Greens' Proposed restrictions in Kiwi Saver?

Forums › Off topic › Greens' Proposed restrictions in Kiwi Saver?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | ... | 12

4054 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2652

Trusted

#1615068 21-Aug-2016 13:00

Geektastic:

Cluster bombs are very effective area denial systems. They will continue to be made and used, I have no doubt. If someone invented one with a biodegradable explosive or detonator so that the munitions became inert after 12 months, that would be useful.

Just to clarify, for those that don't know, an 'Effective Area Denial System' disperses multitudes of little bombs, spread across large areas, designed to explode into hundreds of pieces of razor-sharp shrapnel, the specific intent being to rip through human bodies - 98% of which, as it happens, are civilians, 40% children.

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1684

ID Verified

Trusted

#1615100 21-Aug-2016 14:04

Geektastic:

Cluster bombs are very effective area denial systems. They will continue to be made and used, I have no doubt. If someone invented one with a biodegradable explosive or detonator so that the munitions became inert after 12 months, that would be useful.

There are funds that do not invest in those companies if that is your wish: if everyone truly objects and moves their business to those funds, no doubt the funds that do invest in them will either cease to do so or cease to exist.

Whether you agree with cluster munitions or not (and frankly I'm horrified and a bit disgusted that you do) is irrelevant. It is illegal under New Zealand Law as part of a Binding International Convention entered into by the government to neither use, store, disperse, produce, encourage or aid production of cluster munitions. That's the law now, and as such any funds investing in companies engaging in this practice are doing so illegally. That's a fact, not a moral assertion.

There are 108 signatories to this treaty, including your beloved United Kingdom.

Fun fact, the Convention banning cluster munitions has a carve out, cluster bombs with nine or less smart submunitions that detect and engage single targets and which weigh more than 4kg are actually allowed, as well as any cluster bombs with submunitions weighing more than 20kg.

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1615146 21-Aug-2016 16:32

dafman:

Geektastic:

Cluster bombs are very effective area denial systems. They will continue to be made and used, I have no doubt. If someone invented one with a biodegradable explosive or detonator so that the munitions became inert after 12 months, that would be useful.

Just to clarify, for those that don't know, an 'Effective Area Denial System' disperses multitudes of little bombs, spread across large areas, designed to explode into hundreds of pieces of razor-sharp shrapnel, the specific intent being to rip through human bodies - 98% of which, as it happens, are civilians, 40% children.

In fact that is not so. Your phrasing suggests that the system is designed for the purpose of killing civilians and children, which it isn't and that is just emotive nonsense.

The reason it can have that effect is that after the conflict the munitions remain. Therefore when civilians return to the conflict area post conflict, they will come into contact with them.

Thus my suggestion that a system that becomes inert after 12 months would be better.

Linuxluver

5833 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1639

Trusted

Subscriber

#1615148 21-Aug-2016 16:35

dafman:

Geektastic:

Cluster bombs are very effective area denial systems. They will continue to be made and used, I have no doubt. If someone invented one with a biodegradable explosive or detonator so that the munitions became inert after 12 months, that would be useful.

Just to clarify, for those that don't know, an 'Effective Area Denial System' disperses multitudes of little bombs, spread across large areas, designed to explode into hundreds of pieces of razor-sharp shrapnel, the specific intent being to rip through human bodies - 98% of which, as it happens, are civilians, 40% children.

...and they are illegal under the international convention that NZ has signed up to....and passed local legislation making them illegal.

People arguing in favour of investing in these things would be breaking the law if they actually did it.

But they hate government so much it clouds their view of what's right and wrong. They may as well be complaining because the government won't let their pension fund invest in making crystal meth or buy shares in agencies that employ and deploy assassins.

Clearly.....right and wrong just aren't relevant if their "freedom" is infringed......said every paedophile ever.

I try to be respectful, but people complaining about not being able to invest in illegal weapons that shred people are simply unhinged.

_____________________________________________________________________

I've been on Geekzone over 16 years..... Time flies....

dafman

4054 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2652

Trusted

#1615157 21-Aug-2016 17:22

Geektastic:

dafman:

Geektastic:

Cluster bombs are very effective area denial systems. They will continue to be made and used, I have no doubt. If someone invented one with a biodegradable explosive or detonator so that the munitions became inert after 12 months, that would be useful.

Just to clarify, for those that don't know, an 'Effective Area Denial System' disperses multitudes of little bombs, spread across large areas, designed to explode into hundreds of pieces of razor-sharp shrapnel, the specific intent being to rip through human bodies - 98% of which, as it happens, are civilians, 40% children.

In fact that is not so. Your phrasing suggests that the system is designed for the purpose of killing civilians and children, which it isn't and that is just emotive nonsense.

The reason it can have that effect is that after the conflict the munitions remain. Therefore when civilians return to the conflict area post conflict, they will come into contact with them.

Thus my suggestion that a system that becomes inert after 12 months would be better.

No, my phrasing simply states that, as it happens, 98% of victims are civilians, 40% children. This is the outcome, irrespective of design intent.

However, I am explicit in stating that the system is designed with the specific intent of ripping razor-sharp shrapnel through human bodies. I assume we can agree on that?

shk292

2916 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2040

Lifetime subscriber

#1615158 21-Aug-2016 17:24

Surely, if buying shares in these companies is as clearly illegal as some people are asserting, then NZ Police will be knocking on the fund managers' doors first thing Monday morning?

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

gzt

18689 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7827

Lifetime subscriber

#1615195 21-Aug-2016 18:00

Geektastic:
The reason it can have that effect is that after the conflict the munitions remain. Therefore when civilians return to the conflict area post conflict, they will come into contact with them.

