Just as I don't have feelings about laws of physics, I don't have any feelings about economies of scale.
Lobbying is a bit different. Like most folks, the idea of 'lobbying' strikes me as wasteful/corrupt. But if you try to come up with a definition about what 'lobbying' is, and how you might try to restrict it, you realize that it is very difficult to do so without being underinclusive or overinclusive (or both!). So while I find the idea distasteful, I don't have any answers on how to 'fix' it.
- You clearly differentiate between opinion, observation and fact. - You don't try to find an easy answer.
Thanks. Comments like these make me come back and read on HN.
Are people aware what everyday lobbying is in it's most basic form? It's companies engaging their elected representatives on policy issues relevant to them.
So when the Obamacare bill was being written, the AMA (representing physicians) lobbied Congress to make sure their views were heard. Completely legitimate. Another example might be a crime bill where the ACLU lobbies Congress. Or the EFF lobbies Congress.
And the lobbying dollars that are spent aren't bundles of cash given to Congresspersons, it's dollar spent on lobby firms that have armies of experts who know how Congress works, who to talk to and how to craft an argument that resonates. That doesn't come cheap.
Now up to this point nothing illegal has happened. You could argue it's unfair that businesses (well, more accurately organizations) have better access to Congress than individual voters, but groups will always have more power than individuals (since they represent more voters). There is nothing to stop a group of voters from forming an organization to lobby Congress on a specific issue. Again, that's what the ACLU and EFF do.
It seems like most people see "the AMA spent $10M on lobbying last year" and picture lobbyists passing bags of cash to Congress. No, that's illegal and has been for a very long time.
Here are 3 rules that would stop lobbying overnight.
1- Make house of reps sole body to set tax law at federal lvl 2- tie reps in house to very specific, low pop counts. For ex, 1 rep district = 25,000. This would mean house would become gigantic. 3- randomize election outcomes. Swap winner of city treasurer with senate winner. Swap rep seat with state assemblyman. Every seat should have a high random chance of being swapped. If winner does not like position. We should even do this with presidency.
This solves federal level lobbying by taking (1) power into a (2) decentralized body and also (3) inserting downside for lobbyist.
Physicists can be wrong.
Economists can be wrong.
At some point technical nonsense becomes “imperfect people choosing.”
A fix might simply be change tax laws? Kind of like how the billionaires changed them to be less distributed.
But you don’t have feelings enough about economics being purposely wielded at scale to manipulate; let’s hope you’re still one of the privileged enough to be indifferent and comfortable in the future.
popcorn
Real-time meltdown of Pax Americana is pretty metal.
I mean, sure a physicist can be wrong, but if they are giving facts as are currently accepted by the community or even as they know them, it isn't an emotional statement of whether they agree. It is just that: Facts as we know them, to the best of our ability and not giving the commentary with it.
Economics are defined by humans.
They’re taught to each other by humans.
It’s all wrapped in how we treat each other at scale.
Separating the two is impossible except as a semantics game.
Try getting an admission like that out of an economist!
If you read between the lines, you can see that he understands that people have reservations (and probably he has chosen). He just chooses to explicitly not make a statement about it, and keep this a technical discussion.
In todays highly politicised society, this is (in my opinion) a sensible thing to do.
Further, financial engineering by itself is morally neutral. It can create abuses sure, but it can also reduce unnecessary costs so that a company can employ more people, offer goods and services to customers at lower prices, etc. Tax is just one piece of a much bigger puzzle and it can’t always easily be disentangled from other issues.
I’m reminded of the saying about porn, you might not be able to define it, but you know it when you see it. There are plenty of publicly discussed cases of pretty clear and egregious tax evasion, but not all efforts to limit tax liability are abuses. Some of them are responses to deliberate incentives put into the tax system to encourage specific behaviour.
If you want justice, you have to apply political leverage to steer power in its direction.
Law is also the UI for political self-interest. Unfortunately the same leverage principle applies. Which is why it's almost impossible to get real justice - including tax justice - in a plutocracy. The scales are tilted too heavily in the opposite direction.
The answer is to balance plutocracy with effective political organisation, but that's an incredibly hard problem to solve at all, never mind peacefully.
Part of my brain wishes that law would actually mean justice but somehow, if I trust only what I know, I cleary cannot judge, as you do, if finance engineering is good or bad.
I'd like to know what prevents you to choose if it's good or right (as person who have worked inside the business)
thx