently controlled by non-college-educated blue-collar people.

This characterization lacks credibility. Let's look at some leaders:

- Lindsey Graham [0]

- Mitch McConnell [1]

- Kevin McCarthy [2]

- Ronna McDaniel [3]

Characterizing them as "non-college-educated blue-collar people" is odd. First, what do you have against working class people? Second, what inference are you trying to make with college education?

> In fact, the Dems' agenda is anti-rich (raise taxes enormously, etc.)

Maybe? Bloomberg famously tried to buy an election and the DNC certainly capitulated. I don't know that I'd call that "anti-rich", I think I might use the word "opportunistic". In a time where we're dealing with a lot of inequality guess what kind of opportunity is rife for exploitation? The kind that makes Dick Costolo think he's not "rich". [4]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindsey_Graham#Early_life

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitch_McConnell#Early_life_and...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_McCarthy_(California_pol...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronna_McDaniel#Early_life,_edu...

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Costolo#Controversy

What's cruel about it?

It would be cruel if he blamed the Jews. It would be cruel if he blamed the blacks. It would be cruel if he blamed the poor. Somehow it's not cruel if he blames the rich?

This isn't a good argument. If there is blame to be assigned it is not unthinkable that some groups are not to blame and another is.

Being Jewish or Black is not comparable to being rich. I'm not sure what you're arguing here.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com