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

[mashman]

Why? are you not aware that for the vast majority of employers their wage bill is not only by far their largest cost but several orders of magnitude larger than their profit?

In which case they wouldn't qualify to vote, would they?

How do they survive?

Why not?

[Ocean1]

How do they survive?

By earning more than they spend, same as eveyone else.

Why not?

Because if the gubmint gave them shit for free they'd immediately disqualify themselves, having failed to contribute more than they took.

[mashman]

By earning more than they spend, same as eveyone else.

Because if the gubmint gave them shit for free they'd immediately disqualify themselves, having failed to contribute more than they took.

You lost me there. How can the wage bill be several magnitudes larger than their profit and yet they earn more than they spend?

When I said "them" getting stuff for free, I meant everyone... not just the 55%. Perhaps, a govt that values any and all contributions that are not based on financial return, would have been more apt for current day economics. That would also include the unemployed as they help to keep inflation down and therefore save the country and its citizens billions of $$$.

[Ocean1]

You lost me there. How can the wage bill be several magnitudes larger than their profit and yet they earn more than they spend?

It's simple, where's the problem?

Profit's what's left AFTER you've paid for materials, services, wages... and like I said, in a typical business wages and salaries are much more than any eventual profit.

When I said "them" getting stuff for free, I meant everyone... not just the 55%. Perhaps, a govt that values any and all contributions that are not based on financial return, would have been more apt for current day economics. That would also include the unemployed as they help to keep inflation down and therefore save the country and its citizens billions of $$$.

They can only "value" contributions by "devaluing" them in the first place. Why on earth would you take money from the productive secton of your population and give it to the unproductive? It's effectively a positive feedback loop, not a viable control strategy.

As for your take on the the unemployed's "contribution"? Let's allow those who pay for their lunch to decide if their contribution is worthwhile, eh?

[Zedder]

I guess history has proven that time and time again... yet they haven't learned. Imparting more and more restrictions and controls on people generally leads to the afore mentioned anarchy and I don't think TPTB are trying to avoid it happening. If it's that inevitable, then the rules of the game need to be changed. I've got brand new shiny rules just waiting for a country that's willing to put the good of their entire country to the fore above their demands of their economy.

I agree in regards to anarchy. There may well have been a time where I was happy to watch a govt fall, but as you say, what do you replace it with... given that where one "party" is removed, there's always another there to take its place and reap the rewards instead of change things for the better. I have a replacement that ticks all of the boxes, I just need funding to explain it to the population so that they can have a chance to vote on it. That way the transition can be managed, transgressions forgotten (yup including bankers etc...), prisoners released that haven't really done anything wrong in the eyes of the "new laws" etc... essentially a clean slate for just about all concerned with which to do and be the best they can... ommmmmmmmmm. Otherwise, why bother and why not just let history repeat itself. the next revolution should be a stonker given the weapons that TPTB have at their beckon call and given that our "defence" forces are such good lapdogs for their masters.

Anarchy is not inevitable if a certain mix of controls are in place.

Why is NZ such a stable country? In a nut shell, there's just enough of everything to keep it that way plus Kiwis are known to be "laid back".

Your conviction for change is obvious but as you say lack of funding is the major issue. However, your obstacle is an ingrained old boys network/dynastic system in a county with no real axes to grind as opposed to some third world country which is in dire need of a revolution.

[mashman]

It's simple, where's the problem?

Profit's what's left AFTER you've paid for materials, services, wages... and like I said, in a typical business wages and salaries are much more than any eventual profit.

They can only "value" contributions by "devaluing" them in the first place. Why on earth would you take money from the productive secton of your population and give it to the unproductive? It's effectively a positive feedback loop, not a viable control strategy.

As for your take on the the unemployed's "contribution"? Let's allow those who pay for their lunch to decide if their contribution is worthwhile, eh?

Yes, yes, the penny has dropped ... in which case, share the profits .

It's already a positive feedback loop as there is no viable control strategy. Otherwise we wouldn't have recession innit.

You mean let's allow the ones who don't pay enough to decide what rights those who are underpaid are allowed to have? I'm pretty feckin sure that's the way things are currently going and it isn't working out too well. Go ahead and force them all to work and see what happens (hyperinflation according to economic textz on the webz). DOH, sorry, there aren't enough jobs, unless of course you lower the minimum wage to $3 per hour or something like that. But then there'd be more claiming off of the state. So we'd have to pay them mor... oh hang on.

[mashman]

Anarchy is not inevitable if a certain mix of controls are in place.

Why is NZ such a stable country? In a nut shell, there's just enough of everything to keep it that way plus Kiwis are known to be "laid back".

Your conviction for change is obvious but as you say lack of funding is the major issue. However, your obstacle is an ingrained old boys network/dynastic system in a county with no real axes to grind as opposed to some third world country which is in dire need of a revolution.

You mean a policed state? Irrespective of what controls are in place, where the people are being forced into a financial corner, the outcome is likely to be anarchy. It's in the post as more and more people realise that govts are ineffective and are full of hollow promises.

Everyone has their breaking point... but you're probably right, NZ will likely wait for the dust to settle and follow the herd.

Oh I dunno. I think there's plenty of people in NZ that are looking for some form of change that would offer more positives than the current system can offer. I'd love to find out. The old boys network won't get a look in when it's up to the people to decide for themselves and to vote on. It may not happen the first time around, maybe not even the second... but with the cost of living only ever really going in one direction in regards to wages, at some point people will start to want something that isn't red or blue as they will be seen as ineffective. I'd rather it happened sooner rather than later.

[oldrider]

All I was writing about was supply and demand in terms of fixing a value of something. Gold is short in supply and high in demand, sand is the opposite. Hence the value of gold is higher.

OK, fair nough!

My hobby is gold prospecting and I can attest to the difference in value of sand and gold!

Have you any idea how many tonnes of sand gravel etc I have to move and wash to recover an ounce of fine (like pepper and salt) gold?

Oops: attachment was supposed to be below the writing but you get my drift!

[Ocean1]

It's already a positive feedback loop as there is no viable control strategy. Otherwise we wouldn't have recession innit.

Dude. A recession is the control in action.

You mean let's allow the ones who don't pay enough to decide what rights those who are underpaid are allowed to have?

I generally say what I mean. Those you consider not to be paying enough are leaving the country in droves, asking more is of them is frankly ridiculous. And what's more the unproductive have just one natural right: to die. They do better than that because "those who don't pay enough" work harder to make that happen.

[mashman]

Dude. A recession is the control in action.

I generally say what I mean. Those you consider not to be paying enough are leaving the country in droves, asking more is of them is frankly ridiculous. And what's more the unproductive have just one natural right: to die. They do better than that because "those who don't pay enough" work harder to make that happen.

I agree, but you did say viable.

Leaving? even after they have been given a tax break? that's a bit ungrateful. So would they had have stayed if their employers had offered them more money ? Hang on, you said they left the country... and believing that working harder is going to make a difference is really rather amusing. It may earn them a few dollars more, but that'll soon be removed from them in some form or another. Likely when taxes go back up (maybe stealth taxes, fuel etc...) to pay for that huge amount of debt that the nats have borrowed that hasn't really done anything positive in regards to protecting the economy. Now where did I misplace that extra $40 billion.

[Ocean1]

I agree, but you did say viable.

What's non-viable about a recession a a control function, it's been working for as long as records were made.

Leaving? even after they have been given a tax break? that's a bit ungrateful. So would they had have stayed if their employers had offered them more money ? Hang on, you said they left the country... and believing that working harder is going to make a difference is really rather amusing. It may earn them a few dollars more, but that'll soon be removed from them in some form or another. Likely when taxes go back up (maybe stealth taxes, fuel etc...) to pay for that huge amount of debt that the nats have borrowed that hasn't really done anything positive in regards to protecting the economy. Now where did I misplace that extra $40 billion.

What tax break?

Rest is awfully waffly. What's wrong with hard work as a method of improving one's options? Again, it's worked for our ancestors for millenia, and that's the problem in a nutshell: When hard work stops being an effective strategy to improve one's life then you've just lost that negative control function. Shit ensueth.

[Zedder]

OK, fair nough!

My hobby is gold prospecting and I can attest to the difference in value of sand and gold!

Have you any idea how many tonnes of sand gravel etc I have to move and wash to recover an ounce of fine (like pepper and salt) gold?

Oops: attachment was supposed to be below the writing but you get my drift!

Alluvial mining, cool. Otago or the West Coast?

[mashman]

What's non-viable about a recession a a control function, it's been working for as long as records were made.

What tax break?

Rest is awfully waffly. What's wrong with hard work as a method of improving one's options? Again, it's worked for our ancestors for millenia, and that's the problem in a nutshell: When hard work stops being an effective strategy to improve one's life then you've just lost that negative control function. Shit ensueth.

The damage it does.

The one JK gave them at the start of his first term.

Hard working is no substitute for working smarter... being able to improve your lot will only take you so far where the rest, who also work hard but still have to claim some form of govt assistance, end up being pushed to the point where they're more financially stable on the dole. Hard work is not always an effective strategy and seems to be becoming more and more of a norm these days. Great where your employer can afford to reward that hard work, not so much where they can't. Working smarter i.e. pooling resources will alleviate much of the need to work harder, even though people will still work hard.

[Ocean1]

My hobby is gold prospecting and I can attest to the difference in value of sand and gold!

I once met an old guy, must have been 80, out behing the coronet, somewhere up long gully. He hadn't been in to town for months and wanted nothing more than to talk. He took me and my father 100yds back off the track to his bivy and made us a cupa. He showed us an AG jar full of gold, had been just sitting up on a shelf. I could hardly lift it. Reckoned he had almost enough to retire, was getting too old to do it any more anyway. Sometimes wonder how he got on.

[Ocean1]

The damage it does.

The one JK gave them at the start of his first term.

Hard working is no substitute for working smarter... being able to improve your lot will only take you so far where the rest, who also work hard but still have to claim some form of govt assistance, end up being pushed to the point where they're more financially stable on the dole. Hard work is not always an effective strategy and seems to be becoming more and more of a norm these days. Great where your employer can afford to reward that hard work, not so much where they can't. Working smarter i.e. pooling resources will alleviate much of the need to work harder, even though people will still work hard.

Waffle. Pooling resources doesn't actually produce anything. I am my employer, and both of our income is directly dependant on the value of my work. That's the real world. Any arangement that deems productive effort an ineffective strategy is going to be a short arangement. If you see a future "correction" in a system that rewards mediocrity I see one where productivity reaps it's own rewards.

Edit: The damaage a recession does is a nescessary element of the correction. In an ideal world the damage is mostly restricted to the entities who's behaviour drove the need for that correction. Publicly funded bailouts are anathema to any fiscally fair and rational system.