What is it about Anglo-Saxon countries?

Why do we have such a compliant attitude towards our politicians and
their corporate friends? I'm saying Anglo-Saxon and thinking in
particular the U.S., Britain, and Australia. For some reason, the
Europeans are more aware of the shenanigans pollies get up to, and
make sure there are plenty of checks to their worst excesses, but
these three countries leave me frustrated and despairing. I'm
putting up this link to an article in common dreams, because I see
the same thing happening here in Australia - John Howard is playing
footside with Rupert Murdoch every bit as much as Blair, and would
love to see the ABC reduced to a shell, or forced to accept
advertising. We who loosely call ourselves progressives know that we
are facing an ever-worsening uphill battle to see any point of view
other than that of the right-wing presented to the majority of people
who will vote for our leaders, and those we look towards to lead us
in the political forum are marginalised, trivialized and often
demonized by the so-called free press. Look at what is happening in
the current run-up to the 2004 Presidential elections - only a few
Democrat candidates get a mention in the press, the rest might as
well not exist as far as mainstream media is concerned. And once the
Democratic candidate has been chosen - guess who will get the lion's
share of media exposure?

I'm not just concerned about the future of true democracy - I'm
frightened. Frightened by the power of people like the appalling
Murdoch - power given to him by politicians without the wit to see
how they as well as us can be used and manipulated - and really
seriously frightened by the fact that the vast majority of people in
these "coalition of the willing" countries (no coincidence there)
are not even aware that they might as well be the walking dead for
all they know of what is actually happening around them.

I was going to post this in the Media Forum, but I would really love
to see a wider discussion on this. Because we are running the risk
of becoming society's outcasts, without a voice and without
representation. "Take Back the Media" is a great slogan, but how?
Just what can we do? I say "we" deliberately, because there can be
no doubt that the evil Murdoch and his like-minded cronies are
thinking globally, and it seems to me we all need to think globally
too.

Here's the link I would love you all to read:http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1023-02.htm

