3 ms·
This is obviously a pretty pointless back-and-forth. You're attempting to treat lobbying as a binary. Does it make logical sense that Walmart would spend $7M i
by _jal 9y ago
This is obviously a pretty pointless back-and-forth.
You're attempting to treat lobbying as a binary. Does it make logical sense that Walmart would spend $7M if it didn't feel that investment had a return?
Of course large companies are buoyed by other factors. But as congress-critters famously pointed out a while back, Silicon Valley had to learn to lobby. And they did, otherwise Bad Things could happen.
Also,
> People take as a shibboleth
I don't know what tribe you're trying to make me a member of, but, uh, no.
> But that flies in the face of the actual data
If you're talking about the gap between $7m and $.5T, that dataoid demonstrates nothing other than that multinational retailers operate much larger firms than politicians do.
My question stands: how is AZON playing a different game than they various sportball leagues?
- rayiner 9y ago> You're attempting to treat lobbying as a binary. Does it make logical sense that Walmart would spend $7M if it didn't feel that investment had a return? Would Walmart spend only $7 million on lobbying if the return was so crazy high as you’re assuming it is? > If you're talking about the gap between $7m and $.5T, that dataoid demonstrates nothing other than that multinational retailers operate much larger firms than politicians do. Price doesn’t relate to size of firm or cost, but rather supply and demand. Under your theory, where lobbying is instrumental in keeping a $500 billion business from being out competed, demand should be high. At the same time, with a very limited number of Congress critters, supply is limited. That should push up the price as other firms bid to secure the supposed benefits Walmart now gets.