Who will win the 2011 election?

[Robert Taylor]

BTW it came out of my personal account, not my filthy profits.

[rainman]

And yet...is this really a problem? Is it so terrible that some people are very wealthy? The 1% who allegedly hold vast riches still only hold 16.4% of New Zealand's total wealth. That means 84% is held by the rest of us. To be honest it doesn't seem so terrible to me.

Hmmm. I know you always look for the silver lining, and are typically more "relaxed" than Mr Key. I can't think of something that you might regard as terrible, actually, so that's neither surprising nor informative.

However, the point wasn't the current state, but the trend. Not to say the current state isn't a problem in itself: we are not the most unequal country in the world, but we're worse in Gini terms than a lot of supposedly "lesser" countries: Bulgaria, Ethiopia, various -stans, for example. I don't know the source of your data re the top 10% but if it's correct, it means that statistic has become quite a bit worse over the last 5 years or so. Inequality, as the science will tell you, is a good proxy indicator for a bunch of other social ills, many of which we're indeed suffering from. If you look at the graphs referenced in that link, for things like infant deaths, mental health, drug abuse, obesity, child well-being, we're towards the higher end of the inequality curve, and usually above the line (worse) than the average for the indicator. So although "you're all right, Jack" the same cannot be said for all of us. Consider the programme on TV the other day on child health. Not all can be laid at the door of inequality, for sure, but we should all be shamefully aware that we're doing it wrong.

And the trend is clear: for the last 25 years or so*, inequality has been getting sharply worse. No surprise there either, as we've implemented the standard rich-friendly neoliberal policy set, believing foolishly that the trickle-down fairies would set it all right. They won't - the utopia of classical liberalism is a crock; it makes most of us worse off for the sole benefit of a shrinking few. If you reference the stats I posted up above you'll see the growth that the top have enjoyed has come from the bottom, both here and in other developed countries. Much though this is anathema to many supposedly right-thinking minds, it does seem the game of economic growth through classical liberalism is far more zero-sum than a rising tide that lifts all boats, in any meaningful sense, at least.

So, I'd ask the following questions of you:
1. Do you agree the trend is unsustainable, and that we are heading in the wrong direction?
2. What Gini co-efficient would we have to have to raise your blood pressure a point or two? Is just any level of inequality OK, or is there a bridge too far?
3. You're a smart (if somewhat accommodating) fellow. Considering the above, how can you continue to endorse the same policies that, it is undeniably clear, will just make things worse? I'll bet you a beer that, despite seeing the problem I've described above (and perhaps even feeling a twinge of recognition that maybe all is not well), you'll block it from your mind and go off on Saturday to tick the right-wing boxes regardless, thereby opting for more of the same plus some extra please. Is this anything other than simple self-interest from you and your class?

* You may note that this covers a period of time in which both Labour and National governments were in power. I don't have detailed stats to see how their policies affect inequality, but I do note that it's predominantly the left that is advocating tax-free thresholds, lifting wages, creating jobs, and targeting remedial action to the specific ills we have fallen prey to as a result of our historical stupidity.

No, but, as the report card says "could do better", and in the past, has been much better.

This is the essence, indeed. The problem is getting worse, and our policy settings are making it worse. Saying "it isn't so bad now" as Winston does above, is either missing the point, or actively trying to neutralise it. The blog equivalent of "la la la it's all OK I can't hear you".

[Ocean1]

The problem is getting worse, and our policy settings are making it worse. Saying "it isn't so bad now" as Winston does above, is either missing the point, or actively trying to neutralise it. The blog equivalent of "la la la it's all OK I can't hear you".

Getting worse it probably is, but I think Winston’s just not so inherently infantile as to believe that all of society’s ills:

If you look at the graphs referenced in that link, for things like infant deaths, mental health, drug abuse, obesity, child well-being, we're towards the higher end of the inequality curve, and usually above the line (worse) than the average for the indicator.

...are caused by an inequality of income. I’m with him, it’s a bizarre concept.

