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

[oldrider]

The reason I hate on National - they are currently in power and claimed during Helen's reign they "would bring standards and transparency to govt."

Well - they have - you and all of their other critics claim to be able to see right through them - how transparent is that? - - (they are only front men anyway)

[Banditbandit]

it must be those titanic interlecks that banditbandit is always claiming that's doing it for you. Stay in the bubble.

wtf ????




(+10)

[MisterD]

Because its a really good diversion from all the things that really should be concerning the people, such as the TPPA?

Nope, it's simpler than that, it's a trophy for Key's poolroom. If he can't be the first MMP Prime Minister to win 4 terms, he has a back up to be remembered as the PM that changed the flag.

[Brian d marge]

Nope, it's simpler than that, it's a trophy for Key's poolroom. If he can't be the first MMP Prime Minister to win 4 terms, he has a back up to be remembered as the PM that changed the flag.

Actually thats probably closer than u think remember hes a physco

[pete376403]

Robert Reich (former US Secretary of Labo(u)r), on the TPPA. Not just bad for NZ.

Trans Pacific Trickle-Down Economics
By Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Blog

03 May 15


ave we learned nothing from thirty years of failed trickle-down economics?

By now we should know that when big corporations, Wall Street, and the wealthy get special goodies, the rest of us get shafted.

The Reagan and George W. Bush tax cuts of 1981, 2001, and 2003, respectively, were sold to America as ways to boost the economy and create jobs.

They ended up boosting the take-home pay of those at the top. Most Americans saw no gains.

In fact, the long stagnation of American wages began with Reaganomics. Wages rose a bit under Bill Clinton, and then started plummeting again under George W. Bush.

Trickle-down economics proved a cruel hoax. The new jobs created under Reagan and George W. Bush paid lousy wages, the old jobs paid even less, and we ended up with whopping federal budget deficits.

Then came the bailout of Wall Street in 2008. It was sold as the means of preserving the economy.

It ended up preserving the jobs and exorbitant pay of bankers, but millions of Americans lost their shirts. Small savers were wiped out, and homeowners never got the refinancing they were promised.

No conditions were put on the Wall Street banks for what they were supposed to do for the rest of us in return for our bailing them out. None of their top executives even went to jail for causing the crash in the first place.

Here again, nothing trickled down.

Now comes the Trans Pacific Partnership.

It’s being sold as a way to boost the U.S. economy, expand exports, and contain China’s widening economic influence.

In fact, it’s just more trickle-down economics.

The biggest beneficiaries would be giant American-based global corporations, along with their executives and major shareholders.

Those giant corporations initiated the deal in the first place, their lobbyists helped craft it behind closed doors, and they’re the ones who have been pushing hard for it in Congress – dangling campaign contributions in front of congressional supporters and threatening to cut off funding to opponents.

These corporations made sure the deal contains provisions expanding and protecting their intellectual property around the world, but not protecting American jobs.

Supporters of the deal say it contains worker protections. I heard the same thing when, as secretary of labor, I was supposed to implement the worker protections in the North American Free Trade Act.

I discovered such provisions are unenforceable because of how difficult it is to discover if other nations are abiding by them. On the rare occasion when we found evidence of a breach we had no way to force the other nation to remedy it anyway.

The Trans Pacific Partnership is far larger than NAFTA – covering 40 percent of America’s global trade.

If it’s enacted, American workers and consumers will be made even worse off because of another provision that allows global corporations to sue countries whose health, safety, labor, or environmental regulations crimp their corporate profits.

It establishes a tribunal outside any nation’s legal system that can force a nation to reimburse global corporations for any such “losses.”

Big tobacco is already using an identical provision to sue developing nations that are trying to get their populations off nicotine. The tobacco companies are demanding these nations compensate them for lost cigarette sales.

This provision would mean less protection from corporate harms here in America. It would require that when the potential cost of a new health, safety, environment, or labor protection is weighed against its potential benefits, the cost of reimbursing corporations for lost profits is added in.

I’ve been through enough regulatory wars to know this added cost could easily tip the balance against protection.

The arguments in favor of the deal aren’t credible. The notion that the Trans Pacific Partnership will spark American exports doesn’t hold because the deal does nothing to prevent other nations from manipulating their currencies in order to boost their own exports.

The argument that the deal will help contain China makes even less sense.

Does anyone seriously believe American-based corporations will put the interest of the United States above the interests of their own shareholders when it comes to doing whatever China demands to gain access to that lucrative market?

Big American-based corporations have been cozying up to China for years – giving China whatever American technology China wants, letting China “partner” with them in designing new generations of technology, and allowing China to censor their software and digital platforms – all in exchange for a crack at Chinese consumers.

What we should have learned by now about trickle-down economics is that nothing trickles down.

If the Trans Pacific Partnership is enacted, big corporations, Wall Street, and their top executives and shareholders will make out like bandits. Who will the bandits be stealing from? The rest of us.

[carbonhed]

it appears that the Government is now represented by Bill English and Nick Smith....as they are the shareholder next to Auckland Council.

Ahhh, corruption, it feels so good when done by National and the good ole boys. At least they don't tell one what showerhead to use, and one can go drink beer with them. Suckers.

They are shareholders in their capacity as ministers you cretin.

[Ocean1]

and there were some state houses, and with the stroke of a mighty pen they were private houses.....

About fucking time too.

Maybe you could buy some of 'em and go into the business yourself, I mean the demand for meth labs is running hot atm: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=11443698

[Brian d marge]

Robert Reich (former US Secretary of Labo(u)r), on the TPPA. Not just bad for NZ.

Trans Pacific Trickle-Down Economics
By Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Blog

03 May 15


ave we learned nothing from thirty years of failed trickle-down economics?

By now we should know that when big corporations, Wall Street, and the wealthy get special goodies, the rest of us get shafted.

The Reagan and George W. Bush tax cuts of 1981, 2001, and 2003, respectively, were sold to America as ways to boost the economy and create jobs.

They ended up boosting the take-home pay of those at the top. Most Americans saw no gains.

In fact, the long stagnation of American wages began with Reaganomics. Wages rose a bit under Bill Clinton, and then started plummeting again under George W. Bush.

Trickle-down economics proved a cruel hoax. The new jobs created under Reagan and George W. Bush paid lousy wages, the old jobs paid even less, and we ended up with whopping federal budget deficits.

Then came the bailout of Wall Street in 2008. It was sold as the means of preserving the economy.

It ended up preserving the jobs and exorbitant pay of bankers, but millions of Americans lost their shirts. Small savers were wiped out, and homeowners never got the refinancing they were promised.

No conditions were put on the Wall Street banks for what they were supposed to do for the rest of us in return for our bailing them out. None of their top executives even went to jail for causing the crash in the first place.

Here again, nothing trickled down.

Now comes the Trans Pacific Partnership.

It’s being sold as a way to boost the U.S. economy, expand exports, and contain China’s widening economic influence.

In fact, it’s just more trickle-down economics.

The biggest beneficiaries would be giant American-based global corporations, along with their executives and major shareholders.

Those giant corporations initiated the deal in the first place, their lobbyists helped craft it behind closed doors, and they’re the ones who have been pushing hard for it in Congress – dangling campaign contributions in front of congressional supporters and threatening to cut off funding to opponents.

These corporations made sure the deal contains provisions expanding and protecting their intellectual property around the world, but not protecting American jobs.

Supporters of the deal say it contains worker protections. I heard the same thing when, as secretary of labor, I was supposed to implement the worker protections in the North American Free Trade Act.

I discovered such provisions are unenforceable because of how difficult it is to discover if other nations are abiding by them. On the rare occasion when we found evidence of a breach we had no way to force the other nation to remedy it anyway.

The Trans Pacific Partnership is far larger than NAFTA – covering 40 percent of America’s global trade.

If it’s enacted, American workers and consumers will be made even worse off because of another provision that allows global corporations to sue countries whose health, safety, labor, or environmental regulations crimp their corporate profits.

It establishes a tribunal outside any nation’s legal system that can force a nation to reimburse global corporations for any such “losses.”

Big tobacco is already using an identical provision to sue developing nations that are trying to get their populations off nicotine. The tobacco companies are demanding these nations compensate them for lost cigarette sales.

This provision would mean less protection from corporate harms here in America. It would require that when the potential cost of a new health, safety, environment, or labor protection is weighed against its potential benefits, the cost of reimbursing corporations for lost profits is added in.

I’ve been through enough regulatory wars to know this added cost could easily tip the balance against protection.

The arguments in favor of the deal aren’t credible. The notion that the Trans Pacific Partnership will spark American exports doesn’t hold because the deal does nothing to prevent other nations from manipulating their currencies in order to boost their own exports.

The argument that the deal will help contain China makes even less sense.

Does anyone seriously believe American-based corporations will put the interest of the United States above the interests of their own shareholders when it comes to doing whatever China demands to gain access to that lucrative market?

Big American-based corporations have been cozying up to China for years – giving China whatever American technology China wants, letting China “partner” with them in designing new generations of technology, and allowing China to censor their software and digital platforms – all in exchange for a crack at Chinese consumers.

What we should have learned by now about trickle-down economics is that nothing trickles down.

If the Trans Pacific Partnership is enacted, big corporations, Wall Street, and their top executives and shareholders will make out like bandits. Who will the bandits be stealing from? The rest of us.

Thing is they have tried to get the tppa past us ,once or twice before ...I cant remember the name they gave it last time ., and the investor trade dispute tribunial, has been in operation for a few years now ( Phillip Morris suing the Australian government ) ,,,under TPPA it will just get polished and slightly expanded

[MisterD]

The biggest beneficiaries would be giant American-based global corporations, along with their executives and major shareholders.

Aside from the fact that those "giant corporations" employ a shit load of people and success for them means more people employed, this: Vietnam the biggest winner.

[pete376403]

Aside from the fact that those "giant corporations" employ a shit load of people and success for them means more people employed, this: Vietnam the biggest winner.

I don\t know if those "giant corporations" *DO* employ shit loads of people. eg Apple - sure there would be a lot of designers, engineers, etc directly employed but it will be the product makers Foxconn in China who employ the shit loads, paying them shit wages to make the enormous profits for Apple.

Or, another example I saw, Electrolux shuts down a plant in the US, opens another in Mexico and shifts all the work there. US employees loose their jobs, and the Mexican employees are paid something like $1 /hour. Only real winner is Electrolux Corp

[Ocean1]

I don\t know if those "giant corporations" *DO* employ shit loads of people. eg Apple - sure there would be a lot of designers, engineers, etc directly employed but it will be the product makers Foxconn in China who employ the shit loads, paying them shit wages to make the enormous profits for Apple.

Or, another example I saw, Electrolux shuts down a plant in the US, opens another in Mexico and shifts all the work there. US employees loose their jobs, and the Mexican employees are paid something like $1 /hour. Only real winner is Electrolux Corp

And the US workers, who were increasingly unable to afford Electroluxes made in the US, using US labour rates.

If they're keen enough to export their jobs in exchange for cheap product let them. But blaming big business for it and pretending it had nothing to do with over priced and over protected labour is just a teeny bit silly.

[Brian d marge]

And the US workers, who were increasingly unable to afford Electroluxes made in the US, using US labour rates.

If they're keen enough to export their jobs in exchange for cheap product let them. But blaming big business for it and pretending it had nothing to do with over priced and over protected labour is just a teeny bit silly.

Thats right

after all that's a business doing what a business should , make a profit


Never mind those folks can always retrain , or just pop along to the welfare ... ( welfare???? ) then get another job ..

No worries there

[Ocean1]

Thats right

after all that's a business doing what a business should , make a profit


Never mind those folks can always retrain , or just pop along to the welfare ... ( welfare???? ) then get another job ..

No worries there

And what happened to all of those US business that failed to make a profit hiring US labour?

Socialism is only a good idea when you're talking about someone else's money, when it comes to supporting your own workers by buying their product with your own cash over those charging much less then it don't look so good.

If your strategy for a professional life is to leave school early and do simple jobs then why is it anyone else's problem when your fellow countrymen don't want to pay more than your work's worth?

Retrain by all means, if you didn't get it right the first time around. Beats waiting for a robot to take your job.

[awa355]

Just when the US thought their agent, Key, had NZ sown up, here come the chinks with a counter blow.

http://home.nzcity.co.nz/news/articl...Politics%2cnur "This is what you will do little Donkey".

[oldrider]

Just when the US thought their agent, Key, had NZ sown up, here come the chinks with a counter blow.

http://home.nzcity.co.nz/news/articl...Politics%2cnur "This is what you will do little Donkey".

OK - question is - how many of us in NZ really know and understand exactly what Falun Gong is and stands for? - I don't - they appear harmless enough - but?