How Did Economists Get It So Wrong? - NYTimes.com
Kia-ora
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Democracy
Kia-ora
We do not actually have a democracy and probably never will because of politicians inability to give up any vestige of power and their contempt for the rest of us. Representative democracy is a contradiction in terms as we simply have a choice of dictatorship. (“Our only option is to vote for the other party. Then we get the lot we voted out last time” in another recent blog). What a real democracy looks like! http://direct-democracy.geschichte-schweiz.ch/ .
We do not actually have a democracy and probably never will because of politicians inability to give up any vestige of power and their contempt for the rest of us. Representative democracy is a contradiction in terms as we simply have a choice of dictatorship. (“Our only option is to vote for the other party. Then we get the lot we voted out last time” in another recent blog). What a real democracy looks like! http://direct-democracy.geschichte-schweiz.ch/ .
More on Democracy
Kia-ora
In 1941, the editor Edward Dowling wrote: "The two greatest obstacles to democracy in the United States are, first, the widespread delusion among the poor that we have a democracy, and second, the chronic terror among the rich, lest we get it."
In 1941, the editor Edward Dowling wrote: "The two greatest obstacles to democracy in the United States are, first, the widespread delusion among the poor that we have a democracy, and second, the chronic terror among the rich, lest we get it."
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Kia-ora
From Wikipedia.
One of the main corporate members is BP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Business_Council_for_Sustainable_Development
From Wikipedia.
One of the main corporate members is BP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Business_Council_for_Sustainable_Development
WBCSD's 10 messages by which to operate
- Business is good for sustainable development and sustainable development is good for business. Business is part of the sustainable development solution, while sustainable development is an effective long-term business growth strategy.
- Business cannot succeed in societies that fail. There is no future for successful business if the societies that surround it are not working. Governments and business must create partnerships to deliver essential societal services like energy, water, health care and infrastructure.
- Poverty is a key enemy to stable societies. Poverty creates political and economic instability, a big threat to business and sustainable development. By contrast, businesses can lift living standards and eradicate poverty.
- Access to markets for all supports sustainable development. Sustainable development is best achieved through open, transparent and competitive global markets.
- Good governance is needed to make business a part of the solution. Supportive frameworks and regulations are needed for business to contribute fully to sustainable development.
- Business has to earn its licence to operate, innovate and grow. The way business acts and is perceived is crucial to its success. Accountability, ethics, transparency, social and environmental responsibility and trust are basic prerequisites for successful business and sustainable development.
- Innovation and technology development are crucial to sustainable development. They provide key solutions to many of the problems that threaten sustainable development. Business has always been, and will continue to be, the main contributor to technological development.
- Eco-efficiency – doing more with less - is at the core of the business case for sustainable development. Combining environmental and economic operational excellence to deliver goods and services with lower external impacts and higher quality-of-life benefits is a key sustainable development strategy for business.
- Ecosystems in balance – a prerequisite for business. Business cannot function if ecosystems and the services they deliver, such as water, biodiversity, food, fiber and climate, are degraded.
- Cooperation beats confrontation. Sustainable development challenges are huge and require contributions from all parties — governments, business, civil societies and international bodies. Confrontation puts the solutions at risk. Cooperation and creative partnerships foster sustainable development.[10]
The Question
Kia-ora
The question.
What would a economic paradigm shift to a sustainable steady state economy look like and is it workable?
The next one is how to get vested interests to change when it is not in their short term interest to do so? History has shown it usually requires a violent revolution. South Africa and India being notable exceptions.
The question.
What would a economic paradigm shift to a sustainable steady state economy look like and is it workable?
The next one is how to get vested interests to change when it is not in their short term interest to do so? History has shown it usually requires a violent revolution. South Africa and India being notable exceptions.
Gorilla psychologists: Weird stuff in plain sight - opinion - 28 June 2010 - New Scientist
Gorilla psychologists: Weird stuff in plain sight - opinion - 28 June 2010 - New Scientist
Kia-ora
Should be compulsory viewing for police officers and jury members.
