He’ll make us ruch as well as thuck

Written By: - Date published: 1:07 pm, November 11th, 2008 - 77 comments
Categories: election 2008, Media - Tags:

One Aussie view of our election.

77 comments on “He’ll make us ruch as well as thuck”

  1. John Stevens 1

    Logic 101:
    There is no such thing as bright & poor.
    Labour are the party for the thick.
    Therefore Labour will make you poor.

    Probably written by the same person Batman met in Melb uncovering the H-Fee boomerang.

  2. Lampie 2

    Thanks for putting your hand up as one of the thuck there John

  3. Vinsin 3

    I remember reading that article a few days ago and it brought such a smile to my face.

    “NEW Zealanders have voted for change – a leap from Left to Right – with all the enthusiasm and reasoning power of a doped slug.” Is one of my favorite quotes as well as “Bring Barack Obama to mind — strip him of charisma and vision, then douse him in White King — and you’ve got NZ’s new PM.”

    John, what are you basing your “logic” on? Have you actually read the article this post was set aside for, it doesn’t seem like it. It seems like your trolling for… well i’m sure you have your reasons.

  4. Lampie 4

    He doesn’t realise Vinsin that the world media thinks we are just a stupid little country that needs a reminder that voting is actually a responsibility. Voting for change for change sake has the world laughing at us and maybe we just realise how great this country is… perhaps now, was.

  5. gingercrush 5

    New Zealand voted for change simple. I think most of us on the right can say one reason we won was because New Zealand doesn’t like their governments in power for too long hence one reason Labour lost.

    Labour won the Australian election after a strong Liberal-National coalition and over there you couldn’t exactly justify the change either.

    I never understood arguments from the left saying because other countries went left New Zealand should stay left. The reason Australia went left was that they too were tired of their long-term government. And because of their system, that resulted in a massive defeat.

    Its simply the removing of long-term governments in English speaking countries. It’ll be interesting to see what Britain does. They may indeed become the exception and not change governments.

  6. John Stevens 6

    Lampie – I am not thuck, just a sales manager on over $100K. I am a rich prick actually.
    I was re calling my days from Stage 1 Logic at Uni.

    Please tell me how Greens would get NZ out of the mire we are in, ohhhhhhhh please. By tax, tax, tax to pay for the poor thick people out there? Job creation would ruin the environment, we need a committee to decide.

  7. Felix 7

    “I am not thuck, just a sales manager on over $100K. I am a rich prick actually.”

    Please explain why that negates the possibility of you being a bit thuck.

    You don’t need to use university level logic (it’s beyond you anyway), primary school level should suffice for this.

  8. Lampie 8

    Glad that discrimination is alive and well in NZ

  9. Chess Player 9

    Wouldn’t worry too much what the Ozzies say – their economy is going pear-shaped just as quickly as ours, if not faster.

    I really hope they have invested their squillions from mineral exports into things like producing fresh water and food – at least we (still, just) have enough of those things over here.

    I always find it amusing, but slightly sad, how whenever someone overseas publishes something negative about NZ the media, including bloggers, are so quick to publish it.

    Why do they (you) feel they (you) need to do that?

    Just seems negative and un-necessary to me…

  10. Jono 10

    Wow John, $100k plus? Can I have your babies, you sound purrrrfect!
    But seriously, people who talk about their enormous “salaries” in front of strangers. Like, whatever 🙂

  11. Lampie 11

    lol Felix, I’m on $130K so I must be brighter

  12. Lew 12

    GC: Hell no, the UK Tories are going to completely own the coming election. Though the LibDems might increase their share of the pie a little.

    L

  13. gingercrush,

    do I take it how the last nine years of national would be dealt by you in the same sense as your commentary regarding Labour..?

    You write of “longterm government”. Nine years.. lucky kiwis huh. Yeah, seriously, for instance the Thatcher years in UK are no mean respecter of justice for Britain’s prevailing mess.. financial, economic and you name it.. Like Blackpool rock ‘the thatcher’ went the whole way through..

    Something you could never say for Prime Minister Clark and her Deputy Dr. Cullen.. or are ever likely to say for their successors.

    ps: the singer song – aussie link – entertains

  14. Ms M 14

    Jill, spot on. Like the magpie that swoops on anything flashy, my fellow New Zealanders could not get past the shiny new political offering that is John Key. His forex career was king but bereft of any investigation into it, we were offered crafted populist pieces about the “state house kid” made good.

    Questions in the last two weeks of the campaign over the contradictory timeline of his earliest career in New Zealand were readily glossed over by media. The contradiction was simply explained away as “he had his dates wrong” when he said in a NZ Herald article last year he had left Elders for Bankers Trust in 1987 three months before H-Fee and three months before the October 87 sale of NZ Steel.

    We were asked to take it as given the NZ Herald had corrected the year he resigned from Elders to 1988 in an article in February; although making a 1988 resignation possible to support his 1991 NCA H-Fee testimony, the article committed much of it’s February copy to the lucrative working relationship he had with Bankers Trust New York trader Andrew Krieger. Considering Krieger resigned New York’s Bankers Trust in December 1987, a 1988 relationship with Krieger would have being impossible.

    In the wake of Saturday’s election result, Key has said he’d “rather be a loser, than a liar”. It looks like he’s mastered the first; let’s see how long it takes him to master the second.

  15. Lampie 15

    lol Felix, I’m on $130K so I must be brighter

    pssst Jono, I made that up, beauty of the net, be anyone

  16. John: ” I am not thuck, just a sales manager on over $100K. I am a rich prick actually.”

    ………given your job probably will not survive the crisis looming like a tsunami round our shores, you may have to go into buzzness yourself, and become a struggling prick. Failing that you may have to go on the dole with the rest of the sales team and join the newly formed but rapidly growing queues of thuck. Good luck.

    Dont forget remove the F from Failure and you get Sailure.

  17. gingercrush 17

    My statement was simply New Zealand doesn’t like long-term governments. New Zealand favours 2-3 term governents. National right now should look forward to winning the 2011 election. (Though its early days so who knows).

    If National does get two terms. Then they will really have to fight for three terms. If they do get three terms the probability is they get removed like Helen Clark’s Labour government only got three terms. Because I don’t think New Zealand wil have a government in for longer than three terms. And likely the same arguments the people on the left used will be used by the right. I think New Zealand did want change in 2008 but I also think many were simply tired of Labour.

    Lets say National enjoys the success that Labour did from 1999-2008 then the same will be in effect. New Zealand will desire change but maybe most important they just want a new government and have become tired of the last government.

  18. Evidence-Based Practice 18

    Anyone notice that Key is about to get a 5 headed monster government?

  19. Felix 19

    Juhn? are you stull here?

    Are you stull reading the quustiun? I’ll guv you a but more time thun…

  20. bobo 20

    Kiwis and Americans arnt so different it seems , maybe we’ve just come out of our Clinton years.

    oh yay commentator’s are comparing salary sizes now , whats next, I drive a Lexus with walnut dash?

  21. Vinsin 21

    Evidence, no it’s a sound government when National do it.

    Gc, i don’t actually think people were that keen on “change”, a lot of people didn’t vote. (tired left-wing argument i know but nonetheless true)

  22. felix,

    Juhn? are you stull here?

    One of the other notes left for me here was “look out for the fellix(sic) joker”.

    I can see why.. 🙂

  23. Felix 23

    bobo I think we all know what’s next.

  24. fitzyp 24

    Is John Stevens for real?

  25. Camryn 25

    Your glee over that nasty article strikes me as the start of *your* “NZ Sux” campaign.

    That is, I’m fairly confident that you don’t consider the NZ public to have the reasoning ability of a doped slug but are cynically willing to promote an article that says so now that it suits you to do so. Hypocritical.

  26. Chess Player 26

    Am quite enjoying the spectacle of such intelligent debate….

    A bit like sitting in on a group counselling session….

  27. bobo 27

    Off topic : So Osama bin Laden’s son wants to live here, this could this be the first foreign affairs test for John Key and the world media is taking an interest in this case.

  28. camryn,
    but are cynically willing to promote an article that says so now that it suits you to do so

    Thats a great filter on yo’ pic. Green. Eye cover..?

  29. gingercrush 29

    Sorry Vinsin. The fact National won this election as decisive as they did seems to me people wanted a change. People wanted a change and were tired of the Labour government. Both the Howard government and Clark’s government enjoyed excellent economical times. They played it safe with neither going too extreme. But both fell victim to a mood for change.

    The vote turnout was lower compared to 2005. Clearly South Auckland voters felt change was in the air, thus they chose not to turn-up. Basically it was South Auckland and Waitakere that chose not to turn up for the polls. Otherwise voter turnout was rather the same as 2005. So sorry but I don’t think your argument rings true. New Zealand gets TIRED OF LONG TERM GOVERNMENTS AND OVERTIME THEY WANT CHANGE. How clear can I be?

  30. Glenn 30

    Is this the same Australia that elected John Howard four times?

  31. Lampie 31

    “Juhn? are you stull here?

    Are you stull reading the quustiun? I’ll guv you a but more time thun ”

    Hess aut dule office, gettiung handout from your tuxes

  32. j 32

    Yeah, it’s cathartic (supposedly for them)

    Not much in the way of introspection as to why labour lost. Still that will come in time. In the meantime I expect, must like a jilted husband left wing posters will blame everyone but themselves. Tumeke is a precusor to this.

  33. Conrad 33

    FUTZY???

  34. G/cruch,

    OVERTIME THEY WANT CHANGE. How clear can I be?

    Well, over time would help. Can’t have folks working anytime and all the time can we..;-)

  35. Lampie 35

    “Your glee over that nasty article strikes me as the start of *your* “NZ Sux’ campaign.”

    Sorry, your mob got a head start on that one

  36. Mongous 36

    It’s funny how a couple of weeks ago the Aussie media were just the propaganda wing of a war supporting, racist colonial nation and now we should all defer to their wisdom about our new government.

  37. Vinsin 37

    Gc, I agree with you, “over time people get tired of a long term government and want a change.” (In government.)
    What I find problematic is this vague use of the word “change.” If you mean change in government then fine, but you need to say this.
    “How clear can i be?” You can be clearer by saying, “change in government,” not just “change,” change can mean anything and everything. This is why I have problems with this constant use of the word because if people were really voting for change then perhaps we would have seen an Act led government. National has been called Labour-lite, moderate centrist, and by Wodney, “more left leaning then Helen” so to say again, ‘did NZ’ers really vote for change?’ (When i say change I mean real changes to policies, thinking and methods.) Or – and this is probably more correct – did they vote for less of the same?

    Another point that should probably be made here is that National only managed to grab an extra 6% of the party vote. The support National had in the last election was around 41% and I get the feeling that they could probably described as core supporters. Now then, I don’t think they would’ve voted differently – or for this fantastic word change – because the core support believes in the ideals, political ideology and views of their particular party. So, once again I don’t think we can say without any doubt that NZ voted for change; this is too simplistic, we could probably say 6% voted for “change” and if we add in Act’s party vote – let’s just round it up to ten – we can say 10% of NZ voted for a change in government. It was enough to push the Nats over the line but not enough for me to buy this “NZ voted for change” slogan your parroting.

    ‘Clearly South Auckland voters felt change was in the air, thus they chose not to turn-up.Basically it was South Auckland and Waitakere that chose not to turn up for the polls.’ This isn’t a vote for change, this a vote of apathy. I’m sorry but your argument that not voting is a vote for change (National) is ludicrous.

    It may seem like i’m being a stickler for clarity but if there’s one lesson we all should take from this election result it’s to never underestimate the power of language. I, like a lot of people, didn’t realize how effective this word, “change,” was at getting people to pay less attention to actual policies. The Nats did well to borrow Obama’s slogan and we (us lefties) underestimated it’s appeal.

  38. Ben R 38

    Could Jill Singer be any more patronising?

  39. Jimbo 39

    Jill Singer reckons the New Zealand public has shown the reasoning of a “doped-up slug” when voting. Since she’s started with the insults, I’d say she should probably leave the politics alone and stick with book reviews, celebrity gossip and such.

    It is offensive to suggest that New Zealanders don’t know what they’re doing when they exercise their democratic right to chose. Jill Singer knows no more about my motivations in voting than I know about her last bowel movement.

    As an opinion piece, her article is fine. If it’s supposed to be real journalism, she should have made that bowel movement directly onto paper.

  40. Jimbo,

    any chance you telling us what a ‘chose’ is..? and yes, quite correct of you to say you have “motivatuons”.. a little shrill, however, to infer that yours and yours alone are the modus operandi of kiwi voters on the last election day..

  41. Stack 41

    Exactly right, Vinsin.

    When John Key, at the end of election night, burbled euphorically of “New Zealanders in their hundreds of thousands” voting for change, it was a total exaggeration. Tens of thousands, maybe; while the core supporters of the left and the right voted pretty much as they always have, in accordance, rightly or wrongly, with their beliefs.

    The floating voters in the middle are the ones who decide an election, and they unfortunately include the greedy (or, I must admit, the needy), who will vote for the best short term bribe, the confused and ignorant, who are trying to do their best and hope they haven’t made the same mistake as last time, and the gamblers and pin-stickers, who think elections are a sort of lotto – and they might just get lucky.

  42. Julian Garrett 42

    NEW Zealanders have voted for change – a leap from Left to Right – with all the enthusiasm and reasoning power of a doped slug.’ Is one of my favorite quotes as well as “Bring Barack Obama to mind — strip him of charisma and vision, then douse him in White King and give him a sex change — and you’ve got NZ’s OLD PM

    About right!!

  43. Matthew Pilott 43

    NEW Zealanders have voted for change – a leap from Left to Right – with all the enthusiasm and reasoning power of a doped slug.’ Is one of my favorite quotes as well as “Bring Barack Obama to mind — strip him of charisma and vision, then douse him in White King and give him a sex change — and you’ve got NZ’s OLD PM

    About right!!

    What, Key’s been rolled aready?

  44. Lampie 44

    “Off topic : So Osama bin Laden’s son wants to live here, this could this be the first foreign affairs test for John Key and the world media is taking an interest in this case.”

    Simple, has physical attributes suitable for fruit picking and can wipe his own arse, he’s in!!!

  45. Akldnut 45

    Vinsin – You are right on the mark, I think the apathy was put there by the brain washing and negativity of the media (and the polls) in the leadup which had a huge influence in the outcome of the election.

  46. Jimbo,

    I have to agree with Jill. I have never lived in a country were people in general were so stupid and uninformed about politics and so dumb in their reasons to vote.

    Someone said in another article that everywhere else people put the Wall street bankers on shelves of ice and pushing them into the ocean and in NZ they give them more power.

    No Jimbo,

    People here really are incompetent and the suckers who voted for JK deserve what they are going to get, it’s just too bad that the people who voted against him are going to get hurt too.

    In the kiwi defence I’d have to say that I have also never lived in country were the mass media were so controlled but in a time were we have the internet to do more research this should not have mattered that much.

  47. Tim Ellis 47

    travellev, if you think New Zealanders are so stupid and uninformed, then feel free to return the intelligent and informed country you came from.

    What a horrible, nasty description of New Zealanders: “Incompetent and suckers”. You clearly made the wrong choice to come here. Have you got nothing other than abuse in your “New Zealand sux” campaign?

  48. Tim Ellis,

    I live in a rural and well informed community and I am very happy here. I’ve been happily married to a wonderful NZ bloke for more than 21 years and intend to stay that way for as long as I can but after a couple of days of contemplating about how NZers decide who to vote for I have come to the conclusion that most of them vote with their dick, also known as the little head.

