Banks, Insurance companies, Investment funds, Retirement funds, and the 'Future Fund' ALL provide a major benefit to the Australian economy. They create capital to start companies, build factories and create employment. They buy shares in company issues and keep the EMPLOYERS in business! They finance infrastructure etc. and, "As I've said before, the worst thing the govts did in 2008 was bail out the banks they should have let them all die" When a bank "dies", do you have any idea what happens to the shareholders (often retirement funds) investments and also the depositors funds? They disappear into that great gurgler in the sky! Be careful what you wish for. OC PS, If you wish to quote the FDIC, I suggest you find out how much money it has available, and how much the banks hold as deposits. And in OZ they have no FDIC just komrade waynes word that he will cough up the money, and we all know how much he has of that.
That is what they are supposed to do and if they just stuck to that there would be far less problems. Credit unions perform that function as well and so do insurance mutuals etc where profits benefit members. But when banks trade in markets on their own account or insurance companies sell derivatives, how do those activities benefit the economy ? AIG did not need 100 billion in bailouts because of their housing insurance - it was for their derivatives Those banks that choose to go into risky operations and fail deserve to go under so that those that do the right thing can prosper That is one of the points Catherine is making in that video A local bank can take depositors funds and provide loans to fund small business without the need for Wall Street to take a massive margin in the process for no added benefit
OC.. Four times 14.99 = 59.96%...Now what are the % for other corporations. What about Insurance Corporations? Regards Errol 43 I do remember a hedge fund making a $11 billion bid for Qantas and the CEO recommending a sell to shareholders. IMO if that would have happened Qantas would be no longer Australia's own airliner.
100% agree. Westpac and the National bank got bailed out by USA Federal Reserve bank to the tune (IIRC) of$4.6 billion..Not a word to shareholders. Oh! a secret deal! Can't have a run on the share market. Regards Errol 43
To try and be a bit more specific around this point. I 100% agree that banks, insurance companies etc provide many valuable services and a rapid crunch in the supply of these services would result in a drastic hit to everyday life. What I specifically hate is that the legalised FRB and money creation that underpin our credit money economy is largely unnatural and (besides the theft and inflation aspects) actually increases the likelihood of a rapid credit crunch compared to an economy working under a sound money system. The credit money economy is inherently more unstable and penalises savers and enriches bankers far more than would otherwise happen. Further, the credit money economy enables the expansion and encroachment of Government into many new areas. The legal tender laws are a tool of social control and reduce our civil liberties. Sound money is fundamentally an instrument for the protection of civil liberties against despotic inroads on the part of governments and the banking cartel supported by the government.
Errol, "Westpac and the National bank got bailed out by USA Federal Reserve bank to the tune (IIRC) of$4.6 billion..Not a word to shareholders. Oh! a secret deal! Can't have a run on the share market. Read thoroughly your research on 'Primary Dealer Credit Facility". The banks were NOT "bailed out", money was advanced OVERNIGHT as applied for, at the 'overnight' rate of interest. Principal and interest were repaid the next morning and it was nothing more than a book balancing function. The loans were lent and repaid many times to many banks, in the months following the GFC. OC
Errpl. "Oh Really! Just like the Australian Banks. A,B,C own the majority of shares in D..Then D, C and B own majority of shares in A and so forth...You could buy shares in Walmart till you were blue in the face but you will never own it." If anyone has the money enough to make a successful public offer, they can buy ANY company on the stock exchange. It is the shareholders decision including the controlling family, to accept or not. Not sure what you are suggesting here, but if AB and C own 45% of D, then are you suggesting that ABC will collude in forcing D to act in a certain manner. If so, then AB and C are in conflict with the Companies Act, and probably the Crimes Act. I would suggest that to carry out this act they would have to go to the (PUBLIC) AGM and get a resolution passed, binding on the Board of Directors of D. .....and a public company cannot AFAIK hold shares in itself, thus the % is just short of 45% in banks of the Big 4. ALL Banks in OZ have many 1000s of shareholders, and the stink would echo around OZ if ABC ever tried it. The Feds would be at their door the next day. or are you suggesting that something may be colluded to over a port at the Melbourne Club in Collins Street? JMO OC
OK, do I need to point out what the problems are here? That if the power wasn't there, the corporations wouldn't be able to influence it in their favour? Everybody has this weird idea about government. That it can be controlled or something, or that it is supposed to be beholden to the "will of the people" whatever that means. Do people think about what that means? Does it mean the majority should get to boss around the minority? Sounds like a wonderful idea. Not. What about the politicians themselves? Can they have their own ideas and opinions or are they supposed to be drones that represent the will of the majority? And if so, why would we even need smart ones or a lot of them. Hell, a computer program could probably do that job, since it doesn't require any thinking you just do what the community tells you to. So when people whinge about undue influence on the political climate, really what else do you expect? Either the politicians live in a complete hermetically sealed bubble OR they are going to be influenced by the community around them. And I'll just make one comment regarding the banks. You have a forced monopoly currency. To be a bank in this country you have to submit to the rules of the current govt-run central banking cartel. The whole point of cartels is to benefit their members (and the people who work for them) over the customers. So is it any surprise that we are regularly abused by the banks? There is no real competition in the banking sector. Just a crony and highly unstable cartel. If there was real competition in this country the Australian currency would be abandoned for another currency when it was obvious it was losing value. That's the whole point of having a monopoly and using force to keep out any competitors. Lock your customers in and they have nowhere to go and you can arrange things to your own benefit.
They only influence government because it is there. When it's not they employ their own gun thugs and private police to do damn well whatever they please.
Here are the biggest shareholders in our 4 major banks. HSBC Jp Morgan Nat. nom Citicorp Com 13.59% 10% 8.81% 4.30% ANZ 17.46% 14.51% 13.42% 3.84% National 16.86% 12.20% 11.46% 4.57% Westpac 14.88% 12.71% 10.47% 4.79% Figures were obtained after google search. Twenty top share holders listed. Only need another 2 and wow 50% of the vote. Throw in some of the CEO's, Chairman and directors plus board members and wow, what do you know, we have a majority.. All those in favor of a pay rise? Regards Errol 43
