Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How the US Legalized Corruption

indica.medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 91 posts

Re: How the US Legalized Corruption

#41

Post by disposekinetics »

wpietri wrote: post #34
CapmCrackaWaka wrote: post #3

Ugh why bring race into this... Even if the author makes good points, he's not going to convince anyone by saying 'white people have funny words for bribes' in the first paragraph. This is coming from someone who 100% agrees with the rest of the article. Still, I won't share this with anyone I respect.

As a fellow white person, I get this is uncomfortable. But they're not bringing race into this. It's been here all along. Because white people put it there. Right from the beginning America's constitution was built on white power over black people. [1] Slaves helped build the White House. [2] We fought a civil war to end slavery, but gave up on Reconstruction, [3] leading to the Nadir. [4] After the Nadir, we had Jim…

Those are all historically true, but after reading through them I see no causal or factual link between the article being discussed and the list provided.

Re: How the US Legalized Corruption

#42

Post by chordalkeyboard »

jollofricepeas wrote: post #36
CapmCrackaWaka wrote: post #3

Ugh why bring race into this... Even if the author makes good points, he's not going to convince anyone by saying 'white people have funny words for bribes' in the first paragraph. This is coming from someone who 100% agrees with the rest of the article. Still, I won't share this with anyone I respect.

Yes, it’s triggering but keep reading. The author explains their phrasing. The author feels there is a double standard where the “white” US perpetually demonizes black and brown countries corruption while excusing their own corruption under the guise of “lobbying”, “speaking fees” and “dinners.” To the author, it appears to be racism when in fact it may just be hypocrisy (ie. Russia).

> The author feels there is a double standard where the “white” US perpetually demonizes black and brown countries corruption while excusing their own corruption under the guise of “lobbying”, “speaking fees” and “dinners.”

Its sad because many people are not happy with all this lobbying, speaking fees, dinners, etc., but the author ignores this and acts like people in the US approve when. They really just don’t have any say in the occurrence.

Re: How the US Legalized Corruption

#43

Post by JoeyBananas »

> Americans have this thing called a fundraiser where you put a pile of bribes on a table, wave a wand of asparagus over it, and it just disappears. Access is still bought, but somehow because people ate food, it’s not corruption anymore. The press will literally report on the food.

I don't care if a politician gets paid 100,000 dollars for eating a meal because there's no obligation to do anything in return.

Imagine if there was a car dealership where everything was full price but the salesman didn't have to give you a car after they take your money unless they felt like it. The author of this article is saying that business model should be illegal, but only if you're a politician.

Re: How the US Legalized Corruption

#44

Post by chordalkeyboard »

rbanffy wrote: post #14
jtdev wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dividing Americans down racial lines rather than socioeconomic lines literally helps the benefactors of this bribery gravy train keep their grip on America.

It's hard not to notice that socioeconomic lines largely follow racial lines.

Thats a poor excuse for conflating them.

Re: How the US Legalized Corruption

#45

Post by [deleted] »

bichiliad wrote: post #31
CapmCrackaWaka wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) Why does any of this matter? Perspective? 2) Sure, but are these patterns unique to white people? In America, sure, but what about corruption in Africa, China, Brazil, pick one. 3) Then why bring race into it? Surely saying something along the lines of 'white people are corrupt... But other races don't get a pass' is only inflammatory and does not help the discussion. 4) Sure, but you can have valid points and dis…

I think the point I'm trying to get at is that from his perspective, America is white and is run largely by white people. Corruption exists everywhere, but Americans are in the practice of being complacent with it. I feel like a conversation about how we've normalized corruption needs to die on the altar of civility. The people benefiting from corruption certainly don't care.

[deleted]

Re: How the US Legalized Corruption

#46

Post by WarOnPrivacy »

chordalkeyboard wrote: post #42
jollofricepeas wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it’s triggering but keep reading. The author explains their phrasing. The author feels there is a double standard where the “white” US perpetually demonizes black and brown countries corruption while excusing their own corruption under the guise of “lobbying”, “speaking fees” and “dinners.” To the author, it appears to be racism when in fact it may just be hypocrisy (ie. Russia).

> The author feels there is a double standard where the “white” US perpetually demonizes black and brown countries corruption while excusing their own corruption under the guise of “lobbying”, “speaking fees” and “dinners.” Its sad because many people are not happy with all this lobbying, speaking fees, dinners, etc., but the author ignores this and acts like people in the US approve when. They really just don’t have…

> They really just don’t have any say in the occurrence.

I feel this isn't correct. People have their vote and Americans overwhelmingly vote for people who trade law & Fed power for campaign cash.

Re: How the US Legalized Corruption

#47

Post by chordalkeyboard »

WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #46
chordalkeyboard wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The author feels there is a double standard where the “white” US perpetually demonizes black and brown countries corruption while excusing their own corruption under the guise of “lobbying”, “speaking fees” and “dinners.” Its sad because many people are not happy with all this lobbying, speaking fees, dinners, etc., but the author ignores this and acts like people in the US approve when. They really just don’t have…

> They really just don’t have any say in the occurrence. I feel this isn't correct. People have their vote and Americans overwhelmingly vote for people who trade law & Fed power for campaign cash.

> One say that people have is their vote. Americans overwhelmingly vote for people who trade law & fed power for campaign cash.

That’s because there isn’t another option. Voters are villified for voting third party.

Re: How the US Legalized Corruption

#48

Post by DaniloDias »

rbanffy wrote: post #28
drewcoo wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but pointing that out really upsets people.

It's not a comfortable discussion. The fact those lines often coincide is a symptom of a problem many people refuse to recognize.

A child argues that the reason their argument is valid is because it makes others uncomfortable.

Re: How the US Legalized Corruption

#49

Post by JoeyBananas »

ropeladder wrote: post #37

Calls for nuance are missing the point. Nuance is exactly what we need less of, nuance is the trees that hide the forest. Does Yellen have some professional ethics that guard against her acting in a way that overly favors businesses that have her millions of dollars? I think she does. Are those ethics effective as a guard against corruption in the same way that, well, not taking millions of dollars would be? I doubt…

If someone offered me 1 million dollars just to tell me about their religion or politics or something, I personally wouldn't have any ethical problems with that. That's really all the author is accusing Yellen of.

There is nothing in this article that says "Here is exactly how Yellen is abusing her power," all the article says is "she accepted money from banks!"

Re: How the US Legalized Corruption

#50

Post by rayiner »

rbanffy wrote: post #14
jtdev wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dividing Americans down racial lines rather than socioeconomic lines literally helps the benefactors of this bribery gravy train keep their grip on America.

It's hard not to notice that socioeconomic lines largely follow racial lines.

There is a correlation, but it doesn’t “largely” follow racial lines: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/wkyeng.t05.htm

1/4 of the 48 million white male workers make $716/week or less. That’s 12 million people. That cut-off is roughly between the 25th and 50th percentile incomes for Black men. Let’s say 1/3 of Black men make $716/week or less, or about 2.2 million of 6.7 million workers in that group. So the group of male workers earning under $726/week is disproportionately Black compared to the population as a whole, but the vast majority are still white. Between just Blacks and whites (Latinos and Asians are a separate issue because there’s the whole immigrant dimension there, and studies show that their incomes converge with whites within a few generations) the under-$716 group is 85% white.

Meanwhile at the other end, Black men at the top 10% mark make a bit more than white men at the top 25% mark. So say that’s 12 million white men making above $1,800/week and 670,000 Black men. So that group is 95% white.

So yes there is obviously a correlation and disparity. These numbers overstate the disparity a bit because it’s for everyone age 16+, and there is a significant Black-white age difference (a one decade difference at the median). But the disparity is there, and it’s durable (studies show that, unlike for Latinos and Asians, the disparity is not converging, and is stable).

But the income disparity doesn’t “follow racial lines” so closely as to render race even a partial substitute for class in terms of policy considerations.

Post reply on HN