Hacker News Reader

Comment by wallace_f | Hacker News Reader

Corruption is everywhere in business, but it's selectively enforced. No finance execs went to jail for the financial crisis.(0)

Perhaps the most frustrating thing about the current political climate is that while fighting corruption headlined presidential campaigns of the long-ago past, it never headlines them today even though almost all of our country's problems are direct results of corruption.

Jobs is a headline issue, but corporate corruption is endless. The financial sector has not been punished, in fact, Goldman Sachs has an influential post in Trump's cabinet(1). The auto industry was awarded bail outs for its corruption. This list goes on forever.

Healthcare could not be fixed, despite the desires of a popular President that wanted to make it his trademark legislation, because of corruption.

We have spent trillions on the War on Poverty, but it's hard to say Americans have much of a social safety net. The War on Drugs has created endless misery and violence, while the journalist who accurately exposed CIA drug running somehow suicided by two gunshot wounds to the head.

We have endless wars, police murdering people without punishment, unconstitutional three letter agencies, and useless government bureaucracies. All the while growing socieconomic inequality.

As developers, we are builders, and so it is in our self interest, and not just moral interest, to fight corruption. And personally, I'd much rather live in a world ruled by innovators and builders than by thugs and thieves.

But every election cycle it feels like there is a divide and conquer to distract us from threatening the plutocracy. Goldman and Wall St win every time. The military wins every time. Healthcare finance execs win every time, etc...

0- https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-07-26/why-no-on...

1-https://theintercept.com/2016/12/09/trump-makes-america-gold...

2-https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Webb

View on HN

> The financial sector has not been punished, in fact, Goldman Sachs has an influential post in Trump's cabinet(1).

Not defending Trump, but GS current and ex-employees have held high level positions in every administration for years. I'm sure GS employees are likely some of the best in their field, but it does leave one wondering when hard decisions get made will they do what is in the best interest of the country even if it is somehow detrimental to GS.

With that said, I hope that when Trump leaves office that people still pay this much attention to what is happening in the government. No matter what your personal views are, holding government accountable is key to a good functioning government.

Dunno about wallace_f but I was critical of Obama putting Geithner as Secretary of Treasury, despite my support for Obama himself.

The corruptive influence of corporations and the wealthy extend beyond parties. However, individuals in a party can still fight corruption.

HN typically lets critical thought rule, which is one of the main reasons I post here. Although it is not perfect, HN is still one of the best online places to have nuanced discussions.

The problem is that the public at large seems to ignore many issues as long as their person is the one in charge.

> The problem is that the public at large seems to ignore many issues as long as their person is the one in charge.

Could this ultimately mean that corruption will be a natural side effect of extensive government power? A vigilant press/populace would be useful and may be what's missing today... but in these niche industries the mega-corporations are still the one with the deepest pockets and the most motivation as they have the most to win/lose.

I'm not trying to make this ideological and anti-government, it's just an interesting thought to consider, that it's possible the only power that can't be exploit is either one severely limited and inherently closely (which may defeat the utility of such a power) or having not power at all.

But that's the problem with revolving doors. How would you hold government accountable when all choices involve Goldman Sachs employees?

Goldman Sachs has never been accused of paying bribes. The worst it got for them during the crisis was the accusation that it misled investors and profited from the crash in the mortgage market. But that's (a) not the same thing as paying bribes and (b) not a well defined accusation to begin with (Goldman claimed its customers were aware of its bets against the mortgage market but its customers still get to pick what they invest in).

>Goldman Sachs has never been accused of paying bribes

In fact, they have(0).

But winners getting away with it happens all the time. Winners sometimes win on merit, sometimes by rule, and sometimes simply because they don't get caught. I would argue Wall St is mostly the last two.

During WWII Curtis LeMay was distraught with his position as leader of the firebombings of innocents in Tokyo. He said "if we lose the war, I will be tried and executed as a war criminal."

It's the same thing here. No one has been indicted for in the financial crisis. No one for Iraq WMD lies, either. The ruling class go to great lengths to not let thenselves be tried as criminals. It doesn't mean they're not owning you.

