It is interesting seeing this article make it onto the OLO 'Today's most popular' display within 24 hours of its publication, especially with so many more ostensibly topical articles concurrently up for discussion. See: http://twitpic.com/43p2z2

It is even more interesting to see, in the screenshot of that display that is the subject of the Twitpic link, the re-appearance of ANZ Bank advertising on the OLO site as of no later than 12:07:06 AM on 26 February 2011, after the recent withdrawal of that advertising that was, among other things, the subject of this OLO article: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=11583&page=0

Professor David Lamond makes the observation:

"... businesses don't make decisions – people
sitting round boardroom tables make decisions.
People sitting in senior executive group meetings
make precedent and subsequent decisions, and
people charged with the responsibility of enacting
those decisions make decisions of their own in
relation to the extent to which they can and should
implement the directions they receive."

Professor Lamond also observes:

"Rather than individuals taking responsibility
for the decisions in which they're involved, we
see an increasing reliance on "company policy",
"codes of practice", "management expectations"
as the rationale (some might say rationalisation)
for the behaviour of those individuals and the
behaviour of the companies they constitute."

I trust Professor Lamond will be pleased to see what so far has the appearance of being at least one play-out to the good in circumstances of such general scenaria as he has described. The circumstances that, so far as can be seen, led to the withdrawal of that advertising in the first case can only heighten concern as to 'codes of practice' substituting for personal responsibility, and indeed executive control, in corporate reaction to the 'public opinion' of its market.

While ever content-blacklisting software can be used by a third party in the imposition of a private 'code of conduct' so that such things as advertising placement can be made 'compliance dependent', banks, and Australian sovereignty, remain challenged.

In other words, the Team is the decision maker.

In the olden days, the days of Capitalism, the decision was that of the Capitalist, the one and only.

I was barely twenty when the ones who had escaped Fascism trickled back home.

One of them, his name Ernesto Rossi, told us that capitalism was dead.

The new bogeyman was “Executivism”, referring to the directors of corporations and stressing that the new decision makers could not ever feel responsibility the same way the Capitalist, being Ford or Krupp to mention the most known, did.

Did humanity gain from the proliferation of semi responsible executives in the intervening sixty five years?

One day people will realise that the treasurers or whoever is responsible for determining the taxes to be applied, is almost totally responsible for the obscene salaries and other incomes in all the countries. You only have to look at those articles on the internet, to recogonise that - if you are at all intelligent. Look up "history of US tax", "History of tax in Australia", "History of UK tax" and "Taxes around the world". When the top tax falls below 50%, there is most likley a recession. When it falls below 45%, there is a recession. When it falls below 40%, there is probably a depression and when it is at or below 35%, there is definitely a depression. These situations allows those who are not restrained in any other way, to increase their incomes at will, causing higher costs and prices, and causing failures in industries, destruction of living standards and forfieture of home repayments and eviction. Treasurers are more determined to reduce the top tax to reduce the total tax rather than increase the no tax level to bring the total to that 30% of GDP, which seems to be what is needed. To join a political party and become a member of parliament, you do not have to supply a resumae, but to become an employee of value, you have to.

Will 'bank' ever be synonomous with 'trust'?

No !

There are laws that make bank robbing a punishable offense with long jail terms for those caught.And then there are laws that make "citizen robbing" or "gouging" a legitimate business practice by corporations who, if challenged on moral or ethical grounds plead not guilty to stealing on the grounds of being a corporation.Any allowances for boards being human is negated by the very nature of corporations whose governing creeds overrule any morality so that they effectively function as what in a human being is defined as psychopathic.I have no sympathy for any corporation, its shareholders, or board members nor do I believe that anything will change.Banks are a particularly untrustworthy example of globalisation. Having created a world wide financial depression they then stole again in order to steal again and to keep on stealing. Governments legislate this theft as unpunishable. Business is business is business is theft.

In answer to the initial question: No. It used to be but not any more.