Stupid World

[Oscar]

And if my granny had wheels she'd be a bicycle.
It still ain't irony.

Perception changes definition. If it didn't, then lawyers wouldn't be required.
It is.

I'm sure she does... but fortunately I never paid her any attention to start with.

[mashman]

And if my granny had wheels she'd be a bicycle.
It still ain't irony.

Only is she has 2
Tis...

Law change in way of anti-corruption convention

"Correspondence from the Ministry of Justice reveals a change made to an anti-money laundering Bill in 2009 is the problem.

At the time, Parliament removed a requirement for prominent public servants to be subject to enhanced due diligence around such matters."

Still my fave.

[BoristheBiter]

I thought it was to stop people from doing that very thing ... even stupid people work, don't I, I mean they.

Teaspoon of cement?

heh... now that I agree with.

Well you are the one that said legislation removes our freedom.

Build a bridge time???

[mashman]

Well you are the one that said legislation removes our freedom.

Build a bridge time???

I didn't say it was needed though

To get over what?

[mashman]

Spain's Bankia asks for $24bn in state aid...

Einstein: "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.". Using money to get out of a situation that was caused by money. Genius!!!!!

[mashman]

Obama: Europe must inject money into banks

"US President Barack Obama has urged European leaders to prevent a looming overseas debt crisis from dragging down the rest of the world.

He said Europeans must inject money into the banking system.

"The solutions to these problems are hard, but there are solutions," he said."

waaaaa ha ha ha haaaaaaaa...

There's a story in this thread about the ECB saying that they had a limitless supply of money to loan at 1%. Cheeky fucker given that it was an American housing bubble and American reckless lending that started the collapse in the first place. Ahhhh politics and knowing that the sheeple have a very short memory.

[mashman]

Under-fire UN summit issues environment, poverty blueprint

""Sustainable Development Goals" will replace the UN's Millennium Development Goals from 2015, although defining the aim will be left for future talks -- a process likely to be long and fiercely fought.""

"The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are eight international development goals that all 193 United Nations member states and at least 23 international organizations have agreed to achieve by the year 2015. The goals are:

eradicating extreme poverty and hunger,"

It looks like they have admitted to failure and to top it off they don't seem to have learned their lesson either and need more money ... and this is the best we have? ... FFS my kids could do a better job!

And just to underpin the importance of such summits "Absentees included US President Barack Obama, Russian President Vladimir Putin, Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany and British Prime Minister David Cameron."

[mashman]

Local Govt Act Amendment Bill 'ill-considered and anti-community'...

I'm sure it's all just hysteria and means absolutely nothing... but just in case, I thought it deserved a mention

[mashman]

$6.7million dollar treaty move 'makes no sense'... "The cost of the new space is nearly as much as the total savings from the merger of the National Library and Archives New Zealand into Internal Affairs over the next four years."

bwaaaaa ha ha ha haaaaaaaa. Dickheads.

[mashman]

Why does the Bank of England keep printing more money?

"Over the last three years an extra £375billion has been pumped into the economy, but things keep getting worse.

Our economy is on its knees. We are in the first double dip recession since the 1970s and it looks like growth is going to remain fairly lacklustre for the rest of the year, so will the Bank of England’s (BOE) latest bout of quantitative easing (QE) be enough to stimulate the economy?

The signs don’t look good. Since the BOE first embarked on QE in March 2009 the economy has barely grown and the number of people claiming unemployment has actually risen. So why did the Bank of England bother with pumping another £50billion into the UK’s financial system, when it seems like the return on the £325billion of QE they had done before this didn’t lead to much to bang for the Bank’s buck?

So what are they trying to do?

To answer this question we need to find out what QE is. The way some of the politicians describe QE you would think that the Bank prints more money, which then goes directly into the average Joe’s pocket. This is NOT what QE is.

QE essentially gives money to banks. “Don’t banks get enough money already?” I hear people cry. Banker bashing is turning into a bit of a national past-time in the UK, especially with the Barclay’s Libor-fixing furore; so does more QE add fuel to the fire?

Yes and no. Although the Bank of England is considered the “captain” of the economy, tasked with steering the UK economy through the good times and the bad times, its tools to do this are limited. If we stretch the shipping analogy a little further, then the UK economy is the middle of the perfect storm.

