Poverty measure ... doesn't make sense to me

[FJRider]

Must be a good worker then.

i was going to write good bugger but it might be misread
it is KB after all

Not that good ... I just bury my mistakes ...

[Maha]

Then so is them working more hours then. And as such ... pointless them asking for more hours. I think $80 is the maximum they are allowed ... and they must declare it too.

The Rolling Stones said it best with....

You can't always get what you want
But if try...
Sometimes, you get what you need.

That apply's for both employer and employee. See you at smoko Trev.

[mashman]

Unconstrained money supply is indeed a disaster waiting to happen, hyperinflation is normally the outcome when free money is printed in an attempt to solve all social problems. One of the Greens idea a few years ago was to print money to pay off national debt - yeah sure, lets kill the economy at the same time.

My view of money supply or stock of money (currency in circulation and deposits in banks), is that its no different than any other commodity. Supply and demand has to match, but through market forces not government intervention (i.e. flooding or starving supply through whatever mechanism). Interest rate is the price of the money borrowed and lent, not something government created arbitrary target rate which is socially palatable.

Notion of uncontraint money supply would be the same as a manufactrer flooding the market with their goods, whether the market wants it or not (demand side ignorance). Free market doesn't work that way. Remember, with money also comes the multiplier effect. I deposit $100 in bank (issued by government). MS at $100. Same bank tgen lends $80 to someone else, who deposits it in their account. Money supply is now $180! And so on. In reality its still only $100 issued by government, but economy feels it multiple times. Minor government intervention can have massive headaches. I don't like headaches.

Hyperinflation is one of the reasons why the poor are required. Unemployment, more so low wages these days, is used as a mechanism for controlling the amount of money in the economy. The Phillips Curve was created to show that relationship. Yes, that was a few years ago, right before monetary mechanisms grew in number and complexity and all but hid the obvious "quick sack some people coz there's too much currency about". It was also stated outright in a document published by RBNZ a few years ago.

Whilst the Greens were being kick in the testicles for suggesting the printing of money, the U.S., U.K., Germany etc... were all printing money without so much as a blip in terms of inflation. Likely the primary reason for that was because all of that $ went into the stock market. That, accompanied with the likes of Bill Mitchell and MMT are highlighting that in this day and age printing money doesn't cause the hiccups that it used to cause. Again though, that's because they have new fiscal policy toys.

The IMF released a paper a few years ago that clearly stated that 97% of the money that is created today is created by private banks. As such, governments haven't printed money to cause an inflationary blip in quite some time. Tis the private debt that shafts everyone. The governments merely set rules agreed on by industry and think tanks so that they can provide an income for various purposes (unemployed, health, education, infrastructure etc...). As such, the government are not responsible for todays version free market.

The free market already manufactures demand, to the point where we use up a years worth of resources in just over 7 months. The free market priduces crap after crap after crap simply to sell so that people can earn money, have a job and generally feel good about themselves for contributing. That they're contributing to pollution doesn't cross their mind, because they need more money and create things like fidget spinners and various other utilityless rubbish to achieve that goal. If you don't use money, there's no need to produce things without utility.

I can't wait for Tech Unemployment to kick in hard, because the economic externalities are going to see the issue of unconstrained money most likely become a reality given the lack of tax base to fund much in the way of benefits for people to live on. NO capitalistic system can handle that. Tis why we have had so much in the way of policy change over the decades/centuries. Essentially money is a really really bad tool if it can't achieve its goal after so many thousands of years of existence. So whilst I understand what you're talking about, you seem to be blaming the government for somethings they have not done... and that's my job

[Jeeper]

That is what I appreciate, a well thought-out and civil argument. Well done.

The only thing I am blaming government for is to try and interfere in the market with a moral code that there must be equality in people's living standards. Government intervention rarely works, if at all. Market adjusts to negate it largely. How much money RBNZ used to influence FX a few years ago? Did that change the rate? No.

This notion of the current politicians that somehow increasing supply of housing stock through banning alleged foreign buyers and bigger deposit incentives will not suppress the pricing of existing stock or even crash it for some areas is absurd. When house price downshift ends up creating negative equity situations and stress on the banking system, don't blame anyone other than the government intervention. Remember that is how financial crisis started for some economies during GFC.

Leave the market alone. People who want to move up will acquire new skills if they really really want to improve their situation.

[Jeeper]

Its not as simple as just aquiring new skills as employers are wanting experience over a qualification today and if no one wants to train anyone people end up being stuck forever in a low tier job or on a benefit.

Don't brush all employers with the same nonsense. There are plenty of ways to become employed, even self employed. If there is a will, there is a way. There are many organisations who hire graduates with no prior experience all the time or else all university graduates would be unemployed because they have no actual experience of the industry.

[Ocean1]

Don't brush all employers with the same nonsense. There are plenty of ways to become employed, even self employed. If there is a will, there is a way. There are many organisations who hire graduates with no prior experience all the time or else all university graduates would be unemployed because they have no actual experience of the industry.

Correct. NZ is a nation of family businesses, sole traders and SMEs mostly because union driven distortion of the labour market made normal employment simply unworkable for many industries.

Among all the bleating from the NZCTU's political wing about how poorly today's employees are paid there's a recent report about modern work habits that I found somewhat relevant: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=11929543

I found myself imagining my first boss's reaction to a three hrs per day level of commitment to the collective cause.

[TheDemonLord]

The free market already manufactures demand, to the point where we use up a years worth of resources in just over 7 months. The free market priduces crap after crap after crap simply to sell so that people can earn money, have a job and generally feel good about themselves for contributing. That they're contributing to pollution doesn't cross their mind, because they need more money and create things like fidget spinners and various other utilityless rubbish to achieve that goal. If you don't use money, there's no need to produce things without utility.

Yes... Under the Politburo, only one type of thing will be authorised to be produced, Tovarisch.

Essentially money is a really really bad tool if it can't achieve its goal after so many thousands of years of existence.

It achieved it's goal thousands of years ago....

[mashman]

That is what I appreciate, a well thought-out and civil argument. Well done.

The only thing I am blaming government for is to try and interfere in the market with a moral code that there must be equality in people's living standards. Government intervention rarely works, if at all. Market adjusts to negate it largely. How much money RBNZ used to influence FX a few years ago? Did that change the rate? No.

This notion of the current politicians that somehow increasing supply of housing stock through banning alleged foreign buyers and bigger deposit incentives will not suppress the pricing of existing stock or even crash it for some areas is absurd. When house price downshift ends up creating negative equity situations and stress on the banking system, don't blame anyone other than the government intervention. Remember that is how financial crisis started for some economies during GFC.

Leave the market alone. People who want to move up will acquire new skills if they really really want to improve their situation.

I keep forgetting that I have to compensate for people's lack of will to ignore emotive language. You might want to work on that. Son

Without government there would be more monopoly than there currently is. The financial power and already acquired wealth is more than enough to crush every single business it chooses without financial risk. There's a service in there somewhere. A corporatocracy will do more than consolidate a monopoly on money. Government also tends to fund stuff that's non-profitable, but hazardous to the economy to such an extent that no private industry would blossom where the government isn't paying for some of those services. As an institution, it's serves many useful purposes in terms of preventing even more of a disaster without it.

Politicians are there to get voted in. They're show ponies with advisors... or trainers depending on your viewpoint. I had the pleasure of sitting through a few things and listening at close quaters. Meh.

The market is setup to facilitate the ECP. If you're planning for nothing, coz it's against your religion, then you're ignoring the fact that we've depleated the tree stock by 50% (CO2 up 50%, erm...), we're poisoning our rivers, doing many weird things to land and creature etc... then maybe you shouldn't be doing things that way, coz eventually, the economy will eat itself. Its first challenge is technological unemployment and the undermployment of technology. This means ditching life by ECP. It scares the pants off people to think that someone could get something for nothing. Yet if you don't go that route, then house prices are only the beginning. I saw something today that projected up to 10% in 3 years. Fun times ahead.

Bottom line. Production of almost everything that is non-essentiall has to stop (ASAP, but as quick as is possible so as not to cause the economy to nosedive). No financial economy can handle that. A Resource Based Economy can.

[Graystone]

Yes... Under the Politburo, only one type of thing will be authorised to be produced, Tovarisch.

While worded with a lot of bias, this does get to the heart of the matter. Consumers decide what is consumed, which in turn decides what is produced. Apple products are a great example for this, because the product itself is great, and would easily last 3-8 years (claims of planned obsolescence notwithstanding). Yet we probably all know at least one person who updates at least one of their apple products on a yearly basis. This sort of rampant, wasteful, consumerism is a product of people, not capitalism. Capitalism is the check that balances out this human nature of always wanting more; and considering just how far poverty has dropped (by any absolute measure) under capitalism it is working fantastically. Communism and other money-free theories do not balance it, instead removing the freedom of the people to decide through one method or another

Resource consumption an environmental pollution is a symptom of overpopulation, which is in turn a symptom of the reduced poverty and greater quality of life we now have (in addition to just being simple human nature).

[Jeeper]

Under your resource based model, what do you propose will happen to excess human resource on the planet? Given that in your dreams the current ecosystem is unable to sustain onslaught of human decision-making?

[TheDemonLord]

Bottom line. Production of almost everything that is non-essentiall has to stop (ASAP, but as quick as is possible so as not to cause the economy to nosedive). No financial economy can handle that. A Resource Based Economy can.

I'm so glad you've finally admitted this - Afterall - I remember a lovely conversation (before you got all butthurt that I was calling your Beloved RBE Communism - which it still is FYI) where I was telling you that under an RBE personal choice would be removed and you were proselytizing that under an RBE we would have complete freedom (cause yah know - no money and all that)

And yet now you have admitted that actually, it will be just like I said it would be - under an RBE, Personal choice WILL be removed, just like it was in every other Communist State.
From about here onwards

[Graystone]

Does the term Resource Based Economy mean something different now? It used to be an reasonably environmentally unfreindly capitalist system where a countries resources were sold off with very little value added to the raw product.

[Graystone]

Under your resource based model, what do you propose will happen to excess human resource on the planet? Given that in your dreams the current ecosystem is unable to sustain onslaught of human decision-making?

I haven't got a model for it, but the excess human resource will lead to scarcity for everyone. I wouldn't say the current ecosystem cannot sustain the onslaught of human decision making, almost the opposite, it can't sustain the lack of decision making; we need to do something to avoid our finite resources becoming scarce for everyone. Just look at clean, green, NZ's waterways, if you can stand the sight of them; easily prevented if someone had some foresight and made environmentally friendly decisions.

[Jeeper]

I haven't got a model for it, but the excess human resource will lead to scarcity for everyone. I wouldn't say the current ecosystem cannot sustain the onslaught of human decision making, almost the opposite, it can't sustain the lack of decision making; we need to do something to avoid our finite resources becoming scarce for everyone. Just look at clean, green, NZ's waterways, if you can stand the sight of them; easily prevented if someone had some foresight and made environmentally friendly decisions.

My comment was more targeted to Commrade Mashman. His RBE has more holes than a fishing net. If everyone is free to do what like and everything is provided for. Nobody would do anything remotely difficult or hazardous.

[Graystone]

My comment was more targeted to Commrade Mashman. His RBE has more holes than a fishing net. If everyone is free to do what like and everything is provided for. Nobody would do anything remotely difficult or hazardous.

Ok, it was immediately after mine and had no quoted post in it so I thought it was in reply to my post.

I am still confused why such a communist system is refereed to as an RBE? What resource can it be is it based on when everything within it is touted as being free?