Follow the Money?
30/11/10 18:25![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
green-man-2010.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsOk, a lot has been said about the Wikileaks scandal, and i want to adress one particular dimension that has opened up that hits Britons harder than most at present.
A royal prince whos blames the press and the media for his mother's tragic death can perhaps be forgiven for mouthing off about journalists being nosey, interfering so and so's.
But the fact is that without a free press, the government would be up to all sorts of things that are not in the national interest of the nation being governed. I mean, should the guys who blew the whistle on Watergate be locked up or get a nations thanks? I rest my case.
Yet, what if the government has to 'play dirty' in order to accomplish the public good?
For example, suppose that a British businessman is given to understand that a big contract from a foriegn government can be gained if a certain official gets a big enough bribe? Hey, nobody should bribe my government, and I vote for any and all measures that will give transparency and reduce the impact of corruption - but if you go and do business in the Middle East, and everyone else is at it, and if we don't win that contract by foul means, someone else will... well, what is a decent chap supposed to do?
I have to admit that I got into politics with the aim of "cleaning it up", but the more I find out about what goes on in international affiars, the harder I see it becoming to steer a valid, never mind a virtuous course.
So, if British businessmen have put up prostitutes for royal Arabs in order to win contracts, can we blame them for trying? Many years ago, I got out of sales as a career, because I didn't like the unethical way that things were done. For instance, when I was going door to door with a certain company's catalogue, come Christmastime, I was encouraged to show toys in it directly to the children in the house. Not the parents, mark you - show it to the kids.
Now, hang on a sec, says I to myself - what if the kids *are* pestering parents to buy the stuff. Is it really fair on the parents as customers? What if they genuinely know they can't afford a great deal and are trying to economise? Sure, show parents what is in there, but let them choose what they can afford, and let it be a suprise, whateve it is they get their kids. But the company was insistent that the kids were the ones to show toys to, that was the way to get the goods sold.
It might come as no suprise that I left sales and went into the public sector - but even in the public sector, I have to say that I am appalled at the way that public money gets spent and sometimes wasted.
Yet, here at the top, when a country is selling to another country, we find dirty tricks and corruption are the order of the day. Maybe it isn't a problem to the people who run Saudi Arabia if they happen to have British and not French figher planes because we put up better whores for the guy with the cheque book. But somehow, it rankles me all the same. I mean, how can you legislate against this sort of thing? Can the international community stop it, even if it wants too?
The question is, how much else is down to money, and not high sounding principles? I used to think that western democracies should stick together - y'know, be the good guys in a world that needed moral leadership. But its beginning to seem that if thousands of jobs are on the line if we don't sell our goods abroad, and we can't sell without greasing corrupt official palms in the process, well we have to accept that this is how the world is.
Or, should we beware of allowing this sort of thing to go on and do all we can to stop it?
Are business interests always the same as national interests?
Your thoughts, please?
A royal prince whos blames the press and the media for his mother's tragic death can perhaps be forgiven for mouthing off about journalists being nosey, interfering so and so's.
But the fact is that without a free press, the government would be up to all sorts of things that are not in the national interest of the nation being governed. I mean, should the guys who blew the whistle on Watergate be locked up or get a nations thanks? I rest my case.
Yet, what if the government has to 'play dirty' in order to accomplish the public good?
For example, suppose that a British businessman is given to understand that a big contract from a foriegn government can be gained if a certain official gets a big enough bribe? Hey, nobody should bribe my government, and I vote for any and all measures that will give transparency and reduce the impact of corruption - but if you go and do business in the Middle East, and everyone else is at it, and if we don't win that contract by foul means, someone else will... well, what is a decent chap supposed to do?
I have to admit that I got into politics with the aim of "cleaning it up", but the more I find out about what goes on in international affiars, the harder I see it becoming to steer a valid, never mind a virtuous course.
So, if British businessmen have put up prostitutes for royal Arabs in order to win contracts, can we blame them for trying? Many years ago, I got out of sales as a career, because I didn't like the unethical way that things were done. For instance, when I was going door to door with a certain company's catalogue, come Christmastime, I was encouraged to show toys in it directly to the children in the house. Not the parents, mark you - show it to the kids.
