3 ms·

Sorry I completely disagree with your view. It doesn't stack against how I've seen the world work. I think you are talking in very broad brushes with terms li

Sorry I completely disagree with your view. It doesn't stack against how I've seen the world work. I think you are talking in very broad brushes with terms like wealthy and poor people. I will say that across the distribution of wealth corruption happens at all levels. I am not disagreeing that some wealthy people are corrupt but your notion that they are the only corrupt people is ridiculous.

yetihehe 5y ago
It's more about power. Wealthy people have more power and their corruption causes more widespread effects. Plus, uncorrupted officials don't support corrupted subordinates, so high-level corruption breeds more low-level corruption, or as they say "The fish spoils from the head".
- nickpp 5y ago
  But corruption itself if used to become wealthy. Such a rich person will be corrupted and corrupt furthermore. Positions of power will attract people who are willing to be corrupted. Is a very important motivator for politicians. Being rich is the end result, not the starting point. The starting point is a poor society but with valuable points of power which are not privately owned.
- boringg 5y ago
  Again it's not about wealth, it's about people and power. Wealth has power attributes to it and is many cases a proxy to power. However many government officials have incredible amounts of power but little wealth. Look at any communist party officials over the history of time you will see incredibly levels of corruptions without any wealth AND they aren't doing corrupt work for other people, they are doing it for their own benefit (To refute your idea that some wealthy person is behind their corruption).
21723 5y ago
It depends on what you mean by "corrupt". If "corrupt" means "willing to cheat", then obviously that is not limited to the rich. If "corrupt" means "willing to abuse power bestowed on them by society", then it is literally impossible for the poor and disenfranchised, whom society has given nothing, to be corrupt, because they cannot abuse what they do not have. People of all social classes participate in corruption, and have to do so, to survive. It is only those who have power who can be said to be abusing power, and when we talk about corruption, we're generally talking not about all bad human behaviors, but more specifically about the corrosion of institutions and social trust that occurs when those in charge use their positions toward unjust ends.
- nickpp 5y ago
  > If "corrupt" means "willing to cheat" Since when it doesn't?! > If "corrupt" means "willing to abuse power bestowed on them by society" You've just described any public administration: not rich (working on it thought) but corrupted to the bone.

yetihehe 5y ago

It's more about power. Wealthy people have more power and their corruption causes more widespread effects. Plus, uncorrupted officials don't support corrupted subordinates, so high-level corruption breeds more low-level corruption, or as they say "The fish spoils from the head".

nickpp 5y ago
But corruption itself if used to become wealthy. Such a rich person will be corrupted and corrupt furthermore. Positions of power will attract people who are willing to be corrupted. Is a very important motivator for politicians. Being rich is the end result, not the starting point. The starting point is a poor society but with valuable points of power which are not privately owned.
boringg 5y ago
Again it's not about wealth, it's about people and power. Wealth has power attributes to it and is many cases a proxy to power. However many government officials have incredible amounts of power but little wealth. Look at any communist party officials over the history of time you will see incredibly levels of corruptions without any wealth AND they aren't doing corrupt work for other people, they are doing it for their own benefit (To refute your idea that some wealthy person is behind their corruption).

21723 5y ago

It depends on what you mean by "corrupt". If "corrupt" means "willing to cheat", then obviously that is not limited to the rich. If "corrupt" means "willing to abuse power bestowed on them by society", then it is literally impossible for the poor and disenfranchised, whom society has given nothing, to be corrupt, because they cannot abuse what they do not have. People of all social classes participate in corruption, and have to do so, to survive. It is only those who have power who can be said to be abusing power, and when we talk about corruption, we're generally talking not about all bad human behaviors, but more specifically about the corrosion of institutions and social trust that occurs when those in charge use their positions toward unjust ends.

nickpp 5y ago
> If "corrupt" means "willing to cheat" Since when it doesn't?! > If "corrupt" means "willing to abuse power bestowed on them by society" You've just described any public administration: not rich (working on it thought) but corrupted to the bone.