reduce spending for > 50k people?
norb
Check this out: From the New Zealand Herald 13(?) may97,
business section:
Call for restraint growing louder
WELLINGTON
The Business Roundtable has stepped up its campaign against the
coalition Government's $5 billion spending package by claiming that
current low economic growth will be extended unless there is
restraint.
"If there are no new initiatives to control Government spending and
promote growth, my assessment is that business will remain quite
defensive in its investment plans and that the weak phase of the last
two years will be extended," chief executive Roger Kerr said in a
speech to the Rotary Club of Richmond, Nelson, last night
Mr Kerr said business confidence had fallen since the October elec-
tion, primarily because of "the massive rise in Government
spending" Recent surveys from the National Bank and the Institute of
Economic Research show businesses to be very pessimistic.
Mr Kerr said that if micro-economic reforms were made and fiscal
discipline reappeared, the economy would move forward. However, with
growth at 2.5 per cent over the past two years, the National Party's
target of 3.5-5 per cent annual growth to the year 2010 and New
Zealand First's 6 per cent by 1999 were not "remotely plausible" on
present policies.
Mr Kerr said he would not be surprised if the budget revealed a
weaker growth outlook than the March monetary policy statement, which
projected 3 per cent for this year, rising to 4 per cent by 1999.
Lower growth would delay cutting Government spending as a pro-
portion of gross domestic product.
Mr Kerr said the Minister of Finance was projecting spending to
fall to 32.1 per cent of GDP this year, compared with projections two
years ago of 30.5. He quoted a study concluding the economic "growth-
maximizing" Government spending ratio was about 20 per cent of GDP.
Much of the new spending was "misdirected" and of "low quality", he
said. For example, 93 per cent of increased tertiary allowances would
go to people from families earning more than $50,000 a year. -- NZPA
**********
Do I hear right? The business roundtable compaining of too much money
going into the well-to-do household's pockets?
What does it all mean? Is there an agenda? Is there a decision pending?
Simon Arnold
norb <no...@kcbbs.gen.nz> wrote in article
<29697134.1...@kcbbs.gen.nz>...
> Check this out: From the New Zealand Herald 13(?) may97,
> business section:
>
> Call for restraint growing louder
>
snip most of report
> Mr Kerr said the Minister of Finance was projecting spending to
> fall to 32.1 per cent of GDP this year, compared with projections two
> years ago of 30.5. He quoted a study concluding the economic "growth-
> maximizing" Government spending ratio was about 20 per cent of GDP.
> Much of the new spending was "misdirected" and of "low quality", he
> said. For example, 93 per cent of increased tertiary allowances would
> go to people from families earning more than $50,000 a year. -- NZPA
>
> **********
>
> Do I hear right? The business roundtable compaining of too much money
> going into the well-to-do household's pockets?
>
> What does it all mean? Is there an agenda? Is there a decision pending?
Business actually wants high growth. Poorly directed social spending
reduces growth and doesnot improve welfare outcomes. Everyone should dump
on it. We calculated that 50% of the $1 billion p.a. redistributive
expenditure was going to the top 30% of households by income. Why do that
when the tax cuts have a better redistributive impact?
What is more under reasonable assumptions, tax cuts give sustainable
increases in GDP growth (1.4% after 4 years) and long-term reductions in
unemployment (10%) while increased spending gives neither on a sustainable
basis.
norb
you are exactly right, brian. On his deathbed, when the world is
a gruesome place thanks to the people who thought like him, he will say
"maybe I was wrong"
You might say... "maybe I wasn't loud enough"
Your arguments brian... don't use harsh language, try to be measured and
weigh the arguments ...
Kent .. who is obviously a businessman of sorts (in the harsh reality)
has to resort to stupifying slogans ... poor guy. First he believes
his own words (other people's original thoughts!) and in a few years
will have to eat them. Thats when it becomes clear that it can't go on
like this. Obviously he has no idea what the whole growth idiocy is doing
to this planet. If he has kids... he has to do quite some summersault
thinking to explain his kids the world.
truth and morality ... not exactly hip concepts, eh?
When I hear ... wellington earthquake... increase GDP ...
my goddess ... what have they done to you that you are so cold?
Anyway .. history is full of catastrophic growth ...
in europe the are whole counties with poisoned earth, where its
not safe to plant anything.
There and in the usA especially there are miles of derelict industries
much of them relics of the phenomenal growth. Visit them.. awe-ful.
Been there, done that. NZ is on the best way to become a shitty
place. Auckland is almost there.
And why? someone shat in the people's brain and told them its
good to enlarge business .. release restraints ... let private
industry run freely ... make the buck do round...
Kent is kidding himself.
read some Saul for your soul, man:
Our business leaders hector us in
the name of capitalism, when most of them are no more than corporate
employees, isolated from personal risk. We are obsessed by
competition, yet the largest item of international trade is armaments
-an artificial consumer good. We condemn arms dealers as immoral
and sleazy figures, while ignoring the fact that our own senior civil
servants and senior corporate leadership together are responsible for
more than 90 percent of the arms traded. Never has there been such a
sea of available information, and yet all organizations -public and
private -work on the principle that information is secret unless
specifically declared not to be. There is a conviction that
governments have never been so strong and at the same time a sense
that they are virtually powerless to effect change unless some
superhuman effort is made. Or, to return to my first economic
example, after a century of carefully building both self-respect
among employees and job stability for them, our first reaction when
faced by a depression is to move out of manufacturing into the
service industries. We tell ourselves that the latter are the wave of
the future --computer software, sophisticated consulting-- when
most of the jobs we actually create are at the low end of service --
waiting on tables, serving in shops, part-time, unprotected, without
long-term prospects. In other words, much of the job creation of the
1980s represented a defeat for our theoretically balanced and stable
societies.
We tend to blame this Western schizophrenia on national interests
or on ideological conflicts. The official Left would put most of our
problems down to uncontrolled self-interest, as if they still had a
clear idea of how to harness self-interest for the general good. The
official Right would shrug its shoulders manfully, that is to say
cynically, as if to imply that reality is tough. But manful cynicism
is probably a disguised form of confused helplessness. And none of
these contradictions have anything to do with reality.
If anything, what all this tells us is that, while not blind, we
see without being able to perceive the differences between illusion
and reality. And so when one of these differences -- particularly the
international variety, with all the accompanying mythological baggage
-- appears to be resolved, there is general euphoria, which then
gradually subsides without our schizophrenia being altered. This
persistent displacement of responsibility causes us to lose track of
the West's profound unity and instead to swing violently between
optimistic and pessimistic convictions of nationalism and
internationalism.
It is true that at first glance the West seems to be nothing more
than a vague chimera. What is anyone to make of seventeen-odd
countries spread throughout three continents and divided by language,
mythology and persistent tribal rivalries! It isn't even in a place
which can accurately be called the West.
At second glance the binding ties between Europe, North America and
Australasia can be seen in a series of fundamental shared experiences
and convictions. From the Judeo-Christian imprint through the
Reformation, the Renaissance, the Industrial Revelution, the
democratic and the revolutionary crises, the West was formed by a
series of trials which turned into basic assumptions. And all these
were themselves built upon our real and mythological assumptions
about Greece and Rome. It is that West which is grouped beneath the
sign of reason. Not the great and disordered empires of China and
Russia, which have rolled through history upon a whole other series
of experiences and assumptions. Not lapan, which is a case unto
itself. Not what we call the Third World, which has been both a
beneficiary and a victim of our assumptions. And it is that West
which has become addicted to a particular set of illusions in order
to avoid coming to terms with its own reality.
We are now more than four and a half centuries into an era which our
obsession with progress and our servility to structure have caused us
to name and rename a dozen times, as if this flashing of
theoretinally fundamental concepts indicated real movement. The
reality is that we have not moved beyond the basic ideas of the
sixteenth century which, for want of any better description, should
be called the concepts of reason. This Age of Reason will soon have
been with us for 500 years. With each passing day more ideas,
structures and beliefs are hung upon the fragile back of those few
concepts.
And yet, even in their early days, they were not ideas of great
breadth. What's more, from birth they were based upon an essential
misunderstanding -that reason constituted a moral weapon, when in
fact it was nothing more than a disinterested administrative method.
That fundamental error may explain reason's continuing force,
because centuries of Western elites have been obliged to invent a
moral direction where none existed.
Memory is always the enemy of structure. The latter flourishes upon
method and is frustrated by content. Our need to deny the amorality
of reason ensured that memory would be the first Victim of the new
structures. We must constantly remind ourselves, therefore, that the
rational idea has run as the central force through almost five
centuries of Western crises. It has provid,d the most basic
assumptions and therefore created the most basic of divisions. Reason
remains the sign of Western man's conscious self and therefore of his
better self. Reason is still accepted as the light which leads the
way across the treacherous ground of our baser instincts.
At tirst there was an easy conviction that all this was so -a
conviction made all the more easy by the moral baggage reason had
been carrying for a thousand years. In varying wayS, to varying
degrees, the Greeks had identified reason (logos) as one of the key
human characteristics -the superior characteristic Reason was
virtue. Rational action led to the greatest good. Roman thinkers did
nothing to undermine the conviction, nor did the Christian churches,
which simply narrowed the meaning tojustiEy their received truths.
And when, in the sixteenth century, thinkers began to free us from
this sterile Scho)asticism, they turned for guidance back to
Socrates, Aristotle and the Stoics in search of a freestanding,
ethical approach.
The implication is that most people -Particularly the philoso-
phers -were more or less agreed on what actually constituted
reason. This simply isn't so. There was and is no generally accepted,
concrete definition. As so often with basic concepts, they slip away
when you try to approach them. And the philosophers have kept
themselves busy redefining as the centuries have gone by.
In truth the definitions didn't really matter, any more than mine
might. h'lore to the point is what our civilization understands or
senses or feels reason to be. What are our expectations? What is the
mythology surrounding the word?
One thing is clear: despite successive redefinitions by
philosophers, the popular understanding and expectations have
remained virtually unchanged. This stability seems to withstand even
the real effects of reason when it is applied; to withstand them so
effectively that it is difficult to imagine a more stubbornly
optimistic concept, except perhaps that of life after death.
What's more, the renewed and intense concentration on the rational
element which started in the seventeenth century had an unexpected
effect. Reason began, abruptly, to separate itself from and to
outdistance the other more or less r;ecognized human characteristics
-spirit, appetite, faith and emotion, but also intuition, will
and, most important, experience. This gradual encroachment on the
foreground continues today. It has reached a degree of imbalance so
extreme that the mythological importance of reason obscures all
else and has driven the other elements into the marginal frontiers of
doubtful respectability.
The practical effect of such a mesmerizling and prolonged solo has
been to turn the last half millennium into the Age of Reason. We
habitually divide this period up under a multitude of other headings:
the Enlightenment, for example, Romanticism, Neo-Classicism, Neo-
Realism, Symbolism, Aestheticism, Nihilism and Modernism, to name
just a few. But the differences between these periods, like the
difference between the school born of Bacon versus the school born
of Descartes, all blend into one another when we stand back far
enough to get a good look. And so Descartes's deductive, abstract
arguments which Prove their conclusions mathematically melt into
Locke's empirical, mechanical approach which melts into Marx's
determinism. In other words, since the 1620s, if not the 1530s, we
seem to have merely been fiddling with details or rather, shifting
from side to side to disguise from ourselves the fact that we have
taken in that long period but one clear step -away, that is, from
the divine revelation and absolute power of church and state.
That very real struggle against superstition and arbitrary power
was won with the use of reason and of scepticism. And it has taken
all this time for reason and logic on the one hand, and scepticism on
the other, to seep into the roots of Western society. After all,
there was still an absolute monarch in Germany 75 )iears ago and in
France 120 years ago; universal suffrage is in general only 50 years
Kent Duston
norb wrote:
>
--- snip ---
> Kent .. who is obviously a businessman of sorts (in the harsh reality)
> has to resort to stupifying slogans ... poor guy. First he believes
> his own words (other people's original thoughts!)
..... um, I hate to be picky here, but you're suggesting I'm just
repeating somebody else's ideas, then going on to quote 5 kilos of John
Ralston Saul later in the post?!
> and in a few years
> will have to eat them. Thats when it becomes clear that it can't go on
> like this. Obviously he has no idea what the whole growth idiocy is doing
> to this planet.
Plainly you do, otherwise you wouldn't have made the comment. OK, so how
about telling us what you think this alleged "growth idiocy" has done to
the planet. Oh, and no quoting anybody else's doctrinal statements here
..... we're talking facts and figures, please!
(nice big space for lots of factual data)
--- snip ---
>
> Anyway .. history is full of catastrophic growth ...
> in europe the are whole counties with poisoned earth, where its
> not safe to plant anything.
Again, can we have facts, figures, locations, independently-verified
reports, and some real-world data to back these blanket assertions,
please?
(another nice big space for lots more factual data)
--- snip ---
> And why? someone shat in the people's brain and told them its
> good to enlarge business .. release restraints ... let private
> industry run freely ... make the buck do round...
No, I think you confuse human ambition with .... with .... um, well,
someone taking a dump, I guess.
I have yet to see that there is anything empirically or morally wrong
with growth. (I'm open to factual debate on this point, although not an
avalance of unsupported dogma.) If there was no growth, we would still
be leading the short, brutish lives that our ancestors "enjoyed". There
are likely to be some limits to growth, but certainly not in the next
5,000 years or more.
Claiming that growth is a bad thing in itself is mere semantic
rabble-rousing, and has the same intellectual quality as the notorious
Club of Rome "Limits To Growth" report. Remember, these guys predicted
(using some pretty sophisticated computer models for the day) that the
world economy would collapse by the mid-eighties, and that global
warfare would break out as nations squabbled over dwindling oil
reserves.
Now, unless you live in an even worse neighbourhood than me, I bet you
don't need close air support to fill up the car at the gas station. So
plainly the Club of Rome guys were wrong. Well meaning, but wrong.
>
> Kent is kidding himself.
>
Yeah, but I'm having fun doing it. :-)
> read some Saul for your soul, man:
>
--- a lot of snipping ---
Yes, well, I already have, thanks. Saul makes his points well,
especially when he talks about the impact of ideology on the development
of society, although I would suggest he doesn't take the ideas to their
logical conclusion.
But the part of Saul that I enjoy the most is his ability to support his
assertions with facts and logic. So there's your challenge ...... go to
it!
Cheers ........... Kent
hrp...@matai.vuw.ac.nz
Greetings...
Kent Duston <ke...@xtra.co.nz> wrote, after norb had a whole diatribe
claiming growth was an idiocy:
>I have yet to see that there is anything empirically or morally wrong
>with growth. (I'm open to factual debate on this point, although not an
>avalance of unsupported dogma.) If there was no growth, we would still
>be leading the short, brutish lives that our ancestors "enjoyed". There
>are likely to be some limits to growth, but certainly not in the next
>5,000 years or more.
It is a truism to state that economic growth is synonymous with human
development. I think, more importantly, it is impossible to conceive
where that limit to growth might be, if it ever exists: to even discuss a
limit is redundant. I would suggest, however, that where there is human
poverty, there is potential for growth. Where there are human
inadequacies, there is potential for growth. Where there are human wants
which are unfulfilled, there is potential for growth.
There are always questions regarding the measurement of growth. If Norb
was asserting that the measurement of all the goods and services produced
in society is the wrong kind of measurement, then he certainly took a
long time to get to his point, and it was so obscure that I had to assume
it might possibly be his argument.
Rousseau and Diderot did not argue against the principle of economic
growth, but rather against human development. Their objection was at
least philosophically coherent and logical; it would be useful, Norb, if
you're going to revert to such extremities, that you apply some
reasoning.
Cheers,
Hamish
Brian Paul Lilburn
In article <338034...@xtra.co.nz>, Kent Duston <ke...@xtra.co.nz> says:
>
>Brian Paul Lilburn wrote:
>
>Oh dear ..... I forgot to check, and have only just realised this is
>cross-posting to alt.politics.socialism.trotsky, where the debate is
>measured by the metre .... :-)
That was my doing. You are free to remove the alt.p.s.t. if you or
any one else taking part in this wants to. Why I did it was because
the discussion seemed to be widening out into 'global' dimensions; which
is not surprising. You advocate globalism. I advocate a resurgent nationalism;
but a nationalism and regionalism that is global; breaking up the present
global economy and each nation helping the other to do it, since all must
have an interest in re-affirming their sovereignty over the transnationals.
Can this happen without one nation 'bullying' another, and without racism
such as happened in Nazi Germany? I believe it can. But it will take the
form of economic and cultural regionalism rather than the old character
of nationalism.
I am a socialist as well as a nationalist, and was also hoping that someone
from the wider newsgrouping might be able to write more knowledgeably than
myself on the subjects of economics and political science, to show how
socialism *can* be make to work in the next millenium better than it did
in this. I myself have no academic background in economics and political science.
>
>>
<snip>
>
>OK, there's an idea. But why, for goodness sake? What is the
>quantitative or qualitative benefit to society in putting an arbitrary
>limit on growth funded by external investment? Isn't that kind of like
>saying "Thanks for helping us set up that undersea fibre link to the
>rest of the world, now take the investment you would normally spend
>upgrading it over the next decade, and clear off"? Sounds like
>state-imposed stagnation to me.
