Ken,
Interesting ideas, worthy of more consideration.
I'd like to see more on how you intend implementing your industry wide idea given the disparity of sizes and variety of enterprise unique situations.
Presumably there would be industry wide unions. “One out all” is both unionisms strength and weakness. This could/would provide unique and publicly unacceptable problems, shutting down an entire enterprise or industries.
The investment scheme appeals to me but I would like to see more details.
Regards
Examinator

examinator,

The industry funds is a mechanism to change the bias in our economy to debt financing over savings for investment. The current system rewards high leveraging. This makes Australian corporations dependent on the availability of foreign capital. The creation of the industry funds underpinned with a charter of "socially responsible behaviour" adds an additional tool to countercyclical policy toolchests.

Democratising investment decisions within corporate Australia is necessary to advance social democracy.
Leaving the economic future entirely in the hands of the captains of industry has seen shareholders funds squandered on excessive executive salaries. It also allows scope to simplify the taxation system. By providing tax free status for the investment funds all other deductions relating to investment and capital products could be removed.

Growing from the 1950s until the present time, we have developed several multinations the size of countries. Within these organizations Western Managerialism has fueled the notion "enough" is never enough enough. Circa 1974, the system shuddered, and now, again.

Emulating the Japan Inc of the 60s, 70s & 80s, is a bit of a furphy, because over these three decades, the West (primarily the US) allowed Japan to protect its markets and grow (to stem Communism), while the US opened its markets to Japan. The Keitsu under MITI, leveraged advantage. The circumstances are different and the West is not in a position copy the Japan-West distortion, the West set-up in the first place.

Sustaining elite managers, even in times of their obvious failure is costing society dearly. Yet,these executive managers are small-fry; when compared to the transnational oliarchs, who are untouchable.

Six times since 1906, the DOW has halved its index, only to return:

Currently, likewise, there is resistence around 7,000 (from 14,000). There must be a major psychological component, as the environment for each half-way bounce was very difference. Only in the 1930s did the DOW fall though further, to one-eighth of the previous peak capitalisation. Are we headed there? Too soon to know, I suspect.

US demand on China's manufacture is critical. Sino reserves of USD two trillion, proping the US, would not last long were US demand to collapse. Then what we now see and read, would be monor by comparison.

Market economnists, so quiick to point-the-bone at Political Economics and Socialism, rest back, in the leather chairs and stare at their walnut panelling, as publically funded Corporate Socialism, abounds

I am no Economist but it simply amazes me that the monolithic US expenditure on war does not figure in these discussions ?

The half of the index of previous high of the DOW seems to be a resistence point, as throughout history. (See above)

I wonder if the US policy makers are trying to reduce future debt (principal) via inflation? If so, this approach is risky business.

Low cost borrowers of today will not be able to meet future interest payments on debt plus interest, and, we again, have something like sub-prime crisis. Instead, its would be overcommitment as rates rise.

"I am no Economist but it simply amazes me that the monolithic US expenditure on war does not figure in these discussions ?"

Yes, the US government takes an enormous proportion of the wealth of that nation and spends it on virtually nothing but violating people's property rights on a vast scale, and the only thing most people can think of in response to the economic crisis is that the cause of it has got nothing to do with government, and the cure for the problem is bigger government?

The third estate is getting fed up ... when protestors are labeled 'anarchist' by spin doctors fed corporate media, given the G20 focus on banksters rather than the people, climate change, and the police incompetently obliges ... (Google: BBC, policing, concerns, G20)

Is our democracy the worst form of government except for all others? Communism does not work, and neither does Bush/ HoWARd era extreme, and unregulated capitalism of the God loves investment bankers kind. Policies that leave all the profit with the haves, and all the risk with the public surely have been proven to be not sustainable. Empires and (quasi) monopolies limit choice.

How about some fact-based and socially acceptable policies for a change?

Switzerland and Singapore come to mind as countries where a skilled bureaucracy is not constantly battered into stupidity from lefty or conservative politicians focused on the next election, but actually chart a course beyond the elections. Why not turn democracy into direct democracy with more non-advisory referenda over key choices. Collectively the people are very smart (and like a jury in court can smell a liar).
Let's see, a vote on spending money on a local hospital vs a privately owned bank ...

But let's make this local. The NSW 2007 election saw the lesser of two evils stay in power, despite failings over transport and health care and plans to take utilities private.
Now, Premier Rees is faced with a utility too focused on (Government) shareholders and insufficiently on customers, employees and the environment.
And when it comes to education, the Premier buys expensive software from Microsoft to run on student notebooks ... have things gotten any better since the most recent election?

Putting all this on the global financial crisis may be politically expedient, but it certainly does not do much for jobs, the environment, education, transport, power (an energy revo using solar, wind, fuel cells, nuclear is possible but not from centralised utilities), communications (Conroy is about censorship not leveraging ICT) or health care.

Let them eat cake attitudes did very little for Louis and Marie-Antoinette between 1789 - 1793.

14,000/7,000

Seems be true again. Let's hope so. The intersting thing is that the floor seems to be a psychological base, given the reasons for all major falls are not linked, to suggest a sound rationale behind the bounces. The GD was the only exception.

Aside: Some years back when reseaching the GB and reading the papers of the time at the NSW State Library, I found early blame for the Stock Crash was leveled at the ticker-tape operators for not keeping up with the high volume of trades.