Because the cost is very low for a selected group. (In our previous example, those over 60-year of age.)
But, if this group of voters do come to realize their true value, they would ask for a higher price. In reality, if there exists another malicious Party C2 and is willing to pay twice as high (i.e. $2), both Parties D and C would lose the election to the new comer. In a free market, by the law of economy, the final price to bribe these people would eventually be much higher - or, to put it in a more palatable language, the underprivileged group would enjoy more benefit.
However, politics does not often operate in the setting of a free market. In the jargon of business, the admission threshold (入場門檻) to form a Party is high, and, for us, since there is another invisible hand behind the scene, the choice is limited. In other words, it is a form of oligopoly (寡頭壟斷) - with the inevitable implication that the bargaining power of an ordinary citizen is very low.
1 comment:
Not all sectors are "寡頭壟斷". See the "泛民派"! Since this seems to be a profitable business, the market force has driven the proliferation of "democracy" parties in this sector. Unfortunately, given their dropping credibility and rising volatility (I am not talking about Italian bonds), their discount rate has increased substantially. Even though they try hard to compensate the discounted cash flow by boosting a brilliant Utopia, their profit margins inevitably drop and this sector will become a "commodity-type business" ultimately.
So, would you put your money to "中石油" or "山寨工業股"?
Post a Comment