5 ms·

I view corruption as some kind of a necessary evil to protect and defend national interests. I mean you can't always allow corruption at a micro level because

by jokoon 9y ago

I view corruption as some kind of a necessary evil to protect and defend national interests. I mean you can't always allow corruption at a micro level because it would be inefficient, but it's always allowed at the higher level. I view corruption as a mean to keep the control of a social structure in the hands of certain interests so that it cannot be hijacked by strangers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apM0d3M-sps https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apM0d3M-sps Frankly, the mafia exists because some people don't trust the government or outside/remote political power to gain influence on them. So this way corruption allows people to take back things they think are owed to them. People call this corruption, but I think people can act in their own interest and as long as we consent to it, it's not corruption, it's just public consent. I mean there are countless ways that the public benefits from overseas corruption. For example nobody complains that gas is cheap enough. That's a form of corruption, to me. You call that corruption, I call that consent and a balance of self interest. As long as people are happy enough, everything is good.

saimiam 9y ago
This type of doublethink is what undermines confidence in the global order and rule of law. When some European/Western companies indulges in corruption and out-and-out egregious behavior, it's "just boys being boys" and "too big to fail." A Chinese company indulges in some industrial espionage or uses that country's diplomatic levers and suddenly the sky is falling down. E.g., why is Volkswagen still in business after literally setting fire to the world? Why should Airbus not be summarily be liquidated in found guilty of corruption? Back in the day, news of such corruption would percolate slowly into the rest of world. That is no longer the case. News spreads quickly. People (like me) are watching and hoping that the standards get applied equally and if they don't, I like to think the strength in numbers and youth lies in the East, not the West.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- nerdponx 9y ago
  FWIW this phenomenon has been happening since before the dawn of industrialization. If anything it's probably less of a problem in 2017 than it's ever been. That doesn't mean we should stop treating it like a problem. It just means we should look back on our sordid history as a species and take that as encouragement that we can keep improving. And it starts with awareness. Who today talks about the BP oil and Exxon Valdez oil spills, or Love Canal, or Enron†? †Execs only got prosecuted and convicted here because more powerful people lost money because of them.
- achamayou 9y ago
  Why do you think that liquidating companies that are employing tens of thousands, and providing transportation mechanisms for billions is a good idea? The market for civil airliners is already far too concentrated and dysfunctional, it'd be even worse with a single player (Boeing). Finding who's been involved in the decision-making process and punishing them harshly is fair and does send the right message. Destroying a large corporation arbitrarily doesn't. Besides, in both Volkswagen and Airbus cases, they're far from being the sole bad actors in their respective industries. You'd only hand their marketshare to others who've been slightly better at not getting caught but were really doing the same thing all along.
  - ryandrake 9y ago
    Destroying companies hurts shareholders, who ultimately allow/encourage/demand their companies' bad behavior. If you're a fund manager, and the value of your Xyz Corp stock were at risk of going to $0 due to its execs' bad behavior, you would be incentivized to make sure the board is actually discouraging bad behavior. Without this threat, we have the situation we have today: Companies never get significantly punished for anything, "because jobs," and corruption is rampant.
    - tormeh 9y ago
      Shareholders don't have much insight or influence on the day-to-day in a business, so I don't think this would work very well.
      - aluhut 9y ago
        I don't think they would have to if anyone involved would face this ultimate payment for their misbehavior. However, I think that it would lead to even better mechanisms to hide the corruption and turn the lobby machine on. It's easy to lobby when a company has to be closed down and many uninvolved people lose their jobs. Which politician would like to face this anger? Maybe it's better to start the change from the other side. Make people understand and feel what it means if they are being cheated of their tax money.
    - 9y ago
- KGIII 9y ago
  Maybe because VW didn't 'literally' set 'fire to the world?'
wallace_f 9y ago
Thanks for the point of view. I really don't agree, but maybe you can convince me of it? So how does corruption in the finance, auto, and other sectors that destroyed jobs, work out to be a net benefit? When the US cancelled the Boeing 2707 due to corruption, why was that good? How was the Challenger disaster good? I mean, these are not even cases of the most blatant corruption out there, I'm just trying to make the case that we should ideally strive for it to be weeded out of everything because it does cause real harm. Maybe you can you give me examples of corruption which can be good for humanity to convince me? Personally, I would rather live in a world where we compete on merit and strive for progress, rather than some slimey people building 10-min apps for 1.4MM b/c of: corruption(1). What do you think of the corruption in the War on Drugs and private prison system, which disproportionately targets minorities for profit? I think most people don't want to fight against the mafia, or other corrupt peoples, because they care about their physical safety, not because they consent to it. The only example I see you gave was that we benefit from corruption abroad. However, that still doesn't make me feel any better about it because it is a net expense to humanity. Besides caring about others, I don't need cheap gas and it is already ruining our environment. https://gizmodo.com/tsas-1-4-million-app-takes-about-10-minutes-to-build-1769084655 https://gizmodo.com/tsas-1-4-million-app-takes-about-10-minu...
- jokoon 9y ago
  I am not arguing for corruption, I am just saying that corruption appears for certain reasons, and can be the least painful mean to motivate individuals and raise a system out of its mediocrity. I don't really think it's a good thing, it's just a social phenomena. The war on drugs is born out of the fear of citizens not being able to regulate their consumption of narcotics, just like during the prohibition. If you remove your moral compass, you quickly understand a lot of how the human world works. Corruption is a form of currency, and always has been. It is the norm. It makes thing much easier for a leadership system to work fast within a tight loop of trusted insiders. It is evil, but at the end of the day it reflects the will of voters if they don't try hard enough to stop it.
alokrai 9y ago
"Frankly, the mafia exists because some people don't trust the government or outside/remote political power to gain influence on them. So this way corruption allows people to take back things they think are owed to them." No. Mafia exists because the state is too weak to enforce property rights and personal safety of the citizens, so a local thug (or a band of thugs) take advantage of it. Most people would prefer not to pay the Mafia but they don't want to be shot by mafia thugs. "As long as people are happy enough, everything is good." This could be said to justify literally any horrible act.
- jokoon 9y ago
  I don't advocate for what I am saying, I just try to explain what I see.
forapurpose 9y ago
> national interests Who says what the national interests are? If corruption rules, then it's just those in power preserving and exploiting what they have. > keep the control of a social structure in the hands of certain interests so that it cannot be hijacked by strangers What strangers are you talking about? Why do the 'strangers' have any less right to power than you do? Why aren't you a 'stranger'? Corruption has a well-documented and significant economic cost. It benefits the corrupt at the expense of everyone else. When government officials act to line their own pockets, it's not hard to see where the costs are. For example, when defense officials take bribes to choose a certain vendor, it harms national defense, because inferior products are being used; it kills soldiers (and the civilians they are defending), because of inferior products; and of course it takes money from taxpayers. It's not hard to see how it fails.
- jokoon 9y ago
  The strangers would be foreign interests. Of course corruption has a cost, but it doesn't mean one can bring a more virtuous alternative to work. Frankly you can't really measure and evaluate how the world would be without corruption. It is called politics, management, regulations, policy enforcement, etc.
  - wallace_f 9y ago
    But we can at least try our best to minimize it, and instead try to maximize individual liberty. Personally, I hate seeing cheaters win; and I hate even more seeing people suffer for no good reason.
    - jokoon 9y ago
      I agree with you, unfortunately society has evolved to tolerate cheaters and corruption, instead of going towards a more virtuous society. At least the world now is much more virtuous with democracy than it was before the 1800's. We can try to minimize it, but as always, if there is not enough political capital to do something about, nothing will be done. Citizens and consumers are being content with what they have. When climate change will hit, or when inequality will be felt, things might change.

