15 years' of 'reforms' for what?
spaceghosts
> 1. Poverty at hugely increased levels in NZ
> 2. Massive levels of unemployment
And this is caused by what? What should be done
to help this problem?
> 3. The sale of assets for no long term gain
> 4. World trading nations moving away from extreme forms of free
> trade as espoused by this Govt.
> 5. A divided an increasingly bitter populace.
What is this based on?
> 6. A Government manipulated by big business interests and
> implementing policies which benefit the top 10% of income earners and
> the super wealthy.
> 7. A callours, uncaring, cynical, selfish cabinet which others
> describe as corrupt. For example the payment to MP Alamein Kopu.
Rules are Rules. Sure I think she shouldn't be in Parliament,
but she hasn't broken any rule or law.
--
"Make the most you can of the Indian hemp seed and sow it everywhere."
- George Washington, 1794
Chris Rennie
>
> 15 years of right wing ideological reforms by the ACT branch of the
> Labour Party, and for the last 9 of those years, the National party,
> has brought about these results for ordinary New Zealanders.
>
> 1. Poverty at hugely increased levels in NZ
having increased?
in comparison to what previous period?
> 3. The sale of assets for no long term gain
refer to this as "no long term gain"?
> 4. World trading nations moving away from extreme forms of free
> trade as espoused by this Govt.
it, so what?
> 5. A divided and increasingly bitter populace.
Surely a very objective assertion, but in any case what evidence is
there for the statement?
> implementing policies which benefit the top 10% of income earners and
> the super wealthy.
kids' clothes, secondhand cars, toll calls, airfares, interest rates and
most important no inflation can be described as benefitting the top 10%
etc. The "poor" have never been better off.
> describe as corrupt.
want to get into it?
>For example the payment to MP Alamein Kopu
> My New Year's Message to the Nasty Nats.
You appear to be under the impression there is a National Government.
We have a coalition Government.
> 'You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing.
> Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, Go!
> (Leo Amery, May 1940 - referring to Neville Chamberlain)
John Cawston
> 15 years of right wing ideological reforms by the ACT branch of the
> Labour Party, and for the last 9 of those years, the National party,
> has brought about these results for ordinary New Zealanders.
>
> 1. Poverty at hugely increased levels in NZ
So there was poverty in NZ before the reforms?
>
> 2. Massive levels of unemployment
Nope. Get the figures.
>
> 3. The sale of assets for no long term gain
Yep. Until after 1990, when the Govt started to finally pay off debt
rather than use the proceeds to bribe the electorate. Remember the Govts
before and after 1990?
>
> 4. World trading nations moving away from extreme forms of free
> trade as espoused by this Govt.
Not away, back to their protection rackets. NZ is a trading nation and
doesn't have the luxury of a large domestic base to sell its goods to, so
we have to push for open international markets to sell our products.
>
> 5. A divided an increasingly bitter populace.
Well, you, patricK and Janice anyway.
>
> 6. A Government manipulated by big business interests and
> implementing policies which benefit the top 10% of income earners and
> the super wealthy.
Yep. Thats me. When times is tough, I ring Jenny and get some more taken
off you.
>
> 7. A callours, uncaring, cynical, selfish cabinet which others
> describe as corrupt. For example the payment to MP Alamein Kopu.
Yep. That's MMP and true democracy.
JC
Patrick Dunford
Hash: SHA1
Behold, on Sat, 29 May 1999 22:53:49 GMT in
nz.politics:<37506dc...@news.ihug.co.nz>, Anthony Mersey
(to...@opinion.com.uk) didst uttereth:
>15 years of right wing ideological reforms by the ACT branch of the
>Labour Party,
NO, by the LABOUR PARTY who KNEW WHAT THEY WERE GETTING IN FOR because ROGER
DOUGLAS the party's finance spokesperson in opposition WROTE A BOOK years
before Labour was elected to Parliament.
And Labour today still believes in some of Douglas's policies and key Labour
people from the era are still MPs and shadow cabinet members etc.
>and for the last 9 of those years, the National party,
>has brought about these results for ordinary New Zealanders.
>
>1. Poverty at hugely increased levels in NZ
Part of it exists because Governments have had to pay back billions of dollars
borrowed by the Kirk-Rowling and Muldoon governments before them.
>2. Massive levels of unemployment
There was plenty of unemployment under Kirk and Muldoon. They paid for
subsidised work schemes to disguise that, borrowed billions in overseas funds,
and funded Government departments to take on extra staff that they didn't
need.
>3. The sale of assets for no long term gain
Those which are now trading productively continue to return substantial tax
income to the Government coffers. This includes NZ Railways which used to be a
loss-making Government trading department but now runs at a profit, and
Telecom. Also the sales have raised funds enabling the Government to pay off
debt.
>4. World trading nations moving away from extreme forms of free
>trade as espoused by this Govt.
The world trading nations you refer to are increasingly involved in trade
wars. NZ does not have the clout to become so embroiled.
>5. A divided an increasingly bitter populace.
Why? Because of left-wing-promoted envy?
>6. A Government manipulated by big business interests and
>implementing policies which benefit the top 10% of income earners and
>the super wealthy.
There were some tax cuts that actually benefited poor people.
>7. A callours, uncaring, cynical, selfish cabinet which others
>describe as corrupt. For example the payment to MP Alamein Kopu.
I have no hesitation in describing this statement as bollocks, and without a
shred of proof. Remember you are not protected by Parliamentary privilege
unlike your friend Mr Mallard.
snip
- --
Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ
http://patrick.dunford.com/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.0.2i
iQA/AwUBN07N25/ufSMMVdBMEQJcGwCggIfBns0XXEedXTkLgnr24Z3F7jkAn3g/
yb5CxcNEEsMt0KzMm/1On3sm
=jLO8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Steve Withers
John Cawston <rewa...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:374F7928...@ihug.co.nz...
> Anthony Mersey wrote:
...........
> > 7. A callours, uncaring, cynical, selfish cabinet which others
> > describe as corrupt. For example the payment to MP Alamein Kopu.
>
> Yep. That's MMP and true democracy.
>
> JC
This has very little to do with MMP and a great deal to with the observed
application of ethics by the various political parties.
MMP got Kopu elected - true enough. But after that, she decided to quit the
Alliance. It was the powers that be in the Parliamant who decided to
recognise her as a party.
MMP was and remanis a good first step on the road to a better political
system. But the rot in Parliamant itself still needs to be addressed. But
parliamant reflects all of us. I would say the ethical rot and decay we
witness there is merely a reflection of the general rot in ethical standards
throughout society. Kopu and her National Party paymasters are merely
visible examples of an ethical illness that is both deep and wide in NZ.
Steve
David Wardley
Anthony Mersey wrote in message
<37506dc...@news.ihug.co.nz>...
>15 years of right wing ideological reforms by the ACT branch of
the
party,
>has brought about these results for ordinary New Zealanders.
>
>1. Poverty at hugely increased levels in NZ
free
>trade as espoused by this Govt.
>implementing policies which benefit the top 10% of income
earners and
>the super wealthy.
others
>describe as corrupt. For example the payment to MP Alamein
Kopu.
>
>Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of
God, Go!
>(Leo Amery, May 1940 - referring to Neville Chamberlain)
I believe essentially you are absolutely right, and I have good
reason to believe so. Much of what you say is self evident, some
of it needs to be felt or experienced. There are also a few who
have made enormous financial gains - for nothing more than
subscribing to an ideology. It would be quite an eye opener if
ALL the wasted tax payers money was added up over the last (say)
10 years, all the legal costs, the massive payouts and bonuses,
the consultancy costs.
Anyone that finds this acceptable is certainly short on morals
and has little time for justice - a justice which most people
cannot afford.
It's the same old story, people largely don't want to know if
they haven't actually been burned. I'm all right jack is the
creed.
rgds
Faceplant
a
>shred of proof. Remember you are not protected by Parliamentary privilege
>unlike your friend Mr Mallard.
C'mon Pat, do you mean to say that you don't think the current powers that
be aren't corrupt? The very same people who behave like a bunch of
maladjusted five year olds and cry foul everytime something doesn't go their
way? There are some very dubious goings on in parliament and one must
question some of the financial payments being paid to various people, let's
not beat around the bush, Kopu was bribed (even though she did not need to
be).
As for the other points bought up by Anthony, I agree with most of them, we
have a country that's in a shit state of affairs, and while most of it can
be attributed to the National party, let's not forget that half the country
voted for MMP, arguably the situation that got us into this mess! We can't
blame National for everything that is wrong with the country...though it
would be nice. Politicians as a whole these days are righteous and
self-serving, do you think Mauri Pacific stayed in because they could better
serve their constituents, or was it because they knew they didn't have a
shit show without riding in on Winny's coat-tails and they wanted to keep
the nice perks that come along with being an MP.
"I've seen the future, and it makes no sense"
MeMyselfAndI
As for me I am sick to death of hearing how people want tax cuts and
then go on to complain about cuts in the public services - health,
police, education etc etc
You cannot have your cake and eat it too. If public services are to
be made available then we must pay our taxes to fund them.
Me - I would gladly pay the previous rate of tax before the Nats cuts
and have more police, nurses, teachers, less student fees etc etc.
It doesn't make sense when the Nats claim they don't have the money to
pay for these things (as they always have) and then impliment tax cuts
- in my own home if I can't pay the bills then I don't voluntarily
reduce my income. Would you?
If you think it's bad now just wait and see what it is like if we get
a Nat-Act co-olition. Me - I'm thinking of to leaving the country -
and taking all my money and investments with me.
This corrupt govt must go.
Pam H
On Sat, 29 May 1999 22:53:49 GMT, to...@opinion.com.uk (Anthony Mersey)
wrote:
Patrick Dunford
Hash: SHA1
Behold, on Sun, 30 May 1999 09:00:52 GMT in
nz.politics:<3750fcf8...@news.ihug.co.nz>, Anthony Mersey
(to...@opinion.com.uk) didst uttereth:
>On Sat, 29 May 1999 17:21:38 +1200, patrick...@caverock.net
>(Patrick Dunford) wrote:
>
snip
>>Anotny Mersey wrote...
>>>7. A callours, uncaring, cynical, selfish cabinet which others
>>>describe as corrupt. For example the payment to MP Alamein Kopu.
>>
>>I have no hesitation in describing this statement as bollocks, and without a
>>shred of proof. Remember you are not protected by Parliamentary privilege
>>unlike your friend Mr Mallard.
>
>The opposition members to whom I refer used the word corrupt outside
>of the House and were not protected by Parliamentary Privilege.
Can you cite where the statements were made outside of Parliament? Mallard
made his statement in the House and was ejected.
>Also I used the phrase 'which others describe as corrupt.' I have
>NOT said the National cabinet is corrupt.
>
>Perhaps you are trying to wind me up Patrick. (-:
You made a statement "For example the payment to MP Alamein Kopu", the
structure of that making it appear that it was written in your own words not
those of others. If that is the case then you have made this statement in
agreement with the statement of the others.
snip
- --
Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ
http://patrick.dunford.com/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.0.2i
iQA/AwUBN0/mN5/ufSMMVdBMEQI8vQCgumdw1EXydizqmM21hE/AxTJbTfsAoPIt
FvluUTGhWNWi7puJmTPZuSWb
=azRl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Patrick Dunford
Hash: SHA1
Behold, on Sun, 30 May 1999 09:46:23 +1200 in
nz.politics:<92801491...@Chaos.es.co.nz>, Faceplant
(supers...@hotmail.com) didst uttereth:
>>I have no hesitation in describing this statement as bollocks, and without
>a
>>shred of proof. Remember you are not protected by Parliamentary privilege
>>unlike your friend Mr Mallard.
>
>
>C'mon Pat, do you mean to say that you don't think the current powers that
>be aren't corrupt?
No, I don't.
>The very same people who behave like a bunch of
>maladjusted five year olds and cry foul everytime something doesn't go their
>way? There are some very dubious goings on in parliament and one must
>question some of the financial payments being paid to various people, let's
>not beat around the bush, Kopu was bribed (even though she did not need to
>be).
Absolute rubbish. You have no evidence whatsoever of this statement.
snip
- --
Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ
http://patrick.dunford.com/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.0.2i
iQA/AwUBN0/moZ/ufSMMVdBMEQK9fACeKTP3ucYLwweHadF1hy2Wq+55ODUAoLKx
fkNDWPJGDoqWnBLtz5hb3abd
=9wh7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Philip Ross
> 15 years of right wing ideological reforms by the ACT branch of the
> Labour Party, and for the last 9 of those years, the National party,
> has brought about these results for ordinary New Zealanders.
>
> 1. Poverty at hugely increased levels in NZ
You don't know what poverty is and I can tell you that by world standards
we do not have poverty in New Zealand. I suggest if you want to see real
poverty you could look at the slums in cities such Lima, Rio de Janeiro,
Bombay and most African cities etc. That's poverty. In New Zealand there
are many people who have a lower standard of living than we would like and
we have to address that by raising the standard of living for all. That's
what the so-called "new right" reforms have been doing. In the past we
spent money we did not have maintaining an artificial affluence and an
economic fantasy that all was well when it was very wrong.
>
> 2. Massive levels of unemployment
Again this is a comment made in ignorance. Our unemployment level is too
high, sure, but it's far lower than most nations in Europe and in fact, by
comparison it is actually relatively good. It would be much worse if we
had continued with the socialist policies of the Muldoon era.
>
> 3. The sale of assets for no long term gain
In every respect the sale of these assets has led to gain. Most of these
"assets" were inefficient, money losing government bureaucracies that
cared little for their customers and not at all for the beleaguered tax
payer who had to fund them. Now, we have restructured them and sold them,
raising money to pay off debt (incurred in the first place by dopey
socialists), and ensuring a vastly improved service to the public. Do you
remember the disaster that was Telecom prior to privatisation? I do.
>
> 4. World trading nations moving away from extreme forms of free
> trade as espoused by this Govt.
The evidence to the contrary is everywhere you care to look, with more
liberal markets being adopted worldwide and free trade blocs -- CER,
NAFTA, Mercosur, EEC etc.
>
> 5. A divided an increasingly bitter populace.
I seem to recall that it was divided and incredibly bitter back in 1981,
which was before the liberalisation.
>
> 6. A Government manipulated by big business interests and
> implementing policies which benefit the top 10% of income earners and
> the super wealthy.
This statement is just nonsense. We have all benefited from the reduction
in taxation and the removal of absurd regulations governing matters that
are our own business, such as when we can trade, how much foreign currency
we are allowed to buy, for what and when. Do you remember what the rules
were concerning buying a new car in the 1970s? You had to have "switched
funds" to get one in a hurry. What right does the government have to
dictate such matters?
>
> 7. A callours, uncaring, cynical, selfish cabinet which others
> describe as corrupt. For example the payment to MP Alamein Kopu.
Alamein Kopu should not be in parliament and for that stupidity we have
the Alliance to thank. Now that she is there, the rules that apply to
others must apply to her as well.
>
> My New Year's Message to the Nasty Nats.
Let's make that my New Year's message to the stupid socialists, and let's
hope that after the 1999 election the Alliance party will no longer have
parliamentary representation:
>
>
> 'You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing.
> Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, Go!
> (Leo Amery, May 1940 - referring to Neville Chamberlain)
Philip Ross
MeMyselfAndI
wrote:
>
>You don't know what poverty is and I can tell you that by world standards
>we do not have poverty in New Zealand. I suggest if you want to see real
>poverty you could look at the slums in cities such Lima, Rio de Janeiro,
>Bombay and most African cities etc. That's poverty.
Hey I know - lets find the worst, 3rd world country possible and
always compare us to them. Then we will always look like a thriving
country no matter what.
"Relative to other countries" is totally nonsensical to me. So what
if there are worst countries around - does that make it OK that more
and more children in our country are not getting their basic needs met
and are living in substandard overcrowded situations? Does it make it
OK that the gap between rich and poor is ever increasing?
I have personally benefited by the nasty new rights policies but that
does not mean I am not prepared to go back and pay more taxes so that
ALL children in NZ get what they need not just those with wealthy
parents.
>>
>> 2. Massive levels of unemployment
>
>Again this is a comment made in ignorance. Our unemployment level is too
>high, sure, but it's far lower than most nations in Europe and in fact, by
>comparison it is actually relatively good. It would be much worse if we
>had continued with the socialist policies of the Muldoon era.
Same point. We could compare to other countries using the same method
- those that have a much lower unemployment rate and say how bad we
are doing - why do you choose to look at those with higher rates -
could it be because you have a job and therefore all is OK with your
world?
>> 3. The sale of assets for no long term gain
>
>In every respect the sale of these assets has led to gain. Most of these
>"assets" were inefficient, money losing government bureaucracies that
>cared little for their customers and not at all for the beleaguered tax
>payer who had to fund them. Now, we have restructured them and sold them,
>raising money to pay off debt (incurred in the first place by dopey
>socialists), and ensuring a vastly improved service to the public. Do you
>remember the disaster that was Telecom prior to privatisation? I do.
Yeh - thats right - subsidised phone rates for the elderly. You only
needed 20c for a public phone call not $5 like now. More and more
homes do not have a phone because they just cannot afford it. Do you
remember how when Telecom took over they practically doubled the
domestic rate - I do because I worked in an accounts dept at the time
and processed phone reimbursements. Yeh - it's worked really well.
>> 4. World trading nations moving away from extreme forms of free
>> trade as espoused by this Govt.
>
>The evidence to the contrary is everywhere you care to look, with more
>liberal markets being adopted worldwide and free trade blocs -- CER,
>NAFTA, Mercosur, EEC etc.
Rubbish - NZ is one of the ONLY countries that is voluntarily moving
into free trade - USA is re-applying tarrifs to protect their own
industries while NZ is removing them and destroying ours. Making us
at the mercy of overseas manufacturers for products that were being
developed in our country - and losing the jobs that went with them.
>> 5. A divided an increasingly bitter populace.
>
>I seem to recall that it was divided and incredibly bitter back in 1981,
>which was before the liberalisation.
Personally, since Shiply barged into power I have never been so
concerned about corruption and hidden agendas in the govt. I know
many others that feel the same way.
>> 6. A Government manipulated by big business interests and
>> implementing policies which benefit the top 10% of income earners and
>> the super wealthy.
>
>This statement is just nonsense. We have all benefited from the reduction
>in taxation and the removal of absurd regulations governing matters that
>are our own business
Try asking the hunders of people that have lost their jobs from
clothing and car factories in NZ - ask them if they think they are
better off on the dole than working.
, such as when we can trade, how much foreign currency
>we are allowed to buy, for what and when. Do you remember what the rules
>were concerning buying a new car in the 1970s? You had to have "switched
>funds" to get one in a hurry. What right does the government have to
>dictate such matters?
Because we are a small country. We should be looking after our own in
the best possible way - this means jobs. So what if you couldn't buy
the flashiest car at least kids had food and people had jobs.
Priorities please.
>> 7. A callours, uncaring, cynical, selfish cabinet which others
>> describe as corrupt. For example the payment to MP Alamein Kopu.
>
>Alamein Kopu should not be in parliament and for that stupidity we have
>the Alliance to thank. Now that she is there, the rules that apply to
>others must apply to her as well.
. . . and for that stupidity we have the MMP rules to thank. The
rules that Labour and Alliance are trying to change but that NAT and
ACT will not support. Why? because it serves to keep them in power at
ANY cost which we see more and more as thier biggest priority. Stuff
the country and the people in it just so long as they stay on top.
>> My New Year's Message to the Nasty Nats.
>
>Let's make that my New Year's message to the stupid socialists, and let's
>hope that after the 1999 election the Alliance party will no longer have
>parliamentary representation:
Here's my new years message - forget your flash "stuff" bought at the
expense of others slave labour, put aside your dream of ever lower
taxes and look around you. Back in 1973 my family left Britain to
come here because it was a land of oppertunity. A country that looked
after its own. There was no poverty, jobs a plenty, free education,
available health care, free prescriptions. Look around you and cry -
then do something to save what we have left.
Get rid of the corrupt and selfish nats. Let them know that they
cannot continue with their sleazy and uncaring ways - vote them out.
Lecture over.
Pam H
ta...@xtra.co.nz
(MeMyselfAndI) wrote:
>Here here.
>
>As for me I am sick to death of hearing how people want tax cuts and
>then go on to complain about cuts in the public services - health,
>police, education etc etc
>
>You cannot have your cake and eat it too. If public services are to
>be made available then we must pay our taxes to fund them.
>
>Me - I would gladly pay the previous rate of tax before the Nats cuts
>and have more police, nurses, teachers, less student fees etc etc.
What was the previous rate of taxation? I don't think I could tolerate
paying out more than 1/3 of every day's work to the government.
MeMyselfAndI
wrote:
>Anthony Mersey wrote:
>
>> 5. A divided an increasingly bitter populace.
>
>What is this based on?
>
Talk to those who have lost jobs through our new right reforms.
Talk to those on the hospitals waiting lists.
Talk to students who finish their education owing tens of thousand of
dollars who cannot even contemplate buying a house, starting a
business or having children because of their debt.
Talk to those with 4 jobs earning a total of under $20,000 who hear of
payouts of hundreds of thousands to consultants.
Talk to those people who the police cannot attend to due to lack of
resource.
Talk to parents of children who need glasses but cannot afford to buy
them.
Talk to abused children for whom the social workers don't have the
resources to help.
Talk to any person who works in a grass roots community group who sees
first hand the effects of the poverty and hardship in NZ that most
middle income earners who want their tax cuts more and more never hear
about. Community groups that have more and more demand from people
who have nowhere else to go and yet have less and less money to do
their work with.
Talk to anyone who is benefiting from the new right way but who has
their eyes open and a conscience.
That is what it is based on.
Pam H
MeMyselfAndI
<ch...@pricerennie.co.nz> wrote:
>Anthony Mersey wrote:
>>
>> 15 years of right wing ideological reforms by the ACT branch of the
>> Labour Party, and for the last 9 of those years, the National party,
>> has brought about these results for ordinary New Zealanders.
>>For example the payment to MP Alamein Kopu
>What has the Cabinet got to do with that payment?
Please correct me if I am wrong but wasn't that Shiply stating on TV
that it was fair that Kopu got that money. Shiply and her sheep
obviously have no intent to change rules that are so bent on spending
taxpayers money on the like of Kopu.
Couldn't be because scum like Kopu, those list MP's that left their
party but not their pay, are the only reason that Shiply is in Power
is it. No couldn't be cause that smells of bribery and corruption and
according to you there is none.
Head out of sand please children.
Pam H
Robert Howard
Anthony Mersey <to...@opinion.com.uk> wrote in article
<37506dc...@news.ihug.co.nz>...
> 15 years of right wing ideological reforms by the ACT branch of the
> Labour Party, and for the last 9 of those years, the National party,
> has brought about these results for ordinary New Zealanders.
If those reforms hadn't been carried out the country would have been in a
much worse state than it is now.
Bob Howard.
Patrick Dunford
Hash: SHA1
Behold, on Sun, 30 May 1999 22:56:26 GMT in
nz.politics:<3751bfe9...@news.ihug.co.nz>, MeMyselfAndI
(info...@nospam.ihug.co.nz) didst uttereth:
>On Sat, 29 May 1999 16:35:07 +1200, spaceghosts <apa...@wave.co.nz>
>wrote:
>
>>Anthony Mersey wrote:
>>
>>> 5. A divided an increasingly bitter populace.
>>
>>What is this based on?
>>
>Talk to those who have lost jobs through our new right reforms.
Some have found other jobs.
>Talk to those on the hospitals waiting lists.
Waiting lists existed before Labour was elected to Parliament.
>Talk to students who finish their education owing tens of thousand of
>dollars who cannot even contemplate buying a house, starting a
>business or having children because of their debt.
Having children? Don't make me laugh. People have them on the DPB which is
hardly a generous level of income.
>Talk to those with 4 jobs earning a total of under $20,000 who hear of
>payouts of hundreds of thousands to consultants.
The usual envy? The consultants have to be well recognised (in other words
very good at what they do) to earn that sort of money.
>Talk to those people who the police cannot attend to due to lack of
>resource.
>Talk to parents of children who need glasses but cannot afford to buy
>them.
I understand a subsidy was introduced in the budget.
>Talk to abused children for whom the social workers don't have the
>resources to help.
There seem to be more social workers about and they are being introduced into
schools.
>Talk to any person who works in a grass roots community group who sees
>first hand the effects of the poverty and hardship in NZ that most
>middle income earners who want their tax cuts more and more never hear
>about. Community groups that have more and more demand from people
>who have nowhere else to go and yet have less and less money to do
>their work with.
They raise money by charity and seem to do fairly well from it. I think you
mean they have less Government funding.
>Talk to anyone who is benefiting from the new right way but who has
>their eyes open and a conscience.
Talk to anyone who isn't, I had an income of less than $14,000 last year. It
hasn't changed my views one iota.
At the end of the day you can blame everyone else for your problems, or you
can pick yourself up, be grateful for what you have, and work extremely hard
to change your personal circumstances. Ah but for some it is easier to stay in
bed in the morning or join a moaners' group.
>That is what it is based on.
- --
Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ
http://patrick.dunford.com/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.0.2i
iQA/AwUBN1Aaqp/ufSMMVdBMEQLXVQCg4GEgsLx75VlgFw9o+cEudi8B1P0AoJxN
kTZssAXpAWxfcXiJ5dLMws5P
=2RW1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Patrick Dunford
Hash: SHA1
Behold, on Sun, 30 May 1999 22:59:45 GMT in
nz.politics:<3751c231...@news.ihug.co.nz>, MeMyselfAndI
(info...@nospam.ihug.co.nz) didst uttereth:
>On Sat, 29 May 1999 16:50:02 +1200, Chris Rennie
><ch...@pricerennie.co.nz> wrote:
>
>>Anthony Mersey wrote:
>>>
>>> 15 years of right wing ideological reforms by the ACT branch of the
>>> Labour Party, and for the last 9 of those years, the National party,
>>> has brought about these results for ordinary New Zealanders.
>>>For example the payment to MP Alamein Kopu
>>What has the Cabinet got to do with that payment?
>Please correct me if I am wrong but wasn't that Shiply stating on TV
>that it was fair that Kopu got that money. Shiply and her sheep
>obviously have no intent to change rules that are so bent on spending
>taxpayers money on the like of Kopu.
>
>Couldn't be because scum like Kopu, those list MP's that left their
>party but not their pay, are the only reason that Shiply is in Power
>is it. No couldn't be cause that smells of bribery and corruption and
>according to you there is none.
Shipley's government also relies on support from United New Zealand, an
elected party with one seat in the House. There is no sane reason why United
NZ should be excluded from funding.
People have made a huge fuss about Kopu but the fact is that, regardless of
circumstances, she has broken no law. Those who want to tamper with parts of
electoral system should consider the anti-democratic nature of such changes. I
see little difference between Kopu and former Labour MPs like John Kirk, who
was not expelled from Parliament because he had not broken any law either.
It is obvious the Alliance want Kopu chucked out of Parliament as she is a
constant embarrassment to them. But there have been seat MPs before now who
have been in the same boat. Consider both sides of the equation. Labour and
the Alliance stand to make political gain by using such changes to bring down
the elected Government.
- --
Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ
http://patrick.dunford.com/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.0.2i
iQA/AwUBN1AcDJ/ufSMMVdBMEQL/RwCg+G2rebG266rFaaxBvZODNmBCvYAAoMOH
EpUBiHcOVW+Ecbisi3VGWVTm
=Z48v
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Patrick Dunford
Hash: SHA1
Behold, on Sun, 30 May 1999 22:46:39 GMT in
nz.politics:<3751ba1a...@news.ihug.co.nz>, MeMyselfAndI
(info...@nospam.ihug.co.nz) didst uttereth:
>On Sun, 30 May 1999 13:58:59 +1200, Philip Ross <pr...@clear.net.nz>
>wrote:
>>You don't know what poverty is and I can tell you that by world standards
>>we do not have poverty in New Zealand. I suggest if you want to see real
>>poverty you could look at the slums in cities such Lima, Rio de Janeiro,
>>Bombay and most African cities etc. That's poverty.
>Hey I know - lets find the worst, 3rd world country possible and
>always compare us to them. Then we will always look like a thriving
>country no matter what.
>"Relative to other countries" is totally nonsensical to me. So what
>if there are worst countries around - does that make it OK that more
>and more children in our country are not getting their basic needs met
>and are living in substandard overcrowded situations? Does it make it
>OK that the gap between rich and poor is ever increasing?
>
>I have personally benefited by the nasty new rights policies but that
>does not mean I am not prepared to go back and pay more taxes so that
>ALL children in NZ get what they need not just those with wealthy
>parents.
You are free to make a donation to Treasury at any time :)
snip
>>> 3. The sale of assets for no long term gain
>>
>>In every respect the sale of these assets has led to gain. Most of these
>>"assets" were inefficient, money losing government bureaucracies that
>>cared little for their customers and not at all for the beleaguered tax
>>payer who had to fund them. Now, we have restructured them and sold them,
>>raising money to pay off debt (incurred in the first place by dopey
>>socialists), and ensuring a vastly improved service to the public. Do you
>>remember the disaster that was Telecom prior to privatisation? I do.
>
>Yeh - thats right - subsidised phone rates for the elderly. You only
>needed 20c for a public phone call not $5 like now.
At the moment it actually costs 20c for a public phone call.
>More and more
>homes do not have a phone because they just cannot afford it. Do you
>remember how when Telecom took over they practically doubled the
>domestic rate - I do because I worked in an accounts dept at the time
>and processed phone reimbursements. Yeh - it's worked really well.
To subsidise those rates money was taken from taxes. It just meant that the
money wasn't overtly taken from Telecom - it was collected through taxation
which all working people paid. They paid regardless, including poor people.
It's a bit like the Christchurch City Council being subsidised through their
electricity subsidiaries in addition to the rates money they take in.
>>> 4. World trading nations moving away from extreme forms of free
>>> trade as espoused by this Govt.
>>
>>The evidence to the contrary is everywhere you care to look, with more
>>liberal markets being adopted worldwide and free trade blocs -- CER,
>>NAFTA, Mercosur, EEC etc.
>Rubbish - NZ is one of the ONLY countries that is voluntarily moving
>into free trade - USA is re-applying tarrifs to protect their own
>industries while NZ is removing them and destroying ours. Making us
>at the mercy of overseas manufacturers for products that were being
>developed in our country - and losing the jobs that went with them.
The products that were being developed here were an extremely limited range
because it was not economic to do so. In fact not developed here for the most
part, just assembled under license from parts made elsewhere. NZ is too small
a country to be a major industrial power.
>>> 5. A divided an increasingly bitter populace.
>>
>>I seem to recall that it was divided and incredibly bitter back in 1981,
>>which was before the liberalisation.
>Personally, since Shiply barged into power I have never been so
>concerned about corruption and hidden agendas in the govt. I know
>many others that feel the same way.
All governments have agendas. Study Labour Party policy and it will be found
to contain overt or other socialist agendas I am sure.
>>> 6. A Government manipulated by big business interests and
>>> implementing policies which benefit the top 10% of income earners and
>>> the super wealthy.
>>
>>This statement is just nonsense. We have all benefited from the reduction
>>in taxation and the removal of absurd regulations governing matters that
>>are our own business
>Try asking the hunders of people that have lost their jobs from
>clothing and car factories in NZ - ask them if they think they are
>better off on the dole than working.
Maybe not but they should look for a new career.
>, such as when we can trade, how much foreign currency
>>we are allowed to buy, for what and when. Do you remember what the rules
>>were concerning buying a new car in the 1970s? You had to have "switched
>>funds" to get one in a hurry. What right does the government have to
>>dictate such matters?
>Because we are a small country. We should be looking after our own in
>the best possible way - this means jobs. So what if you couldn't buy
>the flashiest car at least kids had food and people had jobs.
>Priorities please.
Subsidised jobs from taxes and $40 billion borrowed overseas, which is now
having to be paid back. Apart from the high loading imposed by taxation on the
economy. The percentage of the economy siphoned into the Government's coffers
is much higher than it was in 1972 even.
>>> 7. A callours, uncaring, cynical, selfish cabinet which others
>>> describe as corrupt. For example the payment to MP Alamein Kopu.
>>
>>Alamein Kopu should not be in parliament and for that stupidity we have
>>the Alliance to thank. Now that she is there, the rules that apply to
>>others must apply to her as well.
>. . . and for that stupidity we have the MMP rules to thank. The
>rules that Labour and Alliance are trying to change but that NAT and
>ACT will not support. Why? because it serves to keep them in power at
>ANY cost which we see more and more as thier biggest priority. Stuff
>the country and the people in it just so long as they stay on top.
The Alliance and Labour support restrictions on democracy quite obviously.
They want to prevent parties with fewer than 6 MPs from being eligible for
funding for example. Both Labour and the Alliance whether you like it or not
are fans of big-party politics. They haven't got room for smaller parties.
>>> My New Year's Message to the Nasty Nats.
>>
>>Let's make that my New Year's message to the stupid socialists, and let's
>>hope that after the 1999 election the Alliance party will no longer have
>>parliamentary representation:
>
>Here's my new years message - forget your flash "stuff" bought at the
>expense of others slave labour,
Oh ridiculous!
>put aside your dream of ever lower
>taxes and look around you. Back in 1973 my family left Britain to
>come here because it was a land of oppertunity. A country that looked
>after its own. There was no poverty,
Rubbish.
>jobs a plenty, free education,
>available health care, free prescriptions. Look around you and cry -
>then do something to save what we have left.
That may have been possible in the days when Britain bought all our produce
but not now when we have to find our way in the global marketplace.
>
>Get rid of the corrupt and selfish nats. Let them know that they
>cannot continue with their sleazy and uncaring ways - vote them out.
>
>Lecture over.
>
>Pam H
>
>>> 'You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing.
>>> Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, Go!
>>> (Leo Amery, May 1940 - referring to Neville Chamberlain)
>>
>>Philip Ross
>
- --
Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ
http://patrick.dunford.com/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.0.2i
iQA/AwUBN1Ae85/ufSMMVdBMEQLZfQCg4BkGKgIB73z3ew7dPSBv+UYJ4J0AoOMG
Wg5Ow+nNZ6zYPNu6PckYlU9o
=rY5O
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Patrick Dunford
Hash: SHA1
Behold, on Sun, 30 May 1999 02:33:13 GMT in
nz.politics:<3750a330....@enews.newsguy.com>, ta...@xtra.co.nz
(ta...@xtra.co.nz) didst uttereth:
In 1972 the Government's share of the economy was around 22%. it is now still,
after all the reforms, 34% (IIRC). And surprisingly, labour wants it to rise -
did I see implied support somewhere for 39 or 40%?
- --
Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ
http://patrick.dunford.com/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.0.2i
iQA/AwUBN1AfXZ/ufSMMVdBMEQIGAQCeIQpJs/4TIxhJg9acet+4+SvIgJMAoONF
fFKWmmxBd4hzwvqSCJT+HUUJ
=6fVt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Patrick Dunford
Hash: SHA1
Behold, on Sun, 30 May 1999 23:41:39 GMT in
nz.politics:<3751cbdc...@news.ihug.co.nz>, Anthony Mersey
(to...@opinion.com.uk) didst uttereth:
>On Sun, 30 May 1999 13:13:26 +1200, patrick...@caverock.net
>(Patrick Dunford) wrote:
>
>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>Hash: SHA1
>>
>>Behold, on Sun, 30 May 1999 09:00:52 GMT in
>>nz.politics:<3750fcf8...@news.ihug.co.nz>, Anthony Mersey
>>(to...@opinion.com.uk) didst uttereth:
>>
>>>On Sat, 29 May 1999 17:21:38 +1200, patrick...@caverock.net
>>>(Patrick Dunford) wrote:
>>>
>>snip
>>
>>>>Anotny Mersey wrote...
>>>>>7. A callours, uncaring, cynical, selfish cabinet which others
>>>>>describe as corrupt. For example the payment to MP Alamein Kopu.
>>>>
>>>>I have no hesitation in describing this statement as bollocks, and without
a
>>>>shred of proof. Remember you are not protected by Parliamentary privilege
>>>>unlike your friend Mr Mallard.
>>>
>>>The opposition members to whom I refer used the word corrupt outside
>>>of the House and were not protected by Parliamentary Privilege.
>>
>>Can you cite where the statements were made outside of Parliament? Mallard
>>made his statement in the House and was ejected.
>
>It was on TV news, where I heard an opposition MP use the word
>corruption or corrupt in reference to the Govt.
Are you sure it was not reporting on a statement made in Parliament?
snip
- --
Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ
http://patrick.dunford.com/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.0.2i
iQA/AwUBN1Aj4J/ufSMMVdBMEQIMegCcDUrgQCcbBJpwUZ5eN9wfzhT0degAoLnD
JIggoZImmUQwy5cBSH9NMN7Q
=YF/s
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Patrick Dunford
Hash: SHA1
Behold, on Sun, 30 May 1999 23:46:55 GMT in
nz.politics:<3752cd8b...@news.ihug.co.nz>, Anthony Mersey
(to...@opinion.com.uk) didst uttereth:
[snip 120 lines]
>>Lecture over.
>>
>>Pam H
>
>Hi Pam
>
>An excellent rebuttal. Better than I could have done. (-:
Please do us all a favour and snip out as much as the original post as is not
required to make your point, in future.
snip
- --
Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ
http://patrick.dunford.com/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.0.2i
iQA/AwUBN1AkQZ/ufSMMVdBMEQLZVACfYn2Fxsf7edOtyi9jN6MsMHcEzl0AniLh
pcqQYpOXabRGnoSNdYyhqCkx
=KKAI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Patrick Dunford
Hash: SHA1
Behold, on 30 May 1999 04:51:52 GMT in
nz.politics:<01beaa58$35a4f680$e7f2...@ihug.ihug.co.nz>, Robert Howard
(rho...@thenet.co.nz) didst uttereth:
>
>
>Anthony Mersey <to...@opinion.com.uk> wrote in article
><37506dc...@news.ihug.co.nz>...
>> 15 years of right wing ideological reforms by the ACT branch of the
>> Labour Party, and for the last 9 of those years, the National party,
>> has brought about these results for ordinary New Zealanders.
>
>If those reforms hadn't been carried out the country would have been in a
>much worse state than it is now.
Indeed, and I find it amusing when people hark back to Muldoonism and the
like.
A recent example is an article by Lincoln University economist Paul Dalziel,
which can be found at http://www.pq.godzone.net.nz/dalziel99.htm
It reads in part
>>>>For fifty years after the election of its first Labour Government in
>>>>November 1935, New Zealand’s economic policy was based on strong State
>>>>involvement either as a dominant supplier or heavy-handed regulator in
>>>>virtually every sector of the economy. This approach reached a peak
>>>>during
>>>>‘the Muldoon years’ (1975-1984) when new government policies included a
>>>>large expansion of the country’s tax-funded superannuation scheme, price
>>>>subsidies for agriculture, extended tax concessions for manufactured
>>>>exports, several ‘Think Big’ construction projects in the energy sector,
>>>>and a general freeze on all incomes and prices in June 1982 that lasted
>>>>nearly two years. The July 1984 election, however, produced a new
>>>>government committed to ‘comprehensive economic and social reform’
>>>>(Douglas, 1984, p. 26). During the next six years Muldoonism was swept
>>>>away: interest rate controls were removed, agricultural subsidies were
>>>>phased out...
The author is in fact arguing for less liberal amounts of reform, however it
is hard to see which part of the reforms he would rather have not had and how
that would have helped NZ.
- --
Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ
http://patrick.dunford.com/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.0.2i
iQA/AwUBN1AmnJ/ufSMMVdBMEQK3GACdGcwIGv4GSxCh1LFetkI+2cxvy9QAn3IM
EFcAzSBssH2lNBVTlnNVpy78
=esyO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Simon Arnold
someone who doesn't know what has been happening in NZ and hasn't bothered
to check his facts.
Anthony Mersey <to...@opinion.com.uk> wrote in message
news:37506dc...@news.ihug.co.nz...
> 15 years of right wing ideological reforms by the ACT branch of the
> Labour Party, and for the last 9 of those years, the National party,
> has brought about these results for ordinary New Zealanders.
>
> 1. Poverty at hugely increased levels in NZ
Wrong - relative poverty has not increased since 1985.
> 2. Massive levels of unemployment
Wrong - unemployment rates have declined by a third since 1991.
> 3. The sale of assets for no long term gain
Wrong - finance costs to taxpayers has declined significantly since 1990.
> 4. World trading nations moving away from extreme forms of free
> trade as espoused by this Govt.
Wrong - our trading partners have all liberalised trade over the last
decade.
> 5. A divided an increasingly bitter populace.
Wrong - fewer people think the country is going in the wrong direction.
> 6. A Government manipulated by big business interests and
> implementing policies which benefit the top 10% of income earners and
> the super wealthy.
Wrong - the only period when the top 10% went ahead (at the expense of
middle income earners - not low income earners) was between 1986 and 1991 -
when Cullen was Assoc Finance Minister.
> 7. A callours, uncaring, cynical, selfish cabinet which others
> describe as corrupt. For example the payment to MP Alamein Kopu.
Wrong - the payment to Kopu arose because of decsions promoted by Labour
which served to benefit United, ROC etc. All National and ACT did was
prevent a change of rules - which Labour were promoting to get at Tau.
Patrick Dunford
Hash: SHA1
Behold, on Sun, 30 May 1999 20:18:52 +1200 in
nz.politics:<92805225...@estelle.paradise.net.nz>, Simon Arnold
(s.ar...@paradise.net.nz) didst uttereth:
>It seems to me that there has been a lot of follow up to a posting by
>someone who doesn't know what has been happening in NZ and hasn't bothered
>to check his facts.
You haven't checked the dates he was referring to.
>Anthony Mersey <to...@opinion.com.uk> wrote in message
>news:37506dc...@news.ihug.co.nz...
snip
>> 2. Massive levels of unemployment
>
>Wrong - unemployment rates have declined by a third since 1991.
Umm, if you read properly you might see he was comparing to 1984.
>> 3. The sale of assets for no long term gain
>
>Wrong - finance costs to taxpayers has declined significantly since 1990.
Umm, if you read properly you might see he was comparing to 1984.
snip
- --
Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ
http://patrick.dunford.com/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.0.2i
iQA/AwUBN1BSaZ/ufSMMVdBMEQKzAACgvG7jR7sWL468SIKo+envAs5wHBMAoOym
muqaQku0d6dokq1OSPtr5hTy
=Ff+m
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Patrick Dunford
Hash: SHA1
Behold, on Mon, 31 May 1999 03:43:14 GMT in
nz.politics:<375204dd...@news.ihug.co.nz>, MeMyselfAndI
(info...@nospam.ihug.co.nz) didst uttereth:
>On Sun, 30 May 1999 17:13:04 +1200, patrick...@caverock.net
>(Patrick Dunford) wrote:
>
>>
>>Behold, on Sun, 30 May 1999 22:46:39 GMT in
>>nz.politics:<3751ba1a...@news.ihug.co.nz>, MeMyselfAndI
>>(info...@nospam.ihug.co.nz) didst uttereth:
snip
>>>Yeh - thats right - subsidised phone rates for the elderly. You only
>>>needed 20c for a public phone call not $5 like now.
>>
>>At the moment it actually costs 20c for a public phone call.
>>
>It may cost 20c but you can't access a telecom card phone without
>purchasing a $5 min card. There are coin phones but they are very
>very rare, or you might use a Credit card phone - but who on a low
>income has a credit card.
So, you buy a $5 phonecard. I am still using one that I bought in 1995 or 6.
>I still come back to we need to care for those who struggle to care
>for themselves or we are ALL in the shit.
Everyone gives money to charities
- --
Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ
http://patrick.dunford.com/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.0.2i
iQA/AwUBN1BUHJ/ufSMMVdBMEQKF4wCfRgPOPoWoKUb1DUL0U45M+achDBAAmwSt
Tri2XiBjPkxIeTAve0C62PTY
=E07L
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Patrick Dunford
Hash: SHA1
Behold, on Mon, 31 May 1999 03:44:21 GMT in
nz.politics:<3752055d...@news.ihug.co.nz>, MeMyselfAndI
(info...@nospam.ihug.co.nz) didst uttereth:
>On Sun, 30 May 1999 17:13:10 +1200, patrick...@caverock.net
>(Patrick Dunford) wrote:
>
>>Behold, on Sun, 30 May 1999 02:33:13 GMT in
>>nz.politics:<3750a330....@enews.newsguy.com>, ta...@xtra.co.nz
>>(ta...@xtra.co.nz) didst uttereth:
>>
>>>
>>>What was the previous rate of taxation? I don't think I could tolerate
>>>paying out more than 1/3 of every day's work to the government.
>>
>>In 1972 the Government's share of the economy was around 22%.
Sorry 27%
> it is now still,
>>after all the reforms, 34% (IIRC). And surprisingly, labour wants it to rise
- -
>>did I see implied support somewhere for 39 or 40%?
>>
>
>Yes Labour are promoting the raising of taxes - but only for the top
>5% of the earning population. 95% would have no increase at all.
In spite of the fact that Government income in absolute inflation-adjusted
terms is actually more than what it was when Labour was last in power.
Year Amount ($m)% GDP
1972 $16,223 27.10%
1975 $21,072 31%
1978 $22,567 33.30%
1981 $23,110 33.40%
1984 $24,181 31.80%
1987 $28,708 34.70%
1990 $33,157 39.90%
1993 $33,529 40.50%
1996 $35,745 38.00%
1997 $34,861 36.30%
1998 $35,911 36.20%
All 1998$ adjusted.
But Labour are still stuck in their envy based income relativity concept of
the past. In spite of the fact that the Government is raking in more money
than ever before, they still want more.
There has to be a point at which people say enough, and they are.
- --
Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ
http://patrick.dunford.com/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.0.2i
iQA/AwUBN1BWOJ/ufSMMVdBMEQK7RACePaJFNzlK0xG2MLX96PxGKRu79soAn3CZ
MKiFiMzzigIn5OEM3ZxkJf3Q
=aoMz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
David Wardley
MeMyselfAndI wrote in message
<3751bfe9...@news.ihug.co.nz>...
>On Sat, 29 May 1999 16:35:07 +1200, spaceghosts
<apa...@wave.co.nz>
>wrote:
>
>>Anthony Mersey wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>Talk to those who have lost jobs through our new right reforms.
thousand of
>dollars who cannot even contemplate buying a house, starting a
>business or having children because of their debt.
hear of
>payouts of hundreds of thousands to consultants.
of
>resource.
>Talk to parents of children who need glasses but cannot afford
to buy
>them.
the
>resources to help.
who sees
>first hand the effects of the poverty and hardship in NZ that
most
>middle income earners who want their tax cuts more and more
never hear
>about. Community groups that have more and more demand from
people
>who have nowhere else to go and yet have less and less money to
do
>their work with.
>
has
>their eyes open and a conscience.
>
>
Yes indeed, talk to those people.
This government's ideology has no intention of talking or
listening to them.
They have no conscience.
You sum it up quite well, and it is tearing the heart out of this
wonderful country.
It is so obvious, so transparent, when you have the time to look
and try to understand without bias.
rgds
David Wardley
Patrick Dunford wrote in message ...
snip
>
>The usual envy? The consultants have to be well recognised (in
other words
>very good at what they do) to earn that sort of money.
>
>Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ
>http://patrick.dunford.com/
They are indeed very good at earning "that sort of money".
Consultants vary enormously but there are very few "high profile"
consultants that would not do the exact bidding of whoever is
paying the bill.
I have first hand experience of this and it is a well known
standing joke amongst most people. Many would put it under the
heading of cronyism. It is a pity that "consultants" have
generally got such a bad name, their primary aim of course,
without question, is to make money, I'm not blaming for that.
That is not too difficult working for a government that has a
clear agenda and a government that throws away almost unlimited
tax payers money to achieve a pre-planned result. If you delve
into some of the histories of governments and corporations
worldwide there are hundreds of cases of corruption not unrelated
to the discussion. Don't ask me to list them - they are there for
you to read about, you know that is so.
rgds
Simon Arnold
"....and for the last 9 of those years, the National party,
has brought about these results for ordinary New Zealanders."
Patrick Dunford <patrick...@caverock.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.11bbc25ab...@newsch.es.co.nz...
Simon Arnold
MeMyselfAndI <info...@nospam.ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:3752055d...@news.ihug.co.nz...
snip
> Yes Labour are promoting the raising of taxes - but only for the top
> 5% of the earning population. 95% would have no increase at all.
>
Top 9% of the earning population, and they now want to spend another
$billion.
Patrick Dunford
Hash: SHA1
Behold, on Sun, 30 May 1999 22:05:08 +1200 in
nz.politics:<92805863...@estelle.paradise.net.nz>, Simon Arnold
(s.ar...@paradise.net.nz) didst uttereth:
>And I quote from the original posting:
>
>"....and for the last 9 of those years, the National party,
>has brought about these results for ordinary New Zealanders."
This excerpt is out of context. You have to read the whole sentence to get the
context:
15 years of right wing ideological reforms by the ACT branch of the
Labour Party, and for the last 9 of those years, the National party,
has brought about these results for ordinary New Zealanders.
It is clear to me he is referring to a 15 year period of which National has
been in power for the last 9.
>Patrick Dunford <patrick...@caverock.net> wrote in message
>news:MPG.11bbc25ab...@newsch.es.co.nz...
>>
>> Behold, on Sun, 30 May 1999 20:18:52 +1200 in
>> nz.politics:<92805225...@estelle.paradise.net.nz>, Simon Arnold
>> (s.ar...@paradise.net.nz) didst uttereth:
>>
>> >It seems to me that there has been a lot of follow up to a posting by
>> >someone who doesn't know what has been happening in NZ and hasn't
>bothered
>> >to check his facts.
>>
>> You haven't checked the dates he was referring to.
>>
>> >Anthony Mersey <to...@opinion.com.uk> wrote in message
>> >news:37506dc...@news.ihug.co.nz...
>>
>> snip
>>
>> >> 2. Massive levels of unemployment
>> >
>> >Wrong - unemployment rates have declined by a third since 1991.
>>
>> Umm, if you read properly you might see he was comparing to 1984.
>>
>> >> 3. The sale of assets for no long term gain
>> >
>> >Wrong - finance costs to taxpayers has declined significantly since 1990.
>>
>> Umm, if you read properly you might see he was comparing to 1984.
>>
>
>snip
>
>
>
- --
Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ
http://patrick.dunford.com/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.0.2i
iQA/AwUBN1BmyJ/ufSMMVdBMEQJFdgCdHpFft8+A2ML9XAdN301Pd3g48MEAnRkg
cXZlBBp4KFLBWIbZBBaQjIam
=CbzA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Philip Ross
MeMyselfAndI wrote:
> On Sun, 30 May 1999 13:58:59 +1200, Philip Ross <pr...@clear.net.nz>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >You don't know what poverty is and I can tell you that by world standards
> >we do not have poverty in New Zealand. I suggest if you want to see real
> >poverty you could look at the slums in cities such Lima, Rio de Janeiro,
> >Bombay and most African cities etc. That's poverty.
> Hey I know - lets find the worst, 3rd world country possible and
> always compare us to them. Then we will always look like a thriving
> country no matter what.
> "Relative to other countries" is totally nonsensical to me. So what
> if there are worst countries around - does that make it OK that more
> and more children in our country are not getting their basic needs met
> and are living in substandard overcrowded situations? Does it make it
> OK that the gap between rich and poor is ever increasing?
A comparison has to be relative to something for it to have any meaning. The
baseline for what we call "poverty" has increased considerably since the 1960s
which seem to be the times remembered fondly by people such as yourself. The
fact is that in those days all our agricultural products were taken by Britain
and we lived beyond our means, borowing money to subsidise a fantasy world. You
can do that for a short time, but at the end of the day there is a reckoning
and the money has to be repaid.
The so called "gap" between the rich and the poor is a red herring. What is
important is that the overall level is lifted. There is no evidence anywhere in
the world that any kind of redistribution can take place between "rich" and
"poor". It simply does not work. It never has done. In the former communist
countries the general level was lowered so everyone was poor together (except
of course a small number of party elite). I suppose that's one way of reducing
the "gap" between rich and poor, but it's absurd to suggest that it is an
acceptable way.
>
> I have personally benefited by the nasty new rights policies but that
> does not mean I am not prepared to go back and pay more taxes
Put the cheque in the post then. I am sure the government will have no qualms
over accepting it.
> so that
> ALL children in NZ get what they need not just those with wealthy
> parents.
We need to get the state out of education and health to achieve this. Then
everyone will have choice, not just the rich.
>
>
> >>
> >> 2. Massive levels of unemployment
> >
> >Again this is a comment made in ignorance. Our unemployment level is too
> >high, sure, but it's far lower than most nations in Europe and in fact, by
> >comparison it is actually relatively good. It would be much worse if we
> >had continued with the socialist policies of the Muldoon era.
> Same point. We could compare to other countries using the same method
> - those that have a much lower unemployment rate and say how bad we
> are doing - why do you choose to look at those with higher rates -
> could it be because you have a job and therefore all is OK with your
> world?
Well, we could do that, sure -- the United States has lower unemployment than
here and there are signs everywhere in windows -- "Now Hiring". In the State of
Michigan the rate of unemployment dropped below 3%, although in some places it
is high; for instance, Central Valley in California has about 10% jobless.
However, overall the US unemployment rate is considerably lower than here.
In almost every country in Europe, unemployment is higher than here,
particularly so in socialist France where for some bizarre and inexplicable
reason, governments still think they know how to spend money better than
individual taxpayers. New Zealand has a economy that is quite similar to those
in Europe (other than in size, obviously) so that seems to be a valid
comparison to me.
>
>
> >> 3. The sale of assets for no long term gain
> >
> >In every respect the sale of these assets has led to gain. Most of these
> >"assets" were inefficient, money losing government bureaucracies that
> >cared little for their customers and not at all for the beleaguered tax
> >payer who had to fund them. Now, we have restructured them and sold them,
> >raising money to pay off debt (incurred in the first place by dopey
> >socialists), and ensuring a vastly improved service to the public. Do you
> >remember the disaster that was Telecom prior to privatisation? I do.
>
> Yeh - thats right - subsidised phone rates for the elderly. You only
> needed 20c for a public phone call not $5 like now. More and more
> homes do not have a phone because they just cannot afford it. Do you
> remember how when Telecom took over they practically doubled the
> domestic rate - I do because I worked in an accounts dept at the time
> and processed phone reimbursements. Yeh - it's worked really well.
And you had to pay $4.32 minimum for a toll call between Auckland and
Wellington in the morning (as you were compelled to pay for three minutes),
whereas now it's 50 cents. A call to the United States cost $3 a minute,
whereas now it is 55 cents a minute. That "public phone" call from the old days
was a call on a grotty, lousy quality 1950s vintage phone box equipped with "A"
and "B" buttons, and on which you had to use an operator to make a toll call.
>
>
> >> 4. World trading nations moving away from extreme forms of free
> >> trade as espoused by this Govt.
> >
> >The evidence to the contrary is everywhere you care to look, with more
> >liberal markets being adopted worldwide and free trade blocs -- CER,
> >NAFTA, Mercosur, EEC etc.
> Rubbish - NZ is one of the ONLY countries that is voluntarily moving
> into free trade - USA is re-applying tarrifs to protect their own
> industries while NZ is removing them and destroying ours. Making us
> at the mercy of overseas manufacturers for products that were being
> developed in our country - and losing the jobs that went with them.
You're the one talking rubbish. I travel to North America and Europe three to
four times a year, spending months at a time away. I see first hand the
developments in these nations and I can tell you that the trend is against
protectionism. NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement, between Canada,
the United States and Mexico) is one example while Mercosur does the same thing
for South America and the EEC and currency union achieves the largely free flow
of goods within Europe. The barriers are coming down, not going up. Sure there
are isolated exceptions, but it is nonsense to suggest these establish a
general rule.
>
>
> >> 5. A divided an increasingly bitter populace.
> >
> >I seem to recall that it was divided and incredibly bitter back in 1981,
> >which was before the liberalisation.
> Personally, since Shiply barged into power I have never been so
> concerned about corruption and hidden agendas in the govt. I know
> many others that feel the same way.
It's a fact that the government accounts are now more transparent than they
were in the bad old days of socialism -- due to the Fiscal Responsibility Act.
In the old days they could hide the economic bad news. Now they can't.
>
>
> >> 6. A Government manipulated by big business interests and
> >> implementing policies which benefit the top 10% of income earners and
> >> the super wealthy.
> >
> >This statement is just nonsense. We have all benefited from the reduction
> >in taxation and the removal of absurd regulations governing matters that
> >are our own business
> Try asking the hunders of people that have lost their jobs from
> clothing and car factories in NZ - ask them if they think they are
> better off on the dole than working.
There are some things this country can do better than others and there are
things which others can do better than we can. It does not make sense wasting
our resources trying to malke automobiles when for various reasons this can be
done more efficiently elsewhere. A "non-job" sustained because of artificial
barriers can only be sustained at great cost and New Zealand reached the point
where it could not afford that luxury any longer. Yes, I acknowledge that there
is pain when industries that should never have started close, but in the long
run, they are replaced by other industries that are efficient in this country.
>
>
> , such as when we can trade, how much foreign currency
> >we are allowed to buy, for what and when. Do you remember what the rules
> >were concerning buying a new car in the 1970s? You had to have "switched
> >funds" to get one in a hurry. What right does the government have to
> >dictate such matters?
> Because we are a small country. We should be looking after our own in
> the best possible way - this means jobs. So what if you couldn't buy
> the flashiest car at least kids had food and people had jobs.
> Priorities please.
Jobs result from economic activity which in turn results from the government
butting out of the marketplace, a low tax environment and an absence of
barriers.
>
>
> >> 7. A callours, uncaring, cynical, selfish cabinet which others
> >> describe as corrupt. For example the payment to MP Alamein Kopu.
> >
> >Alamein Kopu should not be in parliament and for that stupidity we have
> >the Alliance to thank. Now that she is there, the rules that apply to
> >others must apply to her as well.
> . . . and for that stupidity we have the MMP rules to thank. The
> rules that Labour and Alliance are trying to change but that NAT and
> ACT will not support. Why? because it serves to keep them in power at
> ANY cost which we see more and more as thier biggest priority. Stuff
> the country and the people in it just so long as they stay on top.
Well, it was Jim Anderton who campaigned vigorously for MMP, presumably on the
premise that it woul significantly increase his support base in parliament.
>
>
> >> My New Year's Message to the Nasty Nats.
> >
> >Let's make that my New Year's message to the stupid socialists, and let's
> >hope that after the 1999 election the Alliance party will no longer have
> >parliamentary representation:
>
> Here's my new years message - forget your flash "stuff" bought at the
> expense of others slave labour, put aside your dream of ever lower
> taxes and look around you. Back in 1973 my family left Britain to
> come here because it was a land of oppertunity. A country that looked
> after its own. There was no poverty, jobs a plenty, free education,
> available health care, free prescriptions. Look around you and cry -
> then do something to save what we have left.
"Free" education, "free" prescriptions -- who do you think you are kidding?
What you mean are that these things were paid for by someone else. There is an
unfortunate welfare mentality in this country, where people expect someone else
to provide for them and there is still a lack of will to accept individual
responsibility. Many beneficiaries seem to waste inordinate amounts on tobacco
and alcohol, and then expect the rest of us to pay them more money to make up
for their poor decision making. Well, the largesse of the long suffering
taxpayer is at an end.
If you don't like it, go back to Britain -- and you can pay 63p per litre for
gasoline (yes, that's the current baseline rip off price for the cheapest grade
of gas there), 40% income tax etc.
Philip Ross
Patrick Dunford
Hash: SHA1
Behold, on Sun, 30 May 1999 23:20:52 +1200 in
nz.politics:<37511F14...@clear.net.nz>, Philip Ross (pr...@clear.net.nz)
didst uttereth:
>
>
>MeMyselfAndI wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 30 May 1999 13:58:59 +1200, Philip Ross <pr...@clear.net.nz>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >You don't know what poverty is and I can tell you that by world standards
>> >we do not have poverty in New Zealand. I suggest if you want to see real
>> >poverty you could look at the slums in cities such Lima, Rio de Janeiro,
>> >Bombay and most African cities etc. That's poverty.
>> Hey I know - lets find the worst, 3rd world country possible and
>> always compare us to them. Then we will always look like a thriving
>> country no matter what.
>> "Relative to other countries" is totally nonsensical to me. So what
>> if there are worst countries around - does that make it OK that more
>> and more children in our country are not getting their basic needs met
>> and are living in substandard overcrowded situations? Does it make it
>> OK that the gap between rich and poor is ever increasing?
>
>A comparison has to be relative to something for it to have any meaning. The
>baseline for what we call "poverty" has increased considerably since the
1960s
>which seem to be the times remembered fondly by people such as yourself.
True.
How many families in the 60s had a car - or a TV?
- --
Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ
http://patrick.dunford.com/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.0.2i
iQA/AwUBN1B975/ufSMMVdBMEQKE3wCg7opFi5WOEszH7Pr0FmbfE13w0IYAn2lA
rKpasZTds20Pglq1KOKrBwGn
=TCrx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Kerry
(Patrick Dunford) wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>Behold, on Sun, 30 May 1999 22:56:26 GMT in
>nz.politics:<3751bfe9...@news.ihug.co.nz>, MeMyselfAndI
>(info...@nospam.ihug.co.nz) didst uttereth:
>
>>On Sat, 29 May 1999 16:35:07 +1200, spaceghosts <apa...@wave.co.nz>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Anthony Mersey wrote:
>>>
>>>> 5. A divided an increasingly bitter populace.
>>>
>>>What is this based on?
>>>
>>Talk to those who have lost jobs through our new right reforms.
>
>Some have found other jobs.
How many?
>
>>Talk to those on the hospitals waiting lists.
>
>Waiting lists existed before Labour was elected to Parliament.
Have waiting lists increased or decreased in a real way since the 1991
reforms? How can you tell? They 'disappeared' last year
>
>>Talk to students who finish their education owing tens of thousand of
>>dollars who cannot even contemplate buying a house, starting a
>>business or having children because of their debt.
>
>Having children? Don't make me laugh. People have them on the DPB which is
>hardly a generous level of income.
She wasn;t talking about people on the DPB. She was talking about
students with large debt repayments. Are you suggesting living as if
on the DPB is soemthing to strive for?
>>Talk to parents of children who need glasses but cannot afford to buy
>>them.
>
>I understand a subsidy was introduced in the budget.
Only if they are under 6
>
>>Talk to abused children for whom the social workers don't have the
>>resources to help.
>
>There seem to be more social workers about and they are being introduced into
>schools.
"Seem to be"?
.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day;
Teach him to use the Net and he won't bother you for weeks.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Geoff Rait
>(MeMyselfAndI) wrote:
>>Yes Labour are promoting the raising of taxes - but only for the top
>>5% of the earning population. 95% would have no increase at all.
>
>They will also be increasing Fringe Benefit Tax which will affect
>almost all businesses and quite possibly some employees also if they
>are on a total benefit package.
Er, careful there please - Labour's proposal re. FBT for employees is to
apply it at the same level as income tax. This would lead to an increase
for those on more than $60,000 but a *decrease* for those on less than
$38000.
Geoff
patr...@netaccess.co.nz
wrote:
::
::If those reforms hadn't been carried out the country would have been in a
::much worse state than it is now.
ROFL , what you mean if the reforms had not been carried out the
greedies piles of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ would not be as big as they are
now
The time has come to raise real wealth for the majority and to stop
increasing the $$$$$$$$$$ of the new right, free market, money
grubbers
patrick
Pain we HAD, Gain we TAKE
MeMyselfAndI
(Patrick Dunford) wrote:
>
>Behold, on Sun, 30 May 1999 22:46:39 GMT in
>nz.politics:<3751ba1a...@news.ihug.co.nz>, MeMyselfAndI
>(info...@nospam.ihug.co.nz) didst uttereth:
>
>>On Sun, 30 May 1999 13:58:59 +1200, Philip Ross <pr...@clear.net.nz>
>>wrote:
>snip
>>>> 3. The sale of assets for no long term gain
>>>
>>>In every respect the sale of these assets has led to gain. Most of these
>>>"assets" were inefficient, money losing government bureaucracies that
>>>cared little for their customers and not at all for the beleaguered tax
>>>payer who had to fund them. Now, we have restructured them and sold them,
>>>raising money to pay off debt (incurred in the first place by dopey
>>>socialists), and ensuring a vastly improved service to the public. Do you
>>>remember the disaster that was Telecom prior to privatisation? I do.
>>
>>Yeh - thats right - subsidised phone rates for the elderly. You only
>>needed 20c for a public phone call not $5 like now.
>
>At the moment it actually costs 20c for a public phone call.
>
It may cost 20c but you can't access a telecom card phone without
purchasing a $5 min card. There are coin phones but they are very
very rare, or you might use a Credit card phone - but who on a low
income has a credit card.
I still come back to we need to care for those who struggle to care
for themselves or we are ALL in the shit.
Pam H
MeMyselfAndI
(Patrick Dunford) wrote:
>Behold, on Sun, 30 May 1999 02:33:13 GMT in
>nz.politics:<3750a330....@enews.newsguy.com>, ta...@xtra.co.nz
>(ta...@xtra.co.nz) didst uttereth:
>
>>
>>What was the previous rate of taxation? I don't think I could tolerate
>>paying out more than 1/3 of every day's work to the government.
>
>In 1972 the Government's share of the economy was around 22%. it is now still,
>after all the reforms, 34% (IIRC). And surprisingly, labour wants it to rise -
>did I see implied support somewhere for 39 or 40%?
>
Yes Labour are promoting the raising of taxes - but only for the top
5% of the earning population. 95% would have no increase at all.
Pam H
Dave Joll
>However the key thing to remember is the Alliance. The $400 million
>extra tax Labour want to impose is just their starting point. The
>Alliance want far more so inevitably the compromise will be between
>Labour's $400 million and the Alliance's $5 billion.
The main difference between the situation at the end of this year,
and the situation after the 1996 election, is most likely to be that
the NZ First and allied parties are unlikely to have any parliamentary
representation at all. This will leave the National and Labour parties
as the only "moderate" (comparatively) parties in Parliament. It
would be very difficult for either the Alliance or ACT to "hold the
country to ransom", as NZ First did in 1996, as neither of the two
minor parties would have any bargaining leverage. Despite some
of the rhetoric I see, I doubt ACT would consider a coalition with
Labour, and likewise the Alliance would be unlikely to want to
form a coalition with National! That would leave whichever pair
of parties got over 50% of the seats the choice of either governing
as a minority government (unless they themselves got over 50%)
or as part of a coalition. In the latter case, the major party would
"call the shots", as the minor party would have nowhere else to
go, and no remedy except to bring down the Government - an
action which would rebound disastrously on whichever minor
party took it!
Regards
Dave Joll
MeMyselfAndI
(Patrick Dunford) wrote:
>Behold, on Mon, 31 May 1999 03:43:14 GMT in
>nz.politics:<375204dd...@news.ihug.co.nz>, MeMyselfAndI
>(info...@nospam.ihug.co.nz) didst uttereth:
>
>>It may cost 20c but you can't access a telecom card phone without
>>purchasing a $5 min card. There are coin phones but they are very
>>very rare, or you might use a Credit card phone - but who on a low
>>income has a credit card.
>
>So, you buy a $5 phonecard. I am still using one that I bought in 1995 or 6.
Exactly the sort of comment from someone who has no grip on how poor
some people in NZ are. I know of people who work for Samaritans who
say that when the coin phones went out and card phones came in that
their phone calls dropped because some people just don't have $5
spare.
Who - when they count every cent is going to buy a $5 phone card so
they can make a 20c phone call. The rest of the $5 could buy bread
and milk (just).
>>I still come back to we need to care for those who struggle to care
>>for themselves or we are ALL in the shit.
>
>Everyone gives money to charities
Can you vouch for everyone in NZ?
Pam H
MeMyselfAndI
(Patrick Dunford) wrote:
>
>How many families in the 60s had a car - or a TV?
>
>- --
shallow shallow shallow
Jordan Carter
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>nz.politics:<37506dc...@news.ihug.co.nz>, Anthony Mersey
>(to...@opinion.com.uk) didst uttereth:
>
>>15 years of right wing ideological reforms by the ACT branch of the
>>Labour Party,
>
>DOUGLAS the party's finance spokesperson in opposition WROTE A BOOK years
>before Labour was elected to Parliament.
Have you read the book? I am guessing you are referring to "there has to be a
better way", which spelled out Roger's belief in moderate deregulation and an
active industry policy. Doesn't bear any relation to what he did.
>And Labour today still believes in some of Douglas's policies and key Labour
>people from the era are still MPs and shadow cabinet members etc.
Really? Do tell me who. Helen Clark? Michael Cullen? Graham Kelly? Steve
Maharey? Annette King? Dover Samuels? Which of these, or others, supported
Douglas wholeheartedly?
And, with all due respect, how would you even know?
:-)
Face it Patrick. Labour has acknowledged its mistakes in the last decade, has
recovered from them, and is confidently moving into Government secure in where
it stands and what it believes in. Your ranting just makes you look silly.
>>6. A Government manipulated by big business interests and
>>implementing policies which benefit the top 10% of income earners and
>>the super wealthy.
>
>There were some tax cuts that actually benefited poor people.
They didn't, actually.
I will try and get scanned an analysis of where the dosh went. If not, you can
find it in Dalziel, St. John and Boston (1999) Rebuilding the welfare state in
New Zealand: problems, policies, prospects. Auckland, Oxford University Press
(Ch. 4 - 'Macroeconomic Constraints')
But then, you find it hard to deal with facts that disagree with you.
Jordan
Jordan Carter
>
>
>> 15 years of right wing ideological reforms by the ACT branch of the
>> has brought about these results for ordinary New Zealanders.
>>
>
>we do not have poverty in New Zealand. I suggest if you want to see real
>poverty you could look at the slums in cities such Lima, Rio de Janeiro,
>Bombay and most African cities etc. That's poverty.
The rather tired argument that we don't have poor people simply because our poor
aren't as poor as those in third world countries does you no credit sir. We
should look at our poor within OUR context, not within the context of other
societies. They live here, not there. So do we.
>socialists), and ensuring a vastly improved service to the public. Do you
>remember the disaster that was Telecom prior to privatisation? I do.
Do you remember the disaster of the Telecom privatisation? I do.
>> 5. A divided an increasingly bitter populace.
>
>I seem to recall that it was divided and incredibly bitter back in 1981,
>which was before the liberalisation.
That was political, not economic. And you know it.
>Let's make that my New Year's message to the stupid socialists, and let's
>hope that after the 1999 election the Alliance party will no longer have
>parliamentary representation:
It's more likely that the stupid neo-libs in Act won't have any representation
at the current time. As for stupid socialists, I haven't met any yet.
Jordan
Jordan Carter
>
>Anthony Mersey <to...@opinion.com.uk> wrote in article
><37506dc...@news.ihug.co.nz>...
>> 15 years of right wing ideological reforms by the ACT branch of the
>> Labour Party, and for the last 9 of those years, the National party,
>> has brought about these results for ordinary New Zealanders.
>
>much worse state than it is now.
Let's restate that a bit. If *some* reforms hadn't been carried out, the
country would have been in a much worse state than it is now. The pattern of
reform was self chosen, destructive and basically hasn't worked. We could have
done it right. We didn't.
Jordan
Stuart Fox
> 5% of the earning population. 95% would have no increase at all.
And the net gain will be very little. And given the people who earn well
over that can afford good accountants who can help them avoid a lot of that
tax anyway, it's just a political gesture.
Stu
Paul Walker
Your evidence being???
Economists have generally evaluated the overall programme very favourably.
Evans et al. (1996, p. 1895),for example, concluded their survey in the
authoritative Journal of Economic Literature with the following paragraph:
"The success of the reforms to date has strengthened support for free-trade
policies within New Zealand’s business community, perhaps to an unusual degree
by OECD standards. Many of the lessons from the New Zealand experiences are
worthy of emulation by other countries. Others, like its tardy labor market
deregulation, provides a cautionary note. After decades of policy errors and
investment blunders, New Zealand appears to have finally diagnosed its
predicament appropriately and is on a trajectory to maintain its economy as a
consistent high performer among the OECD. New Zealand once again appears to be
emerging as a laboratory from which results will animate economic debate and
policy throughout the world."
Other major surveys have also been optimistic. Massey ('New Zealand: Market
Liberalization in a Developed Economy', Macmillan Press: London, 1995, p. 203)
suggested 'a number of grounds for optimism', concluding overall that 'it
appears New Zealand is now a more internationally competitive and dynamic
economy as a result of the reform programme.' Silverstone et al. ('A Study of
Economic Reform: The Case of New Zealand', Elsevier: Amsterdam, 1996, p. 21)
'expressed cautious optimism that this [New Zealand’s improved economic
performance being sustainable] is the case, and that employment growth,
improvements in income distribution, continuing operating efficiencies and
price stability are all possible simultaneously with sustained economic
growth'. Their view was based on a study by Hall (p. 64 and p. 68) in the same
volume, which 'suggested that on balance there is scope for cautious optimism
on the sustainability of New Zealand’s recently improved economic growth'.
--
____________________________________________________
Paul Walker p.wa...@econ.canterbury.ac.nz
Snoopy
>
>. The Alliance has also promised to "force Labour screaming and
> kicking into setting up a state owned bank". Obviously we didn't
> lose enough last time on the BNZ.
>
Have you considered how much the average New Zealander has 'lost' and
continues to lose since the government pulled out of banking?
Take ANZ Bank for which I have the figures.
The profit from their New Zealand Operations was $A96million in 1993
and in 1998 was $A158million. That is $A65million dollars per year
being taken out of the New Zealand economy -every year. Now if the
BNZ (now Australian owned by NAB) and Westpac have improved their
profitibility by similar amounts that is an extra $A195million being
removed from the NZ customers pockets. That equates to one billion
(Autralian) dollars removed from the New Zealand customers every five
years- a situation that looks like it will continue forever. Did the
BNZ lose that much?
This is a *compulsory* loss too. You have no choice in determining
whether your bank branch will close for efficiency reasons. The
government has decreed that even if you are on a benefit you *must*
have a bank account. The minimum charge for operating a bank account
these days is around $3 per month. That makes $36 per year, as
opposed to the 'free' accounts available while the government was
still in the banking business. Of course you may argue it is not
strictly a tax- just a compulsory levy that everyone must pay
(semantics).
Let's say there are 3 million personal bank accounts in New Zealand
today. That makes *at least* $NZ108million extra being forcibly
removed from peoples accounts in extra bank fees every year. Take the
fact that banks have externalised many of their cash handling costs
and are getting paid extra for it (by charging retailers to set up and
run eftpos) and forced higher transport costs on consumers who *must*
now travel further to their branches you must question what the
consumer/taxpayer has gained from the withdrawal of the government
from banking.
This isn't a surprise. Reduce competition and the consumers will be
worse off. That is exactly what has happened.
Your example of government ownership being bad is spurious. Postbank
was also government owned yet had nothing like the losses of the BNZ
or any of the other 'commercial' banks at the same time as the BNZ
(and others) had all their problems.
The BNZ's difficulties were a management policy, not an ownership
problem. Frankly it seems the more important question is how long NZ
can survive *without* a State owned bank. SNOOPY
-----------------------------------------------------
Message posted by SNOOPY using 'Forte'
Free Agent V1.11/32- http://www.forteinc.com
------------------------------------------------
Snoopy
(Patrick Dunford) wrote:
>
>How many families in the 60s had a car - or a TV?
>
changed a lot in 140 years. Hardly a fair comparison. SNOOPY
spaceghosts
> >>Talk to students who finish their education owing tens of thousand of
> >>dollars who cannot even contemplate buying a house, starting a
> >>business or having children because of their debt.
> >Having children? Don't make me laugh. People have them on the DPB which is
> >hardly a generous level of income.
> She wasn;t talking about people on the DPB. She was talking about
> students with large debt repayments. Are you suggesting living as if
> on the DPB is soemthing to strive for?
He's saying that student debts do not prevent them from having children.
What's the problem anyway? They go to University to get a degree which
will get them a good job which they will be able to pay off that debt.
University Students already have 2 thirds IIRC of the cost funded by the
Government. Why should they be funded any more since in the long run
they
will be better off and that funding could be used better elsewhere for
people who really need it. Ie. Glasses.
> >>Talk to parents of children who need glasses but cannot afford to buy
> >>them.
> >I understand a subsidy was introduced in the budget.
> Only if they are under 6
Well gee, I guess money doesn't grow on trees after all.
> >>Talk to abused children for whom the social workers don't have the
> >>resources to help.
> >There seem to be more social workers about and they are being introduced into
> >schools.
> "Seem to be"?
There's one at my school.
--
"Make the most you can of the Indian hemp seed and sow it everywhere."
- George Washington, 1794
Patrick Dunford
Hash: SHA1
Behold, on Sun, 30 May 1999 13:13:10 GMT in
nz.politics:<3750fb23...@news.wlg.ihug.co.nz>, Kerry
(ker...@remove.this.bit.ihug.co.nz) didst uttereth:
>On Sun, 30 May 1999 17:12:56 +1200, patrick...@caverock.net
>(Patrick Dunford) wrote:
>
>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>Hash: SHA1
>>
>>Behold, on Sun, 30 May 1999 22:56:26 GMT in
>>nz.politics:<3751bfe9...@news.ihug.co.nz>, MeMyselfAndI
>>(info...@nospam.ihug.co.nz) didst uttereth:
>>
>>>On Sat, 29 May 1999 16:35:07 +1200, spaceghosts <apa...@wave.co.nz>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Anthony Mersey wrote:
>>>>
snip
>>
>>>Talk to students who finish their education owing tens of thousand of
>>>dollars who cannot even contemplate buying a house, starting a
>>>business or having children because of their debt.
>>
>>Having children? Don't make me laugh. People have them on the DPB which is
>>hardly a generous level of income.
>
>She wasn;t talking about people on the DPB. She was talking about
>students with large debt repayments. Are you suggesting living as if
>on the DPB is soemthing to strive for?
No the point is that people on the DPB are not exactly well-off, but it
doesn't stop them from having children
snip
- --
Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ
http://patrick.dunford.com/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.0.2i
iQA/AwUBN1FsI5/ufSMMVdBMEQI+bQCfQBKJhvhxxu9rzwncbmlhFxyiDPAAnA0u
TFsrjc1gtngu9zqLac6YFB/S
=td8l
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Patrick Dunford
Hash: SHA1
Behold, on Mon, 31 May 1999 11:54:09 +1200 in
nz.politics:<7isj2r$9md$1...@newsource.ihug.co.nz>, Jordan Carter
(de...@irc.co.nz) didst uttereth:
>Patrick Dunford, Labour hater, wrote in message ...
>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>Hash: SHA1
>>
>>Behold, on Sat, 29 May 1999 22:53:49 GMT in
>>nz.politics:<37506dc...@news.ihug.co.nz>, Anthony Mersey
>>(to...@opinion.com.uk) didst uttereth:
>>
>>>15 years of right wing ideological reforms by the ACT branch of the
>>>Labour Party,
>>
>>NO, by the LABOUR PARTY who KNEW WHAT THEY WERE GETTING IN FOR because ROGER
>>DOUGLAS the party's finance spokesperson in opposition WROTE A BOOK years
>>before Labour was elected to Parliament.
>
>Have you read the book? I am guessing you are referring to "there has to be
a
>better way", which spelled out Roger's belief in moderate deregulation and an
>active industry policy. Doesn't bear any relation to what he did
His policy direction was well known before the election. I read it in Margaret
Wilson's book.
>>And Labour today still believes in some of Douglas's policies and key Labour
>>people from the era are still MPs and shadow cabinet members etc.
>
>Really? Do tell me who. Helen Clark? Michael Cullen? Graham Kelly? Steve
>Maharey? Annette King? Dover Samuels? Which of these, or others, supported
>Douglas wholeheartedly?
Mr Goff I believe does.
>And, with all due respect, how would you even know?
>:-)
>
>Face it Patrick. Labour has acknowledged its mistakes in the last decade,
Sorry Labour has made a huge mistake in turning its back on Rogernomics.
snip
>>>6. A Government manipulated by big business interests and
>>>implementing policies which benefit the top 10% of income earners and
>>>the super wealthy.
>>
>>There were some tax cuts that actually benefited poor people.
>
>They didn't, actually.
I benefited from a tax cut of the lowest rate from 24% to 21%, as did everyone
including low income earners. You are wrong.
>I will try and get scanned an analysis of where the dosh went. If not, you
can
>find it in Dalziel, St. John and Boston (1999) Rebuilding the welfare state
in
>New Zealand: problems, policies, prospects. Auckland, Oxford University
Press
>(Ch. 4 - 'Macroeconomic Constraints')
Dalziel the noted left wing economist :)
- --
Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ
http://patrick.dunford.com/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.0.2i
iQA/AwUBN1FtgJ/ufSMMVdBMEQJY5wCgpylWGNJpO4jrcR18RkBHNwBB0OsAnjkW
r4eEohqCnzNWEIEWlMrq8tXQ
=lWEN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Patrick Dunford
Hash: SHA1
Behold, on Mon, 31 May 1999 07:45:32 +1200 in
nz.politics:<92809335...@inv.ihug.co.nz>, Dave Joll (jol...@es.co.nz)
didst uttereth:
>DPF wrote in message <37531522...@news.xtra.co.nz>...
>
>>However the key thing to remember is the Alliance. The $400 million
>>extra tax Labour want to impose is just their starting point. The
>>Alliance want far more so inevitably the compromise will be between
>>Labour's $400 million and the Alliance's $5 billion.
>
>The main difference between the situation at the end of this year,
>and the situation after the 1996 election, is most likely to be that
>the NZ First and allied parties are unlikely to have any parliamentary
>representation at all.
NZF still has a chance, and so does MPP.
snip
> In the latter case, the major party would
>"call the shots", as the minor party would have nowhere else to
>go, and no remedy except to bring down the Government - an
>action which would rebound disastrously on whichever minor
>party took it!
Not necessarily. You see Labour baying for blood because they are doing better
in the polls, but if they were doing very badly then they probably would not
be. Ditto Act, they are prepared to try and hold out as long as possible in
the hope that National will rise in the polls again.
- --
Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ
http://patrick.dunford.com/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.0.2i
iQA/AwUBN1FsuZ/ufSMMVdBMEQKTRwCeMhlFS5qllLqR4MR0rJspayHLG4IAoPVM
4v/UBTQLvFBOuTdCiyFsCPHB
=u7LW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Patrick Dunford
Hash: SHA1
Behold, on Mon, 31 May 1999 11:57:43 +1200 in
nz.politics:<7isj9h$a3b$1...@newsource.ihug.co.nz>, Jordan Carter
(de...@irc.co.nz) didst uttereth:
>Philip Ross wrote in message <37509B62...@clear.net.nz>...
>>
>>
>>> 15 years of right wing ideological reforms by the ACT branch of the
>>> Labour Party, and for the last 9 of those years, the National party,
>>> has brought about these results for ordinary New Zealanders.
>>>
>>> 1. Poverty at hugely increased levels in NZ
>>
>>You don't know what poverty is and I can tell you that by world standards
>>we do not have poverty in New Zealand. I suggest if you want to see real
>>poverty you could look at the slums in cities such Lima, Rio de Janeiro,
>>Bombay and most African cities etc. That's poverty.
>
>The rather tired argument that we don't have poor people simply because our
poor
>aren't as poor as those in third world countries does you no credit sir. We
>should look at our poor within OUR context, not within the context of other
>societies. They live here, not there. So do we.
If this was a communist country and everyone was earning the same income I bet
the socialists would say there was no poverty.
If the average income was doubled I bet the socialists would say the poor
people include those earning more than $30,000.
The problem with this contextual measure of poverty is that the context has
changed over the last few decades. The "poor" people of today generally enjoy
a higher standard of living than they did in the 60s or earlier. My father
lived through the Depression of the 30s when people did not have cars. How
many "poor" families today have cars? Quite a few I would think.
>>socialists), and ensuring a vastly improved service to the public. Do you
>>remember the disaster that was Telecom prior to privatisation? I do.
>
>Do you remember the disaster of the Telecom privatisation? I do.
What disaster?
snip
- --
Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ
http://patrick.dunford.com/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.0.2i
iQA/AwUBN1Fu1p/ufSMMVdBMEQJxewCgpmxCkGAZ0TIWEwP+oog9Sq1r6zwAoN2f
AkMfgxetZ9aAFaF+1G13oveI
=DECZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Patrick Dunford
Hash: SHA1
Behold, on 31 May 1999 01:15:09 GMT in
nz.politics:<7isnqt$9e4$1...@cantuc.canterbury.ac.nz>, Paul Walker
(p.wa...@NOT.econ.canterbury.ac.nz) didst uttereth:
>In article <7isjbn$a7b$1...@newsource.ihug.co.nz>, de...@irc.co.nz says...
>>
>>Robert Howard wrote in message
<01beaa58$35a4f680$e7f2...@ihug.ihug.co.nz>...
>>>
>>>Anthony Mersey <to...@opinion.com.uk> wrote in article
>>><37506dc...@news.ihug.co.nz>...
>>>> 15 years of right wing ideological reforms by the ACT branch of the
>>>> Labour Party, and for the last 9 of those years, the National party,
>>>> has brought about these results for ordinary New Zealanders.
>>>
>>>If those reforms hadn't been carried out the country would have been in a
>>>much worse state than it is now.
>>
>>Let's restate that a bit. If *some* reforms hadn't been carried out, the
>>country would have been in a much worse state than it is now. The pattern
of
>>reform was self chosen, destructive and basically hasn't worked. We could
>have
>>done it right. We didn't.
>
>Your evidence being???
>
>Economists have generally evaluated the overall programme very favourably.
Except socialist ones of course :)
Comment invited on the latest of these,
http://www.pq.godzone.net.nz/dalziel99.htm
snip
- --
Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ
http://patrick.dunford.com/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.0.2i
iQA/AwUBN1Fv6J/ufSMMVdBMEQJzNgCeMau/Jgw+PkAm69IFbjje8AwfSeYAoNLZ
un4SRVJjrJtP5CKGdeHu15DQ
=ds/T
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Patrick Dunford
Hash: SHA1
Behold, on Mon, 31 May 1999 01:30:42 GMT in
nz.politics:<3751e359...@news.caverock.net.nz>, Snoopy
(tenn...@caverock.net.nz.N-OS-PAM) didst uttereth:
>On Sun, 30 May 1999 23:53:33 +1200, patrick...@caverock.net
>(Patrick Dunford) wrote:
>>
>>How many families in the 60s had a car - or a TV?
>>
>In 1860 none. But that is a few generations ago now. The world has
>changed a lot in 140 years. Hardly a fair comparison.
A very fair comparison. Go to third world countries. How many people in those
countries have a car?
The standard of living in this country even for "poor" people has gone up and
up, some of us don't know what real poverty is.
- --
Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ
http://patrick.dunford.com/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.0.2i
iQA+AwUBN1Fv9J/ufSMMVdBMEQJhdQCYwrnpKNqwID33fS8NqbU37iTzwwCgjkJV
9kRtAFIt0DC/2RiaLKiYQBk=
=f+kQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Patrick Dunford
Hash: SHA1
Behold, on Mon, 31 May 1999 15:22:24 GMT in
nz.politics:<3752a87...@news.ihug.co.nz>, MeMyselfAndI
(info...@nospam.ihug.co.nz) didst uttereth:
>On Sun, 30 May 1999 20:55:01 +1200, patrick...@caverock.net
>(Patrick Dunford) wrote:
>
>>Behold, on Mon, 31 May 1999 03:43:14 GMT in
>>nz.politics:<375204dd...@news.ihug.co.nz>, MeMyselfAndI
>>(info...@nospam.ihug.co.nz) didst uttereth:
>>
>>>It may cost 20c but you can't access a telecom card phone without
>>>purchasing a $5 min card. There are coin phones but they are very
>>>very rare, or you might use a Credit card phone - but who on a low
>>>income has a credit card.
>>
>>So, you buy a $5 phonecard. I am still using one that I bought in 1995 or 6.
>
>Exactly the sort of comment from someone who has no grip on how poor
>some people in NZ are.
Absolute nonsense.
>I know of people who work for Samaritans who
>say that when the coin phones went out and card phones came in that
>their phone calls dropped because some people just don't have $5
>spare.
I find that extremely hard to believe. I had phonecards (and no personal
phone) when I was getting $150 a week from the Government and paying half of
that in rent.
snip
>>>I still come back to we need to care for those who struggle to care
>>>for themselves or we are ALL in the shit.
>>
>>Everyone gives money to charities
>Can you vouch for everyone in NZ?
No. However I can point out that the community sector operates on a
considerable amount of charitable giving.
- --
Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ
http://patrick.dunford.com/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.0.2i
iQA/AwUBN1Fwp5/ufSMMVdBMEQJL9QCgmzr9+KzqSLGvoYx2ebMw4/0ZZS8AoNPf
T+19y4+MlW1TOieG4t7MBsdP
=ytgj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Patrick Dunford
Hash: SHA1
Behold, on Mon, 31 May 1999 15:25:36 GMT in
nz.politics:<3752a9e...@news.ihug.co.nz>, MeMyselfAndI
(info...@nospam.ihug.co.nz) didst uttereth:
>On Sun, 30 May 1999 23:53:33 +1200, patrick...@caverock.net
>(Patrick Dunford) wrote:
>
>>
>>How many families in the 60s had a car - or a TV?
>>
>>- --
>shallow shallow shallow
No, true. The "poor" people of today almost without exception enjoy a higher
standard of living than earlier generations.
- --
Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ
http://patrick.dunford.com/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.0.2i
iQA/AwUBN1Fw3Z/ufSMMVdBMEQIOwACfZ4ASPrJP7BDOI8pQ0+hNLjoWK04An0ou
wKq94pWPPAobQrbWlfzXya/o
=aUjd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
patr...@netaccess.co.nz
::much worse state than it is now.
patr...@netaccess.co.nz
(Patrick Dunford) wrote:
::
::
::No, true. The "poor" people of today almost without exception enjoy a higher
::standard of living than earlier generations.
So that is a good reason for not trying to improve their lot, is it
Patrick ??
Stuart Fox
> >>How many families in the 60s had a car - or a TV?
> >>
> >>- --
> >shallow shallow shallow
>
higher
> standard of living than earlier generations.
>
people in relative states of poverty. It doesn't matter that they have a
car - be it a piece of shit of not (of course I doubt they would have a BMW)
Stu
Kerry
>On Mon, 31 May 1999 17:16:24 +1200, patrick...@caverock.net
>(Patrick Dunford) wrote:
>
>
>::
>::
>::No, true. The "poor" people of today almost without exception enjoy a higher
>::standard of living than earlier generations.
>
>
>So that is a good reason for not trying to improve their lot, is it
>Patrick ??
Never forgetting that societies with the highest standards of living
have a smaller differential between the rich and the poor
Brining up the poor seems to be heading in the right direction.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day;
Teach him to use the Net and he won't bother you for weeks.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Badger
"The average wage and salary earner (excluding part-timers) picked up just
$23,800 before tax in 1996. After taking inflation into account, this was
$900 lower than it was in 1982."
"On the other hand, the top 10% of New Zealand households now rake in an
average of $140,000."
"The overall top 20% of households now earn more than $68,200 per year."
"Saving from disposable income dropped again in 1998 continuing a downward
trend over the past decade"
"In real terms we're spending (and earning) less - $685 per week per
household in 1998 compared with $724 in 1989."
In the 1950s we were third in the OECD income charts. Now we are 20th out of
27.
Simon Arnold wrote in message <92805225...@estelle.paradise.net.nz>...
>It seems to me that there has been a lot of follow up to a posting by
>someone who doesn't know what has been happening in NZ and hasn't bothered
>to check his facts.
It all depends whose "facts" one chooses.
>> 15 years of right wing ideological reforms by the ACT branch of the
>> Labour Party, and for the last 9 of those years, the National party,
>> has brought about these results for ordinary New Zealanders.
>>
>> 1. Poverty at hugely increased levels in NZ
>
>Wrong - relative poverty has not increased since 1985.
>
>> 2. Massive levels of unemployment
>
>Wrong - unemployment rates have declined by a third since 1991.
Well, remember that in 1991 Jenny Shipley reduced the Unemployment Benefit.
So how about stating the statistics from 1990 instead of from 1991?
>> 3. The sale of assets for no long term gain
>
>Wrong - finance costs to taxpayers has declined significantly since 1990.
Define "finance costs".
>> 4. World trading nations moving away from extreme forms of free
>> trade as espoused by this Govt.
>
>Wrong - our trading partners have all liberalised trade over the last
>decade.
Such as?
>> 5. A divided an increasingly bitter populace.
>
>Wrong - fewer people think the country is going in the wrong direction.
How do you know? Fewer than when?
>> 6. A Government manipulated by big business interests and
>> implementing policies which benefit the top 10% of income earners and
>> the super wealthy.
>
>Wrong - the only period when the top 10% went ahead (at the expense of
>middle income earners - not low income earners) was between 1986 and 1991 -
>when Cullen was Assoc Finance Minister.
See above.
>> 7. A callours, uncaring, cynical, selfish cabinet which others
>> describe as corrupt. For example the payment to MP Alamein Kopu.
>
>Wrong - the payment to Kopu arose because of decsions promoted by Labour
>which served to benefit United, ROC etc. All National and ACT did was
>prevent a change of rules - which Labour were promoting to get at Tau.
Who cares who promoted it? Does that make it acceptable?
Badger
Robert Barro
specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a "dismal
science." But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous
opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.
--Murray Rothbard
Anthony Mersey <to...@opinion.com.uk> wrote in message
news:37506dc...@news.ihug.co.nz...
> 15 years of right wing ideological reforms by the ACT branch of the
> Labour Party, and for the last 9 of those years, the National party,
> has brought about these results for ordinary New Zealanders.
>
> 1. Poverty at hugely increased levels in NZ
Sorry standard of living is higher.
> 2. Massive levels of unemployment
Real emplyoment is extrememly low.
> 3. The sale of assets for no long term gain
Sale of assets only occurs at the net present value of future income streams
summed to an infinite time series so there is NO difference between having
them and not.
> 4. World trading nations moving away from extreme forms of free
> trade as espoused by this Govt.
Actually they are all moving to it.
> 5. A divided an increasingly bitter populace.
Because nobody understands that NZ (A small and globially unimportant world)
is totally at the mercy of every other country in the world. We are one of
the openest economies in the world and are totally at the whim of the rest
of the world.
> 6. A Government manipulated by big business interests and
> implementing policies which benefit the top 10% of income earners and
> the super wealthy.
Wrong, investment is pro-cyclical and leading in all time periods in every
country throughout time so your statement is COMPLETELY WORNG!!!!!
> 7. A callours, uncaring, cynical, selfish cabinet which others
> describe as corrupt. For example the payment to MP Alamein Kopu.
Why? Why do you call it that? It is afterall what she became eligable for,
the terms of eligability were designated long before Alamein became
independent. If this had happened and she were in opposition to the
government and they had not paid out you would complain they are denying her
what she is entitled by LAW!
> My New Year's Message to the Nasty Nats.
>
> 'You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing.
> Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, Go!
> (Leo Amery, May 1940 - referring to Neville Chamberlain)
Get a fucking education, learn economics and then you will realise how
fucking stupid you are.
George Black
patrick...@caverock.net (Patrick Dunford) wrote:
>>>>Talk to students who finish their education owing tens of thousand of
>>>>dollars who cannot even contemplate buying a house, starting a
>>>>business or having children because of their debt.
>>>
>>>Having children? Don't make me laugh. People have them on the DPB which is
>>>hardly a generous level of income.
>>
>>She wasn;t talking about people on the DPB. She was talking about
>>students with large debt repayments. Are you suggesting living as if
>>on the DPB is soemthing to strive for?
>
>No the point is that people on the DPB are not exactly well-off, but it
>doesn't stop them from having children
Perhaps it could be that the DPB doesn't stretch to contraception.
Some people might be silly enough to use it to feed and clothe their children.
Strange behaviour I know but it happens.
Tomorrow is only a day away.
George
George Black
patrick...@caverock.net (Patrick Dunford) wrote:
>The standard of living in this country even for "poor" people has gone up and
>up, some of us don't know what real poverty is.
And a lot of us do know what poverty is.
It is relative. Relative to where you are.
You make the claims that people have cars so how can they be poor.
If I didn't have a car I would be unable to find work, or, once found,
(because of the lousy bus services) I would have problems getting to the job.
Now the car makes us poor. Maintenance. Fuel. Licenses. WOF. Registration.
So that money isn't available for bills or rental or mortgage.
It is spent to be able to earn the minimum wages available.
The reforms have not worked.
In the time that they have been in my real wage has been reduced by some 35%.
Patrick Dunford
Hash: SHA1
Behold, on Mon, 31 May 99 07:36:28 GMT in
nz.politics:<92813975...@ham.ihug.co.nz>, George Black
(gbl...@pop.ihug.co.nz) didst uttereth:
>In article <MPG.11bcdfe55...@newsch.es.co.nz>,
>patrick...@caverock.net (Patrick Dunford) wrote:
>
>>The standard of living in this country even for "poor" people has gone up
and
>>up, some of us don't know what real poverty is.
>
>And a lot of us do know what poverty is.
>It is relative. Relative to where you are.
The point I made, stands. Poverty is relative only for socialists.
>You make the claims that people have cars so how can they be poor.
>If I didn't have a car I would be unable to find work, or, once found,
>(because of the lousy bus services) I would have problems getting to the job.
That may not be the case for everybody, or else you live close to where you
work, or bike, motorcycle or walk, all of which are considerably cheaper.
>Now the car makes us poor. Maintenance. Fuel. Licenses. WOF. Registration.
>So that money isn't available for bills or rental or mortgage.
>
>It is spent to be able to earn the minimum wages available.
>The reforms have not worked.
>In the time that they have been in my real wage has been reduced by some 35%.
In what occupation?
- --
Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ
http://patrick.dunford.com/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.0.2i
iQA/AwUBN1GtR5/ufSMMVdBMEQKivQCeKxKZGyazw8zUDCVrwVxn0nxyDGsAoPL2
s1+yAh3TBcnnTbRqN2Odxi3l
=Ummu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Patrick Dunford
Hash: SHA1
Behold, on Mon, 31 May 1999 04:41:05 GMT in
nz.politics:<3752129e...@news.netaccess.co.nz>, patr...@netaccess.co.nz
(patr...@netaccess.co.nz) didst uttereth:
>On Mon, 31 May 1999 17:16:24 +1200, patrick...@caverock.net
>(Patrick Dunford) wrote:
>
>
>::
>::
>::No, true. The "poor" people of today almost without exception enjoy a
higher
>::standard of living than earlier generations.
>
>
>So that is a good reason for not trying to improve their lot, is it
>Patrick ??
No, just pointing out that most people's lot has improved yet we don't know
when we are doing well, do we?
- --
Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ
http://patrick.dunford.com/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.0.2i
iQA/AwUBN1Gtep/ufSMMVdBMEQIJbgCbB3wnYB1D4iMRunZIupekbbUpgboAn2C3
c5eyaxPsnRdBX2LJJCsbK3qM
=SHmU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Patrick Dunford
Hash: SHA1
Behold, on Mon, 31 May 1999 06:59:11 GMT in
nz.politics:<3752330a...@news.wlg.ihug.co.nz>, Kerry
(ker...@remove.this.bit.ihug.co.nz) didst uttereth:
>On Mon, 31 May 1999 04:41:05 GMT, patr...@netaccess.co.nz wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 31 May 1999 17:16:24 +1200, patrick...@caverock.net
>>(Patrick Dunford) wrote:
>>
>>
>>::
>>::
>>::No, true. The "poor" people of today almost without exception enjoy a
higher
>>::standard of living than earlier generations.
>>
>>
>>So that is a good reason for not trying to improve their lot, is it
>>Patrick ??
>
>Never forgetting that societies with the highest standards of living
>have a smaller differential between the rich and the poor
I heard tell that the US has a high standard of living and a high
differential.
the differential is irrelevant to me
snip--
Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ
http://patrick.dunford.com/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.0.2i
iQA/AwUBN1Gts5/ufSMMVdBMEQLnCQCgrBfxNFLoBQNCz3i+d59IyJlT8LwAn10f
DgWFwfwkWtYKjpRZOfyR4DIx
=yci8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Patrick Dunford
Hash: SHA1
Behold, on Mon, 31 May 1999 11:40:35 +1200 in
nz.politics:<92813470...@ham.ihug.co.nz>, Badger (bad...@the.earth.co)
didst uttereth:
>NZ Herald, 29-30 May 1999
>
>"The average wage and salary earner (excluding part-timers) picked up just
>$23,800 before tax in 1996. After taking inflation into account, this was
>$900 lower than it was in 1982."
But taxes are less now than they were then.
snip
- --
Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ
http://patrick.dunford.com/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.0.2i
iQA/AwUBN1GuHJ/ufSMMVdBMEQInCACgm1BGVm1P+AB3cFcnzeIxajb+UGUAn0Wq
ecPCP2TKuMNL1vfWXBY3F20d
=z4Hs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
David Pears
(MeMyselfAndI) wrote:
>Me - I would gladly pay the previous rate of tax before the Nats cuts
>and have more police, nurses, teachers, less student fees etc etc.
This is easy to arrange. You only have to write out a cheque to the
organisation you wish to donate your money to. I'm sure they'd be
grateful.
Or do you mean "I'd be glad if everyone else paid the previous rate of
tax..." ?
David
wibbler
George Black <gbl...@pop.ihug.co.nz> wrote in article <92813975...@ham.ihug.co.nz>...
<snip>
> >No the point is that people on the DPB are not exactly well-off, but it
> >doesn't stop them from having children
Agreed.
> Perhaps it could be that the DPB doesn't stretch to contraception.
> Some people might be silly enough to use it to feed and clothe their children.
> Strange behaviour I know but it happens.
>
Hmmm... so I take it those on the DPB haven't twigged to the notion of
having unprotected/un-"contracepted" sex => pregnancy => more children => more money required to feed and
clothe them !?!?!
IIRC from my uni days, Family Planning were more than happy to provide condoms to people who couldn't afford
them.
Even so, I still can't quite fathom how so many people can afford to buy alcohol, cigarettes, lotto etc etc,
but when it comes to contraception, the money's not available? (please, before I get flamed, I'm not saying
that all people on the DPB are spending their money on these items... but I'm sure a lot do, just like the
rest of society!)
Cheers,
wibbler.
Kerry
<don't.bother.there's.no-one@home> wrote:
>
>Hmmm... so I take it those on the DPB haven't twigged to the notion of
>
>having unprotected/un-"contracepted" sex => pregnancy => more children => more money required to feed and
>clothe them !?!?!
>
>IIRC from my uni days, Family Planning were more than happy to provide condoms to people who couldn't afford
>them.
>
>Even so, I still can't quite fathom how so many people can afford to buy alcohol, cigarettes, lotto etc etc,
>but when it comes to contraception, the money's not available? (please, before I get flamed, I'm not saying
>that all people on the DPB are spending their money on these items... but I'm sure a lot do, just like the
>rest of society!)
And beneficiaries encompass the most financially disadvantaged, least
well educated, least informed, least emancipated members of our
society. Anything to do with it? Beneficiaries in our society also
encompass cultural groups who prize children and see them as a natural
, and early, part of life.
How many went to uni and encountered the nice family planning condoms?
patr...@netaccess.co.nz
(Patrick Dunford) wrote:
::>
::>
::>So that is a good reason for not trying to improve their lot, is it
::>Patrick ??
::
::No, just pointing out that most people's lot has improved yet we don't know
::when we are doing well, do we?
That is the attitude of our new right, free market , nasty nat
pollietubbies whose actions have increased the misery of the
impoverished and enriched the greedies more and more ...
......the greedies who already have more $$$$$$$$$ than they can ever
spend.
patricK
patr...@netaccess.co.nz
(Patrick Dunford) wrote:
:
::
::Sure. But don't pretend that today's poor can be compared with those of
::earlier generations. This in some ways waters down modern-day notions of
::poverty.
::
I am sure that those who are struggling will obey your injunction and
compare there lot with previous generations and be glad.
Brian Dooley
<pr...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
snip---
>A comparison has to be relative to something for it to have any meaning. The
>baseline for what we call "poverty" has increased considerably since the 1960s
>which seem to be the times remembered fondly by people such as yourself. The
>fact is that in those days all our agricultural products were taken by Britain
True.
>and we lived beyond our means, borowing money to subsidise a fantasy world.
Not true. Between 1945 and the end of the '60s the trend per head
at constant prices was down or flat. And it remained thus until
1981 - and you know what happened then. There was always some
money owing but it didn't increase to any great extent; and
sometimes it even went down eg 1969-75.
> You
>can do that for a short time, but at the end of the day there is a reckoning
>and the money has to be repaid.
True, but it didn't apply in this case until Think Big came
along.
You must beware of making sweeping statements without checking
the facts first (in my case I have used NZYB79 pp906-907 and
NZYB92 p445) or people will start calling you Patrick.
Brian Dooley
Wellington New Zealand
Jordan Carter
>In article <7isjbn$a7b$1...@newsource.ihug.co.nz>, de...@irc.co.nz says...
>>
>>Robert Howard wrote in message <01beaa58$35a4f680$e7f2...@ihug.ihug.co.nz>...
>>>
>>><37506dc...@news.ihug.co.nz>...
>>>> 15 years of right wing ideological reforms by the ACT branch of the
>>>> Labour Party, and for the last 9 of those years, the National party,
>>>> has brought about these results for ordinary New Zealanders.
>>>
>>>much worse state than it is now.
>>
>>country would have been in a much worse state than it is now. The pattern of
>>reform was self chosen, destructive and basically hasn't worked. We could
>have
>>done it right. We didn't.
>
>Your evidence being???
>
>Economists have generally evaluated the overall programme very favourably.
>authoritative Journal of Economic Literature with the following paragraph:
Ok. Cite all the evidence you like. Find me something published since 1997 and
I'll buy you a beer when I meet you. In 94-97 we WERE doing well. Trade
balance improving. Unemployment falling. Growth at startling levels. It's all
gone though. We are fundamentally in the same state we've always been -
dependent on commodity exports, and with a foreign exchange constraint. And we
sure as hell aren't getting rave reviews any more.
>Other major surveys have also been optimistic. Massey ('New Zealand: Market
>Liberalization in a Developed Economy', Macmillan Press: London, 1995, p. 203)
>suggested 'a number of grounds for optimism', concluding overall that 'it
>appears New Zealand is now a more internationally competitive and dynamic
>economy as a result of the reform programme.' Silverstone et al. ('A Study of
>Economic Reform: The Case of New Zealand', Elsevier: Amsterdam, 1996, p. 21)
>'expressed cautious optimism that this [New Zealand’s improved economic
>performance being sustainable] is the case,
It proved not to be though.
>and that employment growth,
>improvements in income distribution, continuing operating efficiencies and
>price stability are all possible simultaneously with sustained economic
>growth'.
We have price stability and operating efficiencies. Not employment growth, and
no improvements in income dist.
>Their view was based on a study by Hall (p. 64 and p. 68) in the same
>volume, which 'suggested that on balance there is scope for cautious optimism
>on the sustainability of New Zealand’s recently improved economic growth'.
There was - in 1996. I suggest you base your views on the here and now, not an
historic anomaly.
Jordan
Jordan Carter
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>nz.politics:<7isnqt$9e4$1...@cantuc.canterbury.ac.nz>, Paul Walker
>(p.wa...@NOT.econ.canterbury.ac.nz) didst uttereth:
>
>
Academics (which you wouldn't understand) don't engage in name calling. They
prefer to contest ideas, not slogans. Calling Paul Dalziel a socialist
economist is as stupid as calling Hide a fascist one. Will you ever learn?
>Comment invited on the latest of these,
>http://www.pq.godzone.net.nz/dalziel99.htm
"The question to ask, therefore, is what might have happened if New Zealand had
implemented reforms on a smaller scale more commonly accepted in the rest of the
OECD? It is impossible to give a precise answer to such a question, of course,
but it turns out that a clear qualitative statement can be suggested by
comparing the growth rates of New Zealand and Australia between 1978 and 1998.
These data reveal a striking similarity between the two countries’ GDP paths
(adjusted to a common scale) for the years before 1984, and an equally striking
divergence after 1984 that shows no signs of closing fourteen years later. The
cumulative gap after 1984 is enormous: if New Zealand had continued to grow at
approximately the same rate as Australia (as it did between 1978 and 1984), it
would have produced extra output between 1985 and 1998 amounting to more than
NZ$210 billion in 1995/96 prices, or well over twice New Zealand’s total GDP in
1998."
Says it all really. You can't even begin to argue with the guy, can you
Patrick?
Thanks for the URL though :-)
Jordan
Jordan Carter
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
Dalziel the academic economist whose work is published and peer-reviewed
internationally, and who has a rather better grip on economics than you or I
ever will. Or are you accusing the man of lying and putting his reputation on
the line?
Jordan
Jordan Carter
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>
>No, true. The "poor" people of today almost without exception enjoy a higher
>standard of living than earlier generations.
Jordan
Jordan Carter
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>nz.politics:<92813470...@ham.ihug.co.nz>, Badger (bad...@the.earth.co)
>didst uttereth:
>
>>NZ Herald, 29-30 May 1999
>>
>>"The average wage and salary earner (excluding part-timers) picked up just
>>$23,800 before tax in 1996. After taking inflation into account, this was
>>$900 lower than it was in 1982."
>
>But taxes are less now than they were then.
Are they?
How do you know?
Top rates sure are, what about rates on income of about $10,000 in 1982?
Jordan
Patrick Dunford
Hash: SHA1
Behold, on Tue, 1 Jun 1999 00:14:17 +1200 in
nz.politics:<7ituej$h7b$1...@newsource.ihug.co.nz>, Jordan Carter
(de...@irc.co.nz) didst uttereth:
>Patrick Dunford wrote in message ...
>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>Hash: SHA1
>>
>>Dalziel the noted left wing economist :)
>
>Dalziel the academic economist whose work is published and peer-reviewed
>internationally, and who has a rather better grip on economics than you or I
>ever will. Or are you accusing the man of lying and putting his reputation
on
>the line?
No.
I am saying that economists can be left and right wing and this obviously
reflects on their work.
- --
Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ
http://patrick.dunford.com/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.0.2i
iQA/AwUBN1HlDJ/ufSMMVdBMEQKJ6QCfcWaX40j9VLfVizNTqAXp4XuBuQEAnRiA
Pk+yP1/gOpaQ+/UPeTKjTlVM
=J2B5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Patrick Dunford
Hash: SHA1
Behold, on Tue, 1 Jun 1999 00:15:29 +1200 in
nz.politics:<7ituj4$hgc$1...@newsource.ihug.co.nz>, Jordan Carter
(de...@irc.co.nz) didst uttereth:
>Patrick Dunford wrote in message ...
>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>Hash: SHA1
>>
>>>shallow shallow shallow
>>
>>No, true. The "poor" people of today almost without exception enjoy a higher
>>standard of living than earlier generations.
>So? They should! It's called PROGRESS.
Sure. But don't pretend that today's poor can be compared with those of
earlier generations. This in some ways waters down modern-day notions of
poverty.
- --
Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ
http://patrick.dunford.com/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.0.2i
iQA/AwUBN1HlQJ/ufSMMVdBMEQKIgQCfXsWpaOGXZ9w/2MDMx8tepb7br4UAoIoj
fqwS94V43+Qhngze6Gy+mxHR
=L6RN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Patrick Dunford
Hash: SHA1
Behold, on Tue, 1 Jun 1999 00:09:23 +1200 in
nz.politics:<7itu5f$gm1$1...@newsource.ihug.co.nz>, Jordan Carter
(de...@irc.co.nz) didst uttereth:
>Patrick Dunford wrote in message ...
>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>Hash: SHA1
>>
>>Behold, on 31 May 1999 01:15:09 GMT in
>>nz.politics:<7isnqt$9e4$1...@cantuc.canterbury.ac.nz>, Paul Walker
>>(p.wa...@NOT.econ.canterbury.ac.nz) didst uttereth:
>>
>>>Economists have generally evaluated the overall programme very favourably.
>>
>>Except socialist ones of course :)
>
>Academics (which you wouldn't understand) don't engage in name calling. They
>prefer to contest ideas, not slogans. Calling Paul Dalziel a socialist
>economist is as stupid as calling Hide a fascist one. Will you ever learn?
No. The fact is that economists, like the rest of the population, bring a left
wing or right wing perspective to their work. Dalziel, Easton and Harris are
examples for the Left.
snip
- --
Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ
http://patrick.dunford.com/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.0.2i
iQA/AwUBN1Hlkp/ufSMMVdBMEQLeMwCgsmouaWlJzQBACM+3BHhhcr4eMdAAn3OM
+RgIKyxnzloykbuuv9J7SIXS
=a0hV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Patrick Dunford
Hash: SHA1
Behold, on Tue, 1 Jun 1999 00:17:40 +1200 in
nz.politics:<7ituks$hj6$1...@newsource.ihug.co.nz>, Jordan Carter
(de...@irc.co.nz) didst uttereth:
>Patrick Dunford wrote in message ...
>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>Hash: SHA1
>>
>>Behold, on Mon, 31 May 1999 11:40:35 +1200 in
>>nz.politics:<92813470...@ham.ihug.co.nz>, Badger (bad...@the.earth.co)
>>didst uttereth:
>>
>>>NZ Herald, 29-30 May 1999
>>>
>>>"The average wage and salary earner (excluding part-timers) picked up just
>>>$23,800 before tax in 1996. After taking inflation into account, this was
>>>$900 lower than it was in 1982."
>>
>>But taxes are less now than they were then.
>
>Are they?
>
>How do you know?
What you mean the Labour Party has forgotten that first, itself and then
National cut taxes? Is this Labour whitewash for their tax-raising proposal?
>
>Top rates sure are, what about rates on income of about $10,000 in 1982?
The 24% rate dropped recently to 20% or 21%, remember?
- --
Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ
http://patrick.dunford.com/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.0.2i
iQA/AwUBN1Hl/J/ufSMMVdBMEQJkYgCg8ES2HikhDl5HJNghpRo19zf5MCgAnj0I
VH8fNC2T60x6TvRyi1L2ARV0
=ZfcJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Dave Joll
>nz.politics:<7ituks$hj6$1...@newsource.ihug.co.nz>, Jordan Carter
>>Top rates sure are, what about rates on income of about $10,000 in 1982?
>The 24% rate dropped recently to 20% or 21%, remember?
Do you remember what the rates were before the cabal which
now form the nucleus of the Act party raised them massively?
MeMyselfAndI
(Patrick Dunford) wrote:
>Behold, on Mon, 31 May 1999 15:22:24 GMT in
>nz.politics:<3752a87...@news.ihug.co.nz>, MeMyselfAndI
>(info...@nospam.ihug.co.nz) didst uttereth:
>
>
>>I know of people who work for Samaritans who
>>say that when the coin phones went out and card phones came in that
>>their phone calls dropped because some people just don't have $5
>>spare.
>
>I find that extremely hard to believe. I had phonecards (and no personal
>phone) when I was getting $150 a week from the Government and paying half of
>that in rent.
And did you have dependants - did you have children to support because
the benefit certainly doessn't cover enough to pay for all the needs
of children.
Good for you if you could survive on $150 a week. Don't use the "I
did it so everyone else can" excuse because we are not all the same.
It's just a cop out for having compasion for the disadvantaged.
>
>snip
>
>>>>I still come back to we need to care for those who struggle to care
>>>>for themselves or we are ALL in the shit.
>>>
>>>Everyone gives money to charities
>>Can you vouch for everyone in NZ?
>
>No. However I can point out that the community sector operates on a
>considerable amount of charitable giving.
Yeh - usually the same givers - time and time again
Pam H
MeMyselfAndI
wrote:
Don't presume - I donate to charities often in monetary and material
ways. I also donate several hours a week of my work skills to a wgtn
community group. I do driving for the school trips and clean at the
kindy. And if I, and many others, didn't do these things then MANY
would go without. MANY that the right don't want to even think about
because they don't sit in THEIR own lounge and therefore they can
pretend they don't exist. But don't kid yourselves - they do exist.
Suggesting I write a cheque to treasury is a nonsense - they wouldn't
have a clue what to do with it and it will make not one bit of
difference. And you know it.
Pam H
Peter Kerr
>
>Get a fucking education, learn economics and then you will realise how
>fucking stupid you are.
Today's pithy epithet: Economists are Fornicators
--
Peter Kerr bodger
School of Music chandler
University of Auckland New Zealand neo-Luddite
Philip Ross
George Black wrote:
> In article <MPG.11bcdfe55...@newsch.es.co.nz>,
> patrick...@caverock.net (Patrick Dunford) wrote:
>
> >The standard of living in this country even for "poor" people has gone up and
> >up, some of us don't know what real poverty is.
>
> And a lot of us do know what poverty is.
> It is relative. Relative to where you are.
I always find it strange discussing "poverty" with people in New Zealand since in
my travels I have seen sights such as people living in corrugated iron shanties
beside the airport runway at Bombay, India, and the desperate poverty of areas of
Latin America that makes even some parts of Africa seem wealthy by contrast. The
favelas of Rio de Janeiro, Lima and in nations such as Bolivia and Paraguay are
such a massive, overwhelming and striking contrast to anything in New Zealand that
is described as "poverty" that the use of the word to describe Nw Zealand
circumstances is ridiculous. Yes, there are people in New Zealand who are far
poorer than is desirable but to describe this with a word used to describe the
slums of the Third World is not appropriate.
>
>
> You make the claims that people have cars so how can they be poor.
> If I didn't have a car I would be unable to find work, or, once found,
> (because of the lousy bus services) I would have problems getting to the job.
The point being made was that it you were truly poverty striken you would have no
car, probably nowhere to live (or at best you would have a slum dweller's abode
with an earth floor, no electricity, no plumbing and no running water), no
household appliances, no computer, no oven, no refrigerator, no washing machine
and there would probably be a dozen or more families crammed together in the space
of the average 700 m² section. That's true poverty and we don't have this in New
Zealand.
>
>
> Now the car makes us poor. Maintenance. Fuel. Licenses. WOF. Registration.
> So that money isn't available for bills or rental or mortgage.
>
> It is spent to be able to earn the minimum wages available.
> The reforms have not worked.
> In the time that they have been in my real wage has been reduced by some 35%.
Since I know nothing of your individual circumstances the only comments I can make
must be general. There is a danger of mistakenly attributing all change in one's
personal circumstances to prevailing economic factors. Can you say with certainty
that had New Zealand continued with Muldoonism in 1984 that you would now be
better off? I suspect not. We lived in a fantasy in those years and the fact is
that the nation's debt grew exponentially and it was not sustainable. The reform
process was not an option -- it was the only possible choice the country could
make.
Philip Ross
Philip Ross
Kerry wrote:
> On Mon, 31 May 1999 04:41:05 GMT, patr...@netaccess.co.nz wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 31 May 1999 17:16:24 +1200, patrick...@caverock.net
> >(Patrick Dunford) wrote:
> >
> >
> >::
> >::
> >::No, true. The "poor" people of today almost without exception enjoy a higher
> >::standard of living than earlier generations.
> >
> >
> >So that is a good reason for not trying to improve their lot, is it
> >Patrick ??
>
> Never forgetting that societies with the highest standards of living
> have a smaller differential between the rich and the poor
Really -- how about giving some examples?
>
>
> Brining up the poor seems to be heading in the right direction.
Sure -- and that is best achieved by raising standards overall.
Philip Ross
Netwatcher
|>Never forgetting that societies with the highest standards of living
|>have a smaller differential between the rich and the poor
|
|I heard tell that the US has a high standard of living and a high
|differential.
|
|the differential is irrelevant to me
Perhaps it shouldn't be. Life expectancy and general health and wellbeing
indicators (rates of suicide, depression etc) correlate very closely
indeed with the wealth differential to be found in a society, and extremely
poorly with absolute standard of living.
It seems that human beings become stressed if in their judgement their
social position is outside the norms of their society. The relatively
poor become stressed and the health problems they suffer as a consequence
are well known. Strangely enough the relatively rich become stressed too,
perhaps because subconciously they percieve their position as insecure.
The `middle class' of people who perceive themselves as living comfortably
within the norms of their society are the most happy and healthy of all.
We are social animals and we cannot thrive if we see our place in society
as being insecure. Accepting that our biology is thus, I would like to live
in a society that makes some reasonable effort to minimise the wealth
differential, even if we have to make some small sacrifices in absolute
wealth terms to achieve this.
Philip Ross
patr...@netaccess.co.nz wrote:
> On 30 May 1999 04:51:52 GMT, "Robert Howard" <rho...@thenet.co.nz>
> wrote:
> ::
> ::If those reforms hadn't been carried out the country would have been in a
> ::much worse state than it is now.
> ::
>
> ROFL , what you mean if the reforms had not been carried out the
> greedies piles of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ would not be as big as they are
> now
>
> The time has come to raise real wealth for the majority and to stop
> increasing the $$$$$$$$$$ of the new right, free market, money
> grubbers
Instead of trotting out tired slogans, why don't you specify exactly what you
think we should do to "raise real wealth for the majority"?
I am doing my bit to achieve this. I am workng on a development project here in
Hawkes Bay that will employ local people and raise export earnings if it
succeeds. Of course, any such project involves risks, which I am taking (as is
my partner in this venture), with my capital and time. We have run a two year
trial, which has involved laboratory analysis and comparison with established
standards. That is, we have spent our own money doing all of this. Now,
according to some of the socialists amongst those who subscribe to this
newsgroup, if this is ultimately wonderfully successful I will be a "greedie"
with a huge pile of dollars exploiting "the poor". Of course the fact that I
have taken risks in the first place, put my own capital on the line and worked
hard for possibly no return at all does not count for anything does it?
It is very simple.If you put in place a system that knocks people who try to do
anything like this, and takes away all the potential rewards in the form of
taxes, then nobody will bother. Quite honestly I am sick of the political
cultural of envy that permeates the thinking of the Alliance and the left wing
of the Labour Party and seeks to cut down anyone who tries to achieve anything.
The so-called "new right" reforms of the past fifteen years make it so much
easier to try something like this. Back in the Muldoon days there would have
been endless problems with the bureaucracy getting in the way, astronomical
costs would ave been incurred for very simple things (such as overseas
communications in the dreadful days of the olf NZ Post Office monopoly etc) and
of course taxes were usurious.
Philip Ross
Philip Ross
Badger wrote:
> NZ Herald, 29-30 May 1999
>
> "The average wage and salary earner (excluding part-timers) picked up just
> $23,800 before tax in 1996. After taking inflation into account, this was
> $900 lower than it was in 1982."
This is rather misleading though:
In 1982 we had a budget that anticipated a deficit of more than a billion
dollars (I recall the budgeted $3 billion deficit in 1984 but don't recall the
figure for 1982), we had an economy out of control over which Sir Robert Muldoon
presided by tinkering with a wage/price freze that did not work. We had a top
marginal tax rate of 66%, and since nobody would pay this, there were massive
tax avoidance schemes that did little to enrich the country or provide
productive growth anywhere. We had a hugely regulated market where one needed
permission from the government to do anything more than breathe and as a final
gasp, dear old Sir Robert handed the country a final act of destruction in
stubbornly prevailing against a devaluation of the dollar for more than week
after his party had been thrown out of office -- resulting in massive capital
flight and huge cost to taxpayers. Of course now the dollar floats this sort of
nonsense is no longr possible.
We had stubbornly high inflation, artificially regulated interest rates (that
fuelled an increase in property prices not related to market values), a welter
of money losing government departments that offered services ranging from
insurance and banking, to coal mining and transport. Trucks were not allowed to
carry goods more than 150km along a rail route and the government owned airline
cared nothing for service, providing no supporting infrastructure to arriving
passengers in the wind and wet at Wellington Airport.
Consumer goods, manufactured in New Zealand, whose markets were protected by
massive tariffs and an import licensing scheme, were largely overpriced and of
inferior quality. Cars were far cheaper in Australia as was gasoline. The nation
closed at 5.00pm on Friday and stayed that way until 9.00am on Monday morning
and for a time, you needed a permit to purchase gasoline after 7.00pm at night
or in weekends, and the government even forced you to keep your car off the
roads for a day each week.
That's the reality of socialism.
>
> "On the other hand, the top 10% of New Zealand households now rake in an
> average of $140,000."
We should be aiming to bring the standard up so that the top 25% of New Zealand
households "rake in" an average of $140,000 and the average level lifts from
$23,800 (if this is what it is) to $40,000 or higher.
>
>
> "The overall top 20% of households now earn more than $68,200 per year."
Let's aim at this figure to be the average then.
>
>
> "Saving from disposable income dropped again in 1998 continuing a downward
> trend over the past decade"
>
> "In real terms we're spending (and earning) less - $685 per week per
> household in 1998 compared with $724 in 1989."
>
> In the 1950s we were third in the OECD income charts. Now we are 20th out of
> 27.
In the 1950s Britain purchased all our agricultural produce and while in England
food rationing continued into the early 1950s we enjoyed a post-war boom as our
products were widely sought after in the northern hemisphere. The prices for
these goods have slumped in real terms since.
Philip Ross
Snoopy
(Patrick Dunford) wrote:
>>>
>>>How many families in the 60s had a car - or a TV?
>>>
>>In 1860 none. But that is a few generations ago now. The world has
>>changed a lot in 140 years. Hardly a fair comparison.
>
>A very fair comparison. Go to third world countries. How many people in those
>countries have a car?
>
Once you start comparing the conditions of an country 6000 miles away
with all the cultural environmental and political differences that
this implies with those in NZ 15 years ago, or conditions in NZ today
with conditions in NZ 135 years ago your argument gets shakey.
There are too many other variables, apart from the politics, to claim
that the politics 'caused' the differences you observe.
Anyway the main point of my post was to try and get you year 2000
compliant Patrick :-) SNOOPY
-----------------------------------------------------
Message posted by SNOOPY using 'Forte'
Free Agent V1.11/32- http://www.forteinc.com
------------------------------------------------
Stuart Fox
Adjust your clock, it's a day ahead.
Stu
patr...@netaccess.co.nz
(Snoopy) wrote:
:
:
::Anyway the main point of my post was to try and get you year 2000
::compliant Patrick :-) SNOOPY
::
some hope
David Wardley
Philip Ross wrote in message <37531FC8...@clear.net.nz>...
snip
Of course the fact that I
>have taken risks in the first place, put my own capital on the
line and worked
>hard for possibly no return at all does not count for anything
does it?
snip
>Philip Ross
Heh, join the club Philip, isn't it fun - when it counts for
nothing.
rgds
George Black
wrote:
>
>
>George Black wrote:
>
>> In article <MPG.11bcdfe55...@newsch.es.co.nz>,
>> patrick...@caverock.net (Patrick Dunford) wrote:
>>
>> >The standard of living in this country even for "poor" people has gone up
> and
>> >up, some of us don't know what real poverty is.
>>
>> And a lot of us do know what poverty is.
>> It is relative. Relative to where you are.
>
>I always find it strange discussing "poverty" with people in New Zealand since
> in
>my travels I have seen sights such as people living in corrugated iron shanties
>beside the airport runway at Bombay, India, and the desperate poverty of areas
> of
>Latin America that makes even some parts of Africa seem wealthy by contrast.
> The
>favelas of Rio de Janeiro, Lima and in nations such as Bolivia and Paraguay are
>such a massive, overwhelming and striking contrast to anything in New Zealand
> that
>is described as "poverty" that the use of the word to describe Nw Zealand
>circumstances is ridiculous. Yes, there are people in New Zealand who are far
>poorer than is desirable but to describe this with a word used to describe the
>slums of the Third World is not appropriate.
Remember where I wrote that poverty is relative to where you are.
>>
>>
>> You make the claims that people have cars so how can they be poor.
>> If I didn't have a car I would be unable to find work, or, once found,
>> (because of the lousy bus services) I would have problems getting to the job.
>
>The point being made was that it you were truly poverty striken you would have
> no
>car, probably nowhere to live (or at best you would have a slum dweller's abode
>with an earth floor, no electricity, no plumbing and no running water), no
>household appliances, no computer, no oven, no refrigerator, no washing machine
>and there would probably be a dozen or more families crammed together in the
> space
>of the average 700 m² section. That's true poverty and we don't have this in
> New
>Zealand.
So the food banks in New Zealand are a figment of the imagination.
Poverty is where you may well have a refrigerator and a TV but you cannot
afford to replace them or even fix them.
Poverty is a constant reduction of assets
>>
>>
>> Now the car makes us poor. Maintenance. Fuel. Licenses. WOF. Registration.
>> So that money isn't available for bills or rental or mortgage.
>>
>> It is spent to be able to earn the minimum wages available.
>> The reforms have not worked.
>> In the time that they have been in my real wage has been reduced by some 35%.
>
>Since I know nothing of your individual circumstances the only comments I can
> make
>must be general. There is a danger of mistakenly attributing all change in
> one's
>personal circumstances to prevailing economic factors. Can you say with
> certainty
>that had New Zealand continued with Muldoonism in 1984 that you would now be
>better off?
I do not know and, I suspect, nor does any-one else
>I suspect not. We lived in a fantasy in those years and the fact is
>that the nation's debt grew exponentially and it was not sustainable. The
> reform
>process was not an option -- it was the only possible choice the country could
>make.
So now we are owned by offshore companies. All the profits from the once NZ
owned firms are going offshore.
There was the claim that Governments cannot run businesses so they sold them.
Why couldn't they have employed the same business managers to run everything
or is that to much common sense
Tomorrow is only a day away.
George
Thing
MeMyselfAndI wrote:
>
> On Sat, 29 May 1999 16:35:07 +1200, spaceghosts <apa...@wave.co.nz>
> wrote:
>
> >Anthony Mersey wrote:
> >
> >> 5. A divided an increasingly bitter populace.
> >
> >What is this based on?
> >
> Talk to those who have lost jobs through our new right reforms.
> Talk to those on the hospitals waiting lists.
> Talk to students who finish their education owing tens of thousand of
> dollars who cannot even contemplate buying a house, starting a
> business or having children because of their debt.
> Talk to those with 4 jobs earning a total of under $20,000 who hear of
> payouts of hundreds of thousands to consultants.
> Talk to those people who the police cannot attend to due to lack of
> resource.
> Talk to parents of children who need glasses but cannot afford to buy
> them.
> Talk to abused children for whom the social workers don't have the
> resources to help.
> Talk to any person who works in a grass roots community group who sees
> first hand the effects of the poverty and hardship in NZ that most
> middle income earners who want their tax cuts more and more never hear
> about. Community groups that have more and more demand from people
> who have nowhere else to go and yet have less and less money to do
> their work with.
>
> Talk to anyone who is benefiting from the new right way but who has
> their eyes open and a conscience.
>
> That is what it is based on.
>
> Pam H
BUT how do you know the "left's" alternative would have been any better
than the "right's" what do we have to compare?
I see (sadly) no conclusive proof that the left would have done any
better, personally i think they would have done far worse.
Thing