Cui bono?

63 comments on “Cui bono? ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Bryan Spondre 1

   8 August 2008 at 7:09 am

   Ahh yes, the old ‘American bagmen’ appeal to New Zealanders xenophobia.

   Nice try Steve but no cigar. Every self-employed truck driver who has ever borrowed 500k for a new truck will see straight through it. Perhaps you should start yourself a small business ? Might be an eye opener for you.
2. Matt 2

   8 August 2008 at 7:34 am

   hmm quelle surprise – left winger displaying appalling distrust of banking system and ignorance of economics.

   wouldn’t catch a leftie thinking about how a truckie runs their business – dirty smelly working types should just shut up and pay their taxes.

   the same rants against international finance were found in Mein Kampf.
3. Bryan Spondre 3

   8 August 2008 at 7:51 am

   Matt: “dirty smelly working types should just shut up and pay their taxes.”

   Indeed Sir, unfortunately those employed by the government are to quote University of Waikato School of Management Economist John Gibson:

   # Less likely to do hard physical work
   # Less able to work independently

   making them entirely unsuited for self-employment. They are therefore given to preaching without the benefit of actual experience.
4. travellerev 4

   8 August 2008 at 8:02 am

   BS (LOL) and Matt,

   Perhaps you should read this and this about that “nice” John Key. And that is just the beginning.

   How about some Asian crisis or some Subprime debacle that is now threatening the entire western financial system.

   “Nice” John Key is a predator and very worthy of his nickname “the Smiling Assassin”.

   Captcha: ridiculous is the Kiwi who believes that John Key is a nice man who will give them big tax cuts LOL
5. Lukas 5

   8 August 2008 at 8:08 am

   Trav….learn to use the links properly…
6. Bryan Spondre 6

   8 August 2008 at 8:09 am

   travellerev: your links don’t appear to work ?
7. travellerev 7

   8 August 2008 at 8:24 am

   Aargh,

   I’ll try again.
   Lucas…put a sock in your patronising gob. OK?

   Omiting and Lying

   It’s the end apostrophe that gets me every time.
8. monkey-boy 8

   8 August 2008 at 8:28 am

   Still, you have to admire their patience, don’t you? These devious shadowy creatures who are evidently prepared to play the ‘long game’, and invest countless millions into securing a National Party victory for New Zealand’s government over the past decade, on the off-chance that when they do, they will hit ‘pay-dirt’ and be given ‘carte-blanche’ to rape the New Zealand economy.
   And then you have to admire the sheer bloody-minded loyalty of the National Party politicians who appear also to have dedicated approximately a decade of their time and effort in opposition, (cunningly masquerading as politicans who wish to serve their constituents) all at the behest of these international financiers, just waitng for the big pay-day when cackling, they can rip us all off, and retire.
   Or, alternatively, Steve, you might explore the hypothesis that you are in the grip of a paranoid delusion which embraces bias, extends into xenophobia, and mimics the mind-set of deluded conspiracy theorists the world over. Your mind-set is only missing the word ‘Jewish’ if I might illustrate my point about other similar international conspiracy theories. I am just waiting now, for a modern perverse equivalent of the ‘Zinoviev Letter’ to ‘surface’ here on the Standard, right on the eve of the next election.
9. Stephen 9

   8 August 2008 at 8:32 am

   So, who stands to gain from National borrowing $5 billion if it becomes the Government? Ultimately, the people who lend the money…

   That seems to rest on the assumption that they’re going to borrow the money, then dig a hole, then put the money in the hole and not spend it on anything. Not that spending money on infrastructure would get anyone anywhere anyway..?
10. Stephen 10

    8 August 2008 at 8:33 am

    I fail to see the relevance of Mein Kampf to anything here..
11. Scribe 11

    8 August 2008 at 8:38 am

    Steve,

    From earlier this week:

    John Key: Does the Prime Minister recall that the Labour Government of which she and Michael Cullen were Ministers increased net debt from 31 percent of GDP in 1984 to 49 percent of GDP in 1990, and that it was the subsequent National Government that did all the hard work and brought the net debt down to 20 percent?

    Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I do not think time would permit me today to give the lecture that would be necessary on the follies of the Muldoon Government and the big-borrowing program.

    In other words, I don’t want to talk about it.
12. Bryan Spondre 12

    8 August 2008 at 8:38 am

    monkey-boy: I had forgotten that John Key has Jewish heritage. Your antisemitic angle is interesting in the context of the nationalist & socialist dislike/distrust of John Key.

    travellerev: your primary school insult passed over my head the first time. If you care to share your real name perhaps I can respond in kind ?
13. Lew 13

    8 August 2008 at 8:40 am

    Stephen: It’s because John Key is a Jewish banker, you see. His backers are gagging to play the anti-semitism card because as far as they’re concerned anti-semitism == Naziism, Naziism = totalitarianism, totalitarianism = communism and communism = Labour. Or alternatively, anti-semitism = Islamism, Islamism = revolutionary terrorism, revolutionary terrorism = communism, communism = Labour.

    They must be wildly disappointed that nobody seems to actually give half a bad fuck that he’s Jewish.

    Edit: Bryan, thanks for proving my point.

    L
14. Phil 14

    8 August 2008 at 8:44 am

    The current Bond Rate is nothing like 8.25% – it’s a few points over 6%.
    http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/statistics/govfin/d4/data.html
15. Bryan Spondre 15

    8 August 2008 at 8:55 am

    It is interesting how often the left play the nationalism card:

    ‘they’ are going to steal our bank, or, railways etc

    ‘they” the American bagmen are underwriting the ‘right’ so they can steal our assets.
16. Bryan Spondre 16

    8 August 2008 at 8:56 am

    BTW: where are the moderators ? In a meeting at some Wellington cafe perhaps ?
17. randal 17

    8 August 2008 at 8:57 am

    oh god I want a truck…a big one…and when I get annoyed I can go downtown and bring the whole system to a standstill…an i wanna truck wifa big horn so I can make lots of noise…yipppeeee
18. Steve Pierson 18

    8 August 2008 at 8:58 am

    If we borrow for a good reason, that makes sense. If we borrow for tax cuts, it’s the lenders who get rich.
19. Steve Pierson 19

    8 August 2008 at 9:02 am

    Borrowing for a truck or a house is not analogous to borrowing for taxcuts like Key wants to do – Key’s basic economics is this ‘I want to increase my beer consumption, so I’ll mortgage my house’
20. Phil 20

    8 August 2008 at 9:06 am

    “If we borrow for a good reason, that makes sense. If we borrow for tax cuts, it’s the lenders who get rich.”

    A government can borrow at much lower interest rates than you or I. It makes perfect sense for a government to borrow for tax cuts if the extra income in our pockets goes to paying off debt. The responsibility lies, as it should, first and foremost with the individual.

    On a personal note, that’s exactly how I’m getting myself out of $10,000 worth of credit card debt – by borrowing, ironically on another credit card, but paying half the interest rate. American Express is a wonderful company.
21. pinetree 21

    8 August 2008 at 9:06 am

    …someone will be making serious money of the rail acquisition for starters, no doubt…

    Steve – if sovereign debt is the measure of the day, is it projected to rise under Labour..?

