1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/6617/pop-fluff-and-the-12-cent-meal/

Pop fluff and the 12-cent meal

May 11, 2007 by

A fun little absurdity — AOL has a teaser that purports to show how a celebrity salary feels to the working man or woman making $30K. According to the first slide, Angelina Jolie feels the cost of a $40 meal the same as $0.12 feels to the $15 per hour laborer. Absurd! Are they trying to tell me that after the waiter said, “I’m sorry, I just lost your meal.” Jolie would smile and forget the matter? Yet, I suspect that the laborer wouldn’t sweat the dime and two pennies that slipped from his hand and fell down the sewer.

We know where this line of thinking leads — soak the rich since they don’t care about the extra buck, or the extra thousand in taxation. Marxism packaged as pop fluff.

{ 12 comments }

Hyrum Berg May 12, 2007 at 2:27 am

I don’t think Jolie would feel angry about spending $40. After all the meal would be replaced, and she would lose nothing. What she would be annoyed at is having to be hungry for the extra time it takes for the restaurant to replace the meal.

In my view the rich probably care more about money then the poor, because they take great care in invested their money in the best ways so that it grows.

If the poor care about their dollars they know how to fill out an income statement so that they wont be careless with their money.

Mathieu Bédard May 12, 2007 at 5:05 am

For all we know the poor may care less about wasting $40 than Angelina about $0.12…

Jim May 12, 2007 at 9:14 am

I can care less how much celebs make. They made their money without hurting anyone, and fairly. This is despite the fact that I personally, do not think that they are worth a fraction of that.

The mega rich are those capitalising on our gamed system of wealth destruction. Oil CEOs with enormous pay, banking off gov’t subsidies. Agribusiness getting paid to grow corn. “Defense” contractors. And who can forget the worst of all: the bankers. These are the people that ignite the flames of Marxism.

It is up to us, however, to teach everyone that Marxism is not the appropriate cure. The best way to remedy the problem is to remove their advantage through pure, real capitalism.

They will say “We have capitalism now. Look at how unfair it is!” Remind them that we have crony capitalism, and that they could not be more wrong. Explain the difference. I personally think most liberals and even communists have good intentions. Essentially, they want to make the world a better place. Their leaders are the ones who need scolding. It is not right to have hostility towards them, but to take them in and show them why they are misguided.

Ryan May 12, 2007 at 11:41 am

“It is up to us, however, to teach everyone that Marxism is not the appropriate cure. The best way to remedy the problem is to remove their advantage through pure, real capitalism.”

You can only remove this advantage by removing government. Pure, real capitalism is only achieved through anarcho-capitalism.

Brent May 12, 2007 at 1:23 pm

The way I see it, movie/tv celebrities made money off of me when I watched their shows on broadcast television (and some of the commercials), when I pay for cable and HBO, when I pay $8 or whatever for a movie ticket, and when I rent their DVDs/Blu-Rays.

I have to figure that any one particular celebrity has at most actually made $5-10 from me? That is probably a very high estimate, but the point is — it isn’t like they stole it, so who cares?

Nick Bradley May 12, 2007 at 4:17 pm

The way I see it, performers (actors, musicians, etc.) make far more than they would in a free market.

Exorbitant salaries for movie stars are the result of unjust intellectual property laws which grant monopoly privilege to the producer. Musicians use the power of the state to enforce a $17.99 price for a CD that costs $1 – $2 to produce (It’s over a buck after you factor in the labor required to burn the CD). Of course that has changed in the music industry with the advent of the MP3 and the internet. The same thing is happening with the movie industry today.

The income of performers would be a fraction of what they are today if it weren’t for the state.

DavidB May 12, 2007 at 8:18 pm

Keep in mind also that many companies have paid big endorsement fees to celebrities to hock their products. Nike and the NBA comes immediately to mind so even if you disagree with the message a celebrity sends you are probably paying for them anyway.

I can care less how much celebs make. They made their money without hurting anyone, and fairly.

Now that is a debatable point. I can imagine how many little girls ended up in abortion clinics after having mimicked their idols Madonna and Britney Spears in front of their hormonally pumped up boyfriends. And don’t tell me there are no brain dead girls out there who don’t act like Paris with the consequences to boot

Christopher Hettinger May 12, 2007 at 8:29 pm

To the above poster… Two words:

Natural Selection.

Ben May 12, 2007 at 8:43 pm

Now that is a debatable point. I can imagine how many little girls ended up in abortion clinics after having mimicked their idols Madonna and Britney Spears in front of their hormonally pumped up boyfriends.

That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever read…

Matt May 14, 2007 at 12:19 pm

I didn’t read the article. But the best example they could give would be to explain that spending $50 a week on scratch tickets is the same as Jolie burning down her multi-million dollar mansion every year.

Jake Jones January 18, 2010 at 3:49 am

lol, Madonna is so funny! I love her.

Cathrine Schwieson January 31, 2011 at 9:17 pm

Oh my goodness! a tremendous article dude. Thanks Nevertheless I am experiencing challenge with ur rss . Don’t know why Unable to subscribe to it. Is there anyone getting identical rss drawback? Anybody who knows kindly respond. Thnkx

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: