BS: Is Corruption OK?

Subject: BS: Is Corruption OK?
From: folk1e
Date: 11 Feb 07 - 02:51 PM

I herd an interview from a French Judge(EX) about the case of Elf not being above board with their financial dealings. She made the point about the U.K. / Saudi "Cash for Jets" episode, just shut down bu U.K. government because it would upset the saudi..... sorry a matter of National Security!
This made me think! Obviously Financial Corruption is wrong, but is it necessary or acceptable for commerce in todays world?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Corruption OK?
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 11 Feb 07 - 02:54 PM

No - it harms commerce as it ultimately acts as a destabilising influence.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Corruption OK?
From: folk1e
Date: 11 Feb 07 - 03:01 PM

But if I "bung you a sweetener" I get the deal. Even over more competative companies...... this leads to a more secure situation for "my" company. The fact that everyone else is in the same game is irrelevant?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Corruption OK?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 11 Feb 07 - 03:56 PM

its always been necessary - at least in the music business. that's why there are so many awards handed out to musicians nobody likes very much. that's why when you listened to TOTP for the last 20 years at least - you were constantly asking yourself, who the hell with a pair of working lugholes would buy this crap?

The internet has been the best thing ever for music. You can't take away the power these creeps have. I had a sneaking suspicion it has to do with the old class system in england, controlling the means of producing wealth. But I've seen it working just as nastily in other countries.

With the internet, you can at least face the other way and ignore it.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Corruption OK?
From: wysiwyg
Date: 11 Feb 07 - 03:56 PM

The age-old dynamic between ethical theology and moral theology. Put simply, moral theology is what we apply to others' actions, and ethical is what we apply to our own. What we accept about ourselves-- that we are flawed people who do the best we can in complex situations with difficult choices-- we are much less willing to believe of others.

Sometimes it's the other way around, where we're much harder on ourselves.... but not usually, and usually not for long.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Is Corruption OK?
From: Rapparee
Date: 11 Feb 07 - 04:09 PM

Theology has nothing to do with it.

Ethics doesn't change -- it's unethical to cheat, lie, and steal. Ethics is the constant and it by living by a code of ethics that makes us human AND humane.

Morals can change with religion and custom. In Sparta it was expected that youth would lie, cheat and steal. It was "wrong" to get caught. Temple prostitution was expected behavior, but that did not make it ethical behavior. Aztec religion said it was right, even imperative, to rip the heart out of a living human, but that did not make it ethical to do so.

What IS "corruption"? If "greasing the way" by bribes is accepted behavior in a given society, does that make those who take the bribes corrupt? What about those who offer the bribes? Because a custom is entrenched doesn't make it ethical OR necessarily moral (yes, the two can go hand-in-hand).

Enough ranting....

Subject: RE: BS: Is Corruption OK?
From: Amos
Date: 11 Feb 07 - 05:25 PM

I would say Susan has it close, but the divide is a little different -- between moral codes promulgated for agreement, and ethical standards based on one's own integrity and view of things and their rightness and wrongness based on an inherent sense of ethicality.

Moral codes are good for educating, good for controlling people when they are immature, and good for meme-propagaation. But the only truly resilient, flexible, and renewable source of right/wrong assessments is individual integrity.

Corruption can be defined two ways, in broad -- a violation of established codes one is supposed to subscribe to, or a violation of the ethics of a situation. Sometimes they intersect, sometimes not. Reducing ethics to a code which is supposed to be transferable across all situations and apply to them without exception is an untenable and futile porposition. The best you can hope for is general guidelines.

For example, while lying "is unethical" according to Rapaire's doctrine above, I can easily imagine a scenario (being captured by Bolshevist terrorists, for example) where a little adroit lying could do a LOT more good than just telling the truth. Thus, fixed-value codes can always lead you astray under some circumstances. Your own integrity is more likely to steer you right in murky passages.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Is Corruption OK?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Feb 07 - 05:54 PM

The bottom line is, the motivation for private enterprise is private gain, not public good.

Often enough public good may be achieved, and there is a case for the argument that on balance it is the best way to achieve this. However it is evident that there are situations where the goal of achieving private gain is incompatible with public good.

Criminal enterprises are such situations - there are plenty of very profitable activities which are illegal because of the damage they do. The fact that they are profitable is not seen as a reason why they should be legal.

