Who will win the 2011 election?

[Ocean1]

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.

But I’m not claiming it’s the only factor. Just that it’s by far the largest one and the only one the affected individual can influence.

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.

Dude, that’s so fraught with loaded buzzwords and tired old socialist bleating it doesn’t warrant a reply. However, I’m interested in your theory that the 1% are taking “it” from the rest. Can you demonstrate that “the rest” ever had “it” or even contributed to the making of “it” in the first place?

Not a world I want to live in, thanks. If modern society’s performance takes a significant hit you’ll get your wish.

We can do so much better. Indeed we could, individual performance contributes to the success of the collective, it doesn’t work the other way around.

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.

No, I said low income wasn’t the cause of other failures. And if some “brown people” fail economically more than others I’d suggest that may well be partly because they value economic measures of success less than do others. Hence my reference to each individual’s own measure of success being the only relevant measure of their performance.

That being the case, why is it necessary to encumber those, (brown or blue) who value economic security below other measures of success with vast wads of cash?

If, on the other hand a simple lack of will or respect for the cost of maintaining our society or even downright fraud is the root of the lack of economic success then why would any external entity support such behaviour? Better, surely to supply the opportunity to change than the rewards of that change in advance.

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 never suggested individual choices were the only variable wrt economic success. It’s just the most significant. Opportunity is a factor, definitely, as are personal traits having little to do with productive ability. I’ll point out, though that the world is full of economically successful people that have made their own opportunities and those who have less than charismatic personalities.

I note you see capability as non-correctable. I don’t necessarily agree, there. I see that we do agree on the importance of offering as many people as many opportunities for success as possible.

[Ocean1]

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

I might even know the dude. Certainly the same story.

Look, Stephen, we dont' communicate well, so I'll keep it brief.

I know there's a need to help people who have crashed. There's a need to help people who genuinely can't quite manage to live in our society. On the other hand I see many who have far fewer impediments than me taking advantage of systems designed to do just that.

I don't know how to fix that but we can't afford for it to continue and still help those who genuinely need it.

I can pick propaganda at a thousand yards. Could in the sixties too. I make my assesments of my world from the individual examples of life I see around me. Anything else is via someone else's perceptual filter.

I'n not advocating the marginalisation of anyone, I just don't agree that a fair suck of the economic sav should extend so far as an extended vacation for quite so many as it currently does.

And I was already working here in the same NZ when you were growing up, so don't give me any shit about some lost social paradise because I neve saw it. Any "better" society we had then was driven mostly by an economic surplus we lost when blighty stopped buying our produce.

[oldrider]

Who will win the 2011 election? .... Bit of a fizzer! .... Not much change really!

Biggest change was obviously caused by dissenting Labour voters'!

They have either not voted or swung over to bring Winston Peters and NZ first back to parliament!

Otherwise they have artificially boosted Green party popularity and fiddled about among the Maori seats too!

When you take a good hard look at the results it has simply been an election for Labour voters to play silly buggers!

Democracy in action? ..... Well sort of!

[SPman]

Who will win the 2011 election? .... Bit of a fizzer! .... Not much change really!

Biggest change was obviously caused by dissenting Labour voters'!

Democracy in action? ..... Well sort of!

100,000 less voters than last time - lowest percentage since 1888 - not a good look. Following a trend of disatisfaction with all the parties? Also following a general world wide trend amongst "western" countries.

[Ocean1]

100,000 less voters than last time - lowest percentage since 1888 - not a good look. Following a trend of disatisfaction with all the parties? Also following a general world wide trend amongst "western" countries.

Have you looked to see how that compares against the other bastions of democracy?

NZ used to turn out quite well.

[mashman]

I note you see capability as non-correctable. I don’t necessarily agree, there. I see that we do agree on the importance of offering as many people as many opportunities for success as possible.

Should they be teaching financial "accumen" at school then? From basic book keeping, through staff management to how to play in the money markets or maximise earning potential... maybe throwing in legal tax evasion 101 for shit n giggles? If these things make people so rich and by default the country, why are they not teaching people these skills from an early age? Would rid the country of most of its individual failure? Are you taking into account that where an individual further up the ladder suffers a personal failure (or just lies through his/her fuckin teeth), that hundreds if not thousands of people are also affected? If so, what are the personal failures of those hundreds and thousands? (mmm that reminds me it's time for ice cream).

I know there's a need to help people who have crashed. There's a need to help people who genuinely can't quite manage to live in our society. On the other hand I see many who have far fewer impediments than me taking advantage of systems designed to do just that.

So what's the ratio? 6% of the population unemployed... how many of those are there by choice? Even if it's the whole 6%, you've now accounted for 7% of the population. What about the other 93%? What percentage of that 93% need assistance? Baring in mind that Winston posted some figures (SoFIE) that showed that 10% of the country's wealth is "available" to 50% of the population. How many need assistance, and why do you think that is? 6% of that 50% are probably the unemployed, so that would leave 44% of the population kickin their arses in for exceptionally shit money (if they work harder and get a better paying job, then the person that they have replaced will likely end up in their successors position, or someone in that food chain). They'll quite possibly be doing more hours a day than I do, yet their contribution isn't rated in $$$ terms... and $$$ is what it's all about, because that's what is lent by the govt to help people get by. They wouldn't need to claim if they were paid betterer for their 8+ hours. Uber sucky in my book. Surely a contribution to society is a contribution to society? Why are these people financially penalised, even though they are contributing to society? ... and to that end I understand why there are those who choose not to work, and probably commit crimes to top up their bank balance in conjunction with the lawful benefits and entitlements on offer from the govt. I fail to see how the merrygoround that leaves 50% of the population scrabbling for 10% of its wealth is the primary failure of 44% of those individuals. As for the rest of us, we get aid what we get paid by the 1%... and some still manage to fiddle with their taxes in order to receive assistance from the govt. Prudent financial management that has a knock on effect to hundreds iof not thousands of the population. I don't buy personal failure as the primary factor.

[Ocean1]

Should they be teaching financial "accumen" at school then? They do. Did you miss that? From basic book keeping, through staff management to how to play in the money markets or maximise earning potential... maybe throwing in legal tax evasion 101 for shit n giggles? Tax evasion isn't legal. Did you even go to school? If these things make people so rich and by default the country, why are they not teaching people these skills from an early age? Would rid the country of most of its individual failure? Only if the individual took advantage of the opportunuty. Are you taking into account that where an individual further up the ladder suffers a personal failure (or just lies through his/her fuckin teeth), that hundreds if not thousands of people are also affected? If so, what are the personal failures of those hundreds and thousands? (mmm that reminds me it's time for ice cream).



So what's the ratio? 6% of the population unemployed... how many of those are there by choice? Even if it's the whole 6%, you've now accounted for 7% of the population. What about the other 93%? What percentage of that 93% need assistance? Baring in mind that Winston posted some figures (SoFIE) that showed that 10% of the country's wealth is "available" to 50% of the population. How many need assistance, and why do you think that is? 6% of that 50% are probably the unemployed, so that would leave 44% of the population kickin their arses in for exceptionally shit money (if they work harder and get a better paying job, then the person that they have replaced will likely end up in their successors position, or someone in that food chain). They'll quite possibly be doing more hours a day than I do, yet their contribution isn't rated in $$$ terms... and $$$ is what it's all about, because that's what is lent by the govt to help people get by. They wouldn't need to claim if they were paid betterer for their 8+ hours. Uber sucky in my book. Surely a contribution to society is a contribution to society? Why are these people financially penalised, even though they are contributing to society? ... and to that end I understand why there are those who choose not to work, and probably commit crimes to top up their bank balance in conjunction with the lawful benefits and entitlements on offer from the govt. I fail to see how the merrygoround that leaves 50% of the population scrabbling for 10% of its wealth is the primary failure of 44% of those individuals. As for the rest of us, we get aid what we get paid by the 1%... and some still manage to fiddle with their taxes in order to receive assistance from the govt. Prudent financial management that has a knock on effect to hundreds iof not thousands of the population. I don't buy personal failure as the primary factor.

Sorry, dude, the rest is drivel, and I failed to take advantage of that course at school. If you can translate I'll give it a go eh?

[Qkkid]

Just like to say
Congrats to a job well done by John Key

[SPman]

Dude, that’s so fraught with loaded buzzwords and tired old socialist bleating it doesn’t warrant a reply.

Tired old socialist bleating......as opposed to tired old tory bleating.
The second banners like "socialist", "left", "right", "tory", etc, etc, etc are trotted out, any chance of reasonable discussion often vanishes behind a wall of pre-conceptions, assumptions, dogma, ideologies, etc.

However, I’m interested in your theory that the 1% are taking “it” from the rest. Can you demonstrate that “the rest” ever had “it” or even contributed to the making of “it” in the first place?

........Business hammers on about increasing productivity - if only you increase productivity, the wages will rise and all will benefit. Crap!.
In the US, for example, productivity between 1979 -> 2008 increased by 80 percent, while the hourly wage of the median worker has only gone up by 10.1 percent. - in real terms, their wages effectively decreased, whilst those at the top had effective increases of 500%. Social and financial inequality is now as high as it was just before the depression. So, who got the extra "it", these workers contributed to the making thereof? Certainly wasn't "the rest"

[rainman]

I never suggested individual choices were the only variable wrt economic success. It’s just the most significant. Opportunity is a factor, definitely, as are personal traits having little to do with productive ability. ...

I note you see capability as non-correctable. I don’t necessarily agree, there.

Ah I do so love to see someone trying to resile from a line of argument that's rapidly becoming untenable...

Interesting thesis, though. How would you set about proving (like, with science, not ideology) that individual choices are the most significant factor in well-being, for the aggregate poor in a given country? This is far from obvious to me, based on anecdotal evidence, and it's quite a big claim. Or is the argument something like "obvious, innit?"

Remember, I agree that individual endeavour can have an impact. I just think that there are bigger structural forces keeping the serfs in their place, and that these have been getting measurably worse over the last 30 years of bullshit mumbo-jumbo that passes for economic best practice these days. We are gradually returning to a sort of feudalism.

Some capability is non-correctable: disability, intelligence, some mental health, physical strength, entrepreneurial orientation, fundamental personality, good looks and charm... Some is correctable of course, drug addiction can sometimes be fixed in a health system, lack of (trainable) skills in an education system - both, I'll note, are places where transferring wealth from the public (wealthy) is the only way to make them work - the poor just can't afford to build these. However I'll gladly have my taxes pay for a world-class education system for all Kiwis, even those who can't directly afford it. It's an investment in the success of the country.

I'll even happily fund the philosophy and politics departments - god knows we could do with some smart thinkers to help us find some better ways to deal with the shit we're in for. Less keen on economics and other studies of fantasy and the occult, though, let's stick with the useful stuff for the while.

Tired old socialist bleating......as opposed to tired old tory bleating.
The second banners like "socialist", "left", "right", "tory", etc, etc, etc are trotted out, any chance of reasonable discussion often vanishes behind a wall of pre-conceptions, assumptions, dogma, ideologies, etc.

But, you see, Ocean1 is too busy being a crusty curmudgeon and loudly proclaiming that it's all their fault! It's Them, you see, those intrinsically lazy fuckers that are stealing his money and not taking and making opportunities to better themselves. He doesn't know how many there are of Them, and how many are decent people actually trying their damndest to better themselves, how many work multiple jobs for slave wages and can still barely make ends meet, how many have given up on trying to find a place in the economy, disheartened, and how many are actually really nasty lazy thieving fuckers. But if only they believed the mumbo jumbo too, then they could make opportunities and be as successful as he is.

Of course if this actually happened (sadly, it's very unlikely) he'd have to be proportionally more successful to continue to feel superior and curmudgeonly, and would either continue to bleat about the newly elevated poor (or feel bad that he had inadvertently joined them). There is no winning scenario for Mr Ocean1, you see, and certainly not one that involves the reduction of unjustifiable inequality and the actual elevation of the poor. He needs someone to look down on and exclude, someone to look up to and aspire to be just like; his world-view will collapse without these. Context is very important for Mr Ocean1, unlike for the poor, for whom context is irrelevant.

Ocean1, in fact, appears to have led a fortunate life free of much suffering the hands of others, or has passed through it without developing much empathy and compassion.

[mashman]

They do. Did you miss that?

Tax evasion isn't legal. Did you even go to school?

Only if the individual took advantage of the opportunuty.

Sorry, dude, the rest is drivel, and I failed to take advantage of that course at school. If you can translate I'll give it a go eh?

I must have. What schools? And what aspects of financial "accumen" do they teach?

aha, and people lie... be useful to learn how to hang on to as much of your money as possible at school? I tried to stay away from school as much as possible without getting caught. Did quite well too, until 3 months from the end of the final year .

I guess we'll never know if the individual will take that opportunity, unless of course we arm them with the tips and tricks from the best, yes? Is that sort of thing in place at schools?

As for the drivel. You say that individual failure is the primary reason for societies ills, and I disagree, to an extent. I'm not saying that that isn't part of it, but are you saying that 1 individual failure that affects 100 or 1000 other individuals, is actually an individual failure on the part of 100/1000 people also? The stats were kinda used to highlight that that couldn't be the case as societies ills are across the board and you've only accounted for 7% of the population thus far. Where 1% are sweet as and 6% are unemployed and by your definition are so because of, primarily, individual failures. That still leaves 93% of the population who are contributing and not individually failing, yet a portion (I'd guess half) are still subject to "something" that isn't individual failure, but brings out the "worst" in them. I call income distribution.

The balance of income distribution, according to SoFIE, is that 50% of the population receive 10% of the wealth. Which I guess leads to crime and leaning on the system to top up the bank balance... and that would highlight to me that income distribution is more of a cause for society's ills than individual failure, and that as a society, collectively, we are responsible for the "problems" of the people by deciding that we are worth more than them... irrespective of the fact that we all contribute the same numbers of hours. Which I find stoopid.

Thanks for the ice cream reminder. Any clearer?

[Brian d marge]

I might even know the dude. Certainly the same story.

Look, Stephen, we dont' communicate well, so I'll keep it brief.

I know there's a need to help people who have crashed. There's a need to help people who genuinely can't quite manage to live in our society. On the other hand I see many who have far fewer impediments than me taking advantage of systems designed to do just that.

I don't know how to fix that but we can't afford for it to continue and still help those who genuinely need it.

I can pick propaganda at a thousand yards. Could in the sixties too. I make my assesments of my world from the individual examples of life I see around me. Anything else is via someone else's perceptual filter.

I'n not advocating the marginalisation of anyone, I just don't agree that a fair suck of the economic sav should extend so far as an extended vacation for quite so many as it currently does.

And I was already working here in the same NZ when you were growing up, so don't give me any shit about some lost social paradise because I neve saw it. Any "better" society we had then was driven mostly by an economic surplus we lost when blighty stopped buying our produce.

If you were working when I was growing up in NZ , then you should be receiving a handout in the form a a pension ? well and truly . I congratulate you on your advanced age and the fact you are still riding a , nice bike ,

I do suggest though , you wear your specs when looking for propaganda , because, well you are well " in it , using it and maybe believing it " ( I might be as well , but I m trying hard not to , and change readily, when I get some new info that causes me to have a rethink , such as I have tonight ...new info on the economy makes me think I need to rethink, my views about government spending ,,, )

Off top of head the largest expenditure of say the "sav" let use the benefit one , is the "old people " pensions, the DPB and the unemployable , are less than a quarter but they seem to be demonised why is that ???

I understand how you feel , as you look around and perceive the world , and we base our views on , upbringing , education, etc , and if they are erroneous ,??? old engineering saying , garbage in garbage out

Stephen

[Ocean1]

Tired old socialist bleating......as opposed to tired old tory bleating.
The second banners like "socialist", "left", "right", "tory", etc, etc, etc are trotted out, any chance of reasonable discussion often vanishes behind a wall of pre-conceptions, assumptions, dogma, ideologies, etc.

He started it.

........Business hammers on about increasing productivity - if only you increase productivity, the wages will rise and all will benefit. Crap!.
In the US, for example, productivity between 1979 -> 2008 increased by 80 percent, while the hourly wage of the median worker has only gone up by 10.1 percent. - in real terms, their wages effectively decreased, whilst those at the top had effective increases of 500%. Social and financial inequality is now as high as it was just before the depression. So, who got the extra "it", these workers contributed to the making thereof? Certainly wasn't "the rest"

I wouldn't expect "business" to have anything else to say aboiut productivity, would you? The fact is the US gave up it's manufacturing base years ago, sold it lock, stock and barrel to Asia in exchange for a 75% discount on imported consumer goods. So did we. Do you seriously think we could trade with countries with a labour rate a small fraction of ours and not have our wage rate decimated?

So if you don't, in fact own a cheap flat screen TV made in China or a phone made in Malaysia then thanks for supporting your own people. Otherwise I'm very much afraid you are one of those who did in fact get "it". Either way if you earn a wage then get used to the fact that you won't be earning ten times the hourly Indonesian rate.

[Ocean1]

Ah I do so love to see someone trying to resile from a line of argument that's rapidly becoming untenable...

Correcting your missaprehension of my statement is hardly a full blown retreat, dude.

There is no winning scenario for Mr Ocean1, you see, and certainly not one that involves the reduction of unjustifiable inequality and the actual elevation of the poor. He needs someone to look down on and exclude, someone to look up to and aspire to be just like; his world-view will collapse without these. Context is very important for Mr Ocean1, unlike for the poor, for whom context is irrelevant.

Ocean1, in fact, appears to have led a fortunate life free of much suffering the hands of others, or has passed through it without developing much empathy and compassion.

Nice story. Tell you what, you continue to believe it's someone else's fault that there's people less prosperous than they'd like and I'll continue to believe that success is mostly a function of my own behaviour, eh? Let me know if you need a hand.

[Brian d marge]

Tired old socialist bleating......as opposed to tired old tory bleating.
The second banners like "socialist", "left", "right", "tory", etc, etc, etc are trotted out, any chance of reasonable discussion often vanishes behind a wall of pre-conceptions, assumptions, dogma, ideologies, etc.

........Business hammers on about increasing productivity - if only you increase productivity, the wages will rise and all will benefit. Crap!.
In the US, for example, productivity between 1979 -> 2008 increased by 80 percent, while the hourly wage of the median worker has only gone up by 10.1 percent. - in real terms, their wages effectively decreased, whilst those at the top had effective increases of 500%. Social and financial inequality is now as high as it was just before the depression. So, who got the extra "it", these workers contributed to the making thereof? Certainly wasn't "the rest"

Dont forget that globally a hell of a lot of people "suddenly " entered the workforce this also had the effect of driving down real wages... the fruits of that increased production were only eaten by a few ...

Stephen