Open mike 30/11/2010

46 comments on “Open mike 30/11/2010 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Bored 1

   30 November 2010 at 6:47 am

   From the government that gave you Paula Bennett and Rebstock….Here we go again…steal from the poor give to the rich..

   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10690977
   • vto 1.1

     30 November 2010 at 6:59 am

     And I considered this outfit to be one of the better performing. They seemed to have good conservative parameters to their business, made few foolish lending decisions (or rather probably, fewer), and etc.

     But Bored you are quite right. The owners of this business could afford to sort the lot out without recourse to the government guarantee.

     But what do you expect? This is human nature you are talking about. Why would they write a cheque for $178million when they can get me and you and all NZ\’s other taxpayers to do it? The problem is the structure that was set up under the guarantee – human nature just fits around the rules. Always has, always will. The problem is in fact the government\’s failure, less so the Spencers.

     It amazes me that more people are not up in arms about all this. Sure at the time of the GFC the banking system required assistance because it would most definitely have collapsed. However, why on earth outfits like this were included I do not know.

     It sucks. I think I will now opt out of the taxpayer and western-style government system. Can I do that? Or am I forced against my will under threat of physical sanction to be a part of a system that is failing me and my family?
     • Bored 1.1.1

       30 November 2010 at 7:30 am

       You will be forced by the same said State (on behalf of the Spensers and their morally bankrupt ilk) to pay up, be indebted with somebody elses debt, and to become a serf to them until debt redeemed. This is the current state of the Irish. Rebellion not tolerated…revolution fommented.
       • vto 1.1.1.1

         30 November 2010 at 7:41 am

         Astounding really. The Spencers set up their own private business and operate it for long time. When it goes bust they don’t pay the debt, I do.

         That is just incredibly grossly unfair. Leads very directly to frustration, thence to anger, before finally becoming hatred. Which is the end of the road. The end of the road is in sight.

         Here is another big item which will happen in NZ at some point, like it is already happening in other western countries…. your kiwisaver accounts will be taken by the state. It is exactly the same thing, 100%.

         Anyone want to place a bet on this occurrence?????

         captcha: wasting
         • Logie97 1.1.1.1.1

           30 November 2010 at 8:09 am

           Keep hearing the commentators with their meme that New Zealand’s problems are the levels or private debt / overseas borrowings. It seems that the majority of that borrowed debt lies with these finance companies.

           And who do we know that made a bucket load by moving that money around when times were good…?

           “Just smile and wave boys. I’m not affected by this. Mine is in foreign bank accounts”.
           • ZeeBop 1.1.1.1.1.1

             30 November 2010 at 10:01 am

             Don’t give up, get even. Remember money is relatuve value not gold standard value. If the reserve currency of the world is printing money it means inflation is on the way big time. That means all this extra money the Spensers and others get is paper money, its worth a lot less, unless its locked in. i.e. owns a real asset like a home, a degree, a career, a skill, etc. Their contempt of the system in bailing out the few who so right royally screwed the system in debt crazed addiction, is undermining the very results of all that hard corruption! Money is relative and the US is printing it. Welcome to the crash, anytime about… …now.
         • pollywog 1.1.1.1.2

           30 November 2010 at 8:43 am

           That is just incredibly grossly unfair. Leads very directly to frustration, thence to anger, before finally becoming hatred.

           so how does one channel this frustration and anger productively ?…cos i don’t want to be blinded by hate.

           captcha : prevent
           • Colonial Viper 1.1.1.1.2.1

             30 November 2010 at 9:01 am

             This is the billion dollar question. I’m very interested in potential answers as well.

             PS VTO = Yoda?
           • Bored 1.1.1.1.2.2

             30 November 2010 at 9:07 am

             I have got over the hate bit…..once the pampered rich are reduced to the average level by circumstance or force we can safely expect that they will be the ones hating us (for generously allowing them to experience our normal circumstances).
         • Bored 1.1.1.1.3

           30 November 2010 at 8:47 am

           VTO, it might interest you to know that the Spencers along with a heap of other recognisable family names such as the Todds were the beneficiaries of import controls and licensing. They got rich on “import monopolies” for want of a better description. Made rich by the state at our expense and kept rich at our expense yet again.
           • prism 1.1.1.1.3.1

             30 November 2010 at 1:24 pm

             Bored that’s such a good point.
     • freedom 1.1.2

       30 November 2010 at 8:27 am

       if they made their fortunes in toilet paper why are we the ones cleaning up the shit?
       • Bored 1.1.2.1

         30 November 2010 at 8:43 am

         Nice question.

         Capcha: money!!!!!
     • KJT 1.1.3

       30 November 2010 at 2:22 pm

       Probably time to revisit limited liability companies. Limited liability was originally meant to encourage start up businesses. However now it mostly works for large speculative businesses which fail due to dodgy behavior. We all carry the risk for these people without much public benefit.
       It will not effect non-speculative small and medium start ups. They have to give personal guarantees to lenders, suppliers and often customers anyway.
       • grumpy 1.1.3.1

         30 November 2010 at 3:09 pm

         I don’t think you understand this KJT. When a limited liability company goes broke, it’s the creditors who miss out. In this case the kindly Government has a Deposit Guarantee Scheme whereby the taxpayers cover the creditor’s losses so it’s the taxpayer that misses out.
         Nothing to do with a limited liability, just a dodgy arse covering bailout scheme.
         • KJT 1.1.3.1.1

           30 November 2010 at 4:27 pm

           Without limited liability Spencer, Hotchins et al would have had to cover the losses of their own companies. Either directly or the Government could recover as much as possible from their assets.
   • Lazy Susan 1.2

     30 November 2010 at 7:38 am

     My understanding is that this “extended guarantee scheme” was only rolled over in October 2010 see here. Most of the major banks are no longer in the DGS and there are only a handful of finance companies that have been accepted. This begs the question why Equitable Mortgages was accepted into the extended scheme in the first place – what evidence did they present two months ago that suggested they were in good financial shape?
   • jcuknz 1.3

     30 November 2010 at 2:28 pm

     Dare I suggest that they have handled our ++++ for years, isn’t it fair we handle theirs now they are in need? 🙂
     • Colonial Viper 1.3.1

       30 November 2010 at 2:37 pm

       Wealthy people in need?! Why didn’t you say so mate, open up the Treasury coffers!
       • Jim Nald 1.3.1.1

         30 November 2010 at 5:01 pm

         Hurry up ! Double Dipton to the rescue
     • jcuknz 1.3.2

       30 November 2010 at 9:20 pm

       OK it wasn’t really that funny but I suspect you missed the point from your comments 🙂
2. Bored 2

   30 November 2010 at 6:53 am

   And whilst on the subject of bankrutcies heres David Henderson on his misfortunes “”Unfortunately, almost all my creditors are themselves in receivership or some form of administration now…’

   http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/business/4403655/Henderson-sinks-under-debt

   But maybe there is some justice, well just maybe watch this space…

   http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/business/4403629/Hanover-staff-to-front
   • grumpy 2.1

     30 November 2010 at 3:12 pm

     The only justice for some of these bastards comes in the form of a small solid object on the end of a brass tube – that is what they would get in China – and their family a bill for the bullet!
     • Colonial Viper 2.1.1

       30 November 2010 at 3:18 pm

       that is what they would get in China – and their family a bill for the bullet!

       For gawds sakes grumpy, China has moved on from those times.

       Nowadays, the kidney and liver donation is more than enough to cover the cost.
       • grumpy 2.1.1.1

         30 November 2010 at 3:44 pm

         I stand corrected CV, but I would still send them a bill for the bullet!

         The liver and kidneys are a great step forward but it would take a long time before you could find a heart in one of those Finance company bastards ……
3. Mickysavage 3

   30 November 2010 at 7:04 am

   Aargh.

   On Morning Report News John Key just said “kick the tyres” again. Can’t we get a better Prime Minister from somewhere, someone who doesn’t talk or think in slogans?
   • Bored 3.1

     30 November 2010 at 7:41 am

     Mickey, could you perhaps persuade that mealy mouthed middle of the road shade of grey that is Mr Goff to use these words, they have westy street appeal, sort of in line with what is supposed to be the core Labour electorate.
   • Janice 3.2

     30 November 2010 at 9:14 am

     He also referred the Pike River Mine events as a “moveable feast”. Who is this person? Why do we put up with him? Why don’t we “kick his tyres” there is a lot of hot air in there for sure and not much else.
     • Colonial Viper 3.2.1

       30 November 2010 at 1:29 pm

       Moveable feast? Like meals on wheels for miners?
     • Vicky32 3.2.2

       30 November 2010 at 6:08 pm

       What did he think he meant by that? ??????
       Deb
       • Anne 3.2.2.1

         30 November 2010 at 8:52 pm

         He didn’t mean anything by it. It’s one of those catchy phrases that Crosby/Textor taught him to use as a plausible sounding fill-in when he’s not sure what he’s talking about.
   • prism 3.3

     30 November 2010 at 1:28 pm

     I seem to remember that Billly T James had a good kick the tyres routine at a car sales yard. Perhaps Key is trying to be a loved man-of-the-people just an ordinary guy from a state house.

     captcha cars – is this the ghost in the machine at work?
4. Pascal's bookie 4

   30 November 2010 at 7:39 am

   Daily Mash, of course, has the best analysis of the wikileaks story

   The slaughter came just hours after the website, popular with paedophiles and smokers, published 250,000 secret documents that revealed, for only the 78 millionth time in human history, that governments are run by the sort of utter tosspots you wouldn’t have in your house.
   • freedom 4.1

     30 November 2010 at 8:05 am

     i prefer the tail of the piece

     “Nevertheless, the point about Wikileaks undermining the safety of soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan would have some validity, if only it wasn’t such a humongous vat of liquidised monkey-shit from start to finish.

     Because – and you might want to write this down and keep it somewhere safe – the key thing that has undermined the safety of soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan is them firing their big fucking guns at Iraqis and Afghans.”
     • Tigger 4.1.1

       30 November 2010 at 9:04 am

       There’s bound to be local gold in the leaks to come. My favourite quote is from this article:
       http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/4403682/Leaked-Cables-show-orders-to-spy-on-Clark

       “They were also told to collect similar information about other countries’ representatives to the UN, including their credit card details, frequent flier account numbers and work schedules.

       Prime Minister John Key … would not comment on whether it was appropriate for the US to be spying on UN officials.”

       I’ll make it easy for you John. It’s not appropriate.
       • Draco T Bastard 4.1.1.1

         30 November 2010 at 4:19 pm

         I’ve noticed that Jonkey is only unsure about stuff that the National Party wants to do but thinks that public wouldn’t approve.
5. Jim Nald 5

   30 November 2010 at 1:59 pm

   Newsflash:
   ACT authoritarians toss off Tashkoff
   Hide’s cronies back the brute’s disrepute
6. vto 6

   30 November 2010 at 5:51 pm

   My dulled brain flickered a little during mid-traffic yuckiness this afternoon when listening to radio commentators repeat the well-worn point that the big banks were too big to fail and needed to be assisted by the state (taxpayers) in the middle of the GFC in 2008.

   This was an unfortunate reality. But if the thought process continues from this point it is highly apparent that the big banks still require the taxpayers to stand behind them today. And also obviously will require the taxpayers to stand behind them well into the foreseeable future. Whether there is a govt guarantee in place at any particular time or not.

   Such is their role in our economy and society.

   So, they required taxpayer backing in the past (before it become obvious), got taxpayer backing yesterday (2008) and need it in the future.

   Because the bankers cannot operate without the taxpayer then surely the taxpayer must get something in return. Yet the bankers pay their way in the same way as any old ordinary cornershop business. How does that equate? It doesn’t. Cornershop businesses don’t need the taxpayer to back them up and don’t get it (oh, except farmers when the 100yr storm/drought arrives every decade).

   It is inequitable for bankers to pay their way to the same extent as ordinary business because they are clearly not ordinary business. They need the state and they need taxpayers. Otherwise their business model falls apart.

   One way to remedy this inequity is for them to pay more tax and so reduce the burden their business imposes on other taxpayers. There are surely other ways too. (on top of all this Westpac’s CEO’s obscene salary appears even more rude too of course).

   I’m pretty sure I aint missing anything here… There is a big yawning gap in the current banking / taxpaying / state structure in NZ…
   • Pascal's bookie 6.1

     30 November 2010 at 7:49 pm

     Yeah man. Top of my head stuff, some of contradictory, (‘either/or’ not ‘and’)…

     Too big to fail = too big to exist. Proactive approach on the part of regulators monitoring the strategic import of a company and where necessary stepping in and breaking the company up.

     Ownership to be based on a partnership model rather than a shareholder/board of directors one. Owners are personally responsible for the financial positions of the bank, if it needs to be bailed out, the partners get wiped out personally as first order of business and ownership reverts to the crown.

     Shares in a bank that are acquired via a remuneration package are automatically forfeited to the crown in the event of a bailout.

     The CEO and CFO of any bank that is bailed out have to spend 1 day/million dollars of bailout working the ‘complaints’ phone at inland revenue, as a sign of respect and goodwill.
     • vto 6.1.1

       30 November 2010 at 8:07 pm

       Well yes along those lines. Not sure what I was saying was explained in the best possible manner.

       Trying again… banks are not a normal business. They are completely enmeshed in the political system, as has been recently illustrated. They require state support. For confidence purposes as much as anything else. An unspoken type of support – which can perhaps best be seen if the situation was reversed i.e. the government of the day comes out and says “banks will not be given state support in the event a similar set of circumstances as the GFC arises in the future. Banks, you are on your own.” Imagine Clark saying that (forget Key for this exercise). What would people do do you think? Start hauling their funds out? I would guess so. (Kiwibank would become very plump.)

       As such Banks are quasi-state organisations. But that is not yet reflected in their current structuring, which today is one of private ownership and solely commercial transaction.

       This is the gap. This should be where change will come.
       • Pascal's bookie 6.1.1.1

         30 November 2010 at 8:42 pm

         What would people do do you think? Start hauling their funds out? I would guess so. (Kiwibank would become very plump.)

         Yep. I guess the tricky thing is that the ‘too big to fail’ deal is descriptive. It’s not the way the model is supposed to work, it’s just a description of an entity once it occupies a certain point in the infrastructure. So the threat to let them fail is hollow.

         So the way I look at it we can either prevent them from occupying a too big to fail space, or incentivise the hell out of the decision makers to not risk needing a bailout.

         I agree that it should be explicit and out there rather than just this unspoken bullshit.

         The suck thing is the unspoken thing will continue. All these people running around saying ‘we should have let them fail, that’s what we’ll do next time’ guarantee that no one will acknowledge that a company is too big to fail until it’s too late, and the cost of bailing it out will be lower than the cost of letting it fail.
       • Draco T Bastard 6.1.1.2

         1 December 2010 at 12:03 am

         If they require state support then they should be owned by the state. I don’t think this is truly optimal.

         Basic banking functions such as eft-pos and zero return/zero fee money “storage” that is guaranteed by the government should be a government owned bank. Also the printing of money needs to be removed from private banks and shifted back into government control and at 0%.

         This would leave the banks as finance companies where they can only lend out the money that has been loaned to them by their customers. This money will never be government guaranteed, cannot be withdrawn while presently loaned out and, if the finance company loses money then it’s most likely that the depositors lose money as well. One of the big problems with the current system is that people have forgotten that there is risk associated with loaning money out.

         This would make it so that the economy wouldn’t come crashing down every time a finance company lost money.
         • vto 6.1.1.2.1

           1 December 2010 at 6:09 am

           Yes, both good points p’s b and draco. Was wondering similar re separating the basic ‘money storage and creation’ being a state role and the lending bit for the private sector. So a kind of readjustment of the current roles.

           Remember the state had to intervene in a massve way following the great depression, which worked for a long time, until I think it was Reagan started to allow the roles that banks could play to be broadened. This started the rot as humans in the banking system played their human role and took advantage of the widened roles.

           In addition it would end up being a bit of a worse disaster no doubt if the risk around lending was not able to be sheeted home to those doing the lending. Certainly a private role and not one for the state.

           The banks and money printers are however incredibly powerful. It would be a big enough ask for any PM to lead such a charge against their current business. They would need a near revolution to get such a mandate, though that seems to be what is happening in other parts of the world…………….. Can you ever imagine Key doing it? Would expose him for what he truly is would it not?
7. millsy 7

   30 November 2010 at 7:25 pm

   On a good note, next general election in one year, or less – last weekend, was the last Saturday in November, according to our unwritten consititution, the latest an election can be held next year.

   Labour and the left has one year to pull its finger out and put together a genuine alternative program to Roger and Ruth’s spiritual heirs.

   It could start with what should be a bread and butter issue for the progressive left – public ownership of the beaches with free and unfettered access for all New Zealander, rich, poor, brown and white, as well as a pledge not to include any DOC land (inculding the Urewera national park), in the treaty settlement process – preserving our natural treausures for ALL new zealanders.

   Take those two steps, and youll have every New Zealander in the country singing the Internationale.
8. Pascal's bookie 8

   30 November 2010 at 9:41 pm

   Interesting post at ob-wings:

   http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2010/11/capital.html#more

   with some great anecdata in comments. (if you are gong to comment there, read the rules, it’s a family friendly, no punching the patrons kind of bar)

Links to post

1. The Standard: posted on 29 November 2010 at 5:13 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS