by Sue Bradford
Rumours are growing in Wellington that National will not increase the minimum wage this year.
A Government announcement is expected on or before 9 February.
Intimations that Kate Wilkinson, the new Minister of Labour, will recommend a nil minimum wage increase to Cabinet have hit the blogosphere despite her own Department supporting a rise from $12.00 to $12.50 an hour.
While many of us are inclined to expect the worst given National’s track record, I still hold out slender hope that new broom John Key and his economic sidekick Bill English might understand that keeping wages down will actually do more harm than good in an economy fast slipping deeper into recession.
If Mr Key is serious about working towards pay parity with Australia – and about boosting the spending power of the ordinary citizen – the last thing he should be doing is maintaining the minimum wage at its current low level.
To freeze the minimum wage now is a recipe for further cuts to spending, deeper poverty for the hundreds of thousands of workers and their families directly impacted, and an intensified recessionary spiral.
And it is not just those who sit right on the minimum wage that are affected – it is also all the huge numbers of workers whose low rate of pay, often between the $12 and $15 mark – is determined by the minimum wage rate.
Even the Labour Department’s reported 50c an hour recommended increase covers only the extent to which the minimum wage has been eroded by inflation since last year.
The Green Party will be continuing to push a hard as we can for a realistic lift in the minimum wage this year.
When considering the level of the minimum wage Cabinet should bear in mind they are led by a man who made his fortune in the very financial sector that is responsible for the world’s economy collapsing around our ears.
It would not be a good look for them to be seen to be expecting struggling low paid workers and their families, who bear no responsibility for our economic crisis, to shoulder the burden of recovery.
Published in Economy, Work, & Welfare by Sue Bradford on Tue, January 27th, 2009
Tags: Minimum wage, national party
More posts by Sue Bradford | more about Sue Bradford
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Loading...
Let’s get those emails flooding in to Kate Wilkinson – kate.wilkinson@ministers.govt.nz.
As Sue suggests, a nil increase is completely unacceptable, and will result in the economic recession being disproportionately borne by those who can least afford it.
BTW, the Green Party advocates that the minimum wage should be indexed by legislation so that it cannot fall below 66% of the average wage. This would give some certaintly for low income workers that their wages will not be eroded at the whim of the Minister.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Inflation is decreasing, so in real terms, those wages are rising.
And we’re in a recession. A huge global recession. It’s more important to have a job, as opposed to no job. Rising wages whilst the market is shrinking benefits workers how? They won’t have a job at all!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>the Green Party advocates that the minimum wage should be indexed by legislation so that it cannot fall below 66% of the average wage.
May as well support everyone winning Lotto.
Once marginal business becomes uneconomic, what then? Where is your tax base?
Moving to Australia, probably…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yes – the left needs to push this line that workers (and the lowest paid in particularly) shouldn’t be made to pay for the economic crisis. Good point.
But what do the Greens mean by the idea of fighting for ‘a realistic lift in the minimum wage’?
By stressing that wage increases should only be ‘realistic’, does this mean that the Greens are also arguing also for a lower increase in the minimum wage than we’ve seen in more economically buoyant times recently? It sounds like the Greens are buying into the same logic as the National Party (albeit wanting to be a bit more generous).
Even by fixating on a 50 cent rise, the Greens appear to be driving down expectations about what the minimum wage rise should be.
It also sounds like the Greens are also now backtracking on their policy (?) of a $15 minimum wage! Please tell me I’m wrong. But if not, why suddenly lower your horizons and drag down people’s expectations?
Bryce
http://www.liberation.org.nz
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Frog and BP
Indexed is indexed… no inflation, no increase. Right?? Increased inflation, increased wages. Right?
You want to duke it out over 50% vs 66% feel free. Indexed is a whacking good idea no matter which side you’re on.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Increasing the minimum wage during this recesion will result in greater unemployment and as such more people on the dole, that means eaither less money to invest in infrastructure or more taxes, in both instances increasing unemployment further. Not to mention that it will also increase inflation which will slow economic growth and subsiquent recovery. No, if anything the minimum wage should be decreased, this will result in higher employment but less affluence which will mean less debt is created and less money flows out of new zealand for superfluous goods while less burden is put on the tax pool and as such taxes can be relaxed to encourage growth or infrastructure can be more readily funded.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BluePeter
Inflation is decreasing, so in real terms, those wages are rising.
That would only be true if inflation were negative. Lowered inflation means that the wages are falling in real terms at a slower rate.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Bj,
Agreed that if a minimum wage must exist it would work best indexed. Though prehaps it should be set against a price index rather than a wage index as setting it against a wage index is detached from the accual needs of people and in periods of rapid gowth or recesion would be rather volitile, this would affect minimum wage workers esspecially considering that many on the minimum wage chose to live with such substantial debt.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BluePeter said: Inflation is decreasing, so in real terms, those wages are rising.
No, BP, that statement shows just how little you undertand of economics. Wages that are static in dollar value would only increase in real terms if there were deflation, rather than just a reduction in the rate of inflation.
And despite all the scaremongering from the right about increasing the rate of the minimum wage causing increased unemployment, there is no evidence that it ever has. If a business is not viable paying it’s lowet paid workers $12.50 an hour, which is what I understand from Sue the Department of Labour is recommending, then it is hardly going to viable paying the current minimum wage of $12 an hour either. Saving $20 per worker just isn’t going to make a difference.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient , XYY
The key question is whether there is price inflation (as opposed to the more proper “money supply” definition) and how it gets reflected in wages. IF there is inflation and there may well NOT be inflation of any sort this year… then these “wages” should be indexed to match it. If there is deflation the same rule applies and for the same reason. One might want the wages to lag somewhat so that there is no risk of feedback, but at this level that risk is pretty small.
I am not expecting inflation this year. I expect deflation as in real “negative inflation”. The USA has pumped Trillions of replacement $ into its economy to try to replace the Tens of Trillions of debt instruments that have been destroyed. The price of letting banks create money is collapse. Fractional Reserve banking is unsustainable… not Green. It is the cancer underneath all the other symptoms.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Bj,
.
While i am no fan of fractional reserve banking and would not mind to see it disappear, the problem in this instance is not so much the fractional reserve mechanism iteslef so much as where it is set; that is there is the reserve ratio is far far too low which makes far too much cash availible to the banks, the CEO’s of which then get preasured to invest said cash to maximise profits to shareholders, the only place they have a chance to invest it being more risky ventures with worse credit ratings which subsiquently fail and eliminate a source of liquidity and in doing so on large scales plants the seed of a scare which grows into a full on colapse
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>Wages that are static in dollar value would only increase in real terms if there were deflation
They increase *relative* to the month before, when inflation was running at a higher rate. What happens to your wages and savings if inflation rockets?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>Saving $20 per worker just isn’t going to make a difference
It might if you have hundreds of them.
Sometimes, good companies become marginal, temporarily. In a recession, for example.
Pay demands during such a time, just like any other demand, can send the business under. Workers, and managers, and owners, should not be expecting wages to move upwards if profits are declining.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BluePeter
They increase *relative* to the month before, when inflation was running at a higher rate.
You really believe that, don’t you?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Are you about to argue that if inflation increases month after month you won’t be worse off?
