How crime works

[vespax]

Real criminals are great business people. They do business outside the norms that society has embraced. But in the end they are business people looking for market opportunities.

So it is no wonder that so many are enjoying a comfortable life, just like the people who play by the rules and get their pay at the end of the month.

When the police start acting on this knowledge, things will change for the better. But the criminals seem to be making friends with the police, so who would want to arrest their buddies?

 

[supersunbird]

Criminals should be killed, its not like they dont know what they are doing...

 

[Angelo]

Nigerian drug lords dominate the illegal drug trade, selling to Israeli and Greek networks which provide drugs to users in the city’s northern suburbs. In the southern suburbs, they supply drugs to local Afrikaner criminal networks.

Is this what loss of privilledge leads to or have they always been there?

 

[supersunbird]

I think they have always been there...

 

[nthdimension]

Sure there are nasty clauses with regards to loaning money but then the governments should just say no instead of accepting the agreement and money.
Last time I checked banks had similar things in place - if I don't like their terms and conditions then I just say no and walk away.

Really? The banks have clauses that require you to spend the money poorly? I don't recall ever seeing a loan agreement that dictated exactly how I am required to operate my finances.

 

[jontyB]

Is this what loss of privilledge leads to or have they always been there?

In every society there are bad apples. There are a lot of bad apples in our society, not just those who "lost" their privileges.

 

[DigitalSoldier]

As if Africa hasn't received aid as well?
It doesn't work for Africa it seems because all that happens is the corrupt leaders get their grubby paws on it.


Giving lazy people money only makes them more lazy.
Giving corrupt people money only makes them more corrupt.

http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/News/0,,2-7-1442_2029098,00.html

But alas its much easier to blame apartheid, colonialism, poverty and I cant even remember whats the latest "thing" the government is blaming everything on, than to take accountabilitiy

 

[jontyB]

http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/News/0,,2-7-1442_2029098,00.html

But alas its much easier to blame apartheid, colonialism, poverty and I cant even remember whats the latest "thing" the government is blaming everything on, than to take accountabilitiy

smear campaigns.

 

[Paul_S]

Really? The banks have clauses that require you to spend the money poorly? I don't recall ever seeing a loan agreement that dictated exactly how I am required to operate my finances.

I meant conditions such as putting up collateral or getting someone else to sign surety.
One of the reasons why I have never borrowed money from a bank - I don't like their terms and conditions so screw them - I'll do it the hard way and work my butt off instead.

The same goes for aid money - if countries don't like the terms and conditions then they shouldn't take the money. Period.

 

[Vrotappel]

http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/News/0,,2-7-1442_2029098,00.html

But alas its much easier to blame apartheid, colonialism, poverty and I cant even remember whats the latest "thing" the government is blaming everything on, than to take accountabilitiy

Third Forces.

 

[kilo39]

Thanks for your lengthy post Xarog; yes I meant WTO though WTO and IMF seem similar heads of the hydra beast.

QUOTE=Xarog;753592
Ok, it's a bit difficult to figure out what you're getting at, so I apologise if I make a mistake here. It seems you're confusing the World Trade Organisation with the International Money Fund. Africa and Latin America are usually trying to convince the first world to abandon their use of subsidies, because they can't afford to provide those same subsidies to their farmers and that means African goods cannot compete with first world goods on the open market.

This is correct but if all the aid money had of been spent on the things it was supposed to be spent on then these markets could have been upgraded and the necessary investments made to yield competitiveness in the world market. But this didn't happen. Why?

On the other hand the IMF is responsible for loaning out money to the third world on condition that they 'liberalise' their markets. This usually means that the government has to give up many of its controls over how goods get traded or how money is moved in or out of the country. In a couple of ironic cases of corrupt politicians, they managed to steal money from the country's they were in control of only after the IMF's recommendations were implemented.

Simply 2 different views of the world. We have similar currency constraints in this country whereas the opposing view is that a completely open currency would yield a richer country but this doesn't happen (through fear of capital flight.) Similarly our present threat of chinese imports and killing our local industry. Some extremists would think that merely means our local industry should be more competitive. Many countries (the higher up the scale the more the pain) are feeling this too but unfortunately these are the pressures of global capitalism and free trade, exactly the pressures the IMF/WTO would seek to impose on everybody. It's called productivity and accountability (and competitiveness.)

