The welfare state

[FJRider]

Yeah? News to me Scummy. I'd have thought it was far simpler and cheaper to sell the semen than ship live animals. Got a link?

Don't you watch country calender ??? ... was on a while back ....

http://www.agritech.org.nz/products-liveanimal.shtml

[Winston001]

Cheers FJ, thanks for the link.

[The Stranger:Me]

Firstly, me being in government is your biggest nightmare, I would think.

Too true, too true - especially given your vague directionless rambling.

And no, I don't see a feasible "Business As Usual" growth scenario in my lifetime - which is why even if your scheme did somehow magically create more companies and jobs I'd be interested to see what you think they would produce. Knowledge economy, gaming and entertainment or similar? They're over.Unspecified next big thing? Spare me the magical thinking. Green economy? A bit too late. May be some minor progress for a while here and there, but the long term trend overall is inexorable decline.

Shit, that's a pretty neat trick. Did you have to send that post to Redmond to get them to extract anything useful and pad it with waffle or is there a wafflise function in the editor that I don't know about?

I thought surely after your critique of my ideas you would surely have a plan of your own. It turns out yours is worse than the average lotto punter. Like you they know what they want, but the difference is at least they have a plan of how to get it.


Now to some nuts and bolts.

For a start, any company does help the economy. Be they service industries, knowledge, gaming whatever. Not all are going to improve our standard of living as a whole, but they may well improve some individual/s standard of living.
They employ people for one thing. They churn money for another. The more times money changes hands the happier everyone is - as more get to clip the ticket.

I have no doubt however that companies that say bring in tourism or export are best at raising the nation's standard of living.
So whilst we are at it, what do you have against Fontera? One of your earlier posts you seemed a touch disconcerted by large dairy. Regardless of that - and because it illustrates a point here. Fletcher Construction. It was not that long ago that it was the 4th largest construction company in America (by way of subsidiaries) and measured by value of contracts in play - co-incidentally it was also the 8th largest in the world by the same measure. Where it ranks now I do not know. However, you can be very sure that they have one hell of a capacity and some very talented people.

So, my point is, Kiwis can do shit. They can reach the top.
Your post appears very negative you use your opinion "I don't see a feasible "Business As Usual" growth scenario in my lifetime" to justify why my scheme won't work.
Just as China benefits from it's exports and as does Japan (countries previously cited as power house economies) so too can we.

We have people and companies capable of great innovation (including in our primary industry and lets face, everyone in the world likes to eat too) - jet pack anyone?, or a never go flat battery, a high efficiency pump, or a high efficiency electric motor or a whole host of other things. Many of these things never reach their potential. Much of it for want of money. In the states you have soo many people with soo much money that these things will get off the ground.
The Segway is a classic - in the USA people like Paul Allen tipped in huge amounts of money without even knowing what it was that was being invented. In NZ - it never would have happened, it would still be in a back shed.

SO - my point is we can do it, we can create design, produce, export and run large successful companies the generate foreign income and that would be easier and more common if these companies had more money. More people would be employed, fewer people would be on the dole, the government could then reduce the tax take and we'd all live happily ever after.

[rainman]

Too true, too true - especially given your vague directionless rambling.

Now you're just being mean. I could counter by saying it seems waffle is any shit you don't understand.

I thought surely after your critique of my ideas you would surely have a plan of your own.

No, I have no magic plan. Because there is NO FUCKING MAGIC PLAN to get back to Friedmanite growth nirvana. We are done, finished, kaput. (Un-waffly enough for you?)

So, my point is, Kiwis can do shit. They can reach the top.

If we are so fucking good, then why aren't we? Oh, that's right, the taxes and excessive labour laws and.... boo fucking hoo.

SO - my point is we can do it, we can create design, produce, export and run large successful companies the generate foreign income and that would be easier and more common if these companies had more money. More people would be employed, fewer people would be on the dole, the government could then reduce the tax take and we'd all live happily ever after.

Buddy, let me spell it out:
- Your "plan" is cartoonishly oversimple
- We've already tried it and it just fucked the economy over (well, it was a contributing factor)
- No-one else that I can find has radically slashed company taxes and found their economy sustainably transformed. Lest you think this is waffle, I'm saying Your Plan Won't Work In The Real World Even If It Sounds Like A Really Good Idea.
- Yes I know you said just cut them a little but originally you were all on about the PR appeal to foreign owners of 0% yada yada. If you want to cut company taxes a bit, meh. It'll just lose whoever does it the next election, but go for it if it makes you happy.

[scissorhands]

Where does all the pooh come from? Who' s winning?

Is the new age upon us? Can the world move on and live together as one yet?

Or are we still stuck in the past?

Will feudal warlords reign again or will the UN take over the ship and eject all the cooks in the kitchen?

[Winston001]

Will feudal warlords reign again or will the UN take over the ship and eject all the cooks in the kitchen?

I'm sure we will have a world government one of these days but not soon. Too much argy bargy at the moment.

Alternatively science fiction has predicted corporate nations instead of countries. If we consider globalisation and the fact there are companies with bigger economies than small nations....maybe we are close already.

[Clockwork]

We're already well on the way.....


and the good thing about corporate democracies is (depending on you point of view) instead of one man one vote it's one dollar one vote

[oneofsix]

We're already well on the way.....


and the good thing about corporate democracies is (depending on you point of view) instead of one man one vote it's one dollar one vote

The great leap backwards, been done except last time it was based on land ownership, hence why all maori men had the vote before most white men.

[SPman]

We're already well on the way.....


and the good thing about corporate democracies is (depending on you point of view) instead of one man one vote it's one dollar one vote

Corporate..

democracies..

The 2 concepts are mutually exclusive!

a democracy is far more than one man, one vote.......

[mashman]

We're already well on the way.....


and the good thing about corporate democracies is (depending on you point of view) instead of one man one vote it's one dollar one vote

like it isn't already here? Plutarchy. and I found the images in this quite amusing (albeit it's merka, and it's statistics )

[Winston001]

I've seen those figures elsewhere Mash. I suspect they aren't completely unbiased but also true enough. The disparities in wealth distribution are enough to cause revolution. What is likely to happen if the ordinary people make enough noise, are new capital taxes and death duties which redistribute wealth.

That's what happened in NZ in the late 19th century and in Britain. In fact the Brits still have hefty taxes to flatten wealth inequality.

[SPman]

That's what happened in NZ in the late 19th century and in Britain. In fact the Brits still have hefty taxes to flatten wealth inequality.

But getting lesser by the year.......

[rainman]

like it isn't already here? Plutarchy. and I found the images in this quite amusing (albeit it's merka, and it's statistics )

But wait, won't it all just get better if we give our mighty atlases more money?

By value of total taxable income (Individuals, 2009, but still):
Average income bottom 90% = $31,193 per person per year
That's roughly 98.8% of us that derived a taxable income (see below).
Average income top 10% = $270,000 pppy
Average income top 5% = $447,413 pppy

We don't have stats for 1% or 0.01% but spot the pattern.

Includes income from employment and taxable welfare benefits, super, student allowances etc. Does not include anyone with no taxable income, but 134,160 that filed zero taxable income (might be a coupla paths to that). Does not include WFF tax credits, but others are included, except donations and.. ah feck it, there are some exceptions and inclusions, look it up yourself if you care enough.

Somehow, I think Michael Cullen was right.

I suspect they aren't completely unbiased but also true enough.

On what basis do you think there might be bias? And how can they be biased but true enough?

[mashman]

I've seen those figures elsewhere Mash. I suspect they aren't completely unbiased but also true enough. The disparities in wealth distribution are enough to cause revolution. What is likely to happen if the ordinary people make enough noise, are new capital taxes and death duties which redistribute wealth.

That's what happened in NZ in the late 19th century and in Britain. In fact the Brits still have hefty taxes to flatten wealth inequality.

I'm sure there's a spin... but as you point out, there's probably some truth in it. Heh, no amount of money can sort the "wealth gap". You just have to mention the idea and people start scrambling for the socialist, lefty basket, I've earned it, why should you get it for free etc...

Sounds more like the playground politics of 19th century NZ... As for the UK... if footballers can "get away" with it, then who else isn't?

[Winston001]

On what basis do you think there might be bias? And how can they be biased but true enough?

D'you really want to know? I've developed a healthy scepticism of colourful websites littered with charts, pies, and absolute statements. However the trend is probably fairly indicated so in that sense there is an essential truth.

Just to illustrate, the American stats do not include state taxes and state sales taxes. Neither do they include state welfare payments and benefits. All the figures are federal only.

The American left are intelligent and able to manipulate data just as effectively as the right.

Articles shorn of emotion with balanced viewpoints are more likely to have credibility.

None of which answers the core postulation that 21st century capitalism is concentrating wealth in fewer and fewer hands. I do not support that.

¡Viva la Revolución!