kudlow-pawlenty-14004This week: Ted Cruz gets into the race, Starbucks talks about race, Donald Trump races to the bottom, can Martin O’Malley become a credible threat to Hillary, and Larry and Tim endorse Lincoln for 2016.

It’s the best value in the market today: Money and Politics with Kudlow & Pawlenty is now available on iTunes here and on Stitcher here. Get it!

Subscribe to Money and Politics Podcast in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.

Now become a Ricochet member for only $5.00 a month! Join and see what you’ve been missing.

There are 4 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. EJHill Podcaster
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    Four score and Pawlenty of years ago…

    • #1
  2. user_30416 Inactive
    user_30416
    @LeslieWatkins

    Listening to Tim Pawlenty here makes me feel much less badly about Al Franken winning the Senate seat in Minnesota. I had to stop listening midway.

    • #2
  3. Penfold Member
    Penfold
    @Penfold

    Strictly from a visual perspective, Tim as Lincoln works.  Larry?  Not so much.  Maybe it’s the glasses.

    • #3
  4. Full Size Tabby Member
    Full Size Tabby
    @FullSizeTabby

    Mr. Kudlow seems to have an excessively narrow view of “the marketplace.” The SPCA collection jar on the counter at the pet store (Mr. Pawlenty’s example) IS part of the marketplace transaction. The “conversation on race” IS part of the marketplace transaction.

    In part, the owner of the pet store probably figures that the SPCA collection jar helps the customer feel better about patronizing that pet store, and thus more likely to continue doing so.

    The executives at Starbucks no doubt anticipated that suggesting a “conversation about race” would appeal to at least a significant portion of actual or potential Starbucks customers, and help them feel better about patronizing Starbucks, so that they would patronize more often and/or spend more per visit. After all, people patronize Starbucks for something beyond a mere cup of coffee. There’s the elegant decor (wood paneling, stuffed furniture in some), the elaborate names for the beverages, the server is a “barista,” the elaborate assembly and presentation of the beverage, etc. So, it would not be unreasonable for the executives to think that customers who enjoy that whole ambiance and experience might feel even better about patronizing Starbucks if the customer had an obvious opportunity to nod in agreement with each other about how wonderful their progressive views on race were and how terrible those “others” elsewhere are. But, it was a business (“marketplace”) decision. It appears the executives misjudged how far customers were willing to go in having a “Starbucks experience.”

    • #4