The will of God...System reconstruction in Australia .U.S. judge asks: Why haven’t the financial executives been prosecuted?

Michael Hiltzik
Los Angeles Times
January 3, 2013

As the five-year statute of limitations approaches for the wrongdoing that bequeathed us the Great Recession, the question of why no high-level executives have been prosecuted becomes more urgent.

You won’t find a better, more incisive discussion of the question than the one by U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff of New York in the current issue of the New York Review of Books.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/jan/09/financial-crisis-why-no-executive-prosecutions/
[...]

In his new essay, Rakoff takes particular aim at the government’s habit of prosecuting corporations, but not their executives — a trend we railed against earlier this year.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20130208,0,1163345.column#axzz2oz48CY00
Read more
. http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-us-judge-20131230,0,4386369.story#axzz2pLrpUNRM * World Trade Center Asks 9/11 Judge to Dismiss AMR Defense
* http://www.infowars.com/world-trade-center-asks-911-judge-to-dismiss-amr-defense/ Barclays Executives Knew of Libor Lowballing, Guardian Claims
* http://www.infowars.com/barclays-executives-knew-of-libor-lowballing-guardian-claims/ Chevron executives barred from leaving Brazil over spill
* http://www.infowars.com/chevron-executives-barred-from-leaving-brazil-over-spill/ Chevron executives barred from leaving Brazil over new oil spill
* http://www.infowars.com/executives-at-collapsed-iceland-bank-jailed-for-fraud/ Executives at collapsed Iceland bank jailed for fraud

Emperor Julian suggests that I am a "consummate social engineer" and a "group thinker". This is the first time such labels have been put on me. I would have been happier if this commentator had referred to me as a "democrat". That would be much more accurate.

Apart from reading my book Emperor Julian should also take note of a page on my Republic website which can be opened here.

http://www.republicnow.org/section-128-amendment/

Democracy in large complex societies has many complex facets. Because of the size of national systems it can only be indirect, that is representative democracy, apart from having useful plebiscites and referendums on certain contentious issues. I happen to believe that proportional representation is a better and more democratic way to achieve representative democracy than the single-member district preferential system. Let me assure Emperor Julian and the non-group Never Trust Politicians that having this belief does not place me on a lonely planet at all as can very easily be demonstrated.

Klaas,

It is not “well-known that Australia is over supplied with politicians”. This is a claim made again and again without figures or argument.

Australia is just one of 80 countries in the world with more than 10 million people, all of which have at least three tiers of government, as does every one of the 51 countries of more than 500,000 square kilometres.

Even citizens of the oft-quoted United Kingdom have four (or, in some parts of the country, five) levels of government – the European Parliament, the UK Parliament, regional assemblies (elected in the case of Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Greater London, unelected in the rest of the country) and unitary local authorities or, in some places, both county councils and district councils. The UK has more than 30,000 political representatives for a population of around 60,000,000, or one politician per 2084 people. By contrast, Victoria has one political representative from all three tiers of government for every 6,577 people.

Italy has five levels of government (Europe, national, regional, provincial, local).

If the states were abolished, thus making Australia unique among the world’s large countries, the bureaucracy would remain the same size, and the levels of decision-making would remain the same. The only difference would be the people would not get to elect those who made the decisions at the intermediate level.

When I attempted to post the figures on politician numbers for Australia and the UK at all levels of government, I was met with “There is no need for that many question marks. Remove them to continue.” The post had five question marks in it (one of them in a link name), and I am not going to be told by a computer program how many question marks I am allowed to use.

In most electorates in Australia the elected person does not represent the people of the electorate. They represent the political party. I would favour abolition of all political parties. I realise this would be hard to do, and perhaps gradual change may be the only acceptable option. True 'democracy" exists in very few places in the world, generally in what people consider "primitive" places. I have witnessed this type of governance in a number of countries and it works.

Just for the record what the situation is in Australia. I would have to dig up comparative figures for other western countries. Have done that before and recall that the claim is substantially correct. A justification in the past may well have been the large size of the country but is this still a valid one?

Total number of Parliamentarians in Australia = 859 for 22 M. people = one for every 2563 Australians (all ages)

House of Representatives 150
Senate 76
NSW Leg. Assembly 98
NSW Leg. Council 48
Queensland Leg. Assembly 90
Victoria Leg. Assembly 91
Victoria Leg. Council 42
South Australia Leg. Assembly 48
South Australia Leg. Council 25
Western Australia L. A. 60
W. A. Leg. Council 39
Tasmania L. A. 30
Tasmania L. C. 17
A. C. T. 18
Northern Territory 27
___

859

Parliamentarians for the
states ONLY 633
____

Canberra now 226