Slashdot Mirror

Also, have a look at the state of corruption in the country as seen by its own citizens. And that was in 2009. As of 2019 the situation is a even worse.

Today, most illegals are coming from further south: El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. $25B spent on economic cooperation with these countries would do infinitely more good than the same money spent on a wall.

The problem is if you send economic assistance to those countries, you get accused of helping prop up corrupt governments. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I think a wall is a stupid idea. But I also think welcoming refugees from those countries with open arms does more damage than good. Ultimately, changing the government of a country for the better is the social and moral responsibility of the citizens of that country. Outsiders cannot intervene on their behalf for the same reason we're upset that Russia meddled in our elections. So if we accept any and all refugees, we just delay the political reform or revolution that's necessary to fix those countries up so its citizens no longer wish to flee them. Every refugee you accept is one fewer voter or freedom fighter in the battle to free the country from government corruption.

Accepting the refugees may seem like the humanitarian thing to do, but it actually prolongs and increases the suffering in the countries producing refugees, by delaying the socio-political reform that's badly needed there. Reform that morally can only originate from the refugees themselves. People in other countries cannot do it for them without violating their own democratic ideals.

The US scores a shitty 74 on the corruption perception index and the last score was completed for 2016 before the orange turd took office so it will be plummeting probably out of the top 50 by the end of 2018.

That score is good for 18th place. Denmark scores a 90. So no, there are a fair number of countries with far less corruption than the US.

numbnuts.

It is a perception index, not an actual corrpution index, so while the positions of countries on the list relative to each other may well reflect reality, the scores of countries might not. Besides, over 50% of the countries on that list got half or less of the USA's score.

The US scores a shitty 74 on the corruption perception index and the last score was completed for 2016 before the orange turd took office so it will be plummeting probably out of the top 50 by the end of 2018.

That score is good for 18th place. Denmark scores a 90. So no, there are a fair number of countries with far less corruption than the US.

numbnuts.

People that currently work to afford drug and alcohol addictions would now have no need to work, so society as a whole gains a dependent class at the expense of those who want to produce.

The thing is, people whop work just to get money to fund an addiction are most likely working jobs that are going to be gone anyway in the next couople of decades. That is, someone working a warehousing or a fast food job just to be able to afford booze is not going to be able to find work in the future regardless because automation is already making such jobs obsolete and is only going to keep going.

Those that want to produce will simply stop producing when they can't receive the fruits of their labor because it's going to a massive welfare state.

Bullshit. The very poiint of this story for example is to point out that the people who can work will not work any less under UBI because you still get more money if you work rather than just being on the UBI. The incentive to work if you can and those raise your standard of living is still there,

If Socialist utopias worked, Venezuela would be a paradise right now instead of the hellhole it is. Massive amounts of people would be fighting to get into Cuba, China, Russia, the DPRK, and all of the other "Socialist (also known as communism without so many government guns)" countries.

Ah, this argument again. I live in Finland, you know, one of those 'socialist' that offers free healthcare and education with tax money. We have an extensive welfare system already and are also trialing UBI to replace/modernize the wellfare system to make it more flexible. Other countries that have similar systems include but are not limited to: sweden, norway, denmark, Germany, France, etc And last I checked, the US has a social security system also funded by taxes.

There's some sort of weird american myopia, in which the only alternatives seem to be an massive oligarchy á la Russia or modern day US where the top 0,1 % is doing insanely well, the next 9,9 % are doing alright and then the middle and low-income classes are going down, or a 3rd world hellhole. This is just one giant strawman and the age old 'no social policies can ever work because the soviet union' -argument which is utter BS. The advanced European economies have been working as de facto socialist states for the better part of half a century, yet somehow conveniently we are always ignored in these conversations even though we've been far more successful in the implementation of these policies than the 3rd world countries that you just listed. We outperform the US in basic education and health, people are happier, there's less violent crime, less corruption etc. Quoting the study on happiness:

The USA is a story of reduced happiness. In 2007 the USA ranked 3rd among the OECD countries; in 2016 it came 19th. The reasons are declining social support and increased corruption (chapter 7) and it is these same factors that explain why the Nordic countries do so much better.

But sure, keep looking at Venezuela if it makes you feel good.

They are not doing so, they are all trying to get to the most free countries in the world with Capitalist economies (closest representations at least) and representative democratic Governments.

