|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On April 03 2016 04:27 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2016 03:23 oneofthem wrote:On April 03 2016 00:56 Acrofales wrote:On April 03 2016 00:31 oneofthem wrote:On April 02 2016 02:22 Dapper_Cad wrote:On April 01 2016 23:45 cLutZ wrote:On April 01 2016 22:34 Dapper_Cad wrote:On March 31 2016 10:56 cLutZ wrote:On March 31 2016 10:02 oneofthem wrote:
causal direction is wrong. oil pumps in hands of exploitative regimes = corrupt industry. corruption is really too nice you are looking at organized crime states Yea. Most of the largest oil companies in the world are government owned. PeMex, Saudi Aramco, Petróleos de Venezuela, several chinese owned corps, Petrobras. Bribery is likely the cost of doing business in many of these places. Its not some sort of "aha look at this corruptiong" scandal, its "look at how shitty these countries are" scandal. Its not like Obama and Cameron were accepting bribes. You know you're on the side of right when you're the one paying the bribe. Or... wait, was that right or power? Bleh, nvm, I don't think there's a difference. There are two kinds of bribes: Bribing someone not to do their job, and bribing them to acutally do thier job. If you go south of the American border the latter is a cost of doing business. FIFA and the IOC ( not that they are clean either) probably had 5%+ thier costs of construction as bribes. I know, it's government owned foreign oil companies that are the bad guys, privately owned domestic oil companies are innocent / were forced into it / contain a few bad apples. This is completely obvious to everyone even though the investigation has barely begun. It's like how an official from a third world hole accepting a bribe means they come from a backward culture - that should be better but it just isn't and that's how the world works - while giving a bribe, getting a sweetheart deal to strip some of the poorest people in the world of their assets and then hiding the profit from taxes in any jurisdiction using a system set up and maintained by Britain and the U.S. means you're just doing your job. I think we totally agree here. private sector is there to make money, which in the environment described means accepting corruption as a cost. in this situation the cause of corruption is clearly the one holding the resource That's a very simplistic view of the matter. Just because private sector is there to make money doesn't mean it's okay to go to illegal lengths to do it. And while corruption is rampant in many countries, it is also illegal, even, or often especially by local law. Ironically, the anti-corruption regulations here in Brazil are quite a lot stricter than in NL. As for your second point, that's just flatout wrong. It is not necessarily the resource-holding party who is to blame for soliciting bribes. It can just as well be the resource-desiring party showing up with a big bag of money. lol who said it is ok? the other stuff is just naive. 1. You said it was okay by referring to it as "the cost of doing business". This type of whitewashing is exactly the mentality that causes the perpetuation of corruption. The sort of pervasive idea that it's okay to grease some palms, because otherwise someone else will. 2. Not quite sure what part you're calling naive, but if it's the second part, it really does take two to tango. Someone to grease palms and someone with palms that need greasing... putting all the blame on the latter is just disingenuous.
No dude, it's cool.
Management from an insanely wealthy company bribe legislators from a ridiculously poor country so they can strip the country of it's resources for next to nothing. Everyone then washes their money in Europe or U.S./U.K. dependant territories and then uses it to inflate the stock prices and property values. They only people that loose are the poor bastards who happen to live on top of the resources, or people who want to buy houses without stealing or... well a few more groups of people but all of them are too stupid to be part of the game so they get what they deserve for not being geniuses / having moral compasses.
It's an entirely natural state of affairs that arose and is sustained without planning or anyone knowing anything or anyone being at fault. Except maybe the legislators that took the bribes as they aren't really connected to anyone on the side of the equation that matters and are basically completely replaceable.
If you really have a bee in your bonnet then I ask you, what's the alternative? Poor countries in control of their own resources? Like Venezuela. Like IRAN. Those countries are evil and if you want to know why, read a god damn news paper.
|
I mean, big multinationals screwing over poor countries is a legitimate issue. If you want to start a real discussion about that then go ahead.
