[jefe_]

The difference being, here we don't let the commoners engage in bribery, it is only reserved for the higher levels, and even then measures are taken to conceal the nature of the transactions. In many developing countries, everyone gives and receives bribes for many things. It is acceptable (and there are limits). I think it's healthy, if the system is corrupt, everyone should be able to exploit its corruption.

[saint_fiasco]

Bottom-up corruption has its advantages. If people like Michael Brown could bribe cops, there would have been no Ferguson scandal.

However the top-down approach allows corruption to be managed and ensures that important business isn't derailed because some random bureaucrat has a drug habit or is in a bad mood.

You might be interested in this article http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2011/08/the_nature_of_the_gri... which tries to explain the difference between corruption in first and third world countries.

I don't know if his thesis is true because I only know the third world kind. If the article is of interest to you, can you tell me what you think of part VI? Does the story with Sally at AT&T sound true? I only have experience with what the author says happens in Hungary, and that part is spot on.

[sharemywin]

Except if it's the justice system and the victim doesn't get justice. Oh and the taxpayers which are overpaying for an inferior product/service so someone can line their pockets. OR the person that gets sick or injured because someone isn't properly trained. I could go on but I'm starting to get little sick...

[atomi]

> everyone should be able to exploit its corruption

disgusting.