I'm not an Econ major. I'm CS.

–Kyle

Except I think the government *does* do a good job of paying attention to monopolies and litigating them. Not de facto monopolies or local monopolies, but the normal kind like Microsoft or Ma Bell.

Everything else is a little spotty.

–Kyle

But obviously we are using different definitions of rationality. Rationality (from an economist's perspective) is pursuing one's goals in a manner congruous with what one knows (or thinks one knows) about the world. Naturally this requires balancing a lot of different goals, so people will act along the margin (though imperfectly).

I agree that taking bribes is not a right, alienable or inalienable. Because it is contrary to one's expected behavior (what we pay them to do, not necessarily what we expect them to do) it cannot be a right.

There are market incentives for increasing fuel efficiency. Drivers don't like to pay for gas, therefore a fuel efficient car is attractive and will sell. It is one margin among many that car manufacturers can compete along.

There are also problems of unintended consequences. A classic example is the rise of SUVs with the CAFE standards. Suddenly station wagons couldn't meet government standards without giving up features that consumers wanted (like enough power to get up a hill with a car full of kids) and so manufacturers had to substitute toward SUVs resulting in more emissions than before. Better regulation might have solved that problem, but it didn't. We can't count on perfect regulation, just as we can't count on perfect competition.

That bears repeating: We can't count on perfect regulation, just as we can't count on perfect competition.

Regulation has costs (for government and the market… which has to pay for the government). It also has risks (such as corruption, or bad regulation). If the real costs exceed the real benefits, we should not want it. I don't believe that it is usually the case that the benefits outweigh the costs.

The closest I think we have to a “perfect regulation” is “Don't steal!” I think that's a pretty good rule.

“Unalienable rights” is a phrase used in the Declaration of Independence to imply that citizens have certain freedoms that cannot be taken away. None of them, or any part of the Constitution or Bill of Rights, include “taking bribes when in public office”.

I still disagree with you about regulation and government in general – if markets or people are left largely to themselves, it would end badly. We know that and now have proof. The hand-waving of increasing gas efficiency in the auto-industry is ridiculous, but when Obama declares a standard, they comply. And, when whispers of higher oil taxes and taxes on carbon start appearing, car makers are suddenly very interested in cars that can get exorbitant gas mileage as nextgen hybrids.

That wouldn't happen without government.

–Kyle

If you want someone to do something for you and you have money, and if you value them doing that something more than the money, it is rational to make that trade.

I'm not sure of the existence of any “unalienable rights”. The gazelle does not have any rights in nature, I don't see how– but that discussion requires a lot more beer.

To eliminate rent-seeking would certainly upset those with a vested interest in the status quo, but given that they are currently violating the property rights of others, it seems pretty justifiable to me to eliminate rent-seeking. Of course we all know that we can't simply wave our wand and be done with it; we still have to work with the constraint of people acting in their own self interest.

Effectiveness of campaigns, let's take it to the extreme… When a person turns 21, they tell a government bureau whether or not they might be interested in political office in the future. Those who are interested are then followed around by a camera crew who makes it into a reality TV show. So we watch Obama and McCain for years and get to know them fairly intimately. Ultimately only one of them will win. A long campaign need not be any more effective than a short one. In fact, after watching the two on TV for years, far fewer people (hopefully) might be willing to vote for either. In that sense, this longer campaign, but letting people get to know the candidates has been more effective. That could be good. Regardless, it would be costly (but probably a whole lot cheaper than the war in Iraq or Medicare, maybe even cheaper than the Avocado Safety Commission). There would also be diminishing returns, even if you could get people to keep tuning into the most boring show not on C-Span.

My last paragraph was mostly just a joke. But (and that's a big but), I think that on the margin, given current conditions, it's also true. I wouldn't want Thomas Jefferson to waste time campaigning, but I would prefer that Bush or Obama spent more time campaigning and less time contributing to the decline of this country. Likewise for members of congress. But that is because much of what modern government does is (based on my own subjective preferences and values which I have no reason whatsoever to expect anyone to adopt) bad and immoral.

However I suspect that even people who want the government to do many of the things that I think are wrong would find the way things are done in government to be wrong in one way or another. For example, one may support government charity for the betterment of certain people. But if current programs unambiguously harm these groups due to the incentive structures they create (e.g. create dependence and incentives to get addicted to drugs), people who support “good gov't charity” should oppose current incentive structures (although they may not currently recognize the harm being done).

This is not an unalienable right of being part of American politics, but something they have created for themselves over the decades. So while removing it would cause a stir, they would by no means have the basis for righteous indignation.

As far as the diminishing returns, yes. One of my problems, that even Obama had campaigning, is that for someone to move from one position to another without a gap between office means time away from the very duties they were elected for. And, as you say, a week campaigning is arguably less valuable than a week spent working within the system – longer campaigns don't necessarily equate to better and more successful ones.

And I just entirely disagree with everything in your last paragraph.

–Kyle

Au Contraire, mon frere! They would be very rationally screaming.

My question was how is it dependent on the law of diminishing returns? Is it a comparision of the marginal benefit of an extra week campaigning (and how much more that communicates to voters about the politician) with the marginal cost of time not spent working?

Come to think of it, a requirement that politicians start campaigning six years before the election could be excellent! Although they might be more dependent on special interest financing, the more time they spend campaigning, the less time they spend legislating. On average, modern legislation is not just wasteful, but harmful, so the less they do, the better!

So when a House Rep. wants to start whining about how x% isn't very long, it's actually a decent amount of time when their term of office's length is considered, and with an ultimate ceiling on it, the time gets limited to something manageable.

I phrased it this way so that it would scale to position without giving Senators an unnecessarily long amount of time to campaign in comparison to other offices.

–Kyle

Would you mind expanding on this?