However, bribery is a total side issue. I'm sure there are countries where you'd need to bribe some official if you wanted to build an orphanage, and equally there are plenty of other places that are being eaten by big money where direct bribery is not a factor at all.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
im just baffled by this complete inability to read. the question was the causal direction of corruption not some fucking whitewashing of hsbc etc. holy shit
also lol if you thought western banks were corrupt wait until you see the world in 20 years. please have some awareness of the situation before writing biased creeds
|
Something big seems to be incoming named "panama-leaks".
Apparently journalists all over europe at least have been working on it and decided to release the news today, 8pm CET.
edit: It is about all sorts of famous people hiding their money. Names I heard so far are Putin, a former icelandic prime minister, and Lionela Messi.
|
Six members of the House of Lords, three former Conservative MPs and dozens of donors to UK political parties have had offshore assets.
Among national leaders with offshore wealth are Nawaz Sharif, Pakistan’s prime minister; Ayad Allawi, ex-interim prime minister and former vice-president of Iraq; Petro Poroshenko, president of Ukraine; Alaa Mubarak, son of Egypt’s former president; and the prime minister of Iceland, Sigmundur Davíð Gunnlaugsson.
Twelve national leaders are among 143 politicians, their families and close associates from around the world known to have been using offshore tax havens.
A key member of Fifa’s powerful ethics committee, which is supposed to be spearheading reform at world football’s scandal-hit governing body, acted as a lawyer for individuals and companies recently charged with bribery and corruption.
Source
|
On April 04 2016 03:08 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Six members of the House of Lords, three former Conservative MPs and dozens of donors to UK political parties have had offshore assets. Show nested quote +Among national leaders with offshore wealth are Nawaz Sharif, Pakistan’s prime minister; Ayad Allawi, ex-interim prime minister and former vice-president of Iraq; Petro Poroshenko, president of Ukraine; Alaa Mubarak, son of Egypt’s former president; and the prime minister of Iceland, Sigmundur Davíð Gunnlaugsson. Show nested quote +Twelve national leaders are among 143 politicians, their families and close associates from around the world known to have been using offshore tax havens. Show nested quote +A key member of Fifa’s powerful ethics committee, which is supposed to be spearheading reform at world football’s scandal-hit governing body, acted as a lawyer for individuals and companies recently charged with bribery and corruption. Source
Aside from the last bit, how is this news?
|
On April 04 2016 03:11 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2016 03:08 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Six members of the House of Lords, three former Conservative MPs and dozens of donors to UK political parties have had offshore assets. Among national leaders with offshore wealth are Nawaz Sharif, Pakistan’s prime minister; Ayad Allawi, ex-interim prime minister and former vice-president of Iraq; Petro Poroshenko, president of Ukraine; Alaa Mubarak, son of Egypt’s former president; and the prime minister of Iceland, Sigmundur Davíð Gunnlaugsson. Twelve national leaders are among 143 politicians, their families and close associates from around the world known to have been using offshore tax havens. A key member of Fifa’s powerful ethics committee, which is supposed to be spearheading reform at world football’s scandal-hit governing body, acted as a lawyer for individuals and companies recently charged with bribery and corruption. Source Aside from the last bit, how is this news?
|
On April 04 2016 03:14 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2016 03:11 Gorsameth wrote:On April 04 2016 03:08 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Six members of the House of Lords, three former Conservative MPs and dozens of donors to UK political parties have had offshore assets. Among national leaders with offshore wealth are Nawaz Sharif, Pakistan’s prime minister; Ayad Allawi, ex-interim prime minister and former vice-president of Iraq; Petro Poroshenko, president of Ukraine; Alaa Mubarak, son of Egypt’s former president; and the prime minister of Iceland, Sigmundur Davíð Gunnlaugsson. Twelve national leaders are among 143 politicians, their families and close associates from around the world known to have been using offshore tax havens. A key member of Fifa’s powerful ethics committee, which is supposed to be spearheading reform at world football’s scandal-hit governing body, acted as a lawyer for individuals and companies recently charged with bribery and corruption. Source Aside from the last bit, how is this news? https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/716684918600937472
yes?...
Rich people use tax havens, its hardly news. its common knowledge that it happens.
|
Wasn't Messi's tax avoidance problems revealed already? I remember watching something about it on tv few weeks ago, they also mentioned a Brazilian player, probably Neymar.