Kia-ora
Should be compulsory viewing for police officers and jury members.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Blog - Destined to Fail – Magical Thinking at the G20 - Jun. 27, 2010 - Blogs at Chris Martenson - Blog, Chris Martenson's Blog, G20, geithner, limits, Obama, Summers, The Three Es, toronto
Blog - Destined to Fail – Magical Thinking at the G20 - Jun. 27, 2010 - Blogs at Chris Martenson - Blog, Chris Martenson's Blog, G20, geithner, limits, Obama, Summers, The Three Es, toronto
Kia-ora
"Debt-based money requires growth. If we had a stable population engaged in stable and sustainable activities using non debt-based money as their freely circulating medium of exchange, then there would be no “need” for economic growth. Zero percent economic growth would work just fine".
Governments are still talking about economic growth as their main goal. It is our Governments only goal. Constrained only by the amount of wealth distribution towards big business they can get away with and still be elected.
The fact is in NZ we have the resources for all of us top live well without growth. The need for growth is a function of how debt funded capitalism works.
It is time we all thought about a paradigm change in our economic system as continual growth is not possible without taking from future generations,
Growth is not sustainable!
Kia-ora
"Debt-based money requires growth. If we had a stable population engaged in stable and sustainable activities using non debt-based money as their freely circulating medium of exchange, then there would be no “need” for economic growth. Zero percent economic growth would work just fine".
Governments are still talking about economic growth as their main goal. It is our Governments only goal. Constrained only by the amount of wealth distribution towards big business they can get away with and still be elected.
The fact is in NZ we have the resources for all of us top live well without growth. The need for growth is a function of how debt funded capitalism works.
It is time we all thought about a paradigm change in our economic system as continual growth is not possible without taking from future generations,
Growth is not sustainable!
Saturday, June 26, 2010
G20: Battles within and outside - Focus - Al Jazeera English
G20: Battles within and outside - Focus - Al Jazeera English
Kia-ora
Transaction taxes gain traction in the real world.
As they are automated it is very hard for dealers in the money go around to avoid.
Kia-ora
Transaction taxes gain traction in the real world.
As they are automated it is very hard for dealers in the money go around to avoid.
Friday, June 25, 2010
National Standards
Kia-ora
We are currently, in our schools, in the process of putting into practice a new curriculum which was the result of years of careful research (into worldwide proven best practice), consultation and planning. NACT now proposes to make changes based on ideology which have already been proven failures in the US and UK. Not only are their proposals not based on evidence, but they refuse to trial them and wish to introduce them at the same time as major curriculum changes, masking any useful assessment of effects.
We are currently, in our schools, in the process of putting into practice a new curriculum which was the result of years of careful research (into worldwide proven best practice), consultation and planning. NACT now proposes to make changes based on ideology which have already been proven failures in the US and UK. Not only are their proposals not based on evidence, but they refuse to trial them and wish to introduce them at the same time as major curriculum changes, masking any useful assessment of effects.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Income levels. Copy of comment on Greens website
Kia-ora
Kia-ora
www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/work_income_and_spending/Income/NZIncomeSurvey_HOTPJun09qtr.aspx
The median individual income from all sources is $27000 odd.
Average wage and salary income is about $44000.
Average income is $34000.
These are individual not family incomes.
Individual incomes 0ver $60 000 are approximately 20%, $70 000 are 12% of the population and over 100 000 3%.
The rich are the less than 1% who have a family income greatly over $300 000.
This shows how unequal wealth distribution is in NZ when less than 1% have 94% of the wealth.
Almost all working families have an income of $60 000 plus.
The real losers are beneficiary families which are mostly on or below the $27 000 individual median as family income.
Note the sums vary a bit from different sources and from month to month.
The point is at one time a family could live comfortably on the median individual income. You could feed and house your kids on a benefit. Those who had done higher education, reached the top of their profession or trade could do very well, as they should. Most families now need two income earners to be simply OK.
Now only those who were in the higher bracket are merely comfortable without two income earners in the family. There has been a drop in real incomes for all of us relative to GDP except for those in the very high bracket who have increased their income out of all proportion. Benefits are now way below the family cost of living.
