Sick and tired of Cullen

[forkoil]

We need a high level of self-knowledge and public debate if we are to accurately diagnose our current condition, celebrate success and identify failures to date and set ambitious strategies for future prosperity.
[ data snipped ]
I'm sorry for being a bastard and arguing with facts but that's just the kinda guy I am.

Before you congratulate yourself too much Keith, these "facts" do not address the issue that you raised as being the fly in the ointment to official economic data, ergo the "underclass" (originally relating to the US).
Also you havent answered my question as to the figures you wish to use to validate your assertion that socialism produces the winners? (that figures?)
[When in a corner, move the argument]

[Ixion]

The point I am making, is that without capitalist principals ie the ability of any individual to own property, invest and make profits under the law of the land, (rather than the behest of a local king or baron who holds land under patronage because he's handy with a sword) we would not have had those two step-changes in the development of society.

I don't like the definition of capitalist that you and III are using. IMO a capitalist is anyone who believes in the principals of capitalism, which are that effectively, money and the market talks - you're telling me a capitalist is just someone who's done well out of the system? That can't logically hold surely?

Capitalism is an economic system where control of production and resources (usually of an industrial nature, but not always - one of the earliest examples of capitalism was investment in the slave trade) is dependent on the provision of capital (money). As you say, a system where money talks.

In a Eurpean/USA context it was rare (though not unknown) before the nineteenth century

However your definition of "ability of any individual to own property, invest and make profits under the law of the land," could equally well apply to the mercantilist economies of the 15C to 18C. Or indeed the trading communities of (eg) Phoenicia several thousand years earlier. The difference between them and the capitalist is the merchant adventurer not only provided capital but actively pursued the business in person. He was a hard working man, often undertaking journies of great privation or danger. The capitalist does not play such an active part - he puts up the money and then just sits back and collects the profits.

Nor is "ability of any individual to own property, invest and make profits under the law of the land," incompatible with socialism or even communism. Neither are inherently opposed to the idea that hard work and willingness to take a risk should be rewarded . Indeed the early socialist governments of NZ had an almost Puritan respect for hard work. Their objection to the capitalist was that he was lazy, and should not clai'm the whole , or the lion's share , of the rewards when he had not exerted himself at all. Hence, capital gains taxes, for instance.

In fact your definition would exclude almost all present day capitalism since it is very rarely related to individuals. The capitalists of today are giant corporations not individuals.

An indexed fund is the most classic example of capitalism that i can think of.

[Hinny]

Before you congratulate yourself too much Keith, these "facts" do not address the issue that you raised as being the fly in the ointment to official economic data, ergo the "underclass" (originally relating to the US).
Also you havent answered my question as to the figures you wish to use to validate your assertion that socialism produces the winners? (that figures?)
[When in a corner, move the argument]

I'm sorry I don't understand.
1) the issue I raised as being the fly in the ointment to official economic data.
Que?
2) ..validate my assertion that socialism produces winners.
I made no such assertion. I asked the question. Which countries have the highest standard of living? You replied Switzerland and I said I was unable to find any information to confirm your assertion.

I don't think you were supposed to post the last line. I think that was merely the thought going through your head.

[MisterD]

In fact your definition would exclude almost all present day capitalism since it is very rarely related to individuals. The capitalists of today are giant corporations not individuals.

An indexed fund is the most classic example of capitalism that i can think of.

Corporations are not capitalists themselves, they are products of capitalism and their shareholders are the capitalists - as you note with your next (contradictory) statement....and anyway my definition does not necessarily exclude the big successful entities at the top end, I'm just arguing to keep the "grass-roots" included

[forkoil]

I'm sorry I don't understand.
1) the issue I raised as being the fly in the ointment to official economic data.
Que?

Large GDP doesn't prevent a country from becoming inhabited with poverty stricken, aggressive,poorly educated and unhealthy people.
Minimising these numbers surely should be the focus of any society to increase their standard of living.

You quoted NZ economic data in answer to me saying that we have an underclass problem (in answer to you saying the US had one). I then asked you a series of questions about how to cope with the underclass problem to which you have remained .... schtum ....(silent)

2) ..validate my assertion that socialism produces winners.
I made no such assertion. I asked the question. Which countries have the highest standard of living? You replied Switzerland and I said I was unable to find any information to confirm your assertion.

I don't think you were supposed to post the last line. I think that was merely the thought going through your head.

Socialism isn't the answer... it's failed miserably in every country it's been tried

What are the countries with the highest standards of living today?

How would you describe their ruling political parties?

There is a widespread notion that the Scandinavian countries have crafted for themselves the highest standard of living in the world. Their socialist economies create the wealth needed to support this standard of living.

You were implying by this question and answer to devnull that the socialist countries produce the highest standards of living, and hence my statement about Switzerland, to support which I produced figures ....
What becomes quickly evident about these "discussions" is that it just degrades into a battle of prejudice, ignore anything that gets in the way of your argument, trot out the personal bias and lets not get anywhere nearer the "truth" of the matter

[Hinny]

You quoted NZ economic data in answer to me saying that we have an underclass problem (in answer to you saying the US had one). I then asked you a series of questions about how to cope with the underclass problem to which you have remained .... schtum ....(silent)
I looked back over the posts. I cannot see where I quoted economic data nor where you said NZ had an underclass problem; nor where I said the US had an underclass problem. Nigeria would be a good example of a country with large GDP and terrible standard of living. The point I was trying to make is that GDP alone is not a measure of well-offness.
Re: the questions you asked I shall reply at the bottom.

You were implying by this question and answer to devnull that the socialist countries produce the highest standards of living, and hence my statement about Switzerland, to support which I produced figures ....
My question was not a rhetorical one. I asked which countries have the highest standard of living. If one takes the time to do the research one would find the country that has topped the charts the most is Canada (10 times) You don't find Switzerland at the top.You linked to OECD data to support your assertion that Switzerland had the highest standard of living because it had a high GDP per capita. The charts that rank countries standard of living use a considerably larger range of economic and social measures. The United Nations Human development Index is the biggie.
What becomes quickly evident about these "discussions" is that it just degrades into a battle of prejudice, ignore anything that gets in the way of your argument, trot out the personal bias and lets not get anywhere nearer the "truth" of the matter

Hey, have you got something against Sth Auckland!!! No
Should it be the primary focus? Of?...It seems they do have a number of issues that need addressing but whether their problems are worse than a lot of other places... I do not know.
What should a country do to minimise the "poverty stricken, aggressive,poorly educated and unhealthy people" Obviously what we have been doing could be a good plan. As the data in the Human Development report shows NZ has been doing well in these areas and consistently improving over the last 10 years.
Have the current Govt policies arrested or even shrunk the "underclass" in NZ? Again according to the UN report we have been doing all right. If one ignores GDP one could deduce from the data that we have a better standard of living than Switzerland and that includes your underclass.

Lets look at the data regarding poverty stricken,aggressive, poorly educated and unhealthy people in Switzerland and N.Z.

Poverty Stricken: Su NZ
Share of the total income (poorest 10%) 2.9 2.2
Inequality ratio Top and bottom 10% 9 12.5

Aggressive:
Homicides / 100,000 2.9 1.3


Poorly educated:
Combined enrollment ratio for primary, 85.7 108.4
secondary and tertiary education
Percentage of total govt spend 13 20.9

Unhealthy people:
Life expectancy 80.7 79.2
Physicians / 100,000 361 237
Expenditure per capita 4,011 2,081
Hiv 0.4 0.1
Tuberculosis 6 9

So...
in Switzerland you:

- are not going to have as great an inequality of wealth over the poor people, if you are rich, as you would if you lived in N.Z.
-are going to be better off if you are poor.
-are more than twice as likely to be murdered.
-are less likely to get locked up if you are the murderer.
-are less likely to be at school, or have lower educational involvement.
-are likely to live 1.5 years longer but have to pay more than twice as much for health care. $4,011 vs $2,081. Govt spends are about the same at 6.7 & 6.5% but the private spend is 4.8% vs 1.9% of GDP
-will be less fertile but be 4 times more likely to have HIV
-be more likely to be a smoker but have less chance of getting TB

I think in all these figures NZ has performed better than Switzerland over the last ten years. The Swiss have slipped in some areas and just not advanced as fast as NZ in others.

Have the Labour govt policies arrested or shrunk the underclass?
Well we in New Zealand:-
-don't seem to look after our poor as well as the Swiss.
-Have greatly increased our spend on education over the last ten years. The Swiss have gone backwards in this area over the last couple.
-Spent more on Health and longevity have gone up. HIV is down but the scourge of Tuberculosis has revisited us. Many say as a result of immigration.They are still bringing people in and putting out a helping hand to the displaced.
The underclass are often nicotine addicts. Quite possibly what keeps them poor.
-The Labour govt. have brought in anti-smoking measures to curb the practice.
-To combat the terrible rate of child abuse the govt has removed the defense of reasonable force in cases involving people beating children.

of note also I discovered in this data that women in Switzerland were granted suffrage in 1972. In NZ women achieved this right in 1893.

[geoffm]

In fact your definition would exclude almost all present day capitalism since it is very rarely related to individuals. The capitalists of today are giant corporations not individuals.

An indexed fund is the most classic example of capitalism that i can think of.

So what are small business owners? What is the size distribution of NZ businesses? 93% have 4 or less employees IIRC, or it was a few years ago. The owners of which took the risk of investing and hard work for reqards - capitalists then. If NZ is a capitalist country, then your assertion is wrong, or your definition of capitalist is wrong

[Ixion]

Small business owners are not capiltalists becasue their income depends (usually) upon their own hard work and skill. Not upon the revenue of their invested capital (which often is not very great). They employ capital, and usually pay a rent for it (interest to the bank), but capital is not the source of their income. How many of those businessmen you cite would stay in business if they went and played golf every day , and simply relied on their capital to keep the business going? None, I venture to say.

They are , in the old terms, master tradesmen, artisans or merchants. NZ is a capitalist country because the effective control of the country is in the hands of capitalists. Not the small businesssmen you speak of, but the great corporations, The banks, the oil companies, Fonterra and such like.

Certainly, as you say the NUMBERS of small businessmen are far greater. But their influence on the government of the country is negligable (just ask any of them!). It is the multinational corporations who say "Jump" to the government .

[Robert Taylor]

Small business owners are not capiltalists becasue their income depends (usually) upon their own hard work and skill. Not upon the revenue of their invested capital (which often is not very great). They employ capital, and usually pay a rent for it (interest to the bank), but capital is not the source of their income. How many of those businessmen you cite would stay in business if they went and played golf every day , and simply relied on their capital to keep the business going? None, I venture to say.

They are , in the old terms, master tradesmen, artisans or merchants. NZ is a capitalist country because the effective control of the country is in the hands of capitalists. Not the small businesssmen you speak of, but the great corporations, The banks, the oil companies, Fonterra and such like.

Certainly, as you say the NUMBERS of small businessmen are far greater. But their influence on the government of the country is negligable (just ask any of them!). It is the multinational corporations who say "Jump" to the government .

Youve got that right in one! The multinationals do have a lot to answer for.
Also I found a memorable quote from Margaret Thatcher which I have paraphrased: ''To cure the New Zealand disease with socialism will be like trying to cure leukemia with leeches'' Wonderful quote but so sad and true. The National party have to have socialist policies because the world owesus a living mentality is now so firmly engendered in many of our countrymen.
Balance needs to be restored and that somehow also would mean nailing the clear excesses and powers of the multinationals.

[Skyryder]

It matters not one whit the size of the business or the amount of money invested in that business. If the investment is from the private sector, be it the owner of the business or an indavidual that 'invests' in the business then by definition both are capitalists The difference between the capitalist owner who works in the business and the capitalist investor is marginal at best. Both derive income from profit; the owner from goods produced or services rendered. The investor depending on the loan structure reicieves profit from dividends or from usury. As mentioned both are capitalists in that they both believe in the private funding for economic development be that on a small or national scale.

There is no need to be active in the capitalist market to be one.
Belief is all that is needed.


Skyryder

[rainman]

...it is a shame that there arent more practical everyday non pc people standing for Parliament like ''Bob the builder'' from Tauranga. I am guessing that the man is leaving in disgust and has no desire to hang in there for another six years to collect a nice cushy taxpayer funded pension.

P/T right? Bob represents the worst of NZ politics. The only disgust I see is at the complete bloody waste of space he's been in parliament.

I watched Jenny Shipley on television last night and thought heck, that woman has got decorum and has a hell of a lot more in common with ordinary everyday Kiwis than Frankensteins sister.

Another pisstake, surely?

And I personally would like to see the nuclear legislation axed. A couple of nuclear power stations in remote valleys would solve the nations power shortages at a stroke and have much less unsightly environmental impact than hydro dams and those ghastly wind farms.

Wind farms are purty. And nukes are too big for the NZ grid. And there's an inconvenient matter of what to do with their waste products (which I'm not keen to start a thread-derailling discussion on).

Also, gradual reinstatement of our air combat wing to show we have the intent to defend ourselves and to make a contrary statement to a problem so endemic in this country, freeloading off others.

Who would you expect we need to defend ourselves against?

[Robert Taylor]

P/T right? Bob represents the worst of NZ politics. The only disgust I see is at the complete bloody waste of space he's been in parliament.



Another pisstake, surely?



Wind farms are purty. And nukes are too big for the NZ grid. And there's an inconvenient matter of what to do with their waste products (which I'm not keen to start a thread-derailling discussion on).



Who would you expect we need to defend ourselves against?

We are a gateway to the Antarctic, we have abundant fresh water and are a food producer. Think about it.

[rainman]

We are a gateway to the Antarctic, we have abundant fresh water and are a food producer. Think about it.

You misunderstand. I fully accept that we might be a desirable target. I just don't accept that we could do anything meaningful to stop the most likely invaders, even if we wasted big money (nor us) doing so. To assert otherwise is just blowhard nonsense.

We are only a few million people at the bottom of the world (who have already sold off just about anything worth having). You think about it.

[Robert Taylor]

You misunderstand. I fully accept that we might be a desirable target. I just don't accept that we could do anything meaningful to stop the most likely invaders, even if we wasted big money (nor us) doing so. To assert otherwise is just blowhard nonsense.

We are only a few million people at the bottom of the world (who have already sold off just about anything worth having). You think about it.

Yes I fully agree that there is very little resistance we could offer. BUT, we should still maintain an air strike force as a primary ''signature'' ( if you like ) of defence to show that we have the intent to defend ourselves and to stop freeloading off the Aussies. I have thought about this long and hard and Frankensteins sister removing our air strike force is the single most despicable and treasonous act of her outgoing administration.

[Delerium]

If we arent prepared to defend ourselves we cant expect our allies to do it for us.