Who will win the 2011 election?

[Ocean1]

Oh dear, I am going to have to find the really small words. My point is that the average kiwi business owner is a two-bit small fry unable even to understand most problems addressed by government, let alone derive good long-term goals for these, and strategies to achieve them. Given our business failure rate, even if they were given these missing pieces, a large chunk would fail to deliver them. The job is best done by government, with the business owners sticking to what they do best - moving some more widgets this quarter. (A noble, if humble, goal, one might add).

You have an ideology because you are unwilling to debate (or, I suspect, consider) the truth of this view, because you have been indoctrinated to believe in small government and the atlas-like virtues of our captains of industry. (That's the positive interpretation).

And all politicians who stand a chance of getting elected "purchase" votes. So what?

Given that small businessmen are responsible for generating some 80% of the country's revenue I'd hesitate to describe them collectively as "two-bit small fry". But then I've got no reason to denigrate them or their respective abilities.

The fact is those "problems addressed by government" are almost exclusively not amenible to the application of good business practices. They don't, by and large constitute a viable commercial process. In short; they're a collection of ideologically driven spend-ups purporting to be institutionalised charity. They invariably fail utterly to return good value for money.

Why, for example is not the ministry of trade and industry not held at least partially responsible for the early business failure rate? Is it possible the answers aren’t wanted? Has it, I wonder anything to do with the cost of the purchase of those votes?

There. And hardly a nasturtium cast.

[rainman]

Given that small businessmen are responsible for generating some 80% of the country's revenue I'd hesitate to describe them collectively as "two-bit small fry". But then I've got no reason to denigrate them or their respective abilities.

I don't think the sector in aggregate is unimportant - we need lots of two bit small fry small businesses, in fact I'd firmly say we need more of these and less of the larger multinational corporates - but my point remains they're, on average, not up to the task of managing government scale assets; which was the original point. They should get on with making and shipping widgets and doing useful commercial services, and leave government to manage the more complicated stuff.

The fact is those "problems addressed by government" are almost exclusively not amenible to the application of good business practices. They don't, by and large constitute a viable commercial process. In short; they're a collection of ideologically driven spend-ups purporting to be institutionalised charity. They invariably fail utterly to return good value for money.

Money is an unsuitable measure for some things, perhaps most things in government. One could argue that's a key indicator of whether it should be public or private, with some notable strategic exceptions (energy, airlines, some broadcasting and banking). This belief that everything must be expressed in purely monetary terms is a popular fault with right-wing governments and pundits. Right up there with thinking you can run a national economy like a business, but that's probably another digression.

Why, for example is not the ministry of trade and industry not held at least partially responsible for the early business failure rate?

Mainly because we don't have one - maybe you mean MED? Surely this would only be possible if they had greater control over the operations of those businesses, which might cause you different stress?

[Ocean1]

I don't think the sector in aggregate is unimportant - we need lots of two bit small fry small businesses, in fact I'd firmly say we need more of these and less of the larger multinational corporates - but my point remains they're, on average, not up to the task of managing government scale assets; which was the original point. They should get on with making and shipping widgets and doing useful commercial services, and leave government to manage the more complicated stuff.

Oh I know several native NZ commercial entities that have proven success in asset management. Their key atribute seems to be a knack for eliminating political inteferance. None of them fit your colourful description of hic-town grocery store owners. In fact I don't think many NZ businesses do.

But yes, off shore asset management specialists are largely parasitic. The numerous rounds of asset stripping, on-selling, bail-outs and re-outsourcing is a joke. But you can't really blame them, their objectives are very transparent, and usually not at all what the government envisioned or wanted.

Money is an unsuitable measure for some things, perhaps most things in government.

Perhaps because money isn't the resource required to achieve most social policy "deliverables".

Doesn't stop them trying. And trying....

[shrub]

If your kids don't go to the same schools....

My stepdaughter goes to one of those schools, and her mother and I are appalled by the attitude displayed by the other kids and the parents. My partner is actually looked down on by the other mothers because she works, and my stepdaughter is treated as a second class person because she doesn't have regular overseas trips etc, and on mufti days wears Glassons instead of designer label clothes - these are 10 year olds. Your value as a person is measured entirely by how much money you are seen to spend.

The real fallacy comes from those in the 5% or thereabouts, who are working hard and doing moderately well, who then identify with and defend the 1%. This leads to the beliefs that a) if they keep working harder they can one day "make it" and be very wealthy too (this has the side effect of making people buy the false faith that making money is the meaning of life), and b) that if only the lazy bludgers at the bottom worked harder they could also "make it". These sentiments are often expressed here. Useful idiocy at it's finest.

And that my friend is gold, but I would say it is probably more like the 25%. People (usually self employed men) who earn not a hell of a lot more than the average wage - maybe $70 - $100k or so, find themselves living in a degree of opulence, and the neo-liberal PR machine convinces them that they are no different to men like John Key and Alan Gibbs, and the only thing holding them back is criminally high taxes which are used to support a long trail of leeches, from civil servants who contribute nothing to lazy people who live a life of indolence and luxury on benefits.

To have the ideal world where everyone is engaged and working, and we are thereby succeeding individually and as a nation, we would need to address a whole bunch of difficult stuff like education, drugs and alcohol, employment conditions, job availability, infrastructure/geography, motivation, legal and economic policy (dis)incentives, population, immigration, race and prejudice, ownership and globalisation. These are tough issues, and no political party has come close to fixing them yet - although some approaches are better than others.

These are tough issues, and they are mutually exclusive to tax cuts and subsidies for big business (eg the $400m to be spent on irrigation), therefore they will only likely be addressed when it's too late.

Envy is not involved in my complaint, nor is some neo-Marxist redistribution narrative, 'cos that doesn't work for long. I'd like us to fix the problems properly. Bleating about dole bludgers not working hard enough is not just misidentifying the problem, it's beating up the victims (some exceptions).

and the hard core benefit bludgers are far and few between and probably cost less about the same as the ministerial BMWs, but it's good to blame them because they are not us. They are "others", and if our problems are caused by "others" it means all we have to do is Get Someone In Authority To Do Something Abut It. If we recognise that our social and economic problems come from living beyond our means and acting like a bunch of selfish individuals instead of a society, then that means WE need to do something about it. If we recogise that WE are the problem, that means what WE do is the solution, and that solution might mean we need to live according to our means and start treating the people who have less than us better.

Fuck that for a joke, what we need is to have bigger tax cuts, lay off most of the public servce and cut all benefits immediately.

[shrub]

And Governments are notoriously bad at managing assets...........

Oh dear, you've been listening to Roger Douglas, haven't you?

Actually Governments don't manage assets - civil servants manage assets on behalf of the citizens who own those assets, and that is a very good reason not to strip the civil service because the first people to go are the ones who can get jobs in the private sector - the best employees.

Some of those assets provide the "free" services we use (schools, hospitals, police etc) and our taxes pay for those services. Other assets provide essential infrastructure (power companies etc) which is paid for by those using them which generates a profit therefore providing a dividend stream which reduces the need for taxation.

[Swoop]

Can anyone explain the green party's billboard?

The one where a man and a young boy are standing in the middle of nowhere, with a wind farm a distance away in the background.
A pleasant scene. Open space. Lots of green grass, etc, etc.

Why, in the name of common sense, is the bloke wearing a fucking hard hat and hi-viz vest?

Is he promoting safety? If so, why isn't the kid kitted out in safety gear?
Is he a tosser? Probably.
Have they both signed the visitors book to this worksite? Probably not.

Interestingly, next to the billboard I spotted, there was an ACT billboard with "less bureaucracy" on it. Quite ironic, I thought.

[shrub]

Can anyone explain the green party's billboard?

The one where a man and a young boy are standing in the middle of nowhere, with a wind farm a distance away in the background.
A pleasant scene. Open space. Lots of green grass, etc, etc.

Why, in the name of common sense, is the bloke wearing a fucking hard hat and hi-viz vest?

Is he promoting safety? If so, why isn't the kid kitted out in safety gear?
Is he a tosser? Probably.
Have they both signed the visitors book to this worksite? Probably not.

Interestingly, next to the billboard I spotted, there was an ACT billboard with "less bureaucracy" on it. Quite ironic, I thought.

yes, I can see how you would find that confusing as there was no caption explaining it, so i hope this helps: - the guy works as a mechanical engineer for a company developing cleantech energy systems that are exported worldwide, so he has to wear safety gear when he's out on site. His wife and kid came to visit him in his lunchbreak, and he didn't bother taking off his safety gear when he gave his kid a hug because he couldn't be arsed even though he knew that some people would get confused and upset. And he may well be a tosser, but he earns more money than you and his missus is much hotter than yours. Plus his bike is better.

You'll no doubt be a little worried that the child in the river in the other billboard hasn't got a lifejacket on - it's OK, the water is quite shallow and the kid has been swimming since not long after he could walk, plus the people in the background are all trained lifeguards. They've just caught a big old trout which they're about to cook for lunch with some new potatoes and fresh salad, all of which will be washed down with a cold beer for the adults and a nice orange juice for the kids.

If you want me to explain any other billboards, adverts or even movies and TV series, just let me know. It's always a pleasure to help the confused.

[oneofsix]

Oh dear, you've been listening to Roger Douglas, haven't you?

Actually Governments don't manage assets - civil servants manage assets on behalf of the citizens who own those assets, and that is a very good reason not to strip the civil service because the first people to go are the ones who can get jobs in the private sector - the best employees.

Some of those assets provide the "free" services we use (schools, hospitals, police etc) and our taxes pay for those services. Other assets provide essential infrastructure (power companies etc) which is paid for by those using them which generates a profit therefore providing a dividend stream which reduces the need for taxation.

This is not in line with IMF policy.
You must privatise everything so it can be bought by the multinationals.
Oh and don't forget to ask your councils to install water meters if they haven't already cause IMF needs that infrastructure built up to a level where it will be economic for a multinational to give a damn, what with water being a commodity but internet access being a necessary and all.

[SPman]

yes, I can see how you would find that confusing as there was no caption explaining it, so i hope this helps: - the guy works as a mechanical engineer for a company developing cleantech energy systems that are exported worldwide, so he has to wear safety gear when he's out on site. His wife and kid came to visit him in his lunchbreak, and he didn't bother taking off his safety gear when he gave his kid a hug because he couldn't be arsed even though he knew that some people would get confused and upset. And he may well be a tosser, but he earns more money than you and his missus is much hotter than yours. Plus his bike is better.

You'll no doubt be a little worried that the child in the river in the other billboard hasn't got a lifejacket on - it's OK, the water is quite shallow and the kid has been swimming since not long after he could walk, plus the people in the background are all trained lifeguards. They've just caught a big old trout which they're about to cook for lunch with some new potatoes and fresh salad, all of which will be washed down with a cold beer for the adults and a nice orange juice for the kids.

If you want me to explain any other billboards, adverts or even movies and TV series, just let me know. It's always a pleasure to help the confused.

Orange juice for the kids!!!

Bad bad bad!

Should be good quality water from the river, sans fructose overload which could damage his teeth!

[shrub]

Orange juice for the kids!!!

Bad bad bad!

Should be good quality water from the river, sans fructose overload which could damage his teeth!

nah, the river water is full of giardia. We are of course talking freshly squeezed and delicious orange juice, and the young chap in the picture, as well as being a champion swimmer at age 7 has made a goal of being a dentist and is already completing stage one university.

[SPman]

nah, the river water is full of giardia. ......

Bloody tourists!

[shrub]

Bloody tourists!

The Greens are currently engaged in major damage control - all the people in that picture have since got sick and died from eating fish caught in a New Zealand river.

[Robert Taylor]

Oh dear, you've been listening to Roger Douglas, haven't you?

Actually Governments don't manage assets - civil servants manage assets on behalf of the citizens who own those assets, and that is a very good reason not to strip the civil service because the first people to go are the ones who can get jobs in the private sector - the best employees.

Some of those assets provide the "free" services we use (schools, hospitals, police etc) and our taxes pay for those services. Other assets provide essential infrastructure (power companies etc) which is paid for by those using them which generates a profit therefore providing a dividend stream which reduces the need for taxation.

No I remember the Norman Kirks and Bill Rowlings of this world. Plenty of highly paid civil servants have made a fat living out of Government juggernauts that were an empty money pit continually topped up by excessive taxation. Irrespective of the party in power. Actually Im not a fan of Roger Douglas and Rainman made some good points about small business in a preceding post to yours. There is indeed too much emphasis on pandering to the multi nationals. No party is ideal and what I really fear is a Labour Led Government propped up by the billboard vandals and maybe Mana with ( this is REALLY terrible ) John ''rent a mob'' Minto as an MP.
I think in reality many of us have parallell concerns and see what is the lesser of the evils, the sad reality is that most of what we have got as politicians are idiots.

[Swoop]

yes, It's always a pleasure to help the confused.

No intelligent answer either, eh?

[shrub]

No I remember the Norman Kirks and Bill Rowlings of this world. Plenty of highly paid civil servants have made a fat living out of Government juggernauts that were an empty money pit continually topped up by excessive taxation.

I see, you haven't just been listening to Roger Douglas, you've been watching reruns of Glide Time. Mate, when Norm Kirk and Bill Rowling were in power the Kawasaki Z1 was a state of the art superbike. And NZ had one of the highest standards of living in the world.

No party is ideal and what I really fear is a Labour Led Government propped up by the billboard vandals

I had no idea that the guy who did the billboard thing was the leader of a political party. He was a member of the Greens, but they kicked him out because he was a dickhead.