Laundering $800 Mil in Drug $, How Did HSBC Execs Avoid Jail?

[an8150]

Simply put if a guy can make money selling rancid meat or throw it out at a loss, the meat will be sold unless some higher authority tells him not to. And once it is a corporation selling that meat, it is their charter and sole mission to enhance shareholder investment so by charter they should never throw away the rancid meat unless some regulating body says they have to.

Regulation and oversight happened not because of some conspiracy it happened because in its absence greed will make people do really bad stuff.

Depends if the guy finds a willing buyer for the rancid meat, fivekatz. If he does, they're both happy, they both got what they want. Who are you to say otherwise?

[an8150]

In engines, motors, any system designed to perform repeatable cycles, including market systems, regulators are required to make systematic corrections on each cycle ad infinitum in order to maintain a proper balance of feedback and control.

Absolute freedom is absolute anarchy. Real and useful freedoms can only exist within a context of social restraints.

A free market is not a system designed to perform in a particular way. Indeed it merits the designation of 'system' only in the loosest sense. Metaphorically, the comparison with a motor is flawed.

I suspect the word 'anarchy' is being used here, broncofan, to mean 'chaos'. They are not the same thing necessarily.

And social restraints are not the same as legal restraints. I'm a big fan of social restraints where they help condition our good behaviour.

[Prospero]

A buyer clearly won't find a marketfor rancid meat undr normal circumstanes. Ony if he emloys duplicitous means to disguise it (ie packaging it in meat pies or disguising its state). So that is why we need regulations - health checks etc. A voluntary system will not and does not work when people are out to make a buck.

An the reason i didn't not respond to you was that i frankly can't be bothered to burrow into the details of your arguments when i know that your starting point is fallacious. You remind me, sadly, of the Trots who dominated Trade unions when i was younger and who tried to make their point of view prevail by endlessly debating protocols, rules, details rather than ever allowing the bigger issues be examined. In meetings which required a vote they often won because everyone else left or fell asleep.

[an8150]

Setting aside my colourful use of language [I let you off lightly, Stavros; if I'd done the same thing it would merely have confirmed my credentials as the resident swivel-eyed fanatic], the point is that you claim fidelity to a system that when it has been applied more closely to your principles -if not entirely- has not resulted in either economic equilibrium or greater freedom [for one thing, we work to different definitions of 'freedom', so I'm not sure how we'd measure this] -the late 19th century in the US and the 1990s in Russia were symptomatic of the tendency of capitalism [the same old sleight of-hand: you may feel nothing when repeating the words 'free market capitalism', it's up to you, all I ask is that you give words their plain meaning; the Russian oligarchs, to take one of your examples, were crony capitalists] to monopolise the means pf production, anything rather than sharing it out -you can wish it away as 'the unacceptable face of capitalism' if you want to, but the evidence of dirty dealings amongst the railroad bosses, the bankers, the Rockefellers and Mellons of this/that world are well documented [I seem to recall Rand wrote an interesting essay on this, possibly with Greenspan; if you're interested it's in Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal, which I don't have to hand], and resulted in the haven of free markets [interesting word that, 'haven', isn't it?], the USA introducing an Act in 1890 to prevent the dominance by single individuals and their firms of industrial sectors -ie the Sherman Act, even if not implemented until 1911. Your faith in the honest intentions of free market capitalists [I claim no such faith. I've said that I accept there will of course be sharp practitioners; they can be dealt with by the laws of fraud; what I do say is that rational self-interest means that party A maximises his needs or desires by fulfilling those of party B and I happen to believe that most people tend to act in good faith] is as absurd as the belief of a Communist Party cadre in the wisdom of the Central Committee [yet what is the difference between your planners and regulators, on the one hand, and the central committee, on the other? democratic legitimacy? maybe, but that says nothing of the efficacity of their decision-making, which is what we're talking about]. And as for Russia, it was called The Sale of the Century for good reason, only the average consumer wasn't involved, merely screwed.

Perhaps we can agree that communism is the natural condition of mankind [you mean that when Ugg and Grunt first crawled out of the primordial ooze feeling peckish and Ugg snared a frog for dinner, he noticed Grunt looking at him enviously and was confronted by the choice of sharing or not, realising that if he didn't then Grunt might try and take the frog from him by force, or that Grunt might starve and then he'd be left alone, or that by sharing on this occasion then Grunt might share the fruits of his labour subsequently, or that by sharing neither would have enough and they would both starve? Well the frog is Ugg's property. It is the fruit of his labour, although there is no rule of law to uphold property rights, and the land on which it was found has presumably not been claimed by Ugg. So I suppose I'd say that at this stage, we have a sort of hybrid, where property is literally up for grabs, but sharing, or perhaps bartering (part of a frog now, in the hope of a return favour later) is on the radar; but what if they both find a frog? if their frogs are of equal plumpness then all we have is the acquisition of property rights by each, absent the application of force by either to denude the other of his frog. The scenario can be sliced and diced a number of ways, but I rather doubt that Ugg, if he is initially the most successful scavenger, is going for any length of time to apply the principle of 'from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs'], that private property emerged historically [I think the fact of private property emerged as described above, although of course the language would not have existed to describe it] as a consequence of the process of accumulation that began during the Neolithic revolution, and which combined with the division of labour to enable a minority of the population to dupe the majority into thinking they were superior, aided and abetted by religious/mythological systems of belief. Industrial capitalism is the private appropriation of publicly produced wealth -the capitalist who puts say £100,000 of capital into a shirt-making business and collects say, £1 million on that investment pays the people who actually make the shirts their equivalent share - £10, thereby proving that capitalism is immoral, and that private property is theft [everything belongs to everyone? so if we were in the same room together right now, and I walked over to you and started to remove your watch and car keys, you wouldn't stop me?]. Moreover, as Marx pointed out in Capital the workers are so completely subsumed by capitalism that they are both producers and consumers, and simultaneously exploited at work and in the market-place, bridging the gap between the natural price of a commodity and its market price -(viz Capital, Vol 1: Appendix: Results of the Immediate Process of Production, esp pp1019-1025 in the Pelican Marx Library, Capital, Vol 1; and same series, Capital Vol 2, Chapters 1-2; and Chapters 20-21).

This pseudo-debate however is going round in circles -perhaps you can explain how free market capitalism will produce economic growth and full employment in the UK, and crucially -what happens to the losers who fail at business, who can't hold down a job, don't have the education or whatever their problem is?

[That's a vast subject, and I don't have sufficient time to do it justice, but I'll make the obvious point that regulation raises barriers to entry in any sector of an economy. That means fewer people can start businesses.]

On xenophobic violence in Greece, I provide a link from HRW.

http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/12/30/x...iolence-greece

[Putting it politely, this link does not support your prior claim]

an8150

[an8150]

A buyer clearly won't find a marketfor rancid meat undr normal circumstanes. Ony if he emloys duplicitous means to disguise it (ie packaging it in meat pies or disguising its state). So that is why we need regulations - health checks etc. A voluntary system will not and does not work when people are out to make a buck.

An the reason i didn't not respond to you was that i frankly can't be bothered to burrow into the details of your arguments when i know that your starting point is fallacious. You remind me, sadly, of the Trots who dominated Trade unions when i was younger and who tried to make their point of view prevail by endlessly debating protocols, rules, details rather than ever allowing the bigger issues be examined. In meetings which required a vote they often won because everyone else left or fell asleep.

If you mean that a seller won't find a buyer for his rancid meat under normal circumstances, except by duplicitous means, you may well be right. That's why we have laws against fraud. Have a look at some of broncofan's comments (esp. in the thread called 'Democracy'): he understands that what, in utilitarian terms, is at issue is whether regulation upfront is more effective than the deterrent of subsequent prosecution. I would add that in my view upfront regulation is, in any event, ultimately always reactive - as with the beef/horsemeat story: the failure of one regulation leads to calls for another.

You can't be bothered to deal with my details because my starting point is fallacious, yet I am the religious fanatic. Well, I'm content to stand by the record of my comments. I suspect I've answered a great many more points that have been thrown at me than any of my interlocutors have ever deigned or been able to respond to, and I've dealt with subjects on both macro and micro scales. Basically, you want a quiet life. You want people like me to go away and shut up so that you can carry on reinforcing your prejudices with others who broadly agree with you, and although you purport to take an interest in the affairs of the world, you don't want to have to think too much about them.

[Prospero]

An - you are simply an idealist with no toehold on the reality of the world. I certainly DO deal with the reality of the world - and elements of it far darker and more dangerous than you have probably ever encountered. So stop being an irritating little fellow, please.

Laws but no regulations? Ha.

I will not be discussing anything with you anymore. Sorry. You are, by turn, insulting and foolish.

[trish]

They're not mutually exclusive.

in this case they are and I explained exactly why. If the market supplies exactly what can be sold at the price set to optimize profit, then demand is truncated by that price to meet the supply. That's not an equilibrium point the market optimally meets every ones's demands and everyone live in libertarian utopia.

[an8150]

An - you are simply an idealist with no toehold on the reality of the world. I certainly DO deal with the reality of the world - and elements of it far darker and more dangerous than you have probably ever encountered. So stop being an irritating little fellow, please.

Laws but no regulations? Ha.

I will not be discussing anything with you anymore. Sorry. You are, by turn, insulting and foolish.

In reply to your first paragraph, I'm tempted to tell you my height and occupation, but that would be indiscreet of me. I haven't begun to insult you, Prospero, not least because I am inclined to think it weakens the force of rational argument.

[an8150]

in this case they are and I explained exactly why. If the market supplies exactly what can be sold at the price set to optimize profit, then demand is truncated by that price to meet the supply. That's not an equilibrium point the market optimally meets every ones's demands and everyone live in libertarian utopia.

Call me a dullard, but I don't understand what "...demand is truncated by that price to meet the supply. That's not an equilibrium point the market optimally meets every ones's demands and everyone live in libertarian utopia."

The final sentence is almost certainly missing punctuation, but I am fairly sure that, even appropriately punctuated, what I assume is the contingent clause is a non sequitur. And I simply don't understand, in the first sentence, how demand can be truncated if the market has supplied exactly what can be sold. Another non sequitur, I suppose.

[an8150]

An - you are simply an idealist with no toehold on the reality of the world.

I know that it is run by people who agree with you. And I know that you know that, because you have said previously that my views are unlikely ever to see practical implementation.