[rumcajz]

I have hard time understanding what goes for the bribery in US. Apparently, a lot of stuff that would be considered corruption in Europe is just business as normal in the US. In this particular case I would guess that what they did would be considered OK. Apparently it wasn't. Can someone from the US comment on where the boundary between what's OK and what's not lies?

[0134340]

I suppose it's because this idea of individualistic and competitive 'work hard and make it yourself' attitude permeates our culture and so nepotism, or this case taking advantage of powerful family ties, is somewhat frowned upon as a free ride to success. Of course this also contrasts with our favor for another potentially major part of success based on who you know rather than what you know and social networking, both of which are less frowned upon than nepotism.

I guess the US and like countries attempt to base privilege on well-documented rules instead of ad-hoc, less predictable and more ambiguous 'do me a favor and I do you a favor' bribery that's more known in other countries. Of course it doesn't always work this way but in theory. The good ol' boy network is still a thing and money does buy judicial privilege in many cases but at least we sort of try.

[rsynnott]

Their bribe wasn't big enough, so it was the BAD sort of bribe, seems to be about the size of it. Bizarre.

I have a lot of concerns about the Irish college admissions system (a numeric score is derived from final school year exam results; places are filled based on the highest scores who applied by a national computer system, then anyone left is shunted to their second choice (which may be in a different institution) and so on), but at least people can't outright buy a place.

[kumarvvr]

In India, a similar thing happens for engineering admissions.

People write a national level exam, get individual ranks. No two people get the same rank.

A convention is organized by the education body, where students are called in slots, with the top rankers going first. So they have all the colleges to choose from, all the subjects, etc.

Some % of seats in all colleges are reserved for various categories of students like athletes, physically handicapped, etc. But they are also prioritized based on their rank and an additional score (like a national level badminton winner is prioritized over a state level one, even if the national level player has a worse rank than the state level one).

Apart from this, all colleges are allowed 'management' seats, which are essentially seats that can be purchased. However, even to purchase seats, the student has to get a qualifying rank in the exam.

Costs for the seats are also fixed nationwide, with govt. doling out grants to the colleges for specific indexes, like male / female ratio, etc.

[kevin_thibedeau]

> where the boundary between what's OK and what's not lies?

It scales proportional to your wealth. The varsity blues parents were just too poor to issue a proper bribe.

[rumcajz]

I've meant what is considered morally acceptable by an average American. I guess that you are describing who manages to get away with the corruption, rather than asserting that bribery by the rich is considered more acceptable that the bribery by the poor.

[burfog]

The average American approves of tipping.

The average American approves of political donations when they agree with the political purpose. (donating to a hated politician is seen as corrupt, so Americans always see the opposing party as corrupt)

The average American approves of open and fair ability to buy extra service. Paying ten million dollars to get a dumb kid into college is only tolerated, but it would be generally approved of if it were on a published official price list.

Everything else is not OK.

[rumcajz]

That was helpful. Thanks!

[svachalek]

It’s more that “philanthropy” and “lobbying” are acceptable while “bribery” is not, even though sometimes the distinction is a pretty blurry line.

[lotsofpulp]

It’s more like everyone tries to get away with as much fraud as possible under the guise of plausible deniability, which “philanthropy” and “lobbying” provide.

Let’s see all this “philanthropy” if tax deductible donations have to be anonymous.

[samatman]

This is a typical comment of a Western European.

I know, you would love to forget that Greece and Bulgaria are in Europe.

However... they are.

[rumcajz]

I am from Slovakia and the country is pretty corrupt. But I feel that the moral boundary is somewhat different. In Eastern Europe, preferring your friends and family is more acceptable, whereas in the US it seems to be stuff that could be classified as, maybe, "lobbying" or "ecnomics".

[ativzzz]

The difference I've noticed between American corruption and Eastern European corruption, is that you need to spend a lot more money to be corrupt in the US.

To get basic things done in Russia, like official paperwork, basic government services, or dealing with cops, it always helped to grease the wheels in some way. None of that really works in the US, you need to spend a lot more to be involved in corruption, and even then, it's often uncertain.

[samatman]

Definitely.

I say this a lot: in many ways, I would rather be pulled over by the police in Mexico than the United States.

In Mexico, I know what they want: money. I know about how much they want (more, because I'm a gringo), I know that if I relax, keep my hands visible, and reach for my wallet when the time comes, I'll be on my way.

In the US, who knows what the police want. I have to actively represent my social class to avoid a delay while they fetch dogs and shake down my car; I'm leaning on my pale skin to avoid all sorts of unpleasantness, and if they're behind quota, I might get an expensive ticket which I have to return to that jurisdiction to contest, or just pay.

The US has, in many ways, the worst of both worlds: corrupt, but in an illegible, confusing, class-bound, and expensive way.

[ativzzz]

I can't say I agree in the slightest. Corrupt third world cops are far worse than US cops (maybe not if you're black but that's a different issue, and i'm sure you'd get even worse treatment being black in Mexico). I would much rather deal with US cops, who you can record (and often are recording themselves) within more or less a functional government system than with a bunch of vigilantes who probably want money but also they can do pretty much whatever they want with zero reprecussions or accountability (yea yea you can point to the US and say the same thing but clearly you have zero experience dealing with third world cops based on your comment. They are the worst of US cops taken to the extreme)

I have a Mexican friend who was drugged, beaten and robbed by the police in Mexico. Would they treat me differently for being a gringo? I don't know, but I would much rather roll the roulette of getting a ticket that is documented and is an inconvenience vs dealing with a cowboy system.