Comment by presto10 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by presto10 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Why does one have to accept the practise of corruption, to have a profitable and fast-growing business, as you seem to suggest?

With your reasoning, we could put forward that maybe the Moscow accident was caused by corruption: the builders paid off the inspectors to save on building costs.

The bottom line is: Ikea and Ingvar Kamprad has stated several times that they will not accept the Russian business practise of corruption. This is one of the reasons why some of Ikea's new locations have stood unopened for years, while waiting for permits from local governments (read: while refusing to pay bribes).

Может тебе сам перестать придумывать вещи, и посмотреть в зеркало?

Well, you can either accept "practice of corruption" or circumnavigate around in some way, or not have a business.

About the Moscow accident; I'm sure it was, partly. But I don't see how is this fact going to help if their mall in Samara has safety problems, indeed. If it doesn't, as I've told, they have their three choices.

In short: I DO think there's a problem with corruption in Russia; I just DON'T see a problem with IKEA packing its bags and leaving.

You might like IKEA, or not.

There is an easy argument to make that they are a net destroyer of taste and destroy culture. I am not certain, personally.

But as a business, IKEA is as serious as a heart attack and is a competitor that seems unbeatable; an inspiration for all.

IKEA builds and manage an incredible amount of stores everywhere -- without any serious security problem. I've never read any article that IKEA complain about bribes in other countries.

Be grateful that the company risks billions of dollars by becoming unpopular among violent criminals like Russian politicians. It is bettering your country; economists claims that corruption destroys a country.

You don't help your suffering country by defending your politician-thieves, which even makes the politicians of my home country seem mild.

(Sorry for wasting space by beating a dead horse.)

I don't think it would have any noticeable consequences for anyone except IKEA itself.

Point was, if IKEA had as little reason to complain in Russia as most everywhere else, it would be really good for Russia.

Let us just hope that the Kamprad family (which owns IKEA) aren't Polonium poisoned, like Litvinenko.

(The last few months, I've seen quite a few people like you on discussion forums that defend Iran, Putin, etc. Strange.)

I think it will have noticable consequences when IKEA has to go, because this is not an isolated case. What kind of a signal does that send to other investors?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com