Wages and salaries share have now shrunk to 44% of GDP and will go lower with more years of monetarist meanness.
I would like to see some of the tax burdon shifted from the median 80% of wage and salary earners to those who speculate in currency and those who make large capital gains, in the principal all sources of income should be equally treated for tax.
A guaranteed minimum income for children on the same basis as super, $10 000 exempt family income, financial transaction taxes and capital gains tax, a higher bracket over $200 000 and adjusting for bracket creep would make for more equity and allow some more spending on the lowest benefit earners. The abatement rate when you work part time on a benefit also needs to be addressed.
www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/work_income_and_spending/Income/NZIncomeSurvey_HOTPJun09qtr.aspx
The median individual income from all sources is $27000 odd.
Average wage and salary income is about $44000.
Average income is $34000.
These are individual not family incomes.
Individual incomes 0ver $60 000 are approximately 20%, $70 000 are 12% of the population and over 100 000 3%.
The rich are the less than 1% who have a family income greatly over $300 000.
This shows how unequal wealth distribution is in NZ when less than 1% have 94% of the wealth.
Almost all working families have an income of $60 000 plus.
The real losers are beneficiary families which are mostly on or below the $27 000 individual median as family income.
Note the sums vary a bit from different sources and from month to month.
The point is at one time a family could live comfortably on the median individual income. You could feed and house your kids on a benefit. Those who had done higher education, reached the top of their profession or trade could do very well, as they should. Most families now need two income earners to be simply OK.
Now only those who were in the higher bracket are merely comfortable without two income earners in the family. There has been a drop in real incomes for all of us relative to GDP except for those in the very high bracket who have increased their income out of all proportion. Benefits are now way below the family cost of living.
Wages and salaries share have now shrunk to 44% of GDP and will go lower with more years of monetarist meanness.
I would like to see some of the tax burdon shifted from the median 80% of wage and salary earners to those who speculate in currency and those who make large capital gains, in the principal all sources of income should be equally treated for tax.
A guaranteed minimum income for children on the same basis as super, $10 000 exempt family income, financial transaction taxes and capital gains tax, a higher bracket over $200 000 and adjusting for bracket creep would make for more equity and allow some more spending on the lowest benefit earners. The abatement rate when you work part time on a benefit also needs to be addressed.
Nuclear power in NZ.
Kia-ora
We are in the fortunate position that we do not need nuclear power. The amount of renewable energy from low impact hydro, wind, solar, biomass (Eg forestry waste) and wave available in NZ can more than meet all our predictable energy needs now and in future. There should be a total ban in NZ of any new non-renewable power generation including nuclear and coal. Nuclear energy is not renewable and the long term storage problem has not been solved.
On the other hand A lower energy world is not going to happen as 9 billion people need energy to survive. While using local resources only and returning to a sort of pre-19th Century utopia sounds good it would mean we could feed only a fraction of the world. Investment in lower emitting, lower energy technology is needed for both economic and environmental reasons. This is where a carbon tax used for developing green tech would have been a much better option for our future than the present joke of an ETS. (Allows pollution so long as you pass the costs onto customers and taxpayers.)
We are in the fortunate position that we do not need nuclear power. The amount of renewable energy from low impact hydro, wind, solar, biomass (Eg forestry waste) and wave available in NZ can more than meet all our predictable energy needs now and in future. There should be a total ban in NZ of any new non-renewable power generation including nuclear and coal. Nuclear energy is not renewable and the long term storage problem has not been solved.
On the other hand A lower energy world is not going to happen as 9 billion people need energy to survive. While using local resources only and returning to a sort of pre-19th Century utopia sounds good it would mean we could feed only a fraction of the world. Investment in lower emitting, lower energy technology is needed for both economic and environmental reasons. This is where a carbon tax used for developing green tech would have been a much better option for our future than the present joke of an ETS. (Allows pollution so long as you pass the costs onto customers and taxpayers.)
