3 ms·
Honestly, pay them more. In every major country, if they're running orgs that have multi-hundred-billion-dollar budgets per year, and you have a few hundred of
by Pxtl 5y ago
Honestly, pay them more. In every major country, if they're running orgs that have multi-hundred-billion-dollar budgets per year, and you have a few hundred of these people, you can pay them well-enough that sneaking around isn't really profitable.
It would not be unreasonable to allocate 0.1% of your budget to compensating the people who control the budget, in exchange for them abandoning their conflict-of-interest positions.
- jakelazaroff 5y agoWhy would they not just do both, though?
- koheripbal 5y agoBecause there's a diminishing return to collecting more and more money. Believe it or not, most rich people stop trying so hard once they hit a certain level.
- barbazoo 5y agoI'm not sure their greed can ever be satisfied. How about electing people with a functioning moral compass instead of these muppets clearly only looking out for themselves. Oh wait, that's not possible, then you'd have to vote "for the other side" every now and then.
- njx 5y agoThis is it. Greed has no boundaries! ++ "electing people with a functioning moral compass"