Corruption Index - 2003

[RaymondR]

Originally Posted by Epicurean

Island Time, I like what you said. Usually it's the one party governances that are the most corrupt, like most of our large cities. Which states do you think are the most corrupt? I'm not sure. My home states of Illinois and Louisiana are probably high on the list. And is corruption well-defined? If almost a billion$ is given to Solyndra which then predictably fails, is that corruption? It seems like the game plan was faulty. Or were they just funneling money to supporters?

I have relatives who want to leave San Francisco because of it's problems. But they voted for those people and wherever they go they'll vote similar types in. Maybe we should restrict immigration out of cities that are sh*tholes.

Never heard of Hughy P Long, corruption is not new in state governments Hughy developed it to be the biggest industry in Louisiana.

And,

Scomo was not even born when Gina's father discovered the massive iron ore deposits in W.A. and jumped on a plane to Tokyo to sell it to the Japanese.

The real corruption in Australia is a union movement which has declined from 46% of the work force post WW2 to about 13% now but is richer than ever and much of it from a giant protection racket which meets the tests for racketeering in the United States.

[tp12]

Hahahaha, yeah ok. That's your colours nailed to the mast... Good to have an independent view with the corruption index, however.



We'll have to agree to disagree.

[GordMay]

This year (2019 Report) the United States has received its lowest score in eight years, on Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI), dropping two points to score 69 out of 100.
TI’s Corruption Index for the United States averaged 74.30 Points, from 1995 until 2019, reaching an all time high of 78 Points in 2000, and a record low of 69 Points in 2019.
In 2019, the USA Ranked 22ND, with a score of 69.
Corruption Rank in the United States averaged 18.08, from 1995 until 2019, reaching an all time high of 24 in 2011, and a record low of 14 in 2000.

[RaymondR]

Be mindful that it's a perception which is being measured.

The US and Australia have similar problems in relation to how public perceptions are formed. In the case of the US it is a certain controversial political figure and the constant barrage of negativity from the left leaning media which builds the perception that life is rapidly going to hell in a hand basket.

In Australia it is the "We're all gunna die next week from climate change." constant barrage which people are finding depressing and which is building the perception everything is getting worse.

I'm of the opinion that if we had a statistic on the ratio of corrupt to overall financial transactions in western societies it would show that historically corruption is declining.

I'm not sure what the situation is now but decades ago during the debate on a new federal anti corruption law in the US it was identified that whilst US companies and individuals would consequently be punished for attempting to bribe foreign officials to gain contracts, many European countries allowed them as legitimate expenses for taxation purposes.

If a government authority vigorously pursues and prosecutes the corrupt the ensuing publicity will ensure a perception of widespread corruption. Perhaps those countries which have low perceptions of corruption are just being to tolerant of it.

[tp12]

My last word on this, it's telling that despite many instances of corruption being exposed recently (only one Minister has resigned her ministry and still remains an MP) in Australia, the prosecutions of whistleblowers and even their lawyers, the raids on the homes of journalists and the federal police refusing to investigate government politicians the government steadfastly refuses to implement a federal anti-corruption commission. Despite growing calls in the media, the public and opposition parties.


We all know why.

[Uncle Bob]

Originally Posted by tp12

My last word on this, it's telling that despite many instances of corruption being exposed recently (only one Minister has resigned her ministry and still remains an MP) in Australia, the prosecutions of whistleblowers and even their lawyers, the raids on the homes of journalists and the federal police refusing to investigate government politicians the government steadfastly refuses to implement a federal anti-corruption commission. Despite growing calls in the media, the public and opposition parties.


We all know why.

[RaymondR]

Originally Posted by tp12

My last word on this, it's telling that despite many instances of corruption being exposed recently (only one Minister has resigned her ministry and still remains an MP) in Australia, the prosecutions of whistleblowers and even their lawyers, the raids on the homes of journalists and the federal police refusing to investigate government politicians the government steadfastly refuses to implement a federal anti-corruption commission. Despite growing calls in the media, the public and opposition parties.


We all know why.

Aha, so "they" are on the loose again.

My pub test on the sports rorts matter was the opinion of Richo. "They all do it and just wait your turn at government and you'll get your go at it so stop whinging.".

