4 ms·

This is a particularly egregious case but reports about FCPA cases like these (and the ensuing calls to imprison executives) neglect the fact that most major mu

by from 5y ago

This is a particularly egregious case but reports about FCPA cases like these (and the ensuing calls to imprison executives) neglect the fact that most major multinationals do not want to pay anyone. Governments in about half the world require you to pay to get anything done, especially in highly regulated sectors like telecommunications. The government employees in charge of licenses, permits etc in these countries will literally refuse to do their jobs unless you pay them. Walmart just recently had a [$300 million](https://apnews.com/article/latin-america-us-news-ap-top-news-brazil-ar-state-wire-509cfaa2786642ac9b7ead643fd709b4 https://apnews.com/article/latin-america-us-news-ap-top-news...) fine for paying a local "expeditor" to get construction permits in Brazil. They didn't pay for a monopoly on supermarkets, they didn't pay prosectors to investigate their competitors, they paid so they could build a Walmart in Brazil. Is that evil?

Jiro 5y ago
The reason we have to have laws about such things is that paying the bribe is always beneficial to the individual company. Refusing to pay bribes only helps if every company refuses to pay the bribe. If you can't do business without bribing someone, that's like not being able to do business without using slaves; what you should do is stop doing business, not start using slaves.
- from 5y ago
  >The reason we have to have laws about such things is that paying the bribe is always beneficial to the individual company. Refusing to pay bribes only helps if every company refuses to pay the bribe. That's great in theory and that was the intent of the people who wrote foreign bribery laws but it never works out this way. What happens in practice is that American companies leave the country and companies from places like Russia and China who are willing to pay get the business. Or it goes to local companies who also still pay. >If you can't do business without bribing someone, that's like not being able to do business without using slaves; what you should do is stop doing business, not start using slaves. Except paying the bribes doesn't cost anyone except the company paying them. You've got it reversed here: the company paying the bribes is often the victim. Do you think Telia really wanted to pay $320 million to the Uzbek president's daughter? They probably would rather have had Uzbekistan have a telecom licensing system that actually worked like the FCC.
  - HelloMcFly 5y ago
    > Except paying the bribes doesn't cost anyone except the company paying them. It also establishes a norm of pay-to-play and increases the overall cost of entry into a market. This can decrease overall investment/entrants into the market and subsequently services and employment from being offered to residents. The company can be a victim and retain some culpability.
  - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
    "Except paying the bribes doesn't cost anyone except the company paying them" This is so delusional its unbelievable! When a multinational firm arrives in a little town in X in a random country and showers local officials in bribes, they are funding organised crime. Are you so naive to think it's just to be 'allowed to operate'? When someone protests that company's development or organises a strike, they now might be found dead in a ditch. Do you think the company paying bribes will be bothered with pollution or fire safety regulations?
throwawayboise 5y ago
Hence the saying that the only difference between the government and the mafia is that when the government does it, it is legal.
ClumsyPilot 5y ago
"they paid so they could build a Walmart in Brazil. Is that evil?" I dont know, but I do know that if it wad me and my family business, i would spend many years in jail. When big firms break the law, unlike Wallmart.

by from 5y ago

Jiro 5y ago

The reason we have to have laws about such things is that paying the bribe is always beneficial to the individual company. Refusing to pay bribes only helps if every company refuses to pay the bribe. If you can't do business without bribing someone, that's like not being able to do business without using slaves; what you should do is stop doing business, not start using slaves.

from 5y ago
>The reason we have to have laws about such things is that paying the bribe is always beneficial to the individual company. Refusing to pay bribes only helps if every company refuses to pay the bribe. That's great in theory and that was the intent of the people who wrote foreign bribery laws but it never works out this way. What happens in practice is that American companies leave the country and companies from places like Russia and China who are willing to pay get the business. Or it goes to local companies who also still pay. >If you can't do business without bribing someone, that's like not being able to do business without using slaves; what you should do is stop doing business, not start using slaves. Except paying the bribes doesn't cost anyone except the company paying them. You've got it reversed here: the company paying the bribes is often the victim. Do you think Telia really wanted to pay $320 million to the Uzbek president's daughter? They probably would rather have had Uzbekistan have a telecom licensing system that actually worked like the FCC.
- HelloMcFly 5y ago
  > Except paying the bribes doesn't cost anyone except the company paying them. It also establishes a norm of pay-to-play and increases the overall cost of entry into a market. This can decrease overall investment/entrants into the market and subsequently services and employment from being offered to residents. The company can be a victim and retain some culpability.
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  "Except paying the bribes doesn't cost anyone except the company paying them" This is so delusional its unbelievable! When a multinational firm arrives in a little town in X in a random country and showers local officials in bribes, they are funding organised crime. Are you so naive to think it's just to be 'allowed to operate'? When someone protests that company's development or organises a strike, they now might be found dead in a ditch. Do you think the company paying bribes will be bothered with pollution or fire safety regulations?

throwawayboise 5y ago

Hence the saying that the only difference between the government and the mafia is that when the government does it, it is legal.

ClumsyPilot 5y ago

"they paid so they could build a Walmart in Brazil. Is that evil?" I dont know, but I do know that if it wad me and my family business, i would spend many years in jail. When big firms break the law, unlike Wallmart.