Survey from the National Party

Forums › Off topic › Survey from the National Party

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

716 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 67

Trusted

#661356 24-Jul-2012 22:51

dickytim:
Wow, Brendan you are sounding like a communist, we have all seen where that leads.

Too right we have - it leads to chronic mismanagement of the economy, thousands on the bread line and economic collapse.

Just as well for Capitalism eh! The worst that happens there is chronic mismanagement of the economy, thousands homeless and economic collapse.

Wait! What?!

So the workers are meant to prop up those who have not intention of working as they are entitled to free money. Have you thought about what heppens when the whole country thinks like that?

Hey, I didn't write the law. Don't moan to me.

But I'll answer anyway, because it is an interest of mine and has been for some time:

It wont happen. The vast majority of people want to work.

But I have a better question for you:

What do you do in a society where all Work is done by machines? How do you distribute wealth?

If I had my way the benefit would be food parcels and rent/basics paid, no free cash at all.

Mandatory army reserves service for unemployed on the benefit longer 3 months.

Lol, a basic but favorite troll.

And how would you pay for the extra 100 prisons you'd then need?

I ask you to ignore law for a moment and answer this.

If no-one worked where would the food and resources come from?

Depends. What level of technology?

crackrdbycracku

1168 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 68

#661501 25-Jul-2012 09:52

Brendan: in response to crackrdbycracku:

Refreshing! And actual intelligent question!

Of course, the answer is neither.

They are all biased towards a particular ideological belief system - all as badly flawed as any religion - and that is the last thing we need.

On the Right we have politicians mindlessly chanting Magical Market Mantras, and on the Left we have droll station keeping.

Personally I prefer Left leaning policy. My view is that the Left accept that total free market won't actually work and say 'OK, how do we go about sensibly regulating for the outcomes we want'. But the Right say 'Free market all the way. But no you can't buy cocaine, even at market rate, or a tank with which to extort others, despite the fact that this is in line with free market principles because ... we say so' which is dishonest.

But that is in the abstract.

Here in the real world however, there is a little voice in my head that keeps saying: Yeah, but at least with National the corruption is so blatant that you could almost call it more honest.

Labour lost the last election, badly, on asset sales and has been trying to re-fight that war since without actually saying what the point is, my sneaking suspicion is that it is emotive and that's about that. I get a capital gains tax but they never pushed it, probably because they know it will annoy baby boomers who love their rental properties. Does this make Labour both more dishonest and less likely to win?

Oh, and the question still stands: Who do you vote for?

Didn't anybody tell you I was a hacker?

Brendan

716 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 67

Trusted

#662129 26-Jul-2012 01:44

crackrdbycracku:

Personally I prefer Left leaning policy. My view is that the Left accept that total free market won't actually work and say 'OK, how do we go about sensibly regulating for the outcomes we want'. But the Right say 'Free market all the way. But no you can't buy cocaine, even at market rate, or a tank with which to extort others, despite the fact that this is in line with free market principles because ... we say so' which is dishonest.

I've always been intrigued by the seeming disconnect between the Right's ideology and it's actual effectiveness in the real world. It's fascinating.

But that is in the abstract.

Here in the real world however, there is a little voice in my head that keeps saying: Yeah, but at least with National the corruption is so blatant that you could almost call it more honest.

Labour lost the last election, badly, on asset sales and has been trying to re-fight that war since without actually saying what the point is, my sneaking suspicion is that it is emotive and that's about that. I get a capital gains tax but they never pushed it, probably because they know it will annoy baby boomers who love their rental properties. Does this make Labour both more dishonest and less likely to win?

Not so sure. Polls at the time were universal in their results: asset sales had no support. I can't say I found different myself - no support for asset sales, National voter or not.

dickytim

2514 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 537
Inactive user

#662148 26-Jul-2012 06:54

Brendan:
crackrdbycracku:

Personally I prefer Left leaning policy. My view is that the Left accept that total free market won't actually work and say 'OK, how do we go about sensibly regulating for the outcomes we want'. But the Right say 'Free market all the way. But no you can't buy cocaine, even at market rate, or a tank with which to extort others, despite the fact that this is in line with free market principles because ... we say so' which is dishonest.

I've always been intrigued by the seeming disconnect between the Right's ideology and it's actual effectiveness in the real world. It's fascinating.

But that is in the abstract.

Here in the real world however, there is a little voice in my head that keeps saying: Yeah, but at least with National the corruption is so blatant that you could almost call it more honest.

Labour lost the last election, badly, on asset sales and has been trying to re-fight that war since without actually saying what the point is, my sneaking suspicion is that it is emotive and that's about that. I get a capital gains tax but they never pushed it, probably because they know it will annoy baby boomers who love their rental properties. Does this make Labour both more dishonest and less likely to win?

Not so sure. Polls at the time were universal in their results: asset sales had no support. I can't say I found different myself - no support for asset sales, National voter or not.

Using the fores and against on here i'd tend to suggest it is not as clear cut as you have suggested.

To me Labour lost the last 2 elections based on their dirty politics, Nations (like or hate them) have always presented policies, Labour only seem to shoot down policies rather than campaigning on their own ideas, to me this is why they lost the election so badly.

crackrdbycracku

1168 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 68

#662226 26-Jul-2012 10:35

Brendan:

Not so sure. Polls at the time were universal in their results: asset sales had no support. I can't say I found different myself - no support for asset sales, National voter or not.

Yeah, maybe but Labour fought the last election on asset sales, they didn't push their other policies such as capital gains tax or increasing kiwi saver or tax free threshold for low income earners. They lost the last election. National selling state assets isn't a surprise, or at least shouldn't be, and I can't remember the other great policies National had in the last campaign. Anybody supporting keeping asset sales should have voted Labour, and they got less than 30% of the vote.

dickytim: Using the fores and against on here i'd tend to suggest it is not as clear cut as you have suggested.

To me Labour lost the last 2 elections based on their dirty politics, Nations (like or hate them) have always presented policies, Labour only seem to shoot down policies rather than campaigning on their own ideas, to me this is why they lost the election so badly.

What dirty politics? As the Opposition their job is to oppose whatever the Govt says, probably including recognising that the sky is blue.

As far as I could see National presented nothing more than 'steady as she goes last election', Labour had all the ideas. Bill English even said a capital gains tax was probably a good idea. Labour had better ideas, as above, but ran a terrible campaign.

Failure to learn from this is the greatest risk Labour currently faces.

Didn't anybody tell you I was a hacker?

JimmyH

2898 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1554

#663447 28-Jul-2012 22:04

Brendan:

Ahh, the infamous Market Economy cult shows its head again.

Please demonstrate the Government DEMANDING big dividends. Official sources only.

Or you could do your own research. But to start you off, try Section 7.6.2 of the Government's expectations for SOEs, which deals with dividend policy. It states that " Shareholding Ministers expect SOEs to operate a dividend policy that translates to payouts that are commensurate with their listed peers, gives an appropriate balance between dividends and re-investment in the business, and shows a degree of consistency and improvement over the years"

Or, in shorthand, earn enough money to fund business reinvestment, and pay a dividend rate comparable to the private sector, and increase that dividend over time.

Link is here

http://www.comu.govt.nz/publications/guidance/owners-expectations-manual/

Is that official enough for you?

New World

Shop on-line at New World now for your groceries (affiliate link).

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#663454 28-Jul-2012 22:38

Hmm, interesting thread.

My opinions are:

Labour lost the election as they had a weak leader, and still do. They don't turn up with a campaign and fight for votes, they try to negate the other. National has a valid leader. This all makes a challenge for voters to either vote for who they feel is a better option, or who is the safer option.

Also, Labour didnt get thrashed at all. They just happen to be fragmented into multi parties.

What we need is a leader who shows he/she wants a better NZ, rather than chasing a job. Get passionate, tell the truth if it is brutal, be up front. That will get credibility. All of the voting public can recognise that much better than petty politicking. Describe the policues at grass roots level. Analogise so that Joe and Joanne Public can get some understanding. I earn income, I pay expenses, I invest, I spend on quality of life. This is also what the Govt does. If the public understood, maybe they would vote at a higher level, and vote smarter.

NZ needs to be run like a business. Except there is no need to make a profit. But god, make NZ'ers understand what needs to be done in lay terms. The days of kissing babies is long over, NZ needs to be managed by professionals.

JimmyH

2898 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1554

#663456 28-Jul-2012 22:54

Brendan:

I think the point is that as tax payers, we ALL already own equal shares in these assets.

We are now being told we have to pay for them all again. Up to 49%.

But it's worse than this: it constitutes a massive transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich.

At the moment, a poor person owns a percentage of these Assets through being a taxpayer in NZ (along with everyone else).

These same poor people will own 49% LESS after the sales, and others will own 49% MORE. In effect, they are being stolen from - but it SOUNDS legitimate because it's couched in legal and financial terms.

But at the end of the day they will own 49% less, and they had no choice.

Sorry, but this is nonsense. It's not theft, and it isn't a transfer of wealth in any direction unless the Government materially mis-prices the shares. It's a sale, that rearranges the Crown's balance sheet (at the margins). The Crown loses a 49% of its financial claim on the profit stream of a couple of companies (which is what shares, in essence, are) and gets a fairly large pile of cash in return. Take a couple of deep breaths and relax, nothing is stolen, the Crown has just swapped one asset for another one. Just like when you sell (say) your car on Trademe - you exchange your car for cash, and the buyer hasn't stolen it.

Exchanging a stream of payments (dividends, interest or whatever) for a lump sum is pretty normal - the government foes it every time it issues a bond, investors do it every time they buy or sell a share, bond or rental property. It's no strange hocus pocus of legalese to try and make theft sound legitimate, sale of a parcel of shares by a shareholder that wants to change their balance sheet risk profile and/or free up cash for other purposes is actually a pretty normal occurrence - you can read about such transactions every day in the financial press.

It's also silly to say people had no choice. This argument just might fly if a party campaigned hard on not doing something, then propmptly did it. However, in this case the Nats clearly said if we are voted in it's our policy to do this, Labour clearly said that if we are voted in then we won't do this. It was debated loudly and at length, and any voter with half a braincell knew about the issue, and that this policy question was a defining difference between the two main parties. The electorate looked, pondered, and cast their votes.

Personally, I don't have a strong view on the issue one way or the other - I am fairly indifferent as to whether or not the Crown sells some shares in a couple of companies. It's neither a panacea for NZ's economic ills, nor is it the crime of the century. It's a simple financial transaction that, in the scheme of things, is more or less a sideshow - albeit one that seems to get some people fairly excited.

Note - for anyone in this debate who wants to tar me with a political persuasion, I'm not a solid supporter of any party. I'm more or less a swinging voter, and have voted both red and blue in my time. Plus, as noted above, I'm fairly neutral on the issue. Just trying to dilute some of the rhetoric with some analysis.....

gzt

18689 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7828

Lifetime subscriber

#663750 29-Jul-2012 21:18

There will be a net transfer to some degree or another.

#1 - There is the sale process itself with large commissions for the institutions involved. Very few are NZ owned, and the bank in charge is Australian.

#2 - Investors with industry expertise will slowly gain board representation and position the asset to achieve synchronicity with other industry holdings and get higher returns. Over time this process will tend to move power prices higher.

#3 - Some people will get a return on sale of the shares as they rise with higher power prices while other people will get only higher power prices.

Brendan

716 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 67

Trusted

#663765 29-Jul-2012 21:59

JimmyH:
Brendan:

Ahh, the infamous Market Economy cult shows its head again.

Please demonstrate the Government DEMANDING big dividends. Official sources only.

Or you could do your own research.

The person making the claim must provide the evidence.

But to start you off, try Section 7.6.2 of the Government's expectations for SOEs, which deals with dividend policy. It states that " Shareholding Ministers expect SOEs to operate a dividend policy that translates to payouts that are commensurate with their listed peers, gives an appropriate balance between dividends and re-investment in the business, and shows a degree of consistency and improvement over the years"

Or, in shorthand, earn enough money to fund business reinvestment, and pay a dividend rate comparable to the private sector, and increase that dividend over time.

Link is here

http://www.comu.govt.nz/publications/guidance/owners-expectations-manual/

Is that official enough for you?

"commensurate with their listed peers" - thanks, proves my point just perfectly.

Your 'shorthand' is superfluous and redundant.

Brendan

716 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 67

Trusted

#663778 29-Jul-2012 22:35

tdgeek: Hmm, interesting thread.

My opinions are:

Labour lost the election as they had a weak leader, and still do. They don't turn up with a campaign and fight for votes, they try to negate the other.

Agreed. But National does it too, just as much, when they are in opposition.

National has a valid leader.

No, I don't think so actually.

I wont go into the psychology of it, but suffice it to say that people didn't vote for National or their Policies. They voted for John Key.

This all makes a challenge for voters to either vote for who they feel is a better option, or who is the safer option.

Also, Labour didnt get thrashed at all. They just happen to be fragmented into multi parties.

Interesting, hand't quite thought of it like that.

What we need is a leader who shows he/she wants a better NZ, rather than chasing a job.

Yes. We have not got such a leader as yet, and John Key is not it. There is nothing new about National policy this term compared to National in the 1990's.

Get passionate, tell the truth if it is brutal, be up front. That will get credibility. All of the voting public can recognise that much better than petty politicking.

Maybe.

But what I think people really want is someone who can fix the problems and make it all run well. And engineer, if you like.

What we have is a bunch of salesmen. And selling is all they are good at.

People do not want to have to be involved that much. They want to delegate that to some well paid officials. Rightly or wrongly.

Describe the policues at grass roots level. Analogise so that Joe and Joanne Public can get some understanding. I earn income, I pay expenses, I invest, I spend on quality of life. This is also what the Govt does. If the public understood, maybe they would vote at a higher level, and vote smarter.

I don't think the public has that much difficulty understanding the policies. I typically only see this claim from Right leaning people "if only the public understood our brilliant plan, they would vote for us!".

They seem to miss the obvious: maybe they DO understand it, but just don't like or want it.

New Zealand is traditionally a socialist leaning society. They seem to be the most stable after all. Capitalist parties are going to find it hard to get anywhere here because the people just don't like it.

Capitalism can make no superior claims about stability or harmony.

NZ needs to be run like a business.

In no fashion should this ever, ever be contemplated. First and foremost: it simply does not work.

Secondly, that is how dictatorships are run (as a company).

Except there is no need to make a profit. But god, make NZ'ers understand what needs to be done in lay terms. The days of kissing babies is long over, NZ needs to be managed by professionals.

Many people here think we need to tighten our belts and work harder and spend less and user pays and less tax and etc blah blah.

It's all crap. Myopic and stupid. New zealanders already work on average the longest ours in the world, pay some of the highest food prices, etc.

What we need to do is innovate. Both in industry and society.

And taking traditional Capitalist ideology as gospel is just not going to work. It's not even working for the american's.

HP

Shop now for HP laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

JimmyH

2898 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1554

#663780 29-Jul-2012 23:15

Brendan:
dickytim:
Wow, Brendan you are sounding like a communist, we have all seen where that leads.

Too right we have - it leads to chronic mismanagement of the economy, thousands on the bread line and economic collapse.

Just as well for Capitalism eh! The worst that happens there is chronic mismanagement of the economy, thousands homeless and economic collapse.

Wait! What?!

Yeah, neither system is perfect, but the evidence is pretty clear about which one generates the greater prosperity over the medium- to long-term. Hint: The people who risked getting shot crossing the Berlin wall weren't (typically) moving towards the east.

Brendan

716 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 67

Trusted

#663791 30-Jul-2012 00:49

JimmyH:
Brendan:
dickytim:
Wow, Brendan you are sounding like a communist, we have all seen where that leads.

Too right we have - it leads to chronic mismanagement of the economy, thousands on the bread line and economic collapse.

Just as well for Capitalism eh! The worst that happens there is chronic mismanagement of the economy, thousands homeless and economic collapse.

Wait! What?!

Yeah, neither system is perfect, but the evidence is pretty clear about which one generates the greater prosperity over the medium- to long-term. Hint: The people who risked getting shot crossing the Berlin wall weren't (typically) moving towards the east.

Instead of taking that attitude, I tend to think that with a bit of effort, we can do better than either system.

And since you like Hints: it begins with minimizing the concentration of power/wealth. That was basically the downfall of both systems. I find it quite funny that the USA had to resort to essentially socialist methods to re-boot their economy.

And incredibly left the same idiots in control! If ever anyone needed evidence of a rich elite running things....

Oh, and people ran from the USSR to escape persecution and death, not because they thought capitalism was all fluffy bunnies.

Oh, and it was not capitalism that generated today's wealth. Don't be ridiculous. It was Science. And science is agnostic about politics. "evidence is pretty clear", lol.

dickytim

2514 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 537
Inactive user

#663795 30-Jul-2012 07:24

Brendan:
JimmyH:
Brendan:
dickytim:
Wow, Brendan you are sounding like a communist, we have all seen where that leads.

Too right we have - it leads to chronic mismanagement of the economy, thousands on the bread line and economic collapse.

Just as well for Capitalism eh! The worst that happens there is chronic mismanagement of the economy, thousands homeless and economic collapse.

Wait! What?!

Yeah, neither system is perfect, but the evidence is pretty clear about which one generates the greater prosperity over the medium- to long-term. Hint: The people who risked getting shot crossing the Berlin wall weren't (typically) moving towards the east.

Instead of taking that attitude, I tend to think that with a bit of effort, we can do better than either system.

And since you like Hints: it begins with minimizing the concentration of power/wealth. That was basically the downfall of both systems. I find it quite funny that the USA had to resort to essentially socialist methods to re-boot their economy.

And incredibly left the same idiots in control! If ever anyone needed evidence of a rich elite running things....

Oh, and people ran from the USSR to escape persecution and death, not because they thought capitalism was all fluffy bunnies.

Oh, and it was not capitalism that generated today's wealth. Don't be ridiculous. It was Science. And science is agnostic about politics. "evidence is pretty clear", lol.

Typical Labour policy, take from those who work and give it to the lazy...

Blah, blah, blah, we are the 99% blah, blah, blah.

The funny thing is that the work labour sounds like they would support the WORKERS rather than the non-workers!

Ragnor

8279 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 585

Trusted

#664405 31-Jul-2012 10:33

Brendan:

Instead of taking that attitude, I tend to think that with a bit of effort, we can do better than either system.

And since you like Hints: it begins with minimizing the concentration of power/wealth. That was basically the downfall of both systems. I find it quite funny that the USA had to resort to essentially socialist methods to re-boot their economy.

And incredibly left the same idiots in control! If ever anyone needed evidence of a rich elite running things....

Oh, and people ran from the USSR to escape persecution and death, not because they thought capitalism was all fluffy bunnies.

Oh, and it was not capitalism that generated today's wealth. Don't be ridiculous. It was Science. And science is agnostic about politics. "evidence is pretty clear", lol.

You can't be serious?

There was plenty of science being done in the USSR but it didn't benefit the people in general much.

Are you really going to deny that economic liberalisation in the 90's massively improved prosperity in East Europe? I think you need to hit the history books!

You're making broad sweeping generalisations, many factors play into the quality of life in a country..

All the best countries are rocking: Democracy + transparency/free press + economic liberalisation/free market + some government regulation/welfare.

Rather than meaningless generalisations: I'd like to know specifically what policies in NZ you or Labour would change to make NZ better?

Also what do you think the wealthy do with their money? They don't stuff it under their pillow... they put it in the bank, in investment funds or invest it directly in business... capital is essential for development/innovation/growth.... successful wealthy investors are good at picking winners it's how they stay rich. If they take risk it's private risk, if they lose money it's private loss (don't get me started on why the US bailouts were wrong and a massive mistake/moral hazard).

You want the government to suck money out of the capital markets and do what with it?

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