Colonial First State deceives super customers 13,000 times – ABC News

Comment by tonytran2015: Compulsory superannuation in Australia has created rip-off, fraudulent markets for Superannuation Fund Managers. The financial illiterate, forced contributors lose heavily.

Colonial First State deceives super customers 13,000 times

A court has found that the Commonwealth Bank-owned investment firm
Colonial First State (CFS) misled and deceived superannuation customers
to keep them in a higher fee fund.

In a case brought by the corporate regulator, the Federal Court ruled the trustees of CFS’s First Choice fund were liable for encouraging members of the
fund to remain rather than move to a cheaper MySuper product, a low-fee

product required by law.

Quantitative Brainwashing – Doug Casey’s International Man | MCViewPoint

And yet, the primary objective of any government is to increase its size and power as rapidly as the populace will tolerate it. The only reason that they rarely do this quickly, is that they can’t get away with it. Like boiling a frog, it takes time to lull the populace into submission, bit by bit.

And, in order to make sure that the public do not figure out what’s been done to them, the news reporting becomes Orwellian in its endless repetition of a false narrative.

It is, however, true that, “You can’t fool all of the people all of the time.” Eventually, the Band-Aid peels back to reveal an infection that’s far beyond what had been generally perceived. It then falls away in layers, as increasing numbers of people become aware that they’ve been scammed – that the media is entirely corrupt and that the media’s owners – big business – have, with the enthusiastic compliance of the government, robbed them on a wholesale basis.

by Jeff Thomas

We’re all familiar with the term, “quantitative easing.” It’s described as meaning, “A monetary policy in which a central bank purchases government securities or other securities from the market in order to lower interest rates and increase the money supply.”

Well, that sounds reasonable… even beneficial. But, unfortunately, that’s not really the whole story.

When QE was implemented, the purchasing power was weak and both government and personal debt had become so great that further borrowing would not solve the problem; it would only postpone it and, in the end, exacerbate it. Effectively, QE is not a solution to an economic problem, it’s a bonus of epic proportions, given to banks by governments, at the expense of the taxpayer.

But, of course, we shouldn’t be surprised that governments have passed off a massive redistribution of wealth from the taxpayer to their pals in the banking sector with such clever terms. Governments of today have become extremely adept at creating euphemisms for their misdeeds in order to pull the wool over the eyes of the populace.

At this point, we cannot turn on the daily news without being fed a full meal of carefully- worded mumbo jumbo, designed to further overwhelm whatever small voices of truth may be out there.

Let’s put this in perspective for a moment.

For millennia, political leaders have been in the practice of altering, confusing and even obliterating the truth, when possible. And it’s probably safe to say that, for as long as there have been media, there have been political leaders doing their best to control them.

The Economics Of Disaster Capitalism
Authored by Chris Macintosh via, If we look at what is taking place, what seems glaringly obvious to me is that there is a coordinated demolition of entire countries, their business sectors, and with this financial ruin a top-down approach to “fixing” the ruin is being enacted. Step no…

Health officials stunned vaccine appointment booked a staggering 40 times, blocking others – ABC News

South Australian health authorities say they are
stunned a person booked a COVID-19 vaccination appointment 40 times,
blocking dozens of other people from receiving a dose.

The Real (and Growing) Problem with Social Security | International Liberty

In an ideal world, Americans would have personal retirement accounts, just like workers in Australia, Sweden, Chile, Hong Kong, Israel, Switzerland, and a few dozen other nations.

But we’re not in that ideal world. We are forced to participate in a Ponzi Scheme known as Social Security.

By the way, that’s not necessarily a disparaging description. A Ponzi Scheme can work if there are always enough new people in the system to pay off the old people.

But because of demographic changes (increasing lifespans and decreasing birthrates), that’s not what we have in the United States.

And this is why Social Security faces serious long-run problems.

How serious? The Social Security Administration finally released the annual Trustees Report. This document has a wealth of data on the program’s financial condition, and Table VI.G9 is where the rubber meets the road.

As you can see from this chart, there will be an ever-increasing burden of Social Security taxes and spending over the next 75 years. And these numbers are adjusted for inflation!

The good news (relatively speaking) is that the economy also will be growing over the next 75 years, both in nominal terms and inflation-adjusted terms.

The bad news is that spending on Social Security will grow at a faster rate, so the program will consume a larger share of the economy’s output.

Productivity Commission flags superannuation overhaul, but big questions loom – ABC News

Comment by tonytran2015: Compulsory Superannuation in Australia benefits the financial companies managing Superannuation Funds more than the workers contributing to the funds with 9.5% of their salaries. It is an institutionalized scam targeting the financially illiterate workers.

A key area the PC [Productivity Commission of Australia] did focus on in its report, was the fact that Australians pay over $30 billion a year in fees on their super

(excluding insurance premiums).

[$30 billion a year is excessive for a national total population of 25 million, including non-working and children].

A report released by the Grattan Institute last year
noted that reducing average super fees, and increasing investment
returns, by channelling people into the better performing superannuation funds, would also boost retirement incomes by more than raising the
Super Guarantee to 12 per cent [from currently 9.5 per cent].

Proverbs 6 NIV [on financial responsibility]

Comment by tonytran2015: This part of Proverbs 6 should be taught in every school as part of economics and financial literacy.

Proverbs 6

New International Version

Warnings Against Folly [on financial responsibility]

1My son, if you have put up security for your neighbor,
if you have shaken hands in pledge for a stranger,

2you have been trapped by what you said,
ensnared by the words of your mouth.

3So do this, my son, to free yourself,
since you have fallen into your neighbor’s hands:
Go—to the point of exhaustion—
and give your neighbor no rest!

4Allow no sleep to your eyes,
no slumber to your eyelids.

5Free yourself, like a gazelle from the hand of the hunter,
like a bird from the snare of the fowler.

6Go to the ant, you sluggard;
consider its ways and be wise!

7It has no commander,
no overseer or ruler,

8yet it stores its provisions in summer
and gathers its food at harvest.

9How long will you lie there, you sluggard?
When will you get up from your sleep?

10A little sleep, a little slumber,
a little folding of the hands to rest—

11and poverty will come on you like a thief
and scarcity like an armed man.

12A troublemaker and a villain,
who goes about with a corrupt mouth,

13who winks maliciously with his eye,
signals with his feet
and motions with his fingers,

14who plots evil with deceit in his heart—
he always stirs up conflict.

15Therefore disaster will overtake him in an instant;
he will suddenly be destroyed—without remedy.

16There are six things the Lord hates,
seven that are detestable to him:

17haughty eyes,
a lying tongue,
hands that shed innocent blood,
18a heart that devises wicked schemes,
feet that are quick to rush into evil,
19a false witness who pours out lies
and a person who stirs up conflict in the community.

In simpler terms

26 Don’t agree to guarantee another person’s debt or put up security for someone else.

27 If you can’t pay it, even your bed will be snatched from under you.

The following advice is from Australian Government:

If you guarantee a loan for a family member or friend, you’re known as
the guarantor. You are responsible for paying back the entire loan if
the borrower can’t.

Actually it can be worse than that. The lender can even start recovering money from the guarantor without going for the money of the borrower.

So keep this in your head and never become a guarantor. You get absolutely nothing but may lose everything. Do NOT promise if you have no ability to give.






Notorious ‘joker virus’ that subscribes you to paid services back on Android devices, Belgian police warn — RT World News

The following applications were noted as corrupted with the Joker virus:

  • Auxiliary Message
  • Element Scanner
  • Fast Magic SMS
  • Free CamScanner
  • Go Messages
  • Super Message
  • Super SMS
  • Travel Wallpapers

to cybersecurity company Quick Heal Security Lab, the malware can infiltrate your text messages, contacts, and other sensitive information
on your smartphone, and subscribe you to websites offering paid services.

You risk a big surprise at the end of the month on your bank account or your credit card,” wrote the Belgian police.

Lieu’s Largess: Democratic Assistant Whip Accused of Giving Campaign Funds to Stanford Before the Admission of his Son – JONATHAN TURLEY

After the recent admissions scandal at top California schools (including Stanford), the gifts of Rep. Ted Lieu (D., Cal.) would immediately raise concerns over the same type of academic pay-to-play pattern. However, the $51,046 to his alma mater, Stanford University, was not his own money but his campaign funds. It is like the Lori Loughlin but using someone else’s money. According to reports, the money was transferred just before his son was admitted to the highly competitive university. What is most shocking is that taking money for a campaign and then giving it to a school is not itself illegal. However, Lieu could still face some serious questions even under a law designed by Congress to allow what most donors would view as a bait-and-switch.

Lieu is the assistant Whip for the House Democrats and is an American success story. Born in Taiwan, Lieu became a citizens, attended Stanford, and then was an outstanding student at Georgetown Law Journal. He then held state and federal office. He is one of the most effective members on television.

The political contributions are subject to rules written by the people who collect them. Not surprisingly, the rules are written to allow members to raise money ostensibly for their own campaigns and then transfer the funds to others. They also are used for expenses that seem overtly personal and excessive. Take Eric Swalwell who recently was found to be spending his campaign funds on booze, limos, and rooms at the Ritz-Carlton (where his wife worked). Other members like former Rep. Aaron Schock (R., III.) were accused of using public funds (from his official office account) for excessive decorations of his office. The Schock story however received far more media coverage and he was later the subject of a prosecution. Those criminal charges were later dropped.

That brings us to the current scandal. Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings show that Lieu gave $51,046 to Stanford between February 2016 and June 2018. As the other admissions scandal was raging, Lieu was transferring political donations to the school that his son would be applying to for college.

Most citizens would find the donations outrageous and wrong. However, Lieu can claim that they are lawful and many voters are so tied up in this fierce partisan period that they will not call Lieu to account since he is a Democratic leader in Congress. Yet, some may ask why a university with a $29 billion endowment and one of the most affluent alumni bases in the world should receive tens of thousands of their donations as opposed to campaigns to protect the House majority or social justice programs.

Under the FEC rules, it may first appear that this is clearly a violation:

Using campaign funds for personal use is prohibited.

Commission regulations provide a test, called the “irrespective test,” to differentiate legitimate campaign and officeholder expenses from personal expenses. Under the “irrespective test,” personal use is any use of funds in a campaign account of a candidate (or former candidate) to fulfill a commitment, obligation or expense of any person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s campaign or responsibilities as a federal officeholder.

More simply, if the expense would exist even in the absence of the candidacy or even if the officeholder were not in office, then the personal use ban applies.

Conversely, any expense that results from campaign or officeholder activity falls outside the personal use ban.

A donation to Stanford would seem an expense that would exist “in the absence of the candidacy or even if the officeholder were not in office.” Then however comes the loophole that you could drive a semi truck filled with cash through:

Spending that isn’t personal use

In addition to the “irrespective test,” Commission regulations include other uses of funds that do not constitute personal use and thus are permissible uses of campaign funds.

Charitable donations

Gifts to charity are not considered personal use expenses as long as the candidate does not receive compensation from the charitable organization before it has expended the entire amount donated. Note that the amount donated must have been used for purposes that do not personally benefit the candidate.

Transfer of campaign assets

The sale or transfer of a campaign asset to either the candidate or a third party does not constitute personal use as long as the transaction is made at the fair market value.


On special occasions, campaign funds may be used to purchase gifts or make donations of nominal value to persons other than the members of the candidate’s family.

Lieu can cite the fact that Stanford is a non-for-profit and that this fits the charitable exception. However, it must still not “benefit the candidate.” With the university deciding whether to admit his son, that condition is arguably violated in this case.

Lieu can claim that any donation to a charity can “benefit” a candidate in direct ways. Giving money to Sierra Club is a popular cause for example. Stanford is a major institution in California and supporting the university can be based on purely on altruistic motives. It is probably enough to avoid a charge but there are critical facts still not known. For example, the timing could be challenged if Lieu did not make donations until his son was in high school and likely to apply to Stanford.

Whether Lieu avoids any charge in this case, the Swalwell and Lieu controversies should lead to voters for both parties to say “enough.” This is not just a Democratic practice. Republicans have also been accused of such abuse of political contributions. Most voters assume that they are contributing to a particular candidate — not giving him an open credit card for use outside of his campaign. Even if they know that candidates will often send money to fellow candidates, they likely assume the money will be used for political purposes — not to support elite universities who just happen to be the preference for their children for college.

Why I No Longer Invest In Stocks And Bonds, by Paul Rosenberg | STRAIGHT LINE LOGIC

… As a young man I spent time learning the nuts and bolts of investing: Price to earning ratios, book values, charting, puts, calls, covered positions, and so on. And when I had extra money, I tended to put it into the markets and use my tools. But I can no longer do that, and I think explaining why may be useful.

There are three reasons for this conviction of mine, and so I’ll list them below. But I’m listing them in reverse order, because reason number one stands above the others: By itself it would prevent me from investing in the usual way. I think all three reasons are strong, but reason number one is pivotal.

Reason #3

Reason number three is simply that the markets no longer make sense…