mardigras

So is Great Britain. Who knew? We don't all have a crystal ball regarding what would have happened without lockdown. So prefer to use information from similar types of countries, and their approach - to see the impact. Sweden - quite remote from a European perspective, similar in population and distribution of cities to NZ. Seemed an OK choice. Must be because of your crystal ball that you're always on the money. But in regards this, your crystal ball is broken.

You'd argue against anything that doesn't fit your agenda. You have no idea where they are getting the money to fund normal activities whilst this support is going on. Your views on what is targeted or otherwise, are just subjective and I disagree with them. Aside from that, I prefer dealing in facts - such as the links I put up. But more importantly - why are these support mechanisms needed again? They aren't in lockdown so why are they having such dire economic issues. (Don't bother answering or asking anything further - you are fixated with your anti-labour views.) As I said earlier, no point trying to debate this with you. Your responses show it is a waste of time. You'd argue Sweden are doing x because of y and therefore it is different. When the facts are - their unemployment rate has increased significantly more than NZs since March 1. Their government is offering financial support to a greater value of money than the NZ government is - directly in relation to Covid-19. They are facts. Yet they aren't in lockdown. And your argument is that lockdown is causing all these issues. Yeah right.

This money isn't for those already unemployed. That money is in the two links I put up - from the Swedish government. Would you like them both again. Here they are. And not to mention the Riksbank coming up with a further NZD$85B to give to banks so that they can support business requiring further money. NZD$50B in the first one, and NZD$10B in the second one. https://www.government.se/press-releases/2020/03/crisis-package-for-swedish-businesses-and-jobs/ https://www.government.se/press-releases/2020/03/crisis-package-for-small-enterprises-in-sweden/

Well given that Sweden has a debt ratio of 38% of GDP (where we have less than that), where do you think Sweden is getting its money from. Just printing some more off at the mint?

I travel 3+ months overseas nearly every year - not this year however. But not because of lockdown. If lockdown is causing you such grief - maybe spend that spare time reskilling or diversifying - look for an upside. Just an idea. Or get a good book and have a read. You'll know, you know everything. Why has the Swedish government put up NZD$60B for business/workers due to Covid-19? When they aren't in lockdown there? Odd thing to do.

It is typical because it's factual. Give up. You came on here and said the Swedish government weren't offering financial support. They very much are. You are deluded. You wanted stuff that wasn't subjective. I gave it to you. And you want more. I could go on with these sorts of things for ever - the only difference my stuff comes from the source - the Swedish government. Your stuff is a figment of someone's imagination. But just explain one thing. Why is Sweden even putting up financial support. They aren't in lockdown.

Don't you find it incredible that a country not in lockdown, could find itself in need of so much financial support from government. It must be just bad timing, poor buggers. In the meantime, lets throw small business another NZD$10B on top of the earlier NZD$50B just to be sure. https://www.government.se/press-releases/2020/03/crisis-package-for-small-enterprises-in-sweden/

Forecast GDP negative impact to Norway is currently 1/3 of that forecast for Sweden. As for Sweden and money. Maybe you better get a handle on what the government is doing there. Don't let the facts get in the way. https://www.government.se/press-releases/2020/03/crisis-package-for-swedish-businesses-and-jobs/ Do you know how much $300B SEK is in NZD being made available. I'll help you - close enough to NZD$50B. And then there is the credit facility - $500B SEK or about another NZD$85B available to help support business. Keep it up , I'll start believing you soon.

And you probably will. There is no point debating the topic with you - since you claim all this stuff is subjective. And so is everything you write - since you are comparing what has happened to what it was like before. Without any ability to know what it would have been like under different circumstances. 100% subjective as to what the difference would have been. I'll let you carry on moaning (since there is nothing you can do about it), whilst I enjoy a nice glass of wine and a bit of a break from my normal travels.

As I say, you're clearly too thick to even understand simple stuff. I didn't say there would be no impact to the economy. There will be massive impact. It just isn't because of the lockdown. What part of that are you incapable of understanding - even if you disagree. Are you really that stupid? (to help you out there, that is rhetorical)

What's difficult to understand? International tourism - one of NZ's biggest sectors. Lockdown has had no impact on international tourism. They would not be coming whether we were in lockdown or not. Fear - people's spending would become conservative due to fear about what may happen. Global impact - the impact to global economies has a massive impact on NZ's economy. Getting goods into the country when their economies are in varying states of lockdown with lower production levels etc Just a few of the things that were going to create massive declines in jobs, and impact economic activity. There are 100% unrelated to whether NZ was in lockdown or not. And they each flow on into other industries causing widespread downturn economically. Causing further job loss. Those things affect a high number of industries. Tourism affects tourist operations, travel businesses, transport, hospitality, retail. Obtaining goods - pre NZ even having one death, the time to get a decent quantity of IT hardware into NZ had skyrocketed. Business directly impacted by that - both potential new business and ongoing. External economies will directly impact NZ's economy. Fear - demand for things from many business/hospitality/retail - will suffer due to fear of mixing with people - even in NZ with low numbers - something that prior to the lockdown was an unknown. And all of the above has already been shown to be the case. As per my example. Sweden under no lockdown. 36,000 jobs lost in March, 14,000 in first 10 days of April. Only a country twice our size. Economic outlook suggesting 15% unemployment soon, and a 10% GDP drop. All with no lockdown. Compare to Finland and Norway, no different - they have been in lockdown. (and that's not even considering the deaths and serious/critical case numbers in Sweden - if numbers were same per million for NZ, that's only 1500 dead (up to now), and 210 in serious/critical condition - at least your hospitals would be getting use!). But you can believe what you like. It makes no difference to me, and it likely just makes you get all uptight for no good reason. I'm not going to bother debating it anymore - since clearly it is beyond most people going on about lockdown. If lockdown was for three months, maybe it would be a significant factor. At this stage, that is unlikely.

I love my wacky ideas. Thanks. You stick to your doom and gloom. I'll stick with working through things in the best fashion possible.

Diddums - why did you bother posting. I don't think the stats are incorrect. I expect massive more job losses. They were inevitable. As was the decline in economic activity.

You're right - there is no point in you debating it. You don't understand simple stuff. That's the problem, you watch too much TV and read too much news. Instead of thinking - which in your case is probably asking too much. Since you don't know better, just get yourself more stressed out over a situation you don't understand. And I'll just carry on reading a good book, having a nice wine and going for a few walks. I know which I prefer. Just tell us all why 36,000 people in Sweden joined the jobless queue in March - 18,000 of them in the last week of March. Only 10 times the number for all of March 2019. And the highest number since records started. Just an aberration in a country with no lockdown I guess.

Nope, not to any significant degree - and certainly not in relation to what was going to occur anyway. Maybe you can give us some details on how the economies of Brasil and Sweden are going? Or would you like to send a note of support to the 36000 people in Sweden who joined the jobless queue in March - letting them know how sad it is for them - but think of how lucky they are to not be in lockdown. Or perhaps, you could give us the analysed impact to the economic metrics of Sweden, Finland and Norway in relation to the virus - and tell us why Sweden is suffering as much or more than its neighbours. All those things - probably just bad timing. The lockdown isn't having the impact, the steps taken by countries worldwide is having the impact and was always going to. You look at cause and effect, and think it's the lockdown. I can't help it if you can't think beyond stupid media.

Who thinks that. I couldn't give a toss what she does. You're the sheep - you actually believe the lockdown has any economic impact in NZ. Talk about gullible. I prefer to ignore most politics - and as a result I am intolerant of media bullshit and propaganda. Unlike you - who has actually swallowed the bullshit about the economy. Chill out and have a good time. You may not get a break like this for a while. If you are finding things tough, talk to someone. If your business isn't going to be viable, reskill or diversify. But don't blame a stupid lockdown.

Who cares - I'm not even interested in the virus. I'm interested in the economic impacts. The lockdown won't have any. I couldn't care if the government had done 3 million tests of x and 2 million of y. It wouldn't change the economic impacts that NZ is facing.

Says you. Your $60b - I give it on a scale of 0 to 10, a zero. It is baseless 100%. Show me where it comes from. You are just making things up. It's rubbish. Show us the analysis of what the impacts would have been if the lockdown didn't happen. I can't wait to see those numbers. And then ask yourself why the impact to places such as Sweden/Finland/Norway has been the same economically - according to the general consensus of economic impact on these countries. Must be just a fluke.

Well clearly you know I don't. Your figure of $60B is a made up number. You've lost any sense of ability to understand what has gone on. Your National affiliation has clouded any possible judgement. I don't support labour at all, but sadly, your assessment of things is so far off the mark, it s comical. It's akin to you now turning around and supporting RITA and their promos by saying they've made $20m net profit off them in the last year. Just bollocks and baseless, like your claim.

What a load of bollocks. A disgrace.

As an aside, I'm not disagreeing with you regarding the profitability of these promos and bonus bets. But the reality is, we don't have the information to know. And as I said, I doubt the TAB properly knows, given how they operate.

For sure. The costs associated with offering fixed odds though won't be largely increased due to a few punters placing bonus bets into that market. So those costs remain close to the same. To determine the success or otherwise of the offer(s), would require specific analysis of individual bettors and their betting patterns that have taken up the offer - not an assessment of the overall margin achieved through fixed odds versus tote. Even though the average margin on fixed odds may be say 12%, the average margin on those punters taking up free bets might be 40%. So if the free bet encourages a punter to keep losing (where otherwise they may stop betting), then the free bet offer could be seen to make them money - irrespective of where the bet ends up. The promo offers of bet first, recoup a bonus bet, may well be fixed odds only. But is that the case for free deposited bonus bets? Any TAB punters have the answer to that?

We don't know - since we don't know whether the free bet offer has meant the punter has changed their betting behaviour or not. I don't think the general rate of return has much to do with it. The bet on either tote or fixed odds, is still gross betting revenue if it loses. The commission on the tote is not taken from an individuals bet. The income is not derived as being commission rate * turnover for a punters bet. It is turnover less payout. The sum of those (including the negatives) is your gross betting revenue.

It's unlike rebates if it is based around people losing, not turnover. We don't have the information that would allow us to say whether the free bets ultimately make them money. I'd expect they don't actually know. The free bets you are referring to - we have no information to say whether they lose them revenue or make them revenue. If a punter spends/loses their own money at NZ TAB rather than their own money at Ladbrokes, then they be able to suggest they make money from the free bets - if the punter chooses to lose that money at the NZ TAB because of the free bet offer.

I discussed that here. Ultimately, free bets are designed to attract a punter to lose beyond the level of the free bet, irrespective of what happens with the free betting money. Again, it would be interesting to see how they analyse the results from that type of offer.