The new hole in National’s budget

99 comments on “The new hole in National’s budget ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Colonial Viper 1

   10 November 2011 at 7:45 am

   the Herald got a demographer in to check their numbers on emigration to Australia…I look forward to the same level of scrutiny being applied to National’s claims.

   “That won’t be necessary. These aren’t the droids you’re looking for. Carry on.”
   • Akldnut 1.1

     10 November 2011 at 9:34 am

     I look forward to the same level of scrutiny being applied to National’s claims.
     • Akldnut 1.1.1

       10 November 2011 at 9:36 am

       Tuis sentence of the week
   • mik e 1.2

     10 November 2011 at 8:35 pm

     CV bloomberg pointed out merrill lynch $79 trillion US derivatives Write off Key running country like he did with Merrill Lynch
2. ghostwhowalksnz 2

   10 November 2011 at 8:05 am

   Lost in all the talk about National ‘delaying’ the implementation of the ETS , is the fact that the money has to paid up in any case but its the taxpayer who pays.

   More taxpayer subsidies to farmers !

   They are going to be pouring money into water resource schemes yet say the government shouldnt be involved in picking winners or borrowing money for commercial ventures.

   hello Reality check
   • James H 2.1

     10 November 2011 at 8:10 am

     good point. I’ll add that explicitly.
3. mickysavage 3

   10 November 2011 at 8:36 am

   Can someone comment on National’s claim that the change in ETS is “cost neutral”?  This really looks like a big fib to me.
    
   I understand that the reason is because there is doubt about Agriculture coming into the ETS there is the possibility it could be brought in early.  If this is the reason then it is lame in the extreme.
    
   The only other reason I can think of is that Key and Smith will sprikle pixie dust down the end of the garden and then add all the gold they find to the Country’s budgets.  If they are capable of doing this I will think about voting for them.  But somehow I doubt they are capable of this, even though the MSM seem to think they are.
   • Hami Shearlie 3.1

     10 November 2011 at 10:04 am

     Quick, look, another rainbow – so that’s where they’re getting all the gold to fund NZ? Nats new manifesto -” Exterminate all leprachauns!” Simple, why didn’t Labour think of that?
   • tsmithfield 3.2

     10 November 2011 at 11:30 am

     I am not sure about all the ins and outs of the ETS, Mickey. But I can think of several factors that would offset at least in part the reduction in ETS income.

     Firstly, I assume the taxable profit will increase by the amount of the lost ETS revenue. At 30% company rate this would have a substantial offsetting effect.
     Secondly, there would be GST retrieved on the proportion of the money that is spent.
     Thirdly, there is the velocity of money in that the proportion of this money that is spent will have a spin-off effect in income and profitability of other industries increasing their taxable profits and GST spend.

     I don’t know about specific offsetting effects relating to the ETS, however, there may be some of those as well.
     • Puddleglum 3.2.1

       10 November 2011 at 1:55 pm

       Unfortunately for National, if they tried to run with any of these ‘offsets’ it would go clear over most people’s heads and would sound like lame attempts to ‘explain’ – in a ‘lost the argument’ sense of explaining.
4. Akldnut 4

   10 November 2011 at 9:40 am

   bloody bug or something in this programme or something, noticed Micky Savage had the same problem yesterday half thru a sentence! Bam WYSIWYG
5. Roy 5

   10 November 2011 at 9:48 am

   Enough with the subsidies to farmers! If they want irrigation, let them pay for it themselves.
   • mickysavage 5.1

     10 November 2011 at 10:00 am

     Welfare payments to rich farmers, cuts for beneficiaries.  New Zealand the way they want it.
     • Hami Shearlie 5.1.1

       10 November 2011 at 10:06 am

       Nats new slogan – “Farmers – a new kind of beneficiary, Greedy Not Needy!”
       • Draco T Bastard 5.1.1.1

         10 November 2011 at 1:29 pm

         Farmers have been Nationals preferred beneficiaries since forever.
       • mickysavage 5.1.1.2

         10 November 2011 at 4:37 pm

         “From each according to their powerlessness, to each according to their greed …”
6. Lanthanide 6

   10 November 2011 at 9:49 am

   What about this baloney new irrigation ring-fencing of the asset sales revenue they’re proposing now?

   My boyfriend sees it purely as a cynical move by National to get some “skin in the game” so that they can influence future water rights allocations as well as being a blatant vote-buying bribe to the agricultural sector.
   • insider 6.1

     10 November 2011 at 10:02 am

     Their interest in irrigation is not new. They’ve been funding schemes for some time like the Community Irrigation Fund, and announced more support earlier in the Budget – up to $400m. If they are saying that the investment is dependent on selling assets then the only thing they are ringfencing is their flexibility to implement policies they have already announced.
7. Afewknowthetruth 7

   10 November 2011 at 10:05 am

   Iceland gone.

   Greece gone.

   Italy falling fast.

   Spain, Portugal and Ireland next in line.

   Then come Britain, the US, France, Germany and Japan.

   (We need hardly mention countires like Monrovia, Lathvia, Zimbabwe, Syria, Somalia etc.)

   The major nations which participate in the bankers’ fractional-reserve-banking-and-money-created-out-of-thin-air scam are starting to fall like dominoes.

   Even as oil depletion, water depletion, soil depletion, climate related catstrophes etc. hammer the system harder and faster we have clowns telling us they can forecast money flows three or four years from now.

   There are some who say: “Bring back Monty Pythoin’. However, with politicians of the quality we have in NZ (and elsewhere in the western world) there really is no need.

   ‘That economy isn’t collapsing, it’s just having a rest at the bottom of the cage.’

   ‘Of course we can consume the Earth and still live on it.’
   • King Kong 7.1

     10 November 2011 at 10:26 am

     It always sounds like you are chubbing up as you are write this doomsday rubbish.

     You do realise that if your fantasy does come true and things go “law of the jungle”, idiots like you will not know whats hit them.
     • Afewknowthetruth 7.1.1

       10 November 2011 at 11:01 am

       KK

       It has been my experience throughout life that those who know the least argue the most.

       Next you will be telling me the dollar in your pocket buys just as much now as it did five years ago.

       Denialists are always good for a laugh, even if their arguments are pathetic.
     • mik e 7.1.2

       10 November 2011 at 8:38 pm

       Well KK you obviously won,t have any trouble unless they run out of bananas
       NZ on the brink of becoming Banana republic
       • Ari 7.1.2.1

         11 November 2011 at 4:52 am

         Farming and plutocrats, you reckon?

         Wait, what do you mean, the brink? We’re already there.
   • Lanthanide 7.2

     10 November 2011 at 10:38 am

     Iceland and Greece are still there.
     • Afewknowthetruth 7.2.1

       10 November 2011 at 11:05 am

       That’s right Lanth.

       And their economies are booming, with everyone looking forward to the prospect of becoming multi-millionaires.

       Which planet do you live on?
       • One Anonymous Bloke 7.2.1.1

         10 November 2011 at 11:25 am

         Ah haha! I seem to recall a certain Truther loon (it was you, AFKTT) telling everyone that the measurement of success by material possessions was a fraud and a con and dogs and cats living together, but now you’re saying if you don’t have these things your country is “gone”.
         • Afewknowthetruth 7.2.1.1.1

           10 November 2011 at 12:11 pm

           OAB

           You have a great propensity for getting things wrong, a great propensitity for misquoting and a great propensity for atempting to score points by any pathetic means you can come up with (clearly some personality trait, as discussed on other threads: see this morning’s comment on your feeble attempt to denigrate the correct interpretaion of a smile).

           Let is be very clear about a few things:

           I have never made any mention of ‘cats and dogs’ on TS.

           I have never said ‘measurement of success by material possessions was a fraud’. What I have repeatedly said is that GDP is a fraudulent index (insofar as it measures negatives as positives and is manipulated) and is not a measure of well-being or of progress.

           Measurement of success by material possessions is, however, clearly as delusion and is contarary to the teachings of all great spiritual leaders, most notably Christ. Interestingly, western socieites are ‘imploding’ as a direct consequence of failing to follow the teachings of people like Christ.

           ‘you’re saying if you don’t have these things your country is “gone”.’ Not at all. I am simply saying that by the measures used by mainstream economists the Greek economy is ‘gone’, i.e. in such a deep hole it can never recover (see UK Independent link on this thread). Oh, I forgot: you don’t follow up links.

           Since the entire industrialised world is in a self-made trap of utter reliance on fossil fuels which are depleting rapidly and are destroying the long term habitability of the Earth, the entire industrialised world will eventually be ‘gone’. The only matter of debate is when.

           All the evidence indicates that unless there is a ‘crash programme’ to establish alternative arrangements collapse of industrialism will occur by 2020 and collapse of the habitability of the Earth will occur some time between 2040 and 2060.

           I see no evidence of any crash programme to establish alternative arrangements; indeed I only see desperate attempts to prop up failing systems and denial of reality by people such as yourself.

           Your inability to understand metaphors is presumably contirved.

           You inability to understrand that a concrete and steel building cannot fall at free-fall speed in its own foorprint as a consequence of a short lived fire in an upper storey is clearly indicative of a failure in logical thinking, as is your belief that modern airliners can evoporate on impact with grass, as per the official narrative of 9/11.
           • One Anonymous Bloke 7.2.1.1.1.1

             10 November 2011 at 2:38 pm

             Why are you so silly? Perhaps a building cannot fall at free-fall speed into its own footprint, but since there are no records of a building doing the same (yes, including the one you’re thinking of – not even the conspiracy theory you’re referencing makes that claim!) your point is somewhat moot. Not to say biased. Not to say so brainlessly incompetent you didn’t even do any basic fact checking.

             This is the ‘confirmation bias’ you’ve been warned about showing up in your beliefs.
       • Lanthanide 7.2.1.2

         10 November 2011 at 12:06 pm

         My point, AFKTT, is that you like to use woolley words like “gone” that can mean anything to anyone, and can be conveniently retroactively defined in the future when things turn out differently to how you said. You can look back and say “well when I said ‘gone’, actually I meant xyz, which happened, so I’m still right”.

         It’s like how you said that the world financial system was going to fall apart in October. I know you’re still claiming that this did actually happen, but as far as I can tell, it hasn’t. The only thing that really happened was the deadlines (set months earlier) for Greece started to fall due. Global shipping is still happening, flowers are still being flown daily from South Africa to be sold in London florists etc.
         • Afewknowthetruth 7.2.1.2.1

           10 November 2011 at 1:04 pm

           Lanth.

           ‘you like to use woolley words like “gone” that can mean anything to anyone,’

           The word ‘gone’ substitutes for a couple of paragraphs. Perhaps I make a the false assumption that people are following what is happening and understand what ‘gone’ means, when in practice they are not following events closely and misinterpret words and phrases.

           ‘It’s like how you said that the world financial system was going to fall apart in October.’

           You seem to be picking up OAB’s habit of misquoting.

           I am pretty sure I said around July/August that there was a 70% chance of a major jolt by October 2011 and a 100% chance of a major jolt by 2012 (bearing in mind that practically all financial crises in modern history have occured in late September-October).

           Does this look like a jolt to you?

           http://au.finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=%5EFTSE#symbol=^ftse;range=6m;compare=;indicator=volume;charttype=area;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=off;source=;

           Does this look like a jolt to you?

           http://www.kitco.com/scripts/hist_charts/yearly_graphs.plx

           Did NZ suffer a jolt when its credit rating was downgraded?

           ‘Global shipping is still happening, flowers are still being flown daily from South Africa to be sold in London florists etc.’

           Even when people are starving in the suburbs of London flowers will still be flown from South Africa. Indeed, countries like Kenya already have millions suffering malnuttrition but continue to export peas etc, to the UK, where they fetch a much higher price than in the local market.
           • Lanthanide 7.2.1.2.1.1

             10 November 2011 at 1:44 pm

             “The drop in oil prices that accompanies severe demand destruction will undoubtedly be interpreted by most NZers as a sign that the crisis is over.”

             http://thestandard.org.nz/holidays-in-europe-likely-to-be-cut-short/#comment-360943

             I don’t see any significant drop in oil prices.

             Labour can make all the promises it likes: nothing within the framework of orthodox economics or orthodox politics is going to stop what is now ‘thundering up the beach’.

             http://thestandard.org.nz/another-shaming-report-on-child-poverty/#comment-374226

             You don’t actually say what that even means (more woolley statements), but link to two sites that apparently do say what you mean. One of them says: “Whereas in spring 2009 he was predicting the industrial age would run until 2014 or perhaps even 2016, he’s changed his tune. Radically. Now he says it’s coming to a halt this autumn”

             I don’t think the “industrial age” ended this last October.

             Proper market crashes normally occur in September-October.

             http://thestandard.org.nz/ready-for-round-two/#comment-361027

             I haven’t seen any economists calling October a “market crash’ as we have seen with 2008, or 1989, or 1929.

             Let’s put it this way: the present economic system will not get through the remainder of this year intact. There will be a major jolt commecing late Septmber to early October which will ‘wipe out’ a lot of people.

             http://thestandard.org.nz/turning-green/#comment-370197

             More woolley language, whatever “wipe out” is supposed to mean. Or “a lot of people” for that matter. Incidentally all 5 of the predictions made by CV in that same thread haven’t come to pass.
             • Afewknowthetruth …

               10 November 2011 at 3:05 pm

               Lanth.

               ‘I don’t see any significant drop in oil prices.’

               That is presumably because you go through life with your eyes closed or only see what you want to see.

               Brent oil high this year of around $127, low $100.

               http://www.oilnergy.com/1obrent.htm

               ‘Labour can make all the promises it likes: nothing within the framework of orthodox economics or orthodox politics is going to stop what is now ‘thundering up the beach’.

               You don’t actually say what that even means ‘

               I do get rather tired of constantly repeating ‘the Peak Oil tsunami, the unravelling of Freactional Reserve Banking tsunami, the Environmental Collapse tsunami’ every day to people to want to ignore them, and so I tend to summarise.

               ‘One of them says: “Whereas in spring 2009 he was predicting the industrial age would run until 2014 or perhaps even 2016, he’s changed his tune. Radically. Now he says it’s coming to a halt this autumn”

               I don’t think the “industrial age” ended this last October.’

               That was simply an example of what SOME people are saying.

               I have NEVER said the industrial age will come to an end in October 2011 but I have repeatedly said it will be pretty much ‘all over’ by 2020, and that most of what peeople currently take for granted will be gone by 2015. That is what I have in print.

               ‘I haven’t seen any economists calling October a “market crash’ as we have seen with 2008, or 1989, or 1929.

               Economists don’t talk about crashes … especially not now. The world has been in depression since 2008 but economiusts constantly refer to that state of drepression as ‘duble dip’, ‘on the cusp of recovery’ and other such nonsense. ‘The markets’ are entirely confidence based and the moment a large number of people wake up to reality most markets will plummet.

               ‘the present economic system will not get through the remainder of this year intact. There will be a major jolt commecing late Septmber to early October which will ‘wipe out’ a lot of people.’

               That seems to be a pretty accurate forecast of what has been happening, e.g. Nikkei down from 10,700 to 8.400 (from a peak of 40,000, by the way).

               http://au.finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=%5EN225

               More accurate than most weather forecasts and definitely a lot more accurate than anything that comes out of Treasury or district councils.

               (And we haven’t got the end of the year yet).
               • One Anonymous Bloke …

                 10 November 2011 at 3:42 pm

                 “The markets are confidence based…” and whether you like it or not, as long as there are resources (which as long as fauna and flora grow, are essentially infinite) there will be commodities, and as long as there are commodities there will be markets, and as long as there are markets there will be confidence, although you probably won’t share it. At the moment, as we shall see, few do.

                 But confidence is part of the game the punters play. The players play the market:

                 Rather than choose the Nikkei as the metric (I can think of some reasons why it might not be typical), why not use an aggregate? Buggered if I can find one, but here’s a fairly good visual reference. Almost all markets are down. I see that page and think about all those banksters yelling: “time to sell short!” “how many shares can I borrow?” etc etc.: people will be making a lot of money out of it.

                 Those who think that way, anyhow.

                 Worrying about economic collapse is a bit like worrying about a collapse in the kilometre: dollars are just measurements.

                 Environmental collapse is another thing again. The perfect storm meme of an extended period of unprecedented weather causing global famine cannot be ruled out. The watchword is resilience, not despair.
   • phil 7.3

     10 November 2011 at 12:55 pm

     Yes banks can truly create money out of ‘thin-air’. That’s why they all compete for customers… rather than just creating money.

     Or are you talking about the state?
     • Puddleglum 7.3.1

       10 November 2011 at 1:03 pm

       The state makes legal the ability of some corporate entities to make money out of ‘thin air’.

       Of course, it’s not made literally out of ‘thin air’, it’s made out of the (legally enforceable) contract underpinning a loan that, in most cases, essentially uses future labour as collateral for the repayment of the debt plus interest. 

       Capitalism would never have got going without the state (or some other party external to a transaction – voluntary or otherwise) acting as enforcer. 

       That’s my understanding – but happy to have that understanding improved. 
       • phil 7.3.1.1

         10 November 2011 at 1:33 pm

         Not sure where the “some entities” bit is coming from. Essentially anyone having legal capacity can contract to take deposits and make loans. Not everyone can call themselves a ‘Bank’ of course.

         Puddleglum it’s hardly a surprise you realise they are just loans, and therefore no money is really created. I was more concerned AFKTT wasn’t simply using the metaphor of money creation, but genuinely thinks ASB et al print notes out the back (or on their computers).

         I too doubt capitalism would function without the state enforcing contracts. 
         • Puddleglum 7.3.1.1.1

           10 November 2011 at 2:06 pm

           Thanks phil. You’re right about the ‘some entities’.

           Can anyone (other than banks) provide loans over and above their deposits (or collateral)? Isn’t that at the nub of these discussions? (Sorry to sound naive, but I actually don’t know the answer given all the different forms of financial institution around – from loan sharks on up.)
           • phil 7.3.1.1.1.1

             10 November 2011 at 2:44 pm

             As a general principle virtually anyone, having zero equity, can borrow a thousand dollars from A and the very next day loan everything to B. I suspect various finance companies ended up in this position. Banks however cannot do this – being required to have certain reserves.
              
             There are exceptions of course – some entities are restricted in their capacity to engage in such transactions as a consequence of the way they were established (constitutions forbid it etc). Some people/entities would be in breach of contractual obligations to others if they did so. There might be statutory fetters for some (perhaps if you were in statutory management – although I’m not overly familiar with how that works).
              
             I guess people not happy with fractional banking can just put their ‘deposits’ in a safe deposit box at whatever bank.
             • wtl …

               10 November 2011 at 2:53 pm

               As a general principle virtually anyone, having zero equity, can borrow a thousand dollars from A and the very next day loan everything to B. I suspect various finance companies ended up in this position. Banks however cannot do this – being required to have certain reserves.

               Yes, but A must have had that money to start with to loan it to this person. Unless A is a bank, then A will only need to have a fraction of that money with the rest ‘created’ as a contract to make a payment.
               • phil …

                 10 November 2011 at 3:20 pm

                 No, person A being a bank makes no difference… If a bank is to loan money to B it will have either borrowed it itself or had in provided by its owners. It hasn’t created it. 
         • Afewknowthetruth 7.3.1.1.2

           10 November 2011 at 2:10 pm

           phil.

           Governments DO create money out of thin air via central banks and the international bond market.

           Commercial banks DO create money out of thin air via mortgages etc. (though they don’t actually print the money of course; that is done by the government printer). Most banks are limited in their money creation by fractional reserve banking regulations. Governments are not: hence the US debt ceiling set in September has already been exceeded (Shush. Don’t tell anyone.)

           In practice only about 3% of the money in crculation actually exists in the form of notes and coins; most of it is digits in computer these days.

           What is interesting is that the derivatives market now almost ceretainly exceeds the entire wealth of the Earth, which is why there will be an almightly ‘implosion’ when it goes down.
           • phil 7.3.1.1.2.1

             10 November 2011 at 3:06 pm

             “Governments DO create money out of thin air via central banks and the international bond market.”

             I know – hence why I asked whether you meant the State. 

             “Commercial banks DO create money out of thin air via mortgages etc.”

             No they simply do not. If bank 1 borrows 1000 from person 1 (a deposit) and then loans it all to person 2 who buys a house from person 3 who deposits the money in bank 2 we still only have 1000 base money in the system. Through this process the banks have not created base money, they have circulated it. Economists have always termed the process ‘creation’ but nobody is really creating money. For some reason people have latched onto the ‘creation’ jargon and propagated the myth you are describing. 

              
             • Draco T Bastard …

               10 November 2011 at 3:15 pm

               Wow, you really don’t understand Fractional Reserve banking.

               Modern central banking allows banks to practice fractional reserve banking with inter-bank business transactions with a reduced risk of bankruptcy. The process of fractional-reserve banking expands the money supply of the economy but also increases the risk that a bank cannot meet its depositor withdrawals. Though not a mainstream economic belief, a number of central bankers, monetary economists, and text books, have said that banks create money by ‘extending credit’, where banks obligate themselves to borrowers, and then later manage whatever liabilities this creates for them, where if the central bank targets interest rates, it must supply base money on demand to meet the banks reserve requirements, after the banks have begun the lending process and that rather than deposits leading to loans, causality is reversed, and loans lead to deposits.

               Private commercial banks create money. I’ve even seen speculation that 50% to 80% of inflation is due to the private banks doing so.
               • phil …

                 10 November 2011 at 5:47 pm

                 Draco, your quote identifies one entity creating money – the central bank (State). Banks can borrow this created money but do not, and cannot create it themselves. The idea that banks are using central bank’s lender of last resort functions as everyday sources of debt funding is an interesting one albeit not widely accepted as your quote notes (it is also of course a situation created by the State). However you are really getting into the role of and potential problems with central banks when you are looking at this kind of thing. However if we accept this occurs and then posit a model where banks couldn’t get this central bank funding, yet could still lend without maintaining full reserves, you would find factional reserve banking would continue (just as it currently does at all non-bank financial institutions). However despite still engaging in ‘fractional-reserve’ banking, according to your quote Banks could no longer create money.. This is to be expected, because fractional reserve banking doesn’t actually create money, it circulates it.  
             • Lanthanide …

               10 November 2011 at 4:22 pm

               “No they simply do not. If bank 1 borrows 1000 from person 1 (a deposit) and then loans it all to person 2 who buys a house from person 3 who deposits the money in bank 2 we still only have 1000 base money in the system. ”

               Actually, Phil, with fractional reserve banking, this doesn’t happen in practice.

               Bank 1 borrows $100,000 from person A (a deposit) and then loans out $400,000 to person B (a mortgage). Person B takes that money and gives it to person C in exchange for their house. Person C deposits $400,000 at Bank 2.

               We’ve now created $300,000 out of thin air.

               This is what happens in reality. It’s called fractional reserve banking. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_reserve_banking
               • phil …

                 10 November 2011 at 5:19 pm

                 “Bank 1 borrows $100,000 from person A (a deposit) and then loans out $400,000 to person B (a mortgage).”

                 No, banks cannot do this Lanthanide. If a bank could simply create 300k to lend in addition to the 100k deposit from person A they wouldn’t bother taking A’s deposit in the first place (taking deposits cost them money), rather they would create 400k from nothing and lend it. 
                 • Draco T Bastard …

                   10 November 2011 at 6:43 pm

                   Of course they would. Taking the deposit gives the illusion that they’re lending out real money rather than printing it.
                 • ghostwhowalksnz …

                   10 November 2011 at 6:50 pm

                   yes thats right. Any loans on the books have to be balanced by deposits.

                   What Lanthanide is refering to is commonly known as ‘overdrafts’. ie money they create if you need it. But once you draw down your overdraft then it has to accounted for , sometimes they may have this credit as a % of their reserves or maybe money deposited with the Reserve Bank.
                   This money is just used to maintain liquidity and keep the wheels of commerce greased.

                   But then anybody can create credit – the corner lunch shop can say to a regular customer of Monday who is out of readies , square us up on Friday when you get paid for the week. Most people are paid after they have done the work say the following week, effectively creating credit for their boss. The employer may pay suppliers by the 20th of the following month, getting credit in return for supplies received.

                   I probably have missed a few things but thats how I see it all works
                 • mik e …

                   10 November 2011 at 8:05 pm

                   Phil the banks used to be able to get away with 90% leveraging since GFC they have to have more in reserve
                 • Lanthanide …

                   10 November 2011 at 8:22 pm

                   No phil, it’s called fractional reserve banking. I linked to the wikipedia article on it, you should read it and educate yourself on how the the banking system *really* works.

                   Fractional reserve banking literally means the banks only hold a fraction of their outstanding loans as deposits. In my example it was 1/4 or 25%, but as mik e notes above, prior to the GFC it wasn’t uncommon for the ratio to be 1/10 or 10%.

                   That’s where the term “bank run” comes from. All of the depositors show up at the bank and demand their deposits back at the same time, but the bank doesn’t actually have their money because they leant it out.

                   Also, watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dc3sKwwAaCU&feature=related
                   • phil …

                     11 November 2011 at 12:29 am

                     Your example doesn’t demonstrate fractional reserve banking, rather it demonstrates a fictional banking system. If your example used a 25% reserve, then bank 1 would receive a 100k deposit (ie a loan) and be able to lend out 75k (as your wikipedia article explains I might add). My example had a 0% reserve requirement purely to show that a lack of one doesn’t mean banks can magic money out of thin air. 

                     Rather than watching youtube (ie Grignons fantasy banking system, which misrepresents this point) I suggest you find yourself a well reputed finance textbook and read it. 
                   • Lanthanide …

                     11 November 2011 at 12:53 pm

                     Here’s an expert on the matter, not that I think you’ll believe him either: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDHSUgA29Ls
             • Afewknowthetruth …

               10 November 2011 at 4:49 pm

               phil.

               Your example is of simple banking, not the Fractioan; Reserve Banking system most nations use. So, I have bad news for you. You are wrong.

               Let’s say you borrow $100,000 from a commercial bank. In order to loan you that amount of money on a fractional reserve of 1:10 the bank is not required to have $100,000. It needs to have just $10,000 as a deposit. $90,000 is effectively conjured out of thin air the moment a mortgage agreement is signed. The mortagee then spends ‘x’ years paying back principle plus interest (which can easily exceed the original values of the loan.

               It’s called debt slavery and was invented millenia ago but came into use in European soceities in the late middle ages.

               Fractional Reserve Banking is why bank runs are so devastating.

               Watch Money as Debt (urgently).
               • Draco T Bastard …

                 10 November 2011 at 6:41 pm

                 Money Masters and several other videos around the net that explain how it works. Phil just doesn’t want to believe that the problem is private control of the money supply which, effectively, is what Fractional Reserve Banking is.
8. hoom 8

   10 November 2011 at 10:07 am

   Show me the money son!
9. fender 9

   10 November 2011 at 10:32 am

   Selling assets to paint schools, hospitals, shout irrigation schemes to those who should be buying their own and the other crap is utter madness. Didnt he originally say the money was going to pay off dept? Our kids are being shafted by this johnfoolery.
10. Afewknowthetruth 10

    10 November 2011 at 10:51 am

    On the matter of emissions, even the International Energy Agency (which western governments supposedly look to for guidance) is now admitting we are pretty well totally screwed.

    What is the chance of a ‘bold change in direction’ when we are governed by disaster-as-usual feaks and those who seeks to gain office are offering disaster-as-usual policies predicated on growth?

    What is the chance of a ‘bold change in direction’ when the bulk of the populace doesn’t even recognise there is a problem (and doesn’t want to know) and will vote for whichever party offers the best ‘Flybuys’ deal?

    What is the chance of a ‘bold change in direction’ when people like Ben Clark persistently promote economic growth as ‘our salvation’, after he has been supplied with masses of information which clearly demonstrates that growth is the problem and is inherently unsustainable?

    ‘Irreversible Climate Change Looms Within Five Years

    LONDON, UK, November 9, 2011 (ENS) – Unless there is a “bold change of policy direction,” the world will lock itself into an insecure, inefficient and high-carbon energy system, the International Energy Agency warned at the launch of its 2011 World Energy Outlook today in London.

    The report says there is still time to act, but despite steps in the right direction the door of opportunity is closing.

    The agency’s warning comes at a critical time in international climate change negotiations, as governments prepare for the annual UN climate summit in Durban, South Africa, from November 28.

    “If we do not have an international agreement whose effect is put in place by 2017, then the door will be closed forever,” IEA Chief Economist Fatih Birol warned today.

    “Growth, prosperity and rising population will inevitably push up energy needs over the coming decades. But we cannot continue to rely on insecure and environmentally unsustainable uses of energy,” said IEA Executive Director Maria van der Hoeven.

    “Governments need to introduce stronger measures to drive investment in efficient and low-carbon technologies,” she said.

    “The Fukushima nuclear accident, the turmoil in parts of the Middle East and North Africa and a sharp rebound in energy demand in 2010 which pushed CO2 emissions to a record high, highlight the urgency and the scale of the challenge,” van der Hoeven said.

    Some key trends are pointing in worrying directions, the agency told reporters today. CO2 emissions have rebounded to a record high, the energy efficiency of global economy worsened for second straight year and spending on oil imports is near record highs.

    http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/nov2011/2011-11-09-01.html

    All the evidence indicates the maniacs will keep doing it* till they can’t.

    * promoting problems as solutions in order to prop up status quo disaster-as-usual economic arrangements.
    • ChrisH 10.1

      10 November 2011 at 11:35 am

      What about the argument that a lot of European countries have become more efficient, and that it is the USA and Chindia not yet catching up?
    • Draco T Bastard 10.2

      10 November 2011 at 1:42 pm

      Please, please learn to use a little HTML formatting. It makes it so much easier to read what you say when quotations and comment can be told apart.
11. fender 11

    10 November 2011 at 11:33 am

    Stimulating the sharemarket by putting SOE’s up for grabs is the most pathetic course of action “going forward”….backward in my view.
12. Afewknowthetruth 12

    10 November 2011 at 11:33 am

    On the matter of Greece ‘still being there’:

    ‘A deal on forming a Greek national unity government collapsed today as the country headed towards an economic abyss, hours after outgoing Prime Minister George Papandreou said he was handing over to a coalition that does not exist.’

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/greek-party-deal-on-new-crisis-premier-collapses-6259396.html

    ‘headed towards an economic abyss,’

    These are such ‘interesting times’.
    • One Anonymous Bloke 12.1

      10 November 2011 at 11:43 am

      “economic abyss…”

      No, Truthiboy, they’re heading for a debt default.
      • Afewknowthetruth 12.1.1

        10 November 2011 at 1:21 pm

        Oh. Thank you so much Mr Condescending, I’d have never guessed. .

        I’m sure the Greek people will feel a lot better know that they are not facing an economic abyss but will just have their economy devastated and their savings wiped out, as happened in Argentina.

        There is one slight fly in the oilment though. Argentina’s collpase was prior to Peak Oil. Greece’s collapse is post Peak Oil, i.e. there will never be a revovery of the system only a recovery from the system .
        • Zorr 12.1.1.1

          10 November 2011 at 1:33 pm

          You face an issue of credibility AFKTT.

          You are always on here prescribing doom and gloom for the world yet you, yourself, have no personal credibility. Where is your blog? Your website with your information? Your Youtube channel? There are a lot of things you can do to build credibility, yet you don’t. You rely on the “credibility” of other commentators who (for those of us who look at them and just see cranks) lack credibility as well.

          You obviously spend a large amount of energy writing responses on The Standard when you could spend a fraction of that energy, set up your own site and just point people at that. Rather than writing screeds of rubbish that make my eyes glaze over (despite actually being interested).
          • Draco T Bastard 12.1.1.1.1

            10 November 2011 at 1:45 pm

            Where is your blog? Your website with your information? Your Youtube channel?

            You mean like his books that he’s written?
            • Zorr 12.1.1.1.1.1

              10 November 2011 at 1:47 pm

              Or maybe a documentary he has produced?
              • Draco T Bastard …

                10 November 2011 at 3:20 pm

                Why should he produce a documentary? He’s written books. It’s not his fault you haven’t read them – he’s linked to them often enough.
          • Bored 12.1.1.1.2

            10 November 2011 at 1:54 pm

            Let me help you Zorr. Like AFKTT I too am a Cassandra, somebody with an unwelcome message that proves to be true. In psychologists terms the issues AFKTT alludes to are too large, real and significant to be comprehended. The reaction of a normal person like yourself is quite correctly denial. This will not however stop the cliff face approaching at ever increasing velocity.

            My response was “S**t Oh dear, we are all fekked” which has since given away to “lets have a closer look and do something about it”.

            There are a heap of resources and they all clash, overlap, agree and disagree. Try http://www.theautomaticearth.blogspot.com and http://www.energybulletin.net for starters. Nobody has a monopoly on the truth (I am quite often wrong damn it) and we all hate circumspection as warts appear too often.
            • One Anonymous Bloke 12.1.1.1.2.1

              10 November 2011 at 3:11 pm

              Bored, since no-one has a monopoly on the “truth”, it therefore makes sense to get information from the most well-resourced and scientifically credible groups. It makes sense to fact check sources and data. Most particularly, it makes sense to test your beliefs by trying to disprove them, not to simply look for confirmatory arguments.
              • Bored …

                10 November 2011 at 4:52 pm

                So true Anonymous One, I dont actually believe anyone until I have tested them, especially those claiming “credibility”. High amongst those lacking credibility are the people we are bombarded with everyday, the MSM and the economists. I test their reality hard, I really recommend and hope that when you make the statements above you do too.
                • One Anonymous Bloke …

                  11 November 2011 at 7:32 am

                  To a point: There aren’t enough hours in the day to check every source.
              • Afewknowthetruth …

                10 November 2011 at 5:01 pm

                OAB

                So, for instance, if you wanted the ‘last word’ on oil depletion you might consult ASPO, the Association for the Study of Peak Oil (and Gas), perhaps the local organisation ASPO-NZ, at whose symposium I was speaker.

                Oh no. Damn, That would give me credibility and blow all your silly nonsense out of the water. Better consult a diviner who uses a forked twig.
                • One Anonymous Bloke …

                  11 November 2011 at 1:31 pm

                  I’ll stick with what I always do, which is to rely on multiple sources, especially ones that contradict one another. You may believe that the fact that lots of people who agree with you, agree with you, bolsters your credibility, but it doesn’t. Your credibility gets bolstered, or not, when you argue with people who don’t agree with you.

                  Who has “the last word” on peak oil? Why, the people who produce the stuff, and I guarantee they’ll keep very very quiet about it. Commercially useful information and all that…
                  • Colonial Viper …

                    11 November 2011 at 1:40 pm

                    Who has “the last word” on peak oil? Why, the people who produce the stuff, and I guarantee they’ll keep very very quiet about it. Commercially useful information and all that…

                    Most of the peak oil analysis out there is being done by ex-big oil analysts.

                    So its expertise from the field, but which is no longer gagged.
                    • One Anonymous Bloke …

                      11 November 2011 at 2:07 pm

                      “Most of the peak oil analysis out there is being done by ex-big oil analysts.”

                      You mean most that we’ve got access to. Take the price of petrol in the USA: they say it will have to reach $6 per gallon before people change their driving habits, but it’s the oil companies that will find out first – they’ll see it in their sales figures long before we read about it in a report.

                      And hey AFKTT, look on the bright side, at least we’re not arguing with this guy. 🙂
          • Afewknowthetruth 12.1.1.1.3

            10 November 2011 at 1:56 pm

            Zorr

            I do not believe in duplication of effort, particularly when there are excellent sites already ‘out there’ which people ignore.

            http://www.oilcrash.com has been loaded with information for many years (much of it supplied by me).

            I have articles posted on emeritus professor Guy MCPherson’s site, Nature Bats Last, and have the capicity to get material posted there as topics for discussion almost any time I wish.

            The issue is not credibility, The issue is the reluctance of people to access the mountians of valuable information that is already available, as Robert Atack discovered after handing out thousands of DVDs [that people didn’t bother to watch].

            One thing I have learned after many years of activism is that most people do nothing most of the time (other than their normal routines of watching television, shopping, going out for meals, perhaps playing golf once a week etc.).

            My most recent book is filled with valuable information and refrences for follow: most people won’t read it, and of those who do, most will do no follow up. It’s the nature of humans.
            • One Anonymous Bloke 12.1.1.1.3.1

              10 November 2011 at 2:43 pm

              “…emeritus professor…” Oh too funny! An actual stereotype in the flesh! You are trying to bolster your own credibility by referencing an emeritus professor! Do you even get the joke? ROFLMAO!
        • One Anonymous Bloke 12.1.1.2

          10 November 2011 at 2:44 pm

          It’s not condescension it’s ridicule.
          • Afewknowthetruth 12.1.1.2.1

            10 November 2011 at 3:39 pm

            OAB

            Here is another excellent link, this time to emeritus professor Albert Bartlett, arguably the most important video of its kind (one whoch EVERYONE shoudl watch) and already watched by nearly three-an-a-half million people.

            Undoubtedly you won’t bother to watch it because it features irrefutable evidence presented by an emeritus professor (of physics), and because you are a self-righteous and smug.

            Never forget, he who laighs last laughs longest.
            • One Anonymous Bloke 12.1.1.2.1.1

              10 November 2011 at 3:52 pm

              AFKTT, “emeritus” means “retired”.

              The average “best work year” for Physicists is 34.
              • Afewknowthetruth …

                10 November 2011 at 5:10 pm

                OAB

                Gosh you are so helpful. I would never have figured out that emeritus meant retired [but still able to use the title] without your help.

                Not only are you condescending, arrogant and ignorant, you obviously also have psychotic tendencies insofar as you actually believe the BS you write. That must go with the personality defect which manifests as the contant need to attempt to put others down -presumably a consequence of deep-seated insecurity.
                • One Anonymous Bloke …

                  10 November 2011 at 7:11 pm

                  Doesn’t it ever strike you as impotent and futile, mounting a personal attack upon an anonymity? All I’ve done is pull you up on statements of fact; your feeble responses merely demonstrate how ill-equipped you are.
      • Zorr 12.1.2

        10 November 2011 at 1:30 pm

        And, as in the case of Iceland… once you go through the debt default, things actually start looking up. The issue here is that Greece (and the Eurozone) have been putting off doing this very sensible thing by constantly trying to prop up the Greek economy to meet it’s debts that the investment made has meant the disease has spread and is likely to collapse the Eurozone…
        • Bored 12.1.2.1

          10 November 2011 at 1:59 pm

          Greece has been in surplus about one month in the last thirty years and has constantly defaulted. Things will certainly improve if they default again, and if idiots would stop loaning them cash in the expectation of repayment.
        • Bored 12.1.2.2

          10 November 2011 at 2:10 pm

          All Iceland watchers, go to Youtube and watch Keiser Report episode 205 second half….it features from Iceland talking about their crash and recovery the fabulous, stunning and truly erudite Birgitta Jonsdottir.
          • Herodotus 12.1.2.2.1

            10 November 2011 at 2:57 pm

            Pity the IMF, World bank and others are trying to influence the sovernity of Iceland. That is the real worry unelected, non describt organisations commanding sovernity over a country. And only little Iceland standing up !!
            http://alexandravaliente.wordpress.com/2011/08/05/icelands-no-to-the-imf-a-model-for-the-world/
            http://www.gnhusa.org/iceland-said-no-to-the-imf/
        • Afewknowthetruth 12.1.2.3

          10 November 2011 at 5:27 pm

          Zorr.

          Things in Iceland only started to improve after the people told the criminals in charge that they would not put up with the nation being ‘raped’ any longer.

          Britain and Holland attempted to force repayment of ‘losses’ incurred when Icesave went under but the Icelandic people essentially said ‘Fuck off’.

          As I understand it, Britain and Holland then attempted to play the ‘we won’t let you join our club’ card, after which the Icelanders said they didn’t want to.

          The Greek and Italian (and Portugese and Spanish) situation is a lot more complicated because the numbers are so much greater and a they share a currency which cannot be devalued regionally.

          It’s about time John Clark did a update on his skit of the contestant answering questions on how much these various countries owe one another.
13. ianmac 13

    10 November 2011 at 12:04 pm

    National provides a subsidy to irrigate for farmers from taxpayers money.
    The farmers then get free Canterbury water.
    Farmers get a free pass to pollute the waterways without penalty.
    Farmers get a free pass to pollute the atmosphere without penalty.
    The cost of farming appears to outweigh taxable income so farmers pay no tax.

    The taxpayers get to pay for the above and are happy to do so because Mr Key is a great guy.
    A crowd of thousands appeared in the streets to chant, “Give them the money! Give them the money! Key for God! Key for God!”
    • Bored 13.1

      10 November 2011 at 1:23 pm

      Said about this on Open Mile early today, its a disgrace.
14. Fortran 14

    10 November 2011 at 2:14 pm

    Why show a picture of burning US Dollars ?
    • Blighty 14.1

      10 November 2011 at 3:33 pm

      that’s Fortran’s take away message from this post, really?
    • Lanthanide 14.2

      10 November 2011 at 5:09 pm

      It’s a stock photo showing flagrant waste of money.

      The US dollar is probably quite fitting, but if you’d like to supply your own photo using NZ currency, I’m sure it could be added to The Standard’s image bank for future use.
15. Treetop 15

    10 November 2011 at 6:09 pm

    Key will just sell off more public assets to plug the hole in English’es shonkey figures.
16. Deadly_NZ 16

    10 November 2011 at 6:56 pm

    Maybe thats what the Mayan’s menat when they said the world is going to end in 2012. Maybe it’s not the end of the world per’se. But the end of the capitalist system as we know it, Killed by the insurmountable debt that we have collected.
    • Treetop 16.1

      10 November 2011 at 7:29 pm

      The end of the capitalist system as we know it is going to come to an end. Ravi Batra: predictions and politics was interviewed by Kim Hill last Saturday (duration of interview 49.06). This was a compelling interview. I cannot give a direct link but go to

      http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/saturday
17. expat 17

    10 November 2011 at 7:11 pm

    28%
18. Afewknowthetruth 18

    11 November 2011 at 12:13 am

    From the Guardian:

    ‘9.37am: Breaking news – the EU Commission has admitted that the eurozone could be plunged into a new recession next year.

    The latest forecasts, released at 9.30am, predict that the eurozone economy will grow by just 0.5% in 2012. That’s sharply down from a prediction of 1.5% six months ago.’

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/blog/2011/nov/10/eurozone-crisis-italy-greece#block-9

    Methnks the global economy is in deep shit and will never recover because the oil supply has peaked and numerous other factors are generating ‘headwinds’, but that economists can never admit that and will keep talking about recession when they actually mean the Second Great [never-ending] Depression.

    Does this start to look like the ‘end of growth’?

    http://richardheinberg.com/bookshelf/the-end-of-growth-book

    Methinks whoever forms the next NZ government has zero chance of balancing books or delivering on election promises.
    • Draco T Bastard 18.1

      11 November 2011 at 12:17 am

      …but that economists can never admit that and will keep talking about recession when they actually mean the Second Great [never-ending] Depression.

      It’s not that they can’t admit that but that most of them have NFI WTF they’re talking about…

      …actually, thinking about it, it maybe that they can’t admit it as their job is to protect the delusion that is capitalism.
    • fender 18.2

      11 November 2011 at 12:17 am

      Did Germany and France suggest breaking the EU into two blocks?

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS