The Poor Are Getting Poorer.
Janice
growth throughout most of the world.
The official data for the last two decades (1980-2000) tells a different story.
Economic growth has slowed dramatically, especially in the less developed
countries, as compared with the previous two decades (1960-1980). :
Check the figures. The poor countries are getting poorer.
http://www.cepr.net/IMF/Emperor_Table_2.htm
Janice
Mr Scebe
"Janice" <Jani...@free.net.nz> wrote in message
news:977306723.238356@news...
> Economic growth has slowed dramatically, especially in the less developed
> countries, as compared with the previous two decades (1960-1980). :
>
> Check the figures. The poor countries are getting poorer.
>
> http://www.cepr.net/IMF/Emperor_Table_2.htm
>
OK. I checked your figures and once again you are WRONG. Lets take Korea (at
the top of the list) as an example.
The percentage increase 60-80 was 6.3% From 80-00 it was 6.1%. According to
your daft mate they have gone backwards. But the increases are harder to
sustain in % terms. Apart from the 'fact' that they have used US$ in one
column and $K in another (allowing for distortion based on currency
fluctuations), the pure $US calculation has seen an increase of 281% in the
80-00 period, well ahead of the 242% from 60-80. And that is from a higher
base.
I will put it into monosyllabics, so that you can see the error of your ways
(we live in hope :))
If you have a per capita GDP of $100 and it increases by 100% you then have
GDP of $200. In the next year, in order to have a 100% GDP increase it has
to rise by $200, not the $100 previously. You only require a 50% GDP (gross)
increase to get the same increase from the previous period.
Once again your own figures damn your argument.
--
Mr Scebe
~ "The nature of monkey was irrepressible".
Kurious Oranj
a 5% growth?
Janice
Kurious Oranj wrote in message ...
:
:"Janice" <Jani...@free.net.nz> wrote in message
No. You would have to ask the IMF. However this is the article attached
to that table. You may find your answer here.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/globaliz/econ/growth.htm
Janice
:
Kurious Oranj
From your figures, the Cape Verde Islands had a GDP of 469 in 1960 and grew
99% in the years 1960-1980 and 25% between 1980 and 2000. Meanwhile,
Venezuala had a GDP of 6338 in 1960 and grew only 17% in the years 1960-1980
and dropped -18% in the years 1980 to 2000.
Ethiopia started out at 257 and grew 25% and 3% even though it managed civil
war for many years. Meanwhile Uraguay (from the first page) managed 25%
and -7%.
From the second page which you quoted, there is no correlation, although I
agree that when you compare page 1 with page 2, the figures are generally
that poorer countries have got poorer. Although there are considerable
exceptions. Korea, Seychelles, Malaysia, Botswana, Tunisia, Egypt, Indonesia
and Pakistan all appear to have grown their economies faster than the UK.
They may still be poorer in terms of GDP (although remember that a great
deal of expenditure is related to income), but they are actually catching up
the UK.
Ask yourself this question: Why is Malaysia ahead of Jamaica, Columbia, Peru
and most of the rest of the table, when it started below them. Somehow
Malaysia managed it. I'd suggest looking into the root causes of this
instead. Much more helpful to poor countries who are suffering to look to
good examples of growth and ask how they did it than simply say 'It is the
fault of the bastard western nations'. Maybe Malaysia had less corrupt polit
icians than Jamaica or Columbia. Maybe the population doesn't spend all day
stuffing marching powder up its noses and buckles down and gets some work
done. Singapore is now above Britain, even though it was virtually on a par
with Algeria and way below Iran in 1960.
I don't know what the reason is, but I'd suggest bad government. Now, this
could be down to people like the CIA putting 'their man' into certain
countries, but to simply say that 'the poor are getting poorer' is
simplistic.
Kurious Oranj
Nope, nothing about Brazil at all. So, a percentage of growth is quoted but
the base figures are not.
Valentine Michael Smith
wrote:
Check the politics, the poorest countires have socialist and/or highly
authoritarian governments. If you people to get the money, then get
government off their backs and let the free economy make them rich.
P.S. the chart is full of errors.
**********************
n' keep it in yur mind and not ferget
that it is not he or she or them or it
that you belong to
Robert Zimmerman
Janice
Kurious Oranj wrote in message ...
:
:news:977306723.238356@news...
:> It has generally been assumed that globalization has helped spur economic
:> growth throughout most of the world.
:>
:> The official data for the last two decades (1980-2000) tells a different
:story.
:>
:> Economic growth has slowed dramatically, especially in the less developed
:> countries, as compared with the previous two decades (1960-1980). :
:>
:> Check the figures. The poor countries are getting poorer.
:>
:> http://www.cepr.net/IMF/Emperor_Table_2.htm
:>
:> Janice
:>
:>
:On what basis from your figures do you make such an assertion?
Their adoption of IMF and World Bank Reforms.
From the Appendix
The Impact of Lost Growth on Less Developed Countries: How Sixty-One Countries Lost
$2 Trillion in 1999 Alone
Many people have difficulty grasping at first the enormity of what people in
developing countries have lost due to reduced economic growth during the era of
globalization.
To further illustrate these impacts, we chose 61 developing countries that lost
growth during the period, and calculated the dollar value of the lost economic
growth. The result of this calculation can be seen in the column “GDP loss, 1999,
$1000s” of Table 2. Taken together, these 61 countries lost roughly $2 trillion in
output in 1999 alone due to lost economic growth in the last two decades.
Of course, if we consider what was lost over the whole period, the story is even
grimmer. If we examine the column “Lost output 1980-1999, as share of 1980 output,”
we see that these countries lost many times the level of their 1980 output. The 1980s
have been referred to as the “lost decade” in Latin America and Africa in terms of
economic growth. This is illustrated in the following column. Brazil lost 11 times
its 1980 output. It’s as if everyone in Brazil stopped working for 11 years, in terms
of what happened to the country’s output. Collectively, these countries lost 353
years of economic activity in terms of their 1980 output.
These countries collectively lost almost $15 trillion dollars in economic output
over the period 1980-1999, compared to what they would have had if they maintained
their previous rates of growth, as shown in the column “Lost output 1980-1999,
$Billions (1999 dollars).”
By comparison, the total international debt of the 52 poor countries identified by
Jubilee 2000 as urgently needing debt cancellation is $376 billion. This is less than
one-fifth of the value of lost output for these developing countries in 1999, and a
mere 3% of the value of their lost output over the last two decades.
Thus, if these lost dollars were available to developing countries today, they could
pay off all the debts of the poorest countries immediately and still have $14
trillion dollars left over.
The Jubilee 2000 campaign for cancellation of Third World debt frequently cites the
UN estimate that the lives of seven million children a year could be spared if
developing countries made investments in health care and education with the money now
being diverted to debt service.
Thus, if money from forgone growth were available to poor countries today, they
could easily pay off their debts, and make the investments in health care and
education that Jubilee 2000 and the UN are calling for.
Seven million children a year would certainly be a very conservative estimate of the
number of children whose lives could be spared.
:From the second page which you quoted, there is no correlation, although I
:agree that when you compare page 1 with page 2, the figures are generally
:that poorer countries have got poorer. Although there are considerable
:exceptions. Korea, Seychelles, Malaysia, Botswana, Tunisia, Egypt, Indonesia
:and Pakistan all appear to have grown their economies faster than the UK.
More room for growth probably but how much better could they have performed?
:They may still be poorer in terms of GDP (although remember that a great
:deal of expenditure is related to income), but they are actually catching up
:the UK.
They may well have exceeded the UK but then perhaps the UK may have
grown more without neoliberalism and Thatcherism.
:
:Ask yourself this question: Why is Malaysia ahead of Jamaica, Columbia, Peru
:and most of the rest of the table, when it started below them.
Perhaps because Mahathir insisted on restoring Capital Controls in
direct opposition to the IMF and the Al Gore? They were openly
threatened and had a set to at APEC, but the IMF economist Paul
Krugman had advised Mahathir to do this after the Asian crash and
he stuck to it. Obviously he was correct to do so.
Somehow Malaysia managed it.
I'd suggest looking into the root causes of this instead.
I think that is what I am in fact doing. :-)
Much more helpful to poor countries who are suffering to look to
:good examples of growth and ask how they did it than simply say 'It is the
:fault of the bastard western nations'.
I dont think this is the problem. I just wonder how much better they would have
done without the interference of globlalisation? NZ is said to have performed
poorly under IMF influence and even the IMF claimed our growth rate would
have been higher while exorting us to become even more experimental than
we already are. We are the most deregulated economy in the world. We
started at about 8th in the OECD and now we are languishing on the bottom.
I dont think we can blame the people overmuch but the reforms themselves.
Maybe Malaysia had less corrupt polit:icians than Jamaica or Columbia.
Maybe the population doesn't spend all day :stuffing marching powder up its
noses and buckles down and gets some work:done.
You are blaming the population for policies adopted?
Singapore is now above Britain, even though it was virtually on a par
:with Algeria and way below Iran in 1960.
:I don't know what the reason is, but I'd suggest bad government. Now, this
:could be down to people like the CIA putting 'their man' into certain
:countries, but to simply say that 'the poor are getting poorer' is:simplistic.
Maybe but the point is that these countries appear to be 15 trillion
dollars worse off than if they had not had these reforms imposed on
them in the first place.
Anyway I am not so sure I even accept the variations in GDP. Cultures
have different variables which cannot be measure equally. For example
Singaporians are expected to look after an elderly parent while in the
UK this is not the case. Some of these countries have volunteer services
others do not. Some have welfare others do not. How can we measure
for equality when they are so many differences. Some have oil and other
resources, some have nothing. Some have big corporate development
loans while others do not. I am not even sure that growth is such a great
thing when we cant even achieve sustainability. for our own survival.
Ghandi said "there is enough for everyones need but not enough for
everyones greed. "
Imagine one billion starving while 360 trillionaires own more than the
combined wealth of 90% of the rest.
What a crazy system!
God gave the fruits of the earth for all to flourish- not just a few in
unimaginable luxury while so many live in unimaginable squalor.
Janice:
:
:
:
Kurious Oranj
the period 80-00 than in the period 60-80. So, on that basis, everyone gets
poorer or less rich. Hardly 'The Poor are getting poorer'.
> More room for growth probably but how much better could they have
performed?
>
I don't know, and in terms of the 'Poor are Getting Poorer' theory,
irrelevant. If GDP is the measure of wealth improvement (your data suggests
that you believe this) then if their economy grows at a higher percentage
than that of the UK, then their GDP as a percentage of the UK's GDP gets
higher. And on that basis, they are catching up with the wealth of the UK.
> They may well have exceeded the UK but then perhaps the UK may have
> grown more without neoliberalism and Thatcherism.
> :
I don't know, and nor do you. But they weren't far off Sweden, the USA or
Switzerland, all of which have very diverse economic systems. And
considering that the UK was one of the most powerful countries in the world
in the years up to the early 60s, and probably beyond its real size (with an
empire etc), I doubt it could have got much bigger.
> :Ask yourself this question: Why is Malaysia ahead of Jamaica, Columbia,
Peru
> :and most of the rest of the table, when it started below them.
>
> Perhaps because Mahathir insisted on restoring Capital Controls in
> direct opposition to the IMF and the Al Gore? They were openly
> threatened and had a set to at APEC, but the IMF economist Paul
> Krugman had advised Mahathir to do this after the Asian crash and
> he stuck to it. Obviously he was correct to do so.
>
Sorry, don't quite follow that, but whatever he did, it worked and maybe it
provides some lessons to other countries.
> I dont think this is the problem. I just wonder how much better they
would have
> done without the interference of globlalisation? NZ is said to have
performed
> poorly under IMF influence and even the IMF claimed our growth rate would
> have been higher while exorting us to become even more experimental than
> we already are. We are the most deregulated economy in the world. We
> started at about 8th in the OECD and now we are languishing on the bottom.
> I dont think we can blame the people overmuch but the reforms themselves.
I don't know how much better they would have performed, but I thought that
the debate here was one of relative values. Some countries managed to do
very well, others did not. All are under the influence of global markets.
>
> Maybe Malaysia had less corrupt polit:icians than Jamaica or Columbia.
> Maybe the population doesn't spend all day :stuffing marching powder up
its
> noses and buckles down and gets some work:done.
>
> You are blaming the population for policies adopted?
>
In a democracy, yes. In a dictatorship, no. BTW The 'marching powder' bit
was a joke. My point was that I don't know why Malaysia did better than
Jamaica or Columbia. But they did do better, and they are subject to the
forces of globalisation. Which suggests that globalisation is not the issue.
> Singapore is now above Britain, even though it was virtually on a par
> :with Algeria and way below Iran in 1960.
> :I don't know what the reason is, but I'd suggest bad government. Now,
this
> :could be down to people like the CIA putting 'their man' into certain
> :countries, but to simply say that 'the poor are getting poorer'
is:simplistic.
>
> Maybe but the point is that these countries appear to be 15 trillion
> dollars worse off than if they had not had these reforms imposed on
> them in the first place.
>
Having not read the complete article, I didn't see this and how do you get
$15 trillion?
> Anyway I am not so sure I even accept the variations in GDP. Cultures
> have different variables which cannot be measure equally. For example
> Singaporians are expected to look after an elderly parent while in the
> UK this is not the case. Some of these countries have volunteer services
> others do not. Some have welfare others do not. How can we measure
> for equality when they are so many differences. Some have oil and other
> resources, some have nothing. Some have big corporate development
> loans while others do not. I am not even sure that growth is such a great
> thing when we cant even achieve sustainability. for our own survival.
> Ghandi said "there is enough for everyones need but not enough for
> everyones greed. "
>
Well, it weren't me that suggested GDP was the best indicator :-)!
> Imagine one billion starving while 360 trillionaires own more than the
> combined wealth of 90% of the rest.
>
> What a crazy system!
>
> God gave the fruits of the earth for all to flourish- not just a few in
> unimaginable luxury while so many live in unimaginable squalor.
>
How utterly simplistic.
Don't you think rich people spend some of their money? And yes, Larry
Ellison buys yachts and sharp suits. They also probably buy chocolate. That
chocolate uses cocoa which grown and harvested by workers in some of the
poorest parts of the world. Therefore there is a flow of money from rich to
poor. Without that person buying the bar of chocolate, there would be no
work for the cocoa grower in the poor country, except for within their
internal economy. That cocoa will keep that man fed and with a roof over his
head.
Most of the workers at Microsoft or Oracle buy chocolate from time to time,
as does the tailor of the sharp suit and the boat builder. So, Mr Ellison is
employing people and paying the wages of people who buy products from poorer
countries, and therefore through trade, indirectly giving money to the
poorest people in the world.
JNugent
> It has generally been assumed that globalization has helped spur economic
> growth throughout most of the world.
> The official data for the last two decades (1980-2000) tells a different
story.
> Economic growth has slowed dramatically, especially in the less developed
> countries, as compared with the previous two decades (1960-1980). :
> Check the figures. The poor countries are getting poorer.
Do you mean that literally, or do you just mean that their economies haven't
grown as fast certain others?
John Sefton
JNugent <JNu...@AC30.spamFreeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:91r4ag$3l$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
The latter of course. This whole "poor getting poorer" diatribe is based on
selective interpretation of facts. When, instead of measuring poor against
rich and you compare apples with apples, ie, the poor against themselves 10,
20, 30 years ago, using standard of living as the indicator, then it becomes
clear that the poor are getting richer too.
Sunny Jim
wrote:
>It has generally been assumed that globalization has helped spur economic
>growth throughout most of the world.
>
>The official data for the last two decades (1980-2000) tells a different story.
>
>Economic growth has slowed dramatically, especially in the less developed
>countries, as compared with the previous two decades (1960-1980). :
>
>Check the figures. The poor countries are getting poorer.
Time to change from socialist to something more liberal, eh Janice?
They have only the chains of corrupt, socialist, crony
neo-colonialism to lose. Go give them a hand.
>
>http://www.cepr.net/IMF/Emperor_Table_2.htm
>
>Janice
>
>
Cliff Morrison
<jse...@cyberelectric.net.au> wrote:
So not content with just marginalising and dumping them, the
capital-cultist economic System now seeks to detach their plight from the
fatcat ripoff economic realm altogether and pit them against each other
even in competitive poverty (with of course the inevitable
system-sycophant pollywhores cooked criteria).
Bleedin typical, that.
John Sefton
Cliff Morrison <cli...@post.almac.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cliffm-2012...@th-gt142-196.pool.dircon.co.uk...
Oh bullshit, Cliff! You surprise me: I had higher views of you than as just
a nasty troll! The intent of my post is obvious: when the living standards
of the poor now is measured "against" (is this the term which automatically
rings the "pitted against" alarm bell in your mind?) the living standards of
the poor in the past, then it becomes apparent that the poor are better off
than they were - I know, I'm one of them!
John Sefton
Sunny Jim <sunnyj...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:3a413584...@news1.gvcl1.bc.home.com...
Actually the assertion that poor countries are getting poorer isn't exactly
true, either. The Gambia, for example has per capita GDP (in $US) four times
what it was 10 years ago. Life expectancy (a damned good gauge of living
standards : ten years longer than it was 10 years ago.
Cliff Morrison
<jse...@cyberelectric.net.au> wrote:
(-: naaaa... having a go at them, not you!
> The intent of my post is obvious: when the living standards
> of the poor now is measured "against" (is this the term which automatically
> rings the "pitted against" alarm bell in your mind?) the living standards of
> the poor in the past, then it becomes apparent that the poor are better off
> than they were - I know, I'm one of them!
So how do you compare different eras with differing technologies and norms...
What about the two incomes nopw needed where once one did situation?
And what would you make of the (in the UK anyway, and doubtless all others
if the IMF gets its way) present moves by so-called global leaders towards
a yankee type neo-victorian laissez faire setup of systemic poverty and --
no other descriptive for it -- preparing to write off huge chunks of their
countrys population?
Cliff Morrison
In article <91rd2u$p1q$1...@merki.connect.com.au>, "John Sefton"
<jse...@cyberelectric.net.au> wrote:
(-: naaaa... having a go at them, not you!
> The intent of my post is obvious: when the living standards
> of the poor now is measured "against" (is this the term which automatically
> rings the "pitted against" alarm bell in your mind?) the living standards of
> the poor in the past, then it becomes apparent that the poor are better off
> than they were - I know, I'm one of them!
So how do you compare different eras with differing technologies and norms...
What about the two incomes now needed where once one did situation?
Janice
Cliff Morrison wrote in message ...
:
:So how do you compare different eras with differing technologies and norms...
:What about the two incomes now needed where once one did situation?
:And what would you make of the (in the UK anyway, and doubtless all others
:if the IMF gets its way) present moves by so-called global leaders towards
:a yankee type neo-victorian laissez faire setup of systemic poverty and --
:no other descriptive for it -- preparing to write off huge chunks of their
:countrys population?
O' absolutely Cliff. As former Prime Minister David Lange remarked on
New Zealand National Radio, November 18, when the next big economic
crisis hits New Zealand, there will be a rightist political and social restructuring
that will cause the "revolution" of the nineteen eighties to pale into
insignificance.
" It may be too late to seek to avert this prospect through any kind of political
action,
and the most sensible course of action now left to New Zealanders who do not
subscribe to the doctrines of the extreme right may be to take appropriate steps
to provide for their personal survival in the impending crisis."
[ NZ. 2001 Prognosis- Dec. 2000]
That economic crisis has been anticipated to hit in the second quarter of 2001
before Silvia Cartwright takes over as Governor General. 4 members of govt.
can walk and this combined with a massive attack on the govt.by the extreme right,
a constitutional crisis is to be anticipated. The anti-govt. Hardy Boyes can bring
down
the NZ Labour/ Alliance Government. Every Liberal, Democrat, and Socialist in this
country must be prepared for the eventuality of the proto- fascists regaining power
and proceeding with an extremely ugly NZ Experiment, with their foot flat to the
floorboards.
Janice
Janice
Sunny Jim wrote in message <3a413584...@news1.gvcl1.bc.home.com>...
:On Wed, 20 Dec 2000 22:58:52 +1300, "Janice" <Jani...@free.net.nz>
:wrote:
:
:>It has generally been assumed that globalization has helped spur economic
:>growth throughout most of the world.
:>
:>The official data for the last two decades (1980-2000) tells a different story.
:>
:>Economic growth has slowed dramatically, especially in the less developed
:>countries, as compared with the previous two decades (1960-1980). :
:>
:>Check the figures. The poor countries are getting poorer.
:
:
:Time to change from socialist to something more liberal, eh Janice?
O' right, I shall at once cast off my humanity and jump into bed with
the evil, looting fascists.
Do you reckon I could make a good Kapo, or a quisling snout ?
Naahhh. It just doesn't fit. I would rather face a firing squad at dawn,
dignified and defiant with my fellows , than live corrupt and filthied.
:-)
Janice
Daniel Silva
> That economic crisis has been anticipated to hit in the second quarter of
2001
> before Silvia Cartwright takes over as Governor General. 4 members of
govt.
> can walk and this combined with a massive attack on the govt.by the
extreme right,
> a constitutional crisis is to be anticipated. The anti-govt. Hardy Boyes
can bring
> down
> the NZ Labour/ Alliance Government. Every Liberal, Democrat, and
Socialist in this
> country must be prepared for the eventuality of the proto- fascists
regaining power
> and proceeding with an extremely ugly NZ Experiment, with their foot
flat to the
> floorboards.
Shit. Sprung by Janice!
Daniel Silva
> Sunny Jim wrote:
> :Time to change from socialist to something more liberal, eh Janice?
>
> O' right, I shall at once cast off my humanity and jump into bed with
> the evil, looting fascists.
What makes you think you are welcome in our bed?
Janice
Daniel Silva wrote in message ...
