[salmo]

I'm sorry, It's an unpopular opinion to hold, but the overseas bribery thing is a ridiculous standard to hold. [These opinions are just mine, and while I have them as opinions I would never act on them as a representative of my company, not that I would ever have the chance, and I don't work for Walmart]

Over the course of human history, bribery has been the norm. I would dare to say that today, by population, it is the norm. It has obvious dirtiness in the US and Western Europe. And the US and Western Europe have tried to force this view on other nations, which have created laws that they don't pursue or prosecute.

But criminalizing actions performed in another country based on morality in the US feels equally dirty. I don't mind the US handing evidence over to another sovereign nation for them to deal with, but prosecuting a crime on another countries soil over something that may not be seen as a crime in that country just doesn't make sense.

I know, Walmart is "evil". It's southern US, and hits rural towns, takes advantage of US laws at scale (which would have been taken advantage of in small chunks that added up to the near total), etc.

But, Amazon which is worse on the Walmart issues (low wages, overworked employees, stressed vendors, killing jobs) and then adds on to it traditional "antitrust" problems of vertical integration, and somehow gets a pass in our community because they're a tech company and "we" shop there. Can we get past the rhetoric and move on to the actual arguments?

[DontGiveTwoFlux]

I disagree. US companies can have such an outsized impact by the volume of money they bring, that it can create a moral vacuum that sucks up all the air in a place. Everyone has a price, and when the price is in dollars it may be surprisingly low for the less well off. Someone ought to police it.

Furthermore, bribery abroad may undermine US interests and policies. It’s easy to see why companies would want to pay a bribe to build a store in Brazil (mentioned in the article). Compared to the other costs involved it’s probably pretty cheap and can really speed things up. But that million dollars (or whatever) feeds a system that seeks its own remuneration over serving it’s constituents. It’s not just someone else’s problem. It helps to paper over the enormous drag this rent seeking behavior has on everyone.

Furthermore, the law gives employees a basis to stand on to say no. Now I don’t know if there’s really much to that- I’ve never been propositioned for a bribe, but I imagine that being able to say I can’t, it’s illegal, would help me to say no.

[cf498]

Have you thought through the implications of companies not being held accountable to the home countries laws and morals? This invites creating colonial regimes by bribing local dictators and creating something of the likes of Belgian Kongo. The step to enabling and starting warcrimes is a rather short one. A good example would be Daimler Benz and the Argentinian military dictatorship, where the local Daimler leadership got their workers' council disappeared by the secret police.

[cheeze]

> low wages, overworked employees, stressed vendors, killing jobs

I'm not defending Amazon here, but Walmart has literally been criticized for all of the exact same things...

[blub]

I've seen many sorry excuses for dishonest business practices. They all fall apart when investigated closely.

Bribes and cheating are punished because "trust" is a very important thing a society. The disadvantages are plain as day in corruption-infested countries: unreliable and untrustworthy police, criminals getting away with almost anything, the government is openly working on enriching itself at the expense of the population, etc.

[Nasrudith]

There is a very legitimate interest in the state banning bribe for international behavior. The US already face accusations of imperialism rightly or wrongly for trade involvement.

While it could be argued as "respectful of local customs/the fault of the host nation" being involved it taints the image of US as a trading partner as a whole and gives a reason for rational actor countries to refuse international businesses from the US for fear they will spread corruption because it worked for them before. By holding them all to the standard of "no bribes ever" it makes it clear that such practices tainting businesses are unacceptable.

If other states are worried about bribery (as opposed to liking it) then it gives them a reason to trust the extranationals - if they report bribery they won't get "Not illegal here" as a reaction but "It is a serious crime thanks for reporting it."

Essentially not doing so could harm the spread of US business which is not good for US economic power from which the rest of the nation's power stems.

[tigershark]

So, just to understand, would you be against prosecuting pedophiles that go abroad in a country where having underage sex is not a crime to rape children? Over the course of human history it was perfectly normal to have sex with underage people, so it seems a rather fitting comparison.

[stickfigure]

That becomes a way more interesting hypothetical if you strip away the emotionally charged language.

Let's say a twenty-year-old Californian goes to Canada, meets a 16-year-old, and they have sex. This is (according to wikipedia, don't rely on me for legal advice!) illegal in California and legal in Canada.

Do you think someone should go to jail?

[tigershark]

I was clearly speaking about pedophiles. Do you know the difference between pedophilia and ephebophilia?

[lasky]

Well said