The 2017 Election Thread

[husaberg]

'Fraid not dude:

You do realise, don't you, that the the real world doesn't call the free exchange of labour for money "indentured servitude" We tend to describe it, for reasons having to do with the correct use of the language as "employment". A job.

Now I know there's a fucking big lump of the country that's dead agin' the whole concept of "work", but there's a sight more that are somewhat miffed at having to work extra hard to cover their arse.

Only as I pointed out the private sector will not have to pay for that labour you want the tax payer to do it. you have also missed the bit where the beneficiaries have no choice in the matter.
If employed people don't like the conditions in under which they are employed they have options, what you propose is allowing the private sector to take further advantage of those that have no options. All the while while profiting out of it and competing against other companies that pay for their labour.

[Crasherfromwayback]

talks so much shit because it bamboozels all his dumbarse friends into thinking he is clever I reckon.

Not too sure how many this particular hombre might have in the real world.

[Woodman]

Yeah but you can always hire someone on a fixed term contract as cover.
I also note National MP Amy Adams tried to introduce a bill that allowed both parents to take paid parental leave at the same time.

Yeah but its hard to get someone on a fixed term contract that is any use. If the new mothers were just honest about it from the start it would be a lot easier.

[Ocean1]

Only as I pointed out the private sector will not have to pay for that labour you want the tax payer to do it. you have also missed the bit where the beneficiaries have no choice in the matter.
If employed people don't like the conditions in under which they are employed they have options, what you propose is allowing the private sector to take further advantage of those that have no options. All the while while profiting out of it and competing against other companies that pay for their labour.

Want the tax payer to do it.

You no read good.

I can reassure you, though that no commercial outfit wants beneficiaries on their payrole, even with the taxpayer covering part of the price historically they've generally proven to cost more than they earn.

So it's hardly any sort of commercial advantage, is it? In fact in the experience of every employer I know who availed themselves of those schemes it was a unmitigated disaster.

And how do you figure beneficiaries might not have less choice than anyone else in any work offered? Nobody else has the option of declining to go to work and still getting paid.

[husaberg]

Want the tax payer to do it.

You no read good

So it's hardly any sort of commercial advantage, is it? In fact in the experience of every employer I know who availed themselves of those schemes it was a unmitigated disaster.

And how do you figure beneficiaries might not have less choice than anyone else in any work offered? Nobody else has the option of declining to go to work and still getting paid.

The thing is Mr right wing free market is you say it wouldn't never actually occur and would in fact be a drain on the private sector.
why is it you refuse to let go of it actually excluding working in the free market for commercial gain then.

Yeah but its hard to get someone on a fixed term contract that is any use. If the new mothers were just honest about it from the start it would be a lot easier.

Yeah I know but its better than no one.
I think the problem is most new mothers don't actually know beforehand if they intend going back to work.I know a few career minded ones that have gone straight back twice now.

[Grumph]

And how do you figure beneficiaries might not have less choice than anyone else in any work offered? Nobody else has the option of declining to go to work and still getting paid.

Not so. On work schemes i've been involved in - on both sides of the fence too - decline the job and benefits stop.

I've arranged the work while working as a contractor for the old WINZ - and been in that position coming back off long term sickness.

Seriously, those schemes are a waste of time. Putting money into training is a far better use for it.

[Swoop]

I note on Te News, the gubbinment is releasing a new road-safety load of bollocks, which intends to point towards "zero harm" nonsense.
An attempt to lower the road toll (apparently to nil). The interesting part of this will be the bike related topics.

This could get interesting.

[TheDemonLord]

then they cancel out, but it's not nothing.

What's 2 - 2?

Cause they cancel out.

We don't use Fractional Reserve Banking; there's oversight on banks, which is basically as long as they are making profit, they can keep creating money.

You're simply wrong here. Look at the Wikipedia page for Fractional Reserve Banking - 2 things:

1: It mentions regulations
2: The Example it uses is the ANZ/National bank - which is in New Zealand...

Risk is not linked with reward, nor is the rewards strongly linked with risk. For every 1 sob story about the GFC there's 10 people who just rode it out and lost nothing.

Not doing anything is also a Risk. And there are a myriad of expressions both in the English Language and others demonstrating the link between Risk and Reward.

Keep the next one under 300 words and I'll read it, the drivelous nature of your writing makes it unworthy of higher word counts than that. And giving you 300 is a fucking charity too...

It's easy to keep it short, when you don't post anything to rebut

[Graystone]

What's 2 - 2?

Cause they cancel out.



You're simply wrong here. Look at the Wikipedia page for Fractional Reserve Banking - 2 things:

1: It mentions regulations
2: The Example it uses is the ANZ/National bank - which is in New Zealand...



