Monday, November 12, 2018

Be Very Suspicious of Tucker Carlson

Tucker Carlson, what's his problem with basic economics?

When it comes to a non-interventionist foreign policy and dissing political correctness, Tucker Carlson is very good. But when it comes to economics, his foundation appears weak and he has attacked some of the greatest corporations and individuals who have made life better for all of us across the United States.

He has said:
[Sometimes] the hard left is correct. The biggest problem this country faces is income inequality, and neither the liberals nor the conservatives see it. There is a great social volatility that goes with inequality like we have now. Inequality will work under a dictatorship, maybe, but it does not work in a democracy. It is dangerous in a democracy. In a democracy, when there is inequality like this, the people will rise up and punish their elected representatives.
The guy doesn't get how the standard of living in an economy progresses and how the range between the richest and the poorest has nothing to do with it.

I mean, he really gets absurd on this point:
 Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon, is worth about $150 billion. That’s enough to make him the richest man in the world by far, and possibly the richest human being in all of human history. It’s certainly enough to pay his employees well. But he doesn’t. A huge number of Amazon workers are so poorly paid, they qualify for federal welfare benefits.
Two things here. Bezos did not invent the current welfare benefits program. It should be abolished but it has little to do with Bezos (Indeed, it could be argued that welfare benefits raise the cost to Amazon of what it has to pay workers). Second, supply and demand dictate the level at which Amazon wages are set. If Bezos was paying below-market wages, workers would not work for him. How is this so difficult to understand?

And what does the market wage have to do with the wealth of Bezos? Should we match-up Carlson's wage against that of those who work for him?

Carlson has also attacked the Waltons, of WalMart wealth, in the same manner:
The Waltons can certainly afford to be generous with their workers. Instead, they count on you to take up the slack,
It is really remarkable that Carlson can be so strong when it comes to foreign policy, but shouts union babble when it comes to economics. Amazon and WalMart are both non-union operators.




  1. Just another frightened wimp whining for help from the government.

  2. He is creating the problem he decries: On the one hand he is fearful of the "social volatility" that inequality of outcome will beget, yet at the same time he stokes people's envy by decrying inequality.
    I watch Tucker Carlson a lot (my wife likes it, and I'm sort of along for the ride). Yes, he's good on foreign policy, but when he gets on his immigration rants or tries to debate economic issues, I'm often yelling at the television screen.

  3. at the moment he is saying some good things but the once it becomes convenient for him for him to drop those position, he will he has done that before.

  4. He wants ratings. He voted for Ron Paul.

  5. ── Carlson: "It's certainly enough to pay his employees well. But he doesn't. A huge number of Amazon workers are so poorly paid, they qualify for federal welfare benefits." ──

    Leaving aside for a moment that his view of what constitutes a poor wage for a specific job is in his mind exclusively or the truth behind his assertion that Amazon's workers are also welfare dependents, I want to point out that what he argues sounds very close to ***Marxian surplus labor theory of profit***. Through his assertion he's implying that Bezos is purposefully profiting from the surplus labor of his workers which he pockets for himself, proof of which is the "fact" that his workers compensate for this unpaid labor by requesting government benefits. It is possible that Tucker does not know he's basing his proposition on a failed and debunked economic concept, but whatever the case may be, he is clearly relying on that concept to help his effort to demonize Bezos and people like him who, coincidentally, dislike the president. In other words, Tucker Carlson uses Marxian economics to help defend the president of the United States against his personal enemies.

    ── The Waltons can certainly afford to be generous with their workers. Instead, they count on you to take up the slack ──

    Again, the implication from Carlson is clear: The rich Capitalists are profiting from surplus labor by exploiting their workers who must, in turn, make ends meet by asking for government benefits. Carlson (who presumes to be a Conservative) is relying on Marxian claptrap to make his point that the wealthy enemies of the president deserve our condemnation because they're exploiters.

  6. There are very few rich capitalists. More and more they are rich corporatists and ultimately, with few exceptions,are the big donors to the best Congress money can buy.

  7. He cares more about the real world than he does the dogmas of whiny libertarians.

    It's why he is a relevant figure. He shouldn't stop being effective and join the losers club. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

    1. Re: TS,

      --- He cares more about the real world than he does the dogmas of whiny libertarians. ---

      If he cared about the real world he would not operate under fantastic notions about 'fair' wage levels nor invoke a thoroughly debunked and very wrong theory of value.

  8. It’s sad to see that the populist right has become every bit as dumb on economics as Bernie Sanders.

    1. At least Bernie does not pretend he's for Capitalism and individual freedom. The populist right is filled with charlatans and hypocrites.

    2. It's not become, right-populists have always been economic morons just not as socialist as the modern day left. They just repackage the whole "corporations are unfair" bs that we hear from the left. Before this I didnt realize he went after Walmart too. For awhile Amazon's has the right-socialists cry fest in the same guise the left has in regards to Walmart. Telling both of these groups of socialist cry babies to take their money elsewhere doesn't seem to register.