7 ms·

To get back to the article. I think a lot of businessmen get locked up because they did not play by the un-official rules and thought, perhaps some thought, the

To get back to the article. I think a lot of businessmen get locked up because they did not play by the un-official rules and thought, perhaps some thought, they could function like they would do in the West or in America. Whilst the situation in Russia is undoubtedly horrific, let's not pretend that corruption isn't endemic in the rest of the world; some counties have just legalized it to some extent. Crony capitalism is criticised but rarely has action taken against it, and political campaign donations are seen as being perfectly acceptable. It doesn't appear to matter whether it's giving money to US senators, or joining "donor's clubs" that guarantee access to the UK's prime minister, e.g.: http://www.conservatives.com/donate/donor_clubs.aspx http://www.conservatives.com/donate/donor_clubs.aspx

molmalo 14y ago
yay! You just taught me a new term in english: Crony capitalism. It's almost the same in spanish btw: ("capitalismo de amigos", literally: "friend's capitalism"). Thanks for that ;) And yes, that kind of problem seems to be present all around the world. Probably, it's something related to human nature. And sometimes, it looks like the system is trying to encourage that behavior. We learn of the importance of knowing certain people, pertaining to certain circles, making contacts, grow our social network, and so on. As a simple example, things like LinkedIn are essentially encouraging the use of our contacts, to get an advantage in our professional careers. Doing that in public service, would be unethical (and most probably, illegal). But doing it in the private sector, seems to be fine. So, that dichotomy blurs as long as it doesn't go too far away. But then, you'll eventually end up in that crony capitalism... unless something or someone stops you. And sadly, the law doesn't seem to be stopping anyone.
- hessenwolf 14y ago
  There aren't many 'English' words! wikipedia: The word "crony" first appeared in 18th century London, according to the Oxford English Dictionary to be derived from the Greek word χρόνιος (chronios), meaning "long-term".[2]
Andrew_Quentin 14y ago
That may be so, but it is difficult to suggest that the legal system is corrupt in the west. The worst part about the article is the fact that there is no fair trial in Russia. Imagine a fictitious world where everything is corrupt, but the legal system. It isn't a perfect place to live, but, you know that at the very least your freedom is protected, your contract if breached is remunerated etc. Imagine a fictitious world where everything is not corrupt, but the legal system is. In such place, one has no freedom, for out of spite perhaps, out of jealousy, out of greed, someone could simply send you to prison. 7 acquittals in 1000 cases, and even then 5 overturned, so practically only 2 people being acquitted in 1000 cases is a practical tyrannical state. In the west, at least, the legal system protects against corruption by itself not being corrupt. If such bastion of freedom fails, then the land is no longer free.
- TylerE 14y ago
  >That may be so, but it is difficult to suggest that the legal system is corrupt in the west. Is it? I think it's hard to argue that it ISN'T. How else can you justify poor people getting 20+ year sentences for relatively minor crimes, while white collar criminals can steal MILLIONS, and get a slap on the wrist? When's the last time you saw a major celebrity or pro athlete actually A: Get convicted for something, and B: Serve real time?
  - Andrew_Quentin 14y ago
    Why should a celebrity get convicted of something unless they have committed a crime? I think America may be a bit of an exception actually since you guys elect your judges. That sounds ridiculous to me. It is like electing your doctor or your engineers. Some things simply are best left to technocrats. That said, in the UK at least, you have the choice of five appeals before a final, conclusive say is given in your case. Take for example Assange, the Wikileaks founder. It is difficult to find a more political example. He went up to the highest court. That final hearing was held in public, as all hearings are, it was televised, again as all hearings are, you can read the judicial decision, as with all judicial decision. No one was corrupted. You can't corrupt them, because there is complete transparency. Now take the hacking scandal. At least 10 people have been imprisoned and are awaiting trial I think. Maddof is another example. We will see what comes out of Libor, etc. We don't live in a perfect world, but we are the closest to it I think. In regards to your point about 20+ year sentence for a relatively minor crime, I think you will find that the media often sensationalises things to get attention. If you delve into these cases, by for example, reading the judicial decision which are available to everyone, you will most probably find that the decision if not to your agreement, is reasonable and justified. To conclude with clearly showing that there is no comparison between America or the West and Russia, if you look at 1,000 cases, you are very likely to find way more non guilty verdicts than in 2 cases.
ajays 14y ago
Whilst the situation in Russia is undoubtedly horrific, let's not pretend that corruption isn't endemic in the rest of the world; some counties have just legalized it to some extent. Every time there's a discussion of corruption, people make this statement, and it bothers me (I'm originally from India, which has a lot of corruption too). You cannot just equate the two. Corruption as described by the GP is like a cancer which has metastasized all over the body; corruption in the West is like an isolated blotch of melanoma on the skin. So yes, there is corruption everywhere I guess ( perhaps even in Sweden and Norway and Switzerland); but it's not at the same level as that in Somalia and Russia. The thing that draws entrepreneurs from all over the world to the US is that it is almost trivial to register and start a business here; and even if you're wildly successful, your "corruption overhead" is minimal (the occasional $35K dinner for $PRESIDENTIAL_CANDIDATE notwithstanding). This may not be the case in ALL industries, but in general it's true. Consider for example Google. Till a few years ago, despite revenue in the billions, Google didn't even have a lobbying presence in DC. This is not to say that we should not be alert. The way lobbying (i.e. corruption) is playing out in DC is a troubling trend. If things are left unchecked, there could come a time when, for example, instead of putting a competitor in jail (as in the article), companies would just get laws passed which kneecapped the competitor. We're not there yet (there might be exceptions), but we have to be vigilant.
- arthurrr 14y ago
  I think entrepreneurs are drawn to the US simply because it is the biggest economy. The corruption overhead is just a cost of doing business, you don't pay, your customers do, you just have to account for it when you create the pricing structure. I think Google is an exception, because it is a technology company. I would say the amount of corruption depends on the age of the industry and the vested interests, technology is so new it just isn't there yet. On the other hand, you have the financial industry and the big New York banks. The SEC is bought and paid for, they will never prosecute one of the big banks, and a judge will never rule against them either. One of the most interesting stories is Martin Armstrong (perhaps the only person in the world who actually understands how the global economy works imo) who was held in contempt of court in jail without trial for like 7 years because the government wanted to silence him. In the US you won't really see the corruption at the lower levels, but the higher up you go, the more corruption you will find. The corruption is hidden and more sophisticated. The real corruption occurs at the highest levels, behind the curtain. Governments are simply tools used by those who are really in power. It's more profitable to make your competitor (unknowingly) become your economic slave than it is to put them in jail.

molmalo 14y ago

yay! You just taught me a new term in english: Crony capitalism. It's almost the same in spanish btw: ("capitalismo de amigos", literally: "friend's capitalism"). Thanks for that ;) And yes, that kind of problem seems to be present all around the world. Probably, it's something related to human nature. And sometimes, it looks like the system is trying to encourage that behavior. We learn of the importance of knowing certain people, pertaining to certain circles, making contacts, grow our social network, and so on. As a simple example, things like LinkedIn are essentially encouraging the use of our contacts, to get an advantage in our professional careers. Doing that in public service, would be unethical (and most probably, illegal). But doing it in the private sector, seems to be fine. So, that dichotomy blurs as long as it doesn't go too far away. But then, you'll eventually end up in that crony capitalism... unless something or someone stops you. And sadly, the law doesn't seem to be stopping anyone.

hessenwolf 14y ago
There aren't many 'English' words! wikipedia: The word "crony" first appeared in 18th century London, according to the Oxford English Dictionary to be derived from the Greek word χρόνιος (chronios), meaning "long-term".[2]

Andrew_Quentin 14y ago

That may be so, but it is difficult to suggest that the legal system is corrupt in the west. The worst part about the article is the fact that there is no fair trial in Russia. Imagine a fictitious world where everything is corrupt, but the legal system. It isn't a perfect place to live, but, you know that at the very least your freedom is protected, your contract if breached is remunerated etc. Imagine a fictitious world where everything is not corrupt, but the legal system is. In such place, one has no freedom, for out of spite perhaps, out of jealousy, out of greed, someone could simply send you to prison. 7 acquittals in 1000 cases, and even then 5 overturned, so practically only 2 people being acquitted in 1000 cases is a practical tyrannical state. In the west, at least, the legal system protects against corruption by itself not being corrupt. If such bastion of freedom fails, then the land is no longer free.

