5 ms·

and Emmanual/Daley, Bloomberg, and Villaraigosa don't? Every big city suffers from quite a bit of corruption, from backroom deals to strong-arm unions. This doe

and Emmanual/Daley, Bloomberg, and Villaraigosa don't? Every big city suffers from quite a bit of corruption, from backroom deals to strong-arm unions. This doesn't explain Detroit.

JackFr 13y ago
Bloomberg doesn't. As a mayor he's fairly incorruptible, at least in terms of money. He pays for his own elections, and basically does whatever he feels like. With a net worth of 27 billion it's unlikely that anyone could offer him a monetary bribe worth looking at.
- drzaiusapelord 13y ago
  Except he's not dictator and favor debt is just as real as money debt. The members of the NYC council have their own interests, corruptions, etc that he need to work with. There's this idea that a mega-rich politician will be incorruptable. I'm not sure that's ever been true. The system is bigger than just one guy making decisions and even the head of an organization needs to keep a lot of people happy.
  - JackFr 13y ago
    Well, the thing is trading favors with the city council is politics, not corruption. You might not like what he did to have the city council extend term limits so he could run a third time, but it was above board, and no different politicking to get the law passed to begin with. And I have no doubt that New York City's government has corruption, but comment I was responding to specifically referred to mayors. I get that the head of an organization needs to keep a lot of people happy and the executive may need to needle and cajole, but as I said, that isn't corruption that's politics.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > Bloomberg doesn't. As a mayor he's fairly incorruptible, at least in terms of money. He pays for his own elections, and basically does whatever he feels like. That's not an argument that he doesn't give deals to his friends and do other corrupt things, its an argument that to the extent he does it, its because its out of desire for the, e.g., helping a friend, and not desire for kickbacks from helping someone with money to gain. Both are corrupt. Even, if you accept the "rich = uninterested in money" argument, which I will address next... > With a net worth of 27 billion it's unlikely that anyone could offer him a monetary bribe worth looking at. Alternatively, getting to a net worth of $27 billion is the external evidence of a consistent, dedicated, long-term behavior pattern of not missing an opportunity to milk every last drop of financial return out of any opportunity.
  - JackFr 13y ago
    To your first point, I guess I don't understand your definition of corruption. I think your example is exercising a legitimate power as a mayor, to the benefit of a friend rather than to the benefit of some other deserving party, and no benefit to himself other than a warm fuzzy feeling. That is poor governance, but it is not corruption. To your second point, virtually all of Michael Bloomberg's wealth comes from 'Bloomberg' the company. 'Bloomberg' the company has one business -- terminals on traders' desks. Everything else they do is a loss-leader to advertise the terminals. For the past 20 years every bond trader in New York and London has paid BBG around $3000 a month and will continue to, until some young whipper snapper from HN disrupts the industry and dislodges them from traders. Reuters came close, and is currently mounting a new challenge, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

and Emmanual/Daley, Bloomberg, and Villaraigosa don't? Every big city suffers from quite a bit of corruption, from backroom deals to strong-arm unions. This doesn't explain Detroit.

JackFr 13y ago

Bloomberg doesn't. As a mayor he's fairly incorruptible, at least in terms of money. He pays for his own elections, and basically does whatever he feels like. With a net worth of 27 billion it's unlikely that anyone could offer him a monetary bribe worth looking at.

drzaiusapelord 13y ago
Except he's not dictator and favor debt is just as real as money debt. The members of the NYC council have their own interests, corruptions, etc that he need to work with. There's this idea that a mega-rich politician will be incorruptable. I'm not sure that's ever been true. The system is bigger than just one guy making decisions and even the head of an organization needs to keep a lot of people happy.
- JackFr 13y ago
  Well, the thing is trading favors with the city council is politics, not corruption. You might not like what he did to have the city council extend term limits so he could run a third time, but it was above board, and no different politicking to get the law passed to begin with. And I have no doubt that New York City's government has corruption, but comment I was responding to specifically referred to mayors. I get that the head of an organization needs to keep a lot of people happy and the executive may need to needle and cajole, but as I said, that isn't corruption that's politics.
dragonwriter 13y ago
> Bloomberg doesn't. As a mayor he's fairly incorruptible, at least in terms of money. He pays for his own elections, and basically does whatever he feels like. That's not an argument that he doesn't give deals to his friends and do other corrupt things, its an argument that to the extent he does it, its because its out of desire for the, e.g., helping a friend, and not desire for kickbacks from helping someone with money to gain. Both are corrupt. Even, if you accept the "rich = uninterested in money" argument, which I will address next... > With a net worth of 27 billion it's unlikely that anyone could offer him a monetary bribe worth looking at. Alternatively, getting to a net worth of $27 billion is the external evidence of a consistent, dedicated, long-term behavior pattern of not missing an opportunity to milk every last drop of financial return out of any opportunity.
- JackFr 13y ago
  To your first point, I guess I don't understand your definition of corruption. I think your example is exercising a legitimate power as a mayor, to the benefit of a friend rather than to the benefit of some other deserving party, and no benefit to himself other than a warm fuzzy feeling. That is poor governance, but it is not corruption. To your second point, virtually all of Michael Bloomberg's wealth comes from 'Bloomberg' the company. 'Bloomberg' the company has one business -- terminals on traders' desks. Everything else they do is a loss-leader to advertise the terminals. For the past 20 years every bond trader in New York and London has paid BBG around $3000 a month and will continue to, until some young whipper snapper from HN disrupts the industry and dislodges them from traders. Reuters came close, and is currently mounting a new challenge, but I wouldn't hold my breath.