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?!!