Bill sez ‘time youse f*ck off’

124 comments on “Bill sez ‘time youse f*ck off’ ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Colonial Viper 1

   22 July 2012 at 9:59 am

   net flow of New Zealanders coming back isn’t that far away. And we’ll be sorry when it does.
2. Tigger 2

   22 July 2012 at 11:42 am

   ‘War on talent’ is a meme waiting to happen.
3. Psycho Milt 3

   22 July 2012 at 11:49 am

   Bill’s come a long way from “Wave goodbye to higher taxes, not your loved ones” – all the way down to “no point in standing in the airport crying about it.” Quite an astonishing admission of abject failure if you think about it.

   Although, to be fair on Bill, Labour and National have both spent the last twenty years presiding over declining wages and salaries relative to Australia. Labour’s idea of doing something about it seems to be to use the welfare system to top up people’s pay, a shameful misuse of the welfare system that hardly constitutes an improvement on National’s idea of doing something about it (tax cuts for the already-well-off).
   • Kotahi Tane Huna 3.1

     22 July 2012 at 11:55 am

     “Shameful misuse” – nonsense – ignoring the problem would have been shameful. The alternative approach would have been massive hikes in the minimum wage and quite likely a cap on top end salaries to go with it. Not sure that would have been easier to achieve.
   • Colonial Viper 3.2

     22 July 2012 at 12:30 pm

     Although, to be fair on Bill, Labour and National have both spent the last twenty years presiding over declining wages and salaries relative to Australia.

     And that’s what happens when you get both main political parties buying into neoliberalism, deregulation and corporate free markets.
     • Psycho Milt 3.2.1

       22 July 2012 at 3:26 pm

       Yes. I just find it more annoying from Labour than from National because that’s not what they’re meant to stand for.

       Shameful misuse” – nonsense

       I may be a decrepit and old-fashioned kind of socialist, but it seems pretty straightforwardly shameful to me that a Labour govt used the social welfare system to subsidise employers’ unwillingness to pay wages that cover the cost of living.
       • Colonial Viper 3.2.1.1

         22 July 2012 at 7:55 pm

         Yeah it was pretty lame, and it was done to help ignore the fact that we have a low wage low value economy.
4. Akldnut 4

   22 July 2012 at 12:29 pm

   I lived there for decades and the heat and flies are something you get used to so its not that difficult.

   English: “What’s the point of standing in the airport crying about it?

   Heartless barstard – the crying is for the splintering of family units and nothing more all because of the inadequte leadership we currently have.

   NZ parliament is a real life version of the reality show Tool Academy where no matter the wants of the Girl (NZ public), the selfish Tools (Govt) screw everyone over thinking only of their own ends.

   “Blinglish is a big Tool” he’s the one who needs to F*ck Off!
5. Rusty Shackleford 5

   22 July 2012 at 12:37 pm

   ” well, wages would be the first tool, eh?”
   Why?

   Why not…;
   – lower taxes (including “levies”)
   – lower prices (by abolishing systematic inflation through the reserve bank)
   – lower barriers to starting a business
   – loosen restrictions on car imports.

   Just a few things that would put more money in everyones pockets. Higher wages would probably be a byproduct as well.
   • Kotahi Tane Huna 5.1

     22 July 2012 at 12:57 pm

     “Lower barriers” – you live in the country considered 3rd easiest to do business in (although we were 2nd in 2008). If you can’t get a business going under these circumstances you aren’t competent to own one at all.

     You’ve had lower taxes since 2008 and the country has gone backwards. Two of your four “solutions” fail the most cursory reality check – no doubt the other two are equally delusional.
     • Colonial Viper 5.1.1

       22 July 2012 at 1:01 pm

       You’ve had lower taxes since 2008 and the country has gone backwards.

       We’ve had far lower taxes since the 1980’s, and simply placed more burdens on the young, the unemployed and the infirm to compensate.
     • Rusty Shackleford 5.1.2

       22 July 2012 at 1:15 pm

       You’re confusing correlation with causation as usual. The country (and much of the world) went backwards because of a major world wide banking crisis. Lower income taxes in New Zealand may have played a part, but I doubt it.

       And let’s not forget that many new taxes and “levies” were enacted during that time. It’s twice as expensive to register a car today than it was back in ’08. Everyday items are more expensive because of govt actions (inflation and GST). Whilst big ticket consumer items are cheaper through no act of govt. Rates are continuing to outpace inflation in most areas.
       • McFlock 5.1.2.1

         22 July 2012 at 1:58 pm

         People are emigrating to Aus because of our car reggo costs?
                    
          
         • Rusty Shackleford 5.1.2.1.1

           22 July 2012 at 3:25 pm

           No. Who said that?
       • Kotahi Tane Huna 5.1.2.2

         22 July 2012 at 2:21 pm

         Earth to Rusty – our main trading partners – Australia and China – didn’t even go into recession. Next feeble excuse…
         • Rusty Shackleford 5.1.2.2.1

           22 July 2012 at 3:28 pm

           Aussie backed by inflated commodity prices which have since softened and China on the back of a govt inflated property bubble.

           I’m not even sure what your presenting this is even supposed to imply. All I was saying was that low taxes didn’t cause New Zealand’s economy to go into recession after 2008 as your post seemed to imply.
           • Kotahi Tane Huna 5.1.2.2.1.1

             22 July 2012 at 3:34 pm

             Yes, they made our recession worse, especially coupled with the brainless austerity policies of the zero business experience, tax-payer tit-sucking English. One reason they call him “Double Dipton” is because of his fraudulent accommodation lies, and the other is because of the double dip recessions he causes. His delusions keep the economy stagnant – it’s growing at the rate of population growth – ie: not.

             Got another feeble excuse?
             • Rusty Shackleford …

               22 July 2012 at 3:36 pm

               That isn’t a response to anything I have said. Complete non-sequitur.
               • Kotahi Tane Huna …

                 22 July 2012 at 3:44 pm

                 Alternatively, perhaps you lack the cognitive ability to make the connection.
               • ropata …

                 22 July 2012 at 4:08 pm

                 yo rusty when there is less money in the economy it’s a recession.
                 so if the government spends less … ?

                 come on you can work it out!
                 • Rusty Shackleford …

                   22 July 2012 at 5:14 pm

                   That isn’t what a recession is.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     22 July 2012 at 6:51 pm

                     That isn’t what a recession is.

                     Its not to the economists. It is to real people.
             • UpandComer …

               22 July 2012 at 4:42 pm

               You don’t know what austerity means. You feebly throw it around like someone who has listened to a little bit of BBC and read a few pages from a 5th form economics text book. No one sensible calls National policy austerity – not even the other posters here would call National policies austerity I would hope. Austerity is England, Greece, and now to a lesser extent Spain. Stop being a fool.

               Tax cuts didn’t make the recession worse. I don’t know what data you look at. Bill English actually worked at treasury, so he understands figures, unlike you. He also owned a farm and worked as a farmer for many years. I know people like you don’t think that farmers are business people, but like everything else you would be severely mistaken.

               It’s ironic you call him out on ‘accommodation’ when he is now the only Minister in NZ, ever, to not receive an accommodation supplement at all though his electorate isn’t wellington. He is the cheapest Minister ever. And actually, the structure he had in place for his accommodation was the cheapest one there was for the taxpayer at the time. He ended up being the sole scapegoat for people getting sensitive about parliament salaries in the wake of the ‘real’ scandals in England.

               I note that it was the National party that opened everything up. Labour would never ever ever have done so, because they are the real public tit-suckers w/o recourse if they leave parliament.

               What is up with you bro? You spout a whole lot of partially educated rubbish. Bill English didn’t cause the recession in NZ. That was inherited. Along with a whole lot else. Labour also didn’t cause their surpluses. I challenge anyone here to actually provide a causative link between Labour policies in their first few years in office and any actual growth.

               So as well as not knowing what austerity means/is, you also conceded Rusty’s point, which is that the tax changes in 2008 didn’t cause the recession – you just said ‘it made it worse’ which it didn’t, but is still a concession.

               Lol bro.
               • Draco T Bastard …

                 22 July 2012 at 6:07 pm

                 It’s ironic you call him out on ‘accommodation’ when he is now the only Minister in NZ, ever, to not receive an accommodation supplement at all though his electorate isn’t wellington.

                 Or you’re badly misinformed or purposefully lying.

                 http://thestandard.org.nz/the-story-bill-english-doesnt-want-you-to-see/

                 All about Bill English’s housing allowance rort. His electorate may not be in Wellington but he does live there with the rest of his family and so shouldn’t have even applied for it.

                 Everything else you said is so fragmented and nonsensical as to be gibberish.
                 • UpandComer …

                   22 July 2012 at 8:15 pm

                   It was not that fragmented, but uber-intelligent superiors like you can probably handle a few compound sentences. The form was fine, if a little bit compound, you just don’t like the content – that’s your bees.

                   I’m talking about Bill English’s status quo.

                   I read up about his case – he took legal advice and got exactly what every other minister has been getting. The difference was that he had a big family he didn’t want to spend almost all of this time away from so purchased a house in Wellington to minimise travel costs. His circumstances were unique with the trust, the property, and his family. Ultimately it was cheaper for the taxpayer then just living in a ministerial home and travelling up and down the country. But hey, we know you don’t care about money or anything, so have a go.

                   Basically he was punished for minimising costs to the taxpayer whilst acting on legal advice and in his families best interests. That’s not a rort – because costs were minimised, not maximised brosef. And now he gets no accom supplement at all, as I said.
                   • vto …

                     22 July 2012 at 8:21 pm

                     Are you his mum?
                   • Draco T Bastard …

                     22 July 2012 at 8:44 pm

                     The difference was that he had a big family he didn’t want to spend almost all of this time away from so purchased a house in Wellington to minimise travel costs.

                     Which meant that he was living in Wellington and not Dipton and thus not entitled to the accommodation supplement he was getting.

                     His circumstances were unique with the trust, the property, and his family.

                     And all appearances is that it was set up that way so as to maximise the amount the taxpayers were paying him to live in his own house. He could, after all, have gone out and just rented a cheaper house rather than buying one, sticking it in a trust and then renting it from himself. That’s what we call a rort.

                     Basically he was punished for minimising costs to the taxpayer whilst acting on legal advice and in his families best interests.

                     He wasn’t punished else he wouldn’t still be in parliament. And I suspect that you’re making the minimising costs up out of whole cloth.
             • joe90 …

               22 July 2012 at 5:05 pm

               He also owned a farm and worked as a farmer for many years.

               When was that?.
               • Kotahi Tane Huna …

                 22 July 2012 at 8:49 pm

                 I hadn’t seen that one Joe90 – thanks – a laugh a minute 🙂
               • UpandComer …

                 22 July 2012 at 9:55 pm

                 I think he worked on a farm before he went to university, owned one with his brother for some years before he went to treasury, and continues to own one.
                 • Tracey …

                   23 July 2012 at 11:10 am

                   Nope. You’re making a big leap from owns a farm to worked on a farm for years.
   • Colonial Viper 5.2

     22 July 2012 at 1:00 pm

     Just a few things that would put more money in everyones pockets. Higher wages would probably be a byproduct as well.

     Shit dude its worked so well over the last 25 years in terms of achieving higher wages, we should keep right on the same neoliberal track!

     And if your economic philosophy doesn’t recognise the crucial role of banks and debt in the economy, why should we listen to you?
     • Rusty Shackleford 5.2.1

       22 July 2012 at 1:18 pm

       “Shit dude its worked so well over the last 25 years in terms of achieving higher wages, we should keep right on the same neoliberal track!”
       I’m as opposed to neo-liberalism as the next person. Although I agree with some of the reforms, the fact that they are imposed by force would make me a hypocrite to support them.

       “And if your economic philosophy doesn’t recognise the crucial role of banks and debt in the economy, why should we listen to you?”
       Straw man.
       • RedLogix 5.2.1.1

         22 July 2012 at 1:29 pm

         Tin man.
   • Draco T Bastard 5.3

     22 July 2012 at 2:28 pm

     Rusty, we’ve already lowered them and people are still leaving, apparently, for the higher wages.
     • Rusty Shackleford 5.3.1

       22 July 2012 at 3:19 pm

       Or the lower income tax rates.
       • McFlock 5.3.1.1

         22 July 2012 at 3:43 pm

         What are the income tax rates in Australia vs NZ, Rusty?
         With links, pls.
         • Rusty Shackleford 5.3.1.1.1

           22 July 2012 at 5:23 pm

           http://www.ato.gov.au/content/12333.htm
           First 18 grand is tax free. 19c in the dollar over 18 grand. We charge 10c in the dollar up till 14 grand then 17c after that.

           http://www.ird.govt.nz/how-to/taxrates-codes/itaxsalaryandwage-incometaxrates.html
           We start taxing people from the first dollar they earn. Negating the incentive to get a part time or low paying job. Especially as a youngster.

           Not taxing incomes up to a middle class level negates the need for tosh like WFF. We tax workers right through that middle class bracket then double it when it looks like folk might start earning enough to break out of that middle class bracket. Real good incentives.
           • Colonial Viper 5.3.1.1.1.1

             22 July 2012 at 5:34 pm

             wow rusty only quoting half of australia’s income tax rates; did you think we wouldn’t notice?
             • Rusty Shackleford …

               22 July 2012 at 5:45 pm

               Yea, because the other half are more or less the same as NZ’s.

               They charge higher than us in the very top tax bracket.
           • McFlock 5.3.1.1.1.2

             22 July 2012 at 5:37 pm

             So $18k is “middle class”?
                  
             I note that for pretty much every other income we have a lower rate than the aussies.
              
             And actually, their 2011-12 zero tax threshhold was $6k, so your theory doesn’t actualy explain the last few years.
                       
             And how many emigrants are on <$18k?
             • Rusty Shackleford …

               22 July 2012 at 5:49 pm

               “So $18k is “middle class”?”
               Who said this?

               “I note that for pretty much every other income we have a lower rate than the aussies.”
               By a few cents and the rates kick in at a much lower income for us. Plus that 0% on the fir 18K means most people earn a third of their income tax free.

               “And actually, their 2011-12 zero tax threshhold was $6k, so your theory doesn’t actualy explain the last few years.”

               haha, I never said it did. All I’ve been saying all along is that people aren’t decamping to AUs simply for the (supposedly) higher wages. There are more factors at play than simply wages OR tax rates.

               “And how many emigrants are on <$18k?"
               What is the relevance of this?
               • McFlock …

                 22 July 2012 at 6:22 pm

                 Ah, so when you said “Not taxing incomes up to a middle class level […]” you were trying to deflect from the fact that NZ already has lower taxes than Aus in almost every tax bracket.
                        
                 “haha, I never said it did. All I’ve been saying all along is that people aren’t decamping to AUs simply for the (supposedly) higher wages. There are more factors at play than simply wages OR tax rates.”
                 Nah. You said taxes in aus were lower. You were wrong.
                     
                 Oh, and if people are emigrating for your imagined lower taxes (even as one of several factors), there’d be a clear popuation bias towards those income rates that benefit most.
                 • Rusty Shackleford …

                   22 July 2012 at 6:33 pm

                   “You said taxes in aus were lower. You were wrong.”
                   I can’t be bothered working it out dollar for dollar, but the difference in each bracket is only a few cents and each bracket cuts in much higher in Aus. Add to this the 18K tax free and I think you will find someone on a middle class income in Aus will pay less tax than someone in NZ. If I’m wrong, all you need to do is work it out and show the numbers.

                   “Oh, and if people are emigrating for your imagined lower taxes (even as one of several factors), there’d be a clear popuation bias towards those income rates that benefit most.”
                   I never said they were emigrating for the taxes.
                   • McFlock …

                     22 July 2012 at 6:39 pm

                     I can’t be bothered working it out dollar for dollar

                     More laziness – both tax sites have calcularos, and the NZ one has worked out exampes for you.
                      
                     Break even under the 2012-13 tax rules is about $45k.
                         
                     But of course, the 2011-12 aus tax rules had a tax free zone of only $6k. So the break-even would have been in the thirties, if not lower. And it’s not like emigration came from nowhere in the last 3 months.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     22 July 2012 at 6:49 pm

                     Rusty: Your weird ideas of deregulation and lowest possible tax rates are not only unworkable, they’ve never worked anywhere.

                     And, we’ve already determined that state capitalism is the best economic form for success. The powerhouses of Singapore, China, Germany, Russia, US all demonstrate it.

                     And none of them have free markets.
                   • Rusty Shackleford …

                     22 July 2012 at 6:51 pm

                     Just worked it out. A family on 70K a year will pay about $NZD14,600 income taxes in NZ and $NZD11,007 in Aus. So, total tax paid (not the tax rate) for a middle class family is lower but, that was never my point.

                     My point was that Draco’s analysis was overly simple.
                   • Rusty Shackleford …

                     22 July 2012 at 6:58 pm

                     They have freer markets than other less prosperous nations. Free markets aren’t an absolute. There are varying levels of economic freedom across countries and across time. I’ve explained this to you before, but demagogues prefer to deal in absolutes.

                     Your examples even back MY position.
                     China, Russia: Went from low economic freedom to a higher level of freedom and enjoyed economic success because of it. The US is heading in the other direction and are suffering for it.

                     Singapore: Perhaps a good example of state directed economic progress. South Korea and Taiwan are other good examples. However, if you want to hold them up as examples you first have to explain why the hundreds of other experiments in state directed economic planning failed.
                   • McFlock …

                     22 July 2012 at 7:09 pm

                     “Family”?
                     According to the calculator on the aus tax link you provided, Aus tax on $70k is $20,630.
                       
                     What deductions are you putting in to get it down to $11k? A 57 children credit?
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     22 July 2012 at 7:12 pm

                     Hey Rusty, so you agree that state controlled capitalism with some freedoms is the ideal?

                     Because as far as I can see, you can give zero examples of an actual free market economy.
                   • Rusty Shackleford …

                     22 July 2012 at 8:14 pm

                     Exactly zero of the economies that have lifted their citizens out of poverty were state controlled with some freedoms. They were all free market economies with varying degrees of state involvement.

                     None of them were “controlled” by the govt.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     22 July 2012 at 11:36 pm

                     So you believe it is possible to have a highly successful free market economy with direct state involvement at every level of finance and banking? China would be the example here of course, and they have been very successful.

                     Perhaps we could follow their example of state led free markets?
                   • McFlock …

                     23 July 2012 at 12:01 am

                     lolz.
                        
                     Had a last look at rusty’s tax math before bed. The online calculator seems to be a bit off on the aus rates, but manually doing it NZ and Aus tax still seems to be a tad higher in aus.
                        
                     Then I noticed that he seems to be talking about paying Aussie tax in/on NZD. How to cut taxable income by a quarter.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     23 July 2012 at 12:06 am

                     lol…maybe Rusty will start quoting in Somalian shillings next. Given how he loves the unregulated free market and all.
                   • rosy …

                     23 July 2012 at 6:55 pm

                     Exactly zero of the economies that have lifted their citizens out of poverty were state controlled with some freedoms. They were all free market economies with varying degrees of state involvement.

                     Exactly zero?
                     I soooo want to state the obvious, but won’t.
                   • Rusty Shackleford …

                     23 July 2012 at 7:14 pm

                     Go nuts love.

                     Here are my attempts; North Korea? Somalia?
                   • xtasy …

                     23 July 2012 at 7:25 pm

                     “Exactly zero of the economies that have lifted their citizens out of poverty were state controlled with some freedoms. They were all free market economies with varying degrees of state involvement.”

                     What about:
                     Mainland China,
                     Vietnam,
                     Venezuela,
                     Cuba,
                     Nicaragua,
                     former Soviet Union?

                     These countries did actually “lift” a lot of their citizens out of poverty, not so much as “free market economies”, but with much state intervention and management.

                     Of course most of us would not view them to be the societies we would choose to live in, and the concept of “poverty” may be interpreted differently from country to country, but especially Mainland China with still a lot of state intervention and controls has lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty.
                   • rosy …

                     23 July 2012 at 7:31 pm

                     No, It’s ok – if anyone wants to think a bit more historically I’m sure they can think of a few examples. I just didn’t want that paragraph to be left as implied agreement, but I don’t want to get into great long screeds of comments about the past.

                     Of course I just should have done the 🙄
                   • Rusty Shackleford …

                     23 July 2012 at 7:59 pm

                     “Mainland China, (92nd in GDP PP)
                     Vietnam, (Ranked 132 in GDP PP)
                     Venezuela, (72nd)
                     Cuba, (doesn’t even rate because you can’t measure production in a state run economy)
                     Nicaragua, (134)
                     former Soviet Union (this about a dozen different countries)?”

                     Sorry, mate. None of those countries beat Chile if we are talking in GDP per person terms. (And before you start, I agree GDP sucks as a measure of prosperity, but it’s really the only standardised measure we have) which is kind of held up as a paragon of the free market.

                     And they’re are mostly countries with ridiculously uneven growth. You have people in Ferraris driving passed people pulling rickshaws. Cuba doesn’t count, either
                   • McFlock …

                     23 July 2012 at 9:55 pm

                     much lolz.
                            
                     After being dodgy with math, rusty is now fixing the playing field with his own unique distinction between “state controlled with some freedoms” and “free market economies with varying degrees of state involvement”.
                          
                     Is the glass ’empty with some fluid’, or ‘full, with some degree of space at the top’?
                          
                     Sad, the dissembling the tory idealogue has to sink to in order to avoid reality.
                   • Rusty Shackleford …

                     23 July 2012 at 10:08 pm

                     My point all along has been that economic freedom is distributed along a continuum. It is a bit like a glass of water. Either partly full, empty, 99% empty, 99% full etc. Different countries have different amounts of economic freedom and the same country can have varying levels of economic freedom across time.

                     It isn’t a tap that is either on or off. This being the case, is it surprising that China is seeing economic growth after it went from having the spigot of economic freedom virtually closed to having it open at least a smidgen?

                     All I did was measure Australian taxes in NZ$. My math could well have been wrong, but does it not make sense to compare apples with apples?

                     Of course you use petty name call and dissembling to hide from reality.
                   • xtasy …

                     23 July 2012 at 10:36 pm

                     Rusty Shackleford:

                     It is absurd to compare apples with pears or countries being in very different “leagues”, having very different points to start developing from.

                     Europe, North America, and also Japan and the odd other “developed” country thrived by being able to exploit cheap resources from the under developed countries and former colonies for centuries, creating capital that enabled more swift and advance development in technology, transport, education, health, administration and so forth.

                     Inequality is evident in virtually all countries, but having different qualities from country to country.

                     You throw arguments and point around challenging other commenters. So I gave some examples of countries that had immense degrees of underdevelopment, social division and poverty, which managed to get lots out of poverty, largely with a lot of state control and management.