TylerE 14y ago
>That may be so, but it is difficult to suggest that the legal system is corrupt in the west. Is it? I think it's hard to argue that it ISN'T. How else can you justify poor people getting 20+ year sentences for relatively minor crimes, while white collar criminals can steal MILLIONS, and get a slap on the wrist? When's the last time you saw a major celebrity or pro athlete actually A: Get convicted for something, and B: Serve real time?
- Andrew_Quentin 14y ago
  Why should a celebrity get convicted of something unless they have committed a crime? I think America may be a bit of an exception actually since you guys elect your judges. That sounds ridiculous to me. It is like electing your doctor or your engineers. Some things simply are best left to technocrats. That said, in the UK at least, you have the choice of five appeals before a final, conclusive say is given in your case. Take for example Assange, the Wikileaks founder. It is difficult to find a more political example. He went up to the highest court. That final hearing was held in public, as all hearings are, it was televised, again as all hearings are, you can read the judicial decision, as with all judicial decision. No one was corrupted. You can't corrupt them, because there is complete transparency. Now take the hacking scandal. At least 10 people have been imprisoned and are awaiting trial I think. Maddof is another example. We will see what comes out of Libor, etc. We don't live in a perfect world, but we are the closest to it I think. In regards to your point about 20+ year sentence for a relatively minor crime, I think you will find that the media often sensationalises things to get attention. If you delve into these cases, by for example, reading the judicial decision which are available to everyone, you will most probably find that the decision if not to your agreement, is reasonable and justified. To conclude with clearly showing that there is no comparison between America or the West and Russia, if you look at 1,000 cases, you are very likely to find way more non guilty verdicts than in 2 cases.

ajays 14y ago

Whilst the situation in Russia is undoubtedly horrific, let's not pretend that corruption isn't endemic in the rest of the world; some counties have just legalized it to some extent. Every time there's a discussion of corruption, people make this statement, and it bothers me (I'm originally from India, which has a lot of corruption too). You cannot just equate the two. Corruption as described by the GP is like a cancer which has metastasized all over the body; corruption in the West is like an isolated blotch of melanoma on the skin. So yes, there is corruption everywhere I guess ( perhaps even in Sweden and Norway and Switzerland); but it's not at the same level as that in Somalia and Russia. The thing that draws entrepreneurs from all over the world to the US is that it is almost trivial to register and start a business here; and even if you're wildly successful, your "corruption overhead" is minimal (the occasional $35K dinner for $PRESIDENTIAL_CANDIDATE notwithstanding). This may not be the case in ALL industries, but in general it's true. Consider for example Google. Till a few years ago, despite revenue in the billions, Google didn't even have a lobbying presence in DC. This is not to say that we should not be alert. The way lobbying (i.e. corruption) is playing out in DC is a troubling trend. If things are left unchecked, there could come a time when, for example, instead of putting a competitor in jail (as in the article), companies would just get laws passed which kneecapped the competitor. We're not there yet (there might be exceptions), but we have to be vigilant.

arthurrr 14y ago
I think entrepreneurs are drawn to the US simply because it is the biggest economy. The corruption overhead is just a cost of doing business, you don't pay, your customers do, you just have to account for it when you create the pricing structure. I think Google is an exception, because it is a technology company. I would say the amount of corruption depends on the age of the industry and the vested interests, technology is so new it just isn't there yet. On the other hand, you have the financial industry and the big New York banks. The SEC is bought and paid for, they will never prosecute one of the big banks, and a judge will never rule against them either. One of the most interesting stories is Martin Armstrong (perhaps the only person in the world who actually understands how the global economy works imo) who was held in contempt of court in jail without trial for like 7 years because the government wanted to silence him. In the US you won't really see the corruption at the lower levels, but the higher up you go, the more corruption you will find. The corruption is hidden and more sophisticated. The real corruption occurs at the highest levels, behind the curtain. Governments are simply tools used by those who are really in power. It's more profitable to make your competitor (unknowingly) become your economic slave than it is to put them in jail.