4 ms·

The point of institutionalizing corruption is to reduce competition from competing corruption entities. Which is bad but not as bad as an endemically corrupt so

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.
  - ElProlactin 2mo ago
    [dead]
- Dylan16807 2mo ago
  > endemically corrupt Both options are endemically corrupt but removing most kinds of corruption is an improvement.
  - cjbgkagh 2mo ago
    By endemic I mean to its core, it’s the difference of having everyone being corrupt versus just the elites / political class being corrupt. If anyone thinks that the problem of corrupt elites could be improved by extending that corruption to everyone then I’m not sure what would convince them otherwise.
    - ElProlactin 1mo ago
      Are you suggesting that all the people in countries like Cambodia are "corrupt"?
      - cjbgkagh 1mo ago
        I am suggesting that it's more than the elites, then you'd have to take into account the people who would act in a corrupt way if presented with the opportunity. As someone who has tried and failed to sell software into Cambodia I know from experience that the corruption there is very thorough and continues well on down to the lower strata of society.
        ElProlactin 1mo ago
        Have you ever even been to Cambodia? I spent half a year LIVING there. Trying to sell software into Cambodia puts you squarely in a procurement situation where you're going to encounter the patronage networks that are responsible for the corruption. So since you seem to be suggesting the Cambodians have a disposition towards "act[ing] in a corrupt way if presented with the opportunity" (versus, say, Americans who you seem to think just elect corrupt politicians but have no disposition towards corruption themselves), why don't you share your experiences with the "lower strata" of Cambodian society as a software salesman?
croes 2mo ago
I guess the difference is who pays and who has the economic power to pay. In most western countries the corruption is mostly between entities with legal income, in poorer countries at least one side has its main income from illegal activities.
- ElProlactin 2mo ago
  > In most western countries the corruption is mostly between entities with legal income Do you realize how much dirty money moves through and is laundered and stashed in the US? And how many billions of dollars a year in "legal" income financial institutions and other "legitimate" business entities, not to mention the US Treasury, collect from facilitating this?
keybored 2mo ago
But that’s the beautiful thing. The system working as the law, regulations, etc. dictates is by definition not corruption! No wonder the upper middle class and richer segments hate corruption. (Not all of them. The Rule of Law kind of liberal certainly does.)

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.
- ElProlactin 2mo ago
  [dead]
Dylan16807 2mo ago
> endemically corrupt Both options are endemically corrupt but removing most kinds of corruption is an improvement.
- cjbgkagh 2mo ago
  By endemic I mean to its core, it’s the difference of having everyone being corrupt versus just the elites / political class being corrupt. If anyone thinks that the problem of corrupt elites could be improved by extending that corruption to everyone then I’m not sure what would convince them otherwise.
  - ElProlactin 1mo ago
    Are you suggesting that all the people in countries like Cambodia are "corrupt"?
    - cjbgkagh 1mo ago
      I am suggesting that it's more than the elites, then you'd have to take into account the people who would act in a corrupt way if presented with the opportunity. As someone who has tried and failed to sell software into Cambodia I know from experience that the corruption there is very thorough and continues well on down to the lower strata of society.
      - ElProlactin 1mo ago
        Have you ever even been to Cambodia? I spent half a year LIVING there. Trying to sell software into Cambodia puts you squarely in a procurement situation where you're going to encounter the patronage networks that are responsible for the corruption. So since you seem to be suggesting the Cambodians have a disposition towards "act[ing] in a corrupt way if presented with the opportunity" (versus, say, Americans who you seem to think just elect corrupt politicians but have no disposition towards corruption themselves), why don't you share your experiences with the "lower strata" of Cambodian society as a software salesman?

croes 2mo ago

I guess the difference is who pays and who has the economic power to pay. In most western countries the corruption is mostly between entities with legal income, in poorer countries at least one side has its main income from illegal activities.

ElProlactin 2mo ago
> In most western countries the corruption is mostly between entities with legal income Do you realize how much dirty money moves through and is laundered and stashed in the US? And how many billions of dollars a year in "legal" income financial institutions and other "legitimate" business entities, not to mention the US Treasury, collect from facilitating this?

keybored 2mo ago

But that’s the beautiful thing. The system working as the law, regulations, etc. dictates is by definition not corruption! No wonder the upper middle class and richer segments hate corruption. (Not all of them. The Rule of Law kind of liberal certainly does.)