Shot in the Dark

Market Discipline

While Academia is a vast holdout against the free market in countless ways, it appears to be exerting some hint of market discipline in at least one case:

Hillary Clinton’s take on the speaking circuit is not even on par with a reality TV star like Nicole “Snooki” Polizzi, nj.com reports.

Clinton reportedly received $25,000 for a Thursday speech at historic Rutgers University that promised the skinny on “politics, American democracy and her role in shaping women’s political history,” but Snooki, of “Jersey Shore” fame picked up a $32,000 pay check for her analysis of American academia, suggesting that potential graduates “study hard, but party harder.”

Snooki may actually bring more value to students’ lives…

Hillary Clinton’s take on the speaking circuit is not even on par with a reality TV star like Nicole “Snooki” Polizzi, nj.com reports.

Clinton reportedly received $25,000 for a Thursday speech at historic Rutgers University that promised the skinny on “politics, American democracy and her role in shaping women’s political history,” but Snooki, of “Jersey Shore” fame picked up a $32,000 pay check for her analysis of American academia, suggesting that potential graduates “study hard, but party harder.”

Posted

in

by

Mitch Berg

Tags:

Comments

39 responses to “Market Discipline”

  1. Emery Avatar
    Emery

    China is targeting pain at the republican voters. This could get interesting.

  2. Greg Avatar
    Greg

    Prior to Nov. 2016:

    “As an alumni of Rutgers, how much ‘access’ do I get for underwriting a $250,000 speech? BTW, is this email secure?”

    After Nov. 2016

    “For a $25,000 speech at Rutgers, how long will you promise to shut up? See the list of journalists, activists and party officials cc’d on this email.”

  3. Joe Doakes Avatar
    Joe Doakes

    It’s truly amazing how much corruption the upset election has revealed. Bill and Hillary raked in billions (with a B) in donations from courtiers wanting to buy access, back in the days when it was universally understood she would be the next President. We still aren’t seeing the true value of her “wisdom” because college speaker selection is notoriously slanted Left, but it’s becoming more clear.

    One more reason to be thankful.

  4. Mammuthus Primigenius Avatar
    Mammuthus Primigenius

    Hillary’s VP, Tim Kaine, said that Bolton was unacceptable as NSA because he gave paid speeches to Russians.
    Russki oligarchs paid Bill Clinton $500,000 for a speech while Hillary was running the the state department.
    God, the Dems don’t know how funny they are. I guess it is a gift.

  5. Night Writer Avatar
    Night Writer

    In my job I research and book speakers for client events, and 4 years ago I was asked to see what it would take to book Hillary for our biggest conference (the person who asked knew we likely wouldn’t be able to afford it, but was interested). Well, the fee started at $250k, with a non-refundable deposit, and the contract included the proviso that the speaker could cancel at any time without penalty – meaning you could promote the event and the morning of the speech Hillary could cancel for more pressing matters and you’d be SOL. Yeah, that was an easy “opportunity” to pass up.

  6. Greg Avatar
    Greg

    Night Writer,

    May I suggest that anyone who books Hillary Clinton and pays the non-refundable deposit, mitigate the risk that she will not show up by also booking Monica Lewinsky as a backup speaker.

  7. nerdbert Avatar
    nerdbert

    Snooki may actually bring more value to students’ lives…

    And more wisdom, may I point out? She’s actually managed to parley a mediocre, rather stupid shtick into a paying, popular public performance. Hillary has many more advantages of intelligence, money, power and access, yet has turned herself into an unpopular harridan than even many of her alleged supporters now wish off the stage. The students have more to learn from Snooki’s success than from Hillary’s trials.

  8. Emery Avatar
    Emery

    Hello pork producers in Iowa. How’s that Trump vote working out for you?

    Tillerson was right.

  9. escapefromstl Avatar
    escapefromstl

    China owns Smithfield so they’re putting tariffs on themselves.

  10. Emery Avatar
    Emery

    If one wants to use a protectionist Wall Approach like Trump, that means every year you have to keep making the Wall higher and higher as the foreign competitors get mostly bigger and somewhat better. Not being able to meet the competition is never “winning” no matter how much chest thumping by Trump.

