Nicky Hager

[Motu]

Ede?

Who?...? ''Oh, he doesn't work here anymore.'' says JK - end of story. This guy just stepped off the page and doesn't seem to exist anymore....suspiciously missing from any media interviews. Interesting there is a National Party IP address going into the Labour website, that seems to be ok too.

[Ocean1]

I don't quite agree. A worker, employed by someone else, is not selling anything except the labour ... (and yes, employment contracts put a price on that labour) and I would make a distinction between the price of the goods and the value of the goods - as you say - value is set by the purchaser .. and if the purchaser is not prepared to pay the asking price then they don't buy ...

Employment contracts don't price labour, customers do. The key to commanding high prices for your labour is to supply highly skilled labour. The time to decide what those skills are is before you leave school, bitching about "inequitable" remuneration after the fact is just whining, don't expect others to pay for your poor choices.

A market where the price of goods isn't the same as the value of goods is, by definition not a free market.

And you've got the rest arse about face too. An employer will pay his people whatever his clients are prepared to pay for that employees contribution to the value of his product.

The single fallacy that all socialism is based on: "all men are equal" simply isn't true when it comes to the value of their contribution / work. And attempting to make it so by demanding that the end user of that work / product pay whatever someone else says they should is simplistic bullshit so obviously bereft of intrinsic fairness it amazes me that anyone would ever suggest it let alone pretend it may be a required element of some sort of social justice.

[mashman]

Well yes - which is why anarchy remains a philosophical ideal and utopian aspirational aim ... but most real anarchists I know agree that the utopian dream will never be possible in the foreseeable future ... I do see it as providing a fairer society ...

Ain't nuffin wrong with aiming for utopia as we all know that we'll never get there, but it has nothing to do with government structure or lack of for some. If a govt is required and voted for by the people, then cool... if the people don't want a govt, then cool too. What really changes? Like the purchaser controlling the price, tis "us" who decide the way .

And no, it is not an expectation that someone else will provide - it is an expectation that work is rewarded ... it is not an expectation that someone else will provide .. Within this politico-social philosophy "from each according to their abilities" goes hand in hand with "to each according to their needs" ... but work is rewarded at the same level - why should a street cleaner get paid less than an academic? (The medieval plagues of Europe prove that street cleaners are important - without them our urban environments would be fatally unhealthy - but without academics people can still be fed .. yes I know I'm an academic ... a pragmatic one)

I did the street sweeper v doctor argument with my 10 year old daughter. She agrees that the street sweeper is more important. Still, she has a long life of brainwashing before her, she'll change her mind soon enough.

Non-workers get subsistance only - bread, water and cracked wheat cereal ... dormitory housing and communal washing ... shorts and t-shirts .. If a person doesn't contribute why should the expect to get anything apart from survival needs? (And I could be persuaded to even drop that - give nothing then get nothing ...)

Is that like straight from school fuhrer?

[oldrider]

It is so much more easy to fool people than it is to convince those same people that they have been fooled --- Mark Twain!

Ole Mark used to visit this country, wonder what he would think of the place if he was here on a visit right now?

[angle]

Employment contracts don't price labour, customers do. The key to commanding high prices for your labour is to supply highly skilled labour. The time to decide what those skills are is before you leave school, bitching about "inequitable" remuneration after the fact is just whining, don't expect others to pay for your poor choices.

Do lawyers or politicians supply highly skilled labour? Higher than a master carpenter?

A market where the price of goods isn't the same as the value of goods is, by definition not a free market.

So what you are saying is that we do not have a free market?

The single fallacy that all socialism is based on: "all men are equal" simply isn't true when it comes to the value of their contribution / work.

This has nothing to do with socialism. Socialism is based, in theory at least, on allowing all people to reach their full potential.

[Banditbandit]

Employment contracts don't price labour, customers do. The key to commanding high prices for your labour is to supply highly skilled labour. The time to decide what those skills are is before you leave school, bitching about "inequitable" remuneration after the fact is just whining, don't expect others to pay for your poor choices.

See - as I keep saying - I eanr good money - I'm not complaining ...

A market where the price of goods isn't the same as the value of goods is, by definition not a free market.

Oh ... markets .. but see I place no value what so ever on a Buell .. but clearly you do because you ride one ... so value can be a variable from person to person, but not price ...

And you've got the rest arse about face too. An employer will pay his people whatever his clients are prepared to pay for that employees contribution to the value of his product.

Yes - and equally an employee can say "I won't work for that money ..." and if enough do that, then the employer has no production ...

The single fallacy that all socialism is based on: "all men are equal" simply isn't true when it comes to the value of their contribution / work. And attempting to make it so by demanding that the end user of that work / product pay whatever someone else says they should is simplistic bullshit so obviously bereft of intrinsic fairness it amazes me that anyone would ever suggest it let alone pretend it may be a required element of some sort of social justice.

First of all, I disagree that is the basis of socialism ... and I'm not even sure I would accept it as a true statement.

And secondly, having previously said that an anarchy is a utopian ideal, I accept pretty much all of the rest of what you say within the current capitalist democracies that we operate under - that doesn't mean I can't actively work to change things for the better ..

But I do fail to see how the ideas can be bereft of intrinsic fairness .... work is work .. tell me why one person's work should be valued more highly than an other person's work ..

[Ocean1]

Do lawyers or politicians supply highly skilled labour? Higher than a master carpenter?

If their clients agree to pay them more, yes.

So what you are saying is that we do not have a free market?

Correct.

This has nothing to do with socialism. Socialism is based, in theory at least, on allowing all people to reach their full potential.

Really? The concept of govt control of production and distribution is supposed to result in people reaching their full potential?

No wonder there's fuck all socialist states left, history has obviously consigned them to the scrap heap as a dismal failure.

In fact distasteful as you may or may not find it; capitalism has proven far more effective in allowing people to reach their full potential. You can tell, all of the alternative systems inhabit the third world where potential of any sort is rendered utterly irrelevant by the struggle to remain alive.

[Ocean1]

See - as I keep saying - I eanr good money - I'm not complaining ...

Didn't suggest you were. I was suggesting that your comment that everyone's work was of the same value is manifestly incorrect. Even leaving aside the absolute right of the guy paying for the work to decide what he should pay for it the contention that everyone produces work of the same value in any given day is utter rubbish.

Oh ... markets .. but see I place no value what so ever on a Buell .. but clearly you do because you ride one ... so value can be a variable from person to person, but not price ...

The fact that you don't value a particular product doesn't affect it's market value very much though, does it? So the fact remains: in a free market the value of any product is the price it will sell at.

Yes - and equally an employee can say "I won't work for that money ..." and if enough do that, then the employer has no production ...

And if the product was in fact priced to meet market demand then the employer will simply decline to pay any more. You sound like a life-long labour supporter, convinced that employers can and should pay their employees more at will. It's drivel, a hangover from the bad old union days, you remember them doncha? When whole industries were destroyed by that particular piece of bullshit?

Next thing you'll be insisting that higher minimum wages won't cost jobs.

[oldrider]

I wonder if Hager is taxed as a seasonal worker? A topical production every three years!

[Banditbandit]

And if the product was in fact priced to meet market demand then the employer will simply decline to pay any more. You sound like a life-long labour supporter, convinced that employers can and should pay their employees more at will. It's drivel, a hangover from the bad old union days, you remember them doncha? When whole industries were destroyed by that particular piece of bullshit?

Next thing you'll be insisting that higher minimum wages won't cost jobs.

No - I'm not a lifelong Labour supporter - I haven't voted Labour for 30 years (and if you can do the maths you will probably work out why)


No, I don't think that employers should just increase pay at will ... my point is that the cost of labour plus the other production costs, plus profit = PRICE. IF the cost of labour is too high (and this is set by the workers) then the price of the product will not be favourable to the purchasers and they will not buy .. that's simple market economics .. we have the right to set the price of our labour, just as manufacturers set the price of their products.

In our current economy, unemployment artificially keeps the cost of employment down because the price of labour is not set by the workers .. (If you don't like the wage, someone else will take the job - or get forced to by WINZ.) You may accept the concept of a free market, but there is in reality, no free market for Labour - there was in the 1960s when there was over-employment, but we have not had that for many years .. and we do not have a free market in the employment area ..

