Stupid World

[mashman]

Bout right too

My adrenal glands be a flowin somefink fierce at the mo. Glad I don't have access to loaded drones... well, that's not strictly true

[Ocean1]

Transactions = market, you're right that is the definition... but you have to include "influenced" transactions in that definition as they are still transactions? Ya know, there's only 1 real driver, cough cough money cough, for the market distortions and the state it finds itself in. That's a fact.

The driver isn't money, it's value, money is simply one way to quantify that value. You continue to abuse the definition of both.

No doubt... but that eventually takes us back to our old friend unemployment and how we get money into non-working consumers pockets to "live", as well as the out and out compliance lolly scramble you describe.

It takes us nowhere near unemployment, fuck knows how you got there, product cost-to-market has nothing to do with it.

[mashman]

The driver isn't money, it's value, money is simply one way to quantify that value. You continue to abuse the definition of both.

It takes us nowhere near unemployment, fuck knows how you got there, product cost-to-market has nothing to do with it.

I don't believe those definitions hold any more and have been blurred beyond recognition. Your driver may well be generating value, but I wouldn't say that that is the norm by any stretch of the imagination. Money has value and I care not that you don't like that fact.

Of course it does. If you strip away the unrequired jobs/compliance/unnecessary taxation, then you're going to end up with unemployed people and a smaller tax base to "cover" them with.

[Ocean1]

I don't believe those definitions hold any more and have been blurred beyond recognition. Your driver may well be generating value, but I wouldn't say that that is the norm by any stretch of the imagination. Money has value and I care not that you don't like that fact.

You're the only one failing to recognise the difference, every other contributor in every other market is quite capable of distinguishing between the product's market value and the cash that represents it.

No? Here's $1000 Monopoly money, swap you for NZ$1000 dollars. No? What's the difference?

Of course it does. If you strip away the unrequired jobs/compliance/unnecessary taxation, then you're going to end up with unemployed people and a smaller tax base to "cover" them with.

Firstly, it's not the function of a market to pay for unrelated costs. Secondly, there's plenty of work for dole bludgers and unrequired govt clerks. They might not think they pay enough, but their chance to earn more probably passed them by when they left school at 16 or decided to clip the taxpayer's ticket in a nice safe job in the non-productive sector. Their choice.

As I've said before, unemployment is a function of the difference between a workers value and his expectations, nothing else.

[mashman]

You're the only one failing to recognise the difference, every other contributor in every other market is quite capable of distinguishing between the product's market value and the cash that represents it.

No? Here's $1000 Monopoly money, swap you for NZ$1000 dollars. No? What's the difference?

I understand the difference... but i'll rephrase: where the driver is money and not product, I refuse to lump that in with your definition of the relationship between product value and the token being used to quantify it to the rest of the world... in the same way that you don't accept "coercion" as part of a market transaction.

It's all "monopoly" money. Other than that, not only are you saying that the monopoly money has no value, but you're confirming that the NZD does. Unspent that money still has value. It represents nothing other than cash.

Firstly, it's not the function of a market to pay for unrelated costs. Secondly, there's plenty of work for dole bludgers and unrequired govt clerks. They might not think they pay enough, but their chance to earn more probably passed them by when they left school at 16 or decided to clip the taxpayer's ticket in a nice safe job in the non-productive sector. Their choice.

As I've said before, unemployment is a function of the difference between a workers value and his expectations, nothing else.

Firstly, if you want your product to get to market, you dance the jig i.e. pay what it costs. Secondly, there aren't enough jobs, let alone enough jobs if you suddenly dropped 25% of existing workers on the dole. Thirdly, they wouldn't be bludgers. Fourthly, you can be 50 before you figure out a way of making money, we're ALL capable til the end. Fifthly, you're seriously going to pick on the minority of cases and stamp them as failures because they decided not to put in the effort in the beginning. You a Manchurian Candidate?

What a crock of shit. Some people choose unemployment and become very successful business people... yes there's a different set of rules, but taking that away from them is just plain stupid. Some people choose to work, but given the cost of bills etc... and trying to cover their life's work to date, I can't blame the for holding out for something that pays.

[Ocean1]

I understand the difference... but i'll rephrase: where the driver is money and not product, I refuse to lump that in with your definition of the relationship between product value and the token being used to quantify it to the rest of the world... in the same way that you don't accept "coercion" as part of a market transaction.

I refuse to accept coercion as a valid part of a free market because it’s the exact opposite. It’s theft. Fuck knows where you get the idea that money itself is anything other than a token representing a product’s value but I assure you there’s no “same way” whatsoever, bullshit doesn't suddenly become fact simply because you decide you don't like the odds in favour of your argument.

You don’t like the idea of someone charging interest on a loan. So don’t borrow money.

