3 ms·

Combine positive thinking with action, and yes, it will

scotty79 3y ago
No it won't. Corruption is one of the main reasons those project go anywhere. People in positions of power want to do them because they can get money on the side while they are done. If we figured out how we can make combating climate change rife with corruption 30 years ago, we'd be in much better place right now.
- FredPret 3y ago
  OK, complain and do nothing and remain defeated.
  - scotty79 3y ago
    I don't complain. And as soon as someone figures out other thing than corruption profits that will motivate people in power to get things done I'll be fully onboard. Elections kinda do that up to a point, called elections. Corruption is longer term mechanism.
  - coldtea 3y ago
    How is doing something working out for you?
    - FredPret 3y ago
      I'm happy and am making measurable progress in life. How is complaining and pessimism working out for you?
- bryananderson 3y ago
  > Corruption is one of the main reasons those project go anywhere. People in positions of power want to do them because they can get money on the side while they are done. This misunderstands the relationship between corruption and state capacity. The key insight is that corruption does not require a project to actually deliver the promised benefits, or even to be completed at all. > If we figured out how we can make combating climate change rife with corruption 30 years ago, we'd be in much better place right now. Fortunately there’s a great test case for this theory: California High Speed Rail. It was justified in climate terms but actually got underway so that numerous local/regional special interests and parasitic consultants and contractors could extract profit from it. And the result is a fatally flawed project that is decades late, has swallowed money that could’ve paid for numerous other rail projects, may not be completed at all, and will never deliver the originally promised benefits in any case (too slow because of sweetheart deals for numerous Very Special cities). Meanwhile, lower-corruption countries that haven’t gutted their state capacity can and do build immense amounts of beneficial infrastructure.
  - coldtea 3y ago
    >The key insight is that corruption does not require a project to actually deliver the promised benefits, or even to be completed at all. No, but another key insight is that it helps corruption very much if it's completed and delivers the promised benefits, since it means less chances for people to complain, and for later investigations (e.g. by political opponents) to deduce wrongdoing... As for the California example, this is in a place with supposedly less or no corruption (and no "mafia ties" level corruption). So, "Local/regional special interests and parasitic consultants and contractors" messing up the project is more about a huge bureaucracy and a too disjointed process, with baroque procurement laws, and decision makers who have to satisfy and yield to all kinds of interested parties along the way. Plus of course the totally hand-tieing legal framework, and ligitation heavy environment leading to paralysis. Sure there would also be some corruption, but in the California case I'd venture to guess that you don't need much of it, and it's all both systemic and legal. It's just regular interested parties and middlemen getting their say and their legal share (but too many of them, and with high multipliers), and costly elaborate and unneeded procedures having to be followed.
    - bryananderson 3y ago
      > No, but another key insight is that it helps corruption very much if it's completed and delivers the promised benefits, since it means less chances for people to complain, and for later investigations (e.g. by political opponents) to deduce wrongdoing... Again, a nice theory, but one that does not match reality. High-corruption projects rarely get done, or have serious flaws if they do. You can see this all over the world: from Russia’s Vostochny Cosmodrome (still not fully complete, money all embezzled) to Mexico City’s Metro Line 12 (inferior concrete saved Carlos Slim some money but killed 26 passengers). There is no accountability for the perpetrators of these failures precisely because of the corruption that enabled them in the first place, so they do not need to concern themselves with the benefits of the project. That’s why corruption fundamentally breaks the incentives for good governance. Meanwhile low-corruption countries build lots of great infrastructure. > As for the California example, this is in a place with supposedly less or no corruption Surely you can’t be serious > So, "Local/regional special interests and parasitic consultants and contractors" messing up the project is more about a huge bureaucracy and a too disjointed process, with baroque procurement laws, and decision makers who have to satisfy and yield to all kinds of interested parties along the way. What huge bureaucracy? The problem is that there is none, that all decision-making has either been passed up to politicians or down to consultants. CA HSR authority barely exists—all there is is a self-serving political board and a bunch of self-serving private consultants with virtually no one in the actual civil service technically competent to check their work. The politicians like Rod Diridon of San Jose use their positions to improperly benefit their cities (corruption) and the design-build consultants use their lack of oversight to improperly enrich themselves by making intentionally expensive design choices (also corruption). The rest of what you said about the process is correct, and is another way to say “institutionalized and legalized corruption”.

No it won't. Corruption is one of the main reasons those project go anywhere. People in positions of power want to do them because they can get money on the side while they are done. If we figured out how we can make combating climate change rife with corruption 30 years ago, we'd be in much better place right now.

FredPret 3y ago
OK, complain and do nothing and remain defeated.
- scotty79 3y ago
  I don't complain. And as soon as someone figures out other thing than corruption profits that will motivate people in power to get things done I'll be fully onboard. Elections kinda do that up to a point, called elections. Corruption is longer term mechanism.
- coldtea 3y ago
  How is doing something working out for you?
  - FredPret 3y ago
    I'm happy and am making measurable progress in life. How is complaining and pessimism working out for you?
bryananderson 3y ago
> Corruption is one of the main reasons those project go anywhere. People in positions of power want to do them because they can get money on the side while they are done. This misunderstands the relationship between corruption and state capacity. The key insight is that corruption does not require a project to actually deliver the promised benefits, or even to be completed at all. > If we figured out how we can make combating climate change rife with corruption 30 years ago, we'd be in much better place right now. Fortunately there’s a great test case for this theory: California High Speed Rail. It was justified in climate terms but actually got underway so that numerous local/regional special interests and parasitic consultants and contractors could extract profit from it. And the result is a fatally flawed project that is decades late, has swallowed money that could’ve paid for numerous other rail projects, may not be completed at all, and will never deliver the originally promised benefits in any case (too slow because of sweetheart deals for numerous Very Special cities). Meanwhile, lower-corruption countries that haven’t gutted their state capacity can and do build immense amounts of beneficial infrastructure.
- coldtea 3y ago
  >The key insight is that corruption does not require a project to actually deliver the promised benefits, or even to be completed at all. No, but another key insight is that it helps corruption very much if it's completed and delivers the promised benefits, since it means less chances for people to complain, and for later investigations (e.g. by political opponents) to deduce wrongdoing... As for the California example, this is in a place with supposedly less or no corruption (and no "mafia ties" level corruption). So, "Local/regional special interests and parasitic consultants and contractors" messing up the project is more about a huge bureaucracy and a too disjointed process, with baroque procurement laws, and decision makers who have to satisfy and yield to all kinds of interested parties along the way. Plus of course the totally hand-tieing legal framework, and ligitation heavy environment leading to paralysis. Sure there would also be some corruption, but in the California case I'd venture to guess that you don't need much of it, and it's all both systemic and legal. It's just regular interested parties and middlemen getting their say and their legal share (but too many of them, and with high multipliers), and costly elaborate and unneeded procedures having to be followed.
  - bryananderson 3y ago
    > No, but another key insight is that it helps corruption very much if it's completed and delivers the promised benefits, since it means less chances for people to complain, and for later investigations (e.g. by political opponents) to deduce wrongdoing... Again, a nice theory, but one that does not match reality. High-corruption projects rarely get done, or have serious flaws if they do. You can see this all over the world: from Russia’s Vostochny Cosmodrome (still not fully complete, money all embezzled) to Mexico City’s Metro Line 12 (inferior concrete saved Carlos Slim some money but killed 26 passengers). There is no accountability for the perpetrators of these failures precisely because of the corruption that enabled them in the first place, so they do not need to concern themselves with the benefits of the project. That’s why corruption fundamentally breaks the incentives for good governance. Meanwhile low-corruption countries build lots of great infrastructure. > As for the California example, this is in a place with supposedly less or no corruption Surely you can’t be serious > So, "Local/regional special interests and parasitic consultants and contractors" messing up the project is more about a huge bureaucracy and a too disjointed process, with baroque procurement laws, and decision makers who have to satisfy and yield to all kinds of interested parties along the way. What huge bureaucracy? The problem is that there is none, that all decision-making has either been passed up to politicians or down to consultants. CA HSR authority barely exists—all there is is a self-serving political board and a bunch of self-serving private consultants with virtually no one in the actual civil service technically competent to check their work. The politicians like Rod Diridon of San Jose use their positions to improperly benefit their cities (corruption) and the design-build consultants use their lack of oversight to improperly enrich themselves by making intentionally expensive design choices (also corruption). The rest of what you said about the process is correct, and is another way to say “institutionalized and legalized corruption”.