4 ms·

And no bribe was offered? Undertaking a project in an area like that without being willing either to shoot or to bribe government officials strikes me as naive

by dfranke 18y ago

And no bribe was offered? Undertaking a project in an area like that without being willing either to shoot or to bribe government officials strikes me as naive.

fub4r 18y ago
Naive or principled? Who knows in this case. Sad reality is that in many parts of the world you've got to factor bribes into your financials.
- andreyf 18y ago
  ...in many parts of the world you've got to factor bribes into your financials... In most parts, and not just to do business.
h34t 18y ago
It's also illegal for a US, Canadian or European company to offer bribes to government officials abroad. A recent crackdown cost Siemens $1.6 billion, as bribes were apart of their standard system of doing business. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/worldbusiness/21siemens.html http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/worldbusiness/21s...
- dfranke 18y ago
  It occurs to me that it would be a fascinating test case if a charity like this one were to be tried for bribery and plead self-defense.
  - anamax 18y ago
    "plead self-defense" to whom? To the govt that you didn't grease correctly? To the govt in your home country that thinks that bribing other govts is wrong? Note that "self-defense" typically is to prevent grave bodily harm or death and is usually reserved for immediate threats. Not being able to build houses for some poor wretch who will probably live at least a few weeks without the house doesn't qualify.
    - dfranke 18y ago
      To the home government. And while self-defense typically connotes imminent grave bodily harm, it is also typically plead only when one is accused of inflicting the same. In a country with rule of law, in non-imminent situations one is expected to seek the help of authorities rather than take matters into his own hands. But when that expectation is clearly unrealistic, then you have an interesting case.
      - anamax 18y ago
        > In a country with rule of law, in non-imminent situations one is expected to seek the help of authorities rather than take matters into his own hands. But when that expectation is clearly unrealistic, then you have an interesting case. No, you don't. The home govt has decided that bribery is wrong. It's well aware that banning bribery will mean that some poor wretch won't get a house and believes that that's an acceptable price to pay for the benefits of banning bribery.

by dfranke 18y ago

And no bribe was offered? Undertaking a project in an area like that without being willing either to shoot or to bribe government officials strikes me as naive.

fub4r 18y ago

Naive or principled? Who knows in this case. Sad reality is that in many parts of the world you've got to factor bribes into your financials.

andreyf 18y ago
...in many parts of the world you've got to factor bribes into your financials... In most parts, and not just to do business.

h34t 18y ago

It's also illegal for a US, Canadian or European company to offer bribes to government officials abroad. A recent crackdown cost Siemens $1.6 billion, as bribes were apart of their standard system of doing business. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/worldbusiness/21siemens.html http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/worldbusiness/21s...

dfranke 18y ago
It occurs to me that it would be a fascinating test case if a charity like this one were to be tried for bribery and plead self-defense.
- anamax 18y ago
  "plead self-defense" to whom? To the govt that you didn't grease correctly? To the govt in your home country that thinks that bribing other govts is wrong? Note that "self-defense" typically is to prevent grave bodily harm or death and is usually reserved for immediate threats. Not being able to build houses for some poor wretch who will probably live at least a few weeks without the house doesn't qualify.
  - dfranke 18y ago
    To the home government. And while self-defense typically connotes imminent grave bodily harm, it is also typically plead only when one is accused of inflicting the same. In a country with rule of law, in non-imminent situations one is expected to seek the help of authorities rather than take matters into his own hands. But when that expectation is clearly unrealistic, then you have an interesting case.
    - anamax 18y ago
      > In a country with rule of law, in non-imminent situations one is expected to seek the help of authorities rather than take matters into his own hands. But when that expectation is clearly unrealistic, then you have an interesting case. No, you don't. The home govt has decided that bribery is wrong. It's well aware that banning bribery will mean that some poor wretch won't get a house and believes that that's an acceptable price to pay for the benefits of banning bribery.