I do not understand this. I mean, politicians do this all the time and do not go to jail (Spain).
I do not mean people offer themselves for briving.
But did anyone ever think what would happen if politicians did not have much power to regulate? Companies would not be able to lobby.
That means there would not be nearly as much incentive to brive as there is today.
Once a regulator is in the middle, the incentive for corruption is there.
I do not think people use Netflix because of the corrupt business of this guy. They use it because it is entertaining or find it useful. The same way people will keep studying Picasso (I hate his art, but anyways) because they consider it art, and he was a misogynist.
But his art is his art, the same way Netflix is entertaining for some people.
There is less political corruption in the US than people think. Everything is so scrutinized these days, especially compared to the rest of the world. White House Chief of Staff John H. Sununu's travel expenses scandal was a big deal at the time, and this was in 1992 (before social media) and the amount of $ was pretty small. I think insider trading is possible concern though, although that too has gotten considerable scrutiny in the media.
Sununu case was more about politics than corruption per se. He was living large on government expense account, with some things coming straight like "obnoxious rich guy flaunting his wealth" caricatures. He also was never prosecuted, only fired - because he became a political liability.
So I think claim that "there is less political corruption in the US than people think" is going way too far. Most of the corruption is never even uncovered (just check how many government officials and congressmen became rich after they started selflessly serving the people, and how wondrously successful many of them are e.g. in stock trading), and the cases that are uncovered are rarely punished with anything but dismissal and maybe light monetary slap on the wrist. One must be exceptionally unlucky - which usually has more to do with political situation than anything - to land in jail for corruption, and unfortunately that's not because there's no corruption, but seems to be rather because there's so much of it than nobody wants to rock the boat too much. You'll need the funds for the next election campaign, won't you?
> although that too has gotten considerable scrutiny in the media.
Politicians should not have power to rule. There are 1 million ways to benefit indirectly from favors to lobbies, do not be innocent. Sometimes demonstrating corruption is really difficult.
You are worried about business that give people improvements or products every day, but you are not worried about regulators that twist stuff to get benefits without producing anything for people and that tax the people that produce?
I always found this view strange: someone that has nothing to do with benefiting others telling that they are good because they f*ck up the people that benefit societies. Yes, they do. Yes, not because they are good, maybe because there is mutual interest. No problem.
Do not tell me about corporations that have monopolies or a lot of power. All those come from absurd regulations. In the absence of them, things would be better. And more fair.
Maybe it is you who wants politicians to regulate.
I want them disappeared as much as possible and that they work giving service to others, not f*cking the very pillars of the benefactors of our society, which are business that produce something useful, by taxing them and imposing obligation after obligation, and, when they are friends, giving them competitive advantage via regulations with excuses to protect this or that, absurd regulations that only have the incentive to exchange favors, making effectively non-viable ideas and business that could succeed and improve all people's lives and remove government handouts.
The people that should govern should be people specialized in the tasks they do, and those tasks vary, in my ideal world, from nothing to security + minimal laws (do not kill, do not harm).
All the rest is giving them reasons to accumulate power that only is misused to polarize people and to give advantages to friends.
I doubt that. In the contracting world, I've repeatedly seen multi-million dollar contracts given to essentially shell corporations. Sure, it's nothing as overt as this case, and technically legal, but there is almost always a vested interest on the government side to go with one company or another. That interest usually has to do with the security of their government position. The ethical difference is a matter of degree.
Yet they still take unnecessary resources through taxes. So it will not be me who will claim for their existence. The number of politicians should be minimized and with low ideology-propagating behaviors.
This is not what I see at all. In fact, the more I researched about USA lately, the more surprised I was about all the polarization. Even more, and this one disappointed me even more: the USA I see today, the discourses I see, the principles I see being applied is like destroying the pillars that founded that nation.
I am not american, but I really, really, I mean, really admire the foundations on which that country was founded. You are destroying them IMHO.
For some (non-casual) reason USA has been prosperous, the cradle of the modern civilization (with all its downsides, I know many of them, yes) and that reason was the mindset of having opportunities and chances to improve your lives without the nose of all those bureaucrats getting into your lives.
The media you mention, the control, the politicians, the regulations. Each of those is a door to corruption. De-regulation (or minimal regulation, if that cannot exist) is by its own right the least corrupt of the systems: it does not give chances for favors and crony capitalism.
I do not mean people offer themselves for briving.
But did anyone ever think what would happen if politicians did not have much power to regulate? Companies would not be able to lobby.
That means there would not be nearly as much incentive to brive as there is today.
Once a regulator is in the middle, the incentive for corruption is there.
I do not think people use Netflix because of the corrupt business of this guy. They use it because it is entertaining or find it useful. The same way people will keep studying Picasso (I hate his art, but anyways) because they consider it art, and he was a misogynist.
But his art is his art, the same way Netflix is entertaining for some people.