Thus my suggestion that a system that becomes inert after 12 months would be better.

This is not ww1 battlefronts.

One day or night these weapons are used in your street or in your fields and the very next day you have kids going to school or taking the goats out to graze.

gzt

18689 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7827

Lifetime subscriber

#1615203 21-Aug-2016 18:15

shk292:
Surely, if buying shares in these companies is as clearly illegal as some people are asserting, then NZ Police will be knocking on the fund managers' doors first thing Monday morning?

Yep. I quoted the nz legislation verbatim earlier. That act of parliament including the clause prohibiting investment was signed into law by a National Party government in 2009.

My understanding from the news is that a complaint has been made to police and police are investigating.

Many people here seem kind of confused because the Green Party announced some policy recently.

MikeAqua

8031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3820

#1615505 22-Aug-2016 09:45

Linuxluver:

You just don't like the Greens, Mike. Looks like they were right yet again. How annoying. :-)

Actually I do like the Greens - as a dissenting voice, in opposition. Just not anywhere near my retirement savings. If I live long enough I'm going to need them.

As I made clear in my first post. I don't support cluster bombs.

But setting that emotive issue aside for a moment, the principal of government interfering in private investments is wrong.

No party wants to go through the drama of debating that legislation more than once. So legislation is often structured with a schedule of prohibited investments that a minister or cabinet or some non-elected official can add things to unilaterally by order in council or gazette notice or whatever.

So all of a sudden it depends on who the minister is, what's in and what is out, what might trend nicely on twitter. And that scenario is what I really find problematic.

Private super funds can't be a political football.

Mike

JimmyH

2898 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1554

#1616018 22-Aug-2016 20:25

I wouldn't mind the Greens if they stuck to being a sensible environmental party. Heck I might even vote for them - I'm quite keen on clean air, unpolluted rivers, drinkable water and suchlike.

However, the real turn off for me is their bossy view of how the State should micromanage behavior, social collectivism, and kooky left wing economics. Hence my earlier quip about them being the Watermelon party (green on the outside, but red right through). If they stuck to bona fide environmental policies then I would have a lot more time for them.

As far as sensible economics and financial management is concerned, I basically regard them as bug-eyed loons.

BarTender

3629 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2572

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1616118 23-Aug-2016 07:07

@Geektastic:

What business is it of the government where a Kiwisaver fund puts money provided their investment is legal?

I hate socialists.

I really hope you are not planning to take a pension from the state. Since that would be a tad hypocritical don't you think?

Hating socialists, yet happy to take money from the largest socialist schemes on the NZ Governments balance sheet? $12B and it's only going up. Leeches off the state those over 65's since anyone below 30 knows the only way they will have a retirement is for them to save for it themselves.

A number of worshipers at the Church of Supply Side Jesus in here. - Edit I wished I could start the Video at 3mins as that's where it is just gold.

AliExpress

Shop now on AliExpress (affiliate link).

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#1616204 23-Aug-2016 10:11

The original parable of supply-side Jesus.

The Bill Maher skit is funnier.

The bizarre religious cult of Ayn Rand worshippers probably has more representation on GZ than any other church.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16318

Lifetime subscriber

#1616296 23-Aug-2016 13:19

JimmyH:

As far as sensible economics and financial management is concerned, I basically regard them as bug-eyed loons.

This is a frequently-repeated mantra and, journalism being what it is in this country, keeps getting repeated because others have said it. I would be interested see some actual examples, along with explanations of why this is so. Are the Greens really so out of touch with fiscal reality? Didn't Dr Norman receive his doctorate in economics? Didn't the current co-leader come from the business world? Surely those things must count for something.

So what is it exactly that is so far-out with Green economics? That they want to reduce power consumption by insulating homes and encouraging solar energy? How is that irresponsible? That they believe in public transport? Auckland certainly could have used a vision like that 20 years ago.

I am not a Greens fanatic. I don't agree with everything they propose. But I would like to know just what it is that so convinces the reactionaries amongst us that a Green government would mean the end of the world. I'm not saying it wouldn't, I would just like to know what the specific arguments are.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Linuxluver

5833 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1639

Trusted

Subscriber

#1616324 23-Aug-2016 13:51

shk292:

Surely, if buying shares in these companies is as clearly illegal as some people are asserting, then NZ Police will be knocking on the fund managers' doors first thing Monday morning?

NZ Police don't operate that way. They respond to complaints...maybe.

They let the GCSB off for lying about spying on Kiwis illegally. They let the PM off for lying about the lying about spying on Kiwis illegally.

_____________________________________________________________________

I've been on Geekzone over 16 years..... Time flies....

Linuxluver

5833 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1639

Trusted

Subscriber

#1616325 23-Aug-2016 13:52

JimmyH:

I wouldn't mind the Greens if they stuck to being a sensible environmental party. Heck I might even vote for them - I'm quite keen on clean air, unpolluted rivers, drinkable water and suchlike.

However, the real turn off for me is their bossy view of how the State should micromanage behavior, social collectivism, and kooky left wing economics. Hence my earlier quip about them being the Watermelon party (green on the outside, but red right through). If they stuck to bona fide environmental policies then I would have a lot more time for them.

As far as sensible economics and financial management is concerned, I basically regard them as bug-eyed loons.

In one post you've revealed how little you know about the Green Party.

Well done.

_____________________________________________________________________

I've been on Geekzone over 16 years..... Time flies....

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | ... | 12