Capitalism

Watch Matt Welch Defend Capitalism Tomorrow Morning on MSNBC's Melissa Harris-Perry

That's 10 a.m. ET for a full two hours of democratic socialism, Walmart, school-funding, and so on

|

Hard to say whose heads will explode most when seeing this…. ||| Emmanuelle Richard
Emmanuelle Richard

Tomorrow morning at 10 a.m. ET I will be appearing on MSNBC's panel conversation show Melissa Harris-Perry, to discuss all that capitalism vs. socialism talk at this week's Democratic presidential debate, and how racism and sexism should be factored into all of it. It's safe to predict that my viewpoint on said topics will be in the minority…. I'll be on for the full two hours. If you want to watch people disagree with me on Twitter in real time, check out the hashtag #nerdland.

UPDATE: Maybe I spoke too soon about being outnumbered. Among my fellow capitalism-defending guests will be none other than dreamboat Harvard economist Jeffrey A. Miron!

Advertisement

NEXT: Much Hyped Theranos Diagnostics: Is It Vaporware?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Please tell us you’re going to wear that exact outfit on the show tomorrow. And if you’re not going to, just tell us you are anyway.

    1. Like Jim Webb, I refuse to tell you what you want to hear. Also, I KILLED A MAN WITH MY BARE HANDS.

      1. But what kind of underwear are you going to wear? I’d suggest a nice classic frilly number, or maybe you can get a little racy and go crotchless.

        1. I just assumed he always went commando.

      2. I hope she let’s you get in a word or two for a change.

    2. I was disappointed to see on closer inspection that those weren’t middle fingers.

    3. Well, yeah, its not like I’d actually watch MSNBC to find out.

  2. Can’t do it. Used to watch the versions at Reason. But sitting thru the derp from the other guests is intolerable.

    1. Shrill Shrew Show. Where your children belong to the state.

    2. Agreed. Fox may be bad, but at least they gave libertarians their own show.

      1. For one, brief, shining moment. I’m still missing “The Independents.” Matt Welch has been on Kennedy’s show a couple of times, and each time, I was so hoping that Kmele Foster would “crash” the “party panel.”

  3. Just in case anyone forgot

    We have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families and recognize that kids belong to whole communities

    1. I was on that very next episode. It was up to me to explain why people found that creepy.

      1. That must have been fun.

      2. I didn’t see that next episode, but I can imagine that they responded by equating your position to be being pro-child abuse or vaguely pro-slavery.

  4. If you want to watch people disagree with me on Twitter in real time…

    I CAN DO THAT FOR MYSELF RIGHT HERE.

  5. I can’t really say I’ve seen enough of her to make a fair judgement. But based on the one clip of her show I have seen, I think that Melissa Harris-Perry is actually brain damaged or a congenital idiot.

    1. Probably both.

  6. You can actually prove the free market based upon acceptance of freedom of association as it includes freedom of economic association and implies a market should be based upon freedom of association.

    The political left is then “forced” to drop support of freedom of association or accept the free market.

    1. Since when has the left been unwilling to abandon freedom of association? So far as I can tell, the left has zero respect for freedom of association. The left absolutely believes that everyone should be forced to associate with all races, creeds, national orgins, sexual preferences, etc. And if you choose to not associate, the left is fully willing to subject you to civil (and probably criminal) penalties.

      1. That may be the case, but freedom of association is historically known as a LIBERAL concept as far as I know. If that is not the case, then you are probably right.

        1. It is a liberal concept. But much of the political left is anything but liberal.

          1. yes, but can you make them admit it. Or force them into a corner where they will have to.

        2. That’s because you’re using the old, icky outdated definition of liberal.

      2. Until the topic of gentrification comes up. Then the left is all about freedom of association including freedom from association.

    2. You don’t really need to support freedom of association when the government is involved in all transactions. See “yes means yes” for proof.

  7. 7AM in LA? LOL nope.

  8. Why do you look so orange in that shot, Matt? GTL?

    1. You made me look that up….

      1. My work here is done. It’s Miller Time!

        (note: no actual Miller Brewing products will be involved)

  9. Ask her if she has paid her back taxes…..c’mon, just do it.

  10. Back in my day, the conversation between “liberals and conservatives” was about freedom vs. moralizing and security.

    Now it’s about socialism/all-encompassing state vs. freedom.

    1. That’s good as I have basically defined a (economic) fascist as a socialist who claims to believe in property rights 😀 One who who doesn’t support freedom of association.

    2. And they look at you like you have two heads when you say people should be free.

    3. I think its more about who gets to sit in the Big Chair of the all-encompassing state.

  11. The concept of freedom of association has such great benefits for libertarians; but I feel it has received underplay by the movement because of the problem it presents those who still believe in a state.

    Support freedom of association AND oppose coercive monopolies. You may now throw away the concept of the state if you really wish.

    1. There will always be a coercive monopoly. It’s really an argument about how much coercion is to be tolerated.

      1. lol, so you are willing to admit that you support the concept of coercion. Is this support limited to the state ? 🙂

  12. Good luck!

    Just remember:
    1. Capitalism is a BS word, since it only emphasizes property rights, not free markets. It could as easily describe mercantilism or crony capitalism.

    2. Property encourages motivation, but not ethics; that’s imposed by either (a) non-commercial social sanction, (b) market participants making commercial decisions based on both economical and moral values, or (c) by regulators. Ignoring the NAP, from a practical perspective it’s a lot easier (and cheaper) to bribe a regulator to hurt the people than to bribe the people to hurt themselves.

    3. Privatization without liberalization is rent-seeking, and we hate rent-seeking like we hate commies.

    4. Aside from the rent seeking sort of “property”, capital’s ever-increasing power and productivity stems from technology, not ideology.

    5. Since we live in a democracy, it’s essential for stability that a majority or large minority own substantial capital, so they have a clear stake in protecting the integrity of the system. Welfare nearly always keeps the poor dependent (and poor) by providing solely for consumption without encouraging (often discouraging) the accumulation of capital.

    1. 6. Socialism (democratic or otherwise) in practice eventually becomes indistinguishable from the worst sort of plutocratic crapitalist dystopia. According to some reports, the richest Venezuelan alive is Hugo Chavez’s daughter.

      Socialism is a scam, always and everywhere, and trusting it after more than 150 years of failure is like falling for an email from a Nigerian prince in 2015. It’s a hypocritical ripoff on a scale that would put any organized religion to shame (assuming you don’t count it as one, despite the suspicious number of similarities their ideal Total State shares with the Western notion of God).

      1. 6) ALL socialist societies of any degree have all been state operated and rely on the state for the mandates and control. As a free market supporter I oppose the state entirely!

      2. Wait —

        That Nigerian prince isn’t REAL?!

    2. 1) “Capitalism is an economic system in which trade, industry, and the means of production are privately owned and operated via profit and loss calculation (price signals) through the price system” WIKI …. owned AND OPERATED ! as opposed to state operated …. I call that free.

      2) Property does encourage ethics as the basic property right is the right to one’s own body which southern plantation owners didn’t believe in for blacks ! Perhaps you don’t either.

      3) What people do with their lives is their business … that you don’t like what they choose , I’m sorry. Should I/they apologize to you ?

      4) the most power in every country is in the hands of the state a coercive monopoly . It’s power has certainly grown.

      5) Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner. It doesn’t respect rights !

  13. Matt Welch should haul his big black dick into that studio and fucking beat the faces therein about the head and temples while his big black dick spilled fucking twenties and stripper cum.

    This would be my recommendation if Matt Welch had a big black dick which I am fairly well certain Matt Welch does not have. So fly a Cadillac spaceship instead, Welch. Fly the fucking Cadillac spaceship, man. Filled with twenties and black jizz. And dual nozzles on the side of the spaceship could fire the black cum right into the faces of the socialists and then a button press would send twenties billowing. So I think this is called a black cum and 20 dollar-billing foisted upon the clueless fuck haters of independent living by a white punk ass with gold rings and super G Cadillac Spacecraft.

    Just a minor suggestion. Or has this Welch thing already happened? The bitch is on the tubes and shit everywhere and menu screens on cable fucking suck the soul out of my body are like fucking clandestine documents after dark and multitudes of trees and little dogfishies.

    1. He’s done none of this so far.

  14. Just tuned in to find out why there’s no socialism in America. Let’s watch and find out.

  15. Why don’t we have socialism a la Denmark? Perhaps we want our economy to tank later down the road.

  16. Ohhhhh. It’s race. How dumb of me.

  17. Ha, Welch called them on the absurdity in the nicest possible way.

  18. Melissa Joan-Hart just about had a stroke when the professor pointed out that affirmative action makes otherwise successful people who benefited from it come across as not-deserving of success.

  19. “If you’re sitting at dinner with Mr. Right, does it matter where you met him?”

    What if you met him at a family reunion? Or a on visitors’ day at the prison? Or on opposite sides at a Klan rally?

  20. So I’m the only one watching this mess? That’s what Welch gets for forgetting to bump this post.

  21. Finally! Welch advocates kidney selling on the TV. As someone born with unilateral renal agenesis (PITY ME!) I might need to buy one of Welch’s kidneys one day.

    1. Oh, we pity you, Fist. Indeed we do.

  22. Ha. I guarantee Melissa Joan-Hart won’t be inviting Professor Miron back. It’s hard for them to argue against an academician.

  23. Okay, this guy is filibustering because he knows Miron is going to refute him effectively.

  24. DON’T STEP ON HIS FREE MARKET TALKING POINTS, WELCH. Let the drug testing go. PLUS, employers need to be free to use whatever criteria to choose workers, INCLUDING drug testing.

  25. Who is MSNBC in the tank for? Hillary? Biden? Or Sanders? I can’t tell at this point. Seems like Clinton.

  26. Now I see what I’ve been missing.

  27. This is why it’s not a good idea to make pledges such as the one Obama made to withdraw from Afghanistan. You don’t know what’s going to happen in the future. Just pull out or don’t. Announcements years in advance are stupid.

  28. Melissa Joan-Hart had another stroke when the suggestion was made that a Hispanic might be our next president. Make of that racism what you will.

  29. Wright seems to be out of his depth here.

  30. What would someone named Krushcheva know about Afghanistan?

  31. So we’re going to run to horse race reporting once the discussion on Afghanistan policy gets in depth.

  32. Having to swing the hammer or choosing to swing the hammer? Interesting choice of phrasing.

  33. It seems like the contrast between focus groups and internet polls being overwhelmingly won by Sanders (~18%) and all of the pundits calling the debate in Clinton’s favor (by a similar margin,) they’ve decided to cast their lot in whole to Hilldog

  34. So Wright is suggesting Obama is backtracking from the withdrawal so that Biden can better take on Hillary.

  35. The Democrats don’t want to punish hawkishness unless it’s a Republican being it. The various people around that table are proof.

  36. The panel has been dismissed? I can quit watching now?

  37. Am I alone in feeling that the music during commercial breaks sounds like I’ve paused a FPS shooter game?

  38. Hi Matt,
    I like to hear opposing views because I am always seeking the truth. The argument about the cost of entitlements is true but you have to make a few assumptions. First that the cost of medicine including the EXPECTED PROFITS remain the same. If everyone had Medicare. you have a large buying pool to negotiate lower prices for hospital stays, drugs, doctors etc. Many young people don’t have insurance so at the critical time when we could intercede without meds and high tech medicine we could PREVENT illness. Also my entire staff was on electronic medical record – this avoids duplication of tests and outlyers among practitioners. I was ordering CT scans on every patient I suspected of having a herniated disc – my rate of ordering CT’s was 1000% more than the rest of the docs. I was asked me for my scientific rationale for my CT orders. I was given the latest literature, I realized that by ordering CT’s early that I was unnecessarily exposing patients to un-necessary radiation and that the actual treatment instituted would not be altered in 99% of the patients. This would save a lot of money and provide better quality of care. Most of the patients would resolve without a CT scan and be better off from without it. We can bring down the cost of medicine but I also question the need for profit oriented health care. Multimillion dollar CEO’s and Billion dollar profits on the backs of the sick feels immoral to me. I would like to here everyone’s response.

    1. No fucking way you are a doctor. You might well be a butcher, given what you did to the English language was pretty epic. That is all.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.