That such suggestion is obvious as being resisted intransigently within current known corporate culture, I would also hypothesise, if such intransigence is met, invite participation by international competition which demonstrates such desired corporate acumen.

For currently there are many investors concerned of the present volatility in the markets, seeking stability for their investment. If they don’t have an invitation to stable Asian markets, relatively, the value of risk, outside short term factors, may be observed comparable to such hypothesis.

The negative issues associated with opening such markets to investment with priorities elsewhere, is balanced with these current observations, analogous of having ‘the shop run by your brother in law‘. Especially when a handful of such owners demand domination of the markets, and associated avarice attributable to the cliché of a ‘diva.’

If they wont cooperate, such initiative as this hypothesis may be observed a calculated short term risk until desirable entities develop as market leaders. This hypothesis does not suggest or demand such entities need ‘sing with the choir,’ it just asks for refrain from the conduct of a ‘diva.’

If attracting reputably astute investors is required, surely its short term value is potentially ahead of that analogous to; ‘lying down with dogs and attracting fleas.’

With those figures currently apparent of entities such as CBA and Westpac, that include their profit achievements to date, and the current identification of Australian financial competence, their potential as vanguard for such change is observed extensive.

Geoff,

Whereabouts in the draft submission http://stableproductivemoney.wordpress.com/2010/03/19/submission-to-senate-inquiry-on-small-business-access-to-finance/ does the argument become incomprehensible? I really would like to know from you or anyone else what parts do not make sense.

I have tried to use terms as they are understood by the audience. The audience for the draft submission are "people" where people is a typical member of the public.

People understand money as something you can deposit in a bank and get interest payments while ever it is in the bank. Money is also something you can use to buy things with and it is what you get when you sell something.

People understand loans as getting some money which you have to repay at some time in the future. People understand that you can get a loan provided you have ways of ensuring the money is paid back.

People understand equity as giving people money in return for a share in the profits resulting from the investment.

People understand fractional reserve as being the amount of ready cash a bank has to have available in case there is a "run on the bank".

People understand interest as something you have to pay because the depositor whose money you are borrowing gets interest for putting in a deposit.

I use all these meanings.

The arguments that are present can be boiled down to what will happen if we have SOME loans and hence the corresponding deposits that do not earn interest. What changes have to be made to the system for the system not to fall into a chaotic state.