Industry & Agriculture

What is happening in this category

>

Bill Wyatte is now contributing to a Challenge Dispersed Expertise

>

Bill Wyatte commented on the Challenge Dispersed Expertise

Perhaps more exploration of the problem may confirm that there are many pathways towards solutions.

Bureaucracies are advantaged by power funnelled to them via delegation.  People in advantaged groups tend to defend and bolster the status quo and discourage alternatives.  This can create boundaries to inputs, thinking and behaviours.  In Government, this is the disconnect from the diversity of knowledge and awareness of the people it serves.

I believe permeability and diversity are antidotes, but require conscious choices that have not yet been made. 

>

James Dowsett is now contributing to a Challenge Dispersed Expertise

>

Peter Grimbeek commented on the Challenge Dispersed Expertise

I immediately envision an on-line democracy not only with instant crowd-sourced votes but also with in-depth crowd-sourced discussion of policy options.

Some would say that this envisioned world might move a bit too quickly. Perhaps we need non-online deliberations at a slower pace.

In some ways, this is an Obama vs. Trump kind of moment. Obama deliberated slowly and possibly painfully about how to proceed but his actions were fruitful. Trump on the other hand favours instant responses that might or might not be fruitful (except in a bitter way). 

>

Peter Grimbeek is now contributing to a Challenge Dispersed Expertise

>

Richard Ferrers is now contributing to a Challenge Dispersed Expertise

>

Richard Ferrers commented on the Challenge Dispersed Expertise

As a value researcher, I am interested in what people value, and how it changes over time. 

The digital revolutions have empowered and connected adults this century, in the way widespread education did in the 20th Century. Yet government in Australia has barely if at all changed since Europeans came to Australia.

I think there is a lot to learn from the Swiss who are experimenting with several attempts at more direct democracy. Government moves far too slow for a always connected, wikipedia and google at our fingertips, open data type world.

If government was to ask what do people need, it is an ongoing consultation with their representatives, rather than every three years. Government should tap the crowd for ideas, priorities, and time to reduce services we don't need, and prioritise those we do.

We need an ongoing community discussion about reinventing government for a new century, for a always connected, data deluge world.

>

Ed Bernacki is now contributing to a Challenge Dispersed Expertise

>

Gail Fairlamb is now contributing to a Challenge Dispersed Expertise

>

Sharon Zivkovic is now contributing to a Challenge Dispersed Expertise

>

A new Solution was published Dispersed Expertise

>

Bob Dick commented on the Solution Regulating Banks

It might not even be essential that cooperatives could compete with the big banks on price.  With sufficient publicity, competing on service and on reputation might be enough to make a difference.

I wonder if GetUp would be interested in a campaign to support banking cooperatives.

>

A new Solution was published Regulating Banks

>

Dina GREY is now contributing to a Challenge The MindHive Book

>

Isaac Parker is now contributing to a Challenge Banksters: The scandalous conduct of a global bank

>

Loris Semple commented on the Solution Regulating Banks

Hi, I made comment in the activity section as I think my comment crosses all three solutions.  Basically, I believe effective policy and legislative frameworks require a clearer shared understanding of the function, role and goal of banks in 2018 and onwards.

>

Loris Semple commented on the Challenge Banksters: The scandalous conduct of a global bank

Hi Peter, You have done a great job in condensing the input.  We are not very good at at following instructions apparently...laughing.  I think going over all the comments and your summary. 

I think Stephen's comments cross what my main point was:  I believe my commentary can be narrowed down to the dilemma about how hard clear and effective policy and legislative frameworks (supporting policy and the desired regulations) is to implement outside of any shared understanding of the role and purpose of banks.  It seems to have changed dramatically during the last decade or so.  I think even the very informed posters in this discussion demonstrate varied perspectives on the role of the Australian banking sector.  Policy and legislation, of course - sits with the government - who have (as has been highlighted) - a very complex relationship with banks.

Here is an interesting and very recent example of how competing priorities and values have created a very confusing and messy situation in this space: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-28/commonwealth-bank-donations-to-school-banking-rti-denied/9805196

I remember my Commonwealth Bank being the way I learnt how to save in primary school and customer loyalty was valued - but perhaps I am showing my age now!!!.

Sorry, Peter for not putting this into one of your three areas - but for me - it goes across all three.  Any successful policy and resultant legislation I have witnessed has involved a shared/clearer understanding of purpose and goals.  In business - I think goals probably take priority.  I think this is what is missing in this space.

Thank you for  your work to date - and the opportunity to contribute.  Warmest regards.  Loris.

>

Ben Novakovic is now contributing to a Challenge Banksters: The scandalous conduct of a global bank

>

Bob Dick commented on the Solution Regulating Banks

Perhaps it’s time to look beyond the immediate issue of the behaviour of the banks.  It may be time to ask why our present system of government makes it so difficult for citizens to prevail over the corporate world.

>

A new Solution was published Regulating Banks

>

Stephen Grey commented on the Challenge Banksters: The scandalous conduct of a global bank

It is sometimes useful to contemplate how a social system would operate if it was translated into a small community. Imagine a rural town in which there is a small firm, on the scale of an estate agent's business, that is the sole deposit taker and money lender, whose owner is known to pretty well everyone in town. Ordinary interpersonal relationships and the futility of trying to keep anything hidden would govern their behaviour. That is what we are missing. It's not complicated at that level.

I am not convinced that the effect on a business of granting them the right to keep their practices secret serves any social purpose. Even if openness and transparency prevent interest rates on borrowing being shaved a fraction of one percent, that is not a great deal in terms of the whole economy.

I think it is the large society modern day equivalent of the people involved being known and their business being visible that is missing here. The banks provide an essential service and they are only able to create such powerful commercial returns because we give them a license to operate, socially as well as legally. The deal is meant to be that we grant them that right and they serve us well to the mutual benefit of all concerned. 

Serving the community seems to have become a quaint historical anachronism. We need to rehabilitate the concept and insist that it is embraced.

>

Stephen Grey commented on the Challenge Banksters: The scandalous conduct of a global bank

It is sometimes useful to contemplate how a social system would operate if it was translated into a small community. Imagine a rural town in which there is a small firm, on the scale of an estate agent's business, that is the sole deposit taker and money lender, whose owner is known to pretty well everyone in town. Ordinary interpersonal relationships and the futility of trying to keep anything hidden would govern their behaviour. That is what we are missing. It's not complicated at that level.

I am not convinced that the effect on a business of granting them the right to keep their practices secret serves any social purpose. Even if openness and transparency prevent interest rates on borrowing being shaved a fraction of one percent, that is not a great deal in terms of the whole economy.

I think it is the large society modern day equivalent of the people involved being known and their business being visible that is missing here. The banks provide an essential service and they are only able to create powerful commercial returns because we give them a license to operate, socially as well as legally. The deal is meant to be that we grant them that right and they serve us well to the mutual benefit of all concerned. 

Serving the community seems to have become a quaint historical anachronism. We need to rehabilitate the concept and insist that it is embraced.

>

A new Solution was published Regulating Banks

>

Bruce Muirhead is now contributing to a Challenge Banksters: The scandalous conduct of a global bank

>

A new Solution was published Regulating Banks

>

Peter Grimbeek commented on the Challenge Banksters: The scandalous conduct of a global bank

There are a couple of differing threads here that lead to contradictory solutions. There is some appetite for increased regulation (Vern HughesStephen Grey)   but also a view that there is too much regulation (Mike Metcalfe).

If you assume that pure competition is the way forward then not only the banks but also consumers are being held back, then what’s required a lower level of regulation (Vern Hughes). On the other hand, if you see banks and bankers as part of the greed is good culture, then you might wish to change that culture (Bob Dick, Suzy Roden). One way to change the culture seems to involve the increased use of community based finance methods (Kevin Cox). 

Finally, there some pessimism about whether efforts to change banker behaviour by regulation (including fines, being banned, etc) are likely to succeed ( Bill Wyatte).There is in addition a sense of buyer beware when it comes to sampling the banking sector’s wares (Loris Semple) regardless of whether they are offered by one of the major Australian banks or one of the credit unions.

>

Grant Spork is now contributing to a Challenge Banksters: The scandalous conduct of a global bank

>

Suzy Roden commented on the Challenge Banksters: The scandalous conduct of a global bank

The banks in many ways reflect the world views of much of the population,  including  how we we see how economies need to operate.

 

We believe that growth is the only way to prosper (even when our earth is unlikely to sustain continuous growth), and we as shareholders ( and we all are shareholders if we have superannuation) expect high returns from an industry that is low risk.  (low risk is especially the case in Australia.)

'Greed is good' is our underlying value of the economy whether anyone wants to admit it or not.

 

So banks continue to look for ways to create growth, to fit with our world views.  They are just part of our existing system. It's not as if many other organisations run with a value in action of true corporate responsibility to society, economy and the earth.

 

So the more broad question is, 'How do we move toward a different type of economy?' ... to something that  is more sustainable, doesn't rely on growth as the main success indicator of success, and truly adds value to society.

>

Suzy Roden is now contributing to a Challenge Banksters: The scandalous conduct of a global bank

>

Bill Wyatte is now contributing to a Challenge Banksters: The scandalous conduct of a global bank

 
Show More Category Activity ▼

An optimal combination of Industry and Agriculture is vital to a sustainable national economy. Compromises between Industry and Agriculture are currently second nature, it is critical that policymakers shift the narrative to strike a balance between the current demands of the population and the overall growth prospects of the economy.

Strategy development in Australia is moving to a new level, where highly educated and technology-conscious individuals are more engaged and interested in policy formulation. Contributing in particular to discussions such as the Nation’s digital transformation initiatives.

MindHive enables engaged individuals to share their views in a proactive environment that facilitates the way Industry and Agriculture issues are solved.

The major challenges

Are you sure you want to do this?