Cunliffe's constituent Liu?

[Ocean1]

Hmmm .. we clearly see things in very different ways .. to me, the exploitation of our current capitalist structures is a problem ...

The economic framework has nothing to do with the level of exploitation, it’s at least as apparent in communist economies, if not more.

One of those top performing countries is the USA, one of the richjest countries on earth ... where more people live homeless than the population of New Zealand .. that's to me, is a major social problem.

Yeah, and they spend more on social welfare than the whole New Zealand economy. Next irrelevant comment is?

Economic performance is not the measure of everything about a society ...

My philosophical leaning is not towards capitalism, nor do I see any intrinsic benefits to capitalism other than the simple fact that countries based loosely around capitalist economies score better than any other group in terms of widely desirable social goals.

As far as social goals go the KPI of personal choice is the lack of force required to govern. If you can go about your life without undue interference from the state I’d suggest you’re in a good place. Of course that also means you get to be responsible for your own welfare. Not a popular idea today.

Feel free to make your own list and go shopping, but I think your list would be similar to mine, and I think you'll find better shopping amongst the countries of the western world. It’s that simple.

[oldrider]

Wow, even for this forum, that is dumb.

The assets don't become theirs by default, the asset is sold and the outstanding debt settled and any remaining money given to the owners.
This process costs a fortune and whilst its going on the bank is having to pay interest on the money to its investors and not able to use those funds to for loans where the interest is actually paid.

The really dumb thing is the mention of Mr Ponsi.
Do you even know what a Ponsi Scheme is?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme

Exactly what the banking system does only when they collapse they print their way out of it and they are protected by the law supported by dumb cunts like Oscar!

[Oscar]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme

Exactly what the banking system does only when they collapse they print their way out of it and they are protected by the law supported by dumb cunts like Oscar!

Wow, you just don't stop digging do you?
The evidence is there in front of you, but you are to stupid to understand it.
Please tell me, in your own words, how a bank makes money out of a foreclosure, and how this makes it a Ponsi scheme?
Don't forget to factor in the bank paying its investors for money that it isn't getting a return on.
You might also explain the reference to banks printing their way out of it - I had no idea that banks in NZ could actually print their own money any more.
Then you might want to reference these laws that are "protecting" the banks...

[Katman]

The claim that most of the wealthy have worked hard for their money is only valid to a certain point.

It's a well known fact that money makes money. Once that point is reached I would question whether those gaining further wealth are actually working hard for it.

By that stage it all comes down to greed.

[MisterD]

Exactly what the banking system does only when they collapse they print their way out of it and they are protected by the law supported by dumb cunts like Oscar!

This is the "crony" bit again. Under a proper capitalist system, banks would have been allowed to go bust. Mind you, under a proper capitalist system, there wouldn't have been government directives to lend money to people that couldn't pay it back.

[Banditbandit]

The economic framework has nothing to do with the level of exploitation, it’s at least as apparent in communist economies, if not more.

Yes. As I've said previously, some people fight to get to the top - and that is very apparent in the so-called Communist countries.

Yeah, and they spend more on social welfare than the whole New Zealand economy. Next irrelevant comment is?

I was responding to you "what's the problem" comment - the problem is the social issues in the richest country in the world ... the economy is emphasised at the cost of human outcomes .

My philosophical leaning is not towards capitalism, nor do I see any intrinsic benefits to capitalism other than the simple fact that countries based loosely around capitalist economies score better than any other group in terms of widely desirable social goals.

Yes, I would agree with that. That's partly why I suggest that the problem is with human beings and their misuses of the system. Sure Capitalism is a pretty fucked up system with major social issues, it remains one of our better systems (which says the other systems are completely fucked!!!

As far as social goals go the KPI of personal choice is the lack of force required to govern. If you can go about your life without undue interference from the state I’d suggest you’re in a good place. Of course that also means you get to be responsible for your own welfare. Not a popular idea today.

As an anarchist I would totally agree with you. And I accept total personal responsibility alongside total personal freedom.

The issue for me is do we value freedom over equity? The right wing Libertarians value freedom over equity - the left wing Anarchists value Equity over Freedom. I will give up some of my personal freedom to allow my fellow human beings a better lifestyle. That's the fundamental conflict we would have.

But if there was ever a Communist uprising in new Zealand I suspect we would both fight on the same side - armed response against the communists.

Feel free to make your own list and go shopping, but I think your list would be similar to mine, and I think you'll find better shopping amongst the countries of the western world. It’s that simple.

That depends .. but yes, I suspect that you and me agree a lot more than we disagree. But where we do disagree there will never be any agreement.

What the fuck .. the sun is shining and I'd rather be riding.

[Ocean1]

The claim that most of the wealthy have worked hard for their money is only valid to a certain point.

It's a well known fact that money makes money. Once that point is reached I would question whether those gaining further wealth are actually working hard for it.

By that stage it all comes down to greed.

But it is valid. In fact i've never met a single wealthy person that didn't work hard.

And what's wrong with the long-held ambition of most average Kiwis to work hard enough when they're able that thier savings can support them in retirement?

It's greedy now? We should just let the state pay our pension?

I don't think so.

[mashman]

The system is a problem of course - capitalism is a massive problem. I did not quite mean that - what I meant was that the system of value exchange is not the problem .. any such system can become a problem - but the problems are created by human behaviour, not by the system of value exchange. Some humans are fine, and some are lazy and will be parasites on any system, and some a greedy and needy and will parasitize the others .. Capitalism's major problem is that it sets up a system where the greedy and power-crazed parasitize the rest rather easily .... but so does what passes for Communism in our current world ..

That's human nature ... And I do not believe that you can change that ... without MAJOR social upheaval.

The powerful need money in order to maintain their power. If we are not paid by someone with money, then are you going to do what they ask? So wherever there is a monetary system, irrespective of the ism label that is attached to the societal makeup, you will always have money being used to bend society to its will and no solution will be implemented that isn't financial. In fact the collateral damage in regards to resources (humans and materials) is breathtakingly poor. Financial value (value of exchange) is bullshit, because it takes into account ROI and nothing else i.e. low wages, should a thing be done in the first place, would the resource be best used elsewhere etc... If they are not the questions at the top of the list (which they aren't), they the system is fubar... and by extension people along with it. So nah, the value of exchange is massively damaging and moreover limits society's progress by limiting that which can afford to be created. It's carte blanche for a person with money to make, destroy, build etc... what they like as and when they like it irrespective of the outcome for society. The system is the entire problem because it constrains human beings.

Human nature, nah, human behaviour... and our behaviour is driven by the amount of $ available (direct affect of the monetary system). I disagree that there would be a MAJOR upheaval, primarily because we have a choice. Sure if you spring "radical" change on the population they'll wig out, but if they're warned years in advance?

[Banditbandit]

The powerful need money in order to maintain their power. If we are not paid by someone with money, then are you going to do what they ask? So wherever there is a monetary system, irrespective of the ism label that is attached to the societal makeup, you will always have money being used to bend society to its will and no solution will be implemented that isn't financial. In fact the collateral damage in regards to resources (humans and materials) is breathtakingly poor. Financial value (value of exchange) is bullshit, because it takes into account ROI and nothing else i.e. low wages, should a thing be done in the first place, would the resource be best used elsewhere etc... If they are not the questions at the top of the list (which they aren't), they the system is fubar... and by extension people along with it. So nah, the value of exchange is massively damaging and moreover limits society's progress by limiting that which can afford to be created. It's carte blanche for a person with money to make, destroy, build etc... what they like as and when they like it irrespective of the outcome for society. The system is the entire problem because it constrains human beings.

Naaa .. see that's where you are wrong - you equate a value exchange system with money - but there are other ways of organising a society ... even with a different value exchange system ... they will all fuck up in the end as some people hold onto more and more symbols of value .. denying them to other people .. for whatever reason ...

Human nature, nah, human behaviour... and our behaviour is driven by the amount of $ available (direct affect of the monetary system). I disagree that there would be a MAJOR upheaval, primarily because we have a choice. Sure if you spring "radical" change on the population they'll wig out, but if they're warned years in advance?

You can't give people warning of radical change - they resist - and then they have time to organie their resistance .. even Roger Douglas knew that - hence his speed of action ...

Not al human behaviour is driven by greed and money. That's even more cynical than I can be ..

[MisterD]

The powerful need money in order to maintain their power.

Most powerful people derive that power from wealth, but money is not the only way to measure wealth even if it is the convenient measure we currently use.

Is that better or worse than power being derived from being handy with a long piece of sharp metal?

[Ocean1]

I was responding to you "what's the problem" comment - the problem is the social issues in the richest country in the world ... the economy is emphasised at the cost of human outcomes .

Yeah? what makes you believe the social issues are attributable to the financial system?

'Cause as I said, those same issues can be found in greater numbers in any other system.

I suspect the general concept of "greedy" capitalism leeds people to believe it's not a system that caters well for it's poor. The facts don't agree.

[bogan]

Yeah? what makes you believe the social issues are attributable to the financial system?

Confirmation bias?

[mashman]

Naaa .. see that's where you are wrong - you equate a value exchange system with money - but there are other ways of organising a society ... even with a different value exchange system ... they will all fuck up in the end as some people hold onto more and more symbols of value .. denying them to other people .. for whatever reason ...

True... however the value of exchange is currently money. Even when it was gold it was money, same with promisary notes, tally sticks etc... so I think history has shown that the value of exchange matters hugely in regards to our development and our behaviour. You're likely right in regards to everything going tits at some point or another irrespective of the system... however I'd rather try something else than sit and watch the world go tits as there are people to come after us.

You can't give people warning of radical change - they resist - and then they have time to organie their resistance .. even Roger Douglas knew that - hence his speed of action ...

Not al human behaviour is driven by greed and money. That's even more cynical than I can be ..

Of course you can give people warning of radical change if your intent is smooth transition and you make your intentions clear. I agree that resistance will be formed, but hey, that's what democracy is for. I'd rather not go down the speed of action road as it'd be counterproductive to the rest of the country.

lol... I didn't mean that all of our behaviour is, but it's the largest factor by a long way... especially when it comes to perceived negative behaviours.

[Katman]

But it is valid. In fact i've never met a single wealthy person that didn't work hard.

And what's wrong with the long-held ambition of most average Kiwis to work hard enough when they're able that thier savings can support them in retirement?

It's greedy now? We should just let the state pay our pension?

I don't think so.

I'm talking specifically about the people who make more money than they could ever spend in a lifetime.

Then they leave their fortune to their children.

Are you going to try telling me that those children worked hard for what they have?

[mashman]

Most powerful people derive that power from wealth, but money is not the only way to measure wealth even if it is the convenient measure we currently use.

Is that better or worse than power being derived from being handy with a long piece of sharp metal?

Then try to exert your influence over a population without wealth then... what's the likely outcome going to be?

It's exactly the same... there is no difference.