Open mike 05/04/2011

96 comments on “Open mike 05/04/2011 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Jenny 1

   5 April 2011 at 6:29 am

   As Marty G points out, in his post here, the government is determined to recklessly promote and expand the fossil fuel industry in this country with little mandate for doing so. (except from the fossil fuel industry and other polluters)

   Other New Zealanders are doing their best to thwart this dictatorial and undemocratic imposition by big business and their political supporters in government. 

   Dear jenny,

   The flotilla opposing deep sea oil drilling arrived at the East Cape on the weekend to a rousing welcome.
   Local iwi te Whānau ā Apanui represented by 600 people welcomed skippers, crew and activists from the flotilla at the spectacular Whangaparāoa Bay.
   It was an inspiring experience on a perfect East Coast day.
   We were all reminded of what a beautiful part of the country this is, and how devastating an oil spill in this area would be.
   It was clear how strongly the people of te Whānau ā Apanui felt about the Government’s decision to allow deep sea oil exploration off their unspoiled coast.
   Iwi elders spoke movingly of the sea being their ancestral “food cupboard” for hundreds of years and to this day. Apanui’s nationally acclaimed kapa haka group gave a stirring performance.
   The flotilla skippers and Greenpeace activists present were left in no doubt as to what was at stake – the right of future generations to an environment which can still sustain them.
   We were all united and determined in our certainty that we must do everything we can to stop deep sea oil drilling in New Zealand waters.
   The Vega’s Daniel Mares, and other skippers aboard the flotilla resolved with the iwi to sail out and meet the seismic testing vessel in the protest tradition of “bearing witness” used in the Nuclear Free Pacific campaign.
   They know they are not alone. Your support, and the support of people all around New Zealand is carried with them and will be critical to our success.
   So thank you for standing with us. I will update you soon on the next steps.
   
   
    
   
   Steve Abel
   Climate Campaigner
   Greenpeace Aotearoa New Zealand

    
   • chris73 1.1

     5 April 2011 at 9:40 am

     How much fuel was used by the flotilla?
     • todd 1.1.1

       5 April 2011 at 11:14 am

       There are a few inflatables but the ships are sailboats, so not all that much. How much pollution did your computer make when manufactured? Did you know that you use up oxygen when you breath. You should really stop doing that.
   • ianmac 1.2

     5 April 2011 at 11:39 pm

     Jenny. I saw a very good speaker on Native Affairs last night. A young woman from the East Coast spoke passionately about Petrobras and was followed by an interview with Acting Minister Parata. (Sp?)
     Native Affairs does replay but I can’t find when.
2. PeteG 2

   5 April 2011 at 6:49 am

   The Herald says: Better a levy than a debt for rebuilding (Christchurch)

   A UMR survey taken for the Green Party has found that 40 per cent of respondents would prefer to meet the cost with a temporary tax rather than big cuts to other public expenses (29 per cent) or more borrowing (22 per cent).

   This is a stupidly simplistic (or dishonest) way of looking at it, it doesn’t have to be either/or. Why not a mix of all three? There will be some level of borrowing regardless of other choices. It’s a matter of trying to get the best balance.

   The Greens suggest “1.5 per cent on annual income above $48,000 and 3 per cent above $70,000.” What if a chunk of the 40% supporting a temporary tax earn below $48k? It looks like the Greens are manipulating a survey to promote their own opinion.
    
   • RobC 2.1

     5 April 2011 at 7:09 am

     Good Morning PeteG. Was looking forward to your daily appearance with breathless anticipation and you do not disappoint, although only 2 questions in your post today.

     “Why not a mix of all three?” Indeed. If, as you imply, the Greens are being stupidly simplistic (or dishonest), then you must agree the Govt are similarly being stupidly simplistic (or dishonest) by completely ruling out any tax/levy in their solution to pay for the Earthquake.

     Your second Q “What if …” is your classic hypothetical, unanswerable, pissing-in-the-wind Q that you offer up on a sadly all too regular basis. It is almost certain the survey didn’t have a question that asked respondents what their income level was, so keep pissing away.

     Although, given that “preference for the levy is strongest in Christchurch with 49 per cent of residents in favour of a levy, and weakest in Auckland at 34 per cent” (from a separate article) and many in ChCh don’t have jobs you might be onto something.

     Finally, Greens manipulating a survey? I suggest your accusation crosses the line. The Greens commissioned a survey from a reputable market research company. I respectfully suggest you withdraw that comment. Or, next time Curia do some market research for National you make a similar accusation on Kiwiblog.

     Oh, and P.S. – the article you link to was an editorial that just happened to use the poll results as evidence for an argument the editor was making. You do know the difference between an editorial and press release, don’t you?
     • PeteG 2.1.1

       5 April 2011 at 7:31 am

       Good morning RobC. I was expecting your daily condescension.
        
       I agree that the Government is being stupidly simplistic ruling out a tax/levy, as William says below, it’s like an ideological straightjacket.
        
       All political parties (and other organisations) manipulate surveys – by the questions they ask, and by the way they mold the results to suit their own purposes.  I don’t think the Greens are any different here. Yes, I was aware it was an editorial, that happened to detail the survey results and the resulting Green proposal.
        
       The last time DPF posted on a survey done by Curia (albeit not for National)  I queried the narrowness of the questioning – but the surveyors are doing what their clients want.  I specifically asked for confirmation of the limits of the question.
       • RobC 2.1.1.1

         5 April 2011 at 7:48 am

         Cheers for the reply and actually, I’m going to agree with you that all political parties are, to varying degrees, simplistic, dishonest and manipulative, leave it there and go and do some work. Have a good day.
       • Pascal's bookie 2.1.1.2

         5 April 2011 at 7:56 am

         The Greens suggest “1.5 per cent on annual income above $48,000 and 3 per cent above $70,000.” What if a chunk of the 40% supporting a temporary tax earn below $48k? It looks like the Greens are manipulating a survey to promote their own opinion.

