Aussies: You just have a few days left to get your submission in to the FSI to register your objection to this BAIL-IN conspiracy----- How to make a submission today Write a submission, as long or as short as you like, that makes the basic points: you oppose the push for a bail-in law to prop up TBTF (too big to fail) banks, and support a Glass-Steagall separation of banking instead. Then you have three options: 1. Go to: fsi.gov.au/consultation/submissions/ Fill in the fields; under the section “Which Interim Report observations or question are you responding to?” click on “Stability—addressing too-big-to-fail”; write a short summary; and attach a Word or similar file in which you’ve written and saved your statement. 2. Email your submission to: [email protected] 3. Mail an actual letter to: Financial System Inquiry GPO Box 89 Sydney NSW 2001 Heres the text of my submission >> 27 July 2014 Financial System Inquiry GPO Box 89 Sydney NSW 2001 Dear Sir/Madam Further to your call for submissions to the FSI, I am writing to let you know that I am: • utterly opposed to so-called bail-in legislation becoming law • totally in favour of the separation of banking activities, such that traditional banking (e.g. deposit accounts) are quarantined from possible adverse affects of speculation. Each of the Big Four banks engage in both speculative investment banking as well as traditional retail banking. The speculative side of banking has become acute with the onset of deregulation in recent years. Under the current set up, if bail-in legislation becomes law, innocent and unwitting retail account holders will be exposed to failure in speculative trading. This amounts to a breech of trust and a crisis in confidence in banking. One does not need to look far back in history to see the mayhem caused, when Baring Bros. a 400-year-old bank was brought down by one derivatives trader. The most common sense solution would be to separate banking activities into two distinct legal entities with no crossover, quarantining traditional deposit account holders from the risk associated with speculative trading (e.g. derivatives) such that “mums and dads” deposit accounts would in no way be affected if bankruptcy proceedings were brought due to speculative failure. This common sense solution was adopted in America in the thirties and operated successfully for over sixty years. It was known as the “GlassSteagall” act. We need to implement an Australian version of the GlassSteagall act to: • protect traditional account holders • greatly reduce the need for government bailout” of traditional account holders (as they will no longer be exposed to the high risks associated with speculative trading) • present us with the option of simply allowing the speculative entity to fail without putting demands on the taxpayer • in support of Mr Hockeys statement “the age of entitlement is over”, banks will no longer be “entitled” to use ordinary deposit holders as leverage to pressure governments to bail them out • furthermore banks will not be “entitled” to confiscate money from unwitting account holders It really comes down to this: do the people of Australia exist to serve the banking industry (should the people be required to change their expectations / behaviour etc. to suit banking interests? Or is the banking industry there to serve the people (provide a safe place to keep ones nest egg and a source from which funds can be directed for the benefit of our nation)? Yours truly M V Capone
Posted on: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 10:08:31 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015