The return of the corrupt

In a rational administration, corruption can be considered as a fact more profitable than harmful.

When he saw the enthusiasm of the audience rushed in free fall, exclaimed with unusual enthusiasm: "We will never be incompetent but corrupt"

The audience came from a nap and applauded wildly.

What makes so many people care more that has not thieves that administrators are inept and causing losses far exceeding those caused by the corrupt?

Surely no one is dedicated to do the math to say that you lose less corruption than the ineptness.

We do not know if some corrupt administrations are not best for the overall results than others in which there is no breach of trust, bribery, theft.

According to reliable sources, some companies have excellent procedures to detect corruption of its officials, but not to prevent them or to punish but to manage it.

This philosophy is very pragmatic, effective and rational.

The arguments that support such a practice at odds with common sense emphasize that corrupt officials are often the most capable, they do best function and, ultimately, the biggest utility will provide to the company.

Needless to say that the system includes knowing what the economic amount of the fraud and what the economic amount can produce given its good performance level.

In other words, the rational management can not be carried away by the fury of an affair, or by passionately moral criteria, or for some wounded pride: the rational management objectives only evaluates results.

I would not recommend anyone to steal but I would suggest you learn to control the offense caused by the corruption of his colleagues.

Note: original in Spanish (without translation by Google): La rentabilidad de los corruptos

●●●