SECTION FOUR, PART FIVE

You Wonder, Why? So Batista goes! Another asset pile which doesn't match the debt pile which built up against both the assets, and the promise. Too much money, chasing too little honesty. In medieval times, the marketplace was truly discoverable....cabbages on display...and the punter knew what they were buying, and being sold by the merchants. Somehow, we in modern society accept that increasing levels of market, and product sophistication, allow increasing degrees of less than honest commerce. I DON'T THINK SO. The philosophy of liberal democracy doesn't mean that dishonesty should become a high probability outcome.....so how do we short-circuit current trends which seem to reward it? One feature of medieval society was the role played by the Court advisors. Those close to the power base could exert all sorts of influencing on the ruling elite, and being able to be a Court advisor was a reasonably sure way to increase personal wealth. Just preferment really. Nothing intrinsic, probably just a bit more cunning than other citizens. Must have been fun really, trying to get ahead, by manipulating those around you to listen to you rather than someone else. Proper, and true, contest of ideas. The whole system of court honours, and titles, to indicate ranking...which over times turns into some perceived continued excellence...when it would have all been transitory when it first started. Australia still has an honours system, to reward something whcih leads to some advancement of society...Order of Australia, Medal of the Order of Australia, etc. Like anything else, these can be subverted by people who wish to garner one of these awards for their social advancement potential, despite being structurally dishonest. Australia has a number of examples, but the current case of the political figure, Obeid, would be a perfect example of social awards being advanced, when the individual is of a much more marginal nature, in terms of their true contribution to society. Lots of examples. What happens when a good example is in my opinion one of those cases where the overall contribution may not be as unalterably good, and correct, and belongs to someone who is seen as one of the scions of society...collecting plaudits over many years for being important, and powerful. Does that mean that we adopt differing measures, we in fact give them more latitude...because somewhere, somehow, there is a ledger of good/bad which allows greater degrees of freedom for our new version of Court advisors. I would contend, No. In fact, because they are trying to be authority figures, they should set a higher, and consistently higher, standard...because their leadership is something which demonstrates how the rest of society should behave. Again, our current liberal democracy seems to be being subverted..leadership is not in evidence, just simply self preferment/advancement. Who? Again, could be many. But let's get controversial again. If I said a society giant, we would need to provide some background. Chair of an investment bank, who presides over the appointment of an individual who worked at Allco, during its "glory?" days. Poor judgement at the bank. Who was on the Asx when trying to deal with the GFC, and some of the contingent, and arbitrary decisions, made during that period. Poor judgement at times by the ASX. Who was on a task to find a nominee for the chair of a sovereign wealth fund, and finds himself. Interesting concept of conflict of interest, or propriety of separation of tasks! Who is now on a PR campaign to get the Chair of one of the four banking majors...one of the banks that benefited fom the portfolio largess of that sovereign wealth fund, when the banks were running around to plug their wholesale funding deficits in 2008. Well recognised Court advisor. But that is all...Court advisor. No more preferred than you or me....but that is not how it works, is it? Have a government enquiry named after you, and you become immortal. Make it about Schools, and you look positively magnanimous. All very colourful, this Australia. Social contract regards leaders as persons who help to establish standards that all should aspire to. Sometimes the demonstrable standards could be higher, or more profound, shouldn't they?!!

SECTION FOUR, PART FOUR

You Wonder, Why? Likely to get controversial with this one, but sometimes metaphors are not understood. I had the need to travel along one of the major roads through the Blue Mountains on Wednesday. Why any significance? Well the Blue Mountains , while not of a high altitude by global standards, they are particularly rugged with significantly sharp valleys which fall away very quickly from the ridge line that the road largely follows. But they are also heavily wooded, with Australian eucalypts being the main variety. For anyone who knows or appreciates, the Australian bush burns with particular intensity, and a bushfire started in the region on the previous Thursday, and was still moving up and down some valleys on Wednesday. Worse still, Wednesday as slated as being a particularly nasty day, with expected wind gusts of 100 kms per hour, likely to fan the flames, and most persons were warned not to travel, and residents were told to get out. All dreadfully sensible. I have been in, and fought, Australian brush and bush fires a number of times over the years, and i do know what happens. More importantly, there seems to have been a "sea-change" a number of years ago in the policy by which fires are fought. I can understand why there was a change in policy......a number of volunteer bush fire fighters got caught on the wrong side of a flare up, and were unfortunately killed. From then on policy became let the fires burn until they get close to property ( defined as houses, and real estate), and then try to fight them at that point. In the meantime, if opportunities exist for back burning, then carry those out. Firefighters work extremely hard, in dangerous conditions, and deserve our full support. Most however, are sent to watch and aid locations, and do no real work, but receive strong local community support. Good luck to them, they are following orders, and have good equipment at their disposal. So where the controversy? Well, one of the fires has since been disclosed as being initiated by poor ordnance practice at a Federal Army base. How tragic that those employed to protect, actually cause the danger to the population. Provided the guilt is acknowledged, and compensation paid, then some recognition is publicly disclosed. I witnessed a koala getting bowled over by a semi-trailer, because it was so distracted it wandered across the main road. The army can't apologise to it, and compensation of a few gum leaves will not bring it back to life. But these things happen....there is no public announcement in relation to this at this stage. So we wait No...this will be the controversy. As indicated, we did the drive on Wednesday, prior to Midday. The wind was beginning to gust, but everyone knows that in Australia, the wind builds more momentum in the afternoon. We went through areas were it would be possible to see all of the firezones, by the chimneys of smoke which indicate burning, or smoking locations. nothing on the east of the mountains. Nothing. No significant fire spots. Doesn't mean it is under control, but it is semi-quiesant. Only one patch on the Western side, and that was being closely monitored by helicopter. Put that one out, and you do a fair amount to control further difficulties. but that wasn't done, and the fire later flared up, and burnt more forests, more houses, etc. we drove through again this morning, and ow smoking piles everywhere, and hazardous smoke everywhere. I will argue on what i saw, that cap off the wednesday smoker, and we would not have been dealing with the last two days of further distress. So to me, a change of policy was required. Flexibility. So who will be responsible for the damage for the last few days, when it should have been capped on tuesday/wednesday. Herein lies the social contract dilemma. Everyone is equal, and entitled to community efforts. If someone is in charge of an emergency situation, it is almost always with the communities full support. But that doesn't mean that decisions should not be challenged. If poor decisions stop decisive action from circumventing damage, then should those who suffer the damage be able to accuse those in authority, that their authority has not been exercised correctly. If judgements are poor, then those who exercise those judgements need to be replaced. Old operating policies need to be constantly challenged, and challengeable, to ensure that the BEST possible effort is expended at all times. If it isn't bushfires, but financial markets we are talking about, does not the same principles apply. All regulators need replacing. All authorities have exercised too many arbitrary powers, and not been responsible for their impact. Nothing should be beyond being examinable, because even that koala deserved an answer as to WHY?

SECTION FOUR, PART THREE

YOU WONDER, why? The West must have too much wildflower pollen in the air. In the 1970's, Western Australia had a particularly colourful reputation for trying to make up the size of mining resources as a way of getting the greater fools from the brokers/sharemarket community to pay silly prices for listed companies. Think about salting mines, and assay cores to try to get some inflated sense of the size of ore-body, or inferred resource. So notorious that some companies entered the lexicon of the day. Poseidon, Narbarlek. Australian even had major enquiries, and the NCSC was born as a result. Cowboy capitalism at its very worst. So the lesson......nothing changes, but the social contract lesson.....community perceptions of justice do not positively correlate with wealth, and rich bastards do not have a different standard of meeting the requirements to be honest. There are a couple of delicious switch-back loops this time. First the primary player...Andrew "twiggy" Forrest. His first foray at special Western Australian status relates to Anaconda, and he didn't cover himself in glory. Never mind...let's recalibrate. The calibration was Fortescue, and there was enquiries about whether FMG put out deliberately misleading press releases about the status of its business contracts. Twiggy was even being examined about whether he was a fit and proper person to be a Director. In the 70's it was falsifying assays, in the 00's it is press releases. See ....nothing changes. Not to mention, lots of early stories about poor grade resources, broken trains, dead workers in housing, aka, shipping containers. Still, he fought through to be able to make tax-deductible named scholarships donations,... No doubt so Western Australia can make an academic framework to its infamy. Is Twiggy alone...no, there are lots of money made from bullshit press releases, which overpromise, but are designed to short fuse a profit opportunity. Ask Richard Branson if he has ever seen the practice of this is any of his airline activities. Ask anytime, a broker puts out a tendentious comment, when he is looking to exit his positions via the patsies who are following the commentary's advice. So should the Twig be able to redeem himself by subsequently throwing his money to the great unwashed. Actually, no. Governments dont receive plaudits by throwing money to the unwashed...nor should they. Private philanthropy doesnt redeem illgotten. But the funny twist. The Twig thought he should be able to comment about last week's fuglie, by criticising Gina. Talk about the West eating its own. Thats like Narbarlek calling Poseidon crooked. Shouldn't there be some solidarity between sandgroppers. Maybe the twig thinks he is so important he can call out Gina. But Gina's got more money, and at least her resources have typically been pretty sound. The twig is almost as unappealing as Gina, but i must admit the press release concept really grates. You see, the bernank thinks that the world is controllable through announcements....part of his research is falsely attuned around announcement effects, and his belief that runaway inflation is controllable by saying that "we are watching it closely" will be fully supported by Yellen. She has said so in the past at speeches that i have heard her give.. I have a new press release.....i am always right...now send money as quickly as you can. Does this work for you?

SECTION FOUR, PART TWO

You Wonder, Why? So some Leightons ex-executives resign from other subsequent positions. The minor sacrificial lambs, but Wal King and others not affected yet. Progress, but the public doesn't accept partial solutions. Justice says all who are guilty must pay, or all we are left with is the "survivor" mentality. If others get found guilty first, that purges society's desires for revenge, and the latter offenders get away scot-free. NO, NOT THIS TIME!!!! So, what is lesson number two. If the first is that we shouldn't accept corruption, then surely the second is that we shouldn't accept indifference. So what is our current cause? Choose one....Batista in Brasil, the Kochs in the USA, the entire Italian government, Gina Rhinehart in Australia. The indifference is US if we continue just to ignore what these things mean, and refuse to demand higher standards. Gina didn't earn her wealth, she got it from Dad. Dad also gave her incredibly bad genes ( in terms of appearance, and capacity to get seriously fat) , and a common touch which moves beyond being attractive, into the really banal, and bogan, that only Australians can perfect. Gina also tried to bully her children, because she liked power over shareholdings, rather than love. Apart from representing so many distasteful verities, Gina likes to pretend that she should be listened to in terms of public policy. If she cannot have the bully pulpit, then she will try to force the media to support her positions by buying them. Does money always give some precedence? Where did this peculiarly USA mentality gain such almost benignly acceptable precedence. Don't we have ample evidence from the USA that money should give no power at all..think Ivana Trump as landlady to get the picture; or Kris Jenner, and her band of plastic surgeons. Gina is so in love with the desire to be important, she forgot to be important to her children. The sooner these people die the better...like for Rashkolnikov, she absorbs way too much oxygen for my liking. Indifference? We find these people, and use social media to call them out. In Gina's case, send round a gross of warm meat pies, or a free invite to one of those hot dog eating contests. Maybe she will die in front of us. Maybe she gets us to be indifferent no more.....people only have a right to a role in public policy formation when they do not carry the disingenuous baggage that this ugly fat woman carries. She is a giant bag lady. Show her the exit!!!! Let's rail against indifference, so that we are indifferent, no more.

SECTION FOUR, PART ONE

YOU WONDER, WHY? Been away, attending weddings and funerals. Plenty of scope to think about what the social contract means, but more importantly, how it is enforced. You see, the concept of justice and honesty applying equally to the whole population, which is why they will tolerate living next door to each other, without resorting to violence, or other forms of bullying to get their way. Everyone is supposed to have equal access to the rules, the adjudicators, the support systems, and this is why they will tolerate meritorious advancement by some individuals. Advanced social structures have a whole series of institutional interlocutors who, acting in the best interests of the whole community, will ensure that fairness, and honesty, tend to be the majority guiding principles, even if they can not be demonstrated as being in existence all of the time. Punishment, in various forms, exists for those who wish to deviate from social obligations to the particular advantage of themselves. Of course, the fundamental philosophical difficulty with this is the assumption that all recognise, and accept the guiding principles. You see, the contract only works if all people recognise that they need to comply with the contract. We have some serial abusers of the need to meet their side of the contract, and the pity is, they probably think that abusing the contract is a sign of their meritorious advancement. They don't think the same...do not feel the need to accept the same conventions...yet expect the support of the military/police structures to intervene against possible violence against themselves. They expect the general population to underpin the support superstructures, but don't wish to meet their obligations to that society. Case in point. Leightons is a stock exchange listed construction company in Australia. It has recently hit the news for what appears to be a reasonably systematic pattern of bribery over the last few years to win, pr maintain contracts....the stated bribery being for projects in jurisdictions other than Australia, but that is beside the point. From a social point of view, proxy advisers have been particularly aggressive in relation to the liberties this company takes in the rewarding of remuneration of its executives...way too generous with other peoples money. Some egregious payments would now seem to have been made to people firmly implicated in the offer of, or knowledge of, the bribery. Now lets break this down....this is a company which expects fairness to apply in the rewarding of Australian construction contracts, tries to sidestep fairness in other jurisdictions, pays high rewards to its executives for being dishonest, on the basis that this is their contractural "due", and says to hell with the general shareholders, and population which pays for its existence. Mindset? They don't quite think like you and me, do they? This is the Who Dares Wins behaviour of the banks over he last few years. There is no thought that these types of people will be able to be re-conciled to normal society values....we should not fool ourselves that these people have any conscience about anything...it is a get away with it if you can behaviour. These people are not self-redemptive. If we assume bribery is an unacceptable social behaviour, and the proponents are not self-redemptive, then the institutionalized punishment structures need to be invoked. There is no falling between the cracks here. But, No. Neither ASIC nor the Australian Federal Police have done anything. Even the ASX has not done anything....Shouldn't listed companies advise the exchanges if some of their revenues arise from bribery laced contracts, so that all the population of shareholders can form a view about the quality of the corporate culture. Doesn't people who advance themselves through bribery, and not be punished, just create an environment where the rest of the population will think that bribery is the preferred way to get ahead. See! The social contract has been subverted, and dishonesty becomes the guiding force in social relations. Do these people, like Wall Street, have some form of racial profile which creates a problem with particularism. Dishonesty rules, because there is no ethical or moral frame apart from the false advancement measured by the collection of money. Bribery is a form of bullying through the use of money. It is an attempt to gain an advantage against those who are morally framed not to bribe, or do not have the resources to match the bribe. Either way, they are not part of MY society, and they will not meet the needs of the social contract. It is either by force of money, or force of guns, that you get these people to comply with being human beings, in a just and fair society. Time for the interlocutors to step up, and punish them....and quickly!!!