Counterpoint
In "A little greasing of the wheels is good for a local economy," (Opinion, May 1), Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Chapman argues that the United States shouldn't try to enforce its ethics elsewhere. He cites the case of Wal-Mart executives allegedly bribing local Mexican officials in order to (successfully) penetrate and quickly dominate the Mexican supermarket industry.
Not only are the alleged activities serious crimes, but the alleged six-year cover-up multiplies the ethical damage Wal-Mart has done to itself, to the Mexican market, and to the reputations of both the United States and Mexico.
I have enjoyed the fruits of capitalism as a businessman in Minnesota. I have also been lucky to spend several months each winter living in Mexico over the last decade. I have witnessed a rapid and welcome growth in retailing, specifically with the entry of Wal-Mart and the growth of other supermarket chains.
The Mexican middle class is growing, and its standard of living is improving. I am not opposed to progress, modernization or globalization. I am opposed to bribery.
Chapman argues, "Economic growth is a good thing, even when it's lubricated by graft." He argues that if we Americans don't bribe our way in, some other country with fewer scruples will, and we'll lose out. But he doesn't extend his logic just a few more steps and see that bad business begets more bad business.
The real losers are the local suckers who are sold down the river by some bureaucrat or greedy businessperson who pockets the bribe and favors the crook. Local businesses that refuse to give or take bribes are disadvantaged. They're the injured parties.
Chapman suggests that everybody's doing it and therefore we're somehow mistakenly self-righteous if we don't also cheat. This is elementary ethics. The law makes these practices illegal because they support coercion. They give unfair power to greedy people and dirty politicians. Their illegal practices destroy markets; their "business as usual" attitude discourages investment. Every crooked deal displaces a healthy, win-win deal that benefits more people.
The crux of Chapman's argument is that without doing bad, we can't do good, and that by being too self-righteous, we prevent ourselves and others from enjoying all we have to offer. This is simply saying that the ends justify the means, which in this case is commending Wal-Mart for stopping at nothing to bring their business to Mexico and their profits back home. This is greasy capitalism run amok.
Finally, the alleged cover-up. I read David Barstow's New York Times article. The author makes a compelling case by uncovering false statements, sham investigations, whitewashed reports, doctored books, personnel shifts and so forth.
Many of the targets of these years of alleged bribes and the people allegedly responsible for the cover-ups now have senior positions in the Wal-Mart corporate empire -- they're still running the show today.
I have some solutions to Chapman's greasy dilemma. Call out bribery, corruption, cronyism, favoritism and illegal payoffs -- every time. Name names. Write letters. Protest as a shareholder. Boycott as a shopper.
Let politicians know you demand fairness and transparency. Support the watchdog groups and the regulatory agencies that investigate, build cases and prosecute. Resist the temptation to go along to get along.
The international communities must keep striving for transparency. There's a cost in paying bribes that should extend far beyond whether or not you can afford it or believe that it's inevitable.
Every crooked deal eliminates an honest one. Every crooked deal erodes business trust. That's why they're illegal. If U.S. companies choose to break the law, the penalties should be enormous.
--------------
Miles B. Canning lives in Greenwood, Minn., and Manzanillo, Mexico.