We have both a capitalistic system (a capitalistic economy does not prevent strong social policies) and a multi-party representational democracy. And if I had to choose, I'd much rather stay here (on in any other

If you seriously wonder that, then you should get a passport and go see the world. While there are a a few countries that do better, most are far worse.

Yes but most are poor and developing countries. If you want to compare how you are doing against your peers, compare yourself to the developed wealthy countries Western Europe, North America, and parts of Asia Pac (Japan, Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, NZ etc).
I've seen most parts of the world, and one of the great mysteries is how much America squanders its wealth.

And I keep wondering why USA doesn't score higher on the corruption index.

If you seriously wonder that, then you should get a passport and go see the world. While there are a a few countries that do better, most are far worse. When was the last time that you, as an American, had to pay a bribe to get a government clerk to do his job? For many people in other countries, that is a daily occurrence. In America, if you offer a cop a bribe at a traffic stop, he is more likely to throw you in jail than to let you off.

It is not just random chance that some countries are rich and others are poor. Poor countries are poor because they are corrupt. No one wants to work beyond subsistence, because if you build a profitable business that could potentially provide jobs and prosperity, you will be targeted by a corrupt government and they will steal your wealth.

Samsung HQ raided? It must be Wednesday!

Also I think calling Korea one of the most corrupt countries is really exaggerating it when the world outside of Western Europe and North America exists. It's similar to Spain and Czech Republic, better than Italy and waay better than most of everything else.

But really the whole situation is much more interesting than the company having a slush fund for bribes. An old friend of the president is accused of running a cult and influencing the president among other stuff. It's really bizarre:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-37971085
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-37820112

I used Kaspersky but will no longer use it because they were caught poisoning the malware database with non-malware so the other AV software would remove OS critical files and rendered Windows unbootable. Between that and Putin's Russia I won't have anything to do with it any longer. For those thinking both the US and Russia are corrupt, the Russian corruption is far greater. Here is a nice interactive map showing the corruption level of various countries.

The US ranks 16th least corrupt, Canada 9th and Denmark rated the least corrupt. Russia is 119, in other words, there are 118 countries rated less corrupt than Russia. Mexico is 95.

Hey, at least in most US states we don't have corruption.

Is that "lack of corruption" why the US is number 16 in the world corruption index?

http://www.transparency.org/cp...

I really don't think you're reading that right. This link provides a distribution map which implies that #1 on that list means you're doing Good rather than Bad.

http://www.transparency.org/cpi2015

So the solution is to double down on corruption? Your cynicism accomplishes nothing.

The only reason you have some level of accountability for these crimes, yes they are crimes, is to actively fight those attempting to perpetrate them. They may be largely ineffective for some scenarios, but it makes the world vastly better as a whole if it wasn't. Fifa scandle being the latest most notable example would never happen if we sat on our hands letting people have free reign. Want someone killed? Slip some cash into the right hands. Dig up dirt? Sure, just greese the right wheels. Dump 1000tons of waste into that lake? Well, how much is it worth to you? This is NOT the world I want to live in and shame on your for encouraging it.

http://www.transparency.org/cp...

Frankly, this is one of the main reasons I've been siding against economic open borders and free flow of liquidity. There are too many countries with big holes in their enforcement of financial crimes (if said crimes are even on the books).

Sorry for feeding the troll, but this site:
http://www.transparency.org/cp...

says 14th lowest out of 175 countries.

Not the very best, but certainly the odds are that you are in a country that is more corrupt.

start here:

http://www.transparency.org/co...

now click on canada or norway for comparison

the united states has a poor corruption ranking compared to other countries without rent seeking parasites like broadband providers in the usa that are able to buy off legislators, unfortunately. you seem to dislike that status quo. good!

Is there some correlation between probity and proximity to a pole?

Possibly. Although Point Pelee is only 42.0 N. So a Finn might consider Canada's population centers to be a long way south, as Helsinki is 60.2 N (and I live at 62.9 N). Then again, the corruption indices for Canada and Finland are not too far apart (Finland=3 out of 175, Canada=10 out of 175). Only Denmark and New Zealand are considered less corrupt than Finland.

So you are stating they do not need to address their massive corruption problem?

Most of that area is "red" on the world corruption index: http://www.transparency.org/cp...

As we all know, there's no problem in the labor market that can't be solved with more education.

As President Obama says at the official White House web site, "Earning a post-secondary degree or credential is no longer just a pathway to opportunity for a talented few; rather, it is a prerequisite for the growing jobs of the new economy." Because, as he notes, "With the average earnings of college graduates at a level that is twice as high as that of workers with only a high school diploma, higher education is now the clearest pathway into the middle class."