The kind of corrupt business activities mentioned above are just one variety of such criminal activity. The fact that the activities in question may be profitable or "necessary" in order to carry on the business involved is irrelevant. The same could be said of drug trafficking, white slavery or blackmail.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Corruption OK?
From: GUEST,Crazyhorse
Date: 11 Feb 07 - 05:59 PM

The bottom line is, the motivation for private enterprise is private gain, not public good.

Way too simple. Not all private enterprise id "for profit" is it.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Corruption OK?
From: Peace
Date: 11 Feb 07 - 06:05 PM

When vigorish greases the wheels, only those with the vig will get to ride.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Corruption OK?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Feb 07 - 06:19 PM

You mean sometimes companies lose money, Crazyhorse? True enough, but that's not what they set out to do.

If you mean they sometimes do good deeds on the side, true enough, but that's essentially public relations. Or sometimes it might be a case of individuals with an agenda of their own which isn't basically about business at all.

There are, thank God some great non-governmental (or even anti-governmental) organisations which aren't in it for profit - but I wouldn't use the term "private enterprise" to include them. Maybe there's a linguistic difference here.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Corruption OK?
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 Feb 07 - 06:23 PM

What about long-standing greasing-the-palm custom? I understand that in some countries it is a cost of doing business or even of bringing the middleman's income up to livable standards. Certainly a great many Americans working in some other countries learn it quickly.

From what I understand, it is not considered corrupt, but more on the order of the gratutities we proffer the person who brings our restaurant meal.

?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Corruption OK?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 11 Feb 07 - 06:44 PM

"bringing the middleman's income up to livable standards"

... and the US tradition of 'tipping' a waitress to bring their income up to livable standards so that 'private enterprise' can make more profit by paying a lousy wage is ethically good? or just accepted, like 'baksheesh' (sp?) is in some countries?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Corruption OK?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 11 Feb 07 - 06:46 PM

oops - meant to add -

Pot calling kettle black?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Corruption OK?
From: GUEST,LilyFestre
Date: 11 Feb 07 - 06:57 PM

When I read the title of this thread and some of the responses out loud to my husband, I heard the most wonderful laughter.........

Michelle

Subject: RE: BS: Is Corruption OK?
From: Charley Noble
Date: 11 Feb 07 - 07:14 PM

EAT THE RICH!

Bumper sticker observed on a battered VW bus back in the early 1970's in East Lansing, Michigan.

And they claimed to be vegetarians!

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Is Corruption OK?
From: Bert
Date: 11 Feb 07 - 09:26 PM

A lot of things are bad because they happen "Under the Table".

If payoffs could in someway be brought into the light, then they could be controlled and might not be any worse for society than paying an agent for a gig.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Corruption OK?
From: Rapparee
Date: 11 Feb 07 - 10:26 PM

I never said that being ethical means a rigid observance of a code of conduct. It's unethical to steal, but when stealing a loaf of bread is your only way to prevent your own death or the death of others, steal the bread. Cannibalism is unethical, but the same logic applies. If we knew in 1930 what Hitler would do by 1939, would assassination have been unethical? What about assassinating Idi Amin when he was in power?

"The greatest good for the greatest number" is one of the principles which must be taken into account. Which brings us to Utilitarianism, Pragmatism, and a whole bunch of other schools of ethical thought.

I suspect that anyone who held to a absolute rigid code of ethics would either be one of the most horrible dictators who ever lived or wouldn't live very long before someone killed him or her.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Corruption OK?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 Feb 07 - 10:28 PM

If I were to do business in Nigeria or Russia or a number of other countries, could I do so without bribery and kickbacks and other things we Westerners call "corruption"? Let's say I could start a business in such a country and provide jobs for people who need them - but it would cost a few kickbacks to the Powers That Be. Is that ethical? I think it's unethical for government officials to demand or accept bribes - but for me as a businessman to pay bribes in a country where bribes are the usual way of doing business, I don't see how that could be immoral or unethical.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Is Corruption OK?
From: GUEST,John O'L
Date: 11 Feb 07 - 11:38 PM

Kickbacks & bribes in 3rd world countries are one of the reasons they continue to exist at 3rd world standards.

