Generation Stupid -- Yep, it is as it appears to be...

[Coito ergo sum]

Note also that the recent Economist survey rated NZ at the 7th best place in the world to live, ahead of the USA at 16th.

With the US, it depends where in the US. We have 330,000,000 people hear -- and we're a pretty big country -- like 3rd or 4th biggest in the world. And, these "best places to live in the world" tend to have criteria that are a bit dodgy. What does it mean "best place in the world to live?" I'd like to see the criteria -- any bets on whether "nationalized health care" is on the list?

But, in any case, i have no doubt that NZ is an awesome place to live. It looks absolutely amazing and picturesque - beautiful -- and the people I've met from there seem nice. I'd bet it's a great place to live too, regardless of where it falls on the rankings or in comparison to the US.

[Blind groper]

Those surveys always involve a lot of subjective assessments, and if a similar survey was done today by a different bunch, we can expect different results.

But it sounds good.

[MrJonno]

With the US, it depends where in the US. We have 330,000,000 people hear -- and we're a pretty big country -- like 3rd or 4th biggest in the world. And, these "best places to live in the world" tend to have criteria that are a bit dodgy. What does it mean "best place in the world to live?" I'd like to see the criteria -- any bets on whether "nationalized health care" is on the list?

I would hope so, I judge a country on how the botton 1% live not the top 1% for the quite simple reason that even through I'm relatively middle class I'm far more likely to end up in the bottom 1% than the top 1%. Any serious disease can send your economic standing down very fast and I want to know I will still at least have proper health care when my bank account shows zero.

Followed by health care, I would look at affordable housing (not very good in the UK), followed by public transport (excellent to poor but I wouldnt live anywhere in the UK without at least one bus every 10 minutes with 400 metres of my door), then we are on to welfare state and worker rights (average ish really compared to the rest of Europe), lack of public firearms (I would emmigrate if my neighbour ever got one). Then on to culture and other public services. After that start worrying about the economy , unemployment etc

[Coito ergo sum]

With the US, it depends where in the US. We have 330,000,000 people hear -- and we're a pretty big country -- like 3rd or 4th biggest in the world. And, these "best places to live in the world" tend to have criteria that are a bit dodgy. What does it mean "best place in the world to live?" I'd like to see the criteria -- any bets on whether "nationalized health care" is on the list?

I would hope so, I judge a country on how the botton 1% live not the top 1%

Well, in the US the bottom of the barrel live much better than in most other countries. We would definitely be in the top 10. The standard of living here in the US is excellent. The places where it's important not to be poor are, say, Russia, most of eastern Europe, all of South America, Africa, China, India, all the 'stans, any "Muslim country", Mexico, Central America, the Caribbean, etc. -- the US is in line with western Europe, Canada, and Oz/NZ.

[

for the quite simple reason that even through I'm relatively middle class I'm far more likely to end up in the bottom 1% than the top 1%. Any serious disease can send your economic standing down very fast and I want to know I will still at least have proper health care when my bank account shows zero.

Followed by health care, I would look at affordable housing (not very good in the UK), followed by public transport (excellent to poor but I wouldnt live anywhere in the UK without at least one bus every 10 minutes with 400 metres of my door), then we are on to welfare state and worker rights (average ish really compared to the rest of Europe), lack of public firearms (I would emmigrate if my neighbour ever got one). Then on to culture and other public services. After that start worrying about the economy , unemployment etc

We have great health care here, and the bottom 1% get the same care as the vast bulk of the population. Medicaid/SCHIP and the like cover everything, no deductibles, etc.

Public transport in the US can't be like it is in England. You're a blip on the map. We have great public transportation in New York City and Chicago, but when you have people living all across a giant country, you cant have trains passing by within 10 minutes of 150,000,000 houses every hour.

The problem with saving economy/unemployment for the end is that the economy is what pays for all things you listed previously.

[laklak]

Mrs. Lak loved NZ, would move there in a heartbeat. I haven't been, but it's on my list.

The "best place to live" things are too subjective to be worth much. Mrs. Lak's mum is still in Swaziland, probably won't ever leave. 2nd worst economy in the world after Southern Sudan, but you can live very, very well on not a lot of dosh. Till they decide to kill da honkeys.

[MrJonno]

The problem with saving economy/unemployment for the end is that the economy is what pays for all things you listed previously.

True but as Churchill said when asked why he was increasing the arts budget on the brink of being invaded, said to remind people of what we are actually fighting for

[Coito ergo sum]

The problem with saving economy/unemployment for the end is that the economy is what pays for all things you listed previously.

True but as Churchill said when asked why he was increasing the arts budget on the brink of being invaded, said to remind people of what we are actually fighting for

Shouldn't the UK just have capitulated anyway? Agreeing to fascist rule would have save hundreds of thousands of lives, and avoided a war, and then all the people would have been taken care of by the State. Seems like that would have been the easiest and least bloody way out. If nobody resisted, and everyone just followed instructions, the Germans would have let the British people go on living much the way they had before....

[Cormac]

Terrific

3. causing terror; terrifying.

This is what came directly to my mind too.

[Cormac]

Boy I tell you, these kids today, with their hair and their clothes...

I try to be mindful of the fact that every generation says the same shit about the newer generations. But, the evidence does seem to be mounting that this latest batch of kids born from, like, the late 1980s on, have been coddled to the extreme and are not well educated or disciplined.

The main point though, is that children are the products of the environment created for them by their parents and by society. If kids are coming out of college ignorant, lazy, and with an inflated notion of themselves, then we can turn and look at their parents for the cause,

The kids can't be blamed for it. They are going to experience a few years of "adjustment" as the real world disabuses them of the notions put into them by parents and an idiotic teaching environment.

[Cormac]

Wow. That's rock bottom alright. Out here houses usually come with land (private land being a limited commodity round here), you can get a little house with 500 acres, usually half of it is forest, for something in the neighbourhood of $2,000,000. The only property I know of that's for sale with only 15 acres is going for $350,000. Where I came from (SE Ontario), you could get a town house with a 200sq ft shared lawn for about $250,000.

500 acres for 2million? You could pay for that property simply by thinning the forestry!

[Cormac]

Much easier here than in the UK, mrjonno. Property values are low due to the crash and if banks aren't lending then private mortgage companies are, albeit at a higher interest rate. A young couple moved into our neighborhood about 6 months ago, got a 3 bedroom, 2 bath home on 1/3 acre for $69,000, about 43000 GBP. The house was livable but needed upgrading, they've been putting a lot of sweat equity in and it's probably worth 140,000 or so now. Not a bad deal, wish I'd bought the place when it came on the market. They had to come up with 10,000 down, but that's certainly doable on two salaries with a bit of self discipline. As for job security, that's never existed and never will, not here or in the UK. They'll find a way to get rid of you if they want to, it just takes a bit longer over there.

Confused financial crash due to dodgy loans so why are banks still lending that easily?

The crash wasn't so much due to the dodgy loans, as the securitised books comprised of those loans (aka Collateralised Debt Obligations in the USA). Mortgages were shifted off the banks very rapidly - so the banks didn't carry the risk (or so the theory went), and were able to re-lend again into the market with the proceeds of sale of the CDOs. Generally, CDOs are a very attractive option for institutions that need long term stable income, such as pension funds. CDOs are a brilliant concept - provided that the mortgages in them have been underwritten properly, and the mortgagors have been truthful about their true income, and the banks have not been stupid in the Loan to Value provided. Unfortunately, this is not what happened.

The liquidity problem arose because CDOs were allowed to be used by the Basel Regulatiosn as "Tier 1" capital, considered to be of the same liquidity and reliability as cash. Therefore, banks also bought into CDOS. Unfortunately, when the arse fell out of the property market, it turned out that this supposedly Tier 1 capital was worthless - and could not be converted into anywhere near as much cash as the banks needed to shore up their portfolios. When short term debts came due - banks were unable to pay because they had insufficient liquid assets.

Hence the need for recapitalisation by public money.

[Jason]

That's often how they advertise it, but forestry is strictly regulated here. You have to apply for rights to forest a certain area of your land, which is decided by some guy with a degree who works for the forestry service. You have a quota you cannot exceed, stumpage fees to pay, etc.. In theory it could pay for itself in 10-15 years, but probably more like 20-25 when you factor in the cost of foresting it. There's more money in open land and running cattle TBH.

The clever ranchers have found a neat loophole in the system. Most of the land around here is crown property, but you can lease a small part of it for farming. They do that, but convenient fail to fence it properly and let their cattle roam about.

[Cormac]

With the US, it depends where in the US. We have 330,000,000 people hear -- and we're a pretty big country -- like 3rd or 4th biggest in the world. And, these "best places to live in the world" tend to have criteria that are a bit dodgy. What does it mean "best place in the world to live?" I'd like to see the criteria -- any bets on whether "nationalized health care" is on the list?

I would hope so, I judge a country on how the botton 1% live not the top 1% for the quite simple reason that even through I'm relatively middle class I'm far more likely to end up in the bottom 1% than the top 1%. Any serious disease can send your economic standing down very fast and I want to know I will still at least have proper health care when my bank account shows zero.

Followed by health care, I would look at affordable housing (not very good in the UK), followed by public transport (excellent to poor but I wouldnt live anywhere in the UK without at least one bus every 10 minutes with 400 metres of my door), then we are on to welfare state and worker rights (average ish really compared to the rest of Europe), lack of public firearms (I would emmigrate if my neighbour ever got one). Then on to culture and other public services. After that start worrying about the economy , unemployment etc

Relatively, Britain has one of the best public transport systems in the world.

Having worked in the UK for a few years, I'm always astonished to hear people complain continuously about it. My experience of it is that it is an amazingly brilliant infrastructure and one of the true jewels of modern Britain. It isn't perfect - but nothing is. And for such an amazingly complex human endeavour, it seems to me, that on average, miracles are achieved on a daily basis.

[Cormac]

That's often how they advertise it, but forestry is strictly regulated here. You have to apply for rights to forest a certain area of your land, which is decided by some guy with a degree who works for the forestry service. You have a quota you cannot exceed, stumpage fees to pay, etc.. In theory it could pay for itself in 10-15 years, but probably more like 20-25 when you factor in the cost of foresting it. There's more money in open land and running cattle TBH.

The clever ranchers have found a neat loophole in the system. Most of the land around here is crown property, but you can lease a small part of it for farming. They do that, but convenient fail to fence it properly and let their cattle roam about.

I figured there'd be regulations on forestry. But for forests to develop properly, excess growth needs to be thinned out about every 10 years or so (or so I'm given to understand - Woodbutcher may clarify and demonstrate that I'm entirely wrong!).

But 250 acres of 10/20 year growth is a significant amount of timber, I'd have thought...

[JimC]

Well, I've taught senior maths and physics at the same school for 35 years, now, so that at least gives me a perspective on the performance and attitude of 15 - 18 year old boys here in Oz over a considerable time. In most aspects, I genuinely don't see major changes. They are perhaps a little more reluctant to do some of the boring, repetitive (but necessary) hard study, but they are perhaps a little better at thinking outside the square. But really, on average, no major, significant changes that I can see...