5 ms·

Sorry, America ranks low in corruption? How are you quantifying that? Does international covert intervention count?

JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> Does international covert intervention count? If it is done for the personal benefit of whomever authorises it, yes. If it is done for American interests, no.
- jessaustin 9y ago
  What do you think the military-industrial complex is? The entire purpose of the whole stinking pile of corruption, is for armaments manufacturers to have more money to transfer to politicians, bureaucrats, officers, think tanks, journalists, and lobbyists. They're not monsters; they're not really motivated to kill innocents in other nations. It's just a convenient way to make more money!
  - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
    Sure, but if those wars promote an American economic interest and voters have relative transparency into the fact that it's happening and choose not to disagree because they're getting economic or political benefits en masse then I don't think it's corruption. We might agree or disagree on whether it is ethical. But the principal-agent bond is not been broken unless the politician gets a payout.
    - jessaustin 9y ago
      Can you think of a war that has been beneficial for average Americans? Can you think of a politician who hasn't received "donations" from armaments manufacturers? It takes a real commitment to the tabula rasa stance to pose the hypotheticals you've posed here.
      - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
        I think World War 2, the Korean War, the first Gulf War and possibly the NATO engagements in former Yugoslavia benefited Americans. Furthermore, I place value on the deterrence broadcast by such actions. Look at any poll--war is popular.
        jessaustin 9y ago
        WWII and the Korean War were not instigated by the military-industrial complex as such. (Although of course the Korean situation has been preserved and worsened by their constant input...) The 1st Gulf War resulted in USA troops occupying Saudi. That was the pretext for 9/11, a decade later, and all of the ensuing disasters. I'm not saying that Iraq couldn't have been ejected from Kuwait in a manner that was on balance beneficial, but that's not what happened. Even deterrence is constantly undercut by decisions that benefit the complex while harming USA citizens (as well as everyone else on earth). Libya was for a moment an argument for deterrence, until we said, "thanks for getting rid of all your weapons Muammar, now here's a bayonet up your ass!" DPRK love to talk about that episode... Wars are not popular, without massive media efforts to make them so. Fortunately, as we've seen in Syria, that button gets less effective every time the war pigs press it.
        dragonwriter 9y ago
        > The 1st Gulf War resulted in USA troops occupying Saudi. No, it did not. There is a difference between troops being based on a country and troops occupying a country. The 2003 Iraq war ended with the US occupying Iraq. The 1991 Gulf war ended with US troops based in Saudi Arabia. The two things are radically different.
        jessaustin 9y ago
        Well that's not what Osama said. To him that was a distinction without a difference. He didn't want USA soldiers eating pork and drinking beer on the outskirts of Mecca and Medina. Maybe you distrust him, maybe he had some other reason for turning the world upside-down that he didn't admit, maybe you have a better model of his decision process than the rest of us have... maybe though, that's subconsciously motivated by an attachment to the idea that USA fights and wins justified wars? If you didn't believe that already, would you be more receptive to the idea that things could have been done differently, with less disastrous results?
koenigdavidmj 9y ago
Here, you don't have to bribe a low-level functionary simply to do their job (give you a birth certificate for your kid, for instance). Our corruption is only at the political level---still a problem, but different than the third world.
- evanlivingston 9y ago
  Which do you think is better?
  - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
    Pretty much every study on societal stability, social measures and economic development says the American kind is better. (Search Google Scholar for well-cited intercountry studies of corruption.)
    - evanlivingston 9y ago
      It would be interesting to look at those countries that rank poorly and look at the effects of American global liberalism and try to understand how those countries are affected by the American kind of corruption.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    Since the third world kind includes political corruption at an intense level as well as intense administrative corruption, I'm going to have to say the developed-world form with political corruption but without excessive administrative corruption.
tom_mellior 9y ago
> America ranks low in corruption? How are you quantifying that? There's the Corruption Perceptions Index: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index In the 2016 version, the USA ranks 18th out of 176 countries, with 74 out of 100 points (higher is less corrupt, best actual score by any country is 90). If you accept this index (and don't assume things have changed dramatically since the 2016 poll), then it's fair to say that America does rank low in corruption.

> Does international covert intervention count? If it is done for the personal benefit of whomever authorises it, yes. If it is done for American interests, no.

jessaustin 9y ago
What do you think the military-industrial complex is? The entire purpose of the whole stinking pile of corruption, is for armaments manufacturers to have more money to transfer to politicians, bureaucrats, officers, think tanks, journalists, and lobbyists. They're not monsters; they're not really motivated to kill innocents in other nations. It's just a convenient way to make more money!
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  Sure, but if those wars promote an American economic interest and voters have relative transparency into the fact that it's happening and choose not to disagree because they're getting economic or political benefits en masse then I don't think it's corruption. We might agree or disagree on whether it is ethical. But the principal-agent bond is not been broken unless the politician gets a payout.
  - jessaustin 9y ago
    Can you think of a war that has been beneficial for average Americans? Can you think of a politician who hasn't received "donations" from armaments manufacturers? It takes a real commitment to the tabula rasa stance to pose the hypotheticals you've posed here.
    - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
      I think World War 2, the Korean War, the first Gulf War and possibly the NATO engagements in former Yugoslavia benefited Americans. Furthermore, I place value on the deterrence broadcast by such actions. Look at any poll--war is popular.
      - jessaustin 9y ago
        WWII and the Korean War were not instigated by the military-industrial complex as such. (Although of course the Korean situation has been preserved and worsened by their constant input...) The 1st Gulf War resulted in USA troops occupying Saudi. That was the pretext for 9/11, a decade later, and all of the ensuing disasters. I'm not saying that Iraq couldn't have been ejected from Kuwait in a manner that was on balance beneficial, but that's not what happened. Even deterrence is constantly undercut by decisions that benefit the complex while harming USA citizens (as well as everyone else on earth). Libya was for a moment an argument for deterrence, until we said, "thanks for getting rid of all your weapons Muammar, now here's a bayonet up your ass!" DPRK love to talk about that episode... Wars are not popular, without massive media efforts to make them so. Fortunately, as we've seen in Syria, that button gets less effective every time the war pigs press it.
        dragonwriter 9y ago
        > The 1st Gulf War resulted in USA troops occupying Saudi. No, it did not. There is a difference between troops being based on a country and troops occupying a country. The 2003 Iraq war ended with the US occupying Iraq. The 1991 Gulf war ended with US troops based in Saudi Arabia. The two things are radically different.
        jessaustin 9y ago
        Well that's not what Osama said. To him that was a distinction without a difference. He didn't want USA soldiers eating pork and drinking beer on the outskirts of Mecca and Medina. Maybe you distrust him, maybe he had some other reason for turning the world upside-down that he didn't admit, maybe you have a better model of his decision process than the rest of us have... maybe though, that's subconsciously motivated by an attachment to the idea that USA fights and wins justified wars? If you didn't believe that already, would you be more receptive to the idea that things could have been done differently, with less disastrous results?

koenigdavidmj 9y ago

Here, you don't have to bribe a low-level functionary simply to do their job (give you a birth certificate for your kid, for instance). Our corruption is only at the political level---still a problem, but different than the third world.

evanlivingston 9y ago
Which do you think is better?
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  Pretty much every study on societal stability, social measures and economic development says the American kind is better. (Search Google Scholar for well-cited intercountry studies of corruption.)
  - evanlivingston 9y ago
    It would be interesting to look at those countries that rank poorly and look at the effects of American global liberalism and try to understand how those countries are affected by the American kind of corruption.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  Since the third world kind includes political corruption at an intense level as well as intense administrative corruption, I'm going to have to say the developed-world form with political corruption but without excessive administrative corruption.

tom_mellior 9y ago

> America ranks low in corruption? How are you quantifying that? There's the Corruption Perceptions Index: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index In the 2016 version, the USA ranks 18th out of 176 countries, with 74 out of 100 points (higher is less corrupt, best actual score by any country is 90). If you accept this index (and don't assume things have changed dramatically since the 2016 poll), then it's fair to say that America does rank low in corruption.