Its probably just a matter of size, I suspect bullshit and bureaucracy increase in proportion to any organisations size.
Easily wound up!!
Its probably just a matter of size, I suspect bullshit and bureaucracy increase in proportion to any organisations size.
"There must be a one-to-one correspondence between left and right parentheses, with each left parenthesis to the left of its corresponding right parenthesis."
Bogeyman
No, I suggested that the highest value in real terms that a government can acquire is to tax every income at a certain level, supposed to be around 17%. More than that is counterproductive in terms of buying power in that economy, for that government. Taxing above this level is vote-buying behaviour, pure and simple, nothing to do with financial prudence.Originally Posted by Clockwork
WHat you DO with the revenue is the subject of a debate about the above compromise.
Go soothingly on the grease mud, as there lurks the skid demon
Bogeyman
Yes: http://www.infohrm.com/documents/art...ov%201997).pdf
But also the inescapable fact that bureaucracies simply don't need to meet any cost/benefit performance criteria. Any attempt to make them do so snowballs into yet more administrative overhead costs, firstly to define their role and then to measure outcomes. The NZ health industry is overwhelmed with such added cost.
Last edited by Ocean1; 11th October 2007 at 14:38. Reason: spellink
Go soothingly on the grease mud, as there lurks the skid demon
Deus ex ukulele
"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to jrandom again"
"Standing on your mother's corpse you told me that you'd wait forever." [Bryan Adams: Summer of 69]
Loud and Uncouth
They rock man, the Finnish Commodores with their funny helmets and sailing ships and big swords and shit, man, they showed the Incars a thing or two...
Winding up drongos, foil hat wearers and over sensitive KBers for over 14,000 posts...........
" Life is not a rehearsal, it's as happy or miserable as you want to make it"
e mare libertas
Now that sounds like the model that Highway Patrol should be going for!
Serves them right for staying inside their vehicles.
kiwibiker is full of love, an disrespect.
- mikey
Psyclepath
As an employee of a veery big globule company (3M stands for meetings, meetings, meetings) I can tell you that you are spot bloody on.
Only a homo puts an engine back together WITHOUT making it go faster.
.....your time is coming
Nah, he's a pussy...............
Forum whore
So do you and all the other amoebas form a multi celled mass at these meetings or do you just make a fibrous projection to get in touch with your colleagues?
If a man is alone in the woods and there isn't a woke Hollywood around to call him racist, is he still white?
Iiimbecile-baiting since 2007
Stranger in white/black, idleidolidyll in KTM orange, Sanx in Honda Red.
Way I see it is this.
Macs give us, the consumer, choice, prior to this we had fish & chips.
Not at all: Prior to Macs, we had big juicy burgers and a wide choice from lots of locally owned and run outlets with the profits staying in NZ. I clearly remember the introduction of McD. It was with great fanfare but pretty soon after the initial opening, great burgers started disappearing and we were left with speed and hype as opposed to quality.
Except there is competition. Burger King, KFC, Wendy's and Pizza Hut are all established here and doing well. Obviously these are foreign-owned corporates so you'll dislike them on principle. But then in addition to this, there are little burger and fast(ish) franchises like Burger Fuel, Wisconsin Burger and Hell Pizza. You have small chains of cafes: Cafe Massimmo, Champion Bakehouse and Hollywood would be three such examples in Auckland. We still have choice, and plenty of it. Burger Fuel have found a niche in the market: really good freshly-made burgers, within a reasonable timescale, at a reasonable price. The fact that some of their shops can survive bang-opposite to one of the big American-owned coroporations is proof positive that people are can and do differentiate.
The bring competition. I must admit, I have not done any study on this, but anecdotally I doubt it is much dearer to eat out these days than to shop, purchase, store, prepare and cook your own food and do the dishes etc after. Either way I think it would be hard to dispute that competition does tend to benefit the consumer on a cost basis. Accepted there are other measures, however, given the choices we now have you can soon vote with your feet.
Cost is one measure but to focus only on cost is to miss much of the point. At what cost does the cheap price come? In NZ it meant the closing of awesome little burger bars serving great food for good prices in favour of a product that was cheap but about half the mass. (burgeres before McD’s were much bigger) Add to that the loss of NZ$ to offshore companies and the common practice of McD’s to offer minimum wage (bare minimum using kids as staff) and to actively prevent unionism and the eye they keep on staff abuse etc and the picture becomes a bit clearer.
Do you have any proof of this, or is it mere speculation on your part? Consider your statement that the 'awesome litle burger bars' have closed. Well, if you look around and see all the independent cafes and take-aways open today, you're obviously living in a completely different country. You state that McD's offer minimum wage? Yes, like most companies, they offer the minimum required in order obtain the services they need. But were these little mum and dad places any better? My other half does a lot of translating work, including cases that end up before the disputes tribunal. The vast majority of cases she sees involve immigrants working for less than the legal minimum wage. And they're not working for big evil corporates like McD's; they're working for the same little mum and dad places your referred to with rose-tinted prose.
Macs assembles it's product apparently from materials sourced locally, so a lot of local business profit from supplying milk, meat, breads, packaging, rubbish collection etc etc. Things like achitectural, engineering and IT and construction are of course sourced locally also.
Yep, that’s what they say they do. I won’t argue with that point except to say that they didn’t increase purchases from NZ businesses, they just monopolised them by forcing individually owned businesses out of the market.
Again, have you any proof of this, 'cos it sounds remarkably like krypto-communist claptrap.
So the profits go overseas. Well not all of it. The suppliers presumably profit, the salary and wage earners profit, I am sure the franchisee profits and presumably they all pay some taxes that otherwise would not have been collected. But even with a portion of their turnover going overseas how is this inherently bad.
Yes, local suppliers do profit but they also profited BEFORE McD’s. There IS a nett loss both in tax income and money sent offshore. The ability of big companies to avoid tax or pay minimal tax is well known as is the propensity for governments in NZ to give them tax breaks based on often dubious suggestions that they would add something to NZ.
Again, you're stating that NZ is worse off after McD's without providing one iota of evidence. Your statement relies on the assumption that there's always a fixed amount of money circulating. More sent offshore = less staying in NZ. Well, that's just utter crap. One of the mainstays of NZ's economy is farming. More cows = more meat - more money going to farmers. To make the maths simple, I'm going to make up some numbers by way of example: in the days befor McD's, farmers produced 1,000,000 kilos of meat and sold it for $4,000,000. Since McD's overall demand has increased, so farmers (with the benefit of scientific farming methods and so on) now produce 2,000,000 kilos and sell it for $7,000,000 - as McD's buy in bulk so get a beter price. That's a nett gain, and even allowing for some of the profits of McD's being sent overseas, there's still more money in the domestic economy than there was before.
Iiimbecile-baiting since 2007
Except that every attempt to completely regulate commerce for the benefit of society has failed abysmally. Without exception, these attempts have been carried out by communist countries: China, the Soviet Union, North Korea, Cambodia, Albania, etc. The government's attempt to take over the entire market failed. In many cases, this led to the collapse of agriculture which in turn led to the starvation of millions of people.
Of course, thase are extreme examples. However, at what level of interference / regulation do you draw the line? Take Ireland, for example. Ireland recently opened up its markets much more, dropped its tax rates and watched investment flood in to the country. The GDP and per-capita income has gone up massively, as has the overall tax take of the country. This is why lowering the tax rate can actually have the knock-on effect of increasing the tax take; 15% of a lot of money is more than 50% of bugger all.
And you talk about benefiting society. In what way? Terms like this are bandied about by all sides of the political specturm and mean very different things. The left-wing view is that all society should benefit. This usually means artificially biasing things towards the lower-paid and less-educated potions of society. There will always be people in society who are only fit for menial jobs, no matter how much education is on offer. But in NZ, people know that they can sit on their arse all day, occasionally breeding, and get as much money as they would if they actually went out and got a job. This is a farcical situation. It penalises the productive members of society and it can be argued that it actually damages society as a whole. People should work for a living if they are capable of doing so. By 'caring for those less fortunate', the government have ensured that a reasonable proportion of society is used to the idea of getting free money. It's the hand-out mentality. If a hand-up was used (including finding paid employment or work for the dole), not only would those of us who currently subsidise this parasitic group feel slightly happier, it would encourage some to find work. To find a niche in which they can make money. And once encouraged, it would become the norm to be employed. Society benefits.
has made a bo-bo in his nappies
35% of US Americans Still Support Bush The essential features of Americanistic Personality Disorder include pervasive patterns of extreme self-absorption, profound and long-term lapses in empathy, a deep disregard for the well-being of others, a powerful aversion to intellectual honesty and reality, and a grossly exaggerated sense of the importance of one’s self and one’s nation. These patterns emerge in infancy, manifest themselves in nearly all contexts, and often become pathological.
by Jason Miller
Cluster B Personality Disorders
1776.0 Americanistic Personality Disorder
These patterns have also been characterized as sociopathic, or colloquially as the “Ugly American Syndrome.” Note that the latter terminology carries too benign a connotation to accurately describe an individual afflicted with such a dangerous perversion of character.
For this diagnosis to be given, the individual must be deeply immersed in the flag-waving, nationalistic, and militaristic fervor derived primarily from the nearly perpetual barrage of reality warping emanations of the “mainstream media,” most commonly through the medium of television. Typically indoctrinated from birth to believe that they are morally superior, exceptional human beings, these individuals suffer from severe egocentrism, a condition further engendered by the prevalence of the acutely toxic dominant paradigm known as capitalism.
Individuals with Americanistic Personality Disorder are generally covertly racist, xenophobic, and openly speciesistic. They readily participate in the execution of heinous crimes against human and non-human animals, even if their complicity is banal and limited. As long as they are comfortable, safe, and enjoying the relative affluence and convenience afforded by their nation’s economic extortion, cultural genocide, rape of other species and the environment, and imperial conquests, such individuals display an apathetic disregard for the well-being of other human beings, sentient creatures, and the environment.
Individuals with Americanistic Personality Disorder tend to exhibit unabated greed and an insatiable desire for material goods. Fueled by a compulsion to shop and acquire excessive amounts of material goods, a condition sometimes referred to as consumerism, they have no regard for the misery and destruction caused by their pathological need for “more stuff”. When confronted with the finitude and fragility of the Earth, they frequently react with level one ego defenses by denying that their behavior is a part of the problem or by distorting reality by asserting that concerns about Climate Change, resource depletion, and irreversible damage to the environment are over-blown. Their deeply entrenched sense of entitlement renders excessive consumption a nearly immutable aspect of their behavior.
Individuals with Americanistic Personality Disorder are virtually devoid of empathy or compassion. They view life as a game played by “law of the jungle” rules and co-exist with others in a chronic state of hyper-competitiveness, seeking only to advance their careers and “keep up with the Joneses” Their desire to win, get ahead and “protect what is theirs” has been so deeply etched into their psyches that their capacity to empathize and experience true concern for the well-being of others is severely stunted or extinguished. The pursuit of property, profit, and power rules their malformed psyches, nearly eliminating their capacity for humane behavior.
Individuals with Americanistic Personality Disorder almost always rely on extortion or violence to get their needs met and to resolve conflict. Believing in their inherent superiority, they eschew laws or rules except when they can utilize them for personal gain or when they fear punishment. Given a choice between a just resolution to a situation and the opportunity to humiliate, subdue, or subjugate the other party, they will choose the latter with a high degree of frequency. They have an amazing capacity to justify their unethical or criminal behavior using false pretexts such as self defense, good intentions, ignorance of the consequences of their actions, or asserting that they were merely carrying out orders.
Individuals with Americanistic Personality Disorder tend to manifest traits indicative of two of Erich Fromm’s personality orientations. They thrive on adding to their possessions (and appreciate their acquisitions more) when they attain them through coercion, theft, or manipulation, thus showing strains of Fromm’s exploitative type. They also exist at a very superficial level, offering the world the “friendly face” of the marketing personality that Bernays and Madison Avenue have taught them is the most effective way of advancing their selfish agenda. Opportunism, careerism, and narcissism poison nearly all of their interactions and relationships.
Specific Culture Features
Americanistic Personality Disorder appears to prevail in a very high percentage of those in the upper strata of the socioeconomic order in the United States (and to persist tenaciously because these individuals have little motivation to alter their pathological behavior as they are largely immune from the consequences of their actions). While it is epidemic amongst the opulent, this characterological deficiency does not recognize socioeconomic boundaries. Various segments of the middle, working and impoverished classes comprise a notable percentage of those exhibiting this condition, including those practicing deeply conservative Christianity, many residents of reactionary states such as those in the south, Kansas, Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming, and many members of the Republican Party.
Prevalence
The overall prevalence of Americanistic Personality Disorder was recently measured at approximately 35% of the overall population in the United States.
Diagnostic Criteria for 1776.0 Americanistic Personality Disorder:
A pervasive pattern of greed, selfishness, and lack of empathy, beginning the moment he or she begins to intellectualize and presented in nearly all contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:
- 1. lacks empathy due to an excessive degree of self-absorption
2. believes that he or she is exceptional and morally superior
3. frequently engages in exploitative behaviors
4. requires frequent acquisition of goods he or she doesn’t need
5. usually resorts to some form of overt or covert violence, coercion, or extortion to resolve conflicts
6. perceives others as obstacles to his or her “success”
7. disregards laws and rules except as a means to achieve his or her agenda
8. demonstrates deep hypocrisy by projecting a righteous, benevolent image while committing reprehensible acts
9. refuses to accept the consequences of his or her actions
has made a bo-bo in his nappies
IMO, many here exhibit the very same disorder.................
has made a bo-bo in his nappies
Going hand in hand with extreme capitalism is often fascism and the model nation many here seem to think we should follow has already descended into that hell:
American Lockdown: Law Enforcement Out Of Control and Beyond The Pale In my recent article "The End Of America: The Police State Is Right Here, Right Now" I included experiences of escalating intimidation on the part of law enforcement in the United States within recent months. I must confess that when I cite such incidents, I fear that in a few days or weeks, it will all go away, and everyone else, myself included, will begin to question the validity of the examples, breathing a heavy sigh of relief and rejoicing that the situation isn't nearly as dire as I'm asserting it is.
By Carolyn Baker
This time, however, I have nothing to fear because since that article was posted, the ante of out-of-control law enforcement in America appears to have been upped with a rapidity that I could not have imagined just a few weeks ago.
Have we not all heard about the New York woman on her way to rehab who passed through the Phoenix airport, became distraught when she had just missed her flight, and was arrested for disorderly conduct by airport police? The suspect, Carol Ann Gotbaum, was handcuffed and then placed in a holding cell and left alone. According to police, when they returned, she was dead. At this writing, Gotbaum's family and officials are awaiting the autopsy report-the "official" cause of death.
Just a few days later, again in Phoenix, a male suspect was handcuffed after an on-foot chase by police, and shortly after being handcuffed, according to police, he lost consciousness. He was then taken to a local hospital where he was pronounced dead.
In today's New York Daily News, the story "Science teacher's brush with police ends in heart attack" relates an incident that happened back in June of this year when an African American Brooklyn high school teacher was mistaken for a perpetrator by police, suffered a heart attack, and was left on his own by the street cops who accused him of "acting."
As outrageous as these incidents may be, the most chilling event appeared on networks across the nation this morning with the story of a twenty year-old Wisconsin sheriff's deputy who shot and killed six young people at a party Saturday night. The most obvious question: How is it that a community of citizens allows a twenty year-old to become a deputy sheriff? Why not give an M-16 to a third-grader?
Nevertheless, all of these stories are connected by a common thread: Law enforcement in the United States, whose duty it is to "protect and serve" have now become not just part of the problem but in fact, predatory devourers of those they are sworn to keep safe.
Deepening collapse will be attended by manifestations of the unraveling of all institutions, one of the most frightening examples being law enforcement's hysterical repression of citizens.
Although we are seeing more media attention given to private security companies such as Blackwater, we should not assume that the power and funding granted to these firms will dissipate anytime soon. They are an integral part of the Shock Doctrine brilliantly analyzed by Naomi Klein in her new book of the same title. The greater the extent of the empire's collapse, the greater the intensity of the shock applied to those who reside within the belly of the beast. From those shocks flow not only increased terror and social control, but flourishing profits for private security companies.
The U.S. government is making it unmistakably clear that it intends to use every avenue of power at its disposal to lock down the nation. A story sent to my subscribers today from the Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee (GATA) reveals that in its correspondence with the Treasury Department "The Treasury Department was surprisingly candid in that correspondence, asserting the U.S. Government's authority, in declared emergencies, to confiscate precious metals and to restrict ownership of mining shares -- and to confiscate and restrict every other financial asset as well."
Almost daily we hear of increased surveillance of Americans as well as unprecedented restrictions on travel, not only on persons entering the U.S. but on persons traveling within the country and on dissenters who attempt to enter other countries as in the case of two activists, Medea Benjamin and Ann Wright who were denied entrance into Canada on Thursday "because their names appeared on the FBI's National Crime Information Center database."
Another relevant story relinked today pertains to the anti-terrorism Vigilant Shield 2008 exercise of U.S. Northern Command (USNORTHCOM) "The series of exercises is mandated by the US government to prepare, prevent and respond to any number of national crises that would call for the use of the military inside the United States. Vigilant Shield 2008 builds a scenario of a domestic disaster in the US (terrorist attack or natural disaster). It posits the domestic use of the US military including a special role for the US Air Force." As we know, a precedent for using the U.S. military inside the U.S. was set in the aftermath of Katrina in 2005.
For those considering expatriation, it will soon be too late to leave. For those who choose to remain within this increasingly locked down nation, it will be necessary to acquire survival skills, a strong community of friends, and a great deal of stealth in order to navigate this empire's exacerbating Orwellian treachery.
has made a bo-bo in his nappies
Hilarious stuff Ocean!
The fact is, for the low waged, 17% is not much more than they pay now and tax 'cuts' to 17% would give them only a few tens of dollars each week extra.
However, without a tax take to support public and social services, these will be privatised and from their limited incomes, they will be expected to pay insurance to cover many more social services and will have to pay extra through things like road taxes etc.
In the US, private medicine and privatisation of the health industry has left some 40 million people without adequate health cover because they can't afford the exhorbitant prices that unchecked capitalism demands. The actual cost for medical services per capita has also ballooned to the extent that the cost to each and every Yank for medical services is about US$2800 per annum while in NZ the cost is about US$1600. For Yanks who DO pay all their insurances (those lucky ones who can afford it), this amounts to perhaps US$600-1000 per month.
No amount of tax cuts in NZ would make those kinds of increases of service and social costs affordable.
Capitalism without restraint always devolves into neo-serfdom as companies squeeze the government for more rights to fuck over the population as per the USA where decades of legislation has given corporations way more rights and power than people. They have been turned into superhumans with all the 'rights' of human beings but few to none of the responsibilities or ounishments if they do wrong.
You've said in the past that we should rely more on charity. The right wing 'model', Amerika, also has lower taxes and limited public and social services and they too suggest that 'charity' is the way to go.
In fact this leads immediately to REDUCTIONS in funding. That is not more clearly evidenced by the fact that the USA is the most miserable of all developed nations giving only 0.18% of it's GDP in foreign aid as opposed to more socialist nations like those in Nth West Europe where 0.7% is more common.
The Liberatrian nonsense claiming that so called 'personal responsibility' will work ignores such facts and tries to sell itself on lower taxes and less government. The fact is, this system is only of benefit to those who are already wealthy.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks