Cunliffe's constituent Liu? [Archive] - Page 2

mada

29th June 2014, 21:15

That's pretty much exactly what happened until recently isn't it? In spite of, as you point out some pretty serious disincentives to do so the cream of NZ's producers fucked off overseas. How much tax did we make from that lot? You have the smell of one who doesn't change his opinion in the face of evidence to the contrary.

Ignoring the schoolboy rhetoric, you're apparently wrong. Not only do all of those polls you claim are so inaccurate disagree with you but more specifically so did Wednesday's stuff poll, which in answer to the question "do you agree with Labour's policy to raise tax on income over $150k to 36%" answered "No, they pay enough already".

For what it's worth I agree, what possible reason would anyone have for demanding more from the 9% that already supply over 70% of tax revenue?

You'd have to be a right greedy bastard.

The only "producers" who fucked off overseas moved to China, where wages were a pittance - do you suggest we have no minimum wage and lower our standards to keep these "cream" employers?

The bulk of the people who left NZ for AUS/UK fell into two categories. 1) Working class/Middle class who were looking for better wages and had skills that could get them better money in Aus.. a lot of these jobs were just in labouring, which is why Aus has so many Maori there now, because these guys could A) not find enough work in NZ B) were paid a pittance compared to what Aus offered. B) graduates who either could not find work in NZ for their jobs or the wages were to shit compared to the interest/loans they had to pay back.

Very few if any people left NZ because of "Tax"... the types of people to do that would be the Owen Glenns, Kim Dotcoms, and Fay Richwhites of NZ and if they all left the country we would be much better for it! Couldn't care if we don't get as much from them, because according to you lot they all do their darnest to avoid tax anyway and these guys contrib nothing to our society at all - so no big fucking loss.

Those polls are trolls.

Sure most people don't want TAX increase. Ask how many of them wanted GST to go up by 2.5% eh?

It's gonna have to increase soon anyway, all us youngens have to pay for the promises and debts of you oldies (eg. the pension) who had the state hand everything out on a plate only to turn around and sell it off and charge us younger ones for it. Privatised education and student loans for primary school coming probably coming soon, thanks ACT and Nats.:brick:

mada

29th June 2014, 21:38

Aside from the combative nature of their interaction I can see a lot of merit in what Ocean is saying but also Mash has some fair points from time to time.
Ocean, I thank you sincerely for the business you have done with me, without customers I wouldnt have paid employees. Without the ''business sector'' being the engine room of the economy we would be in a sorry and medieval state. Business should be allowed to prosper and not be penalised excessively for doing so. With the qualification that we dont want an economy that is heavily weighted towards speculative income with banks and corporates totally out of control.

I don't think you will find anyone that has a problem with "business".... most kiwis will have at least one relative and friend who owns and operates a small or medium sized business and I agree they are the lifeblood of NZ. Increasing tax on the top bracket however does sweet fuck all for them. As very few if any of those small businesses have people earning "taxable" incomes over $150,000.

In a couple of years time I will be earning $150,000 - $200,000 easy. Paying an extra 3% income tax will mean sweet fuck all to me as I can live within my means quite easily - even on a quarter of that. If it means society continues to function, I'd rather see taxes increase and people have their needs met - public education, public health, public roads, support for those who lose their jobs etc. than the ALTERNATIVE.

Unequal societies are not healthy ones, you only need to look at the States where not only do the poorest Americans have lower life expectancies than most other Western countries, but their richest do too - because in unequal countries where helping others and life has a lower value placed on it you get more crime and more preventable deaths.

mada

29th June 2014, 21:54

Monkeys. Shakespear.

De Nada, Robert. Good job done well.

Aye, as I said earlier there's far too many that refuse to believe that without at least the minimum of free market principles their lives would be far shorter and a damned sight less enjoyable.

Qualification noted. But consider that if govt constructed rules appropriately then it wouldn't be possible to behave unethically within the law. And allow that those with savings have a right to freely negotiate loans.

Certain principles work yes. But the reality is, just like socialism - the market is undermined by human greed. The principles are flawed on the basis that the interests of the players involved are different to the aims/theory of the principles. It's not in a businesses interest to have a good market with lots of competition, informed buyers, easy access to the market - this means less profit for them, more struggle to make ends meet, less time and money spent on expanding their business. Thats why at the most basic level of our iconic "farmers markets" which are probably the closest thing in the country to a "free market" in action - there are restrictions on the number of sellers for products so those involved can maintain monopolies.

And how do you regulate the banks and people to behave "ethically"? It's in their interests for everyone to be up to their eye balls in debt borrowed from them... they benefit when interest rates are low - so people buy up large on property, and then when they increase and they start increasing the returns on mortgages/call in for those mortgages.

It would not be in the banks interests to subject themselves to market principles - eg. putting all their mortgagee sales up at the same time - increasing supply would decrease house values - resulting in lower returns for them - so instead they drip feed mortgagee sales onto the market... How do you legislate for that? Do you advocate forcing a business to conform to the market principles? Or should the rort just continue...

mada

29th June 2014, 22:06

Left thinking = Envy ... Right thinking = Enable (make things happen) There's nothing left but to get right on with life! :ride:

This post made me envious of your play on words....:nice one:

You're probably a leftie though. As if you are right handed then the side of your brain doing most of your higher level functions such as interpreting these words, integrating them, and then processing a response is primarily done in your left cerebral cortex which will be dominant.

Most people are right handed - thats why there are so many bloody lefties and we rule the world. :headbang:

Oscar

29th June 2014, 22:12

It would not be in the banks interests to subject themselves to market principles - eg. putting all their mortgagee sales up at the same time - increasing supply would decrease house values - resulting in lower returns for them - so instead they drip feed mortgagee sales onto the market... How do you legislate for that? Do you advocate forcing a business to conform to the market principles? Or should the rort just continue...

You have a fairly warped idea of "market principles".
How is hanging onto houses subject to mortgagee sale an instrument of the free market?
Hanging on to these properties for longer than necessary will compound the loss for both the bank and the erstwhile owner.
And as you say, releasing them all at the same time depresses the market so the the debtor gets even less in the wash up.
How do you propose the poor bastids who owned those houses are going to pay default interest whilst waiting for the sale?

Notwithstanding this, why is it the banks interest for "everyone to be up to their eye balls in debt" - bad debtors cut banks profits.

You seem to forget there is more than one party in these deals.

mada

29th June 2014, 22:18

You have a fairly warped idea of "market principles".
How is hanging onto houses subject to mortgagee sale an instrument of the free market?
Hanging on to these properties for longer than necessary will compound the loss for both the bank and the erstwhile owner.
And as you say, releasing them all at the same time depresses the market so the the debtor gets even less in the wash up.
How do you propose the poor bastids who owned those houses are going to pay default interest whilst waiting for the sale?

You seem to forget there is more than one party in these deals.

Hanging onto the properties doesn't really compound the loss for the banks - when they end up getting a higher sale price to the original and potentially new business via loans. This has been happening for years, not just for houses either - for a lot of the farms too.

What I am saying is - it is not in the interests of most businesses to follow or try and adhere to the Market Principles. The Principles are contrary to most businesses goals - make money, usually as much as possible, and for the big multinationals such as banks - usually by any means. Most businesses would prefer not to work under such principles - as if they had to they would be struggling. And for that reason the Principles are just as airy fairy as socialism.

mashman

29th June 2014, 22:34

And who's fault is that? Same old shit, bunch of greedy cunts spending someone else's money. I just wish the govt would reimburse positive tax contributors when the shit hits the fan through overspending by tax beneficiaries.

I'm not taking more out than I should be. It's the arseholes that are that cause the problems, as I've been pointing out to you.

And for someone who's not envious you do a fucking good job of whining like a pork chop because others have shit you reckon they shouldn't. Fuck off to wherever you learned that shit was OK, 'cause all it does hereabouts is make you look a greedy cunt.

The govt does help those tax contributors, they get the waterways cleaned, they get a favourable ear for lobbying, they get crown guarantees, they have the ear of the govt etc... and if the shit hits the fan, well, you read Stephen's linky in the other thread, it ain't gonna turn out too well coz as is evidenced by the Ukraine and Iraq, pitchforks quite often turn into something entirely different and I'd rather avoid that. Either way, our reaction to such concern is, "reset" the system and let's lumber from one fuck up to another as the boom bust cycle continues on its way to financial collapse and drives all sorts of financially motivated emotive right/left/extreme/centrist rhetoric laced wedges into society. Tis bullshit. Greedy cunts/govts reimbursing tax contributions/tax beneficiaries only exist because of the fancy human activity bookkeeping system... they can't help being and needing to be, in fact they are all requirements for the economy.

Oh FFS meh. As above, the arseholes exist because of the human activity bookkeeping system, coz you're only calling them arseholes because they aren't doing what you expect them to do and that effect has a direct link to our standard of living. Silly human activity bookkeeping system.

Is that what I reckon? I reckon that's not what I reckon at all, but hey, you find your story's much bettererer than mine. Funnily enough my current array of shit was learned is 100% pure NZ based thinkin.

oldrider

29th June 2014, 22:35

This post made me envious of your play on words....:nice one:

You're probably a leftie though. As if you are right handed then the side of your brain doing most of your higher level functions such as interpreting these words, integrating them, and then processing a response is primarily done in your left cerebral cortex which will be dominant.

Most people are right handed - thats why there are so many bloody lefties and we rule the world. :headbang:

Fail ... physically ambidextrous with a slight right bias centre brained ENTP ... difficulty with detail but long on vision! Suffering from effects of A.G.E. :zzzz:

Brian d marge

29th June 2014, 22:43

mada

29th June 2014, 23:11

Fail ... physically ambidextrous with a slight right bias centre brained ENTP ... difficulty with detail but long on vision! Suffering from effects of A.G.E. :zzzz:

Ahh so you're one of those buggers who sits in the centre politics wise. Very uncommon compared to the dominating lefty types:msn-wink:

Your chances of coping well from a stroke or similar condition are much better than us lefties though:niceone:

Oscar

29th June 2014, 23:30

you really have no idea how things work

The more debt the better

you cant even understand inflation .....go back to delivering milk at least you had a chance of some excitement

Stephen

That's pretty funny.
I have spent a good portion of my life working for banks and finance companies, so I actually have an idea of how real life works.
You may go on getting your ideas from comic books...

mada

29th June 2014, 23:49

That's pretty funny.
I have spent a good portion of my life working for banks and finance companies, so I actually have an idea of how real life works.
You may go on getting your ideas from comic books...

Ofcourse the banks don't act like predators....

Westpac staff in Christchurch say they are being forced to push loans and insurance policies on financially struggling customers in the wake of the devastating February earthquake.

Bank workers' union Finsec said staff have been told by management that "it is business as usual" in Christchurch and that they were required to meet their normal sales targets.

"Westpac tellers feel pressure to sell financial products where they don't always feel they are in the best interest of the customers," Mr Christeller said.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/rebuilding-christchurch/5062146/Sales-targets-test-Westpac-tellers

Socialist lies eh..

Oscar

29th June 2014, 23:49

Hanging onto the properties doesn't really compound the loss for the banks - when they end up getting a higher sale price to the original and potentially new business via loans. This has been happening for years, not just for houses either - for a lot of the farms too.

What I am saying is - it is not in the interests of most businesses to follow or try and adhere to the Market Principles. The Principles are contrary to most businesses goals - make money, usually as much as possible, and for the big multinationals such as banks - usually by any means. Most businesses would prefer not to work under such principles - as if they had to they would be struggling. And for that reason the Principles are just as airy fairy as socialism.

That's interesting, as I have worked for a bank and a couple of finance companies and bad loans were considered very bad form, bad for business and likely to get you called into the bosses office. Make a habit of it and it was usually reflected in the compensation of whomever signed the loan off. If what you are saying was true, Banks would encourage their staff to be reckless lenders when the opposite is true - bad debtors look very bad on the balance sheet and make shareholders grumpy.

As for disposing of the property, the loan document and various consumer protection acts are very specific about the disposal of foreclosed property - you can't just "hang on to it".
And as for a "higher sale price", you do realise the bank only gets to keep the loan, outstanding interest and actual incurred costs, don't you? They don't just assume ownership - anything left over after the loan is settled goes to the client.

However it is a axiomatic on KB that those with the least experience and knowledge of something will comment on it the most - Messers D-Marge and Mashman being good examples.

Oscar

29th June 2014, 23:54

Ofcourse the banks don't act like predators....

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/rebuilding-christchurch/5062146/Sales-targets-test-Westpac-tellers

Socialist lies eh..

Not socialist lies, but three years old.
One instance of bad behaviour by a bank does not prove your (unrelated) theories on the free market.

mada

30th June 2014, 00:11

That's interesting, as I have worked for a bank and a couple of finance companies and bad loans were considered very bad form, bad for business and likely to get you called into the bosses office. Make a habit of it and it was usually reflected in the compensation of whomever signed the loan off. If what you are saying was true, Banks would encourage their staff to be reckless lenders when the opposite is true - bad debtors look very bad on the balance sheet and make shareholders grumpy.

As for disposing of the property, the loan document and various consumer protection acts are very specific about the disposal of foreclosed property - you can't just "hang on to it".
And as for a "higher sale price", you do realise the bank only gets to keep the loan, outstanding interest and actual incurred costs, don't you? They don't just assume ownership - anything left over after the loan is settled goes to the client.

However it is a axiomatic on KB that those with the least experience and knowledge of something will comment on it the most - Messers D-Marge and Mashman being good examples.

Ofcourse the bank does not gain DIRECTLY from a mortgagee sale. Their gain is from the increase in land/house prices - whereby the next owner is most likely to take out an even higher loan with them. Are you saying that the banks have not profited by the bucket load from the booming property market and increased mortgages required to by a house or to buy a farm???

The Banks don't call in their mortgages and then hang on to them, rather they let the farmers off from fully paying for sometime so they do not legally have to foreclose and sell - preventing a flooding of the market.

Sorry, I trust my dairy farming National voting gun toting cousin more than you even if his comments were over 2 years ago and based on what was happening in Canterbury.

Its not the only area that has farmers complaining of banks lending practices etc.

Obviously this below shows there are shitloads of socialists up north:

Aggressive lending practices by the major banks have forced 30 Northland farmers off their land in the past 18 months through mortgagee sales, according to a Dargaville-based lobby group.

Farmers of New Zealand, an alternative to Federated Farmers, said a meeting planned for March would raise the possibility of aggrieved farmers taking a class action against the banks.

John Waugh, a barrister and former banking executive, will advise farmers on their rights, said Farmers of NZ's operations director, Bill Guest.

He expected the meeting to take place soon after the Northland Agricultural Field Days at Dargaville from February 27 to March 1.

Guest said 25 to 30 farmers had walked off their land over the past 18 months and he expected the number to reach 40.

Drought in parts of Northland and Kaipara had made matters worse for many farmers, he said.

In many cases farmer debt loads had been unrealistically high and the banks' risk analysis procedures had been "seriously lacking".

"Farmers of NZ believes that they were set up to fail, and some people have lost their shirts."

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11201726

Look at that, clearly outdated being some four months old.

:rolleyes:

mada

30th June 2014, 00:29

Good financial risk management eh...

New Zealand's dairy sector debt nearly tripled over the past decade to $30.5 billion last year and some farmers will have difficulty servicing their loans in the year ahead, despite the prospect of a higher milk price.
The Ministry for Primary Industries, in its latest Situation and Outlook report, said the debt was spread unevenly among farmers, with about half held by just 10 per cent of dairy farmers. Given the rapid growth in dairying over the past decade, the ministry said it was not surprising that its level of debt had also increased.

The dairy sector's demand for debt financing over the past decade was due to a number of factors, one of which was the requirement to fund a large number of capital-intensive dairy conversions. "While there is a strong correlation between the increase in debt and dairying land during the six-year period ending June 2009 - the period of strongest debt growth - the 15.5 per cent annual average growth in debt during this period was only associated with a 2 per cent increase in dairy land per annum," the ministry said.

A significant proportion of the debt accumulated during this period could be attributed to PRICE INFLATION FOR LAND, which averaged 12 per cent a year.

Because demand for such land exceeded available supply, much of the debt was reflected in higher land prices.

"This has left a significant number of dairy farmers vulnerable to a fall in the milk price or a decline in land prices," the ministry said.

Dairy NZ estimates that nearly 40 per cent of North Island dairy farmers will not be able to meet their working expenses and interest costs this season because of the effects of the drought. An expected higher milk payout this season would assist farmers to service their debt, the ministry said. "Unfortunately, some of the most heavily indebted dairy farmers may have difficulty in servicing their debt even with the higher payout," it said.

Looking ahead, debt would remain a risk to the financial viability of many dairy farmers, the ministry said.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10890952

:tugger:

Brian d marge

30th June 2014, 05:10

That's pretty funny.
I have spent a good portion of my life working for banks and finance companies, so I actually have an idea of how real life works.
You may go on getting your ideas from comic books...

No you dont Mashman has more integrity in his little finger than you have had in your entire life ,

you have NO idea of the banksters game plan and try to justify your suroundings by using the input from local media

you have NO idea how other cultures function let alone your own

Are you really SAYING the banks / current system is , sort off , doing ok?

you REALLY do not understand what it is to be ,here and now

i find that sad

I hope you wake up before your meeting with the man upstairs ,,,, i really do

sorry for the disjointed diatribe but you are so lacking in knowledge and my keyboard can only take so much abuse , I am forced to comprimise

stephen

I challenge you to put up ONE bit of evidence to support

mashman

30th June 2014, 08:19

No you dont Mashman has more integrity in his little finger than you have had in your entire life ,

Are you really SAYING the banks / current system is , sort off , doing ok?

:rofl: awwww hugs.

No, he's saying that it's the fault of the people that the current system is a failure. He has been bought.

Cannot spread for you again... which is a shame coz I rofl'd at your compromise.

Oscar

30th June 2014, 09:16

Ofcourse the bank does not gain DIRECTLY from a mortgagee sale. Their gain is from the increase in land/house prices - whereby the next owner is most likely to take out an even higher loan with them. Are you saying that the banks have not profited by the bucket load from the booming property market and increased mortgages required to by a house or to buy a farm???

The Banks don't call in their mortgages and then hang on to them, rather they let the farmers off from fully paying for sometime so they do not legally have to foreclose and sell - preventing a flooding of the market.

Sorry, I trust my dairy farming National voting gun toting cousin more than you even if his comments were over 2 years ago and based on what was happening in Canterbury.

Its not the only area that has farmers complaining of banks lending practices etc.

Obviously this below shows there are shitloads of socialists up north:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11201726

Look at that, clearly outdated being some four months old.

:rolleyes:

So this is all a conspiracy to force up property prices?

You’re saying that the banks will lose money on their core business to force up property prices? Land in which they have no stake in order to stoke up the market so that they can lend more money?

Also your example is very short on details and contradicts your theory. If it is true, and farmers have loans which require 100% of income to service, then the borrower is mad and the bank guilty of reckless lending. This more likely means that the farmers income has fallen, and with it the value of the farm (toward negative equity) - this means the banks reckless lending driven the market DOWN, not up. It is also not uncommon for lenders to allow borrowers to retain their property if the consequences of a foreclosure would put them in a worse position – negative equity where the lender loses not just interest but principle. This would seem to be counter to your argument that the banks try to drive the market up in these circumstances.

Oscar

30th June 2014, 09:19

No you dont Mashman has more integrity in his little finger than you have had in your entire life ,

you have NO idea of the banksters game plan and try to justify your suroundings by using the input from local media

you have NO idea how other cultures function let alone your own

Are you really SAYING the banks / current system is , sort off , doing ok?

you REALLY do not understand what it is to be ,here and now

i find that sad

I hope you wake up before your meeting with the man upstairs ,,,, i really do

sorry for the disjointed diatribe but you are so lacking in knowledge and my keyboard can only take so much abuse , I am forced to comprimise

stephen

I challenge you to put up ONE bit of evidence to support

So now you're saying that there's an international conspiracy of banks? Sorry, Banksters...:lol:
Not only that, but you're asking me to put up some evidence to gainsay a theory which you have failed to prove?
And that if I don't, GOD will punish me?
You really are a fruitbag.

Oscar

30th June 2014, 09:22

No you dont Mashman has more integrity in his little finger than you have had in your entire life ,

Since you have never met me in person, and I doubt you've met him, you're saying that you can judge and compare integrity over the internet?
Do you realise how pathetic and stupid that is?

mashman

30th June 2014, 10:09

Since you have never met me in person, and I doubt you've met him, you're saying that you can judge and compare integrity over the internet?
Do you realise how pathetic and stupid that is?

Oh Ironing.

Oscar

30th June 2014, 11:09

mada

30th June 2014, 14:00

So this is all a conspiracy to force up property prices?

You’re saying that the banks will lose money on their core business to force up property prices? Land in which they have no stake in order to stoke up the market so that they can lend more money?

Also your example is very short on details and contradicts your theory. If it is true, and farmers have loans which require 100% of income to service, then the borrower is mad and the bank guilty of reckless lending. This more likely means that the farmers income has fallen, and with it the value of the farm (toward negative equity) - this means the banks reckless lending driven the market DOWN, not up. It is also not uncommon for lenders to allow borrowers to retain their property if the consequences of a foreclosure would put them in a worse position – negative equity where the lender loses not just interest but principle. This would seem to be counter to your argument that the banks try to drive the market up in these circumstances.

Believe what you want, many know what is going on. Those who gain the most from increasing house and land prices are the banks. Not society.

I'm sure you probably even believe there has been no conspiracy by Banks to avoid paying billions in tax in NZ :face palm:

New Zealand's big four Australian-owned banks and the Inland Revenue Department have announced a settlement of their disputes over structured finance deals that involves the banks paying the government a gross NZ$2.2 billion. This represents 80% of the amounts owed by the banks and is the largest commercial settlement with the IRD in its history. (Updated with comment from ANZ, ASB, BNZ, Westpac and the IRD)

The settlement follows years of legal fights and two high court rulings in favour of the IRD. The banks will not pay penalties and the full details of the settlement are confidential, although they are paying 80% of the total tax owed plus interest. The amount was enough to boost New Zealand's current account into a surplus in the September quarter for the first time in almost 21 years.

The Commissioner of Inland Revenue, Robert Russell, and the Solicitor-General, David Collins, said they were pleased the long-running tax disputes involving four major banks had been settled.

mada

30th June 2014, 14:12

I thought I'd reinforce my right wing bastard credentials by posting a picture of Huka Lodge, where I was on Saturday.
They wouldn't let me go fishing using an unemployed person's baby as bait, though.
Soft pricks...

Huka's lodge is pretty boring - this just shows your age rather than anything else.

