A Multiple-Choice Quiz

Here’s a modified version of a letter that I sent earlier this morning to USA Today:

You quote Robert Reich’s lament about U.S. politics: “Washington is so overrun by lobbyists representing moneyed interests that it’s become almost impossible to make policy in the open…. When it comes to the long-term deficit, Congress is incapable of acting. But the answer isn’t to give up on democracy…. The real answer is to recommit ourselves to cleaning up democracy” (“Et cetera,” Feb. 3).

Nonsense. As long as politics is big-time into money, money will be big-time into politics.

Imagine a raffle with the winning ticket paying its holder $1.00. People will not spend much for the opportunity to win this sum. No spending restrictions or exhortations about ethics are necessary to keep spending down.

Now suppose that the winning raffle ticket will pay its holder $1,000,000,000. People will spend lavishly for the opportunity to win this humongous bounty. No spending restrictions or sermonizing about the evils of buying a chance at access to a huge sum of money will prevent such spending. People will find ways around whatever barriers are erected.

If you doubt this fact, imagine that you know that you hold the winning billion-dollar raffle ticket but, because of your family name, are unable personally to redeem it. Will you simply give that ticket to some lucky passerby? Will you transfer it to someone who impresses you with a beautiful speech? Will you be content to sell it for, say, $100? Or will you find some way to sell it for cash and resources together worth $1 billion to you?

You know the correct answer.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux

Comments Share Print Email

slartibartfast_2

"Or will you find some way to sell it for cash and resources together worth $1 billion to you?"

Neither, most likely. Most likely there would be some middle ground where you and the person you "sell" it to agree that it's worth the deal. If you sell a $1b lottery ticket to someone for $1b, he gets nothing in the trade, and because he gets nothing, your purchase of his silence is worthless.

I recommend rethinking. 100/0 splits typically aren't seen, between thieves.

jcvera

Bien. Como la política y el dinero son equivalentes en el largo plazo, luego el único freno a la voracidad desmedida de las alimañas políticas es una gran catástrofe económica terminal...

Well. Since politics and money are equivalent in the long term, then the only brake on the unbridled greed of the political vermin is a terminal economic catastrophe ...

eidolways

Something that isn't often considered regarding the moneyed interests lobbying in Washington is that many times companies face the scenario wherein if they don't represent themselves to Washington, their competitors certainly will! If you competitor gets an unfair leg-up through direct monetary contributions or through favorable legislation or, worse, manages to hamstring you through either of the same means, then you find yourself at a distinct disadvantage.

In other words, you keep your knife out and at the ready because you don't trust that the other inmate won't stab you with his even if your show of "trust" earns you PR creds.

Political Observer

Don:

You are correct in your assessment that as long as Washington is willing to spend 25% of our GDP and chose to control nearly every aspect of our lives why wouldn't any prudent individual want to protect their interest and gain as large a piece of that spending as they can get.

If Reich truly wants to recommit ourselves to cleaning up democracy than he should look to the wisdom of the founders and support a significantly diminished federal government that is more reflective of the constitution than the monster we have now.

With regards to Riech's wish list - there is nothing that prevents him from acting in his own interest and voluntarily making those choices with his life and resources that are consistent with his desired view of the world. My guess however is that he is another living example of those who are too weak of spirit and will to take these actions on their own and thus require the heavy hand of government to force them to do the "right" thing.

OnlyShawn

and, when that $1,000,000,000 comes not just as a win for the winner, but as a loss to the losers (see: regulation), you can be sure that a total of *more* than a billion will be spent (see: rent-seeking). It's like a free lunch for the politicians! Yeah for them, and their enterprising souls...

Sam Grove

The beauty of democracy is that it allows everyone to participate in the corrupting effects of the political control of resources.

OnlyShawn

...all the while being exempt from social opprobrium. In fact, all the while gaining *praise*!? Hmm...I think I just got a new idea for a t-shirt. LiberTsigns rides again!!

Seth

Good quiz. How do we protect ourselves from special interests?

More from Reich's link:

"Personally, I want the government to limit the pay of financial executives, regulate greenhouse gases, and reform health care. And no one wanted a financial meltdown. But I'm appalled by the process that's been used to reach these objectives."

And, what does "recommit ourselves to cleaning up democracy" mean? According to Reich:

"...adequate public financing for congressional and presidential candidates who refuse private funding, more constraints on lobbyists, tighter rules for who must register as a lobby-ist, fuller disclosure, and tougher rules on the revolving door between public service and private gain."

Methinks1776

In other words, his "solution" is force, force, force, and force.

Reich is predictable. First, advocate some version of central planning, then become outraged by the methods of inflicting these plans and the results.