@amirm , your remark in post #22 that I have a nationalistic agenda is somewhat hard to digest. Let me quote Eric M. Uslaner, professor of government and politics at the University of Maryland, in that respect, to shed some light on where your thoughts get mixed up and confused:
"
A standard assumption people make in informal discussions about trust is that the Scandinavian countries rank highest on generalized trust (cf. Rice and Feldman 1997) because it is easy to trust other people in a homogenous society. The reasoning is, of course, that most people can be trusted if they look and think like you do. And, yes, the Scandinavian countries are more homogenous, but they are more egalitarian and especially more Protestant. And, overall, ethnic diversity does not shape trust - or, even, indirectly, economic inequality. So Scandinavian societies are so trusting because they are more equal and Protestant, not just because they are all blond with blue eyes".
Source:
https://www.researchgate.net/public...y_and_Institutions_in_Comparative_Perspective
Think about that quote for a second. Does it make sense?
In one of my first comments, I wrote that American society is and has always been corrupt. That comment was meant to provoke a bit, but let's look at the American history for an anecdote.
If we go back in time, to the 1930s, we have the story of "Business Plot" and marine corps major general Smedley Butler's heroic efforts to stop a coup d'état to overthrow Roosevelt (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot). Despite Butler's efforts, the American military has never been more mighty than it's today, yet only about seven members of Congress have children in the military. No skin in the game.
Let's go to present time for anecdotes on the current state and look at a couple of quotes of the last two presidents of the United States.
Obama talked about "fat cats". And Trump now talks about "draining the swamp". Both are alluding to corruption, aren't they?
In 2013, Jimmy Carter said - in the aftermath of the news on NSA and Snowdon - that "America currently has no functioning democracy".
How are we to understand these three presidents? Are they all just trying to win another election or are they delusional?
The military and the presidents may have lost some of their glory to the central bankers in modern times. So take a look at this anecdote on systematic leaks from the Federal Reserve:
https://newschicagobooth.uchicago.e...t-cozy-relationship-between-big-banks-and-fed
The study, which used over 500 million data points on cab rides, found that there's a cozy relationship between the Fed and commercial banks. I am surprised the University of Chicago study didn't make more noise than it did. Most people I talk to have never heard of it.
Enough anecdotes, so let's go back to the more systematic surveys and research.
I referred to a widely used survey of corruption, Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index. And you just waved it off as irrelevant in a discussion of corruption. Your attitude makes it hard to lay the foundation of debate.
For readers who are more curious on trust (and by extension corruption, as I believe they are interlinked), take a look at this short well curated page on trust, edited by Oxford University:
https://ourworldindata.org/trust
(They have a dedicated page on corruption as well:
https://ourworldindata.org/corruption).
Take a look at this chart on interpersonal trust in America:
It's this kind of data that I think warrants focus on the erosion of trust in society and corruption as a driver of mistrust.
To put this data in context, to illustrate where I come from - and which may explain why I react in a different way when I see sources of trust erosion than
@amirm :
Take a look at Norway and some of the Nordics (Netherlands too!). It's on a whole other level. I think this is interesting data, which has been on my mind for decades already. Could these data cast light on how different people react differently when exposed to an example of corruption, like for example the Grammy Awards?