Cunliffe's constituent Liu?

[Ocean1]

Statisticians must have a bizarre theoretical equation that inputs garbage and outputs bullshit that smells sweet to a politician.

In one of his less well known works Douglas Adams had one of his characters, (a statistician / nerd) invent a special computer. You gave it the answer you wanted and it formulated the question required to achieve it. The character sold it unfinished to some fuzzy entity associated with the pentagon.

Years later he noticed some mathematically familiar features in some of the whitehouse’s press releases…

[Brian d marge]

Point five is especially valid for a few on here

Stephen

[mashman]

Not answering the question is one thing, but saying you did just makes you look stupid.
You like to wank on about concepts like child poverty or income equality, but when asked to define terms, you show your ignorance.

You not understanding it where others do makes you look stupider.
The answer was "It's way more than a definition son."... like I said, you're not thinking and have continued not to do so and calling me ignorant on that basis is highly amusing.

[mashman]

A Warden?
At best, you are an interesting oddity.
At worst a strident wacko.
You are a classic character from literature, the insane inmate who thinks he runs the asylum. “El Supremo” from C S Forester comes to mind.

Yup, you betcha.
I don't think I run the asylum... so yet again, you're making shit up.

[mashman]

Ah, no. Whining fuckwits come from fuckwits whining, nothing to do with thinking.

And as the rest of your post is at least as full of shit I'll not bother with it.

You said it.

Thanks for illustrating your point. Damned good of you to make a contradictory arse out of yourself for my entertainment.

[Ocean1]

Point five is especially valid for a few on here

Stephen

Have you read the book?

[Oscar]

You not understanding it where others do makes you look stupider.
The answer was "It's way more than a definition son."... like I said, you're not thinking and have continued not to do so and calling me ignorant on that basis is highly amusing.

So you whine about a problem which you won't/can't define?
You are a looney.

[Brian d marge]

Have you read the book?

No but I would like to ....

I knew about the yaka,,,and how they removed the trees Easter Island I didnt know about ,,,,

So its on my reading list

Stephen

[mashman]

So you whine about a problem which you won't/can't define?
You are a looney.

In other words you're too lazy to want to try to understand. That's ok by me... but the lack of ability to think about it is your issue, not mine.

[Oscar]

In other words you're too lazy to want to try to understand. That's ok by me... but the lack of ability to think about it is your issue, not mine.

You posted on on low incomes in NZ.
I asked you if you even knew what the definition of "low income" was.

You have so far refused to answer, which kinda makes you look like someone who posts stuff they don't understand.
Your lack of ability to think deeply about an issue has become clear.

[mashman]

You posted on on low incomes in NZ.
I asked you if you even knew what the definition of "low income" was.

You have so far refused to answer, which kinda makes you look like someone who posts stuff they don't understand.
Your lack of ability to think deeply about an issue has become clear.

in which case, you did not accept the answer, which I have re-quoted again and again, of "It's way more than a definition son".

So I have answered the question and as mentioned earlier, you either don't like the answer or can't understand it. In either case that lack of understanding is not mine and is entirely of your own making.
My lack of want to give you an answer in even further detail than I already have and you not having grasped that answer on numerous occasions does not highlight my lack of ability. Your denial only serves to prove that you are incapable of accepting an answer that someone else has given... and not only that, you believe that that's my issue. Are you one of them speshul kids?

[Oscar]

in which case, you did not accept the answer, which I have re-quoted again and again, of "It's way more than a definition son".

That is not an answer, it's an evasion.
Like in - if it's way more than a definition, what is it then?
Like in - if it's way more than a definition, why are you posting stuff that uses that definition.

As I noted some time ago - you got nuthin'.

[Ocean1]

Yes thats true since 1990 but it was much better before

Telling u that the neocon economics have just transfered wealth to a few

Which is what people are trying to

A . Point out to u
B . Trying to stop

Stephen

Yeah?

Is that like the huge historic house price increases?

Show me historic data for consumption in NZ since "before".

[Banditbandit]

Consumption ???

Just go here and look at the OECD stats for Godzone ...

http://www.oecd.org/social/soc/41527985.pdf

Sure, it's dropped recently ... but it grew tremendously from the mid-1985s up to 2000, under neo-con economics ...

Rich people got richer and poor people got poorer ..

[mashman]

That is not an answer, it's an evasion.
Like in - if it's way more than a definition, what is it then?
Like in - if it's way more than a definition, why are you posting stuff that uses that definition.

As I noted some time ago - you got nuthin'.

I say it's an answer.
Someone's daily life.
It's not a definition.

No, you've got nuthin'. Else you wouldn't be asking for definitions.