Slashdot Mirror
New Data Shows 85% of Humans Live Under a Corrupt Government (newatlas.com)
schwit1 writes: According to one think tank that studies corruption in government, 85% of the world lives under governments that are essentially corrupt. New Atlas reports: "'Corruption' is defined by Transparency International (TI) as 'the abuse of entrusted power for private gain.' Each year since 1995, TI has published a Corruption Perceptions Index that scores the world's nations out of 100 for their public sector honesty and the just-released 2016 report paints the same bleak picture we've been seeing now for two decades except it's getting worse. According to the data, despite the illusion of elected government in half the world's countries, democracy is losing. Only two countries scored 90 out of 100 this year, and just 54 of the 176 countries (30%) assessed in the report scored better than 50. Fifty percent might have constituted a pass in a High School arithmetic test, but for an elected government to be so inept at carrying out the will of the electorate, it is a clear betrayal of the people. The average country score this year is a paltry 43, indicating endemic corruption in a country's public sector is the norm. Even more damning is that more countries declined than improved in this year's results. Our analysis of TI's data shows 85 percent of human beings are governed by regimes that score 50 or less, indicating that the integrity of people in authority across the globe remains sadly lacking." schwit1 notes: "Not surprisingly, the countries at the bottom of the list are almost all Middle Eastern nations, all of whom are the source of most of the world's terrorism and Islamic madness. The few others are those trying to become communist paradises, Venezuela and North Korea." New Atlas also mentions "the latest update of the Economist Intelligence Unit's Democracy Index, released on the same day as the Transparency International report, reflects an almost identical perspective. The EIU Democracy Index measures the state of democracy in 167 countries and the average global score fell from 5.55 out of 10 in 2015 to 5.52 in 2016, with 72 countries recording a lower score versus 38 which showed an improvement. You can register for free and download the EIU report here."
Nice editorializing at the end there. You may want to mention that the least-corrupt countries on the list are Nordic states (and New Zealand) with strong social welfare systems and high taxes.
I suspect that if you had a time machine and could gather data from every era of human history, you'd find that this '85%' they speak of is probably fairly consistent.
The Chinese are overachievers yet again. 18% of the global population, but 21% of the corruption. Bravo! :)
I see you're blaming Trump for the government's behavior in 2016. Typical leftist logic.
FYI, Trump took office in Jan 2017. Obama was the president for all of 2016.
What they really mean is that 15% of humans live under a government that has thus far managed to successfully conceal its corruption.
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Therefore, everyone in power is corrupt.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
According to the report they degraded the USA from "full democracy" to "flawed democracy" in 2016
Well then, they're morons because the USA has never been a 'full democracy'. Once everything shook out after the revolution, the USA was a democratic republic.
Institutions like the Electoral College were meant to be a check against the stupidity of the masses that might elect a Trump. But idiots clamored for more power by virtue of their numbers. So state governments neutered their own congressional delegations by requiring that they vote for the popular choice.
The result? Trump. And people clamoring for more democracy.
According to the report they degraded the USA from "full democracy" to "flawed democracy" in 2016 due to events happening in the country.
This seems contradictory to Trump's announcement to clean up with the corruption in Washington, and to "dry up the swamp". Also, what is more like a democracy, a country where the mainstream media always totally agree with the government, or one in which the government has to fight the media? Isn't it a great thing that media stops believing and printing the statements of the government as facts and starts creating fact checking teams?
You see the "correct" cannidate lost and but would (might have hypothitcly) have won if the rules were changed different AND the cannidates campaigned the same. So Obviously it had nothing to do with the Correct cannidate being a uncharismatic unexciting corupt crook that would be a rerun of the same administration from the 90s without the womanising and charisma of their other half. So because NY and CA didn't get their way we are a broken democracy.
(I didn't vote for trump or clinton but I did vote)
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
Have gnu, will travel.
America was never a full democracy, it is and always has been a republic, and the difference fucking matters.
It has also been deeply flawed for a very long time. The democratic process is largely smoke-and-mirrors now, with a group of wealthy elites calling the shots.
Trump winning the presidency is an amazing about-face on that front, with the will of voters actually being imposed upon the established power base despite its preferences. Yes, I know Trump lost the popular vote. No, that isn't what I am talking about. Skip the pedantry and semantics and my meaning will become clear...Trump wasn't just an upset for democrats and liberals, Trump was also an upset for the established crop of power-holders, and THAT is the unusual result.
Trump's victory doesn't make this democracy flawed. The flaws are deeper, and older, and I am pretty sure Trump won't be able to fix them even if he tries.
