The value of money has dropped by two thirds in 30 years [Archive] - Page 2

View Full Version : The value of money has dropped by two thirds in 30 years

Pages : 1 [2] 3

mashman

12th March 2013, 21:07

yeah. kicked me out, the pricks.

didn't like it too much when i started questioning the lawfulness of the unlawful detention of peoples who haven't committed crimes, either...

:shit: well I can't say I'm surprised. You just wanted to fail the interview and stay on the dole ya lazy fucka.

Brian d marge

13th March 2013, 00:56

When I had to go and learn to use a big hamma , the rozzers had an induction stall , said they would waive all me crimes if I joined

I became a mechanic ... I could have been da

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/UmUOee7fRRQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

stephen of stepney green

Banditbandit

13th March 2013, 10:20

Fuck me - 17 pages now .. if silly hats didn't distract the political and economic drivel try some of this ...

http://saucycooks.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/nigella_lawson_1.jpg

ducatilover

13th March 2013, 11:07

Fuck me - 17 pages now .. if silly hats didn't distract the political and economic drivel try some of this ...

I'd let her cook my eggs

Sent from Chauvanism central using abused female rights

Akzle

13th March 2013, 14:08

Fuck me - 17 pages now .. if silly hats didn't distract the political and economic drivel try some of this ...

[IMG]nigella_lawson_1.jpg

i'm guessing i'd get it if i had a teev.

Sent from a tube of KY

mashman

13th March 2013, 18:11

Fuck me - 17 pages now .. if silly hats didn't distract the political and economic drivel try some of this ...

One of the few women to offer up two desserts, both of which will leave you with sticky fingers, a sticky smile on yer face and chocolate sauce dribbling down yer chin.

Banditbandit

14th March 2013, 11:38

i'm guessing i'd get it if i had a teev.

Sent from a tube of KY

A rather attractive British TV chef .. with a great pair of assets ..

http://xfinity.comcast.net/blogs/tv/files/2013/01/nigella-thetaste.jpg

One of the few women to offer up two desserts, both of which will leave you with sticky fingers, a sticky smile on yer face and chocolate sauce dribbling down yer chin.

I'd certainly dribble something down my chin ...

ducatilover

14th March 2013, 12:29

A rather attractive British TV chef .. with a great pair of assets ..

I'd certainly dribble something down my chin ...

I must say I like a good asset endowed female.
So have we decided why the value of dosh has dropped and how we're going to fix it?

Sent from Eketahuna using morse code

Akzle

14th March 2013, 14:53

A rather attractive British TV chef .. with a great pair of assets
I'd certainly dribble something down my chin ...

1) yes, she has lovely eyes. i wonder what her vagina smells like.

2) i'd dribble something down her chin...

sent from between the pages stuck together

puddytat

14th March 2013, 15:31

I must say I like a good asset endowed female.
So have we decided why the value of dosh has dropped and how we're going to fix it?

Sent from Eketahuna using morse code

Yeah Bro....Everyone's going to start writing out I.O.Us

sent via my Bong

mashman

14th March 2013, 16:33

Ahhhhhh Nigella

Report, but what the hell
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtS2Ikk7A9I

So have we decided why the value of dosh has dropped and how we're going to fix it?

Yeah. Too many people are realising just how worthless it is and that the amount of crap that's being churned out just ain't worth the asking price. I know how to fix it, just need some money to get the show on the road... trust me, how much worse could I be ;)

Brian d marge

14th March 2013, 17:05

ohh , I failed at oxbridge but daddy knows the bbc so , one must get ones hands dirty

#Nigellaisarichbyatch

Stephen

ducatilover

14th March 2013, 17:35

Yeah. Too many people are realising just how worthless it is and that the amount of crap that's being churned out just ain't worth the asking price. I know how to fix it, just need some money to get the show on the road... trust me, how much worse could I be ;)

Sweet, I'll give ya $5 bro!

mashman

14th March 2013, 19:00

Sweet, I'll give ya $5 bro!

Cheers mate... put it all on black and we can split the difference.

puddytat

14th March 2013, 19:59

Well,...Solid Energy would certainly have lost 60% in value in the last 30 days....by doing just what the Govt suggested & revaluating themselves.....Pretty much what the Banksters do everyday,valueing the "supposed" value of whatever they want to make money off.
What fucks me off is that if you criticise any any part of the capatalist stystem you get called a commie...a bit like the Jews who use their get out of jail free card "your anti semetic" when ever they are criticised.
Funny that...
People & their fucking "isms". And "ists"

mashman

14th March 2013, 20:40

Akzle

15th March 2013, 22:09

People & their fucking "isms". And "ists"

mm. damn jew-ists and jew-isms.

Sent from the anti-government-gasm

puddytat

19th March 2013, 19:39

National has a Cyprus Plan for us....

http://www.greens.org.nz/press-releases/national-planning-cyprus-style-solution-new-zealand

What next fellow citizens......

jonbuoy

19th March 2013, 19:56

National has a Cyprus Plan for us....

http://www.greens.org.nz/press-releases/national-planning-cyprus-style-solution-new-zealand

What next fellow citizens......

Triggering a run on the banks in the other countries in the danger zone of a bailout - that will fix it. :scratch: Time to get that shoe box/mattress savings scheme up and running...

puddytat

19th March 2013, 20:29

Yeah well, with the interest they're paying on money in the Bank, is it enough to cover our risk? Maybe it is better off in an Agee jar.
Could it be that it sets up legislation for any other eventuality they deem important enough, to dip into for extraordinary reasons? Most likely.

mashman

19th March 2013, 20:37

National has a Cyprus Plan for us....

http://www.greens.org.nz/press-releases/national-planning-cyprus-style-solution-new-zealand

What next fellow citizens......

bwaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaa.

The Reserve Bank is in the final stages of implementing such a system eh. That was quick given that the media said that the Cyprus thing was a one off and an extraordinary measure. I wonder where the idea for the Reserve Bank to implement such a system came from?

As for what next. Our housing bubble to go pop perhaps and as we're already $50 billion in the red (I love the way they talk about getting back to surplus given that the govts overseas borrowing is $40 billion more than the last govt), we won't be able to borrow our way out of it.

Kind of ironic given that the govt gives tax breaks at the start of a recession and won't put them back to help bailout the economy, yet will borrow billions at the tax payers expense to fund the economic bailout and just to add insult to injury, they'll then use tax payer money, that has already been taxed, to produce a levy for bailing out the banks. And yet people laud the govt and the financial system as the best thing since sliced bread. Fuckin ignorants.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BFnSqkQCcAA1rmD.jpg

Ocean1

19th March 2013, 20:44

Yeah well, with the interest they're paying on money in the Bank, is it enough to cover our risk? Maybe it is better off in an Agee jar.

Yup, don't like the product then don't buy it.

Is the ultimate market control variable, eh?

puddytat

19th March 2013, 20:50

Yup, don't like the product then don't buy it.

Is the ultimate market control variable, eh?

Yep, freedom of choice is a wonderful thing. Use it while you can.

Brian d marge

19th March 2013, 21:03

I have bought a bicycle

Time to pack up and start smelling a few roses me thinks

Stephen

jonbuoy

19th March 2013, 21:45

Brian d marge

20th March 2013, 00:49

Its not going to encourage people to save money in banks. It used to be banks would pay you to look after your cash - now we pay them for the privilege and now they have the right to steal a portion to cover their own losses. Better off with vaults and safety deposit boxes. Its not even like they have set the limit to a high level - €100K in savings isn´t a huge amount even for joe public if your about to retire.

I wouldnt be saving money , I would a commodity that a lot of people need , copper , silver , gold maybe ( chinese love gold )

Copper, is good because you can make that ,,,,, or steal it

Stephen

Akzle

20th March 2013, 06:18

National has a Cyprus Plan for us....

http://www.greens.org.nz/press-releases/national-planning-cyprus-style-solution-new-zealand

What next fellow citizens......
it was actually done and dusted a while ago under the "open banking resolution" (OBR)
this is nothing new, it's just someone has decided to have a moan about it in public.

I would a commodity that a lot of people need , copper , silver , gold maybe ( chinese love gold )

mingians and a-rabs like gold too, but they got a fuckload more of it.

...i'm going to stockpile the antidote

mashman

20th March 2013, 16:32

Ocean1

20th March 2013, 17:27

I see that Cyprus have given the EU the grand get fucked. Could be interesting to see what happens.

Either they negotiate a new loan of some $15B with terms they can accept or they default on their debts. The first option would hurt them much less.

But then they probably should have figured that was a likely outcome when they spent someone else's money in the first place.

mashman

20th March 2013, 17:37

Either they negotiate a new loan of some $15B with terms they can accept or they default on their debts. The first option would hurt them much less.

But then they probably should have figured that was a likely outcome when they spent someone else's money in the first place.

Quite possibly.

You mean when they gave $4 billion to the EU as their contribution for helping out Greece? No room for sentiment in business though eh ;).

Genestho

20th March 2013, 17:44

National has a Cyprus Plan for us....

http://www.greens.org.nz/press-releases/national-planning-cyprus-style-solution-new-zealand

What next fellow citizens......

I'm surprised they're only just bringing that up now, I'm fairly certain the "haircut" legislation was put through last year!! Came across it while researching for something else.
The fact there was barely any media attention on it at the time illustrated how economically illiterate kiwis are, and I don't mean that in a rude way!
I think with this Cyprus situation, the so called fiscal cliff put off until April, the warnings over the housing bubble again, unless there IS an alternative - Kiwi's and anywhere else best be "sitting tight" for a long time yet!!

Akzle

20th March 2013, 17:46

Either they negotiate a new loan of some $15B with terms they can accept or they default on their debts. The first option would hurt them much less.

But then they probably should have figured that was a likely outcome when they spent someone else's money in the first place.

so who's "money" do you believe you're holding, mr ocean?

-edit-
i question possessive apostrophe?

Ocean1

20th March 2013, 19:14

so who's "money" do you believe you're holding, mr ocean?

-edit-
i question possessive apostrophe?

Mine. You can piss about with definitions of the ownership of the currency itself all you like, the fact remains that the value represented by the money in my posession was earned by me, it belongs to me, I have the right to negotiate exchanges for whatever goods or services I see fit and expect the reserve bank to honour that trade.

Money borrowed by someone in exchange for promises of future reimbursement and whatever other conditions imposed by the lender performs exactly the same, it can be tendered as payment for exactly the same goods or services as the above, indeed there's not much point in borrowing it if you can't. The promise of reimbursement remains, though, dunnit? And we tend to have a dim view of people who don't keep their side of an agreement, innit? They often find it difficult to find people to enter into any sort of agreement with.

Ocean1

20th March 2013, 19:16

Quite possibly.

You mean when they gave $4 billion to the EU as their contribution for helping out Greece? No room for sentiment in business though eh ;).

So keeping a promise of behaviour required of a member of that community automatically relieves them of the responsibility involved in any other promisses they've made?

Excellent, I'll call my bank in the AM, my second mortgage is toast.

mashman

20th March 2013, 19:24

So keeping a promise of behaviour required of a member of that community automatically relieves them of the responsibility involved in any other promisses they've made?

Excellent, I'll call my bank in the AM, my second mortgage is toast.

They would have been in a better state if they had have told them to fuck off. Instead, as you say, they fulfilled their promise and then got stabbed in the back for their efforts. I would have thought that giving them a helping hand instead of raping the populous would have been a nicer way to have done it. But this is standard business practice after all.

Ocean1

20th March 2013, 19:35

They would have been in a better state if they had have told them to fuck off. Instead, as you say, they fulfilled their promise and then got stabbed in the back for their efforts. I would have thought that giving them a helping hand instead of raping the populous would have been a nicer way to have done it. But this is standard business practice after all.

Stabbed in the back? They borrowed money they now can't pay back, it's that simple. All the squeeling about the consequences of that decision won't change the fact that they've had the benefit of someone else's efforts and don't see fit to put themselves out so far as to repay those people.

mashman

20th March 2013, 19:36

Brian d marge

20th March 2013, 19:41

Mine. You can piss about with definitions of the ownership of the currency itself all you like, the fact remains that the value represented by the money in my posession was earned by me, it belongs to me, I have the right to negotiate exchanges for whatever goods or services I see fit and expect the reserve bank to honour that trade.

Money borrowed by someone in exchange for promises of future reimbursement and whatever other conditions imposed by the lender performs exactly the same, it can be tendered as payment for exactly the same goods or services as the above, indeed there's not much point in borrowing it if you can't. The promise of reimbursement remains, though, dunnit? And we tend to have a dim view of people who don't keep their side of an agreement, innit? They often find it difficult to find people to enter into any sort of agreement with.

its dropped in value , trade it for something that increases , such as a Ducati widecase single

Stephen

Ocean1

20th March 2013, 20:18

its dropped in value , trade it for something that increases , such as a Ducati widecase single

Stephen

I'm onto it mate. Only I reckon the Duc is past it's peak, I'm on the hunt for an early Honda CT90.

Ocean1

20th March 2013, 20:23

Well that happens in business some times too. The EU should suck it up.

They may yet have to. But if they do that EU won't include Cyprus, who will nonetheless still owe the $15B and will have run out of people to borrow money from to repay older debts.

Life's fucking hard when you're a fuckwit, innit?

mashman

20th March 2013, 20:45

They may yet have to. But if they do that EU won't include Cyprus, who will nonetheless still owe the $15B and will have run out of people to borrow money from to repay older debts.

Life's fucking hard when you're a fuckwit, innit?

That's if they decide to pay their debts I guess. Praps the Russians will pitch in.

Not really.

Zedder

21st March 2013, 09:43

I'm surprised they're only just bringing that up now, I'm fairly certain the "haircut" legislation was put through last year!! Came across it while researching for something else.
The fact there was barely any media attention on it at the time illustrated how economically illiterate kiwis are, and I don't mean that in a rude way!
I think with this Cyprus situation, the so called fiscal cliff put off until April, the warnings over the housing bubble again, unless there IS an alternative - Kiwi's and anywhere else best be "sitting tight" for a long time yet!!

From what I saw, it's in the "first reading" stage:http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10872568

Banditbandit

21st March 2013, 10:52

Mine. You can piss about with definitions of the ownership of the currency itself all you like, the fact remains that the value represented by the money in my posession was earned by me, it belongs to me, I have the right to negotiate exchanges for whatever goods or services I see fit and expect the reserve bank to honour that trade.

Money borrowed by someone in exchange for promises of future reimbursement and whatever other conditions imposed by the lender performs exactly the same, it can be tendered as payment for exactly the same goods or services as the above, indeed there's not much point in borrowing it if you can't. The promise of reimbursement remains, though, dunnit? And we tend to have a dim view of people who don't keep their side of an agreement, innit? They often find it difficult to find people to enter into any sort of agreement with.

Yes - and Godzone's national debt is expected to reach $70billion this year ... would you be happy for some economist to raid your bank account to contribute to paying that debt?

Genestho

21st March 2013, 11:00

From what I saw, it's in the "first reading" stage:http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10872568

Perhaps it was the consultation that I read last year but, the info - clearly outlined was on the reserve bank's website almost a year ago, just after the 20k Govt guarantee to depositers was dropped. I've been watching events since then very very carefully.

Media are only now running with 'negative speculation', surprise surprise.... ;) first reading is better late than never, I suppose.

Zedder

21st March 2013, 11:35

Perhaps it was the consultation that I read last year but, the info - clearly outlined was on the reserve bank's website almost a year ago, just after the 20k Govt guarantee to depositers was dropped. I've been watching events since then very very carefully.

Media are only now running with 'negative speculation', surprise surprise.... ;) first reading is better late than never, I suppose.

Yep, the good ole media. The latest is a submissions deadline of 15 April this year: http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/finstab/banking/4430900.html

Banditbandit

21st March 2013, 12:10

Stabbed in the back? They borrowed money they now can't pay back, it's that simple. All the squeeling about the consequences of that decision won't change the fact that they've had the benefit of someone else's efforts and don't see fit to put themselves out so far as to repay those people.

Who's the "they" Mr Ocean ??? I know that you can equate the Cypriot Government with the Cypriot people ... but if that happened here you'd be one of the first to scream ...

Sure, the Cypriot people can vote out their Government, but once the money has been borrowed it won't matter if the Government changes .. the debt is stil there .. and the financiers were expecting the actual people (Ones like you and me) to bail out the sdebt the Government created ...

You'd never wear that here ... why expect them to do it there?

Ocean1

21st March 2013, 19:43

Yes - and Godzone's national debt is expected to reach $70billion this year ...

Fortunately most of that is private debt, making this:

would you be happy for some economist to raid your bank account to contribute to paying that debt?

extremely unlikely. Even less likely when you consider that a bank is not a place you'd ever find a great deal of my money.

Ocean1

21st March 2013, 19:57

Who's the "they" Mr Ocean ??? I know that you can equate the Cypriot Government with the Cypriot people ... but if that happened here you'd be one of the first to scream ...

Sure, the Cypriot people can vote out their Government, but once the money has been borrowed it won't matter if the Government changes .. the debt is stil there .. and the financiers were expecting the actual people (Ones like you and me) to bail out the sdebt the Government created ...

You'd never wear that here ... why expect them to do it there?

Yes, the Cypriot government. The one elected on the promise of more public spending using borrowed money.

And yes indeed I get upset when our government spends money buying votes, no matter who's money they use, because that's exactly the way to follow Cyprus, Greece etc etc.

Your point is taken, individuals are held responsible for their governments failures whether they agreed with the government's actions or not. All the more reason to limit voting to those who actually contribute to the economy.

jonbuoy

22nd March 2013, 05:11

Fortunately most of that is private debt, making this:

extremely unlikely. Even less likely when you consider that a bank is not a place you'd ever find a great deal of my money.

It is likely that private debt will become government debt in a housing crash. Its a hard call to say whos to blame. Ultimately if you apply and are given a handfull of credit cards and max them out and struggle to make the repayments its your fault. The bank can´t really cry too much about not getting its money back either they know how much you earn and whats left over every month - doesnt take a genius to see you can´t afford the credit cards.

lending vast quantities of money to countries with terrible credit history and ratings and the fiscal sense of a teenage girl was never going to end well.

Akzle

22nd March 2013, 07:53

It is likely that private debt will become government debt in a housing crash. Its a hard call to say whos to blame. Ultimately if you apply and are given a handfull of credit cards and max them out and struggle to make the repayments its your fault. The bank can´t really cry too much about not getting its money back either they know how much you earn and whats left over every month - doesnt take a genius to see you can´t afford the credit cards.

lending vast quantities of money... to countries with terrible credit history and ratings and the fiscal sense of a teenage girl was never going to end well.
. .

Banditbandit

22nd March 2013, 08:16

Fortunately most of that is private debt, making this:

See this article http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/5106876/Government-debt-rises-to-71-6-billion clearly says "Government debt rises to $71billion.

That's money our Government has signed up to pay back .. and borrowed to fund it's promises ... Just like Cyprus ...

Akzle

22nd March 2013, 08:54

See this article http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/5106876/Government-debt-rises-to-71-6-billion clearly says "Government debt rises to $71billion.

That's money our Government has signed up to pay back .. and borrowed to fund it's promises ... Just like Cyprus ...

thaaaaaat's right. and why did they think they could? a) becuase sheep chose them to make decisions, b) becuase you're some kind of corporate-tax-slave-legal-person, and, doing the maths, you're likely to stay that way, which means they can borrow against the earning potential of you and your children.

good fucking deal!

(BTW, legally, "NZ's" debt, is entirely your problem. OBR, bring it on!)
(srsly, tinfoil hat me all you like, when will people actually wake up and smell the bullshit)

Brian d marge

22nd March 2013, 14:57

Makes my roses grow does manure

Stephen

latest news from off the grid central , the tank sprung a leak had to find emergency accomodation for fish , and the result was , me crayfish died

bugger , he was getting big to !

flyingcrocodile46

22nd March 2013, 16:42

This is probably a large part of the reason.

Paper money is virtually worthless. Its only value is that that we give it when buying and selling product. Product (land,cars,TV's,food,clothes etc) is where the only real wealth is. Product growth the world over is very slow and percentage wise is typically in low single digits. It struggles to keep up with increasing competing population (land has no show).

Govts or central banks tend to print money (fiat money) so they can pay their debts and wages bills etc (or in the case of central banks, so future taxpayers will pay them interest on the near worthless paper). When extra paper money is released into circulation without a corresponding increase in product (say 8% more paper money over and above say 1% of product growth), The economy which previously assigned $300,000.00 value to each of only 800,000 homes available will quickly adjust itself through supply and demand to $324,000.00 for each of 808,000 homes.

