bribery is not illegal for private business?

[Phokus]

I was talking to a friend who knows someone who owns a business and she told me that person made a lot of money because she bribes buyers to buy her stuff. I told her it was illegal to do that, but she says it's immoral but not illegal... i thought it was illegal


anyway, i'm trying to google up 'bribery' and all i can find is how it's illegal to bribe government officials... does this mean it's ok to bribe private enterprises?

 

[her209]

Kickbacks are illegal.

 

[xeemzor]

It's not bribery, it's capitalism. The person who bribed he buyers is just giving them a discount that other suppliers are unable/unwilling to offer. It's similar to the coupons dell offers. Now, if she does something contrary to her company's best interests for her own personal gain, then she could be held liable by the company and fired,suspended, sued, etc.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: xeemzor
It's not bribery, it's capitalism. The person who bribed he buyers is just giving them a discount that offer suppliers are unable/unwilling to offer. It's similar to the coupons dell offers. Now, if she does something contrary to her company's best interests for her own personal gain, then she could be held liable by the company and fired,suspended, sued, etc.

well this person doesn't work for a company, she owns a company and she sells apparel to retail stores. Apparently, she gives 'really nice gifts' to the buyers for buying her apparel

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: xeemzor
It's not bribery, it's capitalism. The person who bribed he buyers is just giving them a discount that offer suppliers are unable/unwilling to offer. It's similar to the coupons dell offers. Now, if she does something contrary to her company's best interests for her own personal gain, then she could be held liable by the company and fired,suspended, sued, etc.

well this person doesn't work for a company, she owns a company and she sells apparel to retail stores. Apparently, she gives 'really nice gifts' to the buyers for buying her apparel

Does the buyer own their company too or are they just an employee?

 

[sixone]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: xeemzor
It's not bribery, it's capitalism. The person who bribed he buyers is just giving them a discount that offer suppliers are unable/unwilling to offer. It's similar to the coupons dell offers. Now, if she does something contrary to her company's best interests for her own personal gain, then she could be held liable by the company and fired,suspended, sued, etc.

well this person doesn't work for a company, she owns a company and she sells apparel to retail stores. Apparently, she gives 'really nice gifts' to the buyers for buying her apparel

Salespeople do that all the time. Nothing new here. Except that she's willing to admit it.

 

[tweakmm]

Welcome to free enterprise son.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Happens all the time. Coke paid UAF $100,000 to be the exclusive cola (and their associated family of bevereges) in all the vending machines on campus and in the cafeteria.

TV companies pay me a "spiff" to sell their TV over other brands.

Private enterprise.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: her209
Kickbacks are illegal.

Only in real estate IIRC.


I don't understand the OP's problem with this issue. Can we assume that he thinks mail-in rebates are the same as bribery? Because that's essentially what he's arguing. If a company wants to kickback to its buyers and damage its bottom line, that's its problem. If buyers allow these kickbacks to influence their purchasing decisions, that's their problem. If OTOH politicians allow bribes to influence their decisions, that's everyone's problem, but only the politician benefits.

Originally posted by: Phokus
well this person doesn't work for a company, she owns a company and she sells apparel to retail stores. Apparently, she gives 'really nice gifts' to the buyers for buying her apparel

Standard business practice. I question its effectiveness, but it is traditionally considered a sign of excellent customer service. What she is trying to say with her gifts is that the business relationship did not end with the sale.

 

[Amused]

You claim to be a libertarian and free markets shock/offend you?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Amused
You claim to be a libertarian and free markets shock/offend you?

Phokus is as much a libertarian as steeplerot is a liberal.

 

[JLGatsby]

Originally posted by: Phokus
well this person doesn't work for a company, she owns a company and she sells apparel to retail stores. Apparently, she gives 'really nice gifts' to the buyers for buying her apparel

That's not illegal. People do it all the time.

 

[IEC]

It's a bribe disguised as a "gift". Happens all the time.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: ariafrost
It's a bribe disguised as a "gift". Happens all the time.

It's not a bribe. By definition, a bribe is a "gift" given to a person in order influence a person's decision before-the-fact. What the OP is describing is called a kickback or (nicely) a rebate.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Amused
You claim to be a libertarian and free markets shock/offend you?

Uh, moron, i didn't say i disagreed with it, i am just trying to find out if it's illegal or not. GG.

Edit: oh yeah btw, "SIG, B1TCH"!

 

[Phokus]

Ok, so i guess from what i'm gathering, if the buyers are not the owners, the worst that can happen is that the buyers are fired and sued in civil court, correct? No criminal action would happen against any parties?

 

[Deleted member 4644]

Hello "friend".

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Amused
You claim to be a libertarian and free markets shock/offend you?

Uh, moron, i didn't say i disagreed with it, i am just trying to find out if it's illegal or not. GG.

Edit: oh yeah btw, "SIG, B1TCH"!

Yeah, the funny part of your sig is that you think that article is representative of Cato instead of just one member (a corrupt, now expelled member, at that). Or that it's really an endorsement of Democrats rather than a scare tactic against Republican strays.

In fact, no other Cato member has expressed the same view. And if you do a web search on Cato's Board of Directors you will find all support/fund either the Republican Party and/or the Libertarian party.

And finally, we see that the author has been booted from Cato for being corrupt.

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/dec2005/nf20051216_1037_db016.htm

I've left it alone though. It's fun to watch someone make a damn fool of themselves. Your sig owns no one but yourself.

And your use of the word "bribe" rather than incentive gave away your view on this subject.

You, sir, are no libertarian.

 

[Gibson486]

That's the same thing as bringing a client out to a nice big steak dinner.

 

[Whisper]

I don't believe it's illegal, and I personally wouldn't see it as immoral, either. As others have mentioned, just to use one example, drug reps do it all the time with physician's offices and hospitals (free pens ftw).

Edit: Although I should clarify that I'm not in either the business or legal field, so I could be quite wrong.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: Phokus
Ok, so i guess from what i'm gathering, if the buyers are not the owners, the worst that can happen is that the buyers are fired and sued in civil court, correct? No criminal action would happen against any parties?

They could all be charged with fraud.

 

[spidey07]

As stated, definately not illegal. Happens all the time.

Just look at the purchasing agent for any decent sized company. They are loaded. Not because of their salary, but because of all they get from the supplier of the products they are buying.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Amused
You claim to be a libertarian and free markets shock/offend you?

Uh, moron, i didn't say i disagreed with it, i am just trying to find out if it's illegal or not. GG.

Edit: oh yeah btw, "SIG, B1TCH"!

Yeah, the funny part of your sig is that you think that article is representative of Cato instead of just one member (a corrupt, now expelled member, at that). Or that it's really an endorsement of Democrats rather than a scare tactic against Republican strays.

In fact, no other Cato member has expressed the same view. And if you do a web search on Cato's Board of Directors you will find all support/fund either the Republican Party and/or the Libertarian party.

And finally, we see that the author has been booted from Cato for being corrupt.

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/dec2005/nf20051216_1037_db016.htm

I've left it alone though. It's fun to watch someone make a damn fool of themselves. Your sig owns no one but yourself.

And your use of the word "bribe" rather than incentive gave away your view on this subject.

You, sir, are no libertarian.

HOOO boy, here we go again, why must you make it so easy for me to own your ass?

Looks like i'm going to have to add more to the sig:

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6713

American voters, in their unarticulated collective wisdom, seem to grasp the benefits of divided government, and that's how they've voted for most of the past 50 years. To be sure, divided government is not the stuff of which political legends are made, but, in real life, most of us would take good legislation over good legends. As a life-long Republican and occasional federal official, I must acknowledge a hard truth: I don't much care how a divided government is next realized. And, in 2006, there's only one way that's going to happen.