A picture at "Hookers Lodge" and the "fishing" there would reinforce your credentials and bring out the envy of us leftwing posters.

Oscar

30th June 2014, 14:24

Believe what you want, many know what is going on. Those who gain the most from increasing house and land prices are the banks. Not society.

I'm sure you probably even believe there has been no conspiracy by Banks to avoid paying billions in tax in NZ :face palm:

Um, it's the conspiracy can't be that good if they got caught, eh?
The fact is that businesses push the line all the time when it comes to tax.
As there were no penalties involved, you could hardly say that this was criminal, rather a dispute about interpretation of the regulations .

As far as land / property prices are concerned, you have yet to prove that any bank is actively trying to create a bubble.
Like many here, you talk a good game.

Oscar

30th June 2014, 14:29

Huka's lodge is pretty boring - this just shows your age rather than anything else.

A picture at "Hookers Lodge" and the "fishing" there would reinforce your credentials and bring out the envy of us leftwing posters.

I'm not sure what age has to do with it.
For the record, I found the place to be nice, but hardly worth the money they were asking.
I'm not sure that 10k a night can be justified on the basis that the Queen slept there or that the fishing is good.
I went to a place in Malaysia last year where the facilities and service was as good for a fraction of the price.

mada

30th June 2014, 14:41

I'm not sure what age has to do with it.
For the record, I found the place to be nice, but hardly worth the money they were asking.
I'm not sure that 10k a night can be justified on the basis that the Queen slept there or that the fishing is good.
I went to a place in Malaysia last year where the facilities and service was as good for a fraction of the price.

I'd rather go to Matai Bay.. Good fishing, crayfish, good swimming, relaxing.

A bit pricey at $7 a night.

http://images.bookabach.co.nz/property-images/1618/listing/89339XL.jpg

mada

30th June 2014, 14:50

Um, it's the conspiracy can't be that good if they got caught, eh?
The fact is that businesses push the line all the time when it comes to tax.
As there were no penalties involved, you could hardly say that this was criminal, rather a dispute about interpretation of the regulations .

As far as land / property prices are concerned, you have yet to prove that any bank is actively trying to create a bubble.
Like many here, you talk a good game.

That's a side issue really.

I have proven the main argument - it is not in businesses interests (especially big businesses) to support or conform to the principles of "free market" capitalism. For free market capitalism to work it requires strong government oversight (and that would require a shit load of bureaucracy) and regulation. It's not workable unless you want a massive fucking government department.

The theory that we can have minimal regulation and legislation and then TRUST businesses to do the right thing is as loony and far fetched as believing that we could have a benevolent authoritarian regime that would help everyone (communism).

Oscar

30th June 2014, 14:58

That's a side issue really.

I have proven the main argument - it is not in businesses interests (especially big businesses) to support or conform to the principles of "free market" capitalism. For free market capitalism to work it requires strong government oversight (and that would require a shit load of bureaucracy) and regulation. It's not workable unless you want a massive fucking government department.

The theory that we can have minimal regulation and legislation and then TRUST businesses to do the right thing is as loony and far fetched as believing that we could have a benevolent authoritarian regime that would help everyone (communism).

You proved nothing.
Show me where banks are manipulating the property market with foreclosed property.

Oscar

30th June 2014, 15:00

I'd rather go to Matai Bay.. Good fishing, crayfish, good swimming, relaxing.

A bit pricey at $7 a night.

To be fair, trout fishing is a bit of a bore.
Much cheaper and more fun to fish for Kahawai on light line around Kawhia or Raglan...

MisterD

30th June 2014, 15:31

<blockquote>I have proven the main argument - it is not in businesses interests (especially big businesses) to support or conform to the principles of "free market" capitalism. For free market capitalism to work it requires strong government oversight (and that would require a shit load of bureaucracy) and regulation. It's not workable unless you want a massive fucking government department. </blockquote>

Sort of right and sort of bollocks. It's not in the interest of big business to have a real free market, because they tend to get knee-capped by small, agile competitors. This is why they spend so much money lobbying government to create the right sort of regulated market to erect barriers to competitors entering. What we have is Crony Capitalism, and what your talking about is creating more and different cronies.

We've had a form of capitalism since the Black Death created a shortage of labour and broke the feudal system and it's been lifting more people out of poverty than anything else since then. Markets and competition are the only fair and efficient mechanisms for allocating resources and there's nothing that all the wishful thinking by all the Guardian readers in the world can do to change that.

mada

30th June 2014, 15:57

You proved nothing.
Show me where banks are manipulating the property market with foreclosed property.

I have provided links that support what I have said. I have provided links which call into question the credibility of the banking sector.

You have said in defence of that sector that it would never lend to people at high risk... I've demonstrated how that is a load of bullshit.

How does your blind faith in the banking sector explain these?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_foreclosure_crisis

and this...

Australia's biggest four retail banks, which own New Zealand's top five banks, have a A$850 million (NZ$972 million) direct exposure to the troubled United States sub-prime mortgage market, The Australian newspaper reported today.

The Commonwealth Bank of Australia, National Australia Bank, ANZ Group and Westpac's exposure comes through investments in troubled US mortgage group Countrywide Financial. Commonwealth Bank owns ASB, National Australia owns the Bank of New Zealand, ANZ Group is the parent of both New Zealand's ANZ and National Bank and Westpac the parent of Westpac New Zealand.

The Australian banks were part of a syndicate of 40 international banks that provided Countrywide an $US11.5 billion (NZ$14.8 billion) lifeline last year.

According to The Australian, Commonwealth Bank and National Australia invested A$300 million each, while the ANZ pumped in A$150 million and Westpac $100 million.

Their exposure to the sub-prime crisis through Countrywide was confirmed by the Australian banks yesterday, the newspaper reported.

Shares in Countrywide, the US's largest independent mortgage lender, fell 17 per cent on Tuesday after speculation, which it denied, that the company would seek bankruptcy protection.

The speculation around Countrywide comes against a backdrop of defaults on sub-prime mortgages, or loans to borrowers with poor credit histories, from global banking giants such as Citigroup, UBS and HSBC so far producing about US$80 billion (NZ$104 billion) in losses on securities backed by them.

Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it is not happening.

Brian d marge

30th June 2014, 16:14

Watch how quickly tweedledee dismisses the evidence . . .

Oscar

30th June 2014, 16:17

I have provided links that support what I have said. I have provided links which call into question the credibility of the banking sector.

You have said in defence of that sector that it would never lend to people at high risk... I've demonstrated how that is a load of bullshit.

How does your blind faith in the banking sector explain these?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_foreclosure_crisis

and this...

Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it is not happening.

Make up your mind, are you talking about Farmers in Northland or sub prime mortgages in the US?
Coz you're contradicting yourself again - the sub prime debacle collapse caused property values to fall.

It also doesn't surprise me that some Aussie banks were exposed to the crisis, but the figure you give is much lower than I would have expected (and not a lot of money compared to the asset base of those banks). Your quote is also five years old.

And speaking of bullshit, where did I say that Bank's "never lend to people at high risk"?
I just explained what would happen in the case of delinquent lending and that it was contrary to 1) your theory about property value manipulation and 2) the bank’s profitability.

You seem to be working on the basis that anything bad about banks anywhere in the world proves your theory about banks manipulating the property market. This is propaganda at its most basic and childish. Read what YOU wrote again and back it up with something relevant facts.

Oscar

30th June 2014, 16:21

Watch how quickly tweedledee dismisses the evidence . . .

Why must you continue to prove that you are a complete moron?
I came to that conclusion some time ago.

His "evidence" has nothing to do with his claims about market fixing (in fact it proves him wrong).

Brian d marge

30th June 2014, 16:31

Why must you continue to prove that you are a complete moron?
I came to that conclusion some time ago.

His "evidence" has nothing to do with his claims about market fixing (in fact it proves him wrong).

yes , the subprime scandal was perfectly normal banking procedure

as was the libor scandal .... but what would Andrew lo from MIT know .......:weird:

This dwarfs by orders of magnitude any financial scam in the history of markets.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libor_scandal#cite_note-1)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libor_scandal#cite_note-2)

“
”

Andrew Lo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Lo), MIT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Institute_of_Technology)Professor of Finance

He must me a moron like my good self ....that would explain it

Stephen

mashman

30th June 2014, 16:35

Sort of right and sort of bollocks. It's not in the interest of big business to have a real free market, because they tend to get knee-capped by small, agile competitors. This is why they spend so much money lobbying government to create the right sort of regulated market to erect barriers to competitors entering. What we have is Crony Capitalism, and what your talking about is creating more and different cronies.

We've had a form of capitalism since the Black Death created a shortage of labour and broke the feudal system and it's been lifting more people out of poverty than anything else since then. Markets and competition are the only fair and efficient mechanisms for allocating resources and there's nothing that all the wishful thinking by all the Guardian readers in the world can do to change that.

crony capitalism was invented on exactly the same day interest was. It's ancient. Agile competitors can be bought or removed. It's that easy to a committed businessman. Would I kill to protect my market if I believed that I was untouchable. You fuckin betcha. However I may try lobbying first instead of feeding the fished. Either way, that's one thing that I am capable of, but choose not to indulge in for the simple reason that I understand the damage such an attitude would have on the general populous. There are people who choose to indulge in that behaviour and they're not stupid by any stretch of the imagination... in fact, I bet the odd one or two own a country or two. They have always existed and the financial system and the associated power belongs to them. True on the just creating more cronies thing though.

Markets, yes, competition, not so much... a fair an efficient mechanism would be no need to value the item in the first place. Cooperation and doing things for a reason with the resources that are available is where it's at baby. If the power spender is a cunt, then competition will be removed etc... see above for further details.

A bit dark and sinister you might think, your choice, but given the shit that goes on on this planet, my money is on it being even darker and more sinister than it can be made. Especially when it comes to manipulating the masses into being good consumers.

Oscar

30th June 2014, 16:42

yes , the subprime scandal was perfectly normal banking procedure

as was the libor scandal .... but what would Andrew lo from MIT know .......:weird:

This dwarfs by orders of magnitude any financial scam in the history of markets.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libor_scandal#cite_note-1)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libor_scandal#cite_note-2)

“
”

Andrew Lo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Lo), MIT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Institute_of_Technology)Professor of Finance

He must me a moron like my good self ....that would explain it

Stephen

What the fuck are you on about?
I never said that the sub prime problem was normal banking procedure and I never mentioned Libor.

How does what you've posted now prove the theory that banks use foreclosure to manipulate the property market?
I doubt he's a moron, but I also doubt that he would connect the two subjects either.

mada

30th June 2014, 16:48

What the fuck are you on about?
I never said that the sub prime problem was normal banking procedure and I never mentioned Libor.

How does what you've posted now prove the theory that banks use foreclosure to manipulate the property market?
I doubt he's a moron, but I also doubt that he would connect the two subjects either.

That's interesting, as I have worked for a bank and a couple of finance companies and bad loans were considered very bad form, bad for business and likely to get you called into the bosses office. Make a habit of it and it was usually reflected in the compensation of whomever signed the loan off. If what you are saying was true, Banks would encourage their staff to be reckless lenders when the opposite is true - bad debtors look very bad on the balance sheet and make shareholders grumpy.

Memory lapse? Do you vote for John Key? Would make sense if you did...:clap:

Brian d marge

30th June 2014, 16:54

He has selective memory then when challenged nitpicks his way out

One good thing is that he is a minority

MisterD

30th June 2014, 16:54

Markets, yes, competition, not so much... a fair an efficient mechanism would be no need to value the item in the first place. Cooperation and doing things for a reason with the resources that are available is where it's at baby. If the power spender is a cunt, then competition will be removed etc... see above for further details.

A bit dark and sinister you might think, your choice, but given the shit that goes on on this planet, my money is on it being even darker and more sinister than it can be made. Especially when it comes to manipulating the masses into being good consumers.

You're tying yourself up in (il)logical knots again. The only way to allocate resources fairly is by attaching a price to them, so that those who value them most get to use them. Yes, human nature is such that some people will always try to bend the rules to their own advantage, but that same argument works just as well against your rose-tinted "cooperation baby" ideal, and if you set out to eliminate the bastard "big" businessman, all you'll create are bastard exploitative politicians. You only have to look at the way Green politicians rail against the power of the state, and GCSB surveillance and then next minute turn around and want to send a Gunboat to confront Japanese Whalers, to see that.

Oscar

30th June 2014, 16:57

Memory lapse? Do you vote for John Key? Would make sense if you did...:clap:

What the fuck are you on about now?
The first quote has little to do with the second, which is about how bad loans are dealt with and comments on what banks do to mitigate them.
You actually know little or nothing about banking, don't you?

Why don't you just admit that you have no proof that banks manipulate the property market with foreclosures?
"I have provided links which call into question the credibility of the banking sector" does not constitute proof, it is propaganda, pure and simple.

Oscar

30th June 2014, 16:58

He has selective memory then when challenged nitpicks his way out

One good thing is that he is a minority

He has not posted one piece of evidence that proves his initial claim.
Asking him to back up a claim with facts is hardly nitpicking.

And you are still a moron.

mada

30th June 2014, 17:00

What the fuck are you on about now?
The first quote has little to do with the second, which is about how bad loans are dealt with and comments on what banks do to mitigate them.
You actually know little or nothing about banking, don't you?

Why don't you just admit that you have no proof that banks manipulate the property market with foreclosures?

Reminds me of this post bro:

The Aussie tax rate to $180,000 is 30.3% :brick:

mada

30th June 2014, 17:03

He has selective memory then when challenged nitpicks his way out

One good thing is that he is a minority

It's no wonder we get politicians with selective memories, they're just representing their constituents:bash:

Brian d marge

30th June 2014, 17:03

What the fuck are you on about now?
The first quote has little to do with the second, which is about how bad loans are dealt with and comments on what banks do to mitigate them.
You actually know little or nothing about banking, don't you?

Why don't you just admit that you have no proof that banks manipulate the property market with foreclosures?
"I have provided links which call into question the credibility of the banking sector" does not constitute proof, it is propaganda, pure and simple.

the key word is foreclosures isnt it ........and yes its propaganda

Stephen

Oscar

30th June 2014, 17:09

Reminds me of this post bro:

:brick:

Shit, you're sucker for punishment.

The total tax in Aussie on $180,000 is $54,547, which represents 30.30389%

Now how about you address the issue for a change?

Oscar

30th June 2014, 17:09

It's no wonder we get politicians with selective memories, they're just representing their constituents:bash:

At least they can do simple maths.

mada

30th June 2014, 17:23

Shit, you're sucker for punshiment.

The total tax in Aussie on $180,000 is $54,547, which represents 30.30389%

Now how about you address the issue for a change?

But that's not what you said dipshit. You claimed that that was the "tax rate" not the total tax paid.

Theres a clear difference between a tax rate and total tax paid.:brick:

And your total tax figure would still be higher than a 3% raise on the top bracket in NZ as someone in NZ on 180,000 currently only pays TOTAL TAX $50,320.00.

Clearly you can't do basic maths if you think adding 3% on to the TOP bracket, not even the TOTAL will make us more expensive than Australia.:bash:

mada

30th June 2014, 17:28

Definition of 'Shadow Inventory'

A term that refers to real estate properties that are either in foreclosure and have not yet been sold or homes that owners are delaying putting on the market until prices improve. Shadow inventory can create uncertainty about the best time to sell (for owners) and when a local market can expect full recovery. Also, shadow inventory typically causes reported data on housing inventory to understate the actual number of inventory in the market.

Investopedia explains 'Shadow Inventory' http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/shadow-inventory.asp

With the unprecedented number of foreclosures stemming from the subprime mortgage meltdown of 2007-2008 and the overall housing market collapse during that crisis, lenders were left with significant real estate holdings. Many lenders were slow to put their inventory up for sale for fear of flooding the market and further driving down prices, which would in turn lower their potential ROI.

The “shadow inventory” consists of homes that were seriously delinquent or foreclosed on, which banks would keep off of the market for fear that the additional supply would cause prices to crumble further. Housing market sceptics argued that banks would return these homes to the market at a pace that would prevent prices from going anywhere.

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/housing-shadow-inventory-falling-2014-2

I'm sure in NZ our banks wouldn't do this would they if they had a shitload of foreclosures and bad loans. Instead they would go against their own interests and put everything on the market at once to decrease land prices? Please pass me a fucking tui!:killingme

oldrider

30th June 2014, 17:30

It's no wonder we get politicians with selective memories, they're just representing their constituents:bash:

Absolutely correct as in show business ... the actors perform what the audience wants to see and hear ... consumer driven!

Voters are simply political consumers!

Unfortunately that gets watered down by MMP where voters only give specific politicians (actors) collective permission to do whatever they like! :brick:

Do you think you will be any the wiser what the make up of the government will be immediately at the completion of the next election? :oi-grr:

Oscar

30th June 2014, 17:46

But that's not what you said dipshit. You claimed that that was the "tax rate" not the total tax paid.

Theres a clear difference between a tax rate and total tax paid.:brick:

And your total tax figure would still be higher than a 3% raise on the top bracket in NZ as someone in NZ on 180,000 currently only pays TOTAL TAX $50,320.00.

Clearly you can't do basic maths if you think adding 3% on to the TOP bracket, not even the TOTAL will make us more expensive than Australia.:bash:

Temper, temper.
You posted what I said - the tax rate TO $180,000. If you can't understand English, it isn't my problem.

Oscar

30th June 2014, 17:50

Investopedia explains 'Shadow Inventory' http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/shadow-inventory.asp

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/housing-shadow-inventory-falling-2014-2

I'm sure in NZ our banks wouldn't do this would they if they had a shitload of foreclosures and bad loans. Instead they would go against their own interests and put everything on the market at once to decrease land prices? Please pass me a fucking tui!:killingme

So you're admitting that what you said the banks do (manipulate foreclosured property to increase prices) and then said may be going in Northland hasn't happened in NZ?

Oscar

30th June 2014, 18:12

And your total tax figure would still be higher than a 3% raise on the top bracket in NZ as someone in NZ on 180,000 currently only pays TOTAL TAX $50,320.00.

Clearly you can't do basic maths if you think adding 3% on to the TOP bracket, not even the TOTAL will make us more expensive than Australia.:bash:

You said the income tax rate "overseas" was higher than that in NZ.
And I said:
Work it out - the PAYE on 50k income is slightly less in Australia compared to NZ. However your comment comparing income tax rates is fairly silly as it doesn't take into account things like WFF and Aussie Medicare. It becomes even more nonsensical when the overall tax picture is taken into account, GST and such.

Your reading comprehension is worse than your maths...

Brian d marge

30th June 2014, 18:25

Investopedia explains 'Shadow Inventory' http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/shadow-inventory.asp

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/housing-shadow-inventory-falling-2014-2

I'm sure in NZ our banks wouldn't do this would they if they had a shitload of foreclosures and bad loans. Instead they would go against their own interests and put everything on the market at once to decrease land prices? Please pass me a fucking tui!:killingme
Kinda looks like market manipulation to me

As a business . Probably sensible but from a human point of view bad form . . . . .

mashman

30th June 2014, 18:26

You're tying yourself up in (il)logical knots again. The only way to allocate resources fairly is by attaching a price to them, so that those who value them most get to use them. Yes, human nature is such that some people will always try to bend the rules to their own advantage, but that same argument works just as well against your rose-tinted "cooperation baby" ideal, and if you set out to eliminate the bastard "big" businessman, all you'll create are bastard exploitative politicians. You only have to look at the way Green politicians rail against the power of the state, and GCSB surveillance and then next minute turn around and want to send a Gunboat to confront Japanese Whalers, to see that.

Am I? Funny, putting a price of resources and then allowing the financial system to be controlled by a private banking franchise is not my idea of sensible in the slightest. Primarily as it means that warmongers can get their hands on any tech they like given enough money. Oil companies can buy what they like. Solar power can be taxed. Too many resources are wasted on shite. That's the financial system at work. It's embarrassing.

Ugh :facepalm:. The financial system is the primary factor in directing human behaviour. This is why we have dodgy people in positions of power. By all means continue to defend it, but by its existence alone we will always be a shade of that which we could be. I don't expect you to understand that (I'm not being nasty there). The crap in this world is financially driven.

MisterD

30th June 2014, 19:06

The financial system is the primary factor in directing human behaviour. This is why we have dodgy people in positions of power. By all means continue to defend it, but by its existence alone we will always be a shade of that which we could be. I don't expect you to understand that (I'm not being nasty there). The crap in this world is financially driven.

Well we're going to agree and diverge and disagree again. Fiat currencies and fractional reserve banking is a rort, no doubt about that. You can't remove currency though, it's too useful, a return to something like the gold standard is the only reasonable solution.

Brian d marge

30th June 2014, 19:08

Its still a debt based system

mashman

30th June 2014, 19:26

Well we're going to agree and diverge and disagree again. Fiat currencies and fractional reserve banking is a rort, no doubt about that. You can't remove currency though, it's too useful, a return to something like the gold standard is the only reasonable solution.

So keep digging for gold so that a currency can be valued against it? A solution? Nah, more of the same and worse given all of the systems that are currently in place. The next financial aid will be a UBI.

Ocean1

30th June 2014, 19:33

The only "producers" who fucked off overseas moved to China, where wages were a pittance - do you suggest we have no minimum wage and lower our standards to keep these "cream" employers?

What the fuck are you on about? I asked you how much NZ made from the income of the thousands of net positive contributors to our economy that found their efforts were better rewarded off shore? Let me make it easy for you: Nothing. Is it not perhaps a better idea to encourage productive behaviour in NZ, rather than making it as difficult as possible to survive here?

I take it you confused that group of productive people for those manufacturers that found they couldn't survive here with the high cost of NZ labour and found that they could survive just fine in an environment that was less toxic for employers. I'll take a stab in the dark and assume that like the majority of tossers who object to the demise of the majority of NZ manufacturing you nonetheless own the usual range of overseas produced goods, instead of paying four times the price for those made with NZ labour.

The bulk of the people who left NZ for AUS/UK fell into two categories. 1) Working class/Middle class who were looking for better wages and had skills that could get them better money in Aus.. a lot of these jobs were just in labouring, which is why Aus has so many Maori there now, because these guys could A) not find enough work in NZ B) were paid a pittance compared to what Aus offered. B) graduates who either could not find work in NZ for their jobs or the wages were to shit compared to the interest/loans they had to pay back.

Very few if any people left NZ because of "Tax"... the types of people to do that would be the Owen Glenns, Kim Dotcoms, and Fay Richwhites of NZ and if they all left the country we would be much better for it! Couldn't care if we don't get as much from them, because according to you lot they all do their darnest to avoid tax anyway and these guys contrib nothing to our society at all - so no big fucking loss.

