SHARE

And yet many who make the effort to wear pants make less money

On “Fox News Sunday” (on Fox News, Sunday), Rand Paul offered some inspiring thoughts on how the economy really works, based purely on the theories of Ayn Rand plus multiple massive bong hits: Tax rates have nothing to do with who gets wealthy in America. Rather, wealth is simply an indicator of how good you are at doing capitalism to other people. Paul rejected the idea that economic policy has any effect on who wins and who loses in the economy, which will certainly come as news to the army of corporate lobbyists who’ve been writing our great nation’s tax code since the Reagan era.

“The thing is, income inequality is due to some people working harder and selling more things,” Paul told host Chris Wallace on “Fox News Sunday.” “If people voluntarily buy more of your stuff, you’ll have more money.”

The Kentucky senator then went on to explain that the race always goes to the swift, the battle to the strong, bread to the wise, favor to men of skill, and riches to men of understanding — and then he pointed both thumbs to his chest and mouthed “this guy.”

Paul came out with his flabbergasting lie as part of his pitch for a flat tax rate, which the Tax Foundation notes would increase the after-tax income of households earning more than $1 million per year by a full 13 percent, and would add 3 percent to the incomes of households making between $50,000 and $75,000. Oh, and as a bonus, it would slash government revenues by $3 trillion over 10 years, which wouldn’t be a problem because everyone would become rich if they worked real hard and voluntarily bought each other’s stuff, so we wouldn’t need to pay for welfare or disability or other wasteful things like that, probably. And the national debt would already have been eliminated by defunding Planned Parenthood.

In an attempt to take Paul seriously, host Chris Wallace asked, “Doesn’t your plan massively increase income inequality?” Paul, undaunted, explained how economies work in his grand libertarian dreamworld:

“It’s a fallacious notion to say, ‘Oh, rich people get more money back in a tax cut,'” Paul responded. “If you cut taxes 10 percent, 10 percent of a million is more than 10 percent of a thousand dollars. So, obviously, people who pay more in taxes will get more back.”

“We all end up working for people who are more successful than us,” Paul went on, “and that’s a good thing, that more money will be back in the economy.”

And everyone will eventually benefit, especially once we get rid of burdensome regulations that keep people from working as long as they want to for as little pay as they can sell their labor for. And we won’t need government, since people can simply rate their Uber drivers and the Free Market will work its magic.

Asked for comment, the ghost of Horatio Alger said he found Paul’s economic ideas “a bit of a stretch.”

[HuffPo]

$
Donate with CCDonate with CC
  • memzilla

    • And if it breaks you’ll have to buy babby a new one at the parts store.
      ~

      • memzilla

        Donna Rose will have a comfortable income from her Internet Meme residuals.

    • Thatsitfor Theotherwon

      At first I thought the top half was written in Bagger, for you are.

    • SterWonk

      On the one hand: super extra bonus points for Donna Rose (PBUH) pic.

      On the other hand: I hope you got parental approval for that… :-S

    • rebecca

      well that’s an internet win if i’ve ever seen an internet win!

  • Cheesus Crust

    Shorter Paul: A rising tide lifts all yachts (disclaimer: unless you have no yacht because you can’t afford one, then fuck you, You’ll work for me and I will pay you by not cutting you and throwing you to the sharks.)

  • FauxAntocles

    I hear the ghost of Steve Forbes’ candidacy…

  • FauxAntocles

    This shit has never worked before, but it’ll work this time!

  • Guess I’d better get out there and sell a lot more Mary Kay.

  • Villago Delenda Est

    based purely on the theories of Ayn Rand plus multiple massive bong hits

    Nail, hammer, hit, Dok.

    • SterWonk

      I’ve never heard of a nail or a hammer being used as a bong…

  • handyhippie65

    so he is in favor of more pissing in our faces, and telling us it is raining, cause THAT is what is trickling down on us. bitch, please!

    • Relativicus

      If only you libs would allow the trickle down theory a chance. First, you cut off sanctions to Cuba, which after 60 years were just starting to work (most economists agree that Castro will be dead in the next six months to 20 years). You drop Iranian sanctions after only a couple decades when we know — just know– that the people were ready to rise up against the mullahs any day now. And now, with a mere thirty years of abject failure regarding supply-side economics, you’re ready to throw the whole thing overboard? Typical.

      • Boscoe

        So short sighted, those libruls!

    • kindness

      When it rains blowjobs everyone will get blowjobs. I’m still waiting for that storm to pass.

      • handyhippie65

        you and me both. first day of basic, the drill sergeant asked who wanted to be his buddy, after some hands went up, he explained that a buddy was someone who goes to town, gets two blowjobs, and brings one back for you.

  • schmannity

    Who am I to argue with a Paul Board Certified economist and three-time winner of the Paul Prize in Economics?

    • Thatsitfor Theotherwon

      Bored Certified.

  • Villago Delenda Est

    “The thing is, income inequality is due to some people working harder and selling more things,” Paul told host Chris Wallace on “Fox News Sunday.” “If people voluntarily buy more of your stuff, you’ll have more money.”

    Or you rig the game, as a bunch of stock traders did when they took advantage of having slightly shorter fiber lines into the trading computers to get a split second advantage over the competition.

    Also has nothing to do with inheriting a pile simply because you fell out of the right uterus, also, too.

    • Boscoe

      Or like when Trump allegedly wanted to buy out a competitor, so he got them to hire him as a manager of one of their properties and then publicly brought in well-known bankruptcy consultants to tour it, which of course sparked all kinds of speculation and drove down their stock prices making it easier for him to buy them out.

      • SterWonk

        Wow, that’s ballsy. And shameless, even for Trump. Link?

    • Michael Smith

      I really would like to know why this message resonates so much with people living in trailers under power lines. I mean, its simple and easy to digest, but it clearly implies that they don’t work hard, nor do they sell many things- and that this is why they are poor.

      Oh yeah, because they imagine that the Poors he is talking about are black, unlike them, and if the Blacks would just get to work, then there wouldn’t need to be welfare so they wouldn’t be taxed anymore, and they would then be rich.

      • Villago Delenda Est

        DING DING DING DING DING

        It’s all about “those people”.

        • willi0000000

          “them” again?

      • JohnR

        Welfare Queens in Cadillacs gettin’ free stuff keepin’ me from winnin’ the lottery cuz they use their food stamp on cigarettes, booze, and lottery tickets so whites can’t win the lottery.

        • Michael Smith

          A-heyllll yeah pardner.

        • arundel

          “Strapping young bucks buying t-bone steaks”. God, that Reagan could deliver a pre-written line for the suckers. He’s probably still doing it in Hell.

  • Boscoe

    It never fails to amaze me the simplemindedness and childlike naivete displayed by Libertarians… Never forget that these people actually believe that without government intervention, corporations would do the right thing because the market will “correct itself” if they don’t. Apparently they also believe that capitalists welcome competition and monopolies are a dirty liberal lie…

    • Michael Smith

      Yeah and apparently they can’t look to a time when there was minimal government involvement in the marketplace to see what happens. Or if they do, they think it is superseded by the “success” of Reaganomics (which were nowhere near as radical as what Paul proposes).

      • Boscoe

        Exactly! You’d think the robber barons never happened. They seem to think it was America’s golden age back when the west was being won and every town was started by a rich guy who owned all the land, all the buildings, all the businesses and hired the sheriff. They never stop to think why, if those days were so awesome, we worked so hard to get away from that…

        • Doug Langley

          Why obviously, all the bleeding heart libtards took over the government, and passed taxes and regulations cuz they just hate the job creators so much, and –

          Jeez. I can’t even snark about it.

    • arundel

      “Competition” as a self-evident virtue has always baffled me. Because in reality, corporations and those with the money and upper hand hate “competition”.

      And outside of sports, most ordinary people do too. Because everyone knows the game is rigged, the playing field uneven. I’m not going to start a telecom company in my garage that will “compete” with AT&T. In his book, Voltaire’s Bastards, John Ralston Saul interestingly notes that it’s the people who’ve already won the game who love to invoke “competition” as a virtue, in the corporatist mentality. It has the effect of (falsely) telling people that it’s their own fault, they just don’t work as hard, it’s their own personal failing if they fail in the alleged “competition”. As a result, he writes, 95 percent of us take ourselves out of the competition pre-emptively. (I’m paraphrasing here.) Why even try when the game is rigged? It’s the corporate “winners” who love to talk about “competition” as a virtue, when in fact they do their best to thwart and strangle any hint of competition.

      What I mean is, Rand Paul is a godawful idiot and piece of shit whose personal appearance is an affront to the senses. “Why does he always look like he just got out of bed?”.

    • SterWonk

      “… and monopolies are a dirty liberal lie”

      Except for telco monopolies – those are real, and the result of regulations locking out smaller competitors. (Ignore the fact that utilities are by nature naturally-occuring monopolies, and that most of the regulations are about introducing competition.)

      Sorry, pet peeve of mine – all the bullshit that was slung over net neutrality really drove me nuts, because I happen to know a little bit about how that stuff works.

    • velocipedes

      It never fails to amaze me the simple mindedness and childlike naivete displayed by statists… Never forget that these people actually believe that with government intervention, corporations would do the right thing because the bureaucrats will “correct them” if they don’t. Apparently they also believe that socialists welcome competition and monopolies are a natural result of capitalism.

  • Relativicus

    My favorite thing about Rand Paul is.

    • Thatsitfor Theotherwon

      I like him this much ><.

      • willi0000000

        this much X ?

    • proudgrampa

      “My favorite thing about Rand Paul is…”
      The fact that he has no chance in hell of becoming POTUS.

    • arglebargle

      Well, he doesn’t seem to take to kindly to that Christie fellow.

    • Latverian Diplomat

      Deep down, you know that Ron is terribly disappointed.

  • LarryHoudini

    “It’s a fallacious notion to say, ‘Oh, rich people get more money back in a tax cut,’” Paul responded. “If you cut taxes 10 percent, 10 percent of a million is more than 10 percent of a thousand dollars. So, obviously, people who pay more in taxes will get more back.”
    Ahh . . . does he know what “fallacious” means?

    • Villago Delenda Est

      It’s one of a number of words that I think do not mean what Tribblehead thinks they mean.

      • willi0000000

        the entire OED?

    • Boscoe

      It means blowjobs, right? ;P

      • Relativicus

        What word doesn’t?

        • Thatsitfor Theotherwon

          “Braces”?

          • Relativicus

            Now I’m going to have to answer for the laughter heard coming from the bathroom.

      • Logic of Color

        The word “blowjob” has been changed to “Aladeen”, just so ya know

      • Latverian Diplomat

        Well, No True Scotsman will give you a blow job, but the Straw Man might.

        • Logic of Color

          The Gayeratti wing of the Wonketeriat might disagree

    • Latverian Diplomat

      Not to mention that a flat tax clearly benefits the highest bracket the most, even percentage-wise and not just in absolute amounts. In fact, as commonly envisioned, where many “ordinary folks” tax breaks are eliminated, it is a serious increase for those with the least ability to pay more.

    • And if things were also priced in proportion to how much people make in income, that would be a meaningful point.

  • Michael Smith

    And they say communists are Utopian dreamers.

    • DoILookAmused2u ?

      Libertarians are just inverted Stalinists.

      • Villago Delenda Est

        The entire GOP is inverted Marxism. They’ve got all the bad stuff (actual “political correctness”, totalitarian attitudes, the hatred of science that dares to show how stupid they are) combined with worship of capitalism without the slightest concern with its long term survival.

        • Michael Smith

          That sounds remarkably like this crazy bunch of Germans I read about once, who went to this political rally at a beer hall in Munich, and tried to start a right-wing revolution.. lol. Luckily they threw the leader in jail after that.

        • DoILookAmused2u ?

          Yeah, the wealthy create stuff and provide jobs for the moochers. Instead of the wealthy being moochers who take advantage of the workers who make and do stuff.

          It’s not really very deep.

      • Zippy

        that’s why they hate each other so much

  • Spotts1701

    “If people voluntarily buy more of your stuff, you’ll have more money.”
    If you had told me this little bit of childhood naivety came from a 10-year-old, I’d have bought it. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/85f7434ce8652d7758b4054b401fe03cddf17e9874049674aaa9b55df80cc3d0.jpg

  • jesuswasablack

    “Hard Work And Tax Cuts Will Make Everyone Rich”

    Or you could just retire from politics and get in on the scare America grifter circuit, just like his racist mother fuckin father!

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/ron-paul-ads-warn-of-financial-crisis-1432245027

  • schmannity

    Ron Paul, nutjob, Rand Paul, entitled nutjob, Rand’s son, entitled drunk driver. The next generation should be a doozy.

    • jesuswasablack

      What else needs to be said, bravo shmannity, bravo!!!!!!!

    • Antimassacree

      While wishing no one actual harm (Rule…2?), with this trend it wouldn’t surprise me if Son of Rand DUI Darwins himself right out of the gene pool. Just hope he doesn’t take any innocents with him.

      • schmannity

        If not, prickish Kentucky coal miner.

  • DoILookAmused2u ?

    If everybody is rich, who will clean my pool?

    • Villago Delenda Est

      Some Rockefeller layabout.

    • Relativicus

      Nobody. You’ll just voluntarily buy a new one when the old one gets too grody. Yes, I used “grody.” No, I don’t know if that’s how “grody” is supposed to be spelled.

    • proudgrampa
      • Malaclypse

        Thank you…always appreciate an introduction to more good music, now I’m off to see what google music thinks a “Tom Russell Radio” sounds like. Hopefully it doesn’t veer immediately into typical flag-humping country.

        • proudgrampa

          You will absolutely not be disappointed. His lyrics are sublime.

        • proudgrampa

          So how was your “Tom Russell Radio?” I actually prefer mostly his older stuff, but all of it is pretty good (Long Way Around, Borderland my favorite albums).

          • Malaclypse

            Not bad, what little I got to listen to. Ended up being a busier afternoon than expected. I cheated a little, and just shuffled artist, instead of a radio station, so gMusic didn’t send me off in strange directions this time.

    • jesuswasablack

      Why the messican rapists of course, they don’t get the tax cut!

    • Latverian Diplomat

      There are always people who are too lazy to get rich, and they will do all the work. It’s logic.

      • DoILookAmused2u ?

        Thank God for lazy people because I don’t want to clean my own pool .

    • velocipedes

      The machines.

  • Hey Paultards! I have the secrets of money success! Send me a SASE and 500 bucks and I’ll share the truth about America’s financial system!!

    I promise to buy Rand a new suit.

    • Thatsitfor Theotherwon

      Y zapatos, tambien.

    • Zippy

      do you take bitcoin?

      • i do not. I do accept shoes from deadheads, however.

    • Antimassacree

      Start by buying him some pants.

      • A pointless business venture, anti. Since Rand is pantsless, we can simply shove a mountain of Washingtons and Susan B. Anthonys up his ass and limit our upfront investment.

        Rand Paul – sure, he’s got change for a five. Stand back while he drops trou.

    • Boscoe

      Lol “SASE” ;))

      • Did I mention that for your 500 bucks you get a subscription to my newsletter?

    • SterWonk

      It took me a moment to remember what “SASE” meant; it’s been so long since I’ve heard or read it, my first thought had to do with frickin’ laser beams.

  • dslindc

    *sigh*

    • willi0000000

      they should, at least, be honest and call it “trickle-on economics”

      • handyhippie65

        don’t you mean tinkle on?

    • Michael Smith

      Its funny that they can still get away with calling this “trickle down economics.” I mean, the idea was what? That the investing class should get a tax break so that they can pump money into the domestic economy through factories and similar massive job-producing enterprises, which then fuel the growth of communities?

      But these days, I mean, who’s getting the trickle down? Workers in Malaysia? Who don’t get paid anything? As soon as employers got that “trickle down” policy, they started finding ways to minimize the “trickling,” that was supposed to be the point of the system rather than an unfortunate but fixable side effect. This is, of course, what businesses do – if left to their own devices, they try to make as much money as possible in any way that they can use. But to think that, simply by letting companies and their wealthy sponsors keep more money, they will pass on the benefits to other Americans without being forced is either very stupid or completely disingenuous.

      • chicken thief

        And also too they will never acknowledge that, as the phrase implies, the initial benefit was to the wealthy. That windfall benefit is what is supposed to be ‘trickling down’.

      • handyhippie65

        AOT,K

      • Marc

        I think they named it aptly. The un-wealthy got what was intended. Pissed on.

  • Jeamonn

    Why does anybody believe anything Ayn Rand, that shit-stain on humanity, has to say? I tried reading Atlas Shrugged and almost died from eye sepsis. If anyone can truly be considered a cancer on those around her it would be Ayn Rand.

    • Especially since she collected Social Security. Taker!

    • Anarchy Pony

      Because pseudo intellectual/moral justification of greed.

    • Relativicus

      I read The Fountainhead in my early 20’s because I’d heard so much about Rand that I thought I should read what was sounding like a must-read piece of modern literature. Two takeaways that linger with me to this day:

      1. I was quite the selfish little prick in those days yet Ayn Rand’s attempt to universalize self-absorption as the ultimate in human development still had me scratching my head.

      2. My dog’s habit of eating the un-read portion of whatever book I was reading and left lying around was not without its good points.

      • Biel_ze_Bubba

        I bet the dog puked it up.

    • jesuswasablack

      I always thought fountainhead was a gay porno? what do I know?

    • James Christopher Owen

      “There are two novels that can transform a bookish
      14-year-kid’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a
      childish daydream that can lead to an emotionally stunted, socially
      crippled adulthood in which large chunks of the day are spent inventing
      ways to make real life more like a fantasy novel. The other is a book
      about orcs.”

      • Morrigan In Oregon

        The two novels I had surreptitiously stashed between the mattresses were “Gone With The Wind” and “Forever Amber.” Needless to say, I had an education early.

        oh, you were making a witticism, sorry.

