Putin Said to Stun Advisers by Backing Corruption Crackdown

[Norwegian]

I am confounded and disappointed by this. I have never even implied that you are anti-Semitic, and if we've disagreed on the Israel/Palestine issue, I have at least acknowledged that your position is reasonable, even if I cannot agree with it. I have never criticized your thinking on a religious level, and in fact, I was quite specific in saying that I regarded your position as a European one, not a Muslim one.
I don't understand what Robert Nozick's religion has to do with this discussion, and even if you were being sarcastic here for the benefit of others, I don't regard the introduction of that detail as appropriate. I hope we can leave religion out of our future discussions.

Of course I was sarcastic. I am not an antisemite. I had some Norwegian Jews in my third year class at college. Very cool people. Though I respect your opinion and would rather not involve religion in this matter. Thanks for the tip

You must forgive me for skipping the rest, as our disagreement there stems from different philosophies of life, and we will not be able to convince each other. But the statement you made in the paragraph above is patently and provably false. The funding for the police was never a loan by the government to me which must be repaid. It was paid for by my parents' taxes. I pay for it now (and much, much more) with my own taxes. Any shortfall of funding is paid from my taxes as interest to the debt run up by the previous generation; I do not owe anything to anyone, because I am not responsible for running up debt--I pay far more in taxes than I receive in government benefits, even considering my proportionate share of public goods like the military. That said, I believe the police (and the army, and the courts, and national infrastructure, and the treasury) are one of the few legitimate functions of the state for which taxation could be justified. Healthcare and education are not legitimate functions of the state, so no, I am not ethnically obligated to fund those.

I get healthcare and education is not legitimate functions of the state in your opinion because privately funded schools, colleges, universities, hospitals and clinics are widely available in USA? So the rich can just avoid paying taxes for them and let their perfect kids to be sent to Ivy League and thus further the wealth and income equality divide I was talking about?
10 Universities Where Super Rich Kids Go - TheRichest

How many normal middle class Americans today can afford Harvard, Stanford, MIT and other elite universities without taking on mountains of debt with huge interest without any job guarantee?

The basic asymmetry should be easy to understand. When the entrepreneur fails, he fails alone. But when he succeeds, the federal government, the state government, the local government, the unions, the environmentalists, the regulators--they all take their cut. And that's on top of the services that I must pay for directly for which I derive actual personal benefit. No, there's nothing ethical about this "shared responsibility," not from my perspective.

Banks fail all the time. Your corrupt government keeps bailing out failed financial institutions because hey, "they are too big to fail". Its corruption at its best and becomes normal part of the system itself. Instead government should help invest the entrepreneurs and share the responsibility of their failures as well as success. I agree with your basic concern that you do not get back what you spend on taxes, but paying no taxes at all or minimum taxes on top of maximum income is unjustified. Comparative data has showed that countries that still exercise progressive tax rate are more wealthy per capita (scandinavian countries) than those who do not. Egoism and me, me, me has destroyed social and economic fabric of US society in my view.

I have voted against these abhorrent policies for years, but because of majority rule, my interests are not represented well in the government. I'm surprised, based on the arguments you have made in some other threads, that you would condone the supremacy of popularity over ethics in this case. Popularity does not equate to ethical behavior, so even in a polity of 10 people, if there are 9 people receiving government benefits and one chump taxpayer funding it all, that does not make such behavior ethical.

Point taken! But as human society evolves there will always be some ultra-rich and some ultra-poor. The rich will always be a minority and poor a majority. In order to minimize these huge wealth and income differences from people of different social and economic backgrounds, some welfare policies must be implemented by state or its back to the good old days of serfdom and feudalism:
Why We’re in a New Gilded Age by Paul Krugman | The New York Review of Books

That being said, I have nothing against free-market economics as its being practiced in US for about a century or more. That is true capitalism and Americans have all reaped its gains. Over time you will collectively learn its damage or side effects too

I'll let you have the last word, if you wish. I've basically said everything I have to say on this topic.

Agreed. As you said, in the beginning, its OK to disagree sometimes when we have such a huge philosophical difference in our thinking... Btw, I have checked the real meaning of your profile name and it hints me that you yourself is a very corporate financial person
Leveraged buyout - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[William Hung]

@Black Flag @Chinese-Dragon @vostok @senheiser @AgentOrange

Putin is nothing if not adaptable. I thought this article might interest you because it touches on the recent experience of China, the effect of corruption on an economy vs. external issues, and how the sanctions might end up creating a more robust Russian economy in the long run (if these reforms are successful).
---

Interesting. I'm not too familiar with Russian politics or their economy, but it does seems to relate to what we've been discussing in that VN-JP aid thread. I agree that this sanction may indeed turn out to be good for Russia if they manage to reform their economy and deal with their corruption.

Although I don't think sanctions against VietNam or other poorer countries would help them out.

... the consensus seems to be that the corruption that results from aid is far more damaging than the growth catalyzed by the aid. So too with purely domestic economics: corruption undermines most of the other policy levers.

Will Putin surrender enough power to create the strong institutions necessary to stamp out corruption? Or is this just a drive-by operation, until Russia adapts to the "new normal" of economic sanctions? Only time will tell.

If this Russian anti-corruption campaign is anything like the Chinese counterpart, then I have my doubts. Like some other members have already said, the ongoing Chinese anti-corruption campaign looks more like an internal political struggle within the party. It's more like a "Snitching Campaign" rather than a "Anti-corruption Campaign."

Simply, they are not dealing with the root causes such as the lack of transparency, independent judiciary, etc.

My sixth sense is telling me that Putin is the kind of guy that goes for a "snitching campaign" rather than an "anti-corruption campaign." But I really don't know much about Russian politics.

My bet is on both the Chinese and Russian anti-corruption campaign turning out to be a drive-by operation.

 

[senheiser]

Kleptocracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and america isnt? who buys your politicians? Its wallstreet and cooperations as well as elite clubs like harward