With respect – many of these posts, to me, show a lack of an understanding of the nature of money and how the economy operates.
Looking at the size of the money supply and the cash that is actually in circulation is a good place to start and the role of financial intermediaries (particularly in the GFC) is a good place to start.
I feel that the "developed world" is at the outset of a period of economic stagnation that will endure for decades.
The arbitrary wave of the socialist magic want is not going to make it go away.
Things to consider - if you are talking about wages and inflation - are that in addition to using interestes rate to feebly attempt to control inflation (and exchange rates) - the cost of labour - wages - is an essential part in regulating inflation .
This aspect translates to the operation of Labour markets (in NZ) are vital in ensuring that wages (for the majority) don't keep pace with increases in living costs. The inequality in employment relation ships is vital to controlling inflation.
Socially this aspect is dealt with by WFF where workers with out families fund tax refunds to workers with families to help them. It should be called working for other people's families.
IMHO all recessions become a recession in wages.
The food stamp card is a further nonsense and has quite dire wider social implications in regard to removing people's freedom and civil liberties. It is a beat up for election.
My favored solution is to legislate good capital management onto everyone. To quite literally force people to invest wisely in their own futures.
This sits nicely alongside what the Nats are looking to do with the food stamp card.
I must correct myslef it was Bart - it goes like this:
Bart :"I am through with working. Working is for chumps."
Homer :"Son, I'm proud of you. I was twice your age before I figured that out."
So is law. Let's just accept that pricing of labour is not a rational market.
What has always amazed me about the pricing of labour - particularly since the Employment Contracts Act - is that the cost of living, with emphasis on lower wage levels, was not a consideration.
In the system of economics and in the operation of financial and capital markets the only consideration for the pricing of labour is how little it can acquired and not what in equity and good conscience should be paid. When I studied economics and financial markets I kept waiting to see it but never did.
The prevalent manner with which management of economies has developed is that the emphasis is not on providing goods and services for the people/populace – but rather a pooling of the people into a tax/revenue base to be plundered at will by government and corporate bureaucracies.
The bail out for the GFC and the severe failure of economies is quite astounding
Equity in employment realtions is a sore joke.
We have a corporate in Infratil in receipt of millions of public transport subsidies and getting access to the NZ Fund and buying up Shell stations – deny a small group of workers who formed an independent union, initially 40 employees, have been trying to negotiation a collective since 2007. Short version an agreement reached in 2009 was not honoured and then a further agreement reached in 2010 and was again not honoured. These people have had no wage increase since 2007 and very few rights at law to force the issue.
Infratil would be sorely pissed if for four years it didn’t receive, through NZ Bus, increases in it’s Public Transport subsidy and has no qualms about mucking about workers so they go without.
Working people in essence have very few rights upon which they can rely – there is a code of good faith – but this is rather subjective and the objects of the act which include, ‘to address the inherent inequalities in employment relationships” is at times not worth much.
To protect Labour their needs to be basic rights _ I've mentioned them before – which 9 years of Labour didn’t give people and the Nats are not making the situation any better.
Is this Key Govt - Jenny Shipley with better technology?
If you are a bureaucrat, an upper echelon civil servant, a banker, a corporate that has wangled through privatisation a funding stream in the form of a public subsidy, an MP with a safe seat, a member of the Nat Govt which only wants to win the next election, the future is brilliant.
"Is that it?" - No it gets worse - just wait and see.
As Homer Simpson said, "Working is for chumps."
With all the debate one thing has been over looked and that is, "Working is for Chumps".
Hitting the nail on the head.
A lack of jobs appears to be a far more significant influence on spiking youth unemployment than a sudden unwillingness to work amongst young New Zealanders. And it's hard to see what in this policy really addresses that.
The policy places a focus on a very small group of people who are an outcome of a poorly managed economy and there is no focus on the fact that the economy is in decline and being managed poorly.
It is likely, as people have suggested, to be the thin end of a wedge - it will be easy to show the positive outcomes with a small group of dispossessed youth and then run a parallel system out to all benefs other than those on National Super.
The travel advice was actually British – the irony.
Yes, both factions revere the King, and this is partly built on the basis the monarchy, King No 5, I think, abolished slavery and at the same time as setting the people free initiated land reforms.
When I refer to the royalist snub – I am not saying the King himself - I am referring to those that using the positions “behind the throne” or as “part of the political and army power elite”.
The present reluctant (Thai) opposition party – the former govt installed by a coup - had the constitution changed, adopted a lot of the The Pheu Thai Party polcies and still couldn’t retain power.
Also from the AIT News this:
BANGKOK, 14 July 2011 (NNT) – The Pheu Thai Party has asked the Election Commission (EC) to certify MP status for all elected candidates urgently after the endorsement for many of its key members is pending.
Yes my opinion is not a royalist POV and comes in opart from family who are Thai and red shirt supporters and were in Thailand when the shit hit the fan last year - some 20 people got shot or were killed in one incident.
Looking into it further as I said initially the electoral commision only approved 350 seats leaving 150 up in the air which included the seat of the then Prime Minister elect - this was IMHO and in that of others a royalist snub.
From an article dated 28th July 2011 - at
Of immediate concern for Yingluck, her pro-Thaksin Puea Thai party and its four coalition allies had been whether the EC would endorse the minimum quorum of 95 percent of the 500 parliamentarians by the August 2 deadline set out in the country’s constitution. Puea Thai won an absolute majority with 265 seats and with its allies will control at least 299, if all those elected are endorsed.
Only yesterday did the EC endorse a final group of 94 poll winners, bringing the total to 496. If a quorum had not been confirmed, parliament could not have met and a constitutional and political crisis would have ensued.
Also recent travel advice is as follows
Following the national elections on 3 July the Thai Electoral Commission has until 2 August 2011 to confirm the election result. Although the elections took place without serious incident there remains some risk that political developments could lead to instability in the medium term.
Thailand has a history of military coups, (which seem to have royalist backing IMO) and the Nation is only just beginning to break away from that environment with this recent election. It is a country where each day they publicly play the National Anthem in the central parks in Bangkok and people have to stop what they are doing and be reverent otherwise they may be arrested. This is quite a subtle control of the people.