    You got a view on the differential between Nat/Lab foreecasts to date….is it a flat $5bil ?
22. Billy 22

    8 August 2008 at 9:14 am

    You’ve outdone youself, Steve. Borrowing to make the lenders rich. Hilarious.
23. Steve Pierson 23

    8 August 2008 at 9:17 am

    Phil. We know that the money the govt borrows won’t go to repaying personal debt, we know that people spend little of an increase in income on paying down debt… so it’s a stupid plan to borrow and hope people will behave in a way different from how we know they behave. It’s stupid public policy to expect people not to behave like people… frankly, I’m not sure someone who has so much credit card debt they can save $10K by refinancing is in a position to argue that the country should increase it’s debt.. but I can see why financing tax cuts with borrowing for you personally would seem attractive. for those of us who haven’t crippled ourselves with debt more borrowing seems like mortgaging the house to pay for parties (or cover debt for past parties).

    pinetree. Sovereign debt as a % of gdp is projected to stay under the 20% target. National wants to borrow $5 billion more over the orecast period.
24. Steve Pierson 24

    8 August 2008 at 9:19 am

    Billy. That’s why people lend or invest money, to get a return.
25. lukas 25

    8 August 2008 at 9:25 am

    Trav

    “Aargh,

    I’ll try again.
    Lucas put a sock in your patronising gob. OK?

    Omiting and Lying

    It’s the end apostrophe that gets me every time.”

    Crikey… someones a bit titchy this morning.

    Just because you and some others out there in the world wide web have come up with a coughconsipiracycough “theory” about how the whole world is going to end and John Key and his “rich mates” are going to go live in some resort island doesn’t mean its true, trying to link to your own “blog” as evidence does not make your case any stronger.

    You really do remind me of d4j… though maybe with a splice of chicken little in there.
26. infused 26

    8 August 2008 at 9:26 am

    Now this is a classic example of paranoia. Hey SP, I am selling tin foil hats if you need one?
27. Bryan Spondre 27

    8 August 2008 at 9:29 am

    Steve: Michael Cullens policy of over-taxation has effectively seen $11 million SPARC websites financed by home owners at home loan rates of 10%. Brilliant!!
28. lukas 28

    8 August 2008 at 9:29 am

    infused… I think you will find that Trav has that corner of the market all sewn up.
29. infused 29

    8 August 2008 at 9:32 am

    “Phil. We know that the money the govt borrows won’t go to repaying personal debt, we know that people spend little of an increase in income on paying down debt”

    Look at that… Straight from a leftie.

    WE KNOW WHATS BEST!

    This is why everyone hates Labour SP. One day you might realise that.

    On a related note, everyone I know at the moment is paying off debt. Nice generalisation though.
30. pinetree 30

    8 August 2008 at 9:37 am

    ….I think I read here that it was currently 18% (or thereabouts), so I’m presuming maybe a couple % points increase under Labour (for whatever purpose, infr., defict induced etc)….

    ….the $5bil is over and above the 18% baseline or the “under 20%” ?

    Anyhow, at that level there’s a serious opporutnity cost debate around the potential ‘value’ of that $5bil…

    Either way, I’ll reserve judgement on the borrowing question until I see more detail around the costs and structures of various Nats policy positions…(Tui ad in here perhaps…)

    …I’m unlikely to ‘swing’, but I think there’s a picture that needs to be drawn here by English and Key, and that flip/flop bunch of voters who largely go on headline issues would surely be at risk if they don’t get em over the line on this stuff…
31. travellerev 31

    8 August 2008 at 9:38 am

    I apologise Bryan but it was just too easy. I just put the two beginning letters of your name together before it clicked. LOL.

    I have given my real name before and have absolutely no problem with giving it again.

    My name is Evelyn Gilbert.

    By the way people always used to have a great time making jokes about my length which even for Dutch standards was exceptional at the time. Not any more since we now stand as the tallest people of the world. LOL.
32. Bill 32

    8 August 2008 at 9:38 am

    Would somebody here be kind enough to tell me what the current NZ debt to the IMF is? How much is being repayed at what interest? And what conditionalities are attached to existing loans?

    I have been to the IMF page looking at country reports, but the language/ jargon is foreign to me. I’m not even sure if I was looking at meaningful data or not. Having some details on the broader context better would be useful.

    Ta.
33. killinginthenameof 33

    8 August 2008 at 9:38 am

    “Bryan Spondre

    Indeed Sir, unfortunately those employed by the government are to quote University of Waikato School of Management Economist John Gibson:

    # Less likely to do hard physical work
    “

    And the government should start a construction company right away to fix that?

