Discussion Random Discussion

[SaintsSeptember]

Because i'm bored and its not footy season yet i was wondering what would have happened if the Saints had completely stopped trading in 2002 and took the next player of similar type instead. ( based on where they actually went in the draft ).

Came up with:
Barry Brooks, Jay Schulz
Luke Penny , Tom Lonergan
Gram and Guerra : Nothing ( Maybe Adcock if lucky).
Black for Fiora ... no choice.
Fergus Watts, Cleve Hughs.
Gardiner , Daniel Currie - Depends
Birss , Nothing
Schneider/Dempster , Merideth.
King/Gardiner , Nothing
Ray , Liam Shiels
Lovett , Bastinac ( like to say Fyfe ).
Peake , Probably nothing.
_____________________
So its clear if we'd done that, we'd not have made finals in 2009/10.

BUT if we now do it where we only avoid the big trades, and take the low risk options.

Brooks out Schulz in. Affect in 2004/5 Affect in 2009/2010 Hard to say ( same structure). Affect now zero. conclusion. Might have stopped the spoon.
Penny out Lonergan in. Affect in 2004/5 Negative. Affect in 2009/2010 Positive. Affect now zero. May have helped win a flag.
Gram out. Affect in 2004/5 Minimal. Affect in 2009/2010 massive negative. Affect now zero. V
Keep Guerra. Affect in 2004/5 negative ( should have kept him though ). Affect now zero.
Keep Fiora . total affect negative.
Watts trade. Total affect neutral.
Keep Gardiner
Birss.
Keep Scheider/Dempster ( obviously positive ).
Keep King.
Ray out Liam Shiels in. Affect in 09/10 negative. Affect now positive.
Lovett out Bastinac in. Affect in 2010. Enough to win a final. Affect now , still positive.
Peake stays in.
______________________________
So the only big trades that have really helped us ( ie giving up a 2nd rounder or more for a single player ).
Gram. ( the year we got out of Penny was not worth it ), and Farren Ray.

We have not made any decent trades that gave up first rounders.

If we'd avoided first round trades we are no worse off.

 

[gringo2011]

One farmer ends up eventually owning all the cows and then controls the price of milk!

What is interesting is your inferred notion of wealth and happiness. I have been raised in a different culture, which is not communist but communal. I hail from a very remote part of Fiji. As such I have family who have lived 60 years and never earned a dollar in their life, never been through a westernised educational system, never driven a car, nor owned a mobile phone or a computer. They are happy, healthy, eat all their favorite foods, watch movies, drink too much, fish and farm for large sections of the day, are surrounded by family, respected by the community and experience all the emotional highs and lows that life throws at you. They are a lot less insulated against things like cyclones, droughts, mosquito borne diseases, coral bleaching, rising sea levels and bad government. But almost totally insulated against the price of oil, unemployment, the cost of education, the quality of the internet connection, etc.

If you ask them if they are happier than your typical Australian they will say they cannot possibly be happier than someone who has more options and choices at their doorstep. But who's to say?

Yep, there is actually a peak happiness when you get enough and it doesn't improve no matter how much more you earn. I left the corporate system and work for myself and don't earn as much but I am a million times happier.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

One farmer ends up eventually owning all the cows and then controls the price of milk!

What is interesting is your inferred notion of wealth and happiness. I have been raised in a different culture, which is not communist but communal. I hail from a very remote part of Fiji. As such I have family who have lived 60 years and never earned a dollar in their life, never been through a westernised educational system, never driven a car, nor owned a mobile phone or a computer. They are happy, healthy, eat all their favorite foods, watch movies, drink too much, fish and farm for large sections of the day, are surrounded by family, respected by the community and experience all the emotional highs and lows that life throws at you. They are a lot less insulated against things like cyclones, droughts, mosquito borne diseases, coral bleaching, rising sea levels and bad government. But almost totally insulated against the price of oil, unemployment, the cost of education, the quality of the internet connection, etc.

If you ask them if they are happier than your typical Australian they will say they cannot possibly be happier than someone who has more options and choices at their doorstep. But who's to say?

I'd say as a kid i was happier than my kids are. My parents were saving to start a business and buy a home, we didn't have much food variety or take away, all of my toys fit under 2/3/of a bed because there were three beds in the room ( bunk ). I stuffed around outside with a neighbour a lot and got smacked if i did bad stuff.
I don't remember being an unhappy kid at all.

The only thing is if one of your Fiji kids sucks at fishing, but happens to be a mathematical prodigy he may not realise his chances, and malaria sucks. But yes communal living could be great. I don't know how you could do that for everyone though.

The thing about the farmer , the one who recognises that its best to have only 3 cows and does the right thing will lose out. Because there is always going to be at least one arseh*le.

Go to Hong Kong, you don't see an idyllic existence on the beach. Yes we can support/house/feed more and more people, its possible , but i don't think its good. Population growth is the real problem.
I don't consider your family poor.
I'd consider them poor if they couldn't get enough food/drink/farmland/fish or if there were too many people fighting over those things.

 

[CursingFijian]

I'd say as a kid i was happier than my kids are. My parents were saving to start a business and buy a home, we didn't have much food variety or take away, all of my toys fit under 2/3/of a bed because there were three beds in the room ( bunk ). I stuffed around outside with a neighbour a lot and got smacked if i did bad stuff.
I don't remember being an unhappy kid at all.

The only thing is if one of your Fiji kids sucks at fishing, but happens to be a mathematical prodigy he may not realise his chances, and malaria sucks. But yes communal living could be great. I don't know how you could do that for everyone though.

The thing about the farmer , the one who recognises that its best to have only 3 cows and does the right thing will lose out. Because there is always going to be at least one arseh*le.

Go to Hong Kong, you don't see an idyllic existence on the beach. Yes we can support/house/feed more and more people, its possible , but i don't think its good. Population growth is the real problem.
I don't consider your family poor.
I'd consider them poor if they couldn't get enough food/drink/farmland/fish or if there were too many people fighting over those things.

Population growth is not the problem, it is symptomatic of the problem. The problem is consumption, and how we derive status, wealth and 'happiness' from it.

 

[pebblesofsand]

Victoria's most disgraceful sell out was the Fisherman's bend development. We sold a huge parcel of public land to guys who paid huge party donations and they were sold the land at a bargain price. The government is then going to pay more for some of the land to supply their infrastructure for more than they paid for the original land. We are literally going to supply their development with trams, schools etc and to give them that we have to buy the scraps of land back from them that was already ours. And we will pay more for the scraps than the entire land pocket. In other countries people would be in jail.

Gringo - did you see this piece of news - wonder whether Matthew got a cut!!!

http://www.theage.com.au/business/p...elbourne-apartments-site-20170124-gtxnkd.html

The price to buy back any land at Fishermans Bend for incidental things like parks or schools has just gone through the roof.

 

[gringo2011]

I'd say as a kid i was happier than my kids are. My parents were saving to start a business and buy a home, we didn't have much food variety or take away, all of my toys fit under 2/3/of a bed because there were three beds in the room ( bunk ). I stuffed around outside with a neighbour a lot and got smacked if i did bad stuff.
I don't remember being an unhappy kid at all.

The only thing is if one of your Fiji kids sucks at fishing, but happens to be a mathematical prodigy he may not realise his chances, and malaria sucks. But yes communal living could be great. I don't know how you could do that for everyone though.

The thing about the farmer , the one who recognises that its best to have only 3 cows and does the right thing will lose out. Because there is always going to be at least one arseh*le.

Go to Hong Kong, you don't see an idyllic existence on the beach. Yes we can support/house/feed more and more people, its possible , but i don't think its good. Population growth is the real problem.
I don't consider your family poor.
I'd consider them poor if they couldn't get enough food/drink/farmland/fish or if there were too many people fighting over those things.

I have a cousin who works managing projects for the UN and he's lived all over the world and he finds it hard to be in Melbourne these days. He's lived in Vanuatu, Solomon Islands and heaps of others and he loves living in those communities and working with people who have less and have a better lifestyle and attitude.

Anyway I read a book called Sapiens a while ago and the author suggests that moving from hunter gatherer to agrarian as a species has helped us breed in huge numbers and iron out risk but have lost a lot of the freedoms.

 

[Plumber66]

Population growth is not the problem, it is symptomatic of the problem. The problem is consumption, and how we derive status, wealth and 'happiness' from it.

Snap!

 

[Plumber66]

Greed is not a good thing. But it is a thing. You can't make it go away by saying its bad.
Sharing is not all wonderful either.
If you think everyone should share, well sharing our wealth with the billions of poorer people in the rest of the world is not going to put you in a happy place either.
I'm interested in your plan for how you think it should all work.
________________________________
There is a single paddock shared by four farmers.
If they put 12 cows on the paddock each cow will produce 8 litres of milk for the farmer to sell.
If they put 16 cows on the paddock each cow will produce 4 litres of milk for the farmer to sell.
If they put 13 cows each cow will produce 7 litres 14 -6 15-5

The farmers start with 3 cows each, but every month a man travels to town with a cow to sell if someone wants to buy it.
What happens?
_________________________________

How the heck would you know what would put me in a happier place.

Your argument is based on the premise that happiness can be attained.

Happiness is a state of being as far as I am concerned.

We have the highest levels of wealth and yet all those "unhappy" problems still exist.

Go figure.

The system is sick and as long as people allow marketing to define who they should be, how they should look and so on, nothing will change.

 

[sunny3193]

20 January 2017 is henceforth to be called "National Day of Patriotic Devotion" according to Trump's White House website.
Sounds like something plagiarised from the N Korean Happy Family Smiling Face Handbook for Underlings.
Sad!

Go here:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...-day-of-patriotic-devotion-echoes-north-korea

 

[SaintsSeptember]

How the heck would you know what would put me in a happier place.

Your argument is based on the premise that happiness can be attained.

Happiness is a state of being as far as I am concerned.

We have the highest levels of wealth and yet all those "unhappy" problems still exist.

Go figure.

The system is sick and as long as people allow marketing to define who they should be, how they should look and so on, nothing will change.

you are measuring wealth in currency.
If you earn 200 000 a year , and have a million dollar house , and spend all your salary on food, rates, childcare , food etc, you may not be better off than someone in china that you consider poor. Unless you want to buy IPODs.

 

[gringo2011]

Gringo - did you see this piece of news - wonder whether Matthew got a cut!!!

http://www.theage.com.au/business/p...elbourne-apartments-site-20170124-gtxnkd.html

The price to buy back any land at Fishermans Bend for incidental things like parks or schools has just gone through the roof.

I never saw that but doesn't surprise me. A couple of my wifes friends who are in the labour party and they are pretty friendly with a lot of politicians on both side of politics. They have nothing good to say about Matthew Guy and there is definitely an unspoken suggestion that he's a bit dodgy and not a very nice guy.

 

[Persevering Saint]

Population growth is not the problem, it is symptomatic of the problem. The problem is consumption, and how we derive status, wealth and 'happiness' from it.

One of my favourite discussions of this very point is this, by Louis CK.

"Everything is Amazing, and Nobody is Happy".


I actually watch this about once a month as a spiritual discipline. I showed it at church a couple of weeks ago.

 

[gringo2011]

One of my favourite discussions of this very point is this, by Louis CK.

"Everything is Amazing, and Nobody is Happy".


I actually watch this about once a month as a spiritual discipline. I showed it at church a couple of weeks ago.

Yeah I've seen that before. The funny thing about him though is his comedy show went from humour to some kind of depressing soap opera. He's stopped looking out for what is amazing.

I saw an article the other day saying that most of the publics perception in the US is wrong and their economy and general safety is actually very good. It's the people left out there that are angry though an it's coincided with Americans finding out they aren't the righteous world sheriff they once believed themselves to be.

 

[Plumber66]

you are measuring wealth in currency.
If you earn 200 000 a year , and have a million dollar house , and spend all your salary on food, rates, childcare , food etc, you may not be better off than someone in china that you consider poor. Unless you want to buy IPODs.

I should have said living standards instead of wealth.

Incomes are high and the price of goods are crazy low.

The paradox is that we work longer hours to maintain consumption on stuff that we perceive will make us happy and at the same time impoverish ourselves in other areas of life.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

I should have said living standards instead of wealth.

Incomes are high and the price of goods are crazy low.

The paradox is that we work longer hours to maintain consumption on stuff that we perceive will make us happy and at the same time impoverish ourselves in other areas of life.

Australia went from a society that went from a single income earner to double.
It had a lot of advantages.
Didn't need to pay for childcare.
actually got to spend a lot of time with your own children.
a safety net, if things got tough, the stay at home partner "could" get a job.

In the transition period most of the extra income went onto housing prices.
"Yuppies" as they were called snatched up a lot of the auctions.

Now if you want to buy a house you NEED that second income. In fact you pretty much need it to rent one.

Our economy is service oriented.

The "high standard of living" is calculated on how cheap TV's etc are. But these are cheap because they are being made cheaper.
But the things that are getting harder are things like taking a family out for dinner, a movie. ( i blame the price of movies through roadshow monopoly for the high rate of internet piracy in australia ).
Or are we talking about the GDP per capita, in which case i'm still waiting for Gina Rhinheart to give me my share.

Some people think the government should pay their childcare, because they can't afford it after the mortgage on their million dollar house.

