/biz/ - Business & Finance

[Anonymous No.25897319]

When did you realize that corruption is an extremely vague concept and actually completely meaningless? Why is it that most people never think about this? To take an example to illustrate what I mean. As he says, in America it's perfectly normal for corporations to donate money to politicians who in return do them favors. This is exactly how corruption is normally defined but it is also exactly how power always works. The only conclusion you can draw is that any power is synonymous with corruption, any society or civilization is synonymous with corruption, basically corruption started with Adam and Eve, you have to go back to wearing no clothes and living off fruit that grows in abundance to have no corruption, if even then.
https://youtu.be/qI7Vl9VVDGg?t=242

[Anonymous No.25898219]

>As he says, in America it's perfectly normal for corporations to donate money to politicians who in return do them favors

Because USA is a third world country. This is not normal in my county and would be a huge scandal.

[Anonymous No.25898291]

>>25898219
What is your country? Actually that's how it is everywhere, just it might be less overt.

[Anonymous No.25898815]

bump

[Anonymous No.25899617]

>>25898219
Europe is ran by corporations too.

[Anonymous No.25899750]

>>25899617
Did corporations corrupt your grammar education?

[Anonymous No.25900645]

bump

[Anonymous No.25901121]

>>25899750
should I have said run or something?

[Anonymous No.25901146]

>>25901121
yes

[Anonymous No.25901240]

Well one good thing about corrupt countries is that you know who to bribe and its affordable. In the US bribing is not affordable.

[Anonymous No.25901530]

>>25901240
My point was all countries are corrupt. Did you even read the fucking OP? So how do you define a corrupt country and a noncorrupt country?

[Anonymous No.25901590]

>>25901530
Um i already said how i define it...you know who to bribe and its affordable...

[Anonymous No.25901660]

>>25897319

See, you started off wrong by saying one corrupt entity pays off another. The dividing line is the use of force, defined as the intentional removal of choice from another moral agent. The politician is corrupt because he is part of an entity that steals money. The donating corporations are corrupt because they seek unfair advantages over their competitors instead of delivering better goods and services.

It's not complicated at all, but evil people like to obfuscate simple truths. The initiation of force is immoral.

[Anonymous No.25902035]

>>25901660
I left america cause its full of idiots.
They have multibillionares and they expect not there be corruption.
No they need to lower taxes for them then thered be no corruption.
Its so frustrating. Ive already been scolded for talking agaisnt god emperor trump. I bet if there is another economic crisis austrian economist types will get the credit. Whatever.

[Anonymous No.25902345]

>>25901590
That's a bs definition though. If anything it could be the other way around. People always seem to think a strong central government means the country is less corrupt. But that could just mean those in power are even more corrupt. Like he says here, if a corporation grows big enough it can buy up potential competitors before they become true competitors.
https://youtu.be/Bislvb-tHwc?t=395
For example you have those corruption rankings that are published. Imagine the state in one country had enormous power to the point it owned a bunch of newspapers, ISPs, you name it, and it controlled what that corruption ranking said, placing itself at the top position as the least corrupt country, when this would actually mean it was the most corrupt country. Then apply the same principle across the board. That's why I'm saying a strong central government, while people always say it's synonymous with a small degree of corruption, is actually synonymous with a high degree of corruption. Countries with actual capitalism, like Vietnam a few decades ago, where anybody could start a business, is an example of little corruption. Vietnam today, where small vendors are more and more getting blown out of the water by 7 Eleven, McDonald's etc is more corrupt, not less.

[Anonymous No.25902436]

>>25897319
>Corruption isn’t a thing, goyim. It’s just power. Can’t do anything about it. The only conclusion is to just accept your new leader.

[Anonymous No.25902496]

>>25902436
Have you ever thought about what corruption actually is though? Or do you just parrot what you've been told? It's actually a very vague, abstract and deep subject that has been discussed since at least the ancient Greeks.

[Anonymous No.25902515]

>>25902345
Dude vietnam is a communist country lol.
Yeah its not old school communist i know but theyve always had a strong central government.
Also what youre describing is what happens to all decentralized markets. Decentralized at the beginning and then over time its not.

[Anonymous No.25902807]

>>25902515
Decentralized vs centralized is at the core of this discussion. Did you watch the video in the OP? Most likely not because it talks about how there were tons of family owned plantations in Latin America at first, and then gradually they all got bought up by three corporations, then one bought up another and it was just two corporations owning all the plantations. This whole process is the exact thing we normally call corruption. Really pure free market capitalism is the same as low corruption and corporatism/crony capitalism is the same as high corruption. If you have 50 small vendors of food in a street and any retard can sell nuts on a small table, then you have low corruption. If you need a ton of licenses and shit and only have McDonald's and Burger King as your only choices in the whole street, then you have high corruption. Really corruption is just a measurement of how developed a society is, more developed=more corrupt, if you extrapolate that what do you get, that's right the New World Order.

[Anonymous No.25902941]

>>25897319
Yes, power structures of any kind allow corruption to exist. So by creating power, we necessarily have some degree of corruption. That said, we can also put into place laws that limit how much corruption can occur (by limiting the amount of power given).

For your example of
>in America it's perfectly normal for corporations to donate money to politicians who in return do them favors
you can limit how much power politicians have to do "favors" such as by limiting unilateral actions or requiring legislation to do substantial things (legislation can be written corruptly, but it must first be debated on its merits and is assessed by the public, and if the public doesn't like it, they can vote out the politicians based on their legislation).

[Anonymous No.25902966]

>>25902807
thinking that pure free market capitalism will lead to people selling nuts in a lemonade stand is foolishness.
There are many rules which state the same thing. The pareto effect, the matthew principle, the iron law of olygarchy... And they all say the same thing. That to those who have more shall be given unless the government intervenes.

[Anonymous No.25903680]

>>25902966
What do you mean "will lead to", it's not that it leads to it, it IS it.
>There are many rules which state the same thing. The pareto effect, the matthew principle, the iron law of olygarchy... And they all say the same thing. That to those who have more shall be given unless the government intervenes.
At that point IT NO LONGER IS FREE MARKET CAPITALISM because the companies grew because of being involved with the government.
>That to those who have more shall be given unless the government intervenes.
What do you mean intervenes? The government is what helps the corporations grow bigger. That's the whole point of the video, the government being in the pocket of the corporations.

[Anonymous No.25903771]

>>25902941

Yeah like how Trump got the most votes of any president in history right? The judicial system rules America.

[Anonymous No.25903877]

>>25901660
I don't see your point. I said corruption is a meaningless term because corruption and power are really the same thing. I don't see how what you said in any way contradicts this.

[Anonymous No.25904423]

>>25902941
I don't really believe that this is how it is. Quoting myself, I was commenting the video in the OP and it applies to what you said:
>It's also interesting that he seems to view the supreme court as kind of above the influence of corporations, and above politicians. I don't think that's the case. The supreme court deeming money equivalent to free speech and allowing you to donate to politicians is also politics, and I wouldn't be surprised if corporations have them in their pocket as well. Why would it stop just below the supreme court?
Quoting myself again replying to another poster, discussing the same thing we're discussing:
>>It is not always exactly how power works, you could literally just have campaigns be publicly financed. Additionally, there are relatively powerful people such as Bernie Sanders who renounce corporate contributions to their political campaigns.
>yeah it is always exactly how power works
>>publicly financed
>that would only happen through A LAW saying so, and what do you think made that law happen in the first place?
So you really believe there is such a thing as an uncorrupted and incorruptible state? Totally independent of private profit interests? My whole point is I don't think there is such a thing, all states/governments arose out of this dynamic he's talking about in the video in the OP.

[Anonymous No.25904560]

>>25897319
I think intention is what defines corruption. If you know that you are doing is directly causing people harm, but you do it anyways for personal gain, that's corruption. No, I dont think donating to political parties is necessarily corruption (most major corporations donate to both sides as well), but, I do think donating to political parties to have former lawyers of yours inserted into the supreme court/congress, so you can have laws written in your favor, like what monsanto has done, is corruption.

[Anonymous No.25904805]

>>25902941
>creating power
What do you even mean by "creating power"? There is no such thing.
>the amount of power given
Again, what do you even mean by that? There is no such thing as giving power. Power is taken, not given. Wherever power appeared to be given it would just be a proxy warrior, not real power.
>you can limit how much power politicians have to do "favors" such as by limiting unilateral actions or requiring legislation to do substantial things (legislation can be written corruptly, but it must first be debated on its merits and is assessed by the public, and if the public doesn't like it, they can vote out the politicians based on their legislation).
Another counterargument to this is like when I saw someone saying "demanding that someone stop subjugating others isn't itself subjugation", to me that's really the same thing as what you're saying here. Wherever there was the power to limit corporations in the way you describe, that would just mean the power was in other hands, and exactly how did it end up in their hands? Again, as I said earlier, do you really think there is such a thing as a state that's above all private profit interest? For example if you have a state that limits the power of a certain corporation, all it really does it increase the power of its competition, so who's to say it's really not those who have the politicians, judges etc in their pocket?

[Anonymous No.25904913]

>>25897319
you're right OP
corruption is a word for people who can not or will not abstract their understanding of behavior away from (what they believe is) "correct" understanding of their contemporary social rules.

[Anonymous No.25904960]

>>25904560
I don't buy this argument either.
>directly causing people harm, but you do it anyways for personal gain
There's not a single state in the history of the world that wasn't built on the blood of its enemies.

[Anonymous No.25905143]

>>25902496
You can say that about a lot of concepts, like 'tyranny' or 'negligence'. We have to make the definitions as a society. Just because something is hard to define doesn't mean we can throw our hands up and say the concept has no merit.

[Anonymous No.25905238]

>>25904913
It's a form of mind control through words, as in Orwell's 1984:
>'Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of
thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible,
because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that
can ever be needed, will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning
rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten.
Already, in the Eleventh Edition, we're not far from that point. But the
process will still be continuing long after you and I are dead. Every year
fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little
smaller. Even now, of course, there's no reason or excuse for committing
thoughtcrime. It's merely a question of self-discipline, reality-control.
But in the end there won't be any need even for that. The Revolution will
be complete when the language is perfect. Newspeak is Ingsoc and Ingsoc
is Newspeak,' he added with a sort of mystical satisfaction. 'Has it ever
occurred to you, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a
single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation
as we are having now?'

[Anonymous No.25905445]

>>25904423
>>25904805
No no, power is not necessarily just something like regulation. Power is much larger and complex than that. Power also includes deciding how much money is spent on X project; whether vendor A or B is used for a government project; if a person or organization is being investigated for some violation, and how cumbersome that investigation becomes; etc. Power is especially present in having the choice to wield some governmental ability against others, which can manifest in many, many different ways. But it also relates to non-governmental abilities, like how much money a person has or the weapons they can control. If you remove those choices or that ability from someone, you reduce their power.

[Anonymous No.25905524]

>>25897319
>donate money to politicians who in return do them favors
if those favors are contrary to what the politician agreed to do for the people who elected them and who they represent it is corruption.

>adam and eve
the serpent lied we do not become god with knowledge of good and evil it caused death and suffering

[Anonymous No.25905546]

>>25904423
>So you really believe there is such a thing as an uncorrupted and incorruptible state? Totally independent of private profit interests? My whole point is I don't think there is such a thing, all states/governments arose out of this dynamic he's talking about in the video in the OP.
I do not think there is such a thing as an uncorrupted or incorruptible state, because every state necessarily requires power structures to exist, and power structures allow corruption. The question is not a black-or-white "corruption or no corruption." The question is how /much/ corruption is inherent to the state's delegation of power throughout society.

We should seek to form the least-corrupt society, but that doesn't mean it's either "uncorrupted" or "incorruptible"... just that it has a minimized amount of corruption compared to other ways of arranging things. (Which might still be a lot of corruption, but is at least less than a state with even more corruption.)

[Anonymous No.25905568]

>>25905445
>power is not necessarily just something like regulation.
I didn't say that did I? I don't see how anything you said contradicts anything I said.

[Anonymous No.25905679]

>>25905568
I'm not trying to contradict you. I'm expanding your horizons so you understand why corruption isn't synonymous with power, but inherent to it.

[Anonymous No.25905796]

>>25905546
>I do not think there is such a thing as an uncorrupted or incorruptible state
Yes you do, based on the definition of corrupt state as being influenced by private profit interest, you believe there is such a thing as a state above and beyond private profit interest.
>power structures allow corruption
No, power structures are the same thing as corruption, that's my whole point.
>The question is not a black-or-white "corruption or no corruption.
I didn't say that, I said the opposite, corruption is a meaningless concept.
>We should seek to form the least-corrupt society, but that doesn't mean it's either "uncorrupted" or "incorruptible"... just that it has a minimized amount of corruption compared to other ways of arranging things. (Which might still be a lot of corruption, but is at least less than a state with even more corruption.)
Did you even read anything I said at all? Define corruption. That's right, you can't.

[Anonymous No.25905852]

>>25905796
It seems like you don't really intend to discuss anything, but rather you just want to write posts that assert your "correctness" without engaging in actual discussion. So I'll leave you at that.

[Anonymous No.25905899]

>>25905238
nice passage, thank you. the conceptual resolution of your language is of utmost importance.
also the corruption argument is fun once you understand that the boundaries which define it presuppose, even invite, that it will happen according to certain mechanisms. thus the labelling of something as corrupt is only important if it helps you understand what has happened systematically speaking, which is to say it's not.

[Anonymous No.25905906]

>>25905679
Bs, you are arguing against in a meaningless way because I never said anything that contradicts what you said there, or that would in any way imply I didn't have that within my horizon so that it was widened by what you said. Learn to read.
>so you understand why corruption isn't synonymous with power
Why don't you put forward arguments for that thesis then, because you didn't do that at all.

[Anonymous No.25905941]

>>25905852
no loss

[Anonymous No.25906184]

Was fdr corrupt? A little bit, he wanted to increase the number of supreme court justices to pack the courts for example. But he created the new deal and got the US out of the great depression. His new deal laid the foundation up to jfk and then things suddenly mysteriously made a turn towards big business.
It remains to be seen whereas america will go back to the legacy of fdr or continue the raeganomics insanity if there is to be another economic crisis.
And for the record orwell leaned to the left back in his day.