SECTION FOUR, PART NINE

You wonder, why? Quick one. David Gonski. Investec closing operations. Judgement. Not David's. people who listen to David. Too many people. Whose judgement is flawed. Too many people. Sorry. Not good enuf. The court's advisors are seriously flawed, and their recognition of his inadequacies, suggest their judgement is flawed. This world is flawed. Time to pull out the rocks. In Germany, 1930's, kristalnaght was close. Social contract deserves honesty....nay, demands honesty....self interest, and poor judgement by leader-aspirants, has no role. Time for barricades.

SECTION FOUR, PART EIGHT

You Definitely Wonder, Why? It didn't take long for Tony to be exposed. Within a few months of taking over as PM, the 50's thinking goober wants to play machismo with a country with 10 times Australia's poplation, by refusing to say sorry for spying on you, and your spouse, and your senior ministers. Forget the " everybody does it " excuse...everybody knows that everybody does it. You are making the same statement as I have two legs. But "respect" say that the line should have been.." If i had known i would have exercisd more,direct control over the policy". Tony receives a lot of very poor advice, by some obviously fervent supporters. How many times will we see foreign dignitary scenes, where the camera pan picks out images of Peta Credlin. His policy advisor appears just a little too frequently for me not to be unconcerned about her influence. Is Tony that bad a decision maker, that he cannot handle those set piece moments, without her looming into the frame. All too unelected for my liking. They say Tony likes Maurice Neumann, last week's special. He also listens to David Murray. David comes with some heritage. From his union busting/contract busting period as head of the Commonwealth Bank......if you ever meet him ask what did happen to the Admiral's outfit he wore to one major meeting of staff during the 90's, trying to both steer , and right the ship , no doubt..... Tony's given David the gig of examining the financial system, to ensure that it is competitive, and fair, and all those noble sounding concepts. Now of course, David was one of those coterie of banking heads who presided over the downsizing of the bank branch systems, so that in able to compete with the offshore banks, determined that it was good policy to treat retail customers with contempt, and significantly lift the needs for the banks to rely on wholesale funding markets...typically offshore. So David, and his cohort, were the very ones who jeopardised the nature of the financial system when wholesale funding dried up in 2007 and 2008. Luckily David had moved on by this stage...to head up the Future Fund....itself having a colourful role in 2008 when it became a form of lender-of-last-resort to banks to help supplement some of the foreign withdrawal of that wholesale funding. Suddenly all the bank strategies of showing contempt for retail deposits became horribly exposed for its short sightedness...and only an egregious taxpayer put option of government protection of deposits that steadied the banking system. So does David really represent the best, and most qualified, Australian to conduct a competitiveness audit of the financial system, let alone have any vague conception of what fairness really is? I am sure James Packer, and the Barangaroo casino/hotel thinks David is swell....just not sure about fair! Like Yellen, people who were part of poor prior decision periods don't seem to suffer for the damage they have inflicted. I really do feel that the social contract, and justice/fairness for the population, are coping an overwhelming drubbing at present. Maybe time will tell, but i really have my doubts, and leadership is not particularly inspiring. Tony....this ain't an SRC meeting anymore. Grow up, and start making better choices.

SECTION FOUR, PART SEVEN

You Wonder, Why? What a farce! Part of the reason that the social contract is meant to bind is that we accept the slings and arrows, but still travel along. Reality suggests that we cannot always win, and that every now and then we have to accept what comes along. I will call you out...Maurice Neumann....what an ordinary contribution, whilst masked as being successful. That you presided over the ASX during the GFC should immediately notify people of you credentials. But like Gonski, your desire to be important requires you to comment when you should shut your mouth. You CEDA address was appalling for a person who was paying out on a government, who saved them professionally during the GFC. You obviously have a terminal illness, which should take you out prior to any change of Government again, because sure as hell i would pay out on you for your infamy. The Whitlam Oration, by Noel Pearson, commented that racial discrimination can still be mandated under the Australian Constitution. For once, Noel, I do not want the Constitution changed just yet! Too many Court Advisors to be punished prior to the referendum!!

SECTION FOUR, PART SIX

You Wonder, Why? One of the interesting concepts of the George Orwell novel, 1984, was the efforts at press control as a way of ensuring that the ruling elite had control over the messages being received and discussed by the population. A number of differing causes are captured under the rubric of information supplied to the public. Some where the ruling dogma is to supply as much forward annoncement as possible, as a way of ensuring that expectations are well formed, and that no destabilised misinformation has capacity to built, and create its own life. This is the laudible concept, as theoretically argued by the Fed Reserve, as a way of controlling expectations about the future course of interest rates. Given the seeming consistency of this message, what is probably so surprising is that economic activity has not picked up more quickly. Perhaps, the banks were much more saddled with bad loan structures than became public ( seemingly inconsistent with improved communication? ), or the public does not think trust the Fed's ability to control the outcomes.......utterly reasonable expectation given the arbitrary, and complicit, behaviour of the Fed. But, the case in point, is I am currently viewing the "weekly update" on asylum seeker arrivals...a particularly contentious, and emotional, policy zone in Australia for a number of years. The public now effectively receives no updates, apart from anecdotal improvement in twitter hits, etc. the new government has moved to a no communocation framework, by arguing that all updates, are captured under being "operational issues" and cannot be publically discussed. The military personnell that has been placed in charge, produced one of the most testily ridiculous response to legitimate questions about a further boat in trouble, yesterday. So we have either supposedly lots of information, but this is rubbish. The idea is to supply as little as possible, BECAUSE, ONCE THINGS GET OUT INTO THE PUBLIC, it is increasing difficult to control the subsequent debates, because they take place in too many various media formats to know how the debate is heading. Same with recent news items which, shock horror, say governments spy on each other. The joke is not the spying, or the faux horror that it happens, but that people like Snowden, get pilloried for making these details public. I travel overseas reasonably regularly......i do not need to go to a country which has a dim view of Australia, because of some announcement of spying, which would not be potentially personally affronting, if governments had been honest with each other, and their public. Again, arbitrary decisions made by persons who have impacts on my freedoms, and without either appreciating that it does affect me, and not asking my opinion. Justice and equality require full population support, and acceptance, otherwise there is no framework for the deliverance of equivalence. You have no more right to bully me, than i do to you. If you create an environment where survival of the fittest is the only logiacl operating mode, then you create the framework for an inevitable civil war. Are people too stupid to see the logical extension of their policies?