Who will win the 2011 election? [Archive] - Page 2

Quasievil

1st August 2011, 15:25

Oh? In the past it has been the ruling classes who are inbred ... Just look at the royal houses of Europe ...

The working class breed like rabbits with anyone who will hold still ... and therefore spread the genes around more

That would suggest that it is the National supporters who are inbred ... not Labour supporters

:innocent:

1/ Give me some examples of these houses in Europe ?
2/ Have you seen deliverance.......its the same in most labour strongholds you know, labours new theme song follows:yes:

<object width="425" height="349"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/1tqxzWdKKu8?version=3&hl=en_GB&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/1tqxzWdKKu8?version=3&hl=en_GB&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="349" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

I do like your inference that national voters are the rulers tho, that's good and correct, not that im voting National of course

Come back to the St century dude

Oscar

1st August 2011, 15:28

admenk

1st August 2011, 16:03

1/ Give me some examples of these houses in Europe ?

I think the most usually quoted example is the widespread Haemophilia in European royalty due to their habit of inter marriage :yes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haemophilia_in_European_royalty - the gospel according to Wikipedia !!

Oscar

1st August 2011, 16:16

I think the most usually quoted example is the widespread Haemophilia in European royalty due to their habit of inter marriage :yes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haemophilia_in_European_royalty - the gospel according to Wikipedia !!

The fact that the Haemophilia in European Royalty was a result of inter-marriage ‎between families doesn't prove the claim that they were inbred. All of those suffering from the ‎disease were direct decedents of Victoria, the gene would have been passed on no matter who they married.‎‎

Banditbandit

1st August 2011, 17:15

The fact that the Haemophilia in European Royalty was a result of inter-marriage ‎between families doesn't prove the claim that they were inbred. All of those suffering from the ‎disease were direct decedents of Victoria, the gene would have been passed on no matter who they married.‎‎

That's a misunderstanding of the gene - it needs a double ressessive (I think) so it's likely that all her descendents carry the gene but don't have haemophilia ... it takes both partners - but the silly bastards did marry close relations ...

Look at WW1 - a war between cousins .. (at least it wasn't a marriage between cousins)

Oscar

1st August 2011, 17:22

That's a misunderstanding of the gene - it needs a double ressessive (I think) so it's likely that all her descendents carry the gene but don't have haemophilia ... it takes both partners - but the silly bastards did marry close relations ...

Look at WW1 - a war between cousins .. (at least it wasn't a marriage between cousins)

Gene misunderstanding or not (and I was referring to the fact that the disease was going to appear at some stage no matter who they married, royalty or commoner), it doesn't support your "inbred" claim, and neither does a war between cousins.

rainman

1st August 2011, 21:06

Thought as much, your ramblings and abuse towards me are about as pointless as your shallow and failing politics.

Or maybe the time economics of arguing with a reflexively anti-green, anti-science bigoted ideologue who thinks John Key is competent because he has a B Comm are just not that positively prospective...

his choice to come his choice to leave.

Perhaps it was his sanctimonious attitude thats the problem ...............CLEARLY !!

You must be a real hit with your customers. Here's a fresh thought - if you want to develop NZ into something other than an indentured agricultural backwater you need people like him a helluva lot more than he needs you. Perhaps developing our appeal to the intelligent and wealthy might just be a good investment.

it’s none of it home made.

I agree there are some useless imports about the place too, but that's a bold call indeed.

Rich people are not the problem, the problem is the negative way the envious and have nots think! ( unfortunately, they are the majority) :facepalm:

Might want to think that one all the way through to the end...

All you need to know about getting rich!

Oooh, hang on, you actually buy that transcendentalist positivism stuff? I suspect I'm too much of a cynic. I'll give it a proper read though, I have a flight down country in my near future. I'll also look at the rest of the library, some of it is potentially interesting.

I'm a bit surprised at you though, posting socialist works here on KB... That could get you put on the shit list pretty quickly! :shit:

Ocean1

1st August 2011, 21:24

Come on, get it right - I'm a useless pom but not a senior manager :woohoo:

Chicken out at the pre-frontal lobotomy?

Quasievil

1st August 2011, 21:38

You must be a real hit with your customers. Here's a fresh thought - if you want to develop NZ into something other than an indentured agricultural backwater you need people like him a helluva lot more than he needs you. Perhaps developing our appeal to the intelligent and wealthy might just be a good investment.

Yeah I am even after 8 years thanks.

there you go talking about "HIM" again, whoever this superior being is.

<object width="425" height="349"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/f715T_6b9MI?version=3&hl=en_GB&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/f715T_6b9MI?version=3&hl=en_GB&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="349" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

oldrider

1st August 2011, 21:50

I'm a bit surprised at you though, posting socialist works here on KB... That could get you put on the shit list pretty quickly! :shit:

I didn't actually say "I" am not a socialist, I said I dislike most of them and what socialism does to people!

I have posted socialist works before! (Woodhouse ACC report, I support the original intent)

I should be afraid of some shit list? ... All my life it has only been the depth that varied!

I will read almost anything and make up my own mind what I actually choose to believe!

I believe NZ is a socialist state and is far too left of centre, because the majority demand it therefore governments pander to it to curry votes!

IMHO, duplicity is an inbred factor within NZ society but there are still some wonderful trustworthy "individuals" here despite that!

Most of the party loyal don't have a clue what their party stands for, they just stick with them like they do with their local rugby club!

(Well you gotta don't yah! .... Another round? Oi, your shout!) :facepalm:

SPman

1st August 2011, 21:57

I think it is summed up quite well here
But its also a reminder that politics isn't just about policy. People have all sorts of different reasons for favouring one party over another. For example, trust and likeability obviously come into it. And it speaks volumes about Phil Goff that he loses the competition over those values to a banker.
But the core message here is that Labour needs to up its game. And if they don't or can't, then they have no-one but themselves to blame for the inevitable defeat.
(Meanwhile, when in two years time people complaining about National selling everything that isn't nailed down, screwing over workers even more, and helping the rich take an even greater chunk of our national wealth, I'll be ready, waiting, with a big fat "I told you so". National is being admirably honest about its policy intentions this election, and no-one can credibly claim ignorance of them. People will be getting exactly what they vote for. If they don't like the outcome, then it will be a reminder to be more careful in voting in the future)

rainman

1st August 2011, 22:06

I didn't actually say "I" am not a socialist, I said I dislike most of them and what socialism does to people!

I have posted socialist works before! (Woodhouse ACC report, I support the original intent)

I should be afraid of some shit list? ... All my life it has only been the depth that varied!

I will read almost anything and make up my own mind what I actually choose to believe!

...

Most of the party loyal don't have a clue what their party stands for, they just stick with them like they do with their local rugby club!

(Well you gotta don't yah! .... Another round? Oi, your shout!) :facepalm:

Settle down old chap, I was just having a mild dig at you posting socialist stuff when I always saw you as being fairly anti. (Which I think you just confirmed in your first sentence... although maybe you're saying you're a libertarian socialist? :innocent:)

I certainly appreciate you're one of the more independent thinkers on here and although I suspect I wouldn't agree with lots you might say, I'm sure a good chat with you over a few beers would be quite entertaining.

And I think you have NZ politics pretty well characterised in the last bit of your post too.

there you go talking about "HIM" again, whoever this superior being is.

Whatever, Quasi.

Quasievil

1st August 2011, 22:14

Im going to Vote for ACT.
:yes:

rainman

1st August 2011, 22:55

Im going to Vote for ACT.

Gosh, what a surprise, they're so unlike you. They're not racist, anti-science, anti-green bigots. Oh wait, yes they are.

All you need to know about getting rich! http://www.soilandhealth.org/03sov/0304spiritpsych/030412.Wattle.Getting.Rich.pdf

I'm trying to read this but am struggling a bit with some parts:

...for the science herein applied is an exact science, and failure is impossible.

If it sounds too good to be true...

it is not possible to live a really complete or successful life unless one is rich. No man can rise to his greatest possible height in talent or soul development unless he has plenty of money; for to unfold the soul and to develop talent he must have many things to use, and he cannot have these things unless he has money to buy them with. A man develops in mind, soul, and body by making use of things, and society is so organized that man must have money in order to become the possessor of things; therefore, the basis of all advancement for man must be the science of getting rich.

Where to start? If this is his premise, I'm not going to find agreement with him, I fear.
a) I don't want or need to be rich
b) I don't have a soul to develop
c) materialism tends to lead away from enlightenment, not towards it

I'll not give up yet, but it isn't looking good.

oldrider

2nd August 2011, 00:19

Where to start? If this is his premise, I'm not going to find agreement with him, I fear.
a) I don't want or need to be rich
b) I don't have a soul to develop
c) materialism tends to lead away from enlightenment, not towards it

I'll not give up yet, but it isn't looking good.

I didn't post it because I believe it, I just posted it because so many people blame the rich as an excuse for their own underwhelming lack of success in life!

If the rich people are rich because they follow his (Wattle) principles, they are not to blame at all, they are too busy being rich!

According to Wattle the poor people are poor, because that is what they practice, being poor!

The dissatisfied will get better results studying the man or woman in the mirror, the answer lies with him or her!

The Robin Hood syndrome, "taking from the rich to give to the poor" is not the answer to the poor man's problems.

Wattle is saying, the problem is mainly the attitude and behaviour of the poor man!

Well, in our (NZ) society, he may just be right!

Politicians, ... well they just exploit the weakness of the poor majority .... that way they can't lose!

Who will win the next election? ... Certainly not the poor man! ... Under MMP or FPP especially, that's a given!

Vacquer0

2nd August 2011, 00:47

"These results suggest that people of upper-class status aren't very good at recognizing the emotions other people are feeling. The researchers speculate that this is because they can solve their problems, like the daycare example, without relying on others -- they aren't as dependent on the people around them."

This is part of a study done on classes of people. Not the one I was looking for though. Basically, the very wealthy don't know how to give a fuck. The article I read originally suggested it was genetic and that as a group they were less likely to give a shit about others. Somedays I think a "torches and pitchforks" party should be organized so the majority of us can just live in peace.

Quasievil

2nd August 2011, 07:42

Gosh, what a surprise, they're so unlike you. They're not racist, anti-science, anti-green bigots. Oh wait, yes they are.

Are they Racist or realist ?

i.e not going to continue this separatist division in NZ between Europeans and Maori I like the one country one people view.............thats something I would vote for.
Policy from the web

Action: Welcome more good quality immigrants.
Benefit: Industries get the skilled workers they need.

I read that as no Somalis and people that arrive to suck on my tit.

Anti Science, really ? A policey quote.....
"That no New Zealand government will ever impose needless and unjustified taxation or regulation on its citizens in a misguided attempt to reduce global warming or become a world leader in carbon neutrality".

Sounds good to me

And the best thing about them is that I become more empowered to spend my dollar as I LIKE, not as im told to by the government who basically sucks at running anything, Health, Schools, etc I choose.

Brilliant !!

rainman

2nd August 2011, 08:30

I didn't post it because I believe it, I just posted it because so many people blame the rich as an excuse for their own underwhelming lack of success in life!

If the rich people are rich because they follow his (Wattle) principles, they are not to blame at all, they are too busy being rich!

According to Wattle the poor people are poor, because that is what they practice, being poor!

The dissatisfied will get better results studying the man or woman in the mirror, the answer lies with him or her!

The Robin Hood syndrome, "taking from the rich to give to the poor" is not the answer to the poor man's problems.

Wattle is saying, the problem is mainly the attitude and behaviour of the poor man!

Well, in our (NZ) society, he may just be right!

Politicians, ... well they just exploit the weakness of the poor majority .... that way they can't lose!

Who will win the next election? ... Certainly not the poor man! ... Under MMP or FPP especially, that's a given!

Don't agree with much of the logic: success isn't the same as material wealth, you don't always get what you want (even if you want it really sincerely, and try hard to get it*), and money ain't everything, unless you don't have any of it. But I can't fault the line I've boldfaced.

I think the reason I disagree with this reasoning is it falls apart when you think of us as a society, rather than just a bunch of individuals.

* Of course it's far more likely you won't get it if you don't try, but that isn't my point.

Banditbandit

2nd August 2011, 09:14

Are they Racist or realist ?

I see them as racist.

i.e not going to continue this separatist division in NZ between Europeans and Maori I like the one country one people view.............thats something I would vote for.

I see them as racist because, while I agree with the one country one people view - Act's view is one country one people AND THEY ARE WHITE - or at least act like white people ... at least that's how Act's approach looks to me, especially with Brash at the head.

Policy from the web

Action: Welcome more good quality immigrants.
Benefit: Industries get the skilled workers they need.

I read that as no Somalis and people that arrive to suck on my tit.

Hang about - that's entrely racist. How do you know that there aren't Somalis who will contribute here? To dump all people into a group like you do is totally racist.

Anti Science, really ? A policey quote.....
"That no New Zealand government will ever impose needless and unjustified taxation or regulation on its citizens in a misguided attempt to reduce global warming or become a world leader in carbon neutrality".

Sounds good to me

No issues with that at all - the problem is who defines "needless and unjustified"? The anti-climate canmge brigade?

And the best thing about them is that I become more empowered to spend my dollar as I LIKE, not as im told to by the government who basically sucks at running anything, Health, Schools, etc I choose.

Brilliant !!

YEAH YEAH .. might work for people like you but many parents and adults would make poor health and education decisions if they were forced to decide. Do you really think that people like Chris Kahui and Macsyna King are capable of making sensibel decisions about their children's education? Education especially is way to importasnt for the future of this country for people like that to make the decisions .., do you really think that people like me, who smoke, make good health decisions?

Quasievil

2nd August 2011, 10:13

think that people like Chris Kahui and Macsyna King are capable of making sensibel decisions about their children's education? Education especially is way to importasnt for the future of this country for people like that to make the decisions .., do you really think that people like me, who smoke, make good health decisions?

It wont matter they will be exterminated under the new regime

:yes:

The government makes better decisions than they can, is that what youre saying, you cannot be serious?

Banditbandit

2nd August 2011, 11:00

It wont matter they will be exterminated under the new regime

:yes:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

The government makes better decisions than they can, is that what youre saying, you cannot be serious?

Seriously? Do you seriously think that Chris Kahui and Macsyna King can make better decisions about their children's education than the Government can?

I accept that the Government makes shit decisions .. but worse than the Kahui twin parents? You gotta be shitting me ... they couldn't even keep their kids alive ...

The consequences for us all of leaving such decisions to such people are more dead babies, more abused children growing to be abusers as adults, with poor education and more crime in future generations ..

Quasievil

2nd August 2011, 15:26

Seriously? Do you seriously think that Chris Kahui and Macsyna King can make better decisions about their children's education than the Government can?

You see this is a common Fault of the Labour supporter and labour party, they are hell bent on bringing the ENTIRE society down to the lowest denominator, Labour are hell bent on this.
I think if youre that stupid there is no saving you and you should be exterminated in one of ACTs camps............you know, up the chimney so to speak:yes:

SPman

2nd August 2011, 16:04

Wattle is saying, the problem is mainly the attitude and behaviour of the poor man!
I'd agree.
When I was living on the bones of my arse, bringing up a family on s.f.a., I always considered myself broke - not poor.
Poor is a state of mind which does not neccesarily mean having no money!

Banditbandit

2nd August 2011, 16:16

You see this is a common Fault of the Labour supporter and labour party, they are hell bent on bringing the ENTIRE society down to the lowest denominator, Labour are hell bent on this.

Bullshit !!!! We want to bring people up from the bottom rung, not drag everyone down to the lowest level - that's pure claptrap ...

I don't see us being a totally equal society - there will always be people at the top and people at the bottom ... but I think the bottom should be higher than it is now ..

I think if you're that stupid there is no saving you and you should be exterminated in one of ACTs camps............you know, up the chimney so to speak:yes:

Harsh - that's harsh ... even your mate Rodney would disagree .. Don might not, but Rodney would ...

Quasievil

2nd August 2011, 16:55

Bullshit !!!! We want to bring people up from the bottom rung, not drag everyone down to the lowest level - that's pure claptrap ...

I don't see us being a totally equal society - there will always be people at the top and people at the bottom ... but I think the bottom should be higher than it is now

Errrr No sorry dude these current politices and the politices of the past are not helping, people are being Dummed down in many areas.

Want examples?

We have 3rd and 4th generation welfare dependants in this country, Labour and the Nats have kept them there for to long, they are NOT being help they are being oppressed by this, how are we helping them ? giving them a gravy train is not helping them

Schools have been Dummed down something shocking, NCEA is so PC to protect the stupid the Smart ones are unrecognisable. and the stupid are Praised, you got Kids? seen a report card lately, totally dummed down to the lowest

PC crap, looks after the lowest denominator in everything, the minority rules................the lowest denominator

Ocean1

2nd August 2011, 17:06

Schools have been Dummed down

:facepalm:

Quasievil

2nd August 2011, 17:27

:facepalm:

Use your Words Ocean1.

mashman

2nd August 2011, 18:00

You see this is a common Fault of the Labour supporter and labour party, they are hell bent on bringing the ENTIRE society down to the lowest denominator, Labour are hell bent on this.

You see this is a common Fault of the National supporter and National party, they are hell bent on bringing the ENTIRE society down to the lowest denominator, National are hell bent on this.

Your precious money system has reprocussions further down the food chain ya know. Sure if someone felt like it they should be able to up and get themselves into the education system, or take an apprenticeship, or go work and train at Maccas, whatever... but I seem to remember something about needing a percentage of your population to be unemployed to keep inflation down? More than happy to be wrong, so...

(interlude: everyone private and public department is run to a budget... so people are going to financially suffer, but that's acceptable, because they're 100% undeniably stupid)

Anyhoo, What do you do with those people? There obviously aren't jobs for everyone. Why not allow them to become your lowest common denominator and suffer the social fallout. After all, it's their own fault.

you should be paying them more handsomererer

Quasievil

2nd August 2011, 18:41

You see this is a common Fault of the National supporter and National party, they are hell bent on bringing the ENTIRE society down to the lowest denominator, National are hell bent on this.

Really ? how so, got some figures or something to back that up or you just got that chip on your shoulder thats putting so much pressure rubbish is coming out your mouth?

Your precious money system has reprocussions further down the food chain ya know.

Yes it does, when moving in the right direction wealth and prosperity for all?

Sure if someone felt like it they should be able to up and get themselves into the education system, or take an apprenticeship, or go work and train at Maccas, whatever... but I seem to remember something about needing a percentage of your population to be unemployed to keep inflation down? More than happy to be wrong, so...

their will always be unemployment as about 4-5% of the population are complete unemployable morons.

Oscar

2nd August 2011, 19:48

You see this is a common Fault of the National supporter and National party, they are hell bent on bringing the ENTIRE society down to the lowest denominator, National are hell bent on this.

Your precious money system has reprocussions further down the food chain ya know. Sure if someone felt like it they should be able to up and get themselves into the education system, or take an apprenticeship, or go work and train at Maccas, whatever... but I seem to remember something about needing a percentage of your population to be unemployed to keep inflation down? More than happy to be wrong, so...

(interlude: everyone private and public department is run to a budget... so people are going to financially suffer, but that's acceptable, because they're 100% undeniably stupid)

Anyhoo, What do you do with those people? There obviously aren't jobs for everyone. Why not allow them to become your lowest common denominator and suffer the social fallout. After all, it's their own fault.

you should be paying them more handsomererer

So how do you cope with life when you're the only one in NZ that's right?

It must be terrible for you...

mashman

2nd August 2011, 20:15

Really ? how so, got some figures or something to back that up or you just got that chip on your shoulder thats putting so much pressure rubbish is coming out your mouth?

:rofl:, if there were chips on my shoulder I must have passed out pissed up... that or my family was dead... they wouldn't last long.

Yes it does, when moving in the right direction wealth and prosperity for all?

because?

their will always be unemployment as about 4-5% of the population are complete unemployable morons.

You got numbers to back that up?

So how do you cope with life when you're the only one in NZ that's right?

It must be terrible for you...

waaaaa ha ha ha haaaaaaaa... wiff of reality a little strong perhaps?

Not really. I have people like your good self, politicians, family and friends that keep me entertained... and laughter is the best medicine, or so they say.

Oscar

2nd August 2011, 20:28

Not really. I have people like your good self, politicians, family and friends that keep me entertained... and laughter is the best medicine, or so they say.

In that case you could keep yourself very healthy just by looking in the mirror and repeating some of your posts here...

Quasievil

2nd August 2011, 20:29

because?

Because a buoyant and prosperous economy encourages a better environment for its citizens as well as more opportunities.

You got numbers to back that up?

Yes

http://www.dol.govt.nz/lmr/lmr-hlfs.asp

Not everyone is going to be employed, thats impossible, there are to many drop kicks that no one would want in their business. so there will always be a percentage.

[/QUOTE]

SPman

2nd August 2011, 20:40

Because a buoyant and prosperous economy encourages a better environment for its citizens as well as more opportunities.

Well we agree on the outcome - just not the road there....

mashman

2nd August 2011, 20:45

In that case you could keep yourself very healthy just by looking in the mirror and repeating some of your posts here...

Nowhere near as much fun. Thanks for the compliment.

Because a buoyant and prosperous economy encourages a better environment for its citizens as well as more opportunities.

That's why buoyant economies all over the world are failing. Oh, but it's because of the bludgers that won't work because there's no jobs. And with the speed of technical development, there'll be even less jobs around.

Yes

Sorry, I meant facts, not statistics.

Not everyone is going to be employed, thats impossible, there are to many drop kicks that no one would want in their business. so there will always be a percentage.

Why is it impossible?

Shadows

2nd August 2011, 21:26

98tls

2nd August 2011, 21:36

888mike

2nd August 2011, 21:44

Hone Harawira will win and be our first President.

Apartheid will be introduced so that the white boys can serve the true and rightful owners of this land.

Run for the hills white boys and avoid the chains.

Hahahaha theres too many of us with brains to let Hone anywhere near the top. He is a Tui ad, Serious politician YEAH RIGHT.:killingme

Quasievil

2nd August 2011, 22:04

Nowhere near as much fun. Thanks for the compliment.

That's why buoyant economies all over the world are failing. Oh, but it's because of the bludgers that won't work because there's no jobs. And with the speed of technical development, there'll be even less jobs around.

Sorry, I meant facts, not statistics.

Why is it impossible?

Sorry where are these buoyant economies ?

Because there are to many Labour voting bludgers that are not even remotely interested in working or advancing themselves in any way, this country is full of them, they have been happily supported by a succession of governments as the bludger vote is so large to not satisfy them will mean political suicide.
Thats common knowledge to anyone that works.

Whats your answers Mr labour ?
but on that note, who is Labour anyway, apart from a weak pathetic and dying party? had 9 years did nothing remarkable apart from a few brainless social manipulation.

I dont know what youre smoking or how thick those rose tinted glasses are you have on but in the real the world people get their wages from margin and successful business, where do you think it comes from ?
the only way to enable growth is from encouraging successful business............and from that wealthy people that want to reinvest.
Why do you labour people always have a hang up on successful people, it blows my mind, labour are idiots plane and simple and they prove it everytime Goff opens his predictable mind.

mashman

2nd August 2011, 22:38

Sorry where are these buoyant economies ?

Because there are to many Labour voting bludgers that are not even remotely interested in working or advancing themselves in any way, this country is full of them, they have been happily supported by a succession of governments as the bludger vote is so large to not satisfy them will mean political suicide.
Thats common knowledge to anyone that works.

Whats your answers Mr labour ?
but on that note, who is Labour anyway, apart from a weak pathetic and dying party? had 9 years did nothing remarkable apart from a few brainless social manipulation.

I dont know what youre smoking or how thick those rose tinted glasses are you have on but in the real the world people get their wages from margin and successful business, where do you think it comes from ?
the only way to enable growth is from encouraging successful business............and from that wealthy people that want to reinvest.
Why do you labour people always have a hang up on successful people, it blows my mind, labour are idiots plane and simple and they prove it everytime Goff opens his predictable mind.

They have only ever existed in perception via marketing, hype, pick me pick me, crash, boom, but at least we're not going bust etc...

Funny. There's only 160,000 unemployed out of a 2.1 million strong workforce. And yet a labour government had how many successive terms? How large is the bludger vote? They're stupid anyway, why would they want to improve themselves? I'm surprised they know where to put the tick. "Bludgers" ain't just at the bottom ya know. How do you tell the difference? by their bank balance?

:rofl: Mr Labour. Tsk I'm insulted. They're all as bad as each other. Like you say, political suicide for ANY party. Suck it up, it ain't goin away.

It comes from thin air. Someone creates money from thin air. FACT! :killingme @ brainwashing... successful business indeed.
The only way to enable growth is the current economy, is to be cheaper than the other guy. Pretty hard with a sky high $$$... although it's probably good for the money market.
Again, that's your perception, and a really really bad one.

Quasievil

3rd August 2011, 07:23

T "Bludgers" ain't just at the bottom ya know. How do you tell the difference? by their bank balance?

Easy A bludger is someone that doesnt get out of bed and get stuck into the day to try and improve their position.

The only way to enable growth is the current economy, is to be cheaper than the other guy. Pretty hard with a sky high $$$... although it's probably good for the money market.
Again, that's your perception, and a really really bad one.

I dont agree, if youre talking global then that would mean we are screwed as we certainly arent the cheapest producer on the planet.
If your talking local, in some respects but adding value into quality is a successful formula, there are many examples of this in every product category, not everyone wants the cheapest, many want a quality product and are happy to pay a premium for it, As an Example within food groups I pay more for Bread, more for Eggs and Honey, more for Meat, I dont like the cheap stuff. Within say Bike gear I dont buy cheap there either, nor do I sell it, I spec it to be better than other brands and I am still going 8 years later. So with the examples given youre quite incorrect sorry dude

oldrider

3rd August 2011, 08:15

Hahahaha theres too many of us with brains to let Hone anywhere near the top. He is a Tui ad, Serious politician YEAH RIGHT.:killingme

Hone doesn't need brains so much as "persistence" and he has more of that than your average complacent Kiwi! :eek5:

How would you like Hone on your arse for a wart? ... It might not kill you but you would always be aware of it! :bash:

Hone may not go far but you can bet your boots he won't go away! :oi-grr:

Quasievil

3rd August 2011, 08:33

Apparently our leader isnt bothered with the high dollar:facepalm:Someone remind him we live on a fucking island.Hes happy as things are looking better than expected,wonder how happy hes going to be when all the exporters close shop and the employees head off down the welfare.

Where did he say that?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10742411

How can little ole NZ battle this global issue with the NZ dollar anyway, whats your idea ?

Oscar

3rd August 2011, 09:08

Apparently our leader isnt bothered with the high dollar:facepalm:Someone remind him we live on a fucking island.Hes happy as things are looking better than expected,wonder how happy hes going to be when all the exporters close shop and the employees head off down the welfare.

Actually, he's commented several times that he is concerned about the effect on exporters. Notwithstanding that, what would you have him do? He has no power to intervene with the Reserve Bank Governor.

98tls

3rd August 2011, 09:16

Actually, he's commented several times that he is concerned about the effect on exporters. Notwithstanding that, what would you have him do? He has no power to intervene with the Reserve Bank Governor.

Certainly hope he is,just caught something on the news the other night stating he wasn't.What would i have him do?something would be a start the current situation reminds me of the last 30 minutes of the 1/4 final loss to France at the world cup and the doing of:bye:well,nothing.

Winston001

3rd August 2011, 09:23

I'm not sure how we got onto the strength of the $NZ but the fact is, other currencies are devaluing rather than us rising. There is pressure to bring the $US and the Euro down to stimulate their economies and make it easier to borrow funds.

Also Oz and NZ have strong economies compared to many other countries even though we can't see that from inside. We are doing well in the global sense.

eelracing

3rd August 2011, 09:23

Hone doesn't need brains so much as "persistence" and he has more of that than your average complacent Kiwi!

I actually admire the guy...whether white-bread New Zealanders agree with him or not I can't help but notice that he is only doing what his supporters are asking of him.Hells teeth! a politician actually listening to his people and following through on it in the face of nationwide condemnation.The guy has a backbone.

Is that not what we all want in our parliamantary representatives?

What do we get instead...fucking wetback arselickers who roll over and follow party policy,even when it goes against there own constituants wishes.

98tls

3rd August 2011, 09:26

Where did he say that?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10742411

How can little ole NZ battle this global issue with the NZ dollar anyway, whats your idea ?

Mate i never said i had the answer to it,surely though theres something can be done to at least help.We were bloody lucky to survive last year,if the company was NZ owned i am pretty sure it would have closed then,presently we have orders out to 15 weeks which is as good as its ever been problem is at 88 cents US its not worth doing them,no doubt theres many in the same boat and one has to wonder how long until they pull the pin on losing money.

Oscar

3rd August 2011, 09:31

Certainly hope he is,just caught something on the news the other night stating he wasn't.What would i have him do?something would be a start the current situation reminds me of the last 30 minutes of the 1/4 final loss to France at the world cup and the doing of:bye:well,nothing.

The Government of the day is not allowed to interfere with the workings of the Reserve Bank, and I wouldn't have it any other way.

Notwithstanding that, there doesn't appear to be a whole lot that the Reserve Bank can do. The last time they stepped in and bought up the kiwi to devalue the currency, it had litte effect.

Quasievil

3rd August 2011, 09:32

presently we have orders out to 15 weeks which is as good as its ever been problem is at 88 cents US its not worth doing them,no doubt theres many in the same boat and one has to wonder how long until they pull the pin on losing money.

Yes its a bit of a major I agree, not good days for exporters.

98tls

3rd August 2011, 09:41

The Government of the day is not allowed to interfere with the workings of the Reserve Bank, and I wouldn't have it any other way.

Notwithstanding that, there doesn't appear to be a whole lot that the Reserve Bank can do. The last time they stepped in and bought up the kiwi to devalue the currency, it had litte effect.

Fair call,i know little of how it all works and like many others probably am getting a little concerned.Frustrating to have work coming out our ears and the place still losing money.

Banditbandit

3rd August 2011, 09:45

oldrider

3rd August 2011, 09:48

I actually admire the guy...whether white-bread New Zealanders agree with him or not I can't help but notice that he is only doing what his supporters are asking of him.Hells teeth! a politician actually listening to his people and following through on it in the face of nationwide condemnation.The guy has a backbone.

Is that not what we all want in our parliamantary representatives?

What do we get instead...fucking wetback arselickers who roll over and follow party policy,even when it goes against there own constituants wishes.

Notice how Hone took charge in the house, even before he was even officially in there! :jerry:

There are over 120 of them already in there, some have been there for ever and no one even knows that they exist! :tugger:

Everyone knows who Hone is, because he is the consummate "politician"! :yes:

Don't worry about Hone so much, worry about who and what are holding him up in the background! :stoogie: :wacko: :grouphug: :sick: ? (that's actually a question rather than a statement)

jonbuoy

3rd August 2011, 10:10

Oscar

3rd August 2011, 10:21

Notice how Hone took charge in the house, even before he was even officially in there! :jerry:

There are over 120 of them already in there, some have been there for ever and no one even knows that they exist! :tugger:

Everyone knows who Hone is, because he is the consummate "politician"! :yes:

Don't worry about Hone so much, worry about who and what are holding him up in the background! :stoogie: :wacko: :grouphug: :sick: ? (that's actually a question rather than a statement)

And for all that, are the people he represents any better off?

eelracing

3rd August 2011, 10:34

are the people he represents any better off?

If they think they are then that's all that matters.Whether you or anyone else likes it or not...it's called choice.
The current lot are buying votes by appealing to morons by banning legal substances.Taking time out to meet and greet presidents inbetween holidays and next he will be kissing babies at world cup games.

Oscar

3rd August 2011, 10:43

If they think they are then that's all that matters.Whether you or anyone else likes it or not...it's called choice.
The current lot are buying votes by appealing to morons by banning legal substances.Taking time out to meet and greet presidents inbetween holidays and next he will be kissing babies at world cup games.

You kinda contradict yourself there - "the current lot" are in by choice also, so be they morons for voting for them or not, there's nothing you can do about it.

steve_t

3rd August 2011, 10:43

The current lot are buying votes by appealing to morons by banning legal substances.

:blink:

10 chars

mashman

3rd August 2011, 12:41

Easy A bludger is someone that doesnt get out of bed and get stuck into the day to try and improve their position.

waaaa ha ha ha haaaaaaa... that's the best one yet. You realise that you've just tarred 90% of the population as bludgers? Improve their position, by what, taking on more debt? Some people just aren't that irresponsible.

I dont agree, if youre talking global then that would mean we are screwed as we certainly arent the cheapest producer on the planet.
If your talking local, in some respects but adding value into quality is a successful formula, there are many examples of this in every product category, not everyone wants the cheapest, many want a quality product and are happy to pay a premium for it, As an Example within food groups I pay more for Bread, more for Eggs and Honey, more for Meat, I dont like the cheap stuff. Within say Bike gear I dont buy cheap there either, nor do I sell it, I spec it to be better than other brands and I am still going 8 years later. So with the examples given youre quite incorrect sorry dude

And yet the local economy relies, and is priced, according to global "commodity" pricings (else we would not have felt the recession)... The local economy is not as insulated and protected as you seem to think, but that doesn't surprise me in the slightest, considering your world view that is. That's not a personal jibe, just an observation... and believing that the majority of people buy food because of the quality just shows how out of your mind and how out of touch you are with that blinkered focus you have. Too many people simply can't afford the good stuff, working harder does not guarantee enough reward (money) to buy stuff, there aren't enough jobs so 150,000 or so people have no choice but to live on "shit" because that's all they can afford... yet it's all their own fault... You're logic v's reality chip seems to have a few bugs in it (you're not the only one though)... a bucket of sand can cure that.

Where is the example that you disagree with? I didn't realise I had given one... unless of course you disagree that money doesn't come out of thin air. Please, pulease tell me you think it doesn't.

DR650gary

3rd August 2011, 13:11

there aren't enough jobs so 150,000 or so people have no choice but to live on "shit" because that's all they can afford... yet it's all their own fault... You're logic v's reality chip seems to have a few bugs in it (you're not the only one though)... a bucket of sand can cure that.

Idiot :violin:

The bulk of the migrants that come here looking for a better life find it, along with a job.

Perhaps if some of those 150,000 looked a little harder and were prepared to compromise a little, as a country we would be in less shit than we are.

WELFARE IS TOO EASY in this country.

Figure it out.

Cheers

Winston001

3rd August 2011, 13:56

I actually admire the guy...whether white-bread New Zealanders agree with him or not I can't help but notice that he is only doing what his supporters are asking of him.Hells teeth! a politician actually listening to his people and following through on it in the face of nationwide condemnation.The guy has a backbone.

Is that not what we all want in our parliamantary representatives?

Good on you but I'm afraid I think Hone is as stupid as a bag of hammers. He's thick. The only reason we even know the guy exists is he makes easy reporting for TV. He makes a lot of noise, tries to destroy the Maori Party - from a reporters point of view he's great.

But Hone doesn't have any ideas or vision and he's a coward too. Consider how he reacted abusively when he discovered he had to debate Te Ururoa Flavell during the by-election. He was scared. http://tvnz.co.nz/politics-news/harawira-abusive-debate-maori-party-4260027

Being an effective politician is not possible if you use your position to abuse everyone else. If you want to make a difference you have to get on with other people and persuade them to listen to you. For example the Maori Party have matured remarkably and been very effective and that has not been achieved through playground bully tactics.

mashman

3rd August 2011, 15:13

Idiot

At your service.

The bulk of the migrants that come here looking for a better life find it, along with a job.

... and they "take" Kiwi jobs.

WELFARE IS TOO EASY in this country.

Where is it hard? NZ isn't special.

Figure it out.

That's the thing ya see. I have figured it out (or some near version of "it"). According to the great lord internet. We need a certain % of our population to be unemployed to keep inflation down? I believe inflation is a really bad thing for economies? Unfortunately the amount we pay the unemployed to be, unemployed, really isn't that much at all, and that creates a raft of associated problems... often found in the news. They do what they do to get what they need. But what does it matter, they're stupid and lazy and really really stupid. And unemployed by necessity.

DR650gary

3rd August 2011, 17:22

Getting back on topic :yes:

The number of people unemployed now stands at 155,000, down from 158,000 in the December 2010 quarter.

There were 97,000 New Zealanders on DPB for sole parents in February 2010. This is up from 90,000 in February 2009 – an increase of 8 per cent

Approx 1/16th of the population not working, collecting a benefit.

This does not factor in those on welfare called "working for families"

I am certain that they will form a significant electorate that Labour will want to tap into. Are those on a direct and disguised benefit smart enough to realise the Labour is their only guarantee of continued "money for nothing"...sans chicks :shit:

SPman

3rd August 2011, 17:31

...For example the Maori Party have matured remarkably and been very effective
yeah - they seem to have matured into the National party....:innocent:

oldrider

3rd August 2011, 18:16

And for all that, are the people he represents any better off?

With all due respect, would many of them know, or even care? :confused: ( they probably just think they are going forward with Hone, come hell or high water!) :drinkup:

Oscar

3rd August 2011, 18:43

yeah - they seem to have matured into the National party....:innocent:

You may have hit on summat there.
My impression is that Maori very conservative in their outlook on social issues, so maybe their traditional alliance with the Labour Party is ill-founded.

Banditbandit

4th August 2011, 10:09

You may have hit on summat there.
My impression is that Maori very conservative in their outlook on social issues, so maybe their traditional alliance with the Labour Party is ill-founded.

Ata marie i tēnei rangi ataahua.

Yes - no - possibly ...

I can see where you get that impression from, but Māori politics doesn't really fit well into the left/right conservative/radical categories.

Yes, many are conservative on social issues ... and in some ways its the same conservatism as large chunks of the working class ...

The Alliance with Labour was formed back in the day when there were considerable differences between Labour and National (when Labour still thought of themselves as a Socialist Party and National was the party of the large rural landowing captalist overlords) )

But times have changed and in fact if you look at what has happened it is the National Governments who have poured millions and millions of dollars into Treaty Settlements - Labour has a very poor record of actually spending money on Māori issues. Labour make all the right noises and do nothing. National make all the wrong noises and actually do stuff ..

That's possibly why Labour has largely lost Māori support. But with people like Brash around there is no way the majority of Māori are going to vote National. (Yes, I know Brash is no longer Nats, he's Act - we don't want a Natioanl/Act coalition ...)

Banditbandit

4th August 2011, 10:12

yeah - they seem to have matured into the National party....:innocent:

Bwhahahahaha ... the problem for the Māori party is that it is made up of a number of people who's only real similarities is that they are Māori ...

Te Ururoa Flavell belongs more naturally with the nats

Tariana Turia and peter Sharples belong more naturally with Labour - and Hone was out there on the radical left ...

So far they are too disparate in their political ideas to ever really work as a coherent party ...

But Tari and Peter can work with the Nats because they actually do stuff - like settle treaty claims and put money into helping .. unlike Labour .. who make all the right noises but have to be fought for every cent ..

Oscar

4th August 2011, 10:20

Ata marie i tēnei rangi ataahua.

Yes - no - possibly ...

I can see where you get that impression from, but Māori politics doesn't really fit well into the left/right conservative/radical categories.

Yes, many are conservative on social issues ... and in some ways its the same conservatism as large chunks of the working class ...

The Alliance with Labour was formed back in the day when there were considerable differences between Labour and National (when Labour still thought of themselves as a Socialist Party and National was the party of the large rural landowing captalist overlords) )

But times have changed and in fact if you look at what has happened it is the National Governments who have poured millions and millions of dollars into Treaty Settlements - Labour has a very poor record of actually spending money on Māori issues. Labour make all the right noises and do nothing. National make all the wrong noises and actually do stuff ..

That's possibly why Labour has largely lost Māori support. But with people like Brash around there is no way the majority of Māori are going to vote National. (Yes, I know Brash is no longer Nats, he's Act - we don't want a Natioanl/Act coalition ...)

A good summary.
As a resonably conservative voter (in my old age - as a youngster I was a Labour activist), I'd hate to see National in bed with ACT. I have to say that I have no proble with the Nat/Maori Party connection - Pita Sharples has always impressed me as a politician and leader.

shrub

4th August 2011, 12:05

The announcement yesterday by Dear Leader to automaticaly enrol everyone in Kiwisaver was probably the cleverest thing the Nats have done. For a long time now NZ has been a country of spenders not savers, and the two best things Labour did were introduce Kiwisaver and the Cullen fund - suddenly we were not only saving, but the country was building an investment portfolio. Imagine if Kirk's super had been left alone? We'd be a rich country now, but Muldoon got his dancing cossacks out and used the irrational fear we all have of communism to cripple our future.

There are two more things the government needs to do: deal with the exchange rate and increase our exports. These will increase our income as a country and balance the likes of Quasi who are spenders not earners.

The exchange rate is an interesting one, and the RB Act is half the problem. The mechanism used of cranking up interest rates whenever inflation (growth) rises is idiotic because what happens is overseas investors pour hot money into NZ which pushes up the exchange rate and increases the amount of lendable money in NZ which in turn pushes up consumption (of mostly cheaper imports) which increases inflation... The requirement for banks to increase their core funding ratio has helped curb the inflow of hot money, but it needs more teeth to be effective.

We also need to stop being free-market purists and recognise that we are too small and too volatile to be able to enjoy a completely free exchange rate. There need to be controls, even if it pisses off some of our trading partners, and a band needs to be introduced. Pissing off our trading partners is easy - we make sure that what we sell is so bloody good that they are willing to accept our terms of trade. We also need to stop making the Kiwi dollar a delight to trade and "dirty" it up - Singapore have done that effectively. And we need to take the top off the exchange rate by selling NZD into the market and build foreign currency reserves IMMEDIATELY.

We then need to increase our exports, but not increase primary produce. We need to start exporting high tech products and our intellectual capital - I'm an exporter. I have recently been doing some work for a couple of Aussie based businesses who have paid me in AUD which has earnt money for NZ. We need to lift our game by producing more university graduates who have knowledge that the overseas market desires, and keep them in NZ. We also need engineers, designers and entrepreneurs who want to build high tech companies in NZ - modern versions of Angus Tait.

Dairy is our darling right now, but it is a bloody unproductive darling. Establishing a dairy farm requires massive investment, mostly funded by offshore lenders which increases our current account deficit, and has a huge environmental impact that will be paid for in the future. It is also is not productive producing around $45 in GDP per hour worked when we need to have export industries producing around $75 an hour to turn our economy around.

And we need to take climate change and sustainability seriously. Just because a few middle aged men with motorbikes and a small (and shrinking) selection of fringe experts disagree with AGW (or are unsure) doesn't mean it's not happening. The people who matter are convinced and the day is rapidly coming when a business that has a high carbon footprint will find it hard to gain customers.

I've probably wasted the last 20 minutes writing this because the people who need to know this (Quasi et al) are unlikely to understand it and think cutting taxes and reducing the number of civil servants is the best solution by a long shot.

BTW Quasi, I see you're an Act supporter -it must feel good to have found a party that is as xenophobic, is as anti-science and education and as terrified of tax as you.

oldrider

4th August 2011, 15:54

So you've been thinking .... didn't Richard Prebble (top Labour man) do that ... before he went over to ACT? :rolleyes:

Indiana_Jones

4th August 2011, 16:05

BTW Quasi, I see you're an Act supporter -it must feel good to have found a party that is as xenophobic, is as anti-science and education and as terrified of tax as you.

Stereotypes are fun!

Does xenophobic mean you don't like wobbley-tops? :lol:

-Indy

shrub

4th August 2011, 16:06

So you've been thinking .... didn't Richard Prebble (top Labour man) do that ... before he went over to ACT? :rolleyes:

Yeah, he did. And in 1993 when his good buddy Roger Douglas launched Association of Citizens and Taxpayers along with his mate Derek Quigley I was at the launch function and paid my $20 and joined up. It seemed like SUCH a good idea on the outside, but I made the mistake of looking beyond the externalities and taking into account that just because I'm OK doesn't mean everyone else is and I'm actually better off if everyone else is too.

Banditbandit

4th August 2011, 16:18

Yeah, he did. And in 1993 when his good buddy Roger Douglas launched Association of Citizens and Taxpayers along with his mate Derek Quigley I was at the launch function and paid my $20 and joined up. It seemed like SUCH a good idea on the outside, but I made the mistake of looking beyond the externalities and taking into account that just because I'm OK doesn't mean everyone else is and I'm actually better off if everyone else is too.

ACT actually stands for Association of Consumers and Taxpayers.

It's an important point as the party therefore represents positions within an economic structure - it does not represent citizens or human beings.

shrub

4th August 2011, 16:35

ACT actually stands for Association of Consumers and Taxpayers.

It's an important point as the party therefore represents positions within an economic structure - it does not represent citizens or human beings.

Correct. Interesting the choice of word - if you look at their core economic policies there is very little about production and export. Their 20 point strategy to catch Australia (http://www.act.org.nz/plan) is all about cutting government expenditure and reducing regulation, privatising core services, reducing tarrifs on imports, building more houses, building more prisons and introducing rentacops and teaching parenting and life skills.

There is no mention about producing more higher value exports or even producing or exporting anything. I think imbecilic is too polite.

Ocean1

4th August 2011, 19:17

There is no mention about producing more higher value exports or even producing or exporting anything[/B].

Dude. Sit down.

No political party has ever, (nor have any ever specifically claimed to have) produced anything of marketable value whatsoever. Ever.

Have a drink.

shrub

4th August 2011, 19:41

Dude. Sit down.

No political party has ever, (nor have any ever specifically claimed to have) produced anything of marketable value whatsoever. Ever.

Have a drink.

I have and I will have another.

National, Labour and the Greens all list increasing exports as critical to our economic success, are Act simply unaware of the importance of generating income or do they think that selling assets, reducing services and cutting taxes is a better approach?

Ocean1

4th August 2011, 20:12

National, Labour and the Greens all list increasing exports as critical to our economic success

But none of them ever claimed to actually produced any.

And where value is concerned that's the ultimate evaluation tool: Can they deliver the actual goods?

And none of them ever have.

are Act simply unaware of the importance of generating income or do they think that selling assets, reducing services and cutting taxes is a better approach?

Can't be sure. Perhaps they're of the opinion that if you simply refrain from actively discouraging people from generating income then they mostly tend to do it without outside help or inteferance.

And, historically speaking if you're looking for political entities to contribute genuine measurable improvements in national productive activity that's about all you can expect.

shrub

4th August 2011, 20:25

But none of them ever claimed to actually produced any.

And where value is concerned that's the ultimate evaluation tool: Can they deliver the actual goods?

And none of them ever have.

The Greens have never been in government, but in the past both National and Labour have led NZ during periods where we exported more than we imported. The last labour government had a poor run in their last term and the current crop are at least as bad, but at least they recognise the importance of exports and have policies designed to facilitate them.

Can't be sure. Perhaps they're of the opinion that if you simply refrain from actively discouraging people from generating income then they mostly tend to do it without outside help or inteferance.

Surely hoping for the best is not as good as actually having a strategy to achieve an end? And many of their other policies will encourage imports, so why is importing more important than exporting?

We need a government with a vision for the future and aspirations of NZ as an economically strong country that earns more than it spends.

Ocean1

4th August 2011, 20:33

both National and Labour have led NZ during periods where we exported more than we imported. The last labour government had a poor run in their last term and the current crop are at least as bad, but at least they recognise the importance of exports and have policies designed to facilitate them.

None of which had as much positive effect as the combined negative ones they were even quicker to foist on us.

We need a government with a vision for the future and aspirations of NZ as an economically strong country that earns more than it spends.

Let's change that wording a tad. Every person I know that's been successfull in becoming and remaining wealthy spent less than they earned.

There is a difference.

rainman

4th August 2011, 23:13

We also need to stop being free-market purists and recognise that we are too small and too volatile to be able to enjoy a completely free exchange rate. There need to be controls, even if it pisses off some of our trading partners, and a band needs to be introduced. Pissing off our trading partners is easy - we make sure that what we sell is so bloody good that they are willing to accept our terms of trade.

A quality post, but apparently I have blinged you too much. Welcome back!

So you've been thinking .... didn't Richard Prebble (top Labour man) do that ... before he went over to ACT? :rolleyes:

And there I was thinking he'd just banged his head or something... :innocent:

We need a government with a vision for the future and aspirations of NZ as an economically strong country that earns more than it spends.

Ain't that the truth.

Know where we can find one?

Quasievil

5th August 2011, 07:33

We need a government with a vision for the future and aspirations of NZ as an economically strong country that earns more than it spends.

Where you saluting the NZ flag whilst listening to the national anthem when you wrote that load of dribble ?
just asking

rainman

5th August 2011, 07:49

Where you saluting the NZ flag whilst listening to the national anthem when you wrote that load of dribble ?
just asking

Interesting that your reflex is to cringe if someone starts being even a teensy bit aspirational. I think you have just made my point.

Unless of course you think we don't need a vision, shouldn't be economically strong, and can run indefinite deficits. In which case you've made my other point.

Quasievil

5th August 2011, 07:59

Interesting that your reflex is to cringe if someone starts being even a teensy bit aspirational. I think you have just made my point.

Unless of course you think we don't need a vision, shouldn't be economically strong, and can run indefinite deficits. In which case you've made my other point.

Im still waiting for his answers, not his vision we all got that, after being slammed earlier I was expecting a valid option with something to back it up with.
But I should know that this wont come from Shrub

Banditbandit

5th August 2011, 09:23

Im still waiting for his answers, not his vision we all got that, after being slammed earlier I was expecting a valid option with something to back it up with.
But I should know that this wont come from Shrub

Are you any better??? All I've seen from you is "that won't work .. that won't work .. that won't work" Oh and "Exterminate Somalis" ...

Quasievil

5th August 2011, 09:37

Are you any better??? All I've seen from you is "that won't work .. that won't work .. that won't work" Oh and "Exterminate Somalis" ...

yes, I said exterminate Somalis from NZ

mashman

5th August 2011, 09:58

Are you any better??? All I've seen from you is "that won't work .. that won't work .. that won't work" Oh and "Exterminate Somalis" ...

Be fair, there are no need for answers... the govt will provide :)

MisterD

5th August 2011, 11:26

Surely hoping for the best is not as good as actually having a strategy to achieve an end?

So can you actually point to a policy from any of the left wing parties (Green, Labour or National) to acheive greater exports?

Talking about it, is not the same as doing something about it...mouth - trousers and all that. Let's pick a successful exporting company....how about Rakon? If the Greens had their way, the'd shut down half of what they do because it "goes into smart bombs". Successful companies are usually successful in spite of govt policy, not because of it.

shrub

5th August 2011, 11:53

Im still waiting for his answers, not his vision we all got that, after being slammed earlier I was expecting a valid option with something to back it up with.
But I should know that this wont come from Shrub

*sighs...* I knew I was wasting my time. I refer you to post #327 where I have outlined some strategies that would work to turn NZ around. If you are unable to understand what I have written I will try and simplify things, but I have quite a lot to do today so don't hold your breath.

Is there a party that has them in their policies? Yes, National, Labour and the Greens all have aspects with Labour and the Greens well ahead. National are still stuck in the model of cut government expenditure and reduce taxes despite it having never worked anywhere. Ever. In fact it generally makes things worse.

shrub

5th August 2011, 12:30

So can you actually point to a policy from any of the left wing parties (Green, Labour or National) to acheive greater exports?

Talking about it, is not the same as doing something about it...mouth - trousers and all that. Let's pick a successful exporting company....how about Rakon? If the Greens had their way, the'd shut down half of what they do because it "goes into smart bombs". Successful companies are usually successful in spite of govt policy, not because of it.

Actually I can, but it's not just about greater exports; it's about exports that achieve higher productivity and are economically and environmentally sustainable. And your paranoid fear of the greens is amusing and probably based entirely on what Garth down that pub told you (you know Garth, the guy with the grouse ute and the hot missus, ya gotta listen to what he says).

Banditbandit

5th August 2011, 16:28

So can you actually point to a policy from any of the left wing parties (Green, Labour or National) to acheive greater exports?

Talking about it, is not the same as doing something about it...mouth - trousers and all that. Let's pick a successful exporting company....how about Rakon? If the Greens had their way, the'd shut down half of what they do because it "goes into smart bombs". Successful companies are usually successful in spite of govt policy, not because of it.

Do we want a company that is producing weapons for the world's killing machines???

My answer is NO. We need ethical industries ...

Winston001

5th August 2011, 17:13

I've never understood how fixed exchange rates work but I have the impression its not used by OECD countries. The inference is once you have a strong enough economy, you don't need the artificial barrier of a fixed currency.

If having a low value currency is the answer, why aren't North Korea, Zimbabwe, and Somalia the economic powerhouses of the world?

rainman

5th August 2011, 21:37

To get back to at least the spirit of the original question, "Who's gonna win?", the answer is almost certainly National. As to who should win, that's a bigger question of course.

To me the issue swings on asset sales. If you elect Key he will (probably rightly) claim a mandate to sell off anything not nailed down, plus a coupla things that are. To his credit, he's being pretty up front about this, which means it will probably be more extensive a sell-off than currently proposed - otherwise he'd have to hand in his "lying pollie" card. But asset sales are the main Nat policy - they've done F all else, really, even including the bloody cycleway.

So, dispassionately, what does this policy achieve? There are three approaches that might be advanced in favour of the proposal:

1) Selling the SOEs (or some of them, whatever) will bring in foreign investment. Unfortunately that is also undeniably the fast track to being impoverished tenant-serfs in our own country, so is at best a short-sighted sugar rush of cash, and for anyone with any attention-span and foresight, a Very Bad Idea.
1a) Further, selling 49% of something is a dumb idea. If you sell all of a thing worth a billion, you might get a billion. 49%? Probably gonna fetch $300 mil.
2) But, Mr Key might say, this is a way for "Kiwi mums and dads" to own shares, which is good, mmmkay? Problem is, they already do own these SOE's by virtue of their shared stake in the state. Much though the right don't like to acknowledge this, it is undeniably the case.
2a) If the SOEs are running well, making money and likely to grow (like, say, energy companies), then the contribution they make reduces the requirement to raise taxes or cut services, both of which actions hit ordinary Kiwi mums and dads.
2b) If they're not, but could be, then the solution is to fix them (unless you are irrationally wedded to option 3 below). Bring in some "business leader" mates and get them to fix the issues, while letting the opposition vent about the cronyistic nature of the appointments, as is the traditional way.
2c) If they're buggy-whip manufacturers, then by all means exit them and build something better. What, no ideas? Thought we had such good entrepreneurs?
2d) This is also highly distributionally regressive. Instead of all of us owning a stake and needing less tax to be raised, the wealthy will end up with the shares and the poor will be shafted yet again. I'll call it what it is: immoral, and just plain theft. Worse than bludging.
3) But, say the ACToids, "the state should not pick winners"/"...own anything"/"government should be small enough to drown in a bathtub"! Grow up. Seriously. Ideological fervour is so tedious, rational thought is the new thang. Or make a sensible case why this is always true. I can't. Hint: the plural of anecdote is not data.

So, having looked at this with an open mind, I can't see any sensible reason for asset sales. It's a shit idea and a shit policy, so National should be shitcanned for it, and someone else should win.

Unfortunately we're a nation of morons who will vote the blue team because they don't like Goff or something, and destroy the country in the process. That, based on polling, we seem to think that National is the best option is only testament to the idiocy and bigotry of the country, and the dire paucity of alternatives. If you chuck in the likelihood of energy and financial issues during the next term, National are, rationally, the Very Worst Political Party to vote for. They'll keep slashing and burning, and leaving it to the market, an approach that has never worked. At the end we'll be toast.

I was talking to a (different) mate yesterday who falls into the category of intelligent rightie. Property developer, forex trader, libertarian of the non-socialist persuasion. Voted Key last time, gave me endless shit about the Greens and "Uncle Helen". He's voting Labour /Green as they're rationally the best option, and says the Nats have nothing and will assuredly destroy the country. Lab/Green is simply the least worst option. He's donating money to the Labour campaign, what's more, and even evangelising among his social contacts. Yes, only an anecdote, but perhaps an encouraging sign of intelligent life.

oldrider

5th August 2011, 21:59

To get back to at least the spirit of the original question, "Who's gonna win?", the answer is almost certainly National. As to who should win, that's a bigger question of course.

We are on the same page up to there! :yes:

rainman

5th August 2011, 22:14

We are on the same page up to there! :yes:

So, you like asset sales, including the energy companies? Why?

oldrider

6th August 2011, 09:21

So, you like asset sales, including the energy companies? Why?

I didn't actually say that but now that you have specifically asked, I don't see any problems with foreign ownership issues, they still have to obey our laws!

They can't take the assets away and the owners still pay taxes and rates etc and employ workers, what's the big deal?

How many assets do NZ companies own in foreign countries?

Our little town here has majority absentee house ownership, they still pay rates etc and if the permanent locals had to carry that burden on our own, we could not afford to live here.

rainman

6th August 2011, 10:24

I didn't actually say that but now that you have specifically asked, I don't see any problems with foreign ownership issues

Well, you did disagree with all of my post, which was agin' asset sales, so logically I assumed you to be pro. I find it hard to understand why people would take a weak position on the issue. Either defend it or oppose it, can't really be middle-of-the-road here, it's too critical.

they still have to obey our laws!

Increasingly, we have to obey theirs: consider the Warners Hobbit dispute, and the distinct possibility that after the TPP is in place, we can be sued by foreign corporations to change our laws if they are seen to interfere with trade. Once upon a time we understood the concept of sovereignty.

They can't take the assets away and the owners still pay taxes and rates etc and employ workers, what's the big deal?

Short-term thinking there: they can take the return on the assets away, and bloody well do. We pour money out of the country and all end up poorer. Look what's happening in Africa - the Chinese are rolling in and buying up wodges of land and minerals and anything else they can get. Do you think it makes the locals wealthier? Like hell it does. This used to be called colonisation but these days we're such pussies you don't even need to bring an army along to steal a country, you just take the good bits and leave the social and economic problems behind. Remember colonisation is never for the benefit of the colonised (a.k.a. the losers).

A lot of jobs go in these scenarios, too - one simple example is the Telecom contact centre in Manila. All those jobs could go to Kiwis, so there would be fewer on the dole for people here to rant about (plus I daresay you'd get a better service). I've worked for several kiwi companies that were bought by overseas interests. Coupla years later all the good jobs are in Sydney or Singapore, the shit jobs are in Manila or Vietnam, and the locals are down the road to the dole office scratching to get by.

If asset sales was a silver bullet for economic trouble we'd be a powerhouse today, since we started selling things back in the 80s. Unfortunately we've wasted what money we got, and are still a puny little economy on the arse end of the planet. If we sell the last ones it's obvious we'll be even worse off over time. Yet people still vote National, and wonder why I think most of the population here are eejits.

Feel free to properly critique my logic in the original post you replied to, btw. I'm genuinely interested to discover if there is a sane and non-ideological reason for asset sales. I've discussed this with many, including on the right, no-one seems to have one. It's either "but Labour is crap", or "we need the money", or "I actually don't mind asset sales because (half-arsed reason)".All of which may be true but are no defence for wrecking the country.

mashman

6th August 2011, 10:41

I didn't actually say that but now that you have specifically asked, I don't see any problems with foreign ownership issues, they still have to obey our laws!

I've seen us change the taxation laws for foreign "ownership" of a movie. I wouldn't count yer chickens on the obeying the laws thing. Laws can always be changed. And quite quickly it would seem.

I understand that they take the risk. But it's our communities that suffer if/when their investment fails.

oldrider

6th August 2011, 10:48

I do have an opinion on energy asset sales but only from the viewpoint of my involvement in preparation of an SOE for sale so it may be narrow from your point of view and therefore considered biased.

It would take me too long to post it today and right now I am rushing off to watch my Granddaughter play netball in Timaru. So I will :shutup: for now!

rainman

6th August 2011, 12:57

I do have an opinion on energy asset sales but only from the viewpoint of my involvement in preparation of an SOE for sale so it may be narrow from your point of view and therefore considered biased.

Not at all, I'd be glad to hear your view. And good to see you've got your priorities straight...

MisterD

6th August 2011, 16:02

And your paranoid fear of the greens is amusing and probably...

Sheesh, touch a nerve much? Paranoia "oh noes! Teh merkins, teh dirty Joos!, teh GE Frankenplants will take over teh world!" is Green stock-in-trade. It looks like Russ is trying to drag them into some semblence of pragmatism, but boy has he a way to go.

Do we want a company that is producing weapons for the world's killing machines???

My answer is NO. We need ethical industries ...

So it's not ethical to produce something that makes a weapon, that would be dropped anyway, more accurate? Rakon could quite reasonably claim to have saved lives with their technology.

mashman

6th August 2011, 16:11

Perhaps we should import a star (http://tvnz.co.nz/entertainment-news/roseanne-barr-run-us-presidency-4340647)... That's where my vote would go. T'will make for great entertainment if nothing else... but I'm betting a smear campaign will ensue.

puddytat

6th August 2011, 16:31

I heard/saw/read somehere that some outfit did a poll when they asked folk who were supporters of either Nats or the Labs ,that if they were uninclined to vote for thier traditional party ,which other party would they vote for....
58% Nats & over 80% of Labs would vote for , yes you quessed it 'cause we all have a little common sense somewhere deep down inside us....

THE GREENS:yes:

What I found surprising was apart from the initial announcement Ive heard nothing more on it.To me that is the most telling shift in political thinking in a wee while...

shrub

6th August 2011, 17:41

...perhaps an encouraging sign of intelligent life.

You scare me. You have put up a post that demonstrates independent thought and analysis of the situation, and worst of all a longer term perspective. Are you lost or something? Do you not know this is KB?

Quasievil

6th August 2011, 18:32

oldrider

6th August 2011, 20:37

Compost THE GREENS ... :wings: Practical organics in action! :yes:

rainman

6th August 2011, 20:38

they barely get 5% !!

Well, like I said, intelligent life is hard to come by in these parts..... :innocent:

BMWST?

6th August 2011, 21:31

HAHAHAHA they barely get 5% !!

common sense and the greens in the same comment BRILLIANT !!

6.4 in the last poll more than three times as the next minor party.I predict ACT are gone and so is NZ first

Winston001

6th August 2011, 23:27

.

To me the issue swings on asset sales.

So, dispassionately, what does this policy achieve? There are three approaches that might be advanced in favour of the proposal:

1) Selling the SOEs (or some of them, whatever) will bring in foreign investment.

2) But, Mr Key might say, this is a way for "Kiwi mums and dads" to own shares, which is good, mmmkay?

2a) If the SOEs are running well, making money and likely to grow (like, say, energy companies), then the contribution they make reduces the requirement to raise taxes or cut services, both of which actions hit ordinary Kiwi mums and dads.

3) But, say the ACToids, "the state should not pick winners"/"...

So, having looked at this with an open mind...

Lovely post and a shame to cut it up.

So anyway, I am not happy about the proposed 49% sales.

Nevertheless you ask why such a step might be necessary? The answer is the NZ government owes a crippling amount of debt. Currently we pay $370 million per week. That's a lot of hay for a small nation. All we have to do is look at the P.I.G.S. of Europe, and now Italy as well, to see the problems.

Even the behemoth the United States is faltering under crippling public debt. Sometimes you have to make hard decisions - something the Americans have yet to confront.

Imagine owning a bike rental business and also having a $100k overdraft. The rental business is good in the summer but earning $100k to pay off the bank (which wants to take your home) is going to take 14 years. Expenses, running costs, tax etc, it takes a long time to pay debt off.

So you sadly look at your fleet of machines and start selling. Eventually the debt is under control, time passes, and you move into off-road adventures which is cheaper and a winner.

The decision is simple and nothing more than a prudent person would do to protect their family.

Winston001

6th August 2011, 23:39

2a) If the SOEs are running well, making money and likely to grow (like, say, energy companies), then the contribution they make reduces the requirement to raise taxes or cut services

Ah yes, the old "energy companies are cash cows" theorem. We wish.

Contact Energy was privatised by the govt in 1999 to the NZ public at $3.15 a share.

Here we are 12 years later. Contact Energy's share price ten minutes ago....?

$5.03

That represents a mighty $1.87 increase in value for 12 years.

Maybe selling part of Meridian et al wil prove to be a smart move.

rainman

7th August 2011, 12:02

Nevertheless you ask why such a step might be necessary? The answer is the NZ government owes a crippling amount of debt.

Not really. I understand the problem, even if National tends to overstate the borrowing and the reasons behind it - we aren't living within our means, and going into turbulent times with a load of debt is a bad idea. But I asked why asset sales were a good response to this, which is a different thing entirely.

That said our government debt levels are nowhere near the levels held by the European problem children, and our private debt is high mainly because we owe it all to the organisations we flogged off overseas in the 80s, such as the Aussie banks. Our trade balance is also part of the problem - we have a weak manufacturing sector partly because we sold off all of the industries that would have supported the growth of a better one. So arguing that we have to privatise more to fix up a problem partly created by the last round of privatisation is surely a bit silly.

Imagine owning a bike rental business and also having a $100k overdraft. The rental business is good in the summer but earning $100k to pay off the bank (which wants to take your home) is going to take 14 years. Expenses, running costs, tax etc, it takes a long time to pay debt off.

So you sadly look at your fleet of machines and start selling. Eventually the debt is under control, time passes, and you move into off-road adventures which is cheaper and a winner.

But at the same time you lose some of your income source from being able to rent the bikes, so find it harder to service the debt, and go broke. It's like burning the floorboards to heat your house: selling assets to service consumption is dumb. Optimising the return on your assets, and changing the portfolio you hold to maximise return, that can be smart - but not what's on offer here, and honestly well beyond the capability of the current lot.

And in a business you can look at your incomes and expenditure and decide the operation isn't sustainable no matter how much you try to lift incomes or cut expenses, and go broke. Countries can't really do that.

The decision is simple and nothing more than a prudent person would do to protect their family.

The decision is usually not simple at all.
The organisation I'm employed by has over time held certain property assets, and decided to sell some of these to fund operating costs. Some of those transactions can optimistically be described as 'hard decisions' that needed to be taken, but most were of questionable benefit in the long term, that left the organisation in a weaker position. A lot depends on how much you sell for, and what you use the cash on.

Also, as I pointed out before: if this is such a shit hot idea, how come it didn't work in the 80s?

Ah yes, the old "energy companies are cash cows" theorem. We wish.
..
That represents a mighty $1.87 increase in value for 12 years.

Two things:
1) the NZ stock market has grown pathetically slowly for years. You may want to read this (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10743233) rather good article. Covers some of my other bugbears too).
2) energy, in case you hadn't noticed, is going to be a bit of an important commodity in the coming years. May just be an opportunity to do better than we've done to date with these assets. Maybe the alternatives will get more expensive. It's a tricky business case, to be sure.

If you still think we should sell these because they are poor performers, then you're implicitly talking about remixing the portfolio. What are the better assets we could hold that will deliver better returns/lower costs?

If you're saying we should sell them because we should not hold assets (or certain classes of assets) per se, then what's your reasoning there? No ideology, please, let's have some facts.

BMWST?

7th August 2011, 13:37

No ideology, please, let's have some facts.

sell them but NOT to overseas investors.We must find a way to keep SOME of the family silver!

rainman

7th August 2011, 15:03

sell them but NOT to overseas investors.We must find a way to keep SOME of the family silver!

How's that work though?

Does nothing to our balance of payments, and it's redistributive to the wealthy, who frankly, have enough already. The poor won't be buying them, that's for sure.
Would also be pretty hard to enforce and a dumb idea - "you can buy these shares as long as you only sell them to a Kiwi" would a) lower the sale price, and b) keep lawyers, regulators and the like busy, while achieving nothing significant. We'd still be in the same net debt position.
Also, even if you could enforce NZ ownership, we already own them. Why steal them and sell them back to us?
Why sell only the assets, and leave the liabilities (the other form of theft) with the poor taxpayer? How is that remotely moral? Privatise the gains, socialise the losses is one big way capitalism screws us all over.

If we have an overseas debt problem, the solution is:
1) stop borrowing, a.k.a. live within our means. Where this falls over is we don't have a good sense of common purpose, national identity, and solidarity. We're all induhviduals, y'know. So we disagree fervently as to what should be cut and who should pay.
2) start earning more and pay off our debts This means build industries, raise employment, get cracking. Also means put up some tariffs and trade controls, set up tax and employment policy to get everyone working, and a few other unpalatable things (to both left and right). The market has not, and will not, sort(ed) this out.

This all might be sumarised as "grow up and be a bit more self-reliant".

National, with it's "leave it to the market" is like a teenager, with a bit of a "meh, life is sweet, couldn't be arsed, I'm all right Jack" attitude.
Labour is thinking a bit harder, but is maybe like the slightly creepy crazy uncle who has lots of ideas, but only some of them are worth anything, and not all of them are worked out all the way to the end.
The Greens are like your grandma, you know she's right (and she is), but you hate being told you're wrong so you rebel. (And sometimes she does say some crazy shit).

If the choice is Nat/Lab, and it largely is, Lab is the better bet as they have job creation and the like closer to their DNA. Perhaps with a bit of support from grandma, they could do OK?

Winston001

7th August 2011, 15:35

Not really. I understand the problem, even if National tends to overstate the borrowing and the reasons behind it - we aren't living within our means, and going into turbulent times with a load of debt is a bad idea. But I asked why asset sales were a good response to this, which is a different thing entirely.

Yes, and I provided a dispassionate explanation. Whether I agree with it is a different matter.

That said our government debt levels are nowhere near the levels held by the European problem children, and our private debt is high mainly because we owe it all to the organisations we flogged off overseas in the 80s, such as the Aussie banks.

One bank: the BNZ. Exaggeration is unnecessary.

Our trade balance is also part of the problem - we have a weak manufacturing sector partly because we sold off all of the industries that would have supported the growth of a better one. So arguing that we have to privatise more to fix up a problem partly created by the last round of privatisation is surely a bit silly.

Again, this is opinion and exaggeration. I struggle to think of anything privatised by the govt which would otherwise have developed into a high tech high value manufacturing industry. Railways...? Puhleessee :blink:

But at the same time you lose some of your income source from being able to rent the bikes, so find it harder to service the debt, and go broke.

NO. The reason to sell the rental bikes is that the money gained repays the $100k overdraft. No ongoing interest. Reduce debt = reduced commitment.

You can then concentrate on earning alternative income without the $100k debt pressure. People do this when up against a wall of debt.

Also, as I pointed out before: if this is such a shit hot idea, how come it didn't work in the 80s?

?? Who says it didn't? NZ is a far better place today than when it was Fortress New Zealand under Rob Muldoon.

2) energy, in case you hadn't noticed, is going to be a bit of an important commodity in the coming years. May just be an opportunity to do better than we've done to date with these assets. Maybe the alternatives will get more expensive. It's a tricky business case, to be sure.

What are the better assets we could hold that will deliver better returns/lower costs?

Just to repeat - counterarguments to advance discussion do not necessarily reflect the writers personal opinion.

Energy assets do have the seductive attraction of "national interest" although the existence of Contact hasn't done any harm. Its not as though overseas shareholders can take the hydro dams away.

The better assets? People. Educated, motivated, positive people supported by small business programs and infrastructure. If we can encourage individuals to try their ideas out, the whole nation will be lifted.

rainman

7th August 2011, 16:08

Yes, and I provided a dispassionate explanation.

Sorry, musta missed it,. All I saw was the bit where you said we had to do this because of the debt. I'll phrase this another way: we have a (small) debt problem. What's the best way to fix it?

One bank: the BNZ. Exaggeration is unnecessary.

Again, this is opinion and exaggeration. I struggle to think of anything privatised by the govt which would otherwise have developed into a high tech high value manufacturing industry.

It's less about what might have directly developed into a high value industry and more about sustaining an industrial ecosystem based on more than a pasture and consumption economy. You seem to think we have a big debt problem. Why do you think this is so?

The reason to sell the rental bikes is that the money gained repays the $100k overdraft. No ongoing interest. Reduce debt = reduced commitment.

You can then concentrate on earning alternative income without the $100k debt pressure. People do this when up against a wall of debt.

So if you can sell all of your assets and get rid of all of your debt, you should do this? (Rhetorical question). We'd have no economy then.
How do you decide what is an appropriate level of assets to keen to sustain your business?
How does this apply to a country, which is not a business?

The problem is not the assets though - it's the debt. So, three questions:
1) how bad is the debt problem really?
2) how much of it do we have to fix, and how soon?
3) what's the best way to fix it?

?? Who says it didn't? NZ is a far better place today than when it was Fortress New Zealand under Rob Muldoon.

By what measures? I think this is not as clear an issue as some think. And will the circumstances that lead you to prefer today to then still prevail in the future?

The better assets? People. Educated, motivated, positive people supported by small business programs and infrastructure. If we can encourage individuals to try their ideas out, the whole nation will be lifted.

So, what should we do to get this right? Support people into work, start training programmes, reward diligent effort through a sensible tax system, support R&D, protect and nurture new industries.... or sell some shit, pay some debt, and hope for the best?

Quasievil

7th August 2011, 18:18

Well Boys its been a great Debate, I would love to stay involved but sadly Im having to shoot up to Cairns for the week, so enjoy
I will look forward to seeing how this eventually concludes to the obvious truth in that ACT is the way forward for us all.

While Im diving the great barrier my thoughts will be with you

While drinking a cold beer in 27 deg my thoughts will be with you.

hehehe

(yeah I know cunt eh)

Winston001

7th August 2011, 23:45

Sorry, musta missed it,. All I saw was the bit where you said we had to do this because of the debt. I'll phrase this another way: we have a (small) debt problem. What's the best way to fix it?

Ok, sometimes the short simple answers are all there is to it. I've live my life growing up with Scottish Presbyterian (Calvinist) ethics. Never go into debt but when you do, repay it. Its worked for me: and my children will benefit.

rainman

8th August 2011, 00:49

Ok, sometimes the short simple answers are all there is to it. I've live my life growing up with Scottish Presbyterian (Calvinist) ethics. Never go into debt but when you do, repay it.

Fascinating and admirable though your family circumstances are, I fail to see the relevance of your post to the point in hand. (Also, your truism doesn't make sense. If you NEVER go into debt then there is no "when you do". Are you saying "go into debt cautiously and behave with honour?". Well, duh). You don't say how much debt is OK, what terms are acceptable, how long you should hold it for, if you can ever default, how this differs for governments and households, or frankly, anything very useful to the current topic at all.

To recap: the problem at hand is: if the COUNTRY has a debt problem (and it's not clear that it does), then what should the COUNTRY do to address this? Simplifying slightly, as that is all we're being offered, should we:
a) sell some of our assets to foreigners* to pay down debt,
b) adopt the competing package of measures as discussed in the CGT thread, or
c) something else?

We get to vote on the alternatives later in the year, such that they are.

I contend a) is immoral economic vandalism for reasons advanced earlier, and that we should hold our noses if necessary and take option b), the lesser of two evils. It is not apparent that c) exists, given our political system, but feel free to explain that I've missed something other than protest voting.

In return you want to tell me about your Scots ancestry and values. Do you see why I have concerns about our ability to make intelligent decisions on November 26th? :)

* Let's not kid ourselves, that is the actual option.

Clockwork

8th August 2011, 14:18

NO. The reason to sell the rental bikes is that the money gained repays the $100k overdraft. No ongoing interest. Reduce debt = reduced commitment.

You can then concentrate on earning alternative income without the $100k debt pressure. People do this when up against a wall of debt.

By the same argument would you sell your house to clear the mortgage and then rent it back to live in; knowing full well you'll probably never be in a position to buy that house back again?

Energy assets do have the seductive attraction of "national interest" although the existence of Contact hasn't done any harm. Its not as though overseas shareholders can take the hydro dams away.

No, but they can and do take the profits away. How many litres of milk do you suppose Fonterra has to sell earn NZ enough to run a power station for a year?

puddytat

8th August 2011, 15:18

Russell Norman has a good idea that if we need to sell assets to pay the bills, then a better option would be to sell Govt. bonds in those assets, thereby keeping them in our hands, whilst encouraging overseas investment....

I also wonder if "the Global Debt Crisis" couldnt be simply solved by wiping all debt?
They considered it for the Third World there for a while.:yes:
So what if everything loses it supposed value, ....its happened before.
The major thing to do to stop folk going "yeehaa" on a spending spree would be to make it very difficuly to get finance in the future.The easiest way to get sustainable is to work within your means....like actually having earned the money you have to spend, rather on relying on money you hav'nt got & having to borrow it.
Simplistic I know, but life happens all around us anyway.

SPman

8th August 2011, 15:37

I also wonder if "the Global Debt Crisis" couldnt be simply solved by wiping all debt?
.
It worked for Argentina......

Winston001

8th August 2011, 15:42

Russell Norman has a good idea that if we need to sell assets to pay the bills, then a better option would be to sell Govt. bonds in those assets, thereby keeping them in our hands, whilst encouraging overseas investment....

Actually that's not a bad idea.

I also wonder if "the Global Debt Crisis" couldnt be simply solved by wiping all debt?

No. The money is real and is ultimately owed to real people. The loans are made up of millions of peoples savings in banks and pension schemes, which are then lent to governments and other banks. For example NZ house buyers were funded by local banks borrowing on the international money market.

The sources? Savings from Japan, China, Middle East, and granny next door.

The easiest way to get sustainable is to work within your means....like actually having earned the money you have to spend, rather on relying on money you hav'nt got & having to borrow it.
Simplistic I know, but life happens all around us anyway.

Agreed.

Banditbandit

8th August 2011, 16:58

Actually that's not a bad idea.

No. The money is real and is ultimately owed to real people. The loans are made up of millions of peoples savings in banks and pension schemes, which are then lent to governments and other banks. For example NZ house buyers were funded by local banks borrowing on the international money market.

The sources? Savings from Japan, China, Middle East, and granny next door.

Agreed.

Dumb investors - get caught all the time - that's why my money is in bikes and bikes

(oh, and some in land and bricks)

Winston001

8th August 2011, 17:54

In return you want to tell me about your Scots ancestry and values. Do you see why I have concerns about our ability to make intelligent decisions on November 26th? :)

Serves me right for breaking my own rule about being dispassionate. :facepalm:

Sigh...excuse the paranoia but you seem to have a sneering or disdainful tone for my little homily. Perhaps not. Nevertheless that was my first impression and in microcosm these KB discussions reflect how easily any of us can be affronted. Once emotions are engaged rational reasoning is gone.

rainman

8th August 2011, 20:41

Sigh...excuse the paranoia but you seem to have a sneering or disdainful tone for my little homily. Perhaps not. Nevertheless that was my first impression and in microcosm these KB discussions reflect how easily any of us can be affronted. Once emotions are engaged rational reasoning is gone.

I didn't mean to sneer, so I'll beg your pardon if it came across that way. I have a tendency to be a little acerbic when argumentatively frustrated and sleeping too little. Don't be affronted, for one thing it's a singular waste of time...

Disdainful? Perhaps, but not due to the homily. I think the sentiments you've advanced are fine indeed, it's just that they don't add to the debate at all. We're not talking about whether you waste money on frivolous holidaying or not, we're talking about whether we are going to let a political party screw the country over for no good reason.

I'm particularly interested in your detailed thinking about why Fortress NZ was a bad thing. Far more relevant than where you holiday.

And I disagree entirely about emotions. One does not need to be stoically unemotional and Spock-like to have a rational debate. All one needs is to maintain emotional control. Passion is a good thing.

oldrider

9th August 2011, 00:34

we're talking about whether we are going to let a political party screw the country over for no good reason.

What!

Political parties exist specifically for that reason, why would you expect anything else from them?

MMP reinforces their allegiance to each other, rather than to the electorate that allowed them to be there!

Once the electorate has given them "permission" the parties form a club or bonded group of parties loyal to "each other" and call themselves a government FFS!

Prior to the election nobody in the country has any idea of what form that government will be, so how can they claim to have voted for it?

I said "no" to FPP but I do not agree that MMP serves the interest of the electorate, regardless of a voters political persuasion!

There has to be a better way of expressing proportional representation than MMP!

Politicians must be required to serve the wishes of their electoral voters first, their parties second and their parties alliances last! IMHO.

IMO STV has more chance of achieving this providing the politicians are not allowed to meddle with it and make the system too complicated to their own advantage!

FPP or MMP? :no: ....... there has to be a better way than these two, vote them out at this election! :niceone:

slowpoke

9th August 2011, 03:06

Weeeeeeell, if this were an election Rainman would have my vote on the asset sales issue, although it's been interesting hearing Winston001's counter arguments.

I kinda get the selling the bikes to pay down the debt idea, but my problem is that once you've done that how do you then make any money? Unless you are prepared to go into debt again (in which case what was the point of selling the bikes?) you are reduced to being a permanent employee. It's not like you can instantly pull another business or skill out of thin air.

No, I far prefer the option of working away with the debt hanging over my head paying off the debt penny by penny and eventually owning the business. In the meantime the value of the business is increasing and the income stream is being spent in my local community, or to improve the business/infrastructure....not going out of town.

But lets get real: these assets are supplying vital services that people and businesses can't live without it. They're never going to go out of fashion, they're always going to go up in value and earning potential. And the infrastructure is never going to be cheaper to build. So no, it strikes me as very short sighted to sell such things for short term relief.

I also worry about the sale process, in that we would get the worst of any transaction. We'd have to price the assets in a depressed market to compete with an infinite number of other investments around the world, then even if we tried to buy them back the very next day we'd be screwed because we are in a lousy bargaining position: it's not like we can buy them from anywhere else. Supply and demand dictates we'd get forcibly DP'd big time.

Nup, tighten the purse strings, lose a few comforts, attack the issues that got us in the poo in the first place, don't sell the things that can help drag us out of it. That old saying about give a man a fish feed him for a day, teach a man to fish feed him for a lifetime? Well, after selling our fishing gear we'd eventually be reduced to buying our fish every day. It's just not smart long term.

Banditbandit

9th August 2011, 09:13

What!

Politicians must be required to serve the wishes of their electoral voters first, their parties second and their parties alliances last! IMHO.

Sorry - but we didn't get that under FPP either ... that's the Westminster system of Democracy for you ..

oldrider

9th August 2011, 09:17

Sorry - but we didn't get that under FPP either ... that's the Westminster system of Democracy for you ..

I wasn't advocating FPP, was I!

I said, FPP and MMP both fail in that respect! :doh:

Cheshire Cat

9th August 2011, 09:20

Yo mama! :corn:

shrub

9th August 2011, 09:32

Russell Norman has a good idea that if we need to sell assets to pay the bills, then a better option would be to sell Govt. bonds in those assets, thereby keeping them in our hands, whilst encouraging overseas investment...

Yeah, a surprisingly good idea and one that has worked very well in previous times of crisis, a good example was war bonds where WW2 was extensively funded by ordinary citizens. In essence the government are coming to us and asking us to contribute to the recovery by lending them money. It means we get to keep our assets and the interest payments stay in NZ. Bloody Greens, has nobody told them they're idiots?

Winston001

9th August 2011, 09:50

I kinda get the selling the bikes to pay down the debt idea, but my problem is that once you've done that how do you then make any money? Unless you are prepared to go into debt again (in which case what was the point of selling the bikes?) you are reduced to being a permanent employee. It's not like you can instantly pull another business or skill out of thin air.

Thanks for the nod -cheers. :D

Selling the rental bikes is a last resort when the debt becomes crippling. Eg the rental income only covers the interest.

Rainman's argument (which has validity) is that NZ is not yet in dire straits. Yet take a look at the world economy right now: share markets are crashing, money is fleeing to safety (ironically the $US) and it looks like the predicted second crisis will happen.

The reason this time? Not private debt but instead, government debt across the developed nations. Every dollar owed today is a burden for tomorrow and years to come, suffocating economies as governments cut spending and raise taxes.

Why would it be wise for NZ to join them?

But lets get real: these assets are supplying vital services that people and businesses can't live without it. They're never going to go out of fashion, they're always going to go up in value and earning potential. And the infrastructure is never going to be cheaper to build. So no, it strikes me as very short sighted to sell such things for short term relief.

I'd agree if the assets were being taken away but they aren't. The jobs etc will still be in NZ. And its a 49% sale so the govt retains control and 51% of profit.

I also worry about the sale process, in that we would get the worst of any transaction. We'd have to price the assets in a depressed market to compete with an infinite number of other investments around the world, then even if we tried to buy them back the very next day we'd be screwed because we are in a lousy bargaining position: it's not like we can buy them from anywhere else. Supply and demand dictates we'd get forcibly DP'd big time.

Good point. Well said. Especially if this turns out to be the second leg of the GFC.

The counterargument is that the money in the world does not disappear, and money which is available to invest will be looking for a safe haven. Hydro electricity companies are about as safe and boring as you could ever want. In that sense shares in the three power companies could command a premium.

Though I do like Russell Norman's suggestion of bonds as an alternative.

shrub

9th August 2011, 10:42

Rainman's argument (which has validity) is that NZ is not yet in dire straits. Yet take a look at the world economy right now: share markets are crashing, money is fleeing to safety (ironically the $US) and it looks like the predicted second crisis will happen.

The reason this time? Not private debt but instead, government debt across the developed nations. Every dollar owed today is a burden for tomorrow and years to come, suffocating economies as governments cut spending and raise taxes.

Why would it be wise for NZ to join them?

At the moment NZ still has relatively low levels of government debt - a legacy of the previous government but that is increasing steadily. As a businessman i know that when you're in the shit financially you have 3 options:
1. Increase your income
2. Cut expenditure
3. Sell assets and either lease them back or do without.

1. Increase income. Our income as a nation comes from exports, and I hate to keep on about it, but we have to increase our exports and find more productive exports than dairy. Our government's income comes from taxes and from money generated by SOEs, and at this point it's worth remembering that the government are not the enemy but are actually our representatives and taxes paid go back into running our country, not running Australia, China, Nike or Samsung. We need to increase our tax take, and while increasing the per capita GDP will have that effect, that won't happen unless we change what we're doing. We have all enjoyed lovely tax cuts, but maybe we couldn't actually afford them? We're like the boss who gives all his workers a 10% pay rise while his business is losing money. If we're serious about saving our economy then we ALL need to tighten our belts, not just civil servants and beneficiaries. Personally I wouldn't have a problem with a 10% increase in my tax if it meant NZ avoided a financial crisis. I'd budget around it and get on with my life. A CGT tax is not just a good idea, it's idiotic not to introduce it, and this year I am voting labour on that policy alone (my second time).

2. Cut expenditure. A vital strategy, and we need to find cheaper and more efficient ways to do things. On a personal level I have parked my car up, put the rego on hold and am now riding my bike because it is cheaper than my car (and more fun). Unfortunately the current crop of idiots in government think the only way to cut costs is to lay of government employees, and based on overseas experience that is an almost certain way to hinder growth. It means we have less effective civil infrastructure which means it's harder to do business and life gets unpleasant. And when staff get laid off generally the first to go are the best and brightest because they can get work anywhere so we're left with the dregs and the legacy bureaucrats.

3. Sell assets and lease them back. If an asset is not an income earner, is depreciating rapidly and/or is something without a lot of potential, that's a good idea. About 15 years ago I was a partner in a construction company and we sold our vehicles and leased new ones which injected around $75k into the company which meant we could take advantage of an opportunity ahead of us which was going to pay the lease costs and more. It didn't, but that's another story and it taught me not to put money into something I knew nothing about (construction). Our power companies are very profitable, are increasing in value and as energy demands rise and cheap oil runs out they will become a total gold mine. Selling them now would be like Apple selling the iPod patents just as MP3s took off - DUMB, DUMB, DUMB.

We need to increase our income by fostering and encouraging high tech exports and we need to realise that we couldn't actually afford our tax cuts and increase taxes. We also need to find more efficient ways to operate as a country and merely cutting the number of civil servants is like removing bits off a bike to make it lighter. To begin with you can lose weight and the bike still works fine, but there comes a point when you are down to removing disc rotors and drilling holes in the swingarm. As for selling assets, we really don't have a hell of a lot left to sell and probably don't have any we should sell.

Bald Eagle

9th August 2011, 10:46

oneofsix

9th August 2011, 10:51

So the US govt converted the private bankers debt to state debt in the bail out in round one and now they are in the poo.

NZ Govt is in the same hole and our beloved head banker mr Key wants to sell our ladders to help us get out of the hole ?

Not quite the same hole but The Right Honorable Mr Key would like us to believe so.
He isn't a banker he is a market player, hence why he wants to sell stuff off, bankers like to hold onto stuff.
Love the way everything still hangs on these credit ratings, by the same group of people that sold the western world down the frigging river in the first place.
Better get used to the Niqab

tri boy

9th August 2011, 13:11

Bald Eagle

9th August 2011, 13:13

He's either very smart,or very lucky.
I say smart:yes:

Or he has a gambling problem, and it's our money he's playing with. :facepalm:

mashman

9th August 2011, 13:20

He's either very smart,or very lucky.
I say smart:yes:

Or he was insider trading/dealing. I know which one I'm going for :yes:

shrub

9th August 2011, 13:35

Slight side issue worth noting about J Key.
Not long ago, (about six months), he was borrowing in excess of what was required to cover our lons/interest.
In hindsight this was actually a smart money move.
He effectively has helped to cover our arses are little bit more.
Getting that money was easy compared to the hoops Govts will need to jump through today.
He's either very smart,or very lucky.
I say smart:yes:

Hmmm... I think the chances of Dear Leader knowing that we were about to hit the current economic storm are on a par with me knowing the final score of the RWC. In the last budget he and farmer Bill announced that over the next four years we would be experiencing GDP growth of 1.8%, 4.0%, 3.0% and 2.7%. If he could see what was ahead he was either telling porkies about the growth rates or he knows something nobody else does because those figures were going to be a stretch if the global economy picked up and are about as likely now as me winning at Phillip Island on my old airhead.

Oscar

9th August 2011, 13:49

Hmmm... I think the chances of Dear Leader knowing that we were about to hit the current economic storm are on a par with me knowing the final score of the RWC. In the last budget he and farmer Bill announced that over the next four years we would be experiencing GDP growth of 1.8%, 4.0%, 3.0% and 2.7%. If he could see what was ahead he was either telling porkies about the growth rates or he knows something nobody else does because those figures were going to be a stretch if the global economy picked up and are about as likely now as me winning at Phillip Island on my old airhead.

Depending on how far out we're talking, this economic storm was not hard to pick.
The Americans have had trouble balancing their budget before, and the EU bond problem with Italy and Spain has beem brewing for quite a while now.

In respect of GDP growth, the economy is still growing (0.8% in the quarter ending 3/11). I don't see how you're able to criticise thoseprojection (which were made by public servants, not English) until the period is up. Me, I reckon that the GDP figure for this year won't be far wrong.

Oscar

9th August 2011, 13:53

Or he was insider trading/dealing. I know which one I'm going for :yes:

I have to give you credit for the fact that even an obvious complete lack of knowledge on the subject at hand will not stop you from making a comment that makes you look like a complete muppet. Good for you...

shrub

9th August 2011, 14:44

Depending on how far out we're talking, this economic storm was not hard to pick.
The Americans have had trouble balancing their budget before, and the EU bond problem with Italy and Spain has beem brewing for quite a while now.

In respect of GDP growth, the economy is still growing (0.8% in the quarter ending 3/11). I don't see how you're able to criticise thoseprojection (which were made by public servants, not English) until the period is up. Me, I reckon that the GDP figure for this year won't be far wrong.

I agree, this economic storm has been looming for a while and one of the reasons I really struggled with believing Treasury's forcasts. I may be proven wrong, but I really can't for the life of me see how we will come even close to those figures given the current economic strategies and probably the only thing to save our bacon will be the quake and the attendant influx of re-insurance money. Which will be likely to drive up our exchange rate even further. I suspect the GDP figures for 2011 will be close to 1.8, but are unlikely to get any higher for a long time.

mashman

9th August 2011, 15:39

I have to give you credit for the fact that even an obvious complete lack of knowledge on the subject at hand will not stop you from making a comment that makes you look like a complete muppet. Good for you...

Nothing wrong with heckling from the stalls :bleh:. I'm sure the thought never crossed his mind to ask Obama how his economy was ticking along...

Winston001

9th August 2011, 16:14

Our power companies are very profitable, are increasing in value and as energy demands rise and cheap oil runs out they will become a total gold mine. Selling them now would be ...DUMB, DUMB, DUMB.

Good post and I'll just pick up on this point.

You are assuming a linear track into the future. A few big electricity generating plants (dams, geothermal, gas) and nationwide reticulation.

Here's an alternative view:

1. Each house/building generates its own power. Already a solar-power paint has been invented.

2. Future appliances will come with their own power-pack, either rechargeable or replaceable. Yes, it requires new battery technology and there are some interesting discoveries out there.

3. Industries generate their own power on-site.

I can't see heavy users getting away from reticulated electricity but apart from them, no need to send power hundreds of kms with built-in losses. The giant power companies will shrink. So we'd be hedging our bets by sharing ownership and getting some money in right now. Could be a very wise move.

Winston001

9th August 2011, 17:36

And I disagree entirely about emotions. One does not need to be stoically unemotional and Spock-like to have a rational debate. All one needs is to maintain emotional control. Passion is a good thing.

Damn. This entity has failed the Turing Test again. Will reboot - ah, that is think again before proceeding. ;)

I'm particularly interested in your detailed thinking about why Fortress NZ was a bad thing.

You mean it wasn't?? :blink:

Ok. The mists of time draw darkly across the intervening 30 years but here's some thoughts.

The 1970s and early 1980s were a time of strong government intervention and control of our lives in New Zealand. MRP - Maximum Retail Prices - retailers were told the most they could charge. Import and Export Licences - you couldn't simply go and buy something from overseas to sell here - you needed a Licence. Similarly with selling overseas - get a Licence.

Mortgages were controlled - first mortgage max interest 11%, second mortgage 14%. The market rates were 13-18% at the time. Applying for a mortgage depended upon how much money your bank was allowed to allocate that month.

Clothing and manufacturing industries were subsidised by taxpayers.

Norm Kirk, and Robert Muldoon each tightened the level of control but my memory is Muldoon took the most steps. The theory was that if NZ just held off the outside world long enough, our day in the sun would come again.

Well, yes it did but not until the 1990s.

I vividly remember the Fourth Labour government in 1984 and what an unexpected breath of fresh air it brought. Rules and regulations were swept away, the economy and our lives were opened. I specifically remember saying that if I lost my job it was worth it just to live in a free society.

For the sake of accuracy, Ronald Regan and Margaret Thatcher did the same ahead of us in 1982.

SPman

9th August 2011, 17:39

At the moment NZ still has relatively low levels of government debt - a legacy of the previous government but that is increasing steadily. As a businessman i know that when you're in the shit financially you have 3 options:
1. Increase your income
2. Cut expenditure
3. Sell assets and either lease them back or do without.
.....................
Once again - it's trying to run a large, multi varied social organisation - a country, as a business - and it JUST DOESN'T WORK! Whenever it's tried, it fails abysmally. People are not commodities, whatever the commercial plutocrats say!

Good post and I'll just pick up on this point. .....Good ideas but....unless people have guns to their heads, they wouldn't do it - "Think of the cost!!! The Children, The Children"........

Winston001

9th August 2011, 17:44

Yes I know - Mahathir Mohamad of Malaysia and Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore, both Fortress states.

With death penalties. And government control of citizens.

shrub

9th August 2011, 17:45

Once again - it's trying to run a large, multi varied social organisation - a country, as a business - and it JUST DOESN'T WORK! Whenever it's tried, it fails abysmally. People are not commodities, whatever the commercial plutocrats say!
Good ideas but....unless people have guns to their heads, they wouldn't do it - "Think of the cost!!! The Children, The Children"........

You mean running a country requires unique skills? I thought if you were a successful money trader that qualified you perfectly.

I agree, running a country requires very different approach which is why something as simplistic as slashing bureaucracy (reducing costs) is not a good idea, but when you aren't earning enough (which we aren't), then you have ti find ways to increase your income which means increasing exports and potentially increasing taxes.

shrub

9th August 2011, 18:32

Good post and I'll just pick up on this point.

You are assuming a linear track into the future. A few big electricity generating plants (dams, geothermal, gas) and nationwide reticulation.

Here's an alternative view:

1. Each house/building generates its own power. Already a solar-power paint has been invented.

2. Future appliances will come with their own power-pack, either rechargeable or replaceable. Yes, it requires new battery technology and there are some interesting discoveries out there.

3. Industries generate their own power on-site.

I can't see heavy users getting away from reticulated electricity but apart from them, no need to send power hundreds of kms with built-in losses. The giant power companies will shrink. So we'd be hedging our bets by sharing ownership and getting some money in right now. Could be a very wise move.

An extremely good idea and I would extend that to business premises. Aside from reducing the need for importing fossil fuels, building more dams etc, it allows individual property owners and communities to be self sufficient and even earn money by selling excess power to the grid. Having lived in a city where some areas spent quite a while without power - we were without for a week - micro generation is a brilliant idea, but can you imagine any government supporting it? Yeah, those idiot Greens are into it, but I can't imagine anyone else.

Brian d marge

9th August 2011, 19:58

Damn. This entity has failed the Turing Test again. Will reboot - ah, that is think again before proceeding. ;)

You mean it wasn't?? :blink:

Ok. The mists of time draw darkly across the intervening 30 years but here's some thoughts.

The 1970s and early 1980s were a time of strong government intervention and control of our lives in New Zealand. MRP - Maximum Retail Prices - retailers were told the most they could charge. Import and Export Licences - you couldn't simply go and buy something from overseas to sell here - you needed a Licence. Similarly with selling overseas - get a Licence.

Mortgages were controlled - first mortgage max interest 11%, second mortgage 14%. The market rates were 13-18% at the time. Applying for a mortgage depended upon how much money your bank was allowed to allocate that month.

Clothing and manufacturing industries were subsidised by taxpayers.

Norm Kirk, and Robert Muldoon each tightened the level of control but my memory is Muldoon took the most steps. The theory was that if NZ just held off the outside world long enough, our day in the sun would come again.

Well, yes it did but not until the 1990s.

I vividly remember the Fourth Labour government in 1984 and what an unexpected breath of fresh air it brought. Rules and regulations were swept away, the economy and our lives were opened. I specifically remember saying that if I lost my job it was worth it just to live in a free society.

For the sake of accuracy, Ronald Regan and Margaret Thatcher did the same ahead of us in 1982.
A change may have been needed but was it the right change? and in the beginning Mrs T may have been the right medicine ...... the waste ground it produced .... oh wait same in NZ .... Markets are brutal, and have no place in a compassionate society. They have there place , but not when the fundamentals or basic human needs are interfered with , Food, Education , health and Internet ( well ...... sex is a basic need and without the Internet how would I get me end away !:facepalm:)

There are a few thing that would transform NZ simple things .... Cheap good quality food we are after all a sodding great garden. ( get those prisoners working )
Housing, you only have 4 million people HOW the hell do you get homeless people , or houses that are out of the reach of the working man .....
Health, basic health doesnt need to be imported from America , I mean if the dental nurse can do it, or the district nurse in her Morrie Minor ..... give em an Ipad , or a mobile telephone if they need to comunicate

Work schemes..... Aka the dole ... sand shoes anyone ......... wheres me spuds Damn you

Get the basics righ , leave the markets for things like big screen TVs and the new car

in the mean time .... Jesus boots , avoid debt , dont use stuff Ie be as self sufficient as you can , the least exposure to the eviel farts issuing from over the water ...the better position you will be in WHEN it goes tits up ....and IT WILL

Stephen

I'm all right Jack ......... I own everything and have no debt .... small one on the house but that is survivable ...... :yes:..... but I had to take drastic action to do that ......

Winston001

9th August 2011, 21:03

...micro generation is a brilliant idea, but can you imagine any government supporting it?

AHA!

Implicit is the belief that the "government" must do it. Why?

I don't see them involved at all in the future. No need.

Winston001

9th August 2011, 21:09

A change may have been needed but was it the right change?...... the waste ground it produced .... oh wait same in NZ .... Markets are brutal, and have no place in a compassionate society. They have there place , but not when the fundamentals or basic human needs are interfered with , Food, Education , health......

Both the United Kingdom and New Zealand were - and currently are - centre-left social democracies. Unemployment benefits, sickness benefits, public healthcare, family benefit (now more generously income support) etc.

For the Americans....yes it was tough. But worse in most of the world where no social welfare exists at all. Try losing your job in India...

rainman

9th August 2011, 22:03

Weeeeeeell, if this were an election Rainman would have my vote on the asset sales issue

Thank you. Fortunately on Nov 26th you can do that for real.

Why would it be wise for NZ to join them?
...
I'd agree if the assets were being taken away but they aren't. The jobs etc will still be in NZ. And its a 49% sale so the govt retains control and 51% of profit.
...
The counterargument is that the money in the world does not disappear

That's a strawman. Both main parties (and others) recognise the need not to increase debt.

As noted the assets don't go but the returns do, so what's the point of having them here again?

I suspect money doesn't work like you think it does.

]we have to increase our exports and find more productive exports than dairy

the government are not the enemy but are actually our representatives and taxes paid go back into running our country

We have all enjoyed lovely tax cuts, but maybe we couldn't actually afford them?

I'd budget around it and get on with my life.

A CGT tax is not just a good idea, it's idiotic not to introduce it
Selling them now would be like Apple selling the iPod patents just as MP3s took off - DUMB, DUMB, DUMB.

Love your work. Another quality post.

So the US govt converted the private bankers debt to state debt in the bail out in round one and now they are in the poo.

Yeah, who'da thunk it?

Here's an alternative view:
...

Dude, lay off the Prozac. Yes there are things we can do in the renewables space (funny only one party is pushing this hard, yes, those idiot Greens again) but there's a long way and a lot of work to go before we get to your utopian future.

Ok. The mists of time draw darkly across the intervening 30 years but here's some thoughts.
...

So why are the thins you describe bad in themselves? I get there were controls, and agree some changes needed to be made, but the controls were just a means to an end, not the end in themselves.

A change may have been needed but was it the right change?...

There are a few thing that would transform NZ simple things .... Cheap good quality food we are after all a sodding great garden.
...
avoid debt , dont use stuff Ie be as self sufficient as you can , the least exposure to the eviel farts issuing from over the water ...the better position you will be in WHEN it goes tits up ....and IT WILL

What he said. To the power of lots.

I don't see them involved at all in the future. No need.

An anarcho-capitalist utopia is unlikely in anyone's lifetime. Government is not intrinsically bad, neither are rules and regulations.

Clockwork

10th August 2011, 09:03

An extremely good idea and I would extend that to business premises. Aside from reducing the need for importing fossil fuels, building more dams etc, it allows individual property owners and communities to be self sufficient and even earn money by selling excess power to the grid. Having lived in a city where some areas spent quite a while without power - we were without for a week - micro generation is a brilliant idea, but can you imagine any government supporting it? Yeah, those idiot Greens are into it, but I can't imagine anyone else.

What's worse is that IMO if we did sell our power generators the Government would come under political & commercial pressure to restrict private or personal generation in much the same way as it has previously moved to protect overseas commercial interests ahead of domestic interests.

shrub

10th August 2011, 09:18

AHA!

Implicit is the belief that the "government" must do it. Why?

I don't see them involved at all in the future. No need.

Because without government support it won't happen. Micro generation is ultimately very, very cost effective but it takes a substantial investment up front and most people don't have the money free and almost nobody these days is willing to think long term - I have a choice of a new Commodore or take my house off the grid. One makes me money, one costs me money but one impresses complete strangers and the other, well it's hippy green shit and the bird on the footpath won't notice me when I drive past.

Without government support in the form of funding through low cost loans and other incentives nobody will do it - how many people are doing it now?

Imagine this for a scenario - 500,000 households and businesses invest in micro generation over the next 10 years. Demand on the grid drops which means the most expensive powerstations get mothballed while our national carbon footprint plummets. Internationally power becomes increasingly expensive and carbon taxes climb while consumers become increasingly resistant to products with a high carbon footprint (both of which are actually happening, so I am far from demonstrating prescience). It is not only cheaper to do business in NZ (because power is so much cheaper) but "made in NZ" is a high-value commercial door opener. Suddenly businesses around the world will come to us wanting to work here on our terms and our per capita GDP climbs.

Right now I am part of a group looking at introducing just such a concept to Christchurch. We have a team of architects and engineers developing ways for it to happen with new commercial buildings and we're getting taken seriously by a lot of people. Our biggest challenge is a fat man with glasses - 10 points for guessing who.

shrub

10th August 2011, 09:19

What's worse is that IMO if we did sell our power generators the Government would come under political & commercial pressure to restrict private or personal generation in much the same way as it has previously moved to protect overseas commercial interests ahead of domestic interests.

A very, very good point.

oldrider

10th August 2011, 09:56

Every electricity consumer has a connection for which they pay a specific fee.

Unbeknown to most of them that connection works equally both ways.

If every consumer had an equal or double the generating capacity of their connection, they could use their own power and export the rest!

The biggest problem in this is the availability and cost of the primary energy source!

Solar is the source most readily available but is cost prohibitive unless someone (the government, I.E. the taxpayer) subsidised the installation!

When the sun shines, the established generators back off and the system frequency is maintained at 50 Hurtz.

When the sun goes down the generators increase their load to compensate and maintain frequency.

It's called green energy but when the Labour / Green government were in power, they would not subsidise it, go figure!

This happens in various overseas countries but when it happens here it is at your own cost and you can not produce competitively when you have an established connection right there!

It's called grid connection just look it up.

I have and it's too expensive and won't provide pay back in my lifetime!

Edit: The most obvious reason (that I can see) that the government won't subsidise solar grid connection is their monopoly position in power generation, distribution and retail.

They (the government) are the major player by far, so it isn't, or wasn't, only the fat man with glasses that stands in the way of competition!

Winston001

10th August 2011, 12:51

That's a strawman. Both main parties (and others) recognise the need not to increase debt.

As noted the assets don't go but the returns do, so what's the point of having them here again?

I suspect money doesn't work like you think it does.

1. The discussion is slightly wrong-footed in that most posts imply a full sale. 49% is less than half, we retain ownership and control at 51%.

2. The money from a part-sale repays loans, reduces the govts interest payment, and more revenue can be applied to public needs.

3. The returns to NZ are employment, engineering, contract support services, tax on those wages, and at the end - 51% of profit. Industries contribute much more to the community than the final bottom line for the owners.

4. The point of having the assets here? They produce electricity for New Zealanders to use. And they remain here for future generations to take back or whatever they choose.

Yes there are things we can do in the renewables space (funny only one party is pushing this hard, yes, those idiot Greens again) but there's a long way and a lot of work to go before we get to your utopian future.

Not so Utopian. I remember fax machines arriving in 1988. A mere 15 years later and some offices didn't bother buying them anymore. Technology changed that quickly.

Our government does not own or subsidise petrol stations, yet we'd all agree petrol is essential. By the same token micro generation does not need to be owned or subsidised by govt. As I mentioned earlier, a solar-power house paint has been invented.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy...

JohnJumper

10th August 2011, 15:18

I kinda want to vote greens but the fact it's pretty much a vote for Goff is a bit of a putoff. He was getting my respect again for a while, now he's resorted back to that snotty rip on everything National does mindset again :sick:

shrub

10th August 2011, 16:01

It's called green energy but when the Labour / Green government were in power, they would not subsidise it, go figure!

sadly there has never been a Labour/green government. All Labour governments have had the support of the Greens but they have never been included in the cabinet. The Green party are very gung ho on it and can see the economic benefits to NZ, but Labour under Clark were a little too careful to keep the support of Winston First, Peter Dunne and Jim Anderton to allow the Greens to have too much influence.

SPman

10th August 2011, 16:31

...........
Unbeknown to most of them that connection works equally both ways.

If every consumer had an equal or double the generating capacity of their connection, they could use their own power and export the rest!

The biggest problem in this is the availability and cost of the primary energy source!

Solar is the source most readily available but is cost prohibitive unless someone (the government, I.E. the taxpayer) subsidised the installation!

When the sun shines, the established generators back off and the system frequency is maintained at 50 Hurtz.

When the sun goes down the generators increase their load to compensate and maintain frequency.

It's called green energy but when the Labour / Green government were in power, they would not subsidise it, go figure!

This happens in various overseas countries but when it happens here it is at your own cost and you can not produce competitively when you have an established connection right there!

It's called grid connection just look it up.

I have and it's too expensive and won't provide pay back in my lifetime!

We stuck on a 1.5KW system and it cost us just $1950 with all subsidies, REC credits, etc.. We're away at work 5 days a week, so nearly all our power produced goes back into the grid over that period. We're also lucky in getting a good feed in tarrif. Our power bill has plummeted - we've paid about $300 this year, so far, and are much more conscious of power usage, etc. When we've finished rebuilding the house, we'll look at upgrading the system. So, we're saving power, feeling green (well, brown out here) and feeling like we are at least doing something! The whole scheme was so popular, the State governments have pulled the subsidy pins - three times as many people were taking it up as allowed for. They hit the 450MW limit very quickly, once it started rolling. Without the initial subsidy, to ease us in, (about $6700 when we took the plunge) however, we really couldn't have afforded it - same with a lot of others. It just takes a bit of Governmental initiative, sometimes to get the ball really rolling and now, even though the subsidies and feed in tarrifs have been slashed, there is enough enertia there to keep things going.
Governments should be encouraging works for the public good, not pretending to be businessmen running a fucking department store!

oldrider

10th August 2011, 18:03

When does an "asset" cease to be an asset? ... When it becomes a "liability" ... like New Zealand Railways!

Air New Zealand became a liability but it was bailed out at (great cost) by the NZ taxpayer!

Did we really need a run down airline that has never ever given it's customers any advantage, like cheaper fares?

The ones who had the most to lose were our politicians, they would lose all their "lifetime" free travel perks, so they bailed it out! :sick:

The point I am trying to make is that there is a big difference between "assets" and "liabilities"!

Sell liabilities outright and keep 51% controlling share of assets, what's the problem with that! :blip:

puddytat

10th August 2011, 21:50

sadly there has never been a Labour/green government. All Labour governments have had the support of the Greens but they have never been included in the cabinet. The Green party are very gung ho on it and can see the economic benefits to NZ, but Labour under Clark were a little too careful to keep the support of Winston First, Peter Dunne and Jim Anderton to allow the Greens to have too much influence.

That 'cause its them (the Greens)that have them really worried....and if enough people vote for 'em , then they'll have to include them...
But I bet both the Labs & the Nats would enter into a grand coalition to make sure that that didnt happen.
My prediction is that the Greens will get over 10% of the votes this time around & mark my words we'll see them doing deals with Winston & Hone before they'd work with the Greens.:weird::tugger:

rainman

10th August 2011, 23:18

The discussion is slightly wrong-footed in that most posts imply a full sale. 49% is less than half, we retain ownership and control at 51%.

Not at all, and I've already explained why selling 49% is a particularly dumb idea.

...more revenue can be applied to public needs.

Like poorly conceived tax cuts?

The returns to NZ are employment, engineering, contract support services, tax on those wages, and at the end - 51% of profit.

Eh? We have those things already. Except for the profit - we have 100% of that. How does selling half of our assets gain us more employment?

Industries contribute much more to the community than the final bottom line for the owners.

Yeah, so maybe we shouldn't be selling them then.

The point of having the assets here? They produce electricity for New Zealanders to use. And they remain here for future generations to take back or whatever they choose.

You're either really dumb or being a bit disingenuous. Of course the assets stay here. However the returns do not. And future generations can't "take them back" unless we have a socialist revolution and nationalise everything. Future generations in fact have a large handicap of having to buy them back. Which, you may notice, hasn't so much happened with the ones we sold in the 80s. You know, those asset sales that weren't a silver bullet back then either.

Technology changed that quickly.

Of course there can be technological change (although I note many of my customers still demand and use faxes). But that's a long way from "there will be technological change, in the time we need, and at the scale we need, in order to continue our present standard of living, let alone growth"

Our government does not own or subsidise petrol stations, yet we'd all agree petrol is essential. By the same token micro generation does not need to be owned or subsidised by govt. As I mentioned earlier, a solar-power house paint has been invented.

Well, we did own a refinery before we flogged it to the petrol companies. How's that working out for ya?

And yes, micro-generation does not have to be subsidised by government (and almost by definition wouldn't be owned by them), yet adoption is unlikely to be rapid enough if the incentives aren't optimal. Without incentives, a market is usually inert.

Can I buy some of this solar house paint today? Is it cost-effective to run my house on? What would I need to spend on hooking it up to my grid-supplied house to still run the oven, fridge and hot-water cylinder? Thought so.

BTW solar PV is a pretty poor technology for harnessing solar energy, particularly in NZ.

We're also lucky in getting a good feed in tarrif.

So when you say "Westie", you don't mean Ranui?

Sell liabilities outright and keep 51% controlling share of assets, what's the problem with that! :blip:

No problem at all. Keep the good assets, fix those that need fixing, sell those that really need selling and buy some more good ones. And at all times make sure you keep those that are natural monopolies. Like I said, no problem having a well managed portfolio of SOEs. Problem is that isn't what's on offer, come November.

shrub

11th August 2011, 10:16

That 'cause its them (the Greens)that have them really worried....and if enough people vote for 'em , then they'll have to include them...
But I bet both the Labs & the Nats would enter into a grand coalition to make sure that that didnt happen.
My prediction is that the Greens will get over 10% of the votes this time around & mark my words we'll see them doing deals with Winston & Hone before they'd work with the Greens.:weird::tugger:

I hope so. The thinking minority are increasingly disenchanted with the flaccid and flawed policies espoused by the two big catch-all parties and looking for alternatives. Act offer nothing new or of any interest unless you're like Quasi (which excludes you from the thinking minority), Winston First are much the same and Peter Dunne and Jim Anderton are anomalies at best. The Green policies are remarkably sensible and forward thinking and I believe genuinely offer us a future. They will never be the biggest party, but if they have a dozen or so seats they will have sufficient influence to shift the agenda.

Their biggest problem is that too many people have listened to their mate Wayne down at the pub with the grouse ute and the hot missus or the various political parties and make a value judgement without actually reading their policies and looking at their track record.

shrub

11th August 2011, 10:24

No problem at all. Keep the good assets, fix those that need fixing, sell those that really need selling and buy some more good ones. And at all times make sure you keep those that are natural monopolies. Like I said, no problem having a well managed portfolio of SOEs. Problem is that isn't what's on offer, come November.

Everywhere in the world the successful economies are those with governments that own assets and control infrastructure. They're also the ones with (generally) higher taxes, yet we are completely wedded to an ideology that has never worked and almost certainly never will.

Early next year I will have completed my studies and I am already talking to potential employers overseas offering heaps more than I can earn here in countries that have a future. Come November I will make my decision because another 3 years of this National will do no good and if Act gets back and has ANY influence we are potentially facing problems that will be unfixable.

oldrider

11th August 2011, 10:28

I hope so. The thinking minority are increasingly disenchanted with the flaccid and flawed policies espoused by the two big catch-all parties and looking for alternatives.

We are on the same page up to there but your belief that the Greens will provide something different and "better" is delusional, IMHO but to each his own I guess.

All of the parties on serious offer in NZ are IMO just versions of each other and stand for "government monopoly"!

What this country needs most is "less" government and "monetary reform".

The last party to offer this was "Social Credit" lead by Vernon Cracknell and Bruce Beatham.

shrub

11th August 2011, 10:45

What this country needs most is "less" government and "monetary reform".

Interesting position, but I am curious as to what benefits less government has, assuming you mean lower involvement of the legislature in society. I agree that we need to engage in monetary reform but I am interested to know what those reforms should be.

Oscar

11th August 2011, 11:05

We are on the same page up to there but your belief that the Greens will provide something different and "better" is delusional, IMHO but to each his own I guess.

All of the parties on serious offer in NZ are IMO just versions of each other and stand for "government monopoly"!

What this country needs most is "less" government and "monetary reform".

The last party to offer this was "Social Credit" lead by Vernon Cracknell and Bruce Beatham.

For example?
This country has less govt. and a freer market than almost any other in the OECD.
And mentioning Social redit in the same sentence as less govt. is a wee bit silly...

SPman

11th August 2011, 14:56

So when you say "Westie", you don't mean Ranui?

Bit further west than that....about 5000km.....used to be a "Shore boy"

This call for "less Government" is always a bit of a problem. By "less Government", do you mean less interference in peoples lives.....petty rules, regulations, policing, more privacy, etc, a low key Government which functions quietly and efficiently in the background, providing society with a solid base, which seems reasonable to me, or, what seems to be meant in corporate circles (and those who would aspire to such) - less tax (on them), less regulatory controls (like none), less health care, less public education, less infrastructure, less social services and more military, surveillance, security controls, etc etc - i.e. - more free reign for them to do what they want, when they want, and screw anyone, when & how they want as long as they gain more money and power?

oldrider

11th August 2011, 17:29

This call for "less Government" is always a bit of a problem. By "less Government", do you mean less interference in peoples lives.....petty rules, regulations, policing, more privacy, etc, a low key Government which functions quietly and efficiently in the background, providing society with a solid base, which seems reasonable to me,

Absolutely but with less of them so it gets it done properly and with more real accountability if they don't!

(spend any money saved on more "essential" issues like :Police: for instance!)

rainman

11th August 2011, 19:45

with less of them so it gets it done properly and with more real accountability if they don't!

Isn't that exactly the wrong way around though? Too few people mean rushed jobs, limited oversight, and poor quality. Holding people to account also needs processes and management, otherwise it doesn't happen. Of course too many just add cost with limited value, so just like any business you have to get to the right Goldilocks level.

I'd submit that it's nigh on impossible to know what that level is unless you're in the particular enterprise and do a bit of real analysis. Therefore all those who scream for less government, or for that matter reflexively defend more, are simply ideologues who can safely be ignored.

Undoubtedly SOME government is inefficient, but most government deals with complexity and conflicting outcomes and drivers that would leave your average widget-shipper feeling utterly bewildered.

Winston001

11th August 2011, 21:38

Everywhere in the world the successful economies are those with governments that own assets and control infrastructure. They're also the ones with (generally) higher taxes, yet we are completely wedded to an ideology that has never worked and almost certainly never will.

Mmm...a quick check of tax as a percentage of GDP (ie. low tax nations) with reasonable infrastructure reveals:

Switzerland
United Arab Emirates
Kuwait
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
Hong Kong
Singapore
Iran
etc...

Which suggests that economic success is as much a result of being lucky rather than any political plan. Either oil or strategic position.

shrub

11th August 2011, 21:47

Mmm...a quick check of tax as a percentage of GDP (ie. low tax nations) with reasonable infrastructure reveals:

Switzerland
United Arab Emirates
Kuwait
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
Hong Kong
Singapore
Iran
etc...

Which suggests that economic success is as much a result of being lucky rather than any political plan. Either oil or strategic position.

Or low tax works best if you have oil? And interesting that apart from Switzerland (and to a lesser extent Singapore) all of these nations are totalitarian regimes with huge wealth disparity and massive corruption.

Winston001

11th August 2011, 21:58

...explained why selling 49% is a particularly dumb idea.

Like poorly conceived tax cuts?

You're either really dumb or being a bit disingenuous.

And you expect an intelligent considered discourse??

Winston001

11th August 2011, 22:02

Or low tax works best if you have oil? And interesting... all of these nations are totalitarian regimes with huge wealth disparity and massive corruption.

But bloody good roads!! You did specify government assets and infrastructure as a signatures of successful economies. ;)

It just happens they are low tax as well.

oldrider

11th August 2011, 23:57

Isn't that exactly the wrong way around though? Too few people mean rushed jobs, limited oversight, and poor quality. Holding people to account also needs processes and management, otherwise it doesn't happen. Of course too many just add cost with limited value, so just like any business you have to get to the right Goldilocks level.

I'd submit that it's nigh on impossible to know what that level is unless you're in the particular enterprise and do a bit of real analysis. Therefore all those who scream for less government, or for that matter reflexively defend more, are simply ideologues who can safely be ignored.

1) Not too few people, just the right number of truly "empowered" people fully informed and driving the project according to their own agreed accounts and objectives.

They set the size of the team required and employ contractors etc to handle the peaks and overflows!

We humans spend a third (+) of our lives working, why be unhappy while you are there FFS! Enjoy it!

Happy, interested, informed, and "included" workers work best!

Don't wait be asked, demand to be included and then do as you expect to be done to!

2) They should just keep working at reducing the government team and clean up and minimise the requirements for their act!

3) I make no apology if I appear to be an "ideologue" as you put it, I just know it can be so much better than it is!

IMHO, The employment contracts act gave NZ a great opportunity to build great manager employee relationships and improve workplace satisfaction!

Unfortunately NZ managers and employees failed to make it work because they just don't have the nous or ability to see the wood for the trees and wasted the opportunity!

Unfortunately (again IMHO) NZ is devoid of quality leaders and managers so the workforce will continue to be subjected to the same old same old for a long time yet!

I don't see anybody in our political offering that can even attempt to lead the country out of this regressive dumb and dumber decline we appear to be in! :mellow:

shrub

12th August 2011, 09:45

1) Not too few people, just the right number of truly "empowered" people fully informed and driving the project according to their own agreed accounts and objectives.

They set the size of the team required and employ contractors etc to handle the peaks and overflows!

We humans spend a third (+) of our lives working, why be unhappy while you are there FFS! Enjoy it!

Happy, interested, informed, and "included" workers work best!

Don't wait be asked, demand to be included and then do as you expect to be done to!

1) They should just keep working at reducing the government team and clean up and minimise the requirements for their act!

I don't agree. I know a few quite senior civil servants including an inlaw who has an MBA, PhD, is a qualified accountant and was at one point the preferred choice for head of CERA, and I have considered becoming one myself. The current atmosphere of instability and minimal funding means the best and most talented people don't waste their time getting paid less to do a job where they can be made redundant at the will of the government and are expected to do a better job with less money, fewer staff and less resources. You'll find that most of the really talented ones are leaving in their droves which means the ones that would find it hard to get a job in the public sector are the ones staying. Cutting the public service is not simply a matter of selectively pruning the dross and the so-called streamlining is usually done to save money ahead of deliver a better service.

Unfortunately (again IMHO) NZ is devoid of quality leaders and managers so the workforce will continue to be subjected to the same old same old for a long time yet!

Again I disagree, kind of. There are some very talented and skilled leaders out there, but a lot of them are getting frustrated with poor political leadership and packing their bags.

I don't see anybody in our political offering that can even attempt to lead the country out of this regressive dumb and dumber decline we appear to be in!

That I cannot disagree with.

Robert Taylor

12th August 2011, 10:02

I don't agree. I know a few quite senior civil servants including an inlaw who has an MBA, PhD, is a qualified accountant and was at one point the preferred choice for head of CERA, and I have considered becoming one myself. The current atmosphere of instability and minimal funding means the best and most talented people don't waste their time getting paid less to do a job where they can be made redundant at the will of the government and are expected to do a better job with less money, fewer staff and less resources. You'll find that most of the really talented ones are leaving in their droves which means the ones that would find it hard to get a job in the public sector are the ones staying. Cutting the public service is not simply a matter of selectively pruning the dross and the so-called streamlining is usually done to save money ahead of deliver a better service.

Again I disagree, kind of. There are some very talented and skilled leaders out there, but a lot of them are getting frustrated with poor political leadership and packing their bags.

That I cannot disagree with.

The only civil servants we need more of are RNZAF pilots and technicians in a couple of new squadrons of strike aircraft.

mashman

12th August 2011, 11:33

And you expect an intelligent considered discourse??

Do you vote for those who conduct their day to day dealings with the opposition parties, in a very similar manner? I'm betting you do. And having seen the TV/Press etc... (:shit: not the TV), they're constantly slating each other... in fact they seem to rely on it come election time.

I didn't have you "pegged" as such a delicate wall flower :love:...

oldrider

12th August 2011, 12:20

Again I disagree, kind of. There are some very talented and skilled leaders out there, but a lot of them are getting frustrated with poor political leadership and packing their bags.

Hmmm I have not made my self clear, it is the "political government team" that I want to see reduced, there are too bloody many of them!

Swoop

12th August 2011, 12:29

Hmmm I have not made my self clear, it is the "political government team" that I want to see reduced, there are too bloody many of them!
Unfortunately Mr Shrub believes that we have enough MP's for our nation's size. Also we need more public servants.

With an ageing population, plenty on the benefit system, etc, etc the few taxpayers in the middle are going to be royally screwed to support everything.

shrub

12th August 2011, 14:27

Hmmm I have not made my self clear, it is the "political government team" that I want to see reduced, there are too bloody many of them!

Why? Given our population we have one of the smallest governments in the world, especially if you factor in our landmass. I honestly don't see any valid reason for cutting back the number of representatives and there's an argument that our poor economic and social performance is in part because we are under-represented.

So what is your argument?

shrub

12th August 2011, 14:30

Unfortunately Mr Shrub believes that we have enough MP's for our nation's size. Also we need more public servants.

With an ageing population, plenty on the benefit system, etc, etc the few taxpayers in the middle are going to be royally screwed to support everything.

Oh good, the muppets are back. You really need to stop worrying about how you have to pay for everything with your taxes. If you aren't making ends meet I suggest you look at ways to better yourself and lift your income.

Swoop

12th August 2011, 15:08

If you aren't making ends meet I suggest you look at ways to better yourself and lift your income.
:rofl::rofl::rofl::laugh::laugh::laugh::facepalm:

Truly impressive.

That is certainly not a problem area and you have clearly demonstrated what a genuine muppet looks like.

Banditbandit

12th August 2011, 15:45

The only civil servants we need more of are RNZAF pilots and technicians in a couple of new squadrons of strike aircraft.

You'd better at least employ some IRS people so they can collect the money to pay the pilots and buy the planes ...

oldrider

12th August 2011, 16:34

Why? Given our population we have one of the smallest governments in the world, especially if you factor in our landmass. I honestly don't see any valid reason for cutting back the number of representatives and there's an argument that our poor economic and social performance is in part because we are under-represented.

So what is your argument?

Decisions are made in cabinet by a small group, that's all we need, all the rest are just make work pseudo government service officers!

Either employ them in public services or get shot of them, small focussed and committed teams work better, more focussed, more efficiently and more effectively.

Not an argument, it's my experience and my stated opinion, that's all.

Banditbandit

12th August 2011, 16:41

Decisions are made in cabinet by a small group, that's all we need, all the rest are just make work pseudo government service officers!

I agree that is what happens. But is that democratic? I have serious doubts ...

mashman

12th August 2011, 16:43

Oh good, the muppets are back. You really need to stop worrying about how you have to pay for everything with your taxes. If you aren't making ends meet I suggest you look at ways to better yourself and lift your income.

ahhh. A wifffffff, of the way it is.

mashman

12th August 2011, 16:45

Decisions are made in cabinet by a small group, that's all we need, all the rest are just make work pseudo government service officers!

Either employ them in public services or get shot of them, small focussed and committed teams work better, more focussed, more efficiently and more effectively.

Not an argument, it's my experience and my stated opinion, that's all.

+1........ cannot spread etc...

shrub

12th August 2011, 19:13

:rofl::rofl::rofl::laugh::laugh::laugh::facepalm:

Truly impressive.

That is certainly not a problem area and you have clearly demonstrated what a genuine muppet looks like.

In my experience when people complain about the cost of living (and tax is part of the cost of living) they're financially stretched, so I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you were a hard working battler trying to make ends meet.

You see, tax is what we pay for the privelege of living in this country. Me, I am quite happy about paying tax because it means our elderly are able to retire with dignity after a lifetime of working to make NZ the country it is. I'm also happy to pay tax so children can have first class educations, or so that when we get sick or injured there are free hospitals available to everyone that provide world leading medical care. I also don't mind paying for a professional police force that is equipped to go out and raise money. I don't even mind paying a little towards a fund so that when the wheels fall off peoples lives - whether losing their jobs, severe illness or, something I have personal experience of, a partner leaving them to raise children on their own.

Sure, there are a small number of people that rip the system off, that are career criminals and are just plain lazy, but if you're stupid enough to think that life on a benefit or on prison is a good lifestyle you're probably beyond help. But as a percentage, I would guess they only account for 1 or 2% of my tax bill, so I really don't care.

Obviously you resent contributing to the costs of living in one of the world's best countries, and for that I am really sorry for you. If you look at the government's books it is pretty clear that we're spending more than we're earning, and I reckon our taxes don't actually cover the cost of living in NZ, so we're living beyond our means. Might I suggest that instead of complaning about paying taxes for living here you emigrate somewhere else where tax is lower? Cambodia, Afghanistan and Angorra have a 0% personal tax rate, Uzbekistan has 9% and Bulgaria has a 10% tax rate - you'd love it there, they have no beneficiaries at all!

Swoop

12th August 2011, 19:37

In my experience...
I'm sure with all of your experience and answers to our countries problems, you are standing for parliament this coming election?

Or are the TradeMe message boards missing a "valued poster" at this moment in time?

rainman

12th August 2011, 20:38

And you expect an intelligent considered discourse??

Well, I live in hope...

I'll stand by the comment about 49% - I have said why it's a dumb idea. Feel free to persuade me I'm wrong. Note I'm not saying you are dumb, in this case - only that your idea seems really stupid to me.

And we've covered the "assets stay here" nonsense before - so you either didn't get it first time around or are peddling spin and ideology. Which is it?

Why is it all magically OK if the assets stay here, but belong to someone else who gets the returns from them?

Can't see how you'd personally take offence to my view that the tax cuts were poorly conceived...

employ contractors etc to handle the peaks and overflows

Mate, there'd be screaming about "expensive bloody contractors". And also my guess is over time the core service would get smaller and more would end up being "contractors". With no employment rights, but no large extra pay... seen that before.

I don't see anybody in our political offering that can even attempt to lead the country out of this regressive dumb and dumber decline we appear to be in!

No argument there.

puddytat

12th August 2011, 21:31

When one voice rules the nation
just because they're top of the pile
doesnt mean their vision is the clearest
the voices of the people
are falling on deaf ears
our politicians all become careerists

They must declare their interests
but not their company cars
Is there more to a seat in parliament
than sitting on your arse?
and the best of all this bad bunch
are shouting to be heard
above the sound of Ideologies clashing

Outside the patient millions who put them into power
expect a little more back for their taxes
like school books, beds in hospitals
and peace in our bloody times
All they get is old men grinding axes

Who built their private fortunes
on the things they can rely
the Courts, the secret handshake
the stock exchange & the old school tie
for God & Queen & Country
and the things they justify
above the sound of ideologies clashing

God bless the civil servants
the nations saving grace
While we expect Democracy
they're laughing in our face
and though our cries get louder
their laughter is gets louder still
Above the sound of ideologies clashing

Blliy Bragg

oldrider

12th August 2011, 22:26

Well, I live in hope...And we've covered the "assets stay here" nonsense before - so you either didn't get it first time around or are peddling spin and ideology. Which is it?

Mate, there'd be screaming about "expensive bloody contractors". And also my guess is over time the core service would get smaller and more would end up being "contractors". With no employment rights, but no large extra pay... seen that before.

Absolutely true, this was extremely badly executed both by believers and non believers, shows what poor management delivery capability is out there in NZ!

In my own experience, I know it can work but only where it is applicable!

Horses for courses, whatever method fits best business practice at the time, one size does not fit all!

It makes a huge difference if the (smaller rather than larger) team is involved in the whole business strategy and is accountable for the strategy as well as the outcome!

Life is too precious to be wasted by some fuckwit who has no idea about his own life let alone fucking up someone else's!

When you are totally committed and totally involved in your work everything else picks up as well, it needs to be balanced, sleep, health, leisure, protection from the elements, sustenance and an exciting workplace!

If you are lucky enough to have a wife and family, your happiness will become their happiness!

Nothing succeeds like success and there is absolutely no reason why you can't have it, just kick the fuckwits out of your way and it's yours!

Been there, done that and the greatest reward you get out of it (if you are the leader) is the growth and development in the people involved with you!

I hate being stifled by incompetent fuckwits who only paint by numbers! (Nick Smith springs to mind) :doh:

Winston001

13th August 2011, 18:45

I'll stand by the comment about 49% - I have said why it's a dumb idea. Feel free to persuade me I'm wrong. Note I'm not saying you are dumb, in this case - only that your idea seems really stupid to me.

Actually you did viz. "You're either really dumb..."

So anyway, I've searched your past posts and couldn't find where you construct an argument explaining why selling 49% is dumb. You may well have done so, it just didn't jump out. Could you please update?

Why is it all magically OK if the assets stay here, but belong to someone else who gets the returns from them?

I do tire of this: yet another example of catastrophic all or nothing thinking.

The assets will not "belong to someone else": 51% will continue to be owned by you and me. 51% of nett distributed profit will belong to you and me. Control will be held by you and me.

We must be accurate in our language or else the whole discussion gets derailed.

rainman

13th August 2011, 21:01

Actually you did viz. "You're either really dumb..."

The key is "in this case" - being the 49% point. On the "assets stay here" point, different story. But I'm sorry if you took offence - people call me and my ideas dumb all the time and it doesn't bother me one bit, so I tend to assume the same is true of others.

why selling 49% is dumb. You may well have done so, it just didn't jump out. Could you please update?

Sure thing. Selling all of a thing worth a billion dollars may get you a billion. Selling less than half of it will get you proportionally less - a.k.a. control is worth something. Selling less than half and putting some kind of restriction that means it can only be sold to Kiwi mum and dad investors means it's worth even less again.

People are greedy, groups of people (gummints, corporations) doubly so. Therefore it won't stay restricted 49% for long, if at all. If National win they'll take this as a mandate to sell everything not nailed down, and I just don't trust them to stick to 49%. The kiwi mum and dads line is 100% pure BS anyway. Betcha a beer they won't implement a meaningful ownership/resale restriction.

And besides, the mum and dad investors already own the assets, and won't be the typical people that own them at the end of the process, so it's basically theft.

Here's an idea: why don't we transfer all the SOEs into a sovereign wealth fund or similar, with a documented long term growth strategy, appoint some capable non-politicised administrators to run it, and legislate that the returns aren't used for general spending, tax cuts etc. Changes to the portfolio would need a robust business case approval process, and performance should be reported transparently to the public as owners of the assets. Set some rules about how much can be in each asset class held, what return gets paid to the government for general purposes, and vary these high level parameters only on a supermajority or similar. Legislate some growth targets so it doesn't all get sold off and end up an empty vessel.

Probably got a bunch of holes in it, but might have promise? We have a savings problem as individuals, perhaps the state should be leading by example.

I do tire of this: yet another example of catastrophic all or nothing thinking.

The assets will not "belong to someone else": 51% will continue to be owned by you and me. 51% of nett distributed profit will belong to you and me. Control will be held by you and me.

Well, no, control will be held by whatever muppets we elect come 26 November, Personally I don't trust either of them to act in my best interests. Particularly if they are National, and particularly if they win by a big majority.

Question: if we sell 49% of all of these things, what do I get out of it? Lower taxes? Better government services? Lower energy prices? More local jobs? Or to watch the rich get even richer and the dole queue longer?

And why do we want to sell them, again? Isn't our economy "fine (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10744045)", according to Billy E? Haven't we " got our debt under control"?

It's pure ideological bullshit, mate, and more fool you for believing it.

oldrider

13th August 2011, 22:19

Here's an idea: why don't we transfer all the SOEs into a sovereign wealth fund or similar, with a documented long term growth strategy, appoint some capable non-politicised administrators to run it, and legislate that the returns aren't used for general spending, tax cuts etc. Changes to the portfolio would need a robust business case approval process, and performance should be reported transparently to the public as owners of the assets. Set some rules about how much can be in each asset class held, what return gets paid to the government for general purposes, and vary these high level parameters only on a supermajority or similar. Legislate some growth targets so it doesn't all get sold off and end up an empty vessel.

Haven't you just basically described an "SOE" of SOE's?

With the exception that SOE's were to provide a half way step to ultimately being sold as a disposable asset!

SOE was supposed to be only a temporary situation ... not permanent!

Labour saw them as a cash cow and stopped the sales, all the savings in production costs were soon gobbled up and costs to the end use consumer sky rocketed!

I.E. The government holds a monopoly position in power production distribution and sales, there is inadequate competition and they can almost charge what they like!

Winston001

13th August 2011, 22:40

But I'm sorry if you took offence - people call me and my ideas dumb all the time and it doesn't bother me one bit, so I tend to assume the same is true of others.

LOL understood. You are intelligent and capable of expressing yourself. So I accord your words more weight - and respect, than the average KB poster. As you rightly said earlier, describing an idea or position as dumb is not offensive.

Sure thing. Selling all of a thing worth a billion dollars may get you a billion. Selling less than half of it will get you proportionally less - a.k.a. control is worth something.

Agreed. Nevertheless, you assume a fire sale. What if the bids/offers are too low? No sale.

Selling less than half and putting some kind of restriction that means it can only be sold to Kiwi mum and dad investors means it's worth even less again.

Correct. Although I think the Auckland Airport sale was handled this way and that worked.

People are greedy, groups of people (gummints, corporations) doubly so. Therefore it won't stay restricted 49% for long, if at all. If National win they'll take this as a mandate to sell everything not nailed down, and I just don't trust them to stick to 49%. The kiwi mum and dads line is 100% pure BS anyway. Betcha a beer they won't implement a meaningful ownership/resale restriction.

And here is where the wheels fall off in these arguments. Moving from the specific to the general viz If National win they'll take this as a mandate to sell everything not nailed down....

The current argument is part-sale of 6 SOEs versus borrowing $6ish billion. The proposed CGT isn't an alternative because in the short run, when the money is needed, the govt will have to continue borrowing. CGT takes about 15 years to become fully effective.

And besides, the mum and dad investors already own the assets, and won't be the typical people that own them at the end of the process, so it's basically theft.

Oh dear. Once again a shift from comprehensive consideration of specifics to a broad brush exhortation of fear.

Specifically - how can a sale for money be theft? Mums and dads are "paid" the money in the same way they "owned" 49% of the asset.

Well, no, control will be held by whatever muppets we elect come 26 November, Personally I don't trust either of them to act in my best interests. Particularly if they are National, and particularly if they win by a big majority.

You raised some interesting ideas above but time is short.

Control is held by the New Zealand government no matter who sits on the Treasury benches. Unlike you I do trust all of our MPs to do their best. They are flawed and human just like you and I. There are some I would cross the road to avoid but mostly their hearts and passions are in the right place.

rainman

14th August 2011, 00:46

Haven't you just basically described an "SOE" of SOE's?

With the exception that SOE's were to provide a half way step to ultimately being sold as a disposable asset!

Nope, just a wealth fund, sorta like the one the Norwegians have.

I don't know the history that you refer to, with SOEs planned to be temporary. When was this?

Agreed. Nevertheless, you assume a fire sale. What if the bids/offers are too low? No sale.

So how will you and I know the value of "too low", or whether we got a fair deal? You trust these buggers too much, I think. (And as I asked earlier, what do we get out of this anyway?)

I think the Auckland Airport sale was handled this way and that worked.

Dunno about that, only 15% is held domestically by private investors, with 40% overseas and the rest by ACI. Actually a good example to prove my point.

And here is where the wheels fall off in these arguments. Moving from the specific to the general viz If National win they'll take this as a mandate to sell everything not nailed down....

Well, I think it's a fair prediction based on previous form. What makes you think they won't? They've telegraphed their intentions re asset sales clearly.

The current argument is part-sale of 6 SOEs versus borrowing $6ish billion. The proposed CGT isn't an alternative because in the short run, when the money is needed, the govt will have to continue borrowing. CGT takes about 15 years to become fully effective.

Agree the CGT is a slow cure, but asset sales by comparison are a quick poison. And we don't have a huge government debt problem, even Billy says so.

We should earn more, spend less, claw our way out of debt. And maybe have some policies for fixing things other than "bash bludgers", "tough on crime" and "leave it to the markets". Oh and "build a cycleway". I have to say I like Labour's policies for solving those problems better than National's.

\how can a sale for money be theft?

I take something you (part-)own, and sell it to someone else. You lose, they gain.
Hey, it's as valid as the "taxation is theft" line you hear on the other side of the fence... :)

Like I say, put them all in a well-regulated wealth fund. Then when you sell, it's to buy a better one. Or is National opposed to building up the nation's wealth?

Mums and dads are "paid" the money in the same way they "owned" 49% of the asset.

Only if they are sold overseas, otherwise it's just more redistribution to the wealthy.
Btw, I regard the incurring of excessive debt with no mandate to be tantamount to theft too.

Look at it this way (2010 figures):
- In financial terms we have and assets of $223bn and liabilities of $128bn.
- Of the liabilities only $69bn is borrowings, and only $30bn of that is short term
- We have investments to cover our main obligations such as pensions etc although these do need to be looked at over time
- Our total net worth is $94bn
- Net debt is $27bn, 14% of GDP - up from $10bn in 2008 when the Nats came in
- Gross debt is almost double since 2008: $31bn to $53bn
Somebody made the choices that led to this.

- We didn't handle the GFC well:
http://www.treasury.govt.nz/government/financialstatements/yearend/jun10/09.htm/fs10-14.gif

Not a crisis. Hardly Portugal or Greece. But still some dodgy management since 2008, Yes, I know times are hard. What are we doing about it?

See why I don't trust them?

Unlike you I do trust all of our MPs to do their best. They are flawed and human just like you and I. There are some I would cross the road to avoid but mostly their hearts and passions are in the right place.

You would be in the minority with that view. Furthermore, in rebuttal, I give you Murray McCully.

Winston001

14th August 2011, 02:06

With the exception that SOE's were to provide a half way step to ultimately being sold as a disposable asset!

SOE was supposed to be only a temporary situation ... not permanent!

No John. That is what people feared but it isn't what happened.

For the record, it was a LABOUR government which conducted the bulk of govt asset sales. And good on them for taking a courageous step.

Stated Owned Enterprises (SOE) were deliberately established to remove political interference. They were required to act as businesses. It worked.

I can recall at least three occasions over the past decade when a Minister called for electricity price reductions...and failed. 75% of the generation in NZ is held by SOEs. If the politicians had their way they'd have made the SOEs sell at a loss but fortunately the law (SOE Act 1986) prevented that.

If selling SOE's is so easy, so greedy, why have they lasted 25 years?

The answer I suggest is that sales are a last resort or the particular service no longer needs to be held in public hands.

Winston001

14th August 2011, 02:23

:

You would be in the minority with that view. Furthermore, in rebuttal, I give you Murray McCully.

And Gerry Brownlee.

But you see, if my Pollyanna view of the decency of our elected leaders is not shared by the silent majority...then why does anyone ever vote??

If you listen to talkback or posters on here and the TM boards etc, you'd never vote for anybody.

All politicians are bad. You bring up an exception and I'll guarantee somebody else will think they are awful. You cannot win.

We live in a socialist democracy in a small country at the edge of the world. We are also the least corrupt nation on the planet. Our society needs leaders to make the big decisions. So...I give our politicians the benefit of the doubt.

Winston001

14th August 2011, 03:18

So how will you and I know the value of "too low", or whether we got a fair deal? You trust these buggers too much, I think. (And as I asked earlier, what do we get out of this anyway?)

We get money to repay loans. That improves the nations financial health plus it reduces our interest bill. Anybody would do the same if their debt was crippling.

Value? Business journalists, economists, entrepreneurs, and Labour will examine any sale in fine detail and shout to the rooftops. I do not think that John Key or Bill English could face that if they made a mistake. Their integrity is on the line.

Besides it isn't rocket science. And despite all the puff and noise over previous asset sales the only mis-step was Government Print which was sold for half price.

Well, I think it's a fair prediction based on previous form. What makes you think they won't? They've telegraphed their intentions re asset sales clearly.

The National government have specified six SOEs for part sale. Six. Part-sale. Not everything that isn't nailed down. That's a nice sound-bite but lets debate the facts.

And we don't have a huge government debt problem, even Billy says so.

Every Minister of Finance in the developed world is saying exactly the same thing. You may have noticed the markets aren't so convinced...

We should earn more, spend less, claw our way out of debt. And maybe have some policies for fixing things other than "bash bludgers", "tough on crime" and "leave it to the markets". Oh and "build a cycleway". I have to say I like Labour's policies for solving those problems better than National's.

Fair enough. I don't like Labour's solutions. No problem.

I do agree with you that beneficiary bashing is poor stuff and we need a stable public service. The crime noise is crass. We have one of the highest imprisonment rates in the Western World.

The fact is, I don't think there is anything any government can do for us to bring about a radical upswing. What we need is a Nokia or a Microsoft.

I take something you (part-)own, and sell it to someone else. You lose, they gain.
Hey, it's as valid as the "taxation is theft" line you hear on the other side of the fence... :)

You won't hear the tax = theft from me or anybody who considers the wider picture.

If you part-sell something of mine - and I agreed to it - and you use the money for my benefit, I do not lose. In fact it might be just the hand up I need.

Not a crisis. Hardly Portugal or Greece. But still some dodgy management since 2008, Yes, I know times are hard. What are we doing about it?

See why I don't trust them?

No I don't see why you don't trust them. The govts response to the GFC was classic Keynsian economics. As I write I can remember my father describing what it was like in the 1930s in NZ after the depression. The govt didn't spend money to ease the pain and instead, improved its position. That was laissez faire economics.

Keynes pointed out the harm of such policies and since then governments generally borrow and spend to cover the tough times.

But that has to be repaid. No free meals in real life.

I agree that NZs debt falls in the middle range of nations but if you scan the list, we are alone geographically. And we are tiny. New Zealand cannot afford to be vulnerable to money markets which is exactly what happens if you owe a lot.

rainman

14th August 2011, 09:37

\For the record, it was a STUPID government which conducted the bulk of govt asset sales.

FIFY.

If selling SOE's is so easy, so greedy, why have they lasted 25 years?

The answer I suggest is that sales are a last resort or the particular service no longer needs to be held in public hands.

I disagree; it's because the bulk of voters hate the idea. The only reason it's getting some air now is because the bulk of voters also hate Labour. It's National taking a political opportunity to further their ideological aims, that's all.

EDIT: In support, I give you today's Yahoo poll:
244650

why does anyone ever vote??

Because more people are pragmatists than perfectionists. A set of shit choices is better than no choice at all.

Anybody would do the same if their debt was crippling.

Ours isn't. Although the Nats are doing their best to fix that.

I do not think that John Key or Bill English could face that if they made a mistake. Their integrity is on the line.

Sorry, but bwhahahahahahahaha!

The fact is, I don't think there is anything any government can do for us to bring about a radical upswing. What we need is a Nokia or a Microsoft.

Geography may not be destiny, but it's close. What do you think is the likelihood of us spontaneously generating a huge high tech corporation, having the skill to manage it, and being able to attract and retain sufficient talent to run it. All the while outcompeting China, India, and the developed world? Half the world doesn't even know where we are.

Plus, as I've noted before, the world is changing, and that sort of thing isn't getting easier.

If... you use the money for my benefit

There's the rub.Who won during the last round of privatisations? Wasn't the common man, it was a handful of cronies.

No I don't see why you don't trust them.

Because their performance has been poor, and they have a tendency to lie. Their last budget is enough to convince me they have no credibility as financial managers.

But that has to be repaid.

Sure, but when? I suggest there's no huge rush. You don't have to outrun the lion, just he slowest people running with you, which we're doing easily. And what's happening to inflation in the long term? Might be a good reason not to rush this.

That's no reason to add to our debt burdens big time either, of course. Have another look at the graph. Who chose to increase our debt? You can say "it's Keynesiansim, everyone's doing it" but I believe in accountability. If you spend the stimulus, you have to make sure it works.

And we are tiny. New Zealand cannot afford to be vulnerable to money markets which is exactly what happens if you owe a lot.

Which is why we should be more self-sufficient and less of an open trading market, too.

Btw, 3am? Good effort.

mashman

14th August 2011, 17:05

The Government is looking to put tighter controls on the way teen beneficiaries can spend their money, including allocating them payment cards that can be used to pay for basic living costs only, not cigarettes and alcohol (http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/10036409/initiatives-miss-the-point/) :shit: that'll learn them for being unemployed

puddytat

14th August 2011, 18:15

The 20 mill would be better spent on training them i reckon....

shrub

15th August 2011, 10:14

The 20 mill would be better spent on training them i reckon....

Probably, but it wouldn't have pleased the party faithful as much.

Spending $20m to reign in the financial conduct of 2600 people, or whom probably on 1000 are a problem is a little extreme. Personaly I believe this is the first stage in a series of similar strategies - in 12 months Pavlova Bennet will stand up and announce it has been mind numbingly successful and that it will be extended further, and then a little more and a little more again, until the government are controlling the finances of a significant percentage of people.

George Orwell is becoming frighteningly prescient in his vision of the future.

Oscar

15th August 2011, 10:22

Probably, but it wouldn't have pleased the party faithful as much.

Spending $20m to reign in the financial conduct of 2600 people, or whom probably on 1000 are a problem is a little extreme. Personaly I believe this is the first stage in a series of similar strategies - in 12 months Pavlova Bennet will stand up and announce it has been mind numbingly successful and that it will be extended further, and then a little more and a little more again, until the government are controlling the finances of a significant percentage of people.

George Orwell is becoming frighteningly prescient in his vision of the future.

I'm no fan of Bennett, but it seems to me that money spent on encouraging young people to get a job and avoiding the whole beneficary lifestyle as a career is a good thing.

shrub

15th August 2011, 10:35

I'm no fan of Bennett, but it seems to me that money spent on encouraging young people to get a job and avoiding the whole beneficary lifestyle as a career is a good thing.

I agree entirely, but is that encouraging them to get a job or just telling them that they can't even manage their money and need to have that done for them? Would that $20m be better spent on setting up a mentoring scheme and giving those kids what they almost certainly have never had - someone who knows what they're doing teaching them how to make it in life?

Oscar

15th August 2011, 11:43

I agree entirely, but is that encouraging them to get a job or just telling them that they can't even manage their money and need to have that done for them? Would that $20m be better spent on setting up a mentoring scheme and giving those kids what they almost certainly have never had - someone who knows what they're doing teaching them how to make it in life?

Herindoors is a Secondary School DP and she sees third and fourth generations of welfare (particularly DPB). These kids are obviously getting no guidance from their parents (some of whom seem to think that the DPB is a reasonable career option), so perhaps spending money on what is obviously a generational problem is a good idea.

shrub

15th August 2011, 11:54

Herindoors is a Secondary School DP and she sees third and fourth generations of welfare (particularly DPB). These kids are obviously getting no guidance from their parents (some of whom seem to think that the DPB is a reasonable career option), so perhaps spending money on what is obviously a generational problem is a good idea.

I believe that nobody would choose a life on the benefit unless they either didn't know of anything different or didn't know how not to. FFS, you get paid survival money, you have no options, you are constantly being scrutinised, you have no status etc - why would you? But if all you know is the benefit and if all you believe yourself to be worth is the benefit the chances of breaking away are almost non-existent.

I reckon if you got half a dozen young people, taught them how to budget, get up at 06.30, keep clean, dress well and eat properly and do some excercise you'd have a start. If you had someone they could respect checking on them every day and helping them set goals and work towards them you would achieve a lot more than stopping them spending their dole on smokes. It would probably cost a little more (but not much) in the short term, but in the medium and long term would be a winner.

Only problem is National will never do it because these people are not National members and have no impact on them, so why should we actualy try and help them better themselves?

SPman

15th August 2011, 15:10

Those targeted are those on the Independent Youth Benefit (http://www.workandincome.govt.nz/individuals/a-z-benefits/independent-youth-benefit.html). You get this benefit by being 16 or 17 years old and unable to live with your parents - which means they must either be dead, or physically or sexually abusive. In addition you must not be able to rely on anyone for support - meaning that you have no-one in the world to look out for you. In other words, National is going to be putting the boot into orphans and sexual abuse victims. Classy.
Obviously, these are desirable circumstances to be in, which is why the number of people on this benefit has been declining for years (http://dimpost.wordpress.com/2011/08/14/chart-of-the-day-i-was-going-to-post-pictures-of-my-garden-covered-in-snow-instead-but-i-couldnt-find-my-usb-cord-edition/).
And the "solution"? They used up "stick 'em all in the army" last election (and it didn't work (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1102/S00105/poor-boot-camp-outcomes-provide-an-opportunity.htm)), so instead they're going for rather unpleasant paternalism, with bonus stigmatisation and humiliation. Apparently, having the government spend your money for you will teach you the value of budgeting. And apparently having to spend the pittance remaining after automatic deductions via a special card, while being sneered in the supermarket and having your privatised social worker going through the receipts and questioning how much toilet paper you're using will teach you to spend carefully. Instead, I think it will teach people the arbitrariness and cruelty of power, and provide a valuable grounding in basic money-laundering techniques.
This doesn't target a pressing social problem. We're not facing an explosion of IYB recipients, and I'm not seeing a lot of evidence that National's prejudices on their spending is true. Instead, this is being pushed solely to prop up National's support in an election year, by stigmatising and demonising and humiliating an already powerless group (who, as a bonus, can't even fucking vote). Its the ultimate triumph of spin over substance. And for the kids who will be victimised by this? Sorry, guys, National has an election to win.

And this will fix what ails the country??????? Yet more "policies" which are
cruel, vicious, divisive, and based on myths rather than evidence.

Distract the masses with a circus - kicking those at the bottom is always easy when you run out of ideas......

Quasievil

15th August 2011, 17:59

Distract the masses with a circus - kicking those at the bottom is always easy when you run out of ideas......

the only people getting Kicked are those that are paying the bill i.e the taxpayers

I think its an awesome idea, why they dont roll it out to the entire populous on the bennifit is crazy.
cards not cash = awesome !!

oldrider

15th August 2011, 21:59

Oscar

15th August 2011, 22:20

(The State can run you're life better than you can, trust them, say "NO" to personal responsibility and freedom to choose!)

Bullshit.
If you don't want the state to run your life, get a fucking job.
The dole is not a job, a lifestyle or a career choice - it's taxpayers money.

Indiana_Jones

15th August 2011, 22:57

Bullshit.
If you don't want the state to run your life, get a fucking job.
The dole is not a job, a lifestyle or a career choice - it's taxpayers money.

+1

I hate people who go "oh don't bash the people on the benefit, it's not their fault!"

In a lot of instances, that is true, they don't wanna be on the dole, but they suck it up, find a job and get back to normal.

But there are some out there that see it as their bloody birth right and see it as pocket money to blow on piss, fags and 20" chromies for their shit box car....and if there's any left after that, consider buying the kids a packet of chips to shut them up.

I like a pint as much as the next cunt, difference is I earn it.

-Indy

Quasievil

16th August 2011, 07:48

Bullshit.
If you don't want the state to run your life, get a fucking job.
The dole is not a job, a lifestyle or a career choice - it's taxpayers money.

+ 2 Absolutely
make the dole as diffulcult as possible, its a safety net not a career option.

shrub

16th August 2011, 10:16

More socialist state proposal's to save Kiwi's from themselves!

(The State can run you're life better than you can, trust them, say "NO" to personal responsibility and freedom to choose!)

Take your pick Red Labour/National or Blue National/Labour!

John Key ... what a guy .... Labour and National, all wrapped up in one package!

Spot the difference, ...... if there "really" is one! (The electorate hasn't realised it yet)

John Key poll's so well because he really placates both National and Labour supporters, he will win the election and during the next three years "some of them" will wake up and smell the coffee! :mellow:

But as you can see from the following comments his utterly pointless and stupidly expensive idea has got the muppets slathering with delight, and that's the whole reason behind it. Does anyone actually believe this will do one ounce of good or that Key and the Nats really care about the 2600 people affected? The only reason they have done it is because their supporters will nod sagely and say "finally Someone Is Doing Something About It" or "about time they Got Tough On Beneficiaries".

Beneficiaries are vital to the Nats because they have no economic or political power but can be kicked around and made into folk devils because it's decent, hardworking people like Quasi that are being bled dry by them. Make An Example of them, and you have won their support regardless of how idiotic your policies.

It amuses me watching the puppetmasters pull the strings and making the muppets dance to music they cannot even hear.

Swoop

16th August 2011, 11:07

regardless of how idiotic your policies.
Speaking of which... (you still haven't answered my question)
Are you standing for an electorate seat or a party list seat at the upcoming election?

shrub

16th August 2011, 11:15

Speaking of which... (you still haven't answered my question)
Are you standing for an electorate seat or a party list seat at the upcoming election?

Nope. I have considered it, and the chance to influence change is appealling, but I have too many other commitments. Besides, I know how hard pollys who take it seriously work and I am waaaay too old and lazy for that shit. After years of hard work I am lucky enough to have got myself in the position where I can work 2 or 3 days a week and earn plenty to do everything I want to do, and I'm not ready to give that up yet.

Anyway, pollys live in a fishbowl and I like to do things like ride motorbikes fast, drink too much etc. Can you imagine the delight of the media if an MP got pinged for speeding on a bike or was spotted in a bar or at a rally pissing up? And I have done a few things in my distant past that I would rather stayed there because they have no bearing on my life right now but would cause great delight to the rednecks and be a very irritating distraction.

SPman

16th August 2011, 11:34

It amuses me watching the puppetmasters pull the strings and making the muppets dance to music they cannot even hear. It's great fun, isn't it! Then throw in a few "Lefty bleeding heart" statements and watch them dance.........:laugh:

shrub

16th August 2011, 12:34

It's great fun, isn't it! Then throw in a few "Lefty bleeding heart" statements and watch them dance.........:laugh:

And the best part is they don't even know who the puppet master is.

mashman

16th August 2011, 12:53

I hate people who go "oh don't bash the people on the benefit, it's not their fault!"

In a lot of instances, that is true, they don't wanna be on the dole, but they suck it up, find a job and get back to normal.

But there are some out there that see it as their bloody birth right and see it as pocket money to blow on piss, fags and 20" chromies for their shit box car....and if there's any left after that, consider buying the kids a packet of chips to shut them up.

I like a pint as much as the next cunt, difference is I earn it.

they probably hate you too... for being such a rich cnut that is...

You do remember that a certain % of the population are required to be unemployed to help control inflation? You should be giving them more money so they can buy more piss, fags etc... not less encouraging then to head out and top up their income in some other way... or does that not compute? or is that not Right?

Oh, and whilst you're at it. Cut the "charitable donation" tax incentives... why give someone a third of their money back when they voluntarily donated to charity? I see ARSEFECKERY!

puddytat

16th August 2011, 12:57

shrub

16th August 2011, 13:07

So its possible for them to be able to contemplate the beauracracy of them keeping an eye on these youngsters, yet its to complex to remove GST on food?.FFS!!

The muthafarkers are looking at fiddling with our last remaining public broadcasters too....dropping TVNZ 7 & farking with National Radio:finger: Is it the next step in the continuing dumbing down of our society & leaving the private media to force feed us what they consider to be news which to me is mostly Womans Weekly tripe.:oi-grr:
You only need to look at what TV1 & TV3 put on thier 6pm news & then watch
TVNZ 7 @ 8pm to see the difference .....Or listen to 9 to Noon with Katherine Ryan.
They'll say that thats what the people want....most are too stupid to know what they want.
They dont want Joe Retard to know whats going on about deeper issues....& Joe probably doesnt really want to know:facepalm::yeah:

Independent critical thinking is an anathema to the current lot.

There are plenty of reality shows about obesity, the police and cooking to keep the peasant's minds dulled so there is no need for National radio or TV7.

Oscar

16th August 2011, 13:13

So its possible for them to be able to contemplate the beauracracy of them keeping an eye on these youngsters, yet its to complex to remove GST on food?.FFS!!

The muthafarkers are looking at fiddling with our last remaining public broadcasters too....dropping TVNZ 7 & farking with National Radio:finger: Is it the next step in the continuing dumbing down of our society & leaving the private media to force feed us what they consider to be news which to me is mostly Womans Weekly tripe.:oi-grr:
You only need to look at what TV1 & TV3 put on thier 6pm news & then watch
TVNZ 7 @ 8pm to see the difference .....Or listen to 9 to Noon with Katherine Ryan.
They'll say that thats what the people want....most are too stupid to know what they want.
They dont want Joe Retard to know whats going on about deeper issues....& Joe probably doesnt really want to know:facepalm::yeah:

So how are you qualified to say what people should listen to or watch?
It's a bit pompous for you to say people are too stupid to know what they want and expect them to pay for your tastes.

As a matter of fact, I quite frequently listen to National Radio, but why should the long suffering taxpayers shell out for my tastes?

As for Katherine Ryan (and Kim Hill) - I'm not sure what annoys me more about these broadcasters, their ability to make an interesting subject as dull as ditchwater, Kill Him's abrasive style or the fact that both suffer from a raging left wing anti-male bias.

SPman

16th August 2011, 13:17

I see Warren Buffet is saying, the super rich should pay a lot more tax....
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html?_r=1
He's not one to bitch and whinge about paying more money to support bludgers...he just gets on with making money
And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what’s happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation.

puddytat

16th August 2011, 13:23

So how are you qualified to say what people should listen to or watch?
It's a bit pompous for you to say people are too stupid to know what they want and expect them to pay for your tastes.

As a matter of fact, I quite frequently listen to National Radio, but why should the long suffering taxpayers shell out for my tastes?

As for Katherine Ryan (and Kim Hill) - I'm not sure what annoys me more about these broadcasters, their ability to make an interesting subject as dull as ditchwater, Kill Him's abrasive style or the fact that both suffer from a raging left wing anti-male bias.

We shell out all the time for things that arnt to our own tastes, & public broadcasting is independant of market forces so not prone to lobbying....
Yeah , maybe i'm a tad pompous, blame it on my frustration...but arnt they pompous too with forcing me to pay for shit thats not to my taste. Im not trying to tell people what the should do...I just think that seeing nearly all our information comes from the Media, that a nonaligned organisation may have less fiddling & fewer agendas going on in the Boardroom.
And so you think that Cambo & Sainsbury are more realistic than Katherine, Kim, Jim Moira & the likes that frequent NatRad? . Or less biased & less sensational?:no: What I like about Public Broadcasting is that its the only place that everyday youll get an in depth analasis of current events other than the once weekly offerings of Q&A & that other one with wotshisface.

Oscar

16th August 2011, 13:39

We shell out all the time for things that arnt to our own tastes, & public broadcasting is independant of market forces so not prone to lobbying....
Yeah , maybe i'm a tad pompous, blame it on my frustration...
And so you think that Cambo & Sainsbury are more realistic than Katherine, Kim, Jim Moira & the likes that frequent NatRad? . Or less biased & less sensational?:no: What I like about Public Broadcasting is that its the only place that everyday youll get an in depth analasis of current events other than the once weekly offerings of Q&A & that other one with wotshisface.

I don't watch the Walrus or Trophyhead, as they are even more biased (and far less professional) than the aformentioned wimmins. I'm not sure why you would assume that I would prefer these idjuts as I certainly didn't mention them.

I personally think tht most of Nat Radio is a great thing, but it doesn't give me the right to spend other peoples taxes on it. And to say that Nat Radio is not subject lobbying is a tad naive, isn't it?

mashman

16th August 2011, 14:57

Go on Hone... show the useless cunts how to look after the people (http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/10046723/mana-proud-to-support-campaign-to-remove-gst-from-food/)...

Oscar

16th August 2011, 15:02

Go on Hone... show the useless cunts how to look after the people (http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/10046723/mana-proud-to-support-campaign-to-remove-gst-from-food/)...

Yeah remove the GST of veges and they'll eat more...

....KFC must be shitting themselves:killingme

puddytat

16th August 2011, 16:27

I don't watch the Walrus or Trophyhead, as they are even more biased (and far less professional) than the aformentioned wimmins. I'm not sure why you would assume that I would prefer these idjuts as I certainly didn't mention them.

I personally think tht most of Nat Radio is a great thing, but it doesn't give me the right to spend other peoples taxes on it. And to say that Nat Radio is not subject lobbying is a tad naive, isn't it?

No your right, you didnt mention them but i was just using them as an example of what mainstream media offer as indepth reporting:laugh:
So who would be able to lobby NatRad....the leftwing manhating lesbians?I would suggest that lobbying would be far more likely to be successful on whatever organisation thats reliant on "donations" or advertising for its existance, rather than a publicly funded one.
Im just so skeptical when it comes to any Govt looking to balance the books, or scoring cheap Brownie points by cutting public funding to the detrement of public services,while those who already have so much are laughing (still) all the way to the Banks or Accountants.
As SP quoted about Warren Buffet.....but Im sure some will think that his ideas are really a leftwing conspiracy.

By the way, this has to be one of the best threads for a long time,so thanks to the Quasi's,yourself, the Rainman & Shrub & others who are posting because i feel that its the closest thing I read to a " real mans" political debate as opposed to a lot of the "expert" talking heads who are often "pompous"!!<_<

oldrider

16th August 2011, 16:30

And the best part is they don't even know who the puppet master is.

Sincere question, "do you know who the puppet really master is"? ..:confused:.. please share it with us! :psst: we won't tell anyone else! :shutup:

puddytat

16th August 2011, 16:34

:psst:Beelzabub

shrub

16th August 2011, 16:56

Sincere question, "do you know who the puppet really master is"? ..:confused:.. please share it with us! :psst: we won't tell anyone else! :shutup:

No, I don't. That's because there isn't one actual individual puppet master, the term more represents an amorphous group of ever changing individuals and groups and the makeup of said puppet master changes with situation and goals.

What I am able to identify (most of the time) is when said puppet master is at work. The puppet master has been with us forever using a mixture of tools, and a favourite is creating fear and distrust, frequently with a constructed 'other' like beneficiaries, terrorists, Jews or Somali refugees and the like. The media, advertising and seemingly independent opinion leaders are often used and these days the internet is a favourite tool.

It used to be called propoganda, but as we have become more sophisticated and cynical the mechanisms have had to evolve, but they still do exactly the same job. It's bloody interesting stuff to study even if it makes one very cynical of damn near everyone and everything. Sometimes I envy the likes of Quasi with their naive and simple perspectives where black is black and white is the exact opposite and there is nothing in between or around to worry about.

Oscar

16th August 2011, 17:07

No your right, you didnt mention them but i was just using them as an example of what mainstream media offer as indepth reporting:laugh:
So who would be able to lobby NatRad....the leftwing manhating lesbians?I would suggest that lobbying would be far more likely to be successful on whatever organisation thats reliant on "donations" or advertising for its existance, rather than a publicly funded one.
Im just so skeptical when it comes to any Govt looking to balance the books, or scoring cheap Brownie points by cutting public funding to the detrement of public services,while those who already have so much are laughing (still) all the way to the Banks or Accountants.
As SP quoted about Warren Buffet.....but Im sure some will think that his ideas are really a leftwing conspiracy.

By the way, this has to be one of the best threads for a long time,so thanks to the Quasi's,yourself, the Rainman & Shrub & others who are posting because i feel that its the closest thing I read to a " real mans" political debate as opposed to a lot of the "expert" talking heads who are often "pompous"!!<_<

With an organisation like Nat Radio, someone has to spend taxes on a service for a minority of the population (and if I guess right about Nat Radio's demographics, a minority that could well afford to pay for the service).

Your opinions, which are not uncommon (and of which I am reasonably sympathetic) call for someone to be the arbiter of good taste. This is a dark path to tread.

Oscar

16th August 2011, 17:14

No, I don't. That's because there isn't one actual individual puppet master, the term more represents an amorphous group of ever changing individuals and groups and the makeup of said puppet master changes with situation and goals.

What I am able to identify (most of the time) is when said puppet master is at work. The puppet master has been with us forever using a mixture of tools, and a favourite is creating fear and distrust, frequently with a constructed 'other' like beneficiaries, terrorists, Jews or Somali refugees and the like. The media, advertising and seemingly independent opinion leaders are often used and these days the internet is a favourite tool.

It used to be called propoganda, but as we have become more sophisticated and cynical the mechanisms have had to evolve, but they still do exactly the same job. It's bloody interesting stuff to study even if it makes one very cynical of damn near everyone and everything. Sometimes I envy the likes of Quasi with their naive and simple perspectives where black is black and white is the exact opposite and there is nothing in between or around to worry about.

Jeez, you're good at Propaganda

One of the basic tactics of propaganda is to blame the current troubles on a shadowy group or conspiracy. Galavanise the people by tilting at shadows.

Use snappy epithets for the opposition - "Puppet Master" for example.

Another is to belittle ones opponents by calling them naive, silly or stupid.

oneofsix

16th August 2011, 17:14

No, I don't. That's because there isn't one actual individual puppet master, the term more represents an amorphous group of ever changing individuals and groups and the makeup of said puppet master changes with situation and goals.

What I am able to identify (most of the time) is when said puppet master is at work. The puppet master has been with us forever using a mixture of tools, and a favourite is creating fear and distrust, frequently with a constructed 'other' like beneficiaries, terrorists, Jews or Somali refugees and the like. The media, advertising and seemingly independent opinion leaders are often used and these days the internet is a favourite tool.

It used to be called propoganda, but as we have become more sophisticated and cynical the mechanisms have had to evolve, but they still do exactly the same job. It's bloody interesting stuff to study even if it makes one very cynical of damn near everyone and everything. Sometimes I envy the likes of Quasi with their naive and simple perspectives where black is black and white is the exact opposite and there is nothing in between or around to worry about.
still owes a lot to Joseph Goebbels. They still use the same basic methods.

Quasievil

16th August 2011, 17:25

Another is to belittle ones opponents by calling them naive, silly or stupid.

Thats Mr Shrub tho hehehe

Quasievil

16th August 2011, 17:28

Sometimes I envy the likes of Quasi with their naive and simple perspectives where black is black and white is the exact opposite and there is nothing in between or around to worry about.

Yore such a wanker Shrub

My politices are awesome, mum said so.

ACT ACT and ACT woo hoooooo
but I will take the Nats any day over all of the other parties especially the loony left !

Swoop

16th August 2011, 18:02

whilst you're at it. Cut the "charitable donation" tax incentives... why give someone a third of their money back when they voluntarily donated to charity?
Exactly. Cut out donations to everyone and also to "religious entities" as well while we are at it. Bloody "charities"!

The muthafarkers are looking at fiddling with our last remaining public broadcasters too....dropping TVNZ 7 & farking with National Radio.
You only need to look at what TV1 & TV3 put on thier 6pm news & then watch
TVNZ 7 @ 8pm to see the difference . They'll say that thats what the people want....most are too stupid to know what they want
YES!! There's nothing like public propaganda from TVNZ and other organisations that are funded by the government, for complete impartiality...:no:

Im not trying to tell people what the should do...I just think that seeing nearly all our information comes from the Media, that a nonaligned organisation may have less fiddling & fewer agendas going on in the Boardroom.
You obviously want an organisation that is not aligned with government propaganda then? TVNZ does not fall into that category.

Im just so skeptical when it comes to any Govt looking to balance the books, or scoring cheap Brownie points...
But happy to have their "representatives" feed you their "version" of the facts, obviously?

The puppet master has been with us forever using a mixture of tools, and a favourite is creating fear and distrust, It used to be called propoganda... It's bloody interesting stuff to study even if it makes one very cynical of damn near everyone and everything.
Summing up "politics" in a nutshell.

Winston001

16th August 2011, 20:31

You do remember that a certain % of the population are required to be unemployed to help control inflation?

That is a common belief but is not an accepted economic strategy. Indeed Keynesian economics goes completely against this and requires governments to borrow and spend to retain/create high employment.

Furthermore, studies show that full employment is rare in recent human history and is a phenomenon of the last 150 years.

Oh, and whilst you're at it. Cut the "charitable donation" tax incentives... why give someone a third of their money back when they voluntarily donated to charity?

Good point. Roger Douglas proposed this 20 years ago but his Labour colleagues wouldn't remove charitable deductions.

The rationale is that charities do a great deal of unpaid beneficial work for the community, picking up some of the tax-payers burden. So if a donation is tax-deductible then the giver is inclined to give more. We all win.