|
 wow just imagine how stressful getting emails like this would be if my bank deposits weren't fully insured haha
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2023 23:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 01:17 |
|
|
if I was in some kind of bizarro world where deposits weren't guaranteed, I'd feel inclined to withdraw everything and compound the problem!
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 00:00
|
|
|
good thing there's a bill in select committee at the moment that would introduce deposit insurance up to $100k  also that our banking sector is well regulated with fairly high requirements for banks to hold liquid capital
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 00:57
|
|
|
bike tory posted:good thing there's a bill in select committee at the moment that would introduce deposit insurance up to $100k if half of your deposits leave in a panic, it doesn't matter if the required capital margin had been 1% or 20% but that of course wouldn't be a problem, there's nothing to worry about since it's not like NZ banks are concentr... 
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 01:21
|
|
|
nothing will ever happen to our housing stock
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 01:27
|
|
|
Progressive JPEG posted:if half of your deposits leave in a panic, it doesn't matter if the required capital margin had been 1% or 20% No but the capital requirements put a limit on the risk-weighted assets that banks can hold, which makes a bank run much less likely. The way SVB was behaving that lead to the run wouldn't have been legal in NZ, for e.g. Deposit insurance is a sensible bit of legislation, but it's not like it prevents bank runs either, nor will it fix the real risk to the NZ banking sector which is the ridiculous concentration of lending around residential property.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 01:44
|
|
|
the point is that bank runs are powered by psychology, to the point that the strength of the bank's asset mix doesn't matter if everyone's afraid of losing all their money deposit insurance defeats this fear
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 04:45
|
|
|
Not entirely, obviously, given the two banks who just got taken out by bank runs!Confusedslight posted:https://twitter.com/harrypeterson_/status/1634006375872483329?s=20 Curia looking like the outlier with the Kantar poll out now, though overall left/right support fairly close across all three: quote:Labour: 36 percent, down 2 https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/485896/new-poll-shows-labour-could-form-government-with-greens-te-pati-maori
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 06:19
|
|
|
Relieved to see the greens at 11% and also heh at the preferred prime minister rankings. Chris Hipkins: 27 percent, up 4 Christopher Luxon: 17 percent, down 5
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 06:40
|
|
|
At least Luxon doesn't go by Topher, I guess
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 06:46
|
|
|
interesting that they're trying a civil unions → marriage equality move for lowering the voting age
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 07:39
|
|
|
exmarx posted:interesting that they're trying a civil unions → marriage equality move for lowering the voting age Can you please elaborate?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 12:22
|
|
|
Anticheese posted:Can you please elaborate? I may be wrong but I think it's referring to the approach giving it a slow start - give it to local government first, and then later think about it for central.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 19:42
|
|
|
bike tory posted:Not entirely, obviously, given the two banks who just got taken out by bank runs! SVB weren't the only ones to think interest rates rises were a thing of the past. RBNZ only resumed including an interest rate rise as a part of the 2021 stress test scenario after having ignored it since 2014. In that worst-case scenario, the peak OCR rate was 5.5%. We're now only at 4.75% and rising so she'll be right. For comparison, it was 8.25% in 2007-2008
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2023 22:42
|
|
|
Man I generally appreciate Bernard Hickey's take on things but his constant "a vote for the Greens is wasted as long as the Greens will never credibly side with National, because even if Labour needs them for a coalition they have nothing to bargain with if they wouldn't side with National" thing is utterly braindead.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2023 02:29
|
|
|
cptn_dr posted:Man I generally appreciate Bernard Hickey's take on things but his constant "a vote for the Greens is wasted as long as the Greens will never credibly side with National, because even if Labour needs them for a coalition they have nothing to bargain with if they wouldn't side with National" thing is utterly braindead. It makes sense if you view all relationships as transactional I guess
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2023 02:53
|
|
|
It's true they need to find leverage to get anything from Labour.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2023 02:56
|
|
|
If Labour needs them for a coalition they bargain the same way NZ First does - by agreeing to form a coalition with someone so that a government can be made. The fact that the Greens won't form a coalition with National doesn't mean it's not leverage because the leverage would still be that Labour needs them to form a government. IMO they just historically underuse this leverage because the alternative is a National government that will actively undermine and reverse their policies rather than a Labour government that might throw them whatever beans Winston will allow.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2023 03:38
|
|
|
Ok but let's for arguments sake that happens, how can they compel labour to do anything? What are they going to do, break the coalition and disband the government?
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2023 04:44
|
|
|
Ultimately yes, that's the enforcement leverage?
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2023 04:50
|
|
|
BuckyDoneGun posted:Ultimately yes, that's the enforcement leverage? Lol so they have no leverage then
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2023 04:54
|
|
|
Every single election we get the punters telling people not to vote for Greens because they're economically dangerous or whatever, then they talk about how the Greens should just eat crow and side with big boy National, then it's about how weak the formed coalition with the Greens is and how Labor can't make any mistakes because of how fragile all those partnerships are. It's all just dumb window dressing to the core message which is that the party who actually wants to do progress shouldn't be in power because progress now comes at the expense of the rich and powerful. But believe it or not the Greens aren't the only party in Parliament who don't want a National government and are willing to work with others to prevent it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2023 05:07
|
|
|
And in exchange for this they get jack poo poo and get to look useless The fact that this is literally the best case scenario is dismal and depressing
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2023 05:10
|
|
|
Ghostlight posted:But believe it or not the Greens aren't the only party in Parliament who don't want a National government and are willing to work with others to prevent it. neva 4get winnie going labour purely to spite the nats which time? all of them
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2023 05:16
|
|
|
winnie 'the scorpion' peters
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2023 05:25
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:And in exchange for this they get jack poo poo and get to look useless Negotiation with Te Pāti Māori and the Greens would look a lot different from 2017 where Winston had all the power. New Zealand politics is dismal and depressing, looking for the least worst option is as close to hope as it gets.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2023 05:48
|
|
|
cptn_dr posted:Man I generally appreciate Bernard Hickey's take on things but his constant "a vote for the Greens is wasted as long as the Greens will never credibly side with National, because even if Labour needs them for a coalition they have nothing to bargain with if they wouldn't side with National" thing is utterly braindead. he's extremely dumb in general
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2023 06:21
|
|
|
Bernard Hickey does good macroeconomic analysis imo. He's kinda racist in an anti immigrant way though, and his other political takes are no better or worse than the average Labour-ish punter. Re: the Greens, there's a solid faction who want the party to be activists and nothing else. They don't want the party to have any ministers in big portfolios at all because then they're bound by cabinet rules. So it's very possible the Greens wouldn't want to form a full coalition government (something they've never done) even if they were in a position to do so, over a cooperation agreement with confidence and supply. Plenty of members would be happy for the party to sit in opposition. Also the party decision making on whether to accept a deal or not is done by delegates, usually with the rest of their most active branch members sitting around them thanks to Zoom, so it's not like the party leaders who do the negotiating actually get to make the decision.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2023 06:45
|
|
|
bike tory posted:Re: the Greens, there's a solid faction who want the party to be activists and nothing else. They don't want the party to have any ministers in big portfolios at all because then they're bound by cabinet rules. So it's very possible the Greens wouldn't want to form a full coalition government (something they've never done) even if they were in a position to do so, over a cooperation agreement with confidence and supply. Plenty of members would be happy for the party to sit in opposition. Seriously? Why the gently caress am I voting for these morons then.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2023 06:47
|
|
|
it's pretty funny. the loser wing loves the greens' handwringing consensus-based internal politics, but then expects their elected mps to get massive legislative wins without making any compromises.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2023 06:54
|
|
|
I would settle for legislative wins that are actually wins instead of crap like the ZCA.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2023 06:58
|
|
|
Xik posted:Seriously? Why the gently caress am I voting for these morons then. They've consistently got the best policy platform, some really competent and capable MPs all the way down to like #15 on the list*, and they're a very safe bet to get seats in parliament. That's about as good as it gets under MMP. *may revise this depending on how the list ranking turns out, but there are some great new faces in there this time
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2023 07:08
|
|
|
bike tory posted:They've consistently got the best policy platform, some really competent and capable MPs all the way down to like #15 on the list*, and they're a very safe bet to get seats in parliament. That's about as good as it gets under MMP. Yeah but if they actively choose to have no power that's.... a little nuts. When you say there are some who choose this, is this a rogue few or a significant portion?
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2023 07:30
|
|
|
I don't think there are many/any that would walk away from a deal if it meant that National/ACT would be able to form a govt, but yeah certainly a big faction would prefer to take the cross benches and give confidence and supply to a minority Labour government over taking seats in cabinet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2023 08:15
|
|
|
bike tory posted:I don't think there are many/any that would walk away from a deal if it meant that National/ACT would be able to form a govt, but yeah certainly a big faction would prefer to take the cross benches and give confidence and supply to a minority Labour government over taking seats in cabinet. I really think you are overstating the size of that faction given the poo poo they have swallowed this term in exchange for literally nothing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2023 08:24
|
|
|
Anecdotally it has been exacerbated by current situation with Shaw as a minister left the Greens have been the face of some bad policy. As I understand it the issues that they agreed to cooperate on climate change, the environment and poverty. Which encompasses the major issues that matter to their base. As others have said, a chunk of voters want big changes now, something the Greens were never capable of achieving. Historically international variants of MMP have shown a loss for small parties in similar situations. There are also a number of single issue voters who are focused on climate issues and feel the Greens failed because they focus on social issues. In 2020 National floated the idea of having an MP break off and start a blue green party, I expect something like this by 2029.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2023 08:36
|
|
|
i've rly got no patience with people who have a deep political involvement in trying to get mps elected but zero understanding about how government works...
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2023 08:56
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Ok but let's for arguments sake that happens, how can they compel labour to do anything? What are they going to do, break the coalition and disband the government? I mean if you form a coalition to get stuff you want and Labour don't deliver then you just don't vote for stuff Labour wants. Labour know full well that having fights inside your org gently caress up your ability to get anything done - they're pretty strongly incentivised to deliver in that setup. Given how covid ate the entire narrative framing last election, it was pretty clear that it was going to be a poo poo term for sitting on the crossbenches since there wasn't going to be much space for pushing Labour around from outside, so I'm pretty happy with the decision last time. Definitely a lot of appetite for pushing harder with the deals this time around and Labour have to be expecting it with their deliberate swing to the centre.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2023 11:03
|
|
|
Finally bit the bullet and became a member of the green party. No idea what really to expect but what's the worse that could happen? The real possibility of act being in government is what really pushed me over the edge.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2023 15:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 01:17 |
|
|
Confusedslight posted:Finally bit the bullet and became a member of the green party. No idea what really to expect but what's the worse that could happen? The real possibility of act being in government is what really pushed me over the edge. Expect emails. How involved you get is entirely up to you, how much impact depends on your location, skills and effort. Donations help, practically one useful thing is to get unengaged friends to actually vote. But mostly you will get emails.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2023 15:55
|
|