Date: 27/04/2016 14:47:27
From: CrazyNeutrino
ID: 881033
Subject: Better Standards
Do we need better standards in Government and Business?
Date: 27/04/2016 16:17:51
From: dv
ID: 881055
Subject: re: Better Standards
Do we need better standards in Government and Business?
CrazyNeutrino said:
Do we need better standards in Government and Business?
Sure
what ya got in mind, more colourful ties
dv said:
That’s a guidon not a standard.
Penance.
AwesomeO said:
dv said:
That’s a guidon not a standard.
Guidons were often standards.
dv said:
AwesomeO said:
dv said:
That’s a guidon not a standard.
Guidons were often standards.
A narrow swallow tailed flag is probably a guidon. Able to be held aloft with one hand the guidon indicated a troop of horse, standards are usually bigger because they had a different role and for a much bigger unit.
AwesomeO said:
dv said:
AwesomeO said:That’s a guidon not a standard.
Guidons were often standards.
A narrow swallow tailed flag is probably a guidon. Able to be held aloft with one hand the guidon indicated a troop of horse, standards are usually bigger because they had a different role and for a much bigger unit.
(shrug)
guidon
/ˈɡʌɪd(ə)n/
noun
a pennant that narrows to a point or fork at the free end, especially one used as the standard of a light cavalry regiment.
dv said:
AwesomeO said:
dv said:Guidons were often standards.
A narrow swallow tailed flag is probably a guidon. Able to be held aloft with one hand the guidon indicated a troop of horse, standards are usually bigger because they had a different role and for a much bigger unit.
(shrug)
guidon
/ˈɡʌɪd(ə)n/
noun
a pennant that narrows to a point or fork at the free end, especially one used as the standard of a light cavalry regiment.
What is a standard if not a guidon how to behave?
The Rev Dodgson said:
What is a standard if not a guidon how to behave?
Golf Clap
dv said:
AwesomeO said:
dv said:Guidons were often standards.
A narrow swallow tailed flag is probably a guidon. Able to be held aloft with one hand the guidon indicated a troop of horse, standards are usually bigger because they had a different role and for a much bigger unit.
(shrug)
guidon
/ˈɡʌɪd(ə)n/
noun
a pennant that narrows to a point or fork at the free end, especially one used as the standard of a light cavalry regiment.
Pretty much what I said. The standard is bigger and conveys the position of the head of the army.
“War of the roses?
The Rev Dodgson said:
dv said:
AwesomeO said:A narrow swallow tailed flag is probably a guidon. Able to be held aloft with one hand the guidon indicated a troop of horse, standards are usually bigger because they had a different role and for a much bigger unit.
(shrug)
guidon
/ˈɡʌɪd(ə)n/
noun
a pennant that narrows to a point or fork at the free end, especially one used as the standard of a light cavalry regiment.
What is a standard if not a guidon how to behave?
AwesomeO said:
dv said:
AwesomeO said:A narrow swallow tailed flag is probably a guidon. Able to be held aloft with one hand the guidon indicated a troop of horse, standards are usually bigger because they had a different role and for a much bigger unit.
(shrug)
guidon
/ˈɡʌɪd(ə)n/
noun
a pennant that narrows to a point or fork at the free end, especially one used as the standard of a light cavalry regiment.
Pretty much what I said. The standard is bigger and conveys the position of the head of the army.
“The standard is bigger”
What?
The definition I just presented tells you that a pennant is usually used a standard. It means nothing to say that a standard is bigger. That’s like saying mammals are bigger than dogs.
I think that before any politician is allowed to comment on negative gearing they should be forced to answer this question:
If there was a small reduction in average house prices, resulting in a small improvement in home affordability, would that be a good thing or a bad thing?
dv said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
dv said:(shrug)
guidon
/ˈɡʌɪd(ə)n/
noun
a pennant that narrows to a point or fork at the free end, especially one used as the standard of a light cavalry regiment.
What is a standard if not a guidon how to behave?
It’s a cheerful little forklift truck with only two wheels?
The Rev Dodgson said:
I think that before any politician is allowed to comment on negative gearing they should be forced to answer this question:If there was a small reduction in average house prices, resulting in a small improvement in home affordability, would that be a good thing or a bad thing?
I fully expect that you would get a simple, honest answer.
The Rev Dodgson said:
dv said:
The Rev Dodgson said:What is a standard if not a guidon how to behave?
It’s a cheerful little forklift truck with only two wheels?
Guido
dv said:
AwesomeO said:
dv said:(shrug)
guidon
/ˈɡʌɪd(ə)n/
noun
a pennant that narrows to a point or fork at the free end, especially one used as the standard of a light cavalry regiment.
Pretty much what I said. The standard is bigger and conveys the position of the head of the army.
“The standard is bigger”
What?
The definition I just presented tells you that a pennant is usually used a standard. It means nothing to say that a standard is bigger. That’s like saying mammals are bigger than dogs.
Let me restate…
The definition I just presented tells you that a guidon is usually used a standard. It means nothing to say that a standard is bigger. That’s like saying mammals are bigger than dogs.
The Rev Dodgson said:
I think that before any politician is allowed to comment on negative gearing they should be forced to answer this question:If there was a small reduction in average house prices, resulting in a small improvement in home affordability, would that be a good thing or a bad thing?
Depends on who you are talking about. A small reduction just after you have purchased would be a bad thing, just before, a good thing.
Politically I think NG should be restricted to new builds only.
dv said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
dv said:
It’s a cheerful little forklift truck with only two wheels?
Guido
Having looked that up, I’m not sure if you are calling me a Marxist scholar, the author of a successful programming language, or a pathetic excuse for a male.
The first one I expect.
dv said:
dv said:
AwesomeO said:Pretty much what I said. The standard is bigger and conveys the position of the head of the army.
“The standard is bigger”
What?
The definition I just presented tells you that a pennant is usually used a standard. It means nothing to say that a standard is bigger. That’s like saying mammals are bigger than dogs.
Let me restate…
The definition I just presented tells you that a guidon is usually used a standard. It means nothing to say that a standard is bigger. That’s like saying mammals are bigger than dogs.
If the definition says a guidon is usually a standard then I call shenanigans. And again you are ignoring the use of both, one to mark the position of the head of the army, and the other to mark the position of the lead in a troop of horse.
the reduction is not on the house price as such but on how much it appreciates. ie if the appreciation was going to be 7% it would be 5% after the NG was amended. so you still see a rise of 5%. or so i interpret it.
AwesomeO said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
I think that before any politician is allowed to comment on negative gearing they should be forced to answer this question:If there was a small reduction in average house prices, resulting in a small improvement in home affordability, would that be a good thing or a bad thing?
Depends on who you are talking about. A small reduction just after you have purchased would be a bad thing, just before, a good thing.
Politically I think NG should be restricted to new builds only.
I’m talking overall and on average.
Pit stop….
ChrispenEvan said:
the reduction is not on the house price as such but on how much it appreciates. ie if the appreciation was going to be 7% it would be 5% after the NG was amended. so you still see a rise of 5%. or so i interpret it.
What actually happens to house prices is neither here nor there.
Our Prime Minister says that removing negative gearing will make them go down. Someone should ask him if the resulting improvement in home affordability (if it actually happened) would be a good thing or a bad thing.
It’s a complex question…
Our Prime Minister says that removing negative gearing will make them go down.
i know and my post answered that furphy. they wont go down just not up as much.
The Rev Dodgson said:
It’d be a bad thing for the voters of Wentworth.
ChrispenEvan said:
the reduction is not on the house price as such but on how much it appreciates. ie if the appreciation was going to be 7% it would be 5% after the NG was amended. so you still see a rise of 5%. or so i interpret it.
What actually happens to house prices is neither here nor there.
Our Prime Minister says that removing negative gearing will make them go down. Someone should ask him if the resulting improvement in home affordability (if it actually happened) would be a good thing or a bad thing.
Michael V said:
The Rev Dodgson said:It’d be a bad thing for the voters of Wentworth.
ChrispenEvan said:
the reduction is not on the house price as such but on how much it appreciates. ie if the appreciation was going to be 7% it would be 5% after the NG was amended. so you still see a rise of 5%. or so i interpret it.
What actually happens to house prices is neither here nor there.
Our Prime Minister says that removing negative gearing will make them go down. Someone should ask him if the resulting improvement in home affordability (if it actually happened) would be a good thing or a bad thing.
If only the PM would explain the thinking behind his statements so clearly and convincingly.
I think Rev’s comment cuts to the very heart of the matter.
Homes don’t actually produce anything, they aren’t a productive investment that leads to more overall wealth in any intrinsic sense: contrast them to farms or mines or factories or even software companies or light engineering firms, or even an investment in infrastructure that is going to help industry or keep our comms up to date with our competitors, whatever. They are just sort of there, and you need them so that you aren’t living outside.
To allow a “boom” based on property prices is kind of nuts. You’ve encouraged a lot of investment in a dead asset, whereas that money could have gone into something that would increase output and genuine national wealth.
The commonwealth and the states really needed to cotton on to this issue perhaps 30-35 years ago and said, okay, we need to ensure that we release land and have zoning and development properties that provide a supply that will keep real estate prices increasing at a rate commensurate with the scale of the overall economy. This really would have been possible. Home prices were around 3 times average wage, and it would have been possible to keep them there, while still giving respectable returns on investments.
The problem is that they didn’t, and there isn’t any way to undo it without millions of people losing an enormous amount of money. Not all of them are the people who rode the wave. There are people who have just entered the real estate market, borrowing to within an inch of their lives to buy nondescript two bedroom flats in Penrith for $500 000. It’s tough to say to them “we need you to lose $200 000 overnight in the national interest”.
I think this will take a generation, 30 years or so, to sort out.
that point has been raised in a number of articles on NG, DV.
dv said:
I think that’s a pretty fair analysis, and well explained. G’donya.
I think Rev’s comment cuts to the very heart of the matter.Homes don’t actually produce anything, they aren’t a productive investment that leads to more overall wealth in any intrinsic sense: contrast them to farms or mines or factories or even software companies or light engineering firms, or even an investment in infrastructure that is going to help industry or keep our comms up to date with our competitors, whatever. They are just sort of there, and you need them so that you aren’t living outside.
To allow a “boom” based on property prices is kind of nuts. You’ve encouraged a lot of investment in a dead asset, whereas that money could have gone into something that would increase output and genuine national wealth.
The commonwealth and the states really needed to cotton on to this issue perhaps 30-35 years ago and said, okay, we need to ensure that we release land and have zoning and development properties that provide a supply that will keep real estate prices increasing at a rate commensurate with the scale of the overall economy. This really would have been possible. Home prices were around 3 times average wage, and it would have been possible to keep them there, while still giving respectable returns on investments.
The problem is that they didn’t, and there isn’t any way to undo it without millions of people losing an enormous amount of money. Not all of them are the people who rode the wave. There are people who have just entered the real estate market, borrowing to within an inch of their lives to buy nondescript two bedroom flats in Penrith for $500 000. It’s tough to say to them “we need you to lose $200 000 overnight in the national interest”.
I think this will take a generation, 30 years or so, to sort out.
dv said:
I think Rev’s comment cuts to the very heart of the matter.Homes don’t actually produce anything, they aren’t a productive investment that leads to more overall wealth in any intrinsic sense: contrast them to farms or mines or factories or even software companies or light engineering firms, or even an investment in infrastructure that is going to help industry or keep our comms up to date with our competitors, whatever. They are just sort of there, and you need them so that you aren’t living outside.
To allow a “boom” based on property prices is kind of nuts. You’ve encouraged a lot of investment in a dead asset, whereas that money could have gone into something that would increase output and genuine national wealth.
The commonwealth and the states really needed to cotton on to this issue perhaps 30-35 years ago and said, okay, we need to ensure that we release land and have zoning and development properties that provide a supply that will keep real estate prices increasing at a rate commensurate with the scale of the overall economy. This really would have been possible. Home prices were around 3 times average wage, and it would have been possible to keep them there, while still giving respectable returns on investments.
The problem is that they didn’t, and there isn’t any way to undo it without millions of people losing an enormous amount of money. Not all of them are the people who rode the wave. There are people who have just entered the real estate market, borrowing to within an inch of their lives to buy nondescript two bedroom flats in Penrith for $500 000. It’s tough to say to them “we need you to lose $200 000 overnight in the national interest”.
I think this will take a generation, 30 years or so, to sort out.
It has taken a long time to sort out now. It is all about boom and bust really. There are those who see building houses as being a mainstay of the economy in Australia.
The Rev Dodgson said:
What actually happens to house prices is neither here nor there.
So where the fuck is it…
it’s everywhere, man.
On a train? In the rain?
dv said:
The problem is that they didn’t, and there isn’t any way to undo it without millions of people losing an enormous amount of money. Not all of them are the people who rode the wave. There are people who have just entered the real estate market, borrowing to within an inch of their lives to buy nondescript two bedroom flats in Penrith for $500 000. It’s tough to say to them “we need you to lose $200 000 overnight in the national interest”.
You could get a 1st quartile flat in Penrith for $394,000 back in September last year. Should be a good bit cheaper now.
Mind you, that’s still a heck of a lot for a crappy flat in Penrith.
dv said:
The Rev Dodgson said:What actually happens to house prices is neither here nor there.
So where the fuck is it…
nowhere because our houses cost us so much if we negatively geared them they would cost the nation billions.
ChrispenEvan said:
it’s everywhere, man.
it’s the vibe.
ChrispenEvan said:
that point has been raised in a number of articles on NG, DV.
So you’re saying I am not a ground breaking economist
When people do their numbers on NG, do they allow for the fact that if the loss isn’t claimed as a tax deduction at the time it occurs, it can be claimed as a deduction from the capital gain?
The Rev Dodgson said:
I suppose some might. But I really don’t profess to know that many people that well.
When people do their numbers on NG, do they allow for the fact that if the loss isn’t claimed as a tax deduction at the time it occurs, it can be claimed as a deduction from the capital gain?
Michael V said:
The Rev Dodgson said:I suppose some might. But I really don’t profess to know that many people that well.
When people do their numbers on NG, do they allow for the fact that if the loss isn’t claimed as a tax deduction at the time it occurs, it can be claimed as a deduction from the capital gain?
I’m practically a shut-in.
I’m practically a shut-in.
shouldn’t play-up when you go out, that last time….
dv said:
Michael V said:
The Rev Dodgson said:I suppose some might. But I really don’t profess to know that many people that well.
When people do their numbers on NG, do they allow for the fact that if the loss isn’t claimed as a tax deduction at the time it occurs, it can be claimed as a deduction from the capital gain?I’m practically a shut-in.
At least I’ve got a yard where at least the birds and lizards respect me.
dv said:
I think Rev’s comment cuts to the very heart of the matter.Homes don’t actually produce anything, they aren’t a productive investment that leads to more overall wealth in any intrinsic sense: contrast them to farms or mines or factories or even software companies or light engineering firms, or even an investment in infrastructure that is going to help industry or keep our comms up to date with our competitors, whatever. They are just sort of there, and you need them so that you aren’t living outside.
To allow a “boom” based on property prices is kind of nuts. You’ve encouraged a lot of investment in a dead asset, whereas that money could have gone into something that would increase output and genuine national wealth.
The commonwealth and the states really needed to cotton on to this issue perhaps 30-35 years ago and said, okay, we need to ensure that we release land and have zoning and development properties that provide a supply that will keep real estate prices increasing at a rate commensurate with the scale of the overall economy. This really would have been possible. Home prices were around 3 times average wage, and it would have been possible to keep them there, while still giving respectable returns on investments.
The problem is that they didn’t, and there isn’t any way to undo it without millions of people losing an enormous amount of money. Not all of them are the people who rode the wave. There are people who have just entered the real estate market, borrowing to within an inch of their lives to buy nondescript two bedroom flats in Penrith for $500 000. It’s tough to say to them “we need you to lose $200 000 overnight in the national interest”.
I think this will take a generation, 30 years or so, to sort out.
i was talking to a man from singapore for a number of days recently
he told me
please sit down before you read any further
the singaporean government is very rich, very rich and most land is owned by the government – when you buy land you are actually buying a 99 year lease from the government
if you step out of line you get whipped with a thin cane but things seems to be working out