Stupid World

[mashman]

Saving the deposit on a house was only ever "easy" for the few years that you needed just 5%, and look how sustainable that turned out to be. For most of the last century you had to have 20 to 25% cash, a bit less if the old's helped out a bit. Most working Kiwi families managed that, usually just from the one income, and without the bullshit building costs you'd probably be back down to the historic "5 years graduate's income equivalent" for a house. So while I don't see it as an actual doddle I don't think it's beyond that 55% at all.

I must admit our parents and grandparents didn't have 56" TVs and I-shit that needed annually renewing, and fresh wheels every other year...

Hitcher reckons sections of a few acres are always going to cost a lot more simply because you've got maybe 20% of the usual number of homes having to pay for the same service infrastructure per kilometer. But as I pointed out at the time they don't usually come with water or sewerage conections to start with. I point it out to the council fairly regularly, too, roughly every rates demand.

Houses should be free. We need more. We were lucky in the "boom" with property, well, more luck than judgement that's for sure. The architecture and potential of the Venus Project could be interesting. Building another city could potentially stimulate a stagnent economy. Lots of on the job training, architecture jobs, engineers etc... but they get to keep one of the houses. Dreams are free. Ideas cost.

Ooooo they missed out. Imagine showing yer gran some of the tech we have today. However I don't need to have it

He's likely bang on. Target those who can pay, although the tanks are running drier every day eh. We thought about 28 acres (from memory) for 310k between 4 in Whitemans. All things considered, connection costs without costing alternatives, consent, legality, rates, lack of an internet connection as well as not knowing what we wanted to build all conspired against us. And life goes on. @rates reminder... you must be their most favouretest customer.

[mashman]

Financial stress may hit your brain and wallet

"She said poor people often have the same mainstream values about marriage and two-parent families as everyone else, but they don't seem to act that way. This shows that it's not their values but the situation that impairs their decision-making, she said. ". So, people may be affected by the mere thought of financial issues along with circumstances skewing how they might react otherwise. Hush your mouth.

[mashman]

Pffffffffffffft... today's new money maker. 'Scuse me, we own the world, so we'll back money using the world as collateral. I feel kinda bummed at that thought.

[mashman]

Let the games begin

Verizon buys Vodafone's wireless stake

Microsoft to acquire Nokia's handset business for $9 billion

[mashman]

SIS acts within the law, Key says... I wonder what the Fijian Democracy and Freedom Movement were planning. Democracy and Freedom maybe.

[Ocean1]

Pffffffffffffft... today's new money maker. 'Scuse me, we own the world, so we'll back money using the world as collateral. I feel kinda bummed at that thought.

I'm surprised you'd have a problem with anyone quantifying environmental damage in an attempt to control it.

It is driven by banks, though. Must be fukn evel, eh?

[mashman]

I'm surprised you'd have a problem with anyone quantifying environmental damage in an attempt to control it.

It is driven by banks, though. Must be fukn evel, eh?

There's quantifying it and then there's quantifying it. Using financial mechanisms to keep track of how much of the Earth we're destroying? Really? Nothing more than, hey we've counted everything and what's more, as we've given birth to it we have a right to put a price on it. How are "they" going to control "it".

Meh.

[Ocean1]

There's quantifying it and then there's quantifying it.

Maybe. But only you can see the difference.

Using financial mechanisms to keep track of how much of the Earth we're destroying? Really? Nothing more than, hey we've counted everything and what's more, as we've given birth to it we have a right to put a price on it.

Where did it say that?

Or is that your neurotic anti-bank fetish speaking on their behalf? Again.

How are "they" going to control "it".

"They" told you how in the article. Wana try reading it with the other eye open?

[mashman]

Maybe. But only you can see the difference.

Where did it say that?

Or is that your neurotic anti-bank fetish speaking on their behalf? Again.

"They" told you how in the article. Wana try reading it with the other eye open?

It is not easy to put a value on a forest, a clean river, or unpolluted air, but that is what a group of the world’s biggest banks is attempting to do.

Sure there'll be a quantity involved, but this is business... how long do you reckon it's going to be before a tree is $42.99. An economy backed by scarcity will only ever push prices up as it fuels growth. Both eyes open.

I'm assuming there''ll be a future. Why shaft them when they'll have less than we have now?

[Ocean1]

Sure there'll be a quantity involved, but this is business... how long do you reckon it's going to be before a tree is $42.99. An economy backed by scarcity will only ever push prices up as it fuels growth. Both eyes open.

I'm assuming there''ll be a future. Why shaft them when they'll have less than we have now?

Yeah. That's nothing like what you said they said, is it?

Almost any tree you can name is worth more than that now, they're talking about adding a value commensurate with it's ecological value to control its exploitation. You'd have to be a rabid capitalist to have a problem with that.

And you don't have economies based on scarcity, I assume you mean a market value based on scarcity. And scarcity does push prices up, which far from fuelling growth in fact restricts it.

But don't let the facts get in the way like you usually...

Ah, as you were.

[mashman]

Almost any tree you can name is worth more than that now

Then once upon a time a tree was worth $42.99 and you have proven the point? The value for me is how the tree is used. If it's used for bus tickets i.e. "money" then it's a waste. All resources should be priceless.

[gwigs]

Bayer sues Europe over pesticide ban .

http://action.sumofus.org/a/bayer-bees-lawsuit/?sub=tw

[Ocean1]

The value for me is how the tree is used. If it's used for bus tickets i.e. "money" then it's a waste.

Which is precisely the contention of the proposal. And entirely consistent with a free market, if the tree has more value in the ground than bus tickets then it'd stay right there. Like I said it sounds like a slightly more lucid version of your usual rant.

All resources should be priceless.

Which is the exact opposite of your statement that they should be free. It also means nothing would ever be produced.

The sentiment is laudable, but it's not real world and either statement is simply nonsensical.

[mashman]

Which is precisely the contention of the proposal. And entirely consistent with a free market, if the tree has more value in the ground than bus tickets then it'd stay right there. Like I said it sounds like a slightly more lucid version of your usual rant.

Is it? We're putting a price tag on everything somehow magic's away many of the world's issues? Pish. Prices will rise, people will be able to afford less and less... BUT SOME WILL STILL BE ABLE TO AFFORD THE RESOURCE, likely to frame a 200 year old picture instead of shoring up a bridge.

Which is the exact opposite of your statement that they should be free. It also means nothing would ever be produced.

The sentiment is laudable, but it's not real world and either statement is simply nonsensical.

Oh lord... it's not that the tree is to stay in the ground to be priceless, it's being selective in what you use it for that makes it priceless.

Of course it's real world. How many other things are made from a tree that really aren't needed? Receipts, forms, travel tickets etc... all used and thrown away. Your world doesn't allow for humanity to function without its bits of paperwork, mine does... and it turns out that yours and my world's are exactly the same place, but with slightly different rules governing it's usage.

[mashman]

Watch the video. Ignore the title. This guy should be the head of Monsanto.