Yeah, fairly compelling, I appreciate your points. I might still quibble in a couple places, but I think we're not actually that far apart overall. > As an imm

Yeah, fairly compelling, I appreciate your points. I might still quibble in a couple places, but I think we're not actually that far apart overall. > As an immigrant to the USA from a Soviet controlled satellite state, let me say that just because corruption is so endemic that from the outside it looks like their "culture", does not negate the fact that it is still corruption. I appreciate hearing that. I had previously endorsed a more black and white view here, but faced some pushback from Russia scholars. I'll hold my ground more next time. I had originally found the Ikea experience pretty compelling: https://www.rbth.com/business/2016/08/29/losing-the-good-fight-ikeas-struggle-to-remain-honest-in-russia_625167 https://www.rbth.com/business/2016/08/29/losing-the-good-fig... I was a little more taken aback at your description of the essay as... > overtly partisan He notes that divided government with opposing parties controlling different levels of government contributes to combating corruption. I could see a narrow reading of it as him saying "we need Republicans to police these Democrats!" But having read him previously take shots at both sides, I don't think that's what he was going for. I think he just meant that having a competitive political environment helps prevent the consolidation of power generally. > Corruption has nothing to do with markets This point was hard for me to understand. It's like saying that the moon has nothing to do with physics. Sure, you can exclusively look at the moon poetically if that's your preference, but there are tools in physics that are going to help you understand some phenomena related to the moon. Same for economics and various human activities.