http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49146152

While Koffi, a 22-year-old communications grad, has herself benefited from the system, she still wishes connections weren't so decisive in finding employment. "In the U.S.," Koffi said, "people give you a chance because of what you are."

 "Youths from modest backgrounds have great difficulties finding internships compare to those from the middle or wealthy classes because of more restricted family networks,"

So all their programmers are belong to US(A)?

Germany may be an exception to the trend of European talent taking flight or being stymied in realizing professional dreams. In former communist East Germany, who you knew in the party apparatus was very important to climbing the economic ladder. But in today's united Germany, connections are not seen as a major part of corporate culture.

We are happy in the USA that merit is championed more than "who you know", but most small businesses here are handed down to (majority incompetent) offspring (often with disasterous results).

In the USA, "who you know" will get you an interview, but if "who you know" doesn't write the interviewer's pay check, there's no guarantee of a job.

In the USA, nobility and class are effectively wealth disassembled, and families don't retain a standing seat among the wealthy for more than a few months if they go broke.

I've always imagined any opportunity-depriving cultural norms in the EU stem from the legacy of nobility and class system. Is this true?

Recovery will be doubly hard for EU given the cultural norm of upper class entitlement. Immigrants can build wealth here in the USA, it is encouraged, and they can own property. Nice.

Other than that it's not something that's ever affected me or anyone I know -- every company I've worked for (mostly small to medium sized) has looked exclusively at CV content when selecting for jobs.  Although we often get CVs from friends and we have been known to give an interview to prevent offence, I've never seen nepotism in action.

Herbie

Nowadays thankfully those times have passed in big business. Small businesses - are a different matter of course, where family run businesses are still commonplace in Europe and elsewhere.

Big businesses on the other hand tend to have centrally managed HR departments, outsourced recruiting and formally managed career progression, which, although they have their own problems, tends to eliminate or at least substantially reduce the risk of overt discrimination and nepotism getting you to to the top rather than aptitude.

There is still one place that stands out for nepotistic practices, and that's politics. If you look in the UK, half of the cabinet met each other at school, not in their career, and in the US and you believe that everyone has an equal chance of becoming President, then you must think that the Bushes and Clintons are very lucky families indeed.

But hey, keeping dreaming that dream.

Any individual can act nepotistically, it is then up to their overseers to correct it, if they're interested in correction. There are many corrections in US public employment, not so much in private corporations - but their bottom line always is more important and for the most part, so that those incompetent children they had to hire are set in a corner and ignored. I never said nepotism is non-existent in the US, but after reading the article I linked above, I began to wonder how things may be different in EU, especially in Spain and Italy.

EDIT: regarding political families: there are only so many citizens in the USA who would not RUN AWAY AS FAST AS POSSIBLE if handed the presidency. The nepotism you sense therein is due to political parties, not Presidents handing their scepters to their offspring or hunting buddies. Nepotism in politics may be necessary for candidates to exist at all, certainly doesn't bug me.

... namely that nepotism in public employment in the US is prosecutable, is it same in the EU? ...

Not sure about the rest of the EU, but in the UK there are specific laws to prevent dishonest nepotism and policies to prevent subconcious nepotism.

In the first instance, nepotism is specifically prohibited and protected against by government policy. Government officials are not allowed to directly manage, comment on the promotions of, or be part of a recruitment panel when the subject is a relative or friend of theirs. Breach of this policy could lead to disciplinary action up to and including summary dismissal.

At a senior level, some of this policy is additionally overseen by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. This office ensures that board members, senior civil servants and QUANGO directors and so on are all appointed fairly.

In the event that nepotism occurs dishonestly, that is to say, perhaps an official hid his relationship to another employee and gave him/her special treatment, the criminal charge of Corruption (in the case of promotion/recruitment) and/or Bribery (in the case of contracts) may apply - both of which carry a maximum sentence of life-imprisonment.

In both cases, the additional charge of Misconduct in Public Office would also apply, which is an aggravating factor when deciding on sentencing.

It's a shame. I strongly believe that the country would be better governed if the cabinet were more than just a bunch of Dave Cameron's mates from school.

1 hour ago, JohnAskew wrote

@blowdart: In my mind, nepotism includes friends.

Then you need to learn how to use a dictionary. Or have studied Latin at school. Ecce Romani!

In pictura est puella, nomine Cornelia.

Anyway;

that nepotism in public employment in the US is prosecutable, is it same in the EU?

Yes. Why the heck do you think it wouldn't be? I believe the Rules and Standards for Holders of Public Office covers it. Of course politicians believe they're immune to the laws and standards they pass anyway.

Of course nepotism (in it's correct usage) may not be bad; 

Encyclopedia of Management

"a 2006 report noted that approximately one-third of all Fortune 500 firms are family owned, and that family-owned businesses accounted for about half of the country's gross domestic product. In addition, these firms accounted for about three-fifths of all employment, and an even higher proportion of new job creation. The success of these businesses can be viewed as an implicit endorsement of nepotism."

In Europe it's HARD to fire an employee. Especially in Holland, you need to have a file three thumbs thick and then a judge can still rule against you.

So unemployment always hits the youths, who want to start working or work with a temp contract, first.

If you are better connected, sure, you will get a job sooner. But I believe the gross of the unemployed youth are not being hired because of the regulations protecting the worker.

Make it easier to hire and fire employees, then you will see unemployment will spread out evenly.

Honestly, I read the article and wonder how EU is different than USA.

Is the EU as still struggling with the legacy of Nobility and its trappings or not? Is that the attitude that the upper class carries and levies upon "the gross"? None of that here... just monied attitudes.

If you can't get a job here in the EU, you blame not yourself, not the stupid rules that create a stalemate, but you blame the people that are successful. You call those perceived problems fancy names like nepotism,. So you yourself are obviously not responsible and call for government intervention to help you out at the expense of the successful. And all that that does is create what it set out to destroy.

In the USA the mentality is still that you are the master of your own success. But socialists like Obama are rapidly creating an society where being successful is a bad thing, because you know; "You didn't build that, somebody else made that happen." and it's time you pay those other people their due diligence.

If you continue down that road, you will wind up exactly like the EU. Blaming everybody else but yourself for your own failures and where success depends highly on government protection (nepotism).

3 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

*snip*

In the USA the mentality is still that you are the master of your own success. But socialists like Obama are rapidly creating an society where being successful is a bad thing, because you know; "You didn't build that, somebody else made that happen." and it's time you pay those other people their due diligence.

Calling Obama a socialist? LMAO! You put the Teabaggers in the US to shame. You should move over here to one of the red states like Texas. You'll feel right at home watching Fox News and clutching your gun as you await the government's arrival to steal your money by force.

And isn't being successful bad if only 1% of the population can become successful? You see nothing wrong with CEOs making several hundred times as much as their workers? You see nothing wrong with an economic system that fosters 99% of population to be failures? What happened to your "lift people up from poverty" bullshit you keep spewing about capitalism? We have 50 million people living on food stamps now.

And I do not belong to the Tea Bag movement, whatever that may be.

Got anything constructive to add, or are you just trolling again?

1 minute ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

@cbae: I don't get Fox over here.

And I do not belong to the Tea Bag movement, whatever that may be.

Got anything constructive to add, or are you just trolling again?

Calling Obama a socialist is as constructive as a turd in a toilet bowl, so practice what you preach.

He wants to tax the rich, to give to the poor.

He thinks that government is responsible for the success of the American people.

He thinks that spending gazillions of tax dollars is going to save the economy.

He thinks that everyone is entitled to health care.

He's a socialist all right. If you think being a socialist is bad, then you obviously do not like Obama. Welcome to camp Romney Cbae!

I really don't care for either one of them, they are two sides of the same coin. One wants to cut the pie differently then the other, I want to turn the pie into a donut.

And I really don't see why calling someone a socialist is a bad thing, if it walks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck. Why do you take so much offense to the term, when you obviously have no problem calling people that don't agree with you names like Tea Bagger.

So you see my dear friend, I am practicing what I am preaching.

3 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

@cbae:

He wants to tax the rich, to give to the poor.

He thinks that government is responsible for the success of the American people.

He thinks that spending gazillions of tax dollars is going to save the economy.

He thinks that everyone is entitled to health care.

Even if the statements are true, which is not the case, how is any of that socialism? Where is he advocating social or government ownership of the means of production?

And you didn't answer any of my questions. Do you see nothing wrong with the egregious wealth imbalance that we are witnessing today? What do you think the average CEO in the US makes compared to his/her own workers?

And isn't being successful bad if only 1% of the population can become successful?

No. Because in the wake of that 1% will be the 99% who get wealthier (not rich, wealthier).

You see nothing wrong with CEOs making several hundred times as much as their workers?

No. You get paid close to what you produce. If that is little, you get paid little.

So if a CEO employs a million people and he takes 1%, he will very fast make hundred times more then they do. But they still earn close to what they produce and if they don't like the percentage, they are free to move elsewhere. 

What do you propose? A tax on the top? So that he has to take even a bigger share of the income, so that the little guy get's even less wage, but now he is dependent on government, who also takes a cut?

You see nothing wrong with an economic system that fosters 99% of population to be failures?

No. It's a profit and loss system, we can't all be winners.

What would you like as a solution? Everybody wins? How would you go about implementing that? Communism?

What happened to your "lift people up from poverty" bullshit you keep spewing about capitalism? We have 50 million people living on food stamps now. 

Yes, and you are willing to spend even more of their money on stimulus packages to give to large corporations, KUDOS!

Or did you miss that the FED is going to print 40 BILLION a MONTH bailing out the banks and their CEO's?

The solution is not MORE government control, but LESS.

Make sure you don't have to learn the lesson we are learning over here.

9 minutes ago, cbae wrote

Even if the statements are true, which is not the case, how is any of that socialism? Where is he advocating social or government ownership of the means of production?

And you didn't answer any of my questions. Do you see nothing wrong with the egregious wealth imbalance that we are witnessing today? What do you think the average CEO in the US makes compared to his/her own workers?

Socialism is much broader then that single definition you have given. One can also consider bringing free institutions under government control, socialism. And if you look at your definition, 49% of the Dutch GDP is spent by government, US is about 40%, that should be a good indication that we have socialist governments. 

Let me ask you this then;

How much would the workers make without CEO's?

Z E R O !

Flip the question around, how much would a CEO make without any employees?

Z E R O !

They need one another, so it's in their best interest to keep each other happy. It's the symbiotic relationship between capital and labor, one cannot exist without the other.

When government sticks it's nose in and provides favors to the one party at the expense of the other, this tension between capital and labor becomes out of balance. Then you end up with either over paid or under achieving CEOs and employees. The more you twist and turn, the more out of balance it becomes and you end up where we are now.

It's staring you right in the face, yet you do not wish to look it into it's eyes.

But it doesn't really matter, the US has to come up with several hundreds trillion dollars in the next 50 years to pay off all it's debts. So the whole thing will come crashing down soon anyway, maybe just after the EU crumbles.

4 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

Good, I see you edited some constructiveness into your post.

*snip*

No. Because in the wake of that 1% will be the 99% who get wealthier (not rich, wealthier).

The 99% get wealthier but not rich. And how is that a bad thing?

*snip*

No. You get paid close to what you produce. If that is little, you get paid little.

So a Chinese worker making iPhones should be making way more than $8 per day salary then right? Because he certainly produces way more than $8 per day.

So if a CEO employs a million people and he takes 1%, he will very fast make hundred times more then they do. But they still earn close to what they produce and if they don't like the percentage, they are free to move elsewhere. 

CEOs don't produce anything. CEOs are overhead. You need to stop sucking up to corporate executives, as if they're some kind of demigods.

And having a CEO employ a million people is at the heart of the "too big to fail" problem. Don't give CEOs an excuse to justify such a huge salary just because he employs so many people. If he fucks up and costs 1 million people their jobs, are his personal consequences any greater than if he employed only 100? That's a big fat "NO". He's going to end up with $50 million golden parachute instead of a $100K golden parachute.

What do you propose? A tax on the top? So that he has to take even a bigger share of the income, so that the little guy get's even less wage, but now he is dependent on government, who also takes a cut?

No, you give tax breaks for smaller corporation. This will incentivize corporations to stay small. You also break them up if they start forming oligopolies. Don't wait until they become monopolies.

*snip*

No. It's a profit and loss system, we can't all be winners.

Nobody is saying everybody should be winner. What we can't have is 99% of the people being losers. Capitalism can't exist under those conditions.

What would you like as a solution? Everybody wins? How would you go about implementing that? Communism?

Did I say everybody should win? You only know the extremes, don't you?

*snip*

Yes, and you are willing to spend even more of their money on stimulus packages to give to large corporations, KUDOS!

Most of the stimulus money went to tax breaks. Doesn't that mean that the government took even less of the people's money by force, as you like to call it? You really need to get your facts before making an * of yourself with statements like this.

Or did you miss that the FED is going to print 40 BILLION a MONTH bailing out the banks and their CEO's?

The solution is not MORE government control, but LESS.

Make sure you don't have to learn the lesson we are learning over here.

For about the millionth time, the banks needed to be bailed out to avert a global economic depression. That's the end of pipe solution to avoid a disaster. The front of pipe solution to prevent the possibility of this crisis from ever happening again, is to regulate the * out of the banks, because it's plainly obvious except to the densest of people that capitalism cannot self-regulate. There is no such thing as pure capitalism anyway. It's an invisible pink unicorn. You're never going to see it in your lifetime. So don't delude yourself into think you can.

We have to work within the given parameters: government must exist in order for capitalism to exist. And within these parameters we've tried going to one extreme of laissez-faire capitalism several times, and each time ended with near disaster. We can slowly turn the notch the other way without taking it to 11. Or in Maddus's world does there exist only 0 or 11?

16 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

*snip*

Socialism is much broader then that single definition you have given. One can also consider bringing free institutions under government control, socialism. And if you look at your definition, 49% of the Dutch GDP is spent by government, US is about 40%, that should be a good indication that we have socialist governments. 

"Spent by government" means corporations are on the receiving end of the transaction. How is that socialism?

Let me ask you this then;

How much would the workers make without CEO's?

Z E R O !

Flip the question around, how much would a CEO make without any employees?

Z E R O !

They need one another, so it's in their best interest to keep each other happy. It's the symbiotic relationship between capital and labor, one cannot exist without the other.

It would be good if it were a symbiotic relationship. The truth is, it's more like a parasitic relationship. Take a wild guess which is the host and which is the parasite.

And you don't honestly think CEOs represent the capital, do you? You're not even using the right term here. A CEO is neither labor nor capital. Again, a CEO is OVERHEAD.

When government sticks it's nose in and provides favors to the one party at the expense of the other, this tension between capital and labor becomes out of balance. Then you end up with either over paid or under achieving CEOs and employees. The more you twist and turn, the more out of balance it becomes and you end up where we are now.

You're now blaming the fat cat salaries that CEOs receive on government? Bwahaha. You've really lost it. Seriously.

It's staring you right in the face, yet you do not wish to look it into it's eyes.

But it doesn't really matter, the US has to come up with several hundreds trillion dollars in the next 50 years to pay off all it's debts. So the whole thing will come crashing down soon anyway, maybe just after the EU crumbles.

Maybe this will happen. You know who has the most to lose if everybody has to start again from zero? Unfortunately, greed is so blinding it's difficult to see that the 1%'s unrelenting desire to keep all of their wealth is only slitting their own throats. In a game, when one person ends up with all the money, the money ends up being worthless. Because the GAME ENDs. We need to do whatever we can to keep the game going. And if that means "the government has to take the money by force" from the wealthy, then so be it. It's really for their own good.

30 minutes ago, blowdart wrote

And once again a thread gets derailed. How about you get it back on topic and stop pooping all over threads, or I'll just lock them. There's a nanny state for you right there.

Sorry. I'm done.

I don't think those countries are as eager to correct nepotistic actions as their northern counterparts.

Germany has the advantage due to the east/west not knowing each other well enough so that the culture of "who you know" hasn't had time to grow into hard lines. I like that. They are kicking arse, too (as usual).

Blowdart quoted an article that points out how family owned corporations handed down to successive family generations are proof the nepotism is a working and workable model. I think that's a bit superficial. It doesn't address public employment, which it would have to do in order to be true. Of course, nepotism has no place in public employment.

If a family has capable offspring to hand business control over to, then that is workable, but many times the offspring are not capable and the business is run by hand-picked experts within the corporation and the offspring gets the big title and no teeth. Their parents/family lets them know that their ideas will first be vetted before being brought before the board members. Once their parents die, they are a serious liability to the company and companies can dissolve pretty quickly. I know a few of these scenarios from front row seats at small companies. Publicly traded corporations would yield a board who is not so interested in seeing CEO hand control over to an offspring. They may prevent it outright. Publicly traded companies are no longer family owned, of course, but usually the families hold onto a majority of shares. This is where nepotism is not a given right and should not be allowed without the board of directors vetting the offspring's capability, imho.

Nepotism can bring unqualified workers into the light. Those who 'recommended' the unqualified and exposed worker now has egg on his face. He recommended an incompetent worker. His word is now no longer honorable. His reputation suffers. This is why only a parent would push an unqualified worker into a job, because only a parent is that biased in favor of an incompetent worker. I suspect that in Spain and Italy, there is little if any backlash for a 'recommended' putz failing miserably. That would be a major difference from the USA right there. True?

18 minutes ago, JohnAskew wrote

That would be a major difference from the USA right there. True?

I give you the Kennedy and Bush families.

No, it's not different at all.

...Warren Buffett isn't spoiling his offspring, at least not %100...

Great Sir Winston Churchill quote, and I've been looking for a good quote to bark out ceremoniously with cigar and toddy in hand.

@blowdart: I concede things are not so different, at least not in UK or DE, but Spain and Italy???

44 minutes ago, JohnAskew wrote

@blowdart: I concede things are not so different, at least not in UK or DE, but Spain and Italy???

It's the same in the whole western world. Some things are better, some things are worse, but overall it all balances out.

2 hours ago, PaoloM wrote

*snip*

It's the same in the whole western world. Some things are better, some things are worse, but overall it all balances out.

True. The shoes are way better in Italy. The accents though are very silly.

Terrible terrible idea.

1) you force tax on something of unstable value.

2) like you said, people will sell large amount of inherited stock as "Predicted". That opens up so much problems, including making the stock very unstable.

3) back to point one. Tax on something could potentially be zero is just ridiculous.

All the factors only plays a part of the equation, nepotism, government involvement, war, crime, education. But in the end of all, the answer is in ourselves. Can we produce quality product at competitive price? If not, then, explain to me why someone should spend more money on us to produce equal or less quality products? Without that, doesn't matter it is nepotism or not, there is no job because we are expensive.

15 hours ago, blowdart wrote

And once again a thread gets derailed. How about you get it back on topic and stop pooping all over threads, or I'll just lock them. There's a nanny state for you right there.

Dude, care to elaborate?

Discussion was about an article that stated that nepotism was the cause/major contributing factor of unemployment of the youth in southern countries. I raised a point that I believe that this effect was not the main cause, but laws that protect the workers are the significant factor.

How is that pooping all over threads?

Herbie

I'll refrain from getting into those types of debates in the future,..

17 hours ago, JohnAskew wrote

I don't think those countries are as eager to correct nepotistic actions as their northern counterparts.

Why would one need to 'correct' it?

It's their business, so it's theirs to do with as they please.

And I really don't think that adding yet another tax is really the way to go.

1 hour ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

*snip*

Why would one need to 'correct' it?

It's their business, so it's theirs to do with as they please.

And I really don't think that adding yet another tax is really the way to go.

This thread has nothing to do with taxes.

It's about government corruption, appointing unqualified friends and relatives to government positions in the southern EU countries.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49146152

The article which many of you obviously will not read, points to the southern EU countries as rife with nepotism. These are the same countries which are today protesting austerity. Could it be that their governments are not up to par? Corruption allowed to go unchecked lead to these countries financial problems and subsequent "punishment" from EU leadership? Could the people rioting in Greece today be protesting corruption in their government as much if not more than the pain of the austerity policies being forced against their EU membership?

Perhaps the Brits and Yanks are just better at covering this type of corruption up, but I do sense that things are less above board in the southern EU countries. Any government known to ignore nepotism systemically, in my opinion, is eventually going to become dysfunctional. Sorry if this is personal for any of you.

10 hours ago, magicalclick wrote

@cbae:

Terrible terrible idea.

1) you force tax on something of unstable value.

2) like you said, people will sell large amount of inherited stock as "Predicted". That opens up so much problems, including making the stock very unstable.

3) back to point one. Tax on something could potentially be zero is just ridiculous.

1) Nobody forces you to accept an inheritance. You can disclaim it. And nobody forces you to take ownership of the inheritance on an exact date. You can choose to accept it on the day that the stock is not zero, and sell enough to cover the taxes on the entire amount. If you are afraid that the value is going to go to zero from the time that you accept the inheritance and the you are able to sell it, then you have the option to have the estate sell the stock first and just receive the proceeds as cash, which would then be taxed.

2) You need only sell enough to cover the tax, and you never have fewer than 105 days to sell the stock before you pay Uncle Sam. Since you would also "inherit" the original cost basis of the stock, if you sold the stock below the cost basis price, you'd not only get the proceeds, you'd have loss carry over. This means you'd not only not have to pay any taxes on those stocks, you'd reduce your tax liability on other stock gains for the year. The basic principle behind this is that stocks should be taxed exactly the way it would be had the deceased sold the stock and gifted it to the beneficiary.

As for stock stability, shareholders of a given stock aren't going to all die at once to cause instability to a stock. 

3) The same thing happens if you sell a particular stock for a huge gain and then turn around and purchase another stock that ends up going to zero. You'll have a huge tax liability on what you sold, but what you ended up with is worthless. Sucks for you, but you'll have a nice loss carry over other years when you do sell stock for a profit.

11 minutes ago, JohnAskew wrote

*snip*

This thread has nothing to do with taxes.

It's about government corruption, appointing unqualified friends and relatives to government positions in the southern EU countries.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49146152

Yes, but I only mentioned a specific kind of tax that would help to correct the "nepotistic" effect of passing ownership of a company in the form of stock from one generation to another.

I couldn't care less about nepotism in the free market. It's the business's own free choice and they are not hurting anyone (maybe themselves) with this practice. Government nepotism is an entirely different ballgame. Government does not come by it's wealth by producing something consumers want to buy, they simply take what they need. They end up hurting their country and that's really bad.

It's also why a lot of government nepotism is taking place in the southern countries. It's access to easy money. And you would like your family and friends to benefit from this, rather then your neighbor.

The southern countries are now in so much trouble, that it's beginning to show just how much of these family and friends are in office. Never ruling against one another, protecting each other. We also have a some of it in the EU, where PA's are often family members and the EC is appointed, not chosen.

The classification corruption is a valid one, even though I don't think they are breaking any laws. They are squandering public funds for their own luxury (my funds also, since we've bailed them out).

The solution to all this, I think, is not to ban government nepotism, but to shrink the government. Make it profitable to go out and work. You have to solve the problem where it originates.

9 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

@JohnAskew:

I couldn't care less about nepotism in the free market. It's the business's own free choice and they are not hurting anyone (maybe themselves) with this practice. Government nepotism is an entirely different ballgame. Government does not come by it's wealth by producing something consumers want to buy, they simply take what they need. They end up hurting their country and that's really bad.

It's also why a lot of government nepotism is taking place in the southern countries. It's access to easy money. And you would like your family and friends to benefit from this, rather then your neighbor.

The southern countries are now in so much trouble, that it's beginning to show just how much of these family and friends are in office. Never ruling against one another, protecting each other. We also have a some of it in the EU, where PA's are often family members and the EC is appointed, not chosen.

The classification corruption is a valid one, even though I don't think they are breaking any laws. They are squandering public funds for their own luxury (my funds also, since we've bailed them out).

The solution to all this, I think, is not to ban government nepotism, but to shrink the government. Make it profitable to go out and work. You have to solve the problem where it originates.

Finally, a salient answer. Thanks.

Nepotism is a source of corruption in government and must be corrected. Shrinking government only means fewer corrupt officials, correction is required for a government to actually do its work. I'm going to say it: "size doesn't matter".

I am %100 in support of correcting government whereever it is corrupt. One size fits all.

So perhaps world order originates with weapon and military capability so that those superior nations can just print money to bail themselves out and where other nations are just flat broke and have no leverage with which to print money. I don't know. Regardless, government corruption is never ok.

8 minutes ago, JohnAskew wrote

Finally, a salient answer. Thanks.

Nepotism is a source of corruption in government and must be corrected. Shrinking government only means fewer corrupt officials, correction is required for a government to actually do its work. I'm going to say it: "size doesn't matter".

Yes, less corruption.

You will always have crooked men. The first step is to proactively prevent them from being crooked, take the power away from them. Then when the problem is more manageable, prevent it reactively with a force of law.

I am %100 in support of correcting government whereever it is corrupt. One size fits all.

If democratically elected by the citizens of that nation, do you think the US should bomb it?

So perhaps world order originates with weapon and military capability so that those superior nations can just print money to bail themselves out and where other nations are just flat broke and have no leverage with which to print money. I don't know. Regardless, government corruption is never ok.

Corruption can only exist when you can coerce. If you use a military to coerce, corruption will emerge in the military.

51 minutes ago, JohnAskew wrote

*snip*

Finally, a salient answer. Thanks.

No, it's just one that fitted your original viewpoint. Cornyism (for heaven's sake, use the right term) is rife in politics - it's a natural by-product of a party system. And no-where is it more evident that the US, with it's limitation of two parties. I go back once again to the Kennedy and Bush families. Two families where people are groomed into politics simple because of family connections and nothing to do with any sort of competence.

And smaller government doesn't really help magically address it IMO. Smallest government of all? Dictatorship, and well, cronyism is, of course, there.

Italy has had family influences throughout its history, even before the mafia. The Borgias are a great example of nepotism (and I'm using it correctly here) in power, back when Government was small and tiny and socialism hadn't even been invented. Greece's problems are as much to do with tax avoidance than anything else.

33 seconds ago, blowdart wrote

*snip*

No, it's just one that fitted your original viewpoint. Cornyism (for heaven's sake, use the right term) is rife in politics - it's a natural by-product of a party system. And no-where is it more evident that the US, with it's limitation of two parties. I go back once again to the Kennedy and Bush families. Two families where people are groomed into politics simple because of family connections and nothing to do with any sort of competence.

And smaller government doesn't really help magically address it IMO. Smallest government of all? Dictatorship, and well, cronyism is, of course, there.

Nepotism includes friends, not just family. Cronyism is more along the lines of political factions, not personal relationships. You get the terms straight.

Nepotism means appointed by family and friends. The USA has elections, there is not appointing by those in the elected positions.

FYI, Jeb Bush is in Florida and is continually thwarted by the Republican Party from being a Presidential candidate, due to his personality and lack of capability. So there is an example where you are wrong. Can you count how many Kennedy's have been pressured by the Democratic Party to run for office? Many more than ever did. It is not a parent handing the mantle to offspring, so it is not nepotism at all. You keep pointing to political families as nepotistic in the USA, but that argument is wrong on two fronts I point out right here. You're wrong.

Although you can cast 'cronyism' upon these political families, I've already pointed out that there are few here willing to endure the debacle of public service, especially the Presidency. John Kerry and Mitt Romney are examples of narcissistic rich guys acting pompous and being rejected, but that big ego is nearly a requirement for the hard work and personal attacks doled out to sitting Presidents. Don't ask me to do it.

Smaller government doesn't help at all. Reduce a white wine sauce and its simply more concentrated. "Smaller government" is conservative vomit.

My question is not about cronyism but about nepotism, where nepotism means 'personal relationship' with the appointee by the appointer. Cronyism is not the topic for me.

When I went to Russia I experienced culture shock, in 1994. I am very curious about Spain and Italy and Greece and how they have mucked up so very thoroughly compared to UK and DE. Government corruptions.

15 minutes ago, blowdart wrote

And smaller government doesn't really help magically address it IMO. Smallest government of all? Dictatorship, and well, cronyism is, of course, there.

The size of government is not just dependent on it's form. Dictatorships can still have an extensive government.

Also, I'm not saying it's the ultimate answer to the problem. I'm saying that it reduces the problem to more manageable proportions. The problem the southern countries are in, is due to the vast size of the problem, which makes it difficult for any change to occur.

7 minutes ago, JohnAskew wrote

*snip*

Nepotism includes friends, not just family. Cronyism is more along the lines of political factions, not personal relationships. You get the terms straight.

Lets do a dictionary lookup. Again.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nepotism

: favoritism (as in appointment to a job) based on kinship

*sigh* Come on, it's not hard. The clue is in the nep part - nepot -> nephew in latin.

9 minutes ago, JohnAskew wrote

Although you can cast 'cronyism' upon these political families

No, I cast it on political parties as a whole. First let's define.

Watch the junior appointments in any government with a party system. It's those who have been in the party, with connections to the leader that get the roles. The UK has a great example of this in Quangos, quasi public bodies where those connected to the party tend to get roles. Or party approved short-lists for election (both UK and US - where the party decides on who to put forward, sometimes at the expense of candidates the public wants more)

Any political system where politicians band together to leverage power as a group will have cronyism.

13 minutes ago, JohnAskew wrote

 I am very curious about Spain and Italy and Greece and how they have mucked up so very thoroughly compared to UK and DE. Government corruptions.

Really? You think the UK economy is healthy? Oh dear me. No. It's mostly accounting tricks around PPE which keeps the debt off the books.

5 minutes ago, blowdart wrote

Any political system where politicians band together to leverage power as a group will have cronyism.

That's why I would like to see elections for positions, rather then parties.

FYI, your point two doesn't seem to be related to my point two. I wasn't talking about tax. I was talking about predicted transactions caused by the forced tax. The consequences of predicted transaction usually are bad all around.

as for wanting to sip on riches, change the law whatever you like. I dont get involved in politics anyway.

24 minutes ago, blowdart wrote

*snip*

Lets do a dictionary lookup. Again.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nepotism

: favoritism (as in appointment to a job) based on kinship

*sigh* Come on, it's not hard. The clue is in the nep part - nepot -> nephew in latin.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nepotism?s=t

Any political system where politicians band together to leverage power as a group will have cronyism. Yes.

Really? You think the UK economy is healthy? Oh dear me. No. It's mostly accounting tricks around PPE which keeps the debt off the books. Bill Clinton balanced the US budget too... yeah...

The fact that UK and DE are not suffering EU membership micromanagement is proof that their economy is, relatively, healthy. Healthy like the US economy today. -- Not so healthy.

Riots in London today? None in New York city either. Greece? Spain? Italy? I know Greeks are throwing rocks and launching tear gas today... They are not relatively healthy, now, are they.

18 minutes ago, JohnAskew wrote

Riots in London today? None in New York city either. Greece? Spain? Italy? I know Greeks are throwing rocks and launching tear gas today... They are not relatively healthy, now, are they.

You missed last year's London riots then? (Boy I hate US news coverage. Outside the borders don't matter)

27 minutes ago, JohnAskew wrote

Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition 2009 © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009 Cite This Source

Oh dear, if you'll use the cheap dictionaries, well, you get what you deserve.

Oh, and I speak American, not English. heheh. I do generalize nepotism to include friends, somehow.

No, I had no idea there were riots in London last year! Why? Certainly not EU micromanagement of Austerity upon the UK?

EDIT: to be honest me & mine tend to envision Britan as the promised land... weird, I know, but real.

a moment ago, JohnAskew wrote

No, I had no idea there were riots in London last year! Why? Certainly not EU micromanagement of Austerity upon the UK?

How the hell did you miss that? There were major riots not just in London but several large UK cities.

I'll go catch up. Thanks.

EDIT: This isn't austerity rioting:

The first night of rioting took place on 7 August 2011 after a protest in Tottenham, following the death of Mark Duggan, a local man from the area, who was shot dead by police on 4 August 2011.

1 minute ago, Sven Groot wrote

*snip*

How the hell did you miss that? There were major riots not just in London but several large UK cities.

You've never watched US news have you? Unless it's going to affect oil prices, or is about celebs it won't be reported if it's outside the borders.

Although Colbert and Jon Stewart did report it. As did NPR.

4 minutes ago, JohnAskew wrote

EDIT: to be honest me & mine tend to envision Britan as the promised land... weird, I know, but real.

You've never been have you? *grin* I left because finding work was becoming harder and harder. In the year before I had maybe 6 months of billable work.

Riots are now pretty much part-and-parcel of a Conservative government in power.

Herbie

35 seconds ago, Dr Herbie wrote

Riots are now pretty much part-and-parcel of a Conservative government in power.

Did you forget about the Oldham and Birmingham race riots under the previous Government?

1 minute ago, blowdart wrote

*snip*

You've never been have you? *grin* I left because finding work was becoming harder and harder. In the year before I had maybe 6 months of billable work.

No, I haven't visited. Let me live in my happy delusion, please.

Jobs are easy to find here for your skill set. This isn't true in the UK? More culture shock... why? Kings & Queens? Nepotism? Banking corruption? Very easy to find work here as you know. Hmm.

The UK August 2011 riots were not international in nature whatsoever, unlike the riots in Greece today.

Local EU problems may not get such high profile coverage here. I can't say why I missed it.

When the Torys won the election, I predicted there would be riots before their term was over, but I wasn't expecting it so quickly:

Herbie

6 minutes ago, Dr Herbie wrote

@JohnAskew: The trigger was the shooting of a young man in London by the police (who suspected him of buying a hand-gun).  However, the real causes of the rioting were general cultural issues such as poverty in the young population,  the wage gap, poor relations with the police, gang culture, etc.

Riots are now pretty much part-and-parcel of a Conservative government in power.

Herbie

Wow. We just sleep in parking lots in tents and move when they tell us to move. Weak. But nice not to have wanton destruction, that's pitiful. Yuck, what a nightmare. I'm going to go cry about my paradise lost. No, I'm not being sarcastic. Silly, perhaps.

18 minutes ago, JohnAskew wrote

Jobs are easy to find here for your skill set. This isn't true in the UK? More culture shock... why?Kings & Queens? Nepotism? Banking corruption? Very easy to find work here as you know. Hmm.

You really need to stop getting hung up on the idea of Neoptism being a purely European disease. As for banking corruption, come on, are you kidding me? It was pretty much US lending and securitization that brought the world wide banking system down. As for easy to find work, I think you'll find 10%-15% of the US population have a different view.

The UK August 2011 riots were not international in nature whatsoever, unlike the riots in Greece today.

Umm that seriously makes no sense

18 minutes ago, JohnAskew wrote

Wow. We just sleep in parking lots in tents and move when they tell us to move. Weak. But nice not to have wanton destruction, that's pitiful.

Hah WTO protesters would disagree. However it's probably more to do with a balance of arms between police and protesters in the US.

Herbie

3 minutes ago, blowdart wrote

*snip*

You really need to stop getting hung up on the idea of Neoptism being a purely European disease. As for banking corruption, come on, are you kidding me? It was pretty much US lending and securitization that brought the world wide banking system down. As for easy to find work, I think you'll find 10%-15% of the US population have a different view.

*snip*

Umm that seriously makes no sense

Yes it does make sense. Greeks are livid about EU micromanagement forcing Austerity against EU membership. That means it is international in nature. Greeks see other nations meddling with their business, plus, and more the case I can imagine, is disgust with their own corrupt leadership.

The article I read distinguished southern EU countries as badly nepotistic. I read it, I didn't write it.

Hung up? Just asking for the big picture. I've only been around the world once, and I missed all the nice places.

.NET programmers can find work under rocks here. That 10-15% do not write .NET code. We do.

Regarding Wall Street polluting the world's economy, I agree. What to do?

23 hours ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

The major difference between the US and the EU is the mentality of the people.

If you can't get a job here in the EU, you blame not yourself, not the stupid rules that create a stalemate, but you blame the people that are successful. You call those perceived problems fancy names like nepotism,. So you yourself are obviously not responsible and call for government intervention to help you out at the expense of the successful. And all that that does is create what it set out to destroy.

In the USA the mentality is still that you are the master of your own success. But socialists like Obama are rapidly creating an society where being successful is a bad thing, because you know; "You didn't build that, somebody else made that happen." and it's time you pay those other people their due diligence.

If you continue down that road, you will wind up exactly like the EU. Blaming everybody else but yourself for your own failures and where success depends highly on government protection (nepotism).

Oh, shut the f*ck up.

3 hours ago, magicalclick wrote

@cbae:

FYI, your point two doesn't seem to be related to my point two. I wasn't talking about tax. I was talking about predicted transactions caused by the forced tax. The consequences of predicted transaction usually are bad all around.

I'm talking about the transaction too. Somebody dumping parts of a large holding happen all the time. So what?

As I said, it's not a forced tax. You do not have to accept any inheritance. If you want to keep the holdings, sell off part of it and pay the * tax.

And if you happen to inherit a significant percentage of the stock and need to sell, you don't have to sell it all at once and cause the stock to plummet. Nobody is that stupid. You spread out the sales. As I said, you have at minimum 105 days to sell before you pay the tax liability and that's only if you happen to take ownership on Dec 31st of a given tax year.

1 hour ago, ScanIAm wrote

*snip*

Oh, shut the f*ck up.

Finally, a salient answer. Thanks.

2 hours ago, JohnAskew wrote

*snip*

Yes it does make sense. Greeks are livid about EU micromanagement forcing Austerity against EU membership. That means it is international in nature. Greeks see other nations meddling with their business, plus, and more the case I can imagine, is disgust with their own corrupt leadership.

Even if the EU hadn't pushed austerity the riots would have happened, because it's more about no jobs and no income, the EU is just an excuse, in the same way the UK riots had their excuse in a shooting of a villain.

18 hours ago, blowdart wrote

*snip*

Even if the EU hadn't pushed austerity the riots would have happened, because it's more about no jobs and no income, the EU is just an excuse, in the same way the UK riots had their excuse in a shooting of a villain.

I have to disagree. They protest Austerity in Greece, with rocks, fire, tear gas, and bad language. Spain is also seeing protests today, though not as violent as Greece. Italy is actually ok today.

Protests are not irrelevant nor can all riots be assessed as the domain of a permanent underclass.

My research is showing the southern EU nations are more corrupt and (as a result) less productive than the northern EU nations. I read that these southern EU countries are rife with nepotism / cronyism so that they are effectively dysfunctional with unqualified workers. So their citizens are quite disgusted with their own government and are are primed for protests, I understand that and I agree with them. These protests include rejection of the EU member nations' forcing austerity measures against their EU membership. DE is telling them what conditions are attached to EU bailout money, and that is an international dispute by definition.

My original question is why the chronic nepotism / cronyism in southern EU nations? It's a class system that plagues all of EU and these southern EU nations don't ever try to correct it. UK goes for corrections, and DE is freer from the feudal-based class system than any other EU nation, and is glowing with productivity like the USA usually does. It may be only a single facet in a brilliant cut regarding the issue, but how is that understanding incorrect? 

I don't think the Southern EU is much worse than Northern EU. Based on percentage, it appears to be higher. But, nepotism is a relatively fixed valued per employer, not percentage based.

What I mean is, an employer's close friends/family is limited. The amount of family members in the same company is likely comparable between Northern and Southern EU. The reason of Southern EU appear to be a lot worse because the jobs opportunities are way less. If Northern EU gets to the same poor economy as Southern EU, you will likely see the difference getting closer.

Nepotism is natural. Like I said, donation, salary raise, hire more workers, are all luxury items that can only be done when there are enough to spare.