She resigned over the conflict of interest aspect because she approved a relatively small grant to a skeet shooting club she is a member of. Of course the left feels that she should be excluded from holding any government position because she's pretty handy with a firearm. She has not claimed to be a dab hand at skinning bears yet so probably won't be recruited as deputy prime minister.

I tend to the opinion that most ABC journalists should be in jail if only because of the reputational damage they do to our country with the careless misreporting they indulge themselves in.

Another lawyerfest at the cost of the long suffering tax payer. These so called anti corruption bodies have mainly been used by politicians against their protagonists. The states are the primary authorities in criminal law in Australia and they pretty well all have anti corruption measures in their criminal codes.

[tp12]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

Aha, so "they" are on the loose again.



My pub test on the sports rorts matter was the opinion of Richo. "They all do it and just wait your turn at government and you'll get your go at it so stop whinging."



I tend to the opinion that most ABC journalists should be in jail if only because of the reputational damage they do to our country with the careless misreporting they indulge themselves in.



Another lawyerfest at the cost of the long suffering tax payer. These so called anti corruption bodies have mainly been used by politicians against their protagonists. The states are the primary authorities in criminal law in Australia and they pretty well all have anti corruption measures in their criminal codes.

There was no 'they' in my post.

We get it, you're ok with corruption. That's different thing to 'it doesn't exist'.

[RaymondR]

Originally Posted by tp12

There was no 'they' in my post.

We get it, you're ok with corruption. That's different thing to 'it doesn't exist'.

"We all know why" is the explicit quote but "they" is implied in it.

It does exist and always will and I expect that Saint Pete up there at the pearly gates gets the odd offer of a dollar or two to look the other way whilst bad sinners slip unnoticed through the gate.

As Churchill said, democracy is a lousy way to run a country, it's just better than all the others.

In our system we elect our representatives for a fixed period of time - they are of us and we should neither carelessly slander them nor morally support those who do.

[slug]

Originally Posted by GordMay

For what it's worth, those planning a cruise itinerary might consider the following report.

Transparency International - Corruption Index (2003)
# http://www.transparency.org/pressrel...07.cpi.en.html

Corruption is perceived to be pervasive in Bangladesh, Nigeria, Haiti, Paraguay, Myanmar, Tajikistan, Georgia, Cameroon, Azerbaijan, Angola, Kenya, and Indonesia, countries with a score of less than 2 in the new index. Countries with a score of higher than 9, with very low levels of perceived corruption, are rich countries, namely Finland, Iceland, Denmark, New Zealand, Singapore and Sweden.

Some changes highlighted in the CPI were identified by Peter Eigen. "On the basis of data from sources that have been consistently used for the index, improvements since last year's index can be observed for Austria, Belgium, Colombia, France, Germany, Ireland, Malaysia, Norway, and Tunisia. Noteworthy examples of a worsening are Argentina, Belarus, Chile, Canada, Israel, Luxembourg, Poland, USA, and Zimbabwe."

Excerpted from the report:

CPI 2003 - Country rank (11 LEAST CORRUPT)

1. Finland - 9.7
2 Iceland - 9.6
3 Denmark - 9.5
4 New Zealand - 9.5
5 Singapore - 9.4
6 Sweden - 9.3
7 Netherlands - 8.9
8 Australia - 8.8
9 Norway - 8.8
10 Switzerland - 8.8
11 Canada - 8.7

13 U.K. - 8.7
19 U.S.A. - 7.5
...

CPI 2003 - Country Rank (15 MOST CORRUPT)

118 Cote d'Ivoire - 2.1
119 Kyrgyzstan - 2.1
120 Libya - 2.1
121 Papua New Guinea - 2.1
122 Indonesia - 1.9
123 Kenya - 1.9
124 Angola - 1.8
125 Azerbaijan - 1.8
126 Cameroon - 1.8
127 Georgia - 1.8
128 Tajikistan - 1.8
129 Myanmar - 1.6
130 Paraguay - 1.6
131 Haiti - 1.5
132 Nigeria - 1.4
133 Bangladesh - 1.3

FWIW - Regards,

Jejejeje

Those ratings always crack me up

Corruption

Hmm. Consider this ....the number one good guy Finland, has the highest rate of disability in the world

Is this good or bad Corruption ?