To help sustain this middle class, the President has proposed policies that will:

- Help Middle Class Families Afford College
- by Keeping Costs Down
- Strengthen Community Colleges
- Improve Transparency and Accountability

Therefore, earning a PhDs must not be enough. What we need is a new credential. Something beyond PhD. A... "Super PhD" that will help high achievers stand out to those employers seeking only the best. Of course, that means longer class schedules, more lab training, in short... more education.

Don't worry, our financial institutions are here to help. Banks will be happy to lend you more with government backed student loans. It's the least they can do for a beleaguered middle class too uneducated to succeed in this high tech economy.

America is that Shiny City upon a Hill, a place where gleaming gold coins lay scattered about ripe for the picking. You only need more education to find them. A new life awaits you in that shining city on the hill. The chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure! So come on America, become a go-getter and land that Super PhD! The Sciences are just filled with Gold Coins of Opportunity in this Shinny City on a Hill for those with the right education.

As it happens, Russia is crafting whistleblower protections right now:

Hahahaha!
Stop it, you're killing me!
All too funny.

Russia hardly even tries any more to pretend that their media isn't a bunch of scripted reports with paid actors or that they're remotely a free, fair democracy. Heck, in the last election, Chechnya had 99.59% turnout with 99.82% voting for the "Butcher of Grozny". Some precincts were apparently so eager to vote for him that they had 107% turnout. Really impressive on Putin's part! ;) It's amazing that they can still find useful idiots like you to defend them.

There distinction you are trying to make, idiot, is without difference. When you switch an argument from the topic being argued to the person doing the arguing â" whether it is name-calling or discussing his hygiene â" it is an argumentum ad hominem â" a fallacy.

Nope. I didn't say that your argumentation is wrong because you are an idiot - that would be ad hominem - I have called you an idiot because of your stupid arguments: which basically consist of "kill the evil commies" and "military fuck yeah".

If you are from Europe, then Obama is "yours" even more â" whereas his popularity in the US in 2008 barely exceeded the 50% necessary for being elected, he was and remains more popular in the corrupt continent (80+%). For all I care, you can have him any day of the week â" the sooner the better. Just be sure to take Joe Biden with him.

"A witty saying proves nothing" - Voltaire.
Your cult of personality is also meaningless to me and
your country is in fact more corrupt than mine.

Yeah, nothing like a strong leader for those unwashed sand-niggers, is there? Some peoples may have a democratic government, but certain untermensch just need a strong hand, right?

It is quite hypocritical to accuse me of logical fallacies and yourself using
#1: a strawman argument here and another strawman argument in the next paragraph

And no, Iraq is democratic in name only and a good part of the rebels in Syria were indeed islamist crazies. Your government has funded and armed a civil war and for what? And I don't care, whether it was Obama or Bush, from over here I cannot see any real difference.

Sure. And Palestine would've been a united and calm, if America had not given Israel any support. And China would've unified into a calm Confucian existence long ago, had the US not defended Taiwan. And Germany too would've united much earlier â" under Eric Honecker (or even Ulbricht), of course. Wouldn't such have been a better world? If only the US war-mongers didn't resist Communism, huh?..

Ah, the loggical fallacy #2: non sequitur
First, Israel is very well able to defend themselves, they have a thriving military industry. Second, if Merkins, Brits and the French hadn't decided to start a pissing contest with the Soviets, Germany would have been reunited in the 1950ies and neutral just as Austria is. And after Stalin died, it would have been even better.

But no, the pissing contest must go on, damn the costs.

No, you dimwit. If you can't read English, stay out of English arguments. I challenged you to explain, how the things would've been better in the North Korea, if the South Korea's regime was kinder and gentler.

My English is good enough. And I speak three other languages, by the way. And you fail reading comprehension. I have very explained whereto a war leads. A better government in South Korea would have avoided the civil war. In fact, without Syngman Ree's action there would not have been North Korea in first place, it was created as the reaction to his actions. And without the previous mentioned pissing contest there would have been one single Korea, as planned at the Yalta conference.

Rising and sleeping under the blanket of the very freedom we provide, you are questioning the manner in which we provide it... Chicken.

