6 ms·

Most Chinese, I ever spoke to, talk about how corrupt their government is. Isn't that something that Xi was trying to make country less corrupt? From that persp

• sokoloff 11y ago
  I'd wager that many Americans would also talk about how corrupt our government is. Maybe it's corrupt in a different way or to a lesser extent, but any government of any size will have some level of corruption, and most will have a higher perceived amount of corruption than the reality suggests (because discovered exhibits of corruption will be interesting news and thereby over-observed).
  • Retra 11y ago
    I really wish people would take corruption seriously enough to study it as a professional discipline. It is one of the most important and difficult problems in human history, and there's a lot of room for innovation in dealing with it. >and most will have a higher perceived amount of corruption than the reality suggests (because discovered exhibits of corruption will be interesting news and thereby over-observed). You could argue that most corruption is not reported because it is effectively legal. Like nepotism, for instance.
    • dragontamer 11y ago
      A huge chunk of legal theory is about negating conflicts of interest. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest From Judicial Disqualification, to the very core of our adversarial judicial system (Fruit of the Poisonous tree, etc. etc.), it is definitely a well studied subject in the US. The solution is pretty simple. If someone in power has a conflict of interest, then the law should be rewritten to resolve it. Typically, the US seems to do it by introducing an adversary of some kind. (ie: The NYPD are considered 'corrupt' behind the 'Blue Wall of Silence'. So an adversary has been introduced: the Civilian Complaint Review Board. The Civilian Complaint Review Board not only reviews complaints, but has been granted judicial power to subpoena individual officers and force them to testify before court) In fact, our very constitution was designed around this principle. * The President enforces laws, but is not allowed to write the laws. * The Congress writes the laws, but cannot enforce the law. Congress is further divided into two different houses (Senate and House) with differing responsibilities, as writing the law is considered the most powerful position of this country. Only when both chambers agree do laws move forward. * When questions of enforcement come into play, the Judicial branch resolves it by interpreting the laws. ------- Unfortunately, large swaths of red tape and political theory dance is expensive. So even the Federal Government cuts corners sometimes... but even more so with local governments. When some country town can only afford one Sheriff for their entire police department (which is a huge chunk of the country btw), I'm gonna bet you that the town won't be able to afford a "Civilian Complaint Review Board" like New York City can. A good example is St. Louis County / Ferguson right now. Their Police Department has been shown to be incompetent at best. But they can't even afford Police Cameras! They tried to buy cameras this past year, and the only way they were able to afford cameras was through funds seized from the populace (either traffic fines or other sources...). Such a source of money isn't enough to handle the ongoing storage costs of police cameras. (To say nothing about the conflicts of interest involved in a Police Force with guns who rely on parking tickets, fines, and court fees to fund key parts of their department...) So Ferguson / St. Louis County will remain in the dark, without police cameras... at least until that city / county can afford them. Still... Ferguson and St. Louis County are learning. They are probably going to implement civilian review boards soon. http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/ferguson-st-louis-contemplate-police-review-boards/article_120d0eb4-ba38-5d9a-b05f-56e483566e76.html http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/ferguso... But for a county that can't even afford police cameras properly, I bet you that the rollout of this new agency will be slow at best.
      • Retra 11y ago
        I still think a lot more research needs to go into it. Specifically in the field of computer ethics, and general AI. (I don't want judges interpreting the law, I want safe machines doing it.)
        • vezzy-fnord 11y ago
          There goes common law, jury nullification and case precedent out of the window. Everything is now a literal legalist reading. I absolutely despise the meme that's so popular here saying that the law is like code and should be totally automated. It's not. It's very fuzzy and that's a huge benefit.
          • Retra 11y ago
            You're assuming all these things like they are necessary or something? I want computers that don't have those exact problems. That's why it needs more research. So we don't have literal legal readings. We could have machines that understand context and manage it in a transparent and verifiable manner.
            • bitJericho 11y ago
              Judges already do this and they do it quite well. Have you ever read a court case? They even do it within the social concerns of the time. Look at gay marriage. The major problems with the courts are mandatory sentencing, plea bargains, over the top laws (like some drug laws) and access for the poor. None of these bar the last one would really benefit with technology.
              • yummyfajitas 11y ago
                They don't do it particularly well, unless you think "time since lunch at time of parole hearing" is a strong predictor of criminal recidivism. http://www.economist.com/node/18557594 http://www.economist.com/node/18557594
              • 11y ago
    • drinchev 11y ago
      I agree. My country of origin is Bulgaria, which has its own bad reputation in that matter ( corruption ). I would say what stops our country from collapsing is the EU and the democratic constitution which has a political pluralism principles inside. Even though the term politician in my country is associated with corruption there's always a refreshing fear of a ruling party shift that keeps the country going. IMHO Communists in China haven't got any of these real worries and the country lives In sandbox with millions of people as a workforce. That being considered economic crisis like that are expected and what is even worse ( again... In my opinion ) is that things will not change if the sandbox model continues.
      • brc 11y ago
        The key feature of democracy is not necessarily having people choose their own rules, but instead enabling peaceful power transitions. Any place where people can still legitimately change the government through democracy is likely to have a reasonable cap on the corruption levels, but that still assumes other functioning parts of society, like an independent judiciary, free press, freedom of speech and association, etc. Most of those things aren't the case in China, so, absent evidence, you'd have to assume China is more corrupt.
    • forrestthewoods 11y ago
      Technically speaking nepotism means family but people generally use the term to mean friends and colleagues. On one hand hiring people you know over people you don't know is bad and corrupt. On the other hand it's literally what everyone does because it's the logical, sane, smart decision to make. The #1 way to hire good people for any company is for employees to recommend friends and past co-workers.
      • bad_user 11y ago
        You're missing the point - companies compete in the open market and recommendations may be signals used in the hiring process, but not in evaluating somebody's performance on job. If a hire doesn't work out, usually it parts ways with the company, with the evaluation period being meant to make this painless and it's in a company's best interest to hire the best people, otherwise it's not able to compete. But a public institution is not subject to market forces. A public institution doesn't have to compete, won't go bankrupt, being part of government has tremendous influence on other people's lives and is always financed by other people's taxes. Now that changes the equation quite a lot.
      • bwohlergo 11y ago
        nepotism, noun The practice among those with power or influence of favoring relatives or friends, especially by giving them jobs. ... i think you're mistaking the original meaning with its definition.
        • forrestthewoods 11y ago
          Nepotism is favoritism granted to relatives https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nepotism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nepotism : the unfair practice by a powerful person of giving jobs and other favors to relatives http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nepotism http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nepotism No, I'm right. Originally it's a familial term. But modern usage includes friends.
      • Retra 11y ago
        >On the other hand it's literally what everyone does because it's the logical, sane, smart decision to make. What you are forgetting to point out is that companies practicing nepotism have found a local efficiency maximum. That, right now, nepotism is the best way to hire the right people. Ideally, there would be better methods to evaluate people, and the value in discovering those methods is quite clear.
  • jhugg 11y ago
    Degree matters. As biased toward certain groups as the US justice system is, it still resembles the rule of law.
  • tn13 11y ago
    Larger and authoritarian government tends to be far more corrupt and more importantly tend to interfere lot more in economy. While American politicians are surely corrupt they have relatively far lesser control on economy as their Chinese of Indian counterparts. That is why net worth of American politicians is so less but if you look at Chinese or Indian politicians it is a different picture.
    • mc32 11y ago
      I don't think size makes much difference. See any banana republic or African countries run by "strongmen". It probably has more to do with education and progress. The more education and progress there is the less corruption. But little or minimal corruption does not mean open society either. You can have an autocratic system with low corruption.
      • sillygeese 11y ago
        > The more education and progress there is the less corruption. Do you think a ruling class can be educated into not pursuing their personal gain at everyone else's expense? It's not that complicated. 2 + 2 = 4, and "fucking people over is bad mm'kay?" The problem is that opportunities for "corruption", wealth and power are the main reasons why psychopaths seek political office to begin with. They don't go there to help others.
        • mc32 11y ago
          I think education elucidates the populace into not accepting corruption so readily --to understand that while it may be 'natural' it's not okay and it can be contained. A more educated population tends to demand more reason.
          • sillygeese 11y ago
            > A more educated population tends to demand more reason. Not when it's "educated" by the government itself. The public education system is a brainwashing program, to make us unquestioningly obedient to authority, and to think we need more government intervention in everything.
  • jazzyk 11y ago
    The more the government is involved in managing the economy, the more corrupt it (usually) gets. China's economy, while allowing private ownership, is heavily influenced/controlled by the government. Hence corruption. The US economy has turned statist - cue in the lobbyists looking for favors.
• chrischen 11y ago
  Yea they do talk about how corrupt it is, but they believe that Western governments of more developed countries are equally corrupt.
• ttflee 11y ago
  Xi is trying to save the system by eradicating corrupt parts of the bureaucracy and suppressing his enemies in the party, however, the cost of these actions are not cheap. The bureaucracy once took the responsibility of helping finance and invest in local economy in the past decades. The anti-corruption campaign had already hurt the incentives of the cadres of various levels. Many of them are just waiting until the end of this movement, contributing negatively to the situation.