Discover more from Overcoming Bias
Economics students at George Mason University are mostly taught, and mostly accept, a free-market perspective, where political intervention in society is treated with suspicion. I’m currently teaching Public Choice, or economics of politics, where you’d expect such student opinions to be especially visible.
In a recent quiz, I asked students to give an advantage and a disadvantage of letting corporations run for political office, relative to the status quo. Most gave an advantage I had described in lecture, that firms could develop a consistent brand and reputation on which voters could rely. I hadn’t mentioned any disadvantages in class, but 80+% spontaneously said that a disadvantage is elected firms would support self-serving policies.
Wow. Even GMU econ undergrads, not especially inclined to see the bright side of politicians, see corporations as more intrinsically selfish and corrupt than politicians. The idea of firms as dark untrustworthy aliens is indeed buried deep in our psyche. Xenophobia lives.
Added: I guess I need to spell this out. Humans evolved concern for others because this enabled individual humans to better survive and reproduce, especially by being better respected and liked by others. Similarly, firms who hoped to succeed in the industry of running for office would seek to create and maintain a clear positive long-term brand, one that voters could respect, like, and embrace. It is crazy to assume firms will always hurt their customers for any temporary gain just because some paper somewhere declares firms must seek profits.
Added 1p: Consider an ordinary politician who hopes for 15 more years on the job, versus a firm now holding 100 offices that hopes to continue for another fifty years. Which one is more scared that news of a corrupt act would destroy their future political popularity? Which will try harder to avoid such acts?
Unselfish Politicians
I realize this discussion has moved on, so I may be shouting in the wind here. But FWIW, I thought I should at least clarify my own point of view.
When Halliburton sponsors a candidate, I assume that they do so because they believe (a) that candidate's views will be good for Halliburton's bottom line and (b) that candidate may feel more kindly toward Halliburton, either consciously or unconsciously, after receiving a generous donation, and that kindliness will be good for Halliburton's bottom line.
That is, the good of Hallilburton comes first -- and why shouldn't it? I may have issues with political funding, but those issues relate to how best and fairly to set up our rules, not with the company who donates. They're protecting themselves.
When a politician runs for office, the good of the citizens they represent is supposed to come first -- and indeed, when there's a conflict of interest, their opponent does well to point it out.
If Halliburton ran for office... what? Suddenly the company has undergone a change, and they no longer come first? They're running for office for the good of the citizens of some location, and Halliburton's financial interests (the reason the company was created) will take a backseat? I hope they've notified their shareholders that the company no longer exists to make the best profit it can, but instead to "help people."
As for this talk of brands: a politician has one brand: he's perceived as helping his constituents, or he's not.
Johnson & Johnson, running for office, would have two brands: They make good household products, and they want to help people. Why is it crazy and paranoid to think that an entity trying to fulfill two different goals will have those goals come in conflict, and the bigger the company is, the more engaged in many different areas, the more likely this is to happen? And when the very purpose of the company is to create wealth... I just don't see how you can hijack it for a second and sometimes conflicting purpose. That will by the way not generate wealth. Just because someone thought it would be fun to do some slow afternoon in the boardroom? It just strikes me as bizarre -- like, "I'd like to move some water from place A to place B, but instead of using a pipe, I think I'll use a lightbulb filament! I know it's designed and created to do something else entirely, but you guys are just paranoid if you think it can't do this as well!"
Yes before corporations there wasn't even a word for "reputation."