BTW:
>>The Green Party will be continuing to push a hard as we can for a realistic lift in the minimum wage this year.
Push all you like, but no one needs to listen to the Green Party.
>>When considering the level of the minimum wage Cabinet should bear in mind they are led by a man who made his fortune in the very financial sector that is responsible for the world’s economy collapsing around our ears.
Is that the same financial sector, which pays tax, which pays your wages?
I think it’s great we have a leader who understands money. We’ve spent so long being ruled by people who think money grows on trees.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sue Bradford is entirely predictable (one trick): what about Nationals rejection of a capital gains tax? It occurs to me that the Greens are more interested in smashing the capitalist system than fixing it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Are you about to argue that if inflation increases month after month you won’t be worse off?
No, but you’re arguing that if inflation is 1% one month and 0.9% the next, you’re getting better off.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“he Manufacturers and Exporters Association (NZMEA) has called for tax changes after a survey found New Zealand homes are the second least affordable in the world.
Demographia’s 2009 International Housing Affordability Survey found that the median house price in New Zealand is 5.7 times the median household income, ranking New Zealand in the category of “severely unaffordable,” with only Australia worse at 6.0.
Commentary from the pro-urban sprawl Demographia suggests land restrictions are to blame for our expensive housing but the NZMEA says tax issues are also distorting the market.
The association says the “almost unique” absence of a capital gains tax in New Zealand is one of the factors that lead to unaffordable housing; “It is clear that the tax rules favour assets over activity.”
“What is there to fear from a capital gains tax that does not affect the family home or increase the overall tax load?” NZMEA chief executive John Walley says.
“We need to balance the tax treatment of all gains and income to encourage more investors into the productive sector of the economy where jobs and wealth are really created.”
It’s difficult to see why a capital gains tax is so politically untenable in New Zealand, when it would “both make housing more affordable, and help create jobs and real wealth,” he says.
http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/capital-gains-tax-would-help-housing-affordability-39893
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Get out of the way Sue, you’re stale bread!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
jh,
Im not sure about the factual accuracy but i was recently informed that in New Zealand if the IRD considers you to have purchased and sold property in a period of time which they consider to be too short for land lord tenure then they will consider you a property developer or speculator and tax you on the profits accordingly, as such essentially charging a capital gains tax anyway. Can anyone verify? Owen?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
My understanding is that in economics *real* means after adusting for inflation . Eg, the real price of a Ford Falcon is the same today as it was in 1973 even though the list price has increased from $5,000 to $45,000.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Govt to tackle housing affordability by increasing land supply
Housing Minister Phil Heatley said the National Government would reform the Resource Management Act and the Building Act in an effort to make housing in New Zealand more affordable by freeing up land supply.
http://www.interest.co.nz/ratesblog/index.php/2009/01/27/govt-to-tackle-housing-affordability-by-increasing-land-supply/#comment-14433
and you spent all that time on naughty Winston (ignoring the Hollow men- invisible elephant) and you can’t even verify where your own funding comes from (could be from just about anywhere?).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
jh said: what about Nationals rejection of a capital gains tax? It occurs to me that the Greens are more interested in smashing the capitalist system than fixing it.
jh, there are plenty of countries overseas that operate a capital gains tax without it “smashing the capitalist system”. It even survived in Australia after (however many, but it it was much too long) of John Howard.
A capital gains tax is designed to level the playing field so people don’t have an incentive to invest in property speculation rather than productive enterprise that actually employs people.
The absence of one in New Zealand is a large part of why our economy is so distorted and why property prices are far higher than they should be. But the Green Party seems to be the only one to have the political courage to publicly acknowledge this and advocate a capital gains tax. It won’t destroy the capitalist system, and no-one in the Green Party wants it to, but it will make the capitalist system operate more fairly.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>A capital gains tax is designed to level the playing field so people don’t have an incentive to invest in property speculation
Britain & Europe have capital gains tax, and it certainly does not stop property speculation. It doesn’t “level the playing field” (whatever that means) either, but it does make housing more expensive.
>>why property prices are far higher than they should be
RMA, councils, interference in terms of land use is the real problem, as Owen points out.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BluePeter said: Britain & Europe have capital gains tax, and it certainly does not stop property speculation. It doesn’t “level the playing field” (whatever that means) either, but it does make housing more expensive.
BP, give us some evidence of causation. The fact that there is a capital gains tax in Britain and (parts of) Europe where property prices are higher in terms of average income than New Zealand does not imply that the capital gains tax has caused higher property prices.
Your argument is like saying a genetic predisposition to lung cancer causes people to smoke. I think there are other factors, most notably population stress on available land, that are far more likely causative of the high European property prices you refer to.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
While the government has instructed the IRD to tighten the tax free loop hole
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4615623a1865.html
It is far to late as it only applies to rental housing bought after April 2009. Most people who have rental property will not be affected.
Nor does the new rules addrss the issue of rental housing in family trusts.
If the family trust is never wound up but runs from one generation to the next, there is never a house sale and thus no capital gains tax.
Be interesting for an accountant to work out depreciation claimed for the minimum 10 year period of the company owning the housing asset versus potential capital gains tax.
toad,
My company owned rental property is a productive enterprise as it helps the government out fiscally. They dont have to front up with the cash to build a rental housing unit for my tenants.
The benificiary tenant will never be in a position to “buy” a house without the government support, meaning it actually helps the state coffers by not having to build and maintain a swag of state housing units.
Meaning more money for other services.
So while you may take in a certain amount from capital gains tax, that would soon be eaten up by the government having to build more and more state housing.
Be an interesting exercise to do the figures. Capital Gains Tax take total (minus collection expenses) versus increased state housing expenditure.
Somehow I think even the Labour government worked out the figures and found it best to leave the rental property market in private ownership.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Test
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Oh dear….the frog blog censor is back in business it seems.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Lets try again…
Increasing the minimum wage at this time makes no sense at all, indeed there is a very good argument that the minimum wage should be decreased or done away with, no minimum wage equals no or very low unemployment, when thing pick up the wages pick up.
Sue, you need to be very careful in times like this, the average Kiwi has an inbuilt sense of what is right and a desire to see that all get a fair go however a brainless wage demand in tough economic times is going to see that patience wear thin.
And finally, your last two paragraphs are simply untrue, as usual you never bother letting the facts get in the way of your hard left wing bias , the cause of today’s problems are left wing politicians
The idealogical left wing idiots who pushed money down the throats of people who could never afford it is what has caused this melt down, how about admitting that and letting the best qualified people like the PM get on and fix the problem.
As for the poor, well did you ever think that they might actually be better off if they got off their backsides and endeavoured to improve themselves?…..of course you didn’t, that would mean that people like you were out of a job.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP
Britain & Europe have capital gains tax, and it certainly does not stop property speculation. It doesn’t “level the playing field” (whatever that means) either, but it does make housing more expensive.
Nobody said that a Capital Gains Tax is a cure-all. Geez. I went through this with Cullen and now I have to go through it with you. Each nation has its own set of special rules to benefit the banking class and the real-estate “investor”.
In the USA, there are two countervailing issues ( I won’t speak of Britain because their system is as opaque to me as the logic of their spelling
)
Those two things in the USA are the total deductibility of home mortgages and the effect of the bubble-machine-banking. The first does not need much explanation.
The most common loan periods in the USA are 30-40 years. That is, you can get a 30 year fixed-interest loan. 6% was common. 8% was unusually high. The ARM was a recent innovation and was priced far lower. 2-3% teaser rates. Interest only. This is all related to the money being “created” by the banks in their credit derivatives. Money was essentially “free” and the Cap-Gains doesn’t apply after 5 years of living in a house.
Are you beginning to see how someone with nothing like a reasonable income might be tempted to take out a loan and the massive leverage it represents to get wealthy in 5 years? It wasn’t people buying stuff so they could rent it out and get tax deductions. Different group of speculators entirely. A lot of people managed to get out in time to actually profit from the scheme.
So no, a Capital Gains tax isn’t able to overcome the bankers if the bankers insist on blowing bubbles. It kept some people on the sidelines, but it had no effect on the poor sods who thought they saw a chance to strike it rich in property by owning their OWN home.
Here on the other hand, money has never been anything like as cheap as it was in the USA. Here the banks used the LAQC and lack of Cap-Gains to encourage property-investor-landlords to pay the big bucks. This had the same effect on house prices as you’d expect it to, not as severe as “free money” was in the USA, but the prices are far out of reach of people who should be able to easily buy something decent.
Nor have I noticed any builders creating houses that are well-made and affordable. Every patch of land they build on gets a McMansion. Nothing less than 450K and average is over half a million.
That is RIDICULOUS! At present there are a lot of those places being advertised for urgent sale at reduced prices. Not reduced enough for me but they are going down. However, the mortgage interest on every oversized loan package that gets taken, gets shipped to Oz.
The pressure on prices comes from a couple of places as we’ve discussed with Owen. One is LAQC/lack of Cap-Gains. Another is land-use-restriction. The City Councils have a lot to answer for BESIDES the land-use. Building inspections and permits required by council add byzantine distortions to the building process without adding any value whatsoever. The property builder can still build a sh!tty house (as leaky homes showed plainly) and the property owner still has an obligation to get his OWN inspector to be sure that council did its job correctly.
The whole system here is so riddled with holes and inefficiencies and insanities that I am tempted to advocate giving it all a 3 fingered salute and starting from scratch.
However, the simple summation is, there is no ONE thing that fixes it. Ruling out doing anything to fix it because no ONE thing fixes it, isn’t right either.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>BP, give us some evidence of causation.
Australia has similar density to NZ, and the introduction of CGT there has not made houses more affordable. House pprices have been rising in all countries, wether they have CGT or not. CGT increases the cost of capital, and therefore rents.
Perhaps you’d like to give us your evidence of causation that it will lower the cost of housing. Where is the evidence?
Really, the problem is supply and the tax on inputs. Solve those problems, and the house prices will come down. As a landlord myself, I’m not bothered if you add a CGT, because I will simply pass it on to either the tenant or the buyer, depending on how the CGT is charged.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP
Lowered cost of housing is something that happens only when quite a few things are done, not when just one thing is done.
Arguing not to do one thing that is likely to help HERE, because it doesn’t work the same way in the United States (or in Oz), is foolish.
Arguing that Oz has similar density to NZ ? Is most of Oz actually habitable?
Sydney DOES have a similar population density to Auckland. Perhaps that is what you’re on about.
However, as I went to some effort to point out. The specifics of a country’s tax changes who speculates and on what. Here it is open slather and everyone can (and does) play…. EXCEPT the person who needs to buy to live in the house. That person gets to pay taxes to/for all the others. Which get shipped to Oz as interest payments.
I don’t particularly mind which solutions are used, but the preference for housing as an investment vehicle needs to be cut down to fit the size of the rest of the economy. It would be easier to list what is right about it all than to list what is wrong.
.
.
.
.
That’s my list. As you note, it is rather sparsely populated. The popular belief is that housing prices should only go up and in the BUSINESS pages it is almost invariably reported as a bad thing when they go down. In the rest of the paper the bias isn’t as clear.
Housing prices should not change all that much in a stable economy. That they do is a symptom of the instability the banks have foisted on us with their fake money in the pursuit of greater power and profits to banks.
Most people are suckers. They can’t see how the theft happens.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Back to the thread topic of the minimum wage (maybe Sue you might like to post a separate thread on Capital Gains Tax – I see that the Manufacturers & Exporters Assn has joined the Green Party in calling for one) it’s interesting to note that, right on cue, Business NZ has called this morning for a freeze on the minimum wage.
Seems National is determined to send us stumbling further down the track towards a low wage economy. I’ve blogged in more detail about this over at g.blog.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
NZ housing is overpriced, of that there is no doubt. But however many houses are built (imaging for a moment that Demographia got their way) then supply and demand still applies, so investors with big wallets will arrive and keep house prices higher than they would otherwise be.
House price inflation is the core underlying reason why global economies are rogered. Its why we have a credit crunch, and why banks (and countries) are bankrupt.
When houses are not used as investment tools, the average house costs the avcerage of about four times the average wage. Thats affordable.
Taxing investment income to the point where it is uneconomic to own other than a primary residence would make a positive step here in NZ.
And thats without mentioning minimum wage…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Re the minimum wage, I think there are strong arguments to support it being $15 an hour, which equates to just below the 66% of the average wage that Green Party policy advocates.
That was the percentage recommended by the Royal Commission on Social Security in 1973, but it has been gradually eroded over the years, particularly in the 1990s when it increased by only 14% over ten years.
Increasing it to that level would also bring it much closer to Australia, and help reduce the exodus of NZ workers across the Tasman. Using latest OECD purchasing power parities, the Federal Australian minimum wage is 30% higher than the New Zealand minimum wage – an increase to $15 an hour would get us near to parity.
A 61% increase in the minimum wage between 1999 and 2007 did not result in any adverse employment impacts (take note big bro, before you spring to your keyboard)!
However, I acknowledge that increasing the minimum wage by as much as 25% (which would be the percentage increase necessary to get it to $15 an hour) at a time of economic recession may well have an adverse employment impact, and would probably need to be transitioned through targeted subsidies to employers of low-income workers who are struggling to maintain business viability until economic circumstances pick up. Then again, there are those employers of low income workers such as fast food outlets and supermarkets who could well afford $15 an hour right now without any subsidy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
And where will the magic money come from?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toad,
Alot of supermarkets cannot afford to pay the workers such excessive wages, esspecially for the trivial jobs that almost every worker does. The wages there are low for a reason, it is an unskilled job and there is plenty of competition for that employment. An increase in the minimum wage will decrease the marginal utility of workers substantially compared to their marginal utility, and even a small change at a supermarket will mean many jobs. Stores dont employ people because they have profits, they employ people because the marginal utility that person offers them is greater than the marginal cost associated with their wages and upkeep. A store may make profits of 20,000, but that does not mean it can afford to pay its workers all an extra 20 dollars a week.
RE: 1999 – 2007; Massive economic growth; That is the time to put up the minimum wage as there will be a large demand for workers driven by the higher marginal utility that results from a larger and more liquid market. Putting up the wage now, when the marginal utilty is droping will increase the marginal costs and just increase the gap between the two variables giving employers even more reason to lay off staff.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BluePeter, it comes through savings in WFF, accommodation supplement, temporary additional support and state housing subsidies.
Just think about it – if the minimum wage increased by $3 an hour, there would be less need to top up the incomes of low income workers through these welfare assistance programmes. It would not be dollar for dollar (for example an increase of $1 in income reduces accomodation supplement by only $0.70) but it would still be substantial.
Given that only some (mainly small) employers will need and qualify for transitional assistance to maintain their business viability short-term (Progressive Enterprises, for example, which is a huge employer of low income workers would not), such a regime would actually SAVE the taxpayer money.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
You’re arguing for lower taxes?
We might have found something we agree on
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yep, I’m arguing for lower income taxes, but I’m also arguing for some new taxes – eg the capital gains tax discussed earlier on this thread. It’s all about shifting the tax base away from productive enterprise and employment and onto speculation, waste and pollution.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
That is one theory. The idea is that there is a market with workers supplying and employers demanding labour. The minimum wage causes a distortion and moves the demand down causing unemployment.
It is a simple and elegant model. But there is no reason to believe that the real world is elegant. (“Elegance is for tailors”, as Einstein might have said). There are so many distortions already in effect that the simple reaction of supply and demand is swamped.
Additionally there is another effect that is especially important in a recession, and that is to increase the velocity of money. Increasing the incomes of the poorest in society does this, as they (generally) go straight out and spend it. This is good for everybody. One way to do this is raise the minimum wage. Another is to increase benefits. Another is to cut the lowest taxes, preferably with a tax free band. (Less efficient because the middle class get it too, and they tend to save. Which is good in non-recessionary times).
The sorts of jobs that are paid the minimum wage are jobs that must be done. Cleaning,service industries such as super markets etcetera. So increasing the minimum wage will to some extent cause inflation and decreased profits. But these effects are likely to be minor.
It is dangerous to base economic policy on old and simple minded models. Although the models are easy to understand, are logically consistent and elegant they fail to adequately describe the complexities of the real world economy.
peace
W
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Bliss,
.
.
Am presently trying to write an essay, so i wont respond in too much detail.
First; cleaning in supermarkets is mostly done by staff in between peak periods, that which is not is done by hired help after the shop closes and they are paid well above minimum wage, beleive it or not, lol.
Increasing minimum wage will only hurt those on the margins, eg those marginal checkout workers or afew shelf stackers.
I used to think the same as you in relation to the distribution of income across society, and then i thought it over again and realised it doesint accually stand up in a fractional-reserve based economy, as with fractional reserve liquidity accually decrease when people have cash in the hand or spend it more frequently (ironic, i know) as with fractional reserve it is the money in the bank, the savings, that accually makes the most liquidity, that is why around christmas time, when everyone withdraws cash the central banks around the world put more money into circulation in and effort to offset the money being held on hand and as such bring liquidity up again. It is accually the savings and borrowings that increase liquidity
Im accually for the introduction of a large tax free band through the use of flat tax and a citizens dividend, and land tax. It would replace the benefit, taxes on production could be decreased dramaticly, and it would benefit the poor whilst stimulating economic development
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
There is a strong argument for the abolition of the minimum wage at times like this.
If you lower the minimum you WILL have more people in employment, its simple stuff really.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“When considering the level of the minimum wage Cabinet should bear in mind they are led by a man who made his fortune in the very financial sector that is responsible for the world’s economy collapsing around our ears.”
Typical hate filled lies from Bradford.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BB said: If you lower the minimum you WILL have more people in employment, its simple stuff really.
Yep, probably true in a time of recession. But at pay rates that they can’t afford to live on, so the state has to end up paying all sorts of welfare asistance to them so they can make ends meet. Otherwise the state ends up paying through the health and criminal justice budgets.
But increase the minimum wage, while paying a direct subsidy to businesses that genuinely cannot remain viable without a subsidy to meet the added costs (but nothing to those who can), thereby reducing the welfare costs to taxpayers, and everyone wins.
I think BP even got this (well, almost) BB, so why can’t you?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Wont someone please think of the chlldren, line the unionists up against the wall, and charge them for the lead?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BB said: Typical hate filled lies from Bradford.
No BB, it is the truth. She’s not saying that John Key is personally responsible to any degree for the collapse of the world economy, but it is true that he made his money from being a player in the industry that is collectively responsible. It’s not his fault, but he personally benefited from it.
Or are you saying it is the fault of all those little people trying to get ahead that they took up the cheap loans being irresponsibly offered by the finance industry to people who could not afford them?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toad
As usual your plan to increase the minimum wage comes from the taxes of others, I note that you seem to have given up on the idea of forcing the “evil employers” to pay wage increases when they cannot afford it so you fall back on the same poor sods who always pay for the woolly ideas of the left the good old tax payer.
Reducing welfare costs is easy, drop the dole and DPB by the same rate as the minimum wage, force the lazy sods to get a job (any job) and you go along way toward fixing our social problems as well.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toad
Bradford would not know the truth if it bit her in the arse.
The cause of the economic meltdown was idiotic thinking by Clinton, Pelosi and the rest of the democrats who though it was such a great idea to force loans down the throats of people who could not afford them.
Because some left wing fools had “a dream” the rest of the world is going to pay for it, the really scary thing is that these same fools have stolen the White House for the next four years, god knows what they will come up with next.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hmm..why is it that when I post a comment highlighting the lies of Sue Bradford it disappears into the ether?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Indexing wages to inflation is not a good idea since you run the risk of hyperinflation. In fact hyperinflation requires the government to print too much money and at the same time link wages to inflation. This creates a feedback loop. If wages are not linked to inflation then hyperinflation is not possible.
Instead of raising the minimum wage Sue,Toad, BJ deal with the real problem which is the inflation.
Why will Sue not address the elephant in the room, why does the green party present policy such as this which is just an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. Stop the fracttional reserve banking go after the reserve bank and move NZ onto hard money.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Hmm..why is it that when I post a comment highlighting the lies of Sue Bradford it disappears into the ether?”
I’d like to think its due to a hypocrisy filter, BB, but its actually the bad word filter, which is very sensitive as you should know well by now.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“…the really scary thing is that these same fools have stolen the White House for the next four years, god knows what they will come up with next.”
A perfect example of Frog’s point above. The case that Bush stole the Whitehouse in both 2000 and 2004 is well documented and very plausible. There has not even been a credible accusation about Obama’s win, yet you accuse him while giving Bush a pass. Disgusting.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
There cannot be a hypocrisy filter Frog or very little that is written here by the Greens would get through.
I did not use any bad words, factual word yes…..bad word, no.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“The case that Bush stole the Whitehouse in both 2000 and 2004 is well documented and very plausible.”
Rubbish, as you seem so keen on the laws of the USA being adhered to by all check out the supreme court ruling “Gore V Bush”
I think you will find that President Bush won that by a vote of 7-2.
There have been plenty of credible accusations about the potentially illegal President Hussein Messiah Obama, you just choose to overlook them.
Disgusting.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
And speaking of the Supreme court, I cannot wait for the left to go into meltdown mode when they overturn Roe v Wade.
They have the numbers to overturn it and they have the cases lined up to test it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Turnip
I pointed out two issues with the indexing of minimum wage to inflation (not general wages, that WOULD be more dangerous). The first thing was that one would want to lag slightly, so as to avoid any chance of a feedback loop, but the more important point is that the minimum wage jobs are such a small input into the system that it would be hard for them to be a feedback in any case.
If we can get rid of fractional reserve and hence get stability without the need to inflate perpetually the indexing is completely irrelevant.
Not a bad idea at all. Just irrelevant. The discussion wasn’t about the money though, and you know darned well I’m in the hard-currency camp.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BB
Have you gone off your meds? Normally you are at least slightly reasonable but this garbage about Obama is beneath you… or should be, and flushing should follow.
Bush won the US Presidency by (choose one):
1. -50,000 votes
2. Ralph Nader running (see you CAN blame the Greens, I certainly do)
3. Electoral Fraud on the part of partisan politics in the state of Florida where his brother happened to be Governor.
4. All of the above.
I have yet to see any credible allegation that Obama did not gain a majority of the votes, or that there was vote fraud. He had the money to buy the office fair and square, and that’s what he did.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Rubbish, as you seem so keen on the laws of the USA being adhered to by all check out the supreme court ruling “Gore V Bush”
I think you will find that President Bush won that by a vote of 7-2.”
Yup, that’s the only vote that mattered once they stopped the recount that would have shown Gore beat Bush in Florida.
“There have been plenty of credible accusations about the potentially illegal President Hussein Messiah Obama, you just choose to overlook them.”
I don’t think you can produce one credible reference of vote fraud, election roll cleansing or other election fraud by the Democrats in 2008.
“Disgusting.”
Truly. Put up or shut up.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BJ
The Supreme Court of the United states ruled in Bush’s favour by a margin of 7-2, what part of “not guilty” do you not understand?
Why do you guys always try and rewrite history?
As for Hussein Messiah Obama, who said anything about votes?, the issue is his eligibility for the office of President , as yet he has not provided that proof.
I could also talk about his unsuitability for the job but it will be far more fun watching the fool prove it by destroying the hopes and dreams of the idiots who were conned into voting for the guy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Valis
“Yup, that’s the only vote that mattered once they stopped the recount that would have shown Gore beat Bush in Florida.”
And you have proof of this of course?
Bush won and thank god for that, can you imagine the state the world would be in if that other great Democratic con man and hypocrite (why are so many lefties hypocrites?) Gore had taken office.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Why do you guys always try and rewrite history?”
It only seems that way when you don’t know what you’re talking about.
“And you have proof of this of course?”
You ass, why don’t you actually go read Gore v Bush and learn what it was about.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BB
The win by a negative margin is a fact. I simply misremembered the total.
Popular vote:
Gore : 50,999,897
Bush : 50,456,002
Florida vote:
Bush : 2,912,790
Gore : 2,912,253
Nader : 97,488
Which part of history did I re-write?
Florida disenfranchisement :
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/content/news/election2000/election2000_felons2.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Central_Voter_File#Problems_in_the_cleansing_process
Now if you can find a comparable story and actual facts to back it up regarding Obama, I’ll at least read it. I am not particularly excited about his election though I am pleased to have a President who speaks in complete sentences.
So far all we have are wild-eyed claims of ineligibility for the office.
Snopes is my friend here –
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp
What model of the real world do you use to predict what will happen next? Mine told me there were no WMDs in Iraq a year before the invasion. It also told me that there is no way in hell that this would have passed un-remarked by the legal team on the Republican side if it were actually true.
Don’t believe those guys BB… I like you better sane.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Now if you can find a comparable story and actual facts to back it up regarding Obama, I’ll at least read it.”
Me too, but don’t hold your breath. I’ve asked many times in the past for bb to back up his b*llsh*t with a source and the only time he ever did so was with a link to Trevor Louden’s website. As for sanity, he could just be playing with us, but he does appear too sincere to just be taking the piss.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
But he is the best reason you’ll get for Voting Green hey?
O’Bama guys… Oh Bama…. and in some cases, Oh Bummer.
…he one of the black irish or the messiah; maybe both. Can’t wait til he sweeps up Wall St…
Thanks for the Post Sue, timely, compassionate, responsible.
Perhaps the Government could Legislate to make home grown foodstuff pricing tied to production cost somehow – at the moment we pay overseas prices, and without looking at the Books, I’d say it’s a rip-off anyway.
Give us all a break now wouldn’t it?
Anyway…one of our contributors had a fire in his library last nite.
Both books were burnt – and one of them wasn’t even coloured in yet.
Thomas the Tank was a lousy financial advisor anyway – so I’ll have to quote from memory – (you can look it up).
But Clinton left a 3 billion dollar surplus – I think his wife was saving up for a Health System….disgusting the way the poor die on the streets in the Worlds Greatest Country.
And in this weather – there are so many of them – they’ll be sending the body trucks under the Brooklyn Bridge as I write.
Anyway, back to US recent fiscal History; – after just two years in office Whoosh Bush had the economy 4 trillion in the red.
After eight years no one is really sure who has the last dollar…
He’s gonna have to be O’Bama – not some bourgeois dummy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Next they’ll be asking us to spend more, to get the economy going…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The fact that people are arguing over whether the minimum wage should be reduced, stay the same or increased at present highlights an important point: the current economic system is f*&^ed.
Many/most people on the minimum wage do important jobs, even if they may be unskilled. What would happen if all the cleaners of our offices, hospitals, schools, shops etc stopped working? Would things carry on as normal? Of course not, these low paid workers are doing a critical job. The only justification for their abysmal pay is that the job is unskilled and issues of supply and demand. Is this fair?
OK, here is a statement that I don’t think anyone (or very few) here will agree with:
I think that paying everyone the same hourly pay rate would be fairer than the current system where pay rates vary so greatly.
Now don’t get me wrong, I am not arguing that such a utopian system would work well (although I have a suspicion that it might work better than its detractors would have you believe), I am simply stating that I think it is fairer than the current system.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient
That makes *no* sense at all.
Moving from the elegant (but incorrect) supply/demand wage and employment models to very opaque and befuddled narratives. Golly.
Savings increase a *banks* liquidity. That increase in liquidity is expressed in lending/borrowing. The borrowed money does increase economic activity (that is what matter, not liquidity) but not by much.
The best way to increase economic activity (what is needed in a recession) is to increase the share of the national income of the poor. The best way to do that is increase the minimum wage and increase benefits.
peace
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BJ
If you have a money system and a society with *any* economic freedom, you have credit. This ends up playing an important part of the money supply. The advantage in having the credit supply dominated by banks is that they are easy to regulate (relatively easy).
The need to inflate perpetually? Have you been reading Deirdre Kent? This is an argument I have ad nauseam with people who have read “Healthy Money Healthy Planet” but know no economics.
Deirdre counts interest but does not count depreciation.
peace
W
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Samuiela: The Utopian model would actually be a lot more similar to the Australian system and is quite workable – except we do have to recognise that qualified Professionals have often outlaid considerable money and are traditionally re-imbursed for their Specialty. But I don’t think it’s those that you refer to.
The Stories @this that appeared in Australia were to do with the concept of the ‘working poor’ in this country. In other words pay is not necessarily tied to the cost of living. Basically, in Australia, if you have a job, you can afford food, shelter, mobility, entertainment etc.
Bliss; Aiding the poor has always proved a winning formula in the past – I well remember my hard-voting National supporter Boss claiming that Norm Kirk’s election in 1975 made him a millionaire….people had that extra disposable income and they spend the lot, and usually not on imported goods.
It’s why I think the idea of ‘buying New Zealand’ a good one, and is able to be expanded by making our own produce cheaper locally.
The Key being that those dollars stay in New Zealand.
As a Money Man I would expect John Key to understand this.
New Zealand has a practically untapped advantage in that we can feed and shelter four million people in relative luxury, and, importantly, using our own resources.
regards mark
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I don’t mind credit. I do mind debt being the basis of the money supply and I do mind fractional reserve. Who the heck is Deirdre Kent?
Most of my objections come from my engineering background. There really “ain’t no such thing as a free lunch” and most of the economists in the world have never considered the possibility that unsustainability is a problem for their systems.
von Mises does. His view on fractional reserve is pretty severe and matches the conclusions I come to independently from looking at it as an engineer.
Fractional-Reserve is EVIL!!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9050474362583451279&hl=en
Strangely enough, that sustainability issue leads to surprising congruity between Green and Libertarian views… they tend to worship vonMises.
Credit is fine. It has to be loaned from actual reserves, and the creation of money should not ever be in the hands of the bankers.
http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/37700.html
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What are you talking about Bliss???
Since NZ went onto a fractional reserve fiat currency we have had inflation so BJ is correct to call it perpertual inflation.
Also you seem to be trying to make the point that BJ is against “credit”, you do realize that their are 2 kinds of credit one comes from individual savings the other comes from fractional reserve lending, the second one is bad the first is good.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“The best way to increase economic activity (what is needed in a recession) is to increase the share of the national income of the poor.”
Bang on. When Reagan introduced “trickle down”, his tax cuts for the rich, it was meant to stimulate the economy. Democrats said, ok, our concern is that all this money will fly away to overseas investment, so if the goal is the US economy, let’s ensure the money has to stay here. Oh no, said the Republicans, you can’t restrict people’s freedom in that way. The Dems caved, the money flew overseas, the tax take took a dive and the biggest deficits ever seen were the result.
I’m no fan of Clinton, but one thing he surely got right was to end this madness. He raised taxes on the rich and lowered them on the poor. This works because the poor spend any money they get and do it locally, generating both jobs and taxes. Needless to say, Bush II reversed things again, which hasn’t helped the mess we’re in now.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“The best way to increase economic activity (what is needed in a recession) is to increase the share of the national income of the poor.”
Oh god why are their so many Keynesian’s that guy has done so much harm to humanity.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
In this thread there are posters who ask, quite rightly, “where will the money come from if the minimum wage is raised?”
The answer is it will come from the business that employs minimum wage workers.
So the next question is “so some companies will not be able to afford this, and will either lay off workers, or go under?”
And the answer is yes. If the business delivers such low value that it cant pay an increased minimum wage then let it either (a) raise its prices such that the business does have the value to pay an increased minimum wage, and the market will determine what the new value of the business is, or (b) it goes to the wall.
Theres no rule that says businesses have to survive. If there is a demand for a product or service, and there is sufficient value in that product or service, then it can be accomodated. If the value is insufficient, then we dont need that product or service.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Bliss,
The theory of supply and demand may be seemingly simple but took centuries to actually develop. Its elegance as you call it is not in its simplicity but rather that it explains so closely the actions of informed actors in a market. Though that’s where it hits the snag, not due to its simplicity but because it doe not take account of the stupidity of the population. While you are correct, in principle, that there exist a large amount of distortions in the market which affect the choices of actors in the market you are wrong to assume that this takes demand and supply out of consideration in anything but a communist nation. Even if half the price of workers is subsidised by the government there will still be a point at which the marginal utility of an additional worker falls bellow the marginal costs and at that point, assuming the manager is not mentally impaired, another worker will not be employed or one will be layed off, assuming that the marginal costs are projected to surpass the marginal utility for some time to come.
You are correct to say that there are many distorting factors is employment relations, one of the major ones being the ability to lay off staff, redundancy payments, training expenses, etc. But all those confounding variables do is modify the associated costs and benefits of hiring/firing and employee.
Re: Fractional Reserve. Cash on hand is cash that is not part of the banking system, when moving cash into or out of the economy central banks assume that there is only so much money that people will wish to be holding on hand, e.g. in an economy with 20,000 backed dollars circulating people might only carry on themselves 2,000 in total which leave 18,000 to circulate through the fractional reserve system and magically multiply meaning that the economy has 2000 + (18,000 * 1/Reserve Rate) in currency circulating. During Christmas the amount held on hand increases, e.g. goes up to 3000 total, this leaves only 17,000 to multiply and due to fractional reserve that 1000 difference becomes massive and in doing so decreases economic liquidity as less money is available to pay for those things we don’t need. Poor people keep a higher potion of their cash as cash and as such an increased distribution of wealth in the lower strata would change the rate at which money multiplies and result in decreased liquidity. That is of course assuming a closed economy or one where every type of good is purchased from overseas equally, which is not the case in this country. My point is mearly to show that increased wealth in the lower classes does not necasarily translate into increased liquidity but after writing all that out I realise I didn’t even need to go so far in explaining it, though it is still important to note, especially when one considers that most liquidity comes from people borrowing to spend stuff they cannot afford. In New Zealand increased distribution in the lower classes would up to a certain, low, point increase liquidity as up to a certain point people will spend extra money on food and being an agricultural society that means the money will circulate, in majority, back into new zealand, but one people have enough to pay for fuel, buy a car, buy a tv, etc, the money circulates out and liquidity decreases. The unemployment benefit and working part time on minimum wage both already surpass this limit. In Japan the opposite would be true as they need to import the majority of their food and tend to produce high end goods, so increased spending on superfluous items would be good, but not for us.
The best way to increase economic activity is to increase business confidence and as such their willingness to invest and to employ staff. Bills like the 20-day fire at will bill are exactly what we need in a recession.
Samuleia,
.
The problem with that is that no one would have any motivation to train for higher skilled jobs other than personal interest and as such the top end of the market would just fall out as no one replaces them, liquidity would totally dry up as no one trains to do the vital management jobs with the higher stress loads and then the wage wouldn’t be able to be supported and would just collapse, and society with it
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
There are two dynamics and they must be balanced here.
I want very much to get us back on a sustainable “hard” currency, ending fractional reserve and the banking abuses that go with it. This will automatically and possibly quite drastically restrict “growth”.
I also want the social fabric to remain intact to the extent possible. That means that the government does have a responsibility to step in (in my view) to be an “employer of last resort” when the economics of malinvestment that fractional-reserves encourage are chased out and real productivity is exchanged for real dollars.
The failing companies should not be propped up. Failing banks should not be rewarded. However, it is still necessary to put a floor underneath the economy.
Whatever government “buys” must produce something of value to future generations and it should not be exorbitant. The purpose is not to “stimulate” the economy, The overheated, overstimulated, hyperactive, attention-deficit economy needs no more “stimulation”. The purpose is to forestall the social breakdowns that often attend economic breakdowns.
There are an awful lot of people living way beyond their means right now, and not realizing it. Most of the USA and Europe is in that position. NZ is I think, better off in those terms.
Can you really produce enough to balance all that you consume? It isn’t all that easy. I’m not sure I do it… I actually rather doubt it, but that is what we ultimately will have to do.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
well they are voting right now in the house for the 900 billion robbery from the unborn american children. Time for a new revolution here in the US.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
And yay no Republican’s voted for the Obama steal from the children bill.
Thats going to work in their favour in 2 years time they may be able to use it to take the house back in 2 years.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
This thread makes me realise just how right wing ive become as i apply increasing levels of logic and learn more about the world. I used to think that national supporters voted national because they want to benefit and “frack the rest”, so to speak, but I am increasingly realising how a person whom cares about society would be wiser voting or them than the labour i have traditionally supported, but they are still far from ideal. With that said, im glad that turnip comments here as it reminds me that im not as far right as i may seem and feel
.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The US has got a new Revolution, by Ballot not Bullet. I think O’Bama will surprise a lot of people with his political dexterity.
But I forgot to mention an important part of the equation: Companies pay minimal Tax as a rule. We used to have a saying “If you are in Business, and are paying Tax, then you need to sack your Accountant.”
I saw Kerry Packer brought before an extraordinary session of the Australian Senate (actually he gave ‘em a real drubbing), for being Australia’s richest man yet only paying 2c on the dollar in taxes. He rightly pointed out that he paid teams of professionals to reduce his taxable income by as much as was legally possible.
Well do I remember the Accounts Department of a large NZ Corp. (and this was in the 70′s) trying to find a way to spend their last 19 million profit so they wouldn’t have to pay tax on it.ie; wherever possible, declare a loss and claim all your taxes back.
This is of course, a freebie that the individual needn’t contemplate trying – but Taxes come largely from Employees, not employers. Payroll Tax and ACC Levies are all an attempt to redress this but the fact remains true – those most able to pay, oftimes pay least.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
turnip28 said: well they are voting right now in the house for the 900 billion robbery from the unborn american children. Time for a new revolution here in the US.
Try standing on a busy street corner in Detroit and saying that Turnip!
And wasn’t it the lack of regulation of the finance industry that got us into this mess in the first place – allowing them to lend money that didn’t actually exist to people who couldn’t afford it?
Curious how some of the most extreme proponents of free enterprise and deregulation have come cap in hand to the Government when they found themselves, due to their own actions, in the poop.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I’m not right wing I just hate big government Sapient nothing says big government like spending 1 trillion dollars. Note I hate bush for the same reasons. I suppport the 14 democrats who had the balls to look out for the american people by not voting for the bailout money.
The whole right wing/left wing political concept is very out of date.
I support free market capitalism and at the same time and personal freedom.
“I believe the government should stay out of the bedroom and the boardroom.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
agreed with the bedroom, not entirly with the boardroom; while the economy may function best without the interferance of government the same is not necasarily true of society as a whole. Sometimes we must introduce ineffecency to allow society to function as more than an anomious machine.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Perhaps a bit of Herman Daly is in order for an alternative view: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4617
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient and BJ – been watching the thread and must express admiration for both your comments. I realise you and sapient are probably going to disagree with fractional reserve, but otherwise agree on so much more. It is an area that many (not all) economist are still debating and I can see how both sides have some valid points.
BJ you might be interested to read Nial Ferguson http://www.niallferguson.com and his book “the ascent of money” – he does a good job of covering the history of how modern finance began including a decent section on the 19th (1800′s) century experience without fractional reserve and low inflation.
Sapient – your comment at 12.50 “This thread makes me realise just how right wing ive become as i apply increasing levels of logic and learn more about the world.” It has been the pursuit of logic that has taken me along a similar path and yes it is about caring about society – deeply. A big part of my work is in trying to move from a feeding people fish, to teaching them to fish. Sometimes there is a need to provide fish, but being but building a resilient community that can adjust to incremental change and shocks is a long term better solution. I would say that we shouldn’t forget the importance of ego/id/thymos as a driver for human behaviour and that it is important to satisfy those part of our self. Economics does not have all the answers and is still learning but it sure is an interesting place.
Don’t know if you have had the chance to read the undercover economist yet, but I also recommend Tim Harfords follow up book “The logic of life”. Really recommend it and you don’t need to have read the undercover economist to follow it.
Good luck
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
You are a broken record Toad.
None of the guys coming for bailout money are free market people they are corporate facists big difference.
As Ron Paul said on CNN to the retarded women yesterday morning the US hasn’t been a capitalist country for a really long time.
Mark I own a company here in the US my company pays no Tax none, why because its an S corp, you might want to get your facts straight before you make stupid comments like OMG companies don’t pay tax. That democrat mis-quote is so absurd when over 50% of business’s in the US file as s-corps, s corps don’t file corp tax, the profits are taxed as personal tax and the small business still pays payroll tax by giving someone a job.
A company pays truck loads of taxes by employing people. Hell in New York City I have to pay an extra 16% over and above the persons salary for the privellege of employing someone. Thats right in the US you PAY the government for the privellege of giving someone a job and you wonder why companies move jobs overseas, where they can escape they privillege.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
WWHS,
. I am quite in love with Bj’s energy backed currency system, though how it could be implimented is a bit of a hurdle, though i will dedicate some time to it in about a week and a half while im inbetween semesters 
.
).
Thanks.
I would much prefer a solid fully backed currency to a fiat fractional reserve currency, i mearly beleive that fractional reserve does not necessarily not have aproper place in the economy, i beleive, atleast presently, that fractional reserve with a high reserve ratio could have a place, but the more i discus the matter with BJ the more i move of the fractional reserve boat
I went to the library the other day to get out the undercover economist but it was checked out so i got “Rama II”, i will try and get on two those two books you mentioned after that (which considering how great a.c.clarke is shouldint be long
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Rama II is not a bad book – and Arthur C Clarke was great at being a futurist and sparkign the imagination of possible futures. I blame a.c.clarke and Douglas Adams for my ongoing interest in the possibility of going into space one day (one day…). You could also blame testosterone.
If your having trouble gettig hold of either book let me know and I’ll see if I can send you a copy.
WWHS
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I dont think human habitation of space is so far away personally; while there is massive costs associated per ton with transport to space from the earths surface this cost could be cut down significantly through in-situ resource utilisation, with possible facilities being built in an environment with a far smaller escape velocity such as the moon or maybe the trojans. In my eyes, though i am not an engeneer, a small factory capable of reproducing and expanding itself could be placed on the moon and construct using in-situ resource utilisation larger facilities capable of greater feats and eventually construct a human habitable environment, the same facilities being able to be used to construct an orbital solar power system at a major discount.
.
Human travel to space or the transportation of not readily avalible or produced substances could be acheived through the construction of megastructures such as an orbital space elevator, launch loop, or even a electromagnetic ram. Though oviously an orbital elevator is out of the question with present technology and the compresive/tensile strength of availible materials, not to mention the hazards of transporting living things through the van allen belts at such a slow speed, though i suppose the human capsules could detach and use rockets; a ram is not outside our technology and could provide a signifcant saving of fuel by providing the intitial velocity, the launch loop works in much the same fashion but with different quirks and benefits.
Lol, Sci-Fi Rant, its been a long time since ive done one of those
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I like the thining that is going on into researching the quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle – whilst I know that at the moment its value only applies at the subatomic level – it does suggest the possibility of being able to travel vast distances through space. Its main use at the moment appears to be in super computing – but it is very exciting and opens up another possible door for moving outside of of planet earth. Very Star trek and stargate.
I like your mention of orbital elevators- haven’t heard that in awhile. The kid in me thinks it would be fun to have one (memories of reading Charlie and the great glass elevator).
Thsi is fun.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Im much more interested in the implications of if, or if not, we can extract zero-point energy from a vacuum; thats a potentially massive source of energy, and i would much rather have such an energy source on our side before we open the doorway to a posible pandoras box star trek style exploration of space.
, but then again, with that much energy imagine how fast we could wipe ourselves out 
I remmeber reading that one cubic metre of vacuum could potentially hold enough energy to boil the oceans :S
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
zero-point energy sounds interesting – though I haven’t heard of it. I’m also interested in solar sails for as solar energy source (using the sail to capture energy from the sun) and also as a form of propulsion (sailing on a breeze of radiation pressure). Chance to have fun with sailing ship design and having mock pirate fights in space!! – actually could have sail races in a sort of galactic america’s cup.
I’ve had friends working on these for NASA – I do have to admit I can’t keep up with their maths (I need an extra brain to even try to be on the beginners level with them sometimes).
I’m hopeful we won’t wipe ourselves out – we already can do that with current technology and we stubbornly seem to persist:) Which is something I like.
We really should worry more about the daleks;)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
a americas cup using solar wind? sounds just like “the wind from the sun” by A.C.Clarke, lol.
Im not sure if it would work, but i would think it would make more sense to make use of the charged ions in the solar wind by using a magnetic feild to accelerate them and therefore transfer momentum to the ship; as opposed to massive solid sales you could have a massive mesh and probally gain greater acceleration; kind of like a massive ion drive using sparse matter; but not my feild
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Charged ions could work also – So much of what is being considered today in space exploration has been often covered by sci-fi writers in particular A.C.Clarke. Good to know my school time reading his works rather than Jane Austin is not wasted.
- now we just need an engineer like BJ to get cracking with our excellent ideas. Where is he? He should have at least one solar vehicle ready to go by the end of the week for testing?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Just use Nuclear for space exploration, its a technology that we already harnessed and used.
They were tesing Nuclear Rockets back in the 50′s the projects got canceled thanks to the nimby.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“All of the Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey findings are based on one extremely simple metric known as a “house price-to-income” ratio. In short, Cox & Co. assume that you can “value” housing markets using this crude measure.
The first problem here is that there is no statistical evidence that there is any stable or predictable long-term relationship between median incomes and house prices. Notwithstanding this, Wendell Cox claims, “The [house price to income ratio] in Australia is 6.0, double the 3.0 historic maximum norm and well above levels of just a decade ago.” In fact, the median incomes used for the purposes of creating these house price-to-income ratios are likely to be quite different to the incomes associated with the marginal home buyer (where the median income used in their ratio includes much lower income and higher credit risk households).
The RBA has recently published some long-term analysis on the subject across a variety of countries. It is useful noting upfront that the RBA’s estimate of Australia’s house price-to-income ratio in 2007 of 5.5x is lower than the Demographia finding. The second interesting point deriving from ….”
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Demographia-Dogma-$pd20090129-NQTPP?OpenDocument&src=sph
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I wouldint approve of using nuculear explosions to propel a ship out of the atmosphere, though i understand there was a proposal for such quite awhile ago. using nuclear to provide the energy for an electricity driven drive would be the logical thing though. Use an accelerator driven reactor and a ion drive in conjunction prehaps
, or the same reactor for the aforementioned meshed sailess solar-sail, lol, both towards and away from the sun 
. BJ is probally just reading this and laughing at how noobish our suggestons are 
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient – your comment about BJ laughing at us is probably true. I saw a few year ago consideration of using nuclear fusion to support space travel. Though there is a few issue of what happens when you start to approach near light speeds, that make the whole thing probab;y not feasible for deep space exploration (problem of too much space and not enough human time), which leads me back to interest in quantum and the possibility of bending space/moving from one point to another as a more feasible way to conduct long distance travel.
For local travel to the Moon,Mars, Venus we should probably just use our Jetsons scooters
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Fun stuff. I didn’t laugh (though I did smile some).
If we want to go, first we have to get out there. Once you are in LEO you can boost out the rest of the way with vastly less “expensive” propulsion techniques. There are ways to deploy the light-sail to reach escape velocity, the vehicles are far less constrained. LEO is halfway to anywhere at all.
Man rated access to space is feasible at a fairly low price. Rutan has some good ideas and a passenger carrying re-usable. It can’t orbit… yet. Mass driving techniques can push stuff into orbit extremely cheap, it just has to be able to function after a couple of hundred g kick is applied.
That isn’t as much of a limit as you’d think. LEO is within fairly easy reach of a survivable environment… mostly.
Ion drives are in use for very small thrusters on some satellites… station-keeping. They are more efficient (the particles leave at a higher velocity) but they do not scale up easily.
Our first job after getting up there is to learn how to live and work in space. Deep space. Complete ecosystems and recycling. Minimal energy usage for maintaining the system.
My expectation of “deep space” exploration is that we aren’t going to get it from warp drives but from biochemistry and cold storage. The Sci-Fi from “Aliens” not Star-Trek. I don’t really care. It is one of those problems I have purposely pushed out of my mind because the first problem is CATS and getting to LEO. THAT buys us time and our kids get to work on the next steps.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
JH
There is a logic that cuts through your erudite critique. It is the logic of “can I pay for it” .
Basics.
I have not bought a half-million dollar house because I looked at what the mortgage could get up to and recognized that I can’t afford it. All the houses available were over 400K up to a little while ago.
I make more than double the median wage. With 4 dependents I can’t make the required payments. That is an unsustainably unaffordable market. What it SHOULD be is definitely subject to your critique and I am rather glad you made some of those points, which I Had not heard before.
However, the NZ market is still IMHO absurd. A little less so now, but still absurd.
respectfully
BJ
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
CATS?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
All that Sci-Fi but not involved in the space advocacy movemet… tsk…
Cheap Access To Space.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Our first job after getting up there is to learn how to live and work in space. Deep space. Complete ecosystems and recycling. Minimal energy usage for maintaining the system.
So who else here understood that Green principles of sustainability are CRITICAL to the success of space exploration?
Never mind “warp drives” and “transporters”… how do you keep a closed ecosystem going for years, even decades at a time, with no inputs and outputs other than energy and heat?
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
In space – no one can hear you recycle!
Actually its hugely important especially considering the initial cost of getting any resource into orbit, therefore every resource is immensely scarce and valuable – if you can maximise its life and then break it down to be reused in another form, then that process is as valuable as air – given that a breathable atmosphere is the most precious thing you can have in space. The “space” community has actually been one of the leading sectors demonstrating concern about the use of our resources. The first photos of the planet from space had a significant public impact, in a better way than the currently overused cute megafauna images of polar bears on ice.
Significant issue of being up there is sustainable atmosphere. Interestingly enough the technology going into submarines has provided some indicators of what is needed (carbon scrubbers etc). Underwater is also another huge area of fun sci-fi, but potentially more realistic exploration within my lifetime.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)