Money Moral Dilemma

13»

Comments

  • rogerj
    rogerj Posts: 39 Forumite
    What a cesspit of thieves, liars and hypocrites the leaders of this country have become.
    Which is why I refuse to rat on my neighbour, who admits to milking the benefits system to keep her family together.
    Her crime pales into insignificance when compared to the Saudi Billion Pound Bung.
  • rogerj
    rogerj Posts: 39 Forumite
    ps to above
    "Along with Iraq, the Saudi arms deal and donations for 'honours' and massive government contracts, it all stinks to high heaven (and it did from the start -remember Bernie Ecclestone?) Gordon Brown is in the same cesspool up to his neck (Private Finance Initiatives was his baby). The only realistic alternative is an ex-PR man (Cameron) who'll say anything to get elected." .......writes NJF
    But there is an alternative -with such radical whistle-blowing views NJF could stand. Perhaps not; remember Dr David Kelly?
  • All business operates on and for profit, Insurance companies pay their agents a commission, Tesco charge their suppliers just to be considered as such.
    Why then is it so different if an agent in a foreign land should be paid their PRE-ARRANGED commission?????????????????????????????????
    I think we are so conditioned by our nanny state, or lazy, so as to be led by the nose by anyone who might claim legitimacy that we have lost the ability to think for ourselves.
  • njf_3
    njf_3 Posts: 14 Forumite
    All business operates on and for profit, Insurance companies pay their agents a commission, Tesco charge their suppliers just to be considered as such.
    Why then is it so different if an agent in a foreign land should be paid their PRE-ARRANGED commission?????????????????????????????????
    I think we are so conditioned by our nanny state, or lazy, so as to be led by the nose by anyone who might claim legitimacy that we have lost the ability to think for ourselves.
    1. 'All business operates on and for profit'. Agreed, more or less, but if you have to pay bribes, it cuts into profit and/or pushes up prices for the consumer.
    2. 'Insurance companies pay their agents a commission'. Bribes are not the same as commission: commercial bribery involves paying an individual privately to act in your favour professionally. The fact that it was pre-arranged is neither here nor there: it's against the law (of this country at least). To put it in perspective, do you think it would be acceptable for the British Defence Minister to accept payments from a US arms firm in return for placing a defence contract with them rather than a rival supplier? I don't know what sort of job you do, but would you consider it acceptable for a colleague to take such a bribe? Would you take one yourself? And if it's all perfectly acceptable, why be so secretive about it?
    3. 'Tesco charge their suppliers just to be considered as such.' If this is true, it's an abuse of commercial power.
    It's not just BAE - look at the football inquiry. Further afield, one of the reasons why the US invaded Iraq might have been the close links between members of the Bush administration and big 'defence' or other firms (Halliburton, Bechtel) who stood to profit massively from it. It's not just power that corrupts, it's money too.
  • wyse_2
    wyse_2 Posts: 10 Forumite
    rogerj wrote: »
    What a cesspit of thieves, liars and hypocrites the leaders of this country have become.
    Which is why I refuse to rat on my neighbour, who admits to milking the benefits system to keep her family together.
    Her crime pales into insignificance when compared to the Saudi Billion Pound Bung.

    I do laugh when I hear about the scourge of benefit cheats. It costs the country 1 billion pounds a year. Compare that with something the government never clamps down on: tax evasion costing us AT LEAST 75 billion a year...

    And to everyone using the "if we didn't sell them arms someone else would" argument - shame on you. That's such a poor excuse for immoral behavior.
  • TCR_2
    TCR_2 Posts: 3 Newbie
    I think it's one thing taking on companies for the benefit of us, the consumer, but does that mean that on a personal basis (and by extension for British companies) anything is fair game as long as we benefit financially? There seems to be a contradiction here: On the one hand we're campaigning against companies taking advantage of us, but on the other we're saying that any behaviour is acceptable in business, as long as we win. Why then are we surprised that companies take advantage of us? Are we saying it's ok, except when we're organised to prevent it?

    Interesting views, though it does seem to me that many posting on the thread missed the point when watching the film 'Wall Street'.

    Greed is good anyone?
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 343K Banking & Borrowing
  • 250K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.6K Spending & Discounts
  • 235.1K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 607.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 173K Life & Family
  • 247.8K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards