Debate: Is a government absent of corruption possible?
Side: No

No, it is not. If it were, China and India would have the first and second largest economy in the world relative to population, and IN, but America is still the number one. Japan is a prime example of how it is not because it is only the tenth largest country in the world in population but the second largest economy in the world. Along with Germany, the fourteenth largest population country, yet the fourth highest GDP. The United Kingdom fits into this reason of logic, 22 in population, 6th in GDP.I see now that I didn't elaborate my thoughts thoroughly and so used simplistic language that seemed erroneous.Getting back at what I said earlier, each nation will have a raw potential for wealth that comes from the resources found on the land and environment. Some nations have a very low potential (note for example the north African nations that are on the verge of being assimilated into the Saharan Desert) and others have very high potential (India and China count among this class I believe). There will next come the issue of exploiting those resources, a country like India is making strides in technological growth but suffers from social problems that get in the way of perfect usage of resources. At this point you have your basic market that allows trade of resources. No nation at this point is creating wealth, they are taking existing wealth in natural resources and trading it for something else. Next you factor in science and technology, which is very good at creating something we might call intellectual wealth. Now let's jump to economic models like communism and capitalism. Communism would work by regulating the trade of wealth (which often has a symbolic value attached to it indicating value, we know as money) so that there is no hoarding of it. In the idealistic sense, this would mean that everyone is as wealthy as their nation is, divided by the population. In a capitalist society there is no regulation or control, and so there is an incentive to control a particular type of wealth so that you can control the value of that wealth (this is known as a monopoly), there is also an incentive to minimise expenses while selling at a maximum market value (this is where we see employee exploitation). Since in a capitalist society, wealth is not distributed in an even manner, there is intrinsic social inequality because wealth always represents power in a society, irrespective of the type of economy.Now let's jump to the point in question. In an uncontrolled capitalist society there is no incentive to increase the salaries of workers. This is where the sweatshops in the US came from. Eventually there comes enough social unrest that laws will change, and we will have regulations like minimum wage and organised labour parties developing in reaction to these conditions. Now that workers are paid more, and benefits are expected, labour becomes expensive to companies and so incentive forms to move jobs overseas to poorer or less regulated nations. The cycle repeats itself, because now these nations have sweatshops thanks to foreign companies (and local companies that use this type of production), and so the older capitalist, post-industrialised nations are living in wealth because the workers are paid well and those jobs that are menial and can be exported are carried out by poor, underpaid workers in South America and South Asia. In this way capitalism isn't creating wealth, it is trading off the improved living conditions in one nation for poor living conditions in another country (or countries).How is this an intrinsic problem with capitalism? A lack of regulation means that there will be unevenly distributed wealth and therefore power. This means that what must follow is that the powerful will easily become moreso, favouring those that pay their workers the least, while those that are able to control the market on their product (monopoly) will receive the most power of all.How does this keep poor countries in poverty and social inequality? Large corporations that export jobs and have their fingers in other nations' economies will have power within those nations, and will have political favours that impede change that might grant the workers better work conditions, pay, benefits, etc. Capitalism favours this.From the 1950s to the 1980s, India had socialist-inspired policies. The economy was shackled by extensive regulation, protectionism, and public ownership, leading to pervasive corruption and slow economic growth.GEE, I wonder why?They also lacked a modern infrastructure, suffered class issues. The picture is more complex than you realise, and capitalism doesn't care about social equality.In 1991, the nation liberalized its economy and has since moved towards a free-market economy. With the socialist movement, it severely hurt India economically until it reigned in capitalism, and it is on the rise.WhyBecause of capitalism. It creates wealth.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_labour_in_India Indeed, India has a very unregulated market. I wonder who else their companies and corporations are exploiting in sweatshops and less than a dollar a day pay, to have that wealth?