I view the lobby heuristic as:
1) Someone screens the lobby applications to Congress or whoever.
2) The application explains how a certain policy shift does more good than harm, and Congress verifies the analysis.
3) Either the lobby bill is discovered to be able to overcome its own transaction costs and still do good, and is passed. Or not, or it is close and is rewritten.

Right now pork scales with lobby budget. IDK where things are getting screwed up…media could help educate Americans to screen #1 better. Alot of administrative work that prevents Congress from analysing the bill especially under a deadline.

What I’m saying is that when Bills are passed now, not including sunset clauses results in inertia and sweeps the hard part of how to re-evaluate the bill under the rug. When you look at cutting stuff, you have to relearn why a Bill was passed all over again (which is great if you get paid 6 figures to plagerize history).

Changing the off-diagonal data in the covariance matrix from zero (so that it was subject to Slutsky effects) intuitively should impede direct growth measures.

(I am in no way against floating FX rates; they’re both a weapon in the arsenal, and an indicator of confidence and a good thing–ask the “I want to be paid in Swiss Francs” crowd. But if you’re looking for cause and effect, it seems that Changing the Rules would have more of an effect than “special interest groups” [especially since RE translates to "I got mine Jack"].)

one incentive was portrayed to improve one’s welfare in one’s self interest independent of others’ welfare, while the other acts to obstruct that outcome for others, in order to improve one’s own welfare

the first case represents pure growth from a libertarian perspective of unhindered pursuit of self interest with no necessary trade-offs, while the second case represents impediments to that growth by special interests

smith’s warning of the second case implied interference which would prevent the first case from resulting in maximum growth, the latter dependent on unified forces of self interest, competition and free markets which worked together to form the invisible hand

in other words, back then, competition and free markets meant the same thing (to smith) as desirable outcomes of the pursuit of self interest which drove resources to their highest valued use – in contrast to now, where monopoly capitalism has emerged as the vulgarized version of free markets and competition, both undermined by special interests whether through private market power or public manipulation

It seems to me that associations of CEOs, chemical manufacturers, arms manufacturers, money jugglers and other well-funded interests are far more likely to distort statutes and tax systems and their economic environment. I believe we have seen this demonstrated.

Noni