tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4159906646513306121.post3298765168097950090..comments2023-11-19T20:38:50.237-08:00Comments on Economic Logic: Why corruption will always be with usEconomic Logicianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10171296292101248614noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4159906646513306121.post-35349056639688557562012-12-13T15:20:42.683-08:002012-12-13T15:20:42.683-08:00Interestingly, the word "Corrupt" only d...Interestingly, the word "Corrupt" only dates in the sense we use it in today, to around the 18th century. You have to remember that buying venal offices in the military and civil government was common in Britain up into the 19th century. The expectation that rulers ought to act responsibly with money wasn't even on the table or debated until the early modern period. A King taking out a loan to fight a war, and not paying it back, was pretty much par for the course.<br /><br />Further, trade was largely disdained, especially by aristocrats and their patron philosophers (read: every intellectual in history), presumably because of the institutional competition between two ways of getting money together: inventing things and trading, or setting up a kingdom and stealing everyone's sh!t. Curiously, even though trade was disdained, and even though the word "Corrupt" existed, even back into Middle and Old English derivations like "corrump," nobody used it to describe the ethical situation money brought to interactions.<br /><br />Corrupt was actually more of a medical and scientific term (before medicine and science existed). So instead of rusting, metal would corrupt. Or the air would corrupt. Crazy huh? All types of sh!t could get tainted or adulterated, but it had nothing to do witih money.<br /><br />And as far as EL goes above: reciprocal gift giving isn't going anywhere, any time soon, and is a large part of the way what you might call "social exchange" takes place broadly.blarghnoreply@blogger.com