Who will win the 2011 election?

[mashman]

Have you read or studied up on Kororareka? It was called the "Hell Hole of the Pacific" for a reason.


Sounds like a South Pacific version of cowboys and indians.



Mm, I don't think you really read my post and thought about it. :No:


Probably true, although mind reading over the internet never was my strong suit :rofl:... and on second reading, and with non lunch time eyes I think I see what you meant, and very true too :yes:... we have come far. My apologies. Still unsure about our progress though, really really unsure... but I am "hoping" along with you on that score.

[rainman]

So, you've found two factors and a relationship between them.

...

If you'd bothered looking there's a bunch of other variables related to low income, health, longevity, educational level, drug use... it's a rather long list.

Now, is there, in fact a third variable that drives all of them?

Why yes there is (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spirit_Level:_Why_More_Equal_Societies_Almost_ Always_Do_Better), funny you should ask.

[Winston001]

Now, is there, in fact a third variable that drives all of them?

Yes. Wiccans. Covens.




A Witch A Witch



Well...they got warts

[Ocean1]

Why yes there is (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spirit_Level:_Why_More_Equal_Societies_Almost_ Always_Do_Better), funny you should ask.

Correct. Societies with a higher number of contributing members and a minimum of number of parasites produce a more equally spread income.

How could it be otherwise?

[rainman]

Correct. Societies with a higher number of contributing members and a minimum of number of parasites produce a more equally spread income.

How could it be otherwise?

This is true, but dishonest, and you know it.

[Ocean1]

This is true, but dishonest, and you know it.

It's a fact, and you know it.

When you learn to discern causal structures from related data you'll come to understand that wholesale redistribution of resources might make you feel better, (particularly where other peoples resources are concerned) but the only people for whom it produces improvements are those who actually prefer charity as a way of life.

[Pussy]

Correct. Societies with a higher number of contributing members and a minimum of number of parasites produce a more equally spread income.

How could it be otherwise?


It's a fact, and you know it.

When you learn to discern causal structures from related data you'll come to understand that wholesale redistribution of resources might make you feel better, (particularly where other peoples resources are concerned) but the only people for whom it produces improvements are those who actually prefer charity as a way of life.

Spot on! I'm sick of the bleeding hearts crapping on and embracing the culture of envy.

[rainman]

It's a fact, and you know it.

When you learn to discern causal structures from related data you'll come to understand that wholesale redistribution of resources might make you feel better, (particularly where other peoples resources are concerned) but the only people for whom it produces improvements are those who actually prefer charity as a way of life.

I did not dispute its veracity, merely stated that you were nowhere near telling the whole truth. You're not so much of a simpleton to believe the cartoonish nonsense frequently spouted here. On matters of causality, what has driven the massive increase in wealth of the 1% over the last 25 or so years, while the lucky among the rest of us have stayed in place, and the rest have slipped backwards?

And I didn't advocate the "wholesale redistribution of resources", and am unlikely to, so you can lay that strawman to rest too.

[rainman]

Spot on! I'm sick of the bleeding hearts crapping on and embracing the culture of envy.

Similarly, I'm tired of individualistic sociopaths crapping on about their Randian heroism while failing to understand what sustains their good fortune...

[Pussy]

Similarly, I'm tired of individualistic sociopaths crapping on about their Randian heroism while failing to understand what sustains their good fortune...

I fully understand what sustains my good fortune. Something called "work" for a start.....

[rainman]

I fully understand what sustains my good fortune. Something called "work" for a start.....

That is part of it, yes.

[Robert Taylor]

I fully understand what sustains my good fortune. Something called "work" for a start.....

Got to agree John ( about work, paricularly hard work ) Some people should try it and not look to the Government to provide all the time.

[oldrider]

Got to agree John ( about work, paricularly hard work ) Some people should try it and not look to the Government to provide all the time.

Not only work but financial risk, personal sacrifice and frugality, to name a few and when it succeeds, the envious call it "luck"! .... Yeah, right! :confused:

[Winston001]

Similarly, I'm tired of individualistic sociopaths crapping on about their Randian heroism while failing to understand what sustains their good fortune...

Agreed but this is where it all goes wrong IMHO. Discussions on moderate disagreements rapidly escalate to extreme positions.

I don't sense that Ocean, Pussy, RT, Oscar et al are rich wealthy capitalists who look down on the poor. Nor do they reject the benefits of a safe lawful society which allows people to achieve.

Similarly Rainman you impress as an intelligent social thinker rather than say, a radical Marxist for wont of a better term.

I think most of us here and in wider society accept the social democracy model which provides a safety net for disadvantaged members of our community.

The real issue is to determine the fairest method to spread the responsibility across our whole society. Helping the disadvantaged to improve their self-respect and contribution is part of the equation. It requires much deeper efforts than simply throwing money at them.

[Ocean1]

On matters of causality, what has driven the massive increase in wealth of the 1% over the last 25 or so years, while the lucky among the rest of us have stayed in place, and the rest have slipped backwards?

Those 40,000 odd Kiwis, (arseholes to a man, no doubt), but exactly how did you come to make their acquaintance quite so thoroughly? I must confess I’ve no idea if I’m included there or not, care to enlighten me?

And if a large contingent of the rest really believe luck is the reason they’re unhappy with their lot then I doubt they’ll ever improve it.

As for the rest? One thing I guarantee, if they behaved like that 1% they’d get similar results.
They can’t, you say? Possibly, in some cases. And yet I don’t believe even they are worse off than their parents. I know you don’t agree, but it’s nonetheless a fact that the facilities and assets enjoyed by the lowest income individuals in this country are an order of magnitude more sophisticated and beneficial than those available to their grandparents.


And I didn't advocate the "wholesale redistribution of resources", and am unlikely to, so you can lay that strawman to rest too.

And yet you repeatedly insinuate that the wealthy are delinquent in failing to supply a higher level of support for the less wealthy.


Similarly, I'm tired of individualistic sociopaths crapping on about their Randian heroism while failing to understand what sustains their good fortune...

Again with the luck thing, do you genuinely believe good fortune is the sole factor in any individual’s success?


Not only work but financial risk, personal sacrifice and frugality, to name a few and when it succeeds, the envious call it "luck"! .... Yeah, right! :confused:

My point. It’s a short list, John, but it’s already got the makings of a schedule of behavioural traits most likely to create success, eh?

[mashman]

Discussions on moderate disagreements rapidly escalate to extreme positions.


One man's extremes are another man's commons sense. I guess we all have our limits.

[Winston001]

One man's extremes are another man's commons sense. I guess we all have our limits.

LOL yeah? Define common sense.

[Ocean1]

LOL yeah? Define common sense.

Dude!. Think who it is you're asking!


Besides, he can't, he's got limits.

[mashman]

LOL yeah? Define common sense.

Doing what's right for no other reason that it's the right thing to do (for everyone)

[mashman]

Dude!. Think who it is you're asking!


Besides, he can't, he's got limits.

:rofl: go on, flesh it out... I'm dying to hear this one :yes:

I do, far too many for my liking.

[SPman]

One thing I guarantee, if they behaved like that 1% they’d get similar results. - you mean they'd all be self-centred, ego driven sociopaths with the aim of screwing as much from society as they can, at the expense of everyone else?

I think you may have a different view from most protestors of who they consider the "1%" actually are.....

[Ocean1]

I think you may have a different view from most protestors of who they consider the "1%" actually are.....

Of course, it's their consideration after all. But the majority aren't always right, and in this case they're more a lunatic fringe than a well considered majority opinion. And given they and you seem to have equated "wealthy" with "sociopath" for a specific group of people they nor you personally know I'll take your opinion with a pinch of salt.

And this:


self-centred, ego driven sociopaths with the aim of screwing as much from society as they can, at the expense of everyone else?

Sounds more like a dole bludger than anything else.

Unfortunately they number somewhat more than 1%.

[SPman]

But the majority aren't always right, and in this case they're more a lunatic fringe than a well considered majority opinionInteresting - polls in the US show 2/3rds of people agree with the motives of the OWS movement, but, of course, the excesses of the rich have had even more impact there, than in NZ!
Most people have no beef with "wealthy" people who have made a bundle through endeavour, hard work, good ideas or even a modicum of luck. That's healthy, commendable. It'd be great to see Quasi, R T and all the others on here get some just rewards for their hard work and effort. But, when they (the VERY wealthy) cross the threshold into graft, corruption, deceit and arrogance and consider it their god given "right" to cheat, lie and obfuscate to achieve their aims, most reasonable people would call enough! I find it amusing that many people on this site, and elsewhere, sympathise with the ideals of these sicko fucks, seeming to consider that by agreeing with and actively helping them, some of their wealth might "rub off" onto them, perhaps. Well - to paraphrase George Carlin "These guys have their own club - and none of us are invited, no matter how sychophantic some of us get!"

What people are pissed of with, concerned about is the increasing merging of Corporate Business and Money with politics and the media

“If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.” - sounds familiar.......


Sounds more like a dole bludger than anything else. Aaahhhh - you notice the similarity at both ends of the spectrum.....

[Ocean1]

Aaahhhh - you notice the similarity at both ends of the spectrum.....

I suspect you'll find that the ratio of criminals is similar, in fact. It's just that, (as with most other endeavours) one group are simply more adept than the other.

The difference being you'd like to punish all the wealthy on the suspicion of criminal behaviour. The only reliable motive for which is an extraordinarily unattractive envy.

[oldrider]

Just when the Green's were making inroads to normalcy the old guard rears it's ugly head .... and it all turns to shit once again! :rolleyes:

Referencing the clandestine bill board mutilator brigade ..... oh and they still have Keith Lock and co lurking away in there too! :bye:

[Bald Eagle]

Just when the Green's were making inroads to normalcy the old guard rears it's ugly head .... and it all turns to shit once again! :rolleyes:

Referencing the clandestine bill board mutilator brigade ..... oh and they still have Keith Lock and co lurking away in there too! :bye:

They haven't had an honestly elected MP since Jeanette from Green central, they just slide in on the protest party vote %.

Liked the billboard mods though shows some original thinking.

[oldrider]

They haven't had an honestly elected MP since Jeanette from Green central, they just slide in on the protest party vote %.

Liked the billboard mods though shows some original thinking.

Disenchanted Labour voters were just finding somewhere else to settle, where will they go to now? :wait: Sigh: there will need to be a lot of room there's a lot of them!

[Swoop]

From the harold....
250772

[Oscar]

I see Peter Lange is calling on Green voters in Epsom to vote for the National Candidate:laugh:
Brillant idea to get rid of ACT - why didn't Labour think of it?

[shrub]

They haven't had an honestly elected MP since Jeanette from Green central, they just slide in on the protest party vote %.

Liked the billboard mods though shows some original thinking.

So what you're saying is that the only honest way to get into parliament is to win the candidate vote? Do you also feel that if (say) 15% of NZ wants to support a party because they are not happy with National or Labour, those people have no right to be represented in parliament unless the party they support wins an electorate seat? Do they have less right to be represented in parliament than (say) Act supporters, even though less than 1% of the population support Act, but National "gave" Act Epsom?

Do 1% of the population have more right to be represented in parliament than 15%?

And what makes you think people who vote for the Greens are doing so as a protest vote? Could it be possible that people are making that voting decision because their policies are actually better than Labour or National's policies? Or that people want a different voice in the legislature to keep the big catch-all parties honest?

[oneofsix]

Just when the Green's were making inroads to normalcy the old guard rears it's ugly head .... and it all turns to shit once again! :rolleyes:

Referencing the clandestine bill board mutilator brigade ..... oh and they still have Keith Lock and co lurking away in there too! :bye:

Funny you say that, I was thinking much the same with regards to their roading policies for the Wellington Region. I can just imagine all the Wellington and South Island holiday makers heading up north on light rail :drinknsin It will be good for the transport industry as well. :first: Don't these idiots realise there is a major transport link between the main island relying on SH1?

As for the billboard guy at least that had humour.

Cup of tea and a "private" conversation in a public place anyone?

[SPman]

The difference being you'd like to punish all the wealthy on the suspicion of criminal behaviour.
The ultra wealthy - yes. Getting them to pay some tax would be a start!
and no, not all of them indulge in criminal behaviour, but enough do that it's more than a worry.
The only reliable motive for which is an extraordinarily unattractive envy. You REALLY don't get it, do you. :no:

[Ocean1]

The ultra wealthy - yes. Getting them to pay some tax would be a start! and no, not all of them indulge in criminal behaviour, but enough do that it's more than a worry.

So penalising the wealthy is the primary concern, godit.

You think the "ultra wealthy" don't pay any tax, check.

Are thay managing this legally? If so wouldn't it be a better idea to make the rules favour a more worthy aproach to earning money? If not shouldn't you be more concerned with enforcing the law, rather than arbitrarily and punitively taxing a group that may or may not have done anything wrong?

Y'see, "enough do" being "more than a worry" isn't really a good enough reason to persecute them. No more than denying every beneficiary a benefit because "enough are" criminals to justify it.


You REALLY don't get it, do you. :no:

Oh I think I've covered it.

[Winston001]

Sooo...a thread on the Election dissolves into "attack the rich pricks'...who knew?? :no:


Honestly I get tired of the simplistic attacks on nameless quiet New Zealanders who have achieved financial security. The rich. Who are these people? The alleged 1%ers who own all the wealth? Damned if I know.

I suppose I'm related to a few - farmers. Ok fair enough, but the bastards aren't spending it. In fact they look poorer than me judging by their cars and houses. True, once they are dead, there will be some big numbers but actual spending money...? Nadda.

So there must be 40,000 other rich pricks out there and we need to know their names and addresses. I'm googling envy cards right this minit....nek minit.....

[oldrider]

Sooo...a thread on the Election dissolves into "attack the rich pricks'...who knew?? :no:


Honestly I get tired of the simplistic attacks on nameless quiet New Zealanders who have achieved financial security. The rich. Who are these people? The alleged 1%ers who own all the wealth? Damned if I know.

I suppose I'm related to a few - farmers. Ok fair enough, but the bastards aren't spending it. In fact they look poorer than me judging by their cars and houses. True, once they are dead, there will be some big numbers but actual spending money...? Nadda.

So there must be 40,000 other rich pricks out there and we need to know their names and addresses. I'm googling envy cards right this minit....nek minit.....

Respect, trust and confidence in for National and international leaders is at such a low ebb that decention and civil disobedience are ripe for the picking!

Envy of the rich and successful is a simple catalyst and the loathing of the recent bailouts of the (1%) banking fraternity can be manipulated to whip up mob an emotional frenzy.

Like the 81 Springbok tour, the righteous are prepared to fight and die for a principal so are easy to manipulate.

Unlike the springbok tour this raising up against capitalism is world wide and IMHO is being driven by the very people it is aimed at!

Prepare for the disintegration of society as we now know it, those who need this least will provide the fuel to ignite it .... watch this space! :facepalm:

[imdying]

Enough with the moaning for pitys sake! We live in a paradise compared with most countries. Open spaces, long empty beaches, clean air and water, food enough that its thrown away after the best by date. Heat pumps, cheap airfares to the Gold Coast, modern motorcycles and cars, internet most places, smart phones, good roads, sports grounds, social welfare, free healthcare, the list goes on.

If you don't believe me check out India, southern China, and most of Africa. And South America. And Central Asia.

Our "problems" are non-existant. Give thanks for living in such a blessed country.Amen :headbang:

[SPman]

Sooo...a thread on the Election dissolves into "attack the rich pricks'...who knew?? :no:


Honestly I get tired of the simplistic attacks on nameless quiet New Zealanders who have achieved financial security. The rich. Who are these people? The alleged 1%ers who own all the wealth? Damned if I know.

I suppose I'm related to a few - farmers. Ok fair enough, but the bastards aren't spending it. In fact they look poorer than me judging by their cars and houses. True, once they are dead, there will be some big numbers but actual spending money...? Nadda.

So there must be 40,000 other rich pricks out there and we need to know their names and addresses. I'm googling envy cards right this minit....nek minit.....Sigh.........I guess I'm not very good at getting my point across....too much time on US sites, where they really have problems.....quiet nameless NZ'ers who have achieved financial security - good on them - unless you're being obtuse, these are not the people I'm talking about and I wish I'd never mentioned it. I'm from farming stock m'self..... Envy? Why would I envy them - I have sufficient most of the time and have seldom envied anyone in my life - except, perhaps, the riding skills of some people around.........

Back to the elections - has J.K shot himself in the foot over "Teagate"? And will the fine people of Epsom and Ohariu realise they're being played for mugs, and vote for who they want to....?

[Spearfish]

Back to the elections - has J.K shot himself in the foot over "Teagate"? And will the fine people of Epsom and Ohariu realise they're being played for mugs, and vote for who they want to....?

I'm not sure how any this has a controlling effect on how a free thinking person physically ticks a box.

Perhaps if a militant sector of a party was doing something illegal disrupting the democratic process then maybe that could have an effect, if "teagate" wasnt the hot paper seller its built up to be then perhaps the leader of said party with its militant sector could be asked if his openly communist views influences his "blind eye" and the direction its turned during the illegal attacks on the democratic process.
Just asking...

[Winston001]

Envy of the rich and successful is a simple catalyst and the loathing of the recent bailouts of the (1%) banking fraternity can be manipulated to whip up mob an emotional frenzy.

Like the 81 Springbok tour, the righteous are prepared to fight and die for a principal so are easy to manipulate.

Unlike the springbok tour this raising up against capitalism is world wide and IMHO is being driven by the very people it is aimed at!

Prepare for the disintegration of society as we now know it, those who need this least will provide the fuel to ignite it .... watch this space! :facepalm:

Ummm John, shouldn't this be in the Occupy Dunedin thread?

Whatever: couple of points.

Firstly, the bailout of banks in Britain and the US wasn't to save the banking fraternity. It was to save innocent investors who had put their savings and retirement funds with the banks. Same with saving the American car manufacturers - to prevent their collapse and hundreds of thousands of jobs lost.

As an aside, Detroit is the first modern city I can think of which has collapsed. Its weird to think it could even happen.

Secondly, the objection to the bailouts is that some of the bankers and financiers not only kept their jobs but got their usual bonuses and high salaries. I find that reprehensible and obscene. No wonder people all over the world are finally saying enough is enough.

[SMOKEU]

Before you vote for John Key, ask yourself this: Can you REALLY trust a jew to tell you the truth?

I rest my case.

[mashman]

Before you vote for John Key, ask yourself this: Can you REALLY trust a jew to tell you the truth?

I rest my case.

Oy vey.....

[oldrider]

Before you vote for John Key, ask yourself this: Can you REALLY trust a jew to tell you the truth?

I rest my case.

Hmmmm, might be a bit over the top that one. :confused:

There was that Jew named Jesus, he has a lot of fans who believe his word is the truth .... but then there is SMOKEU!

Do you think your words of truth will be remembered by anyone 2,000 years from now? :mellow: (just a simple initial response to your post)

[SMOKEU]

Do you think your words of truth will be remembered by anyone 2,000 years from now? :mellow: (just a simple initial response to your post)

You never know.

[oldrider]

Media (including polls) should be excluded from political reporting at least one month prior to any election, the cunts just cant be trusted to act rationally! :no:

Inaccurate reporting is just about as destructive and anti-social as drink driving IMHO. :spanking:

Pity they can't breathalise their keyboards and smash their fingers if they catch the fuckers lying! :angry2:

[shrub]

Media (including polls) should be excluded from political reporting at least one month prior to any election, the cunts just cant be trusted to act rationally! :

Why? Journalists in NZ (and I know a few) are almost entirely very ethical, hard working and honest. The biggest problem is that news is now a mechanism to support advertisers by drawing an audience (good old free market economics), so "what bleeds leads" meaning the sensational and the dramatic get front page. At an election we depend on the media to present the parties policies and promises, but most importantly we need the media to shine a spotlight on the politicians and their parties. It's that spotlight that allows us to see their flaws before we vote for them.

In cuppagate we have seen John Key revealed as a man who lacks judgement and the ability to remain composed under pressure - is that what we want for the man who will lead our country? Contrast that to the carefully stage managed John we have been presented of a thoroughly decent guy with commercial acumen and the common touch. Until now everything he has said and everything he has done has been stringently managed by the team on the 9th floor to make sure NZ stays in love with him regardless of his competence as a prime Minister.

It amuses me that he is banging on about how all he wants to talk about are policies and economics, yet until very recently his department had refused numerous requests over 3 years by radio NZ and both TV channels to discuss them.


I
inaccurate reporting is just about as destructive and anti-social as drink driving IMHO.

Pity they can't breathalise their keyboards and smash their fingers if they catch the fuckers lying!

If a journalist gets caught lying they're unemployed (unless they work for a political party that is). Damn near every story that gets published or aired gets checked, and anything remotely contentious is ripped to shreds for any inaccuracy at all because a media outlet's reputation is all they have - remember what happened when News of the World got caught being dodgy?

It's nice to blame the media, and the political parties encourage it, but it's also like blaming the weather reporter for rain.

[shrub]

There was that Jew named Jesus, he has a lot of fans who believe his word is the truth

or perhaps more accurately a lot of people believe what men who never knew him and lived many years after he died claimed he said.

[oldrider]

or perhaps more accurately a lot of people believe what men who never knew him and lived many years after he died claimed he said.

More likely that they just believe what they "want" to believe! .... Whatever smoke their tyres!

At least they were free to choose, that option may not be around for much longer! :facepalm:

[Usarka]

Before you vote for John Key, ask yourself this: Can you REALLY trust a jew to tell you the truth?



Like most kiwis I'd rather vote for a jew than a south african!

http://www.chimpout.com/forum/images/smilies/thats_racist.gif

[SMOKEU]

http://www.chimpout.com/forum/images/smilies/thats_racist.gif

Like most kiwis I'd rather vote for a jew than a south african!

You can trust a white South African more than a jew...

http://www.stormfront.org/jewish/antisemite.html

[rainman]

Sooo...a thread on the Election dissolves into "attack the rich pricks'...who knew?? :no:

Honestly I get tired of the simplistic attacks on nameless quiet New Zealanders who have achieved financial security. The rich. Who are these people? The alleged 1%ers who own all the wealth? Damned if I know.
...

So there must be 40,000 other rich pricks out there and we need to know their names and addresses.

Sorry for the slow replies but I have been working too many hours lately to get near KB (or more importantly, my bike). However this "if you do't know them by name and address your argument is invalid" bullshit does need a challenge...

Social stratification easily accounts for why many here don't personally know that many really wealthy. NZ has a well-developed class system, however much we don't like to admit it. If your kids don't go to the same schools and you don't hang at the same country clubs, or even live in the same towns as the super-wealthy, you often don't get to know them. How many people actually know Graham Hart or Alan Gibbs or Paul Reynolds socially, not just via the usual kiwi two or three degrees? The numbers are small, give our tiny population, only 13000 (0.4%) or so earn over $250k. (Our wages are so shite, being in the 1% just means earning over about $165k per year. But then the bottom 50% earn less than $40k pa, and the bottom 90% below $70 pa).

So I don't need to know who the really rich are in person, I just need to look at some basic stats to know they exist.

The real fallacy comes from those in the 5% or thereabouts, who are working hard and doing moderately well, who then identify with and defend the 1%. This leads to the beliefs that a) if they keep working harder they can one day "make it" and be very wealthy too (this has the side effect of making people buy the false faith that making money is the meaning of life), and b) that if only the lazy bludgers at the bottom worked harder they could also "make it". These sentiments are often expressed here. Useful idiocy at it's finest.

Now of course hard work is a far better way to make money that sitting on your arse is; no-one disputes that. But it's only a small part of the picture, and to advance it as the only or even the prime cause of our ills is just intellectually dishonest. To have the ideal world where everyone is engaged and working, and we are thereby succeeding individually and as a nation, we would need to address a whole bunch of difficult stuff like education, drugs and alcohol, employment conditions, job availability, infrastructure/geography, motivation, legal and economic policy (dis)incentives, population, immigration, race and prejudice, ownership and globalisation. These are tough issues, and no political party has come close to fixing them yet - although some approaches are better than others.

So, are we at least heading in the right direction?

Between 1975 and 2005 (latest stats for this, but indications are it's getting worse) the NZ top 1% increased their share of total income by 3.21%, the 90-99ers up by 1,02%, and so the bottom 90% went down by 4.23%. Not as bad as the US where the trends are about 9% up for the 1%, 9% down for the bottom 80%, and the rest up by a tiny smidgen.

I don't need to know the wealthy by name and address to know hat this ain't right, or sustainable - particularly given the likely hardship we are heading into globally.

Now I'm not arguing against the middle group in the hard work/fair reward category - hell, I are one: much though I'd hesitate to call myself rich, in NZ terms I'm doing OK. 90% or so of people earn less than me, although long hours and high risk are involved so it's arguably "fair". To be honest I could (currently) earn even more in a different organisation but money isn't everything by a long chalk. And I've been skint often enough to know hard work isn't all that's required.

I happily pay my taxes because they are actually fairly low, and are the price to pay for living in a civilised society. I think I get reasonable value for my investment, but would always like better efficiency - not just less government, but government better aligned with delivering the correct strategic outcomes for (all of) us as a country. Tackling the tough stuff I listed earlier. I regard National as a worse investment than Labour because they are more fucking useless than Labour, considering their "do-nothing" policy settings by default, and the fact that they will actively damage the place with asset sales in particular. YMMV, of course.

Envy is not involved in my complaint, nor is some neo-Marxist redistribution narrative, 'cos that doesn't work for long. I'd like us to fix the problems properly. Bleating about dole bludgers not working hard enough is not just misidentifying the problem, it's beating up the victims (some exceptions).

Who among us seriously thinks we can just keep letting the rich get richer, though?

[Usarka]

You can trust a white South African more than a jew...

http://www.stormfront.org/jewish/antisemite.html

Bro, your going down a path of hate. Step back, smoke a spliff and chill out before you get all bitter and twisted and end up in the slammer getting anal reamed for bashing an asian.

[rainman]

Like most kiwis I'd rather vote for a jew than a south african!



That's just because lots of Kiwis are actually somewhat parochial and racist.

[BMWST?]

whilst mmp has its faults i think its the best mechanism to get a representative PARLIAMENT.A good parliament should create a good GOVERNMENT.So the whole idea of MMP is to vote for the PARTY to give the PARLIAMENT of your choice.In this way you could even have a National led government who WONT sell assets....

Most other electoral systems dont really acheive real representation ,maybe a tweaked version of supplementary member.Any system has got to be SIMPLE.
So the great unwashed out there should be very considerate with the party vote,not just dish it out to who they are told to

[Robert Taylor]

whilst mmp has its faults i think its the best mechanism to get a representative PARLIAMENT.A good parliament should create a good GOVERNMENT.So the whole idea of MMP is to vote for the PARTY to give the PARLIAMENT of your choice.In this way you could even have a National led government who WONT sell assets....

Most other electoral systems dont really acheive real representation ,maybe a tweaked version of supplementary member.Any system has got to be SIMPLE.
So the great unwashed out there should be very considerate with the party vote,not just dish it out to who they are told to

And Governments are notoriously bad at managing assets...........

[oldrider]

And Governments are notoriously bad at managing assets...........

True! Because they manage them for political advantage first rather than for good sound business reasoning .... ACC for instance! :brick:

[rainman]

And Governments are notoriously bad at managing assets...........

Um, no, that's utter crap. Governments the world over are the primary custodians and managers of shedloads of public infrastructure, and by and large they do a good job of it. What's more, the private sector couldn't do a better job in most cases.

Most government agencies deal with complicated workstreams and problems with long term goals, complex drivers, rich data, and difficult "soft" outcomes. Your average business is just figuring out how to flog a few more widgets next quarter. Not even in the same league.

[Winston001]

Um, no, that's utter crap. Governments the world over are the primary custodians and managers of shedloads of public infrastructure, and by and large they do a good job of it. What's more, the private sector couldn't do a better job in most cases.

Most government agencies deal with complicated workstreams and problems with long term goals, complex drivers, rich data, and difficult "soft" outcomes. Your average business is just figuring out how to flog a few more widgets next quarter. Not even in the same league.

Yes. It was de rigour economics in the 1980s that governments couldn't efficiently run businesses and own substantial assets. Then the business economy collapsed in October 1987 - and again in 2007 - ironically leaving governments to carry the load.

FWIW I don't believe governments are effective owners of specific businesses but there comes a point when the commonwealth is better served by state control. For example, Max Bradford's electricity reforms were high minded ideals but never the best for a long narrow mountainous group of islands. We need single comprehensive electricity generation and reticulation in the national interest.

[Ocean1]

Um, no, that's utter crap. Governments the world over are the primary custodians and managers of shedloads of public infrastructure, and by and large they do a good job of it. What's more, the private sector couldn't do a better job in most cases.

Most government agencies deal with complicated workstreams and problems with long term goals, complex drivers, rich data, and difficult "soft" outcomes. Your average business is just figuring out how to flog a few more widgets next quarter. Not even in the same league.

No, that's absolutely correct.

Oh I know plenty of individual publicly owned business units that perform admirably, but in my experience without exception the policy they work to is hugely wasteful and counterproductive and their governing boards are either political or elected appointies utterly clueless about their industry.

Many privately owned asset management entities are no better for exactly the same reason: Service delivery objectives aligned with politically motivated policy which proclude effective management.

By all means keep ownership of infrastructure in public hands, just make sure you put businessmen in charge who actually know their business, give them clear, obtainable objectives and then stay the fuck out of their way. So, a major improvement required, there.

[rainman]

No, that's absolutely correct.

Oh I know plenty of individual publicly owned business units that perform admirably, but in my experience without exception the policy they work to is hugely wasteful and counterproductive and their governing boards are either political or elected appointies utterly clueless about their industry.

Many privately owned asset management entities are no better for exactly the same reason: Service delivery objectives aligned with politically motivated policy which proclude effective management.

By all means keep ownership of infrastructure in public hands, just make sure you put businessmen in charge who actually know their business, give them clear, obtainable objectives and then stay the fuck out of their way. So, a major improvement required, there.

You are missing my point. NZ businesses are too small and don't last long enough to build the skills required to manage large-scale assets long term. Government bureaucrats, with some continuity of service and yes, a bunch of policies, are able to make a half-arsed decent job of it. Your average 'captain of industry' wouldn't have a friggin clue where to start with managing a component of a decent sized local government operation, let alone something complex like social policy. Look no further than the ATA to find solid examples of the incompetence of business leaders in trying to organise government functions, the whole thing was held together by the team members who where seconded in from the existing councils, while Rodney's mates from industry either sat in their offices and did as little as they could get away with or boldly went out and fucked things up that are doubtless still being unfucked.

This is why Key's much-vaunted business background (such that it is, he was just a trader) isn't worth a know of goat shit in running the economy (double downgrades, anyone?) and the Nats have a do-nothing policy everywhere but tax cuts, state sector austerity, and asset sales. They do nothing because they are out of their depth.

"Clear obtainable objectives" - so, tell me what to do and I'll do a good job? Pfft.

[Ocean1]

...........

Ahhh, nope, can't be fuckt, far too many buzzwords to be coherent.

[oldrider]

You are missing my point. NZ businesses are too small and don't last long enough to build the skills required to manage large-scale assets long term. Government bureaucrats, with some continuity of service and yes, a bunch of policies, are able to make a half-arsed decent job of it. Your average 'captain of industry' wouldn't have a friggin clue where to start with managing a component of a decent sized local government operation, let alone something complex like social policy. Look no further than the ATA to find solid examples of the incompetence of business leaders in trying to organise government functions, the whole thing was held together by the team members who where seconded in from the existing councils, while Rodney's mates from industry either sat in their offices and did as little as they could get away with or boldly went out and fucked things up that are doubtless still being unfucked.

This is why Key's much-vaunted business background (such that it is, he was just a trader) isn't worth a know of goat shit in running the economy (double downgrades, anyone?) and the Nats have a do-nothing policy everywhere but tax cuts, state sector austerity, and asset sales. They do nothing because they are out of their depth.

"Clear obtainable objectives" - so, tell me what to do and I'll do a good job? Pfft.

And all the lefties "can" manage this? ....... Treble Pffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffft! :rofl:

[rainman]

And all the lefties "can" manage this? .......

Well, they do run a better bureaucracy and tend not to declare are on the civil servants in order to make an ideologcal point.

So, yes. The economy consistently does better under left governments and stagnates under the right

[rainman]

Ahhh, nope, can't be fuckt, far too many buzzwords to be coherent.

Well I can use smaller words if you want. But I suspect the real problem is you're too chicken to challenge your ideology.

[Ocean1]

Well I can use smaller words if you want. But I suspect the real problem is you're too chicken to challenge your ideology.

I don't have an ideology. You can tell, because I don't make the mistake of comparing the management of commercial enterprises with the setting of social policy.

I do have observations. The primary requisite for success with regard to the first is the ability to achieve a wide range of goals. The other is an excercise in marketing theft, the only measurable goal of which is success in purchasing votes.

[rainman]

I don't have an ideology. You can tell, because I don't make the mistake of comparing the management of commercial enterprises with the setting of social policy.

I do have observations. The primary requisite for success with regard to the first is the ability to achieve a wide range of goals. The other is an excercise in marketing theft, the only measurable goal of which is success in purchasing votes.

Oh dear, I am going to have to find the really small words. My point is that the average kiwi business owner is a two-bit small fry unable even to understand most problems addressed by government, let alone derive good long-term goals for these, and strategies to achieve them. Given our business failure rate, even if they were given these missing pieces, a large chunk would fail to deliver them. The job is best done by government, with the business owners sticking to what they do best - moving some more widgets this quarter. (A noble, if humble, goal, one might add).

You have an ideology because you are unwilling to debate (or, I suspect, consider) the truth of this view, because you have been indoctrinated to believe in small government and the atlas-like virtues of our captains of industry. (That's the positive interpretation).

And all politicians who stand a chance of getting elected "purchase" votes. So what?

[Ocean1]

Oh dear, I am going to have to find the really small words. My point is that the average kiwi business owner is a two-bit small fry unable even to understand most problems addressed by government, let alone derive good long-term goals for these, and strategies to achieve them. Given our business failure rate, even if they were given these missing pieces, a large chunk would fail to deliver them. The job is best done by government, with the business owners sticking to what they do best - moving some more widgets this quarter. (A noble, if humble, goal, one might add).

You have an ideology because you are unwilling to debate (or, I suspect, consider) the truth of this view, because you have been indoctrinated to believe in small government and the atlas-like virtues of our captains of industry. (That's the positive interpretation).

And all politicians who stand a chance of getting elected "purchase" votes. So what?

Given that small businessmen are responsible for generating some 80% of the country's revenue I'd hesitate to describe them collectively as "two-bit small fry". But then I've got no reason to denigrate them or their respective abilities.

The fact is those "problems addressed by government" are almost exclusively not amenible to the application of good business practices. They don't, by and large constitute a viable commercial process. In short; they're a collection of ideologically driven spend-ups purporting to be institutionalised charity. They invariably fail utterly to return good value for money.

Why, for example is not the ministry of trade and industry not held at least partially responsible for the early business failure rate? Is it possible the answers aren’t wanted? Has it, I wonder anything to do with the cost of the purchase of those votes?

There. And hardly a nasturtium cast.

[rainman]

Given that small businessmen are responsible for generating some 80% of the country's revenue I'd hesitate to describe them collectively as "two-bit small fry". But then I've got no reason to denigrate them or their respective abilities.

I don't think the sector in aggregate is unimportant - we need lots of two bit small fry small businesses, in fact I'd firmly say we need more of these and less of the larger multinational corporates - but my point remains they're, on average, not up to the task of managing government scale assets; which was the original point. They should get on with making and shipping widgets and doing useful commercial services, and leave government to manage the more complicated stuff.


The fact is those "problems addressed by government" are almost exclusively not amenible to the application of good business practices. They don't, by and large constitute a viable commercial process. In short; they're a collection of ideologically driven spend-ups purporting to be institutionalised charity. They invariably fail utterly to return good value for money.

Money is an unsuitable measure for some things, perhaps most things in government. One could argue that's a key indicator of whether it should be public or private, with some notable strategic exceptions (energy, airlines, some broadcasting and banking). This belief that everything must be expressed in purely monetary terms is a popular fault with right-wing governments and pundits. Right up there with thinking you can run a national economy like a business, but that's probably another digression.


Why, for example is not the ministry of trade and industry not held at least partially responsible for the early business failure rate?

Mainly because we don't have one - maybe you mean MED? Surely this would only be possible if they had greater control over the operations of those businesses, which might cause you different stress?

[Ocean1]

I don't think the sector in aggregate is unimportant - we need lots of two bit small fry small businesses, in fact I'd firmly say we need more of these and less of the larger multinational corporates - but my point remains they're, on average, not up to the task of managing government scale assets; which was the original point. They should get on with making and shipping widgets and doing useful commercial services, and leave government to manage the more complicated stuff.

Oh I know several native NZ commercial entities that have proven success in asset management. Their key atribute seems to be a knack for eliminating political inteferance. None of them fit your colourful description of hic-town grocery store owners. In fact I don't think many NZ businesses do.

But yes, off shore asset management specialists are largely parasitic. The numerous rounds of asset stripping, on-selling, bail-outs and re-outsourcing is a joke. But you can't really blame them, their objectives are very transparent, and usually not at all what the government envisioned or wanted.



Money is an unsuitable measure for some things, perhaps most things in government.

Perhaps because money isn't the resource required to achieve most social policy "deliverables".

Doesn't stop them trying. And trying....

[shrub]

If your kids don't go to the same schools....

My stepdaughter goes to one of those schools, and her mother and I are appalled by the attitude displayed by the other kids and the parents. My partner is actually looked down on by the other mothers because she works, and my stepdaughter is treated as a second class person because she doesn't have regular overseas trips etc, and on mufti days wears Glassons instead of designer label clothes - these are 10 year olds. Your value as a person is measured entirely by how much money you are seen to spend.



The real fallacy comes from those in the 5% or thereabouts, who are working hard and doing moderately well, who then identify with and defend the 1%. This leads to the beliefs that a) if they keep working harder they can one day "make it" and be very wealthy too (this has the side effect of making people buy the false faith that making money is the meaning of life), and b) that if only the lazy bludgers at the bottom worked harder they could also "make it". These sentiments are often expressed here. Useful idiocy at it's finest.

And that my friend is gold, but I would say it is probably more like the 25%. People (usually self employed men) who earn not a hell of a lot more than the average wage - maybe $70 - $100k or so, find themselves living in a degree of opulence, and the neo-liberal PR machine convinces them that they are no different to men like John Key and Alan Gibbs, and the only thing holding them back is criminally high taxes which are used to support a long trail of leeches, from civil servants who contribute nothing to lazy people who live a life of indolence and luxury on benefits.



To have the ideal world where everyone is engaged and working, and we are thereby succeeding individually and as a nation, we would need to address a whole bunch of difficult stuff like education, drugs and alcohol, employment conditions, job availability, infrastructure/geography, motivation, legal and economic policy (dis)incentives, population, immigration, race and prejudice, ownership and globalisation. These are tough issues, and no political party has come close to fixing them yet - although some approaches are better than others.

These are tough issues, and they are mutually exclusive to tax cuts and subsidies for big business (eg the $400m to be spent on irrigation), therefore they will only likely be addressed when it's too late.




Envy is not involved in my complaint, nor is some neo-Marxist redistribution narrative, 'cos that doesn't work for long. I'd like us to fix the problems properly. Bleating about dole bludgers not working hard enough is not just misidentifying the problem, it's beating up the victims (some exceptions).

and the hard core benefit bludgers are far and few between and probably cost less about the same as the ministerial BMWs, but it's good to blame them because they are not us. They are "others", and if our problems are caused by "others" it means all we have to do is Get Someone In Authority To Do Something Abut It. If we recognise that our social and economic problems come from living beyond our means and acting like a bunch of selfish individuals instead of a society, then that means WE need to do something about it. If we recogise that WE are the problem, that means what WE do is the solution, and that solution might mean we need to live according to our means and start treating the people who have less than us better.

Fuck that for a joke, what we need is to have bigger tax cuts, lay off most of the public servce and cut all benefits immediately.

[shrub]

And Governments are notoriously bad at managing assets...........

Oh dear, you've been listening to Roger Douglas, haven't you?

Actually Governments don't manage assets - civil servants manage assets on behalf of the citizens who own those assets, and that is a very good reason not to strip the civil service because the first people to go are the ones who can get jobs in the private sector - the best employees.

Some of those assets provide the "free" services we use (schools, hospitals, police etc) and our taxes pay for those services. Other assets provide essential infrastructure (power companies etc) which is paid for by those using them which generates a profit therefore providing a dividend stream which reduces the need for taxation.

[Swoop]

Can anyone explain the green party's billboard?

The one where a man and a young boy are standing in the middle of nowhere, with a wind farm a distance away in the background.
A pleasant scene. Open space. Lots of green grass, etc, etc.

Why, in the name of common sense, is the bloke wearing a fucking hard hat and hi-viz vest?

Is he promoting safety? If so, why isn't the kid kitted out in safety gear?
Is he a tosser? Probably.
Have they both signed the visitors book to this worksite? Probably not.

Interestingly, next to the billboard I spotted, there was an ACT billboard with "less bureaucracy" on it. Quite ironic, I thought.

[shrub]

Can anyone explain the green party's billboard?

The one where a man and a young boy are standing in the middle of nowhere, with a wind farm a distance away in the background.
A pleasant scene. Open space. Lots of green grass, etc, etc.

Why, in the name of common sense, is the bloke wearing a fucking hard hat and hi-viz vest?

Is he promoting safety? If so, why isn't the kid kitted out in safety gear?
Is he a tosser? Probably.
Have they both signed the visitors book to this worksite? Probably not.

Interestingly, next to the billboard I spotted, there was an ACT billboard with "less bureaucracy" on it. Quite ironic, I thought.

yes, I can see how you would find that confusing as there was no caption explaining it, so i hope this helps: - the guy works as a mechanical engineer for a company developing cleantech energy systems that are exported worldwide, so he has to wear safety gear when he's out on site. His wife and kid came to visit him in his lunchbreak, and he didn't bother taking off his safety gear when he gave his kid a hug because he couldn't be arsed even though he knew that some people would get confused and upset. And he may well be a tosser, but he earns more money than you and his missus is much hotter than yours. Plus his bike is better.

You'll no doubt be a little worried that the child in the river in the other billboard hasn't got a lifejacket on - it's OK, the water is quite shallow and the kid has been swimming since not long after he could walk, plus the people in the background are all trained lifeguards. They've just caught a big old trout which they're about to cook for lunch with some new potatoes and fresh salad, all of which will be washed down with a cold beer for the adults and a nice orange juice for the kids.

If you want me to explain any other billboards, adverts or even movies and TV series, just let me know. It's always a pleasure to help the confused.:yes:

[oneofsix]

Oh dear, you've been listening to Roger Douglas, haven't you?

Actually Governments don't manage assets - civil servants manage assets on behalf of the citizens who own those assets, and that is a very good reason not to strip the civil service because the first people to go are the ones who can get jobs in the private sector - the best employees.

Some of those assets provide the "free" services we use (schools, hospitals, police etc) and our taxes pay for those services. Other assets provide essential infrastructure (power companies etc) which is paid for by those using them which generates a profit therefore providing a dividend stream which reduces the need for taxation.

This is not in line with IMF policy. :nono:
You must privatise everything so it can be bought by the multinationals.
Oh and don't forget to ask your councils to install water meters if they haven't already cause IMF needs that infrastructure built up to a level where it will be economic for a multinational to give a damn, what with water being a commodity but internet access being a necessary and all.

[SPman]

yes, I can see how you would find that confusing as there was no caption explaining it, so i hope this helps: - the guy works as a mechanical engineer for a company developing cleantech energy systems that are exported worldwide, so he has to wear safety gear when he's out on site. His wife and kid came to visit him in his lunchbreak, and he didn't bother taking off his safety gear when he gave his kid a hug because he couldn't be arsed even though he knew that some people would get confused and upset. And he may well be a tosser, but he earns more money than you and his missus is much hotter than yours. Plus his bike is better.

You'll no doubt be a little worried that the child in the river in the other billboard hasn't got a lifejacket on - it's OK, the water is quite shallow and the kid has been swimming since not long after he could walk, plus the people in the background are all trained lifeguards. They've just caught a big old trout which they're about to cook for lunch with some new potatoes and fresh salad, all of which will be washed down with a cold beer for the adults and a nice orange juice for the kids.

If you want me to explain any other billboards, adverts or even movies and TV series, just let me know. It's always a pleasure to help the confused.:yes:Orange juice for the kids!!!

Bad bad bad!

Should be good quality water from the river, sans fructose overload which could damage his teeth!

[shrub]

Orange juice for the kids!!!

Bad bad bad!

Should be good quality water from the river, sans fructose overload which could damage his teeth!

nah, the river water is full of giardia. We are of course talking freshly squeezed and delicious orange juice, and the young chap in the picture, as well as being a champion swimmer at age 7 has made a goal of being a dentist and is already completing stage one university.

[SPman]

nah, the river water is full of giardia. ......Bloody tourists!

[shrub]

Bloody tourists!

The Greens are currently engaged in major damage control - all the people in that picture have since got sick and died from eating fish caught in a New Zealand river.

[Robert Taylor]

Oh dear, you've been listening to Roger Douglas, haven't you?

Actually Governments don't manage assets - civil servants manage assets on behalf of the citizens who own those assets, and that is a very good reason not to strip the civil service because the first people to go are the ones who can get jobs in the private sector - the best employees.

Some of those assets provide the "free" services we use (schools, hospitals, police etc) and our taxes pay for those services. Other assets provide essential infrastructure (power companies etc) which is paid for by those using them which generates a profit therefore providing a dividend stream which reduces the need for taxation.

No I remember the Norman Kirks and Bill Rowlings of this world. Plenty of highly paid civil servants have made a fat living out of Government juggernauts that were an empty money pit continually topped up by excessive taxation. Irrespective of the party in power. Actually Im not a fan of Roger Douglas and Rainman made some good points about small business in a preceding post to yours. There is indeed too much emphasis on pandering to the multi nationals. No party is ideal and what I really fear is a Labour Led Government propped up by the billboard vandals and maybe Mana with ( this is REALLY terrible ) John ''rent a mob'' Minto as an MP.
I think in reality many of us have parallell concerns and see what is the lesser of the evils, the sad reality is that most of what we have got as politicians are idiots.

[Swoop]

yes, It's always a pleasure to help the confused.:yes:
No intelligent answer either, eh?

[shrub]

No I remember the Norman Kirks and Bill Rowlings of this world. Plenty of highly paid civil servants have made a fat living out of Government juggernauts that were an empty money pit continually topped up by excessive taxation.

I see, you haven't just been listening to Roger Douglas, you've been watching reruns of Glide Time. Mate, when Norm Kirk and Bill Rowling were in power the Kawasaki Z1 was a state of the art superbike. And NZ had one of the highest standards of living in the world.


No party is ideal and what I really fear is a Labour Led Government propped up by the billboard vandals

I had no idea that the guy who did the billboard thing was the leader of a political party. He was a member of the Greens, but they kicked him out because he was a dickhead.

[shrub]

No intelligent answer either, eh?

The answer was as intelligent as the question.:msn-wink:

[Robert Taylor]

I see, you haven't just been listening to Roger Douglas, you've been watching reruns of Glide Time. Mate, when Norm Kirk and Bill Rowling were in power the Kawasaki Z1 was a state of the art superbike. And NZ had one of the highest standards of living in the world.



I had no idea that the guy who did the billboard thing was the leader of a political party. He was a member of the Greens, but they kicked him out because he was a dickhead.

After 3 years in power ( the public could only stomach 3 years of them ) the living standards were appreciably less and a healthy surplus had been turned into a sizable deficit. These idiots didnt tighten the countries belts with the big hit we took with loss of export income to the UK when they lost their marbles and joined the EEC

As I understand it in excess of 700 National party billboards were targeted. So one man did ALL of that? Id lay money he had help from a whole load other of Green party activists. Now thats worthy of police investigation and prosecutions.

[shrub]

After 3 years in power ( the public could only stomach 3 years of them ) the living standards were appreciably less and a healthy surplus had been turned into a sizable deficit.

You're a little selective with your history my friend, but then having an open mind willing to look at everything objectively leads to cognitive dissonance, and that is frequently uncomfortable or leads to change (also uncomfortable). The 1973 oil crisis had an enormous impact on the global economy including NZ, Kirk died in mid term and was replaced by the competent but bland Rowling who was no match for Muldoon. Kirk also started the process of making NZ more multicultural and redressing many of the injustices Maori had experienced and he cancelled the 1973 Springbok tour. These actions turned off a huge number of Labour's traditional supporters (working class pakeha with minimal education) who moved to National because they saw Muldoon as being a strong leader.

And Muldoon damn near bankrupted NZ.

But let's talk about falling and rising government debt, shall we?

In March 1999 official government debt was $17.4 bn or 16.6% of GDP. By September 2008 Labour's economic incompetence and the bloating of the public service meant the debt had dropped slightly to $17.2bn. However our rise in GDP meant our debt was now 9.4% of GDP. John Key, the financial master that he is, had nearly doubled that debt to $31.6bn or 16.5% of GDP by Sept last year (pre quakes), and it is now nearly $41bn or 20.4% of GDP. In 3 years he has more than doubled our crown debt, yet is spending less on public services.


As for the billboard vandals (which were quite clever and very innocuous), I'm sure many of the people who did that were Green party members but the Greens had nothing to do with it. If I had been a part of that action, I am a member of the National party, so would that have meant it was a National party stunt? I am also a member of the AA, so would it have been an AA stunt?

[oneofsix]

Roll on December and this thread can die.

Yeah ok so I'm pissed that the majority will screw the smarter minority, like me, for stupid short sighted reasons. :bleh:

[Robert Taylor]

You're a little selective with your history my friend, but then having an open mind willing to look at everything objectively leads to cognitive dissonance, and that is frequently uncomfortable or leads to change (also uncomfortable). The 1973 oil crisis had an enormous impact on the global economy including NZ, Kirk died in mid term and was replaced by the competent but bland Rowling who was no match for Muldoon. Kirk also started the process of making NZ more multicultural and redressing many of the injustices Maori had experienced and he cancelled the 1973 Springbok tour. These actions turned off a huge number of Labour's traditional supporters (working class pakeha with minimal education) who moved to National because they saw Muldoon as being a strong leader.

And Muldoon damn near bankrupted NZ.

But let's talk about falling and rising government debt, shall we?

In March 1999 official government debt was $17.4 bn or 16.6% of GDP. By September 2008 Labour's economic incompetence and the bloating of the public service meant the debt had dropped slightly to $17.2bn. However our rise in GDP meant our debt was now 9.4% of GDP. John Key, the financial master that he is, had nearly doubled that debt to $31.6bn or 16.5% of GDP by Sept last year (pre quakes), and it is now nearly $41bn or 20.4% of GDP. In 3 years he has more than doubled our crown debt, yet is spending less on public services.


As for the billboard vandals (which were quite clever and very innocuous), I'm sure many of the people who did that were Green party members but the Greens had nothing to do with it. If I had been a part of that action, I am a member of the National party, so would that have meant it was a National party stunt? I am also a member of the AA, so would it have been an AA stunt?

Briefly yes I agree about Muldoon and yes there was an oil crisis. But the then Government was a very poor one in how they dealt with it.

Greens had nothing to do with it? I wouldnt be so sure about that. If members did it then they are still acting for their party, effectively.

[slofox]

Just before you all vote this Saturday:

Last year there was a terrible outcry against increased rego fees due to loading up the ACC levy component.

Remember who raised those ACC levies? Or was that too long ago to count?

Just a thought...:whistle:

[ducatilover]

Just before you all vote this Saturday:

Last year there was a terrible outcry against increased rego fees due to loading up the ACC levy component.

Remember who raised those ACC levies? Or was that too long ago to count?

Just a thought...:whistle:
$5 says they get raised again regardless of who is in. :bleh:

[Scuba_Steve]

Something I have noticed in NZ (prob elsewhere 2) everyone seems to complain about the 2 "big" parties, yet those same retards will go vote for one of them or their partner parties allowing them to get in, using the excuse "one of these parties are going to get in anyways"... we'll, yes of course they will, cause you keep voting for them :weird: put your vote elsewhere & maybee we can get someone decent in.

Me, I'm gonna vote for a "tiny" party, one who the media or Govt would have you believe didn't exist. There are a few of these "tiny" parties, I say if you really wanna make your vote count choose a "tiny" party, don't care if it's legalize cannabis, conservative, mana, NZ first, democrats, or any of the others just pick 1 you like & vote for them stop voting the overly corrupt & NZ destroying Labour/National. Kick Labour, National & their partner parties out!!!

OK rant over, not that it will change much anyways retards will still vote Labour/National just thought I'd put my rant out there in hope.

[shrub]

Briefly yes I agree about Muldoon and yes there was an oil crisis. But the then Government was a very poor one in how they dealt with it.

Finding someone to argue that Kirk et al did a good job with the economy is about as hard as finding someone who genuinely believes Key won't win on Saturday. They came in at the tail end of the most golden of golden eras and were ill prepared for the sudden shock as the world grew up. However in their favour, if their compulsory super hadn't been canned by Muldoon we would be a much wealthier country today. Probably as rich as Aussie - everyone thinks Aussie is richer than us because they have minerals. They're rich because they have over $1 trillion in savings whereas we have the Cullen fund and not a lot more.

And you're clutching at straws. Just because some (or even most) of the billboard enhancers belonged to the Greens does not mean the Green party had any involvement or even any idea. Their campaign is going very, very well and has been micro managed, so supporting something that pointless and potentially damaging makes about as much sense as Casey Stoner fitting touring panniers to his race bike.

[slofox]

$5 says they get raised again regardless of who is in. :bleh:

Bloody little ray of sunshine aren'tcha! And probably bloody right at that...:facepalm:

[ducatilover]

Bloody little ray of sunshine aren'tcha! And probably bloody right at that...:facepalm:
I will be when I get my $5 :laugh:

I think I should start a political party.

[slofox]

I will be when I get my $5 :laugh:

I think I should start a political party.

Good luck with the five bucks...:whistle:

Start a political party? Why not? Couldn't be any worse than most of what we have here already...just drop the ACC levies on bikes eh and you'd get my vote!

[MisterD]

Something I have noticed in NZ (prob elsewhere 2) everyone seems to complain about the 2 "big" parties, yet those same retards will go vote for one of them or their partner parties allowing them to get in, using the excuse "one of these parties are going to get in anyways"... we'll, yes of course they will, cause you keep voting for them :weird: put your vote elsewhere & maybee we can get someone decent in.

Yeah, but the thing is in most western countries 95% of people don't vote for one of the main two parties, they vote against the other one

[mashman]

$5 says they get raised again regardless of who is in. :bleh:

I'll take that bet... and bet you another $5 that levies come down.

[ducatilover]

Good luck with the five bucks...:whistle:

Start a political party? Why not? Couldn't be any worse than most of what we have here already...just drop the ACC levies on bikes eh and you'd get my vote!

That'd be all I plan to do, apart from keep our assets NZ owned and a mandatory Ducatilover gets a babe a week rule. :laugh:


I'll take that bet... and bet you another $5 that levies come down.
You didn't read my fine print that I may or may not have posted at some previous moment to this one.
All winnings must be turned to beer, which will be shared

[SPman]

Yeah, but the thing is in most western countries 95% of people don't vote for one of the main two parties, they vote against the other one ...and as long as you get that mentality, we'll keep on getting the sorts of governments we do......

[MisterD]

...and as long as you get that mentality, we'll keep on getting the sorts of governments we do......

Which is why I favour local primary elections and preferential voting.

[slofox]

... Ducatilover gets a babe a week rule. :laugh:

Is that kinda like a virgin sacrifice, is it?

[mashman]

You didn't read my fine print that I may or may not have posted at some previous moment to this one.
All winnings must be turned to beer, which will be shared

ha ha haaaaaaaa, my fault, I didn't look :shifty: ... I'm more than comfortable with that... although we better up it to $50 as I'll be fucked if I'm gonna drink a mere $5 of beer...

[ducatilover]

Is that kinda like a virgin sacrifice, is it?
I suppose, I have yet to discover what these women things like to do, so I'll have plenty on my hands (entendre intended)


ha ha haaaaaaaa, my fault, I didn't look :shifty: ... I'm more than comfortable with that... although we better up it to $50 as I'll be fucked if I'm gonna drink a mere $5 of beer...
It's on!

[Robert Taylor]

Finding someone to argue that Kirk et al did a good job with the economy is about as hard as finding someone who genuinely believes Key won't win on Saturday. They came in at the tail end of the most golden of golden eras and were ill prepared for the sudden shock as the world grew up. However in their favour, if their compulsory super hadn't been canned by Muldoon we would be a much wealthier country today. Probably as rich as Aussie - everyone thinks Aussie is richer than us because they have minerals. They're rich because they have over $1 trillion in savings whereas we have the Cullen fund and not a lot more.

And you're clutching at straws. Just because some (or even most) of the billboard enhancers belonged to the Greens does not mean the Green party had any involvement or even any idea. Their campaign is going very, very well and has been micro managed, so supporting something that pointless and potentially damaging makes about as much sense as Casey Stoner fitting touring panniers to his race bike.

I agree with you about that super fund.

[Murray]

May have been posted elsewhere but so be it

The ANT AND THE GRASSHOPPER This one is a little different ........Two Different Versions .....
There are Different Morals

OLD VERSION:
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.
Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed.
The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.

MORAL OF THE OLD STORY:
Be responsible for yourself!

MODERN VERSION:The ant works hard in the withering heat and the rain all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.
The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.
Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while he is cold and starving.
TV1,2 & 3 News, and Campbell Live show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food.
The country is stunned by the sharp contrast.
How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?
Sue Bradford appears on Campbell Live with the grasshopper and everybody cries .
The Green Party stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house where the news stations film the group singing, We shall overcome.
Green Party Leader Metiriea Turei condemns the ant and blames John Key , Rob Muldoon , Roger Douglas , Capitalism and Global warming for the grasshopper's plight.
John Minto exclaims in an interview with TV News that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share.

Finally to gain votes to win an election , the Government drafts the Economic Equity & Anti-Grasshopper Act retroactive to the beginning of the summer.

The ant is fined for failing to consider how his hard work and preparation has affected the Grasshoppers Mana and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated under the Government Land Repo Act and given to the grasshopper.

The story ends as we see the grasshopper and his free-loading friends finishing up the last bits of the ant's food while the government confiscates the house he is in, which, as you recall, just happens to be the ant’s old house, which crumbles around them because the grasshopper doesn't maintain it.

The ant has disappeared to Australia, never to be seen again.

The grasshopper is found dead in a Drugs related incident, and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of Homeboy spiders who terrorize the once prosperous and peaceful, neighborhood.

MORAL OF THE STORY:
Be careful how you vote in 2011

[oneofsix]

May have been posted elsewhere but so be it

The ANT AND THE GRASSHOPPER This one is a little different ........Two Different Versions .....
There are Different Morals

OLD VERSION:
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.
Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed.
The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.

MORAL OF THE OLD STORY:
Be responsible for yourself!

MODERN VERSION:The ant works hard in the withering heat and the rain all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.
The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.
Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while he is cold and starving.
TV1,2 & 3 News, and Campbell Live show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food.
The country is stunned by the sharp contrast.
How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?
Sue Bradford appears on Campbell Live with the grasshopper and everybody cries .
The Green Party stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house where the news stations film the group singing, We shall overcome.
Green Party Leader Metiriea Turei condemns the ant and blames John Key , Rob Muldoon , Roger Douglas , Capitalism and Global warming for the grasshopper's plight.
John Minto exclaims in an interview with TV News that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share.

Finally to gain votes to win an election , the Government drafts the Economic Equity & Anti-Grasshopper Act retroactive to the beginning of the summer.

The ant is fined for failing to consider how his hard work and preparation has affected the Grasshoppers Mana and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated under the Government Land Repo Act and given to the grasshopper.

The story ends as we see the grasshopper and his free-loading friends finishing up the last bits of the ant's food while the government confiscates the house he is in, which, as you recall, just happens to be the ant’s old house, which crumbles around them because the grasshopper doesn't maintain it.

The ant has disappeared to Australia, never to be seen again.

The grasshopper is found dead in a Drugs related incident, and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of Homeboy spiders who terrorize the once prosperous and peaceful, neighborhood.

MORAL OF THE STORY:
Be careful how you vote in 2011

That's the pre 1980s story. These days the grasshopper is a banker, lawyer or corporate business man, and claims copywrite on the ants goods whilst telling the ant that if he works harder he too can be rich. The ant fuks off to Oz where the unions still insure he gets a fair wage, health care and university for his kids.

[Indiana_Jones]

The ant fuks off to Oz where the unions still insure he gets a fair wage, health care and university for his kids.

Those unions worked a treat in the UK :lol:

-Indy

[Robert Taylor]

Those unions worked a treat in the UK :lol:

-Indy

Yeah, is that why James Callaghan had to go cap in hand to the IMF?

[Winston001]

Envy is not involved in my complaint, nor is some neo-Marxist redistribution narrative, 'cos that doesn't work for long. I'd like us to fix the problems properly.

Who among us seriously thinks we can just keep letting the rich get richer, though?

My knee-jerk response is to say "No, of course not".

And yet...is this really a problem? Is it so terrible that some people are very wealthy? The 1% who allegedly hold vast riches still only hold 16.4% of New Zealand's total wealth. That means 84% is held by the rest of us. To be honest it doesn't seem so terrible to me.

Moreover in Australia the land of golden opportunity, the amount of wealth held by a few is even greater. Nevertheless Australians on average are much better off than average New Zealanders. Both in terms of assets and lower cost of living.

I think its more useful to look at the broad welbeing of a society and wide wealth distribution is a positive indicator. On that scale, NZ isn't a bad place.

[Winston001]

A further thought on this wealth/rich thing:

There is a view that one generation makes it, the next consolidates it,....and the grandchildren spend it. From 30 odd years of professional advising, I'd have to say this is true. Some economists would say its a failing of NZ society. In Germany, Britain, France, USA etc there are families which have successfully run businesses and provided wide employment for 200 years. Stability and certainty. Not words generally used for NZ business.

[Ocean1]

There is a view that one generation makes it, the next consolidates it,....and the grandchildren spend it.

I don't think it's that complicated. It's just a mechanism of the old saw "easy come, easy go".

Those Families that manage to retain wealth through several generations seem to instill some respect for, or at least recognition of the effort required to achieve it.

I understand one such will underwrite a new generation's activities to the tune of 10 times their individual net worth... after that reaches $1M. If they have the ability to make that first $1M it's taken as read they know the rules.

[SPman]

And yet...is this really a problem? Is it so terrible that some people are very wealthy? The 1% who allegedly hold vast riches still only hold 16.4% of New Zealand's total wealth. That means 84% is held by the rest of us. To be honest it doesn't seem so terrible to me.

In most ways, it's not really a problem until those with the money start using it to influence politics (the same could be said for religion). Taken to extremes, you get the situation in the US where the Supreme Court says money is speech and corporations are people and ended all limits on political spending. Millions of dollars are being funneled to politicians without a trace. This enabling of big money to effectively buy and run the government is a major factor behind the OWS movement. At it's extreme, as in the US, 90% of politicians are running to the tune of big money, Banks, Corporations and multi-billionaires - no one else gets a look in.

NZ is nowhere near this criminal state of affairs, even though there are definite attempts at political manipulation by "wealthy lobby groups". Most of the NZ wealthy are not mega wealthy in a world sense and the enough have worked their way to where they are to still have a tad of the "egalitarian ethic" buried under their skin. But, there are blatant and not so blatant attempts to heavily influence politicians to "see things their way", and it is up to the voters to keep on top of these financial coup attempts. It seems to mainly involve those who are aware of shady dealings screaming from the rooftops, because corruption thrives best in secret! Unfortunately, a lot of NZ'ers don't like the noise and would prefer to believe the best in people - even if those they place their trust in kick them in the face.

I think its more useful to look at the broad well being of a society and wide wealth distribution is a positive indicator. On that scale, NZ isn't a bad place.
No, but, as the report card says "could do better", and in the past, has been much better.

[Robert Taylor]

In most ways, it's not really a problem until those with the money start using it to influence politics (the same could be said for religion). Taken to extremes, you get the situation in the US where the Supreme Court says money is speech and corporations are people and ended all limits on political spending. Millions of dollars are being funneled to politicians without a trace. This enabling of big money to effectively buy and run the government is a major factor behind the OWS movement. At it's extreme, as in the US, 90% of politicians are running to the tune of big money, Banks, Corporations and multi-billionaires - no one else gets a look in.

NZ is nowhere near this criminal state of affairs, even though there are definite attempts at political manipulation by "wealthy lobby groups". Most of the NZ wealthy are not mega wealthy in a world sense and the enough have worked their way to where they are to still have a tad of the "egalitarian ethic" buried under their skin. But, there are blatant and not so blatant attempts to heavily influence politicians to "see things their way", and it is up to the voters to keep on top of these financial coup attempts. It seems to mainly involve those who are aware of shady dealings screaming from the rooftops, because corruption thrives best in secret! Unfortunately, a lot of NZ'ers don't like the noise and would prefer to believe the best in people - even if those they place their trust in kick them in the face.

No, but, as the report card says "could do better", and in the past, has been much better.

As a small businessman I wrote a cheque out 3 weeks ago to the National party, $100. If I was a multi national that would be like ten million dollars. So on the scale of things I am clearly corrupt........................

[Robert Taylor]

BTW it came out of my personal account, not my filthy profits.

[rainman]

And yet...is this really a problem? Is it so terrible that some people are very wealthy? The 1% who allegedly hold vast riches still only hold 16.4% of New Zealand's total wealth. That means 84% is held by the rest of us. To be honest it doesn't seem so terrible to me.

Hmmm. I know you always look for the silver lining, and are typically more "relaxed" than Mr Key. I can't think of something that you might regard as terrible, actually, so that's neither surprising nor informative.

However, the point wasn't the current state, but the trend. Not to say the current state isn't a problem in itself: we are not the most unequal country in the world, but we're worse in Gini terms than a lot of supposedly "lesser" countries: Bulgaria, Ethiopia, various -stans, for example. I don't know the source of your data re the top 10% but if it's correct, it means that statistic has become quite a bit worse over the last 5 years or so. Inequality, as the science (http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/why/evidence) will tell you, is a good proxy indicator for a bunch of other social ills, many of which we're indeed suffering from. If you look at the graphs referenced in that link, for things like infant deaths, mental health, drug abuse, obesity, child well-being, we're towards the higher end of the inequality curve, and usually above the line (worse) than the average for the indicator. So although "you're all right, Jack" the same cannot be said for all of us. Consider the programme on TV the other day on child health. Not all can be laid at the door of inequality, for sure, but we should all be shamefully aware that we're doing it wrong.

And the trend is clear: for the last 25 years or so*, inequality has been getting sharply worse. No surprise there either, as we've implemented the standard rich-friendly neoliberal policy set, believing foolishly that the trickle-down fairies would set it all right. They won't - the utopia of classical liberalism is a crock; it makes most of us worse off for the sole benefit of a shrinking few. If you reference the stats I posted up above you'll see the growth that the top have enjoyed has come from the bottom, both here and in other developed countries. Much though this is anathema to many supposedly right-thinking minds, it does seem the game of economic growth through classical liberalism is far more zero-sum than a rising tide that lifts all boats, in any meaningful sense, at least.

So, I'd ask the following questions of you:
1. Do you agree the trend is unsustainable, and that we are heading in the wrong direction?
2. What Gini co-efficient would we have to have to raise your blood pressure a point or two? Is just any level of inequality OK, or is there a bridge too far?
3. You're a smart (if somewhat accommodating) fellow. Considering the above, how can you continue to endorse the same policies that, it is undeniably clear, will just make things worse? I'll bet you a beer that, despite seeing the problem I've described above (and perhaps even feeling a twinge of recognition that maybe all is not well), you'll block it from your mind and go off on Saturday to tick the right-wing boxes regardless, thereby opting for more of the same plus some extra please. Is this anything other than simple self-interest from you and your class?

* You may note that this covers a period of time in which both Labour and National governments were in power. I don't have detailed stats to see how their policies affect inequality, but I do note that it's predominantly the left that is advocating tax-free thresholds, lifting wages, creating jobs, and targeting remedial action to the specific ills we have fallen prey to as a result of our historical stupidity.


No, but, as the report card says "could do better", and in the past, has been much better.

This is the essence, indeed. The problem is getting worse, and our policy settings are making it worse. Saying "it isn't so bad now" as Winston does above, is either missing the point, or actively trying to neutralise it. The blog equivalent of "la la la it's all OK I can't hear you".

[Ocean1]

The problem is getting worse, and our policy settings are making it worse. Saying "it isn't so bad now" as Winston does above, is either missing the point, or actively trying to neutralise it. The blog equivalent of "la la la it's all OK I can't hear you".

Getting worse it probably is, but I think Winston’s just not so inherently infantile as to believe that all of society’s ills:


If you look at the graphs referenced in that link, for things like infant deaths, mental health, drug abuse, obesity, child well-being, we're towards the higher end of the inequality curve, and usually above the line (worse) than the average for the indicator.

...are caused by an inequality of income. I’m with him, it’s a bizarre concept.

And we’ve done this before, innit. I’d contend that it’s far more likely that there’s an over-arching cause for all of the bad shit you’ve listed and more, including low income: Failure. Personal failure. Firstly and foremost it's a failure to anticipate the consequences of unproductive behaviour and a failure to plan. I just can't see that as the falure of the productive members of society.

You can find the reasons for the real cause, if you look. They’re wide and varied and none of them will be altered by the application of cash, whether it’s from an employer or the taxpayer.

[shrub]

Hmmm. ...we have fallen prey to as a result of our historical stupidity.... the problem is getting worse, and our policy settings are making it worse.

In the essence of brevity I have condensed your post. There is a definition of insanity - expecting a different result with the same actions, and we are watching poverty, inequality and crime steadily increase. At the same time we are slipping backwards in almost every measure relative to other OECD countries to the point where we are generally ranked with places like Mexico and Turkey and financially we are heading to join Greece and Ireland, yet what solutions do we seek? Tax cuts and reductions in welfare spending? Subsidies for specific industries (dairy)? Sale of assets? These "solutions" have never worked anywhere in the world, so why do we so desperately hope that somehow things will be different this time?

We are like the abused woman returning to her partner - "he has said he will change", and then she wonders why he gets drunk again and beats her up. Or the serial failed businessman who starts yet another business where he looks after the books because he doesn't want to waste money on an accountant.

If we want NZ to be a safe country where children don't go to school hungry, and where everyone who wants to work has a job, why do we insist on pursuing the ideologies that have failed to achieve that for over 25 years?

[oneofsix]

In the essence of brevity I have condensed your post. There is a definition of insanity - expecting a different result with the same actions, and we are watching poverty, inequality and crime steadily increase. At the same time we are slipping backwards in almost every measure relative to other OECD countries to the point where we are generally ranked with places like Mexico and Turkey and financially we are heading to join Greece and Ireland, yet what solutions do we seek? Tax cuts and reductions in welfare spending? Subsidies for specific industries (dairy)? Sale of assets? These "solutions" have never worked anywhere in the world, so why do we so desperately hope that somehow things will be different this time?

We are like the abused woman returning to her partner - "he has said he will change", and then she wonders why he gets drunk again and beats her up. Or the serial failed businessman who starts yet another business where he looks after the books because he doesn't want to waste money on an accountant.

If we want NZ to be a safe country where children don't go to school hungry, and where everyone who wants to work has a job, why do we insist on pursuing the ideologies that have failed to achieve that for over 25 years?

because the IMF say we should and because some dumb arse account type can't see the woods for the trees. :jerry:

[shrub]

because the IMF say we should and because some dumb arse account type can't see the woods for the trees. :jerry:

I'd extend that to say because a very small number of people benefit from the status quo, and they have very cleverly convinced people who aren't willing to look beyond the superficial that they are right, and that's why tomorrow we will have the weakest and least competent government in decades returned to power.

[oldrider]

Hells bells, I have never before heard so many long confirmed Labour voters saying they are going Green this time! :sick:

Out of the frying pan into the fire IMO but all will be revealed on Saturday night ..... the only "poll" that counts! :mellow: (Well, sort of) :shifty:

[Winston001]

Hmmm. I know you always look for the silver lining, and are typically more "relaxed" than Mr Key. I can't think of something that you might regard as terrible, actually, so that's neither surprising nor informative.

Good long post and it deserves considered answers but I'll just intersperse a little for the moment.

What do I regard as Terrible? Cruelty to children and animals. I abhor it.


Consider the programme on TV the other day on child health. Not all can be laid at the door of inequality, for sure, but we should all be shamefully aware that we're doing it wrong.

I didn't see it but read a comment that mothers and children featured...and no fathers. In the natural world and much of the human world, parents will die to protect their offspring. Why has a vile culture arisen in some communities where children are neglected and even killed? There is something more fundamentally wrong than inequality.




I'll bet you a beer that, despite seeing the problem I've described above (and perhaps even feeling a twinge of recognition that maybe all is not well), you'll block it from your mind and go off on Saturday to tick the right-wing boxes regardless, thereby opting for more of the same plus some extra please. Is this anything other than simple self-interest from you and your class?



Oh dear LOL it is easy to assume so much on the net about people. Lets just say I'm chewing over votes for National Labour Greens and MMP or SM. Dispassionate voting for the greatest good even against one's own interests is a valued principle.

[rainman]

... that all of society’s ills:...are caused by an inequality of income. I’m with him, it’s a bizarre concept.

And we’ve done this before, innit. I’d contend that it’s far more likely that there’s an over-arching cause for all of the bad shit you’ve listed and more, including low income: Failure. Personal failure. Firstly and foremost it's a failure to anticipate the consequences of unproductive behaviour and a failure to plan. I just can't see that as the falure of the productive members of society.

Sometimes science can deliver some bizarre results, it's true. Doesn't make them less valid though, and The Spirit Level research is pretty solid. If you don't like it, do the alternative research, write a counter and get it published. Such is the "marketplace" of academic research. If you prefer just to say you don't like it, therefore it must be false, then you're not a truth-seeker, but an ideologue.

I can see there might be an over-arching cause of both the issues linked to inequality and inequality itself, but that is the point of the approach, surely? What is a likely cause? Policy settings we have adopted (in developed countries, mainly) since the 80s have led to greater income and wealth inequality, that's an indisputable empirical fact. People didn't suddenly start intrinsically "failing" as you prefer to believe, en masse, at the same time as the right-wing policy agenda took effect.

Inequality correlates very closely with the aforementioned social ills - once again I'll refer you to the Spirit Level research. I won't call it a fact as that's scientifically improper, but it's a pretty clear cut case. Therefore, connect the dots... right-wing policies the like of what we have recently seen tend to cause the very social issue that the right likes to complain about. Yet many will go out today and vote for more of the same. Insane, by any definition.

(As a Buddhist, there's an even simpler karmic argument to make. This present increase in suffering is the natural tendency of the increased greed, aversion and delusion that we have adopted in Western cultures since the 80s).

Undoubtedly, if people sit in their arses and don't work, and make dumb decisions, then they (and we) don't succeed. But I find it very hard to believe, sans evidence, that people's intrinsic attributes are even more important than their context, let alone that they can solely account for the economic and social behaviours we observe. For one thing, that brings a consequential racism that I'm uncomfortable with: more brown people than white people are poor - an empirical fact. Is your explanation of this phenomenon that there is an intrinsic causative relationship between race and failure-orientation?

If so, ewww, man, that's ugly. If, like I expect, you find this conclusion repulsive, then maybe your intrinsic model doesn't stand up to as much scrutiny as you think?


We are like the abused woman returning to her partner - "he has said he will change", and then she wonders why he gets drunk again and beats her up.

Funny you should say that: my first reaction on discovering recent NZ political history was to go to the exact same analogy, although I got some funny looks when I talked about it - apparently it's not cool to make domestic abuse analogies in some circles. After the treatment we've had from Muldoon, Lange, Douglas, Richardson and others no wonder we're not rational about political things.


Why has a vile culture arisen in some communities where children are neglected and even killed? There is something more fundamentally wrong than inequality.

Here we agree entirely. There is no defence for child abuse, and I wouldn't suggest fixing inequality will eliminate it. Some people are probably just evil; many are however a product of their context, and we could do worse than fix the context and see if we help to shift the behaviours. Perhaps with a bit of stick, too, doesn't have to be all carrot

The science says that fixing the environment will probably fix a bunch of other things we don't like either, so it's a win either way. All we have to do is lay to rest the ghosts of Friedman, Douglas, Reagan, Thatcher... they have not been our friends.


Oh dear LOL it is easy to assume so much on the net about people. Lets just say I'm chewing over votes for National Labour Greens and MMP or SM. Dispassionate voting for the greatest good even against one's own interests is a valued principle.

OK, fair enough - you got me being a bit provocative. From your previous posts I took you for a classical conservative. My apologies if I have slighted you.

[Winston001]

.....and The Spirit Level research is pretty solid. If you don't like it, do the alternative research, write a counter and get it published.

Interestingly, somebody already has. http://spiritleveldelusion.blogspot.com/

There are some OECD graphs which suggest the equality = well-being theory isn't consistent. To be honest I'm surprised because I too thought flat wealth distributed societies are more successful. Some are but...some aren't.


OK, fair enough - you got me being a bit provocative. From your previous posts I took you for a classical conservative. My apologies if I have slighted you.

No apology needed. Its my nature to argue "truths" because its much more interesting than everyone agreeing with each other. There are also some views such as Rogernomics was all bad, Americans are all bad etc which need to be challenged.

Politics you are close enough to correct. Probably think of myself as conservative but detest destruction of the environment and have compassion for people who struggle.

Oh - and watch Al Jazeera whenever its available.

[Ocean1]

I can see there might be an over-arching cause of both the issues linked to inequality and inequality itself, but that is the point of the approach, surely? What is a likely cause? Policy settings we have adopted (in developed countries, mainly) since the 80s have led to greater income and wealth inequality, that's an indisputable empirical fact. People didn't suddenly start intrinsically "failing" as you prefer to believe, en masse, at the same time as the right-wing policy agenda took effect.

Dude!! Stop rationalising! It’s really really simple: We none of us are equal, haven’t you noticed? If an individual fails to behave in a manner demonstrated to produce generally successful results, (any definition you want, there) then it doesn’t take detailed scientific analysis to demonstrate that they’ll almost certainly fail across a front the breadth of which is merely hinted at in that aforementioned list. This is so self-evident I’m astonished anyone sees any need to look for correlation between performance in the various individual fields of endeavour let alone attempt to isolate a single “cause” amongst the individual failures.

As for a percieved recent development? Any increase in the local failure rate, it’s frequency and / or amplitude is most accurately described by the proliferation of support for the low-performing. In fact I’m almost certain that if you bothered to do the research you’d find that the more funds we’ve made available to support the low performers then the more low performers we’ve found requiring such support. So rather than blame the successful for failing to drag the less successful along with them I’d say given the increased load they’ve done extraordinarily well in their philanthropic endeavours over the last few decades.

Look no further for your science than Darwin, mate: Succeed or die. And then consider: the recent underperformers are not only still breathing but doing quite nicely compared to their ancestral equivalents. As for whether that’s a good thing, who knows? I know one thing: it’s a positive feedback loop, and it’s not sustainable.

As for the race reference? The only discriminatory factor I even see is how successful an individual is in reaching their own self-imposed goals. It’s all that matters.

[Virago]

Fuck. I just realised that it's not the Legalise Cannibalism Party.

A wasted vote.

I was looking forward to eating some Greens, too...

[rainman]

Interestingly, somebody already has. http://spiritleveldelusion.blogspot.com/


All part of the academic process - and as the authors suggest, the right place for debate is in peer-reviewed journals, not a book and a blog. There is undoubtedly some room for criticism, but I'd hardly regard Snowdon's criticism as a slam dunk (and besides he's hardly either impartial or an academic, bit of a libertarian journalist attached to a "think tank"). Have you read the rebuttal to the rebuttal from Wilkinson and Pickett?


It’s really really simple: We none of us are equal, haven’t you noticed? If an individual fails to behave in a manner demonstrated to produce generally successful results, (any definition you want, there) then it doesn’t take detailed scientific analysis to demonstrate that they’ll almost certainly fail across a front the breadth of which is merely hinted at in that aforementioned list. This is so self-evident I’m astonished anyone sees any need to look for correlation between performance in the various individual fields of endeavour let alone attempt to isolate a single “cause” amongst the individual failures.

So... it's still individual failings? Did you not read my earlier post? I'm not in disagreement that individual failings cause individual failure (kinda obvious), but you have a large hurdle to overcome if you claim that this is the only factor, and that economic and social context is of no relevance. Particularly given the record of the past 30 years here and elsewhere.


As for a percieved recent development? Any increase in the local failure rate, it’s frequency and / or amplitude is most accurately described by the proliferation of support for the low-performing. In fact I’m almost certain that if you bothered to do the research you’d find that the more funds we’ve made available to support the low performers then the more low performers we’ve found requiring such support. So rather than blame the successful for failing to drag the less successful along with them I’d say given the increased load they’ve done extraordinarily well in their philanthropic endeavours over the last few decades.

Firstly, it's your wacko theory, you provide the proof. Secondly, I'm not wanting the "successful" to "drag the less successful along", just to stop taking more than a reasonable share. It's clear, looking at data and reality, that the "rising tide lifting all boats"/"trickle-down" bullshit is just that, and that even if the pie is getting bigger, the few keep taking more and more of it for themselves, and the many are where they are taking it from. Richest 1% up 3.odd %, poorest 90% down about the same. Worse in the US. Facts, however inconvenient, do not fail to exist when they are ignored.


Look no further for your science than Darwin, mate: Succeed or die.

Not a world I want to live in, thanks. We can do so much better.


As for the race reference? The only discriminatory factor I even see is how successful an individual is in reaching their own self-imposed goals. It’s all that matters.

I thought so, thus my critique. If you claim individual weakness is the sole cause of economic impoverishment, then, considering that brown people are more represented in lower economic stats, your conclusion is inevitably racist. To spell it out: you're saying brown people have a greater tendency to individual failure.

If you think about this honestly, you (I'm sure) will realise it's nonsense. Therefore, there are other, extrinsic factors involved in the observed phenomenon beyond the individual's choices and weaknesses (even though these are of course relevant factors). And, even considering the role of different intrinsic levels of application, how much is due to motivation and relatively correctable factors, and how much to capability and opportunity? Think about this a bit and you'l see I'm not just arguing at a simplistic level for the rich to give more money to the poor.


I was looking forward to eating some Greens, too...

Greens are good for all of us.

[Brian d marge]

Dude!! Stop rationalising! It’s really really simple: We none of us are equal, haven’t you noticed? If an individual fails to behave in a manner demonstrated to produce generally successful results, (any definition you want, there) then it doesn’t take detailed scientific analysis to demonstrate that they’ll almost certainly fail across a front the breadth of which is merely hinted at in that aforementioned list. This is so self-evident I’m astonished anyone sees any need to look for correlation between performance in the various individual fields of endeavour let alone attempt to isolate a single “cause” amongst the individual failures.

As for a percieved recent development? Any increase in the local failure rate, it’s frequency and / or amplitude is most accurately described by the proliferation of support for the low-performing. In fact I’m almost certain that if you bothered to do the research you’d find that the more funds we’ve made available to support the low performers then the more low performers we’ve found requiring such support. So rather than blame the successful for failing to drag the less successful along with them I’d say given the increased load they’ve done extraordinarily well in their philanthropic endeavours over the last few decades.

Look no further for your science than Darwin, mate: Succeed or die. And then consider: the recent underperformers are not only still breathing but doing quite nicely compared to their ancestral equivalents. As for whether that’s a good thing, who knows? I know one thing: it’s a positive feedback loop, and it’s not sustainable.

As for the race reference? The only discriminatory factor I even see is how successful an individual is in reaching their own self-imposed goals. It’s all that matters.

There are some hard working people out there, that might disagree with you , shit can happen to any one anytime and once it does , we need others to help us out of it , an example , a good friend ( American ) big business , doing well on top of his game , bike accident , the helicopter ride , basically cost the house , and as for on going treatment , hes lost everything ,

what your saying is a classic bit of propaganda trotted out in the fifties or sixties, I think , ( I have it somewhere) , that marginalizes one group to pacify another , used very subtle by Clinton , Blair ( I think , I will have to find the paper I have , )

I do not want to be a part of such a society .

Stephen

[jonbuoy]

There are some hard working people out there, that might disagree with you , shit can happen to any one anytime and once it does , we need others to help us out of it , an example , a good friend ( American ) big business , doing well on top of his game , bike accident , the helicopter ride , basically cost the house , and as for on going treatment , hes lost everything ,

what your saying is a classic bit of propaganda trotted out in the fifties or sixties, I think , ( I have it somewhere) , that marginalizes one group to pacify another , used very subtle by Clinton , Blair ( I think , I will have to find the paper I have , )

I do not want to be a part of such a society .

Stephen

No health insurance? US would have been far better off keeping Clinton.

[Ocean1]

So... it's still individual failings? Did you not read my earlier post? I'm not in disagreement that individual failings cause individual failure (kinda obvious), but you have a large hurdle to overcome if you claim that this is the only factor, and that economic and social context is of no relevance. Particularly given the record of the past 30 years here and elsewhere.

But I’m not claiming it’s the only factor. Just that it’s by far the largest one and the only one the affected individual can influence.

Firstly, it's your wacko theory, you provide the proof. Secondly, I'm not wanting the "successful" to "drag the less successful along", just to stop taking more than a reasonable share. It's clear, looking at data and reality, that the "rising tide lifting all boats"/"trickle-down" bullshit is just that, and that even if the pie is getting bigger, the few keep taking more and more of it for themselves, and the many are where they are taking it from. Richest 1% up 3.odd %, poorest 90% down about the same. Worse in the US. Facts, however inconvenient, do not fail to exist when they are ignored.

Dude, that’s so fraught with loaded buzzwords and tired old socialist bleating it doesn’t warrant a reply. However, I’m interested in your theory that the 1% are taking “it” from the rest. Can you demonstrate that “the rest” ever had “it” or even contributed to the making of “it” in the first place?

Not a world I want to live in, thanks. If modern society’s performance takes a significant hit you’ll get your wish.

We can do so much better. Indeed we could, individual performance contributes to the success of the collective, it doesn’t work the other way around.

I thought so, thus my critique. If you claim individual weakness is the sole cause of economic impoverishment, then, considering that brown people are more represented in lower economic stats, your conclusion is inevitably racist. To spell it out: you're saying brown people have a greater tendency to individual failure.

No, I said low income wasn’t the cause of other failures. And if some “brown people” fail economically more than others I’d suggest that may well be partly because they value economic measures of success less than do others. Hence my reference to each individual’s own measure of success being the only relevant measure of their performance.

That being the case, why is it necessary to encumber those, (brown or blue) who value economic security below other measures of success with vast wads of cash?

If, on the other hand a simple lack of will or respect for the cost of maintaining our society or even downright fraud is the root of the lack of economic success then why would any external entity support such behaviour? Better, surely to supply the opportunity to change than the rewards of that change in advance.

If you think about this honestly, you (I'm sure) will realise it's nonsense. Therefore, there are other, extrinsic factors involved in the observed phenomenon beyond the individual's choices and weaknesses (even though these are of course relevant factors). And, even considering the role of different intrinsic levels of application, how much is due to motivation and relatively correctable factors, and how much to capability and opportunity? Think about this a bit and you'l see I'm not just arguing at a simplistic level for the rich to give more money to the poor.

I never suggested individual choices were the only variable wrt economic success. It’s just the most significant. Opportunity is a factor, definitely, as are personal traits having little to do with productive ability. I’ll point out, though that the world is full of economically successful people that have made their own opportunities and those who have less than charismatic personalities.

I note you see capability as non-correctable. I don’t necessarily agree, there. I see that we do agree on the importance of offering as many people as many opportunities for success as possible.

[Ocean1]

There are some hard working people out there, that might disagree with you , shit can happen to any one anytime and once it does , we need others to help us out of it , an example , a good friend ( American ) big business , doing well on top of his game , bike accident , the helicopter ride , basically cost the house , and as for on going treatment , hes lost everything ,

what your saying is a classic bit of propaganda trotted out in the fifties or sixties, I think , ( I have it somewhere) , that marginalizes one group to pacify another , used very subtle by Clinton , Blair ( I think , I will have to find the paper I have , )

I do not want to be a part of such a society .

Stephen

I might even know the dude. Certainly the same story.

Look, Stephen, we dont' communicate well, so I'll keep it brief.

I know there's a need to help people who have crashed. There's a need to help people who genuinely can't quite manage to live in our society. On the other hand I see many who have far fewer impediments than me taking advantage of systems designed to do just that.

I don't know how to fix that but we can't afford for it to continue and still help those who genuinely need it.

I can pick propaganda at a thousand yards. Could in the sixties too. I make my assesments of my world from the individual examples of life I see around me. Anything else is via someone else's perceptual filter.

I'n not advocating the marginalisation of anyone, I just don't agree that a fair suck of the economic sav should extend so far as an extended vacation for quite so many as it currently does.

And I was already working here in the same NZ when you were growing up, so don't give me any shit about some lost social paradise because I neve saw it. Any "better" society we had then was driven mostly by an economic surplus we lost when blighty stopped buying our produce.

[oldrider]

Who will win the 2011 election? .... Bit of a fizzer! .... Not much change really!

Biggest change was obviously caused by dissenting Labour voters'!

They have either not voted or swung over to bring Winston Peters and NZ first back to parliament! :sick:

Otherwise they have artificially boosted Green party popularity and fiddled about among the Maori seats too!

When you take a good hard look at the results it has simply been an election for Labour voters to play silly buggers! :mellow:

Democracy in action? ..... Well sort of! :facepalm:

[SPman]

Who will win the 2011 election? .... Bit of a fizzer! .... Not much change really!

Biggest change was obviously caused by dissenting Labour voters'!

Democracy in action? ..... Well sort of! :facepalm:100,000 less voters than last time - lowest percentage since 1888 - not a good look. Following a trend of disatisfaction with all the parties? Also following a general world wide trend amongst "western" countries.

[Ocean1]

100,000 less voters than last time - lowest percentage since 1888 - not a good look. Following a trend of disatisfaction with all the parties? Also following a general world wide trend amongst "western" countries.

Have you looked to see how that compares against the other bastions of democracy?

NZ used to turn out quite well.

[mashman]

I note you see capability as non-correctable. I don’t necessarily agree, there. I see that we do agree on the importance of offering as many people as many opportunities for success as possible.

Should they be teaching financial "accumen" at school then? From basic book keeping, through staff management to how to play in the money markets or maximise earning potential... maybe throwing in legal tax evasion 101 for shit n giggles? If these things make people so rich and by default the country, why are they not teaching people these skills from an early age? Would rid the country of most of its individual failure? Are you taking into account that where an individual further up the ladder suffers a personal failure (or just lies through his/her fuckin teeth), that hundreds if not thousands of people are also affected? If so, what are the personal failures of those hundreds and thousands? (mmm that reminds me it's time for ice cream).



I know there's a need to help people who have crashed. There's a need to help people who genuinely can't quite manage to live in our society. On the other hand I see many who have far fewer impediments than me taking advantage of systems designed to do just that.

So what's the ratio? 6% of the population unemployed... how many of those are there by choice? Even if it's the whole 6%, you've now accounted for 7% of the population. What about the other 93%? What percentage of that 93% need assistance? Baring in mind that Winston posted some figures (SoFIE) that showed that 10% of the country's wealth is "available" to 50% of the population. How many need assistance, and why do you think that is? 6% of that 50% are probably the unemployed, so that would leave 44% of the population kickin their arses in for exceptionally shit money (if they work harder and get a better paying job, then the person that they have replaced will likely end up in their successors position, or someone in that food chain). They'll quite possibly be doing more hours a day than I do, yet their contribution isn't rated in $$$ terms... and $$$ is what it's all about, because that's what is lent by the govt to help people get by. They wouldn't need to claim if they were paid betterer for their 8+ hours. Uber sucky in my book. Surely a contribution to society is a contribution to society? Why are these people financially penalised, even though they are contributing to society? ... and to that end I understand why there are those who choose not to work, and probably commit crimes to top up their bank balance in conjunction with the lawful benefits and entitlements on offer from the govt. I fail to see how the merrygoround that leaves 50% of the population scrabbling for 10% of its wealth is the primary failure of 44% of those individuals. As for the rest of us, we get aid what we get paid by the 1%... and some still manage to fiddle with their taxes in order to receive assistance from the govt. Prudent financial management that has a knock on effect to hundreds iof not thousands of the population. I don't buy personal failure as the primary factor.

[Ocean1]

Should they be teaching financial "accumen" at school then? They do. Did you miss that? From basic book keeping, through staff management to how to play in the money markets or maximise earning potential... maybe throwing in legal tax evasion 101 for shit n giggles? Tax evasion isn't legal. Did you even go to school? If these things make people so rich and by default the country, why are they not teaching people these skills from an early age? Would rid the country of most of its individual failure? Only if the individual took advantage of the opportunuty. Are you taking into account that where an individual further up the ladder suffers a personal failure (or just lies through his/her fuckin teeth), that hundreds if not thousands of people are also affected? If so, what are the personal failures of those hundreds and thousands? (mmm that reminds me it's time for ice cream).



So what's the ratio? 6% of the population unemployed... how many of those are there by choice? Even if it's the whole 6%, you've now accounted for 7% of the population. What about the other 93%? What percentage of that 93% need assistance? Baring in mind that Winston posted some figures (SoFIE) that showed that 10% of the country's wealth is "available" to 50% of the population. How many need assistance, and why do you think that is? 6% of that 50% are probably the unemployed, so that would leave 44% of the population kickin their arses in for exceptionally shit money (if they work harder and get a better paying job, then the person that they have replaced will likely end up in their successors position, or someone in that food chain). They'll quite possibly be doing more hours a day than I do, yet their contribution isn't rated in $$$ terms... and $$$ is what it's all about, because that's what is lent by the govt to help people get by. They wouldn't need to claim if they were paid betterer for their 8+ hours. Uber sucky in my book. Surely a contribution to society is a contribution to society? Why are these people financially penalised, even though they are contributing to society? ... and to that end I understand why there are those who choose not to work, and probably commit crimes to top up their bank balance in conjunction with the lawful benefits and entitlements on offer from the govt. I fail to see how the merrygoround that leaves 50% of the population scrabbling for 10% of its wealth is the primary failure of 44% of those individuals. As for the rest of us, we get aid what we get paid by the 1%... and some still manage to fiddle with their taxes in order to receive assistance from the govt. Prudent financial management that has a knock on effect to hundreds iof not thousands of the population. I don't buy personal failure as the primary factor.

Sorry, dude, the rest is drivel, and I failed to take advantage of that course at school. If you can translate I'll give it a go eh?

[Qkkid]

:yes:Just like to say
Congrats to a job well done by John Key :drinkup:

[SPman]

Dude, that’s so fraught with loaded buzzwords and tired old socialist bleating it doesn’t warrant a reply. Tired old socialist bleating......as opposed to tired old tory bleating.
The second banners like "socialist", "left", "right", "tory", etc, etc, etc are trotted out, any chance of reasonable discussion often vanishes behind a wall of pre-conceptions, assumptions, dogma, ideologies, etc.


However, I’m interested in your theory that the 1% are taking “it” from the rest. Can you demonstrate that “the rest” ever had “it” or even contributed to the making of “it” in the first place?........Business hammers on about increasing productivity - if only you increase productivity, the wages will rise and all will benefit. Crap!.
In the US, for example, productivity between 1979 -> 2008 increased by 80 percent, while the hourly wage of the median worker has only gone up by 10.1 percent. - in real terms, their wages effectively decreased, whilst those at the top had effective increases of 500%. Social and financial inequality is now as high as it was just before the depression. So, who got the extra "it", these workers contributed to the making thereof? Certainly wasn't "the rest" :mellow:

[rainman]

I never suggested individual choices were the only variable wrt economic success. It’s just the most significant. Opportunity is a factor, definitely, as are personal traits having little to do with productive ability. ...

I note you see capability as non-correctable. I don’t necessarily agree, there.

Ah I do so love to see someone trying to resile from a line of argument that's rapidly becoming untenable... :)

Interesting thesis, though. How would you set about proving (like, with science, not ideology) that individual choices are the most significant factor in well-being, for the aggregate poor in a given country? This is far from obvious to me, based on anecdotal evidence, and it's quite a big claim. Or is the argument something like "obvious, innit?"

Remember, I agree that individual endeavour can have an impact. I just think that there are bigger structural forces keeping the serfs in their place, and that these have been getting measurably worse over the last 30 years of bullshit mumbo-jumbo that passes for economic best practice these days. We are gradually returning to a sort of feudalism.

Some capability is non-correctable: disability, intelligence, some mental health, physical strength, entrepreneurial orientation, fundamental personality, good looks and charm... Some is correctable of course, drug addiction can sometimes be fixed in a health system, lack of (trainable) skills in an education system - both, I'll note, are places where transferring wealth from the public (wealthy) is the only way to make them work - the poor just can't afford to build these. However I'll gladly have my taxes pay for a world-class education system for all Kiwis, even those who can't directly afford it. It's an investment in the success of the country.

I'll even happily fund the philosophy and politics departments - god knows we could do with some smart thinkers to help us find some better ways to deal with the shit we're in for. Less keen on economics and other studies of fantasy and the occult, though, let's stick with the useful stuff for the while.


Tired old socialist bleating......as opposed to tired old tory bleating.
The second banners like "socialist", "left", "right", "tory", etc, etc, etc are trotted out, any chance of reasonable discussion often vanishes behind a wall of pre-conceptions, assumptions, dogma, ideologies, etc.

But, you see, Ocean1 is too busy being a crusty curmudgeon and loudly proclaiming that it's all their fault! It's Them, you see, those intrinsically lazy fuckers that are stealing his money and not taking and making opportunities to better themselves. He doesn't know how many there are of Them, and how many are decent people actually trying their damndest to better themselves, how many work multiple jobs for slave wages and can still barely make ends meet, how many have given up on trying to find a place in the economy, disheartened, and how many are actually really nasty lazy thieving fuckers. But if only they believed the mumbo jumbo too, then they could make opportunities and be as successful as he is.

Of course if this actually happened (sadly, it's very unlikely) he'd have to be proportionally more successful to continue to feel superior and curmudgeonly, and would either continue to bleat about the newly elevated poor (or feel bad that he had inadvertently joined them). There is no winning scenario for Mr Ocean1, you see, and certainly not one that involves the reduction of unjustifiable inequality and the actual elevation of the poor. He needs someone to look down on and exclude, someone to look up to and aspire to be just like; his world-view will collapse without these. Context is very important for Mr Ocean1, unlike for the poor, for whom context is irrelevant.

Ocean1, in fact, appears to have led a fortunate life free of much suffering the hands of others, or has passed through it without developing much empathy and compassion.

[mashman]

They do. Did you miss that?

Tax evasion isn't legal. Did you even go to school?

Only if the individual took advantage of the opportunuty.

Sorry, dude, the rest is drivel, and I failed to take advantage of that course at school. If you can translate I'll give it a go eh?


I must have. What schools? And what aspects of financial "accumen" do they teach?

:rofl: aha, and people lie... be useful to learn how to hang on to as much of your money as possible at school? I tried to stay away from school as much as possible without getting caught. Did quite well too, until 3 months from the end of the final year :innocent:.

I guess we'll never know if the individual will take that opportunity, unless of course we arm them with the tips and tricks from the best, yes? Is that sort of thing in place at schools?

As for the drivel. You say that individual failure is the primary reason for societies ills, and I disagree, to an extent. I'm not saying that that isn't part of it, but are you saying that 1 individual failure that affects 100 or 1000 other individuals, is actually an individual failure on the part of 100/1000 people also? The stats were kinda used to highlight that that couldn't be the case as societies ills are across the board and you've only accounted for 7% of the population thus far. Where 1% are sweet as and 6% are unemployed and by your definition are so because of, primarily, individual failures. That still leaves 93% of the population who are contributing and not individually failing, yet a portion (I'd guess half) are still subject to "something" that isn't individual failure, but brings out the "worst" in them. I call income distribution.

The balance of income distribution, according to SoFIE, is that 50% of the population receive 10% of the wealth. Which I guess leads to crime and leaning on the system to top up the bank balance... and that would highlight to me that income distribution is more of a cause for society's ills than individual failure, and that as a society, collectively, we are responsible for the "problems" of the people by deciding that we are worth more than them... irrespective of the fact that we all contribute the same numbers of hours. Which I find stoopid.

Thanks for the ice cream reminder. Any clearer?

[Brian d marge]

I might even know the dude. Certainly the same story.

Look, Stephen, we dont' communicate well, so I'll keep it brief.

I know there's a need to help people who have crashed. There's a need to help people who genuinely can't quite manage to live in our society. On the other hand I see many who have far fewer impediments than me taking advantage of systems designed to do just that.

I don't know how to fix that but we can't afford for it to continue and still help those who genuinely need it.

I can pick propaganda at a thousand yards. Could in the sixties too. I make my assesments of my world from the individual examples of life I see around me. Anything else is via someone else's perceptual filter.

I'n not advocating the marginalisation of anyone, I just don't agree that a fair suck of the economic sav should extend so far as an extended vacation for quite so many as it currently does.

And I was already working here in the same NZ when you were growing up, so don't give me any shit about some lost social paradise because I neve saw it. Any "better" society we had then was driven mostly by an economic surplus we lost when blighty stopped buying our produce.

If you were working when I was growing up in NZ , then you should be receiving a handout in the form a a pension ? well and truly . I congratulate you on your advanced age and the fact you are still riding a , nice bike ,

I do suggest though , you wear your specs when looking for propaganda , because, well you are well " in it , using it and maybe believing it " ( I might be as well , but I m trying hard not to , and change readily, when I get some new info that causes me to have a rethink , such as I have tonight ...new info on the economy makes me think I need to rethink, my views about government spending ,,, )

Off top of head the largest expenditure of say the "sav" let use the benefit one , is the "old people " pensions, the DPB and the unemployable , are less than a quarter but they seem to be demonised why is that ???

I understand how you feel , as you look around and perceive the world , and we base our views on , upbringing , education, etc , and if they are erroneous ,??? old engineering saying , garbage in garbage out

Stephen

[Ocean1]

Tired old socialist bleating......as opposed to tired old tory bleating.
The second banners like "socialist", "left", "right", "tory", etc, etc, etc are trotted out, any chance of reasonable discussion often vanishes behind a wall of pre-conceptions, assumptions, dogma, ideologies, etc.

He started it.



........Business hammers on about increasing productivity - if only you increase productivity, the wages will rise and all will benefit. Crap!.
In the US, for example, productivity between 1979 -> 2008 increased by 80 percent, while the hourly wage of the median worker has only gone up by 10.1 percent. - in real terms, their wages effectively decreased, whilst those at the top had effective increases of 500%. Social and financial inequality is now as high as it was just before the depression. So, who got the extra "it", these workers contributed to the making thereof? Certainly wasn't "the rest" :mellow:

I wouldn't expect "business" to have anything else to say aboiut productivity, would you? The fact is the US gave up it's manufacturing base years ago, sold it lock, stock and barrel to Asia in exchange for a 75% discount on imported consumer goods. So did we. Do you seriously think we could trade with countries with a labour rate a small fraction of ours and not have our wage rate decimated?

So if you don't, in fact own a cheap flat screen TV made in China or a phone made in Malaysia then thanks for supporting your own people. Otherwise I'm very much afraid you are one of those who did in fact get "it". Either way if you earn a wage then get used to the fact that you won't be earning ten times the hourly Indonesian rate.

[Ocean1]

Ah I do so love to see someone trying to resile from a line of argument that's rapidly becoming untenable... :)

Correcting your missaprehension of my statement is hardly a full blown retreat, dude.



There is no winning scenario for Mr Ocean1, you see, and certainly not one that involves the reduction of unjustifiable inequality and the actual elevation of the poor. He needs someone to look down on and exclude, someone to look up to and aspire to be just like; his world-view will collapse without these. Context is very important for Mr Ocean1, unlike for the poor, for whom context is irrelevant.

Ocean1, in fact, appears to have led a fortunate life free of much suffering the hands of others, or has passed through it without developing much empathy and compassion.

Nice story. Tell you what, you continue to believe it's someone else's fault that there's people less prosperous than they'd like and I'll continue to believe that success is mostly a function of my own behaviour, eh? Let me know if you need a hand.

[Brian d marge]

Tired old socialist bleating......as opposed to tired old tory bleating.
The second banners like "socialist", "left", "right", "tory", etc, etc, etc are trotted out, any chance of reasonable discussion often vanishes behind a wall of pre-conceptions, assumptions, dogma, ideologies, etc.

........Business hammers on about increasing productivity - if only you increase productivity, the wages will rise and all will benefit. Crap!.
In the US, for example, productivity between 1979 -> 2008 increased by 80 percent, while the hourly wage of the median worker has only gone up by 10.1 percent. - in real terms, their wages effectively decreased, whilst those at the top had effective increases of 500%. Social and financial inequality is now as high as it was just before the depression. So, who got the extra "it", these workers contributed to the making thereof? Certainly wasn't "the rest" :mellow:

Dont forget that globally a hell of a lot of people "suddenly " entered the workforce this also had the effect of driving down real wages... the fruits of that increased production were only eaten by a few ...

Stephen

[Ocean1]

I must have. What schools? And what aspects of financial "accumen" do they teach?

Dunno. But if the knowledge was important to my future plans I'd fucking soon find out.

:rofl: aha, and people lie... be useful to learn how to hang on to as much of your money as possible at school? I tried to stay away from school as much as possible without getting caught. Did quite well too, until 3 months from the end of the final year :innocent:.

I guess we'll never know if the individual will take that opportunity, unless of course we arm them with the tips and tricks from the best, yes? Is that sort of thing in place at schools?

As for the drivel. You say that individual failure is the primary reason for societies ills, No, I said individual failure was the primary cause of a lack of individual success. Maybe we do need better training, something that teaches kids what the conscquences of their choices are, eh? and I disagree, to an extent. I'm not saying that that isn't part of it, but are you saying that 1 individual failure that affects 100 or 1000 other individuals, is actually an individual failure on the part of 100/1000 people also? No. I assume you're taking a shot at business owners? If so and if they fuck up to the extent that people lose jobs then statistically it's likely their performance had something to do with it. Like any team activity, though it's usually not just one man's fault. The stats were kinda used to highlight that that couldn't be the case as societies ills are across the board and you've only accounted for 7% of the population thus far. Where 1% are sweet as and 6% are unemployed and by your definition are so because of, primarily, individual failures. That still leaves 93% of the population who are contributing and not individually failing, yet a portion (I'd guess half) are still subject to "something" that isn't individual failure, but brings out the "worst" in them. I call income distribution. Ypu've lost me. I don't accept that any significant part of that 93% have had the "worst" brung out in them.

The balance of income distribution, according to SoFIE, is that 50% of the population receive 10% of the wealth. Which I guess leads to crime and leaning on the system to top up the bank balance... and that would highlight to me that income distribution is more of a cause for society's ills than individual failure, and that as a society, collectively, we are responsible for the "problems" of the people by deciding that we are worth more than them... irrespective of the fact that we all contribute the same numbers of hours. Which I find stoopid.

Thanks for the ice cream reminder. Any clearer?

So you're firmly in the "from each according to his ability, to each according to hos needs camp?

Sorry, dude, not only do we not contribute the same number of hours but there's the little issue of the value of the contribution. Like it or not some people simply produce more than others.

I understand your (?) concern about senior exec's income, though, it's hard to see the value in some of those cases.

[Ocean1]

If you were working when I was growing up in NZ , then you should be receiving a handout in the form a a pension ? well and truly . I congratulate you on your advanced age and the fact you are still riding a , nice bike ,

Thank you. If it's any consolation; it hurts.

I do suggest though , you wear your specs when looking for propaganda , because, well you are well " in it , using it and maybe believing it " ( I might be as well , but I m trying hard not to , and change readily, when I get some new info that causes me to have a rethink , such as I have tonight ...new info on the economy makes me think I need to rethink, my views about government spending ,,, )

None of us believe we're influenced by bullshit. My old science teacher used to tell me "look first, then think". Looking at some collections of information it's not difficult to see that they've been assembled to prove a predetermined premis. I distrust all political stat's, and a lot of modern academic literature smells very similar.

Off top of head the largest expenditure of say the "sav" let use the benefit one , is the "old people " pensions, the DPB and the unemployable , are less than a quarter but they seem to be demonised why is that ???

Dude, the old would move the earth for the chance to be otherwise. They've also contributed to the purse from which they must live. Must, because for most any attempt to accumulate enough to save for a modest suficiency in their dotage has been made extremely difficult by taxes aimed at snaffled exactly such surplusses. I've done OK, but I'm appaled at the level of income required to cater for ones own retirement. I'm one of Mashmate's 96%, see.

I understand how you feel , as you look around and perceive the world , and we base our views on , upbringing , education, etc , and if they are erroneous ,??? old engineering saying , garbage in garbage out

Stephen

Yup, early learning in particular. However I've been "educated" frequently, and I never listened to my mother at the best of times...

[mashman]

Dunno. But if the knowledge was important to my future plans I'd fucking soon find out.
I guess it's pretty important for the prosperity of the country if the hype is to be believed (which I don't). Wonder why they don't teach it at school... now there's a thread mwuhahahahahaaaa

No. I assume you're taking a shot at business owners? If so and if they fuck up to the extent that people lose jobs then statistically it's likely their performance had something to do with it. Like any team activity, though it's usually not just one man's fault.
Not really no, just trying to grasp individual failure in a multi person "failure context" (where my understanding of you individual failure was wrong)... Of course it's one mans fault. There is a leader, ok there may well be a board, but there is still a leader who supposedly has the business smarts to ensure the survival of that business. That's why they pay themselves the big bucks... after all they contribute more, and as such shouldn't be projecting their failure on their team.


So you're firmly in the "from each according to his ability, to each according to hos needs camp?

To a certain degree yes... where I'd like to see the right person in the right job and not just talkin a good game, and everyone having access to what's available irrespective of perceived effort.

Sorry, dude, not only do we not contribute the same number of hours but there's the little issue of the value of the contribution. Like it or not some people simply produce more than others.
I agree, apart from the value part. The value part muddies the waters, where people position themselves to receive the greater rewards and aren't necessarily the best person for the job (I've met plenty). I don't see that as being useful, more so I'd say it was massively counter productive. I have no issue with anyone producing less work than me, or vice versa, it's the time that has been put in that matters imho. Everyone's effort is valuable, as you say, team effort. The value, both $$$ and ability rated, is the real culprit. You value my effort less than yours and I perceive that I do better work than you, what's the likely outcome? 2 non focussed people. Whilst I agree with you in terms of people not being equal and therefore not putting in equal amounts of perceived effort, I disagree that that should be highlighted in terms of reward.


I understand your (?) concern about senior exec's income, though, it's hard to see the value in some of those cases.

There's that value again. Get rid of the "value" perspective and we may be in with a shout of getting the country out of the hole it's in... amongst other things :whistle:


So are you referring to individual failure as not using every ounce of ones ability from the get go?

[mashman]

Dunno. But if the knowledge was important to my future plans I'd fucking soon find out.
I guess it's pretty important for the prosperity of the country if the hype is to be believed (which I don't). Wonder why they don't teach it at school... now there's a thread mwuhahahahahaaaa

No. I assume you're taking a shot at business owners? If so and if they fuck up to the extent that people lose jobs then statistically it's likely their performance had something to do with it. Like any team activity, though it's usually not just one man's fault.
Not really no, just trying to grasp individual failure in a multi person "failure context" (where my understanding of you individual failure was wrong)... Of course it's one mans fault. There is a leader, ok there may well be a board, but there is still a leader who supposedly has the business smarts to ensure the survival of that business. That's why they pay themselves the big bucks... after all they contribute more, and as such shouldn't be projecting their failure on their team.


So you're firmly in the "from each according to his ability, to each according to hos needs camp?
To a certain degree yes... where I'd like to see the right person in the right job and not just talkin a good game, and everyone having access to what's available irrespective of perceived effort.

Sorry, dude, not only do we not contribute the same number of hours but there's the little issue of the value of the contribution. Like it or not some people simply produce more than others.
I agree, apart from the value part. The value part muddies the waters, where people position themselves to receive the greater rewards and aren't necessarily the best person for the job (I've met plenty). I don't see that as being useful, more so I'd say it was massively counter productive. I have no issue with anyone producing less work than me, or vice versa, it's the time that has been put in that matters imho. Everyone's effort is valuable, as you say, team effort. The value, both $$$ and ability rated, is the real culprit. You value my effort less than yours and I perceive that I do better work than you, what's the likely outcome? 2 non focussed people. Whilst I agree with you in terms of people not being equal and therefore not putting in equal amounts of perceived effort, I disagree that that should be highlighted in terms of reward.


I understand your (?) concern about senior exec's income, though, it's hard to see the value in some of those cases.
There's that value again. Get rid of the "value" perspective and we may be in with a shout of getting the country out of the hole it's in... amongst other things :whistle:


So are you referring to individual failure as not using every ounce of ones ability from the get go?

[Ocean1]

I guess it's pretty important for the prosperity of the country if the hype is to be believed (which I don't). Wonder why they don't teach it at school... now there's a thread mwuhahahahahaaaa

They do, as I said. In fact if you're concerned about the nation's future prosperity you'd arsehole student loans altogether and offer genuinely free education leading to those careers that generate wealth.

Not really no, just trying to grasp individual failure in a multi person "failure context" (where my understanding of you individual failure was wrong)... Of course it's one mans fault. There is a leader, ok there may well be a board, but there is still a leader who supposedly has the business smarts to ensure the survival of that business. That's why they pay themselves the big bucks... after all they contribute more, and as such shouldn't be projecting their failure on their team.

But you don't agree that a leader should be paid more. So why should he shoulder more of the blame for any group failure? In fact if he's the owner of a business in trouble it's likely he's been taking much less from it than his employees for some time...


To a certain degree yes... where I'd like to see the right person in the right job and not just talkin a good game, and everyone having access to what's available irrespective of perceived effort.

I agree, apart from the value part. The value part muddies the waters, where people position themselves to receive the greater rewards and aren't necessarily the best person for the job (I've met plenty). I don't see that as being useful, more so I'd say it was massively counter productive. I have no issue with anyone producing less work than me, or vice versa, it's the time that has been put in that matters imho. Everyone's effort is valuable, as you say, team effort. The value, both $$$ and ability rated, is the real culprit. You value my effort less than yours and I perceive that I do better work than you, what's the likely outcome? 2 non focussed people. Whilst I agree with you in terms of people not being equal and therefore not putting in equal amounts of perceived effort, I disagree that that should be highlighted in terms of reward.


There's that value again. Get rid of the "value" perspective and we may be in with a shout of getting the country out of the hole it's in... amongst other things

Dude, that's as succinct a description of communism as I've ever heard. Now tell me why I should work hard, (or at all for that matter) if the extra effort isn't rewarded.




So are you referring to individual failure as not using every ounce of ones ability from the get go?

No. Ability has fuck all to do with success. Individual failure is like a system default, it's what happens when you don't select an alternative course and act to make it work.

[mashman]

They do, as I said. In fact if you're concerned about the nation's future prosperity you'd arsehole student loans altogether and offer genuinely free education leading to those careers that generate wealth.
I'd bin student loans in heartbeat... but across the board and not selectively.

But you don't agree that a leader should be paid more. So why should he shoulder more of the blame for any group failure? In fact if he's the owner of a business in trouble it's likely he's been taking much less from it than his employees for some time...
Because it's his/her job to make sure the venture doesn't fail. If he doesn't have a team, he doesn't have a job does he? Each person has his own area of expertise, and each person has their own responsibilities for the team. No one responsibility is more important than the other where any single point of failure can cause the whole thing to collapse. So I don't see why should the leader be paid more, after all, the only real difference is the skillset and all skill are required to make a venture "fly". I honestly feel for those who have to struggle to get and keep their businesses going, losing time with family and friends and putting everything they have on the line etc... I'm not as anti-business as some may think. I'd just prefer the adoption of a slightly different model :rofl:

Dude, that's as succinct a description of communism as I've ever heard. Now tell me why I should work hard, (or at all for that matter) if the extra effort isn't rewarded.
If you don't everyone "loses". You shouldn't have to work hard, not in the sense of long hours anyway, just work as well as you can, exactly the same way you probably do, potentially better/smarter. There's enough people in the country to produce everything we need, probably providing greater backup too, and probably leaving us with more time to use in anyway we'd prefer (come up with a theory of relativity perhaps, amongst other hobbies, we will still have hobbies). Do you not enjoy the reward of achievement? I have no doubt that there will be those who just won't work, and 1 potential incentive for working could be overseas "travel", but I'd venture that a decent education policy and a little brainwashing would instill a different set of values in the upcoming generation and for the better. I could be very wrong, but the benefits of a system where we do things because they need doing and not because they pay well (pregnancy for money, theft etc...) are probably more suited to this day and age than at any other point in history imho. We're supposed to be smarter, we're supposed to learn from our mistakes, we're supposed to be so many things, but currently it's all limited by budget and wether the person we're dealing with is being financially retrded in one way or another... I don't think that's unrealistic at all and I certainly wouldn't class it as communism, irrespective of the traits the two "ideals" may share.




No. Ability has fuck all to do with success. Individual failure is like a system default, it's what happens when you don't select an alternative course and act to make it work.

So you're in the "if you don't suck it you'll never see" camp? I see a wee smidge of irony in there.

[MisterD]

the fruits of that increased production were only eaten by a few ...


One could say "What's changed?" - go back and compare the income differential between a director of the East India Company and a sailor on one of their ships.

OTOH one of the fruits of that increased production has been to lift millions out of poverty in Asia...

[Brian d marge]

One could say "What's changed?" - go back and compare the income differential between a director of the East India Company and a sailor on one of their ships.

OTOH one of the fruits of that increased production has been to lift millions out of poverty in Asia...

Sort of the " black death " had a affect on the "Known " population at that time, but after WW2 probably around a 1/3 of the population suddenly appeared. Strangely, the king at the time 1350 ish in england actually sent round a note saying you shall work for no matter what you are offered ... because there simply wasn't enough manpower....
Also the computer and improved production methods

Stephen

[oldrider]

Also the computer and improved production methods Stephen
True!

Labour saving devices do just that ... save labour!

Getting the balance between freeing up time and using that time to create further labour saving devices and more free time to enjoy by improving our standard of living gets lost on those that are commissioned to manage those outcomes!

We can now send people and science projects deep out into space but we are still not able (or willing) to produce a financial system that compliments that and every day living!

The whole world is still dependent on a proven failed system of social compounding debt!

The simple antidote for social debt is Social credit!

Vested interest parties (the 1%r's?) just keep telling us that it wont work and foolishly, we (the 99%) keep believing them!

Never mind we can always protest against the 1% by camping out in the centre of the city .... that will do it every time! Tui moments again! :brick:

[rainman]

Nice story. Tell you what, you continue to believe it's someone else's fault that there's people less prosperous than they'd like and I'll continue to believe that success is mostly a function of my own behaviour, eh? Let me know if you need a hand.

But I don't hold that view - now, isn't that inconvenient?

Sad that you're not interested in proving or challenging your assertion, though, and that you prefer to retreat to belief. I'm sure you have many weaknesses (don't we all?) but I hadn't thought blatant irrationality was one of them.


EDIT: Just seen this from higher up.Sad indeed.

Looking at some collections of information it's not difficult to see that they've been assembled to prove a predetermined premis. I distrust all political stat's, and a lot of modern academic literature smells very similar.

[MisterD]

Strangely, the king at the time 1350 ish in england actually sent round a note saying you shall work for no matter what you are offered ... because there simply wasn't enough manpower....


It's pretty well documented that England's legal system, which was independent of the king, and applied more-or-less equally to everyone, allowed a competitive labour market to arise following the black death. Former serfs were able to rent and then buy land...the origins of capitalism.

[oldrider]

Labour suffered it's worst defeat ever and here's TV 1 treating them like they had just won the damn thing .... biased lefty bastards! :sick:

[Brian d marge]

It's pretty well documented that England's legal system, which was independent of the king, and applied more-or-less equally to everyone, allowed a competitive labour market to arise following the black death. Former serfs were able to rent and then buy land...the origins of capitalism.

Somethings amiss there somewhere , not sure what ...

Stephen

[Robert Taylor]

Labour suffered it's worst defeat ever and here's TV 1 treating them like they had just won the damn thing .... biased lefty bastards! :sick:

Yep, and what about finding the rest of the Green party activists that assisted that dropkick in defacing over 700 National party billboards? Criminals. Apparently a couple of good tories having a cup of tea is more newsworthy. The silly thing is this probably took a lot of votes off their mates in the Labour party and resurrected Winston from the dead. All things considered I am glad that in the face of left wing skullduggery Banksie won the seat. As in another way I am not so unhappy that Damien Oconnor got his seat back and reduced in percentage terms the faggots in the Labour party., there is hope for a world devoid of PC nonsense yet.
The news media is full of left wingers.

[SPman]

Labour suffered it's worst defeat ever and here's TV 1 treating them like they had just won the damn thing .... biased lefty bastards! :sick:I quite like this comment from I/S
As for Labour, two months of solid left-wing policy couldn't make up for three years of doing nothing in opposition. And thanks to a list focused on protecting long-serving incumbent hacks, they've thrown the future of the party overboard, sacrificing people like Carmel Sepuloni, Stuart Nash and Brendan Burns in order to retain such stellar performers as Sue Moroney, Maryan Street and Rajen Prasad. Heckuva job, guys. You've got no-one but yourselves to blame for this one. Not that that will stop you.
As can be seen, the tide is against the left at the moment, primarily because of the failure of the Labour Party. Assuming they get around 50,000 specials, they will have lost 200,000 votes since the last election. 50,000 of them have gone to the Greens, and 50,000 to NZFirst. As for the rest, they stayed home, unwilling to turn out for a Labour Party so uninspiring. Labour will blame them, of course, and make a lot of noise about "apathy" and evil polls, but that's just excuse-making. If parties want our votes, the onus is on them to make us care enough to spend ten minutes to tick a box. Labour didn't do that. And their desire to blame us rather than accept responsibility for their own failure is a big part of the reason why.

[Robert Taylor]

I quite like this comment from I/S

Quite so, and in keeping with a philosophy that despises self responsibility

[Winston001]

Quite so, and in keeping with a philosophy that despises self responsibility

It is possible that may be turning. Heard David Parker this morning saying Labour needed to recognise the nation had changed and their voters included mums and dads running corner shops, plumbers etc. He implied that the traditional "cloth cap" Labour voter really didn't exist any more and I think that is true.

Who knows? I remember wondering if National were burned out as a party after the devastating 2002 election loss. Labour could easily bounce back.

I do feel sorry for Phil Goff and am contemptuous of his colleagues trampling over his carcase in unseemly haste.

[rainman]

Labour suffered it's worst defeat ever and here's TV 1 treating them like they had just won the damn thing .... biased lefty bastards! :sick:


The news media is full of left wingers.

Clearly you lot must live in a different country to the one I do. There's very little real left wing influence in the media at the best of times, and over the last three years they've all been fawning all over Key at every opportunity anyway.

Any temporary positive attention they give Labour at the moment is a combination of payback for the teapot tapes thing (police raids on the press are not cool), and the fact that Labour are newsworthy at the moment because of the leadership battle. I'm sure the usual poor journalism will return presently.

[oldrider]

Funny thing about Labour is the Forest Gump make up of it's membership, it's like a box of chocolates, you never know what you are going to get!

Labour rabbit on about their wonderful (and he was) initial parliamentary leader and Prime minister "Michael Savage" who was, according to my reading about him, a "Social Creditor" monetary reformist back in the days before Social Credit ever became a political party!

Apparently there has always been a core 10% of monetary reformists in the electorate and a group of about 5 were in the original Labour caucus and Labour courted them for the much needed 10% to strengthen their vote!

Once again (according to what my father told me) Labour wasn't so much voted into power as the incumbents were voted out!

Again according to my father (a Labour voter) things were so bad that the electorate would have voted for a strainer post if one had stood against the incumbents, the people were desperate!

In my own experience and I can consciously remember Peter Fraser, who took over when Savage died in office, the Labour party has never really delivered on anything that it has stood for and has been getting less and less of a working man's party ever since the end of WW2!

Personally, my experiences of Labour governments are that anyone that votes for them is due for disappointment when they are elected because they always turn out to be something other than what they promised!

"National, Labour and the media" are in my opinion a coalition by default .... as long as they are the power groups everything will always just be more of the same!

The minor parties are just given enough encouragement to keep the discontents, protesters and free thinkers at bay! (I consider myself to be part of this group)

Are we controlled by intent? IMHO, yes we are! :yes:

[oneofsix]

...
"National, Labour and the media" are in my opinion a coalition by default .... as long as they are the power groups everything will always just be more of the same!

The minor parties are just given enough encouragement to keep the discontents, protesters and free thinkers at bay! (I consider myself to be part of this group)

Are we controlled be intent? IMHO, yes we are! :yes:

I hate agreeing with people so why make me do it.
Labour didn't really fight this election. The failing leader usually pretends they wanted the party leadership and to win the election at least until the new year.
The losing party, Labour or National never really fight the next election lately, they seem to have an agreement to give the replacements a 6 year minimum.
The media also play this game, they have held back at stabbing at National for the last 3 years preferring instead to pick on Labour but there are now some signs this is changing. Nationals big win wont be doing them any favours with the media as the media like to feel they have control.
When John loses he will be rolled and the next leader will be a caretaker until after the following election.
Who's really in control? $$$ and that is why the party oldrider supported will always be a minor party because its policies would change the way money is controlled.

[oldrider]

I hate agreeing with people so why make me do it.
Labour didn't really fight this election. The failing leader usually pretends they wanted the party leadership and to win the election at least until the new year.
The losing party, Labour or National never really fight the next election lately, they seem to have an agreement to give the replacements a 6 year minimum.
The media also play this game, they have held back at stabbing at National for the last 3 years preferring instead to pick on Labour but there are now some signs this is changing. Nationals big win wont be doing them any favours with the media as the media like to feel they have control.
When John loses he will be rolled and the next leader will be a caretaker until after the following election.
Who's really in control? $$$ and that is why the party oldrider supported will always be a minor party because its policies would change the way money is controlled.

True but actually it would only change the way that "new money" is created (intrest free) and cancelled. (once it has done it's work)

The banking industry does a good enough job of "controlling money", they just should not have the God given right to create and cancel "New" and "old" money!

Currently new money is created as an intrest bearing debt ... is never cancelled and neither is the debt, creating and continuing a cycle of wars booms and busts to do the job that could be done simply by employing a "Social Credit" system and government authority! (The reserve bank!)

Social debt is the lifeblood of the 1% that the 99% are protesting about, I wonder how many of the protesters voted for Democrats for Social Credit?

Or even if they know the difference! :brick:

[mashman]

True but actually it would only change the way that "new money" is created (intrest free) and cancelled. (once it has done it's work)

The banking industry does a good enough job of "controlling money", they just should not have the God given right to create and cancel "New" and "old" money!

Currently new money is created as an intrest bearing debt ... is never cancelled and neither is the debt, creating and continuing a cycle of wars booms and busts to do the job that could be done simply by employing a "Social Credit" system and government authority! (The reserve bank!)

Social debt is the lifeblood of the 1% that the 99% are protesting about, I wonder how many of the protesters voted for Democrats for Social Credit?

Or even if they know the difference! :brick:

The problem I have, identifying with (not representative of) the 99%, is that Social Credit is just another way of trying to manage money. Financial reward is still employed as a mechanism for keeping people working, well for those who work well (extra credit)... but someone has to define who has worked well and certain jobs will pay more than others, which in turn still leads to there being a 1%. I fail to see how, where money is involved, you don't get a 1%. Perhaps you can fill in my blanks?

They're pretty damn near the top of my list, but for me they just don't go far enough. We know money isn't the answer... or at least I do :shifty:

[SPman]

Clearly you lot must live in a different country to the one I do. There's very little real left wing influence in the media at the best of times, and over the last three years they've all been fawning all over Key at every opportunity anyway.
But that's so often the way - those of a right leaning, authoritarian belief are very sensitive to the least amount of criticism - indeed, so unused to real, incisive, left leaning comment, that anything taken even a little left of their beliefs, is immediately decried as "lefty bastard media", when, in truth it is usually merely less right wing or centrist. There is very little critical MSM around the world - they all seem to bark to the tune of authority. Any real researched, investigative, incisive crtique is usually downplayed, marginalised or attacked as utter rubbish!
The labour party in NZ (and Australia, especially in Britain), is not a left wing party - only in comparison to Nats, ACT, etc. Even the old style Republican party in the US was more "left wing" in many of it's policies than current ideas. Mana, is an older style left wing party and they are equated to rabid dogs by the media, and many on here - yet a lot of what they say would be very familiar to old time Labour men.

Some of my favourite Jefferson quotes...

Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.

How can statements 200 years old be relevant? Because human nature being what it is, there will always be those who desire power and control over everyone else and there will always be those who will assist - actively or by acquiescence. And no, I'm not talking about people who desire to earn themselves a comfortable living through their hard work - become "rich", even. That seems to be a convenient diversion by those who haven't really thought things through. The corruption that inevitably ensues when people use their "wealth", to buy more wealth through "influencing" the objectives of an elected government away from "what's good for the community they represent", to, "what's good for the business or the pocket of the wealthy doing the influencing and the wealth and power of those meant to be in charge", is where it all starts to get nasty.

Hopefully, there will also always be those who tell them to get fucked!

[Robert Taylor]

Clearly you lot must live in a different country to the one I do. There's very little real left wing influence in the media at the best of times, and over the last three years they've all been fawning all over Key at every opportunity anyway.

Any temporary positive attention they give Labour at the moment is a combination of payback for the teapot tapes thing (police raids on the press are not cool), and the fact that Labour are newsworthy at the moment because of the leadership battle. I'm sure the usual poor journalism will return presently.

So why didnt the news media pursue the co-ordinated defacing of over 700 National party billboards? Of course none of those who did so had any association with the Green party or left wing sympathies. I bet I also know what the politics are of the cameraman who deliberately placed that tape recorder on the table.

Our local paper ( Taranaki Daily News ) clearly has a leftwards slant. Anyway, there are 3 countries in NZ, Auckland, Invercargill and the rest of the country.

[shrub]

Clearly you lot must live in a different country to the one I do. There's very little real left wing influence in the media at the best of times, and over the last three years they've all been fawning all over Key at every opportunity anyway.

Any temporary positive attention they give Labour at the moment is a combination of payback for the teapot tapes thing (police raids on the press are not cool), and the fact that Labour are newsworthy at the moment because of the leadership battle. I'm sure the usual poor journalism will return presently.

The right have always squealed about the evil left wing media, and probably always will. One reason they do this is because many of the new-right ideologies are so deeply flawed, and anyone who actually looks at them objectively is going to criticise them. Rather than respond to those criticisms with robust arguments they throw their toys out of the cot and whine "it's not fair, the media are all lefties".

A few years ago I did a media studies degree at Canterbury, and that involved spending a lot of time studying the media and how they operate, so I probably know more about the subject than most people here. What they probably haven't stopped to consider is that the media are overwhelmingly owned by the right (big business) and more significantly, depend on the business sector for advertising revenue, so it would be illogical and stupid to piss off the guys paying your wages by demonstrating bias. Only problem is, logic is not something the right pay much attention to. Hell, if they did they might find some of their most dearly held beliefs just don't work.

I find it mildly amusing that even though I challenge the arguments of most of the right whingers on this site, very few of them ever challenge me back or even attempt to counter my arguments. I sometimes wonder why because I make an effort to be polite and reasonable.

[shrub]

So why didnt the news media pursue the co-ordinated defacing of over 700 National party billboards? Of course none of those who did so had any association with the Green party or left wing sympathies.

Because the people who did it admitted it and the Green party had nothing to do with it. Look at the entire campaign of the Greens, and they played by the rules and didn't engage in slagging matches. They had a lot of success with that strategy because people believed them, so why on earth would they knowingly be part of something that was in direct contradiction with everything else they were doing, would gain few if any votes and was likely to sink the party? It's just illogical.


I bet I also know what the politics are of the cameraman who deliberately placed that tape recorder on the table.

OK, what are they? You say you know, and knowing implies a high degree of certainty that you would probably only have if you were personally acquainted with said cameraman, or at the least people who know him well. Or is your "knowledge" based on the fact that you don't like what he did? Or that all journalists are lefties?


Our local paper ( Taranaki Daily News ) clearly has a leftwards slant.

Oh? How do you know? Do you know the editorial policies of the paper? Do you know who owns the paper? Have you conducted any content analysis? Or do you simply believe that because sometimes they say things you don't agree with?

yes, quite.

[Robert Taylor]

Because the people who did it admitted it and the Green party had nothing to do with it. Look at the entire campaign of the Greens, and they played by the rules and didn't engage in slagging matches. They had a lot of success with that strategy because people believed them, so why on earth would they knowingly be part of something that was in direct contradiction with everything else they were doing, would gain few if any votes and was likely to sink the party? It's just illogical.



OK, what are they? You say you know, and knowing implies a high degree of certainty that you would probably only have if you were personally acquainted with said cameraman, or at the least people who know him well. Or is your "knowledge" based on the fact that you don't like what he did? Or that all journalists are lefties?



Oh? How do you know? Do you know the editorial policies of the paper? Do you know who owns the paper? Have you conducted any content analysis? Or do you simply believe that because sometimes they say things you don't agree with?

yes, quite.

How many people were involved in the clearly co-ordinated defacing of 700 National party billboards? How many owned up? How many were Green party activists? I suspect quite a few.

If that cameraman had any sincerity in his claim that it was a ''mistake to leave it on that table'' AND TURNED ON he would have erased the recording as a courtesy. By seeking court action he was clearly agin the National Party and the new MP for Epsom.

In socialist households left sympathetic newspapers would appear to be very agreeable, If you saw how our Taranaki Daily News sucked up to Andrew Little it was sickening. Didnt do him much good though in terms of candidate vote where he took a huge pasting, thankfully. He is now though an unelected list MP because of the stupid electoral system we have.

It doesnt take a rocket scienctist to get a feel for the frequency of socialist rant. Now that they are so wounded BECAUSE THEY DIDNT WIN I expect the noise will be greater

[shrub]

How many people were involved in the clearly co-ordinated defacing of 700 National party billboards? How many owned up? How many were Green party activists? I suspect quite a few.

You suspect - what evidence do you base that suspicion on?


If that cameraman had any sincerity in his claim that it was a ''mistake to leave it on that table'' AND TURNED ON he would have erased the recording as a courtesy. By seeking court action he was clearly agin the National Party and the new MP for Epsom.

he probably listened to it and heard something that was highly contentious. As a member of the media his job is to put the spotlight on politicians, so he was doing his job. You would have loved it if it had been Phil Goff and Russel Norman being taped, only I doubt they are stupid enough to say anything dodgy in a setting like that.


In socialist households left sympathetic newspapers would appear to be very agreeable, If you saw how our Taranaki Daily News sucked up to Andrew Little it was sickening. Didnt do him much good though in terms of candidate vote where he took a huge pasting, thankfully. He is now though an unelected list MP because of the stupid electoral system we have.

So you didn't like them saying nice things about someone you don't like. That would make them an organ of communist propaganda.


It doesnt take a rocket scienctist to get a feel for the frequency of socialist rant. Now that they are so wounded BECAUSE THEY DIDNT WIN I expect the noise will be greater

What determines text being socialist? The fact you disagree with it? Or do they use terms like proletariat and call people comrade?

[oldrider]

OK shrub you and Goff gave it your best shot, can respect that but all you got out of it was a massive fail and rejection from your own voters! :Oops:

Learn to live with it and move on! ..... maybe vote Green - the new red! :drinknsin

[Brian d marge]

Have they sold the forests , yet ? sorry been bust , and its at least a week into the new government

Stephen

oh just heard the Moaris will buy them ...all good then

[Winston001]

You suspect (Green Party involvement in poster defacing) - what evidence do you base that suspicion on?

I don't think protestations of innocence by the Green Party serve much point. The stickers required planning, printing, money, and people so they could be used. Green members and sympathisers carried it out.

TBH I don't think it was a big deal - wrong but not savage or nasty like some defacing can be.

The hypocrisy arises in the context of the Exclusive Brethren support of the 2005 National campaign. Apparently that was a terrible wrong...but Green supporters are ok...??






he probably listened to it and heard something that was highly contentious. As a member of the media his job is to put the spotlight on politicians, so he was doing his job. You would have loved it if it had been Phil Goff and Russel Norman being taped, only I doubt they are stupid enough to say anything dodgy in a setting like that.

I know you mean well but this is the slippery slope of "the means justify the ends". Secretly recording anyone without their consent is illegal. Ok, accidents happen etc and no real problem arises if the recording is deleted.

However to publish the illegal recording to a third party is a second and much more serious breach of the law. Its legally morally and ethically wrong. I really cannot understand how any journalist or cameraman can believe otherwise.




So you didn't like them saying nice things about someone you don't like. That would make them an organ of communist propaganda.




I happen to agree with Robert that our media has a leftish bias but I don't think it is sinister or overt. And the bias is slight. IMHO it arises because rightwing issues make for dry reporting. Leftwing issues by contrast often involve human stories of deprivation and unfairness. They readily fit the "if it bleeds, it leads" ethos ergo we get more emotive news than factual information.

[shrub]

I don't think protestations of innocence by the Green Party serve much point. The stickers required planning, printing, money, and people so they could be used. Green members and sympathisers carried it out.

I have spoken to a Green MP and the party were completely unaware of it because the people who were doing it knew that if the party found out they would do their best to stop it because it would have been a strategically stupid act and no matter what you think of their policies, the Greens are a very smart bunch and had a carefully planned campaign. Some of the perpetrators were Green party members and sympathisers, but apparently most were Mana and Labour supporters, and as you might remember the Greens outed the main organiser and suspended a valuable and skilled member of Russell's team right when she was needed the most because she knew about it and hadn't told Russell.

I think blaming the Greens is clutching at straws.


The hypocrisy arises in the context of the Exclusive Brethren support of the 2005 National campaign. Apparently that was a terrible wrong...but Green supporters are ok...??

The big difference there was the Brethren leaflet was done with the knowledge and support of Don Brash, yet when challenged he denied all knowledge.



I happen to agree with Robert that our media has a leftish bias but I don't think it is sinister or overt. And the bias is slight. IMHO it arises because rightwing issues make for dry reporting. Leftwing issues by contrast often involve human stories of deprivation and unfairness. They readily fit the "if it bleeds, it leads" ethos ergo we get more emotive news than factual information.

I disagree with you there. While many journos are left leaning, the editorial control excercised by all major media outlets strives to be as neutral as possible. There has been quite a lot of content analysis done on political reporting in NZ, and every report I have read has found that any bias is slightly to the right in a conscious attempt to balance any unintentional bias demonstrated by the journos. There is a perception with the right that it is left biased, but much of that is crying "it's not fair" when they get challenged instead of countering the challenge, and some comes from the issue you point out. A lot of the bad news we get is a direct result of right wing policies, so even a completely unbiased report looks like a criticism of right wing policies.

It's very hard to describe a pig accurately and make it sound like a fish.

[Winston001]

I have spoken to a Green MP and the party were completely unaware of it ..... and as you might remember the Greens outed the main organiser and suspended a valuable and skilled member of Russell's team right when she was needed the most because she knew about it and hadn't told Russell.

I think blaming the Greens is clutching at straws.

No worries. I appreciate the official Green Party did not approve and organise the poster stickers. But you know, that's beside the point. Nobody thinks the stickers were paid for and applied by anyone other than Green people. The guy who owned up was a Party member. His significant other was a high placed Green employee - and she knew about it.

There really isn't anything more to know. I'm not even particularly bothered about it. I simply think trying to construct a Chinese Wall between the Green Party and its members - as if they were separate and different - is unbelievable in the political arena. Legally correct yes - morally, ethically....no.

Whatever, I'm impressed by Russell Norman anyway.




A lot of the bad news we get is a direct result of right wing policies, so even a completely unbiased report looks like a criticism of right wing policies.

It's very hard to describe a pig accurately and make it sound like a fish.

Nice analogy but lets do a test:


A pig is a large fatty omnivore with particularly smelly faeces which enjoys rolling in mud.

A pig is a highly intelligent mammal which fiercely protects its offspring and is capable of fighting off wolves.


Both are correct statements but convey quite different images. The power of language available to the media colours our thinking even as we strive to be objective.

For example, property tycoon and magnate Sir Bob Jones....(many will have a visceral sneering response at this point) is self-made, has a huge library which he actively reads, supports NZ ballet and Womens Refuge, and tried to expell the Fijian Embassy from his building after the 1987 coup. But how many people know the last bit? Journalists never get past the first part. That induces bias in the rest of us.

[oldrider]

The big difference there was the Brethren leaflet was done with the knowledge and support of Don Brash, yet when challenged he denied all knowledge.

Correct, an intelligent academic whiz kid but poor old Brash is the consummate loser when it comes to street smart and common sense!

ACT has lost it's way completely now with Banks pretending to be the leader, he was the final nail in the coffin, what a sick joke! :sick:

[shrub]

No worries. I appreciate the official Green Party did not approve and organise the poster stickers. But you know, that's beside the point. Nobody thinks the stickers were paid for and applied by anyone other than Green people. The guy who owned up was a Party member. His significant other was a high placed Green employee - and she knew about it.... I simply think trying to construct a Chinese Wall between the Green Party and its members - as if they were separate and different - is unbelievable in the political arena. Legally correct yes - morally, ethically....no.

I know one of the people who did it, and he used to be a Green member but is now Mana because he sees the Greens as having sold out. He proudly calls himself an activist, and is the kind of guy who chains himself to railway lines, lies down in front of bulldozers etc, and he reckons the Greens have lost most of the activists to the Mana party, so you'd probably find that more of the perpetrators were either Mana or in the process of leaving the Greens. And they were the ones who paid for it.






Nice analogy but lets do a test:


A pig is a large fatty omnivore.... and is capable of fighting off wolves.


Both are correct statements but convey quite different images. The power of language available to the media colours our thinking even as we strive to be objective.

For example, property tycoon and magnate Sir Bob Jones....(many will have a visceral sneering response at this point) is self-made, has a huge library which he actively reads, supports NZ ballet and Womens Refuge, and tried to expell the Fijian Embassy from his building after the 1987 coup. But how many people know the last bit? Journalists never get past the first part. That induces bias in the rest of us

Let me offer a couple of more relevant examples:

John Key grew up in a state house with a solo mother.
John Key grew up in a warm, well built house in one of Christchurch's more sought after suburbs and his mother was a widow on the widow's benefit. BTW, you have seen where I live - nice area, mostly big 2 story architecturally designed houses - we looked at Burnside where John grew up and it was well out of our price bracket.

John Key is a successful businessman who understands the needs of New Zealand business owners.
John Key made his money while he was living and working in Singapore for Merrill Lynch. He was on a base salary of around USD $250k with bonuses and shares bringing it up into the millions - he purchased as many shares as he could trading cash bonuses for more shares. He made most of his money because his Merrill shares skyrocketed in value, just like all the other Wall Street banks.

I could go on, but New Zealanders have been fed a very carefully constructed John Key with his minders on the 9th floor keeping a very close eye on what he says and who he says it to. For instance, he is kept away from interviews with the National programme because it is pretty well agreed that he would inevitably be asked something he couldn't answer in the way his minders want. The majority of the media report what they're told to report which is why all we see is the official John Key brand.

[short-circuit]

For instance, he is kept away from interviews with the National programme because it is pretty well agreed that he would inevitably be asked something he couldn't answer in the way his minders want. The majority of the media report what they're told to report which is why all we see is the official John Key brand.

This despite the fact that RNZ is now run by former National PR man Richard Griffin:

http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/richard-griffin-chair-radio-nz-board-ne-90806 and some critique http://blog.labour.org.nz/tag/richard-griffin/

Oh well - maybe sell that one off too.

[short-circuit]

RNZ will no doubt go the way of the Listener which used to be a genuine alternative to the business driven shite fed to us through all the major broadcasters in NZ and the Harold.

National also have two great stooges in Duncan Garner and Guyon Espiner respectively. Not really a surprise though is it when you prop up the likes of Canwest financially behind the scenes

[Oscar]

Let me offer a couple of more relevant examples:

John Key grew up in a state house with a solo mother.
John Key grew up in a warm, well built house in one of Christchurch's more sought after suburbs and his mother was a widow on the widow's benefit. BTW, you have seen where I live - nice area, mostly big 2 story architecturally designed houses - we looked at Burnside where John grew up and it was well out of our price bracket.

John Key is a successful businessman who understands the needs of New Zealand business owners.
John Key made his money while he was living and working in Singapore for Merrill Lynch. He was on a base salary of around USD $250k with bonuses and shares bringing it up into the millions - he purchased as many shares as he could trading cash bonuses for more shares. He made most of his money because his Merrill shares skyrocketed in value, just like all the other Wall Street banks.

I could go on, but New Zealanders have been fed a very carefully constructed John Key with his minders on the 9th floor keeping a very close eye on what he says and who he says it to. For instance, he is kept away from interviews with the National programme because it is pretty well agreed that he would inevitably be asked something he couldn't answer in the way his minders want. The majority of the media report what they're told to report which is why all we see is the official John Key brand.

I'm not sure what you're saying here - he was brought up in a state house, but it was a nice one?
Most state houses of that era were well built, large and warm (very similar to the dairy company house that I was brought up in). The fact that the house is now in a sought after area is completely irrelevant, at the time, a state house was a state house. I'm sure that a single parent family at that time would have had a reasonably hard time of it.

Also, what are you trying to say about his sucess as a share trader? The fact that he was good at that job in that era really means nothing other than as an indication of his acumen and intelligence. It's not as if he was a slavetrader or drug dealer, and I can only imagine what his detractors on the left would be saying if he failed at it.

As for National Radio, I can understand why a politician of any stripe would stay away from Kim Hill and her ilk. National Radio may be public funded, but it is rarely anything but left leaning.

Finally, your comment about the media being told to write stuff is just silly. Have you not seen any of the reportage on the "Cup of Tea"? What about the coverage given to Winston Peters' rantings on the subject? It cetainly cost the Nats votes and if the PM does have an all powerful media guru, I'd sack 'em.

[shrub]

I'm not sure what you're saying here....

I was responding to something Winston said about how one way of identifying media bias is in the language used to describe a situation, and I used John Key growing up in a state house with a solo mum as an example. Factually correct, although when he grew up the term solo mum was not in common usage and living in a state house was very common and as you pointed out, state houses were pretty bloody good compared to a lot of houses people lived in. The point I was making was that the media have reported that ad infinitum, and it has been a major part of creating Brand Key as an ordinary man with the common touch who rose from the gutter to greatness. Today a solo mum has a significantly lower income than John's loving mother, and state houses are where the really disadvantaged and poor live, so the language has created a distorted picture.

And what is so important about that anyway? DOes anyone know where Phil Goff grew up? Or anything about his childhood?

[Brian d marge]

Sold the schools yet???

its been nearly a week ....

Stephen

[oldrider]

So why can not National call on the services of Labour members for specific support and assistance to govern under MMP?

Where is it written or decreed that this can not happen ... if cooperation and "real" interest in the country is at stake?

More people voted for Labour than any of these piddling little minor parties who end up holding posts way above their public support & standing!

If MMP is supposed to be so much about cooperation and compromise ... let it happen amongst the major parties instead!

That is what the voters have said, these are the people we most want to govern and lead us so lets get cracking and start putting the country first for a change! :violin:

[short-circuit]

So why can not National call on the services of Labour members for specific support and assistance to govern under MMP?

Where is it written or decreed that this can not happen ... if cooperation and "real" interest in the country is at stake?

More people voted for Labour than any of these piddling little minor parties who end up holding posts way above their public support & standing!

If MMP is supposed to be so much about cooperation and compromise ... let it happen amongst the major parties instead!

That is what the voters have said, these are the people we most want to govern and lead us so lets get cracking and start putting the country first for a change! :violin:

According to you they are already in coalition so make up your fucking mind

[oldrider]

According to you they are already in coalition so make up your fucking mind

So you do read my posts, :lol:

Well I did say coalition by default so why don't they come out from under the covers and start doing what the electorate puts them there to do and use the best of all that's available!

We pay a lot of money to politicians and every party has some very capable people and if they are not inside the tent they are too expensive to waste pissing on the outside!

Key has at least looked a bit further out than any other prime minister since the advent of MMP came into being!

If we are going to be stuck with it (MMP) it would be nice to see it used to it's maximum for the "benefit" of the country.

I must admit that the coalitions have changed somewhat since the first stuttering steps of learning to live with Winston! :confused:

[short-circuit]

So you do read my posts, :lol:

And I agree with you on this point for the most part....however there is difference and I'd rather have the slower, gentler version or what is not in mine or NZs overall interest than what we have currently.

Like I said earlier - madness electing the rip shit and bust version in a recession where they have every excuse. Enjoy the reaming people.

[Oscar]

I was responding to something Winston said about how one way of identifying media bias is in the language used to describe a situation, and I used John Key growing up in a state house with a solo mum as an example. Factually correct, although when he grew up the term solo mum was not in common usage and living in a state house was very common and as you pointed out, state houses were pretty bloody good compared to a lot of houses people lived in. The point I was making was that the media have reported that ad infinitum, and it has been a major part of creating Brand Key as an ordinary man with the common touch who rose from the gutter to greatness. Today a solo mum has a significantly lower income than John's loving mother, and state houses are where the really disadvantaged and poor live, so the language has created a distorted picture.

And what is so important about that anyway? DOes anyone know where Phil Goff grew up? Or anything about his childhood?

I agree that the National Party are using his background to best advantage, but why ‎wouldn't they? Especially with the opposition attacking him for his success in ‎business (ref. Michael Cullen's "Rich prick" comment). ‎But it’s funny that you think that telling a simple truth is creating a distorted ‎picture. Why? He did grow up in a state house with a single mother, and his ‎situation at the time was pretty dire by contemporary standards, so where he is now is ‎light years away from that. ‎

As for Phil Goff, his background (and his personality) is so boring that it would ‎detract electorally – which is why he is constantly shown on his Triumph so as to ‎make him seem windswept and interesting.‎

What I particularly‎ disagree with is your assertion that "..the majority of the media report what ‎they're told to report..". This is patently silly, given some of the ridiculous reporting ‎about the “cup of tea” immediately prior to the election. ‎

[mashman]

S'ok, we don't need to know why people aren't voting... (http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/12258235/no-inquiry-into-low-voter-numbers/#) if they cared, they'd vote :killingme ... and now it's closer to a third than a quarter of the country not voting... me thinks they're a wiiiiiiiiiiiiiddle bit scared of finding out why.

[Oscar]

S'ok, we don't need to know why people aren't voting... (http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/12258235/no-inquiry-into-low-voter-numbers/#) if they cared, they'd vote :killingme ... and now it's closer to a third than a quarter of the country not voting... me thinks they're a wiiiiiiiiiiiiiddle bit scared of finding out why.

You should take your tinfoil hat off, it appears to making your brain overheat.
The simplest answers to the question of people not voting is:


They don't care.
They are satisfied with things as they are.
They don't think their vote is important.


Why spend taxpayers money to find out the obvious?
Occam is your friend.

[mashman]

You should take your tinfoil hat off, it appears to making your brain overheat.
The simplest answers to the question of people not voting is:


They don't care.
They are satisfied with things as they are.
They don't think their vote is important.


Why spend taxpayers money to find out the obvious?
Occam is your friend.

You've missed at least 1 other explanation... I wonder if there are more... nah, surely not, why would you need to find out. Even stupid people have reasons that may seem out with the narrow minded norm.

[Oscar]

You've missed at least 1 other explanation... I wonder if there are more... nah, surely not, why would you need to find out. Even stupid people have reasons that may seem out with the narrow minded norm.

So why didn't you vote?
They wouldn't let you wear your tinfoil hat whilst voting?

[mashman]

So why didn't you vote?
They wouldn't let you wear your tinfoil hat whilst voting?

I'm not going over it again, but it fits none of your options and by the tone of the thread it was being discussed in, there were a few others that had similar reasons... similar not necessarily being the same.

I can wear my hat anytime... apart from when I'm close to the microwave.

[Oscar]

I'm not going over it again, but it fits none of your options and by the tone of the thread it was being discussed in, there were a few others that had similar reasons... similar not necessarily being the same.

I can wear my hat anytime... apart from when I'm close to the microwave.

You forgot, didn't you:laugh:

[Crasherfromwayback]

I can wear my hat anytime... apart from when I'm close to the microwave.

I wouldn't wear it near high voltage overhead power lines either mate!

[mashman]

You forgot, didn't you :laugh:


yup


I wouldn't wear it near high voltage overhead power lines either mate!

:rofl: top tip... cheers.

[mashman]

I thought all of the votes had been counted? (http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/12286810/bennett-close-to-losing-waitakere/) Does this mean than National will lose a seat in parliament and that including their current "partnerships", won't have a majority vote anymore?

[Oscar]

I thought all of the votes had been counted? (http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/12286810/bennett-close-to-losing-waitakere/) Does this mean than National will lose a seat in parliament and that including their current "partnerships", won't have a majority vote anymore?

National will only lose a seat if their party vote falls (which is quite likely).
If that happens the Maori Party will become their best friends.

[mashman]

National will only lose a seat if their party vote falls (which is quite likely).
If that happens the Maori Party will become their best friends.

that could make for some interesting TV... a la Big Brother House... that works on so many levels... or probably doesn't and it's just me

[SPman]

National will only lose a seat if their party vote falls (which is quite likely).
If that happens the Maori Party will become their best friends. They couldn't be any more friendly short of JK shagging Turiana to seal the deal..........

[blue rider]

re counting of votes, who votes and why vote

I think it was Stalin who once said

" it does not matter who votes, it matters only who counts"

but well National has a Man Date.......:lol:

[oldrider]

MMP .... the result you get when you don't want a result! :wacko: Government by confusion! :facepalm:

[Oscar]

MMP .... the result you get when you don't want a result! :wacko: Government by confusion! :facepalm:

This situation could happen under any other system.
You're the only one looking confused.

[oldrider]

This situation could happen under any other system.
You're the only one looking confused.

So many men, so many opinions, mine is that MMP was designed to prevent progress and foisted onto Germany after WW2 to do just that!

So good old New Zealand takes it on board .... yeah right! There are better systems and FPP is not one of them either! :sick:

[shrub]

So many men, so many opinions, mine is that MMP was designed to prevent progress and foisted onto Germany after WW2 to do just that!:

Well that didn't work, did it? Bloody Germans refusing to listen...


There are better systems and FPP is not one of them either!

I disagree. As a mechanism to provide representation of the majority, MMP works really well. It needs tweaking, and my mods are:


The 5% threshold should apply regardless of whether a party gets an electorate seat, that way you'd avoid an unpopular party bringing in MPs on the coat tails of someone who has been gifted a seat (as could easily have happened with Act).
There should be limits and constraints placed on being a list MP and standing for a seat so you don't get unpopular people turning up on the list when they get voted out.
The system the Greens use whereby the position a candidate has on the list is determined by the vote of the party members should be adopted.
Parties should be required to state their coalition preferences before the election and be held to it.
If a list MP resigns or is kicked out of their party they leave parliament.



I also like MMP because it's reasonably simple and most people understand it well enough to be able to make an intelligent decision. The fact that they don't is immaterial.

[oneofsix]

I also like MMP because it's reasonably simple and most people understand it well enough to be able to make an intelligent decision. The fact that they don't is immaterial.

I disagree. The media like to try and make us believe we, the others of we that is, don't understand it. They like to report the elections as FPP but they also like the long drag out and deal making of MMP so they confuse themselves but I think most people understand it well enough. OK so there were some surprises over the deal with ACT but as one cartoon it put it may be that was a smoke screen for what Nat wanted anyhow but were too afraid to go to the country with. But after the Epsom tea party who didn't know something like that was coming, ignoring the mis-information put about and smoke screens wasting police time.

[shrub]

I disagree. The media like to try and make us believe we, the others of we that is, don't understand it. They like to report the elections as FPP but they also like the long drag out and deal making of MMP so they confuse themselves but I think most people understand it well enough. OK so there were some surprises over the deal with ACT but as one cartoon it put it may be that was a smoke screen for what Nat wanted anyhow but were too afraid to go to the country with. But after the Epsom tea party who didn't know something like that was coming, ignoring the mis-information put about and smoke screens wasting police time.

The Epsom tea party was National playing the public which means they can get away with unpopular policies because "it's not our fault, those rough Act boys made us do it".

There are a lot of benefits to STV, and it would definitely be a good option, but it's too complicated which is why the next most popular after MMP was FPP. MMP can work well and with a few tweaks would be a good compromise. Ultimately there is no perfect system and we have what we have so we need to work with it.

[MisterD]

Well that didn't work, did it? Bloody Germans refusing to listen...

Not to prevent German progress, but to avoid a takeover by extremists in the way Mr Hitler did. As was pointed out elsewhere (the other KB, I think) the "kingmaker" is not a fault of MMP, it's a feature.





The 5% threshold should apply regardless of whether a party gets an electorate seat, that way you'd avoid an unpopular party bringing in MPs on the coat tails of someone who has been gifted a seat (as could easily have happened with Act).
There should be limits and constraints placed on being a list MP and standing for a seat so you don't get unpopular people turning up on the list when they get voted out.
The system the Greens use whereby the position a candidate has on the list is determined by the vote of the party members should be adopted.
Parties should be required to state their coalition preferences before the election and be held to it.
If a list MP resigns or is kicked out of their party they leave parliament.



1) If you're going to do that, then the threshold should be lowered. ACT would only have got an extra MP if their share of the party vote was high enough. The problem is not that ACT get representation, it's that a party that polls >3% but no electorate, doesn't.
2) I'm not sure about that, I can see the merit in standing a bright prospect you'd want in on the list, in a tough-to-win electorate to gain experience.
3) I'd rather see the difference between electorate and party votes used to rank the list.
4) Why should this be treated any differently than any other policy? I don't see it as a major problem and I don't think the intersection of short memories and Winston's untrustworthyness is sufficient reason for legislation.
5) That's the case now, it's only electorate MP's that get to hang around.

I'd also say that along with lowering the threshold, the Maori seats should be consigned to history.

[shrub]

1) If you're going to do that, then the threshold should be lowered. ACT would only have got an extra MP if their share of the party vote was high enough. The problem is not that ACT get representation, it's that a party that polls >3% but no electorate, doesn't.
Personally I think 5% is about right. It's hard to get over 5% without reasonably widespread and durable support that generally needs to have a basis in broad ranging and robust policies whereas it's not hard for a party to get 3 - 5% if they jump on a popular bandwagon like race or if enough cash gets tipped in.


2) I'm not sure about that, I can see the merit in standing a bright prospect you'd want in on the list, in a tough-to-win electorate to gain experience.

I am going to accept you're probably right on that one. The Greens are very unlikely to win an electorate seat because they don't have a broad enough appeal (yet), so do they have candidates that will never get into parliament and list members that do? The problem is a situation like Epsom where you have two closely linked parties running for the same seat resulting in 2 members in government representing that seat.


3) I'd rather see the difference between electorate and party votes used to rank the list.

Yeah, that is one option, but the problem is you won't know the makeup of the list until after the election.



4) Why should this be treated any differently than any other policy? I don't see it as a major problem and I don't think the intersection of short memories and Winston's untrustworthyness is sufficient reason for legislation.

I think it's more than just Winston. Helen Clark hinted that the Greens were going into government with her but at the last minute snuggled up with Peter Dunne and Winston on condition that the Greens were kept out despite the Greens actively supporting Labour and a lot of Green voters voting for Labour.



I'd also say that along with lowering the threshold, the Maori seats should be consigned to history.

That's a really hard one. I agree that race based seats should be a thing of the past, but without them Maori would be seriously under-represented. I personally really struggle with having a specific Maori party and race based seats - maybe one or the other, but not both.

[Swoop]

I wouldn't wear it near high voltage overhead power lines either mate!
You never know, going by previous posts' it might make an improvement.:rolleyes:

[oldrider]

Well that didn't work, did it? Bloody Germans refusing to listen...



I disagree. As a mechanism to provide representation of the majority, MMP works really well. It needs tweaking, and my mods are:


The 5% threshold should apply regardless of whether a party gets an electorate seat, that way you'd avoid an unpopular party bringing in MPs on the coat tails of someone who has been gifted a seat (as could easily have happened with Act).
There should be limits and constraints placed on being a list MP and standing for a seat so you don't get unpopular people turning up on the list when they get voted out.
The system the Greens use whereby the position a candidate has on the list is determined by the vote of the party members should be adopted.
Parties should be required to state their coalition preferences before the election and be held to it.
If a list MP resigns or is kicked out of their party they leave parliament.



I also like MMP because it's reasonably simple and most people understand it well enough to be able to make an intelligent decision. The fact that they don't is immaterial.

Well, I could live with a trial of your suggestions .... it needs to be constantly improved by an independent (if that's possible!) body!

I would allow a bit of post election leeway but I agree it should be well sorted pre election so the voters know what they are voting for!

As it is we just vote to give them permission to do whatever they like post election ... takes away their accountability to the electorate and makes them focus on and be loyal to each other!

Totally agree with number's 2 and 5!

[MisterD]

Personally I think 5% is about right. It's hard to get over 5% without reasonably widespread and durable support that generally needs to have a basis in broad ranging and robust policies whereas it's not hard for a party to get 3 - 5% if they jump on a popular bandwagon like race or if enough cash gets tipped in.

Sure, but then why should however many idiots in one electorate get an MP, but not the same number of idiots across the country? One of the reasons why I voted for STV.




Yeah, that is one option, but the problem is you won't know the makeup of the list until after the election.

Hell, with MMP we don't know what Government policy is until after the election! Does anyone really vote based on knowing list rankings before polling day?

[shrub]

Hell, with MMP we don't know what Government policy is until after the election! Does anyone really vote based on knowing list rankings before polling day?

Yeah, but that is more a sign of duplicity of the parties than a failing in the electoral system and most people base their voting decisions on feelings which is why we have a charming but vapid PM who is incredibly popular despite having done almost nothing substantive since taking control.

I was thinking about MMP, and one of the things I like about it is the ability I have to vote for both a party and a candidate. In my electorate Lianne Dalziel is the candidate, and she has been incredible. We are in a very badly hit area (fortunately my house is almost undamaged though) and she has been beating the pavement, holding meetings and generally working her arse off for her constituents. Overall I prefer the Greens policies to Labour's, but because of how Dalziel performed I voted for her. The local Green candidate represents most of what I struggle with about the Greens - a vegetarian woman with a disability who rides a bicycle, so I didn't vote for her. I do like the Green's policies, especially their economic policies and their perspective on business, so I voted for the party.

Under MMP I got to pick who I want to represent me AND the party I think has the best ideas. Under STV I would have struggled to come up with a second choice, let alone 3rd or 4th. I much prefer the Greens to Labour, National or NZ First, so do I give my first choice to a candidate I would rather not have because I like her party? Or do I give my first choice to someone who I think does a good job as a person but represents a party I'm not that fussed on?

[oldrider]

Yeah, but that is more a sign of duplicity of the parties than a failing in the electoral system and most people base their voting decisions on feelings which is why we have a charming but vapid PM who is incredibly popular despite having done almost nothing substantive since taking control.

I was thinking about MMP, and one of the things I like about it is the ability I have to vote for both a party and a candidate. In my electorate Lianne Dalziel is the candidate, and she has been incredible. We are in a very badly hit area (fortunately my house is almost undamaged though) and she has been beating the pavement, holding meetings and generally working her arse off for her constituents. Overall I prefer the Greens policies to Labour's, but because of how Dalziel performed I voted for her. The local Green candidate represents most of what I struggle with about the Greens - a vegetarian woman with a disability who rides a bicycle, so I didn't vote for her. I do like the Green's policies, especially their economic policies and their perspective on business, so I voted for the party.

Under MMP I got to pick who I want to represent me AND the party I think has the best ideas. Under STV I would have struggled to come up with a second choice, let alone 3rd or 4th. I much prefer the Greens to Labour, National or NZ First, so do I give my first choice to a candidate I would rather not have because I like her party? Or do I give my first choice to someone who I think does a good job as a person but represents a party I'm not that fussed on?

Under the STV system you are not compelled to vote for anyone that you don't think worthy if you only want to support one of the candidates that's it, done and dusted but you do have to be concerned about what everyone else might do!

Or have I got that wrong ... they tinker with everything so bloody much!