[tp12]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

"We all know why" is the explicit quote but "they" is implied in it.

It does exist and always will and I expect that Saint Pete up there at the pearly gates gets the odd offer of a dollar or two to look the other way whilst bad sinners slip unnoticed through the gate.

As Churchill said, democracy is a lousy way to run a country, it's just better than all the others.

In our system we elect our representatives for a fixed period of time - they are of us and we should neither carelessly slander them nor morally support those who do.

No, they is not implied in that. I've specifically referred to the Government, our prime minimal, his former deputy and a former minister, also.


Fortunately, polling indicates that a majority of Australian's aren't like you and actually care about corruption. Hence majority support for a federal anti-corruption commission. And let's not get caught in the 'but the other side does it too' trap because a) it's irrelevant, corruption is corruption, and b) further promotes the limiting 'two party' binary thinking that has contributed to politicians believing they can get away with it. They can, and are. The two major parties want us to think that way which should be enough of an incentive not to.

I'm happy to let the truth defence take care of me should any of those politicians try and play the slander card. Which is exactly why they wouldn't try it

I read a rather funny quote a while back, I wish I could remember where from. Regarding corruption in the UK but can be applied here: "The French would take to the streets but the British take to their knees"

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by GordMay

This year (2019 Report) the United States has received its lowest score in eight years, on Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI), dropping two points to score 69 out of 100.
TI’s Corruption Index for the United States averaged 74.30 Points, from 1995 until 2019, reaching an all time high of 78 Points in 2000, and a record low of 69 Points in 2019.
In 2019, the USA Ranked 22ND, with a score of 69.
Corruption Rank in the United States averaged 18.08, from 1995 until 2019, reaching an all time high of 24 in 2011, and a record low of 14 in 2000.

Perfect example of why "perception" is a poor measure.

This shift is due to the media pushing an agenda but by claiming it's a "measured index" to the casual reader it sounds like a scientific study that proves the media right.

Makes for a self fulfilling prophesy.

[tp12]

The reality is that measuring corruption is problematic. "Oh yes, we're corrupt, here's how much money we've stolen off the taxpayer...." Hmmmm

There's some information on their wiki and other places on their method but I can't find detailed info. Here's the wiki https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corr...ceptions_Index

It appears to be the best measure available, unless someone knows different and can point me in the direction of something more detailed etc? In the meantime, if you understand their method you can see that some of the criticism it's received in this thread is unwarranted and illogical.

[Island Time O25]

Originally Posted by Epicurean

Island Time, I like what you said. Usually it's the one party governances that are the most corrupt, like most of our large cities. Which states do you think are the most corrupt? I'm not sure. My home states of Illinois and Louisiana are probably high on the list. And is corruption well-defined? If almost a billion$ is given to Solyndra which then predictably fails, is that corruption? It seems like the game plan was faulty. Or were they just funneling money to supporters?

I have relatives who want to leave San Francisco because of it's problems. But they voted for those people and wherever they go they'll vote similar types in. Maybe we should restrict immigration out of cities that are sh*tholes.

As was pointed out - one party states are certainly more corrupt. But also we as citizens have become very complacent when faced with open corruption staring at us. Last two of the last 4 or 5 presidents have been openly paid for whatever favors they provided to various individuals and the whole industries in the form of book contracts, lecture and consulting fees, foundation donations, etc. To the point where these ex-Presidents (and or their spouses) now each control one way or another around 1 billion dollars or thereabout.

And the sad part (other then lack of any accountability including criminal prosecution for corruption) is that we don't even blink when we hear these facts. US is fast becoming (if not laready became) an open oligarchy where spouses and children of politicians feel entitled to their family spots in the government. This is not new of course but definitely more widespread than in the years past. Or so it seems.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by tp12

It appears to be the best measure available, unless someone knows different and can point me in the direction of something more detailed etc? In the meantime, if you understand their method you can see that some of the criticism it's received in this thread is unwarranted and illogical.

If the "best" method is horribly flawed...I'd rather not pretend any method can accurately measure it.

So far haven't seen any reason to discredit the criticism.