Rob Peffer

🚨Brilliant interview! 💸💰💸💰💸💰💸 🚨How do banks create money ? 💸💰💸💰💸💰💸 🚨Prof Werner is incomparable. In the 5000 yr history of banking no-one has ever done an imperical study of banking to show where the money comes from- until now. Step up the rock star economist Professor Richard Werner. His amazing qualifications and held positions makes the eye water. He is truly the authority on this subject. Banks are thought of as deposit taking entities who lend money - but that is just wrong. His assessment - Banks dont lend money but they misrepresent (lie) to their customers and say that they do.

Left wing mindset you say. My ally? I condemn the low life who did this. I lean left but less these days. I don’t know any person that would do something like this to anybody, left or right. If you think any blame for this should fall on Albanese you are one very strange human.

It was NOT a throw away comment. It shows how close One Nation embraces fascism. Locking up people you politically disagree with - IS fascism. Spare me your attempt to normalise this outrageous, inflammatory, divisive rhetoric. heraldsun.com.au/news/opinio…

3/6 — THERE IS NO CORRUPTION IN GOVERNMENT. IT'S ALL LEGAL. PART THREE: $27 BILLION OUT AND NOT ONE DOLLAR ITEMISED. The political disclosure register records every dollar received over the threshold, by name. Across its history, $26,985,852,056 of declared payments went the other way. Not one of them is itemised to anybody. No section of the Act requires it. So when a union branch moved $3.15 million into a lawyer's trust account two days after the regulator announced it was coming, the register showed nothing. When $195,000 of members' money went to a council campaign for an official's partner, nothing. Both were found by an investigator walking in. The register is built to look one way. Now government money going out. The Major and Local Community Infrastructure Program: $560.9 million. The department's page says only organisations identified by the Australian Government will be invited to apply. Asked in Parliament who did the identifying, the government said they had been identified by government. 73.2 per cent went to divisions notionally held by Labor. Forty-five electorates got nothing. Supporting Multicultural Communities, $171.3 million, closed non-competitive rounds, invitation method unpublished. The Auditor-General's strongest test for favouritism compares grants against the department's own merit rankings. On one regional program it found $104 million of divergence. It cannot be run here. A closed program produces no rankings. The design makes the question unanswerable. Past the first contractor, nobody can follow the money at all. Victoria's anti-corruption commission, in its own words: once a public body pays a contractor who hires subcontractors, the funds move into a gap. It asked for follow-the-money powers in 2017. In 2024 the Premier referred a $109 billion program to it anyway. Geoffrey Watson SC investigated that program. He told a public inquiry under oath that a senior bureaucrat chose a contract $70 million higher because it had union endorsement. His estimate of what the whole thing cost taxpayers, $15 billion on the lowest figures, was cut from his published report. So was his chapter on governmental inaction. He was asked whether he found the political corruption everyone assumes. His answer: I didn't find any of that, but I wasn't looking for that. His explanation was fear. The union could stop the build, and politicians love cutting a ribbon. Nobody had to be bought. The register looks one way. The grants are chosen behind a door. The watchdog stops at the gate. And every piece of that was legislated by the people it protects. There is a word for a system where the incumbents write the rules of entry. It is not corruption. It is a cartel. And a cartel does not need a single dishonest member to work. Cold Hard Facts. Corrected when wrong. No misinformation. What's your thoughts…? Peter Lyndon-James 🇦🇺 Sources: AEC Transparency Register, all return types 1998-99 to 2024-25, author's analysis. Watson SC, exhibits GW-12 and GW-13. Centre for Public Integrity, Public money, political advantage?, September 2026. Department of Home Affairs, SMC Program page. ANAO Report No. 1 2022-23. IBAC Insights 47, April 2026. Commission of Inquiry into the CFMEU, Day 8 transcript, 11 February 2026.

Voss has three. Four minutes on the clock. IT’S WHARFIE TIME. ⚓️ 89  🦁 72   #AFLGF #foreverfreo

Every politician got a payrise. It is set independently of parliament. Your mate Hanson got a bigger one. $130000 rise this year.

DON'T BE HASTIE Albo convinces Andrew Hastie that One Nation is behind the abuse in his comments section. Hastie declares war, takes the Liberal leadership, and puts Angus Taylor in a coma — where Robert Menzies is waiting with a few words about the Forgotten People. #AndrewHastie #OneNation #PaulineHanson #DontBeHastie #War #Canberra #SocialMedia #Stepmates #PleaseExplain

All voters who raid their super under Poorleen’s “policy” should be denied an equivalent amount in aged pension if/when they need it in retirement. Stupid, destructive idea which takes no responsibility for the future. “It’s your money!” Yes & your compound interest lost!

No woman is as deficient in intellect as a misogynistic man. All prejudice is fundamentally stupid and prima facie evidence of lack of intellect.

Everyone is asking whether AI is safe. Almost no one is asking the question that actually determines the answer: when an AI system exercises power over you, who owes you a duty — and what is that duty? Right now the answer is nobody, and nothing. That is the real crisis, and it is a legal one. We have built our entire AI accountability conversation on the wrong word. We say "responsible AI," "trustworthy AI," "aligned AI" — adjectives describing the system. But responsibility, trust and duty are not properties of software. They are relationships between people. A system cannot owe you anything. The people who exercise control through it can. The whole game is locating them. That location is exactly what modern governance is engineered to prevent. "The model decided." "The algorithm flagged you." "The system recommended it." This grammar is not innocent. It is a machine for dissolving authorship — for making sure that when power lands on a person, no human hand can be found on it. A denied loan, a rejected claim, a flagged account, a sentencing score: power was exercised, an interest was harmed, and the org's first move is to point at the model as if the model were the author. The law has a name for what should happen when someone exercises discretionary power over another's interests while that person is vulnerable to the exercise of it. It is called a fiduciary duty. Loyalty. Good faith. No self-dealing. It does not require a contract. It does not require a corporate form. It attaches to the exercise of power itself. And it is precisely the concept missing from AI governance. In my work I develop a framework I call the Attribution Stack — four layers of control for finding responsibility in systems designed to diffuse it: formal command, structural inducement, default power, and veto authority. I built it to answer a blockchain question — who actually governs a network that claims to be governed by no one — but the structure is general, and AI is where it bites hardest. Run any AI deployment through the stack and the diffusion collapses. Formal command: who set the objective the system optimises? Someone chose the target. A model does not choose what counts as success; a person does, and that choice is an act of authorship. Structural inducement: who shaped the incentives — the engagement metric, the cost function, the deployment pressure — that made the harmful behaviour the rational output rather than an accident? Default power: who controls what happens when no one intervenes? The default is a decision. A system that denies by default and requires the vulnerable party to appeal has been designed by someone, and that someone is answerable for the design. Veto authority: who could have stopped it and did not? The power to halt a deployment, override an output, or pull a model is control, whether or not it is exercised. At every layer there is a human with a name. The diffusion is a story, not a fact. And once you can attribute the control, you can attach the duty — because the duty follows the power, not the org chart. This is why "human in the loop" is not the answer people think it is. A person clicking approve on outputs they cannot inspect, under time pressure, with no authority to refuse, is not a decision-maker. They are a liability sponge — placed there so the institution can say a human decided, while the human absorbs the blame for a system whose objective, incentives, defaults and off-switch were all controlled by someone else. A signature is not answerability. It is often the opposite: answerability's disguise. So here is the claim, stated plainly. The entities that exercise discretionary control over consequential AI systems — that set the objectives, shape the incentives, own the defaults and hold the veto — should be treated as fiduciaries to the people those systems act upon. Not metaphorically. Doctrinally. With duties of loyalty and care, a prohibition on self-dealing against the interests of those they govern, and remedies that survive the sentence "the model did it." We do not need to invent this from nothing. Partnership law, fiduciary doctrine and property law already know how to find authorship behind a facade and attach obligation to power. What they have lacked is the willingness to look past the story a system tells about itself — the story that it is autonomous, decentralised, leaderless, just math. It is never just math. Someone chose the objective. Someone owns the default. Someone holds the veto. The defining legal challenge of this era is not regulating AI as if it were a force of nature. It is refusing the disappearance of the people who govern it — and imposing the duties that power has always attracted, on the humans who have simply learned to exercise it through systems that make them hard to see. Attribute the control. Attach the duty.