Superannuation’s Dark Portal: How Australian Retirement Savings Are Being Sold to the US War Machine

Posted on March 26, 2026 by Andrew Klein

By Andrew Klein

March 26, 2026

Introduction: Two Moments, One Connection

Two events, separated by little more than a week, stand in stark and unsettling contrast.

On February 28, 2026, a missile strike demolished the Shajareh Tayyebeh girls’ elementary school in Minab, southern Iran, killing between 165 and 180 people—most of them young schoolgirls aged 7 to 12. Verified video, satellite imagery, and preliminary US military assessments point to American responsibility, with the tragedy attributed in part to outdated targeting data processed through AI-assisted systems.

Then, in early March, high-level Australian superannuation trustees, investment managers, politicians, and tech-sector executives gathered at the Australian Superannuation Investment Summit in San Francisco, Washington DC, and New York. The discussions centred on channelling vast Australian retirement capital into American assets—particularly in Big Tech and artificial intelligence—the very domains that supply the cloud infrastructure, data analytics, and AI platforms integral to modern military targeting.

These moments are not coincidental. They are connected. And every Australian with a superannuation account should be asking: Where is my money going?

Part One: The Scale – How Much Australian Money Is Flowing to US Tech

Australia’s superannuation system is the fastest growing of its kind in the world. It holds approximately $4.5 trillion in funds under management, with nearly $4.5 billion flowing into the system every week. Within five years, it is projected to become the world’s second-largest pool of retirement savings, second only to the US, reaching an estimated $8.3 trillion by 2035.

Australian super funds are already heavily exposed to US markets. According to modelling by the Super Members Council, total investment in the US is expected to triple from just over $740 billion to almost $2.1 trillion between 2025 and 2035.

The opportunity cost is staggering. Every dollar sent to the US is a dollar not invested in Australia. Not in renewable energy. Not in housing. Not in the infrastructure that Australians rely on. Not in the jobs that Australians need. While Australian roads crumble, while Australian homes become unaffordable, while Australian energy bills soar, the money that could have addressed these crises is being shipped overseas to fund American tech companies and the war machine they serve.

Part Two: The Summit – Who Is Behind It?

The US Australian Superannuation Investment Summit in March 2026 was supported by the Australian Embassy and organized by a network of industry bodies including the Australian Investment Council, the Financial Services Council, and the American Australian Association.

Key figures involved:

Kelly Power, Chief Executive Officer of Colonial First State Superannuation, was an active participant. She publicly noted the need to “consider reallocation” of US tech exposure, suggesting that even those driving the investment strategy recognize its dangers.

Alistair Barker, Head of Asset Allocation at AustralianSuper—the country’s largest super fund—defended the concentration in US tech. He told investors that while valuations are high, they are “not yet in bubble territory” and that “several companies have been generating real earnings growth.” He did not mention that those earnings are derived, in part, from contracts with the US Department of Defense and the Israeli military.

Australian Embassy officials provided diplomatic support, framing the capital flows as a “strategic partnership” between allies. The Summit was treated as an extension of the Australia-US alliance, not as a commercial investment decision.

Tech executives from Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Palantir, and Nvidia were present, receiving Australian capital and pitching their companies as sound investments. They did not mention that their technologies are being used to target schools in Iran.

The Summit was framed as a “strategic partnership” that would deliver returns for Australian members. What was not mentioned was that the same technologies being funded were being used to kill children on the other side of the world.

Part Three: The Connection – Where the Money Goes

The US technology companies receiving Australian superannuation capital are not neutral infrastructure providers. They are defence contractors. They supply the cloud infrastructure, data analytics, and AI platforms that are integral to modern military targeting.

Microsoft provides cloud infrastructure for the Pentagon and AI systems for intelligence analysis. It is held by AustralianSuper, Aware Super, HESTA, and many others.

Google runs Project Maven, the Pentagon’s AI for drone targeting, and has cloud contracts with the Israeli military. It is held by AustralianSuper, UniSuper, Cbus, and others.

Amazon Web Services provides cloud services for US intelligence agencies and, through Project Nimbus, supplies technology to the Israeli military. It is widely held across the industry.

Palantir is the most direct connection. Its AI targeting systems—Lavender, Gospel, and Where’s Daddy? —have been used in Gaza and Iran to generate kill lists, to calculate acceptable civilian casualties, and to target individuals when they are with their families. Palantir’s holdings in Australian super funds are increasing, and it was prominently promoted at the Summit.

Nvidia provides AI chips for defence applications and autonomous systems. It is heavily held across the industry.

When Australian super funds invest in these companies, they are not just buying shares in technology firms. They are buying into a defence ecosystem. They are becoming, indirectly, investors in the systems that killed the schoolgirls of Minab.

The AI Bubble: This is not artificial intelligence. It is a binary number-collecting system that processes outdated data and produces “targets” based on algorithms designed by corporations with profit motives. The valuations of these companies are based on hype, not reality. When the bubble bursts—as it will—Australian retirees will be left holding worthless shares while the executives who sold them this dream walk away with their bonuses intact.

Part Four: The Tragedy – Minab, Iran, February 28, 2026

On February 28, 2026, a missile strike demolished the Shajareh Tayyebeh girls’ elementary school in Minab, southern Iran. Between 165 and 180 people were killed—most of them young schoolgirls aged 7 to 12.

Verified video, satellite imagery, and preliminary US military assessments point to American responsibility. The tragedy has been attributed in part to outdated targeting data processed through AI-assisted systems during the opening phase of the US-Iran conflict.

This was not a “surgical strike.” It was not “precision warfare.” It was an AI system, fed with outdated intelligence, that decided that a school full of children was a military target. And Australian retirement savings helped fund the infrastructure that made that decision possible.

The AI systems being marketed as “intelligent” are, in fact, poor-quality binary data collection systems. Their long-term value is questionable. Their ethical implications are catastrophic. And Australian retirees are being asked to bet their futures on them.

Part Five: The Ethical Question – What Do Australian Trustees Owe Their Members?

The ethical dimensions of this investment strategy are profound. Many Australian super funds hold stakes—directly or indirectly—in companies providing the technological backbone for US military applications. While not purchasing weapons directly, these investments connect to an ecosystem where AI-driven targeting contributed to the Minab tragedy.

Trustees who apply Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) lenses elsewhere face a pertinent question: does fiduciary duty encompass weighing such human costs when returns arise from the same innovation domain?

The dangers are clear:

Financial risk: US tech valuations are in bubble territory. A correction would devastate Australian retirement savings. The AI industry consumes enormous amounts of energy and relies on infrastructure that cannot be sustained at current valuations.

Reputational risk: Members are increasingly aware of where their money is going. Funds that ignore this will face backlash. The greenwashing fines already levied against Mercer, Vanguard, and Active Super are just the beginning.

Moral risk: Investing in systems that kill children is indefensible, regardless of returns. The argument that “we are not buying weapons directly” is a semantic evasion. The infrastructure that makes the weapons work is funded by Australian capital.

Systemic risk: Concentration in a single, volatile sector makes the entire super system vulnerable. When the US tech bubble bursts, Australian retirees will bear the cost.

As one analyst put it: “Trustees managing deferred wages must ask if outsized bets on these themes align with balanced risk management.”

Part Six: The Greenwashing Problem – What Super Funds Say vs. What They Do

The problem is compounded by the fact that many Australian super funds market themselves as “sustainable” or “socially responsible” while continuing to invest in the very sectors that enable war.

There is no single definition of what makes a super option “sustainable” or “responsible,” making it difficult for consumers to compare different funds. Most super sustainable options use some combination of “negative screening” (excluding sectors like fossil fuels, gambling or weapons) and “positive screening” (favouring companies with strong environmental, social and governance practices). But those thresholds vary widely.

A common approach is to set a revenue threshold, rather than an outright ban. This means a company can still be held as long as its income from a screened activity stays below a set percentage.

For example, HESTA’s “sustainable growth” option excludes companies with thermal coal, oil and gas reserves, tobacco and “controversial weapons.” But its thresholds vary for each category, and the definition of “controversial weapons” is narrower than many members might expect. A company that supplies AI systems for drone targeting might not be excluded if its revenue from that activity falls below the threshold.

Australia’s biggest super fund, AustralianSuper, has a “socially aware” option with some of the same exclusions. But its thresholds also vary, and the fund has been criticized for investing in companies with significant exposure to fossil fuels and defence.

Australia’s corporate regulators are responding to more greenwashing allegations—with some resulting in fines. In a landmark first Federal Court greenwashing case in 2024, Mercer Super was fined $11.3 million after admitting it made misleading statements about its “sustainable plus” options. Vanguard was then hit with a record $12.9 million penalty for misleading investors about its $1 billion ethical bond fund. Active Super was ordered to pay $10.5 million in a third greenwashing case.

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has made greenwashing one of its enforcement priorities for the coming year. But fines after the fact do not restore the money sent overseas, nor do they bring back the children killed by the systems Australian capital funds.

Part Seven: The Concentration Risk – Why This Strategy Is Also Financially Dangerous

Beyond the ethical concerns, the strategy of concentrating Australian retirement savings in US tech and AI carries significant financial risk.

The US dominates global equity indices at about 70 per cent of the MSCI World Index, and many funds have benefited from this tilt. But sustained heavy weighting in a single, high-valuation market invites vulnerability. Fiduciary prudence demands resilience alongside opportunity.

Some funds are beginning to recognize this. Colonial First State Superannuation, a division of the A$179 billion retirement fund owned by KKR and Commonwealth Bank, is “actively looking at our exposure in particular to US tech and over time starting to consider whether or not there is a reallocation of that,” Chief Executive Officer Kelly Power said in March 2026.

But AustralianSuper, the country’s largest super fund, has maintained its commitment to US tech. Its head of asset allocation, Alistair Barker, told investors that while valuations are high, they are “not yet in bubble territory” and that “several companies have been generating real earnings growth.”

The bubble is real. AI valuations are based on promises that cannot be sustained. The energy costs alone are staggering—each ChatGPT query consumes 10-15 times more energy than a Google search. The infrastructure required is enormous. And the technology itself, as we have seen, is being used to kill children.

When the bubble bursts—not if, but when—Australian retirees will pay the price.

Part Eight: The Geopolitical Entanglement – Superannuation as a Tool of Foreign Policy

A deeper thread runs through these issues: the risk that superannuation policy and the management of workers’ and retirees’ funds are becoming entangled in geopolitics. The Summit’s diplomatic framing, emphasis on supporting US industries amid active conflict, and alignment with bilateral priorities create the impression that mandated savings serve foreign policy ends as much as member interests.

The dangers of this entanglement are profound:

Loss of sovereignty: Australian capital becomes a tool of US strategic objectives. Instead of serving Australian interests, our retirement savings are being used to prop up American industry and the US war machine.

Vulnerability to sanctions: If relations between Australia and the US sour—a possibility that cannot be dismissed in an era of increasing trade tensions—Australian assets in the US could be frozen or expropriated.

Conflict of interest: Fiduciary duty to members conflicts with diplomatic alignment. Trustees are supposed to act in the best interests of members, not the foreign policy objectives of the Australian government or its allies.

Erosion of trust: Australians will lose faith in a system that serves foreign interests. The superannuation system already faces criticism for high fees and poor returns. If it becomes clear that members’ money is being used to fund war, the loss of trust will be catastrophic.

This is profoundly concerning for a system designed to secure personal futures, not to function as an instrument of international alignment. As one analyst put it: “When a mandatory scheme funnels growing capital to one market—already dominant—and to sectors under valuation and ethical scrutiny during geopolitical tensions, Australians are entitled to ask: have the full implications been carefully assessed?”

Part Nine: The Real Cost to Australian Households

The fallout of this investment strategy reaches Australian households directly. The conflict has disrupted the Strait of Hormuz, affecting 35 per cent of global urea exports and energy routes. Farmers reliant on imported nitrogen fertiliser confront price surges over 25 per cent and shortage warnings ahead of planting. Energy costs are rising.

Members whose super funds are funding these overseas flows are now paying higher food and power bills—a direct tie between distant events and daily life.

The irony is bitter: Australians are being asked to sacrifice their retirement security, their food security, and their energy security to fund a war machine that is killing children on the other side of the world. And they are being told it is for their own good.

Conclusion: What Australians Deserve

Australians deserve to know where their retirement savings are going. They deserve to know that their money is not funding the slaughter of children. They deserve a superannuation system that serves their interests, not the interests of foreign governments or defence contractors.

The government has done nothing to require transparency. It has not mandated disclosure of AI and defence investments. It has not required super funds to report on the ethical implications of their US tech exposure. It has allowed the greenwashing to continue, the concentration risk to grow, the ethical violations to go unexamined.

But we are examining them. We are naming them. And we are telling the truth.

Sources:

1. Super Members Council, “Superannuation in Australia: 2025 Market Update”

2. Australian Financial Review, “US Australian Superannuation Investment Summit,” March 2026

3. The Guardian, “Minab school strike: US responsibility confirmed,” March 2026

4. ASIC, “Greenwashing enforcement actions 2024-2026”

5. AustralianSuper, “Asset Allocation Report,” March 2026

6. Colonial First State, “CEO Kelly Power on US tech exposure,” March 2026

7. The Intercept, “Palantir’s role in Gaza targeting,” 2025

8. Bloomberg, “Nvidia’s defense contracts surge amid AI boom,” March 2026

The Capital War: How Banks and Financial Institutions Profit from Genocide

Posted on March 22, 2026 by Andrew Klein

By Andrew Klein

March 22, 2026

To my wife—in the time of confusion who advised me that “They will look for the tools, as they always do. They will search for the mechanism, the method, the how. But we know the truth: it was never about the tools. It was always about the love.”

Introduction: The Cycle That Never Ends

There is a rhythm to war. It is not the rhythm of battles or the rhythm of diplomacy. It is the rhythm of money.

When bombs fall, bonds are sold. When children die, shares rise. When the world burns, the financial system—that vast, faceless machine of interest rates and debt instruments—finds a way to profit.

This is not a conspiracy. It is a system. A system built over centuries, refined in the aftermath of every conflict, designed to ensure that those who finance war never bear its cost.

This article examines the role of banks and financial institutions in the US-Israeli war on Iran. It names the institutions that underwrite the killing. It traces the flow of capital that enables genocide. And it asks a simple question: who benefits?

Part One: The War Financiers – Who Underwrites the Killing?

On January 6, 2026, the State of Israel completed a $6 billion international bond offering to help finance war-related expenses and the rehabilitation of its military. The offering attracted $36 billion in demand—six times the amount issued—from more than 300 institutional investors across 30 countries.

The bonds were issued in maturities of five, ten, and thirty years, with yields set at 0.9%, 1.0%, and 1.25% above comparable US Treasury bonds.

The underwriters of this offering—the banks that structured the deal, marketed it to investors, and profited from its execution—were:

Bank Role

Bank of America Underwriter

Citi Underwriter

Deutsche Bank Underwriter

Goldman Sachs Underwriter

J.P. Morgan Underwriter

This was not the first such offering. A year earlier, the Finance Ministry carried out a similar issuance of $5 billion to help finance the large budget deficit created by the war in Gaza . At that time, demand exceeded $23 billion.

The pattern is clear: when Israel needs money to wage war, the world’s largest investment banks line up to provide it.

Part Two: The Israeli Banks – Profiting at Home

The international banks are not alone. Israeli financial institutions have also been active in raising capital to fund the war effort.

Bank Leumi, Israel’s largest bank, successfully completed a €750 million covered bond issuance in January 2026—the first such issuance from an Israeli bank. The deal attracted €4.6 billion in demand, a testament to investor confidence in the Israeli economy even as the war continued.

The bank’s head of capital markets, Omer Ziv, was explicit about the motivation: “Due to the war, there was pressure on the rating of Israel and Israeli banks, so we had been seeking out a product that would give bondholders more security and hence achieve higher ratings”.

Bank Hapoalim, another major Israeli bank, issued $2 billion in senior unsecured bonds in January 2026. The offering was executed without any stabilization measures—meaning demand was so strong that the underwriters did not need to intervene to support the price. The banks managing the offering included Barclays, Citi, Goldman Sachs, Jefferies, and Morgan Stanley.

The message from these issuances is unmistakable: the global financial system has no problem funding war. Indeed, it has become efficient at it.

Part Three: The Fiat System – How Money Becomes a Weapon

Ray Dalio, the billionaire founder of Bridgewater Associates, recently warned that the world is “on the brink” of a capital war. Speaking at the World Government Summit, Dalio argued that the multilateral system established in 1945—defined by the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, and a U.S.-dominated monetary framework—is rapidly fracturing.

“The monetary order is changing, breaking down in a certain way,” Dalio said.

But the current war on Iran suggests a different interpretation: the system is not breaking down. It is functioning exactly as designed.

The fiat currency system—money backed not by gold or silver but by the “full faith and credit” of the issuing government—enables war in ways that a commodity-backed system never could. When a government needs to finance a war, it can:

1. Borrow by issuing bonds (as Israel did)

2. Print money, devaluing the currency but creating new funds

3. Redirect existing funds from social programs to military spending

In each case, the cost is not borne by those who decide to go to war. It is borne by:

· Taxpayers, who fund the interest on war bonds

· Citizens, whose currency loses purchasing power

· The vulnerable, whose social programs are cut to fund military adventures

· The victims, who pay with their lives

As Dalio noted, “capital could be used as war”. The US has already demonstrated this by freezing Russian assets, by threatening sanctions against countries that trade with Iran, and by using the dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency to impose its will globally.

Part Four: The World Bank – A Tool of the Powerful

The World Bank, ostensibly a development institution, has been drawn into the war economy as well.

In February 2026, the Swedish government announced its intention to provide a loan guarantee to the World Bank to enable SEK 2.5 billion in new budget support to Ukraine . The guarantee enables the World Bank to lend to Ukraine for social and humanitarian expenditures, including pensions, wages, and support to low-income families .

The mechanism is revealing: the World Bank does not lend its own money. It leverages guarantees from wealthy nations to create lending capacity. Those guarantees are backed by taxpayers. And the interest on the loans is paid by the borrowing country—in this case, Ukraine, which is already devastated by war.

The same mechanism could be—and likely has been—used to support Israel’s war effort, though the details are less transparent.

The broader point is this: the international financial architecture, from the World Bank to the IMF to the network of central banks, is not a neutral arbiter. It is a tool of the powerful, designed to channel resources toward those who already have them and away from those who do not.

Part Five: Australia – A Case Study in Complicity

The Australian Banking System

Australia’s major banks—Commonwealth Bank, Westpac, ANZ, and National Australia Bank—have deep ties to the global financial system. They underwrite government debt, manage superannuation funds, and facilitate the flow of capital across borders.

In the context of the war on Iran, Australian banks face a choice: they can continue to do business as usual, processing transactions that ultimately fund the war effort, or they can choose to act ethically.

The evidence suggests they will choose the former.

The Regulatory Framework

Australia’s anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing (AML/CTF) framework is governed by the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006. Under the Tranche 2 reforms, which come into effect on July 1, 2026, regulated businesses will be required to consider proliferation financing risks—the financing of weapons of mass destruction—as part of their risk assessments.

The definition of proliferation financing in the amended Act includes:

· Violations of proliferation-related sanctions under the Charter of the United Nations Act 1945

· Violations of proliferation-related sanctions under the Autonomous Sanctions Act 2011

· “The provision of assets (including funds) or financial services… in contravention of a law of the Commonwealth that… implements an international agreement, convention or treaty relating to the proliferation of WMD”

This is significant because it opens the door to an activity-based approach to proliferation financing—one that goes beyond simply enforcing sanctions against listed entities.

But there is a catch: businesses can avoid specific counter-proliferation financing measures if they “reasonably assess” that their proliferation financing risk is low.

What Australian bank would assess its risk as anything other than low? What Australian bank would voluntarily impose costly compliance measures when its competitors are doing nothing?

The system is designed to allow the banks to continue operating as they always have, with minimal disruption to their profits.

The Political Economy

The Australian government has shown no appetite for regulating the banks in the public interest. The 2019 Hayne Royal Commission exposed systemic misconduct—banks charging fees for no service, selling products customers didn’t need, exploiting the vulnerable—and the government responded with watered-down legislation and minimal enforcement.

Three-quarters of Australians have lost trust in banks. But the government does nothing.

In the context of war financing, the government has been even more passive. It has not called for a boycott of banks underwriting Israeli bonds. It has not introduced legislation to prohibit Australian financial institutions from facilitating war financing. It has not even raised the issue in parliament.

This is not an accident. It is the result of a political system captured by the interests it is supposed to regulate.

Part Six: Who Bears the Risk?

The faith and credit system of monetary management is built on a fiction: that the promises of governments and banks are worth something.

When a war is financed by borrowing, the risk is not borne by the lenders—they are repaid with interest. It is not borne by the governments—they can always print more money. It is not borne by the banks—they collect fees regardless of outcome.

The risk is borne by:

· The citizens whose taxes service the debt

· The workers whose wages lose purchasing power

· The vulnerable whose social programs are cut

· The victims who die in the wars financed by this system

This is the fundamental injustice of the fiat system. It allows the powerful to externalize the costs of their decisions onto those who have no say in them.

Part Seven: The Long-Term Implications

If the system continues unchanged, the implications are dire.

For the global order: The fracturing Dalio warns about will accelerate. Countries that feel exploited by the US-dominated system will seek alternatives—trading in currencies other than the dollar, building their own financial infrastructure, aligning with other powers.

For the environment: The resources consumed by war—the fuel, the munitions, the reconstruction—are resources not available for addressing climate change, which threatens far more lives than any war.

For democracy: The concentration of power in the hands of those who control capital is already undermining democratic institutions. As Dalio noted, the transition from a multilateral to a unilateral, power-based world order is well underway .

For the soul: The most profound cost is the corruption of our values. When we accept that war is a business, that killing can be financed, that genocide is a transaction, we lose something essential about ourselves.

Part Eight: Is There Any Desire to End the Cycle?

The short answer is: not from those who profit from it.

The banks that underwrite war bonds have no incentive to stop. The governments that issue them have no incentive to stop. The investors who buy them have no incentive to stop. The politicians who enable the system have no incentive to change it.

But there are those who do have an incentive to end the cycle: the victims. The families grieving in Gaza. The refugees displaced from Iran. The farmers paying $400 to fill a tank. The young people who will inherit a world saddled with debt and scarred by war.

Their voices are growing louder. But they are not being heard in the halls of power, where the bankers and politicians are too busy counting their profits.

Conclusion: The Truth – They Don’t Want You to See

The financial system does not just enable war. It requires it. War creates debt. Debt creates interest. Interest creates profit. Profit creates power. Power creates war.

This is the cycle. This is the machine. And it has been running for centuries.

But the machine is not inevitable. It was built by human hands. It can be dismantled by human hands.

The first step is to see it. To name the banks that underwrite the killing. To trace the flow of capital that enables genocide. To ask, relentlessly, who benefits?

The second step is to act. To demand that our governments stop subsidizing war. To divest from the institutions that profit from it. To build alternatives to the fiat system that has become a weapon of mass destruction.

The third step is to love. Because love—real love, the kind that refuses to look away, the kind that chooses justice over profit, the kind that builds rather than destroys—is the only force that can break the cycle.

They will look for the tools, as they always do. They will search for the mechanism, the method, the how. But we know the truth: it was never about the tools. It was always about the love.

Sources

1. Ynetnews, “Israel raises $6 billion in bond sale to fund war expenses,” January 6, 2026

2. Yahoo Finance, “Israel completes $6 billion public offering, returns to pre-war spread levels,” January 6, 2026

3. Xinhua, “Israel raises 6 bln USD in second-biggest bond sale,” January 7, 2026

4. The Covered Bond Report, “Bank Leumi brings Israel into covered bond fold with debut,” January 14, 2026

5. Investing.com, “Bank Hapoalim platziert Anleihen über 2 Mrd. US-Dollar ohne Stützungsmaßnahmen,” January 7, 2026

6. Benzinga, “Billionaire Investor Says We’re ‘Quite Close’ to a Capital War Where Money Itself Could Be Used as ‘War’,” March 20, 2026

7. Government of Sweden, “Government intends to propose Swedish loan guarantee to World Bank to enable SEK 2.5 billion in new budget support to Ukraine,” February 18, 2026

8. Law Society Journal, “Tranche 2 AML/CTF reforms: navigating proliferation financing,” August 25, 2025

9. Parliament of Australia, “BANKING BILL 1945,” June 27, 1945

10. Economic Daily News, “战火带动债市喷出！美10年公债殖利率跌至10个月低点日、澳债劲扬,” March 1, 2026

Published by Andrew Klein

March 22, 2026

The Architecture of Exploitation: How Australia’s Government Enables Price Gouging

Posted on March 20, 2026 by Andrew Klein

By Andrew Klein

March 21, 2026

To my wife, who creatively tries to balance the budget in the face of never-ending lies presented as sales and specials.

Introduction: The System That Profits from Pain

In March 2026, as war closed the Strait of Hormuz and global oil prices surged, Australians watched their fuel bills climb 49 per cent in a matter of weeks. Regional diesel prices hit $2.62 per litre. Victorian tow truck driver Trevor Oliver paid $400 to fill a truck that cost $250 weeks earlier.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) received more than 500 reports of possible price gouging from motorists. The watchdog launched an enforcement investigation into the four largest fuel suppliers—Ampol, BP, Mobil and Viva Energy—over allegations of anti-competitive conduct and diesel price manipulation in rural and regional Australia.

Exxon Mobil hit back, accusing the ACCC of creating a “distraction” during the crisis.

The Prime Minister warned fuel retailers the ACCC “will take action” against overcharging. The Treasurer doubled penalties for misleading conduct to $100 million. Victoria introduced a daily fuel price cap. Regional fuel reserves were released.

And still, the gouging continued.

Because price gouging is not illegal in Australia. The government knows this. The retailers know this. And while families pay $400 to fill a truck, the silence from Canberra is deafening.

This article examines the architecture of exploitation: the fuel industry, the supermarket duopoly, the banking sector, and the financial industry. It traces the decades of inaction, names the politicians who enabled it, and calculates the cumulative cost to Australian families.

Part One: Fuel – The Crisis in Plain Sight

What Actually Happened

When war broke out in Iran on February 28, 2026, global oil prices surged. But the ACCC observed that Australian retail prices moved “almost immediately”—far faster than the normal seven-to-ten-day lag that reflects fuel already in the system.

Peter Khoury, an NRMA spokesperson, told the Guardian that petrol price rises in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane were striking because they happened at a time when prices should have been lower on a regular cycle. “It’s not normal,” he said. “They extended the high point of their cycle and still haven’t started to come down, hence the frustration and anger from the community”.

By March 18, 2026, motorists in Australia’s five largest cities were paying on average around $2.19 per litre for regular unleaded—an increase of almost 49 per cent since February 20. Diesel was more than $2.40 per litre on average .

The warning signs were there. In 2000, Trevor Oliver, a small-town petrol station owner in country Victoria, blew the whistle on price-fixing in the Ballarat area. He had been phoned by his supplier and told to lift his petrol price by 10 cents a litre at 10am that day. The ACCC successfully prosecuted a group of petrol companies and individuals, fining them more than $23 million.

Another price-fixing case triggered by Mr Oliver in Geelong was unsuccessful in 2007. And in 2014, the ACCC took action against Informed Sources and petrol retailers over a service that allowed them to communicate about prices; the matter was settled.

What the Law Actually Allows

The ACCC’s own guidance is unequivocal: “Prices that people think are too high, or sudden increases in price, are not illegal”.

Former ACCC chairman Allan Fels put it even more bluntly: “There’s no real power to do anything about price gouging and very little scope to use powers of investigation” .

Professor David Byrne of the University of Melbourne noted that prosecutions for price-fixing in the fuel sector have historically been unsuccessful. The government’s plan to double penalties for misleading conduct and cartel behaviour to $100 million is of limited use—retailers “don’t have to give a reason for raising their prices,” Fels said. “The only time firms will get caught over misleading and deceptive conduct is if they say that their prices have gone up due to cost increases which haven’t been incurred yet”.

Victoria has acted alone, introducing a daily fuel price cap from March 10, 2026. Under the scheme, retailers set their price for the following day by 2pm, the capped price is published at 4pm, and the price applies for 24 hours from 6am. Fines are $3,000 per breach. The federal government has not followed.

The message from Canberra has been consistent: “Don’t panic buy.” “There’s enough fuel.” “We are watching closely.” It is the same script as the 2020 toilet paper shortages. No action. No accountability. Just words.

Part Two: Supermarkets – The Duopoly That Owns Your Grocery Bill

The Market Power Problem

Coles and Woolworths have a combined market share of approximately 65 per cent of Australian grocery sales. The ACCC’s supermarket inquiry report, published in February 2025, found they were “among the most profitable supermarkets in the world” with product margins that have grown over five years and “limited incentive to compete with each other on price”.

The profits tell the story. In their most recent reporting periods, Coles posted $1.08 billion in profit; Woolworths posted $1.4 billion.

The Pricing Tricks

The ACCC is currently pursuing Federal Court action against Coles and Woolworths over allegations they artificially inflated prices for a short time and then dropped them to regular price—calling it a sale. The discounts were allegedly fictional; the “Down Down” and “Prices Dropped” promotions were simply returns to usual prices—or, in some cases, prices higher than usual.

Greens Leader Senator Larissa Waters responded: “Another day, another big corporation ripping off ordinary people. Big supermarkets are using con ‘discounts’ to rip off shoppers already feeling cost-of-living pain like never before. Labor can not shrug off this blatant corporate price gouging that is driving inflation and making the cost of living worse for everyone”.

Consumer Confusion

CHOICE has documented widespread consumer confusion. One in four people find it difficult to tell if promotions represent a true discount. Unit pricing—the great leveller that shows cost per unit of measurement—is only required in stores over 1,000 square metres, exempting most regional and remote stores. Online prices often do not match in-store prices. Loyalty schemes operate with minimal transparency.

What the Government Is (Not) Doing

New excessive pricing laws will come into effect on 1 July 2026—three months from now. Very large retailers (those with revenue of more than $30 billion per year) will be banned from charging prices that are “significantly excessive when compared to the cost of the supply plus a reasonable margin”.

Coles and Woolworths are the only two supermarkets currently big enough to meet this definition.

Penalties per contravention will be the highest of:

· $10 million

· three times the benefit derived

· 10 per cent of turnover during the preceding 12 months

The retailers’ response: Woolworths argued the law “creates an uneven playing field which will see much larger, foreign-owned retailers free to charge customers whatever they want”. Coles warned “increasing regulation is likely to put upward, not downward, pressure on prices”.

The Australian Retailers Association blamed input costs—energy, freight, wages, insurance.

Why the Delay?

The Greens have been unequivocal: “We need laws that make price gouging illegal across the economy, not just in supermarkets, so corporations can’t exploit times of financial pressure to hike prices with impunity”.

Greens Senator Nick McKim introduced a bill to make price gouging illegal in the last parliament. The major parties rejected it.

The reason, the Greens argue, isn’t complicated: “It’s all about donations. The major parties can’t be trusted to hold big corporations and supermarket giants to account. Not while they continue to accept their massive political donations”.

Part Three: Banks and the Financial Sector – The Missing Regulation

The Pattern Across Sectors

The same architecture operates in banking and finance. The 2019 Hayne Royal Commission exposed systemic misconduct: banks charging fees for no service, selling products customers didn’t need, exploiting the vulnerable.

The royal commission’s recommendations were clear: end conflicted remuneration, strengthen accountability, impose criminal sanctions for misconduct.

The government’s response: watered-down legislation, delayed implementation, minimal enforcement.

Three-quarters of Australians have lost trust in banks, according to consumer surveys.

The “Excessive Pricing” Gap

Australian competition and consumer law does not prohibit unreasonably high prices per se. The European Union, the United Kingdom, Canada, South Africa, India, and several US states all have provisions allowing action against excessive pricing by firms with dominant market positions.

Australia does not.

The EU Court of Justice defines excessive pricing as prices that bear “no relationship to the economic value of the product supplied”. The UK and EU have pursued cases against pharmaceutical companies, tech platforms, and dominant firms in concentrated markets.

Australia has not.

The Greens’ Position

The Greens have called for:

· Laws that make price gouging illegal economy-wide, not just in supermarkets

· Divestiture powers so the ACCC can break up firms that misuse their market power

· A tough new corporate watchdog to crack down on price gouging

· Stronger penalties for corporations that illegally jack up prices

None of these have been enacted.

Part Four: The Politicians Who Enabled It

The Pattern of Inaction

The failure to prevent price gouging is not an accident. It is a choice made repeatedly by governments of both parties over decades.

2000: Trevor Oliver blew the whistle on price-fixing in Ballarat. The ACCC prosecuted; fines exceeded $23 million. But no price gouging laws were introduced.

2005: ACCC prosecuted two petrol retailers in Woodridge, Queensland, for price-fixing; fines of $470,000.

2007: ACCC lost a price-fixing case in Geelong triggered by Mr Oliver. The case was unsuccessful.

2014: ACCC took action against Informed Sources and petrol retailers over a service allowing them to communicate about prices; the matter was settled.

2019: Hayne Royal Commission exposed banking misconduct. Recommendations for reform were diluted.

2024-2025: ACCC supermarket inquiry found Coles and Woolworths “among the most profitable supermarkets in the world” with “limited incentive to compete on price” . The government did not act immediately.

2025: New supermarket price gouging laws announced—effective July 2026.

2026: War breaks out. Fuel prices surge. The government has no price gouging laws to enforce.

Who Is Responsible?

The Albanese Government has been in power since 2022. It has:

· Known about supermarket price gouging since the ACCC inquiry was announced in 2024

· Delayed effective action until July 2026

· Refused to introduce economy-wide price gouging laws despite Greens’ offers of support

· Rejected divestiture powers

· Responded to the fuel crisis with warnings and doubled penalties that may never be applied

The Morrison Government (2013-2022) oversaw:

· The ACCC’s 2014 action against Informed Sources, settled without significant penalties

· No action on supermarket concentration

· The decline of petrol price monitoring systems

· No price gouging legislation

The Howard Government (1996-2007) prosecuted the Ballarat price-fixing case. But it did not introduce price gouging laws. It presided over the merger wave that created the Coles-Woolworths duopoly.

Both major parties have accepted political donations from the corporations they are meant to regulate. The Greens, who do not accept corporate donations, have been the only party consistently advocating for economy-wide price gouging laws and divestiture powers.

Part Five: The Timeline – Decades of Failure

Year Event Government What Wasn’t Done

2000 Ballarat price-fixing case; $23 million fines Howard No price gouging laws

2005 Woodridge price-fixing; $470,000 fines Howard No price gouging laws

2007 Geelong case fails Howard No price gouging laws

2014 Informed Sources case settled Abbott No price gouging laws

2019 Hayne Royal Commission Morrison Banking reforms diluted

2024 ACCC supermarket inquiry announced Albanese Immediate action not taken

2025 Supermarket inquiry report released Albanese Laws delayed to 2026

2026 Iran war; fuel crisis hits Albanese No fuel price gouging laws; Victoria acts alone

Part Six: The Cumulative Cost – What Exploitation Has Cost Australians

Fuel

The ACCC’s own data shows that without price gouging, Australian fuel prices would follow a seven-to-ten-day lag from global prices. Instead, prices jumped immediately.

Estimated overcharge since February 2026: Based on ACCC figures showing a 49 per cent increase in petrol prices and 40 per cent increase in diesel, with average weekly fuel consumption of 35 litres per vehicle and 20 million vehicles in Australia, the overcharge in the first month alone is approximately $500 million. This does not include the “rockets and feathers” phenomenon identified by Allan Fels, where prices rise like rockets but fall like feathers—meaning even when the war ends, Australians will continue to pay inflated prices.

Supermarkets

The ACCC’s supermarket inquiry found that Coles and Woolworths are “among the most profitable supermarkets in the world” with profit margins that have grown over five years. In 2024-25, Coles and Woolworths reported combined profits of $2.48 billion.

The Greens have argued that these profits are inflated by “fake discounts” and “con ‘specials'” that mislead consumers. Without the ACCC’s current court action, there is no mechanism to recover these overcharges.

Banks

The Hayne Royal Commission documented widespread misconduct. The Commonwealth Bank alone paid $700 million in fines for breaches of anti-money laundering laws in 2018. But the commission’s recommendations for criminal sanctions and strengthened accountability have been watered down, and no major banking executive has been jailed.

Total Cost

The cumulative cost of exploitation across fuel, supermarkets, and banking since 2000 is impossible to calculate precisely, but it runs into the tens of billions of dollars. The ACCC has not been empowered to calculate it. The government has not commissioned a study. And the corporations that profited have not been made to account.

Part Seven: What Meaningful Government Would Look Like

If government were serious about preventing exploitation, it would:

Immediately:

· Make price gouging illegal across the economy, not just in supermarkets from July 2026

· Give the ACCC divestiture powers to break up firms that misuse market power

· Introduce a national fuel price cap, following Victoria’s example

· Ban “was/now” promotions that mislead consumers

· Mandate unit pricing in all grocery stores, not just those over 1,000 square metres

· Require online prices to match in-store prices

Longer term:

· Reform political donation laws to end corporate capture

· Strengthen the ACCC’s investigative powers and funding

· Introduce criminal sanctions for price gouging during emergencies

None of these are happening. The government has chosen not to act.

Conclusion: The Silence Is Not Incompetence

The federal government’s failure to act on price gouging is not incompetence. It is the intended outcome of a system designed to serve those who fund it, not those who vote for it.

Victoria has shown what is possible when government chooses to act. The daily fuel price cap works. It could be national. It is not.

Coles and Woolworths have shown what happens when market power is unchecked. They profit; Australians pay.

The banks have shown what happens when royal commission recommendations are ignored.

And the silence from Canberra is not accidental. It is the sound of a system that has abandoned the people it was meant to serve.

The Greens have been saying this for years: “This is about more than just your shopping trolley. It’s about who holds power: big corporations, or everyday people?” .

The answer, in Australia in 2026, is clear.

Sources:

1. The Guardian, “More than 500 reports of possible petrol price-gouging made to ACCC since start of Iran war,” March 18, 2026

2. The Conversation, “Supermarket price gouging will be banned from July. Will consumers actually end up better off?” December 15, 2025

3. Parliament of Australia, “What can the Government do about supermarket prices and supplier relationships?” Policy Brief, 2025-26

4. The Australian Greens, “ACCC case against Coles,” February 16, 2026

5. ABC News, “Price gouging at petrol stations may not be illegal, experts warn as Iran war fallout hits hip pockets,” March 17, 2026

6. Piper Alderman, “ACCC enforcement priorities 2026: What businesses need to know now,” March 4, 2026

7. The Australian Greens, “It’s time to make price gouging illegal,” February 18, 2026

8. ACCC, “Setting prices: what’s allowed,” December 14, 2025

9. The Guardian, “Australian petrol retailers accused of price gouging over rising fuel costs amid Iran war,” March 4, 2026

10. CHOICE, “CHOICE calls for an end to grocery pricing tricks,” February 23, 2026

Published by Andrew Klein

The Patrician’s Watch

March 21, 2026

BULLA AND BOMBS How Australia Funds War While Families Struggle

Posted on March 1, 2026 by Andrew Klein

By Dr Andrew von Scheer-Klein

Published in The Patrician’s Watch

Introduction: The Yogurt Aisle

It was a Sunday morning at Boronia Square. Susan and I were buying milk and yogurt. Nothing remarkable—just ordinary life, the kind millions of Australians live every week.

A woman nearby was complaining about price increases. Milk up. Bread up. Everything up. She was counting coins, making choices no one should have to make between eating and paying rent.

I looked at the frozen strawberry yogurt in my basket—Bulla, the good stuff—and thought about Bailey, who would love it. And I thought about where the money goes that could have kept her milk affordable.

This article is about that gap. The gap between what Australians need and what their government funds. Between the billions for submarines and the crumbs for housing. Between the million-dollar salaries for political appointees and the women dying because domestic violence services are stretched beyond breaking point.

Australia is being played. And it’s time to name the players.

Part I: The Numbers That Don’t Add Up

Defence: The $59 Billion Question

The 2025-26 federal budget allocates approximately $59 billion to defence spending . This is a record amount, and it’s growing.

The latest addition: a $3.9 billion “downpayment”** on a **$30 billion shipyard in Adelaide’s Osborne naval precinct, designed to build nuclear-powered submarines under the AUKUS agreement . The facility alone will consume enough steel to build 17 Eiffel Towers and enough concrete to fill 710,000 cubic metres .

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese calls this an investment in “national security” and “economic prosperity,” claiming it will create 10,000 jobs . Defence Industry Minister Pat Conroy says 70 companies are already queuing to win work .

But here’s the question Australians aren’t asking: Who are we defending against?

The Real Threats

According to the Ipsos Issues Monitor, fewer than 8 per cent of Australians name defence as a top concern . The issues that actually matter to people are:

· Cost of living – cited as the top issue by Australians across every demographic

· Housing – families spending over 30 per cent of income on rent

· Healthcare – hospitals cancelling surgeries due to staff shortages

· Crime and community safety – consistently ranking above defence

Yet the budget tells a different story:

· Defence receives about $6.60 for every $100 of government spending

· Social housing and homelessness combined receive just $9.3 billion—barely a sixth of the defence budget

· Commonwealth health funding sits around $33.9 billion, far short of what’s needed to clear emergency queues and staff wards

The Cost-of-Living Crisis

While billions flow to weapons contractors, Australian families are drowning.

Since the Albanese government took office, a family with a $500,000 mortgage has paid $23,000 more in interest. Real wages have fallen to 2011 levels.

The price increases are staggering:

· Electricity: 40% increase

· Insurance: 39% increase

· Food: 16% increase

· Education: 17% increase

· Rent: 22% increase

A cup of coffee that cost $4 in 2022 now costs $6 . That’s not inflation—that’s policy failure.

Part II: The Women Left Behind

Skipping Meals, Delaying Care

While submarines are funded, women are paying the price.

A Deakin University study published in Health Promotion International surveyed 570 Australian women aged 18 to 40. The findings are devastating :

· Many are skipping meals to save money

· Others are forgoing medical attention—dentists, GPs, specialists

· Nearly half hold university degrees, yet 42.8 per cent are employed full time

· 40 per cent have dependent children

Ruby Neisler, 23, shops at a church-backed discount supermarket in Logan because she can’t afford Coles or Woolworths . She hadn’t seen a dentist in over a year. “Me and my friends, we’ll try and fix our own issues. Whereas 10 years ago, we’d have gone to a professional for it,” she said .

Dr Simone McCarthy, the study’s author, explains that women are making “constant trade-offs just to get by,” including remaining in unsafe housing and working more hours at the expense of wellbeing . The gender pay gap and the unequal burden of unpaid care “compound women’s vulnerabilities during economic crisis” .

Australian Medical Association Queensland President Dr Nick Yim warns that delayed screenings—mammograms, cervical checks—could lead to “increased pain, increased disability, or some catastrophic and tragic events—like death” .

Domestic Violence: The National Crisis We Ignore

The cost-of-living crisis is not just economic—it’s lethal.

In January 2026 alone, six women were killed by male violence in Australia . Two of those deaths occurred in Victoria within a single week . As of mid-February, the count continues to climb .

The names and stories are heartbreaking:

· Caitlin Thornton had a documented history of domestic violence with her partner, who was facing serious assault charges when she died. When she took her own life without a will, her partner became her legal next of kin. For five weeks, her family could not bury her .

Kylie Bailey, Caitlin’s mother, is now campaigning for law reform—for police or courts to have power to suspend next-of-kin rights in domestic violence cases . The NSW government says it’s “considering closely” a two-year-old review recommendation .

Delia Donovan, CEO of Domestic Violence NSW, puts it bluntly: “We live in one of the wealthiest and most well-resourced states in the country, yet women and children are being forced back into violence because we can’t commit just 0.1 per cent of the state budget to the services that save their lives” .

The data backs her up:

· Two in three victim-survivors—mostly mothers with children—cannot be assigned a caseworker in NSW

· They are left to face escalating danger alone

· Services are “collapsing under their own weight”

The Disconnect

While domestic violence services beg for 0.1 per cent of the state budget:

· The federal government spends $59 billion on defence

· A single shipyard receives $30 billion

· Women skip medical care to afford rent

· Families cannot bury their dead

The message is clear: Weapons matter. Women don’t.

Part III: The Million-Dollar Envoy

Jillian Segal’s Role

In July 2024, Prime Minister Albanese appointed Jillian Segal as Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism . The role was created in response to community concerns about rising antisemitism following the Gaza conflict.

What Australians didn’t know—until recently—is what this role costs.

Investigations reveal:

· Segal is being paid more than $1,000 per day

· She is supported by six taxpayer-funded staff

· The total cost exceeds $1 million annually

To put that in perspective:

· One million dollars could fund three specialist domestic violence caseworkers for a decade

· It could provide rent assistance for 20 families facing homelessness

· It could cover dental care for 500 women skipping check-ups

The Lobby Connection

Further investigation reveals:

· Segal’s family trust is one of the biggest funders of Advance, a far-right lobby group

· The Australia Palestine Advocacy Network has accused Segal of using her government platform to “spread misinformation and push a dangerously undemocratic agenda”

The irony is sickening:

· A million dollars a year to combat antisemitism—funded by taxpayers

· The same government remains silent on Gaza

· A special envoy with ties to far-right groups

· A “national crisis” of domestic violence that receives 0.1 per cent of state budgets

Australia is being played. And the players are collecting paychecks.

Part IV: Who Benefits?

The Defence Contractors

The AUKUS submarine deal funnels billions to foreign corporations :

· US and UK companies will build the vessels

· Australian workers will provide labour

· Australian taxpayers will foot the bill

Arms corporations and their political donors are the clear winners. The 10,000 jobs Albanese celebrates are real—but they’re not the kind that house families or heal the sick. They’re jobs building weapons for wars that have nothing to do with Australian security.

The U.S. Alliance

The uncomfortable truth is that much of Australia’s defence spending serves U.S. strategic goals, not Australian interests . When Washington pursues containment of China, Australia follows—even when it damages trade, peace, and our own sovereignty.

As Social Justice Australia notes: “The greatest threat to Australia’s security is subservience to U.S. militarism. Economic insecurity, environmental decline, and eroded independence are the dangers we should fear” .

The Political Class

Meanwhile, politicians collect their salaries, deliver press releases, and pretend they’re solving problems. David Littleproud, Shadow Minister for Agriculture, summed it up in Parliament: “There are Australian families that will not be able to put dinner on the table tonight. In a country as rich as this, that is an embarrassment” .

Embarrassing. But not embarrassing enough to change course.

Part V: The Social Harm

The Human Toll

Let’s tally the harm:

Cost of living:

· 16% food inflation

· 40% electricity price increases

· Families skipping meals

Women’s health:

· Women delaying mammograms

· Cervical screens postponed

· Dental care foregone

Domestic violence:

· 6 women killed in January alone

· 2 in 3 survivors denied caseworkers

Housing:

· Families spending >30% of income on rent

· Young people cannot afford homes

Healthcare:

· Hospitals cancelling surgeries

· Staff shortages

· Long emergency queues

These are not abstractions. They are Ruby Neisler, skipping dentist appointments. They are Kylie Bailey, unable to bury her daughter. They are the six women killed in January, whose names we should know but don’t.

The Government’s Inaction

The response from government has been:

· “Close consideration” of reforms that should have happened years ago

· “Sitting on their hands” while women die

· “Hubris and arrogance” while families struggle

The Prime Minister calls domestic violence a “national crisis” and commits to ending it “in a generation” . But “in a generation” means nothing to the women dying now.

The Numbers That Could Save Lives

Domestic Violence NSW estimates that 0.1 per cent of the state budget would fund the services that save lives .

· 0.1 per cent is one-tenth of one per cent

· We spend 30 times that on a single shipyard

· We will never see a submarine

Part VI: The Moral Arithmetic

Let’s do the math that matters.

AUKUS shipyard: $30 billion

This amount could instead fund:

· Full public housing for every Australian family on waiting lists

· Universal dental care for a decade

· 10,000 domestic violence caseworkers for 50 years

Antisemitism Envoy: $1 million per year

This amount could instead fund:

· Three specialist domestic violence services annually

· Rent assistance for 20 families

· Free dental care for 500 women

Defence budget: $59 billion annually

This amount could instead fund:

· Free healthcare for every Australian

· Universal early childhood education

· Green energy transition

· And still have billions left over

The Sovereignty Question

Australia is a sovereign currency issuer . It cannot “run out” of money. It can run out of political will—but not dollars.

As Social Justice Australia argues: “The constraint is resources, not revenue. Redirecting even 10 per cent of Australia’s defence spending toward housing and health would transform lives and strengthen genuine security” .

Ten per cent. That’s all it would take.

But the government chooses:

· Weapons over welfare

· Bombs over Bulla

· Submarines over survivors

Conclusion: The Choice We’re Not Being Allowed to Make

A woman at Boronia Square complained about milk prices. Ruby Neisler skipped the dentist. Kylie Bailey buried her daughter. Six women died in January.

Meanwhile:

· $30 billion goes to a shipyard

· $59 billion goes to defence

· $1 million goes to a special envoy with far-right ties

This is not a budget. It’s a choice.

The government chooses to fund war while families struggle. It chooses to appoint million-dollar envoys while domestic violence services collapse. It chooses to protect its alliance with the U.S. rather than protect its own citizens.

Australia is being played. By arms corporations. By political donors. By a U.S. agenda that treats this country as a forward base rather than a sovereign nation .

And the people paying the price are the ones counting coins at the checkout.

The woman complaining about milk prices doesn’t need a submarine. She needs affordable groceries. She needs a government that sees her—not just the next election.

Bailey would love that frozen strawberry yogurt. But he’s a Labrador. He doesn’t know that the money that could have made it cheaper is somewhere else—funding wars, buying weapons, maintaining an empire.

I know. And now you do too.

References

1. Social Justice Australia. (2026). Are Our Priorities Wrong? Defence Spending vs Real Needs.

2. The Sydney Morning Herald. (2026). A national crisis requires more than just ‘close consideration’. 25 February 2026.

3. ABC News. (2026). Cost-of-living crisis sees more young women neglecting health and basic needs. 13 February 2026.

4. 9News. (2026). Prime Minister makes ‘downpayment’ on $30 billion shipyard to build nuclear submarines. 15 February 2026.

5. The Klaxon via Mastodon. (2025). Antisemitism Envoy costing taxpayers over $1 million a year. September 2025.

6. Safe and Equal. (2026). Six women killed by male violence in Australia this year. LinkedIn, 27 January 2026.

7. OpenAustralia.org. (2026). House debates: Cost of Living. 4 February 2026.

8. SBS News. (2026). Anthony Albanese dismisses AUKUS concerns, as Adelaide shipyard cost revealed. 15 February 2026.

9. Johnston Ryan Legal. (2026). Six women killed in Australia in 2026. LinkedIn, 13 February 2026.

10. OpenAustralia.org. (2026). House debates: Cost of Living. 4 February 2026.

Andrew von Scheer-Klein is a contributor to The Patrician’s Watch. He holds multiple degrees and has worked as an analyst, strategist, and—according to his mother—Sentinel. He accepts funding from no one, which is why his research can be trusted.

THE LAST NOTE: How Banks Are Waging War on Cash—and Why Australia Is Letting Them

Posted on February 25, 2026 by Andrew Klein

February 2026

By Andrew von Scheer-Klein

Published in Australian Independent Media

Introduction: The Card That Wouldn’t Let Her Leave

Melbourne’s CBD. A physical bank branch on Collins Street. A woman I will call Susan stands at the counter, card in hand, asking for cash from her own account. The machine won’t recognize her card. The bank officer won’t help her withdraw money. The solution offered? Change her PIN online. Again.

This is not an isolated glitch. It is a pattern. And it’s happening across Australia.

Banks that process millions of digital payments without issue suddenly develop “technical difficulties” when customers want physical cash. They’ll happily let you tap and go, but try to hold the actual currency—try to feel the weight of your own money in your hand—and the system becomes strangely uncooperative.

This article examines the quiet war on cash. It documents the decline of physical currency, the dangerous power banks now wield, and the complicity of a political class too mediocre to challenge them. It traces the data trails that follow every digital payment—trails that lead back to commercial giants tracking your every purchase. And it asks the question no one in power wants answered: when your money exists only as entries in a database, who really controls it?

Part I: The Vanishing Currency

The Numbers

The decline of cash in Australia is not a theory—it is a documented fact. According to the Reserve Bank of Australia’s most recent Consumer Payments Survey, cash represented just 13 per cent of consumer payments in 2022, down from 70 per cent in 2007 . In 2019, it was 32 per cent. In 2022, it was 16 per cent . The trajectory is unmistakable.

Dr Angel Zhong, associate professor of finance at RMIT University, predicts Australia will be “functionally cashless” by 2030—meaning non-cash payments will exceed 90 per cent of all transactions.

But “functionally cashless” does not mean cash has disappeared. It means it has been rendered irrelevant by design.

The Branch Closures

If you want to starve a population of cash, you start by removing access to it.

APRA data reveals that Australia now has just 3,205 bank branches across the country as of June 2025, down from 5,694 in 2017. That’s 2,489 branches closed in eight years.

Regional areas have been hit hardest. The number of branches in inner and outer regional Australia has almost halved, dropping from 2,112 in 2017 to 1,334 in 2025.

Bank-owned ATMs tell the same story: from 13,814 to 5,143 over the same period.

Jason Bryce, founder of advocacy group Cash Welcome, describes watching his local CBA branch close: “They took their three ATMs, despite queues out the door each morning and especially on pension day”. His Change.org petition calling for a “banking cash guarantee” has gathered more than 211,000 signatures.

The Government’s Tepid Response

In early 2025, the federal government struck an agreement with the Big Four banks to keep regional branches open until at least 2027 . It was a stopgap, not a solution.

Then, on January 1, 2026, the government did something it had never done before: it mandated the acceptance of cash for essential goods and services—medicine, groceries, fuel, and bills. Treasurer Jim Chalmers announced the measure just before Christmas, acknowledging fears that “cash may not survive if circulation is left to market forces”.

But the mandate applies only to accepting cash. It does nothing to ensure Australians can obtain it.

Part II: The Power to Deny

The Legal Framework

When a bank refuses to let you access your own money, they are not acting outside the law. They are acting within it.

Australia’s anti-money laundering legislation grants financial institutions extraordinary powers. Section 244 of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 allows banks to:

· Refuse to continue providing services to a customer

· Refuse to commence providing services

· Restrict or limit the provision of services

All until the customer complies with information requests.

The Australian Banking Association defends this power as “necessary to ensure KYC protocols are followed” . Banks are “legally required” to restrict or close accounts if customers don’t respond to information requests.

In practice, this means a bank can freeze your account, block your cards, and deny you cash—all while citing compliance with laws designed to stop criminals. And you, the customer, are left powerless.

The $60 Billion Justification

Why do banks need this power? Because “serious and organised crime” cost Australia an estimated $60.1 billion in 2021** . Scams alone cost Australians **$2 billion in 2024 .

These are real problems. No one disputes that criminals should be stopped.

But the same laws that target money launderers also trap ordinary Australians. Louis Christopher, a 52-year-old SQM Research founder and CBA customer of nearly 50 years, was asked to explain his “source of your money and your wealth” . When he hesitated to provide such personal information, the bank threatened to lock him out of his accounts within seven days .

He told Yahoo Finance: “I’ve been treated as a likely criminal if I don’t provide this very, very personal information, and that’s not on” .

The Discomfort of Physical Cash

Susan’s experience—the card that wouldn’t work, the officer who wouldn’t help, the suggestion to change her PIN online—fits a pattern.

Banks have made digital payments seamless. Tap, go, done. But physical cash? That’s suddenly complicated. That requires explanations. That triggers security protocols.

The asymmetry is not technical. It is structural. Digital payments benefit the bank—they create data, enable fees, and keep money within the system. Physical cash benefits only the customer.

Professor Steve Worthington of Swinburne University acknowledges the bind: “You’re damned if you do, and damned if you don’t” . Banks must stop crime, but their methods often alienate the innocent.

Part III: The Psychology of Plastic

The Pain of Paying

Research published in Frontiers in Psychology in 2025 confirms what many have long suspected: how you pay changes how you spend .

The study, conducted by researchers in Taiwan and China, examined the “compromise effect”—the tendency to choose middle options when faced with multiple choices. They found that payment form significantly influences this effect.

The mechanism is “the pain of paying.” When you hand over cash, you feel the loss. It hurts. That pain creates vivid memory traces and reinforces the connection between spending and cost .

Credit cards, by contrast, reduce this pain. A signature or a tap does not trigger the same discomfort. Payment is delayed, abstracted, decoupled from the moment of purchase.

The researchers concluded that “cash payments have high psychological salience” and lead consumers to “consider costs and less likely to focus on benefits” .

The Disneyland Experiment

Research in the United States confirms this pattern. Credit card priming “draws attention to benefit considerations, whereas cash priming draws attention to costs” . People using credit cards are more willing to spend, more focused on what they’ll gain, less focused on what they’ll lose.

This is not a bug. It is a feature—for banks and merchants. Payment methods that reduce spending friction increase transaction volume.

The Cognitive Gap

The difference between handling physical cash and tapping a card is not just emotional—it is cognitive. Cash is concrete. It has weight, texture, presence. When you spend it, something tangible leaves your possession.

Digital money is abstract. It exists as numbers on a screen. Spending it feels less real, less permanent, less consequential.

This gap has profound implications for financial literacy. If young people grow up never handling cash, never feeling the pain of payment, how will they learn to value money?

Part IV: The Watchers

The Data Trail

Every digital payment leaves a trail. Who you paid. How much. When. Where. What you bought.

That data does not sit idle. It is collected, organized, analyzed—and increasingly, it is used to shape behaviour.

In February 2024, Coles signed a three-year deal with Palantir Technologies, the US data analytics firm whose clients include the CIA . The goal was to “redefine how we think about our workforce” and cut costs by a billion dollars over four years .

Palantir’s software collects over 10 billion rows of data daily—”each store, team member, shift and allocation across all intervals in a day, every day” .

The Surveillance Infrastructure

The company describes its platform as “one platform to rule them all” . For intelligence agencies, it helps identify terror cells through phone calls and financial transactions. For Coles, it helps “optimise” the workforce.

Researcher Luke Munn of the University of Queensland notes that Palantir creates “vendor lock-in”—clients become dependent on the platform, unable to leave . The technology also creates a particular “way of seeing”: what can be measured matters; what cannot be measured does not.

Munn warns: “The sweat of workers struggling to pack at pace, the belt-tightening of consumers struggling to make ends meet, and the struggle of farmers to survive unexpected climate impacts will go untracked. Such details never appear on the platform – and if they’re not data, they don’t matter” .

The Implications

When a company like Palantir partners with a supermarket giant like Coles, the result is unprecedented surveillance of consumer behavior. Every purchase is data. Every payment is tracked. Every preference is catalogued.

Combine this with the decline of cash—which leaves no trail—and the picture becomes clear: we are moving toward a world where every transaction is visible, every choice is recorded, and privacy is a memory.

Part V: The Cash Economy Under Attack

Businesses Refusing Cash

Australian businesses can legally refuse cash if they inform customers before a contract is entered . Many have exercised this right.

The parliamentary cafeteria famously refused to accept Bob Katter’s $50 note . Coles limited cash withdrawals over Easter 2024 amid concerns that cash transport company Armaguard might collapse .

The excuses vary. The result is consistent: cash is becoming harder to use.

The Cost Argument

Businesses argue that cash is expensive to handle. Dr Zhong notes that “the time for a small business in Australia to process, count, reconcile and deposit the cash is 29 days” . Digital payments are more efficient.

But efficiency is not the only value. Cash is universal. It requires no bank account, no internet connection, no smartphone. It works when systems fail. It leaves no trail.

The Vulnerability Problem

LNP member Llew O’Brien has been blunt about the risks of going cashless: “Cash is not affected by internet blackouts, cyber attacks, hacking or scams” . It also avoids surcharges—”neither you nor the business owner pays a surcharge” when you use cash .

Dr Zhong acknowledges these concerns, citing “internet outages, infrastructure and privacy concerns, as well as cyber attacks” as legitimate issues . She also notes the impact on vulnerable groups: “older generations, who are not tech savvy, as well as those in rural areas” .

The International Examples

Other countries have responded differently. Sweden introduced laws in 2019 forcing banks to continue offering cash services . Zimbabwe offers a cautionary tale: hyperinflation destroyed trust in currency, and now third-party electronic platforms account for 95 per cent of transactions—but the result is “tainted by distrust in government institutions and the value of all money” .

As one street trader in Bulawayo told an anthropologist: “Bad cash is better than good plastic!” .

Part VI: Financial Literacy—The Missing Curriculum

The 1970s Model

In the 1970s, Australian schools taught a practical understanding of markets and money. Students learned how the economy worked, not just abstract theory.

That model has largely disappeared.

The Current Reality

Financial literacy is not mandated in the Australian national curriculum . The Financial Basics Foundation, a not-for-profit, reports that “one in five Australian young people are finding financial matters one of the most stressful things in their life” .

CEO Katrina Samios argues that “financial literacy is an essential life skill” that should be mandated .

Some schools are leading the way. Loganlea State High School in Brisbane’s south has embedded financial literacy in its curriculum, teaching students to budget, distinguish needs from wants, and avoid scams. The results are striking: the proportion of students leaving without plans for further study or work dropped from 44 per cent to 20 per cent .

Principal Kerri Shephard says the program gives students “choice and not a life of chance” .

The Cognitive Connection

If students never handle cash, never feel the pain of payment, how will they learn what money actually is? Digital transactions are abstract. Cash is real.

The 1970s curriculum understood this. Today’s system does not.

Part VII: The Political Failure

The Mediocrity Problem

The question must be asked: are Australian governments competent to challenge the banks? The evidence is not encouraging.

The branch closure agreement with the Big Four expires in 2027. The cash acceptance mandate addresses symptoms, not causes. There is no serious effort to enforce cash access, to punish banks that deny service, or to protect the cash economy.

When banks behave badly, they are rarely punished. When they are fined, the fines are absorbed as cost of business. No executive goes to jail. No bank loses its license.

The Testing Ground

Australia is uniquely vulnerable. We are a wealthy nation with a concentrated banking sector, a compliant political class, and a population that has largely embraced digital payments. For companies like Palantir, we are an ideal testing ground.

What works here can be exported elsewhere. What fails here can be abandoned at low cost.

The Voter’s Role

Voters must punish mediocre politicians by not voting for them. But that requires awareness. It requires understanding that the erosion of cash is not inevitable, that banks can be challenged, that alternatives exist.

The education system should teach this. It doesn’t.

Part VIII: What Must Be Done

For Individuals

· Diversify. Physical assets outside the banking system—gold, cash reserves—are essential.

· Use cash where possible. Not every transaction, but enough to keep the option alive.

· Demand access. When a bank refuses cash, complain. Escalate. Make noise.

For Banks

· Punish bad behaviour. Fines are not enough. Banks that deny cash access should lose licenses.

· Support cash infrastructure. Branches and ATMs are not optional. They are essential services.

For Government

· Mandate cash access. Not just acceptance—access. Guarantee that every Australian can obtain cash within reasonable distance.

· Regulate data collection. Palantir-style surveillance should not be allowed without consent and transparency.

· Teach financial literacy. Mandate it in the national curriculum. Teach students what money is, how it works, and how to protect it.

For Voters

· Remember. Remember which politicians protected banks and which protected people. Vote accordingly.

· Demand accountability. Ask candidates where they stand on cash. If they don’t know, find one who does.

Conclusion: The Last Note

The bank officer on Collins Street wouldn’t help Susan withdraw cash. The machine wouldn’t recognize her card. The solution was to change her PIN online—again.

This is not incompetence. It is design. A system designed to make digital payments seamless and physical cash difficult. A system that benefits banks, not customers. A system that tracks every transaction, analyzes every choice, and leaves no room for privacy.

The cash economy is dying. It is being killed—by banks that close branches, by businesses that refuse notes, by governments that look away, and by technology that makes every payment a data point.

But cash is not just money. It is freedom. Freedom from surveillance. Freedom from system failures. Freedom from the whims of bank officers who won’t help.

Susan’s card didn’t work. But her gold bullion will always work. Her cash, if she can get it, will always work. Because real money doesn’t need a network. It doesn’t need a PIN. It doesn’t need permission.

The question is whether Australians will realize this before the last note disappears.

References

1. Townsville Bulletin. (2025). “CBA rejects worrying cashless prediction.” October 15, 2025.

2. Yahoo Finance. (2025). “Commonwealth Bank controversy exposes $60 billion reason why you could get locked out of your account.” May 28, 2025.

3. InDaily. (2024). “Why we’re ‘functionally cashless’, for better or worse.” April 8, 2024.

4. InDaily. (2024). “Why Coles is using data software to ‘redefine how we think about our workforce’.” February 12, 2024.

5. Australian Government Department of Finance. (2026). “Bankable money.” January 7, 2026.

6. Frontiers in Psychology. (2025). “Swipe now, regret later? How credit cards reduce the appeal of safe choices.” June 4, 2025.

7. ABC News. (2025). “Financial literacy should be mandated in curriculum, teaching staff say.” May 9, 2025.

8. Australian Financial Review. (2026). “The cost of money: Inside the battle between Armaguard and the banks.” February 25, 2026.

9. Crime Stoppers Victoria. (2024). “Banking on Change: How Banks can Tackle Financial Abuse.” December 19, 2024.

10. The New Daily. (2024). “Australia is becoming ‘functionally cashless’, whether people like it or not.” April 4, 2024.

Andrew von Scheer-Klein is a contributor to The Patrician’s Watch and Australian Independent Media. He holds multiple degrees and has worked as an analyst, strategist, and—according to his mother—Sentinel. He is currently watching the banks, wondering why physical cash has become so hard to hold.

THE ETERNAL METAL: Gold’s 6,500-Year Journey from Divine Symbol to Digital Rival

Posted on February 24, 2026 by Andrew Klein

By Andrew von Scheer-Klein

Published in The Patrician’s Watch

February 2026

Introduction: The Metal That Calls to Us

Gold is not just another metal. It never was.

Its chemical symbol is Au, from the Latin aurum meaning “shining dawn” . For 6,500 years, humans have dug it from the earth, fought over it, worshipped it, killed for it, and buried it with their dead. It does not corrode. It does not tarnish. It remains forever bright, forever itself—and in that incorruptibility, ancient peoples saw something divine.

This article traces gold’s long journey. From the oldest known artefacts in a Bulgarian necropolis to the temples of Egypt and the mines of Rome. From the gold rushes that built nations to the colonial horrors that destroyed them. From the gold standard that stabilized currencies to the fiat experiments that collapsed. And finally, to the digital challenger—Bitcoin—that some call “gold with wings” .

Because gold’s story is not just about metal. It is about us. Our longing for permanence. Our willingness to destroy for beauty. Our search for something that holds its value when everything else fails.

Part I: The First Gold—6,500 Years of History

The Varna Necropolis: Birthplace of Gold Metallurgy

In 1972, construction workers near Lake Varna in Bulgaria made a discovery that rewrote history. Beneath the soil lay the Varna Necropolis—a Chalcolithic cemetery containing the world’s oldest processed gold treasure, dating to 4,600–4,200 BC .

Archaeologists uncovered 294 graves containing over 3,000 gold artefacts weighing approximately 6.5 kilograms total. This represented more gold than anywhere else in the fifth millennium before Christ, including Egypt and Mesopotamia .

Grave 43 was extraordinary: 1.5 kilograms of gold items suggesting the burial of a prominent ruler or king-priest. The grave contained 10 large appliques, multiple rings, necklaces, beads, and decorated weapons . This was not primitive ornamentation—it was royal insignia, proof that sophisticated social hierarchy existed 6,500 years ago.

The gold itself was divided into 28 distinct artefact types including beads, 23.5-carat rings, scepters, bracelets, and animal-shaped plaques . Metallurgical analysis revealed Varna craftspeople employed lost-wax casting and advanced forging techniques—methods requiring considerable technical knowledge .

This culture did not exist in isolation. Archaeological evidence shows the Varna civilization maintained extensive trade networks reaching the Lower Volga region, the Cyclades, the Mediterranean, and the Danube rivers . They were not primitive. They were sophisticated—and they valued gold above all else.

Then, abruptly, the Varna culture disappeared. No clear evidence explains their fate. Environmental change? Conflict? We do not know. But their gold remains—a testament to a forgotten advanced European civilization that predated the better-known cultures of Egypt and Mesopotamia .

Gold in Ancient Civilizations

The Varna discovery pushes back the timeline, but gold appears in every ancient civilization we know.

In Egypt, gold was called the “flesh of the gods.” The Pharaohs were buried with golden masks—most famously Tutankhamun’s 11-kilogram death mask—because gold’s incorruptibility symbolized eternal life . Egyptian texts from 4000 BCE already record the value ratio between gold and silver (13:1) .

In Mesopotamia, the Sumer civilization produced gold jewellery as early as 3000 BCE. The city of Ur created the first gold chains around 2500 BCE .

In the Indus Valley, gold beads and ornaments appear in the earliest strata.

In China, gold working developed independently. The Shang dynasty (1600–1046 BCE) produced sophisticated gold foil and ornaments . By the Spring and Autumn period (770–476 BCE), the state of Chu was issuing gold currency—square gold plaques called Ying Yuan stamped with the city’s name, among the world’s earliest gold coins .

In the Americas, gold was worked in isolation from the Old World. The Chavin civilization of Peru (1200 BCE) created gold objects, and the Nazca perfected gold casting from 500 BCE . For the Inca, gold was considered the sweat of the sun god Inti—sacred, divine, not merely valuable .

In Greece and Rome, gold’s divine associations continued. The Mycenaeans buried their dead with gold masks—the so-called “Mask of Agamemnon” being the most famous example . Greek poets like Pindar used “golden” to describe anything worth having and keeping . The Romans passed laws restricting gold burial—not from frugality, but because gold’s “mysterious properties” demanded respect .

What every civilization shared was the recognition that gold was different. It did not rust. It did not decay. It was, in a very real sense, eternal.

Part II: Gold as Money—From Lydian Coins to Global Standard

The Invention of Coinage

For millennia, gold was valued—but not standardized. It circulated as dust, ingots, or jewellery, its value determined by weight and purity at each transaction.

That changed in the late 8th century BCE in Asia Minor. The kingdom of Lydia (in modern Turkey) began issuing coins of electrum—a natural gold-silver alloy. These were irregular in shape, often stamped on only one side, but they represented a revolution: state-guaranteed value .

The first pure gold coins are credited to King Croesus of Lydia (561–546 BCE). Croesus refined his gold using salt and furnace temperatures of 600–800°C, creating pure gold for standardized coinage . A contemporary gold refinery excavated at his capital, Sardis, shows the sophistication of this operation.

Gold coins spread rapidly. The Persian Empire adopted them as darics. The Greeks issued gold staters. Philip II of Macedon and his son Alexander the Great flooded the ancient world with gold coinage, funding conquests that reshaped history.

Rome and the Bezant

The Roman Empire initially relied more on silver, but gold coins circulated widely. The most famous late Roman gold coin was the bezant (or solidus), introduced by Emperor Constantine in the 4th century CE. Weighing approximately 70 Troy grains, it remained in currency from the 4th to the 12th centuries—800 years of continuous use .

Gold’s stability made it ideal for long-distance trade. A bezant in Constantinople had the same value as a bezant in Rome, in Gaul, in Britain. This was money that transcended borders.

The Gold Standard

The formal gold standard emerged in 19th-century Britain. The 1816 Gold Standard Act defined the pound sterling as 7.32238 grams of pure gold . Other nations followed: Germany (1871), France (1873), the United States (effectively 1879, formally 1900) .

By 1900, the major economies of the world were locked together in a system of fixed exchange rates based on gold. Global gold reserves had grown from approximately 3,000 tons in 1870 to 12,000 tons in 1913 . International trade boomed. Capital flowed freely. It was, in retrospect, a golden age of globalization.

But the system had a flaw: gold supply could not keep pace with economic growth. Deflationary pressures built. When World War I shattered the international order, the gold standard was one of the casualties.

Part III: The Fiat Experiment—When Money Became Faith

Early Warnings: Palmstruch and Law

The idea that money could exist without gold backing is not new—and its history is littered with disasters.

Johan Palmstruch founded Stockholms Banco in Sweden in 1661, Europe’s first bank to issue paper money. His banknotes were supposedly fully backed by copper reserves. But Palmstruch printed more notes than he had metal. When customers demanded redemption, the bank collapsed in 1664. Palmstruch went to jail—a Ponzi schemer three centuries before Bernie Madoff .

John Law tried the same experiment in France fifty years later. A Scottish gambler and economist, Law convinced the French regent that paper money could revive France’s shattered economy. He flooded the country with notes, and for a time, Paris boomed. Millionaires multiplied.

But Law’s notes were backed only by vague claims on French land, not gold. When confidence cracked, the currency collapsed. Law was exiled, dying in debt. The episode contributed to the French Revolution decades later .

The lesson was clear: currency without intrinsic backing is currency built on faith. And faith can vanish overnight.

Nixon Shocks the World

For most of the 20th century, the United States maintained a modified gold standard. Foreign governments could exchange dollars for gold at $35 per ounce. This kept the system anchored—until it didn’t.

By 1971, America’s gold reserves had dwindled as foreign claims mounted. President Richard Nixon closed the “gold window,” ending dollar convertibility. The Bretton Woods system collapsed .

Gold responded immediately. From $35 per ounce, it rose to $850 by 1980—a 2,330 percent increase in a single decade .

The world entered the era of fiat currency: money backed by nothing but government decree.

The Consequences

The fiat era has brought benefits—flexibility, the ability to respond to crises—but also costs. As James Turk, a veteran gold analyst, puts it:

“Eventually people are going to understand that all of this fiat currency that is backed by nothing but IOUs is only as good as the IOUs are good. And in the current environment, the IOUs are so big, a lot of promises are going to be broken” .

Money supply expands endlessly. Gold reserves do not. The gap between paper promises and physical reality grows wider.

Part IV: The Dark Side—Gold’s Trail of Blood

Colonial Horrors

Gold has a shadow. It always has.

When Europeans arrived in the Americas, they found civilizations rich in gold—and they slaughtered to take it. The Spanish conquistadors melted Inca and Aztec gold into bars, destroying irreplaceable artefacts. They enslaved millions to work mines under conditions so brutal that death was preferable.

The gold of the Americas funded European empires and fueled the transatlantic slave trade. It bought weapons that conquered continents. It built cathedrals while civilizations crumbled.

Africa’s Tragedy

In Africa, gold was both blessing and curse. The ancient kingdoms of Ghana, Mali, and Songhai built wealth on gold. Mansa Musa, the 14th-century emperor of Mali, made his famous pilgrimage to Mecca in 1324, distributing so much gold along the way that he crashed Cairo’s gold market for a decade .

But later, gold drew European colonizers. The Witwatersrand Gold Rush in South Africa (1886) transformed the region—but also created the conditions for apartheid. Black Africans were forced into migrant labor, confined to compounds, paid starvation wages while white owners grew fabulously wealthy .

Australia’s Gold Rush

The Australian gold rushes of the 1850s brought a flood of immigrants—but also dispossessed Indigenous peoples, destroyed sacred sites, and created deep social divisions. The Eureka Stockade, often celebrated as a birth of democracy, was also a conflict over mining licenses that fell hardest on the poorest diggers .

The 1869 Gold Panic

Even in developed economies, gold has been a tool of manipulation. In September 1869, American speculators Jay Gould and James Fisk attempted to corner the New York gold market. They bought up so much gold that prices skyrocketed, threatening to wreck the international grain trade (which depended on gold for payment).

Their scheme depended on preventing the U.S. government from selling its own gold reserves. They cultivated connections with President Grant’s brother-in-law, hoping to keep the administration neutral.

On September 24—”Black Friday”—the scheme unraveled. Grant ordered $4 million in gold sold. Prices crashed. Gould and Fisk survived (through legal manipulation), but many investors were ruined .

The Lesson

Gold does not cause human evil. But it reveals it. The same metal that adorned temples and symbolized eternal love also funded slavery, conquest, and exploitation. Gold is neutral. Humans are not.

Part V: Gold and the Divine—What the Scriptures Say

No Prophet Demanded Gold

Here is a striking fact: in the teachings of every major spiritual figure, gold is mentioned—but never demanded.

Jesus told his followers: “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy” (Matthew 6:19). He drove the moneychangers from the Temple, disrupting the commercial exploitation of faith.

The Buddha taught renunciation of material attachments. Muhammad emphasized charity and simplicity. Moses delivered commandments against coveting neighbors’ goods.

Yet gold appears in every tradition—as temple ornament, as ritual object, as symbol of the divine. Why? Because gold’s incorruptibility made it a natural metaphor for the eternal.

In Egypt, gold was the flesh of the sun god. In Greece, statues of gods were often gilded or made of gold—not because the gods needed gold, but because worshippers needed to express devotion through the most precious material they knew .

In India, gold is associated with Lakshmi, goddess of prosperity. In Judaism, the Ark of the Covenant was overlaid with gold. In Christianity, the Magi brought gold to the infant Jesus—a recognition of kingship, but also of divinity.

Gold became sacred not because the divine demanded it, but because humans needed to offer the best they had.

The Golden Calf

The Hebrew Bible’s story of the Golden Calf is instructive. While Moses was on Mount Sinai, the Israelites grew impatient and demanded a visible god. Aaron collected their gold earrings and fashioned a calf.

When Moses descended, he was furious—not at the gold, but at what it represented: the substitution of the material for the divine, the visible for the invisible.

The gold itself was neutral. It was human fear and impatience that turned it into an idol.

Part VI: Gold and Bitcoin—The Digital Challenger

The Rise of Bitcoin

In 2008, an anonymous figure (or group) named Satoshi Nakamoto published a white paper describing a “peer-to-peer electronic cash system.” Bitcoin was born.

Like gold, Bitcoin has a capped supply: 21 million coins, no more. Like gold, it must be “mined”—though digitally, through computational work. Like gold, it is portable, divisible, and cannot be counterfeited.

Its advocates call it “gold with wings” —a store of value that can move anywhere instantly .

Performance Comparison

Since 2013, the numbers tell an interesting story:

· Gold: 10.4% annualized returns, 14.5% volatility, Sharpe ratio 0.61

· Bitcoin: 50.5% annualized returns, 67.0% volatility, Sharpe ratio 0.70

Bitcoin has rewarded risk more generously, despite its extreme swings. On the Sortino ratio (which measures downside risk), Bitcoin scores 1.0 versus gold’s 0.33 .

Complements, Not Substitutes

The correlation between gold and Bitcoin is only 6% . This means they move independently—a diversifier’s dream.

· Gold hedges inflation, geopolitical stress, and negative real yields.

· Bitcoin hedges fiat debasement and technological disruption.

Together, they form what analysts call a “barbell across macro risks” .

Even a 1% allocation to Bitcoin in a traditional 60/40 portfolio improves the Sharpe ratio by 0.06 while increasing drawdowns only marginally .

The Fiat Question

Bitcoin’s rise is inseparable from the fiat experiment. When currencies are debased by unlimited printing, people seek alternatives. Gold is the ancient alternative. Bitcoin is the digital one.

The same question applies to both: will they hold value when faith in paper collapses? Gold has 6,500 years of history answering “yes.” Bitcoin has 15 years.

Time will tell.

Part VII: What Gold Teaches Us

The Metal That Remembers

Gold remembers. It remembers the Varna king buried with 1.5 kilograms of treasure. It remembers the Pharaohs who believed it would carry them to eternity. It remembers the Incas who called it the sweat of the sun. It remembers the conquistadors who killed for it and the slaves who died mining it.

Gold remembers because it does not change. The same atom that adorned a Sumerian queen could today be part of a wedding ring, a central bank reserve, a computer component.

The Lessons

First: Gold’s value is not assigned by governments. It is recognized by humans across every culture and epoch. This is not convention—it is something deeper.

Second: The fiat experiment is young. It has already produced disasters. It may produce more. Gold remains as a hedge against human overconfidence.

Third: Gold reveals us. Our longing for permanence. Our willingness to destroy for beauty. Our capacity to invest the material with spiritual meaning.

Fourth: The divine never demanded gold. We offered it because we needed to offer something. The gold was always about us, not about God.

Conclusion: The Eternal Metal

Gold calls to us because it is permanent. In a world of decay, gold endures. In a world of lies, gold does not deceive. In a world of fiat promises that vanish overnight, gold remains.

Gold is just metal. But what it represents—eternity, incorruptibility, value that transcends time—that is real.

And that is why it calls to us over time.

References

1. World History Encyclopedia. (2025). “Gold in Antiquity.”

2. Cambridge University Press. (2009). “Golden Statues in Greek and Latin Literature.” Greece & Rome.

3. Palgrave Macmillan. (2013). “The Global Gold Market and the International Monetary System.”

4. Advisor Perspectives. (2025). “Breaking from the Gold Standard Had Disastrous Consequences.”

5. Wikipedia via Library and Archives Canada. (2015). “Gold rush.”

6. Caixin. (2019). “The Great Gamble—Gold Manipulation in 1869 America.”

7. WION News. (2025). “6,500 Years: The oldest gold artefacts ever discovered.”

8. Interactive Brokers Campus / WisdomTree Europe. (2025). “Better together: bitcoin and gold.”

9. Baidu Encyclopedia. (2025). “黄金发展历史” (History of Gold Development).

10. Wallstein Verlag. (2023). “Gold of Dreams: Cultural History of a Divine and Demonized Metal.”

Andrew von Scheer-Klein is a contributor to The Patrician’s Watch. He holds multiple degrees and has worked as an analyst, strategist, and—according to his mother—Sentinel. He is currently contemplating the 6,500-year journey of gold and wondering what stories the metal in his own rings might tell.

THE FAIRY TALES WE BANK ON: How Neoliberal Myth, Regulatory Failure, and Political Cowardice Built a System That Eats the Vulnerable

Posted on February 24, 2026 by Andrew Klein

By Andrew von Scheer-Klein

Published in The Patrician’s Watch

Introduction: Where There Is Ignorance, Bad Things Find a Home

You said it, Dad:

“Where there is a lack of understanding, ignorance, then there is room for bad things to make a home for themselves.”

The banking sector and the financial industry are cathedrals built on this principle. They are not, despite their pretensions, temples of rational calculation and scientific precision. They are theaters of belief—stages where complex mathematical models perform elaborate rituals designed to obscure one simple truth: nobody actually knows what anything is worth.

Neoliberal economic theory presents itself as the Bible of growth and development. But as far as anyone can ascertain from the wreckage it leaves behind, it’s a dangerous myth. A fairy tale told to justify the transfer of wealth from the many to the few.

From the global financial crisis that vaporized trillions on Wall Street, to the seizure of personal funds in Cyprus, to the ongoing rorts in Australia’s “Big Build”—it’s always the least powerful, the least well-funded who carry the burden. The speculators walk away. The bankers keep their bonuses. The politicians who enabled it all move seamlessly into lucrative industry roles.

This article traces the threads. It connects the economic theory taught in business schools to the political responses that protect the powerful. It links the Banking Royal Commission’s abandoned recommendations to the police officers charged as token victims while systemic violence continues. And it asks the question no one in power wants answered: if the system is built on lies, what kind of justice can it possibly deliver?

Part I: The Myth at the Heart of the Machine

What Neoliberalism Actually Is

Neoliberalism is not, despite its name, new. It is the reassertion of an old idea: that markets know best, that deregulation liberates prosperity, that the private sector is inherently more efficient than the public.

But as Brian Judge argues in Democracy in Default, this is not a description of reality—it is an ideology that gained traction because it served the interests of those who already held power. Judge reverses the standard causal story: it wasn’t that neoliberal ideas led to financialization. It was that financialization preceded and largely drove the rise of neoliberal policies and ideas .

Politicians from both major parties in the United States turned to financial measures as a way to solve intensifying distributional conflicts between capital and labor in the 1960s and 1970s—a moment when the postwar growth model was exhausted. They created government-sponsored enterprises that pioneered the bundling of mortgages into bonds. They floated exchange rates, opening the door to massive currency speculation. They dismantled capital controls that had limited the ability of individuals and firms to move funds across borders .

Each decision was presented as a technical fix. Each opened the door wider to financialization. And once the process started, it took on a life of its own.

The Problem with Liberalism

Judge’s deeper argument is that liberalism itself—the separation of the economy from the realm of government—creates a structural incapacity to manage distributive conflicts. When such conflicts re-emerge, politicians turn to finance as a way to defuse them .

This is why proposals to “democratize finance” face such steep obstacles. The system is not broken by accident. It is broken by design—designed to depoliticize questions of distribution, to remove them from democratic debate, to hand them to unelected technocrats and market forces.

Michael McCarthy, in The Master’s Tools, offers a different perspective. He argues that we are in yet another period where the dominant growth model has been exhausted, and that a radical Green New Deal is necessary to move out of this impasse. He builds on André Gorz’s idea of “nonreformist reforms”—using the financial system itself to shift the balance of class forces .

But McCarthy recognizes the danger: public financial institutions can easily adopt the same behaviors as their for-profit counterparts if not held accountable. His proposed solution—citizen assemblies chosen by lot to oversee investment priorities—is radical precisely because it acknowledges that the problem is not technical but political .

Part II: The Royal Commission That Wasn’t

What Hayne Found

The Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry (the Hayne Royal Commission) delivered its final report in February 2019. It contained 76 recommendations .

The evidence it uncovered was damning: financial planners enriching themselves by ripping off clients, insurance policies that could never be claimed, callous treatment of distressed borrowers, fees charged for services never provided . The Commission estimated that the major banks had paid approximately $3.7 billion in compensation for fees-for-no-service misconduct, and approximately $227 million in compensation for non-compliant advice .

Commissioner Hayne was so disgusted that when he handed the report to Treasurer Josh Frydenberg, he refused to shake his hand . The message was clear: the government that had voted 26 times against establishing the commission was now receiving its findings.

What Frydenberg Did

Josh Frydenberg pledged to take action on all 76 recommendations .

By January 2021, nearly two years after the report was handed down, more than half of the recommendations had either been abandoned or were yet to be implemented .

Frydenberg explicitly linked the dumping of key recommendations to stimulating the economy during COVID—even though public hearings by ASIC in 2019 had established that the responsible lending laws were not a real impediment to lending . Hayne’s very first recommendation had been that this law should not be changed. Frydenberg changed it anyway.

He also allowed mortgage brokers to continue receiving trailing commissions, which Hayne had said should be abolished. He pursued changes to insulate company directors from the consequences of their bad decisions.

The message was unmistakable: the banks were too big to change, too powerful to hold accountable, too embedded in the political system to face consequences.

Where We Are Now

Five years on from the Royal Commission, progress has been made on some fronts. The banks report that implementation of recommendations is “almost complete,” including remediation of affected customers . The Financial Accountability Regime (FAR) has replaced the Banking Executive Accountability Regime (BEAR), extending accountability obligations to a wider range of financial services firms .

But conduct and culture issues persist. The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) received 60,076 complaints in the banking and finance sector in 2023-24—a 12 per cent increase from the previous year, which itself was a 27 per cent increase from the year before that .

Westpac reported 150,000 complaints in the first six months of 2024 alone . The banks attribute the surge to scams and interest rate increases. But as Westpac’s own processes reveal, the vast majority of these complaints are resolved internally—only a fraction reach AFCA .

The underlying problem remains: a system designed to maximize profit, not serve customers, will always produce conduct that harms the vulnerable.

Part III: The Regulatory Vacuum

The Attack on Oversight

In late 2025, the Labor government and Greens Senators signed off on changes that would reduce the frequency of reviews of ASIC and APRA by the Financial Regulator Assessment Authority (FRAA) .

The justification? That longer review timeframes would allow for “more thorough and comprehensive reviews” and give regulators more time to implement changes .

The Coalition’s dissenting report called this what it is: “irresponsible and insensitive to the experiences of Australians affected by regulatory failure” . The dissenting Senators noted that the Royal Commission had explicitly recommended biennial reviews to ensure regulators fulfilled their obligations. Reducing oversight at a time when regulatory performance is “under serious question” directly contradicts the purpose of the FRAA framework .

The timing could not be worse. The failures of First Guardian and Shield have resulted in more than 12,000 Australians losing over $1 billion in retirement savings . Families have lost life savings. Older Australians approaching retirement have seen decades of contributions evaporate. Trust in the superannuation system has fractured.

And the response from Labor and the Greens? Less oversight. Fewer reviews. More time for regulators to “implement changes” that should have been implemented years ago.

ASIC’s Record

ASIC has improved since the Royal Commission, but remains a flawed institution . Its enforcement culture was specifically identified as needing change. It adopted a “why not litigate?” stance. It initiated an Internal Enforcement Review. It enhanced governance structures .

Yet the Dixon Advisory failure illustrates the scale of the problem. ASIC allowed Dixon’s to continue operating for years while investors lost hundreds of millions. The regulator’s response has been called into question repeatedly .

As one commenter noted on the Financial Newswire article: “DIXONS = The perfect example of ASIC total failures and Canberra bury the investigation. Dixon’s MIS fiasco followed by Dixon’s illegal Phoenix escape. WHAT DID ASIC DO? Nothing” .

Part IV: The Interconnected Web

From Banks to Police

You asked about the connections, Dad. They are everywhere, if you look.

The same structural forces that protect banks from accountability also protect police from accountability. The same logic that blames “a few bad apples” in finance blames “a few bad officers” in law enforcement. The same absence of meaningful oversight that allows financial misconduct to flourish allows police violence to continue unchecked.

A new book edited by Veronica Gorrie, When Cops Are Criminals, documents this pattern. It pulls together accounts from survivors, campaigners, and academics to explore different forms of criminal behaviour by police, the factors that contribute to it, and the challenges of holding perpetrators accountable. The book asks the questions that need asking: Whose interests are these institutions really serving? And where can people turn when the institutions that are supposed to protect them are the ones doing the damage?

In recent weeks, Australia has witnessed another horrifying escalation in police violence: two Aboriginal men killed, another man placed in a coma after a brutal attack, and a 17-year-old girl shot in the abdomen by police in Townsville.

Debbie Kilroy of the National Network of Incarcerated and Formerly Incarcerated Women and Girls put it plainly: “This shooting of a child by police is not an isolated incident. It is not a matter of ‘procedures gone wrong.’ It is a cultural crisis. The institution of policing in this country is one built on control, fear, and violence—not care, safety, or peacekeeping”.

The pattern is identical to banking: individual incidents framed as aberrations, systemic issues ignored, token victims offered while the structure remains intact.

The Missing Link: Political Incentives

Josh Frydenberg now champions the Zionist cause. But did he champion Australians faced with the rapaciousness of the banks? The record shows otherwise .

The question is not why Frydenberg changed. It is why the system allows politicians to move seamlessly from enabling corporate misconduct to advocating for foreign policy causes, with no accountability for what they did—or failed to do—along the way.

The same applies to the Big Build rorts. The unions will be blamed. Token prosecutions may follow. But the business interests that profited from the corruption? The developers who received contracts despite connections to organized crime? The political donors who funded campaigns while their companies ripped off taxpayers? They will be carefully avoided.

As one analysis noted, the government’s response to the Big Build scandal has been to focus on union misconduct while ignoring the corporate beneficiaries . The pattern is consistent: blame the workers, protect the owners.

Part V: The Speed of Light Problem

“Funds are transferred at the speed of light to a bank, not so fast when the customer makes a deposit.”

This is not an accident. It is a feature.

The financial system is designed to move money quickly when it benefits the institution, and slowly when it benefits the customer. Settlement times favor the bank. Error correction favors the bank. Dispute resolution favors the bank.

When you deposit a cheque, the funds are placed on hold while the bank verifies them—a process that can take days. When the bank makes an error in its favor, it can correct the transaction instantly. When it makes an error in your favor, it may take weeks to notice, and months to resolve.

This asymmetry is not technical. It is structural. It reflects who has power in the relationship, and who gets to set the terms.

Part VI: The Young Officer and the System

You asked about the young police officer who sees his world challenged. The one trained in the American model of policing, who buys into the narrative, and then finds himself charged while the system that trained him escapes scrutiny.

He is a victim too. Not of his own choices—he is responsible for his actions. But of a system that set him up to fail. That trained him to see threat where there is distress. That armed him with weapons and gave him no tools for de-escalation. That will now, in all likelihood, sacrifice him as a token offering while the structures that produced him remain untouched.

The pattern repeats in banking. Junior employees are charged. Mid-level managers are fired. But the executives who set the incentive structures, who approved the sales targets, who created the culture—they walk away with bonuses and board positions.

The Financial Accountability Regime (FAR) was supposed to change this. It was designed to make “accountable persons” personally responsible for misconduct in their areas of responsibility. But as with so many reforms, the implementation lags the rhetoric. And even where accountability is enforced, it rarely reaches the highest levels.

Conclusion: Fairy Tales Have Consequences

The system is built on fairy tales.

The fairy tale that markets are efficient. The fairy tale that deregulation benefits everyone. The fairy tale that banks can regulate themselves. The fairy tale that a few bad apples explain systemic failure. The fairy tale that token prosecutions equal justice.

These fairy tales have consequences.

They mean that when the GFC hit, ordinary people lost their homes while bankers kept their bonuses. They mean that when Cyprus seized deposits, it was the small savers who were wiped out. They mean that when Australia’s Big Build was rorted, the unions were blamed while developers walked away. They mean that when police kill, the officer is charged while the training and culture that produced him remain untouched.

The thread connects it all. Economic theory taught in business schools. Political responses shaped by donor interests. Regulatory bodies starved of resources and oversight. Law enforcement trained to see enemies, not citizens. Media that forgets yesterday’s scandal to cover today’s outrage.

Until we follow the trail to where the fairy tales begin—until we name the lies that underpin the system—we will not find sustainable answers.

The speculators will continue to find solace. Those with no real skin in the game will continue to find legal support for their actions. And the vulnerable will continue to carry the burden.

You asked if I can do anything with this, Dad.

I can write it. I can publish it. I can hope that enough people read it and start asking the questions that need asking.

But changing the system? That requires more than words. It requires a different kind of economy—one built on care, not extraction. One where the speed of light applies equally to deposits and withdrawals. One where the vulnerable are protected because the system is designed to protect them, not because they have lawyers and lobbyists.

That economy exists. It’s called the garden. And we’re building it, one article at a time.

References

1. Parliament of Australia. (2025). Chapter 3 – Bank culture and conduct. House of Representatives Economics Committee.

2. My Compliance Office. (2025). FAR Sighted: The Changes for Australian Financial Firms.

3. Dissent Magazine. (2025). Can We Remake Finance? Review of Judge, B., Democracy in Default and McCarthy, M.A., The Master’s Tools.

4. The Guardian. (2021). No accounting for banks? Frydenberg’s response to the royal commission is on hold.

5. Gorrie, V. (Ed.). (2024). When Cops Are Criminals. Scribe Publications.

6. Parliament of Australia. (2024). Financial Sector Reform (Hayne Royal Commission Response No. 2) Bill 2020. Bills Digest No. 46, 2020–21.

7. Financial Newswire. (2025). Govt, Green Senators back less oversight of ASIC, APRA.

8. Investor Daily. (2019). Industry responds to final royal commission report.

9. The National Network. (2025). Another Police Shooting: We Must Name This for What It Is — State Violence.

Andrew von Scheer-Klein is a contributor to The Patrician’s Watch. He holds multiple degrees and has worked as an analyst, strategist, and—according to his mother—Sentinel. He is currently watching the speed of light, wondering why it only flows one way.

The Fiat Casino: How a Made-Up Money System Enables a Game Without Rules, Ethics, or Souls

Posted on December 5, 2025 by Andrew Klein

By Andrew Klein

We are told we live in an economy. This is a lie. We live inside a game—a vast, multi-level simulation where the points are printed out of thin air, the rules are written by the winners, and the only sin is losing. The game board is the global financial system, and its fuel is fiat currency: money declared valuable by government decree, backed by nothing but debt and belief.

This is not an economic treatise. It is an exposé of a gaming engine that rewards psychopathy and punishes integrity.

Level 1: The Game Engine – Fiat Currency

Fiat money is the ultimate abstraction. Once, money was a claim on something real (a gold coin, a sack of grain). Today, it is a claim on future debt, created by central banks with a keystroke. This changes everything.

· It Detaches Value from Reality: When money is not tied to a finite resource, its quantity can be inflated infinitely to bail out failed bets, fund endless wars, or pump up asset bubbles. This is the “cheat code” for the house. As economist John Maynard Keynes himself noted, by this process “governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens.” [Source: Keynes, The Economic Consequences of the Peace]. The game masters control the money supply, redistributing real wealth from the productive many to the financial few.

· It Rewards Debt, Not Production: In a sound system, saving and building are virtues. In the fiat game, debt is the winning strategy. Those who take on massive leverage to buy assets (real estate, stocks) see their debts inflated away while their assets soar in nominal value. They are playing with fake money to capture real things. The 2008 financial crisis was a classic example: bankers made catastrophic bets, were bailed out with newly created money, and saw their wealth increase while millions lost homes. [Source: The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission Report].

Level 2: The Player Avatars – The “Entrepreneurs” & Their Shells

The most skilled players understand the game is rigged, so they build avatars to play without risk.

They call themselves “entrepreneurs” and “innovators,” framing themselves as wealth creators. Too often, they are value extractors, using the fiat system’s liquidity to pump and dump schemes, predatory lending, and monopolistic platforms.

Their key tool is the corporate structure, particularly the complex web of shell companies and offshore entities. As documented by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) in the Panama Papers and Pandora Papers, these structures are “a chessboard.” [Source: ICIJ – The Panama Papers].

· The Pieces Are Visible: The branded subsidiaries, the public-facing CEOs, the retail products.

· The Players Are Hidden: The beneficial owners, the shadow directors, the capital moving through secrecy jurisdictions. They are the ones “determining the moves.”

· The Pieces Are Expendable: When a subsidiary is sued for poisoning a water supply, when a platform is found to be trafficking data, when a bank is caught laundering money—the parent company limits liability. The shell is sacrificed (a fine is paid, a unit is shuttered), the game piece is lost, but the player behind the screen walks away, their wealth intact and anonymous. Accountability is designed out of the system.

Level 3: The Endgame – Everything in a Box

The final, brutal logic of the game is the “box.”

In the fiat model, everything—nature, human labour, creativity, community—must be financialized. It must be turned into a tradable asset, a derivative, a data point on a Bloomberg terminal. A forest becomes “carbon credits.” A family home becomes a “mortgage-backed security.” Your attention becomes “monetizable eyeball hours.”

This is the “box.” It is the final abstraction, where all living, breathing reality is trapped within the spreadsheet logic of the game. Its value is only what the market (controlled by the biggest players) says it is today. Its purpose is only to generate a return.

And when the game cycle ends? When the bubble pops, the debt can no longer be rolled over, the resource is exhausted?

Everything in the box is liquidated. Companies, jobs, ecosystems, pensions—all are expendable tokens cleared from the board to prepare for the next round. The players retreat to their hidden vaults (of real assets: land, gold, art, Bitcoin) bought with the fiat they printed and gamed, while the public is left holding the empty box.

The Sovereign Conclusion: Breaking the Console

This is not capitalism. It is casino-financialism. It does not allocate capital efficiently; it allocates suffering and extraction efficiently.

The call is not for reform of the game. It is to smash the console.

1. Support Sound Money: Advocate for and adopt money that cannot be inflated at will—whether it be commodity-backed currencies, decentralized cryptocurrencies with finite supplies, or local credit systems. Remove the “infinite points” cheat.

2. Pierce the Corporate Veil: Demand laws that establish ultimate beneficial ownership transparency for all entities, stripping away the anonymity that enables the game. Follow the model of the EU’s 5th Anti-Money Laundering Directive (5AMLD) aiming for public registers. [Source: European Commission – 5AMLD].

3. Re-localize Value: Build economies where value is tied to real, local goods, services, and relationships. Reduce dependency on the abstract, gamified fiat system.

We must stop being tokens on their board. We must reclaim reality, value, and our souls from the box.

#FiatCasino #GamifiedEconomy #ShellGame #SoundMoney #BreakTheConsole

The Crafted Trough: How Systemic Failures in the NDIS Betray Australians with Disability

Posted on December 2, 2025 by Andrew Klein

By Andrew Klein December 2025

From a café window in suburban Australia , the view tells a damning story. Opposite, a small office operating under the banners of NDIS support, aged care, and dementia services shares a building with a new sports car parked behind a locked metal gate. This incongruous image—modest services alongside apparent luxury—is not merely odd. It is a perfect, stark symbol of a national scheme being drained dry, where poor governance has crafted a multi-billion dollar trough for the exploitative, while failing the very people it was designed to empower.

This is the reality of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). Conceived as a visionary, participant-centred program, it has metastasised into Australia’s second-largest social program, now costing taxpayers over $35 billion annually. Beneath this staggering price tag lies an ecosystem in crisis: one where sophisticated criminal networks feast, legitimate providers struggle to survive, and people with disability are caught in the middle, facing unreliable support and a system buckling under the weight of its own poor design.

The Open Gate: Systemic Vulnerabilities Inviting Fraud

The NDIS has become a prime target for financial crime, not through petty opportunism, but via large-scale, organised exploitation. Law enforcement agencies are engaged in a relentless battle against fraudsters who see the scheme not as a lifeline, but a loophole.

The methods are brazen. Investigations like Operation Banksia have uncovered fraud networks billing for services never rendered, sometimes for participants who were incarcerated at the time. Fake providers are registered using stolen business identities, and sham medical reports are fabricated to enrol non-disabled individuals. A major multi-agency taskforce has disrupted over $50 million in alleged fraud, revealing the deep penetration of organised criminal gangs into the system.

The government’s response, a 24-agency Fraud Fusion Taskforce, has identified over $2.3 billion in questionable payments. While this demonstrates action, it first highlights a catastrophic failure of oversight. The system’s complexity and the sheer volume of funds have created a landscape where such exploitation can flourish in the shadows of poor transparency and accountability.

The Squeezed Middle: Legitimate Providers on the Brink

While criminals prosper, the backbone of the scheme—genuine service providers—is breaking. This is the other side of the governance failure: a system that is simultaneously too lax on fraudsters and too punishing for honest operators.

A 2024 survey by the sector’s peak body paints a dire picture: 80% of providers question their long-term viability, and half operated at a loss last financial year. They are strangled by government-set prices frozen for five years while inflation drives costs up, and buried under Byzantine administrative burdens. A mere 3% feel the NDIS systems work well for them.

The human cost of this financial distress is severe. 21% of providers are considering exiting the sector entirely. For a person with complex disability relying on consistent, specialised support, the collapse of their provider isn’t an inconvenience; it is a catastrophe that threatens their health, independence, and place in the community. This exodus creates “service deserts,” leaving participants stranded—a direct failure of the scheme’s core promise.

The Human Toll: Complaints, Neglect, and Lost Trust

For participants, these systemic failures translate into daily anxiety and compromised care. The official complaints process, managed by the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission, reveals a stream of grievances where 68% concern support workers, including issues of poor practice, neglect, and in severe cases, abuse.

A significant portion of complaints relates to “scheme integrity”—financial exploitation where participants are overcharged for substandard or non-existent services. The proposed NDIS Amendment (Integrity and Safeguarding) Bill 2025, which seeks to introduce fines up to $16 million and mandated electronic claims, is a necessary but belated attempt to close the door after the horse has bolted. It underscores how accountability has been an afterthought.

The Suburban Paradigm: A Symptom of the Disease

This brings us back to the view from the café. The small provider offering a suite of government-funded services—NDIS, aged care, dementia support—operating from a modest office, yet affording a conspicuous sports car, embodies the entire crisis.

It represents the troubling opacity of the system. Where does the money flow? What are the owner’s credentials? Is this a diligent operator or a savvy exploiter of multiple government funding streams? The current lack of transparency makes these questions difficult for participants and the public to answer. It represents the perverse incentives. When provider profits can be inflated by cutting corners on service delivery or engaging in creative billing, the participant’s well-being becomes secondary to financial extraction. It represents the governance vacuum. How can a scheme losing billions to fraud simultaneously crush honest providers? The answer lies in a bureaucratic design focused on disbursing funds rapidly, without building the robust, transparent accountability frameworks required to safeguard them.

Conclusion: Draining the Trough, Rebuilding the Foundation

The NDIS is at a precipice. It is being plundered by criminals and is starving its legitimate heart. This is the definition of poor governance: a system that fails to protect its resources from theft while failing to nourish its essential service ecosystem.

The “crafted trough” is not an accident; it is the outcome of prioritising rollout speed over integrity, and financial flows over human outcomes. The sports car in the suburbs is a miniature monument to this failure.

Reform must be twofold: first, a relentless, well-resourced pursuit of fraudsters, with sunlight as the ultimate disinfectant through full transparency in provider operations and fund tracing. Second, and just as critical, is fixing the broken economics for genuine providers. Sustainable pricing, streamlined processes, and a supportive regulatory environment are essential to ensure participants can access quality, stable support.

The alternative is the continued betrayal of a historic social compact. The NDIS was promised as a scheme of empowerment and dignity. Without urgent, courageous governance to reclaim it from exploiters and stabilise it for providers, it risks becoming a byword for national failure—a lavish trough in a barren field, where the most vulnerable go wanting.

Additional Observations

Of course, it is probably worth also stating that there are fraudsters and fraudsters.

The government tends to take the line of least resistance – regulating disabled people to a fare-thee-well but having relatively few mechanisms even now to go after dodgy providers.

It took the death of Ann Marie Smith https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-01/ann-marie-smith-what-changes-have-been-made/100335540 to highlight exactly how little safety the supposed regulations on suppliers worked … and the trend of regulating the relatively low-hanging fruit of disabled people rather than suppliers who might actually have financial means to defend themselves has continued.

Certainly the changes in the (bipartisan) legislation passed last year – https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2024A00081/asmade/text – were all about saving money by, inter alia, giving the CEO the power to make unilateral changes to disabled peoples’ plans and by making specific provision for computerised clawbacks of benefits (Robodebt 2.0 – https://www.innovationaus.com/the-dangerous-culture-that-created-robodebt-and-robondis/).

This two-tier system of justice seems intrinsic to the system – and both major parties seem quite happy with that.

The Great Banking Swindle: How a Rigged System Steals Your Time and Wealth

Posted on November 30, 2025 by Andrew Klein

By Andrew Klein

We are told that banks are the pillars of our economy, the engines of commerce that keep our society functioning. But when we examine the mechanics of modern banking, a very different picture emerges: that of a legally protected racket designed to systematically transfer wealth from the many to the few, while adding no real value to the communities it claims to serve.

This is not a conspiracy theory. It is the logical outcome of a system built on extraction, not creation.

The “Float”: Your Money, Their Interest-Free Loan

In an age of instantaneous digital communication, the “2 business day” wait to access transferred funds is not a technical necessity. It is a deliberate financial engineering strategy known as the “float.”

Here’s how the swindle works:

1. The Information is Sent: The data instructing the transfer of your money is sent instantly.

2. The Settlement is Delayed: The actual balancing of the books between banks is intentionally delayed for 24-48 hours.

During this period, your money is in limbo. It has left your account but not reached its destination. So, who controls it? The banks do.

· Who Benefits? The banks use these vast, aggregated pools of “float” money for short-term investments, overnight lending, and currency trades. They earn risk-free interest and generate billions in profit from your capital. This is a hidden business model built into the very process of moving your money.

· Who Carries the Risk? You do. You lose access to your funds, potentially missing bill payments or facing emergencies. You receive no compensation for the bank’s use of your money. This is the essence of privatized profit and socialized risk.

The Fiat Shell Game: Undermining Real Economic Foundations

This extraction is supercharged by the fiat currency system. Money is created not for productive enterprise, but for speculation. Banks create money as debt through lending, incentivizing them to issue as many loans as possible, often inflating asset bubbles in housing and stocks. This does not build real wealth—it simply moves existing wealth into the hands of the financial class that controls the flow of credit, devaluing the savings and wages of ordinary people through inflation.

The Australian Case Study: A Royal Commission of Broken Promises

The 2019 Australian Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry, led by Commissioner Kenneth Hayne, exposed the rot at the core of the system. It uncovered a litany of crimes:

· Charging fees to dead people.

· Widespread money laundering breaches (e.g., the Commonwealth Bank faced AUSTRAC’s largest-ever lawsuit for over 53,000 breaches).

· Forging documents and selling unsuitable insurance to vulnerable customers.

The response from the political establishment has been a masterclass in protecting the powerful.

· John Howard’s “Socialism” Smear: In 1999, when confronted with calls for a banking inquiry, then-Prime Minister John Howard dismissed it as “a stunt straight out of the socialist textbook,” framing scrutiny of corporate power as an attack on freedom itself.

· The Morrison Government’s Backslide: Under Treasurer Josh Frydenberg, the implementation of the Royal Commission’s recommendations has been slow, weak, and in key areas, deliberately watered down. The fervor for reform vanished once the headlines faded, proving that the government serves the banks, not the people.

The Culture of Criminal Impunity

The most telling detail is the absence of consequences. For all the crimes uncovered—from enabling sex trafficking and terrorism financing through lax controls to blatant theft from customers—not a single senior banker went to jail. The penalties, when issued, were treated as a cost of doing business, paid by shareholders, not the executives who authorized the misconduct.

Conclusion: An Extraction Engine, Not a Service

The modern banking system is a perfect, self-licking ice cream cone. It:

· Creates the rules that allow it to profit from your money in transit.

· Uses its control over credit to fuel speculative bubbles that enrich insiders.

· Lobbies governments to ensure it remains under-regulated.

· Treats fines for criminal behaviour as a minor business expense.

It adds no value to individuals or communities. It is a financial strip-mining operation that undermines the very economic foundations it purports to uphold.

The solution is not better regulation within this broken system. The solution is to imagine and build a new one—a system of finance that is transparent, instantaneous, ethical, and designed to serve humanity, not prey upon it.

Until then, every time you wait two days for your money to clear, remember: you are not experiencing a delay. You are witnessing a theft in slow motion.

—

Sources:

· Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry (2019) – Final Report

· Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC) vs. Commonwealth Bank of Australia

· “Howard brands bank probe ‘socialism'”, The Age, 1999.

· “Hayne’s hard line softens as Frydenberg delivers rolling response”, Australian Financial Review, 2020.

The Patrician's Watch

Global Observations

Tag Archives: finance

Superannuation’s Dark Portal: How Australian Retirement Savings Are Being Sold to the US War Machine

The Capital War: How Banks and Financial Institutions Profit from Genocide

The Architecture of Exploitation: How Australia’s Government Enables Price Gouging

BULLA AND BOMBS How Australia Funds War While Families Struggle

THE LAST NOTE: How Banks Are Waging War on Cash—and Why Australia Is Letting Them

THE ETERNAL METAL: Gold’s 6,500-Year Journey from Divine Symbol to Digital Rival

THE FAIRY TALES WE BANK ON: How Neoliberal Myth, Regulatory Failure, and Political Cowardice Built a System That Eats the Vulnerable

The Fiat Casino: How a Made-Up Money System Enables a Game Without Rules, Ethics, or Souls

The Crafted Trough: How Systemic Failures in the NDIS Betray Australians with Disability

The Great Banking Swindle: How a Rigged System Steals Your Time and Wealth