5 ms·

> As an entrepreneur/self-employed person who 100% does not have any special relationships in government and relies almost solely on referrals, it is very frust

> As an entrepreneur/self-employed person who 100% does not have any special relationships in government and relies almost solely on referrals, it is very frustrating to see people "create" wealth because they have special relationships with government officials. So you "create wealth" based on your special relationships to other people (who end up helping you by giving referrals and other assistance) and believe that is ok, but you don't find it acceptable when others do the same? The only difference, it would seem, is that the other people have deeper relationships to people in government than you.

EvanAnderson 8y ago
Government officials need to be impartial. Their personal relationships shouldn't come to bear in the decisions they make to spend public money.
- bena 8y ago
  Or even to who gets expedited through certain processes. I've seen that as well. Someone who worked in government and moved into the private sector who then used his government contacts to help along his contracting business. Ironically, he was a "small government Republican", when his entire livelihood was dependent on the government and corruption.
socrates1998 8y ago
Government officials represent ALL citizens and are supposed to get the best deal for the taxpayer. They are not spending their own money. They are spending my money and all other citizens money. If you looked at the deals that textbook companies get, you would realize that they sure as hell aren't negotiated well (or at all honestly). These deals are done at expensive dinners and trips paid for by the textbook companies. Or the companies donate to candidates campaigns, then the elected officials make sure these companies get the textbook deals, regardless of value or quality. Government officials have an obligation to the citizens to be impartial to prevent this type of corruption. My customers only represent themselves and their money. They are free to do whatever they want with it.
- ryanx435 8y ago
  From an outsiders perspective, this seems like a false distinction that you are using to rationalize your failure to get government contracts.
  - tathougies 8y ago
    From an outsiders perspective, this seems like corruption.
  - jdietrich 8y ago
    If a private company squanders money through corrupt contracts, I have options. I can choose to withdraw my support for what they're doing and punish the company financially by selling their stock. I can short their stock, tell everyone "this company is wasting money on corrupt contracts" and profit from the market reaction. I can choose to buy products and services from a more efficient company that isn't dumping money to their cronies. I can set up my own company and compete with them. If the government squanders money through corrupt practices, I have no opt-out. I can say "I'm not paying my taxes until you fix this corruption problem", but men with guns will lock me in a cage. If a sufficiently large proportion of the electorate support or ignore that corrupt government, they can just take money from my paycheck and give it to their cronies with impunity. Corporate corruption is bad, but it is fundamentally different to government corruption.
    - ABCLAW 8y ago
      Is it though? 1) You can liquidate, move and bring your wealth with you to a new jurisdiction that would love the capital infusion. You can start a political movement and gather grassroots support to install a less corrupt administration. You can become a revolutionary and fight the state. There are options; you just don't like them. The big issue with corruption isn't "what can Joe Q. Average do to stop it". 2) You can't punish a private company by putting together an activist short sell play - it's private, not public. If a public company squanders money through poor dealings, you probably can't punish them either. Bill Ackman might be a wee bit of a dick, but he's got a war chest larger than yours and he got his firm, Pershing Square, beat the fuck up exercising his 'options' against Herbalife, who he believed was engaging in corrupt dealings. Right or wrong, Carl Icahn hates Ackman for a lawsuit Ackman won against him and decided to throw piles of money into a short squeeze against Ackman's play.
danbolt 8y ago
I think it’s a bit different when the “other people” are subsidized by taxpayer money. I think the parent commenter would be certainly fine with other people doing the same, provided they’re not massaging government officials with luxuries.

EvanAnderson 8y ago

Government officials need to be impartial. Their personal relationships shouldn't come to bear in the decisions they make to spend public money.

bena 8y ago
Or even to who gets expedited through certain processes. I've seen that as well. Someone who worked in government and moved into the private sector who then used his government contacts to help along his contracting business. Ironically, he was a "small government Republican", when his entire livelihood was dependent on the government and corruption.

socrates1998 8y ago

Government officials represent ALL citizens and are supposed to get the best deal for the taxpayer. They are not spending their own money. They are spending my money and all other citizens money. If you looked at the deals that textbook companies get, you would realize that they sure as hell aren't negotiated well (or at all honestly). These deals are done at expensive dinners and trips paid for by the textbook companies. Or the companies donate to candidates campaigns, then the elected officials make sure these companies get the textbook deals, regardless of value or quality. Government officials have an obligation to the citizens to be impartial to prevent this type of corruption. My customers only represent themselves and their money. They are free to do whatever they want with it.

ryanx435 8y ago
From an outsiders perspective, this seems like a false distinction that you are using to rationalize your failure to get government contracts.
- tathougies 8y ago
  From an outsiders perspective, this seems like corruption.
- jdietrich 8y ago
  If a private company squanders money through corrupt contracts, I have options. I can choose to withdraw my support for what they're doing and punish the company financially by selling their stock. I can short their stock, tell everyone "this company is wasting money on corrupt contracts" and profit from the market reaction. I can choose to buy products and services from a more efficient company that isn't dumping money to their cronies. I can set up my own company and compete with them. If the government squanders money through corrupt practices, I have no opt-out. I can say "I'm not paying my taxes until you fix this corruption problem", but men with guns will lock me in a cage. If a sufficiently large proportion of the electorate support or ignore that corrupt government, they can just take money from my paycheck and give it to their cronies with impunity. Corporate corruption is bad, but it is fundamentally different to government corruption.
  - ABCLAW 8y ago
    Is it though? 1) You can liquidate, move and bring your wealth with you to a new jurisdiction that would love the capital infusion. You can start a political movement and gather grassroots support to install a less corrupt administration. You can become a revolutionary and fight the state. There are options; you just don't like them. The big issue with corruption isn't "what can Joe Q. Average do to stop it". 2) You can't punish a private company by putting together an activist short sell play - it's private, not public. If a public company squanders money through poor dealings, you probably can't punish them either. Bill Ackman might be a wee bit of a dick, but he's got a war chest larger than yours and he got his firm, Pershing Square, beat the fuck up exercising his 'options' against Herbalife, who he believed was engaging in corrupt dealings. Right or wrong, Carl Icahn hates Ackman for a lawsuit Ackman won against him and decided to throw piles of money into a short squeeze against Ackman's play.

danbolt 8y ago

I think it’s a bit different when the “other people” are subsidized by taxpayer money. I think the parent commenter would be certainly fine with other people doing the same, provided they’re not massaging government officials with luxuries.