                     Naturally NZ and Australia are facing a totally different ball game, being populated by off-spring of former colonial power UK, which also made available capital based on exploitation of other parts of the world and their peoples, to develope down under countries with a good head start.

                     Sadly economic policies in NZ are favouring a trend downward (low value added production, primary product exports, basic service industries catering for tourists, exporting fish, logs and so to China for value added processing), while smart economies invest in high end, value added technology, production and services, which depends on training and educating people.

                     NZ educates people and exports them. Stupid, really. All the low tax, hands off economics, low wages and de-unionising of workers has not delivered the glory times and future NZers promised.

                     Here a link to UN date re incomes under ‘Work’ (table 5 a, Income and Economic Activity):
                     http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/products/socind/default.htm

                     Cuba features there too.
               • McFlock …

                 23 July 2012 at 10:31 pm

                 All I did was measure Australian taxes in NZ$. My math could well have been wrong, but does it not make sense to compare apples with apples?

                  
                 Not when the minimum wage in Australia is almost AUD16/hr. NZD20.73.
                 New zealand? NZD$13.50
                 Median houshold income in Aus is about the same in AUD as the NZ MHI is in NZD.
                      
                 So you’re either dumb, or dissembling.
                 • Colonial Viper …

                   24 July 2012 at 12:51 am

                   Happy to take bets on which one it is.
                   • McFlock …

                     25 July 2012 at 11:21 am

                     obviously the evidence of a logical paradox between his arrogance and his idiocy put the toryboy robot into mental shutdown. No doubt he’ll be back in a while after rebooting into the last stable restore point, which means none of this will have ever happened…
6. UpandComer 6

   22 July 2012 at 1:33 pm

   If we’d followed more of Australia’s micro economic policies of the last 20 years, hadn’t had the 2005 largesse and allowed ourselves to responsibly exploit some of our minerals, we’d be fine. All Bill is saying is that it’s time to suck it up and start competing rather then constantly jumping up and down on the spot with limp wrists squawking for more govt spending and artificial wage increases.
   • Draco T Bastard 6.1

     22 July 2012 at 2:33 pm

     If we’d followed more of Australia’s micro economic policies of the last 20 years, hadn’t had the 2005 largesse and allowed ourselves to responsibly exploit some of our minerals, we’d be fine.
     No we wouldn’t. We’d be worse off. Wages would still be lower, most of the productivity would still be going to the few and our wealth would be being exported just so that we could re-import it again later at far higher prices.

     All Bill is saying is that it’s time to suck it up and start competing…

     We’ve tried that for the last three decades – it hasn’t worked. Bill wants us to keep doing it though because it does benefit himself and his rich mates.
     • Colonial Viper 6.1.1

       22 July 2012 at 4:01 pm

       UpandComer still believes in infinite growth on a finite planet.
       • UpandComer 6.1.1.1

         22 July 2012 at 4:30 pm

         I don’t believe in infinite growth – but I do believe in powers to adapt. I have no doubt a correction will take place as the Carbon economy winds down but substitutes will be found. We are simply not at the corrective stage yet, and shouldn’t force it on ourselves here in New Zealand when no one else in the World, aside from Oz with a govt on it’s way out, has done so. I put people over principle on the carbon economy at this stage.

         If you guys win, I do await with interest to see if Russell Norman is able to ‘pick winners’ in renewable energy projects, given that in the US similar attempts by much smarter people with far superior facilities /economies of scale/technologies and infrastructure have on the whole failed.

         I still think the attempts should be made in the world, as it is in Germany and the US, but I don’t know if NZ can afford Russell Norman to get it wrong. If it was feasible for us to export windmills or sea generators I think someone would already be doing it.
         • Draco T Bastard 6.1.1.1.1

           22 July 2012 at 5:50 pm

           I have no doubt a correction will take place as the Carbon economy winds down but substitutes will be found.

           No, they won’t.

           We are simply not at the corrective stage yet, and shouldn’t force it on ourselves here in New Zealand when no one else in the World, aside from Oz with a govt on it’s way out, has done so.

           Continuing to be unsustainable because everyone else chooses to be unsustainable is insane.

           I put people over principle on the carbon economy at this stage.

           No, you don’t. You put insanity over everything.

           but I don’t know if NZ can afford

           NZ can afford it because we already have the resources. The rich say that we can’t so that they can take more of the wealth from us.

           If it was feasible for us to export windmills or sea generators I think someone would already be doing it.

           Nobody should be exporting anything – we can’t afford the loss of resources.
           • infused 6.1.1.1.1.1

             22 July 2012 at 7:48 pm

             lol, good laugh.
             • Draco T Bastard …

               22 July 2012 at 8:46 pm

               confused, your attempts at conversation are deteriorating from the pointless down to the totally inane.
         • Colonial Viper 6.1.1.1.2

           22 July 2012 at 7:50 pm

           We are simply not at the corrective stage yet

           Sure we are. Where have you been for the last 4 years?
           • UpandComer 6.1.1.1.2.1

             22 July 2012 at 8:01 pm

             Insanity and cruelty to Labour’s traditional constituency is taking a massive cut in our standard of living when we are .0001% of the world’s climate change problem.

             Head down to the West Coast, or South Dunedin, or Manukau and start talking that up mate. Actually, head to China, South East Asia, India, America, South America, Africa, and Australia and ask that question. It’s no surprise that it’s only the strongest economies in the world, i.e. China, Germany, the US who are making big Green moves at the moment.

             People over principle means recognizing what effect it will have on people if the Greens get their way and kill every fourth cow in New Zealand, prevent any new farming, any new mining, any foreign investment etcetera etcetera.

             Draco you seem to think we should become an autarky. You do understand what that would mean for us aye? We’d have to resource ourselves, that would mean mining our own iron ore, industrial earths, oil etc. There are plenty of mini-autarky communes dotted about NZ. They are quite nice. Go join one of those.
             • McFlock …

               22 July 2012 at 8:09 pm

               200 jobs at hillside is nothing to do with “green” policies. It’s an SOE fucking the country it’s supposed to serve. Under National govt direction.
               • UpandComer …

                 22 July 2012 at 8:23 pm

                 You know anything about Hillside? Those muppets found they over-ordered 150 thousand plus dollars of rubber and just put it into skips. I know a lot of guys who got some free expensive rubber. They were run terribly and were/are inefficient. It’s not the workers fault, but their kiwi management is just awful. You can’t work with people who waste resources like that.
                 • McFlock …

                   22 July 2012 at 8:40 pm

                   I can tell you similar stories from the private sector, even if that one’s true.
                          
                   And the imported carriages are shit. At least NZ management managed to make stuff that didn’t break fresh off the boat.
                 • Draco T Bastard …

                   22 July 2012 at 8:57 pm

                   Those muppets found they over-ordered 150 thousand plus dollars of rubber and just put it into skips.

                   Got proof or are you just making shit up again?
                   • UpandComer …

                     22 July 2012 at 9:58 pm

                     I can’t provide a link to something they would never want publicised. McFlock doesn’t seem to think it’s unbelievable. I’m not blaming it on the workers, just the managment.
                   • McFlock …

                     22 July 2012 at 10:16 pm

                      

                      

                     It’s just the standard prebble-esque bullshit story with no facts: big waste, no timeframe, no names, no specifics of any kind that can be checked.
                         
                     Like the aussie bank that postponed an IT project for 5 years because although it would save $8mil/year, implementing it would have been $2mil over the IT division’s annual budget.
                         
                     Or the shipping company that let a container of premium seafood sit on the wharf until the entire shipment wasted.
                               
                     Or the ship captain who ran aground because he cut a corner.
                         
                     Or the company that plugged an oil well with concrete it knew wasn’t up to spec for the job.
                         
                     Bullshit stories are everywhere. But it’s a fact that hillside is in the shit because of government mismanagement. Not company – government. Running kiwirail into the ground on purpose.

                      
                 • Tracey …

                   23 July 2012 at 11:13 am

                   I see the chinese carriages have all got faults.
                   • felix …

                     23 July 2012 at 11:21 am

                     Yep, all of them.

                     Good thing we’ve retained enough skilled workers here to bring them up to scratch, which wouldn’t be the case if the ideologues had their way.
                 • mike e …

                   23 July 2012 at 10:33 pm

                   down and outer what about it how many years ago was that it shows that they were more efficient than Enron Merrill lynch BofA SCF Blue Chip Gm Chrysler Mitsubishi barcleys.
                   Look up Merrill Lynch scandals and then realise our country is being run by an expert Con man .Money Launderer from Merrill Lynch.
             • Draco T Bastard …

               22 July 2012 at 8:55 pm

               It’s no surprise that it’s only the strongest economies in the world, i.e. China, Germany, the US who are making big Green moves at the moment.

               It’s not the strongest economies doing that, it’s the most intelligent.

               People over principle means recognizing what effect it will have on people if the Greens get their way and kill every fourth cow in New Zealand, prevent any new farming, any new mining, any foreign investment etcetera etcetera.

               It won’t be poverty for everyone as you seem to think. A rational economy minimises resource use while the one we have ATM maximises it resulting in the eventual collapse of both the economy and the environment.

               We’d have to resource ourselves, that would mean mining our own iron ore, industrial earths, oil etc.

               Um, so? Fact is, we already do quite a bit of that already. The iron ore mining has been in place for 50 odd years (that only took so long because the smelting of our iron sands was complex due to the high titanium content). Gold mining has been around for over well over a century. Oil? Who cares, we can do without it but not if we keep the economy as it is – based around cars.
               • UpandComer …

                 22 July 2012 at 9:49 pm

                 Draco I actually admire the firmness of your belief in NZ as an autarkey. I’m not being patronising either. I just think it will be bad enough if a NZ govt takes away people’s shares. It would be awful to watch them take away farmer’s Cows and farms, and shut down mines that are full of ardent Labour voters. Hell even on the wharf when I was believe it or not working as a stevedore as a casual, it would be hard on those guys if suddenly foreign shipping stopped coming.
                 • Draco T Bastard …

                   22 July 2012 at 10:52 pm

                   Only if we choose to make it so and we don’t have to do that. We really don’t have to work 40 hour weeks to maintain the living standard we enjoy now.
                 • Colonial Viper …

                   22 July 2012 at 11:04 pm

                   Draco I actually admire the firmness of your belief in NZ as an autarkey.

                   Well, its going to happen whether we plan for it or not.
7. georgecom 7

   22 July 2012 at 3:49 pm

   Run up the white flag Bill. You are not honest enough to confess that you have discarded another of your ‘brighter future’ claims but we know what the reality is anyway.

   I laughed at the line ‘so lets stop being so defensive about it’. Um, Bill, we aren’t being defensive. We are asking you why people are still ‘waiving goodbye to their loved ones’ and what your proposal is to address this. A reasonable question, how are you going to reconcile reality with your rhetoric. It’s actually you who is being defensive.
   • UpandComer 7.1

     22 July 2012 at 4:20 pm

     Note that Oz has two economies – Eastern Australia in raw commodities – i.e. mining, and the rest of Australia.

     Mining oz is wonderful.

     The rest of oz is currently in the doldrums. Retail in Australia is going through a tremendous trough. And while the mining economy keeps up living costs and inflation, the wider economy is stationary, so the cost of living and inflation is increasing without major growth in most of Australia’s economy.

     As China moves into South America and Africa the mining boom will subside. Then you will see an exodus the other way.

     Bill just wants people to stop gaping at oz and get ahead here, which is very possible to do regardless of your background if you can adopt a good attitude.
     • Kotahi Tane Huna 7.1.1

       22 July 2012 at 5:57 pm

       “…a good attitude”.

       And there it is. You all know what I’m talking about. With the probable exception of Upandcomer.

       I’m all right. Fuck you jack.
     • Colonial Viper 7.1.2

       22 July 2012 at 7:51 pm

       Mining oz is wonderful.

       You’re like, 18 months out of date.
     • xtasy 7.1.3

       22 July 2012 at 9:33 pm

       “Note that Oz has two economies – Eastern Australia in raw commodities – i.e. mining, and the rest of Australia.”

       How poor in geography you seem to be.

       The mining boom is primarily happening in Western Australia, as far as I know, apart from perhaps also increased mining activity in Queensland.

       So maybe have another look at the map of Australia. If you cannot even distinguish between what happens between East and West, maybe you next tell us the sun rises in the west and sets in the east?

       Flat earth phenomenon, I think.
     • Tracey 7.1.4

       23 July 2012 at 11:16 am

       Have you noticed where they mine in Australia? From memory it’s in a big red deserty place, as opposed to pristine forest and rain forests full of living and breathing things.
     • georgecom 7.1.5

       23 July 2012 at 5:53 pm

       ‘Wave goodbye to higher taxes, not your loved ones’.

       I guess you and Bill will avoid that one eh comer.

       Regardless of what you say, thousands of people per month leave to find work across the Tasman. Bill has confirmed that he is unable to do nothing and that the ‘brighter future’ are empty words.

       The white flag has been run up.
     • mike e 7.1.6

       23 July 2012 at 6:23 pm

       Down and out More apologies from the blighted future brigade Queensland south Australia and the northern territories have huge mining interests as well.
       Eastern Australia is growing at a good rate.
       2.6% growth in the last quarter mainly driven by Eastern states as the mining sector has slowed with the drop in commodity prices.
       Facts right Whinger.
8. captain hook 8

   22 July 2012 at 5:00 pm

   what a lot of tripe.
9. infused 9

   22 July 2012 at 7:49 pm

   The ones that have left and not gone to the mines will be back soon. Aussie is fucked, just like the rest of the world. Do you lot not understand that?
   • UpandComer 9.1

     22 July 2012 at 7:52 pm

     That’s exactly what I was saying lol. Oz ain’t so sweet as actually.
     • Lanthanide 9.1.1

       22 July 2012 at 7:53 pm

       LOL!
       • UpandComer 9.1.1.1

         22 July 2012 at 8:02 pm

         bah. In the context of it’s non-carbon economy, and also in the context of Bill English telling people to get a grip, not in affirmation of your autarkey vision for NZ.
   • Colonial Viper 9.2

     22 July 2012 at 7:52 pm

     Agree with you. In fact I said as much in the first comment of this thread.
     • UpandComer 9.2.1

       22 July 2012 at 8:25 pm

       It will be interesting to see if you and the others operating the site actually do just delete all of my comments. It will be quite craven if you do, and very telling.
       • Colonial Viper 9.2.1.1

         22 July 2012 at 8:28 pm

         it will be very interesting if you sometime in the future manage to say something which wasn’t craven and two faced, like accusing people of stuff they haven’t done.
       • Kotahi Tane Huna 9.2.1.2

         22 July 2012 at 8:44 pm

         UpandComer. I note that you have had to be corrected on various matters of fact this afternoon. Others can read your opinions and note these factual errors for themselves. I lost count.

         Why would the moderators of a left wing blog delete comments that ruin a right-winger’s credibility so completely?
         • UpandComer 9.2.1.2.1

           22 July 2012 at 9:53 pm

           I haven’t been corrected on any facts – I’ve just been bombarded with weird counterfactuals, which I suppose is to be expected.
           • Kotahi Tane Huna 9.2.1.2.1.1

             22 July 2012 at 9:56 pm

             lol – NZX isn’t a private company, WINZ have never employed case managers to deal with people on a personal basis, ACC were broke, Bill English owned a farm and worked it for many years…

             Sure, no corrections needed there.
             • UpandComer …

               23 July 2012 at 12:20 am

               NZX is both a sharemarket and private company. I focussed on the former.

               I’m not talking about Winz case managers, I’m talking about case managers for particular beneficiaries, i.e. the pregnant girls who will millions are being pumped into.

               You don’t get it mate. Even Labour activists are sitting in the Finance Minister’s office and saying they never knew something so good could come out of National, and they wish they had thought of it. That’s truth, and no I can’t provide a link to it, just like you people can’t provide links to all the weird counterfactual planet Labour stuff you say.

               ACC had a one billion dollar hole, and were going to go broke. I don’t know how you people can continue to say that isn’t true when it’s all there clear as crystal. That one is really flagrant Mr Argentina.

               Bill English does own a farm Mr Argentina, and did work it, and still has one.

               I find it interesting to be compared to whale oil, I haven’t engaged in any ‘ism’ since I’ve been here. I’ve just told you truthful facts you don’t like, that you choose to say are lies.
               • Murray Olsen …

                 23 July 2012 at 12:28 am

                 Given that Roger Douglas and Richard Prebble were once Labour activists, it doesn’t surprise me at all that at least some of the present ones are envious of our present misgovernment. Even though you can’t provide a link or a source, I find this part of what you say eminently believable.
               • Colonial Viper …

                 23 July 2012 at 1:33 am

                 Bill English does own a farm Mr Argentina, and did work it, and still has one.

                 You know so much, when did English last work his farm UAC? Is this the same farm he lives at, while ‘visiting’ his ‘accomodation’ in Wellington?
               • Colonial Viper …

                 23 July 2012 at 1:37 am

                 And I notice you edited your comment at 9:53, so that KTH’s reply to it at 9:56 no longer makes logical sense, and so that you look less ignorant.