http://www.cato.org/homepage_item.php?id=413

Despite what Republicans have been saying the past few weeks, the Democratic takeover of the House won't necessarily be a bad thing for the economy. That's not because the Democrats have good ideas on economic policy. They don't. Instead, the benefits will come from the presence of a divided government and its ensuing gridlock. For instance, gridlock usually slows down the rate of growth in federal spending. That will likely lead to a reduction of the size of government as a percentage of GDP, and that's always a good thing for the economy.
Also, the Democratic takeover of the House will likely not have much of an effect on the Bush tax cuts. The cuts don't expire until 2010 and, in the meantime, Bush would discover where he stashed his veto pen if a Democratic Congress tries to reverse them. Besides, Democrats won't have a veto-proof majority in Congress, and many red-state Democrats are not going to be eager to raise taxes anyway. Couple that with the gridlock-related slowdown in the rate of budget growth and you have the ingredients for a better set of fiscal outcomes than supporters of limited- government have seen in six years.

http://www.cato.org/dailypodcast/davidb...ngrepublicansbacktobasics_20060613.mp3


Hell, even Bruce Barlett (former policy advisor to reagan and former cato fellow) wants nancy pelosi as the speaker of the house:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0610.bartlett.html

Add to the fact that Cato has been inviting libertarian speakers like andrew sullivan and bruce to bash the republicans and the bush administration constantly and promoting the democrats..

"If Bush were running today against Bill Clinton, I'd vote for Clinton," Bartlett served.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co...icle/2006/03/07/AR2006030701403_2.html


... i would say you have absolutely no idea about the pulse of the libertarian community. Please stop referring yourself as a libertarian, and admit you're a republican shill, thanks.

It's unfortunate that there's a sig limit, though, i would LOVE to paste this additional OWNAGE on you so everyone can see it every single day

Oh and P.S., about that author in my sig, there's no connection to the payments he got and the article, unless you think abramoff wanted democrats in control in congress as well. I find it ironic that you support one form of bribery but not another, gg.

edit: actually, i could screenshot this conversation and put in a public image server... that'll work

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Amused
You claim to be a libertarian and free markets shock/offend you?

Uh, moron, i didn't say i disagreed with it, i am just trying to find out if it's illegal or not. GG.

Edit: oh yeah btw, "SIG, B1TCH"!

Yeah, the funny part of your sig is that you think that article is representative of Cato instead of just one member (a corrupt, now expelled member, at that). Or that it's really an endorsement of Democrats rather than a scare tactic against Republican strays.

In fact, no other Cato member has expressed the same view. And if you do a web search on Cato's Board of Directors you will find all support/fund either the Republican Party and/or the Libertarian party.

And finally, we see that the author has been booted from Cato for being corrupt.

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/dec2005/nf20051216_1037_db016.htm

I've left it alone though. It's fun to watch someone make a damn fool of themselves. Your sig owns no one but yourself.

And your use of the word "bribe" rather than incentive gave away your view on this subject.

You, sir, are no libertarian.

HOOO boy, here we go again, why must you make it so easy for me to own your ass?

Looks like i'm going to have to add more to the sig:

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6713

American voters, in their unarticulated collective wisdom, seem to grasp the benefits of divided government, and that's how they've voted for most of the past 50 years. To be sure, divided government is not the stuff of which political legends are made, but, in real life, most of us would take good legislation over good legends. As a life-long Republican and occasional federal official, I must acknowledge a hard truth: I don't much care how a divided government is next realized. And, in 2006, there's only one way that's going to happen.

http://www.cato.org/homepage_item.php?id=413

Despite what Republicans have been saying the past few weeks, the Democratic takeover of the House won't necessarily be a bad thing for the economy. That's not because the Democrats have good ideas on economic policy. They don't. Instead, the benefits will come from the presence of a divided government and its ensuing gridlock. For instance, gridlock usually slows down the rate of growth in federal spending. That will likely lead to a reduction of the size of government as a percentage of GDP, and that's always a good thing for the economy.
Also, the Democratic takeover of the House will likely not have much of an effect on the Bush tax cuts. The cuts don't expire until 2010 and, in the meantime, Bush would discover where he stashed his veto pen if a Democratic Congress tries to reverse them. Besides, Democrats won't have a veto-proof majority in Congress, and many red-state Democrats are not going to be eager to raise taxes anyway. Couple that with the gridlock-related slowdown in the rate of budget growth and you have the ingredients for a better set of fiscal outcomes than supporters of limited- government have seen in six years.

http://www.cato.org/dailypodcast/davidb...ngrepublicansbacktobasics_20060613.mp3


Hell, even Bruce Barlett (former policy advisor to reagan and former cato fellow) wants nancy pelosi as the speaker of the house:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0610.bartlett.html

Add to the fact that Cato has been inviting libertarian speakers like andrew sullivan and bruce to bash the republicans and the bush administration constantly and promoting the democrats..

"If Bush were running today against Bill Clinton, I'd vote for Clinton," Bartlett served.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co...icle/2006/03/07/AR2006030701403_2.html


... i would say you have absolutely no idea about the pulse of the libertarian community. Please stop referring yourself as a libertarian, and admit you're a republican shill, thanks.

It's unfortunate that there's a sig limit, though, i would LOVE to paste this additional OWNAGE on you so everyone can see it every single day

Oh and P.S., about that author in my sig, there's no connection to the payments he got and the article, unless you think abramoff wanted democrats in control in congress as well. I find it ironic that you support one form of bribery but not another, gg.

edit: actually, i could screenshot this conversation and put in a public image server... that'll work

Good lord did you actually READ and COMPREHEND what you linked to??

Handing over at least one house of Congress to the other side of the aisle for the next two years would probably be good for everyone. It will improve governance in the country, and it will increase the chances of GOP gains in 2008.

In fact, ALL your links opposed Democrat policy. And most of that was more, "don't worry about losses in 2006" than any endorsement of Democrat power. What's more, NONE of that supported Kerry. Not one.

You self owned again, Phokus. This time by not even addressing my original statement: Cato would not have endorced nor supported Kerry for President over Bush. That statement stands and you have yet to refute it.

You're a sad, sad little boy who feels the need to "own" people than actually understand realities.

As for Doug Bandow, it's not surprising to me you can't see the difference between free market enterprise and fraud. Bandow was selling advertising and marketing it as journalism. Not illegal but certainly immoral and highly damaging to the trade. A far sight different than offering incentives to someone to buy your product.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Amused
You claim to be a libertarian and free markets shock/offend you?

Uh, moron, i didn't say i disagreed with it, i am just trying to find out if it's illegal or not. GG.

Edit: oh yeah btw, "SIG, B1TCH"!

Yeah, the funny part of your sig is that you think that article is representative of Cato instead of just one member (a corrupt, now expelled member, at that). Or that it's really an endorsement of Democrats rather than a scare tactic against Republican strays.

In fact, no other Cato member has expressed the same view. And if you do a web search on Cato's Board of Directors you will find all support/fund either the Republican Party and/or the Libertarian party.

And finally, we see that the author has been booted from Cato for being corrupt.

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/dec2005/nf20051216_1037_db016.htm

I've left it alone though. It's fun to watch someone make a damn fool of themselves. Your sig owns no one but yourself.

And your use of the word "bribe" rather than incentive gave away your view on this subject.

You, sir, are no libertarian.

HOOO boy, here we go again, why must you make it so easy for me to own your ass?

Looks like i'm going to have to add more to the sig:

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6713

American voters, in their unarticulated collective wisdom, seem to grasp the benefits of divided government, and that's how they've voted for most of the past 50 years. To be sure, divided government is not the stuff of which political legends are made, but, in real life, most of us would take good legislation over good legends. As a life-long Republican and occasional federal official, I must acknowledge a hard truth: I don't much care how a divided government is next realized. And, in 2006, there's only one way that's going to happen.

http://www.cato.org/homepage_item.php?id=413

Despite what Republicans have been saying the past few weeks, the Democratic takeover of the House won't necessarily be a bad thing for the economy. That's not because the Democrats have good ideas on economic policy. They don't. Instead, the benefits will come from the presence of a divided government and its ensuing gridlock. For instance, gridlock usually slows down the rate of growth in federal spending. That will likely lead to a reduction of the size of government as a percentage of GDP, and that's always a good thing for the economy.
Also, the Democratic takeover of the House will likely not have much of an effect on the Bush tax cuts. The cuts don't expire until 2010 and, in the meantime, Bush would discover where he stashed his veto pen if a Democratic Congress tries to reverse them. Besides, Democrats won't have a veto-proof majority in Congress, and many red-state Democrats are not going to be eager to raise taxes anyway. Couple that with the gridlock-related slowdown in the rate of budget growth and you have the ingredients for a better set of fiscal outcomes than supporters of limited- government have seen in six years.

http://www.cato.org/dailypodcast/davidb...ngrepublicansbacktobasics_20060613.mp3


Hell, even Bruce Barlett (former policy advisor to reagan and former cato fellow) wants nancy pelosi as the speaker of the house:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0610.bartlett.html

Add to the fact that Cato has been inviting libertarian speakers like andrew sullivan and bruce to bash the republicans and the bush administration constantly and promoting the democrats..

"If Bush were running today against Bill Clinton, I'd vote for Clinton," Bartlett served.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co...icle/2006/03/07/AR2006030701403_2.html


... i would say you have absolutely no idea about the pulse of the libertarian community. Please stop referring yourself as a libertarian, and admit you're a republican shill, thanks.

It's unfortunate that there's a sig limit, though, i would LOVE to paste this additional OWNAGE on you so everyone can see it every single day

Oh and P.S., about that author in my sig, there's no connection to the payments he got and the article, unless you think abramoff wanted democrats in control in congress as well. I find it ironic that you support one form of bribery but not another, gg.

edit: actually, i could screenshot this conversation and put in a public image server... that'll work

Good lord did you actually READ and COMPREHEND what you linked to??

Handing over at least one house of Congress to the other side of the aisle for the next two years would probably be good for everyone. It will improve governance in the country, and it will increase the chances of GOP gains in 2008.

In fact, ALL your links opposed Democrat policy. And most of that was more, "don't worry about losses in 2006" than any endorsement of Democrat power. What's more, NONE of that supported Kerry. Not one.

You self owned again, Phokus. This time by not even addressing my original statement: Cato would not have endorced nor supported Kerry for President over Bush. That statement stands and you have yet to refute it.

You're a sad, sad little boy who feels the need to "own" people than actually understand realities.

As for Doug Bandow, it's not surprising to me you can't see the difference between free market enterprise and fraud. Bandow was selling advertising and marketing it as journalism. Not illegal but certainly immoral and highly damaging to the trade. A far sight different than offering incentives to someone to buy your product.

Good God, you're retarded, their WHOLE STANCE IS DIVIDED GOVERNMENT. Pre-2004 they wanted Kerry over Bush because the republicans had control of congress and bush was a tremendous fvckup in terms of defecit spending and the iraq war. Post-2006 the they wanted a democratic congress since bush retained power. You're retarded if you don't think a sizeable number of cato scholars didn't want to see kerry in power. Unlike you, i actually pay attention to the pulse of the libertarian party... i read cato articles all the time and i watch the streams of their symposiums. STOP CALLING YOURSELF A LIBERTARIAN, it's embarrassing to the rest of us true libertarians.

And you're the idiot who doesn't read and has no reading comprehension, from the same article you quoted:

Finally, on a purely partisan level, I believe that loss of one or both houses will strengthen the Republican Party going into 2008. It will force a debate on issues that have been swept under the rug, such out-of-control government spending and the coziness between Republicans and K Street, home of Washington?s lobbying community.

DO YOU HONESTLY THINK BRUCE BARTLET WANTS THE CURRENT REPUBLICAN ESTABLISHMENT BACK IN POWER IN 2008? The point of the article was not, "hey maybe if the democrats, the republicans will have a better chance at 2008." READ THE ARTICLE, he wants divided government in order to slow government down and also for the republicans to reform themselves of the corrupt sh1theads that were in power BEFORE they take power back. THAT is what he meant.

If Bush were running today against Bill Clinton, I'd vote for Clinton," Bartlett served.

Boy it sure sounds like Bartlet is excited about republicans!

Good god, serving ownage at you is like shooting fish in a barrel.

Again, STOP CALLING YOURSELF A LIBERTARIAN. NO TRUE LIBERTARIAN WANTS EITHER PARTY CONTROLLING ALL 3 BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT.