I think it is hilarious that the people most adamantly opposed to the free market are often enormously benefitted by its machinery. Think Hollywood. Or Hillary Clinton. A story surfaced recently that her speaking fee at colleges is higher than Mitt Romney’s. Much higher, in fact:

Mitt Romney will charge Mississippi State University $50,000 to deliver a lecture on campus next week, most of which will go to charity — a dramatically lower fee than the $250,000 to $300,000 Hillary Rodham Clinton requires for her university lectures.

Clinton has been asked if she gives discounts to universities for speaking engagements. Her response: $300,000 is her discounted rate.

Much has been made about Romney’s capitalist elitism versus Clinton’s economic populism. Yet what you see here is a clear outworking of a fundamental economic reality: prices naturally tend toward what people are willing to pay and willing to receive in payment. Clinton is able to charge $300,000 because people will pay it. Romney charges less because that’s what he is willing to receive to speak. That’s just the mechanism of capitalism at work.

The irony here is that Hillary Clinton promotes taxing the rich, government-planned economic structures, and the priority of the lower and middle class. It seems pretty obvious that the real populist here is Romney. Clinton is the one who, by the numbers alone, ends up looking like the money-grubbing elitist.

The elite of Hollywood and Washington, actors and politicians (it’s hard to tell the difference between the two) speak out of both sides of their mouths. An actor takes millions of dollars for a role where he shoots guns and kills the baddies, and then goes on a speaking tour bashing the death penalty, promoting gun control, and preaching the woes of income inequality. Go figure. Are you tired of the hypocrisy yet? Most people don’t even see it.