4 ms·

As an immigrant from a country where corruption is more common, I'm amazed (and somewhat delighted) by the level of trust in institution and processes in the US

As an immigrant from a country where corruption is more common, I'm amazed (and somewhat delighted) by the level of trust in institution and processes in the US. The amazing part, is that, it somehow works most of the time. On education though, the corruption is plain to see. But most people don't notice it. It's amazing. And when brought up, it rubs people the wrong way. What you saw was corruption. The way these "preferred providers" become "preferred" is not by sending the purchasing department clerk a box of chocolates.

buran77 4y ago
> The amazing part, is that, it somehow works most of the time. Of course. The Western world doesn't operate so well because there's no or even less corruption. It's rather because there's a lot more money floating around enabling some to pocket a lot of it and still have plenty left over for things to work well.
- zubiaur 4y ago
  Oh, there is less corruption. Way way less.
  - throwaway0a5e 4y ago
    The west has just institutionalized and process-ified the same old "give resources, get favor" process. It's technically less corrupt but the drag on society is still very much there.
  - buran77 4y ago
    I worked with the people who, in an official capacity, estimate how much money changes hands via acts of corruption in the EU. And I can assure you that while being part of the EU the money which flowed through the corruption pipes in the City of London gave some Eastern European countries' entire GDPs a run for their money. Way less "small corruption", individuals committing small acts of corruption? Yes. Way less "large corruption"? No. Small corruption means you get ahead in a queue at the doctor's every once in a while. Large corruption changes the nature of society, it means tens of thousands of people are forced to pee in bottles in a fulfillment center and somehow this is just fine.
    - lock-the-spock 4y ago
      The London laundromat is a well known issue that the UK government refuses to fix as the people in power benefit from it. Same as all of Switzerland's business logic. But this does not represent the average administration in an average EU country - there is still fraud, favouritism, etc, even in the model countries, but the share of fraud is well below what you find in other countries.
      - buran77 4y ago
        > this does not represent the average administration in an average EU country You are right, it's mainly the bigger economies. That was actually the point, the bigger the economy, the more money floats around towards pockets it shouldn't be in by virtue of the fact that it's hard to notice. Things work so it's the perfect cover. UK isn't really the exception, it's not like Germany doesn't have similar issues even if little to none of this can be proven formally. In what might be the only report of its kind in the EU the level of corruption was estimated at well over 100bn EUR. And that's the conservative estimate. The consensus is that the problem isn't with small bribes but with the ties between the political class and industry. The stronger the industry, the bigger the corruption. Look at representative leaders in the EU. People like Madame Lagarde, convicted of misuse of public funds (the lighter version of a corruption charge which allowed her to walk away because she had too massive strings attached), or Ursula von der Leyen, twice investigated for corruption, twice the evidence was mysteriously destroyed, twice got away. They're all inevitably corrupted by private economic interests that are enabled by the sheer financial power they have. And that financial power comes both from doing a good job, and greasing the wheels where needed with more money than an average person can even imagine. Money begets money.
- wongarsu 4y ago
  No, the Western world does a decent job preventing corruption from getting too bad. It's not perfect, but the difference is that if the DoD buys reactive armor for their tanks they get reactive armor, at maybe twice the price, and for more tanks than they think they need. When Russia buys reactive armor for their tanks, they get things that look like reactive armor but are just rubber in a metal shell. It's not that the West has so much money that companies decide to deliver working products out of the goodness of their hearts, it's that only the less damaging forms of corruption survive here.
  - buran77 4y ago
    You start with a definite "no" but are actually saying exactly what I said, just in other words. Except the last paragraph which seems like a very naive interpretation of what I said. There's no implication of "kindness of their hearts" but rather that after a lot of money is wasted on corruption there's still plenty of money left to get the job done right. If you can afford to pay 2x the value of the work you can do a good job and pocket the 1x difference. If you can only afford 0.8x the value of the work and 0.1x of it "belongs" in your pocket... you have a problem despite the lower absolute value of the act of corruption.

buran77 4y ago

> The amazing part, is that, it somehow works most of the time. Of course. The Western world doesn't operate so well because there's no or even less corruption. It's rather because there's a lot more money floating around enabling some to pocket a lot of it and still have plenty left over for things to work well.

zubiaur 4y ago
Oh, there is less corruption. Way way less.
- throwaway0a5e 4y ago
  The west has just institutionalized and process-ified the same old "give resources, get favor" process. It's technically less corrupt but the drag on society is still very much there.
- buran77 4y ago
  I worked with the people who, in an official capacity, estimate how much money changes hands via acts of corruption in the EU. And I can assure you that while being part of the EU the money which flowed through the corruption pipes in the City of London gave some Eastern European countries' entire GDPs a run for their money. Way less "small corruption", individuals committing small acts of corruption? Yes. Way less "large corruption"? No. Small corruption means you get ahead in a queue at the doctor's every once in a while. Large corruption changes the nature of society, it means tens of thousands of people are forced to pee in bottles in a fulfillment center and somehow this is just fine.
  - lock-the-spock 4y ago
    The London laundromat is a well known issue that the UK government refuses to fix as the people in power benefit from it. Same as all of Switzerland's business logic. But this does not represent the average administration in an average EU country - there is still fraud, favouritism, etc, even in the model countries, but the share of fraud is well below what you find in other countries.
    - buran77 4y ago
      > this does not represent the average administration in an average EU country You are right, it's mainly the bigger economies. That was actually the point, the bigger the economy, the more money floats around towards pockets it shouldn't be in by virtue of the fact that it's hard to notice. Things work so it's the perfect cover. UK isn't really the exception, it's not like Germany doesn't have similar issues even if little to none of this can be proven formally. In what might be the only report of its kind in the EU the level of corruption was estimated at well over 100bn EUR. And that's the conservative estimate. The consensus is that the problem isn't with small bribes but with the ties between the political class and industry. The stronger the industry, the bigger the corruption. Look at representative leaders in the EU. People like Madame Lagarde, convicted of misuse of public funds (the lighter version of a corruption charge which allowed her to walk away because she had too massive strings attached), or Ursula von der Leyen, twice investigated for corruption, twice the evidence was mysteriously destroyed, twice got away. They're all inevitably corrupted by private economic interests that are enabled by the sheer financial power they have. And that financial power comes both from doing a good job, and greasing the wheels where needed with more money than an average person can even imagine. Money begets money.
wongarsu 4y ago
No, the Western world does a decent job preventing corruption from getting too bad. It's not perfect, but the difference is that if the DoD buys reactive armor for their tanks they get reactive armor, at maybe twice the price, and for more tanks than they think they need. When Russia buys reactive armor for their tanks, they get things that look like reactive armor but are just rubber in a metal shell. It's not that the West has so much money that companies decide to deliver working products out of the goodness of their hearts, it's that only the less damaging forms of corruption survive here.
- buran77 4y ago
  You start with a definite "no" but are actually saying exactly what I said, just in other words. Except the last paragraph which seems like a very naive interpretation of what I said. There's no implication of "kindness of their hearts" but rather that after a lot of money is wasted on corruption there's still plenty of money left to get the job done right. If you can afford to pay 2x the value of the work you can do a good job and pocket the 1x difference. If you can only afford 0.8x the value of the work and 0.1x of it "belongs" in your pocket... you have a problem despite the lower absolute value of the act of corruption.