5 ms·

> Town mayors usually try to cover up and deny any evidence of lead poisoning After moving to the West from a developing country was surprised to discover that

> Town mayors usually try to cover up and deny any evidence of lead poisoning After moving to the West from a developing country was surprised to discover that things our politicians do for a big bribe western politicians sometimes do for free.

soulofmischief 2y ago
The money just flows through different channels, but that's a funny observation.
- gwervc 2y ago
  Exactly, corruption is more sophisticated, but it exists and is huge nonetheless. The big difference is that the starting GDP is higher, which allows for a little more to reach normal citizens after corruption is taken into account.
  - cmrdporcupine 2y ago
    An old friend of mine who was originally from Iran told me something a family member of his said to him, which was basically: "In the west you may not have bribery, but the ability to influence decisions is mostly out of your reach. At least here little people can have some small control over their environment through small bribes." I had never heard bribery pitched that way before, and it's obviously... a garbage... way to run a society. But. In Roman times, decision making, power, etc was in large part done through systems of explicit patronage. We now -- in public at least -- consider patronage to be a corrupt and awful thing, but then having a powerful patron was a sign of virtue and goodness. Having a wealthy famous patron literally made you a better person, "not-guilty" in various crimes, etc. I am not convinced that that ethic has ever really gone away. Just maybe more hidden.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > but the ability to influence decisions is mostly out of your reach. At least here little people can have some small control over their environment through small bribes This is mostly comforting nonsense. The average American has more say, potential and actual, in their government than the average Iranian. (And the average Iranian more than the Saudis.) What in a bribe economy one pays for with cash in a civil society takes effort. The tragedy in American civics is far too many are too poor, tired and/or uneducated to fully engage. And one of these states is preferable to the other. My Indian family used to speak similarly. Yet when they have the chance, they vote against corruption. To the degree India has become less corrupt over the last decade, it's been celebrated by them out of both pride and personal interest.
      - darby_nine 2y ago
        > The average American has more say, potential and actual, in their government than the average Iranian Sure, if you know the right people or can buy a lobbyist. Otherwise all you can do is complain to a wall. Even lawsuits don't generally have net positive effects on society—nothing changes, we just do the same things at greater expense. Most of our society is privatized and well out of the reach of democratic output. If you're lucky, the market in question might have some limited competition and you can choose the slightly lesser poison. That's about it.
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > if you know the right people or can buy a lobbyist This is cynical nonsense. If you can get to a polling station you have more influence than the average Iranian. If you can write a coherent letter to an elected or maintain emotional composure on a call, you have more than anyone in their non-elite class. If you can attend local government meetings, join an advocacy group or travel to canvas or protest you have more power than their minor elites. (If you are in the leadership of those groups, you have more power—in most cases—than donors who give thousands a cycle.) One of the major elements of the uneducated pillar I cited is Americans who were never taught or shown how to civically engage getting cynical out of a lack of education.
cmrdporcupine 2y ago
That's because the seat of power in the west is not with governments at all, but with business. The gov't ends up being there to keep them happy and avoid conflicts between them. They've mostly stripped themselves of the ability to do anything they could be bribed over.
- FredPret 2y ago
  I don't know man. The US government spends in a couple of months what the biggest companies are worth in total. According to this [0] Uncle Sam is obligated to spend 6.3T this year. That's 500B per month. Compare to the market cap of mammoth companies [1]. ExxonMobil, UnitedHealth, and Mastercard are all in the top 20 US companies and worth around one month of government spending. How can a whale be beholden to a flea? [0]: https://www.usaspending.gov/explorer/budget_function https://www.usaspending.gov/explorer/budget_function [1]: https://companiesmarketcap.com/ https://companiesmarketcap.com/
  - cmrdporcupine 2y ago
    How much of that is defense? How much is security & policing? A bulk of that spending is to keep the market going, and to protect business interests.
  - tehjoker 2y ago
    The government is designed for rich people from its foundation, it's a cozy revolving door for the elites and functions to repress popular movements. Officials identify with business and owners and can pick up do-nothing or interesting jobs after their government services. US elections are some of the most expensive in the world and politicians rely on donations to win their campaigns. The connections between business and government are a spider web. Business also isn't a set of individual companies, they in fact cooperate on public policy through think tanks such as the chamber of commerce and the business round table. Furthermore, since business controls the commodities and processes that sustain life, business holds a veto over economic policy with "capital strikes". Government could seize these properties, but our left wing is very weak. Think about it another way, why do you assume that elected officials have any obligation to the public when there is essentially no recourse except through elections and elections generally require oodles of money to win?
nkrisc 2y ago
Because there lying and cheating for bribes are how politicians make money. Here, lying and cheating are how they keep the job that allows them to make money in other dishonest ways.

soulofmischief 2y ago

The money just flows through different channels, but that's a funny observation.

gwervc 2y ago
Exactly, corruption is more sophisticated, but it exists and is huge nonetheless. The big difference is that the starting GDP is higher, which allows for a little more to reach normal citizens after corruption is taken into account.
- cmrdporcupine 2y ago
  An old friend of mine who was originally from Iran told me something a family member of his said to him, which was basically: "In the west you may not have bribery, but the ability to influence decisions is mostly out of your reach. At least here little people can have some small control over their environment through small bribes." I had never heard bribery pitched that way before, and it's obviously... a garbage... way to run a society. But. In Roman times, decision making, power, etc was in large part done through systems of explicit patronage. We now -- in public at least -- consider patronage to be a corrupt and awful thing, but then having a powerful patron was a sign of virtue and goodness. Having a wealthy famous patron literally made you a better person, "not-guilty" in various crimes, etc. I am not convinced that that ethic has ever really gone away. Just maybe more hidden.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > but the ability to influence decisions is mostly out of your reach. At least here little people can have some small control over their environment through small bribes This is mostly comforting nonsense. The average American has more say, potential and actual, in their government than the average Iranian. (And the average Iranian more than the Saudis.) What in a bribe economy one pays for with cash in a civil society takes effort. The tragedy in American civics is far too many are too poor, tired and/or uneducated to fully engage. And one of these states is preferable to the other. My Indian family used to speak similarly. Yet when they have the chance, they vote against corruption. To the degree India has become less corrupt over the last decade, it's been celebrated by them out of both pride and personal interest.
    - darby_nine 2y ago
      > The average American has more say, potential and actual, in their government than the average Iranian Sure, if you know the right people or can buy a lobbyist. Otherwise all you can do is complain to a wall. Even lawsuits don't generally have net positive effects on society—nothing changes, we just do the same things at greater expense. Most of our society is privatized and well out of the reach of democratic output. If you're lucky, the market in question might have some limited competition and you can choose the slightly lesser poison. That's about it.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > if you know the right people or can buy a lobbyist This is cynical nonsense. If you can get to a polling station you have more influence than the average Iranian. If you can write a coherent letter to an elected or maintain emotional composure on a call, you have more than anyone in their non-elite class. If you can attend local government meetings, join an advocacy group or travel to canvas or protest you have more power than their minor elites. (If you are in the leadership of those groups, you have more power—in most cases—than donors who give thousands a cycle.) One of the major elements of the uneducated pillar I cited is Americans who were never taught or shown how to civically engage getting cynical out of a lack of education.

cmrdporcupine 2y ago

That's because the seat of power in the west is not with governments at all, but with business. The gov't ends up being there to keep them happy and avoid conflicts between them. They've mostly stripped themselves of the ability to do anything they could be bribed over.

FredPret 2y ago
I don't know man. The US government spends in a couple of months what the biggest companies are worth in total. According to this [0] Uncle Sam is obligated to spend 6.3T this year. That's 500B per month. Compare to the market cap of mammoth companies [1]. ExxonMobil, UnitedHealth, and Mastercard are all in the top 20 US companies and worth around one month of government spending. How can a whale be beholden to a flea? [0]: https://www.usaspending.gov/explorer/budget_function https://www.usaspending.gov/explorer/budget_function [1]: https://companiesmarketcap.com/ https://companiesmarketcap.com/
- cmrdporcupine 2y ago
  How much of that is defense? How much is security & policing? A bulk of that spending is to keep the market going, and to protect business interests.
- tehjoker 2y ago
  The government is designed for rich people from its foundation, it's a cozy revolving door for the elites and functions to repress popular movements. Officials identify with business and owners and can pick up do-nothing or interesting jobs after their government services. US elections are some of the most expensive in the world and politicians rely on donations to win their campaigns. The connections between business and government are a spider web. Business also isn't a set of individual companies, they in fact cooperate on public policy through think tanks such as the chamber of commerce and the business round table. Furthermore, since business controls the commodities and processes that sustain life, business holds a veto over economic policy with "capital strikes". Government could seize these properties, but our left wing is very weak. Think about it another way, why do you assume that elected officials have any obligation to the public when there is essentially no recourse except through elections and elections generally require oodles of money to win?

nkrisc 2y ago

Because there lying and cheating for bribes are how politicians make money. Here, lying and cheating are how they keep the job that allows them to make money in other dishonest ways.