4 ms·

Poor countries have a significantly higher rate of corruption, which means that the government itself is part of the crime syndications. It is true that we see

by gpt5 2mo ago

Poor countries have a significantly higher rate of corruption, which means that the government itself is part of the crime syndications. It is true that we see correlation between richer countries and lower level of crimes - across all layers of society.

scns 2mo ago
The current administration is giving them a run for the money. Might come out ahead in regards regards to corruption too. Number one.
- cjbgkagh 2mo ago
  I think what the Trump admin is doing is horribly corrupt and I hope the lot of them go to jail for that and other things, but in relative terms what Trump is doing is still less corrupt than what happens in many poor countries.
  - ElProlactin 2mo ago
    > ...but in relative terms what Trump is doing is still less corrupt than what happens in many poor countries. In relative terms? So what you're saying is that Trump and his family grifting Americans for a couple billion dollars so far in his second term is better than, say, Hun Sen and his family grifting Cambodians for somewhere between $500 million and $4 billion over ~40 years because the US economy is so much bigger than Cambodia's?
    - cjbgkagh 2mo ago
      I would measure by relative destruction of wealth since corruption is an inefficient destructive process that can quite often yield very little left to steal.
      - ElProlactin 2mo ago
        The US, as I noted, is the wealthiest country in the world according to numerous metrics. Yet the median savings is only $8,000, the Brookings Institute found that "the overall share of middle-class households that do not make enough to afford basic necessities where they live ranges from 23% to 57%" and so on. It is all but impossible to calculate how much wealth has been "destroyed" and, more importantly, how much wealth has been transferred from the middle class to the upper class by way of institutionalized corruption that many people, you included, won't even acknowledge as a form of corruption. Meanwhile, members of Congress are laughing all the way to the bank.
ElProlactin 2mo ago
This really depends on how you define corruption. Rich countries have created a definition that makes it a poor country thing, conveniently ignoring the type of corruption that is institutionalized (and in some cases even legalized) in many rich countries.
- cjbgkagh 2mo ago
  The point of institutionalizing corruption is to reduce competition from competing corruption entities. Which is bad but not as bad as an endemically corrupt society. I think it can be true that we have in effect far more corruption in the west than what is readily recognized at the same time that it’s true that we have less corruption than most other countries.
  - ElProlactin 2mo ago
    > The point of institutionalizing corruption is to reduce competition from competing corruption entities. Which is bad but not as bad as an endemically corrupt society. Do you even read what you write? If you institutionalize corruption to reduce competition between different corrupt factions, you end up with a not endemically corrupt society? Here's what it actually means: if you institutionalize corruption, you end up with an endemically corrupt society that is incapable of even recognizing corruption for what it is. > ...at the same time that it’s true that we have less corruption than most other countries. No, the corruption is just more sophisticated so that we can pretend it isn't corruption. Just look at campaign finance. In many ways, it's even more insidious than companies handing over paper bags full of bribe money to politicians and government officials. The amounts are bigger, the number of people who get a piece of the action is great and it's all "legal" so the corruption is more durable. And, again, everyone gets to pretend that it's not corruption.
    - cjbgkagh 2mo ago
      A society that pretends it is not corrupt is better than one that has given up on that pretense. No matter how bad you think things are it can always get worse. I am not looking forward to the coming free for all.
__MatrixMan__ 2mo ago
Does this analysis hold these each as just once instance of corruption? - tamper with index fund rules so that the 401k's of the masses are bearing the risk of your risky investment - bribe a border agent to let you through to see a friend
Jach 2mo ago
There is a correlation, though it can be weak (see for within-the-US: low-income parts in Appalachia). But even if it was as strong as, say, the correlations with IQ and Big-5-trait Conscientiousness on various life outcomes, it would still be factually wrong to state something as absolute as: "Ethics, morals and whatever people call only exists if economy is stable."

by gpt5 2mo ago

scns 2mo ago

The current administration is giving them a run for the money. Might come out ahead in regards regards to corruption too. Number one.

cjbgkagh 2mo ago
I think what the Trump admin is doing is horribly corrupt and I hope the lot of them go to jail for that and other things, but in relative terms what Trump is doing is still less corrupt than what happens in many poor countries.
- ElProlactin 2mo ago
  > ...but in relative terms what Trump is doing is still less corrupt than what happens in many poor countries. In relative terms? So what you're saying is that Trump and his family grifting Americans for a couple billion dollars so far in his second term is better than, say, Hun Sen and his family grifting Cambodians for somewhere between $500 million and $4 billion over ~40 years because the US economy is so much bigger than Cambodia's?
  - cjbgkagh 2mo ago
    I would measure by relative destruction of wealth since corruption is an inefficient destructive process that can quite often yield very little left to steal.
    - ElProlactin 2mo ago
      The US, as I noted, is the wealthiest country in the world according to numerous metrics. Yet the median savings is only $8,000, the Brookings Institute found that "the overall share of middle-class households that do not make enough to afford basic necessities where they live ranges from 23% to 57%" and so on. It is all but impossible to calculate how much wealth has been "destroyed" and, more importantly, how much wealth has been transferred from the middle class to the upper class by way of institutionalized corruption that many people, you included, won't even acknowledge as a form of corruption. Meanwhile, members of Congress are laughing all the way to the bank.

ElProlactin 2mo ago

This really depends on how you define corruption. Rich countries have created a definition that makes it a poor country thing, conveniently ignoring the type of corruption that is institutionalized (and in some cases even legalized) in many rich countries.

cjbgkagh 2mo ago
The point of institutionalizing corruption is to reduce competition from competing corruption entities. Which is bad but not as bad as an endemically corrupt society. I think it can be true that we have in effect far more corruption in the west than what is readily recognized at the same time that it’s true that we have less corruption than most other countries.
- ElProlactin 2mo ago
  > The point of institutionalizing corruption is to reduce competition from competing corruption entities. Which is bad but not as bad as an endemically corrupt society. Do you even read what you write? If you institutionalize corruption to reduce competition between different corrupt factions, you end up with a not endemically corrupt society? Here's what it actually means: if you institutionalize corruption, you end up with an endemically corrupt society that is incapable of even recognizing corruption for what it is. > ...at the same time that it’s true that we have less corruption than most other countries. No, the corruption is just more sophisticated so that we can pretend it isn't corruption. Just look at campaign finance. In many ways, it's even more insidious than companies handing over paper bags full of bribe money to politicians and government officials. The amounts are bigger, the number of people who get a piece of the action is great and it's all "legal" so the corruption is more durable. And, again, everyone gets to pretend that it's not corruption.
  - cjbgkagh 2mo ago
    A society that pretends it is not corrupt is better than one that has given up on that pretense. No matter how bad you think things are it can always get worse. I am not looking forward to the coming free for all.

__MatrixMan__ 2mo ago

Does this analysis hold these each as just once instance of corruption? - tamper with index fund rules so that the 401k's of the masses are bearing the risk of your risky investment - bribe a border agent to let you through to see a friend

Jach 2mo ago

There is a correlation, though it can be weak (see for within-the-US: low-income parts in Appalachia). But even if it was as strong as, say, the correlations with IQ and Big-5-trait Conscientiousness on various life outcomes, it would still be factually wrong to state something as absolute as: "Ethics, morals and whatever people call only exists if economy is stable."