So who's the terrorist again? [Archive] - Page 2

Biggles41

5th August 2008, 21:12

good grief! the one is inseperable from the other: with money goes power and with power goes money. capitalism is essentially the wealthy's struggle to reject democracy
Democracy - comes from the greek words "Demos(People or Mob) Kratos(Rule)" but it is actually more like People Ruled in reality.

lets ignore titular monarchies like the current queen of NZ. She has no power really and is prevented from abuse by democracy.
I would suggest you go to the library and see if you can get a book written by David Icke called "The Biggest Secret" and give yourself a reality check.

The ultimate capitalist is someone who has all the power and all the wealth: that neatly defines monarchies before democracy dragged them kicking and screaming into the present (the will of the people, a socialist concept)
National or Labour = Different face same old mask.

nudedaytona

5th August 2008, 21:23

National or Labour = Different face same old mask.

Exactly. So vote for ACT for a real change. Because otherwise it will be all National or Labour, with maybe a bit of the "I did not accept the donation" Winston Peters as Kingmaker. Who wants that.

ACT now has Sir Roger Douglas, who saved NZ from bankruptcy in the 80s back in the fray.

Who would you rather have as finance minister - "I'll rail on about donations but accept them on the sly" Winston Peters, "All you're getting is a packet of Chewing Gum" Michael Cullen, or economic guru Sir Roger Douglas.

idleidolidyll

5th August 2008, 21:26

National or Labour = Different face same old mask.

nah, one is centrist the other is fascist

BTW: if you have a point please make it

I'm not trotting off to the library on your whim.

would you trot off and read Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy just on my word?

(http://books.google.co.nz/books?hl=en&id=xaFHwMhHyX4C&dq=Chomsky&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=hd-xlkLezG&sig=9h0vJMr4RraRe6xIh3PTXd3Zzyg&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=10&ct=result)

idleidolidyll

5th August 2008, 21:28

Exactly. So vote for ACT for a real change. Because otherwise it will be all National or Labour, with maybe a bit of the "I did not accept the donation" Winston Peters as Kingmaker. Who wants that.

ACT now has Sir Roger Douglas, who saved NZ from bankruptcy in the 80s back in the fray.

Who would you rather have as finance minister - "I'll rail on about donations but accept them on the sly" Winston Peters, "All you're getting is a packet of Chewing Gum" Michael Cullen, or economic guru Sir Roger Douglas.

ACT; the ultimate fascist

Douglas; the ultimate betrayer, a man who almost bought NZ to its knees

If you want the ultimate in extreme capitalsim, vote for the acters

Biggles41

5th August 2008, 21:29

nah, one is centrist the other is fascist

BTW: if you have a point please make it

I'm not trotting off to the library on your whim.

would you trot off and read Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy just on my word?

(http://books.google.co.nz/books?hl=en&id=xaFHwMhHyX4C&dq=Chomsky&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=hd-xlkLezG&sig=9h0vJMr4RraRe6xIh3PTXd3Zzyg&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=10&ct=result)

Yes I would thanks for the tip I like reading.

idleidolidyll

5th August 2008, 21:31

Yes I would thanks for the tip I like reading.

good for you, so do i

but i already have a stack of books unread and waiting

so again; if you have an argument, please make it

nudedaytona

5th August 2008, 21:33

If you want the ultimate in extreme capitalsim, vote for the acters

That's why I'm voting for them: Because I want the ultimate in tax cuts. Only ACT are promising to substantially reduce tax rates, which means that I can afford more to:

spend on my motorcycle
buy new motorcycle
save more
spend more on my girlfriend
buy house
get married and start family

essentially do more of whatever I feel like that makes me happy. You might call it fascism, but I call that giving me control over my own hard-earned money.

svr

5th August 2008, 21:33

Mate,
I've said it many times

SOCIALISM

Socialism: A system in which the people control the means of production.

Capitalism: A system in which capitalists control the means of production (Capitalists are the wealthy few who control the capital; money)

BTW: Almost all social progress on this planet has been forced from the 'left'.

I think the original conception of socialism (i.e. Morris not post 1850 Marx) - admirably humanistic as it was - has been so deeply tainted by 20th history that those of us on the left should set it to rest for good. It's a historical loser. Its also out of date i.e. socialism is administratively incompatible with a highly specialized division of labour. The (revolutionary) socialist threat did temper capitalism and has been essential for workers conditions, however.

You are right in that:
1. the pure impulse of socialism was democracy i.e. not just financial but moral control of the means of production by`the people'. People should be aware that politically speaking we now exercise very little control over the world we live in. The problem is you can't identify `the people' anymore - its not a simple class of non-owners whose interests can be identified by that single fact (We all know rich middle-class non-owners whose interests are aligned to capital)
2. The Left is indeed responsible for much social progression. The Left of course defines itself in opposition to conservativism so its a bit of a tautology. But it's not an easy good (= new) vs evil like the left makes out: Conservatives are right to believe that institutions usually exist for good reasons and shouldn't be torn down by idealistic fashion.

The Left just doesn't need socialism anymore. What it needs is to be clear about its bottom line goals & ideals:
1. Real Democracy (the democratic possibilities of the internet are not even discussed - why not?) Electioneering and governmental politics make me sick. Everyone should feel the weight of political responsibilty for local and national decisions on a daily basis, not just those that want power over others.
2. Citizenship rights, an equal chance for all from birth. This is an ideal but I agree with Rawls that this is a necesary condition to a just society. Practically speaking it requires at the very least free education & healthcare for all. If people are denied dignity we all end up having to pay.
3. Production for the democratically determined consumption of needs, not open ended wants. If anyones got some ideas on how this can be organised I'm all ears...
One thing is certain: the big recent experiment of want-based production / consumption has ended in failure. What now?

Enough ranting. Any bright ideas out there?

idleidolidyll

5th August 2008, 21:41

That's why I'm voting for them: Because I want the ultimate in tax cuts. Only ACT are promising to substantially reduce tax rates, which means that I can afford more to:

spend on my motorcycle
buy new motorcycle
save more
spend more on my girlfriend
buy house
get married and start family

essentially do more of whatever I feel like that makes me happy. You might call it fascism, but I call that giving me control over my own hard-earned money.

and when they cut taxes, what else will they cut to give you that money?

health
education
ACC
roading
social services
family support
everything that helps the lower paid in fact.

watch the private companies take all that over and within a decade they will be WAYYY more expensive than they aver could be

that's pretty much the lesson in yankland: reduce government to pay for tax cuts and increase the cost of services by farming them out to megacorps

svr

5th August 2008, 21:49

That's why I'm voting for them: Because I want the ultimate in tax cuts. Only ACT are promising to substantially reduce tax rates, which means that I can afford more to:

spend on my motorcycle
buy new motorcycle
save more
spend more on my girlfriend
buy house
get married and start family

essentially do more of whatever I feel like that makes me happy. You might call it fascism, but I call that giving me control over my own hard-earned money.

You'll also have to spend more on a security gate to keep out the starving poor, pay for more prisons, spend more and more on consumer goodies but still be increasingly poor compared to new really rich, and spend a lot more ensuring your kids have reasonable health care and education etc. etc.
Its not facism, its the consumer-capitalism treadmill that Act just want to speed up. And no its not happiness either.

idleidolidyll

5th August 2008, 22:00

I think the original conception of socialism (i.e. Morris not post 1850 Marx) - admirably humanistic as it was - has been so deeply tainted by 20th history that those of us on the left should set it to rest for good. It's a historical loser. Its also out of date i.e. socialism is administratively incompatible with a highly specialized division of labour. The (revolutionary) socialist threat did temper capitalism and has been essential for workers conditions, however.

nope: the problem is not socialism, it's propaganda.
when the word socialism is used, propaganda has made people think stalin etc.
stalin was a communist who abused the word socialism for propaganda purposes.
likewise people will think hitler and his 'socialist party'. however, hitler was never actually a socialist, he was a nationalist supported by corporates and the catholic church. later it is recognised that he was a fascist (not as fascist as mussolini but a fascist for sure). fascism is of course a right wing ideology

when defining socialism, it is important to note that if it becomes dominated by a dictator, it is no longer socialism.
simply put, socialism is the control of power by the people as a whole

You are right in that:
1. the pure impulse of socialism was democracy i.e. not just financial but moral control of the means of production by`the people'. People should be aware that politically speaking we now exercise very little control over the world we live in.

hell yes and that is perhaps the biggest problem: we have become less and less able to affect the circumstances of our own situations

The problem is you can't identify `the people' anymore - its not a simple class of non-owners whose interests can be identified by that single fact (We all know rich middle-class non-owners whose interests are aligned to capital)
2. The Left is indeed responsible for much social progression. The Left of course defines itself in opposition to conservativism so its a bit of a tautology. But it's not an easy good (= new) vs evil like the left makes out: Conservatives are right to believe that institutions usually exist for good reasons and shouldn't be torn down by idealistic fashion.

that's not actually the point. conservatives also reject the erection of institutions that challenge their status quo, their grip on power; they refuse to allow equanimity for those they consider less than themselves in fear of losing their edge

The Left just doesn't need socialism anymore. What it needs is to be clear about its bottom line goals & ideals:
1. Real Democracy (the democratic possibilities of the internet are not even discussed - why not?)

democracy, the will of the people or a basic principle of socialism
we do still need it regardless of the fact that you don't want to use the word but want to use the principles

Electioneering and governmental politics make me sick. Everyone should feel the weight of political responsibilty for local and national decisions on a daily basis, not just those that want power over others.

the electoral reform act is flawed but the past grubby way politicians sold favour for support was even worse.
i support state funded parties

2. Citizenship rights, an equal chance for all from birth. This is an ideal but I agree with Rawls that this is a necesary condition to a just society. Practically speaking it requires at the very least free education & healthcare for all. If people are denied dignity we all end up having to pay.

can't find any fault in that
allowing health, education and access to the necessities of life to be dominated by capitalism is a recipe for trouble and misery.

3. Production for the democratically determined consumption of needs, not open ended wants. If anyones got some ideas on how this can be organised I'm all ears...
One thing is certain: the big recent experiment of want-based production / consumption has ended in failure. What now?

sadly it hasn't ended and there are many trying to keep it alive.
consumerism is a weapon we are battered with every day of our lives

Enough ranting. Any bright ideas out there?

the problem remains:
not enough people think intelligently about politics and many who do, think of it as a way to give them an edge over others at the cost of their misery etc

i see no real solution only compromise and that will be an eternal battle

Biggles41

5th August 2008, 22:01

good for you, so do i

but i already have a stack of books unread and waiting

so again; if you have an argument, please make it

I'm not here to argue anything really but the notion that the Queen has no power is I feel very wrong, especially when you look into their blood lines and the bloodlines of most of the powers that run this planet and their relationship to each other and also where these blood lines originate from.

Also the Babylonian brotherhood and secret society's such as the Scottish Rite Freemasons, Rosicrucian society, Skull and bones society or any of the secret society's and there relationships to the Black Nobility and the monetary banking system that has been designed to enslave mankind all have links back to the royal dynasty's of Europe.

As for Democracy and freedom and the freedom of the human spirit - sorry no such things exist or will exist whilst fear is being created - using "Problem - Reaction - Solution" processes so as people will give up the freedoms and writes.

idleidolidyll

5th August 2008, 22:02

thanks svr

we may not agree completely but we are pushing in a similar direction and the intelligent debate is more than welcome

svr

5th August 2008, 22:08

thanks svr

we may not agree completely but we are pushing in a similar direction and the intelligent debate is more than welcome

Actually, on rereading my post, I would say that my bottom line is the same as the early utopian socialists. My advice would be to ditch the concept of socialism but keep the ideals: peoples brains turn off when they hear socialism and that ends any discussion.

nudedaytona

5th August 2008, 22:11

You'll also have to spend more on a security gate to keep out the starving poor, pay for more prisons, spend more and more on consumer goodies but still be increasingly poor compared to new really rich, and spend a lot more ensuring your kids have reasonable health care and education etc. etc.
Its not facism, its the consumer-capitalism treadmill that Act just want to speed up. And no its not happiness either.

The consumer-capitalism treadmill - what bullshit. All of us have choices about what to spend on and how much to save - no-one forces you to do anything. It's called democracy. If you're not happy, you need to look at the choices that you made to get you in this state.

The poor won't be starving because tax cuts benefit them as well - they will be more motivated to work harder and earn more money because they will keep more money as well.

You need to let go of this jealousy. Why should you care if I get richer, especially if you are getting richer yourself? Sure - tax cuts always leave the wealthy better off, but that is because they have more to begin with. I don't care if the new really rich are better off than me, as I can make my own choices about how to spend or save my own money.

ACT is actually not going far enough. While reducing tax rates it is still proposing a progressive tax system that taxes people more, the more they earn. This still penalises people for working harder and earning more. We should have a flat tax rate of say 25% so people know they keep the same proportion of extra income they make, if they choose to work harder.

idleidolidyll

5th August 2008, 22:13

I'm not here to argue anything really but the notion that the Queen has no power is I feel very wrong, especially when you look into their blood lines and the bloodlines of most of the powers that run this planet and their relationship to each other and also where these blood lines originate from.

you're right to a point: i was exaggerating.
queeny does have power but she only has that power because western society supports capitalist control to a large extent. in NZ her titular power is granted by us the people and that grant can be withdrawn if abused.

should bessie ever try to actually exercise control in a more fundamental manner i suggest she'd see revolution and a population calling for her axing and even her head (if the extremes were approached)

Also the Babylonian brotherhood and secret society's such as the Scottish Rite Freemasons, Rosicrucian society, Skull and bones society or any of the secret society's and there relationships to the Black Nobility and the monetary banking system that has been designed to enslave mankind all have links back to the royal dynasty's of Europe.

the 'elite' societies and organisations are often the capitalists in the background pulling the strings of their puppets in politics. The Bilderberg Group for instance is a weathy elite who use capitalism to create the world that best suits them. If it benefits others, that's merely a byproduct not the main aim.

