That's a strawman - I never claimed there was no corruption in the west. The Economist claims there's much less in the west than elsewhere and this is in fact the core of the entire article - the assumption that with open borders globally, corruption as a drag on the global economy would shrivel because everyone would move to much less corrupt places. That's where they get the 78 trillion dollar figure from.
And it's also the Economist that ponders the problem of what happens if the immigrants vote in an Islamist government (their solution: immigrants may never be allowed to vote, i.e. taxation without representation on a massive scale, which is hardly a western value).
Also, I'm not sure Theranos is a case of corruption. Seems more like a delusional founder who got in too deep and was eventually discovered and dealt with through the sorts of mechanisms (the free press, medical regulation) that is usually under the umbrella of "western values".
of course there is corruption in the west, the west is not immune from human nature. the west is really not different than any other country, it just has a "strong" economy and pretends it is the standard and a really effective "narrative", everyone else "unquestioning" believes in this one measurement ruler to rule them all mentality and buys the products it sells. it is quite simple. west and east, are the same, just a unreal division so they can make you choose sides and not pay too much attention to other things.
And it's also the Economist that ponders the problem of what happens if the immigrants vote in an Islamist government (their solution: immigrants may never be allowed to vote, i.e. taxation without representation on a massive scale, which is hardly a western value).
Also, I'm not sure Theranos is a case of corruption. Seems more like a delusional founder who got in too deep and was eventually discovered and dealt with through the sorts of mechanisms (the free press, medical regulation) that is usually under the umbrella of "western values".