I hope it's just about using tax havens, if Poroshenko is actually stealing money from Ukraine then that's a huge deal
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
this panama leak is really important stuff. transparency more than anything would do wonders. this world would be lost to governments in the future when they actually try to hide it
|
Dutch voters will decide on Wednesday whether to support a European treaty deepening ties with Ukraine in a referendum that will test sentiment towards Brussels ahead of Britain's June Brexit vote and could also bring a boost for Russia.
The broad political, trade and defence treaty is already provisionally in place but has to be ratified by all 28 European Union member states for every part of it to have full legal force. The Netherlands is the only country that has not done so.
While a "no" vote in the non-binding referendum would not force the Dutch government to veto the treaty on an EU level the fragile coalition, which holds the rotating EU presidency, might find it hard to ignore with less than a year to general elections.
Any rejection by Dutch voters or by the government would give Russian President Vladimir Putin, who opposes deeper EU-Ukraine ties and who many Dutch blame for the downing by pro-Russian rebels of a plane travelling from Amsterdam, a victory in his war of words with the West.
An EU decision to push on with the treaty despite a "no vote", whether the government respects it or not, could be damaging for the EU and highlight EU problems ahead of the British vote.
"If politicians ignore the Dutch no then it will be an even stronger signal than what the British have already received that there is no way to correct the European political class and that they should vote to leave," said Thierry Baudet, a "no" campaigner and one of the architects of the referendum that was triggered when activists gathered thousands of signatures of support.
Many Dutch feel they are being asked to choose between two unattractive options: EU expansion plans dreamed up by unaccountable bureaucrats in Brussels or helping Russian Putin who they blame for the MH17 plane disaster which killed almost 200 Dutch citizens in July 2014.
TURNOUT CRUCIAL
Others are confused by the issues.
"I'm not voting," said Gijs, a driving instructor in Amsterdam. "I can't understand what this referendum is about, and I can't understand why it was called."
A poll by Maurice De Hond on Sunday forecast that 66 percent of people certain to vote, would back 'No' with only 25 percent in favour, with turnout likely to be decisive in shaping the final result. Pollsters TNS Nipo have forecast turnout of 32 percent, just above the 30 percent threshold that is needed for the referendum to be valid.
The government, which supports a "yes" vote, fears it could turn into a protest vote like in 2005, when a majority of the Dutch electorate broke from a pro-European tradition and rejected the EU constitution.
"I hope the Dutch can get over their chagrin and say: 'Yes, we are annoyed with Europe, we are annoyed with this Dutch government, but we will still support Ukraine," said Dutch Finance Minister Jeroen Dijsselbloem.
While some parliamentary parties have said they would be bound by the outcome, "the government position is that we will follow the law, which simply says we will reconsider," said Dijsselbloem, lending weight to the view that the government will seek to preserve the treaty, or its essence, whatever the outcome.
uk.reuters.com
One of the most useless votes ever. If you have a referendum let it be binding. An expected turnout of 32% says it all tbh.
Tax avoidance trough tax havens can be done in a legal way. In Messi's case it was tax evasion and illegal.
|
Any rejection by Dutch voters or by the government would give Russian President Vladimir Putin, who opposes deeper EU-Ukraine ties and who many Dutch blame for the downing by pro-Russian rebels of a plane travelling from Amsterdam, a victory in his war of words with the West.
An EU decision to push on with the treaty despite a "no vote", whether the government respects it or not, could be damaging for the EU and highlight EU problems ahead of the British vote.
I like how they frame this as a no-win scenario. "Vote no = the evil guy wins, vote yes = the EU loses."
Personally I don't think the EU would benefit from propping up Ukraine. It's a bigger, more populous black hole than Greece and any money that has been sent to Ukraine never reaches the citizens but rather falls into the pockets of the politically privileged. It feels like the EU leaders severely underestimate just how corrupt Ukraine is.
|
On April 04 2016 05:32 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +Any rejection by Dutch voters or by the government would give Russian President Vladimir Putin, who opposes deeper EU-Ukraine ties and who many Dutch blame for the downing by pro-Russian rebels of a plane travelling from Amsterdam, a victory in his war of words with the West.
