Oh buggggggggggggggggggar

[Oscar]

Neither do i consider you a greedy capitalist, but would you expect the goverment and the tax payer to bail you out if it went pear shaped? I expect not.
So why should the National government bail out private investment institutions, they (the right) always said they were not the nanny state.
It is an odd turn of events and a fundamental reversal of free market policy.

You missed the obvious reason.
Being as how all are big banks are Aussie, the Australian Govt. effectively g'teed the NZ banking system during the GFC.
This left the NZ Govt with little choice but to follow on with the same system, otherwise our smaller locally owned institutions could be very vunerable.

Also the use of the term "bail out" is disengenous, as it infers that there was no cost to the Finance Company or Bank.

[Blackbird]

Neither do i consider you a greedy capitalist, but would you expect the goverment and the tax payer to bail you out if it went pear shaped? I expect not.
So why should the National government bail out private investment institutions, they (the right) always said they were not the nanny state.
It is an odd turn of events and a fundamental reversal of free market policy.

Yep, I don't disagree with your overall sentiments at all. I'm not an economist but in the past when substantial institutions like Air NZ and BNZ were in financial strife, I can see that letting them go under may well have caused a hell of a knock-on to NZ which wouldn't be in anyone's best interests. Besides, the govt were substantial stake holders. However, there has to be a point where you don't bail out institutions who are failing. I guess that will depend on the impact on our country and whether it's their own fault or circumstances beyond their control.

[mstriumph]

fuckin hypocrite......you don't contribute anything to NZ pensioners or superannuation and plan to retire here. As I said, your opinion is meaningless.
sad bitch

leaving aside your seeming inability to comprehend basic English and your lamentable regression to misogyny (last resort of a bloke that's run out of logical argument, I find?) ... how TEMPTING it would be, how DELIGHTFUL, to return home when the time comes to retire, draw a pension and chuckle at the thought that it's muppets like you paying for it

I'll be sure to let you know when it happens so you can share my enjoyment of the situation.

[mstriumph]

Did more than 75% of people vote this time? I read 2.1M - but have no idea what the voting population is there anymore.


Hmmmm I guess not - that is 100,000 less than last election. So unless the population decreased in the same amount since 2011 it's a a pretty worrying trend.

2011 - 74.2% turnout @ 2.2M / 3M

2013 - 70% turnout @ 2.1M / 3M* (assuming voting population is the same).

Whats the bet there will be $2M voting in 2016?

Will 50% of people not give a fuck / dislike the system by 2024?

We have a problem NZ - when do we want to acknowledge it?

run for office ... that's the most sensible analysis yet?

[Oscar]

run for office ... that's the most sensible analysis yet?

Yes, he'd make a good Politican, most of his figures were wrong.

The voter turnout was roughly 2.4m, or 77.04% (which is slightly better than 2011, at 74.2%).

[sidecar bob]

So what youre saying is this business doesnt actually offer any wanted service but insteed relies on handouts by form of forced inspections, so a leech

You really are quite anxious about something arent you.
The industry is licenced to offer a service in line with Government policy, that policy has now changed & staffing levels have been ajusted accordingly.
Nobody is getting a hand out or a hand up & the line of business would still be extremely viable in the complete absence of any direct wof work.
The business also pays PAYE & GST on the services it performs on behalf of the Government.
You really need to get help for your negativity, I gaurantee you that it is making your life far more of a misery than the people you are attempting to make it stick to.

[skippa1]

leaving aside your seeming inability to comprehend basic English and your lamentable regression to misogyny (last resort of a bloke that's run out of logical argument, I find?) ... how TEMPTING it would be, how DELIGHTFUL, to return home when the time comes to retire, draw a pension and chuckle at the thought that it's muppets like you paying for it

I'll be sure to let you know when it happens so you can share my enjoyment of the situation.

What I really like is that you will be thinking of me when you retire. Sensative wee pet aren't you

[husaberg]

Yep, I don't disagree with your overall sentiments at all. I'm not an economist but in the past when substantial institutions like Air NZ and BNZ were in financial strife, I can see that letting them go under may well have caused a hell of a knock-on to NZ which wouldn't be in anyone's best interests. Besides, the govt were substantial stake holders. However, there has to be a point where you don't bail out institutions who are failing. I guess that will depend on the impact on our country and whether it's their own fault or circumstances beyond their control.

BNZ is government guaranteed it was actually NZ owned at the time of the bail out as was Air NZ.
They had to bail them out this is where the rub is.
They did not have to bail out Hanover and others such as SCF etc.

[husaberg]

You missed the obvious reason.
Being as how all are big banks are Aussie, the Australian Govt. effectively g'teed the NZ banking system during the GFC.
This left the NZ Govt with little choice but to follow on with the same system, otherwise our smaller locally owned institutions could be very vunerable.

Also the use of the term "bail out" is disengenous, as it infers that there was no cost to the Finance Company or Bank.

I was not talking of banks as they are goverment gauranteed.
There was a taxpayer funded bail out of fincial insitutions that carry no such gaurantee it is not disengenoius at all.

[Oscar]

I was not talking of banks as they are goverment gauranteed.
There was a taxpayer funded bail out of fincial insitutions that carry no such gaurantee it is not disengenoius at all.

So which of these "fincial institutions" do you refer to then?

[Oscar]

They did not have to bail out Hanover and others such as SCF etc.

SCF was bailed out under the Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme, so yes, they did have to bail them out.

[husaberg]

SCF was bailed out under the Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme, so yes, they did have to bail them out.

And Hanover
Most of the bail out of SCF was not covered by the RGS at all, have a look Didn't you know that?
As for the spell check nice troll.

[Oscar]

And Hanover
Most of the bail out of SCF was not covered by the RGS at all, have a look Didn't you know that?
As for the spell check nice troll.

What about Hanover?
The RGS paid out $1.6B to investors, so which bit wasn't covered?

[Oscar]

And Hanover
Most of the bail out of SCF was not covered by the RGS at all, have a look Didn't you know that?
As for the spell check nice troll.

Speaking of trolling, your continued use of the phrase "bailed out" is incorrect.
As I mentioned before, it wasn't a bail out, it was the Govt. assuming the assets of the company after paying out investors.
So whereas the investors were bailed out, the company and its shareholders were not.

[husaberg]

Speaking of trolling, your continued use of the phrase "bailed out" is incorrect.
As I mentioned before, it wasn't a bail out, it was the Govt. assuming the assets of the company after paying out investors.
So whereas the investors were bailed out, the company and its shareholders were not.

Your semantics are beginning to bore me. It was bailed out, I never have once suggested the shareholders were, show me where I have.
Your augments (as per normal) hold no water. It is just rhetoric trolling with bluster. As soon as you are challenged you change the subject and resort to insinuations.

As for Hanover and the SCF how about you use google and have a look for yourself open your eyes and it will be in front of you. (the computer).