Referendum on Asset Sales

[Scouse]

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

[oldrider]

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

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

It's just not there!

[oldrider]

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

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

[Delerium]

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

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

[oldrider]

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

As posted above, here is a (generally) left wing biased university professors take on the outcome:http://www.odt.co.nz/news/politics/2...ales-opponents

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

[Clockwork]

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

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

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

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

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

[BoristheBiter]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Clockwork]

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

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

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

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

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

[mashman]

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

It'll work until it doesn't.

[oldrider]

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

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

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

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

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

[BoristheBiter]

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

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

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

[BoristheBiter]

It'll work until it doesn't.

everything does.

[mashman]

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

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

everything does.

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

[bogan]

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

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

[Clockwork]

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

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

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

Do you believe that this is a desireable outcome?