'Economist' Fig Leaf Hides Mere Lefty Lawyer

John Stossel includes the following gem near the start of his latest column:

Reich does almost exactly what I do, except Reich is repeatedly wrong.

It's understandable. Despite being frequently introduced as "economist Robert Reich," Reich has no economics degree. [bold added]

Having never particularly looked into Reich's background myself, I am among the many who have been and will be surprised to learn this.

The rest of the piece is as fun to read as it is informative. Here's a sample:

One of countless examples of Reich being referred to, incorrectly, as an "economist." (The author believes that this screen shot is protected as fair use under U.S. copyright law.)

Progressives and liberal lawyers like Reich believe rich people take most of America's wealth and leave little for the poor. Like the Hollywood writers for the movie Wall Street, they call our economy "a zero-sum game -- somebody wins, somebody loses."

But that's just dumb.

Capitalists create new wealth. They don't take a big slice of the pie and leave us a sliver. If they get rich, it's because they find ways to bake lots of new pies.

That's what's happened in America. Its why today, even poor Americans have access to things European kings only dreamed about.

Capitalists can get rich only by making all of us better off.

Actual economist Dan Mitchell explains, "Billionaires only kept 2.2 percent of the additional wealth they generated ... The rest of us captured almost 98 percent of the benefits."

This is not just a good refutation of a ridiculous trope, it calls to mind Ayn Rand's comprehensive demolition from Atlas Shrugged, where she says in part:

In proportion to the mental energy he spent, the man who creates a new invention receives but a small percentage of his value in terms of material payment, no matter what fortune he makes, no matter what millions he earns. But the man who works as a janitor in the factory producing that invention, receives an enormous payment in proportion to the mental effort that his job requires of him. And the same is true of all men between, on all levels of ambition and ability. The man at the top of the intellectual pyramid contributes the most to all those below him, but gets nothing except his material payment, receiving no intellectual bonus from others to add to the value of his time. The man at the bottom who, left to himself, would starve in his hopeless ineptitude, contributes nothing to those above him, but receives the bonus of all of their brains. Such is the nature of the "competition" between the strong and the weak of the intellect. Such is the pattern of "exploitation" for which you have damned the strong. [bold added]

As Stossel indicates in his piece, Reich is hoodwinking millions with his zero-sum, envy-mongering nonsense. This piece and Atlas Shrugged are good things to keep in mind any time one might encounter a thoughtful person who might be receptive to a more truthful narrative.

-- CAV