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?

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?