4 ms·

You'd think. But actual organized criminals like bootleggers are/were generally not terribly efficient either. Here's one way to look at it: very, very smart

You'd think. But actual organized criminals like bootleggers are/were generally not terribly efficient either. Here's one way to look at it: very, very smart criminals should do much less damage to their victims than they seem to, just for reasons of self-interest. This is primarily because the first world has made it more individually profitable for very, very smart criminals to go legit, either in business or politics. This leaves actual visible criminal activity to those not smart enough, or not disciplined enough, to take that route. Don't shake your head at how awful it is when a high-up executive at a major corporation turns out to be a complete sociopath. Marvel that society has gotten so much good out of that clever, ambitious sociopath. And be glad that crime is emphatically not as good a career path for him.

dkarl 17y ago
You have to assume Cameroon has as many clever, ambitious sociopaths as any other country. Why aren't they providing basic services? The article explains why long-term investment doesn't take place, but it doesn't explain why simple for-profit services don't crop up in competition with the official ones. For instance, if it costs too much to get a contract enforced legally, then there is a market for enforcing contracts illegally. This is obviously bad news for the government officials profiting from the legal enforcement of contracts -- unless they are the ones running the illegal service, and they structure it as an inferior, low-end alternative to their legal service. (Corrupt government officials have an advantage over the mafia: corrupt government officials don't have to worry about getting shut down by the authorities. They just have to share the loot with their superiors.) The article also doesn't explain why government officials, even corrupt ones, fail to make cheap investments that pay off over a few years. For instance, a kleptocrat should want a reliable supply of clean water to ensure that the farmers are healthy enough to plant and harvest crops, so he can steal the profits. If an epidemic means the crops rot in the fields, that's money out of his pocket. Money is readily converted to power, via bribes, weapons, or propaganda. Losing money means losing power. Why wouldn't a kleptocrat spend money on sanitation, especially if that means getting good marks from foreign governments and NGOs and qualifying for more aid?
- angelbob 17y ago
  All of that looks like a good investment if you have sufficient stability (including cooperation from fellow kleptocrats) to have a serious chance at harvesting what you sowed. It's probably simply too unstable to do so right now, and a lot of that comes from the top. And that would be a lot of the difference between Cameroon and a poor-ish but more culturally Western country.

dkarl 17y ago

You have to assume Cameroon has as many clever, ambitious sociopaths as any other country. Why aren't they providing basic services? The article explains why long-term investment doesn't take place, but it doesn't explain why simple for-profit services don't crop up in competition with the official ones. For instance, if it costs too much to get a contract enforced legally, then there is a market for enforcing contracts illegally. This is obviously bad news for the government officials profiting from the legal enforcement of contracts -- unless they are the ones running the illegal service, and they structure it as an inferior, low-end alternative to their legal service. (Corrupt government officials have an advantage over the mafia: corrupt government officials don't have to worry about getting shut down by the authorities. They just have to share the loot with their superiors.) The article also doesn't explain why government officials, even corrupt ones, fail to make cheap investments that pay off over a few years. For instance, a kleptocrat should want a reliable supply of clean water to ensure that the farmers are healthy enough to plant and harvest crops, so he can steal the profits. If an epidemic means the crops rot in the fields, that's money out of his pocket. Money is readily converted to power, via bribes, weapons, or propaganda. Losing money means losing power. Why wouldn't a kleptocrat spend money on sanitation, especially if that means getting good marks from foreign governments and NGOs and qualifying for more aid?

angelbob 17y ago
All of that looks like a good investment if you have sufficient stability (including cooperation from fellow kleptocrats) to have a serious chance at harvesting what you sowed. It's probably simply too unstable to do so right now, and a lot of that comes from the top. And that would be a lot of the difference between Cameroon and a poor-ish but more culturally Western country.