Would you rather be smart or be honest if: being a smart person may not disclose the truth if it would criminalise you; or being an honest person may disclose the truth even if it would criminalise you?
Under political and capitalistic mentality of our modern time, being smart is the obvious choice and honesty is conditional to opportunistic benefits. If you notice, I just said that it's ok to commit a crime if you are smart! Well, politically that is.
Notice the principle is not determined by memory or language tests to produce popular outcomes, but the stable reasoning of the objective.
So it follows that developments established on being smart and opportunistic gains from being honest are due to erosion and wash away in time. Not because of the mere corruptive way they were achieved like immoral therefore a punishment from God, but rather due to the trust consumers among people entrusted on such establishments.
That is when people realise the nature of these establishments, they lose faith and withdraw their support. When that happens, the organisation of the establishment collapses, crumbles and washes away in time.
And honest organisation obviously would admit to dishonest or corruptive way of developments takes the time to be responsible and correct such abnormal capitalistic behaviour. The organisation is not immune from capitalistic opportunism among business operators, so it is nonetheless tarnished by capitalism underhand developments. However, consumers among the people understand that systemic corruption is external to the organisation.
That means Poverty is inherent of capitalism. The inherent social consequences of capitalism are established on the edges of society labelled lower socio-economic sector. It is not the fault of the government, but having an honest or smart government in place may fluctuate the rate of developments.
For example, having a pro-capitalism government in place reflects the increase of homelessness, violence and crime or the likely increase in the rate of incarceration. A social democratic government cannot wipe out Poverty overnight under a capitalism system so the government is not responsible for such social consequences.
So granted that we have an honest impartial and objective media, a social democratic government cannot be held accountable for the inherent social consequences of capitalism. The social organisation could be relatively peaceful despite the consequences of capitalism in Poverty, violence and crime. Consumers among people understand this and expect to maintain support for the organisation.
Therefore, in our modern secular world, countries that are showing signs of wisdom expect to be more stable and relatively peaceful.
So, which countries are showing smart choices and which ones are honest? Better still, which are the ultimate wise countries of the world.
Without counting from one to ten; one being honest and ten being smart, I think smart countries may be rich are likely to be more corrupted. This is demonstrated by the social consequences such that the weak, sick and poor are usually accumulated in slums as the rate of violence and crime may be extremely high.
It is likely that the budget spent on minding the sick among the poor, crime and violence is bigger than the whole budget of a small nation. You see, the whole country is paying for the consequences of capitalism when it benefits the rich more than the poor.
So, since honest countries may spend less to pay for the social consequences, these countries could highlight honesty in their organisation are expected to be stable.
Among the richest countries in the world, their wellbeing could be measured by the number of people living in poverty and the state or quality of their lives. One country in particular is most advanced in wealth, weapons and luxurious lifestyles but has also a massive population of people living in desperate conditions of Poverty.
The state of a nation therefore is not measured by its economic growth or GDP rate, but by the number and wellbeing of people living in Poverty. The relative comparison between nations is considered, but there are still no reasons why some are discriminated and deprived when such nations boast about massive accumulation of wealth at the disposal of the rich.
I would really like to mention countries by name but I don't have the data to back my claims. But if wellbeing is measured, such qualities of purpose, employment, quality of living and social relationships are all factors.
Taking into account that wellbeing is not measured by political or economic standards, countries that are prone to capitalism have less quality of wellbeing than countries that are socially organised.
China transitioning from Communism to Socialism is a special and unique system. It is alleviating Poverty the same time discouraging traditional behaviour from the old to the new. The West on the other hand accumulates Poverty while losing to erosion on the social front.
Does it suggest a movement in tectonic plates to project a different world order? If so, then expect the West to be more forceful while China becomes a major attraction for the marginalized.