:Janice <Jani...@free.net.nz> wrote in message news:977363160.431761@news...
I dont have to tell you about all my offers - and who would want
to get into bed with you lot, snoring, farting and being generally
unsavoury.
I chose my own bed and I will lie in it--by myself.
Janice
:
Harvey Boldt
Janice <Jani...@free.net.nz> wrote in message news:977306723.238356@news...
> Economic growth did wonders for the wealthy investor but myself and
millions of others
are still chopping wood and hauling water for wealthy
corporations---Harv-------------
John Cawston
The Black Helicopters are coming...
JC
cst9...@camosun.bc.ca
some sort of civil war started by communist rebels. I guess the fall of
the Soviet Union really hurt them. Hopefully globalization and
capitalism will help them.
In article <977306723.238356@news>,
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
RK
wrote:
Gosh, that solid secondary education and subsequent tertiary qualification of
yours sure didn't pan out too well where you live!
Raymond Kemp
You do not.
RK
But...whats that foot pump doing under the bed Janice?
Oh my..whats that...oh, dear.
Kurious Oranj
"Harvey Boldt" <hgb...@sprint.ca> wrote in message
news:wXf06.7009$bv3....@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
But you are sufficiently poorly educated to reply to a newsgroup with
obvious skills in using a PC and news reader software.
Janice
John Cawston wrote in message <3A41987B...@ihug.co.nz>...
:
:The Black Helicopters are coming...
Its only an economic crisis, John. Money is the easiest thing in the world
to demonstrate.
:
Janice
Janice
Kurious Oranj wrote in message ...
:
:> millions of others
:> are still chopping wood and hauling water for wealthy
:> corporations---Harv-------------
:>
:>
:
:But you are sufficiently poorly educated to reply to a newsgroup with
:obvious skills in using a PC and news reader software.
I think he was being metaphorical. And of course he is perfectly correct.
Have you seen these two excellect online books about the super wealthy?
Anthropological study of the super wealthy is very enlightening. So few
people think of this, yet it it reveals much about the way the world is run.
These books are both slightly old but then so is the bible.
[ cut and paste the last bit of the url in because it doesnt fit on one line]
THE RICH AND THE SUPER-RICH
A Study in the Power of Money Today
Note: This enormous (and enormously important) book is "under construction." As
each chapter is finished, it will be added. (22 August 2000)
http://www.soilandhealth.org/03sovereigntylibrary/0303%20soccriticismlibrary/03030
4lundberg/030304toc.html
The second book is called:
Feudalism Alias American Capitalism.
http://users.uniserve.com/~synergy/toc2.htm
Regards
Janice
:
:
:
matth...@my-deja.com
"Janice" <Jani...@free.net.nz> wrote:
> It has generally been assumed that globalization has helped spur
>economic growth throughout most of the world.
>
> The official data for the last two decades (1980-2000) tells a
>different story.
No it doesn't. And the tables you quote show nothing more than that
expensive oil has slowed growth (among other things).
cheers
matt
Kurious Oranj
I'm not going to go and buy two books espousing an argument that I've seen
little concrete evidence of.
As I said in a previous post, the superwealthy are actually mostly the
owners of non-monopalistic companies around the world which employ many
people. Larry Ellison made Oracle the company he did, from hard work and
identifying a requirement in the database software market. He didn't inherit
that wealth.
Furthermore that company employs people in the USA and around the globe. The
UK employees of those companies buy products like chilean wine. When someone
buys chilean wine, they are paying the shop where they buy it, who pay for
shipping, distribution, bottling etc. They also pay a wine producer in
Chile, who pays the workers on that winery. The wealth is circulated around
the world.
It is trade which keeps the world flowing, and that relies on a capitalist
system. And Capitalism does cause problems of wealth divide. And if as a
result of this a few people get mega-rich, and you don't like that, then do
what I do and make a personal choice to buy small and local.
Tim
Steve Wrathall
by the poor. Hang on Janice, you support these policies , don't you?
Auditor-General Repeats Student Loan Debt Warning
Thursday 21st Dec 2000
Stephen Franks
Media Release -- Education
The Auditor-General’s Report released yesterday includes a worrying and very
strong repetition of its landmark warnings given in June this year, that
student loan debt is increasing rapidly and the government is not getting
information on “intended and unintended socio-economic outcomes, said ACT
Tertiary education spokesman Stephen Franks.
“The June report was on the Auditor-General’s own initiative. These are
uncommon steps. Behind the formal Auditor’s language there are strident alarm
bells, yet the government is doing nothing about the Auditor-General’s concern.
In the pre-Christmas legislative rush the Student Loan Amendment Bill
implemented the “interest free” election bribe policy.
“But there was nothing in that Bill to deal with the Auditor-General’s
concerns. Hundreds of millions extra is going out on student loans. It should
have been going to the education disaster areas, the bottom third of our
primary and secondary students. Of course most of this new money has gone to
students who last year borrowed less or didn’t borrow at all, because they came
from well off families, or were able to get by through holiday savings and the
like.
“This is desperately sad. The lessons for our most promising young people are
all wrong. As a country we have borrowed to keep up our living standards for
the last forty years. Now the Government is happy to erode the integrity and
self reliance of even those best able to look after themselves. Students are
now mugs if they don’t take the money.
“And the worst of Mr Maharey’s little vote catching scheme is still to come.
The Bill passed did nothing to improve arrangements for collecting loans when
graduates are overseas. The scheme is therefore a giant ejector seat, a
permanent emigration subsidy for our most promising people, at the expense of
ordinary New Zealand working families who pay tax.
“Financially sophisticated students will have noticed the ‘doubts’ about the
true value of the Government’s student loan ‘asset’ from both the
Auditor-General and Finance Minister Cullen. These signal that it might be
written off some day. That prospect could make mugs out of any student and
family that fails to borrow under the scheme.
“The message to young New Zealanders who are not sucking on the Government for
their start in business, is - start clamouring for it. Why shouldn’t they
demand that the Government lend them the money for their first farm or their
first courier van. The Government has bought the votes of young professionals
by paying for their career asset, their qualifications.
“If Labour had been concerned about education values instead votes, the extra
hundreds of millions now pouring out as student loans would have been dedicated
to real education needs, like offering meaningful bursaries based on merit
(exam success) or improving woeful science and maths standards or raising
academic salaries and conditions, and maintaining rigorous standards instead of
allowing our qualifications to be dumbed down,” said Stephen Franks.
For more information visit ACT online at http://www.act.org.nz or contact the
ACT Parliamentary Office at a...@parliament.govt.nz.
John Sefton
Kurious Oranj <x...@x.x.x> wrote in message
news:W3m06.89521$R77.6...@nnrp4.clara.net...
He taps the keyboard with the end of his axe handle. :^)
Steve Frazer
news:3A425D25...@ISEEYOUBABYhotmail.com...
> "The message to young New Zealanders who are not sucking on the
Government for
So this actually has nothing to do with UK or Canadian politics
whatsoever........
--
Steve
"The Only Thing Worse Than IGNORANCE Is Acting On It"
http://members.xoom.com/steve_frazer/
Janice
Kurious Oranj wrote in message ...
:> THE RICH AND THE SUPER-RICH
:> A Study in the Power of Money Today
:>
:> Note: This enormous (and enormously important) book is "under
:construction." As
:> each chapter is finished, it will be added. (22 August 2000)
:>
:http://www.soilandhealth.org/03sovereigntylibrary/0303%20soccriticismlibrary
:/03030
:> 4lundberg/030304toc.html
:>
:> The second book is called:
:>
:> Feudalism Alias American Capitalism.
:> http://users.uniserve.com/~synergy/toc2.htm
:>
:> Regards
:>
:> Janice
:>
:Janice,
:
:I'm not going to go and buy two books espousing an argument that I've seen
:little concrete evidence of.
NO, I think you have this all wrong. The books are available for you to
read online. In fact they even may have facilities to download them so
you may print them out and enjoy them over the Xmas Break.
The author of the first book Frederick Lundberg, wrote a best seller
in 1937 called America's 60 Families. 30 years later armed with a
great deal more information he wrote The Super- Rich. Actually I
have just been talking to a friend in Investments who tells me there
is a video out, derived from this same book which corporations like
to show their staff for orientation purposes. How sensible. Whats the
point in going round semi-conscious
:As I said in a previous post, the superwealthy are actually mostly the
:owners of non-monopalistic companies around the world which employ many
:people.
Oh really? You have much to learn about the world apparently.:-) Perhaps
we could try and get you a copy of the video so you are 'up with the play'
Larry Ellison made Oracle the company he did, from hard work and
:identifying a requirement in the database software market. He didn't inherit
:that wealth.
. IT is more recent of course, and obviously is not the same
although Bill Gates did have the good sense to be born to a wealthy
Washington family with connections to IBM and to Congress. But the mere
fact that Gates has been subjected to anti-trust suits would indicate that
he is outside the power broker clique which rules congress and therefore
the world. The real old money comes from the original swashbuckling
Lords of Oil- the petro chemical, agribiz, pharmaceutical,armaments
and banking empires and all their subsidiaries. These are the people
who bought themselves the economic revolution which we call
globalisation.
:Furthermore that company employs people in the US
A and around the globe.
Yes, I do see your point, but the point you miss is not just to have
money it is to have the power.
:It is trade which keeps the world flowing,
Certainly, trade which is desired is fair trade not free trade
which is a misnomer.
and that relies on a capitalist
:system.
Trade has always taken place and does not necessarily rely on
capitalism.
:
:Tim
:
:
Tribeless
greedy socialists.
debarcle and mummy hobbs must go.
Janice
Steve Wrathall wrote in message <3A425D25...@ISEEYOUBABYhotmail.com>...
:...and the already well-off are getting their future earning potential subsidised
:by the poor.
My party campaigned on the alarming brain drain caused by young
educated people fleeing NZ to avoid massive debt, while Prebble
and Kerr claimed we were making the brain drain up. Now that
the topic is politically fashionable, Kerr and Prebble have transformed
themselves into the solicitious brain drainers.but have found all sorts
of other fictitious reasons for the flight effect.
We also campaigned on the inevitability of professional fees being
increased beyond the reach of the average New Zealander, thanks to
massive student debt repayment.
We campaigned on Free Education. Paid for by taxpayers, for the
benefit of taxpayers.
Its a pity you cant drag yourself away from the little blue book of ideology
to think through a few of these problems yourself Steve. But then working
in a tax payer subsidised job yourself ...must give you the edge on the
subject.
Janice
Don't give up your day job Steve.
Janice
Janice
Steve Frazer wrote in message <91u5ol$5ehq9$1...@ID-19581.news.dfncis.de>...
:Steve Wrathall <wrat...@ISEEYOUBABYhotmail.com> wrote in message
:news:3A425D25...@ISEEYOUBABYhotmail.com...
:> "The message to young New Zealanders who are not sucking on the
:Government for
:
:So this actually has nothing to do with UK or Canadian politics
:whatsoever........
