Nigel Latta's new series

[Tazz]

http://www.theonion.com/articles/scientists-rich-people-poor-people-may-have-shared,36547/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=LinkPreview:2efault

[pritch]

Yeh I agree with you:

the head of Treasury is not really an expert in his field and his comments that inequality is not good and worse than before, and that GDP is not the best measure of how well our country is doing are completely groundless. What would he know?

Well Treasury don't actually have a very good record as to the accuracy of their predictions. Alhough I guess we mainly read about it when they get them wrong - again. Although there was a fairly recent instance of concern about them withholding information from government ministers, they were suspected of offering only the alternatives favoured by Treasury officials.

There was an interview with the head of Treasury some years ago. At the time it was the public perception that nobody in Treasury had ever held a "real" job. Their staff going straight from university to Treasury. He was asked if that was true, he replied, "No". He was then asked how many of the economists at Treasury had held a job outside of Treasury, and the answer was, "One".

These were the guys who were advocating doing away with all subsidies, that we should all bear the pain because we would ultimately gain. The same guys who, at the same time, could buy a multiple course lunch in their canteen on the Terrace for $5.00.

Other economists, just as qualified and possibly more experienced, apparently feel free to criticize Treasury. Now perhaps psychologists feel the same?

[mada]

Well Treasury don't actually have a very good record as to the accuracy of their predictions. Alhough I guess we mainly read about it when they get them wrong - again. Although there was a fairly recent instance of concern about them withholding information from government ministers, they were suspected of offering only the alternatives favoured by Treasury officials.

There was an interview with the head of Treasury some years ago. At the time it was the public perception that nobody in Treasury had ever held a "real" job. Their staff going straight from university to Treasury. He was asked if that was true, he replied, "No". He was then asked how many of the economists at Treasury had held a job outside of Treasury, and the answer was, "One".

These were the guys who were advocating doing away with all subsidies, that we should all bear the pain because we would ultimately gain. The same guys who, at the same time, could buy a multiple course lunch in their canteen on the Terrace for $5.00.

Other economists, just as qualified and possibly more experienced, apparently feel free to criticize Treasury. Now perhaps psychologists feel the same?

Ok so what I understand from this then.....

You can only trust someone if they are experienced in their field, but if they are experienced in their field you can only trust them if they are experienced outside their field, but if both - then you still can't trust them.

So in summary trust no one. But instead of shooting and debating the message, shoot the messenger.

Seems like a legit form of debating.

[Voltaire]

That's a great story that is overwhelmingly common and similar to many other peoples family stories from the past. The other common one is the overnight property millionaires, who hedged their bets in the early 2000s on the property market through loans and are now freehold thanks to their renters.

.

Probably the same ones who lost money in the 78 stockmarket pyramid games and decided never to gamble again.
Yes you can make a lot of money by leverage, tax deductions and renters, they just pay the mortgage off and you don't have to do a thing
Still houses might be dear, but consumer electronics, cars travel are way cheaper and you can download all the movies and music you want ( legally of course)

[buggerit]

Anyone with enough of the right information can be an expert. What you're an expert in is more or less defined by the information you have, and if this particular expert had a different set of information he'd have probably had a different conclusion.

The generally accepted theories that income inequality is firstly a worthwhile measure of the justice inherent in a society and secondly that the income gap is becoming wider aren't actually correct. You have to select your data very carefully to produce information that goes even part way to demonstrating either of those theories. No surprise that the more socialist elements of the world have been quite careful, they've also been very busy publishing the fuck out of their theories.

Whereas the real truth is that equality of personal income will be "just" when there's equality of personal production, and not until. And the real fact is that global income equality is moving in the opposite direction to that claimed by these fuckwits: it's converging.

The vast majority of people on this planet have never had it so good. A theory supported by most experts who've got no particular axe to grind. But, y'know, now that you're all worked up about it don't let the facts slow you down any.

Wellington is City, not a planet, you should try earning a living outside it sometime

[pritch]

Ok so what I understand from this then.....

You can only trust someone if they are experienced in their field, but if they are experienced in their field you can only trust them if they are experienced outside their field, but if both - then you still can't trust them.

So in summary trust no one. But instead of shooting and debating the message, shoot the messenger.

Seems like a legit form of debating.

Don't see how you gat that out of what I wrote, but hey go for it. This is KB, reading and comprehension skills are optional.

[mada]

Probably the same ones who lost money in the 78 stockmarket pyramid games and decided never to gamble again.
Yes you can make a lot of money by leverage, tax deductions and renters, they just pay the mortgage off and you don't have to do a thing
Still houses might be dear, but consumer electronics, cars travel are way cheaper and you can download all the movies and music you want ( legally of course)

I saw many of my own family members get rich that way, borrow and buy up large - doing the DIY work themselves, then using the rents to become mortgage free while also making capital gains. Sure it involved them working doing repairs, maintenance etc, but on a wider scale it was not ECONOMICALLY PRODUCTIVE for the country or society or the communities as a whole where they invested. And where's most of the money? Sitting in the bank, now gaining interest off those trying to climb on the ladder...

The last sentence makes me think you've forgetten priorities. Usually what comes first is having a roof over ones head/ an income, doing everything to sustain the first two, then food, and then anything else. Consumer electronics and movies have absolutely fuck all relevance to anything when the cost of the a roof over ones head is so much and families barely have enough to feed their children, and are so desperate they have to borrow from loansharks to pay for a car to get fixed for WOF simply so they can continue to get to their work. When one of life's problems comes up such as a family funeral etc. there simply is no extra cash for it.

What you would do if it was you?

If you were on minimum wage and only just managing to pay off the bills (RENT, PETROL, minimal shit food) and were living in Wellington and one of your sons passed away in Auckland, but you could not afford to take time off work nor the travel costs to see him, what would you do? Skip the rent? Borrow from a loan shark? Skip the funeral???????

[willytheekid]

Ok so what I understand from this then.....

You can only trust someone if they are experienced in their field, but if they are experienced in their field you can only trust them if they are experienced outside their field, but if both - then you still can't trust them.

So in summary trust no one. But instead of shooting and debating the message, shoot the messenger.

Seems like a legit form of debating.

...Annnd back to rocking slowly in the corner for me! (My head...you brokes it!)

[scrivy]

What you would do if it was you?

I would want the stupid fucken government to build a 3.1 Billion dollar highway.......

Were all doomed 'cause of those coonts in power.....

[mada]

Don't see how you gat that out of what I wrote, but hey go for it. This is KB, reading and comprehension skills are optional.

I get what you're saying that sometimes Treasury is full of shit with their predictions and I agree. They have had their biases (mostly towards further de-regulation, privatisation, free market etc) and at times own agenda. However for most of their work they have been pretty impartial and straight up. Political parties left and right attack them on this basis because they are not consistent with National and Labour policies.

First poster was saying docomaker was not an expert so the doco is full of shit. When clearly the docomaker has tried to make a balanced doco including a more impartial/ and a potentially right swinging authority - such as treasury in the doco.

There really is no other party who would be better to include and is an expert in terms of NZ's experience when it comes to discussing GDP, inequality, and potential causes. Unless ofcourse people think we can trust chief economists from the Aussie banks or political hacks from NatLabs to give us their rose-tinted opinion?

[James Deuce]

Ocean is absolutely right. The effects of reducing wages and job opportunities in Western economies is offset by massive increases in living standards for people who a generation ago were living in a dump with no electricity or access to first-hand food or water. We don't get to see that. The convergence in living standards will mean a reduction in living standards for a minority, of which even the poorest in NZ are a member of. We are, each of us, stupendously rich compared to most of the world's population.

In regard to the "experten" discussion though, there are no expert economists. Economics is as far from a science as Morris Dancing is from Orbital Mechanics, though Morris Dancing can be explained by mechanical engineering, rotational inertia, and a positive attitude, therefore making it more scientific than Economics as well as more relavant to a generally happy life.

[oldrider]

Well Treasury don't actually have a very good record as to the accuracy of their predictions. Alhough I guess we mainly read about it when they get them wrong - again. Although there was a fairly recent instance of concern about them withholding information from government ministers, they were suspected of offering only the alternatives favoured by Treasury officials.

There was an interview with the head of Treasury some years ago. At the time it was the public perception that nobody in Treasury had ever held a "real" job. Their staff going straight from university to Treasury. He was asked if that was true, he replied, "No". He was then asked how many of the economists at Treasury had held a job outside of Treasury, and the answer was, "One".

These were the guys who were advocating doing away with all subsidies, that we should all bear the pain because we would ultimately gain. The same guys who, at the same time, could buy a multiple course lunch in their canteen on the Terrace for $5.00.

Other economists, just as qualified and possibly more experienced, apparently feel free to criticize Treasury. Now perhaps psychologists feel the same?

Treasury were the brains behind "Rogernomics" ... Rodger and his cronies were just puppets and it was Muldoon who gave them the opportunity and the reason!

We should pay more attention to departments like treasury etc! ... "Yes minister" we elect numbskulls and they turn to their advisors ... who actually run the country!

Ultimately we get the governments that we deserve!

[Ocean1]

Fuck me what a bunch of whiny arsed bastards. If you spent as much effort actually producing shit as you do bleating about how unfair it is that you don't have a new iphone you might actually notice some improvement.

Excuses don't cut it. Never have.

[Hitcher]

Who is Nigel Latta?

[MisterD]

Who is Nigel Latta?

A man with many very fine and commonsensible things to say about the art and science of bringing up children.