So - if you REALLY want a free market, that has to apply to the price of labour as well.

[MisterD]

but there is in reality, no free market for Labour - there was in the 1960s when there was over-employment, but we have not had that for many years .. and we do not have a free market in the employment area ..

So - if you REALLY want a free market, that has to apply to the price of labour as well.

Eh? Whether there is an under or oversupply of a commodity has nothing to do with whether the market for it is free or not. Price in a free market (and Mashie is going to disagree, but really, RBE is a crock) is the best ay of allocating scarce resources efficiently.

The reason we don't have a free market for labour is that regulations set a minimum price, and we have statutorially-supported cartels and protection rackets (Unions) who set other restrictions on anyone's right to negotiate.

[Ocean1]

we have the right to set the price of our labour, just as manufacturers set the price of their products.

In our current economy, unemployment artificially keeps the cost of employment down because the price of labour is not set by the workers .. (If you don't like the wage, someone else will take the job - or get forced to by WINZ.) You may accept the concept of a free market, but there is in reality, no free market for Labour - there was in the 1960s when there was over-employment, but we have not had that for many years .. and we do not have a free market in the employment area ..

So - if you REALLY want a free market, that has to apply to the price of labour as well.

Bollox. You have an uncanny knack of reversing cause and effect. Labour can not "set" the price of their work and manufacturers can't "set" the price of their products. Both would be examples of provider driven markets, and that's a term used synonymous with market failure, a classic positive feedback mechanism.

In reality the only functional price setting mechanism is that driven by the purchaser, demand driven economics. It's self-regulating and stable. Anti-free market adherents have all sorts of reasons why they should have some say in what you pay for shit, and outside of the fact that it always represents theft at one or two removes it destroys that stability.

Labour can negotiate their price with a manufacturer, but they don't have a right to arbitrarily force the employer to accept it, a purchase can only ever be made by the buyer. You're correct in suggesting we don't have a free labour market, but only because of the substantial interference in the market favouring employees. Unemployment is simply a function of the percentage of potential workers incapable of earning an employer the bare minimum required to pay minimum wage.

[Robert Taylor]

Employment contracts don't price labour, customers do. The key to commanding high prices for your labour is to supply highly skilled labour. The time to decide what those skills are is before you leave school, bitching about "inequitable" remuneration after the fact is just whining, don't expect others to pay for your poor choices.

A market where the price of goods isn't the same as the value of goods is, by definition not a free market.

And you've got the rest arse about face too. An employer will pay his people whatever his clients are prepared to pay for that employees contribution to the value of his product.

The single fallacy that all socialism is based on: "all men are equal" simply isn't true when it comes to the value of their contribution / work. And attempting to make it so by demanding that the end user of that work / product pay whatever someone else says they should is simplistic bullshit so obviously bereft of intrinsic fairness it amazes me that anyone would ever suggest it let alone pretend it may be a required element of some sort of social justice.

Very well said. Those who are motivated get to the top of the parapet, only to often get their head shot off for having the temerity to reap greater rewards. Thank god we didn't get a Cunliffe led ''Government'' with huge input from the Snifter party. Theyd tax small business out of existence thereby costing jobs. I think most people actually got that

[Winston001]

Okay lads much fun but I sense we have strayed off-point. The thread originally raised the topic of Nicky Hager and his book - Dirty Politics. I intend to read it just in case he is correct in a few places.

But the main issue right now is that Nicky Hager not only had no effect on the election with his explosive book launched three weeks out, it appears he actually helped the current government. Fair go. That is weird.

Either Kiwis are too dumb to understand high minded investigative reporting or they see right through it as vague finger pointing which has no importance for everyday life.

Take your pick.

[avgas]

I think the election result + lack of book sales proves that no one trust Nicky Hager.

Hang on let me check the stats.
http://www.booksellers.co.nz/book-ne...fiction-adults

Nope - just turns out no one likes voting or reading.
Perhaps if there was a movie - people in NZ would give damn.