4 ms·
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. - E
by 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 agoNot 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 agoRemoving 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.