#PanamaPapers

[Spineur]

I get the feeling this is going to be a very hot thread....
Right now on the list:
Putin
Assad
Gadafi
Pakistan and Iceland prime minister
But also
Lionel Messi
Platini and a number of FIFA officials
Patrick Drahi (SFR CEO)

I get the feeling that its going to hit the US real soon

I love that moment when the shit hits the fan...

[Spineur]

Guardian first page tomorrow

Apparently Cameron family is cited also, as the family of almost all kings of the planet.

This is going to be very hot

[mc ukrneal]

Perhaps of interest then:
https://panamapapers.icij.org/20160403-panama-papers-global-overview.html

[Rinaldo]

Not to mention there's a cellist involved

[knight66]

The law firm involved will be the main losers here; apart from all we proles.

Mike

[Jo498]

So far it seems that mostly non-westerner's name were leaked, so there is hardly any news that they is corruption in Russia, China and FIFA.
If the western politico-corporate establishment really wanted to do something against money-laundering, tax evasion etc. they would have closed the loopholes in the tax codes and those tax havens long ago. (As could be seen a few years ago when the US was going suddenly quite tough on Swiss banks that helped tax evaders) Obviously, they do not want to.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/04/corporate-media-gatekeepers-protect-western-1-from-panama-leak/

[Gurn Blanston]

So far it seems that mostly non-westerner's name were leaked, so there is hardly any news that they is corruption in Russia, China and FIFA.
If the western politico-corporate establishment really wanted to do something against money-laundering, tax evasion etc. they would have closed the loopholes in the tax codes and those tax havens long ago. (As could be seen a few years ago when the US was going suddenly quite tough on Swiss banks that helped tax evaders) Obviously, they do not want to.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/04/corporate-media-gatekeepers-protect-western-1-from-panama-leak/

I agree; these 'loopholes', so-called, were created to allow the laws, which are merely symbols created for the benefit of the multitude, to be bypassed by those who are immune to them.

[Todd]

If the western politico-corporate establishment really wanted to do something against money-laundering, tax evasion etc. they would have closed the loopholes in the tax codes and those tax havens long ago. (As could be seen a few years ago when the US was going suddenly quite tough on Swiss banks that helped tax evaders) Obviously, they do not want to.

I agree; these 'loopholes', so-called, were created to allow the laws, which are merely symbols created for the benefit of the multitude, to be bypassed by those who are immune to them.

You guys are too cynical.  The Russians and Chinese are bad guys.  FIFA is corrupt because it must deal with such unwholesome nations.  The US, UK, France, Germany, the rest of Western Europe, they are good guys.  Also, the Western press is not biased.

[kishnevi]

So far it seems that mostly non-westerner's name were leaked, so there is hardly any news that they is corruption in Russia, China and FIFA.
If the western politico-corporate establishment really wanted to do something against money-laundering, tax evasion etc. they would have closed the loopholes in the tax codes and those tax havens long ago. (As could be seen a few years ago when the US was going suddenly quite tough on Swiss banks that helped tax evaders) Obviously, they do not want to.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/04/corporate-media-gatekeepers-protect-western-1-from-panama-leak/

Mr. Murray misses out on the fact that (thanks to the loopholes, etc.) EuroAmerican companies get to hide their money in plain sight.

[drogulus]

 
     There are corruption indices that are fairly objective for the less "beliefy". For everyone else, have you tried cynicism? I hear it's awesome.

     The U.S. ranks 16th on a measure I consulted. Denmark ranks 1st. Does this surprise anyone? Show us your beliefs!

[Todd]

The U.S. ranks 16th on a measure I consulted. Denmark ranks 1st.

Please to share your objective source of information.

[drogulus]

      Google corruption index. Then, find one that "believes" Belarus is the least corrupt. Since it's all opinion, that one is as good as any.

[Gurn Blanston]

You guys are too cynical.  The Russians and Chinese are bad guys.  FIFA is corrupt because it must deal with such unwholesome nations.  The US, UK, France, Germany, the rest of Western Europe, they are good guys.  Also, the Western press is not biased.

Oh, OK, that's a relief. I feel so much better now, I'll be able to sleep tonight! 

[Todd]

Google corruption index. Then, find one that "believes" Belarus is the least corrupt. Since it's all opinion, that one is as good as any.

No, no, I'm interested in the one you personally consulted and deem to be an objective source of objective measurement of an objectively agreed to definition of corruption.

The Panama Papers scandal/kerfuffle (take your pick) is, or will be, mostly centered around the financial dealings of wealthy individuals - mostly private citizens, though some pols will get caught up in it - and corporations using the arcana of national tax laws to engage in tax avoidance at least, along with tax evasion, with some other illicit activities thrown in.  The line between tax avoidance and tax evasion can be blurry, of course, and the trick is identifying where it morphs from one to the other.  I suppose if one takes the view that it is not corrupt if it is legal, this whole affair will simply reinforce a certain, comfortable good guy/bad guy dynamic.  It's all good.

[Jo498]

It's mainly individuals but probably many (ex)politicians or (ex) corporate. Unlike corporate welfare nobody can seriously claim that such loopholes benefit the economy (except those tiny states and a bunch of law firms).

I am probably hopelessly naive but I don't see why shell corporations and letterbox companies are not simply banned in all major western countries and pressure is put on the tiny (often-ex-colonies) who harbor them (it seems perfectly fitting that one partner of that Panama law firm is the son of a Nazi who evaded to Latin America).

[Todd]

I am probably hopelessly naive but I don't see why shell corporations and letterbox companies are not simply banned in all major western countries

Letterbox corporations could probably be done away with without much negative impact, but "shell corporations", depending on how one defines them, can have value for a variety of purposes, for both small and large entities.

[drogulus]

      Corruption indices tend to cluster. I take the point that there are some more legalistic and others that take into account definitions of what's corrupt within the law. This isn't entirely objective, but it's still the case that nations that rate highly will tend to be better by both measures. I consulted the first one that came up when I Googled. It said pretty much the same thing I've read before, the U.S. is not in the top 10, Afghanistan is at or near the bottom, and some countries in northern Europe along with Singapore are near the top.

[Todd]

This isn't entirely objective

Correct, it's "beliefy".

[drogulus]

     A high level of financial secrecy is both a positive and a negative, and I would think this would be a point where the line between liberty and corrupt practice blurs. Much as I despise the common use of the liberty concept, there should be enough to satisfy the noncrankish, and not so much as to make the concept of corruption disappear entirely.

     

Correct, it's "beliefy".

     I don't think you get the point of the term. "Beliefy" doesn't mean you have beliefs. It means you deny that a belief, being a belief, can also be a fact, or in the case of subjective instances like legal corruption, useful enough to change laws. Laws are changed because of opinions, when they're related plausibly to facts of the matter the law targets. In short, there are beliefs, and there are other beliefs, and it's never just a matter of belief which are worth holding. Otherwise you'd just believe anything. I think people who purport to believe beliefs are self-authenticating don't really mean it. Trump is not a pink unicorn, even if he's arguably pink. A belief to that effect would be wrong on the facts.

[Todd]

Beliefy doesn't mean you have beliefs. It means you deny that a belief, being a belief, can also be a fact

Thanks for clarifying the definition of your made up word.  Is "beliefyness" also a word?  It would be even more valuable if it could be a noun as well as an adjective.