The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: The Mafia and their philosophy...  (Read 28150 times)

Offline Jolly- Joliver

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 584
    • View Profile
The Mafia and their philosophy...
« on: 05/05/2011 12:56:29 »
If you feel this should be in just chat please do move it, it's social science, so you could put it in new theories.

OK the Mafia, essentially the Mafia, are a group of business men, they seek to do business in ways that those in power say people shouldn't.

There are of course different types of Mafia, with different values, looking at the Italian Mafia, you will notice expressions like "What's right is right" and "take your pinch like a man", these expressions show that the Mafia will except it when they are caught, and go to jail as they know that what they were doing was illegal and they do not want to fight the police as that would cause more problems.

"What's right is right" again show an ethics there are certain things that are right and others that are wrong, they see no problems with doing the business they do, but excepting that those in charge do not agree, they disagree and seek to make money.

So what happens well, eventually maybe the mafia take over, and replace those in power, and what happens is the things they considered to be OK to do become exceptable in society, and maybe some things the past elite let people do become prohibited.

And there you see a cycle, one group replaces another and the society changes slightly each time. Eventually tho, there will come a certain type that really doesn't have any ethics, but seeing the need to keep others down, they will pretend to have them.

What you end up with is an elite that are rather nasty but pretend to be the cream of society, and a Mafia that are the good guys- because they have a moral code.

and then looking at these things you might see five possible outcomes for the mafia, they take over, the are absorbed meaning they start doing business in a way those in charge agree with but stay out of power, they are destroyed by the elite, they destroy themselves, or they actually join with the elite.

Fighting the police is fighting those the police serve, and it is the elite that ultimately decide what is OK and what is not, the Mafia just disagree and trade in those areas.

But you could say an elite are a Mafia that lost their morals. And nothing is right, but being in charge.

Which could explain why Monarchy's generally stay quite civil places, Different Mafias that replace each other, have no fixed ethical standards, where as Monarchs generally try to be a worthy head of an aristocracy- and aristocracy means- the rule of the best.(part of the reason I have trouble seeing Britain as a Monarchy today)

Just to say that while there are different types of mafia, the real Italian Mafia of "The godfather" are not so bad as those in power might claim, and infact actually, are a police force, that looks after the neighbourhood, keeps drugs off the street, and protects the old ladies.

My take on Mafia Philosophy.
« Last Edit: 05/05/2011 17:17:17 by Geezer »


 

Offline Jolly- Joliver

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 584
    • View Profile
Re: The Mafia and their philosophy...
« Reply #1 on: 05/05/2011 13:33:05 »
Moving on from that and looking at Big business and so extending on it, after all lets not forget that the mafia are essentially business men.

And the biggest of business' are corporations. Now should a corporation become too big, they will seek to prohibit, but not moral standards, they will or could seek to prohibit business competition. If a company takes over doing something and they could get bigger and bigger until they seek to do it all, and under that rule, ethics are not so important as stepping on toes.

To say that business as a ruler will not really care for any ethical issue, but will seek to run everything, and suppress those that attempt to trade in similar areas.

Some say "business is war" looking at that notion of trading, many avenues could be considered and even taken by the bigger fish to remove the smaller ones, from industrial espionage, corporate spying, buying of political influence in order to change laws which suppress smaller competitors.

Looking at the current ecconomic situation there is certainly an element of that.
« Last Edit: 05/05/2011 13:35:51 by Wiybit »
 

Offline Jolly- Joliver

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 584
    • View Profile
Re: The Mafia and their philosophy...
« Reply #2 on: 05/05/2011 15:35:26 »
Again feel free to move this to just chat or new theories,

What is a Goat? Well it depends there are a few, the animal or the sinner, but here I wish to talk about the Scapegoat, specifically a person who takes the blame for someone else generally willingly knowing that they are doing so.

OK so what is the Goats motivation? Well it's self interest, on the one hand as they could be taking the rap for money, on the other they could be doing it because not to, would mean it could be even worse for them, which of course is cowardice, they do not serve justice they prevent it willingly through fear. Of course some could see them as a Marty doing their boss a favour, yet it's the fear of their boss and other consequences should they refuse that really drives it. You could also see a Goat as a person that just excepts it, does not stand for themselves through fear again, easier to run than stand their ground, as it were.

The reason I write about this, is because Men do not need goats, as a man should really take responsibility for their actions, but in todays world should a person try, they will be gone from the society, an outcast, lose their job, or worse, therefore often men will look to either blame someone else, hide what they did or find a goat, simply because they are not allowed to make a mistake.

This reality, actually prevents boys becoming men, and keeps those upstairs in a position where they cannot ever make a mistake or admit to it, and are never allowed to take responsibility for what they have done, as a result they could end up thinking reponsibilty isnt important, and so never want to be responsible.

My point here is that, just as the Mafia will "Take their pinch like a man" then after prison be excepted back into the group, so too in some ways should higher society be more forgiving with those that do make mistakes, that allows for easier confession, for justice to be served, and for men to except the responsibility for what they have done, looking at nobility as an extreme example, as they often have or seek to have the highest of standards, justice is only served when all are at peace, now peace could mean the loss of title, but it could also mean that that does not have to happen, forgiveness and understanding being an important element.

Just as with Peter, continually falling down following Jesus, Peter shows that mistakes are at times expected to be made, but that doesn't ever mean he'll not be able to learn grow and start again a better person. Infact the falling often assists that process, I see a tragedy where people through fear, are just not allowed to grow.

The goat and society.

Just to say that society needs to have no goats, more men and a lot more understanding.

To quote the bible:-

Proverbs "Whoever conceals their sins does not prosper, but the one who confesses and renounces them finds mercy."

