Protecting inter-bank loans, interlaces companies over varying performance abilities. It is not a good idea. Blanket protection encourages Banks to be reckless to play the system for greater profitability. Banks are open trade irresponsibly, while shifting risk to the Government in the first instance and the ulimately the tax payer, except the moguls, who don't pat tax in the first place.

O.

Bronwyn “You can lay out example after example for the likes of simple minds like mine, it won't change the reality that that little bit of 'ownership' you are at pains to convince me,. . . . confers no power over decision making whatsoever.”

Then my suggestion to you, being so cynical and untrusting in the process is to sell any shares you may hold and find something else to do with your money.

The difference between “big bad capitalism” and “benevolent socialism”:

Capitalists compete, in the stock market, for your investment dollars and if you do not like what is on offer, you can say NO, like I have suggested above

Socialism is run by government for government and you get no choice in what is invested in using your tax dollars.

I still do not think your cynicism should be the primary consideration for tempering my optimism.

Voting in company elections is no different to voting in general elections, you get a democratic opportunity to vote, not a right to make decisions but you can stand for election if you want.

Myself, I am heavily invested in a couple of companies.

One I own all the shares and have all the votes to make all the decisions.

The other I own half the shares (but still make all the decisions).

You can freely decide what you get to make decision in, limited, of course, to your representative proportion of corporate ownership.

Footnote the Australian Companies legislation is fully equipped with what is presently seen as appropriate provisions to protect the interests of minority interests.

Oliver “Banks are open trade irresponsibly, while shifting risk to the Government in the first instance and the ulimately the tax payer,”

Agree totally, reward for risk has to be proportional, not reward and no risk.

The damage done at present is to the “trust”, which has been eroded by some banks behaving irresponsibly, regardless of risk and possibly at the behest of politicians pursuing cheap (housing) loans for the disreputable.

$700+ billion = $2,000+ for every American, Man Woman and Child

*I repeat, the idea of workers 'owning' companies and having a say is a total fiction.*

Its not fiction at all, its more like democracy. You have a say
in terms of what happens in Australia through your vote, but a
very small one.

Millions of workers have an interest in the banks, BHP, Woodside
etc. If millions wanted these companies to change their ways,
they could do it for yes, they are the ultimate owners, through
their super funds.

If those companies earn huge profits and those profits are paid
to shareholders, that money is paid to those peoples super fund
accounts. That is the reality. Super funds are simply managers,
usually working for a commission.

But yes, millions of workers care about the bottom line and their
annual returns, so if you raise ethical issues, you could be
outvoted. Its much the same in democracy.

*That little bit of 'ownership' is nothing more than a total gamble, as so many 'mum and dad' investors are about to find out the hard way*

So do you think that the banks, Woodside, BHP, Woolies, Coles,
Santos, Origin, will simply vanish? My guess is that in 5-10 years,
most of them will still be here, employing people, making profits,
smaller or larger, benefitting millions of workers, who are
ultimately their owners.

BTW, you don't need many shares in a company to be able to go to the
AGM, raise your concerns in front of other shareholders and be
heard. If you have entrusted a super fund manager to manage your
money, then he will speak for you, or else run your own super fund.

For me , well the constitution says let them deal with it.
The banks and investors are the ones that decided to buy these overpriced investment portfolios.

We knew last year so did rudd so he could have stepped in then.

Hang on there he hasnt been in australia for that long since the election.

Hansard 21-1-1898 Constitution convention Debates

Mr. HOWE.-
QUOTE
There are records of bankruptcy, of reckless, and in some instances corrupt,
management, when the hard earnings of the people and the savings of a lifetime
have been swept away-have melted away like snow before the noonday sun. Through
this reckless and corrupt management men who thought they had provided for their
old and declining age found themselves stranded on the cheerless shores of
charity, and many of them have had to accept even amongst ourselves the
pauper's lot. The pauper's lot in Australia or in any other country is
to the deserving poor one of the saddest and darkest blots on our civilization.
END QUOTE
.
What appears to be now is that banks can act recklessly in buying up bad debts,
etc, and the commonwealth is going to guarantee this even so it has no
constitutional powers for this as after all banks are private companies and not
a Federal Government institution

Agree with everything you say above Yabby (nothing new in that).

Tapp I get the point of your post and agree with much of it, as far as off shore investments are concerned.

I would however make one thing apparent

In Australia, whilst the banks are the lenders, they do NOT carry the “default” risk.

Property mortgages are insured against loan default by a special one-premium insurance policy.

If the amount borrowed is less than 80% Loan to Value Ratio (LVR), the lender pays the premium
If the amount borrowed is in excess of 80% LVR, the borrower pays the premium (and it varies according to the borrower’s credit rating and the LVR).

When a bank or mortgage broker prepares to borrow against real estate security, one of the ‘hurdles’ is to get the insurers agreement to the loan before the borrower is offered any money.

Such regulation is an important reason why the Australian system is not so vulnerable as the US system and any criticism of the US system should not be laid at George Bush’s door.
The US system has evolved over decades (Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac with incorporated back in 1970). GWB just happened to be the one ‘on watch’ when it all caught fire.

As for borrowing ona Margin lending Scheme (typically to buy shares), I suspect are not "insured" but the LVR for these sort of loans is far lower (tops around 65% LVR). However, anyone who takes on the risks associated with a Margin Lending scheme is a fool.

As for bankruptcy, they are unavoidable.

People are entitled to undertake any risk which suits them and no one can protect a fool from himself.

There is an element of “lender beware” in extending any form of credit or guarantee (be it a loan or trade credit or just trusting a friend who ends up putting their self interest before moral obligation), to anyone else and I like many, have been so caught too.

Quick & Garran Page 132
QUOTE
The Federal Parliament was given full powers of raising money, not only by
customs and excise, but by every other mode of taxation; and the only conditions
imposed upon this power were that federal taxation must be uniform between the
colonies, and that on the adoption of a uniform tariff, trade between the
colonies should be free. Until the adoption of a federal tariff, the provincial
tariffs were to remain, not only as against the outside world, but as between
States; and after that event the power to impose customs and excise was to be
vested exclusively in the Federal Parliament, through the States were to retain
concurrent powers of raising money by every other mode of taxation.
END QUOTE
.
While the commonwealth has constitutional powers in regard of banking, other
then State Banks operating within a State, it is another matter for the
Commonwealth to guarantee bank deposits while for example only days earlier the
Commonwealth Bank (a private company) purchased BankWest for about 2 billion
dollars.
.
Bank CEO’s getting millions of dollars paid every year regardless how the
bank shares have scandalously gone down.
.
As I understand it some salaries have increased from about 27 times the average
weekly income to about 200 times the average weekly income of CEO’s and other
directors of companies despite that the companies even were being vandalised.
.