    What the fuck is that kind of critisism, honestly?

    You woudln’t critisize a builder for being less likely to push paper than a lawyer woudl you?

    And since when has hard physical work been considered of value anyway?

    Sounds like John Gibson has a serious ideological chip on his shoudler.
34. Stephen 34

    8 August 2008 at 9:50 am

    Righto Lew. Yech.
35. lukas 35

    8 August 2008 at 9:52 am

    http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:IaR3qlRFPEoJ:thehairyarmpit.blogspot.com/2008/07/i-dont-like-evelyn-gilbert.html+Evelyn+Gilbert&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=nz&client=firefox-a

    The same Evelyn Gilbert associated with the nut job behind the hairy armpit?
36. Bill 36

    8 August 2008 at 9:55 am

    Borrowing for the public good would be a point that could be argued.

    Borrowing on the back of public money for the good of private businesses is not an argument that should be entertained in a sane world.

    Borrowing to fund tax cuts is insane. The total sum going to tax cuts would have to be repaid with interest on top. A no brainer.

    Borrowing for infrastructure? Hmm. If it’s for roads, then it does not benefit the public at large. Broadband? That’s another one for business. What else they been suggesting?

    Housing, schools and hospitals would be for the general good. But these things are probably going to take a hit to repay money that has benefited private enterprise.

    That it in a nut shell?
37. infused 37

    8 August 2008 at 10:31 am

    You’re off the mark there bill. Why is building a good broadband infrastructure for business wrong?
38. Draco TB 38

    8 August 2008 at 10:45 am

    Keith Rankin thinks the government should be borrowing to prop up private business.

    Banks and other financial sector businesses are the same. When their industry is in crisis, they more than ever need customers. In particular, the finance industry needs customers like the Government.

    I don’t – if they can’t keep themselves afloat then that’s just the free-market culling that which is inefficient. I’m fairly sure though that Nationals tax cuts and excessive borrowing is being done solely to keep those inefficient institutions going at the expense of the rest of the country.
39. Bill 39

    8 August 2008 at 10:46 am

    Building good broadband is fine…all things being equal.

    If a private concern wants money from the public purse so they can generate a profit, then fine.( Assuming risk assessments came out favourably) As long as that private concern pays the money back into the public trust along with interest.

    But where the private interest wants the public to borrow money at interest and ‘give’ that money over in the form of investment and not repay the money into the public purse as it would with a loan? Na.
40. Steve Pierson 40

    8 August 2008 at 10:48 am

    I’m not going to have witch-hunts on this blog. People have a right to comment under pseudonyms as they choose.
41. Bill 41

    8 August 2008 at 11:17 am

    Infused.

    “Telecom this morning reported an annual profit of $713 million, down 15.5 per cent from $844 million in the 2006-7 year.”

    713m + 844m = 1.557bn

    So what’s wrong with Telecom having given 0 return to its shareholders for two years on the promise of windfall returns after it puts in broadband?

    Everybody (shareholders included) want what’s best? Right?

    So where does the need for money from the public purse come in?

    Having your cake and eating it perhaps?
42. travellerev 42

    8 August 2008 at 12:15 pm

    Lucas,

    You nasty little runt.

    I can see that you are a sensitive man and that you have compassion for people not so firmly rooted in your “reality” so I understand that your description of the woman behind “the hairy armpit” shows that. A “nut job” is a really understanding description. Thank you so much for your kindness.

    As for your attempt to have me declared nuts by association I think that you would need an audience more susceptible to that sort of smearing. Most people here are to smart for that maybe you should try Kiwiblog.

    I also understand that you would rather troll and smear than fight me on facts so I hope you don’t mind that from now on you can write all you want but I will happily ignore you nasty little trolling attempts
43. travellerev 43

    8 August 2008 at 12:26 pm

    For those of you wondering about John Key and his banking career the following:

    On the 19th of July the NZ Herald published a 15 page article named In search of John Key. It pretended to be an in debt review of the man who wants to become our new PM. I presume a lot of people read it as did I.

