Reason.com and the $940,000 claim

[TheNcredibleEgg]

The publishing operation was lucrative. A tax document from June 1993—wrapping up the year in which the Political Report had published the "welfare checks" comment on the L.A. riots—reported an annual income of $940,000 for Ron Paul & Associates, listing four employees in Texas (Paul's family and Rockwell) and seven more employees around the country. If Paul didn't know who was writing his newsletters, he knew they were a crucial source of income and a successful tool for building his fundraising base for a political comeback.

OK - this snippet from the 4 year year old story seems to be causing a lot of problems. I see people quote it repeatedly the last few weeks as absolute fact - since Reason said so - that Ron Paul made 1M dollars a year from the newsletters.

Has this number ever been verified? It seems WAY high. The newsletters just don't seem as if they could possible earn that much money. Mind you - Reason.com reported this figure as income (profit) so that's what people are parroting.

[kylejack]

Seems possible to me. He's had a nationwide group of supporters all along. Anyway, if Paul wants to dispute it he could release some tax documents.

[coastie]

So what?

Everything has been taken COMPLETELY out of context re: newsletters. The implication here is that he made money off of the newsletters because they were racist...

[eric4186]

income=/=profit

[AggieforPaul]

OP, income does not equal profit. Profit is what is left over after expenses. If the newsletters generated 940k income, there's no way Paul "made" anywhere near 940k because there were distribution costs, marketing costs, salaries of the racists who wrote them, etc.

[ZanZibar]

income=/=profitExactly.

Revenue might have been $950k/yr, but expenses might very well have been $900k/yr before anyone got a paycheck.

[Badger Paul]

Which Weigel left out conviently to make it look RP got rich off of them.

[MaxPower]

OP, income does not equal profit. Profit is what is left over after expenses. If the newsletters generated 940k income, there's no way Paul "made" anywhere near 940k because there were distribution costs, marketing costs, salaries of the racists who wrote them, etc.
Yet the media has been repeating it as though it were a literal $940,000 in profits.

[Brian4Liberty]

OP, income does not equal profit. Profit is what is left over after expenses. If the newsletters generated 940k income, there's no way Paul "made" anywhere near 940k because there were distribution costs, marketing costs, salaries of the racists who wrote them, etc.

Lies, damned lies, statistics and accounting. ;)

In addition to the costs you outlined, it has been said that there were as many as seven different writers. If Rockwell and Rothbard were the main editors, they would probably get a big cut too. It is doubtful Ron himself saw a large payday.

[TheNcredibleEgg]

income=/=profit

Yes - income DOES equal profit. That is the problem.

There are subsets like gross profit/net profit/operating profit - but if a category is just listed as "income" is does imply profit.


What is income? For corporations, revenues minus cost of sales, operating expenses, and taxes, over a given period of time.

Reason.com is stating the $940,000 as "income" not as revenue or gross income or anything else. They are, indeeed, implying that Ron Paul and Ass profited $940,000.

[braane]

Earnings != Net Income

Net Income = Revenues(earnings) - Expenses

If he had 11 staff members, it's likely that the net income was < 200,000. From what I hear he wasn't even majority owner...So he actually would have made quite a bit less than that even.

[LeJimster]

edit: nvm -_-

[kylejack]

The 940k was from a single year.

[ronpaulitician]

How many people subscribed to this crap?

[TheTexan]

How many people subscribed to this crap?

I don't remember where I heard it, but a few thousand. A few thousand subscribers is a very small newsletter... the math doesn't add up.

[fatjohn]

I don't remember where I heard it, but a few thousand. A few thousand subscribers is a very small newsletter... the math doesn't add up.

It was an investment letter about gold and gold stocks mainly. My dad writes one for about 300 dollars a year per recipient. Those things are meant to make you money and they are costly. Makes perfect sense. With ten people that want a paycheck from it and distribution costs etc, Ron hasn´t made ´much` money from that.

[fatjohn]

How many people subscribed to this crap?

Was doubting if all of it was crap or just like 0,5%. I found these, thought to share.

http://web.archive.org/web/20080216011818/http://www.tnr.com/downloads/November1994.pdf
http://web.archive.org/web/20080216011804/http://www.tnr.com/downloads/RPIL12_86_1.pdf
http://web.archive.org/web/20080216011800/http://www.tnr.com/downloads/March1990.pdf

[Bruno]

There were also several different newletters written under RP and Assoc., this was just one of a series. It was not the investment newsletter, which was likely the largest moneymaker.

[Liberty Shark]

Reason magazine is now so clearly irrelevant to modern libertarianism. They are clearly ineffective in promoting the liberty message. But this should come as no surprise since what they continue to peddle is obviously, for the most part, not true libertarianism. They cannot be taken seriously, unless one is interested in watered-down Washington "libertarianism".

[Defining Obscene]

This is going to become Paul's birth certificate. He needs to publish his earnings and be transparent. He should also re-release whatever newsletters are still available for the public to read online.

[ronpaulitician]

This is going to become Paul's birth certificate. He needs to publish his earnings and be transparent. He should also re-release whatever newsletters are still available for the public to read online.
Exactly. My guess is that there will be so much material to read that people will realize that the stuff that is constantly brought up in the media makes up a sliver of a sliver of a sliver of the complete content. And it will allow for someone to read the material without the negative spin and/or selective choice of material that a site like this will provide: Over 50 Ron Paul newsletter pages scanned (http://www.mrdestructo.com/2011/12/game-over-scans-of-over-50-ron-paul.html).

I believe Paul when he talks about this issue, so I don't think he has anything to hide. But the questions that I, as a strong Paul supporter, have over this issue are bound to come up with the not-quite-so-strong supporters. A good offensive will be the best defense here.

[coffeewithgames]

Wow, I LOLed at this image. I guess the media can't talk about this one?

http://i.imgur.com/HdN7j.jpg

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

That isn't much spread around 7 people.

However, read the article about business disparagement. All those people have a real good case if any one of them want to sue. It doesn't have to be Ron Paul.

Calling something racist is prima facie evidence of slander, just like if you say "you whore". The defendant is put in the position of proving it's true, which they can not. Their cheesy-ness about trying to guilt by association and quoting things out of context and rash statements has opened them up to some real liability - and it doesn't have to come from Ron Paul - it can come from people who aren't affected politically at all.

[RickyJ]

I think that is gross revenue, not net profit. Even if it is profit to be split about 11 different times sure wouldn't make it a million for Paul.

[tunk999]

Yes - income DOES equal profit. That is the problem.

There are subsets like gross profit/net profit/operating profit - but if a category is just listed as "income" is does imply profit.

Reason.com is stating the $940,000 as "income" not as revenue or gross income or anything else. They are, indeeed, implying that Ron Paul and Ass profited $940,000.

But they're referring to "annual income". Wouldn't that mean GROSS annual income?

[Shellshock1918]

Does anyone know how many TOTAL newsletters were released and the number of newsletters that contained inflammatory (or out of context) statements?

[TheViper]

Does anyone know how many TOTAL newsletters were released and the number of newsletters that contained inflammatory (or out of context) statements?
My understanding is that there was a total of 360 newsletters published but that includes all the different newsletters and reports for about 20 years. Of those 360, only 8 contained racist language. Of those 8, the language was contained in just a few passages. And the period they were written was between 1989 and 1994 when Dr. Paul no longer had daily oversight of the newsletter (he gave up daily operations for his 1988 presidential bid).

Ever notice how it is the same 3 or 4 quotes that keep getting used by the media? If all 360 newsletters were filled with racists language, I'm pretty sure they'd have more than 3 or 4 quotes to work with.