Posts by Angus Robertson
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Speaker: The Voyage: On Interpreting and…, in reply to Kiwi Nomad,
Kiwi Nomad is obviously believes in "socailist" economics. As such there will be continual disagreement between us on the merits of crediting banks with $billions to cover bad debts. "Socialist" Keynesian economics endorses the need to indebt the nation and/or create swathes of new currency to ensure that the mega rich bankers who made bad loans remain profitable.
I as a "neo-liberal" think that banks that make bad loans should be allowed to fail and people who buy property at over inflated prices should suffer when the market falls.
...inflation only becomes an issue if the government spending is so great that it buys up all the un-utilised resources in the economy. Very unlikely in this recessionary environment, which is why stimulus spending in various economies hasn't had any inflationary effect.
I unsurprisingly disagree, the stimulus programs carried out so far have had direct inflationary effects on the price of land, of shares, of gold and of safehaven bonds. All the things the rich buy when they get given lots of money have gone up in price, because all of the money has been given to the rich. And it has had no benefit to the rest of us.
-
Thus, Treasury’s forecasts in the recent budget show our net international liabilities will rise from 67.5% of GDP in 2011 to 80.8%% in 2016. One of the main reasons for this is the low-growth rut in which exports are stuck.
Bloody optimists.
We can have a property crash, I think that is a given. This will be triggered by a fall in commodity prices and/or a bursting of the Chinese real estate bubble. Our economy will contract corrospondingly and drive up our debt to GDP ratio, making NZ a much riskier looking place to lend money to. Interest rates at which the state can borrow will increase and (unlike in Ireland which is sheilded by the EU) these will be reflected in borrowing rates NZers pay.
What happens after that is critical.
If the government resists the temptation to print money these rate rises will mean large number of defaults on our private sector debt as households and farms go deep underwater. These defaults will be painful, but they will reduce our indebtedness to the rest of the world and increase the rate at which we save and invest.
But probably the government will cave to the demands of the NZ middle class (who have borrowed way too much) and print a shit load of money to cover the debts. This will result inevitably result in massive inflation destroying any impetus to save and invest, whilst at the same time impoverising those on a fixed income.
-
Yet, we continue to encourage such destructive behaviour. For example, the Overseas Investment Office has conceded that Shanghai Pengxin’s investment in the Crafar Farms will not increase exports or jobs here or NZ in-market skills overseas. Yet, the government approved the deal.
Sir Michael Fay approved this message?
-
Speaker: The Voyage: The Engine Room…, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
The choice is to either pay $trillions to banker scum, have a "revolutionary path" or change banks.
I think we should consider changing banks. If our savings aren't safe and there is potential strife on the horizon for Australian owned banks, we can maybe change banks?
-
Speaker: The Voyage: The Engine Room…, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
Within a few weeks, we'll be 'starving with full barns'.
Or we can change banks to ones which are solvent. New banks will arise take over the business from those that go bust. Everything continues pretty much as per normal.
-
Speaker: The Voyage: The Engine Room…, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
Lose those, and they're in trouble.
Well yes, but assuming the eurocollapse/chinacrash global crisis thingamajig happens and causes that stress to hit the Aussie banks. Then they'll go bust and after that we get some new banks.
Worst that happens is we lose some deposits.
But we don't have to bail them out, if the Aussies want to then sweet - their money, their problem. We don't have to pay money to banker scum.
-
Usually, that is bank shareholders, bank bond holders and then bank depositors, in that order. In 2008 this didn't happen. Governments chose to take over the bad debts to protect bank bondholders and managers. This shifted bad debts from one group of private lenders to taxpayers in general.
NZ is potentially such a marvellous place to live, because we don't have many banks to fail.
The collapse can happen and we can be not on the hook.
-
Legal Beagle: Urewerrors, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
And if a private militia isn't illegal, why isn't training one a 'lawful purpose' under the Arms Act on the basis that anything not proscribed is allowed?
Training to kill people might be construed as potentially threatening.
-
Leaving aside the question of whether we should actually legalise multiple marriages, this is a huge, ridiculous, stinking red herring.
Yes, it is an attempt to muddy the waters and widen the marriage debate. But it is only that and saying:
Why? Well, legislating for multiple marriages is infinitely more complex and ethically challenging than simply removing the gender specifications from a current marriage law.
Well that is total crap.
Multiple marriages are cultural tradition with hundreds of years of practice that are legally sactioned in many parts of the world. It would not be complex or challenging to copy & paste such laws into NZ.
Neither of these things are "infinitely more complex and ethically challenging" than the other.
-
Hard News: The Voyage of a Lifetime, in reply to Russell Brown,
And it is now fulled up, which is a bit of a shame.