Gyroscopic Investing

[quote=http://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/11/ ... -integrity]How does each state rank for transparency and accountability? The State Integrity Investigation used extensive research to grade the states based on the laws and systems they have in place to deter corruption. Use the interactive to see how states scored overall and explore how they performed in each of the 13 categories.[/quote]

I'm not sure that anti-corruption laws and processes are necessarily a good measure of integrity. Presumably, a lot of those laws and processes were put in place because of corruption problems. If your population is largely ethical, what's the motivation to put in place a bureaucratic anti-corruption system?

Yeah, "laws and systems to discourage corruption" is not the same as "not corrupt".  Only the non-corrupt pay attention to the laws and systems.

The fact that California and Illinois are highly ranked is pretty laughable.

The highest grade I saw was a "C", so nobody's actually ranked very highly at all.

I guess I was speaking more relatively.

I've lived both places, and to give California the second highest grade and Texas the second lowest seems... suspicious. 

Simonjester wrote: agree...
i suspect that

states based on the laws and systems they have in place

means that if corruption is "baked in" it doesn't add to their count..

Tyler wrote: I've lived both places, and to give California the second highest grade and Texas the second lowest seems... suspicious.

Why is that suspicious?  Ideologically, Repugnicans don't like transparency; Democrackdnuts do.  Both CA and IL are Democrackdnut bastions.

As Tortoise said, this isn't about the level of corruption.  It's about the processes (or lack of) in place to prevent and deal with it.  All states rank very poorly which is not a surprise at all.  Politicians don't FUNDAMENTALLY like anything that impedes their crony power and profits.  It is a career to them:

Do they like anti-corruption legislation?  No.
Do they like campaign-financing laws that put the power in the hands of voters instead of bureaucrats?  No.
Do they like bans or limits on lobbyist contributions?  No.
Do they like having to explain their legal decisions?  No.
Do they like funding enforcement for political integrity?  No.
Do they like not illegally taking innocent people's property via civil forfeiture?  No.
...and so on, etc.

Reub may think I'm a cop hater, but believe you me, if I ever got elected into a position of appropriate power, you would see some VERY interesting priorities when it came to law enforcement and government.  It would be so tight you couldnt get a finger in.  I like to think of the movie Tombstone as a small example of my intent (no its NOT about the guns).

I'm just gonna say it, MG. What is this thing with "Repugnicans" and "Democrackdnuts?" It makes you sound like an immature teenager.

Pointedstick wrote: I'm just gonna say it, MG. What is this thing with "Repugnicans" and "Democrackdnuts?" It makes you sound like an immature teenager.

Got tired of giving them any respect!

MachineGhost wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: I'm just gonna say it, MG. What is this thing with "Repugnicans" and "Democrackdnuts?" It makes you sound like an immature teenager.

Got tired of giving them any respect!

Can you see the irony in your statement?

... M

Mountaineer wrote: Can you see the irony in your statement?

No, I do not.  I'm not an ideologue so my actions aren't all construed for some nebulous groupthink.  Perhaps you can explain the irony you saw?

MachineGhost wrote:

Mountaineer wrote: Can you see the irony in your statement?

No, I do not.  I'm not an ideologue so my actions aren't all construed for some nebulous groupthink.

Let me (hopefully) clarify.  Do you wish to be respected in this forum of highly intelligent people with diverse makeup?  If so, consider how you could best communicate your thoughts and ideas, and consider the communication styles that might turn off some or all of those highly intelligent people - before you post with seemingly emotional based labeling. 

... M

MachineGhost wrote:

Mountaineer wrote: Can you see the irony in your statement?

No, I do not.  I'm not an ideologue so my actions aren't all construed for some nebulous groupthink.  Perhaps you can explain the irony you saw?

Irony: It was pointed out that your word choice made you sound like an immature teenager, and your response was basically "nanny nanny boo boo".

Mountaineer wrote: Let me (hopefully) clarify.  Do you wish to be respected in this forum of highly intelligent people with diverse makeup?  If so, consider how you could best communicate your thoughts and ideas, and consider the communication styles that might turn off some or all of those highly intelligent people - before you post with seemingly emotional based labeling. 

Oh, that.   I'm here for entertainment purposes, both for myself and others, so of course I'm hyperbolic on purpose.  I'm not everyone's cup of tea, but the meek need not apply.

Seriously, sometimes I swear you all take what I say waaay too seriously.  It's half in jest, half the time!  No one wants to listen to a boring policy wonk without the use of colorful language and humor.  Turn on C-SPAN if you want that.

Xan wrote: Irony: It was pointed out that your word choice made you sound like an immature teenager, and your response was basically "nanny nanny boo boo".

And that was fun, right? 

No matter, I respect PS enough to kowtow to his wishes.

Actually, I don't think there's anyone I don't ultimately respect here (except maybe that fucking LC475 -- now there's an asshole if I ever saw one! And then there's KShartle and then, oh I digress...), even those I overwhelmingly disagree with.  We're all a unique and weird bunch here. 

MachineGhost wrote:

Xan wrote: Irony: It was pointed out that your word choice made you sound like an immature teenager, and your response was basically "nanny nanny boo boo".

And that was fun, right? 

No matter, I respect PS enough to kowtow to his wishes.

Actually, I don't think there's anyone I don't ultimately respect here (except maybe that fucking LC475 -- now there's an asshole if I ever saw one! And then there's KShartle and then, oh I digress...), even those I overwhelmingly disagree with.  We're all a unique and weird bunch here. 

Got you.  Now, which half is which?  I'm here to learn and "supplement" my already awesome knowledge and humility. 

... M

MachineGhost wrote: It's half in jest, half the time!

So you're 25% of the time in jest, and 75% of the time serious? How well do these percentages do when backtesting back to your birth? 

Mountaineer wrote: Got you.  Now, which half is which?  I'm here to learn and "supplement" my already awesome knowledge and humility. 

That's for me to know and you to find out! 

Greg wrote: So you're 25% of the time in jest, and 75% of the time serious? How well do these percentages do when backtesting back to your birth? 

I'd say it various by topic.  I don't really make much jokes, if at all, when it comes to PP or finance.  Money is a serious business.

MangoMan wrote: MG, I am insulted that you defamed my favorite breed by association to any politician. 

Whoops!  My humblest, dearest apologies, MangoMan!!!