Good to see you're an equal opportunity fuckwit, both ends of the "class" divide can get fucked eh? They should be grateful for the terms they're offered by NZ ltd, no matter their contribution, we'll stick to supporting the majority that take more than they give. Fucking brilliant strategy.

Those polls are trolls.

Yeah? History disagrees. It also proves you're comprehensively wrong. But you'd know that if you bothered looking. Like I said, you don't learn.

Sure most people don't want TAX increase. Ask how many of them wanted GST to go up by 2.5% eh?

Make up your fucking mind, people don't mind tax, but now they do?

It's gonna have to increase soon anyway, all us youngens have to pay for the promises and debts of you oldies (eg. the pension) who had the state hand everything out on a plate only to turn around and sell it off and charge us younger ones for it. Privatised education and student loans for primary school coming probably coming soon, thanks ACT and Nats.:brick:

Well, see all that tax us oldies paid wasn't just for dole bludgers, some of it was supposed to be invested to pay for our dotage, y'know when we get so old we start to look about as productive as you youngones. I'm quite looking forward to spending all my time in the mall with a slab of piss abusing all and sundry

Brian d marge

30th June 2014, 19:49

I would have loved to buy a pair of " over priced" NZ shoes ,

Some of those condition of the Chinese factories ,,,,I cant support

Stephen

MisterD

30th June 2014, 19:51

So keep digging for gold so that a currency can be valued against it? A solution? Nah, more of the same and worse given all of the systems that are currently in place. The next financial aid will be a UBI.

Two things are needed, a "peg" that the politicians can't debase and and end to the fractional rort of "lending" money that a bank doesn't have. I'm not emotionally attached to gold, but what else ya got?

UBI has some pro's and cons, I remain to be convinced either way, but a UBI at the same level as an untaxed earnings threshold is attractive from a efficiency point of view.

Ocean1

30th June 2014, 19:53

Certain principles work yes. But the reality is, just like socialism - the market is undermined by human greed. The principles are flawed on the basis that the interests of the players involved are different to the aims/theory of the principles. It's not in a businesses interest to have a good market with lots of competition, informed buyers, easy access to the market - this means less profit for them, more struggle to make ends meet, less time and money spent on expanding their business. Thats why at the most basic level of our iconic "farmers markets" which are probably the closest thing in the country to a "free market" in action - there are restrictions on the number of sellers for products so those involved can maintain monopolies.

And how do you regulate the banks and people to behave "ethically"? It's in their interests for everyone to be up to their eye balls in debt borrowed from them... they benefit when interest rates are low - so people buy up large on property, and then when they increase and they start increasing the returns on mortgages/call in for those mortgages.

It would not be in the banks interests to subject themselves to market principles - eg. putting all their mortgagee sales up at the same time - increasing supply would decrease house values - resulting in lower returns for them - so instead they drip feed mortgagee sales onto the market... How do you legislate for that? Do you advocate forcing a business to conform to the market principles? Or should the rort just continue...

I agree. Anti-competitive behaviour is far too common, and far too rarely adequately controlled by the authorities supposed to manage those markets. And yes, the commerce commission's primary function is exactly that: to force businesses to conform to free(ish) market principles. They're just not very good at it.

But whereas free market protocols are achievable and represent a negative control function which promotes growth; socialism is the opposite, a market controlled by a regulator for reasons usually not conducive to either commerce or growth.

Ocean1

30th June 2014, 20:14

The govt does help those tax contributors, they get the waterways cleaned, they get a favourable ear for lobbying, they get crown guarantees, they have the ear of the govt etc... and if the shit hits the fan, well, you read Stephen's linky in the other thread, it ain't gonna turn out too well coz as is evidenced by the Ukraine and Iraq, pitchforks quite often turn into something entirely different and I'd rather avoid that. Either way, our reaction to such concern is, "reset" the system and let's lumber from one fuck up to another as the boom bust cycle continues on its way to financial collapse and drives all sorts of financially motivated emotive right/left/extreme/centrist rhetoric laced wedges into society. Tis bullshit. Greedy cunts/govts reimbursing tax contributions/tax beneficiaries only exist because of the fancy human activity bookkeeping system... they can't help being and needing to be, in fact they are all requirements for the economy.

All thes favourable conditions are fucking news to me, how come I've never seen them?

As for Steven's linky: it's crap. Show me a revolution any time in history in a social welfare state where the "poor" have it as good as they do here. Never happen. All the noise is from empty cans like him and you.

Oh FFS meh. As above, the arseholes exist because of the human activity bookkeeping system, coz you're only calling them arseholes because they aren't doing what you expect them to do and that effect has a direct link to our standard of living. Silly human activity bookkeeping system.

Nope. arseholes are arseholes with or without money. Parasites. Useless bastards that can't be fucked earning what they want, whether you measure their effort in dollars or hammers.

Is that what I reckon? I reckon that's not what I reckon at all, but hey, you find your story's much bettererer than mine. Funnily enough my current array of shit was learned is 100% pure NZ based thinkin.

To be honest it's far from clear most of the time what your bitch is. In fact most of the time the one thing that's clear is that you whine for no rational reason whatsoever. And I'm not really interested enough to wade through pages of circular logic and confirmation bias to find out which is which, given that the tools involved only ever produce crap.

Ocean1

30th June 2014, 20:20

I would have loved to buy a pair of " over priced" NZ shoes ,

Some of those condition of the Chinese factories ,,,,I cant support

Stephen

Me either.

In fact I don't.

That's the thing about a free market: you don't have to pay for shit you don't want.

mashman

30th June 2014, 20:25

Two things are needed, a "peg" that the politicians can't debase and and end to the fractional rort of "lending" money that a bank doesn't have. I'm not emotionally attached to gold, but what else ya got?

UBI has some pro's and cons, I remain to be convinced either way, but a UBI at the same level as an untaxed earnings threshold is attractive from a efficiency point of view.

Aren't lobby groups that peg? I don't see a viable financial alternative to a fractional reserve system. The same problems existed before 1970. Where would the money have come from to have dragged us to where we are today if a fractional reserve system hadn't have been a better option for printing money than the existing methodology? Nothing works better than gold. So use Nothing instead ;).

True... and the right wing will have new whipping boys to persecute too (pro).

MisterD

30th June 2014, 20:27

I would have loved to buy a pair of " over priced" NZ shoes ,

Some of those condition of the Chinese factories ,,,,I cant support

Loake's. Made in Northampton, a couple of my older pairs are over 13 years old and although on their second or third re-sole have probably got another decade in them. Worth every penny of the 90 quid they originally cost.

mada

30th June 2014, 20:27

What the fuck are you on about? I asked you how much NZ made from the income of the thousands of net positive contributors to our economy that found their efforts were better rewarded off shore? Let me make it easy for you: Nothing. Is it not perhaps a better idea to encourage productive behaviour in NZ, rather than making it as difficult as possible to survive here?

Sure. However the amount of income tax paid plays a small part for most people in their decisions. A small percent increase for the top bracket hardly effects them negatively. When I was working an my income tax dropped there was no difference to my quality of life or decisions. There was when GST went up. As I have pointed out, GST is on every fucking thing. You increase that by a slight difference everything from food, rent, power, petrol, the cost to use a government service, council service, rates all increase - take a look at motorbikes for example with GST - cost to import increases as GST on import and import duty, cost to purchase products/parts increases as GST on them, cost to get motorbike repair increases as GST on that, cost to get motorbike serviced, cost to get a WOF, cost to pay for REGO, cost to pay for PETROL, cost for TOLL, cost for safety gear, cost for boots, everything fucking increases. Unless of course your gonna tell me that most businesses will just absorb the cost and not pass them on to consumers??? Yeah right, and why the fuck should they. Life is made much harder for those who already have less (the working and middle classes) by GST rise compared to income tax rise at the higher bracket. :facepalm:

Apart from higher substantially higher wages in Australia (despite their higher Taxes) - the biggest promoting factor for the loss of productive net positive contributors in NZ over the last 20 years has probably been a policy you and the parties you voted for supported. High interest rates on student loans.

If ACT get in and get their wish to bring it back I bet you a hundred bucks there will be another mass exodus - and the country will lose millions from having shortages in areas of need and lose the millions it invested into such qualifications. I know I won't stay to try and pay 6% on a what would probably amount to 100K+ loan with compounded interest - when wages overseas will be much higher to pay it off. You obviously never noticed that those leaving NZ were mostly aged between 20 - 40... :rolleyes:

mashman

30th June 2014, 20:33

All thes favourable conditions are fucking news to me, how come I've never seen them?

As for Steven's linky: it's crap. Show me a revolution any time in history in a social welfare state where the "poor" have it as good as they do here. Never happen. All the noise is from empty cans like him and you.

Dunno.

Ok.

Nope. arseholes are arseholes with or without money. Parasites. Useless bastards that can't be fucked earning what they want, whether you measure their effort in dollars or hammers.

Ok.

To be honest it's far from clear most of the time what your bitch is. In fact most of the time the one thing that's clear is that you whine for no rational reason whatsoever. And I'm not really interested enough to wade through pages of circular logic and confirmation bias to find out which is which, given that the tools involved only ever produce crap.

Of course you don't understand it, you can't get passed the messenger and/or don't have the mental faculty for comprehending life as I see it.

mada

30th June 2014, 21:04

I agree. Anti-competitive behaviour is far too common, and far too rarely adequately controlled by the authorities supposed to manage those markets. And yes, the commerce commission's primary function is exactly that: to force businesses to conform to free(ish) market principles. They're just not very good at it.

But whereas free market protocols are achievable and represent a negative control function which promotes growth; socialism is the opposite, a market controlled by a regulator for reasons usually not conducive to either commerce or growth.

The commerce commission and serious fraud office, like all government departments don't do their job effectively because they would require an endless supply of resources to do it properly and they have interference from their political overlords.

Explain to me how the fuck they would function in your fantasy lala land of limited taxes?

According to free market dogma, we need LESS REGULATION and can TRUST businesses to do the right thing... what your saying is the opposite and goes against the main driver in markets - SELF INTEREST.

Ocean1

30th June 2014, 21:09

Sure. However the amount of income tax paid plays a small part for most people in their decisions. A small percent increase for the top bracket hardly effects them negatively. When I was working an my income tax dropped there was no difference to my quality of life or decisions. There was when GST went up. As I have pointed out, GST is on every fucking thing. You increase that by a slight difference everything from food, rent, power, petrol, the cost to use a government service, council service, rates all increase - life is harder for those who already have less (the working and middle classes). :facepalm:

Allow me to remove one of the crutches your world view relies on: There are no classes. Working class = those that work. By definition those that don't provide anything others want are neither workers or working class.

And I wasn't suggesting tax was the reason workers left, I was pointing out that NZ could make a fucking sight more out of it's productive workers by providing an environment that supports them. Which means an environment that supports business.

Unless you've ever managed a business you have no fucking idea how unfriendly to business NZ is. Most countries treat their businesses as what they are: the source of revenue that drives the whole economy.

Oh, and your "working" and "middle" "classes" have never had it so good, the most productive 20% in the country significantly subsidise them.

Apart from higher substantially higher wages in Australia (despite their higher Taxes) - the biggest promoting factor for the loss of productive net positive contributors in NZ over the last 20 years has probably been a policy you and the parties you voted for supported. High interest rates on student loans.

If ACT get in and get their wish to bring it back I bet you a hundred bucks there will be another mass exodus - and the country will lose millions from having shortages in areas of need and lose the millions it invested into such qualifications. I know I won't stay to try and pay 6% on a what would probably amount to 100K+ loan with compounded interest - when wages overseas will be much higher to pay it off.

So which is it, NZ has invested in those qualifications by way of cheap loans and it turns out the investment wasn't worth it, or the students have invested in their own education, taking advantage of cheap loans and now find it wasn't such a great investment?

See, you can't separate the cost from the return. Doesn't work. Literally.
And why is either of those

Ocean1

30th June 2014, 21:28

The commerce commission and serious fraud office, like all government departments don't do their job effectively because they would require an endless supply of resources to do it properly and they have interference from their political overlords.

Righto. :laugh:

Explain to me how the fuck they would function in your fantasy lala land of limited taxes?

All tax is limited. Limited by the ability of it's supplier to provide it.

I have no problem with corporate tax, but like personal tax it's a bit counterproductive to prune the fucking apple tree at ground level, innit?

Like ever other parasitic component of govt compliance there is a point at which more is less. Currently a lot of industries can't afford the taxes they'd have to pay, so there's no business in those industries. No tax either.

Don't it make more sense to tax at a rate that sees some growth, instead of complete redundancy?

According to free market dogma, we need LESS REGULATION and can TRUST businesses to do the right thing... what your saying is the opposite and goes against the main driver in markets - SELF INTEREST.

What do you think allows businesses to corner a market, or otherwise behave in an anti-competitive manner?

It's sure as fuck not a free market, we don't have anything remotely like a free market.

It's LACK of freedom that produces parasitic commercial behaviour.

mada

30th June 2014, 21:59

Allow me to remove one of the crutches your world view relies on: There are no classes. Working class = those that work. By definition those that don't provide anything others want are neither workers or working class.

And I wasn't suggesting tax was the reason workers left, I was pointing out that NZ could make a fucking sight more out of it's productive workers by providing an environment that supports them. Which means an environment that supports business.

Unless you've ever managed a business you have no fucking idea how unfriendly to business NZ is. Most countries treat their businesses as what they are: the source of revenue that drives the whole economy.

Oh, and your "working" and "middle" "classes" have never had it so good, the most productive 20% in the country significantly subsidise them.

So which is it, NZ has invested in those qualifications by way of cheap loans and it turns out the investment wasn't worth it, or the students have invested in their own education, taking advantage of cheap loans and now find it wasn't such a great investment?

See, you can't separate the cost from the return. Doesn't work. Literally.
And why is either of those

How do they provide such an environment? Go back to the good old days of protectionism, subsidies, hand outs? A stronger government oversight of businesses and more auditing by IRD, Commerce Commission (requiring more taxes to pay for investigators, govt. staff) to ensure compliance?? Lower regulation and give them trust - trust them not to fuck us over like the Leaky Housing Crisis, Finance Companies etc etc?

All my partners family members run and operate small businesses. I'm well aware of the struggles they have and face - working 12 hours a day etc. They will not be affected by a top bracket increase.

Part of the problem is many (not all) NZ employers themselves who undermine their own workers productivity by having shit work environments and doing things as cheap as possible eg. hiring cheaper and more desperate workers from overseas who will work in crapper conditions (in many occasions not even being paid above minimum wage).

Your comment that the bottom and middle class have never had it better is a load of shit. In the past (70s - 80s) we had better social mobility, there was less of a difference between the poor and rich, housing ownership was high - even for families on low wages with only one income earner. Low and fucking behold, INCOME TAX was bloody high too.

Most the problems our society face stem from the rightwing idea that "GREED IS GOOD". It's fucking not. People see shitloads of greedy cunts at the top of society - Lawyers, Accountants, Politicians, CEOs, Bankers, ripping society off, ripping off elderly investors, ripping off consumers, ripping off the taxpayer, whoever. This is the only time the "TRICKLE DOWN" works - the result shitloads of everyone saying fuck it, why not lets just make a P-lab and get rich over night, builders saying fuck it why not rip off EQC, people saying why not commit insurance fraud.

I don't think you quite get the point I was making with Student Loans and Interest. If you want cheap health care in your old age, it makes sense to try and retain the medical students you are investing millions into by not placing excessive debt (and in particular high interest) on them when you cannot pay them high enough wages for them to effectively repay such debts. The interest on todays current cost of a medical degree ($90,000 + compounded interest of 6% over six years if ACT get in) would probably only amount to approximately $10,000 - $15,000 per annum - while a first year house officer would earn $70,000 - $80,000 per annum from working 70 - 80 hours a week. I guess the government could look at your analysis and stop training doctors altogether, or students could just stop studying medicine. Or we could just restrict medicine for rich people who are motivated by money only? That way we could have a doctors shortage potentially 75% worse than present (given 25% of doctors currently head off overseas). We could always privatise and make the whole of health a nice big market I guess, where those lucky enough to get entry into the work can charge as much as we want for our services? Then you could experience things like the States where most can't even afford health care and the health care provided actually ends up being substandard to most other western countries - I recall a labourer who needed two of his fingers reattached in the states could only pay get one done as he could not stump up $12,000 for each finger. Seems like a good system to me.

mada

30th June 2014, 22:19

Righto. :laugh:

All tax is limited. Limited by the ability of it's supplier to provide it.

I have no problem with corporate tax, but like personal tax it's a bit counterproductive to prune the fucking apple tree at ground level, innit?

Like ever other parasitic component of govt compliance there is a point at which more is less. Currently a lot of industries can't afford the taxes they'd have to pay, so there's no business in those industries. No tax either.

Don't it make more sense to tax at a rate that sees some growth, instead of complete redundancy?

What do you think allows businesses to corner a market, or otherwise behave in an anti-competitive manner?

It's sure as fuck not a free market, we don't have anything remotely like a free market.

It's LACK of freedom that produces parasitic commercial behaviour.

Like I said before, free markets = great theory, just like socialism. But impractical, especially in NZ which is a small country isolated in the Pacific. In ten years time if the Neo-Libs continue to dominate politics, we'll hear cries from multi-million dollar earning CEO's that taxes of 10 - 15% are just too damn high and restricting growth.

The root causes of restricted growth = the greed mentality, and the constant focus of pouring bucket loads of money into property speculation, and the debt industry. It's not hard to see how if houses were as cheap as chips the economy would be better performing: people would have more money to spend = more money in the pockets of businesses, people would be able to survive on lower wages = more money for businesses, etc. etc. The same is for student debts - if these were reduced there would be more money available for businesses.

The problem hasn't been taxes, they have decreased significantly and substantially over the last 30 years.

mada

30th June 2014, 22:40

Remember the brain drain eh?

Brain drain blamed on student loans

22 SEPTEMBER 2000

New Zealand's student loan system is driving graduates overseas, with the number of borrowers leaving the country almost doubling in just one year.

The exodus is causing difficulties in collecting debt repayments, as graduates living overseas are harder to track down, and has left New Zealand with a skills shortage.

Michael Cullen, New Zealand's minister of finance, has revealed that 10,344 former students absent from New Zealand owed NZ$135.9 million (Pounds 41 million) as at April, compared with 5,942 who owed NZ$71.2 million a year earlier.

In a separate report, the conservative opposition party, ACT, said that 9,562 qualified people had fled New Zealand since the November election, costing the economy NZ$969.5 million in lost income and education and training bills. Critics are blaming the student loan scheme for the brain drain.

Student organisations say user-pays education is forcing graduates to chase higher wages in countries such as Australia, Britain and the United States to pay off their debts, particularly as the New Zealand dollar has fallen to new lows.

The average student loan is worth NZ$12,413 - more than three times higher than when the loan scheme began in 1993 - and the average woman with a bachelor's degree will take 28 years to pay off her tertiary debts.

Sam Huggard, co-president of the New Zealand University Students Association, said that the loan scheme should be scrapped. "People are going overseas to earn higher wages as it is much quicker (for them) to pay off their student loans than if they stay here."

ACT party researcher Grant McLachlan said professionals were leaving because they could not pay off their student loans if they stayed, following a hike in personal tax rates from 33 to 39 per cent on incomes over NZ$60,000.

Mr McLachlan said the loan scheme should stay, so long as the rest of the economic environment encouraged graduates to remain in New Zealand.

"It is now increasingly difficult for employers to find the skilled workers they need. Vacant positions are often filled with inexperienced people," he said.

The findings come as a parliamentary select committee investigates loan scheme changes this year that have wiped the 7 per cent interest rate and raised the income threshold from NZ$12,000 to NZ$24,000 before graduates must pay back their debts.

Concern is rising over the national debt mounting from the scheme. In June, the auditor-general said students would owe an estimated NZ$20 billion by 2024, and many would die from old age before paying off their debts.

Tertiary fees will be frozen next year for the first time in the history of user-pays.

:weird:

The solution is not to become more market based either - look at the states and their college debt problem if you think it is.

bogan

30th June 2014, 23:16

The root causes of restricted growth = the greed mentality, and the constant focus of pouring bucket loads of money into property speculation, and the debt industry. It's not hard to see how if houses were as cheap as chips the economy would be better performing: people would have more money to spend = more money in the pockets of businesses, people would be able to survive on lower wages = more money for businesses, etc. etc. The same is for student debts - if these were reduced there would be more money available for businesses.

Well where would you save on housing prices? Can't imagine the builder would be too happy if they got paid less, or that the owners would be too happy if shit got half-assed.

Yeh the same is true for student debt, the same is true for any debt, or any cost; give people money and they will spend it. But that doesn't mean the solution to get people spending is to just give them money, get people working, productive, so they earn the extra money to spend, lift the whole country's GDP up.

mada

30th June 2014, 23:26

Well where would you save on housing prices? Can't imagine the builder would be too happy if they got paid less, or that the owners would be too happy if shit got half-assed.

Yeh the same is true for student debt, the same is true for any debt, or any cost; give people money and they will spend it. But that doesn't mean the solution to get people spending is to just give them money, get people working, productive, so they earn the extra money to spend, lift the whole country's GDP up.

So in the scenario I provided with medical graduates, the solution is for doctors to just double their productivity by doubling their working week? How keen would you be to have an operation and consultation with someone who has worked 140 hours a week? <_<

bogan

1st July 2014, 00:04

So in the scenario I provided with medical graduates, the solution is for doctors to just double their productivity by doubling their working week? How keen would you be to have an operation and consultation with someone who has worked 140 hours a week? <_<

That scenario addresses none of my points, unless the med grad moonlights as a builder? Try again.

mada

1st July 2014, 00:24

That scenario addresses none of my points, unless the med grad moonlights as a builder? Try again.

Govts. have had mass housing building programs in the past - in NZ from the 40s - 50s after the War and also during the great depression - 30s. That resulted in families actually being able to have a house they could afford. The builders weren't ripped off, they were paid their fair share and worth. A significant amount of these houses remain in our housing stock and their building standard is not considered to be shit - don't have to worry about leaky building syndrome with them. Govt's have the power to override councils on all the development fees charged by them etc. They could cut out the middle men developers. However a project like that would result in potential losses for banks (due to lower borrowing for mortgages) and property investors (due to house prices falling).. thats why nothing will ever happen these groups are powerful lobbies, and most politicians are property investors themselves.

