Key Government out on its own. No one else to blame!

[husaberg]

You don't really want me to tell you why I think they were good times. Suficient to say I don't think there's much influence temporary govt policy has on economic performance. Saying National inherited a failing economy isn't self serving twaddle, it's a matter of historic fact. Now, any govt taking too much credit or blame for economic good times or bad is self serving twaddle, because they do very little to contribute to them.

My observation was that during a period of almost unprecedented income generated not by govt but by industry and it's employees the Labour govt took the windfall and spent it on the most banal social engineering imaginable is also a matter of historic fact.

Arseholes.

And as I said, I'd rather National borrowed less. But as I also said it's quite possible they know more about that balance than me or you. And what's the total % of assets sold so far dude?

You say potatoes I say tomatoes

[Ocean1]

proven to work!




...since/until the next/last depression...

And in between.

http://www.heritage.org/index/pdf/20...7_chapter1.pdf

[Ocean1]

So John Key was right when he said all NZ'ers have a socialist streak... except for yourself obviously.

Given the obvious lean here he's right.

But that's got nothing to do with the fact that the votes of a majority are bought with the money taken from a minority. Or the fact that that shapes govt policy much further to the left than a genuine collective poll would.

[pete376403]

A few pages back posters were giving Helen Clarks government grief about bringing in the deposit guarantee scheme. Don't those posters also recall that the main reason for this (deposit guarantee) was that the Australian government had already introduced a similar scheme and the fear was that, unless the NZ financial markets were also covered, too much capital would have been pulled out of NZ to go to Australia?

[Ocean1]

You say potatoes I say tomatoes

I'm saying neither lately, my gardening skills wouldn't feed many.

[mada]

A few pages back posters were giving Helen Clarks government grief about bringing in the deposit guarantee scheme. Don't those posters also recall that the main reason for this (deposit guarantee) was that the Australian government had already introduced a similar scheme and the fear was that, unless the NZ financial markets were also covered, too much capital would have been pulled out of NZ to go to Australia?

That's a good point, but it shows yet another example of the hundreds and thousands where a NZ govt has to bend over backwards to prop up and effectively subsidise the poor and high risks of private businesses aka Corporate Socialism - where investors get the dividends and profits, but we pay for the losses.

[Ocean1]

You contradict yourself though, the only ones who can do anything for the economy is industry according to your previous post. So by this argument Labour did a good job for 9 years of achieving surpluses and expanding exports. Arguably without the FTA, our exports to China would not be as great so our present financial predicament would be a lot fucking worse.

Where's the contradiction? Labour didn't do any sort of job achieving surpluses for 9 years, industry did. The fact that they got out of the fucking way of the productive sector so far as to negotiate a mutual reduction in duty by both NZ and China is a good thing, but lets not pretend it amounts to the actual production of anything, eh?

The stimulating of the economy you talk about - most of this has been contradictory to the free market principles that you expouse, why because Capitalists know they actually would lose a fuckload of money if they had to operate on a free market with competition.

Socialism for the big boy bludgers, and capitalism for the rest of us.

There's some truth there. Although I suspect that when you use the word capitalist you imagine one of the multitude of off shore monopolies operating in NZ. Most of which are driven not by any ideological concept of capitalism but of creative accounting.

I have no idea why you have a problem with the concept of a buyer negotiating a price with a seller without outside interference, that's socialism on a stick.

[Ocean1]

That's a good point, but it shows yet another example of the hundreds and thousands where a NZ govt has to bend over backwards to prop up and effectively subsidise the poor and high risks of private businesses aka Corporate Socialism - where investors get the dividends and profits, but we pay for the losses.

Corporate socialism is a contradiction in terms. If you object to any entity paying for something they aren't getting and over which they have little to no control then welcome to the world of the free market advocate.

[mada]

Corporate socialism is a contradiction in terms. If you object to any entity paying for something they aren't getting and over which they have little to no control then welcome to the world of the free market advocate.

Ofcourse, however as we've discussed before, the free market exists in only a few places, hardly in industry. What business has an interest in being competitive for their consumers, opposed to getting a bigger chunk of the market and pushing out other competitors??? The only type of business like that is non-profit driven.

The only place that I've seen a real fucking free market, operating with minimal regulation and the maximum ability of both Consumer and Seller to bargain for a price that meets both their expectations is on the streets of Guangzhou in China where there are hundreds of thousands of suppliers and hundreds of thousands of buyers. Ironic given China is supposedly "communist". Everywhere else producers, industry, etc. set prices and look at ways to dominate their market pushing out competition and manipulating demand and supply. Always seeking government support either through subsidies or preferential regulations.

NZ's biggest industries all thrive because of their anti-competitive nature - Dairy and the "Co-operative" Fonterra which requires government to give it preferential regulation and support in Foreign Affairs. In terms of meat exports - Silver Fern Farms another "co-operative", the Kiwifruit industry, in fact most exporters and producers in NZ regardless of whether they are NZ or Multinational owned.

The cold hard truth is that NZ is too small, too isolated, and too fucking poor and indebted to have a deregulated free market for industry, besides the ethics of placing so much trust in businesses that are motivated to make maximal profit regardless of everything else.

[Brian d marge]

the only place ive seen pure market forces was in the boreal forest in canada

[oldrider]

Ofcourse, however as we've discussed before, the free market exists in only a few places, hardly in industry. What business has an interest in being competitive for their consumers, opposed to getting a bigger chunk of the market and pushing out other competitors??? The only type of business like that is non-profit driven.

The only place that I've seen a real fucking free market, operating with minimal regulation and the maximum ability of both Consumer and Seller to bargain for a price that meets both their expectations is on the streets of Guangzhou in China where there are hundreds of thousands of suppliers and hundreds of thousands of buyers. Ironic given China is supposedly "communist". Everywhere else producers, industry, etc. set prices and look at ways to dominate their market pushing out competition and manipulating demand and supply. Always seeking government support either through subsidies or preferential regulations.

NZ's biggest industries all thrive because of their anti-competitive nature - Dairy and the "Co-operative" Fonterra which requires government to give it preferential regulation and support in Foreign Affairs. In terms of meat exports - Silver Fern Farms another "co-operative", the Kiwifruit industry, in fact most exporters and producers in NZ regardless of whether they are NZ or Multinational owned.

The cold hard truth is that NZ is too small, too isolated, and too fucking poor and indebted to have a deregulated free market for industry, besides the ethics of placing so much trust in businesses that are motivated to make maximal profit regardless of everything else.

China is communist in name only and USA is capitalist only where it fits ... so as they say - whats in a name these days?

[blue rider]

stuff happens

maybe
or at least a little bit

and also henchmen

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2...ck-cellphones/

The information collected from the companies is passed onto NSA “signals development” teams that focus on infiltrating communication networks. It is also shared with other U.S. Intelligence Community agencies and with the NSA’s counterparts in countries that are part of the so-called “Five Eyes” surveillance alliance—the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.

henchmen everywhere

but, we can all breathe a sigh of relieve, these are not socialist government spying on us. No they are conservative, freedom loving, no regulations for some kind a guys. So I guess that makes it all so much better.

mhhhh

http://www.vodafone.co.nz/corporate-...nomic-impacts/

[Ocean1]

Ofcourse, however as we've discussed before, the free market exists in only a few places, hardly in industry. What business has an interest in being competitive for their consumers, opposed to getting a bigger chunk of the market and pushing out other competitors??? The only type of business like that is non-profit driven.

The only place that I've seen a real fucking free market, operating with minimal regulation and the maximum ability of both Consumer and Seller to bargain for a price that meets both their expectations is on the streets of Guangzhou in China where there are hundreds of thousands of suppliers and hundreds of thousands of buyers. Ironic given China is supposedly "communist". Everywhere else producers, industry, etc. set prices and look at ways to dominate their market pushing out competition and manipulating demand and supply. Always seeking government support either through subsidies or preferential regulations.

NZ's biggest industries all thrive because of their anti-competitive nature - Dairy and the "Co-operative" Fonterra which requires government to give it preferential regulation and support in Foreign Affairs. In terms of meat exports - Silver Fern Farms another "co-operative", the Kiwifruit industry, in fact most exporters and producers in NZ regardless of whether they are NZ or Multinational owned.

The cold hard truth is that NZ is too small, too isolated, and too fucking poor and indebted to have a deregulated free market for industry, besides the ethics of placing so much trust in businesses that are motivated to make maximal profit regardless of everything else.

The only groups not wanting a free market are those making money from people who don't want to pay them. And yes, there's a bunch of companies I have to deal with in spite of the fact that they don't provide much for what they cost. But the people who get most of my money that's freely given are exactly the businesses that thrive in a free market: the SMEs that represent 80% of this economy's GDP. To claim those business enterprises are anti free market is drivel.

And while China may be a nominally communist regime it's also one of the largest capitalist entities on the planet. Having a central political control directing that much capital makes it possibly the least free market anywhere.

Invoking artificial monopolies as examples of business against free trade is probably relevant, although most of them are either public services or operating under some govt mandate. But so is pointing out that unions are price fixing on a far more open and widespread basis. Why choose sides? Just hammer any sort of collusion in trying to manipulate any market.

[Brian d marge]

The only groups not wanting a free market are those making money from people who don't want to pay them. And yes, there's a bunch of companies I have to deal with in spite of the fact that they don't provide much for what they cost. But the people who get most of my money that's freely given are exactly the businesses that thrive in a free market: the SMEs that represent 80% of this economy's GDP. To claim those business enterprises are anti free market is drivel.

And while China may be a nominally communist regime it's also one of the largest capitalist entities on the planet. Having a central political control directing that much capital makes it possibly the least free market anywhere.

Invoking artificial monopolies as examples of business against free trade is probably relevant, although most of them are either public services or operating under some govt mandate. But so is pointing out that unions are price fixing on a far more open and widespread basis. Why choose sides? Just hammer any sort of collusion in trying to manipulate any market.

that is the free market
the company u deal with is charging what the market will bear , . ,

unless there are laws in place that protect those companies

as ive repeatly said the only pure free market is the natural forest and even that is a rare thing

[Swoop]

And he's right, Labour had tax money to burn for fucking years, more than they could easily spend.

They seemed quite capable of spending it all on a train set (used, several previous owners, needs repair, only the genuinely stupid need bid, etc, etc).