Kia-ora
A challenge
“And, out of interest, does anyone know of any research into privatization that shows it to be generally effective at improving a service, increasing efficiency and leaving its lowest level workers with a living wage? All I read currently is that the investors get richer, the management can pay itself what it likes, the customers pay more and more for worse service and the lowest level workers are told they need to find a second job just to survive because they are a valueless kind of replaceable resource.”
I have not found a single case where this can be answered in favour of privatisation. Can You?
Showing posts with label Politics. Democracy.. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Democracy.. Show all posts
Sunday, August 19, 2012
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
On Education.
Kia-ora
Anthony Robins in The Standard.
http://thestandard.org.nz/education-and-poverty/
“Claiming that poverty is no excuse for student failure trivializes the damage caused by years of actions and inactions that have widened the gaps between rich and poor communities. Good schools aren’t molded through harsh sanctions, private takeovers, or even soaring rhetoric. They emerge from healthy, stable communities. That is, they emerge from a commitment to justice.”
Teachers can only do so much. A society that does not value and encourage all their children will fail
Anthony Robins in The Standard.
http://thestandard.org.nz/education-and-poverty/
“Claiming that poverty is no excuse for student failure trivializes the damage caused by years of actions and inactions that have widened the gaps between rich and poor communities. Good schools aren’t molded through harsh sanctions, private takeovers, or even soaring rhetoric. They emerge from healthy, stable communities. That is, they emerge from a commitment to justice.”
Teachers can only do so much. A society that does not value and encourage all their children will fail
Saturday, June 2, 2012
Police Assault Protesters in New Zealand.
Kia Ora
Recent protests, against Government policy, by Students in Auckland were greeted by an overwhelming and aggressive police presence.
New Zealand Police have just made it clear they consider there is no right to protest, if it “inconveniences” anyone.
In fact the students were going about their lawful business. PROTESTING IS STILL LEGAL IN NZ.
The police obstructed members of the public and assaulted them. WHILE THEY WERE GOING ABOUT LAWFUL BUSINESS.
Just like police in the UK.
Of course knowing you are likely to be violently assaulted by police, if you protest, has rather a dampening effect on free speech.
No doubt that is what is intended by the police overreaction.
Practicing for when the population finally realises, like the Greeks, how much they have been lied to and exploited.
How long before we see the other repressive actions of an authoritarian dictatorship, to legitimate dissent, here. Like the "kettling" in the UK.
Recent protests, against Government policy, by Students in Auckland were greeted by an overwhelming and aggressive police presence.
New Zealand Police have just made it clear they consider there is no right to protest, if it “inconveniences” anyone.
In fact the students were going about their lawful business. PROTESTING IS STILL LEGAL IN NZ.
The police obstructed members of the public and assaulted them. WHILE THEY WERE GOING ABOUT LAWFUL BUSINESS.
Just like police in the UK.
Of course knowing you are likely to be violently assaulted by police, if you protest, has rather a dampening effect on free speech.
No doubt that is what is intended by the police overreaction.
Practicing for when the population finally realises, like the Greeks, how much they have been lied to and exploited.
How long before we see the other repressive actions of an authoritarian dictatorship, to legitimate dissent, here. Like the "kettling" in the UK.
Sunday, April 22, 2012
What is Neo-Liberalism?
Kia-ora
What is Neo-Liberalism.
Neo-Liberalism is a moral and intellectual justification for greed.
A way for those few who accumulate wealth, by impoverishing many, to justify themselves, and keep those they are stealing from docile and compliant.
This purpose for centuries has been fulfilled by religion.
We still see echo's of the religious attitudes. The idea that the poor are poor because of personal defects, American exceptionalism, the banker who reckons, "God wanted me to be rich", Ayn Rands "wealth creators".
Neo-liberals outwardly believe in small Government, minimal regulation, taxation and social security, individual freedom and responsibility and the primacy of the market in fostering economic efficiency.
In fact their leaders and intellectuals believe in anything which enables them to accumulate wealth at the expense of the rest of us.
Neo-Liberalism would be more appropriately called Neo-conservatism. It is an attempt to return to pre-enlightenment times when the idea of "each is born into their proper place" was undisputed.
Neo-Liberalism has become common usage, unfortunately we are stuck with it.
Neo-Liberalism itself has all the characteristics of blind belief and faith inherent in religion.
Despite its only success being in making a very few people wealthier, millions of people, including most politicians, blindly adhere to the faith.
'It doesn't seem to matter that they NEVER get it right. It doesn't seem to matter they are promoting economic theories that are junk. But unlike Ring's quackery, the quackery of neoliberalism is treated with reverence, it is ascribed legitimacy'.
"The first of these shifts was the Great Depression or, more precisely, the feckless response of both American mainstream political parties to the economic collapse that followed the 1929 stock market crash. In the crucial first years after the crash, Democrats and Republicans alike embraced exactly the same policies they are embracing in today’s economic troubles, with exactly the same lack of success, and showed exactly the same unwillingness to abandon failed policies in the face of economic disaster. Then as now, the federal government launched a program to bail out big banks and corporations—it was called the Reconstruction Finance Corporation in those days—and pumped dizzying amounts of money into the upper end of the economy in the belief, real or feigned, that the money would work its way down the pyramid, which of course it didn’t do. Then as now, politicians used the shibboleth of a balanced budget to demand austerity for everybody but the rich, and cut exactly those programs which could have helped families caught by hard times. Then as now, things got worse while the media insisted that they were getting better, and the mounting evidence that policies weren’t working was treated as proof that the same policies had to be pursued even more forcefully." (John Micheal Greer).
"The first of these shifts was the Great Depression or, more precisely, the feckless response of both American mainstream political parties to the economic collapse that followed the 1929 stock market crash. In the crucial first years after the crash, Democrats and Republicans alike embraced exactly the same policies they are embracing in today’s economic troubles, with exactly the same lack of success, and showed exactly the same unwillingness to abandon failed policies in the face of economic disaster. Then as now, the federal government launched a program to bail out big banks and corporations—it was called the Reconstruction Finance Corporation in those days—and pumped dizzying amounts of money into the upper end of the economy in the belief, real or feigned, that the money would work its way down the pyramid, which of course it didn’t do. Then as now, politicians used the shibboleth of a balanced budget to demand austerity for everybody but the rich, and cut exactly those programs which could have helped families caught by hard times. Then as now, things got worse while the media insisted that they were getting better, and the mounting evidence that policies weren’t working was treated as proof that the same policies had to be pursued even more forcefully." (John Micheal Greer).
Their Apostles are Adam Smith, Ayn Rand, Von Mises, the Austrian, and Freidman, the Chicago, schools of economics.
Adam Smith's "invisible hand" is often quoted. Adam Smith's "you should pay your workers fairly because they are the source of your wealth" and "tax capital and land instead of workers and entrepreneurs" is, of course, ignored.
Von Mises and Freidman advocate a totally unregulated market and a Government as one adherent famously said, "that you could drown in a bathtub". Except for police and military to protect their wealth, of course! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover_Norquist
Ayn Rand considered the owners of capital "wealth creators" although she had to live off the real wealth creators, the rest of us, towards the end of her life.
http://www.alternet.org/story/154153/how_the_1_destroys_jobs_and_the_real_heroes_are_everyday_people
"So before we consider having another trickle-downer in the White House, let’s talk about the failure of this idea and why if you want to see a real job creator, you should look in the mirror".
In fact they support their own freedom to make money regardless of social, environmental or economic effects. At the same time restricting individual freedom to protest, or co-operate to challenge their primacy.
Supporters do not seem to see the conflict between saying they support individual freedom while at the same time restricting the majorities individual freedom to withdraw their labour or protest. These freedoms are restricted, often violently.
"Let’s recap. You’re rich, and you want to stay that way. So, to protect your ticket; to safeguard your $50 million prize; you need to find a way to eliminate, or at least minimise, the threats posed by taxes, unions, and democracy. What’s your strategy?
Essentially, there’s only one winning strategy. It requires you to convince all those who are not wealthy that whatever status and security they do enjoy is the result of your own superior imagination, risk-taking and skill. You have to paint yourself and your fellow millionaires and billionaires as a “wealth creators” and, more importantly, “job creators”. You have to convince your fellow citizens that any attempt to restrict or redistribute your wealth will not only put their jobs at risk, but that society as a whole will become poorer.
If you can convince people of these things, then they will, perfectly democratically, eliminate wealth taxes, truncate workers’ rights, and reconfigure their entire political system to favour the tiny minority fortunate enough to hold the multi-million-dollar winning tickets"
Neo-Liberalism. Like all religions, is a way for the already wealthy to delude everyone else from rebelling, so they can keep their "winning ticket".
While many followers of religions have the best of intentions, their leaders have no such illusions. The intent is to keep wealth and/or power.
The overall effect of Neo-Liberal economics is to "privatise profits while socialising the losses".
Hugely increasing inequality and economic and social dysfunction.
Country after country adopts Neo-Liberal economics and rapidly goes downhill even by Neo-Liberalism's own measures such as GDP. And we still believe it is the solution!
Compare Argentina and the BRIC countries to the Anglo Saxon countries that are slavishly following the Neo-Liberal religion.
Truly voodoo economics.
Saturday, November 5, 2011
Show me the Money??
Kia-ora
Show me the Money??
Easy. The wealthy stole it!
One of the No-Liberal memes is if you allow more of the wealth produced by workers to be retained by the wealthy they will invest more and everyone will benefit. The trickle down theory.
This graph from the New York Times NYT gives the lie to this theory.
Given more money the wealthy simply spend of gamble it in more and more dysfunctional ways.
We can see the same effects in Britain and New Zealand. The effects of Britains belief in voodoo economics.
In New Zealand we have an even stronger correlation.
NZ Governments economic records.
From the Nationalisation of banks and a socialist Labour Government which ended the 1930's depression ahead of most of the rest of the world. To the great recession caused by the adoption of Neo-Liberal dogma from 1984. The rise in incomes and prosperity generally when the Neo-Liberal prescription was relaxed a bit in 2000.
The detrimental effects on a country, by all measures, even their own ones.
of the Neo-Liberal, cut wages, cut taxes, sell everything, deregulate give to the wealthy are conclusively proven.
Looks like even the ratings agencies prefer more left leaning administrations.
Show me the Money??
Easy. The wealthy stole it!
One of the No-Liberal memes is if you allow more of the wealth produced by workers to be retained by the wealthy they will invest more and everyone will benefit. The trickle down theory.
This graph from the New York Times NYT gives the lie to this theory.
Given more money the wealthy simply spend of gamble it in more and more dysfunctional ways.
 | ||||
| The effect of policy on inequality |
In New Zealand we have an even stronger correlation.
NZ Governments economic records.
From the Nationalisation of banks and a socialist Labour Government which ended the 1930's depression ahead of most of the rest of the world. To the great recession caused by the adoption of Neo-Liberal dogma from 1984. The rise in incomes and prosperity generally when the Neo-Liberal prescription was relaxed a bit in 2000.
The detrimental effects on a country, by all measures, even their own ones.
 |
of the Neo-Liberal, cut wages, cut taxes, sell everything, deregulate give to the wealthy are conclusively proven.
Looks like even the ratings agencies prefer more left leaning administrations.
What Our Financial Masters Really Think of Democracy.
Kia-ora
On the axed Referendum.
"In Athens, several ministers and governing party MPs called for Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou to step down in favour of a coalition national unity government that would approve Greece's bailout package without a referendum,"".
The so called representatives of the people. Do not want the people to decide on how to respond to a package.
To bail out even more bankers who made bad lending decisions and pushed prices up to increase their income..
It is becoming very obvious who the real rulers of the world are.
Revealed the capitalist network that runs the world
Despite the lip service to "Representative Democracy".
It is not the citizens of each country.
On the axed Referendum.
"In Athens, several ministers and governing party MPs called for Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou to step down in favour of a coalition national unity government that would approve Greece's bailout package without a referendum,"".
The so called representatives of the people. Do not want the people to decide on how to respond to a package.
To bail out even more bankers who made bad lending decisions and pushed prices up to increase their income..
It is becoming very obvious who the real rulers of the world are.
Revealed the capitalist network that runs the world
Despite the lip service to "Representative Democracy".
It is not the citizens of each country.
Monday, October 24, 2011
Occupy Wall Street.
Kia-ora
The response from the Neo-Liberal establishment to OWS, shows they know how effective bottom up changes can be.
Why we should protest.
Management 101. Effective change management.
1. Establish a consensus that there is a need for change.
2. Figure out what needs to be changed. Again by consensus.
3. Invite ideas and positive changes from the shop floor.
4. Managers should act as facilitators and supporters of change agents.
Lasting and effective changes, need to have the active support of the majority of the workforce, at all levels.
Authoritarian managers are rarely effective at making lasting changes. People always find a way to derail changes they do not support.
Despite some of the best research on Management and Leadership coming from the USA. Places like the USA, NZ and UK ignore it. Leaving effective implementation to Germany, Japan and Scandinavia.
It is strange that despite all the research that says they are less effective, the cult of the Authoritarian Manager/National Leader still remains. Maybe the answer lies in the research about Authoritarian followers. Those who like certainty, even if it is leading them into a country like Somalia.
OWS is at stage 1 at present.
The first stage.
What is frightening politicians, who dream of absolute power, is they know OWS will grow.
We will soon see the solution is democracy. Very scary for those who have been ripping us of while accepting a Parliamentary salary from us.
Why should we leave our future up to a power hungry, greedy minority.
We are the 99%.
In the meantime. We can do our part in supporting stage one. Worldwide.
Occupy Wall Street.
The response from the Neo-Liberal establishment to OWS, shows they know how effective bottom up changes can be.
Why we should protest.
Management 101. Effective change management.
1. Establish a consensus that there is a need for change.
2. Figure out what needs to be changed. Again by consensus.
3. Invite ideas and positive changes from the shop floor.
4. Managers should act as facilitators and supporters of change agents.
Lasting and effective changes, need to have the active support of the majority of the workforce, at all levels.
Authoritarian managers are rarely effective at making lasting changes. People always find a way to derail changes they do not support.
Despite some of the best research on Management and Leadership coming from the USA. Places like the USA, NZ and UK ignore it. Leaving effective implementation to Germany, Japan and Scandinavia.
It is strange that despite all the research that says they are less effective, the cult of the Authoritarian Manager/National Leader still remains. Maybe the answer lies in the research about Authoritarian followers. Those who like certainty, even if it is leading them into a country like Somalia.
OWS is at stage 1 at present.
The first stage.
What is frightening politicians, who dream of absolute power, is they know OWS will grow.
We will soon see the solution is democracy. Very scary for those who have been ripping us of while accepting a Parliamentary salary from us.
Why should we leave our future up to a power hungry, greedy minority.
We are the 99%.
In the meantime. We can do our part in supporting stage one. Worldwide.
Occupy Wall Street.
Saturday, October 8, 2011
Kia-ora
A reminder of why we have to change our economic paradigm.
Our present one is not sustainable, even short term.
“Memo To The #Occupied Movement (A Post-Growth Economy)
By Richard Heinberg
06 October, 2011
Post Carbon Institute
Here’s a fact that’s hard for most Americans to swallow: economic growth is over. Given the finite nature of our planet and its resources, the recent trend of global economic expansion was destined to end. No stimulus package or slashing of social programs is going to flip the economy back to an expansionary trajectory. We’ve hit the proverbial wall, and this will be the defining reality of our lives from now on.
The growth-seeking political-economic system has failed us. Today that system is dominated by Wall Street. “Goldman Sachs rules the world,” trader Alessio Rastani told us in a now-viral BBC interview. I met people like Rastani in researching my book, The End of Growth.
At one lavish conference, 800 global investors packed a hotel ballroom to consider climate change. There was no talk of how to avert or mitigate floods and droughts. Instead, the discussion focused on profiting from warming with — no joke — weather derivatives. These folks were just doing their job, despite any private feelings of concern, remorse, or dread. And each was getting paid enough to single-handedly fund a midsize school district.
Both Wall Street and Washington are trying to do something impossible: grow human consumption forever in a world of limited energy, minerals, water, topsoil, and biodiversity, all while protecting and expanding the riches of the top one percent. If economic growth is over, that means we can no longer count on a rising tide to lift all boats. Under these conditions, extreme income inequality is not just unfair, it is socially unsustainable.
It’s strategic to bring protest to Wall Street rather than Washington. We must go directly to the crime scene — not with a request for reforms, but with an arrest warrant from the people.
You courageous people in the #occupy movement are absolutely right in saying the system is broken, greedy, and unfair. But when our discussion turns to replacing the current system, we’ve got to embrace a bigger view of reality than the one held by stock traders and politicians. It’s not just our wealth they want to control, it’s our vision for what is both possible and necessary. We need a post-growth economy that works both for people (all of them) and for the rest of nature: a localized economy based on renewable resources harvested at nature’s rates of replenishment, not a fossil-fueled global economy driven by the imperative of ever-higher returns on investment."""
A reminder of why we have to change our economic paradigm.
Our present one is not sustainable, even short term.
“Memo To The #Occupied Movement (A Post-Growth Economy)
By Richard Heinberg
06 October, 2011
Post Carbon Institute
Here’s a fact that’s hard for most Americans to swallow: economic growth is over. Given the finite nature of our planet and its resources, the recent trend of global economic expansion was destined to end. No stimulus package or slashing of social programs is going to flip the economy back to an expansionary trajectory. We’ve hit the proverbial wall, and this will be the defining reality of our lives from now on.
The growth-seeking political-economic system has failed us. Today that system is dominated by Wall Street. “Goldman Sachs rules the world,” trader Alessio Rastani told us in a now-viral BBC interview. I met people like Rastani in researching my book, The End of Growth.
At one lavish conference, 800 global investors packed a hotel ballroom to consider climate change. There was no talk of how to avert or mitigate floods and droughts. Instead, the discussion focused on profiting from warming with — no joke — weather derivatives. These folks were just doing their job, despite any private feelings of concern, remorse, or dread. And each was getting paid enough to single-handedly fund a midsize school district.
Both Wall Street and Washington are trying to do something impossible: grow human consumption forever in a world of limited energy, minerals, water, topsoil, and biodiversity, all while protecting and expanding the riches of the top one percent. If economic growth is over, that means we can no longer count on a rising tide to lift all boats. Under these conditions, extreme income inequality is not just unfair, it is socially unsustainable.
It’s strategic to bring protest to Wall Street rather than Washington. We must go directly to the crime scene — not with a request for reforms, but with an arrest warrant from the people.
You courageous people in the #occupy movement are absolutely right in saying the system is broken, greedy, and unfair. But when our discussion turns to replacing the current system, we’ve got to embrace a bigger view of reality than the one held by stock traders and politicians. It’s not just our wealth they want to control, it’s our vision for what is both possible and necessary. We need a post-growth economy that works both for people (all of them) and for the rest of nature: a localized economy based on renewable resources harvested at nature’s rates of replenishment, not a fossil-fueled global economy driven by the imperative of ever-higher returns on investment."""
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
New Zealands credit downgrade. Or the Story of more Neo-Liberal economic "successes".
Kia-ora
It would be funny if it was not so serious.
NACT (New Zealand,s, Right wing, Neo-Liberal Government) cannot even meet performance targets from, the totally discredited, "credit rating" agencies.
Agencies which are on the side of the same economic dogma as NACT.
This could have been avoided simply by legislating that no private finance companies would be bailed out.
The New Zealand Government, like, the other failing States, Ireland, UK, Greece and the US etc, has made it obvious that private finance debt is a taxpayer liability.
Look to Argentina and Iceland to see the benefits of telling the banks to get stuffed. Argentina, one of the worlds fastest growth economies since 2002, when they told the banks to take a bath.
Noting that most lenders to Governments have taken no notice of States credit rating downgrades recently.
Government bonds are still considered much safer than private lending.
One of the reasons for the continuing recession in the USA. The cashed up prefer to lend to the Government instead of industry and development. Government lending at 0% intended as a stimulus is being invested in 3% yeald Government bonds.
Meanwhile the Media have had almost no coverage of Nationals failure to succeed, even under their own terms. If we had a credit downgrade under Labour it would have been frontline news.
A rugby players nuts are more important!
It would be funny if it was not so serious.
NACT (New Zealand,s, Right wing, Neo-Liberal Government) cannot even meet performance targets from, the totally discredited, "credit rating" agencies.
Agencies which are on the side of the same economic dogma as NACT.
This could have been avoided simply by legislating that no private finance companies would be bailed out.
The New Zealand Government, like, the other failing States, Ireland, UK, Greece and the US etc, has made it obvious that private finance debt is a taxpayer liability.
Look to Argentina and Iceland to see the benefits of telling the banks to get stuffed. Argentina, one of the worlds fastest growth economies since 2002, when they told the banks to take a bath.
Noting that most lenders to Governments have taken no notice of States credit rating downgrades recently.
Government bonds are still considered much safer than private lending.
One of the reasons for the continuing recession in the USA. The cashed up prefer to lend to the Government instead of industry and development. Government lending at 0% intended as a stimulus is being invested in 3% yeald Government bonds.
Meanwhile the Media have had almost no coverage of Nationals failure to succeed, even under their own terms. If we had a credit downgrade under Labour it would have been frontline news.
A rugby players nuts are more important!
Sunday, October 2, 2011
Democracy Repris'
Kia-ora
""You’re oversimplifying. MPs in Labour, National and the Greens view the majority of NZ – correctly – as people who have not read hundreds of policy analysis documents, sat on select committees and arrived at informed decisions on issues that affect large numbers of people.
Adults are quite capable of making decisions about their own lives; it’s when they start making decisions that affect everybody else’s lives purely based on their own preferences that it becomes difficult. That is why we have a representative democracy.""
Are you serious. Do you mean these people?
You mean the largely self appointed old boys club of the marginally competent. Who examine all the papers and evidence and then do the opposite because of an irrational faith in free markets and other religions.
The ones who totally ignore expert research, empirical evidence, overseas experiences and advice and follow the failed footsteps of the UK, Ireland, Greece and USA.
There are very few politicians who could even survive in a job where you have to take real responsibility. Hows Brownlee doing in Christchurch. McCully in Auckland.
Couldn’t run a p–up in a brothel.
Since 1984 we havn’t even had the choice to get rid of an economic dogma, which is heading NZ for the third world.
Presently, National/ACT/Maori party, while accepting an income from us, are actively working against the best interests of the majority of New Zealanders.
The last round of privatisations costs more than 14 billion a year. not to mention the costs of buying back essential infrastructure when the, so efficient, private sector have run it into the ground.
How could democracy possibly make worse decisions than politicians have.
The evidence from the few places that have democracy, Switzerland etc, shows that better decisions result. Their politicians know that poorly researched and explained legislation will be overturned by referenda.
That is why we should have democracy. Why should the fate of 4 million be totally in the hands of whichever 61 incompetents won the beauty contest last election.
""You’re oversimplifying. MPs in Labour, National and the Greens view the majority of NZ – correctly – as people who have not read hundreds of policy analysis documents, sat on select committees and arrived at informed decisions on issues that affect large numbers of people.
Adults are quite capable of making decisions about their own lives; it’s when they start making decisions that affect everybody else’s lives purely based on their own preferences that it becomes difficult. That is why we have a representative democracy.""
Are you serious. Do you mean these people?
You mean the largely self appointed old boys club of the marginally competent. Who examine all the papers and evidence and then do the opposite because of an irrational faith in free markets and other religions.
The ones who totally ignore expert research, empirical evidence, overseas experiences and advice and follow the failed footsteps of the UK, Ireland, Greece and USA.
There are very few politicians who could even survive in a job where you have to take real responsibility. Hows Brownlee doing in Christchurch. McCully in Auckland.
Couldn’t run a p–up in a brothel.
Since 1984 we havn’t even had the choice to get rid of an economic dogma, which is heading NZ for the third world.
Presently, National/ACT/Maori party, while accepting an income from us, are actively working against the best interests of the majority of New Zealanders.
The last round of privatisations costs more than 14 billion a year. not to mention the costs of buying back essential infrastructure when the, so efficient, private sector have run it into the ground.
How could democracy possibly make worse decisions than politicians have.
The evidence from the few places that have democracy, Switzerland etc, shows that better decisions result. Their politicians know that poorly researched and explained legislation will be overturned by referenda.
That is why we should have democracy. Why should the fate of 4 million be totally in the hands of whichever 61 incompetents won the beauty contest last election.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Search and surveillance
Kia-ora
We are a passive lot. Our rights to privacy, and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, have been slowly frittered away by various Governments over the years. while rights to freedom from surveillance without cause have been taken away.
The media have mostly been silent. When they haven’t been actively supporting it, using, mostly, specious excuses about cutting crime.
The skynet bill and the new search and surveillance bill are unacceptable infringements on our rights to freedom from search and seizure.
Already existing laws about surveillance and airport and port security also exceed the rights of search, of ordinary citizens, that authorities should have.
In the interests of corporates and "supposedly" fighting crime, or terrorism, our rights to privacy, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure and right to protest are being steadily reduced.
The potential for Government and police, to misuse these laws has already become apparent, with over 50 cases where the police exceeded their legal powers. Instead of charging the police responsible, with breaking the law. The Government proposes to make these acts retrospectively legal.
We are a passive lot. Our rights to privacy, and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, have been slowly frittered away by various Governments over the years. while rights to freedom from surveillance without cause have been taken away.
The media have mostly been silent. When they haven’t been actively supporting it, using, mostly, specious excuses about cutting crime.
The skynet bill and the new search and surveillance bill are unacceptable infringements on our rights to freedom from search and seizure.
Already existing laws about surveillance and airport and port security also exceed the rights of search, of ordinary citizens, that authorities should have.
In the interests of corporates and "supposedly" fighting crime, or terrorism, our rights to privacy, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure and right to protest are being steadily reduced.
The potential for Government and police, to misuse these laws has already become apparent, with over 50 cases where the police exceeded their legal powers. Instead of charging the police responsible, with breaking the law. The Government proposes to make these acts retrospectively legal.
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
On internet Surveillance and Interception.
Kia-ora
Years ago, when you applied for a marine radio operators licence, you had to sign a statement that you would maintain "secrecy of correspondence".
"Secrecy of correspondence" was the legal principle that, "Under no circumstances would you divulge the contents of any radio message to a third party".
In other words privacy of communication was sacrosanct. All radio operators hearing a message, including Government radio operators , were only allowed to divulge the existence or the contents of a radio message to "the proper recipient".
I am sure this was often honoured in the breach by intelligence agencies. But the principle that an individuals right to privacy overrode any other interests ,for any reason, was there.
Similarly it has been a legal principle, in most "democratic" States, that phone calls can only be intercepted on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
Usually by a judicial or court order. Police are not allowed to listen to private phone calls at random.
WHY THEN! Are we allowing the State, and even worse, private ISP companies and copyright holders to breach a our privacy IN CASE WE ARE BREAKING THE LAW.
WE DO NOT ALLOW THEM TO BREACH OUR "PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATION", ON THE TELEPHONE, LIKE THIS.
Sure they have all sort of laudable reasons. Protecting copyright holders, attempting to limit paedophilia and catching organised criminals. But anyone, who wants to intercept other forms of communication to prevent these crimes, has to see a judge.
Of course reasonable people support intercepting paedophiles and terrorists on the internet. Who wouldn't.
However, those people can easily find ways and means to bypass internet scrutiny.
While the rest of us have our rights to privacy and free and open communication with our friends trampled on.
Once a Government starts internet scrutiny do you think they will stop with intercepting illegal traffic. How long before they intercept Wikileaks, The New Zealand Socialist Party. The Labour party! Anything which embarrasses them!
How long before the SIS and police start making lists.
Of people who are not comfortable with the present Government.
They have done it before.
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
New Zealand at the Crossroads
Kia-ora
The NYT on the "success" of Neo-Liberalism.
As "No Right Turn" says this graphic is "an appalling indictment of Neo-Liberalism".
In New Zealand we have seen the effects just this year. Over 17% increase in wealth for the top few percent while 200 000 children live in relative poverty.
The pattern in New Zealand, since our great Neo-Liberal experiment, following the USA, Ireland and UK, has been the same.
Coddling the rich is destroying the American dream.
"No matter how many times it's said, lowering tax rates for the highest income Americans does not create jobs or stimulate the economy. In fact, a detailed look reveals that the overall economy does slightly better when taxes at the top are significantly higher. This also holds true on the state level, as states with higher top personal tax rates have growth rates and median incomes that average greater than those with low (or even no) taxes. No matter how many times the experiment is repeated, or how long you extend the results, cutting taxes for the wealthy does not stimulate growth."
Most of the wealth earned by Americans went to corporates.
"Corporate profits captured 88% of the growth in real national income while aggregate wages and salaries accounted for only slightly more than 1% of the growth in real national income".
In New Zealand cutting taxes for the wealthy was supposed to stimulate the economy. Since the first round of high end tax cuts, investment in the productive economy, wages and manufacturing, in New Zealand, stagnated, and capital flew to gambles on offshore markets.
Decimation of Union and employee rights, and cuts in Government spending has resulted in huge drops in real income, for all but a few New Zealanders.
New Zealand is at the crossroads.
We can vote for National and ACT, and join the list of failed States like the USA and UK.
Another three years of failed Neo-Liberal policies will destroy the country we know.
Do we want third generation unemployment and riots in the streets like the UK. Or the repressive, unequal, surveillance society the USA has become.
For the first time since 1984 we have a clear choice. Continue down a failed Neo-Liberal road, or Own our Future.
We can vote for the Greens and Labour. For sensible policies, which were middle of the road, before Neo- Liberal religious hysteria took over.
The NYT on the "success" of Neo-Liberalism.
As "No Right Turn" says this graphic is "an appalling indictment of Neo-Liberalism".
In New Zealand we have seen the effects just this year. Over 17% increase in wealth for the top few percent while 200 000 children live in relative poverty.
The pattern in New Zealand, since our great Neo-Liberal experiment, following the USA, Ireland and UK, has been the same.
Coddling the rich is destroying the American dream.
"No matter how many times it's said, lowering tax rates for the highest income Americans does not create jobs or stimulate the economy. In fact, a detailed look reveals that the overall economy does slightly better when taxes at the top are significantly higher. This also holds true on the state level, as states with higher top personal tax rates have growth rates and median incomes that average greater than those with low (or even no) taxes. No matter how many times the experiment is repeated, or how long you extend the results, cutting taxes for the wealthy does not stimulate growth."
Most of the wealth earned by Americans went to corporates.
"Corporate profits captured 88% of the growth in real national income while aggregate wages and salaries accounted for only slightly more than 1% of the growth in real national income".
In New Zealand cutting taxes for the wealthy was supposed to stimulate the economy. Since the first round of high end tax cuts, investment in the productive economy, wages and manufacturing, in New Zealand, stagnated, and capital flew to gambles on offshore markets.
Decimation of Union and employee rights, and cuts in Government spending has resulted in huge drops in real income, for all but a few New Zealanders.
New Zealand is at the crossroads.
We can vote for National and ACT, and join the list of failed States like the USA and UK.
Another three years of failed Neo-Liberal policies will destroy the country we know.
Do we want third generation unemployment and riots in the streets like the UK. Or the repressive, unequal, surveillance society the USA has become.
For the first time since 1984 we have a clear choice. Continue down a failed Neo-Liberal road, or Own our Future.
We can vote for the Greens and Labour. For sensible policies, which were middle of the road, before Neo- Liberal religious hysteria took over.
Sunday, August 14, 2011
Saturday, August 13, 2011
The wealthy deserve their wealth??
Kia-ora
One of the recurring memes is that the rich earned their wealth because of some innate superiority, extra effort or extra talent, and it is churlish to take some back off them..
One of the recurring memes is that the rich earned their wealth because of some innate superiority, extra effort or extra talent, and it is churlish to take some back off them..
Those at the top, got there, mostly, because of A) inherited wealth, B) the old boy network. (The real advantage of private schooling). C)total psychopathic self interest and disregard for others. (Called theft when done by those at the bottom).
They would have us believe that they have some special talent or superiority that justifies their wealth.
Anyone who watches the Kardashians can see that inheriting wealth is no guarantee of superiority.
Ridding them of some of their money makes for a more efficient economy and a fairer and more decent society.
Why do they have more right to the wealth produced by the workers in society than anyone else whether they work or not.
Jobs and livelihoods exist because there is a demand and need for them. Not because of money capital.
Also! Not because of the owners of capital. Recent events have shown, that, given free rein, the owners of capital hoard it and gamble it. AND expect taxpayers to bail them out when they lose.
The owners of capital are sitting on trillions at the moment. Extra 20% more wealth went to them in NZ this year. Where are the jobs??
Do you really think that if the owners of, say, supermarkets, in NZ withdrew their capital some entrepreneurs would not arise to fill the gap.
Democratic Socialists do not say we take all the money back off them.
Though as it is undeserved and unearned the communists may be right.
Taking capital of these people who tend to mispend, and gamble it, to enable more to those who spend and use it wisely, is economically and socially effective.
A very few get to the top because of effort, learning skills, entrepreneurship, producing something that a great many people value or by talent.
This is so rare however that these individuals are celebrated in the news.
Those deserve their money.
It is interesting though, that most of these people recognise that the social benefits from society, such as State education, helped them on their way and they are happy to give back in some way.
Don’t usually see them demanding less taxes.
Many more who could or would be entrepreneurs are constrained because A,B and C above take the wealth earned by us and waste it. Or use wealth to limit competition from below. Opposing all attempts at upward mobility. E.g. Dumbing down public education to the 3 r’s only to avoid the children of the “lower classes” from competing with their pampered darlings.
Don’t forget those who really produce the wealth. The wealthy would not survive without all of the workers. Even entrepreneurs need staff.
They would have us believe that they have some special talent or superiority that justifies their wealth.
Anyone who watches the Kardashians can see that inheriting wealth is no guarantee of superiority.
Ridding them of some of their money makes for a more efficient economy and a fairer and more decent society.
Why do they have more right to the wealth produced by the workers in society than anyone else whether they work or not.
Jobs and livelihoods exist because there is a demand and need for them. Not because of money capital.
Also! Not because of the owners of capital. Recent events have shown, that, given free rein, the owners of capital hoard it and gamble it. AND expect taxpayers to bail them out when they lose.
The owners of capital are sitting on trillions at the moment. Extra 20% more wealth went to them in NZ this year. Where are the jobs??
Do you really think that if the owners of, say, supermarkets, in NZ withdrew their capital some entrepreneurs would not arise to fill the gap.
Democratic Socialists do not say we take all the money back off them.
Though as it is undeserved and unearned the communists may be right.
Taking capital of these people who tend to mispend, and gamble it, to enable more to those who spend and use it wisely, is economically and socially effective.
A very few get to the top because of effort, learning skills, entrepreneurship, producing something that a great many people value or by talent.
This is so rare however that these individuals are celebrated in the news.
Those deserve their money.
It is interesting though, that most of these people recognise that the social benefits from society, such as State education, helped them on their way and they are happy to give back in some way.
Don’t usually see them demanding less taxes.
Many more who could or would be entrepreneurs are constrained because A,B and C above take the wealth earned by us and waste it. Or use wealth to limit competition from below. Opposing all attempts at upward mobility. E.g. Dumbing down public education to the 3 r’s only to avoid the children of the “lower classes” from competing with their pampered darlings.
Don’t forget those who really produce the wealth. The wealthy would not survive without all of the workers. Even entrepreneurs need staff.
On Riots.
Kia-ora
Right wing politicians are quick to distance themselves from rioting, and public revolt, in many countries around the world.
"The responsibility lies with criminal elements".
Well! It does, but mostly with the unpunished criminals who have destroyed cohesive society for their own gain.
Is it surprising that after decades of selfishness, meanness, unpunished theft and blatant tax dodging from the top, that those at the bottom follow the example.
You ruin, destroy and steal everything from people, including any hope for a better future. Then you are surprised they turn as mean and self centred as you.
Right wing politicians are quick to distance themselves from rioting, and public revolt, in many countries around the world.
"The responsibility lies with criminal elements".
Well! It does, but mostly with the unpunished criminals who have destroyed cohesive society for their own gain.
Is it surprising that after decades of selfishness, meanness, unpunished theft and blatant tax dodging from the top, that those at the bottom follow the example.
You ruin, destroy and steal everything from people, including any hope for a better future. Then you are surprised they turn as mean and self centred as you.
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Campaign for MMP in New Zealand.
Kia-ora
Campaign for MMP
MMP has shown its worth as an electoral system, in keeping some rein on extremist politicians.
Just recently by slowing or stopping the path of a Government bill, to take away some of an individuals rights when before the courts.
MMP saves right to trial by jury
Monday, August 8, 2011
Signs of Hope.
Kia-ora
Signs that some of our Government have learnt from their mistakes.
The plan so far. NZ Labour Party.
""Labour will introduce a capital gains tax. It’s predicted the tax will raise $26 billion over 15 years that can be used to pay off
debt, cut taxes for most New Zealanders, save our assets and prepare for the mounting cost of our aging population.
Labour will also put the top tax rate back up to 39 cents for income earned over $150,000.
That’s likely to affect around 2% of the country’s top earners.
A CGT is already in use in nearly all developed countries, including Australia, the United Kingdom and United States"".
I wonder if the money people will allow so big a departure from Neo-Liberal dogma.
They are already trying to smear the leaders of Labour.
Signs that some of our Government have learnt from their mistakes.
The plan so far. NZ Labour Party.
""Labour will introduce a capital gains tax. It’s predicted the tax will raise $26 billion over 15 years that can be used to pay off
debt, cut taxes for most New Zealanders, save our assets and prepare for the mounting cost of our aging population.
Labour will also put the top tax rate back up to 39 cents for income earned over $150,000.
That’s likely to affect around 2% of the country’s top earners.
A CGT is already in use in nearly all developed countries, including Australia, the United Kingdom and United States"".
I wonder if the money people will allow so big a departure from Neo-Liberal dogma.
They are already trying to smear the leaders of Labour.
"Good' and bad Dictators.
Kia-ora
A good Dictator is one who lets the US corporate world burgle his country.
A bad Dictator is one who does not!
Democracy is fine. So long as it meets the objectives of the USA
""Washington and its allies keep to the well-established principle that democracy is acceptable only insofar as it conforms to strategic and economic objectives: fine in enemy territory (up to a point), but not in our backyard, please, unless properly tamed"".
Washington is happy to support radical Islamic Government in Saudi Arabia, repressive dictatorships in Columbia, Indonesia,Tunisia and UAE and governments with scant regard for human rights in other countries.
As Chile, Honduras, Iran, Venezuala, Indonesia and, recently, Libya (and the citizens of the USA) have found the one thing you cannot do is keep some of the local wealth from exploitation by US corporates.
That is the trigger for the USA to replace the Government by one more pliable.
It does not matter that, in most cases, the new Government is a repressive and cruel dictatorship, so long as US interests are served and the Neo-Liberal gravy train for the worlds rich continues.
Gaddafi is no saint, but he was not as bad as many regimes the USA continues to support.
A good Dictator is one who lets the US corporate world burgle his country.
A bad Dictator is one who does not!
Democracy is fine. So long as it meets the objectives of the USA
""Washington and its allies keep to the well-established principle that democracy is acceptable only insofar as it conforms to strategic and economic objectives: fine in enemy territory (up to a point), but not in our backyard, please, unless properly tamed"".
Washington is happy to support radical Islamic Government in Saudi Arabia, repressive dictatorships in Columbia, Indonesia,Tunisia and UAE and governments with scant regard for human rights in other countries.
As Chile, Honduras, Iran, Venezuala, Indonesia and, recently, Libya (and the citizens of the USA) have found the one thing you cannot do is keep some of the local wealth from exploitation by US corporates.
That is the trigger for the USA to replace the Government by one more pliable.
It does not matter that, in most cases, the new Government is a repressive and cruel dictatorship, so long as US interests are served and the Neo-Liberal gravy train for the worlds rich continues.
Gaddafi is no saint, but he was not as bad as many regimes the USA continues to support.
George Monbiot – How the Billionaires Broke the System
Kia-ora
George Monbiot – How the Billionaires Broke the System
"There are two ways of cutting a deficit: raising taxes or reducing spending. Raising taxes means taking money from the rich. Cutting spending means taking money from the poor. Not in all cases of course: some taxation is regressive; some state spending takes money from ordinary citizens and gives it to banks, arms companies, oil barons and farmers. But in most cases the state transfers wealth from rich to poor, while tax cuts shift it from poor to rich.
So the rich, in a nominal democracy, have a struggle on their hands. Somehow they must persuade the other 99% to vote against their own interests: to shrink the state, supporting spending cuts rather than tax rises. In the US they appear to be succeeding".
Sound like New Zealand.
18% rise in the wealth of the top 0.5 % this year. the rest officially minus 5.4 to 2.4 %. (Depending on if you got the 2% wage rise that some strongly unionised workers had or not).
George Monbiot – How the Billionaires Broke the System
"There are two ways of cutting a deficit: raising taxes or reducing spending. Raising taxes means taking money from the rich. Cutting spending means taking money from the poor. Not in all cases of course: some taxation is regressive; some state spending takes money from ordinary citizens and gives it to banks, arms companies, oil barons and farmers. But in most cases the state transfers wealth from rich to poor, while tax cuts shift it from poor to rich.
So the rich, in a nominal democracy, have a struggle on their hands. Somehow they must persuade the other 99% to vote against their own interests: to shrink the state, supporting spending cuts rather than tax rises. In the US they appear to be succeeding".
Sound like New Zealand.
18% rise in the wealth of the top 0.5 % this year. the rest officially minus 5.4 to 2.4 %. (Depending on if you got the 2% wage rise that some strongly unionised workers had or not).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
The wealth was earned by the efforts and contribution of workers and tax payers.
I have already said that the skilled and entrepreneurs earn their wealth. It is their money.
A good Doctor, Teacher, builder, scientist, entrepreneur, (Your decent business with well paid employees) The person who produces and markets a more efficient windmill, deserve all we can pay them.
But as we all know it is State supplied infrastructure, education, stability and rule of law that enables them to prosper, as well as their own efforts.
How many successful businesses does Somalia produce. The locals have to resort to piracy!
For most of the wealthy though IT IS NOT THEIR MONEY! It is basically stolen money.
Do you really believe it is right that 50% of the richest people in NZ pay little or no tax despite being the biggest beneficiaries of the society we have created over decades.
Do you thing financiers should still be getting bonuses when they f–ked up so badly it cost trillions in tax payer funds worldwide to fix it.
What do the Koch brothers do to have such a large share of the worlds wealth? They have used their money to make the USA a failed State.
What actually did Key do that is such benefit to society that he earned 50 million. In fact he cost the NZ economy many times that to make it.
It would be more than fair to tax him 50% of his unearned dollars to mitigate the damage he did.
Fayrich stole millions when they acquired rail at mates rates, knowing they could asset strip all they liked. Some future Government would always have to build it up again as a vital piece of infrastructure for exporters. Should claw a proportion of that back also.
The property developer in Christchurch who went to court to overturn a council decision about building on dodgy land. Who is now sitting on his millions in Australia while we all pay for the damage.
Farmers who are sitting on millions in capital gains when they retire who pay $1700 a year in tax while paying starvation wages, and, still demanding all the benefits paid for by other peoples taxes.
Why should our elderly, sick and young people be living in poverty in one of the richest countries in history, just so the very rich can avoid a few% contribution to the society they benefit from.
We tried letting the wealthy keep more. It has proven to be a disaster.
1/3 decrease in investment, manufacturing almost gone, a relentless slide down the economic rankings, increasing inequality, massive hemorrhage of capital to financial gambling.
The way to get new money in the system and keep what is there is to bring back workers bargaining power (so money they have earned stays here a wages instead of disappearing offshore), tax capital flows, tax speculation, tax the wealthy more and use that money to invest in New Zealand (Including research and development as well as the health and education of New Zealanders), stop paying overseas banks to add zeros to their electronic ledgers and lend capital to ourselves. (Gaddafi’s big crime). As that arch lefty Adam Smith said. Tax the owners of capital and leave the producers alone.
Waiting for the private sector to re-allocate capital to benefit society has not worked, and never will!