Should Auckland Airport be sold?

[oldrider]

I have always estimated that New Zealand is about 70% Socialist thinking and about 30% left of center and next to nothing right of center and beyond.

This country is full of Nana state trough dwellers, no wonder that productive people are leaving like flies!

The above poll seems to support that theory as far as I can see. John.

[canarlee]

I have always estimated that New Zealand is about 70% Socialist thinking and about 30% left of center and next to nothing right of center and beyond.

This country is full of Nana state trough dwellers, no wonder that productive people are leaving like flies!

The above poll seems to support that theory as far as I can see. John.

*would award bling, thats a good post, albeit slightly abrupt *

[mark247]

I have always estimated that New Zealand is about 70% Socialist thinking and about 30% left of center and next to nothing right of center and beyond.

This country is full of Nana state trough dwellers, no wonder that productive people are leaving like flies!

The above poll seems to support that theory as far as I can see. John.

The airport is worth a couple of billion, and it turns over about 100million a year. That seems like a good investment for NZ. In 15 - 20 years time if we kept it the shareholders would of made just as much money out of it compared to if it was sold today.

And what oldrider said!

[Grahameeboy]

The airport is worth a couple of billion, and it turns over about 100million a year. That seems like a good investment for NZ. In 15 - 20 years time if we kept it the shareholders would of made just as much money out of it compared to if it was sold today.

And what oldrider said!

Is it moving somewhere else then?

What is wrong with an overseas buyer investing in NZ?

[Grahameeboy]

if it brings more money to the country then yes it should!

Sssscccchhhhh.........America's Cup okay but not investment......mine mine mine.....shan't....shan't....shan't

[Mr Merde]

It's a joke eh! Not enough to actually bring in useful income. Just enough to fuck people off and possibly put off some tourists from returning.


......
Actually, fuckit. Just blow-up the beehive and the country will run much more efficiently.

As to the first part of your statement. Check out the airports financial returns.

If you take the number of passengers through the airport and then multiply it by 25 you will find that this is fairly close to the ammount of profit they make.


As to the later part.

As I said in another post, here in New Zealand we get rid of our vermin by 1080 drop. If its good enough for the possum population it is good enough for the beehive.

[Karma]

if it brings more money to the country then yes it should!

Isn't that what you guys said about telecom when it was sold?

[canarlee]

Isn't that what you guys said about telecom when it was sold?

dont ask me, i wernt here then

[sinned]

Isn't that what you guys said about telecom when it was sold?

You are probably right and the sale did result in a massive improvement in telephone services. 6 weeks minimum to have a phone connected, horrendous toll calling rates, no capacity, couldn't call across Auckland during the day and, think customer service is bad now!!!

[Hitcher]

If the Gummint owns any "asset" a question is why?

[sinned]

If the Gummint owns any "asset" a question is why?

Two lines in the Junior Chamber (Jaycee) creed provide all the guidance I need:
- That economic justice can best be won by free men through free enterprise;
- That government should be of laws rather than of men;

Replace 'men' with a gender neutral and 'p correct' word and this means gummint don't own assets, they vote in the laws we collectively need to live by, they stay out of our lives and, take the bare minimum of tax necessary to make those laws and protect us and let us get on with it.

[swbarnett]

If the Gummint owns any "asset" a question is why?

Thre are two types of businesses that should be state owned:

1. Something that should be considered a "public good" activity (roading, power distribution, land line phones).

2. Where the business would necessarily be a monopoly with no room for competition.

Auckland airport could be argued to fit into both 1 and 2 as far as the actual aircraft management goes (the land development side, shops etc., could be split off)

State ownership really has only two functions: to provide a service that a true commercial entity would not provide for reasons of economics (e.g. phones and roads to remote areas) and to provide that service at minimal cost to the individual. No state owned enterprise should ever turn a profit as this would mean that the service is not being provided at the minimal cost.

[Hitcher]

Thre are two types of businesses that should be state owned:

I think you've been reading too much Karl Marx. By abstraction, the Gummint might as well nationalise everything: supermarkets and farms to make food cheaper; oil companies to make fuel cheaper; hotels so it's not expensive for tourists to travel...

[canarlee]

I think you've been reading too much Karl Marx. By abstraction, the Gummint might as well nationalise everything: supermarkets and farms to make food cheaper; oil companies to make fuel cheaper; hotels so it's not expensive for tourists to travel...

ooooh can we do that pleeeeze!!!


then we got a dictatorship and communism, happy days.......

[swbarnett]

I think you've been reading too much Karl Marx. By abstraction, the Gummint might as well nationalise everything: supermarkets and farms to make food cheaper; oil companies to make fuel cheaper; hotels so it's not expensive for tourists to travel...

I like healthy competition just like the next capitalist.

The trouble with the industries you've stated is that there is room for competition and so don't fit within my definition of a candidate for state ownership. The fact that prices may be set by a cartel is an entirely different matter (probably one for the commerce commission).