The system is as it is precisely to make it possible for a president to be elected where the majority of people don't want him.
If you are claiming that that is not really a significant possibility, then you should have no problem going to a straight popular vote. If you object to a straight popular vote, then it means that you believe such a vote would generate different results.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
The other 15â... run that corrupt government.
...even the word corrupt becomes so corrupted that it has no meaning.
This worked quite well in favour of one of the candidates in the US elections not long ago, didn't it.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
You don't get low corruption from "strong social welfare systems and high taxes". Those things and low corruption become possible (not ensured) when there is cultural uniformity. People think alike, worship alike, look alike, speak alike... and generally feel like extended family.
Most people wouldn't rip off their family.
Trump claiming to "Drain the swamp" is more of those "alternative facts"
Berlusconi gets away with things that even the Castros would blush at.
You fucking idiot, don't you know Lincoln was an evil tyrant who began the tradition of the imperial presidency, waged war against his own people, jailed dissidents without trial, and spied on everyone's communications? Lincoln was the worst American dictator in history. "But slavery!" you whine. Lincoln didn't give a shit about slavery one way or the other, he said so on many occasions.
your confusion is understandable, maybe it's more clear for you if explained like this: bourgeois democracies are corrupt since inception due tu it being erected to guard the interest of the ruling classes
FYI, Trump took office in Jan 2017. Obama was the president for all of 2016.
Yeah, that's why USA on the map isn't orange yet.
It's the corruption perception index; it reflects what people believe about their country. People believing that their country is democratic isn't the same as their country actually being democratic.
This is the country where you get arrested for chewing gum and not flushing the toilet and the death sentence for drug possession
What's corrupt about that? Corrupt would be if the rich could buy indulgences for their chewing gum, or they were paying people to gun down suspected drug dealers without a trial. You can argue whether these laws are a good idea, but if they're applied evenly and properly, they're not "corrupt".
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Institutions like the Electoral College were meant to be a check against the stupidity of the masses that might elect a Trump.
That's not entirely accurate. This history of it is a bit more nuanced. Effectively, the larger northern colonies that opposed slavery would have always won the presidency against the smaller southern states that wanted to maintain slavery. Southern states were afraid that in a pure democracy (one person, one vote), the north would always win elections and therefore set the agenda and force them to do things against their will: in particular, force them to give up slavery. Several states refused to sign on to the new Constitution if it was set up this way. So the compromise was to allow an electoral college, House by population by an equal vote for each state in Senate, to make it more "fair" toward the south so they would agree to it.
If that didn't happen, the US would have remained under the Articles of Confederation, which was too weak to really hold the nation together. The Confederation did not give Congress authority to do many things that were discovered required during the Revolutionary War. To some degree, Congress acted out of the bounds of law (their mandate from the states) to continue the war and draft the Constitution in the first place; they were initially only to make some minor changes to the Confederation, but majority of delegates decided that wouldn't be enough on their own.
To be fair, there was certainly fear from some early leaders about pure democracy, equating it to effectively mob rule. There were also concerns that foreign entities (particularly British spies at the time) would attempt to influence our elections. But the anti-federalists were very strongly pro-democracy. The federalists won the battle of words in the constitution at first, but the Federalist party quickly died out and was replaced by the anti-federalists under Jefferson. The anti-federalists splintered into today's Republican and Democratic parties. So effectively, most of our history has been very democratic and states' rights, even if some (not all) of founders thought closer to what you think.
But idiots clamored for more power by virtue of their numbers. So state governments neutered their own congressional delegations by requiring that they vote for the popular choice.
The result? Trump. And people clamoring for more democracy.
The history of the the 17th amendment is also complex. In a nutshell, the people clamored for direct election to stop corruption. Prior to this, the state legislators chose Senators, which as you can guess meant they were very prone to bribery and intimidation to get certain people selected for the Senate. Also, it was easy for state legislatures to get stuck without choosing anyone because of political infighting, meaning that some states would often not be represented in the Senate for lengths of time while state legislatures argued.
It was an interesting idea, but didn't appear to work out that great in practice, so we changed it. As the Constitution was specifically written to do, via amendments.
I think we need to continue the fight against corruption by opening our system up to even more democratic measures. Much corruption comes today from our laws effectively requiring a two-party political system (so many committees require equal numbers of GOP and Dems, for example, as if those parties were written into the constitution; they weren't, and in fact a good chunk of the Federalist Papers goes on about how corruption and political parties are the worst things that could happen to our country). I think changing to a different voting method (Approval, Score, or Ranked Choice Voting) would eliminate the "spoiler" effect and allow citizens to vote for who they actually think is the best for the job, and not just to "stop" the "other" candidate.
I didn't say it is hard to believe, I said if you define the word that way then it has no utility, no meaning.
Words are more effective when they describe less than 100% of the possible things. That way by combining words, you can say specific things. When a word describes everything, then using the word or not using the word have the same meaning.
You should decrease this date in 2 or 3 centuries.
IMO, The main problem is not the number of people or geography. Look you may think you have vast difference between texan and new yorker, but when you scratch the paint a bit, you are much more alike than you think - at least for the big cities, outside differences are much more pronounced. If I compare, say to the difference between Germany and France in culture, habits, politics etc - even ignoring languages....
No the great split you have is not geographical, it is political. Your great national disunity is manufactured by the 2 political parties, which kept playing the people until there is an enormous divide between a democrat and republican neighbors. And then they play the american on that desunity like a fiddle on regular basis, and you bite it hook and sinker.
Hi there, I live in Vietnam. I just saw a govt. owned newspaper (tuoi tre news) say that the Prime Minister thinks Vietnam could be the home of a tech giant like Google, Facebook, etc.
I don't think so. They have a comments section (most likely to find troublemakers like me) but I've been so frustrated that I decided to send the following reply. (If I start posting from another country, you'll know what happened).
************ In response to the PM saying that Vietnam could be the home to a tech giant **************
While I wish what PM Nguyen Xuan Phuc said would happen, I wouldn't hold my breath.
Certainly there is potential in Vietnam. In my almost 10 years here, I've been impressed by the ambition, hard work ethic and focus on education that is a hallmark of the Vietnamese people. IF they think their efforts will be rewarded, the Vietnamese work just as hard the Chinese, Japanese or even Koreans (my ethnicity :); this is no doubt due to their shared confucian cultural heritage. This is in contrast to their S.E. Asian neighbors who have a more relaxed buddhist/muslim/hindu approach to life. Whether or not this "better" depends on what you think the purpose of life is, however for getting ahead in a material world it is obvious which one is more focused on the here and now instead of the hereafter (or previous life).
Unfortunately due to the, there is no way to beat around the bush, CORRUPTION in Vietnam, this potential is wasted or going abroad. I'm not singling Vietnam out, fully 85% of humanity lives under a corrupt government (http://bit.ly/2kd9LNc). However no country has created a global (tech) giant without getting corruption at least somewhat under control. I'm afraid Vietnam is far from close to doing so.
I speak from experience, I had two successful (if small) high tech companies in the U.S. before coming to Ho Chi Minh City almost 10 years ago to retire. Now, with time on my hands I've been toying around with they idea of starting a bio-tech company utilizing the latest techniques in DNA nanopore sequencing along with bioinformatics (hopefully enhanced by machine learning). However, I've found the bureaucratic hurdles to be almost unsurmountable. Just getting a simple chemical in Vietnam, a process that is literally overnight in the U.S. takes up to two months. Getting customs approval for more advanced material has been a nightmare; many times shipments are delayed on items that must be kept below freezing. I'm sure some of them have been damaged as a result.
No, much more likely than Vietnam growing its own tech giant, would it contribute to one in another country. This would follow in the fine tradition of Syria (Steve Jobs), South Africa (Elon Musk), Russia (Google founders), Andy Grove (Intel, Czech) who all went to America. Not that America is immune; now that the Trump has come, the republican party has already tried to get rid of anti-corruption efforts and his wealthy white cabinet (and himself!) are filled with major conflict of interest problems. It's sad, the people who believe Hillary was corrupt, instead of just ambitious (and what presidential candidate isn't?), were the reason why Fake news (and Russian involvement) succeeded. However, the U.S. still has many fantastic strengths, Vietnam not so much. So, while I can easily see the next tech giant being founded/run by a Vietnamese (in fact I know of someone who is well on his way to doing so in the next big thing in biotech :) I'm afraid it won't be in Vietnam.
Vietnam has been good to me, I've actually been able to gain a level of proficiency in genetics at a university here (thank you International University!) and maybe I'll even be able to repay the country a bit by doing something here (if the government doesn't kick me out). However, to really be successful, I'll need to go somewhere that doesn't require a "expedited fee" to get things done or regulations whose only purpose is to elicit said fees.
New Zealand anyone?
A story about politicians
This is a story I've wanted told for a long time. I think it is a story worth reading, even if you do not necessarily agree with its conclusions because I think it offers an interesting alternate view of our politicians.