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
World's rich got richer amid recession | Stuff.co.nz
World's rich got richer amid recession | Stuff.co.nz
Kia-ora
If you are wondering where all the money went?
Wage and salary earners share of GDP in NZ is below 44% and still dropping rapidly.
Kia-ora
If you are wondering where all the money went?
Wage and salary earners share of GDP in NZ is below 44% and still dropping rapidly.
Operation Mincemeat and spycraft in World War Two : The New Yorker
Operation Mincemeat and spycraft in World War Two : The New Yorker
Kia-ora
Operation mincemeat is a good amusing story, but in the light of current revelations about SIS it is a salutary reminder about the nuttiness of the spy and counter spy silliness of so called intelligence agencies.
Kia-ora
Operation mincemeat is a good amusing story, but in the light of current revelations about SIS it is a salutary reminder about the nuttiness of the spy and counter spy silliness of so called intelligence agencies.
Monday, June 21, 2010
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Kia-ora
http://climatecrocks.com/2010/02/08/plug-in-hybrids-renewable-energy-solution-of-the-month/
How the solution may look?
http://climatecrocks.com/2010/02/08/plug-in-hybrids-renewable-energy-solution-of-the-month/
How the solution may look?
Friday, June 18, 2010
Democracy
Kia-ora
"Democracy is the worst political system, except for all the others." Winston Churchill et al.
John Adams, letter to John Taylor (15 April 1814)
"We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both"
George F. Kennan, in American Diplomacy (1951)
"You may fool all the people some of the time; ... some of the people all the time; but you can't fool all of the people all the time".
Attributed to Abraham Lincoln by Alexander K. McClure (1904) "Abe" Lincoln's Yarns and Stories.
"If Voting Changed Anything They'd Abolish It."
Greens talk about consensus decision making as the ideal and it is good when it happens, but who is the final arbiter of consensus?
"Democracy is the worst political system, except for all the others." Winston Churchill et al.
John Adams, letter to John Taylor (15 April 1814)
"We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both"
George F. Kennan, in American Diplomacy (1951)
"You may fool all the people some of the time; ... some of the people all the time; but you can't fool all of the people all the time".
Attributed to Abraham Lincoln by Alexander K. McClure (1904) "Abe" Lincoln's Yarns and Stories.
"If Voting Changed Anything They'd Abolish It."
Greens talk about consensus decision making as the ideal and it is good when it happens, but who is the final arbiter of consensus?
Who decides when consensus is reached? What is the final arbiter! Democracy means decisions taken by all. Consensus is one method but when consensus fails do we abide by the decisions of all taken by such methods as BCIR or do we abide by decisions of politicians who seem to get it spectacularly wrong most of the time.
At the moment we have so called representative democracy which simply means we have a choice of dictatorship every three years. If most people do not like what they are doing you have little choice but to elect the opposite party who may or may not reverse what has been done.
Just because you may or may not like the results of a recent BCIR is no reason to say that is the wrong way to run a democratic system. The majority are more likely to get it right than a minority of power hungry self centred idealoges in Parliament. How many of the things imposed on us by Labour and National have been in the best interests of more than a few narrow groups in NZ. The sheer arrogance of politicians and journalists contempt for the "great unwashed" and the inability to give up power to the governed is behind most of the objections to citizens having a say in Government.
The Swiss system on the whole runs very well. Including protecting minorities. There has been hiccups with BCIR in California, but not in many other places where it is used. The Icelanders telling the banks to get s-fed was great.
We need more power devolved to the voters..
People who have voting power will also demand better information from politicians and journalists.
" In Italy, for thirty years under the Borgias, they had warfare, terror, murder, bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland, they had brotherly love; they had 500 years of democracy and peace -- and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock".
Orson Welles as Harry Lime in The Third Man, 1949.
But which one would you rather live in?
At the moment we have so called representative democracy which simply means we have a choice of dictatorship every three years. If most people do not like what they are doing you have little choice but to elect the opposite party who may or may not reverse what has been done.
