Cunliffe's constituent Liu?

[mada]

I'm not sure what age has to do with it.
For the record, I found the place to be nice, but hardly worth the money they were asking.
I'm not sure that 10k a night can be justified on the basis that the Queen slept there or that the fishing is good.
I went to a place in Malaysia last year where the facilities and service was as good for a fraction of the price.

I'd rather go to Matai Bay.. Good fishing, crayfish, good swimming, relaxing.

A bit pricey at $7 a night.

[mada]

Um, it's the conspiracy can't be that good if they got caught, eh?
The fact is that businesses push the line all the time when it comes to tax.
As there were no penalties involved, you could hardly say that this was criminal, rather a dispute about interpretation of the regulations .

As far as land / property prices are concerned, you have yet to prove that any bank is actively trying to create a bubble.
Like many here, you talk a good game.

That's a side issue really.

I have proven the main argument - it is not in businesses interests (especially big businesses) to support or conform to the principles of "free market" capitalism. For free market capitalism to work it requires strong government oversight (and that would require a shit load of bureaucracy) and regulation. It's not workable unless you want a massive fucking government department.

The theory that we can have minimal regulation and legislation and then TRUST businesses to do the right thing is as loony and far fetched as believing that we could have a benevolent authoritarian regime that would help everyone (communism).

[Oscar]

That's a side issue really.

I have proven the main argument - it is not in businesses interests (especially big businesses) to support or conform to the principles of "free market" capitalism. For free market capitalism to work it requires strong government oversight (and that would require a shit load of bureaucracy) and regulation. It's not workable unless you want a massive fucking government department.

The theory that we can have minimal regulation and legislation and then TRUST businesses to do the right thing is as loony and far fetched as believing that we could have a benevolent authoritarian regime that would help everyone (communism).

You proved nothing.
Show me where banks are manipulating the property market with foreclosed property.

[Oscar]

I'd rather go to Matai Bay.. Good fishing, crayfish, good swimming, relaxing.

A bit pricey at $7 a night.

To be fair, trout fishing is a bit of a bore.
Much cheaper and more fun to fish for Kahawai on light line around Kawhia or Raglan...

[MisterD]

I have proven the main argument - it is not in businesses interests (especially big businesses) to support or conform to the principles of "free market" capitalism. For free market capitalism to work it requires strong government oversight (and that would require a shit load of bureaucracy) and regulation. It's not workable unless you want a massive fucking government department.

Sort of right and sort of bollocks. It's not in the interest of big business to have a real free market, because they tend to get knee-capped by small, agile competitors. This is why they spend so much money lobbying government to create the right sort of regulated market to erect barriers to competitors entering. What we have is Crony Capitalism, and what your talking about is creating more and different cronies.

We've had a form of capitalism since the Black Death created a shortage of labour and broke the feudal system and it's been lifting more people out of poverty than anything else since then. Markets and competition are the only fair and efficient mechanisms for allocating resources and there's nothing that all the wishful thinking by all the Guardian readers in the world can do to change that.

[mada]

You proved nothing.
Show me where banks are manipulating the property market with foreclosed property.

I have provided links that support what I have said. I have provided links which call into question the credibility of the banking sector.

You have said in defence of that sector that it would never lend to people at high risk... I've demonstrated how that is a load of bullshit.

How does your blind faith in the banking sector explain these?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Un...closure_crisis

and this...

Australia's biggest four retail banks, which own New Zealand's top five banks, have a A$850 million (NZ$972 million) direct exposure to the troubled United States sub-prime mortgage market, The Australian newspaper reported today.

The Commonwealth Bank of Australia, National Australia Bank, ANZ Group and Westpac's exposure comes through investments in troubled US mortgage group Countrywide Financial. Commonwealth Bank owns ASB, National Australia owns the Bank of New Zealand, ANZ Group is the parent of both New Zealand's ANZ and National Bank and Westpac the parent of Westpac New Zealand.

The Australian banks were part of a syndicate of 40 international banks that provided Countrywide an $US11.5 billion (NZ$14.8 billion) lifeline last year.

According to The Australian, Commonwealth Bank and National Australia invested A$300 million each, while the ANZ pumped in A$150 million and Westpac $100 million.

Their exposure to the sub-prime crisis through Countrywide was confirmed by the Australian banks yesterday, the newspaper reported.

Shares in Countrywide, the US's largest independent mortgage lender, fell 17 per cent on Tuesday after speculation, which it denied, that the company would seek bankruptcy protection.

The speculation around Countrywide comes against a backdrop of defaults on sub-prime mortgages, or loans to borrowers with poor credit histories, from global banking giants such as Citigroup, UBS and HSBC so far producing about US$80 billion (NZ$104 billion) in losses on securities backed by them.

Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it is not happening.

[Brian d marge]

Watch how quickly tweedledee dismisses the evidence . . .

[Oscar]

I have provided links that support what I have said. I have provided links which call into question the credibility of the banking sector.

You have said in defence of that sector that it would never lend to people at high risk... I've demonstrated how that is a load of bullshit.

How does your blind faith in the banking sector explain these?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Un...closure_crisis

and this...



Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it is not happening.

Make up your mind, are you talking about Farmers in Northland or sub prime mortgages in the US?
Coz you're contradicting yourself again - the sub prime debacle collapse caused property values to fall.

It also doesn't surprise me that some Aussie banks were exposed to the crisis, but the figure you give is much lower than I would have expected (and not a lot of money compared to the asset base of those banks). Your quote is also five years old.


And speaking of bullshit, where did I say that Bank's "never lend to people at high risk"?
I just explained what would happen in the case of delinquent lending and that it was contrary to 1) your theory about property value manipulation and 2) the bank’s profitability.

You seem to be working on the basis that anything bad about banks anywhere in the world proves your theory about banks manipulating the property market. This is propaganda at its most basic and childish. Read what YOU wrote again and back it up with something relevant facts.

[Oscar]

Watch how quickly tweedledee dismisses the evidence . . .

Why must you continue to prove that you are a complete moron?
I came to that conclusion some time ago.


His "evidence" has nothing to do with his claims about market fixing (in fact it proves him wrong).

[Brian d marge]

Why must you continue to prove that you are a complete moron?
I came to that conclusion some time ago.


His "evidence" has nothing to do with his claims about market fixing (in fact it proves him wrong).

yes , the subprime scandal was perfectly normal banking procedure

as was the libor scandal .... but what would Andrew lo from MIT know .......

This dwarfs by orders of magnitude any financial scam in the history of markets.^[1][2]

“
”

Andrew Lo, MITProfessor of Finance

He must me a moron like my good self ....that would explain it

Stephen

[mashman]

Sort of right and sort of bollocks. It's not in the interest of big business to have a real free market, because they tend to get knee-capped by small, agile competitors. This is why they spend so much money lobbying government to create the right sort of regulated market to erect barriers to competitors entering. What we have is Crony Capitalism, and what your talking about is creating more and different cronies.

We've had a form of capitalism since the Black Death created a shortage of labour and broke the feudal system and it's been lifting more people out of poverty than anything else since then. Markets and competition are the only fair and efficient mechanisms for allocating resources and there's nothing that all the wishful thinking by all the Guardian readers in the world can do to change that.

crony capitalism was invented on exactly the same day interest was. It's ancient. Agile competitors can be bought or removed. It's that easy to a committed businessman. Would I kill to protect my market if I believed that I was untouchable. You fuckin betcha. However I may try lobbying first instead of feeding the fished. Either way, that's one thing that I am capable of, but choose not to indulge in for the simple reason that I understand the damage such an attitude would have on the general populous. There are people who choose to indulge in that behaviour and they're not stupid by any stretch of the imagination... in fact, I bet the odd one or two own a country or two. They have always existed and the financial system and the associated power belongs to them. True on the just creating more cronies thing though.

Markets, yes, competition, not so much... a fair an efficient mechanism would be no need to value the item in the first place. Cooperation and doing things for a reason with the resources that are available is where it's at baby. If the power spender is a cunt, then competition will be removed etc... see above for further details.

A bit dark and sinister you might think, your choice, but given the shit that goes on on this planet, my money is on it being even darker and more sinister than it can be made. Especially when it comes to manipulating the masses into being good consumers.

[Oscar]

yes , the subprime scandal was perfectly normal banking procedure

as was the libor scandal .... but what would Andrew lo from MIT know .......

This dwarfs by orders of magnitude any financial scam in the history of markets.^[1][2]

“
”

Andrew Lo, MITProfessor of Finance

He must me a moron like my good self ....that would explain it

Stephen

What the fuck are you on about?
I never said that the sub prime problem was normal banking procedure and I never mentioned Libor.

How does what you've posted now prove the theory that banks use foreclosure to manipulate the property market?
I doubt he's a moron, but I also doubt that he would connect the two subjects either.

[mada]

What the fuck are you on about?
I never said that the sub prime problem was normal banking procedure and I never mentioned Libor.

How does what you've posted now prove the theory that banks use foreclosure to manipulate the property market?
I doubt he's a moron, but I also doubt that he would connect the two subjects either.

That's interesting, as I have worked for a bank and a couple of finance companies and bad loans were considered very bad form, bad for business and likely to get you called into the bosses office. Make a habit of it and it was usually reflected in the compensation of whomever signed the loan off. If what you are saying was true, Banks would encourage their staff to be reckless lenders when the opposite is true - bad debtors look very bad on the balance sheet and make shareholders grumpy.

Memory lapse? Do you vote for John Key? Would make sense if you did...

[MisterD]

Markets, yes, competition, not so much... a fair an efficient mechanism would be no need to value the item in the first place. Cooperation and doing things for a reason with the resources that are available is where it's at baby. If the power spender is a cunt, then competition will be removed etc... see above for further details.

A bit dark and sinister you might think, your choice, but given the shit that goes on on this planet, my money is on it being even darker and more sinister than it can be made. Especially when it comes to manipulating the masses into being good consumers.

You're tying yourself up in (il)logical knots again. The only way to allocate resources fairly is by attaching a price to them, so that those who value them most get to use them. Yes, human nature is such that some people will always try to bend the rules to their own advantage, but that same argument works just as well against your rose-tinted "cooperation baby" ideal, and if you set out to eliminate the bastard "big" businessman, all you'll create are bastard exploitative politicians. You only have to look at the way Green politicians rail against the power of the state, and GCSB surveillance and then next minute turn around and want to send a Gunboat to confront Japanese Whalers, to see that.

[Brian d marge]

He has selective memory then when challenged nitpicks his way out

One good thing is that he is a minority