Hi Lev, all - My understanding isn't that Aryan implies that any charity is harmful; personally I think that charity can provide social safety net in communities (an alternative to that state-run), and may be an instrument of development. I let Aryan elaborate his view if that's different. I reject argument of guilt by association. Ms. Moyo's case against handouts is solid. Her Goldman employ doesn't matter. I honestly don't know why Goldman Sachs is demonised - they are Red Hat of banks. Regards Slav -----Original Message----- From: luv-talk-bounces@lists.luv.asn.au [mailto:luv-talk-bounces@lists.luv.asn.au] On Behalf Of Lev Lafayette The claim was that charity was harmful

As for Dambisa Moyo's article, I would be wary about taking too much advise on such matters from a "former economist at Goldman Sachs". They have a reputation, you know. "This e-mail and any attachments to it (the "Communication") is, unless otherwise stated, confidential, may contain copyright material and is for the use only of the intended recipient. If you receive the Communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete the Communication and the return e-mail, and do not read, copy, retransmit or otherwise deal with it. Any views expressed in the Communication are those of the individual sender only, unless expressly stated to be those of Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited ABN 11 005 357 522, or any of its related entities including ANZ Bank New Zealand Limited (together "ANZ"). ANZ does not accept liability in connection with the integrity of or errors in the Communication, computer virus, data corruption, interference or delay arising from or in respect of the Communication."

Lev Lafayette wrote:

The Red Hat of banks? That's quite insulting to Red Hat. Goldman Sachs is notoriously corrupt (cf., http://dailybail.com/home/corrupt-across-the-globe-how-goldman-sachs-helped-...).

And that's only the first in a looong list at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldman_Sachs#Controversies

Hi Slav,

Re. Aryan's position - we already accepted that oversimplification happens earlier in this thread (net worth v. income) so please, give a break.

Whilst that oversimplification was incorrect as well, that is not the issue that was raised. It was the suggestion that all charity was harmful, which I hope we have demonstrated is certainly not the case.

As for Goldman's "corruption" - you gave a bad example. They offered willing customer that allows them to achieve the desired goal (that of keeping stimulating Greek economy by increasing debt), legally, for a fee. None of that fits a definition of corruption; that's exactly what financial institutions are supposed to do. I compared Goldman to Red Hat Software because both provide innovative services in their respective fields.

We must have a different definition of corruption then. You are taking aa position that because the action was (apparently) legal, then it cannot be corrupt. I would beg to differ. The purpose of the action, whether it was legal or not, was to deliberately aid and abet the Greek government to provide false information. To claim that "[n]one of that fits a definition of corruption" is demonstrably false. For example Kaufmann and Vicente have gone to great lengths to explain how an activity can be legal *and* corrupt, particularly when it breaks the principles of a contextual ideal (for example, transparency in economic relations). It may have been legal for G-S to engage in fraud, but was also corrupt. For further reading see: Kaufmann, Daniel and Pedro Vicente, 2005, Legal Corruption, World Bank. Kaufmann, Daniel and Pedro Vicente, 2011, Legal Corruption(revised), Economics and Politics, v23, pp. 195-219. I would like you to consider what the position of legitimation from law qua law will entail in other fields as well, such as terrorism, murder, rape, etc.

And I think the fact that Ms. Moyo, an African economist, is well fed shouldn't go against her. I'd rather consider merits of her position than assorted trivia about the author.

I have already explained the errors of the position, based on the empirical scale. But I will continue to note that a lot of economists who complain about charity to the impoverished don't really understand the visceral component of the experience. -- Lev Lafayette, mobile: 61 432 255 208 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt

Hi Slav,

I didn't imply that legal and corrupt are mutually exclusive. My point is much simple - Goldman is not corrupt. I just was through the list of Goldman controversies and couldn't see where they have acted dishonestly.

Seriously?

From the first paragraph of the previously linked article:

"Goldman Sachs helped the Greek government to mask the true extent of its deficit with the help of a derivatives deal that legally circumvented the EU Maastricht deficit rules. At some point the so-called cross currency swaps will mature, and swell the country's already bloated deficit." They aided and abetted fraud. As for telling their clients one thing and doing another themselves? Setting up and selling a mortgage investment designed to fail? And more? http://www.wealthdaily.com/articles/how-corrupt-is-goldman-sachs/3994 Perhaps I just have particularly high standards (if not expectations) of what constitutes ethical behaviour in business. -- Lev Lafayette, mobile: 61 432 255 208 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt

Hi, On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 4:54 PM, Lev Lafayette <lev@levlafayette.com> wrote:

Perhaps I just have particularly high standards (if not expectations) of what constitutes ethical behaviour in business.

Actually Lev, I would argue that your expectation is very valid.

IMHO a great business is born of efficiency and a fundamental awareness of the greater good. IMHO a business that spends time on research,administration and justification of the "grey" and "dubious" is a business that wastes money on trying to game the rules. In the end, there is on a "trick", bereft of any real value...and inevitably someone else loses. BW

On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 03:30:26PM +1000, Brent Wallis wrote:

On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 4:54 PM, Lev Lafayette <lev@levlafayette.com> wrote:

...

Perhaps I just have particularly high standards (if not expectations) of what constitutes ethical behaviour in business.

Actually Lev, I would argue that your expectation is very valid. IMHO a great business is born of efficiency and a fundamental awareness of the greater good.

I thought it was the lefties and hippies who were supposed to be the hopelessly naive and impractical starry-eyed idealists?

IMHO a business that spends time on research,administration and justification of the "grey" and "dubious" is a business that wastes money on trying to game the rules.

gaming the rules - aka exploiting loopholes or breaking the law - is and always has been very profitable. that's why it's always popular with entrepreneurial types. it's fast and effective. (it's also why prohibition is always doomed to failure - black markets create huge profit margins, and there'll always be those who think the risk is worth it, especially if they can sucker others into shouldering the bulk of the risk)

In the end, there is on a "trick", bereft of any real value...and inevitably someone else loses.

well, duh! of course. someone else losing is the point. same as you can't be a successful thief unless you've actually stolen something from someone else. "real value" is irrelevant. "creating value" is not the goal or even the means. "extracting profit" is. you're mistakenly assuming that business is a game played only, or mostly, by honourable people. nothing could be further from the truth - the honourable few are the exceptions and the game is not to win "fairly", it is to win by any means at all. we live in a global kleptocracy. you only have to look at the giants of wall street, the global economic collapse their systematc pseudo-legal(*) thievery caused and the control they have over the US govt to see that. we may be slightly buffered from that here due to banking regulations useful for more than just toilet paper, but not much - we have our own collection of thieves and scoundrels who tell the government what to do and the public what to think and how to vote. big finance types sure, but also mining and media feudal lords like rinehart and even emperor palpatine himself...ooops, i mean rupert murdoch wielding the dark side of the fourth estate. (*) "pseudo-legal" not because what they did isn't actually illegal but because enough money and lawyers and convoluted, near-incomprehensible schemes and layers of subsidiaries and contractors let you get away with bare-faced lies dressing up fraud as over-enthusiasm and honest mistakes and "nobody-could-have-predicted-that" unforeseen market downturns. it wasn't a mistake and it wasn't a surprise, it was deliberate plundering of the economy with the big players out to grab as much as they could for themselves while they could get away with it and to hell with the consequences for everyone else. they wanted to win, increase their own personal scores - so everyone else had to lose. craig -- craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>

On Sat, Jun 08, 2013 at 06:37:57PM +1000, Trent W. Buck wrote:

Craig Sanders wrote:

...

They wanted to win, increase their own personal scores - so everyone else had to lose.

I'm not convinced the system *has* to be zero sum, but I can certainly see how it turns out that way in practice.

i agree - it doesn't have to be. but it is. it takes strong regulations and a willingness to enforce them and to prosecute white-collar criminals to avoid that. craig -- craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>

I posted link to work of Dambisa Moyo (which should imply little research) and none of catch phrases and dogma. Affixing labels and arguing to straw man seems to be your style of dialogue. Regards Slav -----Original Message----- From: luv-talk-bounces@lists.luv.asn.au [mailto:luv-talk-bounces@lists.luv.asn.au] On Behalf Of Russell Coker On Wed, 5 Jun 2013, Petros <Petros.Listig@fdrive.com.au> wrote:

Aryan and Pidgorny, could you please do a little research before replying in future. Just posting dogma and catch-phrases isn't useful. "This e-mail and any attachments to it (the "Communication") is, unless otherwise stated, confidential, may contain copyright material and is for the use only of the intended recipient. If you receive the Communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete the Communication and the return e-mail, and do not read, copy, retransmit or otherwise deal with it. Any views expressed in the Communication are those of the individual sender only, unless expressly stated to be those of Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited ABN 11 005 357 522, or any of its related entities including ANZ Bank New Zealand Limited (together "ANZ"). ANZ does not accept liability in connection with the integrity of or errors in the Communication, computer virus, data corruption, interference or delay arising from or in respect of the Communication."