Referendum on Asset Sales

[mossy1200]

Got a Referendum voting paper today.
Asking if I wanted the Government to sell 49% of something I already own back to myself or to others without seeing my share of the money.

Thank you very much for your kind donation.
Thank you very much
Thank you very, very, very much.

[Berries]

Is that a yes or a no then?

[Akzle]

i dont get any mail. Cos my caravan doesnt hav a letterbox. Plausable deniability.
Im also not enrolled to vote. If i wanted other people to make decisions for me id go back to rehab, or jail.

[Oscar]

Got a Referendum voting paper today.
Asking if I wanted the Government to sell 49% of something I already own back to myself or to others without seeing my share of the money.

Thank you very much for your kind donation.
Thank you very much
Thank you very, very, very much.

You don't own it, or a even a share of it.
You probably never did.

The Govt. owes NZ$60B.

[Flip]

The wonkey donkey said a vote for national was a vote for asset sales. Whet did you expect???

Well you all thought a centre right goverment would be good for the people and not the rich, suckers.

[puddytat]

If you don't vote at all on the referendum then Wankey will say that you are happy for it to go ahead so didn't bother to vote. If it fucks you off then you should at least vote one way or the other, so then it will be more credible & less likely spun by the polliwallies because imbeciles don't get their shit together.

[AllanB]

Waste of another mill or two having it if it is non-binding.

[Drew]

If the next government weren't talking about putting the country further in debt to buy it all back, I'd be all for asset sales.

[AllanB]

If the next government weren't talking about putting the country further in debt to buy it all back, I'd be all for asset sales.

That's a fair comment - any gains short term by selling with the Nats will only be overridden when the inevitable happens and the voting public tire of them. Such is the life cycle of politics in NZ - Nat/Labour it will happen.

[Oscar]

Waste of another mill or two having it if it is non-binding.

Try $10,000,000
Say thank you Greens.

[Akzle]

If you don't vote at all on the referendum then Wankey will say that you are happy for it to go ahead so didn't bother to vote. If it fucks you off then you should at least vote one way or the other, so then it will be more credible & less likely spun by the polliwallies because imbeciles don't get their shit together.

we're getting close to <50% voter turnout.

Representative governance? I think not.

Children can be made to look like reindeer by attaching coral to their heads with common wood screws.

[MisterD]

If you don't vote at all on the referendum then Wankey will say that you are happy for it to go ahead so didn't bother to vote.

Yep, and that's why the two envelopes that arrived at my place are already in the recycling bin. Seems the only logical action considering that my problem with the policy, is that we should sell 100%.

[SMOKEU]

i dont get any mail. Cos my caravan doesnt hav a letterbox. Plausable deniability.
Im also not enrolled to vote. If i wanted other people to make decisions for me id go back to rehab, or jail.

You should vote, at least that way to get to vote for the lesser evil.


The wonkey donkey said a vote for national was a vote for asset sales. Whet did you expect???

Well you all thought a centre right goverment would be good for the people and not the rich, suckers.

Except it's not really anything close to right wing. It's run by a jew, and the crime rate is out of control with nothing done about it. That screams left wing to me.

[Bassmatt]

Except it's not really anything close to right wing. It's run by a jew, and the crime rate is out of control with nothing done about it. That screams left wing to me.

Private prisons.

[SMOKEU]

Private prisons.

That's irrelevant if the courts are reluctant to send criminals to jail in the first place, and powerless to keep them imprisoned for any significant length of time except for the worst offenders. How many times have you read of career criminals ruining the lives of innocent people, just to be given a pathetically weak sentence so they can do it all over again? If JK and his party were anything other than a bunch of lefties, they would at least take this problem seriously rather than sweep it under the carpet and pretend it doesn't really matter. The fact that they're taking the whole "4kmh over the speed limit" thing so seriously should make it obvious where their priorities lie. It's obvious revenue gathering.

[Akzle]

You should vote, at least that way to get to vote for the lesser evil.



thats just fucking stupid.

But lets have some kbmocracy. Should i go to chch and hit smokey with a baseball bat, or a broom handle?

You get to vote too smokey. Probably choose the lesser evil, but either way, you loose, innit.

[Oscar]

thats just fucking stupid.

But lets have some kbmocracy. Should i go to chch and hit smokey with a baseball bat, or a broom handle?

You get to vote too smokey. Probably choose the lesser evil, but either way, you loose, innit.

If you're planning on hitting him upside his head, I think you're wasting your time.
His posts here would suggest that there is little or nothing functioning between his ears.

Add a "kick him in the nuts" option.

[oldrider]

That's irrelevant if the courts are reluctant to send criminals to jail in the first place, and powerless to keep them imprisoned for any significant length of time except for the worst offenders. How many times have you read of career criminals ruining the lives of innocent people, just to be given a pathetically weak sentence so they can do it all over again? If JK and his party were anything other than a bunch of lefties, they would at least take this problem seriously rather than sweep it under the carpet and pretend it doesn't really matter. The fact that they're taking the whole "4kmh over the speed limit" thing so seriously should make it obvious where their priorities lie. It's obvious revenue gathering.

New Zealand is predominately a left wing country ... true right wing politics and thinking is practically void here unless imported!

The power of the State over the individual is brainwashed into the populace from the cradle to the grave. :mellow:

[Oscar]

New Zealand is predominately a left wing country ... true right wing politics and thinking is practically void here unless imported!

The power of the State over the individual is brainwashed into the populace from the cradle to the grave. :mellow:

I disagree.
Even the Labour Party and Unions have a very strong conservative element in respect of moral and social issues.

[avgas]

The Govt. owes NZ$60B.
Why?

I often dream of the day that people would stop lending the governments money. It's like giving your gold card to your ex-wife.

[avgas]

You should vote, at least that way to get to vote for the lesser evil.
So which would you like, eat shit or drink piss.
I will keep a stockpile for you.

Or perhaps there is a third option?

[Banditbandit]

You don't own it, or a even a share of it.
You probably never did.

The Govt. owes NZ$60B.

And whose fault is that??? The National Government have added to the debt - not reduced it .. and now Key has his only answer - sell something ..


If you don't vote at all on the referendum then Wankey will say that you are happy for it to go ahead so didn't bother to vote. If it fucks you off then you should at least vote one way or the other, so then it will be more credible & less likely spun by the polliwallies because imbeciles don't get their shit together.

I didn't vote .. this fucks me off on so many levels I refused to participate .. I gave my voting paper to my wife and said "do what seems appropriate with this ..." I'd have dropped it in the rubbish bin - I think she used it to add another NO vote to the referendum ...


Except it's not really anything close to right wing. ..., and the crime rate is out of control with nothing done about it. That screams left wing to me.

Haven't you seen yet that the crime rate is dropping ...

[Akzle]

Why?

I often dream of the day that people would stop lending the governments money. It's like giving your gold card to your ex-wife.

i only wish the government would take my ex wife.

Preferably the government of abjizzerstan.

[Banditbandit]

New Zealand is predominately a left wing country ... true right wing politics and thinking is practically void here unless imported!

The power of the State over the individual is brainwashed into the populace from the cradle to the grave. :mellow:


That is so true .. and now the state will help peopple get digital TV through the targetted assistance programme .. they will PAY for people to have their propoganda system pumped into people's houses ..

:mad: :ar15: :angry2:

[Oscar]

And whose fault is that??? The National Government have added to the debt - not reduced it .. and now Key has his only answer - sell something ..



...

The debt stretches back generations.
Stop lending would be the first option, but selling stuff we're paying interest on is also a good idea.

[Banditbandit]

And selling stuff that earns us money is not ...

[oldrider]

If every country of the world is in debt ... to whom are they in debt? ................................... and why? :mellow:

[puddytat]

What! Like selling your house mortgage.....or your Chattels you have on H.P? :wink:
I thought that private debt was a bigger problem.
Should be that you can only borrow the percentage that you'd pay (i.e. 6%) of your deposit.

[Banditbandit]

If every country of the world is in debt ... to whom are they in debt? ................................... and why? :mellow:


I have no idea mate - I'm not an ecnomist - and I don't beleive that even they can answer the question ...

The economic system is a man-made thing and has no natural laws ... only human ones (whoch are open to question anyway) ... it should be at the service of people - but we have become servants of the economic system .. which currently is a capitalist one and serves the purposes of the dominant elite - the capitalists ... aded and abetted by wide boy traders like DonKey

[puddytat]

If every country of the world is in debt ... to whom are they in debt? ................................... and why? :mellow:

We are in debt to our children.....& its because we are trying to keep up with the Joneses.

[Bassmatt]

That's irrelevant if the courts are reluctant to send criminals to jail in the first place, and powerless to keep them imprisoned for any significant length of time except for the worst offenders. How many times have you read of career criminals ruining the lives of innocent people, just to be given a pathetically weak sentence so they can do it all over again? If JK and his party were anything other than a bunch of lefties, they would at least take this problem seriously rather than sweep it under the carpet and pretend it doesn't really matter. The fact that they're taking the whole "4kmh over the speed limit" thing so seriously should make it obvious where their priorities lie. It's obvious revenue gathering.


They are creating the demand for the prisons first. And the corporations running them get paid for a full prison no matter how many inmates its holding is so the length of sentences is irrelevant in that respect.

[Jantar]

After reading the question I feel I have to vote NO.

I do not agree with partial sales of Meridian, Mighty River and Solid Energy. They should have been 100% sales.
I do not agree with partial sale of Genesis. That is the only state owned power comapnay that has discretionary generation in both islands, so it should remain 100% under state control.
I do agree with partial sale of Air New zealand as long as the goverment retains majority ownership.

So the question is poorly worded, and even if 100% of the people vote NO, it can still be a mandate for 100% asset sales.

[huff3r]

And selling stuff that earns us money is not ...

Especially when JK himself even admitted that the dividends the govt was receiving from the assets under the hammer are worth more than the interest on the debt.

And that's just the dividends from the bits they sold/are selling.

[oldrider]

Especially when JK himself even admitted that the dividends the govt was receiving from the assets under the hammer are worth more than the interest on the debt.

And that's just the dividends from the bits they sold/are selling. Make that ... "partially selling"! :psst:

[Banditbandit]

The debt stretches back generations.

That's actually true - however the debt has increazsed substantially under DonKey's government ...



Stop lending would be the first option, but selling stuff we're paying interest on is also a good idea.

Don't you mean stop borrowing ??

[slowpoke]

I'm buggered if I can see the logic in selling something for a pittance when it is going to make you a fortune in the long term. But all good, the exchange rate against the Aussie dollar is very favourable so great time to jump the ditch and watch the NZ taxes get jacked up from a distance (no choice if the income stream is massivley reduced).

In years to come people are going to look back on this decision and cringe.

[Oscar]

That's actually true - however the debt has increazsed substantially under DonKey's government ...






You're not that dumb - you know that's political BS.

Whomever won the election in 2008 had to borrow to keep NZ afloat after the GFC.

[Banditbandit]

You're not that dumb - you know that's political BS.

Whomever won the election in 2008 had to borrow to keep NZ afloat after the GFC.

:killingme What ??? Were we goign to sink into the ocean ???

Yes, I accept within your logic and within the current bullshit system the propoganda perpetrated by the Goverment that appears to be true ..

Equally, the GFC was created by people and countries borrowing too much .. How come a crisis created by borrowing too much forced people to borrow even more ??? That's never going to be a good solution ... Or it means that this financial manmagement stuff is just bulshit and a paper chase with litle or no basis in reality - other than we get caught up int ehbulshit and it costs real peoppel real jobs and real living standards ...

From a different perspective, the GDFC was casued by righ people sucking up al the money into fewer and fewer hands and leaving ordinary peopel with fuck all ... Marx predicted the GFC (not in actual dates and details, but he described the efefct of late period capitalism and such crises) .. but of course Marx is a Communist and therefore BAD - even if his predictions are coming true ..

Look at how much money got poured into Dubai and other UAE schemes .. billions and billions - when they are are people starving in the world . and we have that level of wealth and luxury ...

Something is badly wrong with the picture ..

[Oscar]

:killingme What ??? Were we goign to sink into the ocean ???

Yes, I accept within your logic and within the current bullshit system the propoganda perpetrated by the Goverment that appears to be true ..

Equally, the GFC was created by people and countries borrowing too much .. How come a crisis created by borrowing too much forced people to borrow even more ??? That's never going to be a good solution ... Or it means that this financial manmagement stuff is just bulshit and a paper chase with litle or no basis in reality - other than we get caught up int ehbulshit and it costs real peoppel real jobs and real living standards ...

From a different perspective, the GDFC was casued by righ people sucking up al the money into fewer and fewer hands and leaving ordinary peopel with fuck all ... Marx predicted the GFC (not in actual dates and details, but he described the efefct of late period capitalism and such crises) .. but of course Marx is a Communist and therefore BAD - even if his predictions are coming true ..

Look at how much money got poured into Dubai and other UAE schemes .. billions and billions - when they are are people starving in the world . and we have that level of wealth and luxury ...

Something is badly wrong with the picture ..

Wow, that was a Mashy-esque diversion from a simple statement.
I was not commenting on the GFC, I was merely saying that whoever was elected in 2008 would have had much the same response to it.

But for what it's worth, the GFC was caused by a combination of reckless mortgage lending in the US, certain EU countries trying to artificially inflate their people's standard of living and some very dodgy banking practices. What you describe is the result, not the cause.

[MisterD]

I was merely saying that whoever was elected in 2008 would have had much the same response to it.

Ya reckon? Labour have opposed every spending cut that National have put through...

[oldrider]

Ya reckon? Labour have opposed every spending cut that National have put through...

They gotta be seen to be earning their keep ... they are the "opposition" (thank Christ) after all. :niceone:

[avgas]

The debt stretches back generations.
Stop lending would be the first option, but selling stuff we're paying interest on is also a good idea.
If that were the case, Solid Energy and SCF would have been first on the block.
Beehive and KiwiRail would have been a tie for 3rd.

[avgas]

You're not that dumb - you know that's political BS.
Whomever won the election in 2008 had to borrow to keep NZ afloat after the GFC.
Did the government make less tax (aka income) that year?

(though I know labour would have done the same - doesn't make it right)

As far as I can pick - Christchurch was the only really good reason why we lost over the last few years. The others were financial bailouts......

[Oscar]

Did the government make less tax (aka income) that year?

(though I know labour would have done the same - doesn't make it right)

As far as I can pick - Christchurch was the only really good reason why we lost over the last few years. The others were financial bailouts......

Christchurch is one of the reasons our economy is revving up.

[Drew]

Ya reckon? Labour have opposed every spending cut that National have put through...What a daft thing to say.

It's very easy to oppose something, when you don't have to come up with a viable alternative.

I oppose a lot of road rules, as they pertain to me. Doesn't mean fuck all though does it?

[MisterD]

What a daft thing to say.

It's very easy to oppose something, when you don't have to come up with a viable alternative.

I oppose a lot of road rules, as they pertain to me. Doesn't mean fuck all though does it?

Now who's being daft? You reckon Labour's Union paymasters would have allowed National's cuts to the public service?

If Labour had've been in power, we'd have had tax rises and no doubt money printing a la US / UK and we would still be in recession now.

[Akzle]

no doubt money printing a la US / UK and we would still be in recession now.

you realise theres no such thing and a bunch of jews just made that shit up, eh?

[MisterD]

you realise theres no such thing and a bunch of jews just made that shit up, eh?

No such thing as what? The USA?

[Akzle]

No such thing as what? The USA?

take your pick. Money, state, recession.

[Drew]

Now who's being daft? You reckon Labour's Union paymasters would have allowed National's cuts to the public service?

If Labour had've been in power, we'd have had tax rises and no doubt money printing a la US / UK and we would still be in recession now.

You've lost me. Labour are good, or bad?

[MisterD]

You've lost me.

This doesn't seem to a particularly difficult thing to acheive.

[GCSB Thought Police]

From a different perspective, the GDFC was casued by righ people sucking up al the money into fewer and fewer hands and leaving ordinary peopel with fuck all ... Marx predicted the GFC (not in actual dates and details, but he described the efefct of late period capitalism and such crises) .. but of course Marx is a Communist and therefore BAD - even if his predictions are coming true ..



Haven't you learnt yet that no-one wants to heaqr what Uncle Karl wrote? He is so passe. Marx is not even last century - he's from the century before

[mashman]

Haven't you learnt yet that no-one wants to heaqr what Uncle Karl wrote? He is so passe. Marx is not even last century - he's from the century before

Aye... and you white fuckers still haven't heeded his, and many others, words in regards to system failure.

[Swoop]

If Labour had've been in power, we'd have had tax rises and no doubt money printing a la US / UK and we would still be in recession now.
Please stop stating the obvious. I wonder if the Lunatic Fringe Party have their money printing press set up yet?

