The Personal Website of Mark W. Dawson

Other People’s Money (OPM)

In today's society, it has become very easy to spend Other People's Money (OPM), especially in government funding, but also in commerce. As in my Chirp of “06/26/20 The Value of Money”, when you speak of money, you should always keep in mind that money is a representation of labor. Therefore, when you are utilizing OPM, you are utilizing Other People’s Labors (OPL). For the purposes of clarity in this article, I will only cite OPM, but you may freely substitute OPL as you wish.

The government is the largest spender of OPM, as the government does not produce money (i.e., wealth) but is a redistributor of the monies collected from taxpayers. While much of this redistribution has value, it is not subject to the market valuation of the services rendered by the government. Consequently, there are no checks and balances to determine the true value of government services. The government can, therefore, over collect or overspend OPM as they see fit.

Unlike commercial expenditures of monies, there is not an equitable exchange of money between the taxpayers and the government. The government requires that taxpayers give them their monies at the rate or amount that they have set, and the government spends their monies on anything that they see fit. Commercial exchanged of monies requires that the buyer receives a good or service that they believe is worthwhile, while the seller gives a product or service that they believe is the fair value of the good or service. In a commercial transaction, if either the buyer or seller does not believe that the transaction is equitable, they do not consummate the transaction. No such equitability exists in government, and if the taxpayer does not pay the monies that the government demands that they face seizures of assets, fines and penalties, and perhaps imprisonment for not paying what the government demands. Whether these taxes are used or misused for the purposes of government, and if the taxpayers are getting equitable services from the government is not the purpose of this Chirp.

In commerce, we have the spectacle of companies funding charity or social activism programs with OPM. It is not possible for a company to fund a charity or activist organization without expending OPM. When a commercial enterprise makes contributions to any charity or activist organization they are doing so with OPM, as the monies they contribute come from the owners or shareholder profits from the business, or from increasing prices on the buyer of their goods and services to fund these activities, or from both sources. A company is in business to make a profit for its owners or shareholders, and any monies it expends must be made for this purpose. If they expend monies for anything other than this purpose, they are expending OPM from their owners or shareholders, or expending OPM from their consumers' additional cost for their products or services. Either way, they are not spending their own monies but Other Peoples Monies.

When a company funds charities or social activism programs, they are also behaving immorally. For it is immoral to take OPM and to give OPM without the permission of the other people. Each individual owner or shareholder, or each individual consumer, has no say in how their money is being spent. Indeed, they may even be opposed to the funding of the charity or activist organization, but they have no say in this expenditure. A commercial transaction that occurs without the approval of both parties is an immoral act. It imposes the will of one party of the transaction upon the other party to the transaction. And to impose the will of one person on another person is immoral.

Even if one party informs the other party that they will be expending their monies on charity or activist organizations, it is immoral. It is immoral because the other party cannot object and negotiate for the non-expenditures of their monies. To say that the other party can terminate the transaction and find the product or service elsewhere is often not practicable in today’s society. Many consumer products and services are only available from a limited number of providers, and in many cases, all these providers are expending monies on charities or activist organizations that the consumer may object too.

I would have no objections if a company asked for, but not require, a voluntary contribution from the consumer to these charities or activist organization at the time of the purchase (and I have often contributed when so asked). I have no problem with a company setting up a charitable fund in which their owners or shareholders can voluntarily contribute a portion of their own profits to this fund. I do have an objection to setting up a charitable fund in which employees contribute, as an employee may feel undue pressure to contribute as a lack of contributions could impact their career or job security.

If a company thinks that a charity or activist organization is worthwhile, they should only encourage others to voluntarily contribute to the charity or activist organization. The only moral way to fund a charity or social activism program is to take the money out of your own pocket and contribute it to the charity or social activism programs that you approve. Otherwise, it is the case of someone taking your money, out of your pocket, without your permission, and spending it on what they feel is proper. And this is an immoral act on their part. It’s called Theft.