3 ms·

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

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.

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.