Inside New Zealand

[mashman]

Who knows but If that had been me I would have either moved, built something temp or moved.
The other question was were they {the ones in the tent} insured? (i never watched the program) as ;
1) my insurance will pay for temp accommodation, why didn't theirs?,
2) if not then they are entitled to nothing as they have not contributed to EQC so should be happy for anything they get.

Well it wasn't you. Not everyone is as capable of looking after themselves as you. Some people need assistance.
Why should it matter if they were insured or not. Homeless people get housed too don't they?
1) That's Peace Prize material right there.
2) bwaaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaa... you're a fuckin savage.

[BoristheBiter]

Well it wasn't you. Not everyone is as capable of looking after themselves as you. Some people need assistance.
Why should it matter if they were insured or not. Homeless people get housed too don't they?
1) That's Peace Prize material right there.
2) bwaaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaa... you're a fuckin savage.

So if people need assistance (for free) then they shouldn't cry about how long it takes.

[mashman]

So if people need assistance (for free) then they shouldn't cry about how long it takes.

Yes they should... coz that is the mark of how well your society functions, or in this case doesn't. Your money'd world really isn't a nice place and looks to bring out the worst in many of whom I would have considered to have a brain. Live and learn eh.

[BoristheBiter]

Yes they should... coz that is the mark of how well your society functions, or in this case doesn't. Your money'd world really isn't a nice place and looks to bring out the worst in many of whom I would have considered to have a brain. Live and learn eh.

Actually it only brings out a feeling of self entitlement from those that can't seem to work in it.
Never had these problems in the 70's I guess that came from living withing one's means and taking responsibility for one's actions.

Free money aye, and the greens want to print more of it, go figure.

[mashman]

Actually it only brings out a feeling of self entitlement from those that can't seem to work in it.
Never had these problems in the 70's I guess that came from living withing one's means and taking responsibility for one's actions.

Free money aye, and the greens want to print more of it, go figure.

Or those who aren't allowed to work in it. There are not jobs for everyone. Unemployment is a requirement of a healthy economy blah blah blah... not everyone knows the system inside and out and as we often here, some people just fall through the cracks.
Probably never happened in the 70's coz we looked after people way back when... but then again, there were still communities, unlocked doors, lots of jobs, and a brave new world just around the corner to fuck it up as they went. Meh.

I know... how dare they try to follow the Japanese govt example to stimulate the economy, or the US govt example of economic stimulus, or the UK example etc... You do realise that that is what these country's have been doing? Printing more money that is? Whereas NZ has been borrowing large sums of money instead. I wonder where they could be borrowing large sums of money from, hmmmmmmm. Are the US/UK/Japanese govts bad govts if they're following a Green policy? Or are the Greens ahead of the game with a better economic understanding?

[MisterD]

how dare they try to follow the Japanese govt example to stimulate the economy, or the US govt example of economic stimulus, or the UK example etc... You do realise that that is what these country's have been doing? Printing more money that is?

Point 1) what those economies are doing in respect of "quantitative easing" are pretty much desperation measures since their official interest rates are all but 0 and they have nowhere else to go, our OCR is 2.5 so the reserve bank has plenty of scope for movement yet. Point 2) have you seen how ineffective those policies have been? All the US has acheived is a stock market bubble.

Money printing discourages savings which is precisely the opposite of what any economy needs.

[jasonu]

Interesting watch.

It would have been far more interesting if I could have gotten it to fucking play...
Pity as I am quite keen to give it a watch.

[mashman]

Point 1) what those economies are doing in respect of "quantitative easing" are pretty much desperation measures since their official interest rates are all but 0 and they have nowhere else to go, our OCR is 2.5 so the reserve bank has plenty of scope for movement yet. Point 2) have you seen how ineffective those policies have been? All the US has acheived is a stock market bubble.

Money printing discourages savings which is precisely the opposite of what any economy needs.

You mean that even though those country's have AA- (Japanese being the lowest) credit ratings, their economy's are in the shit? Other than that, QE is nothing more than printing money irrespective of how you dress it. What are they printing against? govt Bonds? Yet another thing that is generated out of thin air. 1) You're right, so why are the govt borrowing if there is still room to lower the base rate and to stimulate the economy by using the money saved when the tax breaks were given? 2) I have laughed at how ineffective those policies have been, primarily because as you say, they threw the money at the wrong people (even though they did mull over the idea of a citizens dividend to shoe horn it in where it's needed).

Money printing discourage savings? No. The cost of living in the economy discourages savings. Ya know, that lower wages = less available to save paradigm. The whole reason the citizens dividend was mentioned is because you need the consumers to consume, and not save, in order to spur on economic growth. Having said that I would agree that money printing discourages wider investment.

It would have been far more interesting if I could have gotten it to fucking play...

You haven't been cleared? They must be watchin you bro.

[Brian d marge]

Having proved that you were an idiot some time ago, you don't need to constantly reiterate your stupidity - I get it.
So bearing in mind your slow-wittedness, I'll type this slowly - Go back and study the thread: What is the topic? I know that staying on topic challenges you, but work with me. Now tell me why using the un-housed in a recently earthquake hit city to prove that there's a housing shortage throughout the country is dishonest reporting.

See? Easy wasn't it?

As for your other stupidity, as an unhinged lefty you should be aware of the problem of getting prisoners to actual work (i.e. build meaningfull stuff).
It takes jobs from other workers whilst paying very low wages.
This causes the unions to get very upset.

Feel free to go off on another meaningless tangent, now....

It maybe a. But sensationalist or there maybe a hidden story behind it
But it still doesn't distract from the idea that A: they should be in at least temporary housing or at least offered housing and/ or B: we have become or are becoming a nation of "me" first
I believe ,as do others and the programme itself highlighted, is due to economic theory/conditions
Stephen

[MisterD]

1) You're right, so why are the govt borrowing if there is still room to lower the base rate and to stimulate the economy by using the money saved when the tax breaks were given?

Because the government isn't borrowing to "stimulate" the economy. It's borrowing to pay, more or less, the welfare bill, on the reasoning that the other way to pay the bills is to increase taxes and they don't want to do that because what really drives an economy is private investment.

Money printing discourage savings? No. The cost of living in the economy discourages savings. Ya know, that lower wages = less available to save paradigm.

Of course it does! Create more of anything, and it's worth less create more money and you get inflation which means it's better to spend a dollar than save it if it's going to lose value.

The whole reason the citizens dividend was mentioned is because you need the consumers to consume, and not save, in order to spur on economic growth. Having said that I would agree that money printing discourages wider investment.

Wrong, just flat wrong. Like I said up there, an economy is really driven by private investment...and where do the funds for investment come from? That's right, savings.

Don't feel bad about not understanding that, neither do Ben Bernanke or Paul Krugman.

http://mises.org/daily/5641/Its-Not-about-Consumption
http://mises.org/daily/4193/

[mashman]

Because the government isn't borrowing to "stimulate" the economy. It's borrowing to pay, more or less, the welfare bill, on the reasoning that the other way to pay the bills is to increase taxes and they don't want to do that because what really drives an economy is private investment.

Of course it does! Create more of anything, and it's worth less create more money and you get inflation which means it's better to spend a dollar than save it if it's going to lose value.

Wrong, just flat wrong. Like I said up there, an economy is really driven by private investment...and where do the funds for investment come from? That's right, savings.

Don't feel bad about not understanding that, neither do Ben Bernanke or Paul Krugman.

http://mises.org/daily/5641/Its-Not-about-Consumption
http://mises.org/daily/4193/

No doubt that's a reason for borrowing also, but the idea behind tax cuts is to put more money into the pockets of those who spend i.e. investment. In which case, why hasn't that worked if it's your be all end all answer? Having said that, more likely 100% of the beneficiary (I hate that term) will go back into the wider economy i.e. food, utility bills, rates, rent etc... still though, would it not have been cheaper for investors in NZ to invest in NZ than it would have been to borrow?

Tis only worth less when demand outstrips supply... and given that money is in short supply and demand is outstripping it, then what's the problem? They've been throwing in $85 billion per month in the US which gets sucked up instantly and does nothing. Thing is though, inflation hasn't risen either. Can you explain that?

Bullshit. An economy is driven by their being willing buyers for products that are being sold i.e. consumerism. You need the consumer or the investment goes flat on its face. Funds for investment do NOT just come from savings at all, that's just being silly. Plenty of people borrow to invest i.e. borrow funds to consume according to our wonderful economics experts.

... I thought Krugman had been having a change of heart of late?

[Brian d marge]

Point 1) what those economies are doing in respect of "quantitative easing" are pretty much desperation measures since their official interest rates are all but 0 and they have nowhere else to go, our OCR is 2.5 so the reserve bank has plenty of scope for movement yet. Point 2) have you seen how ineffective those policies have been? All the US has acheived is a stock market bubble.

Money printing discourages savings which is precisely the opposite of what any economy needs.

Saving money in a fiat money system stop or slows growth, See Japan and the measures Abe is using to speed up the money cycle

the bank need to lend it out asap ...you need to spend it asap.

Stephen

[Brian d marge]

Because the government isn't borrowing to "stimulate" the economy. It's borrowing to pay, more or less, the welfare bill, on the reasoning that the other way to pay the bills is to increase taxes and they don't want to do that because what really drives an economy is private investment.



Of course it does! Create more of anything, and it's worth less create more money and you get inflation which means it's better to spend a dollar than save it if it's going to lose value.



Wrong, just flat wrong. Like I said up there, an economy is really driven by private investment...and where do the funds for investment come from? That's right, savings.

Don't feel bad about not understanding that, neither do Ben Bernanke or Paul Krugman.

http://mises.org/daily/5641/Its-Not-about-Consumption
http://mises.org/daily/4193/

Re read that article , it says "wealth creation " which could be "savings"

yes , As I pointed out , "abe Economics " is about getting the money to flow "quickly" If you "save " that’s good the bank can lend , ( bank or financial institution ) but the money must create "capital wealth" which then drives production ( but production needs consumption)

( least that’s how I read it )

So the "more the bank lends and the more the money is used to create Capital wealth ( plant and machinery etc) the more production rises. The more production the more consumption rises and the money flows ie drives the economy

but what happens if no one is buying ? ie not spending what happens to the value of the "wealth " ??and production?? and if money is the conduit for capital transfer the more "Money " you can move the greater your accumulation of capital wealth , possibly creating a divide between those that can , and those that cant .

least that’s how I read it

As for wages , I invest money in a new plant , to make cars , I invest in robots ,,the cost of cars drop due to efficiencies but what about the worker ? retrains ?


the link needs to be thunk about more and possibly a re-reading of Hayak ( I which he could have discovered the paragraph )



Stephen

[Brian d marge]

It would have been far more interesting if I could have gotten it to fucking play...
Pity as I am quite keen to give it a watch.

shame , cos the ending with the oil and the lesbian was epic

Stephen

[mashman]

shame , cos the ending with the oil and the lesbian was epic

Stephen

I just watched that whole thing again and never saw the oil.