The value of money has dropped by two thirds in 30 years

[mashman]

I don’t get paid for my recreational activities either. What’s your point?

That you'll do something that's doesn't make money.

Will too.

Na har

We sometimes have problems with flooding also. We could ban water at the same time. And with precicely the same justification.

Test away. Send us your prospectus when you've got it hammered out, eh?

Or we could prepare for floods and make better use of it. Doh, that sort of shit doesn't have a good roi.

Will do.

Whadayamean yes? Unemployment through the last three years has been about 7%. A swift google tells me that’s 0.5% higher than its averaged since the mid eighties.

Sorry. Right before the GFC.. Was that 0.5% before or after the stock market crash of the 80's? Now why did unemployment suddenly rise?

Because successive governments have failed to foster the companies that generate jobs.

How have govts stopped them?

And these multitudes of respected economists have been advocating the abolition of money, have they?

Nope, they don't know seem to know what to do. Probably worried about job security.

Perfectly correct. When times get hard employers can’t afford to carry quite the same number of staff. Of course, if a shortage of money causes more unemployment then eliminating money altogether will fix that problem immediately.

Exactly. That and you can also employ as many people as you like... well those who wouldn't mind contributing that is. I say that'll be the vast majority. You don't... but it's a possibility.

That they don’t do. They fuck with the quantity of cash in circulation, certainly, in an attempt to mitigate the effects of a recession. Whether that’s wise or not I’m not quite sure. I know it effectively devalues savings, and I figure discouraging saving is a bad move.

What that specifically doesn’t mean is that someone other than you is creaming it by the simple expediency of printing money whereas you, for example aren’t.

On the other hand, if the reserve bank hadn’t been as open handed wrt banks use of that money for mortgages we’d probably have a lot fewer people owning their own home. Still, I could wish they’d made more of those loans available to business at somewhere near as friendly a rate, maybe some of those dole bludgers would still be employed, eh?

Again with the denial that they pluck money out of thin air. Did you watch the 7 sharp snip and then go and find the IMF document that says that they do? Sure you don't want to change your mind on that? So lots of effort mitigating the effects of recession whilst trying to mitigate recession entirely. Hmmmm, I wonder how they keep getting it wrong. Given the damage their failure causes, much better to just remove the mechanism entirely and carry on without the boom and bust cycle.

True. They're gaining billions per month given that they have trillions in assets. The money to pay for that interest has to come from somewhere. If you're not going to print it, where is it going to come from given that the main "producers" are the very same people who are creaming it?

You may have a point there. However some businesses sectors are now being subsidised by the govt, so hopefully that'll bring down lending rates for business loans... although that kinda makes them bludgers.

Cheers. It's taken me fucking ages to compile this shit from my slate.

You must have a serious printing press.

[Winston001]

Mashie - have you read Lord of the Flies by William Golding? Recommended. It might dissuade you from abandoning the protections of a civil society. Because that is what you'll get if you evaporate all concepts of calculating value.

[mashman]

Mashie - have you read Lord of the Flies by William Golding? Recommended. It might dissuade you from abandoning the protections of a civil society. Because that is what you'll get if you evaporate all concepts of calculating value.

I remember reading at school many moons ago. Slightly different situation though. For starters we're supposed to be real growd ups. I have considered that there could be down sides. Although each time I consider those down sides, I realise that they are all but mitigated by there not being a financial system in place. Most of those downsides are to do with us growd ups. Fortunately I think there'll be enough real growd ups to limit the "problems" until the next generation comes through. Without the financial system we can throw people into "helping" the "lost" generation. Hell they may even help themselves. A few studies in the US in regards to "peer courts" show that kids aren't that bad, they're generally just seriously bored.

[Ocean1]

That you'll do something that's doesn't make money.

I do fucking heaps of shit that doesn’t have any monetary value to anyone whatsoever. I’m not silly enough to believe I could make a living out of it.

Or we could prepare for floods and make better use of it.

The same way sane people prepare for fluctuations in the economy and prepare for them?

Sorry. Right before the GFC.. Was that 0.5% before or after the stock market crash of the 80's

From your reference:

Historically, from 1985 until 2012, New Zealand Unemployment Rate averaged 6.29 Percent reaching an all time high of 11.20 Percent in September of 1991 and a record low of 3.50 Percent in December of 2007

Which is exactly what I said, we’ve been running at around 7% for the last three years, and as I also said that’s roughly a metric smidgeon over the average since the mid eighties.

You no listen.

Now why did unemployment suddenly rise?

Why did it rise from the historic low of ‘07/’08 or why did it rise from the 6.5% average?
Don’t matter, same reason, the economy shrank because of variations in internal economic performance and external markets and with less income employers couldn’t afford to keep as many employees.

Y’know, dude, the various factors affecting an economy are fucking complicated and I don’t pretend to know most of the interconnected factors, but this shit’s really really simple and pretty self explanatory.

How have govts stopped them?

They haven’t so much stopped them as failed to encourage them. Like I said if they’d made loans available to start-up businesses in particular at the same terms they made mortgages available to you and me we’d have a healthier economy capable of riding out recessions better. Instead they're foisted with a tax system that does it’s very best to take out any new business at around 2 years old. And you’ve got the stones to blame business for the loss of jobs? Mate, you’ve got absolutely no idea.

Nope, they don't know seem to know what to do. Probably worried about job security.

SO, these experts you’re quoting in support of your argument don’t actually agree with you. Do they?

Exactly. That and you can also employ as many people as you like... well those who wouldn't mind contributing that is. I say that'll be the vast majority. You don't... but it's a possibility.

Nope. That encompasses so much logic fail I can’t actually understand the content let alone the intent.

Again with the denial that they pluck money out of thin air. Did you watch the 7 sharp snip and then go and find the IMF document that says that they do? Sure you don't want to change your mind on that? So lots of effort mitigating the effects of recession whilst trying to mitigate recession entirely. Hmmmm, I wonder how they keep getting it wrong. Given the damage their failure causes, much better to just remove the mechanism entirely and carry on without the boom and bust cycle.
True. They're gaining billions per month given that they have trillions in assets. The money to pay for that interest has to come from somewhere. If you're not going to print it, where is it going to come from given that the main "producers" are the very same people who are creaming it?

No, I don’t get my information from comic books. You’ve discovered that the reserve bank “gives” money to the commercial banks with conditions on it’s use and you can’t understand why. Let’s just leave it at that, eh?

You may have a point there. However some businesses sectors are now being subsidised by the govt, so hopefully that'll bring down lending rates for business loans... although that kinda makes them bludgers.

Indeed? Which business sectors? How? And do the subsidies amount to those automatically available to 55% of the public, in that they’re given more than they pay in tax?

Now that’d really make ‘em bludgers.

You must have a serious printing press.

Indeed, almost serious enough to print hundred dollar notes.

Almost.

[Brian d marge]

Ban ki moon openly stated they just plucked the money out of thin air to pay for the US meltdown , I have posted on here before

Stephen

[mashman]

I do fucking heaps of shit that doesn’t have any monetary value to anyone whatsoever. I’m not silly enough to believe I could make a living out of it.

Why would you need to make a living in an economy without a financial system?

The same way sane people prepare for fluctuations in the economy and prepare for them?

yup, badly... and Einstein disagrees that those people are sane.

Which is exactly what I said, we’ve been running at around 7% for the last three years, and as I also said that’s roughly a metric smidgeon over the average since the mid eighties.

You no listen.

It is what you said, but I was asking about before the GFC which is why I posted the linky. I wasn't thinking of nearly 30 years before though and wasn't asking for an average.

Me listen, me stuck with my obviously ambiguous question.

Why did it rise from the historic low of ‘07/’08 or why did it rise from the 6.5% average?
Don’t matter, same reason, the economy shrank because of variations in internal economic performance and external markets and with less income employers couldn’t afford to keep as many employees.

Y’know, dude, the various factors affecting an economy are fucking complicated and I don’t pretend to know most of the interconnected factors, but this shit’s really really simple and pretty self explanatory.

07/08. The economy shrank because of money. No more no less. Goods were still there to be paid, yet there was no money to pay for them. T'would seem a little silly given that supply and demand for goods and services is supposed to provide that which sustains an economy. Cull the money, cull the economy.

Oh I get it. Granted not all of the ins and outs, but I get it. How else do you pay for growth if not with new money.

They haven’t so much stopped them as failed to encourage them. Like I said if they’d made loans available to start-up businesses in particular at the same terms they made mortgages available to you and me we’d have a healthier economy capable of riding out recessions better. Instead they're foisted with a tax system that does it’s very best to take out any new business at around 2 years old. And you’ve got the stones to blame business for the loss of jobs? Mate, you’ve got absolutely no idea.

Why should they encourage business? Surely there's demand to be met? If a business fails it's due to a lack of customer base. How can you blame the govt for that? Was I blaming business? If they didn't have enough customers, then it's the customers fault innit.

SO, these experts you’re quoting in support of your argument don’t actually agree with you. Do they?

I doubt they've considered what I'm proposing. Likely because they think similarly to yourself, but they know something needs to be done, they just don't seem to know what. Some dude in the US wants to take the $85 billion QE money and give it directly to the people instead because it hasn't trickled down. Moderately amusing that they thought it would. Although I'd be curious to find out what they thought of removing the financial system.

Nope. That encompasses so much logic fail I can’t actually understand the content let alone the intent.

If there's no financial system you can have as many teachers in a classroom as you'd like. In other words, it'll cost the same amount of money to have 5 teacher in a classroom as it would to have 1... i.e. nothing. Same with nurse, doctors, binmen, sewerage workers, farmers, call centre staff, engineers, builders, saw mill workers, programmers, lecturers etc...

No, I don’t get my information from comic books. You’ve discovered that the reserve bank “gives” money to the commercial banks with conditions on it’s use and you can’t understand why. Let’s just leave it at that, eh?

As highlighted above I understand why. I fail to see that system being more beneficial to society than a system that doesn't rely on money in just about every sector of society.

Indeed? Which business sectors? How? And do the subsidies amount to those automatically available to 55% of the public, in that they’re given more than they pay in tax?

Now that’d really make ‘em bludgers.

Oh the old tax back argument. In which case the people on the dole who's parents worked all of their lives and didn't dip into the taxes that they paid aren't really bludgers then? If a business can't make it without subsidy, then it shouldn't be in business. The $400 million irrigation project for the private sector. The part funding of employees for the private sector. The film industry. Agriculture. And from what I read govt subsidisation of various sectors around the world is a means of keeping them competitive. Granted NZ has some of the lowest subsidies, but again, if the business can't make it, it shouldn't be shored up with money that leaves the tax payer short on services. Yes it's much more complicated than that and we need exports to keep the economy healthy etc... but where does that end? Whereas if there were no financial system, we could sell our goods for as much or as little as we'd like.

Indeed, almost serious enough to print hundred dollar notes.

Almost.

Ooooooooo... bit heavy printed in slate though. "They" may catch on?

[mashman]

Ban ki moon openly stated they just plucked the money out of thin air to pay for the US meltdown , I have posted on here before

Stephen

His name is almost like a taunt innit. If the banks want to show you what they think of you, they pull a Banki Moon.

[Akzle]

Yup there will still be a govt, not necessarily in charge, but certainly in charge in regards to logistics and facilitating communication between "councils".

holy HTML-gasm thred!
red up on dung shopping's communism. (deng xiaopang)
he came up after mao went down , basically copied the ruski model, but it was as you say.
a reduction in "centralised collectivism"
private property and ownership was restored, decisions were made at the "village" level

We'll still need medicine, hospitals, doctors, raw materials, workers etc... Control, as you put it, will be at "council" level i.e.

hate to rain on your parade, but that sounds surprisingly like private enterprise...

Without money people's motives and motivations will probably change. Certainly the generation that grows up without the concept of a financial system will reap the full benefits... or something like that.

i reckon!
money is the motivating factor behin so much "evil" - greed, which is a sin in any religion, oneupmanship, which, as your analogy of horny old rich men, will take us back to evaluating what a man is actually worth.
IE, (no pun) windows is such shit software, that i don't feel bill gates deserves to be paid 220$ a second just for breathing.

monetary society has taken hoomans from a society that rewards individual physical prowess (bestest, fastest strongest hunter, ie) to one that rewards trickery and scheming, or "mental" prowess.
i don't reckon that's a good thing.

Mashie - have you read Lord of the Flies by William Golding? Recommended. It might dissuade you from abandoning the protections of a civil society. Because that is what you'll get if you evaporate all concepts of calculating value.

i'll suggest that the moral of the story was that happiness comes from within, a similar tale to garland's "the beach" - even in a "perfect/ idyllic" setting, shit still happens.
so why?

but i think a re-structure-rethink, and a collective conscious move toward it (which, being sentient adults we're capable of)
and that's based off my belief that central governance is the manifestation of a sickness, among the collective mind...

[mashman]

holy HTML-gasm thred!
red up on dung shopping's communism. (deng xiaopang)
he came up after mao went down , basically copied the ruski model, but it was as you say.
a reduction in "centralised collectivism"
private property and ownership was restored, decisions were made at the "village" level

Sounds like a mighty smart fella. "council" = "village"... whatever size it needs to be it can be.

hate to rain on your parade, but that sounds surprisingly like private enterprise...

OMFG no no no nooooooooooooooo... no rain there. As there's no cash it will be re-branded, lemme see now, yes, public enterprise. Yes it will still exist, just the reason for it existing will be different. The names have been changed to protect the innocent...

i reckon!
money is the motivating factor behin so much "evil" - greed, which is a sin in any religion, oneupmanship, which, as your analogy of horny old rich men, will take us back to evaluating what a man is actually worth.
IE, (no pun) windows is such shit software, that i don't feel bill gates deserves to be paid 220$ a second just for breathing.

monetary society has taken hoomans from a society that rewards individual physical prowess (bestest, fastest strongest hunter, ie) to one that rewards trickery and scheming, or "mental" prowess.
i don't reckon that's a good thing.

"Be a man of value rather than a man of success" - Berty Einy. Agreed on windeez. Still gonna use it though (it's kinda my job). With no financial system we could write WiNZdows and a suite of apps that streamline the entire country. We could all but ditch security entirely.

I reckon it's a great thing... although the reward mechanism is fooked.

[Ocean1]

Why would you need to make a living in an economy without a financial system?

You need to make a living no matter how you’re being remunerated. Otherwise you’re dead, innit?

As for an economy, if you don’t have a financial system then you don’t have an economy. More fail.

It is what you said, but I was asking about before the GFC which is why I posted the linky. I wasn't thinking of nearly 30 years before though and wasn't asking for an average.

Me listen, me stuck with my obviously ambiguous question.

07/08. The economy shrank because of money. No more no less. Goods were still there to be paid, yet there was no money to pay for them. T'would seem a little silly given that supply and demand for goods and services is supposed to provide that which sustains an economy. Cull the money, cull the economy.

Yes, I know you wanted me to “admit” that the GFC caused a rise in unemployment from ’07. The fact is ’07 was a very short anomaly fuelled by high spending. That’s what caused the GFC, remember? People spending money they didn’t have. Debt. So it’s far more accurate to say the GFC caused a correction in artificially low unemployment statistics back to pretty much normal.

As for the economy shrinking because of money, it’s nonsensical. Availability of money is driven by economic factors, not the other way around.

And the supply and demand cycle continued to function flawlessly throughout. As you observed, there were still goods available but less cash floating about, which immediately drove prices down and resulted in manufacturers lowering their costs. Perfect control loop.

Oh I get it. Granted not all of the ins and outs, but I get it. How else do you pay for growth if not with new money?

You don’t pay for growth at all. Growth is the result of higher levels of productive activity. End of.
If, however you want your currency to be valued at nominally the same rate you can inject more cash into the economy to compensate. Most countries didn’t bother until last century, notably the UK where the value of the pound reached ridiculously high levels.

Why should they encourage business? Surely there's demand to be met? If a business fails it's due to a lack of customer base. How can you blame the govt for that? Was I blaming business? If they didn't have enough customers, then it's the customers fault innit.

They don’t, and have never at any time encouraged business, seeing them as simply another cash cow. As for why they should? Because businesses ARE the productive sector, and of far more importance to you they make jobs. Jobs for those without the intestinal fortitude to take responsibility for their own day to day productivity. It’s pretty obvious that in order to grow a beneficial activity you encourage it. In the case of most SMEs that simply means refraining from taxing them out of existence and requiring them to spend huge quantities of income proving that they comply.

I blame the government for the ill health of SMEs in NZ because the very growth business generated has been distributed to house buyers, at very friendly rates instead of being made available to help business grow more.

And yes, you repeatedly blame businesses for failing to hire people they can’t afford to pay.

As for the customers? Let’s blame employees for failing to produce what they want at the cost they can pay, eh? That makes far more sense.

I doubt they've considered what I'm proposing. Likely because they think similarly to yourself, but they know something needs to be done, they just don't seem to know what. Some dude in the US wants to take the $85 billion QE money and give it directly to the people instead because it hasn't trickled down. Moderately amusing that they thought it would. Although I'd be curious to find out what they thought of removing the financial system.

So ask ‘em. Look, there’s one now: http://garethsworld.com/blog/economi...teering-wheel/
Comments at the bottom.

Oh the old tax back argument. In which case the people on the dole who's parents worked all of their lives and didn't dip into the taxes that they paid aren't really bludgers then?

Of course they are, they’re a net drain on the economy, whether their parents were or not is irrelevant.

If a business can't make it without subsidy, then it shouldn't be in business. The $400 million irrigation project for the private sector. The part funding of employees for the private sector. The film industry. Agriculture. And from what I read govt subsidisation of various sectors around the world is a means of keeping them competitive.

I agree. In spite of the fact that they’re the only possible source of further tax revenue, including the paye their income generates. I’m prepared to bet huge wads of cash that you can’t show me a single private business in NZ that’s receiving a direct subsidy from govt, including the ones vaguely referred to above. If you can show me a business the government pays more than it receives in tax I’ll eat my KTM. Like I said, most individual kiwis cost the taxpayer more than they contribute, whereas EVERY business in NZ adds value to the economy. Simply refraining from bleeding SMEs white would not only increase the long term tax take it would improve overall economic performance in every regard.

Granted NZ has some of the lowest subsidies, but again, if the business can't make it, it shouldn't be shored up with money that leaves the tax payer short on services.

In fact business is taxed far more heavily than individuals, yet not only do they not collect the dole when they fail they get almost no assistance from government whatsoever, hard times or not. Claiming the public has automatic right to business tax revenue and somehow claiming it’s business’s fault if that’s not forthcoming simply displays an utter lack of understanding of what drives the economy and where jobs come from.

[scumdog]

A few studies in the US in regards to "peer courts" show that kids aren't that bad, they're generally just seriously bored.

More that they just haven't been on the planet long enough to have the skill and knowledge they need.

And are so darned sure of themselves that they won't listen to advice from the elders.

That way now, always been that way and will stay that way forever and ever.

It's the way of the world.

[mashman]

You need to make a living no matter how you’re being remunerated. Otherwise you’re dead, innit?

As for an economy, if you don’t have a financial system then you don’t have an economy. More fail.

Agreed... apart from the dead bit... especially if you're making a living by taking from others.

Of course you have an economy, just a different type(s) of economy. Goods and services will still be required to be produced as there will still be consumption. There will also be the need for a perceived financial economy. After all we'll need to "trade" with the rest of the world and to avoid sending the rest of the world into financial shock we'll still have to produce a GDP so the the economists can update their models.

Yes, I know you wanted me to “admit” that the GFC caused a rise in unemployment from ’07. The fact is ’07 was a very short anomaly fuelled by high spending. That’s what caused the GFC, remember? People spending money they didn’t have. Debt. So it’s far more accurate to say the GFC caused a correction in artificially low unemployment statistics back to pretty much normal.

As for the economy shrinking because of money, it’s nonsensical. Availability of money is driven by economic factors, not the other way around.

And the supply and demand cycle continued to function flawlessly throughout. As you observed, there were still goods available but less cash floating about, which immediately drove prices down and resulted in manufacturers lowering their costs. Perfect control loop.

All money is debt. When they stop lending things tend to come to a halt. On that basis it's more accurate to say that the lack of money floating arounf caused hundreds of thousands if not millions of people to lose their jobs. I don't care how you dress it up at the top, it's the result that's important. The economy fails people on a regular basis and we bicker about it as though people aren't trying or that they're lazy and we hold the economy up as some form of beacon of light that human beings are failing. Pretty fucked up in any language. GFC is caused by money issues, not human issues.

Oh I disagree with that entirely. You said yourself that it's

the basic unit that enables the demand and supply cycle

If money is the enabler, then it's the driver for (some false) demand and supply. So make your mind up wouldy ya.

Flawlessly? I don't call the loss of jobs, homes, relationships, lives etc... flawless. Sure some prices went down, but plenty of others rose. I guess they call that balancing the books. And yet irrespective of govt tax breaks, the manufacturing industry seems to have taken a big hit. That perfect control loop you're talking about may well be perfect in economic terms, but it fucks people over left and right. Not exactly perfect in my book. Not even close.

You don’t pay for growth at all. Growth is the result of higher levels of productive activity. End of.
If, however you want your currency to be valued at nominally the same rate you can inject more cash into the economy to compensate. Most countries didn’t bother until last century, notably the UK where the value of the pound reached ridiculously high levels.

It is, I agree. But that's not the end of it at all. You could be as productive as you like, but without consumers that productivity goes nowhere. Praise be for Marketing and Advertising. So some fucker somewhere spits the dummy because of cash injections that don't meet econimic lending criteria and people suffer for it. Bit childish given that they're just trying to make a buck.

They don’t, and have never at any time encouraged business, seeing them as simply another cash cow. As for why they should? Because businesses ARE the productive sector, and of far more importance to you they make jobs. Jobs for those without the intestinal fortitude to take responsibility for their own day to day productivity. It’s pretty obvious that in order to grow a beneficial activity you encourage it. In the case of most SMEs that simply means refraining from taxing them out of existence and requiring them to spend huge quantities of income proving that they comply.

I blame the government for the ill health of SMEs in NZ because the very growth business generated has been distributed to house buyers, at very friendly rates instead of being made available to help business grow more.

And yes, you repeatedly blame businesses for failing to hire people they can’t afford to pay.

As for the customers? Let’s blame employees for failing to produce what they want at the cost they can pay, eh? That makes far more sense.

And the right whinge are usually so business friendly too. You talk about responsibility in one breath, bagging the govt in the process for not doing enough to help SME's take responsibility for their own business. Come on. Or is that another one of your perfect loops? As I've said, if they can't make it, they can't make it. Get the fuck over it and stop expecting govt help or govt handouts to make your money.

Nah. Housing money comes from the individual thin air bucket of cash. They've still got plenty of cash in the business thin air bucket. Money is not finite so there's plenty of money for individual and SME borrowing should they want it. Perhaps SME's should ask for friendlier rates.

So ask ‘em. Look, there’s one now: http://garethsworld.com/blog/economi...teering-wheel/
Comments at the bottom.

I need my ducks in a row first. Then I'll ask a gent I know for a personal introduction.

Of course they are, they’re a net drain on the economy, whether their parents were or not is irrelevant.

So as long as dad has put in enough tax so that his kid can chill on the dole without being a net drain it'll be ok?

I agree. In spite of the fact that they’re the only possible source of further tax revenue, including the paye their income generates. I’m prepared to bet huge wads of cash that you can’t show me a single private business in NZ that’s receiving a direct subsidy from govt, including the ones vaguely referred to above. If you can show me a business the government pays more than it receives in tax I’ll eat my KTM. Like I said, most individual kiwis cost the taxpayer more than they contribute, whereas EVERY business in NZ adds value to the economy. Simply refraining from bleeding SMEs white would not only increase the long term tax take it would improve overall economic performance in every regard.

The aged healthcare industry has a few... nope, sorry, that's called funding. As for the rest, there's hige amounts of truth in that. And if businesses paid that 55% more money then they wouldn't need to be a drain. So lower them margins, change how jobs are valued and that will also improve overall economic performance. The introduction of a financial transaction tax may nullify the need to tax kiwis income at all. But hey, we can all dream up all sorts of interesting ways to lessen the load on business and the individual... however none of them seem to work. Ditch the cash and business nor the individual need be bled at all and if the businesss and employee are useful they'll survive and go from strength to strength.

In fact business is taxed far more heavily than individuals, yet not only do they not collect the dole when they fail they get almost no assistance from government whatsoever, hard times or not. Claiming the public has automatic right to business tax revenue and somehow claiming it’s business’s fault if that’s not forthcoming simply displays an utter lack of understanding of what drives the economy and where jobs come from.

Meh.

[mashman]

More that they just haven't been on the planet long enough to have the skill and knowledge they need.

And are so darned sure of themselves that they won't listen to advice from the elders.

That way now, always been that way and will stay that way forever and ever.

It's the way of the world.

Pah. So if they don't listen to adults, which to be honest given the caliber of authority figures and the way they approach "kids" I can't say I blame them, then put the "kids" in charge. After all the bad kids are a huge minority. they may even remind adults of what it's like to be a "kid".

[scumdog]

Pah. So if they don't listen to adults, which to be honest given the caliber of authority figures and the way they approach "kids" I can't say I blame them, then put the "kids" in charge. After all the bad kids are a huge minority. they may even remind adults of what it's like to be a "kid".

As I said: That's the way it has been since time immemorial, hence why young ones have never taken control.

Too full of high ideals - and no skills, knowledge or experience...

[mashman]

As I said: That's the way it has been since time immemorial, hence why young ones have never taken control.

Too full of high ideals - and no skills, knowledge or experience...

Adults. So competent in their skills, knowledge and experience that they've forgotten their ideals. There are too many kids that just aren't these days. They may well lack experience, but plenty of them have skill and knowledge. But that doesn't make a good generalisation.