An EU decision to push on with the treaty despite a "no vote", whether the government respects it or not, could be damaging for the EU and highlight EU problems ahead of the British vote. I like how they frame this as a no-win scenario. "Vote no = the evil guy wins, vote yes = the EU loses." Personally I don't think the EU would benefit from propping up Ukraine. It's a bigger, more populous black hole than Greece and any money that has been sent to Ukraine never reaches the citizens but rather falls into the pockets of the politically privileged. It feels like the EU leaders severely underestimate just how corrupt Ukraine is.
Its not about fixing the Ukraine or anything like that. Its to stop a nation on the EU border from falling under the control of Russia.
And I would describe it as "Vote no = the evil guy wins, vote yes = the EU win (who many people also see as evil)."
|
On April 04 2016 05:32 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +Any rejection by Dutch voters or by the government would give Russian President Vladimir Putin, who opposes deeper EU-Ukraine ties and who many Dutch blame for the downing by pro-Russian rebels of a plane travelling from Amsterdam, a victory in his war of words with the West.
An EU decision to push on with the treaty despite a "no vote", whether the government respects it or not, could be damaging for the EU and highlight EU problems ahead of the British vote. I like how they frame this as a no-win scenario. "Vote no = the evil guy wins, vote yes = the EU loses." Personally I don't think the EU would benefit from propping up Ukraine. It's a bigger, more populous black hole than Greece and any money that has been sent to Ukraine never reaches the citizens but rather falls into the pockets of the politically privileged. It feels like the EU leaders severely underestimate just how corrupt Ukraine is.
The agreement is about trade. The EU is not really propping up anything with this.
|
On April 04 2016 05:50 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2016 05:32 LegalLord wrote:Any rejection by Dutch voters or by the government would give Russian President Vladimir Putin, who opposes deeper EU-Ukraine ties and who many Dutch blame for the downing by pro-Russian rebels of a plane travelling from Amsterdam, a victory in his war of words with the West.
An EU decision to push on with the treaty despite a "no vote", whether the government respects it or not, could be damaging for the EU and highlight EU problems ahead of the British vote. I like how they frame this as a no-win scenario. "Vote no = the evil guy wins, vote yes = the EU loses." Personally I don't think the EU would benefit from propping up Ukraine. It's a bigger, more populous black hole than Greece and any money that has been sent to Ukraine never reaches the citizens but rather falls into the pockets of the politically privileged. It feels like the EU leaders severely underestimate just how corrupt Ukraine is. The agreement is about trade. The EU is not really propping up anything with this.
That is simply not true!
There are provisions about armament and defense partnerships in this 'agreement'. Why the f**k do you think Putin went on a war path, when this got signed?
|
|
|
"The Editor in Chief of Süddeutsche Zeitung responded to the lack of United States individuals in the documents, saying to "Just wait for what is coming next".
things about to get wild
|
|
|
Canada11355 Posts
On April 04 2016 03:24 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2016 03:14 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On April 04 2016 03:11 Gorsameth wrote:On April 04 2016 03:08 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Six members of the House of Lords, three former Conservative MPs and dozens of donors to UK political parties have had offshore assets. Among national leaders with offshore wealth are Nawaz Sharif, Pakistan’s prime minister; Ayad Allawi, ex-interim prime minister and former vice-president of Iraq; Petro Poroshenko, president of Ukraine; Alaa Mubarak, son of Egypt’s former president; and the prime minister of Iceland, Sigmundur Davíð Gunnlaugsson. Twelve national leaders are among 143 politicians, their families and close associates from around the world known to have been using offshore tax havens. A key member of Fifa’s powerful ethics committee, which is supposed to be spearheading reform at world football’s scandal-hit governing body, acted as a lawyer for individuals and companies recently charged with bribery and corruption. Source Aside from the last bit, how is this news? https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/716684918600937472 yes?... Rich people use tax havens, its hardly news. its common knowledge that it happens.
Evidence actually linking rich and powerful people to tax evasion and other shady practices is new, though.
|
This whole Panama papers thing is news because of the leak. Not because rich people used offshore accounts. It'll take a lot of very boring studying those 11.5million documents to figure out whether there is anything illegal, or even ethically dubious there at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
