> Ethics, morals and whatever people call only exists if economy is stable.

What is a "stable" economy? The US has the world's largest GDP, the highest nominal GDP per capita of any nation with a population over 10 million, the highest amount of investable and liquid private assets of any country in the world, more than a third of the world's millionaires, etc.

And yet I think you'd have a hard time convincing most people that the US is a bastion of ethics and morals.

▲

gpt5 2 hours ago | parent [-]

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.

▲

ElProlactin an hour ago | parent | next [-]

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 an hour ago | parent [-]

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 11 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> 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.

▲

scns an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

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

▲

cjbgkagh an hour ago | parent [-]

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 17 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> ...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?