Yes, I do question it. Your military doesn't provide freedom, it only pushes everyone involved in stupid ventures, mafia style: "It is nice freedom you have there. Would be a shame if something happened to it." For all I care, Germany should have quit NATO decades ago. Or even better, never have participated in it.

All these people complaiing about how "horribly corrupt" the US government are are just playing a huge round of "First World Problems". The US is #19 on the Transparency International list. That's not superb, but it's out of 177 countries... I mean, for crying out loud, Yanukovych in Ukraine had a personal zoo at his house - tens of billions of dolllars stolen from a country whose per-capita income is less than that of Mongolia's. And that sort of stuff is hardly unusual in the world. Have any of you complaining about evil "US corruption" ever lived in a country with *real* corruption, at all levels?

#FirstWorldProblems

Uruguay is actually tied with the United States for 19th least corrupt. This makes them the least corrupt country in South America, but unremarkable globally. Unsurprisingly, the least corrupt countries are in northern Europe (plus New Zealand). In other words, the socialist countries.

This comment: "He has also overseen the legalization of marijuana, which Obama is too corrupt to do." is ridiculous. Marijuana legislation isn't about bribes, it's about catering to a certain hysterical group of voters. Likewise, this comment: "Not the armored rolling palace of an Obama" seems to indicate that you have a very poor perception of what corruption is, exactly. It certainly can be expending public resources on creature comforts for yourself, but the fact that Obama continues to use the same bulletproof limo that every president prior to himself has used is not an indication of corruption. The referenced article, where a congressman has accepted campaign contributions in exchange for legislation that is clearly contrary to the public interest - that is an indication of corruption.

Yes, they have a good rate of gdp/capita. But mostly because they are sitting on a giant copper mine.

Don't forget that they are one of the rare SA countries were corruption doesn't mingly with businness, the Chilean corruption level is on par with the USA. Which means that the profits from these mines (and all other economic sectors) flow in the ecenomy (constructors, deliveries, hotels, etc.) instead of ending on some Swiss bank account.

Because the UK is not as corrupt as Sweden. They actually follow the rule of law there, but in Sweden the US could just send some agents to Sweden and he could be flown out of there on the next plane.

Transparency International, an NGO devoted to fighting corruption, gives Sweden a better score (89/100) than the UK (76/100).

If you look at this site http://www.transparency.org/co... [transparency.org] You will see that as a nation the US isn't doing that bad as far as corruption goes.

First of all, TI measures perception of corruption, not actual corruption. In addition, the term "corruption" has many meanings. Here, we are talking about rent seeking and lobbying, while TI is mostly concerned with the illegal kind of corruption.

If you take a look at Chicago politics you will see that the most effective targets are often Alderman.

Yes, but they end up determining the pay-out of very large sums of money, and that money is often spent far away from the people who paid for it. I can't have an informed opinion on whether some neighborhood several miles from me really needs its roads redone, I can have an informed opinion whether my HOA needs to do it for my development; all the money that is spent by an HOA is spent where you can see it and determine whether you got your money's worth. And, as I was saying, you can't take your alderman to civil court for hurting you financially through bad decisions, but you can certainly do that with your HOA and its members.

If you look at this site http://www.transparency.org/co... You will see that as a nation the US isn't doing that bad as far as corruption goes. I would disagree with you about the HOA moving is not that simple of a solution for most people. Also lots of HOAs means lots of small targets for corruption vs a few larger targets. If you take a look at Chicago politics you will see that the most effective targets are often Alderman.

If you can find any country in the world where there isn't rampant corruption and bribery and other shenanigans, I'd like to hear about it.

Here you go. Denmark seems rather nice.

http://www.transparency.org/cpi2013/results

Turns out, Jimbo, quite a few of them "furriners" actually do have better governments ...

corrupt and predatory government

Is there any other kind?

http://cpi.transparency.org/cpi2013/results/

http://cpi.transparency.org/cpi2012/results/

Welcome to corrupted as hell Southern Europe. This is pretty tame to stuff that actually happens there. Worth noting that Ireland is NOT in that basket.

Oh?

http://www.transparency.org/news/pressrelease/20121205_ireland_suffers_sharpest_drop_on_corruption_perceptions_index

The US goverment is the least corrupt...

Citation please!

Spoiler: 13 other governments are less corrupt than the US

On the 2011 Corruption Perceptions Index they're #69 out of 183 countries - only slighty ahead of China and Brazil, and behind Poland and the Czech Republic/Slovakia. They really stand out among major Western European nations here, having a corruption score more in line with the FSU and Communist bloc countries.

FWIW: 2011 Corruption Perceptions Index -- Results. China is #75 out of 182 countries, slightly behind Italy. They also rank better than most of Eastern Europe and any part of the FSU, again FWIW.

In most other countries it's nowhere near that bad.

I think it's the opposite. Police corruption is a notorious problem, and if you threw a dart at a country list I'm willing to bet I could find equal or worse problems elsewhere. To back this up, take a look at Corruption Perceptions Index 2011. It shows the Netherlands at #7 with 8.9 and the United States as #24 with 7.1.

These days it is fashionable to bash the US in Europe, and while the worst stories get the most press, it doesn't reflect everyday life. The other thing is that if you are getting hassled by a cop, it's important to know your rights and how to handle it. That doesn't mean you should take the extreme of being an unhelpful dick in your every interaction with the police.

Having lived in Brazil for nearly two decades, I certainly wouldn't recommend it as a good place to live or work.

It is one of the more difficult country to do business (126th place), high in the Perceived Corruption Index (75th place), and the cities of São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro are the twelfth and thirteenth most expensive cities in the world for ex-pats to live (and the two most expensive cities in north and south america).

If you plan on using the internet at all, don't forget that Brazil is the world champion in content removal requests for Google and YouTube content. Just last week, a judge to order the blocking of Facebook in all of Brazil for 24 hours (although that order has been rescinded at the moment).

I love living in Brazil - I really do - but I would not consider it anything like the developed world, such as Australia or New Zealand if you want to start a business or do some serious work.

I think you need to get a bit of fresh air. New Zealand consistently ranks at or near the top of the least corrupt countries in the world. http://cpi.transparency.org/cpi2011/results/ While countries like the US and Iran may have court systems that regularly make decisions for political reasons, that is not the case in most of the developed world. Just because you don't like the decision, doesn't mean it is corruption.

Dictatorial style governance HAHAHA

Corruption high nope, try again.

stop believing the propaganda that your country is somehow more free or just than some other. its not true. you only think its true due to brainwashing and the 'us vs them' mentality that countries LOVE to instill in its people.

As best I can tell your argument boils down to, "All men are imperfect, so all governments of men will be failures." That's simply not true. Imperfection does not equal failure. Some countries are better governed than others. Declaring them all to be equal is to give the people who abuse power a free pass.

If you look at the global rankings, http://cpi.transparency.org/cpi2011/results/, Canada's politicians are rated higher than US ones, which means less corrupt, and therefore, more expensive.

In Uzbekistan they are really cheap, but what would you do with your bought politicians there?

Those Scandinavians will cost you a bundle . . .

You seem to imply that third world countries would automatically be rich, if not for their corrupt government

Yes. Poverty in the modern era is due to lack of development is caused by government. Corruption is one factor, over-regulation of economy is another. See Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index for example. 10 is very clean, 0 is very corrupt. US=7.1. Canada=8.7. Sudan=1.6. DR Congo=2.0. Greece=3.4.

An indication of over-regulation is the amount of the economy forced by regulation into the illegal informal sector. US=8.8%, Canada=16.4%. Tanzania=58.3%. Greece=28.6%.

As a coherent experiment in near equal beginnings and very different governmental results, at the end of the Korean war, both North Korea and South Korea were incredibly poor countries (although the North had more mineral wealth and industrial capacity). Today, South Korea is a country living at "western" levels, and North Korea is one of the poorest countries with highest levels of malnutrition and death due to starvation in the world.

Yep. The ACCC is one government body that is very well respected here in Australia and usually (though not always) fights the good fight. They are the reason that things like DVD region locking isn't permitted here (DVD players in Australia are sold region-unlocked, capable of playing any disc). They are the reason we have a pretty competitive mobile phone and internet industry compared to many places (lots of choice of ISPs and phone companies compared to the US). They are the reason why there are certain automatic levels of quality guarantees and warranties for all products purchased in Australia that cannot be avoided by vendors no matter what disclaimers they may choose to write in the fine print.

TBH most Australian government bodies/public authorities, except the legislature itself, are run pretty competently and rank well by world standards of transparency/anti-corruption (though not as well as our friends across the Tasman in New Zealand - who are consistently at the very top of that list).

It's just the politicians (legislature) themselves that seem to be the idiots, mostly (especially at the moment with our minority-government situation and petty squabbles over relatively insignificant issues). But Australians don't have the same level of mistrust of government in general that they seem to in the US (where anything run by government is assumed to be inefficient and/or corrupt by default). Because on the whole, they do a decent job and keep this country running pretty smoothly (and importantly in the current economic climate - solvently, with low sovereign debt).

Having weak politicians who can be used to purchase laws by foreign companies is another.

ORLY?

heya,

Hmm, does anybody see a problem with this though?

"If your business doesn't have good relation with gov, you lose for sure"...

I mean...err...isn't that the definition of corruption? *sigh*.

I suspect that may be why Transparency International ranked it so low in their 2010 report:

http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2010/results

Cheers,
Victor

that ranks very low, even on European scale, in Economic and Political freedoms and corruption

False.

Doing business? 70th place, just behind Namibia. Way ahead of Greece, though - what a surprise.

Can't comment on that, you link didn't make it through.

A bit better on transparency, but still below most proper European countries.

So pretty true, I'd say.

Well, if I count correctly it's #19 out of #45 in Europe. Below most proper European countries? Probably right, for some values of "proper". Sure, that's not impressive, but it's not "very low on European scale", right? I actually am Polish and I can tell you (subjectively) that compared to what happens nearby (Ukraine, Belarus) we're better off. Even the Czechs, which are a more sensible country scored worse on that list.

that ranks very low, even on European scale, in Economic and Political freedoms and corruption

False.

Doing business? 70th place, just behind Namibia. Way ahead of Greece, though - what a surprise.

A bit better on transparency, but still below most proper European countries.

So pretty true, I'd say.

I think those with a score of 8.5 or better at Transparency International should temporarily get the power to re-organize the UN to make it better. Until the UN is fixed, I can't agree with allowing it to set Internet law since it basically means the corrupt majority of countries would end free speech. I really like the idea of an international government, so long as it protects human rights.

Full disclosure: My country, the USA, scores 7.1, so it wouldn't get the temporary power.

How much were you paid to post that comment?

China is incredibly corrupt and corruption is rampant throughout all levels of society.

Freedom? Are you kidding me.

One execution does not make the country less corrupt.

> Unlike in the US, they don't have lobbyists from companies creating the pollution

Are you crazy? Do you really believe what they are paying you to write? Local pollution and greenhouse gases are being pumped out of china at an incredible increasing rate.

> sometime in the next 10 years, they will have the ability to switch over, nearly overnight, to clean energy solutions

Are you just plain stupid? Are you aware how your country generates its power? Let me give you a clue: COAL, DIRTY DIRTY COAL.

> bunch of opposing interest groups like we have in the U.S., it'll literally be like flipping a switch.

You don't need lobbyists to be evil. Your government manages it all by themselves.

Please go to 4chan and post your garage there. Moron.

You clearly have some anger issues that are leading you to make some incorrect assumptions. I am an American just like you. Please read my reply above.

How much were you paid to post that comment?

China is incredibly corrupt and corruption is rampant throughout all levels of society.

Freedom? Are you kidding me.

One execution does not make the country less corrupt.

> Unlike in the US, they don't have lobbyists from companies creating the pollution

Are you crazy? Do you really believe what they are paying you to write? Local pollution and greenhouse gases are being pumped out of china at an incredible increasing rate.

> sometime in the next 10 years, they will have the ability to switch over, nearly overnight, to clean energy solutions

Are you just plain stupid? Are you aware how your country generates its power? Let me give you a clue: COAL, DIRTY DIRTY COAL.

> bunch of opposing interest groups like we have in the U.S., it'll literally be like flipping a switch.

You don't need lobbyists to be evil. Your government manages it all by themselves.

Please go to 4chan and post your garage there. Moron.

But a bribe would imply corruption, which is unlikely in NZ Gov http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2010/results

The obvious cultural, economic and political differences between Brazil and what is known today as described by the term "the West" (Western Europe, North America, Israel, Australia and New Zealand) are clear. Corruption is endemic, the justice system incapable, crime rates sky high, racial discrimination heavy, wealth distribution skewed.

(etc etc)

We could argue all night about what Brazil and/or "The West" is what is not.
It's funny, though, that you seem to understand that "The West" means the so-called developed countries. Yet you put Israel as part of that same group, what is laughable.

C'mon, your even using information provided by the Freedom House which, basically, is a U.S. propaganda tool.
There are many, many reasons to bash Brazil... But if you do that, please, at least try doing your homework correctly.