Of all the institutions or businesses that can be regulated, banking makes the least sense to me to privatise. Why is the single national bank model avoided? Would it not make sense that interest earned in this area be available as a public resource rather than a private profit?
Bendigo Bank.
Why is it different to any other activity that results in a private profit?
Well it’s different (in degree rather than in kind) to the extent of the sector’s importance to the rest of the economy; in the fact that the banks perform quasi-official functions in their private roles; and to the extent (in Australia at least) that there is a large degree of oligopoly in the sector. In itself that probably only justifies more stringent regulation of the sector compared to other industries rather than nationalization per se.
MartinB said:
Well it’s different (in degree rather than in kind) to the extent of the sector’s importance to the rest of the economy; in the fact that the banks perform quasi-official functions in their private roles; and to the extent (in Australia at least) that there is a large degree of oligopoly in the sector. In itself that probably only justifies more stringent regulation of the sector compared to other industries rather than nationalization per se.
Without disagreeing with any of that, it would be interesting to compare the numbers with the food supply sector, or the energy supply sector.
The energy sector obviously is pretty heavily regulated relative to other industries.
The food retail industry, at least according to many people, probably should be more heavily regulated than it is :-)
Riff-in-Thyme said:
Of all the institutions or businesses that can be regulated, banking makes the least sense to me to privatise. Why is the single national bank model avoided? Would it not make sense that interest earned in this area be available as a public resource rather than a private profit?
Yes
Don’t go trying to make sense of money/capital/interest.
It’ll do yer ‘ed in.
The Rev Dodgson said:
Why is it different to any other activity that results in a private profit?
Unlike other necessities, money is not a fundamental human need but is a tool of our perception of the need for an economy. If any economy(certainly a global economy) is to be properly respected, it has to be recognized as a “need inherent to the environment and common to all”, before it should be allowed to be open to private speculation. Not that I have any particular understanding of how banks are regulated, but I would see the earning of interest in a globalised, needs based economy to be a common resource that might not be appropriate to involve with the private sector.
Ian said:
It’ll do yer ‘ed in.
I’ve found acheiving that fairly hard to put any permanent dent in.
Riff-in-Thyme said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Why is it different to any other activity that results in a private profit?
Unlike other necessities, money is not a fundamental human need but is a tool of our perception of the need for an economy. If any economy(certainly a global economy) is to be properly respected, it has to be recognized as a “need inherent to the environment and common to all”, before it should be allowed to be open to private speculation. Not that I have any particular understanding of how banks are regulated, but I would see the earning of interest in a globalised, needs based economy to be a common resource that might not be appropriate to involve with the private sector.
I’m afraid that makes no sense at all to me.
The Rev Dodgson said:
Riff-in-Thyme said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Why is it different to any other activity that results in a private profit?
Unlike other necessities, money is not a fundamental human need but is a tool of our perception of the need for an economy. If any economy(certainly a global economy) is to be properly respected, it has to be recognized as a “need inherent to the environment and common to all”, before it should be allowed to be open to private speculation. Not that I have any particular understanding of how banks are regulated, but I would see the earning of interest in a globalised, needs based economy to be a common resource that might not be appropriate to involve with the private sector.
I’m afraid that makes no sense at all to me.
Ummm,,,, some money you shouldn’t be able to gamble on for your own interest?
Riff-in-Thyme said:
Ummm,,,, some money you shouldn’t be able to gamble on for your own interest?
It is one thing to take risks with money put aside for luxury type things but I would have thought the profits and interest earned on essential industries should be tied together in it’s own economy.
Riff-in-Thyme said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Riff-in-Thyme said:Unlike other necessities, money is not a fundamental human need but is a tool of our perception of the need for an economy. If any economy(certainly a global economy) is to be properly respected, it has to be recognized as a “need inherent to the environment and common to all”, before it should be allowed to be open to private speculation. Not that I have any particular understanding of how banks are regulated, but I would see the earning of interest in a globalised, needs based economy to be a common resource that might not be appropriate to involve with the private sector.
I’m afraid that makes no sense at all to me.
Ummm,,,, some money you shouldn’t be able to gamble on for your own interest?
It was the reasoning that I didn’t follow. Why would you regulate something that was “not a fundamental human need” more strictly than something that was a fundamental human need?
The Rev Dodgson said:
It was the reasoning that I didn’t follow. Why would you regulate something that was “not a fundamental human need” more strictly than something that was a fundamental human need?
Losing money in essential areas seems impractical and I’d have thought it would be practical to publicly invest interest earned from essentials. shrug
Riff-in-Thyme said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
It was the reasoning that I didn’t follow. Why would you regulate something that was “not a fundamental human need” more strictly than something that was a fundamental human need?
Losing money in essential areas seems impractical and I’d have thought it would be practical to publicly invest interest earned from essentials. shrug
Still makes no sense to me.
FWIW, I think that banks should be tightly regulated, but I doubt that buying out the commercial banks and replacing them with a government owned business would be a good idea.
Riff-in-Thyme said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
It was the reasoning that I didn’t follow. Why would you regulate something that was “not a fundamental human need” more strictly than something that was a fundamental human need?
Losing money in essential areas seems impractical and I’d have thought it would be practical to publicly invest interest earned from essentials. shrug
What exactly are banks earning interest from?
poikilotherm said:
Riff-in-Thyme said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
It was the reasoning that I didn’t follow. Why would you regulate something that was “not a fundamental human need” more strictly than something that was a fundamental human need?
Losing money in essential areas seems impractical and I’d have thought it would be practical to publicly invest interest earned from essentials. shrug
What exactly are banks earning interest from?
People (and companies) who borrow money from a bank pay interest on that money. But I suspect you knew that.
The Rev Dodgson said:
poikilotherm said:
Riff-in-Thyme said:Losing money in essential areas seems impractical and I’d have thought it would be practical to publicly invest interest earned from essentials. shrug
What exactly are banks earning interest from?
People (and companies) who borrow money from a bank pay interest on that money. But I suspect you knew that.
;) and I’ve forgot where I was going with that…ah well, I’ll try again later.
poikilotherm said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
poikilotherm said:What exactly are banks earning interest from?
People (and companies) who borrow money from a bank pay interest on that money. But I suspect you knew that.
;) and I’ve forgot where I was going with that…ah well, I’ll try again later.
have to be an expert on the subject not to forget where your going.
Anyway, I’d better get dressed and cycle to the antique shop to pay off that mini-dresser. Which may then possibly be delivered some time this evening.
No idea how that post ended up here. The internet’s gone crackers!
Bubblecar said:
No idea how that post ended up here. The internet’s gone crackers!
It’s 20 today*, maybe it’s got stuck into the booze early.
Why is the single national bank model avoided?
———————————————————————-
Idi Amin made alot of money with his.
Would it not make sense that interest earned in this area be available as a public resource rather than a private profit?
——————————————————-
That would be the RBA…
Its worth noting that the big 4 have more than repaid any assistance they may have needed du to short term liquidity stress in 2008..
ANZ is paying tax on its 3 billion profit after all.
Dropbear said:
Its worth noting that the big 4 have more than repaid any assistance they may have needed du to short term liquidity stress in 2008..ANZ is paying tax on its 3 billion profit after all.
all profit is private
all debt is public
wookiemeister said:
Dropbear said:
Its worth noting that the big 4 have more than repaid any assistance they may have needed du to short term liquidity stress in 2008..ANZ is paying tax on its 3 billion profit after all.
but they needed someone there to dig them out in the first placeall profit is private
all debt is public
No, they pay tax on the profit they make, and their employees pay income tax.
So your assertion is pants.
Dropbear said:
wookiemeister said:
Dropbear said:
Its worth noting that the big 4 have more than repaid any assistance they may have needed du to short term liquidity stress in 2008..ANZ is paying tax on its 3 billion profit after all.
but they needed someone there to dig them out in the first placeall profit is private
all debt is public
No, they pay tax on the profit they make, and their employees pay income tax.
So your assertion is pants.
when they give 250 million to a carplant that’s you paying for some elses car
the banks that needed money didn’t have enough money in reserve – that money had been funnelled away to shareholders in the past
personally I think a state bank is needed to regulate the money supply
in reality theres always going to be a boom and a bust – its just the nature of things
the labor party is trying to trigger a recession by taking incredible debt then taxing everyone.
they shouldn’t have given all that money away in 2008/2009 (900 dollars)
they should have used that money to make people work not just simply put their hand out
at any rate the silliness goes on , I don’t want to be around when the hangover kicks in
Everybody look at your pants.
actually thinking about it
they could have used that money to vaccinate as many people that they could, you’d pay people to turn up and have injections
you could have provided smokers nicotine chews and pills to give up smoking
they should never give money away without some agreed contract with the public
I wonder how many you’d have turning up to get vaccinated and be paid 100 dollars?
sure they’d blow it on pokies, booze and cigarettes but they’d never get sick with some diseases and pass it on
you’d save a fortune!!
Look, we are now beholden to the economy.
Fer crying out loud…If our toaster doesn’t work properly we cry.
Never mind if we lose phone service and cannot respond to someother idiot on face book.
Seriously, what would we do if we couldn’t buy food that was already hunted and gathered for us?
Mr Ironic said:
Seriously, what would we do if we couldn’t buy food that was already hunted and gathered for us?
Eat zombies?
Eat zombies?
————————
Well, yes, as much.
If we could no longer support the house of economical cards…
Our population would quickly diminish to the historical average.
Mr Ironic said:
Eat zombies?
————————Well, yes, as much.
If we could no longer support the house of economical cards…
Our population would quickly diminish to the historical average.
Why is that guaranteed? At this point in development is it not possible to envisage a less fragile and more dynamic approach?
At this point in development is it not possible to envisage a less fragile and more dynamic approach?
———————————————————————
Highly unlikly, we tend to war and less, whatever the non-god bothers say.
With out leadership… there is anarchy.
Money is/has been the tool.
Mr Ironic said:
At this point in development is it not possible to envisage a less fragile and more dynamic approach?
———————————————————————Highly unlikly, we tend to war and less, whatever the non-god bothers say.
With out leadership… there is anarchy.
Money is/has been the tool.
So why not make leadership the tool?
So why not make leadership the tool?
———————————————————
Well that’s a good question…
Maybe ‘they’ the leaders would need a selling point.
Some may try good intent, others cold hard cash…
Mr Ironic said:
So why not make leadership the tool?
———————————————————Well that’s a good question…
Maybe ‘they’ the leaders would need a selling point.
Some may try good intent, others cold hard cash…
I would say the leadership model we are following now has the same issue as our classrooms. It is unnatural and unhealthy for an individual to be responsible for so many. Of course, the term leadership may require a more dynamic definition before the concept becomes more than a token effort.
Of course, the term leadership may require a more dynamic definition before the concept becomes more than a token effort.
————————————————————
Well yes but no…
At some stage even the great leaders must have looked behind to see if anyone was following them…
Other than that the pretenders can exit the stage left.
Have you got a perspective on managing a global economy KJW?