World, Writing, Wealth discussion
Wealth & Economics
>
Are greed and corruption defeatable?
I don't want to be so nihilistic in saying that they aren't. But one day, in our evolutionary journey, we might see a different manifestation of Greed and corruption. Maybe, in more deceptive and sophisticated forms.
That would depend on the very nature of Humans to change. I am not very optimistic.
Michel wrote: "That would depend on the very nature of Humans to change. I am not very optimistic."But humans are changing.
Not for the better. I do believe they are beatable (well, you have to don't you?) but at the moment they seems to be everywhere you look.
I think they're defeatable, but it depends very much on an individual's choices. I do think corporate and political corruption and greed are much more difficult to defeat, but that it's also possible to do so.Having said that, it takes enormous courage on the part of many individuals to drive that sort of corporate/political change.
As long as the rewards for corruption and greed markedly outweigh the risks and penalties of pursuing them, then corruption and greed will flourish.On the other side of the equation of corruption and greed is the larger mass of people being ripped off. As long as the rewards for apathy and indifference to being slowly consumed alive by the corruption and greed of others outweighs the risks and penalties of pursuing redress then the mass of people will continue to enable the ongoing plundering of their lives.
Graeme wrote: "..people will continue to enable the ongoing plundering of their lives..."To a degree this seems happening. How do you suggest people tackle it?
I think that we just had an example of the people rising up and causing the fall of a corrupt leader: the forced resignation of South African President Jacob Zuma.
Michel wrote: "I think that we just had an example of the people rising up and causing the fall of a corrupt leader: the forced resignation of South African President Jacob Zuma."I hope for a better outcome but the replacement has been part of the government since Mandela took over so why should there be a sudden change. He's not a new broom.
The ousting of a corrupt leader does not mean that corruption is being eliminated - it may merely mean the beneficiaries are changing.
WRT Solutions, I believe there has to be a strong culture present and widely held, of zero tolerance for corruption, to have a chance of minimising it.
Philip wrote: "Michel wrote: "I think that we just had an example of the people rising up and causing the fall of a corrupt leader: the forced resignation of South African President Jacob Zuma."I hope for a bet..."
Exactly. It's very unlikely the people of South Africa will see any change.
Adding to what Graeme said, it is imperative that the police and judiciary are non-corrupt.
Graeme said: "As long as the rewards for apathy and indifference to being slowly consumed alive by the corruption and greed of others outweighs the risks and penalties of pursuing redress then the mass of people will continue to enable the ongoing plundering of their lives."What are the rewards?
Any chance corruption can disappear or like corona and political prostitution it's gonna live forever?
I don't think corruption can be totally eliminated, but you can make a start by paying officials properly. In many highly corrupt places, officials need auxilliary income to buy their groceries and pay their rent. Of course one started down that road, it grows, and once established it is very difficult to eliminate. But if you pay officials well and punish miscreants, and have a formal culture of right and wrong, I think it can be kept down. There are a number of countries, including the one I live in, where it is not a significant problem, but I would never claim it is absent.
Ian, here there's no chance that politicians could be paid enough to compensate for the insider information they get for investments. Politicians go into office much poorer than they are when they exit. Please pardon this long post, but I thought it explained a lot."Once a candidate actually makes it into Congress, he's presented with new opportunities to increase his wealth -- some that are unmatched in the corporate world.
There are some ethics restrictions in place that limit the income congressional members can take in; for instance, they're not allowed to take in outside income (from sources like speaking fees) that amounts to more than 15 percent of their salary (the base pay for a member of Congress is $174,000).
And like everyone else, members of Congress are subject to current insider trading laws. However, current insider trading laws do not apply to nonpublic information about current or upcoming congressional activity -- that's because members of Congress aren't technically obligated to keep that information confidential.
Congressmen can get away with "the type of insider trading that would send Martha Stewart to prison," Holman said. "They go into hearings and confidential meetings with business interests, understanding new legislation is going to come out next week," and are free to trade on that information.
So, for instance, if a lawmaker learns an upcoming bill will grant a company a large government contract, which could boost that company's stock, he or she is free to buy that stock ahead of the bill's public introduction.
A report released last month by four universities found that on average, stock portfolios held by House members from 1985 to 2001 beat the market average by approximately 6 percent annually. In 2004, the same group of professors found that the average stock portfolios held by members of the Senate beat the market average by about 10 percent."
In addition, corporations can bribe officials by hiring their wives: "We find that one really effective way for a corporation to do influence peddling without actually bribing a member of Congress is hire the spouse," Holman said. "They'll hire these spouses at exorbitant salaries, and that money really goes directly into the pocket of the member."
And "Once a member leaves office, even more opportunities for financial gain present themselves. According to Public Citizen, between 1998 and 2006, 43 percent of all members of Congress took lobbying jobs after leaving Congress, landing positions with an average annual salary of $2 million."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-is-c...
No way an increase in salary can compete with this kind of money. And this doesn't even address money from lobbyists seeking favor, which is paid under the table. Poor politicians! :-) How can they be anything but corrupt?
If you can prove it, you can fix it by sending some to jail. NZ is usually considered to be fairly low on the corruption scale but we did send politician to jail a little while ago.The other option is to jail those offering the bribes/enticcements/whatever. Jail a few corporates and that will stop because most of those guys would really fear the average prison. They would have to mix with those guys who literally would just as much stick a knife in them;.
The best thing about the techniques Scout describes is that they are legal. And who's responsible for deciding what's legal and what isn't? Exactly - the lawmakers! Perfectly legalized corruption
And trying to clean out legalized corruption does not have an encouraging history. Look what happened to the Gracchi brothers, although in fairness even modern ultracorrupt politicians would not get away with happened to those brothers.
I know I keep coming back to this, but it just pisses me off. The U.S. Supreme Court, in its decision on Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission "asserted that corporations are people and removed reasonable campaign contribution limits, allowing a small group of wealthy donors and special interests to use dark money to influence elections. This has led to policies that benefit special interests, not policies that enjoy support from the majority of Americans. According to an analysis by End Citizens United:
Outside groups have spent over $4.4 billion in federal elections since the Citizens United decision.
Of the $4.4 billion, nearly $1 billion has been spent in federal elections as untraceable, “dark money” expenditures since the decision.
Eighty-six percent of all outside spending in federal elections in the past 30 years has come in the ten years since the decision."
https://www.majorityleader.gov/conten...
How is this okay, allowing corporate money to be more influential on politicians than the will of the people? What was the Supreme Court thinking? Were they also paid off? Bah, Humbug I say!
Scout wrote: "I know I keep coming back to this, but it just pisses me off. The U.S. Supreme Court, in its decision on Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission "asserted that corporations are people and r..."I'm with the minority ruling on this one!
Scout, for me to comment on the SC ruling, i would like to know where the quotation ends. You have one quotation mark on the post as far as I can tell.
I just noticed that, Ian. I'm going back to look at it. Thanks.
Nik, you made me work for it :-) Here's the minority ruling: "In his dissenting opinion, Associate Justice John Paul Stevens declared that the court's ruling represented "a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government."[2]Right on, Justice Stevens!!
Here's the decision, Ian: "In a majority opinion joined by four other justices, Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy held that the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act's prohibition of all independent expenditures by corporations and unions violated the First Amendment's protection of free speech. The court overturned Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990), which had allowed different restrictions on speech-related spending based on corporate identity, as well as a portion of McConnell v. FEC (2003) that had restricted corporate spending on electioneering communications. The ruling effectively freed labor unions, trust funds, and corporations to spend money on electioneering communications and to directly advocate for the election or defeat of candidates." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen....What do you think? Does money equal free speech? The more money you have, the more influence you have? Do you see why this pisses me off? How much does your vote count when politicians are already indebted to special interests, have been legally bought because of this Supreme Court decision?
Scout, this one may be legally difficult. I don't know the details of US law, obviously,. but here a corporation legally has the status of a person. I gather this is necessary otherwise contract law gets into a tangle. Anyway, if that is the case, the Supreme Court may be bound by that legal definition - the Supreme Court cannot ignore a fundamental legal definition. I agree that the funding of politicians is essentially a type of corruption, b ut I don't think that trying to change the legal status of a corporation is the right way to go about it because it creates a nightmare down the road. What happens in contracts involving a corporation, a sole trader, an indie writer, if we start dividing status up? Only the lawyers would benefit,
That's interesting, Ian. I guess the only way to limit the power of donors is to put limits on campaign contributions from anyone and go to a federally funded campaign with each candidate having the same amount of money to spend. I think this would have to be passed into law by Congress - the very ones who benefit from the current situation. Again, a Catch-22. Why would they cut off the money spigot? So I guess greed and corruption aren't defeatable. Sigh :-(
For what it is worth, in NZ there are strict limits on what can be spent in the three months prior to the election, and each party presumably reaches those limits.
