Congressional Republicans: Pizza is a vegetable

[Kuciwalker]

1. Why focus on absolute expense?

I have no idea why you're not getting this.


return on lobbying Congress = benefit from lobbying Congress / cost of lobbying Congress
return on lobbying a municipality = benefit from lobbying a municipality / cost of lobbying a municipality


The first numerator is obviously larger than the second. The second denominator is obviously smaller than the first. But that's not enough to tell us which return is larger. I claim that the answer isn't obvious.

And as I said, at the margin they are presumably equal.

2. I think you're greatly underestimating the difficulty and expense of lobbying thousands of local governments all across the country. I suspect this would be much more expensive than lobbying Congress in absolute terms.

I would tend to assume this as well, but we actually do observe corporations lobbying municipalities across the country for this sort of thing.

[Hauldren Collider]

More difficult and expensive in an absolute sense, not per unit gain. I'm claiming that it's not clear which has the better (worse) cost/benefit ratio for lobbyists, municipalities or Congress. At the margin they are presumably close or equal.

It's not just a matter of walking up, paying some money and talking to legislators. You have to establish a presence, register as a lobbyist in most states (often an expensive process), jump through lots of legal hoops and then you have to actually build ties with politicians. Without data, I don't see how you can conclude that at the margin they are equal. I would expect congress to actually be much cheaper, depending on the political significance of what you are lobbying for. If it's relatively small, then congress could actually be cheaper. But again, I haven't seen any data.

[Tupac Shakur]

I have no idea why you're not getting this.

I don't think you're conveying your point very well.

edit:

return on lobbying Congress = benefit from lobbying Congress / cost of lobbying Congress
return on lobbying a municipality = benefit from lobbying a municipality / cost of lobbying a municipality

The first numerator is obviously larger than the second. The second denominator is obviously smaller than the first. But that's not enough to tell us which return is larger. I claim that the answer isn't obvious.

Putting this in Kuci-speak, I strongly suspect that the difference between the numerators greatly exceeds the difference between the denominators and would be extremely surprised if the marginal return of lobbying Congress wasn't much greater than that of lobbying a municipality in the vast majority of cases.

[Kuciwalker]

That is completely untrue.

xpost

"Lobbying" as relevant to this discussion can be as simple as answering an RFP.

[Kuciwalker]

I have no idea why you're not getting this.

I don't think you're conveying your point very well.

Possibly, but you're usually smart enough to see through my poor exposition.

[Tupac Shakur]

Putting this in Kuci-speak, I strongly suspect that the difference between the numerators greatly exceeds the difference between the denominators and would be extremely surprised if the marginal return of lobbying Congress wasn't much greater than that of lobbying a municipality in the vast majority of cases.

I would also add that even if lobbying a municipality offers a higher marginal return, the fact that Congressional decisions overrule local ones makes lobbying Congress almost a requirement if they are considering legislation on the issue you're concerned about.

[Kuciwalker]

We should presume that the marginal returns on each are equal for the same reason we presume the marginal risk-adjusted return on investment is equal.

[Tupac Shakur]

You're going to need KH if you want to continue this conversation. I'm just a rapper with a high-school education.

[Kuciwalker]

If you could get more public money for your marginal lobbying dollar from Congress than municipalities, some would be reallocated from municipalities to Congress until the returns equalized.

Lobbying is a lot like an investment; you put money in now, you get money out later. As such it should compete with other investments.

[Al B. Sure!]

A debate about lobbyist accessibility and cost-benefit ratios with different federal and decentralized decision-making structures is a ****ing diversion from the issue at hand and a tacit approval of bad nutrition. Just like we all know the real beliefs of anyone who says gay marriage should be a state issue, we all know where you're going with this, Drake and HC.

[Kuciwalker]

No, HC legitimately does have an irrational fetish for state governments. And Drake hasn't posted in this thread...

[Kuciwalker]

Also, I fully support kids eating pizza for lunch.

[giblets]

A debate about lobbyist accessibility and cost-benefit ratios with different federal and decentralized decision-making structures is a ****ing diversion from the issue at hand and a tacit approval of bad nutrition. Just like we all know the real beliefs of anyone who says gay marriage should be a state issue, we all know where you're going with this, Drake and HC.

I think gay marriage should be a state issue.

[Al B. Sure!]

No, HC legitimately does have an irrational fetish for state governments.

As a current Pittsburgh resident, he should pay more attention to Harrisburg, if he likes state governments so much. And if he likes municipal governments, learn a bit about Philadelphia's

[Al B. Sure!]

I think gay marriage should be a state issue.

For what reason?

If you want gay marriage to be allowed, the only method that matters is the direct and uniform way; that is, a federal mandate.

I'm lost how a preference for leaving such an issue to states will be a better way to allow gay marriage when it leaves the door open for local voters to prohibit it.