Leaked Emails Reveal Widespread Corruption in Global Oil Industry (theage.com.au) 204
Nick McKenzie, Richard Baker, Michael Bachelard, and Daniel Quinlan report on a widespread corruption in the global oil industry for The Huffington Post: In the list of the world's great companies, Unaoil is nowhere to be seen. But for the best part of the past two decades, the family business from Monaco has systematically corrupted the global oil industry, distributing many millions of dollars worth of bribes on behalf of corporate behemoths including Samsung, Rolls-Royce, Halliburton and Australia's own Leighton Holdings. A massive leak of confidential documents has for the first time exposed the true extent of corruption within the oil industry, implicating dozens of leading companies, bureaucrats and politicians in a sophisticated global web of bribery and graft. After a six-month investigation across two continents, Fairfax Media and The Huffington Post can reveal that billions of dollars of government contracts were awarded as the direct result of bribes paid on behalf of firms including British icon Rolls-Royce, US giant Halliburton, Australia's Leighton Holdings and Korean heavyweights Samsung and Hyundai.
Shocking! (Score:5, Insightful)
Big oil is corrupt?! I'm shocked! Shocked I tell you!
Re:Shocking! (Score:5, Funny)
Shut the fuck up! Oil is Jesus juice! God loves oil! Do not ever question oil. It is holy beyond all other things. God wants us to burn it. The mighty Koch Brothers have decreed it, and they are billionaires, which makes them better than everyone else. If I were in charge, I would outlaw alternative energies, execute all climatologists, and all skeptics would be given a million dollars and a dozen 19 year old hookers as reward for promoting the use of completely harmless hydrocarbons for energy production.
Oil is good, alternatives are evil and a sign of Satan. You wouldn't wan tot be on the side of Satan by questioning the righteousness of oil companies, would you?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
skeptics would be given a million dollars and a dozen 19 year old hookers
Oh thank god. I can't tell you how skeptical I am.
And the winner is? (Score:5, Insightful)
Former Vice President Dick Cheney, who at the time referenced in the leaked documents was CEO of Halliburton. Oh, he is also a war criminal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
yet oddly they kept paying him even after he was VP.
Re: (Score:2)
The poster you're responding to was incorrect. HOWEVER, from 2001 THROUGH 2005, Cheney was receiving his golden parachute from Halliburton, *while* he was there when Halliburton got its no-bid contracts for Iraq. Maybe you're too young to remember the first year or so, where the US troops there were *literally* not getting enough water every day, due to "insurance issues" for Halliburton and its subsidiaries (who were doing it, instead of the Quartermaster Corps).
So, yes, he was being paid by them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
bitter sarcasm much? ... always.
comes from tasting too much sour grapes. best not to be a loser
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not clear. What is your problem? Surely you don't think using sacred holy fossil fuels to create energy is bad, do you? You're not one of those evil disgusting Commie greenies are you? I'm sure you and I both agree that the AGW crowd should have a gun put to their heads and it politely explained to them that oil is just wonderful. Right?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Skeptics of AGW are blessed by God, who loves oil. God would never allow burning of carbon-based fuels to increase CO2 levels, and God would never allow CO2 to alter surface temperatures. Why are you upset? I'm just repeating what you believe, right? That fossil fuels have absolutely no downside, and it is impossible for CO2 to alter climate.
Oh I get it, it's because you think I'm a secret AGW supporter. I'm not. I'm a fucking idiot,. just like you.
Re: (Score:2)
your sour grapes sarcastic comments indicate you are irrational, bitter, impotent, frustrated. probably due to a life long habit of losing at everything.
if my comments indicate i am an idiot. so be it.
be even more bitter in reply!
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm.....
Hey...c'mon, everyone has their price!!
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, Just ask Frank Spencer
Re: (Score:2)
It's the hookers that er hooked you, isn't it ?
Re:Shocking! (Score:4, Interesting)
Unfortunately to reflect the true reality of the nature of the corrupt individuals involved you statement should have read "I'll bet you a dozen 14 year old hookers, male or female", they really are that sick and that is exactly how the ensure the control of the politicians they buy. This with the backing of the corrupted espionage/military industrial complex, the core of which now appears to reside in NATO over which the US government had largely lost control, they were doing pretty much what ever they felt like be purposefully feeding false information up the line and striving to create chaos and conflict. Once the scandal truly breaks, oh my, will the current line up of the rich and famous shrink.
Re: (Score:2)
I am Donald Trump and I approve this message.
Re: (Score:3)
funny rant but the simple truth is that.
1. There is no real alternative for oil in many areas. Oil is used for transportation, solar and wind are used for electrical production.
2. Oil is not the biggest problem when it comes to CO2. Coal is the real problem.
Re:Shocking! (Score:5, Funny)
Here's your oil stock dividends, Captain Renault....
Re: (Score:2)
+1 Casablanca reference
Re:Shocking! (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah. This would never, ever happen to solar-panel manufacturers — nor any other government-sponsored industry.
Re: (Score:2)
Or anything 'us' apparently. Countries listed are 'our enemies'. I suspect another analyst would highlight different aspects in the leaked emails,
Re: (Score:3)
Here ya go. [google.com]
Re:Shocking! (Score:4, Interesting)
More like this [youtu.be]. And, yeah, it is true [politifact.com] — if Politifact would not flat-out deny it, you can be certain, it is true.
But the point was not to blame a particular industry — only to remind, that any case of government bureaucrats either spending taxpayers' money or being in a position to allow or disallow something is fertile ground for corruption. Which, of course, leads to the immediate conclusion, that the fewer there are of such situations, the better.
Re: (Score:2)
More like this [youtu.be]. And, yeah, it is true [politifact.com] — if Politifact would not flat-out deny it, you can be certain, it is true.
Did you even read your poiltifact link? The last line in the article is: "We rate this ad's claim Mostly False."
Re: (Score:2)
TRUE – The statement is accurate and there’s nothing significant missing.
MOSTLY TRUE – The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information.
HALF TRUE – The statement is partially ac
Re: (Score:2)
Your mistake is to think that government involvement is a factor.
Anywhere money changes hands is fertile grounds for corruption, the larger the sums - the more fertile the ground. Government is not immune to this - but neither is it more susceptible than any other organisation which signs contracts. No. Really. It isn't.
The only thing the libertarian small government idea achieves is an explosion in private corruption - because among the first things to go when a government is made smaller is those divisio
Re: (Score:2)
but the taxes are my money.
After they have it, it's not your money anymore.
Confiscated from me at the implicit gunpoint.
Confiscated? really? It's your "responsibility" as a citizen to pay them. With "rights" comes "responsibilities" and it seems like to me you're being just a selfish jerk who wants all the rights without any responisbility. Sounds like that OTHER expat from Eastern Europe....Ayn Rand. Go back to the Ukraine tovarysch. You had this vision of america thanks to propaganda that wasn't the real america and now you're espousing the philosophy of basically wanti
Re: (Score:2)
what weird bizarro world do you live in that up is down and false is true?
Our ruling
Solyndra's story is unfinished. FBI and congressional investigations continue, and more information about the loan guarantee program may yet come to light.
The TV ad says "(President Barack Obama gave) half a billion in taxpayer money to help his friends at Solyndra, a business the White House knew was on the path to bankruptcy." Some of this is correct, while some isn't supported by the existing evidence.
First, the money wasn't Obama's to give. Solyndra's request predated his administration, and career Energy Department officials handled the deal.
Second, e-mails so far don't show an administration pushing through a loan to help Obama's "friends at Solyndra." Rather, it appears the administration asked the Energy Department officials to hurry the regular process, so the administration could burnish its stimulus efforts.
Third, while e-mails raised doubts about Solyndra's liquidity as the Energy Department finalized the loan, those questions were answered by an official who argued investors would step in to protect the project — red flags, yes. But awareness in the White House the company would dissolve? No.
The government wasn't the only blindsided investor — private investors put up far more, and stand to lose more, than taxpayers.
The Solyndra story might be one of the poor design of the Energy Department's loan guarantee program — something the Government Accountability Office has pointed out since 2008. And with the congressional investigation ongoing, we may learn more about the Obama administration's role in the loan program — perhaps better supporting the ad's claims. For now, though, information in the public record does not support the ad's claim that the Obama White House is a pay-to-play cash machine for the politically well-connected. We rate this ad's claim Mostly False.
Re: (Score:2)
You never read what you link, do you?
The authors argument is that the Tesla deal is worse because Tesla succeeded, but the government (and therefore taxpayers) is making no money off of Tesla's success.
On the basis of the loan itself, and the purpose behind the loans of fostering innovation, it succeeded. Tesla succeeded, and paid the loan back. Early even.
On the basis of making money like a VC would, yes, the taxpayer got no shares or equity or other gain from that success, and Tesla now stands to profit i
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Institutions that are the major state-run industry of the most authoritarian and least free countries in the world? Corrupt? You don't say!
(And before you go making snarky comparisons to the US, Europe, etc. We get it. Ha ha ha. Way to go internet edgelord with that stinging social commentary. We aren't perfect but we're whole worlds away from the institutionalized corruption that is the system of government in said places)
There really isn't a line between business and criminal enterprise in these places..
Re:Shocking! (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you may have that backwards. At least in the case of the US, the oil industry isn't state run. The state is run by the oil industry.
Re: (Score:2)
The dull surprise is almost overwhelming! (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not sure if I'll be able to concentrate after being THIS gobsmacked...
Fuck. This is like saying "Water is wet." or "Fire is hot." or "Politicians are full of shit."
It's pretty much a given. Like gravity.
Re:The dull surprise is almost overwhelming! (Score:4, Insightful)
And that's precisely what the oil industry is relying on: your contempt of them. Since you're already used to the fact that they're corrupt, they get to live with it and keep making $$$. Not like you're going to do anything about it because you're already treating it like a fact of life.
Re: (Score:2)
Go jump off a building and tell me that.
Re: (Score:2)
Big (Insert Industry Here) is corrupt? I'm shocked! Shocked I tell you!
Re: (Score:2)
Only thing shocking is they put it in plain text in emails.
Re:Shocking! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Industrial or State? (Score:3)
Was this industrial espionage or state espionage that leaked it? Or a disgruntled employee?
We've had a few seemingly random leaks of criminal conspiracies since NSA spying got big... information you couldn't use in court if it came directly from a government action.
Re: (Score:2)
Big oil is corrupt?! I'm shocked! Shocked I tell you!
I could hardly believe it myself!
Re:Shocking! (Score:5, Insightful)
Now if anyone of note actually goes to jail, then I actually will be shocked.
I won't be holding my breath.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I find it remarkable how I really knew nothing about these players beforehand and yet how unsurprised I am.
Re: (Score:2)
More to the point.
"We will conclude the three-part investigation by showing how corrupt practices have extended deep into Asia and Africa."
Doing business in Asia and Africa involves bribes? Shocking I tell you.
other citations (Score:5, Informative)
Some citations (other than Huff Post):
http://www.smh.com.au/interact... [smh.com.au]
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new... [dailymail.co.uk]
http://www.stuff.co.nz/busines... [stuff.co.nz]
http://www.stuff.co.nz/busines... [stuff.co.nz]
http://www.stuff.co.nz/busines... [stuff.co.nz]
Re: (Score:2)
Daily Mail [Re:other citations] (Score:2)
Yeah-- I though about whether to not include them, but figured there was a benefit in the parallax of sources, even if the Daily Mail is about as reliable as the National Enquirer.
Re:other citations (Score:4)
Why would you be averse to Huffington Post when they're the ones who did the reporting?
Seems a bit irrational.
It is one thing to prefer wire news from a particular source... or to avoid the story entirely because you don't trust the investigative reporters. But to prefer to hear it second hand is... insane. Does it become more truthy if your friend repeats it to you?
The linked article from The Age who is the other investigator than Huffington Post, and the Huffington Post links to that article too as the "full investigation."
See: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... [huffingtonpost.com]
Re:other citations (Score:4, Interesting)
Same reason certain people call one source "Faux News".
When people get reporting they don't like, they tend to dismiss the source.
Re: (Score:2)
That is such absolute bull.
No, Ann Coulter is not a walking piece of performance art.
No, it is not just humor.
Whether she actually believes the racist c*** she says is irrelevant.
She profits from saying it, from people who believe both what she says is true and that she is serious when she does so.
And no, they are not leftwing, or biased, any more than reality is.
What people to stop getting rated liar?
Then tell them to stop lying.
Re: (Score:2)
You two are not using "C***" to mean the same thing, BTW. Claiming that someone says racist crap is not misogyny, or even a personal insult, and Michael seems to have unangelically and ungrammatically assumed a different meaning.
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't you look up the f**king case and see what it was about instead of talking out of your a$$.
Among a million other sources: http://skeptics.stackexchange.... [stackexchange.com]
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Well, the HuffPo is pretty well known for having a leftist, liberal slant to most of their stories...in both choice of subject and type of coverage.
Much the same as in how Fox News tips a bit to the right.
With either, if you find a source more centrist, it adds to the authenticity of the story as published.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you be averse to Huffington Post when they're the ones who did the reporting?
Seems a bit irrational.
It is one thing to prefer wire news from a particular source... or to avoid the story entirely because you don't trust the investigative reporters. But to prefer to hear it second hand is... insane.
Not really. HuffPo does some good reporting but they also do bad. Their worst stuff was posting really whacky and dangerous BS like the whole anti-vaxx nonsense. But even on politics they post articles suggesting that Bernie Sanders is winning the Democratic primary [huffingtonpost.com] when the vast majority of expert analysis suggests it's almost impossible for him to come back.
The fact is that HuffPo will post articles completely out of step with overwhelming expert consensus and seriously misleads its readers to promote it
Re: (Score:3)
Those are not other citations.
a) The Sydney Morning Herald and Stuff are published by Fairfax Media, who are the co-authors with The Huffington Post of the cited report.
b) The Daily Mail cites only the Sydney Morning Herald.
All 5 of those articles cite only the same report. They are not separate.
Re: (Score:2)
Good pick-up ... this appears to be mostly a Fairfax story.
I've noticed Fairfax has collaborated with HuffPo the last couple of years, so this may be considered a "collaborative" effort for the purposes of gaining HuffPo's global reach.
But back to the main story ... clearly the rules around lobbyists need to be locked-down much, much more.
Australia's federal government has a lobbyist register [pmc.gov.au] but from what I can see there's no penalty (financial, custodial) if one doesn't register. Not good enough.
Secondly,
bribery go-between (Score:4, Insightful)
Is it really necessary to bribe officials in oil-rich countries?
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, think about it... look how much effort Saudi Arabia is putting into maintaining market share. Price isn't everything.
It isn't enough to walk to the gas station and make a purchase. If you're a big user, you need to arrange deliveries far in advance, and the current spot price isn't that important. Companies like Halliburton are military suppliers. You don't just sign a contract with whoever has the lowest rate, you also have to worry about if they will be able to fulfill their promises. So there are l
Re:bribery go-between (Score:5, Insightful)
Bribes in some countries are required "business expenses". They are required, because to not include them prevents deals. The fact that the US outlaws this practice doesn't stop those countries from expecting it. It is how you get it soccer in Qatar (Thanks FIFA!) Pay enough tot he right people, and shit gets done.
Which is pretty much the opposite of the US, where you pay government huge amounts of money to have shit stopped up and prevented, we call them Campaign Contributions, or donations to ExPresidents (and presidential candidate) "Foundation" and they are perfectly legal .
Why do we act shocked? Because we're simply ignorant of how the real world actually works.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Corruption does suck in general, there has been a lot coming out recently about child molesters being protected at a very high level due to systemic corruption in governments, media, all over the place - also very much fitting the description of evil.
Re: (Score:2)
This is news how? (Score:2)
Teapot Dome [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Because this isn't even the same decade as that stuff, and is unrelated.
The word "news" that you ask about... it is stuff that is new. That is why it is news. Teapot Dome? That is olds. Also known as history.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the OP intended it to be taken as something along the lines of, "Bribery? This is nothing new... [classic example]".
Keep in mind (Score:2)
What are bribes really?
I propose a definition: They are various sorts of financial transactions that society lacks the concrete mechanism to define.
They are supported and accepted by society as a whole, especially by those high in the hierarchy.
But why is the concrete mechanism of definition lacking?
Is there a lack of academic resources to create such a mechanism in accordance with the other mechanisms of financial transaction?
No, it is not the cost of the academic resources that is prohibitive, it is the c
Re: (Score:3)
We have a lot of meaningless political words. Corruption and Bribery are somewhere in the gray wastes: these are real things, but the words aren't exactly fixed. Patriotism, freedom, liberty, and rights are actually wholly meaningless, pretty much name-dropped when someone wants to label something as good or bad (usually when they have no concrete argument other than that it's something they want).
Meaningless dialogue comes up regardless of any real merit of argument: even privacy rights arguments, w
Re: (Score:3)
Bribery is well defined, the problem is that in many countries what we would consider bribes are legalized therefore no longer bribes legally speaking (you can't go to jail for giving/receiving them).
They are similar to 16th century pirates or 20th century war crimes; it is illegal as long as it is not your country doing it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
--
JimFive
Re:Keep in mind (Score:5, Insightful)
Financial or other types of inducements that invite a person in a position of authority to abuse their lawful or fiduciary obligations in return for special treatment or favors.
If you're on trial and I give your lawyer $100,000 to deliberately undermine your case, I have committed bribery. If I go to a county or municipal building inspector and hand him the keys to a new Rolls Royce in return for him rubber stamping a building I'm constructing, that is a bribe. If I give a government procurement agent a million dollars to assure that I win the bidding on a government contract, that is a bribe.
You will notice that in all these cases the act involves the inducement an individual to compromise their legal or fiduciary duty, not to mention that others are directly harmed. In the first case, you, as the defendant, are very seriously harmed by your lawyer taking the bribe and screwing you over. In the second and third cases, it involves suborning a public official who has a legal duty to act only in the best interests of the state (and by extension, society as a whole).
You are certainly free to try to tell a judge that bribery has no real meaning, but I can assure you, it does, and your defense would amount to little more than standing up and going "DUHHHHHH..."
OPEC (Score:4)
its a cartel, and even wikipedia knows it.
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt if that is the same issue. A cartel is a form of monopoly. That's independent of bribery issues . One could almost say it makes bribery superfluous.
Finally, it's clear that OPEC is currently not functioning as a cartel, with the Saudis dumping their oil.
Sounds like a "facilitator" company (Score:5, Informative)
The Facilitator company will sometimes act as the agent (sales representative) for the legitimate company, collecting a commission on goods and services sold. The commission may be deliberately higher than normal in order to have the cash to pay whoever needs to be paid. This can be discovered by examining the commission amount/percentage and comparing it to other parts of the world for similar services. The foreign company can be held responsible if it knew, or should have known, that something fishy was going on.
Another way to do the same thing is to retain such a company for consulting services. Looking at contract deliverables and the contract amount usually gives an indication if the consulting services are legitimate or a cover for something else. Again, the foreign company can be held responsible if they knew, or should have known that something was up.
Yet another way to do the same thing is to subcontract to one of these facilitating companies. The facilitating company then marks up the price to whatever they need in order to pay their sales staff, pay bribes, or negotiate legal hurdles. The customer's contract is between the customer and the facilitating company, and the foreign company never sees it. Done right, the foreign company has no idea what the final customer price is, or if it was reasonable, etc. This is the best way to protect a foreign company since any improper or illegal actions that the facilitating company takes fall solely on the facilitating company. The facilitating company can also accept contract provisions that a foreign company could not legally accept (Israeli goods boycott, as an example). The foreign company never has the information required to see that something was amiss, so proving that they "knew or should have known" is substantially harder.
One last thing to keep in mind is that certain types of payments are actually legal. Generally, you can pay someone to "hurry up" and complete something that is included in their official duties, and which they would have done for you anyway without the payment. If the payment is just to expedite something that would have happened anyway, it is not considered a bribe, even if it is paid directly to an individual. The prime example of this is paying a customs officer to release cargo which has all the correct paperwork. The officer would have done this anyway, eventually. The payment is just to expedite the legal and inevitable action.
Re: (Score:2)
I hadn't realized facilitator companies existed, but, after it's explained, their presence seems like an obvious necessity of doing business in a country with a large degree of corruption. Now I'm really more intrigued and curious about the economic implications to this news than I am shocked in any way.
I wonder how the size of the bribe is decided. It would pretty much have to be what the market would bear, wouldn't it? So, not enough to raise eyebrows from other sources or cause the briber to take thei
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I hadn't realized facilitator companies existed, but, after it's explained, their presence seems like an obvious necessity of doing business in a country with a large degree of corruption. Now I'm really more intrigued and curious about the economic implications to this news than I am shocked in any way.
I wonder how the size of the bribe is decided. It would pretty much have to be what the market would bear, wouldn't it? So, not enough to raise eyebrows from other sources or cause the briber to take their business elsewhere instead, but as much as you can get away with. And is the incidence of bribery correlatable with how laissez-faire and unregulated an economy is? Directly or inversely? Does it act as an inflationary force, deflationary force, or does it instead react to inflation/deflation?
As someone who has never paid or been paid a bribe, I'm really curious about how they fit into the larger picture of an economy.
I've been part of several, largely penny-ante stuff but a few larger. I hate them, but they are a necessary part of doing business in some parts of the world. In Indonesia in the 90s, the going rate was typically 10% of the contract value for consulting work, but it could be negotiated if, say, out-of-pocket costs were a big chunk of the contract value. That 10% figure was remarkably common. You didn't get preferential treatment for that fee; anyone who won the competitive bidding process would be expec
Are you surprised by the following headlines? (Score:4, Insightful)
Leaked Emails Reveal Widespread Corruption in Global Oil Industry
Leaked Emails Reveal Widespread Corruption in Government
Leaked Emails Reveal Widespread Corruption in Major Corporation
Leaked Emails Reveal Widespread Corruption in Academic Research
Leaked Emails Reveal Widespread Corruption in Some Church
Leaked Emails Reveal Widespread Corruption in Scientific Community
Leaked Emails Reveal Widespread Corruption in HOA
Leaked Emails Reveal Widespread Corruption in Any Human Organization
Re: (Score:2)
Leaked Emails Reveal Widespread Corruption in HOA
Woah, woah, HOAs are the epitome of justice and high human ideals. They do no wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Leaked Emails Reveal Widespread Corruption in Global Oil Industry Leaked Emails Reveal Widespread Corruption in Government Leaked Emails Reveal Widespread Corruption in Major Corporation Leaked Emails Reveal Widespread Corruption in Academic Research Leaked Emails Reveal Widespread Corruption in Some Church Leaked Emails Reveal Widespread Corruption in Scientific Community Leaked Emails Reveal Widespread Corruption in HOA Leaked Emails Reveal Widespread Corruption in Any Human Organization
Headlines you never see
Leaked Emails Reveal Widespread Corruption in Hell
Gov wants $$ = Big Oil corruption? (Score:2)
Cut it OUT with the Capt. Renault attitude (Score:5, Insightful)
What if everybody had the attitude of "well, this is a screwed-up world we live in, what can you do, (nothing), let's turn to the sports" about everything?
"King George wants us to suffer taxation without representation, surprise, surprise, well, duh." - there'd be no America.
"Big deal, this stuff happens, no need for major efforts to change" was the attitude of all those Bishops and Cardinals to kids getting buggered.
We SHOULD react with shock and disgust to lying and fraud in the financial industry, to corruption in oil, to military vendors promoting war; we should tell our politicians they're unemployed unless they act and can have all the money they need to sic 10,000 FBI agents on them.
The S&L crisis in the 80's prompted the assignment of 1000 FBI agents to the case. They brought in about one conviction each: 1000 convictions, a 90% success rate, after winnowing down 30,000 referrals to 1100-odd trials. It brought about real results.
By contrast, the 2008 crisis prompted no such effort despite being 70X as large a set of frauds.
We can tackle these large problems; you just put out the same effort you'd put into a new highway interchange or skyscraper: $100M budget per year and a few thousand people working on it. The US Justice System has nearly one million employees; only 2300 on white-collar crime.
Re: (Score:2)
What if everybody had the attitude of "well, this is a screwed-up world we live in, what can you do, (nothing), let's turn to the sports" about everything?
"King George wants us to suffer taxation without representation, surprise, surprise, well, duh." - there'd be no America.
"Big deal, this stuff happens, no need for major efforts to change" was the attitude of all those Bishops and Cardinals to kids getting buggered.
We SHOULD react with shock and disgust to lying and fraud in the financial industry, to corruption in oil, to military vendors promoting war; we should tell our politicians they're unemployed unless they act and can have all the money they need to sic 10,000 FBI agents on them.
The S&L crisis in the 80's prompted the assignment of 1000 FBI agents to the case. They brought in about one conviction each: 1000 convictions, a 90% success rate, after winnowing down 30,000 referrals to 1100-odd trials. It brought about real results.
By contrast, the 2008 crisis prompted no such effort despite being 70X as large a set of frauds.
We can tackle these large problems; you just put out the same effort you'd put into a new highway interchange or skyscraper: $100M budget per year and a few thousand people working on it. The US Justice System has nearly one million employees; only 2300 on white-collar crime.
Capt. Citroen:
theage.com.au is... (Score:2)
Meh (Score:2)
Oil is corrupt? Big surprise - NOT (Score:2)
Hey, this is good. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What exactly is your point?
Re: (Score:2)
And your solution is what, Nihilism? "Don't take my stuff, oh you're going to? Then I'll just lay down and take it then."
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, not nihilism. I'm not really sure what you call how I feel these days, but I've been fighting and screaming about corruption and collusion for so long and have really seen how deep and wide it goes, so much that HuffPo screaming bloody murder about corruption in the big mean oil companies makes me feel like I'm a kid watching Captain Planet and obsessing over someone littering or not recycling.
Journalists could expose real corruption and real "conspiracies", but that would be dangerous and they'd have
Re: (Score:2)
Solution is easy, test for psychopathy and exclude them from all positions of control, governance or influence. In the mean time, wasn't a cashless society meant to stop crime but surely they were not sneaking around with crates of cash, so cashless in reality made it easier for them. So who are the real culprits, who really facilitates crime and corruption, who are the real money handlers and changers, why of course the 'TAX HAVENS', time to declare economic war, real harsh vindictive and economy cripplin
Re: (Score:2)
Wins happen. The Jimmy Saville stuff eventually came out after decades of it being hidden.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, not nihilism. I'm not really sure what you call how I feel these days, but I've been fighting and screaming about corruption and collusion for so long and have really seen how deep and wide it goes, so much that HuffPo screaming bloody murder about corruption in the big mean oil companies makes me feel like I'm a kid watching Captain Planet and obsessing over someone littering or not recycling.
Journalists could expose real corruption and real "conspiracies", but that would be dangerous and they'd have to risk something to print it. A nice, safe story about oil companies is about as risque as wearing a bikini on Miami Beach.
I'm guessing -- no I'm certain -- that you didn't RTFA, because from your posts you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about. To avoid your further embarrassment, I'll just point out that this article originated with Fairfax Media, where their journalist was contacted by an anonymous insider. He travelled to several countries, risking his safety perhaps, in a classic example of old school investigative journalism. He exposed real corruption -- that is exactly the fucking point of the article.
A
Re: Only climate deniers should be upset (Score:2, Funny)
I'm a climate denier. I emphatically deny the existence of any climate on this or any other world.
Re: (Score:2)
“The American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails,”
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Democrats have similar problems. They used to be the party of labor. They are no longer. Witness the Keystone Pipeline debates. A lot of labor which had previously supported the Democrats are now voting for Trump.
Trump is a populist. Weird but there it is. A bi
Re: Captain, (Score:2)
Whereever there has been power in human history, it has been for sale.
I know, let's give more people more power to fix that!
Re: (Score:2)
See Cuba and Tsarist Russia for other examples.