Money as a power tool

[wmw999 2,588]

Should there be limits on what you can buy with money?

E.g. should it be OK to buy:

political influence

for the purpose of hoarding, medicine that can benefit

increased access to financial institutions

better service at a restaurant

better access to public services (e.g. HOV lanes)

personal service, even if it means that others will have crap service

sexual services

people

Edited to add: I'm not asking if it should be legal; it's not always, but it's definitely possible to buy all of these things

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Should there be limits on what you can buy with money?

E.g. should it be OK to buy:

political influence

for the purpose of hoarding, medicine that can benefit

increased access to financial institutions

better service at a restaurant

better access to public services (e.g. HOV lanes)

personal service, even if it means that others will have crap service

sexual services

people

Edited to add: I'm not asking if it should be legal; it's not always, but it's definitely possible to buy all of these things

Wendy P.

How would you define an illegal act of buying policial influence?

(just to pick one)

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wmw999 2,588]

I'm not talking about illegal or legal. Just whether it should be OK to buy political influence.

Of course, the next question is always -- what influence, over what. E.g. is it OK to have someone stand in line for you at the driver's license office to save you time? Is it OK to have a friend who has entertained the person in charge of building permits be the one who asks for a building permit? Is it OK to be a significant campaign sponsor of the city council election of someone who will vote on whether a variance will be given for your (business/hospital/wastewater plant -- take your pick)?

Is it the fact of having money, or the intent, that makes it OK?

There are plenty of things that are illegal, but widely seen as OK.

e.g. speeding on the freeway. Not the same, but still an example.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rushmc 23]

Quote

I'm not talking about illegal or legal. Just whether it should be OK to buy political influence.

Of course, the next question is always -- what influence, over what. E.g. is it OK to have someone stand in line for you at the driver's license office to save you time? Is it OK to have a friend who has entertained the person in charge of building permits be the one who asks for a building permit? Is it OK to be a significant campaign sponsor of the city council election of someone who will vote on whether a variance will be given for your (business/hospital/wastewater plant -- take your pick)?

Is it the fact of having money, or the intent, that makes it OK?

There are plenty of things that are illegal, but widely seen as OK.

e.g. speeding on the freeway. Not the same, but still an example.

Wendy P.

I think I understand where you are going with this. But is seem so general and wide open I gotta wonder how the question can be answered

But, for another example of political influence, the loan guarantees to the solar companies comes to mind

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,118]

>should it be OK to buy:
>political influence

To a limited extent only. There should be laws on how politicians can take money, for example.

>for the purpose of hoarding, medicine that can benefit

Yes, provided the resulting hoarding (what I am sure others would call "investment") does not create deadly shortages.

>increased access to financial institutions

Yes

>better service at a restaurant

Yes

>better access to public services (e.g. HOV lanes)

Yes, provided it is done in such a manner that the overall capacity of the highway is maximized

>personal service, even if it means that others will have crap service

Yes

>sexual services

Yes

>people

Provided they are free to make that decision, yes.

[kelpdiver 2]

I do fear the question is a bit too broad to get the conversation you were hoping for. Right now, the answer would seem to be 'it depends.'

Paying for access to an HOV lane is done in Southern California. However, these roads have generally been semi private endeavors, so those payments are what put the lanes there in the first place. Some sneer at them as Lexus Lanes, but they basically are HOV lanes for free or cheap from the tax payer perspective.

Paying another consenting adult for sex should be legal, but there are so many issues around the actual consenting part that it clouds the answer considerably. Too many sex slaves.

Paid political speech ranges from exercise of the 1st to corruption. Back to "it depends."

So I don't know quite where you should take it. Many of your other examples are ones where paying more gets you better service. In the abstract, I don't know how the world gets around that - there is a finite amount of service that can be offered - everyone can't have a butler or concierge. And those who offer service are going to want to maximize their revenue. Tiered service is a normal result of these two elements. It's often a win for all. Coach seating on the airplane blows, but it's cheap, thanks to late notice business travelers paying 10x.

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

better access to public services (e.g. HOV lanes)

Would you include toll bridges and toll roads in that? Here in IL we don't have to use toll roads if we are willing to put up with endless "free" side streets.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[wmw999 2,588]

I tend to agree that "it depends" is the right answer to a lot of it.

Of course, determining where and what it depends on leads to a lot of disagreement, and a lot of absolute statements that sound ridiculous.

Personally, I'm irritated by people who think that money makes them more valuable; who invest emotion into financial transactions, and who think they personally deserve the benefits they get from having money, rather than just acknowledging they have more money.

Of course, that's just me. I'm really mostly just curious.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Since the beginning of civilization people associated with wealth have always had more opportunities than those who do not have no wealth (or not as much wealth). I realize there is a huge "Wealth Transfer" movement going on right now with people on the Left. But even if this Wealth Transfer agenda was to succeed where all rich people would be forever eliminated and a utopian socialist dream world where everyone was equal was to surface, people would still not be equal and there would still be two or more classes of people on this planet. Are we to believe under this new "Wealth Transfer" movement that the masses would still have the same luxuries that their "Ruling Class" would have? ROFLMAO ... funny how Kim Jong Il can live the high life while everyone under him in his "Everyone is Equal Society" exists in poverty.

But don't forget, he/she who dies with the most toys, is still dead.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

. I realize there is a huge "Wealth Transfer" movement going on right now with people on the Left.

