Oh buggggggggggggggggggar

[Oscar]

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).

As usual you are full of shit.

You say "Most of the bail out of SCF was not covered by the RGS at all, have a look Didn't you know that?"

And once again you are wrong:

The retail deposit guarantee scheme lasted until 12 October 2010 and covered total deposits of approximately $133 billion with 73 financial institutions. By July 2010 just under $80 million had been paid out. Payments in respect of South Canterbury Finance, which went into receivership at the end of August 2010, were by far the most substantial; the crown paid out all 35,000 depositors (but no shareholders) in full at a cost of $1.6 billion, and also paid out other creditors at a cost of $175 million (to simplify the receiver’s task).

http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/banking-and-finance/page-4

[husaberg]

As usual you are full of shit.

You say "Most of the bail out of SCF was not covered by the RGS at all, have a look Didn't you know that?"

And once again you are wrong:



http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/banking-and-finance/page-4

The original deposit guarantee was introduced in late 2008 at the height of the global financial crisis, when the world's banking systems froze up. The Government brought in the guarantee as an emergency measure to maintain confidence in the New Zealand banking system.

The original scheme covered deposits of $133b in 72 banks and finance groups. The Government ended up on the hook for more than $1.8b, to more than 38,000 depositors in the original scheme.

While SCF was the biggest collapse, the scheme also bailed out depositors in other failed finance companies, including Allied Nationwide, Mascot Finance and Vision Securities.

The original scheme expired in October 2010 and was replaced with a much smaller, extended deposit guarantee, covering seven institutions and $1.9b.

What the original bill said is that is basically at the discretion of the crown the amount of monies that will be paid out.
also look at the dates.

[Oscar]

The original deposit guarantee was introduced in late 2008 at the height of the global financial crisis, when the world's banking systems froze up. The Government brought in the guarantee as an emergency measure to maintain confidence in the New Zealand banking system.

The original scheme covered deposits of $133b in 72 banks and finance groups. The Government ended up on the hook for more than $1.8b, to more than 38,000 depositors in the original scheme.

While SCF was the biggest collapse, the scheme also bailed out depositors in other failed finance companies, including Allied Nationwide, Mascot Finance and Vision Securities.

The original scheme expired in October 2010 and was replaced with a much smaller, extended deposit guarantee, covering seven institutions and $1.9b.

the original bill said that is basically at the discretion of the crown the amount of monies that will be paid out.
also look at the dates

Fuck the dates.
SCF was paid out, you are full of shit.

[Ocean1]

To answer the point I think you are heading towards (I just know you'll stop me if I'm wrong ), Yes - I'm aware there are 'career' welfare recipients - those who don't equate self-sufficiency with self-respect, those who no amount of encouragement and assistance will help. You can't save everyone - my concern is with those with something to contribute who can be assisted to do just that.

There's the crux of the matter right there: their life's outcomes are more than any other factor the result of decisions they made. They made. It matters not a jot what their reasons for those decisions were, the consequences are almost always foreseeable and the consequences don't care why.

I offer advice to any of them that will listen too. I'm good like that. Sometimes more. Occasionally a lot more. But when they continue to make poor decisions, as they usually do, with the same perfectly predictable outcomes then I stop feeling sorry for them and start feeling angry.

[husaberg]

Fuck the dates.
SCF was paid out, you are full of shit.

Yeah that's right who created the bill
You were caught out on your own semantics.
SCF was not paid, out the investors were
Your own right wing ideals are not so idealistic now are they

[Oscar]

Yeah that's right who created the bill
You were caught out on your own semantics.
SCF was not paid, out the investors were
Your own right wing ideals are not so idealistic now are they

Semantics is it now?

Nice try, but you're not getting off that easily.
You said: "Most of the bail out of SCF was not covered by the RGS at all, have a look Didn't you know that?"

This is still untrue - and you are still ful of shit.

[husaberg]

Semantics is it now?

Nice try, but you're not getting off that easily.
You said: "Most of the bail out of SCF was not covered by the RGS at all, have a look Didn't you know that?"

This is still untrue - and you are still ful of shit.

Read the act, look at the dates.
They did not have to, they choose to do the bail out.

[Oscar]

Read the act, look at the dates.
They did not have to, they choose to do the bail out.

