Sunday, February 17, 2013

Kicking away the ladder.


Advocates of Neo-Liberal, "free market" idealogy claim that the prescription they want to impose on other countries is the one that made them prosperous.

Not only is this manifestly wrong by any empirical measurement, (Compare poster boy, "free market" New Zealand to largely still socialist and protectionist Norway, or Australia, for example) it also ignores the protectionist history of every successful economy.

Notable in the USA, the more protectionist, socialist and publicly co-operative the State, the more succesful their economy. High tax, more socialist States are propping up the more Neo-Liberal States.Compare North Dakota and Texas for example.

The height of Neo-liberal absurdity is when Chile under Pinochet is held up as an example of successful Neo-Liberal economic.

How Neo-Liberal ignore evidence, and History!
"Almost all of today’s rich countries used tariff protection and subsidies to develop their industries. Interestingly, Britain and the USA, the two countries that are supposed to have reached the summit of the world economy through their free-market, free-trade policy, are actually the ones that had most aggressively used protection and subsidies".

Living wages.


One of the "grass roots" initiatives that has arisen partly out of the occupy movement is The living wage movement. Living Wage

Predictably those who award themselves 100k bonuses and 17% pay rises, while dodging taxes are opposed.

Zetetic on a living wage.

"Don’t you love hearing the rich say the working poor can’t have more pay? The faux concern that higher wages cost jobs from the same people who support huge executive pay packets and tax cuts? If you really believed higher wages meant fewer jobs, you would cut the CEO’s pay in half, not dick around over a few dollars an hour for real workers. (Emphasis mine).

Of course, the truth is more money in working people’s hands means more demand for the basics, meaning more jobs. It’s well-established empirical fact. Anyone who argues otherwise is just using a false justification that masks their real – much less altruistic reasons – for wanting the poor to stay poor.""

 How, if low wages are good for the economy, do the  wealthiest justify awarding themselves higher pay while the rest of us have pay cuts.?
 We have a shortage of skilled technicians and trades in New Zealand. How is it econmically justified that their pay has been cut year by year, while financial finaglers, directors and "managers' where there is no shortage continually award themselves more pay? Japan and Germany seem to find competent managers, with pay differentials much less than ours.
How do managers, bankers or politicians, and other non-producing parasites, sleep at night when they collect 100's of thousands a year and put a miserly $13.50 an hour into their hard workers pay packets.

 At the same time, in New Zealand, half of our wealtheist people pay little or no tax. Wealthy dodge tax
One of the main reasons the PIG's went under is the lack of tax take from the wealthy. In Greece dodging taxes was a national sport. In New Zealand we just make the wealthy avoiding paying for the social and natural capital they use, legal.


Apologies to readers for the lack of postings.
I've been involved in New Zealand Green party policy formation groups among other things.
Including, I admit, enjoying a sunny summer. Stopping and 'smelling the roses' is good for the soul.