[Akzle]

I wonder if the Lunatic Fringe Party have their money printing press set up yet?

we're gonna use rabbits, did you miss the memo?

[puddytat]

And decriminalise cannabis...

[Akzle]

And decriminalise cannabis...

actually, gonna 'de criminalise' most shit.
Ask youself the question 'is it going to harm anyone else?'
if no, then its not a crime.

[oldrider]

Haven't you learnt yet that no-one wants to heaqr what Uncle Karl wrote? He is so passe. Marx is not even last century - he's from the century before

Besides, everywhere that Karl's theories have been tried out it's failed miserably and/or people have moved on to capitalism and some form of democracy! :niceone:

Hey, thanks for trying anyway Karl. :headbang: apart from all the dead people it was fun! :yes:

[Akzle]

Besides, everywhere that Karl's theories have been tried out it's failed miserably and/or people have moved on to capitalism and some form of democracy! :niceone:

Hey, thanks for trying anyway Karl. :headbang: apart from the dead people it was fun! :yes:

youre opening a fuken big can o',
i can only assume you reference ussr and china. To which i must ask. Is, how was chinas gfc?
While theres many things i cant abide under communism, theyre familiar to any form of governance.
I dont believe that marx' ideals have ever been implemented, any kind of govt serves only to perpetuate itself, to benefit those 'in power'.
The failing of this is obviated in SOCIETIES where the leader is actually living for the COMMON good.

[Deano]

In all the years I've voted, and I've gone for both Labour and Nats at various times - I've never agreed with every policy or been totally happy with either of their governance. So I'd say at the end of the day my vote made f all difference really to me personally.

But the sun still comes up each day and I've made my own life better through my personal decisions and efforts to 'get ahead', in what is important to me. I'm charitable from time to time. I'm supporting my family, able to race, and live fairly comfortably. I don't see much point debating it to be honest. The present system sees the rich get richer, but the poor get a lot of handouts and subsidies also. The middle class are, well stuck in the middle.

Nothing seems to change an awful lot no matter who is in power.

:shutup:

[puddytat]

Bias & Democracy.....
http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/11/29/the-activists-dilemma-overcoming-the-bias-against-local-democracy/

[merv]

Yeah good old National and it's trickle down promises when all I've seen is trickle up. The gap has widened disgustingly in my lifetime the rich got uber rich those at the bottom got tipped out of work and the middle ended up working to pay for it all.

[Deano]

Yeah good old National and it's trickle down promises when all I've seen is trickle up. The gap has widened disgustingly in my lifetime the rich got uber rich those at the bottom got tipped out of work and the middle ended up working to pay for it all.

Has it been significantly any different under the left though Merv?

[merv]

Has it been significantly any different under the left though Merv?

Yeah but before Roger Douglas when he had the left turn hard right and the gap commenced.

[kiwi cowboy]

So which would you like, eat shit or drink piss.
I will keep a stockpile for you.

Or perhaps there is a third option?

Yup a blender :laugh:just for him.

[Swoop]

we're gonna use rabbits, did you miss the memo?
I was referring to the green party but perhaps you could suggest rabbits to them. Perhaps possums as loose change?



how was chinas gfc?
Not as good as a lot of people expect. How many "ghost cities" do they have now? Just keep on building brand new cities and hope everything returns to their "normal"?

[avgas]

Christchurch is one of the reasons our economy is revving up.
$30B rev?

But its irrelevant as Chch needed the money (shit happens - have rainy day account and use it when required). I do agree they have done well in such a short period.

But there was lots of spending OUTSIDE of CHCH that was not required/managed. Not that Labour or anyone else would have done better. They fail to understand that debt is not good.
I mean whats a few extra billion we can't afford? Or we could just cut the expense?

But who cares - your out in 4 years. Next guy can fix the fuckup. Next guy can repay the debt......

(Truth be told I didn't really care about this stuff until I had a kid, now every day I look at myself in the mirror, look at my son, and think..........fuck I'm sorry - the shit your gonna get because I did nothing.....i'm sorry)

[merv]

If you haven't seen it before I suggest you watch this:

<iframe width="640" height="390" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/__2EdGFdgTA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[White trash]

Yeah but before Roger Douglas when he had the left turn hard right and the gap commenced.

Absolutely Merv. Both Inside Child Poverty and Mind The Gap doco's really opened my eyes to how fucked this economy has become. Bryan Bruce puts forward some very thought provoking theories and solutions.

[avgas]

Yup a blender :laugh:just for him.
I believe they call that system MMP

[jasonu]

i dont get any mail. Cos my caravan doesnt hav a letterbox. Plausable deniability.
Im also not enrolled to vote. If i wanted other people to make decisions for me id go back to rehab, or jail.


we're getting close to <50% voter turnout.

Representative governance? I think not.

Children can be made to look like reindeer by attaching coral to their heads with common wood screws.

Don't worry yourself about it as it's really none of your business if you are not even registered to vote.

[husaberg]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-V6VLYJoV5ms/T-UluExVJVI/AAAAAAAAAjw/dvEdsooCzKI/s1600/The+%27John%27+Key+~+Trade+Me.JPG

[husaberg]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-PnmnuZl6VGw/T6sHWnvUwNI/AAAAAAAACe4/geGcq1Bg05M/s1600/John+Key+Crazy.jpg

[husaberg]

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

[husaberg]

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a329/smashdracs/tiwaipt_zps18855196.jpg

[husaberg]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-qS0Zq2DhOt4/UXVPQsQq0UI/AAAAAAAACBc/frZ1UCGlnlY/s640/key+to+asset+sales.jpg

[husaberg]

http://aotearoaawiderperspective.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/john-key-moko.jpg

[MisterD]

So you're thinking we should elect someone who says one thing to a Union rally, and another thing to a newspaper and whose spokesman on a subject will likely put forward yet another position?

[husaberg]

LOL.

http://cdn.thestandard.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/two-face-key-water-rights1.jpg

http://img.scoop.co.nz/stories/images/1201/0cef39ff31fc32f08364.jpeg

[husaberg]

http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/actual-jk.jpg

[husaberg]

http://cdn.thestandard.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/key-loyal.jpg

[husaberg]

http://thedailyblog.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/29406_10150968201687609_1971194791_n.jpg

[husaberg]

http://blog.labour.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/20120417-show-us-yr-cards-John-500x168.jpg

[husaberg]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-E9A_Scc59NQ/UMmGxgsWVjI/AAAAAAAAQ5A/VeYr8byQMDc/s400/self%2Bregulate.png

[oldrider]

So husaberg has joined the Labour party! :wacko:

[Oscar]

So husaberg has joined the Labour party! :wacko:

He seems to be a Labour spammer, and doesn't seem to have an opinion of his own (or maybe he can't type, having sprained both wrists whilst dreaming of Helen Clark).

[husaberg]

So husaberg has joined the Labour party! :wacko:

Not sure do they have a leader yet?
Husaberg is neither left or right, he just doesn't want to be left right out of his country.


He seems to be a Labour spammer, and doesn't seem to have an opinion of his own (or maybe he can't type, having sprained both wrists whilst dreaming of Helen Clark).

You are a bit grouchy today Oscar? Pictures speak a thousand words, Sorry to rattle your can, should i put a lid on it?
We could ask for Johns side but i am sure he would have been out of the country at the time.
Maybe you could explain the bails outs of his mates and the failure to disclose information and the inconsistences in his rhetoric for him then.
Maybe with the Rio Tinto deal first?
Then the user pays road schemes "Unless it is for National importance"
The Sky Deal is a little lacking in Detail please expand.
Kim.Com situation left him a little exposed, Funny how the GCSB isn't allowed to spy on its citizens but we still host the Americans to do it for us.
For the record i have no political affiliations.
John said at best the asset sales are cost Neutral and he would only go ahead with them if it was a money spiner I guess he was meaning for his mates rather than the Tax paying owners.
Wow asset Sales a firesale opportunity for us all to buy a slice of something we have already paid for and already own Wow Oscar What a deal.
The deal being done to "Free Our Trade" is very interesting please explain the benefits esp relating to Pharmac for me lol.

[Oscar]

Pictures speak a thousand words We could ask for Johns side but i am sure he would have been out of the country at the time.

Pictures with slogans say - "I'm too stupid to articulate my own opinion".
No wonder the old boy thought you were in the Labour party..

[Oscar]

Not sure do they have a leader yet?



You are a bit grouchy today Oscar? Pictures speak a thousand words,
We could ask for Johns side but i am sure he would have been out of the country at the time.
Maybe you could explain the bails outs of his mates and the failure to disclose information and the inconsistences in his rhetoric for him then.
Maybe with the Rio Tinto deal first?
Then the user pays road schemes "Unless it is for National importance"
The Sky Deal is a little lacking in Detail please expand.
For the record i have no political affiliations.
John said at best the asset sales are cost Neutral and he would only go ahead with them if it was a money spiner I guess he was meaning for his mates rather than the Tax paying owners.
Wow asset Sales a firesale opportunity for us all to buy a slice of something we have already paid for and already own Wow Oscar What a deal.

OK - Rio Tinto: How many jobs did they save? Just based on the amount of GST generated in the region by Rio Tinto, contractors and workers, $30m is the bargain of the century.

[husaberg]

OK - Rio Tinto: How many jobs did they save? Just based on the amount of GST generated in the region by Rio Tinto, contractors and workers, $30m is the bargain of the century.

You sir have no idea the Jobs Saved, they are F all how many jobs did they shed from Solid energy a company NZ own? (for Now)
Rio Tinto and the previous owners have Never put F-all back into NZ, we and our Parents have subsided it with cheap power and massive tax breaks.
Look closer at the deal, see how long the guarantee of jobs is, think how much better off the Av NZ citizen would be with a power surplus in NZ.Unless of course you wanted to sell the Power generation company.


Solid Energy was not bailed out ask yourself why? ask yourself why the books were made to look so bad
They had a paper loss atributed to the decrease in the value of the coal reserves, They amazingly posted an actual real terms profit.
Ask yourself where their value is in the Company that holds the licenses for most of the Coal resources in NZ.
From Memory Solid energy gave a return of 70 million back to the government before they "collapsed"(this does not include the other stuff btw)
They have shed over 1000 "direct Jobs" not the Jobs Rio Tinto claim, their actual jobs are tiny...They don't employee as many people as they make out.

They wanted 20 million from memory LOL

[Oscar]

You sir have no idea the Jobs Saved, they are F all how many jobs did they shed from Solid energy a company NZ own?
Rio Tinto and the previous owners have Never put F-all back into NZ, we and our Parents have subsided it with cheap power and massive tax breaks.
Look closer at the deal, see how long the guarantee of jobs is, think how much better off the Av NZ citizen would be with a power surplus in NZ.Unless of course you wanted to sell the Power generation company.


Solid Energy was not bailed out ask yourself why? ask yourself why the books were made to look so bad
They had a paper loss atributed to the decrease in the value of the coal reserves, They amazingly posted an actual real terms profit.
Ask yourself where their value is in the Company that holds the licenses for most of the Coal resources in NZ.
From Memory Solid energy gave a return of 70 million back to the government before they "collaped"(this does not include the other stuff btw)
They have shed over 1000 "direct Jobs" not the Jobs RIo Tinto claim, their actual jobs are tiny...They don't employee as many people as they make out.

They wanted 20 million from memory LOL

How much coffee have you had this morning?
Why can't you stick to one topic?

There are 800 people employed at Tiwai directly, with a further 2,000 indirectly owing their livelyhood to the smelter.
It is the largest employer in Southland.
If memory serves, the Govt had $220m of tax revenue at risk over the next 5 years if Tiwai closed.

So you would cripple an entire province to get cheaper power?

[husaberg]

Pictures with slogans say - "I'm too stupid to articulate my own opinion".
No wonder the old boy thought you were in the Labour party..

Funny you don't like what they say? as half of them are quotes from John lol.
I haven't seen your opinion? thrill me with it then

[husaberg]

How much coffee have you had this morning?
Why can't you stick to one topic?

There are 800 people employed at Tiwai directly, with a further 2,000 indirectly owing their livelyhood to the smelter.
It is the largest employer in Southland.
If memory serves, the Govt had $220m of tax revenue at risk over the next 5 years if Tiwai closed.

So you would cripple an entire province to get cheaper power?
It is one Topic.......
Baaaabaaaaaa show me the figures....lol
Seen the West Coast lately............
How many jobs are they going to "save" again for how long.
You said how good the RIO Tinto deal was for NZ? Did you mean for Southland?
I showed you examples of where the deals weren't done can you figure out the why?
If you can't see how the RIO Tinto deal ties to Assets sales i don't think anyone can help you at all

[oldrider]

I don't vote National but I will next election just to cancel husaberg out ... another wasted vote damn it! :brick:

[bogan]

So skim read through this, with it being non binding and lacking in options (though better worded than the last one) is the referendum worth voting on? Seems an awfully expensive way of gauging public opinion is all.

And what's the long term ramifications of a sale? I mean is the interest on debt more than those companies are likely to earn? Is there better uses for the money?

[Oscar]

It is one Topic.......
Baaaabaaaaaa show me the figures....lol
Seen the West Coast lately............
How many jobs are they going to "save" again for how long.
You said how good the RIO Tinto deal was for NZ? Did you mean for Southland?
I showed you examples of where the deals weren't done can you figure out the why?
If you can't see how the RIO Tinto deal ties to Assets sales i don't think anyone can help you at all

Wow, you really should try decaf.

What figures do you seek?

Of course the Rio Tinto deal ties into the sale (and long term value) of Meridian, I never said it didn't
You'd put hundreds of people of of a job because it was helpful for asset sales?

[husaberg]

Wow, you really should try decaf.

What figures do you seek?

Of course the Rio Tinto deal ties into the sale (and long term value) of Meridian, I never said it didn't
You'd put hundreds of people of of a job because it was helpful for asset sales?
The Figures that show just how much the smelter benefits NZ. Real figures. Not Rio Tinto spin...
You said my stuff wasn't on subject and it turns out it was......:clap:
Hello Solid Energy...................:lol:

[Oscar]

The Figures that show just how much the smelter benefits NZ. Real figures. Not Rio Tinto spin...
You said my stuff wasn't on subject and it turns out it was......:clap:
Hello Solid Energy...................:lol:

Only in your twisted reality.

[oldrider]

So skim read through this, with it being non binding and lacking in options (though better worded than the last one) is the referendum worth voting on? Seems an awfully expensive way of gauging public opinion is all.

And what's the long term ramifications of a sale? I mean is the interest on debt more than those companies are likely to earn? Is there better uses for the money?

The government have not sold any assets ... they have allowed investment (shares) in 49% of the assets to free up tax money for other things! (personal choice)

Unfortunately the loony lefties have wasted most of the benefits gained on a stupid non binding meaningless referendum FFS!

Who's interest are they really concerned about? ... Their own electoral path to POWER based on distorting the facts! :facepalm:

[bogan]

The government have not sold any assets ... they have allowed investment (shares) in 49% of the assets to free up tax money for other things! (personal choice)

Unfortunately the loony lefties have wasted most of the benefits gained on a stupid non binding meaningless referendum FFS!

Who's interest are they really concerned about? ... Their own electoral path to POWER based on distorting the facts! :facepalm:

So, they allowed 49% investment, and that only freed up enough money for a couple of referendums? Must be a fucking shit way of freeing up money then.

The loony lefties here at least seem to have a relevant point, the raving righties are more interested in attacking the lefties than making their own it would seem.

[oldrider]

So, they allowed 49% investment, and that only freed up enough money for a couple of referendums? Must be a fucking shit way of freeing up money then.

Don't know if it is or it isn't in a democracy it would be nice to allow the incumbents to get the job done so the results can be judged in reality.

The real referendum was the last election this stupid fucking referendum is not worthy and shall be judged as a waste of time and money!

So Labour and some combination of the left get the vote next year at this rate all we (Taxpayers) can expect is more of the same with a different colour!

This country is fucked IMHO. :sick:

[mashman]

This country is fucked IMHO. :sick:

NZ ain't the only one... not by a long way eh. How to politically pacify your population: Give them a vote.

[husaberg]

The government have not sold any assets ... they have allowed investment (shares) in 49% of the assets to free up tax money for other things! (personal choice)

Unfortunately the loony lefties have wasted most of the benefits gained on a stupid non binding meaningless referendum FFS!

Who's interest are they really concerned about? ... Their own electoral path to POWER based on distorting the facts! :facepalm:

Investment that's a nice word.
The first sales were to NZ's but the second and any sale there on..........
We have brought back Railways and Air NZ before.
The commercial reality is thus.
SOE's as part of their charter were unable to return huge profits.
They were required to behave and price in a responsible manner.
If you don't believe me look it up.
This structure prevented the exorbitant profits thereby capping the price of electricity to reasonably affordable levels.

With the sale of shares the major focus of these companies moves to returns for the shareholders
Now guess what is the way to achieve that.
without the charter guess which way power prices will head.
The right wing will say the competition model will work.

[Oscar]

The right wing will say the competition model will work.

Do some research on NZ Railways prior to 1984.

[husaberg]

Only in your twisted reality.
Answer questions. Oh wait you can't, or won't. My money is on can't.:niceone:
Guess what the referendum is about
which asset sales remind me again.
Look at the end.......SOLID ENERGY.
I will say it again SOLID ENERGY



There are 800 people employed at Tiwai directly, with a further 2,000 indirectly owing their livelyhood to the smelter.
It is the largest employer in Southland.
If memory serves, the Govt had $220m of tax revenue at risk over the next 5 years if Tiwai closed.

So you would cripple an entire province to get cheaper power?


OK - Rio Tinto: How many jobs did they save? Just based on the amount of GST generated in the region by Rio Tinto, contractors and workers, $30m is the bargain of the century.


Pictures with slogans say - "I'm too stupid to articulate my own opinion".
No wonder the old boy thought you were in the Labour party..


Do some research on NZ Railways prior to 1984.

Don't need to.
Railways had a monopoly was used as a foil to keep the unemployment level down, was restructured dramatically with the road transport reforms and sold for the equivalent of two years profits, for Fay and Richwhite. They ran it down into the ground hocked off anything of value sold it to Toll and then we brought it back before it was totally destroyed for 1 dollar. (railnetwork only) but there was a catch. we the tax payers had to pay through the nose to make it safe again. Plus as part of the deal the former owner still had rights of using it for F-all.

How about you use your brain and do your own research on the history of the smelter and the deals done rather than listen to local government spin driven by RIO TInto. Go on you might be surprised what you will find if you bothered to look.





No they released the increase not the figures.
Suffice to say it is a great deal and the owners have always paid hardball. The plant is for sale and is not likely to remain economic long term because they paid to much for it in a biding war. Rio Tinto are unable to pull out for about 6 years. it will take 3 years to upgrade and put in new lines


Because John was wanting to run the company into the ground, so he could sell the resource offshore. It was a great way to destroy the union.Nz Per capita has the largest coal reserves next to Aussie. But ours is higher quailty.


If we have to pay well above actual market rate because it cost so much to support the smelter and build additional capacity for normal growth (36 billion eq for Manapori at today's costs) it is not a win win.
They rolled the state governments with the same tactics. Tasmainia they now regret it because they are now going back for another go.
(comalco was worse) when you look at what they used to play. and are threatening to pull out without extra support. Rio tinto economic benefit figures don't stack up


They originally wanted to do it there. but couldn't or more likely wouldn't finance it. When the locals objected to their cheap option of increasing the lake level either 30 meters and build dams to achieve it.Rather than what the NZED did.

Oh have a read of this 3.5 cents a unit although it has gone up 30% since then.
http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/issues/1992/06/mm0692_07.html

highlights
If i could be assed i would post all the stuff but read the stuff yourself I had the same argument with the Rio TInto stuff but with the Labour Union lies thrown in re the warner Bros deal. if you follow the links you will see.
But you won't because you know you are so right already without even looking for yourself.You never know you could surprise me by reading something.........
Start from here http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/156945-The-value-of-money-has-dropped-by-two-thirds-in-30-years/page34

[Oscar]

Answer questions. Oh wait you can't, or won't. My money is on can't.:niceone:








You have established that there is a connection between Rio Tinto, Solid Energy and Asset Sales.
Congratulations. You have now caught up with the rest of us.

You still haven't explained how crippling Southland's economy is good for NZ.

You seem to be of the same ilk as Mashbrain - post a whole lot of semi - related stuff (that is probably connected in your reality), and when challenged about it, throw some more drivel out there.

[husaberg]

You have established that there is a connection between Rio Tinto, Solid Energy and Asset Sales.
Congratulations. You have now caught up with the rest of us.

You still haven't explained how crippling Southland's economy is good for NZ.

You seem to be of the same ilk as Mashbrain - post a whole lot of semi - related stuff (that is probably connected in your reality), and when challenged about it, throw some more drivel out there.

You have not read you will not read.
You said they were not related i showed you they were, Now you insinuate that you knew it all along, you are a first class dyed in the wool idiot.
For the Record in 2011 Rio Tinto employed 700 workers they have layed off quite a few since then.
they also had 100 contractors.
They have substantial tax incentives plus pay literally nothing for their power. They were just going to have to pay something near what they should have when the shit hit the fan. Rio Tinto had negotiated the increase and had signed the contract.

Solid energy which National wouldn't bail out return about 250 million a year (Carbon tax plus profits) (not including wages taxs and other stuff either BTW)

Key bailed out the smelter with a sweetener deal that all of NZ have to pay.
because it threatened the sale of the generator SOE's.

Yet refused to let Solid energy operate. they shed far more jobs than RIO TInto actually have in NZ, and far more revenue that actually belongs and goes to NZ. why?
because not bailing them out suited the National asset sale strategy. Oh is there a pattern. I wonder if you can see it?

Shutting the RIO Tinto smelter and releasing its energy requirement or refusing to prop up RIO Tinto would benefit the whole of NZ.
Callas sounding but, unfortunately true.
Just the same as allowing Solid energy to actually mine would have been.

The National led goverment chose to prop up private enterpises and bailout their Mates SCF and Hanover etc all at a cost to the Whole of NZ.
They also chose to leave an SOE high and dry, Yet at the same time help a Massive Corperation who contributes 2/3d's of F-all to NZ.

[Oscar]

You have not read you will not read.
You said they were not related i showed you they were, Now you insinuate that you knew it all along, you are a first class dyed in the wool idiot.
For the Record in 2011 Rio Tinto employed 700 workers they have layed off quite a few since then.
they also had 100 contractors.
They have substantial tax incentives plus pay literally nothing for their power. They were just going to have to pay something near what they should have when the shit hit the fan. Rio Tinto had negotiated the increase and had signed the contract.

Solid energy which National wouldn't bail out return about 250 million a year (Carbon tax plus profits) (not including wages taxs and other stuff either BTW)

Key bailed out the smelter with a sweetener deal that all of NZ have to pay.
because it threatened the sale of the generator SOE's.

Yet refused to let Solid energy operate. they shed far more jobs than RIO TInto actually have in NZ, and far more revenue that actually belongs and goes to NZ. why?
because not bailing them out suited the National asset sale strategy. Oh is there a pattern. I wonder if you can see it?

Shutting the RIO Tinto smelter and releasing its energy requirement or refusing to prop up RIO Tinto would benefit the whole of NZ.
Callas sounding but, unfortunately true.
Just the same as allowing Solid energy to actually mine would have been.

The National led goverment chose to prop up private enterpises and bailout their Mates SCF and Hanover etc all at a cost to the Whole of NZ.
They also chose to leave an SOE high and dry, Yet at the same time help a Massive Corperation who contributes 2/3d's of F-all to NZ.

Callas was an opera singer.

Of course there is a connection between two companies who are getting Govt subsidies - it's the Govt.

Face with your combination of slogans and gibberish I told you I would take one issue at a time, and started with Tiwai.

So the Govt. gave money to Rio Tinto to save Southland, so what?
This helped it's sale of Meridian, so what?
Based on what was at stake $30m was a drop in the bucket and if you think saving that many jobs was silly so you get cheaper power you are a moron.

Solid Energy is another matter entirely.
It has no chance of returning any profit, and it's the banks (both foreign and domestic) that are being asked to bail it out.
Were you not aware of that?

Ps. Get your story straight - you said the return was $70m and then $250m.
You haven't got a clue, have you?

[bogan]

You seem to be of the same ilk as Mashbrain - post a whole lot of semi - related stuff (that is probably connected in your reality), and when challenged about it, throw some more drivel out there.

As an on the fence reader (but referendum paper making its way closer to the bin with each post read), you aren't coming off any better.

[husaberg]

Of course there is a connection between two companies who are getting Govt subsidies - it's the Govt.
Which two companies are you saying are getting government subsidies?
RIo TInto is, And that 's a large overseas owned Multinational that posts huge profits the power generating SOE Meridien are not getting subsidies, they are getting told what they can charge Rio Tinto. but yet will need to make huge profits for their "investors"but from where? LOL

Face with your combination of slogans and gibberish I told you I would take one issue at a time, and started with Tiwai. No you didn't and this sentence makes no sense:facepalm:


So the Govt. gave money to Rio Tinto to save Southland, so what?
It is at the cost of the tax payers of all NZ to benefit a Large multinational and a Goverment agenda to push through assets sales whatever the outcome

This helped it's sale of Meridian, so what? As above

Based on what was at stake $30m was a drop in the bucket so is the short term "saving" of only 800 jobs muppertard. Have you read the deal. Don't answer i have you haven't.

and if you think saving that many jobs was silly so you get cheaper power you are a moron.
THIS "MORRON" WORKS IN THE ELECTRICAL TRANSMISSION INDUSTRY SO i might know a little more about it than you do.:motu:


Solid Energy is another matter entirely.
It has no chance of returning any profit, and it's the banks (both foreign and domestic) that are being asked to bail it out.
Were you not aware of that?
You should have have a look at Solid Energy's books. I have as i said, their "Loss" is a Paper loss attributed to a massive writedown of the value of their coal reserves.
Other factors to consider is they were not able to mine after Pike they were forced by the Government to buy the Pike Mine. they also returned 125 million in Carbon tax and 70 million in dividends. They asked National if they as a one off could not post a dividend to meet their short term problems, National said NO.....LOL.
Solid energy is a sustainable business, Employing far more people and generating far more income to NZ than Rio Tinto contributes.
NZ has the second largest coal reserves in the world per capita.

[mashman]

You seem to be of the same ilk as Mashbrain - post a whole lot of semi - related stuff (that is probably connected in your reality), and when challenged about it, throw some more drivel out there.

Ain't our fault you're a dumb fat kid.

[Oscar]

Ain't our fault you're a dumb fat kid.

And that's the best you got.
What an idjut.

[husaberg]

And that's the best you got.
What an idjut.

The best you have is ignoring facts that are presented in front of you,Then calling anyone who had an opinion that is more researched than your own, an idiot. While i may not agree with Mashy very often. I do agree with him above.(don't know about the Fat but you sure seem pretty "Dumb" in both senses of the word.

[Oscar]

Which two companies are you saying are getting government subsidies?
No you didn't and this sentence makes no sense:facepalm:


It is at the cost of the tax payers of all NZ to benefit a Large multinational and a Goverment agenda to push through assets sales whatever the outcome
As above
so is the short term "saving" of only 800 jobs muppertard. Have you read the deal. Don't answer i have you haven't.

THIS "MORRON" WORKS IN THE ELECTRICAL TRANSMISSION INDUSTRY SO i might know a little more about it than you do.:motu:


You should have have a look at Solid Energy's books. I have as i said, their "Loss" is a Paper loss attributed to a massive writedown of the value of their coal reserves.
Other factors to consider is they were not able to mine after Pike they were forced by the Government to buy the Pike Mine. they also returned 125 million in Carbon tax and 70 million in dividends. They asked National if they as a one off could not post a dividend to meet their short term problems, National said NO.....LOL.
Solid energy is a sustainable business, Employing far more people and generating far more income to NZ than Rio Tinto contributes.
NZ has the second largest coal reserves in the world per capita.

What's "MORRON", Maria Callas?
And just because you sweep the floors somewhere don't make you an expert in that industry.

And while you're exercising that big brain, would you like to tell us about the price of coal on the international market?

Aside from that, you're boring me.
I think the Govt. did the right thing at Tiwai, and you don't <yawn>.
You seem to think that the Govt. should save Solid Energy and that is somehow linked to Rio Tinto and Asset Sales.
Good for you, snug down that tinfoil hat and keep up the good work.

[Oscar]

The best you have is ignoring facts that are presented in front of you,Then calling anyone who had an opinion that is more researched than your own, an idiot. While i may not agree with Mashy very often. I do agree with him above.(don't know about the Fat but you sure seem pretty "Dumb" in both senses of the word.

You haven't research squat.
Which banks are suing the Govt. over the Solid Energy deal?

[husaberg]

You haven't research squat.
Which banks are suing the Govt. over the Solid Energy deal?



What's "MORRON", Maria Callas?
And just because you sweep the floors somewhere don't make you an expert in that industry.

would you like to tell us about the price of coal on the international market?


I think the Govt. did the right thing at Tiwai, and you don't <yawn>.
You seem to think that the Govt. should save Solid Energy and that is somehow linked to Rio Tinto and Asset Sales.


How many times do you need to be told What is in the referendum.
Why do you think Solid Energy is in the Referendum?
Why was Rio Tinto Bailed out
Why wasn't Solid Energy.
Why are the whole of New Zealand subsidising a Multinational at the cost of SOE's and the ultimate cost of all electricity users and tax payers in NZ.
Like i said Solid Energy is still profitable, when it is allowed to mine and return an reasonable dividend that allows it to retain cash reserves ride out market fluctuations and is not forced to buy assets.National used it as a cash cow.

The government did the wrong thing at Tiwai for all the wrong reasons. Tiwai point is not economic nor is it the best use of resources.
It was done to save face and under pressure from a multinational and because it so so wanted to push ahead fast with the asset sales.

Solid Energy is easier to sell as the owner of the coal reserves that way the buyer can mine it or chose to sit on it.

http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/issues/1992/06/mm0692_07.html
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opinion-analysis/8509752/Oram-Keys-game-of-two-halves-over-smelter
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/122559/more-cuts-signalled-at-tiwai-point-smelter
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/122559/more-cuts-signalled-at-tiwai-point-smelter
http://www.nzaluminium.co.nz/index.php?pageLoad=30
http://www.nzaluminium.co.nz/index.php?pageLoad=30
http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/issues/1992/06/mm0692_07.html
AS you are unable to follow links


In 1963, Consolidated Zinc/Comalco decided it could not afford to build the power station. The New Zealand government took over. Electricity generated by the plant was sold to Consolidated Zinc/Comalco at basement prices, with no provision for inflation.

omalco has repeatedly manipulated and interfered with New Zealand politics - and politicians - to preserve its special arrangement with the Manapouri plant. Rosenberg says that, in 1970, Comalco "issued shares to influential New Zealanders at a cheap rate before offering them to the public. These included prominent journalists, politicians, judges and newspaper executives."

Fighting hard against a rate increase of 650 percent proposed in 1977 by the Muldoon (National) government, Comalco contacted its parent companies in Japan, the UK and the United States [Kaiser Aluminum used to be in the smelter consortium] and asked them to persuade the U.S. and UK governments to "take action" against the New Zealand government, according to internal company documents leaked to CAFCA. The documents reveal that Comalco asked its Japanese associates to organize Japanese industrialists to act against New Zealand and directly asked Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser to intervene in the price dispute. Comalco eventually agreed to a 350 percent rate increase, and the government managed to cut the length of the contract from 99 years to 30 years, so that it will now expire in 2007.

In 1986, with the Labour government trying to increase Comalco's rate from 1.5 cents to 3.5 cents a unit, Comalco attempted to pressure top government officials, including Minister of Energy Bob Tizard, to be more sympathetic toward the company. Comalco also unsuccessfully took the government to court to try to prevent a rate increase from being legislated.


The National government at least had some success in increasing the power price in the 1970s; Labour failed completely in the 1980s. Comalco dragged out negotiations, took court action and complained publicly about its power price. But the company was hardly suffering under the new arrangement, as Electricorp CEO Rod Deane revealed in leaked 1987 documents: "With corporatization, electricity consumers will now have to meet the full cost of running the electricity system. Under the existing agreements, without any explicit Government subsidy, all other electricity consumers will be subsidizing the smelter. Comalco is benefiting by [NZ]$1-1.5 million per week as a result of the present agreements." But the Rogernauts running Electricorp had no stomach to legislate a price increase (which would signal a return to discredited Muldoonism), and the negotiations disappeared into the realm of "commercial confidentiality," where they remain.

[Oscar]

How many times do you need to be told What is in the referendum.
Why do you think Solid Energy is in the Referendum?
Why was Rio Tinto Bailed out
Why wasn't Solid Energy.
Why are the whole of New Zealand subsidising a Multinational at the cost of SOE's and the ultimate cost of all electricity users and tax payers in NZ.
Like i said Solid Energy is still profitable, when it is allowed to mine and return an reasonable dividend that allows it to retain cash reserves ride out market fluctuations and is not forced to buy assets.National used it as a cash cow.

The government did the wrong thing at Tiwai for all the wrong reasons. Tiwai point is not economic nor is it the best use of resources.
It was done to save face and under pressure from a multinational and because it so so wanted to push ahead fast with the asset sales.

Solid Energy is easier to sell as the owner of the coal reserves that way the buyer can mine it or chose to sit on it.

http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/issues/1992/06/mm0692_07.html
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opinion-analysis/8509752/Oram-Keys-game-of-two-halves-over-smelter
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/122559/more-cuts-signalled-at-tiwai-point-smelter
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/122559/more-cuts-signalled-at-tiwai-point-smelter
http://www.nzaluminium.co.nz/index.php?pageLoad=30
http://www.nzaluminium.co.nz/index.php?pageLoad=30
http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/issues/1992/06/mm0692_07.html

Solid Energy is insolvent.
Its banks are being asked to exchange debt for shares.

[husaberg]

Solid Energy is insolvent.
Its banks are being asked to exchange debt for shares.

And Why is that? why are they "NOW" insolvent
Congratulations for ignoring everything in the actual post.:niceone:
Seeing as you missed it.


What's "MORRON", Maria Callas?
And just because you sweep the floors somewhere don't make you an expert in that industry.

would you like to tell us about the price of coal on the international market?


I think the Govt. did the right thing at Tiwai, and you don't <yawn>.
You seem to think that the Govt. should save Solid Energy and that is somehow linked to Rio Tinto and Asset Sales.


How many times do you need to be told What is in the referendum.
Why do you think Solid Energy is in the Referendum?
Why was Rio Tinto Bailed out
Why wasn't Solid Energy.
Why are the whole of New Zealand subsidising a Multinational at the cost of SOE's and the ultimate cost of all electricity users and tax payers in NZ.
Like i said Solid Energy is still profitable, when it is allowed to mine and return an reasonable dividend that allows it to retain cash reserves ride out market fluctuations and is not forced to buy assets.National used it as a cash cow.

The government did the wrong thing at Tiwai for all the wrong reasons. Tiwai point is not economic nor is it the best use of resources.
It was done to save face and under pressure from a multinational and because it so so wanted to push ahead fast with the asset sales.

Solid Energy is easier to sell as the owner of the coal reserves that way the buyer can mine it or chose to sit on it.

http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/issues/1992/06/mm0692_07.html
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opinion-analysis/8509752/Oram-Keys-game-of-two-halves-over-smelter
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/122559/more-cuts-signalled-at-tiwai-point-smelter
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/122559/more-cuts-signalled-at-tiwai-point-smelter
http://www.nzaluminium.co.nz/index.php?pageLoad=30
http://www.nzaluminium.co.nz/index.php?pageLoad=30
http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/issues/1992/06/mm0692_07.html
AS you are unable to follow links


In 1963, Consolidated Zinc/Comalco decided it could not afford to build the power station. The New Zealand government took over. Electricity generated by the plant was sold to Consolidated Zinc/Comalco at basement prices, with no provision for inflation.

omalco has repeatedly manipulated and interfered with New Zealand politics - and politicians - to preserve its special arrangement with the Manapouri plant. Rosenberg says that, in 1970, Comalco "issued shares to influential New Zealanders at a cheap rate before offering them to the public. These included prominent journalists, politicians, judges and newspaper executives."

Fighting hard against a rate increase of 650 percent proposed in 1977 by the Muldoon (National) government, Comalco contacted its parent companies in Japan, the UK and the United States [Kaiser Aluminum used to be in the smelter consortium] and asked them to persuade the U.S. and UK governments to "take action" against the New Zealand government, according to internal company documents leaked to CAFCA. The documents reveal that Comalco asked its Japanese associates to organize Japanese industrialists to act against New Zealand and directly asked Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser to intervene in the price dispute. Comalco eventually agreed to a 350 percent rate increase, and the government managed to cut the length of the contract from 99 years to 30 years, so that it will now expire in 2007.

In 1986, with the Labour government trying to increase Comalco's rate from 1.5 cents to 3.5 cents a unit, Comalco attempted to pressure top government officials, including Minister of Energy Bob Tizard, to be more sympathetic toward the company. Comalco also unsuccessfully took the government to court to try to prevent a rate increase from being legislated.


The National government at least had some success in increasing the power price in the 1970s; Labour failed completely in the 1980s. Comalco dragged out negotiations, took court action and complained publicly about its power price. But the company was hardly suffering under the new arrangement, as Electricorp CEO Rod Deane revealed in leaked 1987 documents: "With corporatization, electricity consumers will now have to meet the full cost of running the electricity system. Under the existing agreements, without any explicit Government subsidy, all other electricity consumers will be subsidizing the smelter. Comalco is benefiting by [NZ]$1-1.5 million per week as a result of the present agreements." But the Rogernauts running Electricorp had no stomach to legislate a price increase (which would signal a return to discredited Muldoonism), and the negotiations disappeared into the realm of "commercial confidentiality," where they remain.

[Oscar]

And Why is that? why are they "NOW" insolvent
Congratulations for ignoring everything in the actual post.:niceone:
Seeing as you missed it.



How many times do you need to be told What is in the referendum.
Why do you think Solid Energy is in the Referendum?
Why was Rio Tinto Bailed out
Why wasn't Solid Energy.
Why are the whole of New Zealand subsidising a Multinational at the cost of SOE's and the ultimate cost of all electricity users and tax payers in NZ.
Like i said Solid Energy is still profitable, when it is allowed to mine and return an reasonable dividend that allows it to retain cash reserves ride out market fluctuations and is not forced to buy assets.National used it as a cash cow.

The government did the wrong thing at Tiwai for all the wrong reasons. Tiwai point is not economic nor is it the best use of resources.
It was done to save face and under pressure from a multinational and because it so so wanted to push ahead fast with the asset sales.

Solid Energy is easier to sell as the owner of the coal reserves that way the buyer can mine it or chose to sit on it.

http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/issues/1992/06/mm0692_07.html
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opinion-analysis/8509752/Oram-Keys-game-of-two-halves-over-smelter
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/122559/more-cuts-signalled-at-tiwai-point-smelter
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/122559/more-cuts-signalled-at-tiwai-point-smelter
http://www.nzaluminium.co.nz/index.php?pageLoad=30
http://www.nzaluminium.co.nz/index.php?pageLoad=30
http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/issues/1992/06/mm0692_07.html
AS you are unable to follow links

All your links are quite old.
Try some newer ones: http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/business/229058/court-told-bank-refused-to-negotiate
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/8890446/Asset-sale-cash-for-Solid-Energy-Govt


The Government now says it has set aside some money from the proceeds of asset sales to help out State-owned coal miner Solid Energy if needed.

Labour MP Clayton Cosgrove yesterday released Treasury papers showing the Government was looking to use $100 million from the sale of Mighty River Power shares for "Solid Energy recovery facilities" after the company got into financial strife.

You do know what insolvent means, don't you?

And why are they insolvent?
Because the price of coal crashed.
Because the Chinese economy contracted.

[husaberg]

All your links are quite old.
Try some newer ones: http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/business/229058/court-told-bank-refused-to-negotiate
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/8890446/Asset-sale-cash-for-Solid-Energy-Govt



You do know what insolvent means, don't you?

And why are they insolvent?
Because the price of coal crashed.
Because the Chinese economy contracted.

But why were they not able to stay solvent Oscar why? Why was the cupboard bare? why was there no cash reserves? Why were they forced to buy Pike, Why were they unable to mine for 12 months? Why were the company paying out huge redundancies to the people that earned revenue, yet keeping all the admin on.
Why did the Government not bail out there own company, That earns revenue year in year out employs NZ's with all the profits being returned to NZ, Why when it would help out a Multinational that has an unprofitable smelter. One that sends its profits overseas and employs less people.


That's right the smelter is unprofitable and will not stay open in the long term without a massive increase in price and still then it is using a outdated inefficient process.
The links predate the deal thats how far ahead of you i are.
I said this stuff probably over7 months ago, Catch up
The historical information doesn't change by the way:rolleyes:

[avgas]

I don't vote National but I will next election just to cancel husaberg out ... another wasted vote damn it! :brick:
Good for you - keep feeding the system.
Out of interest who would have you voted for if you had (the only) personal choice to elect the government? What is stopping you voting for them right now?

[oldrider]

Good for you - keep feeding the system.
Out of interest who would have you voted for if you had (the only) personal choice to elect the government? What is stopping you voting for them right now?

Just wanted to show how easy husaberg's votes can be cancelled out!

In answer to your question: Nothing is stopping me, it's how I voted last election!

Two votes: http://www.libertarianz.org.nz/ (General policies)

and ........ :http://www.democrats.org.nz/ Because I would like a mix of the two (Economic and monetary policies)

You need to think hard about the reasoning and unfortunately the current situation and attitudes means it could never happen.

However, I vote for what "I" want, not what I am "told" to want!

[husaberg]

Just wanted to show how easy husaberg's votes can be cancelled out!

In answer to your question: Nothing is stopping me, it's how I voted last election!

Two votes: http://www.libertarianz.org.nz/ (General policies)

and ........ :http://www.democrats.org.nz/ Because I would like a mix of the two (Economic and monetary policies)

You need to think hard about the reasoning and unfortunately the current situation and attitudes means it could never happen.

However, I vote for what "I" want, not what I am "told" to want!

Oldy please Explain to me what makes your opinion more valid than my own, i would be interested to know the thought process involved?
How is it that you came to the conclusion that i are somehow unable to make an informed choice?
I haven't seen anything that you have brought to the table that suggests your opinion is so much more valid than my own.

[mashman]

Just wanted to show how easy husaberg's votes can be cancelled out!

In answer to your question: Nothing is stopping me, it's how I voted last election!

Two votes: http://www.libertarianz.org.nz/ (General policies)

and ........ :http://www.democrats.org.nz/ Because I would like a mix of the two (Economic and monetary policies)

You need to think hard about the reasoning and unfortunately the current situation and attitudes means it could never happen.

However, I vote for what "I" want, not what I am "told" to want!

There's a few people calling for a Land Value Tax - (good people) (http://neweconomics.net.nz/) or something bigger (just not in NZ) (http://www.renegadeeconomist.com/) (among others), which would give you something akin to what you're looking for... from what I've read.

[oldrider]

Oldy please Explain to me what makes your opinion more valid than my own, i would be interested to know the thought process involved?
How is it that you came to the conclusion that i are somehow unable to make an informed choice?
I haven't seen anything that you have brought to the table that suggests your opinion is so much more valid than my own.

You are reading too much into what I said.

You vote for one party and I vote for another ... our votes have automatically cancelled each other out ... that's all!

Our opinions and political persuasions don't matter at that level.

[husaberg]

You are reading too much into what I said.

You vote for one party and I vote for another ... our votes have automatically cancelled each other out ... that's all!

Our opinions and political persuasions don't matter at that level.
Possibly it from the interference from my tin foil hat
I note you Mate Oscar has taken to editing his initial replies now.LOL
Hes gone a little quiet. though.......
I find it interesting to attempt to debate with him because he is unable to comprehend basic links between what is actually going on.
When they are clearly shown to him he pretends it is irreverent,then later that he knew it all a long anyway he also it seems is unable to actually read What is presented in front of him.It seems he was unaware that Solid Energy future was part of the referendum

I posted a few pics because the thread was dead the pics show just how hypocritical the Current Nat's leader is.
It's a shame he is no doubt likeable and is clever and successful.

Was Helen any better, not really, but the fundamentals of the Labour policies seemed on the whole as they were a lot more fair to the average Kiwi.

If anyone cares the Solid Energy returns are available on the net take a good look for yourself.
The huge Deficit is a result of the rejigging of the value of the coal Reserves (hugely, which is the actual loss a Paper one)and of buying Pike River Mine and had to buy out the other partner in spring Creek (todd energy) plus returning more in a dividend to the Government than they could actually afford to.
Considering they were also lumbered with a Carbon Tax of about 125 million (returned to the Government BTW:confused:)
Had a crash in coal price, were unable to mine for a long period post and pre Pike (Spring Creek)
They did bloody Well.(for a poorly run top heavy company, some of their initiatives to move into other fields were appalling)

Contrast this with Rio TInto
They are overseas owned, have huge tax breaks Employ less people, reneged on a deal they signed,( One that was especially favourable to them anyway.)
They were given a package that doesn't guarantee that it will stay open for long, with a cost that will be picked up by the tax payer.
Rio Tinto is btw still trying to offload the unprofitable smelter.

The difference between the approaches taken by the government is quite remarkable, and incredibly inconsistent.
Unless you consider what effect each has on the asset sales.

[mashman]

They were given a package that doesn't guarantee that it will stay open for long, with a cost that will be picked up by the tax payer.
Rio Tinto is btw still trying to offload the unprofitable smelter.

Give them $10 million for it and tell them to fuck off, then give the smelter free electricity. They can then sell their product a little cheapererer and still make money to pay workers. Praps add it as an asset for Solid Energy.

[husaberg]

Give them $10 million for it and tell them to fuck off, then give the smelter free electricity. They can then sell their product a little cheapererer and still make money to pay workers. Praps add it as an asset for Solid Energy.

But you see, you can't, because that would effect Meridian's Sale :cool:
They may not get top dollar for it.
Unless we could unbundled it first then just hock of the other generating plants of Meridian, then we could just make huge profits that way.lol
Bugger there isn't the time before the next election........:lol:

[mashman]

But you see, you can't, because that would effect Meridian's Sale :cool:
They may not get top dollar for it.
Unless we could unbundled it first then just hock of the other generating plants of Meridian, then we could just make huge profits that way.lol
Bugger there isn't the time before the next election........:lol:

Contact John.

[oldrider]

But you see, you can't, because that would effect Meridian's Sale :cool:They may not get top dollar for it.

Meridian energy is "NOT FOR SALE"! ... Is "not being sold", it has a minority share float of only 49% for sale to private investors that are interested in that investment "choice"!

That will free up taxpayers "compulsorily" invested money for redirection into more worthy and more urgent social activities! ... IMHO that looks a good option!

History will tell us whether it was or was not.

Unfortunately the lies and deceit being espoused by the left leaning opposition parties and the media generally are causing doubt and confusion for prospective investors!

[husaberg]

Contact John.

via the GCSB or is he out of the country?
I could just send an Email to Kim.COM.
I guess he will be able to afford it soon anyway. Can he Buy Shares?

[husaberg]

Meridian energy is "NOT FOR SALE"! ... Is "not being sold", it has a minority share float of only 49% for sale to private investors that are interested in that investment "choice"!

That will free up taxpayers "compulsorily" invested money for redirection into more worthy and more urgent social activities! ... IMHO that looks a good option!

History will tell us whether it was or was not.

Unfortunately the lies and deceit being espoused by the left leaning opposition parties and the media generally are causing doubt and confusion for prospective investors!

A stake in Meridian is Being "SOLD" we call it the thin edge of the Wedge.
It wasn't invested, it was owned, it will not free up any capital, the decline in earning capacity makes it cost negative (By John Keys own admission He initially said it was Neutral then the sale well it didn't go so well)

There is no confusion with the prospective buyers. They are waiting for the price to drop further still, Why because they don't see them as being good value.
The choice is to buy shares in something they already own brought and paid for.
What "lies" are the left telling John (oldie)?
Only thing i have seen is that they just said they are opposed to it and plan to renationalisation them later?

History will decide, But really, has it been kind to the last lot of asset sales............

[oldrider]

So many men, so many opinions ... I have mine ... you are welcome to have yours. :yes:

[husaberg]

So many men, so many opinions ... I have mine ... you are welcome to have yours. :yes:

Come on John you said Labour lied (Well i assume you mean Labour, by your left leaning comment)...regarding the asset sales... about what?

Here is Some of the History of Manapoiri and the smelter.

Feature
Comalco's Power Play
by Murray Horton

CHRISTCHURCH, NEW ZEALAND - Fiordland National Park, situated in the mountainous, rain-soaked and uninhabitable southwest corner of New Zealand's South Island, is one of the scenic wonders of the world. Milford Sound and the Milford Track are internationally renowned. A close rival for the tourist dollar is the Triple Trip - a boat trip up Lake Manapouri; a bus trip several hundred meters underground to the Manapouri power station; followed by a further bus trip over the Wilmot Pass and a boat trip on the indescribably beautiful Doubtful Sound.

The power station is clearly the oddity here, not least because it is located in a national park. The power plant was paid for by New Zealand taxpayers and built by a multinational workforce. It is an underground powerhouse, with the turbines driven by water that hurtles through a tailrace from Lake Manapouri to Doubtful Sound. Bechteldesigned it, and the Utah Mining Company built it. Fourteen men died during its construction.

The power station was built in 1963, and has operated ever since, for a single purpose - to provide electricity, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, for the Tiwai Point smelter of New Zealand Aluminium Smelters Ltd. (NZAS), located at Bluff, the southernmost tip of the South Island. The smelter is the eighth largest aluminum smelter in the world and the largest single electricity user in New Zealand (using more than Auckland, the largest city). It has also been the subject of bitter controversy ever since it was first proposed.

Sumitomo of Japan holds a 20.6 percent share in NZAS and Comalco owns 79.4 percent of the company. Comalco is majority owned by Conzinc Riotinto Australi a (CRA, itself the world's sixth largest mining company), which in turn is controlled by Rio Tinto Zinc (RTZ, the huge British mining multinational).

Comalco ships bauxite from Weipa, in Australia's northernmost Cape York peninsula, to Gladstone (further south, in Queensland), where it is refined to alumina and shipped to Bluff for smelting. The majority is re-exported to Australia for final processing. Finished aluminum is sold to New Zealand at market prices.

There is good reason for the controversy which has surrounded the Manapouri station and the Comalco deal. Although former Works Minister Hugh Watt said upon his retirement in 1974, "The greatest achievement of my career was persuading Comalco to build their smelter in New Zealand," Comalco has created numerous problems for the country which subsidizes its smelting operations. It tried to ruin a lake to build a power station, it fought both National and Labour governments over attempts to raise power prices and now it is trying to buy the power station itself from the state at a steep discount. Structurally, the Comalco arrangement puts New Zealand in the role of low-cost energy exporter, a fact which the government has implicitly noted in rebuffing other mineral smelter proposals. In 1974, for example, the Labour government rejected a proposed nickel smelter, saying: "As energy and labour would have been the only substantial inputs into a product primarily aimed at export markets, the proposal could have, in effect, involved a low-priced energy export."

Manapouri history

In 1960, the Labour government and Comalco signed a contract for the company to build both a smelter and a power station. In return, Comalco received exclusive rights to the waters of both Lake Manapouri and Te Anau for 99 years. The company planned to build dams that would raise both lakes - 84 feet in the case of Manapouri. This raised the specter of the irreparable damage done to lakes by hydro schemes in the Australian state of Tasmania, where Comalco also has a major presence, and gave birth to the Save Manapouri Campaign (SMC), which marked the beginning of the modern New Zealand environmental movement.

SMC argued, as campaign chair Ron McLean succinctly stated at the time, "Raising the lake is not necessary. You get ample power by keeping the lakes as they are." SMC gathered 264,906 signatures - representing approximately 10 percent of New Zealand's population - on a petition opposing the raising of the lakes; that remains one of the largest public protests in the country's history. The Labour government came to power in 1972 promising not to raise either lake, and appointed leading environmentalists (including McLean) to a new body, the Guardians of the Lakes.

Comalco never built the power station. With the company complaining that it could not afford to build the power plant, the government agreed in 1963 to build the Manapouri plant itself and to sell electricity from the station to Comalco at bargain- basement prices that have still not been officially revealed. Bill Rosenberg of the Campaign Against Foreign Control of Aotearoa (CAFCA; Aotearoa is the indigenous Maori name for New Zealand) says, "Comalco has long had highly favorable power prices. Its initial agreement with the government, based on Manapouri power, gave it a 99-year agreement for power at a tiny fraction of the price to other users, with no provision for inflation." The original Comalco rate was 13 times less than the rate paid by New Zealand householders and one twentieth the rate charged to other industries and farmers. The government even granted the company the right to take electricity from the national grid at Manapouri prices; Comalco exercised this right in 1974, when a drought caused a severe drop in Lake Manapouri's level.

Comalco has repeatedly manipulated and interfered with New Zealand politics - and politicians - to preserve its special arrangement with the Manapouri plant. Rosenberg says that, in 1970, Comalco "issued shares to influential New Zealanders at a cheap rate before offering them to the public. These included prominent journalists, politicians, judges and newspaper executives."

Fighting hard against a rate increase of 650 percent proposed in 1977 by the Muldoon (National) government, Comalco contacted its parent companies in Japan, the UK and the United States [Kaiser Aluminum used to be in the smelter consortium] and asked them to persuade the U.S. and UK governments to "take action" against the New Zealand government, according to internal company documents leaked to CAFCA. The documents reveal that Comalco asked its Japanese associates to organize Japanese industrialists to act against New Zealand and directly asked Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser to intervene in the price dispute. Comalco eventually agreed to a 350 percent rate increase, and the government managed to cut the length of the contract from 99 years to 30 years, so that it will now expire in 2007.

In 1986, with the Labour government trying to increase Comalco's rate from 1.5 cents to 3.5 cents a unit, Comalco attempted to pressure top government officials, including Minister of Energy Bob Tizard, to be more sympathetic toward the company. Comalco also unsuccessfully took the government to court to try to prevent a rate increase from being legislated.

Comalco shifted tactics in the late 1980s, Rosenberg says, after a 1986 public opinion survey showed that people thought "power prices" rather than "aluminum" when they heard Comalco's name.

In 1989, Comalco launched a lavish self-promotion campaign. Television advertisements called the company "A Power of Good," and used Vivaldi music and images of sparkling Fiordland water to show how Comalco converted water into electricity into aluminum. Working in conjunction with the Department of Conservation and New Zealand's most prestigious environmental body, the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society, Comalco donated NZ$1 million earned from recycling cans into a fund for the preservation of the kakapo, one of New Zealand's most endangered birds. (1 NZ$ is worth between US$.50 and US$.60.)

Kerry McDonald, managing director of Comalco New Zealand Ltd., explains Comalco's new concern with public relations: "Comalco came to New Zealand as a producer of basic raw materials. It didn't want to create a high profit. It just wanted to get on with the business of making aluminum. With the benefit of hindsight, that wasn't totally appropriate. Clearly, there are a lot of questions about power pricing and the rate of return to New Zealand. So in recent years we've tried to establish a higher profile for the company, more recognition of the name Comalco and to build on it by providing more factual information on the business, benefits to the company and New Zealand, on the grounds that it is an important quid pro quo for being the largest electricity consumer in New Zealand."

Essentially, the advertising campaign failed. Comalco has such a bad track record in New Zealand that people were instantly suspicious, and realized that the company wanted something. The campaign focused unwanted public attention on Comalco, and specifically on its attempts to take advantage of the New Right revolution carried out in New Zealand under the 1984-1990 Labour government.

Private vs. public power

The Labour government's new economic program, commonly called Rogernomics, after Sir Roger Douglas, its architect, called for the corporatization of government agencies. Former government departments became profit-oriented State Owned Enterprises (SOEs), governed by boards of directors. The Electricity Department became Electricorp, headed by New Right ideologues and millionaire businessmen. Comalco's negotiating partner had changed drastically.

The National government at least had some success in increasing the power price in the 1970s; Labour failed completely in the 1980s. Comalco dragged out negotiations, took court action and complained publicly about its power price. But the company was hardly suffering under the new arrangement, as Electricorp CEO Rod Deane revealed in leaked 1987 documents: "With corporatization, electricity consumers will now have to meet the full cost of running the electricity system. Under the existing agreements, without any explicit Government subsidy, all other electricity consumers will be subsidizing the smelter. Comalco is benefiting by [NZ]$1-1.5 million per week as a result of the present agreements." But the Rogernauts running Electricorp had no stomach to legislate a price increase (which would signal a return to discredited Muldoonism), and the negotiations disappeared into the realm of "commercial confidentiality," where they remain.

Further insights into Comalco's privileged financial position have been unearthed by the research of Geoff Bertram, an economist at Wellington's Victoria University. Betram analyzed tax payments made by the smelter, revealing that between 1971 and 1987, the company frequently paid nothing, and on average paid only NZ$1.6 million per year. It only started paying New Zealand's standard corporate rate in 1988.

Labour's real agenda for the Manapouri power plant became evident in 1986. The Labour government and its ideologues saw corporatization (the creation of SOEs) as only the first step toward privatization. It wanted to sell the Manapouri power station, and Comalco was the obvious buyer.

Buying the Manapouri plant is a viable option for Comalco. Its current contract expires in 2007; it wants security of supply, and it is talking of building a fourth potline (a facility at which alumina is smelted into pure aluminum). As Bertram points out, "There are only two ways for Comalco to lock in half-price electricity for the next half century. One is to buy the power station at half its value and integrate it into the smelter consortium, so that the electricity price is merely an intra-company transfer price, and not an arms-length market transaction. The other winning strategy for Comalco would be to trap the New Zealand government into another long-term supply contract, written by the company's lawyers and full of small print, which adds up to a replay of the history of the last 30 years."

Outside analysts, such as Bertram, estimate the plant's value as at least NZ$3 billion. But the parsimonious multinational only offered a few hundred million dollars for Manapouri. The only issue for the Labour government was negotiating the price for the power station - and the government has sold other public assets, including the national phone system, to multinationals at scandalously low prices - but it did not get the chance to hammer out a deal.

Labour crashed to New Zealand's biggest electoral defeat in 1990, but the Bolger (National) government continued Rogernomics unabated. Today, however, there are signs that, influenced by 1993 election pragmatism, the government may be rethinking its policies. As Leader of the Opposition, Jim Bolger had stated that Comalco was entitled to get its power price issue settled, and had promised to study the issue of selling Manapouri to Comalco.

In 1991, the Save Manapouri Campaign was revived, with many of the same leaders in place, albeit 20 years older. Called Power For Our Future, it spent NZ$53,000 from the leaders' own pockets, bombarded the government with position papers and conducted public meetings throughout the country. Unlike the Labour Party, it was opposed to the whole principle of selling Manapouri to Comalco (or anybody else), not simply the price. The Campaign opposed selling off the power station to ensure that Comalco did not rehabilitate its plans to raise Lake Manapouri's waters and voiced the compelling economic argument for keeping a massive 4000 gigawatt-hour power station in public (or semi-public) ownership.

The Campaign was successful. In 1991, Bolger announced that Manapouri would not be sold to Comalco. In the "meantime," he said, Electricorp would resume negotiations with Comalco. The issue of Manapouri being sold is now on hold at least until after the 1993 election.

Power For Our Future was even paid the backhanded compliment of a politically motivated break-in, which targeted its membership lists, financial details and minutes. Sir Randal Elliott, one of New Zealand's most famous physicians and a leader of Power For Our Future, described it as "a Watergate-type exercise, clearly meant to destablize and irritate the group." There is no clue as to who was responsible. The Campaign has gone on to focus on the government's plans to privatize the nation's electricity network.

Comalco keeps going and going ...

Comalco has not given up its aspirations to retain access to Manapouri power at discount rates. Now it is employing the tried-and-true multinational strategem of pitting regions and countries against each other. In March 1992, the Comalco board of directors met at Tiwai for the first time since 1984, told the anxious local media that it could only afford to upgrade one smelter at a time and announced that it would make its decision on which smelter to upgrade within the next six months. Chief Executive Nick Stump suggested several possible options: construction of the fourth Tiwai potline (with extra power needed from Electricorp); privatization of the Gladstone power station and expansion of the Boyne Island smelter in Queensland, Australia, following negotiations with the State government; or replacement of the Bell Bay potlines in Tasmania. "They are all [NZ]$500 million plus projects. The question is who is going to be first cab off the rank," Stump said. And he introduced a wild card - a pre-feasibility study on a new smelter in Chile.

The pressure tactics have worked, at least at the local level. Invercargill, the major city closest to Tiwai, has benefited handsomely from Comalco money and smelter jobs. The local National MP urged Bolger to step in to assure that the smelter expansion would take place in Bluff, and not in Chile or elsewhere. But Bolger, a Cabinet Minister in the Muldoon government, has dealt with Comalco before, and said the negotiations will be left to Electricorp, with no government intervention.

Bertram believes Comalco should stay, but that the government should call the company's bluff by charging it the real commercial rate for electricity. "The early phase of the resource multinational is predatory, because otherwise it wouldn't come. About 10 years on, they enter a more mature phase, and evaluate whether they're in for the long haul, or phase out. Comalco is in that phase now." A beautiful lake, and a nation's peace of mind, depend on whether Comalco is willing to accept the responsibilities of corporate maturity.

[Oscar]

Possibly it from the interference from my tin foil hat
I note you Mate Oscar has taken to editing his initial replies now.LOL
Hes gone a little quiet. though.......
I find it interesting to attempt to debate with him because he is unable to comprehend basic links between what is actually going on.
When they are clearly shown to him he pretends it is irreverent,then later that he knew it all a long anyway he also it seems is unable to actually read What is presented in front of him.It seems he was unaware that Solid Energy future was part of the referendum

.

I gave up coz you're a boring little fucker.
The Govt ran Solid Energy into the ground so it could sell it cheap to its mates.
The Govt saved Rio Tinto coz they're matey.
At least that's what the gist of it appears to be, and maybe if you'd slow down and proof read what you're spouting it would make some sense.
For example: "irreverent"? WTF Why don't you stop trying to be clever, it just doesn't suit you.
And:


Guess what the referendum is about
which asset sales remind me again.
Look at the end.......SOLID ENERGY.
I will say it again SOLID ENERGY

So what?
Of course the referendum is about Solid Energy - it's on the ballot, and it's in the Govt's assets sales policy.

But notwithstanding who ran Solid Energy into the ground, it ain't gonna be sold, coz it ain't worth nothing.
As for Rio Tinto - your call: cheaper power for everyone, jobs for Southland.

And what's this about editing posts?
Perhaps you'd care to point out what you're on about.

[Oscar]

Come on John you said Labour lied (Well i assume you mean Labour, by your left leaning comment)...regarding the asset sales... about what?

Here is Some of the History of Manapoiri and the smelter.

Feature
Comalco's Power Play
by Murray Horton

-snip-

You already posted that link, numbnuts.
Instead of posting links, cartoons and quotes from other people, why don't you elucidate your theory in your own words , say 40 words or less?
Betcha can't.

[mashman]

You already posted that link, numbnuts.
Instead of posting links, cartoons and quotes from other people, why don't you elucidate your theory in your own words , say 40 words or less?
Betcha can't.

So you got nothin then.

[Oscar]

So you got nothin then.

I'm not the one trying to connect the dots with a combination of links, quotes and cartoons.

[husaberg]

The Govt ran Solid Energy into the ground so it could sell it cheap to its mates.
In a round about way yes, coupled with very poor governance by the board. But there is method to the madness.


The Govt saved Rio Tinto coz they're matey.
At least that's what the gist of it appears to be,
The Government didn't "Save" Rio Tinto because they are matey, they didn't need saving, they are tied there until (fill in later) but they bowed to them because Rio Tinto's threats threatened to destabilise the asset sales.


Of course the referendum is about Solid Energy - it's on the ballot, and it's in the Govt's assets sales policy.
You are the one who consistently said whats Solid Energy got to do with it?
you also said.(add later)


Wow, you really should try decaf.

What figures do you seek?

Of course the Rio Tinto deal ties into the sale (and long term value) of Meridian, I never said it didn't
You'd put hundreds of people of of a job because it was helpful for asset sales?
The Figures that show just how much the smelter benefits NZ. Real figures. Not Rio Tinto spin...
You said my stuff wasn't on subject and it turns out it was......:clap:
Hello Solid Energy...................:lol:

Only in your twisted reality.


But notwithstanding who ran Solid Energy into the ground, it ain't gonna be sold, coz it ain't worth nothing.
Solid Energy is actually extremely valuable because on its books it holds the mineral licenses to a huge clunk of NZ.
As a mining company with a work force and liabilities and having to perform to the SOE charter its value is not so much.


As for Rio Tinto - your call: cheaper power for everyone, jobs for Southland.
Southland wouldn't "lose" jobs because there is a wind-down cause, they also have to clean up the place they also have to construct more Tranmission lines to efficiently transport the power out of Manapori, long term the smelter has no future, It isn't efficient enough, It hasn't moved with the current technology,Granted it makes great high quality product, but not efficiently enough. NZ exchange rate and labour costs and environmental policies make it cheaper to start from scratch elsewhere rather reinvest here.

[Oscar]

In a round about way yes, coupled with very poor governance by the board. But there is method to the madness.


The Government didn't "Save" Rio Tinto because they are matey, they didn't need saving, they are tied there until (fill in later) but they bowed to them because Rio Tinto's threats threatened to destabilise the asset sales.


You are the one who consistently said whats Solid Energy got to do with it?
you also said.(add later)


Solid Energy is actually extremely valuable because on its books it holds the mineral licenses to a huge clunk of NZ.
As a mining company with a work force and liabilities and having to perform to the SOE charter its value is not so much.


Southland wouldn't "lose" jobs because there is a wind-down cause, they also have to clean up the place they also have to construct more Tranmission lines to efficiently transport the power out of Manapori, long term the smelter has no future it isn't efficient enough it hasn't moved with the current technology,Granted it makes great high quality product, but not efficiently enough. NZ exchange rate and labour costs and environmental policies make it cheaper to start from scratch elsewhere rather reinvest here.

There you go, you made your point, and in one post.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that even if the Govt. was crazy enough to put Solid Energy up for sale (and hell, anything is possible) - who's gonna be dumb enough to buy it?

So where's this edited post then?

[husaberg]

You already posted that link, numbnuts.
Instead of posting links, cartoons and quotes from other people, why don't you elucidate your theory in your own words , say 40 words or less?
Betcha can't.

But you never actually read it did you?
I win arguments based on facts and interpretations of ideas.
you try to win with insults. Why?
You simply say who cares, say crap like, so what, you behave like an impertinent child, only less eloquent.
If you could argue a point it would be interesting, but sadly you lack the basic comprehension skills of reasoning and deduction. You attempt to play the man rather than the ball, but then again you do play a man in real life rather than act like an adult.


because you have a chip on your shoulder, it causes you to consistently act in a belligerent, condescending manner.
Likely because of some physiological trauma in early pubescent, Likely under-endowment, Not sure why but faf for the rest of us
40 words

[mashman]

But you never actually read it did you?
I win arguments based on facts and interpretations of ideas.
you try to win with insults. Why?

It's cheaper than viagra.

[mashman]

I'm not the one trying to connect the dots with a combination of links, quotes and cartoons.

But you're trying to pull the dots where you think they should be using a combination of nothing.

[husaberg]

There you go, you made your point, and in one post.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that even if the Govt. was crazy enough to put Solid Energy up for sale (and hell, anything is possible) - who's gonna be dumb enough to buy it?

You are ignoring the fact about where Solid Energy's value is,(hint its in the post you quoted:rolleyes:) okay seeing as you continually need spoon feeding I will put it here again for you

In a round about way yes, coupled with very poor governance by the board. But there is method to the madness.
The Government didn't "Save" Rio Tinto because they are matey, they didn't need saving, they are tied there until (fill in later) but they bowed to them because Rio Tinto's threats threatened to destabilise the asset sales.
You are the one who consistently said whats Solid Energy got to do with it?
you also said.(add later)
Solid Energy is actually extremely valuable because on its books it holds the mineral licenses to a huge clunk of NZ.
As a mining company with a work force and liabilities and having to perform to the SOE charter its value is not so much.
Southland wouldn't "lose" jobs because there is a wind-down cause, they also have to clean up the place they also have to construct more Tranmission lines to efficiently transport the power out of Manapori, long term the smelter has no future it isn't efficient enough it hasn't moved with the current technology,Granted it makes great high quality product, but not efficiently enough. NZ exchange rate and labour costs and environmental policies make it cheaper to start from scratch elsewhere rather reinvest here.



read the post again. its in the "mineral reserves" it holds the licenses to.

Also have a look at Bathurst mines development in Dennison.
You know The one that is going ahead now? because it is still economic starting from scratch even at today's prices........
Do you know where they got the lease license from?
Plus also how much it cost.
Also understand how Solid energy "forgot" to renew the leases they had for the whole area previously.

[husaberg]

I'm not the one trying to connect the dots with a combination of links, quotes and cartoons.


But you're trying to pull the dots where you think they should be using a combination of nothing.

Its a shame cause my 5 year old can figure its way out of a maze,yet other "adults" are unable to play join the dots.:laugh:

[Banditbandit]

You seem to be ignoring the fact that even if the Govt. was crazy enough to put Solid Energy up for sale (and hell, anything is possible) - who's gonna be dumb enough to buy it?



The same people who were silly enogh to buy used power companies from this Government - only to watch the share prices fall ...

[oldrider]

The same people who were silly enogh to buy used power companies from this Government - only to watch the share prices fall ...

How was the coffee break?

[BMWST?]

Meridian energy is "NOT FOR SALE"! ... Is "not being sold", it has a minority share float of only 49% for sale to private investors that are interested in that investment "choice"!

That will free up taxpayers "compulsorily" invested money for redirection into more worthy and more urgent social activities! ... IMHO that looks a good option!

History will tell us whether it was or was not.

Unfortunately the lies and deceit being espoused by the left leaning opposition parties and the media generally are causing doubt and confusion for prospective investors!

And you are overlooking the reality of the situation.I dont have any particular problem with the govt selling such assets.However why would you undertake this process over such a short time frame.Wether or not there is political "interference" in the process is moot when you are selling such large packets of shares over such a short time frame to "Mum and Dad" investors.It doesnt seem to me to be a process to yield the maximum value from each SOE.

[Banditbandit]

Solid Energy is actually extremely valuable because on its books it holds the mineral licenses to a huge clunk of NZ.
As a mining company with a work force and liabilities and having to perform to the SOE charter its value is not so much.



The value of those mineral licences is only the value of the minerals removed, minus the cost of doing so ...

With a 40% drop in coal prices worldwide that value has gone ...

Given that roughly 70% of the price of any product is the cost of it's production, that leaves 30% for taxes, profits ... but a 40% drop in price cuts out al of that 30% taxes and profits and cuts into the cost of prouction ... i.e. it will cost more to mine than the product will sell for ..

Solid Eergy on that basis is a worthless company ...


How was the coffee break?

Great ..

[avgas]

The value of those mineral licences is only the value of the minerals removed, minus the cost of doing so ...

With a 40% drop in coal prices worldwide that value has gone ...

Given that roughly 70% of the price of any product is the cost of it's production, that leaves 30% for taxes, profits ... but a 40% drop in price cuts out al of that 30% taxes and profits and cuts into the cost of prouction ... i.e. it will cost more to mine than the product will sell for ..

Solid Eergy on that basis is a worthless company ...

Great ..
So has coal production stopped worldwide? I mean if its not cost effective to dig up coal then the world then no one must be digging up. Why would they - through your vast intellect you have shown us that cost is a -30% industry.

Hooray the world will have to stop using coal because it costs too much to get out of the ground. The world is saved.

Or your wrong? Just a thought.

(I do know more here - but I will let you react barbarically and defensively as to why you are not wrong. But I will give you a hint - Solid Energy failed due to expenditure......not getting coal out of the ground and selling if for profit).

[Oscar]

So has coal production stopped worldwide? I mean if its not cost effective to dig up coal then the world then no one must be digging up. Why would they - through your vast intellect you have shown us that cost is a -30% industry.

Hooray the world will have to stop using coal because it costs too much to get out of the ground. The world is saved.

Or your wrong? Just a thought.

(I do know more here - but I will let you react barbarically and defensively as to why you are not wrong. But I will give you a hint - Solid Energy failed due to expenditure......not getting coal out of the ground and selling if for profit).

Or it could be that the demand for coal (and subsequently the price) reduced after the GFC.

[husaberg]

The value of those mineral licences is only the value of the minerals removed, minus the cost of doing so ...

With a 40% drop in coal prices worldwide that value has gone ...

Given that roughly 70% of the price of any product is the cost of it's production, that leaves 30% for taxes, profits ... but a 40% drop in price cuts out al of that 30% taxes and profits and cuts into the cost of prouction ... i.e. it will cost more to mine than the product will sell for ..

Solid Eergy on that basis is a worthless company ...



Great ..



So has coal production stopped worldwide? I mean if its not cost effective to dig up coal then the world then no one must be digging up. Why would they - through your vast intellect you have shown us that cost is a -30% industry.

Hooray the world will have to stop using coal because it costs too much to get out of the ground. The world is saved.

Or your wrong? Just a thought.

(I do know more here - but I will let you react barbarically and defensively as to why you are not wrong. But I will give you a hint - Solid Energy failed due to expenditure......not getting coal out of the ground and selling if for profit).

Its not just the Coal most of the Coal fields are not fully explored the reserves Solid Energy hold are vastly underestimated and it is mostly high quality.
Coal will swing up again, The time to buy is when its low. tieing up the NZ reserves also increases the price (supply and demand.)
Any buyer does not have to behave the same as the SOE did either.
The prospects for recovering the coal seam gas and for underground coal gasification the are huge.
Also all the plant for Solid energy is in place most of it very new.
That's not not even including the peat and lignite for Nitrogen fertiliser and synthetic fuel. Thermal electric power anyone.

[mashman]

Its not just the Coal most of the Coal fields are not fully explored the reserves Solid Energy hold are vastly underestimated and it is mostly high quality.
Coal will swing up again, The time to buy is when its low. tieing up the NZ reserves also increases the price (supply and demand.)
Any buyer does not have to behave the same as the SOE did either.
The prospects for recovering the coal seam gas and for underground coal gasification the are huge.
Also all the plant for Solid energy is in place most of it very new.
That's not not even including the peat and lignite for Nitrogen fertiliser and synthetic fuel. Thermal electric power anyone.

9 May 2007

Solid Energy has expanded its bioenergy business with the acquisition of biodiesel producer, Canterbury Biodiesel, and plans to increase annual production to 70 million litres within three years which will meet more than half the Government's 2012 target for biofuels. (http://www.coalnz.com/about/media-releases/2007/Solid-Energy-enters-biodiesel-market.html)

So they were going into biofuels for a reason i.e. legislation.

However

"In 2009 the National Government repealed the biofuel legislation and the obligation for all companies to sell a percentage of biofuels. We repealed the Act in the face of the sustainability issues, and because we believed it would force up the price of fuel for consumers. Existing biofuel production continued, but it was from local feedstock and mostly waste products such as used cooking oil and tallow." (http://www.parliament.nz/en-nz/pb/debates/debates/50HansD_20120404_00000024/sustainable-biofuel-bill-%E2%80%94-second-reading)

Someone got their wires crossed.

[pete376403]

I assume (dangerous word) that the major uses of coal are electricity generation and steel making. While there are alternative methods of electricity generation - hydro, solar, wind, even nukes, is there a practical alternative to using coal for steel making? If not, then surely the demand for coal must at some time rise again.

[Zedder]

9 May 2007

Solid Energy has expanded its bioenergy business with the acquisition of biodiesel producer, Canterbury Biodiesel, and plans to increase annual production to 70 million litres within three years which will meet more than half the Government's 2012 target for biofuels. (http://www.coalnz.com/about/media-releases/2007/Solid-Energy-enters-biodiesel-market.html)

So they were going into biofuels for a reason i.e. legislation.

However

"In 2009 the National Government repealed the biofuel legislation and the obligation for all companies to sell a percentage of biofuels. We repealed the Act in the face of the sustainability issues, and because we believed it would force up the price of fuel for consumers. Existing biofuel production continued, but it was from local feedstock and mostly waste products such as used cooking oil and tallow." (http://www.parliament.nz/en-nz/pb/debates/debates/50HansD_20120404_00000024/sustainable-biofuel-bill-%E2%80%94-second-reading)

Someone got their wires crossed.

Yep, not only that though, Don Elder the Solid Energy CEO lead the high risk expansion strategy in 2006 based on a far too optimistic view regarding oil and coal prices with no supporting information. According to Treasury documents released under the Official Information Act, however, it took 5 years for the truth to come out.

Oddly enough, Elder was still being paid his NZ$1.3 million salary up until August this year.

[mashman]

Yep, not only that though, Don Elder the Solid Energy CEO lead the high risk expansion strategy in 2006 based on a far too optimistic view regarding oil and coal prices with no supporting information. According to Treasury documents released under the Official Information Act, however, it took 5 years for the truth to come out.

Oddly enough, Elder was still being paid his NZ$1.3 million salary up until August this year.

Given the legislation and political direction of the day it probably seemed like a good idea at the time.

Lucky fucka.

[Zedder]

Given the legislation and political direction of the day it probably seemed like a good idea at the time.

Lucky fucka.

No actually, he was a maverick. He also bought up large amounts of land and mineral rights in Southland without consultation or authorisation.

How many beers?

[mashman]

No actually, he was a maverick. He also bought up large amounts of land and mineral rights in Southland without consultation or authorisation.

How many beers?

Lucky fucka.

[Zedder]

Lucky fucka.

I'd say 4.

[mashman]

I'd say 4.

Why not...

[husaberg]

Gee guys really CEO's are not the people who actually Run SOE's.
http://fmacskasy.wordpress.com/2013/06/14/solid-energy-a-solid-drama-of-facts-fibs-and-fall-guys-2/
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1303/S00221/nats-milked-troubled-solid-energy-for-cash.htm
http://fmacskasy.wordpress.com/tag/solid-energy/
http://norightturn.blogspot.co.nz/2013/03/the-solid-energy-files.html
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10871331
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10871040
http://www.parliament.nz/en-nz/pb/business/qoa/50HansQ_20130710_00000006/6-solid-energy%E2%80%94financial-position-management-and-assistance
http://www.parliament.nz/en-nz/pb/business/qoa/50HansQ_20130314_00000001/1-solid-energy%E2%80%94financial-position
http://nzfirst.org.nz/news/solid-energy-micro-meddled-mess-thanks-government
http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/informationreleases/solidenergy
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Solid_Energy
http://new.rankinfile.co.nz/nrf20130315_Solid-Energy_Shareholder-Management.pdf

[avgas]

Or it could be that the demand for coal (and subsequently the price) reduced after the GFC.
Actually the opposite happened - because China (the LARGEST BY A FACTOR OF 2 - Consumer) could buy more for less.

[avgas]

I assume (dangerous word) that the major uses of coal are electricity generation and steel making. While there are alternative methods of electricity generation - hydro, solar, wind, even nukes, is there a practical alternative to using coal for steel making? If not, then surely the demand for coal must at some time rise again.
Perhaps I didn't highlight the blatant lies before......Coal usage did not, I repeat, DID NOT drop.
People assume that because the US, NZ, UK and Aus slowed their use of coal that it dropped.

Here is a consumption graph:
http://gailtheactuary.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/coal-consumption-by-area.png

and attached is the graph that shows China's consumption....
290711

So if the price went down 40% all we had to do was sit on a reserve until china ran out and we could charge anything we wanted for it. Therefore Solid Energy is far from useless.

[MisterD]

So if the price went down 40% all we had to do was sit on a reserve until china ran out and we could charge anything we wanted for it. Therefore Solid Energy is far from useless.

Which is all well and good, unless you've borrowed a shit load of money and need to service the debt. *That* is SE's problem, they weren't able to service their borrowings, so the Government had two options 1) gouge the taxpayer to pay down the debt or 2) restructure and force the lenders to take a haircut or lose everything if SE went into liquidation.

It's because SE is still a long term viable proposition that restructuring was a possible.

[husaberg]

Which is all well and good, unless you've borrowed a shit load of money and need to service the debt. *That* is SE's problem, they weren't able to service their borrowings, so the Government had two options 1) gouge the taxpayer to pay down the debt or 2) restructure and force the lenders to take a haircut or lose everything if SE went into liquidation.

It's because SE is still a long term viable proposition that restructuring was a possible.


Mr D the bit you are missing is the Government Gouged Solid Energy, follow the links i posted if you don't believe me.
They were the ones that told them to Borrow so heavily and they are the ones that told them to borrow to pay the dividends They also as a legacy of the Koyoto gave the government an extra 125 million or so in Carbon taxes, Ask yourself where did that money go:whistle:

[Banditbandit]

Three more days to cast your (useless) vote ...

[oldrider]

Three more days to cast your (useless) vote ...

Hmmmmm ... "locking the door after the horse has bolted" ... back in the day we were taught to understand the futility of that at a very early age! :facepalm:

education ... which way did it go? :psst:

[haydes55]

Everyone's bagging John Key for selling the assets, but does no one remember that Helen Clark was the PM who legalised the sale of "assets".

[pete376403]

Everyone's bagging John Key for selling the assets, but does no one remember that Helen Clark was the PM who legalised the sale of "assets".
David Lange I think. 4th labour government. Prebble was minister of SOE (Sell Off Everything)
State-Owned Enterprises Act 1986
Public Act 1986 No 124
Date of assent 18 December 1986

[oldrider]

SOE'S were for sale right up until 1999 when Helen Clark came into power, put the sales on hold and bled them for everything they could by raising power prices sky high!

Labour also bailed Air NZ (mainly IMHO) so that the politicians didn't lose their "lifetime" travel perks!

Ask who pays for her to travel back and forth on Air NZ from her perky job with the united nations? ... we (taxpayers) do! (forever) :weep:

[husaberg]

SOE'S were for sale right up until 1999 when Helen Clark came into power, put the sales on hold and bled them for everything they could by raising power prices sky high!

Labour also bailed Air NZ (mainly IMHO) so that the politicians didn't lose their "lifetime" travel perks!

Ask who pays for her to travel back and forth on Air NZ from her perky job with the united nations? ... we (taxpayers) do! (forever) :weep:

I guess the UN might pay for her travel,but yes we still end up with the bill regardless. but you remember Gentleman Jim Boulder.
What did he end up with, a cushy job as an ambassador then a director of two of the companies he public-ally didn't want and wanted sold.lol

Be bloody interesting to see what Mil-keytiNational John Key ends up with my monies on Halliburton or Pfizer.

[Banditbandit]

I guess the UN might pay for her travel,but yes we still end up with the bill regardless. but you remember Gentleman Jim Boulder.
What did he end up with, a cushy job as an ambassador then a director of two of the companies he public-ally didn't want and wanted sold.lol

Be bloody interesting to see what Mil-keytiNational John Key ends up with my monies on Halliburton or Pfizer.

Like Doug Graham ?? End up with a knighthood and a criminal conviction for shonky company practice ..

[oldrider]

Like Doug Graham ?? End up with a knighthood and a criminal conviction for shonky company practice ..

What was the first thing JK restored upon taking up the office of PM? :shifty: and more significantly ... Why? :confused: Then ask who benefits? :rolleyes:

What is it that a man with everything else desires most ... public reward by recognition ... how would Sir John Key sound?

IMHO ... that would do it every time for our John boy! :innocent:

[haydes55]

David Lange I think. 4th labour government. Prebble was minister of SOE (Sell Off Everything)

State-Owned Enterprises Act 1986

Public Act 1986 No 124

Date of assent 18 December 1986





I was actually alluding to the prostitution laws lol.

So the nation can pay taxes to get fucked... Literally haha

[husaberg]

Like Doug Graham ?? End up with a knighthood and a criminal conviction for shonky company practice ..

Or the "honorable" pansy Wong.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/4337061/Pansy-Wong-resigns-Cabinet-spot-over-travel-perk

http://gazette.govt.nz/notice/id/2011-vr6530

[oldrider]

The title of this thread should have read : "The Green party Referendum on Asset Sales" it is a "political party" initiated referendum rather than citizens! :weird:

It is simply a party political advertising stunt outside of the normal election advertising period at the (continued) "Taxpayers expense"! :girlfight: a pathetic slap fight really!

[geoffc]

Early results indicate 1.3 million plus bothered to vote in this poll. Impressive. 67% against Asset Sales. Maybe the Greens have their finger on the electoral pulse because that is a clear message by voters.

[oldrider]

Early results indicate 1.3 million plus bothered to vote in this poll. Impressive. 67% against Asset Sales. Maybe the Greens have their finger on the electoral pulse because that is a clear message by voters.

The bible also says "the meek shall inherit the earth" :facepalm: Yeah right, that will be a great help!

[Jantar]

Early results indicate 1.3 million plus bothered to vote in this poll. Impressive. 67% against Asset Sales. Maybe the Greens have their finger on the electoral pulse because that is a clear message by voters.
No it wasn't 67% against asset sales, it was 67% against partial sales.

Imagine you have 3 candidates standing for your electorate.
Candidate A for National
Candidate B for Greens
Candidate C for Labour.

When you come to vote the voting paper simply asks "Do you support Candidate B as your next MP?" A and C are not mentioned. How will you vote?

In this referendum there were 3 main choices: No sales; partial sales; or full sales. But the only choice we had to vote for was partial sales. The other 2 choices were not mentioned. Thus the NO vote only tells us that Partial sales was not the preffered choice. It still doesn't tell us how many are against ALL assett sales.

In fact there should have been 15 choices available. 5 comapanies with 3 possible choices for each.

[carbonhed]

Stealing 9 million dollars of taxpayers money winds up with catastrophic defeat for the Greens and Labour.

The first citizens initiated referenda run by and for political parties gets by far the worst result of all CIR.

2009 CIR to repeal smacking law changes had 1,470,755 votes jn favour
1999 CIR to reduce the number of MPs to 99 had 1,678,054 votes in favour
1999 CIR for tougher sentencing for criminals had 1,886,705 votes in favour

What did the hand wringers manage? 895,322. 29% of eligible voters.

Incredibly 432,950 people told them to fuck off. Even though there was absolutely nothing riding on the referendum result and no need for them to vote at all.

Epic fail.

[oldrider]

Epic fail yes but they will still claim a victory and spin it to their faithful as fact! ... The worst bit is that the faithful believe it already! :brick:

Non so blind as those who will not see! :rolleyes:

[geoffc]

Stealing 9 million dollars of taxpayers money winds up with catastrophic defeat for the Greens and Labour.

What did the hand wringers manage? 895,322. 29% of eligible voters.

Incredibly 432,950 people told them to fuck off. Even though there was absolutely nothing riding on the referendum result and no need for them to vote at all.

Epic fail.

Yeah you are bound to be right. Pity 200 000 plus petitioned for this vote. Surprising that anyone voted anyway when Key & English said they would not take any notice of the outcome. But then if they choose to go ahead and sell more assets I wonder if that might piss off a few voters. I mean some of that 895 322 might not be paid up Green or Labour supporters. Yeah 'Epic fail.' Just a mere 2/3 of those 1.3 million that bothered to vote. Just 1.3 million.

[oldrider]

This whole argument is null and void, nobody is really taking any notice of it anyway = epic fail = waste of time energy and money. :weird: moving right along! :sleep:

[husaberg]

Epic fail yes but they will still claim a victory and spin it to their faithful as fact! ... The worst bit is that the faithful believe it already! :brick:

Non so blind as those who will not see! :rolleyes:
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3082/2418346408_db05b6257e.jpg

This whole argument is null and void, nobody is really taking any notice of it anyway = epic fail = waste of time energy and money. :weird: moving right along! :sleep:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_general_election,_2011

Bigger majority than actually voted for the incumbents....:sweatdrop
Poilitical parties that don't take notice of the will of the majority don't last long the National "majority" is tenuous as it is.
Relying a lot on the smaller parties that don't do so well when they are in Goverment.....

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/politics/9509692/New-look-government-certain

[avgas]

Imagine you have 3 candidates standing for your electorate.
Candidate A for National
Candidate B for Greens
Candidate C for Labour.
See this is why I gave up on Democrazy and Voting all together.

I kept seeing these forms that didn't have "D - none of the above."

Which is why I keep laughing and the voting faithful who says I wasted my votes....

A - Eat shit
B - Drink Piss
C - Shit/Piss in a blender for 2

Whats ya poison?

It's already been figured out through referendum that people don't like anything the government does? So why can't we fire them?

[oldrider]

See this is why I gave up on Democrazy and Voting all together.

I kept seeing these forms that didn't have "D - none of the above."

Which is why I keep laughing and the voting faithful who says I wasted my votes....

A - Eat shit
B - Drink Piss
C - Shit/Piss in a blender for 2

Whats ya poison?

It's already been figured out through referendum that people don't like anything the government does? So why can't we fire them?

Well, we can, every three years ... that will be next year! ..... But who or what will take their place? FFS! .... We have almost no say in "that process"! :facepalm:

We (taxpayer/electorate) just give the politicians permission to select a government amongst themselves ... we have no further say in the final outcome! :oi-grr:

Scary eh. :shit: ..... Compared to that I would rather keep what we have got, warts and all, at least for another three years! :shifty: Then review it again! :yes:

[James Deuce]

Those of you who didn't bother to vote are idiots.

You can fuck off.

Cheers.

[oldrider]

The Helen Clark Labour government did more unannounced social engineering than any NZ government before or since and all we ever heard from the left was silence!

At least the partial 49% freeing up of taxpayer money through personal choice asset share sales was well heralded before the election took place!

The screaming hysteria currently being vented by the previous silent left is anti democratic and irresponsible waste of taxpayer money. :spanking:

[Zedder]

No it wasn't 67% against asset sales, it was 67% against partial sales.

Imagine you have 3 candidates standing for your electorate.
Candidate A for National
Candidate B for Greens
Candidate C for Labour.

When you come to vote the voting paper simply asks "Do you support Candidate B as your next MP?" A and C are not mentioned. How will you vote?

In this referendum there were 3 main choices: No sales; partial sales; or full sales. But the only choice we had to vote for was partial sales. The other 2 choices were not mentioned. Thus the NO vote only tells us that Partial sales was not the preffered choice. It still doesn't tell us how many are against ALL assett sales.

In fact there should have been 15 choices available. 5 comapanies with 3 possible choices for each.

Exeactly, it's all about how the questions are asked. Similar to "Lies, damned lies and statistics".

[puddytat]

The screaming hysteria currently being vented by the previous silent left is anti democratic and irresponsible waste of taxpayer money. :spanking:

All Im hearing from you is hysterical screaming.....

[oldrider]

All Im hearing from you is hysterical screaming.....

Thank you ... does that mean we are still friends then? :shifty:

[carbonhed]

All Im hearing from you is hysterical screaming.....

You stole 9 million dollars of taxpayers money and got 29% of eligible voters. It's hysterical laughter.

What's the plan? Steal more?

[SPman]

The Helen Clark Labour government did more unannounced social engineering than any NZ government before or since and all we ever heard from the left was silence!
.

Whereas the current governments social engineering is right there in your face.....and if you don't like it well fuck you we don't care!

[James Deuce]

Most of this thread has confirmed my desire to remain identified as a left-leaning liberal, a position entirely concomitant with the views and aspirations of the Holyoake National Government of the '60s.

Conservative Neo-Liberalism is an horrific perversion of the purpose inherent in governing social groupings and is a reversion to the style of government used to power mankind's rapid expansionism after the discovery of agriculture. If you aren't part of the ruling elite, you're cannon fodder, breeding stock, or useless dead-weight. One hopes this is the death throes of Western European white-male entitlement. Bit of a shame you lot have to try and ruin the lives of so many people who simply want to exist, while you thrash your rotten tentacles about.

I'm picking that Jurgen Habermas can give up. The Enlightenment is dead.

[Zedder]

Most of this thread has confirmed my desire to remain identified as a left-leaning liberal, a position entirely concomitant with the views and aspirations of the Holyoake National Government of the '60s.

Conservative Neo-Liberalism is an horrific perversion of the purpose inherent in governing social groupings and is a reversion to the style of government used to power mankind's rapid expansionism after the discovery of agriculture. If you aren't part of the ruling elite, you're cannon fodder, breeding stock, or useless dead-weight. One hopes this is the death throes of Western European white-male entitlement. Bit of a shame you lot have to try and ruin the lives of so many people who simply want to exist, while you thrash your rotten tentacles about.

I'm picking that Jurgen Habermas can give up. The Enlightenment is dead.

It's not just the thrashing of the tentacles that's the problem though. It's the pervasive effect of those tentacles and complete disregard for, not only the people who "simply want to exist", but those who want to enjoy their existance, their loved ones and the things that provide positive endorsement of a life well lived.

[oldrider]

Sheesh ... let it all hang out why don't yah! (oops inappropriate emoticon!)

Meh, I will just put it all down to the failure of the referendum you guys will get over it! :yes:

[Ocean1]

Conservative Neo-Liberalism

I wonder how many people would say they fit that tag. Especially as it's use now is almost exclusively by the left, and derogatory.

Which is just one example of why labels can't be trusted. Liberal, after all simply means free, as in not constrained.

[Zedder]

Sheesh ... let it all hang out why don't yah! :angry2:

Meh, I will just put it all down to the failure of the referendum you guys will get over it! :yes:

A typical response.

Rant? Please point out the rant in either post.

[James Deuce]

I wonder how many people would say they fit that tag. Especially as it's use now is almost exclusively by the left, and derogatory.

Which is just one example of why labels can't be trusted. Liberal, after all simply means free, as in not constrained.

That was kind of my point though. The connotations of essentially denotative labels change wildly to suit the message and media.

[Ocean1]

That was kind of my point though. The connotations of essentially denotative labels change wildly to suit the message and media.

Meh. I try to avoid labels, they're mostly the work of evel communist ideologues.

Besides, I'm on my 5th toddy, and I can't be fukde looking up all dem big words.

[oldrider]

Rant? Please point out the rant in either post.

Couldn't work out your "rant" comment then the penny dropped ... wrong emoticon! :Oops: (sorry! :weep:)

[Zedder]

Couldn't work out your "rant" comment then the penny dropped ... wrong emoticon! :Oops: (sorry! :weep:)

No wuckin' forries.

[carbonhed]

Most of this thread has confirmed my desire to remain identified as a left-leaning liberal, a position entirely concomitant with the views and aspirations of the Holyoake National Government of the '60s.

Conservative Neo-Liberalism is an horrific perversion of the purpose inherent in governing social groupings and is a reversion to the style of government used to power mankind's rapid expansionism after the discovery of agriculture. If you aren't part of the ruling elite, you're cannon fodder, breeding stock, or useless dead-weight. One hopes this is the death throes of Western European white-male entitlement. Bit of a shame you lot have to try and ruin the lives of so many people who simply want to exist, while you thrash your rotten tentacles about.

I'm picking that Jurgen Habermas can give up. The Enlightenment is dead.

What a fucking drama queen. Heathcliffe throws down his rattle and strides off into the dark and stormy night!

I've never heard you called a left leaning liberal... lots of other things but not that... and if there's a better example of how supporting a particular political ideology DOESNT make you a better person than this...please feel free to enlighten me.

Does being a left leaning liberal make you a grumpy, intolerant old bastard who always pleads for special consideration because you've landed on your head once too often? I'll never forget how you blamed that poor guy on the Harley who was killed on the bridge in the Wairarapa for his own death when it turned out an overloaded trailer had lost a wheel and taken him out. Unforgivable. Absolutely unforgivable.

[James Deuce]

Well, that was easier than expected.

[Scuba_Steve]

You stole 9 million dollars of taxpayers money and got 29% of eligible voters. It's hysterical laughter.

What's the plan? Steal more?

Not good with maths are we... 43.9% of eligible voters voted

I also see you like to tout the "$9mil" for the referendum but make no mention of the $69mil (excluding investor enticements) your masters have spent thus far on trying to sell the assets

[husaberg]

Not good with maths are we... 43.9% of eligible voters voted

I also see you like to tout the "$9mil" for the referendum but make no mention of the $69mil (excluding investor enticements) your masters have spent thus far on trying to sell the assets

Plus the share prop up, buy back. Plus the PR spin and the handouts to Rio Tinto.
Doesn't count the massive and still ongoing SOE staff lay off's to make them look more sexy either.

[carbonhed]

Not good with maths are we... 43.9% of eligible voters voted

I also see you like to tout the "$9mil" for the referendum but make no mention of the $69mil (excluding investor enticements) your masters have spent thus far on trying to sell the assets

Yeah, yeah... and if you screw up your beady little eyes and focus incredibly hard you'll nut it out that... what percentage of eligible voters supported your proposal?

[puddytat]

Does being a left leaning liberal make you a grumpy, intolerant old bastard who always pleads for special consideration because you've landed on your head once too often? .

Nah Bro, you've gotten mixed up between left & right...definitely a right wing thing.

As for we the people, using our democratic right to get up off our arses & getting enough signatures to force a referendum which any way you look at it, is a clear majority.

Talk about "us" wasting money....what about internal affairs & some other shonkey Dept under dear leaders leadership after spending 15 million fucking dollars on one fuck up or the other one , says simply "its in the to hard basket" & simply drops them both.
Good Govt eh.
Like you & I bailing out Connor & Bills mates in South Canterbury Finance to the tune of 1.7 Billion so the farmers can go out & borrow even more money so the can pollute our environment more & pay their dumb ass workers an average of 13 bucks an hour?
The only trickle down I see is a system that supply's more of a "golden shower".

[Scuba_Steve]

Yeah, yeah... and if you screw up your beady little eyes and focus incredibly hard you'll nut it out that... what percentage of eligible voters supported your proposal?

Oh, I had a proposal? what was that then???

[puddytat]

Here you go you conservatives , this'll give you hope...

http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/12/14/why-i-think-asset-referendum-represents-a-political-stalemate/

[oldrider]

Well next year there will be another pretend election and the electorate will give some politicians permission to form a government again.

No one will be satisfied with that poll either because it is the politicians who ultimately decide who will be in charge by forming a government!

The outcome will not be known until it is announced by the leader of the largest party of the group that form a coalition with each other.

That group will then swear allegiance to each other and their own needs will be seen to before the elector/taxpayers will ever be considered.

Be prepared to be pissed off with the outcome it wont be what you (or anyone else for that matter) think it will be or want it to be! :no: Dissatisfaction? .. Guaranteed!

[avgas]

Not good with maths are we... 43.9% of eligible voters voted

I also see you like to tout the "$9mil" for the referendum but make no mention of the $69mil (excluding investor enticements) your masters have spent thus far on trying to sell the assets
Not to mention the Billions (yes that is right 1000's of Millions) it took to get the assets to where they are now.

Never trust anyone who buys something for millions, invests 10's of billions to get is working, then sells it for 100's of millions.

Net Loss in the 1000%

[BoristheBiter]

Not to mention the Billions (yes that is right 1000's of Millions) it took to get the assets to where they are now.

Never trust anyone who buys something for millions, invests 10's of billions to get is working, then sells it for 100's of millions.

Net Loss in the 1000%

You're talking about Kiwirail right?

[Banditbandit]

That was kind of my point though. The connotations of essentially denotative labels change wildly to suit the message and media.

Just passed media Studies 101 have we ???

[Banditbandit]

I'm picking that Jurgen Habermas can give up. The Enlightenment is dead.

Yeah .. well he was a bit of a left leaning fascist too ... there's Habermas' way or everyone else is wrong ... Have you actually read Between Facts and Norms?


I wonder how many people would say they fit that tag. Especially as it's use now is almost exclusively by the left, and derogatory.

I believe that ACT call themselves The Liberal party - and in most ways they are correct.


Which is just one example of why labels can't be trusted. Liberal, after all simply means free, as in not constrained.

Hmm Liberated means free and unconstrained ... In political terms, Liberal means a political position in which personal freedom is the highest value, even over equality/equity.

[BoristheBiter]

Hmm Liberated means free and unconstrained ... In political terms, Liberal means a political position in which personal freedom is the highest value, even over equality/equity.

Isn't the US suppose to be liberal?

[Banditbandit]

Isn't the US suppose to be liberal?

I think you'll find that the US is a mix of political persuasions ... and do you mean liberal with a small l (which indicates something different from Liberal with a capital L ...) ???

[oldrider]

Arguably the most left wing news paper and university in New Zealand and Dr Bryce Edwards struggles to report anything victorious about the referendum!

That in it's self speaks volumes about the failure of the whole sordid political stunt. http://www.odt.co.nz/news/politics/285424/victory-just-asset-sales-opponents

[avgas]

You're talking about Kiwirail right?
MRP also comes to mine. Telecom. Auckland Airport......did I miss one?

[BoristheBiter]

I think you'll find that the US is a mix of political persuasions ... and do you mean liberal with a small l (which indicates something different from Liberal with a capital L ...) ???

yes, it would be a very small L.


MRP also comes to mine. Telecom. Auckland Airport......did I miss one?

probably, BNZ and the ports come to mind. my point was more don't just single out one item, or party.

[Ocean1]

Hmm Liberated means free and unconstrained ... In political terms, Liberal means a political position in which personal freedom is the highest value, even over equality/equity.

Thank you teacher. In fact the political term liberal was hijacked by the left long ago, libertarian is probably as close as you'll get to the original meaning. Unfortunately in NZ people see ACT as the libertarian flag-waver, and ACT has become a joke.

True liberty, far from the antithesis of equity is the only real way towards equality. Equality of opportunity, that is. Some like to imagine that all pigs are equal so far as to require remuneration to be equal, an equity of outcomes.

Which, far from true equality is plain simple old fashioned envy.

[scumdog]

i dont get any mail. Cos my caravan doesnt hav a letterbox. Plausable deniability.
Im also not enrolled to vote. If i wanted other people to make decisions for me id go back to rehab, or jail.

Somebody in rehab or jail decided which side of the road you're meant to ride??:crazy:

[scumdog]

That was kind of my point though. The connotations of essentially denotative labels change wildly to suit the media.

Fixed it for you, no worries!

[Clockwork]

Thank you teacher. In fact the political term liberal was hijacked by the left long ago, libertarian is probably as close as you'll get to the original meaning. Unfortunately in NZ people see ACT as the libertarian flag-waver, and ACT has become a joke.

True liberty, far from the antithesis of equity is the only real way towards equality. Equality of opportunity, that is. Some like to imagine that all pigs are equal so far as to require remuneration to be equal, an equity of outcomes.

Which, far from true equality is plain simple old fashioned envy.

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 (in a myriad ways). 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.

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?

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.

[BoristheBiter]

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 (in a myriad ways). 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.

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?

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.

Could you please point me in the direction of theses ruling classes you speak so much of.
Do you know who/what they are or is it just regurgitating the party lines.

The only thing that is self evident is the higher proportion today of those that think they are entitled to some thing they haven't worked for.

It's life, it's not fair, there is no level playing field, you are not special move on.

[Scouse]

So 67.2% of voters in the referendum say no to asset sales. HEY john key where is your mandate now WANKER

[oldrider]

We all seek Utopia ... it has almost existed during my lifetime ... it had a rough start (WW2) a fantastic middle and is now tapering off towards WW2 conditions again!

My generation didn't create it but certainly didn't sustain it and now you poor bastards have to live with the result but don't look to the left for a solution!

It's just not there! :no:

[oldrider]

So 67.2% of voters in the referendum say no to asset sales. HEY john key where is your mandate now WANKER

67.2% of fuck all is still 32.8% less than fuck all. :rolleyes: there's the mandate right there! :doh:

[Delerium]

67.2% of fuck all is still 32.8% less than fuck all. :rolleyes: there's the mandate right there! :doh:

Interesting argument. What percentage of voters voted during the election, and what percentage of those voted for john key?

[oldrider]

Interesting argument. What percentage of voters voted during the election, and what percentage of those voted for john key?

As posted above, here is a (generally) left wing biased university professors take on the outcome:http://www.odt.co.nz/news/politics/285424/victory-just-asset-sales-opponents

There were no winners or losers (except the taxpayers) because it simply reflected the outcome of the last election where J Key claimed his mandate from! :facepalm:

[Clockwork]

Could you please point me in the direction of theses ruling classes you speak so much of.
Do you know who/what they are or is it just regurgitating the party lines.

The only thing that is self evident is the higher proportion today of those that think they are entitled to some thing they haven't worked for.

It's life, it's not fair, there is no level playing field, you are not special move on.

I'd have though that was obvious, Politicians and corperate leaders, captains and owners of industry who can justify themselves more raises and bonuses year upon year while continually appliying pressure reduce their taxes and remove contraints upon their business processes to enable them to further increase their profits and or reduce their employment costs.

I'm sorry if I used what you obviously consider to be a perjorative term, it just seemed easier than writing all of that out above and I couldn't think of a more succinct way of describing them. Of course I should have realised that it would immediately invalidate my question or opinion by enabling people to dismiss me as just another crazy socialist to be shouted down rather than engaged with.

[BoristheBiter]

I'd have though that was obvious, Politicians and corperate leaders, captains and owners of industry who can justify themselves more raises and bonuses year upon year while continually appliying pressure reduce their taxes and remove contraints upon their business processes to enable them to further increase their profits and or reduce their employment costs.

I'm sorry if I used what you obviously consider to be a perjorative term, it just seemed easier than writing all of that out above and I couldn't think of a more succinct way of describing them. Of course I should have realised that it would immediately invalidate my question or opinion by enabling people to dismiss me as just another crazy socialist to be shouted down rather than engaged with.

Cool, I am part of the ruling classes.
I wonder when I get my knighthood.

All jokes aside, as you have put me into your classification of the ruling masses I think I will respond by this.
98% of NZ company employ under 20 people making it that most owners still need to work. there is also the constraints of knowing that at the end of each week you need pay your staff, plus KS (now 3%) if they are in it, plus sick days, plus 4 weeks holidays, and so on whether you have made any money that week or not.

Now you might say that is just the nature of business and you are right, to that I will say I have the right to make money from the investment I have put in.

If you don't like it you can go and start your own business and give all your money away and be very happy with yourself.

[Clockwork]

Cool, I am part of the ruling classes.
I doubt you are but have no doubt the ruling classes are only too happy for you to believe that you may be as it means that you'll remain a part of their powerbase. You are more likely to be like a late buyer into a pyramid scheme, it's full of promise for you but only if you can convince enough suckers to buy in beneath you. Ultimately only a few people at the very top will be the winners
I wonder when I get my knighthood.

All jokes aside, as you have put me into your classification of the ruling masses I think I will respond by this.
98% of NZ company employ under 20 people making it that most owners still need to work. there is also the constraints of knowing that at the end of each week you need pay your staff, plus KS (now 3%) if they are in it, plus sick days, plus 4 weeks holidays, and so on whether you have made any money that week or not.

Now you might say that is just the nature of business and you are right, to that I will say I have the right to make money from the investment I have put in.

If you don't like it you can go and start your own business and give all your money away and be very happy with yourself.
I can as easily ask, if its being a business owner is such a hard deal, why do you bother?



None of this of course answers the original points I raised. Can a libertarian economy serve a society? Can it serve even just a majority of society? or will it always result in fewer and fewer getting richer an richer at the expense of everyone else. If no, why not?

[mashman]

None of this of course answers the original points I raised. Can a libertarian economy serve a society? Can it serve even just a majority of society? or will it always result in fewer and fewer getting richer an richer at the expense of everyone else. If no, why not?

It'll work until it doesn't (http://www.salon.com/2013/12/10/ayn_rand_loving_ceo_destroys_his_empire_partner/).

[oldrider]

None of this of course answers the original points I raised. Can a libertarian economy serve a society? Can it serve even just a majority of society? or will it always result in fewer and fewer getting richer an richer at the expense of everyone else. If no, why not?

That's a fair enough question, you should be able to find your answer here: http://www.libertarianz.org.nz/

I like a lot of their policies but they are (IMHO) doomed to failure (like every other ideology) because of their adherence to the current failed monetary system!

That's where I leave their fold and look at the monetary solutions that these people are proposing: http://www.democrats.org.nz/

Not likely to ever happen but neither is the current financial social debt situation ever going to improve and therefore neither will our political situation improve either!

[BoristheBiter]

None of this of course answers the original points I raised. Can a libertarian economy serve a society? Can it serve even just a majority of society? or will it always result in fewer and fewer getting richer an richer at the expense of everyone else. If no, why not?

You put the definition of the ruling class not me so if you doubt that I am then maybe your definition is wrong which I know it is but that has never stopped anyone before so why should you be the first.

To answer your question is it is basic math.
someone has $1000 to invest, someone else doesn't. So in ten years that $1000 is worth more and the other person is behind even further.
So yes the rich will get richer but the poor don't have to get poorer. it all is in the choices we make.

[BoristheBiter]

It'll work until it doesn't (http://www.salon.com/2013/12/10/ayn_rand_loving_ceo_destroys_his_empire_partner/).

everything does.

[mashman]

To answer your question is it is basic math.
someone has $1000 to invest, someone else doesn't. So in ten years that $1000 is worth more and the other person is behind even further.
So yes the rich will get richer but the poor don't have to get poorer. it all is in the choices we make.

The reason the poor get poorer is because that $1000 will be accruing interest and given that the investor is doing nothing more than investing, then the poor fulla will have to pick up the tab by working twice as hard for half as much so that the interest can be paid to the investor. The rich get richer BECAUSE the poor get poorer.


everything does.

If you're proactive, then no, not everything does.

[bogan]

The reason the poor get poorer is because that $1000 will be accruing interest and given that the investor is doing nothing more than investing, then the poor fulla will have to pick up the tab by working twice as hard for half as much so that the interest can be paid to the investor. The rich get richer BECAUSE the poor get poorer.

Except the investors often pay the poorer person's wage so both parties can get richer... I guess you're all for the asset sales then? as it sees the country less in debt right?

[Clockwork]

You put the definition of the ruling class not me so if you doubt that I am then maybe your definition is wrong which I know it is but that has never stopped anyone before so why should you be the first.

To answer your question is it is basic math.
someone has $1000 to invest, someone else doesn't. So in ten years that $1000 is worth more and the other person is behind even further.
So yes the rich will get richer but the poor don't have to get poorer. it all is in the choices we make.

Yes, at some level individuals will be able to "play the game" create their own $1,000 and join in the fun for a while, but my point remains that without some sort of intervention for the benefit of society "socialism", if you will permit me to use the word, the gap between the haves and have-nots will continue to increase while at the same time the haves will become fewer in number but richer.

Do you believe that this is a desireable outcome?

[oldrider]

The reason the poor get poorer is because that $1000 will be accruing interest and given that the investor is doing nothing more than investing, then the poor fulla will have to pick up the tab by working twice as hard for half as much so that the interest can be paid to the investor. The rich get richer BECAUSE the poor get poorer.

The rich get richer because they are paying attention to their monetary returns, the poor get poorer because they pay attention to other things that return them less.

The rich and the poor are having to work longer and harder because the parasites that create and control the money system that they use are overcharging them!

The parasitic money creators then set the rich and the poor at one another's throats to distract them from ever seeing the real cause of their problems!

If the rich and the poor worked together and took away the ownership of creation and distribution of money from those that control it by default and only allowed them to charge a just and transparent rate for the services that they provide, then some true balance between supply and demand or production and consumption would become apparent.

It is not the rich or the poor that are the root cause of most of societies problems it is the 1% of the 1% of the creators and distributors of money that are at fault!

There is no mystery about that or how to fix it except for the deception promulgated by the people who benefit most from it and the rich and the poor can stop it!

Simply by trusting and working together against their common enemy ... the current social debt monetary system ... which they actually own!

They just have to "want" take it back! :yes:

[BoristheBiter]

The reason the poor get poorer is because that $1000 will be accruing interest and given that the investor is doing nothing more than investing, then the poor fulla will have to pick up the tab by working twice as hard for half as much so that the interest can be paid to the investor. The rich get richer BECAUSE the poor get poorer.

If you're proactive, then no, not everything does.

So you want me to give the poor person my $500 so we are all the same, but i'm being proactive.

[Clockwork]

That's a fair enough question, you should be able to find your answer here: http://www.libertarianz.org.nz/

I like a lot of their policies but they are (IMHO) doomed to failure (like every other ideology) because of their adherence to the current failed monetary system!

That's where I leave their fold and look at the monetary solutions that these people are proposing: http://www.democrats.org.nz/

Not likely to ever happen but neither is the current financial social debt situation ever going to improve and therefore neither will our political situation improve either!

Mate, these seem like chalk and cheese. I can't see how you could have a foot in both camps!

The Libertian's, s'truth I don't have the time or the energy to point out all the problems I see with their policies.

The Democrates, on the face of it their policies seem worthy of support or investigation.

[BoristheBiter]

Yes, at some level individuals will be able to "play the game" create their own $1,000 and join in the fun for a while, but my point remains that without some sort of intervention for the benefit of society "socialism", if you will permit me to use the word, the gap between the haves and have-nots will continue to increase while at the same time the haves will become fewer in number but richer.

Do you believe that this is a desireable outcome?

What outcome, the way it is or socialism?
If you mean socialism then no this is not a desirable outcome.
If you mean they way things are then yes it is. I have nothing, or no one, to apologize to for where I am at. I have worked long and hard and have gone without.

[oldrider]

Mate, these seem like chalk and cheese. I can't see how you could have a foot in both camps!

The Libertian's, s'truth I don't have the time or the energy to point out all the problems I see with their policies.

The Democrates, on the face of it their policies seem worthy of support or investigation.

True!

The good thing is that we are still free to think and choose for ourselves ... unfortunately the 1% of the 1% are slowly but surely whittling that away from us!

They obviously have a plan, they are winning and time is always on their side as we fight amongst ourselves over nothing and and unwittingly do their bidding!

Meanwhile enjoy your life, you only get one shot at it. :wings:

[avgas]

probably, BNZ and the ports come to mind. my point was more don't just single out one item, or party.
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.

[Scouse]

67.2% of fuck all is still 32.8% less than fuck all. :rolleyes: there's the mandate right there! :doh:go fuck yourself

[Clockwork]

What outcome, the way it is or socialism?
If you mean socialism then no this is not a desirable outcome.
If you mean they way things are then yes it is. I have nothing, or no one, to apologize to for where I am at. I have worked long and hard and have gone without.

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.

[mashman]

Except the investors often pay the poorer person's wage so both parties can get richer... I guess you're all for the asset sales then? as it sees the country less in debt right?

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.


So you want me to give the poor person my $500 so we are all the same, but i'm being proactive.

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

[mashman]

The rich get richer because they are paying attention to their monetary returns, the poor get poorer because they pay attention to other things that return them less.

The rich are richer because they control the game. They have accountants for watching their money amongst other things. The poor are poorer because the job that they do is not paid enough.

The rich and the poor are having to work longer and harder because the parasites that create and control the money system that they use are overcharging them!

The rich aren't. They have people to work for them. They're sorted.


The parasitic money creators then set the rich and the poor at one another's throats to distract them from ever seeing the real cause of their problems!

Aye... the irony being, WE are the money creators

If the rich and the poor worked together and took away the ownership of creation and distribution of money from those that control it by default and only allowed them to charge a just and transparent rate for the services that they provide, then some true balance between supply and demand or production and consumption would become apparent.

:killingme... yeah, coz that's what would happen. If money is involved, then the exact same attitudes will reign and we'll come full circle in next to no time. I've yet to be convinced by ANYONE that ANY form of monetary system is better than none at all.


It is not the rich or the poor that are the root cause of most of societies problems it is the 1% of the 1% of the creators and distributors of money that are at fault!

WE are at fault... but THEY are still most definitely cunts that could do with a good waterboarding.

There is no mystery about that or how to fix it except for the deception promulgated by the people who benefit most from it and the rich and the poor can stop it!

No-one can stop it, because too many expect someone else to stop it for them, or are happy with the way things are going because they are financially rewarded (drones).


Simply by trusting and working together against their common enemy ... the current social debt monetary system ... which they actually own!

They just have to "want" take it back! :yes:

We know "wanting" is one thing and changing is another eh :laugh:. You have to know what to put in its place though before you take it back... else ye end up with the same shite.