Bullshit.
The guarantee was made under the Public Finance Act 1989.
If you're referring to the extended scheme, SCF collapsed in August 2010 and the extended scheme was started in October 2010.

[husaberg]

Bullshit.
The guarantee was made under the Public Finance Act 1989.
If you're referring to the extended scheme, SCF collapsed in August 2010 and the extended scheme was started in October 2010.

Read the act......... actually read the act... just again for you......... read the act........ They did not have to bail them out....Basically they could pay what ever they considered prudent........

[Oscar]

Read the act......... actually read the act... just again for you......... read the act........ They did not have to bail them out....Basically they could pay what ever they considered prudent........

Oh yeah, the Govt is gonna make "prudent" payments and watch the financial markets collapse around them.
Stop being a cock.

[husaberg]

Oh yeah, the Govt is gonna make "prudent" payments and watch the financial markets collapse around them.
Stop being a cock.

Therein is the rub. The government in the end does not make the payment, the tax payer does............
Work out how much that is the debt is saddled on the many to pay for the greed of a few is.

If the "free market" collapses the world still turns.......... the sun still rises.
Remember Right wing ideals do not include the "nanny state" Unless it suits them of course. Like it did here.

What we have seen is a massive transfer of wealth.
Exactly the same that has happened in the States.

If it was about being prudent? why would they not help their own SOE's the same way.

[avgas]

I read somewhere that it was about 77% turnout.

Wow really - people must be dying or something?

The only problem here is your maths.

My bad - I didn't count the special folk.
http://www.electionresults.govt.nz/e...rtystatus.html

In which case - well done New Zealand. You really are stupid (or secretly love national and don't want to admit to it).
Hmmmm it is a bit concerning that when you add up the total votes it adds up to less than the total votes, let alone the total + special votes.
Whats up. Are there literally 300,000 who bothered to go vote and then drew cocks on their forms?
What gives?

National Party	1,010,464
Labour Party	519,146
Green Party	210,764
New Zealand First Party	186,031
Māori Party	27,074
ACT New Zealand	14,510
United Future	4,533
Conservative	86,616
Internet MANA	26,539
Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party	8,539
Ban1080	4,368
Democrats for Social Credit	1,609
The Civilian Party	906
NZ Independent Coalition	895
Focus New Zealand	677
	2,102,671 vs 2,112,522 vs 2,367,152????

[TheDemonLord]

Therein is the rub. The government in the end does not make the payment, the tax payer does............
Work out how much that is the debt is saddled on the many to pay for the greed of a few is.

just a quick 2c on this - I neither agree nor disagree with bailouts - in the end I guess it comes down to what is the lesser of 2 evils - paying for a bailout, or paying for the consequences of a failed company - either way we as the tax payer will ultimately be forced to pay for it.

Sometimes it is right to bail out a company - a good example is when the UK govt bailed out Rolls Royce, the company went through a rough patch, got bailed out, got its shit sorted and is now profitable again - which means it is employing people, making products, paying taxes etc.

Sometimes it isn't.

[SPman]

What we have seen is a massive transfer of wealth.
Exactly the same that has happened in the States.

If it was about being prudent why would they not help their own SOE's the same way.

Not just the States.........

....But it hasn’t quite worked out like that: still facing over 1800 class action suits for fraudulently confiscating SME assets while receiving billions in taxpayer bailout, this weekend brought forth data showing that, in fact, R(oyal)B(ank) (of) S(cotland) has irretrievably lost all the £46bn we invested in it…but is putting aside £576m to pay 2013 bonuses for those MoUs who’ve been doing such a fine job in mislaying all that investment. Thus does rewarding failure become revealing farce

I’ve been on RBS’s case for longer than Mayor Boris Johnson has been saying that we must learn to love bankers. Mark my words, this is the beginning of the end…..we are still miles from the final descent into Hester’s hastily covered up cracks at RBS. Those suffering from tertiary frontal-lobe syndrome – while existing in a Cloud many miles above the law and beyond the gravitational pull of any known constabulary – must be laughing til they wet their designer boxers. Is this what Friedman meant by trickle-down wealth.........

[husaberg]

Not just the States.........

Yeah but the Asian one was far more cleverly done, where they paid to prop it until all the overseas investment were able to get out, then they allowed them to totally collapse while the locals were left still being saddled with the debt they incurred for it to be propped up. That is beautiful, but it never happened it is just tin foil hat stuff