Stupid World

[bogan]

I wouldn't expect any less.

I didn't judge him, he judged NOW as entirely negative, the 2 girlz judged NOW as positive. I was neutral. About that bias thing you keep talkin about........

There's plenty of facts and logic, you choose not to see them that way because you aren't provided with the facts that you want. No money = no poverty, free education, free healthcare, almost eradication of financial crime, no such thing as financial/budget constraint. All fact and logic.

I thought money laundering was a crime.

Certainly sounded a bit judgy "Moral of the story: you make of it what you will. The obstacles you put in your way are just that, yours"

Not off to a good (re) start, no money != no poverty as poverty is defined as "poverty (usually uncountable, plural poverties)
The quality or state of being poor or indigent; want or scarcity of means of subsistence; indigence; need.  [quotations ▼]
Any deficiency of elements or resources that are needed or desired, or that constitute richness; as, poverty of soil; poverty of the blood; poverty of ideas."
If your scheme doesn't work everyone lives in poverty, and there is no fact/logic to show it will, so your 'fact' most certainly is not. Likewise for free healthcare etc, only a fact if you can demonstrate NOW will have the resources to provide such services in full; which you've admitted you can't, because there needs to be more info. Again, your 'fact', just isn't.

Increasing GDP is not money laundering, are you fucking retarded?

[Brian d marge]

Japanese groth this year 1.7 percent
China 7
Global 3.7
According to the imf （the link was posted before）
They are leaving the details of growth up to each individual country but collectively the target was 5 godrillion or what ever
Mind u when it came to america
They said it was ' critical to avoid a withdrawal of monetary policy accommodation'

There's ya actual gobbledegook right there

But a lot of people are saying that the debt is unsustainable

Stephen


Sent from my SC-01F using Tapatalk

[mstriumph]

But what if you have excess goats/eggs and no desire for lambs/hens? The added value is that you don't need to arse about for 63 weeks trying to find somebody to swap an ipod for your 5 ton of manure; or arse about for 37 weeks finding people to swap 317 in between items to complete the trade. And that is a long time to have 5 ton of shit lying around

I guess you develop a taste for egg-battered goat cutlets or whatever ............... it was the best example I could think of at the time, please excuse anyway, it's an hypothesis, for the sake of argument, nothing more.

[mashman]

Isn't that truth and not judgement?

Ironic that you use a definition to highlight something that is uncountable. Poverty exists. Yes there are many reasons for it including poor decision making i.e. parents spending on piss instead of the kids. If food availability is restricted by money, which it is in the case of kids, then that restriction will be removed. If there's a toss up between paying the phone bill/electricity etc... then that toss up will no longer exist. Trade-offs highlight poverty. No doubt some will jump up and down at the decisions being made that lead to that situation, but it doesn't stop the situation from being there... and most of those trade-offs are financial. Removing the financial aspect, coz the IMF/UN measure poverty in $ (i.e. what your money can buy), will see an end to that poverty. But go ahead, do as the govt does, deny that it exists because there's no definition for it.

It is in my book. No I'm not retarded, that'd be an insult to those who are.

[bogan]

I guess you develop a taste for egg-battered goat cutlets or whatever ............... it was the best example I could think of at the time, please excuse anyway, it's an hypothesis, for the sake of argument, nothing more.

It's not a bad example since that is about where bartering got up to, then was superceded, the vast range of products simply means we have great use for an intermediate currency; finding people who want to do the same straight swap would just be too difficult.

Isn't that truth and not judgement?

Ironic that you use a definition to highlight something that is uncountable. Poverty exists. Yes there are many reasons for it including poor decision making i.e. parents spending on piss instead of the kids. If food availability is restricted by money, which it is in the case of kids, then that restriction will be removed. If there's a toss up between paying the phone bill/electricity etc... then that toss up will no longer exist. Trade-offs highlight poverty. No doubt some will jump up and down at the decisions being made that lead to that situation, but it doesn't stop the situation from being there... and most of those trade-offs are financial. Removing the financial aspect, coz the IMF/UN measure poverty in $ (i.e. what your money can buy), will see an end to that poverty. But go ahead, do as the govt does, deny that it exists because there's no definition for it.

It is in my book. No I'm not retarded, that'd be an insult to those who are.

Truth would be, "he had a different opinion to me and I respect that since there is not enough info to draw any solid conclusions", the bias is you think his opinion is an obstacle.

We've been over this, nobody denys the poverty currently exists. What I said was NOW has not been proven to be sustainable, and if it is not sustainable, then many more will live in poverty under NOW than they do now.

To be honest, clinging to biased opinions like that rather than educating yourself, that is a lot worse than retardation. I have no tolerance for willful ignorance and willful stupidity. You've thoroughly convinced me your financial opinions are nothing more than selfish drivel.

[mashman]

I am happy with my bias, as was he with his.

Why would many more end up living in poverty? What we currently have isn't sustainable and it isn't wholly down to overpopulation. NOW is a silver bullet attempt at addressing most of the issues we have today. Most of the issues we have today are financial. Shuffling where money is needed in an attempt to make things better isn't working on a wide enough scale... evidenced by us having the issues in the first place. In theory NOW ticks a lot of boxes in regards to addressing those issues. As I've said before, worse case scenario, we end up returning to a financial system.

pot kettle black.

[bogan]

I am happy with my bias, as was he with his.

Why would many more end up living in poverty? What we currently have isn't sustainable and it isn't wholly down to overpopulation. NOW is a silver bullet attempt at addressing most of the issues we have today. Most of the issues we have today are financial. Shuffling where money is needed in an attempt to make things better isn't working on a wide enough scale... evidenced by us having the issues in the first place. In theory NOW ticks a lot of boxes in regards to addressing those issues. As I've said before, worse case scenario, we end up returning to a financial system.

pot kettle black.

Exactly, called you out on bias, now you admitted bias, finally.

It is not a silver bullet, its only a half thought out idea as you have said a number of times. The half that is still in question is whether it is sustainable, if it is not, then it will not eliminate poverty.

Not even close, I provided a clear explanation of what GDP is, and how it can be increased. None of which relates to money laundering; which businesses are the legit, and which are just fronts, and what gains have been illegally gotten do you think? your post is demonstrably uninformed, and rather than growing a spine and admitting it, you fall back on 'well it's my opinion' and typical dodging of the point to maintain your precious disillusions. You're a joke, and the idea's you put forward look worse than they otherwise might simply because it is an imbecile putting them forward.

[mashman]

Exactly, called you out on bias, now you admitted bias, finally.

It is not a silver bullet, its only a half thought out idea as you have said a number of times. The half that is still in question is whether it is sustainable, if it is not, then it will not eliminate poverty.

Not even close, I provided a clear explanation of what GDP is, and how it can be increased. None of which relates to money laundering; which businesses are the legit, and which are just fronts, and what gains have been illegally gotten do you think? your post is demonstrably uninformed, and rather than growing a spine and admitting it, you fall back on 'well it's my opinion' and typical dodging of the point to maintain your precious disillusions. You're a joke, and the idea's you put forward look worse than they otherwise might simply because it is an imbecile putting them forward.

According To you, there is no opinion that can be held without bias. So using your terms, yes I am biased in favour of one system over another, but not without reason. You may not like the reason I'm using, but hey, can't please everyone.

I said silver bullet attempt. The result will be up to the people.

bwaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaa.

[bogan]

yes I am biased in favour of one system over another

I said silver bullet attempt. The result will be up to the people.

bwaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaa.

noted

Well, luckily for all of us, even attempting it is up to the (more intelligent) people.

Another stunning rebuttal giving us a direct insight into your wisdom.

[Brian d marge]

Stealing money is a crime

for u and me

But when u play with the big boys its all part of the act


Here is their latest move

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/mone...y-target-Kiwis

Stephen

and that just the tip of the iceberg

[bogan]

Stealing money is a crime

for u and me

But when u play with the big boys its all part of the act


Here is their latest move

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/mone...y-target-Kiwis

Stephen

and that just the tip of the iceberg

On the one hand, tax dodgers is something the financial system is (rightly so) critised for, so catching them is a noble goal. On the other hand, that doesn't seem to be a very smart way to go about it.

[Brian d marge]

On the one hand, tax dodgers is something the financial system is (rightly so) critised for, so catching them is a noble goal. On the other hand, that doesn't seem to be a very smart way to go about it.

Here some that do need to be "reminded " not a child of a US citizen whom has never set foot on US soil.

1. Microsoft, $76.4 billion
2. IBM, $44.4 billion
3. Cisco Systems, $41.3 billion
4. Apple, $40.4 billion
5. Hewlett-Packard, $33.4 billion
6. Google, $33.3 billion
7. Oracle, $26.2 billion
8. Dell, $19.0 billion
9. Intel, $17.5 billion
10. Qualcomm, $16.4 billion
Source: Bloomberg, August 2013


They especially the NSA has been " REQUIRING YOUR DETAILS" a bit too much of late

Ive had two requests, one from a supplier in Canada and dropbox , both sent an email to me saying they have been asked to share their customer database details , I wrote back and said under NO circumstances ( not that it will help)

Stephen aka Im-too-fking-tired-to-be-a-terrorist

[Scuba_Steve]

Seems someone missed the 'T' off the end of the operation name "Fatca "

[mashman]

Well, luckily for all of us, even attempting it is up to the (more intelligent) people.

Another stunning rebuttal giving us a direct insight into your wisdom.

I'm banking on it.

Given your barrage of highly amusing abuse and lack of answering questions in any form of detail, but more reciting what the web has to offer in regards to an explanation of GDP and its inner working, it seemed pertinent to throw you a bone as you seemed to need to vent. Now explain to me, in detail, why the financial system wouldn't have collapsed had the banks stopped printing money then? (if all that was needed was to use "the money already in circulation has to change hands more often")... and once you've done that, explain to me what exactly are we going to be producing? (in order to make those transactions take place)

[Ocean1]

You're a joke, and the idea's you put forward look worse than they otherwise might simply because it is an imbecile putting them forward.

Be thankful for small mercies: He's unlikely ever to be responsible for delivering a cure for asthma.