COrruption rules behind SOCIETIES
LET'S TAME it
would not you buy your grand father's produce, would not you pet a kitten rather than a lizard, would not you give a job to your old friend rather to an unknown supplier?
curate corruption because it is normal
- how to play undeclared under the declared or how to make fradulent more transparent and more understood [active citizen engagement/compassion] and so diminished.
Corruption is natural... Corruption's roots are in preference of reciprocity (barter) and familiarity (short term, safe and local). In the social-animals it is closeness of DNA: family is preferred over a flock, tribe over race etc. Loyalty and sticking to the principles no-matter-what are often for those who do not seek to spread their DNA: likes of the men of dignity and rigidity or people who do not play within more-is-better economics (people of service to higher truths).
Decision making on behalf of others [low feedback n skin in the game index] brings about corruption and its protection. The systems with higher participation, say plebiscites, public control or less cloaked=bureaucratic solutions, are opposed by the messages and culture that flows down from the posts (as an attachment to the directives and decisions): "crowds are stupid or it is not secure enough". The results is inefficiency, as studies of John Matsusaka showed.
Space for concealed [gdpr n privacy] is everywhere where there is declared.
Inkling of undeclared perks is the force behind power delegation and representation. A concealed truth is that organisations live on public problems. They hone them to keep on going. They are entitled to declare to tackle = monopolise as solutions. Some even bring about the problems (security theatres, wars on...) and declare themselves as a solution. One more observation: privacy and corruption are correlated.
At local or global, there are 2 flavours of corruption: influencing the rules - the laws that define environment and influencing the projects, purchases and tenders - the decisions on what and who will supply. The influencing of the rules is more visible yet both fields bring about scandals that, with the exception of highest level, are subject to criminal law.
The curating should save money and energy to lawyers.
There is a space for a start-up to curate corruption - how to play undeclared under the declared.
How to make fradulent transparent more understood and so diminished.
1) Sell the idea of curating to a rules setting body (parliament), so there is more innate competition [= trial & error and parallelisation] in solutions in everything esp. at lower levels. This should diminish inefficiencies [due to wild or structural corruption] as well as add experience to situations which are normally solved acc. to some no-skin-in-the-game-authority directives. Also tension in society where the access to gravy is too concentrated and court cases after botched projects [against the actors driven from the hindsight knowledge] should be diminished or provided with more sounder evidence from parallel situations experiments.
2) Do surveys to find, estimate the nomenclature [long term repetitive x municipal trickles x wild, one-shot chancers] of general [not the concrete instances] gravy [leadin to fradulent] niches: AI and data analytics could be used to identify them and to detect fraudulent behavior. Find alternative solutions to the niches: .
3) Define the ideas for curating that would make corruption and gravy niches more predictable or less attractive. Say a] blockchain technology be used to create a secure and transparent system for tracking transactions and contracts.
4) Help the politicians and servants to get their undeclared incomes more safely and openly. Provide data mining, measure the risks and keep books at a safe side. Work [surveys] the opportunities they see.
- how to play undeclared under the declared or how to make fradulent more transparent and more understood [active citizen engagement/compassion] and so diminished.
Corruption is natural... Corruption's roots are in preference of reciprocity (barter) and familiarity (short term, safe and local). In the social-animals it is closeness of DNA: family is preferred over a flock, tribe over race etc. Loyalty and sticking to the principles no-matter-what are often for those who do not seek to spread their DNA: likes of the men of dignity and rigidity or people who do not play within more-is-better economics (people of service to higher truths).
Decision making on behalf of others [low feedback n skin in the game index] brings about corruption and its protection. The systems with higher participation, say plebiscites, public control or less cloaked=bureaucratic solutions, are opposed by the messages and culture that flows down from the posts (as an attachment to the directives and decisions): "crowds are stupid or it is not secure enough". The results is inefficiency, as studies of John Matsusaka showed.
Space for concealed [gdpr n privacy] is everywhere where there is declared.
Inkling of undeclared perks is the force behind power delegation and representation. A concealed truth is that organisations live on public problems. They hone them to keep on going. They are entitled to declare to tackle = monopolise as solutions. Some even bring about the problems (security theatres, wars on...) and declare themselves as a solution. One more observation: privacy and corruption are correlated.
At local or global, there are 2 flavours of corruption: influencing the rules - the laws that define environment and influencing the projects, purchases and tenders - the decisions on what and who will supply. The influencing of the rules is more visible yet both fields bring about scandals that, with the exception of highest level, are subject to criminal law.
The curating should save money and energy to lawyers.
There is a space for a start-up to curate corruption - how to play undeclared under the declared.
How to make fradulent transparent more understood and so diminished.
1) Sell the idea of curating to a rules setting body (parliament), so there is more innate competition [= trial & error and parallelisation] in solutions in everything esp. at lower levels. This should diminish inefficiencies [due to wild or structural corruption] as well as add experience to situations which are normally solved acc. to some no-skin-in-the-game-authority directives. Also tension in society where the access to gravy is too concentrated and court cases after botched projects [against the actors driven from the hindsight knowledge] should be diminished or provided with more sounder evidence from parallel situations experiments.
2) Do surveys to find, estimate the nomenclature [long term repetitive x municipal trickles x wild, one-shot chancers] of general [not the concrete instances] gravy [leadin to fradulent] niches: AI and data analytics could be used to identify them and to detect fraudulent behavior. Find alternative solutions to the niches: .
3) Define the ideas for curating that would make corruption and gravy niches more predictable or less attractive. Say a] blockchain technology be used to create a secure and transparent system for tracking transactions and contracts.
4) Help the politicians and servants to get their undeclared incomes more safely and openly. Provide data mining, measure the risks and keep books at a safe side. Work [surveys] the opportunities they see.