If it sounds too good to be true.........

Agree Everald!
A fool and his money are soon parted, and indeed, then become a taxpayer burden.
If housing where not so dammed expensive, you could advise your members to invest in them.
Some of the regional opportunities are tailor made for aged investors, (allegedly) and are positively geared, like some mining village tenements, near coal prospects, that have an expected commercial life of up to 90 years!
And given the only requirement is a freehold house, one could buy 10 such houses, and earn some $600.00 net, virtually tax free dollars a week, $31,200.00 a year?
Given current thresholds, only the last $13,200 would be taxable, and at the lowest rate?
Should the house buying investor retire at around 55, the investment houses would be freehold and earning over $200,000 PA by the time they were 75?
If one is to take a risk, then bricks and mortar is probably the best risk, that eventually becomes freehold, courtesy of tenants!
And at least a hundred times better than (money plucked from thin air) securitiesed mortgages.
At the end of the day, if you don't understand it, don't buy it, and if it seems to good to be true, it probably is!
At least people can and should do their own diligent research, and then invest at home, where there are some protections.
If those protections are removed, all we can expect, is (an)other storm finance mass bankruptcy event(s) and more distressed oldies, separated from often very modest retirement nest eggs!
As for banks, there's probably is a better return from the big four and less risk as shareholders, rather than deceived fee paying savers!?
If the current protections are watered down, the end result will be far fewer investment advisers and a one term Abbott government?
Rhrosty.

Perhaps there is a short cut here.

"There is a strong tendency for financial advisers to recommend investments that earn them the highest commissions. We need legislation that sets a ceiling on what fees and commissions can be earned and which requires a disclosure of those fees and commissions to clients."

The higher the (potential) returns, the riskier the product is likelier to be. The riskier the product, the higher will be the incentive (commission) needed to sell it. Therefore the simplest remedy would be to insist on full disclosure of commissions, fees, discounts and other incentives at the point of sale.

That will allow the individual to make their own assessment of the risks involved, and choose to invest with the potential of higher return, or opt for the safer investment.

Putting a cap on commissions would have the effect of keeping this "risk signal" hidden from view. And would encourage the emergence of other legal forms of reward, which would condemn regulators into a continual game of catch-up as they close each successive loophole.

Author/quote.,,<After all/everyone has the right to change their insurance policies every year. They must be entitled to do likewise with their financial advisers.

Another proposed legislative change will make it easy for financial advisers and planners to avoid legal action by investors over the losses they incur. While I basically object to people going to Court over losses in investments, because all investors must accept the possibility that they may lose their money at any time, they do need some capacity to sue corrupt entities like Storm Financial and obtain justice.

There is a strong tendency for financial advisers to recommend investments that earn them the highest commissions. We need legislation that sets a ceiling on what fees and commissions can be earned and which requires a disclosure of those fees and commissions to clients.

The powerful question relates to how it can be assured that advisers act in the best interests of their clients, not themselves. Proposed legislative changes give an unacceptable leniency in how to determine the best interests of a client. This is not good, as the needs vary from one person to another and each one has different financial imperatives.

Rather than change legislation, it will be best to encourage banks and other financial institutions to create new financial products for the Ageing, as most Seniors want to invest in products that will guarantee them a reasonable financial return for the term of their life expectancy. There are very few investments that meet this need.

If the proposed changes do become law, there will be a very considerable backlash from Seniors, many of whom will decide to handle their investments without seeking financial advice, and this will lead to many more personal disasters.>>

AS WE EACH MUST DO
my super became my hobby//I FIGURE things always go up in prICE
[OR HAVE FOR SO LONG]..THAT i have over ONE MILION THINGS

that im custodian.. over..but are for future survival/needs
WORTH ONE Dollar each../of course..some more others less..[BUT I GOT OVER 3 MILLION Postage stamps]..BUT CANt sell..but point iS i invested in many thingS..IE CEnt coin=5 cents to buY.

Concluding ON/SPREAD MY RISK..THE MONEY WIL BE BAILED IN
YOU will be left with debt obligations then more HYPERINFLATION
WHILE MONEY IS OVER SUPPLIED IT HAD TO GO SOMEWHERE//INTO ASSET..but they sole our pubic assets..AND WORSE MADE US BEAR THE COST PLUS THE LOSS.

that step too far.INTO TREASON

THE COMPULSORY Super only measures money
AND MONEY WilL hyperventilate if its over printed /AND IT IS BEING OVER PRINTED/IN SHORT OVER SUPPLY/GOVT WAS ACTING UNLAWFULLY WHEN IT MANDATED IT

PLUS DID TREASON when it gave TOP-UPS..TO PEOPLE EARNING TOO MUCH TO EVER GET A 'PENSION'//YET THEY SLURP UP Big on the govt top up[thats criminal malfeasance/get rid of that

currently//we not only paying todays pensions/BUT TOMORROWS AS WELL
Tomorrow all we will be paying for - today's PENSION..TOP UP

POINT BEING WHERE YOU Mugs go wrong is going for cash
cash in deflated INTO Zip/by the time.you get iT
AND MOST LIKELY YOu will loose it in one lump
buying the traps/INDUSTRY OF GETTING AT YOUR LUMP Sum

the issue lies with getting the lump-SUM

http://rss.infowars.com/20140508_Thu_Alex.mp

Having worked in the financial services industry, I can assure everyone that hardly anyone in that industry understands a damned thing about money, investment or their own products. What they know is what they're told to push.

Since the 80's, "capital guaranteed" funds have been unpopular within the industry...they have to guarantee security and return. That's NOT what the industry desires, which is "market linked" funds, meaning no security or guarantees of returns. So they can then be cowboys on the stock markets. They don't have to look for conservative or safe investments, hold no responsibility for the monies of their investors, and stand to make large fees...they don't pay the investor the return made, but a percentage less than their earnings. This makes more money NOT for the agents or reps at point of sale, but DOES make more money for the fund managers who are on salaries plus bonuses based on increased profits of the funds they manage.

This is about forcing the industry to be more tightly regulated, which ain't gonna happen, reducing salaries of fund managers and CEO's, which also won't happen, and getting investment houses to invest more conservatively and offer more securities and guarantees, which also won't happen.

This is the cowboy economy, also known as "free market", where everyone is in it for the quick buck (or million).

As for products for retirees, there are plenty. But what there isn't plenty of, is integrity and people that understand tax implications, and how to displace monies to gain the best tax situation. Accountants aren't interested, generally, in these products, as they view the time spent with a client discussing these products as time wasted, since prospective clients have a tendency to shop around, and aren't obliged to go ahead with their accountant. Fair enough.

People complained about agents earning excessive fees in the late 80's/early 90's, but no-one complained about fund managers and CEO's, which is where the lion's share has always gone.

Banks are no better, for again, since the 80's have been gambling on the stock market with depositor's monies, as well as Subprime loans, derivatives, junk bonds, short term money markets, etc.

The way things stand at the moment, even your bank account isn't safe, let alone your superannuation. And it all comes down to the deregulation of banking. But it won't change until it's destroyed, as there's just too much money involved, and too much money available for financial institutions to bribe, corrupt or whatever euphemism you choose, to keep politicians from introducing any change...or more to the point, reverting to tight regulation.

In the US I would be called a commie, but it's not about that. It's about forcing financial institutions to be RESPONSIBLE once again.

Dick Dastardly is right .Not even our bank accounts are safe. See the plans for 'bail in'.http://cecaust.com.au/ Banks want the power to convert our deposits into their shares when the next big crash happens.

The US $ will collapse as the money printing continues. The BRICS nations are expanding and China will soon announce a Yuan backed by gold. The US $ will lose its reserve status and begin to collapse. The market is bigger than all the weapons on the planet. This is why the USA/West Oligarchs want war, ie to shore up their collapsing economy and stop civil unrest that wants to end their power.

The gambling derivative market is 10 times the size of the real economy. The selling of toxic derivatives and US mortgages to our pension funds is what caused the 2008 collapse. The share market has been re-inflated by QE (money printing)but the real economy continues to fail.Bankers and their corporations have more power than our Govts. The selling off of the Commonwealth Bank and 4 State Banks was an absolute disaster. They regulated the banking system and could create from nothing money for infrastructure debt free.

Since "self regulation" of financial services, we've enjoyed two stock market crashes, the Dot Com Bubble, the Subprime Loan fiasco and the GFC, with more to come. So, we've given the keys to the blood bank to vampires, and said "help yourself". Of course, bankers would NEVER be selfish, greedy or corrupt, would they?

Prior to self regulation, we had tight regulation, and no crashes of anything, but gentle rises and declines in markets.

Since the general public doesn't demand a return to tight regulation, we can see that the general public have the financial literacy of a gnat, and are more than happy to buy the swill of "self regulation".

On that basis, why do we have speed limits on roads, and not let drivers self regulate? Could it be that though most would do the right thing, we need a system of regulation to ensure across the board compliance? You can only injure a handful of people on the road, but a banker can only destroy the lives of millions. Hmmm, we need to consult an Einstein to work this out, don't we [cynic]?

Cheers.

How does personal responsibility sit with you Everett?

No one can legislate for that. Without that element 'a fool and his/her money ...'

Oops sorry Everald

Oh, really, Dick Dastardly?

>>Prior to self regulation, we had tight regulation, and no crashes of anything, but gentle rises and declines in markets.<<

Where were you in 1989?

http://www.loansense.com.au/historical-rates.html

A "gentle rise and decline" to 17%+ interest rates and back? Saints preserve us.

@Pericles, yes really. Deregulation commenced late 70's or early 80's. We had the '87 stock market crash...so where were you? Those high interest rates in '89 were Mr & Mrs Average paying the banks for their (the bank's) losses in '87. Then there was the '91 stock market crash, then Dot Com Bubble, then Subprime Loan fiasco and GFC.

Still feel condescending?

Cheers.

Dick Dastardly ,Pericles will always be a big bankers bitch just like our major political parties.

The banking system steals from us on many levels. Who creates the money for inflation? The banks do it as debt to inflate our housing prices, loans for consumerables, small businesses and finance to credit unions and loan sharks. It is a totally parasitic system destined to fail.

Our big banks now have leverage of 70:1 instead of the normal 10;1.This means they are depreciating our savings and wages via debt. We lose out 3 times. First via currency depreciation, then having to repay the principal and lastly the interest.

The same applies to the money they create from nothing for growth. So if inflation = growth and is expressed as debt by private banks, we can never repay the debt unless we sell off all our assets. What happens when we have no more assets to sell ?

Nice and vague, Dick.

>>Deregulation commenced late 70's or early 80's<<

What was the nature of the deregulation that took place in the "late 70's or 80's" that caused the stock market crash of 1987 and the high interest rates in 1989?

(You don't mind me calling you Dick, do you?)

People who understand these things attribute the high interest rates in 1989 to too much government intervention in the financial system, rather than too little. Have a look through this contemporary paper, and see whether you can refute any of its analyses:

http://www.cis.org.au/images/stories/policy-magazine/1989-spring/1989-05-04-terry-black.pdf

Do let me know what you find, won't you.

Oh, and don't forget to let us know what aspects of deregulation, and of what, caused the 1987 crash. Arjay is just dying to find out.

Pericles, one major change was that insurance companies, most of which were "mutual" companies, meaning their only shareholders were their clients...policy-holders, were now allowed to list on the stock exchange. Traditionally, stock markets were a way for companies that produced things, desired financing and rather than borrowing money, listed on the stock market, inviting shareholders to share in profits. It was better than borrowing monies which had to be secured and of course, paid back. They would finance such things as expansion of production, outlets, infrastructure, R & D, and so forth.

Insurance companies now listed after deregulation. They make nothing, produce nothing, and only use their funds for investment purposes, mainly in conservative securities, and a portion in the stock market. But now, their primary responsibility is to their stockholders, not policyholders, and also suddenly have vastly more money available to invest in the stock market from their listing.

So of course, the stock market overheats while insurance companies are throwing money at everything. Their focus not only changed from policyholder to shareholder, but due to market heating and every cat and his dog believing they can do no wrong as everything is rising, they push market linked products instead of "capital guaranteed" products, further heating the market. But more importantly, market linked products offer no guarantees, therefore no responsibility either...buyer beware.

Add the fact that superannuation was made mandatory in about 1983, and insurance companies managed most of those funds, and with women entering the workforce in the 60's and 70's further driving our economy, then by the early 80's there was a shitload of more money than ever before being pushed into the stock market, thus over-valuing everything. Naturally, a "correction" was inevitable.

That's just one example, and only a small part of the story.

Cont'd

That's not to say that the market wouldn't have overheated just from the advent of compulsory superannuation, but the change to how insurance companies functioned and their change of focus from conservatism in money management to cowboy economics and holding no responsibility for other people's monies, became endemic. Banks followed suit. They too listed, and not only employed the same cowboy economics of gambling with other people's money, but were even more inventive...particularly merchant banks.

Many mergers between insurance companies and banks occurred, each doing so to access the client base of the other, with the sole purpose of gaining monies to gamble.

The entire financial services industry, from a tradition of conservatism, securities and guarantees for their clients, turned into stock casinos, betting on everything, being responsible for nothing.

Had deregulation not occurred, that entire shift would not have happened, and the crashes we've seen would have been dips instead of free-falls.

If I'm vague on a date or two, it's because I'm talking off the top of my head, as I didn't read about it, I was in the industry watching it all unfold.

As I said, that's only a small part of the story, but it's profound in the effects it had.

Cheers.

Pure invention, Dick. Or imagination, one or the other. But patently not factual.

>>Pericles, one major change was that insurance companies, most of which were "mutual" companies, meaning their only shareholders were their clients...policy-holders, were now allowed to list on the stock exchange.<<

While there have been a number of mutual societies in the insurance industry, and while many of them have since opted to issue shares instead, there has never been a regulation requiring them to be, or remain, mutual. In fact, shareholder-owned insurance companies have been around since the eighteenth century.

I could go on and rubbish the rest of your post too, but since it is all based on the same discredited notion of "deregulation", it is hardly worth it.

I will of course be happy to do so, if you think I'm being unfair.

So, for the second time of asking, what was the nature of the "deregulation" that, according to you, led to the crash of '87, and the high interest rates of the late eighties? That is, what regulations were removed, and when.

>>If I'm vague on a date or two, it's because I'm talking off the top of my head<<

It's not the top of your head that is speaking, I suspect, but another part of your anatomy completely.

You don't mind me calling you Dick, do you?

Pericle,vhttp://www.google.com.au/url?q=http://www.deakin.edu.au/buslaw/aef/workingpapers/papers/swp2003-08.pdf&sa=U&ei=ywhzU_viBs6YlQW8zoHAAQ&ved=0CAsQFjAA&sig2=MYtQsyqSZb6WuK2l2IWcjw&usg=AFQjCNFbSkxwWKCmsoq6lO4jhRvJr0k_4Q

This is an overview discussing demutualization, banking and insurance mergers and the change of focus on both industries due to deregulation.

What I've attempted to describe to you, is what that all meant on a day-to-day basis of conducting business, which of course is somewhat different to theoretical analysis or discussion.

I said that most insurance companies were traditionally mutual, not that they became mutual. So your pointing out that they were mutual from the late 1800's only speaks of your lack of comprehension, nothing else.

Deregulation occurred in 1983 under Keating, and I was in the industry from 1985-92. My observation of the two companies I worked for demutualizing and listing on the stock exchange seems to be an error in attributing it directly to deregulation, but it would seem it was an indirect result. Sorry that I'm human and not a god such as yourself.

Now, you asked me where I was, and I've told you. Where were you? And if your answer is anywhere but the financial services industry, then you're an "armchair expert" with a troll-like attitude, displaying nothing but rude arrogance. I can attest to THAT expertise.

If you wish to continue to have discourse with me, learn some manners. That's not to say one can't disagree, but there's no reason not to be polite about it.

Cheers.

HI DICK..not something WE SEE OFTEN HERE
NOT SURE WEHETER TO THANK OR WARN..

THE DUDE ISNT IGNORANT OF these things/but totally loyal to the spin/he hAS STOPPED MANY OF US/with rIdiculE..AND DAmm statistics...over the years..

but you seem to know your stuff/as i see it/insurances/underwriters etc have been specifically targeting fund investors/MUCH LIKE MADDOF/EXCEPT HE BETRAYED THE WRONG ONES/

usa is terrified the people WILLL FIND GOVT lOOTED AWAY THEIR PENsion funds..AND THE DRUG WAR Ending [no more secret wars/broibe mon ey for politicization]..anyhow the insurance underwriters got their balls in a sling/its ALL OR NOTHING FOR THEM...but them..cleverly put the bailout on us/because WE ARE TOO BIG TO FAIL

Thing is debasing the queens coin/HIGH-treason\
now stealing the royal mint/to hide the thEFT/OF THE GOLD..[BY LEASING THE PHYSICAL GOLD TO THE BaNkers]/and them 'selling' iT INTO THE GOLD MARKET..[like selling a reNTAL..ISNT THAT A CRIME?

BUT UNDER IT ALL LIE THE UNDERWRITERS/us..
WHO CANT UNDERWRITE ANything cause its mortgaged or Limited TAX AVOIDING trust..IF ONLY I COULD WRITE LIKe you guys..if only per ridicules COULD CHANGE SIDES

FOLLOWING UNLAWFUL ORDERS DIDNT WORK..in Nuremberg
EVERY BIT OF Real life experience.is valuable beyond price.

The powerful question relates to how it can be assured that advisers act in the best interests of their clients, not themselves. Proposed legislative changes give an unacceptable leniency in how to determine the best interests of a client. This is not good, as the needs vary from one person to another and each one has different financial imperatives.

Rather than change legislation, it will be best to encourage banks and other financial institutions to create new financial products for the Ageing, as most Seniors want to invest in products that will guarantee them a reasonable financial return for the term of their life expectancy. There are very few investments that meet this need.

If the proposed changes do become law, there will be a very considerable backlash from Seniors, many of whom will decide to handle their investments without seeking financial advice, and this will lead to many more personal disasters.

I will do my best to encourage the four banks in which I am an investor to voluntarily break with any such legislation and guarantee their customers the security they want and deserve through the provision of innovative investments of integrity and security.

The bank that takes this initiative will earn a lot of money....>>

AND EVERY PENNEY IT HOLDS CAN BE FRACTIONALLY INCREASED*/LEVERAGED INTO MORE ';CREDIT'.,,but contract HOLDS LITTLE weight IN REALITY made chaos.[POSSESIon=9/10th the law]..THAT GAINED BY LIE Cannot hod clean title/BANKS..NEVER LENT US A CENT/OUR APPLICATION..CREATED'..the money

our promise to repay/created the debt..to oursELVES
ALL DEBT IS HERBY FORGIVEN..[SEE SUN TREATY]

Sorry, Dick. It's here, in black and white, and complete with your signature.

>>I said that most insurance companies were traditionally mutual, not that they became mutual. So your pointing out that they were mutual from the late 1800's only speaks of your lack of comprehension, nothing else<<

Two things. I said "shareholder-owned insurance companies have been around since the eighteenth century", not that "they were mutual from the late 1800's". Furthermore, you stated, quite categorically and incorrectly, that they listed as a result of deregulation:

>>Pericles, one major change was that insurance companies, most of which were "mutual" companies, meaning their only shareholders were their clients...policy-holders, were now allowed to list on the stock exchange.<<

And I quite correctly pointed out that they have always been "allowed to list on the stock exchange", which means that this particular piece of deregulation was entirely imaginary on your part.

Which you now also recognize to be correct.

>>My observation of the two companies I worked for demutualizing and listing on the stock exchange seems to be an error in attributing it directly to deregulation, but it would seem it was an indirect result. Sorry that I'm human and not a god such as yourself.<<

Your apology is accepted.

>>Where were you? And if your answer is anywhere but the financial services industry, then you're an "armchair expert" with a troll-like attitude, displaying nothing but rude arrogance. I can attest to THAT expertise.<<

In this instance it would seem that whatever my background may be, my understanding of the financial arena exceeds yours, wouldn't you say?

Basically, the problem is that any old Tom Dick or Harry can say what they like on platforms such as this one, and unless they are immediately corrected, the error proliferates to other, equally careless-of-facts contributors.

If you consider that "trolling", then so be it..

Pericles, remembering a detail about insurance companies being able to list on the stock market prior to deregulation isn't a display of understanding of how that industry works and/or changed. It's a detail. You've said nothing to display any such understanding, but assert otherwise.

Stating that what someone has said is "rubbish", without substantiation, and using my moniker as an innuendo is troll-like. I'd been polite to you, I see no reason why you couldn't return the courtesy...you choose the moniker of a Greek statesman, yet can't conduct yourself as such, only discredits that name.

The points I made about mergers and the dynamics involved in the change of focus within the financial services industry stand true, but you want to claim "better understanding". You need to display that before claiming it, and technical detail doesn't qualify. You need to state what I said was incorrect about the change of focus, which if course you can't do, as you weren't there to see the shift from one focus to another.

If you want an example of the difference between our economy prior to deregulation, you need only look at the four decades in our credit economy post WWII, and see no stock market crashes or financial crisis of any type, and the near four decades post deregulation hosting two stock market crashes, the Dot Com Bubble, Subprime Loan fiasco and GFC. I say the post WWII credit economy, as this economy is a bit different to the economy prior to WWII where credit was not made available as easily to the average worker as it was post WWII.

So show us what you KNOW, rather than your nitpicking.

Cheers.

What is nit-picking to you, Dick, to others is simply being accurate.

>>It's a detail<<

You may consider it a "detail", but it appeared to be the foundation upon which you based your argument. Let me remind you of the context of the "detail" to which you refer.

>>Pericles, one major change was that insurance companies, most of which were "mutual" companies, meaning their only shareholders were their clients...policy-holders, were now allowed to list on the stock exchange.<<

The context was that I had asked which aspect of deregulation caused the problem. You stated that deregulation had allowed insurance companies to list on the stock exchange. I called you on this fairly fundamental error, in that it could not possibly have been a cause, and you get all huffy about it.

(Incidentally, policyholders in a mutual are not shareholders. But you knew that "detail" too, did you not)

>>Stating that what someone has said is "rubbish", without substantiation<<

I thought it quite well substantiated, personally. You stated that insurance companies were not allowed to list, prior to "deregulation". I showed you that they were. That's substantiation.

>>If you want an example of the difference between our economy prior to deregulation, you need only look at the four decades in our credit economy post WWII, and see no stock market crashes or financial crisis of any type, and the near four decades post deregulation hosting two stock market crashes, the Dot Com Bubble, Subprime Loan fiasco and GFC... So show us what you KNOW<<

What I know is that correlation does not imply causation, and that all generalizations are false.

As it stands, all you are saying is that things ain't what they used to be, and blaming this vague, amorphous thing called deregulation for the ills of the world. We shouldn't forget that the same easing of credit allowed an awful lot of highly productive and valuable companies to come into existence too.

But if you care to be more specific as to which aspects of deregulation led to which calamity, we might still have an interesting and fruitful discussion.

Q..OTE..<<..the near four decades post deregulation hosting two stock market crashes,..SARS/BIRD/SWINE-flue..the Dot Com Bubble,..Subprime Loan fiasco and GFC...>>

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/05/enron-2-0-wall-street-wants-manipulate-state-energy-markets-just-like-manipulates-every-market.html

>>So show us..what you KNOW<<
<<..What I know...is that correlation..does not imply
*causation, and that all generalizations are false.>>

causation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causation_(law)
Causation is the "causal relationship
between conduct and result".

That is to say that causation provides a means of connecting conduct with a resulting effect, typically an injury. In criminal law, it is defined as the actus reus (an action) from which the specific injury or other effect arose and is combined with mens rea (a state of mind) to comprise the elements of guilt.

Causation is only applicable where a result has been achieved and therefore is immaterial with regard to inchoate offenses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalization A generalization (or generalisation) of a concept is an extension of the concept to less-specific criteria.

It is a foundational element of logic and human reasoning.[citation needed] Generalizations posit the existence of a domain or set of elements, as well as one or more common characteristics shared by those elements. As such, they are the essential basis of all valid deductive inferences. The process of verification is necessary to determine whether a generalization holds true for any given situation.

The concept of generalization has broad application in many related disciplines, sometimes having a specialized context or meaning.Of any two related concepts, such as A and B, A is a "generalization" of B, and B is a special case of A, if and only if* every instance of concept B is also an instance of concept A; and* there are instances of concept A which are not instances of concept B.

@Pericles, http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_insurance which is what I said. "Shareholders" per se, are those that buy stock from the stock market. Insurance companies that were "mutual", transferred their allegiance from policyholders to shareholders when they demutualized and listed themselves on the stock market.

And all you've said is nothing. If you have a theory as to why there have been 5 major financial crises since deregulation, spit it out. Being a naysayer is not proof, it's just being a naysayer. If you actually knew the answer, I'm sure you'd be pointing it out, but your complete lack of substantiation infers that you know nothing other than your own household budget, and what you read from "experts" that fit your preconceived ideas. Life doesn't come from a book, a newspaper article or a blog, it comes from the living of it and the experience learned.

So again, what qualifies you to "know", outside of being an armchair expert?

In his latest article, former Assistant Treasury Secretary Dr. Paul Craig Roberts says, “The Fed is the great deceiver.” Why is he making this shocking accusation? The reason is tiny Belgium’s whopping purchase of $141 billion in Treasury bonds earlier this year.
http://usawatchdog.com/fed-laundering-treasury-purchases-in-belgium-to-disguise-whats-happening-paul-craig-roberts/

Dr. Roberts explains, “We know that Belgium didn’t have any money to buy $141 billion worth of bonds over a three month period. That sum comes to 29% of the Belgium GDP. So, they don’t have a surplus in their budget that is 29% of their GDP, and they don’t have trade or current account surplus in that amount.

In fact, everything is in the red. Their budget deficit is in the red, and their trade and current accounts are in the red. So, Belgium didn’t have the money, and yet, they managed to pick up $141.2 billion in U.S. Treasuries over a three month period.

So, where did they get the money?”
ctd at link.
http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/2r1XyX/www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/470-750057/

i seem to recall..an offer was made..to buy up auto clubs

You want the answer to life the universe and everything in 350 words, Dick?

>>And all you've said is nothing. If you have a theory as to why there have been 5 major financial crises since deregulation, spit it out. Being a naysayer is not proof, it's just being a naysayer. If you actually knew the answer, I'm sure you'd be pointing it out, but your complete lack of substantiation infers that you know nothing other than your own household budget, and what you read from "experts" that fit your preconceived ideas.<<

What I was reacting to was your cornflake-packet wisdom, presented as fact. Insight that was not only trite in the extreme, but patently careless in its use of example and analogy. Many quite powerful brains have been working on the problem for years, and to have their efforts discarded in such a cavalier way - even by a talent as great as yours - is more than a little insulting to them.

I don't share your absolute certainty that the various upheavals we have witnessed in the post-war world economy have a single root cause. But if you have a favourite economist who supports your "it was the free market wot dunnit" theory, then by all means point us to the evidence itself, so that we can discuss it intelligently.

(Just for the record, the word you wanted is "implies", not "infers".)