Having done engineering design for the UK government, i agree with some points but have a comment on the framing. I wouldn't say "some corruption is good", but rather I'd say "investigating all corruption offers diminish benefits", which you did say - but it doesn't follow that therefore some corruption is "good", but rather some corruption is "tolerated" for the public good Similarly, just because not all crime can be investigated, it doesn't follow that some crime is therefore good.
I do agree more on your bureaucracy points. Too many government stakeholders, many of whom have no opinion, get asked their opinion on public works. If done for good faith public benefit, I would agree that facilitating these works by either finding loopholes or even small level corruption can be good, as a public service that gets built is often better than the one that doesn't
Kinda disappointed, was expecting an interesting perspective on how a small fraction of corruption contributes positively to the functioning of sociery. Instead you spent 17 minutes to say there are costs and benefits to reducing corruption, and that they need to be weighed. Like obviously going on an extreme anti-corruption crusade will have more costs than the benefit it provides…
From a basic utilitarian point of view this makes sense. But once you accept, that even from a utilitarian perspective having moral codes (like "everything we build should be as accessible for disabled people as possible" or to make it very obvious "corruption is bad") makes sense for societies rather than single rational actors the entire argument structure collapses.
-Why Some Corruption is Better than None- A Zero-Tolerance Policy for Tax Evasion is Cost-Prohibive Still an interesting video despite the bait-and-switch title
What a refreshing video on new ways to look at problems. I love it!
Glad you enjoyed it!
Having done engineering design for the UK government, i agree with some points but have a comment on the framing.
I wouldn't say "some corruption is good", but rather I'd say "investigating all corruption offers diminish benefits", which you did say - but it doesn't follow that therefore some corruption is "good", but rather some corruption is "tolerated" for the public good
Similarly, just because not all crime can be investigated, it doesn't follow that some crime is therefore good.
I do agree more on your bureaucracy points. Too many government stakeholders, many of whom have no opinion, get asked their opinion on public works.
If done for good faith public benefit, I would agree that facilitating these works by either finding loopholes or even small level corruption can be good, as a public service that gets built is often better than the one that doesn't
I agree. I’m definitely playing fast and loose with the definition of good.
crazy vid, love it
Thanks!
Editing style is great, I hope you grow big man!
Thanks! I’m testing out different styles to find the one that fits me best.
Kinda disappointed, was expecting an interesting perspective on how a small fraction of corruption contributes positively to the functioning of sociery. Instead you spent 17 minutes to say there are costs and benefits to reducing corruption, and that they need to be weighed. Like obviously going on an extreme anti-corruption crusade will have more costs than the benefit it provides…
Agreed
Nice video
Thanks!
From a basic utilitarian point of view this makes sense. But once you accept, that even from a utilitarian perspective having moral codes (like "everything we build should be as accessible for disabled people as possible" or to make it very obvious "corruption is bad") makes sense for societies rather than single rational actors the entire argument structure collapses.
I think you mean it is better to allow some corruption than to get rid of all corruption.
nice vid. before the fame
grease and corruption in right amount is good for a system, too of much both makes the mess of the system
-Why Some Corruption is Better than None- A Zero-Tolerance Policy for Tax Evasion is Cost-Prohibive
Still an interesting video despite the bait-and-switch title
Where did my comment go
censored by a corrupt youtuber
No idea
The title is a little clickbaity, this is from an economist’s perspective who have no morals.