Suppose there is a company takeover, heralded by much talk about improved services for customers and reduced costs for shareholders. All very nice, but go on to ask the second question.
Will the creation of a large conglomerate result in a more important role for the executives who make the decision to proceed with it, with the larger remuneration packages appropriate to their new responsibilities? No doubt it will.
Now, suppose the gains for the shareholders and public are there but the deal will bring no advantages in money or prestige to the executives. Would the deal still go ahead or would equivalent gains be sought more slowly and surely by growing the business?
The answer to that might be "yes" or "no", but I am afraid that there is a further question ...
Suppose there is an advantage for the executives but not for the public or shareholders? Will the deal go ahead then? Sometimes, yes, sometimes, no, again. It all depends on the circumstances.
Then take the churning of pension fund investments by frequent reinvestment. Who benefits from that? The pensioners, or the managers and advisers whose fee and brokerage income increases with the number of transactions? In many cases the latter.
Do they make the decisions to change investments? Certainly. Does that mean they are putting their own butter before the interests of those who they are supposed to serve? Sometimes.
Even those with no great interest in the financial pages will be aware that one cause of the banking debacle of 2008 was bonus schemes that put the interests of individual bankers into conflict with the health of the organisations for which they worked. That resulted in bad lending decisions, dangerous bets and, ultimately, bank insolvency.
Commerce is inevitably shot through with conflicts. Regulators, activist shareholders and the ever-vigilant press try to see that those conflicts are identified and do not get out of hand. But little is said about almost identical conflicts that arise elsewhere.
Take the politicians. No Opposition would make an impact if it presented itself as merely disagreeing with the Government on minor technical issues. They need differences of principle, causes they can challenge, standards behind which their supporters can rally.
Who cares if that sometimes means misrepresenting the dispute a little or opposing measures that probably make sense? They have their own careers to think of and the public interest in quality decision-making often comes a poor second.
Then look at the champions of the various causes - those who fight racism, feminism, discrimination against the aged. Some of them have picked up their lances to right a wrong that offends them.
Others, however, take up the championship of causes as a career path or perhaps something to give them status in their communities.
The worst thing that could happen to them is that the wrong against which they strive rights itself for reasons unconnected with their efforts - then their careers and status would disappear.
What should they do if this seems likely? Why, take more bizarre positions so that they can claim to stand for something.
That is why the race relations industry, faced by generally improving standards of public tolerance, has found refuge in ever more fatuous complaints about cultural appropriation.
Are these in the interest of the communities who need to be integrated? Probably not, but who cares, if they provide a rationale for the continuing activity of the campaigners.
Something similar will inevitably happen to the feminists as the effect of the current preponderance of British women undergraduate students works its way through the system.
The change in educational balance will lead to more women in positions of authority, not because of any form of lobbying or championing but because they will be better represented in the talent pool.
So, as we watch the 2016 political scene unfold, we should bear in mind that question of who is sitting in the butter. IT is as relevant to understanding public life as it is to understanding commerce.
-John Watson is the editor of the UK weekly online magazine The Shaw Sheet - www.shawsheet.com - where he writes as "Chin Chin".