    The reasoning being the following: If it’s female and I would not want to bed her I won’t vote for her, no matter how competent. If the opponent is a bloke I would like to make misogynist jokes about ugly women with while sipping a beer next to the burning bangers on the BBQ I’ll vote for him no matter what his background or his experience is.

    The big head doesn’t enter the equation as it where.

    The result: New Zealand is the laughing stock around the world and has a lot of people shaking their head.
    The entire world wants to get rid of the Wall street/City of London elite and we give our country to the same Wall street/City of London elite even though John Key has been a proven liar just because the newspapers have been telling us for the last three years that “we need change”.

    Pretty stupid if you ask me.

  49. Ms M,

    Do you have a link confirming the December 1987 departure of Andrew Krieger?
    I found one article in which Krieger tells us he left 1987 but three confirming a February 1988 departure, all of them from the NY Times archives.

    Since Krieger left trading altogether after a short stint in senior management for Soros in June 1988 the August 29 1988 still makes it impossible for John Key to have worked with Krieger in 1988 anyway but I want my timeline to be as close to the facts as possible.

  50. Tim Ellis 50

    You’re very wrong, travellerev. I don’t make personal comments about Helen Clark. I have a lot of admiration and respect for her, particularly for what she has done for New Zealand internationally.

    New Zealanders voted for Helen Clark three times. They weren’t misogynist then, and they aren’t now. It was the National Party who selected New Zealand’s first woman prime minister in Jenny Shipley.

    Nice try at smearing all New Zealanders who voted for John Key as woman-haters, but you’re just wrong. You should try and understand more about New Zealanders and our political history rather than just abusing us.

  51. Trust me Tim Ellis,

    I try, I honestly try but I fail to see what is so attractive about a proven lying Wall street/City of London banker.
    That is not a personal attack on John Key. He was caught lying a multitude of times. That’s a fact.
    And even though the mainstream media does not want to delve into his past the fact remains that he lied about his career timeline, about his policies and about the amount of shares he had in Transrail.

    The only hope I have is that as the financial crisis will hit hard, people will want to know how and why and whom to hold responsible and it won’t be too late.

    I would not want to be in JK’s shoes when farmers and real estate builders and exporters find out what JK’s been up to in the years leading up to the global financial collapse; Selling crap financial products to suckers like the people in NZ who have lost their nest egg last year due to the subprime crisis.

  52. Chess Player 52

    Wouldn’t feel too insulted Tim, what you are hearing from travellerev is pretty true to form. You aren’t the first she’s had a go at and won’t be the last. Just check her other posts, on this blog and others.

    At the end of the day, which many of the more reasonable bloggers from the left here have recognised, the election is over, and regardless of which side you stand on, it should be about getting on with it now.

  53. Tim Ellis 53

    Travellerev, you have been caught lying multiple times about John Key’s background, including in your most recent post. By your own standard, you are a proven liar.

    New Zealanders have chosen John Key as Prime Minister to lead a National-led government. That is what happens in democracy. You have two choices. You can either accept the popular choice, as changes of government happen in democracies, or you can continue to show contempt for democratic systems by abusing New Zealanders who voted for him.

    If you’re going to abuse New Zealanders, and hate us so much for making our democratic choice, then I suggest you go back to Holland. Or better yet, go to a regime that you like, and isn’t democratic so that it doesn’t change and you won’t suffer the pain of thinking ill towards your new country. Cuba and North Korea come to mind.

  54. Chess Player 54

    travellerev,

    As part of a wider sociological research study, I have been tracking bloggers post election using the Kubler-Ross model. It has proven quite interesting.

    Just to let you know, based on your postings in the last 24 hours, I have you pegged at around the peak of Stage 2.

    Kind regards,

  55. Lew 55

    Chess Player: If you’re serious, and not taking the (well-deserved) piss, I’d be interested to see them results.

    L

  56. gomango 56

    travellerev – where do we stat….. again.

    i thought we’d put to bed the myth you’re pedaling about “Selling crap financial products to suckers like the people in NZ who have lost their nest egg last year due to the subprime crisis”. If you are talking about investors in 4 specific managed funds run by two specific investment managers, you have half a point but if you are talking about all the people who lost around $3 billion invested in NZ finance companies – very little to do with the subprime crisis. Fundamental reason those companies failed is because:

    1 they were undercapitalised
    2 their loans were almost 100% to property developers
    3 their loans were amost exclusively second lien
    4 their loans were almost exclusively PIK
    5 they had a complete funding mismatch between the term profile of their assets and their liabilities
    5 their management was generally either incompetent or corrupt
    6 they generally engaged in ridiculous amounts of related party lending
    7 the NZ property market was clearly highly overvalued, as many commentators have been pointing out for at least 3 years now.

    All of these are red flags to any first year business studies student, let alone regulators and auditors, and yes – investors who typically should have known better. Unfortunately sucked in by slick TV advertising or poor advice by dopey financial planners.

    Who is really to blame:

    – the management of these companies for ignoring basic business principles and trying to get rich quick with little in the way of ethcs
    – the NZ regulators and Government who were aware of the risk in this sector but chose to do feck all about it

    You didn’t see and won’t see properly run finance companies like SCF, UDC, Marac etc fall over.

    You need to get over your blind hatred of John Key. Even if one accepts you’re assertions are true (and we have already proved most of them are not), are they that significant? If they are true, are they any different to the slips of tongue pretty much every other politician has had. Like Helen Clark for instance – if you wanted to you could prove exactly the same types of things of her (or any other public figure) you are alleging of Key. The attacks on her as far as I am concerned are just as irrelevant, unless the incidents impact on how she did her job as PM. But if you critique her slip ups and trangressions with the same figure I would accept that you have an objective view point.

    Get over it. He is rich. You don’t like rich people. This is tall poppy syndrome. In the absence of a socialist paradise where all income is completely redistributed (god forbid) “rich people” (those above $60,000 income per annum apparently), pay the bulk of taxes.

    Hold Key to account for his actions as Prime Minister. Otherwise everyone will think you just have a personal vendetta. And clearly the misogynist line is a joke. There will always be fringe nuts on both right and left on many issues – the 90% in the middle of NZ is not, it is generally fair and reasonable. Keep on believing the vote went right because “men hate Helen”, you’ll doom labour to many years in opposition.

    I am sorry you have such a poor opinion of New Zealanders. It is extremely arrogant to suggest that a country with the democratic tradition that NZ has has voters that are “Incompetent and suckers’. The most incredible thing about countries like NZ, Australia, US, Canada etc is the good grace with which power changes hands at after the people have voted, and often after a heated and spirited contest. You, me or any other individual (including Chris Trotter – his last commentary was the closest thing I have ever seen in this country to a call to fascism by a mainstream commentator) is not smarter than our democatic tradition. If you don’t like it, go back to whence you came. If you do like it, welcome.

  57. rave 57

    Chess Player:

    Crowing is still crowing even when its dressed up as pseudo scientific crowshit.

    Tim Ellis:

    You won, get over it. The next three years will prove how correct the left is that this election was bought by the rich and powerful posing as ‘centrists’ in order to implement their Rogernomics 2.

    I’m sure youll keep cheeking back to lift your morale.

  58. gomango 58

    that should be “same vigour” not “same figure”

  59. Chess Player 59

    Lew,

    “Chess Player: If you’re serious, and not taking the (well-deserved) piss, I’d be interested to see them results. ”

    No worries, for a small fee…

    Just send your 30 pieces of silver to;

    Mr. K. Keiser
    c/- Level 47,
    Ray Zorgang House
    1 The Terrace
    Wellington

    Your order will then be promptly fulfilled via our Nairobi clearing house.

  60. gomango,

    quite good summation.. thanks for it..
    then:— (re blame)
    – the management of these companies for ignoring basic business principles and trying to get rich quick with little in the way of ethcs
    – the NZ regulators and Government who were aware of the risk in this sector but chose to do feck all about it

    likely correct in the first part, half correct in the second. There has been a worldwide reliance on commercial corporations, who carried some pretty bad and recklessly arrogant attitudes on from prior industrials peers. This amounted to over-ride on corporate compliant governments..

    silver lining, however, is certain knowledge that when commerfcial corporates stuff up bigtime they fall back on socialising their losses. This. assuredly, brings governments, public sectors, what you will, back into contention. At least.

    And that, IMO, is the challenge for voters to take up. Singer (aussie link) revealed a missing aspect in the kiwi electorate’s character.

    And yes, it’s a stretch perhaps, but this morning’s news of a 59 percent voter turnout would suggest something like a 60:40 breakdown in the enzed electorate’s sense of responsibilities.

    Way to go…

  61. Tim Ellis,

    Lying is when you tell something proven to be false.

    Lie number one/ John Key told is in this interview that he started to work with AK in late August 1988.
    That is a lie and I can prove it is a lie. Why? Because in three articles in the NY Times online archives written by three different journalists on three different dates stretching over a period of three years from February 1988 via <a href=’http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DEFDF153FF934A35755C0A96E948260&scp=3&sq=andrew%20krieger&st=cseJune 1988 until September 1990 it is stated that AK left Bankers Trust possibly as early as December 1987 but definitely not later than February 1988 making it impossible for JK to have worked with him in late August 1988 for the Bankers Trust.

    Since the 1990 article states that AK left Soros in June 1988 and that he left forex trading altogether in that month it is impossible for JK to have worked with him in August 1988 period.

    I feel to see where I lie here.

    Lie number two/ JK and the NZ Herald tell us that the Subprime crisis products were not developed until 2004-2005.

    This is what the article tells us:

    Key explains: “I had a whole lot of people working for me who were at the cutting edge of delivering quite complex and new and innovative products. They tended to either be a new product or into a new market, usually the emerging markets, Russia, Brazil, Argentina. I wasn’t the guy sitting there dreaming it all up, but I was the guy who was responsible for those people.” Did he foresee the problems which resulted in the sub-prime crisis? “Was it hard to predict? Not really.”

    And it continues:

    The products which underpinned the sub-prime boom – then bust – were hatched in 2004-2005, long after Key had left Merrill. Indeed, he says when he went back to London in 2007 he was “horrified” at the level of risk Merrill was running. “It was enormous and I just didn’t think that enough had changed to warrant that level of risk.”

    This is an absurd lie and I can prove it. In this BBC timeline in graphics article there is a graph showing when the Subprime mortgages started. This was at the end of 1997. and the bubble peaked in 2004 2005 2006 and collapsed in early 2007 so when JK visited his ex-bosses in their posh London headquarters on October 2007 ML was well onto their way of collapsing.

    This is what happened when the Glass Steagall act was repealed unofficially in 1999 and officially in November 1999. Banks such as ML had been lobbying for this law to be repealed since 1987 and it made the whole scam possible.
    “A beautiful model for fraud”

    Since JK was reported by this link to be the Managing director of debt and he according to his own worlds was presiding over this department developing al these exiting new products in exactly the same time as the bubble began to build I reckon JK has every reason to tell people that ridiculous whopper especially since he worked and lived in New York of and on according to his own words in this speech and he was one of only four upon invitation only advisors to Alan Greenspan from 1999 until March 2001.

    I fail to see where I lie here either.

  62. lprent 62

    Tim: I’d have to agree with travellerev.

    …people in general were so stupid and uninformed about politics and so dumb in their reasons to vote.

    Outside of the political circles that is a pretty accurate description of most peoples political decision making process this time around. They weren’t voting about anything substantive issue wise, they were voting on visceral responses on what are essentially non-issues.

    For instance:-

    Repeal of s59 – affects a few people each year, and was removed so judges could convict without having a ill-worded exception put up as a defense. Probably had more to do with the outcome of the election than anything else.

    compared to

    EFA. Most people had no idea what that is, and even fewer cared. But it was a substantive change in electoral law. The few that did know about it simply repeated the mantra that it was something to do with the pledge card (which was different legislation)

    compared to

    Cullen fund and its future. There was no debate about Nationals lack of commitment to keep forward loading it. The only debate I saw about Nationals commitment to change the law on it to put 40% in the local market was from economists and market analysts. They pretty well universally panned it as stupid and an ineffective use of the funds – contary to the intended purpose. The best I heard from the public was something about it sounds like a good idea…

    compared to

    Well you can fill in the list.
    A suggestion to change the standards for lightbulbs to move towards something that produces less waste, consumed less power, and followed most of the western countries heading in that direction. People were up in arms about this… It was weird. I also saw more bullshit ‘science’ over this than I have since G was around.

    compared to…… well you get the point

    Essentially the less important an issue was, the more it seemed to have made an impact on the decision of people to vote centre-right. That is at least from the people I’ve talked to.

    I’d say that travellerev’s description is pretty accurate. However it says as much about the media as it does about anything else. The Herald for instance ran massive sets of articles on the EFA. I never saw them say a damn thing about why the legislation was brought forward apart from the bretheren angle, and their crappy lies about it curtailing democracy (ie you have to declare the source of your political funds, and that would curtail the Herald’s advertising).

  63. the sprout 63

    quite true lprent.
    a stupid vote from a largely ignorant public.

    but then in this age of microscopic party membership and minimal political participation what do the public rely on for pretty much all their political agenda and ‘supporting’ information? the msm.

    and do our commercial msm really care if they actually fullfil their democratic duty to properly inform the electorate in order that we can then make fully informed, and thereby genuinely free, choices?

    well just consider for example why TV3 didn’t even bother to run a minor leaders debate this election.

  64. Chess player,

    I’ve seen many elections come and go and was happy to concede.

    This is different.

    The global financial world is collapsing. This is due to the speculative bubble building of a handful of very powerful unscrupulous banksters. As the world glides into a financial abyss we will be made to pay for the speculation that made JK rich.

    In the US alone the banksters have already robbed the population of 5 trillion dollars in the last year alone and counting.

    I’ll tell you what will happen under Key. The reserve bank will start to borrow and borrow and borrow from the Federal Reserve in order to stave off the inevitable collapse and it will prop up the international banks and guess who are going to pay that money back?

    I’ll give you a hint; It ain’t John Key and it ain’t the Wall street scheisters.
    While John Key will travel off to his condo in Hawaii you and me and generations to come will be paying and paying and paying.

    Not too smart mate.

  65. Gomango,

    Patronising much. See my comment to chess player.
    I don’t hate John Key. I don’t know him and for all I know he probably a likeable chap in day to day contact.

    I don’t like the big hiatus in his career narrative, I don’t like what is happening in the international finance world and how it’s linked to JK.

    And the lies, I can’t stand the lies and how the MSM does not investigate those lies.

    I don’t think anybody capable of lying about just about anything should be elected the PM of this country. Seems pretty reasonable to me.

    And no you haven’t disproven the two woppers I gave in my previous comment.

    Not a singly link breaking my evidence. Not a single fact against my facts disproving my narrative.

    He lied about AK and he lied about his involvement with the subrpime crisis and he lied about the subprime product timeline. Period.

    If you’re happy with a man like that in power good for you cause you got him and your going to have to live with him for the next three years while his mates are collapsing the worlds financial system.

    I personally like my politicians relatively honest and open and no, I did not vote for Helen Clark

  66. Tim Ellis 66

    LP, your own newly-elected leader has just admitted that Labour made big mistakes with the EFA, and is now seeking the multipartisan support that his own party rejected last year. That’s about the biggest condemnation of the EFA you can get, in his first real pronouncement as Leader.

  67. gomango 67

    travellerev – just try and keep interestng, this time i’ll work backward thru your “facts” until I get bored.

