Referendum on Asset Sales

[BoristheBiter]

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

Most, it seems, didn't.

[bogan]

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

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

[BoristheBiter]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Banditbandit]

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

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

Your generalization is ideological drivel disproven by experience ...

[BoristheBiter]

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

Your generalization is ideological drivel disproven by experience ...

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

Your generalisation is ideological drivel disproved by experience.

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

[Banditbandit]

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

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


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

[Clockwork]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[BoristheBiter]

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

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


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

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

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

[BoristheBiter]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[mashman]

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

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

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

[Clockwork]

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

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

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

[BoristheBiter]

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

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

Only in your mind.

[mashman]

Only in your mind.

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

[BoristheBiter]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[BoristheBiter]

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

only in your mind.