Billionaire stands up for the "1%"

[softwareNerd]

It is rare to see a billionaire stand up for the so-called "1%" in a public forum. It's sure to bring them grief from socialists complaining of their selfishness, conservatives complaining about their selfishness, and libertarian-commies accusing them of being "crony-capitalists" (sic).  

 

So, it is refreshing to see one billionaire -- Thomas Perkins -- stand up for his wealth-cohort.

 

From the Occupy movement to the demonization of the rich embedded in virtually every word of our local newspaper, the San Francisco Chronicle, I perceive a rising tide of hatred of the successful one percent.

... ... 

There is outraged public reaction to the Google buses carrying technology workers from the city to the peninsula high-tech companies which employ them. We have outrage over the rising real-estate prices which these 'techno geeks' can pay,... ... 

 

 

 

[Morality_Today]

One should ask, why does he feel the need to defend himself and others? He has nothing to respond to, except populist emotions like envy and jealousy, which are not arguments.

 

He only hurts himself and his position by speaking out and making these claims, mainly because his observations are not rooted in fact. They sound more like "they're out to get me" paranoia.

[muhuk]

He only hurts himself and his position by speaking out and making these claims, mainly because his observations are not rooted in fact. They sound more like "they're out to get me" paranoia.

 

Or perhaps he thought he'd be sanctioning the demonization if he kept silent.

 

If I had a fear, like they're out to get me, I would probably not make a speech that would potentially make `them` angry.

[softwareNerd]

One should ask, why does he feel the need to defend himself and others?

I suppose, because his critics have the guns.

 

He only hurts himself and his position by speaking out and making these claims, mainly because his observations are not rooted in fact. They sound more like "they're out to get me" paranoia.

Well, I can understand if one objects to his parallel with the holocaust. However, his underlying point is the vilification of the so-called 1%. How is this not rooted in fact? Ever since the great recession, there are been a rise in criticism of the rich, of "Wall St. vs. main St.", of the "1%", of "rising inequality". President Obama has encouraged and cheer-led the rhetoric, and continues with his focus on tax-hikes for the rich and minimum wages. The recent best seller on Amazon was an economics book about inequality. Even many so-called libertarians blame so-called "crony-capitalists" as if they were some primary force that arises in a free-economy.

While he may do himself a disservice because so many people think he is wrong, surely his essential point is perfectly accurate, and not even controversial among Objectivists.

Edited May 1, 2014 by softwareNerd

[Morality_Today]

softwareNerd, on 01 May 2014 - 4:37 PM, said:

I suppose, because his critics have the guns.

 

Well, I can understand if one objects to his parallel with the holocaust. However, his underlying point is the vilification of the so-called 1%. How is this not rooted in fact? Ever since the great recession, there are been a rise in criticism of the rich, of "Wall St. vs. main St.", of the "1%", of "rising inequality". President Obama has encouraged and cheer-led the rhetoric, and continues with his focus on tax-hikes for the rich and minimum wages. The recent best seller on Amazon was an economics book about inequality. Even many so-called libertarians blame so-called "crony-capitalists" as if they were some primary force that arises in a free-economy.

While he may do himself a disservice because so many people think he is wrong, surely his essential point is perfectly accurate, and not even controversial among Objectivists.

 

I agree with you as well as Mr. Perkins that hatred toward the 1% and the idea of Wall St. vs. Main St. is a serious problem in our time, and it based on a flawed view of the world.

 

However, my objection is with the approach that Mr. Perkins takes in defending that viewpoint. It is illogical and counterproductive: Violence against the 1% is non-existent. To predict a Kristallnacht for billionaires is not only insensitive, but it is -- as I wrote before -- an arbitrary claim. The idea that Mr. Perkins "perceives a rising tide of hatred of the successful one percent" does not change the fact that hatred (which is an emotion) does not equal genocide and to equate the two is a fallacy.

 

Even on topics that are not controversial from Objectivists, I would encourage critical thinking rather than simple hero-worship of representatives from the 1%.

[Repairman]

To be sure, one of the means of securing wealth for the Third Reich was through the confiscation of properties from Jewish businesses, homes, and even their gold teeth. If some people had their druthers, the same methods would be applied to the so-called One Percent. Historically, capitalism has not had a "fair trial," and until it is explained as the only social system that upholds man's natural rights, the proponents of the Marxian class-struggle will continue to cloud the real issues. Perhaps if the source of defensive arguments for capitalism came from our schools, entertainers, or other popular culture resources, rather than a "super-rich dude," an all-out class struggle could be avoided. Until then, the popular myth will continue to persist that "the Final Solution" is to eat the rich.