First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
Tiananmen Square protests of 1989
1231 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / M
Offline
Posted 4/6/08 , edited 4/21/08

excalion wrote:
Now, a response to Taelin's post. Freedom doesn't cause corruption, it's a tightnit government that causes corruption. When government officials band together too much and do not argue (due to no freedom of speech), that's when major corruption occurs.


Well actually, it was reported that the fallen energy giant Enron's CEO knew the American energy officials including some at the highest levels. That and the amounts donated(?) by various large companies in each election does lead one to some conclusions (which may or may not be correct).

I think the US is supposed to be a bastion of free speech? (though in actualty that remains to be seen)

Corruption from what i see, is highest in areas when there is no real rule of law, poor investigation procedures and very relaxed execution of punishments.

Taiwan's parliment, for example was held up as an shining example of democracy by the US, but poorly regarded by other asian countries. Why? Because vote buying of the rural population was rampant, their parlimentary officials included several people with known Mafia connections and the best one is that they actually fight in parliament, as in fistcuffs.

Even today there are cases of highly placed people getting nothing but a slap on the wrist even after something criminal is done (Ex-president Chen Shui Bian's wife's repreive from trial regarding corruption charges is but 1)
1026 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 4/6/08 , edited 4/21/08

the_glob wrote:

Well actually, it was reported that the fallen energy giant Enron's CEO knew the American energy officials including some at the highest levels. That and the amounts donated(?) by various large companies in each election does lead one to some conclusions (which may or may not be correct).

I think the US is supposed to be a bastion of free speech? (though in actualty that remains to be seen)

Corruption from what i see, is highest in areas when there is no real rule of law, poor investigation procedures and very relaxed execution of punishments.

Taiwan's parliment, for example was held up as an shining example of democracy by the US, but poorly regarded by other asian countries. Why? Because vote buying of the rural population was rampant, their parlimentary officials included several people with known Mafia connections and the best one is that they actually fight in parliament, as in fistcuffs.

Even today there are cases of highly placed people getting nothing but a slap on the wrist even after something criminal is done (Ex-president Chen Shui Bian's wife's repreive from trial regarding corruption charges is but 1)


Wow, I completely agree with you.

Taiwan is even more corrupted than Mainland China (and that's saying something). In order to get the sympathy of the pubic, Chen Shui Bian (his name sounds funny in Canto XDD) got someone to shoot him. Now that's low. Is this what we call democracy now? If so, I'd rather go with the Communists. (Now I know I'm going to be killed when I step foot into the US)

At least the Chinese government don't pull these tricks.
20259 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / The centroid of a...
Offline
Posted 4/6/08 , edited 4/21/08

Taelin wrote:


the_glob wrote:

Well actually, it was reported that the fallen energy giant Enron's CEO knew the American energy officials including some at the highest levels. That and the amounts donated(?) by various large companies in each election does lead one to some conclusions (which may or may not be correct).

I think the US is supposed to be a bastion of free speech? (though in actualty that remains to be seen)

Corruption from what i see, is highest in areas when there is no real rule of law, poor investigation procedures and very relaxed execution of punishments.

Taiwan's parliment, for example was held up as an shining example of democracy by the US, but poorly regarded by other asian countries. Why? Because vote buying of the rural population was rampant, their parlimentary officials included several people with known Mafia connections and the best one is that they actually fight in parliament, as in fistcuffs.

Even today there are cases of highly placed people getting nothing but a slap on the wrist even after something criminal is done (Ex-president Chen Shui Bian's wife's repreive from trial regarding corruption charges is but 1)


Wow, I completely agree with you.

Taiwan is even more corrupted than Mainland China (and that's saying something). In order to get the sympathy of the pubic, Chen Shui Bian (his name sounds funny in Canto XDD) got someone to shoot him. Now that's low. Is this what we call democracy now? If so, I'd rather go with the Communists. (Now I know I'm going to be killed when I step foot into the US)

At least the Chinese government don't pull these tricks.


That's a rather foolish thing to say.
First you're believing over-exaggerated news reports without doubt, that in itself could be dangerous. Secondly, at least the people in Taiwan need to attempt to fool the public. Mainland China's government is so powerful, they don't CARE what the public thinks. Corruption is absolutely commonplace, money can buy you pretty much anything. I have an uncle in the communist government as a pretty high ranking official, and he gets bribes all the time. I can only hope for the sake of upholding moral values that he turns most of them down. But that's wishful thinking.

Do you know why in Chinese restaurants, about half the actual space in a restaurant is allocated to be private booths? It's rather obvious if you think about it.

As for Enron, corruption is a frequent occurrence in any kind of large organization. These should be called somewhat like 'monopolies' where there are enough people in contact/support each other that they can manipulate government decisions. However, there is a law in place for voting in US where each individual can only donate a certain amount of money to any potential elected official. I believe it is 1000$. Therefor, just because you have a rich supporter, wont mean you will have an unfair advantage.

Another note, the very fact that you even know about Chen's corruption is due to freedom of the press. Do you really think the same things don't happen in China? Of course it does, but they have sealed off their information so much, you wont possibly know about it.
22734 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Singapore
Offline
Posted 4/6/08 , edited 4/21/08
it is the right thing to do
22734 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Singapore
Offline
Posted 4/6/08 , edited 4/21/08

samurai_2008 wrote:


excalion wrote:


samurai_2008 wrote:

i dun caer about china, they suck!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! japanese thigs are wayyyyyyyyyy better!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Could you kindly remove your idiocy from the extended discussion section? Thanks


who cares abut chinaaa??????????????????????///// they dont eevn make anime and good doramasss!!!!!!



now i suppose u dont know that japan copied their culture from china
1231 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / M
Offline
Posted 4/6/08 , edited 4/21/08

excalion wrote:
As for Enron, corruption is a frequent occurrence in any kind of large organization. These should be called somewhat like 'monopolies' where there are enough people in contact/support each other that they can manipulate government decisions. However, there is a law in place for voting in US where each individual can only donate a certain amount of money to any potential elected official. I believe it is 1000$. Therefor, just because you have a rich supporter, wont mean you will have an unfair advantage.

Another note, the very fact that you even know about Chen's corruption is due to freedom of the press. Do you really think the same things don't happen in China? Of course it does, but they have sealed off their information so much, you wont possibly know about it.


Actually Enron was not a monopoly. There are other energy companies including Exxon, Chevron, ARCO, etc.

As for the $1000 limit, that does not apply to corporations which simply skirt the issue by not giving the money to a particular candidate but to the parent political group (Democrat or Republican). Of course one could imagine that they could simply tell the parent organization of their "admiration" of a particular candidate whilst donating.

You can read about the difference here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_in_the_United_States

As for Chen's corruption, i raised that to point out that your inital hypothesis of "government officials band together too much and do not argue" as being the cause of corruption isn't correct (heck Taiwan's parliment officials fight on national TV)
20259 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / The centroid of a...
Offline
Posted 4/6/08 , edited 4/21/08

the_glob wrote:


excalion wrote:
As for Enron, corruption is a frequent occurrence in any kind of large organization. These should be called somewhat like 'monopolies' where there are enough people in contact/support each other that they can manipulate government decisions. However, there is a law in place for voting in US where each individual can only donate a certain amount of money to any potential elected official. I believe it is 1000$. Therefor, just because you have a rich supporter, wont mean you will have an unfair advantage.

Another note, the very fact that you even know about Chen's corruption is due to freedom of the press. Do you really think the same things don't happen in China? Of course it does, but they have sealed off their information so much, you wont possibly know about it.


Actually Enron was not a monopoly. There are other energy companies including Exxon, Chevron, ARCO, etc.

As for the $1000 limit, that does not apply to corporations which simply skirt the issue by not giving the money to a particular candidate but to the parent political group (Democrat or Republican). Of course one could imagine that they could simply tell the parent organization of their "admiration" of a particular candidate whilst donating.

You can read about the difference here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_in_the_United_States

As for Chen's corruption, i raised that to point out that your inital hypothesis of "government officials band together too much and do not argue" as being the cause of corruption isn't correct (heck Taiwan's parliment officials fight on national TV)


Not so much not correct as there might be other causes along with officials banding together. I doubt you would deny the fact that a closely knit government system is more susceptible to corruption than one that is divided. That is the reason why the US government has checks and balances, not one house ruling everything.

As for the way corporations can 'skirt' the $1000 limit, sure they can support that particular parent political group, but the candidates for president in the political groups are voted on by the entire group. Even if the receiver or treasury of the political group is corrupted, I doubt the rest of the entire group is. Simply due to the masses of political media reporting every little thing they can find. China does not have that.

I never said Enron was a monopoly, I said the system where enough people support each other to be able to manipulate government decisions is a monopoly.
1231 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / M
Offline
Posted 4/6/08 , edited 4/21/08

excalion wrote:
Not so much not correct as there might be other causes along with officials banding together. I doubt you would deny the fact that a closely knit government system is more susceptible to corruption than one that is divided. That is the reason why the US government has checks and balances, not one house ruling everything.

As for the way corporations can 'skirt' the $1000 limit, sure they can support that particular parent political group, but the candidates for president in the political groups are voted on by the entire group. Even if the receiver or treasury of the political group is corrupted, I doubt the rest of the entire group is. Simply due to the masses of political media reporting every little thing they can find. China does not have that.

I never said Enron was a monopoly, I said the system where enough people support each other to be able to manipulate government decisions is a monopoly.


I can't really say with evidence if its more susceptible as i don't remember if there's any research done on it, but i would agree that based on human nature, that would be correct to say that a governement that is ruled by a few would be more susceptible to openly visible corruption. Corruption that is done to prevent exposure to the masses (aka underground) is more prevalent when they can be exposed more easily such as in societies with freedom of press or speech.

As for the US government's checks and balances, the entire Enron matter shows its failure. As any auditor knows, written rules are great for holding up to the public and saying that we do this and that, but whether it is actually done is a different matter. The recent Federal Reserve bailing of Bear Sternes shows a failure of these checks and balances. Some people appluad the active measures taken by the Feds but did these people think about the chain of events that led to the bailout (probably beginning years ago)

For the skirting issue, you do understand what i am saying when i said that the donor could express "admiration" of candidate X while donating? As with any organization, those that are labeled the bigger supporters have their voice heard more clearly. For example, would you get VIP treatment in a casino (owned by a company owned by shareholders) if you played millions rather than that fella who spent a few hundred bucks?

Regarding the definition of monopoly, would Exxon, ARCOand other big companies stand arnd while Enron manipulated matters to Enron and Enron's only benefit? Looking deeper, having enough people support each other in manipulating government decisions is pretty much how the Senate and Congress works actually


Edit: Just noticed that this is already no longer about Tiananmen. Apologies to the original poster
20259 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / The centroid of a...
Offline
Posted 4/6/08 , edited 4/21/08

the_glob wrote:


excalion wrote:
Not so much not correct as there might be other causes along with officials banding together. I doubt you would deny the fact that a closely knit government system is more susceptible to corruption than one that is divided. That is the reason why the US government has checks and balances, not one house ruling everything.

As for the way corporations can 'skirt' the $1000 limit, sure they can support that particular parent political group, but the candidates for president in the political groups are voted on by the entire group. Even if the receiver or treasury of the political group is corrupted, I doubt the rest of the entire group is. Simply due to the masses of political media reporting every little thing they can find. China does not have that.

I never said Enron was a monopoly, I said the system where enough people support each other to be able to manipulate government decisions is a monopoly.


I can't really say with evidence if its more susceptible as i don't remember if there's any research done on it, but i would agree that based on human nature, that would be correct to say that a governement that is ruled by a few would be more susceptible to openly visible corruption. Corruption that is done to prevent exposure to the masses (aka underground) is more prevalent when they can be exposed more easily such as in societies with freedom of press or speech.

As for the US government's checks and balances, the entire Enron matter shows its failure. As any auditor knows, written rules are great for holding up to the public and saying that we do this and that, but whether it is actually done is a different matter. The recent Federal Reserve bailing of Bear Sternes shows a failure of these checks and balances. Some people appluad the active measures taken by the Feds but did these people think about the chain of events that led to the bailout (probably beginning years ago)

For the skirting issue, you do understand what i am saying when i said that the donor could express "admiration" of candidate X while donating? As with any organization, those that are labeled the bigger supporters have their voice heard more clearly. For example, would you get VIP treatment in a casino (owned by a company owned by shareholders) if you played millions rather than that fella who spent a few hundred bucks?

Regarding the definition of monopoly, would Exxon, ARCOand other big companies stand arnd while Enron manipulated matters to Enron and Enron's only benefit? Looking deeper, having enough people support each other in manipulating government decisions is pretty much how the Senate and Congress works actually


Edit: Just noticed that this is already no longer about Tiananmen. Apologies to the original poster


Yes that's true, but they support each other (ideally) not for friendship, but for reason.

As for political groups, I can say this. I doubt the political group would jeopardize the chances of them winning the election just because any particular organization donated several million. Even if the group decides to put the particular person that the corporation recommends at its vanguard, does not mean the general population will give sway to such a decision. In my opinion, the winning of the election is more important to the group than the money one of its supporters give. Therefor they will still pick the 'best' candidate, not just someone the corporation has interests in. Using your casino example, sure you would get VIP treatment, but you still don't get to make executive decisions on how to run the casino.

As for the checks and balances, I can say that US is the country that follows such a system the most out of any countries. For sure, just like auditors will tell you the rules are not followed to a T, they will also tell you that most of the time people will not stray too far from it. Just because there are some people who break the law, does not mean the law is bad, nor does it mean the law should be abolished.
1231 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / M
Offline
Posted 4/7/08 , edited 4/21/08

excalion wrote:
As for political groups, I can say this. I doubt the political group would jeopardize the chances of them winning the election just because any particular organization donated several million. Even if the group decides to put the particular person that the corporation recommends at its vanguard, does not mean the general population will give sway to such a decision. In my opinion, the winning of the election is more important to the group than the money one of its supporters give. Therefor they will still pick the 'best' candidate, not just someone the corporation has interests in. Using your casino example, sure you would get VIP treatment, but you still don't get to make executive decisions on how to run the casino.

As for the checks and balances, I can say that US is the country that follows such a system the most out of any countries. For sure, just like auditors will tell you the rules are not followed to a T, they will also tell you that most of the time people will not stray too far from it. Just because there are some people who break the law, does not mean the law is bad, nor does it mean the law should be abolished.


To be frank, the masses are easily swayed by sufficient promotion, vague promises (which no one ever remembers) and playing to each crowd. Some people may not be easily swayed but they comprise the minority. Which is why money has become a massive factor. For example, Hillary Clinton's crying on one of her tours was posited as a possible ploy to gander view sympathy. I have no doubt some people upon seeing that sentence would be loudly denouncing me as insensitive in treating the woman's tears as a ploy. These would be the easily swayed masses.

That said, your faith in the masses not selecting the person is somewhat misplaced. Additionally you may not have noticed that corporations have no interest than their own. In this case, why not simply give money to both parties (there's only 2 real ones Democrats and Republicans).

Regarding the US compliance with its own checks and balances there's 2 things that should be noted
Firstly, its checks and balances are incomplete easily seen in Enron and the recent Bear Sterne's debacle. There's plenty more that are of other fields such as California's basing of pay rise with the performance leading to possible cheating by teachers, claimants of social security being dead, etc

Secondly you have no idea of whether they are really following these procedures because the only time you know they are not followed is when something drastic happens.

As for the US being the country that follows their check and balances the most, could you please point out where there's evidence for this. I would think the Swiss are the ones who follow their checks and balances the most
34529 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / F / Undisclosed Location
Offline
Posted 7/16/09
OP gone, thread dead.

Locked.
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.