Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
interestrateripoff

Radical Steps Must Be Taken To Halt The Renaissance Of Corruption, The Most Dangerous Growth Industry Of Our Time

Recommended Posts

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/comment/radical-steps-must-be-taken-to-halt-the-renaissance-ofcorruption-the-most-dangerous-growth-industry-of-our-time-9240110.html

Today, corruption and the problems it produces are in the focus of policymakers worldwide.

By consensus, corruption threatens the proper functioning of the global economic system almost to the same extent it threatened the US economy in the Gilded Age at the end of the 19th century. The renaissance of corruption is linked to the financial rise of developing, emerging markets; to the expansion of businesses that are only interested in seeking advantage and not creating wealth; and to the exhaustion of the “third wave” of democratisation in the late 1990s.

But this provides only a partial explanation and does not supply a full understanding of the problem and its significance. We believe the time has come to distinguish clearly between the “everyday” bribery that takes place at the grassroots level and to some extent facilitates ordinary people’s lives in less developed countries, and the corruption that permeates all levels of the state apparatus and connects public officials with the entrepreneurial class.

Corruption, not bribery, is the most dangerous growth industry of our time since it creates international criminal networks and generates tolerance to all types of misbehaviour inside the developed and democratic countries.

Isn't corruption endemic in any political system as those VI's ensure they push their own agenda's as they are the ones with the wealth and connections to do so? Since the Cromwell revolution has their really been much change in which families are really powerful in the UK?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Corruption' appears much more widespread than before. Within certain boroughs & ethnic minorities it appears endemic. At work we were cooperating with a unit within the Border Agency until it was disbanded because of...... corruption allegations!

Surely when a major retailer comes knocking looking for 'rebates' and 'margin support' that is corruption on an institutional scale? Happens every day though.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The tricky bit is working out the split between genuinely "new" corruption, and the corruption that always went on but was unreported in the pre-internet age...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The tricky bit is working out the split between genuinely "new" corruption, and the corruption that always went on but was unreported in the pre-internet age...

There's a giant new bit about to occur in the good o'l united kleptocracy of states.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/06/money-bought-elections-us-donation-rules

Thought money could buy an American election? You ain't seen nothin' yet

The supreme court's relaxing of donation rules just made US elections even more undemocratic and corruptible

The finance chairman of the Republican national committee, Ray Washburne, travelled to Chicago last Wednesday to solicit money from two big funders who had reached their donation limit for this election cycle. While he was on the plane, the supreme court ruled that there would no longer be any limits. Washburne told the New York Times that when he landed and heard the news, he said: "Eureka". He came back with promises of more cash.

It's the American Way. Just as the constitution ostensibly requires that AK47s be available on demand, it was also apparently designed to open the sluicegates to money in politics, until the entire landscape is flooded with cash and cynicism and the border between what is unethical and what is legal is washed away. It's what the funding fathers intended.

There are lots of areas of American society that could do with more money: preschools, infrastructure, mental health clinics, homeless shelters. The one place it's not needed is in politics. Even in this most polarised of moments, this is one of the few things on which most Americans agree. Indeed, support for limits on campaign donations is high among all income and education levels, party allegiances and political philosophies, and has remained consistent over the last five years. During that time, the supreme court has systematically removed many of the restrictions that did exist. In 2008 spending on the presidential election almost doubled compared with 2004. In 2012 it almost quadrupled compared with 2008. "Every presidential election is the most expensive ever. Elections don't get cheaper," the federal election chairwoman, Ellen Weintraub, told Politico.

Last week's ruling was not as transformative as the case of Citizens United in 2010. Then, the supreme court determined that, since corporations had the same rights as people, they had the right to unfettered free speech under the first amendment and so should be able to spend as much money as they wanted on political campaigns. Last Wednesday's decision, building on Citizens United, argued that since money has been equated with speech, rich individuals should not be muzzled in their ability to speak cash to power.

Previously, there was a limit of $123,200 that any individual could donate to candidates or parties in a two-year election cycle. There was also a limit on how much a person could give to each particular candidate. The cap on donations to a single candidate still stands. But now you can give to as many candidates as you like and up to $3.6m in an election cycle. They could buy up the whole of Congress if they wanted to.

Relatively few people have both the desire and the ability to do that. Fewer than 600 donors gave the maximum in 2012. But raw numbers are deceptive. The rich, already powerful, punch way above their weight. In 2010 just 0.01% of Americans accounted for a quarter of all the money given to politicians, parties and political action committees. If anything this makes the loosening of donation rules more damning, not less. For at a time of escalating economic inequality and declining social mobility, the pool of politicians' paymasters will shrink even further.

In a system where money is considered speech, and corporations are people, this trend is inevitable. Elections become not a system of participatory engagement determining how the country is run, but the best democratic charade that money can buy. People get a vote; but only once money has decided whom they can vote for and what the agenda should be. The result is a plutocracy that operates according to the golden rule: that those who have the gold make the rules.

In his book Affluence and Influence: Economic Inequality and Political Power in America, Princeton professor Martin Gilens illustrates how the political class does the bidding of the rich. "Across multiple presidential administrations and a wide range of political conditions, two patterns remain constant," he writes. "First, the poor never have as much influence as the middle class, and the middle class never has as much influence as the affluent. Second, over the last four decades, responsiveness to the affluent has steadily increased, while responsiveness to the middle class and the poor has depended entirely on the existence of [specific] circumstances."

This should come as no surprise. Rich people don't come by their wealth by giving it away for nothing. And these are not charitable donations. When they give cash to politicians they expect something in return. And they get it. Money buys access and access permits influence.

At times this is blatant. Roughly 30% of diplomatic posts in Barack Obama's administration have gone to friends and donors. A study by Pennsylvania State University professors last year established an approximate price for ambassadorships. Ambassador to Portugal would set you back $341,160 in bundled contributions; Luxembourg $1.8m; while Britain could cost you anything up to $2.3m. In a recent segment called Diplomat Buyers Club, comedian Jon Stewart showed Obama's picks for the ambassadors of Argentina, Iceland and Norway (all donors), testifying that they have never been to the countries they sought jobs for.

But it's also about who doesn't get to speak. Candidates are likely to hear less on the campaign trail about how the war on drugs is blighting black and Latino neighbourhoods, or how poverty is reducing the life expectancy of poor white women, because those people don't get a seat at the table.

Either way, when chief supreme court justice John Roberts quotes the Citizen's United ruling, claiming "ingratiation and access … are not corruption", he is clearly working from a narrow and disingenuous definition of corruption.

Last year, three members of the House of Representatives pleaded guilty to, or were convicted of, crimes – the highest number since 1981 – while the former mayors of Detroit and New Orleans, among others, were convicted of, or charged with, felonies. Earlier this year the former Virginia governor, Bob McDonnell, was indicted for accepting loans and gifts in return for favours. Just two weeks ago the mayor of Charlotte, North Carolina, resigned over a bribery scandal. Neither has been convicted of any offence. Corruption is already a major problem in American politics. The highest court in the land has just made it both more likely, and more legal.

Edited by alexw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not corruption, its just that others play by a different set of rules. They don't want you to know this but it is the case.

Corruption would be something illegal, but laws are drafted with obvious loopholes and ambiguity to allow for those in the know to abuse. The hue and cry only ensues when those not intended to benefit try it i.e. Jimmy Carr. He tries to use the loophole used by MPs and their families and all of a sudden you have to obey not only the letter of the law but the spirit of the law. How exactly do you define the spirit of the law.

Maybe somebody should mention this to Maria Miller.

There are no such things as morals for those at the top, there is what is legal and what they can get away with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's that globalisation. They've all realised that there's no point in being any less dishonest than the other lot. here is no reward for being honest and just doing a good job. And once they're all at it, it's almost impossible to do anything about it. it's endemic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that corruption has a tendency to spread like gangrene until the body politic dies. While politicians, corporations and other VI's are happy to game the system they want the rest of the population to be diligent, hard working, upright men and women who toil without complaint, know their place and pay their taxes, debts and bills on time. Unfortunately that dichotomy is almost impossible to maintain. Corrupt societies are almost always hopelessly dysfunctional and inefficient. Sooner or later they either collapse or succomb to takeover by outsiders with a better operating model. Corruption like all forms of cheating is a short term winning strategy but in the long term is socially corrosive because it begets imitation and retaliation since tit for tat is the most effective response. Unfortunately, the death spiral only ends when the cost of cheating is inflicted in full on all parties

Edited by stormymonday_2011

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Corruption' appears much more widespread than before. Within certain boroughs & ethnic minorities it appears endemic. At work we were cooperating with a unit within the Border Agency until it was disbanded because of...... corruption allegations!

Surely when a major retailer comes knocking looking for 'rebates' and 'margin support' that is corruption on an institutional scale? Happens every day though.....

Not really, probably means you're too dependent on them and have become their bitch.

It's shades of grey really. It starts at the low end with putting up big player retail buyers, who typically aren't on great incomes, in hotels and other sorts of hospitality. Then there's the box of 'samples' out of the boot of the national accounts manager's car for the buyer's wife and kids. The problem comes, and is full blown corruption, when it starts being brown paper bags of cash out of the boot of the car.

I know one supplier that is paying a buyer's kids private school fees on the QT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that corruption has a tendency to spread like gangrene until the body politic dies. While politicians, corporations and other VI's are happy to game the system they want the rest of the population to be diligent, hard working, upright men and women who toil without complaint, know their place and pay their taxes, debts and bills on time. Unfortunately that dichotomy is almost impossible to maintain. Corrupt societies are almost always hopelessly dysfunctional and inefficient. Sooner or later they either collapse or succomb to takeover by outsiders with a better operating model. Corruption like all forms of cheating is a short term winning strategy but in the long term is socially corrosive because it begets imitation and retaliation since tit for tat is the most effective response. Unfortunately, the death spiral only ends when the cost of cheating is inflicted in full on all parties

I think you're spot on with the tit for tat. The state needed to act with the utmost probity. Behaviour like councils painting yellow lines round parked cars and slapping tickets on should have been stopped immediately.

There was also a large section of society who were real believers in the system and prided themselves on never having broken a law. Suddenly they find they're caught out by a speed camera and it's a slippery slope.

I think they've got a real big problem with the TV licence. I suspect the numbers buying one are plummeting much faster than the official figures. Suddenly people discover there's no point paying it and then what comes next? Council Tax?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   203 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.