Stupid World

[mashman]

Given that the professionals in question are without exception tertiary qualified at minimum I can't get where the "defined as such by themselves" comes from.

He possibly means the management professionals. In which case he's possibly unaware that unlike most industries for most health management roles at least one tertiary qual is normal.

No sense there either. Best write it of as an unspecified bitch, let it die and move on. :shifty:

But does a degree, and therefore the earned label of professional, from the 60's, 70's or 80's still count 30, 40 or 50 years later?

So you'd hire my Son to fill the position with his degree in Fine Art and Printing then. He got it from a top university. Or perhaps his mother with her Social Sciences (can't remember the exact title, but made for some interesting discussions and make ups) degree?

Mmmmmmyus.

[mashman]

Just proves then that they only do it for the money.

That who does it for the money? If you mean the board, then yeah, I agree.

[Ocean1]

There's a bit more to it then what you wrote. Paragraph 3 sums it up.

This one?

"Now, however, it is starting to bite hard and public hospitals are creaking and straining under this intensifying pressure of ‘declining uplift’, increasing demographic pressures, and increasing government demands to do more with relatively less and without investing in workforce capacity."

Do you really need me to disect it? What do you suppose "declining uplift" means?

And if that's the worst spin that can be imparted I'd say the resources available can't be all that bad, eh?

[Ocean1]

But does a degree, and therefore the earned label of professional, from the 60's, 70's or 80's still count 30, 40 or 50 years later?

Still count as defining the professional? Yes, it does.

Particularly when the professional in question has several weeks taxpayer funded sabatical for each of those 30, 40 or 50 years.


So you'd hire my Son to fill the position with his degree in Fine Art and Printing then. He got it from a top university. Or perhaps his mother with her Social Sciences (can't remember the exact title, but made for some interesting discussions and make ups) degree?

No. I wouldn't hire an MBA to do anything whatsoever.

[Zedder]

This one?

"Now, however, it is starting to bite hard and public hospitals are creaking and straining under this intensifying pressure of ‘declining uplift’, increasing demographic pressures, and increasing government demands to do more with relatively less and without investing in workforce capacity."

Do you really need me to disect it? What do you suppose "declining uplift" means?

And if that's the worst spin that can be imparted I'd say the resources available can't be all that bad, eh?

The "declining uplift" was stated in the report as being increasing funding but at a declining rate.

What about the increased demographic pressures, increasing govt demands to do more with less? That doesn't look like things are going well and the fact is, the health system is lacking in funds by 100s of millions of dollars.

Putting aside the source etc, it boils down to what amounts to an "unhealthy" health service.

[Ocean1]

The "declining uplift" was stated in the report as being increasing funding but at a declining rate

Yes. So whereas spending in almost every other public cost centre has been reduced through the recent downtrend in revenue, healthcare has continued to receive funding increases every year, but not as great an increase as before.

You'd rather the health system continued to receive budget increases until it's consuming every tax dollar available?


What about the increased demographic pressures, increasing govt demands to do more with less?

Lovely phrase, I assume they mean the population's increasing. In which case a rational criticism would probably quote dollars budgeted per head of population. Why do you suppose they haven't?

Perhaps there's a clue there in that "more for less". It's almost inevitable that the govt should ask for more for their money, but the fact is they're supplying more money, not less.

So the whole paragraph is heavily spun and factually vacant, why would you place any faith in the documant's content?


That doesn't look like things are going well and the fact is, the health system is lacking in funds by 100s of millions of dollars.

According to who? And in order to achieve what ends?


Putting aside the source etc, it boils down to what amounts to an "unhealthy" health service.

Bullshit. The source is an inherently interested party to the health budget spend. Iv’e never heard a union yet say that their members were adequately remunerated, and I wouldn’t expect this one to start any new trends, there.

There are problems with the health system, there’s the odd fuckup, which is simply saying that the system involves humans, but possibly the biggest problem is to do with public expectations. So while there’s individual cases of mismanagement which hit the headlines, we rarely hear about the vast majority of successful cases. We usually get pretty good service for our dollar.

[Zedder]

Yes. So whereas spending in almost every other public cost centre has been reduced through the recent downtrend in revenue, healthcare has continued to receive funding increases every year, but not as great an increase as before.
You'd rather the health system continued to receive budget increases until it's consuming every tax dollar available?
Lovely phrase, I assume they mean the population's increasing. In which case a rational criticism would probably quote dollars budgeted per head of population. Why do you suppose they haven't?
Perhaps there's a clue there in that "more for less". It's almost inevitable that the govt should ask for more for their money, but the fact is they're supplying more money, not less.
So the whole paragraph is heavily spun and factually vacant, why would you place any faith in the documant's content?
According to who? And in order to achieve what ends?
Bullshit. The source is an inherently interested party to the health budget spend. Iv’e never heard a union yet say that their members were adequately remunerated, and I wouldn’t expect this one to start any new trends, there.
There are problems with the health system, there’s the odd fuckup, which is simply saying that the system involves humans, but possibly the biggest problem is to do with public expectations. So while there’s individual cases of mismanagement which hit the headlines, we rarely hear about the vast majority of successful cases. We usually get pretty good service for our dollar.


The report was about more than remuneration.

Anyway, here's a report about Capital and Coast DHB:http://publichealth.massey.ac.nz/assets/Uploads/From-Great-to-Good-Final.pdf

And an article about funding:http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10891757

[Ocean1]

The report was about more than remuneration.

It was a political statement by arguably the most powerful and wealthy union in the country, setting out arguments for increased spending in their sector of the health market.

You can say that's not just about remuneration if you like. And it’s true that it’s also about a fairly impressive range of perks, political power and social influence.


Anyway, here's a report about Capital and Coast DHB:http://publichealth.massey.ac.nz/assets/Uploads/From-Great-to-Good-Final.pdf

Yes. First page: "I would like to thank the private donor who helped funded this review"

So not only is it an obvious tool to gain certain providers access to more health spending, (obviously in this case at the expense of the DHB's budget) but we're not permitted to know who paid for it.

And again I see statements that so obviously seek to obscure the truth that the whole document is worthless as any sort of analytical tool.

"This is a review of the Capital and Coast District Health Board (C&CDHB) decision making around primary health care and equity over the last three years, based on the release of relevant papers requested under the Official Information Act.
It shows that during this period of economic constraint, the hospital sector expenditure grew relative to the primary health care sector. It also demonstrates that the historical pattern of inequitable access to primary care persisted, and unplanned admissions to hospital grew, suggesting increased inefficiency in the Board‟s operations."

I wonder if the author has included in whatever actual numbers he bothered to find the huge drain on hospital budgets the endless stream of presentations to ED for minor issues represent. A stream that public health is in fact budgeted to handle, and doesn't.


And an article about funding:http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10891757

Again: “Waitemata's increase in its main source of direct state funding was $42 million in the current financial year, but will shrink to $29 million in the year starting July 1.”

So an organisation that has failed to meet budget at any time in the last decade is bitching because the massive increases in spending have been reduced to merely huge.

There’s a multitude of divisions within the industry, every one of which has a different agenda. Some driven by altruistic motives, some otherwise. Unfortunately, experience has shown that some industry service provider professionals, when given responsibility for budgets almost universally fail to get the best bang for the taxpayers buck.

If you want to see improvements in what amounts to an incredibly complex service with many contradictory stakeholders I suggest that you fire every board and CEO, round up a bunch of senior nurses with management experience and get out of their fucking way.

[Zedder]

It was a political statement by arguably the most powerful and wealthy union in the country, setting out arguments for increased spending in their sector of the health market.

You can say that's not just about remuneration if you like. And it’s true that it’s also about a fairly impressive range of perks, political power and social influence.



Yes. First page: "I would like to thank the private donor who helped funded this review"

So not only is it an obvious tool to gain certain providers access to more health spending, (obviously in this case at the expense of the DHB's budget) but we're not permitted to know who paid for it.

And again I see statements that so obviously seek to obscure the truth that the whole document is worthless as any sort of analytical tool.

"This is a review of the Capital and Coast District Health Board (C&CDHB) decision making around primary health care and equity over the last three years, based on the release of relevant papers requested under the Official Information Act.
It shows that during this period of economic constraint, the hospital sector expenditure grew relative to the primary health care sector. It also demonstrates that the historical pattern of inequitable access to primary care persisted, and unplanned admissions to hospital grew, suggesting increased inefficiency in the Board‟s operations."

I wonder if the author has included in whatever actual numbers he bothered to find the huge drain on hospital budgets the endless stream of presentations to ED for minor issues represent. A stream that public health is in fact budgeted to handle, and doesn't.



Again: “Waitemata's increase in its main source of direct state funding was $42 million in the current financial year, but will shrink to $29 million in the year starting July 1.”

So an organisation that has failed to meet budget at any time in the last decade is bitching because the massive increases in spending have been reduced to merely huge.

There’s a multitude of divisions within the industry, every one of which has a different agenda. Some driven by altruistic motives, some otherwise. Unfortunately, experience has shown that some industry service provider professionals, when given responsibility for budgets almost universally fail to get the best bang for the taxpayers buck.

If you want to see improvements in what amounts to an incredibly complex service with many contradictory stakeholders I suggest that you fire every board and CEO, round up a bunch of senior nurses with management experience and get out of their fucking way.

Lol! Going on your history, if the Capital and Coast DHB report was funded any other way you would have probably written it was suspect as well.

Best to agree to disagree I think. Ever thought of getting into health care management?

Merry Christmas.

[Ocean1]

Lol! Going on your history, if the Capital and Coast DHB report was funded any other way you would have probably written it was suspect as well.

Every report isn't just suspected of bias it's taken for granted.

At least if the party behind it is known one can compensate for that bias. Any report failing to declare it's funding source isn't worth reading let alone evaluating.


Best to agree to disagree I think.

Fill yer boots, as long as you're aware that the facts don't support the proposition that the health system is underfunded.


Ever thought of getting into health care management?

Well informed in the field doen't amount to the required qualifications.

Certainly not in the article of doplomacy.


Merry Christmas.

Ditto. Go moderately on the turps and stay out of EDs.

[Zedder]

Fill yer boots, as long as you're aware that the facts don't support the proposition that the health system is underfunded.



Nah, however it's Christmas and I've got other things to do.

[blue rider]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/1394384_743982182283846_2007724184_n.jpg

omg they were radical in the olden days, when everyone knew their place, worked hard and demanded nothing form no-one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Fraser_(New_Zealand_politician)


Yea Sure
Tui

[Ocean1]

How much more of these busybody's interfering bullshit do you suppose we have to endure?

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/kapiti/9551256/Kapiti-miniature-train-attraction-closed

[Scuba_Steve]

How much more of these busybody's interfering bullshit do you suppose we have to endure?

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/kapiti/9551256/Kapiti-miniature-train-attraction-closed

:facepalm: that is pure wank!
2 [reported] accidents in 35yrs the latest one caused by an idiot that can't follow instructions falls off no injuries & the whole thing gets shut down... Smells to me like the idiot has connections & is trying the great modern western trend of passing the blame, not admitting accountability.

[Ocean1]

:facepalm: that is pure wank!
2 [reported] accidents in 35yrs the latest one caused by an idiot that can't follow instructions falls off no injuries & the whole thing gets shut down... Smells to me like the idiot has connections & is trying the great modern western trend of passing the blame, not admitting accountability.

He's following their brief. Which is where the problem lies.

The only person responsible for anyone's safety is themselves. But that wee fact isn't currently acceptable dogma.

[mashman]

How much more of these busybody's interfering bullshit do you suppose we have to endure?

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/kapiti/9551256/Kapiti-miniature-train-attraction-closed

Gotta justify their existence somehow.

[mashman]

Trade Agreements in action (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/04/us-trade-deal-full-frontal-assault-on-democracy).

[Brian d marge]

Trade Agreements in action (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/04/us-trade-deal-full-frontal-assault-on-democracy).

Im not worried the smiling assassin has got my back ... word

Stephen

[avgas]

And people still think the government has powers. It has powers to bomb and that is it.

[puddytat]

Rather a long read & confirming what we already know....
http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/01/14/inequality-will-be-the-issue-for-2014/

[Banditbandit]

And people still think the government has powers. It has powers to bomb and that is it.

Uh huh ... as Mao Tze Dong said: "Every Communist must grasp the truth - political power grows out of the barrel of a gun"

[mashman]

Rather a long read & confirming what we already know....
http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/01/14/inequality-will-be-the-issue-for-2014/

Aye... we're still pursuing financial solutions to financial problems and using skewed averages produced by dodgy statistics to base policy decisions on. BAU for too many years.

[Brian d marge]

5 percent US 10 year bonds , bring it on

yeah baby , it is so brought, it hurts

Stephen

[blue rider]

http://www.newzealandnow.govt.nz/working-in-nz/great-job-opportunities/oil-gas-jobs


hahahahahahahahahahaha


hahahahahahahahahaha

[Brian d marge]

I found 4 l of SAE 50 in the garage the other day , Gizza job go on gizza job

Stephen

[avgas]

Uh huh ... as Mao Tze Dong said: "Every Communist must grasp the truth - political power grows out of the barrel of a gun"
78,000,000 I think he proved his point. Unfortunately.

Jews (or everyone in WWII) have nothing on what happened on China under Mao. Those guys got the biggest fucking in the arse in the history of man. Made WWII look like a playground fight.

[Scuba_Steve]

"Give me the right to issue and control a nation’s money and I care not who governs the country.” - Meyer Amschal Rothschild

https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/1510956_409011862566932_359006855_n.jpg

[BoristheBiter]

"Give me the right to issue and control a nation’s money and I care not who governs the country.” - Meyer Amschal Rothschild



So it wasn't the us that staged the 9/11 attacks, it was the Rothschilds.:killingme:killingme

Fuck you get more deluded with every post.

[Scuba_Steve]

So it wasn't the us that staged the 9/11 attacks, it was the Rothschilds.:killingme:killingme

Fuck you get more deluded with every post.

says the one wearing the blinders :facepalm:

[Oscar]

So it wasn't the us that staged the 9/11 attacks, it was the Rothschilds.:killingme:killingme

.

It was to divert attention from the airplane contrails and the fake moon landing.

[Banditbandit]

78,000,000 I think he proved his point. Unfortunately.

Jews (or everyone in WWII) have nothing on what happened on China under Mao. Those guys got the biggest fucking in the arse in the history of man. Made WWII look like a playground fight.

True .. but he proved the point .. as does Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, .. and on and on ... political power really does grow out of the barrel of a gun ... even in Godzone .. like Operation 8 fr'instance ..

[BoristheBiter]

says the one wearing the blinders :facepalm:

The movie "the number 23 " is your life story isn't it?

And the phrase you are looking for is "wearing blinkers" :facepalm:

[Brian d marge]

Oh those crazy rothchilds
What havent they done is more the point
As for 9/11 that we plan had been discussed by america back in the 50s to topple cuba('_'?) I think
There are documents floating about
As for ９/11
A plane hits a building and the building collapses almost at the speed of gravity and two weels after firemen report riveletts of molten iron still in the basement
It just doesnt stack up
Like the plane full of passengers who over powered the terrorists but crashed into a field but the black box told a different story
As did mythbusters who found out the cell phone signal wouldnt work
At height

So if it wasnt the arabs causing all this terror who was it and why

One world ? The illuminati? To which the rothchilds certainly lent money to back in the day

My wifes evil twin ?

Or aliens who live in tunnels under the ozark mountains

Stephen

Sent from my SC-01F using Tapatalk

[avgas]

Operation 8 fr'instance ..
It's a shame about that actually. Because if Tuhoe did say they were going to blow up the government - I am sure everyone in NZ else would have put money into the cause. :lol:

[mashman]

A world without antibiotics? The risk is real: experts (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/world-without-antibiotics-risk-real-experts-042134071.html#8twFO9J)

"Compounding all of this is the rise in global travel -- a boon for bacterial spread, and a sharp drop in antibiotics development blamed on a lack of financial incentives for the pharmaceutical industry.". Financial incentives. Why? Isn't the need to keep at the top of the game enough?

"But even Fleming's own warnings of impending drug resistance went unheeded, and now scientists say people may start dying from infections like meningitis and septicaemia that are eminently curable today.".

Treatment shortcuts i.e. pump 'em full of anti-biotics, seems to be failing. There has to be a better way.

[Ocean1]

. There has to be a better way.

There is. Put 3 zeros on the end of the price of all antibiotics.

[Brian d marge]

There is. Put 3 zeros on the end of the price of all antibiotics.

Yup
Trouble is they are used alot . Chickens pigs etc
And i can say that overseas medicine is a lot stronger than here in japan, who favor wwak but over long time

Sent from my SC-01F using Tapatalk

[mashman]

There is. Put 3 zeros on the end of the price of all antibiotics.

I did say better way... not the same way.

Perhaps these really deserving successful people would help out: 85 richest people as wealthy as poorest half of the world (http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jan/20/oxfam-85-richest-people-half-of-the-world?CMP=twt_gu).

[Ocean1]

I did say better way... not the same way.

You pay 1000% more for your antibiotics than everyone else?


Perhaps these really deserving successful people would help out: 85 richest people as wealthy as poorest half of the world (http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jan/20/oxfam-85-richest-people-half-of-the-world?CMP=twt_gu).

Dunno. How much are they already subsidising all those poor people's health costs?

[mashman]

You pay 1000% more for your antibiotics than everyone else?

Dunno. How much are they already subsidising all those poor people's health costs?

I pay 100% more than I should.

I wouldn't be surprised if they aren't.

[Ocean1]

I pay 100% more than I should.

I wouldn't be surprised if they aren't.

Yeah, you want someone else to pay for everything. Yawn.

And it wouldn't surprise me if you were paying about a quarter of the market price.

[oneofsix]

Dunno. How much are they already subsidising all those poor people's health costs?

There would be a lot of zeros in that number, not much else though. Oh forgive me I forgot the cheat beating and crowing when one of them donates a small percentage of their wealth to some charity or other, usually a percentage that starts with a zero then a decimal points and a few more zeros. :laugh:

[Ocean1]

There would be a lot of zeros in that number, not much else though. Oh forgive me I forgot the cheat beating and crowing when one of them donates a small percentage of their wealth to some charity or other, usually a percentage that starts with a zero then a decimal points and a few more zeros. :laugh:

So... rather a lot more than you, then?

[mashman]

Yeah, you want someone else to pay for everything. Yawn.

And it wouldn't surprise me if you were paying about a quarter of the market price.

Not at all. It should all be free. There should be no need to pay. Someone is ill, they should be fixed and cost should not enter into the equation.

If that. Meh, ain't my fault they need to make things more expensive to cover the exorbitant salaries of those who produce nothing.

[Ocean1]

Not at all. It should all be free. There should be no need to pay. Someone is ill, they should be fixed and cost should not enter into the equation.

Yeah. Nothing has ever worked like that, and nothing ever will.

Get used to the idea.


If that. Meh, ain't my fault they need to make things more expensive to cover the exorbitant salaries of those who produce nothing.

Feel free not to buy their product.

That'll teach the fuckers.

[Brian d marge]

Busy moving important stuff from one pile to another pile
For cash

Then i will do more important stuff for cash

They will always say "barkis was willing"
For cash

Stephen

Sent from my SC-01F using Tapatalk

[Brian d marge]

Yeah. Nothing has ever worked like that, and nothing ever will.

Get used to the idea.



Feel free not to buy their product.

That'll teach the fuckers.

England back in the day worked fine like that
Then the romans came

Sent from my SC-01F using Tapatalk

[mashman]

Yeah. Nothing has ever worked like that, and nothing ever will.

Get used to the idea.

Feel free not to buy their product.

That'll teach the fuckers.

You mean no one has ever cooperated without the need for some transaction to have taken place? I beg to differ.

No. Because you'd have to be a brain dead moron to accept such stupidity.

WOW, didn't expect you to play the brain dead moron card so quickly.

I'm not after teaching the fuckers a lesson... more giving people the chance to be well without having to sell a kidney to pay for it.

[Ocean1]

I'm not after teaching the fuckers a lesson... more giving people the chance to be well without having to sell a kidney to pay for it.

So who should pay for it?

Nah. don't bother, I'm bored with your obnoxious entitlement values and constant whining that someone else has to pay.

[mashman]

So who should pay for it?

Nah. don't bother, I'm bored with your obnoxious entitlement values and constant whining that someone else has to pay.

No one should have to pay for it... and given that someone does, it leads to you moaning and whining in regards to who is entitled to receive treatment and that someone has to pay for it. Try something new.

:killingme... What entitlement values do I have? What whining do I do about someone else has to pay? You're making up stories again bro.

[mashman]

Yes it's only a study, but Ex-home secretary cites Hansard Society study indicating just 12% of young people plan to vote in 2015 general election (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jan/21/politicians-must-tackle-voter-apathy-david-blunkett-2015-general-election)... Just lazy bastards eh...

Fury with MPs is main reason for not voting – poll (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/dec/26/fury-mps-not-voting-poll)... If they don't address it, it ain't gonna end well.

So I guess that's why the Met police want water cannon ready to use in Britain by summer (http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/08/met-police-water-cannon-britain)... just in case the politicians do nothing about it. I'd love to see what they come up with, coz it's going to be exceptionally pointless if it isn't a new financial system.

[Brian d marge]

I remember that Paxman brand Interview , Paxman Was bent out off Shape .
now he is agreeing with The popular opinion Brand expressed.
Weasle .sorry.wiseal

Sent from my SC-01F using Tapatalk

[mashman]

I remember that Paxman brand Interview , Paxman Was bent out off Shape .
now he is agreeing with The popular opinion Brand expressed.
Weasle .sorry.wiseal

Sent from my SC-01F using Tapatalk

Nah, he did his job. If you look closely, you'll see the same questions asked on here. I used to watch Paxman as he roasted politicians for not answering question... highly fuckin entertaining. I do wonder if Brand got him thinking.

[BoristheBiter]

Not at all. It should all be free. There should be no need to pay. Someone is ill, they should be fixed and cost should not enter into the equation.

If that. Meh, ain't my fault they need to make things more expensive to cover the exorbitant salaries of those who produce nothing.

Total agree with you on this (yes I have been drinking), it should also be dentists as well.
It is heading the way of the states here and it needs to stop now.

There was a post on the web about a guy getting an appendicitis and it cost over 50K but his health care only covered 40K so he had a bill for the rest. also that poor guy with the massive balls that he didn't have health care so for over 20 years he was on the disabilty allowance until some doctor could get a tv deal out of it.

Stop fucking around with working for family's, parental leave and other election bribes and start putting it back into health care.

[Scuba_Steve]

Total agree with you on this (yes I have been drinking), it should also be dentists as well.
It is heading the way of the states here and it needs to stop now.


:shit: & here I was thinking you loved the way the US did shit... I'm sure drinking seems to improve your logical reasoning; keep it up :drinkup:

[BoristheBiter]

:shit: & here I was thinking you loved the way the US did shit... I'm sure drinking seems to improve your logical reasoning; keep it up :drinkup:

Can't say I like anything the US does/did.

[mashman]

Total agree with you on this (yes I have been drinking), it should also be dentists as well.
It is heading the way of the states here and it needs to stop now.

There was a post on the web about a guy getting an appendicitis and it cost over 50K but his health care only covered 40K so he had a bill for the rest. also that poor guy with the massive balls that he didn't have health care so for over 20 years he was on the disabilty allowance until some doctor could get a tv deal out of it.

Stop fucking around with working for family's, parental leave and other election bribes and start putting it back into health care.

Could work, you should mention that to the govt and we'll see how the healthcare service handles it.

[Scuba_Steve]

Picture time
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/q71/s720x720/1005364_412041148930670_699759278_n.jpg

[BoristheBiter]

Could work, you should mention that to the govt and we'll see how the healthcare service handles it.

Half of them are the fucking problem, to many pushing paper instead of doing a real job.

[BoristheBiter]

Picture time


All but the middle one makes sense, it's legal to be a junkie and the people will pay for it?

[mashman]

Half of them are the fucking problem, to many pushing paper instead of doing a real job.


All but the middle one makes sense, it's legal to be a junkie and the people will pay for it?

So half the paper pushers (which I'm pretty much there with you on, tis what computer programmes should do), but don't half the drug addicts and associated costs? Put that bottle down NOW :D

[BoristheBiter]

So half the paper pushers (which I'm pretty much there with you on, tis what computer programmes should do), but don't half the drug addicts and associated costs? Put that bottle down NOW :D

No need for the bottle health, care is my rant topic.

[Banditbandit]

I believe the world's Stupidity Index just went up a few points ...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2547254/South-Korean-woman-known-The-Diva-makes-9-400-month-streaming-eating-online-three-hours-day-manages-stay-chopstick-thin.html

[mashman]

I believe the world's Stupidity Index just went up a few points ...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2547254/South-Korean-woman-known-The-Diva-makes-9-400-month-streaming-eating-online-three-hours-day-manages-stay-chopstick-thin.html

:rofl:... she'd quadruple that if she streamed with end spewing the food out. Entertainment eh :facepalm:

[Brian d marge]

I believe the world's Stupidity Index just went up a few points ...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2547254/South-Korean-woman-known-The-Diva-makes-9-400-month-streaming-eating-online-three-hours-day-manages-stay-chopstick-thin.html

I can beat that

This morning a 41 year old woman , left her car on the railway track heading into tokyo ( tobu tojo line ) luckily or unluckily she got out of the car to post a letter ,,,,, the car couldnt wait

Her bill for the ensuing mess 6 hours of train stoppage on one of the busiest lines in the world

( at approx 1 million yen per hour ) plus the cost of the clean up

oh and at least a a can of touch up spray for the car

I bet she aint feeling so hot now!

stephen

[Scuba_Steve]

Maybee Mashman can answer :Pokey:

https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/t1/q77/s720x720/1688773_413698725431579_1492946027_n.jpg

[Brian d marge]

Maybee Mashman can answer :Pokey:

https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/t1/q77/s720x720/1688773_413698725431579_1492946027_n.jpg

it was , and has been a few times before , but you cannot control a person who is debt free.

[mashman]

Maybee Mashman can answer :Pokey:

:laugh: White black magic is beyond me.

cre·ate [kree-eyt] Show IPA
verb (used with object), cre·at·ed, cre·at·ing.
1.
to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes.
2.
to evolve from one's own thought or imagination, as a work of art or an invention.
3.
Theater . to perform (a role) for the first time or in the first production of a play.
4.
to make by investing with new rank or by designating; constitute; appoint: to create a peer.
5.
to be the cause or occasion of; give rise to: The announcement created confusion.

[Brian d marge]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10605328/EU-has-secret-plan-for-police-to-remote-stop-cars.html

Just gets betterer and betterer

Stephen

[Scuba_Steve]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10605328/EU-has-secret-plan-for-police-to-remote-stop-cars.html

Just gets betterer and betterer

Stephen

Oh well good reason to stick to the older vehicles... Can't wait till the hackers start to play

[Scuba_Steve]

Well here's something that might be of interest to you Mashman; In the paper this week they have a writeup on Upper Hutt's 'Timebank' a scheme where you trade in time (after all "time is money" :laugh:) i.e. if you're good at gardening you can offer your skills as a gardner for people this will bank time which you can use at a later point to "hire" someone else for say painting, which you may not be so good at.

Everyone gets to use skills they're best at rather than working for a price point, everyone is equal as payment is time & well time's not susceptible to human greed like cash

[mashman]

Well here's something that might be of interest to you Mashman; In the paper this week they have a writeup on Upper Hutt's 'Timebank' a scheme where you trade in time (after all "time is money" :laugh:) i.e. if you're good at gardening you can offer your skills as a gardner for people this will bank time which you can use at a later point to "hire" someone else for say painting, which you may not be so good at.

Everyone gets to use skills they're best at rather than working for a price point, everyone is equal as payment is time & well time's not susceptible to human greed like cash

Just wait til the mechanic decides that his 1 hour is worth 3 hours lawn mowing ;). Great if it only ever stays 1 hr - 1hr, but I have my doubts that it'll stay that way. Time banking is a lervely idea, but it'll damage the economy (coz it takes money out of the equation for goods/services according to some Spanish economists). Probably a true assessment given the disparity in wages to trade in regards to financial remuneration. If there was a choice between a Time Banking Economy and the current financial system, I'd VOTE (betchawass) for Time Banking. Unfortunately it's still prone to human "greed" (especially if you and your mates log time that you spent fishing as services to the community) and as mentioned earlier, it's still prone to the skewing by trade.

Having said that, I reckon the majority, once made aware of pros and cons, would leap at the chance and would faithfully try their best for the rest of their community/countrymen. I'd still prefer NOW (but that's my baggage to carry around :killingme), if only because it can ditch time/financial value.

[Scuba_Steve]

Just wait til the mechanic decides that his 1 hour is worth 3 hours lawn mowing ;). Great if it only ever stays 1 hr - 1hr, but I have my doubts that it'll stay that way.

Well through this scheme it's not a direct transfer so you do 1hr work that 1hr gets "banked" to be used on 1hr of someone else's time which makes claiming your time "more important" slightly harder at this stage; Also of-course the people involved know how it works & like I'm sure you would be, are quite happy with this non-financial way of living

Of-course too, when your able to do something you love rather than something you "need" to for the price point you're less likely to complain "unfair"... unless of-course your skill is ripping people off via financial markets then I could see them complaining "unfair"

[mashman]

Well through this scheme it's not a direct transfer so you do 1hr work that 1hr gets "banked" to be used on 1hr of someone else's time which makes claiming your time "more important" slightly harder at this stage; Also of-course the people involved know how it works & like I'm sure you would be, are quite happy with this non-financial way of living

Of-course too, when your able to do something you love rather than something you "need" to for the price point you're less likely to complain "unfair"... unless of-course your skill is ripping people off via financial markets then I could see them complaining "unfair"

I get the idea. It's basically a "credit" system, 1hr = 1 credit (metaphorically). How much is a loaf? or a car? I'd love to bump into a Time Banker to see how they work those sorts of things out, but I can only assume that Time Banking runs in conjunction with the financial system? I think there were some lawyers in the states that were using a time banking system for those who couldn't afford to pay. It is a great idea, but as mentioned, if I can sit on my boat with 5 or 6 mates for 6 hours and we all agree that those hours are work, we end up getting free "credits". Now I don't really have a problem with that, other than the morality and rort, because I will never know if anyone is screwing the system unless they get caught. Exactly the same that would happen under NOW or indeed the financial system. That's where the "value" could start getting in the way, from the perspective of people becoming mistrustful of others and therefore labeling everyone they don't know as bludgers (heh). The best thing about NOW and Time Banking is that no one will necessarily suffer because of the hoarders/freeloaders as they will still be able to get bread etc... without worrying about how financially generous society has been in regards to the perceived lack of effort of the unemployed and therefore what they can afford.

:killingme@financial cunts and how everything is so unfair... they are a never ending source of entertainment, but as much as I'd miss them, I'd rather they became irrelevant.

[Ocean1]

Just wait til the mechanic decides that his 1 hour is worth 3 hours lawn mowing.

Don't have to wait that long mate, his clients already know that.

What, wiv not bein' idiots an' all.

[mashman]

Don't have to wait that long mate, his clients already know that.

What, wiv not bein' idiots an' all.

Perhaps you should enlighten them that it isn't the mechanics fault... free market and the value setters etc... am sure they'll believe you.

Bit of a sweeping statement that.

[Ocean1]

Perhaps you should enlighten them that it isn't the mechanics fault... free market and the value setters etc... am sure they'll believe you.

They don't need enlightening, they're the ones that set the value.


Bit of a sweeping statement that.

Well it's generally true. But there are the odd exceptions, as you say. People that think someone other than the purchaser should set the value of shit. I didn't think anyone bothered about them to be honest, they'll never amount to anything worth mentioning.

[mashman]

They don't need enlightening, they're the ones that set the value.

Well it's generally true. But there are the odd exceptions, as you say. People that think someone other than the purchaser should set the value of shit. I didn't think anyone bothered about them to be honest, they'll never amount to anything worth mentioning.

Do they know why they set the value that they set and why that value changes from country to country?

Aha... the purchaser doesn't set the value? You said if the service it too expensive, no one will buy it. It's the ones who see the value beyond the financial value that'll never amount to anything... until they do... and in ever increasing numbers.

[Scuba_Steve]

I get the idea. It's basically a "credit" system, 1hr = 1 credit (metaphorically). How much is a loaf? or a car? I'd love to bump into a Time Banker to see how they work those sorts of things out, but I can only assume that Time Banking runs in conjunction with the financial system?

yea from the writeup it looks to be only services on the "timebank" scheme people offering gardening, landscaping, building, cooking, cleaning, teaching etc but supply your own materials & I can only assume the time earn't is confirmed by the purchaser as they're the ones having to spend their banked time for the other party to earn it.

So still not a independent system, & like any system flaws could be found, but for those who have time & skills it's a good start to a better community

[mashman]

yea from the writeup it looks to be only services on the "timebank" scheme people offering gardening, landscaping, building, cooking, cleaning, teaching etc but supply your own materials & I can only assume the time earn't is confirmed by the purchaser as they're the ones having to spend their banked time for the other party to earn it.

So still not a independent system, & like any system flaws could be found, but for those who have time & skills it's a good start to a better community

Makes sense I guess. Tantalisingly though just one step away from NOW :blip:

Damn straight man. Cannae bling again.

[Ocean1]

Do they know why they set the value that they set and why that value changes from country to country?

Yes. There's no higher authority on what shit's worth than the guy paying for it.


Aha... the purchaser doesn't set the value? You said if the service it too expensive, no one will buy it.

Which defines that price as too high. There's no contradiction in the basic mechanisms behind a free market, dude, no matter how hard screw your eyes up.


It's the ones who see the value beyond the financial value that'll never amount to anything... until they do... and in ever increasing numbers.

There's no such thing as financial value, dude. There's just value, which most people quantify in dollar terms. You can use pineapples if you insist, you'll just have to get the exchange rate sorted.

[mashman]

Yes. There's no higher authority on what shit's worth than the guy paying for it.

Which defines that price as too high. There's no contradiction in the basic mechanisms behind a free market, dude, no matter how hard screw your eyes up.

:rofl: market economics eh. Would love to throw that comment, along with paperclips and staples, into a Keynesian v's Neoclassical fucktardoff and watch them contradict the hell out of each other.



There's no such thing as financial value, dude. There's just value, which most people quantify in dollar terms. You can use pineapples if you insist, you'll just have to get the exchange rate sorted.

You know I'd rather use nuffink. True... although I would have thought that interest and inflation where financial values.

[Ocean1]

:rofl: market economics eh. Would love to throw that comment, along with paperclips and staples, into a Keynesian v's Neoclassical fucktardoff and watch them contradict the hell out of each other.

They're economic theorists/theories, when you get enough of them they're always going to disagree on the details. The market itself is the simple fact of the agreement between buyer and seller. Only a fool disagrees with facts.

[mashman]

They're economic theorists/theories, when you get enough of them they're always going to disagree on the details. The market itself is the simple fact of the agreement between buyer and seller. Only a fool disagrees with facts.

They've also been practiced. Neither works coz that sentiment you mention has been replaced by free trade agreements, and likely other mechanisms, that fuck things up superbly and end up putting local industry's to the axe etc... and all in the search for the mighty $$$. In theory there should be 1 rate for a mechanic globally.

[Ocean1]

They've also been practiced.

They're theories. They seek to explain how some aspects of markets work, you don't "practice" such theories. Do you mean economic policy has been generated using those theories to try to influence market behaviour? In which case you'd be right.

And interesting as the results sometimes are they still don't represent the market, they just represent conjectures on how it behaves.
So it's somewhat incorrect to say that any theories have been "practiced".


Neither works coz that sentiment you mention has been replaced by free trade agreements, and likely other mechanisms, that fuck things up superbly and end up putting local industry's to the axe etc... and all in the search for the mighty $$$.

I mentioned no sentiment whatsoever. I mentioned free trade, is that what you mean?

I tend to agree that free trade agreements rarely deliver free trade in any industry. As for your "mighty dollar: there's nothing wrong with getting the best value you can in any purchase or sale you do.


In theory there should be 1 rate for a mechanic globally.

What sort of theory ignores the global differences in cost to supply mechanics services?

[mashman]

They're theories. They seek to explain how some aspects of markets work, you don't "practice" such theories. Do you mean economic policy has been generated using those theories to try to influence market behaviour? In which case you'd be right.

And interesting as the results sometimes are they still don't represent the market, they just represent conjectures on how it behaves.
So it's somewhat incorrect to say that any theories have been "practiced".

Fair enough. The ideology is practiced is what I mean, but yeah, economic policy shaping market conditions to prove the theory ain't the way I'd put it... more ideology driven financial policy with the economics as the result and not the driver (in name only).



I mentioned no sentiment whatsoever. I mentioned free trade, is that what you mean?

I tend to agree that free trade agreements rarely deliver free trade in any industry. As for your "mighty dollar: there's nothing wrong with getting the best value you can in any purchase or sale you do.

"The market itself is the simple fact of the agreement between buyer and seller"... lovely sentiment, but not what I'd refer to as a simple fact given that the market isn't just about handshakes anymore as the fta's force a certain level of coercion. Yes coercion is technically an agreement, but it can (probably is) be a constraint for those within any given industry... so not strictly a direct agreement.

It's the cheaper to import tomatoes/coal/hats etc... from Chile v's produce locally that gets me. I would have thought the associated collateral damage i.e. job losses and knock on community affects, would have been enough to override the "best value" bit (a more holistic view)... but I guess a business entity is a business entity and they don;t have to consider the wider affects of their actions. No, I'm not bagging business.



What sort of theory ignores the global differences in cost to supply mechanics services?

A well thought out one. Think of all of that admin that would vanish. In fact remove cost entirely blah blah blah.

[Ocean1]

"The market itself is the simple fact of the agreement between buyer and seller"... lovely sentiment, but not what I'd refer to as a simple fact given that the market isn't just about handshakes anymore as the fta's force a certain level of coercion. Yes coercion is technically an agreement, but it can (probably is) be a constraint for those within any given industry... so not strictly a direct agreement.

Again: an agreement between a seller and a buyer isn't a sentiment. The sum of any number of such agreements in any given field/city/country is the market, that's a fact, it's that simple.

And if there's coercion or any other form of influence involved in that transaction then that transaction isn't any part of any free market. Interference in the market comes more from governments attempting to control and tax them than any other source. Unfortunately any artificial shaping of a market produces distortions, which in extreme cases cause:


It's the cheaper to import tomatoes/coal/hats etc... from Chile v's produce locally that gets me. I would have thought the associated collateral damage i.e. job losses and knock on community affects, would have been enough to override the "best value" bit (a more holistic view)... but I guess a business entity is a business entity and they don;t have to consider the wider affects of their actions. No, I'm not bagging business.

If you found all of the contributing parts of the costs associated with those tomatoes/coal/hats I guarantee you'd find that most of them related to something other than the product. Even such simple effects as local taxes being higher cause exponential effects in global markets, let alone targeted duties, regulated labour markets, and a veritable shitload of other costs having fuck all to do with bringing the product to market.

I dislike targeted taxes intensely, but in the long run that money goes back into my community where I get another shot at earning it. International corporations that attempt to interfere with markets through isolation and monopolisation tactics I loath with a passion. If their product was that good it should stand against it's competitors priced at it's cost-to-market. The legal and "marketing" ploys they utilise in their attempts to dominate a market are tantamount to a declaration of war on their consumers. Any corporate entity that behaves like that deserves nothing less than a complete embargo on their products, simply for the fact that they destroy the freedom of their market, they deny their clients a choice.

[Brian d marge]

Oh well good reason to stick to the older vehicles... Can't wait till the hackers start to play

Two of the best "anti hacker" cars I have ever owned , Austin allegro and a Hilman Hunter , both would just keep going , no matter who or what tried to disable them. Ok they didnt go that fast , Not that the nun on a bicycle that I over took in the grunter seemed pleased

I did manage to destroy the Austin , in a beer run to Akaroa with not much in the way of oil in the engine ( well I went to christchurch first , to get oil. Forgot ( might have something to do with being shitfaced ) then went to akaroa , nearly made Birdlings flat before it went bang

oh happy dayz

Stephen

[mashman]

Again: an agreement between a seller and a buyer isn't a sentiment. The sum of any number of such agreements in any given field/city/country is the market, that's a fact, it's that simple.

And if there's coercion or any other form of influence involved in that transaction then that transaction isn't any part of any free market. Interference in the market comes more from governments attempting to control and tax them than any other source. Unfortunately any artificial shaping of a market produces distortions, which in extreme cases cause:

Transactions = market, you're right that is the definition... but you have to include "influenced" transactions in that definition as they are still transactions? Ya know, there's only 1 real driver, cough cough money cough, for the market distortions and the state it finds itself in. That's a fact.



If you found all of the contributing parts of the costs associated with those tomatoes/coal/hats I guarantee you'd find that most of them related to something other than the product. Even such simple effects as local taxes being higher cause exponential effects in global markets, let alone targeted duties, regulated labour markets, and a veritable shitload of other costs having fuck all to do with bringing the product to market.

I dislike targeted taxes intensely, but in the long run that money goes back into my community where I get another shot at earning it. International corporations that attempt to interfere with markets through isolation and monopolisation tactics I loath with a passion. If their product was that good it should stand against it's competitors priced at it's cost-to-market. The legal and "marketing" ploys they utilise in their attempts to dominate a market are tantamount to a declaration of war on their consumers. Any corporate entity that behaves like that deserves nothing less than a complete embargo on their products, simply for the fact that they destroy the freedom of their market, they deny their clients a choice.

No doubt... but that eventually takes us back to our old friend unemployment and how we get money into non-working consumers pockets to "live", as well as the out and out compliance lolly scramble you describe.

You mean some of that money makes it back into the community? I guess the downsides of competition and pseudo-cooperation are always going to result in monopolies. I can't see how monopolisation could be avoided short of rules/regulation/compliance. After all, if you wanna be the best, then buy the best or drive the competition out of business, none of this standing should to shoulder nonsense, that's just not the way things are done. Ach, marketing and advertising doesn't remove choice and whilst I can see what you mean by declaring war against customers, as you say, they can always take their business elsewhere... but why would they do that if it saves them money? Yes that's likely a shot term gain, but meh, it's cash in the pocket immediately allowing people to save or invest (pfft). It's a brave new world man and fairness has got feck all to do with it for business or individuals so those we deem to be bending "systems" to their will are only obliged to play fair in so much that their behaviour is legal. We needz change coz that behaviour ain't going away.

[Scuba_Steve]

Bout right too

https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/t1/q71/1551488_415903315211120_1191062374_n.jpg

[mashman]

Bout right too

My adrenal glands be a flowin somefink fierce at the mo. Glad I don't have access to loaded drones... well, that's not strictly true

https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/4283138816/hA97E5DF3/

[Ocean1]

Transactions = market, you're right that is the definition... but you have to include "influenced" transactions in that definition as they are still transactions? Ya know, there's only 1 real driver, cough cough money cough, for the market distortions and the state it finds itself in. That's a fact.

The driver isn't money, it's value, money is simply one way to quantify that value. You continue to abuse the definition of both.


No doubt... but that eventually takes us back to our old friend unemployment and how we get money into non-working consumers pockets to "live", as well as the out and out compliance lolly scramble you describe.


It takes us nowhere near unemployment, fuck knows how you got there, product cost-to-market has nothing to do with it.

[mashman]

The driver isn't money, it's value, money is simply one way to quantify that value. You continue to abuse the definition of both.

It takes us nowhere near unemployment, fuck knows how you got there, product cost-to-market has nothing to do with it.

I don't believe those definitions hold any more and have been blurred beyond recognition. Your driver may well be generating value, but I wouldn't say that that is the norm by any stretch of the imagination. Money has value and I care not that you don't like that fact.

Of course it does. If you strip away the unrequired jobs/compliance/unnecessary taxation, then you're going to end up with unemployed people and a smaller tax base to "cover" them with.

[Ocean1]

I don't believe those definitions hold any more and have been blurred beyond recognition. Your driver may well be generating value, but I wouldn't say that that is the norm by any stretch of the imagination. Money has value and I care not that you don't like that fact.

You're the only one failing to recognise the difference, every other contributor in every other market is quite capable of distinguishing between the product's market value and the cash that represents it.

No? Here's $1000 Monopoly money, swap you for NZ$1000 dollars. No? What's the difference?


Of course it does. If you strip away the unrequired jobs/compliance/unnecessary taxation, then you're going to end up with unemployed people and a smaller tax base to "cover" them with.

Firstly, it's not the function of a market to pay for unrelated costs. Secondly, there's plenty of work for dole bludgers and unrequired govt clerks. They might not think they pay enough, but their chance to earn more probably passed them by when they left school at 16 or decided to clip the taxpayer's ticket in a nice safe job in the non-productive sector. Their choice.

As I've said before, unemployment is a function of the difference between a workers value and his expectations, nothing else.

[mashman]

You're the only one failing to recognise the difference, every other contributor in every other market is quite capable of distinguishing between the product's market value and the cash that represents it.

No? Here's $1000 Monopoly money, swap you for NZ$1000 dollars. No? What's the difference?

I understand the difference... but i'll rephrase: where the driver is money and not product, I refuse to lump that in with your definition of the relationship between product value and the token being used to quantify it to the rest of the world... in the same way that you don't accept "coercion" as part of a market transaction.

It's all "monopoly" money. Other than that, not only are you saying that the monopoly money has no value, but you're confirming that the NZD does. Unspent that money still has value. It represents nothing other than cash.



Firstly, it's not the function of a market to pay for unrelated costs. Secondly, there's plenty of work for dole bludgers and unrequired govt clerks. They might not think they pay enough, but their chance to earn more probably passed them by when they left school at 16 or decided to clip the taxpayer's ticket in a nice safe job in the non-productive sector. Their choice.

As I've said before, unemployment is a function of the difference between a workers value and his expectations, nothing else.

Firstly, if you want your product to get to market, you dance the jig i.e. pay what it costs. Secondly, there aren't enough jobs, let alone enough jobs if you suddenly dropped 25% of existing workers on the dole. Thirdly, they wouldn't be bludgers. Fourthly, you can be 50 before you figure out a way of making money, we're ALL capable til the end. Fifthly, you're seriously going to pick on the minority of cases and stamp them as failures because they decided not to put in the effort in the beginning. You a Manchurian Candidate?

What a crock of shit. Some people choose unemployment and become very successful business people... yes there's a different set of rules, but taking that away from them is just plain stupid. Some people choose to work, but given the cost of bills etc... and trying to cover their life's work to date, I can't blame the for holding out for something that pays.

[Ocean1]

I understand the difference... but i'll rephrase: where the driver is money and not product, I refuse to lump that in with your definition of the relationship between product value and the token being used to quantify it to the rest of the world... in the same way that you don't accept "coercion" as part of a market transaction.

I refuse to accept coercion as a valid part of a free market because it’s the exact opposite. It’s theft. Fuck knows where you get the idea that money itself is anything other than a token representing a product’s value but I assure you there’s no “same way” whatsoever, bullshit doesn't suddenly become fact simply because you decide you don't like the odds in favour of your argument.

You don’t like the idea of someone charging interest on a loan. So don’t borrow money.

In the meantime the rest of the world wants to use some of that reserve value to build houses, and the owners of that value want to supply it. Free market. Mind your own fucking business.


It's all "monopoly" money.

Yeah. B Ark material, right there, you’re collecting leaves too right?


Other than that, not only are you saying that the monopoly money has no value, but you're confirming that the NZD does. Unspent that money still has value. It represents nothing other than cash.

It doesn’t “have” value, it represents value. Unspent, it represents value saved, and without it you simply can’t do that. And because you can’t save value without money you can’t use surplus value either. As above, you don’t approve of lending money but you’re happey enough about borrowing it to fill yer own boots. Not only are you incapable of minding your own business but you want a slice of everyone else’s.



Firstly, if you want your product to get to market, you dance the jig i.e. pay what it costs. Secondly, there aren't enough jobs, let alone enough jobs if you suddenly dropped 25% of existing workers on the dole. Thirdly, they wouldn't be bludgers. Fourthly, you can be 50 before you figure out a way of making money, we're ALL capable til the end. Fifthly, you're seriously going to pick on the minority of cases and stamp them as failures because they decided not to put in the effort in the beginning. You a Manchurian Candidate?

Yeah, you continually trot out the same tired old shit. Why should my clients pay more for my product than it’s worth just because some other arsehole can’t manage to support himself, that’s what charity’s for. And if you look carefully I specifically said there’s plenty of jobs for anyone that doesn’t insist on more remuneration than they actually earn. That sort are definitely bludgers, no sort of doubt about it. And as long as you don’t expect anyone else to feed you until you’re 50 then by all means put yer feet up old son, none of my business. And I don’t pick on any cases, but let’s make this perfectly clear: anyone that doesn’t earn their keep but expects someone else to front up with lunch is asking for charity. Anyone that does so because they decided not to put in the effort not only doesn’t deserve charity of any sort but most potential supporters would ask them to go and get fucked.


What a crock of shit. Some people choose unemployment and become very successful business people... yes there's a different set of rules, but taking that away from them is just plain stupid. Some people choose to work, but given the cost of bills etc... and trying to cover their life's work to date, I can't blame the for holding out for something that pays.

Well, it’s a crock of shit they served themselves, anyone that chooses not to support themselves knowing that someone else has to deserves fuck all, nobody, but nobody has the right to rely on unwilling support while they produce fuck all. Temporary organised support? No problem, here’s some cash. Career bludger? Be fucked.

It’s called personal responsibility. You should look into it.

[mashman]

It’s called personal responsibility. You should look into it.

If you knew what that truly meant, I would bother. You have made it clear that you are the captain of your own destiny, and whilst I agree with that, I don't agree that that should limit my responsibility towards others irrespective of how much effort they put into it or how much value they generate. Tis your choice to be a selfish prick in those terms and to hide behind trite definitions of "economy" that serve absolutely no other purpose than to feed your entitlement complex. Bother over.

[husaberg]

http://img.ffffound.com/static-data/assets/6/daa27d4226327556ecc9166d9023c6bc34a675c6_m.jpg

[Ocean1]

If you knew what that truly meant, I would bother. You have made it clear that you are the captain of your own destiny, and whilst I agree with that, I don't agree that that should limit my responsibility towards others irrespective of how much effort they put into it or how much value they generate. Tis your choice to be a selfish prick in those terms and to hide behind trite definitions of "economy" that serve absolutely no other purpose than to feed your entitlement complex. Bother over.

I know exactly what that means, it's one of the core ideals that maintain my relationship with the community in the positive. And my personal responsibility in choosing to support myself rather than refusing to produce anything unless someone agrees to pay me twice what it's worth is what puts the lie to your wee bit about being a selfish prick: It's what pays for the selfish pricks that don't bother. It's also what pays for far, far more contributions to those that genuinely need it than any half-arsed dependent could hope to muster.

That economy you despise is nothing less than the sum total of the value of our collective efforts. Fuck all "trite" about that. You're concern about it would be better served focusing on how much of it you can contribute, rather than how unfair it's redistribution you reckon it is.


Next time bring some facts roughly assembled in a rational argument, or just keep your own "entitlement" complex in check.

[mashman]

I know exactly what that means, it's one of the core ideals that maintain my relationship with the community in the positive. And my personal responsibility in choosing to support myself rather than refusing to produce anything unless someone agrees to pay me twice what it's worth is what puts the lie to your wee bit about being a selfish prick: It's what pays for the selfish pricks that don't bother. It's also what pays for far, far more contributions to those that genuinely need it than any half-arsed dependent could hope to muster.

That economy you despise is nothing less than the sum total of the value of our collective efforts. Fuck all "trite" about that. You're concern about it would be better served focusing on how much of it you can contribute, rather than how unfair it's redistribution you reckon it is.


Next time bring some facts roughly assembled in a rational argument, or just keep your own "entitlement" complex in check.

Your responsibility should go beyond your community and it should be unconditional. :rofl:@how much you put in to the pot. You reckon that gives you some form of divine right to write-off those who you decide aren't putting in any effort whilst claiming you understand what personal responsibility is? Nah bro, not in my book.

I don't despise the economy, get your facts right before leaping on your high horse. You seem to measure that sum total of value in $ terms and not in terms of how it is affecting the people/environment under which that economy functions. Apart from being in the top 5 of the trite list since time began, it dismisses economic related facts that are repeatedly smacking you in the face as nothing more than an inconvenience to the market. I am focussed on how much I can contribute, just not in the way you might think and certainly not in regards to wealth redistribution... that's merely an argument for keeping economists in jobs and not something I tend to trouble myself with other than it highlights the most important failing of the so called "working" economy.

You choose to ignore and dismiss that which you will, I have no issue with that... but pretending that the world would go back to its hay day if the economy ran to definition is only fooling yourself. I choose to refuse to pretend anymore. Look after the people properly and the economy will look after itself... do it the other way around and you get what we have. That is a fact.

[jonbuoy]

Who would have thought it - being poor doesn´t mean you will underachieve for the rest of your life or give you an excuse...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-26015532

[Ocean1]

Your responsibility should go beyond your community and it should be unconditional. :rofl:@how much you put in to the pot. You reckon that gives you some form of divine right to write-off those who you decide aren't putting in any effort whilst claiming you understand what personal responsibility is? Nah bro, not in my book.

I'm responsible for my own actions, it's not possible to be responsible for anyone else's actions. I assume you mean I'm supposed to support whoever wants support no matter their own efforts to that end?

In which case I don't need divine guidance, my help is mine to give or otherwise, and as there's only so much I can do I reserve the right to give it to whoever I think needs it most. And yes, I'm somewhat less likely to help anyone that wants help simply because it's easier than doing it themselves.

And as your book is based on some rather novel and unlikely beliefs I'm fairly relaxed if it's take on personal responsibility differs substantially from mine. But, as usual, feel free to give your own help to whoever you want.


You choose to ignore and dismiss that which you will, I have no issue with that... but pretending that the world would go back to its hay day if the economy ran to definition is only fooling yourself. I choose to refuse to pretend anymore.

I ignore nothing. I dismiss overtly contrived rationale, and no, you don't have any issue with that.

I made no reference to any "hay day", and I've never at any time said that I agree that the current economic controls are adequate. So any suggestion that I might be fooling myself can only be a bit of contrived theatre, otherwise known as bullshit.

And your whole economic premise requires an extraordinarily extensive series of pretences, nothing less would support the fantastic claims you continue to make regarding the economy, money and it's generally accepted uses and conventions.



Look after the people properly and the economy will look after itself... do it the other way around and you get what we have. That is a fact.

It's not a fact, it's demonstrably untrue. In fact in order to make such a claim you depend heavily on the farcical pretence that money is pulled from some bankers arse and distributed in a patently unfair manner that you struggle to understand.

Whereas any kid with a paper round knows it's the result of supplying something someone else wants. An observation that recognises that unproductive behaviour by it's very definition is not only not worth anyone's support but actually detracts from the economy's value.

So let's try turning that little piece of bullshit around: Let's explore how improving economic productivity might supply the resources necessary to look after those that can't do so themselves, rather than crippling it by bleeding productive enterprise in order to buy votes from those more than capable of taking care of themselves.

And if you feel up to it you'll find that a bit of research will demonstrate that my assertions bear somewhat more resemblance to facts than those you like to shape around your hard-held beliefs.

[husaberg]

It's not a fact, it's demonstrably untrue. In fact in order to make such a claim you depend heavily on the farcical pretence that money is pulled from some bankers arse and distributed in a patently unfair manner that you struggle to understand.


Ocean, the banking lending system is pulling money from thin air they indeed lend more money than they have reserves for, they indeed pull it out of their buttholes

[Ocean1]

Ocean, the banking lending system is pulling money from thin air they indeed lend more money than they have reserves for, they indeed pull it out of their buttholes

Are you seriously suggesting it's simply printed and given to the bank's mates? That's not quite right, though, is it? The government controls new funds availability, the banks are just their agents in that regard.

And over 85% of it goes into the mortgage market. So it doesn't simply represent fresh air, it represents the value of kiwi homes, and without it most kiwis wouldn't have the properties they now enjoy, they'd have to front up with rather closer to 100% of the value before moving in.

I'd be fairly happy with that state of affairs, because I think it's worth some significant compromise to reduce private debt. But in the long run it's the private individual's decision. Which is why you'll find their signature on the loan agreement.

[Ocean1]

And through a time of comparatively high unemployment:

"A report issued by the Ministry of Social Development said a labour and skills shortage was a major factor in increasing employment levels for over 65s, which have been on the rise since 2002."

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/9685795/More-people-keep-working-after-retirement-age

[Brian d marge]

Are you seriously suggesting it's simply printed and given to the bank's mates? That's not quite right, though, is it? The government controls new funds availability, the banks are just their agents in that regard.

And over 85% of it goes into the mortgage market. So it doesn't simply represent fresh air, it represents the value of kiwi homes, and without it most kiwis wouldn't have the properties they now enjoy, they'd have to front up with rather closer to 100% of the value before moving in.

I'd be fairly happy with that state of affairs, because I think it's worth some significant compromise to reduce private debt. But in the long run it's the private individual's decision. Which is why you'll find their signature on the loan agreement.

Last time I checked the bank was independent of the government ( 1985? reserve bank act ) and yes it prints money out of thin air , that’s what Fiat money is
Banke moon has said this on many occasions

As for representing the value of Kiwi homes, I think you are confusing purchasing power with perceived value

and no the unemployed are not the cause of all evil

Stephen

[husaberg]

Are you seriously suggesting it's simply printed and given to the bank's mates? That's not quite right, though, is it? The government controls new funds availability, the banks are just their agents in that regard.

And over 85% of it goes into the mortgage market. So it doesn't simply represent fresh air, it represents the value of kiwi homes, and without it most kiwis wouldn't have the properties they now enjoy, they'd have to front up with rather closer to 100% of the value before moving in.



the money is not printed per say...... but it is indeed plucked from thin air though, No it isn't given to their mates though it is lent out as you say.
The banks are able to lend out far more money (at least 10 times more than they have the funds to cover) and this plucked money costs them nothing, yet is still charged out in same interest to the borrowers..........
I think it was Roosevelt that tried to change the system to a fairer one where the interest rates reflected a fairer measure of interest but he died before he could make the changes...

Fractional reserve banking
Fractional-reserve banking is the practice whereby a bank retains reserves in an amount equal to only a portion of the amount of its customers' deposits to satisfy potential demands for withdrawals. Reserves are held at the bank as currency, or as deposits reflected in the bank's accounts at the central bank. The remainder of customer-deposited funds is used to fund investments or loans that the bank makes to other customers.[citation needed] Most of these loaned funds are later redeposited into other banks, allowing further lending. Because bank deposits are usually considered money in their own right, fractional-reserve banking permits the money supply to grow to a multiple (called the money multiplier) of the underlying reserves of base money originally created by the central bank

[Ocean1]

Last time I checked the bank was independent of the government ( 1985? reserve bank act ) and yes it prints money out of thin air , that’s what Fiat money is
Banke moon has said this on many occasions

And it's availability is controled by the RBNZ using a big knob called the OCR.


As for representing the value of Kiwi homes, I think you are confusing purchasing power with perceived value

Read it again Stephen, most of that fiat money is lent in the mortgage market, it pays for housed to be built, it therefore represents the value of those houses.

I know you feel it’s unfair that the evel banks can print money and you can’t, but whereas it’s unlikely anyone else would benefit from your sudden acquisition of vast wads of cash, banks actually use it to allow kiwis access to loans they simply wouldn’t get any other way. Remove that mechanism and yer average bloke would have to stump up with around 80% of the value of his property.

Like I said, it’d suit me fine, the value of my investments would double overnight, but in the long run fiat money fills a market that’s as free as it’s possible to be, nobody legally forces anyone to borrow money, and only a fool does so and then bleats about the cost involved.

[Ocean1]

the money is not printed per say...... but it is indeed plucked from thin air though, No it isn't given to their mates though it is lent out as you say.
The banks are able to lend out far more money (at least 10 times more than they have the funds to cover) and this plucked money costs them nothing, yet is still charged out in same interest to the borrowers..........
I think it was Roosevelt that tried to change the system to a fairer one where the interest rates reflected a fairer measure of interest but he died before he could make the changes...

Fairer for who? What, exactly is unfair about the system?

Anyone so upset about the practice always has to option of borrowing money from another source, there's a few co-ops still around, the mafia will gladly help you out... Or your distaste for the system might even lead you to the conclusion that if it's unethical to loan fiat money in particular then it's at least as unethical to borrow it.

I'd suggest that any agreement between two party's understanding the costs and benefits on both sides and damaging nobody else should probably be left to their business.

[husaberg]

Fairer for who? What, exactly is unfair about the system?

Anyone so upset about the practice always has to option of borrowing money from another source, there's a few co-ops still around, the mafia will gladly help you out... Or your distaste for the system might even lead you to the conclusion that if it's unethical to loan fiat money in particular then it's at least as unethical to borrow it.

I'd suggest that any agreement between two party's understanding the costs and benefits on both sides and damaging nobody else should probably be left to their business.
http://images.fineartamerica.com/images-small/whoa-horsey-russell-ellingsworth.jpg
Whoa back Ocean and dismount from your high horse for a second.



The system is slanted far far to much to the lender there is far to much profit being made out of nothing. (you will say demand, but it is artificially created and non competitively driven)This artificially raises the price of the assets being lent on mainly houses to a level which totally out strips their actual worth in comparison to the earning capacity of the borrower.

http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/a2/bc/8a/a2bc8a2c90f2acc8aa4c587b3ad57229.jpg
Should people pay mortages their entire lives to put a roof over their heads....the next generation will live their entire lives in perpetual debt.
For you is it a case of let them eat cake?


http://maaikezijm.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/a9f9bd0.jpghttp://novznania.ru/w/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/18_gil.jpg

[mashman]

I'm responsible for my own actions, it's not possible to be responsible for anyone else's actions. I assume you mean I'm supposed to support whoever wants support no matter their own efforts to that end?

In which case I don't need divine guidance, my help is mine to give or otherwise, and as there's only so much I can do I reserve the right to give it to whoever I think needs it most. And yes, I'm somewhat less likely to help anyone that wants help simply because it's easier than doing it themselves.

And as your book is based on some rather novel and unlikely beliefs I'm fairly relaxed if it's take on personal responsibility differs substantially from mine. But, as usual, feel free to give your own help to whoever you want.


Oh I'm sure you are a rsponsible person, within the law and likely morally too... but not recognising that your actions, be they responsible or not, affects the actions of others would lead me to think that you only do good things to make yourself feel good, irrespective of the consequences of those actions. For example, if a supermarket chain can buy in bulk and undercut the local competition, it will cause a reaction (one of many possibilities, but it will affect other people). You have just been responsible for someone else's actions. NOW extrapolate that to a global economic level and you may start to glean where I'm coming from.

So my beliefs are now unlikely, but not factually incorrect. My my, you have come a long way.



I ignore nothing. I dismiss overtly contrived rationale, and no, you don't have any issue with that.

I made no reference to any "hay day", and I've never at any time said that I agree that the current economic controls are adequate. So any suggestion that I might be fooling myself can only be a bit of contrived theatre, otherwise known as bullshit.

And your whole economic premise requires an extraordinarily extensive series of pretences, nothing less would support the fantastic claims you continue to make regarding the economy, money and it's generally accepted uses and conventions.


As do I.

You keep saying the problem is that X is happening therefore Y can't happen... and usually your X's are some form of change that has occured to upset your market. So once upon a time the market must have been working more properer, so I used the term "hay day" and coupling that with your belief that economic controls of any form would return us to any given point in time when the market was betterer or would even make the current market betterer, then I will most carry on believing that you are fooling yourself. If it still isn't working after several thousand years, it ain't ever gonna work.

And your whole economic premise requires an extraordinarily extensive series of pretences to instill confidence in a population (that's global btw) that the economy, money and it's generally accepted uses and conventions still hold true... despite that very same population coming to their senses and calling bullshit. I don't need support when the truth is but a read of a paper or a watch of a news channel away... which only serves to confirm that the bullshit that is propagated by those who refer to generally accepted uses and conventions as the right way, is anything but generaly accepted.



It's not a fact, it's demonstrably untrue. In fact in order to make such a claim you depend heavily on the farcical pretence that money is pulled from some bankers arse and distributed in a patently unfair manner that you struggle to understand.

Whereas any kid with a paper round knows it's the result of supplying something someone else wants. An observation that recognises that unproductive behaviour by it's very definition is not only not worth anyone's support but actually detracts from the economy's value.

So let's try turning that little piece of bullshit around: Let's explore how improving economic productivity might supply the resources necessary to look after those that can't do so themselves, rather than crippling it by bleeding productive enterprise in order to buy votes from those more than capable of taking care of themselves.

And if you feel up to it you'll find that a bit of research will demonstrate that my assertions bear somewhat more resemblance to facts than those you like to shape around your hard-held beliefs.


It is pulled out of a bankers arse. Even in QE format not only is the money pulled from their arse, but the bonds that are generated (that the tax payer pays for and pays interest on) are also pulled out of someone's arse. So I will maintain that looking after people properly will see the economy right. Don't look after them and your economy will colaps, because, as we established what seems like minutes ago, the people are the economy. Make your mind up... or at least join a few of your own dots together and keep to your story.

How does it detract from the economy's value?

Define can't look after oneself. And explain why they can't look after themselves. My starter for 10 is, give everyone a free education whenever they want one... then as people are ready to be productive, they will have every tool at their disposal to become so.

My beliefs aren't hard-held and you have every chance of changing my mind... however you have yet to produce anything to challenge them with.

[Brian d marge]

And it's availability is controled by the RBNZ using a big knob called the OCR.


The RBNZ is independent from the government , aka the reserve ban act

the money is released into the economy to control the inflation rate ie keep it under 2 or 3 % whatever it is now

Inflation is what eats away at the "value " or purchasing power of that money ( snip;
noun
noun: inflation




2.
Economics
a general increase in prices and fall in the purchasing value of money.









Now maybe you can see why people are bent out of shape about the whole idea
It gets even worse when you consider Why we use a fractional/ fiat system . ( dont bother reading Stuff.co.nz the answer wont be there)

And no it, isnt used to fund mortgages. Private banks use different instruments for that. ( and it is just a number on a computer screen , sorry but it is . 2/3 of the money is digital money the rest is paper etc, yes its backed by assets; bank bonds etc inter bank lending.. But when u sit down in front of the bank manager , its a number on a computer screen .

the Mafia if actually the better bet .

Read it again Stephen, most of that fiat money is lent in the mortgage market, it pays for housed to be built, it therefore represents the value of those houses.

I know you feel it’s unfair that the evel banks can print money and you can’t, but whereas it’s unlikely anyone else would benefit from your sudden acquisition of vast wads of cash, banks actually use it to allow kiwis access to loans they simply wouldn’t get any other way. Remove that mechanism and yer average bloke would have to stump up with around 80% of the value of his property.

Rubbish complete and utter.

Like I said, it’d suit me fine, the value of my investments would double overnight, but in the long run fiat money fills a market that’s as free as it’s possible to be, nobody legally forces anyone to borrow money, and only a fool does so and then bleats about the cost involved.

You could pay of the debt quicker if inflation went nuts ( fiat money means its not backed by anything gold etc)
This is what happened in Germany , people with cash, ie those not on a fixed income , bought stuff at fire sale prices.( converting cash into assets)
but the value of your money ( its purchasing power ) will drop .



You are going to have a shock soon , all I can say is I hope you are freehold and debt free .

Stephen

[Ocean1]

Whoa back Ocean and dismount from your high horse for a second.


The system is slanted far far to much to the lender there is far to much profit being made out of nothing. (you will say demand, but it is artificially created and non competitively driven)This artificially raises the price of the assets being lent on mainly houses to a level which totally out strips their actual worth in comparison to the earning capacity of the borrower.

Should people pay mortages their entire lives to put a roof over their heads....the next generation will live their entire lives in perpetual debt.
For you is it a case of let them eat cake?

No high horse here mate, not a scrap of blame or moral hill-climbing, it was a simple question about how the system is unfair.

And it may be that competition isn't as rabidly competitive as you'd like. I'd certainly like my options to include cheaper loans. Yet, yet as I said there are alternatives, and the ultimate price-check is always available: don't deal with them. You know full well that would drive the prices down too.

And I don't see the profit as made from nothing at all, inflation alone accounts for over half of it, tax accounts for most of the rest. And let's not pretend the debt's somehow different because the money wasn't part of some old codgers savings, the guys who built he house certainly didn't make the distinction and the property's worth the same either way.

Our parents might have had fewer debts than us, our grandparents certainly did, but their properties and their lifestyles were a damned sight less spendy too. In fact the size of their mortgages was probably about as proportionate to the size and quality of their homes as ours are. We're already seeing the back end of a generation that's spent most of it's working life paying off debt, but if this generation borrows more than previous ones to support a taste for cake when their income couldn't support it I struggle to see how they can blame anyone other than themselves.

[husaberg]

No high horse here mate, not a scrap of blame or moral hill-climbing, it was a simple question about how the system is unfair.

And it may be that competition isn't as rabidly competitive as you'd like. I'd certainly like my options to include cheaper loans. Yet, yet as I said there are alternatives, and the ultimate price-check is always available: don't deal with them. You know full well that would drive the prices down too.


And I don't see the profit as made from nothing at all,
inflation alone accounts for over half of it, tax accounts for most of the rest. And let's not pretend the debt's somehow different because the money wasn't part of some old codgers savings, the guys who built he house certainly didn't make the distinction and the property's worth the same either way.
Fractional lending is creating something out of nothing. Fact
Bank has reserves to cover 1 million can lend 10 million out of thin air.... the extra 9 million dollar lent accumulates revenue as interest.
Banks also pay f-all tax cause they can afford excellent shelters........
The red hearing with the other options is that their are no other option all the lenders operate the same systems.
Why wouldn't they its an excellent money spinner, it needs to be managed cause it is a massive drain of money out of the middle classes to the extreme rich minority.......

Our parents might have had fewer debts than us, our grandparents certainly did, but their properties and their lifestyles were a damned sight less spendy too. In fact the size of their mortgages was probably about as proportionate to the size and quality of their homes as ours are. We're already seeing the back end of a generation that's spent most of it's working life paying off debt, but if this generation borrows more than previous ones to support a taste for cake when their income couldn't support it I struggle to see how they can blame anyone other than themselves.

Granted lots of people live beyond their means no argument from me.....
Although bank profits then were not as high as they are now............

[Ocean1]

Fractional lending is creating something out of nothing. Fact
Bank has reserves to cover 1 million can lend 10 million out of thin air.... the extra 9 million dollar lent accumulates revenue as interest.

Yup, I know the basic numbers.

Should they just pay for the asset using the same money and forget all about who owns it? How long do you think that wee lolly scramble would last?

Isn't it at least as valid to say fiat money is created in response to demand from borrowers? And charged at such a rate as to minimise inflation? The other way around is what the health industry call a provider driven market. They tend to occur in the absence of a genuine free market.


Banks also pay f-all tax cause they can afford excellent shelters........

Show me.


The red hearing with the other options is that their are no other option all the lenders operate the same systems.
Why wouldn't they its an excellent money spinner, it needs to be managed cause it is a massive drain of money out of the middle classes to the extreme rich minority.......

So, the organisations that lend real savings don't have as much money to lend as larger banks under RBNZ control. Go figure. What if the big banks couldn't access all that fiat money either? What would slashing available loan funds by 85% do for interest rates? What would it do to the economy?

And who are these rich pricks, and how are they getting their hands on all that money?


Granted lots of people live beyond their means no argument from me.....
Although bank profits then were not as high as they are now............

Wouldn't it be nice if they were more responsible, it'd certainly have beneficial effects on economic performance across the board. Think of what you could do tomorrow with the money you had to pay today for shit you bought yesterday.

Which is pretty much what you'd expect with private debt at record levels, innit?.

[husaberg]

Yup, I know the basic numbers.

If you know the number why then claim it doesn't exist and they don't then?




Show me.
Remember the wine box? Have a look at how much tax say Westpac pays and then what there income is then yourself
take esp notice of the asset write-downs.......



So, the organisations that lend real savings don't have as much money to lend as larger banks under RBNZ control. Go figure. What if the big banks couldn't access all that fiat money either? What would slashing available loan funds by 85% do for interest rates? What would it do to the economy?

And who are these rich pricks, and how are they getting their hands on all that money?
Redistribution of wealth the Rockefeller the Vanderbelts etc they are pretty good at not attracting attention yet every year get richer and richer the redistribution of wreath from the middle class is accelerating at a phenomenal rate.......
Google it yourself ocean you have google.



Wouldn't it be nice if they were more responsible, it'd certainly have beneficial effects on economic performance across the board. Think of what you could do tomorrow with the money you had to pay today for shit you bought yesterday.

Which is pretty much what you'd expect with private debt at record levels, innit?.

[Ocean1]

Oh I'm sure you are a rsponsible person, within the law and likely morally too... but not recognising that your actions, be they responsible or not, affects the actions of others would lead me to think that you only do good things to make yourself feel good, irrespective of the consequences of those actions. For example, if a supermarket chain can buy in bulk and undercut the local competition, it will cause a reaction (one of many possibilities, but it will affect other people). You have just been responsible for someone else's actions. NOW extrapolate that to a global economic level and you may start to glean where I'm coming from.

Nope. You're going to have to explain how I'm responsible for someone else's behaviour better that that, it makes no sense.


You keep saying the problem is that X is happening therefore Y can't happen... and usually your X's are some form of change that has occured to upset your market. So once upon a time the market must have been working more properer, so I used the term "hay day" and coupling that with your belief that economic controls of any form would return us to any given point in time when the market was betterer or would even make the current market betterer, then I will most carry on believing that you are fooling yourself. If it still isn't working after several thousand years, it ain't ever gonna work.

Don't recall ever complaining about any particular change, it's not "my" market, and I'm hardly unique in believing that a different set of controls on the economy would produce betterer results, pretty much everyone want it's shape different to what it currently is. Are they all fooling themselves? Have we tried my flavours any time recently?

Sounds like you've been leaping to conclusions again.


And your whole economic premise requires an extraordinarily extensive series of pretences to instill confidence in a population (that's global btw) that the economy, money and it's generally accepted uses and conventions still hold true... despite that very same population coming to their senses and calling bullshit. I don't need support when the truth is but a read of a paper or a watch of a news channel away... which only serves to confirm that the bullshit that is propagated by those who refer to generally accepted uses and conventions as the right way, is anything but generaly accepted.

And yet the vast majority of people do accept those uses and conventions. That's what defines conventions, innit? And the fact that the system behaves pretty much as people expect sorta proves them right.


It is pulled out of a bankers arse. Even in QE format not only is the money pulled from their arse, but the bonds that are generated (that the tax payer pays for and pays interest on) are also pulled out of someone's arse. So I will maintain that looking after people properly will see the economy right. Don't look after them and your economy will colaps, because, as we established what seems like minutes ago, the people are the economy. Make your mind up... or at least join a few of your own dots together and keep to your story.


It's a mechanism to allow borrowers access to more money than is currently available. Why should the money be treaded any differently to the bank's deposits? It's used to buy goods worth exactly the same and the debt is exactly as real.

And as I've told you before nobody's forcing you to borrow the money from fractional reserve servers. Anything you willingly agree to is a bit difficult to later argue is some sort of ripoff.

Sigh. The economy is the sum total of the value produced by it's people. Not the people themselves. Money = value, not people. No quantity of "people" will cause money to be created without they produce something of value.

So claiming that looking after people will automatically cause an economy's value to increase is nonsense. Whereas it's pretty obvious that an economy that's people are producing more value has more to spend on welfare.

Dots all straight?



How does it detract from the economy's value?

Is self evident, Shirley. Non-productive behaviour? Failure to produce anything of value to the economy?


Define can't look after oneself. And explain why they can't look after themselves. My starter for 10 is, give everyone a free education whenever they want one... then as people are ready to be productive, they will have every tool at their disposal to become so.

Maintain a standard of living commensurate with their income.

Poor management or unrealistic lifestyle expectations.

Good start. At least to tertiary level. Specialisation can pay for itself, it don't need society's help.


My beliefs aren't hard-held and you have every chance of changing my mind... however you have yet to produce anything to challenge them with.

And given the extent of your investment in them it's unlikely anyone ever will.

[Ocean1]

If you know the number why then claim it doesn't exist and they don't then?


I didn't. My contention was that the money is loaned against an asset. Try borrowing money without collateral. So as soon as the loan's made the money represents that asset. Pretty straight forward innit?

So yes, the money is generated as debt, at the agreement of a borrower, but it's accounted against a tangible asset.


Remember the wine box? Have a look at how much tax say Westpac pays and then what there income is then yourself
take esp notice of the asset write-downs.......

I have done, albeit some years ago. It didn't unduly alarm me then, any observation involving huge numbers generates further huge numbers, and I don't see their profit necessarily has to be in the same order of magnitude as mine. I may look again if I get time.


Redistribution of wealth the Rockefeller the Vanderbelts etc they are pretty good at not attracting attention yet every year get richer and richer the redistribution of wreath from the middle class is accelerating at a phenomenal rate.......
Google it yourself ocean you have google.

Not this middle class member it isn't. I'm nowhere near silly enough to borrow money against a depreciating asset.

And the funny thing about compound interest is it's exponential growth. Isn't that what you'd expect to see in wealthy people's investments? Maybe that's not fair, but I'm not convinced that growth is at the unwarranted expense of the middle classes simply because they're the ones borrowing all the money.

[avgas]

Iceland has a new national currency........and its a crypto-currency.
http://auroracoin.org/

"A nation breaks the shackles of a fiat currencyIcelanders will be awarded f 31.8 each from March 25th 2014"

I had wondered when this would happen. Before any of you ask - here is the reason why the ISK lost its money...

"Five years ago, the government of Iceland imposed capital controls, following the collapse of a Ponzi inspired financial system that had issued far more Icelandic kronas than the nation could ever back up through its real economy. These controls were supposed to be “temporary”, but as with so many government actions, they remain in place to this day."

Interesting times ahead.

[BoristheBiter]

lets show the dirty fuckers, stop using banks.

[Scuba_Steve]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/t31/q71/s720x720/1518538_10203247411496273_1999831544_o.jpg

[avgas]

lets show the dirty fuckers, stop using banks.
I prefer to think of it as "re-balancing the free market"

[Brian d marge]

lets show the dirty fuckers, stop using banks.

a lot of people are already doing just that

Stephen

[BoristheBiter]

I prefer to think of it as "re-balancing the free market"


a lot of people are already doing just that

Stephen

They get fuck all out of me as i don't owe anything as I pay everything with a CC, and pay it all off before the due date.
I didn't think it made all that much of a difference until someone said look at the difference between what I'm being charged and what interest i am earning. works out they pay me to have my money there. :niceone:

(disclosure statement :this does not include any mortgage repayments)

[husaberg]

I didn't. My contention was that the money is loaned against an asset. Try borrowing money without collateral. So as soon as the loan's made the money represents that asset. Pretty straight forward innit?

So yes, the money is generated as debt, at the agreement of a borrower, but it's accounted against a tangible asset.

I think your missing the point although the money may well be lent against a tangible asset, but the "money" they so graciously lend you and accumulate vast revenue against is actually plucked from thin air..........



I have done, albeit some years ago. It didn't unduly alarm me then, any observation involving huge numbers generates further huge numbers, and I don't see their profit necessarily has to be in the same order of magnitude as mine. I may look again if I get time.
You might see the profits are vast, the costs are low, the income is obscene, its money for jam without first buying the fruit........and a captive market to boot Not only that when it goes pear shaped the financiers get bailed out (cause if the system fails, so does the worlds economy supposedly LOL)and what do they do with the bailout oh wait just give them selves huge pay rises.....

Not this middle class member it isn't. I'm nowhere near silly enough to borrow money against a depreciating asset.
never had a mortgage Ocean do your kids? what about their kids........

And the funny thing about compound interest is it's exponential growth. Isn't that what you'd expect to see in wealthy people's investments? Maybe that's not fair, but I'm not convinced that growth is at the unwarranted expense of the middle classes simply because they're the ones borrowing all the money.
They are not wealthy peoples investments, They are wealthy individuals investments that, "are created from thin air", that are returning huge returns at the cost to all of society.

[mashman]

Nope. You're going to have to explain how I'm responsible for someone else's behaviour better that that, it makes no sense.

Try this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect)... cept it ain't as subtle.



Don't recall ever complaining about any particular change, it's not "my" market, and I'm hardly unique in believing that a different set of controls on the economy would produce betterer results, pretty much everyone want it's shape different to what it currently is. Are they all fooling themselves? Have we tried my flavours any time recently?

Sounds like you've been leaping to conclusions again.

Didn't say you were complaining, just saying that you claim that certain "things" remove money from the market/economy and that there would be betterer results should those policy's be implemented. And if those shape seekers are going to be dependent on financial policy then you can bet yaw sweet ass that they're fooling themselves. Thousands of years have gone by and it still hasn't worked. If your flavours have been tried at all, then they have been deemed to have failed and will have been removed for that purpose. By the looks of things the "bludger" is due for a kicking at the hands of a society that is tired with their lazyness/lack of effort etc... and much to my amusement. Society is kicking the wrong people.

Or you may have been putting words in my mouth again?



And yet the vast majority of people do accept those uses and conventions. That's what defines conventions, innit? And the fact that the system behaves pretty much as people expect sorta proves them right.

That has to be one of my favourites yet... the vast majority eh. The vast majority don't care how the system works and they just keep on keeping on. But by all means go ahead and claim the vast majority... however, and from experience, those that I have spoken with in regards to where money comes from are generally shocked that that is the case. In exactly the same way, they understand NOW when it is explained to them and their questions are answered. Oddly enough, the majority of those people don't speak for everyone else in such confident terms as yourself, probably because they realise that not everyone has the knowledge that they have, or perhaps they just aren't up themselves as much as you are.



It's a mechanism to allow borrowers access to more money than is currently available. Why should the money be treaded any differently to the bank's deposits? It's used to buy goods worth exactly the same and the debt is exactly as real.

And as I've told you before nobody's forcing you to borrow the money from fractional reserve servers. Anything you willingly agree to is a bit difficult to later argue is some sort of ripoff.

Sigh. The economy is the sum total of the value produced by it's people. Not the people themselves. Money = value, not people. No quantity of "people" will cause money to be created without they produce something of value.

So claiming that looking after people will automatically cause an economy's value to increase is nonsense. Whereas it's pretty obvious that an economy that's people are producing more value has more to spend on welfare.

Dots all straight?

It shouldn't be. It has all pulled out of someone's arse at some point... calling them deposits only extends the metaphor of just how shit the system is. Where does the debt end up given that it can't be repaid?

Of course I can call rip off retrospectively. There's been a few examples of financial conmen outed recently... not to mention the Libor rate and financial insurances etc... There are even commissions setup to regulate such behaviour from taking place :yawn:...

WFF... extrapolate the rest yourself.

What is your definition of value? Are you saying that higher GDP equates to better welfare? coz I might just wee myself if that's the case and I'd be betting that you believed in the theory of trickle down.

Not even remotely.



Is self evident, Shirley. Non-productive behaviour? Failure to produce anything of value to the economy?

Like bankers you mean? Oh and those who produce $2 toys? Or middlemen that clip the ticket? Or the "rent-seekers"? Coz almost 100% of the welfare payment goes back into the economy.



Maintain a standard of living commensurate with their income.

Poor management or unrealistic lifestyle expectations.

Good start. At least to tertiary level. Specialisation can pay for itself, it don't need society's help.

You mean with your enforced remuneration?

Unrealistic? so you're still writing people off because of what they have accomplished so far... disappointing.

Nah, all the way... after all society is supposed to be the beneficiary, why clip the wings and rule out those who prudently decide not to take on any debt?



And given the extent of your investment in them it's unlikely anyone ever will.

Of course... you don't hear the answers you expect, so therefore they can't make any sense to anyone. Wholly untrue, but if it helps you deal with not being able to comprehend how a NOW would work, then by all means keep on fumbling at self-validating reasons that a NOW cannot succeed.

[Ocean1]

I think your missing the point although the money may well be lent against a tangible asset, but the "money" they so graciously lend you and accumulate vast revenue against is actually plucked from thin air...........

Yes. Again, would you rather that only money saved by individuals was available to borrow?

And again:

Isn't it at least as valid to say fiat money is created in response to demand from borrowers? And charged at such a rate as to minimise inflation? The other way around is what the health industry call a provider driven market. They tend to occur in the absence of a genuine free market.

And yet again, in spite of what mate Stephen says if that were the case you wouldn’t have a mortgage. Is that your preference? Because I don’t see anyone offering believable alternatives, here.


Anyone so upset about the practice always has the option of borrowing money from another source, there's a few co-ops still around, the mafia will gladly help you out... Or your distaste for the system might even lead you to the conclusion that if it's unethical to loan fiat money in particular then it's at least as unethical to borrow it.

Isn’t the point that people want to borrow more money than is available? Should the government or the banks offer it at special low rates because somehow it doesn’t exist?


You might see the profits are vast, the costs are low, the income is obscene, its money for jam without first buying the fruit........and a captive market to boot Not only that when it goes pear shaped the financiers get bailed out (cause if the system fails, so does the worlds economy supposedly LOL)and what do they do with the bailout oh wait just give them selves huge pay rises.....

I might. In which case I’d be certain to find their market was, as you suggest being manipulated to isolate it from competition. Funny how those all for state control come over all free market when it’s their money being spent.
Is it my imagination or are the more left leaning of our citizens more likely to be hollering for more and cheaper access to capital funds?

I don’t approve of publicly funded bailouts, but I must say in some circumstances there’s every chance that the cost of not doing it might be higher. What then? Shave the extra off the economy to maintain your principles?

Nah, mate, there’s far too many signatures on mortgages to suggest the majority don’t want to borrow money at the market rate. Because that’s what dictates the cost, innit? not the bank’s profit requirements, not some esoteric assessment of what’s “fair”, it’s how much the borrowers agree to pay.


never had a mortgage Ocean do your kids? what about their kids.........

Yep. I got all grumpy when floating interest rates went over 19%, so I reduced significantly my exposure to that particular market.

My kids have it way, way better than that, but they still get advice they don’t want from me about it on a fairly regular basis.


They are not wealthy peoples investments, They are wealthy individuals investments that, "are created from thin air", that are returning huge returns at the cost to all of society.

You can look at it that way if you like. Sounds way too bitter and corrosive an outlook for me, but I’ve got an inbuilt phobia of anything that smacks too much of jealousy.

And it’s a cost society agreed to pay. You can tell, their signature is on the loan documents. If you’ve got different ideas about what should dictate interest rates other than inflation let’s hear them.

[husaberg]

Yes. Again, would you rather that only money saved by individuals was available to borrow?

Ocean using your own fuzzy logic seeing as it is ok to invent capital in order to make a same profit on lending money on something that is real and tangible.
IE Lend money plucked from thin air and lend it it against something that is real and tangible.
Why not then if it is profitable to loan real money at say 10%pa against a real asset?
Would it not be conversely equality profitable to lend 10 times the money plucked from thin air against a tangible asset at 1%



And yet again, in spite of what mate Stephen says if that were the case you wouldn’t have a mortgage. Is that your preference? Because I don’t see anyone offering believable alternatives, here.

In an idea world people would earn enough to save in order to buy possessions there would be no lawyers no need for accountants either...........


I don’t approve of publicly funded bailouts, but I must say in some circumstances there’s every chance that the cost of not doing it might be higher. What then? Shave the extra off the economy to maintain your principles?

At least we agree on something..lol
Funny how it s the free market when it suit the bailouts would have only cost peoples investments these people generally investied in non bank guaranteed funds why should others have to pay for their greed?


Nah, mate, there’s far too many signatures on mortgages to suggest the majority don’t want to borrow money at the market rate. Because that’s what dictates the cost, innit? not the bank’s profit requirements, not some esoteric assessment of what’s “fair”, it’s how much the borrowers agree to pay.
They have no choice because there is only one system



You can look at it that way if you like. Sounds way too bitter and corrosive an outlook for me, but I’ve got an inbuilt phobia of anything that smacks too much of jealousy

No phobias in fact i used to be a farmer slightly more right wing than Genghis khan.
its just well, when you start to look at the manipulation sometimes views on subjects can change.
But shit if i could make a product that was not real and sell it for a huge profit and be sanctioned by the government to do it, would i ?
or would my principals be maintained.........

[Ocean1]

Try this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect)... cept it ain't as subtle.

Nope, nothing in chaos theory explains how I can be responsible for anyone else's behaviour.

As for the rest, it doesn't represent an honest rebuttal to any of my statements, it's more some frantic rant triggered by long established key words.

But let me put some words in your mouth:

You want to arsehole money, because you don't like the fact that some people do better than others and you think money's the cause of it.

Fit?

Whereas I, like almost every other active member of society see it as a simple token of value. Yes almost everyone, you can tell because they use it for exactly that purpose every day.

You don't like the idea that some make more money than others, and you reckon arseholing money will fix that.

That fit?

Whereas every single person I interact with every day is perfectly happy to decide for themselves how much of their money it's worth paying for anything.

That about sum it up sport?

[Ocean1]

Ocean using your own fuzzy logic seeing as it is ok to invent capital in order to make a same profit on lending money on something that is real and tangible.
IE Lend money plucked from thin air and lend it it against something that is real and tangible.
Why not then if it is profitable to loan real money at say 10%pa against a real asset?
Would it not be conversely equality profitable to lend 10 times the money plucked from thin air against a tangible asset at 1%.

At which point savings invested would be worth 1%. How much damage are you prepared to do to the economy in order to restrict the bank's profits?

See, it's not my fuzzy logic that dictates interest rates, as I keep pointing out it's inflation. You know how that works, dude, and I might like other factors to influence interest rates too, but let's not make believe that it's unimportant or that it doesn't warrant some form of control.



In an idea world people would earn enough to save in order to buy possessions there would be no lawyers no need for accountants either...........

And everyone would have their choice of B50 CCM, SS100, NCRM16, Buell 1190RX, KTM 525 etc etc.

And you're nowhere near as silly as mashmate, so let's hear no more about how unfair it is that "people" fail to earn as much as they think they're worth.



At least we agree on something..lol
Funny how it s the free market when it suit the bailouts would have only cost peoples investments these people generally investied in non bank guaranteed funds why should others have to pay for their greed?

There's nothing free market about bailouts mate. Quite the opposite.


They have no choice because there is only one system.

They have the choice to agree a deal or not, they have that choice over multiple suppliers from several different types of organisations. You mean they don't have the choice of a cheaper rate? That's true. Could it be that that's because the NZRB is actually succeeding in controlling that rate? They'd certainly be pretty pissed if too many people got access to wholesale loans.


No phobias in fact i used to be a farmer slightly more right wing than Genghis khan.
its just well, when you start to look at the manipulation sometimes views on subjects can change.
But shit if i could make a product that was not real and sell it for a huge profit and be sanctioned by the government to do it, would i ?
or would my principals be maintained.........

Didn't say you had a phobia.

And given that the banks aren't actually responsible for controlling interest rates it's difficult to see any manipulation on their part has anything to do with them.

I don't actually have a problem with anyone making a profit. As long as it's not from me. And all I've got to do to achieve that wonderful state of affairs is to refrain from making deals I don't believe are very good ones.

[Scuba_Steve]

Well guess we learn't it from the UK; giving people with no clue whatsoever positions of power in Govt


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7x7GYItzS4

[husaberg]

At which point savings invested would be worth 1%. How much damage are you prepared to do to the economy in order to restrict the bank's profits?
How much damage do the exorbitant profits do to the economy Ocean
Regardless Ocean the money invested by people would be tangible money. Th banks would just have to accept lower profits on the Draw from thin air funds they lend.
Would not people borrow more money if the interest rates were lower using your logic?

See, it's not my fuzzy logic that dictates interest rates, as I keep pointing out it's inflation. You know how that works, dude, and I might like other factors to influence interest rates too, but let's not make believe that it's unimportant or that it doesn't warrant some form of control.
Inflation is dictated by fiscal policy manipulated by lenders, But you are saying its a market self regulating economy and now you are preaching control..........




And you're nowhere near as silly as mashmate, so let's hear no more about how unfair it is that "people" fail to earn as much as they think they're worth.
Not Crying that it is unfair it is unjust that the few are manipulating the many and are being protected by the elected few to do it


They have the choice to agree a deal or not, they have that choice over multiple suppliers from several different types of organisations. You mean they don't have the choice of a cheaper rate? That's true. Could it be that that's because the NZRB is actually succeeding in controlling that rate? They'd certainly be pretty pissed if too many people got access to wholesale loans.

Didn't say you had a phobia.
Didn't say you did but you implied i was voicing my opinion cause i was a left wing extremist of sorts.


And given that the banks aren't actually responsible for controlling interest rates it's difficult to see any manipulation on their part has anything to do with them.
LOL of cause they are they don't always follow the OCR do they? There is no real completion either, its like the fuel cartels.


I don't actually have a problem with anyone making a profit.
Neither do i, its the exorbitant ones created from thin air trading, and the lack of tax they pay on it, plus the bail outs they drive that makes every suffer to maintain their excessive profit margins I have a issue with.
Banks need stronger regulating, Banks need real competition, as does the insurance industry, the fuel companies.
the current system i liken to a reverse ponzi scheme. Think about it.

[mashman]

Nope, nothing in chaos theory explains how I can be responsible for anyone else's behaviour.

As for the rest, it doesn't represent an honest rebuttal to any of my statements, it's more some frantic rant triggered by long established key words.

But let me put some words in your mouth:

You want to arsehole money, because you don't like the fact that some people do better than others and you think money's the cause of it.

Fit?

Whereas I, like almost every other active member of society see it as a simple token of value. Yes almost everyone, you can tell because they use it for exactly that purpose every day.

You don't like the idea that some make more money than others, and you reckon arseholing money will fix that.

That fit?

Whereas every single person I interact with every day is perfectly happy to decide for themselves how much of their money it's worth paying for anything.

That about sum it up sport?

"the butterfly effect is the sensitive dependency on initial conditions in which a small change at one place in a deterministic nonlinear system can result in large differences in a later state". Your actions have consequences for others and they respond accordingly. Geddit yet? It really ain't complicated... actually, scratch that it must be.

I guess I just don't speak Ocean... go figure.

:killingme...

Nope, it has nothing to do with the ability of people... it's the environment that's set by money that I object to, primarily the waste of human capital because some old farts like their dictionary definitions too much and aren't keen to let them go because they fear that they're going to lose something... the same old farts that perpetuate the archaic ideal of money. That's the absolute tip of the iceberg in regards to my reasons why money should be arseholed.

No it doesn't.

Do they? Any open minded person I know understands that money is a pathetic way to run an economy. They take part primarily because when they started playing the game they had absolutely no idea of where money came from and used it because they knew no better.

Partial credit... coz I give a shit not that some make more than others... other than to highlight that that's the reason for others to be paid less. You can toss yourself silly in regards to the "value" being produced, but it won't change the fact that it leaves an awful lot of people in an unenviable financial position. Things needn't be that way and to diss their effort because of some fucked up notion of value is pathetic beyond reason.

No it doesn't.

Good for them. I guess that taints your view of the other end of society. I'd say that you should try using a different yardstick, but I know you can't.

Not even close chum.

[Ocean1]

How much damage do the exorbitant profits do to the economy Ocean
Regardless Ocean the money invested by people would be tangible money. Th banks would just have to accept lower profits on the Draw from thin air funds they lend.
Would not people borrow more money if the interest rates were lower using your logic?

Not as much as rampant inflation. What do you think caused that 19% interest on my mortgage?

The market doesn't distinguish between "tangible" and "fiat" money. If you had the choice of a bank loan at 1% or one from a Co-op at 5% the Co-op would never lend that money, the bank's rate would have set the market rate and anything more would simply not sell.

And yes, of course more people would borrow money if it was cheaper, which would cause inflation to rise, lowering the value of everything in the market. See 19% inflation.


Inflation is dictated by fiscal policy manipulated by lenders, But you are saying its a market self regulating economy and now you are preaching control..........

How do lenders manipulate fiscal policy?

I'd LIKE the market to be unregulated, I like the idea of people living within their means and it seems a natural extension to want society in general to behave that way. The fact that it's not is possibly related to all that fiat money you bleat about. If it didn't exist then loans would be limited to available savings, availability being a required control variable for any free market. What do you suppose such a limit would do to interest rates?

In fact the artificial availability of money drives the price down, doesn't it? Which means loans are definitely easier to get and almost certainly cheaper than any natural free market could supply.

Doesn't that make the bogymen your heroes?


Not Crying that it is unfair it is unjust that the few are manipulating the many and are being protected by the elected few to do it

Back to that again eh? Fine, let's call in all of that fiat money and tell them to stick it back up their arses. Burn the assets they paid for. Are we back to where you want to be yet?


Didn't say you did but you implied i was voicing my opinion cause i was a left wing extremist of sorts.

Don't believe I did. CBF checking but it was my intent to simply point out that the left seem to insist on state control of anything, unless it costs them more personally.


LOL of cause they are they don't always follow the OCR do they? There is no real completion either, its like the fuel cartels.

Do they not? Which ones are significantly uninfluenced by the current rate mate? I could do with a good tip.

Of course competition's limited, that's what central market control is supposed to achieve.

And no, the fuel cartels were joint exploration ventures. Do you mean market control through price fixing collusion? sort of similar eh? Except it's the govt fixing the prices. And as I think I said it's a necessary corollary to the introduction of artificial availability into that market. No funny money = free market = market driven prices. Although, as I also suggested I don't think you'd like that compared to the current deal.

[Ocean1]

"the butterfly effect is the sensitive dependency on initial conditions in which a small change at one place in a deterministic nonlinear system can result in large differences in a later state". Your actions have consequences for others and they respond accordingly. Geddit yet? It really ain't complicated... actually, scratch that it must be.

I guess I just don't speak Ocean... go figure.


Pity, it's a far more coherent language.

And no, still no cigar, I AM responsible for my actions. I am NOT responsible for anyone else's. Full stop.

Can we boil the difference down to the brutal simplicity of your belief in equity of outcomes, no matter what's produced?

Whereas I believe I can say that I believe in equity of opportunity as a fair state of affairs?

Or do you want to warble on some more about unrelated crap?

[mashman]

Pity, it's a far more coherent language.

And no, still no cigar, I AM responsible for my actions. I am NOT responsible for anyone else's. Full stop.

Can we boil the difference down to the brutal simplicity of your belief in equity of outcomes, no matter what's produced?

Whereas I believe I can say that I believe in equity of opportunity as a fair state of affairs?

Or do you want to warble on some more about unrelated crap?

The language may well be, but the content leaves a lot to be desired.

Like totes whatevs.

No we can't boil it down that way as my belief in the equity of outcomes involves the equity of opportunity also. What is produced should be required, no more, no less. Yes, "toys" are required.

Of course it's related... but I know you don't like to think so.

[husaberg]

Not as much as rampant inflation. What do you think caused that 19% interest on my mortgage?

The market doesn't distinguish between "tangible" and "fiat" money. If you had the choice of a bank loan at 1% or one from a Co-op at 5% the Co-op would never lend that money, the bank's rate would have set the market rate and anything more would simply not sell.

And yes, of course more people would borrow money if it was cheaper, which would cause inflation to rise, lowering the value of everything in the market. See 19% inflation.

Inflation is not caused by cheap credit it is caused by increased expectations for price and wage increases it is also driven by overseas investment ocean.


How do lenders manipulate fiscal policy?
Are you serious?


I'd LIKE the market to be unregulated, I like the idea of people living within their means and it seems a natural extension to want society in general to behave that way. The fact that it's not is possibly related to all that fiat money you bleat about. If it didn't exist then loans would be limited to available savings, availability being a required control variable for any free market. What do you suppose such a limit would do to interest rates?
Nothing as long as the profits were regulated the gaps would still be be filled in the market saving would increase as the money would be in the pockets of the borrowers the economy would have more money available less would be funneled offshore more tax would be paid[/QUOTE]



In fact the artificial availability of money drives the price down, doesn't it? Which means loans are definitely easier to get and almost certainly cheaper than any natural free market could supply.

No it drives profits for banks higher




Back to that again eh? Fine, let's call in all of that fiat money and tell them to stick it back up their arses. Burn the assets they paid for. Are we back to where you want to be yet?
Ocean the availability of money does not lessen the value of anything below its true worth............



Do they not? Which ones are significantly uninfluenced by the current rate mate? I could do with a good tip.
they follow their own agenda of slowly and not so slowly raising profits


Of course competition's limited, that's what central market control is supposed to achieve.
Central market policy is designed to ease the highs and lows its just its starting from to high a base

And no, the fuel cartels were joint exploration ventures. Do you mean market control through price fixing collusion? sort of similar eh? Except it's the govt fixing the prices. And as I think I said it's a necessary corollary to the introduction of artificial availability into that market. No funny money = free market = market driven prices. Although, as I also suggested I don't think you'd like that compared to the current deal.[/QUOTE]

A cartel is a formal (explicit) "agreement" among competing firms. It is a formal organization of producers and manufacturers that agree to fix prices, marketing, and production.[1] Cartels usually occur in an oligopolistic industry, where the number of sellers is small (usually because barriers to entry, most notably startup costs, are high) and the products being traded are usually commodities. Cartel members may agree on such matters as price fixing, total industry output, market shares, allocation of customers, allocation of territories, bid rigging, establishment of common sales agencies, and the division of profits or combination of these. The aim of such collusion (also called the cartel agreement) is to increase individual members' profits by reducing competition.

Ever heard of OPEC they operate as a fringe of law by virtue of being state representatives
they use this to control the price of oil banks operate under the radar using the same means.
Shit the WBO has been destabilizing whole countries economies, who pays the price

[Ocean1]

Inflation is not caused by cheap credit it is caused by increased expectations for price and wage increases it is also driven by overseas investment ocean.

The NZRB begs to differ. They reckon it's caused by availability of money. They've been successfully controlling inflation by changing the cost of borrowing money for years.


Are you serious?

Often. In this case I wanted to know how your statement was backed up by observation of local events.


Nothing as long as the profits were regulated the gaps would still be be filled in the market saving would increase as the money would be in the pockets of the borrowers the economy would have more money available less would be funneled offshore more tax would be paid

So nothing bad would happen to prices because the natural free market control mechanism would be over-ridden by the state?

Isn't that what we've got now?

And how can you fill gaps in a market when you don't have the product to do so? How would savings increase in a market strapped for cash? There's simply no way that any purported increase in savings could fill any gap left by the abolition of fiat money. The current bleating about austerity measures would pale into insignificance against the generations of depression it would cause.

Oh, and good news about all that money headed off shore: it pays tax here before it leaves.


No it drives profits for banks higher

My you are fixated on their profits, ainch? But repeating it doesn't alter the fact that reserve banking practices make money available where nothing else would, and that it boosts economic performance, increasing standards of living.

But whatever, bank profits are bad.


Ocean the availability of money does not lessen the value of anything below its true worth...........

True worth defined by who? It sure as fuck affects it's dollar value, which is what the market uses to define value.

Which is why it's the control mechanism of choice for pretty much every government in the world for controlling inflation.


they follow their own agenda of slowly and not so slowly raising profits

Bank profits as a sole focus on economic health isn't useful, dude. And given that a fair bit of the nation's cash flows through their businesses it's not that difficult to imagine that their profits might be fairly substantial while being entirely reasonable.

And given that the interest payable is, in spite of your reservations largely controlled by the NZRB it's also difficult to see how they're responsible for that portion of their revenue. Now if you were bitching about their puissance transaction charges I'd have some help for you.


Central market policy is designed to ease the highs and lows its just its starting from to high a base

According to who? Borrowers, (y'know: the ones affected by all these high prices) are happy enough to pay them. They are, of course currently lower than they've been for many decades, and as I keep saying they do have the option of not doing so, an option, as I believe I said that I'd be happy to support.


Ever heard of OPEC they operate as a fringe of law by virtue of being state representatives
they use this to control the price of oil banks operate under the radar using the same means.
Shit the WBO has been destabilizing whole countries economies, who pays the price

Again with the fixation with bank profits. You really need to let it go, dude.

You should get hold of the commerce commission though, they'd be very interested in any evidence of collusion in price fixing you can share with them.

Not sure they'd believe there's much room for them to fuck with margins, though what, with the OCR stomping all over their market.

In fact you could more believably poke the finger at govt for price fixing.

[Ocean1]

Interesting times ahead.


Aye. Do you suppose the collected intellects involved have spotted the fact that the system they're offering as a replacement to a "flawed, oppressive" system that creates part of it's funding artificially actually creates all of it artificially?

Or are they simply hoping the punters won't spot it?

[avgas]

Aye. Do you suppose the collected intellects involved have spotted the fact that the system they're offering as a replacement to a "flawed, oppressive" system that creates part of it's funding artificially actually creates all of it artificially?Or are they simply hoping the punters won't spot it?Well the truely smart ones have already jumped ship. I notice that the High Speed Traders (aka algorithms made by quants) appearing in the btc exchanges. But the difference is they are affecting something that has a finite limitation. So when they sell the price goes down and when they buy the price goes up. Unlike other markets.Interesting fact I learnt recently after moving to New York. Wall Street is no longer in wall street. All the markets are actually in in New Jersey and other places. So the whole occupy wall street was a waste of time as all they did was squat in a park down the road from a business district (working folk). Also if you look up the flaws in the DTCC you suddenly realised why "wall street" drove the world into the ground a few years back. One of the local quants I met put me in contact with a film that explains all.http://ghostexchangemovie.com/ Don't (http://ghostexchangemovie.com/Don't) watch if you think there is a "free market" in the US.NZ/Aus is a little more restrictive when it comes to stocks thankfully.

[husaberg]

The NZRB begs to differ. They reckon it's caused by availability of money. They've been successfully controlling inflation by changing the cost of borrowing money for years.

The NZBR has a vested interest Ocean? can you not see why? It is common knowledge that the interest rates are effected by a huge range of factors and are subject to manipulation.......


Often. In this case I wanted to know how your statement was backed up by observation of local events.

So nothing bad would happen to prices because the natural free market control mechanism would be over-ridden by the state?

Isn't that what we've got now?
NO.

And how can you fill gaps in a market when you don't have the product to do so? How would savings increase in a market strapped for cash? There's simply no way that any purported increase in savings could fill any gap left by the abolition of fiat money. The current bleating about austerity measures would pale into insignificance against the generations of depression it would cause.
I showed you how you just didn't comprehend your views are to fixed.

Oh, and good news about all that money headed off shore: it pays tax here before it leaves.

I tried to get you to look for yourself,they pay negligible tax you said this doesn't concern you and you couldn't be bothered to look yourself.


My you are fixated on their profits, ainch? But repeating it doesn't alter the fact that reserve banking practices make money available where nothing else would, and that it boosts economic performance, increasing standards of living.But whatever, bank profits are bad
As i keep telling you i am not fixated on profits, just excessive ones, created from thin air due to a protected form of banking at the cost to all society to the sole benefit the ubber elite class.
.


True worth defined by who? It sure as fuck affects it's dollar value, which is what the market uses to define value.
Ocean its like you want to preach free market and say it self regulating and then say it isn't and doesn't need to be then say oh it is


Bank profits as a sole focus on economic health isn't useful, dude. And given that a fair bit of the nation's cash flows through their businesses it's not that difficult to imagine that their profits might be fairly substantial while being entirely reasonable.
A useful measure of a nations economy is how the lower classes are able to afford to live within their means.
No the profits generated in banking isn't reasonable, the margins are excessive the risk is low the tax paid is negligible

Which is why it's the control mechanism of choice for pretty much every government in the world for controlling inflation.
No ocean it is not the most effective way do a bit of your own research come up with your own answers



According to who? Borrowers, (y'know: the ones affected by all these high prices) are happy enough to pay them. They are, of course currently lower than they've been for many decades, and as I keep saying they do have the option of not doing so, an option, as I believe I said that I'd be happy to support.
Its like there is an echo Ocean i can hear the ocean in your shell.
Their is no competition, no choice the current system is hugely protected as their is a huge vested interest in maintaining the status quo
i have repeatedly told you this.

Come up with something new arguments because repeatedly saying the same thing to you and trying to get you to do your own research rather than just sprouting half backed rhetoric that even the most right winged economist thinks is tripe is getting rather boring.

As for OPEC not being involved in price fixing Ocean, it is their sole purpose for existence, it is legal, but it is wrong. But then again i guess you can't see why.
If you also can't see how a market that has no competition that is owned by a few (the banking industry) is not acting to maximize profits by minimising competition well ocean thats just proves you are still a bit wet behind the ears.

[Ocean1]

A useful measure of a nations economy is how the lower classes are able to afford to live within their means.

Can you not see the internal contradiction in that statement mate?

Anywhay, the class word's in play, the one word that ends credible discourse for me.

I don't believe in pixies, either.

[husaberg]

Can you not see the internal contradiction in that statement mate?

Anywhay, the class word's in play, the one word that ends credible discourse for me.

I don't believe in pixies, either.
No i can't society as in the past as it does still now indeed has classes of socioeconomic groups, its a real phenomenon.............

Ocean there is a big wide world out there, Vast oceans of information that will allow you to formulate your own theories
open your eyes and try and see the wood for the trees.......
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26041039
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-11/u-s-said-to-open-criminal-probe-of-fx-market-rigging.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-29/jpmorgan-accused-of-energy-market-manipulation-by-u-s-agency.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-confirms-widespread-mortgage-fraud/
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/07/business/enron-forced-up-california-prices-documents-show.html
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/everything-is-rigged-the-biggest-financial-scandal-yet-20130425?page=4
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/05/16/oil-price-fixing-scandal/2166857/
http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=293235&d=1391476513&thumb=1
http://maaikezijm.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/a9f9bd0.jpg

[mashman]

The attitude that is inherent with a competitive environment. (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/06/us-ukraine-russia-eu-victoria-nuland)... people who exalt competition as the only force to drive us forwards are a waste of oxygen.

[mashman]

No i can't society as in the past as it does still now indeed has classes of socioeconomic groups, its a real phenomenon.............

Ocean there is a big wide world out there, Vast oceans of information that will allow you to formulate your own theories
open your eyes and try and see the wood for the trees.......
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26041039
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-11/u-s-said-to-open-criminal-probe-of-fx-market-rigging.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-29/jpmorgan-accused-of-energy-market-manipulation-by-u-s-agency.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-confirms-widespread-mortgage-fraud/
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/07/business/enron-forced-up-california-prices-documents-show.html
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/everything-is-rigged-the-biggest-financial-scandal-yet-20130425?page=4
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/05/16/oil-price-fixing-scandal/2166857/

I class the 15% surcharge on goods/services over the holidays in exactly the same way... and then some have the gall to claim that people aren't in it for the money.

[Brian d marge]

Inflation as I have posted before, is the quantity of money entering or leaving the system.

it in positive form it drives down the purchasing power of your dollar

a pint ( 600ml) of milk was 8 cents in 1976 , off top of head , using the CPI , your money has lost 90 % of its purchasing power with inflation averaging 6 % ( the RBNZ own web page if you are interested)

The OCR is a very blunt tool that allows money to enter or not enter the system ( through the purchase of bonds etc) thus controlling inflation .

WHICH , should be 0 as all a positive inflation rate is doing is stealing your money. Converting that money into inflation beating assets ( a house assuming it maintains or exceeds the inflation rate in value)

The question is

Why is that money entering the system ?
Either Great aunt Hetty gave it to us , or B: We are an industrious lot and we are selling more shit that we are buying
or C: the printing presses are working ( loans require payment but do , i think, effect the short term inflation rates)

Stephen

[Brian d marge]

As for a different system

Tally sticks worked quite well for 700 odd years , England grew quite well and when the lower classes have money , they SPEND it, and they did , especially after surviving plagues and things

Things were working quite well until the Bank of England decided to back thing with gold ( wonder who controlled the supply of gold , twasnt me or billy no-mates down the road !)

And when you start to distroy the worthless old bits of wood that constituted a currency ..... I wonder what happens

Oh I know

The chimneys over heat !!!

293428


:Oops:

Stephen

[Ocean1]

The attitude that is inherent with a competitive environment. (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/06/us-ukraine-russia-eu-victoria-nuland)... people who exalt competition as the only force to drive us forwards are a waste of oxygen.

So you're anti-democracy now, along with anti-capitalist?

Actually, now that I think about the thrust of the article, (which btw has absolutely nothing to do with any attitude attributable to competition) most Englishmen I know would agree that the EU should indeed get fucked.

[Ocean1]

One of the local quants I met put me in contact with a film that explains all.http://ghostexchangemovie.com/Don't watch if you think there is a "free market" in the US.NZ/Aus is a little more restrictive when it comes to stocks thankfully.

Oh I was never under the illusion that the US economy represented a free market at any time since independence. Let's face it the biggest effect on any market is the government within who's economy it operates, and no government has seen fit to leave well enough alone since the adoption of universal voting required them to promise more and more in order to buy those votes.

Certainly what we're seeing with these artificial units is being driven by some of the more socialist elements, but it's not really a reaction against government regulation of markets, they simply want the regulation to favour their own ends. Whereas a genuine free market advocate would rather such regulation was limited to those required to keep it free.

[husaberg]

Social market economy


This model was implemented by Alfred Müller-Armack and Ludwig Erhard after World War II in West Germany. The social market economic model is based upon the idea of realizing the benefits of a free market economy, especially economic performance and high supply of goods, while avoiding disadvantages such as market failure, destructive competition, concentration of economic power and anti-social effects of market processes. The aim of the social market economy is to realize greatest prosperity combined with best possible social security. One difference from the free market economy is that the state is not passive, but takes active regulatory measures. The social policy objectives include employment, housing and education policies, as well as a socio-politically motivated balancing of the distribution of income growth. Characteristics of social market economies are a strong competition policy and a contractionary monetary policy. The philosophical background is Neoliberalism or Ordoliberalism.

The main elements of the social market economy in Germany are the following

The social market contains central elements of a free market economy such as private property, free foreign trade, exchange of goods, and free formation of prices.

In contrast to the situation in a free market economy, the state is not passive and actively implements regulative measures.Some elements, such as pension insurance, universal health care and unemployment insurance are part of the social security system. These insurances are funded by a combination of employee contributions, employer contributions and government subsidies. The social policy objectives include employment, housing and education policies, as well as a socio-politically motivated balancing of the distribution of income growth. In addition, there are provisions to restrain the free market (e.g., anti-trust code, laws against the abuse of market power, etc.). These elements help to diminish many of the occurring problems of a free market economy.

Sounds about right to my their must be a degree of fairness views.

Of course it doesn't fit with Oceans perfect free market that so beautifully self regulates

....He doesn't believe in pixies lol
I guess the pixies died of starvation, makes sense as their primary source of food was the cake crumbs that the free market was meant to gracious spill......
i guess its the trickle down theory at work......
http://archives.politicususa.com/2011/08/20/free-market-self-regulation.html

[husaberg]

Oh I was never under the illusion that the US economy represented a free market at any time since independence. Let's face it the biggest effect on any market is the government within who's economy it operates, and no government has seen fit to leave well enough alone since the adoption of universal voting required them to promise more and more in order to buy those votes.

Certainly what we're seeing with these artificial units is being driven by some of the more socialist elements, but it's not really a reaction against government regulation of markets, they simply want the regulation to favour their own ends. Whereas a genuine free market advocate would rather such regulation was limited to those required to keep it free.

Ocean let me get this straight you are saying it is the regulators fault that they are catching the collusion that is happening that i posted?
The manipulation of prices of oil energy and stocks and commodities all for higher profits for themselves?
Are you seriously saying the collusion is not happening? Or is that is is alright with you that they do so.

[Ocean1]

Sounds about right to my their must be a degree of fairness views.

Of course it doesn't fit with Oceans perfect free market that so beautifully self regulates

It fits quite well with Ocean's idea of how shit should work, I've never advocated a completely free market. Simply one where market forces retain enough influence to maintain productivity.

By comparison your hyperfocus on profit=bad and your apparent insistence that an economy should be managed using the living standards of the poor as a control measure completely fails to fit the description you posted, presumably as some sort of recommendation.

[Ocean1]

Ocean let me get this straight you are saying it is the regulators fault that they are catching the collusion that is happening that i posted?
The manipulation of prices of oil energy and stocks and commodities all for higher profits for themselves?
Are you seriously saying the collusion is not happening? Or is that is is alright with you that they do so.

I never mentioned collusion or profits. I simply pointed out that votes drive fiscal policy, and that buying votes has by far the greatest of any influence on market conditions.

And it sounds to me from what you posted that the regulators are doing their job. There has always been people that skirt the intent of the rules seeking advantage, at every point on the social continuum, what's new is that more often they're being seen to do so.

Both effects, (vote buying and price fixing) belong to that group of behaviour that threatens any system, they're not sustainable. A sustainable system can only be achieved by reinforcing productive behaviour and discouraging unproductive behaviour. I kinda assume that's not only a given but that it's the primary driver in designing or analysing any system.

This whole thread demonstrates that that's far from the case.

Edit: is unionism price fixing?

[husaberg]

It fits quite well with Ocean's idea of how shit should work, I've never advocated a completely free market. Simply one where market forces retain enough influence to maintain productivity.

By comparison your hyperfocus on profit=bad and your apparent insistence that an economy should be managed using the living standards of the poor as a control measure completely fails to fit the description you posted, presumably as some sort of recommendation.


The examples i posted were in rebuttal to you saying these things don't exist.
i challenged you to look for yourself you didn't yet still claimed it didn't exist.
Every time you claim something doesn't exist, when you are shown it, you then claim to be comfortable the system works.
Yet up until then you say the regulation is not needed.
Ocean social fairness is what i posted.
The problem is a big stick needs to be wielded so that the market "self regulates" can you see the irony.


It fits quite well with Ocean's idea of how shit should work, I've never advocated a completely free market. Simply one where market forces retain enough influence to maintain productivity.

By comparison your hyperfocus on profit=bad and your apparent insistence that an economy should be managed using the living standards of the poor as a control measure completely fails to fit the description you posted, presumably as some sort of recommendation.

Third or is it fifth time Ocean..
I AM NOT HYPERFOCUSED THAT ALL PROFITS ARE EVIL.
only excessive ones brought on by lack of competition or collusion or outright tax avoidance.
All of which you claim does not exist......

A society should be judged on how the poor the disadvantaged and the elderly and infirm are treated.

Using Your utopian free market model.
Our Kids all get herded on a bus go to school on a school bus tendered to the lowest bidder.
School bus drivers are only paid minimum wage.
Oh wait that is how we do it now...........

[mashman]

So you're anti-democracy now, along with anti-capitalist?

Actually, now that I think about the thrust of the article, (which btw has absolutely nothing to do with any attitude attributable to competition) most Englishmen I know would agree that the EU should indeed get fucked.

ha ha ha ha haaaaaa... thanks for that giggle so early on in the day. Democracy is already anti-democracy, I'd like to see it used properly for a change. Look, it's quite simple really. We should no be producing anything that is not the best that can be produced. That does not slam the brakes on innovation, not even close... and whilst it could be construed as monopolistic, anti-choice, anti-democratic or even communistic it isn't and I won't go into the myriad of reasons why, because, as I said, the list of reasons for doing so is a long one. But, the main reason for doing so is because it's the right thing to do in regards to resource usage (human and material). Having the choice of the best or the best isn't a bad thing is it? As far as Democracy goes, democracy should be opposing ideas being discussed to produce the absolute best outcome i.e. cooperation not competition. It's really that simple and if you're cooperating, you wouldn't say things like fuck the EU, let alone be trying to position sympathetic leadership (which isn't democratic by any stretch of the imagination).

It has everything to do with competition as nowhere in that article does it mention cooperation to resolve the issue. Democratic interests are not focused on anything other than how to force a resolution, issuing blame and the usual point scoring political rhetoric. Essentially the Ukraine is being told that it should follow one of 3 competing ideals in order to resolve their internal issues. Do you know why there is such unrest in the Ukraine and why the US have their oar in on the process? Think about it, they're on the other side of the globe and they're interfering not only in the democratic process of a nation that isn't on the same continent, but they're shitting all over those "local" nations that are attempting to "help". The US should keep their fracking noses out of it. It's all about competition, and I'm the anti-democratic one :facepalm:... but cheers for the giggle.

[Ocean1]

The examples i posted were in rebuttal to you saying these things don't exist.
i challenged you to look for yourself you didn't yet still claimed it didn't exist.
Every time you claim something doesn't exist, when you are shown it, you then claim to be comfortable the system works.
Yet up until then you say the regulation is not needed.

At no time have I suggested price fixing doesn't exist. Quite the reverse, you wouldn't have to go too far back into my post history to find me bleating about monopolies.

Nor have I ever suggested the current system works particularly well, except for those that claim more than they produce.

And at no time have I ever suggested that regulation isn't needed.

I don't know who it is that you think you're arguing with, but it ain't me.


Ocean social fairness is what i posted.

You posted what appeared to be an un-referenced text describing what the author considered to be a political description of west Germany. You might consider them the same thing, and as the basis on which "social fairness" might exist in my opinion it's not a bad start, but I don't believe there's anything in that text that supports your views any better than they do mine.


The problem is a big stick needs to be wielded so that the market "self regulates" can you see the irony.

Bullshit. By definition any big stick involvement is interference from outside the system, which means it's not self regulating, dunnit?


Third or is it fifth time Ocean..
I AM NOT HYPERFOCUSED THAT ALL PROFITS ARE EVIL.
only excessive ones brought on by lack of competition or collusion or outright tax avoidance.
All of which you claim does not exist......

OK. You're hyperfocused on what you consider to be excessive profit.

And for the 5th or is it the 6th time I'll point out that the two parties involved in bank loans don't have a problem with the price. Do you have a mortgage? Did you not sign on the approved line?

I never suggested lack of competition, collusion or tax avoidance doesn't exist. This is getting tiresome.


A society should be judged on how the poor the disadvantaged and the elderly and infirm are treated.

Yes. That's how the disadvantaged and elderly and infirm judge society.

I rather think a more realistic criteria is how everyone in the society judges it.

Including those funding it.


Using Your utopian free market model.
Our Kids all get herded on a bus go to school on a school bus tendered to the lowest bidder.
School bus drivers are only paid minimum wage.
Oh wait that is how we do it now...........

I don't have a utopian free market. I don't have any sort of free market. I simply insist that the basis on which buyer and seller freely agree a price is the basis from which any regulatory policy should be taken. Not the assumption that you can ignore productivity completely and promise everyone whatever they want, regardless of who produced it.

And let's not try and pretend that we have a free market in NZ. Or that the lowers bidder automatically represents a dodgy deal. That bus isn't paid for by the user, is it? So it's not an agreement that belongs to any free market, is it? It's a deal made by someone who's focus is on cost without much attention to what's supplied. If the agreement HAD been made between the buyer and the seller then you may find the driver paid more. You'd certainly find the buyer got what he paid for.

[husaberg]

At no time have I suggested price fixing doesn't exist. Quite the reverse,




I might. In which case I’d be certain to find their market was, as you suggest being manipulated to isolate it from competition. Funny how those all for state control come over all free market when it’s their money being spent.
Is it my imagination or are the more left leaning of our citizens more likely to be hollering for more and cheaper access to capital funds?

Nor have I ever suggested the current system works particularly well, except for those that claim more than they produce.


And at no time have I ever suggested that regulation isn't needed.

I don't know who it is that you think you're arguing with, but it ain't me.

How do lenders manipulate fiscal policy?


I'd LIKE the market to be unregulated, I like the idea of people living within their means and it seems a natural extension to want society in


Don't believe I did. CBF checking but it was my intent to simply point out that the left seem to insist on state control of anything, unless it costs them more personally.

Do they not? Which ones are significantly uninfluenced by the current rate mate? I could do with a good tip.

Of course competition's limited, that's what central market control is supposed to achieve.

And no, the fuel cartels were joint exploration ventures. Do you mean market control through price fixing collusion? sort of similar eh? Except it's the govt fixing the prices. And as I think I said it's a necessary corollary to the introduction of artificial availability into that market. No funny money = free market = market driven prices. Although, as I also suggested I don't think you'd like that compared to the current deal.

And given that the banks aren't actually responsible for controlling interest rates it's difficult to see any manipulation on their part has anything to do with them.




You posted what appeared to be an un-referenced text describing what the author considered to be a political description of west Germany. You might consider them the same thing, and as the basis on which "social fairness" might exist in my opinion it's not a bad start, but I don't believe there's anything in that text that supports your views any better than they do mine.

The unreferenced text is a description of the system employed by west Germany during the 1950's from Wiki.
Your own views Ocean seem to blow with the trade winds........



Bullshit. By definition any big stick involvement is interference from outside the system, which means it's not self regulating, dunnit?
Exactly nothing is self regulating when their is a commercial advantage at stake that's why there needs to be a big stick wielded to maintain strict adherence to the rules.
Multinational only respond to huge fines and limitations on their ability to trade.
This i don't think goes far enough prison terms as well for the board and execs would work rather nicely......




OK. You're hyperfocused on what you consider to be excessive profit.
No what is excessive profit for you then........
How much insider trading how much coercion and collusion and manipulation and tax avoidance are you happy with?


And for the 5th or is it the 6th time I'll point out that the two parties involved in bank loans don't have a problem with the price. Do you have a mortgage? Did you not sign on the approved line?

I never suggested lack of competition, collusion or tax avoidance doesn't exist. This is getting tiresome.
As above there are plenty of times you have.........
BTW i brought my property with cash (ok bank transfer) i have of course had loans, but i did quite well in business.
Like i keep saying people sign the loans because their is no other competition that's the way they like it it has taken many years to get them selves into the position they are now in (banks)



Yes. That's how the disadvantaged and elderly and infirm judge society.
I rather think a more realistic criteria is how everyone in the society judges it.[/QUOTE]
Most of my example referred to children ocean.
So you are saying the treatment of the children the elderly and the infirm is not an accurate measure of society.



I don't have a utopian free market. I don't have any sort of free market. I simply insist that the basis on which buyer and seller freely agree a price is the basis from which any regulatory policy should be taken. Not the assumption that you can ignore productivity completely and promise everyone whatever they want, regardless of who produced it.
Ok once they have a captive market (as they do now) any deal they do is fine by you, as long as the borrower agrees.

Yes you do, as you keep saying people sign up fopr it so it must be fine otherwise they wouldn't.
AS for the other red hearing's you have just cast out, it sounds Fishy Ocean


And let's not try and pretend that we have a free market in NZ. Or that the lowers bidder automatically represents a dodgy deal. That bus isn't paid for by the user, is it? So it's not an agreement that belongs to any free market, is it? It's a deal made by someone who's focus is on cost without much attention to what's supplied. If the agreement HAD been made between the buyer and the seller then you may find the driver paid more. You'd certainly find the buyer got what he paid for.
I think you have missed the point Ocean think about it again............Read what i said

[Ocean1]

I think you have missed the point Ocean think about it again............Read what i said

And that wee quote bomb was supposed to prove that I said price fixing doesn't exist?

And whether you like my replies or not, you can go right ahead and assume that I've actually read and understood them and still disagree, not that I'm somehow wilfully misreading your post with malice aforethought.

And no ta, it wasn't anything I could treat as rational argument the first time around. What's more it's more than obvious you're reading stuff that's not there, a sure sign of a closed mind.

[husaberg]

And that wee quote bomb was supposed to prove that I said price fixing doesn't exist?

And whether you like my replies or not, you can go right ahead and assume that I've actually read and understood them and still disagree, not that I'm somehow wilfully misreading your post with malice aforethought.

And no ta, it wasn't anything I could treat as rational argument the first time around. What's more it's more than obvious you're reading stuff that's not there, a sure sign of a closed mind.

You say things ocean. Then say you didn't say them...So when i show you you did, you ignore it..............Wow that's Deep Ocean.



I'd LIKE the market to be unregulated,


And at no time have I ever suggested that regulation isn't needed.

You claimed Opec wasn't a cartel (you even added in the only collusion was a joint oil exploration venture)you claimed if there was any manipulation of financial markets the SFC would like to know about it. You feigned ignorance of tax avoidance by the BNZ.

It wasn't a quote bomb, They your quotes Ocean i just thought you might like to read them again........
As for a closed mind no that's not reading stuff that's right in front of you.

[Ocean1]

You say things ocean. Then say you didn't say them...So when i show you you did, you ignore it..............Wow that's Deep Ocean.

And you present this:


I'd LIKE the market to be unregulated,

As proof that I said price fixing doesn't exist? Or that I said regulation isn't needed?

Because I don't see anything of the sort there. In fact if you'd bothered to read further...


I'd LIKE the market to be unregulated, I like the idea of people living within their means and it seems a natural extension to want society in general to behave that way. The fact that it's not is possibly related to all that fiat money you bleat about. If it didn't exist then loans would be limited to available savings, availability being a required control variable for any free market.

... you'd have found that in fact I said that the market ISN'T unregulated. And what I thought might be a factor in why that was the case.


It wasn't a quote bomb, They your quotes Ocean i just thought you might like to read them again........
As for a closed mind no that's not reading stuff that's right in front of you.

Wrong again. A closed mind can read just fine, they usually even finish reading whole sentences. It's just that they then interpret those words as something that agrees with their prejudices.

So if I decline to discuss it further you can take that as a win if you like, rather than any disinclination on my part to have my half of the discussion filtered by preconceived notions about what you think someone like me might have said.

[BoristheBiter]

Maybe you guys should read this.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-dF0rO7oxlxU/TZfoMJ9jiFI/AAAAAAAAAJ0/E3R5sBmBKX4/s1600/A-Flowchart-to-Help-You-Determine-if-Yoursquore-Having-a-Rational-Discussion.jpg


I have a broken foot and have still been outside more than you guys have.

[husaberg]

And at no time have I ever suggested that regulation isn't needed.





I'd LIKE the market to be unregulated,

Again he ignores what is in front of him.:laugh:
this is the third time you have ignored what i rebutted your statement with

A guy p'med me a few days ago he said don't bother arguing anything with Ocean he just constantly whines that something doesn't happen and when you bother to irrefutably show him it does, he then changes tack and says he knew it all a long or that he never thought it was or wasn't in the first place.

And that wee quote bomb was supposed to prove that I said price fixing doesn't exist?


You claimed Opec wasn't a cartel (you even added in the only collusion was a joint oil exploration venture)you claimed if there was any manipulation of financial markets the SFC would like to know about it. You feigned ignorance of tax avoidance by the BNZ.

[Ocean1]

Again he ignores what is in front of him.:laugh:
this is the third time you have ignored what i rebutted your statement with

Did you read the last reply to that post?

The one where I pointed out that you'd selectively posted my quote? The one where I posted the full sentence meaning the complete opposite?

Or have you given up reading them at all and just leapt straight to an assumption?

I must admit I don't bother replying to all of your statements. That's usually because I'm satisfied with my understanding of what you're saying.

Nor do you.


is unionism price fixing?


A guy p'med me a few days ago he said don't bother arguing anything with Ocean he just constantly whines that something doesn't happen and when you bother to irrefutably show him it does, he then changes tack and says he knew it all a long or that he never thought it was or wasn't in the first place.

I won't bother revealing who's PM'd me regarding you. It'd be rude.

Look, dude, usually when I enter into such discussions it's not with the intent to argue any particular philosophy or political stance. I'm often simply seeking to understand points of view that conflict with my own. You seem to have a tendency to interpret questions regarding your opinions as opposition. I agree with some of what you say, where I don't I'm more interested in how you got there than whether you're right or, not. Call it devil's advocate.

[husaberg]

Did you read the last reply to that post?

The one where I pointed out that you'd selectively posted my quote? The one where I posted the full sentence meaning the complete opposite?


At No time have i suggested.................
Oh i have but i meant something else...............
It wasn't selective it was what you said...regardless of what you said later or what you meant, it was what you said and later suggested you had never said that.



Look, dude, usually when I enter into such discussions it's not with the intent to argue any particular philosophy or political stance. I'm often simply seeking to understand points of view that conflict with my own. You seem to have a tendency to interpret questions regarding your opinions as opposition. I agree with some of what you say, where I don't I'm more interested in how you got there than whether you're right or, not. Call it devil's advocate.
Well your not Socrates i can assure you of that.
Fair enough i am getting pretty bored as well..........

[Brian d marge]

Did you read the last reply to that post?

The one where I pointed out that you'd selectively posted my quote? The one where I posted the full sentence meaning the complete opposite?

Or have you given up reading them at all and just leapt straight to an assumption?

I must admit I don't bother replying to all of your statements. That's usually because I'm satisfied with my understanding of what you're saying.

Nor do you.





I won't bother revealing who's PM'd me regarding you. It'd be rude.

Look, dude, usually when I enter into such discussions it's not with the intent to argue any particular philosophy or political stance. I'm often simply seeking to understand points of view that conflict with my own. You seem to have a tendency to interpret questions regarding your opinions as opposition. I agree with some of what you say, where I don't I'm more interested in how you got there than whether you're right or, not. Call it devil's advocate.

How does one reply to this

Lol Ｏ(≧∇≦)Ｏ

Sent from my SC-01F using Tapatalk

[Ocean1]

Fair enough i am getting pretty bored as well..........


is unionism price fixing?

I noticed.

[Scuba_Steve]

Haven't watched them yet but they seem like they might be relevant to the overall discussion going on here


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_O6CCK8wjE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GI_N4s_P7w

[puddytat]

Are we not stewpid ?
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/09/global-water-shortages-threat-terror-war

[mashman]

Are we not stewpid ?
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/09/global-water-shortages-threat-terror-war

S'ok bro... we'll just print some more money and everyone will be incentivised to get stuck in to doing the sorts of things we should have been doing decades ago. Make Ocean P.M. coz he understands how it all works. Tis a bit of a fuckin mess though and as per, we'll react when it's too late... unless we can get a money free economy on the go ;)

[Brian d marge]

Money is a store of wealth currency isnt

Sent from my SC-01F using Tapatalk

[Ocean1]

Haven't watched them yet but they seem like they might be relevant to the overall discussion going on here

Isn't that the voice of that anchor-man from The Simpsons?

[Brian d marge]

Isn't that the voice of that anchor-man from The Simpsons?

Yes , I thought so to

went back to reading stuff about the rugby 7s

Stephen

[Scuba_Steve]

Isn't that the voice of that anchor-man from The Simpsons?

Google says no...

[bogan]

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/owI7DOeO_yg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

An alternative to NOW perhaps?

[mashman]

An alternative to NOW perhaps?

Computer says no... that and if you killed off the rich we'd not only be debt free, but there'd be a shitload of cash available for payrises etc... Wonder why he never put that though the computer.

[BoristheBiter]

Computer says no... that and if you killed off the rich we'd not only be debt free, but there'd be a shitload of cash available for payrises etc... Wonder why he never put that though the computer.

Yep and everyone would be sitting around wondering what to do.

[Scuba_Steve]

Yep and everyone would be sitting around wondering what to do.

Why? Do you always require someone richer than yourself to tell you what to do?

... That would explain alot :yes:

[bogan]

Computer says no... that and if you killed off the rich we'd not only be debt free, but there'd be a shitload of cash available for payrises etc... Wonder why he never put that though the computer.

Firstly, it was a funny joke. Secondly, greedy much? At least their idea to kill the poor would result in no poor, you just want to kill the rich to assume their position and wealth. Gods man, where are your morals?

[mashman]

Why? Do you always require someone richer than yourself to tell you what to do?

... That would explain alot :yes:

Wot e said... cannot blingeth theee twice

[mashman]

Firstly, it was a funny joke. Secondly, greedy much? At least their idea to kill the poor would result in no poor, you just want to kill the rich to assume their position and wealth. Gods man, where are your morals?

And I chortled. Greedy? Where? Of course it would result in poor people. If I wanted their position and wealth, the drive way of my mansions would already be decorated with their rotting corpses. Sigh, those were the days. Get yer thievin eyes off of my morals :mad:

[Brian d marge]

Once apon a time bread went from 4 to 8 to fifteen sous a loaf a time when a skilled worker got 15 sou a day

The shit hit the fan that day

We have a while yet before the food bill is in excess of 40　percent of income



Sent from my SC-01F using Tapatalk

[BoristheBiter]

Why? Do you always require someone richer than yourself to tell you what to do?

... That would explain alot :yes:

Nah mate, not many richer than me.


Wot e said... cannot blingeth theee twice

Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa what a sheep, can't think of your own funny come back.

[mashman]

Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa what a sheep, can't think of your own funny come back.

Sometimes it is wiser to cede to a wiser man... and as flattered as I am that you chose to roll out my sheep line, I'm disappointed in the context you chose.

[mashman]

Kiwis fighting in Syria, Key confirms (http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/21379437/kiwis-fighting-in-syria-key-confirms/#)...

"It backs up, 100 per cent, what I said last year about the need for intelligence-gathering," he said.

You aren't allowed to fight in an unapproved war... so much for freedom of choice and to fight for the cause of your choosing. Am sure Kiwi's will feel much safer with these guys wandering the streets with no passport.

[Scuba_Steve]

Nah mate, not many richer than me.


I guess congratulations then, but I don't actually recall many NZers on the Forbes top 100 anytime recently. I guess it could always just be that you're not a NZer maybee...

[BoristheBiter]

Sometimes it is wiser to cede to a wiser man... and as flattered as I am that you chose to roll out my sheep line, I'm disappointed in the context you chose.

baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

[BoristheBiter]

I guess congratulations then, but I don't actually recall many NZers on the Forbes top 100 anytime recently. I guess it could always just be that you're not a NZer maybee...

If you are not a public listed company, nor a media whore forbes have no idea who you are
And yes there is that fact (only on paper for safety reasons) but I'm taking the mashy line, you don't need to have money to be rich.

[Oscar]

Kiwis fighting in Syria, Key confirms (http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/21379437/kiwis-fighting-in-syria-key-confirms/#)...

"It backs up, 100 per cent, what I said last year about the need for intelligence-gathering," he said.

You aren't allowed to fight in an unapproved war... so much for freedom of choice and to fight for the cause of your choosing. Am sure Kiwi's will feel much safer with these guys wandering the streets with no passport.

Maybe you'd prefer to wait for their return from Syria, radicalised and trained.

[mashman]

Maybe you'd prefer to wait for their return from Syria, radicalised and trained.

Who says they aren't already?

[Oscar]

Who says they aren't already?

Who says they're not?
What diference does it make?

Do we want our citizens fighting for AQ in Syria?
Or do they have to prove that they're fighting for the "good" guys?

Aren’t you exactly the sort of whiner who complain long and loud if the Govt allowed radical, trained terrorists back into NZ after fighting in Syria?

[mashman]

Who says they're not?
What diference does it make?

Do we want our citizens fighting for AQ in Syria?
Or do they have to prove that they're fighting for the "good" guys?

Aren’t you exactly the sort of whiner who complain long and loud if the Govt allowed radical, trained terrorists back into NZ after fighting in Syria?

True, I guess we'll never be told.
I would assume killing accuracy and efficiency might be considerations.

I have no problem with anyone wanting to fight where they want to fight. If they class the Syrian regime as oppressive to the people, then where's the difference between signing up to fight v's being a part of a "lawful" (tui) army?
Who gets to decide who the "good" guys are?

:killingme... If they decide to fight here, they decide to fight here irrespective of the govt's wishes... and no doubt there are many more lethal people, everyday bikers, on here that are trained highly enough that could be considered as "terrorists". It's a personal choice, let them go fight.

[Oscar]

I have no problem with anyone wanting to fight where they want to fight. If they class the Syrian regime as oppressive to the people, then where's the difference between signing up to fight v's being a part of a "lawful" (tui) army?
Who gets to decide who the "good" guys are?

:killingme... If they decide to fight here, they decide to fight here irrespective of the govt's wishes... and no doubt there are many more lethal people, everyday bikers, on here that are trained highly enough that could be considered as "terrorists". It's a personal choice, let them go fight.

And that’s where your naivety (not to mention ignorance) becomes obvious.
The Syrian opposition is a diverse group ranging from secular to hard core AQ and Hamas. None of these groups are squeaky clean (an example being the you tube clip of an Opposition Commander eating the heart of a dead soldier).
If the fundamentalists are victorious, life in Syria is going to get worse, not better.


However, as you say, it is a personal choice - but if you make the choice, maybe you've also made a choice about citizenship.
If you want to fight for another country, rescind your rights in this one.

[Ocean1]

True, I guess we'll never be told.
I would assume killing accuracy and efficiency might be considerations.

I have no problem with anyone wanting to fight where they want to fight. If they class the Syrian regime as oppressive to the people, then where's the difference between signing up to fight v's being a part of a "lawful" (tui) army?
Who gets to decide who the "good" guys are?

:killingme... If they decide to fight here, they decide to fight here irrespective of the govt's wishes... and no doubt there are many more lethal people, everyday bikers, on here that are trained highly enough that could be considered as "terrorists". It's a personal choice, let them go fight.

Believe it or not there's rules in war too. Google "Jus in Bello"

They define allowable actions, wepons, treatment of prisoners etc etc. Anyone entering into armed conflict not covered by these rules is what used to be somewhat quaintly called pirate. Which might sound romantic an' all, until you go look how long most pirates remained alive long enough to enjoy the whatever benefits their actions may have gained them.

[mashman]

And that’s where your naivety (not to mention ignorance) becomes obvious.
The Syrian opposition is a diverse group ranging from secular to hard core AQ and Hamas. None of these groups are squeaky clean (an example being the you tube clip of an Opposition Commander eating the heart of a dead soldier).
If the fundamentalists are victorious, life in Syria is going to get worse, not better.

However, as you say, it is a personal choice - but if you make the choice, maybe you've also made a choice about citizenship.
If you want to fight for another country, rescind your rights in this one.

bwaaaa ha ha ha ha haaaaa... Why should I care who wins that particular war? I don't see the Iraqi's as particularly happy at the moment, nor the Afghani's for that matter as they highlight that things were better before American involvement. So methinks you'd better start looking for some other form of straw to hold on to and use as an excuse to hide your obvious naivety and ignorance before trying to brow beat someone with your worthless and highly uneducated opinion.

If they're the limits that so called enlightened, fair and intelligent "men" put forwards as becoming of a citizen, then the army's should all be based off-shore. There is no difference other than perceived permission. Smart folk understand that, dipshits that buy into the propaganda and therefore feel the need to penalise someone for their choices because they don't agree deserve to be put against the wall and shot. After all, it's those levels of ignorance that start wars.


Believe it or not there's rules in war too. Google "Jus in Bello"

They define allowable actions, wepons, treatment of prisoners etc etc. Anyone entering into armed conflict not covered by these rules is what used to be somewhat quaintly called pirate. Which might sound romantic an' all, until you go look how long most pirates remained alive long enough to enjoy the whatever benefits their actions may have gained them.

Shame that there's a minority that don't recognise these people as human beings.

Definitions don't stop bullets killing innocents etc... and in some cases, depending on the "shells" being used, don't stop innocents from being maimed. I'm not glorifying war or justifying it, but I fail to see why a govt should have the monopoly on deciding which wars are just and which wars a person should be allowed to fight in... or at least which side they should be allowed to fight on.

[Oscar]

Smart folk understand that, dipshits that buy into the propaganda and therefore feel the need to penalise someone for their choices




This is quite funny, being as how you post a shitload of propaganda here.

[mashman]

This is quite funny, being as how you post a shitload of propaganda here.

Glad I could oblige... however in my defense, I don't use the mainstream how to be a member of the herd bullshit that you guys seem to rely on.

[Oscar]

Glad I could oblige... however in my defense, I don't use the mainstream how to be a member of the herd bullshit that you guys seem to rely on.


You did it again - That's great!

Can you actually say anything that doesn't have spin one way or t'other?

[mashman]

You did it again - That's great!

Can you actually say anything that doesn't have spin one way or t'other?

Of course I did.

Yes, but you'd have to agree with it for it not to be spin. :yawn: Your powers are weak old man.

[Oscar]

Of course I did.

Yes, but you'd have to agree with it for it not to be spin. :yawn: Your powers are weak old man.

I hear many things that I disagree with coming from people I respect.
You are not one of them.

[Brian d marge]

The question is , why is Syria even an issue?

Unless Syria and Iraq have an agreement to support each other

Now, That is going to get interesting

Oh 10 ( fictional ) people are deemed to be a threat, ( back in the early nineties I tried to get into Iraq , now does that make me a threat?

Stephen

On saying that; from The daily Baaaaaaaa

http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/middle-east/9709015/Bomb-tutor-blows-up-his-students-by-accident

[Brian d marge]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/9708400/Labour-TPP-transparency-push-blocked

Talking about sheer stupidity


Also from the daily Baaaaa

Stephen

[Ocean1]

Shame that there's a minority that don't recognise these people as human beings.

What people? actually, don't bother, it occurs to me that as the quantity of people who don't recognise people as human beings is roughly zero you're just throwing words around at random again.


Definitions don't stop bullets killing innocents etc... and in some cases, depending on the "shells" being used, don't stop innocents from being maimed.

Actually, that’s the primary function of the rules. And where they’re followed I don’t doubt they’re largely successful. At least far more successful than a war without those rules.


I fail to see why a govt should have the monopoly on deciding which wars are just and which wars a person should be allowed to fight in... or at least which side they should be allowed to fight on.

Yes. Maybe one day when you’re all growed up you’ll understand.

In the meantime perhaps you could find somewhere governed by those that’ll let you shoot whoever the fuck you like for whatever reason you see fit on the day and emigrate there.

[mashman]

I hear many things that I disagree with coming from people I respect.
You are not one of them.

Oh wow, I'm utterly devastated. Try not communicating with me again as it hurts me so.


What people? actually, don't bother, it occurs to me that as the quantity of people who don't recognise people as human beings is roughly zero you're just throwing words around at random again.

Didn't you notice the pics of prisoners being pissed on etc...? But yeah, thankfully they are a minority.



Actually, that’s the primary function of the rules. And where they’re followed I don’t doubt they’re largely successful. At least far more successful than a war without those rules.

True to a large extent, but I think the "rules" are only honoured by those who choose to honour them... to that end the rules may as well not exist.



Yes. Maybe one day when you’re all growed up you’ll understand.

In the meantime perhaps you could find somewhere governed by those that’ll let you shoot whoever the fuck you like for whatever reason you see fit on the day and emigrate there.

I understand perfectly well and the reasons given are not acceptable for sending men to murder people.

I hope society will evolve to a point where that very thing won't be illegal.

[mashman]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/9708400/Labour-TPP-transparency-push-blocked

Talking about sheer stupidity

Also from the daily Baaaaa

Stephen

Ahhhhh well... when NOW makes office I'll take great pride in my representatives telling the rest of the world to fuck off whilst laughing at the lawyers frantically pointing to a piece of paper stating that they can't tell them to fuck off because it's against the law.

[husaberg]

Ahhhhh well... when NOW makes office I'll take great pride in my representatives telling the rest of the world to fuck off whilst laughing at the lawyers frantically pointing to a piece of paper stating that they can't tell them to fuck off because it's against the law.

It reminded me of the other crowd telling us how rich we would be from the Carbon Credits and Koyoto....
I guess it wasn't us that are getting rich from it but someone must be..............
Where is it again where the money goes.................

[mashman]

It reminded me of the other crowd telling us how rich we would be from the Carbon Credits and Koyoto....
I guess it wasn't us that are getting rich from it but someone must be..............
Where is it again where the money goes.................

heh heh heh... same place it usually trickles down to I guess :laugh:. But hey, it's credits in the bank, erm, carbon credit market, erm, och it'll be somewhere being invested in vital infrastructure to lower pour carbon footprint... maybe.

[Brian d marge]

Hahahahaa Wonder how long it will take before the frog(s) jumps out of the pot

At what price point will the from Jump ? 4, 5, 6, % inflation

when a loaf gets to 15 sous?

Stephen

[husaberg]

Hahahahaa Wonder how long it will take before the frog(s) jumps out of the pot

At what price point will the from Jump ? 4, 5, 6, % inflation

when a loaf gets to 15 sou?

Stephen

Its not a lot of Dough how much has yeast risen since then?
I could beer to think about that level of inflation

[Brian d marge]

Its not a lot of Dough how much has yeast risen since then?
I could beer to think about that level of inflation

( on a pint of Milk ) from 1976 to now, your money has lost 90 of its purchasing power !!!

yeeehaaaa

So I’m thinking , if inflation cannot be kept within such a narrow band of 2 to 3 % ( you will hear the RBNZ start to make noises to increase that narrow band or move to a different method of controlling inflation ) ,
Once the horse has bolted , and we get a steep rise in inflation, at what pain threshold will Joe Plumber go ouch too hot and jump !

Stephen

[mashman]

Once the horse has bolted , and we get a steep rise in inflation, at what pain threshold will Joe Plumber go ouch too hot and jump !

Stephen

When their duly elected representatives say that they aren't sure what to do. So never. We'll fight it out amongst ourselves first most likely.

[husaberg]

( on a pint of Milk ) from 1976 to now, your money has lost 90 of its purchasing power !!!

yeeehaaaa

So I’m thinking , if inflation cannot be kept within such a narrow band of 2 to 3 % ( you will hear the RBNZ start to make noises to increase that narrow band or move to a different method of controlling inflation ) ,
Once the horse has bolted , and we get a steep rise in inflation, at what pain threshold will Joe Plumber go ouch too hot and jump !

Stephen

The issue with milk is it indexed to the price of export milk products, But only when the export price rises of course.
The farmers aren't making the margins from it either, theirs have diminished greatly..............

[puddytat]

They have their spin doctors working on it.....
http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/02/11/tv-review-hosking-henry/

[Brian d marge]

The issue with milk is it indexed to the price of export milk products, But only when the export price rises of course.
The farmers aren't making the margins from it either, theirs have diminished greatly..............

Which is even worse , countdown selling 600ml of milk for $ 2.10 when using the CPI from 1976 to now. Milk should be 1.35 ( off top of head )

Stephen

but dont worry Chucks got me back

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/RWz_m3pURtE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[BoristheBiter]

:crybaby::crybaby::crybaby::grouphug:

you guys need to get out more

:ride::ride::ride:

[Oscar]

I think you'll find milk was Govt subsidised until the 1980's.
Any comparison with prices prior to that is silly.

[Brian d marge]

I think you'll find milk was Govt subsidised until the 1980's.
Any comparison with prices prior to that is silly.

The fixing of prices was lifted in 1976, followed by the removal of the government subsidy in 1985. Full deregulation of the domestic milk industry occurred in 1993.



Stephen

[husaberg]

The fixing of prices was lifted in 1976, followed by the removal of the government subsidy in 1985. Full deregulation of the domestic milk industry occurred in 1993.



Stephen

Yeah i googled it as well lol
The GST didn't help but i stand by what i said originally in real terms the farmgate price for the farmer has diminished markedly.
Someones making a killing and it an't the farmers. It would be interesting to work out what the Fontera milk they must supply to independents year around goes for per litre...........
I have the farmgate prices from the 50's adjusted for 1993 figures somewhere.........these are generally unsubsidised as the subsidies were on land development and fert etc from memory for export stuff

[Oscar]

The fixing of prices was lifted in 1976, followed by the removal of the government subsidy in 1985. Full deregulation of the domestic milk industry occurred in 1993.



Stephen

Er - that's what I said - Govt. subsidies finished in the eighties.
That makes price comparisons against CPI problematic prior to 1985.

[Brian d marge]

Er - that's what I said - Govt. subsidies finished in the eighties.
That makes price comparisons against CPI problematic prior to 1985.

that is true , that is what you said alright

but the prices started to change from 1976 ,so makes it quite a good place to start from but then you would know that from a quick google

Stephen

[husaberg]

:crybaby::crybaby::crybaby::grouphug:

you guys need to get out more

:ride::ride::ride:

Get yourself one of these......
http://i1101.photobucket.com/albums/g429/tcecil88/nqr4mo_zpsdc5c75be.jpg

[Oscar]

that is true , that is what you said alright

but the prices started to change from 1976 ,so makes it quite a good place to start from but then you would know that from a quick google

Stephen

I was a milkman in 1976.
Notwithstanding that, unless the Govt reintroduces the subsidy, your figures are bogus.

[Brian d marge]

I was a milkman in 1976.
Notwithstanding that, unless the Govt reintroduces the subsidy, your figures are bogus.

Well the came from the RBNZ , so I think either they are full of it , or you are.

http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/monetary_policy/inflation_calculator/


and ya know which of the above two options I’m tending towards

oh and I know ya aint firing on all cylinders so here is the history of milk prices

http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/economic_indicators/prices_indexes/tracking-milk-prices-in-the-cpi.aspx

and a 600ml pint of milk in countdown today costs

http://shop.countdown.co.nz/Shop/SearchProducts?search=600ml+milk#url=/


Which according to the calculator is a 87 % drop in purchasing power WHICH was the original point

using the later figure of 35 cents in 1985 gives us a 57 % drop in purchasing power

Which again kinda says that inflation eats away at the purchasing power of the dollar ,

Do excuse me if I seem to ignore your posts , Im busy of late and stopping to explain simple points is time consuming , ONCE of twice is ok , but I tire easily


Stephen

[avgas]

Consider yourselves lucky. I have to ask for "Grass fed" milk at the supermarket. Since when did we run out of grass to feed cows?

[Oscar]

Well the came from the RBNZ , so I think either they are full of it , or you are.

http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/monetary_policy/inflation_calculator/


and ya know which of the above two options I’m tending towards

oh and I know ya aint firing on all cylinders so here is the history of milk prices

http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/economic_indicators/prices_indexes/tracking-milk-prices-in-the-cpi.aspx

and a 600ml pint of milk in countdown today costs

http://shop.countdown.co.nz/Shop/SearchProducts?search=600ml+milk#url=/


Which according to the calculator is a 87 % drop in purchasing power WHICH was the original point

using the later figure of 35 cents in 1985 gives us a 57 % drop in purchasing power

Which again kinda says that inflation eats away at the purchasing power of the dollar ,

Do excuse me if I seem to ignore your posts , Im busy of late and stopping to explain simple points is time consuming , ONCE of twice is ok , but I tire easily


Stephen

Wow, your post was long and informative - you must have broken your bong.

Still, based on the fact that you are using a commodity that had a period of price fixing and Govt. subsidies to measure purchasing pwer:



( on a pint of Milk ) from 1976 to now, your money has lost 90 of its purchasing power !!!

You are still an idiot.

[Brian d marge]

which Were removed from 1976 and completely from 1985
As I said
Lets face it Tweedle Dee You have just been pwned the internet
if we use your idea slash standard of an idiot
I fall short by a country mile of the standards you have set
No wonder the country went to rack and ruin, with people such as your good self behind the Vote when it was needed

Sent from my SC-01F using Tapatalk

[avgas]

No wonder the country went to rack and ruin, with people such as your good self behind the Vote when it was needed
To be honest the recipe for shit pie is never going to taste like a fine cake.
No matter who's shit contributed - or how many nuts it contains.

[Oscar]

which Were removed from 1976 and completely from 1985
As I said
Lets face it Tweedle Dee You have just been pwned the internet
if we use your idea slash standard of an idiot
I fall short by a country mile of the standards you have set
No wonder the country went to rack and ruin, with people such as your good self behind the Vote when it was needed

Sent from my SC-01F using Tapatalk

So you didn't make the stupid comment using a pint of milk to compare spending power of the dollar?
Think carefully now, maybe even go back and read yer own drivel...

[Brian d marge]

So you didn't make the stupid comment using a pint of milk to compare spending power of the dollar?
Think carefully now, maybe even go back and read yer own drivel...

No
And as of yet you havent come forward with anything apart from bloke said down the pub
If you want to waste some time prove me wrong

But then

No one wont hold breath

Sent from my SC-01F using Tapatalk

[BoristheBiter]

( on a pint of Milk ) from 1976 to now, your money has lost 90 of its purchasing power !!!


Stephen


So you didn't make the stupid comment using a pint of milk to compare spending power of the dollar?
Think carefully now, maybe even go back and read yer own drivel...


No
And as of yet you havent come forward with anything apart from bloke said down the pub
If you want to waste some time prove me wrong

But then

No one wont hold breath

Sent from my SC-01F using Tapatalk

You so need to stop posting when you're drunk/been down the pub.

[Brian d marge]

Why
Asked a simple question
Made a simple point
Backed it up

But no one yet has proved it wrong

Inflation does erode the the purchasing power of your money

I uaed an example . Milk
After price controls were removed

Any problems so far
Stephen

Sent from my SC-01F using Tapatalk

[BoristheBiter]

Why
Asked a simple question
Made a simple point
Backed it up

But no one yet has proved it wrong

Inflation does erode the the purchasing power of your money

I uaed an example . Milk
After price controls were removed

Any problems so far
Stephen

Sent from my SC-01F using Tapatalk

Oh i'm not saying you're right or wrong but he asked you if you had used milk as the example and you said no.

The easiest example is when i was a kid i could get a bag of sweets for 10 cents, now i can't.

[Oscar]

Why
Asked a simple question
Made a simple point
Backed it up

But no one yet has proved it wrong

Inflation does erode the the purchasing power of your money

I uaed an example . Milk
After price controls were removed

Any problems so far
Stephen

Sent from my SC-01F using Tapatalk

You are such an idjut you cant keep up with your own drivel.

You said:



( on a pint of Milk ) from 1976 to now, your money has lost 90 of its purchasing power !!!



Since Govt. subsidies didn't come off until 1985, your statement is wrong.
The only way to correct the figure would be to know exactly how much the Govt. subsidised it, and factor in the different tax rates for the era (as your taxes were being used to reduce the price).
Then you might have a read on spending power.

[Brian d marge]

You are such an idjut you cant keep up with your own drivel.

You said:




Since Govt. subsidies didn't come off until 1985, your statement is wrong.
The only way to correct the figure would be to know exactly how much the Govt. subsidised it, and factor in the different tax rates for the era (as your taxes were being used to reduce the price).
Then you might have a read on spending power.

Clutching at straws are we

I used the governments own website , RBNZ and statistic nz , ( which you read ) which said regulations vcame off in 1976 , and was completely deregualted in 85

Using the cpi ( you do know what that is ? ) The , governments own website tells me how much my spending power has been reduced

all your wank is just that wank , backed up by ,,,eerrrr lets see um NOTHING

You been PWNED and you know it

Stephen

[avgas]

Just to drive this slightly back on topic.

How much was a 750 bonnie......how much is the current bonnie?

Old Beetle vs New?

I think the scary thing is not inflation. It is the cost change due to inflation in comparison to change in salary.
Something scary has been happening over the last few years, and its going to get worse.

We seem to have inflation becoming disproportionate to actual growth for the first time in 60 years. I would love to quote figures - but the only ones I can find seem to ignore the lower 50% of the population (since 1996).......which is scary.

[Oscar]

Clutching at straws are we

I used the governments own website , RBNZ and statistic nz , ( which you read ) which said regulations vcame off in 1976 , and was completely deregualted in 85

Using the cpi ( you do know what that is ? ) The , governments own website tells me how much my spending power has been reduced

all your wank is just that wank , backed up by ,,,eerrrr lets see um NOTHING

You been PWNED and you know it

Stephen

More drivel.

I've seen the Govt/RBNZ statistics and they are a fuck sight clearer than your ravings.
You related spending power to the price of milk.
You were wrong.
End of story.

[husaberg]

If we are talking buying power the milk subsidised or not is valid. Why? because that is what it cost. There was no doubt subsidies on wages and all sorts of other things too i guess at the time.
Regardless milk is a staple........Money is money..........its the purchasing power Stephen was quoting..
When i was a milk vendor in the early 90's milk was 65c 600ml or $1.25 1 litre carton ! litre sachets of milk was about $1.10
We used to make (i think) 25 cents a litre for home deliveries and about 5 cents for the supermarkets....
these figures may not be right but the supermarkets then expected us to stock the shelves (do the orders for them and take away milk and all sorts of other stuff)
It was not worth the effort then.
I guess now they would expect me to pay them for the privilege LOL.........

[Oscar]

If we are talking buying power the milk subsidised or not is valid. Why? because that is what it cost. There was no doubt subsidies on wages and all sorts of other things too i guess at the time.
Regardless milk is a staple........Money is money..........its the purchasing power Stephen was quoting..
When i was a milk vendor in the early 90's milk was 65c 600ml or $1.25 1 litre carton ! litre sachets of milk was about $1.10
We used to make (i think) 25 cents a litre for home deliveries and about 5 cents for the supermarkets....
these figures may not be right but the supermarkets then expected us to stock the shelves (do the orders for them and take away milk and all sorts of other stuff)
It was not worth the effort then.
I guess now they would expect me to pay them for the privilege LOL.........

Money is money. And I have no doubt that purchasing power has fallen to that degree.
When I was a kid we delivered four cent pints and then it went to eight cents. However it was initially priced controlled and also subsidised till 1985.
So you can't use milk to compare purchasing power when some of the cost was coming then from your taxes, but isn't now.
You'd have to factor in average tax rates then (higher) and now.


Notwithstanding that, you can find lots of things whose real prices have fallen dramatically - cars, TV's and electronic goods.
The first TV I ever bought was in 1985, it was a 20" Sharp (with Teletext whewhey!) and cost $1700 retail.

[husaberg]

Money is money. And I have no doubt that purchasing power has fallen to that degree.
When I was a kid we delivered four cent pints and then it went to eight cents. However it was initially priced controlled and also subsidised till 1985.
So you can't use milk to compare purchasing power when some of the cost was coming then from your taxes, but isn't now.
You'd have to factor in average tax rates then (higher) and now.


Notwithstanding that, you can find lots of things whose real prices have fallen dramatically - cars, TV's and electronic goods.
The first TV I ever bought was in 1985, it was a 20" Sharp (with Teletext whewhey!) and cost $1700 retail.

Ehh but there is the rub Oscar, the prices of goods such as these were effected by tarfis also........

[Oscar]

Ehh but there is the rub Oscar, the prices of goods such as these were effected by tarfis also........

Yeah, but if you wanna calculate spending power, you have to factor in direct and indirect taxes.
If you want an example to use, you'd have to pick something that either wasn't subsidised or subject to tax or tariff or where those things haven't changed.
Prior to 1984, damn near everything worthwhile was subject to tariffs or sales tax of some degree.
By and large, this nightmare of red tape was replaced by GST, and the average rate of income tax went down, so all these have to be taken into account when calculating the spending power in the average pay packet.

Using milk as an example is just as silly as saying that since the average mortgage rate in 1982 was 21% per annum, the real cost of owning a house must have fallen.

[husaberg]

Yeah, but if you wanna calculate spending power, you have to factor in direct and indirect taxes.
If you want an example to use, you'd have to pick something that either wasn't subsidised or subject to tax or tariff or where those things haven't changed.
Prior to 1984, damn near everything worthwhile was subject to tariffs or sales tax of some degree.
By and large, this nightmare of red tape was replaced by GST, and the average rate of income tax went down, so all these have to be taken into account when calculating the spending power in the average pay packet.

Using milk as an example is just as silly as saying that since the average mortgage rate in 1982 was 21% per annum, the real cost of owning a house must have fallen.

Not really....... milk is a staple and a commodity brought nearly every day, by nearly everyone, whitegoods and cars are certainly not.
Stephen is saying buying power is greatly reduced which it is. subsidies tarfifs or whatever........ wages buy milk.
The relationship between the two..........is your buying power.......

[Oscar]

Not really....... milk is a staple and a commodity brought nearly every day, by nearly everyone, whitegoods and cars are certainly not.
Stephen is saying buying power is greatly reduced which it is. subsidies tarfifs or whatever........ wages buy milk.
The relationship between the two..........is your buying power.......

He said:


( on a pint of Milk ) from 1976 to now, your money has lost 90 of its purchasing power !!!

This is patently wrong, as to compare the actual cost of milk from 1976, you'd have to factor in that part of your taxes that went to subsidise the product and to maintain the price control.
If you took out the bit in brackets, it would probably be near enough.

[husaberg]

He said:



This is patently wrong, as to compare the actual cost of milk from 1976, you'd have to factor in that part of your taxes that went to subsidise the product and to maintain the price control.
If you took out the bit in brackets, it would probably be near enough.

if you want to say he is wrong do the calculations... show us you are right.
Ave wage, ave tax rate vs cost of milk.

[Oscar]

if you want to say he is wrong do the calculations... show us you are right.
Ave wage, ave tax rate vs cost of milk.

You forgot reductions and increases in things sales tax, indirect tax and income tax that a family pays.
The RBNZ does a an overall spending power calculation, look it up.

[husaberg]

You forgot reductions and increases in things sales tax, indirect tax and income tax that a family pays.
The RBNZ does a an overall spending power calculation, look it up.

No, you do the calculations, You are saying he is wrong, prove it.

We are talking spending/purchasing power the value of wages vs the cost of a staple.then vs now.
Stephen has given an example, which you say he is wrong, prove him wrong due to subsidies and tax changes on income.
Do the maths show us you are right using his example. i gave you the formula.
personally i think Stephens ratio was a bit high, but that is a gut feeling only

[Brian d marge]

Oh i'm not saying you're right or wrong but he asked you if you had used milk as the example and you said no.

The easiest example is when i was a kid i could get a bag of sweets for 10 cents, now i can't.
The full sentence was anything stupid and I did say"" No that is true ,because there werent nowt stupid there

The reason why ya can buy the sweets is the thing we have been talking about.

Stephen

and off the top of head , the bikes back in the day were expensive ( I think there is actually a thread on KB )

[Oscar]

No, you do the calculations, You are saying he is wrong, prove it.

We are talking spending/purchasing power the value of wages vs the cost of a staple.then vs now.
Stephen has given an example, which you say he is wrong, prove him wrong due to subsidies and tax changes on income.
Do the maths show us you are right using his example. i gave you the formula.
personally i think Stephens ratio was a bit high, but that is a gut feeling only

Sure, I'll prove it - tell me what the real price of milk was (without price fixing) in 1976.
Then tell me what the Govt. subsidy was between 1976 and 1985.

The whole point is that using the cost of one thing to measure purchasing power is silly.
Using my previous example, the fact that mortgage rates have plummeted over the last 30 years says nothing about the purchasing power of your $.

[husaberg]

Sure, I'll prove it - tell me what the real price of milk was (without price fixing) in 1976.
Then tell me what the Govt. subsidy was between 1976 and 1985.

Oscar you offer nothing but excuses to why you can't back up your rash statements that Stephen is wrong.

[BoristheBiter]

The full sentence was anything stupid and I did say"" No that is true ,because there werent nowt stupid there

The reason why ya can buy the sweets is the thing we have been talking about.

Stephen

and off the top of head , the bikes back in the day were expensive ( I think there is actually a thread on KB )

So if you use tv's as an example our money has gained buying power, but you can't use that as you need to take technology into consideration as well as amount sold.

So you have to find something that is still the same today as 10 years ago that is why they use food but the problem is the advancement in production and selling it to the rest of the world.
If we made shit food like the rest of the world we would have cheap prices but we make some of the best so we have to pay what the rest does.

There is a scale using the MacDonalds hamburger but i cant be arsed finding it.

[Oscar]

Oscar you offer nothing but excuses to why you can't back up your rash statements that Stephen is wrong.

Maybe he would like to back up his figure.
I assume he meant to say that the dollar had lost 90% of it's spending power based on the price of milk.

Or why don't you prove he's correct?

But based on average wage figures - in 1976 you could buy just shy of 1200 pints of milk with the median weekly wage, and in 2013 you could buy could buy 804.

[Brian d marge]

Sure, I'll prove it - tell me what the real price of milk was (without price fixing) in 1976.
Then tell me what the Govt. subsidy was between 1976 and 1985.

The whole point is that using the cost of one thing to measure purchasing power is silly.
.

OI stupid what do you think the CPI does/is

btw , the subsidies before Q1 1976 were input 15% output of 85 and a pse of 13 %

and from this statement (Using my previous example, the fact that mortgage rates have plummeted over the last 30 years says nothing about the purchasing power of your $)

I KNOW you do do have a clue,

Regards
A well informed Village Idiot