And we’ve done this before, innit. I’d contend that it’s far more likely that there’s an over-arching cause for all of the bad shit you’ve listed and more, including low income: Failure. Personal failure. Firstly and foremost it's a failure to anticipate the consequences of unproductive behaviour and a failure to plan. I just can't see that as the falure of the productive members of society.

You can find the reasons for the real cause, if you look. They’re wide and varied and none of them will be altered by the application of cash, whether it’s from an employer or the taxpayer.

[shrub]

Hmmm. ...we have fallen prey to as a result of our historical stupidity.... the problem is getting worse, and our policy settings are making it worse.

In the essence of brevity I have condensed your post. There is a definition of insanity - expecting a different result with the same actions, and we are watching poverty, inequality and crime steadily increase. At the same time we are slipping backwards in almost every measure relative to other OECD countries to the point where we are generally ranked with places like Mexico and Turkey and financially we are heading to join Greece and Ireland, yet what solutions do we seek? Tax cuts and reductions in welfare spending? Subsidies for specific industries (dairy)? Sale of assets? These "solutions" have never worked anywhere in the world, so why do we so desperately hope that somehow things will be different this time?

We are like the abused woman returning to her partner - "he has said he will change", and then she wonders why he gets drunk again and beats her up. Or the serial failed businessman who starts yet another business where he looks after the books because he doesn't want to waste money on an accountant.

If we want NZ to be a safe country where children don't go to school hungry, and where everyone who wants to work has a job, why do we insist on pursuing the ideologies that have failed to achieve that for over 25 years?

[oneofsix]

In the essence of brevity I have condensed your post. There is a definition of insanity - expecting a different result with the same actions, and we are watching poverty, inequality and crime steadily increase. At the same time we are slipping backwards in almost every measure relative to other OECD countries to the point where we are generally ranked with places like Mexico and Turkey and financially we are heading to join Greece and Ireland, yet what solutions do we seek? Tax cuts and reductions in welfare spending? Subsidies for specific industries (dairy)? Sale of assets? These "solutions" have never worked anywhere in the world, so why do we so desperately hope that somehow things will be different this time?

We are like the abused woman returning to her partner - "he has said he will change", and then she wonders why he gets drunk again and beats her up. Or the serial failed businessman who starts yet another business where he looks after the books because he doesn't want to waste money on an accountant.

If we want NZ to be a safe country where children don't go to school hungry, and where everyone who wants to work has a job, why do we insist on pursuing the ideologies that have failed to achieve that for over 25 years?

because the IMF say we should and because some dumb arse account type can't see the woods for the trees.

[shrub]

because the IMF say we should and because some dumb arse account type can't see the woods for the trees.

I'd extend that to say because a very small number of people benefit from the status quo, and they have very cleverly convinced people who aren't willing to look beyond the superficial that they are right, and that's why tomorrow we will have the weakest and least competent government in decades returned to power.

[oldrider]

Hells bells, I have never before heard so many long confirmed Labour voters saying they are going Green this time!

Out of the frying pan into the fire IMO but all will be revealed on Saturday night ..... the only "poll" that counts! (Well, sort of)

[Winston001]

Hmmm. I know you always look for the silver lining, and are typically more "relaxed" than Mr Key. I can't think of something that you might regard as terrible, actually, so that's neither surprising nor informative.

Good long post and it deserves considered answers but I'll just intersperse a little for the moment.

What do I regard as Terrible? Cruelty to children and animals. I abhor it.

Consider the programme on TV the other day on child health. Not all can be laid at the door of inequality, for sure, but we should all be shamefully aware that we're doing it wrong.

I didn't see it but read a comment that mothers and children featured...and no fathers. In the natural world and much of the human world, parents will die to protect their offspring. Why has a vile culture arisen in some communities where children are neglected and even killed? There is something more fundamentally wrong than inequality.

I'll bet you a beer that, despite seeing the problem I've described above (and perhaps even feeling a twinge of recognition that maybe all is not well), you'll block it from your mind and go off on Saturday to tick the right-wing boxes regardless, thereby opting for more of the same plus some extra please. Is this anything other than simple self-interest from you and your class?

Oh dear LOL it is easy to assume so much on the net about people. Lets just say I'm chewing over votes for National Labour Greens and MMP or SM. Dispassionate voting for the greatest good even against one's own interests is a valued principle.

[rainman]

... that all of society’s ills:...are caused by an inequality of income. I’m with him, it’s a bizarre concept.

And we’ve done this before, innit. I’d contend that it’s far more likely that there’s an over-arching cause for all of the bad shit you’ve listed and more, including low income: Failure. Personal failure. Firstly and foremost it's a failure to anticipate the consequences of unproductive behaviour and a failure to plan. I just can't see that as the falure of the productive members of society.

Sometimes science can deliver some bizarre results, it's true. Doesn't make them less valid though, and The Spirit Level research is pretty solid. If you don't like it, do the alternative research, write a counter and get it published. Such is the "marketplace" of academic research. If you prefer just to say you don't like it, therefore it must be false, then you're not a truth-seeker, but an ideologue.

I can see there might be an over-arching cause of both the issues linked to inequality and inequality itself, but that is the point of the approach, surely? What is a likely cause? Policy settings we have adopted (in developed countries, mainly) since the 80s have led to greater income and wealth inequality, that's an indisputable empirical fact. People didn't suddenly start intrinsically "failing" as you prefer to believe, en masse, at the same time as the right-wing policy agenda took effect.

Inequality correlates very closely with the aforementioned social ills - once again I'll refer you to the Spirit Level research. I won't call it a fact as that's scientifically improper, but it's a pretty clear cut case. Therefore, connect the dots... right-wing policies the like of what we have recently seen tend to cause the very social issue that the right likes to complain about. Yet many will go out today and vote for more of the same. Insane, by any definition.

(As a Buddhist, there's an even simpler karmic argument to make. This present increase in suffering is the natural tendency of the increased greed, aversion and delusion that we have adopted in Western cultures since the 80s).

Undoubtedly, if people sit in their arses and don't work, and make dumb decisions, then they (and we) don't succeed. But I find it very hard to believe, sans evidence, that people's intrinsic attributes are even more important than their context, let alone that they can solely account for the economic and social behaviours we observe. For one thing, that brings a consequential racism that I'm uncomfortable with: more brown people than white people are poor - an empirical fact. Is your explanation of this phenomenon that there is an intrinsic causative relationship between race and failure-orientation?

If so, ewww, man, that's ugly. If, like I expect, you find this conclusion repulsive, then maybe your intrinsic model doesn't stand up to as much scrutiny as you think?

We are like the abused woman returning to her partner - "he has said he will change", and then she wonders why he gets drunk again and beats her up.

Funny you should say that: my first reaction on discovering recent NZ political history was to go to the exact same analogy, although I got some funny looks when I talked about it - apparently it's not cool to make domestic abuse analogies in some circles. After the treatment we've had from Muldoon, Lange, Douglas, Richardson and others no wonder we're not rational about political things.

Why has a vile culture arisen in some communities where children are neglected and even killed? There is something more fundamentally wrong than inequality.

Here we agree entirely. There is no defence for child abuse, and I wouldn't suggest fixing inequality will eliminate it. Some people are probably just evil; many are however a product of their context, and we could do worse than fix the context and see if we help to shift the behaviours. Perhaps with a bit of stick, too, doesn't have to be all carrot

The science says that fixing the environment will probably fix a bunch of other things we don't like either, so it's a win either way. All we have to do is lay to rest the ghosts of Friedman, Douglas, Reagan, Thatcher... they have not been our friends.

Oh dear LOL it is easy to assume so much on the net about people. Lets just say I'm chewing over votes for National Labour Greens and MMP or SM. Dispassionate voting for the greatest good even against one's own interests is a valued principle.

OK, fair enough - you got me being a bit provocative. From your previous posts I took you for a classical conservative. My apologies if I have slighted you.

[Winston001]

.....and The Spirit Level research is pretty solid. If you don't like it, do the alternative research, write a counter and get it published.

Interestingly, somebody already has. http://spiritleveldelusion.blogspot.com/

There are some OECD graphs which suggest the equality = well-being theory isn't consistent. To be honest I'm surprised because I too thought flat wealth distributed societies are more successful. Some are but...some aren't.

OK, fair enough - you got me being a bit provocative. From your previous posts I took you for a classical conservative. My apologies if I have slighted you.

No apology needed. Its my nature to argue "truths" because its much more interesting than everyone agreeing with each other. There are also some views such as Rogernomics was all bad, Americans are all bad etc which need to be challenged.

Politics you are close enough to correct. Probably think of myself as conservative but detest destruction of the environment and have compassion for people who struggle.

Oh - and watch Al Jazeera whenever its available.

[Ocean1]

I can see there might be an over-arching cause of both the issues linked to inequality and inequality itself, but that is the point of the approach, surely? What is a likely cause? Policy settings we have adopted (in developed countries, mainly) since the 80s have led to greater income and wealth inequality, that's an indisputable empirical fact. People didn't suddenly start intrinsically "failing" as you prefer to believe, en masse, at the same time as the right-wing policy agenda took effect.

Dude!! Stop rationalising! It’s really really simple: We none of us are equal, haven’t you noticed? If an individual fails to behave in a manner demonstrated to produce generally successful results, (any definition you want, there) then it doesn’t take detailed scientific analysis to demonstrate that they’ll almost certainly fail across a front the breadth of which is merely hinted at in that aforementioned list. This is so self-evident I’m astonished anyone sees any need to look for correlation between performance in the various individual fields of endeavour let alone attempt to isolate a single “cause” amongst the individual failures.

As for a percieved recent development? Any increase in the local failure rate, it’s frequency and / or amplitude is most accurately described by the proliferation of support for the low-performing. In fact I’m almost certain that if you bothered to do the research you’d find that the more funds we’ve made available to support the low performers then the more low performers we’ve found requiring such support. So rather than blame the successful for failing to drag the less successful along with them I’d say given the increased load they’ve done extraordinarily well in their philanthropic endeavours over the last few decades.

Look no further for your science than Darwin, mate: Succeed or die. And then consider: the recent underperformers are not only still breathing but doing quite nicely compared to their ancestral equivalents. As for whether that’s a good thing, who knows? I know one thing: it’s a positive feedback loop, and it’s not sustainable.

As for the race reference? The only discriminatory factor I even see is how successful an individual is in reaching their own self-imposed goals. It’s all that matters.

[Virago]

Fuck. I just realised that it's not the Legalise Cannibalism Party.

A wasted vote.

I was looking forward to eating some Greens, too...

[rainman]

Interestingly, somebody already has. http://spiritleveldelusion.blogspot.com/

All part of the academic process - and as the authors suggest, the right place for debate is in peer-reviewed journals, not a book and a blog. There is undoubtedly some room for criticism, but I'd hardly regard Snowdon's criticism as a slam dunk (and besides he's hardly either impartial or an academic, bit of a libertarian journalist attached to a "think tank"). Have you read the rebuttal to the rebuttal from Wilkinson and Pickett?

It’s really really simple: We none of us are equal, haven’t you noticed? If an individual fails to behave in a manner demonstrated to produce generally successful results, (any definition you want, there) then it doesn’t take detailed scientific analysis to demonstrate that they’ll almost certainly fail across a front the breadth of which is merely hinted at in that aforementioned list. This is so self-evident I’m astonished anyone sees any need to look for correlation between performance in the various individual fields of endeavour let alone attempt to isolate a single “cause” amongst the individual failures.

So... it's still individual failings? Did you not read my earlier post? I'm not in disagreement that individual failings cause individual failure (kinda obvious), but you have a large hurdle to overcome if you claim that this is the only factor, and that economic and social context is of no relevance. Particularly given the record of the past 30 years here and elsewhere.

As for a percieved recent development? Any increase in the local failure rate, it’s frequency and / or amplitude is most accurately described by the proliferation of support for the low-performing. In fact I’m almost certain that if you bothered to do the research you’d find that the more funds we’ve made available to support the low performers then the more low performers we’ve found requiring such support. So rather than blame the successful for failing to drag the less successful along with them I’d say given the increased load they’ve done extraordinarily well in their philanthropic endeavours over the last few decades.

Firstly, it's your wacko theory, you provide the proof. Secondly, I'm not wanting the "successful" to "drag the less successful along", just to stop taking more than a reasonable share. It's clear, looking at data and reality, that the "rising tide lifting all boats"/"trickle-down" bullshit is just that, and that even if the pie is getting bigger, the few keep taking more and more of it for themselves, and the many are where they are taking it from. Richest 1% up 3.odd %, poorest 90% down about the same. Worse in the US. Facts, however inconvenient, do not fail to exist when they are ignored.

Look no further for your science than Darwin, mate: Succeed or die.

Not a world I want to live in, thanks. We can do so much better.

As for the race reference? The only discriminatory factor I even see is how successful an individual is in reaching their own self-imposed goals. It’s all that matters.

I thought so, thus my critique. If you claim individual weakness is the sole cause of economic impoverishment, then, considering that brown people are more represented in lower economic stats, your conclusion is inevitably racist. To spell it out: you're saying brown people have a greater tendency to individual failure.

If you think about this honestly, you (I'm sure) will realise it's nonsense. Therefore, there are other, extrinsic factors involved in the observed phenomenon beyond the individual's choices and weaknesses (even though these are of course relevant factors). And, even considering the role of different intrinsic levels of application, how much is due to motivation and relatively correctable factors, and how much to capability and opportunity? Think about this a bit and you'l see I'm not just arguing at a simplistic level for the rich to give more money to the poor.

I was looking forward to eating some Greens, too...

Greens are good for all of us.

[Brian d marge]

Dude!! Stop rationalising! It’s really really simple: We none of us are equal, haven’t you noticed? If an individual fails to behave in a manner demonstrated to produce generally successful results, (any definition you want, there) then it doesn’t take detailed scientific analysis to demonstrate that they’ll almost certainly fail across a front the breadth of which is merely hinted at in that aforementioned list. This is so self-evident I’m astonished anyone sees any need to look for correlation between performance in the various individual fields of endeavour let alone attempt to isolate a single “cause” amongst the individual failures.

As for a percieved recent development? Any increase in the local failure rate, it’s frequency and / or amplitude is most accurately described by the proliferation of support for the low-performing. In fact I’m almost certain that if you bothered to do the research you’d find that the more funds we’ve made available to support the low performers then the more low performers we’ve found requiring such support. So rather than blame the successful for failing to drag the less successful along with them I’d say given the increased load they’ve done extraordinarily well in their philanthropic endeavours over the last few decades.

Look no further for your science than Darwin, mate: Succeed or die. And then consider: the recent underperformers are not only still breathing but doing quite nicely compared to their ancestral equivalents. As for whether that’s a good thing, who knows? I know one thing: it’s a positive feedback loop, and it’s not sustainable.

As for the race reference? The only discriminatory factor I even see is how successful an individual is in reaching their own self-imposed goals. It’s all that matters.

There are some hard working people out there, that might disagree with you , shit can happen to any one anytime and once it does , we need others to help us out of it , an example , a good friend ( American ) big business , doing well on top of his game , bike accident , the helicopter ride , basically cost the house , and as for on going treatment , hes lost everything ,

what your saying is a classic bit of propaganda trotted out in the fifties or sixties, I think , ( I have it somewhere) , that marginalizes one group to pacify another , used very subtle by Clinton , Blair ( I think , I will have to find the paper I have , )

I do not want to be a part of such a society .

Stephen

[jonbuoy]

There are some hard working people out there, that might disagree with you , shit can happen to any one anytime and once it does , we need others to help us out of it , an example , a good friend ( American ) big business , doing well on top of his game , bike accident , the helicopter ride , basically cost the house , and as for on going treatment , hes lost everything ,

what your saying is a classic bit of propaganda trotted out in the fifties or sixties, I think , ( I have it somewhere) , that marginalizes one group to pacify another , used very subtle by Clinton , Blair ( I think , I will have to find the paper I have , )

I do not want to be a part of such a society .

Stephen

No health insurance? US would have been far better off keeping Clinton.