I'm depressed... help!

Forums › Off topic › I'm depressed... help!

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

196 posts

Master Geek

#528786 4-Oct-2011 00:27

edit: if you look under the government sector, official government debt while under labour always below ~$20billion. since national took over, it has jumped over ~$40billion

I start worrying now, look at that figure, is still increasing in every second...

I don't know much about politics, one thing I know is that none of these two parties can solve this problem, because they are the part of the problem...

I vote labour anyway...

mattwnz

20163 posts

Uber Geek

#528787 4-Oct-2011 00:37

Brendan:
mattwnz:
With labour they managed to make a huge percentage of the population beneficiaries of some type with working for families, and beneficieries are their target market. As are students with their no interest student loan policies.

Interesting.

So, your contention is that Labour can get elected to government by 'buying' the votes of a few hundred thousand people by increasing their dole a couple of dollars?

Really?

Wow.

No I am just saying that the facts show that the number of people getting handouts of some type from the government increased significantly when labour was in power. This has nothing to do with the number of people on the unemployment benefit, which probably decreased while labour was in.

Brendan

716 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#528788 4-Oct-2011 00:42

I think I MIGHT retire from this thread.

It's turning into a 'religious' debate.

I just now read a National supporter completely ignore concrete evidence some of his claims were wrong; I have only ever seen that sort of reality filter in Fundamentalist Christians, Holocaust Deniers, etc.

I think if we ever seriously want to improve this country we will have to start by admitting the 'other side' has some good ideas. Until that happens we will waste all our energy trying to prove who is correct.

You are all quite intelligent, and I suspect intelligent enough to admit we get more from intelligent co-operation than intercine warfare.

There is NO correct. Economics is a social behavior. As such the rules are entirely arbitrary.

Anyway, thanks for the debates. I know how it goes from here - lots of heat, but no useful energy.

hellonearthisman

1819 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#528789 4-Oct-2011 00:47

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/ Yes, they do issue Nobels for Economics.

If John Key was such a great business man, why has he done nothing to create new jobs (LOL cycle way - grrr railway construction projects), why did he not do more to prevent the credit down grade instead of borrowing more to pay for tax cuts for the rich. National have known that a recession since 2008 and they just sat on there hands. Maybe John business scene is to have an unstable market, as that is when people doing fast trade deals can make millions just like he did. Hey and Goldman Sachs think there is nothing wrong with 'betting against it's clients'. Could John Key also be betting against his current clients, the people of New Zealand? Business as usual.

And what have they got planed for the next three years? Sell state owned assets for a quick fix is about the only policy they have released. Where are the polices the plan national have for the future?

http://thestandard.org.nz/national-policy/

I guess there policy is, if we don't give the people the bad news then it's all good.

mattwnz:
Brendan:
mattwnz:
With labour they managed to make a huge percentage of the population beneficiaries of some type with working for families, and beneficieries are their target market. As are students with their no interest student loan policies.

Interesting.

So, your contention is that Labour can get elected to government by 'buying' the votes of a few hundred thousand people by increasing their dole a couple of dollars?

Really?

Wow.

No I am just saying that the facts show that the number of people getting handouts of some type from the government increased significantly when labour was in power. This has nothing to do with the number of people on the unemployment benefit, which probably decreased while labour was in.

And yeat, Labor still managed to make more money that it was spending on these 'handouts'

Brendan

716 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#528791 4-Oct-2011 00:59

hellonearthisman: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/ Yes, they do issue Nobels for Economics.

Nit picking Point Of Order:

The "Nobel Prize for Economics" is not actually a Nobel Prize. See here: Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

I will grant it's associated with the Nobel Foundation, but is not an actual "Nobel Prize". It's full title is "The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel".

It's a controversial add-on also:Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Linuxluver

5828 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#528804 4-Oct-2011 08:15

mattwnz:
No I am just saying that the facts show that the number of people getting handouts of some type from the government increased significantly when labour was in power. This has nothing to do with the number of people on the unemployment benefit, which probably decreased while labour was in.

If you remove "Working for Families" from your list of beneficiaries, the number shrinks dramatically.

I've always seen WFF as targeted tax rebates for families...and we all know that Peter Dunne and the United Party would have strongly supported WFF. Similarly, the present government has not meddled greatly with WFF....supported by Peter Dunne.

This is a more complex situation than "Labour put more people on benefits". The families concerned are still very much net payers of tax and are not a burden on the state.

Despite that, Labour still managed to reduce NZ's debt. Cullen explicitly warned that tax cuts would make these policies unsustainable and he has been proven correct. He warned of a "rainy day" and I agreed with him at the time as anyone with a clue could see the GFC coming (I did)...except National, who haven't got a clue among them. They are blinded by a mis-placed faith in failed neo-liberal economics....and still are. People blinded by faith are always dangerous because they make mistakes based on not understanding what is really going on around them.

While Labour was able to fund its policies with cash left over, National deliberately moved to cut revenue without cutting expenditure - thus creating a deficit. I always saw "no assets sales in the first term" as the give-away they planned to let the debt ripen then use it to justify selling assets to cronies and foreign backers. Tax cuts were always claimed to create jobs and kick-start investment despite proof from everywhere that this doesn't happen. If they are created anywhere at all it's in China and India, not here.

This is why I have for some time now referred to that party as the "Multi-National Party". Most of their policies benefit foreign shareholders through downward pressure on wages and conditions for the people who actually live here....but who will be left to pay that massive debt National is piling up while their foreign backers export their NZ profits through "service charges" and "royalties" from their foreign HQ's.

Specific example (one among many): Ever wonder why IBM NZ never seems to make much of a profit here? They export their money to Armonk, NY, through technology "royalties" on the order of 40% of the "cost" of an item imported. The profit has left the country before the item or service is even sold. They pay very little tax.....if any at all other than GST.

Yet these are the organisations the National party makes policy for.

Makes you sick... or it should.

_____________________________________________________________________

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

polglase

266 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#528811 4-Oct-2011 08:42

Brendan:
polglase:
Some thoughts on Government Expenditure for feedback

You ask a lot of questions - it's a pity they are all the same.

Can we afford it?

I have one for you: can we afford NOT to?

They weren't all the same question, but yes in relation to some spending areas a common question was asked. The frequent use of question marks was primarily to offer the statements as hypotheses rather than the more common approach in this discussion of making broad unsubstantiated statements with little or no factual backing.

Although you have not really responded to any of the many questions I put forward I'll have a go at giving you my thoughts on your question.

"Can we afford not to?"

I am assuming that you are asking this in all seriousness, so forgive me if you are just taking the mickey.

We as individuals and as a Government have to live within our means, we have no choice. Sure we can borrow for a time and that can last a while, but eventually it catches up with individuals and with nations.

Take Greece for example. I am not an expert on what's happening there so happy to be corrected. However it appears, on the surface at least, that they have been spending money that they don't have and it has now caught up with them. Thus demonstrating that they chose to spend beyond their means for a season, but ultimately still have no choice in the matter.

Am I missing something... is there ultimately a choice as to whether we spend within our means or not?

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

TheUngeek

924 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#528812 4-Oct-2011 08:42

You know why Key is so good? Because he is not a career politician.
He didn't get into politics straight from uni. He lived in the real world and built himself up.
Unlike most other politicians.
I think it should be law that anyone running for PM must have spent at least 15 years living in the real world

polglase

266 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#528816 4-Oct-2011 08:51

Linuxluver:

If you remove "Working for Families" from your list of beneficiaries, the number shrinks dramatically.

I've always seen WFF as targeted tax rebates for families...and we all know that Peter Dunne and the United Party would have strongly supported WFF. Similarly, the present government has not meddled greatly with WFF....supported by Peter Dunne.

This is a more complex situation than "Labour put more people on benefits". The families concerned are still very much net payers of tax and are not a burden on the state.

This interested me, I had assumed that the majority if people in WFF were beneficiaries or paying little to no tax. Have you any sources to back up the statement that "the families concerned are still very much net payers of tax and are not a burden on the state."

I had a VERY quick search and found the following, I have not checked it for accuracy, but include it here to help move the discussion forward: http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2010/05/wff_and_tax.html

It seems to suggest that given the average wage and income distribution of families a large proportion will be paying little to no tax with a significant number in the beneficiary category.

Interested in any data you have.

polglase

266 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#528823 4-Oct-2011 09:04

Linuxluver:

Despite that, Labour still managed to reduce NZ's debt.

I take it you mean Government debt - I think NZ's overall debt position worsened considerably during their time on office?

Linuxluver:

Cullen explicitly warned that tax cuts would make these policies unsustainable and he has been proven correct.

Are you talking about the tax cuts implemented by National at the same time they raised the GST? I thought this was fiscally neutral? Do you have any sources for this?

Linuxluver:

Specific example (one among many): Ever wonder why IBM NZ never seems to make much of a profit here? They export their money to Armonk, NY, through technology "royalties" on the order of 40% of the "cost" of an item imported. The profit has left the country before the item or service is even sold. They pay very little tax.....if any at all other than GST.

Is this a policy introduced by the current Government or did it operate through the previous Labour Government as well? If that is the case I'm not sure exactly how it supports your assertion that national alone are supporting foreign investment in New Zealand through tax breaks.

The merits of this are probably worth another thread and are getting OT, but the relevance would be there if it was implemented in the current term.

I'm right there with you that we need sustainable policies and to live within our means, just hoping to learn more about the issues you have raised by participating in the discussion.

Ragnor

8222 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#528920 4-Oct-2011 11:15

National are purposely running a deficit during the recession, I can't see where Labour policy would be different. Practically every country in the world is doing the same. I can't think of one that isn't.