Now, hang on a sec, says I to myself - what if the kids *are* pestering parents to buy the stuff. Is it really fair on the parents as customers? What if they genuinely know they can't afford a great deal and are trying to economise? Sure, show parents what is in there, but let them choose what they can afford, and let it be a suprise, whateve it is they get their kids. But the company was insistent that the kids were the ones to show toys to, that was the way to get the goods sold.
It might come as no suprise that I left sales and went into the public sector - but even in the public sector, I have to say that I am appalled at the way that public money gets spent and sometimes wasted.
Yet, here at the top, when a country is selling to another country, we find dirty tricks and corruption are the order of the day. Maybe it isn't a problem to the people who run Saudi Arabia if they happen to have British and not French figher planes because we put up better whores for the guy with the cheque book. But somehow, it rankles me all the same. I mean, how can you legislate against this sort of thing? Can the international community stop it, even if it wants too?
The question is, how much else is down to money, and not high sounding principles? I used to think that western democracies should stick together - y'know, be the good guys in a world that needed moral leadership. But its beginning to seem that if thousands of jobs are on the line if we don't sell our goods abroad, and we can't sell without greasing corrupt official palms in the process, well we have to accept that this is how the world is.
Or, should we beware of allowing this sort of thing to go on and do all we can to stop it?
Are business interests always the same as national interests?
Your thoughts, please?
(no subject)
Date: 30/11/10 19:21 (UTC)I would like my water to not burn or cause cancer.
(no subject)
Date: 30/11/10 19:44 (UTC)You're incentive is to blow up the mountains for the coal plant.
Brita pitchers
LOL.
(no subject)
Date: 30/11/10 20:23 (UTC)Check out the movie.
these are companies operating with government permits, according to government regulation, on government land or at the very least with permission from the government, often being brought there by government regulatory, tax, and subsidy incentive. Individuals are also shielded from liability via the corporate charter and likely via substantial lobbying/donation/outright bribery efforts. Truly, this is a failure of the free market.
Well, companies are pathologically dedicated to profit, and wreak havok in their wake, then we blame the government for being unable to stop them. Dick Cheney sure kicked ass.
The thing is, I don't want companies to turn my coastline into the Nigerian Delta (Oil rivers) which is what they do when unhampered by the ineffective regulations we do manage to enforce.
You find the idea of Brita pitchers funny?
That you consider that the scope of the problem is what is funny.
(no subject)
Date: 30/11/10 21:20 (UTC)2, if the coal refinery will pay more. 2, if big agro can pay more. 2, if the millers can pay more.
They wreak havoc on coastlines because we've given the government a monopoly in determining what these companies can and can not do.
In the Nigerian Delta?
What do you think would happen if oil washed up along a 10 mile stretch of beaches owned by 100 different people, all with a vested interest in keeping it clean?
Nothing, cause they don't have the money.
No, that was a response to your laughable cancer water objection.
Sorry, just being snarky, ignore my shit.
millions of others, will take Culligan over Illinois-American Water Company any day.
Air is next.
(no subject)
Date: 30/11/10 22:57 (UTC)To closer align it with reality.
Did you know that without subsidies farmers would actually lose money on corn?
Yes. That is a big problem.
I find it interesting that you're willing to ascribe borderline sociopathy to people, but believe that ailment is suddenly lifted when they enter public service.
I don't believe that exactly, I just don't believe the free market will do any different than it already has, namely setting the rivers ablaze (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuyahoga_River).
"we didn't lock up enough pot users in jail",
You lost me there.
we "didn't regulate enough".
Well, what do you suggest to stop the damage, cause I do not see the free market doing it worldwide, quite the opposite. "we didn't self-regulate enough".
I forgot that property rights don't exist
How does property rights help the fracking problem? Who is going to enforce those rights when a big company wants to foul your water? Not the free market, that's clear enough.
Nigeria is almost a perfect example of why giving a limited few power to dictate over the many is a bad idea
Chevron had a free hand. Look what they did, why didn't they stop themselves, don't they know some of those people owned their land?
(no subject)
Date: 30/11/10 21:57 (UTC)"will take Culligan over Illinois-American Water Company any day." I'm delighted for you that you have that option.
If you want, we can skip to the end where we agree that we're both arguing in good faith, are decent people, and should probably buy eachother beers someday.
(no subject)
Date: 30/11/10 22:19 (UTC)Note that your preference for Culligan is just that - a preference. Had you no money, I doubt that Culligan would supply the water to you because they think it's in the public interest.
re: sarcasm. Not sarcastic and not taking a potshot. I genuinely believe that you're arguing in good faith (although I disagree), that you're a decent person and that we'd have a ball drinking a beer and talking about these issues. I think we have, however, expended our best efforts at convincing the other of their PoV, and those efforts have not sufficed to change the other's mind. S'all good.
(no subject)
Date: 30/11/10 21:33 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/11/10 21:58 (UTC)LOL.
(no subject)
Date: 30/11/10 22:00 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/11/10 19:20 (UTC)Daniel Elsberg? "The Most Dangerous Man in America (http://www.mostdangerousman.org/)"?
what if the government has to 'play dirty' in order to accomplish
Are we a Republic? Is there rule of law?
Because there are a lot of cats doing hard time for "playing dirty" in order to accomplish xxxxx.
what is a decent chap supposed to do?
Race to the bottom. Its not fair, the other kids cheat.
Are business interests always the same as national interests?
No. Business is interested in profit. Government, perhaps otherwise.
I don't know man, these thugs are all around me, what to do, what to do....
(no subject)
Date: 30/11/10 22:04 (UTC)That's right...& these thugs run the three biggest places-of-employment in my lil' ol home-town. So everyone is cornered at some point....gotta work afterall.
(no subject)
Date: 30/11/10 22:39 (UTC)"Cause I aint no fool, I'm going to school and I'm working in a defense plant." - Phil Ochs, Draft Dodgers Rag.
(no subject)
Date: 30/11/10 22:06 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 1/12/10 00:34 (UTC)"Ok, we know that British business will have to bribe people to win contracts. so, we give them licence to hire hookers and do whatever it takes to save jobs and win the contracts that keep the factories open. We don't want businesses bribing us, and we won't let them have the chance - but if they have to grease foreign palms to stay in business, let them play the advantage"?
If so, I can see that working out as follows. if we fess up that we did bribe somebody to get the job, it may not go down too well with his own people. and that is tough on him - or ever her as the case may be. it would make bribery more unacceptable and eventually do away with it. after all, why should the developing countries have to put up with corrupt officialdom ?
(no subject)
Date: 1/12/10 01:24 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/11/10 23:14 (UTC)Tough luck. Shouldn't be allowed. There is no rational reason for a government that's by the people, of the people, and for the people (which may or may not apply to anyone other than the U.S.) to have any (yes, any) national security secrets other than during an event, like a diplomatic negotiation. Once the event is done, it should all be public.
Yes.
I don't see how that's unethical, but that's certainly your choice. It's not on par with the ethics issues governments are having.
(no subject)
Date: 1/12/10 00:27 (UTC)Well, I happen to be someone who believes in that stuff I heard in Sunday School-
y'know "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", etc.
I mean , if I was hard up, struggling to get by, would I want someone encouraging my kids to ask for things i maybe could not afford, would i want my kids to grow up thinking that daddy did not care about them , or was second rate cos he couldn't afford 'nice things'? Would I want people to latch onto the idea that happiness is all about possessing stuff?
No, I wouldn't. So, by extension , I am not going to encourage kids to pester parents to buy them things - even if I am going to boost my bottom line by doing so. Like you say, this is my decision.
but it is also my decision to vote , or even not to vote. Now should I vote for any political stance, if so which one? standing for ofice does mean more than just voting for a stance or policy - if elected I may have to carry that policy out.
This means I have to think it through and consider all the arguments for and against. And, if i am in government, if i get elected, it means I must weigh the loss of maybe thousands of jobs against the possible ethical considerations of selling arms to Middle East countries, or even selling British medical equipment or farming technology by using bribes and prostitution - or at least turning a blind eye when Brits in business do it.
Once the event is done, it should all be public.
I have to say that I like this. I cannot see the electorate earing it though. but maybe they need educating? I guess people get the government they deserve sometimes. Thanks for commenting.