Comment by supernova87a | Hacker News Reader

Comment by supernova87a | Hacker News Reader

I especially liked his column about the college admissions scandal, and it wasn't that it was unfair, it was that it was theft. Theft from the colleges. Because you know, they already sell their admissions:

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-03-13/you-ha...

Here is one thing that U.S. Attorney Andrew Lelling said in announcing the charges:

“There can be no separate college admissions system for the wealthy, and I'll add that there will not be a separate criminal justice system either.”

Level playing field! Here is another thing he said less than a minute later:

“We’re not talking about donating a building so that a school’s more likely to take your son or your daughter. We’re talking about deception and fraud.”

There can be no separate college admissions system for the wealthy, except for the extremely well-known one where you donate a building in exchange for getting your kid in! “Lol just donate a building like a real rich person,” the U.S. Attorney almost said.

This is a good example of what corruption in America looks like.

America enjoys a reputation of being a rather non-corrupt country. To large degree, this is true: bribing scandals are rare, and most Americans would be completely aghast at the idea of passing an envelope under the table to the official who is responsible for issuing building permits.

Instead, the corruption in the US operates through completely transparent and legal means. Instead of cash-filled envelopes, you see campaign contributions, board seats, consulting jobs for children, and, yes, donations to designated causes. All of this is just How Things Are Done, and people are so used to them that they no longer even consider it corruption.

The fact that lobbyism is legal is telling.

The argument I've heard is that it will exist anyhow, but make the players identify themselves.

I don't know if that is reasonable to say, or if it is like talking about "trickle-down economics".

The best argument is that complaining to your elected officials without restrictions or reprisals is constitutionally protected for good reason.

Further, it's not a good idea to prevent rich entities in particular from being effective at it because with enough resources, they will be effective anyway. So the ineffective prevention mechanisms will just end up being regressive and/or even more corrupt at the end of the day.

Actually, among developed countries the US has a relatively high corruption level, I believe. (Insert many caveats about how difficult corruption is to measure.)

America ranks 23rd on the Perception of Corruption Index. Australia, Canada and the UK are 12th, and New Zealand 1st. [1]

[1] https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi

How much did it pay for that privilege?

The name of this index is like clickbait gone awry... Couldn't they have gone for something more like the Perception of Integrity Index since being #1 means "least corrupt"?

I never thought about it that way, haha, good call-out.

One group that measures corruption (I'm sure there are many) is freedomhouse.org

They rate USA 3/4 for corruption (Section C2 [0])

Comparing other similar nations for corruption

Australia 4/4 Canada 4/4 New Zealand 4/4 United Kingdom 4/4

[0] https://freedomhouse.org/country/united-states/freedom-world...

They rate USA 75% for corruption, and the (ex) British colonies as 100% for corruption. What does that mean? Is literally every single transaction in those places corrupt? "Out of 4" seems like a very poor way of doing this kind or rating.

Higher score is better. 4/4 is best.

Compare vs. China https://freedomhouse.org/country/china/freedom-world/2020

You can't just turn ratings out of 4 or 5 or 10 into percents like that. It doesn't mean the same thing. So no they don't rate those countries that.

It’s pretty benign when you think about it. Rich, successful people creating public goods so that their less-brilliant children can save face. What better trade-off are we going to get?

It's not benign. Your comment is an example of rich people hitting the easy button, and still being considered a "success" when doing so. Also I'd prefer public institutions to not be reliant on magic philanthropists or rich people with dumb kids. Just tax rich people more and build the needed buildings from public funds.

Your suggestion would force rich people to find some other way to buttress the careers of their progeny, and it would probably be worse.

Examples of worse outcomes? I mean, it sounds like you're saying rich people will find alternative ways to undermine integrity, so we should lessen the path of resistance and just accept it. I am not sure why anyone would be okay with that.

Rich people can buy things with their money, that’s sorta the point. One of those things is a college admission. Whose integrity is compromised when a college trades an admission slot for a building?

This isn't just for a building, but lesser donations can also potentially gain favor. There should certainly be disclosure if someone is getting favorable treatment due to money. If it's a public institution, it should not be possible at all.

I don't think this is a thing at public institutions for exactly that reason.

over time the entirety of the state apparatus (and business as well) who recruit out of these institutions because excellence and merit are replaced by legacy more and more and the quality of government and leadership continues to decline.

I mean you can literally witness it with your own eyes right now when you look at the US on the world stage. Compare the quality of governance and selection of candidates to a country like Singapore, or hell even China whose ruthless political apparatus weeds out people who don't perform quite effectively.

Do you foresee a future where rich and powerful people don't routinely get what they want? That would involve redefining what it means to be rich and powerful.

The US's strategy of funnelling the power through visible, legal channels with some levels of consistency is by far the best. If they want their kids in prestigious universities then that is what will happen. There isn't an alternative where the powerful shrug sheepishly and let their position erode.

At one point, a thing called the Magna Carta was arrived at for just such a purpose. One might say that redefining what it means to be rich and powerful, is normal.

Again, the argument is that rich people should be allowed to be corrupt and there is no way to stop them, which is garbage. Firstly, stop stating it's "best" or like OP noting it as "success".

Let's tax the rich more and give everyone access to higher education, even the playing field out. Yes you can redefine what rich means, and what poor means, over time through policies.

That last part sounds like almost a threat regarding what rich people might do if you block their corrupt behavior. That's already a sign there's a problem with the power dynamic here.

> Let's tax the rich more and give everyone access to higher education...

Someone getting in by buying the institution a new building isn't denying anyone access to higher education. In fact, since the institution has a new building it is likely it is increasing access to either education or research opportunities.

> Let's tax the rich more and give everyone access to higher education...

30% of the US does get a degree, so higher education isn't exactly an elite marker.

[2-4 years of time] X [70% of the US that doesn't have a degree] is an enormous number of hours. If someone is not going to use it then they have better things to do than academics. The risk of most of that 70% just looking back at a couple of wasted years is pretty high.

I suppose in fairness it might work out, but even now there are a lot of people getting degrees who havn't managed to parley it up into better outcomes. But it is likely to be a terrible plan, expensive and with marginal positive outcomes.

I agree it is benign. There are only a few Bill Gates level rich people donating buildings. Sure it is corrupt strictly speaking but would you rather a poor student compete with one Gates kid or 100 millionaire kids that have discovered other cheaper corrupt openings?

It’s definitely more common than Gates. Perhaps around 5% of Ivy League students - https://blog.prepscholar.com/how-much-do-college-donations-h...

It is highly contestable that millions of dollars ending up in the already mega-wealthy Ivy league colleges is a public good.

Considering how this could possibly be a public good, the most obvious way is that money into these institutions produces knowledge that then produces benefits in wider society. This fits mostly with the definition:

> In economics, a public good (also known as a social good or collective good) is a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous, in that individuals cannot be excluded from use or could benefit from without paying for it, and where use by one individual does not reduce availability to others or the good can be

It is true that in some cases education produces knowledge which itself becomes non-excludable and non-rivalrous, or that knowledge produces some other good which is both those things, but the multi-million dollar donations to Ivy-league colleges made by the super-rich so that their children participate in elite networks is pretty tenuously tied to this mechanism of 'education as a public good'.

The universities produce knowledge, but also produce and preserve culture, and attract students from overseas, and dish out scholarships to students otherwise unable to afford tuition. Plus, you get beautiful campuses.

I honestly can’t tell if you are joking or jokingly trying to be an example what the parent comment is describing: numb to corruption when an example is done through “legitimate” means right in front of your nose.

Love this comment even though my instinct is to not agree with it.

First I thought you’re trolling but after seeing your replies you’re not. Your views are so simplistic and one-dimensional even an Hollywood executive wouldn’t buy it.

There’s a spectrum of “rich successful” people, many are rich but not “successful” in the way you like to believe, spend 5 minutes around them and it’s easy to know.

Also, what’s up with that “less-brilliant children” saving face statement?

It's bourgeois aristocracy, the same is true in Europe in a smaller scale: most corruption is done through connections and who-knows-who rather than a peasant cash bribe.

Just more layers to peel off from the same basic concept: greed. His description of how unacceptable it is when it looks transactional but how it is fine, and even expected, if it comes from the traditional ways of indirect corruption summarises it rather well.

The massive difference is that in Mexico you have to bribe cops all the time when you get pulled over. In the US the corruption doesn't have a direct impact on your life like that.

No, you have to live in fear that your health insurance is enough for when you eventually need it. Ah, and in fear that your employer is kind enough to not fire you, if so that health insurance might get harder.

Living in fear everyday, just in different ways. I think that has an impact in someone's life.

Maybe it was not such a good idea to demolish the warriors caste after all? It seems that the 3rd state has merged with, or rather became, the aristocracy. Taking into account that the peasants defended them against the neo-warrior-caste in the last Great War, and that their lavish lifestyle comes greatly from taxation of the peasants, the long noses should hang for a long time now.

Hmm. I can't agree with you on America having a reputation as a non-corrupt county. From an outsider's perspective the entire political lobbying system in America reeks of corruption and bribery.

I suppose on the flip side of that, not unlimited buildings can be donated, and being donated a building is perhaps a trade-off worth making.

Universities are non profits and those buildings are usually scholarships for a lot of people who can't afford university and/or research grants to help solve very important problems. Matt Levine is an idiot.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com