Govt 'covering up' school funding plan

[mashman]

Money creation is managed independently from gdp increasing, how can you not get that yet?

You can pay off debt, but charging 1million bucks for a hammer devalues the currency so we owe a thousand timez more of our own dollars.

I don't mean exact numbers, just a generalised example. Unit prices of 1 per hour of labour and 1mil for a hammer would result in a huge benefit to those with an extra hammer, and pretty big problem for those who need one. Or if that is export prices, we'll be undercut by chinese hammers and sell none, while being tasked with a massive amount of labour export, forcing everyone to work their asses off just to keep up interest payment on our debt.

I don't remember saying that they went hand in hand, but you certainly need money to increase GDP. You still have to pay for those goods and services and you may have noticed that there isn't an awful lot of spare cash around at the moment.

I have $1 million in "my" bank account of Banco el NZo. I buy a hammer. The hammer was made locally. The hammer will be used locally. How does that devalue the currency?

Consider the hammer as a limited special edition hammer then, it was crafted by someone who has died and was that absolute best at making hammers. It is nothing more than a product to put a financial value against in order to lower the cost of labor. The sum total of GDP/GNP/whatever measure will remain the same irrespective. It's not for export. What debt are we taking on? We're going to be using every cent that is available in NZ. Sigh, still thinking in terms of what currently is eh. The country will own the hammer i.e. everyone as we will all have paid for it, even if it did come off of "my" account. It is a token and other hammers will be available at a lower price, or not depending on what is decided.

[bogan]

I don't remember saying that they went hand in hand, but you certainly need money to increase GDP. You still have to pay for those goods and services and you may have noticed that there isn't an awful lot of spare cash around at the moment.

I have $1 million in "my" bank account of Banco el NZo. I buy a hammer. The hammer was made locally. The hammer will be used locally. How does that devalue the currency?

Consider the hammer as a limited special edition hammer then, it was crafted by someone who has died and was that absolute best at making hammers. It is nothing more than a product to put a financial value against in order to lower the cost of labor. The sum total of GDP/GNP/whatever measure will remain the same irrespective. It's not for export. What debt are we taking on? We're going to be using every cent that is available in NZ. Sigh, still thinking in terms of what currently is eh. The country will own the hammer i.e. everyone as we will all have paid for it, even if it did come off of "my" account. It is a token and other hammers will be available at a lower price, or not depending on what is decided.

No, you don't, you can use the same money but just spent more often, you know one metric of gdp is the value of produced goods right? Money printing doesn't come into that at all does it.

If it is only sold locally then it is entirely irrelevant to paying off the nation's debt. The last paragraph is likewise off track, how do your million dollar hammers pay off the debt we owe other countries? Simple example please, cost to make, sell price, who buys it, net gain for country, international wealth increase...etc

[swbarnett]

Where do you get wasting resources from?

By giving teaching time to the brighter end that they don't need.

Bullshit, why do the low achievers NEED more attention than the high achievers?

To produce an educated population, one where the average Joe is equipped with at least a modicum of critical thinking, those at the bottom of the intelectual pile need more help to reach this level

The fact that high performers exceed the required standards with minimal attention doesn't mean they should be deprived of their share of resources.

A student that is bright and motivated simply doesn't need as much attention lathered on them. Some are perfectly capable of reaching their potential from the right text book and a minimum of guidance. Anything more is wasted.

And if you visited your library a bit more you might be more aware that our civilisation wasn't made by people who struggle to meet minimum standards, it was made and continues to be made by extreme high performers with little to no input from the vast majority who like to think they deserve the resulting lifestyle. Go look, you'll find very few historical references about Joe average and his amazing invention having made life so much better.

Of this I am well aware. However, without all the average Joes the "extreme high performers" would lack the infrastructure they require to perform such feats

Challenge the high performers and then teach them they can meet that challenge, it'll benefit the low performers far more than any remedial efforts you think will make education "fairer". There'd be far less likelihood of civilisation falling to start with.

This makes me think of the economic trickle down theory. It simply doesn't work. You're advcating a widening of the intellectual divide. I, for one, don't want to live in a society with a small intellectual elite that have risen to that position by treading on those less fortunate.

[avgas]

WOW. Do they know they can get free money on the dole and spend all day doing what they want?

Depends on your circumstance, if you're honest and have life savings in a standard bank account (because your too poor to buy a house yet).......when you're out of work - you're fucked.

I certainly was a few years back. So people on the dole seem to be a combination of either poor/stupid and/or cunning fucking liars.

I like to think most of NZ isn't stupid. Which means there are a whole lot of liars who could be collecting rubbish.

[MSTRS:Me]

Ok, so say that happens and the lazy bastards pulls finger and is up to the level of others because he was disgruntled at being left behind as he wasn;t rewarded. At that point you're happy for none one of them to ever be rewarded again?
We're not ants or grasshoppers.

Lazy bastards won't, which is the point. They are grasshoppers, expecting the hardworking ants to support them.

By giving teaching time to the brighter end that they don't need.


To produce an educated population, one where the average Joe is equipped with at least a modicum of critical thinking, those at the bottom of the intelectual pile need more help to reach this level


A student that is bright and motivated simply doesn't need as much attention lathered on them. Some are perfectly capable of reaching their potential from the right text book and a minimum of guidance. Anything more is wasted.

What a load of tripe.
I had a book-worth of responses to your post, but they all boil down to that...what a load of tripe.

[mashman]

No, you don't, you can use the same money but just spent more often, you know one metric of gdp is the value of produced goods right? Money printing doesn't come into that at all does it.

If it is only sold locally then it is entirely irrelevant to paying off the nation's debt. The last paragraph is likewise off track, how do your million dollar hammers pay off the debt we owe other countries? Simple example please, cost to make, sell price, who buys it, net gain for country, international wealth increase...etc

Yes, you have mentioned that earlier, yet these products that you're wanting to buy need to be made, it all takes money and if the current crop of bollocks is anything to go by, then we need to create money to facilitate your money velocity. If you are talking theoretically? in that we could use what we have we just need to turbo charge it? If so, I agree and that is part of my point. Your economy. You do wotcha like with what you have available, you merely need consent.

Jackson Pollock. $55 million for a painting that likely cost $50 to make. The money is spent and enters the system to go towards paying for other goods and services etc... therefore adding to GDP (or whatever other measure you care to use as proof that your economy has "earned" what it states), therefore "increasing" the revenue of the country, therefore enabling us to pay off debt.

[mashman]

Depends on your circumstance, if you're honest and have life savings in a standard bank account (because your too poor to buy a house yet).......when you're out of work - you're fucked.

I certainly was a few years back. So people on the dole seem to be a combination of either poor/stupid and/or cunning fucking liars.

I like to think most of NZ isn't stupid. Which means there are a whole lot of liars who could be collecting rubbish.

I know, I've been there too. Funnily enough I went to the bank to ask for a mortgage holiday whilst we tightened out belts until I could find work again. They told me to fill up my credit card first .

I'd like to think of them as poor, but smart enough to get money from other sources. Unfortunately they may be dishonest ones, but hey, for that I blame, yes blame, blame blame blame the system.

Lazy bastards won't, which is the point. They are grasshoppers, expecting the hardworking ants to support them.

They won't? Of course they will, you merely need to find the right button to push... which could be as simple as having a conversation about it. Dunno about them being grasshoppers because I honestly don't think they give a shit or have considered that they are being carried. Coz if that was the case they'd have become the manager.

[Ocean1]

This makes me think of the economic trickle down theory. It simply doesn't work. You're advcating a widening of the intellectual divide. I, for one, don't want to live in a society with a small intellectual elite that have risen to that position by treading on those less fortunate.

So the fact that a minority produce more than their share and that their extra production supports those who produce less is a theory? And it's wrong? See, this is why academics should never be allowed to vote. Allong with anyone else divorced from direct contact with the consequences of poor performance.

And I'm not advocating any intelectual divide, I'm simply pointing out that it exists, and that no quantity of "trickledown" is ever going to change that. And far from treading on any less "fortunate" that "elite" have been systematically stripped of their share of resources by the less "fortunate" most of their lives, and yet they're the reason this society exists and continues to exist.

Seriously, how can you be aware of the immense debt society owes overachievers and yet claim that a burgeoning class of underachievers have a right to a larger slice of the resources they made available? Can you not see that based on historical evidence fostering extremely cleaver people would benefit those underachievers far more than any demonstrably ineffective reallocation of resources?

That attitude and it’s associated element of entitlement is what drives NZ’s perennial and ugly tall poppy syndrome.

[bogan]

Yes, you have mentioned that earlier, yet these products that you're wanting to buy need to be made, it all takes money and if the current crop of bollocks is anything to go by, then we need to create money to facilitate your money velocity. If you are talking theoretically? in that we could use what we have we just need to turbo charge it? If so, I agree and that is part of my point. Your economy. You do wotcha like with what you have available, you merely need consent.

Jackson Pollock. $55 million for a painting that likely cost $50 to make. The money is spent and enters the system to go towards paying for other goods and services etc... therefore adding to GDP (or whatever other measure you care to use as proof that your economy has "earned" what it states), therefore "increasing" the revenue of the country, therefore enabling us to pay off debt.

You don't need to create money to facilitate money velocity, by definition money velocity is the speed at which is changes hands, not the total amount in circulation. There is just no link between money laundering and the value of product a country produces.

Excellent, needs a bit more info still though. Who buys it? is it sold locally or exported? Who owned it? the country, or an individual; if it is the latter how does that money make its way to a debt payment?

[mashman]

You don't need to create money to facilitate money velocity, by definition money velocity is the speed at which is changes hands, not the total amount in circulation. There is just no link between money laundering and the value of product a country produces.

Excellent, needs a bit more info still though. Who buys it? is it sold locally or exported? Who owned it? the country, or an individual; if it is the latter how does that money make its way to a debt payment?

The where does the money come from? I never said that there was a link between money laundering and the value of a product, merely that the money creation process is money laundering. You don't like that, no problem, I'll try not to bring it up again... oh, I haven't been. When you take a measure, money velocity is insignificant because you are measuring that value at that point in time and to all intents and purposes money isn't moving.

It stays local and is owned by everyone through Banco el NZo... although there may well be some mad arse wants to buy a special edition Jackson Pollock hammer for a million bucks, in which case it's an extra million bucks for Banco el NZo and by extension our economy. If that $1 million screws with our metrics and the final measure in a way that is too positive, then offset it against anything, debt maybe. Either way whether local or not, you will be able to offset the $1 million hammer to fit the measure(s) and Banco el NZo gets the proceeds to spend on debt or blah blah blah. Banco el NZo is every single cent of every NZer in an account in their name. Tis the same as minting a $1 trillion platinum coin and paying off a chunk of debt (as Obama was considering). If it is accepted, then it can be.

[bogan]

The where does the money come from? I never said that there was a link between money laundering and the value of a product, merely that the money creation process is money laundering. You don't like that, no problem, I'll try not to bring it up again... oh, I haven't been. When you take a measure, money velocity is insignificant because you are measuring that value at that point in time and to all intents and purposes money isn't moving.

It stays local and is owned by everyone through Banco el NZo... although there may well be some mad arse wants to buy a special edition Jackson Pollock hammer for a million bucks, in which case it's an extra million bucks for Banco el NZo and by extension our economy. If that $1 million screws with our metrics and the final measure in a way that is too positive, then offset it against anything, debt maybe. Either way whether local or not, you will be able to offset the $1 million hammer to fit the measure(s) and Banco el NZo gets the proceeds to spend on debt or blah blah blah. Banco el NZo is every single cent of every NZer in an account in their name. Tis the same as minting a $1 trillion platinum coin and paying off a chunk of debt (as Obama was considering). If it is accepted, then it can be.

The money doesn't come from anywhere, it is the same money just moving more often. Money velocity is not insignificant, if 1k of money changes hands 8x in a year (in exchange for product), that is 8k of gdp, if it changes 9x, then that is a 1k gdp increase. That is why increasing GDP doesn't mean you have to print more money.

So, it's just printing money, as I said before? That devalues the currency (as I also said before).

[mashman]

The money doesn't come from anywhere, it is the same money just moving more often. Money velocity is not insignificant, if 1k of money changes hands 8x in a year (in exchange for product), that is 8k of gdp, if it changes 9x, then that is a 1k gdp increase. That is why increasing GDP doesn't mean you have to print more money.

So, it's just printing money, as I said before? That devalues the currency (as I also said before).

The money has to come from somewhere. Yes it can come from the existing pool of NZers, but you would then require everyone to be investing (i.e. buying the stuff that is produced). Something that will not happen under the current financial system. In which case you're gonna need new money or you're going to have to change how your financial system works.

in many ways, yes. But it's a hammer, not money that you're printing so there is no interest being created, there is no debt being taken on, there is no asset being pulled out of the ether to value it against. However that is dependent on how you structure your financial system.

IF velocity of money is enough, and IF we can get everyone to agree that your AI computers will shift money around for us, then in theory you can manage your GDP/whatever measures to give the result expected. Human beings need only carry on as normal... and with any forethought the country could then move in just about any direction you like given that money won't be a limiting factor.

[swbarnett]

What a load of tripe.
I had a book-worth of responses to your post, but they all boil down to that...what a load of tripe.

I could say the same. You seem to me to be spouting elitist rhetoric and don't really care about those that don't find academia as easy as some.

This, more than anything else will be our economic downfall.

[swbarnett]

Seriously, how can you be aware of the immense debt society owes overachievers and yet claim that a burgeoning class of underachievers have a right to a larger slice of the resources they made available? Can you not see that based on historical evidence fostering extremely cleaver people would benefit those underachievers far more than any demonstrably ineffective reallocation of resources?

Those "over achievers" also owe an immense debt to the rest of society for supporting them. What I'm advocating is simply a more equitable allocation of limited resources so that we have not only more over achievers but more achievers and fewer deadbeats. Investing in the lower end will mean that they contribute more in the long run.

Also, the over achievers may have created the technology necessary to make more resources available but without the masses that to operate that technology it's worthless. Where would a cleaning company be without it's cleaners?

That attitude and it’s associated element of entitlement is what drives NZ’s perennial and ugly tall poppy syndrome.

I hate the tall poppy syndrome as much as anyone. What I don't like is those at the top of society completely ignoring the needs of those at the bottom. This disdain for the masses has led to more than one revolution and it is set to do the same again if we're not carefull.

[bogan]

The money has to come from somewhere. Yes it can come from the existing pool of NZers, but you would then require everyone to be investing (i.e. buying the stuff that is produced). Something that will not happen under the current financial system. In which case you're gonna need new money or you're going to have to change how your financial system works.

in many ways, yes. But it's a hammer, not money that you're printing so there is no interest being created, there is no debt being taken on, there is no asset being pulled out of the ether to value it against. However that is dependent on how you structure your financial system.

IF velocity of money is enough, and IF we can get everyone to agree that your AI computers will shift money around for us, then in theory you can manage your GDP/whatever measures to give the result expected. Human beings need only carry on as normal... and with any forethought the country could then move in just about any direction you like given that money won't be a limiting factor.

Why won't it happen? it has been happening for quite a while now, the new money I get to buy more things is what I earn, the govt doesn't print it for me. As the cost of living goes down, my expendible income goes up, so I spend more on products, and others spend more on mine, thus increasing GDP with no need to print money.

So, your million dollar hammer is just an excuse to print more money, this devalues the overall currency against our debt; any debt that is paid off is done so by taking value from all stored liquid assets, it's a robin hood type move (but against the middle class). This is why million dollar hammers/money printing is a shit idea. Also, how can you be saying money printing is a great idea under your system, but illegal under the financial system, seems like a double standard?

GDP is gross domestic product, it is the value of what is produced, the only way to manage it is to manage the production; rampant inflation as you are advocating allows us to manage the numerical value of it to whatever we want (to the detriment of economic stability), but the real world value (and its value against other currency) can only change based on production changes. So without production changes our debt cannot be changed. Without production changes our relative (to other countries) GDP cannot be changed.