 

[Mowman]

Australia went from a society that went from a single income earner to double.
It had a lot of advantages.
Didn't need to pay for childcare.
actually got to spend a lot of time with your own children.
a safety net, if things got tough, the stay at home partner "could" get a job.

In the transition period most of the extra income went onto housing prices.
"Yuppies" as they were called snatched up a lot of the auctions.

Now if you want to buy a house you NEED that second income. In fact you pretty much need it to rent one.

Our economy is service oriented.

The "high standard of living" is calculated on how cheap TV's etc are. But these are cheap because they are being made cheaper.
But the things that are getting harder are things like taking a family out for dinner, a movie. ( i blame the price of movies through roadshow monopoly for the high rate of internet piracy in australia ).
Or are we talking about the GDP per capita, in which case i'm still waiting for Gina Rhinheart to give me my share.

Some people think the government should pay their childcare, because they can't afford it after the mortgage on their million dollar house.

Think that's the problem everyone thinks they are owed something by someone IMO.

 

[crasha301]

Australia went from a society that went from a single income earner to double.
It had a lot of advantages.
Didn't need to pay for childcare.
actually got to spend a lot of time with your own children.
a safety net, if things got tough, the stay at home partner "could" get a job.

In the transition period most of the extra income went onto housing prices.
"Yuppies" as they were called snatched up a lot of the auctions.

Now if you want to buy a house you NEED that second income. In fact you pretty much need it to rent one.

Our economy is service oriented.

The "high standard of living" is calculated on how cheap TV's etc are. But these are cheap because they are being made cheaper.
But the things that are getting harder are things like taking a family out for dinner, a movie. ( i blame the price of movies through roadshow monopoly for the high rate of internet piracy in australia ).
Or are we talking about the GDP per capita, in which case i'm still waiting for Gina Rhinheart to give me my share.

Some people think the government should pay their childcare, because they can't afford it after the mortgage on their million dollar house.

Hence the reason i moved to the country, cheap cheap.

 

[Plumber66]

Australia went from a society that went from a single income earner to double.
It had a lot of advantages.
Didn't need to pay for childcare.
actually got to spend a lot of time with your own children.
a safety net, if things got tough, the stay at home partner "could" get a job.

In the transition period most of the extra income went onto housing prices.
"Yuppies" as they were called snatched up a lot of the auctions.

Now if you want to buy a house you NEED that second income. In fact you pretty much need it to rent one.

Our economy is service oriented.

The "high standard of living" is calculated on how cheap TV's etc are. But these are cheap because they are being made cheaper.
But the things that are getting harder are things like taking a family out for dinner, a movie. ( i blame the price of movies through roadshow monopoly for the high rate of internet piracy in australia ).
Or are we talking about the GDP per capita, in which case i'm still waiting for Gina Rhinheart to give me my share.

Some people think the government should pay their childcare, because they can't afford it after the mortgage on their million dollar house.

Correct.

As Tim Costello stated: people confuse high cost of living with the high cost of an indulgent lifestyle.

The industrial revolution is over for developed economies such as ours. It moves to countries with low wages.

My old man was in awe when they got a house with an inside toilet.

People's expectations of what constitutes a comfortable living standard have grown exponentially over the last 30 years.

Whilst I defend everyone's right to aspire to a certain lifestyle, the question is if it's worth it.

Like you say, 2 incomes, child care, 2 cars and so on. How much do we really need?

It all adds up to longer working hours and for what?

The guy that set up Walmart pretty much said to his son on his deathbed: I have failed. He was referring that his devotion to his business meant he missed out on raising his family.

The problem as I see it is as follows:

Big corporations are purely profit driven and no longer community minded. Look at our banks, obscene profits yet still slash jobs. Will a big tax cut somehow make them employ more people? Lol.

Too much "you can have it all and have it" going on with consumers.

Then you have a tax system that rewards people for making a loss with real estate which we the mug punters have to pick up the tab.

A totally ****ed tax system that can't provide that basic safety net that you mention.

But as long as the sheeple think they are living the dream, the status quo remains.

No one is interested in making the hard calls and no one wants to take their medicine. Too much self interested parties looking after themselves with no regard for broader society.

The REIV is set up by agents, for agents to help them maximise their income. Same for the Business Council and many others.

Banks rip people off and destroy lives, and yet the government wants to appoint them to self regulate. That's just one example.

The mining industry us another, then there's Murdoch.

Government no longer represents the people. Labor is as close as you come given their roots in the blue collar industriez. But otherwise democracy is a myth.

All parties are now stacked with career politicians who see elected office as the prize at the top of their career paths.

Even the IPA which us a neo-con free market hard right group of vested business interests have parachuted 2 puppets into government.

It's no wonder that a douche bag like Trump just got elected because isn't a career politician.

 

[Brains Trust66]

Has anyone actually spent time going around other teams sites to see what their fans are saying ? I was going to but I had to rearrange my sock draw a few times.


On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Proper Gander]

Has anyone actually spent time going around other teams sites to see what their fans are saying ? I was going to but I had to rearrange my sock draw a few times.


On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app

I have but first I found out that the Hawks are GOAT, then I got stuck here in random Saints discussion and I haven't made it any further yet.

 

[L_W_P]

My take on affordability - Live within your means.

Round figures on a hypothetical -

Husband, Wife and 2 kids of primary school age. Single income.

$1600 take home per f/night (50k per year)
less
$720 - Rent
$80 - Petrol
$80 - Train ticket
$110 - UTL
$60 - Insurance
$25 - Phone
$40 - Foxtel
$40 - Internet
$45 - Misc personal spend (drinks, takeout lunch at work, see a movie etc)
leaves
$400 per f/night

The remainder goes towards saving for one off payments like rego, car service, school fees, Christmas, Birthdays, Holidays and activities for your 2 kids. Your wife gets around $400 through centrelink and that covers food, nappies etc.

I gave this breakdown to a couple of guys I work with (both in their early 20's and going to Monash for Law degrees) and they couldn't believe it was possible to support a family on a single income.

If you are in a spot where you make anything over 50k a year then it's possible to do it and be more than comfortable. All about living within your means and making things last. Way too many people want to buy/rent in the inner suburbs, drive a newer car, update their phone every 12 months and go out every week then they wonder why they are broke and blame it on 'cost of living'.

 

[Plumber66]

Has anyone actually spent time going around other teams sites to see what their fans are saying ? I was going to but I had to rearrange my sock draw a few times.


On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app

You wear socks?

 

[gringo2011]

Correct.

As Tim Costello stated: people confuse high cost of living with the high cost of an indulgent lifestyle.

The industrial revolution is over for developed economies such as ours. It moves to countries with low wages.

My old man was in awe when they got a house with an inside toilet.

People's expectations of what constitutes a comfortable living standard have grown exponentially over the last 30 years.

Whilst I defend everyone's right to aspire to a certain lifestyle, the question is if it's worth it.

Like you say, 2 incomes, child care, 2 cars and so on. How much do we really need?

It all adds up to longer working hours and for what?

The guy that set up Walmart pretty much said to his son on his deathbed: I have failed. He was referring that his devotion to his business meant he missed out on raising his family.

The problem as I see it is as follows:

Big corporations are purely profit driven and no longer community minded. Look at our banks, obscene profits yet still slash jobs. Will a big tax cut somehow make them employ more people? Lol.

Too much "you can have it all and have it" going on with consumers.

Then you have a tax system that rewards people for making a loss with real estate which we the mug punters have to pick up the tab.

A totally stuffed tax system that can't provide that basic safety net that you mention.

But as long as the sheeple think they are living the dream, the status quo remains.

No one is interested in making the hard calls and no one wants to take their medicine. Too much self interested parties looking after themselves with no regard for broader society.

The REIV is set up by agents, for agents to help them maximise their income. Same for the Business Council and many others.

Banks rip people off and destroy lives, and yet the government wants to appoint them to self regulate. That's just one example.

The mining industry us another, then there's Murdoch.

Government no longer represents the people. Labor is as close as you come given their roots in the blue collar industriez. But otherwise democracy is a myth.

All parties are now stacked with career politicians who see elected office as the prize at the top of their career paths.

Even the IPA which us a neo-con free market hard right group of vested business interests have parachuted 2 puppets into government.

It's no wonder that a douche bag like Trump just got elected because isn't a career politician.

The huge corporations who have to pay shareholders dividends are all about making money quickly on the current watch, in the old days corporations were more about longevity and slow build up. They are cold and impersonal these days and will flick staff and cut corners to make money now rather than offering long term employment. Pretty much the whole way capitalism is structured and taken to it's ideal market lead demand doesn't stack up. If you automate everything and don't employ people with and real amount of money there is no one to buy goods and services. If the corporations then don't pay tax, including well paid members of the executive the whole system breaks down.

 

[CALL ME SNAKE]

You wear socks?

Must be one of those "fancy" type StKilda supporters

 

[borderbarry]

Has anyone actually spent time going around other teams sites to see what their fans are saying ? I was going to but I had to rearrange my sock draw a few times.

You did'nt happen to find any of my missing socks did you?

On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app