So who's the terrorist again?

[idleidolidyll]

Oh look, it's the loony left scaremongering again.....

reduced to dumb ad hominems again?

yawn

hey I know, lets destroy the social system of NZ and hand our entire economy to the greedy few by destroying government with debt: that's the National Way

Want the most inaccessible and expensive medical system on the planet? Look to the Capitalists.

Want massive litigation forcing costs through the roof? Look to Capitalism.

Want to vote once a term and have the politicians ignore you for the next 3 years? Vote for Capitalists.

[svr]

What's the alternative to Capitalism, Idyll? Thats an honest question - not a setup.

[idleidolidyll]

Mate,
I've said it many times

SOCIALISM

Not the propaganda version as described by the fascists but socialism as it should be: a system where the PEOPLE hold the power over their own fate not individuals, mega corporations or small groups.

But to understand the answer you have to define the terminology and that's where the propaganda starts.

I always like to go back to the roots of the words.

Socialism: A system in which the people control the means of production.

Capitalism: A system in which capitalists control the means of production (Capitalists are the wealthy few who control the capital; money)

Conservative: (political) A term used to describe a political ideology that espouses lack of change and the status quo (always favouring the wealthy few or religious domination by one or two 'churches)

Liberal: (political) A term used to describe a political ideology that accepts that people can have valid cultures different from the status quo and which embraces change in order to create equanimity.

Communism: A system in which people are treated as parts of a machine and assigned work for the 'good of the whole' based on their designated skills.

Fascist: Extreme right wing authoritarian capitalism.

Little bits of almost all work quite well. Generally the worst abuses happen when any of these systems are taken over by dictators, corporations or oligarchies. These can be in the form of Mussolinis, Stalins, Bush's, Pol Pots, Thatchers, Pinochets, Mao's, Hitler's etc.

You'll note that the only real commonality is the extereme authoritarianism not the general political ideology.

IMO the most open to the abuse of authoritarianism are the capitalist leaders: those who grasp personal gain.
After all, capitalsim is government for the good of the few with the rest scrambling for scraps.
Those who think trade and industry are 'capitalism' are extremely deluded. Trade and industry are present in all systems and a function of humanity.

You've got to be able to sift the propaganda from the policy.

BTW: Almost all social progress on this planet has been forced from the 'left'.

[idleidolidyll]

In the end it's about power:
control over production essentially means control over people.

do you really want corporations, cliques and individuals controlling your life or would you rather trust a democracy of the people?

Democracy BTW is a left wing idea. Conservatives and capitalists often rail against it and prefer 'strong government' (euphemism for dictatorships)

Monarchies are perhaps the ultimate in capitalism: one person in absolute control holding almost all the wealth.
That system was overcome by the left wing notion called democracy.

[idleidolidyll]

BTW: seen the latest National fuck up?

Well known National politicians taped talking about duping Kiwis during the elections and doing what they want through the back door after they've won the election.

[MisterD]

reduced to dumb ad hominems again?

yawn

hey I know, lets destroy the social system of NZ and hand our entire economy to the greedy few by destroying government with debt: that's the National Way

Want the most inaccessible and expensive medical system on the planet? Look to the Capitalists.

Want massive litigation forcing costs through the roof? Look to Capitalism.

Want to vote once a term and have the politicians ignore you for the next 3 years? Vote for Capitalists.

Want most of our GDP sucked into a massive inefficient government machine? Look to the lefties.

BTW did you see the look on Alan Clark's face when National wheeled out the quotes from her first term? First thing he did was raise borrowing from 25% to 30% of GDP - and now he's bleating about 22%.

Hmm. Who voted to privatise Telecom? Clark.
Who voted to create private airport companies? Yep Clark again.
Which parties have contravened the EFA? All the lefties, plus Winston 1st that voted it in.

Do you really want to talk about Right-wing hypocrisy?

[MisterD]

Monarchies are perhaps the ultimate in capitalism: one person in absolute control holding almost all the wealth.
That system was overcome by the left wing notion called democracy.

That's utter back-to-front bollocks. If capitalism is defined (as you choose to do) by the power all being vested in those with money, then monarchy is the exact opposite.

Monarch is the money all being vested in those with power, usually because their ancestors were handy with a sword.

[SPman]

Selling Kiwibank,slashing Working For Families, borrowing to pay for tax cuts.......but of course - all this was meant to be for the Party faithful, only. Not for the ears of mere common voters! It shows the vast gap between what National is telling us, and what it's telling its supporters and funders.

These are cuts which will have a significant effect on people's lives - and Key has an obligation in a democracy to front up and tell us what they will be, so we can make an informed choice. His refusal to do so speaks volumes, about both his plans, and the contempt he has for us, the voters.

The Chicago School of economics is alive and well in the National party! The economic theory that has laid waste to societies throughout the world, to the benefit of the wealthy few.

And now, it appears, that the IMF is bad for your health!
"This week comes news that tuberculosis deaths, a sensitive indicator of the quality of public health services, climbed in 21 countries during IMF programmes. In addition, the deaths correlate with the length of IMF involvement and the amount loaned. The effect did not appear to be a statistical anomaly, nor the result of other factors affecting TB: the IMF is clearly in the frame." - the IMF - another arm of (mainly) American power and influence!

[SPman]

The full articles

THE International Monetary Fund seemed like such a good idea. That idea, in the hopeful post-war days of the 1940s, was to have a bank that would rescue countries in financial difficulties and put them back on track. Like a wise uncle, it would loan them cash to tide them over, on the condition that they balanced their budgets by making "structural adjustments". Unfortunately, this uncle has proved not to be as wise as was hoped. To achieve structural adjustments, governments have been forced to slash their spending on services needed for long-term economic health: education, agriculture and healthcare.
Plenty of anecdotal evidence exists for the negative impact of IMF loans. A decade ago, frustrated African doctors were calling it the Infant Mortality Fund because of what happened to child survival rates when it started guiding government spending.
This week comes news that tuberculosis deaths, a sensitive indicator of the quality of public health services, climbed in 21 countries during IMF programmes ("IMF loans 'drive TB deaths'"). In addition, the deaths correlate with the length of IMF involvement and the amount loaned. The effect did not appear to be a statistical anomaly, nor the result of other factors affecting TB: the IMF is clearly in the frame.
The main problems here are ideology and evidence - lots of the former and a lack of the latter. Since the 1970s, the IMF has followed the Chicago school of economists, who insist on "small government". That means cutting expenditure, privatising state-owned services, removing government subsidies and so forth. The IMF's measures of success (or otherwise) are almost exclusively economic. It seems to be in denial over growing evidence that achieving these goals damages things like people's health and levels of schooling, even though these are essential to the long-term development of a nation.
It is time to treat IMF programmes like the experiments they are, and measure outcomes using more than just economic indicators. There seems little point in restoring short-term economic stability to a nation if its well-being and prospects for future prosperity are seriously damaged in the process.
We can argue all day about political and economic ideologies, but what really matters is what is happening on the ground, where ideology becomes a matter of life or death. The TB study shows there is more than one way to measure the impact of economic policies. Such real, empirical measures must become a requirement for any effort to manage economies for the benefit of the people they serve.

and

The global organisation charged with securing financial stability and reducing poverty could be bad for your health.
The International Monetary Fund lends money to countries with financial problems and in return requires them to cut spending to control inflation. Critics have long charged that this in fact reduces spending on healthcare and so promotes the spread of disease.
Now David Stuckler and colleagues at the University of Cambridge have analysed the spread of tuberculosis in 21 countries in central and eastern Europe that received IMF loans after 1989. The countries started with a TB mortality rate of 6 per 100,000 people, on average. The researchers found that the loans were linked with a 13 per cent increase in cases of TB, and 16 per cent more deaths (PLoS Medicine, DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0050143). The team also discovered that the countries spent less on TB control and had fewer doctors per person after receiving IMF loans. What's more, the bigger the loan, the bigger the increase in TB that followed.
The effect was not because countries with worsening TB simply attracted more IMF attention, says Stuckler, as the TB rates were falling or at least steady before the IMF loans. The team also found that for each year of a country's involvement with the IMF, the TB death rate increased by 4 per cent, on average.
William Murray, a spokesman for the IMF, says that the organisation advises countries to spend on healthcare, and that the increases in TB and mortality are due to something else.

Yeah, right!

[idleidolidyll]

Want most of our GDP sucked into a massive inefficient government machine? Look to the lefties.

BTW did you see the look on Alan Clark's face when National wheeled out the quotes from her first term? First thing he did was raise borrowing from 25% to 30% of GDP - and now he's bleating about 22%.

Hmm. Who voted to privatise Telecom? Clark.
Who voted to create private airport companies? Yep Clark again.
Which parties have contravened the EFA? All the lefties, plus Winston 1st that voted it in.

Do you really want to talk about Right-wing hypocrisy?

Yep, that money goes mainly into social programs
designed to improve the living standards of those who are less able to survive the abuses of capitalism.
On the other hand, the massive spending of National goes to make the rich richer.
Of thew two over the last 30 years, which has created the most debt and borrowed the most? That's right, National has by far.

When the Lange government took over from National NZ had a debt level that was almost bankrupting us. Labour tried to correct that but was hijacked by a stoolie called Roger Douglas who went on to form NZ's most fascist right wing party: ACT.

Again after the next National govt gave our jobs to foreigners through the Employment Contracts Act and sold our assets and state enterprises down the river, Labour had to bail the country out again and over their term has reduced debt to 17%.

So Clark had to borrow money after the National party screwed NZ over again? Yep, that's the usual way of things. National bankrupts government and Labour has to rescue it again.

Indeed, Labour did sell of assets. They didn't want to but Piggy Muldoon, yes the National Leader, had almost bankrupted the country and there was no choice. Effectively, even though Labour sold some of the assets, National forced that position with outrageous borrowing..............the same kind that Key has just signalled!

[idleidolidyll]

That's utter back-to-front bollocks. If capitalism is defined (as you choose to do) by the power all being vested in those with money, then monarchy is the exact opposite.

Monarch is the money all being vested in those with power, usually because their ancestors were handy with a sword.

good grief! the one is inseperable from the other: with money goes power and with power goes money. capitalism is essentially the wealthy's struggle to reject democracy

lets ignore titular monarchies like the current queen of NZ. She has no power really and is prevented from abuse by democracy.

The ultimate capitalist is someone who has all the power and all the wealth: that neatly defines monarchies before democracy dragged them kicking and screaming into the present (the will of the people, a socialist concept)

[idleidolidyll]

I see my stalkers are here again (bottom of the page)

of course they don't have the brains or integrity to offer debate

what a sad pathetic bunch of losers

rotflmfao!!!!

[Biggles41]

good grief! the one is inseperable from the other: with money goes power and with power goes money. capitalism is essentially the wealthy's struggle to reject democracy
Democracy - comes from the greek words "Demos(People or Mob) Kratos(Rule)" but it is actually more like People Ruled in reality.

lets ignore titular monarchies like the current queen of NZ. She has no power really and is prevented from abuse by democracy.
I would suggest you go to the library and see if you can get a book written by David Icke called "The Biggest Secret" and give yourself a reality check.

The ultimate capitalist is someone who has all the power and all the wealth: that neatly defines monarchies before democracy dragged them kicking and screaming into the present (the will of the people, a socialist concept)

National or Labour = Different face same old mask.

[nudedaytona]

National or Labour = Different face same old mask.

Exactly. So vote for ACT for a real change. Because otherwise it will be all National or Labour, with maybe a bit of the "I did not accept the donation" Winston Peters as Kingmaker. Who wants that.

ACT now has Sir Roger Douglas, who saved NZ from bankruptcy in the 80s back in the fray.

Who would you rather have as finance minister - "I'll rail on about donations but accept them on the sly" Winston Peters, "All you're getting is a packet of Chewing Gum" Michael Cullen, or economic guru Sir Roger Douglas.

[idleidolidyll]

National or Labour = Different face same old mask.

nah, one is centrist the other is fascist

BTW: if you have a point please make it

I'm not trotting off to the library on your whim.

would you trot off and read Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy just on my word?