Kia-ora
The magical world of New Zealand's, Neo-Liberal right wing.
It has been obvious that some people live in a different world than the rest of us.
One where Chicago school economics, work!
One where you save the village by blowing it up!
One where global warming can be stopped, Canute like, by legislation.
One where dropping wages and giving everything to bloated financiers, makes us better off!
One where removing money from an economy makes it work better.
One where every country is going to get rich by out exporting every other country.
One where enabling greater inequality than the dark ages, works!
The one with the trickle down fairy. "Give us the money and we will p-- on you".
The
market fairy. "Leave it to the market and we will cut your
wages,impoverish your children, and tell you it is a brighter future".
The Austerity fairy. "We will become better off by becoming poorer".
The
catching up with Australia fairy. "We will catch up with Australia by
doing almost the opposite of everything they have done".
The Democracy fairy. "We will let you vote, to change the names in Government, or on a few social issues which do not affect our making money off you, but not to make any meaningful changes to the way the country is run".
The
privatisation fairy. "We will ensure that the NZ current account is
forever in deficit, by selling all the income earning assets"
The
debt fairy. "We will cut debt by borrowing $300mill a week, to pay for unaffordable tax cuts, to pay for our Hawaii holidays".
The Job fairy. " We will increase the number of jobs by putting thousands out of work, and cutting the unemployment benefit".
The
"We support business" fairy. While ensuring New Zealanders have no
money to buy from local businesses, and increasing small businesses
costs.
The better future fairy. "We will give you a better future by paying you less, charging you more and cutting services".
It is pretty obvious which side of the political spectrum is on another planet. Planet Key!
(New Zealand's, financial industry shill, Prime Minister).
Showing posts with label Austerity.. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Austerity.. Show all posts
Saturday, May 18, 2013
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
Government should be run like a business? Privatisation.
Kia-ora
Many business people say that a country should be run like a
business.
Maybe they are right. It should be run like a SUCCESSFUL business.
It is appropriate for Government to take lessons from business
success, and the reverse.
But when it comes down to details, right wing Neo-Liberal
business does not want Government and country they govern to become too
successful, or democratic. They are doing too well by taking advantage of slack
regulation (regulation which favours them over the rest of society) and
politicians foolishness.
In business a manager who fails to plan for the future would
be sacked.
Right wing Neo-Liberal business say that Government should
keep out of strategic planning.
Successful business constantly plan advertise and strategise
to “beat the market”.
Right wing
Neo-Liberal business insist that Government should muddle along, leaving it to
“the market”.
Successful businesses involve as many people in decision
making as possible.
Successful businesses involve their staff in decision
making,.
Right wing Neo-Liberal business want Government dictatorship,
so long as they run the dictators, and oppose democratic moves like MMP and BCIR.
Even New Zealands, non binding, referenda, the only
Democratic voice allowed in New Zealand, have such a freshold for a triggering
petition that they are guaranteed to be very infrequent.
Successful businesses ensure they have a competitive advantage.
Monopoly is even better.
Right wing Neo-Liberal business insists that we give up any
competitive advantage with so called “free trade agreements” and open licence for foreign corporate to
plunder and selling profitable assets.
Successful business gets Government to bend the rules in
their favour.
Right wing Neo-Liberal business insists that we remove trade
protections and rules which work in our favour.
Management silo’s that only look at small part are known to
be dysfunctional.
Right wing Neo-Liberal business says that every part of a
countries infrastructure should be stand alone, dependant on individual profit
and loss without regard to social and economic costs to the country as a whole.
Giving small business and consumers inflated prices for utilities, so utilities
make a profit, for example. North
Americans will remember ENRON.
Successful businesses work for the future of the entire
company. They know that if any one part cannot
take excessive capital, or resources .
Right wing Neo-Liberal business oppose any attempt by
Government to rein in unjustified excessive profit taking from the rest of the
economy. There is a propaganda war in New Zealand from the right wing at the
moment to prevent the extraction of excessive
power profits.
Successful companies train, nurture and look after their
staff.
Right wing Neo-Liberal business insist on dropping wages,
and starving those who cannot work “pour encourager les autres” regardless of the costs in lost demand, (A
cost to business also) welfare and crime.
Successful business has consistent and effective policies,
procedures and rules.
Right wing Neo-Liberal business wants Government to refrain
from regulation, except that which protects them, of course. (For example taking away workers rights and protecting big corporate rights to take as much as they
can) Giving us leaky houses, worker
deaths, finance company failures, wage cuts, full jails and tax payer bailouts.
Lastly, successful business use all their resources as
effectively as possible and use the co-operative efforts of many people to meet
goals.
Right wing Neo-Liberal business would rather countries do
not have goals and that we are all turned into competing worker units.
Right wing propagandists pay lip service to the idea of running
a country like a successful business. In reality they oppose Government
being too good, because it would limit their ability to steal from the rest of
us. They are happy to continue profiting
from a Government that does what they tell them.
One famously wanted to “drown Government in a bathtub”,
because it affected his profits. Several famous NZ business men openly gloated
about how they profited from stealing
tax payer owned infrastructure companies, and asset stripping them.
Good Government, real democracy, improving decision making
by Government, and good effective regulation and protection, for
the majority of a countries citizens, would destroy their gravy train.
Hence the hysterical overreaction to a minor piece of
addition to Government regulation of power companies in New Zealand.
Because it, if it is allowed to happen, is the beginning of the end for the idea of
“the market” and the mean spirited Neo-liberal,
consensus which has delivered so much wealth and power to a greedy few.
Saturday, March 30, 2013
Comparative Advantage?
Kia-ora
In fact no country has ever succeeded on exports alone, without a healthy internal economy.
And no country has ever succeeded in benefiting from an export economy without State support of the export sector.
Of course, our pursuit of pure free markets has worked so well? How much has our number of people in poverty increased by, again?
Even Ricardo never suggested that Britain give up making wine altogether, or Portugal textiles.
In fact no country has ever succeeded on exports alone, without a healthy internal economy.
And no country has ever succeeded in benefiting from an export economy without State support of the export sector.
Of course, our pursuit of pure free markets has worked so well? How much has our number of people in poverty increased by, again?
Ha-Joon on free trade.
Particularly between
the trade policy reform of its first Prime Minister Robert Walpole in 1721
and its adoption of free trade around 1860, Britain used very dirigiste trade and industrial policies, involving
measures very similar to what countries like Japan and Korea later used in order to develop their industries. During this
period, it protected its industries a lot more heavily than did France, the supposed dirigiste counterpoint to its free-trade, free-market
system. Given this history, argued Friedrich List, the leading German
economist of the mid-19th century, Britain preaching free trade to
less advanced countries like Germany and the USA was like someone trying to
“kick away the ladder” with which he had climbed to the top.""
""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.
Contrary to the
popular myth, Britain had been an aggressive user, and in certain areas a pioneer, of
activist policies intended to promote its industries. Such policies, although
limited in scope, date back from the 14th century (Edward III) and the 15th
century (Henry VII) in relation to woollen manufacturing, the leading industry of
the time. England then was an exporter of raw wool to the Low Countries, and Henry VII for example tried
to change this by taxing raw wool exports and poaching skilled workers from
the Low Countries.
Monday, March 25, 2013
Refuting false arguments against democracy.
Kia-ora
"I don't think referenda should be binding".
If a referenda is not binding. THEN WE DO NOT HAVE DEMOCRACY.
All the arguments against BCIR and real democracy are the same ones that were made by those in power at the time against citizens, women, non-aristocracy or non-landowners having a vote, at all.
There is absolutely no moral, or justifiable arguments against democracy.
Just self serving bullshit from those who want their turn in Dictatorship.
As NRT says. ” Even if they are wrong they are still our decisions to make”.
Why should 160 odd marginally competent, power hungry, ill educated twits in Parliament rule the rest of us.
We still let them do it despite constant reminders of how incapable politicians, of all stripes, really are.
"We should not allow mob rule".
Decisions are made by those who have to implement them.
The more people involved in a decision the better it is likely to be.
Funny that the most successful economies have workers representatives on their boards.
The most successful economy, Switzerland has had BCIR and democratic control of Government for a century.
And the most successful corporations are co-ops. Fonterra!
And the NZ old boys club of self selected directors, overpaid managers and incompetent politicians are heading us for the third world.
Time we had democratic control of the self serving incompetents who are arrogant enough to think they should dictate to the rest of us. Changing our Government to a democracy, Swiss style, instead of a three yearly rotating dictatorship, would be a good start.
"I don't think referenda should be binding".
If a referenda is not binding. THEN WE DO NOT HAVE DEMOCRACY.
All the arguments against BCIR and real democracy are the same ones that were made by those in power at the time against citizens, women, non-aristocracy or non-landowners having a vote, at all.
There is absolutely no moral, or justifiable arguments against democracy.
Just self serving bullshit from those who want their turn in Dictatorship.
As NRT says. ” Even if they are wrong they are still our decisions to make”.
Why should 160 odd marginally competent, power hungry, ill educated twits in Parliament rule the rest of us.
We still let them do it despite constant reminders of how incapable politicians, of all stripes, really are.
"We should not allow mob rule".
In fact management studies tell us that good decision making happens when as many alternatives as possible are considered.
Decisions are made by those who have to implement them.
The more people involved in a decision the better it is likely to be.
Funny that the most successful economies have workers representatives on their boards.
The most successful economy, Switzerland has had BCIR and democratic control of Government for a century.
And the most successful corporations are co-ops. Fonterra!
And the NZ old boys club of self selected directors, overpaid managers and incompetent politicians are heading us for the third world.
Time we had democratic control of the self serving incompetents who are arrogant enough to think they should dictate to the rest of us. Changing our Government to a democracy, Swiss style, instead of a three yearly rotating dictatorship, would be a good start.
"Government by referendum will make decisions that are wrong".
As if Government by politicians doesn't.
What these people are really saying is the majority may make decisions they do not agree with.
Well. If they genuinely think the majority are wrong then they are as free as anyone else to pursuade them otherwise.
Evidence shows that, where decisions are made by referenda, outcomes are better than when they are made by any minority, including those with political power. Those which turn out to be wrong are more likely to be reversed and there is much more consideration given to legislation when it may be overturned by a vote.
Sunday, February 17, 2013
Kicking away the ladder.
Kia-ora
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!
"
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.
Kia-ora
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.
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.
Saturday, November 10, 2012
Livable income.
Kia-ora
A liveable income should be a human right.
We accept that someone can inherit unearned millions, but we do not accept that someone else should inherit enough, from our society, to live on, as of right.
Who actually has the culture of unearned entitlement?
The Koch’s, Romney’s, Bennets, Shipley and Keys getting thousands a day for contributing very little.
Not a teenager who has been struggling unsuccessfully to find work for two years and is expected to live on $130 a week.
The days of constant growth and full employment are gone.
We can produce enough for everyone to live in comfort in NZ with fraction of our present activity/employment.
I do not have the figures for New Zealand, but, rather than a more equal distribution of income making everyone poorer, if the USA’s current production was shared equally, every family in the States would have an income of around 180k annually.
The right wing idea that a more equal distribution of income means equality in misery, is an obvious fallacy.
A surgeon, teacher or entrepreneur should earn more than an unqualified cleaner, but by cutting extreme wealth there is plenty of room to eradicate poverty in New Zealand. Or the US.
No one except for some rare exceptional entrepreneurs, “earns” millions.
Note that in both the USA and New Zealand when they were at their most prosperous the top progressive tax rate was much higher and inequalities in wealth much lower than they are now.
Trickle down does not work. http://kjt-kt.blogspot.co.nz/2012/08/blog-post.html
A liveable income should be a human right.
We accept that someone can inherit unearned millions, but we do not accept that someone else should inherit enough, from our society, to live on, as of right.
Who actually has the culture of unearned entitlement?
The Koch’s, Romney’s, Bennets, Shipley and Keys getting thousands a day for contributing very little.
Not a teenager who has been struggling unsuccessfully to find work for two years and is expected to live on $130 a week.
The days of constant growth and full employment are gone.
We can produce enough for everyone to live in comfort in NZ with fraction of our present activity/employment.
I do not have the figures for New Zealand, but, rather than a more equal distribution of income making everyone poorer, if the USA’s current production was shared equally, every family in the States would have an income of around 180k annually.
The right wing idea that a more equal distribution of income means equality in misery, is an obvious fallacy.
A surgeon, teacher or entrepreneur should earn more than an unqualified cleaner, but by cutting extreme wealth there is plenty of room to eradicate poverty in New Zealand. Or the US.
No one except for some rare exceptional entrepreneurs, “earns” millions.
Note that in both the USA and New Zealand when they were at their most prosperous the top progressive tax rate was much higher and inequalities in wealth much lower than they are now.
Trickle down does not work. http://kjt-kt.blogspot.co.nz/2012/08/blog-post.html
The "Culture of Entitlement".
Kia-ora
Welfare recipients “Culture of Entitlement”.
Unintentional irony from individuals who are sitting on 100 thousand dollar pay rises, while their company tanks in the recession, salt their income away offshore to avoid taxes, prefer to spend on bidding up prices with unproductive speculation, expect taxpayer bailouts when their gambling fails, and ask for tax cuts while the deficit increases.
Unintentional irony from individuals who are sitting on 100 thousand dollar pay rises, while their company tanks in the recession, salt their income away offshore to avoid taxes, prefer to spend on bidding up prices with unproductive speculation, expect taxpayer bailouts when their gambling fails, and ask for tax cuts while the deficit increases.
Thursday, October 11, 2012
"Printing Money". Banking. Part Two.
Kia-ora
The Greens talk about Necessary Changes to Monetary Policy.
"Time to stop fighting Yesterday's war."
Gareth Morgan.
And why I do not agree with him this time.
Borrowing money, "printed money" from foreign banks, and paying 14 billion extra a year for the privilege, is sensible?
http://kjt-kt.blogspot.co.nz/2...
Do I detect a bit of self interest here?
In fact "printing money" worked very effectively for NZ in the 30's. So well it was copied by other countries.
All the howls about Zimbabwe and the Weimer
republic forget that their productive sectors were first destroyed,
before they started printing money, When there was nothing to buy with
it.
Not a lot different from Nationals present efforts!
A lot different from lending to ourselves to invest in paying our
under-utilised and capable construction industry to rebuild
Christchurch.
Vital infrastructure which will return the investment many times in future.
Also we did exactly the same thing from 1935 until the 60?s. Called the
Development finance corporation for a long time.
Worked well for us. Got us out of the depression before the US and UK for a start.
We are still using a lot of those assets. Apart from the ones our idiot
Governments sold, so someone else could profit from them.
National still seems to want to follow the USA, UK, Ireland and Greece down the tubes.
The Greens talk about Necessary Changes to Monetary Policy.
"Time to stop fighting Yesterday's war."
Gareth Morgan.
And why I do not agree with him this time.
Borrowing money, "printed money" from foreign banks, and paying 14 billion extra a year for the privilege, is sensible?
http://kjt-kt.blogspot.co.nz/2...
Do I detect a bit of self interest here?
In fact "printing money" worked very effectively for NZ in the 30's. So well it was copied by other countries.
All the howls about Zimbabwe and the Weimer
republic forget that their productive sectors were first destroyed,
before they started printing money, When there was nothing to buy with
it.
Not a lot different from Nationals present efforts!
A lot different from lending to ourselves to invest in paying our
under-utilised and capable construction industry to rebuild
Christchurch.
Vital infrastructure which will return the investment many times in future.
Also we did exactly the same thing from 1935 until the 60?s. Called the
Development finance corporation for a long time.
Worked well for us. Got us out of the depression before the US and UK for a start.
We are still using a lot of those assets. Apart from the ones our idiot
Governments sold, so someone else could profit from them.
National still seems to want to follow the USA, UK, Ireland and Greece down the tubes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Kean on the "Roving Cavaliers of Credit" or How Bankers got to Rule the World.
“”In some ways these conclusions are unremarkable: banks make money by extending debt, and the more they create, the more they are likely to earn. But this is a revolutionary conclusion when compared to standard thinking about banks and debt, because the money multiplier model implies that, whatever banks might want to do, they are constrained from so doing by a money creation process that they do not control.
However, in the real world, they do control the creation of credit. Given their proclivity to lend as much as is possible, the only real constraint on bank lending is the public’s willingness to go into debt. In the model economy shown here, that willingness directly relates to the perceived possibilities for profitable investment—and since these are limited, so also is the uptake of debt.
But in the real world—and in my models of Minsky’s Financial Instability Hypothesis—there is an additional reason why the public will take on debt:
the perception of possibilities for private gain from leveraged speculation on asset prices.”"
Kean describes exactly the real world effects of current monetary policy.
Both Cyprus and Greece show how Democracy can be overturned at the wim of bankers trying to protect their income, from pushing up asset prices, with loans they should never have been allowed to make, with money they have produced out of thin air. A power only a democratically controlled Government should have.
Recent moves towards legislation, to take money from us to bail out failing banks, again, by the New Zealand Government , shows who our politicians really work for!