I think money could be found internationally to maintain the link you
mention. It's not part of the *national* infrastructure. What has taken
a lot of capital to set up, could best be used without much 'upgrading'
till it needs replacing completely. (That's partly why bombed-to-bits
Germany got such a head-start. All its old equipment had to be replaced.)
The principle is good, too. Make things so they last, not have to be
replaced and 'upgraded' all the time - one of my bitches against the
present practice of commercialism. A big project, like the "link" in
Auckland - the harbour bridge - very soon paid for itself, so traffic
fees were lowered or scrapped (Not sure what the situation is now.)
But if modern transnational big business had built that bridge, it would
have gone on indefinitely milking the public probably with higher and
higher fees as the managers and shareholders got more demanding of
ever-increasing super-salaries and returns.
>
>--- snip ---
>
>If I agreed with the premise that we are rapidly reaching the carrying
>capacity of the planet, I would concurr. But it seems to me that we are
>a million miles from that point.
In your agreement you seem to be somewhat more common-sensical than
our ACT friend Eric, but I don't know how you can maintain that
"million mile" assertion. You obviously haven't taken in such facts and
stats. as are presented in a magazine like the New Internationalist.
>
>This is the same thinking that spurred the Club of Rome to publish
>"Limits to Growth" back in the late 60's. Their model (which has since
>been overtaken by a very different reality) was based on a couple of
>faulty assumptions, namely:
>
>1) The resources of the earth are all the resources available to mankind
>in the entire universe
Do you really doubt that?
>2) Technology will not advance in any way that permits us to make more
>efficient use of those resources, and
One must not take this to mean that Technology will not advance at all,
or even that some of its advances will not have a beneficial effect
for large numbers of mankind. But if you include, in a prediction like
this, the *political* perspective, it rings true! The political avenues
and the political will thru which technology comes to be applied have
actually pushed its applications toward less and less efficient use.
The damage and wastage to both natural and human resources by ill-applied
science and technology (e.g. some of the water-retention and chemical
projects, 'green revolutions', and of course the monstrous military)
has been horrific, and still is.
>3) The finite resources of the earth are nearing exhaustion now.
The world is a very big place. It may take some time yet before
total exhaustion sets in. The truth that this assertion still has
in it is that unless we change our practices away from uncontrolled
market-forces semi-monopopistic super-capitalism, the exhaustion
process will become exponential in its increase, and the problems
associated with it will become endemic.
>
>You don't have to be a logician to see the inaccuracy of all three of
>those assumptions.
>
>--- snip ---
>
>> There may be no upper limit to doing amazing things with
>> science and technology, but the direction of it is toward the enrichment
>> of a tiny minority of the world's population - fewer and fewer being
>> able to aford its dubious blessings as the social infrastructure breaks
>> down under the strains of keeping up that enrichment.
>
>You're right -- and that's a separate problem. As an example, we now
>produce more than enough food to feed every person on the planet, yet
>some of them regularly starve to death. This is a question of politics,
>not resources.
That *is* a good point. It is also a question of culture and religion.
We do have to find ways of making more use of healthier older people and
limiting the reproductive growth of mankind by every means possible.
>
>--- snip ---
>
>> >You seem to be arguing that one form of growth is "better" or more
>> >desirable than another, although the reasoning behind this escapes me.
>>
>> Yes, growth that is quite gradual, humanely monitored, and kept in
>> line with sustainability and renewability in the environment is better.
>> This is where controls by good government are essential. That is why
>> any sane person will not give up on socialism, even while admitting
>> the dynamism of capitalism.
>
>There's only one thing wrong with capitalism -- the theory. And there's
>only one thing wrong with socialism -- the practice. :-)
Again, a sort of 'Oscar Wilde' way of putting it, but there's a lot in
that. When I becan on the Net, I made it my task to suggest how a
modern socialism might successfully be practised, if the political will
was there. That is what I called a 'Sovereignty Socialist Manifesto'.
>
>--- snip ---
>
>This is just the hoary old "all capitalists are bastards" chestnut,
>albeit stated more elegantly.
If you really looked into what is the real nature of the so-called
modern *down-sizing* of international big business, you would not
be so sure that what I was referring to was the "hoary" and "old".
The great modern conglomerates with financial dealings on a bigger
scale than many nations are setting up a bewildering maze of "fronts"
which make them look smaller and more local-people-friendly. I've been
taken a tour of almost the whole global economy on a bus here in
Christchurch New Zealand! Hardly any of the signs and colorful logos
you see - giving the appearance of a separate, discrete business
enterprise - are what they seem. The conglomerates keep their bejewelled
paws on every organizational aspect of profit-making, but contract out
to small productive businesses desperate to get the work, so that
they tender far too low and have to squeeze the bit of profit they
need to survive by squeezing their workers.
>
>The fact of the matter is that all people, from the CEO of the largest
>corporation to the part-time worker in the family sweatshop, act out of
>a mixture of altruism and self-interest. Nobody's motives are clear-cut,
>except in political tracts.
Socialism should not be seen as a bogyman by capitalists who have
motives of general good-will. All it wants to do is allow that mixture
you mention to work in such a way that the 'cream' doesn't all float
to the top as in a stale milk-bottle.
>
>--- snip ---
>
<snip>
>have to admit, I do have the weight of the entire recorded human history
>behind me! :-)
Anarchist-socialist ideas and experiments have been going on at least as
long as capitalism, and don't necessarily go against non-monopoly forms
of capitalist enterprise. Your appeal here is little better than the
vulgar conviction that because everything led up to the circumstances
we're in now, that's a justification in itself for those circumstances -
an idea that is lampooned by Voltaire in 'Doctor Pangloss'.
>
>What, a return to tribalism? For every small-is-beautiful utopian
>paradise you can show me, I can show you a dozen Bosnias.
Bosnia? A situation largely brought about by the bungling interference
of the major european states, US, and probably the oil giants who
were concerned to distort the whole thing in favour of the Muslim side,
because over 70% of the oil-sources on which the global "growth" economy
rests come from Muslim states.
>
>Regionalism is a recipe for narrowmindedness, political extremism and
>economic disaster.
Regionalism does not preclude the sensible modern dictum "Think globally,
act locally." Economic imperialism under the auspices of the World Trade
Organization largely frustrated the efforts of citizens to "act locally",
and twists toward a self-damaging greed people's "global thinking".
>Yet the list of countries that have refuted that statement in real life
>is long ..... Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia ..... in
>fact, the salient countries in the non-achievers list are (drum roll)
>..... the socialist ones!
Have you looked behind the gold-leafed lapis-lazuli screens of the the
so-called Asian Tigers? I wonder why so many of them want to leave and
set up (at least a bolt-hole for their families) here.
>
>Russia is a case in point. Frankly, I have no sympathy for the place. It
>has been on the fringes of Western civilisation for a thousand years,
>has every natural resource that avarice could dream of, one of the most
>highly-educated populations on the planet ..... and they can't even feed
>themselves.
I admit, many of we socialists were deceived for a long time by Soviet
propaganda. But not about the fact that the ruling class in US and Europe
were determined to so pressure Soviet 'socialism' that it *would* collapse.
Despite the crippling defense effort the Soviets undertook to counter this,
the people were largely adequately fed. It's the collapse and the take-over
of some of the worst aspects of Western capitalism and economic imperialism
that has led to the plight the people of that region are in now.
>
>
>--- snip ---
>
>> >> 'He namu pea ahau.'
>> >>
>> >> ('Perhaps I am a sandfly.')
>> >>
>> >
>Well, I guess I just saw myself as a "Dimp" kind of a guy! :-)
>
>Cheers ........ Kent
>
I would rather be kept at bay by the 'Big Man' I'm biting relying
on a blanket of natural wool than on the chemical industry, for
his as well as my sake.
Kia ora
Brian
Kent Duston
hrp...@matai.vuw.ac.nz wrote:
>
> Greetings...
>
> Kent Duston <ke...@xtra.co.nz> wrote, after norb had a whole diatribe
> claiming growth was an idiocy:
--- snip ---
> Rousseau and Diderot did not argue against the principle of economic
> growth, but rather against human development. Their objection was at
> least philosophically coherent and logical; it would be useful, Norb, if
> you're going to revert to such extremities, that you apply some
> reasoning.
>
> Cheers,
> Hamish
And waddyaknow, not a single reply (reasoned or otherwise) from Norb and
the loony left. Still, that tends to happen when you ask for (a) facts,
or (b) logic. You should know better, Hamish!
Ah, well.
Lions 1, Christians nil, I guess.
:-)
Kent Duston
Brian Paul Lilburn wrote:
>
--- snip ---
> You advocate globalism. I advocate a resurgent nationalism;
> but a nationalism and regionalism that is global; breaking up the present
> global economy and each nation helping the other to do it, since all must
> have an interest in re-affirming their sovereignty over the transnationals.
So why is that important? It seems to me that transnationals bring more
benefits than disadvantages, despite the "all the profits go overseas"
argument. It's the economies that have been most insular (North Korea
and Albania are two that spring to mind) where the populations have had
a spectacularly poor quality of life.
--- snip ---
> I think money could be found internationally to maintain the link you
> mention. It's not part of the *national* infrastructure. What has taken
> a lot of capital to set up, could best be used without much 'upgrading'
> till it needs replacing completely. (That's partly why bombed-to-bits
> Germany got such a head-start. All its old equipment had to be replaced.)
Yes, but that kind of structural destruction simply doesn't happen on
the same scale any more (thank goodness). Simple old-fashioned progress
means that constant re-investment is necessary to recreate the
infrastructure of the country. Look at the phone system -- all of the
main links up and down the country are now fibre. The old coaxial cable
wasn't replaced because it was worn out, it was replaced because the
capacity possible in a new system was a whole magnitude greater. The
effect is a $5 weekend, instead of $2.50 for three minutes.
> The principle is good, too. Make things so they last, not have to be
> replaced and 'upgraded' all the time - one of my bitches against the
> present practice of commercialism. A big project, like the "link" in
> Auckland - the harbour bridge - very soon paid for itself, so traffic
> fees were lowered or scrapped (Not sure what the situation is now.)
> But if modern transnational big business had built that bridge, it would
> have gone on indefinitely milking the public probably with higher and
> higher fees as the managers and shareholders got more demanding of
> ever-increasing super-salaries and returns.
There's my point. Governments (be they local or national) are
essentially reactive, which means they have an appalling track record of
forward planning. Take the harbour bridge. In the 1960's these genius
planners were talking about a second harbour bridge, and a light rail
system. Thirty years later, they are talking about ...... a second
harbour bridge and a light rail system ..... In three decades, they've
accomplished nothing.
Private enterprise might make a bridge crossing more expensive (although
I'd even argue that point), but at least there wouldn't be a three-hour
gridlock to get to work, which is now estimated by Transit NZ to cost
the region $60 million a year.
--- snip ---
> In your agreement you seem to be somewhat more common-sensical than
> our ACT friend Eric, but I don't know how you can maintain that
> "million mile" assertion. You obviously haven't taken in such facts and
> stats. as are presented in a magazine like the New Internationalist.
Wow, they still publish that thing?
I seem to recall that when I last read it, "facts" and "New
Internationalist" were an oxymoron. :-)
--- snip ---
> > ... a couple of faulty assumptions, namely:
> >
> >1) The resources of the earth are all the resources available to mankind
> >in the entire universe
>
> Do you really doubt that?
Given that we already have the technology to go to the moon, our local
planets, and the asteroid belt, yeah, I do!
> >2) Technology will not advance in any way that permits us to make more
> >efficient use of those resources, and
>
> One must not take this to mean that Technology will not advance at all,
> or even that some of its advances will not have a beneficial effect
> for large numbers of mankind. ...
--- snip ---
> The damage and wastage to both natural and human resources by ill-applied
> science and technology (e.g. some of the water-retention and chemical
> projects, 'green revolutions', and of course the monstrous military)
> has been horrific, and still is.
The point is that new technology almost always consumes less resources,
uses less raw materials, costs less and does more than the old stuff.
(The military is an exception, but then that's fueled by government, not
the marketplace.)
Compare and contrast: which would you prefer to live next to?
a) A 1950's nuclear power plant, or
b) A 1990's wind-farm?
Which would yoou prefer to have an accident in?
a) A 1996 Volvo
b) A Lada of any age?
> >3) The finite resources of the earth are nearing exhaustion now.
>
> The world is a very big place. It may take some time yet before
> total exhaustion sets in. The truth that this assertion still has
> in it is that unless we change our practices away from uncontrolled
> market-forces semi-monopopistic super-capitalism, the exhaustion
> process will become exponential in its increase, and the problems
> associated with it will become endemic.
But weren't we due to run out of oil by 1983? Wasn't there going to be
global famine by 1990? The trouble with these apocalyptic visions is
that they make great headlines and lousy logic.
> > ... As an example, we now produce more than enough food to feed
> > every person on the planet, yet
> >some of them regularly starve to death. This is a question of politics,
> >not resources.
>
> That *is* a good point. It is also a question of culture and religion.
> We do have to find ways of making more use of healthier older people and
> limiting the reproductive growth of mankind by every means possible.
Given that we're nowhere near the carrying capacity of the planet, let
alone the solar system, unrestrained population growth is hardly a
problem in the near term.
However, if you really want to slow the reproductive rate, the best way
is through economic development. Make it possible for families to feed
themselves, buy decent housing and get good health care, and they
suddenly won't have the need to exploit their ten children simply to
stay alive in their old age. The Indian sub-continent is a shining
example of how effective economic growth can be in slowing population
growth.
--- snip ---
> Anarchist-socialist ideas and experiments have been going on at least as
> long as capitalism, and don't necessarily go against non-monopoly forms
> of capitalist enterprise.
Yes, and that's the problem. Anarchist-socialist utopias make wonderful
theories and great (failed) experiments, but lousy societies.
> Your appeal here is little better than the
> vulgar conviction that because everything led up to the circumstances
> we're in now, that's a justification in itself for those circumstances -
> an idea that is lampooned by Voltaire in 'Doctor Pangloss'.
And to paraphrase Churchill, capitalism is the worst system in the world
.... except for all the alternatives. I'm not saying the system we have
now is the perfect one, or even the best one in the circumstances. It
just seems to work a hell of a lot better than anything else.
--- snip ---
> >Russia is a case in point. Frankly, I have no sympathy for the place. It
> >has been on the fringes of Western civilisation for a thousand years,
> >has every natural resource that avarice could dream of, one of the most
> >highly-educated populations on the planet ..... and they can't even feed
> >themselves.
>
> I admit, many of we socialists were deceived for a long time by Soviet
> propaganda. But not about the fact that the ruling class in US and Europe
> were determined to so pressure Soviet 'socialism' that it *would* collapse.
> Despite the crippling defense effort the Soviets undertook to counter this,
> the people were largely adequately fed. It's the collapse and the take-over
> of some of the worst aspects of Western capitalism and economic imperialism
> that has led to the plight the people of that region are in now.
Oh, c'mon.
The Soviet Union wasn't defeated by Minutemen missiles and nuclear
submarines .... it was defeated by the Sony Walkman, the Big Mac and
Levis jeans. The quality of life in the old Soviet Union was crap, by
any rational measure. It wasn't "defeated", it was just a dumb idea that
fell to bits.
And no, the place has never been able to feed itself -- famine is a very
old tradition in Russia. Carter was exporting grain to Brezhnev long
before Reagan and his Star Wars nonsense were a twinkle in the
Republicans eyes.
Cheers ........ Kent
Eric Stevens
On Wed, 21 May 1997 06:31:21 GMT, om...@ihug.co.nz (Harry Johnston)
wrote:
--- snip ----
>I don't believe that the technology to make use of these resources is
>inherently beyond us, although I gather there are serious political
>difficulties - most or all of which would be eliminated by a truer
>globalism.
Plus a willingness to recognise that not all transnational corporates
are bad. My guess is that it will be a transnational that first really
gets mankind into space.
Eric Stevens
Chaos is found in the greatest abundance wherever order is being
sought. It always defeats order, because it is better organised.
-: Ly Tin Wheedle
Kent Duston
Eric Stevens wrote:
>
> On Tue, 20 May 1997 11:19:38 GMT, wu...@rawakore-nubm.wn.planet.gen.nz
> (Graham Howell) took a good long sniff of lighter fluid and then
> wrote:
>
> >
> >In article <337f4f08...@news.iprolink.co.nz>, Eric Stevens (stev...@iprolink.co.nz) writes:
> >>On Sun, 18 May 1997 02:08:32 GMT, b...@lynx.co.nz (Brian Paul Lilburn)
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >> --- snip -----
> >>
> >>>"Growth" is an illusion because it simply cannot be sustained.
> >>
> >>It can be, at least until we reach the limits of the universe.
> >>
> >
> >This is rich seen as Eric is a survivalist of the fittest type. He
> >means to dominate all that come before him. Roll on the
> >international axis.... a word beginning with N... close to NZIS.or
> >the state capitalists, without the state. Be prepared to survive
> >by selling grand-children if that is what it takes. After all it is
> >survival, and stuff the nearest. dearest or even the stranger never
> >met.
>
> ---- much more raving and rambling sniffed -----
>
> Graham, I advise you to stay away from naked lights for the time
> being.
>
> Eric Stevens
>
Nah, that wasn't a UseNet post ....... it was just the aftermath of a
horrific accident involving a typing tutor program, a Microsoft Natural
Keyboard, and an electronic thesaurus stuck in "paranoid delusional
rant" mode.
Eric Stevens
On Tue, 20 May 1997 11:19:38 GMT, wu...@rawakore-nubm.wn.planet.gen.nz
(Graham Howell) took a good long sniff of lighter fluid and then
wrote:
>
>In article <337f4f08...@news.iprolink.co.nz>, Eric Stevens (stev...@iprolink.co.nz) writes:
>>On Sun, 18 May 1997 02:08:32 GMT, b...@lynx.co.nz (Brian Paul Lilburn)
>>wrote:
>>
>> --- snip -----
>>
>>>"Growth" is an illusion because it simply cannot be sustained.
>>
>>It can be, at least until we reach the limits of the universe.
>>
>
>This is rich seen as Eric is a survivalist of the fittest type. He
>means to dominate all that come before him. Roll on the
>international axis.... a word beginning with N... close to NZIS.or
>the state capitalists, without the state. Be prepared to survive
>by selling grand-children if that is what it takes. After all it is
>survival, and stuff the nearest. dearest or even the stranger never
>met.
---- much more raving and rambling sniffed -----
Graham, I advise you to stay away from naked lights for the time
being.
Eric Stevens
norb
I agree. What's left to say? Where can one vote for you?
You have read Chomsky right? Isn't it amazing how everybody
thinks we are oh so democratic... free press and all..
A friend of mine suggested http://www.cato.org for a glimpse
of what the BRT's of the world have in store for us voting-cattle.
Interesting that you should mention the possibility that the
international concerns could pull the plug on our little democracy...
Imagine we had some real referendums... the propaganda campaign against
MMP (remember, we were all going to suffer under MMP) would seem petty
Maybe the news-paper mogul, who went overboard on his yacht, eaten by
sharks, drowned off the canary islands (?) .... after the british
public found out that he ripped off pension funds bigtime ...
maybe it did something ... the whole british public lost faith...
and voted labour.... nah... can't be....
Funny that .. I am reading how the church lost so much influence after
the Lisbon earthquake ... because it insisted that it was a punishment
by god for all the sins... and pray more.. pay the church to repent...
But they realised that Lisbon wasn't half as bad as the other big
cities ...
Maybe the big lies we live under will be exposed by some surprising
events... In Sha`Allah ...
can't fool all of the people all of the time.
Eric Stevens
On Wed, 21 May 1997 08:45:00 GMT, b...@lynx.co.nz (Brian Paul Lilburn)
wrote:
>In article <338177...@xtra.co.nz>, Kent Duston <ke...@xtra.co.nz> says:
>>
>>Brian Paul Lilburn wrote:
>>
>>So why is that important? It seems to me that transnationals bring more
>>benefits than disadvantages, despite the "all the profits go overseas"
>>argument.
>
>Transnational corporations (TNCs) are making massive profits out of
>New Zealand. In one year recorded recently US owned Telecom made a
>profit of $620 and paid out more than 90% of that as dividends to
>its foreign owners. So it's a strong argument!
First, Telecom does not have 90% foreign ownership so 90% of the
profits cannot have gone to foreign owners. Second, you are confusing
dividends with profits. Third, its only a strong argument against
foreign ownership if you believe that foreign ownership is wrong.
>In five years of the
>1990s, a 150% increase in foreign direct investment which means in
>effect a 150% increase in foreign ownersip of companies.
Which you implacably believe is wrong. But would you rather do without
the benefits of their investment?
>However did
>we get on before, if foreign investment is so essential?
Very badly. I remember when the NZ$ would buy US$2.50. I remember
devaluation after devaluation until the NZ$ sank to but 18% of that
(=US$0.45). Now we are back up to 28% of what we used to be. Foreign
investment was not the sole reason for the turn around, but it is
certainly an essential part.
>Of course,
>it means an outflow of resources (e.g. raw logs) with most of the
>benefit of that disappearing overseas in the form of profit-taking.
I agree that it would be better if more processing (added value) was
carried out in NZ but the reason why it is not is largely a marketing
and distribution problem. That is slowly changing.
>In one (recent) year, the OIC approved foreign investment of over
>five billion, and almost never rejects applications from foreigners
>for vast land purchases - it's little more than a rubber stamp. The
>biggest foreign owners of New Zealand are Australia, America, Britain,
>Canada, Europe, Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore; Korea, Taiwan, China
>and Malaysia beginning to catch up in the race for the spoils.
What else do you expect? Mars? - or merely Zambia?
>Foreign
>"investment", in the great majority of cases, is actually a take-over;
>not investment at all.
You mean they have bought something which already exists. This usually
means that they think (not always correctly) that they can do better
with it than the previous owners. And if they are correct, then we all
benefit.
>In a decade, New Zealand's public and private
>debt has increased fourfold; so all this selling out to foreigners
>has not inproved our debt situation at all.
That does not matter a damn if the borrowing is being used
productively. Borrowing is borrowing. You always have to pay it back.
>Yes, maybe a few more
>jobs in some sectors, but more lay-offs in others, like Telecom.
The world is always in a state of flux.
>We
>are now pathetically vulnerable to the whims of the finance markets,
We always were. Its just that once we weren't worth bothering with.
>because from their bases overseas they are what own us - if they
>disapprove of our democratically elected government's policies, they
>can pull the plug on us.
The finance markets are only interested in our governments policies to
the extent that they impact on the financial well-being of the
country. Strangely enough, so too am I.
>Nevertheless, IMO we should elect a government
>that puts into place policies that would enable us to survive if we
>"pull the plug on them"
Why on earth should we want disappear down a black hole?
>... first, or if they *do* shift their credit
>and their trade away from us.
They will only shift their credit if we stop deserving it i.e. if we
start to go back down the gurgler as a nation. As for trade, its not
the financial markets which determine our trade: it is us.
>
> It's the economies that have been most insular (North Korea
>>and Albania are two that spring to mind) where the populations have had
>>a spectacularly poor quality of life.
>
>There are quite a lot of people now in New Zealand that have a
>spectacularly poor quality of life.
I would prefer to hoist them up without significantly hurting anyone
else. You advocate policies which pull the rest of us down towards
their level.
>>
>>--- snip ---
>>
>>infrastructure of the country. Look at the phone system -- all of the
>>main links up and down the country are now fibre. The old coaxial cable
>>wasn't replaced because it was worn out, it was replaced because the
>>capacity possible in a new system was a whole magnitude greater. The
>>effect is a $5 weekend, instead of $2.50 for three minutes.
>
>It's nice to have a new system, just as it was nice to have the
>Auckland harbour bridge. But there are always drawbacks to all such
>improvements. If the old way and old means of doing something is
>not worn out, why replace it? Why not wait?
You replace the old with the new if the cost of losing the old is
exceeded by the benefits of the new. Otherwise, you don't bother.
>At least consider very
>seriously whether socially and environmentally a real improvement is
>in the offing, and not just extra gratification for property speculators
>and the chattering classes who like making long-distance calls to
>each other in weekends. I used to enjoy the ferries before the
>bridge was built, and Takapuna where I stayed for a while was
>a lovely place in those days.
--- aah! Nostalgia!
In those days the population of the North Shore was about 45,000. Now
it is over 300,000. To restore 'the old days' you would have to
somehow shift or eliminate 250,000 people. What do you propose doing
with them?
--- snip New Internationalist -----
Its funny that. Brian is keen on internationalism, but not when it
comes to investment. :-)
>>Given that we already have the technology to go to the moon, our local
>>planets, and the asteroid belt, yeah, I do!
>
>Possible in theory, but in practice the Earth would simply exhaust and
>bankrupt itself trying to overcome the enormous difficulties of harvesting
>anything of any great use from outer space.
We do live at the bottom of a gravity well. Once mankind becomes
established off the planet (and I do NOT underestimate the technical
difficulties in achieving this) you will be faced with not just
international investment but interplanetary investment.
> We would court global collapse,
>as the Soviets did to their region when they tried to keep up with and counter
>the Western military and 'star-wars' threats.
The soviets collapsed from their own gross inefficiencies.
><snip>
>>The point is that new technology almost always consumes less resources,
>>uses less raw materials, costs less and does more than the old stuff.
>>(The military is an exception, but then that's fueled by government, not
>>the marketplace.)
>
>Ephemeralization is a feature of the advance of science and technology.
>But if the advance is thoughtlessly rapid, geared to the dictates
>of the non-responsible (therefore irresponsible) corporation out for
>the quick buck, for profit maximization, then it may do more damage
>for less hard work too. And it doesn't always cost less. It may well
>be putting out a different form of pollution,for instance, of a kind
>more insidious because it is harder to detect and guard against.
It's ironic. We now have the luxury of being able to worry about the
hazards of man-made 'pollutants' which are less hazardous than the
natural background hazards to which we have always been exposed.
>As for you comment that the military is not fueled by the market-place,
>that is laughable. Ask Katie Boanes of the NZ peace movement. She
>will give you all the facts about private corporate involvement in
>arms sales, and how vital they are for the enormous profits made by
>many of them on the international marketplace.
I have to agree with you there.
But enough. I have snipped the rest in the same vein.
Eric Stevens
On Thu, 22 May 1997 13:07:21 +1300, Cameron Dewe <dew...@topnz.ac.nz>
wrote:
--- snip ----
>The profit motive is also to be questioned.
>The return on investment that the original purchasers made has to be
>considered. I recall one of them complaining that they could have got
>a better return by putting the US$2.5billion on term deposit in a US
>bank. To these corporations the money was political R & D money.
I now forget the deatils, but I remember reading that US legislation
limited the ability of US telecommunication companies to get into the
international telecom market. The reason was that the US government
did not want the owners/operators of international cable/satellite
links getting special treatment from a *very friendly* internal US
telecoms company. There was one exception. That is if the telecoms
company owned both ends of the link, in which case it was considered
to be an internal US link owned by the same company. No limits were
then placed on the favours which could be offered. By buying Telecom,
Bell Atlantic (and possibly Ameritech)ended up owning both ends of the
link and this freed them from the US restrictions. My guess is that
they did not really intend to make their money from Telecom NZ but
from the unfettered access it gave them to the outside world via NZ.
Denver Fletcher
Brian Paul Lilburn wrote:
>
> In article <338177...@xtra.co.nz>, Kent Duston <ke...@xtra.co.nz> says:
> >
> >Brian Paul Lilburn wrote:
> It's nice to have a new system, just as it was nice to have the
> Auckland harbour bridge. But there are always drawbacks to all such
> improvements. If the old way and old means of doing something is
> seriously whether socially and environmentally a real improvement is
> in the offing, and not just extra gratification for property speculators
> and the chattering classes who like making long-distance calls to
> each other in weekends. I used to enjoy the ferries before the
> bridge was built, and Takapuna where I stayed for a while was
> a lovely place in those days.
Well, so it's nice to finally get to the rub, eh? Clearly the world
should be organised in accordance with your whims and fancies, and if
thats not to the taste of the rest of us, well, we can always go and
live somewhere else, cant we? Heaven forbid that things should be
organised the way the most of us want, as long as you get to wallow in
your paranoid delusions!
A couple of hundred thousand people living on the north shore without
the harbour bridge is just a "drawback", it's really nothing we need to
be concerned about. After all, we have a nice ferry ride to console
ourselves and we can use the time to give thanks for the enlightened
guidance of Brian.
He wasn't a naughty boy after all - he WAS the Messiah!! :-]]
Cheers,
Den.
Denver Fletcher
Eric Stevens wrote:
>
> On Thu, 22 May 1997 13:07:21 +1300, Cameron Dewe <dew...@topnz.ac.nz>
> wrote:
>
> --- snip ----
>
> >The profit motive is also to be questioned.
> >The return on investment that the original purchasers made has to be
> >considered. I recall one of them complaining that they could have got
> >a better return by putting the US$2.5billion on term deposit in a US
> >bank. To these corporations the money was political R & D money.
>
> I now forget the deatils, but I remember reading that US legislation
> limited the ability of US telecommunication companies to get into the
> international telecom market. The reason was that the US government
> did not want the owners/operators of international cable/satellite
> links getting special treatment from a *very friendly* internal US
> telecoms company. There was one exception. That is if the telecoms
> company owned both ends of the link, in which case it was considered
> to be an internal US link owned by the same company. No limits were
> then placed on the favours which could be offered. By buying Telecom,
> Bell Atlantic (and possibly Ameritech)ended up owning both ends of the
> link and this freed them from the US restrictions. My guess is that
> they did not really intend to make their money from Telecom NZ but
> from the unfettered access it gave them to the outside world via NZ.
>
> Eric Stevens
economy, the regs governing the US telco market are downright weird.
Even tho their international rates are lower than ours, Telecom now owns
a switch on US soil and is talking about being able to use it to offer
"lower international rates to US customers".
How this is possible, or logical, only makes sense if you understand the
bizarre regulatory environment over there. Whether this means they will
offer the same rates to NZ customers is another question. :-(
Cheers,
Den.
Denver Fletcher
Brian Paul Lilburn wrote:
>
> In article <338406...@pyxis.co.nz>, Denver Fletcher <dfle...@pyxis.co.nz> says:
> >
> >Brian Paul Lilburn wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <338177...@xtra.co.nz>, Kent Duston <ke...@xtra.co.nz> says:
> >> >
> >> >Brian Paul Lilburn wrote:
>
> >
> >Well, so it's nice to finally get to the rub, eh? Clearly the world
> >should be organised in accordance with your whims and fancies, and if
> >thats not to the taste of the rest of us, well, we can always go and
> >live somewhere else, cant we? Heaven forbid that things should be
> >organised the way the most of us want, as long as you get to wallow in
> >your paranoid delusions!
>
> 'paranoid' means. Eric's accusation against me of 'nostalgia' is
> more to the point, regarding what you are using 'argumentum ad
> hominum' to citicise. Takapuna would no doubt have gone on
> developing more as a small town without the bridge, and I wouldn't
> mind betting there's a fair number of people living there now
> who wish it had.
OK Brian, read your own post again. If you can honestly tell me that it
doesn't imply that your own expressed "nostalgia" (ie a longing for the
way things aren't) is the way things should be, and for no discernable
reason other than that you prefer it that way, I will publicly retract
both the content and the style of my response.
If on the other hand you find some veracity in my post, what will you
do?
BTW, get a sense of humor! Please subject me to your argumentum ad
hominem, it is intensely more stimulating than yards of anti new-right
"stuff" (it's the best word I could think of, sue me!) I have no
particular brief for the rule of the BRT and their fellow corporatists,
I think they are the most self-interested bunch of plonkers ever to have
managed to crawl from under the rocks they were spawned beneath. This
does not however mean I wish to live in some agrarian utopia as defined
by the neo-communist three dollar mob. The people of this country elect
MP's to govern on their behalf, irrespective of your assessment of the
abilities or sensible decisions of these representatives, this is the
way we have collectively made things.
By all means campaign for reform, but if you can't even organise a
simple majority in support of your ideas, what valid reason can you
offer for anyone seriously contemplating implementing or supporting
them, other than that they are yours?.....and, by unspoken inference,
right and proper.......?
> >
> >A couple of hundred thousand people living on the north shore without
> >the harbour bridge is just a "drawback", it's really nothing we need to
> >be concerned about. After all, we have a nice ferry ride to console
> >ourselves and we can use the time to give thanks for the enlightened
> >guidance of Brian.
> >
> >He wasn't a naughty boy after all - he WAS the Messiah!! :-]]
> >
> >Cheers,
> >
> >Den.
> >
> It says a lot that you, Den, and others who have been my critics,
> react so sensitively to an attack on the "growth" psychology that
> is seen so much by the prevailing New Right in economic terms (They
> like to play down the dangerous development of continued virtually
> uncontrolled growth in population)
I am not the least bit interested in "growth", whether it be sustained,
sustainable, uncontrolled or otherwise. As for population it is pretty
much established that educated, healthy, and wealthy people propagate at
a rate far below the long term growth in economic productivity, IMO.
As for the "New Right", or anyone else who dares to disagree with you, I
have no truck with them either. I am simply appalled by your willingness
to relegate the real progress made in the standard of living of the
people of this and other countries to the level of some cancerous
growth. The poorest people in this country are incredibly wealthy by any
standards hitherto known on this planet, faced with opportunities that
would simply overwhelm any generation before them. That many fail to
grasp them is not, IMO, good enough reason to attempt to return the
entire population to the living standards of yesteryear. (which is what,
to my mind, you are suggesting).
That almost none of them, and a good deal of those who aren't poor, will
not under any circumstances admit this to be true, and cease their
relentless babble for "redistribution" (i.e. demanding with menaces)
simply illustrates their own self-interest. Faced with a choice between
these extremes of self-promotion I prefer the one that at least allows
me to provide for my family in a manner that corresponds to my
abilities, rather than some arbitrarily defined "equitable" proportion,
enforced by the monopolised violence of the state.
> "Growth" is revealed as the very foundation-stone of all economies
> as managed under global 'New Right' capitalism. This "Growth" can't be
> gradual and controlled. The freeing up of competition between the
> corporations and even between them and certain governments, like
> the 'state-feudalistic-capitalism of whole Asian nations, means that
> "growth" has to be a mad, escalating competition - a race to the
> finish, to actually finish most of us off in the not so distant
> future. Everything swept clean. The Europeans are near or in our
> southern waters with their fleets even against certain agreements on
> sustaining fisheries; and the Chinese will soon be down here with
> the enormous super-fleet of fishing vessels they are now building
> in Shanghai ...
>
> and so it goes on. I have suggestions about how things
> could be run differently, yes, radical ones that aren't yet 'real-politik'
> and maybe never will be, and so I expose myself to being scornfully
> dubbed a Messiah? Only by persons foolish enough to assume everything's
> going along fine as it is so long as "growth" is achieved. I would
> style myself only as a kind of whistle-blower, and pretty ineffective
> on my own. There are a lot of people around tho, probably many with
> more resources, who are beginning to blow similar whistles on the
> degradation and polution of this planet by corporatist and state-
> capitalist (even if it calls itself 'Communist') libertarianism.
>
> 'Waiho maa te tangata e mihi.' ("Messiah"? Well, so long as it
> is someone else aknowleging my virtues, as the proverb prescribes.)
>
> Brian
Get over it Brian. Ever heard of Monty Python? Next time I'll send you a
telegraph just so you'll know it's an allusion.
At least I was polite enough to consider the possibility you were merely
deranged, rather than just coming straight out and calling you an idiot
(or foolish, in your own words). For such a sensitive soul you're pretty
quick with the knives yourself pal.
Let's agree to a higher standard of debate shall we? I will admit I have
been unjustifiably less than complementary and I apologise unreservedly.
Cheers,
Den.
Graham Howell
In article <33855b0a...@news.iprolink.co.nz>, Eric Stevens (stev...@iprolink.co.nz) writes:
>On Tue, 20 May 1997 11:19:38 GMT, wu...@rawakore-nubm.wn.planet.gen.nz
>(Graham Howell) took a good long sniff of lighter fluid and then
>wrote:
>
>>
>>In article <337f4f08...@news.iprolink.co.nz>, Eric Stevens (stev...@iprolink.co.nz) writes:
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>> --- snip -----
>>>
>>>>"Growth" is an illusion because it simply cannot be sustained.
>>>
>>>It can be, at least until we reach the limits of the universe.
>>>
>>
>>This is rich seen as Eric is a survivalist of the fittest type. He
>>means to dominate all that come before him. Roll on the
>>international axis.... a word beginning with N... close to NZIS.or
>>the state capitalists, without the state. Be prepared to survive
>>by selling grand-children if that is what it takes. After all it is
>>survival, and stuff the nearest. dearest or even the stranger never
>>met.
>
> ---- much more raving and rambling sniffed -----
>
>Graham, I advise you to stay away from naked lights for the time
>being.
Is this a threat, or does the survivalist KNOW something about the
daylight hours I don't.
As it happens, the reality of unfettered capitalism is no
different to that of unfettered state capitalism.... but then my
raves are snuffed rather than responded too.
G
Eric Stevens
On Fri, 23 May 1997 04:04:50 GMT, b...@lynx.co.nz (Brian Paul Lilburn)
wrote:
>In article <33879b10...@news.iprolink.co.nz>, stev...@iprolink.co.nz (Eric Stevens) says:
>>
>>On Thu, 22 May 1997 09:51:21 GMT, b...@lynx.co.nz (Brian Paul Lilburn)
>>wrote:
>>
>> --- snip ----
>>
>>
>>
>>I don't know where you put me on your political spectrum, but
>>certainly have opposed the conclusions you draw from your often wooly
>>thinking. For the record I have always seen and often argued that the
>>root source of many of our problems is the burgeoning population. But,
>>I suspect unlike you, I do not wish to impose population restraints by
>>shaping our society as though the population growth is not occurring.
>>Your earlier suggestion of 200,000 people on the North Shore of
>>Auckland with the only communication with Auckland being by ferry is
>>just plain nonsense.
>
>Thanks Eric, but I'm not in the habit of suggesting nonsense. What I
>actually suggested was that if the bridge wasn't there, Takapuna would
>have grown to the size of a small town and have the facilities of such;
>I didn't imply that the *present* population of N.S. would be the same
>without a bridge, or be happy without one.
I apologise. I picked 200,000 without the bridge from Denver Fletcher
and somehow though it was your suggestion. But even so, the +200,000
people exist. Where would you have them live, if not on the North
Shore?
Eric Stevens
>.... but then my raves are snuffed rather than responded too.
'Ignored' would be a better term.
Kent Duston
Brian Paul Lilburn wrote:
>
--- snip ---
>
> actually suggested was that if the bridge wasn't there, Takapuna would
> have grown to the size of a small town and have the facilities of such;
> I didn't imply that the *present* population of N.S. would be the same
> without a bridge, or be happy without one.
>
> and each damn car holds only 1.3 people if you get what I mean. Perhaps
> a better illustration of what my attitude to this kind of 'progress' is,
> is my conviction that Christchurch would bave been much better off to have
> kept and developed its tramway system (Being of course so flat it's ideal
> for trams.)
>
Yes, it's entirely true that Auckland's transport system is a mess. (Not
that it much upsets those of us who have the good sense to live in the
capital! :-) )
And the reason it's a mess is the complete lack of any forward planning
by local government. They've spent the last thirty years engaged in
pointless internicene struggles and outright empire-building, and the
result is the chaos on the roads you see today. If these turkeys had
their collective acts together, Auckland could very well have the
road/rail/ferry network you see in Sydney.
What amuses me is that in most of your posts, you seem to be advocating
a bigger role for government, yet this is just one shining example of
how ineffective government is at planning for the future. I'm not saying
privatisation would have cured all ills, but I'm sure Auckland would
have received something a little more tangible than three decades of
infighting, backstabbing and bickering.
Cheers ....... Kent
Brian Paul Lilburn
In article <33843D...@pyxis.co.nz>, Denver Fletcher <dfle...@pyxis.co.nz> says:
>
>Brian Paul Lilburn wrote:
>>
>> In article <338406...@pyxis.co.nz>, Denver Fletcher <dfle...@pyxis.co.nz> says:
>> >
>> >Brian Paul Lilburn wrote:
>> >>
>OK Brian, read your own post again. If you can honestly tell me that it
>doesn't imply that your own expressed "nostalgia" (ie a longing for the
>way things aren't) is the way things should be, and for no discernable
>reason other than that you prefer it that way, I will publicly retract
>both the content and the style of my response.
If we have little understanding and little 'feeling' for the past
we can only carry on blindly expanding what we have now whether it
should be changed or not, and thus messing up our future. 'Nostalgia'
can be just a defeatist attitude of older people, or it can be something
that guides ideas of how to change the present for the better, but almost
every old person will be able to tell you about a lot of good things
that have been lost from the kiwi life-styles with the coming of TV
and the growth of size and impersonality.
>
>If on the other hand you find some veracity in my post, what will you
>do?
>
>BTW, get a sense of humor! Please subject me to your argumentum ad
ect
>MP's to govern on their behalf, irrespective of your assessment of the
>abilities or sensible decisions of these representatives, this is the
>way we have collectively made things.
>
>By all means campaign for reform, but if you can't even organise a
>simple majority in support of your ideas, what valid reason can you
>offer for anyone seriously contemplating implementing or supporting
>them, other than that they are yours?.....and, by unspoken inference,
>right and proper.......?
Sense of humor? I must have been living in Sweden too long. Swedes
do in general give earnest consideration to change when faced with
social political and economic problems; while the British just *make
jokes* and muddle thru - usually from one muddle to another hardly better.
Your reaction is 'British-typical'. It's an excuse for a conservative
kind of apathy, really. But sometimes even the British get fed up with
it, and make a half-hearted attempt at real change, and up comes
Tony Blaire! (Only the British could have made 'Life of Brian'.)
I don't think I can be expected to make much progress with getting
people to accept my 'manifesto' until I have helped to make them
lose faith in the viability of the present set-up.
>
<snip>
>
>I am not the least bit interested in "growth", whether it be sustained,
>sustainable, uncontrolled or otherwise. As for population it is pretty
>much established that educated, healthy, and wealthy people propagate at
>a rate far below the long term growth in economic productivity, IMO.
Those poor who can achieve a moderately secure and prospering standard
of living with hope of slow but steady improvement in life-quality may
still be quite poor by our standards, but they are the sort who will
limit their families prudently. The rich don't have to do that, tho
many of them have only a small number of children. But for modern society
to allow a section of its population to become *very wealthy* - that's
asking for global trouble! That's because its the *very wealthy* who
per capita are imposing far more of a burden on the environment and
resources of the world than the moderately well-off as described above,
or *certainly* than any poor individual. Those *very wealthy* people -
the richest fifth of the world's population - consume more of the world's
wealth than the remaining four-fifths of the world's population taken
together. Of course that means they act like "dogs in the manger". They
are hogging so much that the vast numbers of poor who could rise to
the level I've described beginning this paragraph, will never be able
to, because the top fifth are so voracious there's simply not enough
basis of prosperity left for them to build on.
>
>As for the "New Right", or anyone else who dares to disagree with you, I
>have no truck with them either. I am simply appalled by your willingness
>to relegate the real progress made in the standard of living of the
>people of this and other countries to the level of some cancerous
>growth.
Yes - a drive to raise standard of living divorced from sincere concern
for generalized protection and improvement of quality of life *is*
cancerous, and altho there are many good super-rich people who are
trying to save elephants etc. and good on them, there's a hell of a
lot that are just glamorous parasites accomplished at getting someone
else to pay their bills.
The poorest people in this country are incredibly wealthy by any
>standards hitherto known on this planet, faced with opportunities that
>would simply overwhelm any generation before them.
I cannot accept that as true. Have you lived close to poor New Zealand
people? it seems you haven't. I have - in the most depressed suburb
of a small depressed town. Those poor people may have video machines
(probably ones that have fallen off the back of a truck somehow), but
they eat cheapest bread and not much else (perhaps a bit of milk) to
stay alive till next dole day comes around, and they have little or
no hope for their children not probably sinking into a worse state.
I don't remember so many people in my area being so "hope-less" when
I was young. They seemed poorer materially perhaps, but more stable,
cheerful and hopeful especially for improvements in life for their
children.
That many fail to
>grasp them is not, IMO, good enough reason to attempt to return the
>entire population to the living standards of yesteryear. (which is what,
>to my mind, you are suggesting).
I am only suggesting that something of value has been lost.
>
>That almost none of them, and a good deal of those who aren't poor, will
>not under any circumstances admit this to be true, and cease their
>relentless babble for "redistribution" (i.e. demanding with menaces)
>simply illustrates their own self-interest. Faced with a choice between
>these extremes of self-promotion I prefer the one that at least allows
>me to provide for my family in a manner that corresponds to my
>abilities, rather than some arbitrarily defined "equitable" proportion,
>enforced by the monopolised violence of the state.
Your capacity to provide depends on many 'abilities' and 'opportunities',
not just yours. We don't live in a meritocracy in the sense a lot of
individualists like you probably like to think. Drive your ability to
provide to its logical conclusion and you become a unpleasant obsessional,
suffering from a serious mental disorder of addiction. Money-making starts
to squeeze out everything else that might help you develop as a rounded
person.
>
>Get over it Brian. Ever heard of Monty Python? Next time I'll send you a
>telegraph just so you'll know it's an allusion.
>At least I was polite enough to consider the possibility you were merely
>deranged, rather than just coming straight out and calling you an idiot
>(or foolish, in your own words). For such a sensitive soul you're pretty
>quick with the knives yourself pal.
>
>Let's agree to a higher standard of debate shall we? I will admit I have
>been unjustifiably less than complementary and I apologise unreservedly.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Den.
>
'Life of Brian' - yes, the reluctant messiah, that's me. I feel I *ought*
to be prime minister or something like that - and that's a bit of the
way one thought about Brian in the film; he ought to be someone great
because he was such a pleasant friendly humble sort of person, but of
course he didn't enjoy being taken for the messiah, or want to be great.
Perhaps I see what you were getting at now; apology graciously accepted.
Brian
Graham Howell
>Yes, it's entirely true that Auckland's transport system is a mess. (Not
>that it much upsets those of us who have the good sense to live in the
>capital! :-) )
>
>And the reason it's a mess is the complete lack of any forward planning
>by local government.
Unfortunately, the capital planners are just as bad - whether at
the WRC or WCC.
We need better/cheaper public transport, not continual reliance on
the 1.3 motorists per car which need more cars, more car parking
bdgs. more roads, more petrol.....more road deaths from drunk
drivers...
G
Graham Howell
In article <338b1e23...@news.iprolink.co.nz>, Eric Stevens (stev...@iprolink.co.nz) writes:
>On Fri, 23 May 1997 10:05:18 GMT, wu...@rawakore-nubm.wn.planet.gen.nz
>(Graham Howell) wrote:
>
>>.... but then my raves are snuffed rather than responded too.
>
>'Ignored' would be a better term.
>
Being someone who has only listened to his elders, and read books of
pre-1890 society (rich v poor) and the lazy fear system that
existed then, and the radical changes of William Pember Reeves
(1890-93) and then the first Labour Govt (particulalrly 1935-39), I
can only hope for further progress is seen as different from
a return to the industrial system which existed before 1890, the
trade systems pre-1890, the financial systems which existed
pre-1890. However many times I repeat my assessment of society, of
which the lazy fear economics is a mere part and have dear Eric
ignoring or editing my points or attempts to censor me, does not
defeat my point-of-view.....
I appreciate his ignorance of my points though.... Sometimes <G>
G
David McLoughlin
Graham Howell wrote:
>
> Being someone who has only listened to his elders, and read books of
> pre-1890 society (rich v poor) and the lazy fear system that
> existed then, and the radical changes of William Pember Reeves
> (1890-93) and then the first Labour Govt (particulalrly 1935-39), I
> can only hope for further progress is seen as different from
> a return to the industrial system which existed before 1890, the
> trade systems pre-1890, the financial systems which existed
> pre-1890.
And I would add, the economic system and political culture which existed
pre-July 1984.
Graham, nobody wants to return to the past except the Alliance. As time
travel has not yet been perfected on this planet, that will not happen.
The only way forward is forward. So stop worrying!
DAVID McLOUGHLIN
Auckland New Zealand
Email dav...@iprolink.co.nz
Graham Howell
In article <5maf4d$d...@news.express.co.nz>, REMOVESPAM ("davemcl"@iprolink.(REMOVESPAM)co.nz) writes:
>Graham Howell wrote:
>
>>
>> Being someone who has only listened to his elders, and read books of
>> pre-1890 society (rich v poor) and the lazy fear system that
>> existed then, and the radical changes of William Pember Reeves
>> (1890-93) and then the first Labour Govt (particulalrly 1935-39), I
>> can only hope for further progress is seen as different from
>> a return to the industrial system which existed before 1890, the
>> trade systems pre-1890, the financial systems which existed
>> pre-1890.
>
>And I would add, the economic system and political culture which existed
>pre-July 1984.
>
Ho hum, I listened well and godd since July 1984. I have not
claimed it was well and good in June 1984, but I have claimed
certain - large number actually - negative changes we as NZers have
suffered since July-1984.
>Graham, nobody wants to return to the past except the Alliance. As time
>travel has not yet been perfected on this planet, that will not happen.
Some of the differences between 1997 and 1887
1 Relatively free secondary eduction
2 More tertiary education opportunities
(hardly relatively free though)
3 A broad tax-funded public health system
4 reasonably sound, but regressing ACC system
5 Massive technical advances
6 State provided Old Aged pensions
Some similarities
1 Drive to so-called free trade
2 Financial deregulation
3 Industrial legislation
4 Hours worked by those in paid employment
5 Levels of realative poverty (health statistics etc)
6 Relative gaps between rich and poor
Some trends from those who believe the similarities are somehow not
returning to the past
1 Ditching the ACC
2 Ditching the Employment Court
3 No work, no dole
4 No state provided aged pensions
5 Ditching the Holidays Act (working 365 days a year without
extra pay) - this is even a regression on 1887, because at
least most paid workers had time off on Sundays
6 Further removal on trade and investment barriers
My ideas for the future
1 An adequate social wage
eg better public health, education, transport, housing
2 Univeral Basic Income
3 Re-think of work, beyond the Protestant paid work ethic
4 Machines doing the hard graft, both physical and boring
jobs.
5 People not having to work all God's hours to earn their
crust of bread
6 Sustainable use of this world's and others resources
To be blunt, I cannot see the market providing all of my six points.
>The only way forward is forward.
I agree whole-heartedly with the above.
> So stop worrying!
Sure, sure.
Graham