    It was as was expected, the NZH being what it is, a presentation of a man: hard working, unflappable under duress, honest and perhaps even a tad bland.

    In the Autumn of 1987 Andrew Krieger in his position as Global head of foreign exchange of the Bankers Trust New York mounted a brutal attack on the NZ$. The dollar almost tanked after only a year of being allowed to float in the international money market.

    According to John Key in both the NZH and the Sunday Star Times he worked extensively with Andrew Krieger and this confirmed by his boss Gavin Walker, then CEO of Bankers Trust New Zealand. According to Walker: “Managing that relationship on behalf of the dealing room was part of John’s responsibilities. He knew everything Krieger was executing on our desk.”

    This is all in the mainstream media not in my imagination so no conspiracy theory but facts, dates and a faulty timeline.

    When I grew up journalists were cynical and jaded and politicians were liars, all of them period. Journalists loved to catch politicians out and it didn’t matter on which side of the political divide they stood.
    As a result of learning from those people I’m as jaded and cynical and definitely distrusting to the point of paranoia were it concerns those amongst us who seek power over other people so I did what those three “journalists” should have done; Check, check and double check if only because it would be embarrassing to be caught out giving erroneous information.

    As far back as perhaps half a year ago or more I made a timeline about JK’s banking career and by my reckoning he started not in 1986 but in 1985 at Elders and he left for Bankers Trust in 1987 but since I could not verify the dates any more I decided to Google Andrew Krieger and the Bankers trust again. I had put Krieger and Key together earlier and had been very keen to find out if they had worked together because if that was so John Key would have been implicated in the ’87 attack on the NZ $. Never in my wildest dreams did I think he would actually be stupid or perhaps arrogant enough to tell us himself but he did.

    Andrew Krieger is a legend in the Wall street Finance world because at 34 years of age he was a financial genius and in the raid on the NZ $ he earned a whopping US $ 300 for the Bankers Trust.
    So when I Googled Andrew Krieger and Bankers Trust I got a wealth of hits back. Amongst them there were a couple of Newspaper articles from the NY times archive.
    It was with those that JK’s recent version of events began to unravel.

    According to JK he did not begin to work for the BTNZ until sometime in 1988. This is important because this is after the ’87 attack and gets JK in the clear as far as any association with the attack is concerned.

    But according to the articles in the NYT Andrew Krieger by that time no longer worked for the BTNY. According to the NYT AK leaves the BT in February 1988, allegedly disgusted with the measly 3 mill bonus the BT pays him after his record earnings. Since JK, again according to the NZH has a three months forhttp://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=2698#comment-79030ced holiday before he is allowed to work at BT this reduces that chances for him and Krieger to work together but that was not strong enough evidence.

    Perhaps he got it wrong (it is a long time ago after all) and maybe he worked with Krieger later in the year when he had a new job.

    It turns out AK started to work for George Soros in March 1988 until June 1988. According to an interview with AK in the NYT in 1990 AK did not trade from June 1988 until 1990 and only did consultancy work.

    So could JK have worked with Krieger during that time? Well, not if he was working for BTNZ because according to the Federal Reserve NZ BT did not register to open as a bank until August of 1988.

    So if JK worked with AK he must have worked with him in the period prior to February 1988.
    If JK knew everything about AK’s account and it was his single most important responsibility as he dealt with him with millions he must have been an experienced and trusted trader for the Bankers Trust indicating he started much earlier and most probably in the BTAU (Australia which was up and running at the time) because accounts worth hundreds of millions of $ are simply not given to rooky traders.

    And since the NZ$ was a small currency not given to huge daily trades I think it is save to bet it was JK who was working with AK when he attacked the NZ $.

    In fact when JK in 1988 presides over the selling and buying of the NZ $ in the wake of the dismissal of the Minister of Finance, Roger Douglas he is proud to announce a profit of perhaps 1, 2 or 3 million dollars, hardly comparably with the $ 300 million profit AK made for BTNY.

    If you read the NZH article you will find when describing JK’s banking career that it touches upon three major events in the international banking world. the ’87 NZ $ attack, the Asian crisis and the Subprime crisis. They way they paint it JK has not been anywhere near any of these calamities. I think that was why they published it. It was a pre-emptive puff piece because Jk knows what’s coming; A financial Tsunami and he doesn’t want to be seen as anywhere near anything that is causing it.

    But the article was also meant to show JK as good in crisis management and the only crisis he has ever unflapped through were banking crisis. Lucky for us that this was all they had so they had to use it and in the next 10 days in part 2 and 3 in my response to the NZH I will show in JK’s own words and with links to archives etc. that JK not only lied or misstated or misremembered or whatever catchy crap term they come up with about his dealings with Andrew Krieger but also with his involvement with the Asian Crisis and the Subprime crisis.

    After that it is up to you to decide whether JK is involved in the act of conspiring against the NZ people or not and if so with whom. My job is to collect info and inform as many people that are willing to listen and think about what I have to say.
44. Lew 44

    8 August 2008 at 12:29 pm

    Ev: “My job is to collect info and inform as many people that are willing to listen”

    … on your own blog, no?

    L
45. travellerev 45

    8 August 2008 at 12:34 pm

    If you don’t like what I have to say don’t read Lew,
    I don’t hear The moderators complaining. Tosser.
46. travellerev 46

    8 August 2008 at 12:39 pm

    Sorry for above here is the correct link

    But according to the articles in the NYT Andrew Krieger by that time no longer worked for the BTNY. According to the NYT AK leaves the BT in February 1988, allegedly disgusted with the measly 3 mill bonus the BT pays him after his record earnings. Since JK, again according to the NZH has a three months forced holiday before he is allowed to work at BT this reduces that chances for him and Krieger to work together but that was not strong enough evidence.

    Perhaps he got it wrong (it is a long time ago after all) and maybe he worked with Krieger later in the year when he had a new job.

    It turns out AK started to work for George Soros in March 1988 until June 1988. According to an interview with AK in the NYT in 1990 AK did not trade from June 1988 until 1990 and only did consultancy work.
47. Lew 47

    8 August 2008 at 12:41 pm

    Well, looky there, a fairly inoffensive comment met with Ev coming out blasting like Yosemite Sam.

    I’m shocked, shocked, I tell you.

    L
48. lukas 48

    8 August 2008 at 12:42 pm

    my my my! Someone CLEARY got out of the wrong side of bed this morning!

    Trav… do you actually believe/read any of what you spew out here?

    oh and btw I wasn’t trolling for information about you… it was a two second google search. I am sure if anyone really wanted they could find much more interesting information on either you or me.
49. travellerev 49

    8 August 2008 at 1:00 pm

    If I invite people to read this information on my blog I get the conspiracy crap from another tosser called Lucas and if I tell it here because this is about JK being a lying piece of shite as are his National palls you tell me to piss off.

    Who the f*&k do you guys think you are?

    I’m sure you don’t want to be confronted with some comfortable pieces of info about your hero. Too bad.

    Get used to it or perhaps you should start your own blog were you can wallow in ignorance with you tosser palls. I’m sure this site would be a whole lot better off without your demonstrably ignorant remarks and you can rest assured I would never comment cause I wouldn’t bother with your bunch of losers and added to that; you could moderate it yourself make sure information you don’t like never gets seen there.

    Sounds like win-win to me for all concerned.

    Right I’ve had Lew, I’ve had Lucas. The only one missing is Dinosaur boy. Anybody seen him lately? I could do with someone who actually has a brain even though he doesn’t use it very well and he is also given to name calling, bullying and tantrum throwing when losing a fight so perhaps… nah.
50. Kevyn 50

    8 August 2008 at 1:02 pm

    So, who stands to gain from National borrowing $5 billion if it becomes the Government?

    Apparently the same people who stand to gain from Labour’s introduction of regional fuel taxes.
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm?c_id=97&objectid=10525531
51. lukas 51

    8 August 2008 at 1:15 pm

    Trav… got the tin foil hat on too tight today?

    “If I invite people to read this information on my blog I get the conspiracy crap from another tosser called Lucas and if I tell it here because this is about JK being a lying piece of shite as are his National palls you tell me to piss off.”

    People are free to express an opinion; it is my opinion that you are a conspiracy theorist, and I believe taking a look at your website would back up my aforementioned opinion.

    “Who the f*&k do you guys think you are?”

    I think I am Luke, my wife thinks I’m Luke and last time I checked my business cards say my name is Luke.

    “I’m sure you don’t want to be confronted with some comfortable pieces of info about your hero. Too bad.”

    I am more than happy to be “confronted” with comfortable pieces of information about my hero. Two things first though, wouldn’t it be better for you to confront me with “uncomfortable information”? And secondly, how do you know who my hero is?

    “Get used to it or perhaps you should start your own blog were you can wallow in ignorance with you tosser palls. I’m sure this site would be a whole lot better off without your demonstrably ignorant remarks and you can rest assured I would never comment cause I wouldn’t bother with your bunch of losers and added to that; you could moderate it yourself make sure information you don’t like never gets seen there.”

    I was thinking of starting my own blog, but then I see how many posts etc SP et al have to do and realised I don’t have the commitment, yet alone time for a blog that would deliver anything of significance. As for this site being better off without me here… possibly, but how would we measure that value Trav? oh and I am now resting much more assured that IF I start my own blog you wont comment on it… can I get a signed contract saying that?

    “Sounds like win-win to me for all concerned.”

    They are many other alternatives that we haven’t considered, perhaps we should get together over a coffee and come up with some alternative strategies that deliver larger wins for all concerned?

    “Right I’ve had Lew, I’ve had Lucas. The only one missing is Dinosaur boy. Anybody seen him lately? I could do with someone who actually has a brain even though he doesn’t use it very well and he is also given to name calling, bullying and tantrum throwing when losing a fight so perhaps nah.”

    No, I don’t think you have “had” me, my wife is the only one that has “had” me (don’t know why you needed to know that, but oh well). We are having a fight? I really must pay more attention.

    Trav… it’s a free world, by all means express your opinion, but if someone expresses one back they have the same rights. As I have mentioned earlier, I am of the opinion that you are a cross between D4J and Chicken Little.
52. Bryan Spondre 52

    8 August 2008 at 1:21 pm

    killinginthenameof: “You woudln’t critisize a builder for being less likely to push paper than a lawyer woudl you?”

    My neighbour owns a small building company and he seems to do an awful lot of paperwork. Most of it for the government.

    My point was that government employees don’t have what it takes to be self-employed yet seem very happy to tell those of us who do how to run our businesses etc. Lance Wiggs has an excellent post on this topic on his blog.
53. travellerev 53

    8 August 2008 at 1:24 pm

    Ah Lew,

    The old “she is so aggressive” manipulation trick. Would work on your “New” blog and the women you know perhaps but f*&k you, OK. I ain’t buying and it just doesn’t work with me. Been there done that bought the T-Shirt.
    And, if it’s all the same to you I propose that from now on I will ignore you too and just direct my comments to people who actually read them and who in their guest for more knowledge take the trouble to visit my blog. Which last month topped 8500 hits, which is a hell of a lot more than John Key gets
    According to the Tumeke blogosphere list and that was on my last months score around 4900 hits.LOL

    Guess there must be a lot of Conspiracy nuts in NZ. Either that or a lot of people actually do want to know the truth about your hero.
    Today 156 kiwi’s read the post about JK and his faulty 1987 NZ dollar attack timeline. If some of them are National voters than perhaps I’ve convinced some of them not to vote for JK.

