So far, Trump has easily been the most pro-crime president in my lifetime. I weep for my country and the horrible years these people are bringing to us.
In some countries officials block or delay things for no good reason, and bribing them may increase welfare both for the foreign company and the country itself.
If you are wanting to do business in a baksheesh culture (ie., doing things that could be interpreted by others as bribery), then, not doing things that could be interpreted by others as bribery, works out to not doing business there, period.
The complication is, sometimes your head-office country local culture says "go for it", then down the line (+some years) says "you were evil".
Not saying if that's good or not, but just saying...
Do you think the millions of people with HIV, TB or Malaria wish USAID (or some USAID contractors) had donated several million dollars to the president's inauguration festivities?
I agree, but most people are far too emotional to look at it this pragmatically, hence the downvotes. We should be clear here that this is a pause of a law that prohibits American companies and foreign firms from bribing officials of foreign governments. It does not mean American companies can take bribes. There's not much downside for American companies here. I do agree with Trump here that we should not put laws in place that disadvantage US companies.
This is a case of "hate the game, don't hate the player".
I believe that a famous economist proposed that paying a bribe should be legal but receiving one should be a crime, and that the penalty should include refunding twice the bribe to the payer.
Rationale is to increase risk for receivers while providing an incentive to payers to report bribes to police. If both paying and receiving a bribe are crimes then obviously both sides want to keep shtum.
14 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 46.2 ms ] threadThe complication is, sometimes your head-office country local culture says "go for it", then down the line (+some years) says "you were evil".
Not saying if that's good or not, but just saying...
I believe that a famous economist proposed that paying a bribe should be legal but receiving one should be a crime, and that the penalty should include refunding twice the bribe to the payer.
Rationale is to increase risk for receivers while providing an incentive to payers to report bribes to police. If both paying and receiving a bribe are crimes then obviously both sides want to keep shtum.