Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement [Archive] - Page 4

Stylo

7th February 2016, 17:07

[QUOTE=gjm;1130945393]Please ignore the dig at John Key, although his rent-a-crowd comments seem to be a reaction from him to any public mass opposition.

Easy to make a broad brush 'poster' like that from anyone who's against it ( They used to call it a propaganda poster )

Needs clarifying, I haven't heard from any of the parties mentioned in it that they're against the TPP , and why.

Be nice to hear from someone who's against it and have actually read and digested the 6000 pages of the agreement and tell me why they're against it . I haven't but I've spent some time today reading about it and it kind of makes some sense.

I doubt that very few of the dickheads holding up the streets of Auckland have read it, if only partially and I doubt that too.

It's not that if we get in it's a good thing, rather if we don't get in it won't be so good.

Not sure why the Maoris are against it either as the agreement includes the Waitangi Treaty principles so that won't be affected ...

What's the big fuss ?

puddytat

7th February 2016, 17:21

You didn't read Katmans link did you.....cant tell me that Rod Oram is a part of the rentacrowd. I'd hazard a guess that there were more people at the demonstration who have read more about the TPP than the likes of the knowitall rednecks here...

Why don't you give Jane a call.....or read what Rod has said you dick....

Ocean1

7th February 2016, 17:25

cant tell me that Rod Oram is a part of the rentacrowd.

This Rod Oram?......

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10833173

puddytat

7th February 2016, 17:28

Yep that's him....I love how people like him fuck off arrogant wankers who contribute to the herald...

gjm

7th February 2016, 17:33

This Rod Oram?......

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10833173

He must be good mates with John Key. Very good at running down anything someone else says, but doesn't have any ideas of his own.

Crasherfromwayback

7th February 2016, 17:33

[QUOTE=gjm;1130945393]
It's not that if we get in it's a good thing, rather if we don't get in it won't be so good.

Not sure why the Maoris are against it either as the agreement includes the Waitangi Treaty principles so that won't be affected ...

What's the big fuss ?

You're none too bright eh?

Ocean1

7th February 2016, 17:38

Yep that's him....I love how people like him fuck off arrogant wankers who contribute to the herald...

You didn't read Ocean's link, did you?

I can't say I've ever met the dude, let alone love him.

But if his opinion on economical matters differs from Bob's then I can't help but think that as his net worth is rather a lot less than Bob's then his opinion is woefully lacking in qualification by comparison.

For those of you who, for reasons of a motivational or ignorance nature didn't in fact read Ocean's link, here's a wee peek:

New Zealand's best-known economic doomsdayists are the articulate Rod Oram and Bernard Hickey, both serious Mintoitus sufferers.

Life for them must be a living hell, always only seeing the dark side and blind to the overwhelming positives everywhere. Once Bernard and Rod would have received prefrontal lobotomies to brighten them up but those procedures became discredited. Now it's Prozac although a bottle or two of red each day would also do the trick and they would henceforth see the world in its happier, more positive side.

Ocean1

7th February 2016, 17:43

He must be good mates with John Key. Very good at running down anything someone else says, but doesn't have any ideas of his own.

Well, see here's the thing: Whereas individual economic success requires skill in those various disciplines relating to that success, National economic success relies on just one thing from it's govt: To stay out of the fucking way while those who can, do, and to keep the rest of the parasites to a comfortable minimum.

So if JK need be good at just one thing then according to our recent economic performance I'd say he's got that nailed, yes?

Stylo

7th February 2016, 17:59

[QUOTE=Stylo;1130945503]

You're none too bright eh?

Call me none too bright when you have something to add too, which is ?

Waiting ......

Cup of Milo Crasher, time for an early night aye ?

Crasherfromwayback

7th February 2016, 18:11

[QUOTE=Crasherfromwayback;1130945523]

Call me none too bright when you have something to add too, which is ?

Waiting ......

Cup of Milo Crasher, time for an early night aye ?

Try post # 743 for starters numbnuts.

Crasherfromwayback

7th February 2016, 18:16

[QUOTE=Crasherfromwayback;1130945523]

Call me none too bright when you have something to add too, which is ?

Waiting ......

Cup of Milo Crasher, time for an early night aye ?

You may be brighter than this chap too. But I seriously doubt it.

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/02/04/sanders-vows-kill-tpp-if-elected-will-clinton

Stylo

7th February 2016, 18:17

[QUOTE=Stylo;1130945534]

Try post # 743 for starters numbnuts.

Being personally offensive is the first sign of weakness, I won't go that low.

You know it all by the sound of it. I won't go there . Conversation terminated.

Offend someone else tonight and have fun.

Crasherfromwayback

7th February 2016, 18:28

[QUOTE=Crasherfromwayback;1130945541]

Being personally offensive is the first sign of weakness, I won't go that low.

You know it all by the sound of it. I won't go there . Conversation terminated.

.

I don't you see. It's exactly why I listen/watch/learn from people that do. You should try it sometime, instead of burying your head up your arse.

puddytat

7th February 2016, 18:33

You didn't read Ocean's link, did you?

I can't say I've ever met the dude, let alone love him.

But if his opinion on economical matters differs from Bob's then I can't help but think that as his net worth is rather a lot less than Bob's then his opinion is woefully lacking in qualification by comparison.

For those of you who, for reasons of a motivational or ignorance nature didn't in fact read Ocean's link, here's a wee peek:

Of course I read that you dick...at least give me the benefit of the doubt that Im capable of trying to understand the likes of you......but just because Sir Bob doesn't like him doesn't mean he is any better than him. Two sides to every story .
See you cunts who are all about numbers & shit & who think you're better than your fellow man always look surprised when the people start to rise ....
Walls are not only for graffiti you know.

Katman

7th February 2016, 18:36

Walls are not only for graffiti you know.

Line 'em up.

TheDemonLord

7th February 2016, 18:36

Without getting embroiled in the debate - just for reference sake:

How many here have read the TPPA?

I have not (hence why I have very little opinion on the matter at this moment.)

Stylo

7th February 2016, 18:43

[QUOTE=Stylo;1130945544]

I don't you see. It's exactly why I listen/watch/learn from people that do. You should try it sometime, instead of burying your head up your arse.

Here we go again, It's always your way or no way - as usual.

Shame you don't understand the other side's point of view and don't show any capacity to do so.

Offend me again, as you do anyone who doesn't agree with you and always have done.

Waiting for the next offensive comment, as usual. I'm a little past that stage myself.

I've grown up. Obviously you haven't

Katman

7th February 2016, 18:44

How many here have read the TPPA?

I imagine the agreement is worded in such a manner that the vast majority of us would struggle to understand all it's nuances.

Deliberately so.

TheDemonLord

7th February 2016, 18:48

I imagine the agreement is worded in such a manner that the vast majority of us would struggle to understand all it's nuances.

Deliberately so.

Just for my reference - that is a no on your part? And so for further clarification you are taking any claims or counter claims about the good/bad of the TPPA on the basis of who is making them?

puddytat

7th February 2016, 18:48

I imagine the agreement is worded in such a manner that the vast majority of us would struggle to understand all it's nuances.

Deliberately so.
And the majority has been & still is secret....so I have relied only on what has been gleaned by the whistleblowers ...

Crasherfromwayback

7th February 2016, 18:59

[QUOTE=Crasherfromwayback;1130945551]

Shame you don't understand the other side's point of view and don't show any capacity to do so.

I've grown up. Obviously you haven't

I'm still waiting to see yours, as I have yet to see you add anything to the argument other than total drivel.

Let's see some links to academic experts that think the TPPA is shit hot for starters. I'm yet to see that. And if *growing up* means I was to become like you...fuck that.

Viking01

7th February 2016, 19:00

Without getting embroiled in the debate - just for reference sake:

How many here have read the TPPA?

I have not (hence why I have very little opinion on the matter at this moment.)

If you want one site that gives a summary of some of the key points, then the following gives
a fairly readable example:
http://www.tppafacts.co.nz/explore-issues/
It's broken out into several different dimensions.

If you want to read the TPPA document - and look at specific sections, then I've attached a
link to the TPPA document that was uploaded by MFAT about a month ago:
https://www.tpp.mfat.govt.nz/text
It is broken out into 30 sections, and you can choose to read what you want.

Cheers

Katman

7th February 2016, 19:05

If you want one site that gives a summary of some of the key points, then the following gives
a fairly readable example:
http://www.tppafacts.co.nz/explore-issues/
It's broken out into several different dimensions.

If you want to read the TPPA document - and look at specific sections, then I've attached a
link to the TPPA document that was uploaded by MFAT about a month ago:
https://www.tpp.mfat.govt.nz/text
It is broken out into 30 sections, and you can choose to read what you want.

Cheers

Dude, TheDemonLard wasn't planning on reading it.

He was merely hoping to establise some sort of moral ascendancy.

TheDemonLord

7th February 2016, 19:08

Dude, TheDemonLard wasn't planning on reading it.

He was merely hoping to establise some sort of moral ascendancy.

Nope - just curious - However since he actually provided a link (You should be taking notes here Katman) - I might have a flick through.

Katman

7th February 2016, 19:10

I might have a flick through.

Cool.

Report back to us.

Crasherfromwayback

7th February 2016, 19:13

[
I doubt that very few of the dickheads holding up the streets of Auckland have read it, if only partially and I doubt that too.

?

Personal insults and name calling is incredibly childish and immature don't you know. Hypocrisy is a pet hate of mine. Dickhead.

TheDemonLord

7th February 2016, 19:25

Cool.

Report back to us.

Why? And more importantly, Why aren't you reading it?

Stylo

7th February 2016, 19:26

[QUOTE=Stylo;1130945561]

I'm still waiting to see yours, as I have yet to see you add anything to the argument other than total drivel.

Let's see some links to academic experts that think the TPPA is shit hot for starters. I'm yet to see that. And if *growing up* means I was to become like you...fuck that.

Are you pissed ?

Still clutching at straws again I see, nice to see you hot under the collar :-) Erudition a bit lacking though. Schoolyard swear words like 'fuck that' completely betray your lack of integrity. And intelligence.

Once again you've missed my side of the argument, solely focussed on your side. I can see your side but, you can't acknowledge mine .

Can you please expand on the 'total drivel' statement too please, I'm always good for a healthy discussion .

Katman

7th February 2016, 19:34

Why? And more importantly, Why aren't you reading it?

Where are you up to?

Oakie

7th February 2016, 19:36

Pretty sure no one is going to change their minds on TPPA now. Can we talk about something else?

Katman

7th February 2016, 19:39

Can we talk about something else?

Of course you can.

Fuck off to another thread.

Brian d marge

7th February 2016, 19:41

TheDemonLord

7th February 2016, 19:52

Where are you up to?

I read Chapter 1, 3 (2 wouldn't load) and am on Chapter 4,

So far Chapter one was about terms and definitions and Chapter 3 is about defining what is necessary for a Product (or material) to be considered originating in a TPPA country, About how Materials are used, when a non TPPA material refined in another country, How value is calculated, what tarrifs are applicable and in what scenarios and who owns the byproduct.

Its certainly written in Legalese, but apart from being long winded (in order to define a specific item or scenario), It's not impossible or inaccessible to read.

But you haven't answered the question - as you care about it (and I'm not fussed) Why is it me that is reading it and not you? You always claim to have done research in any of the topics where we butt heads and are always quick to tell the opposition that they need to educate themselves or should read up more - so I am genuinely curious as to why you haven't read it?

Madness

7th February 2016, 19:59

Once again you've missed my side of the argument, solely focussed on your side. I can see your side but, you can't acknowledge mine.

You have an argument? Can you provide a link to that for us, I certainly missed it.

Be nice to hear from someone who's against it and have actually read and digested the 6000 pages of the agreement and tell me why they're against it . I haven't but I've spent some time today reading about it and it kind of makes some sense.
...

It's not that if we get in it's a good thing, rather if we don't get in it won't be so good.

What's the big fuss ?

Brian d marge

7th February 2016, 20:01

I read Chapter 1, 3 (2 wouldn't load) and am on Chapter 4,

So far Chapter one was about terms and definitions and Chapter 3 is about defining what is necessary for a Product (or material) to be considered originating in a TPPA country, About how Materials are used, when a non TPPA material refined in another country, How value is calculated, what tarrifs are applicable and in what scenarios and who owns the byproduct.

Its certainly written in Legalese, but apart from being long winded (in order to define a specific item or scenario), It's not impossible or inaccessible to read.

But you haven't answered the question - as you care about it (and I'm not fussed) Why is it me that is reading it and not you? You always claim to have done research in any of the topics where we butt heads and are always quick to tell the opposition that they need to educate themselves or should read up more - so I am genuinely curious as to why you haven't read it?
Long winded ...damn they took lesson from Charles Dickens and are getting paid by the letter

That's probably why they fuss so much about the letter of the law

Nice work I'd you can get it

Sent from my SC-01G using Tapatalk

TheDemonLord

7th February 2016, 20:09

Long winded ...damn they took lesson from Charles Dickens and are getting paid by the letter

That's probably why they fuss so much about the letter of the law

Nice work I'd you can get it

Sent from my SC-01G using Tapatalk

A good friend of mine is a Lawyer and I remember having a conversation with him about Legalese in contract law - I don't entirely agree with his reasoning (that in law, specific words have specific meaning and certain terms must be defined in any contract) - but even he joked that it was partly to keep the proles out...