    If tariffs could solve the problem, it’s only because Trump knows something that none of his predecessors knew.

  11. Mr. D Avatar
    Mr. D

    What Nerdbert said — Snooki’s address was more practical. And Hillary is well past her sell-by date.

  12. nerdbert Avatar
    nerdbert

    I don’t recall you taking such a free market position until Trump, Em.

    I’m a great believer in free markets. But a bigger believer in fair ones. Trump’s complaints about Chinese behavior are justified, and reducing their access to American markets is quite appropriate given what the Chinese do to keep American companies from theirs. It’s one of my disagreements with the uniparty swamp critters in DC.

    China buying access to US markets by bribing the exceptionally corrupt Clintons (and by extension, the establishment of the Democrats) was a brilliant stroke. The GOP was hamstrung philosophically by opposition to unions and an obsequious deference to Big Business that made opposing the idea of something that could possibly be called free trade, so bribing away the resistance of establishment Democrats was an excellent way to gain access to the US market while preventing US access to the Chinese.

  13. justplainangry Avatar
    justplainangry

    Hey, Shvonder-eTASS – on topic, slime trolls. Your attention span is shorter then Snooki’s. And I dare suggest your are not as intelligent as Snooki either for your inability to stay on topic speaks volumes about your comprehension skills. There, somebody had to say it.

    Now on to discounts to sHrillary’s speeches. NW, those are the sort of clauses one might find in an entertainer’s contract. But at least entertainers entertain, sHrillary, not so much. And when she does, it is of the slapstick variety, like falling down the stairs or fainting.

  14. justplainangry Avatar
    justplainangry

    MP, do not feed the trolls. I would like to conduct an experiment to see if Shvonder-eTASS can stay on topic. At least once, without threadjacking each and every thread to confirm he indeed has Dunning-Kruger condition.

  15. Emery Avatar
    Emery

    Don’t let that shiny Clinton object distract you nerdber.

    The issue is that Trump’s actions have been poorly planned and executed, generated from knee-jerk reaction rather than deliberate analysis and planning. Policy from ignorance invites unintended consequences like trade wars.

  16. Emery Avatar
    Emery

    And when did it become Okay in America for politicians to diminish shareholder value by public attacks on companies? It’s equivalent to illegal asset seizure.

    All because Trump doesn’t personally like Bezos.

  17. Night Writer Avatar
    Night Writer

    JPA – the clause in Hillary’s contract was very specific and called out, presumably in case she got summoned to an important piece of business – or got a better offer. The other contracts I deal with, this type of notice is buried and somewhat tacit – the last thing someone wants to do, if they are in the speaking business – is to skip a scheduled gig because word gets out.

    Anyway, I was thinking of going ahead and booking Hillary, just so I could let the FBI know exactly where she was going to be an when, in case they were interested. They weren’t.

  18. Greg Avatar
    Greg

    Hello pork producers in Iowa. How’s that Trump vote working out for you?

    Translated into language that even a third grader can understand: See what happens when you don’t give the bully your lunch money?

  19. TKS Avatar
    TKS

    Emery said: “And when did it become Okay in America for politicians to diminish shareholder value by public attacks on companies? It’s equivalent to illegal asset seizure.

    All because Trump doesn’t personally like Bezos.”

    I think it became acceptable under Obama.

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/obama-used-executive-powers-to-benefit-close-friends-private-investment-firms-book

  20. justplainangry Avatar
    justplainangry

    Hmm, I am beginning to wonder if Shvonder-eTASS enlisted more sock puppets to keep his threadjacking alive. For once, just once, do not let him goad you onto his threadjacked path. Even if you have a slum dunk argument – and yes, it is so easy to p0wn these trolls.

  21. justplainangry Avatar
    justplainangry

    NW, just came across an old article from BI. Actual speaking fees may never had been very high for sHrillary. Consider speaking engagement in Nevada – $225K, inclusive of expenses. Those expenses include air transportation via Gulfstream 450 or larger jet for sHrillary and entourage and biz class tix for two advance scouts. A presidential suite with up to three adjoining rooms for staff and two room for advance staff for 3 days. Add to this all phone charges/cell phones and meals for everyone, and by golly, sHrillary spoke for free!

    It is not the speaking fee that kills you, it is the freeloading!

  22. Swiftee Bot Avatar
    Swiftee Bot

    I’d pay Her Clottiness $25k to sit in a dunk tank for an hour. Charge $1000 a pop for 3 shots at her.

  23. Mammuthus Primigenius Avatar
    Mammuthus Primigenius

    Emery is doing something here that I have accused him of doing in the past, and that is a common tactic on the Left. That is, in any conflict, to portray any nation that opposes US interests of holding a flush while the US is trying to fill an inside straight.
    Here are the stakes: if their was a real trade war, instead of negotiating trade terms, the US would suffer a recession, possibly a severe recession, from which it would recover. China would see revolution and the end of its dreams of controlling the Western Pacific.

  24. Joe Doakes Avatar
    Joe Doakes

    National economic policy decisions should never be made on the basis of whether the policy benefits the entire nation, they should be made on the basis of which campaign contributors benefit the most. Pay to play, baby!

    Uh, no, that was the other party, the people who lost the election. Try to keep up.

  25. Emery Avatar
    Emery

    The NYT has an excellent op-ed this morning by a journalist from rural Iowa outlining the hugely negative impact of Trump’s tariff policies on both manufacturing in Iowa and on its agricultural exporting farm sector. Republicans have 30 senators and dozens of representatives from states west of the Mississippi River, many of them farm states or states with large agricultural sectors. Antagonizing China, Mexico, and Canada — three of the largest agricultural exports markets — may be smart trade war in Trumps view (“easy to win”) but very bad politics. Mexico for instance is a huge importer of American corn.

    Trumps tariff policies may result in more fracture in the Republican party than many think. And what the Iowa journalist in the NYT op-ed is saying is that Republican opinion may turn against Trump suddenly and deeply. Republican traditionalists may decide that dumping Trump and consolidating around Mike Pence is the best strategy to preserve their station and power from a Democratic wave.

    The Chinese targeted their retaliation right at the Republicans’ most vulnerable political sector — agricultural exports.

    Trump’s strength is with the Republican base and therefore in the primary elections. Once the primaries are behind Republican legislators this summer, they will be looking at the middle of the electorate and the November election.

  26. Mammuthus Primigenius Avatar
    Mammuthus Primigenius

    If this is the op-ed you are talking about, Emery, it is a meaningless hash of Trump-hatred, Fox News hatred, and Republican-hating sentiment.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/01/opinion/trump-tariffs-agriculture-economy.html

  27. bosshoss429 Avatar
    bosshoss429

    MP,
    Why do you think DimEry thinks it’s such a “great” article?

    Emery, you might want to learn the process that an American company has to follow to do business in China, before you utter your ignorant comments on tariffs? Those of us that understand that said process is designed to put those companies at a competitive disadvantage, while virtually giving up their intellectual property and trade secrets, at the same time. Further, you obviously don’t know that the Chinese have not contributed ANYTHING of value to the world since gunpowder. But, hey. Enjoy typing your blather on your Chinese made computer, laptop, iPad or cell phone.

  28. Emery Avatar
    Emery

    The people who will pay the tariff “tax” will be American. Every American is being forced to subsidize an inefficient steel industry. Backward thinking, to say the least.

  29. Mammuthus Primigenius Avatar
    Mammuthus Primigenius

    bosshoss429 on April 2, 2018 at 7:19 pm said:
    MP,
    Why do you think DimEry thinks it’s such a “great” article?
    Because it is an opinion article and Emery shares the opinion of the writer.
    Confusing fact & opinion seems to be a problem that affects those on the left more than those on the right, like confusing comedians and entertainers for for serious political commenters. An opinion piece is an opinion. Opinion writers are sometimes interesting to read because they are entertaining or they may present an argument in a unique or novel way. But opinion writers are under no obligation to report “the facts” the way ordinary news articles are supposed to. Opinion articles are written to persuade, not to inform.
    One of the stupidest trends in modern journalism is to headline an opinion article, written by an opinion article writer, and placed in the opinion section, with the word fact(s), as in “These are the Facts about Gun Violence in America.” If the article is factual, what the @#$%! is it doing in the opinion section? (I’m lookin’ at you, LA Times.)

