«

[Wicky]

The competition can be pretty cruel, when 9 billion people fight over the resources of a planet, which is layed out to give home to 2 billion. What you are experiencing is just one of many side effects: Corruption, natural resources depleting 4x faster than they regrow, drug related crimes, fake politics, over polluting, lobbyism.

My sister applied for a place at the university for a study as a doctor. She's intelligent over average, but they would only offer a place to 100 out of 5.000 applicants and didn't take her. So today's youth is desperate, even if she had been accepted that would mean 8 years of study, then 4 more years taking specialist courses, for the reward of beeing able to rent a 3-room flat in 12 years from now?? The world would be even more over-populated than today, and even if everyone agreed, that she deserved better than that, the planet just wouldn't be big enough to feed more.

[Smiling Spectre]

Originally Posted by Wicky

The competition can be pretty cruel, when 9 billion people fight over the resources of a planet, which is layed out to give home to 2 billion. What you are experiencing is just one of many side effects: Corruption, natural resources depleting 4x faster than they regrow, drug related crimes, fake politics, over polluting, lobbyism.

Oh, come on. World is not so overpopulated as you think. There are several overpopulated countries (China and India are obvious candidates), and several more "popular" countries that have too much competition due popularity (USA, of course, and maybe several ones). But otherwise - it's not about overcrowding.

Corruption is natural consequence of weak goverment. This weakness can be induced by overpopulation too, but much more frequent it's only disorganisation. USSR never was overpopulated, but it have biggest corruption rates in the world (and I mean all former Soviet republics). Lobbyism and fake politics are two sides of one coin, and tied to corruption too - not to overpopulation. And drugs have virtually nothing with crowds. Most drug-addicted countries now are middle-East and South America. Funny enough, they have one of lowest population densities in the world.

And I totally doubt about this "4x depleting" in global sense. Because if it was true - world would already collapsed fifty years ago. Of course, some regions could have this problem - named overpopulated ones, in particular.

[Japo]

It's an old wives' tale, and it has been around for centuries. The world isn't depleting any time soon. Poverty is a consequence of bad governance.

I wouldn't say corruption is a consequence of weak government, on the contrary it's a consequence of the same thing as strong (big) government. Certainly the USSR is the perfect example.

Universities are corrupt (more or less in different countries), also necessarily because they're managed or paid by the governments. I should know. If someone wants a job/postgrad over there, it's very advisable to have connections or strings to pull. Certainly there are both less and more honest jobs than "research"; and it's also an "industry" that's very inflated, specially nowadays. Of course this shouldn't discourage you if this career is your calling, but you'll see corruption and will have to deal with and probably embrace it.

Not only contacts, I can tell you an example: in Spain I turned down money that was awarded for an article that I hadn't written, because the actual authors weren't around any longer, and other people who hadn't participated were dividing the money up among themselves. This is perfectly normal. And of course for someone in this career the most important prize isn't bonus money, but the CV value of signing articles. The big bosses/professors/academic politicians routinely sign articles that they haven't participated with. The underling students have to accept this dishonesty of course, or else they're out.

"If your hand offends you, cut it off." If you don't like corruption, get away from it.

[Smiling Spectre]

Originally Posted by Japo

I wouldn't say corruption is a consequence of weak government, on the contrary it's a consequence of the same thing as strong (big) government. Certainly the USSR is the perfect example.

Well, I disagree here. Problem in USSR (that was suddenly resurrected with Putin) originated from desire of government to control everything. To be strong. It's true.

But in result instead control everything it's lead to control local authorities. That immediately have two consequences:

1. Local authorities totally independent of situation around. People are powerless to do anything against it. Only Center (aka Moscow, Kiev, Minsk, etc.) can do something to them. So they please to do anything they want. Until anything major happens, they are totally safe.

2. Center can monitor situation at regions only thru local authorities. So instead clear data they receive fake information that will please Center and allows them to continue it's serene "work". So Center is unaware of anything too.

Both factors gives outside look as "strong goverment", but in fact it's mostly powerless to do anything - except major but random repressions and money drawing from "everyone" (that actually include only people who cannot bribe local authorities). USSR crumbled mostly because of it, and current Russia goes the same way.

[El Quia]

Originally Posted by Smiling Spectre

And drugs have virtually nothing with crowds. Most drug-addicted countries now are middle-East and South America. Funny enough, they have one of lowest population densities in the world.

Most drug-addicted countries are now in the middle-east and south america? What are you talking about? If anything, those tend more to be either the places where they are manufactured or a step on the journey to more wealthy Population centers. While it's true that drugs are also sold locally, those tend to be the stuff they can't sell on other countries but are a byproduct of the manufacturing of the other drugs. Saying that countries in those places are more addicted to drugs does not make much sense. If anything, the rankings of drug abuse per country seem to indicate that drug abuse is widespread in a lot of countries, not really concentrating in rich or poor countries or whatever.

Originally Posted by Smiling Spectre

Well, I disagree here. Problem in USSR (that was suddenly resurrected with Putin) originated from desire of government to control everything. To be strong. It's true.

But in result instead control everything it's lead to control local authorities. That immediately have two consequences:

1. Local authorities totally independent of situation around. People are powerless to do anything against it. Only Center (aka Moscow, Kiev, Minsk, etc.) can do something to them. So they please to do anything they want. Until anything major happens, they are totally safe.

2. Center can monitor situation at regions only thru local authorities. So instead clear data they receive fake information that will please Center and allows them to continue it's serene "work". So Center is unaware of anything too.

Both factors gives outside look as "strong goverment", but in fact it's mostly powerless to do anything - except major but random repressions and money drawing from "everyone" (that actually include only people who cannot bribe local authorities). USSR crumbled mostly because of it, and current Russia goes the same way.

My impression always was that it was not the "strength" of the government that gave rise to corruption but rather the accountability of those in power, be it in the government or "outside it" (corporations, etc).

My totally unscientific, anecdote-based and completely biased perception of corruption problems seemed to be worse in countries that have (or had for a long time) autoritarian regimes with little to no accountability. But the accountability seems to be the main reason, because even when they turn democratic, the corrupted power structures remain, nurtured by tradition ("it is how it has always been", rotten people still in the power structure, social inertia when it comes to the way institutions behave, etc), the lack of transparency and the like.

On the other hand, democracies that have a healthy institutional life (for example, a long story of democracy uninterrupted by coups d'etat and the like) tend to have this accountability mechanism, but still that's no safeguard, of course, because there's also the point of people that are in power, but outside the government structure, like corporations and powerful local economic groups that are not accountable to anyone except the shareholders, and not even that in the case of powerful families. Heck, I am sure you can count powerful crime syndicates in this group, too, when they are connected enough to influence policy.

Of course, those powerful families and corporations and the like also exists in non-democratic countries, or countries with a poor democratic history. And not everyone reacts against corruption the same way, of course, and sometimes it can get so ingrained in a society that that's the way things are expected to happen.

The problem is complex, and attributing the fault to a single factor tends to be simplistic. And I am of the opinion that if a problem has been around for a while and has not been yet solved despite a lot of people working on it, then it's not a simple problem with a simple solution, no matter how hard people strike the table while saying it.


And to the OP: yeah, being unemployed sucks, and no matter what other people told you, it's hard to "wait until things get better" when you really need that job. And it's specially hard for that first job, and double hard when the economy is down the drain. So while I am not telling you to despair and give up, keep yourself occupied with other things, be it more studied (which make your CV look better in the education department) or voluntary work at some non profit or charity, specially in some position related to what you studied (which looks good in your CV in the past experiences department). Although I know that that last option tends to be not really that much fun, unless you are really into whatever cause the non profit is supporting, but it tends to help with the "but you have no previous work experience, and I need an experienced worker".

The thing is, do not despair. Easier said than done, but unemployment blues can really fuck up with you, and that frustration and bitterness won't be good for you (not to mention job interviews).

So yeah, taking solace in your hobbies can help you with that frustration. And when you finally get a job, you will look at all that free time with nostalgia... because, obviously, you will forget that you were penniless and desperate

And yes, if the local situation is as horrible as you said, moving to a better place sounds nice, but that's not always possible or even desirable.

I hope this gives you a few ideas (besides the "who the F this guy thinks he is to give me all this stupid advice?" :P), and I hope your situation gets better soon.

[Japo]

@Spectre, you're simply describing yet another example of why public management is necessarily corrupt. Of course the system didn't work as intended, but it's absurd to say that the central government was powerless: they could even replace any local authority at once by decree, unlike democratic countries where both central and local governments were elected. The central government in the USSR could do anything it wanted; but of course nothing would work without corruption.

[Smiling Spectre]

Originally Posted by El Quia

Most drug-addicted countries are now in the middle-east and south america? What are you talking about? If anything, those tend more to be either the places where they are manufactured or a step on the journey to more wealthy Population centers.

Well, I am speaking mostly about public opinion to drugs. I think, it then will be directly connected to percent of drug-addicted people. Neither Middle East, nor South America in general not have people aversion to drugs. It's like tabacco in Europe in 1960s - everyone smoke, and nothing bad about it. At least, it's such in Middle East (that I know somewhat better than America), but as it looks exactly the same way in America by consequences, I suppose, it's the same opinions here too.

Of course, mass production of narcotics made not for locals. They not need it. Everyone can get needed share by themself, and much cheaper. It's only a good way to make money on wealthy countries, yes. But why it's possible at all in first case? Because you can freely plant/manufacture huge amount of drugs, and noone care, except rare police raids forced by foreign structures.

If anything, the rankings of drug abuse per country seem to indicate that drug abuse is widespread in a lot of countries, not really concentrating in rich or poor countries or whatever.

Oh, sorry if it looks like "poor countries get all the drugs". It was example that clearly contradict stated "overpopulation is the reason of drug addiction", that's all.

My impression always was that it was not the "strength" of the government that gave rise to corruption but rather the accountability of those in power, be it in the government or "outside it" (corporations, etc).

It's totally connected.

corruption problems seemed to be worse in countries that have (or had for a long time) autoritarian regimes with little to no accountability. But the accountability seems to be the main reason, because even when they turn democratic, the corrupted power structures remain, nurtured by tradition ("it is how it has always been", rotten people still in the power structure, social inertia when it comes to the way institutions behave, etc), the lack of transparency and the like.

And this is totally interconnected too. Any regime is corruption-vulnerable. But if you have working mechanisms to replace corrupted autorities, it will not last long, will be low and cannot significantly affect socium on any interval long enough. With autoritarian it's totally different: once part of it (inevitably) got corrupted, it remains corrupted forever and spread it's influence around as disease, as corrupted part can affect "healthy" one, but "healthy" haven't almost any means to affect corruption.

Originally Posted by Japo

@Spectre, you're simply describing yet another example of why public management is necessarily corrupt. Of course the system didn't work as intended, but it's absurd to say that the central government was powerless: they could even replace any local authority at once by decree, unlike democratic countries where both central and local governments were elected. The central government in the USSR could do anything it wanted; but of course nothing would work without corruption.

Well, as I said, USSR goverment always had power in general, but corruption steal it's senses. It's like blind ogre: he can kill everyone and force everyone to do his will... but he cannot see anyone except specifically sacrificed ones. System had crude "cleanses" during Stalin times: as he destroys everyone, corrupted autorities was between them too, so system worked... in some aspects. But after that system becomes more and more corrupted, inertial and numerous, until in 80s it become almost uncontrollable. It crumbled under it's own weight in early 90s with USSR itself, but was re-created with love in 2000s again. Now we are back in 1970s - it works to some extent, but becoming worse every day.