NZGames.com Forums
Register FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read

Go Back   NZGames.com Forums > General > Open Discussion > Politics
User Name
Password

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 12th August 2015, 14:48     #81
CCS
Stunt Pants
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lightspeed
"Mah sports! What cunts!"

"Raped traumatised women raising their children alone! At least we have a surplus!"
Yeah great comparison. Because one is totally at the expense of the other

If you're so concerned about rape crisis funding, why don't you write a few letters to your MPs? Why don't you apportion some blame to the Opposition for sitting on their thumbs?
__________________
I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner?
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th August 2015, 15:23     #82
fixed_truth
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by blynk
"The bill will be shot down if any MP refuses to grant leave. Mr Seymour was confident it would progress,"
I do think this was a bad 'political' move by the Greens. Though changing the law 'because rugby' is blatant favouritism.
__________________
Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th August 2015, 15:25     #83
Lightspeed
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCS
Yeah great comparison. Because one is totally at the expense of the other

If you're so concerned about rape crisis funding, why don't you write a few letters to your MPs? Why don't you apportion some blame to the Opposition for sitting on their thumbs?
My comment is about what gets certain people exclaiming "cunts!" and what doesn't.

You don't know what I've done or what I'm doing to address the concerns I have.
__________________
Stay shook. No sook.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th August 2015, 15:42     #84
CCS
Stunt Pants
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lightspeed
You don't know what I've done or what I'm doing to address the concerns I have.
Why don't you tell us? Let me guess, you've got nothing to prove. Same horseshit deflection as always.
__________________
I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner?
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th August 2015, 15:44     #85
CCS
Stunt Pants
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by fixed_truth
I do think this was a bad 'political' move by the Greens. Though changing the law 'because rugby' is blatant favouritism.
It's not favouritism, it's populism. It's a populist, opportunist move by ACT. And ya know what? That's fine. It doesn't come at the expense of anything else and only sourpusses would oppose it.
__________________
I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner?
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th August 2015, 16:08     #86
fixed_truth
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCS
It's not favouritism, it's populism.
It can be populism AND favouritism. It favours rugby over all other sports/events/festivals/performers etc etc
Quote:
It doesn't come at the expense of anything else and only sourpusses would oppose it.
It is a perfectly rational response for some people to be pissed off about it. Like people who are bound by liquor laws (or even people who don't follow rugby) and see it as the Govt. urgently changing laws to suit their entertainment preference.
__________________
Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th August 2015, 17:20     #87
Savage
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCS
Come on Savage, don't edit that. What you said was on point.
Thanks, but it's just feeding the Lolspeed, and I'm well past that.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th August 2015, 18:07     #88
leadinjector
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by fixed_truth
It can be populism AND favouritism. It favours rugby over all other sports/events/festivals/performers etc etc
whether you like it or not, its our "national game" so yeah... it is favouritism. im not sure why this is an issue considering whats being discussed.

Quote:
It is a perfectly rational response for some people to be pissed off about it. Like people who are bound by liquor laws (or even people who don't follow rugby) and see it as the Govt. urgently changing laws to suit their entertainment preference.
"their" entertainment preference? what? you really think the bill is there just cos seymour wants to watch the ruggers at the bar (not saying he doesnt of course)

no, its because its what the general populace wants. or as good as they can tell because they've already wasted enough money on referendums with this whole flag bullshit.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th August 2015, 18:46     #89
fixed_truth
 
I'm an Abs fan and not really concerned about the bill. I'm just pointing out that there are people who're annoyed that they're subject to blanket closing of bars and others aren't because the All Blacks playing in the world cup, overseas, really caught the Govt. by surprise. But yeah it is what the general populace wants so tough shit to those annoyed I guess.
__________________
Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong.
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th August 2015, 12:01     #90
blynk
 
Im not entirely sure it is what the general populace wants. I think the general populace dont care.
According to sky, they have about 50% penetration. Not all of them will have sky sports but then they are probably not the ones that will be worried about rugby.
Then actually add on that Prime is going to show all the AB's games live anyway.
So what you are left with is a small group of the population who feel the need to go to a pub to watch the game.
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th August 2015, 13:11     #91
CCS
Stunt Pants
 
So?
__________________
I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner?
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th August 2015, 13:54     #92
Ab
A mariachi ogre snorkel
 
Eric Crampton:

Quote:
I did a bit of consulting work for the Hospitality Association last year around bar closing times and attended some of the hearings in Nelson about the Tasman closing hours. A lot of publicans there made the case that while they very rarely used the long hours they were allowed, it was really valuable to them. Why? Because when an important sporting match is on half-way around the world, they want to be able to air it for their patrons.

There is provision in local alcohol policies for seeking special licences for special events. But, the cops there, if I recall correctly, in their evidence were pretty clear that they did not consider airing a rugby game to be a special event. There'd have to be more to it than that. And, on the publicans' side, the impression was that the police were ridiculously heavy handed around granting permits and enforcing them. Further, the local licensing officer admitted that he'd never had any problems with the bars' existing closing times.

And so Parliament has had to legislate around the cops. We now have national legislation in the works specifying, at a national level, when local alcohol policies' bar closing times are suspended for major sporting events. National wants it only to be for All Blacks' events; Labour wants it to be for all sporting events.

But none of it would be necessary if the police and medical officers of health were less obstreperous about bar licencing. From the chats I've since had with publicans, and from the news stories about police imposing conditions on new off-licences, the cops and medical officers of health are using their power to object to licences to enact, through regulation, the stuff they couldn't achieve when they lobbied to have it included in local alcohol policies or national level legislation: things like minimum alcohol pricing and restrictive hours.
more info, etc

http://offsettingbehaviour.blogspot....revisited.html
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th August 2015, 21:49     #93
Ab
A mariachi ogre snorkel
 
Quote:
Danyl Mclauchlan ‏@danylmc Aug 12
The day John Key saved the rugby! GREAT job, Green Party.

  Reply With Quote
Old 27th July 2016, 16:31     #94
Lightspeed
 
Auckland house prices need to drop 50 percent - Greens

Greens are all "we gotta help a generation own their own homes". Labour is all "but there's handful of people who don't need help that we need to protect!"
__________________
Stay shook. No sook.
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th July 2016, 17:49     #95
MadMax
Stuff
 
Jesus
__________________
My degree of sarcasm depends on your degree of stupidity.
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th July 2016, 10:17     #96
blynk
 
I guess there is a difference of house prices suddenly dropping, compared to dropping the Inc to House price over time.

If we currently have an average income of 1/10 the house price.
If you assume 2% inflation on income, and you could make house prices stay static, by the year 2030, thats already changing the ratio to 1/7.
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th July 2016, 10:39     #97
pxpx
 
The sooner the greens are free from Metiria Turei, the better.
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th July 2016, 14:35     #98
Lightspeed
 
Would a drop of house prices over the course of ~15 years have much impact on sole home owners? And how would a drop in prices impact those who have no intention of selling the properties they own? Who would be detrimentally impacted by a drop in prices?
__________________
Stay shook. No sook.
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th July 2016, 14:47     #99
fixed_truth
 
Bernard Hickey did an article on this recently.
Quote:
Luckily for us, we don't have to imagine. The Reserve Bank has done a test of just such an scenario, and quite recently.

It ran a "stress" test with banks late last year to see what would happen to their balance sheets if house prices fell 55 per cent in Auckland and by 40 per cent nationwide.

It found the world would not end. Banks would not force everyone to sell their houses. Most home-owners have vast amounts of equity to fall back on. Those in negative equity would neither send their keys back to the bank in the mail nor be turfed out without warning.
__________________
Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong.
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th July 2016, 16:35     #100
Nothing
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by blynk
I guess there is a difference of house prices suddenly dropping, compared to dropping the Inc to House price over time.

If we currently have an average income of 1/10 the house price.
If you assume 2% inflation on income, and you could make house prices stay static, by the year 2030, thats already changing the ratio to 1/7.
The problem is that this assumes that incomes are increasing for everyone, when actually incomes are only really increasing relative to inflation for the top 10%. When inflation is taken into account, incomes for everyone below the top 10% have either stayed static or gotten smaller. The only reason that it looks like incomes have increased on average is because of how much the incomes of the top 10% have increased, thus skewing the distribution.
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th July 2016, 21:21     #101
BoyWonder
 
Turei is basically telling anyone with a mortgage or who has just paid off their mortgage, fuck you and all your hard work. She's just trying to appeal to yoof who have not realised what their parents have gone through to keep a roof over their head. She is literally the worst - but she knows she doesn't actually have to back up her inflammatory statements with action because she won't be in government any time in the near future.
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th July 2016, 21:37     #102
MadMax
Stuff
 
it's not that, more it reads like she wants the market to crash. there's no doubt prices need to drop but this needs to be done gently.

if you buy a house you understand that the value could crash anytime.
__________________
My degree of sarcasm depends on your degree of stupidity.
  Reply With Quote
Old 29th July 2016, 00:12     #103
Nothing
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoyWonder
Turei is basically telling anyone with a mortgage or who has just paid off their mortgage, fuck you and all your hard work. She's just trying to appeal to yoof who have not realised what their parents have gone through to keep a roof over their head.
My father owns a house and has a mortgage. He has spent years making payments, and has struggled. He has enough equity now that if the market tanks, he'll be okay. He doesn't care if it tanks, because he's in for the long haul. The only people that really get hurt if it tanks are people who have only just recently bought, say in the last 4 or 5 years, in which case they haven't actually been working that hard for that long yet, so your comment doesn't apply, or people who have been speculating and are only in the market to make money.

For the former kind of people, well, that's a pity that they'll get boned, but they should have been smarter than to buy in a bubble, and besides, once they get over their bankruptcy in a decade or so, the market will be much more favourable. They'll be able to buy a house without having to mortgage their children into life long debt. So everyone wins.

As for the latter kind of people, the speculators, just straight up fuck them. They're part of the problem.
  Reply With Quote
Old 29th July 2016, 07:59     #104
pxpx
 
JB from Squirrel Mortgages always has a good view on this kind of stuff:
https://www.squirrel.co.nz/news/musi...et-correction/
  Reply With Quote
Old 29th July 2016, 11:06     #105
DrTiTus
HENCE WHY FOREVER ALONE
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nothing
For the former kind of people, well, that's a pity that they'll get boned, but they should have been smarter than to buy in a bubble, and besides, once they get over their bankruptcy in a decade or so, the market will be much more favourable.
I may be misinterpreting you - but even if the "value" of your house drops below the size of your mortgage, you don't suffer any instant repercussions. You don't immediately become bankrupt, as far as I am aware.

People agreed what they were happy to pay for their house, and they agreed what they were happy to borrow. They agreed to continue to pay for n years, and life goes on, assuming they still have employment. At the end of their mortgage term, they've paid far more than their house is worth, it's true - but this is the case with most mortgages, and people are doing everything they can to get one!
__________________
Finger rolling rhythm, ride the horse one hand...
  Reply With Quote
Old 29th July 2016, 12:12     #106
blynk
 
I believe that is correct. And I also believe that we aren't the same as the US when the mortgage is greater than the house, then you can just mail the keys to the bank and walk away from the debt.

So it really only affects people that need to sell. They could sell for less than their mortgage which would mean that they could have a large debt to have to pay.

Even just moving house. If your mortgage ended up being 100% of the house price. When you go to move, you will only be able to borrow 80% of the next house. So effectively you have to find the deposit again.

So as mentioned, it affects the people that bought in the last few years. They will be stuck there.
Investors/Speculators. (Oh well, poor them. Thats the risk)

Last edited by blynk : 29th July 2016 at 12:16.
  Reply With Quote
Old 29th July 2016, 14:58     #107
Ab
A mariachi ogre snorkel
 
Call me crazy, but shouldn't the Greens have you know, run this 50% thing past Labour before announcing it?
  Reply With Quote
Old 29th July 2016, 22:14     #108
Lightspeed
 
Was it explicitly stated that it wasn't?

They'll still want to distinguish themselves as distinct political entities.
__________________
Stay shook. No sook.
  Reply With Quote
Old 1st August 2016, 15:21     #109
Ab
A mariachi ogre snorkel
 
Remember that whole Memorandum of Understanding? You know, the Greens and Labour were going to work together in "good faith and mutual trust" to change the government?

Turns out the Greens didn't remember it either.

http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/politi...onsible-labour

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/poli...be-cut-in-half

Quote:
Turei's random announcement is a serious breach of the MOU – there's no two ways about it – and Little has every reason to be telling the Greens they're sleeping on the couch for the forseeable future.

It's been a long, slow grind for Labour on the housing front and their relentless housing spokesman, Phil Twyford, had landed some solid punches – although his absence on the day Auckland's Unitary Plan was announced didn't go unnoticed.

Little and his team have worked hard over the parliamentary recess to be everywhere.

They would have been looking forward to pinning down the prime minister in the House in 10 days' time over what exactly National's done to put a roof over more New Zealanders' heads.

What possessed the Greens to put a wedge between the two just as the Opposition was making some headway is anyone's guess.

John Key will be grinning from ear to ear when Parliament resumes as he repeatedly reminds Labour they're in bed with a party that wants to "literally put a match to Kiwis' savings".

All of Labour's groundwork has gone up in smoke and ironically it was the Greens who poured the petrol on the fire.
  Reply With Quote
Old 1st August 2016, 18:10     #110
Lightspeed
 
This is the fire Ab:

Quote:
We don't want to cause undue economic harm to those who have in good faith bought properties, entered into mortgages, that's not a responsible approach.
So because this small group of people with the money to buy a home in these conditions, everyone else must be the ones to bear the economic harm?

It's the people at the bottom who are burning.
__________________
Stay shook. No sook.
  Reply With Quote
Old 1st August 2016, 18:30     #111
Nothing
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrTiTus
I may be misinterpreting you - but even if the "value" of your house drops below the size of your mortgage, you don't suffer any instant repercussions. You don't immediately become bankrupt, as far as I am aware.

People agreed what they were happy to pay for their house, and they agreed what they were happy to borrow. They agreed to continue to pay for n years, and life goes on, assuming they still have employment. At the end of their mortgage term, they've paid far more than their house is worth, it's true - but this is the case with most mortgages, and people are doing everything they can to get one!
Yeah, I was kind of hedging my words to some extent. I'm not sure exactly what happens in that scenario, you could well be right about all of that. If you are, it only really makes my point stronger though. I'm not entirely sure, I think the reasoning for the concern about a drop in market value goes something like:

If house prices come down, then people do not need such large loans any more.
If loans are smaller and incomes stay the same then people can afford larger repayments relative to the size of the loan.
If repayments stayed the same demand would probably out-strip supply, and prices would have to go back up.
Therefore,
Interest rates must increase if house prices are to decrease.

The problem comes about, then, when people who have taken out really huge mortgages on expensive properties which they could service under low interest conditions suddenly find themselves facing an interest hike, and the size of the repayments shoots up.

Last edited by Nothing : 1st August 2016 at 18:31.
  Reply With Quote
Old 2nd August 2016, 13:51     #112
crocos
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nothing
The problem comes about, then, when people who have taken out really huge mortgages on expensive properties which they could service under low interest conditions suddenly find themselves facing an interest hike, and the size of the repayments shoots up.
Pity the landed, is that it? Really?
__________________
Ξ √ Ω L U T ↑ ☼ N

وكل يوم كنت تعيش في العبودية
  Reply With Quote
Old 2nd August 2016, 15:12     #113
Ab
A mariachi ogre snorkel
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nothing
The problem comes about, then, when people who have taken out really huge mortgages on expensive properties which they could service under low interest conditions suddenly find themselves facing an interest hike, and the size of the repayments shoots up.
But how is this out of the ordinary? That's the way the system works. Always has been.
  Reply With Quote
Old 2nd August 2016, 16:57     #114
blynk
 
There is always risk with assets etc, but I guess the difference now is that there is a mindset out there that you have to get onto the property market now, otherwise it will never happen.

So over the last couple of years, there will be a lot of (skewed to the younger side) people that a stretching themselves just to get onto the market.

Crashes in the past would not have involved that to the same extent.

(No sources, opinion only)
  Reply With Quote
Old 2nd August 2016, 23:16     #115
Nothing
 
Oh, I'm not saying that it's out of the ordinary, or that we should pity them. I'm just regurgitating a rough form of the reasoning that I've heard as to why a fall in the market might result in bankruptcies, to answer DrTiTus' comment.

For my actual view, see the post that he was replying to with his comment.
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th November 2017, 17:31     #116
Lightspeed
 
Apparently photographs are now selfies.

The Green MP and the genocide hearings

Long story short, young lawyer takes on the necessary dirty work to further her career. She worked her job in good faith and was involved in a photograph with a defendant.

Or: Green MP takes smiling selfies defending wicked perpetrator of genocide, hates victims.
__________________
Stay shook. No sook.
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th November 2017, 18:45     #117
Ab
A mariachi ogre snorkel
 
Dunno man, looks to me like she's done everything possible to get credit for something she didn't do - and the thing she did do is fucking horrible.
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th November 2017, 18:52     #118
fixed_truth
 
Eh? By fucking horrible you mean crucial to the administration of justice right?
__________________
Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong.
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th November 2017, 19:19     #119
Ab
A mariachi ogre snorkel
 
I know nothing of this woman or her career other than what's in the news right now. But it appears to me that she volunteered to go and work for free for some fucking evil motherfuckers - evil motherfuckers who had no need of her services because their real lawyers were being very very well paid. Maybe she did it for the experience, who knows. But it looks like she has engaged in a pattern of deception about the work ever since - claiming (or allowing other people to claim without correcting them) in multiple places that she had been in Rwanda working for the PROSECUTION.

disclosure: I went to school with Phil Quin (the guy who brought this all up) and considered him a friend. His life and career have taken him other places (like, Rwanda, where he saw some awful shit, and which is why he takes issues of Rwandan-genocide falsehood really really seriously) since and now he's a distant Internet old friend. But when I knew him he was a good guy. Ridiculously clever with a social conscience.
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th November 2017, 19:39     #120
Lightspeed
 
I don't really have any clue how the international justice system works. But I get the feeling she wouldn't get in the court room by volunteering to work for the prosecution.

If there is a genuine deception going on, why call a photograph a selfie? There's no need for hyperbole if genuine concerns can be demonstrated.
__________________
Stay shook. No sook.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



© Copyright NZGames.com 1996-2023
Site paid for by members (love you guys)