I'm a former Republican, and I used to say two things: (1) it's none of our business whether a private citizen is earning $10 or $10,000,000; (2) supply and demand produces, over the long run, an optimal distribution of resources, because a society's needs (i.e. for goods and services) and abilities (i.e. the ability to provide those goods and services) need to be matched in a way that reflects the actual priorities of that society.

It's hard -- probably impossible -- to justify Wall Street compensation packages on supply-and-demand grounds. In the 70s, CEOs earned about 30 times the earnings of their workers. By 2007, they earned 344 times the average pay of their workers.

CEOs do not provide 10 times the value they produced in the 70s. They are not 10 times more scarce. Corporations are not 10 times more profitable. They are not 10 times more prosperous by any measure -- if they were, they would offer 10 times more compensation, on average, to everyone at their company.

So if I were still a Republican, I'd probably say something like this: banks like Bear Stearns were irrational, and they should pay the consequences. The fewer bad banks we have, the better it is for all of us in the long run.

I don't know how many Republicans would agree with that last bit. Truth be told, most of them aren't even pro-free-trade. They're just anti-socialist. Anything that sounds like socialism sends them running for the hills. "Supply and demand" are useful to them only as a cudgel with which to attack the socialist view.

And this sort of justification is trumpeted only by the educated, Wall-Street-Journal-reading elite of the Republican party. Their popular support base in rural areas couldn't care less about economic issues.