3 ms·

> If you hand-wave about "systemic corruption," no proof is necessary. This has been looked at. It looks like government lobbying has a 400x return on investme

> If you hand-wave about "systemic corruption," no proof is necessary. This has been looked at. It looks like government lobbying has a 400x return on investment. If these corporations weren't benefiting from all they spend, they wouldn't spend it. [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-donius/goldmans-great-return-on_b_549900.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-donius/goldmans-great-ret...

SamReidHughes 9y ago
Should politicians pass legislation negatively impacting the ability to do business and be completely insulated from feedback?
- TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
  Should politicians maintain legislation that prioritizes corporate profits over quality of life for its citizens?
  - jandrese 9y ago
    In the end, who are the Politicians representing? When the interests of the multinational corporation come in conflict with the interests of the general public, who wins? In a market economy the one with the money wins, should the same be true of the government representation too? Ultimately, markets have a built in bias towards the top. In a theoretical perfectly functioning market the money will accumulate at the top until one person controls all of the money, at which point the economy completely collapses. Despite this flaw, markets are still the most efficient way to allocate resources and grow the economy. So the best solution we've found so far is to have the Government act as a backstop, draining money from the top and feeding it back into the bottom so the market doesn't collapse itself. Unfortunately, governments sometimes forget that and their economies suffer. Plus, despite what many economists may think, money isn't everything. Money is only a means to and end, where efficient distribution of resources provides the greatest overall happiness in the population. A system where half of the population is abjectly poor and 0.01% are so rich they have no idea what to do with their money except to use it to make more money has failed.
rayiner 9y ago
No, it hasn’t been “looked at.” “Looked at” would imply some sort of intellectual rigor, and there is none there because there is no causation analysis. The other way to look at it this: he says Goldman contributes $31 million *over 20 years.” If lobbying yielded that kind of ROI, companies would do a lot more of it.
- TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
  There are diminishing returns on investments like these. If they can get the job done using this much money, why would they spend more to accomplish the same thing?
  - likpok 9y ago
    If influence is so valuable, why haven't the rates been bid up? Are companies price-fixing to keep lobbying costs low? Given that a number of industries are diametrically opposed, why would they collude? If the price is so low, why are wealthy industries like tech companies so ineffective at buying influence?

SamReidHughes 9y ago

Should politicians pass legislation negatively impacting the ability to do business and be completely insulated from feedback?

TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
Should politicians maintain legislation that prioritizes corporate profits over quality of life for its citizens?
- jandrese 9y ago
  In the end, who are the Politicians representing? When the interests of the multinational corporation come in conflict with the interests of the general public, who wins? In a market economy the one with the money wins, should the same be true of the government representation too? Ultimately, markets have a built in bias towards the top. In a theoretical perfectly functioning market the money will accumulate at the top until one person controls all of the money, at which point the economy completely collapses. Despite this flaw, markets are still the most efficient way to allocate resources and grow the economy. So the best solution we've found so far is to have the Government act as a backstop, draining money from the top and feeding it back into the bottom so the market doesn't collapse itself. Unfortunately, governments sometimes forget that and their economies suffer. Plus, despite what many economists may think, money isn't everything. Money is only a means to and end, where efficient distribution of resources provides the greatest overall happiness in the population. A system where half of the population is abjectly poor and 0.01% are so rich they have no idea what to do with their money except to use it to make more money has failed.

rayiner 9y ago

No, it hasn’t been “looked at.” “Looked at” would imply some sort of intellectual rigor, and there is none there because there is no causation analysis. The other way to look at it this: he says Goldman contributes $31 million *over 20 years.” If lobbying yielded that kind of ROI, companies would do a lot more of it.

TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
There are diminishing returns on investments like these. If they can get the job done using this much money, why would they spend more to accomplish the same thing?
- likpok 9y ago
  If influence is so valuable, why haven't the rates been bid up? Are companies price-fixing to keep lobbying costs low? Given that a number of industries are diametrically opposed, why would they collude? If the price is so low, why are wealthy industries like tech companies so ineffective at buying influence?