6 ms·

I especially liked his column about the college admissions scandal, and it wasn't that it was unfair, it was that it was theft. Theft from the colleges. Becau

I especially liked his column about the college admissions scandal, and it wasn't that it was unfair, it was that it was theft. Theft from the colleges. Because you know, they already sell their admissions: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-03-13/you-have-to-pay-the-right-person https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-03-13/you-ha... Here is one thing that U.S. Attorney Andrew Lelling said in announcing the charges: “There can be no separate college admissions system for the wealthy, and I'll add that there will not be a separate criminal justice system either.” Level playing field! Here is another thing he said less than a minute later: “We’re not talking about donating a building so that a school’s more likely to take your son or your daughter. We’re talking about deception and fraud.” There can be no separate college admissions system for the wealthy, except for the extremely well-known one where you donate a building in exchange for getting your kid in! “Lol just donate a building like a real rich person,” the U.S. Attorney almost said.

xyzzyz 6y ago
This is a good example of what corruption in America looks like. America enjoys a reputation of being a rather non-corrupt country. To large degree, this is true: bribing scandals are rare, and most Americans would be completely aghast at the idea of passing an envelope under the table to the official who is responsible for issuing building permits. Instead, the corruption in the US operates through completely transparent and legal means. Instead of cash-filled envelopes, you see campaign contributions, board seats, consulting jobs for children, and, yes, donations to designated causes. All of this is just How Things Are Done, and people are so used to them that they no longer even consider it corruption.
- baby 6y ago
  The fact that lobbyism is legal is telling.
  - m463 6y ago
    The argument I've heard is that it will exist anyhow, but make the players identify themselves. I don't know if that is reasonable to say, or if it is like talking about "trickle-down economics".
    - humanrebar 6y ago
      The best argument is that complaining to your elected officials without restrictions or reprisals is constitutionally protected for good reason. Further, it's not a good idea to prevent rich entities in particular from being effective at it because with enough resources, they will be effective anyway. So the ineffective prevention mechanisms will just end up being regressive and/or even more corrupt at the end of the day.
- dash2 6y ago
  Actually, among developed countries the US has a relatively high corruption level, I believe. (Insert many caveats about how difficult corruption is to measure.)
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    America ranks 23rd on the Perception of Corruption Index. Australia, Canada and the UK are 12th, and New Zealand 1st. [1] [1] https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi
    - OJFord 6y ago
      How much did it pay for that privilege?
    - overdrivetg 6y ago
      The name of this index is like clickbait gone awry... Couldn't they have gone for something more like the Perception of Integrity Index since being #1 means "least corrupt"?
      - arcticbull 6y ago
        I never thought about it that way, haha, good call-out.
  - iancoleman 6y ago
    One group that measures corruption (I'm sure there are many) is freedomhouse.org They rate USA 3/4 for corruption (Section C2 [0]) Comparing other similar nations for corruption Australia 4/4 Canada 4/4 New Zealand 4/4 United Kingdom 4/4 [0] https://freedomhouse.org/country/united-states/freedom-world/2020 https://freedomhouse.org/country/united-states/freedom-world...
    - adewinter 6y ago
      They rate USA 75% for corruption, and the (ex) British colonies as 100% for corruption. What does that mean? Is literally every single transaction in those places corrupt? "Out of 4" seems like a very poor way of doing this kind or rating.
- Tycho 6y ago
  It’s pretty benign when you think about it. Rich, successful people creating public goods so that their less-brilliant children can save face. What better trade-off are we going to get?
  - Klinky 6y ago
    It's not benign. Your comment is an example of rich people hitting the easy button, and still being considered a "success" when doing so. Also I'd prefer public institutions to not be reliant on magic philanthropists or rich people with dumb kids. Just tax rich people more and build the needed buildings from public funds.
    - Tycho 6y ago
      Your suggestion would force rich people to find some other way to buttress the careers of their progeny, and it would probably be worse.
      - Klinky 6y ago
        Examples of worse outcomes? I mean, it sounds like you're saying rich people will find alternative ways to undermine integrity, so we should lessen the path of resistance and just accept it. I am not sure why anyone would be okay with that.
        dodobirdlord 6y ago
        Rich people can buy things with their money, that’s sorta the point. One of those things is a college admission. Whose integrity is compromised when a college trades an admission slot for a building?
        Klinky 6y ago
        This isn't just for a building, but lesser donations can also potentially gain favor. There should certainly be disclosure if someone is getting favorable treatment due to money. If it's a public institution, it should not be possible at all.
- piva00 6y ago
  It's bourgeois aristocracy, the same is true in Europe in a smaller scale: most corruption is done through connections and who-knows-who rather than a peasant cash bribe. Just more layers to peel off from the same basic concept: greed. His description of how unacceptable it is when it looks transactional but how it is fine, and even expected, if it comes from the traditional ways of indirect corruption summarises it rather well.
  - odonnellryan 6y ago
    The massive difference is that in Mexico you have to bribe cops all the time when you get pulled over. In the US the corruption doesn't have a direct impact on your life like that.
    - piva00 6y ago
      No, you have to live in fear that your health insurance is enough for when you eventually need it. Ah, and in fear that your employer is kind enough to not fire you, if so that health insurance might get harder. Living in fear everyday, just in different ways. I think that has an impact in someone's life.
  - gerland 6y ago
    Maybe it was not such a good idea to demolish the warriors caste after all? It seems that the 3rd state has merged with, or rather became, the aristocracy. Taking into account that the peasants defended them against the neo-warrior-caste in the last Great War, and that their lavish lifestyle comes greatly from taxation of the peasants, the long noses should hang for a long time now.
- raffraffraff 6y ago
  Hmm. I can't agree with you on America having a reputation as a non-corrupt county. From an outsider's perspective the entire political lobbying system in America reeks of corruption and bribery.
nullsense 6y ago
I suppose on the flip side of that, not unlimited buildings can be donated, and being donated a building is perhaps a trade-off worth making.
blazespin 6y ago
Universities are non profits and those buildings are usually scholarships for a lot of people who can't afford university and/or research grants to help solve very important problems. Matt Levine is an idiot.

xyzzyz 6y ago

This is a good example of what corruption in America looks like. America enjoys a reputation of being a rather non-corrupt country. To large degree, this is true: bribing scandals are rare, and most Americans would be completely aghast at the idea of passing an envelope under the table to the official who is responsible for issuing building permits. Instead, the corruption in the US operates through completely transparent and legal means. Instead of cash-filled envelopes, you see campaign contributions, board seats, consulting jobs for children, and, yes, donations to designated causes. All of this is just How Things Are Done, and people are so used to them that they no longer even consider it corruption.

baby 6y ago
The fact that lobbyism is legal is telling.
- m463 6y ago
  The argument I've heard is that it will exist anyhow, but make the players identify themselves. I don't know if that is reasonable to say, or if it is like talking about "trickle-down economics".
  - humanrebar 6y ago
    The best argument is that complaining to your elected officials without restrictions or reprisals is constitutionally protected for good reason. Further, it's not a good idea to prevent rich entities in particular from being effective at it because with enough resources, they will be effective anyway. So the ineffective prevention mechanisms will just end up being regressive and/or even more corrupt at the end of the day.
dash2 6y ago
Actually, among developed countries the US has a relatively high corruption level, I believe. (Insert many caveats about how difficult corruption is to measure.)
- arcticbull 6y ago
  America ranks 23rd on the Perception of Corruption Index. Australia, Canada and the UK are 12th, and New Zealand 1st. [1] [1] https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi
  - OJFord 6y ago
    How much did it pay for that privilege?
  - overdrivetg 6y ago
    The name of this index is like clickbait gone awry... Couldn't they have gone for something more like the Perception of Integrity Index since being #1 means "least corrupt"?
    - arcticbull 6y ago
      I never thought about it that way, haha, good call-out.
- iancoleman 6y ago
  One group that measures corruption (I'm sure there are many) is freedomhouse.org They rate USA 3/4 for corruption (Section C2 [0]) Comparing other similar nations for corruption Australia 4/4 Canada 4/4 New Zealand 4/4 United Kingdom 4/4 [0] https://freedomhouse.org/country/united-states/freedom-world/2020 https://freedomhouse.org/country/united-states/freedom-world...
  - adewinter 6y ago
    They rate USA 75% for corruption, and the (ex) British colonies as 100% for corruption. What does that mean? Is literally every single transaction in those places corrupt? "Out of 4" seems like a very poor way of doing this kind or rating.
Tycho 6y ago
It’s pretty benign when you think about it. Rich, successful people creating public goods so that their less-brilliant children can save face. What better trade-off are we going to get?
- Klinky 6y ago
  It's not benign. Your comment is an example of rich people hitting the easy button, and still being considered a "success" when doing so. Also I'd prefer public institutions to not be reliant on magic philanthropists or rich people with dumb kids. Just tax rich people more and build the needed buildings from public funds.
  - Tycho 6y ago
    Your suggestion would force rich people to find some other way to buttress the careers of their progeny, and it would probably be worse.
    - Klinky 6y ago
      Examples of worse outcomes? I mean, it sounds like you're saying rich people will find alternative ways to undermine integrity, so we should lessen the path of resistance and just accept it. I am not sure why anyone would be okay with that.
      - dodobirdlord 6y ago
        Rich people can buy things with their money, that’s sorta the point. One of those things is a college admission. Whose integrity is compromised when a college trades an admission slot for a building?
        Klinky 6y ago
        This isn't just for a building, but lesser donations can also potentially gain favor. There should certainly be disclosure if someone is getting favorable treatment due to money. If it's a public institution, it should not be possible at all.
piva00 6y ago
It's bourgeois aristocracy, the same is true in Europe in a smaller scale: most corruption is done through connections and who-knows-who rather than a peasant cash bribe. Just more layers to peel off from the same basic concept: greed. His description of how unacceptable it is when it looks transactional but how it is fine, and even expected, if it comes from the traditional ways of indirect corruption summarises it rather well.
- odonnellryan 6y ago
  The massive difference is that in Mexico you have to bribe cops all the time when you get pulled over. In the US the corruption doesn't have a direct impact on your life like that.
  - piva00 6y ago
    No, you have to live in fear that your health insurance is enough for when you eventually need it. Ah, and in fear that your employer is kind enough to not fire you, if so that health insurance might get harder. Living in fear everyday, just in different ways. I think that has an impact in someone's life.
- gerland 6y ago
  Maybe it was not such a good idea to demolish the warriors caste after all? It seems that the 3rd state has merged with, or rather became, the aristocracy. Taking into account that the peasants defended them against the neo-warrior-caste in the last Great War, and that their lavish lifestyle comes greatly from taxation of the peasants, the long noses should hang for a long time now.
raffraffraff 6y ago
Hmm. I can't agree with you on America having a reputation as a non-corrupt county. From an outsider's perspective the entire political lobbying system in America reeks of corruption and bribery.

nullsense 6y ago

I suppose on the flip side of that, not unlimited buildings can be donated, and being donated a building is perhaps a trade-off worth making.

blazespin 6y ago

Universities are non profits and those buildings are usually scholarships for a lot of people who can't afford university and/or research grants to help solve very important problems. Matt Levine is an idiot.