  • JohnnyZhivago2
    • MrBlobfish

      As a NJ resident who was stuck for 3 days looking at the floodwaters from my 3rd floor apartment, I ask what should Christie have done for the residents of the State he was elected to serve? He did what he was supposed to do and get money from the Feds to help his constituents. Anyone who brings up this hug nonsense should be lashed to boardwalk when the next hurricane blows through.

      • jmk

        It says a great deal about the lack of humanity in those who keep bringing up that hug as a negative that they fault a human being for reacting positively – even momentarily – to an expression of sympathy from another human being.

        That utter lack of humanity shouldn’t come as any surprise, though, considering these are also the assholes who feel comfortable looking women in the face and saying “yeah, I know that abortion would save your life, but hey… omelets and eggs, honey…omelets and eggs.”

        • James Christopher Owen

          “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” – Franklin Delano Roosevelt

  • Zippy

    Good lord, he has the economic philosophy of a seven year old

    (yes, seven year old libel)

    • Msgr_Moment

      Great minds.

    • FauxAntocles

      Talking to the base!

  • Msgr_Moment

    So today is crappy grade-school math and crappy grade-school econ day? Oh, joy.

    • Boscoe

      You’re giving Rand’s economic “theories” WAY too much credit there.

  • elviouslyqueer

    Big talk coming from a college dropout who only got into ophthalmology by buying his way into med school.

  • Villago Delenda Est

    Another asshole who obviously hasn’t read The Wealth of Nations.

  • willi0000000

    rand just likes “economic diversity”

    • Boscoe

      • Michael Smith

        Has Trump met this kid? Or does he not like Asians.

        • chicken thief

          I LOVE them. Especially the women. When they aren’t bleeding out of whatever, of course. But they still can’t drive for shit.

          ~ The Donald

      • Lance Thrustwell

        I like the cut of this Chang’s jib! I have just the party for him (I got this from Wonkette):

        …my paste didn’t work. It was the Conan party thing. Oh well. But anyway, sweet kid.

      • handyhippie65

        cause his success means nothing without the wailing, and gnashing of teeth of others. bet he had a tiger mom.

        • SterWonk

          “To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women.”

          • handyhippie65

            yea, i thought about it, but i didn’t think he was worthy of a quote from conan. even if ahnold is a dickstain.

  • JMP

    Because janitors and garbage collectors don’t work hard, but the folks who make all their money from investments and don’t actually work at all, they’re the real hard workers. Suuuure.

    • Villago Delenda Est

      Please not to point out reality to Rand. It causes his tribble to squiggle.

    • schmannity

      Stocks don’t manipulate themselves, accounts don’t churn alone.

    • Anarchy Pony

      They busted their dudebro asses off in college to network and kiss the right asses. Or daddy hooked em up.

      • Villago Delenda Est

        Or daddy hooked em up.

        This explains the entire career of Bill Kristol, for example.

    • Reddishrabbit

      Don’t forget poor Mittens, having to sell some of his stock portfolio during college. Think of the accrued dividends he lost because he didn’t work hard enough

      • Doug Langley

        Poor guy. And he was reduced to eating blackened yellowfin tuna with linguine. Or as he puts it “tuna and noodles”.

  • ArgieBargie

    “If people voluntarily buy more of your stuff, you’ll have more money.”

    Too bad nobody’s buying your shit, Aqua Buddah.

  • Joshua Norton

    Don’t you just KNOW he skims thru Ayn Rand with a highlighter before doing one of these shows.

  • DoILookAmused2u ?

    Think of all the time he saves without wasting time to consider things like whether or not something is practical, feasible or even rooted in anything real..

  • Antimassacree

    But where will the Uber drivers drive if no one voluntarily funds repair of the roads and bridges?

    • DoILookAmused2u ?

      The road and bridge owners, also wealthy, will take care of it all with oompa loompas.

      • Boscoe

        -And you’ll pay for it via tolls (Or enjoy the freedom and liberty to choose to never leave your home). Good thing we’re not oppressed by taxes anymore! Thank you Ayn Rand!

        • handyhippie65

          the toll road in indiana, is a perpetual money pit. it was privatized, and the operators are constantly crying about it.

          • Villago Delenda Est

            Oh, my heart pumps buttermilk for the stupid motherfucker. Seriously!

          • jesuswasablack

            Actually the toll road was fiscally solvent until they started fucking with the books to make it lose money (i.e. the US postal service). The new “owners” are in bankruptcy now. The only people the deal worked out for were Mitch Daniels (old gov) old law firm, they made millions pushing the paperwork for the deal! Meanwhile the tolls have more than doubled! Brilliant!

          • handyhippie65

            i lived in ekhart co. when they sold us out. it earned enough to maintain it, just no profit. i suppose the high tolls are a large part of why it is hurting. i now live close to us 6 , and it has a lot more truck traffic that ever.

          • jesuswasablack

            “i suppose the high tolls are a large part of why it is hurting”

            No don’t you understand, the whole thing was a fucking scam, the toll road aint supposed to make money, they just need to make enough to maintain it? Its hurting because the company that processed the deal has run off with the profits and will now dump the losses back to the taxpayers, don’t you fucking understand how crony capitalism (GOP style) works?

          • handyhippie65

            sure, i knew it was a scam from the get go. all privatization of government functions are. from toll roads to prisons, to the fucking charter schools that are just christian indoctrination centers. i have lived here for almost 50 years. i keep voting against the idiocy, but i feel like don quixote.

    • velocipedes

      Ah, the Tragedy of the Commons.

  • toomanyrappers

    Rentiers don’t work hard.

    • Villago Delenda Est

      “Work” is not something rentiers do.

  • ZJDP04 – WA

    I didn’t realize you could say ‘shit’ on this site. That is good to know.

    • willi0000000

      you could . . . if there were comments . . . that were allowed.

      • mardam422

        Which they are not.

    • jesuswasablack

      Why you can say shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cock sucker, mother fucker and tits Wow!

      • Villago Delenda Est

        Seven is the charm!

    • elviouslyqueer

      Shit yea!

    • handyhippie65

      the only thing not allowed is violence without votes. they are wonkette’s weapon of choice.

  • Msgr_Moment

    “We all end up working for people who are more successful than us,” Paul went on, “and that’s a good thing, that more money will be back in the economy.”

    You’re supposed to work for us, Senator Putz.

    • DoILookAmused2u ?

      Who is Warren Buffet working for, BTW?

      Because I was under the impression he worked for Berkshire stockholders, none of whom are more successful than himself?

    • Anarchy Pony

      I didn’t realize that offshore bank accounts counted as “back in the economy”.

    • artem1s

      so he’s endorsing Hillz too?

  • Logic of Color

    Is it just me or does the libertarian worldview seem childish? Where do they think roads, fire protection, contract protections, zoning laws…where does all this come from? It’s like a giant game of peek-a-boo.

    • Latverian Diplomat

      You say “childish”, I say “magical”. There’s some overlap there.

      • Boscoe

        It’s like a Venn diagram with only one circle in it.

    • Joshua Norton

      Meh. If you try claim that every major form of transportation or communications or infrastructure system in history has been built, operated, or subsidized by government (including the railroads that are the source – along with inheritance – of the wealth of the “heroes” in Ayn Rand’s books), the Randian Objectivist will claim that their ideology is, in effect, more valid than mere facts. Obviously, governments have prevented free enterprise from reaching its potential in order to monopolize power.

      (I know that sounds uncharacteristically deep, but, believe me, I’m snarking my ass off here.)

      • willi0000000

        or . . .

        governments have prevented free enterprise from
        reaching its potential in order to monopolize power.

    • proudgrampa

      Child libel! My seven-year-old grandson has better economic instincts than this turkey.

    • Villago Delenda Est

      I’d say infantile, but Donna Rose has more sense than these idiots.

    • velocipedes

      It’s not just you. Plenty of other bootlickers think the same.

  • Mehmeisterjr

    The only rule of economics that I ever learned which has worked perfectly every time is: “Shit flows downhill.”

    • handyhippie65

      never stand at the bottom of anyone’s hill.

  • Indiepalin

    Rand Paul is in a fierce contest with Bobby Jindal for the jockey vote.

    • Beaumarchais?

      Imma havta repaint mine then. Again!

  • MrBlobfish

    He’s the Jan Brady of US politics.

    • Logic of Color

      Hah yeah “it’s always Donald Donald Donald!”

      • SuspectedDemocrat

        Now that you mention it, Donald does looks like he took a football to the nose.

        • Logic of Color

          that’s Marsha (**eye roll**)

          • Villago Delenda Est

            Get yer tropes correct! Sheesh!

          • because in this, Rand is Jan. trump = Marsha.

  • Fartknocker

    His rhetoric is all home grown. His dad still believes he has a better understanding of economics than anyone in DC or academia and now has a 1-800 number and website to send you to the Ron Paul School of Financial Enlightenment and Cosmetology.

    • DahBoner

      Ron Paul obviously played hooky on the Eyebrows Trimming 101…

  • Lance Thrustwell

    I’m just glad that, since CEOs work 350 times harder than their workers, that someone is willing to promote a tax code that at least starts to align with this basic disparity in effort. I mean, when a CEO is working 17,500 hours a week, that should be rewarded! Hardly any time to sleep, amirite?

    Oh, and I forgot – CEOs also of course have an average IQ of 38,500. When you can comprehend the exact laws of the Universe down to its nanoparticles, you deserve that second European estate with the private dock for your yacht.

    • Boscoe

      EXACTLY! Logic- how does it work? Hello!

    • Reddishrabbit

      And also they work so hard, even when the destroy a company they deserve that multi-million golden parachute (looking at you Demon Sheep lady)

    • r m reddicks

      Can we kill them 350 times harder? With votes if that’s the way. I hate voting.

    • mailman27

      THIS x 350.

  • AngryBlakGuy

    …geez, this motherfucker is still arguing “supply side economics”?!?! The only way someone can “voluntarily” buy your products is if:

    a) They can afford your product

    &

    b) You have a product that people want

    Both of these variables are dictated by the “consumer” not the “producer”! Cutting taxes is stifling to creativity and ingenuity in capitalism. Because people/businesses no longer have to create new revenue streams(products) to increase their profitability, instead they focus on squeezing every penny out of existing products. A good example is “Net Neutrality”, instead of broad band providers providing a better product, they instead attempted to introduce new fees for an inferior existing product.

    • Villago Delenda Est

      AngryBlakGuy, you are obviously another of the morans who actually was paying attention in Econ 101 and not dreaming of rolling around in a swimming pool filled with benjamins and hookers.

      • AngryBlakGuy

        …don’t forget the cocaine!

      • Reddishrabbit

        Don’t forget the coke. Benjamin’s, hookers and coke.

      • SterWonk

        Scrooge McDuck LIBEL!!!

        (Well, not the hookers (that I’m aware of, any way).)

        • H0mer0

          cracks me up when a lecturer uses the word “hooker” to describe a caveat (I guess I’m the only immature one in the whole audience)

    • Boscoe

      Not to mention that part of the idea behind business taxes is to encourage businesses to invest in their own infrastructure in order to get out of some of those taxes, which generally means hiring people/contractors/buying equipment which gets more money into the economy…

      • Villago Delenda Est

        “But if you put more money into the economy, some of the serfs will become independent, and we can’t have THAT!”

        • Boscoe

          And thus- Republican neocons were born! origin story!

          • Malaclypse

            Birth of a Nation(al Party)

      • velocipedes

        Don’t businesses already have a profit incentive to invest in their own infrastructure if it was actually economical to do so? If it takes the government threat of deprivation for a business to spend money, could that business actually be wasting money on ventures that are not profitable just to avoid losing even more money to the government? And if that business wastes enough money, it will eventually go out of business, which removes quite a lot of money from the market.

        And are you under the impression that these politicians pushing businesses to spend more money are better informed about market forces than those business players themselves? That they know better how to spend that capital? If that were the case, what are they doing in government? Why aren’t they in the private sector actually making money based on their advice? Politicians are some of the greediest, after all. It might prove a point that they aren’t taking their own advice and risking their own assets.

        And similarly, if politicians know best how to run the economy, why don’t we just hand over the entire operation to them? Why don’t we have government run grocery stores, government run clothing stores, government run restaurants, government run electronics stores?

    • jesuswasablack

      “dictated by the “consumer” not the “producer”

      Enough with the making perfect sense, this is trickle down economics mother fucker, don’t you understand?

    • r m reddicks

      We need a c. We know it’s worse but we can deal with it.

    • Doug Langley

      “a) They can afford your product”

      Just put them on the E-Z Payment plan of 789 installments at 430% interest.

      “b) You have a product that people want”

      Heh heh. Ho ho. HARHARHARHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Just what do you think marketing’s job is?

    • TheBidenator

      Also there’s within the idealistic notion of capitalism a rarely utilized codicil where in an exchange the buyer is supposed to be presented with as much information about the product as the seller. So that would mean…labeling and factories not being able to hide sticking formaldehyde on wood or car companies being able to hide factory defects or toy companies hiding lead based paint or rat shit in the food which would require a level of scrutiny so great that some slob couldn’t slaughter a sick cow without having to post it.
      This principle of capitalism (aka ‘perfect competition’ from econ 101, a course most conservatives paid maybe, half attention to while insisting they know all the economics) exists only in two places: 1) livestock auctions and 2) in the idealistic world of capitalism idiots like Rand Paul draw their views from while ignoring the “equal information” principle that is so important to a meritocracy. In Rand Paul’s world he who gets away with huge markups on shitty, cheaply made products is the winner and he who makes quality products sold at honest prices is the loser….

      • velocipedes

        Also there’s within the idealistic notion of capitalism a rarely utilized codicil where in an exchange the buyer is supposed to be presented with as much information about the product as the seller.

        Any student of economics can tell you this is not a “capitalist” notion or principle, and is most certainly not taught in any introductory economics courses. Market economists note that information asymmetry exists, and is a natural part of any market economy. The market will itself produce ways of reducing this asymmetry, primarily through ratings firms and review firms. But some amount of information asymmetry is actually necessarily for entrepreneurial activity to exist. If everyone knew everything about what everyone else was doing or selling, there would be no economy.

        You also heavily discount the effect of reputation. I’m not sure why, as it’s one of the most powerful factors in a market economy. Businesses live and die by their reputation, especially ones that handle food.

        • TheBidenator

          Hi, thanks for fielding that comment but I have a question for you, did you read any of what I wrote or did you instead suss out a fragment you could take out of context to seize upon? I stated that perfect competition is not possible outside of livestock auctions. What that comment was about was enumerating the same la-la idealist notions of the operations of capitalism as the cheap bumper sticker slogans handed out by laissez faire capitalists. Obviously in the real world information assymetry has to prevail otherwise the intellectual property, virtual property and trade secrets wouldn’t exist and as you stated you wouldn’t have an economy. I was just pointing out that if you’re going to go in for those loopy, week 1-2 econ 101 theories such as simple supply-demand you might as well go in for the other ridiculous nonsense….do try and keep up.

          • velocipedes

            You stated perfect competition is not possible. I agree, and I can assure you that Rand Paul has never voiced any support for the notion of “perfect competition.” The concept is actually opposed by the economists who Paul shares views with. Market economists realize that the old static models of market equilibrium do not functionally describe the real world dynamism of the market.

            In reality, it is government antitrust regulators who base economic policy on the incorrect notion that markets do not perform well with information asymmetries, and devote their efforts to the futile task of “correcting” these asymmetries and creating “perfect competition.”

            The consequences, of course, with doing away with this “perfect competition” model means doing away with the antitrust regulators. So go ahead, lead the fight against this erroneous economic notion. I’m right behind you.

          • TheBidenator

            What in gods holy name are you blathering about? Obviously you don’t understand sarcasm which I was laying on pretty thickly for you so I’ll try a different track. One of largest of the numerous problems of Rand Paul’s argument (seriously it has a blind spot large enough to sail a boat through in terms of stability) is the wealth gap. I’ll leave out the racial component because I don’t think Rand Paul is bright enough to see the problems with “free associations” both economically and socially (it’s a reason the KKK and white separatists love Ron Paul).
            Instead what I’ll do is focus on this one question: is growing inequality good for the economy and where does inequality come from? Rand Paul and right wingers simultaneously argue that inequality IS good and then blame inequality on the government, positions which do not reconcile and are a major point of departure from academics (side note: long considered a bastion of academic conservatives, economics is actually dominated by liberals these days because conservatives are crazy). The problem with this position aside from them not reconciling is we know they are false: what are the two eras with the largest, most explosive inequality? the late 19th Century (1870’s-1910) and 1981-present. The features of those two eras are the lack of regulation (or from 1981-onward evisceration of regulation) and non-existent wage bargaining power for employees (1981-present, the decline and end of unions) with all power squarely placed in the hands of employers.
            The interesting part of the late 20th century up until now is that wages are flat while demands for productivity and hours worked are ever increasing. So, where is that money going to? The wealthy and it’s barely taxed…if Rand Paul had his way it won’t be taxed at all and we won’t have a safety net or food safety or OSHA or anything. You cannot run a society based upon the principal of “every man for himself!” and you cannot run a healthy society without oversight because as Upton Sinclair’s “The Jungle” and the Triangle Shirt Waste fire among others demonstrate, letting employers decide such issues will always see safety and health bow to profits- ALWAYS.
            So if that’s the future you want where your life is basically spent working without wage increases, you only have health insurance if you can afford the ridiculous rates (good luck getting them to explain why it’s so expensive) you don’t care about what’s in your food or how it’s made, you don’t care if when you take a plane someone has checked twice to make sure its maintained properly or your car actually functions how its supposed to or your roads don’t have tolls every few blocks or your kids are taught an education that benefits them and not some corporation or your prisoners are ‘inventory’ with stiffer sentences dictated by profitability…please, support libertarianism’s quest to privatize it all. Oh and before you accuse me of exaggeration- actually I’m not exaggerating at all, study any industry before it was highly regulated and you’ll see everything I say is correct….so seriously, go right ahead and get rid of the ‘distortions’ of oversight and laws to protect employees. I’d just hate it if you’re not on the ‘ownership’ side because much like a USSR citizen your life will suck thanks to serving an ideology over reality.

          • velocipedes

            Sarcasm? You sounded pretty serious when you said:

            Also there’s within the idealistic notion of capitalism a rarely utilized codicil where in an exchange the buyer is supposed to be presented with as much information about the product as the seller…

            This principle of capitalism (aka ‘perfect competition’ from econ 101, a course most conservatives paid maybe, half attention to while insisting they know all the economics) exists only in two places: 1) livestock auctions and 2) in the idealistic world of capitalism idiots like Rand Paul draw their views from while ignoring the “equal information” principle that is so important to a meritocracy.

            I responded to your post because you incorrectly characterized not only capitalism, but also the economic views which Rand Paul holds true. In short, you created a strawman argument, and then insulted that strawman with as much vigor as you could muster.

            The irony is that the erroneous concept of “perfect competition” is held not by Rand Paul, but by the government regulators that you likely credit with maintaining a functioning market economy.

            So the question can be asked, what are YOU blathering about now? Are you attempting to change to direction of the conversation after I refuted your claims? And are you going to do this in a long, run-on paragraph with very little punctuation, making it difficult to mount a coherent response?

          • TheBidenator

            Yes that was pure sarcasm and the giveaway was that I used ‘meritocracy’ and perfect competition which is a principle you’re still not grasping and I’ll let you in on how I know you aren’t grasping it: the government has nothing to do with perfect competition. Nothing, bupkis, it doesn’t even factor into the notion of perfect competition. I used livestock auctions as the one place perfect competition exists in for a reason…think about it. Anyone who knows anything about reality knows that the term meritocracy is only used sarcastically or ironically (idiots use it straight but like I said, they’re idiots). Conservative children of privilege use it in their economic arguments because they are selfish, arrogant, naive, mean and are incapable of empathy. So there you go, you didn’t refute anything but a sarcastic riff that you continue to not understand and also that you take out of context….

          • velocipedes

            Methinks you’re clumsily attempting to cover up a deceitful claim that was easily exposed. I guess we’ll leave it at that.

    • velocipedes

      Your argument is that consumers dictate prices and preferences, meaning consumers dictate what gets produced and what gets sold at certain price levels. You realize this is a “supply-side” argument (whatever that means), right? Consumers have the power in a market economy. People can only become rich in a market economy by satisfying the demands of consumers. Those who become rich are those who have satisfied the most demands…which is exactly what Rand Paul stated.

      Cutting taxes allows consumers to keep more of their own money and spend it how they see fit. It energizes capitalism and entrepreneurialism.

  • Serolf Divad

    So basically: if Donald Trump has 8 million times as much money as you, its because he’s 8 million times as good as you. So shut the fuck up and collate those file fodlers, bitches!

    • Morrigan In Oregon

      wealth is simply an indicator of how good you are at doing capitalism to other people

  • DahBoner

    If people voluntarily buy more of your stuff, you’ll have more money

    If my new apartment is prewired for Cox cable, how in the fuck is that a “voluntary” choice, asshole?

    http://media2.giphy.com/media/D2ESOipTk5QIg/200w_d.gif

    • Boscoe

      Hey, I would KILL for Cox Cable! In my neighborhood Comcast made some kind of sweetheart deal that keeps competitors out and it’s the worst service I’ve ever had.

      • Jen_Baker_VA

        saying the word comcast and then following with the words worst service, is redundant.

      • Spurning Beer

        In my town, if you don’t pay your cable bill, they cut your Cox off.

  • JohnR

    Feeling a bit gobsmacked to find out Paris Hilton, not to mention AquaBuddha hisself out worked my lazy ass and did not inherit their success.

  • r m reddicks

    Kindly define “success”.

    • chicken thief

      Well, “making lots of money”, of course.

      Except for them colored boys in the NBA or NFL. Those people are still just thugs but maybe some are nice – Russell Wilson. Tim Duncan. But I still wouldn’t want them moving into my neighborhood.

  • Juan de Fuca

    I’m not one to consider the words of our founders every time an important national policy decision is being considered but since Paul says that he does, I wonder just how much he and other Libertarians really know about what our founders actually wrote? Regarding wealth (property) inequality, Jefferson wrote the following to Madison in 1785:

    “The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree is a politic measure, and a practicable one. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right.”

    Jefferson used property as an example of wealth but it should be logical to believe the same type of taxation should apply to every form of wealth in a free society, at least within the type of society our founders likely envisioned in the long term. Then again, I really don’t live for what past generations said or wrote. I seriously doubt that Paul does either.

    Source: http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch15s32.html

  • chicken thief

    Teachers, firemen, and civil servants need to start selling coke is all. Then they would have plenty of money and could stfu about their stupid unions.

    • Villago Delenda Est

      Army and Navy guys should sell coke, too.

      • Boscoe

        Who do you think the teachers and firemen would be getting THEIRS from?

      • Michael Smith

        Yeah but after a while, there would be so many people trying to sell coke that the suppliers would be able to pay the dealers basically nothing. And if the dealers get together and decide they won’t work until they get paid more.. well you know

    • Msgr_Moment

      Breaking Bad is the new Ayn Rand, only much more coherent.

      • TheBidenator

        It makes sense….I assume Ayn Rand was on meth when she came up with objectivism and stayed on it for life. It blows away my “massive blunt force head trauma” theory….

        • Vegan and Tiara

          I always bask in the glow of happiness when I think of her collecting Social Security at the end of her life. Also too her hatred of religion. Poor Paul Ryan had to practically disown her after being confronted with her views on religion.

        • I assume Ayn Rand was on meth when she came up with objectivism

          Actually, yes.

  • jviscont1

    “We all end up working for people who are more successful than us,” kinda sums up his candidacy.

  • azeyote

    seems that “The Money” ends up off shore some how – and they are selling what?

  • chicken thief

    “Paul rejected the idea that economic policy has any effect on who wins and who loses in the economy,…”

    So he’s ok with raising income taxes by 3% on those making over $250k a year and lowering the rate by 3% for the lowest bracket that pays income taxes?

    • Charles Cates

      That allows the poor to have ‘skin in the game’.

    • TheBidenator

      Hahaha, no….because that would be unfair to the job creators. See? It all makes sense….

  • Lance Thrustwell

    In all seriositude, how can anyone take seriously a candidate who comes from a family so Objectivist they named their son ‘Rand’? That would be like someone named ‘Marx’ claiming he could pursue economic matters dispassionately.

    • Reddishrabbit

      That’s why I’d name my kid “Engels”, everyone forgets about him.

      • Me not sure

        I named my kid Trotsky, but he turned out to be a reactionary splitter so I had to kill him.

        • Beaumarchais?

          With an ice-ax, we presume?

          • Me not sure

            With love.

    • Morrigan In Oregon

      Even Mr. Paul did not name his son ‘RAND,’ his name is Dr. Randal Howard “Rand” Paul. Anything else is a serendipitous happenstance.

  • Me not sure

    Selling horseshit has always been good for making sucker-money in America.

    • Vegan and Tiara

      My dream is to become a religious grifter, but my damn conscience holds me back. Damn my conscience!

      • Me not sure

        I haven’t got the hair for it.

      • LarkintheAM

        My trouble is that I couldn’t say any of the shit they say while keeping a straight face – I’d give myself away just trying to get the words “I’ll rebuke the demons that have attached themselves to your secondhand clothes for just a small love offering” to come out of my mouth without breaking into giggles.

  • Anarchy Pony

    “Paul rejected the idea that economic policy has any effect on who wins and who loses in the economy,…”
    Then why do you fight so hard to implement your economic policy!?

  • A Bashful Nobody

    Stick a fork in him, he’s done………….just like his grifter dad.

  • Whale Chowder

    Paul rejected the idea that economic policy has any effect on who wins and who loses in the economy, which will certainly come as news to the army of corporate lobbyists who’ve been writing our great nation’s tax code since the Reagan Wilson era.

    Fixed, for accuracy’s sake.

    Also, too:

    “The thing is, income inequality is due to some people working harder and selling more things,” Paul told host Chris Wallace…

    That’s about the most naive, infantile view of economics and commerce I’ve ever seen. Does this guy really think he’s qualified to become leader of the so-called free world?

  • TootsStansbury

    In his Libertarian Utopia we can all welcome back things like fingers in our meat and the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire. Rand Paul. Poster child of the failure of Capitalism; it’ll eat your head and steal your pants.

  • TheBidenator

    If economic policy doesn’t affect who wins and who loses why don’t we jack the top rate back up to 91% and take away all of the wealthy loopholes, Rand? Why don’t we increase post wage corporate taxes to 45%, Rand? Sounds like a plan to me….

    • Vegan and Tiara

      Someone (Cory Booker?) once totally owned Paul Ryan on Meet the Press. He said “if your plan for scaling back Social Security is so good, why don’t we implement it now? Why limit it to people who are under 55 years old?” Chirp, chirp, all I heard were crickets. Ryan knew the GOP’s base of retirees, military pensioners, retired federal employees, etc…would NEVER want to give up a portion of the government teat they are sucking. He couldn’t explain why it shouldn’t be implemented immediately.

  • TheBidenator

    Oye, the flat tax again…talk about a zombie policy that refuses to die, it’s almost as bad as the ironically name fair tax. What is it with right wingers and these terrible tax ideas? Sure the tax code could use a lot of tidying up but that would be with the goal to make it more progressive like it once was before the whores in the suits were paid sufficient money to turn it into a joke…..

  • Paperless Tiger

    … income inequality is due to some people working harder …

    Actually, a lot of the really hard jobs don’t pay shit, not that he would know shit about work.

  • Biel_ze_Bubba

    Shorter Rand: Income inequality is good . . . and more of it is better.

  • Biel_ze_Bubba

    “We all end up working for people who are more successful than us.”
    Like Rand, who’s working for the Koch brothers.

  • velocipedes

    For a blog called the “Wonkette,” there are a remarkable number of economically illiterate folks commenting here.

    • vivian

      depends on how you count them

      • velocipedes

        Just browsing first page of the the highest rated posts, I don’t think I see a single informed comment.

        • Enfant Terrible

          You’re a pretentious little shit, aren’t you?

          • velocipedes

            Well aren’t you just delightful!

        • sillyclucker

          Those who keep their Disquus accounts private also appear to give uninformed comments.

        • vivian

          it was a math joke. “count them”, get it? By the way, the correct term is ‘innumeracy’ if you want to continue to be a dick about it

    • Enfant Terrible

      The wealthy do not create jobs; jobs create wealth. Your move.

      • velocipedes

        Why can’t it be both? If a man working a job becomes wealthy, and then hires someone to do a job for him, did both the wealthy create jobs AND jobs create wealth?

        More precisely, productivity creates wealth. Those who become wealthy – in a market economy – are those who have produced the most value as subjectively determined by those who purchase what they are selling.

        • Enfant Terrible

          “More precisely, productivity creates wealth.”

          Exactly my point. Now fuck the fuck off.

          • velocipedes

            Oh really now, the pleasantries are really just too much.

    • Vegan and Tiara

      I once asked my mom how many jobs she’d created in the forty years she’s been getting tax cuts due to being mildly wealthy. She couldn’t name one. I asked her which of her wealthy neighbors had created a job, also zip, nada, null, nyet. You should do yourself a favor and read the CBO’s report on tax cuts, it’s a good read, with a real cool ending. Plot twist: tax cuts don’t do shit for productivity, don’t lead to more jobs, but they DO lead to larger deficits and concentrate more wealth in fewer hands.

      • velocipedes

        If your mother doesn’t manage her investments and has never studied economics, she probably has no idea who is actually benefitting from the capital that she has accumulated. But we can be reasonably certain that her capital is funding some portion of a small business loan that is helping some entrepreneur realize his vision.

        You should do yourself a favor and study market economics. You sound woefully unprepared on the subject.

        The CBO is funded by the taxpayers. I would be surprised if they recommended anything other than raising taxes.

        • Vegan and Tiara

          The only small businesses that my mother contributes to are her lawyer, her accountant, GE, CSX, Apple, etc…
          Yes, I have a degree in business administration and have run several companies, but you’re right, I’m woefully unprepared when it comes to understanding numbers. How are your first year economic studies coming along? I hope when you get in the real world your childhood infatuation with Ayn Rand seems really silly in retrospect.
          So you’re saying that the CBO studied 65 years worth of tax data, and then reached the conclusions that they reached based on their hopes that they’d get a raise from taxpayers? Sure, that makes sense. I bet they have lunch with all those climate scientists who work for the government and lie about climate change because they profit off of it.

          • velocipedes

            Your mother maintains a savings account, I presume. What do you think the bank does with that money? It lends it out, of course.

            Your mother maintains some investments accounts, I presume. What do you think companies do with that money? They use it to purchase capital and employ people.

            Who do you think creates jobs? Companies create jobs. Companies spend money on labor presumably because it is profitable to employ that labor, meaning those employees have skills that return a value to that company. Those employees presumably find it profitable to sell their labor for a living, just as you do, I presume.

            There are many people in the business world who haven’t the slightest clue how economics work. There are people who run businesses who don’t understand the pricing mechanism. There are many people in business who think running a successful business means playing nice with regulators and bureaucrats.

            And yes, the inevitable appeal to Ayn Rand, almost as predictable as the Ad Hitlerum. Perhaps they should call it the Ad Ayn Randum. I may have never read a single thing Ayn Rand has ever written, and yet you will inevitably bring her up when discussing market economics. I’m really not sure why she’s the Left’s favorite bogeyman. She’s not a figure among any significant population of economists.

            You’re saying that a government agency funded by taxpayers can make an unbiased, disinterested, and impartial judgement on whether the government should tax more or less? That is incredibly naive for someone who claims to be so enlightened.

          • Vegan and Tiara

            From the CBO’s website: “Since 1975, CBO has produced independent analyses of budgetary and economic issues to support the Congressional budget process. Each year, the agency’s economists and budget analysts produce dozens of reports and hundreds of cost estimates for proposed legislation. CBO is strictly nonpartisan; conducts objective, impartial analysis; and hires its employees solely on the basis of professional competence without regard to political affiliation. CBO does not make policy recommendations, and each report and cost estimate summarizes the methodology underlying the analysis”
            What is it with all you college kids who read Ayn Rand, and think everything is a conspiracy?

          • velocipedes

            Ah yes, you put your faith in a government agency to tell the truth. I have better places to put my faith, like the rational cause and effect relationships of the market economy. You keep doing what you’re doing, and I’ll keep doing me.

            BTW, “non-partisan” is irrelevant to whether a government agency favors taking more of my money versus less. If there’s one issue the two Big Government Parties can agree on, it’s taking more money.

            What is it with you pocket Progressives who think anyone who disagrees with you must be reading Ayn Rand?

          • Vegan and Tiara

            You’re right, I would be better off putting my faith in the criminal who runs Fox News, or Rush Limbaugh. Not to mention I’m old enough to have lived through multiple election cycles, and I’ve noticed a funny thing. Any time Republicans are allowed to run the country they manage to run it into the ground. What do 1929, 1987, and 2008 all have in common? All were crashes brought on by easy money and bank deregulation that were pushed by the president at the time.
            You’re wrong about the two parties agreeing on taking money. Republicans cut taxes on the wealthy, and then spend like drunken sailors, while Democrats try to actually figure out a way to pay for the things they want.
            I guess “pocket Progressive” is supposed to be an insult? I’d prefer you call me “someone who looks at facts and makes rational decisions based upon them.”

          • velocipedes

            You’re right, I would be better off putting my faith in the criminal who runs Fox News, or Rush Limbaugh.

            Either you’re under the impression that these are your only two options, or you think, for some reason, that I support Fox News or Rush Limbaugh. Neither of these is true. There are other places you can put your faith than the state or Fox News/Rush Limbaugh, and I would never, ever support Fox News or Rush Limbaugh with my time or efforts.

            All were crashes brought on by easy money and bank deregulation that were pushed by the president at the time.

            Easy money via the Fed is a bipartisan game, pal, or maybe you didn’t notice the entire time you were living your life. The current political regime under Obama gives its full support to the Fed’s multiple programs of Quantitative Easing, as do the Republicans by the way.

            You’re wrong about the two parties being different on what actually matters. They’re the same Big Government, Big Spending, Big Surveillance, Big War, Big Prison, Big Banks parties. Democrats figured out how to pay for Big Government? How? By sinking the nation another $8 Trillion in debt?

            I prefer to call you someone who doesn’t look at facts and doesn’t make rational decisions. I prefer to call you someone who forms his opinions based on emotion, and clings to these opinions tightly even when confronted with a reality that would contradict them.

          • Vegan and Tiara

            Lulz…you think when a company needs capitol they raid my ma’s savings account? I’m surprised a sophisticated investor like yourself isn’t familiar with private equity firms and hedge funds. I can always tell a Republican because they think the economy works like it did in 1950.
            I’m sure when you graduate you’ll be able to show all of us dopes in the real world, who own businesses, how business actually works.

    • Villago Delenda Est

      Name one. C’mon, please.

      I’m assuming you’re stupid enough to think, for example, that Paul Krugman is “economically illiterate”.

      • velocipedes

        Ah, did you think I was referring to you? Do you have a guilty conscience?

        Old Krugman:

        So what are the effects of increasing minimum wages? Any Econ 101 student can tell you the answer: The higher wage reduces the quantity of labor demanded, and hence leads to unemployment.

        Clearly these advocates very much want to believe that the price of labor–unlike that of gasoline, or Manhattan apartments–can be set based on considerations of justice, not supply and demand, without unpleasant side effects. The authors…advance a number of other arguments that just do not hold up under examination.

        Its advocates are basically opposed to the idea that wages are a market price–determined by supply and demand, the same as the price of apples or coal. And it is for that reason, rather than the practical details, that the broader political movement of which the demand for a living wage is the leading edge is ultimately doomed to failure: For the amorality of the market economy is part of its essence, and cannot be legislated away.

        New Krugman:

        And because workers are people, wages are not, in fact, like the price of butter, and how much workers are paid depends as much on social forces and political power as it does on simple supply and demand.

        What this means, in turn, is that engineering a significant pay raise for tens of millions of Americans would almost surely be much easier than conventional wisdom suggests. Raise minimum wages by a substantial amount;

        Even he can’t make up his mind regarding such a fundamental economic policy. And yet many people think he is an actual economist. Really quite fascinating and concerning at the same time.

        • UnsaltedSinner

          Yes, only a fool would adjust his opinions according to new facts or changing circumstances.

          • velocipedes

            Economic law does not adjust according to “new facts.” That’s why it’s called law. The law of scarcity and the law of supply and demand control how the market functions, it has always been true and will always be true. You cannot legislate away this reality, as Krugman stated.

          • UnsaltedSinner

            The effects of supply and demand don’t go away, but the real world is a hell of a lot more complicated than that simple principle can express. Wages don’t automatically go up or down in sync with the national economy, and they don’t always follow supply and demand as strictly as you might think. Wages are, in short, sticky. But how sticky are they, exactly?

            If we look at the quotes you (or, more likely, conservative websites) have mined here, we’ll note that the first rejects the notion that wages “can be set based on considerations of justice, not supply and demand, without unpleasant side effects”. So Krugman is saying that you can’t simply disregard supply and demand completely – hardly a controversial view. Now, I don’t know who or what Krugman was arguing against here, but I do know the context of the second quote, because I’ve read the column it came from; in it, Krugman is arguing that it wouldn’t hurt the current economy if you raise the minimum wage. And he didn’t just pull that out of his ass because it was convenient. Here’s the paragraph that follows immediately after the first paragraph you quoted:

            “What’s the evidence? First, there is what actually happens when minimum wages are increased. Many states set minimum wages above the federal level, and we can look at what happens when a state raises its minimum while neighboring states do not. Does the wage-hiking state lose a large number of jobs? No — the overwhelming conclusion from studying these natural experiments is that moderate increases in the minimum wage have little or no negative effect on employment.”

            It should be obvious that Krugman has never been an opponent of raising the minimum wage under any and all circumstances, so it’s not even clear that his views have changed at all. But if they have, it’s not about something so simple and basic as supply and demand, but about the much more complex interplay between those factors and the many other forces that have an effect on a nation’s economy. And the reason for the change was clearly new evidence from natural experiments, conducted by several states in recent years.

          • velocipedes

            The effects of supply and demand don’t go away, but the real world is a hell of a lot more complicated than that simple principle can express. Wages don’t automatically go up or down in sync with the national economy, and they don’t always follow supply and demand as strictly as you might think. Wages are, in short, sticky. But how sticky are they, exactly?

            I think what you’re trying to say is that wages are not as elastic given the current conditions as they would be in a purely market economy. This is true. There are all kinds of factors that prevent wages from adjusting with supply and demand. Mostly, these factors are artificial and in the form of government regulations. For example, both Hoover and FDR set price floors on wages at the Depression’s onset, which prevented wages from adjusting downward with the rest of the market and produced massive unemployment, extending the Depression well past its natural correction cycle.

            If we look at the quotes you (or, more likely, conservative websites) have mined here, we’ll note that the first rejects the notion that wages “can be set based on considerations of justice, not supply and demand, without unpleasant side effects”. So Krugman is saying that you can’t simply disregard supply and demand completely – hardly a controversial view.

            Indeed. This is the the old Krugman, the one who actually thought like an economist, for the most part. The context was a 1998 critique of an economics publication calling for a “living wage.”

            but I do know the context of the second quote, because I’ve read the column it came from; in it, Krugman is arguing that it wouldn’t hurt the current economy if you raise the minimum wage.

            Of course you have. You no doubt follow his blog with fervor.

            And in this column, he casts aside his old method of applying economic analysis and embraces the very fallacies he once argued against. He now claims that you can indeed cast aside market forces, legislate away scarcity, and ignore the law of supply and demand.

            And he didn’t just pull that out of his ass because it was convenient.

            Actually, pretty much anyone who argues for a price floor on wages is pulling trash out of their rear end. Whether they make pseudo-intellectual arguments or avoid making a rational argument at all, it can be reasonably assumed that they are not serious people.

            Krugman even very nearly prophesizes his own argument, noting in his much earlier critique:

            Indeed, much-cited studies by two well-regarded labor economists, David Card and Alan Krueger, find that where there have been more or less controlled experiments, for example when New Jersey raised minimum wages but Pennsylvania did not, the effects of the increase on employment have been negligible or even positive. Exactly what to make of this result is a source of great dispute. Card and Krueger offered some complex theoretical rationales, but most of their colleagues are unconvinced; the centrist view is probably that minimum wages “do,” in fact, reduce employment, but that the effects are small and swamped by other forces.

            Then he deconstructs the very argument he is now making.

            What is remarkable, however, is how this rather iffy result has been seized upon by some liberals as a rationale for making large minimum wage increases a core component of the liberal agenda–for arguing that living wages “can play an important role in reversing the 25-year decline in wages experienced by most working people in America” (as this book’s back cover has it). Clearly these advocates very much want to believe that the price of labor–unlike that of gasoline, or Manhattan apartments–can be set based on considerations of justice, not supply and demand, without unpleasant side effects. This will to believe is obvious in this book: The authors not only take the Card-Krueger results as gospel, but advance a number of other arguments that just do not hold up under examination.

            So you see, Krugman was principally opposed to the minimum wage before he was for it.

            It should be obvious that Krugman has never been an opponent of raising the minimum wage under any and all circumstances, so it’s not even clear that his views have changed at all.

            I’m not sure how you can claim such a thing as “obvious” when there is very clear evidence that he quite explicitly opposed raising the minimum wage back in 1998, when he actually practiced economics. The reason for the change, I’ll bet, has much to do with the fact that he now writes a blog oriented around political economics, and he has a bias towards progressivism and state intervention in the economy.

          • UnsaltedSinner

            At best, you have shown that Krugman has changed his mind as an increasing amount of evidence from natural experiments have shown that his earlier worries about a moderate increase in the minimum wage were overblown. So what? I’d say that’s a good thing, a sign that he’s still learning and keeping an open mind.

            But this is where you demonstrate for all the world that you are fighting a strawman:

            “He now claims that you can indeed cast aside market forces, legislate away scarcity, and ignore the law of supply and demand.”

            Feel free to show me where Krugman ever said any such thing. It’s most certainly not the argument he makes in the column you quote.

          • velocipedes

            We’ve demonstrated that Krugman is a Nobel economist who does not have a strong need for intellectual consistency.

            Neither has Krugman actually addressed the disparity between his previous comments and his new beliefs. He has not commented on it once, so your opinion about “why” he changed is just conjecture.

            As for analyzing the change itself, I’d say it reveals, again, that he does not have a strong need for intellectual consistency, and is now resorting to emotional appeals and casting aside the economic considerations of this policy, the very thing he chastised Pollin and Luce for doing. This makes him a poor economist.

            In addition, his claim that “There’s just no evidence that raising the minimum wage costs jobs, at least when the starting point is as low as it is in modern America” is simply, verifiably untrue. There is indeed evidence – and lots of it – that raising the minimum wage costs jobs, even when the starting point is as low as it is in America.

            Every economist agrees that price floors and price ceilings create surpluses or shortages. This is Economics 101. To assert that the minimum wage, a price floor, has no effect on the purchasing preferences of employers is to assert that employers are indifferent to the price of labor. If Krugman and other minimum wage proponents can show this, then they’d have some meat to their argument. As it stands, they have not done so.

            Also, any economist that commits the Broken Window Fallacy has revealed, in the most unceremonious manner, that they are a charlatan.

            http://business.time.com/2011/08/16/paul-krugman-an-alien-invasion-could-fix-the-economy/

  • Enfant Terrible

    If hard work was all it took, we’d *all* be millionaires.

    • Vegan and Tiara

      Not me! I’m a lazy son of a gun. I spend most of my time driving around in my Cadillac picking up multiple welfare checks and birthing babbies. Sure, I have some hobbies, I’m very much into selling used babby parts on EBabby, but I’m more of an enthusiast than a professional. I also like taking long walks on the stroll, and eating plenty of government cheese. Anything Uncle Sugar wants to give me I’ll grab with gusto.

  • Morrigan In Oregon

    If Rand learned anything from Ron, it was to not really win the job of POTUS, but to fleece the suckers forever with campaigns to run. Rand looked at his poll numbers and stumbled, because winning is not in the plan.

  • H0mer0

    Did anyone already say “Step one: Get Underpants!”

  • Vegan and Tiara

    “In an attempt to take Paul seriously, host Chris Wallace asked, “Doesn’t your plan massively increase income inequality?” ”
    I’m so freaking sick of “journalists” not questioning a politician’s bullshit. Not that Chris Wallace is anything other than a shill for Fox News, but why couldn’t he have said “every serious economist who has studied this proposal has opined that it will massively increase the debt and lead to further income inequality. Is it your position that the wealthy need MORE money, at the expense of everyone else? I mean we are eventually going to have to pay for all these tax cuts and wars.”

