Banks the Road to Ruin

[notting]

Back on point

CBA $35.96
ANZ $12.40
NAB $14.32
WPC $09.01

If these prices are achieved it won't be due to a Royal Commission, it will be something else.
Highly unlikely at this point, but if the US takes the bait on North Korea anything could happen.

 

[luutzu]

That's just kind of sad.
I hope this will be the beginning of the pop of that bubble.
Read this carefully -
https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-limits-of-discourse

What you should look for at the beginning is how Chomsky is far more focused on avoiding public discourse than on an open, honest analyses. Chomsky thus obviously knows and is afraid of something untenable in his own position. Otherwise why try to bamboozle Harris with the crap he sends him to try to fudge the debate. Before it even starts and most tellingly maintain a position of not wanting it to be public!!!!'
Bamboozling is how Chomsky gets around most people that do try confront him. He hurls oceans and oceans of red hearings at them to try to lose them in intellectual muck mixed in with loosely related historical mutations of intent.
Again why is he so afraid of Harris taking him on publicly if he is such an upright rationalist genuinely reflecting truth and interested in honest discourse.

Chomsky did gave him permission to publish that "debate". So can't blame the man for hiding.

Sam Harris, like Bill Maher, are your typical brown-nosing, social climbing a**holes who will sell their own mother if it get them a higher rating and an extra few bucks.

That and they hate religion. So I guess that make them a "liberal" and an "intellectual".

You find these snakeoil salesman everywhere.

If they're living and earning money from Russia, they'll defend whatever it is the Russian state does. If in China, same bs intellectualising and excusing of murder and torture. Same if ISIS pay them.

Who in their right mind could defend the destruction of half a country's medical manufacturing capability. Harris did.

What "liberal" could defend torture and drone strikes. Harris did. But only if those were done by "us", because we're obviously the good guy. Now put "us" as China or Russia or the Khmer Rouge or ISIS.


Can't take people like that seriously. Not from an academic or real history perspective anyway.

It's understandable though... The State doesn't need a smart-mouth to tell them what they're doing is wrong. The public rarely want to see their long-held beliefs and "civilisation" insulted. So you get smooth-talking pricks telling people what they want to hear, or at least tell what their paymaster want them to tell.

---------
If Harris is so smart, he'd be working at some Think Tank advising them on world affair and geopolitics and such. Instead he's being send out to beat up on Muslim and Islam, excuse American Imperialism because apparently, one side doing the killing is good and acceptable; the other side doing the same is bad and evil and all their religion's fault.

I did follow the Harris/Chomsky exchanges when it was made public some 3 years ago.
Harris made a bigger idiot out of himself. No sense of what's facts and fiction; and obviously no conscience or moral principles. Basically a perfect Useful Idiot.

I think the reason Chomsky's work ever got published is because serious people actually want to know what's going on. And I don't mean the "lefty" hippy idiots... serious people holding high position of power.

I mean, you don't learn Real Politik, or much of anything useful, from sycophantic Commissars like Harris.

------

As to Chomsky spilling on about doom and gloom for America.

One, he actually admire the rights and freedom of speech the US Constitution permit. Though that's since been somewhat muted and Activist and Whistlebowers better beware.

But basically everything he said about the crisis for the working class over the past 30 years has come true. They're living it.

Some half of the population cannot afford a $1,000 emergency. Working multiple jobs just to make ends meet; Over 3,000 American cities have lead level in their drinking water higher than Flint, Michigan at its worst... and nothing's being done to fix it.

Endless wars, tax cuts to the rich and corporations... taking from the poor, give to the rich, then blame the illegals and migrants and refugees.

Anyway, fark Harris and his bs.

 

[notting]

Chomsky did gave him permission to publish that "debate". So can't blame the man for hiding.

Mate Chomsky ran from the debate because he new it would be public. He did not engage!! Chomsky was reticent from the start because he was wary of Harris who is not easily overcome with irrelevant garbage that sounds plausible to the most people who do not understand the subtleties of the content. Chomsky tried his normal tack of bamboozlement with a waterfall of red herrings that sound plausible to the disenfranchised internet youth who feel validated by him.
Chomsky quickly ran away as soon as he saw it was not going to work and Harris was about to expose him!! It's obvious and simple.

Sam Harris, like Bill Maher, are your typical brown-nosing, social climbing a**holes who will sell their own mother if it get them a higher rating and an extra few bucks.
That and they hate religion. So I guess that make them a "liberal" and an "intellectual".
You find these snake oil salesman everywhere.

That is just childish and desperate. Maher is certainly more crass than Harris. Harris is very balanced, polite and never stoops into name calling and so on if found wanting in his arguments. Harris sticks with the arguments and facts he doesn't rant and rave. Harris is really quite soft spoken not the entertainer like Maher who is primarily a comedian and admits it!!

Your reasons for sloganeering of Harris and Maher are equally leveled at Chomsky who is an intellectual whoring shill! A self styled " ranting intellectual, liberal, selling snake oil books, lectures and interviews" (things you seem to have a problem with) to naive audiences lacking the mental scope to see through him. Chomsky is a media coward who runs from the real debates in order to maintain his brainwashed cult like followers, who have offered him their souls amidst the fog of disenfranchised youthful naivety. Who tend to become too committed and embarrassed by their investment in Chomsky's spell to step back and take a second and broader look.

If you want to see how accommodating Harris is regarding religion and other intellectuals take a look at These discourses with Jordan Peterson.

Peterson is a very religious guy who is actually brilliant and makes a great argument for religion.

Harris sticks up for Jordan when Harris's own followers fall for the kind of disrespect and sloganeering that Chomsky himself loads onto Harris to crawl out of the debate. Chomsky will not engage in a debate like this.





You have to ask yourself why?
It has nothing to do with some character floor of Harris, as Chomsky would have you believe, because that is clearly not validated as you can see by Hariss's ability to engage with others in the way Chomsky claims is not possible or fruitful!

It's simple! Chomsky does not want to be exposed! Chomsky knows he cannot bamboozle an intellect like Harris and so will not allow a fair and balanced discussion! Even if he tentatively agrees to a private email discourse! Chomsky is a shill and he knows it!!

I've also seen a lot of damage to Chomsky fans who generally are young males who a disillusioned outlook toward the world because they kind find a break and are searching for a way to come to terms with it. Chomsky is a master at sucking them into is vortex of anti American vomit.
You seem OK, but many are not and commit suicide etc cause the world is so bad and it's all the US's fault etc etc etc..

 

[luutzu]

Mate Chomsky ran from the debate because he new it would be public. He did not engage!! Chomsky was reticent from the start because he was wary of Harris who is not easily overcome with irrelevant garbage that sounds plausible to the most people who do not understand the subtleties of the content. Chomsky tried his normal tack of bamboozlement with a waterfall of red herrings that sound plausible to the disenfranchised internet youth who feel validated by him.
Chomsky quickly ran away as soon as he saw it was not going to work and Harris was about to expose him!! It's obvious and simple.

Trust me, Chomsky is no coward. Not intellectually, not physically either.

He faced serious risk of being imprisoned in the 1960s for his activist activities. So real was the risk that his wife was planning to go back to teaching to put food on the table. I can't remember why exactly the state prosecution didn't go ahead but other crisis deprioritise the departments' interest to sue him and a few of his friends.

He was also instrumental in the release of the Pentagon Papers. He help Daniel Ellsberg go through and select what could be release and not have Ellsberg be tried for treason.. something like that.

He changed the field of Linguistics. Any student who study education or language must read his work. Did that in his early 30s when the VN War and its crimes changed his life's mission.

If he didn't already have tenure, his activities would have seen him fired and pushed aside a long time ago.

So I don't know how a giant like that would run away from the likes of Harris. It just doesn't make sense. That and I have read and watch Harris' response in that debate, he's very childish... like a good boy to the State that butter his bread.

How can you argue with someone about real life and moral objectivity when the guy can excuse war crimes and genocide? How did Harris excuse it? Well, we (the US, the West) meant well... so that's cool.

I guess ISIS didn't mean well (according to them); or the Soviets or the Nazi didn't have speeches and good intentions either.

BUt let's give it to Harris that the US "means well" whenever it goes to war, i.e. all its killings are justified.

Seriously? That's not even factual.

Did the US overthrow of a democratically elected president in Iran, install a Shah to rule over Iran like a God... That's well meaning how?

Every country, big or small, does this kind of things. Ask any of their mandarins if their actions are justified and do they mean well... I bet they all want to bring peace by bombing too.

So how can you argue and debate with a guy like that?

That is just childish and desperate. Maher is certainly more crass than Harris. Harris is very balanced, polite and never stoops into name calling and so on if found wanting in his arguments. Harris sticks with the arguments and facts he doesn't rant and rave. Harris is really quite soft spoken not the entertainer like Maher who is primarily a comedian and admits it!!

Harris is very polite in his speech. As calm as a prick can be in his mannerism and deep, polite words and seemingly reasonable "logic".

Maher, yea, a loudmouth racist idiot who someone sold himself as a comedian and a liberal/progressive.

For people who understand the facts on topics these two talks about, they would just laugh their heads off if it weren't so seriously racist and ill-informed.

Your reasons for sloganeering of Harris and Maher are equally leveled at Chomsky who is an intellectual whoring shill! A self styled " ranting intellectual, liberal, selling snake oil books, lectures and interviews" (things you seem to have a problem with) to naive audiences lacking the mental scope to see through him. Chomsky is a media coward who runs from the real debates in order to maintain his brainwashed cult like followers, who have offered him their souls amidst the fog of disenfranchised youthful naivety. Who tend to become too committed and embarrassed by their investment in Chomsky's spell to step back and take a second and broader look.

I've watched a few debates, live ones, between Chomsky and other right-wing apologists. Chomsky wiped the floors with them.

Trust me, if anyone pays attention to what Chomsky says, they'll grow up and matured overnight.

The guy's a modern-day Machiavelli. He's at that, and higher, level of intellect and clear understanding of the world and its history.

And if Chomsky wants to make money from his intellect, he'd do what Machiavelli tries to do and go set up a think tank or be a lobbyist advising corporations.

Instead, he goes to town halls, go to give lectures, write books... telling the common folks what their gov't is doing, how it works and what they can do to take back their democracy. That and you don't make that much money selling books, ask most famous authors how much they earn.

That and Chomsky himself write cheques, small ones, to hundreds of charities around the world all year.

But yea, if Chomsky's a fraud I don't see it. And I have listen to his lectures, debates, audio books, interviews.

If you want to see how accommodating Harris is regarding religion and other intellectuals take a look at These discourses with Jordan Peterson.

Peterson is a very religious guy who is actually brilliant and makes a great argument for religion.

Harris sticks up for Jordan when Harris's own followers fall for the kind of disrespect and sloganeering that Chomsky himself loads onto Harris to crawl out of the debate. Chomsky will not engage in a debate like this.




You have to ask yourself why?
It has nothing to do with some character floor of Harris, as Chomsky would have you believe, because that is clearly not validated as you can see by Hariss's ability to engage with others in the way Chomsky claims is not possible or fruitful!

I've seen Chomsky debated Foucoult, Dersowitz on Israel/Palestine; William F Buckley on US imperial kindness. You can look them up on YouTube.

The man is no wall flower, and those he debate aren't children.

It's simple! Chomsky does not want to be exposed! Chomsky knows he cannot bamboozle an intellect like Harris and so will not allow a fair and balanced discussion! Even if he tentatively agrees to a private email discourse! Chomsky is a shill and he knows it!!

Harris is no intellect. That's an insult to anyone who can read.

What's a shill?

Unless the Russian or Arab terrorists pays him to say bad things about US foreign policies, he's one of those the richest and most powerful country in the world can't buy. That's called integrity.

I've also seen a lot of damage to Chomsky fans who generally are young males who a disillusioned outlook toward the world because they kind find a break and are searching for a way to come to terms with it. Chomsky is a master at sucking them into is vortex of anti American vomit.
You seem OK, but many are not and commit suicide etc cause the world is so bad and it's all the US's fault etc etc etc..

Henry Kissinger, my professor tells us, told his staff at the States Department to all go read Das Kapital. Why? Because Marx understand Capitalism more than anyone else in the world.

Kissinger didn't read Marx's work and turn Communist. Can't just read fan mail and apologies for how awesome you are.

Chomsky is not anti-American. That's where people get it wrong about him, and about people like him.

He's simply telling it as it is. This is what's wrong with our current policies abroad; what's wrong with our domestic policies. These are the thinking and actions of those we, the people, entrust to our 'representatives'; this is what they say and here's what they've been doing, in our name, with our tax dollars, at our expense.

We shouldn't mistake criticism for betrayal.

It's not as sweet and can be hard to take, but those who cares for their country don't pay much attention to what's great about it... but focus their effort on what's wrong with it in hope that those errors can be fixed and the country improved.

When a country start to hate its critics and punish or imprison them... we have ourselves a fascist state.

 

[luutzu]

From the 4.10 mark. Sums up what the man is about. You can see this in all his work.

Towards the end, the usual attack on him being childish and a dreamer full of conspiracy theories. His response there is short and to the point.

 

[notting]

Mate a pussy picks his own fights.
As if a politician is going to get far with an intellectual.
What are you gonna show me next, Chomsky vs Tony Abbot. It's a fricken joke.

I destroyed all the BS you, and his cult fans, come up with about Harris as justification for Chomsky running away.
None of it stuck so you just reach for something else. It never ends with Chomsky zombies ya just keep reaching for more as it keeps getting destroyed!!

Chomsky is the king of false equivalency and monologue because he has an irrational ax to grind due to God knows what. You probably have to go back to his early days to find out where the slight came from. Chomsky does not have a tenable position, never has.

Bottom line is Chomsky is now an old fool who has been pushing the same disaster for all, all because of the US for more than half a century. Whilst all the time ignoring the massive human rights abuses and climate catastrophes been carried out far more grotesquely and on a much larger scales in places like China, (India for pollution).

Bottom line is Chomsky doesn't take the real picture he takes snippets and blows them up to be the whole. When he starts getting taken down he rants with loosely related largely irrelevant historical US missteps, by some stupid leaders and bad decisions which become terrible incidents, whilst shirking the critical points and the bigger picture to validate the massive chip on his shoulder framed as - 'the Super powerful America is controlling and causing all the evil in the world, I will not stand for anything else!'

 

[luutzu]

Mate a pussy picks his own fights.
As if a politician is going to get far with an intellectual.
What are you gonna show me next, Chomsky vs Tony Abbot. It's a fricken joke.

I destroyed all the BS you, and his cult fans, come up with about Harris as justification for Chomsky running away.
None of it stuck so you just reach for something else. It never ends with Chomsky zombies ya just keep reaching for more as it keeps getting destroyed!!

Chomsky is the king of false equivalency and monologue because he has an irrational ax to grind due to God knows what. You probably have to go back to his early days to find out where the slight came from. Chomsky does not have a tenable position, never has.

Bottom line is Chomsky is now an old fool who has been pushing the same disaster for all, all because of the US for more than half a century. Whilst all the time ignoring the massive human rights abuses and climate catastrophes been carried out far more grotesquely and on a much larger scales in places like China, (India for pollution).

Bottom line is Chomsky doesn't take the real picture he takes snippets and blows them up to be the whole. When he starts getting taken down he rants with loosely related largely irrelevant historical US missteps, by some stupid leaders and bad decisions which become terrible incidents, whilst shirking the critical points and the bigger picture to validate the massive chip on his shoulder framed as - 'the Super powerful America is controlling and causing all the evil in the world, I will not stand for anything else!'

You can look up various debates Chomsky has with other more learned and intellectual people. See who make more sense. Who's more honest and factual.

I tried not to hero-worship anyone. Just when you listen and hear the arguments and reasoning, you either know the guy is bs-ing or is making too much sense. And I admire people who's honest and not sell themselves out.

Chomsky criticise everyone, every country he looks at. He doesn't do it because he has axes to grind, he don't even blame them to be honest. He simply say that this is what they did, this was their reasoning, here are the evidence... it's natural to do and say what they did. BUt just because it's natural does not make it right.

For example, Imperial Japan and its war crimes during WWII. He said that if you read their propaganda, they never said they were committing crimes or genocide. They say they were bringing peace and prosperity to the Asians. Just, you know, gotta put down a few Asians who didn't get the message yet.

Same with Nazi Germany and their claims to defending such gov't as Vichy France and other puppets they put in place before the demise. That they simply want to fight against terrorists being funded by foreign powers upsetting the peace etc. etc.

So he's saying that guys like Harris who excuses American imperialism... well, what's the difference between Harris and other Commisars and and mandarins serving their state violence? Nothing.

You can't debate morality, right and wrong with a guy that claims that yea... we did wrong but we means well so that make us better. If they did wrong (to us and our allies), well they are evil.

While it might be disguised as being nuanced and intellectual, to say that our wrongs are right because we did it... that's not going to stick to any objective person. That's being patriotic and whatever, but it is not objective.

-------------------

I'm not that widely read but I know enough history, both East and West to have some idea of how real world politics and wars work. Read enough business history to hvae some idea there too.

The world that I see from those readings.. they're very different from the movies and basic history but are the same as the history Chomsky talks about.

Remember too that Chomsky doesn't have a theory or an ideology. Just your basic research, history and facts. He know them and draw honest conclusions from them. That's scholarship.

Anyway, Chomsky don't need me defending him. Harris can go fark himself.

------------

As to Chomsky ignoring the crimes, the worst crimes, committed by other states... that's not true.

He's one man. He can't cover everything. That and he does not excuse the Chinese or the Soviets or the Russians or anyone's crimes. He's Jewish, should watch what he think of Israel and its genocide against the Palestinian.

You know that he was among the first Jewish settlers in modern Israel? When they were barely a state. Still living and working in communes [Kitbutz?]. Yea, he's that old.

A guy with his intellect and his Jewish heritage being among the first settlers, he could have made fortunes upon fortunes if he stick with the program. Lesser people than him are either multi-millionaires or deified as founders of Israel with statutes of themselves all over the place.

Sometime a good person see wrongs being done and chose to not participate in it.

---------

All states are violent. Some more than others. Not because they're better, but because they have less need or less opportunity to.

No imperial power in the history of the world do empire to help anybody. They claim they do, but that's just marketing.

The thing about imperialism is that it's never been good for the masses. It's the masses that send their sons to wars and foreign adventures; it's their taxes that's being spent to project power and to hold it. And it's mostly them that will die if the frontier pushes back and take over.

Those who benefits the most from imperialism will take all their cash and buy themselves citizenships somewhere "neutral".

So someone who criticises their countr's imperialism do so not because they hate their country, but because they care for the rights and well being of their people.

Anyway, it's one of those things you either see it or you don't.

 

[notting]

That all sounds a little more balanced which is good!

I'd continue to caution you on Chomsky, as said, I've seen first hand the damage he does to young minds. He's quite subtle and the majority of what he says sounds plausible which is what draws people in, but he inevitably tilts it against the big bad US whilst paying lip service to far greater evils!

That basically means that Chomsky is not genuinely concerned about war lords, human rights or the environment, as with Pilger, it's a chip on his shoulder that drives him. They target the US which tends to be reactionary, not imperialistic, even in world war 2!!, rather than targeting the grosser perpetrators of the causes of the problems that Chomsky and co claim to be championing.

As Kissinger(I know!! don't bother) said, sometimes you have to choose between the lesser of two evils.

The US has almost no imperialistic instincts or history if you compare them to any other State that had the kind of leverage and power it has had for about a century! Certainly the US tries to control and fix things when the threat becomes real(often clumsily, violently and stupidly) and they try to keep the order in place because the alternatives are far more horrifying. The US is are far from perfect that's obvious.

Perfect is when you advocate non violence to the point of allowing them crucify you rather than take up arms! (for that you would need a vision that goes beyond this life!)
Only individuals can take that road! Although Tibet has done it at a state level. Will be interesting to see how that continues to play out!

 

[luutzu]

That all sounds a little more balanced which is good!

I'd continue to caution you on Chomsky, as said, I've seen first hand the damage he does to young minds. He's quite subtle and the majority of what he says sounds plausible which is what draws people in, but he inevitably tilts it against the big bad US whilst paying lip service to far greater evils!

That basically means that Chomsky is not genuinely concerned about war lords, human rights or the environment, as with Pilger, it's a chip on his shoulder that drives him. They target the US which tends to be reactionary, not imperialistic, even in world war 2!!, rather than targeting the grosser perpetrators of the causes of the problems that Chomsky and co claim to be championing.

As Kissinger(I know!! don't bother) said, sometimes you have to choose between the lesser of two evils.

The US has almost no imperialistic instincts or history if you compare them to any other State that had the kind of leverage and power it has had for about a century! Certainly the US tries to control and fix things when the threat becomes real(often clumsily, violently and stupidly) and they try to keep the order in place because the alternatives are far more horrifying. The US is are far from perfect that's obvious.

Perfect is when you advocate non violence to the point of allowing them crucify you rather than take up arms! (for that you would need a vision that goes beyond this life!)
Only individuals can take that road! Although Tibet has done it at a state level. Will be interesting to see how that continues to play out!

Chomsky is bad for me in that I don't invest in arms and military/security companies. Given the state of the world, any idiot could make a killing buying those stocks. But it's just wrong to celebrate increased dividends knowing how the money's made.

Add to that my Dad's smoking and the affect of gambling on people I know... So that cut out a fair chunk of the easy money business. And I'm almost going green because of the guy, so yea, pretty bad.

Might make listeners a better person though.

More seriously though, while eager young minds might listen to Chomsky and dedicate their life's work to fight for the poor and the abused with a few bucks to their account. That's going to be a series of uphill battles but it's a whole lot better than mindless graduates from the school of finance and economics who's taught by people funded in large part by corporations that greed is good or something.

In the end, it's knowledge. People make of it what their character and circumstance allow.

----------

I don't agree with your assessment of US foreign policies though. I mean, the original 13 colonies don't become 50 plus countless territories and military bases around the world because other countries and empires decided to hand it over.

Thta's not to say that countries like China or Russia are nice, peaceful countries with no hegemonic ambition. I mean, Chi'n was a tiny state in the Eastern Chou's [?] splintered empire. They didn't get to their current size through Confucian ethics and Taoist do-nothing-ness.

So who's good and who's bad... we can't say. Who's worst.. can't say either. Just have to look at each action and judge accordingly.

--------

To want peace is not the same as to ignore the need for war. To go to war does not necessarily mean you go to keep the peace.

If our sovereignty and people are attacked, we obviously go defend it.

The problem arise when our great leaders decided to go to war for reasons other than serving the national interest. National interest here we define as interests to the masses, not the interests of the few titans and other great men of destiny and what not.

Being a democracy with freedom and stuff, the peasants wouldn't put up with it. Hence the need for what Chomsky and Edward Herman called "The Manufacturing of Consent". A phrase they didn't come up with but copied from Ed Biney [?] when he discuss the need to convince an idle public to do what must be done.

States can become great, and be safe from invasion and harm, by not participating in wars of ambition. By only preparing and fighting wars of absolute necessity.

Doing that keeps the peace. Keep the treasure. Permit its investment towards the education, the health and well being of its citizens. Those are things that make a country stronger and able to defend itself better.

 

[Toyota Lexcen]

WBC gone from 25-32 in 10yrs, NAB nothing, CBA only one which has done well

Clearly a lot of hatred towards the banks, in recent times they are a dud for investors and moving forward they have no hope with all the regulation that is going on.

They make large profits, doesn’t help share price

 

[No Trust]

The banks are in for a canning... The Royal Commission could open a Pandora’s Box of evil deeds... Further inquiries / prosecutions may spiral out of control... ASIC has been complicit in not investigating complaints of fraud... Many heads will be exposed to a very sharp blade...

 

[sptrawler]

The banks are in for a canning... The Royal Commission could open a Pandora’s Box of evil deeds... Further inquiries / prosecutions may spiral out of control... ASIC has been complicit in not investigating complaints of fraud... Many heads will be exposed to a very sharp blade...

Let's wait and see what the outcome is.

 

[sptrawler]

WBC gone from 25-32 in 10yrs, NAB nothing, CBA only one which has done well

Clearly a lot of hatred towards the banks, in recent times they are a dud for investors and moving forward they have no hope with all the regulation that is going on.

They make large profits, doesn’t help share price

If you had dividend investment, as a young investor, what is the problem with the share price?

 

[Toyota Lexcen]

surely a $1000 investment in shares is going to grow outside of a dividend reinvestment plan

 

[TikoMike]

WBC gone from 25-32 in 10yrs, NAB nothing, CBA only one which has done well

Clearly a lot of hatred towards the banks, in recent times they are a dud for investors and moving forward they have no hope with all the regulation that is going on.

They make large profits, doesn’t help share price

Looking at just the share price smh. In the last 8 years you would have got all your capital paid back through dividends.

 

[sptrawler]

Looking at just the share price smh. In the last 8 years you would have got all your capital paid back through dividends.

Like I said, if you are a young investor, what is the problem with the share price staying low if you have dividend reinvestment.
I can't see any down side.

 

[PZ99]

WBC gone from 25-32 in 10yrs, NAB nothing, CBA only one which has done well

That's not bad considering the GFC event in that timeline. The ASX fell around 8%.

I can't be the only one regretting not buying WBC for $15 nine years ago

 

[Toyota Lexcen]

its okay if you have money to invest, 10yrs on WBC still around $30

definitely real estate owners been the winners not bank shares