The Billionaire and The Average Voter: Moral Equals

Photo by Edmond Dantu00e8s on Pexels.com

It is easy to forget that not everyone shares similar needs and desires as you. This is a fact that is validated by contemporary public policy debates. All too often, voters and participants in the political process conflate (either inadvertently or strategically) their self-interest with the common good. Public interest or social welfare is an abstract metric open to interpretation; the terms operate as a form of persuasion than a concrete standard (p.77). For some, it is difficult to think that someone would not want free college or a single-payer healthcare system; this stems from an individual being too fixated on their values and policy preferences.

If it is likely that every political actor (including the average voter) acts in their self-interest, then why is it perceived to be immoral when a wealthy voter does versus an impoverished or middle-class voter does so? If the Republican and Democratic parties are moral equivalents, it is not outrageous to surmise that the poor person voting for “free” healthcare and the billionaire that votes for tax cuts are ethical equals. Neither individual is genuinely concerned by the potential externalities their favored policies impose on the rest of society. They only want initiatives that work in their self-interest. The concerns for the feasibility of these programs and processes are not even the equation for these people!

Admittedly, this is a heterodox position; most people would derisively dismiss it. The underlying assumption is that wealthy people do not need more money or institutional advantages. Most refutations would cite the imperative of actual need, especially if people lack necessities. There is some veracity to this argument, but the United States is not on par with the plight of a third-world country. Only 10.5 percent of households in 2020 suffered from “food insecurity”; in 2021, the United States outranked Germany in food security. Overall, impoverished people in the United States are better off than their counterparts abroad. While the wealthy may have market power and the connections to exert their political influence, the stakes for the average person in the US are often embellished. 

The belief that wealth inequality is the only determining factor in assessing the morality of voters acting in their self-interest is a fallacy. This suggests that the ethical responsibility for advocating and selecting bad policies (at the referendum level) is only subject to the size of a voter’s bank account. While a single vote is inconsequential in an election, a myriad of like-minded citizens voting in unison is a formidable coalition. Should these individuals be excused for electing representatives and choosing government programs that bankrupt this country or get us tangled in another foreign war? It would be reasonable to suggest no. Ultimately, neither the billionaire nor the average citizen truly cares about what is best for the country, only what benefits their interest. In the consumer market, this is not an issue, as acting in your interest does not require a redistribution of resources. In contrast, the same cannot be said about the political marketplace. 

Prisoner’s Dilemmas- VI: Job Interviews & Telling the Truth

Photo by Tima Miroshnichenko on Pexels.com

The game-theoretical concept of a “Prisoner’s Dilemma” applies to situations where no overt defection has occurred. Many readers may be perplexed by this assertion since, by definition, Prisoner’s Dilemmas entail “players” selecting uncooperative strategies. However, there are scenarios where the selection of a specific approach could lead to non-optimal outcomes. But such a strategy would not be considered a direct form of defection. These strategies are analogous to a defecting because the participating economic agents are moving away from a given focal point; rather than converging upon it. Even though the participants are not directly undercutting each other but inadvertently select noncooperative strategies. One salient example of this is any situation in which both parties choose to lie to the other. Both agents believe it is in their self-interest to obscure the truth, but doing so will only engender more problems.

A novel application of this theory would be in job interviews. Why? The hiring manager and the applicant concurrently have incentives to distort the facts. The prospective employee stands to benefit from embellishing their credentials. Likewise, the hiring manager might think it is shrewd to exaggerate or overemphasize the company culture when it is difficult to find a qualified candidate. When used in unison, the consequences are disastrous. The new employee will not be unqualified for the position and will also have unrealistic expectations for the job role. Ultimately, creating more issues for the hiring manager and the jobseeker. Telling a lie may not be a direct form of uncooperative behavior, can often yield similar results.

Bootleggers & Baptists: XXXVI- Woke Capitalism and Coalitions of Opportunity

Photo by cottonbro on Pexels.com

            The Bootlegger and Baptist (1983) theory of regulation present a practical explanation for why these such coalitions are effective vehicles for camouflaging rent-seeking behavior by a firm. Armed with the public appeal of the moral arguments posited by the Baptists, the Bootleggers can quietly lurk in the shadows, funding initiatives that will advance their self-interest. The ethical advocates create a smokescreen that provides cover for the business interests, superficially obscuring the stigma of corporate advocacy. Since few examples of political action invoke the ire of the average citizen than policy campaigns that line the pockets of big business.

           The trend of “woke capitalism” is bringing the Bootleggers out of shadows and into plain sight. CEOs are now openly standing in unison with political activists speaking out against topics ranging from police brutality to environmental issues. The Bootleggers can work openly with the Baptists to promote a positive image while still silently providing monetary support in the background. The social justice messaging of “Woke Capitalism” extends beyond corporate activism and is observable in the product market and advertising. Some companies adopt marketing that emphasizes social consciousness to secure the business of Gen-Z. Typically, companies use this tactic to target younger consumers with higher preferences for ethical products and brand authenticity, requiring companies to go beyond philanthropy and mandating community services hours for their employees; their ethics almost be conveyed in their branding.

           The most recent alliances forged between business interests and political activists take the form of four main taxonomical categories. Some of the various types of Bootlegger and Baptist coalitions feature collaboration between firms and activists. Other coalition types that form within the technocratic structure of the corporation; are between different departments within the organization. Woke coalitions have several notable classifications of “woke” corporate alliances. The main subcategories include proactive and reactive forms of rent-seeking.

           The reactive models for “woke” coalitions include two subtypes of collective action organization, the interaction between external actors and collaboration between internal employees. The first variety of reactive coalitions are rent-seeking alliances formed to restore the company from a sullied reputation caused by criticism. The objective being to mitigate the loss of sales and social currency amid public controversy. Some firms directly attempt to distance themselves from the controversy through their activistic partnerships. The second type of reactive “woke” coalitions are the intracompany factions designed to divert attention from potentially costly internal controversies. In instances of hostile work environment ligation, the legal team, the human resources department, and executive management band together to avoid a publicity nightmare. Human Resources and legal work together to legally distance the company from a harassment incident. Legal working on navigating the statutory and tort concerns while HR works internally to establish an anti-harassment campaign intracompany. All the while shielding executive management from more scrutiny and accountability.

           Finally, the last two variants of “woke” coalitions aligning business interests with moral advocates to facilitate proactive forms of rent-seeking. Similarly, the proactive coalitions can be delineated into examples of internal and external collaboration. Proactive partnerships form to capture potential gains and avert the costs of prospective controversies. The most salient example of such external cooperation would be firms standing behind a woke cause, anticipating that such an alliance will obscure the firm attempting to shape current regulation (regulatory capture). However, we cannot forget the proactive inter-department coalitions that are emerging within corporations. For example, several companies are hiring diversity and inclusion “coaches” as a peripheral subset of human resources. The human resources department defends the existence of these staff members by emphasizing the need to educate employees to avoid instances of harassment and discrimination. The diversity coaches preach the virtues of cultural sensitivity and other tenants of the “woke” philosophy.

           Superficially these alliances between big business and “woke” activists seem relatively benign. However, there are profound consequences for the integrity of capitalism and the rule of law. This paper will demonstrate how the four types of woke B&B coalitions undermine capitalism and the rule of law. Woke capitalism has made it easier than ever for business interests to create the façade of morality but are unjustly bending the rules-of-the game in their favor. Wokeism provides the veil obscuring corporate America’s hand in the legislative till. In effect, generating more anti-competitive laws that undermine both the rule of law and free trade. 

Bootleggers & Baptists: XXXIV: The Supervisor Spot at Work

Photo by RODNAE Productions on Pexels.com

Everyone is familiar with the concept of soft power in office politics. An individual lacking any formal authority but has the ear of management. The author of this brief essay has found himself in this peculiar situation. While I may have a relatively meager position at our company, my manager still seriously regards my input. If I have a concern, he is quick to find a remedy. The evidence of my implicit influence became evident when my boss was looking to fill a supervisor spot for our team. After a candid off-hand conversation, I expressed my preferred co-worker for the position. Then was subsequently told, “I like your logic”. Fast forward two weeks later, my preferred candidate was announced to be the new supervisor. 

It is possible I misconstrued the events that transpired in the supervisor selection process. My perception of having any influence over my manager’s decision could merely be a delusional illusion. Irrespective of my impact on this decision, this was a clear Bootlegger and Baptist (1983)  dynamic. At this point, it should be evident who the Bootlegger and who the Baptist is. My manager possessing the moral advocacy for the favorable candidate for the supervisor makes the Baptist. He seeks to hire an individual with the best potential for success within the position, the most qualified person. I hate to admit it; I was more motivated by self-interest. I am the salient Bootlegger in this coalition. I based my advocacy on wanting a supervisor that would not micromanage me. I had little concern for the candidate’s qualifications.

Bootleggers and Baptists XVI:Delta-8- Addendum

Photo by Harrison Haines on Pexels.com

Some additional thoughts regarding the Marijuana industry’s response to the emergence of Delta-8. It is irksome to hear invested interests claiming that a competing product is unsafe. Sure, it is well within their right to free expression to do so. Doing so in the context of political advocacy takes on a completely different tone. Any concerns expressed by Cannabis trade associations regarding public health can only be seen at best suspicious, if not outright spurious. If a similar rate of taxation and the same regulatory requirements that Marijuana sales are subjected to were applied to Delta-8 it would provide Cannabis sellers and producers with an anti-competitive advantage. Because the overall psychoactive effects of the compound are less intense than Marijuana. Subjecting it to similar regulations could effectively put many Delta-8 producers out of business. There may be some individual that prefers this neutered variant of Cannabis, however, this would be a very shallow niche market.

The true travesty of the thinly veiled advocacy of the Marijuana industry is perplexing. It is mirroring the same public health campaigns championed by alcohol producers when states were initiating legalizing recreation pot. Back in 2016, the Beer Distributors PAC of Massachusetts funded and advocated for an anti-legalization initiative. It wasn’t that the beer industry was really concerned about public health, rather they were concern about their bottom line. From a shortsighted perspective is a rational response to competition. This approach is morally and economically flawed. You beat the competition by producing a better product not using political channels to erect more barriers to market entry. If you can’t beat them, join them. Many beer producers have started producing “beers” infused with Cannabis. Some notable examples include Hi-Fi Hops from Lagunitas and Ceria (from the creators of Blue moon). Why can’t Marijuana producers just jump on the Delta-8 train and ride it out until the DEA invariably crackdown on it? If producers are able to manufacture a wide array of edibles and extracts they can figure out how to synthesize Delta-8. No need to engage in false posturing under the guise of “public health”.