by cameron | Jun 15, 2009 | banksters
The Commonwealth Bank announced that it is raising interest rates by 10 base points (which is 0.1% to the rest of us). Deputy prime minister Julia Gillard called CBA “selfish” and Community services minister Jenny Macklin said mortgage holders had every reason to be furious with the Commonwealth Bank.
Remember that this bank used to be owned by the Government until it was privatized by the ALP under Paul Keating.
Commonwealth Bank announced on 11 February 2009 a net profit after tax of $2,573 million for the half year ended 31 December 2008. This represents an increase of 9 percent on the prior comparative period.
However it has a Net Promoter Score of -40. MINUS 40! Companies obtain their Net Promoter Score by asking customers a single question on a 0 to 10 rating scale: “How likely is it that you would recommend our company to a friend or colleague?”Based on their responses, customers can be categorized into one of three groups: Promoters (9-10 rating), Passives (7-8 rating), and Detractors (0-6 rating). The percentage of Detractors is then subtracted from the percentage of Promoters to obtain a Net Promoter score.
According to the NPS site, “Banking had an average NPS of approximately 15%.”
Now, I’ve had a few people say “but their shareholders are happy”. Sure. For now. What’s important to understand, though, is the concept of “Good and Bad Profits” (as Jen Storey mentioned on last week’s banking show).
To quote again from the NPS site:
The right goal for a company is to deliver customer experiences of such high quality that customers recognize the value in the relationship and become Promoters. These Promoters generate good profits and fuel true growth. They become, in effect, part of a company’s marketing department, not only increasing their own purchases but also providing enthusiastic referrals.
By contrast, companies can boost short-term profits by exploiting customer relationships, raising prices when they can get away with it, or cutting back on services to save costs and boost margins. Those practices boost bad profits by extracting value from customers at the expense of loyalty, creating Detractors. Companies can not achieve long-term sustained growth on the basis of bad profits.
Which basically translates like this:
If you screw people over to make more money, it will catch up with you sooner or later.
Congratulations on the -40 score Commonwealth Bank. You must be really proud.
by cameron | Jun 14, 2009 | Cuba, geopolitics
June 14 is the birthday of Ernesto Guevara de la Serna known to most of us by his nickname "Che".
If all you know about Che is stuff you’ve picked up from US media, then take some time today to educate yourself about the other side of the Che story. I’ve added Jon Lee Anderson’s "Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life" to my book recommendations.
I dare anyone to read that book, along with Che’s diaries, and still think this man was a violent, bloodthirsty dictator.
I’ve read them both (along with a few other books about Che) and it just doesn’t add up in my mind. Violent dictators rarely talk endlessly about social justice. Che (and Fidel too, for that matter) spent his life arguing eloquently for the need to equal rights for all people. He put his life on the line to fight for the rights of the poor people in Cuba and Bolivia.
If all he wanted was power (which is usually what motivates dictators), why leave Cuba at the height of his success to go into the jungles of Bolivia? It doesn’t make sense.
Compare Che’s words to the speeches and writing of Hitler or Stalin or even the last half dozen American Presidents and you’ll spot the difference.
And, if you can, watch Steven Soderbergh’s recent film about Che. I don’t think it’s out on DVD yet but I’ve seen Part One and it’s terrific.
by cameron | Jun 12, 2009 | banksters, Podcast
UPDATE: The original audio for this show had a problem (overlapping tracks) so I’ve re-uploaded it here.
We hate banks. (see my recent poll) It’s true. You know it. I know it. The only people who don’t seem to know it are the banks themselves. Although, I suspect they DO know it – they just don’t care. They’ve had an effective oligopoly for so long they think they can just say and do whatever they want and we’ll just sit here and take it.
Well I’m not taking it anymore. I’m going to do a series of shows exploring why we hate banks so much and what the alternatives are. We have a voice. Let’s use it to change things.
Today on the show I interview three people – Jen Storey from Online Banking Review, Mike Jarocki from Credit Card Finder, and Owen Davies, Group Manager, Corporate Affairs, Bendigo Bank, the bank that Aussies seem to actually like a bit.
Show sponsor:
by cameron | Jun 11, 2009 | banksters, Podcast
Today I’m recording a podcast about why people hate banks so much – and what we can do about it.
I’m interviewing a range of people about banks, independent commentators as well as bank representatives.
This all started with a twtpoll I started last night about which bank is the least evil.
We all know that banks are one of the major causes of the Global Financial Crisis. It’s time we did something about them.
Here’s a list of information and twitter comments I’ve gathered while preparing for the show:
All of the major banks in Australia have MAJOR negative customer satisfaction scores.
Bank fees rose by 8% last year to nearly $12 billion
There is absolutely no reason for bank fees of any kind to exist. Banks borrow our money and charge us for the privilege. Banks already make a metric fuckton of money just by HAVING our hard earned savings in their possession. (@ryanbooker)
without the govt guarantee, i would not be depositing w bendigobank. Nice guys, crap risk management. (@bernardk)
Have found St George to be best bank I have used in AU but I still get best service from UK banks despite being here 15 yrs (@marksmithers)
all banks are evil! $12 billion made from penalty fees in 2008 (@jeremycabral)
by cameron | Jun 7, 2009 | geopolitics, Iran, Iraq, US politics
I watched Obama’s Cairo speech live via YouTube (how amazing is that?). My initial impressions were very positive. I, like everyone else, was in awe at his smooth delivery and words of peace. He’s certainly a breath of fresh air as an American President after Bush (even if I do like to refer to him as ‘the infallible chocolate Jesus’, a term I borrowed from Bill Maher who, in turn, borrowed it from Tom Waits. Oh and anyone who thinks that makes me racist, grow a brain. One uptight American blocked me on Twitter for referring to Obama as chocolate Jesus. If I called him the ‘Black Messiah’, would that be racist?).
Anyway, I was impressed with Obama’s speech… until… I watched it again the next day and I started to think about it from the perspective of the citizens of the Middle East and what THEY want to hear Obama say.
Anyone who has read anything about the history of USA – Middle East relations, knows that the reason people in the Middle East are angry about the USA has nothing to do with religious differences or even George Bush specifically. They are angry because for 60 years the USA has been interfering in their countries, overthrowing their governments and taking their natural resources and wealth at the point of a gun. The USA have supported Israel’s occupation of Palestine and the oppression of the Palestinian people. The USA have supported oppressive regimes in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Indonesia, Egypt, and various African countries (eg Uganda) in return for access to the natural wealth of those countries while the citizens have remained in poverty.
None of this is news to people living in the Middle East. This is their history. This is their reality.
So if Obama genuinely wanted to "change" relations between the United States and the people living in the Middle East, he would have talked less about religious differences and said something more like:
"For the last 60 years, America has terrorized your countries, murdered your citizens and stolen your natural wealth. I am here to promise you that will never happen again and you no longer need to fear us."
Until the USA admits their past crimes and pays compensation to the victims, everything else is just blowing smoke.
It seems to me that Obama’s speech was targeted, not at the citizens of the Middle East, but at Americans who, after feeling ashamed (understandably) by Bush’s warmongering rhetoric, are just relieved not to be portrayed on the international stage as a bunch of neocons. Is this enough, though? I mean, I understand it, but if Americans want to be taken seriously on the international stage again, surely they need to be seen to be talking about the REAL ISSUES, not cosmetics?
Of course, most Americans haven’t read Chomsky or Pilger or Zinn or Monbiot or anything else written by critics of American policy (and I’m not talking about Democrat vs Republican which is just theatre distracting people from the real issues) so they don’t even understand what the real issues are. Most of them still don’t understand that the 9/11 attacks were RETRIBUTION and not terrorism. They were REVENGE for atrocities committed by Americans for decades against the people of the Middle East.
And, of course, most Americans have spent their entire lives being conditioned 24×7 by the American media, being told that they are the good guys, that even when they do wrong it’s an honest mistake made for the right reasons, that Americans are the saviours of the worlds (no wonder they think they’ve elected the messiah).
So few Americans can even begin to comprehend that their Presidential elections are a farce and that Obama is just another in a long line of candidates specially designed by PR professionals to appeal to a certain demographic. As I heard Bill Maher say on a recent show: "You don’t get to be President when you are 46 and black unless you have powerful friends in very high places who believe you will look after their interests. And so far all he’s done is look after the interests of his buddies he went to Harvard with, the American elite."
Obama is a Hollywood President. He looks good, sounds good, has a good backstory, he’s obviously smart, smooth, and can sell the sizzle. And after the Bush years, most Americans can’t get past the joy of the sizzle and ask "where’s the sausage?" They can’t even stand to hear criticism of Obama. Even Bill Maher gets booed on his show when he criticizes Obama.
Anywayyyy…. regarding the Cairo speech, apparently Noam Chomsky has the same concerns.
by cameron | May 30, 2009 | banksters, capitalism, geopolitics
Fascinating explanation on YouTube by Argentinian analyst Adrian Salbuchi on what the financial collapse is all about. He suggests that the entire financial system is "extreme capitalism" and a giant Ponzi scheme which will end in another global world war, the same way that the depression of the 30s was ended.
Part 1
http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/UlDNMB6wYmI&hl=en&fs=1&border=1
Part 2
http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/78ddURofMWs&hl=en&fs=1&border=1
Salbuchi goes on to explain the "new world orders" that we’ve already seen arise over the last century that were engineered out of WWI and WWII and the next "new world order", a world government. I’m a fan or having a world government – if it’s a legitimate democracy – but his explanation is quite dystopian, an unelected, unofficial world government run by private corporations and, in particular, a small handful of think tanks and lobby groups. Hey – isn’t that the world we already have? Yes – and that seems to be his point. Salbuchi says there is no conspiracy theory involved – all of the players are out in the open.
Part 1
http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/dEp1D5hAGO8&hl=en&fs=1&border=1
Part 2
http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/X4pDIwMukA8&hl=en&fs=1&border=1
