Stupid World [Archive] - Page 8

husaberg

16th February 2014, 15:54

Based on 8 cents a pint in 1976 and a median income of $95 a week, compared to the price of $1.12 and median income of $844 a week now.
Would you like to compare interest rates in 1976 and 2013?
The cost of meat (that could be interesting).

Using one commodity is silly.
Arguing about a comment that hardly makes sense as it's author was probably drunk makes no sense.

interesting use of figures mine come out different. I used al 1975 btw.;)
ave after tax NZ$98.97 a week.
4.05c per 600ml
x7/week=$0.2835
0.286%

2013
After tax =$871.87
2.42 litre .242c per ml or $1.45/600ml
x 7 /week=$10.15 per week.
1.16%

=4x less buying power. i will show where i leading with this later......
because the farm gate price has steadily fallen............
yet someone is making out quite well.......
Ice cream

The average price of a two-litre tub of ice cream in 2010 was around $5.40, compared with an average price of 85 cents in 1975 and $2.10 in 1981. Tubs of ice cream are priced at both supermarkets and convenience stores. The current average prices are $5.35 at supermarkets, where a range of brands is priced, and $6.50 at convenience stores, where the price of the cheapest available two-litre tub is collected. The average prices quoted are weighted averages of the selected items priced for the CPI, weighted by store-type expenditure and regional population estimates.

1970's Diet could we afford it now doubt it?
We remained a ‘meat and three veg’ people. Our appetite for beef increased from 45 kg per person in 1969 to 57 kg in 1977. Counting mutton and lamb as well, the average Kiwi scoffed nearly 90 kg of red meat each year. Potatoes (57 kg), carrots (8 kg), cabbages (5 kg) and cauliflower (4 kg) were the main vegetables eaten.

Milk – almost always full-cream – was delivered by the local ‘milkman’ in a glass bottle. In 1979 we each drank 188 litres of the stuff. The amount of cheese consumed almost doubled during the decade to 8 kg per person per year, in part because of the fad for fondues. We also spread 15 kg of full-fat butter on our sandwiches.

The housing market is far more perverse.

New Zealand experienced a very sharp rise in house prices and interest rates rose to almost 10%. This was followed by an explosive period of consumer price and wage inflation at the same time as flattish house prices in nominal terms.

We found the average pre-tax income in June 1975 was NZ$126.88 a week. After tax of 22% that left disposable income of NZ$98.97 a week. The average house price in 1975 was NZ$24,300. Assuming a 33% deposit on a 15 year mortgage and the 9.3% variable rate at the time meant an average wage earner had to make a mortgage payment of NZ$38 a week or about 39.2% of disposable income.

This relative unaffordability didn't last long because wage inflation combined with falling real house prices through the late 1970s and early 1980s reduced the portion of disposable income required to buy a house.

Back in 1987 - 18.4% 67% of income

There was also a housing boom back in 1987 as Alan Greenspan took the reins and cut global interest rates to prevent the 1987 stock market crash widening. Our stock market crashed anyway, but we did have a housing boom that lasted for another year or so.

At the same time our interest rates were sky-high to clamp down on inflation which had rampaged through the 1970s and 1980s. The chart above shows the spike in real prices and then the relative decline, despite a blip up in the late 1980s. Real house prices did not recover to their 1975 highs until 1996, thanks to inflation.

Back in 1987 the average house price was NZ$88,900. The average pre-tax income was NZ$485.98 a week and the average take home pay was NZ$365.41. Again, assuming a 33% deposit and a 15 year loan, the mortgage payment of NZ$67.39 NZ$246 a week works out at 18.4% 67.4% of take-home pay. That is even with interest rates at 20.5% as they were at the time.

That proportion quickly fell as interest rates fell to more normal levels in the early 1990s and house prices stagnated.

Fast forward to 2007-09 - 60% to 80% of income

Between 2002 and late 2007 house prices in New Zealand virtually doubled during a period of low inflation. They exploded in real terms as the chart above shows. Alan Greenspan was well entrenched with his low interest rates policy and a new higher tax threshold in New Zealand encouraged much borrowing to buy rental property.

Assuming the same 33% deposit and 15 year home loan, a person on the median income buying the median house now would be receiving NZ$734 after tax and paying NZ$449 in mortgage payments or 61.2% of disposable income.

Brian d marge

16th February 2014, 16:40

Please look up the CPI and what it does.

that’s all your doing ( is trying to recreate the stat dept numbers)

and the government statistics dept can do it a lot better

I also gave you the subsidies before 1976 , input, output and PSE.

The fact remains that if ya had eight cents and were to try and buy a pint of milk ( or bread or bananas or sweets) today ya couldn’t

BECAUSE

Inflation has eaten ya moneys buying power ( theft if ya ask me )

Stephen

and if I was pissed , ( which I wasnt ) when I wrote the original comment, just think of the damage a sober comment could do to poor dumb animals ( Oscar ) That would be a total mind fk.

Now piss off oscar and let the conversation continue

Stephen

Oscar

16th February 2014, 17:45

and if I was pissed , ( which I wasnt ) when I wrote the original comment, just think of the damage a sober comment could do to poor dumb animals ( Oscar ) That would be a total mind fk.

Now piss off oscar and let the conversation continue

Stephen

In case you had noticed, Mr. Swedish Motorcycle and I have been having a conversation.
If you weren't pissed when you posted that drivel, you should get checked for a Alzheimers.

Brian d marge

16th February 2014, 17:52

In case you had noticed, Mr. Swedish Motorcycle and I have been having a conversation.
If you weren't pissed when you posted that drivel, you should get checked for a Alzheimers.

Full Definition of CONVERSATION1
obsolete : conduct (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conduct), behavior (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/behavior)

2
a (1) : oral exchange of sentiments, observations, opinions, or ideas (2) : an instance of such exchange : talk (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/talk) <a quiet conversation>

supprime tuum stultiloquium!

Stephen

Oscar

16th February 2014, 17:59

supprime tuum stultiloquium!

Quis est haec simia?
I see you can cut and paste without spelling or grammatical errors.

husaberg

16th February 2014, 18:01

OK you used Meat as an example
I guess we would have to used say mince meat. Being as sausages well they are not the same as they once were.
For the carcass i receive a flat rate per KG of around $4-4.5 per KG.(depending on the size and the time of the year.)

Compare that to the supermarket price for a minute.

If we were to go back to the 1970's.
I would say my farm gate price has been greatly eroded.
As well as the affordability of the product decreasing as did milk.
Yet someone is doing very well.

I tripped over these on the net yes they came from a union paper but interesting reading anyway.
unite.org.nz/download_files/Exposing_Right_Wing_Lies.pdf

Oscar

16th February 2014, 18:04

OK you used Meat as an example
I guess we would have to used say mince meat. Being as sausages well they are not the same as they once were.
For the carcass i receive a flat rate per KG of around $4-4.5 per KG.(depending on the size and the time of the year.)

Compare that to the supermarket price for a minute.

If we were to go back to the 1970's.
I would say my farm gate price has been greatly eroded.
As well as the affordability of the product decreasing as did milk.
Yet someone is doing very well.

I tripped over these on the net yes they came from a union paper but interesting reading anyway.

I didn't use meat as an example, I said it would be interesting.
And by golly it is.

husaberg

16th February 2014, 18:21

I didn't use meat as an example, I said it would be interesting.
And by golly it is.

whoops i cocked up, my returns for beef included GST wipe so 15% off then remove the tax.killing and inspection fees.
400- gst=$373.33=$2.48KG ouch and i can run 5/ha and the land is worth $25000/ha and my costs are 1/3 of income.
Time to buy a supermarket lol
They also don't pay me for all the rest of the offal organs etc that they sell.

jonbuoy

16th February 2014, 20:37

Comparing the price of a few items doesnt give the whole picture. Who here generally has a higher standard of living than their parents/grandparents? Looking at the number of cars per household, amount of birthday/christmas gifts and luxuries for their kids (I can remember our grandparents saying how spoilt we were having more than one thing to open on Christmas day), how many times a month they eat out, quantity of new clothes - who wears patches on their trousers or turned downs anymore with Chinese clothes being so cheap,? Age of furniture/hi tech equipment, kitchen equipment, standard of decorating sheer variety of fruits and food in the supermarkets.

husaberg

16th February 2014, 21:05

Yes An undeniable truth lifestyle has changed, but wages have not keep up with cost of living and the distribution of wealth is being redistributed upwards at an alarming rate.

Brian d marge

16th February 2014, 21:14

mashman

16th February 2014, 22:40

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-tY6hmKcms

jonbuoy

17th February 2014, 01:12

Yes An undeniable truth lifestyle has changed, but wages have not keep up with cost of living and the distribution of wealth is being redistributed upwards at an alarming rate.

I would have to agree there on some points, the more money you have the easier it is to make money. We all used to have a very basic lifestyle and existence.

Air travel was only for the rich and famous, holidays were spent in your home country, you only ate out for birthdays and very special occaisions. Clothes and toys were passed down. I even remember having to be one of the last in line to use the bathwater - unthinkable now - we all expect to have a hot shower every day.

Even the average family car from 20 years ago was very basic, a modern family car now has more gadgets, comfort and speed than a top of the range luxury car from 20 years ago- we are getting more for our money.

Brian d marge

17th February 2014, 14:32

Many things have become affordable due to technology ( manufacturing ) and the opening up of cheaper labour

still , on another note

I wonder why the Jermans want their gold back

http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertlenzner/2013/01/19/the-germans-want-their-gold-reserves-back-in-germany/

is it because countries are moving away from the dollar ?

this will be interesting !

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/apr/27/china-imf-economy-2016

for some reason the imf web site will not open

Stephen

BoristheBiter

17th February 2014, 14:59

Yes An undeniable truth lifestyle has changed, but wages have not keep up with cost of living and the distribution of wealth is being redistributed upwards at an alarming rate.

See i disagree, the cost of living has gone up because we expect to have more.

My folks, new house, 3 bedroom house, no drive,lawns, gardens, carpet, curtains, dishwasher etc.
Now it has to be 4-5 room, 2 living rooms, all finished.

FYI looking back at what I was paid as a first year tradesman to now, well above inflation.

Most people live well above their means.

Banditbandit

17th February 2014, 15:03

Most people live well above their means.

Fuck yeah - without consume now pay later the economy would collapse ..

mashman

17th February 2014, 15:16

husaberg

17th February 2014, 17:02

See i disagree, the cost of living has gone up because we expect to have more.

My folks, new house, 3 bedroom house, no drive,lawns, gardens, carpet, curtains, dishwasher etc.
Now it has to be 4-5 room, 2 living rooms, all finished.

FYI looking back at what I was paid as a first year tradesman to now, well above inflation.

Most people live well above their means.

No you haven't disagreed with what i have said? see the first part of what i have said, Yes a lot of people have a want it now fixation, that's undeniable, plus advertising is very intoxicating, expectations are higher as well but as i have said basic costs of living have crept up higher than the wages have it's a a double whammy.

Scuba_Steve

17th February 2014, 18:00

Well this shouldn't surprise anyone

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYzX3YZoMrs

blue rider

17th February 2014, 21:20

completely not related to anything, but contains nice pictures.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/02/16/1278016/--Extraordinary-N-Atlantic-Storms-Driving-Gulf-Stream-Water-into-Arctic-Sea-Ice-Melting-in-February

interesting read...blahblahblah...

avgas

18th February 2014, 03:39

whoops i cocked up, my returns for beef included GST wipe so 15% off then remove the tax.killing and inspection fees.
400- gst=$373.33=$2.48KG ouch and i can run 5/ha and the land is worth $25000/ha and my costs are 1/3 of income.
Time to buy a supermarket lol
They also don't pay me for all the rest of the offal organs etc that they sell.
That's not too bad. Don't look at the Green KiwiFruit then. Costs are about 2/3 that and the income is the same or less.

Out of interest - can you get arrested for selling meat independently?

BoristheBiter

18th February 2014, 06:46

No you haven't disagreed with what i have said? see the first part of what i have said, Yes a lot of people have a want it now fixation, that's undeniable, plus advertising is very intoxicating, expectations are higher as well but as i have said basic costs of living have crept up higher than the wages have it's a a double whammy.

no I do disagree as we sell on a global market that works on a global price.
Unfortunately there is not a lot to do about apart from making sure your income is higher than outgoings.

FYI yes you can be an interdependent butcher but you will need the correct licence to sell meat.
And what type of cow did you use in your figures? as a whole cow (2-3 year old) is going for about $400-$600.

husaberg

18th February 2014, 09:11

no I do disagree as we sell on a global market that works on a global price.
Unfortunately there is not a lot to do about apart from making sure your income is higher than outgoings.

FYI yes you can be an interdependent butcher but you will need the correct licence to sell meat.
And what type of cow did you use in your figures? as a whole cow (2-3 year old) is going for about $400-$600.
ahhhhhhhh.......Not everyone is a dairy cocky.........Boris
Cows are only for sausages and mince.:bleh:
.A few people have been selling stuff off the paddock, for home kill.... is it dodgy........ I don't know.... but it is cunning.
I am only on a lifestyle block now so it’s just for pocket money.........So its far more convenient to send stuff to the works.
Apathy wins again.......
......

BoristheBiter

18th February 2014, 13:52

ahhhhhhhh.......Not everyone is a dairy cocky.........Boris
Cows are only for sausages and mince.:bleh:
.A few people have been selling stuff off the paddock, for home kill.... is it dodgy........ I don't know.... but it is cunning.
I am only on a lifestyle block now so it’s just for pocket money.........So its far more convenient to send stuff to the works.
Apathy wins again.......
......

Neither am I, just live in the area where people are.

So then what you do is just buy a calf, or 2 depending how big your place is/ how much meat you go through. every year get home kill in, find a good one that does everything, normal cost is $1-$5 per kg dressed weight.

If you have to much sell to your friends. If questioned they have brought the cow not the meat, this is the loop hole.

If worked right not only will you never have to pay for meat again but you will make a bit of money doing it.

blue rider

18th February 2014, 17:09

also this shit....
https://aaas.confex.com/aaas/2014/webprogram/Session7092.html

jonbuoy

18th February 2014, 21:26

also this shit....
https://aaas.confex.com/aaas/2014/webprogram/Session7092.html

Too many people..... If you want to be truly green and "save the planet" don´t bother driving an electric car, recycling your jam jars or walking to the shops - just stop breeding!

Banditbandit

19th February 2014, 09:09

https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/t1/1891177_10152233645085941_119402363_n.jpg

Banditbandit

19th February 2014, 09:12

Says it all really - DonKey was more involved in the GFC than he would like to admit ..

http://evolutionnews.co.nz/news/pm-john-key-played-a-large-part-in-the-global-financial-crisis/

Oscar

19th February 2014, 09:38

Says it all really - DonKey was more involved in the GFC than he would like to admit ..

http://evolutionnews.co.nz/news/pm-john-key-played-a-large-part-in-the-global-financial-crisis/

Wow.
That's the most bizarre join the dots exercise I've every seen.
Was he responsible for 9/11? Those muppets could probably make a case for it...

Ocean1

19th February 2014, 11:01

That's the most bizarre join the dots exercise I've every seen.

So, you're not completely au courant wrt this thread?

mashman

19th February 2014, 11:32

Wow.
That's the most bizarre join the dots exercise I've every seen.
Was he responsible for 9/11? Those muppets could probably make a case for it...

So, you're not completely au courant wrt this thread?

No smoke without fire eh... unless of course it's being blown up your arse. As you were.

bogan

19th February 2014, 11:46

Too many people..... If you want to be truly green and "save the planet" don´t bother driving an electric car, recycling your jam jars or walking to the shops - just stop breeding!

The problem is, that approach is more likely to occur to the smarter portion of the populace; and then we really will be left with a...

... Stupid World :eek:

mashman

19th February 2014, 12:47

The problem is, that approach is more likely to occur to the smarter portion of the populace; and then we really will be left with a...

... Stupid World :eek:

Yeah, but if you let the smart people die first, then by extension the dumb fuckers will Darwin themselves and there'll be no worries at all. Having said that, leaving the smart fuckers behind, who are unable to do anything other than jobs that require smart people, will have the same effect. Maybe they rely on each oth....... nahhhhh, can't be true.

bogan

19th February 2014, 12:57

Yeah, but if you let the smart people die first, then by extension the dumb fuckers will Darwin themselves and there'll be no worries at all. Having said that, leaving the smart fuckers behind, who are unable to do anything other than jobs that require smart people, will have the same effect. Maybe they rely on each oth....... nahhhhh, can't be true.

Probably fuck the planet on their way out though. Nah, smart people can always build robots... or just do menial jobs themselves.

mashman

19th February 2014, 13:35

Probably fuck the planet on their way out though. Nah, smart people can always build robots... or just do menial jobs themselves.

They're already are fucking up the planet... so they should be the first to leave ;). If the smart people end up doing the menial jobs, then who's going to have time to build the robots? In fact who's going to have time to reprogram the robots from military application to street sweeping... and if they can do that, are the robots going to accept that programming without protesting :eek:

bogan

19th February 2014, 13:45

They're already are fucking up the planet... so they should be the first to leave ;). If the smart people end up doing the menial jobs, then who's going to have time to build the robots? In fact who's going to have time to reprogram the robots from military application to street sweeping... and if they can do that, are the robots going to accept that programming without protesting :eek:

Exactly, but you try convincing the stupid people to stop breeding. Not all of the smartie's time is needed for menial work, in fact it would probably work well to put them on rotation, do one day a week on the menial job, then the other 4 on automating it.

Oscar

19th February 2014, 14:02

So, you're not completely au courant wrt this thread?

Nah, even for this thread it's out there.
I seem to recall that some Labour Party hack had a crack along the same lines in Parliment a few years ago.
Very lame.

Ocean1

19th February 2014, 15:15

Nah, smart people can always build robots...

You'd be stupid not to. :shifty:

...or just do menial jobs themselves.

Used to be a saying: "Where there's muck there's brass".

Possibly more true now than ever, what with the hereditary peasantry on such a good wicket without having to soil their hands.

mashman

19th February 2014, 16:38

Exactly, but you try convincing the stupid people to stop breeding. Not all of the smartie's time is needed for menial work, in fact it would probably work well to put them on rotation, do one day a week on the menial job, then the other 4 on automating it.

Why not just pass a law that every male must be sterilised after fathering 2 children. Gets both the stupid and the smart, so it'd be more fairererer. But that'll damage the economy, coz them thar menial tasks ain't part-time jobs ya know... and given that most of us are seemingly stupid, there ain't gonna be a hell of a lot of people around innit. I love the rotation idea though, something I'd love to offer with NOW... just to bring the dummies up to smart level should they wish to ;)

husaberg

19th February 2014, 16:56

You'd be stupid not to. :shifty:

Used to be a saying: "Where there's muck there's brass".

Possibly more true now than ever, what with the hereditary peasantry on such a good wicket without having to soil their hands.

Or where's there's muck there's money.

Ocean1

19th February 2014, 18:45

Or where's there's muck there's money.

Aye. Still true, it probably applies more to technology replacing unpleasant jobs now than the night cart driver I remember as a kid.

Ocean1

19th February 2014, 18:53

Why not just pass a law that every male must be sterilised after fathering 2 children. Gets both the stupid and the smart, so it'd be more fairererer.

Stupid idea.

Pass a law putting contraceptives in the water.

$100000.00 in escrow gets you a year's worth of untreated water.

You can have kids. You've just got to prove you can afford them.

blue rider

19th February 2014, 18:54

totally unrelated to anything and such

a comic for those who like it

http://economixcomix.com/home/tpp/

interesting read :rolleyes:

husaberg

19th February 2014, 18:55

Aye. Still true, it probably applies more to technology replacing unpleasant jobs now than the night cart driver I remember as a kid.

There is Plumbers in Aus who only do Dirty work ie sewers and under-houses etc, they charge accordingly...... i guess there is a niche.

Ocean1

19th February 2014, 19:07

a comic for those who like it

Yeah. The format sorta defines the target audience doncha think?

And why does he refer to TPP type trade agreements as FREE trade agreements? They're nothing of the sort.

Ocean1

19th February 2014, 19:12

There is Plumbers in Aus who only do Dirty work ie sewers and under-houses etc, they charge accordingly...... i guess there is a niche.

Good on them, happy to pay a premium for their services if it means I don't have to do it.

I suspect it's a specialty without much of a future, though, within a decade the specialists will be in the van supervising robots doing the same job better.

mashman

19th February 2014, 21:29

Stupid idea.

Pass a law putting contraceptives in the water.

$100000.00 in escrow gets you a year's worth of untreated water.

You can have kids. You've just got to prove you can afford them.

And what happens when you lose your job and/or end up in a situation where you can't afford them eh bright eyes? Best not have them in the first place... and it seemed to work well(ish) in China.

bogan

19th February 2014, 21:58

Scuba_Steve

19th February 2014, 22:07

I missed the bit where we decided we wanted to keep the stupids around? I like Ocean's Idea better, contribute, and you can have kids; bone idle, and you can't.

I can't see politicians putting through a law banning themselves from having kids, can you?

bogan

19th February 2014, 22:10

I can't see politicians putting through a law banning themselves from having kids, can you?

The thing about a stupid politician, is they don't realise they are the stupid one. But this is just theorycrafting, and in reality has as much chance of getting put through from top down as NOW or any other radical societal change.

husaberg

19th February 2014, 22:19

http://blog.jeffdouglas.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/kool-aid-1.jpg

mashman

19th February 2014, 22:19

I missed the bit where we decided we wanted to keep the stupids around? I like Ocean's Idea better, contribute, and you can have kids; bone idle, and you can't.

I missed the bit where we had decided that we decided that we were going to be picky about who lives or dies. I thought Ocean was taking the piss as I didn't think he was that much of an idiotic Nazi. Contraceptive in the water, simply don't drink from the water supply. You could use a hydrogen powered lawnmower engine to purify your water. And what stops you from earning enough to have kids and then just not contributing again? Whilst my suggestion was tongue in cheek, it's have a better chance of success than applying a financial solution to having kids. That and my preferred solution would be to ask people... but you'd need an environment where people accepted that it was the right thing to do, along with education as to why amongst other things. Be funny as fuck to see how you'd calculate who was smart too. Great to see that the spirit of Hitler is a live and well within you guys though... you're an inspiration fr the future of our species.

bogan

19th February 2014, 22:21

I missed the bit where we had decided that we decided that we were going to be picky about who lives or dies. I thought Ocean was taking the piss as I didn't think he was that much of an idiotic Nazi. Contraceptive in the water, simply don't drink from the water supply. You could use a hydrogen powered lawnmower engine to purify your water. And what stops you from earning enough to have kids and then just not contributing again? Whilst my suggestion was tongue in cheek, it's have a better chance of success than applying a financial solution to having kids. That and my preferred solution would be to ask people... but you'd need an environment where people accepted that it was the right thing to do, along with education as to why amongst other things. Be funny as fuck to see how you'd calculate who was smart too. Great to see that the spirit of Hitler is a live and well within you guys though... you're an inspiration fr the future of our species.

Not who lives and dies, but who gets to procreate; pretty big difference. Luckily for you though, reading comprehension will not be the only thing tested!

mashman

19th February 2014, 22:28

Not who lives and dies, but who gets to procreate; pretty big difference. Luckily for you though, reading comprehension will not be the only thing tested!

Oh, so you're not going to follow it through to its ultimate conclusion? Try telling me whether I can procreate or not and you'll be feeling my foot on your throat as I render you genderless with a filleting knife. I doubt I'd be alone in helping to educate those who would consider such ignorant actions without thinking it through.

bogan

19th February 2014, 22:35

Oh, so you're not going to follow it through to its ultimate conclusion? Try telling me whether I can procreate or not and you'll be feeling my foot on your throat as I render you genderless with a filleting knife. I doubt I'd be alone in helping to educate those who would consider such ignorant actions without thinking it through.

So, you would prefer to see everyone you know enjoy the right to breed, so their children live in overcrowding, their grandchildren struggle to find enough food, their great grandchilderen see the worlds ecosystem collapse, and their great great grandchilderen see the end of humanity itself?

Since we don't look like getting off this rock anytime soon, it seems population growth is going to need to be curbed if we want our great grandchilderen to have the quality of life we enjoy.

mashman

19th February 2014, 23:02

So, you would prefer to see everyone you know enjoy the right to breed, so their children live in overcrowding, their grandchildren struggle to find enough food, their great grandchilderen see the worlds ecosystem collapse, and their great great grandchilderen see the end of humanity itself?

Since we don't look like getting off this rock anytime soon, it seems population growth is going to need to be curbed if we want our great grandchilderen to have the quality of life we enjoy.

I think everyone should have the right to breed. "Stupid" people do not necessarily give birth to stupid children. I'd love to see the population "controlled" and the environment manged properly, but not really by any other means than through education and choice. The worst I'd go to, as mentioned earlier, would be after 2 kids, sterilise the male. You're concerned with the collapse of the ecosystem and scarcity? Oh the irony given that you believe that these things can be achieved using financial policy. HINT: it hasn't worked thus far, in fact the population has gone fuckin mental in the last 50 years in the name of growth.

I agree, we're not likely to get off this rock anytime soon and neither are we going to have that quality of life forever, it just ain't sustainable... even with robots etc... I reckon we'd have a better shot if we curbed economic growth and stopped producing the useless shit that we do, built business hubs that people could walk to, invested our resources in renewables and generally grew the fuck up. But no, much better to ignore all that and try to stop people from breeding :facepalm:. Hitler would be proud.

bogan

19th February 2014, 23:08

I think everyone should have the right to breed. "Stupid" people do not necessarily give birth to stupid children. I'd love to see the population "controlled" and the environment manged properly, but not really by any other means than through education and choice. The worst I'd go to, as mentioned earlier, would be after 2 kids, sterilise the male. You're concerned with the collapse of the ecosystem and scarcity? Oh the irony given that you believe that these things can be achieved using financial policy. HINT: it hasn't worked thus far, in fact the population has gone fuckin mental in the last 50 years in the name of growth.

I agree, we're not likely to get off this rock anytime soon and neither are we going to have that quality of life forever, it just ain't sustainable... even with robots etc... I reckon we'd have a better shot if we curbed economic growth and stopped producing the useless shit that we do, built business hubs that people could walk to, invested our resources in renewables and generally grew the fuck up. But no, much better to ignore all that and try to stop people from breeding :facepalm:. Hitler would be proud.

How do you reconcile those views, that everyone should have the right to breed, but that you'd love to see the population managed? Seems like it would be either or...

Doesn't matter how efficient you make the model of resource/production management, if your consumption is still going up (as it has to with population growth) then it is not a sustainable solution.

Brian d marge

19th February 2014, 23:49

The Japanese pay for you to have kids

and the population isn’t exactly racing ahead

Stephen

mashman

20th February 2014, 06:56

How do you reconcile those views, that everyone should have the right to breed, but that you'd love to see the population managed? Seems like it would be either or...

Doesn't matter how efficient you make the model of resource/production management, if your consumption is still going up (as it has to with population growth) then it is not a sustainable solution.

Why would it need to be one or the other? You offer the alternative... either fix yourself after 2 kids or we'll end up in a position where you get fixed. My view is fluid and where one solution isn't working, another will need to be tried (potentially slippery slope)... even Oceans contraceptive in the water as a last resort if need be.

Completely agree with you... apart from the, it has to with population growth bit. It only has to if they system under which you are living requires it to. A money free world would go a long way towards that, if not further than you imagine. No need for paper to be used i.e. no lawyers documents, bus tickets, advertising pamphlets etc... leaving more wood for building. Building business hubs near populated areas: less people driving to work i.e. less fuel usage/reliance on oil, healthier population so less drag on health service, less road maintenance. Hermetically sealing houses, using LED's etc... i.e. using less electricity to heat/light a house. Producing "goods" that last 50 years (or more) and not 10 i.e. producing less but shit lasts longer. Using renewable energy sources. The list is nearly endless and we could end up in a position where we've become resource efficient over so many years that the population has grown and we consume less in total than we do today. Ya never know, it may even see us into an age where we are able to get off this rock without resorting to culling as the population as the best solution, coz it isn't.

Ocean1

20th February 2014, 07:05

And what happens when you lose your job and/or end up in a situation where you can't afford them eh bright eyes?

You didn't bother looking up escrow, did you?

mashman

20th February 2014, 07:26

You didn't bother looking up escrow, did you?

Don't need to as I know what it is. Money isn't everything.

bogan

20th February 2014, 09:56

Why would it need to be one or the other? You offer the alternative... either fix yourself after 2 kids or we'll end up in a position where you get fixed. My view is fluid and where one solution isn't working, another will need to be tried (potentially slippery slope)... even Oceans contraceptive in the water as a last resort if need be.

Completely agree with you... apart from the, it has to with population growth bit. It only has to if they system under which you are living requires it to. A money free world would go a long way towards that, if not further than you imagine. No need for paper to be used i.e. no lawyers documents, bus tickets, advertising pamphlets etc... leaving more wood for building. Building business hubs near populated areas: less people driving to work i.e. less fuel usage/reliance on oil, healthier population so less drag on health service, less road maintenance. Hermetically sealing houses, using LED's etc... i.e. using less electricity to heat/light a house. Producing "goods" that last 50 years (or more) and not 10 i.e. producing less but shit lasts longer. Using renewable energy sources. The list is nearly endless and we could end up in a position where we've become resource efficient over so many years that the population has grown and we consume less in total than we do today. Ya never know, it may even see us into an age where we are able to get off this rock without resorting to culling as the population as the best solution, coz it isn't.

Indeed, if one isn't working then freedoms must be curbed lest they impinge of the freedoms of others. I'm simply talking about the logical conclusion of maintaing such freedoms, while you are a bit more focused on maintaining them, and less on the consequences.

Well if you're on the topic of magic, just get your wizards to send excess population to colony planets. :rolleyes: It is funny though, how you see procreation as a right, yet are willing to remove peoples right to choose how they live their lives.

jonbuoy

20th February 2014, 10:02

bogan

20th February 2014, 10:08

mashman

20th February 2014, 10:53

Indeed, if one isn't working then freedoms must be curbed lest they impinge of the freedoms of others. I'm simply talking about the logical conclusion of maintaing such freedoms, while you are a bit more focused on maintaining them, and less on the consequences.

Well if you're on the topic of magic, just get your wizards to send excess population to colony planets. :rolleyes: It is funny though, how you see procreation as a right, yet are willing to remove peoples right to choose how they live their lives.

It's certainly a logical conclusion under the current economic structure, not an absolute given, but probably the most likely outcome. I'm more focussed on a holistic approach that has freedom at its core, which, oddly enough, does not mean that the consequences haven't been considered (contrary to what you perceive)... evidenced by the 2 kid "rule". Do I realise the dichotomy of that? of course I do. How do I reconcile that? very easily as I am not bound to a philosophy or ideology that dictates that freedom is an absolute and that there are indeed situations where common sense "rules" will be required.

How am I willing to remove a persons right to choose how they live their lives?

Question: Given what you know, would you voluntarily limit yourself to 2 children to help manage the population?

mashman

20th February 2014, 11:01

The big problem might be that we waste so many resources that we can't build the technology we need to leave this planet. Although it's hard to imagine getting anywhere without fusion power and fusion power means unlimited energy which pretty much means you can make anything you don't have - or something like that....

Yeh, tech is looking like the option we're picking, more intensive farming etc. But we are well back in the space game, going to take a series of major scientific breakthroughs for that to become viable before pop control becomes a necessity.

Lack of funding. Too many smart people in the wrong jobs (because there are a limited number of "NASA" type jobs). Ignoring issues til they're so dire that they divert resources (primarily money) away from other just as important "tasks" (like renewable energy sources losing nearly 1/3 of their funding since the GFC) etc... and you wonder why I want rid of the financial system.

Ocean1

20th February 2014, 11:03

Don't need to as I know what it is.

In which case this:
And what happens when you lose your job and/or end up in a situation where you can't afford them eh bright eyes? was a pretty stupid question wasn't it?

Money isn't everything.

Obviously. However it's the correct unit to use when discussing whether people can afford to have children or not.

mashman

20th February 2014, 11:12

In which case this: was a pretty stupid question wasn't it?

That's why you got the answer that Money wasn't everything... which makes your "observation" pretty fuckin stupid.

Obviously. However it's the correct unit to use when discussing whether people can afford to have children or not.

No it isn't. If you're gonna be a cunt, at least pretend that you're going to do it properly, ya know, as though you had thought through the solution. Why not just use a gun in the first place? Moderately amusing that you think people would work if you removed their right to have kids if they never stood a chance of earning 100k. So measuring it financially is a moronic solution at best... but understandable as that's all you know and are too lazy to do the hard yards to provide a real future for your fellow planet dwellers. But as long as you're alright eh Jack :yes:

Ocean1

20th February 2014, 11:13

You could use a hydrogen powered lawnmower engine to purify your water.

And nobody bit eh?

How disappointing.

bogan

20th February 2014, 11:21

It's certainly a logical conclusion under the current economic structure, not an absolute given, but probably the most likely outcome. I'm more focussed on a holistic approach that has freedom at its core, which, oddly enough, does not mean that the consequences haven't been considered (contrary to what you perceive)... evidenced by the 2 kid "rule". Do I realise the dichotomy of that? of course I do. How do I reconcile that? very easily as I am not bound to a philosophy or ideology that dictates that freedom is an absolute and that there are indeed situations where common sense "rules" will be required.

How am I willing to remove a persons right to choose how they live their lives?

Question: Given what you know, would you voluntarily limit yourself to 2 children to help manage the population?

By saying they have to own gear that'll last em 50 years, you've seen how people like to have the latest stuff, 1 year is too old, let alone 50!

And nobody bit eh?

How disappointing.

My face is still palmed from the last time I think...

mashman

20th February 2014, 11:30

And nobody bit eh?

How disappointing.

Wasn't looking for a bite, just wry observation.

So no.

mashman

20th February 2014, 11:36

By saying they have to own gear that'll last em 50 years, you've seen how people like to have the latest stuff, 1 year is too old, let alone 50!

I didn't say that they had to own gear for 50 years... although I don't know many people who buy the latest washing machine, fridge, freezer, dishwasher, tap fittings, light fittings, in home entertainment system, laptop etc... every year. I do piss myself laughin when I ask people, that have followed phones from Gen 1 - Gen X, what's new on the phone that they actually use and it's exactly the same stuff that a shitty 5 year old phone can achieve.

bogan

20th February 2014, 11:39

I didn't say that they had to own gear for 50 years... although I don't know many people who buy the latest washing machine, fridge, freezer, dishwasher, tap fittings, light fittings, in home entertainment system, laptop etc... every year. I do piss myself laughin when I ask people, that have followed phones from Gen 1 - Gen X, what's new on the phone that they actually use and it's exactly the same stuff that a shitty 5 year old phone can achieve.

So, will they still be allowed to go gen+1 on phones etc every year?

mashman

20th February 2014, 12:22

So, will they still be allowed to go gen+1 on phones etc every year?

I assume you're talking from a NOW perspective? If so, other than it not being my decision and no decision having been made on such things, I'll give you my version...

IF industry has decided to keep producing in such quantities that devices can be made available for public "ownership", then yes. IF industry has decided not to keep producing in such quantities that devices can be made available for public "ownership", then no. It all boils down to resource usage etc... who knows, praps we'll be able to update components over the net and a new device won't be needed, but new functionality will be made available.

bogan

20th February 2014, 12:52

I assume you're talking from a NOW perspective? If so, other than it not being my decision and no decision having been made on such things, I'll give you my version...

IF industry has decided to keep producing in such quantities that devices can be made available for public "ownership", then yes. IF industry has decided not to keep producing in such quantities that devices can be made available for public "ownership", then no. It all boils down to resource usage etc... who knows, praps we'll be able to update components over the net and a new device won't be needed, but new functionality will be made available.

So, maybe with a hint of wizards? If you're going too keep soapbombing this crap you should at least get a better understanding of it yourself.

mashman

20th February 2014, 13:05

So, maybe with a hint of wizards? If you're going too keep soapbombing this crap you should at least get a better understanding of it yourself.

So you didn't understand what I meant when I said that Industry would decide what they produced? Too airy fairy? I thought it was pretty self-explanatory, no wizards required... just people making decisions based on smarter criteria than profit. So there are 2 concrete answers, yes and no... no maybe about it.

bogan

20th February 2014, 13:15

So you didn't understand what I meant when I said that Industry would decide what they produced? Too airy fairy? I thought it was pretty self-explanatory, no wizards required... just people making decisions based on smarter criteria than profit. So there are 2 concrete answers, yes and no... no maybe about it.

But when promoting a system, it helps to know how it will actually work. Production solely driven by the producers is the same as saying, well this minority gets to decide what you get, and tough shit if you don't like it. You're taking away people's right to choose what they value.

mashman

20th February 2014, 15:34

But when promoting a system, it helps to know how it will actually work. Production solely driven by the producers is the same as saying, well this minority gets to decide what you get, and tough shit if you don't like it. You're taking away people's right to choose what they value.

I told you how it would actually work. I'm not going to dot every single i and cross every single t for you as I simply don't know what process they will be. I can surmise given the best case scenario, but that's where your individual imagination needs to come into it. To a large degree the driver will probably be, what are you trying to achieve in regards to resource usage and resources available for the long term and not the short term i.e. 100+ years being long term. If it is deemed necessary to conserve a given resource that will provide benefits to the next generation, then why would you consume it now? If not, then we're gonna have to vote on one or 5 solutions that manage resources and choice. I have no issue with stuff not becoming available... and I see no reason that anyone else would given the reason that production of a phone doesn't happen every year. Currently we have many minorities deciding what we get and tough shit if you don't like it. In fact instead of need, it goes to those who can afford it, which is even more of a waste. So in that respect, nothing really changes as the minority will continue to be choosing for us. Tough shit if you, or I for that matter, don't like it because we want a new phone. Get over it and take solace in the fact that the resources are being used for a real purpose and not just to satisfy some petty whim.

bogan

20th February 2014, 15:48

I told you how it would actually work. I'm not going to dot every single i and cross every single t for you as I simply don't know what process they will be. I can surmise given the best case scenario, but that's where your individual imagination needs to come into it. To a large degree the driver will probably be, what are you trying to achieve in regards to resource usage and resources available for the long term and not the short term i.e. 100+ years being long term. If it is deemed necessary to conserve a given resource that will provide benefits to the next generation, then why would you consume it now? If not, then we're gonna have to vote on one or 5 solutions that manage resources and choice. I have no issue with stuff not becoming available... and I see no reason that anyone else would given the reason that production of a phone doesn't happen every year. Currently we have many minorities deciding what we get and tough shit if you don't like it. In fact instead of need, it goes to those who can afford it, which is even more of a waste. So in that respect, nothing really changes as the minority will continue to be choosing for us. Tough shit if you, or I for that matter, don't like it because we want a new phone. Get over it and take solace in the fact that the resources are being used for a real purpose and not just to satisfy some petty whim.

So, in either case there is going to be some cutbacks to personal freedom. Basically comes down to a societal balancing act between population growth management, and the current population's quality of life.

Ocean1

20th February 2014, 17:54

That's why you got the answer that Money wasn't everything... which makes your "observation" pretty fuckin stupid.

It's not OK to suggest prospective parents should A: actually want a child and B: have the resources organised to pay for it up front in monetary terms?

But when losers fail to provide the resources needed to raise a kid it's OK for them to hold their hand out for other people's money?

Fuck off fool.

mashman

20th February 2014, 19:23

So, in either case there is going to be some cutbacks to personal freedom. Basically comes down to a societal balancing act between population growth management, and the current population's quality of life.

How is the current populations' quality of life going to be, what I assume you're angling at, detrimentally affected? Because they have less of a choice of stuff? If so, as I said, that already happens and people get on with life just the same.

mashman

20th February 2014, 19:26

It's not OK to suggest prospective parents should A: actually want a child and B: have the resources organised to pay for it up front in monetary terms?

But when losers fail to provide the resources needed to raise a kid it's OK for them to hold their hand out for other people's money?

Fuck off fool.

No, it's not. It's a disgusting way to treat people.

Losers? Get fucked!

bogan

20th February 2014, 20:18

How is the current populations' quality of life going to be, what I assume you're angling at, detrimentally affected? Because they have less of a choice of stuff? If so, as I said, that already happens and people get on with life just the same.

I've already explained it, if your system does not have a way for people of different mind to you to have a say how things are chosen, then that is a major downfall. If you ignore people's right to choose, then that is a major downfall. If you stick you head in the sand and try to ignore both, again a major downfall, and also one that makes you look like a fool.

So, both have downsides, but with population control, people can continue to live in much the same way they do now, without the overpopulation becoming a massive issue. People can chose to have kids, but there must be a lot of effort involved, and they must prove they are worthy of it. So it's not an empty yes/no choice, but a how much are you willing to contribute to ensure your children have a good quality of life?

puddytat

20th February 2014, 20:24

husaberg

20th February 2014, 20:31

http://funny-quotations.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/never.png

bogan

20th February 2014, 20:38

Ocean1

20th February 2014, 21:08

No, it's not. It's a disgusting way to treat people.

Yeah? Y'see I think having kids 'cause it's the easy option and then failing to live up to the responsibility of parenthood is rather more disgusting.

They say it takes all sorts. I have no idea why they say that, personally I'd leave idiots out of the recipe to start with...

Losers? Get fucked!

I know, it's amazing, and I can't figure it out either, I mean who'd lower their standards that far? But there y'go I suppose even blind eels fuck.

Which is a pity, the world wouldn't miss them either.

mashman

20th February 2014, 21:12

I've already explained it, if your system does not have a way for people of different mind to you to have a say how things are chosen, then that is a major downfall. If you ignore people's right to choose, then that is a major downfall. If you stick you head in the sand and try to ignore both, again a major downfall, and also one that makes you look like a fool.

So, both have downsides, but with population control, people can continue to live in much the same way they do now, without the overpopulation becoming a massive issue. People can chose to have kids, but there must be a lot of effort involved, and they must prove they are worthy of it. So it's not an empty yes/no choice, but a how much are you willing to contribute to ensure your children have a good quality of life?

Does "my" system not have a way for people of different mind to you to have a say how things are chosen? As I said, you're gonna have to do some extrapolation yourself. What freedom have I removed in regards to the right of choice? The 2 children thing? Better than stopping them based on some arbitrary supposed medium of exchange. Consider that JK came from a state house. Had his mum not have had 100k in escrow, for example, he would have never been born. Now whilst that's a positive, in a twisted way, it highlights what humanity could lose through such an "ideal". How many real pioneers would not have been born? Yes that's going off on a wee tangent, but it stands to reason and it is a direct consequence of population control. Can you point out where I've been sticking my head in the sand and saying it's "my" way or no way?

What's so great about how we live at the moment? As I mentioned earlier, there are a whoke raft of things we could change very easily that wouldn't require any form of population control and would allow us to live as we currently do. Why is that so unpalatable? Why do you cling to the notion that there needs to be a lot of effort involved in order to prove that you're a good parent? Yes some people shouldn't have kids, but youve got to let them try to be parents and your financial system absolutely drives poverty, no 2 ways about it. It puts strain on parents to the degree that they spend more time providing for theit kids than they do being with them... which is about as fucked up a notion as I can imagine. So all you want to do is make it hard so that the worthy get? Irrespective of the fact that you'd be fucking over good people, you just really wanna make sure that those who you don't think deserves things don't get them and the collaterol damage is all worth it?

Is it ironic that "my" system isn't on the ballot and therefore I don't get to use my right to vote for what I believe in. Where's "my" choice?

Lots of questions there... I know you don't like answering them, but break your mold, try to answer them.

mashman

20th February 2014, 21:19

Yeah? Y'see I think having kids 'cause it's the easy option and then failing to live up to the responsibility of parenthood is rather more disgusting.

They say it takes all sorts. I have no idea why they say that, personally I'd leave idiots out of the recipe to start with...

I agree... but I don't define being a parent as a money making machine with a little bit of time thrown in to boot.

If you're the result, then I agree. You cannot predict how a child will turn out as they have a lifetime to acquire skills/knowledge/drive etc... and "evolve". You find it a mere inconvenience, else you'd understand that and want the very best environment for every kid. You don't. That makes you an idiot.

I know, it's amazing, and I can't figure it out either, I mean who'd lower their standards that far? But there y'go I suppose even blind eels fuck.

Which is a pity, the world wouldn't miss them either.

And how would you be pickin those with low standards eh? By using your 1850's yardstick and how much money they're worth? My God what an utterly bland planet that would be.

bogan

20th February 2014, 21:36

Does "my" system not have a way for people of different mind to you to have a say how things are chosen? As I said, you're gonna have to do some extrapolation yourself. What freedom have I removed in regards to the right of choice? The 2 children thing? Better than stopping them based on some arbitrary supposed medium of exchange. Consider that JK came from a state house. Had his mum not have had 100k in escrow, for example, he would have never been born. Now whilst that's a positive, in a twisted way, it highlights what humanity could lose through such an "ideal". How many real pioneers would not have been born? Yes that's going off on a wee tangent, but it stands to reason and it is a direct consequence of population control. Can you point out where I've been sticking my head in the sand and saying it's "my" way or no way?

What's so great about how we live at the moment? As I mentioned earlier, there are a whoke raft of things we could change very easily that wouldn't require any form of population control and would allow us to live as we currently do. Why is that so unpalatable? Why do you cling to the notion that there needs to be a lot of effort involved in order to prove that you're a good parent? Yes some people shouldn't have kids, but youve got to let them try to be parents and your financial system absolutely drives poverty, no 2 ways about it. It puts strain on parents to the degree that they spend more time providing for theit kids than they do being with them... which is about as fucked up a notion as I can imagine. So all you want to do is make it hard so that the worthy get? Irrespective of the fact that you'd be fucking over good people, you just really wanna make sure that those who you don't think deserves things don't get them and the collaterol damage is all worth it?

Is it ironic that "my" system isn't on the ballot and therefore I don't get to use my right to vote for what I believe in. Where's "my" choice?

Lots of questions there... I know you don't like answering them, but break your mold, try to answer them.

You keep saying the producers decide what is produced, so no. What we need is some way a consumer can decide directly, like an allotment of decision makering, and if you are decideful, you use up that allotment in return for the item you have decided on.

mashman

20th February 2014, 21:40

You keep saying the producers decide what is produced, so no. What we need is some way a consumer can decide directly, like an allotment of decision makering, and if you are decideful, you use up that allotment in return for the item you have decided on.

You keep stating that what already happens works and then when I tell you that we'll stick with that you say it won't work. We're done.

bogan

20th February 2014, 21:45

You keep stating that what already happens works and then when I tell you that we'll stick with that you say it won't work. We're done.

Wait, you think money and overpopulation are linked? money works, overpopulation won't. So lets stick with money, and do away with overpopulation, the simplicity of it is brilliant wouldn't you say!

Brian d marge

20th February 2014, 23:37

All we need is food & water....the rest is excess.

As for limiting population, good luck with getting that past the ''God Squads". You'll have more of a chance trying to get consensus on climate change....

5c
Combustion cordage cover cutting and candle

And the big 3
3 min no air
3 hours body temp
3 days no water
3 weeks no food

But then if you createconditions which exclude people ya reap what ya sow

Stephen

Sent from my SC-01F using Tapatalk

Ocean1

21st February 2014, 12:15

I agree... but I don't define being a parent as a money making machine with a little bit of time thrown in to boot.

Neither do I. Which is more than can be said for a lot of parents currently, as evidenced by the piss poor job some of them are doing.

Funny how your objections to a responsible aproach sorta crumble about here, eh?

You cannot predict how a child will turn out as they have a lifetime to acquire skills/knowledge/drive etc... and "evolve".

I can predict how a child raised without the resources required to do the job properly will turn out with a pretty high level of accuracy. And if you have to prove you're capable of providing those resources before you become a parent then I can predict that the results will be a kid far better educated and socially integrated than the vast majority of those raised on social welfare handouts and the often somewhat less welcome time their parents spend with them.

You find it a mere inconvenience, else you'd understand that and want the very best environment for every kid. You don't. That makes you an idiot.

What's an inconvenience? The population explosion of losers funded by 20th century social welfare systems? Yep, inconvenient in much the same way as any other infestation.

And how would you be pickin those with low standards eh? By using your 1850's yardstick and how much money they're worth? My God what an utterly bland planet that would be.

Nope. How much effort they're prepared to contribute to the kid's upbringing.

CBF earning the cost of doing the job properly? No kid. Easy.

mashman

21st February 2014, 12:28

Neither do I. Which is more than can be said for a lot of parents currently, as evidenced by the piss poor job some of them are doing.

Funny how your objections to a responsible aproach sorta crumble about here, eh?

What? Because SOME parents turn out to be piss poor? What a fuckin stunning observation.

Do they? How?

I can predict how a child raised without the resources required to do the job properly will turn out with a pretty high level of accuracy. And if you have to prove you're capable of providing those resources before you become a parent then I can predict that the results will be a far kid far better educated and socially integrated than the vast majority of those raised on social welfare handouts and the somewhat less welcome time their parents spend with them.

A mate of mine at CYFS constantly sings the praises of bad boys turning good for their kids. Get fucked has worked in the past right... so, put your calculator away and get fucked! People change! even in this fucked up environment.

What's an inconvenience? The population explosion of loosers funded by 20th century social welfare systems? Inconvenient in much the same way as any other infestation.

Nope. How much effort they're prepared to contribute to the kid's upbringing.

CBF earning the cost of doing the job properly? No kid. Easy.

beaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaa... Heil Ocean

mstriumph

21st February 2014, 13:04

I have never been a fan of unions, all i ever saw was them wanting my my money, stirring up trouble and still getting paid while we were on strike. And after that being able to negotiate a better deal by myself.

It does seem strange we have found something we agree on, time to change threads.

slight diversion ... I attempted to join a union here (west australia) but told them I wanted to negotiate my dues with them to avoid their 'one size fits all' system (where, for instance, a member working part time, in a lower paid job is expected to pay the same as a full-time worker on $200k pa)

funny, haven't heard back from them ...

I guess 'from each according to his ability ....' is now consigned to the same basket of philosophical nativities as 'the truth shall make you free' and 'all students can live on Austudy' or, a particular favourite of mine, 'cheats never prosper' ?

sorry - as you were :corn:

mstriumph

21st February 2014, 13:55

Why not just pass a law that every male must be sterilised after fathering 2 children. Gets both the stupid and the smart, so it'd be more fairererer. But that'll damage the economy, coz them thar menial tasks ain't part-time jobs ya know... and given that most of us are seemingly stupid, there ain't gonna be a hell of a lot of people around innit. I love the rotation idea though, something I'd love to offer with NOW... just to bring the dummies up to smart level should they wish to ;)

odd .... cydweithredu neu'n marw ... contrasts so strongly with the aggressive tone of some of your arguments here and

odd .... how the seemingly uneducated presentation of this post differs so greatly with the this nicely reasoned, properly punctuated and grammatically correct post of yours from yesterday where you said:

"What's so great about how we live at the moment? As I mentioned earlier, there are a whole raft of things we could change very easily that wouldn't require any form of population control and would allow us to live as we currently do. Why is that so unpalatable? Why do you cling to the notion that there needs to be a lot of effort involved in order to prove that you're a good parent?"

Perhaps you just like conflict and are prepared to change personae, move goalposts, use diversionary tactics or whatever other tactic is needed to foment it? ... I ask because, in your exchanges in this thread, there are several instances where you and the person you are debating actually appear to be in agreement - at which point you invariably seem to duck back into the undergrowth and resume sniping; pam yw bod?

No offence intended - just saying :hug:

blue rider

22nd February 2014, 16:18

property values....some are more valuable than others

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/02/21/3316881/exxon-ceo-protests-fracking/#

:bleh:

mashman

22nd February 2014, 17:19

odd .... cydweithredu neu'n marw ... contrasts so strongly with the aggressive tone of some of your arguments here and

You read it how you read it... I can't change that. I'm evolving, a child of 2 worlds. That may not make sense to you, why should it, so in some cases I will respond to some posts using the language I have been familiar with for 37 years and that may well seem to be aggessive, but it isn't. I'm still settling into the role of the child that believes in cydweithredu neu'n marw from balls to bone.

odd .... how the seemingly uneducated presentation of this post differs so greatly with the this nicely reasoned, properly punctuated and grammatically correct post of yours from yesterday where you said:

Notice the wink at the end of the post... tis for a reason, as is the use of language.

Perhaps you just like conflict and are prepared to change personae, move goalposts, use diversionary tactics or whatever other tactic is needed to foment it? ... I ask because, in your exchanges in this thread, there are several instances where you and the person you are debating actually appear to be in agreement - at which point you invariably seem to duck back into the undergrowth and resume sniping; pam yw bod?

:rofl:... no, I don't like conflict at all, but I won't back down anymore just because I don't like it. Move goalposts? diversionary tactics? Agree then undergrowth? Sniping? Post up some examples as I'd be interested to see them :yes:.

No offence intended - just saying :hug:

Meh, it's the internetz.

bogan

22nd February 2014, 19:19

Perhaps you just like conflict and are prepared to change personae, move goalposts, use diversionary tactics or whatever other tactic is needed to foment it? ... I ask because, in your exchanges in this thread, there are several instances where you and the person you are debating actually appear to be in agreement - at which point you invariably seem to duck back into the undergrowth and resume sniping; pam yw bod?

It's classic 'soapbombing', he is so dead set to promote the moneyless environment and put down the financial system; he will do all of the above to generate conflict, so he can get on his soapbox.

mashman

22nd February 2014, 21:19

he is so dead set to promote the moneyless environment and put down the financial system

You got that above part correct. If I wanted to "soapbomb", I'd be in the streets, not on the internetz. Putting down the financial system is an interesting way to put it. It does more harm than good is another way. It has served it's purpose and must NOW move aside for an alternative is another. It's a limiting factor in just about every single walk of life for individuals and businesses alike is another. Those statements are wrapped up as little bundles of truth and fact as they are demonstrated daily through the media and throughout our economic interactions... and the demonstrations you're seeing across the globe demonstrate that there's a want for change, a want to tackle poverty/climate change/jobs/pay/healthcare/education/environmental damage/crime/being ripped off/a lack of vision for the future/corruption etc... 99% of which are problems that are driven by money, primarily a lack of it. Ironic given that it's an infinite resource. And unfortunately the result is a true tragedy of the commons. Not putting it down, just have very reasonable doubts, well they're not doubts anymore, about its usefulness for mankind's development.

bogan

22nd February 2014, 21:52

You got that above part correct. If I wanted to "soapbomb", I'd be in the streets, not on the internetz. Putting down the financial system is an interesting way to put it. It does more harm than good is another way. It has served it's purpose and must NOW move aside for an alternative is another. It's a limiting factor in just about every single walk of life for individuals and businesses alike is another. Those statements are wrapped up as little bundles of truth and fact as they are demonstrated daily through the media and throughout our economic interactions... and the demonstrations you're seeing across the globe demonstrate that there's a want for change, a want to tackle poverty/climate change/jobs/pay/healthcare/education/environmental damage/crime/being ripped off/a lack of vision for the future/corruption etc... 99% of which are problems that are driven by money, primarily a lack of it. Ironic given that it's an infinite resource. And unfortunately the result is a true tragedy of the commons. Not putting it down, just have very reasonable doubts, well they're not doubts anymore, about its usefulness for mankind's development.

That 99% of problems would still be there if money were not, they would just be ascribed to lack of resources or somesuch, which would probably pale in comparison to the other problems that would be added.

Funnily enough, I googled NOW thingo a while back (I feel you are doing an atrocious job of putting it forward as an idea, but that should not necessarily discredit the idea itself) and could not find any reference to a new system, can't be that much demand for change :laugh:

mashman

22nd February 2014, 22:18

That 99% of problems would still be there if money were not, they would just be ascribed to lack of resources or somesuch, which would probably pale in comparison to the other problems that would be added.

Funnily enough, I googled NOW thingo a while back (I feel you are doing an atrocious job of putting it forward as an idea, but that should not necessarily discredit the idea itself) and could not find any reference to a new system, can't be that much demand for change :laugh:

But the resources are there because we currently pay for them. Sorry, I don't agree with you. There may well be other problems, but please feel free to list them out.

I'm not pushing it, it ain't ready... but it's out there for feedback. I see you've asked everyone if they think we need change then. Or doesn't your science work that way ;)

Brian d marge

22nd February 2014, 23:32

You got that above part correct. If I wanted to "soapbomb", I'd be in the streets, not on the internetz. Putting down the financial system is an interesting way to put it. It does more harm than good is another way. It has served it's purpose and must NOW move aside for an alternative is another. It's a limiting factor in just about every single walk of life for individuals and businesses alike is another. Those statements are wrapped up as little bundles of truth and fact as they are demonstrated daily through the media and throughout our economic interactions... and the demonstrations you're seeing across the globe demonstrate that there's a want for change, a want to tackle poverty/climate change/jobs/pay/healthcare/education/environmental damage/crime/being ripped off/a lack of vision for the future/corruption etc... 99% of which are problems that are driven by money, primarily a lack of it. Ironic given that it's an infinite resource. And unfortunately the result is a true tragedy of the commons. Not putting it down, just have very reasonable doubts, well they're not doubts anymore, about its usefulness for mankind's development.

Money retains wealth ,currency doesnt

and on that note , where is me gold ! the Jermans and I want to see our gold and we aint waiting 7 years to get it

Von Schtuck

Ocean1

23rd February 2014, 08:21

That 99% of problems would still be there if money were not, they would just be ascribed to lack of resources

Same thing.

I'm not pushing it, it ain't ready...

Like a visit to the can after a ringburner chilli: It never will be, it's based on bullshit.

mashman

23rd February 2014, 09:17

Money retains wealth ,currency doesnt

and on that note , where is me gold ! the Jermans and I want to see our gold and we aint waiting 7 years to get it

Von Schtuck

I think more and more people are becoming aware of that and for some unknown reason they're no very happy about it.

:rofl:... maybe they could have a war over it.

mashman

23rd February 2014, 09:36

Like a visit to the can after a ringburner chilli: It never will be, it's based on bullshit.

Interesting image... denying that a system will work and declaring it bullshit (based on the wild assumption that people are lazy and need to be incentivised by money) without offering a NOW as an alternative and actually asking the people if they would be prepared to give it a go is the same as eating your chilli repeatedly and expecting that one day you'll get used to it.

bogan

23rd February 2014, 10:55

But the resources are there because we currently pay for them. Sorry, I don't agree with you. There may well be other problems, but please feel free to list them out.

I'm not pushing it, it ain't ready... but it's out there for feedback. I see you've asked everyone if they think we need change then. Or doesn't your science work that way ;)

Exactly, what we pay for is there, what we can't pay for is not, it's a resource shortage.

Not pushing it, :laugh: This is what mstriumph picked up on, you clearly are pushing it, yet favor the wealy approach of moving goalposts rather actually putting together a reasoned argument.

It has served it's purpose and must NOW move aside for an alternative is another.

Science works with samples. You're fucking deluded if you think there's a significant portion of society willing to get rid of the financial system in favor of one you've just admitted is not ready.

mstriumph

23rd February 2014, 13:40

..........................

Science works with samples. You're fucking deluded if you think there's a significant portion of society willing to get rid of the financial system in favor of one you've just admitted is not ready.

Unfortunately, I don't think that 'willing' comes into it;
personally I don't believe that a significant portion of society (being those at the lower end of the wealth spectrum) will ever be given a choice to change the financial system. I'm willing to debate this of course but to me it seems that the most we can do is individually withdraw from it (or negotiate - difficult to do except collectively and I'm not sure that will ever happen).

The financial system is not democratic and can't be changed democratically; it is controlled/shaped by an elite with a vested interest in not allowing liberalisation or change designed to give relief to the masses. Witness that, in 2007 in the US, the top 1% of the population apparently owned 40% of the wealth ... and again, contrast the top tax rate there now (15% company tax)with the up to 91% tax rate the wealthiest were paying in the 50s.

If there IS a way out (and I'm dubious) it would be in convincing the elite that it is not in their best interest to allow the gap between haves and have nots to go on widening at the current rate as this course will inevitably end in public unrest, chaos and 'destruction of life as they know it'. If they can be brought to see that all the majority have is their numbers and to leave them with, literally, nothing would not be in anybody's best interests?

enough from me :shutup:............ What does anyone else think?

bogan

23rd February 2014, 14:28

Unfortunately, I don't think that 'willing' comes into it;
personally I don't believe that a significant portion of society (being those at the lower end of the wealth spectrum) will ever be given a choice to change the financial system. I'm willing to debate this of course but to me it seems that the most we can do is individually withdraw from it (or negotiate - difficult to do except collectively and I'm not sure that will ever happen).

The financial system is not democratic and can't be changed democratically; it is controlled/shaped by an elite with a vested interest in not allowing liberalisation or change designed to give relief to the masses. Witness that, in 2007 in the US, the top 1% of the population apparently owned 40% of the wealth ... and again, contrast the top tax rate there now (15% company tax)with the up to 91% tax rate the wealthiest were paying in the 50s.

If there IS a way out (and I'm dubious) it would be in convincing the elite that it is not in their best interest to allow the gap between haves and have nots to go on widening at the current rate as this course will inevitably end in public unrest, chaos and 'destruction of life as they know it'. If they can be brought to see that all the majority have is their numbers and to leave them with, literally, nothing would not be in anybody's best interests?

enough from me :shutup:............ What does anyone else think?

Yeh changing it I'm very open to, but getting rid of it is too abrupt a step for society to handle at the moment, and there's no good option to change it too.

One thing about those pop/wealth figures I find confusing/misleading, is what is the turnover, the actual use of that money etc. Like if that 1% has it in banks, the banks are then lending it back out to others so they can buy houses etc. Or if that 1% owns massive facilities employing tens of thousands of people, can we really fault them? I think a lot of people are guilty of seeing the rich as scrouge mc-duck style people with a 'swimming pool' of money which is not being put to good use at all, when it is simply not the case.

Of course the loopholes and shady back room dealing of politics to allow the rich to create self serving policy should be stopped, over-leveraged lending is too much of a crash risk, and other various incentives added towards closing the gap (ESOP tax breaks or something like that); but I reckon the financial system is a pretty solid foundation to work with.

SPman

23rd February 2014, 15:27

Yeh changing it I'm very open to, but getting rid of it is too abrupt a step for society to handle at the moment, and there's no good option to change it too.

One thing about those pop/wealth figures I find confusing/misleading, is what is the turnover, the actual use of that money etc. Like if that 1% has it in banks, the banks are then lending it back out to others so they can buy houses etc.
For the first time in U.S. history, banks own a greater share of residential housing net worth in the United States than all individual Americans put together .Or if that 1% owns massive facilities employing tens of thousands of people, can we really fault them? The 1% owns massive facilities, offshored in China/India/Thailand/Indonesia etc etc - where ever production is cheapest. All the jobs that used to be in manufacturing etc in "western" countries are now no longer there - all there is to replace them are "service" industries..."you want fries with that" Get a better education - in the US in 2009, there were 5500 PhD's and about 260,000 Master's grads on food stamps !I think a lot of people are guilty of seeing the rich as scrouge mc-duck style people with a 'swimming pool' of money which is not being put to good use at all, when it is simply not the case. Sorry - it simply often is the case - the amount of money stashed in offshore bank accounts is in the Trillions of dollars. Whilst there are numbers of super wealthy who do put their money to good use for society, they are in a distinct minority. In the US, the wealthiest one percent "captured 95 percent of post-financial crisis growth since 2009," Oxfam reports. The bottom 90 percent actually lost wealth.

Of course the loopholes and shady back room dealing of politics to allow the rich to create self serving policy should be stopped, over-leveraged lending is too much of a crash risk, and other various incentives added towards closing the gap (ESOP tax breaks or something like that); but I reckon the financial system is a pretty solid foundation to work with. In the US there is now what is called the "Revolving door", where bankers and industrialists are appointed to top government "advisory" boards, to set new legislation, and politicians are guaranteed jobs in business when they leave politics....... in whose favour, do you think that always turns out to be. We are seeing the same thing now in most "western" countries, where policy revolves around the demands of big business, usually to the detriment of main society as a whole ( including small business - any policies that benefit small business are usually coincidental, or tossed out as crumbs, to make small business think they are important - they aren't, in the big scheme of things) There is a name for this sort of government/business combine - it's called Fascism!

Note - Wealth isn't income. Salary is income. But investments—stocks, houses, or equity in a business—build wealth. Wealth comes from the money you don't immediately spend. Since poor people spend more of their income immediately, and rich people save/invest more of their income immediately, it's predictable that wealth inequality will be much worse than income inequality.
The current system is not a solid foundation to work from, except for those at the top of the pile. Remember - a multi millionaire does not make his money by himself - he /she is reliant on the existence of a societal base with thousands of people out there, to enable their schemes to work. Without it, they are fucked! If they act like a parasite that destroys it's host, the system is not a good system.

What is happening now, can probably be summed up as civilisational collapse, in it's mid stages. There's an interesting book on this - "A Short History Of Progress", by Ronald Wright. He chronicles the rise and fall of civilisations from around 10,000 BC, and earlier hunter/gatherer eras, and finds the same things occurring, over and over again

Wright goes on to describe a number of diverse civilizations that arose and collapsed between 4,000 and 1,000 BC – and their unfortunate tendency towards mindless habitat destruction and runaway population growth, consumption, and technological development. In each case, an identical social transformation takes place as resources become increasingly scarce. As prehistoric peoples find it harder and harder to feed themselves, inevitably a privileged elite emerges to confiscate communal lands and enslave their inhabitants. They then install a despotic tyrant who hastens ecological collapse by wasting scare resources on a spree of militarization and temple or pyramid building. This process is almost always accompanied by wholesale murder, torture, and unproductive wars.
Wright relates this typical pattern of ecological destruction and collapse to a series of “progress traps,” in which specific human inventions turn out to have extremely negative unintended consequences. Instead of fixing the underlying problem they’re meant to solve, the inventions create an even worse environmental mess. It’s a pattern so common in prehistory that it’s become enshrined in the Adam and Eve and similar creation myths...........................................

The Greeks (around 600 BC) were the first with any conscious awareness that they were destroying their own habitat. Plato writes a vivid description of the dangers of erosion and runoff from deforestation. The Athenian leader Solon tried to halt increasing ecological devastation by outlawing debt serfdom, food exports, and farming on steep slopes. Pisistratus offered grants to farmers to plant olive trees for soil reclamation.Wright makes a good case for similar environmental destruction, rather than barbarian invasion, causing Rome to collapse. By the time of Augustus, Italian land had become so degraded that Rome was forced to import most of their food from North Africa, Gaul, and other colonies.

Wright goes on to cite the experience of the Maya whose civilization collapsed as did that of Sumer and for much the same reasons. He writes, "As the crisis gathered [the crop failures], the response of the rulers was not to seek a new course... No, they dug in their heels and carried on doing what they had always done, only more so. Their solution was higher pyramids, more power to the kings, harder work for the masses, more foreign wars. In modern terms, the Maya elite became extremists, or ultra-conservatives, squeezing the last drops of profit from nature and humanity."

Seem familiar?

Ocean1

23rd February 2014, 15:39

Interesting image... denying that a system will work and declaring it bullshit (based on the wild assumption that people are lazy and need to be incentivised by money) without offering a NOW as an alternative and actually asking the people if they would be prepared to give it a go is the same as eating your chilli repeatedly and expecting that one day you'll get used to it.

It can't be other than bullshit, that's what it's made of. Money is not an infinite resource, to start with. If it was then all of those problems you say were caused by the lack of money wouldn't be problems, would they? We'd just throw a shitload of money at them and they wouldn't be problems any more, would they?

And I haven't ever said people are or aren't lazy. What I have said is that they wouldn't be anywhere near as productive if the appropriate reward for their efforts were removed, a behaviour common to every living organism on the planet.

As for your "alternative"; it isn't, it's economic death on a stick, the end of civilisation as we know it. Luckily it hasn't a dog's show in hell of ever seeing the light of day, so it's not something anyone ever need lose any sleep over.

When you can admit that outside of the criminal element and the recipients of various hand-outs the money each person has represents the value earned by that person, and that they have the right to negotiate exchanges for whatever goods they want based on that value then you might have some chance of having a sensible conversation on matters economic, but not until.

bogan

23rd February 2014, 15:49

Note - Wealth isn't income. Salary is income. But investments—stocks, houses, or equity in a business—build wealth. Wealth comes from the money you don't immediately spend. Since poor people spend more of their income immediately, and rich people save/invest more of their income immediately, it's predictable that wealth inequality will be much worse than income inequality.
The current system is not a solid foundation to work from, except for those at the top of the pile. Remember - a multi millionaire does not make his money by himself - he /she is reliant on the existence of a societal base with thousands of people out there, to enable their schemes to work. Without it, they are fucked! If they act like a parasite that destroys it's host, the system is not a good system.

What is happening now, can probably be summed up as civilisational collapse, in it's mid stages. There's an interesting book on this - "A Short History Of Progress", by Ronald Wright. He chronicles the rise and fall of civilisations from around 10,000 BC, and earlier hunter/gatherer eras, and finds the same things occurring, over and over again

Which again sounds more like a loophole that should be closed, incentivise/penalise things so more wealth is put back into the national economy rather than making its way overseas. Rebalance the scales on housing to make it easier to own a house.

How is that multi-millionaire destroying its host though? by providing jobs and products/infrastructure etc, thereby allowing its host enough comfort to choose to grow?

It doesn't sound like money is a common denominator in those other societal collapses though, population growth and resource scarcity seem to be the main causes. As I said many pages ago, curbing population growth is going to do a lot more for society than throwing out the financial system.

Basically, the note that 'wealth isn't income' is my point; a person can have no personal wealth but a good quality of life; in fact isn't that the underpinnings of NOW and other thingos? So why is it held up as such a downside of the financial system?

Ocean1

23rd February 2014, 15:56

Seem familiar?

Very.

Civilisation established by group of organised individuals who plan and manage resources to best effect for everyone.

Population booms, standards of living increase, productive behaviour diminishes as the link between effort and reward grows increasingly complex.

Great unwashed deem actual work optional and decline to participate in the plan.

Resource availability crumbles due to lack of production, civilisation declines.

Specialisation no longer provides benefits, survival lifestyle returns along with it's associated living standards.

Dark ages.

Repeat at will.

Lesson: Civilisation is initiated by a very small number of extremely clever and insightful individuals. It's destroyed by those who assume they're good enough to do it without spending as much effort as the above.

SPman

23rd February 2014, 16:32

Very.

Civilisation established by group of organised individuals who plan and manage resources to best effect for everyone.

Population booms, standards of living increase, productive behaviour diminishes as the link between effort and reward grows increasingly complex.

Great unwashed deem actual work optional and decline to participate in the plan.

Resource availability crumbles due to lack of production, civilisation declines.

Specialisation no longer provides benefits, survival lifestyle returns along with it's associated living standards.

Dark ages.

Repeat at will.

Lesson: Civilisation is initiated by a very small number of extremely clever and insightful individuals. It's destroyed by those who assume they're good enough to do it without spending as much effort as the above. Did you actually read the post before you let your own personal viewpoint produce a version of events that fit your worldview - ie - lazy cunts who don't want to work destroy efforts of us hard working individuals - which is actually self serving non thinking bullshit!

Ocean1

23rd February 2014, 17:21

Did you actually read the post before you let your own personal viewpoint produce a version of events that fit your worldview - ie - lazy cunts who don't want to work destroy efforts of us hard working individuals - which is actually self serving non thinking bullshit!

Of course.

Did you not consider I was satirising your post as the narrow minded opinionated drivel it is before assuming mine was based on anything remotely like my opinion?

mstriumph

23rd February 2014, 17:22

......................

Civilisation established by group of organised individuals who plan and manage resources to best effect for everyone. No to the first part and, sadly, never in a million years to the last part

Population booms, standards of living increase, productive behaviour diminishes as the link between effort and reward grows increasingly complex. Yes, that happens ... but not for the reasons you've assumed

Great unwashed deem actual work optional and decline to participate in the plan. Not necessarily? Illustration - A few years ago I was made redundant from my job due to my medium-size, local employer being taken over by a large multi-national (ANZ actually), did they want our exceptional customer service record? our outstanding reputation as a good corporate citizen? Our amazingly cost-efficient admin systems? .... no, they did not - they just wanted the customer base we had accumulated through being as good as we were.... Within 2 years they had promoted their own dross, introduced their own flabby, expensive systems and wondered why so much of their purchase had fled.

I am well-qualified, well-organised and well-motivated ... it took months for me to find another job; some of my former colleagues who were equally equipped but older (ie over 40) were still looking after 12 months ... some of them gave up in despair. I don't have the stats but I find SPman's statement that " in the US in 2009, there were 5500 PhD's and about 260,000 Master's grads on food stamps" perfectly believable because I see it getting that way here.

To assume that all people who aren't participating in the workforce are doing so by choice is misguided and misleading... to start calling them names is reprehensible and unkind.

Resource availability crumbles due to lack of production, civilisation declines. A decline in income for the elite, perhaps (although your progression seems a bit simplistic - no offence intended), but hardly the death of civilisation ;)

Specialisation no longer provides benefits, survival lifestyle returns along with it's associated living standards.

Dark ages. Taken in isolation, I agree with this (see my own comments a few posts back).

Lesson: Civilisation is initiated by a very small number of extremely clever and insightful individuals. It's destroyed by those who assume they're good enough to do it without spending as much effort as the above.

Bollocks (am I allowed to say that on here........................:facepalm:)

You've started with a false premise and, not unnaturally, given the series of simplistic, misguided assumptions you've sought to build on it, reached an inaccurate conclusion.

You won't thank me for pointing it out.

mstriumph

23rd February 2014, 17:47

Of course.

.................. before assuming mine was based on anything remotely like my opinion?

ah - another of the 'conflict for the sake of conflict' fraternity :msn-wink:

I mean, why on EARTH would you post opinions not remotely like your own unless you were just trolling?

Don't you realise this totally undermines the credibility of any future post you make?

I despair.

Scuba_Steve

23rd February 2014, 18:07

Money is not an infinite resource, to start with. If it was then all of those problems you say were caused by the lack of money wouldn't be problems, would they? We'd just throw a shitload of money at them and they wouldn't be problems any more, would they?

How can something that's made out of nothing & doesn't exist in physical form be finite???
All it takes to produce more is say so, hell Zimbabwe did it for years

And I haven't ever said people are or aren't lazy. What I have said is that they wouldn't be anywhere near as productive if the appropriate reward for their efforts were removed, a behaviour common to every living organism on the planet.

Yea cept there's studies & I believe a country calling that BS... People are more productive doing things they love, admittedly some people do enjoy working for the dollar but most are more productive in positions they actually enjoy; in-fact alot working for the dollar are probably the least productive to society

Ocean1

23rd February 2014, 18:23

I mean, why on EARTH would you post opinions not remotely like your own unless you were just trolling?

To balance an extreme opinion presented as fact.

With roughly the same authority.

Ocean1

23rd February 2014, 19:46

How can something that's made out of nothing & doesn't exist in physical form be finite???

Perhaps because it represents cold hard assets, which are finite.

All it takes to produce more is say so, hell Zimbabwe did it for years

Yes. Did their asset base increase? No. So what they were really doing is reducing the value of the dollars in circulation.

Yea cept there's studies & I believe a country calling that BS... People are more productive doing things they love, admittedly some people do enjoy working for the dollar but most are more productive in positions they actually enjoy; in-fact alot working for the dollar are probably the least productive to society

I'm as productive as fuck in my hobby time too. But I'm not labouring under the illusion that's benefiting anyone other than me, and unfortunately I have to eat. Which is why spend time making stuff that keep my clients happy enough to keep paying me.

So you're right, reward doesn't have to be financial. But if you ever want something you can't make for yourself you'd better find a way to make something someone else wants, eh? Whether you enjoy the work or not.

mashman

23rd February 2014, 20:16

Exactly, what we pay for is there, what we can't pay for is not, it's a resource shortage.

Not pushing it, :laugh: This is what mstriumph picked up on, you clearly are pushing it, yet favor the wealy approach of moving goalposts rather actually putting together a reasoned argument.

Science works with samples. You're fucking deluded if you think there's a significant portion of society willing to get rid of the financial system in favor of one you've just admitted is not ready.

What we can't pay for is there too. Go to any "store" and they've always got stuff in. There is, at the moment, no resource shortage. There is resource wastage though.

I'm not pushing it, I'm throwing out on A forum and am learning from the experience. That you don't accept the argument doesn't make it unreasoned. Where's the goalpost shift?

Science works with samples and still gets things "wrong". You're fuckin deluded if you think that a significant portion of society wouldn't choose A NOW as an alternative to the financial system... and given that it has failed to tackle the major issues of the Take day over millennia, I find it laughable that you believe it to be a solid foundation. As a scientific sample, the financial system would have been arsed a thousand years ago. Just because I say it isn't ready does not mean that it won't work. Like most scientific discoveries (analogy, not direct comparison, coz I know you're funny that way) there are certain things that you know will work.

Scuba_Steve

23rd February 2014, 20:16

Perhaps because it represents cold hard assets, which are finite.

How far back are you living? It USED to represent "cold hard assets" like over 60yrs ago back when it was gold bonds, now it represents nothing more than numbers on a sheet

Yes. Did their asset base increase? No. So what they were really doing is reducing the value of the dollars in circulation.

But they did prove it's not a finite resource & can just continue to be produced out of nothing

I'm as productive as fuck in my hobby time too. But I'm not labouring under the illusion that's benefiting anyone other than me, and unfortunately I have to eat. Which is why spend time making stuff that keep my clients happy enough to keep paying me.

So you're right, reward doesn't have to be financial. But if you ever want something you can't make for yourself you'd better find a way to make something someone else wants, eh? Whether you enjoy the work or not.

But you're never going to be as productive working for a price point rather then something you love & that was the original point.

bogan

23rd February 2014, 20:35

What we can't pay for is there too. Go to any "store" and they've always got stuff in. There is, at the moment, no resource shortage. There is resource wastage though.

I'm not pushing it, I'm throwing out on A forum and am learning from the experience. That you don't accept the argument doesn't make it unreasoned. Where's the goalpost shift?

Science works with samples and still gets things "wrong". You're fuckin deluded if you think that a significant portion of society wouldn't choose A NOW as an alternative to the financial system... and given that it has failed to tackle the major issues of the Take day over millennia, I find it laughable that you believe it to be a solid foundation. As a scientific sample, the financial system would have been arsed a thousand years ago. Just because I say it isn't ready does not mean that it won't work. Like most scientific discoveries (analogy, not direct comparison, coz I know you're funny that way) there are certain things that you know will work.

Um, you know that store has to pay the producer for those goods right? Just cos you can't afford em doesn't mean they have not been paid for. Comments like that make your approach seem ignorant and selfish, so you may want to think about the bigger picture in future.

Well, enjoy your delusions then, I'll eat all my money if it ever happens within my lifetime though.

Ocean1

23rd February 2014, 20:35

How far back are you living? It USED to represent "cold hard assets" like over 60yrs ago back when it was gold bonds, now it represents nothing more than numbers on a sheet.

Show me some money other than savings that doesn't represent an asset.

But they did prove it's not a finite resource & can just continue to be produced out of nothing.

It's not a resource at all. You can print it all you fucking like and it'll still not be a resource.

But you're never going to be as productive working for a price point rather then something you love & that was the original point.

It was my point. And the point was that the world doesn't give a fuck whether you enjoy whatever you do to earn a living. If you make good choices with your training and career you can end up enjoying your job. But whether you enjoy it or not you need to produce something worthwhile if you expect someone to pay you for it.

mashman

23rd February 2014, 20:40

It can't be other than bullshit, that's what it's made of. Money is not an infinite resource, to start with. If it was then all of those problems you say were caused by the lack of money wouldn't be problems, would they? We'd just throw a shitload of money at them and they wouldn't be problems any more, would they?

And I haven't ever said people are or aren't lazy. What I have said is that they wouldn't be anywhere near as productive if the appropriate reward for their efforts were removed, a behaviour common to every living organism on the planet.

As for your "alternative"; it isn't, it's economic death on a stick, the end of civilisation as we know it. Luckily it hasn't a dog's show in hell of ever seeing the light of day, so it's not something anyone ever need lose any sleep over.

When you can admit that outside of the criminal element and the recipients of various hand-outs the money each person has represents the value earned by that person, and that they have the right to negotiate exchanges for whatever goods they want based on that value then you might have some chance of having a sensible conversation on matters economic, but not until.

Because you say it can't? For every "you" there's a "me" and they are willing to be productive. No, you're describing the rules under which money is supposed to be allowed to be created. Given that they also pluck govt bonds out of thin air etc... to then justify printing money, I fail to see how you can't see it as anything other than infinite. If money solved those problems (which it can't), then yes, "printing" enough for everyone to afford their "bills" and "lifestyle" would go a long way towards addressing the issues. Tis the reason many economists tout a system with an unconditional income at its heart.

Really? I took a pay cut and I'm just as productive... in fact the company gets more hours out of me than I'm contracted for. NOW then, I wonder if I'm alone in doing such a thing... no, I know a few people who do the same. Why? Figure it out yourself.

Economic death on a stick eh. Well I'm saying it'll be the opposite. You've got no evidence, I've got no evidence... tell you what, let's try something radical and explain it to the entire country and let them decide whether they'll be willing productive participants... after all, it should be an absolute cake walk for the financial system if that were the case. I reckon it'll be MUCH closer than you think.

Understood. Not admitted. Well, not until you admit that a binman is just as, if not more, important than a Dr and that they should be remunerated equally.

mashman

23rd February 2014, 20:44

Um, you know that store has to pay the producer for those goods right? Just cos you can't afford em doesn't mean they have not been paid for. Comments like that make your approach seem ignorant and selfish, so you may want to think about the bigger picture in future.

Well, enjoy your delusions then, I'll eat all my money if it ever happens within my lifetime though.

:killingme... fucksake that's amazing. You mean there's an entire supply chain that I've never considered? OMG, I'll have to go back to the drawing board. :yawn:

I'll enjoy mine more than I enjoy yours.

bogan

23rd February 2014, 20:45

:killingme... fucksake that's amazing. You mean there's an entire supply chain that I've never considered? OMG, I'll have to go back to the drawing board. :yawn:

Sarcasm, the lowest form of wit, and it's not much of a rebuttal either.

Scuba_Steve

23rd February 2014, 20:51

Money is not an infinite resource, to start with.

It's not a resource at all. You can print it all you fucking like and it'll still not be a resource.

If that was your point all along you could have just said "money is not a resource"; you made the point of saying "money is not an infinite resource" implying you believe money to be a resource but one that has absolute limits.
But either way as things currently stand I'd say it is a resource alot of others say the same

Show me some money other than savings that doesn't represent an asset.

Take a look in your wallet... there it is :yes:

mashman

23rd February 2014, 20:55

Sarcasm, the lowest form of wit, and it's not much of a rebuttal either.

Yes I understand that there are many dudes around the world mining for minerals and those minerals can only be mined because someone developed shovels/machines and that those who designed shovels/machines learned how to fashion such items in "schools" (unless they innovated of course) and those who taught them were once not very old and needed to be looked after by their parents and that they all needed food and water to live and were very lucky because we had farmers and people who maintained water supplies... ad infinitum. Yes, I have thought about the supply chain. Better dear?

bogan

23rd February 2014, 20:57

Yes I understand that there are many dudes around the world mining for minerals and those minerals can only be mined because someone developed shovels/machines and that those who designed shovels/machines learned how to fashion such items in "schools" (unless they innovated of course) and those who taught them were once not very old and needed to be looked after by their parents and that they all needed food and water to live and were very lucky because we had farmers and people who maintained water supplies... ad infinitum. Yes, I have thought about the supply chain. Better dear?

No, because you still haven't explained how that means the resources we haven't paid for, are available.

mashman

23rd February 2014, 21:01

No, because you still haven't explained how that means the resources we haven't paid for, are available.

Every single element that goes into every single product is available before people are paid to "produce" them.

bogan

23rd February 2014, 21:06

Every single element that goes into every single product is available before people are paid to "produce" them.

In what quantity? and in most cases they need work and equipment/materials to make the elements available for use in a product. Only through the use of resources are those other resources available, and even then only in finite quantities. So no, removing money would not somehow make those resources available for use.

mashman

23rd February 2014, 21:12

In what quantity? and in most cases they need work and equipment/materials to make the elements available for use in a product. Only through the use of resources are those other resources available, and even then only in finite quantities. So no, removing money would not somehow make those resources available for use.

So we're back to you saying people won't work if they aren't financially remunerated. I disagree.

puddytat

23rd February 2014, 21:18

futures trading.

bogan

23rd February 2014, 21:19

So we're back to you saying people won't work if they aren't financially remunerated. I disagree.

No, even if the work distribution was unchanged, there would be no additional resources brought up out of the ground or from wherever. To get more, you would need to have more people work on it, and use more resources to do so, so where will they come from? The magical efficiency booster of socialism? :innocent:

mstriumph

23rd February 2014, 21:22

..............

So you're right, reward doesn't have to be financial. But if you ever want something you can't make for yourself you'd better find a way to make something someone else wants, eh? Whether you enjoy the work or not.

zeroing in on this (because the rest of the argument is hurting my head) can you not agree that, if I want (say) one of your goats plus six duck eggs and you are willing to accept in exchange(say) one of my lambs and a laying hen* that THAT is more beneficial to the parties engaged in the exchange (if less convenient) than dealing through a third party who will charge you the eggs and me the hen for acting as middleman?

Moving on from there, if the middleman then lends the eggs (or the hen, I'm not fussed) and expects not only the principal but also (say) a dozen mixed eggs** ) back in return, then we have the beginnings of the problem

In the great scheme of things, banks and other financiers are the go-betweens reaping far more rewards than the participants in the transaction by taking from BOTH sides ... it's a service that grows/produces/manufactures nothing - smoke and mirrors and, in some instances, misery? I don't agree with some of the opinions here but I can understand and, to a greater or lesser extent, understand the sheer frustration from whence they spring. Can't you?

Both Judaism and Islam are rigid concerning usary ... Christians used to be, too (with a differing opinion on what constitutes kindred) ... religion-wise I'm a nothing, but if you acknowledge the great religions of the world as having a hand in shaping civilization then wouldn't you agree that mebbe, just mebbe, we should take their input on board?

At the moment we have a financial system with top heavy benefits for those at the top of the pile at the expense of those at the bottom
we have no democratic way of enforcing a fairer system or of placing limits or parameters on the system we have (even though the rapacious behaviour of the elite is heedless of the fact (based on observations of the rise and fall of punitive systems of various types elsewhere) is likely to end badly, in a 'lose/lose way
nobody in their right mind wants the chaos this collapse would cause

I don't pretend to have a solution other than the suggestion I made in my post at 09:40 today

I DO know that a) there's a problem and b) it can't be fixed by ignoring it, intellectualising it or saying "she'll be right"

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

* I freely admit these are guesses - I have absolutely NO idea of the going exchange rate of goats, chickens, hens etc etc etc
** and even less idea how to express an interest rate in duck eggs .........

mashman

23rd February 2014, 21:26

No, even if the work distribution was unchanged, there would be no additional resources brought up out of the ground or from wherever. To get more, you would need to have more people work on it, and use more resources to do so, so where will they come from? The magical efficiency booster of socialism? :innocent:

How have we suddenly jumped to us needing more resources? If you need more people, then they will be available as the financial system and those who manage finances (accountants, tellers, ATM technicians etc...) will all be available for work. Add to that the huge number of IT staff that will become available, the "admin" staff and likely many others who's "profession" could do without their services. Even the great Ocean himself understands that there are a large number doing jobs that shouldn't need to be done... granted for different reasons, but meh, they're there and could task themselves with anything they fancied.

bogan

23rd February 2014, 21:29

How have we suddenly jumped to us needing more resources? If you need more people, then they will be available as the financial system and those who manage finances (accountants, tellers, ATM technicians etc...) will all be available for work. Add to that the huge number of IT staff that will become available, the "admin" staff and likely many others who's "profession" could do without their services. Even the great Ocean himself understands that there are a large number doing jobs that shouldn't need to be done... granted for different reasons, but meh, they're there and could task themselves with anything they fancied.

What % of worker are currently emplyed in those jobs, what % of that would be required by the new system to perform resource allocation jobs.

Why is IT and admin staff no longer required, and again, what % of the workforce would that entail. And, what % of work reduction can we expect from people taking more time off?

mashman

23rd February 2014, 21:41

What % of worker are currently emplyed in those jobs, what % of that would be required by the new system to perform resource allocation jobs.

Why is IT and admin staff no longer required, and again, what % of the workforce would that entail. And, what % of work reduction can we expect from people taking more time off?

I wish I knew.

IT due to the duplication of effort for the "same" product (we'll settle on a standard for the simplicity of integration amongst other things). Admin staff again through duplicate of effort and lack of need to support those "services" that will be "rationalised". Again, I wish knew the percentages.

bogan

23rd February 2014, 21:48

I wish I knew.

IT due to the duplication of effort for the "same" product (we'll settle on a standard for the simplicity of integration amongst other things). Admin staff again through duplicate of effort and lack of need to support those "services" that will be "rationalised". Again, I wish knew the percentages.

Seems pretty basic due diligence to have done before putting an idea/assertion forward. Somebody in NOW or similar must have done it?

mashman

23rd February 2014, 21:52

Seems pretty basic due diligence to have done before putting an idea/assertion forward. Somebody in NOW or similar must have done it?

I'm sure they will when the time comes.

bogan

23rd February 2014, 23:11

I'm sure they will when the time comes.

Well, it's pretty fucking ironic that the time is not NOW :scratch:

And also doesn't make for a compelling point to back up your assertion that it will balance out for the positive, a lot of us think on balance it would be far into the negative.

mashman

24th February 2014, 06:55

Well, it's pretty fucking ironic that the time is not NOW :scratch:

And also doesn't make for a compelling point to back up your assertion that it will balance out for the positive, a lot of us think on balance it would be far into the negative.

It would be if NOW was a time ;)

I don't have the time to ask every single person in every single job that may not be needed whether or not they'd continue to do that job or would look at "re-retraining". There's more to it than the guess work you're usually used to, sorry, the population sample and extrapolation to give a %. Therein lies the rub:

Once upon a year or so ago I sat outside the pub with some friends and some strangers. As happens I quipped about the financial system and was challenged to provide an alternative. So we went around the houses for a while and I explained NOW. It started to rain. Thanks fuck (paraphrasing), said the guy, can't believe I listened to this negativity... at which point the girlz popped up with, actually we think it's highly positive. Moral of the story: you make of it what you will. The obstacles you put in your way are just that, yours. They do not belong to NOW, they are yours.

I see NOW as a HUGE positive because of what it can achieve for people. I see the financial system as a negative because of what it stops people from achieving. On paper, there's no competition as to which one can provide a better standard of living for the world's population... and it ain't the financial system.

bogan

24th February 2014, 08:09

It would be if NOW was a time ;)

I don't have the time to ask every single person in every single job that may not be needed whether or not they'd continue to do that job or would look at "re-retraining". There's more to it than the guess work you're usually used to, sorry, the population sample and extrapolation to give a %. Therein lies the rub:

Once upon a year or so ago I sat outside the pub with some friends and some strangers. As happens I quipped about the financial system and was challenged to provide an alternative. So we went around the houses for a while and I explained NOW. It started to rain. Thanks fuck (paraphrasing), said the guy, can't believe I listened to this negativity... at which point the girlz popped up with, actually we think it's highly positive. Moral of the story: you make of it what you will. The obstacles you put in your way are just that, yours. They do not belong to NOW, they are yours.

I see NOW as a HUGE positive because of what it can achieve for people. I see the financial system as a negative because of what it stops people from achieving. On paper, there's no competition as to which one can provide a better standard of living for the world's population... and it ain't the financial system.

What a cop out. There is census data on how many people are employed in those jobs, you don't have to ask everyone.

Also, that story is fucking stupid, and just highlights your bias, you go into it with the position that having a negative view of the NOW thingo is a bad thing, rather than an honest interpretation.

Where is this paper, you consistently dodge or hand wave away any logical discussion about the logistics of such a system; the whole underpinnings of it are that we could get more work done for less work input then we currently do; yet there is absolutely nothing on paper to show this.

Ocean1

24th February 2014, 08:40

Because you say it can't? For every "you" there's a "me" and they are willing to be productive. No, you're describing the rules under which money is supposed to be allowed to be created. Given that they also pluck govt bonds out of thin air etc... to then justify printing money, I fail to see how you can't see it as anything other than infinite. If money solved those problems (which it can't), then yes, "printing" enough for everyone to afford their "bills" and "lifestyle" would go a long way towards addressing the issues.

No, walls of drivel don't refute the facts. I suggested your "system" was based on bullshit, quoting your insistence that money is an infinite resource. The fact hat you fail to see it as anything else is your problem.

Tis the reason many economists tout a system with an unconditional income at its heart.

Show me some.

Really? I took a pay cut and I'm just as productive... in fact the company gets more hours out of me than I'm contracted for. NOW then, I wonder if I'm alone in doing such a thing... no, I know a few people who do the same. Why? Figure it out yourself.

It's not difficult, they decided you wern't worth what they were paying. You agreed. That's how it's supposed to work.

Economic death on a stick eh. Well I'm saying it'll be the opposite. You've got no evidence, I've got no evidence... tell you what, let's try something radical and explain it to the entire country and let them decide whether they'll be willing productive participants... after all, it should be an absolute cake walk for the financial system if that were the case. I reckon it'll be MUCH closer than you think.

Your example above is a tiny slice of the evidence that smacks you around the head every day, you simply translate it into giberish to fit your needs and press on regardless. On the other hand no economy can ever work based on everything being worth whatever the producer wants / whatever the commitee say, (whichever is the flavour of the month).

And any sympathising socialist already has any number of choices of similar systems to chose from, they can fuck off on the same boat as you to enjoy them to their hearts content.

Understood. Not admitted. Well, not until you admit that a binman is just as, if not more, important than a Dr and that they should be remunerated equally.

If you understood that everyone has the right to spend their money as they see fit then you wouldn't be trying to impose conditions on which services they have to pay for and how much they have to pay for them.

Ocean1

24th February 2014, 08:48

If that was your point all along you could have just said "money is not a resource"; you made the point of saying "money is not an infinite resource" implying you believe money to be a resource but one that has absolute limits.

I was quoting mushbrain. If you want to know what he was implying you'll have to stand in line with everyone else, we've got no idea either.

But either way as things currently stand I'd say it is a resource alot of others say the same

Yup, not knowing what money is isn't uncommon.

Take a look in your wallet... there it is :yes:

Show me some money other than savings that doesn't represent an asset.

mashman

24th February 2014, 09:08

What a cop out. There is census data on how many people are employed in those jobs, you don't have to ask everyone.

Also, that story is fucking stupid, and just highlights your bias, you go into it with the position that having a negative view of the NOW thingo is a bad thing, rather than an honest interpretation.

Where is this paper, you consistently dodge or hand wave away any logical discussion about the logistics of such a system; the whole underpinnings of it are that we could get more work done for less work input then we currently do; yet there is absolutely nothing on paper to show this.

If you understood what NOW was trying to achieve, you would understand that it's way more than calculating a percentage. You have made it blatantly obvious that you don't wish to entertain such thoughts. But let's start with: we need IT systems that are easy to manage. 1 version of financial SW, 1 version of logistics SW, 1 version of HR software and more. Some people in IT don't want to be there any more and we want the best IT crowd that we can use to analyse requirements, PM, develop and test (not an exhaustive list). You need to ask everyone as some of those who waqnt to not be in IT may be the best and will need to be asked to persist. Some that want to leave IT may want to do so, not because they want to move out of IT, but that the culture under which they work is shit blah blah blah. Your cold and calculating methodology does not take that into account. SO call it a copout all you like, but you're the one copping out.

What bias? It is what happened.

The paper belongs to the individual. If you didn't have such a bias you'd draw up your own and if you were at all logical you'd find that the same stands. The only issue you can raise that has any bearing is that of who will willingly take part... and for that answer, you have to ask everyone. Your underpinning assumption is wrong. Where have I said that we, as a collective, will do less work to achieve the same result? As an individual you could do less and the result would still be the same as someone who is unemployed could well share your position. I envisage a position, further down the line, where we are proactive and not reactive and we do end up with a situation where we can do less in order to achieve the same. Stop making shit up... and given the moral of the earlier story, which you seemed to miss, I'd say you were projecting your bias and associated negativity into the mouths of an entire population.

bogan

24th February 2014, 09:22

If you understood what NOW was trying to achieve, you would understand that it's way more than calculating a percentage. You have made it blatantly obvious that you don't wish to entertain such thoughts. But let's start with: we need IT systems that are easy to manage. 1 version of financial SW, 1 version of logistics SW, 1 version of HR software and more. Some people in IT don't want to be there any more and we want the best IT crowd that we can use to analyse requirements, PM, develop and test (not an exhaustive list). You need to ask everyone as some of those who waqnt to not be in IT may be the best and will need to be asked to persist. Some that want to leave IT may want to do so, not because they want to move out of IT, but that the culture under which they work is shit blah blah blah. Your cold and calculating methodology does not take that into account. SO call it a copout all you like, but you're the one copping out.

What bias? It is what happened.

The paper belongs to the individual. If you didn't have such a bias you'd draw up your own and if you were at all logical you'd find that the same stands. The only issue you can raise that has any bearing is that of who will willingly take part... and for that answer, you have to ask everyone. Your underpinning assumption is wrong. Where have I said that we, as a collective, will do less work to achieve the same result? As an individual you could do less and the result would still be the same as someone who is unemployed could well share your position. I envisage a position, further down the line, where we are proactive and not reactive and we do end up with a situation where we can do less in order to achieve the same. Stop making shit up... and given the moral of the earlier story, which you seemed to miss, I'd say you were projecting your bias and associated negativity into the mouths of an entire population.

But NOW's ability to achieve a functional society is related to that percentage.

The bias is that you misuse the 'make the best of it' ideal. Make the best of it is used when you have to do something, ie, fuck I hate work team building exercises but I may as well make the best of it. It is not used as a justification for doing optional things that you don't think is a good idea, ie, I'm pretty sure sticking my hand in that circular saw is a bad idea, but I may as well make the best of it!

Ok, give me a straight answer to this then, under NOW, would society as a whole, do more, equal, or less work than we currently do? Stop thinking about it in individual terms, I don't care if you get to cut back your hours, if you can cut back only due to someone else taking on some of your work, then that would be equal work input.

Ocean1

24th February 2014, 09:24

zeroing in on this (because the rest of the argument is hurting my head) can you not agree that, if I want (say) one of your goats plus six duck eggs and you are willing to accept in exchange(say) one of my lambs and a laying hen* that THAT is more beneficial to the parties engaged in the exchange (if less convenient) than dealing through a third party who will charge you the eggs and me the hen for acting as middleman?

Depends. Is this middleman adding any value to the product?

Is he collecting it from outer Mongolia and presenting it to my corner shop?

If not then I simply won’t deal with him.

Moving on from there, if the middleman then lends the eggs (or the hen, I'm not fussed) and expects not only the principal but also (say) a dozen mixed eggs** ) back in return, then we have the beginnings of the problem

No, what you have is the beginning of a negotiation.

If I think his deal is worth the extra eggs then I’ll pay ‘em.

If not then I simply won’t deal with him.

In the great scheme of things, banks and other financiers are the go-betweens reaping far more rewards than the participants in the transaction by taking from BOTH sides ... it's a service that grows/produces/manufactures nothing - smoke and mirrors and, in some instances, misery? I don't agree with some of the opinions here but I can understand and, to a greater or lesser extent, understand the sheer frustration from whence they spring. Can't you?

Both Judaism and Islam are rigid concerning usary ... Christians used to be, too (with a differing opinion on what constitutes kindred) ... religion-wise I'm a nothing, but if you acknowledge the great religions of the world as having a hand in shaping civilization then wouldn't you agree that mebbe, just mebbe, we should take their input on board?

At the moment we have a financial system with top heavy benefits for those at the top of the pile at the expense of those at the bottom
we have no democratic way of enforcing a fairer system or of placing limits or parameters on the system we have (even though the rapacious behaviour of the elite is heedless of the fact (based on observations of the rise and fall of punitive systems of various types elsewhere) is likely to end badly, in a 'lose/lose way
nobody in their right mind wants the chaos this collapse would cause

I don't pretend to have a solution other than the suggestion I made in my post at 09:40 today

I DO know that a) there's a problem and b) it can't be fixed by ignoring it, intellectualising it or saying "she'll be right"

Nicely put. And yes Christianity is agin’ usury. I’m not entirely sure that means “no interest” though. I rather suspect it can translate as well to “don’t take advantage of market dominance”.

I’m happy with either, as long as the rules surrounding them represent a workable mechanism. IE: to encourage productive behaviour and discourage unproductive behaviour. So before you deny people the ability to earn money from their retirement nest egg how about you ask those wanting a loan if that suits them?

And there’s the beginning of my problem with doing away with the evel banks and their evel ways: who’s signature is on the mortgage? You can’t pretend all those loans were forced on anyone, can you? And that breakdown of bank/mortgage holder home ownership in the US… isn’t really relevant. In the US the bank owns title until the house is completely paid for. A wee clause that took a truly enormous chunk out of their arse a few years ago when house prices plummeted to below many of their clients’ equity and they simply walked away from the deal.

As for the rich getting richer… if it really matters to you then I can recommend some books that outline the risks you have to take and the work you have to undertake in order for that to happen.

And as for the poor getting poorer: Bullshit, any rational comparison of historic living standards in the western world would demonstrate that we’ve got it better than our parents, way better than our grandparents etc etc.

So yes, there is probably some rules that could be tweaked to good effect, but let’s see a detailed un-spun analysis of the effects of those changes first eh? Many of those proposed by the lunatic fringes in the name of a fairness that can only ever be relitive to the parties involved would see disastrous effects for our children.

mashman

24th February 2014, 10:22

No, walls of drivel don't refute the facts. I suggested your "system" was based on bullshit, quoting your insistence that money is an infinite resource. The fact hat you fail to see it as anything else is your problem.

resource
rɪˈsɔːs,rɪˈzɔːs/Submit
noun
1.
a stock or supply of money, materials, staff, and other assets that can be drawn on by a person or organization in order to function effectively.

You'd better write to them to highlight the error of their ways. Money is the resource required to form currency. It is infinite.

Show me some.

It is the premise for an LVT... there are many economists who support an LVT. The economists supporting the UIB proposal in Switzerland also.

It's not difficult, they decided you wern't worth what they were paying. You agreed. That's how it's supposed to work.

Nope. Try again.

Your example above is a tiny slice of the evidence that smacks you around the head every day, you simply translate it into giberish to fit your needs and press on regardless. On the other hand no economy can ever work based on everything being worth whatever the producer wants / whatever the commitee say, (whichever is the flavour of the month).

And any sympathising socialist already has any number of choices of similar systems to chose from, they can fuck off on the same boat as you to enjoy them to their hearts content.

I allow it to smack me around the head every day coz I value the economy and the society in which I and others operate as more than it being the best it can be. It makes sense. It is logical. It can be done.

Spoken like a true despot.

If you understood that everyone has the right to spend their money as they see fit then you wouldn't be trying to impose conditions on which services they have to pay for and how much they have to pay for them.

Who's imposing conditions? I'm merely seeking an answer from each individual as to how they would prefer to live.

mstriumph

24th February 2014, 10:40

Depends. Is this middleman adding any value to the product?

Is he collecting it from outer Mongolia and presenting it to my corner shop?

If not then I simply won’t deal with him.

Not (unless you count in the admin systems he's set up to do it - and that's just an added burdenblem to the punter) - and 'transport' is a DIFFERENT service ... naughty!! :bleh:

No, what you have is the beginning of a negotiation.

If I think his deal is worth the extra eggs then I’ll pay ‘em.

If not then I simply won’t deal with him.

My point is/was most 'clients' have very little choice ' - the 'little man 'negotiates' from a position of such weakness that it's a farce

Nicely put. And yes Christianity is agin’ usury. I’m not entirely sure that means “no interest” though. I rather suspect it can translate as well to “don’t take advantage of market dominance”.

Actually no ... it's about kindness and not taking advantage of your fellow and adding to his problems when he's already in a bind. Anyway Christianity abandoned it a while ago

I’m happy with either, as long as the rules surrounding them represent a workable mechanism. IE: to encourage productive behaviour and discourage unproductive behaviour. So before you deny people the ability to earn money from their retirement nest egg how about you ask those wanting a loan if that suits them?

And there’s the beginning of my problem with doing away with the evel banks and their evel ways: who’s signature is on the mortgage? You can’t pretend all those loans were forced on anyone, can you? And that breakdown of bank/mortgage holder home ownership in the US… isn’t really relevant. In the US the bank owns title until the house is completely paid for. A wee clause that took a truly enormous chunk out of their arse a few years ago when house prices plummeted to below many of their clients’ equity and they simply walked away from the deal. they didn't walk, they were foreclosed. It would have served the nation and the dispossessed homeowners better if the government had directed the money they poured into bailing out the banks at that time into cancelling all those mortgages, letting people stay in their homes and avoided the terrible toll of misery in making people homeless .... we were there - we saw it
distressing - and avoidable

As for the rich getting richer… if it really matters to you then I can recommend some books that outline the risks you have to take and the work you have to undertake in order for that to happen.

And as for the poor getting poorer: Bullshit, any rational comparison of historic living standards in the western world would demonstrate that we’ve got it better than our parents, way better than our grandparents etc etc. I was talking about a straight comparison between the position of the elite, the position of the little man and the widning gap between - ie i'm talking apples, you are responding oranges .....

So yes, there is probably some rules that could be tweaked to good effect, but let’s see a detailed un-spun analysis of the effects of those changes first eh? Many of those proposed by the lunatic fringes in the name of a fairness that can only ever be relitive to the parties involved would see disastrous effects for our children.

rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic, friend

there's an elephant in the room - to refuse to acknowledge it won't make it go away

- your point about pensions is a valid one ... but the overarching problem is that it's not the financial institutions money being paid in interest ... every cent of it come from the pocket of some other poor sod

as I said - I don't have an answer
brief answer ...got to go to work now - got the government to support (which is also adept at feathering its own nest with money it's levied elsewhere) .....

bogan

24th February 2014, 11:10

Not (unless you count in the admin systems he's set up to do it - and that's just an added burdenblem to the punter) - and 'transport' is a DIFFERENT service ... naughty!! :bleh:

But what if you have excess goats/eggs and no desire for lambs/hens? The added value is that you don't need to arse about for 63 weeks trying to find somebody to swap an ipod for your 5 ton of manure; or arse about for 37 weeks finding people to swap 317 in between items to complete the trade. And that is a long time to have 5 ton of shit lying around.

mashman

24th February 2014, 11:27

But NOW's ability to achieve a functional society is related to that percentage.

The bias is that you misuse the 'make the best of it' ideal. Make the best of it is used when you have to do something, ie, fuck I hate work team building exercises but I may as well make the best of it. It is not used as a justification for doing optional things that you don't think is a good idea, ie, I'm pretty sure sticking my hand in that circular saw is a bad idea, but I may as well make the best of it!

Ok, give me a straight answer to this then, under NOW, would society as a whole, do more, equal, or less work than we currently do? Stop thinking about it in individual terms, I don't care if you get to cut back your hours, if you can cut back only due to someone else taking on some of your work, then that would be equal work input.

It's no an absolute requirement to achieve a functional society, but it would most definitely help. As a side effect of NOW is an efficiency drive (best bang for societal buck), it is reasonable to conclude that there will be people who will become unemployed. Society can still function without those people in their jobs, else they would be asked to stay in their jobs.

How is that a bias? There are plenty of things I don't enjoy doing, but they are overridden by me feeling that I'll be letting someone down. I make the choice to do what is optional and even though I know I'm not going to enjoy it, I'll make the best of it. Justified!

More, equal and less. I'm not being purposefully obtuse. It's like asking the government what next years tax take is going to be. Sure they should have the numbers, but if 10,000 people lose their jobs or 10,000 new positions are filled or business earnings are lower than forecast or higher, then that tax take will change.

mashman

24th February 2014, 11:43

WOOHOO printing more money (http://nz.finance.yahoo.com/news/g-20-vows-boost-world-081415141.html)... coz it'll fix everything. Wonder where they're gonna get it from.

bogan

24th February 2014, 11:44

It's no an absolute requirement to achieve a functional society, but it would most definitely help. As a side effect of NOW is an efficiency drive (best bang for societal buck), it is reasonable to conclude that there will be people who will become unemployed. Society can still function without those people in their jobs, else they would be asked to stay in their jobs.

How is that a bias? There are plenty of things I don't enjoy doing, but they are overridden by me feeling that I'll be letting someone down. I make the choice to do what is optional and even though I know I'm not going to enjoy it, I'll make the best of it. Justified!

More, equal and less. I'm not being purposefully obtuse. It's like asking the government what next years tax take is going to be. Sure they should have the numbers, but if 10,000 people lose their jobs or 10,000 new positions are filled or business earnings are lower than forecast or higher, then that tax take will change.

It would, so why haven't you got the figures?

Just because you can make the best of a poor option, doesn't mean nobody should point out it is a poor option. An example, how about you chose not to harp on about NOW etc, and make the best of that? Obviously that is an option you look at negatively, so you don't do it. You've no right to judge other's harshly for doing the same to the option you chose; in doing so, you show bias.

I don't care if it is on purpose or not, that answer is not good enough. You've failed to provide answers for the most basic questions about the NOW system. To get anywhere with this, you must assure people it will be able to support a stable society, and a bunch of vague answers and hopes simply do not do that. You seem to accept this is a truth when you say NOW is not ready, so perhaps instead of pushing for it to be discussed, you should push those in NOW to answer the basic questions so a meaningful discussion can be had.

bogan

24th February 2014, 11:47

WOOHOO printing more money (http://nz.finance.yahoo.com/news/g-20-vows-boost-world-081415141.html)... coz it'll fix everything. Wonder where they're gonna get it from.

I despair, do you actually think that means they have to print more money? Or is this some sarcastic cheap shot?

Ocean1

24th February 2014, 11:50

You'd better write to them to highlight the error of their ways. Money is the resource required to form currency. It is infinite.

No it's not. it REPRESENTS assets, which are finite.

It is the premise for an LVT... there are many economists who support an LVT. The economists supporting the UIB proposal in Switzerland also.

A land value tax has nothing to do with abolishing money.

Nope. Try again.

I'm happy with the first reason, it describes a simple market transaction

If you weren't such a hypocrite you’d have insisted on a wage cut to the same as your bin man, although I can see how your boss might not see someone with such ambition as worthy of a place on his staff.

I allow it to smack me around the head every day coz I value the economy and the society in which I and others operate as more than it being the best it can be. It makes sense. It is logical. It can be done.

More drivel. If you can’t construct a coherent sentence just admit you don’t have a clue.

Spoken like a true despot.

A despot wouldn’t bother pointing out where you can live where you get no choice on what you have or what it costs, he’d have just shot you.

Who's imposing conditions? I'm merely seeking an answer from each individual as to how they would prefer to live.

Your “system” imposes constraints on pretty much everything. That’s a condition of participation, you’ve pointed it out repeatedly that someone other than the end user would get to dictate price and availability.

Ocean1

24th February 2014, 12:21

Not (unless you count in the admin systems he's set up to do it - and that's just an added burdenblem to the punter) - and 'transport' is a DIFFERENT service ... naughty!! :bleh:

Then I don’t deal with him. It really is that simple.

My point is/was most 'clients' have very little choice ' - the 'little man 'negotiates' from a position of such weakness that it's a farce

So, on one hand you’re against the borrowing of money, (presumably unless it’s interest free) but on the other hand you say people haven’t got a choice but to borrow money?

Or do you simply not like the price?

Actually no ... it's about kindness and not taking advantage of your fellow and adding to his problems when he's already in a bind.

That sounds far more like a projection of your world view than a succinct definition of usury. And in fact “not taking advantage of market dominance” isn’t a million miles away.

they didn't walk, they were foreclosed. It would have served the nation and the dispossessed homeowners better if the government had directed the money they poured into bailing out the banks at that time into cancelling all those mortgages, letting people stay in their homes and avoided the terrible toll of misery in making people homeless .... we were there - we saw it
distressing - and avoidable.

Then you should know that a large number of mortgage holders weren’t just “foreclosed”, they simply walked away from a debt they had no hope of repaying, and they did so with no intention of ever repaying it. The subsequent legal foreclosure doesn’t change the fact that they defaulted on an agreement, leaving someone else substantially worse off.

Misery there was. Avoidable it was, most equitably by not agreeing to borrow shitloads of money they never had a chance of paying back no matter what the housing market did.

Sorry, limited sympathy.

I was talking about a straight comparison between the position of the elite, the position of the little man and the widning gap between - ie i'm talking apples, you are responding oranges .....

I don’t recognise any elite. I don’t accept there’s any such thing as a man too little to succeed. A little fewer people doing so might well narrow that gap you’re so worried about…

rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic, friend

there's an elephant in the room - to refuse to acknowledge it won't make it go away

… And it remains a fact that for the vast majority of westerners living standards are currently better than any millionaire from a previous generation. And that’s been true for several generations. So “the end is neigh” elephant isn’t really that substantial, is it? And doesn't pointing the finger at people with lots of money and saying they're at fault for your lack smell just ever so slightly like plain simple envy?

- your point about pensions is a valid one ... but the overarching problem is that it's not the financial institutions money being paid in interest ... every cent of it come from the pocket of some other poor sod

You’re going to have to explain that.

as I said - I don't have an answer
brief answer ...got to go to work now

That answer’s been all I’ve ever needed to be reasonably happy with my lot.

Brian d marge

24th February 2014, 13:07

I wonder where "g20 " going to " find " the money

how are they going to "BOOST " the economy the article didnt say !

Stephen

btw

snip;( money)
No it's not. it REPRESENTS assets, which are finite.

in a fiat money sytem the money is not backed by anything but a promise ( NZ is a fiat money system)

Ocean1

24th February 2014, 14:47

in a fiat money sytem the money is not backed by anything but a promise ( NZ is a fiat money system)

I’d be interested to know where you borrow money that doesn’t require collateral.

Very interested.

Brian d marge

24th February 2014, 15:43

My mom
But the money u borrow is not backed by anything other than a promise
Used to be gold
Now just a promise

Stephen

Sent from my SC-01F using Tapatalk

husaberg

24th February 2014, 15:50

I’d be interested to know where you borrow money that doesn’t require collateral.

Very interested.

Hello......... fractional banking.
So Ocean it is ok to invent money to lend and make interest(ie Substantial profit) on.
but you are puzzled by how someone would lend money to someone without collateral..............
Unless of course the peasants who pay the government guarantee when a bank goes tits up are actually the collateral.:bleh:

Ocean1

24th February 2014, 16:29

My mom
But the money u borrow is not backed by anything other than a promise
Used to be gold
Now just a promise

Stephen

Sent from my SC-01F using Tapatalk

You use your Mom as collateral on loans?

Ocean1

24th February 2014, 16:34

Hello......... fractional banking.
So Ocean it is ok to invent money to lend and make interest(ie Substantial profit) on.
but you are puzzled by how someone would lend money to someone without collateral..............
Unless of course the peasants who pay the government guarantee when a bank goes tits up are actually the collateral.:bleh:

We don't have to secure money from fractional rate sources?

Shows how long it's been...

And we've already done the other thing to death, dude, including public bail-outs of private lenders.

husaberg

24th February 2014, 16:37

We don't have to secure money from fractional rate sources?

Shows how long it's been...

And we've already done the other thing to death, dude, including public bail-outs of private lenders.

We or i have? you just keep on saying you are Ok with it?

mashman

24th February 2014, 16:43

It would, so why haven't you got the figures?

Just because you can make the best of a poor option, doesn't mean nobody should point out it is a poor option. An example, how about you chose not to harp on about NOW etc, and make the best of that? Obviously that is an option you look at negatively, so you don't do it. You've no right to judge other's harshly for doing the same to the option you chose; in doing so, you show bias.

I don't care if it is on purpose or not, that answer is not good enough. You've failed to provide answers for the most basic questions about the NOW system. To get anywhere with this, you must assure people it will be able to support a stable society, and a bunch of vague answers and hopes simply do not do that. You seem to accept this is a truth when you say NOW is not ready, so perhaps instead of pushing for it to be discussed, you should push those in NOW to answer the basic questions so a meaningful discussion can be had.

Because everyone hasn't been asked.

I don't harp on about NOW most of the time. Hang on, you say that someone should be allowed to point out that an option is poor, but there's no right to judge? I'll judge how I like within the context I choose thanks, just the same as you.

The answer is good enough for many others I've spoken with. I'll let you know when I have the figures for ya. I won't be assuring the people of anything, because they will be assuring themselves. You really don't grasp the concept do ya? You believe that everyone needs the same "proof" as you. Sorry to tell you, but they don't, well, not everyone... I know, because I've asked.

I despair, do you actually think that means they have to print more money? Or is this some sarcastic cheap shot?

It's sarcasm, a cheap shot and a slice of reality. Where are they going to suddenly get all of this money from? Investors? If these investors existed, why didn't they put their hands up in the first place? And what assets are they going to get in return? Is the govt going to fashion more bonds out of thin air so that they can justify the printing of money?

bogan

24th February 2014, 16:48

Because everyone hasn't been asked.

I don't harp on about NOW most of the time. Hang on, you say that someone should be allowed to point out that an option is poor, but there's no right to judge? I'll judge how I like within the context I choose thanks, just the same as you.

The answer is good enough for many others I've spoken with. I'll let you know when I have the figures for ya. I won't be assuring the people of anything, because they will be assuring themselves. You really don't grasp the concept do ya? You believe that everyone needs the same "proof" as you. Sorry to tell you, but they don't, well, not everyone... I know, because I've asked.

It's sarcasm, a cheap shot and a slice of reality. Where are they going to suddenly get all of this money from? Investors? If these investors existed, why didn't they put their hands up in the first place? And what assets are they going to get in return? Is the govt going to fashion more bonds out of thin air so that they can justify the printing of money?

