I think that this is a good discussion to be having, and some form of nationalization of banks may well be part of the answer. Your analysis is ruined however, by the Marxist, worker/bourgeoisie dichotomy which you employ.

Our socio-economic system is not either/or capitalist/communist. In our search for a stable society, it is quite possible that we can blend elements from the 'collectivist' and the 'separatist' perspectives; from the cooperative and the competitive. Enough with the us or them!

Looking to reform the banking system, I think that we need to look at the role that they play in administering currency, lending it into existence with the fractional reserve system. Also their role as the source of finance. (with interest of course)

The current banking system is very much tied into various structural flaws within the broader economic system. These include our addiction to economic growth, (our society falls down and starts quivering if the economy isn't growing), ongoing inflation, high levels of private as compared to community/public ownership etc. Reforming banking is just a small part of the challenge.

GilbertHolmes I agree entirely.

EQ- not quite; costs are tied to resource maintenance, security and wages of employees among many other business expenses needed to run the company in question; a private business also expects to make a profit in order to actually maintain itself- and if it wants investment, needs to also make returns to its shareholders.
In a private company, if there actually IS a lot of competition (and in Australia, there is not); that company may well be motivated to reduce its' cost (either in profits or in business expenditure)- but the minimal cap is always higher than in a public-owned business, which does not need to make a profit at all.

Thus the only difference is in quality of management in reaching the bottom line of expenditure without compromising the quality of the service- which although leans greatly towards the private sphere (where, obviously more competent managers prefer to be) is most definitely not limited AGAINST the public sphere (with a fairly good record before being sold off).

Take over the banks?

I thought old style socialists like this had gone the way of Soviet union and other dinosaurs.

Nationalizing the banks has never lead to improvements in long term interest rates or any improvement in the economy. In other words - been there, done that, not stupid enough to do it again.

Come on Shadow Minister. You are no fool. You know very well that
this whole drama is being caused by political shin kicking by
your very own party and has little to do with the actual
figures revealed by the banks.

The public can't be expected to understand the ins and outs
of bank financial drivers etc, but Abbott and Hockey can.

Its time we had a statesman lead the liberals, not a
a bunch of opportunists, as we have now.

Well.... I didn't think it would happen in this universe or lifetime..but I AGREE with Passant on this (the basic idea of public ownership of a bank)

We only need ONE... we did HAVE one...but some screwball/nutjob/political opportunist SOLD it...and now we have the obscene economic 'flesh eating bacteria' behavior of Westpac and it's quietly spoken (but luxurious living) CEO.

PEOPLES BANK... it isn't hard.

-High lending standards
-No Fees
-Profit goes back to benefitting THE COMMUNITY rather than greedy CEO's who swim in their money like scrooge McDuck.

Oh dear....I think I've just become a socialist :) gotcha

Good comments from Gilbert and King Hazza.

Not sure if banks should be nationalised as such but there seems to be an issue with competition especially the difficulty in changing banks with the cost of transfer of loans etc. So not much competition to sort out the good, bad and the ugly. It is not like we can choose not to use banks, it is almost impossible to get employers to pay their staff in cash so one is forced into the banking system.

It stinks when the profits just seem to keep going up and up. The problem as GH says is the system itself. It is not just about banking.

Why is retirement so tied in with the finance industry? It is too insecure and fraught with too many fingers wanting a piece of the retirement pie - makes a mockery out of the push for self funded retirement when there could be a superannuation payment from employers into a government pension fund with a levy on wage earners as well. Any extra to this can be risked voluntarily on the open market as desired.