Surplus by 2014/2015

**Usarka** · 29th January 2012, 09:09

The Surplus is where you buy your cammo pants.

**Murray** · 29th January 2012, 09:32

And I thought all along it mean that ACC won't be broke anymore and they will actually take more money than they spend (choke choke) as this doesnt happen now (double choke choke)

**mashman** · 29th January 2012, 09:47

Originally Posted by pete376403

I thought it was just something they said that sounded real good but didn't mean anything, in order to get elected. Now that they've been elected, it's no longer relevant.

Don;t be silly... it must be really really important if they're always talking about it.

I'd still really really like someone to ask the PM the question for sure... all of this speculation just gives rise to conspiracy and misinformation... good job we trust them.

**bikaholic** · 29th January 2012, 11:07

Originally Posted by Murray

And I thought all along it mean that ACC won't be broke anymore and they will actually take more money than they spend (choke choke) as this doesnt happen now (double choke choke)

That's as likely to happen as the cost of a flat white will come down with milk prices.

**rainman** · 29th January 2012, 20:29

This might be of some relevance as to why we keep coming up with these cockamamie predictions... as might be this if you fancy a more theoretical look at what constrained resources tend to do to economic growth.

The chance of us returning to a happy state of growth as usual any time soon is nigh unto zero. The structural reasons for poor job growth and low consumer and business confidence look to be entrenched, and most of what Treasury is basing their forecasts on makes me think they put Prozac in their tap water.

The surplus projection (National's or Labour's) is a delusion designed to dupe the voters, and should quite simply be ignored as the irrelevance it is.

**mossy1200** · 29th January 2012, 21:14

Most likely means by 2014 no body will risk lending New Zealand any cash and demand we pay some back...

**puddytat** · 29th January 2012, 21:26

Sounds like a Tui Ad to me....a bit like promising that privatisation will mean better sevice at a lower cost....

**blue rider** · 29th January 2012, 21:26

the optimism bias.......oh well

there is also George Soros

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newswee...class-war.html

followed by Paul Krugman

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/

as for our Dear Leader and his words of wisdom

**mashman** · 29th January 2012, 23:01

Originally Posted by rainman

This might be of some relevance as to why we keep coming up with these cockamamie predictions... as might be this if you fancy a more theoretical look at what constrained resources tend to do to economic growth.

The chance of us returning to a happy state of growth as usual any time soon is nigh unto zero. The structural reasons for poor job growth and low consumer and business confidence look to be entrenched, and most of what Treasury is basing their forecasts on makes me think they put Prozac in their tap water.

The surplus projection (National's or Labour's) is a delusion designed to dupe the voters, and should quite simply be ignored as the irrelevance it is.

heh, amazing what people will believe eh

(funny how they rated their chances differently based on the information given, I'd have gone 50/50 all the way... after all, things happen or they don't) . I'd rather the rose tinted specs came off coz I don't think a violent wave across the planet is gonna make a blind bit of difference to those who think we have it good because none of it is on our doorstep. That kind of rose tinted spec wearing nightmare is the reason we're such a backwards society in the first place. The Oil document lost me on page 20 (a lot of it nothing new, thought similar about the abandonment of the english coal industry being saved for a rainy day or for a future where oil no longer exists and we revert to steam

), anyway, gave up at page 20 with conflicting results blah blah blah... I guess that's what you were trying to highlight?

The way I see it is that some idiot gets out his calculator, dicks around with some data, decides that they have a data "model" backed by a probability calculation that best matches the "past" "curve" from the data available and then "plans" are made to ensure that the predicted path is followed in order to maximise profit and schedule resource... shame that when it all starts going tits all they do is fuck around with a variable here and a variable there and create a new probability model. One of these days they'll stop looking at that pie in the sky point they've calculated and will stop ignoring the fuck ups along the way... and all because the calculation says that she'll be right. ra ra ra, I'm fed up with people running the country on the basis of reports derived from probability calculations. I don't care how "accurate" they are, they ignore too many other factors along the way, like people and society.

Shame noone seems to know what the surplus is and that the recurring theme seems to be one of it's bollocks... I still don't understand why anyone who believes that its bollocks votes. Praps that goes back to Tali territory.

Originally Posted by blue rider

there is also George Soros

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newswee...class-war.html

I enjoyed that... I don't see the financial system lasting more than 20 years before it collapses. People are getting wise to the shit that's being spouted by our glorious leaders and if Occupy isn't beaten into the ground with the US turning into a Policed State (when are the army due home?) I doubt it'll last another 5 years.

Wonder if Soros will lend me some money to design a different society that could help avoid, or at least postpone the inevitable and give us, well the next generation really, a fighting chance

**mashman** · 30th January 2012, 09:39

Ok, let's try something a little easier... Billy Bob English says "returning to surplus is essential to future proof the country from further shocks."... I thought taking drugs was illegal? So it's the books that are the problem. Anyone know what's on the books? Cos it seems pretty important according to Billy May English.

**rainman** · 30th January 2012, 16:53

Originally Posted by mashman

I'd have gone 50/50 all the way... after all, things happen or they don't)
...
Shame noone seems to know what the surplus is and that the recurring theme seems to be one of it's bollocks... I still don't understand why anyone who believes that its bollocks votes.

Sure, things happen or they don't, but not all outcomes are equally likely. As an example, I'll either get lucky tonight or I won't, but I wouldn't put 50/50 on it...

Also I think lots of people know what the surplus is (have a look at this for a quick summary of our end of year position), it's just that politicians of all shades always lie about forecast surpluses (doubly so in times of recession) and as a result discussion about these isn't worth anything. Not a reason to stop voting in itself though.

**Oscar** · 30th January 2012, 17:14

Originally Posted by mashman

Ok, let's try something a little easier... Billy Bob English says "returning to surplus is essential to future proof the country from further shocks."... I thought taking drugs was illegal? So it's the books that are the problem. Anyone know what's on the books? Cos it seems pretty important according to Billy May English.

If you want to know what's in the books, why don't you look?
http://www.treasury.govt.nz

Oh yeah - I forgot, your little rants don't go well when exposed to actual facts

**mashman** · 30th January 2012, 17:27

Originally Posted by Oscar

If you want to know what's in the books, why don't you look?
http://www.treasury.govt.nz

Oh yeah - I forgot, your little rants don't go well when exposed to actual facts

Just asking a question that noone seems to have an answer for, other than "don't sweat it mash, surplus is just political shit talk for nothing in particular".

... no rant on-topic here, perhaps a little off-topic

**Oscar** · 30th January 2012, 18:09

Originally Posted by mashman

Just asking a question that noone seems to have an answer for, other than "don't sweat it mash, surplus is just political shit talk for nothing in particular".

... no rant on-topic here, perhaps a little off-topic

Having a fiscal surplus is a good way to insulate the country from international economic turmoil.
There, I've answered your question.

**mashman** · 30th January 2012, 18:13

Originally Posted by rainman

Sure, things happen or they don't, but not all outcomes are equally likely. As an example, I'll either get lucky tonight or I won't, but I wouldn't put 50/50 on it...

Also I think lots of people know what the surplus is (have a look at this for a quick summary of our end of year position), it's just that politicians of all shades always lie about forecast surpluses (doubly so in times of recession) and as a result discussion about these isn't worth anything. Not a reason to stop voting in itself though.

pfffff, that's more 1:99 eh

... it ain't like rank outsiders don't win the derby... but in contradiction to your RSA link, thinking that you're going to be alive after a crash does not mean you will be. At the end of the day the odds don't really matter, you die or you don't, 2 outcomes that I'll always attribute 50/50 to. Good luck for tonight

Fair enough... although if my politicians are lying to me, I won't vote... they do, so I don't, but we are all different.