Imagine what happens if your govt does that for 10 straight years. The same houses now costs about $647,000.00 each. :yes: That's right, unless your income has kept pace :angry:, not only has your money halved in value, but you also have less of it to live and plan your life with.

That couldn't possibly happen though. Could it
http://goldsurvivalguide.co.nz/heres-why-not-to-believe-the-nz-governments-inflation-statistics/ :facepalm:

Brian d marge

22nd March 2013, 18:15

mashman

22nd March 2013, 18:24

The real money is in energy. Products are on so good as long as people want or can use paper money to buy them. If paper money is becoming worth less because of some fascination with growth, inflation and the accumulation of wealth being attracted by wealth, then there are going to be more people falling into the don't have enough paper money to buy products category. Then the knock on effects of people being laid off to keep the company afloat, more taxation being required from less workers to fun those newly unemployed rinse and repeat until you have a society that is receiving their $10.80/hour directly from the government... providing you work for them of course. Product prices can only fall so far and wages aren't keeping pace for the vast majority of people, so it's only a matter of time until drastic measures are taken to recoup the money being lost by joe public. I love the future, it's such a pathetic wimp of a place with millions of Oliver Twists begging for more.

Ocean1

22nd March 2013, 19:42

mashman

22nd March 2013, 19:47

See this article http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/5106876/Government-debt-rises-to-71-6-billion clearly says "Government debt rises to $71billion.

That's money our Government has signed up to pay back .. and borrowed to fund it's promises ... Just like Cyprus ...

So what happens when the $ starts falling back to its usual "value"? Does that mean where we pay $1 back in debt, we'll be paying $2 instead? and that's assuming that the interest rates for the loan aren't "flexible".

However the bit that does make me chuckle: "English said the deficit would fall back to below $10b next year and then ''be virtually eliminated'' in 2013/14. The Government would then start running surpluses and repaying debt."... that's an amazing magic trick. It's been $10 billion for what seems to have been forever, yet it's going to all but vanish.

Given that the nats have cut costs left and right, why do they need to keep on borrowing? and where has the money been spent thus far?

mashman

22nd March 2013, 19:56

That'll learn me to check, eh?

So, leme see if I can get this right, that's $175 dollars each. So, unlike Cyprus it's not a large lump of GDP: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/country-list/government-debt-to-gdp

So, like you I'd rather tighten the belt a notch than borrow for frivolous fripperies. The fight starts when you try to decide what that means, eh?

$175 or $16000? given 71.6 billion of debt and 4.5 million men, women and children in the country. Or is it really $45k given 1.6 million net tax contributors?

Ocean1

22nd March 2013, 20:03

$175 or $16000? given 71.6 billion of debt and 4.5 million men, women and children in the country. Or is it really $45k given 1.6 million net tax contributors?

Lost a zero, fixt. Isn't a quantity that many could cheerfully peel off a wad from their wallet, and I'd rather it was less. I'm not silly enough to be bleating about increased public debt AND spending cuts, though.

mashman

22nd March 2013, 20:08

Lost a zero, fixt. Isn't a quantity that many could cheerfully peel off a wad from their wallet, and I'd rather it was less. I'm not silly enough to be bleating about increased public debt AND spending cuts, though.

You mean you aren't even slightly curious as to why the govt has made spending cuts and yet still borrow money? Not even slightly curious about what they've spent that money on?

Ocean1

22nd March 2013, 20:10

You mean you aren't even slightly curious as to why the govt has made spending cuts and yet still borrow money? Not even slightly curious about what they've spent that money on?

Dole bludgers, mainly.

mashman

22nd March 2013, 20:16

Dole bludgers, mainly.

An extra $10 billion on bludgers? Not the private sector adding less to the economy and the govt having to borrow to cover that loss?

Ocean1

22nd March 2013, 20:22

An extra $10 billion on bludgers?

Of course not.

Dole bludgers AND DPB bludgers.

Akzle

22nd March 2013, 20:31

Dole bludgers, mainly.

srsly? I think uber troll.
Benefit fraud <1/100th tax evasion costs.
It was in the herald and all.

mashman

22nd March 2013, 20:35

Of course not.

Dole bludgers AND DPB bludgers.

You sure. I reckon the rich bludgers are likely the culprits here. Probably all had to revalue what they're worth and have taken a haircut.

Ocean1

23rd March 2013, 08:32

You sure. I reckon the rich bludgers are likely the culprits here. Probably all had to revalue what they're worth and have taken a haircut.

Yeah. Nah, the only haircut most rich pricks are getting is from production killing taxes.

And dole bludgers. http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/8463033/Dole-queues-long-but-bosses-can-t-get-workers

mashman

23rd March 2013, 09:04

Yeah. Nah, the only haircut most rich pricks are getting is from production killing taxes.

And dole bludgers. http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/8463033/Dole-queues-long-but-bosses-can-t-get-workers

Production killing taxes? In 2008 the "rich" pricks had debt that was 126% of GDP, Now 96%... and the govt has gone from 11% to 25%. They must have been taking a haircut somewhere along the lines?

Cal me a whambulance. It ain't so easy when you want to find people to exploit who don't play the game eh. Praps they should offer a beer/drugs party binge at the end of each month as a "sweetener" for these guys to stay off substances whilst working (Note that only relates to when they're working, not their personal time. You can be sober and drug free during your working day after all.). That or the old meme rolled out by the right whingers of "pay peanuts, get monkeys".

Ocean1

23rd March 2013, 09:37

Production killing taxes? In 2008 the "rich" pricks had debt that was 126% of GDP, Now 96%... and the govt has gone from 11% to 25%. They must have been taking a haircut somewhere along the lines?

Haircut? What the fuck are you on about? "Rich pricks" are "rich" precicely because they act sensibly, like reducing debt in a sluggish economic climate.

Whereas govt, being responsible for supplying beer and pokey funds to an exponentially increasing number of dole bludgers in a contracting economy has got to either stump up with less beer and pokey funds or borrow money.

Cal me a whambulance. It ain't so easy when you want to find people to exploit who don't play the game eh. Praps they should offer a beer/drugs party binge at the end of each month as a "sweetener" for these guys to stay off substances whilst working (Note that only relates to when they're working, not their personal time. You can be sober and drug free during your working day after all.). That or the old meme rolled out by the right whingers of "pay peanuts, get monkeys".

Yeah, we know they don't want to play the game. It's called "earn your own lunch" by the way. And you can kick and scream all you like, the guy buying the work has the right to say what sort of work he needs done, and most rich pricks don't need work done by fuckwit pissheads with an entitlement complex the size of Texas. They also don't need monkeys, which is unfortunate, because peanuts is all the dole bludgers are worth.

mashman

23rd March 2013, 10:25

Haircut? What the fuck are you on about? "Rich pricks" are "rich" precicely because they act sensibly, like reducing debt in a sluggish economic climate.

Whereas govt, being responsible for supplying beer and pokey funds to an exponentially increasing number of dole bludgers in a contracting economy has got to either stump up with less beer and pokey funds or borrow money.

Yeah, we know they don't want to play the game. It's called "earn your own lunch" by the way. And you can kick and scream all you like, the guy buying the work has the right to say what sort of work he needs done, and most rich pricks don't need work done by fuckwit pissheads with an entitlement complex the size of Texas. They also don't need monkeys, which is unfortunate, because peanuts is all the dole bludgers are worth.

Reducing debt? Like cutting jobs to keep that bottom line healthy?

The govt have to carry the slack that those keeping their bottom line healthy have discarded.

Then they shouldn't be moaning. Why should the potential employee do all of the changing? :rofl:@peanuts because that's all they're worth... and you wonder why they don't make an effort. Cutting ones nose off to spite ones face springs to mind for some reason. Way to meet the job market :blink:

Ocean1

23rd March 2013, 18:56

Reducing debt? Like cutting jobs to keep that bottom line healthy?

Why would anyone cut jobs that keep the bottom line healthy? That's fuckwit material. What they do is cut the jobs costing more in pay than they earn the company. Pretty obvious innit? The reason they do that is to keep the company solvent and to thereby save the jobs actually producing revenue.

The govt have to carry the slack that those keeping their bottom line healthy have discarded.

Yep. Using money rorted from those remaining productive employees. Arseholes.

Why should the potential employee do all of the changing?

Um, because they're the one supposedly wanting a job, and as they couldn't keep the last one it's fucking obvious they need to start producing something for their employer to sell. Uncharted territory for most of 'em, unfortunately, as you read this morning.

mashman

23rd March 2013, 23:26

Why would anyone cut jobs that keep the bottom line healthy? That's fuckwit material. What they do is cut the jobs costing more in pay than they earn the company. Pretty obvious innit? The reason they do that is to keep the company solvent and to thereby save the jobs actually producing revenue.

Yep. Using money rorted from those remaining productive employees. Arseholes.

Um, because they're the one supposedly wanting a job, and as they couldn't keep the last one it's fucking obvious they need to start producing something for their employer to sell. Uncharted territory for most of 'em, unfortunately, as you read this morning.

Sure, that's what they do and why they do it. The bottom line has fuck all to do with it.

The alternative being?

Yeah, it's all one way as I said. You want people to do X to produce $Y and you refuse to meet the market on their terms. Awesome strategy. If all else fails, you can cry and moan like a little bitch to the papers and they'll sympathise with your plight... as long as they know that people will swallow that shit because they still live in an era that demands a certain standard that isn't relatively available these days. As I said... cutting their nose off to spite their face. But they're offering the work, so they dictate the terms of employment :killingme... wonder why they can't get "dedicated" member of staff.

Brian d marge

24th March 2013, 01:30

our Trace

poor we girl

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10151799412899867

Stephen

blue rider

24th March 2013, 10:03

Yeah. Nah, the only haircut most rich pricks are getting is from production killing taxes.

And dole bludgers. http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/8463033/Dole-queues-long-but-bosses-can-t-get-workers

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/small-business/8460789/Job-hunter-stunned-to-be-rated-best-of-300

The other side....job-applicants-queues-long-but-unemployed-can-t-get-bosses

Lets repeat...there is no issue with high unemployment in New Zealand, everyone who wants a job can have one, and peeps who don't have a job, are lazy, unkempt, drug abusing dole bludgers etc etc. Really this mantra is getting very boring.

blue rider

24th March 2013, 10:09

Yeah. Nah, the only haircut most rich pricks are getting is from production killing taxes.

And dole bludgers. http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/8463033/Dole-queues-long-but-bosses-can-t-get-workers

also this

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/rebuilding-christchurch/8465471/Rebuild-jobs-scam-exposed

blue rider

24th March 2013, 10:14

Yeah. Nah, the only haircut most rich pricks are getting is from production killing taxes.

And dole bludgers. http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/8463033/Dole-queues-long-but-bosses-can-t-get-workers

and this

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/8460415/Unemployment-unlikely-to-fall-soon-ANZ

mashman

24th March 2013, 16:19

our Trace

poor we girl

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10151799412899867

Stephen

Typical, they bring on a Manc to make the case for doley's :rofl:... however I agree with her.

Ocean1

24th March 2013, 20:13

Sure, that's what they do and why they do it. The bottom line has fuck all to do with it.

The bottom line has everything to do with it. If it's in the red everyone loses their job, far better idea to flick the unproductive ones before they drag everyone else down with them.

The alternative being?

Pay them what they're worth. In most cases that's fuck all, and that means you can afford to look after the genuinely disabled ones.

Yeah, it's all one way as I said. You want people to do X to produce $Y and you refuse to meet the market on their terms. Awesome strategy. If all else fails, you can cry and moan like a little bitch to the papers and they'll sympathise with your plight... as long as they know that people will swallow that shit because they still live in an era that demands a certain standard that isn't relatively available these days. As I said... cutting their nose off to spite their face. But they're offering the work, so they dictate the terms of employment ... wonder why they can't get "dedicated" member of staff. ?

So, when you turn up at teh scooter shop for a new tyre and battery it's perfectly OK for them to replace your headlight bulb, give it a bit of a rub and charge you for a complete top end overhaul? Only, why the fuck should you expect to be calling the shot's there, eh?

Oh, that's right, silly me, 'CAUSE YOUR THE ONE FUCKING PAYING FOR IT.

Ocean1

24th March 2013, 20:16

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/small-business/8460789/Job-hunter-stunned-to-be-rated-best-of-300

The other side....job-applicants-queues-long-but-unemployed-can-t-get-bosses

Lets repeat...there is no issue with high unemployment in New Zealand, everyone who wants a job can have one, and peeps who don't have a job, are lazy, unkempt, drug abusing dole bludgers etc etc. Really this mantra is getting very boring.

What's your point?

Mine was that if the unemployed behaved more like what business wanted they'd have better luck getting jobs. Pretty much exactly similar to your example.

Ocean1

24th March 2013, 20:24

also this

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/rebuilding-christchurch/8465471/Rebuild-jobs-scam-exposed

Damn, the secret's out, jobs in NZ are so easy and well paid that illiterate Philipinos will pay some criminal shitloads to get in on the gravy train.

And the native dole bludgers can't get a look in. Wonder why.

Ocean1

24th March 2013, 20:26

and this

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/8460415/Unemployment-unlikely-to-fall-soon-ANZ

Of course unemployment is unlikely to fall any time soon. It'll not fall fuck all untill we stop paying people for doing nothing.

Banditbandit

25th March 2013, 12:43

Dole bludgers, mainly.

Of course not.

Dole bludgers AND DPB bludgers.

Something like 52% of New Zealand beneficiaries are on superannuation - NOT DPB or unemployment .. it's those lazy non-working pensioners .. they are soaking up all the money ...

Go here http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/022C2B15-1522-4140-999C-49CF45B43F46/512/0013Benefits1.pdf

Um, because they're the one supposedly wanting a job, and as they couldn't keep the last one it's fucking obvious they need to start producing something for their employer to sell. Uncharted territory for most of 'em, unfortunately, as you read this morning.

Solid Energy employees??? THey certainly wanted to keep their jobs .. and they had the skills ... NOT the employees' fault.

Of course unemployment is unlikely to fall any time soon. It'll not fall fuck all untill we stop paying people for doing nothing.

Fuck .. even Paula Bennett says there won't be enough jobs for everyone ... and it's not the fault of the unemployed ...

Go here http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/auckland/news/nbpol/1946415942-minister-admits-there-aren-t-enough-jobs-to-go-around

So ... if we did stop paying people "for doing nothing" we'd jut get a lot of starving families ...

Face it - the business community wants a lot of unemployed people .. that keeps the cost of employment low - then there'll always someone who will work for shit money .. so the bosses don't have to hitre the qualified people who want more money ..

Banditbandit

25th March 2013, 12:47

FUCK IT - sucked into the bullshit again !!! Silly Hats time ...

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ax5ZIdFoW1U/ScJaMxXzm-I/AAAAAAAAMx0/4s9azIdRkes/s400/womens-hats-12.jpg

oneofsix

25th March 2013, 12:55

Something like 52% of New Zealand beneficiaries are on superannuation - NOT DPB or unemployment .. it's those lazy non-working pensioners .. they are soaking up all the money ...

Steady on there lad, lots of those pensioners have heap of $$$ in the bank for asset sales etc and lots are still working. Remember in good old NZ we don't means test pensioners so even multi-millionaires get the pension.

FUCK IT - sucked into the bullshit again !!! Silly Hats time ...

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ax5ZIdFoW1U/ScJaMxXzm-I/AAAAAAAAMx0/4s9azIdRkes/s400/womens-hats-12.jpg

Oh Christ you sucked me into this too so i will now borrow your silly hat. :facepalm:

Brian d marge

25th March 2013, 14:48

Something like 52% of New Zealand beneficiaries are on superannuation - NOT DPB or unemployment .. it's those lazy non-working pensioners .. they are soaking up all the money ...

Go here http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/022C2B15-1522-4140-999C-49CF45B43F46/512/0013Benefits1.pdf

Solid Energy employees??? THey certainly wanted to keep their jobs .. and they had the skills ... NOT the employees' fault.

Fuck .. even Paula Bennett says there won't be enough jobs for everyone ... and it's not the fault of the unemployed ...

Go here http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/auckland/news/nbpol/1946415942-minister-admits-there-aren-t-enough-jobs-to-go-around

So ... if we did stop paying people "for doing nothing" we'd jut get a lot of starving families ...

Face it - the business community wants a lot of unemployed people .. that keeps the cost of employment low - then there'll always someone who will work for shit money .. so the bosses don't have to hitre the qualified people who want more money ..

There is no friggen way you are getting me to agree with you again , this would be possibly the third time , and THAT aint happening , if I could just add one thing to that post .

IF you disenfranchise people they create "rules, " " justifications" for their existance ( see the typical bike gang) this happens in ALL communities and especially disenfranchised one , ie poor or the long term unemployed .....

Those "justifications" MAY not be in line with The NZ male Calvernist thinking ....

Stephen

Ps , The powers that be control inflation using unemployment . which is plain eviel ...

Brian d marge

25th March 2013, 14:51

Steady on there lad, lots of those pensioners have heap of $$$ in the bank for asset sales etc and lots are still working. Remember in good old NZ we don't means test pensioners so even multi-millionaires get the pension.

Oh Christ you sucked me into this too so i will now borrow your silly hat. :facepalm:

Sorry but bb was right , over 50 ..52 % of benefits paid out ARE to oldies , savings or not ..... long term bludgers and Solo mums and to some extent sickness beneficiaries are as groups , small % , grouped together 48 odd %

Stephen

There IS an argument , to reduce the other payouts in order to pay the oldies , ie reduce the bludgers and give that saving to the oldies

oneofsix

25th March 2013, 15:06

Sorry but bb was right , over 50 ..52 % of benefits paid out ARE to oldies , savings or not ..... long term bludgers and Solo mums and to some extent sickness beneficiaries are as groups , small % , grouped together 48 odd %

Stephen

Wasn't saying he was wrong on that point, it was the "it's those lazy non-working pensioners " comment. Just because they are getting the pension doesn't mean they are lazy or non-working, it only means they are over 65. Some could be repaying their whole pension in taxes which just means we are paying someone to pay the pension out and another to collect it back as taxes - really efficient :yes: But those pensioners that aren't too fucked to work anyhow tend to also have the energy to vote :shutup:

If you want to get serious I would rather have a young person with their spending and asset building ahead of them in paid employment and building a career than some old fucker sitting on their present resources (no interest in the latest 3D TV or iPhone or whatever) and hogging their income for the pine box.

mashman

25th March 2013, 16:11

The bottom line has everything to do with it. If it's in the red everyone loses their job, far better idea to flick the unproductive ones before they drag everyone else down with them.

Pay them what they're worth. In most cases that's fuck all, and that means you can afford to look after the genuinely disabled ones.

So, when you turn up at teh scooter shop for a new tyre and battery it's perfectly OK for them to replace your headlight bulb, give it a bit of a rub and charge you for a complete top end overhaul? Only, why the fuck should you expect to be calling the shot's there, eh?

Oh, that's right, silly me, 'CAUSE YOUR THE ONE FUCKING PAYING FOR IT.

Yeah, but not everyone is in the red and sometimes quite far from it and they still lay staff off. Not because they are unproductive or that they are deemed to be unproductive, but because a return has to be made for all of those with their finger in the pie... like shareholders for instance. Dividends for fuck all costing the jobs of productive people.

I am now with you on paying them fuck all, well I'm not, but I'd love to see that fallout. It'd kill the economy and it'd be priceless to watch those who think that such a thing is a good idea just standing their scratching their heads wondering what went wrong. I'm with you in theory in regards to "resource" transfer, but it ain't really gonna work in practice now is it?

I'm sure some businesses get away with doing similar. Not saying they do so all the time, but if I had not scruples I'd happily tell people that the bulb was out and I just went ahead and replaced it and that I can take it out for them if they wanted... or even have a store of dud batteries lying around just in case they didn't believe that I couldn't get the thing started etc... It's all well within the realms of possibility.

Well businesses who are desperate to employ people are gonna have to be less picky and less tyrannical just because they are paying the wages. I always find it funny when the high and mighty get all high and mighty and feel justified in being so because they are the boss. As my mum said to me last night "it's not that you have a problem with authority, it's that you have a problem with them making knowingly stupid decisions.". And she's not wrong.

Ocean1

25th March 2013, 16:21

FUCK IT - sucked into the bullshit again !!!

Oh Christ you sucked me into this too so i will now borrow your silly hat. :facepalm:

:drinkup:

There IS an argument , to reduce the other payouts in order to pay the oldies , ie reduce the bludgers and give that saving to the oldies

Which is?

Ocean1

25th March 2013, 16:53

Yeah, but not everyone is in the red and sometimes quite far from it and they still lay staff off. Not because they are unproductive or that they are deemed to be unproductive, but because a return has to be made for all of those with their finger in the pie... like shareholders for instance. Dividends for fuck all costing the jobs of productive people.

Wrong. If they were productive they’d be adding to that bottom line, eh? any manager would be breaking his arse to keep them.

By the way, there’s rules for businesses, too. One of them is “thou shalt not enter into business in order to lose money” That’s IRD. As for the shareholders? There wouldn’t be a company with out them in the first place, and the last thing they want to see is a reduction in their business activity.

So it really really is the employee’s inability to generate revenue that’s the problem, not the nasty company’s heartless refusal to pay them. Note that I didn’t say that it’s always their fault.

I am now with you on paying them fuck all, well I'm not, but I'd love to see that fallout. It'd kill the economy and it'd be priceless to watch those who think that such a thing is a good idea just standing their scratching their heads wondering what went wrong. I'm with you in theory in regards to "resource" transfer, but it ain't really gonna work in practice now is it?

I don’t think we should require every adult to earn their keep. Some of them can’t, and I’m happy to agree that we should allow them a comfortable sufficiency. Those that can work, should, and they shouldn’t expect anyone else to make up any difference between what they earn and what they expect to be paid.

I'm sure some businesses get away with doing similar. Not saying they do so all the time, but if I had not scruples I'd happily tell people that the bulb was out and I just went ahead and replaced it and that I can take it out for them if they wanted... or even have a store of dud batteries lying around just in case they didn't believe that I couldn't get the thing started etc... It's all well within the realms of possibility.

I’m sure they do. Briefly. I know you reckon all businesses are arseholes, but you’re simply wrong. The business model I personally dislike is the capture of a market for the purpose of controlling revenue. You can distinguish these by comparing prices across similar international markets. Mate BB might help, there if he's as clever as he thinks. I’m happy for you to fuck with these parasites all you want. If you need napalm let me know.

Well businesses who are desperate to employ people are gonna have to be less picky and less tyrannical just because they are paying the wages. I always find it funny when the high and mighty get all high and mighty and feel justified in being so because they are the boss. As my mum said to me last night "it's not that you have a problem with authority, it's that you have a problem with them making knowingly stupid decisions.". And she's not wrong.

Both you and your mum need to come to some sort of rational understanding about employers. Firstly, they’re the guys making jobs for people. Nobody else does this, and in making that happen they risk pretty much everything they’ve got. Also, they don’t give a fuck about your attitude to authority unless you’re on their payroll, and even if you are it doesn’t make them any more an arsehole than any other sub-group of Kiwis. Also, it’s impossible for them to pay their employees more than they earn. Do we need to visit dictionary.com wrt that word again?

Once you’ve got all that on board you might stand a chance of spotting a stupid business decision, (I’ve no fucking idea what a knowingly stupid one is) and until then you’re going to be wrong more often than not.

mashman

25th March 2013, 17:09

"Permit me to issue and control the money of the nation and I care not who makes its laws." — Mayer Amsched Rothchild (http://nz.finance.yahoo.com/news/cyprus-sacrifices-top-banks-bailout-042919812.html)

The big Fat Man, he's coming
So take to your heels, get running
He'll Bleed you dry, Leave you to die
And it's not yours to ask why
So just run and be aware
And don't you get caught in the snare
In the trap Because he's holding you back
You know the Fat Man has got you on the crack
You can't move, screwed down
Real hard, with your face to the ground
Keeping You in the place that you came from
While the Fat Man spends your money on bombs
And you, you're the same
No matter what you do or what your name
Because the rich are getting richer The poor destitute
Whilst the Fat Man he's got your loot
So keep running

mashman

25th March 2013, 17:42

Wrong. If they were productive they’d be adding to that bottom line, eh? any manager would be breaking his arse to keep them.

By the way, there’s rules for businesses, too. One of them is “thou shalt not enter into business in order to lose money” That’s IRD. As for the shareholders? There wouldn’t be a company with out them in the first place, and the last thing they want to see is a reduction in their business activity.

So it really really is the employee’s inability to generate revenue that’s the problem, not the nasty company’s heartless refusal to pay them. Note that I didn’t say that it’s always their fault.

You're saying that they're not? Really? So they pull back production and all of a sudden the employee isn't required. Either way they're productive at the time until the boss makes them surplus to requirements.

Or you can comfortably write the loss off or even sell your debt to some mug. Not all businesses have shareholders and yet they still survive. Although I was referring more to company's that have sold stakes to individuals who have nothing to do with the company just so that they could avoid going to the bank. Fair enough like, but they'll still be getting paid whilst remaining unproductive.

The revenue is there and the business doesn't always have to make a huge amount of profit does it? Especially if you're talking millions... unless of course they believe that they are worth it. Noted.

I don’t think we should require every adult to earn their keep. Some of them can’t, and I’m happy to agree that we should allow them a comfortable sufficiency. Those that can work, should, and they shouldn’t expect anyone else to make up any difference between what they earn and what they expect to be paid.

Tis a fine balancing act though innit. As the Jeremy Irons says in Margin Call (quite a good movie), "Pieces of paper with pictures on it so we don't have to kill each other just to get something to eat". Start pushing people too hard and they'll start pushing back with desperation as their motivation. On the plus side, it would open up a few job possibilities.

I’m sure they do. Briefly. I know you reckon all businesses are arseholes, but you’re simply wrong. The business model I personally dislike is the capture of a market for the purpose of controlling revenue. You can distinguish these by comparing prices across similar international markets. Mate BB might help, there if he's as clever as he thinks. I’m happy for you to fuck with these parasites all you want. If you need napalm let me know.

I don't at all, not all, not by any chalk of the imagination. They're just human beings doing that human being thing... however I do quesiton their motivation sometimes come the hard times, especially where money is put over the employee. :rofl: thanks for the napalm offer, but I have in mind something a little more radical (ooo another movie line... yet I cannae deliver it as well as Rutger). I get the idea behind your model as it is pretty damned close to the way I used to think things worked. Unfortunately for both of us there are too many out there that can buy their way around rules and regs or indeed simply ignore them until they get caught... they receive the wet bus ticket, a fine that likely costs some poor fella his job and away they go again. The models with $ in them have never worked. I'd rather something different given that there is supposed to be a future for billions of people that come after us.

Both you and your mum need to come to some sort of rational understanding about employers. Firstly, they’re the guys making jobs for people. Nobody else does this, and in making that happen they risk pretty much everything they’ve got. Also, they don’t give a fuck about your attitude to authority unless you’re on their payroll, and even if you are it doesn’t make them any more an arsehole than any other sub-group of Kiwis. Also, it’s impossible for them to pay their employees more than they earn. Do we need to visit dictionary.com wrt that word again?

Once you’ve got all that on board you might stand a chance of spotting a stupid business decision, (I’ve no fucking idea what a knowingly stupid one is) and until then you’re going to be wrong more often than not.

Nah, the market makes the jobs, the employer wants to meet the market and as such he needs employees. He can't do it alone and not all of them generate the market need... they merely set themselves up in the footsteps of another and claim the rewards as their own. Again, I used to be ok with that. Not so much these days given the damage that it does. Believe it or not, my seriously Conservative voting Mum would be more in your court than mine. :rofl:... we can leave the dictionary alone this time, but keep it handy, just in case. I don't care who's paying the bills, they don't have the right to dictate how they treat me. I'm worth more than that ;). I am not the slave that they make me out to be. They do, however, have a right to expect me to do the work they ask me to do... which I do, shit jobs n all. Same goes for anyone else.

I've saved a couple of company's several hundred thousands of $ since I've been here (likely similar for some businesses in the UK), coz I iz an innovator and have paid attention throughought my career as to where and how the breakdowns in decision making are made and the affects that they have as projects progress. I generally know a bad business decision when I here one, and happily stick my beak in (wanted or not) to voice it. So when I finally turned my attention to the big one, the financial system you believe could work, shit that's a whole new level on incompetency. A glaring single point of failover that can be used in 1 of two ways. Either screw people through the fear of job losses or bank collapses or recessions, essentially through the use of threat, or it could be done away with and we could have a shot at a future for thems that are to follow. I stand by my analysis.

Brian d marge

25th March 2013, 17:54

:drinkup:

Which is?

exactly that , save money on not paying one group and give it to another group both of whom fall under the same banner of receiving tax money.

Sting the dole, sickies , and give it to the oldies , thereby paying the same total amount but giving it to the people who deserve it ( or the cynic in me says the greatest voting block )

Stephen

Ocean1

25th March 2013, 18:51

exactly that , save money on not paying one group and give it to another group both of whom fall under the same banner of receiving tax money.

I'm concerned to tell you that it's not a novel idea, mate, the bastards have been giving other people's money away for decades.

the people who deserve it

How do they deserve it?

Banditbandit

26th March 2013, 08:49

it was the "it's those lazy non-working pensioners " comment.

That comment was intended as a "quote" from the rightwing ... who say exactly that about "beneficiaries" i.e. DBP and Dole recipients .. without thinking of the superannuitants ...

It was meant to be amusing ... not serious ..

Banditbandit

26th March 2013, 08:50

There is no friggen way you are getting me to agree with you again , this would be possibly the third time , and THAT aint happening

Oh ... that is priceless ... :rofl:

Brian d marge

26th March 2013, 12:59

Talking about priceless...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21916653

Imm off to cry me a river !

Stephen

ps , the oldies who built NZ deserve the it ...

Banditbandit

26th March 2013, 14:05

Yes ... and these are the people we trust with our money - the "professionals" in the system ... who supposedly know what they are doing (NOT!)

I just might have to agree with you ...

Ocean1

26th March 2013, 20:27

the oldies who built NZ deserve the it ...

Bit vague, dude. It was looking like nobody recognised the fact that those eligable for pensions are mostly those responsible for supplying the means for paying it.

Yes, yes, I know NZ pensions supposedly aren't "fully funded" like ACC is supposed to be. I simply dissagree, anyone who's paid income tax throughout their working lives has contributed several hundred thousand dollars in todays money, and in the absence of any sensible official policy to the contrary I deem some significant portion of that to have been invested on their behalf, reasonable returns on which to be dispursed as of their 65th birthday until their death and labeled "pension".

Brian d marge

26th March 2013, 21:17

Bit vague, dude. It was looking like nobody recognised the fact that those eligable for pensions are mostly those responsible for supplying the means for paying it.

Yes, yes, I know NZ pensions supposedly aren't "fully funded" like ACC is supposed to be. I simply dissagree, anyone who's paid income tax throughout their working lives has contributed several hundred thousand dollars in todays money, and in the absence of any sensible official policy to the contrary I deem some significant portion of that to have been invested on their behalf, reasonable returns on which to be dispursed as of their 65th birthday until their death and labeled "pension".

ACC , I assume , like the pension fund used the stock market and actually made a profit FROM investment , ACC did rather well

The americans have put pressure on dear old NZ to become more like them ...( look how that ended up)

I wish some in the know , media , government would just tell the fkers to take a running jump

one thing though , blasted oldies are living a bit too long these days ... costing money they does ..

Why cant we blame the oldies , I mean they smell funny and dress like soo,, 1956 ..and the music , omg the music ( if they can hear it )

Stephen

oldrider

26th March 2013, 21:52

one thing though , blasted oldies are living a bit too long these days ... costing money they does ..

Why cant we blame the oldies , I mean they smell funny and dress like soo,, 1956 ..and the music , omg the music ( if they can hear it )

Stephen

True!

Guilty as charged but don't worry we will be able to get right up your noses before too long! :yes:

You on the other hand will never be able to get right up ours to return the favour! :no: ... :wings:

Akzle

27th March 2013, 06:36

get right up your noses before too long!

You on the other hand will never be able to get right up ours to return the favour!

...past the forest of nose hair you refuse to trim

Brian d marge

27th March 2013, 12:12

Brian d marge

27th March 2013, 12:54

TIN HAT ALERT

this is on utube ( so tis sooo true )

http://<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/k2mjs_gdMAI?list=UU8A-0NNgbvSowaC80QqL_aQ" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="560"></iframe> (http://<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/k2mjs_gdMAI?list=UU8A-0NNgbvSowaC80QqL_aQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>)

So David Ike was right after all !

its a plot to enslave us all by reducing the buying power of money , making us slaves , and dependent on a few , and those few are as seen in the above video !

Stephen

Akzle

27th March 2013, 15:10

http://rt.com/usa/monsanto-congress-silently-slips-830/

monsanto is the new jesus. don't forget to buy heaps of roundup. and roundup resistant vegies and fruit (that only seeds once), and heaps of other GM croppigation, because, well.. uhh, i forget why, but you shouldn't be asking questions anyway, plebeian, BACK TO WORK!

to enslave us all by reducing the buying power of money , making us slaves , and dependent on a few , and those few are as seen in the above video !

duh.

(you're already slaves, or err, employees.
dumb corporate fiction motherfuckers.)

Ocean1

27th March 2013, 16:25

blasted oldies are living a bit too long these days

Well, y'know, I'm doin' me best, but every time I get the bike past 4th gear some arsehole is in me ear about safety shit, glubs, boots, armour and a dayglo skivvy. How can I die gracefully if some bastard’s going to bitch and moan about it all?

mashman

27th March 2013, 16:49

off topic a bit

http://rt.com/usa/monsanto-congress-silently-slips-830/

them rich fkers just keep on fking things up .....

Well done u american Knts

Stephen

I am applying for a Towel I can wear on me head ......the wife might look a bit better in her new outfit , and all

Paid not to notice most likely.

TIN HAT ALERT

this is on utube ( so tis sooo true )

So David Ike was right after all !

its a plot to enslave us all by reducing the buying power of money , making us slaves , and dependent on a few , and those few are as seen in the above video !

Stephen

And you called the above OT... na noo na noo.

mashman

27th March 2013, 16:50

Well, y'know, I'm doin' me best, but every time I get the bike past 4th gear some arsehole is in me ear about safety shit, glubs, boots, armour and a dayglo skivvy. How can I die gracefully if some bastard’s going to bitch and moan about it all?

Ignore them a ride faster. You're welcome.

Brian d marge

28th March 2013, 03:48

monsanto is the new jesus. don't forget to buy heaps of roundup. and roundup resistant vegies and fruit (that only seeds once), and heaps of other GM croppigation, because, well.. uhh, i forget why, but you shouldn't be asking questions anyway, plebeian, BACK TO WORK!

duh.

(you're already slaves, or err, employees.
dumb corporate fiction motherfuckers.)

I hear that monsanto have branched out into mull seeds , get a nice crop one year and buy the seeds the next .....

Sorry thats a nightmare one doesnt like to think off

Stephen

ps self employed wage slave ...

Brian d marge

28th March 2013, 03:50

Brian d marge

28th March 2013, 03:52

Paid not to notice most likely.

And you called the above OT... na noo na noo.

not my fault the tin hat interupted the cosmic vibe ...how could anyone stay on topic with such brutality occuring inside ones head ...

Stephen

Akzle

28th March 2013, 06:29

I hear that monsanto have branched out into mull seeds , get a nice crop one year and buy the seeds the next .....

that's been SOP for them since day dot.

but hey, it's coo' - they're solving the world's hunger problems

oh... wait on.

Banditbandit

28th March 2013, 09:02

So David Ike was right after all !

its a plot to enslave us all by reducing the buying power of money , making us slaves , and dependent on a few , and those few are as seen in the above video !

Stephen

duh.

(you're already slaves, or err, employees.
dumb corporate fiction motherfuckers.)

As he says ...

But it's unlikely they are really trying to enslave us .. the slave trade was abolished largely for economic reasons - it's true there were some human rights arguments, but the deciding argument was economic - and goes like this ...

It's cheaper to free the slaves and pay them shit wages than it is to keep slaves, feeding, housing and clothing them ...

Give them their freedom ... pay them shit wages, then they have to feed, house and clothe themselves .... Oh .. and pay the rest of the bills too ... But the employer makes even more profit from his enterprise, because the cost of labour is reduced but the price to sell the commodity stays the same.

Then you can tell them all what a good thing you have done for the ex-slaves and they will love you forever ...

Akzle is right - you are effectively enslaved now .. even if it looks like freedom ...

Brian d marge

5th April 2013, 01:31

mashman

5th April 2013, 06:42

Another group who have no friggen idea

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22023291

the price of beer has gone up from 140 to 160 odd in 10 years , but my salary aint

idiots ( the article sums up how little these people understand economics )

Stephen

"Falling prices discourage people from spending and companies from investing" :scratch: I must be missing something there?

I dunno, using bonds plucked out of thin air to allow for the production of money out of thin air really doesn't seem to have worked too well... mind you, at least it's only the govt that carry the can.

Ocean1

5th April 2013, 07:04

I dunno, using bonds plucked out of thin air to allow for the production of money out of thin air really doesn't seem to have worked too well...

If you don't like the plucking of money from fresh air then I have a suggestion. Don't borrow money.

In the meantime those that want a mortgage don't have a problem with it, they'd rather you just minded your own business.

oneofsix

5th April 2013, 07:42

If you don't like the plucking of money from fresh air then I have a suggestion. Don't borrow money.

In the meantime those that want a mortgage don't have a problem with it, they'd rather you just minded your own business.

:lol: who the fuck WANTS a mortgage? Most want to own a property and the way the system is structured the only way to do that is via a mortgage. The mortgage is the down side, the trial of fire so to speak

Banditbandit

5th April 2013, 08:20

:lol: who the fuck WANTS a mortgage? Most want to own a property and the way the system is structured the only way to do that is via a mortgage. The mortgage is the down side, the trial of fire so to speak

That's so true ...

And today on national radio a story about house prices in Auckland ... apparently the average house price for sales in Auckland last month was $650,000. That's more than half a million dolalrs for a place to sleep warm, cook and eat food, fuck and wash ...

So much for the Kiwi dream of owning your own home ...

Akzle

5th April 2013, 16:30

If you don't like the plucking of money from fresh air then I have a suggestion. Don't borrow money.
the term "borrow money" is misleading. on account of they don't lend you anything.
you create money, with your signature (and a promise to continue slaving to "repay" - or do you?)

And today on national radio a story about house prices in Auckland ... apparently the average house price
...
20-30 years ago, wifey could stay at home and cook and clean and look after the kids and give heaps blowjobs. man could go to work and afford to feed wife and kids and to buy the house.

nowadays (thanks equal rights bitcheminists) it takes a working couple to scrape their kids though school, feed the clan and buy the house, in twice the term.

good fucking deal!

mashman

5th April 2013, 16:58

If you don't like the plucking of money from fresh air then I have a suggestion. Don't borrow money.

In the meantime those that want a mortgage don't have a problem with it, they'd rather you just minded your own business.

I don't borrow any money other than my mortgage that is... and the other folk have covered that little ditty well.

Mebees, Mebees not... but your leaders aren't willing to take the chance on finding that out, because that would mean that folk would be getting a free lunch. Your problem, not mine. Til then the money plucking pixies will continue to allow people to die. Soulless bastards really.

Ocean1

5th April 2013, 17:36

I don't borrow any money other than my mortgage that is... and the other folk have covered that little ditty well.

And someone reached into their pocket and peeled off a cool half a million for you, eh?

No?

Mebees, Mebees not... but your leaders aren't willing to take the chance on finding that out, because that would mean that folk would be getting a free lunch. Your problem, not mine. Til then the money plucking pixies will continue to allow people to die. Soulless bastards really.

I don't have a problem, you might have noticed; I'm not the one that want's the world to change 'cause it don't suit me. I also don't tend to expect anyone else to pay for my lunch, and I'm not silly enough to believe anyone else is responsible for those that choose to die rather than earn their keep.

So, when you took the lord's crown to pay for your hovel you figured that was your signal to bitch and moan about the fact that he had the coin and you didn't? How does that work, dude?

Ocean1

5th April 2013, 17:51

the term "borrow money" is misleading. on account of they don't lend you anything.
you create money, with your signature (and a promise to continue slaving to "repay" - or do you?)

If it helps think of it as a wager. Teh evel banker dude gives you, say 500k, in exchange you agree to give him 'prox 800k when you can scrape teh readies together. He's betting you can, or he loses his share of the pot. You're betting you can too, or you lose yours. And when you've paid it off the money actually does exist, dunnit? There's the value of a house sitting there to prove it.

So what's the problem?

20-30 years ago, wifey could stay at home and cook and clean and look after the kids and give heaps blowjobs. man could go to work and afford to feed wife and kids and to buy the house.

nowadays (thanks equal rights bitcheminists) it takes a working couple to scrape their kids though school, feed the clan and buy the house, in twice the term.

good fucking deal!

The difference has fuck all to do with the evel banks. Houses were half the size and had about a quarter of the toys.

There's another difference. Yo grandady worked a fucking sight harder than todays average whinging wage-earner.

So it shouldn't come as much of a surprise that money's worth far less nowadays, there's a fucking sight less work done to earn it.

mashman

5th April 2013, 18:01

And someone reached into their pocket and peeled off a cool half a million for you, eh?

No?

I don't have a problem, you might have noticed; I'm not the one that want's the world to change 'cause it don't suit me. I also don't tend to expect anyone else to pay for my lunch, and I'm not silly enough to believe anyone else is responsible for those that choose to die rather than earn their keep.

So, when you took the lord's crown to pay for your hovel you figured that was your signal to bitch and moan about the fact that he had the coin and you didn't? How does that work, dude?

They did I tell ya... although it wasn't quite a cool half mill as I paid my share :rofl:.

I had noticed, each to his own I guess and I'm not expecting the world to change because I don't like it the way it is, just NZ for NOW. I don't expect it either, but I never used to (still do at times before catching myself) shit about how others made a living, a better description being how others are being allowed to make a living. Go tell that to some of the folk in Africa and India etc... I reckon they might disagree.

When I took his 30 pieces, I had a different view point. Thought that might have been quite self evident, anyhoo, apart from :rofl: (which hurts by the way)@bitch and moan that the man has the $ and I don't, if that's all it was then I'd happily wear that description. As alluded to earlier, it happens coz I changed my mind, saw the light, I would say grew up but that just ain't neva gonnae happen, but essentially opened my eyes enough to understand that protecting human life is more important than protecting an economy that doesn't give a shit about human life. In the meantime we'll go on a wasting the greatest era of mankind to date and we'll keep on pretending that the free market economy is the best way to manage resources. So no, I don't particularly like it the way it is and I'm pretty damned sure I'm not alone in that.

jonbuoy

5th April 2013, 18:08

That's so true ...

And today on national radio a story about house prices in Auckland ... apparently the average house price for sales in Auckland last month was $650,000. That's more than half a million dolalrs for a place to sleep warm, cook and eat food, fuck and wash ...

So much for the Kiwi dream of owning your own home ...

Wow that's one hell of a bubble almost doubling from 2002.

blue rider

6th April 2013, 11:25

https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/165490_533338406708858_1773009244_n.jpg

puddytat

6th April 2013, 14:02

As if we didnt have an inkling....
http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/04/05/nicky-hager-and-international-team-of-journalists-expose-global-money-laundering-network/

blue rider

6th April 2013, 14:05

and the IMF issues dire warnings :sleep:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/05/global-poverty-900-million-economic-shock_n_3022420.html

mashman

6th April 2013, 14:24

As if we didnt have an inkling....
http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/04/05/nicky-hager-and-international-team-of-journalists-expose-global-money-laundering-network/

heh... and then they lend that money out 9 times over. Why would they ask where it comes from. wonder if anything will be done? or will money protect the money men?

and the IMF issues dire warnings :sleep:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/05/global-poverty-900-million-economic-shock_n_3022420.html

Only 900 million. Lazy bastards should have gotten off of their arses and gotten better jobs :facepalm:

Ocean1

6th April 2013, 16:45

protecting human life is more important than protecting an economy that doesn't give a shit about human life. In the meantime we'll go on a wasting the greatest era of mankind to date and we'll keep on pretending that the free market economy is the best way to manage resources. So no, I don't particularly like it the way it is and I'm pretty damned sure I'm not alone in that.

It don't matter how easy modern life makes things, there's still under-performers that don't understand why they don't get paid as much as they might like. You're not required to like that,nor even understand it. Which, on the face of it is most fortunate, because there's fuck all chance to be honest.

The real world root cause of your percieved problem part #1 is that the 3rd world doesn't produce enough value to manage a 1st world lifestyle. Root cause part #2 is that there are people in 1st world countries producing 3rd world efforts and expecting a 1st world lifestyle, which sorta fucks any chance of the 1st world producing the sort of surplusses likely to lead to much in the way of charity for that 3rd world.

If'n you want to fix the apparent travesty of human justice entailed in this huge disparity of lifestyles then get the 3rd world educated and into the first world where their lifestyles can match their efforts and get the 1st world bludgers exported to the 3rd world where their expectations can be recallibrated to something more appropriate for someone unable to provide anthing like the value required to live ain the 1st world.

Genestho

6th April 2013, 17:26

:lol: who the fuck WANTS a mortgage? Most want to own a property and the way the system is structured the only way to do that is via a mortgage. The mortgage is the down side, the trial of fire so to speak

Well doesn't equity beat giving your money to a landlord? Rent money is dead money - you're paying some-one else's mortgage or retirement plan, off! Sound clever? A Mortgage is money in the bank if you pay the bills and make good decisions.

Just because a house you might want to own is 600k doesn't mean housing is hard to get into. An average priced home has always been out of reach for the "first home buyer" They're different levels. Once you're in the market, dollar value becomes irrelevant because it all becomes relative.

This just means you start at the bottom just like most first home owners used to and you might have to move somewhere slightly undesirable or, do hard work on the first one, then trade up in the equity in a busy market, or sit still in a stagnant market until you've paid the Mortgage as soon as you can and that can happen rather quickly, as long as you don't over extend yourself.

It's truly a no brainer... ;)

mashman

6th April 2013, 17:48

It don't matter how easy modern life makes things, there's still under-performers that don't understand why they don't get paid as much as they might like. You're not required to like that,nor even understand it. Which, on the face of it is most fortunate, because there's fuck all chance to be honest.

The real world root cause of your percieved problem part #1 is that the 3rd world doesn't produce enough value to manage a 1st world lifestyle. Root cause part #2 is that there are people in 1st world countries producing 3rd world efforts and expecting a 1st world lifestyle, which sorta fucks any chance of the 1st world producing the sort of surplusses likely to lead to much in the way of charity for that 3rd world.

If'n you want to fix the apparent travesty of human justice entailed in this huge disparity of lifestyles then get the 3rd world educated and into the first world where their lifestyles can match their efforts and get the 1st world bludgers exported to the 3rd world where their expectations can be recallibrated to something more appropriate for someone unable to provide anthing like the value required to live ain the 1st world.

You speak of performance related pay as if it is lore and seems to be equating under performance to low pay? Either way, as I suspect you know, there's much more to it than that.

:rofl:... the real world root cause in money! FACT! Easy as bro, next. The funny thing is, it doesn't matter where you are in the world you should have access to the best that money can and can't buy, irrespective of whether you're going to make use of it or not. You want the best out of people? Then make everything available to all of them without conditions attached (that includes not having to fight to "earn" it as you might say). Otherwise you're just blowing hot air and waiting for people to finally know what they want to do and in the meantime let them eat cake. Hardly surprising some will seek the easy way out and lie and cheat their way to the top of their respective trees. So you end up with a lack of vision and ability at the top of various organisations. If Apple didn't have iShit, it wouldn't be the monster it is today irrespective of who'd be running the place.

It's a damned sight easier to let the lazy be lazy (until they're ready), give them what they need and be done with it. Us none lazy carry them without worrying being the social nuisance that they're portrayed to be i.e. a fuckload less crime, nearly none in fact. Put it this way, irrespective of my system or your system being in place, those people will still exist... only your system spends valuable resources that could be used for more productive pursuits chasing and jailing these people, mine doesn't, it accepts that they're there and leaves them to Darwin or waits for them to be ready to apply themselves or educated them that they'll end up with your system if they don't make some form of effort. Your system requires everyone to be doing something to be valued, mine requires as many people as are needed to do a valuable job and likely nowhere near everybody needing to be in work. So job sharing, much shorter working weeks, working from home, working pretty much when you decide to as long as you do that job etc... all being very doable in my system, where yours needs to wait for the money (infinite resource) to become available. Tis a no brainer, butcha need a brain to be able to comprehend the benefits.

Ocean1

6th April 2013, 18:20

You speak of performance related pay as if it is lore and seems to be equating under performance to low pay? Either way, as I suspect you know, there's much more to it than that.

There's occasionally more to what you get paid than what you earn, yes. But it's far more common that performance defines what you're paid.

If you don't agree with your employer's evaluation of your worth then you can always go looking for an employer that agress with you.

It's a damned sight easier to let the lazy be lazy (until they're ready), give them what they need and be done with it.

Wrong, it's a damned sight easier to let them starve, most of 'em don't take any more subtle critique of their value seriously.

misterO

6th April 2013, 18:38

Houses are so expensive nowadays you practically need to take out a mortgage to buy one!

mashman

6th April 2013, 18:48

There's occasionally more to what you get paid than what you earn, yes. But it's far more common that performance defines what you're paid.

If you don't agree with your employer's evaluation of your worth then you can always go looking for an employer that agress with you.

I'm not saying that it doesn't happen, but it seems to happen less at the bottom (where the real work gets done) than it does when you start adding "supervisor" titles into the mix. You may be one of those good employers who "reward" their shining stars, but from my experience good employers are few and far between... and I've been in a fair number of jobs and have noted the difference.

I guess that's why 63%, I think it was, of Kiwi's are on the lookout for better jobs and they can't all be that bad at their jobs.

Wrong, it's a damned sight easier to let them starve, most of 'em don't take any more subtle critique of their value seriously.

We've been down that road before eh... they won't go quietly into the night and to hell with those who get in their way right? I'd hardly call that easier. Most of 'em likely don't respect the person making the critique and I can't say I blame them, erspercially when it's some overpaid less than useless moron that gets on well with their boss and gets the credit for the teams efforts. Even if you could shoot everyone that wasn't of "value", how are you going to handle the associated economic fallout?

Ocean1

6th April 2013, 19:29

I'm not saying that it doesn't happen, but it seems to happen less at the bottom (where the real work gets done) than it does when you start adding "supervisor" titles into the mix. You may be one of those good employers who "reward" their shining stars, but from my experience good employers are few and far between... and I've been in a fair number of jobs and have noted the difference.

I guess that's why 63%, I think it was, of Kiwi's are on the lookout for better jobs and they can't all be that bad at their jobs.

I'm surprised it's that low. What also surprises me is the number who don't have the courage of their convictions to start their own business and really take responsibility for their productivity. I've seen a few try, and fall flat on their face against the sheer workload required to match their previous paycheques. I've seen a few succeed, too, and it's obvious which is which well before the starting gun.

We've been down that road before eh... they won't go quietly into the night and to hell with those who get in their way right? I'd hardly call that easier. Most of 'em likely don't respect the person making the critique and I can't say I blame them, erspercially when it's some overpaid less than useless moron that gets on well with their boss and gets the credit for the teams efforts. Even if you could shoot everyone that wasn't of "value", how are you going to handle the associated economic fallout?

Whether it's easier or not depends on what all those free lunches are costing you personally I'd say. And I don't blame most of 'em either, even when it's obvious to most that the dole queue is their natural element, taking the easy way is a genuine survival strategy. It's just not the way those I respect choose to live their lives.

As for handling the economic fallout? I'd retire immediately on the back of the vastly improved standard of living driven by the remainder actually providing something for their daily bread.

mashman

6th April 2013, 19:54

I'm surprised it's that low. What also surprises me is the number who don't have the courage of their convictions to start their own business and really take responsibility for their productivity. I've seen a few try, and fall flat on their face against the sheer workload required to match their previous paycheques. I've seen a few succeed, too, and it's obvious which is which well before the starting gun.

Bit of a brutal critique, but I understand what you mean having watched parents succeed and "fail" (The failure coming at the hands of a big supermarket chain opening up nearby and not through lack of effort. Pricepoint can be a business killer.) in business, as well as having been a part of the odd start up here and there with Del Boy at the helm.

Whether it's easier or not depends on what all those free lunches are costing you personally I'd say. And I don't blame most of 'em either, even when it's obvious to most that the dole queue is their natural element, taking the easy way is a genuine survival strategy. It's just not the way those I respect choose to live their lives.

As for handling the economic fallout? I'd retire immediately on the back of the vastly improved standard of living driven by the remainder actually providing something for their daily bread.

True and fair enough... yet you'd like to see them suffer some form of "punishment" for having that survival strategy? and I'd argue that most on the dole don't see it as their natural element and that most would contribute great value, in your terms, should they ever be given the chance to do so. Not all of the lifestylers are lazy either, well in the sense that some of them are 24/7 businesses. Funny though, the only difference I see between members of those two demographics is clothing and terminology. If the doley could talk about their business in the same sense as you and your friends, they would likely pass as a respectable character. Maybe a bit of a stretch, but certainly not outwith the realms of possibility.

Economic fallout: hyperinflation, interest rates, lack of unemployed to help balance the economy etc... and I have no problem with you wanting to retire given those circumstances. Albeit it would probably be a waste of talent.

scumdog

6th April 2013, 20:11

386 posts and this thread is STILLl lumbering and lurching along...:rolleyes:

mashman

6th April 2013, 20:16

386 posts and this thread is STILLl lumbering and lurching along...:rolleyes:

Cranky auld bugga... you need more diet-coke in that JD.

Brian d marge

6th April 2013, 21:41

Well doesn't equity beat giving your money to a landlord? Rent money is dead money - you're paying some-one else's mortgage or retirement plan, off! Sound clever? A Mortgage is money in the bank if you pay the bills and make good decisions.

Just because a house you might want to own is 600k doesn't mean housing is hard to get into. An average priced home has always been out of reach for the "first home buyer" They're different levels. Once you're in the market, dollar value becomes irrelevant because it all becomes relative.

This just means you start at the bottom just like most first home owners used to and you might have to move somewhere slightly undesirable or, do hard work on the first one, then trade up in the equity in a busy market, or sit still in a stagnant market until you've paid the Mortgage as soon as you can and that can happen rather quickly, as long as you don't over extend yourself.

It's truly a no brainer... ;)

levi strauss made 23 % ,from 1970 to 1980 , how does that compare withthe housing market. Housing isnt the be all and end all , its what the banks are happy to lend on ,,,,

Stephen

Brian d marge

6th April 2013, 22:24

ok so in a nut shell some people are organising / rigging the system to make themselves feel better , usually using a tool called money.

One country bullied and exploited quite a few others and is using its might to pressure other country’s into following its self serving interests
Those interests are blind to things that actually NEED to happen , ( sustainability ) therefore it WILL collapse ( ask any engineer about equilibrium , and no if it has nothing substantial behind it , it will fall apart )

trouble is I like me new ipad , ( built under the current system ) and if i start hugging trees with a new way of looking at things. I dont get me Ipad , and that sux

If the ipad was completely made from sustainable components, so much so, that the more ipad I make the better is is for the environment ( compost for example ) we still have the problems of putting the things together ( people or robots ). What reward do they get for their effort?

Finally greed , this is ( i kind of think ) is hard wired into our brains ( 2 beers one 500ml one 1.5 litre , same price ,,,?)

If we could socially engineer tree hugging hippies whose goal in life , social orgasm was to increase the harmony between earth and us in an egalitarian communistic environment .....could it work? ....not sure , all it would take is for one person to alter his way of doing thing to slightly enhance his own , and bingo off we go again.

So while I rail against what is happening, I cant see any other alternatives due to our history as humans.

In the mean time Im sorry but the excesses must be kept in check , and the John keys of this world are just not the right kind of people to be off this world ,and educated, respected people make good social choices PERIOD, so to that aim I will devote my time

couldn’t be bothered putting into posh language , so tough

Stephen

mashman

6th April 2013, 23:07

trouble is I like me new ipad , ( built under the current system ) and if i start hugging trees with a new way of looking at things. I dont get me Ipad , and that sux

If the ipad was completely made from sustainable components, so much so, that the more ipad I make the better is is for the environment ( compost for example ) we still have the problems of putting the things together ( people or robots ). What reward do they get for their effort?

Finally greed , this is ( i kind of think ) is hard wired into our brains ( 2 beers one 500ml one 1.5 litre , same price ,,,?)

If we could socially engineer tree hugging hippies whose goal in life , social orgasm was to increase the harmony between earth and us in an egalitarian communistic environment .....could it work? ....not sure , all it would take is for one person to alter his way of doing thing to slightly enhance his own , and bingo off we go again.

So while I rail against what is happening, I cant see any other alternatives due to our history as humans.

Me to. Although if they could make an iSung (fapple and samdung) out of sustainable components and easily upgradeable (never know, there may be a really valid reason for us to need a personal device that could perform quantum calculations) then no doubt it would be useful and it would be made on that basis. The developer in me can see huge benefits and positives in a single platform. Get robots to make 'em. Why waste human effort on that which you can automate? Gives us more time to play. Why is it that tree huggers are seen as folk that want to head back to the days of cart and horse? Anyhoo, perhaps people would find their own reward in what they do. Don't you get such satisfaction from the work you've chosen?

I agree and disagree with the greed thing. Yes in that there is something innate about it. Dunno if it's some form of genetic memory or just innate. But there's also a huge amount of culture/environmental impact on whether greed is a persons overriding trait. I don't think it is for the majority... but we're most derifinitely fucked over by those who are. We can respond in any way we choose irrespective of our past and irrespective of our overriding traits and our environment and the situation at hand will guide that decision.

Socially engineer tree hugging hippies? Educate kids properly and show them a different way of life and they'll follow it as they know no better. Yup that's the easy part. Meantime, perhaps offering the adults an alternative that solves "all" of the big issues of the day will be enough to change a few perceptions in regards to how we can exist. I do think that that is possible, but without offering the alternative and without discussing it at a national level, what would be the point? Tis a bit like asset sales in that way. Most don't want it, but they get it anyway. As for it taking 1 person to take us back to a financial system, would enough people vote for it? If in 1000 years we've fucked up along the way, then it's a possibility.

So whilst I rail against the current system, I see an alternative that is not only viable, but it is a necessity for our future. Stop looking backwards and start looking forwards. If the world was a software project it would be Novopay. If saner heads prevailed, the system would be rewritten from the bottom up and for the future and not the past. Cooperate or die.

mashman

6th April 2013, 23:23

Fuckin ridiculous (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9974373/Welfare-reform-53-a-week...-You-do-the-maths.html)... and this is deemed as ok :facepalm:.

blue rider

7th April 2013, 08:22

Fuckin ridiculous (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9974373/Welfare-reform-53-a-week...-You-do-the-maths.html)... and this is deemed as ok :facepalm:.

Surely if those lazy fucks would have not under performed, worked harder, been bigger arse kissers and boot lickers, louder yes sayers they would still have a job and pay taxes.

So yes,it is deemed ok and acceptable by mane. Cause you see, being poor is a choice, Loosing your job is cause one is lazy, and happiness is expensive, and who the fuck needs three meals a day and a heater running in winter, don't cha know, tv, phone and a fridge are luxuries that one should not have when on social welfare....so what they might have paid taxes previously.

and all those that applaud, deep down are shit scared of the day it will happen to them.

mashman

7th April 2013, 08:29

Surely if those lazy fucks would have not under performed, worked harder, been bigger arse kissers and boot lickers, louder yes sayers they would still have a job and pay taxes.

So yes,it is deemed ok and acceptable by mane. Cause you see, being poor is a choice, Loosing your job is cause one is lazy, and happiness is expensive, and who the fuck needs three meals a day and a heater running in winter, don't cha know, tv, phone and a fridge are luxuries that one should not have when on social welfare....so what they might have paid taxes previously.

and all those that applaud, deep down are shit scared of the day it will happen to them.

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand cannot bling you yet again. I'm stunned that humanity has made it so far with so many lazy useless fuckers engineering their own demise. Rulez iz rulez.

Ocean1

7th April 2013, 09:25

Duncan Smith was asked if he could live on £53 a week, the amount one caller claimed he had left to live on following cuts to his housing benefit. “If I had to, I would,” came the reply. It was later revealed that the caller lived on £156 a week

:laugh:

The true face of poverty in modern Britain is as far removed from the sponger lifestyle of “shameless” Mick Philpott, who raked in £100,000 a year on state benefits and was jailed for life this week for killing six of his 17 children in a house fire, as it is from Duncan Smith’s comfortable Buckinghamshire home.