In the developed world they are unacceptable because they frequently mean that tenders are awarded to companies that are not the most fit to receive them. A bit like Malcolm changing the rules to favour Douglas over Macbeth, and we all know how that turned out.

If I am reading the opening post correctly we have a developed country doing business with a 3rd world country, and setting their business ethics to the lowest common denominator. Leading by example, I suppose. Or perhaps maintaining the status quo as long as it is profitable to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Corruption OK?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 12:26 AM

I suppose the same problem occurs when you work in a bureaucracy - if you follow all the rules, you never get any work done. In my 25 years of federal employment, it never ceased to amaze me how much money Uncle Sam expended in protecting those ten-cent government ballpoint pens from theft - and how ineffectual those measures were, since you see those pens all over everywhere.
I can't say I followed the rules exactly during my government employment, but I always tried to do what was right.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Is Corruption OK?
From: Peace
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 12:29 AM

Years back a musician friend of mine was in a group that was asked to sing at the White House for the tenants. His wife accompanied him and she couldn't resist purloining/stealing an ashtray from one of the rooms. When she examined it at home in NYC, printed on the bottom of the ashtray were the words







MADE IN TAIWAN

Just thought I'd mention that.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Corruption OK?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 01:04 AM

"Kickbacks & bribes in 3rd world countries are one of the reasons they continue to exist at 3rd world standards.

In the developed world they are unacceptable because they frequently mean that tenders are awarded to companies that are not the most fit to receive them."


hmmmm.... AWB.... :-)

hehehehe!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Corruption OK?
From: Peace
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 01:12 AM

'In the developed world they are unacceptable because they frequently mean that tenders are awarded to companies that are not the most fit to receive them."'

Does the US let tenders? Why does the name Hal Li Burton come to mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Corruption OK?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 01:28 AM

That's a tender subject Peace....

Subject: RE: BS: Is Corruption OK?
From: Grab
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 09:44 AM

The difference between a bribe and a tip is that the former comes before the service as a condition of getting the service, whereas the latter comes after the service and may only be a condition of further service (or quality of service).

The moral bankrupcy of the Blair government is pretty transparent. Heseltine lost his chance to become PM because of Westland in the 80s, but now it's "not in the public interest" to find who had their sticky fingers in this.

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Corruption OK?
From: Amos
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 09:52 AM

Th eflaw in the thread question is there is no common defintiion of what constitutes corruption. By definition corruption is that which is not okay. But people can get awfullyhanfdy with labels and moral judgements without having to measure the ground they are describing.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Is Corruption OK?
From: GUEST,ib48
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 11:34 AM

Send me 50 quid and i will tell you

Subject: RE: BS: Is Corruption OK?
From: danensis
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 10:35 AM

If you wanted some building work done, and a friend of yours knew a good builder, would you use that builder, or select one at random from the Yellow Pages?

The Masons have used the "its not what you know but who you know" principle for years, and its not done them any harm,

John

Subject: RE: BS: Is Corruption OK?
From: Scrump
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 10:45 AM

If you make it worth my while, I'll be happy to agree corruption is OK.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Corruption OK?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 11:44 AM

Of course government corruption is where it gets really mind blowing and all the rules of economics are reversed, a bit like time going backwards.

We bought our first little maisonette in Birmingham in 1971 - there was no property to rent. We paid £4,000 for it. Just down the road Birmingham council were being charged £13,000 for building maisonettes to a lower spec.

Why does it always cost the government more to do anything. Surely their superior buying power should get them a better deal and a lower price.

I think it was the late Bill Hicks, who used to do this brilliant routine - apparently the American Armed Forces were being charged $275 for the cost of a hammer. Hicks said, my accountant has appeoached them with a deal. I won't pay any tax, I'll just buy them a Black and Decker drill and they can send me the change!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Corruption OK?
From: folk1e
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 08:15 PM

So whose rules should we play by?
Ours or theirs, and if everyone knows does it matter?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Corruption OK?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 14 Feb 07 - 02:43 AM

Well yes it does. They spend such a lot of time saying we can't afford this and that. But they don't exercise even the slightest degree of common sense when they go and spend our money.

How would it have hurt Birmingham council to check out what ordinary people were paying for maisonettes? What made it necessary for them to pay three times more for a worse product?

Think of how you shop around if you want a new guitar or a new car, what makes them exempt from the same sort of husbandry.