In the meantime the rest of the world wants to use some of that reserve value to build houses, and the owners of that value want to supply it. Free market. Mind your own fucking business.

It's all "monopoly" money.

Yeah. B Ark material, right there, you’re collecting leaves too right?

Other than that, not only are you saying that the monopoly money has no value, but you're confirming that the NZD does. Unspent that money still has value. It represents nothing other than cash.

It doesn’t “have” value, it represents value. Unspent, it represents value saved, and without it you simply can’t do that. And because you can’t save value without money you can’t use surplus value either. As above, you don’t approve of lending money but you’re happey enough about borrowing it to fill yer own boots. Not only are you incapable of minding your own business but you want a slice of everyone else’s.

Firstly, if you want your product to get to market, you dance the jig i.e. pay what it costs. Secondly, there aren't enough jobs, let alone enough jobs if you suddenly dropped 25% of existing workers on the dole. Thirdly, they wouldn't be bludgers. Fourthly, you can be 50 before you figure out a way of making money, we're ALL capable til the end. Fifthly, you're seriously going to pick on the minority of cases and stamp them as failures because they decided not to put in the effort in the beginning. You a Manchurian Candidate?

Yeah, you continually trot out the same tired old shit. Why should my clients pay more for my product than it’s worth just because some other arsehole can’t manage to support himself, that’s what charity’s for. And if you look carefully I specifically said there’s plenty of jobs for anyone that doesn’t insist on more remuneration than they actually earn. That sort are definitely bludgers, no sort of doubt about it. And as long as you don’t expect anyone else to feed you until you’re 50 then by all means put yer feet up old son, none of my business. And I don’t pick on any cases, but let’s make this perfectly clear: anyone that doesn’t earn their keep but expects someone else to front up with lunch is asking for charity. Anyone that does so because they decided not to put in the effort not only doesn’t deserve charity of any sort but most potential supporters would ask them to go and get fucked.

What a crock of shit. Some people choose unemployment and become very successful business people... yes there's a different set of rules, but taking that away from them is just plain stupid. Some people choose to work, but given the cost of bills etc... and trying to cover their life's work to date, I can't blame the for holding out for something that pays.

Well, it’s a crock of shit they served themselves, anyone that chooses not to support themselves knowing that someone else has to deserves fuck all, nobody, but nobody has the right to rely on unwilling support while they produce fuck all. Temporary organised support? No problem, here’s some cash. Career bludger? Be fucked.

It’s called personal responsibility. You should look into it.

[mashman]

It’s called personal responsibility. You should look into it.

If you knew what that truly meant, I would bother. You have made it clear that you are the captain of your own destiny, and whilst I agree with that, I don't agree that that should limit my responsibility towards others irrespective of how much effort they put into it or how much value they generate. Tis your choice to be a selfish prick in those terms and to hide behind trite definitions of "economy" that serve absolutely no other purpose than to feed your entitlement complex. Bother over.

[husaberg]

[Ocean1]

If you knew what that truly meant, I would bother. You have made it clear that you are the captain of your own destiny, and whilst I agree with that, I don't agree that that should limit my responsibility towards others irrespective of how much effort they put into it or how much value they generate. Tis your choice to be a selfish prick in those terms and to hide behind trite definitions of "economy" that serve absolutely no other purpose than to feed your entitlement complex. Bother over.

I know exactly what that means, it's one of the core ideals that maintain my relationship with the community in the positive. And my personal responsibility in choosing to support myself rather than refusing to produce anything unless someone agrees to pay me twice what it's worth is what puts the lie to your wee bit about being a selfish prick: It's what pays for the selfish pricks that don't bother. It's also what pays for far, far more contributions to those that genuinely need it than any half-arsed dependent could hope to muster.

That economy you despise is nothing less than the sum total of the value of our collective efforts. Fuck all "trite" about that. You're concern about it would be better served focusing on how much of it you can contribute, rather than how unfair it's redistribution you reckon it is.


Next time bring some facts roughly assembled in a rational argument, or just keep your own "entitlement" complex in check.

[mashman]

I know exactly what that means, it's one of the core ideals that maintain my relationship with the community in the positive. And my personal responsibility in choosing to support myself rather than refusing to produce anything unless someone agrees to pay me twice what it's worth is what puts the lie to your wee bit about being a selfish prick: It's what pays for the selfish pricks that don't bother. It's also what pays for far, far more contributions to those that genuinely need it than any half-arsed dependent could hope to muster.

That economy you despise is nothing less than the sum total of the value of our collective efforts. Fuck all "trite" about that. You're concern about it would be better served focusing on how much of it you can contribute, rather than how unfair it's redistribution you reckon it is.


Next time bring some facts roughly assembled in a rational argument, or just keep your own "entitlement" complex in check.

Your responsibility should go beyond your community and it should be unconditional. @how much you put in to the pot. You reckon that gives you some form of divine right to write-off those who you decide aren't putting in any effort whilst claiming you understand what personal responsibility is? Nah bro, not in my book.

I don't despise the economy, get your facts right before leaping on your high horse. You seem to measure that sum total of value in $ terms and not in terms of how it is affecting the people/environment under which that economy functions. Apart from being in the top 5 of the trite list since time began, it dismisses economic related facts that are repeatedly smacking you in the face as nothing more than an inconvenience to the market. I am focussed on how much I can contribute, just not in the way you might think and certainly not in regards to wealth redistribution... that's merely an argument for keeping economists in jobs and not something I tend to trouble myself with other than it highlights the most important failing of the so called "working" economy.

You choose to ignore and dismiss that which you will, I have no issue with that... but pretending that the world would go back to its hay day if the economy ran to definition is only fooling yourself. I choose to refuse to pretend anymore. Look after the people properly and the economy will look after itself... do it the other way around and you get what we have. That is a fact.

[jonbuoy]

Who would have thought it - being poor doesn´t mean you will underachieve for the rest of your life or give you an excuse...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-26015532

[Ocean1]

Your responsibility should go beyond your community and it should be unconditional. @how much you put in to the pot. You reckon that gives you some form of divine right to write-off those who you decide aren't putting in any effort whilst claiming you understand what personal responsibility is? Nah bro, not in my book.

I'm responsible for my own actions, it's not possible to be responsible for anyone else's actions. I assume you mean I'm supposed to support whoever wants support no matter their own efforts to that end?

In which case I don't need divine guidance, my help is mine to give or otherwise, and as there's only so much I can do I reserve the right to give it to whoever I think needs it most. And yes, I'm somewhat less likely to help anyone that wants help simply because it's easier than doing it themselves.

And as your book is based on some rather novel and unlikely beliefs I'm fairly relaxed if it's take on personal responsibility differs substantially from mine. But, as usual, feel free to give your own help to whoever you want.

You choose to ignore and dismiss that which you will, I have no issue with that... but pretending that the world would go back to its hay day if the economy ran to definition is only fooling yourself. I choose to refuse to pretend anymore.

I ignore nothing. I dismiss overtly contrived rationale, and no, you don't have any issue with that.

I made no reference to any "hay day", and I've never at any time said that I agree that the current economic controls are adequate. So any suggestion that I might be fooling myself can only be a bit of contrived theatre, otherwise known as bullshit.

And your whole economic premise requires an extraordinarily extensive series of pretences, nothing less would support the fantastic claims you continue to make regarding the economy, money and it's generally accepted uses and conventions.

Look after the people properly and the economy will look after itself... do it the other way around and you get what we have. That is a fact.

It's not a fact, it's demonstrably untrue. In fact in order to make such a claim you depend heavily on the farcical pretence that money is pulled from some bankers arse and distributed in a patently unfair manner that you struggle to understand.

Whereas any kid with a paper round knows it's the result of supplying something someone else wants. An observation that recognises that unproductive behaviour by it's very definition is not only not worth anyone's support but actually detracts from the economy's value.

So let's try turning that little piece of bullshit around: Let's explore how improving economic productivity might supply the resources necessary to look after those that can't do so themselves, rather than crippling it by bleeding productive enterprise in order to buy votes from those more than capable of taking care of themselves.

And if you feel up to it you'll find that a bit of research will demonstrate that my assertions bear somewhat more resemblance to facts than those you like to shape around your hard-held beliefs.

[husaberg]

It's not a fact, it's demonstrably untrue. In fact in order to make such a claim you depend heavily on the farcical pretence that money is pulled from some bankers arse and distributed in a patently unfair manner that you struggle to understand.

Ocean, the banking lending system is pulling money from thin air they indeed lend more money than they have reserves for, they indeed pull it out of their buttholes

[Ocean1]

Ocean, the banking lending system is pulling money from thin air they indeed lend more money than they have reserves for, they indeed pull it out of their buttholes

Are you seriously suggesting it's simply printed and given to the bank's mates? That's not quite right, though, is it? The government controls new funds availability, the banks are just their agents in that regard.

And over 85% of it goes into the mortgage market. So it doesn't simply represent fresh air, it represents the value of kiwi homes, and without it most kiwis wouldn't have the properties they now enjoy, they'd have to front up with rather closer to 100% of the value before moving in.

I'd be fairly happy with that state of affairs, because I think it's worth some significant compromise to reduce private debt. But in the long run it's the private individual's decision. Which is why you'll find their signature on the loan agreement.

[Ocean1]

And through a time of comparatively high unemployment:

"A report issued by the Ministry of Social Development said a labour and skills shortage was a major factor in increasing employment levels for over 65s, which have been on the rise since 2002."

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/mone...retirement-age