:facepalm:

blue rider

7th April 2013, 09:35

:laugh:

:facepalm:

you forgot a smily for this paragraph

Life on £55 a week is no stunt for Debbie Garrity. It is laid out in painstaking detail in separate labelled compartments of a plastic box she keeps next to her armchair. Gas £5, Water £4, Bus Pass £12.50, Food £10. Inside a newly labelled section – Bedroom Tax – is a crisp £10 note, which means she has had to halve her shopping budget. In the Social Fund section, there is nothing at all.
“Sometimes I would like to saw a pound in half to make it go further,” says the 45-year-old, who has a 2:1 BSE degree in health and social care and worked full-time for decades before losing her job several months ago.

what would you use on this one?

Ocean1

7th April 2013, 09:51

you forgot a smily for this paragraph

Life on £55 a week is no stunt for Debbie Garrity. It is laid out in painstaking detail in separate labelled compartments of a plastic box she keeps next to her armchair. Gas £5, Water £4, Bus Pass £12.50, Food £10. Inside a newly labelled section – Bedroom Tax – is a crisp £10 note, which means she has had to halve her shopping budget. In the Social Fund section, there is nothing at all.
“Sometimes I would like to saw a pound in half to make it go further,” says the 45-year-old, who has a 2:1 BSE degree in health and social care and worked full-time for decades before losing her job several months ago.

what would you use on this one?

Without knowing what choices she made to get there I'd refrain from comment.

As for your reference to taxpayers blaming those on the dole for thier plight; rather than biting that hand I'd be looking to pin the blame on the Mick Philpots in the system.

mashman

7th April 2013, 09:58

:laugh:

:facepalm:

Do you know why the caller gets 153 quid a week and not the 53 quid the other caller gets?

With the legislation being out in place, IDS is just maiming millions of people, living in a mansion and claiming off of the state... so you're right, they have more similarities than the media credits them with.

blue rider

7th April 2013, 10:32

Without knowing what choices she made to get there I'd refrain from comment.

As for your reference to taxpayers blaming those on the dole for thier plight; rather than biting that hand I'd be looking to pin the blame on the Mick Philpots in the system.

1. she is not responsible for Mich Philpots and the likes. She should not be suffering for his choices, and people like this tosser are in the minority.
2. She was fulltime employed untill she lost her job, which means she actually contributed to the system, and should now be entitled to some back pay or else we can go screw the system and become world wide a non tax paying libertarian wet dream in which only the strongest survive. I do hope that you have enough money to survive such a society.

However, i have highlighted some of thechoices she made, she worked in the food industry, she then worked and studied, then she worked some more untill she got laid off. She now has not found a job and is on social welfare to which she contributed while in gainful employment.

However she might just was an underperfoming lazy under educated person that is solely responsible for her own demise and should be trown into the ditches to die like a dog.

Garrity grew up in the Northumberland town of Rothbury and moved to Newcastle about 25 years ago for work.
“I’ve always worked,” she says. “My whole family has a strong work ethic. My dad was a bricklayer and my mum worked in lots of part‑time jobs. At first, I trained to be a chef and worked in the Lake District. I started washing dishes and worked my way up.”
After moving to Newcastle, she combined chef work with a job in the social-care sector and studying for a degree with the Open University. “When I was 32, I was working about 70 hours a week,” she says. “I did a BSE in health and social care and got a 2:1. My plan is to go and do a master’s and then work with people who have disabilities.”
She is reluctant to discuss personal details, but after her marriage ended a decade ago, she moved into a rented house. Two years ago, her landlord sold the house. No longer able to afford to rent privately, she moved into her current two-bedroom council flat, despite having asked for a one-bedroom home. After losing her full-time job in the health and social sector a few months ago, she was forced to contact the housing charity, Crisis. She currently receives an employment support allowance of £71 a week, which goes on council and now bedroom tax, as well as housing benefit of £61 a week, which goes straight on rent. “I’ve been waiting to hear back on a few voluntary posts,” she says. “But there are very few jobs out there.”

well you could stay, bootstrap yourself up and move, but consider this

She continues: “The thing that I miss most is driving my car and being able to go where I want, when I choose. I last had a car two years ago, but I couldn’t afford one now.

mabye she should be spending less on food?
"I’m fortunate that I know how to cook. I try to eat healthily, and have worked out how to cook a meal for 75p.
“I only eat one meal a day. I go to cheap shops and find the cheapest deals; I look for anything for 10p or 20p. I never buy vegetables unless they are reduced. I’ve just bought a packet of reduced parsnips, though, so it will be nice to do something with those. I don’t buy red meat – I would love a rare rump steak one of these days.”

maybe she should just look for cheep entertainment and jobs......

Much of Garrity’s time is spent walking. She wanders through the rundown Sixties housing estate to use the public library and welfare office (which stands next to a derelict working men’s club) to study and look for jobs, or just to keep out of her flat. When she can afford it, she takes the bus into the city and uses the university library. “It can be very, very isolating,” she says. “You need to keep trying to have a purpose to your day.”

All of this should help you to make your mind up about this person.....however for some reason you remind me more and more of this

https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/155773_536856993031917_625450373_n.jpg

exterminate....exterminate....exterminate.....

Genestho

7th April 2013, 10:35

levi strauss made 23 % ,from 1970 to 1980 , how does that compare withthe housing market. Housing isnt the be all and end all , its what the banks are happy to lend on ,,,,

Stephen

Oh I'm not saying that mortgages are the be all and end all, at all.

My point is; that they're do-able for anyone and money in the bank, just as they've always been! Somehow people's thinking has lost its way. :)

This comment: "Well doesn't equity beat giving your money to a landlord? Rent money is dead money - you're paying some-one else's mortgage or retirement plan, off! Sound clever? A Mortgage is money in the bank if you pay the bills and make good decisions." was made to OO6's comment of:

"who the fuck WANTS a mortgage? Most want to own a property and the way the system is structured the only way to do that is via a mortgage. The mortgage is the down side, the trial of fire so to speak"

It's a trial of fire if you decide for your first home you want to lend 90% of 600k (as an example) which is plain stoopid economics. Same as giving your rent money away for a lifetime ;)

My first home was a cheap POS that only had the foundations, 1/4 acre section, the 3 bay garage/workshop and the roof going for it until 2 years of manual work was applied, and I had to commute to work, the area wasn't flash. But the equity was fabulous, same with the next home and the next. No over extensions.

The average man hasn't the nouse nor the motivation or courage to do a levi strauss, there are other options, it's a matter of not over extending no matter what you do to get ahead, even saving in a climate where you're pissing into the wind is better than over extending. Keep debts low - End of.

Brian d marge

7th April 2013, 12:08

Oh I'm not saying that mortgages are the be all and end all, at all.

My point is; that they're do-able for anyone and money in the bank, just as they've always been! Somehow people's thinking has lost its way. :)

This comment: "Well doesn't equity beat giving your money to a landlord? Rent money is dead money - you're paying some-one else's mortgage or retirement plan, off! Sound clever? A Mortgage is money in the bank if you pay the bills and make good decisions." was made to OO6's comment of:

"who the fuck WANTS a mortgage? Most want to own a property and the way the system is structured the only way to do that is via a mortgage. The mortgage is the down side, the trial of fire so to speak"

It's a trial of fire if you decide for your first home you want to lend 90% of 600k (as an example) which is plain stoopid economics. Same as giving your rent money away for a lifetime ;)

My first home was a cheap POS that only had the foundations, 1/4 acre section, the 3 bay garage/workshop and the roof going for it until 2 years of manual work was applied, and I had to commute to work, the area wasn't flash. But the equity was fabulous, same with the next home and the next. No over extensions.

The average man hasn't the nouse nor the motivation or courage to do a levi strauss, there are other options, it's a matter of not over extending no matter what you do to get ahead, even saving in a climate where you're pissing into the wind is better than over extending. Keep debts low - End of.

Poor government money getting bludgers who do fk all for the country and pay no tax ,,blah blah

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/8518742/Tracing-the-history-of-Tiwai-Pt

Dont need em ( bloody wogs)

Stephen

Ocean1

7th April 2013, 14:48

1. she is not responsible for Mich Philpots and the likes. She should not be suffering for his choices, and people like this tosser are in the minority.

The taxpayer's not repsonsible for Mich Philpot either, and yet they're not only having to pay for them but are expected to pay again for the more worthy cases his payments should have gone to in the first place. And it only takes a minority of them to totally fuck the budget for more worthy cases.

2. She was fulltime employed untill she lost her job, which means she actually contributed to the system, and should now be entitled to some back pay or else we can go screw the system and become world wide a non tax paying libertarian wet dream in which only the strongest survive. I do hope that you have enough money to survive such a society.

What are you trying to prove? That she's worthy of my charity? I'd need to know a damned sight more than that about her, and I don't give money to people I don't know. That she's worthy of more cash from her government? That's a purely subjective call, I don't personally think you can institutionalise charity but given that it's there I'd certainly have different rules in place to control who gets what. No doubt you would also.

You'd also no doubt expect the budget to be somewhat larger. Which, interestingly enough is exactly the same rationale that caused many of the recipients of that budget to be in the position they're in. The ultimate criteria for who gets what is the original one, and the further you deviate from that the less feasible the system becomes. In the long run society's income, and therefore it's budget for ALL social services depends on value contributed by those who work harder than they need to in order to provide it. and they're a diminishing resource, as you've pointed out.

So rather than blame the taxpayer for not contributing enough to keep every non-contributor fed and housed why not accept that the budget's not limitless and draw up a set of rules that work with what you've got? Legions of social services managers before you have failed, apparently, but good luck.

Ocean1

7th April 2013, 14:48

Do you know why the caller gets 153 quid a week and not the 53 quid the other caller gets?

With the legislation being out in place, IDS is just maiming millions of people, living in a mansion and claiming off of the state... so you're right, they have more similarities than the media credits them with.

I've got no idea what you're talking about.

mashman

7th April 2013, 15:30

I've got no idea what you're talking about.

In which case...

And it only takes a minority of them to totally fuck the budget for more worthy cases

And it only takes one of the below to totally fuck the budget for more worthy cases.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/8518742/Tracing-the-history-of-Tiwai-Pt

But they're making an effort even though they're a drain? and a big drain by the looks of things. Sounds vaguely familiar.

blue rider

7th April 2013, 17:35

The taxpayer's not repsonsible for Mich Philpot either, and yet they're not only having to pay for them but are expected to pay again for the more worthy cases his payments should have gone to in the first place. And it only takes a minority of them to totally fuck the budget for more worthy cases.

What are you trying to prove? That she's worthy of my charity? I'd need to know a damned sight more than that about her, and I don't give money to people I don't know. That she's worthy of more cash from her government? That's a purely subjective call, I don't personally think you can institutionalise charity but given that it's there I'd certainly have different rules in place to control who gets what. No doubt you would also.

You'd also no doubt expect the budget to be somewhat larger. Which, interestingly enough is exactly the same rationale that caused many of the recipients of that budget to be in the position they're in. The ultimate criteria for who gets what is the original one, and the further you deviate from that the less feasible the system becomes. In the long run society's income, and therefore it's budget for ALL social services depends on value contributed by those who work harder than they need to in order to provide it. and they're a diminishing resource, as you've pointed out.

So rather than blame the taxpayer for not contributing enough to keep every non-contributor fed and housed why not accept that the budget's not limitless and draw up a set of rules that work with what you've got? Legions of social services managers before you have failed, apparently, but good luck.

mate,. I don't blame the tax payer, currently i am a tax payer, and that lady mentioned has been a taxpayer.....

so you don't like giving money to people you don't know, in that case you should stop paying taxes, because giving it to the government is precisely that.

other than that, ..you seem unhappy, greedy, selfish, and really really just a simply unpleasant character.

I really really hope that you will never ever in you life need a helping hand, because with you attitude you must be too proud for hand outs and should expect everyone to treat you like you so easily treat others.

Winston001

7th April 2013, 19:08

:lol: who the fuck WANTS a mortgage? Most want to own a property and the way the system is structured the only way to do that is via a mortgage. The mortgage is the down side, the trial of fire so to speak

There are two rational reasons to borrow money. One is to secure a home for your family. Paying rent works for a while but ultimately you need stability and the knowledge your efforts will reward you. It is a long term task.

The other reason to borrow is to earn a living - set up a business or buy one. So I agree that noone wants a mortgage but it does make sense provided the amount isn't too much.

I honestly cannot see how young people can buy Auckland homes at $600,000 but of course they don't. They start at $300,000 which is still a huge sum but not impossible.

Also we need to recognise that 70% of Kiwis live outside Auckland and houses are far less costly elsewhere, resulting in many families owning their homes without huge debt.

Before the recent housing boom, the average house mortgage was repaid in 7.5 years despite being a 20 year term.

Ocean1

7th April 2013, 19:13

mate,. I don't blame the tax payer

So who exactly are you blaming? Because it sounds very much like you blame pretty much everyone for a lack of funds to pay beneficiaries as much as you'd like.

so you don't like giving money to people you don't know.

I don't give charity to people I don't know. Because there's no way to know if a stranger needs it or is simply ripping me off.

in that case you should stop paying taxes, because giving it to the government is precisely that.

Love to. Organise that for me would you? Only, it'd allow me to give a shitload more to the people I know who need it.

other than that, ..you seem unhappy, greedy, selfish, and really really just a simply unpleasant character.

Coming from someone who needs no personal knowledge of someone to become convinced they need a handout I'll take that with a grain of salt.

I really really hope that you will never ever in you life need a helping hand, because with you attitude you must be too proud for hand outs and should expect everyone to treat you like you so easily treat others.

I trust those I know to help me if I ever need it, I expect them to supply that help based on what they know of my needs and my history of helping others. There isn't another way of doing it. I've no faith in social services whatsoever, the only times I've ever wanted help from them they've declined to provide it, in spite of a valid need matching the required perameters perfectly.

Like I said, institutionalise charity is simply a waste of resources.

Ocean1

7th April 2013, 19:17

In which case...

And it only takes one of the below to totally fuck the budget for more worthy cases.

But they're making an effort even though they're a drain? and a big drain by the looks of things. Sounds vaguely familiar.

Nope, no idea. Rio Tinto are dole bludgers?

Ocean1

7th April 2013, 19:20

Before the recent housing boom, the average house mortgage was repaid in 7.5 years despite being a 20 year term.

How many of those were discharged without being replaced with a fresh one on the purchase of a new house?

Lies, damned lies....

mashman

7th April 2013, 19:54

Nope, no idea. Rio Tinto are dole bludgers?

:rofl:. It only takes one of them to totally fuck the budget for more worthy cases i.e. 1 business being "subsidised" by the tax payers and at the cost of allowing other businesses to "fail" across the wider country.

scumdog

7th April 2013, 20:16

Ocean1

7th April 2013, 20:17

:rofl:. It only takes one of them to totally fuck the budget for more worthy cases i.e. 1 business being "subsidised" by the tax payers and at the cost of allowing other businesses to "fail" across the wider country.

Don't know if they're being subsidised, they're not exactly paying "wholesale" rates but they shouldn't expect to pay the extra the rest of us do for a shonky electricity retail industry. In effect I reckon it's more accurate to say the rest of us are being ripped off.

And then I don't think there's any valid comparison between a commercial agreement involving two parties who are contributing value to the outcome and dole payments, where at least one side isn't. The first will only succeed if both parties gain value commensurate with their outlay, the second can only ever fail.

Otherwise I agree, a lot of large companies have cornered significant slices of their markets in NZ and they often step well over the fair play line when "protecting" their market share. There's bullys and cheats everywhere. But you knew you'd get a rise out of me on monopolies, eh?

mashman

7th April 2013, 22:38

Don't know if they're being subsidised, they're not exactly paying "wholesale" rates but they shouldn't expect to pay the extra the rest of us do for a shonky electricity retail industry. In effect I reckon it's more accurate to say the rest of us are being ripped off.

And then I don't think there's any valid comparison between a commercial agreement involving two parties who are contributing value to the outcome and dole payments, where at least one side isn't. The first will only succeed if both parties gain value commensurate with their outlay, the second can only ever fail.

Otherwise I agree, a lot of large companies have cornered significant slices of their markets in NZ and they often step well over the fair play line when "protecting" their market share. There's bullys and cheats everywhere. But you knew you'd get a rise out of me on monopolies, eh?

Probably close to the mark on both counts. Why shouldn't they be expected to pay market rates? Similarly with tradespeople getting discounts for their consistent custom. I understand why and I'm not trying to be harsh, but not everyone pays the same price I paid. Why am I being ripped off in that instance?

Only ideological comparisons... oddly enough them's that I R a developin. That success and failure is based on a flawed system. Why should either have to fail? doh, yup, flawed system.

I wasn't trying to get a rise out of you, but it's interesting to see that point of view and does make sense as it does fit with your value, erm, values. Tis just another one of them reasons that the financial system has to go... as even if we did hit some magical reset button and split the monopoly's it wouldn't take too long for them to rise again to save the day.

mashman

7th April 2013, 22:39

Frankly I am surprised Britain has enough tax-payers to support those leeching off the tax-payers tit..

heh... they probably can't afford it, but they don't really have much choice and some people make damned good money over there.

Ocean1

8th April 2013, 08:41

Probably close to the mark on both counts. Why shouldn't they be expected to pay market rates? Similarly with tradespeople getting discounts for their consistent custom. I understand why and I'm not trying to be harsh, but not everyone pays the same price I paid. Why am I being ripped off in that instance?

Who's to say they're not paying market rates? I think you're being ripped off because power prices have trebbled in the last 20 years, and the only thing that's changed is the institution of a hash-up of retailers. Before you essentially paid the manufacturer, now there's at least two more mark-ups that didn't need to be there before. A lesson in the difference between "market" costs and cost of supply.

mashman

8th April 2013, 10:41

Who's to say they're not paying market rates? I think you're being ripped off because power prices have trebbled in the last 20 years, and the only thing that's changed is the institution of a hash-up of retailers. Before you essentially paid the manufacturer, now there's at least two more mark-ups that didn't need to be there before. A lesson in the difference between "market" costs and cost of supply.

The article posted by Stephen alludes to them having "bullied" their way to a deal that had them paying less than market rates. Ach I'm being ripped off by everyone. I'm used to it, not overly happy with it, but used to it. I guess middle men appear once outsourcing becomes the norm. "Specialists" providing their industry contacts and facilitating commerce. It all adds to the cost though eh.

Brian d marge

8th April 2013, 12:39

Who's to say they're not paying market rates? I think you're being ripped off because power prices have trebbled in the last 20 years, and the only thing that's changed is the institution of a hash-up of retailers. Before you essentially paid the manufacturer, now there's at least two more mark-ups that didn't need to be there before. A lesson in the difference between "market" costs and cost of supply.

I posted this before , but under the old electricity board the prices would have gone up something like 14 odd percent , under the new system the have gone up something like 400%

If I have a chance today i will nail the source down

Stephen

Winston001

8th April 2013, 23:32

How many of those were discharged without being replaced with a fresh one on the purchase of a new house?

Lies, damned lies....

Yeah that is the right question to ask.

However so far as I can tell 45% of NZ home owners have no mortgage - Statistics Department.

It looks (Google) like 33% of American have no mortgage either.

Ocean1

9th April 2013, 08:05

Yeah that is the right question to ask.

However so far as I can tell 45% of NZ home owners have no mortgage - Statistics Department.

It looks (Google) like 33% of American have no mortgage either.

Surprisingly high. Encouraging, though.

Maybe less surprising when you consider the age and size of the boomer wavefront.

Brian d marge

10th April 2013, 13:18

Dont worry all is well
?
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/8531385/Welfare-shake-up-passed-into-law

Ocean1 , who deserve it ..... do you really want me to answer that throwaway line , try people who have mental issues, or parents who have responsibilities at home

Stephen

mashman

10th April 2013, 13:32

Ocean1

10th April 2013, 15:57

Dont worry all is well
?
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/8531385/Welfare-shake-up-passed-into-law

What is it in particular amongst the new rules that you object to?

Dole bludgers have the right to spend their alms on hooch? Solo mothers have a right to endless cash for endless fatherless sprogs? What?

Ocean1 , who deserve it ..... do you really want me to answer that throwaway line , try people who have mental issues, or parents who have responsibilities at home

It wasn't my throwaway line, it was yours. Have a wee look back a couple pages. I was simply pointing out that a pension differs from other "benefits" insomuch that the recipients earned it. Literally.

As for the genuinely needy, I've said numerous times I understand and agree with taxpayer support of such. I just don't believe you can insist that every worker is worth a minimim of $X/hr and then blame "the system" when that turns out not to be the case.

blue rider

11th April 2013, 09:18

migrants an benefits

http://fullfact.org/factchecks/immigration_and_benefits-28846

and for refuge seekers etc

http://www.turn2us.org.uk/information__resources/benefits/migrants.aspx

the graph is from 2011...so the numbes would be slightly changed...and ofcourse is for ennglad, which would include the scots and the welsh!

what it shows, is that a large number of "benefits" are spend on pensions, than housing (this benefit is directly paid to landlords - talk about subsidizing slums!), and to support working people in low paying jobs.

considering that jobs that are outsourced to cheap manufacturing countries are often only replaced with low paying service jobs, we have a dilemma.

a. we go to the governemtn and ask for assistance on housing/food/heating etc

b. we go to ge government and ask for it to regulate a housing market that is out of bounds, establish a "living wage" requirement.

And this is not just a Kiwi Problem, or an english problem or an EU problem or an USA problem...it is becoming a problem of the socalled "first world", our world. Maybe we want to be careful about of what we abolish, lest we ever loose our jobs, have a life changing accident, etc..

However I do understand that all these benefit receiving humans, are all less than humans, that thety only deserve our scorn, considering that My Money...will be so much better spend on dear leader travelling to China and advising the Parents of this country to have their children study mandarin/cantonese instead of other stuff.

gwigs

11th April 2013, 15:53

The money program

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/sor9GzivGbk?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Banditbandit

12th April 2013, 09:27

.

However I do understand that all these benefit receiving humans, are all less than humans, that thety only deserve our scorn, considering that My Money...will be so much better spend on dear leader travelling to China and advising the Parents of this country to have their children study mandarin/cantonese instead of other stuff.

And don't forget saying that if there was a war with Chinese Ally North Korea that GodZone wil be on the side of the USA ...

DOH !!!

Banditbandit

12th April 2013, 09:32

It wasn't my throwaway line, it was yours. Have a wee look back a couple pages. I was simply pointing out that a pension differs from other "benefits" insomuch that the recipients earned it. Literally.

BULLSHIT !!! That was never the point of the Government pensions - it was to support people who truly needed it. It was never there to pay for the lifestyles of the rich who do not need it .. the pension (established by a Left-wing Governmetn remember) was just part of the safety net system ... it was the right wing middle and upper class people who insisted that they should get it to "because we've paid taxes all our lives" .. that's a bullshit argument ...

As for the genuinely needy, I've said numerous times I understand and agree with taxpayer support of such. I just don't believe you can insist that every worker is worth a minimim of $X/hr and then blame "the system" when that turns out not to be the case.

And our wonderful Government is about to add to the dole lines by pulling out the hospital kitchens and giving the contract to British-based multi-national Compass ... make people in the hosptals redundent and send all the profits off-shore ... talk about seling our coutry to foreigners ..

That makes great economic sense doesnt it ... more money needed to pay the dole and more money pouring off-shore (let alone the health effects ...) . shifting the costs from the health budget to the benefits budget - then scream about "dole bludgers and beneficiaries ..."

Brian d marge

12th April 2013, 13:16

[QUOTE=Ocean1;1130529102]What is it in particular amongst the new rules that you object to?

Dole bludgers have the right to spend their alms on hooch? Solo mothers have a right to endless cash for endless fatherless sprogs? What?

It wasn't my throwaway line, it was yours. Have a wee look back a couple pages. I was simply pointing out that a pension differs from other "benefits" insomuch that the recipients earned it. Literally.

As for the genuinely needy, I've said numerous times I understand and agree with taxpayer support of such. I just don't believe you can insist that every worker is worth a minimim of $X/hr and then blame "the system" when that turns out not to be the case.[/QUOT

I wish life was as easy as you make it out to be
Bene bashing is just vote grabbing and will not save much , white western Calvinistic people from the never had it so good generation love this kind of shit , and kinda forget that they got to where they are under socialist ideals , kinda" I worked hard" and forgetting that now it take 2 people to work hard ,,,,,
When will people realise this is all IMF policy and thaat NZ is the poster child , butt buddy and IF it continues , All the problems America has now as well as Briatain are and WILL come to a community near you
I wouldnt wish that upon my worst enemy "

Have read back and nope cant find "my throwaway line "

Stephen

Who can actually say " I didn’t stand back and do nothing "

Ocean1

12th April 2013, 17:34

BULLSHIT !!! That was never the point of the Government pensions - it was to support people who truly needed it. It was never there to pay for the lifestyles of the rich who do not need it .. the pension (established by a Left-wing Governmetn remember) was just part of the safety net system ... it was the right wing middle and upper class people who insisted that they should get it to "because we've paid taxes all our lives" .. that's a bullshit argument ...

It's not an arguement at all. It's a fact, retired taxpayers earned the money required to pay all subsidies, including pensions.

And our wonderful Government is about to add to the dole lines by pulling out the hospital kitchens and giving the contract to British-based multi-national Compass ... make people in the hosptals redundent and send all the profits off-shore ... talk about seling our coutry to foreigners ..

That makes great economic sense doesnt it ... more money needed to pay the dole and more money pouring off-shore (let alone the health effects ...) . shifting the costs from the health budget to the benefits budget - then scream about "dole bludgers and beneficiaries ..."

Saving health budget resources to pay for health issues? Yeah, makes perfect sense. If the existing service suppliers are any good at what they do they'll have a new boss, if not then they'll have to find something they are good at doing, on someone else's tab.

Ocean1

12th April 2013, 17:53

I wish life was as easy as you make it out to be
Bene bashing is just vote grabbing and will not save much , white western Calvinistic people from the never had it so good generation love this kind of shit , and kinda forget that they got to where they are under socialist ideals , kinda" I worked hard" and forgetting that now it take 2 people to work hard ,,,,,
When will people realise this is all IMF policy and thaat NZ is the poster child , butt buddy and IF it continues , All the problems America has now as well as Briatain are and WILL come to a community near you
I wouldnt wish that upon my worst enemy "

Have read back and nope cant find "my throwaway line "

Stephen

Who can actually say " I didn’t stand back and do nothing "

Life is easier now and here than at any time in history. If you don't find it so then either you're not doing it right, or you've got a very, very selective memory.

And on that topic:

There IS an argument , to reduce the other payouts in order to pay the oldies , ie reduce the bludgers and give that saving to the oldies

Sting the dole, sickies , and give it to the oldies , thereby paying the same total amount but giving it to the people who deserve it

How do they deserve it?

the oldies who built NZ deserve the it ...

When beliefs are as entrenched as yours are you can research till the cows come home, and everything you read, absolutely everything fits your percieved world view. You can read a whole thread and see nothing but proof that you're right and others are wrong.

Unless, of course you actually read it.

mashman

12th April 2013, 18:33

Life is easier now and here than at any time in history. If you don't find it so then either you're not doing it right, or you've got a very, very selective memory.

I reckon the "Homelessness fears for millions without savings" (http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/homelessness-fears-millions-without-savings-061609349.html) would disagree with you. It may be easier, but it ain't cheaper and that's what makes life anything but easier. Money has a lot to answer for.

Ocean1

12th April 2013, 18:55

I reckon the "Homelessness fears for millions without savings" (http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/homelessness-fears-millions-without-savings-061609349.html) would disagree with you.

Probably. But those in that situation are likely to have learned as little at school in history as they did in the subjects that might have led to a more productive carreer.

It may be easier, but it ain't cheaper and that's what makes life anything but easier. Money has a lot to answer for.

It's the same thing. Cheaper = more value for less money = easier to achieve. So yes, money has to answer for modern society's easy lifestyle.

Brian d marge

12th April 2013, 18:59

Life is easier now and here than at any time in history. If you don't find it so then either you're not doing it right, or you've got a very, very selective memory.

And on that topic:

When beliefs are as entrenched as yours are you can research till the cows come home, and everything you read, absolutely everything fits your percieved world view. You can read a whole thread and see nothing but proof that you're right and others are wrong.

Unless, of course you actually read it.

whooo thats pot/ kettle

would you like a photo of me library .? and say a screenshot of me bookmarks ?

and it isnt my view of the world ITS WHAT IS HAPPENING

So , your electricity hasnt gone through the roof
your Acc hasnt gone up
your Rego hasnt gone up
house prices have gone through the ceiling
a country full of bad teeth and eyes
student loans and their effect ?
your pension when it comes ( IF it comes )

none of these things and these are all figment of my feverish imagination ........

Pity we dont have TUI here ....

Stephen

easier now than anytime in history ?? I dont think so ...even peasants had a better life!

mashman

12th April 2013, 19:02

Probably. But those in that situation are likely to have learned as little at school in history as they did in the subjects that might have led to a more productive carreer.

It's the same thing. Cheaper = more value for less money = easier to achieve. So yes, money has to answer for modern society's easy lifestyle.

That's one hell of an assumption there. We were in a similar position when we got our first house 10 years ago and I'm not wholly uneducated. Tis a shit that the cost of living is so high that pretty much everything that you earn goes into the house, bills, vehicle maintenance, insurances etc... innit. Effort is effort, irrespective of how it is financially measured.

Although in the case of the OP, More Expensive = more money for less value = harder to save. Money = bad m'kay.

Ocean1

12th April 2013, 19:34

Effort is effort, irrespective of how it is financially measured.

That's true. And in spite of the fact that civilisation has used currency as a unit of value for milennia idiots occasionally still expect to be get paid for their effort, rather than the value they've produced with that effort.

Although in the case of the OP, More Expensive = more money for less value = harder to save. Money = bad m'kay.

The OP didn't comment on his current income, as I recall. There was an endearingly simplistic bleat about the number of dollars used to quantify te value of purchases, but fuck all about the number of dollars in his pay packet.

mashman

12th April 2013, 19:42

That's true. And in spite of the fact that civilisation has used currency as a unit of value for milennia idiots occasionally still expect to be get paid for their effort, rather than the value they've produced with that effort.

The OP didn't comment on his current income, as I recall. There was an endearingly simplistic bleat about the number of dollars used to quantify te value of purchases, but fuck all about the number of dollars in his pay packet.

Too many overvalued, too many undervalued... hmmmm, I wonder who does the valuation. The two don't really tally anymore do they? Not that they ever really did, but it seems to be going from one extreme to the other. It can't end well.

There wasn't a need to comment on the income, as it is the value of the good/service that means you get less value for more money.

Ocean1

12th April 2013, 19:58

I wonder who does the valuation.

The guy buying the stuff/service decides. Nothing else makes any sort of sense at all.

There wasn't a need to comment on the income,

No. That would have led to people doing some arithmetic and coming to the conclusion that the cost of most stuff hasn’t changed anywhere near as much as a good conspiracy rant demands.

mashman

12th April 2013, 20:05

The guy buying the stuff/service decides. Nothing else makes any sort of sense at all.

No. That would have led to people doing some arithmetic and coming to the conclusion that the cost of most stuff hasn’t changed anywhere near as much as a good conspiracy rant demands.

So no problems with monopoly's and rent seekers then? Not using money at all makes perfect sense :D

:rofl:... I dunno about that. There have been reports around lately highlighting that the essentials have been getting more expensive compared to back in the day. And what figures would you use for your rithmetic? Average income v cost of essentials?

Ocean1

12th April 2013, 20:15

So no problems with monopoly's and rent seekers then?

Dunno what a rent seeker is. Monopolies try to isolate the value of their product from the price they're charging, exactly the same behaviour I dislike about socialists and cargo cultists. Fuck the lot of 'em wiv a big pointy stick.

:rofl:... I dunno about that. There have been reports around lately highlighting that the essentials have been getting more expensive compared to back in the day. And what figures would you use for your rithmetic? Average income v cost of essentials?

I only need to look at my parents standard of living and their contemporary's compared to their income to work it out. I did look at the numbers, once, but what you call an essential might vary. So do the homework, eh? Just make sure you're comparing apples with apples, house size and quality now equal to that available then, etc, etc.

Brian d marge

12th April 2013, 20:23

Just make sure you're comparing apples with apples, house size and quality now equal to that available then, etc, etc.

alrighty then , this could be useful , lets compare 1959 with 1999 ,

Ill help look things up , but I would be genuinely interested

Stephen

Ocean1

12th April 2013, 20:30

alrighty then , this could be useful , lets compare 1959 with 1999 ,

Ill help look things up , but I would be genuinely interested

Stephen

Think the last 30 years is the period in question.

mashman

12th April 2013, 20:59

Dunno what a rent seeker is. Monopolies try to isolate the value of their product from the price they're charging, exactly the same behaviour I dislike about socialists and cargo cultists. Fuck the lot of 'em wiv a big pointy stick.

I only need to look at my parents standard of living and their contemporary's compared to their income to work it out. I did look at the numbers, once, but what you call an essential might vary. So do the homework, eh? Just make sure you're comparing apples with apples, house size and quality now equal to that available then, etc, etc.

Rent-Seeking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking)... isn't that how a business runs? They charge what they like based on the perceived market value to cover the costs and x% of margin?

The standard of living and the cost of living are 2 different things. So comparing standard of living in regards to value for money isn't comparing apples with apples.

husaberg

12th April 2013, 21:07

Think the last 30 years is the period in question.

Why not compare land prices? apple vs apple same piece of land and all that?

Ocean1

12th April 2013, 21:17

Rent-Seeking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking)... isn't that how a business runs? They charge what they like based on the perceived market value to cover the costs and x% of margin?

No, by and large they don't.

Oh, there's quite a few that try to manipulate markets to their advantage, mostly by attempting to restrict access. If they're successful they're what I call a monopoly, there's no access to a free, value-driven market.

But as I've said before the vast majority of NZ business are SME's, fewer than a dozen workers. I know of a couple who use semi-dodgy standards compliance claims in an attempt to limit customers access to fair markets, but it's tolerably rare in NZ, more a feature of corrupt eastern European government contract arrangements.

Although I note in passing that the commerce commission has just agreed that Hire Pool can buy out Projects. If that's not creating a monopoly I don't know what is.

The standard of living and the cost of living are 2 different things. So comparing standard of living in regards to value for money isn't comparing apples with apples.

Semantics. Stop shooting your mouth off for a bit and find some reliable numbers to hang off this:

Average income v cost of essentials?

1982 and 2012.

Ocean1

12th April 2013, 21:27

Why not compare land prices? apple vs apple same piece of land and all that?

Because that's not all that's required to measure the essentials of life.

I'd be surprised if nobody's done such a comparison, but it's easy to cherry pick data, so if you're going to trust the results you need to write up your own honest shot at a "basic grocery list" and all the other budget items and then try to find enough historic prices to get a reasonable result.

Edit: I guess council imposed land development costs qualify as what mate mashie calls rent seeking too, eh? Certainly a huge increase in valueless compliance costs over the last few decades...

Brian d marge

12th April 2013, 21:40

Think the last 30 years is the period in question.

August the 15th 1971 to be exact

Stephen

Ocean1

12th April 2013, 21:45

August the 15th 1971 to be exact

Stephen

Nothing to do with your "world ended on this day" story Stephen, pay attention:

"A three-fold increase in prices has seen the spending power of money fall by two-thirds over the past 30 years, meaning a pound today can only buy as much as 33p could in 1982." (http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/a-pound-now-%E2%80%98worth-33p%E2%80%99-114714460.html)

Brian d marge

12th April 2013, 21:52

Rent-Seeking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking)...281243

The standard of living and the cost of living are 2 different things. So comparing standard of living in regards to value for money isn't comparing apples with apples.

no but there is a basic living standard of which telephones , TV and Ipads aren’t included

Stephen

Brian d marge

12th April 2013, 21:56

Nothing to do with your "world ended on this day" story Stephen, pay attention:

EVERYTHING to do with the world changed on this day

you are just unaware

Stephen

You know Im right , it just doesnt ft with your comfort zone ...

Brian d marge

12th April 2013, 22:03

No, by and large they don't.

Oh, there's quite a few that try to manipulate markets to their advantage, mostly by attempting to restrict access. If they're successful they're what I call a monopoly, there's no access to a free, value-driven market.

But as I've said before the vast majority of NZ business are SME's, fewer than a dozen workers. I know of a couple who use semi-dodgy standards compliance claims in an attempt to limit customers access to fair markets, but it's tolerably rare in NZ, more a feature of corrupt eastern European government contract arrangements.

Although I note in passing that the commerce commission has just agreed that Hire Pool can buy out Projects. If that's not creating a monopoly I don't know what is.

Semantics. Stop shooting your mouth off for a bit and find some reliable numbers to hang off this:

1982 and 2012.

you seriously do not know what you are talking about. spend a few min on google , look up public choice ( beautiful mind movie , nashes game theory )
the see if you can make the link between that and waiting times in the hospital

Stephen

husaberg

12th April 2013, 22:35

Because that's not all that's required to measure the essentials of life.

I'd be surprised if nobody's done such a comparison, but it's easy to cherry pick data, so if you're going to trust the results you need to write up your own honest shot at a "basic grocery list" and all the other budget items and then try to find enough historic prices to get a reasonable result.

Edit: I guess council imposed land development costs qualify as what mate mashie calls rent seeking too, eh? Certainly a huge increase in valueless compliance costs over the last few decades...

Some where to live is an essential of life isn't it i choose it because it is impossible to cherry pick.It is true like for like comparison, barring of course changes in transport routes and technology bridges etc........It is like for like. Using the dwelling is problematic fue to improved features etc building standards.
Food is too problematic as the changes in transport technology fertiliser economies of scale etc.

One things i see as for certain is both my parents still work and they are past the retirement age, most people my age have little savings and huge mortgages My parents didn't. Two incomes were not required to provide for a family and a new car every few years out of savings. Yes I realise people today have a want it right now philosophy. But i don't think it is the complete story.

mashman

12th April 2013, 23:04

No, by and large they don't.

Oh, there's quite a few that try to manipulate markets to their advantage, mostly by attempting to restrict access. If they're successful they're what I call a monopoly, there's no access to a free, value-driven market.

But as I've said before the vast majority of NZ business are SME's, fewer than a dozen workers. I know of a couple who use semi-dodgy standards compliance claims in an attempt to limit customers access to fair markets, but it's tolerably rare in NZ, more a feature of corrupt eastern European government contract arrangements.

Although I note in passing that the commerce commission has just agreed that Hire Pool can buy out Projects. If that's not creating a monopoly I don't know what is.

Semantics. Stop shooting your mouth off for a bit and find some reliable numbers to hang off this:

1982 and 2012.

There seem to be more and more people manipulating the market/commodity prices which is skewing "real productivity"... but that's the power of money for ya. Banks be the kings of such a past-time.

You're right... tis bloody tricky/nigh on impossible to get historical data for salary's, lecky, education (although we know that was free once upon a time), food etc... however I did find this which whilst it covers the overview, we know that prices and according to this wages have fallen. It doesn't not list source, and don't balk when you see who wrote it, if you can that is... 1982 - 2009 (http://www.unite.org.nz/?q=node/704)

mashman

12th April 2013, 23:10

August the 15th 1971 to be exact

Stephen

Decimalisation eh? The day the UK to an involuntary pay cut wiping a small fortune off of the UK economy.

no but there is a basic living standard of which telephones , TV and Ipads aren’t included

Stephen

That image was so wrong, so so wrong. Bedtime reading?

Brian d marge

13th April 2013, 00:24

Decimalisation eh? The day the UK to an involuntary pay cut wiping a small fortune off of the UK economy.

That image was so wrong, so so wrong. Bedtime reading?

Nixon shock

pissed the french right off . Nail in the coffin for the old gold standard

Stephen

Brian d marge

13th April 2013, 00:27

There seem to be more and more people manipulating the market/commodity prices which is skewing "real productivity"... but that's the power of money for ya. Banks be the kings of such a past-time.

You're right... tis bloody tricky/nigh on impossible to get historical data for salary's, lecky, education (although we know that was free once upon a time), food etc... however I did find this which whilst it covers the overview, we know that prices and according to this wages have fallen. It doesn't not list source, and don't balk when you see who wrote it, if you can that is... 1982 - 2009 (http://www.unite.org.nz/?q=node/704)
Also that was POST rogernomics

Stephen

husaberg

13th April 2013, 00:39

Also that was POST rogernomics

Stephen

Rodgernomics wasn't that more post 84 really kicking in 88?

Ocean1

13th April 2013, 09:31

Some where to live is an essential of life isn't it i choose it because it is impossible to cherry pick.It is true like for like comparison, barring of course changes in transport routes and technology bridges etc........It is like for like. Using the dwelling is problematic fue to improved features etc building standards.
Food is too problematic as the changes in transport technology fertiliser economies of scale etc.

One things i see as for certain is both my parents still work and they are past the retirement age, most people my age have little savings and huge mortgages My parents didn't. Two incomes were not required to provide for a family and a new car every few years out of savings. Yes I realise people today have a want it right now philosophy. But i don't think it is the complete story.

As I said, the price of land now includes parasitic compliance costs that didn't exist then, they wouldn't appear on a list of stuff our parents had to pay for, so the comparison isn't really like for like. Still, I guess we have to pay for them nowadays whether we see any value in the "product" or not. The same goes for food, though, the lawn mower, the family car. The markets for pretty much everything have changed.

I did say it wasn't easy, and you're right, people's expectations of life have changed dramatically over that 30 years. But it seems to me the only honest comparison would be to list all of the items our parents paid for each month and to then price the closest approximation available today. A desktop instead of a Philips vidtronic, etc etc.

Can be done, though. My contention was simply that it takes no more hours work today for your average guy to earn enough to live as our parents did. The fact that today's generation spend a great deal more on non-essentials, some of which weren't even available to our parents simply reinforces the theory that this generation has it easier.

As for your parents working beyond retirement age, there's another cultural change affecting that. A generation ago they would have had a much smaller chance of actually living beyond that age. If they did their day to day costs would have been somewhat subsidised by the local comunity, at least more so than is the case now. Also, having lived that long they'd have been more likely to be living with their children.

Ocean1

13th April 2013, 09:36

There seem to be more and more people manipulating the market/commodity prices which is skewing "real productivity"... but that's the power of money for ya.

There's no more shysters per town now than there ever was, just more idiots prepared to buy shit for more than it's worth. Disparity of value, fuck all to do with the money itself.

You're right... tis bloody tricky/nigh on impossible to get historical data for salary's, lecky, education (although we know that was free once upon a time), food etc... however I did find this which whilst it covers the overview, we know that prices and according to this wages have fallen. It doesn't not list source, and don't balk when you see who wrote it, if you can that is... 1982 - 2009 (http://www.unite.org.nz/?q=node/704)

Will look later.

mashman

13th April 2013, 13:24

Mr Meacher asked: “Is it reasonable to pressurise seriously disabled persons into work so ruthlessly when there are already 2.5 million people unemployed and, on average, eight persons chasing every vacancy, unless they are also provided with the active and extensive support they obviously need in order to get and to hold down work, which is certainly not the case at present?” (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/atos-told-incontinent-woman-to-wear-nappy-firm-condemned-by-mps-for-pressuring-sick-and-disabled-into-returning-to-work-8456447.html)... people v money. Money wins everytime... and yet the politicians still don't understand that that is the case. Very disappointing.

There's no more shysters per town now than there ever was, just more idiots prepared to buy shit for more than it's worth. Disparity of value, fuck all to do with the money itself.

Maybe. Although where there are more people taking the piss, unfortunately there are more "normal" people deciding that if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. I guess it's not something you can really survey for is it :laugh:. Disparity of value has everything to do with money as that's the mechanism used to quantify and obtain goods/services along with the primary driver for setting the value.

Ocean1

13th April 2013, 23:37

Will look later.

Is very selective of data, without the full set they're quoting from it's impossible to say but where pro and con data is from different periods where the full set is available you've got to be suspicious that there's some distortion going on. Once the numbers stop the report devolves into a dense wall of union platitudes, hard to read and basically unsubstantiated opinion.

people v money. Money wins everytime... and yet the politicians still don't understand that that is the case. Very disappointing.

You're confused again, mony is a unit of value, the economy has a finite value, therefore there is not a limitless supply of money. The fact that there's an unlimited number of people who want more money than they have in no way increases either the size of the economy or the quantity of money available to them. Some of those people are going to be dissapointed. Live with it, it's not going to change.

Disparity of value has everything to do with money as that's the mechanism used to quantify and obtain goods/services along with the primary driver for setting the value.

The value of anything for sale has a value expressed in dollars. Revaluing or removing the currency altogether changes the value of the goods not a jot, and if fuckwits insist on paying more for the goods than they're worth there's bugger all you can do about it. And it's the value of a product that dictates the quantity of currency required to purchace it, not the other way around.

On the other hand, if you feel some goods you're interested in are overpriced then by all means choose not to buy them, your money; your choice.

mashman

14th April 2013, 10:13

Is very selective of data, without the full set they're quoting from it's impossible to say but where pro and con data is from different periods where the full set is available you've got to be suspicious that there's some distortion going on. Once the numbers stop the report devolves into a dense wall of union platitudes, hard to read and basically unsubstantiated opinion.

I know. I was in two minds as to whether to post it or not. There were a few other docs floating around in regards to NZ's history that made comparisons to the value of the $ back in the day and now, ya know, the usual $150 then is $900 now type thing, but again no sources to back it up. T'was much harder than I thought trying to find comparison docs and my tin foil hat twitches as I would imagine that if it were a positive state of affairs i.e. better cost of living today, it would be plastered everywhere as it usually is when "good results" are posted. Til then I guess it'll have to be the reporting of numbers by family trust etc... that we'll have to go with, and they aren't positive.

You're confused again, mony is a unit of value, the economy has a finite value, therefore there is not a limitless supply of money. The fact that there's an unlimited number of people who want more money than they have in no way increases either the size of the economy or the quantity of money available to them. Some of those people are going to be dissapointed. Live with it, it's not going to change.

I'm confused? Money is much more than a unit of value and it is infinite. As is the value of the economy. Else we'd all be trying to share $20, but we're not, the economy has supposedly grown for decades and we keep coming up with more money... so they are both infinite. As you have noted there's not a consistent correlation between financial value and good/service value and because of that prices can rise to whatever levels are needed to allow TPTB to pump more money into the economy. Lots of people are already disappointed with the price of things, food and power being causes for concern for an ever dwindling buying power.

The value of anything for sale has a value expressed in dollars. Revaluing or removing the currency altogether changes the value of the goods not a jot, and if fuckwits insist on paying more for the goods than they're worth there's bugger all you can do about it. And it's the value of a product that dictates the quantity of currency required to purchace it, not the other way around.

On the other hand, if you feel some goods you're interested in are overpriced then by all means choose not to buy them, your money; your choice.

Of course the value of the goods changes value. The high street has sales to shift as many units as possible before the new stuff comes in at a higher price. Notice many cheap Overseas flights these days? Inflation causes prices to rise and therefore the value of the good changes. No doubt there are many more instances of the value of a good changing in response to supply and demand, just look at our housing situation. As for the value dictating the price, I'll give you a half point for that, because the production value draws the break even line, everything else after that is gravy and the amount of gravy all depends on which way the wind is blowing, see the afore mentioned sales. So both measures are used, but the final price is not dictated by the value of the good... although yeah, the final value does dictate how much $ is required to buy it.

Brian d marge

14th April 2013, 11:38

Rodgernomics wasn't that more post 84 really kicking in 88?

they say the modern economy is fromm1985 onwards ... but the seeds were planted back in the 70s

Stephen

Ocean1

14th April 2013, 11:50

I know. I was in two minds as to whether to post it or not. There were a few other docs floating around in regards to NZ's history that made comparisons to the value of the $ back in the day and now, ya know, the usual $150 then is $900 now type thing, but again no sources to back it up. T'was much harder than I thought trying to find comparison docs and my tin foil hat twitches as I would imagine that if it were a positive state of affairs i.e. better cost of living today, it would be plastered everywhere as it usually is when "good results" are posted. Til then I guess it'll have to be the reporting of numbers by family trust etc... that we'll have to go with, and they aren't positive.

Aren’t positive for what? Income maybe but do family trusts record the price of groceries?
Seems likely the official govt conservator would have the numbers, I just don’t know where his shit is.

I'm confused? Money is much more than a unit of value and it is infinite. As is the value of the economy. Else we'd all be trying to share $20, but we're not, the economy has supposedly grown for decades and we keep coming up with more money... so they are both infinite. As you have noted there's not a consistent correlation between financial value and good/service value and because of that prices can rise to whatever levels are needed to allow TPTB to pump more money into the economy. Lots of people are already disappointed with the price of things, food and power being causes for concern for an ever dwindling buying power. .

Infinite? Fuck off, the value of the economy is the total of what the various markets will pay for the product of our economy. That’s it. It’s value increases if and when additional product of some value is added, and only then. If GDP increases year by year then the economy grows in value, if external markets decide they don’t want a bunch of our product then it shrinks. Exactly the same as any other business.

The value of a dollar is essentially the value of the economy divided by the total number of dollars in circulation. If the govt prints more money and circulates it then the value of each dollar is diminished accordingly. And they do print more, supposedly to match growth in the economy, but also to match anticipated growth. The second sort isn’t in circulation, as such, it’s tied up in your mortgage.

As for the disparity between product value and price, it’s common enough, and becoming more common, it’s caused by arseholes circumventing a free market, and yes tptb are as guilty of that as some big businesses. Such distortions have nothing to do with prices rising to “allow the pumping of money into the economy”. The solution is really simple, require the commerce commission to do it’s fucking job and remove the barriers to free trade.

Of course the value of the goods changes value. The high street has sales to shift as many units as possible before the new stuff comes in at a higher price. Notice many cheap Overseas flights these days? Inflation causes prices to rise and therefore the value of the good changes. No doubt there are many more instances of the value of a good changing in response to supply and demand, just look at our housing situation. As for the value dictating the price, I'll give you a half point for that, because the production value draws the break even line, everything else after that is gravy and the amount of gravy all depends on which way the wind is blowing, see the afore mentioned sales. So both measures are used, but the final price is not dictated by the value of the good... although yeah, the final value does dictate how much $ is required to buy it.

Yeah? Then why are later models of pretty much everything priced lower than their predecessors? And I didn’t deny that the value of product changes, it’s synonymous with a free market. As you said, supply and demand should dictate price. What I said is that suddenly changing the value of the dollar doesn’t alter the intrinsic value of a product. The only time you’ll ever find that the final price of a product isn’t dictated by the it’s value is when the market’s being distorted.

Example: my audiologist wants to sell me hearing aids for $5k, yet the cost of manufacture is about $30. Why can’t I simply go and buy a $30 set? Because he has to tune them to suit me, and the way he chooses to cover his costs is to massively overprice the product. What should happen? I should be able to buy that $30 hearing aid, perhaps from him, and he should then charge me for his services honestly. The overall cost might well end up the same, but with the costs itemised properly I can see what I’m paying for. If don’t like it I can go somewhere else.

The value of the product should always dictate the price.

Lets talk about the value I’m getting from my tax dollars, eh?

husaberg

14th April 2013, 12:10

okay how about the value of a big Mac compared to the minimum wage for an hours work........:innocent:

Ocean1

14th April 2013, 14:57

okay how about the value of a big Mac compared to the minimum wage for an hours work........:innocent:

Now that actuall is a semi-serious economic measure in moderately widespread use, you've talked to Mr google about the relative historic price of Maca's?

Not sure how indicitive of the real world it is.

Edit: I can remember that a trip to the first 'Donalds in town, in Porirua was something to be saved up for...

husaberg

14th April 2013, 15:56

Now that actuall is a semi-serious economic measure in moderately widespread use, you've talked to Mr google about the relative historic price of Maca's?

Not sure how indicitive of the real world it is.

Edit: I can remember that a trip to the first 'Donalds in town, in Porirua was something to be saved up for...

No i haven't, but i do know it is a reasonable indication of prosperity. Macca's can't afford to get it wrong.LOL

Ocean1

14th April 2013, 16:30

No i haven't, but i do know it is a reasonable indication of prosperity. Macca's can't afford to get it wrong.LOL

If Macca's are continually tweaking their prices so that they're always getting the same optimal return then their prices are always going to follow the average income variations, yes? So not a good baseline against which to compare historic income. I think the Big Mac index is used more as a tongue-in -cheek comparison between economies rather than different periods within a single economy.

So:

281329

I understand Macca's business model is based around real estate, levering the revenue lead from each outlet start-up to finance the next. Not sure I believe that, but it's an interesting concept...

husaberg

14th April 2013, 16:56

If Macca's are continually tweaking their prices so that they're always getting the same optimal return then their prices are always going to follow the average income variations, yes? So not a good baseline against which to compare historic income. I think the Big Mac index is used more as a tongue-in -cheek comparison between economies rather than different periods within a single economy.

I believe Macca price is based on what the market can afford to pay hence why it is dearer in the more Prosperous countries. Coke and Levi's would be the same.
I think it would be a valid way of comparing change in buying power within a country across years.

Although it would now seem with Coke Levi's and Macca's achieving good market penetration within China.
Communism will now fall within 15 years. That's how you push Democracy and free markets Make them want Brands

mashman

14th April 2013, 18:15

Aren’t positive for what? Income maybe but do family trusts record the price of groceries?
Seems likely the official govt conservator would have the numbers, I just don’t know where his shit is.

Positive as in the cost of living is cheaper today than back in the day... on the basis that that isn't constantly being sung from the heavens I'd happily write off that being the case. Dunno about family trusts, never looked into them. Tin foil hat says you can't get that info without a very very good reason and you'll likely have to sign some form of non-disclosure with your life being forfeit should you make the grade.

Infinite? Fuck off, the value of the economy is the total of what the various markets will pay for the product of our economy. That’s it. It’s value increases if and when additional product of some value is added, and only then. If GDP increases year by year then the economy grows in value, if external markets decide they don’t want a bunch of our product then it shrinks. Exactly the same as any other business.

The value of a dollar is essentially the value of the economy divided by the total number of dollars in circulation. If the govt prints more money and circulates it then the value of each dollar is diminished accordingly. And they do print more, supposedly to match growth in the economy, but also to match anticipated growth. The second sort isn’t in circulation, as such, it’s tied up in your mortgage.

As for the disparity between product value and price, it’s common enough, and becoming more common, it’s caused by arseholes circumventing a free market, and yes tptb are as guilty of that as some big businesses. Such distortions have nothing to do with prices rising to “allow the pumping of money into the economy”. The solution is really simple, require the commerce commission to do it’s fucking job and remove the barriers to free trade.

Of course it's infinite. Money is plucked out of thin air. Money = economy. The value being generated is financial, not the product itself as the prices for some products fluctuate innit. So GDP is expressed in financial terms and growth is merely a comparison of the amount of money "earned" over a given period. There's nothing magical about that calculation. For an idea of how infinite it is (http://www.usdebtclock.org/)

The Japanese seem to do that alot, heh, for some reason. Of course the second sort is in circulation. I get a mortgage to pay the builder to build my house, he then spends it in the economy etc... You been drinkin today?

Pah... free market my arse. As husababy started to highlight earlier, why is product a $50 here and $1 in other countrys? The commerce commission do its job? What have you been drinking? they do as they're told, no more, no less.

Yeah? Then why are later models of pretty much everything priced lower than their predecessors? And I didn’t deny that the value of product changes, it’s synonymous with a free market. As you said, supply and demand should dictate price. What I said is that suddenly changing the value of the dollar doesn’t alter the intrinsic value of a product. The only time you’ll ever find that the final price of a product isn’t dictated by the it’s value is when the market’s being distorted.

Example: my audiologist wants to sell me hearing aids for $5k, yet the cost of manufacture is about $30. Why can’t I simply go and buy a $30 set? Because he has to tune them to suit me, and the way he chooses to cover his costs is to massively overprice the product. What should happen? I should be able to buy that $30 hearing aid, perhaps from him, and he should then charge me for his services honestly. The overall cost might well end up the same, but with the costs itemised properly I can see what I’m paying for. If don’t like it I can go somewhere else.

The value of the product should always dictate the price.

Lets talk about the value I’m getting from my tax dollars, eh?

Are they cheaper? They seem to be pretty much the same price given the new tech that comes online... and I would imagine the setup costs/factory upgrade costs are a large reason for that. That and the competition catching up.

I agree that the value of the product should indicate price, but those days are long gone and I highly doubt that they'll return. Hence we may as well accept that we're just beings on a spinning rock and owe no money to anyone other than our species... and that we should make the best of the situation instead of making up contrived overly complicated systems of human governance. It's counter-productive and a complete waste of time and energy. It ain't gonna go back to the way it was... praps we're going to end up in a nuclear war and "my" system will come about by default, although I'd rather we bypassed the war and went straight to the cooperation part.

:rofl: We're all subsidising someone else, be it locally or internationally. Yet another insane waste of time and energy where if we did what needed to be done instead of what we could afford, then we'd get everything done without holding a grudge over what your effort is being used for. Also your tax $ isn't enough coz the free market economy has failed and isn't free at all. You're gonna have to pay more please, as am I.

Ocean1

14th April 2013, 18:50

Of course it's infinite. Money is plucked out of thin air. Money = economy. The value being generated is financial, not the product itself

If you genuinely believe that then Oscar's right, there's no hope of any rational discussion.

Ocean1

14th April 2013, 19:07

I believe Macca price is based on what the market can afford to pay hence why it is dearer in the more Prosperous countries. Coke and Levi's would be the same.
I think it would be a valid way of comparing change in buying power within a country across years.

But if those prices are set to "what the market can afford" then they're always going to be similarly related to average income aren't they? So if "what they can afford" in 1980 is, say 2% of an average wage and in 2010 it's still 2% of the average wage then there's no change, is there? How can that form a measure of changes in buying power?

Although it would now seem with Coke Levi's and Macca's achieving good market penetration within China.
Communism will now fall within 15 years. That's how you push Democracy and free markets Make them want Brands

I've traveled through China. If communism is to fail there it might be because that particular flavour has a habit of lying to it's people.

And this:

281339

mashman

14th April 2013, 19:11

If you genuinely believe that then Oscar's right, there's no hope of any rational discussion.

Pah. Given that economists agree that money is plucked out of thin air and given that you claim that the economy won't work without money, I find that your statement not only goes against your beliefs and that you're either denying a universal truth or are still equating how money works today to how money worked 30/40 years ago. In regards to rational discussion, you have to be able to understand both sides of the argument before you can have a rational discussion. I understand your argument, the same can't be said for you pseudo-rational folk as you have 1 way or none at all. Hardly rational.

husaberg

14th April 2013, 19:19

But if those prices are set to "what the market can afford" then they're always going to be similarly related to average income aren't they? So if "what they can afford" in 1980 is, say 2% of an average wage and in 2010 it's still 2% of the average wage then there's no change, is there? How can that form a measure of changes in buying power?

I had considered that, but still interesting to tie it too the minimum wage. as not everyone can afford Maccas (make em want it)
here is something i did to compare the prize money for a motorbike race series back in the UK in the late 70's.
Well prize money definitely does not go as far

With 9000 pound's prize money that would buy over 10 cb400f's back then or a three bedroom house.

I've traveled through China. If communism is to fail there it might be because that particular flavour has a habit of lying to it's people.

And this:

281339

Too true Rupert has even exited NZ as he has reached total economic saturation.
People don't seem to mind being lied to (It just when it is just when they become aware of it that it causes issues) Aye John Key .......... John..... John....er sorry he would have answered but he either didn't recall, or was overseas at the time.

Brian d marge

14th April 2013, 22:26

If you want some reading , this is a rough guide to what happened ( from my bookmarks and yes if you want me to summarise it I can )

please read from top to bottom. notice game theory at work , and it is still being used in our hospitals and government departments today!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autarky

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beggar_thy_neighbor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_to_the_bottom ( game theory )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolationism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_system

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_Shock

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973%E2%80%931974_stock_market_crash

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stagflation

Yes, the unions weren’t helping but in Britain’s class ridden structure they were probably the only chance ALSO , if you disenfranchise people through what ever means , you will get an " OH FK IT attitude " as seen here in NZ and that exactly what you got ... born and bred in the east end I am .

Britain , I think, needed money and opening up the financial markets was a quick and dirty method but that has only helped a few ;

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2001/05/uk-m17.html

I know its a commie web site but its close enough to show the point

Finally

Big mac index is used to compare price parity between american dollar and your local currency and shows if the currency is under or over valued

Stephen

mashman

16th April 2013, 19:26

Brian d marge

17th April 2013, 01:10

Very interesting read... I was almost rooting for Hitler when reading about Nazi Germany and Autarky.

wasnt it .
just need to find the relationship from and to the labour government ( and NZ relationship to the above, info not hitler )

I have pieced together a few bits , such as when the dollar was pegged and ..hang on I wrote it on a bit of paper ,,,,,scurries of find his old blog ...

found it !!

anyway NZ during the 70 and 80s ........