Akzle

7th February 2016, 20:21

I'm always good for a healthy discussion .

the fuck you are.

Crasherfromwayback

7th February 2016, 20:23

[QUOTE=Crasherfromwayback;1130945580]

Are you pissed ?

Still clutching at straws again I see, nice to see you hot under the collar :-) Erudition a bit lacking though. Schoolyard swear words like 'fuck that' completely betray your lack of integrity. And intelligence.

Once again you've missed my side of the argument, solely focussed on your side. I can see your side but, you can't acknowledge mine .

Can you please expand on the 'total drivel' statement too please, I'm always good for a healthy discussion .

No. But you must be. Let's see...in the beginning, you called the protesters a bunch of dickheads right? Am I correct so far? I had some good friends that were there doing their bit, and I can assure you, they're far from dickheads.

Next, I have actually taken the time to look into it, and I don't like what I've seen. You on the other hand, by your own admission, haven't bothered.

So just what *is* your side of the argument you fucking meatsack?

Lastly...you called them *dickheads*, long before I called you numbnuts. Yet you take the time to tell me what an imbecile I am for using such language. I love it. Long way to fall from where you are.

mashman

7th February 2016, 21:04

Well, see here's the thing: Whereas individual economic success requires skill in those various disciplines relating to that success, National economic success relies on just one thing from it's govt: To stay out of the fucking way while those who can, do, and to keep the rest of the parasites to a comfortable minimum.

So if JK need be good at just one thing then according to our recent economic performance I'd say he's got that nailed, yes?

How does your "money can't be printed coz inflation" bullshit work again? :killingme :rofl: :wari:

mashman

7th February 2016, 21:17

You have an argument? Can you provide a link to that for us, I certainly missed it.

TPPMS... bwaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, beaut!

Woodman

7th February 2016, 21:36

Where would it leave NZ if we opted out and all the others joined it?

pete376403

7th February 2016, 21:53

Where would it leave NZ if we opted out and all the others joined it?

For a start it would screw up Keys retirement plans

Crasherfromwayback

7th February 2016, 22:15

For a start it would screw up Keys retirement plans

Absolutely!

jasonu

8th February 2016, 04:41

Without getting embroiled in the debate - just for reference sake:

How many here have read the TPPA?

I have not (hence why I have very little opinion on the matter at this moment.)

Most will be basing their views on what they read in the Harold, over heard in the smoko room or are against it simply because the government is for it.

RDJ

8th February 2016, 08:14

Where would it leave NZ if we opted out and all the others joined it?

Seriously uncompetitive; frozen out of markets we need to sell our products to; we'd have to get around that be employing a broker, say Australia, who could buy low from us and sell high and they'd pocket the difference. On the plus side, the Treaty, Union, Corporate and other Troughers could also suffer reduced income levels, although probably not - the rest of us would be taxed more as individuals to keep filling the Treaty and Union Troughs. GST to 20% amongst other stupidities. A John Minto / Sue Bradford economy.

Ocean1

8th February 2016, 08:20

How does your "money can't be printed coz inflation" bullshit work again? :killingme :rofl: :wari:

You've never heard me say that.

However, the foundation of your belief system; that using more money to define a set range of goods actually increases the quantity of goods is certainly gibberish.

Ocean1

8th February 2016, 08:27

Where would it leave NZ if we opted out and all the others joined it?

Aye. There's a great deal of anguish about the deal being good for only a few million, (when in fact any improvement on current trade balance at all represents a win) but failing to agree with the trade deal you instigated in the first place would see our economic prospects plummet. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

For a start it would screw up Keys retirement plans

Really? I'd suggest he's one of the very few in NZ who doesn't rely on national economic prosperity to support him in retirement.

mashman

8th February 2016, 08:29

You've never heard me say that.

However, the foundation of your belief system; that using more money to define a set range of goods actually increases the quantity of goods is certainly gibberish.

Yeah, whatever... see what I did there.

By your own admission you don't understand my belief system. Claiming gibberish = Ruckin Fetarded

Katman

8th February 2016, 08:56

What was that about rent-a-crowd?

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/67521779/i-wont-pick-up-phone-key-dismisses-peters

:whistle:

pete376403

8th February 2016, 09:13

Aye. There's a great deal of anguish about the deal being good for only a few million, (when in fact any improvement on current trade balance at all represents a win) but failing to agree with the trade deal you instigated in the first place would see our economic prospects plummet. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

Really? I'd suggest he's one of the very few in NZ who doesn't rely on national economic prosperity to support him in retirement.

OK not retirement as most of us will see it, but his future life after he ceases being PM. If you look at most ex-PMs, Presidents, etc, they go on to have extremely privileged lives in the corporate world, as reward for supporting the needs of the corporate lobbyists while they were in power.

pete376403

8th February 2016, 09:29

Something that's possibly worth considering.

https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2015/01/09/dumping-radioactive-food-from-japan-on-the-world-why-the-tpp-is-a-pending-disaster/

So with TPPA banning country of origin labelling from food, and Investor States Disputes meaning corporations can sue foreign governments for lost profits, Japan could export its dangerously irradiated food (they wont eat it themselves) to another country, where, even though the radiation exceeds the recipient countries legal limits, the government can't or wont restrict it because of the chilling effect of ISD. Great. Coming to a cheap food warehouse near you, Fukushima Two minute noodles "they last nearly forever, half-life of over a thousand years!"

Paulo

8th February 2016, 09:37

Seriously uncompetitive; frozen out of markets we need to sell our products to; we'd have to get around that be employing a broker, say Australia, who could buy low from us and sell high and they'd pocket the difference. On the plus side, the Treaty, Union, Corporate and other Troughers could also suffer reduced income levels, although probably not - the rest of us would be taxed more as individuals to keep filling the Treaty and Union Troughs. GST to 20% amongst other stupidities. A John Minto / Sue Bradford economy.

Here's a good report countering the highly dubious figures being bandied about by MFAT (obviously not the sort of critical analysis you'll find in the Herald)

http://www.ase.tufts.edu/gdae/Pubs/wp/16-01Capaldo-IzurietaTPP.pdf

Paulo

8th February 2016, 09:39

Here's a good report countering the highly dubious figures being bandied about by MFAT (obviously not the sort of critical analysis you'll find in the Herald)

http://www.ase.tufts.edu/gdae/Pubs/wp/16-01Capaldo-IzurietaTPP.pdf

and here's the summary if you dont want to read all 24 pages.

In the main existing assessments, the TPP is projected to generate small gains in GDP in most
participating economies. However, these projections are based on an economic model that
assumes full employment and invariant income distribution, thereby excluding, from the outset,
some of the most serious risks of trade liberalization.
Projecting the effects of the TPP with a different economic model, based on more realistic
assumptions about economic adjustment and income distribution, leads to different results. We
project that the TPP will lead to a contraction of GDP in the United States and in Japan, and
negligible income gains in other countries. We also project job losses and higher inequality in all
participating economies. In the face of negligible or negative income gains, the costs of the TPP
are projected to fall asymmetrically on labor.
Furthermore, when analyzed with a model that recognizes the risks of trade liberalization, the
TPP appears to only marginally change competitiveness among participating countries. Most
gains are therefore obtained at the expense of non-TPP countries.
Globally, the TPP favors competition on labor costs and remuneration of capital. Depending on
the policy choices in non-TPP countries, this may accelerate the global race to the bottom,
increasing downward pressure on labor incomes in a quest for ever more elusive trade gains.

Woodman

8th February 2016, 10:22

mashman

8th February 2016, 10:45

I wonder if Sue Bradford if, god help us she was in a position of power, would make the decision to not join the TPPA if everyone else did? Surely even she can't be that stupid/short sighted/have no understanding of where her bludging supporters "wages" come from?:shutup:

At the end of the day NZ has no option but to follow the crowd as we are way way way too small to go it alone or threaten the other members. Its a harsh reality.:sick:

"My" economic model can make the TTP agreements moot. By ya'll know the price of that eh :killingme@follow.

Woodman

8th February 2016, 10:50

"My" economic model can make the TTP agreements moot. By ya'll know the price of that eh :killingme@follow.

All good in theory, but would you have the balls to lead the country into it? and live with the consequences either way.

mashman

8th February 2016, 10:53

All good in theory, but would you have the balls to lead the country into it? and live with the consequences either way.

That's exactly what I intend to do. However there's more than just me, and I am not a candidate for leading your country. You won't let me.

Woodman

8th February 2016, 10:56

That's exactly what I intend to do. However there's more than just me, and I am not a candidate for leading your country. You won't let me.

Goodonya, but the fact is the people want "safe", so rightly or wrongly, you lose:nya:

Crasherfromwayback

8th February 2016, 11:07

At the end of the day NZ has no option but to follow the crowd as we are way way way too small to go it alone or threaten the other members. Its a harsh reality.:sick:

We did our own thing regarding nuclear warships/power and we seem to be going ok.

mashman

8th February 2016, 11:09

Goodonya, but the fact is the people want "safe", so rightly or wrongly, you lose:nya:

We'll see in regards to what people want...

Akzle

8th February 2016, 11:23

At the end of the day NZ has no option but to follow the crowd as we are way way way too small to go it alone or threaten the other members. Its a harsh reality.:sick:
conversely, we're small enough not to need everyone else.

Nz could be a self sufficient nation. And fuck the rest of the world.

But, y'know, imf and shit.

All good in theory, but would you have the balls to lead the country into it? and live with the consequences either way.

vote akzle

Woodman

8th February 2016, 12:27

That's exactly what I intend to do. However there's more than just me, and I am not a candidate for leading your country. You won't let me.

Oh, I am sure we will, but just because something is popular, doesn't mean its right.

Brian d marge

8th February 2016, 14:09

and here's the summary if you dont want to read all 24 pages.

In the main existing assessments, the TPP is projected to generate small gains in GDP in most
participating economies. However, these projections are based on an economic model that
assumes full employment and invariant income distribution, thereby excluding, from the outset,
some of the most serious risks of trade liberalization.
Projecting the effects of the TPP with a different economic model, based on more realistic
assumptions about economic adjustment and income distribution, leads to different results. We
project that the TPP will lead to a contraction of GDP in the United States and in Japan, and
negligible income gains in other countries. We also project job losses and higher inequality in all
participating economies. In the face of negligible or negative income gains, the costs of the TPP
are projected to fall asymmetrically on labor.
Furthermore, when analyzed with a model that recognizes the risks of trade liberalization, the
TPP appears to only marginally change competitiveness among participating countries. Most
gains are therefore obtained at the expense of non-TPP countries.
Globally, the TPP favors competition on labor costs and remuneration of capital. Depending on
the policy choices in non-TPP countries, this may accelerate the global race to the bottom,
increasing downward pressure on labor incomes in a quest for ever more elusive trade gains.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/86URGgqONvA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

tis the only thing I can think of now .........

Katman

8th February 2016, 14:21

I wonder if Sue Bradford if, god help us she was in a position of power, would make the decision to not join the TPPA if everyone else did? Surely even she can't be that stupid/short sighted/have no understanding of where her bludging supporters "wages" come from?:shutup:

At the end of the day NZ has no option but to follow the crowd as we are way way way too small to go it alone or threaten the other members. Its a harsh reality.:sick:

Every country involved has their share of protesters.

The TPPA needs to be shut down entirely.

http://www.telesurtv.net/english/multimedia/Chile-Takes-to-the-Streets-Against-TTP-20160205-0001.html

At least Bernie Sanders has come out and stated that the TTPA will not be ratified if he becomes President.

RDJ

8th February 2016, 14:21

and here's the summary if you dont want to read all 24 pages.

In the main existing assessments, the TPP is projected to generate small gains in GDP in most
participating economies. However, these projections are based on an economic model that
assumes full employment and invariant income distribution, thereby excluding, from the outset,
some of the most serious risks of trade liberalization.
Projecting the effects of the TPP with a different economic model, based on more realistic
assumptions about economic adjustment and income distribution, leads to different results. We
project that the TPP will lead to a contraction of GDP in the United States and in Japan, and
negligible income gains in other countries. We also project job losses and higher inequality in all
participating economies. In the face of negligible or negative income gains, the costs of the TPP
are projected to fall asymmetrically on labor.
Furthermore, when analyzed with a model that recognizes the risks of trade liberalization, the
TPP appears to only marginally change competitiveness among participating countries. Most
gains are therefore obtained at the expense of non-TPP countries.
Globally, the TPP favors competition on labor costs and remuneration of capital. Depending on
the policy choices in non-TPP countries, this may accelerate the global race to the bottom,
increasing downward pressure on labor incomes in a quest for ever more elusive trade gains.