Arguably you could apply your same argument to businesses and people on higher incomes that demand lower taxes.... that they don't need more money to spend via lower taxes (afterall taxes have never been so low before) that they need to work more productively and need to earn more if they are having problems buying the latest audi.

bogan

1st July 2014, 00:37

Govts. have had mass housing building programs in the past - in NZ from the 40s - 50s after the War and also during the great depression - 30s. That resulted in families actually being able to have a house they could afford. The builders weren't ripped off, they were paid their fair share and worth. A significant amount of these houses remain in our housing stock and their building standard is not considered to be shit - don't have to worry about leaky building syndrome with them. Govt's have the power to override councils on all the development fees charged by them etc. They could cut out the middle men developers. However a project like that would result in potential losses for banks (due to lower borrowing for mortgages) and property investors (due to house prices falling).. thats why nothing will ever happen these groups are powerful lobbies, and most politicians are property investors themselves.

Arguably you could apply your same argument to businesses and people on higher incomes that demand lower taxes.... that they don't need more money to spend via lower taxes (afterall taxes have never been so low before) that they need to work more productively and need to earn more if they are having problems buying the latest audi.

Just how unaffordable is housing now? Seems everyone i know who works is buying houses or able; ie, what are percentage of income for how many years would go on house payments then and now. I'm skeptical that all those groups contribute so detrimentally.

Indeed, in either case the govt giving them breaks/handouts purely so they have more money to spend is a shit idea. However giving breaks which increase our gdp allows them to create wealth, which can then be spent.

mada

1st July 2014, 00:47

Just how unaffordable is housing now? Seems everyone i know who works is buying houses or able; ie, what are percentage of income for how many years would go on house payments then and now. I'm skeptical that all those groups contribute so detrimentally.

Indeed, in either case the govt giving them breaks/handouts purely so they have more money to spend is a shit idea. However giving breaks which increase our gdp allows them to create wealth, which can then be spent.

All the facts and figures show compared to post 30s onwards, now more than ever our income:house price ratio is most distorted and with prices at their highest. Now more than ever home ownership is at its lowest. Now more than ever more income is being spent on paying off mortgages - and in recent times student loans then mortgages.

And sure some places may have cheap and affordable houses, but no fucking work nearby. I take my hat off to someone who moves to Murupara and can find a job.

You do realise that the government partly subsidises qualifications in NZ? When people with a NZ qualification go overseas we LOSE the productivity that they and that training could have contributed to NZ and LOSE what we invested.

That's why I specifically bought up doctors. We lose out economically and GDP wise - as we end up with shortages and then expensive short term fixes such as bringing in expensive specialists from overseas. Graduating doctors don't give a toss if their income at 150,000+ is taxed 3% higher. It will take them 4 - 5 years before they even earn that. But they do care about 6% interest every year for as long as the loan exists on a $100,000 loan. As I've pointed out, its not realistic that they can just "work harder" to "earn more".

bogan

1st July 2014, 00:53

All the facts and figures show compared to post 30s onwards, now more than ever our income:house price ratio is most distorted and with prices at their highest. Now more than ever home ownership is at its lowest. Now more than ever more income is being spent on paying off mortgages - and in recent times student loans then mortgages.

You do realise that the government partly subsidises qualifications in NZ? When people with a NZ qualification go overseas we LOSE the productivity that they and that training could have contributed to NZ and LOSE what we invested.

That's why I specifically bought up doctors. We lose out economically and GDP wise - as we end up with shortages and then expensive short term fixes such as bringing in expensive specialists from overseas. Graduating doctors don't give a toss if their income at 150,000+ is taxed 3% higher. It will take them 4 - 5 years before they even earn that. But they do care about 6% interest every year for as long as the loan exists on a $100,000 loan. As I've pointed out, its not realistic that they can just "work harder" to "earn more".

Can you post some of those facts and figures?

I know, surely the solution is to bring our economy up enough to remove the financial incentive for them to go overseas though?

Loan interest is written off as long as they stay in nz. What exactly is your point?

mada

1st July 2014, 00:53

Also, regarding your comment most people are able to get now...

From the 2000s onwards the banks significantly lowered their thresholds for mortgages. Hence the increase over the years in mortgagee sales and only this year a tightening up by the Reserve Bank which has affected many first home buyers.

mada

1st July 2014, 01:55

Can you post some of those facts and figures?

I know, surely the solution is to bring our economy up enough to remove the financial incentive for them to go overseas though?

Loan interest is written off as long as they stay in nz. What exactly is your point?

HOUSING OWNERSHIP:

"Home ownership peaked in the late 1980s / early 1990s with nearly 75% of households owning the home they lived in. By 2010 this had fallen to around 65%, split evenly between those living in homes with and without mortgages respectively. With rapidly rising house prices during the 2000s and relatively stable rent, the proportion of household living in private rental accommodation increased substantially from the late 1990s to 2010."

http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/research-policy/wp/2013/13-14/05.htm

"The data on home ownership by households shows that 64.8 percent of households owned their home or held it in a family trust in 2013, down from 66.9 percent in 2006. This includes households who made mortgage payments and households who did not.
The percentage of households who owned their home, excluding those whose home was in a family trust, was 49.9 percent in 2013, down from 54.5 percent in 2006.

Of those households who owned their home and specified whether they made mortgage payments, 56.4 percent (398,373 households) made mortgage payments in 2013. This was very similar to 2006 (56.5 percent or 405,267 households)."

"Over 1 in 3 households do not own their home
In 2013, 35.2 percent of households did not own their home, up from 33.1 percent in 2006. Most of these households were renting (453,135 households). There were 53,889 households living rent-free, and a small number of households who did not indicate whether they were paying rent.
The regions with the highest percentages of households who did not own their home were:
ï¿½ Gisborne ï¿½ 40.8 percent
ï¿½ Auckland ï¿½ 38.5 percent"

"The data on home ownership by individuals showed that the percentage who owned their home fell to just under half. In 2013, 49.8 percent of people aged 15 years and over owned or partly owned the home they lived in, compared with 53.2 percent in 2006.
Home ownership was highest for those aged 70ï¿½74 years, at 77.5 percent.

A drop in home ownership occurred across all age groups, from those in their 20s to those in their 70s. The largest falls were for those in their 30s and 40s. In 2013, 43.0 percent of people aged 30ï¿½39 years owned their home ï¿½ down from 54.6 percent in 2001. For those in their 40s, 60.8 percent owned their home in 2013, down from 71.5 percent in 2001."

Increase in dwellings with no heating
Private dwellings in which no heating fuels were ever used increased 35.1 percent. In 2013, 44,832 private dwellings never used heating fuels, making up 3.0 percent of occupied private dwellings. In 2006, there were 33,177 of these dwellings, making up 2.4 percent of occupied private dwellings.
Every region in New Zealand had dwellings in which no heating fuels were used, but the highest percentages were in the Auckland (5.9 percent) and Northland (5.3 percent) regions.
The Auckland local board areas with the highest percentages of dwellings that never used heating fuels were:
ï¿½ Waitemata ï¿½ 15.8 percent or 4,671 dwellings
ï¿½ Mangere-Otahuhu ï¿½ 12.3 percent or 1,851 dwellings
ï¿½ Otara-Papatoetoe ï¿½ 10.6 percent or 1,863 dwellings.

Source: NZ STATS 2013 CENSUS

MORTGAGES:

It now takes 63.1% of one median income to pay the mortgage on a median priced house purchased in May, up from Aprilï¿½s 62.5 %(r). A typical buyer is assumed to be in the 30-34 age group.

This index was 56.6% a year ago and 55.8% five years ago. The affordability index reached its highest point of 83.4% in March 2008.

Essentially the median income for the typical buyer is not high enough to buy a median priced house, even with a 20% deposit. However, they may find the lower-quartile priced house is affordable (check our first-home buyer series). It is also true that a couple/family with more than one income may find the median house price is affordable. (Check household income section below).

http://www.interest.co.nz/property/home-loan-affordability

Affordability was the hardest for first home buyers on the North Shore in Auckland, where the Roost reports estimated a single first home buyer would have to spend almost 95% of their after-tax income on servicing their mortgage, even with a 20% deposit.

Affordability for regular home buyers and first home buyers worsened across most of the country and remains at its toughest in the biggest cities of Auckland, Christchurch and Wellington, where housing supply shortages and a fall in fixed mortgage rates over the last year have heated up the housing market.

Life looks set to get even tougher for first home buyers in the big cities in coming months if, as expected, the Reserve Bank puts ï¿½speed limitsï¿½ on low deposit home loans. The government is pushing for some sort of exemption for first home buyers, but the Reserve Bank is determined to slow riskier lending growth. About a third of mortgages with deposits of less than 20% are to first home buyers

http://www.roost.co.nz/uncategorized/home-loan-affordability-report/

RBNZ on potential causes:

Between 2000 and 2007 house prices in New Zealand more than doubled, and household indebtedness increased from 100 to 150 percent of household disposable income.

the terms and conditions of mortgages were significantly relaxed after the banking sector was deregulated in the 1980s, and mortgage finance became substantially easier to obtain. The amount a young household can borrow has increased by more than 100 percent in real terms since 1990. Second, there has been a four-fold expansion of mortgage debt in New Zealand, from $30 billion at the end of 1993 to $120 billion by 2005. Last, New Zealand house prices have increased substantially, by 166 percent between 1993 and 2005, or by 106 percent more than the increase in the consumer price index (see figure 1). Increases in house prices and mortgage debt of this size are unprecedented in New Zealand.

The relaxation in mortgage conditions that occurred after 1990 has two separate causes. Prior to 1984, the New Zealand mortgage market was heavily regulated and access to bank mortgage finance was limited. These mortgages were subject to fairly stringent terms and conditions, including conservative restrictions on the loan-to-value ratio (the ratio of mortgage loan to property value) and the mortgage-repayment-to-income ratio (the ratio of the mortgage repayment obligation to gross income). After the sector was deregulated during the 1980s, new types of mortgages such as revolving credit mortgages with more flexible terms were introduced. In the 1990s commercial banks further relaxed the terms of their mortgages in an effort to increase their exposure to the residential mortgage market, enabling some classes of borrowers to substantially increase the amount they could borrow. The decline in the inflation rate that has occurred since 1990 has also allowed previously constrained borrowers to borrow more."

"When credit constraints are tight, many young households have to delay their purchase of a first house, or of a larger second house, as they cannot borrow enough ï¿½ or, more precisely, given the limited amount they can borrow, the sacrifice in terms of current consumption is too great. The homes they donï¿½t purchase are not empty, of course, but owned by investors or older households who are less affected by borrowing constraints. Consequently, the effect of credit constraints on property prices depends on the willingness of older generations to buy large houses or rental properties.

http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/research_and_publications/discussion_papers/2007/dp07_11.pdf

The point? The data clearly shows that younger people are less and less likely to be able to afford their own houses and need to spend more and more on buying a house. This means a significant loss from potential consumption in goods from them.

The point of interest on loans? ACT want to bring back the interest on student loans and have been highlighting it as one of their key election policies this year.

http://www.act.org.nz/?q=policies

National have disdain for keeping such loans interest free and previously said they would scrap them. If they get a third term government they will have no qualms about bringing it back.

John Key
"If we add interest back on the student loans, it doubles repayment time of the loan. If your loan is $50,000, and it's estimated it will take you eight years to pay it off, we effectively turn it into a loan that is about $90,000 with interest that takes you about 15 years to repay."

http://www.3news.co.nz/Key-slams-interest-free-student-loans-but-wont-drop-them/tabid/1607/articleID/246332/Default.aspx#ixzz3689I6fkq

How nice of the hypocritical motherfucker considering he got a free fully paid for tertiary education on the taxpayers titty and then turned around making millions off devaluing our currency. I'm sure he would be willing to pay 6% interest per annum on the cost of his own degree from the 80s?

https://fmacskasy.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/john-key-cartoon-garrick-tremain3.jpg

The point: Do we want a repeat of the fucking brain drain, where we lost many of our young graduates and skilled workers due to high costs of student loans, but specifically the interest on them??? Do we want to significantly lower those rates of home ownership even more??? Do we want to have even more GDP lost to debt-servicing?

oldrider

1st July 2014, 08:17

You have just listened to a party political broadcast by the left wing coalition party representative on KB. :rolleyes:

bogan

1st July 2014, 09:16

The point? The data clearly shows that younger people are less and less likely to be able to afford their own houses and need to spend more and more on buying a house. This means a significant loss from potential consumption in goods from them.

The point of interest on loans? ACT want to bring back the interest on student loans and have been highlighting it as one of their key election policies this year.

http://www.act.org.nz/?q=policies

National have disdain for keeping such loans interest free and previously said they would scrap them. If they get a third term government they will have no qualms about bringing it back.

John Key

http://www.3news.co.nz/Key-slams-interest-free-student-loans-but-wont-drop-them/tabid/1607/articleID/246332/Default.aspx#ixzz3689I6fkq

How nice of the hypocritical motherfucker considering he got a free fully paid for tertiary education on the taxpayers titty and then turned around making millions off devaluing our currency. I'm sure he would be willing to pay 6% interest per annum on the cost of his own degree from the 80s?

https://fmacskasy.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/john-key-cartoon-garrick-tremain3.jpg

The point: Do we want a repeat of the fucking brain drain, where we lost many of our young graduates and skilled workers due to high costs of student loans, but specifically the interest on them??? Do we want to significantly lower those rates of home ownership even more??? Do we want to have even more GDP lost to debt-servicing?

Firstly, ownership numbers do not necessarily reflect affordability; so I'm still waiting on how much of a median income it took way back when. But in more recent times it seems the main cause is that its now easier to get a mortgage? Not really sure that you can put that one all on the banks there bud, anyone is still perfectly capable of waiting until they had a larger deposit like you had to in the old days and not having as long to pay of the mortgage; and of course there is still the elephant in the room, which is property prices, more people = less land to go around = dearer land/mortgages (unless that has been separated in the above?).

Yeh, well act can fuck right off with that idea then.

Might be the wrong link there, as it says JK will not be scrapping interest free student loans; and it is from 2012...

The answer: is still not to just give those people money to service their debt, to own more homes, for the simple obvious fact, that money does not grow on trees; and anywhere I can think of taking it from will hurt the GDP much much more. Unless you are another overpriced hammer salesman?

Ocean1

1st July 2014, 14:31

Your comment that the bottom and middle class have never had it better is a load of shit.

So how many cars did the average kiwi own a few decades ago? How many TVs? How many square metres of house did he live in? What percentage of his annual wage went to pay a square metre of that house? What percentage of his wage went to eduaction? Halthcare? How many iphones did he own? How many calories worth of food did he buy?

Bogun's already invited you to produce figures for historic income/metre housing and you haven't bothered. So as this is the third time you've displayed a singularly willfull ignorance in your refusal to coherently form your arguement you can get fucked.

Later. Not.

Brian d marge

1st July 2014, 14:56

Ocean1

1st July 2014, 15:13

a first year house officer would earn $70,000 - $80,000 per annum from working 70 - 80 hours a week.

Oh I didn't notice that. :laugh: Can't let that slide.

What's the total cost of training a doctor in NZ? (your DHB CEO will have the numbers if you’re not quite sure.)
What proportion of that does the trainee doctor pay?
And what does the difference represent if not a massive public investment in health professional training?

How many hrs per week does the RDA limit house doctors to?
And their remuneration over and above the cash wages is what?
Care to post a copy of your union’s current agreement for our collective entertainment?

Allow me to refresh your memory via this wee note solicited from your union’s UK equivalent: http://www.nzma.org.nz/sites/all/files/Employment%20conditions%20for%20junior%20doctors%2 0in%20NZ.pdf

Want to discuss how hard done by you are because you only get (how many weeks a year is it?) paid sabbatical leave, (including international travel?)

Deborah has you guys well trained. Unfortunately neither she or you live in the same world as those who pay your under-the-table wages. Now go and see if you can actually generate some value in exchange for your extraordinarily complicated and convoluted remuneration schedule, instead of typing tripe ten to the dozen on Kiwibiker, and before some European or American immigrant notices that your pay and conditions are somewhat better than his.

Ocean1

1st July 2014, 15:14

Been there done that . . . . the shit was still cheaper

We have done that.

You didn't supply any numbers then either. Just spittle.

Brian d marge

1st July 2014, 15:24

We have done that.

You didn't supply any numbers then either. Just spittle.
Absolute crap
I even posted newspapers from the time

Same here ,some one has posted many links to support arqument

You . . . . . . well i didnt see much evidence

Just spittle

Stephen

Brian d marge

1st July 2014, 15:25

Sorry one link was posted

mada

1st July 2014, 15:29

So how many cars did the average kiwi own a few decades ago? How many TVs? How many square metres of house did he live in? What percentage of his annual wage went to pay a square metre of that house? What percentage of his wage went to eduaction? Halthcare? How many iphones did he own? How many calories worth of food did he buy?

Bogun's already invited you to produce figures for historic income/metre housing and you haven't bothered. So as this is the third time you've displayed a singularly willfull ignorance in your refusal to coherently form your arguement you can get fucked.

Later. Not.

House buyers
Ten years after the surge in house prices began, national measures of house price-to-disposable income ratios remain elevated and would require sharp falls in house prices to return to long-term averages (Figure 0.3). Affordability measures that include financing costs are currently closer to longer-term averages, owing to interest rates that are low compared with earlier times (Figure 0.4). This is often over-looked.

During the last house price boom, housing affordability became a constraint for some middle-income groups, whereas it had previously mainly been an issue for those on lower incomes. It is not yet clear if this is a cyclical phenomenon or a structural trend.

Renters

During the house price boom, rents increased at around the same rate as generalised inflation. Across territorial authorities, rents grew in a relatively tight range of 2.3% per year (in Dunedin City) to 8.2% per year (in Buller District). In all cases, rent increases were significantly less than real house price inflation and the ratio of house prices to rents increased markedly, a departure from the long-term broadly stable relationship.

This apparently benign aggregate situation disguises a more difficult position for renters on lower incomes. In particular, people in the lowest two income quintiles spend a much higher proportion of their income on rent than people on higher incomes (Figure 0.5). Even though the situation appears to have improved since the late 1990s, those in the two lower income quintiles still spend, on average, more than 30% of their disposable income on rent, after allowing for government assistance.

Anyway couldn't care fucking less about what you think. If you find things so shit from a slight tax increase or the supposedly high income tax we have in NZ (which is a load fucking shit) feel free to piss off to your dreamland in America.

mada

1st July 2014, 15:35

Oh I didn't notice that. :laugh: Can't let that slide.

What's the total cost of training a doctor in NZ? (your DHB CEO will have the numbers if you’re not quite sure.)
What proportion of that does the trainee doctor pay?
And what does the difference represent if not a massive public investment in health professional training?

How many hrs per week does the RDA limit house doctors to?
And their remuneration over and above the cash wages is what?
Care to post a copy of your union’s current agreement for our collective entertainment?

Allow me to refresh your memory via this wee note solicited from your union’s UK equivalent: http://www.nzma.org.nz/sites/all/files/Employment%20conditions%20for%20junior%20doctors%2 0in%20NZ.pdf

Want to discuss how hard done by you are because you only get (how many weeks a year is it?) paid sabbatical leave, (including international travel?)

Deborah has you guys well trained. Unfortunately neither she or you live in the same world as those who pay your under-the-table wages. Now go and see if you can actually generate some value in exchange for your extraordinarily complicated and convoluted remuneration schedule, instead of typing tripe ten to the dozen on Kiwibiker, and before some European or American immigrant notices that your pay and conditions are somewhat better than his.

:laugh:

Crack up....

That's how much you value high paid productive members of society who work long hours. I guess its the envious lefty in you.:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Look forward to seeing you bitch about doctors not doing anything productive....:violin:

Ocean1

1st July 2014, 20:40

Sorry one link was posted

I must have missed the posted reference to historic hrs worked on average income per square metre of house.

And how many bedrooms they averaged, dishwashers, how much carpet, how many bathrooms, en suites, heat exchangers, double glazed windows, garaging for how many cars...

I think you'll find the basic answer is that prices have doubled. Along with house sizes. All of the extras are comparatively free.

bogan

1st July 2014, 20:58

I must have missed the posted reference to historic hrs worked on average income per square metre of house.

Well there has yet to be a historic income percentage even posted from more than 10 years ago, so nah, don't think you've missed much.

I wonder if people are just buying other expensive things, like cars, has car ownership gone up or down in the last 50 years? :laugh:

Brian d marge

1st July 2014, 20:58

I must have missed the posted reference to historic hrs worked on average income per square metre of house.

And how many bedrooms they averaged, dishwashers, how much carpet, how many bathrooms, en suites, heat exchangers, double glazed windows, garaging for how many cars...

I think you'll find the basic answer is that prices have doubled. Along with house sizes. All of the extras are comparatively free.
Been thinking about this and it aint that simple

Ocean1

1st July 2014, 21:13

Been thinking about this and it aint that simple

Sure it is. By any reasonable metric you use the vast majority of people on this planet have never had it so good.

It don't sell well. It ain't fashionable. It's of no use whatsoever to the grievance industry. And the radical left hate it to pieces.

But it's true.

Enjoy:

http://www.heritage.org/index/pdf/2007/index2007_chapter1.pdf

http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/reader's-digest.aspx

mashman

1st July 2014, 21:40

Ocean1

1st July 2014, 21:55

I don't see the number of deaths dropping. (http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/)

Why would you expect to?

Is this what you were looking for?: "Compared with 50 years ago, when I was just four years old, the average human now earns nearly three times as much money (corrected for inflation), eats one third more calories, buries two thirds fewer children, and can expect to live one third longer. In fact, it's hard to find any region of the world that's worse off now than it was then, even though the global population has more than doubled over that period."

Again: Only a fool would contend that every sector of humanity on the planet isn't better off now than they were a generation ago. And the cause of that improvement is mass production and global trade.

Why on earth would you fuck with that other than to protect it's freedom of expression?

mada

1st July 2014, 22:23

Well there has yet to be a historic income percentage even posted from more than 10 years ago, so nah, don't think you've missed much.

I wonder if people are just buying other expensive things, like cars, has car ownership gone up or down in the last 50 years? :laugh:

It's pretty hard to use google eh?

It's okay, even if I provide the data you and Ocean will complain that it does not examine the ratio of income spent per mm of grogen left in the shitter.

"In 2009, 27 percent of New Zealand households spent more than 30 percent of their disposable income on housing costs. This was around the same level as in 2007 (26 percent) but an increase on the 2004 level (21 percent). Since the late-1980s, there has been a substantial increase in the proportion of households spending more than 30 percent of their income on housing. Between 1988 and 1997, the proportion rose from 11 percent to 25 percent of households, before levelling off at 24 percent in 1998 and 2001, and falling to 21 percent in 2004."