The thing is, this isn't really /my/ story to tell. Rather, it is a recounting of various conversations I have had with a friend? (Peer? Acquaintance? A guy I did business and with whom I had some interesting discussions.) While I myself have had little contact with politicians, this gentleman has, and over several years he has shared some of his insights on them; how they think and why they do the things they do. I've actually asked him to come here and share these thoughts with the people on Slashdot, but he has always demurred. Partly - although he has never said so in as many words - because he doesn't think it's worth his bother talking with IT geeks on a tiny, fairly inconsequential website but mostly because he values his discretion and feels that were he to make a public statement it might be traced back to him and reflect badly not only on him but on the people for whom he works. On the other hand, I have mentioned that I intended to share his thoughts - properly anonymized - and he didn't seem too upset about it.
So who is this gentleman? I guess the best description for him would be an "Aide" or "Secretary", although I recall him once self-effacingly describing himself as an "incredibly overpaid intern" and a "go-fer". He is one of those mostly faceless people who work with our politicians, actually going and and doing most of the things they order. His tasks have varied from simply mundane chores as fetching coffee, to meeting and negotiating with other power brokers, to helping read and write bills his patron intended to back. He himself has no official rank and his position has varied over the years, but it probably would not be too far off the mark to consider him second behind his master. He has worked for politicians on both sides of the Aisle - although he tends to favor those on the Left - and has over the years worked with politicos of all levels, from local government, to state legislative, to members of Congress. It's allowed him to garner an interesting viewpoint of the hows and whys of government.
I met this gentleman many years ago when he needed assistance with some IT work. It was a very brief professional acquaintance, but over the years we have kept in touch; he often reached out to me to answer a quick IT-related question. Over the years we have had a number of chats and he told a number of interesting anecdotes - all sanitized of names to protect the innocent - and it's from these discussions that I have distilled the following insights. I will be the first to admit that my friend has his own biases and - like most of us, works in his own bubble - but I think that's partly what makes these stories so interesting. You might not agree with his conclusions or argue that he is defending the indefensible, but I think he was being honest. I - like many here - tend to revile our political leaders, thinking them all untrustworthy and corrupt, waffling on important issues, indebted to corporate masters, etc. These tales offer a different light on thing. It's all going to be a bit stream-of-consciousness, I'm afraid, as I remember things he told me, but I hope you find it interesting as well.
So.
One of the first insights he gave me was that most politicians tend to enter into the game because they have one issue they really care about. Maybe some of them have two, or even rarely three, but - whether it is gun-control, or military spending or health care, pushing that issue is usually the primary force behind not only their entry into politics but also the reason they stay in politics and keep pushing up the ladder seeking positions of more power and authority. They want their issue to succeed, and they keep reaching upwards in hopes of not only getting it achieved, but also - if they are successful -
TI does not report corruption level, it reports corruption perception level.
If we perceive that it's getting worse, it can be because it's actually getting worse, or it can be because we know better than before.
"Power corrupts" isn't just an adage, it's a genuine psychological phenomenon. The corruption is exacerbated when it's wielded in an institutional environment like a government. Look no further than the Stanford Prison Experiments. In the course of only six days, a group of healthy, psychologically stable people who were elevated to a position of power became so abusive that the experiment had to be stopped.
Big government is corrupt at an institutional level that transcends the people who happen to be in charge at any one time. The communists and socialists argue that their systems would work if only the "right people" were in charge. The framers of The U.S. Constitution understood that there are no "right people" and the only way to keep corruption and abuse under control is to limit and decentralize the power of government. It was good while it lasted. In the current USA government, where 535 people control a $4 TRILLION annual budget, corruption is 100% guaranteed.
There is an ingenious way to make thimgs scale, so that what works in smaller, more homogenous cultures like Norway can also work in a large, very diverse country like the United States. A group of really smart people figured out how to implement it and wrote down a plan.
What you can do is recognize that Texas, Vermont, Massachusetts, and Utah have some culture and interests in common, and some very different. For example, people in those states have very different ideas about the second amendment and gun control. Heck, objectively gun laws that makes sense in Yuma County, Arizona are very different from what makes sense 275 miles away in Los Angeles. On the other hand, people in both places want a strong dollar, they benefit from good relations with other countries, etc.
So what you can do is have the common US government handle monetary policy, international relations, and a few other things that affect the whole country, while Arizona decides how they want to do things in Arizona. If Arizona wants to license concealed carry after proper training, they can do that and it doesn't much affect people in LA. If LA wants to have toll roads, or a tax on large sodas, they can do so - it doesn't affect people in Yuma. Later, people in Yuma and in LA can look at the results of different policies and see if they want to emulate the policies that worked well.
This is called a "federal" system, as in a federation of states. It worked very well when the US tried it, from 1776 to about 1929.