         If there wasn’t a chunk of the sample earning under 48k then the sample would obviously be biased. The poll is trying to work out what the electorate thinks. Removing groups from the sample would be legitimate, how? Do the opinions of people earning less than 48K not count? Why not, don’t they get a vote? Should they not?
         • PeteG 2.1.1.2.1

           5 April 2011 at 8:07 am

           The survey didn’t find that 40% of the electorate thought that only higher earners should contribute to the levy, the Greens seem to be deciding that part for themselves.
            
           As I hear often enough that the rich avoid paying any tax they can wheedle their way out of I presume they must all be absent from the 40% – so it must be more moderate earners that support the levy.
           • Pascal's bookie 2.1.1.2.1.1

             5 April 2011 at 8:24 am

             The survey didn’t find that 40% of the electorate thought that only higher earners should contribute to the levy, the Greens seem to be deciding that part for themselves.

             http://www.greens.org.nz/sites/default/files/poll_results_for_chch_earthquake_recovery_levy.pdf

             Looks like they specifically asked about their proposal.
           • Pascal's bookie 2.1.1.2.1.2

             5 April 2011 at 8:30 am

             “The survey didn’t find that 40% of the electorate thought that only higher earners should contribute to the levy, the Greens seem to be deciding that part for themselves.”

             Looks to me like that is what the survey found. You seem to be making acusations of bad faith based on nothing much at all.

             http://www.greens.org.nz/sites/default/files/poll_results_for_chch_earthquake_recovery_levy.pdf

             (sorry if this duplicates, previous comment seems to have been eaten.
           • felix 2.1.1.2.1.3

             5 April 2011 at 11:42 am

             As I hear often enough that the rich avoid paying any tax they can wheedle their way out of I presume they must all be absent from the 40% – so it must be more moderate earners that support the levy.
              

             If the levy were the most tax intensive option then you’d have a point.
              
             But seeing as borrowing the same amount offshore necessarily costs far more – which all has to be paid for by taxes of one sort or another – you’ve actually argued (again) the exact opposite of what you intended.
              
             Maybe it’s time you took a wee break. You’re both really sucking at this.
       • mickysavage 2.1.1.3

         5 April 2011 at 8:02 am

         PeteG
         I agree that the Government is being stupidly simplistic ruling out a tax/levy
         Good on you PeteG.  Though about changing your vote yet?  It is a hell of an ideological straightjacket that is going to cause huge hardship to many kiwis.
          
         • PeteG 2.1.1.3.1

           5 April 2011 at 8:10 am

           I’m always thinking about how I might vote. I won’t decide until November.
            
           It’s as bad an ideological straightjacket as “we mustn’t reduce any spending in the public service”.
           • McFlock 2.1.1.3.1.1

             5 April 2011 at 6:18 pm

             BTW Pete, are you paid by the post or is The Standard nested in a number of other duties in your job description?
              
             Whoops, I forgot – you’re a political undecided who is obsessively interested in politics but still can’t tell if he’s more likely to vote Nat, ACT or Libertarianz.
             • PeteG …

               5 April 2011 at 6:23 pm

               No, I’m paid by the stupid response. Thanks.
               • McFlock …

                 5 April 2011 at 6:29 pm

                 Well, stupidity does seem to be the means of exchange in NACTland…
               • Pascal's bookie …

                 5 April 2011 at 6:41 pm

                 Read them UMR/Green Party poll results yet?

                 Re:

                 “The survey didn’t find that 40% of the electorate thought that only higher earners should contribute to the levy, the Greens seem to be deciding that part for themselves.”

                 
                 
                 
                 

                 
                 
                 • RobC …

                   5 April 2011 at 6:51 pm

                   He got a bonus for stating no living thing has right to life and dignity
   • The Voice of Reason 2.2

     5 April 2011 at 7:17 am

     Pete, I warned you yesterday about posting in the morning before you’ve had enough coffee. Ok, it’s fun for the rest of us, but really, dude, you shouldn’t demean yourself in this way. Still, great to see that you are a supporter of MMP.
     • PeteG 2.2.1

       5 April 2011 at 7:37 am

       I don’t drink coffee. You could try a positive contribution to the blog yourself.
        
       I support MMP as the best of the options on offer – I think our version of MMP could be improved, but no matter what system we have it’s still up to the attitudes of parties and voters, and the quality of the available candidates (which I think is our biggest problem).
   • William Joyce 2.3

     5 April 2011 at 7:20 am

     National would need to be backed into a corner, with no way out, before they will ever agree to a levy. Even then I would not hold out hope.
     You have to understand who you’re dealing with – these people are so stuck in a set way of thinking. They only have a one-trick pony in their little show. That’s it. Nothing else.
     When your only economic plan (and the only thing you understand) is tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts, then to introduce a new tax says you have got it wrong and that sometimes taxes are useful.
3. Bored 3

   5 April 2011 at 6:50 am

   Just read Kunstler this morning and found a line that resonated with yesterdays column on “Kiwis want buses,not holiday highways”. JK is always good on getting at the root of the issue and he would probably agree that Kiwis really want cars which is why we are in general in energy denial. From this mornings column, enjoy…
   The reason for this obvious idiocy is that it’s all about the cars. That’s all we care about in the USA, the cars. We can’t get over the cars. We can’t talk about anything except how we’ll find magical new ways to run all the cars. This is a very tragic sort of stupidity and if we don’t change our thinking about it, from the highest level on down, history is going to treat us very cruelly.
4. Jim Nald 4

