U.S. corrupt, I agree. Most corrupt country in the world? Gimme a break!

Wow. Is he trying to get out of his weapons charges by sucking up to the mainland?

I'm all for supporting your country, but it should be transparent. There is an inherent risk of fooling yourself if you constantly say "we're the best, we're number one, we have no issues" when asked 'externally'. Scary stuff!

Also, there was no actual explanation to the accusation of the US' corruption. Just 'they brought down the world' or something like that.

Chinese exceptionalism?

you have to keep in mind the culture barriers and language filtering that are going on here. i don't think this is nearly as inflammatory as it initially seems.

It looks like the host's body language is suggesting he is in disbelief of Jackie's statements. Like he is just wanting to wrap the segment up because his guest is clearly an idiot and fawning over a country that would not take kindly to anything less.

His definition of "Corrupt" is kind of skewed, but in many ways I could see this. I don't think it's a legitimate criticism of the US being corrupt because you have to see it through a very thing perspective, but when you look at the whole, the US *IS* getting away with the most bullshit en-mass compared to every other country in the world. Corruption does not equate to chaos. There are more obviously fucked countries in the world in terms of murder, extortion and fascist control, but through that very thin perspective you can't disagree that any other country controls as much of the entire planet with as large a proportion of those in power benefiting illegitimately.
Another way of looking at it is: there are the same number of corrupt assholes in the US as any other country, but the level of control and influence over the rest of the world those in the US have simply makes them more at fault than others.
Whatever. NONE OF THIS MATTERS!

Ya, hard for me to know what they were really talking about, they could of been talking about how chicken tastes better in China for all I know.

In context of how many countries the US has corrupted, and that even with use/threat of force or war, yes, I think the USA is the most corrupt country in the world. However, it is also the country in the world, which can hide its corruption the best.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

uh-oh, there goes the redneck Jackie Chan fan demographic.

Some meaning was lost in translation. He's talking about 贪污 which has more to do with monetary corruption than anything else. To say that the US ranks #1 in misappropriation of money is not inaccurate.

US has the corruption at the very highest levels (so does a lot of western societies..). They just call it Lobbyism and approve it publicly. So it's not corruption if it's legal right? Most countries that are accused of corruption, it occurs at lowest level of the government: police, civil servants etc. But when it's the high end, it's not corruption anymore..

Same goes for most crimes: you swindle hundred bucks: you're criminal, low life scum with no human rights. You swindle billions: you're a businessman, a hero of sort and you get to keep everything.

Oh, i hope so.. Because i'm Jackie fan and if this comment makes rednecks hate him: i love him even more.

He is in Hong Kong. They think what he's saying is full of shit

Jackie Chan is just an athlete/actor, so it can't be expected that he think scientifically rather than "claim that whatever's good for my side is true."

In international measurements, most of the world is pretty corrupt except for:
1. Western European descended nations, including the US.
2. Japan, whom China hates.
3. A few countries in South America.

international measurements -> Corruption Perceptions Index

Look at who "perceived" this corruption. (According to your source
2012 CPI draws on 13 different surveys and assessments from 12 different institutions.
The institutions are the African Development Bank, the Bertelsmann Foundation, the Economist Intelligence Unit, Freedom House, Global Insight, International Institute for Management Development, Political and Economic Risk Consultancy, Political Risk Services, the World Economic Forum, the World Bank and the World Justice Project.Many of these private organizations have strong ties to particular governments or nations, such as the World Bank which is funded by certain countries.

The 13 surveys/assessments are either business people opinion surveys or performance assessments from a group of analysts.Early CPIs used public opinion surveys. Countries must be assessed by at least three sources to appear in the CPI.)

Should one take these numbers for real ?

1) Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
2) I think there are levels of corruption not measured and mapped by this aggregation of data.

@coffeejerk

Measurements used in science are generally not flawless and ideal, but are considered useful if they allow us to predict reality with greater accuracy.


For example, if you're a journalist who wishes to avoid being imprisoned for criticizing the government, you should research in which countries that's a common practice.

You might disagree that that counts as corruption, but in the real world, people will make decisions based on the best information available to them, even if you dislike the results.

Misplaced anger at the letter L.

@chilaxe Wow, that is really interesting. And while I find measures like this rather dubious, I had no idea people were even attempting to standardize something like this, thanks for the interesting read

Except the CPI provides propaganda, not information--which is what @coffeejerk was trying to point out to you. By your own standards CPI fails anyway... if you read further down the wiki page you cited you'd see this:

The Corruption Perceptions Index has drawn increasing criticism in the decade since its launch, leading to calls for the index to be abandoned. This criticism has been directed at the quality of the index itself, and the lack of actionable insights created from a simple country ranking.

So it's basically a number that doesn't help us predict anything with any greater accuracy. Further on in that section it talks about the dubious methodology used to come up with the number in the first place. Like I said above, it is propaganda, not science.

Well, the U.S. is the country that holds title to the largest civilian massacres in history, though I suppose if you counted up the total civilians killed, China might beat the U.S. by a bit.

In most other ways though China and some third-world countries have the U.S. beat for corruption.

@SDGundamX

It's surreal that you're arguing countries can't be ranked by how likely journalists are to be arrested for criticizing the government, or how much bribery is necessary to complete basic business tasks. Please go to China or Russia and try that out.

Measurements can be ranked, even if equalitarians prefer a world without numbers because then "nobody would have to feel bad."

Any scientist can tell you scientific metrics don't need to be perfect, they just need to allow you to predict reality. I'm fine with being able to predict reality better than others, but you're free to prioritize what you wish.

1) Countries can be ranked according to data, no doubt. However if the data in question is not easily verified and not even coherent (Which was stated in the first source you brought in) and is applied with changing methodologies to generate a ranking. I would tend to call it fishy and probably unusable.

2) Egalitarian -> Characterized by social equality and equal rights for all people. Or were you talking about another definition of egalitarians (I think there are some out there, .... )?
Feel free to elaborate why people who accept others as equal have a distaste in numbers( if you were referring to the most general definition of egalitarians).

√9) I asked 2 scientists and they told me that I should not argue with you any further because you are predicting reality better than others.

@coffeejerk

You're making a novel argument that because numbers aren't perfect, they're meaningless. You should publish your hypothesis in a journal for statisticians.

"Equalitarian" (not "egalitarian") is sometimes used in the sciences to refer to people who go to great lengths to claim that "undesirable" numbers are meaningless, because otherwise some people would feel bad.

For example, equalitarians might claim that bribery and the arrest of journalists aren't more common in some countries than others.