Tuesday, September 27, 2016

The Most Alarming Thing Hillary Clinton Said at the Debate

While neither Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton are going to get awards for fundamental economic understanding  based upon the comments made during the presidential debate last night, the award for most brain-crashing economic comment has to go to Hillary.

She said this at one point:
 I also want to see more companies do profit-sharing. If you help create the profits, you should be able to share in them, not just the executives at the top.
It's really hard to know if she really believes this, it might have been said just to shore up support with Bernie's socialists, but Trump acted like a beached whale after the comment was made, when it was juicy plankton that Hillary left in the open sea for him.

This notion that there needs to be "more" sharing of profit comes right out of Karl Marx, by which I mean the comments signals a remarkable failure to understand the nature of

6.central planning vs free markets

Just who the hell is Hillary to decide how much profit sharing should be going on between individual firms and workers, if any?

Many, many people just want a solid steady paycheck not based on the whims of profits. Taking the idea one step further, as the philosopher David Gordon said to me while discussing Hillary's comment, "Does this mean workers will have to participate in losses also?"

She, of course, meant no such loss participation. Share in profits let the capitalists take the hit on any losses is her game plan. Does she really think this is going to encourage capitalists to take more risks and hire more labor? Hillary definitely has some wires crossed with this kind of thinking, no expensive Obamacare paid for cranial CAT scan needed to detect this.

The comment from Hillary should have brought on more discussion from the talking heads post-debate then if Hillary had experienced a combo coughing fit and the shakes on stage after receiving a Lester Holt softball question. Yet, no such discussion occurred. Not one of them had an antenna that could detect Marxian mumbo jumbo from a United States presidential candidate. Is there any wonder why the country is in the mess it is in?

If a good portion of the populace understood the fundamentals of economics and the nature of freedom, I'm convinced that rather than being on a presidential debate stage, Hillary would be back in Arkansas with a job as a second rate bikini shaver in a high class joint.



  1. LOL...Peter Schiff said in his latest podcast that if H thinks this, then employees should give back salary when the company loses money...LOL...

  2. She also said that the recession was caused by taxes being too low. LOL

  3. -- I also want to see more companies do profit-sharing. --

    Mexico is a country where profit sharing is mandated by law - it's included in the Constitution! You can imagine the strain such a mandate places on a company's finances and why, despite how hard-working are most Mexicans, the country is still not up there with the rest of the rich countries.

    -- This notion that there needs to be "more" sharing of profit comes right out of Karl Marx --

    Indeed. That's no exaggeration from your part. The idea is predicated in the belief that profits exist because the capitalists pay the workers less than what their labor is worth. Tbis idiocy was severely and mercilessly debunked by economist Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk when he showed that workers are paid EXACTLY what their labor is worth less the discount rate, which is the measure of people's time preference. In other words, I am being paid exactly what my time is worth RIGHT NOW and not LATER when whwtever is being produced happens to be sold in the market. Marxians just don't understand this at all.

  4. The best economic comment made in the debate was by Trump when he said the Fed is keeping stock prices high until November with an easy money policy.