8 March 1983 The New Zealand Dollar was devalued by 6% against its weighted basket of currencies.
The middle rate in terms of the U.S. Dollar was consequently changed to US$0.655=$NZ1,
representing a depreciation of 8.3% from the middle rate of the previous day.
8 August 1983 The Reserve Bank practice of fixing daily exchange rates for the New Zealand Dollar
against the U.S. Dollar was abandoned, allowing the unit to follow international currency movements.
1984 At the end of 1984, almost all foreign exchange controls were in the process of removal.
31 December 1984 The buying and selling rates for the U.S. Dollar were US$0.4723 and US$0.4823,
respectively, per $NZ1.
4 March 1985 The practice of establishing a fixed exchange rate with respect to a trade-weighted
basket of currencies was terminated.
The exchange rate for the New Zealand Dollar was to be determined on the basis of supply and demand
in the foreign exchange market.
The Reserve Bank ceased to quote official buying and selling rates for the New Zealand Dollar, but
would enter the market in periods of disturbed conditions.
31 December 1985The buying and selling rates for the U.S. Dollar were US$0.499 and US$0.5,
respectively, per $NZ1.
1986 The $NZ25 tax on foreign travel tickets was abolished.
The Effective Rate was eliminated and replaced by the Interbank Rate which was to be determined by
supply and demand conditions in the exchange market. The Reserve Bank retained discretionary power
to intervene in the market.
31 December 1986 The buying and selling rates for the U.S. Dollar were US$0.5250 and
US$0.5240, respectively, per $NZ1.
31 December 1987 The buying and selling rates for the U.S. Dollar were US$0.6595 and
US$0.6585, respectively, per $NZ1.
1989 During 1989, a number of exchange control regulations were abolished.
So to review
In 1971, the Effective Rate was created and
the currency's link to Pound Sterling was replaced with a pegging to the U.S. Dollar. In 1973, the New
Zealand Dollar was placed on a controlled, floating basis. Exchange rate is computed from the value of
the New Zealand Dollar, which is determined on the basis of the fixed relationship between the New
Zealand Dollar and a basket of currencies representing New Zealand's main trading partners. The
weights of the currencies included in the basket are established in accordance with their proportionate
share of New Zealand's total current overseas receipts and payments; the weights are adjusted
quarterly. From 1979, a crawling-peg system of monthly depreciation adopted.
In March 1985, the New Zealand dollar was floated as part of a broad-based deregulation of financial
markets. The rate was determined by the supply and demand in foreign exchange market. The Reserve
Bank has not intervened in the foreign exchange market since the float. In mid-October 1993, the New
Zealand dollar was worth less on a trade-weighted basis than at the time of the float. In early
November, the New Zealand Dollar was trading at 65 U.S. cents (buying rate: US$0.6515 and selling
rate: US$0.6520), having appreciated 6% against the U.S. Dollar in the previous 12 months.
This brings us to the mid eighties ,during the 1970s and early 1980s, New Zealand was faced with a

series of economic problems brought on by changes in the global economy, many of which directly
affected the country, such as Britain’s entry in to the European Economic Community in 1973. New
Zealand was rating badly for living standards and economic performance compared to OECD averages:
in 1980 it had slipped from being in the top five OECD countries to 19th Roger Douglas, who would
later become finance minister, went so far as to say that the country stood “on the brink of economic
ruin”.
Prior to 1985 the New Zealand Dollar was controlled centrally by the Reserve Bank of New
Zealand at a fixed exchange rate to the United States Dollar. In early 1984 the Deputy Governor of the
Reserve Bank, Roderick Deane, became concerned that the dollar had become significantly overvalued
and was vulnerable to currency speculation on the financial markets in the event of a "significant
political event"
Media speculation followed a leak that an incoming Labour government would be likely to
significantly devalue the dollar upon election. The Reserve Bank advised the Prime Minister, Sir
Robert Muldoon, that the dollar should be devalued. Muldoon ignored the advice, owing to his belief
that it would hurt poorer New Zealanders in the medium term. In June 1984 Muldoon announced a
snap election to be held in July. This caused an immediate run on the dollar, as currency speculators
believed a Labour win would mean devaluation. Despite a deepening foreign exchange crisis, Muldoon
continued to refuse to devalue, forcing the Reserve Bank to take some extraordinary steps, such as the
temporary closing the forex markets for a short period of time to slow down devaluation.
On 14 July, Muldoon and National lost the general election, and the Fourth Labour government was
sworn in on 26 July.
By constitutional convention, between election day and the return of the writs for the election, an
outgoing caretaker government defers to the wishes of an incoming government. On Sunday 17 July,
following a meeting between Reserve Bank officials (Reserve Bank Governor Spencer Russell, deputy
Roderick Deane, and Treasury Secretary Bernie Galvin) and the incoming government at Auckland
International Airport, the incoming government requested that the dollar be devalued.
The outgoing Prime Minister Sir Robert Muldoon refused. The foreign exchange market was closed the
following day. In an impromptu television interview with Richard Harman that evening, Muldoon
stated he had been asked to devalue the currency by the incoming government but was not going to.
Prime Minister elect David Lange responded with an interview of his own. He stated: "This nation is at
risk. That is how basic it is. This Prime Minister outgoing, beaten, has, in the course of one television
interview tried to do more damage to the New Zealand economy than any statement ever made. He has
actually alerted the world to a crisis. And like King Canute he stands there and says everyone is wrong
but me".
This provoked a further crisis in the foreign exchange markets - when the exchange was finally opened
on 19 July, millions of foreign exchange dollars left the country as currency speculators expected a
devaluation of the New Zealand dollar.

Lange later remarked "We actually were reduced to asking our
diplomatic posts abroad how much money they could draw down on their credit cards! That is the
extent of the calamity that had been ground into us by the briefings that we'd got".

In the late 1980s the leverage available through derivatives threw up some volatile P&L figures.
Volkswagen came unstuck on some unauthorized currency deals with the National Bank of
Hungary. The broker in the middle Joachim Schmidt did a runner. The London borough of
Hammersmith & Fulham lost $500 million in swaps and swaptions and landed in a celebrated
court case. Britain's law lords controversially ruled the swaps null and void (ultra vires). Bankers
Trust's star currency trader, Andy Krieger, made a killing shorting the New Zealand dollar.

1987 to be exact

Snip http://voter08.wordpress.com/a-brief-on-andrew-kieger-raiding-the-kiwi-dollar/

In 1987, Andy Krieger, a 32-year-old currency trader at Bankers Trust, was carefully watching the currencies that were rallying (http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/rally.asp#axzz1tiil2Jzh) against the dollar following the Black Monday (http://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/blackmonday.asp) crash. As investors and companies rushed out of the American dollar and into other currencies that had suffered less damage in the market crash, there were bound to be some currencies that would become fundamentally overvalued (http://www.investopedia.com/terms/o/overvalued.asp), creating a good opportunity for arbitrage (http://www.investopedia.com/articles/trading/04/111004.asp#axzz1tiil2Jzh). The currency Krieger targeted was the New Zealand dollar, also known as the kiwi (http://www.investopedia.com/terms/k/kiwi.asp).

Using the relatively new techniques afforded by options, Krieger took up a short position against the kiwi worth hundreds of millions of dollars. In fact, his sell orders were said to exceed the money supply (http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/moneysupply.asp) of New Zealand. The selling pressure combined with the lack of currency in circulation caused the kiwi to drop sharply. It yo-yoed between a 3 and 5% loss while Krieger made millions for his employers.

One part of the legend recounts a worried New Zealand government official calling up Krieger's bosses and threatening Bankers Trust to try to get Krieger out of the kiwi. Krieger later left Bankers Trust to go work for George Soros (http://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/soros.asp).

As for Donkey

snip;
Key's first job was in 1982, as an auditor at McCulloch Menzies, and he then moved to be a project manager at Christchurch-based clothing manufacturer Lane Walker Rudkin for two years.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Key#cite_note-7) Key began working as a foreign exchange dealer at Elders Finance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elders_Limited) in Wellington, and rose to the position of head foreign exchange trader two years later,[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Key#cite_note-8) then moved to Auckland-based Bankers Trust in 1988.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Key#cite_note-timeline-3)

so He would have been at Elders finance october 1987 . and ya dont get promoted unless ya do something .............( the slimey wnker)

I need to re-organise this blog site as I screwed up the layout. and also as said find out what happened in Britain

http://mustnt-grumble.blogspot.jp/2009_08_01_archive.html

Stephen

mashman

17th April 2013, 22:34

http://mustnt-grumble.blogspot.jp/2009_08_01_archive.html

Stephen

NOW that was a great read... as far as I got anyway, and will very much keeping reading it to the end. It's a shame some of the blogs end half way through sentences (Do you need more space? If so, design a blog i.e. how you'd like it to look and navigate, and I'll build you one for fwee). Iz the half finishedposts coz you wuz passin out on occasion :laugh:

husaberg

17th April 2013, 23:30

Hey Stephen Second link .

Godwin's law......lol

Interesting thing LWR went south in a big way.

Oh also Stephen you never said what you thought of my cylinder molds

Brian d marge

18th April 2013, 01:21

Hey Stephen Second link .

Godwin's law......lol

Interesting thing LWR went south in a big way.

Oh also Stephen you never said what you thought of my cylinder molds

the cylinder molds were great , my bad I have been meaning to reply , but just kept forgetting ! , shrinkage ok? how are u casting them !!

I used to get all my socks from LWR and live just round the corner by countdown and if donkey was in charge and it went south ,,what chance has nz !! hahahaha

Stephen

Brian d marge

18th April 2013, 01:22

NOW that was a great read... as far as I got anyway, and will very much keeping reading it to the end. It's a shame some of the blogs end half way through sentences (Do you need more space? If so, design a blog i.e. how you'd like it to look and navigate, and I'll build you one for fwee). Iz the half finishedposts coz you wuz passin out on occasion :laugh:, I wrte it on a bit of paper and then tried to cut paste ,,but , oh dear that went south

If there is a better bloggie place I can store my musing ,,,yes please !!!!

Stephen

mashman

18th April 2013, 13:25

, I wrte it on a bit of paper and then tried to cut paste ,,but , oh dear that went south

If there is a better bloggie place I can store my musing ,,,yes please !!!!

Stephen

heh... PTO does not mean please turn off.

I shall get my shitteth together and fashion something simple for ye.

Brian d marge

19th April 2013, 13:13

heh... PTO does not mean please turn off.

I shall get my shitteth together and fashion something simple for ye.

thanks

I couldnt reorganise it so I gave up , then lost the original bit of paper

Stephen

mashman

21st April 2013, 11:51

The theory behind austerity is wrong? (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/04/grad-student-who-shook-global-austerity-movement.html)... that'll not sit well with right whinge ideology. Ironically it makes them redundant.

blue rider

22nd April 2013, 20:33

The shrill one,

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/22/opinion/krugman-the-jobless-trap.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

So we are indeed creating a permanent class of jobless Americans.

And let’s be clear: this is a policy decision. The main reason our economic recovery has been so weak is that, spooked by fear-mongering over debt, we’ve been doing exactly what basic macroeconomics says you shouldn’t do — cutting government spending in the face of a depressed economy.

It’s hard to overstate how self-destructive this policy is. Indeed, the shadow of long-term unemployment means that austerity policies are counterproductive even in purely fiscal terms. Workers, after all, are taxpayers too; if our debt obsession exiles millions of Americans from productive employment, it will cut into future revenues and raise future deficits.

mashman

22nd April 2013, 22:58

The shrill one,

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/22/opinion/krugman-the-jobless-trap.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

Nah mate... they're just a bunch of lazy fucks, that researcher that sent out CV's is full of shit and skewed his figures to get the results he wanted, just like Reinhart and Rogoff.

Fackin banch o useless mankeys, the fackin lot of 'em.

Brian d marge

23rd April 2013, 00:15

Reinhart and Rogoff.

.
nah they just missed the last few lines of the spreadsheet then tried to justify it ,,,,

Stephen

Winston001

23rd April 2013, 23:33

The shrill one,

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/22/opinion/krugman-the-jobless-trap.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

Paul Krugman has a Nobel Prize in economics so whether I like it or not, I take notice of what he says.

oneofsix

24th April 2013, 07:30

Paul Krugman has a Nobel Prize in economics so whether I like it or not, I take notice of what he says.

Does that mean anything? They used to but the ground has shifted slightly and now their choices seem more populist, like Obama getting the peace prize because he talked a good talk but hadn't done anything at that stage. I could imagine them choosing an economics winner because they put forward a theory they liked rather than it necessarily having any proven merit. Yeah, take note of what he says, just don't swallow it hook, line and sinker.

Brian d marge

24th April 2013, 19:43

Nashes game theory won a nobel prize , but was proved to flawed when tested at RIM ?

one wonders if it had anything top do with him hearing voice and being a cnt

not that anything is based on game theory !

stephen

blue rider

24th April 2013, 19:48

Paul Krugman has a Nobel Prize in economics so whether I like it or not, I take notice of what he says.

He is the one economist who has called out the powers that are as being incorrect. He is the one economist who has continuously advocated that the austerity measures and the deficit hawks are wrong....and he is right.

His nick name 'the shrill one' he has earned over the last 6 years.

husaberg

24th April 2013, 20:06

He is the one economist who has called out the powers that are as being incorrect. He is the one economist who has continuously advocated that the austerity measures and the deficit hawks are wrong....and he is right.

His nick name 'the shrill one' he has earned over the last 6 years.

Talking about inflation causes inflation. Talking about recession can lead to recession. In every recession (and crash) there is a lot of money to be accumulated from the less prosperous.

Winston001

24th April 2013, 21:16

In every recession (and crash) there is a lot of money to be accumulated from the less prosperous.

Or...there is money to be made by people who have saved in the good times so they have the cash to buy in times of gloom. Our scottish ancestors who emigrated to NZ did exactly that. Use debt but pay it off as fast as you can, cash is king. This has nothing to do with millionaires, just ordinary people living modest lives with long term hopes.

Ocean1

24th April 2013, 21:42

In every recession (and crash) there is a lot of money to be accumulated from the less prosperous.

Strange place to be looking to accumulate money from, unless you're a govt.nz.

mashman

24th April 2013, 21:47

Strange place to be looking to accumulate money from, unless you're a govt.nz.

Some places in the UK are selling houses for 1 pound. Yes they need work done, but they're not falling down. If you've got a cool million to spare you could likely get yourself a decent ROI. That wouldn't have happened had it not bee for the recession. Shame they don't offer to give them to the unemployed and whilst doing them up, train the soon to be owner and when they save it they can pay the cash back. Training and a foot on the property ladder in 1.

husaberg

24th April 2013, 21:54

Strange place to be looking to accumulate money from, unless you're a govt.nz.

No its just there is a lot more of them.
Estimates are that 2% of world population own around 50% of world wealth, and around 8% of world population owns more than 85% of world wealth.

This percentage is is rising.

Tax is just for those that can't afford to avoid it.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10850796

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10873068

SOE's are not immune from doing Caymen island deals either.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/business/7836569/Fears-over-grid-are-history

Explain that one to me a tax payer owned company avoids paying tax to post a higher profit who suffers but who gains (the people whose remuneration is tied to profit)

Why we are on SOE there is an elphant in the Solid energy room. why is there no mention of the extra 120 million they had to stump up with for the Carbon tax?
Where does that go.....
If you look at the books they lost most of their money by a reevaluating the value of the coal reserves (paper loss)
Nearly all the office staff are still on the payroll just the miners they sacked (the union members)
Seems it might make it a better sale propect by just selling the coal reserves.

Ocean1

24th April 2013, 21:56

Some places in the UK are selling houses for 1 pound. Yes they need work done, but they're not falling down. If you've got a cool million to spare you could likely get yourself a decent ROI. That wouldn't have happened had it not bee for the recession. Shame they don't offer to give them to the unemployed and whilst doing them up, train the soon to be owner and when they save it they can pay the cash back. Training and a foot on the property ladder in 1.

Why would you need a cool million to buy a 1 pound house?

Seems to me that at that price you're already perilously close to giving a house to the unemployed, why aren't they buying them, are they waiting for someone to give them the pound?

mashman

24th April 2013, 22:13

Why would you need a cool million to buy a 1 pound house?

Seems to me that at that price you're already perilously close to giving a house to the unemployed, why aren't they buying them, are they waiting for someone to give them the pound?

To buy lots of them.

The houses need work and that takes money that the unemployed don't have and likely skills that they don't have either. So you're gonna have to pay for a builder(s) to teach the unemployed tasks that they can handle. In return they get their dole and they get a house at the end of it. If they end up unemployed, the govt won't have to pay their rent which will save the govt money.

Ocean1

24th April 2013, 22:16

No its just there is a lot more of them.
Estimates are that 2% of world population own around 50% of world wealth, and around 8% of world population owns more than 85% of world wealth.

This percentage is is rising.

Tax is just for those that can't afford to avoid it.

Some governments tax wealth, but the vast majority tax income.

So tell me about the top 2% INCOME earners and how much tax they pay. How much do the top 8% earners pay?

I don't know anyone who doesn't pay tax, I tend to think of such entities the same way I do Yeti, the Easter Bunny, etc. I know they exist because people tell me so, but my experiences of the very wealthy people I know is that they all pay a lot more tax than I do, even the couple I know with incomes lower than mine.

Ocean1

24th April 2013, 22:22

To buy lots of them.

The houses need work and that takes money that the unemployed don't have and likely skills that they don't have either. So you're gonna have to pay for a builder(s) to teach the unemployed tasks that they can handle. In return they get their dole and they get a house at the end of it. If they end up unemployed, the govt won't have to pay their rent which will save the govt money.

Meh, if lots of 'em is a good deal then so is one. I came quite close to buying a small town once. Not sure if I would have survived it but I sorta regret that I didn't give it a harder nudge than I did at the time...

Anyway, so, the reason they can't afford a 1 pound house is the same reason they don't have a job. No marketable skills.

The idea sounds good though. Except I've had nawt but failure from giving people shit for nothing. Don't work. They simply don't value it.

mashman

24th April 2013, 22:33

Meh, if lots of 'em is a good deal then so is one. I came quite close to buying a small town once. Not sure if I would have survived it but I sorta regret that I didn't give it a harder nudge than I did at the time...

Anyway, so, the reason they can't afford a 1 pound house is the same reason they don't have a job. No marketable skills.

The idea sounds good though. Except I've had nawt but failure from giving people shit for nothing. Don't work. They simply don't value it.

There are plenty of unemployed people out there who are more than capable and absolutely have the drive to retrain and put in the effort, however the jobs aren't there and without the experience people like yourself will view them as no hopers with no marketable skills. Fortunately off the wall cunts like myself will look past such trivialities and learned pre-conceptions in order to find out if the so called useless are actually useless or whether they don't have a face that fits (i.e. no marketable skills). Essentially the million could be several billion (http://blogs.reuters.com/anatole-kaletsky/2012/08/09/suddenly-quantitative-easing-for-the-people-seems-possible/).

husaberg

24th April 2013, 22:35

Some governments tax wealth, but the vast majority tax income.

So tell me about the top 2% INCOME earners and how much tax they pay. How much do the top 8% earners pay?

I don't know anyone who doesn't pay tax, I tend to think of such entities the same way I do Yeti, the Easter Bunny, etc. I know they exist because people tell me so, but my experiences of the very wealthy people I know is that they all pay a lot more tax than I do, even the couple I know with incomes lower than mine.

Did you click on the links.........

How much really as a percent of income do you think the real top earners pay with the access to all the best shelters. A registered address such as Monacco helps.

I one dollar house deal
You set up a company with a pasty.
what you do is buy the houses but before you do get them valued way over what you pay that way you already have your deposit and working capital.
You then get a grant from the goverment to do them up as low cost housing.
You then get a separate grant to train the people to be builders and use them as free labour.
You then bring in a heap of migrants and charge them for living there while you do them up.
You use all the money you borrowed with over inflated bills for the costs of planning and consultation declare bankruptcy and take off with all the rest of the money.:msn-wink:

Then your mate buys the houses cheap for what the bank is owed.