Trump: "Make Bribery Legal Again"

[ChristianProgressive]

“It’s just so unfair that American companies aren’t allowed to pay bribes to get business overseas,” Trump said, according to a passage published by the Post. “We’re going to change that.” The law is designed to prevent individuals and businesses in the U.S. from paying money or offering gifts to foreign officials as a way to win business overseas. Critics of the law complain that it puts U.S. businesses at a disadvantage in places where bribes are customary.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/01/donald-trump-bribery-laws

The assault on the rule of law and order from this outlaw fascist regime continues...

 

[Darat]

Surely it should be up to the country in which the bribe takes place to decide if it is illegal of not? Perhaps a more sensible way to look at it is to have a law in your country that if someone is accused of bribary in another country you will will allow that country to extradite the CEO and shareholders to stand trial?



......

 

[ChristianProgressive]

Surely it should be up to the country in which the bribe takes place to decide if it is illegal of not? Perhaps a more sensible way to look at it is to have a law in your country that if someone is accused of bribary in another country you will will allow that country to extradite the CEO and shareholders to stand trial?



......

And if the country in question thought human sacrifice was just peachy-keen-dandy we would allow our businesses to start cutting the hearts out of employees on altars?

Your argument is literally the "argument from tradition" fallacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition

 

[phiwum]

Surely it should be up to the country in which the bribe takes place to decide if it is illegal of not? Perhaps a more sensible way to look at it is to have a law in your country that if someone is accused of bribary in another country you will will allow that country to extradite the CEO and shareholders to stand trial?



......

The International Anti-Bribery Act makes it illegal in the US for a citizen or corporation to offer a bribe to a public official in another country. It's not just about extradition.

I'm okay with the law, since encouraging corruption overseas is arguably bad for the US.

 

[Darat]

And if the country in question thought human sacrifice was just peachy-keen-dandy we would allow our businesses to start cutting the hearts out of employees on altars?



Your argument is literally the "argument from tradition" fallacy.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition

Nope it ain't.

And businesses have to accept risk.

If the shareholders and CEOs don't want to end up having their beating hearts ripped from their chests then they need to make sure they don't bribe anyone in that country or don't do business with that country.

Indeed if the country is so reprehensible the shareholders and CEOs wouldn't want to do business with that country in the first place would they?

I'm not against people doing business with whoever they want, I am however against them avoiding risks when they do so.

I would probably go one step further. When it was found that people were committing suicide in the factories that were manufacturing Apple products I think Cook and Apple shareholders should have been arrested and charged with something like corporate manslaughter.

I dislike intensely how capital owners have insulated themselves from the consequences of their property. By all means outsource your manufacturing of t-shirts to Bangladesh, but when 30 people die in one of the factories that manufacturers your t-shirts because the fire alarms didn't work and the fire exits were kept padlocked you should be held to the same legal liability as if you owned the factory in your country.

(The above of course is nothing but a fantasy, there is more chance if me winning the lottery than that ever happening, and I don't play the lottery!)

 

[Darat]

The International Anti-Bribery Act makes it illegal in the US for a citizen or corporation to offer a bribe to a public official in another country. It's not just about extradition.



I'm okay with the law, since encouraging corruption overseas is arguably bad for the US.

I'm aware of the laws we currently have, we have similar in the UK and in most other major economies and we do sometimes successfully prosecute people for it.

Just don't think it makes sense for this to be a crime if the country it takes part in doesn't consider it a crime. It's then nothing but standard business practice for that country, akin to say paying someone an agency fee for an introduction.

But if it is a crime in that country the shareholders and CEOs should be held accountable in that country.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Nope it ain't.

And businesses have to accept risk.

If the shareholders and CEOs don't want to end up having their beating hearts ripped from their chests then they need to make sure they don't bribe anyone in that country or don't do business with that country.

Indeed if the country is so reprehensible the shareholders and CEOs wouldn't want to do business with that country in the first place would they?

I'm not against people doing business with whoever they want, I am however against them avoiding risks when they do so.

I would probably go one step further. When it was found that people were committing suicide in the factories that were manufacturing Apple products I think Cook and Apple shareholders should have been arrested and charged with something like corporate manslaughter.

I dislike intensely how capital owners have insulated themselves from the consequences of their property. By all means outsource your manufacturing of t-shirts to Bangladesh, but when 30 people die in one of the factories that manufacturers your t-shirts because the fire alarms didn't work and the fire exits were kept padlocked you should be held to the same legal liability as if you owned the factory in your country.

(The above of course is nothing but a fantasy, there is more chance if me winning the lottery than that ever happening, and I don't play the lottery!)

This is why as a libertarian I oppose incorporation.

 

[ChristianProgressive]

This is why as a libertarian I oppose incorporation.

Sign of the Apocalypse? I actually semi-agree. Corporations should only exist IF the people running them are on the block for the consequences of their decisions involving them.

 

[Darat]

Sign of the Apocalypse? I actually semi-agree. Corporations should only exist IF the people running them are on the block for the consequences of their decisions involving them.

I agree but you have to make the owners and the CEOs responsible for what their company does, too often they are insulated because it is "technically" a middle manager who did a particular act. If you want the big bucks and the profit from your property you take the big risks as well.

 

[ChristianProgressive]

I agree but you have to make the owners and the CEOs responsible for what their company does, too often they are insulated because it is "technically" a middle manager who did a particular act. If you want the big bucks and the profit from your property you take the big risks as well.

Fair point.You esentially are restating what I said, anyway.

 

[theprestige]

Surely it should be up to the country in which the bribe takes place to decide if it is illegal of not? Perhaps a more sensible way to look at it is to have a law in your country that if someone is accused of bribary in another country you will will allow that country to extradite the CEO and shareholders to stand trial?



......

The problem is that bribes are illegal, but still customary, due to corruption.

Some American businesses are complaining that in order to do business in corrupt countries, it's sometimes necessary to bypass local laws and do business via corrupt customs. US law prohibits that kind of "go along to get along" approach.

 

[sackett]

Who gets to say that corruption is customary in any particular country?

Why, the bribe-paying boss, of course!

Silly me, I could have guessed that.

 

[theprestige]

Who gets to say that corruption is customary in any particular country?

Why, the bribe-paying boss, of course!

Silly me, I could have guessed that.

The bribe-demanding functionary probably has a bigger say.

There are also independent reviews of such things.

This doesn't have to turn into yet another Five Minute Hate, you know.

 

[sackett]

One minute's enough

The bribe-demanding functionary probably has a bigger say.

There are also independent reviews of such things.

This doesn't have to turn into yet another Five Minute Hate, you know.

Independent reviews, really? By whom, under Master Trumph's proposed rules?

Alas, prest old man, it remains true that capitalists are like children: if they aren't supervised, they get up to mischief.

 

[theprestige]

Independent reviews, really? By whom, under Master Trumph's proposed rules?

No, I just mean that there are people in various capacities who examine relative corruption and rule of law between countries, and report on what they see. It's not just a matter of asking the functionary and the businessman.

Alas, prest old man, it remains true that capitalists are like children: if they aren't supervised, they get up to mischief.

Yeah, but they don't get up to mischief they don't have to. Nobody's going to pay a bribe if they can do business with that money still in their pocket. If it's not customary, then they're going to look for ways to avoid it.

 

[sackett]

Of course, most nations have pious laws against bribery. Lesser Slobovia might start enforcing them in the case of some bloated yankee boss, even demanding -- and getting! -- his extradition to stand trial.

Unless he knew who to bribe in their Justice Ministry. And then in their National Police. Then in their Bureau of Mines, Slavery, and Pious Reforms. Etc., until he was working for their Immaculate Leader, polishing His golden toilet.

 

[sackett]

Bidnessmen don't pay bribes unless they have to? Well, but, they pretty often want to, when eager to avoid regulations, or to get in ahead of competitors, or to use shoddy materials, or launder money, or put out a contract on a union organizer, or -- well gosh, the wonderful ways of capitalism can always find occasions for being at least a little bit peccant. Or grossly villainous.

Funny, typing about this makes my fingers feel greasy. Believe I'll go wash my hands.

 

[theprestige]

And there it is.

 

[Darat]

The problem is that bribes are illegal, but still customary, due to corruption.



Some American businesses are complaining that in order to do business in corrupt countries, it's sometimes necessary to bypass local laws and do business via corrupt customs. US law prohibits that kind of "go along to get along" approach.

I understand that, and I understand how we have arrived at the laws we have today and I can see that in some ways they are a good idea. I happen to think we could tweak them a bit.

 

[theprestige]

I understand that, and I understand how we have arrived at the laws we have today and I can see that in some ways they are a good idea. I happen to think we could tweak them a bit.

Tweak them how, though? Make it harder to bribe, or easier?