Govt 'covering up' school funding plan [Archive]

Scuba_Steve

17th March 2014, 20:41

Should change MP pays to performance based... i.e. stop paying them!

Imagine, for a moment, The Remuneration Authority (which sets salaries for Members of Parliament) decided to pay MP's based on their performance.

How would they measure that? Count the numbers of Committees they sit on? Hours spent dealing with concerns of people in their electorate? Number of Questions asked in the House ? Bills they managed to get through? Least use of parliamentary resources? What would be the measure of a good MP?

For the Authority to take any one of those measures and say "That's the one that will form the basis on which we will pay you " would be a nonsense .

It would also skew the behaviour of MPs to the point where parliament would become increasingly dysfunctional.

If an MP's pay, for example, was only based on performance at Question Time, then what already looks like a shambles would become completely unmanageable as 121 MPs all desperately wanted to be heard as many times as possible.

Yet that, apparently, is National's proposal for teachers.

To take one measure - NCEA results in this case - and pay teachers and schools on the basis of how well their pupils do on that test.

Never mind the socio-economic background of the children, the strengths and weaknesses of the local community , the unequal access to teaching resources, parents income and background ,multi-cultural language issues, and a host of other issues over which a teacher has no control, we'll pay teachers according to one test result.

Do we want to make sure our kids are getting the best education possible for them?

Of course.

Is there a silver competition bullet that will ensure that?

I don't think so.

Teaching is a complex job.

Learning is a complex business.

So here's an idea. Why don't we just ask the professionals - the teachers who deal with these issues everyday - to come up with the plan through their professional bodies the PPTA and NZEI - of how to deliver the best possible education system for our children and then take their advice ?

A little competition in life is a good thing , but as a nation we have achieved far more by cooperation

hayd3n

17th March 2014, 21:57

Should change MP pays to performance based... i.e. stop paying them!

meh i stopped going to schools years ago :tugger::tugger:

TheDemonLord

18th March 2014, 09:56

Pwalo

18th March 2014, 11:55

Bit of a straw man attack then. Accuse your opponent of having a plan, and then attack it. Don't even have to worry about what their actual policy is. It's still not a substitute for explaining what your plans are.

bogan

18th March 2014, 12:00

I fail to see a problem here

Dumb kids?

bluninja

18th March 2014, 12:42

Why shouldn't schools be treated like a business? After all they should be providing a service to the parents in educating their children. If all the parents are so blind that they perceive that the schools performance is in the test and exam results of their children then that's how schools will be measured. I would have loved to have a choice between educational establishments and opt my children into specialist classes and educate them within the family and extended community for other things. Sadly the state system is a one size fits all "you will do as we say because we know best" that seems to consider the skills of children belong to the government for future economic development through a trained workforce.

Wouldn't it be radical if all parents were given "education cash" to spend at schools purchasing the services and the teacher support they wanted for their children. I'm not talking about just having the money following the school roll, but being able to purchase lessons or courses at different establishments. The good teachers will have "full" classes, a good working environment, and good pay. The poor ones will have to improve or suffer.

Unfortunately we have been indoctrinated over generations that the current school systems are the best way to educate children, I don't believe they are. Many children endure and survive the system, many vote with their feet and truant on a daily basis, a minority are left damaged and destroyed by an education system where they don't fit.

TheDemonLord

18th March 2014, 13:46

Dumb kids?

Dumb Kids as in Kids with an IQ less than 100?
or Dumb kids as in kids uninterested in a subject because of substandard teaching by an uninterested teacher?
or Dumb kids with an average IQ but no interest in Maths or Science because they want to be a Gang Member?

statistically, the distribution of smart (greater than 100 IQ) to Dumb (less than 100 IQ) are evenly distributed on a Bell curve. As such, in a perfect world, dumb kids would go to dumb kids schools - where they would be taught differently to smart kids - using methods that work for those that are 'dumb' to achieve a basic level of education.

bogan

18th March 2014, 13:55

Dumb Kids as in Kids with an IQ less than 100?
or Dumb kids as in kids uninterested in a subject because of substandard teaching by an uninterested teacher?
or Dumb kids with an average IQ but no interest in Maths or Science because they want to be a Gang Member?

Indeed, bit unfair to cut a teacher's pay cos they live in a gangland.
Also, parents who reckon it is a teacher's sole responsibility for teaching their kids should never be given the opportunity to have any. Again, bit unfair to cut a teachers pay cos they work in an area populated by fuckwit parents.

MSTRS

18th March 2014, 14:03

So,

Shit teachers who can't teach will get paid less than good teachers who can teach.

And those that want to get paid more will have to put in more time and effort to get those dis-interested in learning interested.....

Where was that said?

Ms Parata told the Herald on Sunday she was looking at funding schools according to the extent teachers had helped students learn over the course of six months or a year.

She didn't explain how that might be achieved.

Earlier reports on this subject were on the basis that schools with poor overall (academic?) achievement would have funding cuts. Schools DO NOT pay teachers directly.

Akzle

18th March 2014, 14:10

Should change MP pays to performance based... i.e. stop paying them!

scooby doobie, you forget, the remuneration authority is independent (tui), politicians have no say in it! They couldnt possibly reject the recomended pay rises....

oldrider

18th March 2014, 14:20

scooby doobie, you forget, the remuneration authority is independent (tui), politicians have no say in it! They couldnt possibly reject the recomended pay rises....

And if they don't do the silly dance that the electorate desires/demands they are toast at the next election, well that's a form of performance pay right there!

The only difference is that the organ grinder dances to the tune of the monkeys'! :wacko:

TheDemonLord

18th March 2014, 15:30

Indeed, bit unfair to cut a teacher's pay cos they live in a gangland.
Also, parents who reckon it is a teacher's sole responsibility for teaching their kids should never be given the opportunity to have any. Again, bit unfair to cut a teachers pay cos they work in an area populated by fuckwit parents.

I am reminded of the scene in Ali G - In Da House about this - where it cuts to a scene where a teacher is doing a maths problem involving Weed.....

and I agree on your last point - Parents who aren't active in their childs education probably shouldn't be parents.....

mashman

18th March 2014, 15:51

mashman

18th March 2014, 15:54

I am reminded of the scene in Ali G - In Da House about this - where it cuts to a scene where a teacher is doing a maths problem involving Weed.....

and I agree on your last point - Parents who aren't active in their childs education probably shouldn't be parents.....

If it works it works.

I assume that you're willing to pay for the social services that go along with that wonder policy of giving "absentee" parents the learn, along with the likely social fallout?

TheDemonLord

18th March 2014, 15:58

mashman

18th March 2014, 16:13

Don't we already?

Yup... and you want to add to that? Achually I've changed my mind, bring it on as the major bitching sessions it will bring to KB will be epic.

TheDemonLord

18th March 2014, 16:36

Yup... and you want to add to that? Achually I've changed my mind, bring it on as the major bitching sessions it will bring to KB will be epic.

So then it comes down to which is the lesser of 2 evils:

a small number of heavily dependant on social services but with a (in theory) better educated populace
or
a larger number of lesser dependant on social services and the current level of educated populace

mashman

18th March 2014, 17:00

So then it comes down to which is the lesser of 2 evils:

a small number of heavily dependant on social services but with a (in theory) better educated populace
or
a larger number of lesser dependant on social services and the current level of educated populace

Only 2? Don't stretch yourself or anything. The two options you offer are both absolutely shite anyway. I'll take the one with the worst social consequences please.

I see no real difference between your 2, :rofl:, choices. The kid will turn out to be the adult.

Akzle

18th March 2014, 18:47

mansell

18th March 2014, 20:01

If it works it works.

I assume that you're willing to pay for the social services that go along with that wonder policy of giving "absentee" parents the learn, along with the likely social fallout?

The problem is it doesn't work - schools do not fit any business model - and should not, they're there to educate not to make money. The idiots in control (Donkey and his mates) seem heel bent on destroying a perfectly good education system rather than making it better.

mashman

18th March 2014, 20:14

The problem is it doesn't work - schools do not fit any business model - and should not, they're there to educate not to make money. The idiots in control (Donkey and his mates) seem heel bent on destroying a perfectly good education system rather than making it better.

I don't disagree in the slightest. It seems as though our politicians, businesses and way too many adults for my liking miss what school is actually for.

TheDemonLord

19th March 2014, 07:34

Only 2? Don't stretch yourself or anything. The two options you offer are both absolutely shite anyway. I'll take the one with the worst social consequences please.

I see no real difference between your 2, :rofl:, choices. The kid will turn out to be the adult.

That was the point - every social choose has good and bad consequences and usually the difference is one that is slightly less shit but less effective, vs one that is slightly more shit and more effective.

I'd take the one that results in a better education for greater population - whatever that choice might in fact be

avgas

19th March 2014, 07:52

Should change MP pays to performance based... i.e. stop paying them!
I like the concept of performance based pay. And you're right we should stop paying them. But this is what I have said all along. Voting for politicians is like picking a treadmill speed. No matter who you pick - you working for someone else to do nothing and go nowhere.
Even unemployed have more ambition.

avgas

19th March 2014, 07:55

Dumb kids with an average IQ but no interest in Maths or Science because they want to be a Gang Member?
Michelle Pfeiffer would sort them out.

mashman

19th March 2014, 09:00

TheDemonLord

19th March 2014, 09:04

Why didn't you say that in the first place? You carry on thinking that way if you like.

In which case you'll vote for NOW or indeed the Money Free Party - NZ then. They are the best choices, by far, if you want better education (among many other things).

Oh come now - we have both waltzed down that arguement before - and it ended with both those systems are premature and not fully formed yet (IMHO)

mashman

19th March 2014, 09:16

Oh come now - we have both waltzed down that arguement before - and it ended with both those systems are premature and not fully formed yet (IMHO)

The stumbling blocks you put in the path are your own. It's formed fine enough, but it doesn't have all of the answer to all of your questions and it likely never will.

The irony in your statement is that the current system keeps being added to or removed from... in other words, premature and not fully formed yet.

Your choice though.

TheDemonLord

19th March 2014, 10:19

The stumbling blocks you put in the path are your own. It's formed fine enough, but it doesn't have all of the answer to all of your questions and it likely never will.

The irony in your statement is that the current system keeps being added to or removed from... in other words, premature and not fully formed yet.

Your choice though.

There is a truth in that - and I would add that no human created system is ever truley fully formed and perfect....

The difference is however between the current system and the proposed system is that an individual bears the consequences of their inaction in my system - however society bears the consequences of the individuals inaction in yours.

and since my opinion of individuals at large is pretty low, I would rather screw over the individual as opposed to screw over society.

to summarise:

Fuck those poor lazy fuckers - if they weren't so fucking lazy, they wouldn't be so fucking poor

mashman

19th March 2014, 10:57

There is a truth in that - and I would add that no human created system is ever truley fully formed and perfect....

The difference is however between the current system and the proposed system is that an individual bears the consequences of their inaction in my system - however society bears the consequences of the individuals inaction in yours.

and since my opinion of individuals at large is pretty low, I would rather screw over the individual as opposed to screw over society.

to summarise:

Fuck those poor lazy fuckers - if they weren't so fucking lazy, they wouldn't be so fucking poor

Yup, society evolves, well, it's supposed to and the evidence I've seen so far doesn't support that argument.

Only 6.5% (can't be fucked looking up the figures) are unemployed, which means that 6.5% of the 55% who claim more benefits than they put in aren't. What percentage of those 6.5% want to work? Next self-created stumbling block please.

TheDemonLord

19th March 2014, 11:57

Yup, society evolves, well, it's supposed to and the evidence I've seen so far doesn't support that argument.

Only 6.5% (can't be fucked looking up the figures) are unemployed, which means that 6.5% of the 55% who claim more benefits than they put in aren't. What percentage of those 6.5% want to work? Next self-created stumbling block please.

I want to work by doing a menial task that requires no training and get paid more than minimum wage for it, I also want to do this job in the area in which I currently reside, I do not want to try and upskill, someone should just employ me....

To whom is it a self created stumbling block? Society or the individual?

I remember from history when work was scarce in certain areas (when welfare didn't exist) people would move to locations that had jobs, well it was either you moved or you starved to death....

mashman

19th March 2014, 12:31

I want to work by doing a menial task that requires no training and get paid more than minimum wage for it, I also want to do this job in the area in which I currently reside, I do not want to try and upskill, someone should just employ me....

To whom is it a self created stumbling block? Society or the individual?

I remember from history when work was scarce in certain areas (when welfare didn't exist) people would move to locations that had jobs, well it was either you moved or you starved to death....

What's wrong with that? The decision to do a job that needs doing has been taken by someone willing to do the job. Why the financial penalty?

The individual i.e. you.

:rofl: epic solution that has worked out so well for us.

bluninja

19th March 2014, 14:12

Kids as commodities eh, what a lovely thought. I'm assuming that the money you get to select these services with will be removed from ones tax bill so that those who can't afford to send their kids to the smart schools are rightfully disadvantaged?

I agree that there could be better ways to "tailor" learning for kids, but I don't agree that a business model should be applied.

Well, when the gummit talks about investing in training and schooling to deliver the skills for the future they aren't asking parents what they want for their kids are they? They will be chatting with businesses and economists to look at what skills they consider NZ Inc needs in the future. The kids when the grow up will still have a choice in careers, but perhaps little training and no jobs.

ASS U MEh! that's been done to death :innocent:. I would think a universal education credit system would work. Those with shedloads of money can, as they do now, top up. Those without can at least focus their "spend" on getting the best for their children. Yes you could do it with tax, including tax credits or benefits.....but then there would be some that would just spend that extra money on themselves and not their kids education (though that would still be parents choosing what resources to put towards their kids education :facepalm: ).

Why not a business model for the delivery of education? Is it more special than healthcare (surgeons, doctors, nurses et al)?

mashman

19th March 2014, 16:55

Well, when the gummit talks about investing in training and schooling to deliver the skills for the future they aren't asking parents what they want for their kids are they? They will be chatting with businesses and economists to look at what skills they consider NZ Inc needs in the future. The kids when the grow up will still have a choice in careers, but perhaps little training and no jobs.

ASS U MEh! that's been done to death :innocent:. I would think a universal education credit system would work. Those with shedloads of money can, as they do now, top up. Those without can at least focus their "spend" on getting the best for their children. Yes you could do it with tax, including tax credits or benefits.....but then there would be some that would just spend that extra money on themselves and not their kids education (though that would still be parents choosing what resources to put towards their kids education :facepalm: ).

Why not a business model for the delivery of education? Is it more special than healthcare (surgeons, doctors, nurses et al)?

So you'd limit the job type that are available? And assume that should someone pick a career that doesn't pay much that they'll be dooming their kids to a potentially substandard education? I don't think anyone should be asking anyone coz a kid will change their mind in regards to what they want to do every week. That's where I see the inherent problem. Ideally everything should be made available to every kid irrespective of cost, coz ya may find the next Hawking comes from the "bottom" and why would you want to deny that on the basis that their parents couldn't afford it? Hopefully there will be jobs and training... although I'm seriously beginning to doubt it.

I like the idea behind a universal credit system, but who gets to decide what the credits are worth? Is it 1 credit per subject i.e. physics gets 1 credit, art gets 1 credit? Heh, t'would be nice if the parents focused on the kids, I see that as a problem in itself with both parents needing to work to provide for the little blighters, coz by the time everyone gets home they're all knackered, kids included.

It's not equitable. It'd put more pressure on the kids. It'd put more pressure on the parents. imho.

TheDemonLord

19th March 2014, 18:21

What's wrong with that? The decision to do a job that needs doing has been taken by someone willing to do the job. Why the financial penalty?

The individual i.e. you.

:rofl: epic solution that has worked out so well for us.

Oh well, here we go again:

Me: It won't work - here is why
You: you only say it won't work because you have been raised to think that way
Me: Actually I think that way because of the historical record of human interaction
You: There is no such thing as human nature
Me: there are advantageous evolutionary traits shared by all people from all countries - we call this human nature
You: I don't do it therefore it doesn't exist
Me: it exists in all highly social pack mammals - like Orcas, Lions etc. of which humans are a member
You: I don't do it therefore it doesn't exist
Me: Fine, even if it doesn't exist - it still won't work
You: It will work if people want it to work
Me: My system works (loose use of the term) regardless of whether people want it to or not, yours only works if people buy into it.
You: People will buy into once they see how great it is
Me: People will only buy into because they will see a way to get something for nothing, until this point is addressed, IMO it isn't ready
You: I think its ready if only people will see the light and Praise Now!
Me: Then we are at an Impasse
You: Indeed - Hail to Now, Saviour of the Financial system - repent now and you can be saved

Or at least something like that.

I may have abridged it here and there and added a little artistic licence

mashman

19th March 2014, 18:31

Oh well, here we go again:

Me: It won't work - here is why
You: you only say it won't work because you have been raised to think that way
Me: Actually I think that way because of the historical record of human interaction
You: There is no such thing as human nature
Me: there are advantageous evolutionary traits shared by all people from all countries - we call this human nature
You: I don't do it therefore it doesn't exist
Me: it exists in all highly social pack mammals - like Orcas, Lions etc. of which humans are a member
You: I don't do it therefore it doesn't exist
Me: Fine, even if it doesn't exist - it still won't work
You: It will work if people want it to work
Me: My system works (loose use of the term) regardless of whether people want it to or not, yours only works if people buy into it.
You: People will buy into once they see how great it is
Me: People will only buy into because they will see a way to get something for nothing, until this point is addressed, IMO it isn't ready
You: I think its ready if only people will see the light and Praise Now!
Me: Then we are at an Impasse
You: Indeed - Hail to Now, Saviour of the Financial system - repent now and you can be saved

Or at least something like that.

I may have abridged it here and there and added a little artistic licence

Or maybe you missed the context of the post. I merely inquired what was wrong with people not wanting to improve themselves? And asked why they should be penalised for it.

MSTRS

20th March 2014, 05:09

Or maybe you missed the context of the post. I merely inquired what was wrong with people not wanting to improve themselves? And asked why they should be penalised for it.

From effort comes reward. Usually anyway.
People with no desire to better themselves should not expect to be rewarded for their apathy. They actually penalise themselves, but perhaps are too stupid to recognise that. So apply the penalty from outside and just maybe they will take note and do something about their situation?

What is worse, is when others are penalised by an individual's lack of performance. Like piss-poor teachers... Penalise them for sure, by rewarding their more successful peers.

mashman

20th March 2014, 07:05

From effort comes reward. Usually anyway.
People with no desire to better themselves should not expect to be rewarded for their apathy. They actually penalise themselves, but perhaps are too stupid to recognise that. So apply the penalty from outside and just maybe they will take note and do something about their situation?

What is worse, is when others are penalised by an individual's lack of performance. Like piss-poor teachers... Penalise them for sure, by rewarding their more successful peers.

So you punish people for not trying hard enough. Who decides when a person isn't trying hard enough? Who decides what hard enough is (snigger)? All I can see is you calling to penalise people because of a perceived lack of brains/drive. I look at someone who is "better" than me and shrug my shoulders, they are more talented and may well be more driven if you like. Why should I, and by extension my family, suffer because someone has deemed my effort to be less than that of someone else? Why is it that I should be punished for not bringing myself up to their perceived standard?

Honestly don't know how many other questions I could ask, but basically
you're picking out a perceived cream of the crop and giving them more than many many others purely on the basis that the cream are perceived to be better. The "best" still need to be supported else they cannot become the best. Who supports the best if not the less best? Why penalise them for supporting the best? So you're better than someone else and have a drive to want to be more, and? You don't think that there are other external factors that stop people from not improving themselves? Or is that HTFU territory?

As for teachers. They do a job. It looks to be getting harder. Some teachers will shine because? Results? Coz the kids are good in their class? They're a friend of the board? They look to be a shining example of teacherdom? I'm not saying that there's shit floating around, but labeling anyway that isn't up to the highest of standards as shit and rewarding them appropriately is just fuckin wrong and displays a massive ignorance in regards to the effort that a less capable person has had to put in to get to that stage.

It comes easy for some, not so for others, so reward those who find it easy? Shit's fucked up man and worse still, they get penalised on the basis that someone else has decided that they're not trying hard enough. An attitude to sink a planet if I've ever heard one. yadda yadda smiley smiley, who really gives a fuck about those less able, not in a position, not ready to be all they can be (apart from me like ;))

bluninja

20th March 2014, 08:09

So you punish people for not trying hard enough. Who decides when a person isn't trying hard enough? Who decides what hard enough is (snigger)? All I can see is you calling to penalise people because of a perceived lack of brains/drive. I look at someone who is "better" than me and shrug my shoulders, they are more talented and may well be more driven if you like. Why should I, and by extension my family, suffer because someone has deemed my effort to be less than that of someone else? Why is it that I should be punished for not bringing myself up to their perceived standard?
Basic Skinnerian behaviour modification. Behaviours that are rewarded tend to increase, behaviours that are punished (as perceived by the individual) tend to reduce. In the post you responded to there was an absence of reward put forward rather than the addition of a "punishment".

Honestly don't know how many other questions I could ask, but basically
you're picking out a perceived cream of the crop and giving them more than many many others purely on the basis that the cream are perceived to be better. The "best" still need to be supported else they cannot become the best. Who supports the best if not the less best? Why penalise them for supporting the best? So you're better than someone else and have a drive to want to be more, and? You don't think that there are other external factors that stop people from not improving themselves? Or is that HTFU territory?

Whenever an investment is made someone, somewhere will look at the ROI. Typically they will invest in things with the best return. So if you wish to be an Olympic athlete then you need to demonstrate the potential to succeed both physically and mentally. If a surgeon only has 40 hours a week to do life saving heart surgery then they invest their time in those patients with the best clinical outcome. If an astrophysics teacher has 40 hours a week to teach advanced astrophysics then they will invest in those pupils with the ability to understand the learning and the interest (at that time) in the subject matter.

External factors for not improving ones self? That would be that the behaviour has been demonstrated to be unrewarding or punishing. I guess it also depends on what (and who) considers is personal improvement.

As for teachers. They do a job. It looks to be getting harder. Some teachers will shine because? Results? Coz the kids are good in their class? They're a friend of the board? They look to be a shining example of teacherdom? I'm not saying that there's shit floating around, but labeling anyway that isn't up to the highest of standards as shit and rewarding them appropriately is just fuckin wrong and displays a massive ignorance in regards to the effort that a less capable person has had to put in to get to that stage.

Life is hard, and then you die. Fuck the teachers! many other professionals are not rewarded based on their skills, experience, or work ethic based on the parameters above; the surgeon who has a patient die in surgery, the defence lawyer who works hard to ensure that "scumbags" and other people in trouble with the lawyer have good legal advice.

It comes easy for some, not so for others, so reward those who find it easy? Shit's fucked up man and worse still, they get penalised on the basis that someone else has decided that they're not trying hard enough. An attitude to sink a planet if I've ever heard one. yadda yadda smiley smiley, who really gives a fuck about those less able, not in a position, not ready to be all they can be (apart from me like ;))
The "reward" for those that find it easy is to have the opportunity for more challenging work. I received lots of abuse from a teacher in school that had the same thinking (you appear to have) about "gifted" children. For me, you are a person that should be kept away from educational policy making.

Banditbandit

20th March 2014, 08:43

That was the point - every social choose has good and bad consequences and usually the difference is one that is slightly less shit but less effective, vs one that is slightly more shit and more effective.

I'd take the one that results in a better education for greater population - whatever that choice might in fact be

Seeing as how we had an education system that ranked higher in the OECD listing than many other countries, including GB and the USA BEFORE the Nats decided to "improve it" why would we want to change that ???

I like the concept of performance based pay. And you're right we should stop paying them. But this is what I have said all along. Voting for politicians is like picking a treadmill speed. No matter who you pick - you working for someone else to do nothing and go nowhere.
Even unemployed have more ambition.

Let me see .. let's make an analogy with Motorcycle training - I will employ you to teach people to ride motorcycles .. Instead of paying for your time, or for the number of students who enter your course, I will pay you a set amount for each person who gains their licence. However, I will ONLY pay you for the ones who are still alive after two years ..

Will you take the job ?

mashman

20th March 2014, 09:09

Basic Skinnerian behaviour modification. Behaviours that are rewarded tend to increase, behaviours that are punished (as perceived by the individual) tend to reduce. In the post you responded to there was an absence of reward put forward rather than the addition of a "punishment".

Just had a quick internetz search and it would seem that the one thing that wasn't taken into account was that which people would respond to. I guess because we use money that it is only rational to use money as the punishing factor. It is by default a negative result/consequence given that the cost of living is rising and the reward is to give to a smaller number in order for them to be able to easier meet that cost of living?

Whenever an investment is made someone, somewhere will look at the ROI. Typically they will invest in things with the best return. So if you wish to be an Olympic athlete then you need to demonstrate the potential to succeed both physically and mentally. If a surgeon only has 40 hours a week to do life saving heart surgery then they invest their time in those patients with the best clinical outcome. If an astrophysics teacher has 40 hours a week to teach advanced astrophysics then they will invest in those pupils with the ability to understand the learning and the interest (at that time) in the subject matter.

External factors for not improving ones self? That would be that the behaviour has been demonstrated to be unrewarding or punishing. I guess it also depends on what (and who) considers is personal improvement.

Fair enough. I don't see leaving people behind as a sensible option. I don't see those who have the aptitude to go further being held back by those who don't. Yes the resource (teacher, mentor etc...) will spend more time with those who need more help, but who's to say that the outcome isn't worth that effort? Surely having more upskilled is better than having 1 superskilled?

External factors = shit happens. Something Skinner looks to have decided as not important (I couldn't see any reference, but it wasn't exactly an extensive read), but I guess it was a different era. We've moved on, it doesn't look as though the methods have.

Life is hard, and then you die. Fuck the teachers! many other professionals are not rewarded based on their skills, experience, or work ethic based on the parameters above; the surgeon who has a patient die in surgery, the defence lawyer who works hard to ensure that "scumbags" and other people in trouble with the lawyer have good legal advice.

It is, but it needn't be made more so by adding financial pressures in to the mix in order to give "security" to a few. The binman ensures that the streets are clean and there is minimal disease and rodent infestations. the sewerage worker keeps our shit flowing. The water treatment worker keeps our water clean. The cleaner makes sure that our skin flakes are limited. The meat processing worker keeps food as clean as possible. The diamond miner keeps women and girly men in jewels. The green keeper keeps the greens green and divot free. The emergency services that rescue us, keep us safe and patch us up etc... those supposedly unskilled jobs allow the supposedly skilled surgeons, lawyers, CEO's etc... to be allowed to perform their function yet they don't get the reward because of some outdate notion of importance. Sorry, those who are perceived as excelling get rewarded, the rest get punished for not being as good. We've clearly lost focus of what is important.

The "reward" for those that find it easy is to have the opportunity for more challenging work. I received lots of abuse from a teacher in school that had the same thinking (you appear to have) about "gifted" children. For me, you are a person that should be kept away from educational policy making.

Interesting. I'm not against "gifted" children at all. If the "gifted" are finding the work easy, then give them harder work. What's so hard about that? It happened with me when I did my bridging year between life and Uni. I excelled at the maths side and finished the module early. I was left to my own devices and was given tutelage when required. Others needed far more time, yet they still got there. On the flip side I didn't do so well with the "clerical" subjects as the others did. Are those experiences so different to any child in any educational establishment? Did the other students hold me back? They're still just kids. There's plenty of time for them to excel, but catering for the "special" ones will yield similar results as with our carrot stick approach to work, you end up with few who are special and many who have received sub-standard rewards because they aren't special enough. I don't see that as a positive in education, especially in the early years.

bluninja

20th March 2014, 10:00

Just had a quick internetz search and it would seem that the one thing that wasn't taken into account was that which people would respond to. I guess because we use money that it is only rational to use money as the punishing factor. It is by default a negative result/consequence given that the cost of living is rising and the reward is to give to a smaller number in order for them to be able to easier meet that cost of living?
I guess because you appear so focused on money that is what you see as the reward. For money to be a punisher one would have to remove it from a person who valued it. Why do people (teachers included) remain in a role that doesn't seem them adequately rewarded, especially when they could move to a more lucrative jog? Perhaps because there are greater rewards than money for most people.

Fair enough. I don't see leaving people behind as a sensible option. I don't see those who have the aptitude to go further being held back by those who don't. Yes the resource (teacher, mentor etc...) will spend more time with those who need more help, but who's to say that the outcome isn't worth that effort? Surely having more upskilled is better than having 1 superskilled? I'm now seeing the pattern of straw man arguments through your responses. I didn't suggest that people are left behind (a deliberate act), however people over time will find their own place based on opportunity, attitude, and values. The speed with getting to that place would be proportional to the resources available to them.

External factors = shit happens. Something Skinner looks to have decided as not important (I couldn't see any reference, but it wasn't exactly an extensive read), but I guess it was a different era. We've moved on, it doesn't look as though the methods have.
Indeed shit does happen. If the shit is rewarding then the subject may repeat behaviours to illicit the same reward. If it is random shit then there is no behaviour that would cause a consistent repeat and the behaviour would no longer be rewarding and would reduce or become extinct. I disagree that we have moved on in terms of our behaviours, or our responses to reward and punishment.

It is, but it needn't be made more so by adding financial pressures in to the mix in order to give "security" to a few. The binman ensures that the streets are clean and there is minimal disease and rodent infestations. the sewerage worker keeps our shit flowing. The water treatment worker keeps our water clean. The cleaner makes sure that our skin flakes are limited. The meat processing worker keeps food as clean as possible. The diamond miner keeps women and girly men in jewels. The green keeper keeps the greens green and divot free. The emergency services that rescue us, keep us safe and patch us up etc... those supposedly unskilled jobs allow the supposedly skilled surgeons, lawyers, CEO's etc... to be allowed to perform their function yet they don't get the reward because of some outdate notion of importance. Sorry, those who are perceived as excelling get rewarded, the rest get punished for not being as good. We've clearly lost focus of what is important.

You may have lost focus on what's important, but don't include me in your "We". Seems like you are doing a lot of psychological projection. As for high skills generating greater financial rewards.; two words Justin Bieber. You don't get punished for not being "as good" you merely get no (or less) reward; unless you are Justin Bieber :eek5:

Interesting. I'm not against "gifted" children at all. If the "gifted" are finding the work easy, then give them harder work. What's so hard about that? It happened with me when I did my bridging year between life and Uni. I excelled at the maths side and finished the module early. I was left to my own devices and was given tutelage when required. Others needed far more time, yet they still got there. On the flip side I didn't do so well with the "clerical" subjects as the others did. Are those experiences so different to any child in any educational establishment? Did the other students hold me back? They're still just kids. There's plenty of time for them to excel, but catering for the "special" ones will yield similar results as with our carrot stick approach to work, you end up with few who are special and many who have received sub-standard rewards because they aren't special enough. I don't see that as a positive in education, especially in the early years.

I see this as blinkered thinking, a sort of academic elitism. Who put you up to judge how someone should develop and use their gifts? Perhaps the gifted students want to get the work out of the way so they can improve their social skills, or not have to spend the evening doing homework when they could be out learning lots of other valuable stuff. Perhaps they see the reward as passing the exams that allow them to go and pursue a particular career rather than acquisition of academic skills and knowledge.

I'm glad you weren't held back by kids....being held back by teachers or an educational ideology is another thing. Why should a "gifted" person have less time spent on them because they find something easy (academic, practical, or sports). My first memory of childhood schooling was being punished for talking when we had our enforced afternoon rests. Think what I might have achieved if I had been allowed the freedom to explore and talk instead of lying on a fold up bed for 2 hours each school day. It is just as harmful to give little attention to a gifted pupil, being ignored as a child repeatedly is pretty much child abuse, yet you seem to be advocating that for the academically unchallenged.

TheDemonLord

20th March 2014, 11:12

Seeing as how we had an education system that ranked higher in the OECD listing than many other countries, including GB and the USA BEFORE the Nats decided to "improve it" why would we want to change that ???

Source for that?

The reason I ask is when I lived in the UK, I attended a UK grammar school (with all the Pomp and ceremony that entails) yes there was some very very archaic things that used to piss me off, but the upside was the teaching standard was for the most part excellent. Now in the UK I was in the top Maths and top Science classes...

Then I moved to NZ (Rangitoto College in particular), and I shit you not I had covered stuff in the equivelent of 2nd/3rd form in the UK that we didn't do until 6th form in NZ

And bearing in mind this was from 2002 - 2005 (so in Labours administration)

So how was it ranked Higher?

awa355

20th March 2014, 11:21

Source for that?

Then I moved to NZ (Rangitoto College in particular), and I shit you not I had covered stuff in the equivelent of 2nd/3rd form in the UK that we didn't do until 6th form in NZ

Not unusual, we have had a lot of european exchange students over the past 15 years. Their level of education in science, maths have been years ahead of the form level they have been put into for their NZ year.

mashman

20th March 2014, 11:43

I guess because you appear so focused on money that is what you see as the reward. For money to be a punisher one would have to remove it from a person who valued it. Why do people (teachers included) remain in a role that doesn't seem them adequately rewarded, especially when they could move to a more lucrative jog? Perhaps because there are greater rewards than money for most people.

Is money not what the govt are going to be using to reward those teachers who excel? True, if it had have been a trophy I wouldn't have batted an eye lid. I agree with you in regards to why people are doing the job, tis one of the reasons I see NOW working because as you say, many people do the job because they want to. So why isn't a trophy reward enough, or peer recognition?

I'm now seeing the pattern of straw man arguments through your responses. I didn't suggest that people are left behind (a deliberate act), however people over time will find their own place based on opportunity, attitude, and values. The speed with getting to that place would be proportional to the resources available to them.

I know you didn't suggest that people are left behind, never said that you did... I was pointing out that it is a consequence, not a deliberate act. The speed of getting to that place would be whether the person is ready to get to that place or not prior to the resource issue being raised. We don't all choose or feel the need to be at the pinnacle of our professions at the same time. That's the same as the above where people choose to do the job they wish to do at that moment in time irrespective of the carrots that are available.

Indeed shit does happen. If the shit is rewarding then the subject may repeat behaviours to illicit the same reward. If it is random shit then there is no behaviour that would cause a consistent repeat and the behaviour would no longer be rewarding and would reduce or become extinct. I disagree that we have moved on in terms of our behaviours, or our responses to reward and punishment.

I would say the increasing number of protests around the globe highlights that we have moved on in regards to our behaviours and out responses to reward and punishment. My personal attitude/behaviour toward reward and punishment has radically changed in the last 6 years and I'm not the only one who feels the same. But make no mistake, I have changed and my priorities have shifted. You may not have noticed, but my family and friends most certainly have. On that basis it looks as though Skinner has failed to take into account change and has, as you seem to be agreeing, decided that a human being will display predictable behaviour from cradle to grave. That is most definitly a huyge flaw in his analysis. We can react to the exact same circumstances in many different ways given how we feel at that moment in time i.e. we could be tired, we may well have had an argument that morning, we may not yet have had a coffee, we may be on an acid comedown etc... Sure you can say if A wants X that A will do F to get X, but that isn't likely to remain a constant for everyone throughought their life is it?

You may have lost focus on what's important, but don't include me in your "We". Seems like you are doing a lot of psychological projection. As for high skills generating greater financial rewards.; two words Justin Bieber. You don't get punished for not being "as good" you merely get no (or less) reward; unless you are Justin Bieber :eek5:

Ok, tag on a imho to the WE. :killingme@Bieber. Am I projecting? I accepted my shortcomings a long time ago and have rationalised them against the theory that no 1 person will be the best at everything. Even at that I realise that I am capable of everything until I prove that I'm not. I am better than some. Some are better than me. Meh. Still not a sound basis for financially punishing people by giving those who are better than me more and those who are less better than me less. We're all needed is what my above example was trying to highlight. Oh, and I'm financially ok... just letting you know in case you wish to roll out the envy carpet or tall poppy or or or or or. (WE time) If we're fucking people over because we believe that we are better than them in anyway shape or form, then yes, we have lost focus of what is important. There is not justification for it.

I see this as blinkered thinking, a sort of academic elitism. Who put you up to judge how someone should develop and use their gifts? Perhaps the gifted students want to get the work out of the way so they can improve their social skills, or not have to spend the evening doing homework when they could be out learning lots of other valuable stuff. Perhaps they see the reward as passing the exams that allow them to go and pursue a particular career rather than acquisition of academic skills and knowledge.

No one made me judge and I'm kinda confused as to where the elitism comes from... yet you are emminently qualified? Business is qualified? who gets to decide, because sure as hell someone is going to be judge and the down side is it ain't the kids leading the adults. As for your perhapssss, I agree, but I wouldn't restrict that to the gifted only. Where would you draw the line? The first 5 that finish early? the first 10? Is homework in itself a lesson? Is socialising with perceived less gifted children a bad thing? Is socialising with gifted children only a good thing? I gotz no probs with kidz making their own minds up, but it won't be the kidz setting the environment under which they learn, it'll be the adults... which makes your speech about the gifted ones moot as they won't have that choice?

I'm glad you weren't held back by kids....being held back by teachers or an educational ideology is another thing. Why should a "gifted" person have less time spent on them because they find something easy (academic, practical, or sports). My first memory of childhood schooling was being punished for talking when we had our enforced afternoon rests. Think what I might have achieved if I had been allowed the freedom to explore and talk instead of lying on a fold up bed for 2 hours each school day. It is just as harmful to give little attention to a gifted pupil, being ignored as a child repeatedly is pretty much child abuse, yet you seem to be advocating that for the academically unchallenged.

The lack of time will be by default of there being other kids in the classroom that need more help. That does not mean that the "gifted" kids will suffer does it? They will still get the time they need won't they? If you're concerned about it, put more teachers in the classroom. Doh, sorry, costs too much :D, yet it is something I would love to see instead of teachers working in maccas etc... You got a fold up bed? Fucksake I had to stand. You had it easy ;). I wasn't for a moment suggesting that students are deliberately ignored due to them being more capable than others at that point in time (even though I know it happens, not in a bad way though, more of a consequence of others needing more help).

Scuba_Steve

20th March 2014, 11:48

The reason I ask is when I lived in the UK, I attended a UK grammar school (with all the Pomp and ceremony that entails) yes there was some very very archaic things that used to piss me off, but the upside was the teaching standard was for the most part excellent. Now in the UK I was in the top Maths and top Science classes...

Then I moved to NZ (Rangitoto College in particular), and I shit you not I had covered stuff in the equivelent of 2nd/3rd form in the UK that we didn't do until 6th form in NZ

But you didn't even have to go international for that shit, I moved from Porirua to Palmy Nth; 3rd & 4th form in Palmy was nothing more than a repeat of 1st & 2nd form in Porirua maybee even going back to S4 & I was in "advanced stream" classes in Palmy :facepalm:
The worst part, this college would probably be one to get the good pay :brick:

swbarnett

20th March 2014, 12:37

Behaviours that are rewarded tend to increase, behaviours that are punished (as perceived by the individual) tend to reduce.
Or: Behaviours that are rewarded tend to increase, behaviours that are not rewarded (as perceived by the individual) tend to reduce.

"You catch more flies with honey than vinegar." And you don't alienate people in the process.

Sometime behaviour that's punished even increases. Humans are programmed to rebel and some will re-offend just to spite the system.

If an astrophysics teacher has 40 hours a week to teach advanced astrophysics then they will invest in those pupils with the ability to understand the learning and the interest (at that time) in the subject matter.
So what, only teach those kids that are already eager to learn? Talk about widening the divide. You must teach to the pupils that you find in front of you. I the teacher has any talent for the job they will learn how each kid learns and teach accordingly.

swbarnett

20th March 2014, 12:46

I don't see leaving people behind as a sensible option. I don't see those who have the aptitude to go further being held back by those who don't.
It's actually been shown that having the more able students help teaching those less able actually results in better learning for both. I was in this position back when I was in school. The person I was paired with had a very low aptitude for maths but by the end of the year they understood everything that they were taught (and could use it). And I certainly had a better grasp of the material as a result of teaching it.

bogan

20th March 2014, 12:48

It's actually been shown that having the more able students help teaching those less able actually results in better learning for both. I was in this position back when I was in school. The person I was paired with had a very low aptitude for maths but by the end of the year they understood everything that they were taught (and could use it). And I certainly had a better grasp of the material as a result of teaching it.

Not only that, but the ability to teach your peers gives you communications skills which are very useful in themselves.

swbarnett

20th March 2014, 12:56

Why should a "gifted" person have less time spent on them because they find something easy (academic, practical, or sports).
Because the name of the game is equity, not equality.

Take a 90yr old granny and a 20yr old star athlete. The granny needs 500calories daily for their body to do what they want it to, the athlete needs 1500. Each day there is 2000calories worth of food to distribute. In the interests of equality they both get 1000calories worth of food each. Result: the granny gets fat (or the extra food gets trashed) and the athlete slowly starves to death (or at least fails as an athlete). Equity, on the other hand, would see the granny get the 500calories she needs and the athlete the 1500calories they need. Definiately not equal but both are happy with their allocation.

The same goes for students. The bright one that picks up the material fast needs less time to achieve the stated goals of the class and the less bright one needs more. It just makes sense to aportion the teacher's time equitably, not equally.

mashman

20th March 2014, 12:57

It's actually been shown that having the more able students help teaching those less able actually results in better learning for both. I was in this position back when I was in school. The person I was paired with had a very low aptitude for maths but by the end of the year they understood everything that they were taught (and could use it). And I certainly had a better grasp of the material as a result of teaching it.

You'll be pleased to note that that practice continues and my daughter appreciates it from both a "teaching" perspective for the subjects she's strong in and from a "learning" perspective for the subjects she's less strong in. I love the idea.

mashman

20th March 2014, 12:59

Because the name of the game is equitly, not equality.

Take a 90yr old granny and a 20yr old star athlete. The granny needs 500calories daily for their body to do what they want it to, the athlete needs 1500. Each day there is 2000calories worth of food to distribute. In the interests of equality they both get 1000calories worth of food each. Result: the granny gets fat (or the extra food gets trashed) and the athlete slowly starves to death (or at least fails as an athlete). Equity, on the other hand, would see the granny get the 500calories she needs and the athlete the 1500calories they need. Definiately not equal but both are happy with their allocation.

The same goes for students. The bright one that picks up the material fast needs less time to achieve the stated goals of the class and the less bright one needs more. It just makes sense aportion the teacher's time equitably, not equally.

cannot green again.

bogan

20th March 2014, 13:21

Because the name of the game is equity, not equality.

Take a 90yr old granny and a 20yr old star athlete. The granny needs 500calories daily for their body to do what they want it to, the athlete needs 1500. Each day there is 2000calories worth of food to distribute. In the interests of equality they both get 1000calories worth of food each. Result: the granny gets fat (or the extra food gets trashed) and the athlete slowly starves to death (or at least fails as an athlete). Equity, on the other hand, would see the granny get the 500calories she needs and the athlete the 1500calories they need. Definiately not equal but both are happy with their allocation.

The same goes for students. The bright one that picks up the material fast needs less time to achieve the stated goals of the class and the less bright one needs more. It just makes sense to aportion the teacher's time equitably, not equally.

Only to a point, the granny doesn't benefit from getting fat, however any student can benefit from getting more teacher time and accelerated learning when required. It's why classes are often streamed by intelligence. Leads to why performance based pay is unlikely to be a good thing, teaching to a set standard then focusing on those who haven't achieved that, it doesn't allow the smarter ones to reach their potential.

mashman

20th March 2014, 13:30

Only to a point, the granny doesn't benefit from getting fat, however any student can benefit from getting more teacher time and accelerated learning when required. It's why classes are often streamed by intelligence. Leads to why performance based pay is unlikely to be a good thing, teaching to a set standard then focusing on those who haven't achieved that, it doesn't allow the smarter ones to reach their potential.

She'd be warmer in winter.

swbarnett

20th March 2014, 14:53

Only to a point, the granny doesn't benefit from getting fat, however any student can benefit from getting more teacher time and accelerated learning when required.
Agreed.

It's why classes are often streamed by intelligence.
This is where it falls down. A class of 30 geniuses can pretty much teach themselves given a text book and a little guidance. They hardly need a teacher. A class of 30 low aptitude students needs one teacher per student.

This is why mixing the two groups is better for all. The geniuses get to help with the teaching (you don't really know something until you have taught it) and the low aptitude students get more one-on-one tuition.

I think also there may be some confusion as to what exactly constitutes "performance pay". The simplest example I can think of is piece work. My mother-in-law made trousers for a living and got paid so much for each pair. The more she made the more she earned. This is performance pay. For teachers it would be the better the students do the more they get paid. Their pay would go up and down from year to year. This is not what is used for most businesses where one's pay may go up at a yearly performance review but will never (or very seldom) go down.

bogan

20th March 2014, 15:19

This is where it falls down. A class of 30 geniuses can pretty much teach themselves given a text book and a little guidance. They hardly need a teacher. A class of 30 low aptitude students needs one teacher per student.

This is why mixing the two groups is better for all. The geniuses get to help with the teaching (you don't really know something until you have taught it) and the low aptitude students get more one-on-one tuition.

I think also there may be some confusion as to what exactly constitutes "performance pay". The simplest example I can think of is piece work. My mother-in-law made trousers for a living and got paid so much for each pair. The more she made the more she earned. This is performance pay. For teachers it would be the better the students do the more they get paid. Their pay would go up and down from year to year. This is not what is used for most businesses where one's pay may go up at a yearly performance review but will never (or very seldom) go down.

They can perhaps teach themselves to the same level, but to get the most out of them, they also need teacher time and learning from a more advanced curriculum. The point of school is to maximise potential, not to standardise it.

My 7th form year we (about 8 pretty clued up students) had a pretty shit run of teachers in chemistry; the last one taught us more in about 9 weeks than we had learnt through the rest of the year. Textbooks are just no substitute for contact with a good teacher, no matter how smart the student is.

The problem with teacher performance pay, is it is not just the teacher's performance that is in the equation. The kids they get to work with can vary hugely in intelligence.

bluninja

20th March 2014, 15:40

Because the name of the game is equity, not equality. Says who? Oh, the "stated goals of the class", so not the education of each individual student.

Take a 90yr old granny and a 20yr old star athlete. The granny needs 500calories daily for their body to do what they want it to, the athlete needs 1500. Each day there is 2000calories worth of food to distribute. In the interests of equality they both get 1000calories worth of food each. Result: the granny gets fat (or the extra food gets trashed) and the athlete slowly starves to death (or at least fails as an athlete). Equity, on the other hand, would see the granny get the 500calories she needs and the athlete the 1500calories they need. Definiately not equal but both are happy with their allocation. Only happy in your fictional world.....still we could get the Herald to do a poll fer ya

The same goes for students. The bright one that picks up the material fast needs less time to achieve the stated goals of the class and the less bright one needs more. It just makes sense to aportion the teacher's time equitably, not equally.
I just so fundamentally disagree with this. This looks like kids being equalised to produce an efficient "class", rather than delivering the education wanted/needed by an individual.

Banditbandit

20th March 2014, 15:43

Source for that?

Here's the 2012 rankings ..

http://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/pisa-2012-results-overview.pdf

Go to page five for the table .. we rank just above the UK and a little above the USA.

Go here for the 2009 ones -

http://ourtimes.wordpress.com/2008/04/10/oecd-education-rankings/

scroll down to the second table .. NZ is in 7th place .. (except maths in 13th) United States in 17th place and the UK in 26th place for reading (with some variance in the other columns) ..

bluninja

20th March 2014, 15:51

Or: Behaviours that are rewarded tend to increase, behaviours that are not rewarded (as perceived by the individual) tend to reduce.

"You catch more flies with honey than vinegar." And you don't alienate people in the process.

Sometime behaviour that's punished even increases. Humans are programmed to rebel and some will re-offend just to spite the system.

So what, only teach those kids that are already eager to learn? Talk about widening the divide. You must teach to the pupils that you find in front of you. I the teacher has any talent for the job they will learn how each kid learns and teach accordingly.

There's been various studies and experiments that show a balanced approach with reward and punishment works better than either reward only or punishment only. Punished behaviour (in the Skinnerian context of the meaning) does not cause punished behaviours to increase (with the exception of an extinction spike). The "re-offend just to spite the system" is the actual rewarding behaviour, not the behaviour that is being punished.

You raised a question "only teach those kids that are already eager to learn?" In general, yes; that doesn't exclude parents, family, mentors, or teachers from getting kids excited about learning in the first place. Forcing kids to learn means you've lost the plot in education terms IMHO.

swbarnett

20th March 2014, 16:05

They can perhaps teach themselves to the same level, but to get the most out of them, they also need teacher time and learning from a more advanced curriculum.
A good teacher will recognise those with extra ability and teach accordingly. It doesn't have to take more of their time. In my 6th form year I was given a stage 1 university chemistry text book to work from. I certainly had no problem absorbing it on my own with just a little guidance.

The point of school is to maximise potential, not to standardise it.
Yes and no. What kind of society do you want to live in? One where most people are pretty well uneducated and the rest are at a genius level or one where there are fewer geniuses but the general education level of the population is relatively high? I know I'd rather live in the latter. Much harder for the government to pull the wool over everyone's eyes.

School is more about teaching en masse. For the "gifted" extra outside tuition is required (even if that's just being haded a reading list).

Textbooks are just no substitute for contact with a good teacher, no matter how smart the student is.
I work in the I.T. industry at a level where mostly there is no course for the new stuff I need to learn. I have no problem picking up a manual or other relevant book and getting what I need to become "expert" in the topic. No teacher required. The courses I have done I've learned more from the books and hand-on experience than I got from the teacher.

The problem with teacher performance pay, is it is not just the teacher's performance that is in the equation. The kids they get to work with can vary hugely in intelligence.
Totally agree with you there.

bogan

20th March 2014, 16:13

A good teacher will recognise those with extra ability and teach accordingly. It doesn't have to take more of their time. In my 6th form year I was given a stage 1 university chemistry text book to work from. I certainly had no problem absorbing it on my own with just a little guidance.

Yes and no. What kind of society do you want to live in? One where most people are pretty well uneducated and the rest are at a genius level or one where there are fewer geniuses but the general education level of the population is relatively high? I know I'd rather live in the latter. Much harder for the government to pull the wool over everyone's eyes.

School is more about teaching en masse. For the "gifted" extra outside tuition is required (even if that's just being haded a reading list).

I work in the I.T. industry at a level where mostly there is no course for the new stuff I need to learn. I have no problem picking up a manual or other relevant book and getting what I need to become "expert" in the topic. No teacher required. The courses I have done I've learned more from the books and hand-on experience than I got from the teacher.

Totally agree with you there.

Which is good, but you still needed a teacher who had the time to spend on you for that; the actual contact time might have been fairly low, but evaluating your need and providing the materials to maximise your potential in that regard is not trivial.

Those are most certainly not the options, I said maximise everyone's potential, not ignore the dumb kids to focus on the smart ones, the dumb ones would stil be taught to their ability, just not above it.

I do similar, but in my experience, it takes longer, and the education is less complete than if I had a teacher; just because it is possible to self teach once a formal education is complete, doesn't mean a formal education should rely on students to self teach. After all, a lot of what is taught, is the ability to self teach.

swbarnett

20th March 2014, 16:14

Says who? Oh, the "stated goals of the class", so not the education of each individual student.
Says the curriculum that is set down by the governing body.

Only happy in your fictional world.....still we could get the Herald to do a poll fer ya
No. in the real world. Equity is far more important than equality. That way everyone gets what they need. In an ideal world there would be enough teachers to allow everyone to reach their full potential. However, with limited teaching resources the distribution of those resources should be based on need.

I just so fundamentally disagree with this. This looks like kids being equalised to produce an efficient "class", rather than delivering the education wanted/needed by an individual.
I actually agree with you here. School is not about producing geniuses. They're about producing an educated society. Geniuses are produced by schools recognising those of higher ability and arranging extra tuition. At University level the situation is even worse. With lectures of several hundred students to one lecturer no-one gets much teacher time. You have to effectively teach yourself.

swbarnett

20th March 2014, 16:21

You raised a question "only teach those kids that are already eager to learn?" In general, yes; that doesn't exclude parents, family, mentors, or teachers from getting kids excited about learning in the first place. Forcing kids to learn means you've lost the plot in education terms IMHO.
It's not about "forcing" kids to learn. That just plain doesn't work. It's about finding out what will motivate a kid to want to learn.

I know someone that used to work in the Physiccs department of a major NZ university. The majority of the older lecturers were of the opinion that they should only teach to the bright students and let the rest fall by the wayside. There were others, however, that thought about how to teach to all the students and got some very good results.

swbarnett

20th March 2014, 16:27

I do similar, but in my experience, it takes longer, and the education is less complete than if I had a teacher;
I find that I learn faster and more deeply if left to my own devices. A teacher led course can be a good start but in my area is usually pretty shallow.

just because it is possible to self teach once a formal education is complete, doesn't mean a formal education should rely on students to self teach. After all, a lot of what is taught, is the ability to self teach.
Agreed. But it can be a valuable part of the learning process for all students, not just the "gifted" ones.

bluninja

20th March 2014, 16:47

Says the curriculum that is set down by the governing body.

No. in the real world. Equity is far more important than equality. That way everyone gets what they need. In an ideal world there would be enough teachers to allow everyone to reach their full potential. However, with limited teaching resources the distribution of those resources should be based on need.

I actually agree with you here. School is not about producing geniuses. They're about producing an educated society. Geniuses are produced by schools recognising those of higher ability and arranging extra tuition. At University level the situation is even worse. With lectures of several hundred students to one lecturer no-one gets much teacher time. You have to effectively teach yourself.

The real problem here as I see it is schools. It's removing choice and responsibility from parents about the education of the children and handing it over to the state. Then everyone moans about one size fits all teaching and the lack of resources.
Distribution of resources based on need? Again this is a judgement call based on what the teacher, school, or society perceives as need; not about what the child (or their parents) perceive as a need. The parent and not the state has the responsibility for raising their children. Parents need the power and resources to get the best assistance in educating their children. I see current society as marginalising parents role in education, taking power away from them. As an example, try taking a kid camping for a week during school and see the flak. However a school can take the kids on the same camping trip during term whilst rorting money from the parents for their child's state funded education.

School age education is not about just learning information, it's about learning skills. How to learn, how to study, how to identify the required resources for a given task, how to communicate ideas. It seems you have acquired the skills to identify and acquire the resources to improve and extend your learning.

Why do we need an educated society? why not en ethical society, a caring society, a productive society? I realise they are not mutually exclusive, it's just where the primary focus should be. Are we "better" than aboriginal societies just cos we know more stuff?

You need a genius to advance learning so that others can use the tools to improve our lot in this world. It may take genius to create an automatic defibrillator, but anyone that can follow simple instructions can use one to try and save a persons life.

bluninja

20th March 2014, 17:06

It's not about "forcing" kids to learn. That just plain doesn't work. It's about finding out what will motivate a kid to want to learn.

You raised a question "only teach those kids that are already eager to learn?" In general, yes; that doesn't exclude parents, family, mentors, or teachers from getting kids excited about learning in the first place. Forcing kids to learn means you've lost the plot in education terms IMHO.

Looks like you're just repeating my words back to me. So you agree then?

I know someone that used to work in the Physiccs department of a major NZ university. The majority of the older lecturers were of the opinion that they should only teach to the bright students and let the rest fall by the wayside. There were others, however, that thought about how to teach to all the students and got some very good results.

I now feel like a poorly performing teacher in that I clearly haven't found the correct way to communicate with you :facepalm:

Being "eager to learn" is in no way proportional to learning ability; you don't have to be a bright student to be eager to learn. You point out lecturers with a limited aptitude and attitude to teaching. One could extrapolate that as it's university then the students MUST be eager to learn but I don't see this as a truism. This issue raised here is lecturers with one teaching style that works only for those that respond to, lets call it "Bright Student Style", but are unable to teach others with a different style. Those eager to learn may well have different learning styles.

BTW when you go to university to study for a degree it's normally described as "Reading" eg Reading Physics rather than "Learning" or "Being Taught" physics.

mashman

20th March 2014, 17:27

You need a genius to advance learning so that others can use the tools to improve our lot in this world.

Hi my name is Gordon. Are you ready to change your mind yet? Genius is a bit strong mind.

Ocean1

20th March 2014, 19:48

No. in the real world. Equity is far more important than equality. That way everyone gets what they need. In an ideal world there would be enough teachers to allow everyone to reach their full potential. However, with limited teaching resources the distribution of those resources should be based on need.

Searches on the topic produce returns that make it difficult to avoid the conclusion that academia have either invented the word "equity" or hijacked it. Presumably because the word equality didn't produce the desired results.

So let's narrow that down a bit, eh? Equality of access to resources is what's usually considered a fair suck of the sav. Equality of outcomes is what's increasingly being proposed as "fair".

What's "fair" in this case is giving every kid equal access to education resources. Attempting to apply sufficient resources to the lower performers to achieve similar results to the top performers is a waste of those resources, and it deprives the high performers of their share.

Even the old socialist states supposedly attempted only the former, "Equity of outcomes" is a step beyond that again. In short, it's a piece of radical bullshit presented as representing the only "fair" way to manage society. In fact it's far from it, and more to the point it's hugely wasteful and anything like widespread implementation would be civil suicide.

mashman

20th March 2014, 21:20

Searches on the topic produce returns that make it difficult to avoid the conclusion that academia have either invented the word "equity" or hijacked it. Presumably because the word equality didn't produce the desired results.

So let's narrow that down a bit, eh? Equality of access to resources is what's usually considered a fair suck of the sav. Equality of outcomes is what's increasingly being proposed as "fair".

What's "fair" in this case is giving every kid equal access to education resources. Attempting to apply sufficient resources to the lower performers to achieve similar results to the top performers is a waste of those resources, and it deprives the high performers of their share.

Even the old socialist states supposedly attempted only the former, "Equity of outcomes" is a step beyond that again. In short, it's a piece of radical bullshit presented as representing the only "fair" way to manage society. In fact it's far from it, and more to the point it's hugely wasteful and anything like widespread implementation would be civil suicide.

Equity transcends definition man.

Winston001

20th March 2014, 22:45

The reason I ask is when I lived in the UK, I attended a UK grammar school... but the upside was the teaching standard was for the most part excellent. Now in the UK I was in the top Maths and top Science classes...

Then I moved to NZ (Rangitoto College in particular), and I shit you not I had covered stuff in the equivelent of 2nd/3rd form in the UK that we didn't do until 6th form in NZ

My daughter is at Southland Girls High School, one of the handful of NZ schools which has the Cambridge system for 12 - 13yr children. She is now 16 and breezing through because she already knows science and maths from earlier years. To be fair it was tough for her but we supported the higher demands.

The downside is she is an overachiever, outstanding student twice, and can't be told anything. Dang. :facepalm:

Ocean1

21st March 2014, 07:25

Equity transcends definition man.

It certainly transcends any definition by you, it's primary meaning is related to finance, a topic so far beyond your grasp as to be invisible.

As far as academia is concerned it means this: "Educational equity, or equity in education, is the study and achievement of fairness in education. The study of educational equity is often linked with the study of excellence and equity. Fairness is often equated with equality, but equity deals with accommodating and meeting the specific needs of specific individuals. Such needs-based accommodation will not result in equal treatment of all students."

Read that last bit again, according to the industry itself educational equity does not represent equality and is therefore unfair to those deprived of their share of educational resources.

Banditbandit

21st March 2014, 08:12

My daughter is at Southland Girls High School, one of the handful of NZ schools which has the Cambridge system for 12 - 13yr children. She is now 16 and breezing through because she already knows science and maths from earlier years. To be fair it was tough for her but we supported the higher demands.

The downside is she is an overachiever, outstanding student twice, and can't be told anything. Dang. :facepalm:

I generally wonder why we pick up an assessment system designed by a country ranked lower than us on the OECD education scale to test the product of the "lower" colonial education systems to see if they meet the English standards for entry into their universities ...

TheDemonLord

21st March 2014, 08:26

My daughter is at Southland Girls High School, one of the handful of NZ schools which has the Cambridge system for 12 - 13yr children. She is now 16 and breezing through because she already knows science and maths from earlier years. To be fair it was tough for her but we supported the higher demands.

The downside is she is an overachiever, outstanding student twice, and can't be told anything. Dang. :facepalm:

That is what happened to me - except I am not an over-achiever (waaaay too lazy)

TheDemonLord

21st March 2014, 08:34

I generally wonder why we pick up an assessment system designed by a country ranked lower than us on the OECD education scale to test the product of the "lower" colonial education systems to see if they meet the English standards for entry into their universities ...

Simply put - Its a better system, it teaches more advanced subjects at a younger age than the current NZ system (which IMO - was a joke).

Something that makes me more qualified to speak on this is that I actually went through both educational systems - I am sure that there are many many schools in the UK that suck, as I said, I went to a Grammar School (above the normal schools, but below Public schools)

The above is also why I asked for a Source - I admitedly don't have time to look at how the ranking was calculated, but anecdottaly (and backed up by multiple members here) the NZ system lags behind the UK by (in some areas) 4 years....

Banditbandit

21st March 2014, 10:00

Hmm .. see the OECD stats say you are wrong ..

TheDemonLord

21st March 2014, 12:52

Hmm .. see the OECD stats say you are wrong ..

Thats the great thing about Stats - you can use them to prove anything.....

I should look at that report to see if I can account for the difference between the report and the reality of myself and others.

Banditbandit

21st March 2014, 15:25

Bwhahahaha Yes ...

But only edyamakated people can play with stats to prove anything ..

TheDemonLord

21st March 2014, 17:35

Bwhahahaha Yes ...

But only edyamakated people can play with stats to prove anything ..

If you take the stats by of fire engines vs number of fires in a city and control for city size, you can see that as the number of fire engines increase, so do the number of fires.

From this we conclude that Fire Engines do infact cause Fires - afterall, they have Fire in the name....

(first lesson on Statistics I had - Correlation does not equal Causation)

swbarnett

23rd March 2014, 08:32

The real problem here as I see it is schools. It's removing choice and responsibility from parents about the education of the children and handing it over to the state. Then everyone moans about one size fits all teaching and the lack of resources.
Distribution of resources based on need? Again this is a judgement call based on what the teacher, school, or society perceives as need; not about what the child (or their parents) perceive as a need. The parent and not the state has the responsibility for raising their children. Parents need the power and resources to get the best assistance in educating their children. I see current society as marginalising parents role in education, taking power away from them. As an example, try taking a kid camping for a week during school and see the flak. However a school can take the kids on the same camping trip during term whilst rorting money from the parents for their child's state funded education.
I see education as a two-pronged approach. Schools are there to raise the education level of the population as a whole, building on what the parents have already done. It is also desireable if the schools or parents, or both, are able to identify the potential of the individual and give them what they need to achieve it.

School age education is not about just learning information, it's about learning skills. How to learn, how to study, how to identify the required resources for a given task, how to communicate ideas.
Agreed. Or as I usually put it, teaching people how to think.

Why do we need an educated society? why not en ethical society, a caring society, a productive society? I realise they are not mutually exclusive, it's just where the primary focus should be. Are we "better" than aboriginal societies just cos we know more stuff?
Knowing stuff doesn't mean you're educated. What I mean by an educated society is one where most people know how to think.

swbarnett

23rd March 2014, 08:43

Looks like you're just repeating my words back to me. So you agree then?
It seems that we may well do on a fair amount of this. The written word can be a poor medium sometimes (my wife has been studying exactly that for her PhD).

I now feel like a poorly performing teacher in that I clearly haven't found the correct way to communicate with you :facepalm:
No worries, we're gettting there. Rome wasn't built in a day and all that.

Being "eager to learn" is in no way proportional to learning ability; you don't have to be a bright student to be eager to learn.
Indeed.

You point out lecturers with a limited aptitude and attitude to teaching. One could extrapolate that as it's university then the students MUST be eager to learn but I don't see this as a truism.
Today you increasingly have to have a university degree to get a decent job. This doesn't make for the best motivation for higher learning.

This issue raised here is lecturers with one teaching style that works only for those that respond to, lets call it "Bright Student Style", but are unable to teach others with a different style. Those eager to learn may well have different learning styles.
The main issue raised was that the students were increasingly poorly prepared for university by the school system. What has worked in the past is no longer working as well. The knee-jerk reaction has been to lower standards and make the courses easier rather than teaching to the students they now have.

BTW when you go to university to study for a degree it's normally described as "Reading" eg Reading Physics rather than "Learning" or "Being Taught" physics.
Yes, very good point. This is not a term that was traditionaly used in NZ. I've heard it more from the US and UK. However, it does fit quite well when you consider that we were expected to do four hours of private study for every hour of lecture. This ties in nicely with what I was saying about self teaching with a little guidance.

swbarnett

23rd March 2014, 08:51

Ocean1

23rd March 2014, 09:52

I'm not suggesting that the dumbest kids get all the resources and the brightest ones get none. That would just be silly.

Imagine the case of an intelectually handicapped kid. No amount of help will bring them to the level of the IQ elite.

What I am suggesting is that the resource needs to be apportioned disparitly so that the majority of the students achieve the basic level of education that schools have been tasked with teaching.

Yes, I understand what you said, equity of outcomes rather than equal shares of resources. By definition that's inequitable and unfair. And if schools need to allocate resources unfairly in order to achieve what many see as an inadequate minimum standard then they're doing it wrong.

They should be tasked with maximising the performance of every child in their school, how can they do that by denying high performers the share of the resources their parents taxes paid for? If that's not the case then you've got an inherently unfair education system. One the performance of which will continue to decrease as a result of such silly notions.

mansell

23rd March 2014, 19:12

Yes, I understand what you said, equity of outcomes rather than equal shares of resources. By definition that's inequitable and unfair. And if schools need to allocate resources unfairly in order to achieve what many see as an inadequate minimum standard then they're doing it wrong.

They should be tasked with maximising the performance of every child in their school, how can they do that by denying high performers the share of the resources their parents taxes paid for? If that's not the case then you've got an inherently unfair education system. One the performance of which will continue to decrease as a result of such silly notions.

School's are tasked with maximising the potential of every student, however they are woofully underfunded, under resourced and dealing with some very complex social issues. Believe me most teachers do there very best with what is available and we do have a world class system, not that our government wants you to believe this because there is no way to make a dollar out of the school system. It's interesting that very few ministers have ever taught at any type of school, yet they try to male decisions for us that just end up eroding what is done in schools across New Zealand. I believe it is time the dickheads left us alone and stopped using the future generations as a political football to reinforce their own stupid beliefs.

James Deuce

23rd March 2014, 19:51

mansell

23rd March 2014, 20:12

What a load of bollocks. Teachers don't deal with anything more complex than deflecting punishment from bullies so the bullies can go on to become Bankers, Lawyers, Doctors and Politicians. Teachers are a subset underclass of our overlords and they forget from time to time their function. Requires a firm hand from Government to bring them back into line up to and including payroll systems that don't. Haven't met a teacher I'd trust yet. As for "maximising potential", rubbish! There job has always been to sort the elite from the muck spreaders. Someone forgot the rules and let teachers become politicians and it all went wrong from there.

Wow obviously you had a hard time at school, and from this retheoric know fuck all teachers. It's a fucking hard job made harder by people assuming because they were once at school they know all about my profession. I could spend hours detailing all the shit we have to put up with but in your case it would probably fall on deaf ears. Needless to say in an average class of 25 students there are 25 different backgrounds they bring into the class and we need to cater for them all. As for trusting teachers - if you can't then I wonder how you are going to trust the next generation after all we are charged with equipping them to be members of the society we live in. Sorry if this sounds harsh but I am sick to death of teaher slamming. Incidently I am not a sub class off the overleods as you put it, I am just a man trying to do the best fucking job I can, and hopefully somewhere along the way trying to engage my students in thinking and learning.

James Deuce

23rd March 2014, 22:12

Hypothetical questions:

Child A is developmentally delayed with a documented and supposedly "understood" chromosomal disorder and while verbal is VERY difficult to understand.

Child B is 2 chronological years younger than Child A but bigger and very easy to understand.

When Child B takes Child A's lunch box and empties the contents on his head and then grabs his ears and bashes his head against the wall and Child A retaliates, blacking the eye of his tormentor, which child does the average school principal support and who's parents are called to school?

When Child D, a peer and "friend" of Child C smashes Child C's face into a rock garden "for fun" while Child C was reading a book on the step outside his classroom, destroying both newly acquired adult front upper teeth in the process and generating a bill of $3600 and ongoing psych issues (night terrors, etc, etc) because it was a total surprise king hit, which parents are called in to explain themselves and which child is deemed socially awkward and therefore deserving of having their face smashed in from behind?

Child E has a condition that is poorly understood, but when it comes upon him means he can't walk and talk. The school supports him by isolating him from his peers (without the knowledge of his parents) and the head of the Junior School has been caught on more than one occasion screaming at him to, "Get up, you're faking it!", by the parents, who has to go to a BoT meeting and be told to not lodge a complaint about the treatment of Child E or face having to find another school?

More than one family have this going on. When Child F is tormented physically by a pack of kids who leave him naked in the playing field while standing in a ring around him chanting "piggy, piggy", who's parents are called into school and told, "Well you have to understand that he is overweight".

When Child C is physically and verbally abused by a teacher who threatens to call the Police on him if he comes any closer, when all he is doing is picking up Child A, AFTER school and making sure his bags are packed and sandals on the right feet and the subsequent screaming fit (there were witnesses - busy time with kids being picked up) leaves Child C unable to go to school for a couple of days and when he does go back endures a systematic application of areas where he is allowed to go in the school and is banned from Child A's school block, despite later being exonerated after the parents hire a child psychologist to monitor the situation who recommends that the teacher be removed from the profession and ensures this is carried out, who footed the bill? Was there an apology?

There never is. Teachers are always right.

It's about time you folk manned up and provided the positive role models you all so desperately think you are. I have no sympathy for the plight of teachers because I've yet to find one who is actively engaged in teaching kids from a positive viewpoint and capable of treating their parents like adults, not big kids who need to be lectured about how shitty their kids are (watch the retort that all the shit above was deserved). When no one says anything nice about you or your kids it's hardly surprising that you develop chips in places that there shouldn't be chips.

mansell

24th March 2014, 03:19

MSTRS

24th March 2014, 05:35

So you punish people for not trying hard enough.

Try or not, if no attempt is made to improve one's situation, why should more resources be thrown at them? Laziness should not be rewarded.

As for teachers and their pay, my wife works in the high school system, which is a real eye-opener. She is paid the same as any other staff in her job for the same length of time, but she does many more jobs with much greater success and often is called on by these so-called peers to help them. To repeat...for the same pay. She is a more effective staff member so why isn't she paid more? Same as teachers.

Simple really...

MSTRS

24th March 2014, 05:50

... we are charged with equipping them to be members of the society we live in....

BS. That's the parent's job. The state requires that all children between 5 - 16 be supplied an education (of the state's choosing). Delivering that is YOUR job.

mansell

24th March 2014, 06:24

BS. That's the parent's job. The state requires that all children between 5 - 16 be supplied an education (of the state's choosing). Delivering that is YOUR job.

Yeah and if the parents did their job I might have an easier time trying to do mine.

mashman

24th March 2014, 07:42

Try or not, if no attempt is made to improve one's situation, why should more resources be thrown at them? Laziness should not be rewarded.

As for teachers and their pay, my wife works in the high school system, which is a real eye-opener. She is paid the same as any other staff in her job for the same length of time, but she does many more jobs with much greater success and often is called on by these so-called peers to help them. To repeat...for the same pay. She is a more effective staff member so why isn't she paid more? Same as teachers.

Simple really...

Was I saying that more resources should be thrown at people not trying hard enough? The problem with that little ditty is that there is a judgement call in there that is being made in regards to the capabilities of an individual. If I think you aren't trying hard enough, then it doesn't matter what you think. How would you react to me stating that you're not trying hard enough?

I'm sure Ocean would say that she's obviously not worth more irrespective of what she thinks. Is being more versatile a criteria for being given more money than someone else? I'm sure the missus would be a great loss to her department, but she is replaceable, we all are and just because you are the best doesn't mean that you should be rewarded as such. Would she accept a pat on the back and the acknowledgement by her peers that she is a more effective member of the team as her as a reward? What happens if someone else steps up to the plate and becomes the star? Should she have any previous rewards removed and those rewards given to someone else? Would she have anything left with which to counter that and push to get her spot back the following year? Coz I see that sort of thing turning out ugly, it generally does.

I don't see it as simple at all. I am better therefore I should have. Sounds like my kids.

swbarnett

24th March 2014, 07:51

Yes, I understand what you said, equity of outcomes rather than equal shares of resources. By definition that's inequitable and unfair.
Huh? How is it fair to waste resources?

They should be tasked with maximising the performance of every child in their school,
Agreed. This is a laudible goal but within the meager budget they're allocated it's a pipe dream unless, as you say, more of the education responsibility is put back on the parents.

how can they do that by denying high performers the share of the resources their parents taxes paid for? If that's not the case then you've got an inherently unfair education system. One the performance of which will continue to decrease as a result of such silly notions.
Giving every kid in class gets equal attention regardless of need denies those at the bottom what they need to learn and waste it on those that don't need it. It's this kind of thinking that's created the elitist society that will eventually be the downfall of our civilisation.

TheDemonLord

24th March 2014, 08:07

mashman

24th March 2014, 09:48

None of you will like this, but it has to be said, I could abuse you in regards to having a thick skull etc... but fuck it, it gets boring sometimes.

Do you really want an education system that offers not only the teachers but the parents real options in regards to the education of our kids? To put it bluntly and without going into too much detail, you need to remove money from the equation. It is a limiting factor (budget constraint leading to limited teacher v's student ratio "problems"/styles/knowledge etc... providing teaching models for furthering the education of those who are learning and those who aren't, can't, won't etc...) FACT! It is a bone of contention (I deserve more than you. Schools fees cost too much. "Better" teaching by paying more) FACT! They are 2 of, what I have read in all of your comments, 2 of the main factors that repeat.

Like I said, there's no point in being "abusive" about it, yes it annoys me that people can't wrap their heads around that simple truth, but until you do, we'll go round and round and round and round slinging shit, blaming teachers, parents, students etc... and for no other reason than we can't afford to reshape what we know needs to be brought into the 21st century. Do what you can with what you have is an unbelievably inflexible and negative way to approach what we know needs to be done in regards to one of the most important institutions on the planet.

Now fuck off and think about it you knuckle headed fucktards.

bogan

24th March 2014, 10:08

Giving every kid in class gets equal attention regardless of need denies those at the bottom what they need to learn and waste it on those that don't need it. It's this kind of thinking that's created the elitist society that will eventually be the downfall of our civilisation.

Equal opportunity for attention is all that is needed. Certainly there is no point for teachers hovering over those who will happily work away by themselves; but those must be given the opportunity (and be forcefully motivated if required) to keep working, regardless of whether they have ticked a govt sanctioned 'your kid is now adequate' box. Indeed, when considering the smart ones need less contact time, in an equal system, teachers can prioritise those kids, like you do the easy jobs on a to-do list, get the clever ones going on their stuff for that section of the day; then focus on the ones who need additional contact time. Many teachers do this already of course, and it is good that they have the freedom from standardised lower common denominator testing/teaching bullshit; or at least they did in my day.

TheDemonLord

24th March 2014, 10:55

mashman

24th March 2014, 11:05

You are only thinking that way because you have been trained to think that way..... :laugh::laugh::laugh:

Dammit... and I thought it was self-evident.

swbarnett

24th March 2014, 11:06

Equal opportunity for attention is all that is needed. Certainly there is no point for teachers hovering over those who will happily work away by themselves; but those must be given the opportunity (and be forcefully motivated if required) to keep working, regardless of whether they have ticked a govt sanctioned 'your kid is now adequate' box. Indeed, when considering the smart ones need less contact time, in an equal system, teachers can prioritise those kids, like you do the easy jobs on a to-do list, get the clever ones going on their stuff for that section of the day; then focus on the ones who need additional contact time. Many teachers do this already of course, and it is good that they have the freedom from standardised lower common denominator testing/teaching bullshit; or at least they did in my day.
I have absolutely no problem with any of what you have said. It describes what I've been talking about with equitly of resource in more practical terms.

James Deuce

24th March 2014, 11:16

Hypothetical response - you have mentioned 5 children with very complex disorders that were in this instance treated wrongly IMHO but expect teachers to understand these completely, when most other members of society wouldn't and would probably respond similarly. Some of the students you mentioned need special help which is slowly being removed from school because of the costs involved yet it is easier to blame us than the government.
We are not super human, but most of the people I haved worked with over the years are "actively engaged in teaching kids from a positive viewpoint". If not they tend to last only a short time in teaching.

Only 2 of them have "issues". You read that wrong. Child C who has been treated and recovered from being physically attacked by peers for being "different" is now at High School and I can't say enough positive things about how brilliant his new school is up to and including the point where they have gone and complained to the previous school about misrepresenting his capabilities, both academically and socially. Things that his parents said through 7 years of two primary schools.

You've also taken the usual teacher defence post-savage and unacceptable attacks - not our fault they're difficult to manage, serves them right for being differrent, we don't have funds. You don't need funds to be a decent human. Child A has a fully-funded teacher aide who simply doesn't do her fundamental job of maintaining Child A's dignity and safety thereby maximising his educational opportunities. She's not qualified and the school is not making any moves to help with her training. She harbours fundamental misconceptions about Child A's condition, along with the bulk of the faculty and they simply cannot be educated, as parents have nothing to teach teachers.

Child E is being treated better now he has a teacher with MS. She gets "it". She defends his right to be himnself with as much vigour as she can muster.

See I'm almost learning to respect some teachers. But the vast majority I've dealt with are completely happy for "different" children to have the shit kicked out of them to "bring them into line". They also regard parents as stupid pests who deserve to be spoken down to and disregarded in all matters relating to education. I may have said that before.

MSTRS

24th March 2014, 11:52

Like I said, there's no point in being "abusive" about it,
...
Now fuck off and think about it you knuckle headed fucktards.

So which is it?

Obviously you're a teacher of some sort, and feeling personally attacked. Undeservedly, perhaps - or not - but teachers have varying degrees of abilities, just like students.

Those students who coast through school and leave with little/nothing in the way of achievement, perhaps will learn as they get older that they screwed themselves? Or did they?

I know of many who had a teacher who didn't give a shit, which simply cemented the problem of under-achieving.

The kids have to be there by law. Their 'reward' for achievement comes after they leave school.

Meanwhile, the dipshit teacher/s that failed them continue/s with a new batch of students and is paid the same as their more able colleagues.

Which sort are you?

bogan

24th March 2014, 11:56

mashman

24th March 2014, 12:18

So which is it?

Obviously you're a teacher of some sort, and feeling personally attacked. Undeservedly, perhaps - or not - but teachers have varying degrees of abilities, just like students.

Those students who coast through school and leave with little/nothing in the way of achievement, perhaps will learn as they get older that they screwed themselves? Or did they?

I know of many who had a teacher who didn't give a shit, which simply cemented the problem of under-achieving.

The kids have to be there by law. Their 'reward' for achievement comes after they leave school.

Meanwhile, the dipshit teacher/s that failed them continue/s with a new batch of students and is paid the same as their more able colleagues.

Which sort are you?

:rofl: one's the truth and one's a KB gift.

IT's (pun intended) obvious that I'm a teacher? Odd, I thought I was an analyst/programmer. But if it makes you feel any better, I'm more than happy for others to make my mind up for me, well, it certainly doesn't seem to stop the misconceptions (Yes Boris, I fall into that trap too). I'm not a teacher, I don't, well, didn't have the temperament for it.

I agree that students and teachers have different strengths and weaknesses and that it could be construed, and it has been, that both teacher and student are being held responsible for fucking each other up along the way in many ways. That highlights a flaw in the education system, not the students or the teachers. I don't doubt that there are a mix of both and I only wish it were easier to reassign both, but in a positive way, not a you're a cunt you failure and be tainted with that because they weren't ready. It's a rick and a hard place for both and even at that, great teachers/students can become substandard teachers/students as life kicks them around... yet we're not interested in that for some unknown reason. They should both do their job to the maximum potential according to the rabble where that isn't the way human beings are.

We don't screw ourselves because we coast and lose nothing, we continue to coast and in some cases become "successful" by coasting. That's a personal opinion from personal experience, along with observations of friends that have done the same. You go ahead and be as successful as you want, but declaring that the coasters or the lower half of the intelligence scale deserve less than you makes you nothing more than another man with an entitlement complex based on some form of superiority index that underpins your reality ommmmmmmmm. In simpler terms, you have decided that you are better than someone else and deserve to be recognised for your efforts by receiving more of something, most likely money.

Ironically there are people who class themselves as being better than you and therefore are more entitled to your share of the pot than you are. Using your model, you should STFU and get on with it. Change the way we do things or run around in circles forever, your choice.

mashman

24th March 2014, 12:20

FYI, he's a troll out to turn every thread into a 'debate' about how money is real bad and shit yo. We thank the lord each day for the fact that he is not a teacher :laugh:

I am though... just not in the way you understand it :D

bogan

24th March 2014, 12:26

I am though... just not in the way you understand it :D

Jesus Christ mashy, I've passed bits of corn that are more articulate than you <_<

mashman

24th March 2014, 12:47

Jesus Christ mashy, I've passed bits of corn that are more articulate than you <_<

You talk to your corn infested shit? Explains a lot.

bogan

24th March 2014, 12:58

You talk to your corn infested shit? Explains a lot.

C'mon bud, don't be so close-minded; the ability for us to see/listen to and understand things we come across in everyday life is what makes us top of the food chain. It's like that saying "The eyes/ears are useless when the mind is blind", so take off your blinkers and reach for enlightenment :woohoo:

MSTRS

24th March 2014, 12:59

IT's (pun intended) obvious that I'm a teacher? Odd, I thought I was an analyst/programmer. .

So...not a teacher. An IT geek. Well done you :sarcasmsmiley:

Actually, now that you mention it (I'm more than happy for others to make my mind up for me) it seems that you won't argue with the title of Incipient Communist if I bestow that upon you. Because anyone that believes extra effort/ability leading to better results does not deserve extra reward must be a filthy mediocrity-loving commie bastard.

:innocent:

mashman

24th March 2014, 13:12

So...not a teacher. An IT geek. Well done you :sarcasmsmiley:

Actually, now that you mention it (I'm more than happy for others to make my mind up for me) it seems that you won't argue with the title of Incipient Communist if I bestow that upon you. Because anyone that believes extra effort/ability leading to better results does not deserve extra reward must be a filthy mediocrity-loving commie bastard.

:innocent:

Not a geek, an analyst/programmer... there's a difference.

:rofl:@my new title... thanks. What are these better results and who are those better results benefiting? :killingme@my new job description, with you not at you... are you saying that you only ever go the extra mile because you expect to be rewarded for it? otherwise you wouldn't bother? If so, then where did you get that idea from? Plenty of us go the extra mile because the extra mile is required in order to facilitate others and we do so without the need to be rewarded. Nothing commie in that. I'd call that a benevolent choice :D.

Reward me or else! That's what I'm hearing, as well as what I hear from corporates wanting their way, politicians wanting their way, meme away with monkey's and peanuts et voila the perfect entitlement complex backed by society and well within the limits of the law. Although you'd better hope that that can't be taken as blackmail.

bogan

24th March 2014, 13:20

Plenty of us go the extra mile because the extra mile is required in order to facilitate others and we do so without the need to be rewarded.

I seem to recall you saying you'd taken an hours cut at your job; is perhaps going the extra mile not applicable to such a circumstance?

MSTRS

24th March 2014, 14:30

... Plenty of us go the extra mile because the extra mile is required in order to facilitate others and we do so without the need to be rewarded. Nothing commie in that. ...

Good on you, if you choose to, presumably so you can feel like you are not surfing on the coat-tails of your colleagues. Not everyone is as magnanimous. Many resent doing more than their 'share' for same reward as the lazy or incompetent bastards that cadge a ride. Which is the only point I am trying to make here.

mashman

24th March 2014, 15:10

C'mon bud, don't be so close-minded; the ability for us to see/listen to and understand things we come across in everyday life is what makes us top of the food chain. It's like that saying "The eyes/ears are useless when the mind is blind", so take off your blinkers and reach for enlightenment :woohoo:

I was just surprised that you talked to shitcorn.

I seem to recall you saying you'd taken an hours cut at your job; is perhaps going the extra mile not applicable to such a circumstance?

What do you mean? Yes I negotiated a cut in my working hours, but not sure what that second part meant.

bogan

24th March 2014, 15:14

What do you mean? Yes I negotiated a cut in my working hours, but not sure what that second part meant.

Just that those going the extra mile tend to work more hours, not less. Or do you put more into the hours you do work than other's would? How much hours do you work now anyway?

mashman

24th March 2014, 15:26

Good on you, if you choose to, presumably so you can feel like you are not surfing on the coat-tails of your colleagues. Not everyone is as magnanimous. Many resent doing more than their 'share' for same reward as the lazy or incompetent bastards that cadge a ride. Which is the only point I am trying to make here.

Nah I surf on their coat-tails too, as they do on mine. lol@magnanimous... nothing really to do with it, tis merely an acceptance than I will be better than some and some will be better than me and neither should be penalised or rewarded for relying on each other, because we do rely on each other. I know some resent that too, I live with one who thinks the same and has raised the issue and I can understand why she feels that way and understand the point you are making, but all that people seem to want is for the lazy bastard to be punished in some form or another in order for that lazy bastard to bring themselves up to their level and for what? To feel as though they're not being taken advantage of? Perhaps some see more potential in your wife and don't believe that she's living up to it. How would that make her feel given that she believes she is the pick of the bunch? I don't think she should be penalised either if that's the case, but whatever happened to pride in doing the job? Why do we supposedly seek reward? I'd venture that we've been educated to think that way and instead of doing things because they need to be done, we do them to get ahead, or to increase our income, or to feel valued over another etc... Why not do what you do and get on with it without having to peg people back or revere them due to your own perceived greatness/shortcomings? We have been indoctrinated and educated in such a way that reward behaviour is the norm. I am changing that with my kids as I see it as an inherently flawed mechanism for the future mental health of my kids. blah blah blah

mashman

24th March 2014, 15:29

Just that those going the extra mile tend to work more hours, not less. Or do you put more into the hours you do work than other's would? How much hours do you work now anyway?

I work 6.5 hours a day and I'm in the office from 7:30 - 3:00. I eat my lunch at my desk and field calls as and when needed whether I'm in the office or not. I have pulled all nighters, I have worked almost a weeks worth of hours over a weekend and I have not been asked to be compensated for it. It is my job. What others do with their day is what others do with their day, meh.

MSTRS

24th March 2014, 15:34

... but all that people seem to want is for the lazy bastard to be punished in some form or another...

Not me. I'd like to see them fall behind by not being rewarded. And those that do the extra stuff/are more effective ARE rewarded in some tangible way.
It's the parable of the ant and the grasshopper...

bogan

24th March 2014, 15:38

I work 6.5 hours a day and I'm in the office from 7:30 - 3:00. I eat my lunch at my desk and field calls as and when needed whether I'm in the office or not. I have pulled all nighters, I have worked almost a weeks worth of hours over a weekend and I have not been asked to be compensated for it. It is my job. What others do with their day is what others do with their day, meh.

Sounds a lot like a minimum effort a teacher would put in (and yeh, they're on salary too). Not what I'd call going the extra mile.

mashman

24th March 2014, 16:29

Not me. I'd like to see them fall behind by not being rewarded. And those that do the extra stuff/are more effective ARE rewarded in some tangible way.
It's the parable of the ant and the grasshopper...

Ok, so say that happens and the lazy bastards pulls finger and is up to the level of others because he was disgruntled at being left behind as he wasn;t rewarded. At that point you're happy for none one of them to ever be rewarded again?
We're not ants or grasshoppers.

mashman

24th March 2014, 16:30

Sounds a lot like a minimum effort a teacher would put in (and yeh, they're on salary too). Not what I'd call going the extra mile.

You probably don't know it, but you've just made the point(s).

imdying

24th March 2014, 16:30

Children A, C, and F, sound like retards that would be best served by a bullet to the back of the head :sleep:

bogan

24th March 2014, 16:36

You probably don't know it, but you've just made the point(s).

So the incipient communist works short hours, considers a bit of after hours on that is going the extra mile, and wonders why people know communism won't work? :killingme

mashman

24th March 2014, 16:59

So the incipient communist works short hours, considers a bit of after hours on that is going the extra mile, and wonders why people know communism won't work? :killingme

Someone has to look after the kids and even though it'd cost me less money to give them to someone else for an extra couple of hours, I like them and am taking more of an interest in their education as I am the main caregiver at home. The 10 year old has already concluded that the work that the binmen are doing is more important than that of Doctors. Seems I'm bringing up little human beings who won't be relying on rewards as a reason to further themselves and will also value people irrespective of their "station" in life. Something that is severely lacking in most of the adult population. I can only assume that your parents were failures as parents as they didn't seem to teach any of you how to be a human being. Ironing, gotta love it, well, I do, your leaders and employers positively bank on you and your entitlement complexes.

bogan

24th March 2014, 17:08

Someone has to look after the kids and even though it'd cost me less money to give them to someone else for an extra couple of hours, I like them and am taking more of an interest in their education as I am the main caregiver at home. The 10 year old has already concluded that the work that the binmen are doing is more important than that of Doctors. Seems I'm bringing up little human beings who won't be relying on rewards as a reason to further themselves and will also value people irrespective of their "station" in life. Something that is severely lacking in most of the adult population. I can only assume that your parents were failures as parents as they didn't seem to teach any of you how to be a human being. Ironing, gotta love it, well, I do, your leaders and employers positively bank on you and your entitlement complexes.

Oh everyone has excuses as to why they should work less, the point is if everyone is free to ride on their excuses, there won't be enough bin men, let alone dr's.
Heh, now back to the personal attack eh, never let reason get in the way of a good 'discussion' :rolleyes:

mashman

24th March 2014, 17:23

Oh everyone has excuses as to why they should work less, the point is if everyone is free to ride on their excuses, there won't be enough bin men, let alone dr's.
Heh, now back to the personal attack eh, never let reason get in the way of a good 'discussion' :rolleyes:

The free ride has always been there, it's called benefits. I don't see an overly large uptake... and even though binmen don't seem to get paid as much as Doctors, there's still enough of them. Maybe, just maybe people are happy to do the shitty jobs because they realise that they're being of use in their community. I bet that thought would scare the socks off the majority of the population.
No personal attack, just an observation.

bogan

24th March 2014, 17:33

The free ride has always been there, it's called benefits. I don't see an overly large uptake... and even though binmen don't seem to get paid as much as Doctors, there's still enough of them. Maybe, just maybe people are happy to do the shitty jobs because they realise that they're being of use in their community. I bet that thought would scare the socks off the majority of the population.
No personal attack, just an observation.

All the guys I've talked to working shitty jobs have been doing it for the money; so I think your maybe is more of a maybe not.
An observation based on me disagreeing with you... yeh, that's not a personal attack at all. I'll happily call you pants-on-head-retarded cos you have demonstrated it by saying increasing gdp is money laundering, and the countries debt can be solved by selling million dollar hammers. Me and my siblings have yet to demonstrate we don't know how to be human beings; it also raises the question of what you think we were raised to be? I mean none of us moo...

mashman

24th March 2014, 18:01

All the guys I've talked to working shitty jobs have been doing it for the money; so I think your maybe is more of a maybe not.
An observation based on me disagreeing with you... yeh, that's not a personal attack at all. I'll happily call you pants-on-head-retarded cos you have demonstrated it by saying increasing gdp is money laundering, and the countries debt can be solved by selling million dollar hammers. Me and my siblings have yet to demonstrate we don't know how to be human beings; it also raises the question of what you think we were raised to be? I mean none of us moo...

WOW. Do they know they can get free money on the dole and spend all day doing what they want?

So you identified yourself as a part or the "didn't seem to teach any of you how to be a human being." group. Fair enough. In which case by all means take it as a personal attack instead of a mere observation.

Ahhhhh I see, still harping on about GDP as money laundering and million $ hammers.

Money laundering "Money laundering is the process whereby the proceeds of crime are transformed into ostensibly legitimate money or other asset". GDP is forgery as the creation of money printed by plucking it out of thin air and backing it by assets that are also pulled out of thin air i.e. govt bonds and such.

In a country that has to produce a GDP in order to stop the world from going into financial shock (because they went all R.B.E.), it can then arbitrarily choose which products to assign value to. It's nothing more than using the system against itself. Instead of people earning 100k, they can earn $1 for Banco el NZo and the revenue that 10 people would have generated will be offset by selling 1 hammer in the local economy for $1 million. Supply and demand. Make 1 hammer at a time and sell it for $1 million coz hammers is special like. Then make 1 more. Then make 1 more. It doesn't have to stop at hammers ya know and it would allow the country to lower its export prices in order to gain a competitive advantage overseas. You also have a highly educated workforce that also becomes competitive in the ever expanding global market place as you can charge them out at $1. GDP is only a number that values the output of the country after all. So make it up to a predetermined value each year to appease them overseas bean counters type folk. Kids do it every day, so if you leave that perception there and educate no different, why wouldn't it work? Ahhhhhh yes, because adults don't like it that way because they're entitled to more than their lesser counter part.

Dunno what you were raised to be, doesn't seem to be human though. Victorian man maybe, depends on what you identify with.

bogan

24th March 2014, 18:26

WOW. Do they know they can get free money on the dole and spend all day doing what they want?

So you identified yourself as a part or the "didn't seem to teach any of you how to be a human being." group. Fair enough. In which case by all means take it as a personal attack instead of a mere observation.

Ahhhhh I see, still harping on about GDP as money laundering and million $ hammers.

Money laundering "Money laundering is the process whereby the proceeds of crime are transformed into ostensibly legitimate money or other asset". GDP is forgery as the creation of money printed by plucking it out of thin air and backing it by assets that are also pulled out of thin air i.e. govt bonds and such.

In a country that has to produce a GDP in order to stop the world from going into financial shock (because they went all R.B.E.), it can then arbitrarily choose which products to assign value to. It's nothing more than using the system against itself. Instead of people earning 100k, they can earn $1 for Banco el NZo and the revenue that 10 people would have generated will be offset by selling 1 hammer in the local economy for $1 million. Supply and demand. Make 1 hammer at a time and sell it for $1 million coz hammers is special like. Then make 1 more. Then make 1 more. It doesn't have to stop at hammers ya know and it would allow the country to lower its export prices in order to gain a competitive advantage overseas. You also have a highly educated workforce that also becomes competitive in the ever expanding global market place as you can charge them out at $1. GDP is only a number that values the output of the country after all. So make it up to a predetermined value each year to appease them overseas bean counters type folk. Kids do it every day, so if you leave that perception there and educate no different, why wouldn't it work? Ahhhhhh yes, because adults don't like it that way because they're entitled to more than their lesser counter part.

Dunno what you were raised to be, doesn't seem to be human though. Victorian man maybe, depends on what you identify with.

Well the dole isn't as much as paid work...

You replied to me and used your/you, who else would you be referring too?

GDP is related to money velocity, ie, how often a given dollar is spent. It ain't about printing more money, much less forging it.

Who is going to buy a million dollar hammer? If you devalue the currency so much that it is the accepted price of one, you also devalue the currency against our debt, so instead of owing say 10bil NZD to pay off 8bil USD debt, you then owe 10trillion NZD to pay off that same 8bil USD. Currency represents material worth, think of it more like we owe US 8billion hammers, it doesn't matter what you charge for them internally, they still want material goods to the worth of 8billion hammers.

Ahhh, I don't fit your ideal of human. Communism 101, those who disagree are not human; guess it makes them easier to oppress?

mashman

24th March 2014, 19:09

Well the dole isn't as much as paid work...

You replied to me and used your/you, who else would you be referring too?

GDP is related to money velocity, ie, how often a given dollar is spent. It ain't about printing more money, much less forging it.

Who is going to buy a million dollar hammer? If you devalue the currency so much that it is the accepted price of one, you also devalue the currency against our debt, so instead of owing say 10bil NZD to pay off 8bil USD debt, you then owe 10trillion NZD to pay off that same 8bil USD. Currency represents material worth, think of it more like we owe US 8billion hammers, it doesn't matter what you charge for them internally, they still want material goods to the worth of 8billion hammers.

Ahhh, I don't fit your ideal of human. Communism 101, those who disagree are not human; guess it makes them easier to oppress?

True... but it's money people need.

I see that, my apologies it should have been the collective you.

So? It's one facet. At the end of the day the country has a GDP, by all means calculate it every 5 or 10 or 15 transactions it'll matter not, it's still a published figure at the end of the day... all wrapped up into a nice little bundle.

If you virtualise the financial system it won't matter how much things cost, but instead of charging and paying people directly you charge Banco el NZo. One big pot of GDP comprising 1 big pot of income v's 1 big pot of expenditure. Value anything at any value that you like in accordance with the financial needs of the country as long as it meets the GDP target. Why would that devalue the currency? Surely the currency is devalued by printing lots of new money, we'll simply be putting every single cent of "money" in NZ to work at the price points we choose. Add more middlemen for all it'd matter. We would set what the worth is within the budget of expected GDP. If we're allowed we can pay off all of our debt. In theory we could borrow from every lender in the world to float the economies of the world, still be able to repay the debt and not have any adverse affects on the population. So what is currently hocked to the overseas lenders? What have we offered as security for their loans? Because those assets can remain worth exactly the same value as well as handling any rises due to inflation and the internal economy can readjust to meet the GDP target.

:rofl:@ communism, it's playing capitalism against itself using the creative accounting of capitalism and all of its mechanisms, but we decide to value internally used items, sounds rude, at the prices we choose to balance our economy. You mentioned yourself that that 2.2trillion that the world was going to be producing only need to change the value of what is produced. Yes I paraphrased, yes I may have misunderstood you, but please explain away how using every $ that is currently at NZ's disposal is different to what you meant.

bogan

24th March 2014, 19:43

So? It's one facet. At the end of the day the country has a GDP, by all means calculate it every 5 or 10 or 15 transactions it'll matter not, it's still a published figure at the end of the day... all wrapped up into a nice little bundle.

If you virtualise the financial system it won't matter how much things cost, but instead of charging and paying people directly you charge Banco el NZo. One big pot of GDP comprising 1 big pot of income v's 1 big pot of expenditure. Value anything at any value that you like in accordance with the financial needs of the country as long as it meets the GDP target. Why would that devalue the currency? Surely the currency is devalued by printing lots of new money, we'll simply be putting every single cent of "money" in NZ to work at the price points we choose. Add more middlemen for all it'd matter. We would set what the worth is within the budget of expected GDP. If we're allowed we can pay off all of our debt. In theory we could borrow from every lender in the world to float the economies of the world, still be able to repay the debt and not have any adverse affects on the population. So what is currently hocked to the overseas lenders? What have we offered as security for their loans? Because those assets can remain worth exactly the same value as well as handling any rises due to inflation and the internal economy can readjust to meet the GDP target.

:rofl:@ communism, it's playing capitalism against itself using the creative accounting of capitalism and all of its mechanisms, but we decide to value internally used items, sounds rude, at the prices we choose to balance our economy. You mentioned yourself that that 2.2trillion that the world was going to be producing only need to change the value of what is produced. Yes I paraphrased, yes I may have misunderstood you, but please explain away how using every $ that is currently at NZ's disposal is different to what you meant.

GDP is the aggregate of all transactions given per year; it isn't something you calculate every X transactions.

External debt is what we're talking about, and the value of our currency is set externally, we can't choose what our dollar is worth, we can manipulate things to change it, but not to the extend you're talking about. Likewise we can't borrow from other's to float the rest while repaying our own with no adverse affects; that theory just continues to show a profound lack of understanding into how currency is valued.

It's communism, you simply don't have the financial grasp to play capitalism against itself. I assume the 2.2 tril increase was GDP, basically you increase the value of goods consumed, be it more goods, or higher quality goods; ie, more disposable income. Like if I earned 60k instead of 50k, I could buy a 4k laptop instead of a 2k laptop every year, or two 2k laptops per year instead of one; either way, increases the GDP by 2k, and whoever I bought the laptop/s off would also have extra money spend, further increasing the GDP. It's the money goods transactions, not the total money in the pool.

mashman

24th March 2014, 20:10

GDP is the aggregate of all transactions given per year; it isn't something you calculate every X transactions.

External debt is what we're talking about, and the value of our currency is set externally, we can't choose what our dollar is worth, we can manipulate things to change it, but not to the extend you're talking about. Likewise we can't borrow from other's to float the rest while repaying our own with no adverse affects; that theory just continues to show a profound lack of understanding into how currency is valued.

It's communism, you simply don't have the financial grasp to play capitalism against itself. I assume the 2.2 tril increase was GDP, basically you increase the value of goods consumed, be it more goods, or higher quality goods; ie, more disposable income. Like if I earned 60k instead of 50k, I could buy a 4k laptop instead of a 2k laptop every year, or two 2k laptops per year instead of one; either way, increases the GDP by 2k, and whoever I bought the laptop/s off would also have extra money spend, further increasing the GDP. It's the money goods transactions, not the total money in the pool.

I didn't say it was something calculated every X transactions, but you were referring to the velocity of money and it's contribution to the GDP pot. Yes I call it a pot. Yes you can technically spin it any way you like, but the pot is filled and a figure is produced.

I'm not saying that we're changing the value of the $. So as beautiful as your speech was, it wasn't relevant. You must be forgetting the bit about the virtualised financial system and how the internal economy could be run. If you control the what and the how of the bulk of your GDP you can charge anything you like for anything to hit that magic number that leaves the value of the $ worth that which it is needed to be at.

I am saying we do absolutely fuck all to GDP. Keep on producing the same numbers time after time or produce the numbers as they required by any financial overlord. If we are required to raise GDP to show that our economy is doing better, irrespective of how it is doing, then changethe value of anything to achieve that end.

The disconnect here is that you're looking at this under the context of how the current system runs, I'm looking at it within a context of how it could be run. If you put every cent that exists in NZ to work, as I mentioned earlier, then it will be the entire pool that will be being used to increase/decrease/maintain GDP.

bogan

24th March 2014, 20:24

I didn't say it was something calculated every X transactions, but you were referring to the velocity of money and it's contribution to the GDP pot. Yes I call it a pot. Yes you can technically spin it any way you like, but the pot is filled and a figure is produced.

I'm not saying that we're changing the value of the $. So as beautiful as your speech was, it wasn't relevant. You must be forgetting the bit about the virtualised financial system and how the internal economy could be run. If you control the what and the how of the bulk of your GDP you can charge anything you like for anything to hit that magic number that leaves the value of the $ worth that which it is needed to be at.

I am saying we do absolutely fuck all to GDP. Keep on producing the same numbers time after time or produce the numbers as they required by any financial overlord. If we are required to raise GDP to show that our economy is doing better, irrespective of how it is doing, then changethe value of anything to achieve that end.

The disconnect here is that you're looking at this under the context of how the current system runs, I'm looking at it within a context of how it could be run. If you put every cent that exists in NZ to work, as I mentioned earlier, then it will be the entire pool that will be being used to increase/decrease/maintain GDP.

It is not a pot, as there is no one point in time when it is 'full'. In fact if you have a 7L pot, you could easily run 700L of GDP through it... But does calling it a pot now instead of money laundering mean you been at least partially educated on this issue?

You cannot write off external debt by virtualising the economy. You still owe other countries a lot of money (representative of goods), you can't just print money or whatever else it is you expect a virtual economy to do to write that off.

GDP is just one measure, it can be normalised by inflation etc, so there is no way you could lower production and just fudge the numbers to keep everyone else happy.

Try actually running the numbers yourself, and I'll point out the disconnect if you don't manage to spot it.

mashman

24th March 2014, 20:46

It is not a pot, as there is no one point in time when it is 'full'. In fact if you have a 7L pot, you could easily run 700L of GDP through it... But does calling it a pot now instead of money laundering mean you been at least partially educated on this issue?

You cannot write off external debt by virtualising the economy. You still owe other countries a lot of money (representative of goods), you can't just print money or whatever else it is you expect a virtual economy to do to write that off.

GDP is just one measure, it can be normalised by inflation etc, so there is no way you could lower production and just fudge the numbers to keep everyone else happy.

Try actually running the numbers yourself, and I'll point out the disconnect if you don't manage to spot it.

I never said the pot ever got full. I understand your distaste for me referring to the money creation process as money laundering, that's all.

I never said anything about writing that debt off, even though it would be a possibility to pay it off. Yes, representative of goods, yet paid for using money. Why are we not allowed to charge $1 million for a hammer? It's a good that we have decided costs $1 million.

Yes there is. You change the price of the good. You don't have to do that against inflation if you don't want to as not everything rises in line with inflation. Who's talking about lowering production? Even still, it would be possible if the value of goods is priced accordingly. Give it a shiny coat of red paint and decide that that's a criteria for a higher end good. You only need to change 1 measure. It need not be GDP, by all means make it GNP as it'll offer a wider spectrum for playing with. But pretty much any single measure can be used to play with the figures where you control what you charge each "unit" at in the local economy.

That's what computers are for and I'm sure they'll be able to revalue "units" that we set as variable based on the velocity of money in real time. If we are allowed to set our own "unit" prices, which we are, then I fail to see why we can't charge $1 million for a hammer and $1 for an hour of labor.

bogan

24th March 2014, 20:57

I never said the pot ever got full. I understand your distaste for me referring to the money creation process as money laundering, that's all.

I never said anything about writing that debt off, even though it would be a possibility to pay it off. Yes, representative of goods, yet paid for using money. Why are we not allowed to charge $1 million for a hammer? It's a good that we have decided costs $1 million.

Yes there is. You change the price of the good. You don't have to do that against inflation if you don't want to as not everything rises in line with inflation. Who's talking about lowering production? Even still, it would be possible if the value of goods is priced accordingly. Give it a shiny coat of red paint and decide that that's a criteria for a higher end good. You only need to change 1 measure. It need not be GDP, by all means make it GNP as it'll offer a wider spectrum for playing with. But pretty much any single measure can be used to play with the figures where you control what you charge each "unit" at in the local economy.

That's what computers are for and I'm sure they'll be able to revalue "units" that we set as variable based on the velocity of money in real time. If we are allowed to set our own "unit" prices, which we are, then I fail to see why we can't charge $1 million for a hammer and $1 for an hour of labor.

Money creation is managed independently from gdp increasing, how can you not get that yet?

You can pay off debt, but charging 1million bucks for a hammer devalues the currency so we owe a thousand timez more of our own dollars.

I don't mean exact numbers, just a generalised example. Unit prices of 1 per hour of labour and 1mil for a hammer would result in a huge benefit to those with an extra hammer, and pretty big problem for those who need one. Or if that is export prices, we'll be undercut by chinese hammers and sell none, while being tasked with a massive amount of labour export, forcing everyone to work their asses off just to keep up interest payment on our debt.

Ocean1

24th March 2014, 21:24

Huh? How is it fair to waste resources?

Where do you get wasting resources from?

Agreed. This is a laudible goal but within the meager budget they're allocated it's a pipe dream unless, as you say, more of the education responsibility is put back on the parents.

Every monopoly complains they're under-resourced, completely missing the point that they're not meeting their clients needs because they're not responsible to them.

And I never said more education responsibility should be put back on the parents. It should be put back onto the students.

Giving every kid in class gets equal attention regardless of need denies those at the bottom what they need to learn and waste it on those that don't need it. It's this kind of thinking that's created the elitist society that will eventually be the downfall of our civilisation.

Bullshit, why do the low achievers NEED more attention than the high achievers? The fact that high performers exceed the required standards with minimal attention doesn't mean they should be deprived of their share of resources.

And if you visited your library a bit more you might be more aware that our civilisation wasn't made by people who struggle to meet minimum standards, it was made and continues to be made by extreme high performers with little to no input from the vast majority who like to think they deserve the resulting lifestyle. Go look, you'll find very few historical references about Joe average and his amazing invention having made life so much better.

Challenge the high performers and then teach them they can meet that challenge, it'll benefit the low performers far more than any remedial efforts you think will make education "fairer". There'd be far less likelihood of civilisation falling to start with.

mashman

24th March 2014, 21:38

Money creation is managed independently from gdp increasing, how can you not get that yet?

You can pay off debt, but charging 1million bucks for a hammer devalues the currency so we owe a thousand timez more of our own dollars.

I don't mean exact numbers, just a generalised example. Unit prices of 1 per hour of labour and 1mil for a hammer would result in a huge benefit to those with an extra hammer, and pretty big problem for those who need one. Or if that is export prices, we'll be undercut by chinese hammers and sell none, while being tasked with a massive amount of labour export, forcing everyone to work their asses off just to keep up interest payment on our debt.

I don't remember saying that they went hand in hand, but you certainly need money to increase GDP. You still have to pay for those goods and services and you may have noticed that there isn't an awful lot of spare cash around at the moment.

I have $1 million in "my" bank account of Banco el NZo. I buy a hammer. The hammer was made locally. The hammer will be used locally. How does that devalue the currency?

Consider the hammer as a limited special edition hammer then, it was crafted by someone who has died and was that absolute best at making hammers. It is nothing more than a product to put a financial value against in order to lower the cost of labor. The sum total of GDP/GNP/whatever measure will remain the same irrespective. It's not for export. What debt are we taking on? We're going to be using every cent that is available in NZ. Sigh, still thinking in terms of what currently is eh. The country will own the hammer i.e. everyone as we will all have paid for it, even if it did come off of "my" account. It is a token and other hammers will be available at a lower price, or not depending on what is decided.

bogan

24th March 2014, 21:47

I don't remember saying that they went hand in hand, but you certainly need money to increase GDP. You still have to pay for those goods and services and you may have noticed that there isn't an awful lot of spare cash around at the moment.

I have $1 million in "my" bank account of Banco el NZo. I buy a hammer. The hammer was made locally. The hammer will be used locally. How does that devalue the currency?

Consider the hammer as a limited special edition hammer then, it was crafted by someone who has died and was that absolute best at making hammers. It is nothing more than a product to put a financial value against in order to lower the cost of labor. The sum total of GDP/GNP/whatever measure will remain the same irrespective. It's not for export. What debt are we taking on? We're going to be using every cent that is available in NZ. Sigh, still thinking in terms of what currently is eh. The country will own the hammer i.e. everyone as we will all have paid for it, even if it did come off of "my" account. It is a token and other hammers will be available at a lower price, or not depending on what is decided.

No, you don't, you can use the same money but just spent more often, you know one metric of gdp is the value of produced goods right? Money printing doesn't come into that at all does it.

If it is only sold locally then it is entirely irrelevant to paying off the nation's debt. The last paragraph is likewise off track, how do your million dollar hammers pay off the debt we owe other countries? Simple example please, cost to make, sell price, who buys it, net gain for country, international wealth increase...etc

swbarnett

24th March 2014, 22:49

Where do you get wasting resources from?
By giving teaching time to the brighter end that they don't need.

Bullshit, why do the low achievers NEED more attention than the high achievers?
To produce an educated population, one where the average Joe is equipped with at least a modicum of critical thinking, those at the bottom of the intelectual pile need more help to reach this level

The fact that high performers exceed the required standards with minimal attention doesn't mean they should be deprived of their share of resources.
A student that is bright and motivated simply doesn't need as much attention lathered on them. Some are perfectly capable of reaching their potential from the right text book and a minimum of guidance. Anything more is wasted.

And if you visited your library a bit more you might be more aware that our civilisation wasn't made by people who struggle to meet minimum standards, it was made and continues to be made by extreme high performers with little to no input from the vast majority who like to think they deserve the resulting lifestyle. Go look, you'll find very few historical references about Joe average and his amazing invention having made life so much better.
Of this I am well aware. However, without all the average Joes the "extreme high performers" would lack the infrastructure they require to perform such feats

Challenge the high performers and then teach them they can meet that challenge, it'll benefit the low performers far more than any remedial efforts you think will make education "fairer". There'd be far less likelihood of civilisation falling to start with.
This makes me think of the economic trickle down theory. It simply doesn't work. You're advcating a widening of the intellectual divide. I, for one, don't want to live in a society with a small intellectual elite that have risen to that position by treading on those less fortunate.

avgas

25th March 2014, 02:51

WOW. Do they know they can get free money on the dole and spend all day doing what they want?
Depends on your circumstance, if you're honest and have life savings in a standard bank account (because your too poor to buy a house yet).......when you're out of work - you're fucked.

I certainly was a few years back. So people on the dole seem to be a combination of either poor/stupid and/or cunning fucking liars.

I like to think most of NZ isn't stupid. Which means there are a whole lot of liars who could be collecting rubbish.

MSTRS

25th March 2014, 04:22

Ok, so say that happens and the lazy bastards pulls finger and is up to the level of others because he was disgruntled at being left behind as he wasn;t rewarded. At that point you're happy for none one of them to ever be rewarded again?
We're not ants or grasshoppers.
Lazy bastards won't, which is the point. They are grasshoppers, expecting the hardworking ants to support them.

By giving teaching time to the brighter end that they don't need.

To produce an educated population, one where the average Joe is equipped with at least a modicum of critical thinking, those at the bottom of the intelectual pile need more help to reach this level

A student that is bright and motivated simply doesn't need as much attention lathered on them. Some are perfectly capable of reaching their potential from the right text book and a minimum of guidance. Anything more is wasted.

What a load of tripe.
I had a book-worth of responses to your post, but they all boil down to that...what a load of tripe.

mashman

25th March 2014, 06:56

No, you don't, you can use the same money but just spent more often, you know one metric of gdp is the value of produced goods right? Money printing doesn't come into that at all does it.

If it is only sold locally then it is entirely irrelevant to paying off the nation's debt. The last paragraph is likewise off track, how do your million dollar hammers pay off the debt we owe other countries? Simple example please, cost to make, sell price, who buys it, net gain for country, international wealth increase...etc

Yes, you have mentioned that earlier, yet these products that you're wanting to buy need to be made, it all takes money and if the current crop of bollocks is anything to go by, then we need to create money to facilitate your money velocity. If you are talking theoretically? in that we could use what we have we just need to turbo charge it? If so, I agree and that is part of my point. Your economy. You do wotcha like with what you have available, you merely need consent.

Jackson Pollock. $55 million for a painting that likely cost $50 to make. The money is spent and enters the system to go towards paying for other goods and services etc... therefore adding to GDP (or whatever other measure you care to use as proof that your economy has "earned" what it states), therefore "increasing" the revenue of the country, therefore enabling us to pay off debt.

mashman

25th March 2014, 07:03

Depends on your circumstance, if you're honest and have life savings in a standard bank account (because your too poor to buy a house yet).......when you're out of work - you're fucked.

I certainly was a few years back. So people on the dole seem to be a combination of either poor/stupid and/or cunning fucking liars.

I like to think most of NZ isn't stupid. Which means there are a whole lot of liars who could be collecting rubbish.

I know, I've been there too. Funnily enough I went to the bank to ask for a mortgage holiday whilst we tightened out belts until I could find work again. They told me to fill up my credit card first :killingme.

I'd like to think of them as poor, but smart enough to get money from other sources. Unfortunately they may be dishonest ones, but hey, for that I blame, yes blame, blame blame blame the system.

Lazy bastards won't, which is the point. They are grasshoppers, expecting the hardworking ants to support them.

They won't? Of course they will, you merely need to find the right button to push... which could be as simple as having a conversation about it. Dunno about them being grasshoppers because I honestly don't think they give a shit or have considered that they are being carried. Coz if that was the case they'd have become the manager.

Ocean1

25th March 2014, 07:14

This makes me think of the economic trickle down theory. It simply doesn't work. You're advcating a widening of the intellectual divide. I, for one, don't want to live in a society with a small intellectual elite that have risen to that position by treading on those less fortunate.

So the fact that a minority produce more than their share and that their extra production supports those who produce less is a theory? And it's wrong? See, this is why academics should never be allowed to vote. Allong with anyone else divorced from direct contact with the consequences of poor performance.

And I'm not advocating any intelectual divide, I'm simply pointing out that it exists, and that no quantity of "trickledown" is ever going to change that. And far from treading on any less "fortunate" that "elite" have been systematically stripped of their share of resources by the less "fortunate" most of their lives, and yet they're the reason this society exists and continues to exist.

Seriously, how can you be aware of the immense debt society owes overachievers and yet claim that a burgeoning class of underachievers have a right to a larger slice of the resources they made available? Can you not see that based on historical evidence fostering extremely cleaver people would benefit those underachievers far more than any demonstrably ineffective reallocation of resources?

That attitude and it’s associated element of entitlement is what drives NZ’s perennial and ugly tall poppy syndrome.

bogan

25th March 2014, 08:18

Yes, you have mentioned that earlier, yet these products that you're wanting to buy need to be made, it all takes money and if the current crop of bollocks is anything to go by, then we need to create money to facilitate your money velocity. If you are talking theoretically? in that we could use what we have we just need to turbo charge it? If so, I agree and that is part of my point. Your economy. You do wotcha like with what you have available, you merely need consent.

Jackson Pollock. $55 million for a painting that likely cost $50 to make. The money is spent and enters the system to go towards paying for other goods and services etc... therefore adding to GDP (or whatever other measure you care to use as proof that your economy has "earned" what it states), therefore "increasing" the revenue of the country, therefore enabling us to pay off debt.

You don't need to create money to facilitate money velocity, by definition money velocity is the speed at which is changes hands, not the total amount in circulation. There is just no link between money laundering and the value of product a country produces.

Excellent, needs a bit more info still though. Who buys it? is it sold locally or exported? Who owned it? the country, or an individual; if it is the latter how does that money make its way to a debt payment?

mashman

25th March 2014, 09:07

You don't need to create money to facilitate money velocity, by definition money velocity is the speed at which is changes hands, not the total amount in circulation. There is just no link between money laundering and the value of product a country produces.

Excellent, needs a bit more info still though. Who buys it? is it sold locally or exported? Who owned it? the country, or an individual; if it is the latter how does that money make its way to a debt payment?

The where does the money come from? I never said that there was a link between money laundering and the value of a product, merely that the money creation process is money laundering. You don't like that, no problem, I'll try not to bring it up again... oh, I haven't been. When you take a measure, money velocity is insignificant because you are measuring that value at that point in time and to all intents and purposes money isn't moving.

It stays local and is owned by everyone through Banco el NZo... although there may well be some mad arse wants to buy a special edition Jackson Pollock hammer for a million bucks, in which case it's an extra million bucks for Banco el NZo and by extension our economy. If that $1 million screws with our metrics and the final measure in a way that is too positive, then offset it against anything, debt maybe. Either way whether local or not, you will be able to offset the $1 million hammer to fit the measure(s) and Banco el NZo gets the proceeds to spend on debt or blah blah blah. Banco el NZo is every single cent of every NZer in an account in their name. Tis the same as minting a $1 trillion platinum coin and paying off a chunk of debt (as Obama was considering). If it is accepted, then it can be.

bogan

25th March 2014, 09:15

The where does the money come from? I never said that there was a link between money laundering and the value of a product, merely that the money creation process is money laundering. You don't like that, no problem, I'll try not to bring it up again... oh, I haven't been. When you take a measure, money velocity is insignificant because you are measuring that value at that point in time and to all intents and purposes money isn't moving.

It stays local and is owned by everyone through Banco el NZo... although there may well be some mad arse wants to buy a special edition Jackson Pollock hammer for a million bucks, in which case it's an extra million bucks for Banco el NZo and by extension our economy. If that $1 million screws with our metrics and the final measure in a way that is too positive, then offset it against anything, debt maybe. Either way whether local or not, you will be able to offset the $1 million hammer to fit the measure(s) and Banco el NZo gets the proceeds to spend on debt or blah blah blah. Banco el NZo is every single cent of every NZer in an account in their name. Tis the same as minting a $1 trillion platinum coin and paying off a chunk of debt (as Obama was considering). If it is accepted, then it can be.

The money doesn't come from anywhere, it is the same money just moving more often. Money velocity is not insignificant, if 1k of money changes hands 8x in a year (in exchange for product), that is 8k of gdp, if it changes 9x, then that is a 1k gdp increase. That is why increasing GDP doesn't mean you have to print more money.

So, it's just printing money, as I said before? That devalues the currency (as I also said before).

mashman

25th March 2014, 09:53

The money doesn't come from anywhere, it is the same money just moving more often. Money velocity is not insignificant, if 1k of money changes hands 8x in a year (in exchange for product), that is 8k of gdp, if it changes 9x, then that is a 1k gdp increase. That is why increasing GDP doesn't mean you have to print more money.

So, it's just printing money, as I said before? That devalues the currency (as I also said before).

The money has to come from somewhere. Yes it can come from the existing pool of NZers, but you would then require everyone to be investing (i.e. buying the stuff that is produced). Something that will not happen under the current financial system. In which case you're gonna need new money or you're going to have to change how your financial system works.

:rofl: in many ways, yes. But it's a hammer, not money that you're printing so there is no interest being created, there is no debt being taken on, there is no asset being pulled out of the ether to value it against. However that is dependent on how you structure your financial system.

IF velocity of money is enough, and IF we can get everyone to agree that your AI computers will shift money around for us, then in theory you can manage your GDP/whatever measures to give the result expected. Human beings need only carry on as normal... and with any forethought the country could then move in just about any direction you like given that money won't be a limiting factor.

swbarnett

25th March 2014, 09:54

What a load of tripe.
I had a book-worth of responses to your post, but they all boil down to that...what a load of tripe.
I could say the same. You seem to me to be spouting elitist rhetoric and don't really care about those that don't find academia as easy as some.

This, more than anything else will be our economic downfall.

swbarnett

25th March 2014, 10:07

Seriously, how can you be aware of the immense debt society owes overachievers and yet claim that a burgeoning class of underachievers have a right to a larger slice of the resources they made available? Can you not see that based on historical evidence fostering extremely cleaver people would benefit those underachievers far more than any demonstrably ineffective reallocation of resources?
Those "over achievers" also owe an immense debt to the rest of society for supporting them. What I'm advocating is simply a more equitable allocation of limited resources so that we have not only more over achievers but more achievers and fewer deadbeats. Investing in the lower end will mean that they contribute more in the long run.

Also, the over achievers may have created the technology necessary to make more resources available but without the masses that to operate that technology it's worthless. Where would a cleaning company be without it's cleaners?

That attitude and it’s associated element of entitlement is what drives NZ’s perennial and ugly tall poppy syndrome.
I hate the tall poppy syndrome as much as anyone. What I don't like is those at the top of society completely ignoring the needs of those at the bottom. This disdain for the masses has led to more than one revolution and it is set to do the same again if we're not carefull.

bogan

25th March 2014, 10:11

The money has to come from somewhere. Yes it can come from the existing pool of NZers, but you would then require everyone to be investing (i.e. buying the stuff that is produced). Something that will not happen under the current financial system. In which case you're gonna need new money or you're going to have to change how your financial system works.

:rofl: in many ways, yes. But it's a hammer, not money that you're printing so there is no interest being created, there is no debt being taken on, there is no asset being pulled out of the ether to value it against. However that is dependent on how you structure your financial system.

IF velocity of money is enough, and IF we can get everyone to agree that your AI computers will shift money around for us, then in theory you can manage your GDP/whatever measures to give the result expected. Human beings need only carry on as normal... and with any forethought the country could then move in just about any direction you like given that money won't be a limiting factor.

Why won't it happen? it has been happening for quite a while now, the new money I get to buy more things is what I earn, the govt doesn't print it for me. As the cost of living goes down, my expendible income goes up, so I spend more on products, and others spend more on mine, thus increasing GDP with no need to print money.

So, your million dollar hammer is just an excuse to print more money, this devalues the overall currency against our debt; any debt that is paid off is done so by taking value from all stored liquid assets, it's a robin hood type move (but against the middle class). This is why million dollar hammers/money printing is a shit idea. Also, how can you be saying money printing is a great idea under your system, but illegal under the financial system, seems like a double standard?

GDP is gross domestic product, it is the value of what is produced, the only way to manage it is to manage the production; rampant inflation as you are advocating allows us to manage the numerical value of it to whatever we want (to the detriment of economic stability), but the real world value (and its value against other currency) can only change based on production changes. So without production changes our debt cannot be changed. Without production changes our relative (to other countries) GDP cannot be changed.

oldrider

25th March 2014, 10:56

GDP %100
GNI %75 ... %25 short unable to consume GDP
Introduce %25 interest free and consume GDP then cancel the %25. ... Sorted. (GNI= Gross National Income and GDP= Gross Nationa Product)

mashman

25th March 2014, 11:03

Why won't it happen? it has been happening for quite a while now, the new money I get to buy more things is what I earn, the govt doesn't print it for me. As the cost of living goes down, my expendible income goes up, so I spend more on products, and others spend more on mine, thus increasing GDP with no need to print money.

So, your million dollar hammer is just an excuse to print more money, this devalues the overall currency against our debt; any debt that is paid off is done so by taking value from all stored liquid assets, it's a robin hood type move (but against the middle class). This is why million dollar hammers/money printing is a shit idea. Also, how can you be saying money printing is a great idea under your system, but illegal under the financial system, seems like a double standard?

GDP is gross domestic product, it is the value of what is produced, the only way to manage it is to manage the production; rampant inflation as you are advocating allows us to manage the numerical value of it to whatever we want (to the detriment of economic stability), but the real world value (and its value against other currency) can only change based on production changes. So without production changes our debt cannot be changed. Without production changes our relative (to other countries) GDP cannot be changed.

And when those expenses go up I buy less items and store what's left under the mattress because the prices are gonna keep going up. Maybe you're more indicative of a shopper than I am.

If my million $ hammer is just an excuse to print more money, then every single product that is produced is just an excuse to produce more money. Something I happen to accept quite willingly as the truth. I never said that we'd be printing money.

You're really hung up on me printing money when that's not what I'm advocating at all. People can charge whatever they like for their product, Ocean said so.

bogan

25th March 2014, 11:11

And when those expenses go up I buy less items and store what's left under the mattress because the prices are gonna keep going up. Maybe you're more indicative of a shopper than I am.

If my million $ hammer is just an excuse to print more money, then every single product that is produced is just an excuse to produce more money. Something I happen to accept quite willingly as the truth. I never said that we'd be printing money.

You're really hung up on me printing money when that's not what I'm advocating at all. People can charge whatever they like for their product, Ocean said so.

Exactly, many factors affect GDP, money printing is but a very minor one. There is no reason to say increasing GDP requires more money to be printed or laundered.

No, because other products will actually be purchased at said value. Nobody is going to buy a million dollar hammer in a free market. 'selling' a million dollar hammer in a virtual local economy is just a way to cook the books for the international one, which is just like printing money. Try and go through the example and pinpoint exactly where the money is coming from to buy those million dollar hammers.

You just said before "Tis the same as minting a $1 trillion platinum coin and paying off a chunk of debt", if that is not the case, then provide a clear example as to where else the money comes from.

MSTRS

25th March 2014, 11:30

They won't? Of course they will, you merely need to find the right button to push... which could be as simple as having a conversation about it.

The 'right button' is as elusive as rocking horse shit...

Dunno about them being grasshoppers because I honestly don't think they give a shit or have considered that they are being carried.

This

MSTRS

25th March 2014, 11:31

Great teachers do this. The rest just follow the book.

mashman

25th March 2014, 11:40

The 'right button' is as elusive as rocking horse shit...

This

True. But why stop trying?

True. Then mention it and if all else fails, start proceedings to get rid of them if it is so damaging to staff moral.

MSTRS

25th March 2014, 12:02

True. But why stop trying?

True. Then mention it and if all else fails, start proceedings to get rid of them if it is so damaging to staff moral.

Ever tried sacking someone? There be dragons...

mashman

25th March 2014, 12:15

Ever tried sacking someone? There be dragons...

Aren't you supposed to make their position redundant :laugh:

mashman

25th March 2014, 12:24

Exactly, many factors affect GDP, money printing is but a very minor one. There is no reason to say increasing GDP requires more money to be printed or laundered.

No, because other products will actually be purchased at said value. Nobody is going to buy a million dollar hammer in a free market. 'selling' a million dollar hammer in a virtual local economy is just a way to cook the books for the international one, which is just like printing money. Try and go through the example and pinpoint exactly where the money is coming from to buy those million dollar hammers.

You just said before "Tis the same as minting a $1 trillion platinum coin and paying off a chunk of debt", if that is not the case, then provide a clear example as to where else the money comes from.

Yet that's what we do. There must be a reason for it. My fave be that peeps ain't spendin.

That hammer could be purchased by X number of individuals in a day, or whatever frequency is used. It is a way to cook the books, but the idea is to do it as a part of a whole and not to get rid of debt. We're making a hammer and the computer will buy and sell that hammer on behalf of those who have the money in their accounts at the time, even if that means we credit your account with that $1 million for the millisecond it takes to make the transaction. It's how it happens, but the pricing is more realistic. It makes debt levels manageable without affecting the progress that human beings can make i.e. you want 2 teachers in a class, then "cook the books" so that the numbers stack up and the result is that you have 2 teachers in the class. What's more important? Cooking the books (which is really just a revaluation) to get the extra teachers in the class or sticking with the current methods and shifting money from one budget to another and still not getting another teacher in the class?

It is the case for you as you equated the two in a strict manner. I said it can be looked at either way i.e. either a hammer that costs $1 million or a token that is offsetting the creation of new money. Either way it works, but one has inflationary implications a you say and the other doesn't. Hence the two examples, the platinum coin and the Jackson Pollock.

bogan

25th March 2014, 12:33

Yet that's what we do. There must be a reason for it. My fave be that peeps ain't spendin.

That hammer could be purchased by X number of individuals in a day, or whatever frequency is used. It is a way to cook the books, but the idea is to do it as a part of a whole and not to get rid of debt. We're making a hammer and the computer will buy and sell that hammer on behalf of those who have the money in their accounts at the time, even if that means we credit your account with that $1 million for the millisecond it takes to make the transaction. It's how it happens, but the pricing is more realistic. It makes debt levels manageable without affecting the progress that human beings can make i.e. you want 2 teachers in a class, then "cook the books" so that the numbers stack up and the result is that you have 2 teachers in the class. What's more important? Cooking the books (which is really just a revaluation) to get the extra teachers in the class or sticking with the current methods and shifting money from one budget to another and still not getting another teacher in the class?

It is the case for you as you equated the two in a strict manner. I said it can be looked at either way i.e. either a hammer that costs $1 million or a token that is offsetting the creation of new money. Either way it works, but one has inflationary implications a you say and the other doesn't. Hence the two examples, the platinum coin and the Jackson Pollock.

Indeed, it's why getting peeps to spend (increasing GDP) is seen as a good thing for the economy. I think you now understand that GDP increase is not money printing/laundering?

I'm not talking about internal resource allocation, I'm talking about what you said wrt our country's debt "a hammer made locally could "cost" $1 million and the "profit" from that could go to paying off the debt." Are you saying you now understand why this would not work?

oldrider

25th March 2014, 12:37

Aren't you supposed to make their position redundant :laugh:

If you try to refill a position declared redundant there be unbeatable dragons! :shifty: And so there should be! :weird:

avgas

25th March 2014, 13:09

Great teachers do this. The rest just follow the book.
He would have been a mad-as drummer too. Just put sticks in his hands and let him vibrate away.

mashman

25th March 2014, 15:33

Indeed, it's why getting peeps to spend (increasing GDP) is seen as a good thing for the economy. I think you now understand that GDP increase is not money printing/laundering?

I'm not talking about internal resource allocation, I'm talking about what you said wrt our country's debt "a hammer made locally could "cost" $1 million and the "profit" from that could go to paying off the debt." Are you saying you now understand why this would not work?

I don't remember saying that GDP was money printing or laundering. I did say that money printing would help go towards GDP as it will be spent. I consider the creation of money money laundering.

Of course not. If the hammer costs $2 to produce but we value it at $1 million and it is bought, does none of the GST go towards the govt?

If you try to refill a position declared redundant there be unbeatable dragons! :shifty: And so there should be! :weird:

Create a new position and fill it... after a suitable length of time that is.

bogan

25th March 2014, 15:42

I don't remember saying that GDP was money printing or laundering. I did say that money printing would help go towards GDP as it will be spent. I consider the creation of money money laundering.

Of course not. If the hammer costs $2 to produce but we value it at $1 million and it is bought, does none of the GST go towards the govt?

So just for the record, you now know that increasing GDP is not money laundering?

For GST to be applicable, you have to have the money come from a sub-entity of the economy, person or company; which means said sub entity must value a hammer at 1million dollars to decide to pay for it. The absurdity of that line of thinking is nobody will pay 1million dollars for a hammer that costs $2 to produce.
And even if they did, or you forced them to, that is not creating wealth, it is just taking wealth off people in the society to pay the foreign debt.

Ocean1

25th March 2014, 16:57

Those "over achievers" also owe an immense debt to the rest of society for supporting them. What I'm advocating is simply a more equitable allocation of limited resources so that we have not only more over achievers but more achievers and fewer deadbeats. Investing in the lower end will mean that they contribute more in the long run.

But the rest of society don't support them, that's the point, they're penalised for their productivity. And I'm afraid if by "equitable" you mean spending more on underachievers, or any other minority group then you're use of the word is the opposite of that given by most reputable authorities. Do you have references showing that spending more on the lower end performers is more productive that spending it on high performers? 'Cause I'm pretty sure that's crap.

Also, the over achievers may have created the technology necessary to make more resources available but without the masses that to operate that technology it's worthless. Where would a cleaning company be without it's cleaners?

Investing heavily in other high achievers to produce cleaning machinery.

The days of paying for labour are all but gone, if you want a job best you rethink that underwater tofu weaving course and get yourself some tech qualifications.

I hate the tall poppy syndrome as much as anyone. What I don't like is those at the top of society completely ignoring the needs of those at the bottom. This disdain for the masses has led to more than one revolution and it is set to do the same again if we're not carefull.

And as I've already said; the end of civilisation is under far more threat from the comfortably average citizen in his artificially supported existence than any peasant revolt. When there's some benefit in achieving production over the bare average then you'll get improvements in productivity, and not until.

Ocean1

25th March 2014, 17:00

If you try to refill a position declared redundant there be unbeatable dragons!

And you're not even allowed to redundify the position of "stupid unproductive idiot" and advertise for a "good keen man".

Apparently.

swbarnett

25th March 2014, 20:42

But the rest of society don't support them
Who the hell do you think grows the food they eat, makes the clothes they wear, takes away their trash, builds the roads they drive on, etc. etc. etc. Without any of that they would never be able to come up with the stuff they do.

MSTRS

26th March 2014, 04:15

Who the hell do you think grows the food they eat, makes the clothes they wear, takes away their trash, builds the roads they drive on, etc. etc. etc. Without any of that they would never be able to come up with the stuff they do.

Chinese market gardeners, because few kiwis would work the hours required for such low returns
Chinese labourers in a Shanghai sweatshop, instead of towns like Levin that used to supply all of NZ's clothing requirements
ONE guy driving a specialised truck, instead of a driver and 3 crew like it used to be
Incompetent contractors who can't think for themselves, who do the same job that twice as many did in the past

Ocean1 is right...
All this "pour resources at the thick because they need the help and ignore the bright because they don't" is bullshit.
Share those resources equally, not so-called equitably. Or put more in to the bright, because they are more likely to do something with it.
There are far too many incipient commies (suck from the bright/rich to improve the thick/poor) in here for my liking.

swbarnett

26th March 2014, 07:26

Chinese market gardeners, because few kiwis would work the hours required for such low returns
Chinese labourers in a Shanghai sweatshop, instead of towns like Levin that used to supply all of NZ's clothing requirements
ONE guy driving a specialised truck, instead of a driver and 3 crew like it used to be
Incompetent contractors who can't think for themselves, who do the same job that twice as many did in the past

Ocean1 is right...
All this "pour resources at the thick because they need the help and ignore the bright because they don't" is bullshit.
Share those resources equally, not so-called equitably. Or put more in to the bright, because they are more likely to do something with it.
There are far too many incipient commies (suck from the bright/rich to improve the thick/poor) in here for my liking.
Don't come crying to me when 90% of the population is effectively unemployable because the school system failed to give them what they needed.

And I never said anything about ignoring the bright.

oldrider

26th March 2014, 07:37

Chinese market gardeners, because few kiwis would work the hours required for such low returns
Chinese labourers in a Shanghai sweatshop, instead of towns like Levin that used to supply all of NZ's clothing requirements
ONE guy driving a specialised truck, instead of a driver and 3 crew like it used to be
Incompetent contractors who can't think for themselves, who do the same job that twice as many did in the past

Ocean1 is right...
All this "pour resources at the thick because they need the help and ignore the bright because they don't" is bullshit.
Share those resources equally, not so-called equitably. Or put more in to the bright, because they are more likely to do something with it.
There are far too many incipient commies (suck from the bright/rich to improve the thick/poor) in here for my liking.

The left leaners constantly condemn the right for their lack of principles but take a look at the current left political wannabees sucking up to Dot.Com!

Have you ever seen such an unprincipled lot so desperate to garner political traction against the government that they sell their souls to the devil.

Burn the lot of them, what a mottly fucking lot they are! :facepalm:

Banditbandit

26th March 2014, 08:18

The left leaners constantly condemn the right for their lack of principles but take a look at the current left political wannabees sucking up to Dot.Com!

Have you ever seen such an unprincipled lot so desperate to garner political traction against the government that they sell their souls to the devil.

Burn the lot of them, what a mottly fucking lot they are! :facepalm:

Unfortunately (because I happen to be way further left than "left leaning") I to agree with you ...

The obvious left in Godzone is completely FUCKED !!!!

Banditbandit

26th March 2014, 08:19

Chinese market gardeners, because few kiwis would work the hours required for such low returns
Chinese labourers in a Shanghai sweatshop, instead of towns like Levin that used to supply all of NZ's clothing requirements
ONE guy driving a specialised truck, instead of a driver and 3 crew like it used to be
Incompetent contractors who can't think for themselves, who do the same job that twice as many did in the past

Ocean1 is right...
All this "pour resources at the thick because they need the help and ignore the bright because they don't" is bullshit.
Share those resources equally, not so-called equitably. Or put more in to the bright, because they are more likely to do something with it.
There are far too many incipient commies (suck from the bright/rich to improve the thick/poor) in here for my liking.

Don't come crying to me when 90% of the population is effectively unemployable because the school system failed to give them what they needed.

And I never said anything about ignoring the bright.

And don't come crying when there are not enough taxpayers to support your pension - because they have not been educated to a level where they can earn enough money to pay enough taxes to pay your pension ...

Or even enough to vote for a party that will pay your pension ...

Oh and by the way 51% of the Social Benefit vote already goes on pensions ... who's money is sucked up to carry that load???

Ocean1

26th March 2014, 09:08

And don't come crying when there are not enough taxpayers to support your pension - because they have not been educated to a level where they can earn enough money to pay enough taxes to pay your pension ...

We got to that position a decade ago. Maybe two.

As I said, if you choose "labourer" as your carreer, (the default for those who don't actively choose otherwise through achievement at school) then you're competing with the third world, and they've got nearly free labour for Africa.

Oh and by the way 51% of the Social Benefit vote already goes on pensions ... who's money is sucked up to carry that load???

The returns from the invested taxes collected expressly for the purpose from those same pensioners? <_<

mashman

26th March 2014, 10:58

So just for the record, you now know that increasing GDP is not money laundering?

For GST to be applicable, you have to have the money come from a sub-entity of the economy, person or company; which means said sub entity must value a hammer at 1million dollars to decide to pay for it. The absurdity of that line of thinking is nobody will pay 1million dollars for a hammer that costs $2 to produce.
And even if they did, or you forced them to, that is not creating wealth, it is just taking wealth off people in the society to pay the foreign debt.

If it isn't valued using money, then yes.

Ok, so you choose to ignore how the system works when it suits. Cool, spraying and waling awaying.

mashman

26th March 2014, 11:05

What a bunch a fuckin children. Wahhhh wahhhhh that shiny grain of sand in mine. It's hardly surprising we're circling the drain. There's more than enough for everyone, we can share. If you can't share, then you should be executed! because you are then a drain on the rest of the population.

bogan

26th March 2014, 11:08

If it isn't valued using money, then yes.

Ok, so you choose to ignore how the system works when it suits. Cool, spraying and waling awaying.

By definition GDP is valued using a currency, what else do you think they would use?

I've been asking for a while now how your million dollar hammer system would work, far from ignoring it. Sometimes it is printing money, sometimes it isn't, sometimes it is sold locally, sometimes it isn't... It's rather amusing to see you still saying it'll work despite having no clue how exactly it will do that.

If you can't share, then you should be executed!

Communism or death! that could never go poorly could it?

MSTRS

26th March 2014, 11:46

If you can't share, then you should be executed! because you are then a drain on the rest of the population.

Jaysus H!! what twisted reasoning that is...:facepalm:
Tell you what, I'll help you to not be a drain on the rest of the population by sucking up everything you don't need - plus a bit. I'll leave you just enough that you can continue to work smart so as to keep me and mine, since we're not clever like you and can't work. How else are we to afford all the diversions we need to fill our oh-so-endless leisure time?

Let them eat cake, indeed.

Banditbandit

26th March 2014, 11:55

We got to that position a decade ago. Maybe two.

Yes - and who was responsible for that? Not the current crop of teachers that's for sure ... probably about the generation after you and I left school ..

As I said, if you choose "labourer" as your carreer, (the default for those who don't actively choose otherwise through achievement at school) then you're competing with the third world, and they've got nearly free labour for Africa.

Yes - that's true ... who did not educate them enough to make a good choice? Who is arguing equality rather than equity?

The returns from the invested taxes collected expressly for the purpose from those same pensioners? <_<

No sorry - there is no link from PAYE to where the money will be spent. There is SOME link between other taxes and where the money is spent, but not PAYE.

And if you are paying taxes now then you are paying the pensions now, not saving up for your future - if you belong to KiwiSaver you are certainly saving for your own retirement - and there are other measures recently put in place .. but taxes come in and go out to the pensioners at the same time.

And finally - there was a small troll at the end of my comments - I do not begrudge the pensioners their money ... nor do I begrudge the benefits. (Today's pay slip says I have paid $700+ in tax this pay period ...)

mashman

26th March 2014, 12:49

By definition GDP is valued using a currency, what else do you think they would use?

I've been asking for a while now how your million dollar hammer system would work, far from ignoring it. Sometimes it is printing money, sometimes it isn't, sometimes it is sold locally, sometimes it isn't... It's rather amusing to see you still saying it'll work despite having no clue how exactly it will do that.

Communism or death! that could never go poorly could it?

Apply everything you know about the financial system to a virtual financial system where you don't have access to ant of the money in your personal account in Banco el NZo.[/QUOTE]

Communism. Where? Tis your definition, not mine. I'm talking long term survival, not the comfort of the few at the expense of the masses because those few believe that they deserve something more than someone else.

Jaysus H!! what twisted reasoning that is...:facepalm:
Tell you what, I'll help you to not be a drain on the rest of the population by sucking up everything you don't need - plus a bit. I'll leave you just enough that you can continue to work smart so as to keep me and mine, since we're not clever like you and can't work. How else are we to afford all the diversions we need to fill our oh-so-endless leisure time?

Let them eat cake, indeed.

A reasoning that doesn't involve any rules of your financial system.
Do what you want to do, but if that is going to be your position, then you must see that any form of talk of reward or any other form of self justifying premise that you deserve more is the ultimate in hypocrisy.

No, that's the current attitude that you reward hounds have been pushing, we could ALL eat well, be educated well, be looked after well from cradle to grave without the financial system and the self-righteous entitlement complex fucktards... who really should accept that they have given up their right to live by defaulting on their status as a member of the human race due to their lack of tolerance for others. Yes I see the Irony there, but at least I have a valid reason for mine. :D

MSTRS

26th March 2014, 13:05

A reasoning that doesn't involve any rules of your financial system.

It's not my financial system. But it is the one to which we are all subject. Try opting out...

TheDemonLord

26th March 2014, 13:08

Apply everything you know about the financial system to a virtual financial system where you don't have access to ant of the money in your personal account in Banco el NZo.

Without access to the funds - how is it determined who gets access to what?

Communism. Where? Tis your definition, not mine. I'm talking long term survival, not the comfort of the few at the expense of the masses because those few believe that they deserve something more than someone else.

Communism is what it will result in - everyone has access to the same level of bare necessity items with a few 'government approved' luxuries

You say Long term survival - I will make sure that I have superior firepower than the peasants that believe they deserve what I have (even though they are unable to do what I am able to). I bet the French revolution would have happened differently if the French army had access to fully automatic weaponary (and the peasants didn't)

No, that's the current attitude that you reward hounds have been pushing, we could ALL eat well, be educated well, be looked after well from cradle to grave without the financial system and the self-righteous entitlement complex fucktards... who really should accept that they have given up their right to live by defaulting on their status as a member of the human race due to their lack of tolerance for others. Yes I see the Irony there, but at least I have a valid reason for mine. :D

Cool - when the masses can do what I am able to do - then we can talk - until then, I have skills that are in short supply and others don't have them - therefore I get more because I am more important.

bogan

26th March 2014, 13:09

Apply everything you know about the financial system to a virtual financial system where you don't have access to ant of the money in your personal account in Banco el NZo.

Communism. Where? Tis your definition, not mine. I'm talking long term survival, not the comfort of the few at the expense of the masses because those few believe that they deserve something more than someone else.

So, is money laundering any use of money now then? Is the only way I can see GDP increases still being classed as money laundering by you...

I have, here is an example (figures as estimates).

NZ Debt 250billion
NZ net worth 1trillion

So Banco now gets 1trillion in it, banco sells a million dollar hammer to itself (though through different people), with the govt taking 15% GST, or 150k, which it uses to pay off the debt, with Banco getting back 850k out of the 1mil it just spent. So all you're doing is taking money from the people, and paying off foreign debt. Is that what the whole million dollar hammer scheme is about?

Communism is "Any political philosophy or ideology advocating holding the production of resources collectively" not my definition, that is wikipedias, and that is what you're advocating.

mashman

26th March 2014, 13:32

It's not my financial system. But it is the one to which we are all subject. Try opting out...

Divide and conquer eh... well instead of opting out let's see if we can get enough people to opt in to something different. After all, you capitalist types have got an entire globe to play with, you'll be able to go anywhere where you'll fit in.

mashman

26th March 2014, 13:38

Without access to the funds - how is it determined who gets access to what?

Communism is what it will result in - everyone has access to the same level of bare necessity items with a few 'government approved' luxuries

You say Long term survival - I will make sure that I have superior firepower than the peasants that believe they deserve what I have (even though they are unable to do what I am able to). I bet the French revolution would have happened differently if the French army had access to fully automatic weaponary (and the peasants didn't)

Cool - when the masses can do what I am able to do - then we can talk - until then, I have skills that are in short supply and others don't have them - therefore I get more because I am more important.

Just take what you want.

We did the govt thing, we'll still have car dealers etc...

Why are they going to come after what you have when they already have access to that for free? Seriously you guys are somewhat lacking in ye olde understanding department.

:rofl:... good luck with that.

So, is money laundering any use of money now then? Is the only way I can see GDP increases still being classed as money laundering by you...

I have, here is an example (figures as estimates).

NZ Debt 250billion
NZ net worth 1trillion

So Banco now gets 1trillion in it, banco sells a million dollar hammer to itself (though through different people), with the govt taking 15% GST, or 150k, which it uses to pay off the debt, with Banco getting back 850k out of the 1mil it just spent. So all you're doing is taking money from the people, and paying off foreign debt. Is that what the whole million dollar hammer scheme is about?

Communism is "Any political philosophy or ideology advocating holding the production of resources collectively" not my definition, that is wikipedias, and that is what you're advocating.

That's one hammer. An R.B.E. doesn't deal in politics.

bogan

26th March 2014, 13:41

That's one hammer. An R.B.E. doesn't deal in politics.

So, you've pussied out on the whole laundering thing then?

Well yeh, another 1666 needed to pay off the debt, which takes the 250 billion straight from the people's pocket. Why do you bother with the big hammer story, why not just say you'll be using the populaces liquid assets to pay off the debt immediately?

An R.B.E is an ideology though, so it still fits.

MSTRS

26th March 2014, 14:04

Divide and conquer eh... well instead of opting out let's see if we can get enough people to opt in to something different. After all, you capitalist types have got an entire globe to play with, you'll be able to go anywhere where you'll fit in.

Me? Go somewhere that doesn't have a system like/similar to here and now? I don't think so. I'm not the one who's out of step with the majority.
I hear North Korea is better under Kim the Younger....off you go. Then we'll see how long your belief in that ideology lasts. :nya:

mashman

26th March 2014, 15:03

So, you've pussied out on the whole laundering thing then?

Well yeh, another 1666 needed to pay off the debt, which takes the 250 billion straight from the people's pocket. Why do you bother with the big hammer story, why not just say you'll be using the populaces liquid assets to pay off the debt immediately?

An R.B.E is an ideology though, so it still fits.

Nope.

As I said it's just 1 hammer. Now add a chisel. Also, while you're at it tax things that aren't already taxed and add in a little money velocity. Do all of that in a virtual environment. No need to pay off the debt too quick as we don't want to send the world into a financial shock. That's why I.m not saying pay the debt off immediately. I feel that I've made that point quite clear on several occasions. Time for you to join the dots and see if you think you could do it under a NOW type economy.

Is it an ideology? Also, in a pure R.B.E. no resources are held collectively, they are used for a purpose, most likely used for a target group... but they are available to everyone. No fit, go fish.

mashman

26th March 2014, 15:05

Me? Go somewhere that doesn't have a system like/similar to here and now? I don't think so. I'm not the one who's out of step with the majority.
I hear North Korea is better under Kim the Younger....off you go. Then we'll see how long your belief in that ideology lasts. :nya:

Well if the majority of NZ decide to vote for an R.B.E. are you saying that you would become a bludger?
Comparing apples and oranges eh... I guess that's entirely up to you, but that's what you're doing.

bogan

26th March 2014, 15:20

Nope.

As I said it's just 1 hammer. Now add a chisel. Also, while you're at it tax things that aren't already taxed and add in a little money velocity. Do all of that in a virtual environment. No need to pay off the debt too quick as we don't want to send the world into a financial shock. That's why I.m not saying pay the debt off immediately. I feel that I've made that point quite clear on several occasions. Time for you to join the dots and see if you think you could do it under a NOW type economy.

Is it an ideology? Also, in a pure R.B.E. no resources are held collectively, they are used for a purpose, most likely used for a target group... but they are available to everyone. No fit, go fish.

Then why is an increase of GDP (produced goods value) money laundering?

All of which leads to the same conclusion though, tax (even if in a virtual economy) doesn't create wealth, it moves it. all you're doing is using the population's assets to pay off the debt. And asset sales has hardly been popular so far, is that why you hid it behind million dollar hammer sales theory?

:laugh: I think the two points above are enough for you to be going on with at this stage.

bogan

26th March 2014, 15:22

Well if the majority of NZ decide to vote for an R.B.E. are you saying that you would become a bludger?

Guess that all depends if it happens before or after you've executed all the dissenters :killingme

MSTRS

26th March 2014, 15:35

Well if the majority of NZ decide to vote for an R.B.E. are you saying that you would become a bludger?

Nah. I'm off to Oz. They don't pander to bludgers over there.
And they won't have a bar of your so-called equitable system either.
So I'll be safe.

TheDemonLord

26th March 2014, 16:03

Just take what you want.

We did the govt thing, we'll still have car dealers etc...

Why are they going to come after what you have when they already have access to that for free? Seriously you guys are somewhat lacking in ye olde understanding department.

Human Wants are infinite - Economics 101

We may have Car dealers - but will we have Ferrari Dealers? if so how do we decide who gets it? first come first served?

mashman

26th March 2014, 16:13

Then why is an increase of GDP (produced goods value) money laundering?

All of which leads to the same conclusion though, tax (even if in a virtual economy) doesn't create wealth, it moves it. all you're doing is using the population's assets to pay off the debt. And asset sales has hardly been popular so far, is that why you hid it behind million dollar hammer sales theory?

:laugh: I think the two points above are enough for you to be going on with at this stage.

You've had your answer.

Then money velocity can't increase GDP.

I see thinking isn't your strong point.

Guess that all depends if it happens before or after you've executed all the dissenters :killingme

heh...everyone will get a second chance.

Nah. I'm off to Oz. They don't pander to bludgers over there.
And they won't have a bar of your so-called equitable system either.
So I'll be safe.

All the best.
I'm sure they'll be glad that you've spoken for all of them. IfNZ falls to my benevolent plan, Oz wont be far behind... similarly for many countries.
Watch out for snakes n shit, I hear they're nasty.

Human Wants are infinite - Economics 101

We may have Car dealers - but will we have Ferrari Dealers? if so how do we decide who gets it? first come first served?

You speak for everyone then. In which case you're wrong.

You get invited to own a ferrari... unless you're talking second hand, in which case that may well depend on how friendly you are with the dealer when he gets some stock in.

mashman

26th March 2014, 16:15

http://www.thesurvivalpodcast.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/kirk-and-spock-needs-quote.png

mashman

26th March 2014, 16:28

What are you all so afraid of? You lament the fall of NZ past yet refuse to do anything to help when it comes to lifting it. You bitch about how much you have to pay, ironic given that you're relying on the economy to do the job for you. The very same economy that has allowed NZ to fall. You speak of logic and reason, yet blame others and claim that you are entitled to X because the "free" market says that's the way things should be. You whine when equity is mentioned and yet you miss that equity means that those who need will get. You prefer the few to succeed who you claim deserve it and then you watch the tax take (important for education and hospitals n shit) decline and yet you laud tax breaks and the borrowing that the govt has undertaken to make up the shortfall. Then you laud efficiency and cheap labor because you believe that doing the hard yards is some form of right of passage. You're not an NZer, you're a parasite.

mashman

26th March 2014, 17:09

Ocean1

26th March 2014, 17:36

Yes - and who was responsible for that? Not the current crop of teachers that's for sure ... probably about the generation after you and I left school ..

http://waitbutwhy.com/2013/09/why-generation-y-yuppies-are-unhappy.html

And if you are paying taxes now then you are paying the pensions now, not saving up for your future - if you belong to KiwiSaver you are certainly saving for your own retirement - and there are other measures recently put in place .. but taxes come in and go out to the pensioners at the same time.

Did you not notice the wee smilie?

I once asked the then minister for social development why they were spending my pension money on election bribes. He patiently explained that superannuation wasn't fully funded and launched into a detailed explanation of the impossibility of making that so. I pointed out that any schoolboy could calculate the resources required to fund what the current entitlements were and that is was absurd to expect a shrinking workforce to stump up the shortfall their failure to budget was causing. The conversation deteriorated from there, and I'm afraid I resorted to technical terminology unbecoming a guest at Govt house and had to retire in order to maintain even vaguely decorous relations.

bogan

26th March 2014, 17:38

You've had your answer.

Then money velocity can't increase GDP.

Ah yes, the money printing argument, somehow you can't produce more goods without some guy printing more dollars :scratch:

Gdp is not wealth, money velocity can increase gdp, but it doesn't increase net wealth. But back to the question, is the hammer thing just asset sales?

bogan

26th March 2014, 17:42

bogan

26th March 2014, 18:02

http://waitbutwhy.com/2013/09/why-generation-y-yuppies-are-unhappy.html

GenY: check
Wildly ambitious: check
Unhappy: nope, well, 2/3 ain't bad; I'm good with that :D

Paul Harvey, a University of New Hampshire professor and GYPSY expert, has researched this, finding that Gen Y has ”unrealistic expectations and a strong resistance toward accepting negative feedback,” and “an inflated view of oneself.” He says that “a great source of frustration for people with a strong sense of entitlement is unmet expectations. They often feel entitled to a level of respect and rewards that aren’t in line with their actual ability and effort levels, and so they might not get the level of respect and rewards they are expecting.”

Sounds uncannily like mashman doesn't it :laugh:

For those hiring members of Gen Y, Harvey suggests asking the interview question, “Do you feel you are generally superior to your coworkers/classmates/etc., and if so, why?” He says that “if the candidate answers yes to the first part but struggles with the ‘why,’ there may be an entitlement issue. This is because entitlement perceptions are often based on an unfounded sense of superiority and deservingness. They’ve been led to believe, perhaps through overzealous self-esteem building exercises in their youth, that they are somehow special but often lack any real justification for this belief.”

That one I'll have to use...

mashman

26th March 2014, 18:25

Ah yes, the money printing argument, somehow you can't produce more goods without some guy printing more dollars :scratch:

Gdp is not wealth, money velocity can increase gdp, but it doesn't increase net wealth. But back to the question, is the hammer thing just asset sales?

No, the money laundering :facepalm:

:rofl:... I'll leave it there as you're letting me get in the way of you thinking.

I thought you said you didn't get worked up by this stuff? I'm third generation kiwi btw, how long has your family been here?

I'm not. It's simple truth. My family has been here since day 1.

Sounds uncannily like mashman doesn't it :laugh:

What expectations do I have? That everyone can be more than well looked after under a different system? Then yes. :killingme@overinflated view of myself. Dammit, I thought it was well hidden as well.

bogan

26th March 2014, 18:31

No, the money laundering :facepalm:

:rofl:... I'll leave it there as you're letting me get in the way of you thinking.

I'm not. It's simple truth. My family has been here since day 1.

Yeh, somehow any increase in production of goods/services has to be money laundering cos mashy tells me prining money is money laundering, and they must have to print money to make more stuff, somehow :confused:

I won't, expect rather succinct follow ups every time you try and soapbomb threads with this drivel; million dollar hammers indeed :facepalm:

A tanty is what that was; fucking good luck finding support with those sort of outbursts. Day one eh? what tribe?

jonbuoy

26th March 2014, 18:46

No, the money laundering :facepalm:

:rofl:... I'll leave it there as you're letting me get in the way of you thinking.

I'm not. It's simple truth. My family has been here since day 1.

What expectations do I have? That everyone can be more than well looked after under a different system? Then yes. :killingme@overinflated view of myself. Dammit, I thought it was well hidden as well.

Mashman your the last person who should be bitching about NZ benefits and education policies - they have kindly let you in from your native country. Your allowed to put your hand in the pot and claim NZ benefits and take advantage of free schooling for your children. You have been able to cut down your hours of work to spend more time with your kids - or is it more time on the Kiwibiker soap box preaching politics on a biker forum?

mashman

26th March 2014, 19:16

Artichoke

A tanty is what that was; fucking good luck finding support with those sort of outbursts. Day one eh? what tribe?

You carry on telling yourself that you know better than me the mood under which a post was posted...it seems to be your forte. Human.

Mashman your the last person who should be bitching about NZ benefits and education policies - they have kindly let you in from your native country. Your allowed to put your hand in the pot and claim NZ benefits and take advantage of free schooling for your children. You have been able to cut down your hours of work to spend more time with your kids - or is it more time on the Kiwibiker soap box preaching politics on a biker forum?

I should be so grateful that I have been allowed to live in a country other than that of my birth eh. If the move had have been for living conditions and financial reasons I would have stayed in Scotland. Turns out the same shit is happening irrespective of where one goes. I have decided to notice for a change and take issue with the way things are being run. NZ is not special, it's just another piece of land with people on it on the same spinning rock. Tis childish that we are bordered by rules. lol@shocking cheap dig... I get a few minutes to post on occasion, so do so. No preaching, just offering an alternative viewpoint for people to consider should they wish to do so.

bogan

26th March 2014, 19:22

You carry on telling yourself that you know better than me the mood under which a post was posted...it seems to be your forte. Human.

Well, since you seem either reluctant or unable to explain yourself, one must draw conclusions from the information at hand. Seems you've less experience at being a kiwi than me and mine though, I find one of the core kiwi values is not being afraid of a bit of hard work. Bludging, well that is a far later addition and while widespread, it fails the litmus test of kiwi values in that wal footrot and fred dagg wouldn't be having a bar of it :spanking:

jonbuoy

26th March 2014, 19:24

You carry on telling yourself that you know better than me the mood under which a post was posted...it seems to be your forte. Human.

I should be so grateful that I have been allowed to live in a country other than that of my birth eh. If the move had have been for living conditions and financial reasons I would have stayed in Scotland. Turns out the same shit is happening irrespective of where one goes. I have decided to notice for a change and take issue with the way things are being run. NZ is not special, it's just another piece of land with people on it on the same spinning rock. Tis childish that we are bordered by rules. lol@shocking cheap dig... I get a few minutes to post on occasion, so do so. No preaching, just offering an alternative viewpoint for people to consider should they wish to do so.

Yes you should be grateful - not everyone is given the opportunity to move to a safe first world country with free benefits healthcare and education.

Ocean1

26th March 2014, 19:40

free benefits healthcare and education.

TANSTAFL.

Except for mushmate, who is convinced every lunch should be free.

jonbuoy

26th March 2014, 20:36

TANSTAFL.

Except for mushmate, who is convinced every lunch should be free.

Sorry yes - not free but social healthcare/benefits/education system subsidised and supported by hard working people who put in more or an equal amount to what they take out.

mashman

26th March 2014, 21:44

Well, since you seem either reluctant or unable to explain yourself, one must draw conclusions from the information at hand. Seems you've less experience at being a kiwi than me and mine though, I find one of the core kiwi values is not being afraid of a bit of hard work. Bludging, well that is a far later addition and while widespread, it fails the litmus test of kiwi values in that wal footrot and fred dagg wouldn't be having a bar of it :spanking:

You're no different to anyone in the UK in regards to ratio of lazy and/or not so. Amusing that you think such a characteristic is intrinsically kiwi. My little tanty, as you call it, could quite easily have been directed at absolutely any nation. That may surprise you.

Yes you should be grateful - not everyone is given the opportunity to move to a safe first world country with free benefits healthcare and education.

