Yes, people should be able to experiment and innovate permissionless, but not if they receive state-support for it - that's cheating!

To begin with, even before considering the specific benefits for the banking sector, banks are incorporated. This means that if their experiment fails and they fall face down, then the bank owners will retain their home and savings, even their yachts.

Individuals should never be limited in what they do (unless they hurt or endanger others), but once they ask for the state's favours, benefits and protections, I see no reason why they should not be restricted in return.

Wow! And this nonsensical claim is backed up by Tom Cruise and Hollywood.

And when will the insurance industry be subjected to some stringent oversight?
That is more note-worthy than financial services: Insurance, an out of control industry which encompasses the lives of the vast majority, from all walks of life.

Hear, hear and well said ttbn. Even so I believe we need a royal commision to put some of the more nefarious financial activities under a very public spotlight; along with the entities who are responsible for stuff we suspect might be happening!? As the only effective means or a tool at our disposal, to actually stop it?

Simply put, any western style economy rests on just two support pillars, energy and capital!

And a truly sovereign nation needs to control both the supply side of both as well as the cost, and if well lead we could! If only to have and wield true economic sovereignty.
Rhrosty.

This article begins by discussing financial products that may be unfair, or intentionally harmful and swiftly conflates that with products that may be merely risky.

The first should be regulated and the later not. The hard work is in identifying the difference but laws have had to do this across the board. This is not a special case.

Dear Dan,

<<The first should be regulated and the later not>>

Unless they risk not only their own money and that of their fully-informed-and-consenting customers, but also our tax-money. That's when they become harmful.

Yuyutsu...

* their fully-informed-and-consenting customers*

Oh, OK,

“We have met the enemy and he is us then"

"ASIC can only take action to rectify consumer detriment after a breach or suspected breach of the law by a firm.’

This wont last 5 minutes. Under the Trans Pacific Partnership(TPP) a member company only has say "this is a restraint on trade" and the govt will be like a sheep in the headlights which will only ever happen once.

Under the TPP if a member company thinks ANYTHING the govt does is restraint on trade they can take it to their own private court staffed with adjudicators sourced from TPP member world wide legal practices and the 3 member panel will order the govt to back off or they will fine the Aust govt.

They are only saying this because their is an election. No Australian govt will ever again pass any law without first getting the permission for it from the TPP.

Don't be concerned if you don't know about the TPP, you were never meant to.

What I can't figure out is whether or not you're arguing that bankers should have more freedom to screw Australians out of their hard earned money.

Are the white collar seat sitters trying to steal more from the blue collar labourers again?
That is the question...

You say that with more regulation credit cards may never have been invented, which is an interesting topic.

Credit cards might be great for bankers and economists as it gives them so many more numbers to crunch and a purpose and relevance.
But have they been a good thing for all Australians, given that most live week to week and can't save?

Maybe all credit cards ever did was take advantage of foolish younger Australians that live week to week and found another way to take their money;
Or maybe you've saved them from constantly taking their stuff to cash converters and paying even more, who knows.

I don't give a crap about you or your number crunching or your banking cartel, all I care about is whats good for all Australians.
Please tell me what products you were planning to unleash upon the Australian public that ASIC might oppose?

It honestly sounds to me like you're pissed off that a regulator might act to protect Australians and throw a spanner in the works in your intention to screw Aussies out of their hard earned money...
What's missing here is that you haven't tried to sell me on any proposed details or benefits of aforementioned unnamed financial products, so I can only conclude that something here doesn't smell right.

If you want to sell me, try starting with some merits.