High housing costs relative to household incomes are of more concern for low-income households. The proportion of households in the lowest 20 percent (lowest quintile) of the equivalised household income distribution spending more than 30 percent of their income on housing trebled between 1988 and 1994, rising from 16 percent to a peak of 48 percent. The rate levelled off at 41–42 percent over the period 1996–2001, fell to 34 percent in 2004 and remained close to that level in 2007 and 2009 (33 percent). The proportion of low-income households spending more than 30 percent of their income on housing was twice as high in 2009 as it was in 1988.
Age and sex differences

In 2009, 37 percent of children aged under 18 years lived in households with housing costs exceeding 30 percent of household disposable income, an increase from 32 percent in 2007.

http://socialreport.msd.govt.nz/economic-standard-living/housing-affordability.html

Easy to spout off the same rhetoric with no evidence that "people just need to work longer hours and earn more" - cos money and work just falls off trees - will improve GDP.

People must be just working less and be lazier - that explains the general trend across all Western countries for lower rates of home ownership.:niceone:

bogan

1st July 2014, 22:32

It's pretty hard to use google eh?

It's okay, even if I provide the data you and Ocean will complain that it does not examine the ratio of income spent per mm of grogen left in the shitter.

http://socialreport.msd.govt.nz/economic-standard-living/housing-affordability.html

Easy to spout off the same rhetoric with no evidence that "people just need to work longer hours and earn more" - cos money and work just falls off trees - will improve GDP.

People must be just working less and be lazier - that explains the general trend across all Western countries for lower rates of home ownership.:niceone:

Now you're talking about renters? Cmon, earlier you said

All the facts and figures show compared to post 30s onwards, now more than ever our income:house price ratio is most distorted and with prices at their highest.

Now you can't find any facts and figure to back that up? One simple task you got, do try harder at it, instead of trying so hard to dodge the question.

Brian d marge

1st July 2014, 22:50

I will read
Looks interesting pdf

mada

1st July 2014, 22:55

Now you're talking about renters? Cmon, earlier you said

Now you can't find any facts and figure to back that up? One simple task you got, do try harder at it, instead of trying so hard to dodge the question.

The first line on the website I provided with the direct quotes clearly defines what it is talking about:

"Housing affordability
Definition
The proportion of households and the proportion of people within households spending more than 30 percent of their disposable income on housing."

Perhaps English is not your first language if you equate the above to equaling "renters".<_<

bogan

1st July 2014, 23:02

The first line on the website I provided with the direct quotes clearly defines what it is talking about:

Perhaps English is not your first language if you equate the above to equaling "renters".<_<

Not clear at all whether that include mortgage servicing. Like if mortgage payments are included, and are way above the 30% as your previous post explained, that must mean less than 30% of the population is paying off mortgages... Which may or may not be the case, but you must by now see why we want the data that directly answers the question, that data you said was everywhere, so, where is it? Cos that is counted out simply be it starts almost 60 years late <_<

mada

1st July 2014, 23:21

Not clear at all whether that include mortgage servicing. Like if mortgage payments are included, and are way above the 30% as your previous post explained, that must mean less than 30% of the population is paying off mortgages... Which may or may not be the case, but you must by now see why we want the data that directly answers the question, that data you said was everywhere, so, where is it? Cos that is counted out simply be it starts almost 60 years late <_<

If you cant see from all the data provided that housing affordability overall has gone down due to increased prices and can't grasp the logic that increased prices = increased mortgages then I doubt anything more specific would convince you.

Last shot - but I doubt you will make any sense of this: :weird:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10881119

bogan

1st July 2014, 23:30

If you cant see from all the data provided that housing affordability overall has gone down due to increased prices and can't grasp the logic that increased prices = increased mortgages then I doubt anything more specific would convince you.

Last shot - but I doubt you will make any sense of this: :weird:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10881119

Yet before, the main cause of increased mortgages was that they were easier to obtain, with lower deposits and lower repayments simply dragging them out, and increasing the total cost through servicing the interest.

Yes I get there has been a short-term trend in the last 10-20 years of increasing house prices yet income not increasing as much; actually, going by the ratio graph it can barely be called a short term trend, there was simply a jump in 2004; what happened then?
In any case you said since the 30s, a long term trend; you've not shown me that. So I guess you need to decide to follow up on that, or back out of it and we can dismiss that, then explain some of the legitimate factors why housing prices have increased so much in that 2004 year...

mada

1st July 2014, 23:42

Yet before, the main cause of increased mortgages was that they were easier to obtain, with lower deposits and lower repayments simply dragging them out, and increasing the total cost through servicing the interest.

Yes I get there has been a short-term trend in the last 10-20 years of increasing house prices yet income not increasing as much; actually, going by the ratio graph it can barely be called a short term trend, there was simply a jump in 2004; what happened then?
In any case you said since the 30s, a long term trend; you've not shown me that. So I guess you need to decide to follow up on that, or back out of it and we can dismiss that, then explain some of the legitimate factors why housing prices have increased so much in that 2004 year...

http://www.teara.govt.nz/files/30207-enz.gif

"Rates of home ownership among households in the four main cities rose during the 1920s, dropped during the depression years in the 1930s and peaked at 76% of households in 1986. Family home ownership was supported by access to low-interest state mortgages. From 1958 to 1991 parents could use family-benefit payments for their children to create a deposit for a home, add rooms when additional children were born or reduce existing mortgages. Home-ownership rates declined in the 1990s and early 21st century as housing prices rose and those who were not already owners found it difficult to accumulate the necessary deposit and meet mortgage payments.

Source: New Zealand census, 1916–2006"

http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/graph/30207/rates-of-home-ownership

As I showed you before from 2013 census:

" In 2013, 49.8 per cent of people aged 15 years and over owned or partly owned the home they lived in, compared with 53.2 per cent in 2006, according to census results released by Statistics New Zealand today. "

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11221811

Home ownership from that graph in 1936 (when the First Labour government got in and started building state houses) was approx 50% and continued to grow until the 1980s. As per the 2013 census we are now below that level of home ownership.

bogan

1st July 2014, 23:47

http://www.teara.govt.nz/files/30207-enz.gif

http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/graph/30207/rates-of-home-ownership

As I showed you before from 2013 census:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11221811

Home ownership from that graph in 1936 was approx 50% and continued to grow until the 1980s.

Home ownership doesn't necessarily correlate to affordability though; this is why we keep asking for income/price figures. I understand that home ownership rates rose from 30 to 86, and have fallen since (so there certainly isnt a long term trend of lowering ownership rates), but what is the reason? What happened in 86 to turn the trend?

mada

2nd July 2014, 00:12

Home ownership doesn't necessarily correlate to affordability though; this is why we keep asking for income/price figures. I understand that home ownership rates rose from 30 to 86, and have fallen since (so there certainly isnt a long term trend of lowering ownership rates), but what is the reason? What happened in 86 to turn the trend?

Here is the trend shown from the 60s up until 2005 (you'll note I've already shown how the trend has gotten worse from 2000s to now). Given what occurred in the 30s with the state pumping out houses on the cheap and the beginning of the welfare state and further state housing under national and benefits in 50s it would be logical to assume that from mid 30s to the 60s the trend was fairly consistent.

http://www.dpmc.govt.nz/sites/all/files/publications/images/hpr43.jpg

http://www.dpmc.govt.nz/dpmc/publications/hpr-report/hpr-8

bogan

2nd July 2014, 00:24

Here is the trend shown from the 60s up until 2005 (you'll note I've already shown how the trend has gotten worse from 2000s to now). Given what occurred in the 30s with the state pumping out houses on the cheap and the beginning of the welfare state and further state housing under national and benefits in 50s it would be logical to assume that from mid 30s to the 60s the trend was fairly consistent.

http://www.dpmc.govt.nz/sites/all/files/publications/images/hpr43.jpg

http://www.dpmc.govt.nz/dpmc/publications/hpr-report/hpr-8

I'd call that a very slight increase, as could be accounted for by land prices/scarcity up until mid 80s and then the mid 2000s when it fell again. Seems there is more significance in those dates than any such trend. And no, you can't just extrapolate shit and claim the facts back it up, 60s to 30s could easily go the other way.

mada

2nd July 2014, 00:35

I'd call that a very slight increase, as could be accounted for by land prices/scarcity up until mid 80s and then the mid 2000s when it fell again. Seems there is more significance in those dates than any such trend. And no, you can't just extrapolate shit and claim the facts back it up, 60s to 30s could easily go the other way.

Yeh a only a slight increase from 2 x the median household income to 6-7 times the median household income.... :niceone:

bogan

2nd July 2014, 00:38

Yeh a only a slight increase from 2 x the median income to 6-7 times the median income.... :niceone:

Slight from 60 through the 80s then a big one, then a big drop mid 00s,hence my focus on the dates rather than an overall trend. What is it you think caused those three things?

Brian d marge

2nd July 2014, 00:51

Not in a position to reply fully but do remember @fiat money started in 1970 and the arabs put the pices up resulting in a lot of cheap money

from me web site
snip;
1929 following word that Pres. Dwight D. Eisenhower had suffered a heart attack.
Here we go , again . We need help.......
1957 Oct 1, The motto "In God We Trust" began appearing on US paper currency.
1957 Alex Guinness, William Holden and Jack Hawkins starred in the film "Bridge on the River
Kwai." Carl Foreman was the screenwriter. It premiered at the RKO Palace Theater in New York City
on Dec 18 and later won multiple Oscars. It was rated #13 by the Amer. Film Inst. in 1998. Holden was
the 1st Hollywood actor to earn a $ 1 million for a film.
Hey feeling good ? Lets hit the town .......( this is where it starts .....)
1958 Oct 1, American Express launched its first credit card.
1962 Milton Friedman and his wife Rose published "Capitalism and Freedom," a good summary of
Friedman’s economic thinking.
This might hurt, but some light entertainment to keep the masses happy ......
1963 The film "Cleopatra" starred Elizabeth Taylor, Richard Burton and Roddy McDowall and ran for
243 minutes. Taylor was the 1st Hollywood actress to earn a $ 1 million for a film.
1964 Mar 24, Kennedy half-dollar was issued.
1967 May 18, Silver hit a record $1.60 an ounce in London.
1967 Jun 27, The first recognizably automated teller machine (ATM) was placed outside the Barclays
PLC branch in Enfield, a north London suburb.
1968 Mar 15, The U.S. mint halted the practice of buying and selling gold.
1970S Stagflation, a period of rising inflation, high oil prices and weak labor markets, marked

the global economy. key word is global

1971 Feb 15, Britain abandoned the unit of the penny on Decimal Day, February 15, 1971, replacing
the shilling with five new pence, so that one pound sterling became divided into 100 new pence.
1973 Oct 18, Congress authorized a bicentennial quarter, half-dollar and dollar coin.
1973 The market for traded uncertainty came into being with the publication of a paper by Myron

Scholes and Fischer Black (the Black-Scholes model).....

1974 Jan 31, Gold hit a record high of $195.5 an ounce.
1974 May 1, The US Federal Hourly Minimum Wage was set at $2.00 an hour.
1974 Oct 28, A US law banned discrimination of sex or marital status in credit application.
1977 The International Monetary Fund (IMF) drafted rules regarding currency exchange rates
following the collapse of the int’l. gold standard and the fixed-exchange-rate system (1971).
1978 Jul 28, Price of gold topped the $200 per oz level for 1st time. Spot gold closed at $201.30.
1978US net foreign assets in 1978 equaled 9% of GDP. By 2005 this dropped to net liabilities of 25%
GDP.
1979 Mar 13, European Monetary System (EMS) entered into force.
1979 Jul 1, The Susan B. Anthony dollar was issued. It was the 1st US coin to honor a woman. The 1st
coin was struck Feb 2 in San Francisco. The SF mint produced 100 million of the coins. Another 400
million were made in Philadelphia and Denver. It was not widely accepted and production stopped in
1981.
1979 Oct 6, Paul Volcker, new chairman of the Federal Reserve, raised interest rates sharply to clamp

down on inflation knowing that it would send interest rates soaring. Volcker held his position until
Aug, 1987
1979 Gold, fine art, and antiques rose in value under the inflationary economy. America’s core
inflation, which excludes oil and food, rose at a 7% rate.
1980 Jan 21, Gold peaked in NY at $875 a troy ounce. By mid-March gold prices fell to below $500
per ounce.

1980 Mar 31, President Carter deregulated the banking industry.

1980 The US Monetary Control Act deregulated interest rates. ohhhh this is gonna hurt !

1980 The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC), established in 1933, raised its limit to $100,000.
The previous limit, set in 1969, was $20,000.
1980 A group of banks led by J.P. Morgan made massive bailout loans of $1 billion to the Hunt
brothers who had allegedly tried to corner the silver market.
1981 Singapore implemented a managed float for its currency. It pegged its dollar to a basket of
currencies that mirrored its trading patterns. The Monetary Authority of Singapore does not
announce the contents of the basket. It just tweaks the mix as needed.
1985 Sep, In NYC ministers of the Group of Seven (G-7) major industrial countries unified and
adopted the Plaza Accord for currency intervention and struggled to control capital exchange-
rate movements. Led by the US Treasury's Sec. James Baker, it was the first effort to restore
some semblance of order to the monetary system since the collapse of the postwar Breton Woods
gold-anchored finance systems in the early 1970s. In the wake of the accord the dollar lost almost
30% of its value.
1987 Feb 22, The Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors of six major industrial countries
(Canada, France, Germany, Japan, United Kingdom, United States, G6) met in Paris and agreed in the
Louvre Accord to bring down the value of the dollar.
1987 Oct 19, Black Monday, the stock market crashed as the Dow Jones Industrial Average,
amid frenzied selling, plunged 508 points, 22.6%,-- its biggest-ever one-day decline. The crash
was preceded by legislation to block tax deductions for debt incurred in corporate takeovers
which were fueling the market. It was also preceded by plunges in other international markets.
Hong Kong suffered a 46% decline in October.
1987 The US government slashed interest rates following the stock market crash.
1987 The US government gave banks permission to sell bonds.
1987 Andy Krieger sold short more kiwis than the entire money supply of New Zealand. yeeehaaaaaaa

Brian d marge

2nd July 2014, 02:00

Sure it is. By any reasonable metric you use the vast majority of people on this planet have never had it so good.

It don't sell well. It ain't fashionable. It's of no use whatsoever to the grievance industry. And the radical left hate it to pieces.

But it's true.

Enjoy:

http://www.heritage.org/index/pdf/2007/index2007_chapter1.pdf

http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/reader's-digest.aspx
Having had the chance to read both , Some good points in the second link . Some I wouldnt agreee with such as food , yes we are consuming more calories but junk or health calories ...for example

the first , they use the world bank poverty line for example , but nowhere can I see this linked to the purchasing power of the individuals money ( I like the way they use an individuals income , distributed , makes sense)

Also they pointed out the rise in Asia ...but also noted that if africa doesnt pull it sock up the trend will reverse ....

and Im sorry , they mentioned the gini , but didnt quote any figures and the data I have shows a general world increase from 0.4 to 0.6 settling around 0.6 just before ww1

Italy and greece drop but others are up

Stephen

good read thank you

MisterD

2nd July 2014, 07:21

Given what occurred in the 30s with the state pumping out houses on the cheap

Imagine if we'd had an RMA back then, imagine if we'd had the ridiculous costs applied by councils...

Look at all those lovely "heritage" (does this word just mean "old"?) Villas and Bungalows around the country, spec-built by private developers. Land availability and bureaucratic ticket-clipping means there's basically no business case that works for jobbing builders to do this anymore.

mashman

2nd July 2014, 07:48

If you cant see from all the data provided that housing affordability overall has gone down due to increased prices and can't grasp the logic that increased prices = increased mortgages then I doubt anything more specific would convince you.

Last shot - but I doubt you will make any sense of this: :weird:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10881119

Are those stats compiled before or after some for of make them figures look better than they actually are per capita measurement was applied? Coz home ownership dropping despite a huge surge in population and our never ending want to own our own homes as it's cheaper than renting really doesn't compute when you remove affordability as the reason. Nah, it must be the housing pixies encouraging people to rent and not own all of a sudden.

mashman

2nd July 2014, 07:56

Why would you expect to?

Is this what you were looking for?: "Compared with 50 years ago, when I was just four years old, the average human now earns nearly three times as much money (corrected for inflation), eats one third more calories, buries two thirds fewer children, and can expect to live one third longer. In fact, it's hard to find any region of the world that's worse off now than it was then, even though the global population has more than doubled over that period."

Again: Only a fool would contend that every sector of humanity on the planet isn't better off now than they were a generation ago. And the cause of that improvement is mass production and global trade.

Why on earth would you fuck with that other than to protect it's freedom of expression?

Never mind.

Ahhhh yes, statistics to appease the dumb.

The improvement is not down to mass production and global trade by any means, they're just the logistics outcomes of human ingenuity. You keep putting the cart before the horse.

To make it better instead of sitting on one's laurels and relying on statistics to form a world view that excuses the shit that comes with the "success".

Robert Taylor

2nd July 2014, 13:21

While we are busy bitching about politicians I see that the Snifter party ( Greens, green on outside , red on inside ) want to create another public holiday. We have too much holiday time already and our work ethic and productivity in many sectors is somewhat wanting. How out of touch are these idiots? They couldnt even answer what it would cost the country in further lost productivity

Katman

2nd July 2014, 13:28

bogan

2nd July 2014, 13:34

Robert Taylor

2nd July 2014, 13:39

Implying blatant vote buying with flawed or no logic doesn't work. Unfortunately, it might not be just the greens that are out of touch here RT :whistle: :cry:

Yes, granted

puddytat

2nd July 2014, 13:40

I thought I'd reinforce my right wing bastard credentials by posting a picture of Huka Lodge, where I was on Saturday.
They wouldn't let me go fishing using an unemployed person's baby as bait, though.
Soft pricks...

298500

You could reinforce your credentials even more if you for once posted some evidence in support of your argument. Until then you are just full of wind.

In saying that though I didn't realise when I posted that the thread had moved on another 7 pages.
And still no evidence.

Robert Taylor

2nd July 2014, 13:44

We should drop Easter, Christmas Day, Waitangi Day and Queens Birthday holidays. We'd have room for creating a few holidays that actually meant something then.

Waitangi day yes because its a farce. Easter no because it largely reflects our largely anglo saxon Christianity roots. Lizs birthday no because she is still our head of state and we should retain our ties to the United Kingdom. Where our immediate ancestors largely come from in spite of more recent dilution. Nothing much wrong with the public holidays we have but we certainly dont need more and 4 weeks paid holidays was a negative step.

Katman

2nd July 2014, 13:48

Easter no because it largely reflects our largely anglo saxon Christianity roots. Lizs birthday no because she is still our head of state and we should retain our ties to the United Kingdom.

I struggle to take you seriously anymore Robert.

Ocean1

2nd July 2014, 17:26

Imagine if we'd had an RMA back then, imagine if we'd had the ridiculous costs applied by councils...

Look at all those lovely "heritage" (does this word just mean "old"?) Villas and Bungalows around the country, spec-built by private developers. Land availability and bureaucratic ticket-clipping means there's basically no business case that works for jobbing builders to do this anymore.

Correct. Standards compliance related barriers are to blame for most of that. Particularly the teritorial authority related ones.

Right. Don't have time to cobble up wizards with hammers, but here's enough statistical obfuscation to keep mashie appeased for fucking yonks: From treasury: http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/research-policy/wp/2006/06-03/10.htm

298668

House prices have indeed risen much more than household income.

298669

But the cost of ownership hasn’t changed that much. Mostly because people borrow to a risk they’re comfortable with, and interest rates dropped markedly later in that period.

So the size of the mortgages people are prepared to service has risen dramatically. And they’ve spent the extra on larger houses.

Much larger houses. From the commission's housing affordability enquiry: http://www.productivity.govt.nz/sites/default/files/Final%20Housing%20Affordability%20Report_0_0.pdf

"New Zealand houses are big.

At the national level, New Zealand houses are, on average, among the largest in the world (Figure 2.15). This has not always been the case. Since the 1950s, the average size of a new house has steadily increased, with particularly rapid growth between 1980 and 2010 (Figure 2.15). By 2010, the average new house was around 200m2, a great deal larger than a standard 1960's three-bedroom bungalow.

Indeed, in the 1960s, three-bedroom houses accounted for about 70% of all houses. But since 2000, new houses are more likely to have four rather than three bedrooms and five-bedroom houses have accounted for over 10% of new construction. In international comparison, the average size of a new house in New Zealand is now over double that in a number of European countries."

298670

So there you have it. Housing related costs are up just a tad on historic levels. Which shouldn't really come as much of a surprise, after all it's house buyers that set the price they're happy to pay. Sorry, happy to allow the evel banks to rape them for. And interest rates have provide plenty of lube recently.

And in spite of this, new houses are not only twice the size they were a generation ago, but they're way, way bigger than those in most of the rest of the world. Twice the house for similar effort. AND a bunch of trick shit your grany never dreamed of.

Anyone ready to take on that elusive avg income/meter mission yet? Or does it continue to cause problems with failing to agree with shit?.

Edit: And the real driver of house prices is just beginning to be addressed: the cost of building. It's a fucking joke. and as noted above territorial authorities are the single biggest cause of that, and the commerce commission's incompetence in maintaining free market access most of the rest of it. Fix that and I promise your existing house values will plummet.

Brian d marge

2nd July 2014, 17:45

Goood stuff have downloaded and will get back to you in all due course
thanks for posting credible links

Stephen

Robert Taylor

2nd July 2014, 18:31

I struggle to take you seriously anymore Robert.

There are more pro-monarchy people than you have accounted for. Not everyone in this country is sympathetic to having a republic.

Katman

2nd July 2014, 18:40

There are more pro-monarchy people than you have accounted for.

I bet there would be just as many who would see a greater significance in us celebrating Matariki.

Robert Taylor

2nd July 2014, 18:46

I bet there would be just as many who would see a greater significance in us celebrating Matariki.

I will stick with the union flag thankyou.

Brian d marge

2nd July 2014, 20:54

Re read that report again

Ill reply in depth when i geta chance but

Let me highlight a few point

The report touches on the supply of cheap money but does nottouch on the role of the banks

It also shows that houses have become too expensive

As you have pointed out the compliance
And structure of the industrylead to inefficiency

I suspect though that they are not the main drivers of in affordabilty

I will adress thecost per metre question because i also would like to know the answer

Correct. Standards compliance related barriers are to blame for most of that. Particularly the teritorial authority related ones.

Right. Don't have time to cobble up wizards with hammers, but here's enough statistical obfuscation to keep mashie appeased for fucking yonks: From treasury: http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/research-policy/wp/2006/06-03/10.htm

298668

House prices have indeed risen much more than household income.

298669

But the cost of ownership hasn’t changed that much. Mostly because people borrow to a risk they’re comfortable with, and interest rates dropped markedly later in that period.

So the size of the mortgages people are prepared to service has risen dramatically. And they’ve spent the extra on larger houses.

Much larger houses. From the commission's housing affordability enquiry: http://www.productivity.govt.nz/sites/default/files/Final%20Housing%20Affordability%20Report_0_0.pdf

"New Zealand houses are big.

At the national level, New Zealand houses are, on average, among the largest in the world (Figure 2.15). This has not always been the case. Since the 1950s, the average size of a new house has steadily increased, with particularly rapid growth between 1980 and 2010 (Figure 2.15). By 2010, the average new house was around 200m2, a great deal larger than a standard 1960's three-bedroom bungalow.

Indeed, in the 1960s, three-bedroom houses accounted for about 70% of all houses. But since 2000, new houses are more likely to have four rather than three bedrooms and five-bedroom houses have accounted for over 10% of new construction. In international comparison, the average size of a new house in New Zealand is now over double that in a number of European countries."

298670

So there you have it. Housing related costs are up just a tad on historic levels. Which shouldn't really come as much of a surprise, after all it's house buyers that set the price they're happy to pay. Sorry, happy to allow the evel banks to rape them for. And interest rates have provide plenty of lube recently.

And in spite of this, new houses are not only twice the size they were a generation ago, but they're way, way bigger than those in most of the rest of the world. Twice the house for similar effort. AND a bunch of trick shit your grany never dreamed of.

Anyone ready to take on that elusive avg income/meter mission yet? Or does it continue to cause problems with failing to agree with shit?.

Edit: And the real driver of house prices is just beginning to be addressed: the cost of building. It's a fucking joke. and as noted above territorial authorities are the single biggest cause of that, and the commerce commission's incompetence in maintaining free market access most of the rest of it. Fix that and I promise your existing house values will plummet.

mashman

2nd July 2014, 22:53

Pointlessness.

Right. Don't have time to cobble up wizards with hammers, but here's enough statistical obfuscation to keep mashie appeased for fucking yonks: From treasury:

More pointlessness.

It might please you to know that I have absolutely no desire to look at those figures. Comparing then and now using statistics masks the fact that there are an awful lot of people struggling. It's gonna have to be wizards and hammers.

Brian d marge

3rd July 2014, 03:18

Ok

Roughly and I can and will later post the links , but i tried to find a house , age where all was good in NZ , so far Im at 1970 I chose 1970 as it was just before nixon moved of the gold standard and all was kinda well with NZ .... sorta

Also the house I chose was ......

The following table shows typical tender prices being accepted in the four main centres at the end of the last 11 financial years for similar types of three-bedroom State rental houses of equivalent floor space. In each case the house is a typical single unit on a flat section, built in weatherboards with a tiled roof. The price includes drainage, fencing, paths, toolshed, revolving clothes line, and letterbox. The cost of the section is not included.

Roughly 6.8 dollars per sq foot

the average state house , typical for the time and similar to private contruction was 976 sq ft

Adjusted for inflation that is 297.17 dollars per sq foot in todays money

so 976 x 6.8 equals $ 6636 to build so .... $ 6636 in todays money is $ 290 035

there are 90.67 sq m in 976 sq ft

so $ 290 035 divided by 90.67 equals $ 3198.79 per sq meter

Now from this web site http://www.dbh.govt.nz/bofficials-estimated-building-costs#latest

they reckon its $ 1824 to build a house 0f 145 sq m in wellington ( all of these prices are for the house only )

and LARGER houses seem to be CHEAPER per sq m at $ 1660 for 202 sq m in wellington !

So the cost per meter to build a house has dropped by half AND is cheaper , slightly per sq m.

Yet the afordability of said houses has shot through the roof

From Ocean1 link

Snip

What drove the surge in New Zealand house prices in the 2000s?The sharp rise in house prices in

New Zealand during the 2000s reflected a number of cumulative

demand
-
Internationally, a range of influences came together to encourage a strong increase in credit growth, much of which increased effective demand for housing in a number of OECD countries:

In conjunction with loose monetary policy in the United States, high savings from some Asian and

Housing Affordability

The house price boom was more widely dispersed across the country than previous house price expansions.

However, there were important exceptions to this trend

–

in the Queenstown Lakes District and

metropolitan areas in Auckland and Wellington, houses were among the most expensive in the country in

the early 2000s, but these regions still

experienced strong real house price appreciations over the boom. In

Auckland home to around one third of New Zealand’s population and 31% and 41% of its housing stock

by number and value respectively this continued a well-

established trend of strong real house price

increases relative to the rest of the country. As a consequence, the distribution of house prices in Auckland

is now markedly different to that in the rest of New Zealand, particularly at the lower end of the Auckland

housing market. For example, between 1995 and 2011, the gap between lower

quartile house prices in

Auckland

the rest of the country increased by over 260% in real terms. The analogous figures for

median and upper quartile house prices are 230% and 150% respectively

SO there ya go , Houses were MORE expensive to build but due to cheap credit they are more expensive to buy.

Stephen

Ocean1

3rd July 2014, 09:29

It might please you to know that I have absolutely no desire to look at those figures.

Doesn't surprise me in the least, the facts haven't altered your opinion to date and I see no liklihood of that changing.

Comparing then and now using statistics masks the fact that there are an awful lot of people struggling.

Bollox. It proves the point that there are fewer people struggling less hard now than there's ever been. It's just the usual socialist fuckwits that feel the need to blame "the system" for personal failures to take advantage of todays enormously greater opportunities.

Ocean1

3rd July 2014, 09:47

SO there ya go , Houses were MORE expensive to build but due to cheap credit they are more expensive to buy.

Yeah. Not sure about the second bit, there. Someone else could find different numbers no doubt, but the fact remains that houses are not significantly more expensive than they've ever been. How could they be more unaffordable? people stretched as far to afford houses then as they do now.

And I agree, cheap credit is the root cause of the rise in prices, but that's because homeowners borrowed and upgraded, nobody held a gun to their head, it was entirely the owners choice, as it should be. All of this bleating about housing unaffordability misses a very inconvenient point: Those houses represent a coresponding increase in the ability of Kiwis to pay for them. A net rise in our standard of living, no less. The exact opposite of the trend our socialis mates insist is the case.

The downside is, of course that the more money invested in the top half of the market the higher the prices in the entry level. But let's put the blame for that where it belongs: untennable and unwaranted compliance costs and material prices dominated by monopolies. If you could build the house today your father built 50 years ago it would cost you no more than it did then. Probably less. You can't, of course, the local authorities want their cut, and they don't get that by allowing cheap buildings on developments they've milked for far more than it costs to produce them.

Katman

3rd July 2014, 09:53

It proves the point that there are fewer people struggling less now than there's ever been.

So does that mean there are more people struggling more?

mashman

3rd July 2014, 10:44

Doesn't surprise me in the least, the facts haven't altered your opinion to date and I see no liklihood of that changing.

Bollox. It proves the point that there are fewer people struggling less hard now than there's ever been. It's just the usual socialist fuckwits that feel the need to blame "the system" for personal failures to take advantage of todays enormously greater opportunities.

Facts, like what? Oh we've never had it so good because the facts say so? In which case there shouldn't be 3.5 billion people are in poverty. You may prefer top roll over and play dead once you've been placated, but that ain't for everyone... thank fuck.

:facepalm: It proves nothing of the sort. However, it does prove that figures can be massaged to appease fuckwits though... thanks for the incontrovertible proof there. :rofl:@usual socialist fuckwits and blaming the system for personal failures. That has to be one of the most moronic and ignorant statements you've made to date... and you've uttered a few doozy's. Bravo, bravo.

oldrider

3rd July 2014, 12:00

Struggling people today are way better off than struggling people were even when I was a kid ... believe it or not! :rolleyes:

IMHO the world does not owe anybody anything except a fair and proper monetary system! :yes:

And believe it or not the only thing that it would cost to give it to them is to remove the power of those that currently control it for their own ends! :brick:

mashman

3rd July 2014, 12:36

Oscar

3rd July 2014, 13:35

:rofl:... the only reason that the people in power are in power is because there is a monetary system.

The system defines human behaviour :yes:

Human behavour determines that the smarter, stronger and more socially adept rise to the top.

The less socially adept, weaker and stupid examples sit around bleating about the system.
Your problem is that there will never be a system where bitter incoherent jealous onanists get to the top.

oldrider

3rd July 2014, 13:46

:rofl:... the only reason that the people in power are in power is because there is a monetary system.

The system defines human behaviour :yes:

Well true but there is nothing fundamentally wrong with current monetary system in its self ... it is a means of exchange and we need that!

The problem is that the system has and is being manipulated [Quote: give me control of the finances of the world I care not who makes the laws] against us!

The reason that this happens is simply "because "we" allow it" ... even INSIST upon it to continue unabated! :facepalm:

The old adage "laughing all the way to the bank" must have been coined by the profiteers who control the banks at our expense!

No government - Left / Centre / Right / whatever - will succeed unless they take back what is rightfully ours/theirs, the creation of all "new" credit for the economy!

The reserve bank is already established and able to provide that service ... all it needs is the will of the people through government and it could be fixed immediately!

The people need to simply vote for those who have the will and have the policies that will take the solution to the treasury benches! (one offering currently)

The biggest obsticle to actually getting this done is ... The media and public complacency! (read stupidity) :mellow:

mashman

3rd July 2014, 13:54

mashman

3rd July 2014, 14:11

Well true but there is nothing fundamentally wrong with current monetary system in its self ... it is a means of exchange and we need that!

The problem is that the system has and is being manipulated [Quote: give me control of the finances of the world I care not who makes the laws] against us!

The reason that this happens is simply "because "we" allow it" ... even INSIST upon it to continue unabated! :facepalm:

The old adage "laughing all the way to the bank" must have been coined by the profiteers who control the banks at our expense!

No government - Left / Centre / Right / whatever - will succeed unless they take back what is rightfully ours/theirs, the creation of all "new" credit for the economy!

The reserve bank is already established and able to provide that service ... all it needs is the will of the people through government and it could be fixed immediately!

The people need to simply vote for those who have the will and have the policies that will take the solution to the treasury benches! (one offering currently)

The biggest obsticle to actually getting this done is ... The media and public complacency! (read stupidity) :mellow:

There is something fundamentally wrong with it because despite 10's of thousands of years of using a monetary system, not a single one has been kept. The reason for that being that something is fundamentally wrong with the monetary system, especially when you consider that it modifies and leads human behaviour. We don't need it anymore thanb we need govt (see Belgium for recent history of a country not requiring a govt).

The system has to be manipulated... in fact it is absolutely imperative, else we would have had the same system for all this time. We haven't, because the system is fundamentally flawed.

True, we only have ourselves for that... well, that and every generation before us.

:rofl: it probably was, but it's a catchy strapline to hoodwink the morons into believing that human beings can't live without it :shifty:.

Aye, it doesn't matter what colour govt is in as all they're interested in is BAU and growth... and even if they govt did have a hold of the purse strings, money would still be created at interest and there'd never be enough money to pay off the debt.

bwaaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaa... can I borrow those rose tinted specs after you've used them. If the govt doesn't have enough money to build a bridge (for instance), then it doesn't matter what the people ask/want/demand as the bridge isn't affordable. No doubt they'd toll the bridge to pay for it, well, to pay back the loan they had to borrow (including interest) for something that the people wanted. True though, the will of the people can move mountains (as long as it's financially affordable).

Who is the one group that has these magic policies?

heh... now there we agree... however I've found that talking about it face to face can easily counteract the media spin and I've also found that most of the complacents (that I've met) are complacent because there is nothing to vote for as they've seen it all before. Something new is needed.

Oscar

3rd July 2014, 14:20

:killingme it does nothing of the sought... however it does highlight the socially irresponsible.

:killingme I guess you figured in for a penny in for a troll.
You have no idea what my problem is with the system... primarily as you seem incapable of understanding anyone else's point of view. Leaves you as nothing more than just another moron with an entitlement complex to justify the social damage that you create.

I probably don't have any idea what your problem with the system is - the blame however is yours alone, because despite the thousands of lines of drivel that you've inflicted this site with, you rarely even begin to make sense.

Entitlement complex? I worked for everything I have.
Social damage? You are a pompous twat that doesn't know me, how can you begin to know how I fit into society?
You are a dreary, jealous, slighty boring Troll.

Brian d marge

3rd July 2014, 14:39

Yeah. Not sure about the second bit, there. Someone else could find different numbers no doubt, but the fact remains that houses are not significantly more expensive than they've ever been. How could they be more unaffordable? people stretched as far to afford houses then as they do now.

And I agree, cheap credit is the root cause of the rise in prices, but that's because homeowners borrowed and upgraded, nobody held a gun to their head, it was entirely the owners choice, as it should be. All of this bleating about housing unaffordability misses a very inconvenient point: Those houses represent a coresponding increase in the ability of Kiwis to pay for them. A net rise in our standard of living, no less. The exact opposite of the trend our socialis mates insist is the case.

The downside is, of course that the more money invested in the top half of the market the higher the prices in the entry level. But let's put the blame for that where it belongs: untennable and unwaranted compliance costs and material prices dominated by monopolies. If you could build the house today your father built 50 years ago it would cost you no more than it did then. Probably less. You can't, of course, the local authorities want their cut, and they don't get that by allowing cheap buildings on developments they've milked for far more than it costs to produce them.

The first bit was from the NZ yearbook 1970 http://www3.stats.govt.nz/New_Zealand_Official_Yearbooks/1971/NZOYB_1971.html#idchapter_1_163727

and the second part was from your source the productivity commision , when I have a chance Ill post it

Anyway v, very quickly , re read the links you posted , they are good , but sorry As far as I can see , yes houses have been getting bigger but they have been getting cheaper to build and the ( I think ) the biggest cause of unaffrodability is due to the relaxation of the credit market in early 1980s , cheap money , rising equity in an asset , ( you must admit if you had a house in 1980 you have had a good run of rising equity !)

and at the end of the day , houses in NZ are abouve the 30 % morgage stress limit ,

Stephen

sorry meeting at 1 and need to prepare

Banditbandit

3rd July 2014, 15:22

There is something fundamentally wrong with it because despite 10's of thousands of years of using a monetary system, not a single one has been kept. The reason for that being that something is fundamentally wrong with the monetary system, especially when you consider that it modifies and leads human behaviour. We don't need it anymore than we need govt (see Belgium for recent history of a country not requiring a govt).

The system has to be manipulated... in fact it is absolutely imperative, else we would have had the same system for all this time. We haven't, because the system is fundamentally flawed.

True, we only have ourselves for that... well, that and every generation before us.

Any organised society needs an exchange medium/system (especially highly organised ones involving divisions of labour) ours happens to be a monetary system ... but any other system will do just as well.

The issue is not with the system, but with human behaviour and desires .. some people want to get to the top and will fight there way there and make it - even the so-called Communist systems (actually left-wing dictatorships) prove that .. as do all other systems. Even the animal kingdom has dominant group leaders who fight for that position ..

So, the issue is not with the monetary system, but with human beings .. and fuck it, I'm sick of trying to change them ... the stupid fuckers just keep on doing whatever ... that's probably why I'm a cynical old fucker ...

Brian d marge

3rd July 2014, 15:52

Sorry but many hunter gatherer societys dont have a medium of exchange and actually are rather happy
The tide changed when we started to grow things

As for belgium lordy lordy that was funny

What was it one month no government and life went on as per usual

Hahahahaaaaaa

oldrider

3rd July 2014, 16:00

Old adage: "When you are up to your arse in alligators it is hard to remember that the origional intention was to drain the swamp"!

We set out to get rid of FPP (First past the post) and ended up with MMP! (and got swamped with expensive unaccountable MP's)

Unaccountable: https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=unaccountable&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a&channel=np&source=hp&

How will an overdose of unaccountable MP's ever get to correct an ailing financial system let alone solve anything else?

Did anyone see where the alligators came from? ------- They are part and parcel of MMP! ----- We got shafted good with that one!

We need less government - not more!

All we really need is a few (no more than twelve) fully accountable quickly and easily replaceable (at any time) high performing publicly elected individuals to govern us!

So much to do such little inclination! :kick:

Ocean1

3rd July 2014, 16:59

houses have been getting bigger but they have been getting cheaper to build and the ( I think ) the biggest cause of unaffrodability is due to the relaxation of the credit market in early 1980s ,

Sorry, you're going to have to dumb that down some for me. You work fewer hrs per metre of house nowdays but cheaper loans make them more unaffordable?

As far as I can make out from that report cheap mortgages was the major factor in reducing the cost of home ownership over the last couple of decades.

As for unaffordable, who exactly is it that is deciding if the price of the house they want to buy is affordable? The owners wasn't it? The ones that decided whether they could afford it or not?
Which is precicely as it must be, if you find anyone else deciding who should pay for what and how much then look around, you're in mashland. You get used to the whining. Eventually. Well, OK, you don't, but it's the least of your worries while visiting there. Mind the hammers underfoot.

Brian d marge

3rd July 2014, 17:45

Struggling people today are way better off than struggling people were even when I was a kid ... believe it or not! :rolleyes:

IMHO the world does not owe anybody anything except a fair and proper system! :yes:

And believe it or not the only thing that it would cost to give it to them is to remove the power of those that currently control it for their own ends! :brick:

fixed it for ya

We may have been even better of if more sharing and caring went on , and the evil fkers at the top werent there

See Belgium ....haahahaha

Stephen

Robert Taylor

3rd July 2014, 17:54

Ocean1

3rd July 2014, 17:58

Facts, like what? Oh we've never had it so good because the facts say so? In which case there shouldn't be 3.5 billion people are in poverty.

Says who?

Actually WHO says the number of poor is declining. Dramatically. Even after redefining "poor" to mean something much better off.

And yes, the facts do say so. Your ignorance is the only reason you believe different.

Come back with some facts. It won't make you less of a man to apologise.

:laugh:

mashman

3rd July 2014, 17:58

Any organised society needs an exchange medium/system (especially highly organised ones involving divisions of labour) ours happens to be a monetary system ... but any other system will do just as well.

The issue is not with the system, but with human behaviour and desires .. some people want to get to the top and will fight there way there and make it - even the so-called Communist systems (actually left-wing dictatorships) prove that .. as do all other systems. Even the animal kingdom has dominant group leaders who fight for that position ..

So, the issue is not with the monetary system, but with human beings .. and fuck it, I'm sick of trying to change them ... the stupid fuckers just keep on doing whatever ... that's probably why I'm a cynical old fucker ...

Try, ugh, there's no real word that I can think of that describes it... try, trust. I take your point about the monetary system, I really do, I would have thought, well, did think similar in the not too distant past.

I have to disagree with the system not being responsible. I agree that there will always be people that are striving for something and will do anything to get their way... however, their motive and credentials is the amount of money they have :yes:. The evidence is splattered all over the forum... and at work... and in the cafe etc... It's influence is everything to the point where financial collapse will irrevocably change us and may even lead to WW3. NOW, heh, you say the system is not the problem. So why is it when that very same system runs out of money, society "implodes" (it's in the news a lot). That will prove that human behaviour changes accordingly with the system. We are not animals.

It ain't humans that are the problem, they're just doing what they know how to do given the current information available and their immediate environment.

Just my 2c.

Brian d marge

3rd July 2014, 17:59

Sorry, you're going to have to dumb that down some for me. You work fewer hrs per metre of house nowdays but cheaper loans make them more unaffordable?

As far as I can make out from that report cheap mortgages was the major factor in reducing the cost of home ownership over the last couple of decades.

As for unaffordable, who exactly is it that is deciding if the price of the house they want to buy is affordable? The owners wasn't it? The ones that decided whether they could afford it or not?
Which is precicely as it must be, if you find anyone else deciding who should pay for what and how much then look around, you're in mashland. You get used to the whining. Eventually. Well, OK, you don't, but it's the least of your worries while visiting there. Mind the hammers underfoot.

If you reduce the cost of money the usage goes up. Money needs to find work and since the deregulation and a bucket load of money all looking for something to do

Banks did what banks do , lend it out

The more they lend the more profit they make esp in a fractional reserve system ...( every dollar they have they can lend out 9 or so more

In NZ there is a STRONG almost ingrained need for house ownership ..I mean its most people chance to own an asset. Banks and politicians dont want to upset this apple cart in fact the more people owning houses the better ....

So Houses tend to be the preferable risk for both banks and people

NOW you can add in the supply and demand to this equation, more people ( 30 % i think your link suggested ) looking for a home , a foot on the rung ,

More money available for investment in housing ......

Building consents not keeping up ......

Stephen

ps a house is a home and not an investment and should be affordable to the community that surrounds it ..IMHO

Ocean1

3rd July 2014, 18:04

Struggling people today are way better off than struggling people were even when I was a kid ... believe it or not! :rolleyes:

He don't believe it. Seems likely you're somewhat more of an authority though.

Makes you wonder where the fuck such idiots get their history from. :facepalm:

mashman

3rd July 2014, 18:07

Says who?

Actually WHO says the number of poor is declining. Dramatically. Even after redefining "poor" to mean something much better off.

And yes, the facts do say so. Your ignorance is the only reason you believe different.

Come back with some facts. It won't make you less of a man to apologise.

Me.

Declining at 1 million per year we should be sweet by the year 11514, give or take. It happens, the measurement is irrelevant.

It certainly isn't ignorance, coz I understand both sides and haven't cherrypicked that which keeps my comfy blanket in the closet. I know better is all.

I'll apologise when I have need to, don't you worry your pretty little head about that... I'll use some facts when you do.

Ocean1

3rd July 2014, 18:11

If you reduce the cost of money the usage goes up. Money needs to find work and since the deregulation and a bucket load of money all looking for something to do

Banks did what banks do , lend it out

The more they lend the more profit they make esp in a fractional reserve system ...( every dollar they have they can lend out 9 or so more

In NZ there is a STRONG almost ingrained need for house ownership ..I mean its most people chance to own an asset. Banks and politicians dont want to upset this apple cart in fact the more people owning houses the better ....

So Houses tend to be the preferable risk for both banks and people

NOW you can add in the supply and demand to this equation, more people ( 30 % i think your link suggested ) looking for a home , a foot on the rung ,

More money available for investment in housing ......

Building consents not keeping up ......

Stephen

ps a house is a home and not an investment and should be affordable to the community that surrounds it ..IMHO

All of which doesn't change the fact that cheap loans reduced the cost of home ownership, rather than increasing it.

Again: size for size housing in NZ costs no more now than it ever has.

And yet again: if you want cheaper entry level housing then you have to remove the parasitic compliance barriers and make sure the materials market is as free as possible.

mashman

3rd July 2014, 18:14

He don't believe it. Seems likely you're somewhat more of an authority though.

Makes you wonder where the fuck such idiots get their history from. :facepalm:

Struggling people are struggling people.

S'ok, your ilk usually dies off after a couple of generations. :D

money related stuff

ps a house is a home and not an investment and should be affordable to the community that surrounds it ..IMHO

cannot bling again.

Ocean1

3rd July 2014, 18:19

It certainly isn't ignorance, coz I understand both sides and haven't cherrypicked that which keeps my comfy blanket in the closet. I know better is all.

The single most pro-socialist multinational organisation on the planet: http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/poverty.shtml

You know fuck all, now fuck off you ignorant cunt.

Brian d marge

3rd July 2014, 18:43

All of which doesn't change the fact that cheap loans reduced the cost of home ownership, rather than increasing it.

Again: size for size housing in NZ costs no more now than it ever has.

And yet again: if you want cheaper entry level housing then you have to remove the parasitic compliance barriers and make sure the materials market is as free as possible.

Now ya just being stupid

Cheap cost of borrowing the money allowed more people to try to get into the housing market
Supply demand
The value of the assets rose dragging up the price of the less desirable houses

Size of house i have answered

Entry level housing
Reducing the overheads would help also increasing the supply

All was in that link u supplied

Stephen

Ocean1

3rd July 2014, 19:10

Now ya just being stupid

Cheap cost of borrowing the money allowed more people to try to get into the housing market
Supply demand
The value of the assets rose dragging up the price of the less desirable houses

I'm not the one contradicting myself every second sentence, dude.

Fact: reduced interest rates equal reduced cost of home ownership, not increased cost of ownership.

You already found that house prices per meter are actually cheaper now, what cheap cost of borrowing allowed people to get into was houses twice the size.

And as I also pointed out the people paying for the houses are obviously of the opinion that their choice is affordable, or they wouldn't fucking buy them, would they?

So YET AGAIN: Houses are no more expensive than they've ever been, and according to anyone that currently owns a house in NZ they're affordable.

I'm not asking you to like it, but your own research agrees with that assessment.

Entry level housing
Reducing the overheads would help also increasing the supply

And again, reduced cost of loans reduces overheads. Lots. No such thing as a free lunch Steven, fix the cost of new, smaller houses and the prices of small houses overall will drop.

bogan

3rd July 2014, 19:15

Katman

3rd July 2014, 19:29

So YET AGAIN: Houses are no more expensive than they've ever been, and according to anyone that currently owns a house in NZ they're affordable.

How does the number of mortgagee sales today compare to 60 years ago?

Ocean1

3rd July 2014, 19:32

I think its not so much the interest rate, as the overall ease of getting one, like way back when the bank needed more deposit, and a quicker payoff term. Yet now those things have relaxed, so it can cost more overall if buyers take that option. Which of course just means we aren't comparing apples with apples. If on the one hand it is easier to get a house, but on the other it is more expensive overall; becomes difficult to say which way things have gone.

Again, buyer's choice: spend more and pay it off slower or spend less and pay it off more quickly. If more relaxed borrowing conditions now allow people to borrow more, or commit themselves to higher percentage of their income then who are you to say they shouldn't? And who's to say our parents wouldn't have done the same given the choice. It's really none of anyone else's business, as long as politicians don't interfere with the market, (as happened in the US to cause the GFC), and as long as nobody outside of the loan agreement is going to be expected to pay for the cost of the increased risk.

Which implies a flexible interest rate, dunnit?

Or a return to the good ol' times: http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/10224000/Income-loan-caps-better-than-LVR-NZIER

Ocean1

3rd July 2014, 19:35

How does the number of mortgagee sales today compare to 60 years ago?

Dunno. Probably higher, you don't get easy loans without a corresponding increase in risk.

Which, as above, is a risk the bank should absolutely be responsible for. Completely.

Katman

3rd July 2014, 19:45

Dunno. Probably higher, you don't get easy loans without a corresponding increase in risk.

Which, as above, is a risk the bank should absolutely be responsible for. Completely.

So if the rate of mortgagee sales is a lot higher than 60 years ago it would indicate that houses aren't as affordable as back then, wouldn't it?

Brian d marge

3rd July 2014, 19:52

I'm not the one contradicting myself every second sentence, dude.

Fact: reduced interest rates equal reduced cost of home ownership, not increased cost of ownership.

You already found that house prices per meter are actually cheaper now, what cheap cost of borrowing allowed people to get into was houses twice the size.

And as I also pointed out the people paying for the houses are obviously of the opinion that their choice is affordable, or they wouldn't fucking buy them, would they?

So YET AGAIN: Houses are no more expensive than they've ever been, and according to anyone that currently owns a house in NZ they're affordable.

I'm not asking you to like it, but your own research agrees with that assessment.

And again, reduced cost of loans reduces overheads. Lots. No such thing as a free lunch Steven, fix the cost of new, smaller houses and the prices of small houses overall will drop.

No ya stuck in a mind set
Houses and the cost of you asked me to adress that point I did ... they are cheaper to build today aparently

even larger 202 sq m ones

As for affordability there are very cheap houses available ...in Tokaroa but if the work is in Auckland

See , supply and demand

If people with money ( Brits or Chinese ) or even people willing to work all hours drive up the prices ...investment , rental properties etc

where does that leave the people with out the skill set to own a home ?

all the arguments for and against were laid out in the link you supplied .....

Im not contradicting my self or saying anything different ,,,,,,

Sorry nothing more to see here folks move on ,,,,,on ya way please

Stephen

I will how ever find out when the banking regulatory changes happened in nz to allow the low interest rates and easy credit

Ocean1

3rd July 2014, 20:02

So if the rate of mortgagee sales is a lot higher than 60 years ago it would indicate that houses aren't as affordable as back then, wouldn't it?

Broadly, yes. There will always be those who spend more than they should, the difference is that in later years the bank lent them the money anyway, whereas in the past they wouldn't have.

And in spite of that: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10879903

Another indication that house ownership has been getting easier, eh?

Oscar

3rd July 2014, 20:06

So if the rate of mortgagee sales is a lot higher than 60 years ago it would indicate that houses aren't as affordable as back then, wouldn't it?

Making comparisons using that sort of data is next to impossible since the lending enviroment has changed so much.
On the one hand we habe the change in the amount of deposit required and the relatively low interest rates we've enjoyed over the last few decades, on the other things like State Advances loans and the ability to cash up your Family Benefit...

Has anyone tabled this, yet?

http://nzinitiative.org.nz/site/nzinitiative/files/publications/PRICED%20OUT%20-%20FULL%20RES.pdf

Although a slim majority of New
Zealanders now think rising house
prices are undesirable, the current policy
quagmire has created a situation where the
interests of those who are lucky enough
to own property are often opposed to
the interests of non-owners or younger
people seeking to get a first step on the
property ladder.
However, it should also be remembered
that since the 1980s, houses in New
Zealand have not only become more
expensive but they are also much bigger
with a far greater square footage and
better insulation and fittings. These
improvements are partly the result of
changes to government and local authority
rules in recent years. As a result, many
first-home buyers now have an unrealistic
expectation of what standard of house is
available at what price

mashman

3rd July 2014, 20:09

I probably don't have any idea what your problem with the system is - the blame however is yours alone, because despite the thousands of lines of drivel that you've inflicted this site with, you rarely even begin to make sense.

Entitlement complex? I worked for everything I have.
Social damage? You are a pompous twat that doesn't know me, how can you begin to know how I fit into society?
You are a dreary, jealous, slighty boring Troll.

That's because it's not a problem. The blame is mine for many things, but it isn't my fault that you don't understand what it means to be a human being... anymore.

You have worked for everything and therefore you believe that you are entitled to it because you're better than others.
I don't begin to think how you fit into society, ever... but I know insurance salesmen are usually nice people.
And you are a strong and beautiful woman.

Katman

3rd July 2014, 20:22

Broadly, yes. There will always be those who spend more than they should, the difference is that in later years the bank lent them the money anyway, whereas in the past they wouldn't have.

What did Oscar call that sort of lending earlier?

Ocean1

3rd July 2014, 20:23

Has anyone tabled this, yet?

http://nzinitiative.org.nz/site/nzinitiative/files/publications/PRICED%20OUT%20-%20FULL%20RES.pdf

I've been banging on about little else for the last several pages.

With little effect.

I particularly liked this, from Matt Ridley: "Well, knock me down with a feather. You mean to say that during three decades when the government encouraged asset bubbles in house prices; gave tax breaks to pensions; lightly taxed wealthy non-doms; poured money into farm subsidies; and severely restricted the supply of land for housing, pushing up the premium earned by planning permission for development, the wealthy owners of capital saw their relative wealth increase slightly? Well, I’ll be damned."

Ocean1

3rd July 2014, 20:25

What did Oscar call that sort of lending earlier?

Dunno. He's a sensible chap, probably something like "ill advised" I should imagine.

Katman

3rd July 2014, 20:29

Dunno. He's a sensible chap, probably something like "ill advised" I should imagine.

I also thought he suggested that banks frowned on that sort of behaviour.

Katman

3rd July 2014, 20:31

Do banks make money out of mortgagee sales?

Ocean1

3rd July 2014, 20:40

I also thought he suggested that banks frowned on that sort of behaviour.

They do, it cost them shitloads to foreclose.

But in the US, for example the govt effectively mandated easy access to loans for low income earners.

The banks onsold the dodgy loans as fast as they could, of course, wrapped up in multiple layers of disguise. The result was pretty predictable in hindsight.

That link I posted last is an attempt in the other direction: let's lend only what WE think they can afford, 'cause it's us that have to pay for their failure.

Ocean1

3rd July 2014, 20:46

Do banks make money out of mortgagee sales?

Apparently not. Which I can easily believe, having looked at a mortgagee sale here for an overseas friend.

Everyone advised him to leave it alone, including his lawyer and the agent selling it. :laugh: It was a million dollar's worth of anyone's money sold any other way, but it eventually went for about $350k. The agent said he thought the bank was into it to the tune of about twice that.

Funny thing is, most mortgagee sales I've seen have been mid-to-top end stuff.

Katman

3rd July 2014, 20:46

They do, it cost them shitloads to foreclose.

So is the increase in mortgagee sales over the years simply down to inept bankers?

Ocean1

3rd July 2014, 20:56

So is the increase in mortgagee sales over the years simply down to inept bankers?

It's not that hard to understand, Shirley? Lend money to people likely to have trouble servicing the loan and you'll get people not servicing the loan.

As to who's fault that is, most seem to blame the banks. It's unheard of for a bank to default on it's side of the deal, though. So I'd suggest inept borrowing is more likely to be the problem.

Katman

3rd July 2014, 21:11

So I'd suggest inept borrowing is more likely to be the problem.

So maybe it's not so much that houses are more affordable than 60 years ago but rather that they are perceived to be more affordable.

Perception can be a funny thing.

Ocean1

3rd July 2014, 21:27

So maybe it's not so much that houses are more affordable than 60 years ago but rather that they are perceived to be more affordable.

If easier access to money coincided with higher mortgagee sales then you don't need people's perceptions changing to explain it, do you?

Although it's likely that quite a few simply didn't understand the likely impact of, say loss of overtime at work, a couple of percent increase in interest, replacing a fukt car. In which case a bit of financial literacy wouldn't go far wrong, eh?

Either way, good to see the numbers declining, it's a fucking miserable time for the family involved.

Katman

3rd July 2014, 21:34

Although it's likely that quite a few simply didn't understand the likely impact of, say loss of overtime at work, a couple of percent increase in interest, replacing a fukt car. In which case a bit of financial literacy wouldn't go far wrong, eh?

Hence why I was interested in the comparison between the percentage of mortgagee sales per house purchases 60 years ago and today.

If there is a wide spread false perception of affordability it can hardly be seen as an indication that home ownership is more affordable today.

Katman

3rd July 2014, 21:50

Ocean1

3rd July 2014, 21:50

Hence why I was interested in the comparison between the percentage of mortgagee sales per house purchases 60 years ago and today.

If there is a wide spread false perception of affordability it can hardly be seen as an indication that home ownership is more affordable today.

If perceptions of affordability are clearly false then why would you use them as an indication of actual affordability?

It makes more sense to compare today's actual house prices with historic prices and conclude that recent perceptions of housing unaffordability are little more than self-serving whining.

Ocean1

3rd July 2014, 21:54

Perhaps the problem is that we have become such as credit reliant society.

(This coming from someone who has no particular interest in having a mortgage, who along with his wife has no kids, zero debt and never owned a credit card).

If there's a problem then that's probably it.

And congratulations, from someone generally believed be a capitalist who's business has never at any time borrowed money.

Although, as I said, if someone wants to borrow money then it's none of our business, as long as they're all growed up enough to keep it not our business.

Katman

3rd July 2014, 21:55

If perceptions of affordability are clearly false then why would you use them as an indication of actual affordability?

You are the one claiming that buying a house is more affordable today.

If a significant percentage of house purchases end in mortgagee sale it would significantly alter the figures you're using for your perception of affordability.

Ocean1

3rd July 2014, 22:13

You are the one claiming that buying a house is more affordable today.

If a significant percentage of house purchases end in mortgagee sale it would significantly alter the figures you're using for your perception of affordability.

Nope. I'm simply pointing out the fact that based on avg historical incomes buying a house is not significantly more expensive than it's ever been.

The figures in question are simply a direct comparison of historic income vs house prices, if mortgagee sales increase or decrease a point or two that doesn't alter either of those figures. Mortgagee sales represent only a tiny percentage of mortgages, and their numbers look to be related to ease of access to loans, not incomes or prices.

Oscar

3rd July 2014, 22:34

What did Oscar call that sort of lending earlier?

Reckless lending. And it wasn't my phrase, it's a legal one.

Oscar

3rd July 2014, 22:41

Do banks make money out of mortgagee sales?

Being as how they only start the process when the punter is 3 or more months behind in their payments and then the whole thing takes many more months where interest is not being paid and legal bills are racking up, and that the loan documents only allows them to recover what is owed and actual costs, no. Add in the opportunity cost of not have that money earning interest soemwhere else and the whole thing costs plenty.

Oscar

3rd July 2014, 22:43

That's because it's not a problem. The blame is mine for many things, but it isn't my fault that you don't understand what it means to be a human being... anymore.

You have worked for everything and therefore you believe that you are entitled to it because you're better than others.
I don't begin to think how you fit into society, ever... but I know insurance salesmen are usually nice people.
And you are a strong and beautiful woman.

Wow.
Nothing like judging people whilst trying to save the world from itself.
You really are a pompous cunt.

Oscar

3rd July 2014, 22:46

I've been banging on about little else for the last several pages.

With little effect.

I particularly liked this, from Matt Ridley: "Well, knock me down with a feather. You mean to say that during three decades when the government encouraged asset bubbles in house prices; gave tax breaks to pensions; lightly taxed wealthy non-doms; poured money into farm subsidies; and severely restricted the supply of land for housing, pushing up the premium earned by planning permission for development, the wealthy owners of capital saw their relative wealth increase slightly? Well, I’ll be damned."

I'm sorry for the repost, I was going to check, but if I had to go back and read more of Mad Mashy's deluded pompous twatery I could lose all faith in Western Civilisation.

mashman

3rd July 2014, 22:59

Wow.
Nothing like judging people whilst trying to save the world from itself.
You really are a pompous cunt.

Ah yes, the sweet smell of ironing.

Oscar

3rd July 2014, 23:02

Ah yes, the sweet smell of ironing.

Did I mention boring?
It was mildly funny the first time.

Brian d marge

3rd July 2014, 23:46

Mortgagee sales since 2007

http://unconditional.co.nz/blog/category/money-matters/

but other people have already figured it out

http://www.massey.ac.nz/massey/about-massey/news/article.cfm?mnarticle=auckland-now-tops-least-affordable-homes-list-12-01-2012

Ya need a roof over your hear , either renting or buying , Its traditional to buy in NZ and either way ya cut the mustard the things are too expensive ,,,,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5c4uMaJKt_g

Stephen

Winston001

3rd July 2014, 23:51

Originally Posted by Brian d marge http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/images/BP-Brown/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?p=1130740123#post1130740123) I would have loved to buy a pair of " over priced" NZ shoes ,

McKinleys of Dunedin.

Strong tough shoes. No BS. I have a pair - wish they made M/C boots.

This business thrives despite Chinese imports.

http://www.mckinlays.co.nz/

Brian d marge

3rd July 2014, 23:53

McKinleys of Dunedin.

Strong tough shoes. No BS. I have a pair - wish they made M/C boots.

This business thrives despite Chinese imports.

http://www.mckinlays.co.nz/
I will investigate

I bought some boots from kiwi disposals

But always in the market

Brian d marge

3rd July 2014, 23:56

McKinleys of Dunedin.

Strong tough shoes. No BS. I have a pair - wish they made M/C boots.

This business thrives despite Chinese imports.

http://www.mckinlays.co.nz/
Just looked will buy the jc boots

99 cheap as

Look quality to
Ta

oldrider

3rd July 2014, 23:57

Being as how they only start the process when the punter is 3 or more months behind in their payments and then the whole thing takes many more months where interest is not being paid and legal bills are racking up, and that the loan documents only allows them to recover what is owed and actual costs, no. Add in the opportunity cost of not have that money earning interest soemwhere else and the whole thing costs plenty.

But they created the loan out of nothing against the borrowers assets then foreclosed and those assets become theirs by default ... what have they lost? Nothing!

Then they sell the assets at a morgagee sale and whallah ... they can start the whole business over again with a brand new borrower on the same assets!

Smell Ponsi anyone? :shifty:

Winston001

4th July 2014, 00:21

Do banks make money out of mortgagee sales?

Not the banks I've acted for. I've never seen a mortgagee sale yield more that what the mortgagor owed.

Furthermore as a matter of law, any surplus is paid the the mortgagor but that seldom happens because usually there is at least 9 - 12 months default interest owing. Banks hate mortgagee sales. They always lose.

Winston001

4th July 2014, 00:41

How does the number of mortgagee sales today compare to 60 years ago?

I don't have the statistics but I'm old enough to comment. 60 years ago was the 1950s-1960s and NZ was a prosperous nation. A home cost $6-9,000. I know this because my deceased grandmothers home in a prime location sold for $11,000 in 1970. Was just a wee lad at the time but I loved grandmas house and wish dad had kept it.

Mortgagee sales were unheard of and indeed throughout my 30 year career in the law such sales were rare as hens teeth. I had to bone up on the Property Law Act during the dark days of 1987. I remember accountants, lawyers, and bank managers who gave up rather than face bankruptcy. Shops closing. Farmers commiting suicide.

The current recession is mild compared with those days.

Brian d marge

4th July 2014, 00:56

I don't have the statistics but I'm old enough to comment. 60 years ago was the 1950s-1960s and NZ was a prosperous nation. A home cost $6-9,000. I know this because my deceased grandmothers home in a prime location sold for $11,000 in 1970.

Mortgagee sales were unheard of and indeed throughout my 30 year career in the law such sales were rare as hens teeth. I had to bone up on the Property Law Act during the dark days of 1987. I remember accountants, lawyers, and bank managers who gave up rather than face bankruptcy. Shops closing. Farmers commiting suicide.

The current recession is mild compared with those days.
So anecdotedly mortgagee sales increased after deregulation

but on the good news front

lhttp://www.goodcountry.org/overall

Sterphen

Winston001

4th July 2014, 01:18

M

Ya need a roof over your head , either renting or buying , Its traditional to buy in NZ and either way ya cut the mustard the things are too expensive ,,,,

Buying a home is not exclusively a Kiwi desire. People of all nations want this - Australia, Germany, Britain, Japan...

For complex reasons this is not a realistic choice in some countries such as Europe and Britain so families rent their homes in stable circumstances where even the third generation continues to live in a rented home.

It works. Do not disrespect those who cannot buy.

mada

4th July 2014, 01:22

and back in those days Winston do you recall there being many property investors who were getting cheap/easy credit to buy up large on properties and sell them off for capital gains?

I think that's the point you overlook Ocean. It is easier for people to get loans and get a mortgage nowadays YES and this LED to a small but significant amount of people (I have many in my own family who did it) buying up as many properties as they could - driving up land and house prices left right and centre. This combined with less of helping hand from govt. have pushed owning a HOME beyond the reach for many.

How many "property investors" were there back in the 50s to 80s? How much does the government allow people to cash in for benefits to buy houses now? Those benefits no longer exist.

In fact you harp and bitch about high earners subsiding low earners. But HUNDREDS of MILLIONS each year are paid out by the TAXPAYER in ACCOMODATION BENEFITS/ALLOWANCES to low earners/beneficiaries to subsidise the pockets of PRIVATE PROPERTY INVESTORS who have helped push up the fucking house prices and rents. These INVESTORS pay no income TAX on that rent nor the CAPITAL GAINS. :facepalm:

But hey, lets blame all the supposed "bludgers" out there.:woohoo::brick::brick::brick:

mada

4th July 2014, 01:29

What happened in 1984 after de-regulation?

Stories like this:

"Liz Harris 08-07-2014

The property investment story of Liz Harris will inspire many. She began investing in property in 1984 with the purchase of a house converted into four flats. She now has a portfolio of properties in Christchurch housing nearly seven hundred people, and other property investments such as car parks. With the size of her portfolio, Liz is Christchurch’s biggest private landlord. "

http://www.nzpif.org.nz/

Good on her for being smart with money etc. etc.

Just imagine how much money she is raking in without paying tax, much of it subsidies from taxpayers.

mada

4th July 2014, 01:34

$267.46 Million spent per YEAR on Accommodation Assistance...

(under expenses - Ministry of Social Development)
http://www.wheresmytaxes.co.nz/

Imagine how many NEW houses that could build in ONE YEAR alone - but oh shit, all our property investors (especially the ones in Parliament) would lose out - so too would banks if house prices fell and so to did the amount required for a mortgage.:shit: - lets sit on our arses and do nothing then - leave it to the market that we subsidise! :niceone:

mada

4th July 2014, 01:51

According to the reputable Right Wing blogger Kiwiblog I haven't provided the full story:

"$1.15 billion in accommodation assistance"

http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2014/06/herald_on_child_poverty.html

In fact the "ACCOMODATION SUPPLEMENT" in 2011 cost 1.2 Billion and is predicted to increase to 2 Billion by 2016. :yes:

http://www.treasury.govt.nz/downloads/pdfs/prefu11-pt7of10.pdf
http://transportblog.co.nz/2013/01/08/housing-affordability-and-the-accommodation-supplement/

Ofcourse, I'm sure you will be able to find a way to justify it to suit your argument Ocean..:tugger:

Brian d marge

4th July 2014, 02:10

Buying a home is not exclusively a Kiwi desire. People of all nations want this - Australia, Germany, Britain, Japan...

For complex reasons this is not a realistic choice in some countries such as Europe and Britain so families rent their homes in stable circumstances where even the third generation continues to live in a rented home.

It works. Do not disrespect those who cannot buy.

no disrespect here .... renting is a viable option , in fact if it is done right it can increase the wealth of both parties...say by renting the house from your parents at slightly less than market rates
Stephen

mada

4th July 2014, 02:14

Human behavour determines that the smarter, stronger and more socially adept rise to the top.

The less socially adept, weaker and stupid examples sit around bleating about the system.
Your problem is that there will never be a system where bitter incoherent jealous onanists get to the top.

Absolute fail.... were you raised in Nazi Germany or something?

I recall a guy bleating about the system and complaining about poverty, poor housing for the last couple of years. He lost his job over being outspoken about it in 2012.

"There has been speculation that his public comments about poverty and poor housing had annoyed Government funders, but the real reasons for his departure are thought to include his insistence on treating patients who couldn't pay."

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10812964

You've probably heard of the guy - he was this years Kiwibank New Zealander of the year.

Your problem is not ignorance, far from it, your comments suggest you not only accept but support people being treated like shit because that's just the "natural order". Good to see some peoples brains are de-volving and going back to the primitive instincts of "only give a fuck about myself" caveman days. :facepalm:

mashman

4th July 2014, 07:51

Did I mention boring?
It was mildly funny the first time.

It's still hilarious.

mashman

4th July 2014, 07:53

Oscar

4th July 2014, 09:13

But they created the loan out of nothing against the borrowers assets then foreclosed and those assets become theirs by default ... what have they lost? Nothing!

Then they sell the assets at a morgagee sale and whallah ... they can start the whole business over again with a brand new borrower on the same assets!

Smell Ponsi anyone? :shifty:

Wow, even for this forum, that is dumb.

The assets don't become theirs by default, the asset is sold and the outstanding debt settled and any remaining money given to the owners.
This process costs a fortune and whilst its going on the bank is having to pay interest on the money to its investors and not able to use those funds to for loans where the interest is actually paid.

The really dumb thing is the mention of Mr Ponsi.
Do you even know what a Ponsi Scheme is?

Oscar

4th July 2014, 09:22

Absolute fail.... were you raised in Nazi Germany or something?

I recall a guy bleating about the system and complaining about poverty, poor housing for the last couple of years. He lost his job over being outspoken about it in 2012.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10812964

You've probably heard of the guy - he was this years Kiwibank New Zealander of the year.

Your problem is not ignorance, far from it, your comments suggest you not only accept but support people being treated like shit because that's just the "natural order". Good to see some peoples brains are de-volving and going back to the primitive instincts of "only give a fuck about myself" caveman days. :facepalm:

You don't seem to have taken my advice about reading for comprehension (how's the maths revision going).
The "bitter incoherent jealous onanists" referred to Mashbrain and D'Marge, but feel free to include yourself in that group.
I was describing the losers who do nothing but bleat on the internet about the system - people like youself who make unfounded and stupid comments (like the banks manipulate the property market with foreclosures), not people who actually get out and make a difference.

After you've practiced your sums, you might wanna look up the estimable Mr. Godwin on line...

Ocean1

4th July 2014, 09:24

I think that's the point you overlook Ocean. It is easier for people to get loans and get a mortgage nowadays YES and this LED to a small but significant amount of people (I have many in my own family who did it) buying up as many properties as they could - driving up land and house prices left right and centre. This combined with less of helping hand from govt. have pushed owning a HOME beyond the reach for many.

How many times do we have to do this shit?

House prices have DECREASED in real terms over the last generation.

Taxpayers give more people a helping hand than than at any time in NZ's history. 55% of Kiwis recieve more in benefits than they contribute in tax.

And if you bother to look I suspect you'll find that home ownership is INVERSELY related to available subsidies. In fact it's most closely related to gross economic performance, another reason to support those entities that drive that performance, businesses and individuals. Homes have always been beyond the reach of some. Always will be. The way you DON'T fix that is by increasing subsidies, that only works for those who are close. If you want to fix long term entry level housing then remove the parasitic compliance and market dominance issues, that's the real reason small houses are expensive, you don't get to blame high income earners for everything.

These INVESTORS pay no income TAX on that rent nor the CAPITAL GAINS. :facepalm:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/10228984/Landlords-say-low-taxes-cap-rents

"rental property owners last year collected about $1.5 billion in revenue, of which about $500m went to Inland Revenue in tax."

Banditbandit

4th July 2014, 09:28

Sorry but many hunter gatherer societys dont have a medium of exchange and actually are rather happy
The tide changed when we started to grow things

Yes - but Hunter Gatherer societies are not highly organised in that there is not the division of labour and job specialization of other societies ... It's the specialization and division of labour that is important.

I cannot swap 10 minutes of work for that organization over there for a bag of carrots in the supermarket - I need a medium of exchange .. which happens to be, in our case, money ..

Try, ugh, there's no real word that I can think of that describes it... try, trust.

:killingme

I take your point about the monetary system, I really do, I would have thought, well, did think similar in the not too distant past.

I have to disagree with the system not being responsible. I agree that there will always be people that are striving for something and will do anything to get their way... however, their motive and credentials is the amount of money they have :yes:. The evidence is splattered all over the forum... and at work... and in the cafe etc... It's influence is everything to the point where financial collapse will irrevocably change us and may even lead to WW3. NOW, heh, you say the system is not the problem. So why is it when that very same system runs out of money, society "implodes" (it's in the news a lot). That will prove that human behaviour changes accordingly with the system. We are not animals.

It ain't humans that are the problem, they're just doing what they know how to do given the current information available and their immediate environment.

Just my 2c.

The system is a problem of course - capitalism is a massive problem. I did not quite mean that - what I meant was that the system of value exchange is not the problem .. any such system can become a problem - but the problems are created by human behaviour, not by the system of value exchange. Some humans are fine, and some are lazy and will be parasites on any system, and some a greedy and needy and will parasitize the others .. Capitalism's major problem is that it sets up a system where the greedy and power-crazed parasitize the rest rather easily .... but so does what passes for Communism in our current world ..

That's human nature ... And I do not believe that you can change that ... without MAJOR social upheaval.

Oscar

4th July 2014, 09:30

These INVESTORS pay no income TAX on that rent nor the CAPITAL GAINS. :facepalm:

May I have the name of your Accountant?
I have rental properties and pay tax on the rental income.

Or maybe it's just some shit that you heard and you uncritically posted it on the interweb coz yer a moron.

Ocean1

4th July 2014, 09:43

The system is a problem of course - capitalism is a massive problem.

Some homework for you: How many of the top 20% economic performing countries on earth are NOT capatalist economies?

Tomorrow: proper use of the word "problem".

Ocean1

4th July 2014, 10:01

This is a good read: http://www.chranz.co.nz/pdfs/falling-rate-home-ownership-in-nz.pdf

It clearly identifies increased unafordability for entry level home owners, but there's a few non-obvious observations in the conclusion.

One of which correlates the growth in size and type of housing with the trend for lower housing ownership. It suggests a high number of people of an age where historically they'd be buying homes living with older familly members. It also correlates dual income families with a much higher ownership.

So maybe it was obvious after all. Housing is far more affordable with two incomes, and single parent famillies are massively more common than they once were. And those single parent famillies are living with mum and dad, who have bought a larger house to accomodate them. Sound familliar?

Banditbandit

4th July 2014, 10:10

Some homework for you: How many of the top 20% economic performing countries on earth are NOT capatalist economies?

Tomorrow: proper use of the word "problem".

Hmmm .. we clearly see things in very different ways .. to me, the exploitation of our current capitalist structures is a problem ... One of those top performing countries is the USA, one of the richjest countries on earth ... where more people live homeless than the population of New Zealand .. that's to me, is a major social problem ..

Economic performance is not the measure of everything about a society ...

Katman

4th July 2014, 10:19

One of those top performing countries is the USA, one of the richjest countries on earth ...

Really?

With a debt of 17.5 trillion dollars?

Oscar

4th July 2014, 10:20

Hmmm .. we clearly see things in very different ways .. to me, the exploitation of our current capitalist structures is a problem ... One of those top performing countries is the USA, one of the richjest countries on earth ... where more people live homeless than the population of New Zealand .. that's to me, is a major social problem ..

Economic performance is not the measure of everything about a society ...

Why is the number of homeless in the US directly attributable to the fact that it is a capitalist society?
There are plenty of capitalist countries that have extensive social welfare systems. The US attitude toward personal freedoms is more probably the root cause of not only their attitude to welfare, but also their rampant free market philosophy. In other words the capitalist system as practiced in the US is a symptom of societal attitudes, not a cause.

Oscar

4th July 2014, 10:26

Really?

With a debt of 17.5 trillion dollars?

Actually, based on Debt to GDP ratio, the US debt is on the low side for OECD economies.
It was 72.5% in 2013, compared to over 200% in Japan and 90% in the UK.

Ocean1

4th July 2014, 10:41

Hmmm .. we clearly see things in very different ways .. to me, the exploitation of our current capitalist structures is a problem ...

The economic framework has nothing to do with the level of exploitation, it’s at least as apparent in communist economies, if not more.

One of those top performing countries is the USA, one of the richjest countries on earth ... where more people live homeless than the population of New Zealand .. that's to me, is a major social problem.

Yeah, and they spend more on social welfare than the whole New Zealand economy. Next irrelevant comment is?

Economic performance is not the measure of everything about a society ...

My philosophical leaning is not towards capitalism, nor do I see any intrinsic benefits to capitalism other than the simple fact that countries based loosely around capitalist economies score better than any other group in terms of widely desirable social goals.

As far as social goals go the KPI of personal choice is the lack of force required to govern. If you can go about your life without undue interference from the state I’d suggest you’re in a good place. Of course that also means you get to be responsible for your own welfare. Not a popular idea today.

Feel free to make your own list and go shopping, but I think your list would be similar to mine, and I think you'll find better shopping amongst the countries of the western world. It’s that simple.

oldrider

4th July 2014, 10:43

Wow, even for this forum, that is dumb.

The assets don't become theirs by default, the asset is sold and the outstanding debt settled and any remaining money given to the owners.
This process costs a fortune and whilst its going on the bank is having to pay interest on the money to its investors and not able to use those funds to for loans where the interest is actually paid.

The really dumb thing is the mention of Mr Ponsi.
Do you even know what a Ponsi Scheme is?

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

Exactly what the banking system does only when they collapse they print their way out of it and they are protected by the law supported by dumb cunts like Oscar!

Oscar

4th July 2014, 10:49

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

Exactly what the banking system does only when they collapse they print their way out of it and they are protected by the law supported by dumb cunts like Oscar!

Wow, you just don't stop digging do you?
The evidence is there in front of you, but you are to stupid to understand it.
Please tell me, in your own words, how a bank makes money out of a foreclosure, and how this makes it a Ponsi scheme?
Don't forget to factor in the bank paying its investors for money that it isn't getting a return on.
You might also explain the reference to banks printing their way out of it - I had no idea that banks in NZ could actually print their own money any more.
Then you might want to reference these laws that are "protecting" the banks...

Katman

4th July 2014, 11:41

MisterD

4th July 2014, 12:01

Exactly what the banking system does only when they collapse they print their way out of it and they are protected by the law supported by dumb cunts like Oscar!

This is the "crony" bit again. Under a proper capitalist system, banks would have been allowed to go bust. Mind you, under a proper capitalist system, there wouldn't have been government directives to lend money to people that couldn't pay it back.

Banditbandit

4th July 2014, 12:03

The economic framework has nothing to do with the level of exploitation, it’s at least as apparent in communist economies, if not more.

Yes. As I've said previously, some people fight to get to the top - and that is very apparent in the so-called Communist countries.

Yeah, and they spend more on social welfare than the whole New Zealand economy. Next irrelevant comment is?

I was responding to you "what's the problem" comment - the problem is the social issues in the richest country in the world ... the economy is emphasised at the cost of human outcomes .

My philosophical leaning is not towards capitalism, nor do I see any intrinsic benefits to capitalism other than the simple fact that countries based loosely around capitalist economies score better than any other group in terms of widely desirable social goals.

Yes, I would agree with that. That's partly why I suggest that the problem is with human beings and their misuses of the system. Sure Capitalism is a pretty fucked up system with major social issues, it remains one of our better systems (which says the other systems are completely fucked!!!

As far as social goals go the KPI of personal choice is the lack of force required to govern. If you can go about your life without undue interference from the state I’d suggest you’re in a good place. Of course that also means you get to be responsible for your own welfare. Not a popular idea today.

As an anarchist I would totally agree with you. And I accept total personal responsibility alongside total personal freedom.

The issue for me is do we value freedom over equity? The right wing Libertarians value freedom over equity - the left wing Anarchists value Equity over Freedom. I will give up some of my personal freedom to allow my fellow human beings a better lifestyle. That's the fundamental conflict we would have.

But if there was ever a Communist uprising in new Zealand I suspect we would both fight on the same side - armed response against the communists.

Feel free to make your own list and go shopping, but I think your list would be similar to mine, and I think you'll find better shopping amongst the countries of the western world. It’s that simple.

That depends .. but yes, I suspect that you and me agree a lot more than we disagree. But where we do disagree there will never be any agreement.

What the fuck .. the sun is shining and I'd rather be riding.

Ocean1

4th July 2014, 12:37

The claim that most of the wealthy have worked hard for their money is only valid to a certain point.

It's a well known fact that money makes money. Once that point is reached I would question whether those gaining further wealth are actually working hard for it.

By that stage it all comes down to greed.

But it is valid. In fact i've never met a single wealthy person that didn't work hard.

And what's wrong with the long-held ambition of most average Kiwis to work hard enough when they're able that thier savings can support them in retirement?

It's greedy now? We should just let the state pay our pension?

I don't think so.

mashman

4th July 2014, 12:42

The system is a problem of course - capitalism is a massive problem. I did not quite mean that - what I meant was that the system of value exchange is not the problem .. any such system can become a problem - but the problems are created by human behaviour, not by the system of value exchange. Some humans are fine, and some are lazy and will be parasites on any system, and some a greedy and needy and will parasitize the others .. Capitalism's major problem is that it sets up a system where the greedy and power-crazed parasitize the rest rather easily .... but so does what passes for Communism in our current world ..

That's human nature ... And I do not believe that you can change that ... without MAJOR social upheaval.

The powerful need money in order to maintain their power. If we are not paid by someone with money, then are you going to do what they ask? So wherever there is a monetary system, irrespective of the ism label that is attached to the societal makeup, you will always have money being used to bend society to its will and no solution will be implemented that isn't financial. In fact the collateral damage in regards to resources (humans and materials) is breathtakingly poor. Financial value (value of exchange) is bullshit, because it takes into account ROI and nothing else i.e. low wages, should a thing be done in the first place, would the resource be best used elsewhere etc... If they are not the questions at the top of the list (which they aren't), they the system is fubar... and by extension people along with it. So nah, the value of exchange is massively damaging and moreover limits society's progress by limiting that which can afford to be created. It's carte blanche for a person with money to make, destroy, build etc... what they like as and when they like it irrespective of the outcome for society. The system is the entire problem because it constrains human beings.

Human nature, nah, human behaviour... and our behaviour is driven by the amount of $ available (direct affect of the monetary system). I disagree that there would be a MAJOR upheaval, primarily because we have a choice. Sure if you spring "radical" change on the population they'll wig out, but if they're warned years in advance?

Banditbandit

4th July 2014, 12:47

The powerful need money in order to maintain their power. If we are not paid by someone with money, then are you going to do what they ask? So wherever there is a monetary system, irrespective of the ism label that is attached to the societal makeup, you will always have money being used to bend society to its will and no solution will be implemented that isn't financial. In fact the collateral damage in regards to resources (humans and materials) is breathtakingly poor. Financial value (value of exchange) is bullshit, because it takes into account ROI and nothing else i.e. low wages, should a thing be done in the first place, would the resource be best used elsewhere etc... If they are not the questions at the top of the list (which they aren't), they the system is fubar... and by extension people along with it. So nah, the value of exchange is massively damaging and moreover limits society's progress by limiting that which can afford to be created. It's carte blanche for a person with money to make, destroy, build etc... what they like as and when they like it irrespective of the outcome for society. The system is the entire problem because it constrains human beings.

Naaa .. see that's where you are wrong - you equate a value exchange system with money - but there are other ways of organising a society ... even with a different value exchange system ... they will all fuck up in the end as some people hold onto more and more symbols of value .. denying them to other people .. for whatever reason ...

Human nature, nah, human behaviour... and our behaviour is driven by the amount of $ available (direct affect of the monetary system). I disagree that there would be a MAJOR upheaval, primarily because we have a choice. Sure if you spring "radical" change on the population they'll wig out, but if they're warned years in advance?

You can't give people warning of radical change - they resist - and then they have time to organie their resistance .. even Roger Douglas knew that - hence his speed of action ...

Not al human behaviour is driven by greed and money. That's even more cynical than I can be ..

MisterD

4th July 2014, 12:51

The powerful need money in order to maintain their power.

Most powerful people derive that power from wealth, but money is not the only way to measure wealth even if it is the convenient measure we currently use.

Is that better or worse than power being derived from being handy with a long piece of sharp metal?

Ocean1

4th July 2014, 13:00

I was responding to you "what's the problem" comment - the problem is the social issues in the richest country in the world ... the economy is emphasised at the cost of human outcomes .

Yeah? what makes you believe the social issues are attributable to the financial system?

'Cause as I said, those same issues can be found in greater numbers in any other system.

I suspect the general concept of "greedy" capitalism leeds people to believe it's not a system that caters well for it's poor. The facts don't agree.

bogan

4th July 2014, 13:10

Yeah? what makes you believe the social issues are attributable to the financial system?

Confirmation bias? :whistle:

mashman

4th July 2014, 13:13

Naaa .. see that's where you are wrong - you equate a value exchange system with money - but there are other ways of organising a society ... even with a different value exchange system ... they will all fuck up in the end as some people hold onto more and more symbols of value .. denying them to other people .. for whatever reason ...

True... however the value of exchange is currently money. Even when it was gold it was money, same with promisary notes, tally sticks etc... so I think history has shown that the value of exchange matters hugely in regards to our development and our behaviour. You're likely right in regards to everything going tits at some point or another irrespective of the system... however I'd rather try something else than sit and watch the world go tits as there are people to come after us.

You can't give people warning of radical change - they resist - and then they have time to organie their resistance .. even Roger Douglas knew that - hence his speed of action ...

Not al human behaviour is driven by greed and money. That's even more cynical than I can be ..

Of course you can give people warning of radical change if your intent is smooth transition and you make your intentions clear. I agree that resistance will be formed, but hey, that's what democracy is for. I'd rather not go down the speed of action road as it'd be counterproductive to the rest of the country.

lol... I didn't mean that all of our behaviour is, but it's the largest factor by a long way... especially when it comes to perceived negative behaviours.

Katman

4th July 2014, 13:14

But it is valid. In fact i've never met a single wealthy person that didn't work hard.

And what's wrong with the long-held ambition of most average Kiwis to work hard enough when they're able that thier savings can support them in retirement?

It's greedy now? We should just let the state pay our pension?

I don't think so.

I'm talking specifically about the people who make more money than they could ever spend in a lifetime.

Then they leave their fortune to their children.

Are you going to try telling me that those children worked hard for what they have?

mashman

4th July 2014, 13:18

Most powerful people derive that power from wealth, but money is not the only way to measure wealth even if it is the convenient measure we currently use.

Is that better or worse than power being derived from being handy with a long piece of sharp metal?

Then try to exert your influence over a population without wealth then... what's the likely outcome going to be?

It's exactly the same... there is no difference.

mashman

4th July 2014, 13:19

Yeah? what makes you believe the social issues are attributable to the financial system?

'Cause as I said, those same issues can be found in greater numbers in any other system.

I suspect the general concept of "greedy" capitalism leeds people to believe it's not a system that caters well for it's poor. The facts don't agree.

:killingme :crybaby: :killingme ... pure gold bro.

oldrider

4th July 2014, 13:25

oldrider

4th July 2014, 13:31

Wow, you just don't stop digging do you?
The evidence is there in front of you, but you are to stupid to understand it.
Please tell me, in your own words, how a bank makes money out of a foreclosure, and how this makes it a Ponsi scheme?
Don't forget to factor in the bank paying its investors for money that it isn't getting a return on.
You might also explain the reference to banks printing their way out of it - I had no idea that banks in NZ could actually print their own money any more.
Then you might want to reference these laws that are "protecting" the banks...

An invitation to an Oscar keyboard pissing contest page after page?

Fuck off, I surrender to your overpowering interlect and political nouse ... there, does that do it for you? :nya:

Oscar

4th July 2014, 13:45

An invitation to an Oscar keyboard pissing contest page after page?

Fuck off, I surrender to your overpowering interlect and political nouse ... there, does that do it for you? :nya:

Yeah, actually one of the better surrender documents I’ve read.
Particularly where you misspelled “intellect”.
:facepalm:

Brian d marge

4th July 2014, 14:13

The economic framework has nothing to do with the level of exploitation, it’s at least as apparent in communist economies, if not more.

.

True ...but it can assist in that exploitation ........

You might also explain the reference to banks printing their way out of it - I had no idea that banks in NZ could actually print their own money any more.
Then you might want to reference these laws that are "protecting" the banks...Nz is a fiat money system and a fractional system , so yes banks AND government print money government issue bonds which banks buy and then are able to lend upon , ( im not aware of the ratio though )

But it is valid. In fact i've never met a single wealthy person that didn't work hard.

And what's wrong with the long-held ambition of most average Kiwis to work hard enough when they're able that thier savings can support them in retirement?

.Nothing wrong whatsoever with working hard .....being expolited is another thing all together .....

Naaa .. see that's where you are wrong - you equate a value exchange system with money - but there are other ways of organising a society ... even with a different value exchange system ... they will all fuck up in the end as some people hold onto more and more symbols of value .. denying them to other people ..

Not al human behaviour is driven by greed and money. That's even more cynical than I can be .. yup once we started tilling the land, We start to become protective of , our, land , then others start to expand , their, land ....etc...... we can stop just start being , nicce!!!! might work ?

Most powerful people derive that power from wealth, but money is not the only way to measure wealth even if it is the convenient measure we currently use.

Is that better or worse than power being derived from being handy with a long piece of sharp metal? Dont get in the way of my TV ...

Yeah? what makes you believe the social issues are attributable to the financial system?

'Cause as I said, those same issues can be found in greater numbers in any other system.

I suspect the general concept of "greedy" capitalism leeds people to believe it's not a system that caters well for it's poor. The facts don't agree. fk me a trueism ...face it you are a closet lefty ........ have a secret pait of jesus boot hidden away do we ???

Yeah, actually one of the better surrender documents I’ve read.
Particularly where you misspelled “intellect”.
:facepalm:
One can never tire of throwing stones at the fat kid........

Stephen