I suspect that this point requires some clarification.
There is a widespread norm that that one should either approve of the source of one's benefit, or forgo the benefit. For example, politician X favors rules against giant corporate campaign contributions, yet X accepts such contributions; or, Jerome criticises banking, yet profits from being a banker. This norm is what makes his stand odd. Some might call him a hypocrite.
Yet it is odd that this is odd, because the norm itself is strangely self-defeating. As I've noted before (I hope not in a reply to you -- I don't want to be that repetitive!), there is no contradiction between responding to incentives and deploring them. If we ask that one forgo benefits from a system as the price legitimacy in criticising it, then we raise the cost of supporting good policies. Not good.
Instead, we should encourage this behavior. It doesn't involve a hypocritical double standard. Nothing need be hidden, and one can act on this rule while simultaneously willing that it be universal.
Of course, if a policy permits profitable atrocities, there is every reason to condemn someone who benefits from it, regardless of their policy stance, but this is because the line right and wrong does not (indeed, often should not) correspond to the line between legal and illegal.
So, Hurrah for Jerome! Words and ideas I offer here may be used freely and without attribution.
In my case, I'm reasonably at peace with me job considering that I'm doing what I can in the given framework to push something which is definitely good (wind power), while arguing for a differentframework which would make that good easier to attain, but without the input of bankers like myself. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
I'm not sure how to articulate it well, but dumping not-yet-illegal toxic wastes is clearly on one side, and paying low taxes while arguing for higher is clearly on the other.
As for the perception of hypocrisy undermining a position, changing that perception (in the appropriate cases) is of course part of the political/cultural task I'm advocating. Words and ideas I offer here may be used freely and without attribution.
Jerome is a case in point in the energy debate, contrast this for example with the totally obvious problems with unemployment measure: only outsiders were pointing out the problems (including me) and yet the issue will reach visibility only after insiders start embracing our positions (see my latest blog post).
That's also why I strongly favour more freedom of expression for public servants and whenever possible in the private sector.
It's not because you publicize/criticize the government policies that you will not apply the policy as professionally expected.
See for instance this story from last yeat about destination clauses in gas contracts. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Which pretty much reduces democracy to absurdity, sadly. Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
And then you have to cast one vote for one guy based on a multitude of issuses, assuming you are aware and understand and care about a multitude of issues.
Which means electing people on their character is as good as anything else. Ultimately, the best you can do is to choose people that you can trust will make the right (informed) decisions when the time comes, and that will be transparent about it. Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
Another point -- sometimes, the insiders would benefit from having the rules of their game changed, as part of broad reforms, to make it less attractive. They'd exploit their capital (intellectual, reputational, political, or financial) to play a different game, while benefiting from the broad reforms.
A non-debased economic thinker would also give weight to some hard-to-quantify benefits: The value a person places on the good of others, and of having done good.
The above suggests that an enlightened, rational group of insiders should often see "an attack on their business" as a good thing.
And yet another, less related, point -- I am confident that business leaders often inadvertently regard (1) the effect on their business of a general prohibition against something they find profitable as equivalent to (2) the effect of a unilateral relinquishment.
Think of a change that raises production costs in a competitive market. Case (1): with zero price elasticity, zero effect; with moderate price elasticity, a moderate effect. Case (2): the business is uncompetitive, and fails.
Treating case (1) as if it were case (2) -- and there must surely be at least a tendency to do so -- greatly increases the perceived incentives of businesses to oppose virtually all policies that constrain their actions in the public interest.
If this point were more widely understood, the push and pull of politics would produce better results and the world would be a better place. ----------
I seem to be in a moral-philosophical mood again. Words and ideas I offer here may be used freely and without attribution.
Alertness at all times, my friend, and you too can see the ever-elusive Alert Media as they patrol the globe and scan the heavens on our behalf. But first, you must believe. Words and ideas I offer here may be used freely and without attribution.
But I agree in some case only insiders will be aware of some of the arguments but I think it's really marginal (I'm excluding whistleblowing in case of illegal practices of course).
