Ex European Union commissioner finds new job as chairman of Goldman Sachs London...

[Kyriakos]

I'm going to have to go beyond politeness and call Utter Bullcrap. Business existed before laws. Second, for a very long time, law had a very limited effect on business - other than state business. Third, laws aren't made by the public. In fact, the public are expected to obey the laws and are subject to sanctions if they do not.

Feel free to try again though.

You know, your posts in this thread (and on such topics-- more on this below) always tend to show that you either

-are not trying to think what you post
-just mean to troll for some reason
OR
-have a very tenuous understanding of the issues.

Which is fine, everyone has tenuous relation to most issues, it goes with our society and over-specialization in how we are educated. Yet most people do keep in mind when they post on something they are far from being informed about, let alone experts on. I frequently do it, and i tend to be far more loudmouthed when speaking/posting of things i am not that familiar with -- yet i never actually forget this is so, and therefore am not crossing over to the point of being annoying with such posts (hopefully ).

For example, we did have a better level discussion in the philosophy thread a while ago, despite not being in agreement. But in this thread you seem to just be posting things that are not in accordance with even layman knowledge of the subject. Laws, for example, by definition exist in our societies so as to (supposedly/typically) protect the interest of the citizens, and not so as to deliberately allow for oligarchs to trample the regular people all the more easily. Same is true for regulations re banking. It is just that currently the banking system has become way too cancerous, and should be neutralised if people are to sometime escape the eternal debt slavery which has spread.

 

[Lexicus]

I'm going to have to go beyond politeness and call Utter Bullcrap. Business existed before laws. Second, for a very long time, law had a very limited effect on business - other than state business. Third, laws aren't made by the public. In fact, the public are expected to obey the laws and are subject to sanctions if they do not.

No, "business" in the sense that I meant it certainly did not exist before laws. I suspect you may be using an intentionally wide and vague definition of business here.
It is simply not true that the law had "very limited effect on business" - have you studied one bit of history? Law was (and is) literally constitutive of how business was carried out.
I'm aware that there is a whole system of liberal mythology to the effect that the market and "private enterprise" preceded the existence of the state and can exist independently of it, but that is simply not true and not borne out by the historical record.
Lastly of course, this point has been dealt with since the 18th century and even earlier with the medieval concept of popular sovereignty, but I'll explain for your benefit: the state is understood to be the extension of the public's will, and the public agrees to obey the laws made in its name because the benefits derived to it from doing so. All governments derive their power from the consent of the governed (consent here meaning essentially, refraining from armed rebellion).

Feel free to try again though.

I would have to repeat a recent response to you from another poster, and tell you to look up Dunning-Kruger.

 

[Agent327]

I think we have determined the problem now:

No, "business" in the sense that I meant it certainly did not exist before laws. I suspect you may be using an intentionally wide and vague definition of business here.

Not really. Just what is commonly considered business: anything involving trade. Which is far removed from making a statement on 'business' and then later revealing what you actually personally define as business.

It is simply not true that the law had "very limited effect on business" - have you studied one bit of history? Law was (and is) literally constitutive of how business was carried out.

Funny you should ask. You see, the reason law had (for a very long time) a limited effect on business, is that for a very long time states were actually small. In fact, what we call bureaucracy today, didn't exist until the late 19th century. But feel free to try and prove my statement wrong. (Beyond simply saying 'No', that is.)

I'm aware that there is a whole system of liberal mythology to the effect that the market and "private enterprise" preceded the existence of the state and can exist independently of it, but that is simply not true and not borne out by the historical record.

Oh dear. There's a bit of a catch with that. Early historical records tend to be state records. So they tend to overstate (no pun intended) state importance. But not to worry, the occasional economic record did get passed on to posterity. (And I have little interest for liberal political thought: I prefer historical sources.)

Lastly of course, this point has been dealt with since the 18th century and even earlier with the medieval concept of popular sovereignty, but I'll explain for your benefit: the state is understood to be the extension of the public's will, and the public agrees to obey the laws made in its name because the benefits derived to it from doing so. All governments derive their power from the consent of the governed (consent here meaning essentially, refraining from armed rebellion).

Contrat social. You do now that that is just a theory, right? It didn't have any practical meaning until the people actually got a say in government. Which they pretty much didn't for most of human history. Unfortunately, I wasn't talking political theory, I was talking legal practice.

I would have to repeat a recent response to you from another poster, and tell you to look up Dunning-Kruger.

Don't bother. But do feel free to try again.

 

[Lexicus]

Not really. Just what is commonly considered business: anything involving trade. Which is far removed from making a statement on 'business' and then later revealing what you actually personally define as business.

You claim to have no interest in liberal political thought, and yet your argument consists almost entirely of liberal mythology, in this case the conflation of exchange with commerce/trade, when the latter is only a subset of the former.

Funny you should ask. You see, the reason law had (for a very long time) a limited effect on business, is that for a very long time states were actually small. In fact, what we call bureaucracy today, didn't exist until the late 19th century. But feel free to try and prove my statement wrong. (Beyond simply saying 'No', that is.)

And the role of "business" (if we take your definition as "anything involving trade") in society was correspondingly small. Households tended to be self-sufficient and economic conduct was regulated by custom and ritual rather than the supposed laws of economics.

Oh dear. There's a bit of a catch with that. Early historical records tend to be state records. So they tend to overstate (no pun intended) state importance. But not to worry, the occasional economic record did get passed on to posterity. (And I have little interest for liberal political thought: I prefer historical sources.)

Give an example of what you mean by an "economic record".

Contrat social. You do now that that is just a theory, right? It didn't have any practical meaning until the people actually got a say in government. Which they pretty much didn't for most of human history. Unfortunately, I wasn't talking political theory, I was talking legal practice.

There is no viewing the situation independently of theory. The theory that says laws are an embodiment of the public's will is the operative one in the modern context, which is what we were discussing.
In the US and other "advanced" countries the ability to do business is a privilege granted by the public for the public's benefit.
You may wish that things were otherwise, due to the liberal mythology I mentioned earlier. But I wonder why. What you are effectively arguing is that bankers in particular and businessmen more generally should not have to consider the welfare of society when they're running their businesses.

I have no idea why anyone would argue that. You don't seem to be a businessman yourself, so why do you feel the need to lick their boots by defending their extraction of profit at our expense?

 

[Tahuti]

It's necessary for any kind of complex economy.

In this case, complex is too complex.

 

[Agent327]

You claim to have no interest in liberal political thought, and yet your argument consists almost entirely of liberal mythology, in this case the conflation of exchange with commerce/trade, when the latter is only a subset of the former.

Your point? Just wondering, as you haven't actually addressed anything said.

And the role of "business" (if we take your definition as "anything involving trade") in society was correspondingly small. Households tended to be self-sufficient and economic conduct was regulated by custom and ritual rather than the supposed laws of economics.

Not really. Try and imagine a farmer, if you can. He produces farm goods. That's nice, but he may needs something else as well. He brings his farm produce to a market and trades it with someone else. That's trade, and that's business. With no money. Which is why it is called barter. It's probably the oldest economic activity in human history - and well beyond.

That's not 'my definition,' by the way. Just check any dictionary. You may note that yours is the, say, dissenting one.

Give an example of what you mean by an "economic record".

A plantation record (early Roman). Mention of cattle count (Old Kingdom). Temple account (early Sumerian).

There is no viewing the situation independently of theory. The theory that says laws are an embodiment of the public's will is the operative one in the modern context, which is what we were discussing.
In the US and other "advanced" countries the ability to do business is a privilege granted by the public for the public's benefit.

No, it isn't. That isn't even theory, you're just making that up.

You may wish that things were otherwise, due to the liberal mythology I mentioned earlier. But I wonder why. What you are effectively arguing is that bankers in particular and businessmen more generally should not have to consider the welfare of society when they're running their businesses.

And they don't. You see, they are not legally required to. How does that fit in with your theory?

I have no idea why anyone would argue that. You don't seem to be a businessman yourself, so why do you feel the need to lick their boots by defending their extraction of profit at our expense?

I'm not 'arguing' anything. You just seem to be unaware of economics 101. Rather completely, actually. None of what you are saying is even in present day economics.

Oh, and I have no interest in liberal ideology, because I don't believe in ideology. That's not because I am unaware of ideologies, but simply because I consider them as much bogus as superstition.

Lastly, 'liberal mythology' isn't rally a term used by anyone. You see, Liberalism (economic or political) and mythology are two entirely different concepts. (And I am interested in mythology - just not the personal definition you seem to give it.)

 

[Lexicus]

A plantation record (early Roman). Mention of cattle count (Old Kingdom). Temple account (early Sumerian).

No, I'm talking specific examples. Like, give me a link or identifying information to a specific record that I can look up to see how well it supports your argument. As you've presented all three of these hypothetical examples clearly involve what you are calling "business" in the presence of and affected by a state. Hell, Sumerian temples were sort of like states in their own right.

Oh, and I have no interest in liberal ideology, because I don't believe in ideology. That's not because I am unaware of ideologies, but simply because I consider them as much bogus as superstition.

You mention "economics 101" and then tell me the standard liberal myth about an imaginary (you even admit he's imaginary!|) farmer who goes to market to "trade" for things he needs that he doesn't produce on his farm.

We don't need to imagine things because we have a wealth of information from the disciplines of history and anthropology, telling us how economic life was structured in premodern times. This information flatly contradicts the imaginary stories you'd learn in economics 101 or for that matter in graduate-level economics courses.

That's not because I am unaware of ideologies, but simply because I consider them as much bogus as superstition.

I would say as a human you're incapable of viewing the world without ideology. Your only hope is to know it's there, and to try to consider multiple perspectives.

Lastly, 'liberal mythology' isn't rally a term used by anyone. You see, Liberalism (economic or political) and mythology are two entirely different concepts. (And I am interested in mythology - just not the personal definition you seem to give it.)

Liberal mythology is my way of insulting your ridiculous notions about business.

And they don't. You see, they are not legally required to. How does that fit in with your theory?

That is not true - they are required to follow all sorts of cumbersome rules which certainly make it more difficult for them to make money.

No, it isn't. That isn't even theory, you're just making that up.

No, I'm not (see immediately above) because businesses are required in the US (and, as we both know, in the UK and elsewhere) to follow all kinds of rules related to the welfare of society.

 

[Agent327]

No, I'm talking specific examples. Like, give me a link or identifying information to a specific record that I can look up to see how well it supports your argument. As you've presented all three of these hypothetical examples clearly involve what you are calling "business" in the presence of and affected by a state. Hell, Sumerian temples were sort of like states in their own right.

No, they weren't. And I gave you specific examples. The fact that you don't know where to find those examples kind of says enough in itself.

You mention "economics 101" and then tell me the standard liberal myth about an imaginary (you even admit he's imaginary!|) farmer who goes to market to "trade" for things he needs that he doesn't produce on his farm.

So you also don't know the difference between 'myth' and 'example'. That explains a lot.

We don't need to imagine things because we have a wealth of information from the disciplines of history and anthropology, telling us how economic life was structured in premodern times. This information flatly contradicts the imaginary stories you'd learn in economics 101 or for that matter in graduate-level economics courses.

Economics doesn't really deal with the past. That would be economic history. Anthropology doesn't deal with pre-modern times. It does deal primarily with pre-historic times. Secondly, I used an example, as it's quite obvious you've never even read an economics or economic history book. (The example wasn't from any book.)

I would say as a human you're incapable of viewing the world without ideology. Your only hope is to know it's there, and to try to consider multiple perspectives.

Your words here seem quite meaningless. To wit: I don't have an ideology - as already mentioned. I seriously doubt you know the meaning of the word 'ideology' either:

Liberal mythology is my way of insulting your ridiculous notions about business.

You can't really use something as 'an insult' if you don't know what it means though.

That is not true - they are required to follow all sorts of cumbersome rules which certainly make it more difficult for them to make money.

Not really. Those rules are meant to prevent abuse. They don't always work though, or we wouldn't have banking scandals, now would we?

No, I'm not (see immediately above) because businesses are required in the US (and, as we both know, in the UK and elsewhere) to follow all kinds of rules related to the welfare of society.

No, they aren't. It just dawned on me you also don't know the meaning of the word 'welfare'. Which brings me to the question: why are you even posting comments about things you have but a very limited understanding of?

 

[Yeekim]

who said anything about doing without financial services such as banks? I want to do without bankers.

the simplest solution to the present problems is to nationalize all banking institutions. All the major banks around the world would be bankrupt already without constant injections of public funds and state guarantees. The fiction that they are effectively managed as corporations is just that, a fiction. They are deemed essential public services, backed by public money and public power, therefore they should be publicly owned and controlled

I see. I'll grant that nationalizing all banking institutions is slightly less crazy than doing without them. Only slightly though.

I'm just laughing at the fact that he thinks medieval Europe didn't have a finance industry

In the absence of central banking system, it was sufficiently different from ours to ignore for the purposes of the comparison.

 

[Kyriakos]

^Maybe in the livonian order. It was literally quite byzantine here already

 

[Lexicus]

I see. I'll grant that nationalizing all banking institutions is slightly less crazy than doing without them. Only slightly though.

Obviously your idea of what's crazy, is itself crazy. Nationalizing the banks is far the most simple solution to the problems with banking today. I don't think it's necessarily the best solution; I would favor nationalizing the largest banks and regulating the profit motive out of the rest of the banking system.

 

[Yeekim]

Obviously your idea of what's crazy, is itself crazy. Nationalizing the banks is far the most simple solution to the problems with banking today. I don't think it's necessarily the best solution; I would favor nationalizing the largest banks and regulating the profit motive out of the rest of the banking system.

1) Just out of curiosity, on what motive would the rest of the banking system even operate then?
2) Why stop at banks? Let's nationalize largest parts of other industries and "regulate the profit motive" out of the rest too! Oh, wait...
3) There is some merit in innonimatu's claim that bankers have too often managed to privatize profits and nationalize losses. Mistake was made when single banks were allowed to grow "too large to fail". Harsher anti-trust and competition legislation should be able to prevent this. No need for any of this state-capitalism nonsense.

 

[Lexicus]

1) Just out of curiosity, on what motive would the rest of the banking system even operate then?

Providing a necessary service to society? The employees of the banks who do the actual work already don't work because of the profit motive, they work for a paycheck. No need to change that.

If you're skeptical that not-for-profit banking can work, you should look up something called a credit union. The banking system in general should work more like credit unions do.

2) Why stop at banks? Let's nationalize largest parts of other industries and "regulate the profit motive" out of the rest too! Oh, wait...

Well, I'm also down with nationalizing health insurance, but aside from those two cases I'm not generally a fan. The reasons I do think it's a good idea in the case of the banking system have already been discussed in this thread. Those reasons don't apply to a lot of other industries.

3) There is some merit in innonimatu's claim that bankers have too often managed to privatize profits and nationalize losses. Mistake was made when single banks were allowed to grow "too large to fail". Harsher anti-trust and competition legislation should be able to prevent this. No need for any of this state-capitalism nonsense.

"Some merit"? innonimatu (intentionally I'm sure) drastically understated the extent of the problem. The banking system is run by sociopathic criminals. They should mostly be in jail, not occupying the highest echelons of power and influence in the world.
Harsher anti-trust and competition legislation has already been tried but failed. The problem extends much deeper than the socialization of losses with private profits - the corporate governance structures of the banks, and the lack of oversight by the government, creates an environment in which fraud is endemic, leading to financial crises such as the one that happened in 2007.

 

[Yeekim]

Ahem. You really think that the financial crisis was caused by personality traits of the bankers and "fraud"?

Had the banks been run by altruistic, deeply honest people working pro bono (never mind where to find them) it wouldnt have happened?

 

[EnglishEdward]

Ahem. You really think that the financial crisis was caused by personality traits of the bankers and "fraud"?

I do.

There was a circular loop: demand for record profits resulted in the pre-selection
of such dubious types who then undermined regulations, that encouraged dishonesty
and so on round the circle, but the importance of individual character remained.

In the UK, the 2006 Companies Act states:

172 Duty to promote the success of the company

(1) A director of a company must act in the way he considers, in good faith, would be most likely to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its members as a whole, and in doing so have regard (amongst other matters) to—

(a) the likely consequences of any decision in the long term,

(b) the interests of the company's employees,

(c) the need to foster the company's business relationships with suppliers, customers and others,

(d) the impact of the company's operations on the community and the environment,

(e) the desirability of the company maintaining a reputation for high standards of business conduct, and

(f) the need to act fairly as between members of the company.

(2) Where or to the extent that the purposes of the company consist of or include purposes other than the benefit of its members, subsection (1) has effect as if the reference to promoting the success of the company for the benefit of its members were to achieving those purposes.

(3) The duty imposed by this section has effect subject to any enactment or rule of law requiring directors, in certain circumstances, to consider or act in the interests of creditors of the company

This does not support the idea that the only thing that matters is short term profit.

I do not believe that bankers are necessarily sociopathic, but the influence of
sociopaths is such that group think and fear of getting sacked drove the banks.

To the people who say the crisis was caused due to the regulations being weakened,
my point is that the banks were not complying with such existing regulations.

Had the banks been run by altruistic, deeply honest people working pro bono (never mind where to find them) it wouldnt have happened?

Quite so.

 

[Arakhor]

Everyone's a saint in Paradise, as they say.

 

[Yeekim]

Bankers - perfect scapegoats.

 

[Kyriakos]

Bankers - perfect scapegoats.

^If only you were joking.

Thanks for your 'won't someone think of the bankers?' moment, Yeekim

 

[Lexicus]

Ahem. You really think that the financial crisis was caused by personality traits of the bankers and "fraud"?

Had the banks been run by altruistic, deeply honest people working pro bono (never mind where to find them) it wouldnt have happened?

I would not say the crisis was caused by the personality traits of the bankers, but it absolutely was caused by fraud.

You don't understand the first thing about the financial crisis if you don't understand this.

 

[Agent327]

Fraud isn't really a concept in economics. (Greed, however, is. Although, again, you wouldn't find it as such. It would be under the heading of supply and demand.) Saying that a financial crisis is caused by fraud isn't really any sort of explanation. Economically speaking, fraud doesn't cause anything. Unless - and this is an important sine qua non/I] - it is followed by some sort of panic. (As, for instance, news of the Brexit did to the stock markets. Then you do have an economic consequence.) So, if an event of fraud causes loss of trust, you may have a cause. But as a rule, that would not be a major event. In any case, the actual cause would not be the fraud itself, but the loss of trust among interested parties. It would be different if, say, an entire company had a policy of committing fraud; that, indeed, could have major repercussions. (Think: VW diesel scandal.) It still wouldn't result in a financial or economic crisis though. For that to happen you need an entire line of companies acting on economically unsound policies.