It's not as bad as this article says, but almost. Some roads in Douala have been fixed, some new roads have been paved. I didn't see a working telephone line, but several competing mobile phone companies are doing a good job of connecting almost everybody.

The corruption is still there. My stepmother lives in a new house without running water. My wife has paid all the fees to have water months ago, but no one from the water company ever came to do the work. Obviously,a bribe has to be paid to someone, but we don't know whom. A distant cousin claims he knows someone at the water company, but the close family doesn't know the cousin well enough to trust him. The hope that the privatisation of the water company would lead to a rooting out of corruption by its new american owners has faded long ago.

However the railroad seems to have taken steps to root out corruption by making every employee wear a uniform with his name on it, and putting posters in the train station to ask people do denounce bribery. This was a good surprise. Before that I couldn't even imagine anything that could be done to fight corruption. I don't know how well this works, but we had no trouble when taking the train.

The north of the country, which is mainly muslim, seems to be less corrupt. A christian told me he wished the president was a muslim because it would reduce corruption.

Several unconnected people also told me about something else than corruption that slows down private initiative. They speak of jealousy. Apparently when someone succeeds, many of those around him get so jealous they try to make him fail. I don't know what to make of this. I also heard a lot about sorcery.

There was a country resort down the street which I used to bike to and go swimming in their gigantic swimming pool. I was allowed to bike everywhere in the city by myself.

The food was insanely fresh having been killed and cooked hours before you ate it.

We always had water, and called home long distance pretty regularly. When my brother broke his arm, he had a local doctor in the hospital put a cast on it, and then saw it off.

I may have been too small to experience the corruption first hand, but everything seemed fine to me.

I do hope you're referring to the cast.

edit: what year?

The same applies for modern China. It is very corrupt. Greasing palms and making connections is mandatory. Property rights are still quite shaky. Yet it is growing at a stunning rate.

Bribery is not a huge obstacle to a determined entrepreneur. You just pay it like any other tax.

But it's not just bribery. It's about being in or out of favour. It's about irrationality and lack of transparency.

If you know that the current telecoms company has the brother-in-law of the president on the board, do you think that paying some bribes will be sufficient to allow you to enter the market?

How about if you don't know whether that's the case, but you do know there's a reasonable chance that your startup business will be blocked for a "non business" reason like that?

All of these factors act to reduce the likelihood of return on investment and increase risk.

I imagine also that bribes also fluctuate a lot with regard to frequency and amount. That makes them hard to plan for.

What makes it different (and much more damaging) is its unpredictability.

New York in the 1900's may have been as corrupt as Cameroon today, also the development of New York at that time may be comparable as the development of Cameroon now days.

No way. I would much, much prefer to live in New York city circa 1900 than Cameroon today. Read the section of "The Land of the dollar" on New York. http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=vsxEAAAAIAAJ&...

And it's not the level of development that's the issue, it's the rate of growth. 1900's New York was getting much richer every year. The African countries are almost all either stagnant or actually getting poorer.

So if the cost imposed by corruption is small enough that the entrepreneur can still profit, well he's going to keep going.

The potential for corrupt organizations exists in all human organizations: Public and Private.

Even country of origin isn't a determining factor.

so privatization is NOT the solution for corruption.

Or...barriers to entry are high. Which is likely to be the case in an economic environment where corruption is endemic.

So corruption acts as a 'stable state' by helping reduce competitive pressure.

Bell was state sponsored and still has all the protections of it. Last year they sent out 'free' wireless router-modems, however if you didn't subscribe to the service that gave you it for free then you'd get a bill essentially saying 'pay us $200 or send back the modem, or we'll take you to court'. The multiple late payment notices requiring payment 3 days before the bill could even be paid was the last straw, our phone and internet is being switched and bell can go stick their modem up their corrupt and incompetent asses.

Rogers seems to be the only competent cellular company in Canada. This is probably because it was independently owned from the beginning and the original founder apparently kept a lot of influence until late into the game (he died like this week). They didn't hike their SMS charges (bell and telus doubled it by charging for incoming messages), however I can't speak for the quality of their other services as I have a Rogers cellphone, which is because when I came here with a T-Mobile UK phone it switched to Rogers and they seemed competent enough... I was really vindicated in my decision when the competitors hiked their prices, however mocking my wife for it wasn't a wise choice.

Your example also seems to demonstrate that state sponsorship isn't sufficient to grant a private monopoly.

Africa needs more cell phones.

I'm not sure that increasing competitive pressure would decrease corruption. I can see how it might help, but it might also hurt.

e.g. a previously minimally corrupt business owner finding it harder to compete succumbs to temptation to join in the game due to increasing competition. So I think that part of it could go either way.

The question now is "what is the solution for corruption?"

Human nature is selfish, which leads someone with power and authority to abuse it for their own personal gain. The solution lies in providing the most reward to people with the authority when they make the "ethical" decision.

*I quote "ethical" because it's never as simple as A is ethical, B is not. I use ethical as meaning not corrupt - which also needs a better definition.

In a conversation with my Iranian ex girlfriend and her mom, it was revealed that her cousin is relatively wealthy due to being a dirty cop. They just talked about it like it was no big deal, completely expected. Several Africans I've known have similarly remarked "I got my drivers license without a bribe!"

In my American family, there are no dirty cops by definition; doing crap like that will get you disowned.

Changing the government won't change the cultural attitudes, unfortunately.

Are you going to disown the guy who is doing dirty work but keeping you alive?

Corruption is not a culture, the potential for corruption is everywhere, it's in all humans. When it appears to be socially wrong, or when there is strict enforcement, then people will not be corrupt, but as soon as this changes, it comes back.

It seems almost as if corruption is the default behavior, and it has to be actively forced away, and not the other way around.

Living in an African country, there's a far more casual and accepting approach to corruption than there is in Europe and the US. Most people here, including cops, earn enough to get by as it's far from a poor country but corruption is still endemic. Dirty cops are seldom fired when caught and are not ostracised from their families and social groups. As a result, much of the police force is corrupt, to the point where when you're pulled over for a traffic violation you expect to be asked to pay a bribe. And most people, however wealthy, are more than happy to pay one in order to avoid the admin hassle of an official fine.

Oddly enough, there seems to be an attitude that corruption is your right if you've managed to get employed in certain jobs. There is no big outcry when politicians are found to have been hugely corrupt, instead the attitude amongst most of my fellow Africans who I've spoken on such occasions is that the guy was 'just taking care of himself', an action considered to be perfectly ok. The real anger usually only happens when people perceive that not enough of the public coffers is being directed their way.

So there is a cultural aspect to this, and I've come to believe that the culture of many African countries, with a tolerance for corruption, bad governance and the like, is largely responsible for the continent's poor economic condition. Humans the world over may be the same, but cultures are not. Africa will not develop until its people truly decide they want development and make the necessary cultural shifts and changes to achieve it.

The guy a few comments away on this thread was complaining about the corruption in India. Is that the culture too? When I was in China, the people would complain about the corruption in the government. Is that the culture too? Is it only the richest countries in the world that have the culture to avoid corruption?

What you're saying is this:

- Richest countries in the world like in Europe and the U.S accept corruption less

- Poorest countries in the world accept corruption more

And from that, you are drawing a causal relationship, when a correlation relationship seems to be a lot more likely.

There is no inherent African tendency towards corruption. Since you live in Africa, go to a village, or some other non-urban and traditional area, and see how much corruption there is there. You'll find that there will be almost none.

And yes, I'd argue that the same cultural flaws that make corruption acceptable in Africa are visible in Asian societies like India and China, though they are far less severe. Perhaps one could argue that they have a far more recent history of prolonged totalitarianism than the US or Western Europe; that with all the years of kings and Rajs, followed by colonialism (Mao's Communist Party in the case of China) and then socialist dictators there just has not yet been time to shift cultures enough.

And I'm frequently in rural villages and settlements, yet the same cultural bias in favour of poor governance and corruption are just as visible there. Village chiefs and the heads of important families are allowed the most outrageous excesses simply by virtue of their rank and there is little anger when money gets skimmed off the top of funds coming from the outside, even when earmarked for development. I can't quite understand it.

So yes, I do regard culture in some parts of the world as being a causal factor towards their countries' poor economic performance. I think economic success in this world requires a certain outlook on self interest, the shared good and work and that without that a country helps cause its own poverty. But I have no idea how to change it.

The same thing can happen in the United States. Louisiana has a history of corruption mostly dating back to Huey Long but present before his term as governor (I grew up in Louisiana). Most voters accept it. It is assumed in every election that all the candidates are crooks. William Jefferson, who was caught with $90,000 dollars in bribes in his freezer, will continue to be reelected partly because voters don't expect better from other politicians. Alaska is different. It is a younger state with a less entrenched culture of corruption. Ted Stevens who was far more popular than William Jefferson lost a close race due to his convictions on corruption charges.

Still, I agree that there's not much point in continuing this. We're both arguing from the perspectives obtained from personal observation, so chances are this wouldn't have gone anywhere useful in any case. But thanks for the discussion.

What else do you call it when a large proportion of a society broadly engage in and accept a practice?

I think it's fine if you don't like calling it a "cultural disposition", but you have to call it something. For some reason this practice is entrenched there (or do you disagree with even that?) and it's a major obstacle to progress in eliminating poverty. If we can't even refer to it using some terms to describe it, how can we deal with it?

I think the reason it is being so vehemently opposed (by what seems like a large minority here) should be obvious. It's fairly obvious that cultural elements are involved. The fact that people take & give bribes is a display of culture. But people from places where corruption is less rampant & the conditions for culture are less then ideal, are dismissing this as a genetic disposition or cultural equivalent of 'genetic disposition'. That's a smug sort of a conclusion to come to.

Sure there are cultures that would be more resistant to corruption. But that is probably dwarfed relatively to other factors. Certain colonial practices for example, layed foundations for corruption - especially in certain parts of Africa. There is no reason to assume that Americans would be more resistant to corruption simply because it is now a functioning country.

Corruption at the local level? Make it a state case. Corruption at the state level? Make it a federal case. Corruption at the federal level?

this is where it gets tricky. Ideally another "branch" of government is supposed to serve as a check or balance against the others, this is not always the case.

obligatory link...

http://xkcd.com/386/

But I do think there are cultures which tolerate more corruption than others. For instance, Italy, despite being a wealthy European country, tolerates much more than, say, Belgium. My Sicilian friends have indicated that this is because the government in Sicily, for instance, was long seen as not having a public mandate and constantly shifting allegiances while the mafia was a constant, much more predictable entity: "cosa nostra".

I would venture that corruption as such is as much a function of the view of the government as legitimate over a period of multiple generations as economic conditions. And Africa's modern history of imperial and home grown despots hasn't done well to legitimize the rule of law.

Says who? You can read 200 year old travel diaries and the cultural observations are usually still right on. Culture runs deep.

Great point. It is also true, as you noted, it is hard to do this in harder times, where people do become more self-centric and would not have time to bother about broader implications or society at large. That is the vicious cycle that has got set up in many poor economies.

edit: A short commercial http://in.youtube.com/watch?v=FAe_bZGqU1g To get this mobilization going is very hard.

America has been in a depression before. It has also had recessions, and it wasn't even rich until the twentieth century.

And yet, we still hate corruption.

At the risk of posting something not very Hacker-News friendly, I think the natural thing to credit is widespread Christianity in America. Whether or not you like the whole package, the impact of a huge proportion of the population believing that even if you can entirely get away with it in Earthly terms that there are still consequences for corruption probably can't be understated.

In fact, I suspect that your are more right now about how the culture would change under duress than you would have been fifty years ago, and you will continue to be more right over time. Even if you don't like Christianity, it's hard to deny that there are worse dominant religions or worldviews to live under... it takes some pretty damned enlightened rationalism to resist the temptation to corruption.

It traces back to at least the Normans; the word "chivalry" itself comes to English from Norman French and means, "the combination of qualities expected of an ideal knight, esp. courage, honor, courtesy, justice, and a readiness to help the weak."

The culture of America is borne in significant part of the culture of England. And the culture of England is borne in significant part of the culture of the Normans. And while all of those cultures are hugely different there is still this thread of courage, justice and honor that runs through them all.

I don't know if this cultural legacy explains the lower rate of corruption found in America relative to other countries (a low rate even when America was a poor country).

It could be interesting to identify other cultures that have deep concepts of honor/chivalry and see how the governments derived by those cultures fare corruption-wise today.

I'm a christian so I'm inclined to believe that Christianity is the "best religion", but I have no doubt that a devout Muslim or principled atheist nation will resist corruption far better than a halfassed Christian nation.

What matters is if people are willing to stand up for these morals and principles, and how much force it takes to break them. A group of people with strong moral fiber will obviously resist corruption better than a group of people without.

As a Chinese-Canadian immigrant, I've witnessed this first-hand. Where I grew up as a kid population density was extreme (all the people of Canada on a single little island), opportunities were consequently much harder to come by. It was entirely culturally accepted to sneak a little here and there to get an edge on your competition - such were the things you had to resort to if you wanted a crack at getting out of poverty and making a good life for yourself. If you cheated on a test and got caught, your friends would lament you getting caught instead of you cheating in the first place.

Compare with Canada, where cheaters are absolutely not tolerated. In my first semester at college, a group member I worked with slacked off, and even decided to copy some other members' work verbatim. We turned on her immediately and came together to get her kicked out of school. This would never have happened where I came from in Asia.

Nope, I don't think its religion...

Sources:

http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781359.html

Common sense as in "don't kill other people at random, even if they are dorks". I think Christianity really pushed things like that through during say 12th to 17th century.

Exactly the same is true of the British and Dutch colonial/trading empires.

As an American, I believe our politicians and major businesses are corrupt, but in order to function I turn a blind eye and give them the benefit of the doubt and hope that someone is watching over them. If I was Russian, I'd get some cash and go buy me some favors. Which one is right? I can't say.

South America and Sub Saharan Africa (mentioned by another poster), seem to serve as viable counter-examples, though.

The critical point may be above what sub-Saharan Africa has, or it may be poorly distributed. The people in power have to reject corruption too; 90% of the country may be anti-corruption (for whatever reason), but if the entire ruling class is in the other 10%, you'll still have corruption.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Orthodox_Church

By "they were" you are implying the people of Russia. While some in government heavily persecuted the Church, a lot of people obviously still wanted to keep going or else after the first such purge it would have been over. People went despite the best efforts of the Communists to dissuade them.

That is exactly the case. America would not have succeeded economically without certain traits, relative immunity to corruption being one of them.

In game theory a player may have two strategies - to 'cooperate' or to 'defect' (law-abiding behaviour vs corruption). It has been demonstrated that in absence of punishment the defection (corruption) may be the best strategy for an individual, even though it may be harmful for the society as a whole.

Americans have developed a virtuous cycle where certainty of punishment (the society and the legal system there as a whole are relatively not corrupt) stimulates intolerance towards corruption among individuals. Remaining non-corrupt and rooting out corruption is profitable in the USA. But in an already corrupt society it may impossible for the individual to remain honest.

Incidentally, her family was middle class by US standards. She got her first computer 2 years after I did.

The point I'm making is that I don't think you can just change the government, you really need to make corruption a source of shame.

I don't think evidence supports this claim. The 30s saw some of the lowest crime rates in America ever. In 1800 median living standards were pretty close to the same all over the world but criminality varied a lot.

Criminality and corruption are driven by culture, and possible genetics.

A test for culture/genetics might be found in immigrants. Particularly those that do not immigrate to big expat communities. Even those might be interesting to look at. I think you'll find that people bend quite a distance to what their environment is. I dare say American expats participate in corrupt practices.

My own take on this is that corruption can hit a point where it is the system of government. It's not that dirty cops are cops that started taking bribes & then got used to it. They take the job in the first place in order to accept bribes. If you take away corruption, you take away the police.

Same goes for many other elements.

>> Changing the government won't change the cultural attitudes, unfortunately.

But there got to be some way out.

I posted this today after going through a terrible experience. I told many of my friends that I give up, and I don't want to waste my life in this corrupted, broken system.

I can pledge that I am fair, loyal, committed and hard working. So is everyone in my family and most folks I move around with. We have worked ourselves up economically without compromising on values. That is our end of it, but at times there is no survival unless you bribe the system. They CAN make life hell for you.

So the system changes the culture gradually and that in turns reinforces the broken system to be more broken.

I am sitting here today with lost hopes of any change. This needs a revolution of sort, strongly opinionated citizens and a mass mobilization on the issues. I don't even know what I can initiate as an individual. I won't even be heard.

Why don't you start a group? An NGO (Non-Government Organization a.k.a non-profit organization) with one simple goal. Then you are not facing that one simple goal as an individual but as a group, which gives you as an individual a lot of insulation.

And you work with computers? Do you have a post highschool education?

My latest status msg on IM was "opt brain drain than have brain in drain". That is how bad it gets here.

Here's John F. Kennedy for you: In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility—I welcome it. I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation.

ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.

Here is the video of that speech: http://youtube.com/watch?v=VB6hLg3PRbY

Your education, your earnings, your access to resources, put you under the "privileged few" in India. What are you doing to improve the situation?

The world that we live in today was not built in a day; nor did it come without sacrifices from devoted people:

Galileo was house arrested for supporting heliocentrism. In my childhood, when I was reading stories of scientists, I read about countless number of those great people harassed/killed by church or other forces. I used to get outraged at those atrocities. It took generations to establish the concepts of freedom of expression and science.

It took a civil war to end slavery. It took Civil Rights movement and Luther King, to make progress on racial-non-discrimination. 45 years later, Obama has declared "change has to America".

No, doubt you are facing great challenges. Progress is not made by complaining about problems. Progress is made by raising upto the challenge and marching towards solutions.

Are you upto it?

On nagging about India, I have felt it myself esp with one controversial debate that happened over Chandrayaan post. I do have good words but it has just so happened that there is more to whine about day-to-day feeling helpless (just how u explained in a comment above) than feel good or hopeful.

I chose to start a venture in India instead of moving to the US or Europe like my many friends did in the name of higher education, then job.

I do whatever good I can do for the country within my capabilities - helping people at individual levels to rise up. As you might have noted I do get highly opinionated and get into lot of trouble even government officials. So I see myself probably not smart enough with getting things across in a nice way, hence incapable of bringing a change at large.

Yes, we need a revolution. If it does happen and in a righteous way you would know I would be part of it. (Note there have been many attempts). But would I be the one who starts it probably not.

Do you write about your thoughts on the problems, possible solutions and your own experiences? (the blog mentioned in your profile seems to talk about your work-related stuff)

The reason that some societies seem to accept corruption is not because of their culture; It's because of social behavior resulting from "learned helplessness" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_helplessness).

Most of the governments in third world countries are designed to facilitate corruption, so that the elite few controlling the government can benefit.

After spending decades under corrupt regimes, people get used to it.

The basics: Corruption and lack of property rights lead to poverty.

Then I asked the class, who here supports child labor laws? Most people raised there hands. Then I said your all wrong. I ran an extra legal business in the US. It was extra legal because I was 14, mowing lawns, had I followed the rule of law I would have been deprived of business operating opportunity.

I like your term "extra legal." You may be right - that to truly comply with the law (ie., pay taxes, register as a business, and so forth), it's functionally impossible for a 14 year old to mow lawns for cash.

I completely disagree with your take on child labor laws. I can support the laws that banned using children to climb into hard to reach areas in coal mines without supporting onerous restrictions on mowing lawns.

Certainly.

> this is just handled by gov't looking the other way.

Also true.

> I can support the laws that banned using children to climb into hard to reach areas in coal mines without supporting onerous restrictions on mowing lawns.

But the question is, do you support blanket bans on child labor? You clearly support workplace safety legislation, but that's completely irrelevant here. The question is about bans on child labor.

In specific cases children as young as 2 can work think TV / movies. The limit on child labor has to do with the numbers of hours worked and the type of work being done. And this depends on state and local laws.

If you read up on child labor it's surprisingly flexible and is primary designed to promote children going to school, limit the numbers of hours worked, and avoid dangerous situations.

PS: http://www.stopchildlabor.org/USchildlabor/fact1.htm A few highlights at the federal level:

There are 17 Hazardous Orders pertaining to all industries (other than agriculture) that forbid children under age 18 from doing any of the following jobs.

9. Mining, other than coal mining.

So you can still mine coal.

Minimum Age for Non-hazardous Work

A child of age 10 or 11 may work as a hand-harvest laborer for no more than 8 weeks in a year. For older children "In agriculture, the only restriction on hours of employment is that children cannot work during school hours."

"There are no work hours limitations for 16- and 17-year-olds." 14 year olds "cannot work more than 3 hours on a school day or more than 18 hours in a school week, or more than 8 hours on a non-school day or more than 40 hours in a non-school week."

So depending on how dangerous your mowing business was and how many hours a week your worked there was probably nothing wrong. You would have also needed to be making over minimum wage but this is reduced to 4.25 "for your first 90 consecutive calendar days of employment with an employer."

As always, there are unintended consequences. A great article in the Mercury News called "paid by the piece" demonstrates how sub-contracting circuit board assembly clearly has led to a circumvention of child labor laws. And of course, much of our dirty industry is now handled by children overseas. For instance, small children spend as much as a day sorting through junkyards in Cambodia in order to afford just enough food to stay malnourished. The alternative, of course, is starvation.

Do you seriously believe that if child labor laws were abolished, children would return to the coal mines?

Please don't erect strawmen in your arguments.

Incidentally, if families truly needed their children's paychecks, wouldn't child labor laws merely consign them to starvation?

In reality, child labor laws merely mitigate a small problem: depraved parents forcing their children to work for personal gain. (This is small in the sense that not too many such parents exist.) But unless paddy_m's parents fall into this category, child labor laws are irrelevant to him.

My parents never told me to go out and mow lawns. I wanted to. It was the best thing I did for myself in my junior high and highschool years.

Rigidly enforcing the laws would also kill off some end cases that clearly do more good then harm. Lawn mowing 14 yr olds, paid household chores, working for parents at family businesses, etc. So the laws are enforced more loosely.

I spent as much time mowing lawns as most of my classmates spent playing sports. That isn't outlawed. I still went to school

Sandall makes the case that private property rights are the "deep ditch" that separate civilization from tribes.

I'd add "contract law" to that, as private property rests on being able to move, trade, buy, and sell that property in a safe manner.

When was this written? I do not think that China, Korea, Taiwan, India, Japan can be considered part of "the West," and they are certainly employing capitalism to great advantage.

In the book he focuses in the third world and countries just out of communism. It is a very interesting work worth reading.

Anyone ever work on building a library that leaks? I bet most who've been in IT for 5 years + have, and you knew it, even railed against it privately if not vocally. Granted the direct negative effect it had on others may not have been as dire as the example in this article, but I find it very similar in principle. I've see millions of dollars wasted on bad services and products, while everyone implementing, selling, and promoting them knows it.

It's ignored though, because they are hoping to spin it or sell it regardless (and often do), or they feel they don't have enough influence to make a difference. How many school books could be bought for these wastes?

I see a lot of comments about culture and corruption. I think it has far less to do with culture than it does with species. I like simple answers though.

Is that about right?

The world bank is not a development fund, they lend money, they don't give it. And countries like Cameron have a GDP of 40 billion USD a year, external money is totally irrelevant to its survival. Most of these countries don't need external money for the government to stay in power, they just take it because it's free.

And, no, I don't think Cameroon is financed by the World Bank. I just wrote that poorly. I was interested in understanding whether the natural incentive to build an economy to increase the scale of possible graft (not my theory, from the article) could be killed by getting outside funding that, perversely, wouldn't result in a more successful economy if it were being hoarded. Perhaps that just doesn't happen.

This would not happen if the cost of putting a bad driver on the road was so high that the society would fight to prevent it. That would be the case if the legal costs, repair costs and above all medical costs of an accident were enormous. Like it is in the US.

But no, in India the government will bail you out if you get in a road accident. They do that by providing free healthcare, maintaining low fines, leaving glaring legal loopholes for your convenience and in most cases keeping motor mechanics in a low income tax exempt category, so you can fix your vehicle for dirt-cheap.

Hence you don’t care if a terrible driver is permitted to drive. Neither does society at large.

Strong economies are driven by the duality of strong incentives and costly penalties. Weak ones are undone by cultural and economical ecosystems built solely for saving each other’s ass.

That's weird, because a bad driver can still kill people. You'd think they'd like to avoid that.

This is because of the centralized governments that France instituted in its African colonies. Before a road is contructed/repaired, you must first get authorization from central command (Yaounde)

In an environment where bribes are common place, this opens the door for more corrupt behavior.

Personally I found it interesting when a game I play went through a large deflationary period when the game developers cut down the currency in circulation by aggressively banning exploiters and bots. It gave me a feel for what the economic commentators are talking about now with the possibility of impending deflation in the US.