Just because you may or may not like the results of a recent BCIR is no reason to say that is the wrong way to run a democratic system. The majority are more likely to get it right than a minority of power hungry self centred idealoges in Parliament. How many of the things imposed on us by Labour and National have been in the best interests of more than a few narrow groups in NZ. The sheer arrogance of politicians and journalists contempt for the "great unwashed" and the inability to give up power to the governed is behind most of the objections to citizens having a say in Government.
The Swiss system on the whole runs very well. Including protecting minorities. There has been hiccups with BCIR in California, but not in many other places where it is used. The Icelanders telling the banks to get s-fed was great.
We need more power devolved to the voters..
People who have voting power will also demand better information from politicians and journalists.
" In Italy, for thirty years under the Borgias, they had warfare, terror, murder, bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland, they had brotherly love; they had 500 years of democracy and peace -- and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock".
Orson Welles as Harry Lime in The Third Man, 1949.
But which one would you rather live in?
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Kia-ora
I wonder if the Green party is shooting itself in the foot by constantly referring to the rich as those in the 70k plus bracket.
Many Green party members must fit my profile.
We the earners in the 70 to 150k bracket are working class/middle class. We have had a drop in incomes and availability of jobs with Government policies also. Immigration is deliberately used to keep our earnings down while we are told an executive earning 100 times our salaries is necessary to attract "talent" (It takes a lot of talent, it seems, to cut costs by cutting wages and shifting jobs to lower paid workers offshore).
We are Teachers, small business people, General Practitioners, successful trades people, mechanics, electricians, hairdressers, shopkeepers, farmers (the family ones who pay taxes), engineers, architects, draftsmen, supervisors. The people who have spent time getting an education or learning a trade. We are the people who along with Labourers, cleaners, rubbish men and road menders keep everything working.
A lot of us have been on minimum wages, student allowances, sickness benefits or unemployment during our lives and know how miserable they are.
Most of us are happy to pay our share taxes for a fair society, but we are not happy to see the truly wealthy avoid their share. Much of our taxes are wasted through corporate welfare, bureaucratic and Government mis management rather than going to the people who need it. Not to say that private sector management is any better, but managing our state services should be to best practice, not a refuge for time servers. Most of the tax burden does fall on higher wage and salary earners who work for their money. Those who get it through capital gains and money earning money are largely untaxed.
We want to see poorer people have the educational opportunities we had, the jobs and aspirations to become constructive and contributing members of society. So they can afford to pay our super :-) .We get annoyed when our young people have no jobs, apprenticeships or higher education to go to because of mean spirited and failed neo-liberal policies.
We are mostly boomers, but do not think there will be enough money to pay pensions soon. We would like to invest in something to offset the burden on, or pass on, to our kids, but housing is the only one not subject to fraud by unregulated financial traders.
We voted against Muldoons election bribery, Douglas's destruction, Richardsons meanness and Keys smiling deconstruction of welfare by stealth.
We support acknowledgment of disadvantages to Maori, but wonder why it also seems to be enriching a few rather than helping the kids we see in our schools and surgeries. The foreshore and seabed row seems more about making money from aquaculture than guardianship.
We join the Greens, not because we agree with everything they do, but because they are the only party remaining in NZ that does not see the pursuit of ever greater wealth as the overriding goal of society. The test of a society is how they treat their most disadvantaged and what they pass on to their children. as someone said the " Greens have their heart in the right place".
I wonder if the Green party is shooting itself in the foot by constantly referring to the rich as those in the 70k plus bracket.
Many Green party members must fit my profile.
We the earners in the 70 to 150k bracket are working class/middle class. We have had a drop in incomes and availability of jobs with Government policies also. Immigration is deliberately used to keep our earnings down while we are told an executive earning 100 times our salaries is necessary to attract "talent" (It takes a lot of talent, it seems, to cut costs by cutting wages and shifting jobs to lower paid workers offshore).
We are Teachers, small business people, General Practitioners, successful trades people, mechanics, electricians, hairdressers, shopkeepers, farmers (the family ones who pay taxes), engineers, architects, draftsmen, supervisors. The people who have spent time getting an education or learning a trade. We are the people who along with Labourers, cleaners, rubbish men and road menders keep everything working.
