Tax and corruption
February 7th, 2007
Dennis Howlett and I have an interesting relationship. We are both natural bloggers. Sometimes we agree: sometimes we don’t!
Dennis has commented on ‘Closing the Floodgates’ at his place. One comment I found curious. He said:
There are some weaknesses in the argument. It depends on a definition of ‘corruption’ that embraces commercial activities that while logical is far from universally accepted as appropriate.
The definition we use is logical. It’s not accepted because it’s new. But that’s the case with all new ideas. The fact is, that if they’re logical they often are accepted. We think this one will be.
No, it’s more than that. We’re sure this one will be. To read more, go here.
I’m not sure it’s exactly new Richard. The language of corruption is inevitably linked ot commercial interests. There does however seem to have been a pretty much blanket exception in the case of the banking fraternity. BICC aside.
Dennis
Strange. Everyone else reckons our definition is new, at least in this area where the Transparency International view has prevailed for too long.
For the differneces, read the paper or chapter 2 of Closing the Floodgates.
Richard