[Arson9416]

Bribery exists in every economic system, even before economic systems existed, and is not uniquely connected to the free market. Nor are they connected to "unintended societal consequences", since bribes very clearly have a specific goal. So it doesn't make any sense.

[karaterobot]

Just wanted to say that you're completely correct and making a very reasonable statement which is not controversial. I would love to hear about an economic system in which bribery did not exist or have influence, but I have not seen any examples of that yet, in the present day or in history.

I don't agree that bribes can't have unintended social consequences. They do have specific goals, yes. But some unintended consequences of bribery would be things like discouraging honest participants, or encouraging the most corrupt people (rather than the best, on merit) to place themselves in positions of authority, so as to get bribes. All of these are unintended in the sense that neither the person giving the bribe nor the person taking the bribe are trying to bring them about per se, they're only thinking about the immediate consequences (I get what I want).

[Arson9416]

I agree that they can have unintended consequences, but I wouldn't say any more or less than anything else. This is why I'm struggling with the "invisible hand" analogy, which focuses on a connection to unintended (positive) consequences.

[Der_Einzige]

Uhh, Singapore? Not everywhere is corrupt you know!

[karaterobot]

Singapore's not an economic system, but rather a country. In any case, it's still got corruption. Bribery is one form of corruption, and I have no doubt whatsoever that you can bribe someone in Singapore.

https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2022/index/sgp

[staunton]

Illegally bribing someone is different from legally and secretly using money to influence the actions of institutions

[shuntress]

The point is that this type of corruption is inevitable when the "invisible hand" is completely unrestrained.

[Arson9416]

Bribery is a corruption that happens in every single economic system, so it has nothing to do with the "invisible hand" of capitalism. In fact, arguments could be made as to why it happens less in free markets (where an economy flows more freely) than in non-free markets (where there are artificial barriers, making bribery more effective/needed).

[shuntress]

> In fact, arguments could be made as to why it happens less in free markets

Arguments "can be made" for anything. That is the worst possible justification for any position.

Corruption cannot be stopped without effort. The rules and institutions that regulate and control the market are that "effort".

[Arson9416]

Bribery is not connected to capitalism any more than it is connected to any other economic system, that's the point that you seem to be missing. People seem to want to dunk on capitalism, but it doesn't make any sense here.

[ajkjk]

"Bribery exists in every economic system" is not an argument for being okay with bribery in this system.

[Arson9416]

Good thing I didn't make that argument anywhere. My point with that statement is that bribery is in no way connected to capitalism or free markets because it exists independent of the market type.

When bribery happens in a country with a command economy, do you still say "there's that invisible hand of capitalism again"?

[ajkjk]

? Of course not that question doesn't even parse. Your strategy of acting like your conversational partners are idiots doesn't win you any points; it just makes you sound difficult and wrong.

Bribery is not connected to a free market per se, but bribery in a free market is still a problem to be solved in the context of that free market.

[Arson9416]

>but bribery in a free market is still a problem to be solved in the context of that free market.

Yes of course. I don't know why you keep suggesting I am against that. My issue is with the nonsensical attempts to tie bribery to capitalism, as if one is the result of the other.