4 ms·

This is a very misguided comment. Bribery is a net economic loss — the company has to pay the bribe, and there is a long-term loss as the money gets spent on y

This is a very misguided comment. Bribery is a net economic loss — the company has to pay the bribe, and there is a long-term loss as the money gets spent on yachts instead of projects that spur further economic growth. Companies and their shareholders never wanted to pay out these bribes, and want these laws, because there is little competitive advantage to be gained by being better at bribing. Over time the laws have been extending to most developed countries, including the whole OECD. Sure, there are still exceptions, and if you’re a corrupt official, you can still select a Chinese engineering firm and pocket bribes. But it’s those excluded countries that are playing the losing game in the long term, ruining their international reputation and funding unproductive infrastructure projects with debt their own banks will be saddled with.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
vkou 4y ago
> Companies and their shareholders never wanted to pay out these bribes, Incorrect. A company is incentivized to find the cheapest and easiest way to get what they want, and if that way consists of slipping a year's wages to a corrupt official or executive, it has a reason to do it. The net economic loss to other people does not factor into this calculus. The whole point of quid-pro-quo is that the person giving the bribe expects to receive a benefit that is worth more to them than the cost of the bribe.
- akamaka 4y ago
  Wrong. Many of the owners of the company — the shareholders — are invested in a diverse group of companies. If those companies in their portfolio are competing to out-bribe each other, there is no gain to the investor. The gains go mostly to a few corrupt executives who get a bigger bonus, and the corrupt foreign officials. Perhaps a few unscrupulous privately held companies would prefer scrap the laws as well, but the reason the laws exist are because they are broadly seen as good for business by most players.
  - fluoridation 4y ago
    That's no different from the case where two companies with common shareholders compete with each other. A company is not beholden to increase the net worth of any particular shareholder. If a shareholder owns shares in companies with conflicting interests, that's that shareholder's problem.
    - akamaka 4y ago
      > that's that shareholder's problem Yes, and thus the shareholders have pushed forward anti-bribery initiatives: https://www.weforum.org/communities/partnering-against-corruption-initiative https://www.weforum.org/communities/partnering-against-corru...
  - howmayiannoyyou 4y ago
    You don't get it. It's a free for all outside the US, where players seek to line their own pockets, and many a foreign government permits or encourages bribery for strategic or personal gain. FCPA is very well intended, laudable, wonderful, but utterly ineffective at scale and counterproductive to US interests absent meaningful enforcement abroad. Its a fool's errand.
    - akamaka 4y ago
      Completely untrue. This isn’t some fool’s errand with the US standing alone, these laws are being expanded to most of the industrialized world: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/OECD_Anti-Bribery_Convention https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/OECD_Anti-Bribery_Convention
  - vkou 4y ago
    It makes sense for companies to advocate for fair play laws (because that forces their competitors to play fair), but when those laws are not in place, to play unfairly. Also, some businesses benefit a lot more from corruption than others. Resource extraction firms, for instance.
howmayiannoyyou 4y ago
You truly do not understand the comment if you think it's misguided, specifically you don't understand: - Difference between laws and enforcement of laws. - Endemic corruption that cares nothing for long-term losses. - Shareholder emphasis on short-terms financial results and utter disinterest in long-term results or compliance (unless it impacts short term stock price). - And, most importantly, global competition and how some foreign countries permit or encourage bribery to advance strategic interests. You live in the fantasyland I described in my earlier comment.
- akamaka 4y ago
  Not sure what your point is. Anti-bribery laws are being expanded around the world. The OECD covers 2/3s of the world’s GDP, and is actively working to bring all its members up to the same standards. It’s not some “feel good” fantasy, it’s good for the bottom line. Banks and investors don’t want their profits skimmed by corruption, and are pushing for higher integrity. Sure, there still are places like Russia that operate within a Machiavellian worldview, but most of the world has now recognized the value of fair systems that lead to win-win outcomes.
  - from 4y ago
    Removing rules against foreign bribery would ultimately result in flows of capital from countries with no rule of law to countries with rule of law. This is especially true if the corrupt officials spend their ill gotten gains in the West. If Glencore can get oil at a 20% discount from Nigeria or Angola why should we be complaining? Given that most of the OECD (except maybe Mexico Turkey and parts of Italy) don’t really have serious corruption problems, it sounds like OECD countries are mostly shooting themselves in the foot. Although America and the UK are the only countries that actually enforce these laws anyways.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

vkou 4y ago

> Companies and their shareholders never wanted to pay out these bribes, Incorrect. A company is incentivized to find the cheapest and easiest way to get what they want, and if that way consists of slipping a year's wages to a corrupt official or executive, it has a reason to do it. The net economic loss to other people does not factor into this calculus. The whole point of quid-pro-quo is that the person giving the bribe expects to receive a benefit that is worth more to them than the cost of the bribe.

akamaka 4y ago
Wrong. Many of the owners of the company — the shareholders — are invested in a diverse group of companies. If those companies in their portfolio are competing to out-bribe each other, there is no gain to the investor. The gains go mostly to a few corrupt executives who get a bigger bonus, and the corrupt foreign officials. Perhaps a few unscrupulous privately held companies would prefer scrap the laws as well, but the reason the laws exist are because they are broadly seen as good for business by most players.
- fluoridation 4y ago
  That's no different from the case where two companies with common shareholders compete with each other. A company is not beholden to increase the net worth of any particular shareholder. If a shareholder owns shares in companies with conflicting interests, that's that shareholder's problem.
  - akamaka 4y ago
    > that's that shareholder's problem Yes, and thus the shareholders have pushed forward anti-bribery initiatives: https://www.weforum.org/communities/partnering-against-corruption-initiative https://www.weforum.org/communities/partnering-against-corru...
- howmayiannoyyou 4y ago
  You don't get it. It's a free for all outside the US, where players seek to line their own pockets, and many a foreign government permits or encourages bribery for strategic or personal gain. FCPA is very well intended, laudable, wonderful, but utterly ineffective at scale and counterproductive to US interests absent meaningful enforcement abroad. Its a fool's errand.
  - akamaka 4y ago
    Completely untrue. This isn’t some fool’s errand with the US standing alone, these laws are being expanded to most of the industrialized world: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/OECD_Anti-Bribery_Convention https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/OECD_Anti-Bribery_Convention
- vkou 4y ago
  It makes sense for companies to advocate for fair play laws (because that forces their competitors to play fair), but when those laws are not in place, to play unfairly. Also, some businesses benefit a lot more from corruption than others. Resource extraction firms, for instance.

howmayiannoyyou 4y ago

You truly do not understand the comment if you think it's misguided, specifically you don't understand: - Difference between laws and enforcement of laws. - Endemic corruption that cares nothing for long-term losses. - Shareholder emphasis on short-terms financial results and utter disinterest in long-term results or compliance (unless it impacts short term stock price). - And, most importantly, global competition and how some foreign countries permit or encourage bribery to advance strategic interests. You live in the fantasyland I described in my earlier comment.

akamaka 4y ago
Not sure what your point is. Anti-bribery laws are being expanded around the world. The OECD covers 2/3s of the world’s GDP, and is actively working to bring all its members up to the same standards. It’s not some “feel good” fantasy, it’s good for the bottom line. Banks and investors don’t want their profits skimmed by corruption, and are pushing for higher integrity. Sure, there still are places like Russia that operate within a Machiavellian worldview, but most of the world has now recognized the value of fair systems that lead to win-win outcomes.
- from 4y ago
  Removing rules against foreign bribery would ultimately result in flows of capital from countries with no rule of law to countries with rule of law. This is especially true if the corrupt officials spend their ill gotten gains in the West. If Glencore can get oil at a 20% discount from Nigeria or Angola why should we be complaining? Given that most of the OECD (except maybe Mexico Turkey and parts of Italy) don’t really have serious corruption problems, it sounds like OECD countries are mostly shooting themselves in the foot. Although America and the UK are the only countries that actually enforce these laws anyways.