New Zealand Gold Prospecting & Metal Detecting Forums Archive

 

The forum has moved to community.paydirt.co.nz, see you there!

This forum is now an archive to preserve the knowledge and finds posted here.

5 Pages<1234>»
icemaneli  
Posted : Thursday, 13 September 2012 12:40:12 AM(UTC)
icemaneli

Rank: Gold Flake

Groups: Registered
Joined: 5/09/2012(UTC)
Posts: 19
New Zealand
Location: Darfield

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
I don't think any of the current commerce systems are good. Everything in this world is currently based on growth even though the earth is effectively a closed system i.e. no inputs no outputs and growth in a closed system=unsustainable. The big issue here is population size and growth as it is the fundamental driver of the man made aspect of the planet. I have a feeling I'm going to get some stick for this but population control will be needed if we want to maintain our current standard of living. Im not saying 1 child per couple, that will decrease the population by half in a few 10's of years. Actually a stable reproduction rate something like 1.1 offspring for each person (accounts for premature deaths) or 2.2 kids per couple which for most people is reasonable. I doubt that either population stabilizing or a steady state economy will happen while i'm alive but it will happen out of necessity somewhere down the road.

sorry not really on topic but thought this is an interesting concept.
gingerbreadman  
Posted : Thursday, 13 September 2012 1:04:43 AM(UTC)
gingerbreadman

Rank: Gold Ingot

Groups: Registered
Joined: 19/07/2010(UTC)
Posts: 473
Location: south of the black stump

Thanks: 34 times
Was thanked: 96 time(s) in 74 post(s)
no inputs no outputs and growth in a closed system=unsustainable...guess thats why natural reasorses will be worth shitloads down the track......gold ,greenstone....water,wind!! or what ever its all being gobled and when its in short supply=$$$ for who ever has some..
Lammerlaw  
Posted : Thursday, 13 September 2012 1:17:17 AM(UTC)
Lammerlaw

Rank: Gold Ingot

Groups: Registered
Joined: 24/05/2011(UTC)
Posts: 1,721

Thanks: 72 times
Was thanked: 579 time(s) in 396 post(s)
Originally Posted by: auinbox Go to Quoted Post
bring on communism


I think I might agree as long as it was pure communism - Russia was simply one regime taking over form another hence the book 'Stalin - The Court of the Red Czar' - China was much the same.

Robert - like bloody hell allow offshore interests to own so much as one of our state assets - not a one. There is a huge difference between Maori owning these things and off shore interests - With Maori the money remains right here in new Zealand so that in the long run everyone benefits.
It also makes life easier for some of those Maori who are genuinely in dire straits due to no cause of their own. Anyone who tells me that the general run of the mill Maori people dont benefit have no idea what they are talking about. My son and oldest daughter have applied for many scholarships to go to University and thanks to the distribution of tribal scholarships my two oldest kids have got three scholarships to Polytech and have been granted many thousands all due to the monies the tribe distributes. Thanks to one of the local runanga to which we affiliate my two daughters have traveled New Zealand to represent Otago in their chosen sport about eight times.

If the Maori owned the State assets then more and more Maori kids or kids descended from Maoris who are needy or underprivileged would benefit and if the mongrel State kept its Assets and ran them properly then everyone could benefit

The ideal is for the State to own and thus the ownership is in the hands of the people with the State merely managing on behalf of the people - golly Robert I sometimes think that you must be a minion of the offshore Bankers!

The reason we selling offshore is because the bankers who loaned us money under a fractional Reserve system which is a criminal syatem are foreclosing the mortgage and dictating terms - personally I think that the power should go to the people and the people should tell the offshore trash where to go...they have been paid back far more than enough. To keep some of the populace quiet some of the shares must be sold within New Zealand and thus the politicians look after themselves and their rich arselicking buddies after all the poor and needy cannot afford shares!.
oroplata  
Posted : Thursday, 13 September 2012 1:27:11 AM(UTC)
oroplata

Rank: Gold Ingot

Groups: Registered, Moderators
Joined: 16/06/2011(UTC)
Posts: 1,040
Location: Christchurch

Thanks: 23 times
Was thanked: 211 time(s) in 152 post(s)
Originally Posted by: rgmcbrid Go to Quoted Post
My main point being that if you think having government involved in business is to your advantage, thousands of years of history disagree with you.


True, but now - with computers and instant communications - it may be possible to have a 100% "open government" where the people's chequebook is able to be monitored by anyone who wants to, ensuring the money goes where it's supposed to go. But first we have to get rid of the rampant fraud in the financial and political systems and start with a fresh slate. Revolution should do it. :)
oroplata  
Posted : Thursday, 13 September 2012 1:33:31 AM(UTC)
oroplata

Rank: Gold Ingot

Groups: Registered, Moderators
Joined: 16/06/2011(UTC)
Posts: 1,040
Location: Christchurch

Thanks: 23 times
Was thanked: 211 time(s) in 152 post(s)
Originally Posted by: icemaneli Go to Quoted Post
I don't think any of the current commerce systems are good. Everything in this world is currently based on growth even though the earth is effectively a closed system i.e. no inputs no outputs and growth in a closed system=unsustainable. The big issue here is population size and growth as it is the fundamental driver of the man made aspect of the planet. I have a feeling I'm going to get some stick for this but population control will be needed if we want to maintain our current standard of living. Im not saying 1 child per couple, that will decrease the population by half in a few 10's of years. Actually a stable reproduction rate something like 1.1 offspring for each person (accounts for premature deaths) or 2.2 kids per couple which for most people is reasonable. I doubt that either population stabilizing or a steady state economy will happen while i'm alive but it will happen out of necessity somewhere down the road.


With the rate they're stripping the fisheries, it'll be a natural population depletion.

But in addition, I believe the Fukushima disaster is going to lead to a large population decrease in the northern hemisphere. Those reactors are still unstable and pumping radioactive material into the environment. The Japanese can't admit failure as it's against their culture to do so, and the Yanks are keeping quiet about it too, because if the population there knew what was really going on, they'd be demanding all the reactors in the USA were shut down too. And of course it wouldn't be good for GE's stock value.

rgmcbrid  
Posted : Thursday, 13 September 2012 9:56:46 AM(UTC)
rgmcbrid

Rank: Gold Ingot

Groups: Registered
Joined: 3/06/2010(UTC)
Posts: 583
Man
Location: Southland

Thanks: 23 times
Was thanked: 180 time(s) in 140 post(s)
Lammerlaw, I don’t doubt that Maoris benefit from Maori owned assets; but I am not a Maori. In fact as you point out Maoris get a lot of things for free which non-Maoris have to pay for, so it is really kind of a disadvantage to competing non-Maoris who have to pay their own way to polytech etc. I don’t want to sound like I am anti-Maori (I’m not) but there is a real danger from handouts and treating any group of people as if they are incapable or inferior; you will end up with a culture of dependency which makes their situation worse not better.

I would agree that all things being equal it would be better if NZ assets were owned by Kiwis. But I think what you fail to take into consideration is that Kiwis can and do buy assets in other countries. You can own part of any foreign company which buys an NZ asset.

I completely disagree that what is owned by the government is owned by the people, what is theirs is theirs and what is yours is kind of theirs too. You have to pay tax on the property you own, and if the government wants to put a road through it or something they will take it away from you. ‘Public’ property has severe restrictions on what the public can do on it and is full of fees and regulations and parking meters. Try and tell DOC that DOC land is yours and see where that gets you.

And again, you state that you are very unhappy with banking/finance which is and always has been the responsibilities of the state; and at the same time think it is an advantage to have this same government manages assets. If the state is so terrible at finance what makes you think they will be any better at managing a power company?

Icemaneli, The world population is actually levelling off; it is still increasing, but at a slower rate. The cure for population growth (and also many environmental problems) is prosperity. As societies become more affluent they have fewer children and cause less pollution. So, really you are saving the world by finding more gold.
icemaneli  
Posted : Thursday, 13 September 2012 1:06:14 PM(UTC)
icemaneli

Rank: Gold Flake

Groups: Registered
Joined: 5/09/2012(UTC)
Posts: 19
New Zealand
Location: Darfield

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
rgmcbrid, world population may well be levelling out but i have to disagree with your affluence and pollution statement. in order to gain prosperity in the way it is currently viewed one has to pollute. There's the small scale things like cars and such then there's the big infrastructure that accompany's first world countries. Coal fired power stations are still the number one energy producer worldwide (New Zealand is one exception) and there is no sign, no matter how wealthy a society becomes that it will change any time soon. Above this and probably the worst polluter in all first world countries is cement manufacture. it usually flies under the radar when people talk about man made air pollution (and not by accident) and as countries become more wealthy and build bigger and better structures the amount of pollution from cement factory's will only increase. then you add in all the other big industries, steel, aluminium, hydrocarbons (for now any way), dairy (tend to use a lot of coal), and anything else you can think of and the pollution generated by a first world country is orders of magnitude greater than developing ones.
oroplata  
Posted : Thursday, 13 September 2012 1:17:50 PM(UTC)
oroplata

Rank: Gold Ingot

Groups: Registered, Moderators
Joined: 16/06/2011(UTC)
Posts: 1,040
Location: Christchurch

Thanks: 23 times
Was thanked: 211 time(s) in 152 post(s)

While we're on the subject of NZ's natural resources being slowly but surely destroyed by big corporations...

http://www.waikatoregion...nical-Reports/TR-200551/

Lammerlaw  
Posted : Thursday, 13 September 2012 1:24:29 PM(UTC)
Lammerlaw

Rank: Gold Ingot

Groups: Registered
Joined: 24/05/2011(UTC)
Posts: 1,721

Thanks: 72 times
Was thanked: 579 time(s) in 396 post(s)
Robert and Matt

Firstly Matt - it is not a case of glass beads nor Treaty of Waitangi - the Maoris were cheated - for example Ngai Tahu sold 9 out of every 10 acres to the Europeans but the Europeans cheated and never surveyed off the 1 in 10 acres - the Maoris were not near as thick as the Europeans made them out to be and within a matter of months really Maoris were obtaining seats in parliament and contesting the failure to fulfill the terms of contract - this continued until the Maori people finally got their claims heard and consequently the Ngai tahu settlement - Ngai tahu never got thier 1 in 10 acres but were given money instead - a paltry 170 million - yes paltry compared with the value of the land they have been cheated out of - Europeans scream unfair based on an ignorance of historical fact.

Robert - I hear what you say about a culture on dependency but isnt your white world and its beneficiaries just as much a culture of dependency? No difference at all - none whatsoever other than the system of beneficiaries is worse - indeed the Maori situation is such as to be more independent as the tribe makes money on behalf of its shareholders - the people - and the 'handouts' as you might call them are no more nor any less than one shareholder might make from his/her dividends

Robert - you and I elect politicians into power on the basis of their promises and policies. The government could handle the state owned assets and banking on behalf of the people with total deadly and ruthless efficiency but being idiots they would not know how.
If they employeed people of high caliber like Ngai Tahu do then all would go well and this country would be back on its legs in no time - Ngai Tahus money managers have turned their $170 million into $800,000 million in a very short time indeed - it is all about who manages things!

The government are the elected representatives of the people therefore they are supposed to represent the people and the assets of the people - the people own the assets and the government manage them - that is how it is supposed to be. Same as electing you to be manager of my land - the decisions you make should be in my best interests because what you control actually belongs not to you nor anyone else but to me. Neither you nor I can tell any DOC employee what to do as the DOC staff are employeed to manage the land in the best interests of everyone. It is the same situation as my Great grandfather who owned three brigantines or similar - there was no way whatsoever that my Great Grandfather could tell his Captains, the men employeed to manage his vessels what to do because my great grandfather only had his first mates ticket - same thing - if others are charged with managing your assets then they call the tune NOT you.

You are totally wrong when you say that I have a problem with banking owned by the State - Postbank used to be State owned and I deal with them - indeed State owned banks were more stable and guaranteed the security of your money. If you read carefully what I say then it is the world banking system and its loans to New Zealand under the Fractional Reserve system that I am not happy about - it is a criminal system under which no person could possibly pay back the monies owed - you could almost say it was designed to break a country so that the offshore bankers could declare that country bankrupt, force the sale of State owned assets, sell the power back to the people and other utilities and make even more money while effectively controlling that country and eventually owning it - unless the people of this country, and of the US and Australia revolt and wrestle control of the banking system from the bankers (Merrill Lynch, Federal Reserve, Morgan Chase, Bank of America etc) and merely write of the National debts and place the banks into State control under the likes of those who run the Ngai Tahu business development section then it will not be long before even YOUR property is taken to pay the National Debt and you will have to rent your own property or like many families in Greece now - live in a cave!...and if you think that your property is safe then think again as there is no clear freehold title in New Zealand - it is fee simple and subject to whatever leins the government might impose on you.

Edited by user Thursday, 13 September 2012 1:28:22 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

NUGGY  
Posted : Thursday, 13 September 2012 2:12:40 PM(UTC)
NUGGY

Rank: Gold Ingot

Groups: Registered
Joined: 20/07/2012(UTC)
Posts: 267
Man
New Zealand
Location: greymouth

Thanks: 85 times
Was thanked: 76 time(s) in 58 post(s)
Gee this subject certainly got into a very wide discussion, in a couple of days. World banking and what not.
I just think all the assets should be owned by all Kiwis of any race, and managed for the benefit of all, with guaranteed access for all. Especially natural resources like gold and greenstone etc.
I'm sure there was some part in the Treaty of Waitangi where it says we are now one people.
I have a mate who is part Maori, and does not have any idea which tribe, as his mum who was part Maori was adopted without paperwork back in the 1930's she has been dead along with her adoptive parents for 20 years. So if was into it, which he isn't, he cannot claim anything from any tribe as he does not know which one to go to. There must be others in this situation.
The social reality is, we are one people, there are Maori from two different areas in my own family, parents of my youngest cousins. Neither of them are the right tribe to gather any greenstone either.
I just will never agree with dividing up natural resources as a whole, on race/family based criteria. Maybe for one or two rivers based on customary use yes, but not the whole damn lot.
NUGGY

Edited by user Thursday, 13 September 2012 2:15:03 PM(UTC)  | Reason: punctuation

gogold  
Posted : Thursday, 13 September 2012 3:02:36 PM(UTC)
gogold

Rank: Gold Ingot

Groups: Registered
Joined: 5/01/2012(UTC)
Posts: 217
Location: gore

Thanks: 4 times
Was thanked: 56 time(s) in 45 post(s)
greed is still a big part of the treaty settlement. there always seems to be something new maori are trying to own/claim rights to etc all because of a deal made 170 yrs ago. ok the maori may have been ripped off boo hoo that was then this is now, and now we are all getting ripped off because of the greedy few using the maori race to make their wallets fatter and if thats not their motives then perhaps they should drive an old bongo van and live in a state house, i bet none of the maori trying to bargain for "their tribe" are living like that, sticky fingers and greed thats all it is.
maybe maori should compensate everyone else for bringing them everything they have now without it theyd be f***ed lets see ngai tahu catch their millions in seafood quota in a waka of harvest their forest with a stone axe. how about they forget about what we took and look at what we gave..... maybe we shud give them their 1 in 10 acres back and they can go back to little huts barefeet and grass skirts hunting with a spear and getting seafood without a boat or wetsuit.
Lammerlaw  
Posted : Thursday, 13 September 2012 3:06:50 PM(UTC)
Lammerlaw

Rank: Gold Ingot

Groups: Registered
Joined: 24/05/2011(UTC)
Posts: 1,721

Thanks: 72 times
Was thanked: 579 time(s) in 396 post(s)
Originally Posted by: NUGGY Go to Quoted Post
Gee this subject certainly got into a very wide discussion, in a couple of days. World banking and what not.
I just think all the assets should be owned by all Kiwis of any race, and managed for the benefit of all, with guaranteed access for all. Especially natural resources like gold and greenstone etc.
I'm sure there was some part in the Treaty of Waitangi where it says we are now one people.
I have a mate who is part Maori, and does not have any idea which tribe, as his mum who was part Maori was adopted without paperwork back in the 1930's she has been dead along with her adoptive parents for 20 years. So if was into it, which he isn't, he cannot claim anything from any tribe as he does not know which one to go to. There must be others in this situation.
The social reality is, we are one people, there are Maori from two different areas in my own family, parents of my youngest cousins. Neither of them are the right tribe to gather any greenstone either.
I just will never agree with dividing up natural resources as a whole, on race/family based criteria. Maybe for one or two rivers based on customary use yes, but not the whole damn lot.
NUGGY


Yes you are quite correct and I do totally agree with everything you say - New Zealand should be for all New Zealanders though I also agree that justifiable Maori claims like the Ngai Tahu claim are valid and finally have been put to rest.

All new Zealanders should own the assets and not foreign bankers or investors but if anyone owns the air and water and if someone has GOT to own it then NO foreigner - I would prefer ALL New Zealanders to own them and if that is not possible then better Maori than foreign bankers.

We were one people once until money and greed came into the equation though I have to be careful what I say here because as I said most Maori claims are legitimate and historically needed to be rectified - if you sign a contract then I am sure that the other party would expect their goods or services from it - it just took Maori a long time of constant demands to finally get what was legally owing them.!

rgmcbrid  
Posted : Thursday, 13 September 2012 3:23:17 PM(UTC)
rgmcbrid

Rank: Gold Ingot

Groups: Registered
Joined: 3/06/2010(UTC)
Posts: 583
Man
Location: Southland

Thanks: 23 times
Was thanked: 180 time(s) in 140 post(s)

Lammerlaw,

Again I am not anti-Maori, I am trying to assess the situation objectively so don't think I am hacking on them.

I really do not know anything about the Maori treaties, but I do know that the Maori were incredibly lucky to be colonized (which was inevitable) by who they were when they were. The history of mankind is of one group colonizing another and never before has anyone gotten off as easy as the Maori. Australian Aborigines for example were hunted and killed into the 1930’s. That is not to say that treaties should not be honoured, but if it was the other way around and the Maori had colonized England, the English would all be dead (like the Moriori), and if any had survived they would not have retained ownership of anything. So in my opinion Waitangi day should be a celebration of how the European colonizers gently brought the Maori culture into the modern world, not a anti-European piss fest.

As far the culture of dependency it is not a racial issue; but if you look at handouts, the groups that receive the most are the worst off. Canadian Eskimos or American Indians for example, they are far worse off by any measure. Illiterate immigrants who receive very little ‘social support’ hit the ground running and become happy middle class citizens in half a generation. Again, I really don’t know much about Maoris, but I do know that they are poorer, unhealthier, and incarcerated at proportionally higher levels than any other group in New Zealand. What is the reason? Genetically speaking they are as intelligent and healthy as any other race, and they have been ‘Europeanized’ for lack of a better word and have had the same opportunities as other citizens for many generations. My guess is that it is simply a result of social programs and a victim’s mentality.

As far as government goes there is a huge difference between what elected officials should do, and what they actually do when elected to office. I tend to opperate on what they are going to do, not what they should do beacause the reality is that corruption and abuse are inevitable. Again, you defend the government on the one hand (Postbank) yet it is the same government you are defending who took the loans under the Fractional Reserve system which you despise. Why would you trust them to run one thing when you are so unhappy with the way they are running another?
Lammerlaw  
Posted : Thursday, 13 September 2012 5:43:44 PM(UTC)
Lammerlaw

Rank: Gold Ingot

Groups: Registered
Joined: 24/05/2011(UTC)
Posts: 1,721

Thanks: 72 times
Was thanked: 579 time(s) in 396 post(s)
No one said that you were anti Maori Robert and I am sure that you arent...in fact I find you one of the most pleasant people I know excpeting the fact that we disagree on a few things.

NO the Maori was not lucky to have been colonised by the English - the English have an abysmal history in relationship for Colonial expansion and whereas Hitler attempted total genocide on the Jewish people the fact remains that the English are the only ones to have actually successfully wiped out a peoples in totality - to whit the Aboriginal people of Tasmania! You try telling the lost soul of all those long dead peoples that they were lucky that the English colonised them!

As it was the Maori taught the British more lessons than the British taught the Maoris - a look at the manner in which the Maoris didnt 'play fair' during the Maori wars and engaged in Guerilla warfare most successfully is a lesson that the US of A still hasnt learnt in their invasions of Vietnam, Iraq, Iran and Aphganistan.

If you want to know how quick the Maoris learnt to adapt to new forms of warfare then read page 90m and 91 of 'Frontier' By Peter Maxwell - the entire two pages are lists of the casualties inflicted on the white man by the Maoris - not in a year but in two minutes - 110 casualties in the time I have written these paragraphs - the above refers to the battle of Gate Pa where the Maoris developed Trench warfare to a fine art and on which the British based their static warfare against the Germans during the 1914 - 1918 conflict - trenches, communication tunnels, underground bunkers and bomb proof shelters - first used by the Maori.

You are 100% and totally incorrect when you say that if it had been the other way around and it was the Maoris who invaded the British then the British would all be dead - you are merely perpetuating the myth that the Morioris were all wiped out - the peoples of the Chatham islands called themselves Morioris and the people on the Mainland were Waitaha followed by Rapuwai and Hawea. When the Maori arrived here they found that there were already peoples here and they gave these people the name Tangata Whenua or the 'People of the Land' They actually assimilated these peoples into their ranks and married the women as they found the women of finer features and most desirable and the men were kept to do the menial work and sometimes meat on the hoof - the latter being a behaviour characteristic of Maori toward other Maori tribes in any case. The descendants of these early people live on yet.

Your words - 'As far as government goes there is a huge difference between what elected officials should do, and what they actually do when elected to office. I tend to opperate on what they are going to do, not what they should do beacause the reality is that corruption and abuse are inevitable. Again, you defend the government on the one hand (Postbank) yet it is the same government you are defending who took the loans under the Fractional Reserve system which you despise. Why would you trust them to run one thing when you are so unhappy with the way they are running another?'

you say I defend the Government - at no stage have I defended the Government as you might infer - I said, and to repeat myself 'Postbank used to be State owned and I deal with them - indeed State owned banks were more stable and guaranteed the security of your money.' - This has nothing whatsoever to do with the government borrowing money under the fractional reserve system. The Government banks were guaranteed - FACT! The government borrowing of money under the Fractional Reserve system was an act of criminal lunacy - FACT - the fact is that I am not defending the government but did say that State owned banks were guaranteed and that is NOT defending the government - it is a statement of...fact! On the other hand you can see where the Government has taken us.

I think we should take a poll on this to see who agrees with who - I am beginning to think that you are a CIA plant by the manner in which you seem to defend a system of corruption and evil!

As for the Maoris - a very good friend of mine is Maori - his father was Chancellor of one of New Zealands Universities, His Grandfather a Bishop and his Uncle a Lieutenant Colonel. my father studied law and was one of the heads of the Labour Department and my Uncle was an accountant.

For every down and out Maori there are as many Europeans per capita who are down on their luck as well.

Edited by user Thursday, 13 September 2012 10:05:08 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

rgmcbrid  
Posted : Thursday, 13 September 2012 10:01:04 PM(UTC)
rgmcbrid

Rank: Gold Ingot

Groups: Registered
Joined: 3/06/2010(UTC)
Posts: 583
Man
Location: Southland

Thanks: 23 times
Was thanked: 180 time(s) in 140 post(s)
Lammerlaw,
I am not disputing your facts, I am questioning the conclusions you have drawn from the facts. You have given several examples of how the government mucked something up; water in Canterbury, Postbank, and loans under a fractional Reserve. Yet at the same time you are advocating government run industries. This to me seems a great contradiction. The conclusion I draw from the government mucking things up is that the government should be as small as possible and do as little as possible.
oroplata  
Posted : Thursday, 13 September 2012 10:03:50 PM(UTC)
oroplata

Rank: Gold Ingot

Groups: Registered, Moderators
Joined: 16/06/2011(UTC)
Posts: 1,040
Location: Christchurch

Thanks: 23 times
Was thanked: 211 time(s) in 152 post(s)

That's because the current government are bankers in disguise. They need to be replaced.

Lammerlaw  
Posted : Thursday, 13 September 2012 10:11:11 PM(UTC)
Lammerlaw

Rank: Gold Ingot

Groups: Registered
Joined: 24/05/2011(UTC)
Posts: 1,721

Thanks: 72 times
Was thanked: 579 time(s) in 396 post(s)
Originally Posted by: rgmcbrid Go to Quoted Post
Lammerlaw,
I am not disputing your facts, I am questioning the conclusions you have drawn from the facts. You have given several examples of how the government mucked something up; water in Canterbury, Postbank, and loans under a fractional Reserve. Yet at the same time you are advocating government run industries. This to me seems a great contradiction. The conclusion I draw from the government mucking things up is that the government should be as small as possible and do as little as possible.


I suggest that you read everything I said very carefully

I never said that the Government mucked up Postbank!
I said that the people should own the assets of this country
I said that the government should manage the assets of the people by...
...employing people of the caliber of those who run the affairs of Ngai tahu and who turned $170Million into $800 million in a few short years
please point out the sentence where I say 'the GOVERNMENT mucked up the water in Canterbury'

There is absolutely no contradiction here but I do genuinely wonder why you so enthusiastically seem to want to support the very philosophies that the New Zealanders can see through as clearly as one sees through a glass window - why do you support selling to foreigners? Why do you seem to think that foreigners should be allowed to dictate terms to this country?

rgmcbrid  
Posted : Friday, 14 September 2012 10:48:49 AM(UTC)
rgmcbrid

Rank: Gold Ingot

Groups: Registered
Joined: 3/06/2010(UTC)
Posts: 583
Man
Location: Southland

Thanks: 23 times
Was thanked: 180 time(s) in 140 post(s)
Lammerlaw,

You said you are not happy with the way water consents have been handed out in Canterbury. You cite as an example that you could walk across all the rivers. The water consents are handed out by the council (the government) who is responsible for the state of the rivers. Therefore if you are criticizing the actions of the government you are criticizing the government whether you explicitly state it or not. Same thing goes for banking; you criticize government decision and policies in regard to banking and are thus criticizing the government.

This is where I have trouble with your logic, because at the same time you point out faults and failures of the government, and support the government owning and managing assets. You say that if there were better people in the government it would work better. Although this is no doubt true, it is a huge and fanciful assumption that this will ever take place. Quote from Al Einstein - Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

I do not recall saying I support foreign ownership. But if you want to know, I am ok with it in some cases such as North American and Western European and in other cases I am not. China for example I wouldn’t touch with a ten foot pole. They have no respect for intellectual property, private property, human rights (they employ slave labour), health codes, etc etc etc and New Zealanders cannot buy property in China. I would happily sell them commodities but not assets. You seem worried that foreign ownership will lead to the foreign power ‘dictating terms’ in New Zealand; in the case of China I think this is a valid concern. But New Zealand , the UK, Germany, the US, Canada etc have been trading and owning each other assets forever and have always respected each other sovereignty and I see no reason why this would change now.
Lammerlaw  
Posted : Friday, 14 September 2012 1:38:37 PM(UTC)
Lammerlaw

Rank: Gold Ingot

Groups: Registered
Joined: 24/05/2011(UTC)
Posts: 1,721

Thanks: 72 times
Was thanked: 579 time(s) in 396 post(s)
Originally Posted by: rgmcbrid Go to Quoted Post
I was of course speaking in generalities. The concept that both parties benefit in commerce still holds; if you are forced to buy something (like with taxes or a monopoly) that isn’t exactly commerce; I am talking about when one party willingly exchanges with another.

The advantage of monopolies is that they streamline industry and greatly improve efficiency (think Fonterra). The downside is that eventually they end up sticking it to their suppliers and customers. In this regard government owned monopolies are not any different than private monopolies. Unfair practices being inevitable are why monopolies are not tolerated by capitalist societies. It is the government’s job to ensure that the rules of society are enforced, including commerce. If Telecom was a monopoly and was screwing the public, that was a failure of regulation and enforcement.

Privatization is good. Capitalism is good, it results in the most fair and efficient system of commerce. Again, it is necessary to have a universally enforced set of rules. Looking at the history of the world, commerce thrived under the Phoenicians ect before there were any real governments. Governments came after the trading centres were established and much later adapted merchant law as state law and things would go fine until government corruption and taxes broke the system down and society would collapse. Then a trading centre would spring up somewhere else and the cycle would repeat. This was true from Greeks to Romans to today. Western Europe, the US, and Japan for example are fading away as the leading trade centres because their governments have become huge and inefficient, they have very high taxes, and endless complicated regulations. So Korea, Malaysia etc are becoming commerce and manufacturing centres. My main point being that if you think having government involved in business is to your advantage, thousands of years of history disagree with you.

And again, a basic concept to economics is that there is an alternative to everything. If you don’t like one power company you can buy your power from another company. If you are not happy with any of them you can make your own power. Same goes for the Fonterra monopoly; you can milk your own cow.


The more I read of what you say Robert the more I think you twist things and misread to suit your own argument - Since WHEN have local body councils or local body government been the State government - we are NOT talking about local body government - the depleted water situation in Canterbury has nothing to do with the State government and offshore bankers - nothing at all. It has to do with Electricity generation and Federated farmers with their demands for more water.

Resource consents etc are managed by ECAN and Local bodies BUT ownership of the water is a State matter - two totally different entities.
Good to see that you are learning - noting your statement 'government corruption and taxes broke the system down and society would collapse'

You poll the members here and ask them if privatisation is good or whether the utilities etc should be owned by State but managed by independent authorities on behalf of the State - just like Ngai tahu - then we would see how many support your logic which I honestly believe is inane. I simply fail to understand how you can back privatization - since privatization has taken place everything has cost one hell of a lot more as privatization manages on behalf of the shareholder of which I am beginning to think you must be one and State owned manages on behalf of the people. It is a total no brainer.

If you dare to say that privatization promotes competition then rest well assured that this is flawed as the increasing costs of electricity and other commodities dictate - there is competition within reason controlled by co operation between the so called competitors but assuring that prices rise steadily to the satisfaction of the shareholders!

In no manner whatsoever could State owned be seen as a monoply in the same light as private monopolies as the people are the shareholders and the dividends go back into the shareholder pockets in the form of lower prices and subsidies on other state owned assets.

Very shortly we are going to see just how dangerous privatization is with Kiwirail when this country suffers one of the most horrific train accidents due to cost cutting and maximum profit - to cut costs down the rails have all been welded into one continuous length - that is privatization - shareholders first and safety second - mark my words and watch this space.

Your statement - 'And again, a basic concept to economics is that there is an alternative to everything. If you don’t like one power company you can buy your power from another company. If you are not happy with any of them you can make your own power. Same goes for the Fonterra monopoly; you can milk your own cow.' - Ironic isnt it that when the State owned the power it was actually lower per capita income!!!
It is inane suggesting generating your own power or milkiing your own cow - very few people indeed would know where to begin - very few people have anywhere to put a cow! But State owned as HAS BEEN PROVEN is better by far for the people as was evidenced by power being more affordable and all other utilities being cheaper and more efficient - it was let down if anything by 'jobs for the boys' but still better for the populace at large than privatization!

Edited by user Friday, 14 September 2012 1:42:45 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

1864hatter  
Posted : Friday, 14 September 2012 1:47:39 PM(UTC)
1864hatter

Rank: Gold Ingot

Groups: Registered
Joined: 4/08/2010(UTC)
Posts: 1,007
Man
New Zealand
Location: Auckland....

Thanks: 49 times
Was thanked: 566 time(s) in 269 post(s)
Soooo, what happened to the GREENSTONE haha
And now....On sandy beaches and muddy soil, rings and coins await my coil!
5 Pages<1234>»