65 Comments

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!"

Expand full comment

Yes before corporations there wasn't even a word for "reputation."

Expand full comment

I can't believe how badly most commentators are missing the point. Corporations have brands that they uphold. I would much rather vote for a corporation I trusted than a politician who had little reason to care what people thought about him in 5 years. Not all corporations are profit maximizing firms, but all have reputations to protect if they want to be successful.

Expand full comment

Economists are a confident lot, unafraid to blunder into other disciplines.

Expand full comment

Steven, my sentiments exactly echo your first paragraph. Cowen and Yudkowsky saw/see value here, so I keep returning to the prediction markets network. But "my bias overcoming yours" is frustrating to read, compared to the generalized intent of "overcoming bias (even mine)."

Expand full comment

Maybe the students are corrupt and self-interested and cannot grasp the idea of the greater good. They see no problem with "xenophobia" if it benefits them personally.

Is there something with the students' views? What's the alternative? That we impose some kind of "intervenionist" "educational" approach to alter their beliefs? I'm sure that whatever they believe, they believe so for a reason. Evolutionary biology teaches us that the human mind is an adaptive organ designed to optimize reproductive success; should we really be tinkering with an elegant natural order to engineer results that we think are "better"?

Expand full comment

Looks like this guy is making a go of it - http://www.washingtonpost.c....

Expand full comment

Asking the question "should politicians run the government or should corporations run the government" is like asking the question "which executioner do you want for your death".

Corporations live to make money, the same as individuals work to earn theirliving. There is nothing sinful about making money, as long as the moneyreceived comes from voluntary exchange rather than taken by force, theft, orextortion. In a free-market economy, corporation must serve the people inorder to remain in business. If the corporation does not sell anythinguseful to the population, it won't have any customers, therefore no income,and will go out of business. In a free-market economy, big corporateearnings can only be achieved by having many customers purchasing goods andservices.

On the other hand, government takes your money by force (taxes) and by theft(inflation). The more money the government has, the more power it has overcorporations in need of money. Since corporations want to maximize theirprofits, they will use the easiest possible way. Behemoth corporations findit easier to lobby the government for privileges (regulations) and handouts(subsidies), rather than working hard producing quality products andservices and selling them to customers. Corporations are loyal to theircustomers, and when the government becomes the corporation's biggestcustomer, the corporation stops serving the people and starts serving thegovernment. When a corporation starts receiving money from the government,it becomes addicted to taxpayer's money.

Corruption becomes irresistible. To secure its share of the looting, thecorporations simply hires (bribe) government officials and adds them to itspayroll. Bribing is just a regular business expense to secure a goodbusiness income. To increase its income, the corporation will also requestits politicians and bureaucrats to introduce new regulations to obstructcompetition.

This is how corporations gain control of the government, however the root ofthe problem is giving our money to the government.

"Public Choice" is an oxymoron. There is no choice for the people who are forced to pay for the choices made by others. As far as politicians being unselfish, wow, this is the most ridiculous thing I have read. If those people (politicians) want to "serve people", they should start a business and earn their money by voluntary exchange rather than at gunpoint.

Expand full comment

Despite its overt corruption, I think its obvious that government was superior in the Gilded Age when the government . Not only is the self-interest of business more closely aligned with the people. The ruling class was small and generally independent. They had cause for patronage.

Expand full comment

Echo chamber? I wasn't aware there was a big community of blogs all cross-linking to each other echoing the same ideological points as each other than included Overcoming Bias as one of the mainstream members. But I could be mistaken.

Expand full comment

As for the addendum, tell it to BP.

And your individual versus corporate horizon ignores the fact that individuals make decisions for corporations. CEOs don't have much incentive to think out 50 years

Expand full comment

My only reply is that you do not trust your fellow man.

And, who do you think controls corporations?

Expand full comment

Let's do a small scale experiment and see where it takes us.

Instead of the complete government to corporations, let's just take a segment of the government, a regulatory agency, and give corporations the right to vote.

If it works there, then, maybe we can extend it into more private spheres.

What!!

Already Done That.

What do you mean?

Ever heard of ICC for trucking/railroads; CAB for airlines; etc. Of course, we ended some of these agencies the 70's, so let's do a before and after comparison.

When captured by the corporations, they strangled potential rivals from ever appearing, much like Zeus killing its children.

Poetic, isn't it.

Expand full comment

This allows for the adaption of different advantageous traits that would otherwise not be explored...What is the mechanism? Business firms fail and go out of existence. New firms enter the market. There is a continual struggle for existence. Firms adapt and innovate by necessity. In a sense it is the market that does the adapting, and therefore has pseudo-goals that can't be determined in foresight. Your missing this point because your only considering explicitly planned action.

Governments by contrast, rarely go out of existence. It is they who are stable and rigid. If governments were so flexible, the Soviet Union would have buried the United States (economically). Your overdoing the introspection, at the expense of attention to real-world results.

Expand full comment

I've read the book and i agree with you. I just didn't want to make a partisan comment in this context - my comments weren't directed at anyone in particular, especially RH.

Your last point is noteworthy. A little while ago some data was published on the size of the US federal government as a percentage of GDP over recent decades. For Republican administrations, the average was slightly higher than that for the Democrats. Sort of made a mockery of the "tax and spend liberal" line, i thought, and worthy of broad attention, especially at tea parties.

My main point was that RH had possibly overdone the response to private firms in describing it as xenophobia, and had underdone the almost innate idealization of governments (but not politicians). If this later trait has evolved, it would seem plausible that it was for reasons other than showing concern for others, and instead about the necessity for general subordination in very social, hierarchically disposed species like ours.

Btw, it is this tendency for hierarchical organization in humans that broadly explains much of the conservative philosophy of social control (as opposed to more specifically economic control favored by liberals). Perhaps the line between traditional and contemporary conservatives is not hard as you think it is.

Expand full comment

And isn't public choice theory about how such corporations vote for self-serving policies?

The profit motive is a wonderful thing. In a free market it aligns the interest of vendor and customer. The problem is that currently the only way to turn a profit from government is immorally, by rerouting funding to your supporters and electors.

What is required is to permit politicians to make an honest profit from government, by permitting policy markets a la futarchy, or turning governments into de facto joint stock companies a la MM's patchwork or anarcho-capitalist PDAs.

Expand full comment