FACT - the transfer of wealth in the USA in the past 30 years has been towards the rich. Easy to verify from a variety of sources.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

And our resident Leftist academic continues to ignore the fact that since society has begun there always has and always will be a "Ruling Class". Maybe our resident Leftist academic isn't actually ignoring this reality. Maybe our resident Leftist academic just does not want us commoners to know that he himself is very highly connected up there in the societal food chain. While the rest of us commoners are all living in the soon to be utopian socialist "Everyone is equal, equally screwed" world lining up for our shoes and rations of food, known that our resident Leftist academic will continue to be rubbing elbows with his fellow "Ruling Class" elitists. He has already boosted to us in the past of his connections to the White House and occasionally tells us of his excursions to the opera. I don't know very many commoners who get to rub elbows with Michelle at the opera, but our resident Leftist academic knows many who do.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

And our resident Leftist academic continues to ignore the fact that since society has begun there always has and always will be a "Ruling Class". Maybe our resident Leftist academic isn't actually ignoring this reality. Maybe our resident Leftist academic just does not want us commoners to know that he himself is very highly connected up there in the society food chain. While the rest of us commoners are all living in the soon to be utopian socialist "Everyone is equal, equally screwed" world lining up for our shoes and rations of food, known that our resident Leftist academic will continue to be rubbing elbows with his fellow "Ruling Class" elitists. He has already boosted to us in the past of his connections to the White House and occasionally tells us of his excursions to the opera. I don't know very many commoners who get to rub elbows with Michelle at the opera, but our resident Leftist academic knows many who do.

So you know I am right and you are wrong, but just can't bring yourself to admit it. Got it.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Channman 2]

Quote

Quote

. I realize there is a huge "Wealth Transfer" movement going on right now with people on the Left.

FACT - the transfer of wealth in the USA in the past 30 years has been towards the rich. Easy to verify from a variety of sources.

I had a little transfer of wealth recently, its all good.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Say to Michelle for the rest of us low life commoners the next time you rub elbows with her and the rest of Chicago's ruling elitist class. We know you are having the time of your life at the opera every time you look down on us common folk.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[billvon 3,118]

>I don't know very many commoners who get to rub elbows with Michelle at the opera . . .

You'll get there someday!

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

>I don't know very many commoners who get to rub elbows with Michelle at the opera . . .

You'll get there someday!

Don't like the opera. It's not my thing.
I don't know what they are saying half the time, no not half time, all the time.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Say to Michelle for the rest of us low life commoners the next time you rub elbows with her and the rest of Chicago's ruling elitist class. We know you are having the time of your life at the opera every time you look down on us common folk.

So you know I am right and you are wrong, but just can't bring yourself to admit it. Got it.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Dude there is a lot that is wrong with the world these days. Do you think I am happy that a small group of people were allowed to manipulate the system that screwed over many people (some of who need I remind you are currently working for your man Obama).

How many times must I repeat this:

I do not give a rats ass how much wealth someone else has. It is none of my business.

I see faults on both sides of the fence. Too bad you don't.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[lawrocket 3]

I think that there should be limits to the money that can buy political influence. As I've said, however, those limits should be placed on the politicians and bureaucrats themselves on what NOT to take. Let's not ban grease because the wheel keeps on squeaking. Rather, let's look at the wheel.

Hoarding is interesting. In the short term, hoarding increases the cost of a unit by creating scarcity. However, it also lowers the long-run cost because supply is increased to meet demand. (Even Amazon would agree with this "trickle up" economic analysis).

Financial institutions? Since financial institutions ARE money, the more of it the more access you'll get.

better service at a restaurant is also there. Servers don't appreciate me telling them they are gorgeous. They'd rather have a ten dollar tip than a compliment.

Personal service? The Strip club analogy applies. The strippers will flock to the group of guys making it rain with money. The other patrons will clearly be upset.


Interestingly, putting limits on what money can be spent on has the effect of CAUSING the money to be hoarded. Look at all the money Hearst spent keeping people employed to build his castle. San Simeon is now its own economy based upon people just coming to see it. Hearst spent a lot of money and created an industry. Limiting that which money can be spent on just leads to stagnation of the money supply, leading to inflation.


But yes, I agree with limits on political spending - namely the PURPOSE of it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,148]

Do you think it a good thing that there has been a net transfer of national wealth from the middle class to the very rich over the past 30 years? As a nation, has this made us a better place?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

FACT - the transfer of wealth in the USA in the past 30 years has been towards the rich. Easy to verify from a variety of sources.

Fact - the transfer of wealth has gone to the government in the US over the past 30 years. For example, in 2010, $4.2 trillion in direct revenue was collected by federal, state and local governments in 2010. The total net WORTH (not income - worth) of the Forbes 400 in 2010 was $1.37 trillion.

Liquidate the Forbes and you've got just less than 1/3 of government revenues.

I have a hard time arguing with numbers like this...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,118]

>Do you think it a good thing that there has been a net transfer of national wealth
>from the middle class to the very rich over the past 30 years?

As long as wealth has gone up OVERALL then yes, it's a good thing.

[lawrocket 3]

And do you think it's a good thing that there has been a transfer of wealth to governments that exceeds the GDP every three years?

Imagine what a poor person could do with that money....

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

But yes, I agree with limits on political spending

Years ago north of the border in Canuckistan a Liberal politician introduced rules which prevented Corporations and Unions from contributing money to political parties. Now only individuals can donate to the political parties and these donations are capped at $1200. There are some people who whine saying Conservatives will have more money to contribute to which I say "Hog wash". Have you seen how much money some of the unionized civil servants bring in. If a unionized civil servant can not afford to spend $1200 of their own money on their cause, then it just goes to show what sort of mindset they have towards spending other people's money and never their own.

Anyway, maybe the US should consider something similar? I would imagine $1200 might be a little low considering the US is 10 times larger than those of us living in Igloos on this side of the border. But you get the picture.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[billvon 3,118]

>Imagine what a poor person could do with that money....

Buy groceries for their kids. (Which, of course, is what government employees do.)