4 ms·

I found this video of Milton Friedman helpful in understanding corruption: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-7oMOxPjNE&feature=autofb http://www.youtube.com/wat

by dpatru 16y ago

I found this video of Milton Friedman helpful in understanding corruption: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-7oMOxPjNE&feature=autofb http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-7oMOxPjNE&feature=autof...). He argues that corruption is caused by government passing laws which do not appeal to people's moral instincts. The way to eliminate corruption is to get rid of laws which provide incentives for bribery. If a nation has a small, efficient government, free trade, low taxes, little business regulation, and little if any prohibitions on vice (alcohol/tobacco/drug use, gambling, prostitution, etc.), what is there to bribe a government official about? But when governments pass laws that are widely disrespected, this creates a culture of corruption which rots away the just administration of all the laws, even those that would normally be considered legitimate, like laws on burglary, assault, and murder.

Andrew_Quentin 16y ago
He forgets to mention greed of course.
- dpatru 16y ago
  Why is greed relevant?
singular 16y ago
Risking downvotes but here I go anyway... It's interesting to compare his theory against the country where his theories were first, and arguably most purely put into practice - Pinochet-era Chile. The measures put forward by Friedman + his acolytes resulted in huge unemployment, inflation, and many multi-nationals effectively stealing wealth away. In order for the people to 'accept' these measures Pinochet instituted oppression, abandonment of the freedom of the press, torture, and extra-judicial killings. I think the ideas which originate from the creator of neo-liberalism ought to be judged against the evidence of its actual implementation in real life before recommending its architect's theories on dealing with just about anything. The laws that were passed in Chile, as with many other countries which have instituted exactly the policies you outline were widely disrespected, and that disrespect was 'dealt with' in various arguably really rather negative ways. I am certain that corruption also remained a problem throughout. For references and discussion of this phenomenon, see The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein - http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0141024534/ http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0141024534/
- anamax 16y ago
  > I think the ideas which originate from the creator of neo-liberalism ought to be judged against the evidence of its actual implementation in real life before recommending its architect's theories on dealing with just about anything. Fair enough. China, Cuba, the USSR....
  - singular 16y ago
    > Fair enough. China, Cuba, the USSR.... Hardly wonderful examples of corruption-free parts of the world!! Or ought there be a sarcasm indicator in that message? :)
    - anamax 16y ago
      I'm not referring to corruption, but suggesting that we can apply the "I think the ideas which originate from the creator of neo-liberalism ought to be judged against the evidence of its actual implementation in real life before recommending its architect's theories on dealing with just about anything." to communism/socialism. Of course, that standard is always rejected when it comes to communism/socialism.
      - deleted 16y ago
        [deleted]
      - singular 16y ago
        I absolutely apply the same standard to communism, socialism or any political/economic system. There are alternatives to extremes, which both communism and neoliberalism can safely be described as I think - a Keynesian approach has a great deal of evidence in the positive behind it (the new deal for example), and I am sure he has had (I know far too little to comment myself) opinions on corruption.
  - galisevych 16y ago
    USSR? isn't it fall apart in 1991 with rest of soviet union?

by dpatru 16y ago

Andrew_Quentin 16y ago

He forgets to mention greed of course.

dpatru 16y ago
Why is greed relevant?

singular 16y ago

Risking downvotes but here I go anyway... It's interesting to compare his theory against the country where his theories were first, and arguably most purely put into practice - Pinochet-era Chile. The measures put forward by Friedman + his acolytes resulted in huge unemployment, inflation, and many multi-nationals effectively stealing wealth away. In order for the people to 'accept' these measures Pinochet instituted oppression, abandonment of the freedom of the press, torture, and extra-judicial killings. I think the ideas which originate from the creator of neo-liberalism ought to be judged against the evidence of its actual implementation in real life before recommending its architect's theories on dealing with just about anything. The laws that were passed in Chile, as with many other countries which have instituted exactly the policies you outline were widely disrespected, and that disrespect was 'dealt with' in various arguably really rather negative ways. I am certain that corruption also remained a problem throughout. For references and discussion of this phenomenon, see The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein - http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0141024534/ http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0141024534/

anamax 16y ago
> I think the ideas which originate from the creator of neo-liberalism ought to be judged against the evidence of its actual implementation in real life before recommending its architect's theories on dealing with just about anything. Fair enough. China, Cuba, the USSR....
- singular 16y ago
  > Fair enough. China, Cuba, the USSR.... Hardly wonderful examples of corruption-free parts of the world!! Or ought there be a sarcasm indicator in that message? :)
  - anamax 16y ago
    I'm not referring to corruption, but suggesting that we can apply the "I think the ideas which originate from the creator of neo-liberalism ought to be judged against the evidence of its actual implementation in real life before recommending its architect's theories on dealing with just about anything." to communism/socialism. Of course, that standard is always rejected when it comes to communism/socialism.
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
    - singular 16y ago
      I absolutely apply the same standard to communism, socialism or any political/economic system. There are alternatives to extremes, which both communism and neoliberalism can safely be described as I think - a Keynesian approach has a great deal of evidence in the positive behind it (the new deal for example), and I am sure he has had (I know far too little to comment myself) opinions on corruption.
- galisevych 16y ago
  USSR? isn't it fall apart in 1991 with rest of soviet union?