                 Your comment originally claimed that the NZX was simply a sharemarket, and that it was not at all a private company.

                 You’re a deceitful little unit, I see. And more than a little bit ignorant.

                 You also have no idea what a “counterfactual” is. You’re intelligent, yet stupid at the same time. Quite a feat.
               • Draco T Bastard …

                 23 July 2012 at 1:42 am

                 I’ve just told you truthful facts…

                 No, you haven’t. Everything you’ve said has been a distortion of the truth made so as to try and make reality conform to your delusion. Just need to go read the websites to prove that. Like the ACC hole that NACT said was there, raised the premiums and then, a year later, there was a multi-billion dollar surplus and NACT were dropping the premiums. The surplus would have been there even without the premium increases – just like everyone else said when NACT raised them.
       • Draco T Bastard 9.2.1.3

         22 July 2012 at 8:59 pm

         Why would anyone delete your comments? They’re wonderful proof of how stupid you are.
       • xtasy 9.2.1.4

         22 July 2012 at 9:29 pm

         Up and Down Comer and Goner: You are suffering from some kind of delusion and paranoia, it seems. The Standard editors do NOT delete comments of opposing views, like perhaps some other forums run by the right do. That is, as long as you abide by the rules, which have also been pointed out to me before. So it is actually a very fair website and forum after all. But I fear that your fear is more than rational, which does not reflect that positively on the quality of your often misinformation based comments here.
         • UpandComer 9.2.1.4.1

           22 July 2012 at 9:51 pm

           Ah well that’s great. I’ll be very interested to see what you interpret as being misinformation or against your ‘fair and balanced’ policies.
           • xtasy 9.2.1.4.1.1

             22 July 2012 at 10:05 pm

             Yes, misinformation on welfare, economics, infrastructure developments, investment, asset sales, ACC and the list goes on!

             I had enough of reading such bizarre comments and say good night for now!
10. xtasy 10

    22 July 2012 at 9:22 pm

    English talks about the “infrastructure boom”. That “boom” is only really happening in Christchurch, where the investments (largely financed by insurance payouts and some government injections) are simply going to return the place to be habitable and to restore the destroyed infrastructure there, hopefully to a somewhat better standard as it may have been before.

    Of course that creates “economic” activity and some “growth”, but as it is simply re-building what is needed anyway, and what was partly destroyed through the earth-quakes, it will hardly be real, durable “growth” as such.

    Another truth is, which is reflected by low inflation of only one percent, that the whole NZ economy is flat and flat-lining. Not much is happening, and we continue to export the same low value added primary products – now to the new dominant economic power China (replacing the dominant trading partner UK of past years up to the 1970s) that do not create or maintain that many jobs at all.

    Manufacturing has largely shifted off-shore, so NZ lives off tourism (serving meals, beverages, taking tourists on boat rides or else) and training foreign students, not much else.

    It is actually increasingly a dumbed down economy, not keeping up with other “developed” countries, even some “developing” countries.

    Had it not been for the Christchurch rebuild, only just taking off now, NZ would again be in a deep recession!
11. Colonial Viper 11

    22 July 2012 at 11:25 pm

    Interestingly, UAC has successfully manage to capture the conversation on this thread. I’m partially at fault for responding to this troll. Perhaps he felt that PG’s absence left a gap he needed to fill?
12. Murray Olsen 12

    23 July 2012 at 12:10 am

    I suspect he’s come over from WhaleSpew after reading how the standardistas resort to censorship to block opposing views. On the other hand, WhaleSpew values democratic discussion so highly that they allow any number of racist terms to be used, as well as misogynistic attacks on left women, plus different levels of giggling at prison rape fantasies. That this sort of knuckle dragging rubbish isn’t found here just proves how totalitarian the left is, at least to a microscopically small mind.
    • Colonial Viper 12.1

      23 July 2012 at 1:34 am

      Need a better whay of dealing with the dickhead. He’s derailing whole threads, and centering them around his personal lying stench.
      • locus 12.1.1

        23 July 2012 at 6:07 am

        CV the problem with these lowlifes is that they believe the lies and drivel they spew out will in some way stick. Unfortunately this means that you have to show them up for what they are even though you know you’re responding to a tro#l

        BeenAndGoner, it’s been a long thread, so let me summarise: – all in one day – you have told us “truthful facts” about how you have “worked your way up” in life by working in “rest-homes, orchards, vineyards, milked cows, worked on road crews, been a stevedore”. Unlike all those people who “can’t stick the hard work and fall into bad habits”, you’ve clearly stuck to all your jobs, though i can’t help speculating on the reasons why you’ve moved on from each one.

        Oh, and you’ve also told us that you are just “an ordinary NZ’er”, and that we’ll probably delete all your posts because we can’t accept your opinions….
        • xtasy 12.1.1.1

          23 July 2012 at 7:08 pm

          He is in reality perhaps John Key trolling in disguise. Lies anyone?
      • bad12 12.1.2

        23 July 2012 at 11:18 pm

        The best way to deal with those that persist in trotting out the unintelligent bullshit of the National Party in, if it’s really possible, an even more unintelligent manner than the likes of Slippery or the Member from Dipton is to simply ignore them,

        I have read most of the comments that particular one has posted across the Standard today and its just low level nit-picking for the sake of the thrills it obviously gets winding people up,

        Engaging in debate with it, empowers it, provides it’s thrills and makes a nonsense out of anything intelligent anyone replying to the original post is trying to put forward…
13. Tracey 13

    23 July 2012 at 11:07 am

    “He also owned a farm and worked as a farmer for many years.” Source???
    • Colonial Viper 13.1

      23 July 2012 at 11:45 pm

      English has been sucking off the tax payers teat his whole life. He’s one of those poster boy career public servants that the Tories say they hate. Starting out at Treasury and now a couple of decades in Parliament.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS