He has followed up his rather violent sounding threat to "stiff-arm" thebanks with "I stand by the stance I took, which is to get very heavy-handed with the banks".
The fool just doesn't learn, does he?
On Monday, 4 April 2016 08:05:43 UTC+12, JohnO wrote:and it is so stupid even the Greens have dismissed it.
He has followed up his rather violent sounding threat to "stiff-arm" the banks with "I stand by the stance I took, which is to get very heavy-handed with the banks".
The fool just doesn't learn, does he?
Loved this bit:
"On Q+A, the Labour leader wouldn't be drawn on whether his position was pre-planned policy or off-the-cuff"
Well, if it was pre-planned he would have said so. It's obviously off the cuff
http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/little-wants-stiff-arm-banks-ck-187030
On Mon, 04 Apr 2016 08:09:29 +1000, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/little-wants-stiff-arm-banks-ck-187030
Certainly there is a need for some actoin; the most obvious is to
provide some real competition, but National prefer to see the banks
sending high profits to their Australian owners both when interest
rates are rising and when they are falling . . . Labour introduced a >>vehicle for providing competition - Kiwibank - but National have
carefully required that bank to put profits ahead of growing market
share to ensure that they do not rock the cosy boat - after all the >>steadily increasing government debt wuld only be worse if they didn't >>gouge profits where they can , , ,
National just hates real competition - why are you against it JohnO?
You do post some shit at time Rich.
Interest rates are very low.
Kiwi bank should be sold off.
There is no need for a government owned bank.
http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/little-wants-stiff-arm-banks-ck-187030
Certainly there is a need for some actoin; the most obvious is to
provide some real competition, but National prefer to see the banks
sending high profits to their Australian owners both when interest
rates are rising and when they are falling . . . Labour introduced a
vehicle for providing competition - Kiwibank - but National have
carefully required that bank to put profits ahead of growing market
share to ensure that they do not rock the cosy boat - after all the
steadily increasing government debt wuld only be worse if they didn't
gouge profits where they can , , ,
National just hates real competition - why are you against it JohnO?
On Sun, 3 Apr 2016 13:08:27 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Monday, 4 April 2016 08:05:43 UTC+12, JohnO wrote:
He has followed up his rather violent sounding threat to "stiff-arm" the banks with "I stand by the stance I took, which is to get very heavy-handed with the banks".
The fool just doesn't learn, does he?
Loved this bit:
"On Q+A, the Labour leader wouldn't be drawn on whether his position was pre-planned policy or off-the-cuff"
Well, if it was pre-planned he would have said so. It's obviously off the cuff and it is so stupid even the Greens have dismissed it.
http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/little-wants-stiff-arm-banks-ck-187030
Certainly there is a need for some actoin; the most obvious is to
provide some real competition, but National prefer to see the banks
sending high profits to their Australian owners both when interest
rates are rising and when they are falling . . . Labour introduced a
vehicle for providing competition - Kiwibank - but National have
carefully required that bank to put profits ahead of growing market
share to ensure that they do not rock the cosy boat - after all the
steadily increasing government debt wuld only be worse if they didn't
gouge profits where they can , , ,
National just hates real competition - why are you against it JohnO?
On Sun, 3 Apr 2016 13:08:27 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>banks with "I stand by the stance I took, which is to get very heavy-handed with the banks".
wrote:
On Monday, 4 April 2016 08:05:43 UTC+12, JohnO wrote:
He has followed up his rather violent sounding threat to "stiff-arm" the
pre-planned policy or off-the-cuff"
The fool just doesn't learn, does he?
Loved this bit:
"On Q+A, the Labour leader wouldn't be drawn on whether his position was
cuff and it is so stupid even the Greens have dismissed it.Well, if it was pre-planned he would have said so. It's obviously off the
http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/little-wants-stiff-arm-banks-ck-187030
Certainly there is a need for some actoin;
the most obvious is to
provide some real competition,
but National prefer to see the banks
sending high profits to their Australian owners both when interest
rates are rising and when they are falling . . . Labour introduced a
vehicle for providing competition - Kiwibank - but National have
carefully required that bank to put profits ahead of growing market
share to ensure that they do not rock the cosy boat - after all the
steadily increasing government debt wuld only be worse if they didn't
gouge profits where they can , , ,
National just hates real competition
- why are you against it JohnO?
On Sun, 3 Apr 2016 13:08:27 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Monday, 4 April 2016 08:05:43 UTC+12, JohnO wrote:
He has followed up his rather violent sounding threat to "stiff-arm" the >>>banks with "I stand by the stance I took, which is to get very heavy-handed >>>with the banks".
The fool just doesn't learn, does he?
Loved this bit:
"On Q+A, the Labour leader wouldn't be drawn on whether his position was >>pre-planned policy or off-the-cuff"
Well, if it was pre-planned he would have said so. It's obviously off the >>cuff and it is so stupid even the Greens have dismissed it.
http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/little-wants-stiff-arm-banks-ck-187030
Certainly there is a need for some actoin; the most obvious is toWhat? Why would they want that?
provide some real competition, but National prefer to see the banks
sending high profits to their Australian owners both when interest
rates are rising and when they are falling
. . . Labour introduced aWhat again? Kiwibank is nowhere near big enough to do more than provide a distraction for politicians; they no more influrncr the banking market than you influence this news group! Indeed all three NZ owned banks together are of no concern to the overseas banks. Whatever the reason Labour started Kiwibank it was not to introduce competition unless Labour were incompetent even back then!
vehicle for providing competition - Kiwibank
- but National haveThat has to be the most idiotic thing you have ever posted here (or anywhere?) there can be no cite for that - just supposition and desperation.
carefully required that bank to put profits ahead of growing market
share to ensure that they do not rock the cosy boat
- after all the
steadily increasing government debt wuld only be worse if they didn't
gouge profits where they can , , ,
National just hates real competitionNational are slightly right of centre and rely on business support and business loves competition. Duh!
- why are you against it JohnO?
National just hates real competition
Rich80105 wrote:
<snip>
National just hates real competition
What an unbelievably stupid assertion!
On 4/04/2016 10:09 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:banks with "I stand by the stance I took, which is to get very heavy-handed with the banks".
On Sun, 3 Apr 2016 13:08:27 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Monday, 4 April 2016 08:05:43 UTC+12, JohnO wrote:
He has followed up his rather violent sounding threat to "stiff-arm" the
pre-planned policy or off-the-cuff"
The fool just doesn't learn, does he?
Loved this bit:
"On Q+A, the Labour leader wouldn't be drawn on whether his position was
cuff and it is so stupid even the Greens have dismissed it.
Well, if it was pre-planned he would have said so. It's obviously off the
http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/little-wants-stiff-arm-banks-ck-187030
Certainly there is a need for some actoin; the most obvious is to
provide some real competition, but National prefer to see the banks
sending high profits to their Australian owners both when interest
rates are rising and when they are falling . . . Labour introduced a vehicle for providing competition - Kiwibank - but National have
carefully required that bank to put profits ahead of growing market
share to ensure that they do not rock the cosy boat - after all the steadily increasing government debt wuld only be worse if they didn't gouge profits where they can , , ,
National just hates real competition - why are you against it JohnO?
So you'd be quite happy to see intervention that would drop mortgage
rates and raise property prices? Wheeler wouldn't. The object for him
was to lower the $, and hope like hell it didn't fire up the property
market.
In article <ndsbn1$kdl$1@dont-email.me>, dryrot@hotmail.com says...
On 4/04/2016 10:09 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:
On Sun, 3 Apr 2016 13:08:27 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>So you'd be quite happy to see intervention that would drop mortgage
wrote:
On Monday, 4 April 2016 08:05:43 UTC+12, JohnO wrote:
He has followed up his rather violent sounding threat to "stiff-arm" the banks with "I stand by the stance I took, which is to get very heavy-handed with the banks".
The fool just doesn't learn, does he?
Loved this bit:
"On Q+A, the Labour leader wouldn't be drawn on whether his position was pre-planned policy or off-the-cuff"
Well, if it was pre-planned he would have said so. It's obviously off the cuff and it is so stupid even the Greens have dismissed it.
http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/little-wants-stiff-arm-banks-ck-187030
Certainly there is a need for some actoin; the most obvious is to
provide some real competition, but National prefer to see the banks
sending high profits to their Australian owners both when interest
rates are rising and when they are falling . . . Labour introduced a
vehicle for providing competition - Kiwibank - but National have
carefully required that bank to put profits ahead of growing market
share to ensure that they do not rock the cosy boat - after all the
steadily increasing government debt wuld only be worse if they didn't
gouge profits where they can , , ,
National just hates real competition - why are you against it JohnO?
rates and raise property prices? Wheeler wouldn't. The object for him
was to lower the $, and hope like hell it didn't fire up the property
market.
So, what has actually happened since Wheeler's last OCR reduction?
Here's what:
http://tinyurl.com/jpsa8kf
Meanwhile, as Europe's subsidised farmers fire up their subsidised
milking parlours, here's how NZ's life-blood commodity is looking just
now:
On 4/4/2016 3:37 PM, -Newsman- wrote:the banks with "I stand by the stance I took, which is to get very heavy-handed
In article <ndsbn1$kdl$1@dont-email.me>, dryrot@hotmail.com says...
On 4/04/2016 10:09 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:
On Sun, 3 Apr 2016 13:08:27 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Monday, 4 April 2016 08:05:43 UTC+12, JohnO wrote:
He has followed up his rather violent sounding threat to "stiff-arm"
pre-planned policy or off-the-cuff"
The fool just doesn't learn, does he?
Loved this bit:
"On Q+A, the Labour leader wouldn't be drawn on whether his position was
the cuff and it is so stupid even the Greens have dismissed it.
Well, if it was pre-planned he would have said so. It's obviously off
So you'd be quite happy to see intervention that would drop mortgage
http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/little-wants-stiff-arm-banks-ck-187030
Certainly there is a need for some actoin; the most obvious is to
provide some real competition, but National prefer to see the banks
sending high profits to their Australian owners both when interest
rates are rising and when they are falling . . . Labour introduced a
vehicle for providing competition - Kiwibank - but National have
carefully required that bank to put profits ahead of growing market
share to ensure that they do not rock the cosy boat - after all the
steadily increasing government debt wuld only be worse if they didn't >>> gouge profits where they can , , ,
National just hates real competition - why are you against it JohnO?
rates and raise property prices? Wheeler wouldn't. The object for him
was to lower the $, and hope like hell it didn't fire up the property
market.
So, what has actually happened since Wheeler's last OCR reduction?
Here's what:
http://tinyurl.com/jpsa8kf
Meanwhile, as Europe's subsidised farmers fire up their subsidised
milking parlours, here's how NZ's life-blood commodity is looking just
now:
Tourism is doing very well thank you for asking
Liberty wrote:
On Mon, 04 Apr 2016 08:09:29 +1000, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/little-wants-stiff-arm-banks-ck-187030
Certainly there is a need for some actoin; the most obvious is to
provide some real competition, but National prefer to see the banks >>>sending high profits to their Australian owners both when interest
rates are rising and when they are falling . . . Labour introduced a >>>vehicle for providing competition - Kiwibank - but National have >>>carefully required that bank to put profits ahead of growing market
share to ensure that they do not rock the cosy boat - after all the >>>steadily increasing government debt wuld only be worse if they didn't >>>gouge profits where they can , , ,
National just hates real competition - why are you against it JohnO?
You do post some shit at time Rich.
Interest rates are very low.
Kiwi bank should be sold off.
There is no need for a government owned bank.
Agreed. A commercial operation like a bank should not be funded through >compulsory payments from taxpayers.
http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/little-wants-stiff-arm-banks-ck-187030
Certainly there is a need for some actoin; the most obvious is to
provide some real competition, but National prefer to see the banks
sending high profits to their Australian owners both when interest
rates are rising and when they are falling . . . Labour introduced a
vehicle for providing competition - Kiwibank - but National have
carefully required that bank to put profits ahead of growing market
share to ensure that they do not rock the cosy boat - after all the
steadily increasing government debt wuld only be worse if they didn't
gouge profits where they can , , ,
National just hates real competition - why are you against it JohnO?
On Mon, 04 Apr 2016 12:04:01 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Liberty wrote:
On Mon, 04 Apr 2016 08:09:29 +1000, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/little-wants-stiff-arm-banks-ck-187030
Certainly there is a need for some actoin; the most obvious is to >>>>provide some real competition, but National prefer to see the banks >>>>sending high profits to their Australian owners both when interest >>>>rates are rising and when they are falling . . . Labour introduced a >>>>vehicle for providing competition - Kiwibank - but National have >>>>carefully required that bank to put profits ahead of growing market >>>>share to ensure that they do not rock the cosy boat - after all the >>>>steadily increasing government debt wuld only be worse if they didn't >>>>gouge profits where they can , , ,
National just hates real competition - why are you against it JohnO?
You do post some shit at time Rich.
Interest rates are very low.
Kiwi bank should be sold off.
There is no need for a government owned bank.
Agreed. A commercial operation like a bank should not be funded through >>compulsory payments from taxpayers.
where did you get that idea from, Allistar?
I certainly didn't suggest
any funding of a bank - investment is a very different matter
On Mon, 04 Apr 2016 12:04:01 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Liberty wrote:
On Mon, 04 Apr 2016 08:09:29 +1000, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/little-wants-stiff-arm-banks-ck-187030
Certainly there is a need for some actoin; the most obvious is to >>>>provide some real competition, but National prefer to see the banks >>>>sending high profits to their Australian owners both when interest >>>>rates are rising and when they are falling . . . Labour introduced a >>>>vehicle for providing competition - Kiwibank - but National have >>>>carefully required that bank to put profits ahead of growing market >>>>share to ensure that they do not rock the cosy boat - after all the >>>>steadily increasing government debt wuld only be worse if they didn't >>>>gouge profits where they can , , ,
National just hates real competition - why are you against it JohnO?
You do post some shit at time Rich.
Interest rates are very low.
Kiwi bank should be sold off.
There is no need for a government owned bank.
Agreed. A commercial operation like a bank should not be funded through >>compulsory payments from taxpayers.
where did you get that idea from, Allistar? I certainly didn't suggest
any funding of a bank - investment is a very different matter
On Sun, 3 Apr 2016 13:08:27 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Monday, 4 April 2016 08:05:43 UTC+12, JohnO wrote:
He has followed up his rather violent sounding threat to "stiff-arm" the banks with "I stand by the stance I took, which is to get very heavy-handed with the banks".
The fool just doesn't learn, does he?
Loved this bit:
"On Q+A, the Labour leader wouldn't be drawn on whether his position was pre-planned policy or off-the-cuff"
Well, if it was pre-planned he would have said so. It's obviously off the cuff and it is so stupid even the Greens have dismissed it.
http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/little-wants-stiff-arm-banks-ck-187030
Certainly there is a need for some actoin; the most obvious is to
provide some real competition, but National prefer to see the banks
sending high profits to their Australian owners both when interest
rates are rising and when they are falling . . . Labour introduced a
vehicle for providing competition - Kiwibank - but National have
carefully required that bank to put profits ahead of growing market
share to ensure that they do not rock the cosy boat - after all the
steadily increasing government debt wuld only be worse if they didn't
gouge profits where they can , , ,
National just hates real competition - why are you against it JohnO?
On Mon, 04 Apr 2016 12:04:01 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:
Liberty wrote:
On Mon, 04 Apr 2016 08:09:29 +1000, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/little-wants-stiff-arm-banks-ck-187030
Certainly there is a need for some actoin; the most obvious is to >>>>provide some real competition, but National prefer to see the banks >>>>sending high profits to their Australian owners both when interest >>>>rates are rising and when they are falling . . . Labour introduced a >>>>vehicle for providing competition - Kiwibank - but National have >>>>carefully required that bank to put profits ahead of growing market >>>>share to ensure that they do not rock the cosy boat - after all the >>>>steadily increasing government debt wuld only be worse if they didn't >>>>gouge profits where they can , , ,
National just hates real competition - why are you against it JohnO?
You do post some shit at time Rich.
Interest rates are very low.
Kiwi bank should be sold off.
There is no need for a government owned bank.
Agreed. A commercial operation like a bank should not be funded through >>compulsory payments from taxpayers.
where did you get that idea from, Allistar? I certainly didn't suggest
any funding of a bank - investment is a very different matter
On Monday, 4 April 2016 08:05:43 UTC+12, JohnO wrote:
He has followed up his rather violent sounding threat to "stiff-arm" the
banks with "I stand by the stance I took, which is to get very
heavy-handed with the banks".
The fool just doesn't learn, does he?
Loved this bit:
"On Q+A, the Labour leader wouldn't be drawn on whether his position was pre-planned policy or off-the-cuff"
Well, if it was pre-planned he would have said so. It's obviously off the cuff and it is so stupid even the Greens have dismissed it.
http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/little-wants-stiff-arm-banks-ck-187030
Rich80105 wrote:
<snip>
National just hates real competition
What an unbelievably stupid assertion!
| Sysop: | sneaky |
|---|---|
| Location: | Ashburton,NZ |
| Users: | 31 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 188:14:58 |
| Calls: | 2,081 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 11,137 |
| Messages: | 947,666 |