A lot of us have been on minimum wages, student allowances, sickness benefits or unemployment during our lives and know how miserable they are.
Most of us are happy to pay our share taxes for a fair society, but we are not happy to see the truly wealthy avoid their share. Much of our taxes are wasted through corporate welfare, bureaucratic and Government mis management rather than going to the people who need it. Not to say that private sector management is any better, but managing our state services should be to best practice, not a refuge for time servers. Most of the tax burden does fall on higher wage and salary earners who work for their money. Those who get it through capital gains and money earning money are largely untaxed.
We want to see poorer people have the educational opportunities we had, the jobs and aspirations to become constructive and contributing members of society. So they can afford to pay our super :-) .We get annoyed when our young people have no jobs, apprenticeships or higher education to go to because of mean spirited and failed neo-liberal policies.
We are mostly boomers, but do not think there will be enough money to pay pensions soon. We would like to invest in something to offset the burden on, or pass on, to our kids, but housing is the only one not subject to fraud by unregulated financial traders.
We voted against Muldoons election bribery, Douglas's destruction, Richardsons meanness and Keys smiling deconstruction of welfare by stealth.
We support acknowledgment of disadvantages to Maori, but wonder why it also seems to be enriching a few rather than helping the kids we see in our schools and surgeries. The foreshore and seabed row seems more about making money from aquaculture than guardianship.
We join the Greens, not because we agree with everything they do, but because they are the only party remaining in NZ that does not see the pursuit of ever greater wealth as the overriding goal of society. The test of a society is how they treat their most disadvantaged and what they pass on to their children. as someone said the " Greens have their heart in the right place".
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
The Burning Platform, financial collapse, depression, war
The Burning Platform, financial collapse, depression, war
Kia-ora
"The “creativity” of Wall Street was complimented by corporate America instituting “free trade” and “globalization” policies (NAFTA) supported by politicians in Washington DC. The terms free trade and globalization were code for corporate CEOs shipping US manufacturing jobs to China, India, and Vietnam, while expanding their corporate earnings per share 3 cents above analyst expectations per quarter. As reward for gutting American industry, the CEOs demanded their Board of Director toadies give them stock options for 1 million shares and $10 million raises. Does it require a Harvard degree and ingenious brilliance to fire 100,000 American workers making $20 per hour and build a plant in China paying peasants $1 per hour and depending on cheap oil to inexpensively ship the goods back to America? Only one problem, people without jobs have trouble buying stuff. Without middle class jobs, corporate CEOs turned to their Harvard buddies on Wall Street to create $1.2 quadrillion of financial derivatives to convince the middle class they really had wealth to spend on cheap Chinese goods. This corporate/banking collusion was fully supported by their paid for representatives in Washington DC. This unholy alliance between big business and big government enriched the ruling elite, while impoverishing the middle class."
Kia-ora
"The “creativity” of Wall Street was complimented by corporate America instituting “free trade” and “globalization” policies (NAFTA) supported by politicians in Washington DC. The terms free trade and globalization were code for corporate CEOs shipping US manufacturing jobs to China, India, and Vietnam, while expanding their corporate earnings per share 3 cents above analyst expectations per quarter. As reward for gutting American industry, the CEOs demanded their Board of Director toadies give them stock options for 1 million shares and $10 million raises. Does it require a Harvard degree and ingenious brilliance to fire 100,000 American workers making $20 per hour and build a plant in China paying peasants $1 per hour and depending on cheap oil to inexpensively ship the goods back to America? Only one problem, people without jobs have trouble buying stuff. Without middle class jobs, corporate CEOs turned to their Harvard buddies on Wall Street to create $1.2 quadrillion of financial derivatives to convince the middle class they really had wealth to spend on cheap Chinese goods. This corporate/banking collusion was fully supported by their paid for representatives in Washington DC. This unholy alliance between big business and big government enriched the ruling elite, while impoverishing the middle class."
Monday, June 14, 2010
Industry Ignored Its Scientists on Climate - NYTimes.com
Industry Ignored Its Scientists on Climate - NYTimes.com
Kia-ora
More on the denial industry. Why does this not get wide publicity?
Kia-ora
More on the denial industry. Why does this not get wide publicity?
Benefits
http://gordoncampbell.scoop.co.nz/2010/06/11/g-campbell-ministerial-spending-child-poverty/
Kia-ora
Hi
We need to look at the fact that most elderly people are quite comfortably off when the young are struggling. Do we want to do that to our kids. The biggest welfare benefit is still superannuation. Since Muldoon made it an election bribe super has been the elephant in the room nobody talks about. Instead of gold cards a subsidy on public transport for teenagers looking for work, A guaranteed minimum income for children. I get annoyed when people i work with over 65 who are on a good wage crow about receiving super, why should they before they retire? Inflation is a no-no because it decreases the value of monetary investments, but some is beneficial as it also has the effect of transferring capital from those who have a lot to young wage earners. Bernard Hickey talks a lot of rubbish at times but he is right about our failing to help our young people.
Now anyone who wants to come off a benefit faces even greater obstacles in gaining skills. Apprenticeships are almost impossible to get. Entry to tertiary education is being limited. Funding for study is not enough to keep a family and study. Anyone who thinks benefit levels are not an incentive to get work has not had to live on one.
Employers get off very lightly in NZ. No payroll taxes, no 9% super contributions, fire almost at will, cheap immigrants allowed if they cannot get a NZ’r to work for low wages, no rights to strike, Go bankrupt and start another company if it dosn’t work, any twerp can start a company, big pool of unemployed to keep wages down, almost all training paid by taxpayers. WFF so employees can survive on low wages. WFF is actually a subsidy for employers. What more do they want. I suggest that low productivity is due to lack of investment in training and plant rather than anything employees do. We already work more hours than the Japanese we used to feel sorry for.
Kia-ora
Hi
We need to look at the fact that most elderly people are quite comfortably off when the young are struggling. Do we want to do that to our kids. The biggest welfare benefit is still superannuation. Since Muldoon made it an election bribe super has been the elephant in the room nobody talks about. Instead of gold cards a subsidy on public transport for teenagers looking for work, A guaranteed minimum income for children. I get annoyed when people i work with over 65 who are on a good wage crow about receiving super, why should they before they retire? Inflation is a no-no because it decreases the value of monetary investments, but some is beneficial as it also has the effect of transferring capital from those who have a lot to young wage earners. Bernard Hickey talks a lot of rubbish at times but he is right about our failing to help our young people.
Now anyone who wants to come off a benefit faces even greater obstacles in gaining skills. Apprenticeships are almost impossible to get. Entry to tertiary education is being limited. Funding for study is not enough to keep a family and study. Anyone who thinks benefit levels are not an incentive to get work has not had to live on one.
Employers get off very lightly in NZ. No payroll taxes, no 9% super contributions, fire almost at will, cheap immigrants allowed if they cannot get a NZ’r to work for low wages, no rights to strike, Go bankrupt and start another company if it dosn’t work, any twerp can start a company, big pool of unemployed to keep wages down, almost all training paid by taxpayers. WFF so employees can survive on low wages. WFF is actually a subsidy for employers. What more do they want. I suggest that low productivity is due to lack of investment in training and plant rather than anything employees do. We already work more hours than the Japanese we used to feel sorry for.
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Kia-ora
All foreshore and seabed should be crown land, owned by all of us. No private rights to the foreshore should be allowed apart from leases for necessary activities such as ports, moorings, marine activity clubs and some aquaculture etc.
The public and iwi should also have a say in any coastal activity. Maori are quite right in saying why should their rights to go to court over title be removed without addressing the foreshore already alienated in private ownership.
No one should be able to take up large parts of the coast for things like aquaculture without limitations regarding public access and environmental and cultural limitations.
Unfortunately some Iwi want ownership for purely commercial reasons, Fortunately many others want to maintain Guardianship which most New Zealanders would agree is reasonable.
If ownership rights which can be proved in court are removed compensation can come for both Maori and Pakeha owners from treaty compensation funds.
The queens chain should be part of all new development and enforced on farmland etc where it already exists. Too often when walking or rowing up a stream, or on a paper road we get told by some arrogant cockie that we are on his! land.
Some cases where taking public ownership may be manifestly unjust such as when foreshore has eroded in front of a house could be grandfathered.
All foreshore and seabed should be crown land, owned by all of us. No private rights to the foreshore should be allowed apart from leases for necessary activities such as ports, moorings, marine activity clubs and some aquaculture etc.
The public and iwi should also have a say in any coastal activity. Maori are quite right in saying why should their rights to go to court over title be removed without addressing the foreshore already alienated in private ownership.
No one should be able to take up large parts of the coast for things like aquaculture without limitations regarding public access and environmental and cultural limitations.
Unfortunately some Iwi want ownership for purely commercial reasons, Fortunately many others want to maintain Guardianship which most New Zealanders would agree is reasonable.
If ownership rights which can be proved in court are removed compensation can come for both Maori and Pakeha owners from treaty compensation funds.
The queens chain should be part of all new development and enforced on farmland etc where it already exists. Too often when walking or rowing up a stream, or on a paper road we get told by some arrogant cockie that we are on his! land.
Some cases where taking public ownership may be manifestly unjust such as when foreshore has eroded in front of a house could be grandfathered.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Whats wrong with economics.
Kia-ora
what is wrong with economics.
A national economy is supposed to work in a sustainable manner for a society. Economics currently work on a failed continual growth model which cannot continue in a finite world.
Social justice, low inequality, unified and co-operative societies and sustainable use of resources are impossible under our present economic model.
what is wrong with economics.
A national economy is supposed to work in a sustainable manner for a society. Economics currently work on a failed continual growth model which cannot continue in a finite world.
Social justice, low inequality, unified and co-operative societies and sustainable use of resources are impossible under our present economic model.
Emmissions trading.
Kia-ora
Yet another missed opportunity for New Zealand.
As we start with the emissions trading scheme which looks like just another money go round we can look at the missed opportunity to become a world leader in green technology. A carbon tax re-invested within NZ on green energy projects such as house insulation, green energy, eco buildings, energy efficient transport and sustainability could have us exporting the products of research and investment.
The initial funding could have come from the 4 Billion dollars we have been overcharged for power since it was privatised.
Yet another missed opportunity for New Zealand.
As we start with the emissions trading scheme which looks like just another money go round we can look at the missed opportunity to become a world leader in green technology. A carbon tax re-invested within NZ on green energy projects such as house insulation, green energy, eco buildings, energy efficient transport and sustainability could have us exporting the products of research and investment.
The initial funding could have come from the 4 Billion dollars we have been overcharged for power since it was privatised.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Living in denial: Why sensible people reject the truth - opinion - 19 May 2010 - New Scientist
Living in denial: Why sensible people reject the truth - opinion - 19 May 2010 - New Scientist
Kia-ora
This article gives some insight in how denialism works. How otherwise sensible people get sucked in.
Notably National proceeding with private prisons, council private departments and other means of privatising profits and socialising loses despite all evidence that it simply increases costs and inefficiency.
"Children who can maintain their beliefs despite all evidence to the contrary would seem to me to have a great future in government". Kasanov D. Wooden Boat Magazine.# 214.
Unfortunately politicians of all stripes prefer to ignore any evidence which contradicts their dogma.
'
Kia-ora
This article gives some insight in how denialism works. How otherwise sensible people get sucked in.
Notably National proceeding with private prisons, council private departments and other means of privatising profits and socialising loses despite all evidence that it simply increases costs and inefficiency.
"Children who can maintain their beliefs despite all evidence to the contrary would seem to me to have a great future in government". Kasanov D. Wooden Boat Magazine.# 214.
Unfortunately politicians of all stripes prefer to ignore any evidence which contradicts their dogma.
'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)