Case in point: Reasonable people have put the cost of the financial crisis at 6-30 trillion, or more (6 being the lower bound of the Fed's very own estimate). The higher figure is $93,000/per citizen, and it very will could be more than that.(1)

After this, any sane person would have overhauled Wall St, but no one did. We will see big shake ups in Airbus, but not Wall St.

So the corruption in Wall St is either legal, or people don't have enough power to indict them.

0 - https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jun/13/goldman-sac...

1 - https://www.cnbc.com/id/101022718

This is frankly a non-response. You're defining corruption as "things I don't like". If you're going to argue that someone is corrupt, you need to be specific as to what you're accusing them of, and how that fits into a theory of corruption.

Your "case in point" points out the obvious: that people lost a lot of money in a market crash and economic downturn. But market crashes don't require any wrongdoing.

In this case there is in fact evidence that some people were criminally dishonest. Some mortgage brokers who were complicit in applicants' lies, for example. But it's not readily apparent that investment banks did anything wrong, other than make bad decisions for themselves and their customers.

You keep posting this, but you haven't addressed any of the examples I gave to support your argument. To my knowledge these are mostly widely-reported, commonly viewed cases of corruption. Perhaps you could meet me In the middle and try to convince me of why you are right that they aren't, and use more respectful language rather than just lashing out repeatedly "that's ridiculous?"

Here is Bernie Sanders on the Fed: ""This is a clear case of socialism for the rich and rugged, you're-on-your-own individualism for everyone else."

I guess I thought that was self evident in my posts, though?

Individuals did get bailed out from their mortgages. And the banks paid back the bailout money with interest; the government made a profit.

I'm not sure myself whether the bailouts were the right policy, but they were motivated by genuine policy considerations. People feared that letting the banks fail would lead to catastrophic economic collapse. But even if they were wrong, being wrong doesn't make you corrupt.

From your original post:

The War on Drugs has created endless misery and violence, while the journalist who accurately exposed CIA drug running somehow suicided by two gunshot wounds to the head.

We have endless wars, police murdering people without punishment, unconstitutional three letter agencies, and useless government bureaucracies. All the while growing socieconomic inequality.

These aren't claims about corruption, it's a list of things you don't agree with.

The Fed and Treasury both contributed to the bail out. The treasury was paid back, the Fed was not. Most of the bail out came from the Fed. The government did not make a profit wholistically.

If you don't think police killing people and getting away with it is evidence of corruption, or government lying to go to war for profit, etc, etc... then first I would have to ask what your definition of corruption is? The fact is why most people view these as corruption, so what's wrong with that viewpoint?

How about this: what in your mind is an example of corruption?

>"The Fed and Treasury both contributed to the bail out. The treasury was paid back, the Fed was not. Most of the bail out came from the Fed. The government did not make a profit wholistically."

There is no reason the Fed would have been paid back. The US Treasury is the agency that bought the toxic assets from the banks. The architect of TARP was Timothy Geitner the then Treasury Secretary.

The Fed didn't lend any money. The Fed is essentially a nonprofit, after their expenses any profits are always transferred to the US Treasury.

And you are also wrong about the government not making a profit:

https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/

Come on, if you read my post you would be aware that the TARP program you are referencing was only a small fraction of the bail out.

The Fed did lend money. In fact, their primary function is to print and lend money! They do this mainly through the FOMC, where they buy and sell notes to target inflation rates, but they also lend through something called the discount window, and by other means. Where in God's name are you getting so misinformed regarding what the Fed does?

>The US Treasury is the agency that bought the toxic assets from the banks

You would be further behooved to know that since the financial crisis, the Fed has even bought an enormous share of the MBS market, and even other toxic assets! So no, the Fed actually bought many times more assets from the banks than the TARP program.

>The Fed didn't lend any money.

Coming back to this ridiculous notion you have: I don't know where you got it from, and why you are so insistent on reiterating that I am wrong, silly, etc. Here is the reality:

>"Fed facilitated bailouts to financially troubled institutions by invoking its so-called emergency lending authority. The government even forced some banks to take the money against their objections"(1)

So no, no, and no!

And the Fed doesn't need to pay anyone back because they simply print their own money and go buy an asset with it. It is really that simple! It doesn't mean you can get something for nothing, they're just dilluting everyone else's wealth.

Please do me a favor and Google these things yourself next time so I don't have to refute such misinformation.

You've responded aggressively to me like this to me multiple times, and it's coming across as targeted. If you have some personal issue just let me know what your grievance is and we can work towards a solution.

1 - http://dailysignal.com/2009/05/15/paulson-and-the-banks-what...

Also see (yes they're biased, but it's a great, thoroughly-sourced article nonetheless) www.heritage.org/monetary-policy/report/quantitative-easing-the-feds-balance-sheet-and-central-bank-insolvency

>"The Fed did lend money. In fact, their primary function is to print and lend money!"

The primary function of the Fed is NOT to lend money. That statement is so egregious and just plain wrong! And you have the nerve to ask other where they are getting so misnformed? Wow.

The primary function of the Fed is the stability of the US economy. Here you can read the statement here on the Fed's website:

https://www.federalreserveeducation.org/about-the-fed/struct....

And no the Fed also does NOT print money. That statement is also just plain wrong. The US Treasury prints money:

http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/082515/who-decides-w...

Perhaps you misunderstood quantitative easing when the media was saying the "Fed was printing money"? That wasn't literal you know:

https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/money_12853.htm

From the above :

>"The myth that the Federal Reserve prints money only became prevalent following the Great Recession when many were concerned about the unconventional policies of the central bank, which included intervention in the commercial paper market, mortgages and outright purchases of debt to keep the system from collapsing. By the end, the Federal Reserve expanded its balance sheet by nearly $4 trillion."

>"Coming back to this ridiculous notion you have:"

The only lending the Fed does is called the "Discount Window" and it's made available to member banks for the sole purpose of meeting reserve requirements and for a very short term. A bank is not allowed to do anything with money that is borrowed via the Fed's Discount Window. It literally just sits in a vault for the sole purpose of meeting the reserve requirements. Making use of the Discount Window traditionally has had a stigma attached as well and so it is not used very often. Also the rate is higher than banks can get from borrowing from each other. So again it is generally not done.

>"They do this mainly through the FOMC, where they buy and sell notes to target inflation rates..."

And what are they buying in selling through those FOMC operations? US Treasury Notes! So yes their main tool to influence the money supply is an asset that is owned and issued by the US Treasdury.

Here from the Fed's own FAQ:

"The Federal Reserve purchases Treasury securities held by the public through a competitive bidding process. The Federal Reserve does not purchase new Treasury securities directly from the U.S. Treasury, and Federal Reserve purchases of Treasury securities from the public are not a means of financing the federal deficit."[1]

>"Please do me a favor and Google these things yourself next time so I don't have to refute such misinformation."

I don't need to Google about how the Central Bank in the US works, I have an education in it.

Perhaps your incomplete and incorrect understanding of the US Central Bank and US Treasury is because you have simply chosen to "Google" about it instead of sitting down and reading books or enrolling in a University level course?

I'm guessing that's the case. But more egregious than your own incomplete and incorrect understanding of the US financial system is the outsized arrogance you have when displaying your lack of understanding. It's actually anti-social.

[1] https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/how-does-the-federal-res...

Let's take a deep breath, and step back. And please, stop it with the personal attacks and vitriol.

There are 3 major themes of disagrement here: 1.) You defend the Fed as noble. You view the Fed as it sells itself as an altruistic technocracy: to serve and protect the US economy through its dual mandate, and return all profits to taxpayers.

I view the Fed as a private corporation, undemocratically appointed, and profit-seeking entity. The first two are facts of the Fed, the last is a truth about all entities which are the first two.

-Reasonable people can disagree here

2.) Arguing about basically economics 101 stuff

-This can be settled by looking at a textbook

3.) Your attacks and speculation with regard to my personal character, not on my arguments

-This adds nothing of value and is simply unacceptable.

Now, on to a few points about what you wrote:

>Here from the Fed's own FAQ:

When buying notes you are giving money in exchange for a promise that money will later be returned with interest. This is the essence of lending, and why even the very source you linked to says:

>"The Fed lends money to banks"

Further, the Fed is commonly known as "The Lender of Last resort."

So 1.) what the Fed does is lending even if you call it investing or purchasing assets, whatever; 2.) Everyone knows the Fed does this, which is why it's stated as such in your sources, and basically everywhere; 3) I don't care if you call the Fed giving money to banks lending, investing, or an insurance policy, it doesn't matter for the sake of this disagreement. The issue is that the Fed expands the money supply and in this process props up the banks.

Also, as I said in my last post, you would be behooved to check the references I gave you that describe the Fed's lending. This is just economics 101 reading. Additionally, the Fed's balance sheet ballooned to over 4 trillion recently becausd they bought non-traditional securities such as MBSs and "toxic assets." So you are also wrong about your point that it is only treasury notes. I just explained this all in my last post, actually!

Why don't you address these facts in your argument, and read your own sources?

>And no the Fed also does NOT print money.

Everybody knows that the Fed is responsible for expanding the US money supply. However, the only thing you are right about in your post is that the printing press for physical dollars is technically in the treasury. It doesn't mean the treasury has any say or authority with the US money supply.

> instead of sitting down and reading books or enrolling in a University level course?

In fact I actually have an honors degree in econ from a good university. That fact doesn't matter, though. What matters is the arguments and facts themselves. Milton Friedman has a Nobel Prize, it doesn't mean he wasn't wrong about some things. You need to rely less on ad hominens and speculation, and more on adding to the conversation.

You started this conversation with attacks on my credibility, and then posted misinformation. I gave you sources and explained why you were wrong, but then you did worse and became even less respectful me as a user here.

I don't know why you are posting. These posts are not interesting, and add nothing to the conversation other than for me to defend against condescending personal attacks and you spreading misinformation. They are not worth reading.

Ponder for a second what it means for the Fed to "buy" Treasury Notes by simply increasing the database entry for the seller's account. I think you will see that Wallace is right that this is effectively "printing money".

This to me sounds more or less like the meant-to-confuse arguments given by the people involved and their lawyers to confuse the general public until they throw up their hands in despair. I followed the financial crisis closely enough to know that there were numerous laws broken all over the place, and nothing happened.

And no, I'm not going to participate in some nonsense back and forth posting articles to "prove" this, es the ultimate "proof" is always going to be what was decided in a court of "law", which simply demonstrates OP's claim of widespread corruption, but only if you're willing to look honestly.

The story of Goldman Sachs's Libya salesman is more about stupidity than it is about bribery (if it is at all about bribery). Here is Matt Levine's take on it: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-09-29/goldman-s...

It makes very good points about bank-customer relationships in general, too. Discussion on HN at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12610352.

Goldman won the LIA case. The judge dismissed it. So you're technically right: they were accused of paying bribes, but found not guilty. I think that still answers your question:

https://www.ft.com/content/13eabaac-d72d-3e6d-8338-6df9b932e...

I view corruption as some kind of a necessary evil to protect and defend national interests.

I mean you can't always allow corruption at a micro level because it would be inefficient, but it's always allowed at the higher level.

I view corruption as a mean to keep the control of a social structure in the hands of certain interests so that it cannot be hijacked by strangers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apM0d3M-sps

Frankly, the mafia exists because some people don't trust the government or outside/remote political power to gain influence on them. So this way corruption allows people to take back things they think are owed to them.

People call this corruption, but I think people can act in their own interest and as long as we consent to it, it's not corruption, it's just public consent.

I mean there are countless ways that the public benefits from overseas corruption. For example nobody complains that gas is cheap enough. That's a form of corruption, to me.

You call that corruption, I call that consent and a balance of self interest. As long as people are happy enough, everything is good.

This type of doublethink is what undermines confidence in the global order and rule of law.

When some European/Western companies indulges in corruption and out-and-out egregious behavior, it's "just boys being boys" and "too big to fail."

A Chinese company indulges in some industrial espionage or uses that country's diplomatic levers and suddenly the sky is falling down.

E.g., why is Volkswagen still in business after literally setting fire to the world? Why should Airbus not be summarily be liquidated in found guilty of corruption?

Back in the day, news of such corruption would percolate slowly into the rest of world. That is no longer the case. News spreads quickly. People (like me) are watching and hoping that the standards get applied equally and if they don't, I like to think the strength in numbers and youth lies in the East, not the West.

FWIW this phenomenon has been happening since before the dawn of industrialization. If anything it's probably less of a problem in 2017 than it's ever been.

That doesn't mean we should stop treating it like a problem. It just means we should look back on our sordid history as a species and take that as encouragement that we can keep improving.

And it starts with awareness. Who today talks about the BP oil and Exxon Valdez oil spills, or Love Canal, or Enron†?

†Execs only got prosecuted and convicted here because more powerful people lost money because of them.

Why do you think that liquidating companies that are employing tens of thousands, and providing transportation mechanisms for billions is a good idea?

The market for civil airliners is already far too concentrated and dysfunctional, it'd be even worse with a single player (Boeing).

Finding who's been involved in the decision-making process and punishing them harshly is fair and does send the right message. Destroying a large corporation arbitrarily doesn't.

Besides, in both Volkswagen and Airbus cases, they're far from being the sole bad actors in their respective industries. You'd only hand their marketshare to others who've been slightly better at not getting caught but were really doing the same thing all along.

Destroying companies hurts shareholders, who ultimately allow/encourage/demand their companies' bad behavior. If you're a fund manager, and the value of your Xyz Corp stock were at risk of going to $0 due to its execs' bad behavior, you would be incentivized to make sure the board is actually discouraging bad behavior.

Without this threat, we have the situation we have today: Companies never get significantly punished for anything, "because jobs," and corruption is rampant.

Shareholders don't have much insight or influence on the day-to-day in a business, so I don't think this would work very well.

I don't think they would have to if anyone involved would face this ultimate payment for their misbehavior. However, I think that it would lead to even better mechanisms to hide the corruption and turn the lobby machine on. It's easy to lobby when a company has to be closed down and many uninvolved people lose their jobs. Which politician would like to face this anger?

Maybe it's better to start the change from the other side. Make people understand and feel what it means if they are being cheated of their tax money.

I don't think you understand the kind of access fund managers have to the companies they invest in. Surely you do realise that they are not poring over the source code written at the companies they invest in (or their contractors and subcontractors), nor read every email or every entry in every expense account.

Shareholders of VW have already taken a massive hit when the stock tanked. Destroying the company would achieve nothing at all. The efficient and fair course of action is to prosecute the executives who made or authorised illegal decisions while minimising impact on those not involved. Shareholders are not a substitute for a court of law, and rash group punishment has never worked out well.

Hacker News isn’t the place to get into polemics so I’ll drop the subject. All I’ll say is I hate the optics of TBTF and companies like VW, Airbus, and the like getting a free ride because they are “Western”.

The fundamental human right is not freedom, self-determination, or happiness, it’s the right to fairness and the current world order, imho, is unfair. It will continue to be unfair until the rules are applied equally regardless of which cohort loses jobs or which fat cat banker dies in a ditch.

Maybe because VW didn't 'literally' set 'fire to the world?'

Thanks for the point of view. I really don't agree, but maybe you can convince me of it?

So how does corruption in the finance, auto, and other sectors that destroyed jobs, work out to be a net benefit?

When the US cancelled the Boeing 2707 due to corruption, why was that good? How was the Challenger disaster good? I mean, these are not even cases of the most blatant corruption out there, I'm just trying to make the case that we should ideally strive for it to be weeded out of everything because it does cause real harm.

Maybe you can you give me examples of corruption which can be good for humanity to convince me?

Personally, I would rather live in a world where we compete on merit and strive for progress, rather than some slimey people building 10-min apps for 1.4MM b/c of: corruption(1).

What do you think of the corruption in the War on Drugs and private prison system, which disproportionately targets minorities for profit?

I think most people don't want to fight against the mafia, or other corrupt peoples, because they care about their physical safety, not because they consent to it.

The only example I see you gave was that we benefit from corruption abroad. However, that still doesn't make me feel any better about it because it is a net expense to humanity. Besides caring about others, I don't need cheap gas and it is already ruining our environment.

https://gizmodo.com/tsas-1-4-million-app-takes-about-10-minu...

I am not arguing for corruption, I am just saying that corruption appears for certain reasons, and can be the least painful mean to motivate individuals and raise a system out of its mediocrity. I don't really think it's a good thing, it's just a social phenomena.

The war on drugs is born out of the fear of citizens not being able to regulate their consumption of narcotics, just like during the prohibition.

If you remove your moral compass, you quickly understand a lot of how the human world works.

Corruption is a form of currency, and always has been. It is the norm. It makes thing much easier for a leadership system to work fast within a tight loop of trusted insiders. It is evil, but at the end of the day it reflects the will of voters if they don't try hard enough to stop it.

"Frankly, the mafia exists because some people don't trust the government or outside/remote political power to gain influence on them. So this way corruption allows people to take back things they think are owed to them."

No. Mafia exists because the state is too weak to enforce property rights and personal safety of the citizens, so a local thug (or a band of thugs) take advantage of it. Most people would prefer not to pay the Mafia but they don't want to be shot by mafia thugs.

"As long as people are happy enough, everything is good."

This could be said to justify literally any horrible act.

I don't advocate for what I am saying, I just try to explain what I see.

> national interests

Who says what the national interests are? If corruption rules, then it's just those in power preserving and exploiting what they have.

> keep the control of a social structure in the hands of certain interests so that it cannot be hijacked by strangers

What strangers are you talking about? Why do the 'strangers' have any less right to power than you do? Why aren't you a 'stranger'?

Corruption has a well-documented and significant economic cost. It benefits the corrupt at the expense of everyone else. When government officials act to line their own pockets, it's not hard to see where the costs are. For example, when defense officials take bribes to choose a certain vendor, it harms national defense, because inferior products are being used; it kills soldiers (and the civilians they are defending), because of inferior products; and of course it takes money from taxpayers. It's not hard to see how it fails.

The strangers would be foreign interests.

Of course corruption has a cost, but it doesn't mean one can bring a more virtuous alternative to work. Frankly you can't really measure and evaluate how the world would be without corruption. It is called politics, management, regulations, policy enforcement, etc.

But we can at least try our best to minimize it, and instead try to maximize individual liberty.

Personally, I hate seeing cheaters win; and I hate even more seeing people suffer for no good reason.

I agree with you, unfortunately society has evolved to tolerate cheaters and corruption, instead of going towards a more virtuous society.

At least the world now is much more virtuous with democracy than it was before the 1800's.

We can try to minimize it, but as always, if there is not enough political capital to do something about, nothing will be done. Citizens and consumers are being content with what they have. When climate change will hit, or when inequality will be felt, things might change.

Can you give me some evidence to support your idea that the Americs is more just now than it was in the 18th century, except for the obvious example of racial injustice?

It must be said that corruption of the sort alleged at Airbus has become rather rare.

The US' Foreign Corrupt Practices Act[0] has, for example, done wonders. The US had decided that it wouldn't allow its domestic companies to bribe foreign officials. And because they were (legitimately) afraid of losing business to countries with lax standards, they expanded its power to foreign companies.

Until the late 90s, for example, most European countries allowed the tax deduction of foreign bribes. Yeah, it wasn't just legal, but tax-supported. That changed dramatically with the FCPA, and actions such as Airbus' are now the exception rather than the norm.

It's similar in politics, where I think people vastly overestimate the number of money-filled suitcases changing hands.

The problem today is a different form of political corruption, namely that which has been legalised by Citizens United.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Corrupt_Practices_Act

>The US' Foreign Corrupt Practices Act[0] has, for example, done wonders

>Until the late 90s, for example, most European countries allowed the tax deduction of foreign bribes

Very fair points

However, what I would say is that without perverse incentives, the only thing between humanity and solving all of these problems, is incompetence.

I think that for the most part, these people do know what they're doing.

Also, you are right only so far that ostensibly this sort of corruption is rare. You don't hear about the people who were not caught. Just look at what is coming out of hollywood, and how long that took to come out, and yes there were figurative brief cases filled with money, one of them even discovered(1).

1-www.vulture.com/2017/10/harvey-weinstein-lawyer-david-boies-money-to-da-after-dropped-assault-case.html

Not sure I believe that, but it might have. It seems these companies are mostly using middle men now, for example, see Unaoil: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unaoil.

I'm not pro corruption, but I'm also aware that in many parts of the world, if you want to operate in a certain market, there will always be a need for some "greasing of the wheels".

I would assume that, as a country develops and grows, the amount of corruption will generally naturally decline.

Greasing of wheels is actually permitted for ordinary affairs

Under US law? So you can bribe someone to get a construction or operating permit, but not to acquire a $100m property development project? That's a bit hypocritical no?

Iit's specifically minor bribes required to get anything done even if you comply with the law. Bribing a building inspector to overlook safety problems, that's an FCPA violation. Tipping him $20 to thank him for his hard work on verifying your construction's code compliance, not a problem. The text is so:

> Subsections (a) and (g) of this section shall not apply to any facilitating or expediting payment to a foreign official, political party, or party official the purpose of which is to expedite or to secure the performance of a routine governmental action by a foreign official, political party, or party official.

On my own continent, North America, showing 'documentaçion' (paying a small bribe) is customary and not considered abnormal.

I enjoy spending time in Latin America and, truth be told, the system works. As a foreigner, I'm expected to pay more but the price isn't that much. If I were doing something illegal, I'd pay even more.

It doesn't even always have to be currency. Outside of the tourist areas, the policia may very well have a checkpoint before you enter a region. Cold beer is always welcome, as is soda. Etc...

That's right here on my continent. You can find that just driving outside the tourist areas of Mexico. There's some effort to make it look official, but you can hand them a magazine with $5 - $20 in it, and they will slip it into their pocket, flip through the magazine, and wave you through. If you use a porno magazine, they may just keep it.

What exactly about this works for you?

It gets things done quickly and easily. They don't make much money so it provides them with additional income. You can pay more for various services or head turning.

It's pretty effective and pragmatic.

An effective way of privileging wealthier foreigners, yup - not as effective in promoting domestic economic growth or serving poorer citizens I'm guessing.

The police are pretty poor, you know. One act doesn't have to help everyone. Is it right? No. It is effective and pragmatic.

I once met someone who claimed that while they were in Vietnam they had been accused of having hard drugs. Despite the person's apparent innocence, they claimed to have paid over 500 euro to be let go.

I also met someone who claimed in Malaysia their rental had the windows smashed out. They went to the police and the police didn't care to investigate, look at cctv, or help in any way.

So I just don't see how this is pragmatic in any way for the average person for police to be more interested in road stoppages in these countries to collect $10 from every car than to actually solve crime. Why employ them at all?

They do actually do some police work. They don't just hang out and collect a toll. Locals may not even pay the toll.

It is what it is and you're going to pay it if you want t travel there. If not, they'll find a way to dress it up legally and you'll pay it as a fine. You might just as well pay the smaller amount, then they won't beat you on your way to the local jail.

Not every country is what people seem to be expecting, and less so when you get away from tourist areas. I do not condone it, but I understand.

Also, I don't mind the downvoats, I have karma to spare. If this makes people uncomfortable, perhaps it's good that they know about it. It's pretty blatant, once you're out of the tourist areas - and happens all across the globe, not just there.

>I would assume that, as a country develops and grows, the amount of corruption will generally naturally decline.

Why would you assume that? The corruption gets fixed first, usually in an entirely unnatural way (e.g. top down crackdowns), and only then the country grows.

And corruption by foreign agents is one of the most efficient ways to prevent rival countries growth.

Working in china, we were made clearly aware of the FCPA (it applies to individuals also), and we had to change our businesses practices multiple times to stay in compliance. We couldn't even buy a grad student lunch without a lot of paper work because of their government connection.

I felt like there was still bribing going on but it was very very indirect. For example, some things like the government making us buy security from particular firms seemed like a legalized bribe as the security guards never actually did anything.

I agree with everything you say, however I am pessimistic on your view of builders; look at those who are "builders" and have money and political ambitions: thiel and zuck for example. Corrupt as hell.

Sure they have built stuff but I wouldn't trust them.

Heck at this point the only builders I think we could trust would be musk and gates...

Plus, this article ( https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/oct/05/smartphon... ) was on top of HN last week; innovators and builders feeling guilt about what they have made, even though it was all good intentions.

Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely

zuck obviously has never been one to carry a moral compass, but what's so bad about Thiel?

Anyways, the problem with politicians is their ability to get themselves elected already disqualifies them from the job. At least doctors, engineers, and scientists from the hard sciences seem to have to show some kind of positive merit, even if they're still not a perfect lot.

You keep conflating corruption with views different than your own.

If financial executives had been investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent, it might have sent a much needed message -- and beyond just the financial sector itself.

White collar, "banker's stripes" crime has too little attendant risk, and what risk does exist, is too often a financial risk that is dwarfed by the profits and furthermore paid by the institution rather than the individual.

Imagine if you could rob a bank, and when caught, pay 5 or 10% of what you gained and walk away.

Bank robbery would be a growth sector.

>"As developers, we are builders, and so it is in our self interest, and not just moral interest, to fight corruption. And personally, I'd much rather live in a world ruled by innovators and builders than by thugs and thieves."

Fighting corruption is in society's best interest period. It's no more important to one specific profession than it is another. That's really an odd thing to say.

Also you realize that Wall Street Banks and Aerospace companies either are or were innovators and builders and thats how they got to where they are correct? Also the technology sector is no way impervious to corruption.

I wonder how much value modern financial innovations actually add to the economy. Certainly CDSs, CMOs and others haven't added any.

By the way I'm fine with financial firms that risk their own money. Global banking empires risking other people's money and insured by the American citizen have proven to take more from the economy than they add though. Without the Fed pumping them full of easy money, and with Glass Steagall, they wouldn't even exist.

And yes, power corrupts no matter which industry you come from, but at least in engineering, science, medicine, or even sports, etc there is ostensibly some kind of respectable merit required in success. Just look at the richest tech moguls in the world, and it's clear what they contributed. What exactly did the richest financiers like Jeffrey Epstein, Jamie Dimon, or George Soros contribute? It's hard to put a finger on it. If anything it appears they profit off of others demise.

>"I wonder how much value modern financial innovations actually add to the economy."

Money market funds and mutual funds are innovations which have helped people save for retirement. Venture Capital funds have enabled many tech companies to flourish. The Commercial paper market has made payroll at large corporation much more efficient. Securitization of debt although it can obviously be abused is what allows people to get financing to buy homes and get car loans. These were all innovations. I am no defender of the banking industry but to say that there hasn't been value added by any of these innovation seems pretty silly.

>I am no defender of the banking industry but to say that there hasn't been value added by any of these innovation seems pretty silly.

Come on, you are responding to an argument I never even made. To restate what I said: the value added by securitization is dubious, and likely even negative. I asked what really is the value of modern financial innovation which you addressed. I maintain that it is a fair question to wonder if that value is worth the cost Wall St has on the economy.

All three of your posts in this topic are directed at me, and are unnecessarily negative and condescending, while two of them contain glaring factual errors. What is going on here?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com