These two issues do kinda go hand in hand. Without the ability to place tariffs on imported goods, there is no way for a country to protect itself from the cheaper goods that come from subsidised sources. The result is often that an entire industry dissappears because it simply cannot compete with the cheaper imported goods. When this happens over more than one industry, it sends unemployment soaring which creates a domino effect and suddenly the country in question is facing an economic/poverty crisis which it has no hope of combatting.

Subsidised sources is relevant but only insofar as Africa (for instance) can't deliver guaranteed quality goods to (first world) markets; the subsidies are in place to keep their markets non-reliant on uneconomical and unreliable (african) markets (for instance.) The fact that these goods can be imported for less than the cost of local simply points to the unproductively of the local market.

I remember reading (a long time ago), one example where there was a thriving local clothing market until the state controls were relaxed. Overnight multinational corporations who wanted a slice of the clothing pie swooped in and started selling their clothes at prices which the locals couldn't compete with. The whole industry shut down, jobs vanished as a result, and after a short while the clothing market had shrunk to less than 10% of what it originally was. People then had to resort to buying BOSS tshirts or relying on clothing donations from overseas.

Productivity again. End result? People could buy cheaper clothing. All this is simply 2 different world views. One view: rampant capitalism, open markets verse conservative (monopolistic) capitalism, closed markets, tight local fiscal control (the failure of Africa being, our case an example: a rich country hamstrung by no local budget control and deleterious politicians.)

As for propping up the wealth of the west, haven't you heard the stories about the coffee plantations where people get less than $1 a day for their work? The bottom line is that your $2 cup of coffee in your average Starbucks would cost subsancially more if the workers were in the first world receiving minimum wage for their efforts. Sure, maybe the price goes as high as $4 instead of $2, but since it covers a whole lot more than just coffee, the thirld world does alot to help with first world living standards.

Coffee is a hard one which I've never figured out especially when measured against tea??! Point being: if the coffee growers starved to death there would be no coffee (production price would rise) but that is not happening they seem to stumble on. The price/or salary that a starbucks manager receives has little to do with coffee growers and everything to do with supporting that manager and the local salary market, hence the local price. But much as you express the domino effect above this also applies to the starbucks/local market where (it is not a silo but depends on forces working throughout the economy.)

Do a bit of research on the fine print. The usually the money had to be spent a certain way, etc. etc. etc. There's a good reason why the African leaders are objecting to the fact that 'aid' packages have so many strings attached. (I guess this kinda belongs in the thread you created, but it was on topic here too, and I don't want to repeat myself needlessly.)

Yes, a certain way. I doubt that way would require massive corruption and massive flight of capital (read for those who can have swiss bank accounts, ie, government ministers.)

Well, I've laid out my reasons for saying what I've said - how about you do the same?

I say in all this: it is my general knowledge/thoughts, it is not a speciality.

 

[Xarog]

I meant conditions such as putting up collateral or getting someone else to sign surety.
One of the reasons why I have never borrowed money from a bank - I don't like their terms and conditions so screw them - I'll do it the hard way and work my butt off instead.

The same goes for aid money - if countries don't like the terms and conditions then they shouldn't take the money. Period.

Well, you're half right. But if they don't take the money then they're painted as irrational idiots holding their respective countries back, and this is wielded as a political club.

It's reasonable to tell the first world that their aid packages should actually be helpful.

 

[Xarog]

There's little as frustrating as losing a post, so let's try this again :

This is correct but if all the aid money had of been spent on the things it was supposed to be spent on then these markets could have been upgraded and the necessary investments made to yield competitiveness in the world market. But this didn't happen. Why?

One of the criticisms I've heard regarding the IMF is that these development plans that they make cannot achieve the results they claim it will. Basically, even without corruption, and with the third world obeying the reforms to the letter, the result would be the same.

Simply 2 different views of the world. We have similar currency constraints in this country whereas the opposing view is that a completely open currency would yield a richer country but this doesn't happen (through fear of capital flight.) Similarly our present threat of chinese imports and killing our local industry. Some extremists would think that merely means our local industry should be more competitive. Many countries (the higher up the scale the more the pain) are feeling this too but unfortunately these are the pressures of global capitalism and free trade, exactly the pressures the IMF/WTO would seek to impose on everybody. It's called productivity and accountability (and competitiveness.)