Thank you, I did read that. And I think the takeaway from it - for me anyway - is that gains are obtained at the expense of non-TPP countries which means if we don't join, we are losing. Whether or not is it is a race to the bottom - we will have to see. it is not for nothing that economics is designated the dismal science. And economic predictors have an even worse track record than the global warmenists - which is quite a (negative) achievement.

Also, it remains a significant worry that many people who are opposing the TPPA are doing so on the basis of a World Bank report. The WB is one of the most corrupt international organisations in existence (but still far behind the UN and UNHCR).

Woodman

8th February 2016, 15:50

Every country involved has their share of protesters.

The TPPA needs to be shut down entirely.

http://www.telesurtv.net/english/multimedia/Chile-Takes-to-the-Streets-Against-TTP-20160205-0001.html

At least Bernie Sanders has come out and stated that the TTPA will not be ratified if he becomes President.

I agree with you.:weird:... God help me

mashman

8th February 2016, 16:03

Oh, I am sure we will, but just because something is popular, doesn't mean its right.

I realise that logic, reason and common sense are merely absent with official leave ;)... but they've not gone, we all have it. Everything we need to fix is in front of us, we merely need to stop leaving everything to the whims of the market, and to start doing what needs to be done because it is actually what we're trying to achieve, but can't coz financial constraint and associated consequences.

And democracy will decide it. It'll be interesting to see who gives a shit about the economy then ;). Tantalising prospect :shifty:

Ocean1

8th February 2016, 16:16

Yeah, whatever... see what I did there.

By your own admission you don't understand my belief system. Claiming gibberish = Ruckin Fetarded

No, get it right, you made shit up. Again.

Understand it? You make shit like that up to suit your wildly contradictory beliefs, how could anything you say be anything but gibberish?

Paulo

8th February 2016, 16:19

Thank you, I did read that. And I think the takeaway from it - for me anyway - is that gains are obtained at the expense of non-TPP countries which means if we don't join, we are losing. Whether or not is it is a race to the bottom - we will have to see. it is not for nothing that economics is designated the dismal science. And economic predictors have an even worse track record than the global warmenists - which is quite a (negative) achievement.

Also, it remains a significant worry that many people who are opposing the TPPA are doing so on the basis of a World Bank report. The WB is one of the most corrupt international organisations in existence (but still far behind the UN and UNHCR).

cheers for a thoughtful reply! Guess we will find out one way or another in time.

Ocean1

8th February 2016, 16:26

OK not retirement as most of us will see it, but his future life after he ceases being PM. If you look at most ex-PMs, Presidents, etc, they go on to have extremely privileged lives in the corporate world, as reward for supporting the needs of the corporate lobbyists while they were in power.

Is that the same "privileged" rich pricks get?

Nothing to do with any value they've actually contributed?

Doesn't it occur to you that the behaviour any govt policy rewards is the behaviour that generates income? Y'know, where the money comes from to pay for all the shit that doesn't happen otherwise?

Jesus Christ on a crutch, why anyone bothers conducting actual business with prevailing attitudes like that has got me fucked.

Ocean1

8th February 2016, 16:30

Surely even she can't be that stupid/short sighted/have no understanding of where her bludging supporters "wages" come from?:shutup:

It's not only a common lack of understanding, it's prevalent. It's like their whole brain is so filled with ideas about how to spend tax money there's no room for even the concept of where it comes form in the first place.

mashman

8th February 2016, 16:52

No, get it right, you made shit up. Again.

Understand it? You make shit like that up to suit your wildly contradictory beliefs, how could anything you say be anything but gibberish?

I tell you what, you're slippers are nice too... and that blanket.

The only contradiction is the one that you've created for me, brother. You're lack of understanding is simply not my problem. But yeah, nice slippers n blanket. A pipe might go well with that too.

mashman

8th February 2016, 16:56

Jesus Christ on a crutch, why anyone bothers conducting actual business with prevailing attitudes like that has got me fucked.

Some people enjoy it, but

"WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Less than one-third (31.5%) of U.S. workers were engaged in their jobs in 2014. The average is up nearly two percentage points from 29.6% in 2013 and represents the highest reading since 2000, when Gallup first began tracking the engagement levels of the U.S. working population. However, a majority of employees, 51%, were still "not engaged" and 17.5% were "actively disengaged" in 2014."

http://images.medicaldaily.com/sites/medicaldaily.com/files/styles/headline/public/2014/09/09/crying-babies-need-be-handled-mentally-healthy-mom.jpg

Brian d marge

8th February 2016, 17:00

It's not only a common lack of understanding, it's prevalent. It's like their whole brain is so filled with ideas about how to spend tax money there's no room for even the concept of where it comes form in the first place.
Are you sure you dont want to buy a bridge one owner has a beaut extension

Sent from my SC-01G using Tapatalk

Ocean1

8th February 2016, 17:02

Some people enjoy it,

I do. I don't take the resulting benefits for granted, and I dont't expect anyone else to either.

"WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Less than one-third (31.5%) of U.S. workers were engaged in their jobs in 2014. The average is up nearly two percentage points from 29.6% in 2013 and represents the highest reading since 2000, when Gallup first began tracking the engagement levels of the U.S. working population. However, a majority of employees, 51%, were still "not engaged" and 17.5% were "actively disengaged" in 2014."

Well, having someone pay you to do shit doesn't mean you have to enjoy doing it, does it?

In which case the trick would be finding shit that you enjoy doing that other people will pay you to do, wouldn't it?

Don't seem like such a difficult thing to do if you've go the balls to match your ambition.

Ocean1

8th February 2016, 17:10

Are you sure you dont want to buy a bridge one owner has a beaut extension

Sent from my SC-01G using Tapatalk

Now why would I buy your latest imaginary commercial disaster when I haven't been tempted by any of your other imaginary bullshit?

mashman

8th February 2016, 17:13

I do. I don't take the resulting benefits for granted, and I dont't expect anyone else to either.

Shame. Tough shit. Pay more.

Well, having someone pay you to do shit doesn't mean you have to enjoy doing it, does it?

In which case the trick would be finding shit that you enjoy doing that other people will pay you to do, wouldn't it?

Don't seem like such a difficult thing to do if you've go the balls to match your ambition.

Yes. Else you're robbing the human being of their right to a happy and fulfilling life... but you're all that's on offer, so...

Brilliant. Let's keep waiting on money before we get on with doing what we're trying to achieve done.

The balls, and brains, exist. The market, not so much coz money.

Ocean1

8th February 2016, 18:18

Shame. Tough shit. Pay more.

Yes. Else you're robbing the human being of their right to a happy and fulfilling life... but you're all that's on offer, so...

Brilliant. Let's keep waiting on money before we get on with doing what we're trying to achieve done.

The balls, and brains, exist. The market, not so much coz money.

Ah, no, that's very much get fucked.

And they've got a right to expect me to make 'em happy, eh? Tell them get fucked too.

Or you could, y'know: earn it.

They do. They belong to those that earn what they want. Coz money.

Katman

8th February 2016, 18:20

Ah, no, that's very much get fucked.

And they've got a right to expect me to make 'em happy, eh? Tell them get fucked too.

Or you could, y'know: earn it.

They do. They belong to those that earn what they want. Coz money.

You should do us all a favour and work yourself to an early grave.

Ocean1

8th February 2016, 18:33

You should do us all a favour and work yourself to an early grave.

Did your mother tell you that work will kill you?

Or did you just make that up to cover your lazy arse?

Brian d marge

8th February 2016, 18:39

Now why would I buy your latest imaginary commercial disaster when I haven't been tempted by any of your other imaginary bullshit?
Well I figured
Ya might swing for it
Seeing you fell for the other neocon bull
If they could convice you that the hidden hand of the market was real
I figured I had a chance with the bridge

Baltic dry index 297 hahahHaAAAA

Omg 297 hahahahahhhhaaaa

Sure ya dont want the bridge [emoji8]

Sent from my SC-01G using Tapatalk

mashman

8th February 2016, 19:42

Ah, no, that's very much get fucked.

And they've got a right to expect me to make 'em happy, eh? Tell them get fucked too.

Or you could, y'know: earn it.

They do. They belong to those that earn what they want. Coz money.

Yeah, you give that vibe.

Nope.

Caveman.

You give that vibe too. Coz money.

gjm

8th February 2016, 19:56

Meanwhile, back on topic...

The full text of the TPPA (as it applies to NZ) was released on January 16th, a couple of weeks or so before it was ratified and signed.

Since then, a number of people have read the entire transcript, and not one single person among those people have said it is a good idea. Several sections of the TPPA were released before this (Wikileaks, et al) and again, the people who have read this do not condone signing.

So, the government says sign, and backs this with their 'analysts', none of whom are known to the public. The people the public do know (of) who have inspected the document unanimously say it's a bad idea. (And that's worldwide - not just in lil' ol' NZ.)

Even several US Presidential candidates (who I hope have suitably qualified advisors, but I wouldn't bet on it) say they will veto the TPPA.

So... Who's correct? Those who are presumably qualified but have refused to discuss it and blithely insist it is 'a good thing,' or those known to be suitably qualified who have read and analysed it and say it is not?

Madness

8th February 2016, 19:59

A Canadian perspective that all sounds quite familiar.

http://canadians.org/tpp

pete376403

8th February 2016, 21:50

Is that the same "privileged" rich pricks get?

Nothing to do with any value they've actually contributed?

Doesn't it occur to you that the behaviour any govt policy rewards is the behaviour that generates income? Y'know, where the money comes from to pay for all the shit that doesn't happen otherwise?

Jesus Christ on a crutch, why anyone bothers conducting actual business with prevailing attitudes like that has got me fucked.
Cant comment on JK since he hasn't retired from politics yet, but for example, Dubya Bush has "earned" $15 million since leaving the White house. Tell me about the value he contributed to anyone but defense contractors, Halliburton, etc.

Brian d marge

8th February 2016, 21:54

I'll leave kb for 15 k. Promise

Sent from my SC-01G using Tapatalk

mashman

8th February 2016, 21:56

I'll leave kb for 15 k. Promise

Sent from my SC-01G using Tapatalk

Worth every $. 20k for me.

Brian d marge

8th February 2016, 22:19

Worth every $. 20k for me.
There is is a decimal point in there you basket

Sent from my SC-01G using Tapatalk

mashman

8th February 2016, 22:21

There is is a decimal point in there you basket

Sent from my SC-01G using Tapatalk

:killingme... pessimist :bleh:

mashman

9th February 2016, 11:41

Angela Merkel surprised by massive protest march against TTIP in Berlin (http://uk.businessinsider.com/r-hundreds-of-thousands-protest-in-berlin-against-eu-us-trade-deal-2015-10)... I love the use of the word fair. For who?

gjm

9th February 2016, 12:43

mashman

9th February 2016, 15:27

I love the word 'surprised' in the title!

:laugh:... bonus points

mashman

9th February 2016, 15:35

Oh and did anyone see any form of hoopla over this really important life changing agreement?

Yeah, but... to 2:00 is enough... but by all means carry on if ya need to.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAeNU3n2Jts

Woodman

9th February 2016, 16:47

Ocean1

9th February 2016, 18:12

Cant comment on JK since he hasn't retired from politics yet, but for example, Dubya Bush has "earned" $15 million since leaving the White house. Tell me about the value he contributed to anyone but defense contractors, Halliburton, etc.

I must admit I'm also shocked that someone who the majority of voters in the largest economy in the world chose to manage the administration of their affairs turns out to have marketable qualities.

I mean, who'da picked that? :scratch:

pete376403

9th February 2016, 19:32

I must admit I'm also shocked that someone who the majority of the Supreme Court in the largest economy in the world chose to manage the administration of their affairs turns out to have marketable qualities.

I mean, who'da picked that? :scratch:

Fixed that for ya

Ocean1

9th February 2016, 19:50

Fixed that for ya

Wrong. But either way a great deal more qualified than you to decide what he's worth.

But then, you're not the one backing your decisions with your own money. Are you?

pete376403

9th February 2016, 21:44

Wrong. But either way a great deal more qualified than you to decide what he's worth.

But then, you're not the one backing your decisions with your own money. Are you?

Yes I do. No-one else pays my way. (apart from the things that all of us, even you, get as part of living in this country, like roads, a mostly ok health system, stuff like that)

Ocean1

10th February 2016, 06:48

Yes I do. No-one else pays my way. (apart from the things that all of us, even you, get as part of living in this country, like roads, a mostly ok health system, stuff like that)

That was rather my point. How you spend your money is your business, why would you object to anyone else spending theirs on hiring an ex politician?

Brian d marge

10th February 2016, 21:58

That was rather my point. How you spend your money is your business, why would you object to anyone else spending theirs on hiring an ex politician?
Why use your own ...most bankers use other people's much safer

Sent from my SC-01G using Tapatalk

gjm

11th February 2016, 07:38

That was rather my point. How you spend your money is your business, why would you object to anyone else spending theirs on hiring an ex politician?

