5 ms·

You can make the same arguments for bribery. Nonetheless it is illegal for a US company to bribe people abroad and US companies end up selling off their holding

You can make the same arguments for bribery. Nonetheless it is illegal for a US company to bribe people abroad and US companies end up selling off their holdings in banana republics. Why is this law good? The US has a long history of corporations owning too much in banana republics and bringing the US into pro-dictator political positions.

mcguire 6y ago
"...US companies end up selling off their holdings in banana republics." Do you have a source for that? I have run across instances of US companies using various schemes to avoid the appearance of bribes (usually involving paying a "consultant" a large amount of money and paying no attention to how the consultant gets the business done), but I know of none getting rid of their businesses in other countries.
- foolmeonce 6y ago
  Chiquita/Columbia/FARC after Sept 11, AFAIK the actual crime they were fined for was the bribery (past payments to govt side), though they had the new problem of terrorist lists (any future payments to FARC side).
LiberatedLlama 6y ago
> Nonetheless it is illegal for a US company to bribe people abroad IANAL but this is only partially true from what I understand. It's legal if the bribe is "grease money". (Grease money is paying a public official to do their job properly and promptly, while regular bribery is paying a public official to do something they shouldn't. But the distinction between the two seems subjective or ambiguous in many possible scenarios.)
passivate 6y ago
Can you explain what 'same argument' you're referring to in your comment?
- foolmeonce 6y ago
  I think you are saying companies should break US laws regarding a topic (religious discrimination) while abroad in order to honor foreign laws if that is necessary in order to operate in a country. I think they should not consider operating in that fashion. They can push for regulation themselves if on their withdrawal they want to prevent an advantage to less ethical US competitors who stay.
  - passivate 6y ago
    I don't get it. Why would any government allow a business to operate if they don't respect local laws. Would the US allow that? On principle, I sort of reject this notion that a giant corporation(s) should be encouraged to meddle in the internal matters of other countries. I think these kinds of moves will be perceived very differently by the locals. The famous line "They will welcome us as liberators with open arms..." (paraphrased) comes to mind :) I think it is far better to promote your ideas peacefully using other means, rather than by forcing a government to adopt your views because you threaten them with economic consequences by pulling out of the country.
    - foolmeonce 6y ago
      Finance is the peaceful other means if you enforce laws on the people you can in order to keep it peaceful. US companies won't be running Uyghur reeducation camps in China even though that is lawful in China and may be their best way to source the right labor. Is everything happening anyway and with more cost by keeping a separation between US companies/nationals and crimes under US law? Sure. Is it still better? Mercenaries that come back having done "legal" things in foreign countries are a social plague and their connections to groups the US considers criminal are problematic. To not pick only on China, any US national who works with spyware for the Saudi regime is a criminal under US law, and that is important because they need to be watched when they return to the US to prevent them from assisting in assasinations in US/Canada. Does it matter if the crown prince made their actions in Saudi Arabia legal?
      - 6y ago

mcguire 6y ago

"...US companies end up selling off their holdings in banana republics." Do you have a source for that? I have run across instances of US companies using various schemes to avoid the appearance of bribes (usually involving paying a "consultant" a large amount of money and paying no attention to how the consultant gets the business done), but I know of none getting rid of their businesses in other countries.

foolmeonce 6y ago
Chiquita/Columbia/FARC after Sept 11, AFAIK the actual crime they were fined for was the bribery (past payments to govt side), though they had the new problem of terrorist lists (any future payments to FARC side).

LiberatedLlama 6y ago

> Nonetheless it is illegal for a US company to bribe people abroad IANAL but this is only partially true from what I understand. It's legal if the bribe is "grease money". (Grease money is paying a public official to do their job properly and promptly, while regular bribery is paying a public official to do something they shouldn't. But the distinction between the two seems subjective or ambiguous in many possible scenarios.)

passivate 6y ago

Can you explain what 'same argument' you're referring to in your comment?

foolmeonce 6y ago
I think you are saying companies should break US laws regarding a topic (religious discrimination) while abroad in order to honor foreign laws if that is necessary in order to operate in a country. I think they should not consider operating in that fashion. They can push for regulation themselves if on their withdrawal they want to prevent an advantage to less ethical US competitors who stay.
- passivate 6y ago
  I don't get it. Why would any government allow a business to operate if they don't respect local laws. Would the US allow that? On principle, I sort of reject this notion that a giant corporation(s) should be encouraged to meddle in the internal matters of other countries. I think these kinds of moves will be perceived very differently by the locals. The famous line "They will welcome us as liberators with open arms..." (paraphrased) comes to mind :) I think it is far better to promote your ideas peacefully using other means, rather than by forcing a government to adopt your views because you threaten them with economic consequences by pulling out of the country.
  - foolmeonce 6y ago
    Finance is the peaceful other means if you enforce laws on the people you can in order to keep it peaceful. US companies won't be running Uyghur reeducation camps in China even though that is lawful in China and may be their best way to source the right labor. Is everything happening anyway and with more cost by keeping a separation between US companies/nationals and crimes under US law? Sure. Is it still better? Mercenaries that come back having done "legal" things in foreign countries are a social plague and their connections to groups the US considers criminal are problematic. To not pick only on China, any US national who works with spyware for the Saudi regime is a criminal under US law, and that is important because they need to be watched when they return to the US to prevent them from assisting in assasinations in US/Canada. Does it matter if the crown prince made their actions in Saudi Arabia legal?
    - 6y ago