Hacker News Reader

Comment by Iv | Hacker News Reader

Reminds me of an old story:

https://www.economist.com/special-report/2003/06/12/airbuss-...

Maybe people here have never heard the EU point of view on it, so let me sum it up: Airbus bribed Saudi officials in the 90s to get a 6 billion contracts. It was "whistleblowed" by this then little-known agency: NSA and in the end Boeing got the contract. It triggered a EU investigation in what was then called ECHELON. A Cold-war era spying network that was being repurposed for economic intelligence.

Airbus defense was that in Saudi Arabia, nothing gets done without corruption and Boeing probably did the same, but of course, EU had no interceptions to prove it.

I often argue that Snowden told us very little new information and that the EU kney most of this since 2001. I don't understand why it took 15 years to become a public concern.

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/EPRS/EPRS_STUDY_538877_Affair...

View on HN

I agree with all you've said, including that probably the US bribes (or threatens) as much or more than the EU. But being even more cynical about it, this is just the way the free market sneaks in, including these big government deals: one party has money, the other party has power. Say Airbus bribes Saudi Arabia Officials. The officials don't have that much money, but they surely have power, and Airbus doesn't have the power to decide on the deal but they surely have some cash. A transaction is agreed and done and both parties reach a win-win situation. Of course the losing part is the citizens, but a capitalistic view of this is that corruption is just anything that breaks the fairy tale idea that the people that work in government seek the interests of the general public and not their very own private interests. Citizens were already on the losing side when the government forced them to pay taxes.

Well Airbus making deals still is in the overall interest of European citizens rather than Boeing making deals.

Actually, this is orthogonal to governments. There's widespread bribery in the private sector too, where decisions makers are gifted to persuade them.

To use your phrasing, a capitalistic view of this is that corruption is just anything that breaks the fairy tale idea that the people who work in the corporation seek the interests of the company and not their very own private interests.

You can even see it play out here on Hacker News - people who optimize for their own career goals at the detriment of the company that pays them to get a job done.

It's true, but it's also true that many things that are considered corruption/illegal when you do it for the government, they are not when it's inside a company. If a business owner hires his nephew, that's not illegal and many people wouldn't consider it corruption. If a government official appoints his nephew, that's frowned upon to say the least. But going back to your argument, if an employee uses his position and gets bribed, of course that's going at the detriment of the company... but you could also say that if the company has the right checks and balances he will get caught, and that if the company had made sure that the interests of the employee were well-aligned with the company's it wouldn't be a logical step. And that's why some companies pay so handsomely.

> government official appoints his nephew, that's frowned upon to say the least

What about when a President appoints his daughter and son-in-law?

Transparency, I guess.

(feels like sarcasm just experienced an integer overflow, or perhaps not)

I feel a government has a scope wider than a company and is answerable to the public at large. A corporation is answerable to its shareholders so slightly different.

Bribery at any level is not acceptable, and even at the corporate level if shareholders are affected, they would want to remove the person taking bribes

A company is inherently answerable to the public at large. No less than a government, it's a legal fiction that is enabled by the collective behavior of the public remaining consistent with its existence.

Just to be clear, are you talking about a publicly listed company or feel that every business, let's say a small grocery store as well is equally responsible.

I feel a company is responsible to its customers and shareholders, that's about it.

I didn't use the exact word "responsible" which sounds ambiguous and maybe normative. I was trying to make a factual statement rather than a normative one. Even a small grocery store depends on abstract legal concepts having power which require public assent.

Corruption is not how free markets sneak in, that's how they die.

Free markets don't exist in a vacuum. They rely on governments to maintain a state of fair competition. Corruption does not lead to free markets, it leads to monopolies and oligopolies.

It is true, however, that unchecked free markets often lead to this state.

Free markets rely on fair competition: you want companies to compete on quality and price and remove all the other factors, like nepotism, entryism or corruption. There is a competition in corruption, but a competition that is not in the public interest.

The company getting the big plane contract in country X should be the company with the best/cheapest planes, not the one able to send the hottest hookers to the crucial decision makers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com