    And that’s what I’ll continue to do; One Kiwi at the time, if that is what it takes.
    So if you’ll pardon me I’ve got more important things to do than waste my time on a tosser like you.

    Goodbye Lew
54. Phil 54

    8 August 2008 at 1:31 pm

    Steve – I worded that badly and you interpreted it incorrectly. $10,000 total debt on a credit card. Was at 21% interest, now at an average of around 10% – half as much interest.

    I’ll freely admit I was young and stupid, and I’m now paying the fiscal penalty because of it. Infused’s comments about how you think you know best are spot-on.

    I’m personally quite optimistic that tax cuts will go toward paying off debt – the housing marklet is cooling and retail trade is looking weaker, and we’re going to get tax cuts regardless of this years ‘winner’ – these are the perfect conditions for ordinary NZers to be looking at reducing debt
55. randal 55

    8 August 2008 at 1:45 pm

    infused if what you are saying is correct then business should be building a broadband network for itself if the MARKET is demanding it. otherwise it is just another wonk toy!
56. travellerev 56

    8 August 2008 at 1:47 pm

    Draco TB,

    It seems that Keith Rankin says,”if the punters don’t want to spend their money because they want to hang on to what they’ve got because they can see a leaner time ahead then the Government should borrow and spend it for them.”

    Since in the end it’s the punters who are going to have to pay the debt back whether they have the money or not and with interest it seems that HC and Dr C are choosing to not borrow money in order to keep the money we still have in the pockets were it belongs in those of the average Kiwi’s instead of Banker JK who wants that money were he and his mates can enjoy it. In the pockets of the bankers squeezing us dry with years and years of interest on the loans. And if we can’t pay they can force us to sell our assets and our resources. Sounds like a bad idea to me.
57. Rx 57

    8 August 2008 at 2:33 pm

    Eve, why do you make some of your posts so long? I’m sure you would be much more effective at getting your message across if you didn’t include so much information.
58. travellerev 58

    8 August 2008 at 2:50 pm

    Hi Rx,

    Yeah, I try and I am getting better at it but sometimes there just is a lot of information.

    Thanks anyway for your advise.
59. Draco TB 59

    8 August 2008 at 3:17 pm

    Banker JK who wants that money were he and his mates can enjoy it. In the pockets of the bankers squeezing us dry with years and years of interest on the loans.

    With the NZ economy running at very close to 100% there’s almost no where that private investors could invest that would generate any returns greater than inflation. Combine that with a very shaky international money market and what you have is a lot of private investors looking for a place to put their money where the returns will be greater than inflation and guaranteed. Government bonds fit these criteria and if government borrowing forced us to sell our assets again, well, that would be just the icing on the cake for the private investors.
60. travellerev 60

    8 August 2008 at 3:37 pm

    Yep,

    So if you want to know where JK’s loyalties lie than look no further. it is not with the New Zealanders that put him in power but his rich mates
61. Quoth the Raven 61

    8 August 2008 at 4:35 pm

    John Key: Does the Prime Minister recall that the Labour Government of which she and Michael Cullen were Ministers increased net debt from 31 percent of GDP in 1984 to 49 percent of GDP in 1990, and that it was the subsequent National Government that did all the hard work and brought the net debt down to 20 percent?

    Scribe – I wonder if it is you or John Key telling porkies. This government has got debt down from 35% of GDP to 20%.
62. roger nome 62

    8 August 2008 at 9:07 pm

    lukas:

    You seem to be trolling for a reaction where trav is concerned. Sad really. Tell me, do you have anything to say about trav’s points regarding the chronological inconsistencies between the “unathorised” JK biography, and other documents?

Links to post

1. The Standard 2.01: The Standard Week: August 1-8: posted on 8 August 2008 at 11:46 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS