Asset sale protests!

[Oscar]

Never seen you supply any "facts"

you say you do , never seen any links dodgy or otherwise

Stephen

56 mill thats a lot of school lunches ,,,,,,

Why should I supply "facts"?
I know that the WTO has nowt whatsoever to do with the sale of an SOE, or the investment therein by a foreign investor.
What's more I'm not the one claiming that it does.

When you see me post an unsupported claim like that, please feel free to ask for proof.

[mashman]

Oh, it did.

We won.

and yet the country lost. Your definition of victory is interesting to say the least... but no more than I'd expect.

[mashman]

I know that the WTO has nowt whatsoever to do with the sale of an SOE, or the investment therein by a foreign investor.

As mentioned earlier, the NZ Treasury disagrees with your position.

"International agreements tend to focus on protecting investos rather than market access. Agreements through the WTO and bilateral FTAs tend to focus on investor protection mechanisms such as national treatment (treating foreign firms equally as domestic firms) and avenues to resolve disputes, such as expropriation claims, between investors and states, rather than liberalising market access (by increasing screening thresholds, for example). Non-binding agreements between OECD countries and APEC promote general liberalisation of capital flows"

[Oscar]

As mentioned earlier, the NZ Treasury disagrees with your position.

"International agreements tend to focus on protecting investos rather than market access. Agreements through the WTO and bilateral FTAs tend to focus on investor protection mechanisms such as national treatment (treating foreign firms equally as domestic firms) and avenues to resolve disputes, such as expropriation claims, between investors and states, rather than liberalising market access (by increasing screening thresholds, for example). Non-binding agreements between OECD countries and APEC promote general liberalisation of capital flows"

That's funny, coz I don't have a position.
I was responding to scary stories about the WTO interfering with the sale of an SOE.
The poster was saying that foreign firms would use the WTO to get preferential treatment.

[Oscar]

and yet the country lost. Your definition of victory is interesting to say the least... but no more than I'd expect.

I don't know what country you live in, but where I live we consider a country without Phil Goff as PM a victory.

[BoristheBiter]

"The bill for asset sales is racking up fast: $200 million plus for the share give away, $56 million to share-brokers, and $100 million a year, every year, on the deficit.

They should used ticketek... much cheaper. John's buddies no doubt, can ya smell the feeding frenzy? Of course I didn't vote for this so see no reason why I should pay... wonder if a general taxation strike would changed the fucktards mind... after all if the right wing ideology holds true they won't miss it as it will open up all sorts of areas to the private sector and they'll gobble it up... or would that mean I end up paying those who the govt pay on my behalf directly? Either way, wonder how much of a bill they'll rack up on behalf of the tax payer.. using tax payer money that is. I wonder if it's part of the 120 million Billy bob Engrish stated would be used to promote and sell the shares?

Can you explain how the brokers can get $56 million? there has not been any indication on what the share value will be so how do they come up with these figures?

Brokers only get paid by buying and selling. It is the buyers and sellers money that pay the brokers so after the initial sell off the government will not be paying any brokers so ho will that cost the government 100 million each year?

And if you look at the total cost of shares that they estimate at around 5 billion the costs they are using is only 4% so what is the big deal?

[Oscar]

Can you explain how the brokers can get $56 million? there has not been any indication on what the share value will be so how do they come up with these figures? Brokers only get paid by buying and selling. It is the buyers and sellers money that pay the brokers so after the initial sell off the government will not be paying any brokers so ho will that cost the government 100 million each year? And if you look at the total cost of shares that they estimate at around 5 billion the costs they are using is only 4% so what is the big deal?

Stop it! You're letting facts ruin a good story....

[BoristheBiter]

Stop it! You're letting facts ruin a good story....

Sorry my mistake,

Bastards using 4% of the money when it should go to the pot smoking hippys, just who do they think they are?
Giving that money to the poor will fix all our troubles and we can live happily ever after in a glorious land of peace.

Is that better?

[mashman]

That's funny, coz I don't have a position.
I was responding to scary stories about the WTO interfering with the sale of an SOE.
The poster was saying that foreign firms would use the WTO to get preferential treatment.

I'm sure they will seek advice from the WTO or representatives of in regards to their rights should the left get in and decide to pull the plug?

I don't know what country you live in, but where I live we consider a country without Phil Goff as PM a victory.

I doubt it would have made too much of difference... he and his govt will have been expected to "trade" something in return for borrowing money... however they did offer up a CGT and if they had taken their partners seriously, they may have even introduced a financial transaction tax. I doubt it would have mattered who had been the leader of the opposition, hell Key coulda been in the same position as Goff and he wouldn't have been voted in. Key is strong, Goff is a poof, Norman hugs trees and anyone with brown skin is a racist

Can you explain how the brokers can get $56 million? there has not been any indication on what the share value will be so how do they come up with these figures?

Brokers only get paid by buying and selling. It is the buyers and sellers money that pay the brokers so after the initial sell off the government will not be paying any brokers so ho will that cost the government 100 million each year?

And if you look at the total cost of shares that they estimate at around 5 billion the costs they are using is only 4% so what is the big deal?

"Budget 2012 contains a $56 million multi-year non-departmental appropriation for "direct sales costs" of asset sales." erm, erm erm

"$100 million a year, every year, on the deficit."

That makes it alright then.

Stop it! You're letting facts ruin a good story....

What facts? The ones that he didn't read in the article he didn't read? take your pills, get yer nose out of his arse and calm the fuck down... you'll do yourself an injury.

[mashman]

Bastards using 4% of the money when it should go to the pot smoking hippys, just who do they think they are?
Giving that money to the poor will fix all our troubles and we can live happily ever after in a glorious land of peace.

Is that better?

They think they are the ones who are paying for the costs of sales that they don't want.

Not even close.

[BoristheBiter]

"$100 million a year, every year, on the deficit."

That makes it alright then.

So show me where the treasury said this? It was the green party that used these figures

They think they are the ones who are paying for the costs of sales that they don't want.

Not even close.

No because like most of the shit you write on here it's bollocks.

[mashman]

So show me where the treasury said this? It was the green party that used these figures

Where did I say the Treasury said that? You're making things up as per.

No because like most of the shit you write on here it's bollocks.

so the money that has been spent by the govt so far is from the private sector? even though, oh dear do I have to, according to some polls that have been undertaken, a majority of the country don't want the asset sales? Go ahead, let your ideology stop you accepting the truth.

[puddytat]

That's funny, coz I don't have a position.
I was responding to scary stories about the WTO interfering with the sale of an SOE.
The poster was saying that foreign firms would use the WTO to get preferential treatment.

I was infering that it'll only be a matter of time before the foreign investor/s own the majority if not all of the shares that are floated on the stock exchange, somewhere I read that there would be only a negligible kiwi percentage in 10 years time.....I was not infering that they would get preferential treatment during the original float.Whether that makes a differance to you.....i dont know. My apologies if I was unclear .
The American example of electricty supply should serve as an example of what happens when private companies run a power grid.A system on the verge of collapse when its too hot/cold relying on an originally publicly funded system, that was split up into private /cartel like entities that have raped it for all its worth.
A fuck up is a fuck up even if its only a 49% one.
I personally will get off grid if this goes ahead,& invest in my own energy system....because the next thing the "sunset clause "will come into effect....now does this scenario have anything to do with the actual sale?

Govt Wants “Fair” Solution For Rural Power

The Govt is seeking feedback on how electricity should be supplied to remote rural users beyond 2013. Under the Electricity Act, the obligation for lines companies to keep supplying electricity to many rural properties ends on March 31, 2013. This sunset clause in the Act is mainly relevant to remote rural consumers, whose lines are expensive to maintain, and may be considered uneconomic by lines companies. The clause only applies to customers who connected before April 1993. Customers connected since then have terms and conditions around the continuance of supply, as part of their connection agreement.

Energy Minister David Parker says the Govt wants a solution that is “efficient, fair, reliable, and delivered in an environmentally sustainable manner.” The Govt has put out a discussion paper with several options. These include requiring lines companies to continue supply obligations indefinitely beyond 2103; extending a transition period beyond 2013; and lines companies providing assistance to consumers to manage a transition to alternative systems.

[BoristheBiter]

Where did I say the Treasury said that? You're making things up as per.



so the money that has been spent by the govt so far is from the private sector? even though, oh dear do I have to, according to some polls that have been undertaken, a majority of the country don't want the asset sales? Go ahead, let your ideology stop you accepting the truth.

Ok then show me where they will spend 56 mill on brokers.
Is says it will pay brokers and they have set aside 56 million for direct sales costs. At no point does it say it will pay brokers the 56 mill.

Who said the money was from the private sector?
Now who's making shit up.

[mashman]

Ok then show me where they will spend 56 mill on brokers.
Is says it will pay brokers and they have set aside 56 million for direct sales costs. At no point does it say it will pay brokers the 56 mill.

Who said the money was from the private sector?
Now who's making shit up.

Reading the article might be a good start