    JK and the Fed – he was on their foreign exchange committee. I note you are no longer he was “advising Greenspan on how to repaeal Glass-Steagall”. Key was global head of FX at ML, thats why he was on teh Fed FX committee. What does this committee do? Wikipedia has a short entry on it which sums it up. Its not that exciting. They mostly worry about operational risk in the markets and how to reduce it. Satan is not and never has beena member. Link here:http://www.newyorkfed.org/fxc/

    JK and NY – what is the issue. He lived and worked in NY presumably. Satan actually lives in Birmingham though he does travel widely.

    JK was a managing Director – along with about (at least) 5 or 600 others at Merrill Lynch. There are lots of MD’s in a bank, even more Directors and way more Vice -Presidents. Did you know thats how the rankings work? “Debt Markets” is the catch all description of the unit that includes a zillion business lines – depending on the bank – from Govt Bonds to ABS to MBS to DCM to etc etc. At about the same time, my bank had 3 business lines: Equities, Global Banking, and Debt Markets. FX was in Debt Markets.

    A beautiful model for Fraud – Yes. But this crisis ins no different in cause to any other- it;s just bigger. It’s what you get when greed intersects with easy liquidity and poor regulation and politics. Whats different this time is that the “too big to fail” argument is being trotted out a lot more than is usual.

    JK horrified – this wouldn’t surprise me. Anyone who left a bank around 200 (oer whenever he did) and then had a good look at the same bank in 2007 would be horrified. Leverage, size of balance sheet and reliance on VAR risk models would be starkly different from what was common 6 or 7 years early. Mayb not so obvious to those who had stayed in the business in the intervening years and seen it grow gradually.

    Your BBC timeline only tells some of the story. The real problem was sub-prime not mortgages per se. Even this article which you recklessly quote does describe the real issue which is now obvious:
    “In the past five years, the private sector has dramatically expanded its role in the mortgage bond market, which had previously been dominated by government-sponsored agencies like Freddie Mac.

    They specialised in new types of mortgages, such as sub-prime lending to borrowers with poor credit histories and weak documentation of income, who were shunned by the “prime” lenders like Freddie Mac.”

    Key words – IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS ie since Q2 2002. The start of the crisis (in terems of market prices for CDO’s going down rather than up) occured in March 2007 – I remember it vividly because it was the start of the end of that phase of my career. ABS CDO’s and super senior trade did only get going in in 2003 or so and didn’t get to the vast issuance stage until around late 2005. I showed you the numbers a few weeks ago and you just blithely ignore them.

    The AK and JK links – I still don’t know what you are trying to prove here. That they never had the chance to talk at various times? Where’s the quote saying both guys only ever talked to each or dealt with each other while BOTH were at BT. Both guys were key figures in NZ FX markets thru the mid 80’s. Are you trying to prove they never talked or did talked? Or just that people get mixed up on dates over 20 years ago. If KEy was trying to hide is currency trading past in order to look “nicer” then I am sure he would want to deny knowing Krieger. He doesn’t. You’d have a real conspiracy if Key said “I never knew Krieger”

    Show some consistency – why not do an expose on some of the things Phil Goff said as a student radical and what that implies for foreign policy under his leadership if he becomes prime minister. Just as ludicrous right?

    Now I’m bored.

  68. Ha hahaha Gomango,

    A link to the Federal reserve site is all you have?

    The Glass Steagall act was repealed because the banksters including Alan Greenspan and his banking masters spend between a 100 to 200 million dollars in the 12 years leading up to it in order to lobby congress to get that law repealed.
    JK is at the very top in Merrill Lynch trading in debt products while the one barrier that keeps banking even remotely honest is being eroded away by the banksters themselves and you think he did not know what was going on? F*&king hell, Gomango I would dearly like to know what colour the sky has on your planet.

    So John Key is Global head for Forex, Europen head for bonds and Derivatives for a bank most notable for it’s aggression in the derivatives trade now causing all the problems and the banking wrold has spend $ 100 to $ 200 million in the 12 years leading up to what every banker knew would be the biggest greed fest ever and JK “the smiling assassin” was not involved so I guess that is why he tells us that and I quote “the products causing the subprime crisis were not hatched until 2004-2005.”

    Yeah right. F*&k, you believe that I’ve got a piece of rainforest in the Sahara that would be just right for you.

    By the way that sacking JK had to do was because ML had just burned it’s fingers badly on the LTCM hedgefund which had to be bailed out by the Feds too.
    What was that about again ooh oops. Forex derivatives and speculation about Asian currencies and the collapse of the Russian rouble. Could JK have something to do with…. nah JK wouldn’t do that, he was a nice banker.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  69. gomango 69

    I give up. Our worlds just aren’t in the same realities.

    Go and read some of those books I have suggested. Speak to some people who have worked in the finance industry. Stop googling for proof.

  70. Oh and about the AK and JK connection.

    According to JK and his boss in this interview and this interview
    he was responsible for huge amounts of trades with AK. If this is true he could not have done these trades when he alleges he starts to work for Bankers trust in August 1988 because AK had left the forex business by then only to return in 1990.

    So either John Key worked with AK in 1987 or he did not work with AK at all. Simple.
    And if he worked with AK in 1987 than I bet you that he was working with AK during the raid on the NZ dollar almost bringing NZ’s economy down.
    And twenty year later he lies about it because he wanted to become your PM.

  71. Chess Player 71

    travellerev,

    “The global financial world is collapsing. This is due to the speculative bubble building of a handful of very powerful unscrupulous banksters. As the world glides into a financial abyss we will be made to pay for the speculation that made JK rich.

    In the US alone the banksters have already robbed the population of 5 trillion dollars in the last year alone and counting.

    I’ll tell you what will happen under Key. The reserve bank will start to borrow and borrow and borrow from the Federal Reserve in order to stave off the inevitable collapse and it will prop up the international banks and guess who are going to pay that money back?

    I’ll give you a hint; It ain’t John Key and it ain’t the Wall street scheisters.
    While John Key will travel off to his condo in Hawaii you and me and generations to come will be paying and paying and paying.

    Not too smart mate.”

    You are the one panicking, “mate”, not me.

    This was all foretold, in various forms, such as in The Collapse of Globalism: And the Reinvention of the World by John Ralston Saul.

    Saul is remarkably accurate in this book of some years ago in his projected sequence of events.

    He stops short, however, of explaining what will happen next, and finished with a rather hopeful view that everyone will somehow be nicer to each other.

    Interestingly he even interviewed Helen Clark and reports on her in this book as one of the more ‘aware’ leaders around. Can’t say I’ve seen much evidence of that myself tho’, given where she’s left things.

    I don’t doubt that you, and generations to come, will be “paying, and paying, and paying” as you say, but personally I will not be, unless they start taxing fresh air and rainwater.

    Unlike panickers such as yourself, I have prepared for this situation and while it has cost me short term opportunities, I and mine are reasonably well protected from the coming crises.

    Please just tell me that this time round you will learn from the situation and do something to ensure it affects you less next time, which it most certainly will, as this is not the end of the world?

    Remember, according to the Kubler-Ross model, you will not get from Stage 2 to Stage 3 until you recognise that you yourself are also in some way to blame.

    Have a nice day, “mate”.

  72. lprent 72

    TE: How about reading my comment rather than just editorializing on it. I didn’t say that there aren’t problems with the EFA (I have yet to find an act that significantly changes anything that works straight out of the house).

    What I said was that media didn’t report on the reasons that changes to the electoral law were required. All they concentrated on were the things that affected their revenue or were in Hagers book. I got the distinct impression that they hadn’t even bothered to look up the results of a series of court decisions going back to 1993, or indeed even read the 1993 law.

    Therefore the public were really badly informed on the EFA and why electoral finance reform was required.

  73. Vinsin 73

    Travellerev, Yes it sux; however, this is what happens in a democracy – it’s not perfect but it’s the best system we have right now. I agree with you on a lot of issues you have raised. Nz’ers were fooled and they were fooled well, the problem National has is that it’s a lot easier to fool people then it is to govern. So, cheer up and keep on keeping on – to borrow from my good friend Curtis – stay vigilant and informed, get your friends involved in political discussions, encourage them to vote, encourage them to seek information outside of the conventional means, and finally, don’t waste your time getting involved in political discussions that go nowhere but
    You’re wrong!
    No, you’re wrong!
    Well I have proof.
    So what.
    You’re an idiot.
    No, you’re an idiot, I have proof.
    You suck.
    No I don’t.
    Yes you do.
    You suck.
    No i don’t, i have proof.
    You still suck.
    So do you.
    No i don’t.

  74. Tim Ellis 74

    What I said was that media didn’t report on the reasons that changes to the electoral law were required. All they concentrated on were the things that affected their revenue or were in Hagers book.

    This isn’t correct LP. The media’s major concern with the EFA was that the Labour Party was ramming through major changes to electoral law without proper consultation with opposition parties. Goff acknowledges now that it was a poor process, and this single-party approach to electoral law was wrong, and is what has led to the problems with the EFA.

    The media did give a lot of coverage to Hager. That coverage led to Don Brash’s resignation. Labour was too concerned with writing electoral law to suit itself rather than a mulitpartisan approach to redefining electoral law. I didn’t see a single author at the Standard condemn Labour for ramming it through, or condemn Labour for turning electoral law into a partisan football.

  75. Vinsin,

    I hear yah. LOLOLOL and well put.

    Chess player,

    I’m of the grid more or less and working toward a pleasant self sustainable life.
    I’m way past panic and made my choices years ago.
    But there are a lot of people who aren’t and who still think there is a quick fix like vote a banker in because he knows about money.

    Looked up the Kubler-Ross model. I don’t get were the have yourself to blame comes from but I can assure you that I have accepted the election results as the state of affairs. It is not the election outcome I want to change. I just will not let John Key have an easy rule, that is a big difference. I will not go to sleep like most of the voters just awake for long enough to vote for “Change”. I’m an active political person and just because he got the votes doesn’t mean he will have free hand to do as he pleases.

  76. T/rev,

    Tis the question and not the answer that matters: gogalgo!

  77. northpaw,

    I so agree with you.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Swiss tax agreement tightens net
    Opportunities to dodge tax are shrinking with the completion of a new tax agreement with Switzerland, Revenue Minister Stuart Nash announced today. Mr Nash and the Swiss Ambassador David Vogelsanger have today signed documents to update the double tax agreement (DTA). The previous DTA was signed in 1980. “Double tax ...
    3 weeks ago