Rank Country CPI 2002 Surveys Standard High-low range
score used deviation

1 Finland 9.7 8 0.4 8.9 - 10.0
2 Denmark 9.5 8 0.3 8.9 - 9.9
New Zealand 9.5 8 0.2 8.9 - 9.6
4 Iceland 9.4 6 0.4 8.8 - 10.0
5 Singapore 9.3 13 0.2 8.9 - 9.6
Sweden 9.3 10 0.2 8.9 - 9.6
7 Canada 9.0 10 0.2 8.7 - 9.3
Luxembourg 9.0 5 0.5 8.5 - 9.9
Netherlands 9.0 9 0.3 8.5 - 9.3
10 United Kingdom 8.7 11 0.5 7.8 - 9.4
11 Australia 8.6 11 1.0 6.1 - 9.3
12 Norway 8.5 8 0.9 6.9 - 9.3
Switzerland 8.5 9 0.9 6.8 - 9.4
14 Hong Kong 8.2 11 0.8 6.6 - 9.4
15 Austria 7.8 8 0.5 7.2 - 8.7
16 USA 7.7 12 0.8 5.5 - 8.7
17 Chile 7.5 10 0.9 5.6 - 8.8
18 Germany 7.3 10 1.0 5.0 - 8.1
Israel 7.3 9 0.9 5.2 - 8.0
20 Belgium 7.1 8 0.9 5.5 - 8.7
Japan 7.1 12 0.9 5.5 - 7.9
Spain 7.1 10 1.0 5.2 - 8.9
23 Ireland 6.9 8 0.9 5.5 - 8.1
24 Botswana 6.4 5 1.5 5.3 - 8.9
25 France 6.3 10 0.9 4.8 - 7.8
Portugal 6.3 9 1.0 5.5 - 8.0
27 Slovenia 6.0 9 1.4 4.7 - 8.9
28 Namibia 5.7 5 2.2 3.6 - 8.9
29 Estonia 5.6 8 0.6 5.2 - 6.6
Taiwan 5.6 12 0.8 3.9 - 6.6
31 Italy 5.2 11 1.1 3.4 - 7.2
32 Uruguay 5.1 5 0.7 4.2 - 6.1
33 Hungary 4.9 11 0.5 4.0 - 5.6
Malaysia 4.9 11 0.6 3.6 - 5.7
Trinidad & Tobago 4.9 4 3.6 - 6.9
36 Belarus 4.8 3 1.3 3.3 - 5.8
Lithuania 4.8 7 1.9 3.4 - 7.6
South Africa 4.8 11 0.5 3.9 - 5.5
Tunisia 4.8 5 0.8 3.6 - 5.6
40 Costa Rica 4.5 6 0.9 3.6 - 5.9
Jordan 4.5 5 0.7 3.6 - 5.2
Mauritius 4.5 6 0.8 3.5 - 5.5
South Korea 4.5 12 1.3 2.1 - 7.1
44 Greece 4.2 8 0.7 3.7 - 5.5
45 Brazil 4.0 10 0.4 3.4 - 4.8
Bulgaria 4.0 7 0.9 3.3 - 5.7
Jamaica 4.0 3 0.4 3.6 - 4.3
Peru 4.0 7 0.6 3.2 - 5.0
Poland 4.0 11 1.1 2.6 - 5.5
50 Ghana 3.9 4 1.4 2.7 - 5.9
51 Croatia 3.8 4 0.2 3.6 - 4.0
52 Czech Republic 3.7 10 0.8 2.6 - 5.5
Latvia 3.7 4 0.2 3.5 - 3.9
Morocco 3.7 4 1.8 1.7 - 5.5
Slovak Republic 3.7 8 0.6 3.0 - 4.6
Sri Lanka 3.7 4 0.4 3.3 - 4.3
57 Colombia 3.6 10 0.7 2.6 - 4.6
Mexico 3.6 10 0.6 2.5 - 4.9
59 China 3.5 11 1.0 2.0 - 5.6
Dominican Rep. 3.5 4 0.4 3.0 - 3.9
Ethiopia 3.5 3 0.5 3.0 - 4.0
62 Egypt 3.4 7 1.3 1.7 - 5.3
El Salvador 3.4 6 0.8 2.0 - 4.2
64 Thailand 3.2 11 0.7 1.5 - 4.1
Turkey 3.2 10 0.9 1.9 - 4.6
66 Senegal 3.1 4 1.7 1.7 - 5.5
67 Panama 3.0 5 0.8 1.7 - 3.6
68 Malawi 2.9 4 0.9 2.0 - 4.0
Uzbekistan 2.9 4 1.0 2.0 - 4.1
70 Argentina 2.8 10 0.6 1.7 - 3.8
71 Cote d’Ivoire 2.7 4 0.8 2.0 - 3.4
Honduras 2.7 5 0.6 2.0 - 3.4
India 2.7 12 0.4 2.4 - 3.6
Russia 2.7 12 1.0 1.5 - 5.0
Tanzania 2.7 4 0.7 2.0 - 3.4
Zimbabwe 2.7 6 0.5 2.0 - 3.3
77 Pakistan 2.6 3 1.2 1.7 - 4.0
Philippines 2.6 11 0.6 1.7 - 3.6
Romania 2.6 7 0.8 1.7 - 3.6
Zambia 2.6 4 0.5 2.0 - 3.2
81 Albania 2.5 3 0.8 1.7 - 3.3
Guatemala 2.5 6 0.6 1.7 - 3.5
Nicaragua 2.5 5 0.7 1.7 - 3.4
Venezuela 2.5 10 0.5 1.5 - 3.2
85 Georgia 2.4 3 0.7 1.7 - 2.9
Ukraine 2.4 6 0.7 1.7 - 3.8
Vietnam 2.4 7 0.8 1.5 - 3.6
88 Kazakhstan 2.3 4 1.1 1.7 - 3.9
89 Bolivia 2.2 6 0.4 1.7 - 2.9
Cameroon 2.2 4 0.7 1.7 - 3.2
Ecuador 2.2 7 0.3 1.7 - 2.6
Haiti 2.2 3 1.7 0.8 - 4.0
93 Moldova 2.1 4 0.6 1.7 - 3.0
Uganda 2.1 4 0.3 1.9 - 2.6
95 Azerbaijan 2.0 4 0.3 1.7 - 2.4
96 Indonesia 1.9 12 0.6 0.8 - 3.0
Kenya 1.9 5 0.3 1.7 - 2.5
98 Angola 1.7 3 0.2 1.6 - 2.0
Madagascar 1.7 3 0.7 1.3 - 2.5
Paraguay 1.7 3 0.2 1.5 - 2.0
101 Nigeria 1.6 6 0.6 0.9 - 2.5
102 Bangladesh 1.2 5 0.7 0.3 - 2.0


http://www.transparency.org/pressreleases_archive/2002/2002.08.28.cpi.en.html


"A more detailed description of the CPI 2002 methodology is available at http://www.transparency.org/cpi/index.html#cpi or at www.gwdg.de/~uwvw/2002.html

"A CPI 2002 Score
relates to perceptions of the degree of corruption as seen by business people, academics and risk analysts, and ranges between 10 (highly clean) and 0 (highly corrupt).

"A Surveys Used
refers to the number of surveys that assessed a country's performance. A total of 15 surveys were used from nine independent institutions, and at least three surveys were required fo r a country to be included in the CPI.

and clearly the facts dont count with you in any discussions that counter your hypothesis.

where you get that these countries are corrupt because you allege that they exploit other countries is bizarre.

the facts of the world are that no one wants to open up a business where there is widespread corruption.

if you want to tie in the level of corruption with the paucity of stable economic factors go ahead, but first world exploitation being the a prioori and mitigating circumstance for local corruption is not documented. in fact, there are too many instances where such local corruption is the mitigating circumstance that prevents first world business from operating in these corrupt places because the businesses can not count on stability.

BTW you had better check on which nations are a part of the WTO, because most on the list i posted are.

the indicators refer to general societal corruption and clearly the facts dont count with you in any discussions that counter your hypothesis.

Oh' my, you probably need to back the truck up and calm down. This isn't about me, or you, this is about the topic of the thread. Clearly you're attempting to dismiss my assertions with a flaccid insult. Focus on what's written here and don't make assumptions about any "hypothesis" of mine not in this thread.

where you get that these countries are corrupt because you allege that they exploit other countries is bizarre.

Bizarre? No, not in the least. A government is corrupt when it intentionally exploits another country's citizens, or any group within the country itself. Though the people the government is comprised of, and is supposed to serve, choose not to acknowledge that the actions taken on their behalf are immoral doesn't negate the immorality. Exploitative laws are neither less immoral because they're laws, nor are they less deterimental to ones the action was/is against. Immorality is corruption, even if the people fail to admit it until years after the fact.

the facts of the world are that no one wants to open up a business where there is widespread corruption.

That's irrelevant.

if you want to tie in the level of corruption with the paucity of stable economic factors go ahead, but first world exploitation being the a prioori and mitigating circumstance for local corruption is not documented. in fact, there are too many instances where such local corruption is the mitigating circumstance that prevents first world business from operating in these corrupt places because the businesses can not count on stability.

Actually, the scarcity of stable economic factors attracts first world exploiters, who are also members of the WTO/IMF/WB, like shit attracts flies.

BTW you had better check on which nations are a part of the WTO, because most on the list i posted are.

No, there's nothing I better do. However, there is something you could do: take a moment and re-read the sentence to which you're referring. There's an "and" in it for a reason.

A nation that is a member of the WTO isn't necessarily "thriving on the exploitation" of other countries, via high interest loans and privatization of resources (read: allowing first world nations' businesses to monopolize any given industry in that country). Nations that are can be found mainly in the top 20 of the list you provided.

The WTO contains approximately 146 member nations, and the IMF has approximately 184. There are $107 billion in loans to only 56 countries. The loan conditions force a top-down economic pattern on those countries and its average citizens become even more powerless and impoverished.

Dam Construction funded by IMF/WB (World Bank, an integral component of the IMF)

"The WCD (World Commission on Dams) states that in general the people effected by the dam projects have not been taken into account in the decision making process. "Once a proposed dam project passed preliminary technical and economic feasibility tests and attracted interest from government or external financing agencies and political interests, the momentum behind the project often prevailed over further assessments." ...projects indebted the communities and enriched the corrupt."

Privatization of water

"In general, it is African countries, and the smallest, poorest and most debt-ridden countries that are being subjected to IMF conditions on water privatization and full cost recovery.

Ironically, ...majority of these loans were negotiated under the IMF's new Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility (PRGF), a reform announced with great fanfare in 1999 when IMF officials claimed that the new loan facility would re-focus the IMF's controversial structural adjustment measures on activities that borrowing government's would identify as leading to poverty reduction. Rather than contributing to poverty reduction, water privatization and greater cost recovery make water less accessible and less affordable to the low income communities that make up the majority of the population in developing countries."

Cry for Argentina

"As the IMF's model student throughout the 1990s, the country flung open its economy (that's why it's been so easy for capital to flee since the crisis began). As far as Argentina's supposedly wild public spending goes, a full third goes directly to servicing the external debt. Another third goes to pension funds, which have already been privatized. The remaining third alone covers health, education and social assistance.

Librarians, teachers and other public sector workers, ...won't get paid at all if the provinces agree to IMF demands .... And if deeper cuts are made to the public sector, as the IMF also is insisting, unemployed workers who account for between 20 and 30 per cent of the population, will have even less protection from the homelessness and hunger that has led tens of thousands to storm supermarkets demanding food.

Argentina, ...miserably failed by its IMF professors..."

various types of corruption, but it seems that at the very least,
the focus of this study is very narrow. If we're talking about
overt bribery of officials, etc., we would expect to see it in
those countries ranking below ours, where many are forced to extort
money in order to survive. I'm talking of the suppression or skewing
of information to the public, and the trade-offs between politicians
and corporations, in particular media proprietors. As Dame Anita's
article points out, one favour deserves another - Murdoch helps
Blair into power, and now comes the payback. If that's not a form
of bribery, what is it?

A good example is Singapore, ranking 5th in your table - sure, there
is a country that has little overt crime - it's clean, it's tidy,
and safe to walk around in. But there is no political opposition
worthy of the name, and if some people land in jail on a trumped-up
charge, well - the streets are clean, aren't they? Just don't mess
with the Lee family.

you might as well use the 2003 CPI:
http://www.transparency.org/pressreleases_archive/2003/dnld/cpi2003.pressrelease.en.pdf
:hi:
1 Finland 9.7 8 0.3 9.2 - 10.0
2 Iceland 9.6 7 0.3 9.2 - 10.0

4Denmark 9.5 9 0.4 8.8 - 9.9
New Zealand 9.5 8 0.2 9.2 - 9.6
5 Singapore 9.4 12 0.1 9.2 - 9.5
6 Sweden 9.3 11 0.2 8.8 - 9.6
7 Netherlands 8.9 9 0.3 8.5 - 9.3
8 Australia 8.8 12 0.9 6.7 - 9.5
Norway 8.8 8 0.5 8.0 - 9.3
Switzerland 8.8 9 0.8 6.9 - 9.4

11 Canada 8.7 12 0.9 6.5 - 9.4
Luxembourg 8.7 6 0.4 8.0 - 9.2
United Kingdom 8.7 13 0.5 7.8 - 9.2

14 Austria 8.0 9 0.7 7.3 - 9.3
Hong Kong 8.0 11 1.1 5.6 - 9.3

16 Germany 7.7 11 1.2 4.9 - 9.2
17 Belgium 7.6 9 0.9 6.6 - 9.2
18 Ireland 7.5 9 0.7 6.5 - 8.8
USA 7.5 13 1.2 4.9 - 9.2

20 Chile 7.4 12 0.9 5.6 - 8.8

Coincidentally the nations where Media barons wield most power have pretty much, a 'two party' political structure. Unsurprisingly both parties are beholden to those same media barons for their support.

Most European nation's political structure allows minor parties and independents to participate in loose knit coalition government. The result is a broad spectrum of opinion in Government.....and reduced influence on Government by major media outlets.

As media ownership as contracted, clever proprietors have obviously
seen how they can manipulate the political system to their own
advantage. In Australia, the upper house, the Senate, is where you
have "first past the post" rules, and that's where you see how the
people really want to cast their votes. They have a fine tradition
of voting in enough small party candidates to ensure that they often
hold the balance of power, as is currently the case.

It would wonderful to break the two-party system, but only a huge
groundswell of public opinion could achieve that, and it will not
likely happen, because the media wouldn't allow it to. So we come
back to the original problem.

Well, I as I see it, all of the countries you mention are all colonized and until the 1940s really didn't have a parting of the ways. (I would add Canada to your list- I lived in Ontario for a time and the Conservatives under Mike Harris seemed to outdo Gingrich and the like.) Britain itself was also economically reorganized greatly during its Empire times and created those remarkably rigid class lines.

All of the countries you mention are re-nativizing culturally and socially and politically in very strong ways. By re-nativizing I don't mean that the aboriginal inhabitants proper are making a comeback, rather, that a kind of substitute has arrived and is breaking down the local racial conventions of White and Other that are the primary political order. In the U.S. it's people from Latin American or Latin American descent. In Australia, Asians.

So with this perceived primary ordering of society heading toward a predictable breakdown the reactionaries and conservatives start running amok. The power that the lower classes had accumulated then goes into breakdown- they stop behaving with any unity or sense- and the power falls into the elites' laps. Those of the elites who are greedy are then quick to exploit it.

At least that's my impression of the phenomenon. The recent change in industrial economies has made the thing even more convulsive and difficult, to the point that I suspect that every political elite in these countries believes itself transitory- but for the fact that there is no competent alternative. So the trick to staying in power these days is probably seen to lie not in appeasing the common people but in ruining the challengers.

It's an ugly time, and the alliance between media conglomerates and politicians is sort of obvious. I don't think democracy is going to vanish so much as continue to be hijacked by fools and clever people without moral grounding to do things that are disgusting and beside the point. The sort of hysterical desperation of the Right that we are seeing all around is really a sense of being the Last Generation of something. If they are going to lose power and vanish into historical ignominy, they figure that they'll at least get together and hold up the rest of us for a ransom as long as they can.

So I think we do as we have always done: the best we can, somewhat invisibly, and endure. I like to think that we are almost through the worst of it in this country- the tide has begun to turn. And don't forget Churchill's verdict on democracy- it's the worst system of government except for all the others.

have much access to the media, and New Zealand because they've moved
at least to centre left, and seem to have a bit more genuine debate
than we do.

I certainly agree that the politicians for the most part only think
as far ahead as the next election, and therefore think only in the
short term, and all too often in terms of their own glory, and those
lucrative seats on company boards when they retire and get their
payback. My fear is that once Murdoch and co. have got a strangle-
hold on the media, we will never break it. No need for armies and
secret police to stifle dissent, it will just drift away while people
watch TV with their brains asleep.

It sounds like Australia doesn't do much to find public service jobs for its politician class. That seems to be what the Scandinavian countries try to do, but I guess it presuppose an actual commitment to public service.

I doubt the present set of politicians really know, anymore than we do, what things hold in more than five or ten years' time. People who do follow the real numbers- the census, things in the national economy as a whole, trends in public and private life- can sort of figure it out.

But on the whole, in 10 years we will still have ~80% of the same people voting and consuming and working and such as today. How much wiser, if at all, they will be is always a good one to ponder.

Canada has Conrad Black and is economically lashed to the U.S. It's sort of like living in Switzerland- it feels like a small society, far more things are petty than need to be, but is very spread out psychologically and spatially.

I've wondered for 15 years whether I would like Sydney or Perth. Perth always seemed that romantic distant place in which things might just be better....

Will always vote for the government that looks like it'll do the least damage. Then we throw them out after a few years because "it's the other guys turn".

Will always vote for the government that looks like it'll do the least damage. Then we throw them out after a few years because "it's the other guys turn".

the Conquere came over from Normandy, kicked Harold's ass and brought his Norman pals with him. That was pretty much the end of "Anglo Saxon" countries. haha. I do know what you mean though...just "Anglo" would do.

Three words for ya; fear, greed and hatred. Any order. That's what happened.

Julie

With their country's largest broadcasting baron voted in as Prime Minister, and critics sacked from the public broadcaster, he probably controls the media better than any other leader of a democracy.

but there are so many other contributing factors there, like the
truly endemic corruption right through politics and the judiciary -
where do we begin? I think Italy probably stands alone amongst
Western democracies.

Now THAT is a real cesspool! While in Europe this past summer, I would pick up any English language paper I could find. Some of the stories about Berlusconi in there were UNBELIEVABLE. But Italians probably don't hear much about it, because he controls something like 90% of the media in the country.

Recenly, I heard that he denounced the Italian judiciary as a bunch of "degenerates", or something like it. Of course, this was immediately after one of his closest friends was just sentenced to something like 14 years in prison on massive fraud and corruption charges. :eyes:

Italian politics make Anglo-Saxon politics look like a utopia.

the bushgang has worked for decades to get their people in place so as to rule the world. it's not just anglos. they also own Kuwait, as an example.