by jokoon 9y ago

saimiam 9y ago

This type of doublethink is what undermines confidence in the global order and rule of law. When some European/Western companies indulges in corruption and out-and-out egregious behavior, it's "just boys being boys" and "too big to fail." A Chinese company indulges in some industrial espionage or uses that country's diplomatic levers and suddenly the sky is falling down. E.g., why is Volkswagen still in business after literally setting fire to the world? Why should Airbus not be summarily be liquidated in found guilty of corruption? Back in the day, news of such corruption would percolate slowly into the rest of world. That is no longer the case. News spreads quickly. People (like me) are watching and hoping that the standards get applied equally and if they don't, I like to think the strength in numbers and youth lies in the East, not the West.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
nerdponx 9y ago
FWIW this phenomenon has been happening since before the dawn of industrialization. If anything it's probably less of a problem in 2017 than it's ever been. That doesn't mean we should stop treating it like a problem. It just means we should look back on our sordid history as a species and take that as encouragement that we can keep improving. And it starts with awareness. Who today talks about the BP oil and Exxon Valdez oil spills, or Love Canal, or Enron†? †Execs only got prosecuted and convicted here because more powerful people lost money because of them.
achamayou 9y ago
Why do you think that liquidating companies that are employing tens of thousands, and providing transportation mechanisms for billions is a good idea? The market for civil airliners is already far too concentrated and dysfunctional, it'd be even worse with a single player (Boeing). Finding who's been involved in the decision-making process and punishing them harshly is fair and does send the right message. Destroying a large corporation arbitrarily doesn't. Besides, in both Volkswagen and Airbus cases, they're far from being the sole bad actors in their respective industries. You'd only hand their marketshare to others who've been slightly better at not getting caught but were really doing the same thing all along.
- ryandrake 9y ago
  Destroying companies hurts shareholders, who ultimately allow/encourage/demand their companies' bad behavior. If you're a fund manager, and the value of your Xyz Corp stock were at risk of going to $0 due to its execs' bad behavior, you would be incentivized to make sure the board is actually discouraging bad behavior. Without this threat, we have the situation we have today: Companies never get significantly punished for anything, "because jobs," and corruption is rampant.
  - tormeh 9y ago
    Shareholders don't have much insight or influence on the day-to-day in a business, so I don't think this would work very well.
    - aluhut 9y ago
      I don't think they would have to if anyone involved would face this ultimate payment for their misbehavior. However, I think that it would lead to even better mechanisms to hide the corruption and turn the lobby machine on. It's easy to lobby when a company has to be closed down and many uninvolved people lose their jobs. Which politician would like to face this anger? Maybe it's better to start the change from the other side. Make people understand and feel what it means if they are being cheated of their tax money.
  - 9y ago
KGIII 9y ago
Maybe because VW didn't 'literally' set 'fire to the world?'

