Referendum on Asset Sales

[oldrider]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They just have to "want" take it back!

[BoristheBiter]

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

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

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

[Clockwork]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[BoristheBiter]

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

Do you believe that this is a desireable outcome?

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

[oldrider]

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

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

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

True!

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

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

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

[avgas]

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

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

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

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

[Scouse]

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

go fuck yourself

[Clockwork]

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

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

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

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

[mashman]

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

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

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

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

[mashman]

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

They just have to "want" take it back!

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

[Ocean1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fuck you’re funny.

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

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

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

Ah, no.

So not relevant.

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

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

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

After that you get to grow up.

[Zedder]

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

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

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

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

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

[mashman]

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



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

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



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

Fuck you’re funny.

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

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




Ah, no.

So not relevant.

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

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

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

After that you get to grow up.

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

[bogan]

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

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

[Ocean1]

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

It can only be one of those?

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

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