As for Democracy and freedom and the freedom of the human spirit - sorry no such things exist or will exist whilst fear is being created - using "Problem - Reaction - Solution" processes so as people will give up the freedoms and writes.

that last bit is right on the money and that is in fact what those in control want: keep us in fear of something and we are easier to manipulate

i try to reject that propaganda every day and in fact that is the crux of most of my posts

well spoken

Biggles41

5th August 2008, 22:18

that last bit is right on the money and that is in fact what those in control want: keep us in fear of something and we are easier to manipulate

i try to reject that propaganda every day and in fact that is the crux of most of my posts

well spoken

Thank you Idle

I'm pleased you are on a similar wave length, not many people are but hopefully more will start to awaken soon in fact it is starting to happen but all good things take time (Like a good cheese)

Cheers and Goodnight

svr

5th August 2008, 22:22

the problem remains:

i see no real solution only compromise and that will be an eternal battle

People are at root social and it follows (I hope) that people are moral by nature. Maybe its time to give radical democracy a try? (and real education...)
The 20th century shows that democracy should not sacrificed to theory.

idleidolidyll

5th August 2008, 22:23

The consumer-capitalism treadmill - what bullshit. All of us have choices about what to spend on and how much to save - no-one forces you to do anything. It's called democracy. If you're not happy, you need to look at the choices that you made to get you in this state.

if you were to study the way marketing and public relations are practised you'd be likely to see that we ARE indeed coerced if not held at gunpoint to do just as we are expected

The poor won't be starving because tax cuts benefit them as well - they will be more motivated to work harder and earn more money because they will keep more money as well.

so a $20 a week tax cut for the poor coupled with a $100+ tax cut for the wealthy will make everything affordable will it? I think you lack a grasp of the cost of health care, education, family services etc: $20 a week coupled with cuts in services will hurt the poor the most

You need to let go of this jealousy. Why should you care if I get richer, especially if you are getting richer yourself? Sure - tax cuts always leave the wealthy better off, but that is because they have more to begin with. I don't care if the new really rich are better off than me, as I can make my own choices about how to spend or save my own money.

jealousy? i fall in the 5 percentile and pay the top tax rate.
it aint jealousy, its humanity

ACT is actually not going far enough. While reducing tax rates it is still proposing a progressive tax system that taxes people more, the more they earn. This still penalises people for working harder and earning more. We should have a flat tax rate of say 25% so people know they keep the same proportion of extra income they make, if they choose to work harder.

a flat tax rate places the burden on the poor disproportionately more than on the wealthy. like gst, it over taxes people who must spend all their pay every week while giving 'relief' to those who don't actually need it.
as a top tax rated earner, i support greater tax for the wealthy and less tax for the poor: i'm prepared to pay my share for a fair society

idleidolidyll

5th August 2008, 22:35

People are at root social and it follows (I hope) that people are moral by nature ( i believe many are moral but that morality is created by society not a natural trait inherent in people regardless of society. I'd suggest that can be tested by placing two people in a situation with limited resources and seeing if they co-operate or compete. ) . Maybe its time to give radical democracy a try? (and real education...)
The 20th century shows that democracy should not sacrificed to theory.

IMO the ultimate in democracy is binding referendum: government truly by the majority bit only if the people are educated enough to discuss the issues and then actually vote.

strangely though, sanx stated a while ago that the referenda was a system of dictatorship: the will of the majority a dictatorship? please explain sanx.

it is in fact the ultimate expression of democracy

Wonderful discussion tonight; lots of intelligence rather than the usual propaganda and ignorance

svr

5th August 2008, 22:49

Sorry `nudedaytona' - they're just abstract ideas and opinions and weren't intended as personal put-downs of your life or choices.
My family are right-wingers and believe all the above assumptions re. motivation, trickle-down, `left wingers are just jealous' etc. as if they were common sense. I'm a top income bracket earner too (but blow it all on booze and bikes...) but I've been convinced otherwise, mainly by a politicized education.
I would say this though: No one is `free' to think or feel what they choose. The best we can do is attempt to work out what actually matters, togethor.
Cheers all.

nudedaytona

5th August 2008, 22:50

a flat tax rate places the burden on the poor disproportionately more than on the wealthy. like gst, it over taxes people who must spend all their pay every week while giving 'relief' to those who don't actually need it.
as a top tax rated earner, i support greater tax for the wealthy and less tax for the poor: i'm prepared to pay my share for a fair society

But the poor are not motivated to improve their situation, because they know that if they get a pay rise they will be paying proportionately more tax. This is the major problem with working for families. There are countless examples of people being worse off after a pay rise because their working for families entitlement has been reduced. So why seek that pay rise at all?

Instead of taxing people more then giving it back to them, with all the administration expense that goes with that, why not simply reduce tax rates. It is fundamentally fairer for all, because everyone knows that if you work harder and earn more you get to keep more. It is also much fairer to those who do not have children.

Regarding advertising and marketing - can you even remember the last television add you saw? I can't. It is not that effective, and it certainly is not coercion. In the age of the internet consumers have more information and more choices than ever.

idleidolidyll

6th August 2008, 07:18

But the poor are not motivated to improve their situation, because they know that if they get a pay rise they will be paying proportionately more tax. This is the major problem with working for families. There are countless examples of people being worse off after a pay rise because their working for families entitlement has been reduced. So why seek that pay rise at all?

Instead of taxing people more then giving it back to them, with all the administration expense that goes with that, why not simply reduce tax rates. It is fundamentally fairer for all, because everyone knows that if you work harder and earn more you get to keep more. It is also much fairer to those who do not have children.

Regarding advertising and marketing - can you even remember the last television add you saw? I can't. It is not that effective, and it certainly is not coercion. In the age of the internet consumers have more information and more choices than ever.

sure, there are faults in any system but isolating individual faults and suggesting the only cure is to throw out the baby with the bath water is simplistic.
the change you espouse would see low waged effectively slaved to business to a greater degree as costs for basics fell into the hands of capitalists who have no motivation other than that of profit. to pay the higher cost of health, education, road taxes etc the low paid will pay even more than they do under a system of taxation generally aimed at low earners as we have now.

yes, i can remember ads and unlike you i am quite aware of the subtle pervasive coercion that ads use to convince people that they should buy stuff that is not actually of good value or good for their health or situation.
your argument that it aint there because you can't see it flies in the face of studies by those in favour of ads and thse opposed to it.

the simple question to ask is this: "if ads and PR don't persuade why spend all that money making them?"

the only answer is that they DO work and the billions spent on them are spent in the sure knowledge that you can convince fat people to eat more McDonalds if you bribe their kids with toys.

MisterD

6th August 2008, 08:04

like gst, it over taxes people who must spend all their pay every week while giving 'relief' to those who don't actually need it.

On the other hand GST can be seen as fairer, becuase it doesn't favour those with the ability to pay fancy accountants to avoid tax.

You're mired in this application of poverty as a relative measure - it's not it's an absolute. I thought your mantra was "to each according to their need" not "want".?

davereid

6th August 2008, 08:16

Democracy without constraint on government power is merely mob rule.

Placing effective boundaries on government is what transforms mob-rule into true democracy.

This creates the majority of our debate....

Some, (like myself) believe that the state needs very little power.
We believe that all interaction between human beings should be by agreement, without coercion or force. The government needs only the power to pass laws that protect us from the activities of others, who would do us harm against our will.

Others believe that the state knows best. That the state should have the power to use force against us for any reason it chooses, bound only by winning the vote.

Socialists and Communists HAVE to fall in the latter group. The socialists need to use force to take resources, so they can re-distribute it Robin Hood style.

Capitalists fall into both groups. They love deregulated systems where they can sell what they want, when they want, to whoever they want.

But they also enjoy government systems when the law ensures they will make a nice profit. Border controls, tarrifs, taxes on evil competitors are lapped up.

Capitalisim can be violent. But it doesnt have to be.

Socialisim has to be violent. Its based on violence, and relies on force for its existence.

Flatcap

6th August 2008, 09:13

svr

6th August 2008, 12:21

And what is 'fair'? I think it is fair that benefits should be removed after a time period. I think it is fair that to live on a benefit SHOULD be a struggle - it's function is not to fund a lifestyle

Two thirds of benefit expenditure is of course old-aged pension - But you mean the unemployed right?
The unemployed are comprised by two main groups:
1. Structurally unemployed i.e. market economies fluctuate and create times of less than `full' employment'. Say unemployment is 10% but full employment is 4%, that remaining 6% is unemployed for reasons outside of their control. They should be supported (and helped to re or upskill to jobs with shortages) during this time.
2. Disaffected workers i.e. unemployable through low motivation, unwillingness to work low-skill jobs but no inclination to upskill (i.e. not illness or disability). These are wasted lives and you are right, to be unemployed at the taxpayers expense is not an acceptable option.
Suggestions?

Flatcap

6th August 2008, 12:33

But you mean the unemployed right?

And a large portion of "sickness beneficiaries"

What did the like of these people do before the welfare state?

Sanx

6th August 2008, 13:07

And a large portion of "sickness beneficiaries"

What did the like of these people do before the welfare state?

They either:

Stopped pretending to be sick and found a job; or
Died

It comes back to the old adage about the purpose of the welfare state. Is it to provide a safety net, or to provide a hammock?

SPman

6th August 2008, 13:20

Just about everyone but beneficiaries are in the top tax bracket nowadays.

And what is 'fair'? I think it is fair that benefits should be removed after a time period. I think it is fair that to live on a benefit SHOULD be a struggle - it's function is not to fund a lifestyle
So - you've tried funding a lifestyle whilst on a single benefit - lived like a king, did you? Most people on benefits I know, do it fucking hard! They manage, (just), but life is not easy! All would prefer a job that gives them enough income to have even a reasonable standard of live, but, for most, it is just not possible - and yes - that includes "sickness beneficiaries".
So, your answer, when they are crippled by Rheumatoid Arthritis, or Multiple Sclerosis, or other debilitating conditions, would be to leave them to find other means of income or starve.
Spoken like a true Capitalist!
Go join the ACT party, you'll fit in well!

awayatc

6th August 2008, 13:53

nudedaytona

6th August 2008, 15:17

the change you espouse would see low waged effectively slaved to business to a greater degree as costs for basics fell into the hands of capitalists who have no motivation other than that of profit.

Profit only comes if you offer good service. Competition ensures that prices are competitive. The government should only be involved in core services that would not be provided by the market, such as defence, some infrastructure, law and order, etc, or where the structure of the market means that monopolies are the only outcome (e.g. electricity lines). Debate about what those services should be is welcome, but it is important to note that ACT recognise this and propose to keep core government services.

to pay the higher cost of health, education, road taxes etc the low paid will pay even more than they do under a system of taxation generally aimed at low earners as we have now.

Really? Prove it. If progressive tax rates are lowered, or a flat tax rate adopted, the poor will be no worse off than they are now. Under many flat tax rate systems, your first say $10,000 of income is tax free. In this case the poor would be better off than they are now.

For a specific case like road taxes. Act propose to replace road user charges and petrol taxes with tolls that reward off-peak road use. They are not proposing to increase overall revenues from road users. Sounds like a sensible plan to reduce congestion to me.

the simple question to ask is this: "if ads and PR don't persuade why spend all that money making them?"

the only answer is that they DO work and the billions spent on them are spent in the sure knowledge that you can convince fat people to eat more McDonalds if you bribe their kids with toys.

Ads can be an important source of information, especially when directed to those who would benefit from the advertised service. For instance, I am very happy to hear about Mt Eden Motorcycles ladies night sale tonight so that my partner and I can both go along and get some bike gear at a reduced price for her. If there was no advertising, how would we know about the sale?

I am also very happy to receive coupons from Dominos Pizza or the flyer about the opening specials from the chinese takeaways that has recently opened in my neighborhood, so that this weekend I can ring them up and order them something as I probably can't be f**ked cooking on Friday or Sat night. Again - without advertising I would not know about these special deals and would end up paying more. So advertising helps me to save money.

Regarding fat people and McDonalds. It all comes down to personal choice and responsibility - no one forces these people to eat at McDonalds. These people are well aware of the health problems of overindulging in one sort of food. There are many other advertisements for healthier eating options. You can often find kids toys in weet-bix as well. Are you saying we should ban "bad" advertisements but keep "good" ones?

Under the current health system people are encouraged to get fat or smoke, etc, because they know that they can get free healthcare. If we had a health insurance system instead these choices would have consequences of higher premiums, therefore encouraging people to stop smoking or stop eating mcdonalds.

Flatcap

6th August 2008, 15:41

So - you've tried funding a lifestyle whilst on a single benefit - lived like a king, did you? Most people on benefits I know, do it fucking hard! They manage, (just), but life is not easy! All would prefer a job that gives them enough income to have even a reasonable standard of live, but, for most, it is just not possible - and yes - that includes "sickness beneficiaries".
So, your answer, when they are crippled by Rheumatoid Arthritis, or Multiple Sclerosis, or other debilitating conditions, would be to leave them to find other means of income or starve.
Spoken like a true Capitalist!
Go join the ACT party, you'll fit in well!

Yes I have been on a benefit and yes it was hard work - that is why I no longer am on a benefit.

And I said many on a sickness benefit, not all. So yes, if you are truely ill then the benefit is appropriate

Ixion

6th August 2008, 15:45

If all the bludgers and no hopers would be kicked out of the handout system ...then those who realy are in need of financial assistance could be properly looked after.....

And none of us would mind looking after those who realy need that help.........

:scooter:

Well spoken. So, the Communist Party can look forward to your vote?

Communism - socialism for workers who are sick of subsidising shirkers.

awayatc

7th August 2008, 05:28

The only"ism's" I would subscribe to would be humanism with a healthy dose of rationalism......

Of course my deeply entrenched Sailor's individualism excludes me from most organisms.......

:scooter:

Clockwork

7th August 2008, 08:17

alanzs

7th August 2008, 11:20

Under the current health system people are encouraged to get fat or smoke, etc, because they know that they can get free healthcare. If we had a health insurance system instead these choices would have consequences of higher premiums, therefore encouraging people to stop smoking or stop eating mcdonalds.

I have lived under the US healthcare system most of my life. I know it intimately. You generally get health insurance through your employment, as if you do it without the blanket group coverage that the employer offers, your premiums can be so high that you can't afford it. If you have any pre-existing conditions, you may not ever get covered. Only those people that are either 100% poor or on the dole get government assistance. Everyone else has to fend for themselves. Example, I have a family of four. I paid $1200US and my employer paid $1300US monthly. $2500 a month total, or $30,000 a year. The rates typically went up every year. Many things were not covered at all, and they were important things. And, often, the things that were covered were not paid for fully. Medications were not covered well, if at all. Except for emergencies, you need approval from the insurance company before getting anything done. Getting denied was common. My son broke his arm snowboarding and needed surgery to repair the break. He was in hospital for one night. The bill was $60,000. We had to pay about $1800, because some of the things they did were not covered, or exceeded the amount they would cover.
I can't express to you the absolute overwhelming anxiety you lived in knowing that if you lose your job, you have no medical coverage.
Our medical system here isn't perfect, but as a father, knowing your children will get medical treatment means a lot.
Apparently, 20% of the US's 300 million people have no medical coverage. Watch the movie "Sicko" and you will see what healthcare coverage, when left to the free market looks like. It is very scary and very real. :eek5:

awayatc

7th August 2008, 12:55

+ 1 .....

Used to live in the US of A for a while as well...chose paypacket without medical insurance being young and bulletproof.......
When my wife got pregnant in California we could only persuade ONE Gynaecologist for a first and single visit...
cash...off course.
We decided not to take the financial risk of childbirth in same states.......

NZ may not be perfect, but compared to the States it nearly is.......

:scooter:

idleidolidyll

7th August 2008, 13:36

I have lived under the US healthcare system most of my life. I know it intimately.

Thanks for that dose of reality. I pay $80 a month with Southern Cross for extra cover over and above ACC and our Health System.
A study a couple of years ago ranked NZ as 2nd best in all OECD nations for Health care. The cost was half that of the US per person and we had far better service for almost everything. The only area NZ lost out to the US was in the provision of the very latest cutting edge proceedures and technologies. Those that are of course, unavailable to any but the very wealthy anyway.

3 years ago I broke my back in a mountain bike accident and was paralysed down my right side. After 5 months or so I was able to have an operation where the surgeon took my lower rib and used it to replace the shattered bones in my spine. He also decompressed the spinal chord and of course removed all the pieces of bone. I was walking again the next day and after 6 months was able to ride a bicycle again.
I have been told that the cost of 5that Op would have been about NZ$100,000. All of it was covered by ACC as is my ongoing care and pain relief etc.

I suspect the same Op in the US would have been at least US$250,000 and depending on your life insurance policy or that of your employer, may not have been covered adequatelty or at all.

Certainly the 40 million US Citizens who can't afford adequate health care in the US would have faced life in a wheelchair or worse (the possibility of further deterioration). Their ongoing pain without surgery would have been almost unbearable as mine was before the surgery.

Without ACC I would not be walking, riding my mountainbike, riding my motorbike and I would probably have had to crap and pee in bags for the rest of my shortened life.

Think about it: are tax cuts worth destroying our health care system?

alanzs

7th August 2008, 14:39

Thanks for that dose of reality. I pay $80 a month with Southern Cross for extra cover over and above ACC and our Health System.
A study a couple of years ago ranked NZ as 2nd best in all OECD nations for Health care. The cost was half that of the US per person and we had far better service for almost everything. The only area NZ lost out to the US was in the provision of the very latest cutting edge proceedures and technologies. Those that are of course, unavailable to any but the very wealthy anyway.

3 years ago I broke my back in a mountain bike accident and was paralysed down my right side. After 5 months or so I was able to have an operation where the surgeon took my lower rib and used it to replace the shattered bones in my spine. He also decompressed the spinal chord and of course removed all the pieces of bone. I was walking again the next day and after 6 months was able to ride a bicycle again.
I have been told that the cost of 5that Op would have been about NZ$100,000. All of it was covered by ACC as is my ongoing care and pain relief etc.

I suspect the same Op in the US would have been at least US$250,000 and depending on your life insurance policy or that of your employer, may not have been covered adequatelty or at all.

Certainly the 40 million US Citizens who can't afford adequate health care in the US would have faced life in a wheelchair or worse (the possibility of further deterioration). Their ongoing pain without surgery would have been almost unbearable as mine was before the surgery.

Without ACC I would not be walking, riding my mountainbike, riding my motorbike and I would probably have had to crap and pee in bags for the rest of my shortened life.

Think about it: are tax cuts worth destroying our health care system?

Health is our only real wealth.

You would have been, to put it mildly, fucked, if you lived in the US without excellent insurance for the injuries you have sustained and the care you need(ed). Even the best insurance that I ever saw, generally had a million dollars TOTAL lifetime payment clause attached to it. I also worked for some very big companies, so the insurance was usually some of the best you could get.

Open heart by-pass surgery can cost you 1/2 million dollars.

A friend back in LA just recently had a colonoscopy and it cost $20,000. This is a simple out patient procedure, takes about an hour.

If you don't have the money, you don't get the treatment. You could mortgage your house or figure a way to come up with the money. Doctors will negotiate a cash price, typically 80-90% of the insurance price.

The healthcare system here is as good as any care I ever had back in the States, and better, in that there isn't the unbelievable amount of paperwork that you have to do and just not having the anxiety of not being able to get care if you are ill is healthier.

As New Zealander's, we really should be proud of how we care for each other! I know that I am very proud and honored to be here and am glad that my tax dollars, high as they are, go to help each other rather than build nuclear weapons and a huge military, as just one example. Butter or guns, which will it be?

"You may call me a dreamer, but I'm not the only one..." :mellow:

Flatcap

7th August 2008, 15:11

Butter or guns, which will it be?

Margarine

I can't afford butter

MisterD

7th August 2008, 15:42

Think about it: are tax cuts worth destroying our health care system?

Tell me again why my taxes are actually subsidising a massive increase in Wellington-based beaurocrats and Liarbore's election campaign?

Your party line parroting of the tax cuts=service cuts is getting boring.

SPman

7th August 2008, 16:11

Your party line parroting of the tax cuts=service cuts is getting boring.
Yep - pity that it's true, isn't it.

mstriumph

7th August 2008, 16:17

They either:

Stopped pretending to be sick and found a job; or
Died

It comes back to the old adage about the purpose of the welfare state. Is it to provide a safety net, or to provide a hammock?

to some of us, it's the mark of a civilized people that the strong protect the weak ....... and to some of us 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need' is an enlightened goal........

the problem is, of course, trying to ascertain both the ability AND the need ...... anything that is open to debate is open to exploitation by the unscrupulous ........

but, on balance, i guess i'd rather my taxes funded the occasional health-cheat bludging useless lying wanker [like my neighbour] rather than set the bar so low that people with GENUINE needs and disabilities had to go without ...................

Jez

7th August 2008, 16:27

you take the good
you take the bad
you take it all
and then you have
the facts of life!

by providing a humanitarian service to honest sickness beneficaries you will have to take the minority that are taking advantage of the system. that is the way life is.

"Every country has the government they deserve" ... can't remember who said that, but its very true!

alanzs

7th August 2008, 17:09

Margarine

I can't afford butter

Me too. But Vegemite is in a class of its own. :lol:

alanzs

7th August 2008, 17:13

pete376403

7th August 2008, 17:29

Three years ago I had a cochlear implant installed. I understand the total cost, including rehab, was around $50,000. Cost to me, thanks to the NZ health system, $0. If I had not had this op, by now I would be totally deaf, and probably unemployable. As I have remained in employment, I have in that time "paid back" the $50K in taxes, and I don't begrudge this one damn bit.
The same operation in the USA costs around $250,000, NOT including rehab afterwards.
The NZ health system, for all its faults, works pretty well most of the time. As it did when I had a heart attack, but thats another story.

idleidolidyll

7th August 2008, 18:14

Tell me again why my taxes are actually subsidising a massive increase in Wellington-based beaurocrats and Liarbore's election campaign?

Your party line parroting of the tax cuts=service cuts is getting boring.

you may be getting bored but that's only because you're refusing to accept the bleeding obvious:
tax cuts mean service cuts.

any extra cost of bureaucrats is minuscule as a part of the total budget but that aside; it's far better to tweak a good system than throw it out and bring in a system that has patently failed miserably elsewhere

Flatcap

7th August 2008, 18:49

MisterD

7th August 2008, 20:33

you may be getting bored but that's only because you're refusing to accept the bleeding obvious:
tax cuts mean service cuts.

any extra cost of bureaucrats is minuscule as a part of the total budget but that aside; it's far better to tweak a good system than throw it out and bring in a system that has patently failed miserably elsewhere

That's where you're up your own fundament isn't it? The system that works here is a combination of public and private, the fully state-owned monolith wouldn't work either.

Oh yes and let's see....Liarbore has poured 340 million wasted dollars into a bank we don't need and now won't cough for real Herceptin availability for $25m a year. That's what? Thirteen years years worth of women that wouldn't have an automatic death sentence...funding that is National policy.

Robert Taylor

7th August 2008, 20:38

So by "tweak" you mean make it more efficient which means spending less.

So tax cuts don't mean service cuts?

Unless you want to tweak it to make it less efficient, which seems to be the standard socialist practice

What of course is conveniently overlooked by the red-feds on this site is that tax cuts can stimulate the economy and actually increase the overall tax take. Heck, it would be wonderful to reduce the size of the ''paid beneficiaries'' and actually get them into doing something productive.
The National party, whilst not perfect has a much higher percentage of practical people in it that have been working in the real world, as opposed to ex lecturers from ''communist finishing school''
My fantasy is that there will be total annihilation of all the minor parties except for Act and Gordon Copeland and that the Labour party will be so weakened it will never recover, that would be justice. For good measure the National party needs to reinstate our Air Strike Force to show the world we are not security freeloaders. Bring back corporal punishment ( including the death penalty ) and bring back compulsory military training.

MisterD

7th August 2008, 20:45

that the Labour party will be so weakened it will never recover,

Ain't never going to happen with big union dollars and their anti-democratic funding legislation...Unions are now allowed to donate big dollars to Liarbore and then spend further chunks themselves attacking National...all from the pay packets of workers coerced into joining up.

Flatcap

7th August 2008, 20:51

bring back compulsory military training.

But only now I'm too old and feeble

MisterD

7th August 2008, 20:56

military training.

As long as the military train their guns on Alan Clark, I don't care.

Robert Taylor

7th August 2008, 21:36

Ain't never going to happen with big union dollars and their anti-democratic funding legislation...Unions are now allowed to donate big dollars to Liarbore and then spend further chunks themselves attacking National...all from the pay packets of workers coerced into joining up.

Well, lets hope the National party have a few hidden agendas including a bit of union cleansing....

Clockwork

8th August 2008, 09:47

Oh yes and let's see....Liarbore has poured 340 million wasted dollars into a bank we don't need and now won't cough for real Herceptin availability for $25m a year. That's what? Thirteen years years worth of women that wouldn't have an automatic death sentence...funding that is National policy.

You should make up your mind!! one minute you are bemoaning social spending and extolling the virtues of free enterprise and private health care despite the compelling testemony of Allanz, then you complain because "liarbore" (funny name for Pharmac) wont spend more money treating breast cancer.

I don't think you actually give a rats arse about Breast Cancer sufferers just so long as you've got some shit to throw at the Government

Clockwork

8th August 2008, 09:50

What of course is conveniently overlooked by the red-feds on this site is that tax cuts can stimulate the economy and actually increase the overall tax take.

Please explain how this works. I've heard it cited repeatedly but I've never been shown the economics of the argument.

MisterD

8th August 2008, 09:58

You should make up your mind!! one minute you are bemoaning social spending and extolling the virtues of free enterprise and private health care despite the compelling testemony of Allanz, then you complain because "liarbore" (funny name for Pharmac) wont spend more money treating breast cancer.

I don't think you actually give a rats arse about Breast Cancer sufferers just so long as you've got some shit to throw at the Government

You're the one that's guilty of misrepresentation - what I advocate is a partnership of public and private. This government is guilty of thowing money willynilly at public services to negligible benefit to the patient. Doctors do not need managers who report to managers.

Er, and no, having lost a mother to Breast Cancer at the age of 19, it is one thing that I care very passionately about.

Clockwork

8th August 2008, 10:05

Er, and no, having lost a mother to Breast Cancer at the age of 19, it is one thing that I care very passionately about.

My apologies.

svr

8th August 2008, 18:12

What of course is conveniently overlooked by the red-feds on this site is that tax cuts can stimulate the economy and actually increase the overall tax take.
There are of course many ways to stimulate an economy without increasing gross inequalities and the attendant costs to nearly everyone

The National party, whilst not perfect has a much higher percentage of practical people in it that have been working in the real world, as opposed to ex lecturers from ''communist finishing school''

Are blue-blood silver spoon-fed estate inheritors, lawyers, land lords and property speculators really more qualified by `real world' experience to speak on policy than economists, anthropolgists and historians?

My fantasy is that there will be total annihilation of all the minor parties except for Act and Gordon Copeland and that the Labour party will be so weakened it will never recover, that would be justice. For good measure the National party needs to reinstate our Air Strike Force to show the world we are not security freeloaders. Bring back corporal punishment ( including the death penalty ) and bring back compulsory military training.

OK, no comment required here. But here's one anyway. IMHO your fantasies should involve a lttle less fascist annihilation of democratic representation / corporal punishment etc. and a lot more naked women on RC8's.

And to think I let you fettle my bouncy bits!:rolleyes:

Robert Taylor

8th August 2008, 18:14

Please explain how this works. I've heard it cited repeatedly but I've never been shown the economics of the argument.

I would have thought that it was so damn obvious, if you are not suppressing business by overtaxing them they can use the capital that was otherwise fleeced to generate more business activity and in doing so employ more people. It beats having to spend so much on welfare and bureaucrats administering it because there are less employment opportunities.
Whether you care to believe it or not there are many employers who care about social responsibility, there are just those of us who prefer a system that gainfully employs people. This is exactly where the ex communist lecturers currently running this country have no flipping idea.

svr

8th August 2008, 18:23

I agree RT - the lot of the small business owner is fraught with overtaxation, distorted `competition' with the big players, red-tape, huge compliance costs, stacked employment laws and personal financial risk.
But big corporates, property speculators and land-lords pay f.all so small business and the average joe like me ends up paying all the tax.

Ixion

8th August 2008, 18:25

svr

8th August 2008, 19:14

Ah, no. The reality is that if corporate taxes are reduced (and as you refer to 'business' I presume you are only proposing tax cuts for capitalists, not ordinary folk), the corporations will pocket the extra profits, send them off shore, and cut the number of NZ jobs by relocating them to Bangalore.
Your simple categorization of classes into capitalists / non-capitalists is 80 years out of date. The point of my above 2 posts is that the small business owner has diametrically opposed interests with the large corporate, and in fact has fairly common interests with the average working person.

The myth that tax cuts to big business somehow 'trickle down' to Bill Battler is frequently repeated. Never proven or demonstrated.
True - the spurious nature of that relationship is well established

If you ever actually met a real communist, you would discover that (a) none of us are university lecturers (about number 5 to go upgainst the wall, come the revolution, they add little if anything to the common good) and (b) we don't agree with taxes at all. No taxes. No need.

(a)There are still plenty of `Marxist' (neo, post, reformulated, feminist, etc... -) academics kicking around universities today. They love the working class [I]in Theory[I] but not in praxis, and no they wouldn't last long come the sort of revolution you have in mind...

(b) I love Utopians - you lot give me hope.

Ixion

8th August 2008, 19:29

Your simple categorization of classes into capitalists / non-capitalists is 80 years out of date. The point of my above 2 posts is that the small business owner has diametrically opposed interests with the large corporate, and in fact has fairly common interests with the average working person.

To be sure. I would never (or very seldom, anyway) include a small business operator in with the capitalist corporations. The typical small business owner/operator in NZ is either a merchant, or a master tradesman. And his interest are almost always very different to those of the capitalists, and far more closely linked with those of the worker. Indeed it is not uncommon for people to move (perhaps many times) between the two.

Take a mechanic. He has a job working for Bloggs garage. Then he is appointed manager of the garage . It's a smallish place though so he still needs to get out the tools sometimes. So, a worker .After a few years he as an opportunity to open his own garage. So a small business owner. But it's a smallish business so he still needs to get out the tools sometimes. In reality his interests as worker are almost identical to those as small business owner. And almost certainly very different to the owner of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (aka BNZ in NZ ) . Whoever the latter may be. After a few years he wants a simpler life so he sells up the business and gets a job as a mechanic . And many people move several times in their lives through such a cycle. The do not go from being workers to eing capitalists and back again. They go from being workers employed by another , to self employed workers and back again.

The differentiator is not between worker and business owner. It is between the worker, whether he works on his own account or for someone else , and the capitalist, who does not work at all. (and nowdays is usually hidden behind a corporate face). Mr Taylor is a (highly) skilled tradesman . Mr Bryers and Mr Petrovich are capitalists. I know which one I admire and which ones I despise.

pete376403

8th August 2008, 20:07

Trickle down economics (ie reaganomics) does anyone really believe in this any more? It's been pretty thoroughly debunked eg
http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/2010/decline.htm
(lotsa reading here)

Robert Taylor

8th August 2008, 21:10

To be sure. I would never (or very seldom, anyway) include a small business operator in with the capitalist corporations. The typical small business owner/operator in NZ is either a merchant, or a master tradesman. And his interest are almost always very different to those of the capitalists, and far more closely linked with those of the worker. Indeed it is not uncommon for people to move (perhaps many times) between the two.

Take a mechanic. He has a job working for Bloggs garage. Then he is appointed manager of the garage . It's a smallish place though so he still needs to get out the tools sometimes. So, a worker .After a few years he as an opportunity to open his own garage. So a small business owner. But it's a smallish business so he still needs to get out the tools sometimes. In reality his interests as worker are almost identical to those as small business owner. And almost certainly very different to the owner of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (aka BNZ in NZ ) . Whoever the latter may be. After a few years he wants a simpler life so he sells up the business and gets a job as a mechanic . And many people move several times in their lives through such a cycle. The do not go from being workers to eing capitalists and back again. They go from being workers employed by another , to self employed workers and back again.

The differentiator is not between worker and business owner. It is between the worker, whether he works on his own account or for someone else , and the capitalist, who does not work at all. (and nowdays is usually hidden behind a corporate face). Mr Taylor is a (highly) skilled tradesman . Mr Bryers and Mr Petrovich are capitalists. I know which one I admire and which ones I despise.

Thankyou for that. Small business owners are the backbone of this country and we are being screwed by the Government, by the corporates and yes by the over free market. We too despise the Petrovichs of this world. I looked at that guy on TV last night and thought you dirty rotten money grubbing bastard. Ditto for the Eric Watsons of this world.
Personally, I admire success. As long as those involved worked hard for it and are doing something positive for the country and are carrying people along with them. If they are speculators then I have a whole load less time for them.
And while its difficult for some to comprehend I think it is also entirely possible to combine conservative principles / government with social compassion.

Robert Taylor

8th August 2008, 21:14

OK, no comment required here. But here's one anyway. IMHO your fantasies should involve a lttle less fascist annihilation of democratic representation / corporal punishment etc. and a lot more naked women on RC8's.

And to think I let you fettle my bouncy bits!:rolleyes:

The fishing was good for a little reaction! RC8s are not on my radar screen, how about curvaceous naked woman on Rossi race replicas?

Sanx

9th August 2008, 01:40

Please explain how this works. I've heard it cited repeatedly but I've never been shown the economics of the argument.

I have a small business making widgets that turns a profit. I employ two widget-makers at $75,000 a year. Between them, they turn out $350,000 of widgets. Out of the company income, I pay myself $100,000, leaving a profit of $100,000. At the end of the year, 33% of my profit is given to the tax man. Leaving me $67,000 to re-invest in my company.

Now let's say company tax is reduced to 15%. Now, only $15,000 goes to the tax-man, so I have $85,000 left. With that $85,000, I can afford to employ another widget-maker on $75,000 per annum plus invest $10k in new widget designs. With an extra widget-maker, my company is turning out $525,000 of widgets. Still taking a salary of $100,000, the company now makes $200,000 profit, of which the taxman now takes $30,000.

So I take my nett profit of $170,000 and employ two more widget-makers. Damn, my company's now turning out $875,000 of widgets and making $400,000 profit. Of which I give $60,000 a year to the taxman.

So, by reducing the tax-rate to 15%, my company has been able to expand, meaning the company's now paying $60,000 a year in tax instead of $33,000. On top of that, three extra widget-makers have gone off the dole, and are now paying tax themselves.

OK, this is a massively simplified example, but that's how the theory has gone. Ireland tried this a few years ago and enjoyed massive success with it, though one thing free-market economists often forget to mention is that Ireland also enjoyed huge European subsidy during the same period, and benefited from lots of American investment from companies whose owners considered themselves 'Irish' because a great grandfather had once sunk half a pint of Guinness.

davereid

9th August 2008, 08:52

I have a small business making widgets that turns a profit. I employ two widget-makers at $75,000 a year. Between them, they turn out $350,000 of widgets. Out of the company income, I pay myself $100,000, leaving a profit of $100,000. At the end of the year, 33% of my profit is given to the tax man. Leaving me $67,000 to re-invest in my company....

A very good example...

Lets look at another example - relocating your business to Singapore.

Your widget makers will still get about $75,000 - Singapore is no longer a low wage economy.

But you won't be paying Kiwisaver, ACC, 11 statutory holidays or 4 weeks annual leave. Almost enough money saved there to get an extra worker. Certainly enough for a part timer.

You can still pay yourself $100k, or maybe $50k each to you and wife.

But in Singapore, you only have to find a maximum of 18% company tax, not 33%.

Thats absolutely enough money to expand and get an extra worker.

Just by relocating, you have kept your personal finances the same, but doubled company profitability.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

The NZ Army had a base in Singapore in the 70's. I usd to go there from time to time, and we NZers were rich compared to the locals. Our dollar bought 2 or 3 of theirs, and we saw poverty everywhere.

They went down a path of low taxes, encouraged foreign investment, and hard work.

They had little spare land, no natural resources, aggressive neighbours, and were starting from the back of the field.

They now have a GDP of $134 billion from a population of 4.5 million.

About 30 billion more than NZ.

pete376403

9th August 2008, 15:49

I have a small business making widgets that turns a profit. I employ two widget-makers at $75,000 a year. Between them, they turn out $350,000 of widgets. Out of the company income, I pay myself $100,000, leaving a profit of $100,000. At the end of the year, 33% of my profit is given to the tax man. Leaving me $67,000 to re-invest in my company.

Now let's say company tax is reduced to 15%. Now, only $15,000 goes to the tax-man, so I have $85,000 left. With that $85,000, I can afford to employ another widget-maker on $75,000 per annum plus invest $10k in new widget designs. With an extra widget-maker, my company is turning out $525,000 of widgets. Still taking a salary of $100,000, the company now makes $200,000 profit, of which the taxman now takes $30,000.

So I take my nett profit of $170,000 and employ two more widget-makers. Damn, my company's now turning out $875,000 of widgets and making $400,000 profit. Of which I give $60,000 a year to the taxman.

So, by reducing the tax-rate to 15%, my company has been able to expand, meaning the company's now paying $60,000 a year in tax instead of $33,000. On top of that, three extra widget-makers have gone off the dole, and are now paying tax themselves.

OK, this is a massively simplified example, but that's how the theory has gone. Ireland tried this a few years ago and enjoyed massive success with it, though one thing free-market economists often forget to mention is that Ireland also enjoyed huge European subsidy during the same period, and benefited from lots of American investment from companies whose owners considered themselves 'Irish' because a great grandfather had once sunk half a pint of Guinness.

But in reality its most likely that the business owner (ie you) now give yourself a massive increase in pay, while keeping the same number of employees on the same rate as before. You will also tell the employees that business conditions make it impossible to increase their pay

Robert Taylor

9th August 2008, 16:25

Ixion

9th August 2008, 17:03

... employ another widget maker...

That assumes that the market for widgets is expandable. That at present you are turning away customers, telling them "sorry, can't make enough widgets to satisfy the demand"

Now, if that were true, you would be a very poor businessman, because market economics says that in that case you would increase the price of the widgets. That would probably reduce demand .People might buy a widget at $20, but not at $40 - or buy an opposition brand. So you would increase the price you sell at, until the demand is just enough to be met by the work of the two widget makers.

So, in reality, taking on another widget maker would mean that you would either have him standing around doing nothing (because the existing two widget makers can make enough widgets to meet the customer demand). Or you would have to reduce your prices to stimulate extra demand. In which case you make more widgets, but still only make the same profit. So why bother?

More realistic scenarios are either that set forth by the overly numerical gentleman (boss pockets the tax cut , thanks very much, nothing else changes). Or maybe the tax cut is used to buy an automatic widget making machine. Now both the widget makers are out of work and on the dole, the government has less tax income, but has to meet higher social welfare payments (all those unemployed widget makers). And the economy tips further into recession.

I do not know of any situation where tax cuts have actually boosted an economy that was flagging , in the absence of other factors (eg the EEC in the case of Ireland). And in the classic instance, the Great Depression, it was Keynes and tax increases, not tax cuts , that turned things round.

And while the Singapore widget maker may not have to meet ACC or Kiwisaver contributions, he will have to pay massively (by NZ standards) for public liability insurance, and various city taxes. And his workers will have a very large compulsary savings deductions made from their pay packets, so their take home pay will still be less than NZ. Singapore flourished for three reasons .
1. The Singaporese are bloody hard workers. They work a lot harder than Kiwis (though not as smart often) . And the economy does not have to bear the crippling burden of thousands upon thousands of shirkers (no DPB there either )
2. In the early days there was a constant inflow of cheap labour from Malaysia. The Singapore nationals got reasonable money: the (mostly illegal) immigrants worked for SFA (and 16 hours a day at that)
3. Once the supply of cheap labour from across the border dried up, most Singapore companies relocated their labour intensive operations into Malaya.

davereid

9th August 2008, 17:11

But in reality its most likely that the business owner (ie you) now give yourself a massive increase in pay, while keeping the same number of employees on the same rate as before. You will also tell the employees that business conditions make it impossible to increase their pay

In a low tax, low government environment, a business owner would be balmy to do that.

But in a high tax, high government country like NZ he would be balmy not to !

Its just as likely in NZ, that the g'mint will interfere with his business.

Maybe the crystals or the tyres he makes will end up in a truck carrying nukes, so he will face closure.

Or he will want to expand, but he can't as the rural land next his factory has to be saved for future generations that might want to grow peas there.

Or he will compete, and invest in a new ship, only to find the government have decided rail is a strategic asset, and they wll buy his competitr, and use his tax money to take him out of business.

So you are right. In a country like NZ, the wise man takes his money when he can snatch it, buggar the future.

After all, if it all goes wrong he can just says its his wifes, and go on the dole.

nudedaytona

9th August 2008, 18:43

I would have thought that it was so damn obvious, if you are not suppressing business by overtaxing them they can use the capital that was otherwise fleeced to generate more business activity and in doing so employ more people. It beats having to spend so much on welfare and bureaucrats administering it because there are less employment opportunities.
Whether you care to believe it or not there are many employers who care about social responsibility, there are just those of us who prefer a system that gainfully employs people. This is exactly where the ex communist lecturers currently running this country have no flipping idea.

Too right ...... +1

Winston001

9th August 2008, 18:57

Robert Taylor

9th August 2008, 20:39

When our business improved I can tell you that we increased our employees pay, plus increased bonuses. We have also voluntarily been paying 4% Employers Kiwisaver Contribution since July 2007.

In small businesses, the relationship with employees is close and sharing the good times just seems the fair thing to do.

Of course this is a one way street. Now that work has dropped off, we won't be reducing staff pay. Just reduced owners salaries.

I get the distinct feeling from some of the posts that there is for some an institutionalised / inbred mistrust in employers and that also having a business is a ''license to print money''. That as a blanket attitude is wholly unfair and I think many just have no idea how difficult it is to run a business, especially when you have a Government that is ( in practice ) very business unfriendly.
That we have an imbalance where there are too many ''drones'' just collecting their pay cheques and doing as little as possible is blatantly obvious. That is quite apart from the many hardworking New Zealanders that there actually are, but it is just too easy to choose welfare as an alternative to doing an honest days work.

Clockwork

10th August 2008, 07:32

davereid

10th August 2008, 09:35

I often liken tax to fines.

If you are speeding, you get money taken of you in proportion to the speed you travel. Stay below the limit = no fine.

Tax is the same.
Stay on a benefit = no fine, the state gives more than it takes.
Get a basic job = about even you will collect pretty much what you pay via health care, schools, etc.

But, mortgage the family home, take some risks to get machinery, staff, and develop a market and you will be heavily fined.

Does it have an effect on peoples behaviour ?
I think it does.

Over the years I have had many opportunities to grow my business. I personally have decided that its not worth the risk.

Maybe I'm just a bit soft. But I look at the cost of employees, the hassle of having them, and the extra profit I would make if I did it. My decision has always been, that a better investment is a boat to go fishing.

Perhaps this gives kiwis a more balanced view of the world, maybe we value family and free time more as a result.

But mostly I think it just gradually erodes our standard of living.

I just can't see how fining people for being productive and paying people for being unproductive will make NZ a better place.

Robert Taylor

10th August 2008, 09:56

Health is our only real wealth.

You would have been, to put it mildly, fucked, if you lived in the US without excellent insurance for the injuries you have sustained and the care you need(ed). Even the best insurance that I ever saw, generally had a million dollars TOTAL lifetime payment clause attached to it. I also worked for some very big companies, so the insurance was usually some of the best you could get.

Open heart by-pass surgery can cost you 1/2 million dollars.

A friend back in LA just recently had a colonoscopy and it cost $20,000. This is a simple out patient procedure, takes about an hour.

If you don't have the money, you don't get the treatment. You could mortgage your house or figure a way to come up with the money. Doctors will negotiate a cash price, typically 80-90% of the insurance price.

The healthcare system here is as good as any care I ever had back in the States, and better, in that there isn't the unbelievable amount of paperwork that you have to do and just not having the anxiety of not being able to get care if you are ill is healthier.

As New Zealander's, we really should be proud of how we care for each other! I know that I am very proud and honored to be here and am glad that my tax dollars, high as they are, go to help each other rather than build nuclear weapons and a huge military, as just one example. Butter or guns, which will it be?

"You may call me a dreamer, but I'm not the only one..." :mellow:

You will be wishing guns when one day in the future a belligerent nation comes knocking on our door.................that we have been raped of what little security we had ( an air strike force ) is the biggest act of tyranny of this outgoing Government. On that act alone the leaders of the Labour party should be hanged.The 50,000 extra civil servants we are now suffering would be a much better manpower resource manning a credible Air Force.

Clockwork

10th August 2008, 10:35

OK then, fault this logic.

Every Finance minister (the whole democratic world over) wants more money. After all what politician wouldn't get re-elected after sucessfully financing the all of a nations spending requirements.

Surely all it would have taken is for one Finance Minister to cut taxes and see his tax revenue rise! It would be the fiscal equivilent of a perpetual motion machine! Word would soon spread, taxes would be cut the whole world over and Governments would be awash with cash.

How is it that this hasn't this happened yet?

Jez

10th August 2008, 12:40

You will be wishing guns when one day in the future a belligerent nation comes knocking on our door.................that we have been raped of what little security we had ( an air strike force ) is the biggest act of tyranny of this outgoing Government. On that act alone the leaders of the Labour party should be hanged.The 50,000 extra civil servants we are now suffering would be a much better manpower resource manning a credible Air Force.

LOL we are at the ass end of the world with no strategic value what-so-ever ... we have no huge reserves of known minerals ... even the great southern basin oil fields arent that impressive on the global scale

what the hell do we need a strike wing air force for?!?!

a belligerent nation wouldnt have to invade NZ for us to bow to thier will ... they would just have to blockade us from the rest of the world, and given our geographical location, that could be achieved outside the range of land based stike aircraft NZ could feasibly afford ... sure we could be self sufficient for a long time, but eventually we would want to be allowed into the global community again.

Robert Taylor

10th August 2008, 13:38

Jez

10th August 2008, 13:50

Well my friend you have Chester Nimitz and his forces ( and many other fine people who gave their lives ) to thank for the fact that you ( we ) are here at all.
No strategic importance? A pretty handy staging post for an invasion of Australia, also a gateway to the Antarctic. To blithely think that this can never happen is foolhardy. We must have a plausible signature that we at least have the intent to defend ourselves and our ( thankfully ) predominantly western values.

yes i do thank chester nimitz everyday when i wake up next to my japanese wife, without their sacrifice i dont think i would have been lucky enough to meet her ... different time and different world mate 63 years ago the war ended. you might notice that all conflicts since then have been localised conflicts with very little invasions (Iraq into Kuwait in the early 90's being the only one i can think of).

As for NZ being a handy staging post for an invasion of Australia ... i think you would be much better off getting a hold of PNG, then getting your feet into the sparsely populated areas of Nothern Australia rather than taking NZ ... the nature of the people in NZ would make taking these 2 islands a very formidable task for any possible invading force ...

i also doubt taking NZ before Australia would be a very smart move as you would lose alot of resources when our cousins across the ditch come to help us out ... much better going for aussie first so you have a full complement of resources to throw at the situation ...

but hey, yeah lets get an air force, 2 dozen F-15's (which is about all we could afford) would certainly stop anyone thinking of invading us now wouldnt it ...

SPman

10th August 2008, 14:36

yes i do thank chester nimitz everyday when i wake up next to my japanese wife, without their sacrifice i dont think i would have been lucky enough to meet her ... different time and different world mate 63 years ago the war ended. you might notice that all conflicts since then have been localised conflicts with very little invasions (Iraq into Kuwait in the early 90's being the only one i can think of).

US into Iraq...US into Vietnam...Nth Korea into Sth Korea... Russia into Afghanistan.....US, UK, into Afghanistan......Argentina into the Falkland Islands..............US into some Carribean Island I cant' think of at the moment........etc etc.

but hey, yeah lets get an air force, 2 dozen F-15's (which is about all we could afford) would certainly stop anyone thinking of invading us now wouldnt it ...A small, highly trained strike force, with it's attendant infrastructure, as we had, was sufficient for our needs in time of peace - it's the loss of all that accumulated expertise, groundcrews and pilots, that galls!

. the nature of the people in NZ would make taking these 2 islands a very formidable task for any possible invading force ..Ideally, yes, but there would still be enough turncoats to make it less formidable for an invading force - That's why it is important to have a strong, cohesive society from top to bottom that is at least, reasonably aware of all the happenings outside their country - not an Us and Them, mentality based on limited, biased or no information.

davereid

10th August 2008, 18:51

LOL we are at the ass end of the world with no strategic value what-so-ever ... we have no huge reserves of known minerals ... even the great southern basin oil fields arent that impressive on the global scale

what the hell do we need a strike wing air force for?!?!

a belligerent nation wouldnt have to invade NZ for us to bow to thier will ... they would just have to blockade us from the rest of the world, and given our geographical location, that could be achieved outside the range of land based stike aircraft NZ could feasibly afford ... sure we could be self sufficient for a long time, but eventually we would want to be allowed into the global community again.

You are way off the mark.

1. Value of NZ.

NZ controls, via our EEZ about 1/6th of the worlds fisheries, including important breeding grounds for many species.

We have a handsome claim in the most prosperous part of Antartica, which even if our claim is valueless, does not reduce the value of the resource.

We are also the gateway to Australia. I don't just mean for dodgy asian immigrants, but for cotrol of Australia.

Go back in time. Ask your japanese wife. Japans war plans included provision to invade NZ before eastern Australia.

Why ? if you invade Darwin, you are still a long way from controlling, or even starting to dominate Australia. Aussie and NZ still control the tasman sea, and Aussie can get support and reinforcement for ever, from the first cousins in NZ.

But invade NZ, you control the Tasman sea, from NZ, with good ports, steel, coal,hydro-electricity and you can spread your influence easily into the pacific. You reverse the entire picture.

ie.. Control NZ, and Aussie is f*cked, from a military point of view.

Yes, the world is not the same now as it was in WW2.. but maybe its not so different.

---------------------------------------------------------------

2. Ability to control NZ

Once again, a look at history helps, as does considering the modern world.

Can air power be useful in NZ ? You say no, but you are absolutely wrong. No one can control NZ or the Tasman sea without Air Superiority. You cant invade, or even supply your raiders without controlling the air.

New Zealand is one of the easiest places in the world to defend, and a Maritime Strike force is how its done.

If an aggressor wants New Zealand, he needs air-superiority. Without it, he can't get ships, landing craft or men within miles of the place.

That means he needs aircraft carriers.

Trouble is, they are very expensive, and extremely vulnerable, so a massive force is required to protect them.

And that force neds supplies of food, fuel etc, creating a long chain of potential targets for an isand based defender.

And even the biggest aircraft carriers don't carry that many aircraft - US Nimitz class boats are good for about 80 aircraft, but selom actually have more than 60-65.

The bottom line ?

If NZ has a modern, well equipped maritime strike force, then we are very very difficult to defeat.

Back that up with a white water Navy that can take the battle to the attackers supply lines, and a fleet of small submarines that ensure the enemys aircraft carrier is almost a liability, not an asset, and you just became too hard to pick on.

Robert Taylor

10th August 2008, 18:54

yes i do thank chester nimitz everyday when i wake up next to my japanese wife, without their sacrifice i dont think i would have been lucky enough to meet her ... different time and different world mate 63 years ago the war ended. you might notice that all conflicts since then have been localised conflicts with very little invasions (Iraq into Kuwait in the early 90's being the only one i can think of).

As for NZ being a handy staging post for an invasion of Australia ... i think you would be much better off getting a hold of PNG, then getting your feet into the sparsely populated areas of Nothern Australia rather than taking NZ ... the nature of the people in NZ would make taking these 2 islands a very formidable task for any possible invading force ...

i also doubt taking NZ before Australia would be a very smart move as you would lose alot of resources when our cousins across the ditch come to help us out ... much better going for aussie first so you have a full complement of resources to throw at the situation ...

but hey, yeah lets get an air force, 2 dozen F-15's (which is about all we could afford) would certainly stop anyone thinking of invading us now wouldnt it ...

SP man has answered most of your views and you also patently miss the point. Yes, we couldnt stop much but that gives us absolutely no excuse to freeload off the Aussies for our regional defence. I get embarrassed as do many others that overseas kiwis often have a reputation as freeloaders.There is no excuse for any Government to shirk the fundamental responsibility of providing defence, and I say again the current political leaders should hang for it.
We still have many people still alive on this planet who fought Japanese and German aggression, I thank them for it. Its only a little over half a century ago and many of us live 80% or so of a century, so its still very relevant. We may be in a ''new age'' but its clear that there are and always will be genocidal regimes. Nothing wrong with keeping yourselves a little prepared. There certainly are a lot of tax dollars wasted that should otherwise be channelled into defence.

Robert Taylor

10th August 2008, 19:02

You are way off the mark.

1. Value of NZ.

NZ controls, via our EEZ about 1/6th of the worlds fisheries, including important breeding grounds for many species.

We have a handsome claim in the most prosperous part of Antartica, which even if our claim is valueless, does not reduce the value of the resource.

We are also the gateway to Australia. I don't just mean for dodgy asian immigrants, but for cotrol of Australia.

Go back in time. Ask your japanese wife. Japans war plans included provision to invade NZ before eastern Australia.

Why ? if you invade Darwin, you are still a long way from controlling, or even starting to dominate Australia. Aussie and NZ still control the tasman sea, and Aussie can get support and reinforcement for ever, from the first cousins in NZ.

But invade NZ, you control the Tasman sea, from NZ, with good ports, steel, coal,hydro-electricity and you can spread your influence easily into the pacific. You reverse the entire picture.

ie.. Control NZ, and Aussie is f*cked, from a military point of view.

Yes, the world is not the same now as it was in WW2.. but maybe its not so different.

---------------------------------------------------------------

2. Ability to control NZ

Once again, a look at history helps, as does considering the modern world.

Can air power be useful in NZ ? You say no, but you are absolutely wrong. No one can control NZ or the Tasman sea without Air Superiority. You cant invade, or even supply your raiders without controlling the air.

New Zealand is one of the easiest places in the world to defend, and a Maritime Strike force is how its done.

If an aggressor wants New Zealand, he needs air-superiority. Without it, he can't get ships, landing craft or men within miles of the place.

That means he needs aircraft carriers.

Trouble is, they are very expensive, and extremely vulnerable, so a massive force is required to protect them.

And that force neds supplies of food, fuel etc, creating a long chain of potential targets for an isand based defender.

And even the biggest aircraft carriers don't carry that many aircraft - US Nimitz class boats are good for about 80 aircraft, but selom actually have more than 60-65.

The bottom line ?

If NZ has a modern, well equipped maritime strike force, then we are very very difficult to defeat.

Back that up with a white water Navy that can take the battle to the attackers supply lines, and a fleet of small submarines that ensure the enemys aircraft carrier is almost a liability, not an asset, and you just became too hard to pick on.

That makes absolute sense and you have said what I was struggling to say! I fear that the big problem is there are too many who just dont wish to listen. The really sad part is that the issue is effectively politicised. If the incoming National Government has secret agendas then lets hope one of them is to over time reinstate an Air Strike Force. We all know that to disband it and systematically destroy the supporting infrastructure was Clarks secret agenda.

Guitana

10th August 2008, 20:09

Reinstating a strike wing would be extremely expensive to undertake, given the cost of buying maintaining and arming modern fighters.
We would've been better off to band together with Australia and base a squadron of F18s at Ohakea we maintain fly and arm them for the Aussies, this would allow us and australia to patrol more of our territory.
The biggest problem we have is a large coastal area stocked with some of the best seafood in the world, and everybody wants it! The fisheries alone is worth occupation.
A modern airforce with longrange strike capability is what we need to protect us if the need ever arises, don't ever think it won't happen! If some large force needs a staging post for an attack on Australia we are prime for the picking plenty of food water and coastline with no anti aircraft missiles fighter jets and 2500 infantry! OOOOOOOhhh I'm scared!!

Ocean1

10th August 2008, 20:15

If NZ has a modern, well equipped maritime strike force, then we are very very difficult to defeat.

Back that up with a white water Navy that can take the battle to the attackers supply lines, and a fleet of small submarines that ensure the enemys aircraft carrier is almost a liability, not an asset, and you just became too hard to pick on.

Yes, an attractive economic and strategic asset, as you say. One that given time, will (not might) need to be defended.

And I believe the white water Navy might be the more important of the two, given modern combat systems.

Pity, then, that when offered reciprocal capital contracts with Aus during the frigate build programme we, (and by we I mean Hullen), declined the deal, which would have formed the basis of a huge local high-tech light ship building industry. Culpable negligence you might say, but no, such deals are anathema to our current administration, make peace they said, not warships.

More the pity because the rather large fishing grounds you mentioned already requires a level of policing we’re nowhere near capable of deploying. That’ll get worse, far worse before it gets better.

Nor do we have a coastguard worth mentioning, y’know, an entity capable of supplying search and rescue, fisheries research and training capabilities. Bit strange for a country with one of the worlds largest maritime economic zones, one which uses the sea for recreation to a remarkable extent.

Fookin’ amateurs.

alanzs

11th August 2008, 10:41

Swoop

11th August 2008, 11:18

It comes back to the old adage about the purpose of the welfare state. Is it to provide a safety net, or to provide a hammock?
In NZ, the taxpayer is burdened with providing a 4-poster bed AND room service...

Pity, then, that when offered reciprocal capital contracts with Aus during the frigate build programme we, (and by we I mean Hullen), declined the deal, which would have formed the basis of a huge local high-tech light ship building industry. Culpable negligence you might say, but no, such deals are anathema to our current administration, make peace they said, not warships.

Fookin’ amateurs.
That is what we get when Green fuckwits get into Wellywood's circular wind tunnel...

ambler

11th August 2008, 15:06

Ixion

11th August 2008, 15:18

Well, one reason is the enormous cost of public liability insurance, which the hospital, and all the surgeons, doctors, nurses etc have to buy. Can be near a million dollars a year for a neurosurgeon.God knows what the hospitals insurance bill is.

NZ medical costs don't have to figure in those enormous costs. One effect of that so-maligned ACC scheme.

moT

11th August 2008, 15:20

if osama came to nz what radio station would he listen to?

moT

11th August 2008, 15:25

Is this cognitive dissonance?

Surely the nation that causes the most terror in the world is in fact its chief terrorist?
You gotta admire yank spin even if you detest their principles and scruples.

And this is what the National Party wants us to become, a little cheerleader for amerikan capitalism

Preparing the Battlefield (July 7, 2008)
According to the New Yorker's Seymour Hersh, the Bush administration is seeking war with Iran even though it lacks a legitimate reason. In 2007 the US Congress dramatically increased funding for US covert operations in Iran. The Presidential Finding - a highly classified federal document - details the expanded scale of operations that aims to undermine Iran's nuclear ambitions and destabilize the regime. For example, the US funds an Iranian opposition group of Baluchi Sunni fundamentalists, even though this group has ties to al-Qaeda.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/intervention/iran/general/2008/0707battlefield.htm (http://ent.groundspring.org/EmailNow/pub.php?module=URLTracker&cmd=track&j=220390078&u=2290670)

Why fight the war your self when other ppl are killing the opposition for free. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" all the us is doing is giving there friend a little helping hand

pete376403

11th August 2008, 15:26

I don't understand why the same operation costs five times as much in the USA.... why is that?
Not having experience the US Medical system I can't be sure. I read on CI forums that the surgery in the US is very involved, lots of people involved, many tests before and afterwards. All personnel seem to charge individually ie surgeon has his charge, anaethisist (sp?) has his charge, hospital have their charges, etc.
Possibly the Americans own love of litigation may have much to do with this, with malpractice law suits being so common,hence the medical professions need to cover itself with expensive insurance. Dunno, just very happy that I live here and not there.

moT

11th August 2008, 15:29

dipshit

11th August 2008, 16:09

if osama came to nz what radio station would he listen to?

Radio Rhema would have him feeling quite at home I'm sure.

ambler

11th August 2008, 16:18

Ok. It's just that the much higher cost of medical procedures in the US has been pointed out twice in this thread, as if to strengthen the argument that the US system is bad - but if litigation risks are the cause then it's kind of irrelevant.

ambler

11th August 2008, 16:31

I personaly think that the americans invading is a good idea. Were on good tearms with them so far (better if we allowed there nuclear warships port here). So nz will reap the rewards of any invasion from America the invasion of iraq has meant that america has control of there oil hense the falling fuel prices. Since oil is scarse and valuable who would you rather have the oil? Support your allies!!

Great, onto Iran next then I suppose, got to get those rewards eh :D
Here's a question for you, when would it not be ok to invade another country?

So what benefits to America or NZ are being reaped from the invasion? While you're examining the effect American 'control' of Iraq has had on oil prices, you might want to look for correlations in this graph: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Oil_Prices_Medium_Term.jpg

Robert Taylor

11th August 2008, 18:10

I believe there should be an appropriate balance between guns and butter.

Indeed, at the moment there is a massive imbalance of those two in NZ. As for a strike wing about the best we could do is to muster up a couple of aero club Cessnas and duct tape a rifle wielding army guy to each wing. What a joke.

Sanx

11th August 2008, 18:59

Indeed, at the moment there is a massive imbalance of those two in NZ. As for a strike wing about the best we could do is to muster up a couple of aero club Cessnas and duct tape a rifle wielding army guy to each wing. What a joke.

No, there's a AirNZ captain who keeps a late 60s Hawker Hunter jet fighter at Ardmore to use as a weekend toy. The armed services contract him to do high-speed low altitude runs every so often to test the country's defences.

Yes. I know. More like prove the country's wide open to anyone with a $200,000 military surplus jet.

Ocean1

11th August 2008, 19:53

I don't understand why the same operation costs five times as much in the USA.... why is that?

Well, one reason is the enormous cost of public liability insurance, which the hospital, and all the surgeons, doctors, nurses etc have to buy. Can be near a million dollars a year for a neurosurgeon.God knows what the hospitals insurance bill is.

NZ medical costs don't have to figure in those enormous costs. One effect of that so-maligned ACC scheme.

The same operation might cost about a tenth of US prices in Mexico or Singapore, maybe a third of NZ prices. And while the risks are higher there’s not a whole lot in it, mostly quality of post-op facilities. And lets face it, if your health or life depends on the procedure and you don’t meet the requirements for free health care here then how much would you be concerned about an extra 1% mortality? Law of diminishing returns; that last ounce of quality costs a ton.

Yes ACC has the effect of minimising liability costs, but don’t make the mistake of thinking that those costs are funded by any significant part of your ACC levies. What controls the liability costs is the legislation which makes the government responsible for the quality of health delivery services, and while they do set required standards, (the compliance to which adds up to a significant percentage of the overall health budget), they pay out far less in compensation than an equivalent private insurance based system without such legislative protection would.

That part of ACC works OK. The bit that worries me is the lack of budget accountability caused by the lack of competition. ACC levies are supposedly driven directly by accident related costs for any given year, a figure that we’re assured is plummeting. So why have ACC levies skyrocketed in the last few years?

The fix seems obvious, keep ACC but allow rebates for people who want private health insurance. Best of both worlds, as long as you can prevent privately funded consultants cherry picking the system any more than they already do.

alanzs

11th August 2008, 21:36

Indeed, at the moment there is a massive imbalance of those two in NZ. As for a strike wing about the best we could do is to muster up a couple of aero club Cessnas and duct tape a rifle wielding army guy to each wing. What a joke.

"Imbalance" may be being generous. There ain't much of a military. And from the ads that they have trying to get recruits, video games seem to be their selling point.

moT

12th August 2008, 14:25

For ahala death to the infidels!!

pete376403

12th August 2008, 16:52

svr

13th August 2008, 12:14

So funny to hear of Dubya lambasting the Russians for their affray with Georgia -"Invading a sovereign country, massive overuse of force, attacking civilians, trying to push for regime change, ignoring the UN, etc"

Wonder where Putin got the ideas from?

Not so funny when you consider all the dead innocents, of course.
There was an interesting doco (admitedly `one-sided' i.e. critical) on last night re the complicit manner in which the US media covers war. Its not just Bush - every administration since Vietnam has been given a free ride by incompetent US `journalism'.
Bush says things like above because he can get away with it.

Winston001

17th August 2008, 19:57

So funny to hear of Dubya lambasting the Russians for their affray with Georgia -"Invading a sovereign country, massive overuse of force, attacking civilians, trying to push for regime change, ignoring the UN, etc"

Wonder where Putin got the ideas from?

Nice one. :2thumbsup

Of course nobody - including Russia really made a fuss when Iraq was invaded. There was some posturing in the UN particularly by Arab states which was to be expected but even they didn't like Sadaam.

As for Georgia, I think Russia have the right of it but bloody sad people get killed. Georgia gambled that Russia would look away when they attacked in Ossetia. Bad call. Putin has been looking for an excuse to put Russia back on the world stage as a military power.

Winston001

17th August 2008, 20:08

Great, onto Iran next then I suppose, got to get those rewards eh :D
Here's a question for you, when would it not be ok to invade another country?

So what benefits to America or NZ are being reaped from the invasion? While you're examining the effect American 'control' of Iraq has had on oil prices, you might want to look for correlations in this graph: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Oil_Prices_Medium_Term.jpg

Oil prices - the graph displays the drop in value of the $US over ten years, not a rise in oil prices. The same graph against gold would be relatively flat, and not as steep against the Euro. Its just that oil is traded in $US which makes us think it has risen in price.

To be fair, it has risen in real terms but that is because we (the planet) use more and more of the stuff every day. McJim and I did our bit this afternoon. :D

When is it not ok to invade? When a country is stable, peaceful, observes the rule of law, protects it's citizens from arbitrary injustice, etc....which happens to be most Western nations - a small minority.

Arguably you could make a case for invading the majority of nations on earth.

No I don't think it is Ok for dictators to rule nations while people suffer and starve. It isn't ok for armed bands to control areas of countries. I'm fully of the view that we need an international police force and the UN peacekeepers are slowly evolving into that.

Winston001

17th August 2008, 20:22

Thanks for the anwers (Sanx, RT) but I remain unconvinced. Didn't GB give the US tax cuts? Can anyone show that their overall tax take has inceased as a consequence. (I honestly don't know where to look for such figures myself)

Failing that, presumably this truth will be revealed across the Tasman shortly as the Aussie Govt starts raking all that extra tax from their recent tax cuts.

.

Excellent question and by golly......I don't know. :doh:

So far as I am aware, social democracv economics is a debate around the range of taxation from 15c/$ to 40c/$. Yes there are much higher marginal rates for top incomes, but the overall percentage is in that range. Not sure what NZ is - 27%?

In other words taxation at some level is accepted everywhere - except the Gulf States where it isn't needed. Government needs money to provide services.

So then it becomes a battle of how much do you take out of citizens pockets? What services are important? Too much tax and people are discouraged. Too little and government can't provide for the sick and the weak.

Where it gets complicated is when government funds rap teams for overseas trips, operations for sex-changes, etc etc.... Personally I'm for less government, lower taxes, and a social safety net. In truth I think most Kiwis think the same.

ambler

19th August 2008, 18:03

Oil prices - the graph displays the drop in value of the $US over ten years, not a rise in oil prices. The same graph against gold would be relatively flat, and not as steep against the Euro. Its just that oil is traded in $US which makes us think it has risen in price.
True enough, but this is a mere technicality when no-one is paid wages in gold. If we were actually paid in something that has real value then we wouldn't be complaining as much about gas prices. You're also correct that the price would have risen in real terms anyway, but I think my point about the invasion not bearing any significant 'rewards' still stands.

When is it not ok to invade? When a country is stable, peaceful, observes the rule of law, protects it's citizens from arbitrary injustice, etc....which happens to be most Western nations - a small minority.
That was actually kind of a trick question, it is never ok to invade. Retaliation and defense are fair grounds to declare war, but if you ever have the luxury of deciding whether to make war of your own volition or not, you are always in the wrong for making it.
And who decides whether a country is stable enough, or being just enough to its citizens? Its neighboring countries? Some other country on the other side of the world with bigger guns? Ultimately a country is run by its citizens, it's their prerogative to set things straight. Unfortunately that's almost always easier said than done, but that doesn't give other countries any excuse to step in.

Arguably you could make a case for invading the majority of nations on earth.
And that is exactly the problem with your reasoning.

I'm fully of the view that we need an international police force and the UN peacekeepers are slowly evolving into that.
Be careful what you wish for :Police:

Winston001

19th August 2008, 22:12

.....it is never ok to invade. Retaliation and defense are fair grounds to declare war, but if you ever have the luxury of deciding whether to make war of your own volition or not, you are always in the wrong for making it.
And who decides whether a country is stable enough, or being just enough to its citizens? Its neighboring countries? Some other country on the other side of the world with bigger guns? Ultimately a country is run by its citizens, it's their prerogative to set things straight. Unfortunately that's almost always easier said than done, but that doesn't give other countries any excuse to step in.

Good arguments, interesting debate. My response:

Auschwitz

Cambodia (under Pol Pot)

Rwanda

Uganda (Idi Amin)

.............

MisterD

20th August 2008, 09:49

Georgia gambled that Russia would look away when they attacked in Ossetia. Bad call. Putin has been looking for an excuse to put Russia back on the world stage as a military power.

Actually, I think you'll find that Russian back separatists goaded Georgia into action by attacking civilians - precisely the pretext Putin had engineered.

Georgia might have thought they'd get more back up from the West, but Russia has Europe by the short and curlies because of their dependence on Russian oil.

I would have thought it might be a good opportunity to really test out those Typhoons and F-22's...but that's why I'll never be a politician :Oops:

Street Gerbil

20th August 2008, 10:03

Good arguments, interesting debate. My response:

Auschwitz

Cambodia (under Pol Pot)

Rwanda

Uganda (Idi Amin)

Serbia/Croatia/Kosovo/........
Except Serbia/Croatia/Kosovo. In Balkans US has clearly picked the wrong side to fight for.

pete376403

20th August 2008, 20:08

Robert Taylor

20th August 2008, 20:21

Winston001

20th August 2008, 20:27

Hear Condi today talking about Georgia and how the Russians better play nicely or else.
Little wonder the Russians are getting upset at US, their latest trick is planting missiles in Poland and Czechoslovakia.
Wasn't all that long ago that the US took the world to the brink of nuclear war for the Russians doing precisely the same thing, in Cuba.

Mmmm yes but not as big a deal as it sounds. Its the political ramifications rather then the missiles which are the problem. And don't forget - Americans don't - JFK won the stare-down with Khrushchev.

The US had/has missiles and bases in Turkey and West Germany for many years, right on Russia's front door. Which incidentally made the Cuban Crisis a bit one-sided.

There is a huge radar installation going into Czechoslovakia and blank missiles in Poland - no warheads. These are also anti-ballistic = defensive missiles, not Minuteman ICBM MRIVs.

What the problem is really, is the loss of face and hurt to Russian dignity seeing former puppet states going over to the US. That is painful for them.

It will all calm down - European politicians are ordering boxes of valium as we speak. No way they or their people want a stoush with Russia. But Russia is back on the world stage and that is really what they want. Respect....and a little fear. Just like Nato and the USA.

Winston001

20th August 2008, 20:44

Georgia might have thought they'd get more back up from the West, but Russia has Europe by the short and curlies because of their dependence on Russian oil.

Now that is correct and a very interesting point. Russian companies own and control nearly all of the oil and gas lines into Europe. That includes pipelines from Libya.

So the risk to Europe from Russia is economic and vastly greater than the odds of a war. The Russians don't need a war, in fact it would be stupid, when they can make a fortune using good old capitalism.

Damn geopolitics can be ironic. :bash:

alanzs

21st August 2008, 12:18

Maybe, but Id rather be in bed with Uncle Sam than Ivan, any day. 20th century Russian history is a hell of a lot dirtier than 20th century US history. Im all for letting the Yanks bring their warships here and I also havent forgotten that they stopped the Japs reaching our shores and the genocide that would have followed.
Uncle Sam isnt perfect but we need them more than they need us. Personally, Im hoping for a McCain victory, at least he has got some substance.

+1. It will be an interesting election. McCain has hired the nastiest (but incredibly effective) group of spin doctors to demolish Obama. The next few months will be very, very interesting. :hug:

SPman

21st August 2008, 15:50

. Im all for letting the Yanks bring their warships here and I also havent forgotten that they stopped the Japs reaching our shores and the genocide that would have followed.
Uncle Sam isnt perfect but we need them more than they need us. Personally, Im hoping for a McCain victory, at least he has got some substance.
Yes the USA did help stop the Japs from reaching our shores, but, that was 65 yrs ago and things change! It shouldn't become a cure all for all the bullshit the USA has perpetrated since then!
The USA doesn't need us - period! Unless there is some advantage in it for them. "We need them more than they need us" - sounds a bit like an abused wifes reason for staying with a violent husband!
McCain victory - Obama victory......I don't think much will substantially change - just 40% of the US population voting for their preferred rich-guy-in-charge - the bulk of the populace will still be rooted! - but, by God, they'll be staunch patriots as they bend over to get shafted!

mstriumph

21st August 2008, 16:36

.........all the bullshit the USA has perpetrated since then!.............
think MacDonalds :whistle:.........

Gentleman

21st August 2008, 17:53

Nice one. :2thumbsup

Of course nobody - including Russia really made a fuss when Iraq was invaded.

I'm sorry, what did you say?

1 million peoiple demonstrated in Rome, millions more all over the world saw through the Busg bullshit and protested. Other governments condemned the illegal invasion in their own way and even the head of the UN declared the war illegal.

Nobody made a fuss????

you must have slept through the last 5 years

svr

21st August 2008, 18:38

alanzs

21st August 2008, 20:37

No - like US citizens he was watching CNN

Not all US citizens were watching CNN. Many were completely outraged that he was waging a war of aggression against Iraq. Many still regard him as a war criminal.

~43% of the eligible population that could vote in the election in 2000 voted, of that amount ~49.8 % voted for Bush. Therefore, about 1/4 of the people wanted him in office. There was no huge public cry for Bush to get in office. He effectively lost the first election, as more than 50% of the votes were cast for Gore. The Supreme Court instated him. Many of the Supreme Court justices were put their by Bush's Father. The state in which the election was decided was in Florida. The Governor of Florida was Bush's brother. It sounds pretty corrupt and did to most Americans. For something this outrageous to happen in the US was unthinkable. Maybe for some small banana republic run by some tin horn dictator, but not in the US. How wrong we were...

The second time around was one of the biggest political coups in the history of the US. The nation was constantly bombarded with messages of fear leading up to the election. The security codes were lifted, the public was told that attack by terrorists were imminent. The de-facto republican propaganda outlet in the US media, Fox network, was saying this repeatedly throughout the weeks leading up to the election. The republicans have so successfully made it that any form of dissent is seen as being anti-patriotic or treasonous. People still live in a state of fear that is hard for most NZ'ers to realize, understand or believe.

The spin doctors that Bush employed to win his elections, have been hired by McCain. Watch out, things will get very dirty, very soon.

Carry on...:doh:

SPman

21st August 2008, 20:40

According to Fox, CNN and other US news agencies, big bad Russia just marched straight into poor widdle Georgia, without warning! The US government is bad, but it is helped in no small measure, by the conniving, grotesque assistance of virtually all the major US media services!
The old communist expression "running lapdogs", seems somehow rather apt!

The spin doctors that Bush employed to win his elections, have been hired by McCain. Watch out, things will get very dirty, very soon.
They already are.
Bush lost the 2004 election as well, if you count all the votes, that "vanished" and, as in the '00 elections, the voters disenfranchised...
So they'll probably try the same tactics, yet again, as well.

Winston001

21st August 2008, 20:42

I'm sorry, what did you say?

1 million peoiple demonstrated in Rome, millions more all over the world saw through the Busg bullshit and protested. Other governments condemned the illegal invasion in their own way and even the head of the UN declared the war illegal.

Nobody made a fuss????

you must have slept through the last 5 years

Fair enough. What I meant was that diplomatically and politically, nations did not make a fuss. Oh, there was the normal posturing in the UN but ultimately there has been no international economic boycott or blockade of the USA. Indeed various nations joined in the war.

But certainly plenty of people - including Americans - protested against the war.

What I wonder is where are those million Italians now? Don't Georgians matter? Indeed, where were they when China invaded Tibet? Where were the hundreds of thousands of protesters in NZ when the government of Fiji was removed by the military? Where were they in their millions around the world when the government of Thailand was changed in 2006 by military coup?

It seems that the USA, the major supporter of the Peace Corps and the UN, is the only demon in the world. :bash:

speedpro

21st August 2008, 21:42

It seems that the USA, the major supporter of the Peace Corps and the UN, is the only demon in the world. :bash:

He's on to it.

If one of the Arab states had instigated sorting out Saddam and offering a little peace to the Iraqi there would have been a big round of applause. Instead . . .

alanzs

21st August 2008, 22:37

He's on to it.

If one of the Arab states had instigated sorting out Saddam and offering a little peace to the Iraqi there would have been a big round of applause. Instead . . .

They all watched and allowed the invasion to happen, if they didn't overtly cooperate with the US. Let's not forget, US military bases are in Saudi Arabia.
If they really wanted to stop it, they could just stop selling oil. Then, the world economies would grind to a halt, which, bottom line isn't good for business.

They wanted Saddam out just as much if not more than the US. He had already attacked and occupied Kuwait. He was a loose cannon in the area. Did Iran make a big fuss? Hell no, they applauded the US for killing Saddam, a tyrant who killed millions of Iranians in their war with him. The instability which has resulted from the failed US war in the area has fed into the Iranians hands in a way they could only have dreamt of.
The US fucked up big time and the US people, for the most part, are totally aware of it.

jonbuoy

22nd August 2008, 01:55

svr

22nd August 2008, 12:18

The biggest mistake of all this was not doing the job properly in GW1, Stormin Normin could/would have finished the job with fewer casualties to both sides if the powers that be would have let him. And the allies still would have technically held the high moral ground.

The truth is being forgotten here: The US have invaded Iraq; are occupying Iraq; and will install a `democratic leader' of their choice in Iraq for strategic and economic reasons only.
There is no moral crusade here, just a facade of lies.

svr

22nd August 2008, 12:25

~43% of the eligible population that could vote in the election in 2000 voted, of that amount ~49.8 % voted for Bush.

Interesting that in the worlds greatest democracy the majority are so disaffected by the democratic process that they don't even vote.

Not US bashing, just an observation ...

SPman

22nd August 2008, 13:18

The biggest mistake of all this was not doing the job properly in GW1, Stormin Normin could/would have finished the job with fewer casualties to both sides if the powers that be would have let him. And the allies still would have technically held the high moral ground.
Instead of inciting the Iraqui resistance to rise up, then leave them hanging, so Saddam and his guard could round them up and wipe them out!
A bit like the Russians and Warsaw!

idleidolidyll

22nd August 2008, 20:08

left liberals; real ones, have always known that bush is a war criminal.

the plus is that war crimes like his have no expiry date

i'd be happy to make a citizens arrest.

the problem of course is the media. the fact is that the greatest part of the media is owned and edited by those who benefit from bush's war crimes.

i feel sorry for the suckers who swallow yank propaganda without question.

the difference between Yank reporting on Georgia and the Pommes reporting on Georgia sums it up completely.

The Yanks were all spin and ignorance while the Pomes observed that the Yank educated 'president' of Georgia started the fight and Russia ended it.

The hypocrisy of course, was that everything bush attacked the ruskies over was nothing compared to his invasion of Iraq.

what a tosser!

Flatcap

22nd August 2008, 20:19

Is the current Russian government left wing or right wing?

idleidolidyll

22nd August 2008, 20:22

They all watched and allowed the invasion to happen, if they didn't overtly cooperate with the US.

that's not quite true.

the media just minimalised what protest there was.

helen clark walked a line saying it was wrong and we wouldn't support it while still having to speak softly to reduce economic pressure similar to that we endured after david lange told amerika to fuck off; that was the only real reason the outcry from governments was less than it should have been...............economic fascism

Flatcap

22nd August 2008, 20:24

that's not quite true.

the media just minimalised what protest there was.

helen clark walked a line saying it was wrong and we wouldn't support it while still having to speak softly to reduce economic pressure similar to that we endured after david lange told amerika to fuck off; that was the only real reason the outcry from governments was less than it should have been...............economic fascism

Well, you have to eat...

idleidolidyll

22nd August 2008, 20:27

Is the current Russian government left wing or right wing?

too simplistic: is it left authoritarian or is it left liberal?
or is it actually right authoritarian.

the left/right divide is a nonsense in isolation

Flatcap

22nd August 2008, 20:29

too simplistic: is it left authoritarian or is it left liberal?
or is it actually right authoritarian.

the left/right divide is a nonsense in isolation

So what is it then?

mstriumph

22nd August 2008, 20:31

So what is it then? controversial is wat it is .......... :yes:

mstriumph

22nd August 2008, 20:33

...........The old communist expression "running lapdogs", seems somehow rather apt!..............

'running lapdogs'
isn't that a contadiction in terms? :mellow:

Winston001

22nd August 2008, 20:37

Instead of inciting the Iraqui resistance to rise up, then leave them hanging, so Saddam and his guard could rounded them up and wiped them out!

Agreed that was bad. Unfortunately the UN didn't have the heart for occupying Iraq. What happened is the Iraquis who opposed Saddam, exposed themselves expecting (as the US had led them to believe) to see tanks rolling to Bagdad.....and it never happened. They were persecuted and executed.

pete376403

22nd August 2008, 20:38

Nice op-ed in this mornings Dompost from Chris Trotter comparing conditions in Eastern Europe in 1914 with the current situation in Georgia.
Regardless of how you feel about Trotters political leanings it still made a fair bit of sense.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominionpost/4665160a26342.html

idleidolidyll

22nd August 2008, 20:42

Well, you have to eat...

and that's a good point.

Clark in fact secured that food but still slapped Bush in the face.

National would have sucked up to the war criminal and sent Kiwis to die for big business

Winston001

22nd August 2008, 20:44

Interesting that in the worlds greatest democracy the majority are so disaffected by the democratic process that they don't even vote.

Not US bashing, just an observation ...

Actually low voter turnout in an indication of satisfaction. If no issues really bother you and life is fine, politics seems uninteresting.

Incidentally when asked if they are living the "American Dream" (whatever that means to the private individual) an astonishing 47% said YES. How many Kiwis would feel that way?? :mellow:

SPman

22nd August 2008, 20:46

idleidolidyll

22nd August 2008, 20:47

Agreed that was bad. Unfortunately the UN didn't have the heart for occupying Iraq. What happened is the Iraquis who opposed Saddam, exposed themselves expecting (as the US had led them to believe) to see tanks rolling to Bagdad.....and it never happened. They were persecuted and executed.

why should the UN occupy Iraq?

There was no more reason to occupy Iraq than to occupy Israel, Sudan or the USA itself; all those too have flouted international law

besides, the yank govt gave saddam the nod to invade kuwait in the first place

go back and read up; the USA, Britain, France and Russia carved up the Ottoman Empire into the faux nations you think should exist in the ME.
Those are not natural borders; they are political and economic partitions arranged by people other than those who lived there

idleidolidyll

22nd August 2008, 20:49

Actually low voter turnout in an indication of satisfaction.

No, it's an indication of acceptance that democracy is fucked in that country, that your vote is useless anyway

the assholes do what they want regardless and rig the voting system itself

alanzs

22nd August 2008, 20:49

Interesting that in the worlds greatest democracy the majority are so disaffected by the democratic process that they don't even vote.

Not US bashing, just an observation ...

It is a very accurate and sad observation. So many people in the US are totally disillusioned. When bush was elected, the Canadian immigration website had something like a 100 times more traffic than usual seeking to immigrate. Granted, I was from LA, which is generally open minded and fairly liberal, but people were/are aghast at what bush has done. A great analogy is that you lent your car to someone and they returned it destroyed, in debt and with a zillion tickets. :eek:

Whats really scary is that over 50% of "black" males in the US have had some interaction with the criminal "justice" system. Many "black" males cannot vote, as in most areas, if you have been convicted of a felony, you lose your right to vote. Disaffected is putting it mildly. "Blacks" only got the right to vote in the '60's. Not that long ago. Also, residents, legal or illegal (~30 million are illegal or ~10% of the population) cannot vote at all. My wife was a legal resident for over 10 years and couldn't vote. Participating in democracy is limited quite strictly. Just to make things even more interesting, I must file US taxes no matter where I live, forever, unless I renounce my citizenship officially at an embassy. If I make over $80k annually, I must PAY US taxes as well. You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave... :argh:

In the last dozen years or so, the Christian right has mobilized the sheep so effectively, with the help of the media, that you get the president, and all the candidates, making a big issue about how they are Christians. This was unheard of. Otherwise, they can't get elected. The separation between church and state, which was once held sacrosanct, has almost disappeared. Bush instituted "faith based" (faith based=christian) programmes, which the government funds, which is totally contrary to the separation of church and state.

Not all is lost though as there is usually good service in restaurants, and big, fat people producing portions as well... After this little rant, I could go for an order of tacos al pastor and a few cervezas... :2thumbsup

idleidolidyll

22nd August 2008, 20:53

So what is it then?

i've posted it before and i'll post it again:
take the test before you read the rest of the website and then compare yourself.

read the explanation etc

it's a far better way to evaluate political position than a simple left/right divide.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/test

the left / right thing just plays into the hands of the propagandists

alanzs

22nd August 2008, 20:56

Actually low voter turnout in an indication of satisfaction. If no issues really bother you and life is fine, politics seems uninteresting.

Incidentally when asked if they are living the "American Dream" (whatever that means to the private individual) an astonishing 47% said YES. How many Kiwis would feel that way?? :mellow:

The "American Dream" for many in the US is:
Having a lot of money,
Having a big house with all the accompanying mod cons,
All kinds of big toys; boat, Harley/bikes, RV, etc.,
Taking vacations to exotic locations,
Having the kids go to good schools,
Being at peace.

Not so different than the "Kiwi" dream or most other consumer oriented "nations" dream really; :niceone:

Winston001

22nd August 2008, 21:00

The truth is being forgotten here: The US have invaded Iraq; are occupying Iraq; and will install a `democratic leader' of their choice in Iraq for strategic and economic reasons only.
There is no moral crusade here, just a façade of lies.

Well lets be accurate: the following countries all invaded and occupy Iraq -

Albania, Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Poland, Romania, South Korea, and the United Kingdom. In total 34 nations have been involved.

Lots of people die in Iraq. Do you know who kills them? Other Iraquis. Removing Saddam let the cork out of the bottle which is ironic and a deep shame. Now there are battles between different Moslem sects, the Kurds, the Marsh Arabs, and even clannish families.

Having released all the tensions which were suppressed by the the Baath Party, the coalition countries must set up an orderly democracy before they leave. I'm sure they never really knew what they were taking on.

However there is strong precedent - the rebuilding of Germany and Japan. This was done with US money. Quite why the Iraquis aren't grasping the opportunity for peace is kind of hard for us to grasp.

alanzs

22nd August 2008, 21:07

i've posted it before and i'll post it again:
take the test before you read the rest of the website and then compare yourself.

read the explanation etc

it's a far better way to evaluate political position than a simple left/right divide.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/test

the left / right thing just plays into the hands of the propagandists

Excellent website. Very interesting.
I agree, the whole left/right is just another way to divide people.

Flatcap

22nd August 2008, 21:07

i've posted it before and i'll post it again:
take the test before you read the rest of the website and then compare yourself.

read the explanation etc

it's a far better way to evaluate political position than a simple left/right divide.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/test

the left / right thing just plays into the hands of the propagandists

I'm in the same quadrant as Ghandi

Economic Left/Right: -0.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.54

Not bad for a capitalist facist

alanzs

22nd August 2008, 21:09

Well lets be accurate: the following countries all invaded and occupy Iraq -

Albania, Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Poland, Romania, South Korea, and the United Kingdom. In total 34 nations have been involved.

The "Coalition of the Willing." Great name. :shit:

alanzs

22nd August 2008, 21:10

I was near The Dalai Lama:
Economic Left/Right: -6.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.74

Not bad for a capitalist pig from the Great Satan!

Thanks for the bling for the person who didn't put their name (and those that did as well) It's my pleasure....

alanzs

22nd August 2008, 21:15

The truth is being forgotten here: The US have invaded Iraq; are occupying Iraq; and will install a `democratic leader' of their choice in Iraq for strategic and economic reasons only.
There is no moral crusade here, just a facade of lies.

While this isn't a new thought, if there was no oil there, the US wouldn't give a shit.
The level of corruption and deceit is horrible.

Winston001

22nd August 2008, 21:15

Thanks for the bling for the person who didn't put their name (and those that did as well) It's my pleasure....

Er... I just gave you a green bling - can't you see who blings are from? Thought that was only limited to low post count.

alanzs

22nd August 2008, 21:18

Er... I just gave you a green bling - can't you see who blings are from? Thought that was only limited to low post count.

I think you have to be here a long time to see who gives the bling. Thanks though...

idleidolidyll

22nd August 2008, 21:22

I'm in the same quadrant as Ghandi

Economic Left/Right: -0.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.54

Not bad for a capitalist facist

see, you're actually a centrist.

that's where labour is.

national is wayyyy up there in authoritrian capitalist land

think about it

Flatcap

22nd August 2008, 21:27

see, you're actually a centrist.

that's where labour is.

national is wayyyy up there in authoritrian capitalist land

think about it

How do you know? Do you have their compass results?

Winston001

22nd August 2008, 21:30

While this isn't a new thought, if there was no oil there, the US wouldn't give a shit.
The level of corruption and deceit is horrible.

Oooohhh dear. Been covered before. Lets see:

Beruit 1983 241 American servicemen killed in a massive bomb. Heaps of oil in Lebanon...

Mogadishu 1993 17 killed

Nairobi 1998 200 killed

Dar-es-salaam 1998 10 killed

Could you please tell us where all the oil, gold, and mineral wealth is hidden in lebanon, Somalia, Kenya, and Tanzania to justify the deaths of these American people?

Why should a young man or woman born in the suburbs of (say) Denver be blown to pieces in Mogadishu?? Explain the benefit to the USA of that death.

The answer, the only answer, is that the US contributes hugely to peace-keeping work around the world in god-awful places for no benefit - except that of helping other people. Just like NZ in fact.

Winston001

22nd August 2008, 21:33

I think you have to be here a long time to see who gives the bling. Thanks though...

I thought it was something like 150 posts, or 240, and you are beyond that. Profile settings?

idleidolidyll

22nd August 2008, 21:39

The answer, the only answer, is that the US contributes hugely to peace-keeping work around the world in god-awful places for no benefit - except that of helping other people. Just like NZ in fact.

i'm sorry, someone has to do it:

ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!

idleidolidyll

22nd August 2008, 21:41

How do you know? Do you have their compass results?

um, because that's what you posted:
Economic Left/Right: -0.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.54

i'd say duh but the mods'd bling me

pete376403

22nd August 2008, 21:55

However there is strong precedent - the rebuilding of Germany and Japan. This was done with US money. Quite why the Iraquis aren't grasping the opportunity for peace is kind of hard for us to grasp.
Germany and Japan were both a homogenous society - only one or two major religions, no tribalism, etc. As you noted, it was only Saddam and the baath party that kept the Iraqis from each others throats, once the US removed that,...off they went and off they continue to go
(and I got the same about the same score as nelson mandela Economic Left/Right: -6.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.51 )

alanzs

22nd August 2008, 22:48

I thought it was something like 150 posts, or 240, and you are beyond that. Profile settings?

According to the FAQ about reputation: "When you have become a senior member (140 days and 240 posts) you will be able to view who gave you rep points"

I've got enough posts, just not the time. Its not a worry, other than I'd like to share the "love" and don't always know who is giving it...

Time flies quickly when you're having fun.... :yes:

Winston001

22nd August 2008, 23:10

Germany and Japan were both a homogenous society - only one or two major religions, no tribalism, etc.

I'm shocked, didn't know they were homo societies..:eek:

jonbuoy

23rd August 2008, 03:08

While this isn't a new thought, if there was no oil there, the US wouldn't give a shit.
The level of corruption and deceit is horrible.

The US wouldn't give a shit IF the Iraqis were just shooting each other/neighbouring countries/chopping off arms/heads as happens in Africa, its the Skuds, continued interest and attempts to develop WOMD and the destabilising effect that might have if they started flinging them around the middle east. Suadi has four times the amount of oil reserves that Iraq has, and Iraq's oil production and sales were held back by the UN itself after the first Gulf war, if oil was all it was about the US would have pressured the UN to release the embargos on Iraq and free up the oil. They and the UN were worried about what the Iraqis would do with the money/resources they got from the oil. Remember the supergun?

slowpoke

23rd August 2008, 15:11

The US wouldn't give a shit IF the Iraqis were just shooting each other/neighbouring countries/chopping off arms/heads as happens in Africa, its the Skuds, continued interest and attempts to develop WOMD and the destabilising effect that might have if they started flinging them around the middle east. Suadi has four times the amount of oil reserves that Iraq has, and Iraq's oil production and sales were held back by the UN itself after the first Gulf war, if oil was all it was about the US would have pressured the UN to release the embargos on Iraq and free up the oil. They and the UN were worried about what the Iraqis would do with the money/resources they got from the oil. Remember the supergun?

It's not about oil production per se, it's about oil/energy control. By controlling Iraq the US have secured their energy supplies. Bush, Cheney, Rice et al are all come from very senior oil company positions and are quite happy with the high oil price and the record incomes it brings to their former/current employers.

Scuds, and Supergun's are insignificant in the great scheme of things. Any WOMD that Iraq possessed were given to them by the US and no means have ever been found to produce them.

If it walks like a duck, quack's like a duck and looks like a duck then it's a probably a duck...apply that philosophy to the US Iraqi invasion and the US have covered an obvious grab for energy with a flimsy smoke screen. "Might is right" hence most governments doing business with the US politely look the other way as Iraq is raped by the biggest kid on the block.

svr

23rd August 2008, 15:57

davereid

23rd August 2008, 16:35

We have plenty of cheap energy.

Actually we have many many plenty cheap.

We have decided not to use it as it may contribute to global warming.

But there is no shortage of energy in New Zealand.

Our currently known and economically exploitable coal reserves are about 8000,000,000 tons.

(This excludes natural gas and other reserves, we are just considering coal.)

We use about 22,000 tons a day of fossil fuels.

So we have a thousand years to go before we are in crisis, based on our coal reserves and current technology.

Maybe in a thousand years we will have developed better technology, and it will be even less of a problem.

svr

23rd August 2008, 17:16

Sanx

23rd August 2008, 21:51

Anyway, forget global warming - the next ice age is due to wipe us all out in 10,000 years anyhows

Yeah, and when the next ice age turns up, the tree-huggers will be out in force saying that's all our fault too.

slowpoke

23rd August 2008, 22:31

Now that oil production has peaked, with cheap reserves expected to be exhausted by 2030 and with no real energy alternatives on the horizon, we will see more and more US `militarization' of oil supply. This seems inevitable.
But we don't have to swallow the spin from Washington!

That's just it: oil is fuggin' cheap to produce already, it's only the artificial price regulation that makes it seem expensive.

It seems incredible that this sort of price collusion is allowed to go on. If all the supermarkets got together and said we are going to make milk $10/litre then there would be an unproar and people/companies would be charged. Why not oil? Because those in power are making too much money off it.

Jeremy

23rd August 2008, 22:31

I knew some smartarse would mention coal!
OK then , developed economies rely on CHEAP energy, which currently = oil. Coal to liquid fuel is still a comparatively expensive process, and would accelerate global warming (more of a problem for the poor coastal dwellers than US oil addicts, of course).
Anyway, forget global warming - the next ice age is due to wipe us all out in 10,000 years anyhows

Not here. At the current price point for crude, it's economically viable, considering the free power it gives you you might even end up with a net benefit. No harmful byproducts here, since we've got clean coal.

http://www.ieee.org/portal/site/ieeetv/menuitem.6ce799f946c20d660374ca695bac26c8/index.jsp?&pName=ieee.tv.viewer&path=membport/ieee_tv&file=TT_PolkPS.xml&vid=98467&play=true&WT.mc_id=BE1_20080623PolkPS8_10;jsessionid=FsB6LpL GzZM5QsdZJyvRt05tbcbSJdKgDcVg9cfjLKxmsncbJrCt!-416001754

I don't know if you can see that url without IEEE membership, but coal gasification is going to become big business. And we'll probably see a couple of plants here, since the byproducts are all useable by industries here and that they double as powerstations. China's going to start building the plants like crazy as basically means they free themselves from OPEC.

http://www.tampaelectric.com/data/files/PolkDOEFinalTechnicalReport.pdf

scumdog

23rd August 2008, 23:14

So all the Bush-bashers would be thinking that if Bush and the US kept out of other countries all would be well and nobody would be trying to dominate any other country/area for their own ends??????

jonbuoy

23rd August 2008, 23:21

It's not about oil production per se, it's about oil/energy control. By controlling Iraq the US have secured their energy supplies. Bush, Cheney, Rice et al are all come from very senior oil company positions and are quite happy with the high oil price and the record incomes it brings to their former/current employers.

Scuds, and Supergun's are insignificant in the great scheme of things. Any WOMD that Iraq possessed were given to them by the US and no means have ever been found to produce them.

If it walks like a duck, quack's like a duck and looks like a duck then it's a probably a duck...apply that philosophy to the US Iraqi invasion and the US have covered an obvious grab for energy with a flimsy smoke screen. "Might is right" hence most governments doing business with the US politely look the other way as Iraq is raped by the biggest kid on the block.

Depends whats on the end of the Skud/Supergun even a primitive dirty Nuke or one of Chemical Ali's homebrews would be enough to start WW3 if it was flung in the wrong direction. As long as oil producing countries like Saudi' spend there money on gold plated Roller's and private jets the US are happy, its when they start the world domination game they get tetchy. People seem to forget exactly how bad things could have been if Iraq had slipped Al Queda something nasty in a suitcase.

davereid

24th August 2008, 10:16

Not here. At the current price point for crude, it's economically viable, considering the free power it gives you you might even end up with a net benefit. No harmful byproducts here, since we've got clean coal.

http://www.ieee.org/portal/site/ieeetv/menuitem.6ce799f946c20d660374ca695bac26c8/index.jsp?&pName=ieee.tv.viewer&path=membport/ieee_tv&file=TT_PolkPS.xml&vid=98467&play=true&WT.mc_id=BE1_20080623PolkPS8_10;jsessionid=FsB6LpL GzZM5QsdZJyvRt05tbcbSJdKgDcVg9cfjLKxmsncbJrCt!-416001754

I don't know if you can see that url without IEEE membership, but coal gasification is going to become big business. And we'll probably see a couple of plants here, since the byproducts are all useable by industries here and that they double as powerstations. China's going to start building the plants like crazy as basically means they free themselves from OPEC.

http://www.tampaelectric.com/data/files/PolkDOEFinalTechnicalReport.pdf

And the retail price of the electricity generated seems quite reasonable at $0.09 per kw/hr.

slowpoke

24th August 2008, 10:58

Depends whats on the end of the Skud/Supergun even a primitive dirty Nuke or one of Chemical Ali's homebrews would be enough to start WW3 if it was flung in the wrong direction. As long as oil producing countries like Saudi' spend there money on gold plated Roller's and private jets the US are happy, its when they start the world domination game they get tetchy. People seem to forget exactly how bad things could have been if Iraq had slipped Al Queda something nasty in a suitcase.

Valid enough points...but it's all reactive thinking. We should be asking ourselves why these issues have reared their ugly head to start with.

The general Saudi population is pissed off at the US because they have propped up their despotic monarchy, hence most of the 9/11 "terrorists" were Saudi citizens.

The US actually trained Osama bin Laden to start with. They created their own nightmare and inist on dragging the rest of the world into it.

The US funded/armed/trained the warlords in Aghanistan to fight the Russians. Once the US invaded to secure their oil pipeline they beat up the Taliban which was the only entity keeping the warlords in check. Now the warlords are running riot and what was a comparitively safe (harsh doctrine, admittedly) environment has become virtually lawless. As a result 1000's of lives are being lost/destroyed with no signs of it abating.

Etc

Etc

Thanks to US foreign policy we live in a far more dangerous world than any that would have arisen if they'd left things the hell alone.

pete376403

24th August 2008, 14:18

People seem to forget exactly how bad things could have been if Iraq had slipped Al Queda something nasty in a suitcase.

Iraq under Saddam would never had any co-operation with or from Al Quada.
Saddam for all his faults was running a secular state. Bin Laden called Saddam an "infidel".
Even the Sept 11 commision reported "The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq." (Washington Post Thursday, June 17, 2004; Page A01)

Of course now Saddam is removed from the scene, under the USAs most excellent management of Iraq, Al-Quada cells are popping up al over the place.

svr

24th August 2008, 18:34

Not here. At the current price point for crude, it's economically viable, considering the free power it gives you you might even end up with a net benefit. No harmful byproducts here, since we've got clean coal.

http://www.ieee.org/portal/site/ieeetv/menuitem.6ce799f946c20d660374ca695bac26c8/index.jsp?&pName=ieee.tv.viewer&path=membport/ieee_tv&file=TT_PolkPS.xml&vid=98467&play=true&WT.mc_id=BE1_20080623PolkPS8_10;jsessionid=FsB6LpL GzZM5QsdZJyvRt05tbcbSJdKgDcVg9cfjLKxmsncbJrCt!-416001754

I don't know if you can see that url without IEEE membership, but coal gasification is going to become big business. And we'll probably see a couple of plants here, since the byproducts are all useable by industries here and that they double as powerstations. China's going to start building the plants like crazy as basically means they free themselves from OPEC.

http://www.tampaelectric.com/data/files/PolkDOEFinalTechnicalReport.pdf

Cheers for that Jeremy. Looks like promising technology - the problem (post Kyoto) for coal was the carbon emissions, but this has that sorted. Hopefully saves lives...

Just read a book on the hot peak oil investments. Recomended:
1. Weapons manufacturers
2. Coal to gasoline technology

alanzs

24th August 2008, 19:06

slowpoke

24th August 2008, 20:25

But opium production in Afghanistan, which was almost eradicated, has soared to record levels. Not everything is bad news. :yes:

Exactly, our stocks of wannabe strippers should be at an all time high, with a marked reduction in the costs associated with viewing said strippers dropping due to supply and demand!

Winston001

24th August 2008, 23:43

Valid enough points...but it's all reactive thinking. We should be asking ourselves why these issues have reared their ugly head to start with.

The general Saudi population is pissed off at the US because they have propped up their despotic monarchy, hence most of the 9/11 "terrorists" were Saudi citizens.

The US actually trained Osama bin Laden to start with. They created their own nightmare and inist on dragging the rest of the world into it.

The US funded/armed/trained the warlords in Aghanistan to fight the Russians. Once the US invaded to secure their oil pipeline they beat up the Taliban which was the only entity keeping the warlords in check. Now the warlords are running riot and what was a comparatively safe (harsh doctrine, admittedly) environment has become virtually lawless. As a result 1000's of lives are being lost/destroyed with no signs of it abating.

Etc

Etc

Thanks to US foreign policy we live in a far more dangerous world than any that would have arisen if they'd left things the hell alone.

Good post and I agree with most of it.

Afghanistan - historically this has never been a cohesive nation. It is a part of the world divided along tribal and family lines, temporary alliances between enemies, and where treachery abounds. The warlords are the defacto kings of their regions.

The Taliban are misunderstood in many ways. For a brief period they brought stability, the rule of law (sharia), unity and peace to a warring population. The downside was that they tried to take Afghanistan back to an 18th century way of life in a world of modern weapons, drugs, and technology. Can't be done.

I don't think US foreign policy on an objective basis can be blamed for moslem unrest. However America is large, powerful, and highly visible, compared with any other nation. There are hundreds of millions of poor, illiterate, and frustrated moslems who are easy converts for radical Islam, and their anger needs a focus - the USA.

Hitler understood this when the Nazis picked on the Jewish population to blame the woes of post Treaty of Versailles Germany. Its a well known strategy to build unity and bond your followers - find a common enemy and wind up the hate.