Not asked, just the raw figures, how much of the workforce is employed in those jobs.

There's no right to judge someone poorly just for having an opinion different to your own. Do you really think otherwise?

You don't seem to understand that you will have to convince almost everyone, now if people you talk to have agreed with this shit, I couldn't care less, many clearly disagree as well.

You don't need any extra money to get more GDP. Take a look at what the P in GDP stands for and educate yourself.

mashman

24th February 2014, 16:52

No it's not. it REPRESENTS assets, which are finite.

Write to them then, coz they obviously need to update their definition... or you do.

A land value tax has nothing to do with abolishing money.

Never said it was. We were discussing unconditional basic income.

I'm happy with the first reason, it describes a simple market transaction

If you weren't such a hypocrite you’d have insisted on a wage cut to the same as your bin man, although I can see how your boss might not see someone with such ambition as worthy of a place on his staff.

Well that wasn't the reason so there must be other things in play that you don't know about.

Aha.

More drivel. If you can’t construct a coherent sentence just admit you don’t have a clue.

Makes perfect sense to me. The failing is entirely yours.

A despot wouldn’t bother pointing out where you can live where you get no choice on what you have or what it costs, he’d have just shot you.

Your “system” imposes constraints on pretty much everything. That’s a condition of participation, you’ve pointed it out repeatedly that someone other than the end user would get to dictate price and availability.

A benevolent despot then.

What constraints? You're making shit up. Where have I pointed it out... if I have pointed it out repeatedly, it should be too hard for you to throw up the comments. The end user gets to dictate price and availability do they? bwaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaa. How quaint.

Ocean1

24th February 2014, 16:53

We or i have? you just keep on saying you are Ok with it?

I'd personally rather not borrow money at all, and if I did I'd be making any decision on whether the deal is affordable and represents an acceptable risk for me or not on the price, not who's profiting from it.

I did ask you to show me an alternative that puts as much money on the market and doesn't completely fuck it, but IIRC you simply repeated "less profit". And I'm afraid that classifies as fucking the market, because everyone with savings would suffer.

I guess you could mandate every single element of every banking and investment transaction, but if you don't like the power the banks have now then I don't think you'd be very happy with the totalitarian system that'd require.

mashman

24th February 2014, 16:59

Not asked, just the raw figures, how much of the workforce is employed in those jobs.

There's no right to judge someone poorly just for having an opinion different to your own. Do you really think otherwise?

You don't seem to understand that you will have to convince almost everyone, now if people you talk to have agreed with this shit, I couldn't care less, many clearly disagree as well.

You don't need any extra money to get more GDP. Take a look at what the P in GDP stands for and educate yourself.

We've been through this. Your point was taken. You'll get your figures when they're needed.

Nope.

Yes I do. I have stated it repeatedly... but it won't be me or NOW that'll be doing the convincing, it'll be friends/family/colleagues i.e. communication between those who usually discuss these things. NOW will merely offer a solution, every alternative solution will be considered. True, many who agree once disagreed until they had further details. THEY change THEIR minds in light of new information. You need different information, noted.

So the financial system wouldn't have collapsed had the banks stopped printing money then? Coz you say that all we need to do is roll up our sleeves and produce more, erm, hmmmmm, what exactly are we going to be producing?

Brian d marge

24th February 2014, 16:59

You use your Mom as collateral on loans?

Shes as good as gold

Sent from my SC-01F using Tapatalk

Ocean1

24th February 2014, 17:03

The end user gets to dictate price and availability do they? bwaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaa. How quaint.

So under your system I can earn more than your bin man?

No?

That's what's known as a constraint.

So is not being able to decide what I want to buy, and how much I want to pay for it without interference from your comittee.

The end user gets to dictate price and availability do they? bwaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaa. How quaint.

So last time you stopped in at the shop on the way home for some milk you didn't bother checking the price befor you paid for it?

Or did you call your comittee to check that was OK?

Ocean1

24th February 2014, 17:05

Shes as good as gold

Sent from my SC-01F using Tapatalk

:laugh: Stephen, I have absolutely no doubt of it.

husaberg

24th February 2014, 17:16

I'd personally rather not borrow money at all, and if I did I'd be making any decision on whether the deal is affordable and represents an acceptable risk for me or not on the price, not who's profiting from it.

I did ask you to show me an alternative that puts as much money on the market and doesn't completely fuck it, but IIRC you simply repeated "less profit". And I'm afraid that classifies as fucking the market, because everyone with savings would suffer.

I guess you could mandate every single element of every banking and investment transaction, but if you don't like the power the banks have now then I don't think you'd be very happy with the totalitarian system that'd require.

everyone would unless its for a ponzi scheme.
There is plenty of money around for the economies. its just its tied up by those at the top.Ie the distribution of wealth.
the other problem is the value of goods vs the av wages. It is not the availability of money its,what the average person recieve's as wages vs what it actually buys in real terms.................

bogan

24th February 2014, 17:24

We've been through this. Your point was taken. You'll get your figures when they're needed.

Nope.

Yes I do. I have stated it repeatedly... but it won't be me or NOW that'll be doing the convincing, it'll be friends/family/colleagues i.e. communication between those who usually discuss these things. NOW will merely offer a solution, every alternative solution will be considered. True, many who agree once disagreed until they had further details. THEY change THEIR minds in light of new information. You need different information, noted.

So the financial system wouldn't have collapsed had the banks stopped printing money then? Coz you say that all we need to do is roll up our sleeves and produce more, erm, hmmmmm, what exactly are we going to be producing?

Fine, but don't expect me to give this half assed idea any weight until then.

Exactly, so don't judge your mate as being negative just cos he thought your idea was a waste of time.

It'll be the facts and logic, anyone with either can start the ball rolling on that. Unfortunately I've not seen much of either from NOW.

In increasing the GDP, the world value of production is increased, you don't have to print any extra money for that to happen. Just the money already in circulation has to change hands more often. Do you understand yet?

Brian d marge

24th February 2014, 18:11

Currency is the ultimate lube for wealth transfer

The more of the stuff ya can get the more wealth ya can get . Even the jermans having to wait

On a side note the inspection team from jermany were shown their gold but couldnt check other areas as in the dodgy buggers painted a few lead bars and said ya can look but dont touch

Sent from my SC-01F using Tapatalk

mashman

24th February 2014, 22:13

So under your system I can earn more than your bin man?

No?

That's what's known as a constraint.

So is not being able to decide what I want to buy, and how much I want to pay for it without interference from your comittee.

So last time you stopped in at the shop on the way home for some milk you didn't bother checking the price befor you paid for it?

Or did you call your comittee to check that was OK?

Hint 1: "my" system does not involve earning.
Hint 2: "my" system does not involve buying or paying.

mashman

24th February 2014, 22:21

Fine, but don't expect me to give this half assed idea any weight until then.

Exactly, so don't judge your mate as being negative just cos he thought your idea was a waste of time.

It'll be the facts and logic, anyone with either can start the ball rolling on that. Unfortunately I've not seen much of either from NOW.

In increasing the GDP, the world value of production is increased, you don't have to print any extra money for that to happen. Just the money already in circulation has to change hands more often. Do you understand yet?

I wouldn't expect any less.

I didn't judge him, he judged NOW as entirely negative, the 2 girlz judged NOW as positive. I was neutral. About that bias thing you keep talkin about........

There's plenty of facts and logic, you choose not to see them that way because you aren't provided with the facts that you want. No money = no poverty, free education, free healthcare, almost eradication of financial crime, no such thing as financial/budget constraint. All fact and logic.

I thought money laundering was a crime.

bogan

24th February 2014, 22:32

I wouldn't expect any less.

I didn't judge him, he judged NOW as entirely negative, the 2 girlz judged NOW as positive. I was neutral. About that bias thing you keep talkin about........

There's plenty of facts and logic, you choose not to see them that way because you aren't provided with the facts that you want. No money = no poverty, free education, free healthcare, almost eradication of financial crime, no such thing as financial/budget constraint. All fact and logic.

I thought money laundering was a crime.

Certainly sounded a bit judgy "Moral of the story: you make of it what you will. The obstacles you put in your way are just that, yours"

Not off to a good (re) start, no money != no poverty as poverty is defined as "poverty (usually uncountable, plural poverties)
The quality or state of being poor or indigent; want or scarcity of means of subsistence; indigence; need. [quotations ▼]
Any deficiency of elements or resources that are needed or desired, or that constitute richness; as, poverty of soil; poverty of the blood; poverty of ideas."
If your scheme doesn't work everyone lives in poverty, and there is no fact/logic to show it will, so your 'fact' most certainly is not. Likewise for free healthcare etc, only a fact if you can demonstrate NOW will have the resources to provide such services in full; which you've admitted you can't, because there needs to be more info. Again, your 'fact', just isn't.

Increasing GDP is not money laundering, are you fucking retarded?

Brian d marge

24th February 2014, 22:33

Japanese groth this year 1.7 percent
China 7
Global 3.7
According to the imf （the link was posted before）
They are leaving the details of growth up to each individual country but collectively the target was 5 godrillion or what ever
Mind u when it came to america
They said it was ' critical to avoid a withdrawal of monetary policy accommodation'

There's ya actual gobbledegook right there

But a lot of people are saying that the debt is unsustainable

Stephen

Sent from my SC-01F using Tapatalk

mstriumph

24th February 2014, 23:49

But what if you have excess goats/eggs and no desire for lambs/hens? The added value is that you don't need to arse about for 63 weeks trying to find somebody to swap an ipod for your 5 ton of manure; or arse about for 37 weeks finding people to swap 317 in between items to complete the trade. And that is a long time to have 5 ton of shit lying around
I guess you develop a taste for egg-battered goat cutlets or whatever ............... it was the best example I could think of at the time, please excuse :innocent: anyway, it's an hypothesis, for the sake of argument, nothing more.

mashman

25th February 2014, 08:03

Isn't that truth and not judgement?

Ironic that you use a definition to highlight something that is uncountable. Poverty exists. Yes there are many reasons for it including poor decision making i.e. parents spending on piss instead of the kids. If food availability is restricted by money, which it is in the case of kids, then that restriction will be removed. If there's a toss up between paying the phone bill/electricity etc... then that toss up will no longer exist. Trade-offs highlight poverty. No doubt some will jump up and down at the decisions being made that lead to that situation, but it doesn't stop the situation from being there... and most of those trade-offs are financial. Removing the financial aspect, coz the IMF/UN measure poverty in $ (i.e. what your money can buy), will see an end to that poverty. But go ahead, do as the govt does, deny that it exists because there's no definition for it.

It is in my book. No I'm not retarded, that'd be an insult to those who are.

bogan

25th February 2014, 08:33

I guess you develop a taste for egg-battered goat cutlets or whatever ............... it was the best example I could think of at the time, please excuse :innocent: anyway, it's an hypothesis, for the sake of argument, nothing more.

It's not a bad example since that is about where bartering got up to, then was superceded, the vast range of products simply means we have great use for an intermediate currency; finding people who want to do the same straight swap would just be too difficult.

Isn't that truth and not judgement?

Ironic that you use a definition to highlight something that is uncountable. Poverty exists. Yes there are many reasons for it including poor decision making i.e. parents spending on piss instead of the kids. If food availability is restricted by money, which it is in the case of kids, then that restriction will be removed. If there's a toss up between paying the phone bill/electricity etc... then that toss up will no longer exist. Trade-offs highlight poverty. No doubt some will jump up and down at the decisions being made that lead to that situation, but it doesn't stop the situation from being there... and most of those trade-offs are financial. Removing the financial aspect, coz the IMF/UN measure poverty in $ (i.e. what your money can buy), will see an end to that poverty. But go ahead, do as the govt does, deny that it exists because there's no definition for it.

It is in my book. No I'm not retarded, that'd be an insult to those who are.

Truth would be, "he had a different opinion to me and I respect that since there is not enough info to draw any solid conclusions", the bias is you think his opinion is an obstacle.

We've been over this, nobody denys the poverty currently exists. What I said was NOW has not been proven to be sustainable, and if it is not sustainable, then many more will live in poverty under NOW than they do now.

To be honest, clinging to biased opinions like that rather than educating yourself, that is a lot worse than retardation. I have no tolerance for willful ignorance and willful stupidity. You've thoroughly convinced me your financial opinions are nothing more than selfish drivel.

mashman

25th February 2014, 09:02

bogan

25th February 2014, 09:11

I am happy with my bias, as was he with his.

Why would many more end up living in poverty? What we currently have isn't sustainable and it isn't wholly down to overpopulation. NOW is a silver bullet attempt at addressing most of the issues we have today. Most of the issues we have today are financial. Shuffling where money is needed in an attempt to make things better isn't working on a wide enough scale... evidenced by us having the issues in the first place. In theory NOW ticks a lot of boxes in regards to addressing those issues. As I've said before, worse case scenario, we end up returning to a financial system.

:killingme pot kettle black.

Exactly, called you out on bias, now you admitted bias, finally.

It is not a silver bullet, its only a half thought out idea as you have said a number of times. The half that is still in question is whether it is sustainable, if it is not, then it will not eliminate poverty.

Not even close, I provided a clear explanation of what GDP is, and how it can be increased. None of which relates to money laundering; which businesses are the legit, and which are just fronts, and what gains have been illegally gotten do you think? your post is demonstrably uninformed, and rather than growing a spine and admitting it, you fall back on 'well it's my opinion' and typical dodging of the point to maintain your precious disillusions. You're a joke, and the idea's you put forward look worse than they otherwise might simply because it is an imbecile putting them forward.

mashman

25th February 2014, 09:25

Exactly, called you out on bias, now you admitted bias, finally.

It is not a silver bullet, its only a half thought out idea as you have said a number of times. The half that is still in question is whether it is sustainable, if it is not, then it will not eliminate poverty.

Not even close, I provided a clear explanation of what GDP is, and how it can be increased. None of which relates to money laundering; which businesses are the legit, and which are just fronts, and what gains have been illegally gotten do you think? your post is demonstrably uninformed, and rather than growing a spine and admitting it, you fall back on 'well it's my opinion' and typical dodging of the point to maintain your precious disillusions. You're a joke, and the idea's you put forward look worse than they otherwise might simply because it is an imbecile putting them forward.

According To you, there is no opinion that can be held without bias. So using your terms, yes I am biased in favour of one system over another, but not without reason. You may not like the reason I'm using, but hey, can't please everyone.

I said silver bullet attempt. The result will be up to the people.

bwaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaa.

bogan

25th February 2014, 09:32

yes I am biased in favour of one system over another

I said silver bullet attempt. The result will be up to the people.

bwaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaa.

noted

Well, luckily for all of us, even attempting it is up to the (more intelligent) people.

Another stunning rebuttal giving us a direct insight into your wisdom.

Brian d marge

25th February 2014, 10:39

bogan

25th February 2014, 10:45

Stealing money is a crime

for u and me

But when u play with the big boys its all part of the act

Here is their latest move

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/9755430/American-tax-grab-may-target-Kiwis

Stephen

and that just the tip of the iceberg

On the one hand, tax dodgers is something the financial system is (rightly so) critised for, so catching them is a noble goal. On the other hand, that doesn't seem to be a very smart way to go about it.

Brian d marge

25th February 2014, 11:05

On the one hand, tax dodgers is something the financial system is (rightly so) critised for, so catching them is a noble goal. On the other hand, that doesn't seem to be a very smart way to go about it.

Here some that do need to be "reminded " not a child of a US citizen whom has never set foot on US soil.

1. Microsoft, $76.4 billion
2. IBM, $44.4 billion
3. Cisco Systems, $41.3 billion
4. Apple, $40.4 billion
5. Hewlett-Packard, $33.4 billion
6. Google, $33.3 billion
7. Oracle, $26.2 billion
8. Dell, $19.0 billion
9. Intel, $17.5 billion
10. Qualcomm, $16.4 billion
Source: Bloomberg, August 2013

They especially the NSA has been " REQUIRING YOUR DETAILS" a bit too much of late

Ive had two requests, one from a supplier in Canada and dropbox , both sent an email to me saying they have been asked to share their customer database details , I wrote back and said under NO circumstances ( not that it will help)

Stephen aka Im-too-fking-tired-to-be-a-terrorist

Scuba_Steve

25th February 2014, 11:33

Seems someone missed the 'T' off the end of the operation name "Fatca "

http://brianrowe.org/IMT550/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/fatcat.jpg

mashman

25th February 2014, 11:34

Well, luckily for all of us, even attempting it is up to the (more intelligent) people.

Another stunning rebuttal giving us a direct insight into your wisdom.

I'm banking on it.

Given your barrage of highly amusing abuse and lack of answering questions in any form of detail, but more reciting what the web has to offer in regards to an explanation of GDP and its inner working, it seemed pertinent to throw you a bone as you seemed to need to vent. Now explain to me, in detail, why the financial system wouldn't have collapsed had the banks stopped printing money then? (if all that was needed was to use "the money already in circulation has to change hands more often")... and once you've done that, explain to me what exactly are we going to be producing? (in order to make those transactions take place)

Ocean1

25th February 2014, 12:11

You're a joke, and the idea's you put forward look worse than they otherwise might simply because it is an imbecile putting them forward.

Be thankful for small mercies: He's unlikely ever to be responsible for delivering a cure for asthma.

Ocean1

25th February 2014, 12:15

Stealing money is a crime

for u and me

But when u play with the big boys its all part of the act

Here is their latest move

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/9755430/American-tax-grab-may-target-Kiwis

Stephen

and that just the tip of the iceberg

"US persons" is definitely a weasel word.

Replace it with "US citizens" and I don't have a problem with it, they're protecting their legitimate interests, nothing to do with theft.

Edit: how many countries allow dual citizenship? I know the US doesn't but that most comonwealth countries do...

bogan

25th February 2014, 13:50

Given your barrage of highly amusing abuse and lack of answering questions in any form of detail, but more reciting what the web has to offer in regards to an explanation of GDP and its inner working, it seemed pertinent to throw you a bone as you seemed to need to vent. Now explain to me, in detail, why the financial system wouldn't have collapsed had the banks stopped printing money then? (if all that was needed was to use "the money already in circulation has to change hands more often")... and once you've done that, explain to me what exactly are we going to be producing? (in order to make those transactions take place)

I don't bother answering questions that are clearly just you trying to change the subject again. If you wish me to do so, you must first demonstrate the cognitive ability to grasp some simple financial concepts which you've already deemed yourself able to comment on. Namely, GDP, and money laundering.

Can you explain how an increase in GDP is equivalent to money laundering?

mashman

25th February 2014, 15:17

I don't bother answering questions that are clearly just you trying to change the subject again. If you wish me to do so, you must first demonstrate the cognitive ability to grasp some simple financial concepts which you've already deemed yourself able to comment on. Namely, GDP, and money laundering.

Can you explain how an increase in GDP is equivalent to money laundering?

Amusing given that that's the second time I had asked those questions... and yes, that was before you got the answer money laundering (and deservedly so). My questions where base on seeking further information as you had just put up GDP and money circulation as a reason not to print more money.

So, let's try it on chronological order... or are you going to slime your way out of answering those questions like you did with the last round of questions before I gave up? Highly ironic, but much to my amusement.

Brian d marge

25th February 2014, 15:27

"US persons" is definitely a weasel word.

Replace it with "US citizens" and I don't have a problem with it, they're protecting their legitimate interests, nothing to do with theft.

Edit: how many countries allow dual citizenship? I know the US doesn't but that most comonwealth countries do...

Yup have no problem with a citizen paying a fair tax

Have massive problems with tax avoidance which is basically theft
And un warranted survelance
Im not a us citizen and have no wish to be or to go to that wonderful place
Nor is terrorisim an excuse

Stephen

Sent from my SC-01F using Tapatalk

bogan

25th February 2014, 15:27

Amusing given that that's the second time I had asked those questions... and yes, that was before you got the answer money laundering (and deservedly so). My questions where base on seeking further information as you had just put up GDP and money circulation as a reason not to print more money.

So, let's try it on chronological order... or are you going to slime your way out of answering those questions like you did with the last round of questions before I gave up? Highly ironic, but much to my amusement.

I think evaluating your cognitive ability take precedence over chronological order. Also, you brought up money laundering in response to the discussion about GDP and circulation, so it is in chronological order anyway. It is not a difficult question that I ask you, however the one you ask me is rather complex, so how about you show you have the ability to understand the answer...

Brian d marge

25th February 2014, 15:30

husaberg

25th February 2014, 15:40

Btw
How the smoke screen of poverty in nz playing out
The TPPA been signed yet while the popilace were watching the pollys talk about poverty
Or are jermanys problems caused by the jewish community?

Von stuuck

Sent from my SC-01F using Tapatalk

The issues you speak of with poverty.
Simply put there is obviously too many poor people
If we eliminate this mass of poor people problem will then of course be solved.
Von teese

mashman

25th February 2014, 16:02

I think evaluating your cognitive ability take precedence over chronological order. Also, you brought up money laundering in response to the discussion about GDP and circulation, so it is in chronological order anyway. It is not a difficult question that I ask you, however the one you ask me is rather complex, so how about you show you have the ability to understand the answer...

You could have just said no.

bogan

25th February 2014, 16:10

You could have just said no.

How about I give you the short version then. Money is printed/released into circulation as a means of controlling inflation and other economic factors. There are of course complex interactions between the GDP and inflation, and thus money in circulation etc, but the G20's approach is most certainly not to print all that money to increase the GDP figures. It would collapse (or at least go very poorly) if no more money was put into circulation, but that is a different issue from GDP.

Now, how is an increase in GDP the same as money laundering?

Brian d marge

25th February 2014, 16:15

Nee how wa

Im off to learn me some russian and some chinese

Sent from my SC-01F using Tapatalk

Ocean1

25th February 2014, 16:20

Yup have no problem with a citizen paying a fair tax

I've warned you before about that F word.

Have massive problems with tax avoidance which is basically theft

And as usual you've got it arse backwards. Under any rational legal definition tax is theft…

Tax is a “pecuniary burden laid upon individuals or property owners to support the government [...] a payment exacted by legislative authority.” A tax “is not a voluntary payment or donation, but an enforced contribution, exacted pursuant to legislative authority” and is “any contribution imposed by government [...] whether under the name of toll, tribute, tallage, gabel, impost, duty, custom, excise, subsidy, aid, supply, or other name”.

… as even that lawyer and tax expert Geoffrey Palmer said.

And tax avoidance is perfectly legal. In fact that's the difference between avoidance and evasion, which is presumably what you meant.

But even then, if someone was stealing your bike every weekend wouldn’t you feel inclined to hide it on Friday?

SPman

25th February 2014, 16:24

Im not a us citizen and have no wish to be or to go to that wonderful place

Stephen

A pity - it's a wonderful place - just a shame about most of the people....mind you, could say the same about most places........

mashman

25th February 2014, 16:32

How about I give you the short version then. Money is printed/released into circulation as a means of controlling inflation and other economic factors. There are of course complex interactions between the GDP and inflation, and thus money in circulation etc,

Old news.

but the G20's approach is most certainly not to print all that money to increase the GDP figures. It would collapse (or at least go very poorly) if no more money was put into circulation, but that is a different issue from GDP.

That's different to what you originally stated. Funny that all they've done all along is to print billions and billions and billions of $ over the best part of the last century and the financial system hasn't collapsed... especially remarkable given that even though they've rammed in even more billions of $ since the GFC. So why would they change such a winning formula all of a sudden I wonder if they could just fuck with GDP and a little bit of printing. So what you say doesn't stack up... furthermore it doesn't actually answer the question. Explain how money goes in one end and comes out the other end 3 times over (at least it was 3 times when I did economics back in the day).

Now, how is an increase in GDP the same as money laundering?

Not yet. You've still got a question to go...

explain to me what exactly are we going to be producing?

bogan

25th February 2014, 16:47

That's different to what you originally stated. Funny that all they've done all along is to print billions and billions and billions of $ over the best part of the last century and the financial system hasn't collapsed... especially remarkable given that even though they've rammed in even more billions of $ since the GFC. So why would they change such a winning formula all of a sudden I wonder if they could just fuck with GDP and a little bit of printing. So what you say doesn't stack up... furthermore it doesn't actually answer the question. Explain how money goes in one end and comes out the other end 3 times over (at least it was 3 times when I did economics back in the day).

Not yet. You've still got a question to go...

Like I said, the G20 declaration is to increase GDP, it is not to do so by printing and extra few trillion dollars. Their declaration is not to stop printing money either, because that would be a bad idea. To put it simply, you were wrong to equate the G20's declaration with printing more money.

Same products we do now, just more of them. Or higher priced stuff. Basically, increasing GDP means people have a higher turnover, we can buy more stuff, or better quality stuff (unless the population increases at the same rate ofc).

There, all done, now hold up your end.

Akzle

25th February 2014, 16:56

Same products we do now, just more of them. Or higher priced stuff. Basically, increasing GDP means people have a higher turnover, we can buy more stuff, or better quality stuff (unless the population increases at the same rate ofc).

but, then anyone who wants to buy shit needs to earn more, to afford it, which means their products/services will have to have the price hiked (bonus - etra tax $ for govtjews) and then anyone who wants to buy shit needs to earn more, to afford it, which means their products/services will have to have the price hiked (bonus - etra tax $ for govtjews) and then anyone who wants to buy shit needs to earn more, to afford it, which means their products/services will have to have the price hiked (bonus - etra tax $ for govtjews) and then anyone who wants to buy shit needs to earn more, to afford it, which means their products/services will have to have the price hiked (bonus - etra tax $ for govtjews) and then.....

mashman

25th February 2014, 16:58

Like I said, the G20 declaration is to increase GDP, it is not to do so by printing and extra few trillion dollars. Their declaration is not to stop printing money, because that would be a bad idea. To put it simply, you were wrong to equate the G20's declaration with printing more money.

Same products we do now, just more of them. Or higher priced stuff. Basically, increasing GDP means people have a higher turnover, we can buy more stuff, or better quality stuff (unless the population increases at the same rate ofc).

There, all done, now hold up your end.

Amusing... so where's all the demand for these higher value products gonna come from? Someone has to else there's no more "value" being produced. Unless of course we're going to buy $2 billion worth of stuff off China and they're going to buy $2 billion worth of stuff off us and the magical multiplier is going to burst into action and save the day. Growth via consumption in a world of finite resources, what a quality solution :facepalm:.

I told you why. I guess you didn't like the explanation. The last time that happened I gave it up, this time I thought I'd have some fun... and you delivered. Thanks. However there was an element of truth in what I said........ meh, the way I see it these days, all money production is a crime (especially the interest part). It is printed without my permission and added to my tab and then filtered into society via banks.

mashman

25th February 2014, 17:00

but, then anyone who wants to buy shit needs to earn more, to afford it, which means their products/services will have to have the price hiked (bonus - etra tax $ for govtjews) and then anyone who wants to buy shit needs to earn more, to afford it, which means their products/services will have to have the price hiked (bonus - etra tax $ for govtjews) and then anyone who wants to buy shit needs to earn more, to afford it, which means their products/services will have to have the price hiked (bonus - etra tax $ for govtjews) and then anyone who wants to buy shit needs to earn more, to afford it, which means their products/services will have to have the price hiked (bonus - etra tax $ for govtjews) and then.....

Yeah, but it'll trickle down.

bogan

25th February 2014, 17:05

Amusing... so where's all the demand for these higher value products gonna come from? Someone has to else there's no more "value" being produced. Unless of course we're going to buy $2 billion worth of stuff off China and they're going to buy $2 billion worth of stuff off us and the magical multiplier is going to burst into action and save the day. Growth via consumption in a world of finite resources, what a quality solution :facepalm:.

I told you why. I guess you didn't like the explanation. The last time that happened I gave it up, this time I thought I'd have some fun... and you delivered. Thanks. However there was an element of truth in what I said........ meh, the way I see it these days, all money production is a crime (especially the interest part). It is printed without my permission and added to my tab and then filtered into society via banks.

Well, as more goods are sold, there is more disposable income, so more goods can be bought! There is no magical multiplier, they just do so more often or in larger quantities, and nobody has said this stuff has to come from consumption of finite resources.

You have never given an explanation why you think that, just that it is something you want to think so you can slander the financial system more.

You were demonstrably wrong to equate GDP increase with money printing, you were demonstrably wrong to equate it with money laundering. Now if you hide behind the, 'I answered you but you didn't like it excuse', you are willfully lacking the comprehension to discuss anything of value, and you'll get nothing but contempt from me because of that.

mashman

25th February 2014, 17:17

Well, as more goods are sold, there is more disposable income, so more goods can be bought! There is no magical multiplier, they just do so more often, and nobody has said this stuff has to come from consumption of finite resources.

You have never given an explanation why you think that, just that it is something you want to think so you can slander the financial system more.

You were demonstrably wrong to equate GDP increase with money printing, you were demonstrably wrong to equate it with money laundering. Now if you hide behind the, 'I answered you but you didn't like it excuse', you are willfully lacking the comprehension to discuss anything of value, and you'll get nothing but contempt from me because of that.

Who's going to be these higher end goods? And do they just have that money sitting around? Or are they going to borrow it? What percentage of the population have to borrow? Which resources are finite? What frequency of transaction is required?

I told you why I initially stated it, which was the point. I guess you didn't accept that and drew your own bias... as I certainly don't need more reasons to logically discount the financial system as of value to the people.

Was I?

but the G20's approach is most certainly not to print all that money to increase the GDP figures

Not all. My statement still stands as I never stated how much money was going to be printed. Given fractional reserve banking they only need to print (maybe I should have written that calculator after all, meh) but they certainly don't have to print all of it. So your assumption was wrong and perhaps you should have asked instead of your jerk reaction of attack kill kill.

bogan

25th February 2014, 17:22

Who's going to be these higher end goods? And do they just have that money sitting around? Or are they going to borrow it? What percentage of the population have to borrow? Which resources are finite? What frequency of transaction is required?

I told you why I initially stated it, which was the point. I guess you didn't accept that and drew your own bias... as I certainly don't need more reasons to logically discount the financial system as of value to the people.

Was I?

Not all. My statement still stands as I never stated how much money was going to be printed. Given fractional reserve banking they only need to print (maybe I should have written that calculator after all, meh) but they certainly don't have to print all of it. So your assumption was wrong and perhaps you should have asked instead of your jerk reaction of attack kill kill.

As a courtesy (since you didn't seem to pick it up) I'm letting you know I now consider you too stupid to have a rational discussion with, so goodbye.

mashman

25th February 2014, 17:32

As a courtesy (since you didn't seem to pick it up) I'm letting you know I now consider you too stupid to have a rational discussion with, so goodbye.

:wavey: .........................

Brian d marge

25th February 2014, 19:58

bogan

25th February 2014, 20:12

Snip

You were demonstrably wrong to equate GDP increase with money printing, you were demonstrably wrong to equate it with money laundering.

Im not in a position to lead you to the correct web site atm
But a certain country ( the bossy one who spys a lot)
Has been borrowing money ( a lot of money ) and adding it to its GDP.
Thus increasing the gdp figures with borrowed money

Probably has one set of books for the boss and another set for the tax man

On another note , I like tax , it helps pay for my community. Excessive tax or false flag tax such as speed cameras are bang out of order

So while Im quite happy to pay my fair share , I do my best to evade the unjust Taxes. ( and they cn kiss my hairy arse for every red cent )

Stephen

Sent from my SC-01F using Tapatalk

Even if correct, one country borrowing money and cooking the books to increase their on paper GDP doesn't mean the world will start printing more money for the same effect, or that it somehow becomes money laundering. Sorry but GDP is a good and widely used metric within the financial system, and if people cannot understand the simple concept behind it, they're severely undereducated to be critiquing the system.

I have the same views on tax, though the unjust stuff is not always avoidable, even just avoiding some of it (like rego for the weekend rider) is often enough to vent what needs venting.

carbonhed

25th February 2014, 20:53

To think I used to think finance, economics and money in general was as boring as fuck! You'se cahnts have taken it to a whole 'nother level of fucking tedium.

You desperately need to get loaded.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/vDK2svrGG_c" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Brian d marge

25th February 2014, 21:34

Brian d marge

25th February 2014, 21:37

Even if correct, one country borrowing money and cooking the books to increase their on paper GDP doesn't mean the world will start printing more money for the same effect, or that it somehow becomes money laundering. Sorry but GDP is a good and widely used metric within the financial system, and if people cannot understand the simple concept behind it, they're severely undereducated to be critiquing the system.

I have the same views on tax, though the unjust stuff is not always avoidable, even just avoiding some of it (like rego for the weekend rider) is often enough to vent what needs venting.

The mechanism of gdp etc is a good reporting tool but gaebage in garbage out
I know of one country mis reporting gdp i wouldnt be surprised if there are others

Stephen

Sent from my SC-01F using Tapatalk

mashman

26th February 2014, 13:56

bwaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaa

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BhUp4JxCIAAdBlN.jpg

blue rider

27th February 2014, 07:02

Social Welfare for some deserving Job Creating Companies. Cause without it, they would just close shop :eek5:

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/2/corporate-welfaresubsidiesboeingalcoa.html

Brian d marge

27th February 2014, 11:57

Social Welfare for some deserving Job Creating Companies. Cause without it, they would just close shop :eek5:

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/2/corporate-welfaresubsidiesboeingalcoa.html

tried the subsidy tracker

I think it full of crock

I typed in my wifes name and nothing , not a peep

Stephen

bogan

27th February 2014, 12:16

http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/photoshop/2/3/9/246239_slide.jpg?v=1

Interesting...

Akzle

27th February 2014, 12:24

[IMG]
Interesting...

and only 52 trillion debt! Yay!

bogan

27th February 2014, 22:45

and only 52 trillion debt! Yay!

Good thing those Martians were happy to lend us the money then right?

blue rider

28th February 2014, 06:23

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/27/gchq-nsa-webcam-images-internet-yahoo/print

trust us they said

Yea sure tui!

Brian d marge

28th February 2014, 11:48

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/27/gchq-nsa-webcam-images-internet-yahoo/print

trust us they said

Yea sure tui!

another take on it

http://rt.com/news/five-eyes-online-manipulation-deception-564/

Stephen

Scuba_Steve

28th February 2014, 17:46

Henry Ford... A wise man

https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/t1/1379560_10152065796877909_1237741739_n.jpg

bogan

28th February 2014, 17:49

Henry Ford... A wise man

The irony in that statement is, more often than not it's the ones who don't have a basic understanding of the economy that are pushing for a revolution; the 99% if you will, what a joke that was.

Scuba_Steve

28th February 2014, 17:51

The irony in that statement is, more often than not it's the ones who don't have a basic understanding of the economy that are pushing for a revolution; the 99% if you will, what a joke that was.

I usually find it's those with little knowledge of it that push the hardest for revolution while those with no knowledge of it are happy to keep it & even fight against change

bogan

28th February 2014, 17:55

I usually find it's those with little knowledge of it that push the hardest for revolution while those with no knowledge of it are happy to keep it & even fight against change

So decent knowledge = content
little knowledge = rebellious
no knowledge = apathetic

yeh that sounds pretty bang on tbh.

mashman

28th February 2014, 18:05

I usually find it's those with little knowledge of it that push the hardest for revolution while those with no knowledge of it are happy to keep it & even fight against change

It's not hard to spot that it isn't working. Only fools think otherwise. Tis a shame that revolution is the "wrong" way to go about it.

Ocean1

28th February 2014, 18:55

Henry Ford... A wise man

A complete nutter is what he was.

“History is more or less bunk.” — Henry Ford

“I invented the modern age.” — Henry Ford

“I never made a mistake in my life.” — Henry Ford

And a rabid anti Semitic.

“I regard Henry Ford as my inspiration.” — Adolf Hitler to a Detroit News reporter, 1931

And from the testimony of his family and associates a most unsavoury individual.

Ocean1

28th February 2014, 18:59

It's not hard to spot that it isn't working. Only fools think otherwise. Tis a shame that revolution is the "wrong" way to go about it.

Yeah? Why is confidence in it higher than it's been for 20 years?

I'd say it's more likely those who don't think it's working haven't got a clue what it's for.

mashman

28th February 2014, 19:14

A complete nutter is what he was.

“History is more or less bunk.” — Henry Ford

“I invented the modern age.” — Henry Ford

“I never made a mistake in my life.” — Henry Ford

And a rabid anti Semitic.

“I regard Henry Ford as my inspiration.” — Adolf Hitler to a Detroit News reporter, 1931

And from the testimony of his family and associates a most unsavoury individual.

Even wise men can be dickheads.

Yeah? Why is confidence in it higher than it's been for 20 years?

I'd say it's more likely those who don't think it's working haven't got a clue what it's for.

:killingme been reading the news and swallowing a little propaganda eh. Quite amusing given that the very same sources have been saying the exact opposite for the last 5+ years. Wonder why it would all of a sudden change? It couldn't be an election year could it? Now, in order for me to laugh at you some more, what is the source of the stats and what demographic was sampled and in what numbers?

Of course you would... and you're entirely free to misplace that confidence.

Brian d marge

28th February 2014, 19:22

The ones with the mostest knowledge have their arses covered of course they are content

As for Confidence, Depends of whom you enquire

Stephen

Scuba_Steve

28th February 2014, 19:41

A complete nutter is what he was.

“History is more or less bunk.” — Henry Ford <- well can't say he's totally wrong there but thats also paraphrased severely

“I invented the modern age.” — Henry Ford <- Not sure about inventing it but he definitely helped it along

“I never made a mistake in my life.” — Henry Ford <- yea that ones probably going a bit far

And a rabid anti Semitic.

“I regard Henry Ford as my inspiration.” — Adolf Hitler to a Detroit News reporter, 1931 <- meh, & Walt Disney was down with Hitlers ways

And from the testimony of his family and associates a most unsavoury individual.

Doesn't change the fact he was a wise man
"Any customer can have a car painted any colour that he wants so long as it is black." or to paraphrase "Any colour so long as it's black" & lets face it never has there been a finer paraphrased quote

Brian d marge

28th February 2014, 21:28

magic tits

Whooooaarrr

http://<iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/V9cZrV620pQ" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="560"></iframe> (http://<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/V9cZrV620pQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>)

stephen

Brian d marge

1st March 2014, 01:34

mashman

1st March 2014, 06:11

poor people are destroying the country , they need help

please support your political party , who will lift the middle class

by voting this year , you will be helping NZ

please vote

Stephen

and dont worry about the trans-pacific partnership agreement , its all good ,. After all Britain is watching our porn

Oh come on, that's a cheap shot. Don't listen to that fucknuckle... I mean don't listen to my negatively leaning colleague.

Poor people are lazy. They simply aren't trying hard enough. They need our help.

Please vote for the corporations that spend billions in your communities every year.

By voting this year, you will be helping corporations to be allowed to operate above the law. In doing so you will be helping NZ, you will be helping your fellow man and you will be helping the lazy by allowing the corporations to give the NZ people what they need, ECT.

Please vote. But don't trust the guy above as he doesn't use enough words and his spelling and grandma are poor. He also sees NZ as being destroyed, which, is, a blatant lie, because people, we are clearly better off than most nations in this world and we should be grateful for this. Moreover we should spread our message of superiority around the globe and encourage our values, just like our forefathers did before us. Why would you trust the man above? He's probably gay too.

The trans-pacific partnership agreement is Key to us suing the US for taking our rightful status as #1... a status that has clearly been abused over the years. So what say you New Zealand? A brighter future awaits us all because we are better

and my Dr said that watching porn is good cardio exercise. Go hard New Zealand

HEIL.