  • Vegan and Tiara

    You know what else helps people get rich? Being born into wealth, you can ask the Kochs or Trump about that.

    • Enfant Terrible

      Besides inheritance, the #1 path to extreme wealth is leveraging other people’s money.

      • velocipedes

        Inheritance is not even a relevant factor anymore in attaining wealth. Very few wealthy people these days actually inherited their wealth, and that number is falling dramatically as time goes by.

        But you did correctly identify that one of the most effective methods of attaining wealth is by simply taking what other people have. That’s why the political class exists, and the bankster class has successfully lobbied the political class for the same privileges.

        • TheBidenator

          What? You’re seriously joking…..the vast majority of the rich are like Paris Hilton for one and for two, much like how meritocracy is a joke the children of rich people don’t get rich because of hard work or intelligence but it’s because their ticket is written the minute they get out of the womb. They will attend the best schools because their parents can afford it, they will get the Ivy League degrees as legacies and will inherit daddy’s connections that daddy inherited from grandpa and so on and so forth. There’s something really off about you, either you’re still in college (freshman judging by your at best rudimentary knowledge and self assured arrogance in espousing your ignorance) and you don’t know anything about life or you’re an idiot who’s read too many Glenn Beck books.

          • velocipedes

            Not joking. My opinion is based on facts, not easily disproven caricatures and partisan talking points.

            Recently, PNC Wealth Management conducted a survey of people with more than $500,000 free to invest as they like, a fair definition of “wealthy,” and possibly “millionaire” once you begin including home equity and other assets. Only 6% of those surveyed earned their money from inheritance alone. 69% earned their wealth mostly by trading time and effort for money, or by “working.”

            http://www.consumerismcommentary.com/most-wealthy-individuals-earned-not-inherited-their-wealth/?WT.qs_osrc=FBS-CCY-6

            Who is the prototypical American millionaire? What would he tell you about himself?

            * Most of us have never felt at a disadvantage because we did not receive any inheritance. About 80 percent of us are first-generation affluent.

            * We live well below our means. We wear inexpensive suits and drive American-made cars. Only a minority of us drive the current-model-year automobile. Only a minority ever lease our motor vehicles.

            https://www.nytimes.com/books/first/s/stanley-millionaire.html

            In 1982, 60 percent of the people on the Forbes 400 list of wealthiest Americans came from wealthy families, compared with 32 percent in 2011.

            https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/joshua-rauh-what-forbes-400-list-says-about-american-wealth

            Being considered “crazy” by a victim of social conditioning is a compliment. Thank you.

  • LarkintheAM

    You know, economic policy might have some marginal effect on all those “makers”, but we are too freaking cowardly to actually try it. We know darn good and well that people at the top end of the income bracket didn’t actually earn that money by contributing anything close to the value of their salaries to their companies, and there is nothing which could possibly justify the gap between what the average worker makes and what the average CEO makes. The Wall Street financial thieves are neither creating jobs beyond people to come and clean their pools and walk their dogs, nor are they innovating in anything other than ever more creative ways to pretend that they aren’t actually running a casino with other people’s money. To make them live up to their own hype, we need to tax the living bejebus out of every dollar that puts them above the highest 30% of earnings that isn’t being reinvested in either public works projects, scientific research, technological research or education. That way they really *will* be “job creators”, we can jumpstart innovation which has been stalled because that money ISN’T actually being used toward that end, AND we might even look into re-regulating things which worked a whole hell of a lot better as public utilities (communications, energy, and transportation among them) so that we can create jobs upgrading the infrastructure that the Captains of Industry have allowed to decay to dangerous levels because deferring maintenance is a cheap way to pretend that the company is making more money than it is. /rant #cueJohnLennonSongNow *sigh*

  • UnsaltedSinner

    It’s true, you know; we all create our own fortune completely from scratch. That’s why it’s a complete coincidence that Rand Paul was able to ride into the Senate on the movement his daddy used to lead. He was simply the best man for that position, chosen by the market in a completely free and open competition.

  • LegionOfDo

    Except that more money in the hands of the wealthy does not guarantee that it will end up back in the economy. In fact, that is pretty much a sure way of keeping that money from ever reentering the economy. If this is bonus money they didn’t need to survive on before, they will simply sit on it. They will not increase their consumption one iota, and the economy will suffer. I would rather see money in the hands of people who will spend it, whether they be people who are not wealthy, or simply the government.

    • velocipedes

      Consumption by itself does not drive economic growth. The economy is a balancing act between consumption and production. You can’t consume what doesn’t get produced, and nobody is going to produce anything if they don’t receive the benefits of risking their own capital to do so.

      Putting more money in the pockets of the wealthy is what the current Fed rate policy does. It is the monetarist’s version of “trickle down economics,” and it has political support from both sides of the aisle. Rand Paul is one of the very few to oppose its policy of lining the pockets of the rich.

      Putting more money in the hands of the productive benefits the rest of us. We benefit from the productivity of those with capital to risk, not their consumption. People who spend wantonly, including the government, quickly indebt themselves and go bankrupt. They do nothing to benefit anyone else at that point, and become a social drain.

      • LegionOfDo

        I agree that putting more money in the hands of the productive is what drives the economy, not anything else. And who are the productive ones? The workers. Cutting taxes on the rich and raising the taxes of the workers is not the way to achieve economic growth. Taxes on the wealthy must be raised, taxes on workers should be lowered, so they have more money to put into the economy. Trickle-down economics has been proven to be a huge failure time and time again. Corporate welfare lines the pockets of the already wealthy and does absolutely nothing to spur economic growth. The only way to stimulate economic growth is to get money into the hands of people who need it, and who will spend it. Cutting a billionaire’s taxes does nothing.

        • velocipedes

          Again, “putting more money in the hands of the productive” is not what drives economic growth. Being productive is about creating high value things out of low value things. That takes time, effort, and resources. Money is just a placeholder for what has already been produced.

          The productive ones are the ones who create the most value. And, as value is subjective, meaning everyone values different things differently, he who creates the most value is he who has satisfied – to the greatest extent – the subjective preferences of others.

          Cutting taxes across the board is how you achieve economic growth. The government is a pure consumer. It takes what has already been produced and consumes it. It does not produce things of value itself.

          Requesting that the government take more from those who are more productive and less from those who are less productive does nothing to drive economic growth.

          There are two ways to become wealthy. You can either productively satisfy the needs of others by trading and exchanging things of value with them, or you can simply take by force what others have for yourself. The first means is the economic means, and the second is the political means. If you’re tired of people becoming wealthy at the expense of others, you should oppose all political takings and redistribution. You have no moral argument, though, against those who become wealthy by satisfying the preferences of others.

          Trickle-down economics has been proven to be a huge failure time and time again.

          Which is precisely why the Fed’s program of Quantitative Easing, which receives huge support from both the Democrats and the Republicans, should be ended.

          • LegionOfDo

            Your plan to raise taxes on the poor and lower them for the rich has proven time and time again to be unsound policy. It completely hinders growth and always sends the economy into recession or worse. It has never once worked. Ever.

          • velocipedes

            I’m sorry, I don’t have any plan to raise taxes on the poor. Perhaps you have me confused with someone else.

            Raising taxes – i.e. the political class taking more money from the economic class – enriches no one but the political class and those who benefit from the political class’ largesse. This impoverishes society as a whole in reducing the total amount of wealth generated. It hinders growth and can even cause a recession.

            Lowering taxes for everyone always works to stimulate economic activity. People are more willing to be productive when their property rights are respected and they know they can keep what they earn.

          • LegionOfDo

            As I already pointed out, that just doesn’t work. That plan will just create massive budget deficits. It’s thoughtless, unsound, and just plain reckless fiscal policy.

          • velocipedes

            You didn’t point out anything. You also simply assume that government should or will keep spending and consuming money it doesn’t have. Yes, that would indeed be thoughtless, unsound, and just plain reckless. Kind of how they ended up with an $18 Trillion dollar funded liability and a $200 Trillion unfunded liability.

          • LegionOfDo

            All of which were caused by Republican presidents enacting the failed policies you are championing. Again, as I pointed out before.

          • velocipedes

            The deficits were caused by BOTH Republicans AND Democrats, who BOTH love to spend other people’s money with abandon!

  • Lord-Nash

    “It’s a fallacious notion to say, ‘Oh, rich people get more money back
    in a tax cut,’” Paul responded. “If you cut taxes 10 percent, 10 percent
    of a million is more than 10 percent of a thousand dollars. So,
    obviously, people who pay more in taxes will get more back.”

    I’m pretty sure he pronounced “fellatious notion” which of course meant “get on your knees and blow me over my wonderful plan!”

Previous articleJohn Kasich: Climate Change Is Real, And We Must Ignore It Immediately
Next articleFox & Friends Confused Which Toys Have A Penis And Which Have A Vagina