4 ms·

Actually, this is orthogonal to governments. There's widespread bribery in the private sector too, where decisions makers are gifted to persuade them. To use y

by olau 7y ago

Actually, this is orthogonal to governments. There's widespread bribery in the private sector too, where decisions makers are gifted to persuade them. To use your phrasing, a capitalistic view of this is that corruption is just anything that breaks the fairy tale idea that the people who work in the corporation seek the interests of the company and not their very own private interests. You can even see it play out here on Hacker News - people who optimize for their own career goals at the detriment of the company that pays them to get a job done.

Findeton 7y ago
It's true, but it's also true that many things that are considered corruption/illegal when you do it for the government, they are not when it's inside a company. If a business owner hires his nephew, that's not illegal and many people wouldn't consider it corruption. If a government official appoints his nephew, that's frowned upon to say the least. But going back to your argument, if an employee uses his position and gets bribed, of course that's going at the detriment of the company... but you could also say that if the company has the right checks and balances he will get caught, and that if the company had made sure that the interests of the employee were well-aligned with the company's it wouldn't be a logical step. And that's why some companies pay so handsomely.
- DailyHN 7y ago
  > government official appoints his nephew, that's frowned upon to say the least What about when a President appoints his daughter and son-in-law?
  - usrusr 7y ago
    Transparency, I guess. (feels like sarcasm just experienced an integer overflow, or perhaps not)
naveensky 7y ago
I feel a government has a scope wider than a company and is answerable to the public at large. A corporation is answerable to its shareholders so slightly different. Bribery at any level is not acceptable, and even at the corporate level if shareholders are affected, they would want to remove the person taking bribes
- perl4ever 7y ago
  A company is inherently answerable to the public at large. No less than a government, it's a legal fiction that is enabled by the collective behavior of the public remaining consistent with its existence.
  - naveensky 7y ago
    Just to be clear, are you talking about a publicly listed company or feel that every business, let's say a small grocery store as well is equally responsible. I feel a company is responsible to its customers and shareholders, that's about it.
    - perl4ever 7y ago
      I didn't use the exact word "responsible" which sounds ambiguous and maybe normative. I was trying to make a factual statement rather than a normative one. Even a small grocery store depends on abstract legal concepts having power which require public assent.

by olau 7y ago

Findeton 7y ago

It's true, but it's also true that many things that are considered corruption/illegal when you do it for the government, they are not when it's inside a company. If a business owner hires his nephew, that's not illegal and many people wouldn't consider it corruption. If a government official appoints his nephew, that's frowned upon to say the least. But going back to your argument, if an employee uses his position and gets bribed, of course that's going at the detriment of the company... but you could also say that if the company has the right checks and balances he will get caught, and that if the company had made sure that the interests of the employee were well-aligned with the company's it wouldn't be a logical step. And that's why some companies pay so handsomely.

DailyHN 7y ago
> government official appoints his nephew, that's frowned upon to say the least What about when a President appoints his daughter and son-in-law?
- usrusr 7y ago
  Transparency, I guess. (feels like sarcasm just experienced an integer overflow, or perhaps not)

naveensky 7y ago

I feel a government has a scope wider than a company and is answerable to the public at large. A corporation is answerable to its shareholders so slightly different. Bribery at any level is not acceptable, and even at the corporate level if shareholders are affected, they would want to remove the person taking bribes

perl4ever 7y ago
A company is inherently answerable to the public at large. No less than a government, it's a legal fiction that is enabled by the collective behavior of the public remaining consistent with its existence.
- naveensky 7y ago
  Just to be clear, are you talking about a publicly listed company or feel that every business, let's say a small grocery store as well is equally responsible. I feel a company is responsible to its customers and shareholders, that's about it.
  - perl4ever 7y ago
    I didn't use the exact word "responsible" which sounds ambiguous and maybe normative. I was trying to make a factual statement rather than a normative one. Even a small grocery store depends on abstract legal concepts having power which require public assent.