It is so important that we in the younger generation and our children learn from first hand experiences..thanks again..

Exactly. That’s all this study can tell you.

It can’t say whether companies that contributed to the winning side of policy debates had better returns than those on the losing side. It can’t tell you whether those who contributed to the losing side had better returns than those who made no contributions at all.

You have:
– those who contribute for issue A
– those who contribute against issue A
– those who don’t contribute.

The post starts with an example of where contributions against an issue and results (issue fails) are directly and obviously correlated. And it’s not an issue where there seems to be any non-remunerative reason for opposing it, unless you’re on the extreme fringe of taxation issues – that tax breaks granted to an industry at a time they were not profitable to encourage risk taking should be continued at a time when their profits are record-setting.

The other possibility is that businessmen are so stupid, they regularly take positions on issues that are contrary to their own financial well-being. That’s more likely in the long run, but probably not when you’re looking at specific issues and short-term profits.

Ian Welsh @ 120

I find it hard to argue further against you because, frankly, what you’re saying doesn’t compute to me. On average the companies who contribute had better returns than those that didn’t. That is strongly indicative that they got something for it, and your “situational awareness” argument simply does not fly – if they are more situationally aware, they are aware of the benefits of donating. Occam’s razor applies – companies that donate make more money, the simplest explanation is that they get something for donating.

It is very common when studying things like this to look at one remove – the overall profits, rather than the specific returns, as it were, because getting data on specific returns is very hard for the mass of donators. Who knows what they got in return – they aren’t talking, and neither are the congressmen they gave to. Both sides would tell you that there is no quid pro quo.

So you take it one step back. If they were getting something for it, what would we see?

Oh, imagine that, what we see is exactly what we would expect.

You’re splitting hairs far too finely for my tastes. Sure, there could be better studies, but this one is not meaningless and is strongly indicative.

“On average the companies who contribute had better returns than those that didn’t.”

Exactly. That’s all this study can tell you.

It can’t say whether companies that contributed to the winning side of policy debates had better returns than those on the losing side. It can’t tell you whether those who contributed to the losing side had better returns than those who made no contributions at all.

Your post treats all contributions as bribes to the winning side — but even the members of congress that lose votes on the floor have been getting contributions.

I have to agree with Peterr on this one. Seriously. I wouldn’t want to argue with the overall jist that money plays a role of politics. That’s just obvious. We all acknowledge that. However, it is important find holes in any study no matter how good the intentions. Because the end result can be misleading in all sorts of bit ways. Splitting hairs here is not such a bad thing. You go Peterr. From one lit crit person to a statistician(?)

Your post treats all contributions as bribes to the winning side — but even the members of congress that lose votes on the floor have been getting contributions.

I disagree. I think it treats all contributions as “competitive bribery” in which one side loses.
I believe this is correct.

It is not an accident that Microsoft still controls most of the desktop OS market, despite not having improved the UI in any significant way since the creation of Windows (which was just a rip off of the Mac, in any case.)

My understanding was that Apple ripped off their graphics from the original innovators, some people at Zerox. Microsoft, on the other hand, bought the Windows graphics from Zerox. You can correct me if I’m wrong, but I also understood that some college give courses that cite Zerox’s bad business sense for not knowing what to do with their employee’s innovation.

Not quite so

I find it hard to argue further against you because, frankly, what you’re saying doesn’t compute to me. On average the companies who contribute had better returns than those that didn’t. That is strongly indicative that they got something for it, and your “situational awareness” argument simply does not fly – if they are more situationally aware, they are aware of the benefits of donating. Occam’s razor applies – companies that donate make more money, the simplest explanation is that they get something for donating.

It is very common when studying things like this to look at one remove – the overall profits, rather than the specific returns, as it were, because getting data on specific returns is very hard for the mass of donators. Who knows what they got in return – they aren’t talking, and neither are the congressmen they gave to. Both sides would tell you that there is no quid pro quo.

So you take it one step back. If they were getting something for it, what would we see?

Oh, imagine that, what we see is exactly what we would expect.

You’re splitting hairs far too finely for my tastes. Sure, there could be better studies, but this one is not meaningless and is strongly indicative.

“On average the companies who contribute had better returns than those that didn’t.”

Exactly. That’s all this study can tell you.

It can’t say whether companies that contributed to the winning side of policy debates had better returns than those on the losing side. It can’t tell you whether those who contributed to the losing side had better returns than those who made no contributions at all.

Your post treats all contributions as bribes to the winning side — but even the members of congress that lose votes on the floor have been getting contributions.

It is not an accident that Microsoft still controls most of the desktop OS market, despite not having improved the UI in any significant way since the creation of Windows (which was just a rip off of the Mac, in any case.)

My understanding was that Apple ripped off their graphics from the original innovators, some people at Zerox. Microsoft, on the other hand, bought the Windows graphics from Zerox. You can correct me if I’m wrong, but I also understood that some college give courses that cite Zerox’s bad business sense for not knowing what to do with their employee’s innovation.

Xerox had plenty of bad business sense. But MS only bought rights from them after Apple sued. MS’s started with MSDOS which was the result of some very dirty business deals, first with Seattle Computer Products, and then IBM.

MS has made their own technical innovations (COM), which is probably the major culprit in their rampant security problems.

It is not an accident that Microsoft still controls most of the desktop OS market, despite not having improved the UI in any significant way since the creation of Windows (which was just a rip off of the Mac, in any case.)

My understanding was that Apple ripped off their graphics from the original innovators, some people at Zerox. Microsoft, on the other hand, bought the Windows graphics from Zerox. You can correct me if I’m wrong, but I also understood that some college give courses that cite Zerox’s bad business sense for not knowing what to do with their employee’s innovation.