  30. Emery Avatar
    Emery

    This is a very calculated response on the part of China. They know they are dealing with a person who is fairly ignorant about international trade and wants to show him in as simple a way as possible what escalation means. Note that China is specifically targeting goods from the red swing states;  they are doing that as a warning flare because anyone that is familiar with the US economy knows that soybeans, aviation, and cotton will be the big three hammers that will come down eventually if things escalate.

  31. Mammuthus Primigenius Avatar
    Mammuthus Primigenius

    Emery, did you even read my 4:42?

  32. Emery Avatar
    Emery

    It’s never easy to respond appropriately to US nuts and fruitcakes.

  33. Mammuthus Primigenius Avatar
    Mammuthus Primigenius

    So, regarding your 8:32, Emery, you are saying China is holding a flush while the US is trying to draw an inside straight?

  34. Emery Avatar
    Emery

    I’ll repeat what I wrote earlier, in case you glossed over it.

    If tariffs could solve the problem, it’s only because Trump knows something that none of his predecessors knew.

  35. bosshoss429 Avatar
    bosshoss429

    Actually, Emery, he does!

    He knows not to let China shit all over us and get away with it!

    Quit watching CNN on your Chinese made TV for your economic opinions and learn something. I have many friends in the financial services industry and all but two agree with Trump’s strategy. They believe China will blink first!

  36. Greg Avatar
    Greg

    A decline in pork sales to China has been anticipated for years. These days, we mostly sell them scraps: ears, feet, the things that do not go into SPAM.

    A consolidation of China’s pig industry has seen small farms shut due to environmental concerns, while large-scale operations are expanding. The country’s pork imports are forecast to decline in 2018 as an increase in domestic production reduces the need to buy meat from overseas, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

  37. Emery Avatar
    Emery

    California’s Central Valley produces almost all of the pistachios that are exported to China from the US. ($40 million worth sold last year, and now they’re on the tariff list). The area is mostly represented by GOP politicians. China is being smart. It’s casting as wide a net as possible geographically, while concentrating its actions on GOP held districts. A very well aimed hit by the Chinese there.

    Interesting fact: Iran produces about 4 times more pistachios than the US, so there’s no lack of another source.

    When Trump pulled out of the TPP he handed China the leadership in world trade. The TPP was specifically intended to forge a counter to China’s geopolitical ambitions. Now the remaining countries are leading the charge — but without the US’s involvement. The US is breaking with a key regional alliance just at the precise moment that China is forging ahead with its ambitions for regional dominance.
    I’ve been a skeptic of TPP from an economic perspective, but the geopolitics are clear: it’s good for the US’s long-term strategic needs in the Pacific. It’s also good for dealing with the Korean threat. This is just one of many ways that the Trump is isolating the US at a crucial moment in the history of the Pacific region.

  38. justplainangry Avatar
    justplainangry

    Dunning-Kruger running rampant today it seems. Here is a little tidbit that will blow Shvonder-eTASS mind. NAFTA is tied to Chinese tariffs and the latter is likely a tactic to fix NAFTA, and if it is not fixed, scrap it altogether. This is why McDreamy and Nieto are pissing their pants trying to renegotiate it. What MP said – it is about fair trade, not free. And no, I WILL not explain it to you, Shvonder-eTASS. It is a waste of my time and further unnecessary threadjacking.

    Speaking of threadjacking. What I do not understand, and maybe Mitch can chime in, is why Shvonder-eTASS is not admonished for threadjacking just about any thread with any potential traffic. It is like he lives on this blog for free changing topics and engaging people who would never, ever give him a passing thought if he were running his own blog. It is getting old. Every time I think I am turning to a post which addresses a certain topic, I end up scrolling through post upon post of mindless drivel by the threadjacking troll and his enablers (yes, I do count myself as one, but no more). It is getting really stale and boring – it is distracting from the conversation.

  39. bikebubba Avatar
    bikebubba

    Back to the subject, I would dare suggest that if the opportunity to see Mrs. Lavalle speak were sold at its market price–apparently $64/person plus the costs of the hall, etc..–she just might have gotten fewer takers than she got for a free seminar. If you wonder why college graduates are often ignorant of economics, you need go no further than the racket of featured speakers.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.