It is ironic, but in one or two cases it was the IMF's recommended relaxing of monetary controls which allowed corrupt african politicians to steal the wealth of their country.

I personally don't believe that our local economy should become more competitive or dissappear. There is alot of merit in protecting local industries in order to keep our local economy more or less self-sufficient. Whoring yourself out to the cheapest bidder is an ultimately self-destructive activity.

Subsidised sources is relevant but only insofar as Africa (for instance) can't deliver guaranteed quality goods to (first world) markets; the subsidies are in place to keep their markets non-reliant on uneconomical and unreliable (african) markets (for instance.) The fact that these goods can be imported for less than the cost of local simply points to the unproductively of the local market.

I don't have a problem with the west using subsidies to support their own farmers in and of itself. However, when they use those subsidies to muscle out any poorer competition, I do believe there is a problem.

Still, I'm curious what you mean about african goods being unreliable or uneconomical. Could you provide more information?

Productivity again. End result? People could buy cheaper clothing. All this is simply 2 different world views. One view: rampant capitalism, open markets verse conservative (monopolistic) capitalism, closed markets, tight local fiscal control (the failure of Africa being, our case an example: a rich country hamstrung by no local budget control and deleterious politicians.)

I think you're ignoring the bigger picture. Yes, the clothes and other products were available for less, but the widespread unemployment meant that very few people were earning the money needed to buy any kind of clothes at all. What's the better option - having everyone employed with almost all being able to afford a slightly more expensive pair of shorts, or having cheap shorts which very few people have the money to buy?

The cost of goods are only relative to the average purchasing power of your consumer base.

Coffee is a hard one which I've never figured out especially when measured against tea??! Point being: if the coffee growers starved to death there would be no coffee (production price would rise) but that is not happening they seem to stumble on. The price/or salary that a starbucks manager receives has little to do with coffee growers and everything to do with supporting that manager and the local salary market, hence the local price. But much as you express the domino effect above this also applies to the starbucks/local market where (it is not a silo but depends on forces working throughout the economy.)

I don't think the coffee growers are starving to death, but their standard or living is hardly worth mentioning. Basically they're given the bare minimum to put food in their stomachs, nothing else.

I say in all this: it is my general knowledge/thoughts, it is not a speciality.

This comment wasn't directed at you, but at Paul_S.

 

[kingmonty]

Ok wiseguys. If Africa is not corrupt with AID money, why is it that the US, UK and some others are thinking of offering a prize (5 Million Dollars US if memory serves) to the African leader who doesn't venture from the straight and narrow?

 

[kilo39]

QUOTE=Xarog
One of the criticisms I've heard regarding the IMF is that these development plans that they make cannot achieve the results they claim it will. Basically, even without corruption, and with the third world obeying the reforms to the letter, the result would be the same.

I can't argue this but it is similar to your minerals argument; people operating above the law for their own enrichment, or worse despots in power because it suits the west. This goes to my earlier statement, 'the world changed, africa didn't' because this 'interference' has grown less and less over the years but has made no difference to africa, ie, there are more controls in place in the west (nowadays) but africa is unchanged. And the world is moving on daily, for instance, the 'writing-off' of these loans (much as S.America had theirs nullified.) Do we notice any good news coming out of Africa yet, no, same old, same old.

It is ironic, but in one or two cases it was the IMF's recommended relaxing of monetary controls which allowed corrupt african politicians to steal the wealth of their country.

I personally don't believe that our local economy should become more competitive or dissappear. There is alot of merit in protecting local industries in order to keep our local economy more or less self-sufficient. Whoring yourself out to the cheapest bidder is an ultimately self-destructive activity.

No you are wrong (to an extremist). Competitiveness and productivity is the only measure. Witness coding moving to India or car production moving to China, or tons of production staying in the UK because of lesser and more competitive production costs. (Do you think these are painless transitions for these countries? Witness coal mining or any one of a thousand industries. It's called capitalism: innovation and invention and all those other wonderful things.)

I don't have a problem with the west using subsidies to support their own farmers in and of itself. However, when they use those subsidies to muscle out any poorer competition, I do believe there is a problem.

They are not muscling in: there is a market, they are providing. If everybody was unemployed there would be no market therefore their muscle has benefit to those employed and benefit to those not. Cheaper prices is not about forcing people out of work it's about making people and industries more efficient (even if that is only in delivery to their local market.)

Still, I'm curious what you mean about african goods being unreliable or uneconomical. Could you provide more information?

A good example is the israeli market (and there are others spread through africa) where investment ensures quality goods and supply specifically for the european/export market. Which once again goes to open money borders; M&S(for instance) in the UK invest in these projects themselves why does it not happen to a greater extent? Well, fiscal barriers and the unreliability of african politicians. To a degree it happens here: our wine and fruit export markets but not to the extent it could if the fiscal borders were open (and 'they' had more 'trust' of local investment.)

I think you're ignoring the bigger picture. Yes, the clothes and other products were available for less, but the widespread unemployment meant that very few people were earning the money needed to buy any kind of clothes at all. What's the better option - having everyone employed with almost all being able to afford a slightly more expensive pair of shorts, or having cheap shorts which very few people have the money to buy?

The greater unemployment problem is interwoven throughout these issues but you cannot point to one thing: cheap imports of a type and then blame those on a greater unemployment problem.

The cost of goods are only relative to the average purchasing power of your consumer base.

Exactly my starbucks manager example (but pressure is on throughout the western world at all times to lower prices and be more productive - and inventive.)

I don't think the coffee growers are starving to death, but their standard or living is hardly worth mentioning. Basically they're given the bare minimum to put food in their stomachs, nothing else.

Coffee growers? Notice - Europe and cheap subsidies don't grow coffee therefore the price you pay for coffee locally is local and nothing to do with coffee growers; which gets to the nitty gritty: these markets are controlled by big players who dictate price to the growers. The western capitalism answer to that one is "you're in the wrong market" which goes right back to such things as government support for local industry and government culpability - exactly where we started in the first place.

 

[Xarog]

Ok wiseguys. If Africa is not corrupt with AID money, why is it that the US, UK and some others are thinking of offering a prize (5 Million Dollars US if memory serves) to the African leader who doesn't venture from the straight and narrow?

Who said that Africa isn't corrupt? Did I miss a post somewhere?

I can't argue this but it is similar to your minerals argument; people operating above the law for their own enrichment, or worse despots in power because it suits the west. This goes to my earlier statement, 'the world changed, africa didn't' because this 'interference' has grown less and less over the years but has made no difference to africa, ie, there are more controls in place in the west (nowadays) but africa is unchanged. And the world is moving on daily, for instance, the 'writing-off' of these loans (much as S.America had theirs nullified.) Do we notice any good news coming out of Africa yet, no, same old, same old.

OK, I originally misunderstood what you meant with that statement.

No you are wrong (to an extremist). Competitiveness and productivity is the only measure. Witness coding moving to India or car production moving to China, or tons of production staying in the UK because of lesser and more competitive production costs. (Do you think these are painless transitions for these countries? Witness coal mining or any one of a thousand industries. It's called capitalism: innovation and invention and all those other wonderful things.)

Regarding coal mining, are you referring to the decline in demand for coal, or have I misunderstood again?

As for the rest : Sure, exporting coding jobs to India sounds like a great idea because it's cheaper than paying coders in the US. But the result is that that's [x] wealth not being generated in the country that is consuming the products those coders make. This is revenue that the country in question doesn't generate itself. The more things a country consumes vs. the things they produce themselves, the harder it becomes for that country to sustain itself economically.

Putting it in a personal perspective : you can either write a piece of code yourself, or you can hire someone to do it. If you hire someone to do it, you've got to find money (resources) to pay them, and that's money you've got to get from somewhere else. The more things you hire people for, the harder it becomes for you to find spare money (resources) to look after your basic needs.

They are not muscling in: there is a market, they are providing. If everybody was unemployed there would be no market therefore their muscle has benefit to those employed and benefit to those not. Cheaper prices is not about forcing people out of work it's about making people and industries more efficient (even if that is only in delivery to their local market.)

I fully accept that the intent is not (usually*) about forcing people out of work, but that is mostly a consequence of the steamlining that cannot avoided. That's the "price" for this streamlining. Is it a price you want to pay? Personally I don't think the cost is worth the benefit.

*Causing the faliure of an economy and in doing so causing massive unemployment gives you access to a cheap workforce. Since everyone is desperate to find a job in such circumstances, it's quite easy to find people who will work for a price that barely puts food in their stomach (since the alternative is starvation).

The greater unemployment problem is interwoven throughout these issues but you cannot point to one thing: cheap imports of a type and then blame those on a greater unemployment problem.

Sure. But in cases where there is a manageable employment problem, deregulating the market and not controlling the imports coming into the country can be disasterous.

Coffee growers? Notice - Europe and cheap subsidies don't grow coffee therefore the price you pay for coffee locally is local and nothing to do with coffee growers; which gets to the nitty gritty: these markets are controlled by big players who dictate price to the growers. The western capitalism answer to that one is "you're in the wrong market" which goes right back to such things as government support for local industry and government culpability - exactly where we started in the first place.

I guess the real question to ask in this case is : Who owns the land on which the coffee is grown? I'm inclined to suspect it's multinational corporations. I guess I could be wrong, though.

 

[kilo39]

QUOTE=Xarog
Regarding coal mining, are you referring to the decline in demand for coal, or have I misunderstood again?

The exact industry is beside the point; the point is all experience market pressures, some adjust better than others.

As for the rest : Sure, exporting coding jobs to India sounds like a great idea because it's cheaper than paying coders in the US. But the result is that that's [x] wealth not being generated in the country that is consuming the products those coders make. This is revenue that the country in question doesn't generate itself. The more things a country consumes vs. the things they produce themselves, the harder it becomes for that country to sustain itself economically.

No, the wealth stays the same it is just created differently.

Putting it in a personal perspective : you can either write a piece of code yourself, or you can hire someone to do it. If you hire someone to do it, you've got to find money (resources) to pay them, and that's money you've got to get from somewhere else. The more things you hire people for, the harder it becomes for you to find spare money (resources) to look after your basic needs.

No. They write a different piece of code or they do something else (that has greater value.) They don't find the money to pay the coders they use the freed resources to generate other wealth and use some of the profit of this to pay the foreign coders. You are not 'finding spare money' you are generating money in other ways which (hopefully) yields higher profits.

I fully accept that the intent is not (usually*) about forcing people out of work, but that is mostly a consequence of the steamlining that cannot avoided. That's the "price" for this streamlining. Is it a price you want to pay? Personally I don't think the cost is worth the benefit.

We all pay the cost everyday (how many of us haven't computers made redundant) but we also experience the benefit everyday (or we would in a free market.) Global unemployment figures (in first world economies) don't support your view: things change, people adjust (if given the opportunity to do so.) Witness telephone operators; where are these people today? Your life is the nett result of streamlining: cell phones, a computer on every desk, the mp3 player in your pocket. None of these would exist if your model applied (because there would be no innovation, no reason to innovate.)

*Causing the faliure of an economy and in doing so causing massive unemployment gives you access to a cheap workforce. Since everyone is desperate to find a job in such circumstances, it's quite easy to find people who will work for a price that barely puts food in their stomach (since the alternative is starvation).

A failed economy has no use for any workforce, cheap or otherwise. A failed economy equals no jobs so how is this relevant to a cheap workforce? If there are no jobs any 'unemployed cheap workforce' is useless. Nevermind the fact that ALL jobs require skills. If government is failing on all/any level this will lead to no jobs - nothing else.

Sure. But in cases where there is a manageable employment problem, deregulating the market and not controlling the imports coming into the country can be disasterous.

No employment problem is 'manageable.' There are only solutions. Any and all small or otherwise failures in government leads to unemployment, nothing more, nothing less. And this is exactly our problem: the failure to deliver through corrupt contracts, poor local fiscal control, failure of local government all leads to unemployment (never mind any issues of cheap imports.) It is exactly these cheap imports that point to failure (even in European markets.) Failure on all levels (in basic education, crime, etc) are exactly the things shown up by and threatened by cheap imports and deregulated markets. Good grief some of us could actually be expected to work for a living.

I guess the real question to ask in this case is : Who owns the land on which the coffee is grown? I'm inclined to suspect it's multinational corporations. I guess I could be wrong, though.

Ultimately the country owns the land (no matter the paperwork.) If the country cannot get the land to work this is the failure of government - no matter who owns the land. Witness Zim.

 

[Xarog]

No. They write a different piece of code or they do something else (that has greater value.) They don't find the money to pay the coders they use the freed resources to generate other wealth and use some of the profit of this to pay the foreign coders. You are not 'finding spare money' you are generating money in other ways which (hopefully) yields higher profits.

