Is the Green Party the Communist Party in disguise?

Forums › Off topic › Is the Green Party the Communist Party in disguise?

1 | ... | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | ... | 15

4054 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2652

Trusted

#1043809 14-May-2014 13:32

old3eyes:
code15: Thinking long term here:

Vote labour/greens to end up like a Nordic country.

You mean taxed to the hilt and cradle to grave welfare system??

You mean compared to the other choice, with it's growing number of tent cities, and an economy where over 90% of the economic growth over the last 10 years has benefited the wealthiest 1% of the population?

ps. and with their own cradle to grave welfare system to boot ... well, for investment bankers, anyway (-:

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1043813 14-May-2014 13:35

MikeAqua: The point is you can do it all. It's not either or. There is strong Tourism in Nordic countries as well as extractive industries and primary production. You don't have to 'wreck' the landscape either. Have you been to the Coromandel? Tourism scenery and mining. Ditto Central Otago. Ditto West Coast. Taupo has tourism scenery and geothermal electricity.

You do have to manage well to balance activities. Where does good management happen? In wealthy countries.

How do countries get wealthy? Generally, by using natural resources.

But in NZ we have gone banaas: Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone

Just print more money ...

KiwiNZ:

we have more to gain from tourism and sustainable Agriculture than we have from holes in the ground and wrecked landscape

I have been to the Coromandel the giant hole in the ground is about as an attractive tourist site that a City landfill would make.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

geekiegeek

2513 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 625
Inactive user

#1043818 14-May-2014 13:40

dafman:
old3eyes:
code15: Thinking long term here:

Vote labour/greens to end up like a Nordic country.

You mean taxed to the hilt and cradle to grave welfare system??

You mean compared to the other choice, with it's growing number of tent cities, and an economy where over 90% of the economic growth over the last 10 years has benefited the wealthiest 1% of the population?

ps. and with their own cradle to grave welfare system to boot ... well, for investment bankers, anyway (-:

"an economy where over 90% of the economic growth over the last 10 years has benefited the wealthiest 1% of the population" Got some data to back that up? I'm not in the wealthiest 1% and I've definitely benefited from the economic growth of the past 10 years.

dafman

4054 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2652

Trusted

#1043822 14-May-2014 13:43

geekiegeek:
dafman:
old3eyes:
code15: Thinking long term here:

Vote labour/greens to end up like a Nordic country.

You mean taxed to the hilt and cradle to grave welfare system??

You mean compared to the other choice, with it's growing number of tent cities, and an economy where over 90% of the economic growth over the last 10 years has benefited the wealthiest 1% of the population?

ps. and with their own cradle to grave welfare system to boot ... well, for investment bankers, anyway (-:

"an economy where over 90% of the economic growth over the last 10 years has benefited the wealthiest 1% of the population" Got some data to back that up? I'm not in the wealthiest 1% and I've definitely benefited from the economic growth of the past 10 years.

A quick google search ...

The recovery that officially began in mid-2009 hasn’t arrived in most Americans’ paychecks. In 2010, the top 1 percent of U.S. families captured as much as 93 percent of the nation’s income growth, according to a March paper by Emmanuel Saez, a University of California at Berkeley economist who studied Internal Revenue Service data.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-02/top-1-got-93-of-income-growth-as-rich-poor-gap-widened.html

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1043835 14-May-2014 13:57

It is a mistake to transfer the American experience to NZ, we have vastly different systems.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

ajobbins

5053 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1279

Trusted

#1043843 14-May-2014 14:06

KiwiNZ: It is a mistake to transfer the American experience to NZ, we have vastly different systems.

Yes and no.

Both have opted for a 'trickle down' wealth approach, under the ideology that if we promote economic growth the benefits will flow downwards and everyone will be better off. The reality of these policies (Worse in the US, but also happening in NZ) is that the higher up that chain you are, the bigger slice of the growth pie you get. And at some point it turns negative. Those at the lower end of the scale often suffer as a result of such policies, with even more transfer of wealth to the top.

We have seen this is both places (and others) by the growing gaps in income and wealth distribution.

Twitter: ajobbins

Dyson

Shop now for Dyson appliances (affiliate link).

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1043847 14-May-2014 14:08

ajobbins:
KiwiNZ: It is a mistake to transfer the American experience to NZ, we have vastly different systems.

Yes and no.

Both have opted for a 'trickle down' wealth approach, under the ideology that if we promote economic growth the benefits will flow downwards and everyone will be better off. The reality of these policies (Worse in the US, but also happening in NZ) is that the higher up that chain you are, the bigger slice of the growth pie you get. And at some point it turns negative. Those at the lower end of the scale often suffer as a result of such policies, with even more transfer of wealth to the top.

We have seen this is both places (and others) by the growing gaps in income and wealth distribution.

There is also the other aspect the higher up the chain the greater risk exposure.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

dafman

4054 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2652

Trusted

#1043854 14-May-2014 14:20

KiwiNZ:
ajobbins:
KiwiNZ: It is a mistake to transfer the American experience to NZ, we have vastly different systems.

Yes and no.

Both have opted for a 'trickle down' wealth approach, under the ideology that if we promote economic growth the benefits will flow downwards and everyone will be better off. The reality of these policies (Worse in the US, but also happening in NZ) is that the higher up that chain you are, the bigger slice of the growth pie you get. And at some point it turns negative. Those at the lower end of the scale often suffer as a result of such policies, with even more transfer of wealth to the top.

We have seen this is both places (and others) by the growing gaps in income and wealth distribution.

There is also the other aspect the higher up the chain the greater risk exposure.

Not exactly true. Wall Street = very high up the chain. Yet, when they screwed up, american taxpayers bailed them out. No great risk exposure there. Contrast that with those well down the income chain that lost their houses as a consequence of the GFC.

Arguably, the income gap in the US has become largely structural and permanent, with very little risk, at all, to those at the top 1% of the chain.

Sidestep

1019 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 567

Lifetime subscriber

#1043855 14-May-2014 14:22

KiwiNZ:

There is also the other aspect the higher up the chain the greater risk exposure.

There are different types of risk lower down the chain

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1043857 14-May-2014 14:23

Again you are talking US not NZ we have a vastly different set of circumstances and system.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

ajobbins

5053 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1279

Trusted

#1043859 14-May-2014 14:25

KiwiNZ: There is also the other aspect the higher up the chain the greater risk exposure.

I'm not sure of your point. And there is often a transfer of risk exposure, and people have different 'risk exposure' depending where on that ladder you sit.

For the 1%, the risk might be they make a bad business decision that means they have to sell their yacht and have to wait an extra year before they upgrade their Mercedes.

For someone at the bottom on the ladder, the risk might be that their boss made a bad business decision and choose to lay off staff rather than wait another year to upgrade their Mercedes. Pushing that person out of the labour force and potentially onto some kind of welfare.

Those at the top get to make the decisions, but people all the way up and down the ladder often suffer the negative consequences of such risks, and those at the bottom suffer dis-proportionally more. And we have seen that the positive outcomes of the risk taking isn't shared int he same way, it's mostly kept by those who took the risk. Basically, those in power are great at sharing the pain and keeping the gain.

Just look at the many company CEOs who are telling their staff how tough the economy is, and how they need to exercise financial restraint. I've seen or heard of many companies with wage and/or bonus freezes among regular employees over the last few years. At the same time however, the executives are all patting themselves on the back for how well they have managed their business through the hard times, and rewarding themselves with HUGE salaries and bonuses as a result. Income growth at the exective level has continues to climb at exponential rates throughout the GFC despite everyone else staying relatively static.

Twitter: ajobbins

Dell

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

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1043861 14-May-2014 14:36

ajobbins:
KiwiNZ: There is also the other aspect the higher up the chain the greater risk exposure.

I'm not sure of your point. And there is often a transfer of risk exposure, and people have different 'risk exposure' depending where on that ladder you sit.

For the 1%, the risk might be they make a bad business decision that means they have to sell their yacht and have to wait an extra year before they upgrade their Mercedes.

For someone at the bottom on the ladder, the risk might be that their boss made a bad business decision and choose to lay off staff rather than wait another year to upgrade their Mercedes. Pushing that person out of the labour force and potentially onto some kind of welfare.

Those at the top get to make the decisions, but people all the way up and down the ladder often suffer the negative consequences of such risks, and those at the bottom suffer dis-proportionally more. And we have seen that the positive outcomes of the risk taking isn't shared int he same way, it's mostly kept by those who took the risk. Basically, those in power are great at sharing the pain and keeping the gain.

Just look at the many company CEOs who are telling their staff how tough the economy is, and how they need to exercise financial restraint. I've seen or heard of many companies with wage and/or bonus freezes among regular employees over the last few years. At the same time however, the executives are all patting themselves on the back for how well they have managed their business through the hard times, and rewarding themselves with HUGE salaries and bonuses as a result. Income growth at the exective level has continues to climb at exponential rates throughout the GFC despite everyone else staying relatively static.

You start a job, you may have to buy some clothes and a bus ticket, or parking permit and go to work 5 days a week. If you start a business you may have borrowed extensively against your home and other property etc etc and then to make that start up work your hours are not 9 to 5 with an hour for lunch but 7 to 11 with the luxury of mabe a 10am start over the pseudo weekend.

When financial and trading climates are hard the work of senior executives is considerably harder and the hours considerably longer, (something I have watched with my wife), if they keep a company trading etc through those times then they deserve the income they receive.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

geekiegeek

2513 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 625
Inactive user

#1043882 14-May-2014 14:53

what is the definition of the 1% in NZ, considering the fact that we only have 3 billionaires.

I'd also love for someone to point out to me who exactly "John Keys rich mates" are. I'm guessing that the greens idea of who is rich is probably different from that of Labour and different again from that of National.

BlueShift

1692 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 969

#1043884 14-May-2014 14:58

KiwiNZ:
MikeAqua: The point is you can do it all. It's not either or. There is strong Tourism in Nordic countries as well as extractive industries and primary production. You don't have to 'wreck' the landscape either. Have you been to the Coromandel? Tourism scenery and mining. Ditto Central Otago. Ditto West Coast. Taupo has tourism scenery and geothermal electricity.

You do have to manage well to balance activities. Where does good management happen? In wealthy countries.

How do countries get wealthy? Generally, by using natural resources.

But in NZ we have gone banaas: Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone

Just print more money ...

KiwiNZ:

we have more to gain from tourism and sustainable Agriculture than we have from holes in the ground and wrecked landscape

I have been to the Coromandel the giant hole in the ground is about as an attractive tourist site that a City landfill would make.

I have been to the city landfill, and I much prefer looking into the Martha mine. OTOH, any given beach or forest park beats the hell out of either of them.

ajobbins

5053 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1279

Trusted

#1043888 14-May-2014 15:05

geekiegeek: what is the definition of the 1% in NZ, considering the fact that we only have 3 billionaires.

I'd also love for someone to point out to me who exactly "John Keys rich mates" are. I'm guessing that the greens idea of who is rich is probably different from that of Labour and different again from that of National.

Ummm.. the definition is the 1%. The top one percent of wealth holders.

Twitter: ajobbins

1 | ... | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | ... | 15