Not doing anything is also a Risk. And there are a myriad of expressions both in the English Language and others demonstrating the link between Risk and Reward.



It's easy to keep it short, when you don't post anything to rebut

It's not doing absolutely nothing, and it only cancels out if the book value is accurate, if it's above that, then the difference is taxed; sound familiar? Like CGT perhaps...

You gave me shit for your erroneous presumption that I took numbers from the first google link, then you go and post some wiki shit? Seriously??

Expressions? fuck off with that shit rebuttal.

On the whole, that was much more concise and while you didn't do any better in terms of making a valid point, there was a lot less invalid ones

[Ocean1]

The thing is Mr right wing free market is you say it wouldn't never actually occur and would in fact be a drain on the private sector.
why is it you refuse to let go of it actually excluding working in the free market for commercial gain then.

But it did occur. And it was a drain on the private sector. Which is why it was canned, they couldn't get employers interested even at heavily subsidised rates.

Why is it that you repeatedly reinterpret that to read "bogyman wants free labour"? Is it just so you can exercise your people's party justice warrior muscle?

And while we're on the topic of questions how about you stop the katflap impersonations and answer some for a change?

Um, because you can only trade what you own? Y'know, your car, your house, your labour.

And what exactly makes you think anyone other than the guy selling them and the guy buying them should get any say in that?

[TheDemonLord]

It's not doing absolutely nothing, and it only cancels out if the book value is accurate, if it's above that, then the difference is taxed; sound familiar? Like CGT perhaps...

So, you agree it's not Income - That's good. We're making progress. Still got a long way to go I see by the latter part of the sentance, but progress none-the-less.

You gave me shit for your erroneous presumption that I took numbers from the first google link, then you go and post some wiki shit? Seriously??

You've provided nothing to show we aren't using the Fractional Reserve System. Plus you are simply wrong.

Expressions? fuck off with that shit rebuttal.

Language has such a wonderful way of expressing concepts that are universally held to be true, even if they can't be empirically demonstrated to be true.

But if you want to act like an idiot, be my guest - I just thought that you were smarter than that.

[Ocean1]

Not so. On work schemes i've been involved in - on both sides of the fence too - decline the job and benefits stop.

I've arranged the work while working as a contractor for the old WINZ - and been in that position coming back off long term sickness.

Seriously, those schemes are a waste of time. Putting money into training is a far better use for it.

Which is exactly what I said happens with regular jobs.

And yes, of course they're a waste of time, the last time I helped out with transport for one most of the equipment ended up in the river.

And you're right about training, but a lot of them weren't interested the first time free training was offered at school and they're not fucking interested the second, third or fourth time.

[Graystone]

So, you agree it's not Income - That's good. We're making progress. Still got a long way to go I see by the latter part of the sentance, but progress none-the-less.



You've provided nothing to show we aren't using the Fractional Reserve System. Plus you are simply wrong.



Language has such a wonderful way of expressing concepts that are universally held to be true, even if they can't be empirically demonstrated to be true.

But if you want to act like an idiot, be my guest - I just thought that you were smarter than that.

It's money coming in, which is what I tend to term as income. The latter part of the sentence is correct, fixed assets are a pretty simple part of accounting. Please elaborate on your current understanding of them and we can apply appropriate rectification...

You've provided nothing to show we are, the FRB wiki page mentions ANZ twice, both in hypothetical terms.

And their lack of empiricalism is why I told you to fuck off with it.

[husaberg]

But it did occur. And it was a drain on the private sector. Which is why it was canned, they couldn't get employers interested even at heavily subsidised rates.
Why is it that you repeatedly reinterpret that to read "bogyman wants free labour"? Is it just so you can exercise your people's party justice warrior muscle?
And while we're on the topic of questions how about you stop the katflap impersonations and answer some for a change?

Yet you are the one who suggested it was ok. Did you forget that. i said i never had a problem with it as long as it was for community like projects.
post 2080
Yet despite of your many repeated protests that private enterprise would never seek to profit from it you decline to exclude them from being able to do so.

[TheDemonLord]

It's money coming in, which is what I tend to term as income.

And you've regressed... Just because you term it as such, doesn't mean it is. Which is why you are consistently wrong on this.

The latter part of the sentence is correct, fixed assets are a pretty simple part of accounting.

Yes, but it's not the book value that's used to calculate a capital gain. Which is also, why you are wrong.

You've provided nothing to show we are, the FRB wiki page mentions ANZ twice, both in hypothetical terms.

So, a page about FRB, uses data from an NZ based bank - and you are trying to say this doesn't show that we use the FRS?

That and we have a Reserve Bank - as I said, you are simply wrong here.

And their lack of empiricalism is why I told you to fuck off with it.

Okay - Empircally prove that love exists, using a method that I can't also use to prove that Risk and Reward are linked.