Morris Gleitzman:

...is a bestselling Australian children's author, in his new book "Too Small to Fail", invents the child character "Oliver" to explain some home truths learned by Gleitzman himself when self educating on the losses to his superannuation, as a common outcome to the GFC.

...On Power!

"I became gripped by what seems to be a huge contradiction between the education, status and power of those running the investment and banking industry and the immense foolishness of some of their choices and decisions".

...On the stock market!

"a long time ago I grasped the basic notion that high finance, especially regarding stocks and shares was pretty much gambling".

...On consequences!

"And they’re cuts that tragically are going to largely affect many people who don’t have any savings and are already doing it tough. They bear the brunt of what’s going on in Wall Street".

Business must answer to 'Occupy Wall Street'

No, they don't.

What is this nebulous entity "business"? Is it industry or banking, or Retail? Does it include small business, mom and pop business or only multinationals.

Business will give "occupy wall street" the attention it deserves which is zero.

...Hey!... "King" Capitalism is wearing no cloths!

Sadly, the arguments in this article are as inchoate as the "occupy" phenomenon itself. The Onion, as it does so often, strikes at the heart of the problem with precision...

http://www.theonion.com/articles/nation-waiting-for-protesters-to-clearly-articulat,26353/

"Americans are eagerly awaiting a list of demands from the group so they can then systematically disregard them and continue going about their business"

The real problem is that consecutive US Governments have "drunk the Kool-aid" that excoriates any notion of social responsibility, as a form of Communism. A situation exacerbated by the collapse of the Soviet system, which freed up the "I told you so" brigade to confer automatically virtue on ever-more-obscene executive salaries.

To object, was to be "un-American".

Even more corrosive was their acceptance of the concept of even more obscene "bonuses", for creating nothing that had economic worth. The proof of this, if proof is needed, is to "follow the money" through the trillions of dollars sloshing around the derivative market. Every one of these trades originally made a motza for a "dealer" somewhere, to the point where bonuses stopped being measured in millions, and began being tallied in the tens of millions. As they painfully unwind those toxic instruments, and various parties take a bath along the way, what are the chances of sucking back those - I have to use the word again - obscene pay-packets?

Nil.

That's why there is no concrete target to aim at, no tyrant to topple, and no clear definition of what "victory" would look like. Ask any "occupier" to define what life would be like if they "won" their protest. You'd get the naive idealism of a fifteen year-old, expressed by a frustrated middle-class Tweeter.

And to those who rabbit on about "socializing losses" and wish that all those nasty Banks should take their lumps, two words.

Baby.

Bathwater.

Agree with Adam's closing comment ' massive pay increases to politicians and senior public servant – justified with reference to 'market' rates – it is worth considering whether corporate largesse is contributing to a creeping venalisation of the public service as well, which will only accelerate the erosion of public support for our economic system.'

However don't agree with general railing against government intervention and bureacrats. We should never forget that it was deregulation - e.g removal of the Glass-Stegal Act which stopped commercial banks gambling with depositors' money - that caused the GFC and we still haven't seen the necessary re-regulation that we be needed to fix the system.

Re the work of bureaucrats, I have worked as a public servant for 17 years - as a teacher and develepoment officer. I know that rank and file public servants generally earn their pay and do some of the hardest jobs in society. However I do agree than the top rank public servants on several hundred thousand are getting too much pay and too little accountability.

As for corporates - surely it's time to enact a remuneration ceiling. I'll throw in $1m per year as a suggestion - about 7 times more that the higer paid workers. I already hear screams of 'rampant socialism' but is there any other way to stop the rot?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12780#220701

diver dan, spot on mate.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12780#220702

Shadow Minister, YES they do, depending on which protesters you are talking about.

The article author is quite correct about the problems.

Big Business is equally EVIL as Big Government & Big Unions. Many moderate centrist, tea party types in America are complaining about exactly that.

Same as the convoy of no confidence here.

However there are also a lot of closet communist "rent a crowd" types taging along pretending they are interested in democracy rather than communism.

EG in Brisbane the "occupy the world, Post Office Square" people are all the "usual suspects", rent a crowd, RED/green, getup, GAYLP/alp, Socialist Alliance mob.

These are the same fools helping Wall Street to set up their next ETS, eCONomic treason scam. Trading in carbon dioxide based derivatives instead of debt based derivatives. They claim to represent the 99% while in fact they are planning to steal from the 99% of us & give it to the 1% filthy stinking super rich.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12780#220704

diver dan, radical extreme, globalised, free trade, too big to fail, capitalism may be past it's use by date, but are you familiar with the kind of "capitalism with a heart" advocated by these guys?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McEwen AND http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Menzies attacked what they called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire_capitalism as being too open to manipulation by monopolies & cartels. They advocated for free trade between Australian companies behind a tarriff barrier, which gave us full employment.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12780#220712

Pericles, OH dear where do i start?

Correct with HALF you rant of course, BUT the worst changes to corporate law & bailouts allowing the worst excesses to occur were introduced by closet communazi governments both in America & here.

Was our financial industry deregulated by Howard & Fraser, or was it comrades Whitlam, Hawke, Keating, Krudd & Dillhard?

http://www.mailstar.net/xTrots.html trots & fabians destroying our eCONomy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gc5E6pvDv2Y&feature=channel_video_title free trade whitlam, hawke & keating

Obummer went on with worse bailouts than Bush. PM Brown & DPM Dillhard want to help wall street make us pay them a tax on the air we breath.

Leaving aside the actual number for a moment, there are some side benefits to be had in your suggestion Roses1.

The present system of senior executive remuneration is farcical. The Board of the major corporation takes what it calls "independent remuneration advice", and practically dares any of the shareholders (who quite often are other major corporations) to vote down their recommendations.

They look at "the competitive landscape" and the rates of pay for similar positions here and overseas. This created the "race to the top", with the comparisons escalating, as the new remuneration levels are automatically built in to the model. Perfect.

But the more insidious effect is to convince the Board that if they don't pay megabucks, they will somehow be getting an inferior product.

That would explain, for example, the appointment of Sol Trujillo to Telstra. (Mind you, the amount they paid him becomes irrelevant when compared to the destruction of shareholder value that he presided over).

It is difficult to see a way out of the vicious circle, since most of the folk on the merry-go-round already have their noses in the trough (wonderfully evocative mixed metaphor, don't you think? All that swill, sprayed everywhere as the roundabout gathers speed...), and will resist change to the last flatulent grunt.

Problem is, there are many talented - and dedicated - people out there who would do an outstanding job, but who are excluded from the club, simply because they are currently only on half a mill.

Phshaw! Only half a mill? Can't be much chop, then, eh what?

Its an interesting but difficult question, Pericles, but I do see
two sides of the coin.

One of the things which I noticed in Australia years ago, was that
not only were unions a problem, but so was poor management. We'd
inherited the British stiff upper lip, the "them and us" approach
to labour issues.

Sometimes it does indeed pay to bring in somebody completely fresh
from overseas, with new ideas, new ways of doing things etc, to
turn the whole show around quite radically.

When Westpac nearly went broke in the early 90s, they brought in
Bob Joss, who was a breathe of fresh air. BHP did a similar thing
with an American import, can't quite remember his name but he made
a huge difference. Its not much different with Wesfarmers, when
they wanted to turn Coles around. Coles had been a disaster for
years and it needed a whole new team with different thinking.
Goyder scoured the world and brought in the present team. The numbers
clearly show that its been highly effective, with benefits to
consumers and shareholders alike.

Do you really think these blokes would quit their jobs, move
house and families to Australia, for half a mill, when they can
earn far more in the US or elsewhere?

Next why is it ok for a baseball player to earn 10 mill, but not
so for an intrapreneur with talent?

Roses 1,

Removal of the Glass-Stegall Act was only half the cause. The other half was when penalties were legislated in support of The Community Re-investment Act, which forced the banks to lent to the poor, the disadvantaged and minorities ... who couldn't repay once the value of houses dropped.

Both Act's contributed, from opposite ends to an accentuation of the the problem once Fanny May and Freddie Mac, under the direction of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, funded those loans and initiated the bundling and re-sale of them as securities.

The basic problem is the fractional reserve system of the counterfeiting our productivity as debt.Banks create money from nothing,to equal increases in our productivity.Hence,the harder you work,the more debt you incur.We sold off 4 state Govt banks + the Commonwealth that used to create some of our productivity debt free.

In 1976 our total debt was 3% of GDP.In 2008 it is 53% of GDP.We are the debt slaves of the Global Corporate Empire.

...For Capitalism to be successful, the rules must be applied fairly across consumers and suppliers of goods and services. “Laissez Faire” is the problem which must be addressed for Capitalism to maintain credibility.

The key word here Yabby is "earn".

>>Next why is it ok for a baseball player to earn 10 mill, but not
so for an intrapreneur with talent?<<

There is nothing wrong, in my view, with remuneration that is consistent with the achievement. I do have problems though with the prevalence of highly manufactured salary-and-bonus packages that ensure rewards for massive underachievement.

Interesting you mention Bob Joss. A close friend of mine worked for him in a senior capacity, and had nothing but praise for the guy. A true professional, and worth every penny for the turnaround he engineered. He went on, as you probably know, to do ten years as Dean at Stanford, and was a standout there too.

http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/news/headlines/jossresigns.html

One of his insights during that time, though, was typically Joss: that executives rarely resigned over pay...

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/bob-joss-now-bats-for-other-team/story-e6frg8zx-1111112331056

"... he has come to the conclusion that companies fail to apply basic market principles in paying their CEOs and should be getting the same job done for a lot less."

And don't forget, for every Bob Joss there is a George Trumbull...

Pericles, I agree with you. George Trumbull is a great example
of boards screwing up completely in their judgement. Like
Australian management, Australian company board members show very
poor judgement at times.

The question for me is, would Bob Joss have moved to Australia
at the time, if he'd been offered much less? Moving continents
for a family man, can be a big and expensive decision.

So my point it that if a relatively low salary cap is put on
the CEOs job, could shareholders be the ultimate losers?

I think they just might. That does not change the fact that some
CEOs underperform and don't earn their salaries, much like other
employees don't earn theirs either.

Capitalism only has one eye. It has a very lopsided view of the quality of life of the masses. The world govt; must have a broad based agenda.
Not capitalist and not communist. A balanced mix of the two political systems. America has fallen in a hole because of a one eyed system, they are to free to be justified, and now see the consequences. In a society that everybody has guns, civil war has got a hair trigger. Without change of policy, all options are on the table.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12780#220804

579, you just perfectly described the type of "capitalism with a christian heart" that the land of OZ had before 1972.

Was it Fraser & Howard who introduced the "eCONomic reforms", (remove tarriff barriers, DEregulate the banksters) or was that comrades Whitlam, Hawke, Keating, Krudd & Dillhard. Bear in mind that a carbon tax/price/ets = stealing money from the 99%, giving it ALL, to the 1%.

Before 1972 Australia had the highest living standards of any nation on earth, together with the smallest gap between rich & poor. We have been slipping ever since, the GAP has been widening every year, ever since & still is, thanks to "the workers friend".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gc5E6pvDv2Y&feature=channel_video_title how to kill jobs

http://www.mailstar.net/xTrots.html why they killed jobs, create poverty in the hope it would lead to revolution.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12780#220802
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12780#220799
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12780#220764
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12780#220756

Yabby & Pericles, still avoiding the bleeding obvious as usual, did either of you watch Q & A last night? "Juliar Dillhard could not sell heroin to an addict anymore", consensus of the entire panel.

Q, Why is this disillusionment with the left so deep with their traditional base? A, "there will be NO carbon tax under a government i lead" is not the only or most recent deliberate, premeditated lie, they have been betraying their "people" for half a century now, covering it up with spin & the sheeple are waking up.

in fact there is NO good news to attempt selling at all, every single last thing they have ever done is a disaster.

i dare any member of the RED/green, getup, GAYLP/alp, Socialist Alliance to name 1 single positive thing any of their governments have done federal, state or local anywhere in the land of OZ at any time over the last half century.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12780#220769

imajulianutter, correct & the worst of these "reforms/DEregulations", that did the most GFC damage were done both in the USA & Australia by the loony left.