People aren't trained overnight. You can't change from being a coder to an engineer in a week, for instance. My point is that coding in the US can become uneconomical if they have to compete directly with Indians, so the job market for coders in the US vanishes. What are those coders who don't have jobs going to do? Probably find a job at burger king if they're not lucky enough to have other training to fall back on.

Where there was once a profitable industry, there is now an empty hole, and the GDP for the country shrank. Capitalism hates recessions, just look how morbidly afraid your average stock investor is of recessions.

There are of course, some examples where one industry floundered and another grew in its place. However, with each industry or service that is exported, it becomes harder and harder to find other things to do to fill the gap. I'm not claiming that a single industry is enough to wreck an economy, but when a whole range of industries go out of business it's a different story.

We all pay the cost everyday (how many of us haven't computers made redundant) but we also experience the benefit everyday (or we would in a free market.) Global unemployment figures (in first world economies) don't support your view: things change, people adjust (if given the opportunity to do so.) Witness telephone operators; where are these people today? Your life is the nett result of streamlining: cell phones, a computer on every desk, the mp3 player in your pocket. None of these would exist if your model applied (because there would be no innovation, no reason to innovate.)

Strawman. Innovation and job piracy are two totally different things. Having one technology replace another is progress. exporting an existing industry to another market is a totally different matter.

A failed economy has no use for any workforce, cheap or otherwise. A failed economy equals no jobs so how is this relevant to a cheap workforce? If there are no jobs any 'unemployed cheap workforce' is useless. Nevermind the fact that ALL jobs require skills. If government is failing on all/any level this will lead to no jobs - nothing else.

An example of this would be African country A. Let's say country A has been involved in recent wars which has destroyed most of the infrastructure.

Now along comes your wealthy multinational who buys some of the land for a fraction of what it would otherwise be worth. There is no local production and many people are starving because they cannot afford to buy food. Let's say this multination decides to grow coffee on this land. Although there is no local economy to speak of, there's a demand for coffee in other markets. The multinational corp uses this to its advantage. It offers the local workers jobs, paying them barely more than what they need to spend on food, and the workers don't say no because the alternative is to go hungry.

No employment problem is 'manageable.' There are only solutions. Any and all small or otherwise failures in government leads to unemployment, nothing more, nothing less. And this is exactly our problem: the failure to deliver through corrupt contracts, poor local fiscal control, failure of local government all leads to unemployment (never mind any issues of cheap imports.) It is exactly these cheap imports that point to failure (even in European markets.) Failure on all levels (in basic education, crime, etc) are exactly the things shown up by and threatened by cheap imports and deregulated markets. Good grief some of us could actually be expected to work for a living.

I was merely speaking in terms of having a sustainable economy regarding unemployment being 'manageable'.

I'm not sure what to make of the rest. You know why we get so much cheap stuff from China? Because there's no minimum wage. In many cases you have 2 workers working at the same spot 24 hours a day. When one works, the other sleeps under the machine, when the shifts changes he wakes the other guy up and they reverse roles. Workers such as this can be paid next to nothing - it's not like they need to spend it on anything such as dental care, afterall.

The west with its minimum wages and relatively ethical employment laws could never in a million years hope to compete with such a production line. Do you really want what I've described above to be the yardstick by which we define a superior means of doing things?

Something to think about next time you see the "Made in China" sticker.

Ultimately the country owns the land (no matter the paperwork.) If the country cannot get the land to work this is the failure of government - no matter who owns the land. Witness Zim.

True. However, look what the results were when it happened in Zim. Taking land by force isn't a good way to improve your national economy.

 

[chiskop]

Ok wiseguys. If Africa is not corrupt with AID money, why is it that the US, UK and some others are thinking of offering a prize (5 Million Dollars US if memory serves) to the African leader who doesn't venture from the straight and narrow?

An African businessman is offering the prize - it is a private initiative and has nothing to do with the US, UK and others.

 

[jontyB]

An African businessman is offering the prize - it is a private initiative and has nothing to do with the US, UK and others.

No. Tony Blair & Bill Clinton both endorse the idea. But really that's besides the point. WTF should there be an incentive not to be corrupt? Stupid ****ing people.