The National Health Service is a prime example. The kind of budget it has - it should be able to really twist the balls off suppliers.

Is it getting as good value as you get down the supermarket? I've been in several hospitals where the staff can't afford to use the staff restaurant.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Corruption OK?
From: folk1e
Date: 14 Feb 07 - 03:33 AM

I don't think I can come up with a credible defence of 70's policy!
the secret may well be in the degree of accountability.
would it make a difference if ALL the masonets were the same (but higher) price?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Corruption OK?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 14 Feb 07 - 01:57 PM

Maybe, perhaps I am deluding myself about these things. You know what its like, you get old and daft and opinionated.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Corruption OK?
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 14 Feb 07 - 06:52 PM

WASHINGTON - Nine months before agreeing to let ConocoPhillips delay a half-billion-dollar pollution cleanup, the government's top environmental prosecutor bought a $1 million vacation home with the company's top lobbyist.

Also in on the Kiawah Island, S.C., house deal was former Deputy Interior Secretary J. Steven Griles, the highest-ranking Bush administration official targeted for criminal prosecution in the Jack Abramoff corruption probe.

Just before resigning last month, Assistant Attorney General Sue Ellen Wooldridge signed two proposed consent decrees with ConocoPhillips: one giving the company as much as two to three more years to install $525 million in pollution controls at nine refineries and the other dealing with a Superfund toxic waste cleanup.

... ... ... ...

[But it has been announced by parties involved that there was no conflict of interest.]

John

Subject: RE: BS: Is Corruption OK?
From: Peace
Date: 14 Feb 07 - 09:05 PM

I wonder if Judas was just taking care of business when he took the 30 pieces of silver . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Is Corruption OK?
From: Big Phil
Date: 15 Feb 07 - 05:11 AM

Mandatory if you are in the UK Parliament it appears.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Corruption OK?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 15 Feb 07 - 06:54 AM

Of Judas was severely malagined, as was Thomas, by the Pauline Conspiracy (and later also the Constantinian Conspiracy.)

Subject: RE: BS: Is Corruption OK?
From: folk1e
Date: 15 Feb 07 - 08:03 PM

If I remember correctly Judas was the moneyholder of the group. I don't recall him being blamed for misapropriating any of it!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Corruption OK?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 05:04 PM

Once he was dead, they could say what they liked about him...

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Is Corruption OK?
From: folk1e
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 06:30 PM

60 years or so for the first book!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Corruption OK?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 07:28 AM

Funnily enough St Thomas still has followers in India...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Corruption OK?
From: folk1e
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 05:57 PM

And the "devil" in america!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Corruption OK?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 09:30 PM

Jesus Saves!

The Devil Invests!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Corruption OK?
From: folk1e
Date: 18 Feb 07 - 08:08 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Is Corruption OK?
From: folk1e
Date: 20 Feb 07 - 06:05 AM

Can I change the direction of this thread away from the religeous and back to the moral?
A certain amount of untruth is evident in most politics now, given that we "elect " these guys on an Honest Joe ticket are we being short chainged? (pun intended)
On the other hand what would have been the outcome of the "nuclear deterant" if this were not true? Lets hope the guys with their fingers on the button do NOT press it but equaly let's hope the "other guys" think he will!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Corruption OK?
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 20 Feb 07 - 03:01 PM

i thought that was Jesus Saves
the Mongol Hoards

Im a utilitarian, one does not need morals to live by, but rather the golden rule is sufficient.

my answer is that corruption or graft is not ok.
(it is illegal in western economies but to some extent when a Salesman
takes a prospect out for lunch it is ok, or look at the advertising gift industry - giving out free stuff with logos on it etc.)

Subject: RE: BS: Is Corruption OK?
From: folk1e
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 06:31 PM

So is it O.K. for the government to quash an enquiry into corruption from a forign country on grounds of "national security"?
The obvious answer is NO but if this resulted in lives saved? ..... or jobs safeguarded? .... or even our national defence being maintained?
If the answer is still NO then where do you stand on spying?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Corruption OK?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 24 Feb 07 - 03:08 AM

Estimates of the cost of stging the 2012 Olympics have just soared by over 300%.

Now theres a surprise.

Wonder if as penny of that money will reach the athletes and their needs.