Referendum on Asset Sales

[Ocean1]

People are not equal and of course there won't/shouldn't be equality of outcomes but left unchecked the advantaged will only ever increase their advantage.

Advantaged? If someone has an “advantage” it’s ideally because they produced more than those comparatively less “advantaged”. Why on earth would you want to “check” productive behaviour?


Money naturally follows money and power naturally follows power and society will polarise with fewer and fewer becoming richer and richer while the rest get poorer and poorer.

So those who earn more continue to earn more? And those who earn less continue to earn less?

You astonish me. Next thing you’ll be blaming the productive for failing to earn less.


This is self evident, in the last 20/30 years the ruling classes get wealthier and the working classes are getting poorer. As a society do you suppose we were happier/better-off during the wealth disparities of the Victorian era or later in the 60's 70's when the wealth gaps had been closed?

“Ruling” class?
“Working class”
“Wealth gaps”

Fuck you’re funny.

I suppose most would be happy if their contribution to that pool of wealth was matched by their productivity towards it. Except those who contribute fuck all, they’d be well pissed.

See, in a liberalised world the “wealth gap” is a direct function of the “productivity gap”. Which tends to mean that you’re responsible for your own wealth.


Would you be happy to return to living in a feudal society? Would you imagine you will be one of the Lords or one of the Peasants? If a Government doesn't attempt to redress the balance of power and wealth within its society, to create and maintain a level playing field and some sort of equality of opportunity then wouldn't this be the logical outcome? If not, I'd like to hear how you would expect a libertarian society to develop.


Ah, no.

So not relevant.

Wealth doesn’t have a balance, it’s a function of the production of goods or services.

And we’ve got a pretty level playing field, here, now. Certainly far more so than at most times in human history. Nobody is denied the means of producing whatever wealth he’s capable of, which is the critical “equity of opportunity” measure you refer to.

A true liberal wouldn’t force productive people to support the non-productive. In that sense a left-leaning liberal is a contradiction in terms. I never claimed everyone could benefit from a libertarian approach. I reckon you become responsible for yourself at adulthood, including your income. So my particular version would see the field forcibly levelled for non adults: you get a free education to tertiary level, and free health care.

After that you get to grow up.

[Zedder]

You are too defensive, who said you should apologise for anything?

Surely socialism doesn't need to be that strange form of totalitarianism practiced by the Soviet Union, we can all see that that wasn't the solution either but would you agree that the world/society was a better place economically/socially in the last half of the 20th century when due to social policies the wealth was spread more evenly or was that, in your opinion, the end of a long decline from a time when only a few controlled the world's resources and the rest should consider themselves lucky to be granted a survival?

I believe that capitalism/competition (yes winners AND losers) and the market can improve life for all of us but not without some form of social control, some way of asserting equality of opportunity (not outcome) and some degree of wealth redistribution. In my opinion, that is socialism and I can't see why so many consider the idea so abhorrent.

Heh, if ya want to wind up someone from the USA mention socialism.

I actually like the Nordic model of social democracy which is often called a compromise between capitalism and socialism. It's egalitarian, it provides for economic risk taking and ventures and yet there's a good support system in place for people needing it without them becoming bludgers.

[mashman]

Advantaged? If someone has an “advantage” it’s ideally because they produced more than those comparatively less “advantaged”. Why on earth would you want to “check” productive behaviour?



So those who earn more continue to earn more? And those who earn less continue to earn less?

You astonish me. Next thing you’ll be blaming the productive for failing to earn less.



“Ruling” class?
“Working class”
“Wealth gaps”

Fuck you’re funny.

I suppose most would be happy if their contribution to that pool of wealth was matched by their productivity towards it. Except those who contribute fuck all, they’d be well pissed.

See, in a liberalised world the “wealth gap” is a direct function of the “productivity gap”. Which tends to mean that you’re responsible for your own wealth.




Ah, no.

So not relevant.

Wealth doesn’t have a balance, it’s a function of the production of goods or services.

And we’ve got a pretty level playing field, here, now. Certainly far more so than at most times in human history. Nobody is denied the means of producing whatever wealth he’s capable of, which is the critical “equity of opportunity” measure you refer to.

A true liberal wouldn’t force productive people to support the non-productive. In that sense a left-leaning liberal is a contradiction in terms. I never claimed everyone could benefit from a libertarian approach. I reckon you become responsible for yourself at adulthood, including your income. So my particular version would see the field forcibly levelled for non adults: you get a free education to tertiary level, and free health care.

After that you get to grow up.

What a crock of shit, but hey, your ilk will be no more some day.

[bogan]

True. So you end up in a situation where too many people invest, but don't actually produce any value. Rent Seeking they call it. Therein lies the rub, when a rich guy gets interest on his account he likely gets as much in interest as the poor guy will get as a wage. Prices rising etc... kinda busts the poor getting richer dunnit. Fucked if I know what they're gonna do with the money, but for some reason I don't think it's going to go towards anything of any real merit.

There's a hell of a lot of good shit being done with their money, if you've blinded yourself to that then you're more of a dick than any rich dick I've met so far.

[Ocean1]

Surely socialism doesn't need to be that strange form of totalitarianism practiced by the Soviet Union, we can all see that that wasn't the solution either but would you agree that the world/society was a better place economically/socially in the last half of the 20th century when due to social policies the wealth was spread more evenly or was that, in your opinion, the end of a long decline from a time when only a few controlled the world's resources and the rest should consider themselves lucky to be granted a survival?

It can only be one of those?

What about: It was a time when people had first hand experience of the poverty almost all of humanity has historically always suffered. It was a time when the exponential productive effect of the industrial revolution and war-bred technology offered opportunities to everyone. It was a time when those who'd lived through the war and/or it's subsequent depression took advantage of those opportunities as the obvious road to prosperity, they were very aware of the consequences of failing to produce something of value.

You want to revive that age? Teach the awareness of the consequences of the failure to produce value at the earliest possible age.

[Ocean1]

What a crock of shit, but hey, your ilk will be no more some day.

Ilk, eh?

I know enough now to wright you and your parasitic values off in somma.

And I know how to spell "know".

[oldrider]

go fuck yourself

Thank you! You say the nicest things! :lol:

[mashman]

There's a hell of a lot of good shit being done with their money, if you've blinded yourself to that then you're more of a dick than any rich dick I've met so far.

I'm sure there is. Like what? I guarantee you that more would be done without any money.

[Clockwork]

Advantaged? If someone has an “advantage” it’s ideally because they produced more than those comparatively less “advantaged”. Why on earth would you want to “check” productive behaviour?

Love that clause "ideally", because in this world only productive people are wealthy and all poor people are unproductive



So those who earn more continue to earn more? And those who earn less continue to earn less?

You astonish me. Next thing you’ll be blaming the productive for failing to earn less.
Why don't I just back out now and you can write all my arguments for me



“Ruling” class?
“Working class”
“Wealth gaps”

Fuck you’re funny. Sadly, you're not

I suppose most would be happy if their contribution to that pool of wealth was matched by their productivity towards it. Except those who contribute fuck all, they’d be well pissed.
I guess so too. Some are just lazy and deserve nothing but some are just stupid or otherwise disadvantaged, is their sole purpose in your world just to be exploited by unscrupulous people for there own advantage? and anyway the point I was trying to make is that no matter how clever and resourceful we are more and more of us will end up on the wrong side of the balance sheet unless some form of moderation is exercised of the use and the distribution of wealth

See, in a liberalised world the “wealth gap” is a direct function of the “productivity gap”. Do you really believe that? How productive was Rupert Murdoch today do you think? So what did John Key produce while accumulating his wealth?Which tends to mean that you’re responsible for your own wealth.




Ah, no.

So not relevant.

Wealth doesn’t have a balance, it’s a function of the production of goods or services.
Agreed, which is why IMHO it needs to be balanced for the benefit of society. NO, I DONT MEAN STRIP THE WEALTHY OF EVERYTHING THEY OWN AND DIVVEY IT UP AMONG THE POOR, so please don't imply that I do.

And we’ve got a pretty level playing field, here, now. Certainly far more so than at most times in human history. Nobody is denied the means of producing whatever wealth he’s capable of, which is the critical “equity of opportunity” measure you refer to.
Yes, but evidence is that we are moving back the other way many of the social reforms of the 20th century are being undermind daily. Do you doubt the rich are richer than they were 30 years ago. Are the working "productive" masses (aka Working Class, sorry but I couldn't resist) better off now than they were then when one income could run a household?

A true liberal wouldn’t force productive people to support the non-productive. In that sense a left-leaning liberal is a contradiction in terms. I never claimed everyone could benefit from a libertarian approach. I reckon you become responsible for yourself at adulthood, including your income. So my particular version would see the field forcibly levelled for non adults: you get a free education to tertiary level, and free health care.

After that you get to grow up.

I want to engage in a rational debate but I'm a sensitive sole and I was a little hurt by the tone of your reply so try to imagine that I'm 2m tall, 300kgs of seething muscle, I have a bad attitude, a club with a nail through it and we are having this debate face to face in a dark pub car park. That way we can both be sure that your response will not contain any gratuitous ad homonyms

[bogan]

I'm sure there is. Like what? I guarantee you that more would be done without any money.

Charities, basic infrastructure, healthcare, innovative technologies... you know, just a few little things here and there :rolleyes: Your posts are far too blinkered and uniformed for your guarantee to be worth shit I'm afraid.

[mashman]

Ilk, eh?

I know enough now to wright you and your parasitic values off in somma.

And I know how to spell "know".

Given the shit you posted. Ilk seems a fitting word to use.

No you don't, but I know that won't stop a determined man like you.

Doesn't redeem your earlier tripe post though.

[oldrider]

I believe that capitalism/competition (yes winners AND losers) and the market can improve life for all of us but not without some form of social control, some way of asserting equality of opportunity (not outcome) and some degree of wealth redistribution. In my opinion, that is socialism and I can't see why so many consider the idea so abhorrent.

I think most people have difficulty finding their point of equilibrium like that and most try to identify some sort of middle ground in the centre between left and right!

I started out being brainwashed to the left but as I grew older and saw what it did to peoples minds I drifted toward the right and saw a more responsible world.

As said previously left right or centre all have their positive and negative points but are all controlled negatively by the evils of the current monetary system.

We can devise interplanetary systems but we are unable to provide each other with a constructive money system devoid of wars, booms and busts?

What utter bullshit! ... That is partially my basis for believing that the monetary system is being manipulated against us despite our best efforts to operate it!

[mashman]

Charities, basic infrastructure, healthcare, innovative technologies... you know, just a few little things here and there :rolleyes: Your posts are far too blinkered and uniformed for your guarantee to be worth shit I'm afraid.

Charity a good thing? Perpetuating the need for charity? Really?
Infrastructure? Nope, I believe that win goes to technology.
Healthcare? Science is the reason for healthcare advances.
Innovative technologies? I guess the clue is in the words. Innovation assisted by technology.

Throw the rest up then... coz it ain't money dun gud that'll be responsible for the vast majority of the exceptional things that we have accomplished so far. So leveling blinkered and uninformed at me is like throwing yer undies at the window and expecting them to stick when you haven't made them moist yet. F-.

[husaberg]

There's a hell of a lot of good shit being done with their money, .

Please tell us what?

[scumdog]

What a crock of shit, but hey, your ilk will be no more some day.

Don't hold your breath...

[Clockwork]

It can only be one of those?

What about: It was a time when people had first hand experience of the poverty almost all of humanity has historically always suffered. It was a time when the exponential productive effect of the industrial revolution and war-bred technology offered opportunities to everyone. It was a time when those who'd lived through the war and/or it's subsequent depression took advantage of those opportunities as the obvious road to prosperity, they were very aware of the consequences of failing to produce something of value.

You want to revive that age? Teach the awareness of the consequences of the failure to produce value at the earliest possible age.

I believe there were other forces at work. Sure there was production, paid for by higher taxes and needed to rebuild the damage of the war years, but also the was a shortage of labour (yeah, apologies for using the l word. Lower case "l" ok?) so wage too were higher, that and industry hadn't yet thought of exporting productive work in order to increase their profits at the expense of their workforce who in many cases were also their customers.

[mashman]

You want to revive that age? Teach the awareness of the consequences of the failure to produce value at the earliest possible age.

I want that age.

[carbonhed]

I want to engage in a rational debate but I'm a sensitive sole and I was a little hurt by the tone of your reply so try to imagine that I'm 2m tall, 300kgs of seething muscle, I have a bad attitude, a club with a nail through it and we are having this debate face to face in a dark pub car park. That way we can both be sure that your response will not contain any gratuitous ad homonyms

It's ad hominem... but I understand your reluctance to go there.

On the other hand this is KB... take off your slippers and wade in, the sewage is fine, up to your armpits and rising! :yes:

[bogan]

Charity a good thing? Perpetuating the need for charity? Really?
Infrastructure? Nope, I believe that win goes to technology.
Healthcare? Science is the reason for healthcare advances.
Innovative technologies? I guess the clue is in the words. Innovation assisted by technology.

Throw the rest up then... coz it ain't money dun gud that'll be responsible for the vast majority of the exceptional things that we have accomplished so far. So leveling blinkered and uninformed at me is like throwing yer undies at the window and expecting them to stick when you haven't made them moist yet. F-.

Technology is but part of the equation, it also needs funding to make it a reality (and more funding to do the research in the first place). At the end of the day, people do all those things, money is just a tool to move resources around.

You still got rich dicks soaking up the resources on useless crap, you got lazy fuckers soaking up resources and providing nothing of value back. You also got hard working guys struggling to get their share, and rich guys providing far more than their share of value back to society. To not address or even acknowledge any of those groups and the myriad of other ones in between shows you as blinkered and uninformed.

I don't think our current system is perfect, or even the best that we could do. As with the topic at hand, it is not the money but what is done with it; sold for the right reasons and I support asset sales, sold for the wrong reasons and I don't; I have no fucking clue what the real reasons are so my referendum paper is in the bin. And it isn't money that obscures those reasons.


Please tell us what?

See my previous reply to mashy.

[Clockwork]

It's ad hominem... but I understand your reluctance to go there.

On the other hand this is KB... take off your slippers and wade in, the sewage is fine, up to your armpits and rising! :yes:

:Oops:

This is what happens when ones vocabulary exceeds ones edukashun.

[mashman]

Technology is but part of the equation, it also needs funding to make it a reality (and more funding to do the research in the first place). At the end of the day, people do all those things, money is just a tool to move resources around.

You still got rich dicks soaking up the resources on useless crap, you got lazy fuckers soaking up resources and providing nothing of value back. You also got hard working guys struggling to get their share, and rich guys providing far more than their share of value back to society. To not address or even acknowledge any of those groups and the myriad of other ones in between shows you as blinkered and uninformed.

I don't think our current system is perfect, or even the best that we could do. As with the topic at hand, it is not the money but what is done with it; sold for the right reasons and I support asset sales, sold for the wrong reasons and I don't; I have no fucking clue what the real reasons are so my referendum paper is in the bin. And it isn't money that obscures those reasons.

WTF? or is that just as far back as you care to go? You don't think that once upon a time man innovated without the use of money? Coz iffen ye doo, I disagree with ya. We do, currently, move A to B so that we can consume. Money does not need to be a core requirement for such things to function in exactly the same way as they currently do.

Oh I am sorry that you haven't heard me go off on a congratulatory wankfest in regards to how great we are. I know how good we are. I know that we're much MUCH better than the financial economy allows to become. But please, you carry on adding the groupings of your choice into the equation and see how far we get. I am positively banking on those guys being the ones to lead us forwards. It'll happen 1 of 2 ways. Currently I think we're using those talents for the wrong reasons. Yes there are guys who work hard and earn money. Yes there are guys who work hard and earn a lot less money than the previous guy... that's also working just as hard. Please tell me again about blinkered and uninformed. Any excuse to justify the inequality of two guys working hard, but 1 goes home to everything and one goes home to dry the damp windows because they're trying to cut back on electricity, is bullshit. Money seriously fucks up that equation... and many other things too.

Oh but it is the money. As you point out, as a society we aren't the worst that we could ever be, but we're by no means anywhere near our best. As Zedder points out, Scandanavia taxes hard and people pay. Why isn't every economy based on theirs? Right Reasons... aye, Right as in ideology, not necessarily benefit though? Reckon the short-term gain is worth it? I don't. I've never understood why you sell off assets when you could ask the public if they would prefer a 2% tax increase. I would rather the increase, but we don't get the choice, do we? That's the Left's job :facepalm:.

In "my" economy/society, Asset Sales wouldn't happen (neither would the vast majority of financially related retardery)... in fact no-one would know what the term meant ;).

[husaberg]

See my previous reply to mashy.

Oh i seen it don't worry. It's just you made a pretty bold statement about "all the good being done with the money"....... i just want you to show me it?
The good being done that is all.
I am not talking about a tax deduction here.

[bogan]

WTF? or is that just as far back as you care to go? You don't think that once upon a time man innovated without the use of money? Coz iffen ye doo, I disagree with ya. We do, currently, move A to B so that we can consume. Money does not need to be a core requirement for such things to function in exactly the same way as they currently do.

Oh I am sorry that you haven't heard me go off on a congratulatory wankfest in regards to how great we are. I know how good we are. I know that we're much MUCH better than the financial economy allows to become. But please, you carry on adding the groupings of your choice into the equation and see how far we get. I am positively banking on those guys being the ones to lead us forwards. It'll happen 1 of 2 ways. Currently I think we're using those talents for the wrong reasons. Yes there are guys who work hard and earn money. Yes there are guys who work hard and earn a lot less money than the previous guy... that's also working just as hard. Please tell me again about blinkered and uninformed. Any excuse to justify the inequality of two guys working hard, but 1 goes home to everything and one goes home to dry the damp windows because they're trying to cut back on electricity, is bullshit. Money seriously fucks up that equation... and many other things too.

Oh but it is the money. As you point out, as a society we aren't the worst that we could ever be, but we're by no means anywhere near our best. As Zedder points out, Scandanavia taxes hard and people pay. Why isn't every economy based on theirs? Right Reasons... aye, Right as in ideology, not necessarily benefit though? Reckon the short-term gain is worth it? I don't. I've never understood why you sell off assets when you could ask the public if they would prefer a 2% tax increase. I would rather the increase, but we don't get the choice, do we? That's the Left's job :facepalm:.

In "my" economy/society, Asset Sales wouldn't happen... in fact no-one would know what the term meant ;).

Once upon a time we didn't have the range of commodities and global trade we do now, wonder if money had anything to do with those advances :whistle:
Some sort of trade medium is thusly required, ideally it is one where the people have a say, perhaps proportional to the value they add to society.
Money does not fuck up that equation for the guy saving electricity, how the money is distributed does.

So, you would give money to ensure such assets are not sold overseas, good shit imo, did you buy a few shares in them then? (iirc they had a sale of some stuff to NZ residents a while back)


Oh i seen it don't worry. It's just you made a pretty bold statement about "all the good being done with the money"....... i just want you to show me it?
The good being done that is all.
I am not talking about a tax deduction here.

Ah, so those who do it for the good of others but also get a tax deduction is somehow not a good act? Maybe you should ask those who get the needed health-care/infrastructure/etc if they think it was good or not.

[mashman]

Once upon a time we didn't have the range of commodities and global trade we do now, wonder if money had anything to do with those advances :whistle:
Some sort of trade medium is thusly required, ideally it is one where the people have a say, perhaps proportional to the value they add to society.
Money does not fuck up that equation for the guy saving electricity, how the money is distributed does.

So, you would give money to ensure such assets are not sold overseas, good shit imo, did you buy a few shares in them then? (iirc they had a sale of some stuff to NZ residents a while back)

Advances? Some of the policy is utter madness. Shipping food from around the globe when you could grow it all locally, and in many cases do? And all of those other advances in society that are underpinned by the financial system. Is just a for instance.
Ideally, ooooo I giggled... who decides what is of value? the Rich guys?
It fucks up that equation in quite tremendous fashion. Poverty being one of the problems. That people have to pay for electricity to keep warm or the houses dry is a fuckin travesty. Without money in the equation, the latter is possible without anyone needing to fiddle the system to pay the bill or be labelled as a bludger, amongst other things.

It might have been nice to have been offered an alternative. A financial transaction tax, given all money is taxed :shit:, would have been easier to control imho. No shares. There's always something ya need money for. Last month it was dental care. This month it's Christmas. Next month it's getting leaky fork seal fixed. Taxing me harder wouldn't be overly appreciated, but hey, I'd rather the long term revenue... but as you say, that is being ignored and Genesis is up next. We still have over $50 billion of overseas debt. Even though our economy did well? Job losses to make the energy company's look good etc... yuk, what a shit civilisation.

[bogan]

Advances? Some of the policy is utter madness. Shipping food from around the globe when you could grow it all locally, and in many cases do? And all of those other advances in society that are underpinned by the financial system. Is just a for instance.
Ideally, ooooo I giggled... who decides what is of value? the Rich guys?
It fucks up that equation in quite tremendous fashion. Poverty being one of the problems. That people have to pay for electricity to keep warm or the houses dry is a fuckin travesty. Without money in the equation, the latter is possible without anyone needing to fiddle the system to pay the bill or be labelled as a bludger, amongst other things.

It might have been nice to have been offered an alternative. A financial transaction tax, given all money is taxed :shit:, would have been easier to control imho. No shares. There's always something ya need money for. Last month it was dental care. This month it's Christmas. Next month it's getting leaky fork seal fixed. Taxing me harder wouldn't be overly appreciated, but hey, I'd rather the long term revenue... but as you say, that is being ignored and Genesis is up next. We still have over $50 billion of overseas debt. Even though our economy did well? Job losses to make the energy company's look good etc... yuk, what a shit civilisation.

Sure, as are many of the proposed 'solutions' which don't involve money. If you continually fixate on the negatives you'll never get a balanced view of things.

Without money in the equation, the later needs to be addressed by some other means, wizards still aren't real you know.

No shares, c'mon mashy, be the change you wish to see, don't just whine about it.

[mashman]

Sure, as are many of the proposed 'solutions' which don't involve money. If you continually fixate on the negatives you'll never get a balanced view of things.

Without money in the equation, the later needs to be addressed by some other means, wizards still aren't real you know.

No shares, c'mon mashy, be the change you wish to see, don't just whine about it.

Pah... I've never contemplated the other side? I lived it for 37 years and decided to question what I "knew". I NOW, heh, kNOW better. I ain't fixated on it, but I do know sense when I hear it, eventually.

How about the individual?

:killingme... mate I want teeth and a functioning motorbike ATM, I'll leave the shares for you. I'm nice that way.

[bogan]

Pah... I've never contemplated the other side? I lived it for 37 years and decided to question what I "knew". I NOW, heh, kNOW better. I ain't fixated on it, but I do know sense when I hear it, eventually.

How about the individual?

:killingme... mate I want teeth and a functioning motorbike ATM, I'll leave the shares for you. I'm nice that way.

The individual always finds something else they need more than the state needs its assets, or more than some random bloke needs the same quality of life. Resources gotta be managed because of that; I mean if one of the most vocal anti-money guys can't practice what he preaches, what hope do the rest of us have?

[mashman]

The individual always finds something else they need more than the state needs its assets, or more than some random bloke needs the same quality of life. Resources gotta be managed because of that; I mean if one of the most vocal anti-money guys can't practice what he preaches, what hope do the rest of us have?

:rofl: that old chestnut. It's not just about me, especially on the home front. Conversations have been had. Certain things require a different direction. All because of money. But I have cut my hours at work, so getting there, slowly but surely.

[husaberg]

Once upon a time we didn't have the range of commodities and global trade we do now, wonder if money had anything to do with those advances :whistle:
Some sort of trade medium is thusly required, ideally it is one where the people have a say, perhaps proportional to the value they add to society.
Money does not fuck up that equation for the guy saving electricity, how the money is distributed does.

So, you would give money to ensure such assets are not sold overseas, good shit imo, did you buy a few shares in them then? (iirc they had a sale of some stuff to NZ residents a while back)


Ah, so those who do it for the good of others but also get a tax deduction is somehow not a good act? Maybe you should ask those who get the needed health-care/infrastructure/etc if they think it was good or not.

Oh i think you missed my point. I think most would rather have paid less for a service or goods than for some to receive a handout.

[bogan]

Oh i think you missed my point. I think most would rather have paid less for a service or goods than for some to receive a handout.

Yeh, probly cos I don't see how that point is relevant.

[husaberg]

Yeh, probly cos I don't see how that point is relevant.

See thread title lol

[bogan]

See thread title lol

Oh, I think you missed my first point, the their I was referring to is not those pockets who will be lined from the asset sales. It was simply pointing out that investors do good shit, despite having so much of that money mashy likes to portray as the scourge of the world.

[husaberg]

Oh, I think you missed my first point, the their I was referring to is not those pockets who will be lined from the asset sales. It was simply pointing out that investors do good shit, despite having so much of that money mashy likes to portray as the scourge of the world.

Ah but why do we already need to invest in something we already own the dividends come from profits, so do the bonus for the exce, Nows guess what is the bestest way to maximise profit. I am not against profit, but it should not be the primary driver for an SOE.
refer to their charters. They will be rejigged to suit the new ownership model..

[bogan]

Ah but why do we already need to invest in something we already own the dividends come from profits, so do the bonus for the exce, Nows guess what is the bestest way to maximise profit. I am not against profit, but it should not be the primary driver for an SOE.
refer to their charters. They will be rejigged to suit the new ownership model..

I'm with you on all that. But there is also debt to consider and balance out, sure keeping it as an SOE allows profits/dividends/discount to be passed back to kiwis, but if kiwis have to pay through the arsehole to keep up debt interest payments, what is the benefit of keeping the SOE?
Though, at the end of the day, the slimey fucker is probably going to grin and say how he has reduced the debt or whatever and neglect to mention he could only do that by asset sales. If he tries that shit it'll be instant vote loss from me.

[Ocean1]

Though, at the end of the day, the slimey fucker is probably going to grin and say how he has reduced the debt or whatever and neglect to mention he could only do that by asset sales. If he tries that shit it'll be instant vote loss from me.

It was election promise No 1. Did you not notice?

[BoristheBiter]

It was election promise No 1. Did you not notice?

Most, it seems, didn't.

[bogan]

It was election promise No 1. Did you not notice?

Depends how he spins it. Neglecting to mention it was a quick cash grab by selling assets paints a wholly different picture than saying the economy has turned a massive profit this year...

[BoristheBiter]

I never do ;) (Check my posts - I voted for Guy Fawkes)

Ah PostBank. Only time in my life I have been truely ripped off by a bank was cos of PostBank. Still I learnt a valid lesson at the age of seven that would help me avoid 2.5 financial crisis's. But likewise I don't think I will ever trust kiwibank because of it.

One of the reasons why I never worked in the public sector was seeing 20+ years of public assets being grown......sorry fattened.....to be sent off for the kill (or sale if they are lucky). I suspect Solid Energy won't be a lucky one, and will suffer the NZRail fate. Rape, Pillage, Murder and then resold back to us caring citizens.

I owed $45 for having no money in there (postbak), never have paid that back.
Public sector will never run as effectively as private and private will never be as nice as the public. Just not the same.


You are too defensive, who said you should apologise for anything?

Surely socialism doesn't need to be that strange form of totalitarianism practiced by the Soviet Union, we can all see that that wasn't the solution either but would you agree that the world/society was a better place economically/socially in the last half of the 20th century when due to social policies the wealth was spread more evenly or was that, in your opinion, the end of a long decline from a time when only a few controlled the world's resources and the rest should consider themselves lucky to be granted a survival?

I believe that capitalism/competition (yes winners AND losers) and the market can improve life for all of us but not without some form of social control, some way of asserting equality of opportunity (not outcome) and some degree of wealth redistribution. In my opinion, that is socialism and I can't see why so many consider the idea so abhorrent.

No I wouldn't. all I have seen is lazy people with their hands out crying over how life isn't far and it owes them something.
Any form of social control will have more risks then benefits, for starters who's going to choose or do we all vote on it? Something like now where we always have a minority government?
We already do have a form of wealth redistribution, it's called welfare, rates and taxes.


True. So you end up in a situation where too many people invest, but don't actually produce any value. Rent Seeking they call it. Therein lies the rub, when a rich guy gets interest on his account he likely gets as much in interest as the poor guy will get as a wage. Prices rising etc... kinda busts the poor getting richer dunnit. Fucked if I know what they're gonna do with the money, but for some reason I don't think it's going to go towards anything of any real merit.

You can do if you like. Who's going to pay the interest while these 2 guys aren't working?

But why should the work if they don't want to, isn't this your glorious utopia that you spout about?

[Banditbandit]

Public sector will never run as effectively as private and private will never be as nice as the public. Just not the same.


Oh yeah ... like the Railways ... Air New Zealand, BNZ ... all had to be bailed out after sales to the private sector ...

Your generalization is ideological drivel disproven by experience ...

[BoristheBiter]

Oh yeah ... like the Railways ... Air New Zealand, BNZ ... all had to be bailed out after sales to the private sector ...

Your generalization is ideological drivel disproven by experience ...

Wow! three out of how many company's compared to public over spending and bale outs by increasing taxes, rates or cutting funds to other sectors.

Your generalisation is ideological drivel disproved by experience. :bleh:

Oh and the railways was because the company that brought them didn't want the rail in the first place.

[Banditbandit]

Naaa ... see ... you made the generalization ... and three fails shows that it is false ...

I never stated any preference for private or state sector ... I am not making any generalizations that can be challenged ... you're reading too much into my post


(In fact, I think it depends on the company, the activity and the current state of the economy - some activities best suit private sector involvement some activities best suit public sector involvement)

[Clockwork]

No I wouldn't. all I have seen is lazy people with their hands out crying over how life isn't far and it owes them something.
Any form of social control will have more risks then benefits, for starters who's going to choose or do we all vote on it? Something like now where we always have a minority government?
We already do have a form of wealth redistribution, it's called welfare, rates and taxes.


Baring in mind that my original post was to make the case against libertarian economics, I agree, we do have some form of wealth redistribution. I'm not the one railing against it. I am simply pointing out why I believe it's a necessary "evil".

No doubt about it, there are scroungers and lazy individuals out there but I wonder if you're not overstating things. For sure there have been unwanted outcomes. Intergenerational welfare dependency is a problem.

Hell, welfare dependency of the unmotivated and those with a misplaced sense of entitlement also needs to be addressed. It seems to me that programs such as working for families is an attempt to encourage such people into the workforce but so many taxpayers resent even that form of welfare. In my perfect world either living expenses or wages would be at a level where the State didn't need to do this. Some see this are their taxes subsidising the recipients of the welfare, but its just as valid to see it as the state using our taxes to subsidise the low wages of the employers. Privatise the profit, socialise the losses.

"who's going to choose or do we all vote on it?" Yes we do, every election. I'm simply point out what I see as the consequences of allowing/encouraging the "wealth gap" to continue to grow.

Do we really want to live in a society where one percent of the population controls 90% of the wealth, or would a more even distribution of wealth be better for everyone. If so, how else can we get there?

[BoristheBiter]

Naaa ... see ... you made the generalization ... and three fails shows that it is false ...

I never stated any preference for private or state sector ... I am not making any generalizations that can be challenged ... you're reading too much into my post


(In fact, I think it depends on the company, the activity and the current state of the economy - some activities best suit private sector involvement some activities best suit public sector involvement)

Actually it is only two. you can't use the railways as an example as not all was brought back as they (toll) kept the profitable half of the company after running the rail side into the ground and closing down around half the routes.

And why does it make it false? Yes company's fail and so does the public sector (only propped up with more money), What difference does that make, as you yourself said I was generalising.

[BoristheBiter]

Baring in mind that my original post was to make the case against libertarian economics, I agree, we do have some form of wealth redistribution. I'm not the one railing against it. I am simply pointing out why I believe it's a necessary "evil".

No doubt about it, there are scroungers and lazy individuals out there but I wonder if you're not overstating things. For sure there have been unwanted outcomes. Intergenerational welfare dependency is a problem.

Hell, welfare dependency of the unmotivated and those with a misplaced sense of entitlement also needs to be addressed. It seems to me that programs such as working for families is an attempt to encourage such people into the workforce but so many taxpayers resent even that form of welfare. In my perfect world either living expenses or wages would be at a level where the State didn't need to do this. Some see this are their taxes subsidising the recipients of the welfare, but its just as valid to see it as the state using our taxes to subsidise the low wages of the employers. Privatise the profit, socialise the losses.

"who's going to choose or do we all vote on it?" Yes we do, every election. I'm simply point out what I see as the consequences of allowing/encouraging the "wealth gap" to continue to grow.

Do we really want to live in a society where one percent of the population controls 90% of the wealth, or would a more even distribution of wealth be better for everyone. If so, how else can we get there?

See this is the sticking point, as it effects me not.
I see others wanting what others have without doing anything for it. I guess that's the problem.

[mashman]

But why should the work if they don't want to, isn't this your glorious utopia that you spout about?

It ain't utopia... but yup, people will not have to work if they don't want to. Tis all down to that personal responsibility and due care thing that few of you understand... or indeed that the vast majority of you claim to want, but only on with certain conditions attached.

Perhaps people will work because they realise that they benefit from the work of others and therefore others will benefit from their work. I would, but then I'm not an innovator or a bludger depending on which conditions rule the economy. Seems that so many of the so called hard workers would become a bludger. Kinda ironic.

[Clockwork]

See this is the sticking point, as it effects me not.
I see others wanting what others have without doing anything for it. I guess that's the problem.

But do they really? Do welfare recipients want flash houses in green neighbourhoods, nice car's, expensive holiday's or do they just want some food, some fags, some piss and a laugh now and then? Seems to me that the real problem here is that plenty of hardworking contributor's to society can afford little more than that themselves. Who's fault is that? The beneficiaries or their low wage employers? Is the answer to pay the beneficiaries less or the employees more?

Lets not forget, not every beneficiary is lazy or workshy, many will have contributed themselves over the years and would welcome the chance to rejoin the workforce.

[BoristheBiter]

It ain't utopia... but yup, people will not have to work if they don't want to. Tis all down to that personal responsibility and due care thing that few of you understand... or indeed that the vast majority of you claim to want, but only on with certain conditions attached.

Perhaps people will work because they realise that they benefit from the work of others and therefore others will benefit from their work. I would, but then I'm not an innovator or a bludger depending on which conditions rule the economy. Seems that so many of the so called hard workers would become a bludger. Kinda ironic.

Only in your mind.

[mashman]

Only in your mind.

You just used that in another thread... and you were wrong then too.

[BoristheBiter]

But do they really? Do welfare recipients want flash houses in green neighbourhoods, nice car's, expensive holiday's or do they just want some food, some fags, some piss and a laugh now and then? Seems to me that the real problem here is that plenty of hardworking contributor's to society can afford little more than that themselves. Who's fault is that? The beneficiaries or their low wage employers? Is the answer to pay the beneficiaries less or the employees more?

Lets not forget, not every beneficiary is lazy or workshy, many will have contributed themselves over the years and would welcome the chance to rejoin the workforce.

Who know's. all I know is if they want to sit on their arse they should be happy with what they get or should I sit on my arse and complain if I don't get to ride a new bike every year, or go oversea's and ride there.

It's called up skilling, while working carry on studying to get to the next level. if you don't want to then try and find an employer that pays better.

I would say make the beneficiary work for it and pay the employee more. who knows they might learn a skill that they can find a job with.

We are a country of "we want the cheapest" so most manufacturing has moved overseas and for local company's to compete they have to lower costs, either lower wages or less staff.

[BoristheBiter]

You just used that in another thread... and you were wrong then too.

only in your mind.:bleh:

[oldrider]

"who's going to choose or do we all vote on it?" Yes we do, every election.

We may vote but do we really choose the government and therefore the policies that we support? NO!

We go to an election and vote for politicians and political parties to give them "permission to try to form a government"!

That is the point where all this begins and is sustained ... the election, a flawed system that results in guaranteed confusion and dissatisfaction with the result!

The only apparent satisfaction gained from our electoral system is when an unpopular incumbent coalition is voted "out"!

The voters (the electorate) have absolutely no idea what the outcome of the election will be or who will govern and how they will govern.

The politicians sort that out amongst themselves by pledging concessions and allegiances to each other not to us the electors!

The politicians and parties that are eventually reduced to the less lucrative opposition benches spend their energies trying to drum up support by wasting money on destructive activities like the referendum to try to embarrass and distract the incumbent coalition from succeeding with their stated objectives!

Is that really constructive opposition ... will this system really provide us with stable government of the majority ... or will it simply sustain guaranteed future chaos? :mellow:

[Clockwork]

Who know's. all I know is if they want to sit on their arse they should be happy with what they get or should I sit on my arse and complain if I don't get to ride a new bike every year, or go oversea's and ride there.

It's called up skilling, while working carry on studying to get to the next level. if you don't want to then try and find an employer that pays better.

I would say make the beneficiary work for it and pay the employee more. who knows they might learn a skill that they can find a job with.

We are a country of "we want the cheapest" so most manufacturing has moved overseas and for local company's to compete they have to lower costs, either lower wages or less staff.

I'd pretty much agree with all you've said here. The system is not perfect and could certainly stand improvement, all I'm saying is that I can't see that a Free Market, libertarian, low-tax, survival of the fitest economy will provide a better outcome for the majority in the future when it hasn't in the past.

[Clockwork]

We may vote but do we really choose the government and therefore the policies that we support? NO!

We go to an election and vote for politicians and political parties to give them "permission to try to form a government"!

That is the point where all this begins and is sustained ... the election, a flawed system that results in guaranteed confusion and dissatisfaction with the result!

The only apparent satisfaction gained from our electoral system is when an unpopular incumbent coalition is voted "out"!

The voters (the electorate) have absolutely no idea what the outcome of the election will be or who will govern and how they will govern.

The politicians sort that out amongst themselves by pledging concessions and allegiances to each other not to us the electors!

The politicians and parties that are eventually reduced to the less lucrative opposition benches spend their energies trying to drum up support by wasting money on destructive activities like the referendum to try to embarrass and distract the incumbent coalition from succeeding with their stated objectives!

Is that really constructive opposition ... will this system really provide us with stable government of the majority ... or will it simply sustain guaranteed future chaos? :mellow:

But as you say, if what we vote for is not neccesarliy what we get, then is it such a stretch to accept that just because National got enough vote's to form a Government, that it doesn't follow that the majority of taxpayers "owners" if you will" are happy to see those assests sold. If as you say, you want more say in what the Governement does, then what was wrong with starting with a referendum? So it cost $9 mill (which is rock-all in the scheme of things and probably not real money to boot). The only reason it was a waste of money was because the Government said... "regardless of the vote, fuck you, we're selling anyway!"

So, who wasted the money, the voters/Opposition or the Government?

[MisterD]

all I'm saying is that I can't see that a Free Market, libertarian, low-tax, survival of the fitest economy will provide a better outcome for the majority in the future when it hasn't in the past.

Like it's ever been tried. We've certainly never had a proper free market here, this country is addicted to government regulation.

It's a funny thing about a certain kind of lefty, they scream for government to regulate and they hate big corporations, but can't see that corporations love regulation because it's such an effective barrier to small, innovative competitors.

[Clockwork]

Like it's ever been tried. We've certainly never had a proper free market here, this country is addicted to government regulation.

It's a funny thing about a certain kind of lefty, they scream for government to regulate and they hate big corporations, but can't see that corporations love regulation because it's such an effective barrier to small, innovative competitors.

Well that depends entirely on the regulation and who "paid" for them. Do you have something in mind? I'd like to hear about it.

[MisterD]

Well that depends entirely on the regulation and who "paid" for them. Do you have something in mind? I'd like to hear about it.


My favourite example of the moment is Bitcoin, a pretty libertarian free-market thing really (give or take the attachment many libertarian / Austrian-leaning types have to gold) , it exists outside of government regulation at the moment but many people are happy, in a willing buyer & willing seller kind of way, to use it as a medium of exchange.

In this case, and the reason I think it's such a neat example, the threatened monopoly interest is the government itself. The calls to regulate are starting already, and the pretext will be to "protect people" (it always is) but the object is to stamp out the competition.

[oldrider]

But as you say, if what we vote for is not neccesarliy what we get, then is it such a stretch to accept that just because National got enough vote's to form a Government, that it doesn't follow that the majority of taxpayers "owners" if you will" are happy to see those assests sold. If as you say, you want more say in what the Governement does, then what was wrong with starting with a referendum? So it cost $9 mill (which is rock-all in the scheme of things and probably not real money to boot). The only reason it was a waste of money was because the Government said... "regardless of the vote, fuck you, we're selling anyway!"

So, who wasted the money, the voters/Opposition or the Government?

Probably all of the above!

If that is your opinion then to you it is valid and fair enough I am not arguing with you on that in my previous post so much as is it a symptom of a faulty process?

My first real introduction to these referendum was the one on law and order in 1999 where Helen Clark totally ignored the wishes of a "vast number of electors" and declared that she and her government knew what was best for us! :brick: Bloody hell! (Was I ever pissed off with that one!)

Nothing has changed although this one was a "political party driven referendum" rather than a plain citizens referendum! (a new trend?)

I have always been pissed off by the vagaries of the FPP electoral system since the Social Credit party gained 21% of the vote and scored 2 seats in parliament!

I did not however like the devious way that MMP was foisted upon us or the current circus that poses as a democratic election by the people for the people!

The current system is never going to give satisfaction to anyone except those who belong to the coalition of the time and they will sell their souls for membership!

A and B at loggerheads for the benefit of C ... where "C" = those who gain power from the continued state of chaos between A and B (the banking system for instance?)

Do you actually know anybody who satisfied that our electoral system delivers fair, equitable and transparent results? :confused:

I could accept MMP more if the political parties and politicians were more directly accountable to the electorate instead of to each other!

Also the electorate is the level that needs to be where the government is directly decided not by default among the self interested politicians and party leaders! :no:

[Clockwork]

My favourite example of the moment is Bitcoin, a pretty libertarian free-market thing really (give or take the attachment many libertarian / Austrian-leaning types have to gold) , it exists outside of government regulation at the moment but many people are happy, in a willing buyer & willing seller kind of way, to use it as a medium of exchange.

In this case, and the reason I think it's such a neat example, the threatened monopoly interest is the government itself. The calls to regulate are starting already, and the pretext will be to "protect people" (it always is) but the object is to stamp out the competition.

Regulate it how? What competion, from who? I'm not disputing what you say cause I know bog all about it but at a guess I'd say the Banks want it stamped out because they don't get a cut. The Governament wants to ensure it get's its cut of any taxes, such as GST, The Reserve Bank probably want's it controlled because if half the country's economey is traded throught it the would stuff up their stats and make it very difficult to manage the economoy. The Police would want to ensure that the proceeds of crime arn't laundered through it and the American would want to ensure thet Terrorism wasn't being funded through it, but appart from the tax aviodance issues I don't see why the "lefties" in particular would be behind such regulations.

[Clockwork]

Probably all of the above!

If that is your opinion then to you it is valid and fair enough I am not arguing with you on that in my previous post so much as is it a symptom of a faulty process?

My first real introduction to these referendum was the one on law and order in 1999 where Helen Clark totally ignored the wishes of a "vast number of electors" and declared that she and her government knew what was best for us! :brick: Bloody hell! (Was I ever pissed off with that one!)

Nothing has changed although this one was a "political party driven referendum" rather than a plain citizens referendum! (a new trend?)

I have always been pissed off by the vagaries of the FPP electoral system since the Social Credit party gained 21% of the vote and scored 2 seats in parliament!

I did not however like the devious way that MMP was foisted upon us or the current circus that poses as a democratic election by the people for the people!

The current system is never going to give satisfaction to anyone except those who belong to the coalition of the time and they will sell their souls for membership!

A and B at loggerheads for the benefit of C ... where "C" = those who gain power from the continued state of chaos between A and B (the banking system for instance?)

Do you actually know anybody who satisfied that our electoral system delivers fair, equitable and transparent results? :confused:

I could accept MMP more if the political parties and politicians were more directly accountable to the electorate instead of to each other!

Also the electorate is the level that needs to be where the government is directly decided not by default among the self interested politicians and party leaders! :no:

I think MPP is better than FPP, at least with MMP Social Credit would have got 21% of the seats!!

I also think MMP could stand improvement and the results of the last review should have been implemented but self serving and cowardly Politicians saw that off. (Aint it always so?)

[mashman]

In this case, and the reason I think it's such a neat example, the threatened monopoly interest is the government itself.

bwaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaa... yeah, it's the govt monopoly of money creation that's being threatened. You can't honestly believe that shite?

[Zedder]

I want to engage in a rational debate but I'm a sensitive sole and I was a little hurt by the tone of your reply so try to imagine that I'm 2m tall, 300kgs of seething muscle, I have a bad attitude, a club with a nail through it and we are having this debate face to face in a dark pub car park. That way we can both be sure that your response will not contain any gratuitous ad homonyms

I wanted to get your thoughts on the Nordic model, however, you don't appear to have bothered to reply to my post so imagine I'm standing in front of you in a car park giving you the middle finger.

[oldrider]

I wanted to get your thoughts on the Nordic model, however, you don't appear to have bothered to reply to my post so imagine I'm standing in front of you in a car park giving you the middle finger.

Is that with a Christmas cheer or an ouch? :motu:

[Zedder]

Is that with a Christmas cheer or an ouch? :motu:

Well, 'cos it's imaginary, it can be anything you like...

[Clockwork]

I wanted to get your thoughts on the Nordic model, however, you don't appear to have bothered to reply to my post so imagine I'm standing in front of you in a car park giving you the middle finger.

Sorry, got distracted.

I honestly don't know too much about it other that it seems to work well for them. They may well have more of a social conscience with less pressure for tax cuts from the wealthier and/or more social resposibility from their beneficiaries.

Put that finger away, you may need it later.

[Clockwork]

Further thoughts....

Maybe its because Murdoch can't speak any norse languages so never bought into any part of their media?

[oldrider]

I wanted to get your thoughts on the Nordic model, however, you don't appear to have bothered to reply to my post so imagine I'm standing in front of you in a car park giving you the middle finger.

I saw a documentary on TV where they were complaining about all the interlopers from Britain and all round Europe sponging on their system!

Have never seen it repeated though and was quite a while ago.

[Clockwork]

I saw a documentary on TV where they were complaining about all the interlopers from Britain and all round Europe sponging on their system!

Have never seen it repeated though and was quite a while ago.

Dosn't sound like the Brits. We'd be too lazy to learn the lingo and anyway, from what I hear the price of booze there would be way too high.

[Zedder]

Sorry, got distracted.

I honestly don't know too much about it other that it seems to work well for them. They may well have more of a social conscience with less pressure for tax cuts from the wealthier and/or more social resposibility from their beneficiaries.

Put that finger away, you may need it later.

Yep, it does seem to work well for them and apparently some Asian countries, including China, are looking to them for guidance which is a significant change.

Don't worry, as mentioned the finger was imaginary.

[Ocean1]

Depends how he spins it. Neglecting to mention it was a quick cash grab by selling assets paints a wholly different picture than saying the economy has turned a massive profit this year...

No spin required whatsoever. National went into the last election with the plan to sell shares in some publicly owned companies on the front page of their manifesto. It was the topic of political discussion, almost to the exclusion of anything else for months either side of the election.

You might not like it, I might not like it, a small majority might not like it, (which, btw the reforendum completely fails to clarify) but they're keeping that promise in order to help balance the books.

Like it or not you can't claim it was in any way underhanded or deceitful.

[mashman]

No spin required whatsoever. National went into the last election with the plan to sell shares in some publicly owned companies on the front page of their manifesto. It was the topic of political discussion, almost to the exclusion of anything else for months either side of the election.

You might not like it, I might not like it, a small majority might not like it, (which, btw the reforendum completely fails to clarify) but they're keeping that promise in order to help balance the books.

Like it or not you can't claim it was in any way underhanded or deceitful.

All true if they actually cared about what they were voting for in the first place. T'would seem that some right wingers will happily cut their noses off to spite their faces.

[bogan]

No spin required whatsoever. National went into the last election with the plan to sell shares in some publicly owned companies on the front page of their manifesto. It was the topic of political discussion, almost to the exclusion of anything else for months either side of the election.

You might not like it, I might not like it, a small majority might not like it, (which, btw the reforendum completely fails to clarify) but they're keeping that promise in order to help balance the books.

Like it or not you can't claim it was in any way underhanded or deceitful.

Yeh I got no problem with that. It how it is portrayed after the fact, and after this term that could lose my vote.

[Ocean1]

All true if they actually cared about what they were voting for in the first place. T'would seem that some right wingers will happily cut their noses off to spite their faces.

Presumably those voting did so because they cared enough about the options to do so.

Those not caring about the options get the same response from those that do. We don't give a flying fuck about them, they literally don't count.

[Ocean1]

Yeh I got no problem with that. It how it is portrayed after the fact, and after this term that could lose my vote.

Sorry dude, I can't make much sense of that.

It's good that they clearly stated what they would do if elected.

It's good that they actually do it.

But it might not be good if...?

[Oscar]

Sorry dude, I can't make much sense of that.

It's good that they clearly stated what they would do if elected.

It's good that they actually do it.

But it might not be good if...?

The spin that pisses me off is the whole "asset sales" malarkey.
It's a partial asset sale.

[mashman]

Presumably those voting did so because they cared enough about the options to do so.

Those not caring about the options get the same response from those that do. We don't give a flying fuck about them, they literally don't count.

Isn't that what I just said?

However I believe that people have the right to exercise their veto. Shame some silly auld buggers can't grasp that and need to get all bitter and twisted such people breathing oxygen, let alone their ability to contribute.

[bogan]

Sorry dude, I can't make much sense of that.

It's good that they clearly stated what they would do if elected.

It's good that they actually do it.

But it might not be good if...?

Ok, last go at it. It might not be good if they try and 'sell' it as a fuck yeh we got NZ way less debt cos we're awesome and there is no downside to this at all. Less debt, less assets, tis not a win-win and should not be portrayed as such. I have this likely naive view that within the MMP mixer, voting for those who seem the least cunty might just be the best way to prevent dickish policies from being scooted through; so I weigh up my votes accordingly, labor lost mine by trying to blatantly buy it last time I think (or may have been time before, or perhaps both).

[carbonhed]

labor lost mine by trying to blatantly buy it last time I think (or may have been time before, or perhaps both).

Probably both.

Fuck it. Definitely both!

[Ocean1]

Ok, last go at it. It might not be good if they try and 'sell' it as a fuck yeh we got NZ way less debt cos we're awesome and there is no downside to this at all. Less debt, less assets, tis not a win-win and should not be portrayed as such. I have this likely naive view that within the MMP mixer, voting for those who seem the least cunty might just be the best way to prevent dickish policies from being scooted through; so I weigh up my votes accordingly, labor lost mine by trying to blatantly buy it last time I think (or may have been time before, or perhaps both).

Of course they'll sell it as a good thing, just as the opposition will trash it. You don't actually have to listen to the mandatory bullshit to know how each will behave, do you?

For me, most times "least cunty" is "not spending more than we earn" and/or "encouraging productive enterprise". And while none of the various parties do either very well it's usually pretty obvious which is threatening to come closest without going to the extremes of watching too many political party broadcasts.

[husaberg]

Sorry dude, I can't make much sense of that.

It's good that they clearly stated what they would do if elected.

It's good that they actually do it.

But it might not be good if...?


http://fmacskasy.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/john-key-asset-sales-turning-around-the-economy.jpg

[Ocean1]

john-key-asset-sales-

Haven't heard the story change much since then. It was always just one of a few, mostly painful measures to get back into the black.

Me? I'd have been a bit more aggressive in spending cuts back in '09 instead. Possibly as well. But I'm an arsehole.

[SPman]

If you believe they are doing it to "balance the books", have I got a harbour bridge to sell you........

[husaberg]

Haven't heard the story change much since then. It was always just one of a few, mostly painful measures to get back into the black.

Me? I'd have been a bit more aggressive in spending cuts back in '09 instead. Possibly as well. But I'm an arsehole.

Yeah but the whole time the Nats were in opposition they were bleating on how if they were were in they wouldn't be running surpluses they would be doing massive tax cuts, Yet now they are in have been borrowing more and more money and bailing out stuff they have no responsibility for like the fiance companies etc... The fiscal responsibility is a bit odd with that one don't you think, Smacks of the wall street bail out the yanks did.

[Ocean1]

If you believe they are doing it to "balance the books", have I got a harbour bridge to sell you........

I wouldn't buy anything from someone with the economic sense to have bought that bridge in the first place.

[Ocean1]

Yeah but the whole time the Nats were in opposition they were bleating on how if they were were in they wouldn't be running surpluses they would be doing massive tax cuts, Yet now they are in have been borrowing more and more money

As would I, then.

Now, I'd be trying to regain the economic strength we had then. And as I said, I'd have been cutting spending harder and borrowing less.

[Scuba_Steve]

The spin that pisses me off is the whole "asset sales" malarkey.
It's a partial asset sale.

... for now

[oldrider]

... for now

That apprehension is quite legitimate but the unrest created by the referendum has always been there!

Remember it was the Labour government that set those government departments up as SOE's specifically for selling!

The National led coalition has probably only gone for partial sales (maintaining a controlling share) because the country has so clearly proven that it is not (mature enough?) ready to accept total sales as of yet.

Add to that the fact that some of Labours fire sales of SOE's didn't go very well in the first round of selling ... they went too far too fast for their supporters!

Remember David Lange's panicky "time for a cup of tea" malarkey! :facepalm:

[Brian d marge]

As would I, then.

Now, I'd be trying to regain the economic strength we had then. And as I said, I'd have been cutting spending harder and borrowing less.

Where does most of the spending occur and how are you going to reach productivity in order to reduce your borrowing ??

Stephen

[SPman]

That apprehension is quite legitimate but the unrest created by the referendum has always been there!

Remember it was the Labour government that set those government departments up as SOE's specifically for selling!

The National led coalition has probably only gone for partial sales (maintaining a controlling share) because the country has so clearly proven that it is not (mature enough?) ready to accept total sales as of yet.

Add to that the fact that some of Labours fire sales of SOE's didn't go very well in the first round of selling ... they went too far too fast for their supporters!

Remember David Lange's panicky "time for a cup of tea" malarkey! :facepalm:

I wouldn't call the Douglas/Prebble/Moore/Arsehole/Arsehole.... government a labour government, any more than Tony Blairs "new labour" was a labour government. ACT in labour clothing!

How is it, that NZ does better economically under a "left leaning" government, than when national are in power?......true....look at all the stats!

[husaberg]

I wouldn't call the Douglas/Prebble/Moore/Arsehole/Arsehole.... government a labour government, any more than Tony Blairs "new labour" was a labour government. ACT in labour clothing!

How is it, that NZ does better economically under a "left leaning" government, than when national are in power?......true....look at all the stats!

Its an interesting quandary until you see just who does better with all this "Global financial crisis" and "recession" commodity item prices sure go up a lot.
People don't demand/ask for more wages when they are worried about their jobs. Unions get smashed etc etc.......
I actually had a dark thought the other day,the 49% shares "the Mom and Pop" investors brought becomes pretty worthless when they (the government) hock off the 51% controlling interest to another party.:killingme

[Ocean1]

Where does most of the spending occur and how are you going to reach productivity in order to reduce your borrowing ??

Stephen

During a labour govt.

Arsehole the labour govt.

[oldrider]

I wouldn't call the Douglas/Prebble/Moore/Arsehole/Arsehole.... government a labour government, any more than Tony Blairs "new labour" was a labour government. ACT in labour clothing!

How is it, that NZ does better economically under a "left leaning" government, than when national are in power?......true....look at all the stats!

I was commenting about Scuba Steve's apparent expression of apprehension in his "for now" post!

National and Labour actually swapped idealogical places in 1984 and hardly any of their died in the wool followers (voters) actually even noticed! :lol:

They did however cling onto their traditional name tags so like it or not your Douglas/Prebble/Moore/Arsehole/Arsehole et al were a Labour government! :whistle:

How is it, that NZ does better economically under a "left leaning" government, than when national are in power?......true....look at all the stats!

I don't know! Today's National and Labour party politicians are so much of the same ilk and so interchangeable that you can't really tell the difference!

Difference between National and Labour Governments that I have seen since the first Labour government has only been cosmetic when you really think about it!

Statistics are there to serve whoever and whatever and they all put their own spin on them anyway same as they have done with this referendum! :confused:

Ownership of the assets doesn't matter that much just as long as the service, products or price don't change because that's all I want off them.

The only reason Clark bought back into Air NZ was to secure their (politicians) life time travel perks! ... (which cost the taxpayers plenty)

The old Left/centre/right political bullshit can go out the window now because in truth almost everybody these days tries to claim the middle ground as their own anyway.

Governments are a coalition lucky dip pulled out of a hat and "they will decide" what's good for us regardless what we think we are voting for at any election!

[mashman]

How is it, that NZ does better economically under a "left leaning" government, than when national are in power?......true....look at all the stats!


NOW this is a question I can get behind. Tin foil hats at the ready... chaaaaaaaarge. Because the function of political parties is thus: The right wing fiscally adept (honestly, I'll wee if I continue) are here for a single reason. Take a look back through history and in general (more than 50% of the time), the right have been voted in when there's a financial crisis. So we have the right who pare everything back to money and the left who pretend that they're doing it for the sake of the people. Essentially, one side, the left, spend spend spend on the people in the hope that the current financial model fits. When the current financial model doesn't fit (which it never does, E...V...E...R), the right end up in power. The sole objective of the right is to "steady the ship" whilst the world does a stock take i.e. devalues what the left have allowed companies to be valued at... well, the free market :killingme. The left doesn't care for people, but has to "show" that it does because that is their historical function... anything else would be called something like New Labour, or if you want to get pedantic, right of centre. Meanwhile, the Right does nothing but moan and bitch about how bad people are in general, especially lefties or greenies or anything other than the right whinge. At the end of the day, they both fulfill their functions almost flawlessly. Dickheads who identifies with the Right will never vote for the left (just coz they're fuckin moronic), because they believe that the left are a bunch of commie fucks... whilst those who identify with the left berate the right for screwing people over as they have this overwhelming need to prove that the private sector is more efficient than the public sector (a completely stupid stance, but hey, the right whinge really are fuckin stupid.. bordering on psychotic. True story).

Moral of the story: Most of you, Left or Right, are a bunch of mindless, selfish, narrow minded, ignorant, compliant fucktards. Facts don't lie. If you had an inkling about the rest of the world outside of good ole stable glad we're not any country that's suffering from the GFC NZ... I'd think that you were a millisecond away from an aneurism... which unfortunately isn't an often enough given the propensity for dipshitedness that ya'll display. Still though, a man can dream whilst children play.

[Zedder]

Ya feckin' bampot!

[mashman]

Gaan take a wee flyin feck tae yersel... dawl.

[Brian d marge]

During a labour govt.

Arsehole the labour govt.

In other words, you dont know

Stephen

[Brian d marge]

I was commenting about Scuba Steve's apparent expression of apprehension in his "for now" post!

National and Labour actually swapped idealogical places in 1984 and hardly any of their died in the wool followers (voters) actually even noticed! :lol:

They did however cling onto their traditional name tags so like it or not your Douglas/Prebble/Moore/Arsehole/Arsehole et al were a Labour government! :whistle:

How is it, that NZ does better economically under a "left leaning" government, than when national are in power?......true....look at all the stats!

I don't know! Today's National and Labour party politicians are so much of the same ilk and so interchangeable that you can't really tell the difference!

Difference between National and Labour Governments that I have seen since the first Labour government has only been cosmetic when you really think about it!

Statistics are there to serve whoever and whatever and they all put their own spin on them anyway same as they have done with this referendum! :confused:

Ownership of the assets doesn't matter that much just as long as the service, products or price don't change because that's all I want off them.

The only reason Clark bought back into Air NZ was to secure their (politicians) life time travel perks! ... (which cost the taxpayers plenty)

The old Left/centre/right political bullshit can go out the window now because in truth almost everybody these days tries to claim the middle ground as their own anyway.

Governments are a coalition lucky dip pulled out of a hat and "they will decide" what's good for us regardless what we think we are voting for at any election!

and didnt the reserve bank act make the treasury independent ? and the one who controls the QUANTITY of money has the power

in the mean time Im voting for the ones who look after the finite resources the most

Stephen

[avgas]

I actually had a dark thought the other day,the 49% shares "the Mom and Pop" investors brought becomes pretty worthless when they (the government) hock off the 51% controlling interest to another party.:killingme
Its actually worse than that.
- 5-10% will never turnup and vote, they will be passive investors. So 49% is only 45%
- Say a majority (of mom and pop) disagree with whatever the other half oppose - at best you going to get 80% oppose. So 45% is actually an effective force of 36%.

This means a big corporations only needs to buy a 30% stake in the company to cause real trouble. 40% if they want to go unopposed. What we need is a 30% held by a party whom has the best interest of the people......just to balance the argument. But that will never happen.
i.e. 33% private corp held, 33% pubic (moms and pops) and 33% stabilizer (I would say govt, but I am better off believing in unicorns than NZ GOVT has the tax payers interest at heart).

[avgas]

and didnt the reserve bank act make the treasury independent ? and the one who controls the QUANTITY of money has the power
- If RBNZ was independent, the rate would have changed (up and down every 3 months). Rather than being stuck in "Japan Limbo" and being stuck for 4 years.....then leaping whole %

- NZ has no money. We have resources. China could buy us tomorrow with their money. So right now the people hold the resources are the ones whom have the power. The silver lining is it looks like they are selling the resources..........so soon the Govt will be worthless........and NZ might be saved.

[oldrider]

.......so soon the Govt will be worthless......

That's just it, the government is supposed to be worthless ... they should be made to present and sell their ideas to the people that they serve!

Then the public could finance their ideas once the public have accepted and approved of them.

As it is the government holds a gun at the heads of the public and demands (extorts) money (tax) from them to finance their questionable acts and lifestyles!

It has simply become a "legal" (Where, the criminals set the laws!) protection racket and the taxpayers are the victims!

What we need is less government and more accountability to those who hold the real wealth of the country ... the people who produce goods and services!

Governments and banks should be there to provide service to the producers of wealth not the other way round as it has become today!

Unfortunately the tail wags the dog in today's world and the dog is dying or at best always extremely sick as a result! :puke: .. Think about it! :facepalm:

[oldrider]

That's just it, the government is supposed to be worthless ... they should be made to present and sell their ideas to the people that they serve!

Then the public could finance their ideas once the public have accepted and approved of them.

As it is the government holds a gun at the heads of the public and demands (extorts) money (tax) from them to finance their questionable acts and lifestyles!

It has simply become a "legal" (Where, the criminals set the laws!) protection racket and the taxpayers are the victims!

What we need is less government and more accountability to those who hold the real wealth of the country ... the people who produce goods and services!

Governments and banks should be there to provide service to the producers of wealth not the other way round as it has become today!

So what is that? Left/Centre/Right politics or just common sense?

Unfortunately the tail wags the dog in today's world and the dog is dying or at best always extremely sick as a result! :puke: .. Think about it! :facepalm:

Those who don't contribute by producing goods and services (wealth) should be identified as "passengers" on the gravy train.

Those who can but "choose not to contribute to the wealth" should be free to make that choice but should not expect any share of the wealth in return! (Dole? maybe!)

Those who can not contribute toward the wealth "through no fault of their own" should be included and looked after by those that can. (welfare share)

[avgas]

With todays day and age - why can't the people vote on ideas rather than people?
I mean shit we have facebook/nzherald polls........why can't that be formalised to actual governance?

[oldrider]

With todays day and age - why can't the people vote on ideas rather than people?
I mean shit we have facebook/nzherald polls........why can't that be formalised to actual governance?

Good question ... why can't it? (Why can't anything?)

Three countries have got valid space programs in operation currently!

They are doing it, so why can't we get the same kind of cooperation for governing our countries? :brick:

[Zedder]

Gaan take a wee flyin feck tae yersel... dawl.

Just keeping with the abuse theme. Although, your post about the mindless fucktards etc was a bit off.

Maybe people are a little bit busy doing their best to bring up a family or other such things.

[Zedder]

With todays day and age - why can't the people vote on ideas rather than people?
I mean shit we have facebook/nzherald polls........why can't that be formalised to actual governance?

The Swiss are big on this.

[mashman]

Just keeping with the abuse theme. Although, your post about the mindless fucktards etc was a bit off.

Maybe people are a little bit busy doing their best to bring up a family or other such things.

T'was nothing but a virtual slap with a wet bus ticket.

I totally agree... although there is no need for people to move their focus from their family/lives etc... when it comes to thinking. It's a simple thing to do and I'm not expecting people to rush on to the streets and cry bloody murder, this is NZ after all. Besides those who are in positions to affect how we live (i.e. those who fuck people over for a living, knowingly or not), I would have expected that those with a family and working hard for that family would be more concerned with the future that we're setting up for our kids. In that respect I think the mindless fucktards etc... was a little soft.

[Zedder]

T'was nothing but a virtual slap with a wet bus ticket.

I totally agree... although there is no need for people to move their focus from their family/lives etc... when it comes to thinking. It's a simple thing to do and I'm not expecting people to rush on to the streets and cry bloody murder, this is NZ after all. Besides those who are in positions to affect how we live (i.e. those who fuck people over for a living, knowingly or not), I would have expected that those with a family and working hard for that family would be more concerned with the future that we're setting up for our kids. In that respect I think the mindless fucktards etc... was a little soft.

Yeah masho but some people do things via the mainstream while others work by circumvention or whatever they can wangle etc.

That doesn't change the fact they're maybe setting up a future for their kids. You wrote yourself about reducing your work hours, I know people who think anyone doing that is off their rocker.

[avgas]

Good question ... why can't it? (Why can't anything?)
Three countries have got valid space programs in operation currently!
They are doing it, so why can't we get the same kind of cooperation for governing our countries? :brick:
As far as I am concerned - if people really want my opinion/thought/vote then it is relation to an idea. Voting for someone else to do the thinking for me - I have $85,000 of university education + years work and life experience.....that tells me I am perfectly fine to wipe my own ass and make my own decisions thanks.
Dictatorship makes more sense to me than elected democrazy. It's like voting for which person is going to fuck you in the arse. Really stupid.

[mashman]

Yeah masho but some people do things via the mainstream while others work by circumvention or whatever they can wangle etc.

That doesn't change the fact they're maybe setting up a future for their kids. You wrote yourself about reducing your work hours, I know people who think anyone doing that is off their rocker.

Aye... yet we're still in a recession, Chch still needs rebuilding, wages aren't rising in line with inflation, blah blah blah... and we're several thousands of years into understanding, technology, civilisation etc...

Absolutely. I have no doubt that there are those setting up futures for their kids (me being 1), good on them, but more it's of concern that they would think no further than that. I don't see us moving any further forwards.

[oldrider]

As far as I am concerned - if people really want my opinion/thought/vote then it is relation to an idea. Voting for someone else to do the thinking for me - I have $85,000 of university education + years work and life experience.....that tells me I am perfectly fine to wipe my own ass and make my own decisions thanks.
Dictatorship makes more sense to me than elected democrazy. It's like voting for which person is going to fuck you in the arse. Really stupid.

Notice how quickly Germany advanced in every sphere (except humanity) whilst under the Nazi dictatorial spell ... (when money wasn't a problem either)

[Zedder]

Aye... yet we're still in a recession, Chch still needs rebuilding, wages aren't rising in line with inflation, blah blah blah... and we're several thousands of years into understanding, technology, civilisation etc...

Absolutely. I have no doubt that there are those setting up futures for their kids (me being 1), good on them, but more it's of concern that they would think no further than that. I don't see us moving any further forwards.

The "wheels of industry/justice/government grind slowly" etc.

A Lawyer mate of mine (I don't tell everyone that...) is doing his best to make sure his son gets into law with the goal of doing something to change things. Another guy I know has a son doing a PhD in Political Science so he can get involved in politics and bring about change.

Different strokes for different folks.

[mashman]

The "wheels of industry/justice/government grind slowly" etc.

A Lawyer mate of mine (I don't tell everyone that...) is doing his best to make sure his son gets into law with the goal of doing something to change things. Another guy I know has a son doing a PhD in Political Science so he can get involved in politics and bring about change.

Different strokes for different folks.

Unfortunately very true... and tells a story all on its own.

Good luck to them... I'd imagine such established institutions will have a horribly entrenched ethos when it comes to those that they allow through the doors. The data sharing these days'll likely make that 10 times worse.

[Zedder]

Unfortunately very true... and tells a story all on its own.

Good luck to them... I'd imagine such established institutions will have a horribly entrenched ethos when it comes to those that they allow through the doors. The data sharing these days'll likely make that 10 times worse.

Fast tracking is usually quite risky. The rule of thumb is 33% of sequential activities can sometimes be fast tracked.

What candidates do to "get in the door" and what they do after gaining the final qualification are often very very different things.

[mashman]

Fast tracking is usually quite risky. The rule of thumb is 33% of sequential activities can sometimes be fast tracked.

What candidates do to "get in the door" and what they do after gaining the final qualification are often very very different things.

Doesn't stop the IT industry :shitfy:

I don't doubt it mate... shame that they have to open the doors that way innit.

[Zedder]

Doesn't stop the IT industry :shitfy:

I don't doubt it mate... shame that they have to open the doors that way innit.

It's called "playing the game" masho. Academia/theory and reality are two sides of the coin.

[Akzle]

Those who don't contribute by producing goods and services (wealth) should be identified as "passengers" on the gravy train.

Those who can but "choose not to contribute to the wealth" should be free to make that choice but should not expect any share of the wealth in return! (Dole? maybe!)

Those who can not contribute toward the wealth "through no fault of their own" should be included and looked after by those that can. (welfare share)

bit like, 'from each acording their ability, to each, except people oldy doesnt like'
:laugh:

[oldrider]

bit like, 'from each acording their ability, to each, except people oldy doesnt like'
:laugh:

Not really Akzle, we have a handicapped son and appreciate the help that he has received from our (socialist?) welfare system and we don't take it for granted!

Despite the welfare assistance his education and ongoing care has still cost us a small fortune and we know it is still "our" responsibility and accountability!

Funny thing is that as parents the privacy laws disconnect us from him and we are literally disenfranchised from any official decision making for him!

Only the humanity and kindness of his carers keep us in the picture at times!