One of the major problems for Labour is that National's policies have been so centrist they have left a lot of Labour policies in place or only made minor changes: interest free student loads, WFF, not increasing retirement age, not cutting benefits significantly, not touching Kiwibank etc

Being a natural scrouge, I actually prefer being taxed for spending not for working, so I was happy with the tax reduction to 33% and higher GST.

The problem I have with voting for Labour is they straight away want increase tax for me by "taxing rich pricks" in Trevor's own words (I really don't like Trevor). The problem is I'm not a rich prick, I'm just your average 30 yr IT worker with a reasonable job.

No kids (yet) so no WFF for me and if I did I don't really like the idea of being taxed only to have it go through the government sausage factory then part of it be given back to me, why not just tax me less?

I agree mistakes were made in the past with privatisation, particularly selling Telecom as a vertically integrated monopoly (ironically this was Labour at the time who sold it).. it should have definitely been split and better regulated if being sold.

Natural monopolies which are "public goods" eg: power lines, roads, national fibre network are bad choices for full privatisation, people put up Air NZ as a good recent example of partial government ownership done right.

Natioanl claim they partial sale of the 4 energy generation companies will free up 7-9 Billion for investment in UFB and other projects, rather than take on more debt... in that context is it a smart move? It doesn't sound as bad as Labour make it out to be.

When I take the http://www.politicalcompass.org/test I always come out fairly center on the economic scale and and half way into libertarian on the social scale. Which would suggest the Greens may be an option for me, assuming they have got rid of most of the nub job communists and anarchists. The problem is that would probably mean a Labour + Greens + NZ First government which wouldn't be centrist or very libertarian.

John2010

532 posts

Ultimate Geek

#528931 4-Oct-2011 11:24

Brendan:
John2010:
Brendan:
John2010: It seems they do not teach economics in schools or if they do the teachers deliver it with a strong flavour of Labour/NZ First's political rhetoric ....

Economics? You mean that pseudo-science based on ideology rather than fact?

Thankyou for confirming that your views have no sound basis at all.

Such a sweeping and unjustified view tell us more about you than me.

Economics does not qualify as a proper science - like chemistry or biology. Economics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia explains it a little, and this is what I found in 30 seconds. That article refers to it as a 'social science', a term which is much loser in definition than 'science' and deals more with human behaviour - e.g. psychology.
For example, there is no proper Nobel Prize in Economics as there are for all other proper sciences.

Now, having established you are wrong and I am right, I trust there will be no more ad-hominem attacks?

Well your relegating of criticism of your views to being personal attacks is a sure sign of a closed mind. But despite that being your view I will offer the following.

First, your activist rhetoric trying to implicate me as believing that economics is a science is silly because no where have I claimed that it is.

Second, economics is the branch of knowledge dealing with production and distribution of wealth in theory and practice. As you dismiss its application one must assume that you base your musings about the production and distribution of wealth on something other than knowledge and that you admit to that.

oxnsox

1923 posts

Uber Geek

#528942 4-Oct-2011 11:39

The 3 year political term could be seen a a contributor to the countries economic performance. It's simply too short a period to achieve significant results without the government having to compromise its own views to maintain any political capital it might require for the next election.

Soo... with the blue team getting back in this time I'm hoping that they get straight into addressing some of the harder issues whilst they've still got time ahead of them for some results to come thru. That way we can all actually measure the value of the changes.

Since we've had MMP we've had a centralist political landscape, and merely oscillate a little left or right depending upon the support parties mix with the major player.

Either way it's politics and human nature that make us as individuals blame the past for the now, forgetting that all the while we've actually been moving forward.

Politics is short term sound bites and commitments to issues that really require us all to pay long term attention to.

Linuxluver

5828 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#528982 4-Oct-2011 12:30

TheUngeek: You know why Key is so good? Because he is not a career politician.
He didn't get into politics straight from uni. He lived in the real world and built himself up.
Unlike most other politicians.
I think it should be law that anyone running for PM must have spent at least 15 years living in the real world

Such a person would usually lack the political skills required to build coalitions of common interest and then manage them effectively.

Business people are typically dictators and - generally - make very poor politicians as they are temperamentally and experientially not used to hearing others out and negotiating agreeable outcomes....or admitting they might be wrong. Of course you can't tell them this either as they don't listen. Rinse and repeat.

Brian Mulroney - CEO of Iron Ore Canada - would fit your description of a desirable PM...yet in two terms as PM he completely destroyed his party taking them from the largest majority in Canadian history to just TWO seats (out of 308 at the time).

Don Brash? Same again. Fits your profile, but a terrible politician. he has no concept of cooperating and consultation. It's a huge failing and a very common one.

_____________________________________________________________________

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

TheUngeek

924 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#528986 4-Oct-2011 12:33

Linuxluver:
Business people are typically dictators and - generally - make very poor politicians as they are temperamentally and experientially not used to hearing others out and negotiating agreeable outcomes....or admitting they might be wrong. Of course you can't tell them this either as they don't listen. Rinse and repeat.

Pretty hard to build a big business if you can't do those things.

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