Why use your own ...most bankers use other people's much safer

So do the government.

mashman

11th February 2016, 07:41

That was rather my point. How you spend your money is your business, why would you object to anyone else spending theirs on hiring an ex politician?

Potential conflict of interest and potential social and market distortion.

Brian d marge

11th February 2016, 14:51

Potential conflict of interest and potential social and market distortion.
Nothing unusual with that ... Adam Smith called it the invisible hand

Sent from my SC-01G using Tapatalk

mashman

11th February 2016, 18:03

Nothing unusual with that ... Adam Smith called it the invisible hand

Sent from my SC-01G using Tapatalk

Didn't he play centre forward for england?

Brian d marge

11th February 2016, 18:08

Didn't he play centre forward for england?
That was the hand of God and he was a foreign chappy

Bad form eh watt. Bad form

Sent from my SC-01G using Tapatalk

Katman

11th February 2016, 18:14

So it should be obvious by now, to all who are reading this thread, that the TTPA, TTIP, and TISA is simply America's answer to BRICS.

Ocean1

11th February 2016, 18:27

Potential conflict of interest and potential social and market distortion.

The only interests conflicted by people spending their own money are those of people who'd rather it was spent on them.

Socialists. They can earn their own or go fuck themselves.

Katman

11th February 2016, 18:53

Socialists. They can earn their own or go fuck themselves.

Here's hoping you fuck yourself with your own.

Cocksucker.

bogan

11th February 2016, 18:55

So it should be obvious by now, to all who are reading this thread, that the TTPA, TTIP, and TISA is simply America's answer to BRICS.

Who are neither signatories of it, nor sanctioned by it. So it'd be a pretty shitty answer, but I guess you're good at those :whistle:

The only interests conflicted by people spending their own money are those who'd rather it was spent on them.

Socialists. They can earn their own or go fuck themselves.

The main ones sure, but not the only ones. Ie, not all socialists are living in the red... :shifty:

Katman

11th February 2016, 18:59

Who are neither signatories of it, nor sanctioned by it. So it'd be a pretty shitty answer, but I guess you're good at those :whistle:

Well I guess you missed the whole point of my post.

Shitforbrains.

bogan

11th February 2016, 19:02

Well I guess you missed the whole point of my post.

Shitforbrains.

Try putting one in next time.

The only point I could see was the idea that the TPPA would somehow put BRICS on the back foot so as to keep US ahead of these growing economies, which, as I said, is a pretty shitty answer given they didn't sign it, nor are sanctioned by it.

But perhaps you meant a 'different' point you'll now refuse to elaborate on :killingme

Katman

11th February 2016, 19:07

Try putting one in next time.

The only point I could see was the idea that the TPPA would somehow put BRICS on the back foot so as to keep US ahead of these growing economies, which, as I said, is a pretty shitty answer given they didn't sign it, nor are sanctioned by it.

You truly are a stupid cunt.

Brasil, Russia, India, China and South Africa are not included in any of the three agreements.

Can you figure out why?

Shitforbrains.

bogan

11th February 2016, 19:11

You truly are a stupid cunt.

Brasil, Russia, India, China and South Africa are not included in any of the three agreements.

Can you figure out why?

Shitforbrains.

Dude, I'm like 3 steps ahead of you already. Because they are not included, it means it's not going to affect them fuck all when it comes to trading with TPPA parties, let alone building their economies. How are you still not catching up to this?

Ocean1

11th February 2016, 19:12

The main ones sure, but not the only ones. Ie, not all socialists are living in the red... :shifty:

Well, almost by definition socialists spend, (or want to spend) other people's money.

Not necessarily synonymouse, though, I'm sure there's other unnatural forms of deviants that want to spend other people's money...

Katman

11th February 2016, 19:13

Dude, I'm like 3 steps ahead of you already. Because they are not included, it means it's not going to affect them fuck all when it comes to trading with TPPA parties, let alone building their economies. How are you still not catching up to this?

:facepalm:

Brian d marge

11th February 2016, 19:14

So it should be obvious by now, to all who are reading this thread, that the TTPA, TTIP, and TISA is simply America's answer to BRICS.
They renamed it ...The central bank I think only backward unloved country's like.

Ummm

...

North Korea and .........
Ummmmm. .....

There's one more
Anyway only backward unloved countries are devoid of a central bank ..

PS ..... Hot investment tip ... Venezuelain wallpaper is REALLY cheap at the mo

Possibly will get cheaper as they flew in three airplanes full of paper to feed the printing presses

Sent from my SC-01G using Tapatalk

Ocean1

11th February 2016, 19:15

Here's hoping you fuck yourself with your own.

Cocksucker.

Aww, you're jealous you can't afford to pay someone else to do it for you.

How cute. In a loser sort of way.

Brian d marge

11th February 2016, 19:16

Well, almost by definition socialists spend, (or want to spend) other people's money.

Not necessarily synonymouse, though, I'm sure there's other unnatural forms of deviants that want to spend other people's money...
That makes the shonkey donkey a socialist
Damnnnnnn
Life in the alternative universe really IS different

Sent from my SC-01G using Tapatalk

bogan

11th February 2016, 19:20

Well, almost by definition socialists spend, (or want to spend) other people's money.

Not necessarily synonymouse, though, I'm sure there's other unnatural forms of deviants that want to spend other people's money...

It's the almost that gums up the works though doesn't it.

:facepalm:

You gonna self censor that? or maybe change it to include a counterpoint? I guess it can be hard to come up with clever things to say when you're so obviously wrong, but perhaps get an education?

Ocean1

11th February 2016, 19:21

That makes the shonkey donkey a socialist
Damnnnnnn
Life in the alternative universe really IS different

Sent from my SC-01G using Tapatalk

You could get rid of him in a single move: Zero tax.

But like any socialist you want to eat your cake AND keep it.

Brian d marge

11th February 2016, 19:23

Baltic Dry Index
+ Watchlist
BDIY:IND
290.00
1.00

Hahahahahahahahahah

Brakes are working capt ....she's a slowin

Sent from my SC-01G using Tapatalk

Katman

11th February 2016, 19:23

You gonna self censor that? or maybe change it to include a counterpoint? I guess it can be hard to come up with clever things to say when you're so obviously wrong, but perhaps get an education?

I'll spell it out for you shitforbrains.

The TPPA, TTIP and TISA are nothing more than America stamping their claim as number 1 world ruler by swamping the emerging nations of BRICS.

You're just too fucking stupid to see it.

bogan

11th February 2016, 19:28

I'll spell it out for you shitforbrains.

The TPPA, TTIP and TISA are nothing more than America stamping their claim as number 1 world ruler by swamping the emerging nations of BRICS.

You're just too fucking stupid to see it.

So, what are they swamping them with?

Orders? (https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5700.html)

Yeh, buying their stuff and increaing their GDP will sure show them :facepalm: (see KM, that's where you should use that particular emoticon, after you show somebody just how fucking stupid their shit is)

Katman

11th February 2016, 19:30

So, what are they swamping them with?

With a trade deal that doesn't include them.

Shitforbrains.

TheDemonLord

11th February 2016, 19:37

Scuba_Steve

11th February 2016, 19:37

Socialists. They can earn their own or go fuck themselves.

Funny, the above is pretty much my feelings towards capitalists

Ocean1

11th February 2016, 19:41

Funny, the above is pretty much my feelings towards capitalists

Ignorance isn't really funny, dude.

And I'm not a capitalist.

Brian d marge

11th February 2016, 19:44

And I'm not a capitalist.

Have you thought of a career as a comedian

Sent from my SC-01G using Tapatalk

Scuba_Steve

11th February 2016, 19:48

Ignorance isn't really funny, dude.

And I'm not a capitalist.

ignorance can be quite amusing & I never said you were a capitalist, just said that they should earn for themselves or fall.

Ocean1

11th February 2016, 19:59

ignorance can be quite amusing & I never said you were a capitalist, just said that they should earn for themselves or fall.

Couldn't agree more, a free market is a fair one.

Ocean1

11th February 2016, 20:00

Have you thought of a career as a comedian

Sent from my SC-01G using Tapatalk

Dead serious, I've never borrowed money to invest in anything, ever.

bogan

11th February 2016, 20:00

With a trade deal that doesn't include them.

Shitforbrains.

Swamped with exclusion, well that's a new one :laugh:

FYI, BRICS economies dues vast amounts of trade with each other, they also do vast amount of exports (in excess of their imports) to countries party to the TPPA. Ie, excluding them as trading partners wopuld be more damaging to TPPA parties than to BRICS; this is why it does no such thing at all. How are you still not getting this?

https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/its2014_e/its2014_e.pdf

Katman

11th February 2016, 20:18

Swamped with exclusion, well that's a new one :laugh:

Dude, feel free to continue proving your fucking stupidity.

husaberg

11th February 2016, 20:25

Ways to tell when Katman is wrong:

a: When he starts calling people ShitForBrains
b: When he doesn't read his own sources that disprove what he is saying
c: When he fails to present any sources
d: When he tries to change the Topic
e: When he posts
f: all of the above

g: When he tells you to suck his cock.
h: When he fails to be able answer simple questions about his theories or conspiracies.
i: When he calls anyone a morron.

Or e pretty much covers it all anyway:nya:

bogan

11th February 2016, 20:38

Dude, feel free to continue proving your fucking stupidity.

If you have time to stop proving your own, respond to the latter half of that post instead...

Brian d marge

11th February 2016, 20:48

Swamped with exclusion, well that's a new one[emoji23]
FYI, BRICS economies dues vast amounts of trade with each other, they also do vast amount of exports (in excess of their imports) to countries party to the TPPA. Ie, excluding them as trading partners wopuld be more damaging to TPPA parties than to BRICS; this is why it does no such thing at all. How are you still not getting this?

https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/its2014_e/its2014_e.pdf
A document written by the banks showing how good the banks are and that if we are good boys. N zud will grow beyond our wildest dreams .

Just a side note

Never in the history of mankind has either fiat or Babylonian economics succeeded

Why per chance is this the age in which they will

Diago Maradonas invisible hand ...?

Computers?

Sent from my SC-01G using Tapatalk

bogan

11th February 2016, 20:55

Never in the history of mankind has either fiat or Babylonian economics succeeded

Depends entirely on your criteria of success, I quite like greater quality of life and life expectancy; but that's just my opinion I guess...

puddytat

11th February 2016, 21:49

Dead serious, I've never borrowed money to invest in anything, ever.

Well Ive never had to either & Im a Socialist..........so woopdeefuckinshit.

Madness

11th February 2016, 22:01

I've used my credit card to buy a few ounces before. Solid investment that.

mashman

11th February 2016, 23:37

The only interests conflicted by people spending their own money are those of people who'd rather it was spent on them.

Socialists. They can earn their own or go fuck themselves.

No, I gave you a valid argument to your question and you pussied out as usual :niceone:

I can't wait to see what you do when Resource Based Economy is firmly in place. I half expect you to become the new blanket man, however I figure that your lack of conviction and hypocrisy would keep you from making any such statement... you'd simply capitulate.

Brian d marge

12th February 2016, 00:11

Depends entirely on your criteria of success, I quite like greater quality of life and life expectancy; but that's just my opinion I guess...
Ummmmm u do understand fiat money going to zero .

As in fail

As in needing a wheelbarrow of money to buy a loaf of bread

Or you, like, the Venezuelan's you are happy with your new wallpaper

Sent from my SC-01G using Tapatalk

Brian d marge

12th February 2016, 00:13

I've used my credit card to buy a few ounces before. Solid investment that.
Dude can u stick a few ounces on the card

Dam..... New Zealand here I come

Do they take American express ???

Sent from my SC-01G using Tapatalk

bogan

12th February 2016, 06:18

Ummmmm u do understand fiat money going to zero .

As in fail

As in needing a wheelbarrow of money to buy a loaf of bread

Or you, like, the Venezuelan's you are happy with your new wallpaper

Sent from my SC-01G using Tapatalk

So, it succeeded in providing us those things then was superseded (partially) by a more convenient form of currency, all supplied by the banks you hate so much.

Madness

12th February 2016, 06:38

Do they take American express ???

No Amex or Diners sorry. FlyBuys though, from certain outlets.

Brian d marge

12th February 2016, 08:32

No Amex or Diners sorry. FlyBuys though, from certain outlets.
Fk.

Sent from my SC-01G using Tapatalk

Brian d marge

12th February 2016, 08:34

So, it succeeded in providing us those things then was superseded (partially) by a more convenient form of currency, all supplied by the banks you hate so much.
You should stop using your diners card

Sent from my SC-01G using Tapatalk

bogan

12th February 2016, 09:01

You should stop using your diners card

Sent from my SC-01G using Tapatalk

You should start trying to make a coherent point :yawn:

Brian d marge

12th February 2016, 09:07

You should start trying to make a coherent point :yawn:
Have ..u just failed to understand

As others have told u

Sent from my SC-01G using Tapatalk

mashman

12th February 2016, 10:26

So, it succeeded in providing us those things then was superseded (partially) by a more convenient form of currency, all supplied by the banks you hate so much.

Nah, people did that... tis why money is just a measure of human activity. Exchange indeed... how primitive.

bogan

12th February 2016, 10:28

money is just a measure of human activity

Indeed, so why bother supporting those too inactive to do it themselves...

TPPA has already increased the 'activity' of a lot of those, must be a good thing then eh :laugh:

mashman

12th February 2016, 10:30

Indeed, so why bother supporting those too inactive to do it themselves...

TPPA has already increased the 'activity' of a lot of those, must be a good thing then eh :laugh:

:facepalm:

Things change.

Banditbandit

12th February 2016, 15:39

Indeed, so why bother supporting those too inactive to do it themselves...

TPPA has already increased the 'activity' of a lot of those, must be a good thing then eh :laugh:

What ??? Walking down the street wasted, taking selfies and texting ???

Shit - they were all ready doing that ..

bogan

12th February 2016, 15:43

What ??? Walking down the street wasted, taking selfies and texting ???

Shit - they were all ready doing that ..

Yeh, but now they practice their handwriting too

http://www.sunlive.co.nz/assets/images/site/TPPA-demo.jpg

Brian d marge

12th February 2016, 15:47

So, it succeeded in providing us those things then was superseded (partially) by a more convenient form of currency, all supplied by the banks you hate so much.
Ummmmm

No

Sent from my SC-01G using Tapatalk

Banditbandit

12th February 2016, 15:51

Yeah .. I suppose there is that ...

https://scontent-hkg3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xlf1/v/t1.0-9/12733444_1721743438055240_3344531790460348815_n.jp g?oh=8a976cc54baf81b95e613ad390def18d&oe=576C8523

bogan

12th February 2016, 15:51

You should stop using your diners card

Sent from my SC-01G using Tapatalk

Ummmmm

No

Sent from my SC-01G using Tapatalk

You had 7 hours to come up with an improved counterpoint, and you got to 'no'.

Fucks sake, that's even more embarassing than the standard 'I made a point but you don't understand it' claim followed by ignoring all counterpoints and requests for clarification. :facepalm:

Ocean1

12th February 2016, 16:33

No, I gave you a valid argument to your question and you pussied out as usual :niceone:

I can't wait to see what you do when Resource Based Economy is firmly in place. I half expect you to become the new blanket man, however I figure that your lack of conviction and hypocrisy would keep you from making any such statement... you'd simply capitulate.

You wouldn't know a valid argument if it bit you on the arse.

Resource based economies are all we've ever had. And the resources are quantified in terms of money. Again, the only people upset about that are those that want more resources than they earn.

Communists. Fuck 'em.

Ocean1

12th February 2016, 16:35

money is just a measure of human activity.

Make up your fucking mind, money is earned by individuals or it's pulled out of a fairy banker's arse, which is it?

Scuba_Steve

12th February 2016, 17:14

You wouldn't know a valid argument if it bit you on the arse.

Resource based economies are all we've ever had. And the resources are quantified in terms of money. Again, the only people upset about that are those that want more resources than they earn.

Communists. Fuck 'em.

You sure you're using Googley right? It seems to be in contradiction to your stance

A brief explanation of RBE: "A Resource-Based Economy is a system in which all goods and services are available without the use of money, credits, barter or any other system of debt or servitude. All resources become the common heritage of all of the inhabitants, not just a select few.

Brian d marge

12th February 2016, 18:06

You had 7 hours to come up with an improved counterpoint, and you got to 'no'.

Fucks sake, that's even more embarassing than the standard 'I made a point but you don't understand it' claim followed by ignoring all counterpoints and requests for clarification. :facepalm:
Ummm yup .

I value my time.....

Sent from my SC-01G using Tapatalk

bogan

12th February 2016, 18:11

You sure you're using Googley right? It seems to be in contradiction to your stance

To use it properly requires posting the source...

In any case, the RBE term is one that can be bastardised to mean whatever its proponent wants it to be; which in many cases is just a nicer word for communism, or capitalism.

Scuba_Steve

12th February 2016, 19:30

To use it properly requires posting the source...

Really? Do I really need to spell it properly for you to recognize it??? my source was posted, Google! Googley = Google
Here I'll even supply a link to my source - https://www.google.co.nz/
Please don't tell me you need help using it too...

mashman

12th February 2016, 19:32

You wouldn't know a valid argument if it bit you on the arse.

Resource based economies are all we've ever had. And the resources are quantified in terms of money. Again, the only people upset about that are those that want more resources than they earn.

Communists. Fuck 'em.

I would. You have yet to provide one.

I think you mean financial based economies. Hardly surprising they're upset.

Such a shame.

Make up your fucking mind, money is earned by individuals or it's pulled out of a fairy banker's arse, which is it?

In its cycle, both.

mashman

12th February 2016, 19:34

Really? Do I really need to spell it properly for you to recognize it??? my source was posted, Google! Googley = Google
Here I'll even supply a link to my source - https://www.google.co.nz/
Please don't tell me you need help using it too...

He'd have to understand it to recognise it. I have relatively strong evidence that he doesn't though.

Ocean1

12th February 2016, 19:55

You sure you're using Googley right? It seems to be in contradiction to your stance

Saying resource based economy is like saying liquid based drink. Resources are what we use to sustain our lifestyle, and an economy is the activity of collecting and using those resources in constructing that lifestyle.

The words themselves are unambiguous enough. And if someone decides to string them together that's fine, but it doesn't meant they all of a sudden mean something different.

Trying to redefine the words to mean "money is the root of all evel" is just an attempt to remove control of who gets what resources from those that earn them and give control to someone else. Usually by those who don't like having to work too hard in order to get what they think they deserve.

Fuck 'em.

Money is just the tool we use to describe the quality and value of resources, so we can trade and store them. You can do both without money, but not very well, and every civilisation in recorded history has used some form of money to do the job.

Ocean1

12th February 2016, 19:59

I would. You have yet to provide one.

You wouldn't know a valid argument if it bit you on the arse.

In its cycle, both.

Pathetic. Just fucking pathetic.

mashman

12th February 2016, 21:02

Saying resource based economy is like saying liquid based drink. Resources are what we use to sustain our lifestyle, and an economy is the activity of collecting and using those resources in constructing that lifestyle.

The words themselves are unambiguous enough. And if someone decides to string them together that's fine, but it doesn't meant they all of a sudden mean something different.

Trying to redefine the words to mean "money is the root of all evel" is just an attempt to remove control of who gets what resources from those that earn them and give control to someone else. Usually by those who don't like having to work too hard in order to get what they think they deserve.

Fuck 'em.

Money is just the tool we use to describe the quality and value of resources, so we can trade and store them. You can do both without money, but not very well, and every civilisation in recorded history has used some form of money to do the job.

How beautifully quaint.

No, it's the tool you use to describe what money used to be. I see your definition of civilised is equally as antiquated.

mashman

12th February 2016, 21:04

Pathetic. Just fucking pathetic.

You're the one who can't dig himself out of the 1880's.

bogan

12th February 2016, 21:18

Really? Do I really need to spell it properly for you to recognize it??? my source was posted, Google! Googley = Google
Here I'll even supply a link to my source - https://www.google.co.nz/
Please don't tell me you need help using it too...
Google isn't a source any more than a library can be given as a reference. First page gives approximately 8 different viewpoints on what that term means. Hence the suggestion you narrow it down, followed by the explanation of how unfeasible that is for such an ambiguous term.

Scuba_Steve

12th February 2016, 22:10

Google isn't a source any more than a library can be given as a reference. First page gives approximately 8 different viewpoints on what that term means. Hence the suggestion you narrow it down, followed by the explanation of how unfeasible that is for such an ambiguous term.

The source was Google you'll have to accept that. Where Google sourced that info from I didn't care to look but my source was Google!

bogan

12th February 2016, 22:13

The source was Google you'll have to accept that. Where Google sourced that info from I didn't care to look but my source was Google!

It says it right on the part of the google page you 'sourced' it from. How do you guys keep missing such simple details like this!!!

Brian d marge

13th February 2016, 01:30

So, it succeeded in providing us those things then was superseded (partially) by a more convenient form of currency, all supplied by the banks you hate so much.

booo hoooo........waaaah waaaahhhh

If anyone needs an education its you .....

bogan

13th February 2016, 07:56

booo hoooo........waaaah waaaahhhh

If anyone needs an education its you .....
Was that drivel your third go at a counterpoint on the same post? Good lord, this is fucking priceless :killingme

Brian d marge

13th February 2016, 11:18

Was that drivel your third go at a counterpoint on the same post? Good lord, this is fucking priceless :killingme
Waaaaa waaaaàa. Wheres the wambulance
You might not of noticed ...there was no counter point ..

Because I realised you were just too stupid

So I used my words sparingly

Ummmmm. No

The ummmmm is used to show someone is thinking ....and the No is used for showing someone ,that they were incorrect. And the silence after that shows that the person responding has decided to to waste his time taking to an idiot

It's Saturday today ...

Sent from my SC-01G using Tapatalk

bogan

13th February 2016, 11:33

You might not of noticed ...there was no counter point ..

I noticed, and pointed that out when you had your first go at replying to that post.

You should start trying to make a coherent point :yawn:

As for this:

Because I realised you were just too stupid

So I used my words sparingly

Ummmmm. No

The ummmmm is used to show someone is thinking ....and the No is used for showing someone ,that they were incorrect. And the silence after that shows that the person responding has decided to to waste his time taking to an idiot

It's Saturday today ...

Sent from my SC-01G using Tapatalk

You obviously wish to take the time to explain the obvious bits where you insult me, yet refuse to explain the bits you say I don't understand to enlighten me.

Let's face it, you're the one always hiding behind the veil of misunderstanding, incapable of conveying what should be simple, logical, points to back up such statements like:

Never in the history of mankind has either fiat or Babylonian economics succeeded

I'll help you out a bit here so you can see what logic looks like. Your subsequent point about fiat money going to zero, ie, hard currency falling out of use; does not address the success described at all. Now if you had said persisted you would have made a decent point. This is what I mean about you hiding behind misunderstandings.

After that you didn't understand it when I clearly pointed out criteria for success is not persistence; this is when the hiding behind misunderstanding becomes deliberate. Then came the tanty, one to rival KMs in fact. Which of course I just gained amusement from.

Brian d marge

13th February 2016, 11:50

I noticed, and pointed that out when you had your first go at replying to that post.

As for this:

You obviously wish to take the time to explain the obvious bits where you insult me, yet refuse to explain the bits you say I don't understand to enlighten me.

Let's face it, you're the one always hiding behind the veil of misunderstanding, incapable of conveying what should be simple, logical, points to back up such statements like:

I'll help you out a bit here so you can see what logic looks like. Your subsequent point about fiat money going to zero, ie, hard currency falling out of use; does not address the success described at all. Now if you had said persisted you would have made a decent point. This is what I mean about you hiding behind misunderstandings.

After that you didn't understand it when I clearly pointed out criteria for success is not persistence; this is when the hiding behind misunderstanding becomes deliberate. Then came the tanty, one to rival KMs in fact. Which of course I just gained amusement from.
Thank you for reposting my quote

Having re read it ...it looks perfectly understandable to me

Problem must be your end ....

And I still have all my toys in the cot ..but judging from your off thread activities
Your toys are all over the living room

Carry on ....

Sent from my SC-01G using Tapatalk

TheDemonLord

13th February 2016, 12:09

And I still have all my toys in the cot ..but judging from your off thread activities
Your toys are all over the living room

You may have all your Toys in the Cot, But the Marbles are nowhere to be found....

bogan

13th February 2016, 12:26

Thank you for reposting my quote

Having re read it ...it looks perfectly understandable to me

Problem must be your end ....

And I still have all my toys in the cot ..but judging from your off thread activities
Your toys are all over the living room

Carry on ....

Sent from my SC-01G using Tapatalk

Why did you give the reduction in fiat money use as evidence that fiat economics has never succeeded? That is illogical; I understand you're confused about its implication and think that it somehow is evidence of that, but it remains illogical; and to simply keep reiterating it instead of addressing that counterpoint, makes you an uneducated moron who hides behind 'misunderstandings'.

As for my off thread activities? did I red-rep you for not conducting a logical discussion or something?

Brian d marge

13th February 2016, 12:36

Why did you give the reduction in fiat money use as evidence that fiat economics has never succeeded? That is illogical; I understand you're confused about its implication and think that it somehow is evidence of that, but it remains illogical; and to simply keep reiterating it instead of addressing that counterpoint, makes you an uneducated moron who hides behind 'misunderstandings'.

As for my off thread activities? did I red-rep you for not conducting a logical discussion or something?

Why did you give the reduction in fiat money use as evidence that fiat economics has never succeeded? That is illogical;

Sooooo.... the reduction of the use , the tending towards zero ....of fiat money .....doesnt prove its success

and ya are calling me a moron

Classic ....pure gold that

bogan

13th February 2016, 14:52

Why did you give the reduction in fiat money use as evidence that fiat economics has never succeeded? That is illogical;

Sooooo.... the reduction of the use , the tending towards zero ....of fiat money .....doesnt prove its success

and ya are calling me a moron

Classic ....pure gold that

All the fractured sentences, ellipsis, and ambiguity in statement makes your point difficult to glean from your post; I'm not even sure if you are summarising what I'm saying there or not (the lack of correct quoting format doesn't help ofc).

What I think you are saying is that the reduction in use doesn't prove a things success; this is obviously true, yet is not relevant to your point when you gave it as evidence it hadn't succeeded. Ie, it is illogical to assume because one attribute doesn't prove something's success, it has proven it's overall failure.

The success or failure of money is not determined by its longevity, but by its usefulness to society. You need to understand or at least address this point.

Brian d marge

13th February 2016, 16:09

All the fractured sentences, ellipsis, and ambiguity in statement makes your point difficult to glean from your post; I'm not even sure if you are summarising what I'm saying there or not (the lack of correct quoting format doesn't help ofc).

What I think you are saying is that the reduction in use doesn't prove a things success; this is obviously true, yet is not relevant to your point when you gave it as evidence it hadn't succeeded. Ie, it is illogical to assume because one attribute doesn't prove something's success, it has proven it's overall failure.

The success or failure of money is not determined by its longevity, but by its usefulness to society. You need to understand or at least address this point.
Well I could use a wall of words to say nowt

But I won't
Just give you. .... Weimar Zimbabwe. Venezuela ..Rome ..Babylon blah blah ...

All of those currencies were very useful to the people

as wall paper

Now I'll repeat ,....... All fiat currencies have gone to zero ...tended towards zero ( in usefulness and value )

Point addressed .

Sent from my SC-01G using Tapatalk

bogan

13th February 2016, 16:39

Now I'll repeat ,....... All fiat currencies have gone to zero ...tended towards zero ( in usefulness and value )

Since you again state 'all', the minority few which became worthless due to hyperinflation prove nothing.

Now, going towards zero in value is also irrelevant; due to inflation being a market mechanism to stimulate the economy.

So, you're left with going towards zero in usefulness as evidence of no fiat currency ever being successful. Again, you completely miss the point about what criteria constitutes success; so no, it is not yet point addressed. You just keep saying the same thing over and over again without understanding my first post to you on the topic.

Brian d marge

13th February 2016, 16:40

Since you again state 'all', the minority few which became worthless due to hyperinflation prove nothing.

Now, going towards zero in value is also irrelevant; due to inflation being a market mechanism to stimulate the economy.

So, you're left with going towards zero in usefulness as evidence of no fiat currency ever being successful. Again, you completely miss the point about what criteria constitutes success; so no, it is not yet point addressed. You just keep saying the same thing over and over again without understanding my first post to you on the topic.
Go and do some homework

Sent from my SC-01G using Tapatalk

bogan

13th February 2016, 16:43

Go and do some homework

Sent from my SC-01G using Tapatalk

So now you again shy away from making a counterpoint? It isn't hard to do, as I keep demonstrating; just use logic, and communication skills. If you lack either of those things; I guess you'll show us that by continuing to avoid rational discussion...

Brian d marge

13th February 2016, 16:51

So now you again shy away from making a counterpoint? It isn't hard to do, as I keep demonstrating; just use logic, and communication skills. If you lack either of those things; I guess you'll show us that by continuing to avoid rational discussion...
No .... Not shying away from anything
You lack the knowledge to have said discussion and I am not spoon feeding u.

If anyone needs an educational it is you

Come back to the table when you understand what money , currency and the history of fiat currency

Sent from my SC-01G using Tapatalk

bogan

13th February 2016, 16:55

No .... Not shying away from anything
You lack the knowledge to have said discussion and I am not spoon feeding u.

If anyone needs an educational it is you

Come back to the table when you understand what money , currency and the history of fiat currency

Sent from my SC-01G using Tapatalk

That's a perfect example of shying away from rational discussion.

I have that knowledge now, that is why you are left foundering while trying to make a point that is illogical in the context of an education on those matters.

Brian d marge

13th February 2016, 17:03

That's a perfect example of shying away from rational discussion.

I have that knowledge now, that is why you are left foundering while trying to make a point that is illogical in the context of an education on those matters.
So you want me

In the space of 140 characters

To spoon feed you . something that has taken me more than 5 or more years

Because you are too lazy

IF you can provide some evidence ...even ocean does that

To illustrate your point I may get animated

Homework. You need to do

Sent from my SC-01G using Tapatalk

bogan

13th February 2016, 17:11

So you want me

In the space of 140 characters

To spoon feed you . something that has taken me more than 5 or more years

Because you are too lazy

IF you can provide some evidence ...even ocean does that

To illustrate your point I may get animated

Homework. You need to do

Sent from my SC-01G using Tapatalk

No, I want you to point out why fiat currency's success is directly tied to its longevity, you've been evading this for pages now. This was a point you made, so the onus is on you to back that up; it's very simple. I disagree based on a value judgement, that fiat currency is simply a tool for betterment of the economy, which in itself is a tool to increase our quality of life. So what, specifically, is the evidence I am too lazy to come up with? because all I can see, is that you want me to make your point for you...

Woodman

13th February 2016, 17:50

. .

. :yawn:.
.

.
.

puddytat

13th February 2016, 18:39

I reckon.....

bogan

13th February 2016, 18:51

I reckon.....

Well he replied to a single post three times over a day, so I figured it was pretty important :bleh:

Brian d marge

13th February 2016, 19:05

Well he replied to a single post three times over a day, so I figured it was pretty important :bleh:
Well it is Saturday and and I have nowt to do so I might as well push sh up a hill

And its it intriguing to ..and all was is to see how many words you can fling at a page for such a simple point

Sent from my SC-01G using Tapatalk

bogan

13th February 2016, 19:13

..and all was is to see how many words you can fling at a page for such a simple point

And you still didn't manage to get it :facepalm:

With opponents like you it is no wonder the TPPA is going ahead :laugh:

Brian d marge

13th February 2016, 19:20

No, I want you to point out why fiat currency's success is directly tied to its longevity,

Where did you in any of my posts ..read that

And it shows you have no friggen idea of what money or even currency is or the difference between

So go and do some homework

you've been evading this for pages now. This was a point you made, so the onus is on you to back that up; it's very simple. I disagree based on a value judgement, that fiat currency is simply a tool for betterment of the economy, which in itself is a tool to increase our quality of life. So what, specifically, is the evidence I am too lazy to come up with? because all I can see, is that you want me to make your point for you...

Well until you understand what currency is ... The statement that it currency makes life better or the em better ment of
Shows a distinct lack of understanding of currency ... Yes it can facilitate trade
But can it store wealth?

And as Voltaire said (all?) fiat currencies all return to their intrinsic value

Think about that

You may see why I just quoted some famous hyperinflated currencies ..

We're they a mark of success???

We're they store of wealth

Did they better the life of the majority of the users

So if you disagree due to a value judgement

I question your values

Sent from my SC-01G using Tapatalk

Brian d marge

13th February 2016, 19:27

And you still didn't manage to get it :facepalm:

With opponents like you it is no wonder the TPPA is going ahead :laugh:
If you read my previous posts ..and if you actually knew what you were talking about you might find my posts informative

But .... Because you don't have the basics ..it might as well be Swahili.

Homework you really need to do it

Sent from my SC-01G using Tapatalk

bogan

13th February 2016, 19:41

Well until you understand what currency is ... The statement that it currency makes life better or the em better ment of
Shows a distinct lack of understanding of currency ... Yes it can facilitate trade
But can it store wealth?

And as Voltaire said (all?) fiat currencies all return to their intrinsic value

Think about that

You may see why I just quoted some famous hyperinflated currencies ..

We're they a mark of success???

We're they store of wealth

Did they better the life of the majority of the users

So if you disagree due to a value judgement

I question your values

Sent from my SC-01G using Tapatalk

It is that facilitation of trade that makes it successful. How long it lasts, or how well it can store wealth is very much secondary to that.

And without trade our quality of life would be much lower, surely you can see that?

Brian d marge

13th February 2016, 19:49

It is that facilitation of trade that makes it successful. How long it lasts, or how well it can store wealth is very much secondary to that.

And without trade our quality of life would be much lower, surely you can see that?
You could do that with money ( trade)

But if the currency doesn't retain its purchasing power .... You need more of the stuff to facilitate the trade

Or use it as wall paper ...

Dude seriously spend 2 min on internet looking up what money is or does .......and what a currency is and does

http://www.rapidtrends.com/history-of-fiat-and-paper-money-failures/

I sure these people were really happy when their currency tanked and they lost everything ( except those with assets ..)
..not a bad list ..
Look how many failed due to. .

drumroll

Hyperinflation

Not my idea of success ..... Me thinks
Sent from my SC-01G using Tapatalk

TheDemonLord

13th February 2016, 20:10

http://www.rapidtrends.com/history-of-fiat-and-paper-money-failures/

I sure these people were really happy when their currency tanked and they lost everything ( except those with assets ..)
..not a bad list ..
Look how many failed due to. .

Interesting Link - if however your claim is true, what is your explanation for say the British Pound exisitng since 1694? - it seems that a lot of the currencies listed are from countries with poor Economies.

I'd say that it is not the fault of the Money, but an underlying problem with the Nation/Economy/society.

Another interesting note is the oldest Currencies are from Countries that had strong legal groundings protecting the rights of the individual.

bogan

13th February 2016, 20:11

You could do that with money ( trade)

And we do, so the basic function of money has succeeded.

But if the currency doesn't retain its purchasing power .... You need more of the stuff to facilitate the trade

Or use it as wall paper ...

Dude seriously spend 2 min on internet looking up what money is or does .......and what a currency is and does

http://www.rapidtrends.com/history-of-fiat-and-paper-money-failures/

I sure these people were really happy when their currency tanked and they lost everything ( except those with assets ..)
..not a bad list ..
Look how many failed due to. .

drumroll

Hyperinflation

Not my idea of success ..... Me thinks
Sent from my SC-01G using Tapatalk

I know what a currency is and does; medium of exchange (trade), standardised value measure, and storage of account.

these quotes from your own source:
"At present there are 177 currencies being used in the world"
"Excluding the early paper currencies of China up until the 15th century and the majority of paper currencies that existed in China until 1935, there are 609 currencies no longer in circulation. Of these, at least 153 were destroyed as a result of hyperinflation caused by over-issuance. The remainder were revalued, destroyed by military occupation/liberation, renamed for political reasons, or were converted to another currency. "

So from your own source, there are more currencies currently in use now, than have failed. And all that have failed have been due to hyperinflation from over-issuance. So as long as inflation is kept under control by issuance (basic govt function), there is no historical evidence that a currency can fail (the remainder categories are obviously in the superceded/converted category).

Obviously hyperinflation is not my idea of success either, but it is in minority; extreme minority if you weight it by represented value exchange. To say all money fails just because some has, is completely illogical.

bogan

13th February 2016, 20:16

I'd say that it is not the fault of the Money, but an underlying problem with the Nation/Economy/society.

Another interesting note is the oldest Currencies are from Countries that had strong legal groundings protecting the rights of the individual.

Agreed, but as we correlate and partially attribute the boon of technology and quality of life with monetary economies, we must do so for its abuses; to which a better system would be more robust.

Perhaps this is more due to the country being more stable based on those rights, although another likely option is those rights ensuring govt accountability and responsibility with its issuance. Or maybe just smart govt can see the benefits of individual rights, and a stable monetary system.

TheDemonLord

13th February 2016, 20:38

Perhaps this is more due to the country being more stable based on those rights, although another likely option is those rights ensuring govt accountability and responsibility with its issuance. Or maybe just smart govt can see the benefits of individual rights, and a stable monetary system.

I'd say its a combination.

Personal Rights create Personal responsibility
Personal Rights mandate certain limits to Government Power and Government Repsonsibility

Also I think that there is time period needed to shift Societal Attitudes - It took the West Centuries to get right (The Renaissance through to Victorian/Edwardian times)

And we are still getting it wrong occassionally....

Brian d marge

13th February 2016, 21:17

Interesting Link - if however your claim is true, what is your explanation for say the British Pound exisitng since 1694? - it seems that a lot of the currencies listed are from countries with poor Economies.

I'd say that it is not the fault of the Money, but an underlying problem with the Nation/Economy/society.

Another interesting note is the oldest Currencies are from Countries that had strong legal groundings protecting the rights of the individual.

no, money basically retains its purchasing power, unless you get shot by the Americans. The british pound ( currency) was backed by gold ( money) Twas called the Gold standard ,,,, , fiat currencies are backed by nothing more than a promise , Nixon...saw to that in august 71

so no , not the fault of money, ( and ounce of gold is a fine toga ~) ...adding copper into the coin is a debased currency ....

and THAT is an underlying problem with the king / government or shylockian debaser

As for strong legal groiuunding , See the great case of Tooks court , Brian dmarge v The east india trading company ..... hows that legal system now !????