Pursuit of greed in different guises is extrapolated into the new meaning of life. The never fought battle seems lost ...
NZ seems to have this under control. Is this in your Constitution?
We are rather weird, Scout, in that we don't have a written constitution, but we have an unwritten one with a set of rules, and on politicians, their changing things for their benefit is the quickest way to get an exit at the next election. Strangely, being unwritten, none of them dare challenge any aspect of it. As an example, there is a movement to extend the parliamentary term, but that will have to be done by referendum, and right now an awful lot of people here are grumpy about politicians, so I don't see that gaining ground.
That's so strange to me that you don't have a Constitution but just an unwritten set of rules. Is everything there decided by referendum?
No, most things are simply decided by government, but anything relating to elections and a few other things tend to be done by referendum. I don't see not having a written constitution as a problem, although we would need one if it were decided to become a Republic, simply because with no written reference and no precedents to draw on it could get ugly. Basically, a lot here is done by precedent, especially what you would call constitutional issues. If we have done it for over hundred years, why not continue?
I don't understand how it works, but if it's not broke . . .
My view exactly. We have a lot more problems than a shortage of legal conflicts.
Former Gov. Phil Bryant helped Brett Favre secure welfare funding for USM volleyball stadium, texts revealhttps://mississippitoday.org/2022/09/...
Brett Favre is the former quarterback for the Green Bay Packers. He is worth about $100 million. So of course he allegedly sought to defraud the welfare fund of one of the poorest states in the US out of $6 million to build a college volleyball facility for his daughter.
Corrupt societies are poorer, conflict riven, less productive, and less capable at foreign domination than rule of law societies. Corruption is entirely unsustainable. Greatly improved surveillance and evidentiary gathering, better and innovative legal rules, not to mention instant global telecom and greatly reduced travel costs resulting in much greater and more efficient trade doom corruptionnaires.
Putin's entire mafia state entourage is doomed to collapse, just a question of who and how many Gollum and his Orcs take down with their filthy empire of lies.
The only way to beat corruption that I can think of is to have officials well-paid, to have some occasionally check what they are doing, to have strong anti-corruption police, and strong laws that are vigorously enforced. But you also need a culture that rejects corruption.
Eric wrote: "Corrupt societies are poorer, conflict riven, less productive, and less capable at foreign domination than rule of law societies. Corruption is entirely unsustainable. Greatly improved surveillan..."
I do not see being capable of foreign domination to be a desirable asset. Foreign societies should not have to obey the strongest.
Domination can be ideological, to serve a beacon, not to use strength for invasions and neoimperialism, for example
If you mean, by setting a good example on how to behave to others, I agree completely.
Bombshell court filing claims Bahamas GOVERNMENT ordered fallen crypto CEO Sam Bankman-Fried to hack FTX systems and transfer assets to the island nation AFTER he filed for bankruptcyhttps://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...\
On a side note, why does the Daily Mail put the entire article in the headline?
As for the aside, good writing - gets to the4 point and saves everyone time.As for the actual news, if true, and assuming bankruptcy laws in te US nd UK are similar to here, that should have certain officials put in jail. Of course, ther eis the reservation, "if true".
Ian wrote: "As for the aside, good writing - gets to the4 point and saves everyone time.As for the actual news, if true, and assuming bankruptcy laws in te US nd UK are similar to here, that should have cert..."
It appears that CNBC is backing up the Daily Mail.
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/11/17/ftx-s...
Especially, when you look into how much money the CEO of this pyramid scheme was giving to Democrats.
In this respect, is corruption defeatable or it'll exist as long as our lives routed along achievement of material goods?
If we look at history, it is believed that Spartan King Lycurgus (quasi-legendary figure himself) managed to purge corruption crippling Sparta, by dividing land among the citizen and devaluing money through banning gold and silver and substituting them with iron coins, which had very little value. His reforms caused Spartans to compete in finesse instead of wealth.
In some other places they fight corruption through amputating of limbs.
These sound drastic, cruel and ancient, of course, and so distant from our material-driven societies, but maybe people have some ideas?