Survey from the National Party

Forums › Off topic › Survey from the National Party

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9

8219 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#659399 21-Jul-2012 02:38

dickytim:

National creamed Labour in the election so I would suggest the protests etc against asset sales are the loud majority as the silent majority are busy at work!

This + 1

vinnieg

2260 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#659449 21-Jul-2012 10:21

I too got this letter. Well I think I did. I just read John key on the front and, put it straight into the bin, where it belongs.

I have moved across the ditch. Now residing in Melbourne as a VOIP/Video Technical Trainer/Engineer.

John2010

532 posts

Ultimate Geek

#659477 21-Jul-2012 11:16

Brendan:

I am not impressed by them or by you.

While that is just as I thought you would feel about me, it is a relief that you have confirmed it to be so as I would have felt insulted otherwise.

If you think that you have anything to add apart from just stating in much bandwidth that you are opposed to asset sales, how about having a try at my later post where I ask that the opponents of asset sales comment on the management of the stock portfolio - why you think it is optimum now and if not what should be bought or sold?

Or are you just like the other naysayers and have no reason to be opposed except that it makes you feel good?

mxpress

376 posts

Ultimate Geek

#659922 22-Jul-2012 15:08

vinnieg: I too got this letter. Well I think I did. I just read John key on the front and, put it straight into the bin, where it belongs.

Mine went in the shedder. I didn't want to risk any poor unsuspecting person at the tip, picking it up and reading it.

mxpress

networkn

Networkn
32350 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#659935 22-Jul-2012 16:04

mxpress:
vinnieg: I too got this letter. Well I think I did. I just read John key on the front and, put it straight into the bin, where it belongs.

Mine went in the shedder. I didn't want to risk any poor unsuspecting person at the tip, picking it up and reading it.

Wow what a contribution you made to this thread, hope it made you feel better.

networkn

Networkn
32350 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#659936 22-Jul-2012 16:20

More details today, or a clarification. For those who want, it's possible for for YOU to own a chunk of shares from some of these asset sales as every day NZ'rs will be able to buy upto $2000 shares, which is $2000 which won't go to overseas ownership (If that is your concern).

vinnieg

2260 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#659969 22-Jul-2012 17:13

networkn:
mxpress:
vinnieg: I too got this letter. Well I think I did. I just read John key on the front and, put it straight into the bin, where it belongs.

Mine went in the shedder. I didn't want to risk any poor unsuspecting person at the tip, picking it up and reading it.

Wow what a contribution you made to this thread, hope it made you feel better.

Much better here :) lovely day in the sun!

I didn't vote them in, so I don't want to vote on their misleading survey or any other mail that gets sent me way.

I have moved across the ditch. Now residing in Melbourne as a VOIP/Video Technical Trainer/Engineer.

AliExpress

Shop now on AliExpress (affiliate link).

networkn

Networkn
32350 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#659982 22-Jul-2012 17:41

Well I guess they are giving you a second chance for feedback and you turned it down, perhaps making your opinion across on this thread will help the situation. Oh wait.....

ajw

1932 posts

Uber Geek

#659987 22-Jul-2012 17:46

networkn: Well I guess they are giving you a second chance for feedback and you turned it down, perhaps making your opinion across on this thread will help the situation. Oh wait.....

Since when have politicians ever listened to the voting public.

Brendan

716 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#660159 22-Jul-2012 23:24

John2010:
Brendan:

I am not impressed by them or by you.

While that is just as I thought you would feel about me, it is a relief that you have confirmed it to be so as I would have felt insulted otherwise.

I've been busy with some work, but despite this I will attempt to answer some of your questions.

If you think that you have anything to add apart from just stating in much bandwidth that you are opposed to asset sales, how about having a try at my later post where I ask that the opponents of asset sales comment on the management of the stock portfolio - why you think it is optimum now and if not what should be bought or sold?

I'll do better: I'll answer you why other people DON'T answer you.

Despite this, and foolishly (of me), I will now answer your 'stock portfolio' question/attack:

And the same loud minorities turn up wherever there is a cause that suits them to promote. Usual irrational activist stuff and puff, and the followers with a ring in their nose and no economic, social or business sense get led to the cleaners by them.

You have de-humanized the people you disagree with. In your mind they are mentally retarded.

[1]I'll give them credit that on the "assets" matter they have given up claiming there is any social need to keep them, [2]in the main now claiming they should be kept for their dividends. [3]Should that argument have any merit then [4]any sensible investor will know that if one is going to hold a portfolio of stocks then it should be diversified to mamage risk and maximise the return. [5]At the moment the portfolio is not diversified it being strongly energy biased (and that predominantly electricity generation), risky (Air NZ), and a dog [6](Kiwibank, which in over 10 years has never returned a dividend and soaked over half a billion dollars - as of end 2010 - out of taxpayers' pockets to keep it going, and still crying out for more).

And here, you attempt to frame the argument in terms favorable to your position. You further use strawman arguments to bolster this position. I will deconstruct it step by step:

1. I have not seen it claimed from any credible official source that 'them' have given up claiming a societal benefit to keeping the assets.

2. The 'keeping them for the dividends' argument has never been declared the main argument, but in itself is a sound argument.

3. You next make the classic move of taking your previous strawman argument, and proceeding as if it was an incontestable fact.

4. You then have another strawman argument. It has not been shown that retaining the Assets would constitute a 'non-diversified portfolio' when considered against all state assets. Your point of mitigating risk is therefore invalid and pointless. (It would have been invalid anyway as NZ lacks many viable alternative energy generation systems that would compete with hydro; therefore monopolizing hydro is a sound investment).

5. A bald assertion lacking in official references; additionally, it is predominantly Right supporters that argue that government should not be running companies: you cannot therefore complain if they aren't diverse enough for you.

6. No references and your 'facts' are 2 years out of date. It also ignores the importance the public put on having our own bank, and after all it is their money - not yours. Additionally, even if unprofitable in finance, it is profitable in influence - it has successfully kept the other banks from raising prices too much.

So lets hear from them, if they think their argument is rational and not just based on emotional attachment (a guaranteed failure attitude for an investor to hold), as to how the "asset" portfolio should be managed to maximise return with appropriate risk - what should be sold and what should be purchased (or for the far left what should be nationalised), and how big to create such a sound portfolio.

Now you have heard. Sadly enough you do not actually make any good points or sound arguments, most of your debate is strawman and artificially framing the debate. Along with far too many presumptive or insulting assertions.

We can all do that John. You are not clever, just loud and immature.

I have a question for you: instead of telling us all how stupid the Left is with every breath, who don't you show us an outline of YOUR big plan to save the economy. Yes, we want to hear how you will make more jobs and deal with social issues. How you will save the environment, preserve our way of life and make us all rich.

Fire ahead. Start a new thread if you like. It might even be fun!

When I have asked that question privately of the "don't sell our family silver" claimers I have just got a blank stare, they have no concept whatever as to what was meant, so their claim was irrational .

They just don't like you John. And it is easy to see why.

Or are you just like the other naysayers and have no reason to be opposed except that it makes you feel good?

I see attitudes like yours among the religious. Maybe that is why religious fundamentalists and right wing fascists are so commonly bed mates in history.

Now, if you will excuse me I have some work to do. I do not have a lot of time for these long convoluted debates with people who will never expand their point of view.

Idiot

8 posts

Wannabe Geek

#660237 23-Jul-2012 09:37

Brendan:

[1]I'll give them credit that on the "assets" matter they have given up claiming there is any social need to keep them, [2]in the main now claiming they should be kept for their dividends. [3]Should that argument have any merit then [4]any sensible investor will know that if one is going to hold a portfolio of stocks then it should be diversified to mamage risk and maximise the return. [5]At the moment the portfolio is not diversified it being strongly energy biased (and that predominantly electricity generation), risky (Air NZ), and a dog [6](Kiwibank, which in over 10 years has never returned a dividend and soaked over half a billion dollars - as of end 2010 - out of taxpayers' pockets to keep it going, and still crying out for more).

And here, you attempt to frame the argument in terms favorable to your position. You further use strawman arguments to bolster this position. I will deconstruct it step by step:

1. I have not seen it claimed from any credible official source that 'them' have given up claiming a societal benefit to keeping the assets.

2. The 'keeping them for the dividends' argument has never been declared the main argument, but in itself is a sound argument.

3. You next make the classic move of taking your previous strawman argument, and proceeding as if it was an incontestable fact.

4. You then have another strawman argument. It has not been shown that retaining the Assets would constitute a 'non-diversified portfolio' when considered against all state assets. Your point of mitigating risk is therefore invalid and pointless. (It would have been invalid anyway as NZ lacks many viable alternative energy generation systems that would compete with hydro; therefore monopolizing hydro is a sound investment).

5. A bald assertion lacking in official references; additionally, it is predominantly Right supporters that argue that government should not be running companies: you cannot therefore complain if they aren't diverse enough for you.

6. No references and your 'facts' are 2 years out of date. It also ignores the importance the public put on having our own bank, and after all it is their money - not yours. Additionally, even if unprofitable in finance, it is profitable in influence - it has successfully kept the other banks from raising prices too much.

1. What is a credible official source? What is their argument for keeping 100% ownership of these assets? And why would there be a credible official source on what the argument against a partial sale of state assets is? You also attempt to use ad hominem, but you actually discredit yourself, since you're the only person who misused "them".

2. What is the declared main argument then? And why would it matter what the main argument is if this was a "sound argument"?

3. What is their actual argument if this is a strawman? If you believe the "keeping them for the dividends argument" is a sound argument, you're saying it's an incontestable fact. So I don't see how you can have a problem with this.

4. How is this another strawman? It's still attacking the first argument you called a strawman. And again you're asking for these sources. Also, you don't understand diversifiable risk.

5. You're asking for sources for what you just asked for sources on? And that argument that if you believe the government shouldn't be running companies means that you can't complain about the how diverse such companies are is ridiculous.

6. I don't see why you used the word additionally. It's explaining what you just said.

Have you actually used any credible official sources to back up anything you've said in this thread? You can't expect others to do something you don't. And you can't really accuse someone of strawman if there isn't a specified argument they're attacking.

All I can see as your argument against this is,

This isn't my argument.
There's no sources provided for this information.
Therefore,
The government should not partially sell state assets.

By your need to have reputable sources for information in order to believe something, I guess you must have an actual argument against the sale of state assets complete with credible official sources to back any claims up. Why you wouldn't just use this instead of disputing what others say I'll never know.

BlueShift

1692 posts

Uber Geek

#660252 23-Jul-2012 10:34

networkn: More details today, or a clarification. For those who want, it's possible for for YOU to own a chunk of shares from some of these asset sales as every day NZ'rs will be able to buy upto $2000 shares, which is $2000 which won't go to overseas ownership (If that is your concern).

Are overseas investors limited to $2000 shares each as well?

trig42

5810 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#660265 23-Jul-2012 10:48

Idiot:
Brendan:

[1]I'll give them credit that on the "assets" matter they have given up claiming there is any social need to keep them, [2]in the main now claiming they should be kept for their dividends. [3]Should that argument have any merit then [4]any sensible investor will know that if one is going to hold a portfolio of stocks then it should be diversified to mamage risk and maximise the return. [5]At the moment the portfolio is not diversified it being strongly energy biased (and that predominantly electricity generation), risky (Air NZ), and a dog [6](Kiwibank, which in over 10 years has never returned a dividend and soaked over half a billion dollars - as of end 2010 - out of taxpayers' pockets to keep it going, and still crying out for more).

And here, you attempt to frame the argument in terms favorable to your position. You further use strawman arguments to bolster this position. I will deconstruct it step by step:

1. I have not seen it claimed from any credible official source that 'them' have given up claiming a societal benefit to keeping the assets.

2. The 'keeping them for the dividends' argument has never been declared the main argument, but in itself is a sound argument.

3. You next make the classic move of taking your previous strawman argument, and proceeding as if it was an incontestable fact.

4. You then have another strawman argument. It has not been shown that retaining the Assets would constitute a 'non-diversified portfolio' when considered against all state assets. Your point of mitigating risk is therefore invalid and pointless. (It would have been invalid anyway as NZ lacks many viable alternative energy generation systems that would compete with hydro; therefore monopolizing hydro is a sound investment).

5. A bald assertion lacking in official references; additionally, it is predominantly Right supporters that argue that government should not be running companies: you cannot therefore complain if they aren't diverse enough for you.

6. No references and your 'facts' are 2 years out of date. It also ignores the importance the public put on having our own bank, and after all it is their money - not yours. Additionally, even if unprofitable in finance, it is profitable in influence - it has successfully kept the other banks from raising prices too much.

1. What is a credible official source? What is their argument for keeping 100% ownership of these assets? And why would there be a credible official source on what the argument against a partial sale of state assets is? You also attempt to use ad hominem, but you actually discredit yourself, since you're the only person who misused "them".

2. What is the declared main argument then? And why would it matter what the main argument is if this was a "sound argument"?

3. What is their actual argument if this is a strawman? If you believe the "keeping them for the dividends argument" is a sound argument, you're saying it's an incontestable fact. So I don't see how you can have a problem with this.

4. How is this another strawman? It's still attacking the first argument you called a strawman. And again you're asking for these sources. Also, you don't understand diversifiable risk.

5. You're asking for sources for what you just asked for sources on? And that argument that if you believe the government shouldn't be running companies means that you can't complain about the how diverse such companies are is ridiculous.

6. I don't see why you used the word additionally. It's explaining what you just said.

Have you actually used any credible official sources to back up anything you've said in this thread? You can't expect others to do something you don't. And you can't really accuse someone of strawman if there isn't a specified argument they're attacking.

All I can see as your argument against this is,

This isn't my argument.
There's no sources provided for this information.
Therefore,
The government should not partially sell state assets.

By your need to have reputable sources for information in order to believe something, I guess you must have an actual argument against the sale of state assets complete with credible official sources to back any claims up. Why you wouldn't just use this instead of disputing what others say I'll never know.

Like. Very well put.

networkn

Networkn
32350 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#660266 23-Jul-2012 10:49

BlueShift:
networkn: More details today, or a clarification. For those who want, it's possible for for YOU to own a chunk of shares from some of these asset sales as every day NZ'rs will be able to buy upto $2000 shares, which is $2000 which won't go to overseas ownership (If that is your concern).

Are overseas investors limited to $2000 shares each as well?

I am not sure on that. I am not certain why they would limit it to $2000 even for NZ Investors, there must be something else I can't see related to this.

networkn

Networkn
32350 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#660269 23-Jul-2012 10:57

Wow people are sometimes quite surprising in this country. We have plenty of comments around the place that how can people who can't feed there kids spend $1000 on shares? Uh... You don't. Those families who have $1000 spare can do it, just like they can holiday and do other things, which they should be able to do guilt free since they put themselves in a position to do it.

Kiwi's seem so over entitled these days. Someone posted in a comment on an article.. "I haven't been able to pay my bills for the last 5 years, how will I have $1000 for shares, will the Government give it to me?

Good grief.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9