wallace_f 9y ago

Thanks for the point of view. I really don't agree, but maybe you can convince me of it? So how does corruption in the finance, auto, and other sectors that destroyed jobs, work out to be a net benefit? When the US cancelled the Boeing 2707 due to corruption, why was that good? How was the Challenger disaster good? I mean, these are not even cases of the most blatant corruption out there, I'm just trying to make the case that we should ideally strive for it to be weeded out of everything because it does cause real harm. Maybe you can you give me examples of corruption which can be good for humanity to convince me? Personally, I would rather live in a world where we compete on merit and strive for progress, rather than some slimey people building 10-min apps for 1.4MM b/c of: corruption(1). What do you think of the corruption in the War on Drugs and private prison system, which disproportionately targets minorities for profit? I think most people don't want to fight against the mafia, or other corrupt peoples, because they care about their physical safety, not because they consent to it. The only example I see you gave was that we benefit from corruption abroad. However, that still doesn't make me feel any better about it because it is a net expense to humanity. Besides caring about others, I don't need cheap gas and it is already ruining our environment. https://gizmodo.com/tsas-1-4-million-app-takes-about-10-minutes-to-build-1769084655 https://gizmodo.com/tsas-1-4-million-app-takes-about-10-minu...

jokoon 9y ago
I am not arguing for corruption, I am just saying that corruption appears for certain reasons, and can be the least painful mean to motivate individuals and raise a system out of its mediocrity. I don't really think it's a good thing, it's just a social phenomena. The war on drugs is born out of the fear of citizens not being able to regulate their consumption of narcotics, just like during the prohibition. If you remove your moral compass, you quickly understand a lot of how the human world works. Corruption is a form of currency, and always has been. It is the norm. It makes thing much easier for a leadership system to work fast within a tight loop of trusted insiders. It is evil, but at the end of the day it reflects the will of voters if they don't try hard enough to stop it.

alokrai 9y ago

"Frankly, the mafia exists because some people don't trust the government or outside/remote political power to gain influence on them. So this way corruption allows people to take back things they think are owed to them." No. Mafia exists because the state is too weak to enforce property rights and personal safety of the citizens, so a local thug (or a band of thugs) take advantage of it. Most people would prefer not to pay the Mafia but they don't want to be shot by mafia thugs. "As long as people are happy enough, everything is good." This could be said to justify literally any horrible act.

jokoon 9y ago
I don't advocate for what I am saying, I just try to explain what I see.

forapurpose 9y ago

> national interests Who says what the national interests are? If corruption rules, then it's just those in power preserving and exploiting what they have. > keep the control of a social structure in the hands of certain interests so that it cannot be hijacked by strangers What strangers are you talking about? Why do the 'strangers' have any less right to power than you do? Why aren't you a 'stranger'? Corruption has a well-documented and significant economic cost. It benefits the corrupt at the expense of everyone else. When government officials act to line their own pockets, it's not hard to see where the costs are. For example, when defense officials take bribes to choose a certain vendor, it harms national defense, because inferior products are being used; it kills soldiers (and the civilians they are defending), because of inferior products; and of course it takes money from taxpayers. It's not hard to see how it fails.

jokoon 9y ago
The strangers would be foreign interests. Of course corruption has a cost, but it doesn't mean one can bring a more virtuous alternative to work. Frankly you can't really measure and evaluate how the world would be without corruption. It is called politics, management, regulations, policy enforcement, etc.
- wallace_f 9y ago
  But we can at least try our best to minimize it, and instead try to maximize individual liberty. Personally, I hate seeing cheaters win; and I hate even more seeing people suffer for no good reason.
  - jokoon 9y ago
    I agree with you, unfortunately society has evolved to tolerate cheaters and corruption, instead of going towards a more virtuous society. At least the world now is much more virtuous with democracy than it was before the 1800's. We can try to minimize it, but as always, if there is not enough political capital to do something about, nothing will be done. Citizens and consumers are being content with what they have. When climate change will hit, or when inequality will be felt, things might change.