Can we sell Timaru to the Chinese to get our billion dollars back?
I hate to say it. But there probably is ( more than) the odd billion going out through Timaru/ Chch/Dunedin wharfs. And probably to China!
The fact is that south of Kaikoura, until we get our main income away from farming, the balance of payments in that part of the country will remain positive. The rest of the country gets to spend it.
And now they are taking "reverse mortgages" as well to ensure that there is nothing left when they die. ban overseas land sales before we become a tenant nation.
Do you know how a reverse mortgage works?
And what the money is borrowed against? What are you, just pissed off at your parents?
And sorry but most of us (the great mass of humanity) became tenants on this planet over the preceding millenia.
So your pathetic bleetings are truly asinine.
SCF was always going to fall, it was just a matter of when.
It may not be a ponzi scheme, but it does have a wiff of Madoff if it is true that Hubbard traded on his reputation as a pillar of the community to keep the balls in the air for much longer than he might otherwise have managed...
Thanks Andin, for your response to Andre - I was about to go ballistic!
It's not the first time he - or someone using similar language - has whinged about 'babyboomers' selfishly depriving younger generations of "their due."
For Andre's info, babyboomers were born between 1945 & 1960. In ANZ, very few of us are able to access a reverse mortgage - yet. But people like my 83yrold mother - who may soon want to use some of the equity tied up in her home to have a new fence built alongside of the public footpath - have every right to choose to do whatever they want within the asset-rich (but income-poor) situation they're in.
I built my own home - from the ground up. I feel no obligation whatsoever to help any of my large whanau by leaving it unemcumbered to any of them. Fortunately, they're all way too busy making their own way in the world to even think of that scenario-
all of which has little to do with the SCF debacle *except* Andre's expectation that others are here to help those who wont help themselves. There's more than a little of that viewpoint among some of the Hubbard supporters.
And just how would that be done Graeme? I mean NZ is not exactly flooded with FakeReceipt 1.0 software, is it?
Microsoft Word? Have you seen what counts as a legitimate and proper receipt for many tax purposes (perfectly reasonably, I hasten to add).
Excuse me if this question has been done to death elsewhere in the media but...if South Canterbury Finance has poor record keeping, poor lending policies, questionable governance and probably lacks the financial resources to pay back its investors then how did it get the ok to join the guarantee scheme in the first place? Don't they check on the viability of an organisation before they guarantee it? And if somebody did check them out, who is it who does the checking?
Thaks Andin and Islander for your thoughts.
For Andre's info, babyboomers were born between 1945 & 1960. In ANZ, very few of us are able to access a reverse mortgage - yet. But people like my 83yrold mother ...have every right to choose to do whatever they want within the asset-rich (but income-poor) situation they're in.
I think that we are being made to pay so that the older generations can continue to remain "asset rich". If they all sell their assets off to foreigners when they die there won't be much left for future generations of kiwis. And currently there is no regulation stopping this from happening (which it is). And new reverse mortgage products keep on popping up.
Do you really think that the next generations should pay to prop up wealthy investors with in most cases only a small part of their wealth in finance companies? That's just wrong from my viewpoint.
And in answer to Steve Black, John Key and his team seem to trust the owners of finance firms unless they've done something really wrong previously that could be a PR risk. Like Nick Wevers from Government Property Services having been a CEO of Blue Chip before founding Viaduct Capital - and they were still guaranteed at first.
The government guarantee propped up finance firms when they should all have been left to fend for themselves. The investors losing the money they chose to invest seems fairer than all of us paying.
"We must fight against tax evasion but also defend the rights of tax evaders, or companies that make mistakes". Silvio Berlusconi in 1996. Who knows if 42% is a correct figure but they netted the tax from US$137 billion in earnings in their last amnesty.
Andre - sorry, I dont quite understand "I think that we
**all younger generations I assume?
"are being made to pay
"so that the older generations can continue to remain "asset rich".
So we evil older generations dont pay taxes, rates, upkeep on our properties?
And "If they all sell their assets off to foreigners" - geeze mate, what planet was your place of origin again?
In a reverse mortgage, whatever lending partner you have joined with will sell the property to regain their investment and interest. This can be to interested family members, or any ANZ citizen. Also, the reverse mortgage may have been paid off before death - in which case your words are non sequitur.The property isnt hoovered into a foreign place and denied to to ANZ forever.
The government is propping up our economy by borrowing. That borrowing will be paid by future generations. If the government didn't prop up the economy then those with assets would lose some of them. You have to have assets or be an investor to be affected by the collapse of the finance firms. I can't see any reason to prop them up.
The government is papering over the cracks and it's costing future generations a lot while the rich get richer still.
Reverse mortgaging is fine as long as the property doesn't end up being owned by an international (including Aussie) bank or multinational investment fund.
How frightfully right-wing of you, Steven. Unacceptable degree of moral hazzard and let the market red in tooth and claw take its course? Would you include folks like our host's mother in that general anathema?
That's anarchist clap trap Steve is spouting, it is not mainstream right-wing.
Any faithful right-winger will tell you greedy solo-mothers with supposedly sick children need to find their way to affordable childcare through experiencing "the market red in tooth and claw", but respectable people who unwittingly hit a snag with $250,000 (they farmed out as car loans, third mortgages or short term credit) deserve total protection in the same damn market.
You have to have assets or be an investor to be affected by the collapse of the finance firms.
Do you think ONLY asset holders or investors were affected by the collapse of Lehman Brothers in September of 2008?
When we are all being negatively affected anyway then singling out asset-holders for protection seems unequal treatment.
Why don't the government just dish out $1.5 billion equally to all kiwis instead? That would help more sectors of the economy more.
This is The Australian newspaper's commentary about their stimulus package that targeted everyone instead:
The Government's economic management is most strongly supported by Labor voters and younger people. High numbers of 18- to 34-year-olds and 35- to 49-year-olds - the ALP's strongest areas demographically - believe they will be better off as a result of the package.
People aged over 50, including pensioners and self-funded retirees who have been hit hard by losses in superannuation and investments, are the most opposed to the package.
What does "too big to fail" really mean? The government has protected farmers by propping up SCF thus far because they are a big agricultural lender. Why do our 38,000 farmers get government assistance above all other industries yet still have the gall to charge us the same prices for their produce as they charge overseas purchasers? They are almost all sitting on huge assets and many seem quite happy to take the money and sell the farm to overseas interests when it suits them. The funniest one was John Key announcing a drought relief package earlier in the year. Those are our dollars...
Andre - have you not noticed that farmers - and the extractive industries (coalmining, gold-mining,fishing, forestry etc.) - have ALWAYS been propped up in ANZ (after the initial flurry of earnings?)?
And generally, for the benefit of overseas investors?
I say, anyone for Tennyson?
Whilst we are spouting claptrap may I remind you what Alf said about the iPad as he mused into the mirror?
Our little systems have their day;
They have their day and cease to be:
They are but broken lights of thee,
And thou, O Lord, art more than they.
Obviously thought more of himself than a mere device. A man before his time indeed.
Andre's expectation that others are here to help those who wont help themselves. There's more than a little of that viewpoint among some of the Hubbard supporters.
A page late, but amen to that. Although I suspect there will be a few unwitting victims in the mix also.
Those are our dollars...
Whilst we are spouting claptrap may I remind you what Alf said about the iPad as he mused into the mirror?
Wrong thread, maybe?
Here on PAS every thread is an iPad thread.
Might as well start calling it iPas.
Liam Dann: Hubbard owes New Zealand an apology.
We should be trying to protect our environment more and the "extractive" industries need to change how they operate before gaining our future support. What is the best way of using our land? Currently we turn water into milk. That makes sense. What's the most future-proofed way of achieving that without ruining our environment? It's not top-of-mind for many farmers considering the huge number who didn't bother complying with Fed Farmers self-regulation request around fencing waterways.
Forestry is a potential polluter and getting the Japanese involved didn't help for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juken_Nissho
We are decimating our fish stocks mainly with the help of the government: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3890482/Orange-roughy-fishery-collapse-continues
And the government is just dying to mine in conservation areas.
And in the mean time our local bodies are fighting tooth and nail to stop renewable energy projects. http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/campaign-launched-against-canterbury-wind-farms-125628
Currently a lot of people are employed in the agriculture, forestry and fishing industries but they still would be if we changed the whole system.
But while the Fed Farmers president is Bill English's brother I don't expect much will change. Water, Environment Canterbury blah blah: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/federated-farmers/news/article.cfm?o_id=357&objectid=10551388
And Fonterra desperately wants to allow foreigners to own them but have settled for a better solution in the meantime but one that opens up the possibility of the majority of it being owned by one very wealthy farmer: http://www.stuff.co.nz/southland-times/business/farming/3872506/Farmers-vote-to-trade-Fonterra-shares
I wonder if the Chinese consortium that managed to buy Crafar's farms is able to join Fonterra and then buy out other investors?
If we are charged less for dairy products and other produce than people in the UK and USA are by our farmers then I may be more willing to see them as heroes. http://www.stoppress.co.nz/news/2010/05/newbies-head-to-the-dairy-shine-sets-up-a-bank-account/
I lived on farms growing up and know how hard it a job can be - but most of that work is now done by share milkers and hired managers and the farms are ten times as large as they were.
then how did it get the ok to join the guarantee scheme in the first place? Don't they check on the viability of an organisation before they guarantee it? And if somebody did check them out, who is it who does the checking?
I think its something to do with being hog tied over a barrel and having no options. Something like that. The moment they looked at it the smart men at Treasury were duty bound to accept it.
Annnnd - why do you think I became a member of Project Jonah, and have been effective in lobbies protecting fisheries, not to mention wetlands, birds, and forests since the early 1970s Andre?
Currently we turn water into milk. That makes sense.
Where's that sarcasm tag..........
"We are decimating our fish stocks mainly with the help of the government"
"And the government is just dying to mine in conservation areas."
"........ our local bodies are fighting tooth and nail to stop renewable energy projects"
"Fonterra desperately wants to allow foreigners to own them but have settled for a better solution in the meantime but one that opens up the possibility of the majority of it being owned by one very wealthy farmer"
Self interest.... its quite a powerful motive.
It seems to have a blinkering effect, and adverse outcomes in some circumstances. Funny that.
The collapse of South Canty Fin could be our economic and environmental saviour.
This entire debarcle proves that dairy farming is not economically sustainable. We know it will move offshore in the next 15-20yrs and where to from there, with such capital investment?
We know Dairy farming isn't environmentally sustainable. Fed F&*@ers talk of pollution as the cost for prosperity.
With a collapse of SCF land prices will plummett and so make cropping financially viable again.
What was the first thing Fonterra did when it became the monolith it is today? Put domestic milk up 5cents a bottle, because of market forces.
Live by the market, die by the market.