The article skirts the obvious: Kwame Kilpatrick's corruption:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwame_Kilpatrick
The guy went to jail for f's sake. I wonder how much graft and embezzling went on that nobody was ever charged with?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwame_Kilpatrick
The guy went to jail for f's sake. I wonder how much graft and embezzling went on that nobody was ever charged with?
There's a fairly serious principle-agent problem in elected government; I'm not sure how you get around things like e.g. Detroit's pension fund throwing the 13th check around, or US Representatives trying to force the US Treasury into default, given that the incentives for more long-term thinking just aren't there.
This is high up in the article:
> Adding the last straw — Kilpatrick’s gamble: He’s best known around the globe for a sex and perjury scandal that sent him to jail and massive corruption that threatens to send him to prison next month for more than 20 years. The corruption cases further eroded Detroit’s image and distracted the city from its fiscal storm. But perhaps the greatest damage Kilpatrick did to the city’s long-term stability was with Wall Street’s help when he borrowed $1.44 billion in a flashy high-finance deal to restructure pension fund debt. That deal, which could cost $2.8 billion over the next 22 years, now represents nearly one-fifth of the city’s debt.
And then there's a whole section headlined: "Kilpatrick’s award-winning deal turns into a financial disaster"
Kilpatrick is quite famous for his sex and corruption. But are you arguing that those had more of an effect on Detroit's long term viability than a pension deal that blew up the city's obligation to swap holders from $770 million to $1.95 billion in four years? You could argue that only a corrupt bastard would make such a deal, but that deal was talked about at the time...and, the Freep notes, even its own editorial board approved of it. It was a politically expedient and irresponsible gambit, but let's face it, the corrupt don't have a monopoly on irresponsibility.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Seems to be an open question if the cause and effect is failed states result in corrupt administration, or corrupt administration results in failed states. Probably a lovely intense feedback loop. But it takes more than just one crook.