nypost.com/2015/04/20/book-claims-foreign-cash-made-bill-and-hillary-filthy-rich/
"Bill Clinton himself was paid $1 million by a Canadian bank and major shareholder in the Keystone XL oil pipeline as the State Department was considering the project"
" More than half of the $48 million was paid by companies in China, Japan, Canada, Russia, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and the Cayman Islands"
Here’s a letter to the Huffington Post:
ReplyDeleteHillary Clinton insists that “[t]here’s something wrong when CEOs make 300 times more than the typical worker” (“Hillary Clinton Blasts Pay For CEOs, Hedge Fund Managers In Campaign Kickoff,” April 15).http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/15/hillary-clinton-ceos-hedge-fund-iowa_n_7069938.html
Well now. As a speaker Ms. Clinton is paid, on average, $300,000 per talk; as a speaker I am paid, on average, $1,000 per talk. As a speaker, therefore, Ms. Clinton is paid 300 times more than I am paid! Is “something wrong”? Is the market for speakers rigged unfairly in favor of famous and politically connected speakers such as Ms. Clinton, and against obscure and ordinary speakers such as me? Is Ms. Clinton part of a nefarious network of greedy speaker-insiders who profit unjustly at the expense of myself and other more-typical speakers by manipulating the speaker market? Should government intervene into the speaker market to remedy this 300-to-1 ratio in speaker fees? Would the amounts that event organizers pay me to speak go up if government ensures that Ms. Clinton’s speaker fee is pushed down?
Clearly not.
Although I reject everything that Ms. Clinton stands for (and proclaims in her speeches!), I’m quite sure that her high fee accurately reflects the value to her audiences of having her speak, just as my modest fee accurately reflects my value as a public speaker. So unless Ms. Clinton is prepared to conclude, solely because her speaker pay is 300 times that of typical speakers, that she profits unjustly at my and other typical speakers’ expense, she has no basis for asserting that a 300-to-1 difference in pay in other industries and lines of work is “wrong.”
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
I wouldn't pay a penny to hear any politician speak, but I acknowledge that those people who do shell out huge fees have a right to do so. And, said politicians have a right to charge whatever the traffic will bear. As P. T. Barnum once said..........
ReplyDeleteThen you would believe that in a society where we still has some semblance of free choice, wage disparity is not only a failure of one to press their case as well as another but the talents and benefits presented by one, though appearing to be identical to another, might because of various factors be of more value to a potential customer…. i.e.… employer? And the force imposed by minimum wage necessarily impels an employer to choose those who present maximum value for that wage thus rendering anyone with less value, unemployable?
DeleteNo, I was just agreeing with what Boudreau wrote.
ReplyDeleteIt is not a case of unfairness or even a divergence of values for the same effort. If HRC speaks for an hour and Boudreaux or Barnum or even TS speaks for one hour their remuneration will be the amount the market is prepared to pay. For those interested in economics, look to the basic principals of supply and demand. The value of a commodity is always that which the end user is prepared to pay. All other propositions are exercises in futility.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteSorry for the last delete... a serious meaning altering mistake of wording.
DeleteUnfortunately that is not the case in our modern redistributive 'democracy' between 'equal' pay for equal work and minimum wage, the market is pretty will shut out of finding its own level.
I also wonder how our dear Mrs Clinton would feel about being approached to give a keynote speech by people who are prepared to pay top money for her style of delivery. A speech which she would be compelled to deliver with just as much passion and conviction as she would deliver to her normal clientele only this time it is for the opening address of the National Rifle Association’s annual convention... And if she refuses based on her convictions or gives a substandard speech because the thoughts are contrary to her own beliefs and the support given to that group by her very presence is repugnant to her, her clients would then summarily sue her into bankruptcy...
I'm suspecting it to be one of those 'do as I say not as I do issues'
This is not about some stupid 300/1 ratio students.
ReplyDeleteThis is about Clinton money and power. Trading position for cash.
The fucking Clintons are a cancer.
William… not my intention to hijack your thread but it is the words and perverted concepts that these people pass to a sponge like electorate that is the cancer… it is the words and the ideas that these people convey so effectively that finds sources of funds from all over the world. Pointing out the stupidity of their suppositions is the easiest way to isolate and destroy the cancer…
DeleteThe power that the democratic party derives from issues like pay equality, minimum wage and free association issues is really the only thing that keeps them effective because once these idiotic policies are publicly reputed, then we can have a real discussion about problem solving…
What people need to know is that these two whores have sold themselves from the Lincoln bedroom all the way to Saudia Arabia. They understand that money is power and make themselves pretty for the highest bidder, or any bidder at all for that matter.
DeleteBut then again this is all well documented and the people enjoy sleeping at night with these prostitutes.
I wish the Monica days were back when the Clinton ' s were getting blow jobs instead of giving them while on our payroll.
A couple of real two bit whores as we say in Jersey.
What this is, is, the free markets at work. If hearing Bill Clinton speak over 4 years paid him $105 million then that fee structure was set by the market. Otherwise he couldn't have done it. Doesn't matter what Hilary says. Are you only for the free market when it enriches you? Are the Clinton's not allowed to participate? As long as Hilary didn't make any decisions based on Bill's work and speeches why does it matter? Bill is a private citizen out there making his living running his foundation which by the way does do a lot of good works around the world. Funny that no one complains when we are using Bill's popularity and charisma to raise money for anything the right agrees with.
DeleteOf course Bill, the fine honerable charismatic man he is, would never have any part in influence peddling.... now would he?
DeleteWilliam Jefferson Perjury Clinton I am sure would never trade access for cash.
DeleteGoogle Mark Pardon Rich.