The 2017 Election Thread

[Graystone]

That's a purdy little mouth you've got there bogan.

Why call me a bogan? TDL is the guy looking at 300k housing in South Auckland. Have you eaten too many purple crayons today and got a bit confused?

[Graystone]

But when he does you call it waffle that you can't be bothered reading.
You either have to read the waffle or settle for monosyllabic answers, one or the other.

His waffle didn't contain any either... It's actually pretty quick to skim a post for references and logical rebuttals.

[TheDemonLord]

We can keep going as we have been, but it would be a big improvement if you made an effort to back up your claims with a bit of reference or logic is all...

You see, that's a 2 way street - you've made claims, with nothing to support them. I've simply said that you are incorrect and pointed to some objective bits of evidence.

You've asserted that you know what my perspective was 5 years ago - I've pointed out there is no possible way you can know that.
You've asserted that Capital Gains is Income - I've pointed to both the Legal, Accounting and linguistic definitions to show it's not.
You've asserted that NZ doesn't used the FRB System - I've pointed to both Wikipedia, the existence of a Reserve Bank and a quote from the Reserve Bank to show it's not.
You've asserted that Risk is not associated with Reward - I've pointed to both the linguistic usage and peoples actions to show that it is.
You've asserted that a Linguistic proof is not sufficient - I've pointed to Love as an example of something we can prove to be true by looking at the linguistic evidence and by looking at how people act.

As you are probably aware - I rather enjoy arguing - and you have been a robust and intelligent opponent, but on this matter, you've been talking out of your arse.

[jasonu]

It's actually pretty quick to skim a post for references and logical rebuttals.

Ahhh the old KB half read a post and call the poster a cunt method.

[Graystone]

You see, that's a 2 way street - you've made claims, with nothing to support them. I've simply said that you are incorrect and pointed to some objective bits of evidence.

You've asserted that you know what my perspective was 5 years ago - I've pointed out there is no possible way you can know that.
You've asserted that Capital Gains is Income - I've pointed to both the Legal, Accounting and linguistic definitions to show it's not.
You've asserted that NZ doesn't used the FRB System - I've pointed to both Wikipedia, the existence of a Reserve Bank and a quote from the Reserve Bank to show it's not.
You've asserted that Risk is not associated with Reward - I've pointed to both the linguistic usage and peoples actions to show that it is.
You've asserted that a Linguistic proof is not sufficient - I've pointed to Love as an example of something we can prove to be true by looking at the linguistic evidence and by looking at how people act.

As you are probably aware - I rather enjoy arguing - and you have been a robust and intelligent opponent, but on this matter, you've been talking out of your arse.

I didn't assert that I knew you perspective 5 years ago.

I have provided a definition of income so we can continue that discussion, but you just say I'm wrong and provide no counterpoint to back that up.
I've tried to engage with you on fixed assets and how they are treated, but again you just say I'm wrong and provide no counterpoint to back that up.
I've asked for the fractional reserve to be supplied, this is a key part of a country using frb. There are many countries that use systems derived from or similar to frb, but having a limit is pretty key.
There's a whole industry dedicated to milking the risk/reward 'linkage' which very successfully ensures risk is not rewarded. Take a guess what that might be... Linguistics does not satisfy the burden of proof, its based on common opinion only.

[Katman]

Why call me a bogan?

I didn't call you a bogan.

I called you bogan.

You may have fooled the others - but not me.

[Crasherfromwayback]

Ahhh the old KB half read a post and call the poster a cunt method.

Where's the problem? Cunt.

[TheDemonLord]

I didn't assert that I knew you perspective 5 years ago.

You did, by proxy:

In order to know that I either had no perspective on not owning a house or that my perspective has changed, you'd need to know what my perspective was 5 years ago.

I have provided a definition of income so we can continue that discussion, but you just say I'm wrong and provide no counterpoint to back that up.

That's right - because the definition YOU provided did not support what you were trying to stretch it to. No need for Counterpoints - it was right there in the definition. Not to mention the Legal, Accounting and IRD definitions also don't stretch to it either.

I've tried to engage with you on fixed assets and how they are treated, but again you just say I'm wrong and provide no counterpoint to back that up.

Because you are trying to conflate 2 different things as the same. They aren't. So you are wrong and I don't need to provide a counterpoint - cause they aren't the same and are not treated the same.

When you stop doing that, maybe we can try and engage again.

I've asked for the fractional reserve to be supplied, this is a key part of a country using frb. There are many countries that use systems derived from or similar to frb, but having a limit is pretty key.

And I answered you, with a quote from the Reserve bank - it says there is a ratio that they set, depending on the banks financials. That there is a ratio means:

1: There is a Limit (because there is a ratio - it's not Zero)
2: They are allowed to lend out money, keeping only a fraction of the reserve (because there is a ratio, it's not 1)

it doesn't matter what the reserve ratio is set (although from memory, it's around 10%). And you still need to provide proof that we aren't using it.

There's a whole industry dedicated to milking the risk/reward 'linkage' which very successfully ensures risk is not rewarded. Take a guess what that might be... Linguistics does not satisfy the burden of proof, its based on common opinion only.

Let's do a quick analysis of that statement: The point you are trying to make is that Risk is not linked to Reward - the point I'm making is that it is, and the way we can prove this is true is because people act and speak as if it is true.

If your premise is correct - then people would not act as if it were true, and yet - you clearly state that "whole industry dedicated to milking the risk/reward 'linkage'" - which entirely proves my point, by your own words.

[TheDemonLord]

Where's the problem? Cunt.

You what Cunt?

[Crasherfromwayback]

You what Cunt?

Years ago my sister had a black tee shirt with the word cunt on the front in large font. Seeing peoples reaction to it/her was fantastic.

[TheDemonLord]

Years ago my sister had a black tee shirt with the word cunt on the front in large font. Seeing peoples reaction to it/her was fantastic.

heh

Reminds me of this:

[jasonu]

Where's the problem? Cunt.

That's Mr. Cunt to you!!!

[husaberg]

So you just agreed, I made no mention whatsoever as to who beneficiaries should work for.

Only that's not what you said though is it.

What I proposed was that those receiving a benefit should provide labour to that value.

Actually the work just has to be of sufficient value to cover their benefit, it matters fuck all who pays it.

And you also just agreed that it was you that raised the issue about having them work for private enterprise..

Not only did I never say I never denied I raised I disagreed with the use of this labour I pointed it out multiple times.
here is one example

Yet you are the one who suggested it was ok. Did you forget that. i said i never had a problem with it as long as it was for community like projects.
post 2080
Yet despite of your many repeated protests that private enterprise would never seek to profit from it you decline to exclude them from being able to do so.

Actually the work just has to be of sufficient value to cover their benefit, it matters fuck all who pays it.

So it's your ideology that's gotten all hurt and mortified at your own imagined slight on the dignity of the socialist ideal. Isn't it? As is amply demonstrated by you childish closing "argument.

No what the issue here is you seem to have no issue with a free enterprise profiting out of free labour. no amount of your clumsy attempt to try and say it wouldn't happen. would ever be as persuasive as saying you have no issue with it being prevented from happening. The fact that you refuse to say that is what speaks volumes.

And yet again I'll point out that nobody has to imagine that beneficiaries supplying labour for private enterprise wouldn't work, it's been done, it didn't work, (no pun intended), and it was the private sector that didn't want it. Which is hardly surprising, they're beneficiaries for the simple reason that they've failed to find anyone prepared to pay them what they want for the value they offer.

Yet it occurred in the past its pretty clear you lack imagination or is it fits with your ideals you can agree all you want that in your opinion it wouldn't happen, your opinion on it maters little to me because I have seen it happen.

[Ocean1]

Only that's not what you said though is it.

Yeah, it really is. You continue to fail to comprehend what's written, dude, even when you quote it yourself.

There's just no point in even attempting any sort of rational discussion with you, your attempts to insist that up is down in an attempt to claim some sort of victory in a debate you believe you're having are just sad.

[Graystone]

You did, by proxy:

In order to know that I either had no perspective on not owning a house or that my perspective has changed, you'd need to know what my perspective was 5 years ago.



That's right - because the definition YOU provided did not support what you were trying to stretch it to. No need for Counterpoints - it was right there in the definition. Not to mention the Legal, Accounting and IRD definitions also don't stretch to it either.



Because you are trying to conflate 2 different things as the same. They aren't. So you are wrong and I don't need to provide a counterpoint - cause they aren't the same and are not treated the same.

When you stop doing that, maybe we can try and engage again.



And I answered you, with a quote from the Reserve bank - it says there is a ratio that they set, depending on the banks financials. That there is a ratio means:

1: There is a Limit (because there is a ratio - it's not Zero)
2: They are allowed to lend out money, keeping only a fraction of the reserve (because there is a ratio, it's not 1)

it doesn't matter what the reserve ratio is set (although from memory, it's around 10%). And you still need to provide proof that we aren't using it.



Let's do a quick analysis of that statement: The point you are trying to make is that Risk is not linked to Reward - the point I'm making is that it is, and the way we can prove this is true is because people act and speak as if it is true.

If your premise is correct - then people would not act as if it were true, and yet - you clearly state that "whole industry dedicated to milking the risk/reward 'linkage'" - which entirely proves my point, by your own words.

By proxy? seems a bit weak and open to interpretation. Surely applying your own interpretation on to what I did is quite hypocritical in this instance!

Definition #1 is "The flow of cash or cash-equivalents received from work (wage or salary), capital (interest or profit), or land (rent)." how is capital gains not covered by the capital profit term here?

The fixed asset came through your opinion that tax should not be paid on both capital gains, and income gained from that capital asset (rent, and house appreciation); which was followed by your assertion that 'absolutely nothing' happens to the money coming in from selling a motorcycle factory, since you can no longer make motorcycles. So the fixed asset line of reasoning is very relevant to that, unless you are contending that plant, building, and land are not fixed assets?

Would you kindly direct me to the reserve bank quote/source, I only recall the wiki posted in support of this.

If an entire industry can milk people by preying on their risk=reward thinking, ie, the industry ensures risk does not result in financial reward, clearly it illustrates there is no intrinsic linkage between the two.