First there was the financial crisis and the implosion of the US housing market in 2007/08, then there was the sovereign debt crisis in Europe that continues to rage. Added to that the myth of an end to “boom and bust” economics in the UK that was perpetuated by former PM Gordon Brown, meant that we saved nothing in the good times and instead spent like crazy and now have to embark on a harsh austerity programme that is denting our own growth. The UK economy is up the creek without a paddle, and there is only so much the Bank of England can do.

It has already cut interest rates to a record low of 0.5%, which still hasn’t helped us out of this mess. The other way it can try and boost the economy is to try and get banks’ lending again.

The basis for more “stimulative” monetary policy is that people will invest in upgrading their businesses or starting new ones if credit is: 1) cheap and 2) plentiful.

This creates wealth, jobs and hopefully consumer spending that can boost growth down the road – in theory. These are the conditions that the Bank of England is trying to create with more QE. However, something funny is going on: Ever more money is being pumped to the banks so it trickles down to the “real” economy, not just the virtual economy of the financial markets. But this is not happening.

The latest Bank of England data on credit conditions in the UK paints a bleak picture. The total number of loans extended by banks to UK businesses in May fell by 1.7%. Other ways to raise finance, like offering bonds in the capital markets, have picked up slightly since the start of this year, but not by enough to negate the consequences of tight bank lending conditions. Consumer credit is slightly better, its annual growth rate in May was 2.4%, but this is still much lower than the 6.4% annual growth rate back in 2008.

Why isn’t it working?

So why isn’t the money flowing down to the businesses that need it? This is where it is easy to blame bankers, but to do so would not be entirely fair. Banks like lending – especially if they can borrow at cheap rates and lend at higher rates.

However, in this environment demand for lending is also weak. When confidence is low and people are worried about losing their jobs or not getting enough orders in to keep their business afloat for the next six months, they are unlikely to want to expand or borrow money if they don’t think they can pay it back.

So part of the reason that QE doesn’t work is because people don’t actually want to borrow.

The other reason is that banks have been faced with a wave of new regulation in recent years and being urged to hold large amounts of cash - called capital buffers - to protect them in case the economy gets even worse or the eurozone sovereign debt crisis deteriorates further.

While the Government is urging banks to lend, the regulators are telling them to be cautious and build up a tsunami-resistant rainy-day fund. Thus, banks are only going to lend to the highest quality borrowers in this environment, and when lending standards are tightened and bank managers’ risk aversion levels are high, this doesn’t help the economy.

What’s QE actually doing then?

If these extra billions aren’t flowing into the real economy they must be stuck in the “virtual financial economy” I mentioned above.

This economy is the world of stocks, bonds and commodities. Cash from QE is thought to seep into these markets propping up oil, stocks and bond prices rather than benefitting the “real” economy.

Since reaching a low in March 2009, the S&P 500 stock index in the US has more than doubled in value. The FTSE 100 is also 60% higher and UK Gilts – Government bonds – have seen their price rise by a third. Commodities have also benefited, with oil, gold and agricultural prices tending to rise when more QE is pumped into the economy.

If you are a stock or bond investor and you have your money in these markets then QE has been great for you. For everyone else they have seen QE erode their income even more by pushing up commodity prices.

With or without the latest injection of QE from the Bank, it’s unlikely to help the UK economy any time soon."

WOW, what a surprise.

[mashman]

America Heading Towards a Collapse Worse Than 2008 AND Europe! Says Peter Schiff

"According to CEO and Chief Global Strategist of Euro Pacific Capital Peter Schiff, the U.S. economy is heading for an economic crash that will make 2008 look like a walk in the park. Stimulus programs can delay this day of reckoning, but only for so long and only at the expense of making the eventual meltdown much, much worse.
Schiff, who famously warned investors about the housing and financial crisis in his 2007 book Crash Proof, says the Fed's palliative efforts during the housing meltdown have made the next crisis inevitable."

Wonder where this will end up.

Midwest drought shows little sign of abating

At least there'll be an excuse for food prices rising

[puddytat]

Surely a system based on Debt is the problem & then you add the futures market & it all gets rather unreal. People are slowly realising this & hence no one really wants to borrow more.
I reckon ban futures trading. Go the Libertarian way & work from a credit based system, where the onus is on achieving a plus, not on how much debt you can afford to juggle. Its purely speculation as it is now.
Also I think that people over the last few decades have munched on the dangling carrot till theres none left,hence we are over exploiting people & the planet......So if the onus was placed on people actually having the capacity to save & way harder criteria to actually be able to borrow, it might help them to wean themselves of this "Now" system & actually have to wait until they have the money in the bank to buy stuff. Who would lose? The Banks. Who can afford to? They can.
But hey, what do I know.
I worked out at school in Econmics (when I wasnt perving at Ms Cashmore) that if you owe more than your worth you are fucked when the cookie crumbles....hence no debt for me.I am lucky that if it turns to custard I just need to worry about my council rates.
I feel for the people who are along for the ride.

[schrodingers cat]

I worked out at school in Econmics (when I wasnt perving at Ms Cashmore) that if you owe more than your worth you are fucked when the cookie crumbles....hence no debt for me.I am lucky that if it turns to custard I just need to worry about my council rates.

Trouble is, when the madness is widespread enough the crash will take you down too.
My parents were of a generation that believed (and taught me) to only get stuff when I could pay for it. I do see their point.

[puddytat]

Yep youre right Schrodey, I am under no illusions that it wont affect me.But everyone can try to do something to help themselves.Im lucky that in the community I live in (not the hippie type but there are a few of us here) that we have a good healthy community with many people who are actively making my town self reliant i.e we are lucky enough to have a small hospital,an awesome volunteer fire brigade & St.John,top class search & rescue team, 2 great policeman,a multitude of skilled people that comes with a rural community,lots of Guns, Gold in the river & alot of folk have a vege garden. Its 120km to the nearest city & because of its remoteness & being in Earthquake zone A people realise that our links to the outside world are not guaranteed.
So if it does turn to custard then really, I just need to concentrate on surviving & not have to rely on an income to cover debt....cool .

[mashman]

Surely a system based on Debt is the problem & then you add the futures market & it all gets rather unreal. People are slowly realising this & hence no one really wants to borrow more.
I reckon ban futures trading. Go the Libertarian way & work from a credit based system, where the onus is on achieving a plus, not on how much debt you can afford to juggle. Its purely speculation as it is now.
Also I think that people over the last few decades have munched on the dangling carrot till theres none left,hence we are over exploiting people & the planet......So if the onus was placed on people actually having the capacity to save & way harder criteria to actually be able to borrow, it might help them to wean themselves of this "Now" system & actually have to wait until they have the money in the bank to buy stuff. Who would lose? The Banks. Who can afford to? They can.
But hey, what do I know.
I worked out at school in Econmics (when I wasnt perving at Ms Cashmore) that if you owe more than your worth you are fucked when the cookie crumbles....hence no debt for me.I am lucky that if it turns to custard I just need to worry about my council rates.
I feel for the people who are along for the ride.

I honestly wish I could see a financial system working out for people, but I can't. I've tried my best to do things properly, only buy what we have money in the bank for and the only debt we have is the house and whilst it's a shitter that some people borrow to have what they want, some people steal and some people just take handouts, tis the value associated with all of these acts that causes the "resentment". Unfortunately these acts have a financial value associated with them, irrespective of whether it's you, me, the career bludger or the businessman, each of our financial failings has a knock on effect... some more than others... and around and around we go, as you say exploiting the people and the planet. It makes no sense to me, anymore, to have a financial system if it does more harm than good and even with a credit system I can't see things changing. We'll still have consumerism, we'll still have those who are more "talented/driven" than others taking what they consider to be a fair value for their effort. That's why I figure that if you remove money from the equation, we may actually have a shot at moving forwards and may well be able to educate the next generation in cooperation instead of out and out warring competition. we don't exactly set a good example and we give the next generation every reason to want to take short cuts.

I don't think it'll matter how self-sufficient we are when the cookie crumbles. If we're outnumbered when the come for our "stuff", then we're pretty screwed. I feel sorry for all of us NOW (snigger)... and I do hope you're correct in regards to the reasons why people aren't borrowing any more... but I guess that has it's own major downside. Fuck I wish we were as smart as we thought we are. Hey ho.