Re the "Corruption" article:

That was an interesting article. I don't know enough about England
or Italy to know what is "right" in this case, but I did have
a couple of thoughts while reading it. I, too, have been to both
places, but as a tourist for a week or two at a time, so don't
necessarily think this gives me much insight into the nuances
of their governmental systems. I think things like this are much
more complicated than they appear, and it's probably irresponsible
to try to nail it down to one cause. Also, I think he goes a
long way to justify something like corruption - as if all would
be well in the British system if they would only acknowledge
and be more accepting of corruption (some of which certainly
exists there, you can bet). I'd be interested to have him revisit
this issue in a few years; corruption may indeed play a role
in Italy's prosperity, but this may be just a blip on the screen
of their long history. How long will this last, or will it collapse
in upon itself (as an earlier government did, which was based
on self-indulgence and corruption, in Rome).

If I were forced to break my own principle above and talk about
a single cause, I would have to wonder if there's a side-effect
to the corruption that has a larger role. That is, I think it
may not the corruption per se that is resulting in the difference
in prosperity. Rather, I wonder if the corruption is creating
a form of competition that is seen in more free-market-oriented
societies. Competition creates incentive to deliver better and
more timely products and services. So if the base economic system
does not allow for competition and everything is controlled by
the government, there is no incentive to do well (as in the example
of the British construction workers in the article). But in a
system where everything is controlled by the government, but
there is also response to status, individual influence, and bribery,
then you have a sort of free-market system operating within the
larger beurocracy.

We saw this in Eastern European countries before the wall came
down. Everyone supposedly had the same access to medical care
or approval of the Office of So-and-So for some project. And
Christians supposedly were equally repressed by the government.
However, when they had coffee or toilet paper to give doctors
or officials, even the Christians could get beter and faster
services, or otherwise-unavailable medications.

You also see that principle at work here in the US, as some operations
are privatized. For example, Kelly AFB here in SA. Stories of
huge corruption and abuse within the system are coming out, and
the private companies taking over are miraculously able to be
more productive with fewer people. There was a report of some
number of workers who would show up at Kelly, punch in, leave
to go work at a second job off-base, and then come by at the
end of the day to clock out!! So you have to wonder why the unions
were so opposed to privatizing. Companies like Boeing were going
to come in and need the same skilled workers, so what's the problem?
The problem is that the union leaders knew that Boeing would
be more watchful and efficient, and would need fewer workers,
since the company's resources and profit were at stake.

Sorry to be so long. I won't pretend to think that's THE answer;
however, I do think that's a factor that went unexamined in the
article, and possibly a more plausible place to start looking
for opportunities for change.

-Rich