That's true. The emphasis has always been on his role in the Gallipoli campaign (his crusade to open a third front) and as PM in WW2. As Chancellor of the Exchequer wasn't he instrumental in putting the UK back on the gold standard but cocked it up by not allowing for all the paper money that had been printed during WW1? I seem to recall something along those lines in Currency Wars. Hmmm, that's three major cock-ups! No wonder I don't like him very much!
Another opinion piece on the Open Bank Resolution (OBR) Policy: http://www.interest.co.nz/opinion/6...e-time-let-s-just-have-proper-deposit-guarant The comments are worth reading too (often better than the articles on that site).
Unlikely, I'm afraid. The average person in the street is financially illiterate. I was reading somewhere the other day that when a store advertises "30% off" (for example), a lot of people don't even know what that means. Well, obviously they know it means there's a discount, but the whole "percent" thing kind of goes over their heads.
Business commentator Rod Oram identifies a massive flaw in the Open Bank Resolution policy... Oram: Reserve Bank's depositor farce
Gino....your forgetting canada!!!! Canada on page 145 of their new provisions have included such bail in measures.
There's another recent thread on this forum discussing how all Western governments are adding the "bail-in" provision to existing laws. This change is being driven by the IMF. My only question is do they have a time frame in mind for when this shit gets contagious? Months? Years? When do you really begin to panic and bail out of cash deposits? I'm going to start on Tuesday by exiting a term deposit. At least then all my cash will be on-call (and spread between four different banks).
That's ridiculous! Once a bank is bailed out by a "bail-in" it isn't subject to another bail-in, BUT all other competitive banks are. The article makes the point that if you are a depositor who is fortunate to have money in a bank and an alternate bank is bailed-out with the bail-in (forced confiscation), you are faced with the very real prospect that if you don't move your money to the bailed-out bank, you could be faced with confiscation if the problem is systemic and your bank suddenly needs a bail-out. That is, the first bank to be bailed-out becomes an instant safe haven bank for all other depositors in the country! Hopefully, they will correct their stupidity before the legislation is enacted.
I think what he means is that if you're not an existing account holder you won't be able to deposit funds with the bailed-out bank while it's under government administration.
Churchill always said Europe needed more co-operation but that the UK was too different to join them. This was in the context of co-operating in a fashion like NATO, which was successful, and not in a customs union like the EEC/EU which is proving to not be successful. As for the Gallipoli plan, Churchill proposed and drafted the strategic plan then was removed from position of 1st Sea Lord before the tactical plan was even begun. He's a convenient scapegoat for the unsuccessful campaign and was so on-the-nose politically before the troops left for Turkey that he rejoined the Army as a front line infantry officer. He sought out combat and served capably on the Western Front, another reason I admire him. I'll always stand up to revisionist history trying to deconstruct the reputation of a great man. That's a tactic pioneered by the left.
Back to the original topic and the NZ Open Resolution farce, given how close Australia and NZ are in so many matters, can there be any doubt we are next in line to hear of some 'discussions' in a little known parliamentary committee (chaired by Doug Cameron or a Green) on this exact topic?
Well if Swan's "3 year inactive bank account seizure bill" was anything to go by... the committie has already met & deliberated 3 months ago.... probably in NZ
