In comment to Ta-Nehisi Coates

A comment to this right here:

I cannot express how excited I would be at the opportunity to be
your white spokesperson. Resume available upon request. Email me!

Either this idea of class-criticism is just strawmanship, or I'm
blind to the intricate folkways of white people. I, frankly, suspect
that it's both.

And, in my opinion, your suspicions are entirely correct. There is
quite a bit of strawmanship going on, as your original citation
evidences. (No one actually ridicules anyone for being a "rube", except
maybe carnies. Otherwise, "rube" is only used in accusations -- "he
thinks you're a rube!")

This purposely confuses _everyone's_ understanding of the intricate
folkways. Matt was right to point out that eating moose isn't white
ghetto-equivalent ("whetto?"), but it's being purposely confused with
shooting and eating squirrel or possum, which is. (Although this
indicator is a stereotype that rarely occurs in the wild.) Snowmobiling
is whetto when it's competing with cross-country skiing, but in the
wider context (competitive snowmobile racing?) it's comparable with
Ski-doos and ATVs, which are on the expensive side to really indicate
whetto (we're getting into nouveau riche tacky territory -- if you're
snooty about ATVs, you're snootifying against how those rich people are
spending their money indulging their whetto tastes, which introduces
new social dynamic twists -- but more on this in a moment.)

"She supports drilling!" and "...where did she go to school?" are
what the author imagines cartoons of ecofascists and bluebloods would
exclaim, and nothing more.

A point worth pointing out, vaguely related to this post by Matt,
is that what actual lower class whites do is only peripherally related
to the classist notion of whetto. Predominantly, the class tension is
between white people who spend their disposable income within some
cultural norm structure, and white people who spend their disposable
income in some other cultural norm structure that the first group
thinks is how dumb poor people would spend their money if they had any.

I'm serious about that spokesperson gig. And I can be more concise
than this -- more words, fewer words, using "trailer trash" instead of
"whetto", whatever you want. I aim to please.

In comment to Paul Krugman

Paul Krugman has a nice description of how the bailout of bad mortgage securities would get paid for. In response, I commented:

In this description, is "the Public" predominantly the Chinese government and sovereign funds I keep hearing about, or is that hyperbolic xenophobia?

I've heard both that the bailout would be paid by the taxpayers (who would be "on the hook" for the assets, in case they have no value), and that the feds could actually make money by buying low and selling high.

Both of these seem to be ignoring that the bailout will be paid for with borrowed (or soon-to-be-borrowed) money, so even if the feds did sell off the toxic paper for more than they bought it for, the net effect might still increase the deficit.