Brian d marge

13th February 2016, 21:33

And we do, so the basic function of money has succeeded.

I know what a currency is and does; medium of exchange (trade), standardised value measure, and storage of account.

these quotes from your own source:
"At present there are 177 currencies being used in the world"
"Excluding the early paper currencies of China up until the 15th century and the majority of paper currencies that existed in China until 1935, there are 609 currencies no longer in circulation. Of these, at least 153 were destroyed as a result of hyperinflation caused by over-issuance. The remainder were revalued, destroyed by military occupation/liberation, renamed for political reasons, or were converted to another currency. "

So from your own source, there are more currencies currently in use now, than have failed. And all that have failed have been due to hyperinflation from over-issuance. So as long as inflation is kept under control by issuance (basic govt function), there is no historical evidence that a currency can fail (the remainder categories are obviously in the superceded/converted category).

Obviously hyperinflation is not my idea of success either, but it is in minority; extreme minority if you weight it by represented value exchange. To say all money fails just because some has, is completely illogical.

All , As far as I know, All paper currencies have failed , gone to zero ,,,bye bye ...

The British Pound, as defined in 1560, originally represented one troy pound of sterling silver.
In order to finance the wars with both France and Scotland, Henry VIII reduced the precious metal content of the English coins, enabling him to mint more of them, increasing the nominal value in circulation but slowly eroding confidence in the coinage.
Paper banknotes were first issued in Britain shortly after the establishment of the Bank of England in 1694.
As of January 2009 it takes £82.50 to purchase that same troy pound of sterling silver bought for £1 four-hundred-and-fifty years ago – a loss of value equaling 98.8%.

As 98% loss in purchasing power .. a true success story , .....

Hey I got an Idea lets call it a fancy name ,,,and make it all technical and stuff ....I know ..lets call it , inflation ...
snip ...

A study you might find intriguing was done on 775 fiat currencies by DollarDaze.org. In this study, it determined that: “There is no historical precedence for a fiat currency that has succeeded in holding its value.”
The study showed that 20% failed through hyperinflation, 21% were destroyed by war, 12% destroyed by independence, 24% were monetarily reformed, and 23% are still in circulation and approaching one of the other outcomes.

looks like a successful system to me ........

BTW, trade is possible without both money and or currency

TheDemonLord

13th February 2016, 21:35

no, money basically retains its purchasing power, unless you get shot by the Americans. The british pound ( currency) was backed by gold ( money) Twas called the Gold standard ,,,, , fiat currencies are backed by nothing more than a promise , Nixon...saw to that in august 71

so no , not the fault of money, ( and ounce of gold is a fine toga ~) ...adding copper into the coin is a debased currency ....

and THAT is an underlying problem with the king / government or shylockian debaser

As for strong legal groiuunding , See the great case of Tooks court , Brian dmarge v The east india trading company ..... hows that legal system now !????

If I was to say that with the exception of the Mclaren F1, Certain Electronic applications and Jewelry, that Gold is inherently worthless - how then does that impact your monetary theories? Money is simply a placeholder for something of Value (be that Gold, Time, Land or other) - its function is to be portable, Divisible and to allow a quick and easy comparison between different things, by using a single standard measure.

It's not perfect - but it seems to be that you are using the Correlation equals Causation fallacy.

Brian d marge

13th February 2016, 21:53

If I was to say that with the exception of the Mclaren F1, Certain Electronic applications and Jewelry, that Gold is inherently worthless - how then does that impact your monetary theories? Money is simply a placeholder for something of Value (be that Gold, Time, Land or other) - its function is to be portable, Divisible and to allow a quick and easy comparison between different things, by using a single standard measure.

It's not perfect - but it seems to be that you are using the Correlation equals Causation fallacy.

Then why are so many countries and a rich people buying gold
Me thinks you are missing the point about wealth

http://www.rsbullion.com/2011/01/is-the-worlds-richest-man-getting-into-silver/

Money is/ can be gold
It's fungible portable and holds value also enters the system at approx the same rate as the population. So as a money . I would say its a good starting point

No I'm not using any arguments just stating the facts ...

Prove me wrong if you would like
Show me a successful fiat currency or indeed a harmonious half decent one that had some sort of success for the people using fiat money

I can't think of one ....unless your name is soros ...

Sent from my SC-01G using Tapatalk

TheDemonLord

13th February 2016, 22:11

Then why are so many countries and a rich people buying gold
Me thinks you are missing the point about wealth

Because, just like money or land - it is perceived to have value.

As a thought experiment - Imagine tomorrow that everyone thought Gold was worthless - you would have the same problem that Paper notes can have.

Thus the problem is not limited nor is the sole domain of Paper Notes (which is the point you are making)

bogan

13th February 2016, 22:30

All , As far as I know, All paper currencies have failed , gone to zero ,,,bye bye ...

The British Pound, as defined in 1560, originally represented one troy pound of sterling silver.
In order to finance the wars with both France and Scotland, Henry VIII reduced the precious metal content of the English coins, enabling him to mint more of them, increasing the nominal value in circulation but slowly eroding confidence in the coinage.
Paper banknotes were first issued in Britain shortly after the establishment of the Bank of England in 1694.
As of January 2009 it takes £82.50 to purchase that same troy pound of sterling silver bought for £1 four-hundred-and-fifty years ago – a loss of value equaling 98.8%.

As 98% loss in purchasing power .. a true success story , .....

Hey I got an Idea lets call it a fancy name ,,,and make it all technical and stuff ....I know ..lets call it , inflation ...
snip ...

A study you might find intriguing was done on 775 fiat currencies by DollarDaze.org. In this study, it determined that: “There is no historical precedence for a fiat currency that has succeeded in holding its value.”
The study showed that 20% failed through hyperinflation, 21% were destroyed by war, 12% destroyed by independence, 24% were monetarily reformed, and 23% are still in circulation and approaching one of the other outcomes.

looks like a successful system to me ........

BTW, trade is possible without both money and or currency

Your link showed that not all paper currencies have failed/gone to zero; a simple look in ones wallet shows that has not happened. How can you still say this to be true when anyone can see it clearly isn't?

A currency does not need to hold its exact value over time to succeed. It just needs to be a: medium of exchange (trade), standardised value measure, and storage of account. It succeeds at doing all those things.

Brian d marge

13th February 2016, 23:01

Your link showed that not all paper currencies have failed/gone to zero; a simple look in ones wallet shows that has not happened. How can you still say this to be true when anyone can see it clearly isn't?

A currency does not need to hold its exact value over time to succeed. It just needs to be a: medium of exchange (trade), standardised value measure, and storage of account. It succeeds at doing all those things.

And ya don't have to drop a hammer on ya toe to know its not a good idea

If you look in ya wallet you won't find any one cent coins so your chances of using yer pocket money to buy sweeties are slim to none

And I'll race you

You put a tonne of money in the bank or a shoe box under the bed

I'll use me grandmas gold fillings ...let's see how long your wealth lasts

Currency does succeed in meeting your requirements .. As u stated ...

I will swap you all my money ...for gold
Or silver

True .. If you want to I'm up for it ...

Sent from my SC-01G using Tapatalk

Brian d marge

13th February 2016, 23:51

Because, just like money or land - it is perceived to have value.

As a thought experiment - Imagine tomorrow that everyone thought Gold was worthless - you would have the same problem that Paper notes can have.

Thus the problem is not limited nor is the sole domain of Paper Notes (which is the point you are making)

From 1170 roughly the English used a split stick
To pay taxes ... And meet debt repayment
It was quite successful ..
Gold is used because of it durability and the qualities I listed before
And it rarity and perceived value
Some people even use big rocks as money or the distance between big rocks
But the point you are missing is that gold enters the system at the rate of its discovery and cannot be created ....
Sooo tends to be a good storage of purchasing power
Tis why historically we have used it
Fiat currency is just a promise by Obama or Mario dragi..... Can ya see that lasting ,???
Currency backed by gold works you are representing gold by a more manageable material... Don't buy into the Adam Smith lie of there wasn't enough to facilitate modern trade ..that's bullshyt

Just a little side note ....if you look at the gold spot price it basically bottomed .. Look at who fixes the price, hbc Goldman......etc and look at their gold positions... Now you would only drop the gold price if you were buying ....and ya only buy gold when the currency is tanking

Remember physical gold is leveraged at about 300 To 1 to paper gold
We the people are being played hook line and sinker ...imho

Sent from my SC-01G using Tapatalk

bogan

14th February 2016, 07:41

And ya don't have to drop a hammer on ya toe to know its not a good idea

If you look in ya wallet you won't find any one cent coins so your chances of using yer pocket money to buy sweeties are slim to none

And I'll race you

You put a tonne of money in the bank or a shoe box under the bed

I'll use me grandmas gold fillings ...let's see how long your wealth lasts

Currency does succeed in meeting your requirements .. As u stated ...

I will swap you all my money ...for gold
Or silver

True .. If you want to I'm up for it ...

Sent from my SC-01G using Tapatalk

Inflation is a designed and desired part of currency, to claim it as evidence the whole system is a failure shows a profound lack of understanding about the function of currency.

Free tip though, you can swap all your money for gold at any time, there are a number of places that offer this service. If you want to go through me though, I'll insist on up front payment in full, and a 15% commission.

mashman

14th February 2016, 08:49

Ocean1

14th February 2016, 09:18

From 1170 roughly the English used a split stick

Which was obviously a superior device to the somewhat more abstract monetary unit.

What, with it's continued use from inception to the current day an' all.

I dear say you must have quite a few stashed away under your mattress.

Or is it possible, I wonder if you simply can't wrap your teeny brain around such an intangible concept.

But the point you are missing is that gold enters the system at the rate of its discovery and cannot be created ....

And of course the value of gold is written in granite, part of the ten commandments, nothing to do with anything as wishy washy as perceived current market value.

And diamonds, don't forget diamonds, always rock solid at their rate of discovery, impossible to counterfeit.

Except the price of gold only fails to fluctuate if comparisons to everything else of value are made against an arbitrarily static gold price. An artificial concept in the first place.

And except it's now possible to make diamonds, so close to naturally occurring diamonds it's not possible to tell the difference at all.

So you're one-trick-pony obsession with the tragic consequences of the absurd Bretton Woods debacle is a crock of shit. The abandonment of the "gold standard" was simply removing a layer of perceived value to the single, simple guarantee on the currency itself.

But I guess everyone has their bogyman, carry on.

Ocean1

14th February 2016, 09:22

Why aren't you using nothing yet?

Because most of us aspire to somewhat more than nothing.

Which is precisely what nothing will buy you.

Akzle

14th February 2016, 09:24

the single, simple guarantee on the currency itself.

ahh. What value, the promise of the crown in right of new zealand inc...?

Ocean1

14th February 2016, 09:33

ahh. What value, the promise of the crown in right of new zealand inc...?

Well as you're so keen to point out it's theirs in the first place. Who else do you suppose should guarantee it?

Only, I doubt you've got quite the credibility to pull it off, y'know?

mashman

14th February 2016, 10:12

Because most of us aspire to somewhat more than nothing.

Which is precisely what nothing will buy you.

I see you misunderstand. Lulz.

Using nothing gives you access to everything. Ommmmmmmmmm, heh.

Well as you're so keen to point out it's theirs in the first place. Who else do you suppose should guarantee it?

Only, I doubt you've got quite the credibility to pull it off, y'know?

I agree :shifty:

Akzle

14th February 2016, 11:27

Well as you're so keen to point out it's theirs in the first place. Who else do you suppose should guarantee it?

Only, I doubt you've got quite the credibility to pull it off, y'know?

you didnt answer the question.

And i usually pull it daily. Sometimes twice.

Akzle

14th February 2016, 11:27

also, since you mentioned guarantee. It isn't.

Brian d marge

14th February 2016, 13:07

Inflation is a designed and desired part of currency, to claim it as evidence the whole system is a failure shows a profound lack of understanding about the function of currency.

Free tip though, you can swap all your money for gold at any time, there are a number of places that offer this service. If you want to go through me though, I'll insist on up front payment in full, and a 15% commission.
Absolute pure rubbish
Inflation comes from currency entering the system
Either through fractional or interest charges or now just plain printing

Please have a small idea of the subject before posting

Sent from my SC-01G using Tapatalk

Brian d marge

14th February 2016, 13:12

Which was obviously a superior device to the somewhat more abstract monetary unit.

What, with it's continued use from inception to the current day an' all.

I dear say you must have quite a few stashed away under your mattress.

Or is it possible, I wonder if you simply can't wrap your teeny brain around such an intangible concept.

And of course the value of gold is written in granite, part of the ten commandments, nothing to do with anything as wishy washy as perceived current market value.

And diamonds, don't forget diamonds, always rock solid at their rate of discovery, impossible to counterfeit.

Except the price of gold only fails to fluctuate if comparisons to everything else of value are made against an arbitrarily static gold price. An artificial concept in the first place.

And except it's now possible to make diamonds, so close to naturally occurring diamonds it's not possible to tell the difference at all.

So you're one-trick-pony obsession with the tragic consequences of the absurd Bretton Woods debacle is a crock of shit. The abandonment of the "gold standard" was simply removing a layer of perceived value to the single, simple guarantee on the currency itself.

But I guess everyone has their bogyman, carry on.
Classic fail in understanding

The bit of wood was very successful
700 years it was used ......

But it suffered the same fate as Gadaffis dinar

There's a famous painting of its demise

But then you know all this what with your knowledge of economics and all

Not

Sent from my SC-01G using Tapatalk

Brian d marge

14th February 2016, 13:45

Inflation is a designed and desired part of currency, to claim it as evidence the whole system is a failure shows a profound lack of understanding about the function of currency.

Free tip though, you can swap all your money for gold at any time, there are a number of places that offer this service. If you want to go through me though, I'll insist on up front payment in full, and a 15% commission.
Done deal ...I'll give you 15 percent up front and a bottle of highland single malt

100 000 yen

You give me the equivalent in physical gold at today's spot price

Must be physical ...no paper or futures

Sent from my SC-01G using Tapatalk

Brian d marge

14th February 2016, 13:53

Which was obviously a superior device to the somewhat more abstract monetary unit.

What, with it's continued use from inception to the current day an' all.

I dear say you must have quite a few stashed away under your mattress.

Or is it possible, I wonder if you simply can't wrap your teeny brain around such an intangible concept.

And of course the value of gold is written in granite, part of the ten commandments, nothing to do with anything as wishy washy as perceived current market value.

And diamonds, don't forget diamonds, always rock solid at their rate of discovery, impossible to counterfeit.

Except the price of gold only fails to fluctuate if comparisons to everything else of value are made against an arbitrarily static gold price. An artificial concept in the first place.

And except it's now possible to make diamonds, so close to naturally occurring diamonds it's not possible to tell the difference at all.

So you're one-trick-pony obsession with the tragic consequences of the absurd Bretton Woods debacle is a crock of shit. The abandonment of the "gold standard" was simply removing a layer of perceived value to the single, simple guarantee on the currency itself.

But I guess everyone has their bogyman, carry on.
The only thing of value in that post was the diamond manufacture

That will be interesting as either A the rate of finding natural diamond s is falling or B the diamond market value will crash
Or D ..perceived market value will endure until market is flooded and then crash leaving the sheep holding worthless paper ...

HBC ...drug running and fleecing sheep and setting market rates since ages ago

PS if ya don't want to buy the bridge I may have another fool ..buyer that might be interested

Sent from my SC-01G using Tapatalk

bogan

14th February 2016, 15:06

Absolute pure rubbish
Inflation comes from currency entering the system
Either through fractional or interest charges or now just plain printing

Please have a small idea of the subject before posting

Sent from my SC-01G using Tapatalk

And the amount of money entering the system is controlled to create stable inflation.

Here's a link about inflation you might wish to use to gain a basic education on the subject matter.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/inflation.asp

In any case, clearly a slight and steady inflation does not cause the failure of fiat currency (apart from the rotation of denominations of course), this is evidenced by the link you posted showing only hyperinflation (in which monthly inflation exceeds 50%) causes a currency to fail. Perhaps you would like to try making another point as to why all fiat currencies will fail? or perhaps it is time to learn that your earlier statement was in error.

bogan

14th February 2016, 15:13

Done deal ...I'll give you 15 percent up front and a bottle of highland single malt

100 000 yen

You give me the equivalent in physical gold at today's spot price

Must be physical ...no paper or futures

Sent from my SC-01G using Tapatalk

You misunderstand, it is 100% up front, of which 15% is my commision. 85,000 yen's worth of physical gold after fabrication, rounding, and shipping will be approximately 15 grams.

Akzle

14th February 2016, 15:54

And the amount of money entering the system is controlled to create stable inflation.

do you fucken hear yourself? Like, do you actually think about the shit your saying?

Katman

14th February 2016, 16:01

Like, do you actually think about the shit your saying?

Dude, he's young.

husaberg

14th February 2016, 16:01

Inflation comes from currency entering the system

Sent from my SC-01G using Tapatalk

Say What..........

Inflation drivers

Rising wages
Rising wages are a key cause of cost push inflation because wages are the most significant cost for many firms. (higher wages may also contribute to rising demand)

Import prices
If there is a dollar devaluation then import prices will become more expensive leading to an increase in inflation. A devaluation / depreciation means the Pound is worth less, therefore we have to pay more to buy the same imported goods.

Raw Material Prices
The best example is the price of oil, if the oil price increase by 20% then this will have a significant impact on most goods in the economy and this will lead to cost push inflation.

Higher taxes
If the government put up taxes, such as GST and Excise duty, this will lead to higher prices, and therefore CPI will increase.

Rising house prices
Rising house prices do not directly cause inflation, but they can cause a positive wealth effect and encourage consumer led economic growth. This can indirectly cause demand pull inflation.

Printing more money
If the Central Bank prints more money, you would expect to see a rise in inflation. This is because the money supply plays an important role in determining prices. If there is more money chasing the same amount of goods, then prices will rise. Hyperinflation is usually caused by an extreme increase in the money supply.

Oil prices traditionally drive NZ's inflation as everything is transported to and from markets as are the consumers etc

Brian d marge

14th February 2016, 16:28

Say What..........

Inflation drivers

Oil prices traditionally drive NZ's inflation as everything is transported to and from markets as are the consumers etc
Think about what u posted ....u will find what I said is correct

Sent from my SC-01G using Tapatalk

husaberg

14th February 2016, 16:36

Think about what u posted ....u will find what I said is correct

Sent from my SC-01G using Tapatalk

No I did think about what you posted, dimissed it then i corrected it for you.
the price of good imported international comodities and raw materials and oil has mostly nothing to do with your asertion. You need to think locally rather than globally.

flyingcrocodile46

14th February 2016, 16:36

Say What..........

Inflation drivers

Oil prices traditionally drive NZ's inflation as everything is transported to and from markets as are the consumers etc

Money has no value other than that which is measured by the amount of product it secures.

What do you think happens to the value of money when the the amount of product remains static due to a drop in production (as it has for the last 7 or 8 years internationally) while the amount of money in circulation doubles (like when the Fed was pumping up to $95 billion a month into the international economy during QE1-4)? It halves in value because it has to be divided into the same amount of product as was available before the amount of money doubled. That's inflation with direct correlation to money creation and is easily evidenced in places and in recent times past in the likes of Brazil which saw inflation rates running to triple digits in a matter of days.

Akzle

14th February 2016, 16:53

Dude, he's young.

i resent the implication

husaberg

14th February 2016, 16:56

Money has no value other than that which is measured by the amount of product it secures.

What do you think happens to the value of money when the the amount of product remains static due to a drop in production (as it has for the last 7 or 8 years internationally) while the amount of money in circulation doubles (like when the Fed was pumping up to $95 billion a month into the international economy during QE1-4)? It halves in value because it has to be divided into the same amount of product as was available before the amount of money doubled. That's inflation with direct correlation to money creation and is easily evidenced in places and in recent times past in the likes of Brazil which saw inflation rates running to triple digits in a matter of days.

Which doesn't at all alter that fact that most drivers for inflation are nothing to do with the availability of printed money, but to do with the price of living our daily lives and the price of doing (and continuing to do,) business.

For instance in NZ all products and services are directly influenced by the price of oil, every part of the supply and delivery chain. If the price of fuel rises, these costs are passed on the chain. delivering and driving inflation, As are the cost of wages or raw products.

All forms of currency is a fluid situation, a snapshot in time it is not fixed hence its name. Currency.

Brian d marge

14th February 2016, 17:23

Money has no value other than that which is measured by the amount of product it secures.

What do you think happens to the value of money when the the amount of product remains static due to a drop in production (as it has for the last 7 or 8 years internationally) while the amount of money in circulation doubles (like when the Fed was pumping up to $95 billion a month into the international economy during QE1-4)? It halves in value because it has to be divided into the same amount of product as was available before the amount of money doubled. That's inflation with direct correlation to money creation and is easily evidenced in places and in recent times past in the likes of Brazil which saw inflation rates running to triple digits in a matter of days.
That's currency not money sorry to be pedantic but there is a difference
But the rest of the post is correct
The interesting thing about QE is it hasn't produced price OK inflation yet as the money is still moving between the boys and hasn't hit the high street .. Some it has asset inflation but
If ..or when it does times will be fun fun fun

Sent from my SC-01G using Tapatalk

Brian d marge

14th February 2016, 17:28

No I did think about what you posted, dimissed it then i corrected it for you.
the price of good imported international comodities and raw materials and oil has mostly nothing to do with your asertion. You need to think locally rather than globally.
I've never said that
I have how ever as flying crocodile has added said that money or currency entering a closed system reduces its purchasing power which has the same effect as raising the price

Sent from my SC-01G using Tapatalk

Brian d marge

14th February 2016, 17:32

do you fucken hear yourself? Like, do you actually think about the shit your saying?
Either that or he doesn't know

The ya get pages of text ..

And red if ya decline to be drawn ...which at the end of the day I was
Luckily I had a choice of Japanese TV ....or bogan

Sent from my SC-01G using Tapatalk

Brian d marge

14th February 2016, 17:34

And the amount of money entering the system is controlled to create stable inflation.

Here's a link about inflation you might wish to use to gain a basic education on the subject matter.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/inflation.asp

In any case, clearly a slight and steady inflation does not cause the failure of fiat currency (apart from the rotation of denominations of course), this is evidenced by the link you posted showing only hyperinflation (in which monthly inflation exceeds 50%) causes a currency to fail. Perhaps you would like to try making another point as to why all fiat currencies will fail? or perhaps it is time to learn that your earlier statement was in error.
Dearest B

I have shown u why and how the fail
Look for the posts with % in
Those numbers mean sumfink

Sent from my SC-01G using Tapatalk

husaberg

14th February 2016, 17:40

I've never said that
I have how ever as flying crocodile has added said that money or currency entering a closed system reduces its purchasing power which has the same effect as raising the price

Sent from my SC-01G using Tapatalk

Never said what?

I quoted your post pointing out what i considered incorrect, its an opinion i still hold.

Inflation comes from currency entering the system
Sent from my SC-01G using Tapatalk

Say What..........

Inflation drivers

Rising wages
Rising wages are a key cause of cost push inflation because wages are the most significant cost for many firms. (higher wages may also contribute to rising demand)

Import prices
If there is a dollar devaluation then import prices will become more expensive leading to an increase in inflation. A devaluation / depreciation means the Pound is worth less, therefore we have to pay more to buy the same imported goods.

Raw Material Prices
The best example is the price of oil, if the oil price increase by 20% then this will have a significant impact on most goods in the economy and this will lead to cost push inflation.

Higher taxes
If the government put up taxes, such as GST and Excise duty, this will lead to higher prices, and therefore CPI will increase.

Rising house prices
Rising house prices do not directly cause inflation, but they can cause a positive wealth effect and encourage consumer led economic growth. This can indirectly cause demand pull inflation.

Printing more money
If the Central Bank prints more money, you would expect to see a rise in inflation. This is because the money supply plays an important role in determining prices. If there is more money chasing the same amount of goods, then prices will rise. Hyperinflation is usually caused by an extreme increase in the money supply.
Oil prices traditionally drive NZ's inflation as everything is transported to and from markets as are the consumers etc

As you grossly over simplified inflation as only having one driver.

bogan

14th February 2016, 17:41

Dearest B

I have shown u why and how the fail
Look for the posts with % in
Those numbers mean sumfink

Sent from my SC-01G using Tapatalk

You've shown me the fail alright, but it is the failure of your education, not the fiat currency system.

You initially persisted down the logical fallacy that disuse means failure; it does not as it has been superseded by electronic currency. You then put forward inflation as an attribute to cause it's failure, but misunderstood how inflation is managed, and seemed to confuse hyperinflation with controlled inflation. Only the latter has ever caused the failure of fiat currency; and such instances are by far in minority when its usage is looked at.

That's a succinct summation, if you have any rational rebuttal or counterpoint you should be able to reply just as succinctly; but I'm betting this will not be the case...

Brian d marge

14th February 2016, 17:45

You've shown me the fail alright, but it is the failure of your education, not the fiat currency system.

You initially persisted down the logical fallacy that disuse means failure; it does not as it has been superseded by electronic currency. You then put forward inflation as an attribute to cause it's failure, but misunderstood how inflation is managed, and seemed to confuse hyperinflation with controlled inflation. Only the latter has ever caused the failure of fiat currency; and such instances are by far in minority when its usage is looked at.

That's a succinct summation, if you have any rational rebuttal or counterpoint you should be able to reply just as succinctly; but I'm betting this will not be the case...
Garbage
Please watch this video

https://youtu.be/9sZdXJbK554

Sent from my SC-01G using Tapatalk