   5 April 2011 at 7:12 am

   $1.2b bailout blowout Bill –
    
   Looking for support for a proposal I am considering about forming a group to demand the new Government on 27 Nov to pass a law seeking to:
    
   1. Seize Bill’s and all his family’s assets, and nationalise them
    
   2. Revoke Bill English’s passport so that he cannot leave the country
    
   3. Put him in a cangue for the rest of his life and he can wander up and down the country hoping some of us might help him eat or drink.
   • William Joyce 4.1

     5 April 2011 at 8:13 am

     You mean like this
     • Jim Nald 4.1.1

       5 April 2011 at 10:19 pm

       Heh!  Well, getting there but still some way to go – Dipton needs to have the weight and size of that cangue doubled. For consistency. And greed.
       And yes, shonky and his mates who have played the financial system so hot till it melt down need to be put into cangues as well.
   • Deadly_NZ 4.2

     5 April 2011 at 6:16 pm

     Why just Bill????  You forgot his boss Ol’ Shonkey
5. travellerev 5

   5 April 2011 at 8:00 am

   I thought I’ give a few links about the developments at the Fukushima plant seeing as our MSM has al but stopped covering the catastrophic events at the plant.

   First of all it appears that the workers (funny how the management has declined the opportunity to lead by example) are attempting to stem a bloody great big leak of radioactive water to the Pacific with paper clippings, sawdust and diaper like materials.

   Second I’d like to introduce you to a man called Arnold Gunderson. He is a former Nuclear industry exec and was an expert witness for the three mile Island investigation.

   He releases short video’s on his website (Which is understandably totally overrun so I link to the video’s on Youtube) Fairwinds ass. with his analysis of the available video and photo material.
   So far his conclusions are that spent fuel rods (i.e. entire pools full of them and the pools or absent leaking so without water to cool and shield them)have been and still are exposed to the air, there are intermittent uncontrolled (No human intervention) chain reactions taking place and Plutonium is being released into the atmosphere (You’ll be happy to know that Plutonium is named after the god of hell and only one pound of it freed up into the atmosphere into nano particles will kill everyone on earth and will do so the next oh, the 23.000 years or so and yes, Lanthanide I know the material is so heavy it won’t travel far but that doesn’t stop this shit from getting into our ecosystems doesn’t it)

   He is also the man who coined the phrase: This could become Chernobyl on steroids.

   And while all this is happening you’ll be relieved to know that the health and safety experts have been recalculating the danger of exposure to radiation and found that just in time they made a mistake all those years ago and that in fat we can handle much more radiation than was previously thought safe in our food, milk and drinking water.

   I feel better already don’t you?

   (Again awesome interface Iprent, thanks. The only thing missing is a preview option so you can check your links etc. Also it doesn’t seem to honour inserted paragraphs)
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
6. William Joyce 6

   5 April 2011 at 8:22 am

   Congrats to David Cunliffe on Morning Report. Emphatic, forceful and sounded suitably pissed off.
   I do think he could have focused, not on selling the SCF loan book, but on the fact that John & Bill knew from day one SCF was in trouble and, not just once, but repeatedly (about 4x) signed it into the guarantee scheme – knowing/suspecting that this was giving licence to profiteers from making a killing with other people’s money.
   Labour needs to come out fighting and delivering punch after punch. It’s not as though there is a lack of material.
   • vto 6.1

     5 April 2011 at 8:50 am

     Shame I missed it. It would seem that the issue of SCF’s participation in the guarantee is one with the potential of major scandal exposure. Why would Labour not chase this hard? Does it make people’s eyes glaze over? Is everyone in labour too busy talking about talking? Is everyone in labour too busy planning for the planned post-election blood-letting outlined by Trotter this morning? Has everyone in labour simply given up, also as Trotter outlines?

     I mean, $300million, is almost $100 for every manwoman and child in NZ. How much money does that mean your household has just paid out to these greedy SCF investors who expect greater return without the risk?

     No wonder black markets do so well…
     • felix 6.1.1

       5 April 2011 at 11:05 am

       Cunliffe on RNZ Stream: http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/national/mnr/2011/04/05/cunliffe_calls_for_english_to_resign_over_$1.2_billion_bailout
        
       Cunnliffe on RNZ mp3 download: http://podcast.radionz.co.nz/mnr/mnr-20110405-0710-Cunliffe_calls_for_English_to_resign_over_1.2_billion_bailout-048.mp3
       • marty mars 6.1.1.1

         5 April 2011 at 5:14 pm

         Jeepers I just heard key say that if labour want a snap election – let’s go for it.

         Old kingkey is getting quite cocky. I hope labour don’t live to regret the ‘resign’ challenge – it’s an escalation in rhetoric that is high stakes at this stage of the game.
         • Samuel Hill 6.1.1.1.1

           5 April 2011 at 5:17 pm

           Thats one way to get rid of Goff.
           • marty mars 6.1.1.1.1.1

             5 April 2011 at 5:45 pm

             The more I think about it the more a snap election makes sense for the gnats – it stops the political erosion they are already experiencing – shit key has been booed already. It bolsters the maori party and attempts to cut the legs off Hone’s new left Maori Party.

             As I’ve worded it
             
             “key is the man, he tells himself that, his advisers tell him, the media tells him and many voters tell him that HE IS THE MAN. The man can trust his instincts and the man can make the call – it’s what he does, it’s what the man does.”

             As an aside – the new interface is awesome lprent.
             • Colonial Viper …

               5 April 2011 at 10:39 pm

               The LAB answer to a snap election could be:

               Hold English responsible for his incompetence first. Sack him, effective immediately. Commit to not giving him any other Cabinet level posts. Order a full investigation into what has happened and where the money has gone.

               Then once English has been held to account for his epic fail to the tax payer, bring on the snap election

               If Key refuses to sack English before the snap election, it becomes a referendum on the $1.2B SCF loss, it becomes a referendum on rebuilding Christchurch infastructure, it becomes referendum on building Auckland infrastructure.

               Very high risk strategy 🙂
         • Jim Nald 6.1.1.1.2

           5 April 2011 at 10:21 pm

           aah .. John Cockey 🙂
           well, when you have a huge picture book after all those photo ops, you can afford to be
           • ianmac 6.1.1.1.2.1

             5 April 2011 at 11:42 pm

             John Key said later that he couldn’t have a snap election because the date had already been announced.
             • Colonial Viper …

               6 April 2011 at 12:08 am

               Ignore Key’s pull back and agree to the snap election on the condition that English pays the price first.
               When Key says that he wasn’t being serious – stare him down and say: our democracy is not something to be played with like a joke.
               • Pascal's bookie …

                 6 April 2011 at 6:52 am

                 It’s a hail mary pass , so if you are going to throw it, you have to throw it hard and clean.

                 The point would be to make Key look bad/weak/chicken/unserious right? So don’t attach any strings that give him an opt out clause.

                 When Key says he wasn’t being serious, just point, laugh at him and say he’s just afraid that the electorate hasn’t forgotten about the assett sales policy yet.  When he says that you are being ridiculous given the polls, then ask him, again, why he chickened out of his offer of a snap election. It’s because he needs a world cup sized distraction between his Billy club budget and the polling booth.
   • higherstandard 6.2

     5 April 2011 at 8:59 am

     It appears that several people should be in jail for outright fraud and that a number of the Hubbarb company associates and management should have the assets seized and sold off under the proceeds of crime legislation.

     “The taxpayers’ bill for the South Canterbury Finance failure rose by a further $300 million to $1.2 billion yesterday as a result of loans to company insiders going sour”

     Mr Key emphasised the shortfall in recoveries related to South Canterbury’s loans to “related party” borrowers. That includes the company’s management as well as friends and associates of Mr Hubbard.

     South Canterbury’s Government-appointed receiver Kerryn Downey said the new losses were calculated by Treasury from information he provided relating to 30 loans, some of which were already under investigation by the SFO.
     “Some of these parties I presume have been friends of Hubbard and so forth and likely had difficulty raising financing from elsewhere, but that’s guesswork on my part,” he told Radio New Zealand.

     http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10717139
     • vto 6.2.1

       5 April 2011 at 9:09 am

       ““Some of these parties I presume have been friends of Hubbard and so forth and likely had difficulty raising financing from elsewhere, but that’s guesswork on my part,” he told Radio New Zealand.”

       That is only described as guesswork to cover his arse. For the receiver to say that at this time means it is 100% true. It was well known.

       You are right HS in that there has been gross breach of obligations. These people need to stand and answer. And/or be pursued.

       This is of course additional to the issue of Key letting SCF into the guarantee scheme when he knew it was going broke from the day he became PM.
       • William Joyce 6.2.1.1

         5 April 2011 at 9:18 am

         “This is of course additional to the issue of Key letting SCF into the guarantee scheme when he knew it was going broke from the day he became PM.”
         Such an own goal admission by Key – a crack in the Smile and Wave facade that the left need to bust open.
         The “facade” can obviously be rattled when the people scream back at him and call him names.
         Perhaps he needs to be faced with more pissed off NZdrs?
         • Bored 6.2.1.1.1

           5 April 2011 at 9:35 am

           VTO / William J….we need to ask the question , “Why are we surprised?” The whole finance industry has we the taxpayer by the balls and we act all outraged but keep paying. From the Automaticearth today consider this synopsis of the global finance industry and ask, “Whats so different here”?
           In fact, every single natural and/or man-made crisis in the last three years (see sub-prime housing meltdown, Haiti EQ, Pakistan floods, Russian drought, European sovereign debt crisis, MENA revolutions, Japanese EQ/flood/nuclear meltdown) has been used as justification for further taxpayer subsidies to the financial industry. Governments and private individuals simply do not have enough funds for relief efforts, so they must finance a large majority of them……

           People are dying and something must be done, but, given the current monetary paradigm, governments can only take action through the issuance of more debt and the payment of more interest to private banking cartels. It is no wonder, then, that certain Wall Street executives are earning millions in salaries and bonuses while the rest of the world quickly crumbles into little bits and pieces.
           
           The “plan” was not to blindly chase risky investments until everything crashes and everyone goes broke, but to make large sums of money while also gutting the productive economy and deliberately plunging the entire world into a state of hopeless dependency.
           
           If that is really a recipe for long-term gain, then I must take my hat off to the financial masters of our world. That would mean they have managed to subjugate billions of productive workers around the world and steal what little wealth these workers have left, without generating any real threats to their own wealth or power in the process.

           The above is a giant J’accuse. There is enough ammo there for Cunliffe to give the banker Key nightmares, except it wont. Finance and their cronies will just ignore our outrage and continue to take until the whole edifice collapses. Human nature?
           • William Joyce 6.2.1.1.1.1

             5 April 2011 at 10:05 am

             You’re right we shouldn’t be surprised. Your quote points to the machinations of those tricksy little finance hobbites.
             Paul Krugman in the NYTimes did an op-ed on the attack on Elizabeth Warren (who is Obama’s go-to on finance reform). He points out how the right, instead of acknowledging the obvious and taking the blame……

             “Let me expand on that for a moment. When the 2008 financial crisis struck, many observers — myself included — thought that it would force opponents of financial regulation to rethink their position. After all, conservatives hailed the debt boom of the Bush years as a triumph of free-market finance right up to the moment it turned into a disastrous bust.
             But we underestimated the speed and determination with which opponents of regulation would rewrite history. Almost instantly, that free-market boom was retroactively reinterpreted; it became a disaster brought on by, you guessed it, excessive government intervention.”
             • Bored …

               5 April 2011 at 10:29 am

               Tricksy might easily be replaced by nasty….reminds me of the extremist RWNJs who obsessively say “if only we had a truly free market it would all be OK…we have to do it harder and we will get a different result”. They are the true inheritors of that other rationalist creed, Stalinist socialism where you created paradise on earth by shooting more and more people on the premise that you could not make an omelet without cracking eggs. Meanwhile the criminals, whether apparatchiks or bankers get fat.
           • vto 6.2.1.1.1.2

             5 April 2011 at 10:24 am

             The world of money manufacture is certainly the castle that needs storming.

             My understanding is not great at this point, but I have always wondered where the interest paid on loans from banks goes to.. Pay say $10,000 per year to a bank in interest for a loan – where does that $10,000 end up eventually?

             I have asked this question many times over the years and usually I get blank stares, even from my bank manager! I would have thought the answer is simple?
             • Bored …

               5 April 2011 at 10:35 am

               I have a distinct feeling that the finance industry is not interested in repayment, what they want is constant boondage for debtors in which they either take ownership by foreclosure, or manage the serfs to their benefit. It is a form of feudalism.
               • freedom …

                 5 April 2011 at 10:55 am

                 i beleive Economic Fascism is more accurate a handle

                 A version of economic fascism was in fact adopted in the United States in the 1930s and survives to this day. In the United States these policies were not called “fascism” but “planned capitalism.” The word fascism may no longer be politically acceptable, but its synonym “industrial policy” is as popular as ever.
                  
                 http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo85.html
             • Lanthanide …

               5 April 2011 at 10:51 am

               Basically banks charge you interest because they expect a return on their money. Businesses borrow money, and pay interest on it, because they are taking a risk that they can earn extra profit margin over the cost of their borrowing to make it worth while.

               So the bank loans out $100,000 to a business at 10% interest rate, because they have so much money that they don’t need to get the highest returns out of it and they\’re happy with just making $10k from an office job – they don’t want to get into manufacturing of widgets and marketing them etc. The business takes the money and invests it into their company, and they generate sales of widgits and profits. It turns out from the money they borrowed that they earn 20% return on it, so after paying the 10% interest, they\’re left with 10% profit on the original $100k investment.

               So the bank simply takes the $10k interest as profit. It’s essentially the same as with a mortgage, but in this case your purpose for borrowing the money is not “to make a business investment to sell widgets and profit”, but “to have somewhere to live”. The interest payments you pay to the bank are simply their profit from their business – making loans to people.
                
               Lynn – it looks like if you fail to enter the captcha properly, when you get the new page saying “copy and paste your comment”, if you fail to do so and press back, then you lose it, whereas with the old commenting system it would save it.
               • vto …

                 5 April 2011 at 11:03 am

                 Hi Lanthanide, I understand that but my question was where does that $10,000 end up eventually?

                 The bank doesnt keep that 10k as profit as it has to pay for the money too. Generally bank margins on loans in NZ are I think about 2%? So, of that $10,000 in annual interest only $2000 is gross profit.

                 Where does the other $8,000 go? Well, of course it depends on where the bank got the money itself. So if it raised it from the Reserve Bank of NZ then the $8,000 goes there. And then where does it go once it reaches the Reserve Bank? That is my question.

                 If the bank got the money from some foreign bank, like some US bank, then the $8,000 goes there. From there then? To the issuers of money in the US? i.e. the rothschilds etc? That is my question.

                 Where is the final resting place of interest.

                 I think the question is simple but the answer quite difficult.
                 • Bored …

                   5 April 2011 at 11:23 am

                   Its a Ponzi scheme, it goes down as far as the fractional banker at the point of credit creation. The only known functioning “trickle down” effect. And they are so big that they are not allowed to fail..they say to governments “you must allow us to create more liquidity by guaranteeing us that you (via the citizens) will pay us to prop up the whole edifice.
                 • Lanthanide …

                   5 April 2011 at 11:29 am

                   Basically you’re asking where the ultimate creation of money comes from.

                   Wikipedia has two articles on it:
                   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_creation
                   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking
                    
                   After you read the fractional reserve banking article, you’ll probably think that it’s a ponzi scheme. It is.

                   The other related idea is “where does someone get money to pay the interest back”, and that’s through wealth-creation, which is essentially someone spending time, effort and skill (broadly) to create something valuable out of something else. So a potter might take some clay, worth $5, and make it into a ceramic mug, and sell it for $15.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     5 April 2011 at 10:54 pm

                     There are a couple of other things to consider

                     – Almost all the money in circulation in our economy is based on bank credit. It is money created out of thin air by banks, through the process of issuing loans ( = creation of debt). Only a tiny amount of money exists in the form of Government issued notes and coins (think about it – when you take out a $200,000 mortgage you get it in electronic numbers and when you pay the vendor, you transfer over electronic numbers. No notes and coins).

                     – So when a bank gives you a loan, say for $10,000, all it does is electronically add $10,000 to your bank account. And it does not need to have that money on hand, in order to be able to do that (it can go looking for those funds later). It offsets the credit it has given you by noting on its balance sheet that you owe it money.

                     – You start owing interest on the loan principle immediately. In fact, new money has to be found to pay that interest. By the time you fully pay back the $10,000 in principal, you may also have had to pay back say $5000 in interest. $15,000 total.

                     – That extra $5000 has to be produced from somewhere. Yes you guessed it, from money created through more debt. The need to create more and more debt to service the economy with more and more money is one of the primary drivers for requiring “economic growth”.

                     Now if this seems more and more like a ponzi scheme, but you are not yet convinced read this for a true mind frakking
                     http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/2009/01/31/therovingcavaliersofcredit/
                      
                      
               • lprent …

                 5 April 2011 at 11:19 am

                 Lynn – it looks like if you fail to enter the captcha properly, when you get the new page saying “copy and paste your comment”, if you fail to do so and press back, then you lose it, whereas with the old commenting system it would save it.
                 

                 Ok. That would figure. The javascript doesn’t push the text into the textbox until it is in posting mode after the submit is pressed. Ummm that could be irreconcilable with tinymce and I suspect with the two other editors I have tested with normal coding. I’ll have to test pushing the text into the textbox with my own js to ensure it gets picked up by the browser history.

                 Alternatives… the captcha gets checked at the server side. I could override the post comment logic to fix that error behavior. Get it to send the textbox back with the sent text. That is a weekend job.

                 The immediate work around would be just to login. Then you lose the captcha.

                 I got distracted by some other work last night. I fixed the other parts of the editor, but didn’t put up because the activity was a bit high and I went to bed before it slowed down. Tonight…
               • Draco T Bastard …

                 5 April 2011 at 12:32 pm

                 Basically banks charge you interest because they expect a return on their money.

                 Except it’s not “their money”. They didn’t actually have any when they “loaned” it to you – they merely printed it and so the returns from interest that they get are on something that they never had.
                 • travellerev …

                   5 April 2011 at 3:35 pm

                   May I once again suggest these three very enlightening video’s?
                   Money as Debt: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5352106773770802849#
                   Money as debt II http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/4155763
                   and last but not least: the Money Masters http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936#
                    
                    
                   Hi Iprent, I can’t seem to link to the video’s as the editor seems to try to insert them which is not allowed. Any solutions?
                   • vto …

                     7 April 2011 at 9:44 am

                     Thanks travellerev. I had been aware in broad terms how our system worked. The first of those videos is a must-watch. The implications ….

                     And look who our current PM is.

                     Should be taught in schools. Must be taught in schools.
             • MrSmith …

               5 April 2011 at 3:31 pm

               As I understand it VTO The interest is created out of thin air so in other words it doesn’t exist till you start paying it, then this leads to another problem because now you have a shortage of money so there is never enough money to go around. Try this movie for some answers it’s free online http://www.zeitgeistthefilm.com/ there are three movies start with ‘Zeitgeist the movie’.
               • travellerev …

                 5 April 2011 at 3:41 pm

                 Mr Smith,
                 The main sum is created out of thin air. The interest comes from your hard slog.
                 • MrSmith …

                   5 April 2011 at 6:54 pm

                   No Travellerev the interest is created the moment it is due.

                   Now you could pay it ‘the interest’ with interest you just received on money you had in the bank or you could have stolen the money to pay the interest, yes you may have had had to slog for that, I understand your point though.

                   I was only trying to help answer VTO”S question, the fractional reserve monetary system that we have in new zealand is very interesting though, but complicated (just the way they like it) I am still trying to understand it as we speak.
   • William Joyce 6.3

     5 April 2011 at 9:16 am

     Just watched Breakfast (which I record so I can to filter out the crap! 2.5 hours of television and such little substance!).
     Brian Gaynor says that the $1.2 billion is only the beginning of the loss to the tax payer.
     Even Bill English said he can’t rule out the prospect that it’s going to get worse.
     Your right vto – this story has got legs – big hairy legs.
     One can only hope that this takes on the dimensions of the Whitlam govt loans scandal.
     ps. Phil showed some balls and his a good chord – NZdrs are sick of people making money, pissing off and leaving the tax payers to pick up the bill – he used the case of property developers and leaky homes; and the case of asset sales, stripped and bought back by the tax payer (AirNZ & Rail).
     NZdrs getting ripped off by white-collars / big-business also has legs as election rhetoric.
     • mickysavage 6.3.1

       5 April 2011 at 9:20 am

       Your right vto – this story has got legs – big hairy legs
        
       Agreed entirely.
        
       Miracle worker had some interesting comments and sources that he made the other day.
        
       One rumour that I heard was that one of the major creditors had been buying up debentures at 70c in the dollar from mum and dad investors who had mistakenly thought their investment was threatened and did not understand how the guarantee worked.
        
       Why the guarantee was extended to the purchasers of securities is another issue that needs a really hard look at it.
        
       David Cunliffe is onto something here. 
       • grumpy 6.3.1.1

         5 April 2011 at 11:17 am

         Most of these “related party” loans were interest only with the principle only being repaid at the end of the project.  These are very difficult for the receiver to collect.

         We must demand serious asset seizures and criminal charges.  More investigation of the “Torchlight” rort would help.
       • chris73 6.3.1.2

         5 April 2011 at 12:29 pm

         Yes, hes sounding like a leader of a political party
       • Zaphod Beeblebrox 6.3.1.3

         5 April 2011 at 3:32 pm

         I’m wondering what to make of the Treasury advice that SCF was in trouble up to a year before the government acted. I guessing English and Key were in the loop- what did they do about it?

         What else has Cunliffe up his sleeve?
         • Jim Nald 6.3.1.3.1

           5 April 2011 at 10:23 pm

           Slow burn and letting them walk wounded?
           • Colonial Viper 6.3.1.3.1.1

             5 April 2011 at 10:31 pm

             I reckon that this is the opening act to the big Budget curtains up. If English isn’t feeling the pressure yet, he soon will.
7. Pascal's bookie 7

   5 April 2011 at 8:35 am

   http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2011-04-03/our-economic-black-hole
8. Draco T Bastard 8

   5 April 2011 at 2:06 pm

   Rogue Capitalism

   Making $56 million in an afternoon out of $230,000 worth of the electricity that was generated to power our homes is wrong, plain and simple.

   The truth of the market is showing itself in our electricity sector and this government wants to put my incentives for such theft in place by selling it off to private profiteers.
   
9. Herodotus 9

   5 April 2011 at 2:25 pm

   More support against asset sales, and that for us Kiwis we had better start preparing for a decrease in living standards. The great times of the 50’s and 60’s are gone. And why even with boom time underthe 5th Lab govt most of us did not fell any wealthier, and those that did can see how fickled and illusionary it was. It was an illusion with mirrows, the better than many others catch on to what happened, will then place pressure for an effective strategy can be devised to min the pain we are feeling and are to feel. Instead of the partisian “our team” and blindly accepting that all was good under their reign… Sorry folks it wasn’t. then we can depa=mand some real action  and move forward…
10. vto 10

    5 April 2011 at 2:41 pm

    Pike River Coal has said, on the very first day of the Royal Commission of Inquiry, that it has no money to participate in the Inquiry and so wont be.

    l
    o
    s
    t
     
    f
    o
    r
     
    w
    o
    r
    d
    s

    All of the shareholders, directors and promoters of PRC are pieces of shit.

    This on top of the Dept of Labour’s refusal to hand over documents related to the mine’s operation.

    Farce
    • Pascal's bookie 10.1

      5 April 2011 at 2:51 pm

      Faaaark.

      reminds me of the winebox enquiry when lawyer for European Pacific said “We may be here for some purposes and not for others”
      • Oleolebiscuitbarrell 10.1.1

        5 April 2011 at 5:48 pm

        I am pretty sure that was Richard Craddock QC who, coincidentally, died this week.
    • Draco T Bastard 10.2

      5 April 2011 at 2:55 pm

      Obviously, some people just don’t want the truth to come and so are doing their utmost to prevent it. Obviously, we should be jailing all of them for obstruction of justice.
      • vto 10.2.1

        5 April 2011 at 3:09 pm

        You pulling my tit mr b? Is that how I come across? Probably.

        Anyways, my point is that the Inquiry is already showing signs of being unable to expose the truth. Wasn’t it Brownlee who said “everything will be n the table”? Well it aint. Two of the main players have stated that they cannot or will not fully participate – one of which is a government department.

        In addition Nic Davidson QC said earlier that there are potential and serious problems with evidence provision by participants if the issue of prosecution vs inquiry is not properly resolved. In other words, if people and organisations at the Inquiry are not immune from prosecution then they will not give their evidence.

        The smells continue..
        • Pascal's bookie 10.2.1.1

          5 April 2011 at 3:41 pm

          Not how you come across at all v, I was reminded of EP’s lawyer by PRC and DOL. 
          • vto 10.2.1.1.1

            5 April 2011 at 5:28 pm

            oh I meant the other mr b…

            And yes I don’t see how such things are optional either. It is a Royal Commision of Inquiry – isn’t that about the heaviest type of inquiry around? With substantial powers of enquiry? Power to subpoena and the like?

            I watch with intense interest…
        • Pascal's bookie 10.2.1.2

          5 April 2011 at 3:45 pm

          And as for this ‘not giving their evidence’ business, I can’t see why it should be optional.

          The Inquiry should be aimed at finding out what happened. If prosecution seems appropriate from those facts, then it’s up to the justice system to determine what mitigating circumstances there are and whether or not people should get their prompt cooperation taken into account. Or otherwise, as the case may be.
          • mickysavage 10.2.1.2.1

            5 April 2011 at 5:34 pm

            They (the company’s officers) will be forced to take part but rather than have prepared statements will have to be questioned.  This adds quite a bit of time.  This is surprising as I thought they would want to prepare their case to add their spin to things.
             
            There is potentially personal responsibility so the directors would be well advised to have proper registration.
             
            A bit of an insult to the commission really.
             
             
            • mickysavage 10.2.1.2.1.1

              5 April 2011 at 6:02 pm

              Feck I meant representation, not registration.  Time for more caffeine …
11. Draco T Bastard 11

    5 April 2011 at 4:21 pm

    An Exercise in Dishonesty

    Long isn’t alone; this is mainstream thinking among National. And that should concern all of us. When one of our major political parties thinks our system is “too” democratic, that it should have power disproportionate to its share of the vote, and that the electoral system should be changed to ensure this, we are all under threat.

    National have been complaining about MMP since it was first suggested back in the 1980s and now that it’s starting to look like they’ll be out of power more often than under the previous FPP system they’re agitating to bring an undemocratic system electoral system back in.
12. joe90 12

    5 April 2011 at 4:30 pm

    More Cryptome images, inside the Fukushima Daiichi plant and a collection of overhead images of other Japanese nuclear plants.
13. Pascal's bookie 13

    5 April 2011 at 4:57 pm

    Gettin a bit tired of hearing the old men on NatRad’s porch going on and on and on and on about how it’s all about values don’t you think or maybe it is and the question needs to be asked about values and was it good to just ditch all the values?

    just spit it out will ya.

    What are these values?  They never seem to get around to saying. 

    ‘just a domestic’ (aka ‘a man’s home is his castle’)

    ‘the cops used to sort this out with a clip round the ears’ (and don’t you say nuffin neither coz who are they going to believe you or me, missy).

    ‘she consented at the wedding’ 

    ‘seen and not heard’

    ‘don’t make a fuss’

    ‘do as your fucking told’
    • joe90 13.1

      5 April 2011 at 6:25 pm

      These women have had enough too.
14. Samuel Hill 14

    5 April 2011 at 5:08 pm

    I am wondering if somebody can provide us with geographic details of where Petrobras have been given clearance from the NZ goverment to do seismic testing. Can someone explain where these potential oil reserves are? Or even just tell us where they are working. Thanks.
    • ianmac 14.1

      5 April 2011 at 5:32 pm

      Petrobras are not carrying out an expensive survey without the guarantee that should they discover oil, they would have the right to extract it. So for Government saying it only a survey, is at least misleading. If they get positive results it must follow that they will drill. No doubt.
      • MrSmith 14.1.1

        5 April 2011 at 7:24 pm

        These surveys have been going on for Years on both coasts of the north island.

        When I was crusing around the north island I would run into survey vessels at times and have to alter course, they are usally towing a cable miles long and where griding an area. 

        I think they then sell the info to the oil companies or whoever will buy it.
        • ianmac 14.1.1.1

          5 April 2011 at 11:47 pm

          “I think they then sell the info to the oil companies or whoever will buy it.”

          But my point stands. Petrobras would not begin unless, after finding oil they would expect drilling to follow. Otherwise why bother exploring?
15. Mac1 15

    5 April 2011 at 5:34 pm

    A quote from a letter to the Editor in the Marlborough Express today.
    “I have never been able to figure out why my grocery bill in London is far less than in Blenheim. It’s not just milk ($1 a litre) that is cheaper here.”
    This person’s shopping included Vogel’s bread $2, 400 gms cheese $2.60, 1 kg bananas ($1.50), 500 gms Greek yoghurt ($2), half shoulder of NZ lamb ($8), 400gm mince ($5), 500 gms salad greens ($2), new potatoes ($3 kg), tomatoes $3 kg.
    She concludes by saying that Blenheim is far more expensive than London, and rising, and will return home when the food prices are in line with the rest of the world.
    How can these prices be? Food passes through Blenheim in transit to ChCh and is more expensive in Blenheim supermarkets- said to be as expensive as anywhere in NZ, if not more. Milk is at cheapest $6.60 for four litres. Bread closer to $4, bananas $2.50, salad greens $23. Mince is cheaper at $10 a kg.
16. Campbell Larsen 16

    5 April 2011 at 8:30 pm

    Its hardly new, but sometimes it is useful to see how little has changed, and how global our current predicament really is:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    http://www.thenation.com/article/inverted-totalitarianism
    Here’s a suggestion: require all political parties to table all of their proposed law/ regulation/ economic changes prior to the election. No surprises.
    Research/ consultation resources could be distributed amongst the differing political factions (according to % of vote) and they could all give themselves fancy working group names and then we could decide who to believe.
    Seem like too much work to prepare in advance for a three year term? Then reduce the term of government – if 90 day trials are appropriate for the rest of us then why not the government?  After all a government that is doing a good job has nothing to fear.
    Vote and trust? Sounds a bit like ‘bend over and spread cheeks to take further ramming’
    The MSM may still be a problem – But has anyone with some programming nous ever considered scripting something which can recognize associations ie ‘National showed courage’ (and other such pap) and run analysis on MSM articles/ headlines? – I think a pattern is clearly apparent – even the use of emotive descriptors  is questionable in my book and we sure do have a lot of that.
    Maybe farming that task out to some journalism students (before they got jobs and become PR professionals) is the way to go – most journalism students are idealistic – at least initially!
    Some suggestions anyway, seems like its about time we demanded better from our elected representatives and a system which permits their abuses and excuses their dishonesty.
    • PeteG 16.1

      5 April 2011 at 8:45 pm

      I don’t think we’ll see any major changes unless we are lucky enough to strike two real leaders at the same time, both National and Labour leaders getting together, deciding to have a scheduled, fair hard fought election, and then the best of both sides plus the pickings of the small parties getting together and doing the best they can for the country rather than getting bogged down playing petty political games with nearly have of the elected representatives wasdting most of their time.
       
      The $32M looks like an easier bet, must buy a ticket.
      • Campbell Larsen 16.1.1

        6 April 2011 at 8:52 am

        PeteG – it seems that you didn’t take the time to read the links – you really should. In particular the parts relating to the disengagement of the voting population due to exactly the kinds of sentiment that you have expressed. Comparing our chances of political reform to winning lotto is not doing anything to counteract this worrying trend.
        You claim that we need two real leaders or change will never occur.  That sounds a bit like you are still trying to push the Goff is weak PR spin – so last week. I would prefer that we had an effective, just and accountable political system and merely competent leaders rather than an ineffective, flawed and secretive political system even if Superman and Wonder Woman were at the helm.
        Suggestions as to how we can improve things. actions that can be taken, that’s the sort of comment that is useful – asserting that things will never change and that we should not bother as a result is exactly the sort of poison that has got us in this sorry state.
17. Colonial Viper 17

    5 April 2011 at 9:46 pm

    Bernard Hickey talks about the precarious economic situation that NZ finds itself in. And raises the idea of printing money as an option we should at least talk about. Serious stuff.
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10717168
18. Samuel Hill 18

    6 April 2011 at 10:47 am

    Ummm…. there is no way Labour will win right now. If the election was today, or in 6 weeks time. National will win. The only hope for the left to take power this election would be for a paradigm shift in how people see John Key. They have to despise him like they despised Muldoon. End of story. Just because the people who use this board have a higher understanding of the political battlefield, doesn’t mean that younger, and less educated or open minded people don’t see it as simply John’s happy-go-lucky party/lets give John his turn vs Goff’s gaytime/sensitive approach.
19. prism 19

    6 April 2011 at 10:58 am

    What has happened to real men drinking real scotch whisky?   The chap this morning on Radionz commenting on the brew that was in Scott’s freezer talked about flavours of pears and honeysuckle for goodness sake.  What sort of pantywaists go on in this fashion?
    A joke about the old days gives a good indication of what real men expected from their whisky.   A wife deserted by her whisky drinking husband every night, faced him and said she too was going to have some of this marvellous drink. She took a gulp and fell to the floor groaning “Frank how can you bear that stuff”.  He replied smugly “There now, you thought I was out enjoying myself didn’t you.”

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS