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

Up to $41B in World Bank climate finance unaccounted for, Oxfam finds

oxfam.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 158 posts

Re: Up to $41B in World Bank climate finance unaccounted for, Oxfam finds

#141

Post by immibis »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #126
immibis wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We export our pollution to them...

If we stopped exporting our pollution to them, then their economies would collapse (because the pollution is caused by export-producing industries). So isn't the North already paying the South for this pollution?

No, because market prices don't account for environmental externalities. Attempts to make them account for environmental externalities just cause industry to move to countries where they don't, which is what already happened.

Re: Up to $41B in World Bank climate finance unaccounted for, Oxfam finds

#142

Post by wkrsz »

lesuorac wrote: post #119
qingcharles wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's hard to identify. I audited a Sheriff's account once because there was constant chatter that the funds were being misused. Out of an entire year I could only find one line item that was questionable (it was still a police item, but it should have come from a different fund). What isn't clear is this: if say the Sheriff buys 100 riot shields from Company X, does his cousin own Company X and there is a kickback or…

Pay the sheriff in crypto then ;) If there's an outflow from Company X back to Brother back to Sheriff then there's some clear kickbacks!

unless the kickback takes form of cash or favors

Re: Up to $41B in World Bank climate finance unaccounted for, Oxfam finds

#143

Post by Eddy_Viscosity2 »

MichaelZuo wrote: post #102
Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Money comes and goes without accounting meeting financial standards. That does not strictly mean that the money has been embezzled, only that the DOD and World Bank are unable to demonstrate that it hasn't been. Can you think of a better place to embezzle? Its risk-free without any accounting standards. 100% that embezzling is taking place and at a large scale.

How do you know it’s risk-free? I’ve heard the budget battles between the Navy and Air Force can get particularly severe.

> How do you know it’s risk-free?

Because you can't convict someone for embezzlement if you can't prove it. And you can't prove it if there are no records. This is the purpose of proper financial record-keeping standards - to know where the money is and where it came from and where it goes.

Re: Up to $41B in World Bank climate finance unaccounted for, Oxfam finds

#144

Post by lesuorac »

wkrsz wrote: post #142
lesuorac wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pay the sheriff in crypto then ;) If there's an outflow from Company X back to Brother back to Sheriff then there's some clear kickbacks!

unless the kickback takes form of cash or favors

Cash is for criminal activity so if the CEO is withdrawing large amounts of it then clearly he's committing some crime.

Re: Up to $41B in World Bank climate finance unaccounted for, Oxfam finds

#145

Post by tomatocracy »

nradov wrote: post #98
elmomle wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One idea I've read in the works of Ivan Illich (among others) is that the best thing we could do for developing countries that struggle with corruption is to leave them the hell alone when it comes to financial matters (aside, perhaps, from canceling their World Bank debts, which often come from loans made to past corrupt governments and for which the people are unjustly held accountable) and let them sort their prob…

How exactly could we even "leave them the hell alone"? Developing countries are integrated into the world economy and financial system. Other countries trade with them. If they want to issue sovereign debt then someone will buy it, if not the World Bank then the Chinese government or random private investors. The World Bank isn't perfect but they're at least somewhat helpful with improving governance standards and av…

I mean, yes and no. The World Bank (and other multilaterals) are supposed to provide or facilitate loans which the private sector would not otherwise advance (or provide them on concessionary terms which the private sector otherwise would not offer). Absent this form of lending, countries have a stronger financial incentive to improve their governance to the point where they can borrow on better terms on the open market. This is how bond markets operate in developed markets - hence why eg Italy pays more to borrow money than Germany (despite both being in the Eurozone).

Most people would probably agree that the reduction in those basic financial pressures to reform is more than offset by the more formal governance requirements which are (sometimes) attached to the granting of multilateral loans (and the types of governance the private sector cares about don't necessarily always align with what the World Bank cares about). But it's not automatic, especially given "improving governance" isn't the main reason the multilaterals make loans in the first place.

Re: Up to $41B in World Bank climate finance unaccounted for, Oxfam finds

#146

Post by MichaelZuo »

Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #143
MichaelZuo wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you know it’s risk-free? I’ve heard the budget battles between the Navy and Air Force can get particularly severe.

> How do you know it’s risk-free? Because you can't convict someone for embezzlement if you can't prove it. And you can't prove it if there are no records. This is the purpose of proper financial record-keeping standards - to know where the money is and where it came from and where it goes.

Why can’t one faction in the pentagon do something, other than trying to get a conviction, that still induces risks on another faction?

Re: Up to $41B in World Bank climate finance unaccounted for, Oxfam finds

#147

Post by Eddy_Viscosity2 »

MichaelZuo wrote: post #146
Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How do you know it’s risk-free? Because you can't convict someone for embezzlement if you can't prove it. And you can't prove it if there are no records. This is the purpose of proper financial record-keeping standards - to know where the money is and where it came from and where it goes.

Why can’t one faction in the pentagon do something, other than trying to get a conviction, that still induces risks on another faction?

Like what?

I'm not sure what that could be, but a general answer would be that neither faction wants too much scrutiny. They would therefore have mutual self-interest in maintaining a system where they can keep crappy records (or none) while still keeping mountains of money.

Re: Up to $41B in World Bank climate finance unaccounted for, Oxfam finds

#148

Post by MichaelZuo »

Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #147
MichaelZuo wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why can’t one faction in the pentagon do something, other than trying to get a conviction, that still induces risks on another faction?

Like what? I'm not sure what that could be, but a general answer would be that neither faction wants too much scrutiny. They would therefore have mutual self-interest in maintaining a system where they can keep crappy records (or none) while still keeping mountains of money.

Influencing relative promotion prospects?

Re: Up to $41B in World Bank climate finance unaccounted for, Oxfam finds

#149

Post by zdragnar »

gwerbret wrote: post #125
zdragnar wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that the DOD is the largest employer in the USA at nearly a million people, there's almost certainly some small amount going on at a minimum.

Walmart alone employs 1.6 million people: https://corporate.walmart.com/about/location-facts

The 770,000 number for the DOD is just the civilian employee count. It becomes the "largest" when you also include the 2.1 million active service members of the military. I definitely could have worded that better.

Re: Up to $41B in World Bank climate finance unaccounted for, Oxfam finds

#150

Post by cle »

triceratops wrote: post #128
cle wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know? I am using that page as a reference.

> I am using that page as a reference. Where? I don't know if your comment had the actual lists of countries in the global north and south previously but it doesn't have it now. In any case, your analysis is incomplete. It's missing per-capita emissions and cumulative historical emissions.

No it didn't the list is too long...I had originally included Australia in the GS but moved it to the GN as per that wiki page. Here's the list I ended up with: https://pastebin.com/f50S0TNa. (Some minor errors still in there, like North Korea and Taiwan are incorrectly labeled.)

Of course my "analysis" is incomplete, I wasn't trying to do a complete analysis, just get an idea for where all the carbon emissions come from. Apparently ~2/3 comes from the Global South (currently). Forecasting models don't have normative parameters.

Post reply on HN