I could get more free in the UK than I can here yet you don't see me running back there. Does that make it a first+ world country? I am grateful for a great many things, but being "allowed" in to any given country, anyone can do it if they have the qualifications and/or money to get through the visa process. What's so special about that? That I can afford it? That says more about the state of the rest of the world than it does about my earthly movements (I do love a good earthly movement). I would like to see every country as a first world country. The only reason that cannot currently be achieved is money. That's a fact.

mashman

26th March 2014, 21:45

TANSTAFL.

Except for mushmate, who is convinced every lunch should be free.

Not yet there isn't.

It should be.

bogan

26th March 2014, 22:11

jonbuoy

27th March 2014, 02:05

You're no different to anyone in the UK in regards to ratio of lazy and/or not so. Amusing that you think such a characteristic is intrinsically kiwi. My little tanty, as you call it, could quite easily have been directed at absolutely any nation. That may surprise you.

I could get more free in the UK than I can here yet you don't see me running back there. Does that make it a first+ world country? I am grateful for a great many things, but being "allowed" in to any given country, anyone can do it if they have the qualifications and/or money to get through the visa process. What's so special about that? That I can afford it? That says more about the state of the rest of the world than it does about my earthly movements (I do love a good earthly movement). I would like to see every country as a first world country. The only reason that cannot currently be achieved is money. That's a fact.

No bad management and poor education stops other countries becoming first world countries.

In the first world country you were born in you were given the opportunity to get enough education to be considered an asset to another country and managed to save enough money to make the trip. Not everyone is in that position so yes you are privileged. You don´t seem to be too grateful for anything your constantly whining about the current system we have. You always seem to want to work less and get more. Ending third world poverty can be done within the current system, its not that some countries are poor in "money" or "resources" its just badly managed.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/441263/India-sends-a-spaceship-to-Mars-after-UK-gives-280million-in-aid

avgas

27th March 2014, 02:29

Amusing as I did the very same thing (http://nz.lifestyle.yahoo.com/general/features/article/-/22176474/read-dads-facebook-response-to-ridiculous-common-core-maths-homework/) the other night whilst helping middle daughter come to grips with how to add and take away numbers. The current way confuses her.
I am going to dissagree with the dad. It does make sense. If the kid doesn't know what a number means they need to break it down.

It may sound strange - but numbers change. We can't fall back to this is what I know so I refuse to look at this another way (like what the father did).
What would have happened if the number was in hex? coded negative? Braille? Cyrillic? Inverted?

Having a cry about doing kids homework because he can't learn and new method..........I think he has missed the point of the homework. Hate to see what happens when the kid comes home with homework that could challenge his faith in something else.....burn the school down?

Tolerance and open eyes when it comes to education. Not "I have a degree so I know better"......I have an education, but people respect me for my ability to learn......

He could have taught his kid to learn the school way, and his way......but instead he had a cry about it and his kid learnt jack shit.

TheDemonLord

27th March 2014, 06:27

You speak for everyone then. In which case you're wrong.

Yes, we have been over this - you seem to think that everyone will be nice to each other and share, I think everyone is a cunt - History favours my position... Even to the point of pre-dating money as we know it.

You get invited to own a ferrari... unless you're talking second hand, in which case that may well depend on how friendly you are with the dealer when he gets some stock in.

In order for one person to own a ferrari, several people have to go without a car/something. Because the core of your R.B.E is that everyone gets what they need - there will be no Ferraris (because one person owning a Ferrari at the expense of other people having something violates what NOW and other systems are trying to achieve)

Since there are now no Ferraris - Consumer choice has been diminished (a choice that was previously availible is now unavailible)

Next issue - since a Ferrari is an invitation only - there will be no dealerships (there is no point)

Next issue - how in a RBE do you decide who gets invited to own one and who doesn't? - I think you will find that all the executives of El Banko NZo curiously would have them, but no one else would (as tends to happen in similar situations)

Finally - if a Second Hand ferrari (a desirable object) is free to whoever gets it first - how will this stop theft (which was one of the other selling points of Now)? - I see a Ferrari at my neighbours house - he got it because he was sucking off the 2nd hand car Dealer (or some other form of none monetary bribery/corruption) and I take it - because I am a cunt and I want to drive a ferrari and since it doesn't cause him any financial loss - why would I care? he can just go to the dealer and get a different car at no cost?

mashman

27th March 2014, 06:49

Never said we were, just that the image of your typical kiwi bloke sure as shit isn't lazy. Also it's not the only kiwi characteristic, diy is also one we hold in high esteem, and being down to earth, and gumboots. I have a pair of gumboots and workboots at my house, do you?

Your little tanty, for all the good it done could have been directed at a wall. It also mentioned NZ in a number of places so I think it would have lost what shred of coherency it might have held if you were to direct it at another nation.

See how well you're doing today; told us you'd use million dollar hammers to take our wealth, threatened those who disagreed with execution, and called anyone who works for their money a non-NZ parasite. More winning hearts and minds over to your cause tomorrow then? :killingme :rofl:

I do have gumboots and steel toed boots. I am more than happy to learn about electrical circuits or how to build a fence etc... and then go and do it. Tis something the average UK bloke also does.

Like I said, it could have been directed at any country. That you think it would have mattered what country was in there, well, let's say Artichoke.

Probably more of the same.

avgas

27th March 2014, 06:55

I thought you said you didn't get worked up by this stuff? I'm third generation kiwi btw, how long has your family been here?
Wrong. Your a 0 gen kiwi with that attitude.

We are an accepting people. Not inbred hillbillies.

You come to NZ to work, if you work....you're kiwi. All the rest is BS that was ingrained from the motherland - and if your hanging on to it....your affectionately a POM-in-a-grass-skirt. Not a kiwi.

mashman

27th March 2014, 06:57

No bad management and poor education stops other countries becoming first world countries.

In the first world country you were born in you were given the opportunity to get enough education to be considered an asset to another country and managed to save enough money to make the trip. Not everyone is in that position so yes you are privileged. You don´t seem to be too grateful for anything your constantly whining about the current system we have. You always seem to want to work less and get more. Ending third world poverty can be done within the current system, its not that some countries are poor in "money" or "resources" its just badly managed.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/441263/India-sends-a-spaceship-to-Mars-after-UK-gives-280million-in-aid

Have it your way.

The reason I'm whining about the current system is because the privilege I have should be available to everyone. As you say, I needed MONEY to be able to achieve such a thing. My pay has fallen in line with my hours as expected. So where is this less for more coming in? Ending third world? Ending poverty full stop will not be changed by putting in a benevolent leader. Every nation has poverty and under-privileged people, so don't tell me that the current system can be end poverty as it simply isn't true. I take it you've been reading about the surge in uptake of food bank usage in the UK. That's poverty. I suggest you watch some of the interviews of those using these food banks before you decide that it's supply driving demand.

So, money that could have gone to help people diverted to send a rocket to another planet. Why not, screw the money, let's look after the people AND send a rocket to Mars. I wonder how much earlier we may have sent that rocket had there not have been the issues of $.

mashman

27th March 2014, 07:05

I am going to dissagree with the dad. It does make sense. If the kid doesn't know what a number means they need to break it down.

It may sound strange - but numbers change. We can't fall back to this is what I know so I refuse to look at this another way (like what the father did).
What would have happened if the number was in hex? coded negative? Braille? Cyrillic? Inverted?

Having a cry about doing kids homework because he can't learn and new method..........I think he has missed the point of the homework. Hate to see what happens when the kid comes home with homework that could challenge his faith in something else.....burn the school down?

Tolerance and open eyes when it comes to education. Not "I have a degree so I know better"......I have an education, but people respect me for my ability to learn......

He could have taught his kid to learn the school way, and his way......but instead he had a cry about it and his kid learnt jack shit.

Fair enough too.

What about how the kid feels most comfortable? There is no choice in the method of how they learn how to use numbers... I think this is one of the biggest failures of our education institutes (not that I blame them), you ask a kid if they understand, they nod and we all go along happy. Kids, actually it's not limited to kids in the slightest, kids don't like to look stupid in front of their class mates, so they lie. I question my kids to death and find out exactly what they do know and between my wife and me, we fill in any of the blanks using whichever method fits best for the kid.

No one hat fits all does it?

mashman

27th March 2014, 07:15

Yes, we have been over this - you seem to think that everyone will be nice to each other and share, I think everyone is a cunt - History favours my position... Even to the point of pre-dating money as we know it.

No I don't. I seem to think that everyone will be nice and share with everyone they're already nice and sharing with. Hell, they might even be nicer and share with people they're usually cuntish towards. If history proves anything it's that history is a bad teacher.

In order for one person to own a ferrari, several people have to go without a car/something. Because the core of your R.B.E is that everyone gets what they need - there will be no Ferraris (because one person owning a Ferrari at the expense of other people having something violates what NOW and other systems are trying to achieve)

Since there are now no Ferraris - Consumer choice has been diminished (a choice that was previously availible is now unavailible)

Next issue - since a Ferrari is an invitation only - there will be no dealerships (there is no point)

Next issue - how in a RBE do you decide who gets invited to own one and who doesn't? - I think you will find that all the executives of El Banko NZo curiously would have them, but no one else would (as tends to happen in similar situations)

Finally - if a Second Hand ferrari (a desirable object) is free to whoever gets it first - how will this stop theft (which was one of the other selling points of Now)? - I see a Ferrari at my neighbours house - he got it because he was sucking off the 2nd hand car Dealer (or some other form of none monetary bribery/corruption) and I take it - because I am a cunt and I want to drive a ferrari and since it doesn't cause him any financial loss - why would I care? he can just go to the dealer and get a different car at no cost?

If there are resources to build Ferrari's, then Ferrari's will be built. There must be something earth shatteringly precious that a Ferrari uses in its construction. Do tell?

Moot.

No there wasn't, just a flippent remark.

Ferrari decide, they always have, why not continue in the same way. As for Banco el NZo, dunno how it will be comprised, but if they're all driving brand new Ferrari's, I'm sure questions will be asked by their shareholders.

You raise a good point (pun intended). Your neighbour will be well within his rights to go to the cops and lay a complaint, or blow the officer, and you may end up going to jail... or executed.

Ocean1

27th March 2014, 07:30

...but instead he had a cry about it and his kid learnt jack shit.

Actually his kid learned that when things get difficult it's the system's fault.

TheDemonLord

27th March 2014, 08:19

No I don't. I seem to think that everyone will be nice and share with everyone they're already nice and sharing with. Hell, they might even be nicer and share with people they're usually cuntish towards. If history proves anything it's that history is a bad teacher.

Or that those who fail to learn histories lessons are doomed to repeat them....

If there are resources to build Ferrari's, then Ferrari's will be built. There must be something earth shatteringly precious that a Ferrari uses in its construction. Do tell?

Its called Man hours, Carbon Fibre, Aircraft grade Aluminium, Premium Italian Leather (I could go on)

No there wasn't, just a flippent remark.

You can't make flippant remarks when you are trying to defend your position and then complain when people use said remark to further dismantle your position

Ferrari decide, they always have, why not continue in the same way.

No - they have only ever decided on certain exclusive models like the FXX. For a 'standard' Ferrari, anyone with sufficient cash can purchase one - without Cash - How does the allocation of a Ferrari happen?

I put to you that it cannot and will not happen - thus Consumer choice is diminished, first it will be Ferraris, then it will be porsches, then it will be high end BMWs, then it will be Fords/Holdens and the ultimate result will be that you can have a 'choice' of several different NOW approved cars that will all be a PoS

As for Banco el NZo, dunno how it will be comprised, but if they're all driving brand new Ferrari's, I'm sure questions will be asked by their shareholders.

Indeed, Questions will be asked, then deflected and then through some clever smoke and mirrors with be diffused - Hmmm how could a single Banking entity that controls the finances for an Entire country be Compromised - I think of a multitude of ways - most of which could be done in a way that attempted removal from power would have extremely negative consequences (in the same way that Dictators tend to stay in power until violently overthrown)

Btw have you read Animal Farm?

You raise a good point (pun intended). Your neighbour will be well within his rights to go to the cops and lay a complaint, or blow the officer, and you may end up going to jail... or executed.

So we agree then - under NOW, Theft and other similar crime will still happen (despite your assertion in the other thread that there will be no need for theft since everyone can just go to the store and pickup what they want/need)

bogan

27th March 2014, 08:38

Wrong. Your a 0 gen kiwi with that attitude.

We are an accepting people. Not inbred hillbillies.

You come to NZ to work, if you work....you're kiwi. All the rest is BS that was ingrained from the motherland - and if your hanging on to it....your affectionately a POM-in-a-grass-skirt. Not a kiwi.

There's other factors that make kiwis 'kiwi' I'm not just talking about the right to residency btw. The longer you've been here, the more likely you are to pick up on them. New immigrants are more than welcome to embrace these values of course. So it is not how long you've been here that determines who is a kiwi, but how long you've been here does give you more of our culture; which I reckon is about a bit more than just working.

Banditbandit

27th March 2014, 08:38

http://waitbutwhy.com/2013/09/why-generation-y-yuppies-are-unhappy.html

So - it wasn't the teacher's fault - it was the parents fault - that must be you becasue I, thank god, have no kids ...

Did you not notice the wee smilie?

I once asked the then minister for social development why they were spending my pension money on election bribes. He patiently explained that superannuation wasn't fully funded and launched into a detailed explanation of the impossibility of making that so. I pointed out that any schoolboy could calculate the resources required to fund what the current entitlements were and that is was absurd to expect a shrinking workforce to stump up the shortfall their failure to budget was causing. The conversation deteriorated from there, and I'm afraid I resorted to technical terminology unbecoming a guest at Govt house and had to retire in order to maintain even vaguely decorous relations.

:killingme you shit stirring anarchist you ..

avgas

27th March 2014, 08:59

What about how the kid feels most comfortable?
Comfortable and Learning are not related. The venn diagram shows both circles intersecting......but the fact is that they are independent of how people learn.

You can learn stuff the way you like, or you can learn it the way you hate. Either way you can learn it.

The whole nurture and nature debate is a waste of time when you consider one simple concept: What is being taught?

Are we teaching kids what they are comfortable with? What they are uncomfortable with? Doesn't matter. Comfort happens when they become aware of what is out there. Until then, everything might be uncomfortable.
Uncomfortable --> Learning --> Comfortable is a fact of life.

imdying

27th March 2014, 09:00

Jesus christ... lot of wailing for someone who isn't even a New Zealander.

Dunno what you cunts are moaning about though... quality of life and wages here are great... houses are cheap, petrol is plentiful, lots of public holidays... About the only thing I'd change would be to work another day less a week, and expect that would be totally doable if I asked.

avgas

27th March 2014, 09:02

There's other factors that make kiwis 'kiwi' I'm not just talking about the right to residency btw. The longer you've been here, the more likely you are to pick up on them. New immigrants are more than welcome to embrace these values of course. So it is not how long you've been here that determines who is a kiwi, but how long you've been here does give you more of our culture; which I reckon is about a bit more than just working.
What a pile of bullshit. But then again you have only been there for 3 generations - so perhaps your kids will learn, at the local school, from their Chinese-Indian-Samoan-Kiwi mate who shows them that NZ isn't just what their dad said.

bogan

27th March 2014, 09:11

What a pile of bullshit. But then again you have only been there for 3 generations - so perhaps your kids will learn, at the local school, from their Chinese-Indian-Samoan-Kiwi mate who shows them that NZ isn't just what their dad said.

Well I've only been here for one, my parents and grandparents got the other two covered. Or perhaps some kiwi values will rub off on the imports...

Obviously that shit is going to get watered down with the whole globalisation thing, but does it mean we shouldn't embrace the kiwi way in the meantime? I mean these are just positive values, it's not like we are wasting valuable education time on a 'native' language we will never need, or a 'native' culture we will never be accepted into...

bogan

27th March 2014, 09:46

Since there are now no Ferraris - Consumer choice has been diminished (a choice that was previously availible is now unavailible)

Look, car choice is one thing, but what about diminishing choice of hair styles? (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/165649-Get-Your-Hair-Cut-like-mine!?p=1130699290#post1130699290)

TheDemonLord

27th March 2014, 10:01

Fuck that - I will be keeping my Hair and my Consumer Choice

bogan

27th March 2014, 10:04

Nope, corollas and comb-overs for everyone. Execute all dissenters, sacrifices must be made to liberate society from the shackles of money.

Ocean1

27th March 2014, 10:14

Nope, corollas and comb-overs for everyone. Execute all dissenters, sacrifices must be made to liberate society from the shackles of money.

Worse, I'm afraid. Very much worse...

http://content.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1658545_1658533_1658030,00.html

mashman

27th March 2014, 10:18

Or that those who fail to learn histories lessons are doomed to repeat them....

Which we do, repeatedly, especially the financial system.

Its called Man hours, Carbon Fibre, Aircraft grade Aluminium, Premium Italian Leather (I could go on)

I'll make a note of that and we'll ensure that Ferrari's are banned.

You can't make flippant remarks when you are trying to defend your position and then complain when people use said remark to further dismantle your position

I didn't complain.

No - they have only ever decided on certain exclusive models like the FXX. For a 'standard' Ferrari, anyone with sufficient cash can purchase one - without Cash - How does the allocation of a Ferrari happen?

I put to you that it cannot and will not happen - thus Consumer choice is diminished, first it will be Ferraris, then it will be porsches, then it will be high end BMWs, then it will be Fords/Holdens and the ultimate result will be that you can have a 'choice' of several different NOW approved cars that will all be a PoS

The it'll continue that way. then it'll become second hand. By blowing your dealer apparantly.

Indeed, Questions will be asked, then deflected and then through some clever smoke and mirrors with be diffused - Hmmm how could a single Banking entity that controls the finances for an Entire country be Compromised - I think of a multitude of ways - most of which could be done in a way that attempted removal from power would have extremely negative consequences (in the same way that Dictators tend to stay in power until violently overthrown)

Btw have you read Animal Farm?

Meh. The flaws currently exist, yet it's much easier to keep eyes on 1 than it is on many. It all depends how it's set up and those decisions will be left to more interested minds.

No.

So we agree then - under NOW, Theft and other similar crime will still happen (despite your assertion in the other thread that there will be no need for theft since everyone can just go to the store and pickup what they want/need)

I've never said crime will vanish. But there will be a lot less. Just because there is no need for it does not automatically mean that it cannot happen.

mashman

27th March 2014, 10:18

Comfortable and Learning are not related. The venn diagram shows both circles intersecting......but the fact is that they are independent of how people learn.

You can learn stuff the way you like, or you can learn it the way you hate. Either way you can learn it.

The whole nurture and nature debate is a waste of time when you consider one simple concept: What is being taught?

Are we teaching kids what they are comfortable with? What they are uncomfortable with? Doesn't matter. Comfort happens when they become aware of what is out there. Until then, everything might be uncomfortable.
Uncomfortable --> Learning --> Comfortable is a fact of life.

Of course they are. Have you ever seen how a kid reacts when they aren't comfortable (i.e. don't understand) with how and what they're being taught? It takes the emphasis off of what is trying to be achieved. At which point they will often lie depending on their perception of the powerhouse standing over them and how they see themselves in the eyes of their peers.

If you only understand it taught in a particular way and that way is not on offer then you won't learn it at all.

Dunno what you mean in regards to learning and nurture v nature.

It sure is a fact of life, but for kids learning it shouldn't be.

MSTRS

27th March 2014, 10:52

If you only understand it taught in a particular way and that way is not on offer then you won't learn it at all.

Which brings us back to the thread subject...

jonbuoy

27th March 2014, 11:06

Have it your way.

The reason I'm whining about the current system is because the privilege I have should be available to everyone. As you say, I needed MONEY to be able to achieve such a thing. My pay has fallen in line with my hours as expected. So where is this less for more coming in? Ending third world? Ending poverty full stop will not be changed by putting in a benevolent leader. Every nation has poverty and under-privileged people, so don't tell me that the current system can be end poverty as it simply isn't true. I take it you've been reading about the surge in uptake of food bank usage in the UK. That's poverty. I suggest you watch some of the interviews of those using these food banks before you decide that it's supply driving demand.

So, money that could have gone to help people diverted to send a rocket to another planet. Why not, screw the money, let's look after the people AND send a rocket to Mars. I wonder how much earlier we may have sent that rocket had there not have been the issues of $.

Its also an issue of natural resources which arent infinate. Yes food banks are being implemented and used - so people don't starve.

I didnt say supply was driving demand?

Of course the current system can end poverty. Just because you remove the monetary system it won't stop famine, disease or war. Do you think that if you stopped keeping score in a sporting event it would stop people from wanting to be a better player? You think people will magically stop being aggressive? Sociopaths, Psycopaths will be healed? Racists wont be racist? Megalomaniacs wont crave power or control over other people?

mashman

27th March 2014, 11:11

Which brings us back to the thread subject...

And the solutions thus far are, forget those who are unable to learn they way they are taught.
Spend more money and stick another teacher in the class so that multiple methods of teaching could be covered (which'll never happen because there isn't enough money).
And change the model and let parents choose where they send their kids.

Sterling work for a so called civilised and progressive society.

bogan

27th March 2014, 11:20

Worse, I'm afraid. Very much worse...

http://content.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1658545_1658533_1658030,00.html

*Shudders, the final nail in the coffin of communism if ever there was one.

Ocean1

27th March 2014, 11:25

Sterling work for a so called civilised and progressive society.

You have got to be the whineyest bastard I’ve ever had the dubious lack of misfortune not to have met.

By the length of the back straight.

Fuck off and find somewhere else to whine about.

mashman

27th March 2014, 11:25

Its also an issue of natural resources which arent infinate. Yes food banks are being implemented and used - so people don't starve.

I didnt say supply was driving demand?

Of course the current system can end poverty. Just because you remove the monetary system it won't stop famine, disease or war. Do you think that if you stopped keeping score in a sporting event it would stop people from wanting to be a better player? You think people will magically stop being aggressive? Sociopaths, Psycopaths will be healed? Racists wont be racist? Megalomaniacs wont crave power or control over other people?

They're not, I agree, and what's worse they're wasted. Why are there people at risk of starving in a first world country?

You didn't. But others on here have, along with the UK govt, so thought I'd answer that just in case. No slight was meant, no assertion was made.

Then why hasn't it ended poverty? It may not end famine, but it will give us a better shot at ending famine. It may not end disease, but again, it'll give us a better shot at dealing with disease. It may not end war, but it'll give us a better shot at ending war (which is usually for resources that someone else has but those who want the resources are unwilling to pay for).

I don't think stopping keeping score will stop people from becoming a better player ('mon the mighty Reds). I don't think everyone will stop being aggressive, but it'll give them one less thing to be aggressive over. Sociopaths and psychopaths may well be "healed", if our environment has shaped them. Racists will be racist until they aren't, butchanevaknow perhaps not being able to racially stereotype a group based on supposed financial support will see that behaviour slowly ebb away as it did with homosexuality. Megalomaniacs will still be megalomaniacs, yet there will be less of a hold over people if they are not beholden to buy the "loyalty" or indeed prevent their starvation or indeed play one group off against another etc...

I can't help what I know. It makes sense to me. I'm not and never have been seeking utopia or perfection, but I would like to see an improvement all round in regards to how people are "cared" for by society. Currently too much of that is limited by the financial system, hence I stand against it in principle and know that a system that isn't based on finance would yield better social, technical, technological, education, healthcareical, innovational, progressional etc... results.