Yes, please excuse the ideologically bent.:-) The subject was originally
IMF policies affecting growth rates in 61 countries which pertains to
all nation-states who have to deal with IMF directives and legislate in
compliance to them.
Hopefully Mr Wrathall will try to be less parochial in the future in
international subject threads. . :-)
Janice
________
Steve Wrathall
Janice wrote:
> Steve Wrathall wrote in message <3A425D25...@ISEEYOUBABYhotmail.com>...
>
> :...and the already well-off are getting their future earning potential subsidised
> :by the poor.
>
> My party campaigned on the alarming brain drain caused by young
> educated people fleeing NZ to avoid massive debt,
...to countries that charge even more for tertiary education. Then how do you explain
that emigration has increased under the LAG?
>
> We also campaigned on the inevitability of professional fees being
> increased beyond the reach of the average New Zealander, thanks to
> massive student debt repayment.
So now we all have to pay for an architect, but may never even get a garden shed out
of them? How fair is that?
Besides which, if you subscribe to this "trickle down" effect, then you must also
believe that your 39% envy tax must also be passed straight onto the average New
Zealander.
> We campaigned on Free Education. Paid for by taxpayers, for the
> benefit of taxpayers.
Please post the names and addresses of these Lawyers , architects, engineers, business
analysts, dentists etc who are now giving their services free to the taxpayer.
> Its a pity you cant drag yourself away from the little blue book of ideology
> to think through a few of these problems yourself Steve. But then working
> in a tax payer subsidised job yourself ...must give you the edge on the
> subject.
My job is funded by contract income from commercial clients. The Crown-owned nature of
the entity I work for is simply an historical artifact that will some day be
rectifiesd when the NZ taxpayer decides that they have no business funding the
business expenses of a few sectors, but not others.
--
----------------
Support the petition on Shared Parenting:
http://www.xoasis.com/~sharedparents/
---------------
Bob Howard
>
> We campaigned on Free Education. Paid for by taxpayers, for the
> benefit of taxpayers.
You know Janice if the government hadn't had to pay you for so long to sit
at home perhaps one student could have had a free education.
Bob Howard.
Peter Wilson
based on a flawed model.
It is naive and simplistic to think that deregulating everything and selling
everything off will fix the problem.
It didn't and now Labour and the Alliance are being left to clear up the
mess. It's something they seem to be doing remarkably well at too.
--
Peter Wilson
wil...@es.co.nz
Janice <Jani...@free.net.nz> wrote in message news:977458460.364070@news...
>
matth...@my-deja.com
"Janice" <Jani...@free.net.nz> wrote:
> We campaigned on Free Education. Paid for by taxpayers, for the
> benefit of taxpayers.
'Taxpayers' are not one group of people
> Its a pity you cant drag yourself away from the little blue book of
>ideology to think through a few of these problems yourself Steve. But
>then working in a tax payer subsidised job yourself ...must give you
>the edge on the subject.
>
> Janice
>
> Don't give up your day job Steve.
Needing a little Xmas spirit?
John Cawston
>
> The problem with the recent idealogy in New Zealand is because it has been
> based on a flawed model.
> It is naive and simplistic to think that deregulating everything and selling
> everything off will fix the problem.
It did. NZ rocketed up the chart of the Human Development
Index from 15th to 9th and left Oz, UK and various
Scandinavian countries in it's wake.
> It didn't and now Labour and the Alliance are being left to clear up the
> mess. It's something they seem to be doing remarkably well at too.
I suppose. But now we all pay more and the poor need more
resources from the food banks.
JC
Kurious Oranj
debate subjects here. However, I may just make an exception. Remember too
that Mein Kampf was a big seller in Germany in the 1930s, so would that be a
good book to read too?
> :As I said in a previous post, the superwealthy are actually mostly the
> :owners of non-monopalistic companies around the world which employ many
> :people.
>
> Oh really? You have much to learn about the world apparently.:-) Perhaps
> we could try and get you a copy of the video so you are 'up with the play'
>
Depends when the video was made. Was it in the last 5 years?
>
> Larry Ellison made Oracle the company he did, from hard work and
> :identifying a requirement in the database software market. He didn't
inherit
> :that wealth.
>
> . IT is more recent of course, and obviously is not the same
> although Bill Gates did have the good sense to be born to a wealthy
> Washington family with connections to IBM and to Congress. But the mere
> fact that Gates has been subjected to anti-trust suits would indicate that
> he is outside the power broker clique which rules congress and therefore
> the world. The real old money comes from the original swashbuckling
> Lords of Oil- the petro chemical, agribiz, pharmaceutical,armaments
> and banking empires and all their subsidiaries. These are the people
> who bought themselves the economic revolution which we call
> globalisation.
I completely agree about Bill Gates, and anti-trust laws have been applied
to Microsoft. Doesn't this therefore suggest that we have systems in place
to deal with monopolisation.
You don't buy an economic revolution as you put it, it happens. Now if
people were smart enough to buy into those industries, good luck to them.
>
> :Furthermore that company employs people in the US
> A and around the globe.
>
> Yes, I do see your point, but the point you miss is not just to have
> money it is to have the power.
>
But the whole point of the free market is that they are servants, not
masters of the people (except for monopolistic organisations - very few of
which exist). People have a choice of where to buy products.
> :It is trade which keeps the world flowing,
>
> Certainly, trade which is desired is fair trade not free trade
> which is a misnomer.
>
No difference between the two.
> and that relies on a capitalist
> :system.
>
> Trade has always taken place and does not necessarily rely on
> capitalism.
>
So when did we have non-capitalistic trade? In the good olden days I
suppose? We had feudalism instead. I know which I would rather have.
Kurious Oranj
> > obvious skills in using a PC and news reader software.
>
> He taps the keyboard with the end of his axe handle. :^)
>
Patrick Dunford
Why?
--
=======================================================================
Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ - http://pdunford.godzone.net.nz/
Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
-- Romans 12:21
http://www.heartlight.org/cgi-shl/todaysverse.cgi?day=20001221
=======================================================================
Created by Mail2Sig - http://pdunford.godzone.net.nz/software/mail2sig/
stuart
good book to read too?
"Kurious Oranj" <x...@x.x.x> wrote in message
Rob Hill
away to China, in a little row boat to find uk.politics.misc, then
said THIS.
>> It has generally been assumed that globalization has helped spur economic
>> growth throughout most of the world.
>>
>> The official data for the last two decades (1980-2000) tells a different
>story.
>>
>> Economic growth has slowed dramatically, especially in the less developed
>> countries, as compared with the previous two decades (1960-1980). :
>>
>> Check the figures. The poor countries are getting poorer.
>>
>> http://www.cepr.net/IMF/Emperor_Table_2.htm
>>
>> Janice
>>
>a 5% growth?
>
I doubt it, she has posted the URL without understanding it.
Ho hum.
Hens love roosters
geese love ganders
everyone else loves Ned Flanders
JNugent
news:6b974tgfbkp75sj1v...@4ax.com...
[snip the message]
> Hens love roosters
> geese love ganders
> everyone else loves Ned Flanders
Tonight, Matthew, I finally understand that (saw the second Simpsons show on
BBC2).
abelard
typed:
>
>"Janice" <Jani...@free.net.nz> wrote in message
>> The author of the first book Frederick Lundberg,
i shall probably have a look...although i have read much that is similar
and related....
> wrote a best seller
>> in 1937 called America's 60 Families. 30 years later armed with a
>> great deal more information he wrote The Super- Rich. Actually I
>> have just been talking to a friend in Investments who tells me there
>> is a video out, derived from this same book which corporations like
>> to show their staff for orientation purposes. How sensible. Whats the
>> point in going round semi-conscious
>> . IT is more recent of course, and obviously is not the same
>> although Bill Gates did have the good sense to be born to a wealthy
>> Washington family with connections to IBM and to Congress. But the mere
>> fact that Gates has been subjected to anti-trust suits would indicate that
>> he is outside the power broker clique which rules congress and therefore
>> the world. The real old money comes from the original swashbuckling
>> Lords of Oil-
Although consolidation did advance large-scale production and distribution
of oil products, many critics believed that the resulting concentration of
economic power was becoming excessive. In 1906 the U.S. government brought
suit against Standard Oil Company (New Jersey) under the Sherman
Anti-Trust Act; and in 1911 the New Jersey company was ordered to divest
itself of its major holdings--33 companies in all.
In 1911, after dissolution of the Standard Oil empire, eight companies
retained "Standard Oil" in their names; by the late 20th century the name
had almost passed into history. In 1931 Standard Oil Company of New York
merged with Vacuum Oil Company (another trust company) to form
Socony-Vacuum, which in 1966 became Mobil Oil Corporation. Standard Oil
(Indiana) absorbed Standard Oil of Nebraska in 1939 and Standard Oil of
Kansas in 1948 and was renamed Amoco Corporation in 1985. Standard Oil of
California acquired Standard Oil of Kentucky in 1961 and was renamed
Chevron Corporation in 1984. Standard Oil Company (New Jersey) changed its
name to Exxon Corporation in 1972. British Petroleum Company PLC completed
the purchase of Standard Oil Company (Ohio) in 1987. Other companies that
once were part of the trust include Atlantic Richfield Company, Buckeye
Pipe Line Company (Ohio), Chesebrough-Pond's Inc., Pennzoil Company, and
Union Tank Car Company (New
Jersey).
enc brit....
as you have been told by matt....vast holdings are in pension funds.....
you will need to trace the actual holdings in the companies who
interest or worry you....
you will have to present a tighter case.....
you will have to show the families....
and show their *effective* actions in *controlling*....
also elsewhere...you are claiming 'greater poverty' in rather ill-defined
manner....
the world is richer than ever....
a greater proportion are richer.....
but more people are poor....(a consequence of increasing population)
a major cause of poverty is corruption in some countries.....
> the petro chemical, agribiz, pharmaceutical,armaments
>> and banking empires and all their subsidiaries.
the banks are first owned/controlled by governments
however as cliff would say...the relationship is highly incestuous.....
and i would not dispute that.....
i repeat again keynes comment....
i don't care who is at the botton....i care a great deal who is at the
top...
if you are to make sense....you are going to have to offer alternatives...
you are going to have to spell out *exactly* where you imagine there
is a problem....eg several big corps are now discussing with ecos.....
large numbers of seriously large corps...i would expect a majority...have
ethical guidelines in place....(just claiming this as hypocritical
window dressing will not advance any case you may suggest....)
you must fight with facts...not with rhetoric....if you are to advance
your case with the posters you are debating with.....
we...and those who hold the strings....are far too hard headed to
be swayed by assertion or rhetoric.....
rhetoric is mostly for those who do not think.....
> These are the people
>> who bought themselves the economic revolution which we call
>> globalisation.
>
>I completely agree about Bill Gates, and anti-trust laws have been applied
>to Microsoft. Doesn't this therefore suggest that we have systems in place
>to deal with monopolisation.
>
>You don't buy an economic revolution as you put it, it happens. Now if
>people were smart enough to buy into those industries, good luck to them.
regards to both...
--
web site at www.abelard.org - new, doc....mechanics of inflation.
also logic and much more...over 1/4 million doc. requests yearly
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for I walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that I a big stick.
good people do nothing I trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
abelard
typed:
>Feudalism Alias American Capitalism.
>http://users.uniserve.com/~synergy/toc2.htm
have looked...a muddled mess....
disinclines me to look at the other....
it is narrow in focus...like looking through a telescope......
it chooses, usually irrelevant, disparate facts....
and attempts to weave them into a simplistic fairy tale.....
it shows no comprehension of social realities....
the numbers are often extremely misleading to the point
of rank dishonesty....
it is also more than 10 years out of date....
like yourself it indulges interminable whingeing without
any attempt to state just how you want things 'improved'......
nor any *clear* idea of why what you complain of....
(when on occasion it is factually based....)
discommodes you or the mass who live off 'the system'......
you do not threaten the status quo by describing how it works...
machiavelli did a far better job of that nearly 500 years ago....
you only threaten the status quo when you set up alternative options....
mostly when you do set up options....as soon as things get tough.....
you will soon find that most prefer the status quo....
it is warm and comforting....and you don't have to think or take
responsibility....
every time a 'revolution' is achieved....very soon you will find
yourself in worse cack with 4 legs good....
all you can do with any useful effect is learn and educate.....
and watch while each generation, people tend to get a little
more wealthy and a little more intelligent/educated.....
regards.
Lucky Larry
Steve Wrathall
Peter Wilson wrote:
> The problem with the recent idealogy in New Zealand is because it has been
> based on a flawed model.
> It is naive and simplistic to think that deregulating everything and selling
> everything off will fix the problem.
Sir Robert Jones, an outspoken critic of regulation, recently wrote in the
Standards New Zealand Magazine of the great myth regarding New Zealand's
so-called fifteen years of massive deregulation. He believes nothing could
be further from the truth. Instead of less regulation, he describes a
"rule-writing fervour", which has produced an "orgy of social engineering",
replacing personal responsibility with an enormously costly and often
totally unnecessary set of rules covering every contingency.
>
> It didn't and now Labour and the Alliance are being left to clear up the
> mess. It's something they seem to be doing remarkably well at too.
>
By writing rules even faster. Your record so far has seen the average NZer be
$70 per week worse off in real terms. And all your lot can do is dream up more
ways to "redisribute" a (relative to the rest of World) Pie
Kurious Oranj
"stuart" <hyde...@home.com> wrote in message
news:_RJ06.243308$76.54...@news1.rdc1.ab.home.com...
> Mein Kampf was a big seller in Germany in the 1930s, so would that be a
> good book to read too?
> It was an excellent work of art. Just look at what it lead to.
You worry me.
Rob Hill
<JNu...@AC30.spamFreeserve.co.uk> sailed away to China, in a little
row boat to find uk.politics.misc, then said THIS.
Great stuff John, I hope you liked it too.
EricĐ
> My party campaigned on the alarming brain drain caused by young
> educated people fleeing NZ to avoid massive debt, while Prebble
> and Kerr claimed we were making the brain drain up. Now that
> the topic is politically fashionable, Kerr and Prebble have transformed
> themselves into the solicitious brain drainers.but have found all sorts
> of other fictitious reasons for the flight effect.
Errm . . . Janice? Your party wasn't running in the recent Canadian
election, was it?
Can you keep this out of can.pol?
E.Schild
haff...@usa.net
Rick Jones
wrote:
>The author of the first book Frederick Lundberg...
According to your original post, the first book is still "under
construction." Either Mr. Lundberg is the oldest working economist
around, or you've got your books and/or authors mixed up.
Rick Jones
>I'm not, I just don't have the time to read too many books. That's why I
>debate subjects here. However, I may just make an exception. Remember too
>that Mein Kampf was a big seller in Germany in the 1930s, so would that be a
>good book to read too?
It would certainly be a very educational read (it's a hard read
though, as it's illogical and confusing.) If you wanted to understand
Hitler and Nazism, it's a pretty logical palce to start.
You don't have to agree with everything you read, you know.
Brian Dooley
wrote:
snip---
>So when did we have non-capitalistic trade? In the good olden days I
>suppose? We had feudalism instead. I know which I would rather have.
>
No we didn't. Trade carried on quite happily irrespective of the
political set-up. Cities, for instance, often enough were
self-governing and powerful enough to ignore a 'feudal'
aristocracy.
Brian Dooley
Wellington New Zealand
Robert Henderson
"Ah ye good people, the matters goeth not well to pass in England, nor
shall do till everything be common and that there be no villeins nor
gentlemen, but that we may all be united together and that the lords be
no greater masters than we be. " John Ball preaching during the Peasants
Revolt of 1381.
What those who advocate wide disparities of wealth need to answer are
these two questions: "What is the moral basis for them"? and "Why should
the many who inherit little or nothing agree to a system which
immediately disadvantages them and their children"?
Most people who are rich are so because they inherit money. Most people
who achieve a comfortable middle-class lifestyle do so because they are
the children of the middle-class. Facts. RH
--
Patrick Dunford
Piss off back to pommyland with your pommy politics
Robert Henderson
Dunford <47...@my-deja.com> writes
Python Sketches was the one in the Philosophy Department of an
Australian University where all the members were called Bruce. The
beauty of the sketch was its incongruity. The idea of a University in
the Antipodes was improbable enough, but one with a philosophy
department was excruciatingly far fetched. RH
--
Robert Henderson
abelard
typed:
in europe that developed over a considerable period....
the power disputes along the way were a cause of considerable strife....
abelard
typed:
>On Sun, 24 Dec 2000 06:20:18 +0000 AD in nz.politics, Robert Henderson said:
>>"Ah ye good people, the matters goeth not well to pass in England, nor
>>shall do till everything be common and that there be no villeins nor
>>gentlemen, but that we may all be united together and that the lords be
>>no greater masters than we be. " John Ball preaching during the Peasants
>>Revolt of 1381.
>>
>>What those who advocate wide disparities of wealth need to answer are
>>these two questions: "What is the moral basis for them"? and "Why should
>>the many who inherit little or nothing agree to a system which
>>immediately disadvantages them and their children"?
using the word 'moral' is rhetoric....
>>Most people who are rich are so because they inherit money. Most people
>>who achieve a comfortable middle-class lifestyle do so because they are
>>the children of the middle-class. Facts. RH
so unusual for you to make ordered sensible comments....
and then you are faced with an unwashed colonial oaf...
glory....it is a hard life!
>Piss off back to pommyland with your pommy politics
hi brainded.....
do you really imagine you can get by on such mindless babble.....?
if you wish to contend a post...make a case....if you have the wit....
Robert Henderson
<abe...@abelard.org> writes
>
>>>Most people who are rich are so because they inherit money. Most people
>>>who achieve a comfortable middle-class lifestyle do so because they are
>>>the children of the middle-class. Facts. RH
>
>so unusual for you to make ordered sensible comments....
You might find you have agreed with me an embarrassing number of times.
RH
--
Robert Henderson
Janice
abelard wrote in message <3qg74t0laarghd4na...@4ax.com>...
:On Fri, 22 Dec 2000 01:21:12 +1300, "Janice" <Jani...@free.net.nz>
:
Abelard, you have yet to demonstrate the intellectual capacity
or readiness " to speak, act or think for yourself " yet I have
given you endless opportunities to demonstrate some originality
of thought.
Embarrassingly, you have consistently resorted to the same fallacies
of logic and worn old slogans, cliches, and diatribe used by proto-
fascists world wide, decades ago
The derision with which these phoney, boring ad hominems, lies,
and slights are recieved by intelligent people in New Zealand have
almost completely eliminated their use here.
Its time you used your own brain to come up with some new ideas
Abelard, for I have no patience with a poster such as yourself, who
can think of nothing more original than repeating mindless abusive
divisive propagandist drivel...........over and over and over again.
Please review your own work.
Your posts say absolutely nothing, they have no substance, no detail,
no thought, no ideas, no novelty and they also convey an overt fondness
for some 1960s grammatical structure.
You are now living in 2001. The world has moved on.
Janice
--------------
Brian Dooley
On Sun, 24 Dec 2000 18:35:30 +0100, abelard <abe...@abelard.org>
wrote:
>On Sun, 24 Dec 2000 01:21:24 GMT, bri...@clear.net.nz (Brian Dooley)
>
> typed:
>
>>On Fri, 22 Dec 2000 11:11:42 -0000, "Kurious Oranj" <x...@x.x.x>
>>wrote:
>>
>>snip---
>>
>>>So when did we have non-capitalistic trade? In the good olden days I
>>>suppose? We had feudalism instead. I know which I would rather have.
>>>
>>No we didn't. Trade carried on quite happily irrespective of the
>>political set-up. Cities, for instance, often enough were
>>self-governing and powerful enough to ignore a 'feudal'
>>aristocracy.
>
>in europe that developed over a considerable period....
>the power disputes along the way were a cause of considerable strife....
From its foundation in AD 50 London was the largest and
politically most important city in England. No king was safe
without London on his side, the aristocracy counted for very
little.
Milan was an independent self-governing commune by 1045, and as
the boss town of the Lombard League was quite prepared to take on
various kings and emperors, although not always successfully. In
later years it, in common with most of the city states, usually
had a leading family, but the form of government was not 'feudal'
by any stretch of the imagination (a grossly over-used term).
And you are to consider Venice and Genoa, and the Hanseatic
League.
abelard
typed:
>
>abelard wrote in message <3qg74t0laarghd4na...@4ax.com>...
>:On Fri, 22 Dec 2000 01:21:12 +1300, "Janice" <Jani...@free.net.nz>
>Abelard, you have yet to demonstrate the intellectual capacity
>or readiness " to speak, act or think for yourself " yet I have
>given you endless opportunities to demonstrate some originality
>of thought.
ie...you can't cope....
>Embarrassingly, you have consistently resorted to the same fallacies
>of logic and worn old slogans, cliches, and diatribe used by proto-
>fascists world wide, decades ago
>
>The derision with which these phoney, boring ad hominems, lies,
>and slights are recieved by intelligent people in New Zealand
you 'speak' only for yourself...and that, not very well....
> have
>almost completely eliminated their use here.
>Its time you used your own brain to come up with some new ideas
>Abelard, for I have no patience with a poster such as yourself, who
>can think of nothing more original than repeating mindless abusive
>divisive propagandist drivel...........over and over and over again.
>
>Please review your own work.
>
>Your posts say absolutely nothing, they have no substance, no detail,
>no thought, no ideas, no novelty and they also convey an overt fondness
>for some 1960s grammatical structure.
>
>You are now living in 2001. The world has moved on.
an empty post with no content....
abelard
<Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>
typed:
3 or 4....
an almost endless inundation of pap....and then a quite
reasonable statement.....a moment of lucidity perhaps....
i will not tell you where i see that pattern regularly....
i have no problem with 'agreeing' with you....
the inundations of pap are quite another matter.....
most of the time...i do not 'disagree' with you....
you say nothing....you merely posture.....
during those periods there is nothing to 'agree' or 'disagree' with....
on the occasions that you make false or foolish statements....
i tend to correct them or offer you guidance.....
for all your floundering and posture...you appear slowly to
catch yourself on....
though never admitting your multitudinous errors.....
it is that defensiveness that causes you most problems
with other able posters.
the concept of 'agreement' or 'disagreement' is inadequate logic.....
able people discuss....they investigate....they negotiate....
they do not argue....
argument depends upon 2 value 'logic' and inadequate social skills....
the concepts of 'agreement' and 'disagreement' are rooted in false
perceptions.....and sometimes in a different sense, in poverty.....
these errors of communication can be corrected....
and adequate methods learnt.....
Lucky Larry
No content in the reply............
Why am I not surprised.?
You do live in the sixties.
Your logic is flawed.
abelard
typed:
>
>On Sun, 24 Dec 2000 18:35:30 +0100, abelard <abe...@abelard.org>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 24 Dec 2000 01:21:24 GMT, bri...@clear.net.nz (Brian Dooley)
>>
>> typed:
>>
>>>On Fri, 22 Dec 2000 11:11:42 -0000, "Kurious Oranj" <x...@x.x.x>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>snip---
>>>
>>>>So when did we have non-capitalistic trade? In the good olden days I
>>>>suppose? We had feudalism instead. I know which I would rather have.
>>>>
>>>No we didn't. Trade carried on quite happily irrespective of the
>>>political set-up. Cities, for instance, often enough were
>>>self-governing and powerful enough to ignore a 'feudal'
>>>aristocracy.
>>
>>in europe that developed over a considerable period....
>>the power disputes along the way were a cause of considerable strife....
>
>From its foundation in AD 50 London was the largest and
>politically most important city in England. No king was safe
>without London on his side, the aristocracy counted for very
>little.
my knowledge..such as it is....is more on the continent
and 1050-1300....and that mostly 'france'....
>Milan was an independent self-governing commune by 1045, and as
>the boss town of the Lombard League was quite prepared to take on
>various kings and emperors, although not always successfully. In
>later years it, in common with most of the city states, usually
>had a leading family, but the form of government was not 'feudal'
>by any stretch of the imagination (a grossly over-used term).
>
>And you are to consider Venice and Genoa, and the Hanseatic
>League.
no serious dispute...but your post gave (me) the impression
that you were suggesting that the 'ignoring' was fairly costless....
that i 'dispute'....
eg rome 1155...and the albigenses cities with toulouse....
anything you think i should read? or a web site?
John Sefton
Kurious Oranj <x...@x.x.x> wrote in message
> > > But you are sufficiently poorly educated to reply to a newsgroup with
> > > obvious skills in using a PC and news reader software.
> >
> > He taps the keyboard with the end of his axe handle. :^)
> >
> I had assumed he had a million monkeys working for him.
Or perhaps his email is written and sent when his computer explodes. :^)
Steven Kaasgaard
: "Janice" <Jani...@free.net.nz> wrote in message
: news:977306723.238356@news...
: > Economic growth has slowed dramatically, especially in the less developed
: > countries, as compared with the previous two decades (1960-1980). :
: >
: > Check the figures. The poor countries are getting poorer.
: >
: > http://www.cepr.net/IMF/Emperor_Table_2.htm
: >
: OK. I checked your figures and once again you are WRONG
Capitalism in order to survive must expand as in continue to
make profits. Since this would preclude that infinite growth were possible-
Its much more likely that fewer and fewer hands are holding any money
at the near end of this type of economic procession.
Yes this would lead to the poor out numbering the rich in deadly large
proportions.
It may account for the great desires of right wing governments to create more
jails and longer sentences to those unfortunate victims that are housed
in them.
Prepare yourselves for the age of autocannibalism coming shortly to a
stock market ticker near you! Watch as the uncontrollable appetitte of
capitalism surges out of control as much to its amazement it discovers
itself on that days' menu card!!!
Steven
--
Brian Dooley
On Sun, 24 Dec 2000 06:20:18 +0000, Robert Henderson
<Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
snip---
>Most people who are rich are so because they inherit money. Most people
>who achieve a comfortable middle-class lifestyle do so because they are
>the children of the middle-class. Facts. RH
What, in your view, does 'comfortable middle-class lifestyle'
mean, in terms of money, income, wealth, education?
Paul Walker
<PlRtToAi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>:
[cut]
>Most people who are rich are so because they inherit money. Most people
>who achieve a comfortable middle-class lifestyle do so because they are
>the children of the middle-class. Facts. RH
Then check your "facts": "Three-quarters of New Zealand's wealthiest
individuals in 1996 earned their fortunes themselves. ... As had been
found previously for Australia, Great Britain and the US, about two-thirds
of the New Zealand fortunes originated in industries that a panel of
expert economists label "competitive". Those of us who have not amassed
great wealth may blame ourselves or bad luck, not oligopolistic barriers
or oligarchic privileges." ('How Did the Wealthiest New Zealanders Get So
Rich?', New Zealand Economic Papers, 31(1): 35-48, June 1997.)
--
____________________________________________________
Paul Walker p.wa...@econ.canterbury.ac.nz
gaz
Ahww are you still waiting for the collapse of capitalism and the
Revolution?
Get over it, it hasn't happened, and it doesn't look like it will.
They reckon that those people, who today vehemently, and against all the
evidence, believe in the inevitability of Marxism, are those who a few
centuries ago would of been the obsessive puritanical religious nuts.
They possess a character flaw which requires them to have an absolute,
unwavering faith in something, and they merely replace religion with
Marxism.
Gaz
"Steven Kaasgaard" <dc...@torfree.net> wrote in message
news:G65EFL.99...@torfree.net...
Cliff Morrison
<gazter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> They reckon that those people, who today vehemently, and against all the
> evidence, believe in the inevitability of Marxism, are those who a few
> centuries ago would of been the obsessive puritanical religious nuts.
>
> They possess a character flaw which requires them to have an absolute,
> unwavering faith in something, and they merely replace religion with
> Marxism.
Hmmmm.....
capitalist "(un)free market" mikkeymaus economic cargo-cultism seems
rather more naively prevalent.
Bob Howard
"Cliff Morrison" <cli...@post.almac.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cliffm-2612...@th-gt143-124.pool.dircon.co.uk...
>
> Hmmmm.....
> capitalist "(un)free market" mikkeymaus economic cargo-cultism seems
> rather more naively prevalent.
The trouble with your reply Cliff is it totally lacks any intelligence. Look
at the standard of living in capitalist countries such as Japan, Singapore,
the US, South Korea etc. Compare them with the standard of living in the
Soviet Union and Eastern bloc countries before the fall of communism.
Communism was supposed to be the great leveller. It levelled people all
right - Down!. You saw as I did the pictures of Moscow residents queuing at
shops for consumer goods. If toothbrushes were on sale they bought them
knowing they wouldn't be available when they really needed them.
Now in this capitalist country, New Zealand, our shops and supermarkets are
overflowing with everything you could possibly want as in your England, all
under capitalism. Sure we have poor people but only comparatively poor. I
have never seen anyone dying of starvation in the gutter or heard of
families selling their daughters into prostitution to survive.
Whether you like it or not capitalism has brought great benefits to ordinary
people.
Bob Howard.
Robert Henderson
<p.wa...@NOT.econ.canterbury.ac.nz> writes
>Robert Henderson <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in
><PlRtToAi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>:
>
>[cut]
>
>>Most people who are rich are so because they inherit money. Most people
>>who achieve a comfortable middle-class lifestyle do so because they are
>>the children of the middle-class. Facts. RH
>
>Then check your "facts": "Three-quarters of New Zealand's wealthiest
>individuals in 1996 earned their fortunes themselves. ... As had been
>found previously for Australia, Great Britain and the US, about two-thirds
>of the New Zealand fortunes originated in industries that a panel of
>expert economists label "competitive". Those of us who have not amassed
>great wealth may blame ourselves or bad luck, not oligopolistic barriers
>or oligarchic privileges." ('How Did the Wealthiest New Zealanders Get So
>Rich?', New Zealand Economic Papers, 31(1): 35-48, June 1997.)
>
Well, I would have to look at the research. But even without doing that,
I would be willing to say that the following would be true (1) that
those who you claim made their money did not in the main come from poor
backgrounds, ie they started from a comfortable base and (2) they made
their fortunes in the main by using contacts which were directly related
to the social circumstances of their birth. What you claim for NZ is
certainly not true of the First World generally. I wonder if you are not
confusing fortunes made in competitive industries by one generation
being enjoyed by later generations. RH
--
Robert Henderson
Robert Henderson
<bri...@clear.net.nz> writes
salubrious area, who goes to a school mainly populated with children
from a similar background, whose family has a tradition of university
education, whose family has at least some capital to help their children
and whose family has connections to help the child to make their way in
the world. RH
>Brian Dooley
>
>Wellington New Zealand
--
Robert Henderson
Robert Henderson
Cliff Morrison <cli...@post.almac.co.uk> writes
to the dialectic. RH
--
Robert Henderson
Cliff Morrison
wrote:
> "Cliff Morrison" <cli...@post.almac.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:cliffm-2612...@th-gt143-124.pool.dircon.co.uk...
> >
> > Hmmmm.....
> > capitalist "(un)free market" mikkeymaus economic cargo-cultism seems
> > rather more naively prevalent.
>
> The trouble with your reply Cliff is it totally lacks any intelligence. Look
> at the standard of living in capitalist countries such as Japan, Singapore,
> the US, South Korea etc. Compare them with the standard of living in the
> Soviet Union and Eastern bloc countries before the fall of communism.
> Communism was supposed to be the great leveller. It levelled people all
> right - Down!. You saw as I did the pictures of Moscow residents queuing at
> shops for consumer goods. If toothbrushes were on sale they bought them
> knowing they wouldn't be available when they really needed them.
At least they did get them.
Seems under *capitalism* now if they're not mafiosi or whatever -- ie, if
they're ordinary professional or working-class people -- they stand even
more chance of getting sod-all except untreated TB and the like.
> Now in this capitalist country, New Zealand, our shops and supermarkets are
> overflowing with everything you could possibly want as in your England, all
> under capitalism. Sure we have poor people but only comparatively poor. I
> have never seen anyone dying of starvation in the gutter or heard of
> families selling their daughters into prostitution to survive.
Really? Well its been a common enough characteristic of capitalism in the
past and as the gap widens it may very well come again -- hell, it still
is prevalent in some of the eastern capitalist nirvanas you fantasise
about... and what about ongoing disgrace the forces of NWO capitalism
colluding with the KLA (Greater Albanian Mafia) to inflict their racism,
gangsterism and white-slaving across the Balkans and beyond?
> Whether you like it or not capitalism has brought great benefits to ordinary
> people.
Spoken like a true fanatic.
Paul Walker
[cut]
And you know all of this without ever having looked at any of the research
done on this topic!
Daniel Silva
*Who* is the fanatic? LOL!
John Cawston
>
> In article <3a68c618...@news.clear.net.nz>, Brian Dooley
> <bri...@clear.net.nz> writes
> >
> >On Sun, 24 Dec 2000 06:20:18 +0000, Robert Henderson
> ><Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >snip---
> >
> >>Most people who are rich are so because they inherit money. Most people
> >>who achieve a comfortable middle-class lifestyle do so because they are
> >>the children of the middle-class. Facts. RH
> >
> >What, in your view, does 'comfortable middle-class lifestyle'
> >mean, in terms of money, income, wealth, education?
> >
> >
> Well, say someone whose family lives in their own property in a
> salubrious area,
Well, that's about 70-80% of the population.
who goes to a school mainly populated with children
> from a similar background,
Unlikely, and certainly not true in my experience. Better
neighborhoods tend to live cheek by jowl to poorer areas
and share the same schools in NZ. That might be different
in a city like Auckland.
whose family has a tradition of university
> education,
Nope. Most families have had no history or tradition of
attending University until relatively recently.
whose family has at least some capital to help their
children
> and whose family has connections to help the child to make their way in
> the world. RH
Absolute bullshit. In fact, I'd suggest that people
working in the manual/service industries have a much
higher incidence of nepotism.
JC
>
John Sefton
EricĐ <EricĐ@hardknocks.edu> wrote in message
news:MPG.14ae38c77...@news.uniserve.com...
> Janice wrote...
>
> > My party campaigned on the alarming brain drain caused by young
> > educated people fleeing NZ to avoid massive debt, while Prebble
> > and Kerr claimed we were making the brain drain up. Now that
> > the topic is politically fashionable, Kerr and Prebble have transformed
> > themselves into the solicitious brain drainers.but have found all sorts
> > of other fictitious reasons for the flight effect.
>
> Errm . . . Janice? Your party wasn't running in the recent Canadian
> election, was it?
>
> Can you keep this out of can.pol?
LOL Her party is "The Alliance". Explain the policies of the Candian party
of that name to her - she'll have a pink fit!!
gaz
>
> is prevalent in some of the eastern capitalist nirvanas you fantasise
> about... and what about ongoing disgrace the forces of NWO capitalism
> colluding with the KLA (Greater Albanian Mafia) to inflict their racism,
> gangsterism and white-slaving across the Balkans and beyond?
See what I mean? Blind fanaticism and belief in their cause, like the old
religious nutters, he invents enemies to justify his believes.
> > Whether you like it or not capitalism has brought great benefits to
ordinary
> > people.
>
> Spoken like a true fanatic.
And then cant differentiate between a statement of truth and his own
delusional rantings.
Gaz
Cliff Morrison
<gazter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Cliff Morrison" <cli...@post.almac.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:cliffm-2612002102150001@th-> >
> >
> > is prevalent in some of the eastern capitalist nirvanas you fantasise
> > about... and what about ongoing disgrace the forces of NWO capitalism
> > colluding with the KLA (Greater Albanian Mafia) to inflict their racism,
> > gangsterism and white-slaving across the Balkans and beyond?
>
> See what I mean? Blind fanaticism and belief in their cause, like the old
> religious nutters, he invents enemies to justify his believes.
The Greater Albanian Mafia and its cronys has been well enough documented
so you cannot be referring to that, so it must be baby-butcher Blair and
his like that you're meaning. Indeed, all fair-minded people would agree
they're a nexus of weasellingly corrupt megalomanic nutters.
> > > Whether you like it or not capitalism has brought great benefits to
> ordinary
> > > people.
> >
> > Spoken like a true fanatic.
>
> And then cant differentiate between a statement of truth and his own
> delusional rantings.
It's not altogether Bob's fault as he means well but has been brainwashed
by the cult.
Robert Henderson
<rewa...@ihug.co.nz> writes
>Robert Henderson wrote:
>>
>> In article <3a68c618...@news.clear.net.nz>, Brian Dooley
>> <bri...@clear.net.nz> writes
>> >
>> >On Sun, 24 Dec 2000 06:20:18 +0000, Robert Henderson
>> ><Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> >snip---
>> >
>> >>Most people who are rich are so because they inherit money. Most people
>> >>who achieve a comfortable middle-class lifestyle do so because they are
>> >>the children of the middle-class. Facts. RH
>> >
>> >What, in your view, does 'comfortable middle-class lifestyle'
>> >mean, in terms of money, income, wealth, education?
>> >
>> >
>> Well, say someone whose family lives in their own property in a
>> salubrious area,
>
>Well, that's about 70-80% of the population.
>
areas. RH
>> from a similar background,
>
>Unlikely, and certainly not true in my experience. Better
>neighborhoods tend to live cheek by jowl to poorer areas
>and share the same schools in NZ. That might be different
>in a city like Auckland.
>
by the working class you really are living in a dream world. Where the
middle class live in catchment areas with a high working class component
they either send their children out the area a la the Blairs, to private
schools or target a state school in their area and turn it into a middle
class one, eg Camden School for Girls. RH
>> education,
>
>Nope. Most families have had no history or tradition of
>attending University until relatively recently.
>
University education has been widespread since the Robbins' Reforms in
the sixties. RH
> whose family has at least some capital to help their
>children
>> and whose family has connections to help the child to make their way in
>> the world. RH
>
>Absolute bullshit. In fact, I'd suggest that people
>working in the manual/service industries have a much
>higher incidence of nepotism.
>
The difference is that the jobs the middle class get are different form
those of the working class. Hence the privilege is maintained generation
to generation. RH
>JC
>>
--
Robert Henderson
Robert Henderson
<p.wa...@NOT.econ.canterbury.ac.nz> writes
>
>>Well, I would have to look at the research. But even without doing
>>that, I would be willing to say that the following would be true (1)
>>that those who you claim made their money did not in the main come from
>>poor backgrounds, ie they started from a comfortable base and (2) they
>>made their fortunes in the main by using contacts which were directly
>>related to the social circumstances of their birth. What you claim for
>>NZ is certainly not true of the First World generally. I wonder if you
>>are not confusing fortunes made in competitive industries by one
>>generation being enjoyed by later generations. RH
>
>And you know all of this without ever having looked at any of the research
>done on this topic!
>
How do you work that out? I was merely referring to the research done on
NZ. RH
--
Robert Henderson
John Cawston
>
> In article <3A49349F...@ihug.co.nz>, John Cawston
> <rewa...@ihug.co.nz> writes
> >Robert Henderson wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <3a68c618...@news.clear.net.nz>, Brian Dooley
> >> <bri...@clear.net.nz> writes
> >> >
> >> >On Sun, 24 Dec 2000 06:20:18 +0000, Robert Henderson
> >> ><Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >snip---
> >> >
> >> >>Most people who are rich are so because they inherit money. Most people
> >> >>who achieve a comfortable middle-class lifestyle do so because they are
> >> >>the children of the middle-class. Facts. RH
> >> >
> >> >What, in your view, does 'comfortable middle-class lifestyle'
> >> >mean, in terms of money, income, wealth, education?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> Well, say someone whose family lives in their own property in a
> >> salubrious area,
> >
> >Well, that's about 70-80% of the population.
> >
> Less than 70% own their own property and much of that is in insalubrious
> areas. RH
From the Y/Book
Owned with a mortgage 35.2%
Owned outright 31.0%
Owned, mortgage not specified 1.4%
Rented or leased 22.9%
Rent free 3.7%
Rental status not specified 1.7%
Not specified 4.0%
Comparing bona fide owned with bona fide rented or leased,
you get better than 70% owned. As for the quality of the
rental houses and their areas, seeing as there are less
than 30% being rented and knowing that there are rental
houses scattered throughout all cities and towns in
acceptable areas, and knowing that there are many houses
rented in the country, your argument does not look
reasonable.
> > who goes to a school mainly populated with children
> >> from a similar background,
> >
> >Unlikely, and certainly not true in my experience. Better
> >neighborhoods tend to live cheek by jowl to poorer areas
> >and share the same schools in NZ. That might be different
> >in a city like Auckland.
> >
> If you believe the middle class send their children to schools dominated
> by the working class you really are living in a dream world.
Well, we live in Rotorua. When we first came here, our
kids went to Whakarewarewa School, that's the one that's
almost 100% Maori. Great school. The kids loved it.
We've lived (with kids at school) in the country,
Masterton, Wanganui (two places), and Rotorua (two places)
and sent the kids to the closest schools, just like 90% of
other parents. I suspect you are basing your comments on
very specific locations.
Where the
> middle class live in catchment areas with a high working class component
> they either send their children out the area a la the Blairs, to private
> schools or target a state school in their area and turn it into a middle
> class one, eg Camden School for Girls. RH
As I thought. You are commenting on the specific, not the
general.
> > whose family has a tradition of university
> >> education,
> >
> >Nope. Most families have had no history or tradition of
> >attending University until relatively recently.
> >
>
> University education has been widespread since the Robbins' Reforms in
> the sixties. RH
A better description would be that it was always
available, but taken up on a limited basis due to being
perceived as unnecessary. The important stat is the
percentage attending tertiary education 30 odd years ago,
compared to now. I think there will be a hell of a lot
more now. As important will be the actual comparison of
numbers. If there are substantially more, then that will
indicate that such education has become more available to
those outside a chosen few.
> > whose family has at least some capital to help their
> >children
> >> and whose family has connections to help the child to make their way in
> >> the world. RH
> >
> >Absolute bullshit. In fact, I'd suggest that people
> >working in the manual/service industries have a much
> >higher incidence of nepotism.
> >
>
> The difference is that the jobs the middle class get are different form
> those of the working class. Hence the privilege is maintained generation
> to generation. RH
Some privilege! Most of us are middle class. Like 70%.
JC
E. Barry Bruyea
wrote:
>Robert Henderson wrote:
>>
>> In article <3A49349F...@ihug.co.nz>, John Cawston
>> <rewa...@ihug.co.nz> writes
>> >Robert Henderson wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In article <3a68c618...@news.clear.net.nz>, Brian Dooley
>> >> <bri...@clear.net.nz> writes
>> >> >
>> >> >On Sun, 24 Dec 2000 06:20:18 +0000, Robert Henderson
>> >> ><Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >snip---
>> >> >
>> >> >>Most people who are rich are so because they inherit money. Most people
>> >> >>who achieve a comfortable middle-class lifestyle do so because they are
>> >> >>the children of the middle-class. Facts. RH
Fiction. 75-80% of millionaires in the United States are first
generation. I think it's safe to extrapolate the same % to Canada. And
as for your other profound statement, a large number of 'children of
the middle class' are the children of factory workers who attend
university and go on to careers other than bolting on side view
mirrors on a chevy.
Brian Dooley
On Tue, 26 Dec 2000 20:35:33 +0000, Robert Henderson
<Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <3a68c618...@news.clear.net.nz>, Brian Dooley
><bri...@clear.net.nz> writes
>>
>>On Sun, 24 Dec 2000 06:20:18 +0000, Robert Henderson
>><Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>snip---
>>
>>>Most people who are rich are so because they inherit money. Most people
>>>who achieve a comfortable middle-class lifestyle do so because they are
>>>the children of the middle-class. Facts. RH
>>
>>What, in your view, does 'comfortable middle-class lifestyle'
>>mean, in terms of money, income, wealth, education?
>>
>>
>Well, say someone whose family lives in their own property in a
>salubrious area, who goes to a school mainly populated with children
>from a similar background, whose family has a tradition of university
>education, whose family has at least some capital to help their children
>and whose family has connections to help the child to make their way in
>the world. RH
I wouldn't need to see your email address to know that your post
didn't originate in New Zealand.
Does two out of six count?
Robert Henderson
Obviously you are one of Mrs Williams' unemployables. 35.20 + 31.00 +
1.00 = 67.20%. Those are the only figures from your list which you are
entitled to count as owned. RH
>Comparing bona fide owned with bona fide rented or leased,
>you get better than 70% owned. As for the quality of the
>rental houses and their areas, seeing as there are less
>than 30% being rented and knowing that there are rental
>houses scattered throughout all cities and towns in
>acceptable areas, and knowing that there are many houses
>rented in the country, your argument does not look
>reasonable.
>
>> > who goes to a school mainly populated with children
>> >> from a similar background,
>> >
>> >Unlikely, and certainly not true in my experience. Better
>> >neighborhoods tend to live cheek by jowl to poorer areas
>> >and share the same schools in NZ. That might be different
>> >in a city like Auckland.
>> >
>> If you believe the middle class send their children to schools dominated
>> by the working class you really are living in a dream world.
>
>Well, we live in Rotorua. When we first came here, our
>kids went to Whakarewarewa School, that's the one that's
>almost 100% Maori. Great school. The kids loved it.
>
So why aren't they still there? What school do they now attend? RH
>We've lived (with kids at school) in the country,
>Masterton, Wanganui (two places), and Rotorua (two places)
>and sent the kids to the closest schools, just like 90% of
>other parents. I suspect you are basing your comments on
>very specific locations.
>
> Where the
>> middle class live in catchment areas with a high working class component
>> they either send their children out the area a la the Blairs, to private
>> schools or target a state school in their area and turn it into a middle
>> class one, eg Camden School for Girls. RH
>
>As I thought. You are commenting on the specific, not the
>general.
>
Well, actually I am commenting on the position in England generally, but
I will bet that NZ is not that different, particularly in urban areas.
There is a difference between England and NZ, namely your main ethnic
minority inhabit the countryside as well as the towns. Ethnic
minorities in the countryside in the UK are rare. RH
>> > whose family has a tradition of university
>> >> education,
>> >
>> >Nope. Most families have had no history or tradition of
>> >attending University until relatively recently.
>> >
>>
>> University education has been widespread since the Robbins' Reforms in
>> the sixties. RH
>
>A better description would be that it was always
>available, but taken up on a limited basis due to being
>perceived as unnecessary. The important stat is the
>percentage attending tertiary education 30 odd years ago,
>compared to now. I think there will be a hell of a lot
>more now. As important will be the actual comparison of
>numbers. If there are substantially more, then that will
>indicate that such education has become more available to
>those outside a chosen few.
>
No. In 1950 2% of British school-leavers went to University. In 1970 6%.
In 1980 about 12%. Now it is about 30%. Big difference in opportunity.
RH
>> > whose family has at least some capital to help their
>> >children
>> >> and whose family has connections to help the child to make their way in
>> >> the world. RH
>> >
>> >Absolute bullshit. In fact, I'd suggest that people
>> >working in the manual/service industries have a much
>> >higher incidence of nepotism.
>> >
>>
>> The difference is that the jobs the middle class get are different form
>> those of the working class. Hence the privilege is maintained generation
>> to generation. RH
>
>Some privilege! Most of us are middle class. Like 70%.
That is simply a redefining of classes. Many people who call themselves
middle class are in reality part of the upper working class/lower middle
class stratum. RH
>
>JC
--
Robert Henderson
Robert Henderson
<bri...@clear.net.nz> writes
>
>On Tue, 26 Dec 2000 20:35:33 +0000, Robert Henderson
><Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In article <3a68c618...@news.clear.net.nz>, Brian Dooley
>><bri...@clear.net.nz> writes
>>>
>>>On Sun, 24 Dec 2000 06:20:18 +0000, Robert Henderson
>>><Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>snip---
>>>
>>>>Most people who are rich are so because they inherit money. Most people
>>>>who achieve a comfortable middle-class lifestyle do so because they are
>>>>the children of the middle-class. Facts. RH
>>>
>>>What, in your view, does 'comfortable middle-class lifestyle'
>>>mean, in terms of money, income, wealth, education?
>>>
>>>
>>Well, say someone whose family lives in their own property in a
>>salubrious area, who goes to a school mainly populated with children
>>from a similar background, whose family has a tradition of university
>>education, whose family has at least some capital to help their children
>>and whose family has connections to help the child to make their way in
>>the world. RH
>
>I wouldn't need to see your email address to know that your post
>didn't originate in New Zealand.
>
>Does two out of six count?
>
>
>
>Brian Dooley
>
>Wellington New Zealand
--
Robert Henderson
Robert Henderson
<sha...@dusk.com> writes
>>> >> >snip---
>>> >> >
>>> >> >>Most people who are rich are so because they inherit money. Most people
>>> >> >>who achieve a comfortable middle-class lifestyle do so because they are
>>> >> >>the children of the middle-class. Facts. RH
>
>Fiction. 75-80% of millionaires in the United States are first
>generation.
Cite your source. RH
> I think it's safe to extrapolate the same % to Canada. And
>as for your other profound statement, a large number of 'children of
>the middle class' are the children of factory workers who attend
>university and go on to careers other than bolting on side view
>mirrors on a chevy.
>
I will bet that most of those who have made their money have come from
middle class homes. As for the children of the working class getting
ahead, I have not said that none do, merely that most do not. RH
--
Robert Henderson
Paul Walker
Research you have not read. But I look forward to seeing your response to
the Hazledine/Siegfried paper in a future issue of NZEP.
gaz
> by the working class you really are living in a dream world. Where the
> middle class live in catchment areas with a high working class component
> they either send their children out the area a la the Blairs, to private
> schools or target a state school in their area and turn it into a middle
> class one, eg Camden School for Girls. RH
Is it a bad thing that schools are targeted to be improved? Or should we
just let them all rot??
Gaz
John Cawston
1.4%, actually
= 67.20%. Those are the only figures from your list which
you are
> entitled to count as owned. RH
I note you put your comments above my explanation to
justify your ad hominem
> >Comparing bona fide owned with bona fide rented or leased,
> >you get better than 70% owned. As for the quality of the
> >rental houses and their areas, seeing as there are less
> >than 30% being rented and knowing that there are rental
> >houses scattered throughout all cities and towns in
> >acceptable areas, and knowing that there are many houses
> >rented in the country, your argument does not look
> >reasonable.
And carefully refrained from discussing the above.
> >
> >> > who goes to a school mainly populated with children
> >> >> from a similar background,
> >> >
> >> >Unlikely, and certainly not true in my experience. Better
> >> >neighborhoods tend to live cheek by jowl to poorer areas
> >> >and share the same schools in NZ. That might be different
> >> >in a city like Auckland.
> >> >
> >> If you believe the middle class send their children to schools dominated
> >> by the working class you really are living in a dream world.
> >
> >Well, we live in Rotorua. When we first came here, our
> >kids went to Whakarewarewa School, that's the one that's
> >almost 100% Maori. Great school. The kids loved it.
> >
> So why aren't they still there? What school do they now attend? RH
Well, from there we moved 8 km to Nob's Hill and the kids
attended the local Primary school 200 meters away. As the
school then as now had over 30% kids who were the product
of Maori solo mum households, it was hardly a school for
the privileged. Yet most of Nobs Hill sent their kids
there. From there, our kids went to the nearest
intermediate, in a poorer part of town, as did most of the
Nobs Hill kids. Then onto High School in an area with the
highest crime rates in town. But in every case, they went
to the schools closest to home, as did 80-90% of Nobs
Hill.
It doesn't seem to have worked out too bad, one has an MA,
one a BA and one who is a bum, but at least in tertiary
education.
> >We've lived (with kids at school) in the country,
> >Masterton, Wanganui (two places), and Rotorua (two places)
> >and sent the kids to the closest schools, just like 90% of
> >other parents. I suspect you are basing your comments on
> >very specific locations.
> >
> > Where the
> >> middle class live in catchment areas with a high working class component
> >> they either send their children out the area a la the Blairs, to private
> >> schools or target a state school in their area and turn it into a middle
> >> class one, eg Camden School for Girls. RH
> >
> >As I thought. You are commenting on the specific, not the
> >general.
> >
> Well, actually I am commenting on the position in England generally,
As I said. You are commenting on your specific situation.
but
> I will bet that NZ is not that different, particularly in urban areas.
In specific and localised situations, yes. But on the
whole, no.
> There is a difference between England and NZ, namely your main ethnic
> minority inhabit the countryside as well as the towns.
Our main ethnic minorities are town dwellers. Maori have
the distinction of having one of the proportionately
largest Diasporas of a people country to city/town of any
race in recent history.
Ethnic
> minorities in the countryside in the UK are rare. RH
> >> > whose family has a tradition of university
> >> >> education,
> >> >
> >> >Nope. Most families have had no history or tradition of
> >> >attending University until relatively recently.
> >> >
> >>
> >> University education has been widespread since the Robbins' Reforms in
> >> the sixties. RH
> >
> >A better description would be that it was always
> >available, but taken up on a limited basis due to being
> >perceived as unnecessary. The important stat is the
> >percentage attending tertiary education 30 odd years ago,
> >compared to now. I think there will be a hell of a lot
> >more now. As important will be the actual comparison of
> >numbers. If there are substantially more, then that will
> >indicate that such education has become more available to
> >those outside a chosen few.
> >
> No. In 1950 2% of British school-leavers went to University. In 1970 6%.
> In 1980 about 12%. Now it is about 30%. Big difference in opportunity.
> RH
One of the determinants of privilege is exclusivity. Your
figures indicate clearly that privilege is breaking down
in England. Well done!
> >> > whose family has at least some capital to help their
> >> >children
> >> >> and whose family has connections to help the child to make their way in
> >> >> the world. RH
> >> >
> >> >Absolute bullshit. In fact, I'd suggest that people
> >> >working in the manual/service industries have a much
> >> >higher incidence of nepotism.
> >> >
> >>
> >> The difference is that the jobs the middle class get are different form
> >> those of the working class. Hence the privilege is maintained generation
> >> to generation. RH
> >
> >Some privilege! Most of us are middle class. Like 70%.
>
> That is simply a redefining of classes. Many people who call themselves
> middle class are in reality part of the upper working class/lower middle
> class stratum. RH
You are attempting to perpetuate a rigid class system that
is breaking down. Your own tertiary education figures show
that clearly. As obvious is your discomfit with the
merging of the classes.
JC