She's a bit of a heifer - But I think I love Paula Bennett

[SPman]

......but why didn't the govt let them fold

Because there's one law for them, and one for us. As George Carlin said ..it's a private club and you and I ain't in it!
Amazing how "socialist", right wing govs are when it comes to saving their own...socialise their losses and privatise their profits!

These "new" laws are exactly the same old laws they brought in last time they were in power - they didn't work then, so what makes people think they will work now! In fact, they caused more harm than good!
But...what do you expect from hypocritical cynical bozo's like Bennett?

[saxet]

The Nats do this every time but it never works or saves money due to the cost of implementation and monitoring.
This is a government that said it would increase jobs but obviously can't so will resort to kicking the people it failed

Remember a few months ago a supermarket was opening in the far north, I think it was, they had 120 jobs available and over 2000 applicants.... makes a mockery of the ünwilling to work theory.

But this is UNZUD the country where it's fun to kick the unlucky and claim they're all bludgers.

[mashman]

But...what do you expect from hypocritical cynical bozo's like Bennett?

If that's a real question... ... all I have to do is turn around and talk to the guy behind me (National supporter)... they can see what's happening, yet refuse to suggest any alternatives and file it in the too hard basket, because it's someone else's job to deal with these things... Personally i'd like to see the govt try something new. Going after the great unwashed is a futile gesture... looks like post 75, nice, outlines just how futile it is... we all know nothing changes, "but we're alright jack"...

[Quasievil]

And then what? Deal P from your back room to pay the mortgage? Rob little old ladies to feed the kids? Steal bread from the local supermarket?

Rely on your family or get off ya arse and get a job or invent one or be proactive.

must be nice (in a way) to live in a cartoon world and have so little apprehension of reality.

Cartoon reality is the welfare system we have now, time to face up and sort it asap

[Quasievil]

But...what do you expect from hypocritical cynical bozo's like Bennett?

And of course the socialist left i.e you have the answers........not in the 9 year rule I lived through recently, or is constant feeding of the gravy train the answer, and thats clearly not the case.

so whats your position on income earning mining, cant have that either I suspect.

[Mully]

a). is actually the most stable and sustainable route. That $4.8 billion is the price we have to pay for a healthy free-market economy. And John Key knows that. That’s why he’s put in place a measure that will simultaneously please his voters, cost relatively little, and substantively change less.

I read a report recently (can't find it now) that hypothesised that zero unemployment is extremely unefficient - the economy has to find jobs for people who are simply not capable of working. Apaprently, 6% is near the golden point.

Must go an google for a while to see if I can find it.

[duckonin]

Rely on your family or get off ya arse and get a job or invent one or be proactive.



Cartoon reality is the welfare system we have now, time to face up and sort it asap

So Quasievil, How would you go about sorting the welfare system that we have now ?

[Mully]

hypothesised that zero unemployment is extremely unefficient -.

Unefficient... Jesus.

Me fail English? That's unpossible

[Winston001]

Wouldn't it be nice to have a government that understood the issues, or even better, had the stones to start a dialogue with us about the hard work we need to put in to deal with the future?

I have long thought the same. One of the downsides of social democracy is the population becomes reliant upon government to solve all problems. The "cradle to the grave support" we all now expect is a worthy policy. The trouble is that it shifts responsibility from the individual to the state. My problem of day to day survival becomes yours to support me. Regrettably there is no concomitant awareness that I should be doing all I can to support myself. The lack of savings for old age with the expectation of a pension is clear evidence of how we think.

I'd like to see a government which plainly said - We cannot afford the current level of healthcare, education, infrastructure and social welfare support (including pensions). We need to talk about this and what we as a people can do to improve our lot.

Politicians are just people at the end of the day. They try policies which they hope will work but are susceptible to media noise and voter pressure. They have more information on the big picture than most of us but to get anywhere we all need some of that big picture too. That is the only way we will ever get broad agreement.

[Scorp]

so whats your position on income earning mining, cant have that either I suspect.

Income for whom? The foreign consortiums that do the mining, their foreign shareholders, or the foreign governments that get all tax revenue from those corps repatriated profits.

Mining accounts for 3% of NZ GDP and employs about 6,000 people. Tourism accounts for 20% of GDP and employs about 110,000. Don't you think tourism might be a better generator of income for Kiwis than mining?

[SPman]

so whats your position on income earning mining, cant have that either I suspect.

I'm not against mining, but not at the expense of pristine, wildlife schedule 4 heritage land. FFS, it only makes up a tiny proportion of the total landmass - .2% or something - can't they find anything in the rest?
How the figures stack up (from the Standard)
$194 billion: The supposed total value of all the minerals in New Zealand excluding coal, oil, and gas. Mostly, this is silica, ironsand, clay, feldspar, and other stuff of low value that is spread throughout the country in large quantities. This $194 billion figure (which is about one year’s GDP) comes from one man, Richard Baker, who just so happens to be a member of a couple of mining lobby groups. We could never dig it all up, that would be strip-mining the country – like tearing down your house to sell the scrap for a year’s income – and much of it would be uneconomic to extract anyway.
$80 billion: The value of the minerals Baker says are in the conservation estate. This is the amount in the total conservation estate, not the smaller area that is protected from mining by Schedule 4. Again, it’s mainly low-value, bulky stuff that wouldn’t be economical for the most part (after all, most of it is in areas where mining permits can be sought). A lot of it is dirty coal.
$60 billion: The potential value of the minerals on conservation land that Baker says could be economically extracted. This is not the amount that is in Schedule 4 land, and certainly not the amount in the areas of Schedule 4 land the Government wants to open to mining (which is why I cringed when I saw Guyon Espiner had written “Brownlee estimates that there could be as much as $60 billion worth of minerals in the tiny amount of turf to be prospected.” Just keeping up the Espiner tradition, I guess).
$54 billion: The supposed mineral wealth in the Coromandel. Remember that is a total, not the amount that is economically accessible or the amount in the areas of Schedule 4 land the Nats want to open up. Denis Tegg of Coromandel Watchdog tells me that amount equates to 500 underground mines or 27 more Waihi-style open-cast mines.
$18 billion: the estimated value of the minerals in the areas of Schedule 4 land the government wants to open up. That’s three years of current mining production, hardly enough to make a significant impact on the economy when extracted over several decades.
$6.8 billion: revenue of the mining industry (including oil and gas) in 2008. It paid just $500 million in wages and salaries and only $70 million in royalties. Even if it doubled in size, mining would be an insignificant contributor to government revenue and the country’s wages. Mining companies made a $2 billion pre-tax profit in 2008, most of the big miners are foreign-owned and exported their profits.*
$4 billion: The amount being bandied about as the value of gold and silver deposits in the area on Great Barrier Island the Government is threatening to remove from Schedule 4. I don’t know where this number comes from but the geological report accompanying the minerals stocktake puts the figure at only $1 billion.
$1-$2 billion: The possible value of the dirty coal under the 8% of Paparoa National Park that National wants to open to mining. This coal could be used to power coal power plants. We’re meant to be stopping using coal at Huntly because of its contribution to climate change, the ETS is meant to price coal out of electricity generation. Maybe National wants to export the coal for someone else to burn.
A few tens of millions: The value of aggregate identified in the Ecological Areas near Whangamata that National wants to allow mining of, according to the geological report. That report didn’t have access to the latest data from mineral prospecting company Glass Earth, which makes me think they and National know something no-one else does.
40 million: the number of tonnes of tailings left by the Waihi gold/silver mine so far.
24 million: tonnes of carbon dioxide that would be emitted by burning the 16 million tonnes of coal in the are of Paparoa National Park. That’s $30 million worth of carbon credits even with the low cap set by the ETS.
23 million: the area in hectares of New Zealand not covered by Schedule 4.
6,100: the number of people employed in the mining sector currently on a median wage of $57,700. Mining companies made an average pre-tax profit of $386,800 in 2008.
140: grammes of silver and 3.6 grammes of gold per tonne in the main seam on Great Barrier. 4.1 million tonnes of earth would need to be dug up and treated in cyanide then decontaminated and dumped to get the 600 tonnes of valuable metals.
82: mining concessions currently on the conservation estate. None of which are on Schedule 4 land.
5: years before any mine would start producing. By that time Treasury expects the budget deficit will be all but gone, so the argument that we need mining to pay for public services is wrong. And it’s doubly wrong when you consider the small income the government would get from this mining.
less than 2%: Mining’s contribution to GDP. Even if the mining industry were somehow doubled (and it couldn’t get near that on current plans) it would be an insignificant increase to GDP and government revenue. Remember, this is the Government’s one big economic idea.
Less than 1%: The royalty the government gets for letting foreign companies dig up and take away our minerals on our land.
Zero: the likelihood of mining on Great Barrier. It’s classic bait and switch. Aucklanders get all upset about Great Barrier. The government ‘listens’ and decides to let foreign companies dig up more of our wealth for themselves in places like Stewart Island and Kahurangi instead.

[SPman]

The "cradle to the grave support" we all now expect is a worthy policy.

Fuck the cradle to grave policy.....lets have an "erection to resurrection " policy!

[Mudfart]

Well, this country got damn close in the '50s. At one point there were I think 26 people unemloyed, and the Prime Minister Keith Holyoake knew the name of every one of them. Seriously.

A.

ahhh the 50's. wasn't there also compulsory military service back then?. It was for the school leavers wasn't it?

[rwh]

Rely on your family or get off ya arse and get a job or invent one or be proactive.

Oh, nice. You obviously run your own business, so you presumably have the skills to do so. Not everyone does, and many of them probably have families who are themselves struggling to get by.

Richard

[Quasievil]

So Quasievil, How would you go about sorting the welfare system that we have now ?

I did , I voted National

Income for whom? The foreign consortiums that do the mining, their foreign shareholders, or the foreign governments that get all tax revenue from those corps repatriated profits.

Mining accounts for 3% of NZ GDP and employs about 6,000 people. Tourism accounts for 20% of GDP and employs about 110,000. Don't you think tourism might be a better generator of income for Kiwis than mining?

I would be disappointed if all the revenue goes over seas, but Im not going to assume it is (as you seem to have done??) I believe Mr Key would have a bit more business acumen than that.

and We already invest in Tourisim and we have a whole industry promoting it, we need more than one string to our bow.............especially with the gravy train the Socialists have encouraged in the last 9 years