Armchair, the answer's very simple: the page http://humansarefree.com/2013/11/complete-list-of-banks-ownedcontrolled.html is misinformation. They simply copied it off another conspiracy theory site.

"Maybe someone can help me understand this better.
If we have full control and ownership of the RBA, why don't we just print $680bn wipe out the debt and save $20bn a year in interest? Of course there is going to be inflation, though I don't know how much or whether the inflation would be worse than the debt."

Because debt isn't as bad as you think it is.

Government debt has five components:
1) Sovereign debt (debt in foreign currencies)
2) Money the government owes itself
3) Money the government has borrowed from banks who borrowed it from the government
4) Other money the government owes domestic banks and bondholders
5) Other money the government owes foreign banks and bondholders.

Category 1 is bad, but Australian government has, from the early 1990s, had a policy of not borrowing any money at all in foreign currencies, so it's insignificant here.

A country recoups all the interest it pays on category 2 debt, and most of it on category 3 debt. Category 3 is deemed desirable for bank liquidity reasons. Also, some people still believe the myth that category 2 introduces a hyperinflation risk. So Australia generally avoids category 2, though countries that have engaged in QE have lots of it.

Category 4 debt supports the population's desire to save, so Japan has heaps of it (along with significant amounts of categories 2 and 3). Categories 3 and 4 are in equilibrium according to how much people are borrowing and saving.

Category 5 debt requires foreigners to purchase Australian dollars, so (in the short term) it increases our dollar's value, and is therefore less inflationary than other forms of debt. IMO Australia has taken on too much of this type of debt over the past five years. How much category 5 debt we take on depends mainly on our interest rate relative to interest rates overseas, though there is probably some opportunity to reduce it by taking on more category 2 debt.

Armchair, devaluation is no longer a disruptive process. The markets control the value of currencies and are continually adjusting their values. It won't tip anyone over the edge – its business as usual. It may increase inflation in (and exports from) those countries that tie their currency value to that of the US dollar, but it could instead encourage them to float their currencies which would be a good thing.

"If current thinking is so critical of carbon emissions then why don't we put sanctions of China and India to force them to reduce emissions? This would increase the cost of Chinese goods, but make manufacturing more viable in other countries again."
We don't need sanctions to force countries to reduce their emissions, we need global agreement. Right now we're not doing nearly enough to reduce our own, so sanctions would be hypocritical. And increasing the cost of Chinese goods would be a bad thing – it would increase inflation and force us to spend more on what we can't produce efficiently. Or if you mean tariffs, those would effectively impose the costs of a lower value currency on consumers and businesses, without giving our exporting businesses the benefits.

Eurozone countries are in the unfortunate position of not producing their own currency, so if they run out of money they're screwed. Their credit is limited, so they're not always in a position to be able to rescue failed banks, so their creditors can end up getting the final say. Financially sovereign countries like Australia do not have that problem.

BTW many countries do run successful public sector businesses.

Armchair here is the evidence for "bail in" http://cecaust.com.au/bail-in/

Aidan is just here to confuse the issue. As I said previously, we have inflation created as debt which far outstrips growth, then the debt can never be repaid.

I support the CEC because they want the return of Govt banks that can create new money debt free as infrastructure and services. Anyone of intellect who is not feeding off this parasitic system can see it is doomed to fail. The RBA has just announced that interest rates will again fall because our economy continues to shrink.We would not need to sell off our resources and farming products for a song if we could create our own new money debt free from the private central banksters.

Russia rid themselves of the Rothschild Central Bankers and now they are demonised. Go figure

Here is a quote I could quickly find about the FSB being empowered to seize funds.
There is lots more detailed info.

http://tinyurl.com/m97c4kg

Now I know some will say it is all rubbish because it is on a site called Barnaby was right.
But so what, it is not Barnaby's web site, and some of it is quotes from emails from the
Bank of England Chairman. It is real and I am pretty sure the Cypriots that had their
funds seized would believe it is real.
Because the site is named after Barnaby Joyce the ALP computers will automatically
condemn it.

First, in the FSB press release of 4 Nov 2011 we are told that the G20 allegedly “asked the FSB to develop a policy framework to address the systemic and moral hazard risks associated with systemically important financial institutions (SIFIs).”

Next, in Seoul 2010, “G20 leaders endorsed this framework and the timelines and processes for its implementation.”

That framework is set out in the FSB’s “Key Attributes of Effective Resolution Regimes for Financial Institutions” (pdf).

In the preamble of that document, we learn that one of the objectives is to make it possible for “unsecured and uninsured creditors to absorb losses.” Meaning, if your savings are not covered by some form of government guarantee or federal insurance (for all that is worth) – or if, as in Australia, the government bank deposits guarantee is limited to an amount significantly less than (ie, 1/10th) the total of actual bank deposits held by the public – then your bank account can be made to “absorb losses”. And as we will see shortly, this can be done entirely without your consent -

Thanks Bazz. The majority think that it is too incredible to be true. Remember the Titanic was the unsinkable ship so life boat precautions were halved.

We currently don't have a 50% firewall against this present calamity. People will be lucky to have 10% of their super and savings left when the criminal parasites spring their trap.

Arjay, far from trying to confuse the issue, I'm trying to end the confusion by telling the truth to counter the lies you're spreading. A claim from a conspiracy nuts' website proves nothing, and you're totally unable to support the claim that "it is all there in writing by the Financial stability board".

Inflation is a rise in prices, not just an increase in the money supply. And if the money supply is increasing, surely that makes it EASIER to pay off debts? Unless you're referring to the total amount of debt — in which case it's a good thing, as we really don't want to be in the situation where there's nothing better to do with money than pay off debt.

You support the party that thinks everything's a British conspiracy because you've fallen for their lie that the central banks are in private hands. In reality they're all in public hands (with the arguable exception of the USA's Federal Reserve). All it would take is a change of policy (and legislation) to enable the RBA to issue money to the government debt free. But it wouldn't really make much of a difference anyway – the problem is fear of debt, not the debt itself.
______________________________________________________________________

Bazz, even the Barnaby Was Right site has backed down from the claim that the FSB can seize funds from account holders. And my objection to the site wasn't its political affiliation but the fact that it's raison d'être is based on ignorance of the way our financial system works.

Any changes to account holder liability are a matter for domestic legislation, not a matter for the G20 or the FSB.