Hosea "For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings"  :)

Peace to you all.     
« Last Edit: 05/05/2011 15:58:48 by Wiybit »
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Re: The Mafia and their philosophy...
« Reply #3 on: 05/05/2011 17:14:54 »
As these two topics are on the same theme, they have been merged.

(BTW - Mafia is singular.)
« Last Edit: 05/05/2011 17:22:09 by Geezer »
 

Offline Jolly- Joliver

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 584
    • View Profile
The Mafia and their philosophy...
« Reply #4 on: 05/05/2011 17:29:52 »
As these two topics are on the same theme, they have been merged.

(BTW - Mafia is singular.)

I don't think they are one is about revolutions and shifts in the rulers etc, the other is about being a man and responsibility.

But as you wish, I hope that is not a move to lock them both at the same time, I have faith tho.

As for the mafia thing Mafias is more than one.
« Last Edit: 05/05/2011 17:32:10 by Wiybit »
 

Offline graham.d

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2208
    • View Profile
The Mafia and their philosophy...
« Reply #5 on: 06/05/2011 12:01:50 »
The "Mafia" is a criminal organisation. "Mafias" is plural i.e. several organisations. A "Mafioso" is a member of such an organisation.

I didn't find the grammar here confusing but it is in other places. Wiybit, you obviously have an interest here but I found it hard to know what point (or points) you are making. Are you saying that mafias are similar to forms of government that may have arisen from, perhaps, the same ignoble roots? You mention Monarchy, but in countries like the UK this is a really a very different form from in past times, being a "constitutional monarchy" and having no effective political power. If you look at various world governments, there are a wide variety of systems - Democracies, Dictatorships, Old fashioned Monarchies (tantamount to hereditory dictatorships) etc. They all have, to a varying degree, corruption, control by an elite and suppression of opposing forces. I like to think there has been some progress over the last few thousand years though!

I think the Mafias are self-developed, loosely hereditary, clans. In the same way as any elitist group, they endeavour to maintain their superiority, position and wealth. The fact that they have a code within which they work is simply a method of control utilised to maintain order within their organisation and to aid their positioning at the top. I don't really see much comparison between their specific methods (violence, bribery and dire threats) with those of (say) David Cameron, though you could draw comparisons to governments if you go back far enough in history. Common Law is supposed to apply to all, and to call the operations of (say) the Italian Mafias "businesses" is to give unwarranted respectability to activity which most people would find abhorrent.

This is not to say there is no corruption within democracies like the UK. There certainly is, but it is not significant when compared to the level to which it is taken in parts of Italy (also a democracy). These traditions go back a long way and are deeply embedded but they do need to be stamped out if we are to progress as nations ruled "for the people and by the people".

I do despair at the repetition of the successes of ruling elites, including the new "political class" in the UK of professional politicians. People need to be independently informed about policies and their consequences but I don't feel this is done at all well by the media. We tend to get the governments we deserve! There isn't really any true democracies and maybe there never can be, but I am glad I am at least able to criticise people without getting dumped in the sea with concrete wellies.
 

Offline Jolly- Joliver

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 584
    • View Profile
The Mafia and their philosophy...
« Reply #6 on: 06/05/2011 23:05:03 »
The "Mafia" is a criminal organisation. "Mafias" is plural i.e. several organisations. A "Mafioso" is a member of such an organisation.

I didn't find the grammar here confusing but it is in other places. Wiybit, you obviously have an interest here but I found it hard to know what point (or points) you are making. Are you saying that mafias are similar to forms of government that may have arisen from, perhaps, the same ignoble roots?

Well governments arise as administration for the king, that is where they begin, onto that there is then the council of nobles the two together become government it societies earlier stages.

Government admins for the rulers, sometime later nobles use governmental power to take power and expel the king, and you end up with emperors in a republic. Ofocurse this is all high up power play and things must be done to ensure that the people are contented. Oliver Cromwell did just what I suggested he used governmental power to take power from the king and install himself, the people are told they now have a republic, in truth it was a war of feudalism against capitalism, Cromwell represented and lead the business men of that time. 

A new capitalist elite ruled, it was about power, nothing to do with giving the people the vote that is a simple lie to gain their support.

The merchant class was getting richer and richer, so the king taxed them, they just put up their prices it didn't work and came to head with the civil war. As I suggested a Mafia is a group of business men that seek to do business in a way that those in power disagree with, in this sense Cromwell lead a mafia against the king, and used a lie about democray to gain their support.


 You mention Monarchy, but in countries like the UK this is a really a very different form from in past times, being a "constitutional monarchy" and having no effective political power.

Of course not as soon as they took the kings head, the new elite ruled, they brought Charles son back after Cromwell died but with conditions, and slowly over time the powers of the monarchy have been whittled down.



 If you look at various world governments, there are a wide variety of systems - Democracies, Dictatorships, Old fashioned Monarchies (tantamount to hereditory dictatorships) etc. They all have, to a varying degree, corruption, control by an elite and suppression of opposing forces. I like to think there has been some progress over the last few thousand years though!

No, it's got worse, society works under illusions, just as people might think Britain is a democray really other parties decide the agenda today, Corporate have taken power the market.


I think the Mafias are self-developed, loosely hereditary, clans. In the same way as any elitist group, they endeavour to maintain their superiority, position and wealth. The fact that they have a code within which they work is simply a method of control utilised to maintain order within their organisation and to aid their positioning at the top.

No it's more than that it's cultural, I say to be a mafia they have to have a moral code, otherwise they are organised criminals that'll do anything, and all Mafias be they Jewish of Italian, Chinese have a code of ethics, it's not just about keeping order in the group, it is an expression of the things they believe in, the 'just wanna get rich criminals' that do not care about anything, are so different that they really should be defined differently.


 I don't really see much comparison between their specific methods (violence, bribery and dire threats) with those of (say) David Cameron, though you could draw comparisons to governments if you go back far enough in history. Common Law is supposed to apply to all, and to call the operations of (say) the Italian Mafias "businesses" is to give unwarranted respectability to activity which most people would find abhorrent.

Again it is about ethics they do not see it that way, meaning should they be in power, many of those things could become a norm, the point I was trying to get at, different standards, relating to culture ect.



This is not to say there is no corruption within democracies like the UK. There certainly is, but it is not significant when compared to the level to which it is taken in parts of Italy (also a democracy). These traditions go back a long way and are deeply embedded but they do need to be stamped out if we are to progress as nations ruled "for the people and by the people".

Well the trouble is that we have never really defined what democracy actually is, that helps those in power ofcourse, but looking at it it means people rule, the rule of the people so I would suggest that as a scale democracy has many forms, from what we have- the people with simply the ability to vote for someone to the people actually running everything themselves more anarkistically.

So democracy goes from the people having little say to the people having all the say, in terms of democracy Britian is rather towards the low end, it's not in the middle that's for sure.


I do despair at the repetition of the successes of ruling elites, including the new "political class" in the UK of professional politicians.

Redirecting back to my earlier point the government admins for the rulers, if you wish to deny the existence of a ruling class go ahead but you would be deceiving yourself. Of course it is in their interest to keep certain realities as quiet as possible.



People need to be independently informed about policies and their consequences but I don't feel this is done at all well by the media.

It never will be until the power that be respect them.


We tend to get the governments we deserve! There isn't really any true democracies and maybe there never can be, but I am glad I am at least able to criticise people without getting dumped in the sea with concrete wellies.

 :) depends who you critic, those in power have lots of goats don't you know. These are the rights they claim you have, they also claim you live in a democracy, think about it.

This again is a reason why the people should know who is in power, and also have ways and means by which they can check and be assured that the rights started that they have, they do have, so they can be sure they do. Any illusion in a society allows space for criminality.

« Last Edit: 06/05/2011 23:25:49 by Wiybit »
 

Offline graham.d

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2208
    • View Profile
The Mafia and their philosophy...
« Reply #7 on: 08/05/2011 14:01:25 »
Your idea about how ideas (perhaps more what Prof Dawkins calls "memes") develop based on social interactions and how these are converted into political structures is reasonable and I don't think anyone would argue this as a principle. Pointing at similarities between political institutions is also fair but it is also valid to point out the differences too. In putting forward a controversial view, it is also important to state known facts correctly.

An example would be your assumptions (stated as fact) about Oliver Cromwell's motivations for overthrowing the monarchy. Whilst taxation was an issue, it was that King Charles did not believe he had to listen to Parliamentary advice on such issues. It was nothing to do with Feudalism which, using any common definition, had more or less disappeared as a system nearly 200 years before this. The dispute with Charles was also driven by religious issues because it was felt Charles was drawing too near to Catholicism. This was probably the most potent driving force for Cromwell personally because of his concepts of Puritanism. Whilst Cromwell's revolution did change the balance of power away from the Monarchy, there was never any pretence of universal suffrage at that time. Whilst many would disagree with Cromwell and his methods, he was, I think, one of the more honest politicians of the time. You could argue he was manipulated by shadowy power brokers but this is not born out of any evidence. Certainly, the idea circumstances may lead to change, is, perhaps, a fundamental concept of social science. The trouble is that it is always easy to justify this after the event - like saying the time was right and this was bound to happen - but usually situations are much more complex and the ideas have little predictive value except in exceptional (and fairly obvious) circumstances.

Whilst you are right that Mafia organisations have rules it is perhaps a stretch to call these morals. I think you are taking moral relativism too far in this comparison. On this basis you can say that any code of ethics that naturally develops is equally valid. I don't think this is the case. Mafia codes are rather loose and diverse so it is hard to do a fair comparison. The Sicilian Mafia is based on self-interested clans based on large family relationships and allegiances. It is a concept that is a hangover from past times and does not (and cannot) sit well within a democratic society any more than witchcraft should survive within a technologically aware society. Such Mafias survive because their use of violence and bribery can be effective in some places and it takes time to eliminate them. They work against the law that is largely supported by the people - there are few outside these families and those benefitting from bribery that would say they should continue to exist. And in the world we live in, and that they live in also, I don't think anyone today would try to argue, from a position of belief, the moral righteousness of their actions.

You suggest that there is a "ruling class" in, for example, the UK and that democracy is a charade to maintain this ruling class. I think you need to elaborate on this as it sounds like the concept of a "star chamber" with men in smoke filled rooms (probably smoke-free now) deciding on the fate of the world. Whatever you think of politicians, they generally do not behave like that and have no mechanisms or motivation for doing so (at least in the UK). You could argue that they are manipulated in their beliefs (by the system) to take a line that maintains wealth and power in certain quarters, but it would be a stretch to say that this went beyond a few individuals with power that is limited to their term in office. It is more that politicians have to work within the limits of maintaining a continuity within a society so that change can only occur relatively slowly. That this maintains a status quo is undeniable but the alternative of revolutionary change is unpredictable and can be irreversable. Politicians that promote such views generally do not get voted in (in the UK). Certainly the status quo is also followed by the mainstream media and the education system so the desire to change radically rarely arises, but this is not a conspiracy.

Who are this "ruling class"? There may well still be too many people with inherited wealth but I don't see them as wielding the power. People like Rupert Murdoch have too much power (for self interest) I think, but I sense this is not what you mean. Large organisations have manipulated democratic systems by having significant and effective lobbying (this is especially true in the USA) but it can be argued that this is of benefit to the country (though personally I don't think this is the case). Please elaborate.
 

Offline Jolly- Joliver

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 584
    • View Profile
The Mafia and their philosophy...
« Reply #8 on: 08/05/2011 14:05:50 »
The "Mafia" is a criminal organisation. "Mafias" is plural i.e. several organisations. A "Mafioso" is a member of such an organisation.

I didn't find the grammar here confusing but it is in other places. Wiybit, you obviously have an interest here but I found it hard to know what point (or points) you are making. Are you saying that mafias are similar to forms of government that may have arisen from, perhaps, the same ignoble roots?

Well governments arise as administration for the king, that is where they begin, onto that there is then the council of nobles the two together become government it societies earlier stages.

Government admins for the rulers, sometime later nobles use governmental power to take power and expel the king, and you end up with emperors in a republic. Ofocurse this is all high up power play and things must be done to ensure that the people are contented. Oliver Cromwell did just what I suggested he used governmental power to take power from the king and install himself, the people are told they now have a republic, in truth it was a war of feudalism against capitalism, Cromwell represented and lead the business men of that time. 

A new capitalist elite ruled, it was about power, nothing to do with giving the people the vote that is a simple lie to gain their support.

The merchant class was getting richer and richer, so the king taxed them, they just put up their prices it didn't work and came to head with the civil war. As I suggested a Mafia is a group of business men that seek to do business in a way that those in power disagree with, in this sense Cromwell lead a mafia against the king, and used a lie about democray to gain their support.

You know what I just realised Graham, it is highly possible that the reason why the English went against Catholicism is because that stops any king becoming too powerful doesn't it.

You Cromwell lead a mafia against the king with some feudal lords, after Cromwell's death the feudal lords brought back the king so they could keep their titles, stopping the King becoming Catholic prevented the king becoming too power against the new rulers of the country, the elite in the background, infact it was when the British king went Catholic that they kicked him out and invite William of orange to come over.  

A Catholic King would have had a lot more assistence against the powers that be in the country, and could have used that to take over again, all about a new elite using what they can to make slaves of kings.  

Interesting history isnt it.
 

Offline graham.d

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2208
    • View Profile
The Mafia and their philosophy...
« Reply #9 on: 08/05/2011 14:39:13 »
You are rewriting history, Wiybit. Calling the English Cromwellian revolutionaries a Mafia is completely wrong, in my opinion. This difference far outweighs any similarities. Henry viii split from the catholic church because he wanted a divorce. He later took more power from the Catholic church (The Reformation) and commenced the "Dissolution" of the many monastries. This was not wholly unpopular even if done for selfish motives. Later the Catholic church was feared for its political power and influences and, in particular, its close association with enemies of England and its sowing of discontent in Scotland and its potential for creating unrest and revolution in England.
 

Offline Jolly- Joliver

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 584
    • View Profile
The Mafia and their philosophy...
« Reply #10 on: 08/05/2011 15:18:31 »
You are rewriting history, Wiybit.

No I was taking a re-look at it.

Calling the English Cromwellian revolutionaries a Mafia is completely wrong, in my opinion.

Not in mine, they were business men that sort to trade in a manner the king didn't like, rather looose but it does sit with in the general idea I gave of Mafia.
 

Offline Jolly- Joliver

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 584
    • View Profile
The Mafia and their philosophy...
« Reply #11 on: 08/05/2011 15:23:31 »
Mafia codes are rather loose and diverse so it is hard to do a fair comparison. The Sicilian Mafia is based on self-interested clans based on large family relationships and allegiances. It is a concept that is a hangover from past times and does not (and cannot) sit well within a democratic society any more than witchcraft should survive within a technologically aware society.

Well it interesting you say that, why do you except the corporations in a democratic society? They seek to trade however they want to, with no restrictions on behaviour at all, if people die from pollution from their factories, they deny it, seek to cover it up and pay no compensation at all, and we have plenty of examples from history of that. They seek to trade as they want to, with no over sight or regulation at all! That is not Mafia style? No, as I said the mafia have morals.

« Last Edit: 08/05/2011 15:28:19 by Wiybit »
 

Offline graham.d

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2208
    • View Profile
The Mafia and their philosophy...
« Reply #12 on: 08/05/2011 16:46:19 »
You can make analogies (democratic societies and Mafias) but that is not being the same.

Do you mean "accept" or "except"? In any case I do not agree that corporation should be exempt from lawful control and, indeed, they are not. It is also not the case that all corporation behave immorally or just in their own self interest if it was detrimental to people. As a company director I can tell you that I would not go along with such a view and that also that directors can be held personally responsible. I do agree that this can be a problem and certainly requires vigilant scrutiny and maintained legislation. It has also been too easy for some company directors to organise a company to maximise their own personal reward; unfortunately the power of shareholders is often too hands-off and too weak (because they are not organised) to change this.
 

Offline Jolly- Joliver

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 584
    • View Profile
The Mafia and their philosophy...
« Reply #13 on: 08/05/2011 21:25:00 »
You can make analogies (democratic societies and Mafias) but that is not being the same.

Do you mean "accept" or "except"? In any case I do not agree that corporation should be exempt from lawful control and, indeed, they are not.

Oh really? what lawful controls? They are too big too fail? They are a law un-to-themselves. Not one banker has been prosecuted for the colapse of 2008, you know why? Because they got rid of all the regulation and made crime legal, of the laws they did break, they are seeking to rewrite them, so they are not prosecutable.

To quote Max keiser "How much you want to look the other way, 2 million, 10 million, they'll just pay them off as usual" It's a loose quote but it end with him saying "They're all finacial terrorists! and should be in Prison!"




 It is also not the case that all corporation behave immorally or just in their own self interest if it was detrimental to people. As a company director I can tell you that I would not go along with such a view and that also that directors can be held personally responsible.

Yet they should be, they are at the helm, if a middle manger off their own back does something, well that's different, but, even so as the person at the helm, it should be made clear to middle managers that acting in such a manner is un exceptable. It always goes to the top eventually.



 I do agree that this can be a problem and certainly requires vigilant scrutiny and maintained legislation.

The corporations are seeking the removal of all regulation, they want a free for all. under this false idea that free market means no rules, when the free market can only function with rules.


It has also been too easy for some company directors to organise a company to maximise their own personal reward; unfortunately the power of shareholders is often too hands-off and too weak (because they are not organised) to change this.

That should change also.
« Last Edit: 08/05/2011 21:34:07 by Wiybit »
 

Offline graham.d

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2208
    • View Profile
The Mafia and their philosophy...
« Reply #14 on: 08/05/2011 22:19:04 »
Most corporations are not "too big to fail". The banking situation was a rare exception which was arrived at through a lack of regulation of an area very much tied in with a country's economy. What do you want to do? Nationalise all businesses and have a controlled economy like the former Soviet Union or like China is gradually dismantling? Where I agree is that it is not viable to have a complete free market economy - it has to be regulated and it can be a problem to set the controls at the right level. Generally it needs a light hand on the tiller, but there dose need to be some steering.

Whilst I would completely join in with complaining about the appalling way some Banks have continued to obscenely reward their senior executives, despite being bailed out by vast amounts of taxpayers' money, it is not difficult to see how mutual competition led to banks taking (what is now obvious) unreasonable risks. 20-20 hindsight is a remarkable gift that most of us have, but very few saw the problems in advance. In fact any bank who did not go down this risky route some years ago would have been left behind and probably been taken over by a bigger, and more aggressive bank. It is also now clear that many people in these organisations only had a loose concept about how derivatives actually work, which is astounding.

The UK made the decision that it was better to prevent the banks failing, the USA (which has a more free market approach) chose to allow matters to take their course, hence the collapse of major banks and a considerable loss to many shareholders and pension funds.

There are lots of things that should change but it is usually not so easy to see exactly in what way - there are usually downsides.
 

Offline Jolly- Joliver

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 584
    • View Profile
The Mafia and their philosophy...
« Reply #15 on: 09/05/2011 21:30:08 »
Most corporations are not "too big to fail".

Sorry it's to important to fail :) well Bear Stern did, but you are missing the point that non should be either too big or too important to fail, the idea should be vulgar and offensive to a free market thinker, or person that believes in it.



The banking situation was a rare exception which was arrived at through a lack of regulation of an area very much tied in with a country's economy. What do you want to do?

The regulations were there before they removed them, Regan started it, then Bush continued it so did Clinton and Bush jr also. and after those regs were removed they still broke the ones that were still present, fractional holding for example, under the fractional reserve system they are meant to keep back part of the money they receive on deposit they don't. But with the sub prime it was worse by far, they gave moragages knowing the people couldn't afford them, they then pretended they were AAA by putting lots of different one together and just getting a rating on the AAA, they then sold them on as AAA, they then bet with people that they would fail- Who will bet on a sub prime morgage not failing? No one,

The people betting thought they were AAA, "Oh you have AAA morgages and want to bet they will fail? I'll take that bet, Hey Harry he thinks these AAA morgages will all fail what a fool" 

Please begin to see how much they conned everyone, and then when it all goes to bad, we the people pay them? we bail them out? Are you insane? They all should have failed and better smaller banks taken over, BUT NOOO THEIR TOO IMPORTANT TO FAIL.

Even worse the money the governments gave them went to paying the bets off, Goldman Sachs put all the money they were given straight into profits, then when it is suggested that as the governments have bailed them out the people should have a say about how they are run, the banks say "Oh you can have the money back, we didn't need it really"


Mervin king "It is shocking that the people are not more angry about what has happened"
 

Nationalise all businesses and have a controlled economy like the former Soviet Union or like China is gradually dismantling?

Is being dismantled you mean.


Where I agree is that it is not viable to have a complete free market economy - it has to be regulated and it can be a problem to set the controls at the right level.

Oh am I to understand you think a free market has no rules, not the case, a free market can only exist with rules against cartels, monopolies, insider trading, fraud you cannot have a free market with out regulations, the systems is a game no rules no game- just a joke.


Generally it needs a light hand on the tiller, but there dose need to be some steering.

That's fear talking. Oligarchy do not want to risk so will use any excuse to keep control. The rules maintain the system or should.


Whilst I would completely join in with complaining about the appalling way some Banks have continued to obscenely reward their senior executives, despite being bailed out by vast amounts of taxpayers' money, it is not difficult to see how mutual competition led to banks taking (what is now obvious) unreasonable risks.

They didn't risk they exploited the ignorant, they risked nothing really all they did was keep on going way past the time they should have stopped, "too much of a good thing" as the saying goes, they didn't risk really, they have made a killing over the last few years, and used much of the bailout money to buy smaller banks.

The panic was more about scaring the politicians into bailing them out.


 20-20 hindsight is a remarkable gift that most of us have, but very few saw the problems in advance.

Not true they knew what they were doing would come to a head at some point and played it top their advantage.



In fact any bank who did not go down this risky route some years ago would have been left behind and probably been taken over by a bigger, and more aggressive bank. It is also now clear that many people in these organisations only had a loose concept about how derivatives actually work, which is astounding.

and probably false, they know how to use them to make money, to suddenly calm they did not know what they were doing is a way to get out of jail free- not guilty I didn't know, lying children.

The UK made the decision that it was better to prevent the banks failing, the USA (which has a more free market approach) chose to allow matters to take their course, hence the collapse of major banks and a considerable loss to many shareholders and pension funds.

Not true, only bear Stern was allowed to fail. Others were taken public, meaning all the bad debt the people got burdened with.



There are lots of things that should change but it is usually not so easy to see exactly in what way - there are usually downsides.

Sorry but that free for all criminal joke, has so many problems with it, no one has the guts to stand up to them, any politician tries and again as Max Keiser would say "They threaten to crash the system or cause a false alarm till the politicians are looking the other way and forget"
« Last Edit: 09/05/2011 21:35:05 by Wiybit »
 

Offline graham.d

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2208
    • View Profile
The Mafia and their philosophy...
« Reply #16 on: 10/05/2011 14:13:54 »
You have lots of complaints but few solutions, Wiybit. You did not really suggest what should have been done regarding the banking crisis apart from saying, as the man said when asked for directions, "well if I was you, I wouldn't start from here".

It's alright to shout about the bankers but the general public were happy to get a good deal when things were going well and would switch banks to get a better one. This is called competition! Any bank that behaved too cautiously when others were raking in the cash was ultimately taken over. It's a problem of the free market. On the other hand, fully controlled economies don't work either. It needs a "degree" of control and judgement, and where and how to apply it is not trivial. And it is always easy to find someone who said "I told you so" afterwards. Even if they are telling the truth there is a statistical likelyhood that someone would have got it right but it doesn't always follow that this fortune will continue. Whatever you may think of Gordon Brown (the concensus is not a lot, I think), he and Mervyn King would have taken measures to prevent the banking crisis had they saw it coming. It is amazing how many people now think it was all obvious.
 

Offline Jolly- Joliver

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 584
    • View Profile
The Mafia and their philosophy...
« Reply #17 on: 10/05/2011 20:41:44 »
You have lots of complaints but few solutions, Wiybit. You did not really suggest what should have been done regarding the banking crisis apart from saying, as the man said when asked for directions, "well if I was you, I wouldn't start from here".

There are lots of solutions, but the politicians are doing the bidding of the bankers. As I said before the idea of too big to fail or too important to fail is completely unfree market.



It's alright to shout about the bankers but the general public were happy to get a good deal when things were going well and would switch banks to get a better one. This is called competition!

Which is less today, many of the banks used the bailout money to buy up smaller banks, Lloyd's- TSB has become one of the biggest banks ever, monoplies rules should have prevented that, but the politicians just agreed, bullied and scared into it and agreed.

You believe in competition then in no way should they have been bailed out, new banks would have started up, smaller banks would have bought up the assets worth something, the politicians did completely the wrong thing simply to protect their friends, or maybe owners is a better word.



Any bank that behaved too cautiously when others were raking in the cash was ultimately taken over.

The sound banks have been destroyed by the criminal ones, now they are all, intelligent isn't it.



 It's a problem of the free market.

No it's a problem of regulators and politicians being lackeys, to business.


 On the other hand, fully controlled economies don't work either.

Who is taking about controlled economies- did you miss my point about regulation.



 It needs a "degree" of control and judgement, and where and how to apply it is not trivial.

Agree, but allowing self regulation is simply putting the fox incharge of the hen house, government should regulate and enforce those rules in the interest of everyone, to stop monoplies and so protect smaller business, to protect investors from being defrauded, to protect the overall economy from people that will crash it because they just wanna exploit people and make as much money as possible doing so. Enforcing the rules is not big government, it's just enforcing the needed rules so the free market functions- and doesn't go as it has- fascist.

We need once again some trust busters, and all these too big too fail companies broken up.

Which will create jobs and start the process of gaining ground again and recovery, the problems is those at the top do not want to lose what they have and are using their political clout to get protection.


 And it is always easy to find someone who said "I told you so" afterwards.

Well when this happens, I'll say I told you so, the euro is going break as banks and investors are playing with different countries bonds and seeking to force them into default, just to make a buck to cover their trillions in losses. The banks have learnt nothing, all they have learnt is just how much influence they have today.



 Even if they are telling the truth there is a statistical likelyhood that someone would have got it right but it doesn't always follow that this fortune will continue. Whatever you may think of Gordon Brown (the concensus is not a lot, I think), he and Mervyn King would have taken measures to prevent the banking crisis had they saw it coming.

Please, Gorden brown, gave independence to the bank of England, weakening the democratic power of government over the market, and then took away their role as regulator and gave it to wet behind the ears newbies(whoever it's given to they'll be new at it-it's a new job isn't it), Gordon Brown is full of it. And those decisions by him made the situation worse!

And no the banks involved in all this dodgy business knew it would come to head at some point, be sure they prepared for that.


 It is amazing how many people now think it was all obvious.

I remember reading an article in the independent front page around Feb 2007 about how the world economy was about to crash to pieces, over a year and a half later it happened. The banks new what they were doing, we the people did not but some people saw it be sure!
« Last Edit: 10/05/2011 20:52:06 by Wiybit »
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
The Mafia and their philosophy...
« Reply #18 on: 10/05/2011 23:59:11 »

It is amazing how many people now think it was all obvious.
 

It was obvious to this geezer that something was horribly awry when the value of our fancy house in California doubled in less two years! I told Mrs G to start packing.

As the Ancient Italians had it, CARPE DIEM
« Last Edit: 11/05/2011 00:21:08 by Geezer »
 

Offline graham.d

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2208
    • View Profile
The Mafia and their philosophy...
« Reply #19 on: 11/05/2011 10:26:15 »
It seems that we agree that there should be regulation. I think where we differ is that you think it should have been obvious that there was going to be a banking crisis so that measures should have been taken to prevent it, where I think that this was not so easy to foresee (except for wily Scotsmen like Geezer). I agree that giving independence to the Bank of England to make decisions was not a good idea, but then I don't think that any government has any real capability to make any better decisions. It was a surprising decision for a Labour government to make.

There was a big change in the nature of banking (at least in the UK) from the 1970s. Banking was a very conservative (small c) business where no risks were taken. It was also quite non-centralised with branch managers in charge of their own budgets for lending to local businesses. This changed considerably with a number of mergers and a high degree of centralisation. Many building societies converted to banks and their shareholders (mostly ordinary investors) profited, though not as much as the directors. This was the go-get-rich Thatcher era. The banks all moved in the same way in this regard. It was not a good thing in my opinion, but once this sort of dynamic is in place, there is no room for non-conformists.

It is also true that there is a majority of people on the boards of the banks, and many other companies, whose prime concern is making money for themselves. Shareholders have very little power and customers even less. There is some incentive to keep the gravy train rolling, however. Whilst these companies were doing well and seemingly successful there was no need to change. On the inside there developed a culture of risk taking and this was felt by the individuals concerned to be necessary for the bank, and therefore themselves, to maximise profits. It became the norm for money from savings accounts to be used to invest in areas which were high risk. This would not have happened 30 years earlier. Whilst there was an expanding economy, this worked fine. But like the crash in 1926 and the East India Company, few saw it coming. Not the Bank of England nor the Federal Reserve. Any who had concerns would be swept aside because getting off the train too early could leave them left behind and uncompetitive.

A failure of a bank is not just damaging to its management and shareholders, but also to its many savers. It also can have damaging consequences to future trust in institutions where such trust is necessary. The consequences of letting banks fail is far reaching. To what extent this was something that Bank directors relied on, I don't know, but it is not an assumption I would make. It galls everyone that these same people are raking in huge bonuses still but there is no mechanism to control this in the banks that received no bail out (like Barclays for example). There have been limited measures in the other banks and these are, arguably, insufficient because there is fear that key staff will leave. Changing the culture could take a long time and I doubt that there is a willingness to take the risk of damaging the net wealth creating capability of the City of London. There is a classic "prisoner's dilemma" problem here: controlling the banks only works properly on an international scale.
 

Offline Jolly- Joliver

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 584
    • View Profile
The Mafia and their philosophy...
« Reply #20 on: 11/05/2011 16:04:57 »
It seems that we agree that there should be regulation. I think where we differ is that you think it should have been obvious that there was going to be a banking crisis so that measures should have been taken to prevent it, where I think that this was not so easy to foresee (except for wily Scotsmen like Geezer). I agree that giving independence to the Bank of England to make decisions was not a good idea, but then I don't think that any government has any real capability to make any better decisions.

Not the case as people outside the system, they should be able to think in unbiased ways, and look at what is beneficial to the whole market, with all included, the big fish that are calling the shots, are just acting in their own interest- they always will, self regulation does not work.


It was a surprising decision for a Labour government to make.

They were not a labour government, not new labour it's blue labour, Look at brown he reduced taxes on the richest, gave more of the peoples power to the market, and increased taxes on the poorest scraped the 10p tax rate and changed them all 20. Not Labour at all, they do what business says, business rules today, the market rules.



There was a big change in the nature of banking (at least in the UK) from the 1970s.

Thather and Regan, they eliminated alot of the old rules and gave a free hand to business, as well as many pf the democratic powers that government had, they didn't even consult the people, they just gave them away, under this false idea of restricting power.



 Banking was a very conservative (small c) business where no risks were taken. It was also quite non-centralised with branch managers in charge of their own budgets for lending to local businesses.

A time when the banker actually sort to take care of their clients, today they seek to steal from them, sell them things they cannot afford, charge them for things they should not, like withdrawing money from a cash machine, they are going to start charging people for the reserve holding they are meant to keep under the regs, understand that as good practice they should hold back an amount of money but rather than do that they are intending to charge people, "you want us to protect your money better(this is their job in the first place) then we are going to charge you, even tho really it's in the banks interest to keep that money, they are just finding any excuse they can to charge people, to make more money and rip you all off.



 This changed considerably with a number of mergers and a high degree of centralisation.

Which would all have been illegal before, as it's antitrust, anti-free market, anti-compertician.

 

 Many building societies converted to banks and their shareholders (mostly ordinary investors) profited, though not as much as the directors. This was the go-get-rich Thatcher era. The banks all moved in the same way in this regard. It was not a good thing in my opinion, but once this sort of dynamic is in place, there is no room for non-conformists.

You are either a insider trader crook or you get gone, not exceptable.
 


It is also true that there is a majority of people on the boards of the banks, and many other companies, whose prime concern is making money for themselves.

You'll find many of the directors sit on the bourds of other companies also, www.theyrule.net check it out.


Shareholders have very little power and customers even less. There is some incentive to keep the gravy train rolling, however. Whilst these companies were doing well and seemingly successful there was no need to change. On the inside there developed a culture of risk taking and this was felt by the individuals concerned to be necessary for the bank, and therefore themselves, to maximise profits.

It's more than just risk taking, giving someone a morgage you know they cannot pay, then selling it on to someone else, then betting on it failing, while all the while pretending it is a AAA, is seeking to deceive, to cheat people, to con them, far more than just risk taking, completely criminal, You're the fool, right, if you buy the junk. 


 It became the norm for money from savings accounts to be used to invest in areas which were high risk. This would not have happened 30 years earlier. Whilst there was an expanding economy, this worked fine.

This is a good point, 30 years ago it would not have happened, those running the banks today are used to their huge profits, and will not except going back, ergo a bigger crash is going to come. We either break these banks up and get better ones started, or the system is going to smash in the extreme. All the people that work in these banks know how to steal and lie and cheat, that's the job they have been doing for the last 15 years or longer, the culture hasn't really changed. You're all mugs, ripe for the picking.



 But like the crash in 1926 and the East India Company, few saw it coming. Not the Bank of England nor the Federal Reserve. Any who had concerns would be swept aside because getting off the train too early could leave them left behind and uncompetitive.

It's interesting you reference this crash, not many know of it, it happened 2-3 years before 1929, and the government did the right things and after a year everthing was back to as it was before more or less, then with the crash of 29 they did everything differently, and the rest is history.



A failure of a bank is not just damaging to its management and shareholders, but also to its many savers. It also can have damaging consequences to future trust in institutions where such trust is necessary.

The banks do not have that attitude, the culture is completely perverted.



The consequences of letting banks fail is far reaching.

No does not have to be, it is more so today thanks to the reality that they are operating in many different countries, but that should be prohibited and their size limited, so they are not too big to fail, precisely because of that they should not be allowed to become that big, its' not too late, they will say that, but no, we can change it, their interest is themselves at the expense of the free market system, if it is not addressed another nightmare will be coming, and possibly a worse one than happened in 2008.



To what extent this was something that Bank directors relied on, I don't know, but it is not an assumption I would make. It galls everyone that these same people are raking in huge bonuses still but there is no mechanism to control this in the banks that received no bail out (like Barclays for example). There have been limited measures in the other banks and these are, arguably, insufficient because there is fear that key staff will leave. Changing the culture could take a long time and I doubt that there is a willingness to take the risk of damaging the net wealth creating capability of the City of London. There is a classic "prisoner's dilemma" problem here: controlling the banks only works properly on an international scale.

NEVER! They can stick the idea of ruling the planet and that is what they want, to control every country get every government doing their bidding. Too big too fail needs to end!

you put in place some joke of an international system, theyll ignore the rules as always, and get even more powerful. the national democratic governments of each country should set should set the standards expected within their bourders, no too big to fail bunkem, Business men are not fit to rule!

The Banks should have little say in the regs also, they always seek to twist them.

As BC said we live in a plutocracy, capital-ism, the banks make the capital they own it actaully, we do not use money as money has an intrinsic value, we use currency, credits valued by tax-debt, in value set off in the future when your tax pays the bonds off. We the people give the currency it's value, but the private banks print the stuff, they own it and can cancel it, true the bank of England was taken public, but Brown gave it independence. Even worse the
banks are seeking electronic money, "space credits".


I feel all money should be printed by, a nationally own bank, and backed by something, that can be gold or silver, or anything. If you back a currency by enought things it becomes very hard to inflate it, one pound will get you at a bank enchnge a pound of rice, an amount of gold or silver, an amount of leather.

The reason why with all the printing they are doing, that the currency is not inflating much is because it has no real value, it's value is relatively all in the mind, they can print print print, the value wont change really, it's all off in the future when the tax bill comes.
If you are wondering where the inflation is actually comming from it's from that money not really lossing it's value, fighting over the limited resourses, people are putting all that printed money into Gold and gold sky rockets, if they keep it in the bank they'll be no inflation at all.
So when you see prices rise, know it is becasue some rich person after being even money from the quantative easing(and it those with the greatest political banking connections that get it- the oligarchy) is buying up resoruses leaving less available so the price goes up, the inflations you are seeing are all contrived, if you have enought of the money the banks print- you can cause any comodity to increase in price. This system is a joke!


I thought I would come back and bold that paragraph
« Last Edit: 13/05/2011 23:01:58 by Wiybit »
 

Offline Jolly- Joliver

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 584
    • View Profile
The Mafia and their philosophy...
« Reply #21 on: 11/05/2011 17:02:27 »
So understand when you see mass inflation, know it's because the oligarchy has decided to pour all their money into all the comodities they can.
 

Offline Jolly- Joliver

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 584
    • View Profile
The Mafia and their philosophy...
« Reply #22 on: 11/05/2011 17:24:33 »
Quote from:  by me
So understand when you see mass inflation, know it's because the oligarchy has decided to pour all their money into all the comodities they can.

The oligarchy will never forgive me for this little nugget, but I think they should be more concerned about God forgiving them.

The whole system is a joke people always has been.
 

I think america should keep the dollar and pay their debts! But should you see Gold explode in price, know the dollar is about to die. What you recokon? 10,000 dollars an ounce? maybe more?

Are they pot commited? are they crying?

Oh and for anyone looking to invest in gold or silver make sure you get a caste settle agreement, otherwise they can pay you in dollars and not silver or gold, the banks are over selling to deflate the price. You if you dont get a caste settle agreement then they'll be no silver or gold actually backing the certificates.

What I mean for people that do not understand, is that to keep gold and silver low the banks are selling gold and silver they do not have, they are buying lots themselves then over over selling it, JP Morgan for example has sold about a 100 times the amount they actually have. This keeps the price down.

So if you do not have a caste settle agreement they'll pay you in dollars.
« Last Edit: 11/05/2011 18:13:38 by Wiybit »
 

Offline Jolly- Joliver

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 584
    • View Profile
The Mafia and their philosophy...
« Reply #23 on: 11/05/2011 17:37:32 »
Shall we have a song to celebrate?

Jesse J, Price tag.
 

Offline graham.d

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2208
    • View Profile
The Mafia and their philosophy...
« Reply #24 on: 12/05/2011 13:32:45 »
Interesting about JPMorgan acquiring gold against loans to its owners. They claim it is a "service" in storing gold (people see it as a hedge against a falling dollar) but critics say they may be reselling it in exchange for gold price derivatives. This is where I lose touch with reality. I can see that they may have some maths worked out so that they can't lose but I can also see that not everyone can win. Actually, I don't know that anyone outside really knows what they are doing. The rumours all come from a limited range of sources. I think the concern is that if the dollar crashes and JPM have not actually got the gold, then JPM crashes and the people lose their gold too. It has certainly been the case that national banks like JPM (you can think that JPM is linked with the federal reserve) or the Bank of England don't actually keep gold to cover the money in circulation anymore. The promise that they "will pay the bearer ..." on your used tenner has long ceased to be a reality.

I would be grateful of a clear explanation of what anyone thinks is going on (allbeit a theory) and also for an explanation from JPM's perspective.

By the way, can you get higher order derivatives? Like betting on the rate of change of price of a derivative, or even betting on the rate of change of the rate of change?
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

The Mafia and their philosophy...
« Reply #24 on: 12/05/2011 13:32:45 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums