Written By: - Date published: 5:35 pm, February 9th, 2009 - 60 comments
Categories: scoundrels -
Tags:
Roger Douglas has his big debut speech tomorrow night in Orewa. He’s been working hard and sucking the (tax payer funded) parliamentary library resources dry to get it right. The speech, which promises to restart the neoliberal revolution, is embargoed until he delivers it to a breathless crowd tomorrow night. You can read it here. Turns out he’s got nothing but the same old discredited ideological dribbling. Even his “facts” are wrong. Nothing ever goes right for Roger.
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
I seriously struggle with the idea that health and education are too important to leave to the private sector. If that is so then how come two even more important aspects of life on earth are quite happily left to the private sector – the provision of food and shelter?
Imagine if the govt was responsible for the provision of food and shelter. How much would a loaf of bread cost? How long would it take to get a house built? Ha ha, doesn’t even bear thinking about.
So, apply the same logic to health and education… which I’m sure will not be possible … quelle horreur …
(with a safety net for those who cannot look after themselves of course)
VTO – Peoples requirements for food and shelter are predictable and the costs generally reasonable and manageable.
The cost of health is totally the opposite, the vast majority need very little in health care but for some extremely expensive and necessary health care is needed. Really I wonder why anyone would debate that an all private system for health care is better for this country, just look at the mess that is health care in the US!
As for education, this is the great leveler in society and access to a cheap, quality education system is one of the things that gives everyone a fair chance in life.
As I said earlier Roger Douglas is all about making the rich richer and the poor poorer and that is something we definitely don’t need.
The Fox: here here!
It is complete and utter drivel. That Sunday radio show was as delusional as it was embarassing. Just because you can parrot out a tired old dogma, it does not make you an expert.
The failure of that mentality is playing out on a world wide scale. It originated in the richest country in world and thus the country that had the best chance by a long margin of making it work.
It did not and even greenspan is saying it was all a big, hairy mistake.
And after all this they STILL parrot out the same old trash. Saying how their ideas are different because of X and blah blah blah.
Take the telecom example on the radio interview. They just finished saying how SOEs should all be sold off because they were “underperforming” compared to the private ones and when telecom is mentioned it is a case of “well that was different”. What about power? What about water? All different also I suppose?
All this also ignores the job layoffs, money going overseas and al the other great things that HAVE COME from privatising such companies. Great for the Phillipines, not so great for NZ at the moment.
Total. Crap.
Then they go on to attack the cullen fund and how we should gut the country’s retirement fund for unexplained reasons. Because of course we want to have the social security mess that the US has right now?
Oh wait…there will be no super of course.
It is tired, it is wrong. In the end all one can assume is that this is just pandering to an out of touch audience who likes what is being said for purely self indulgent reasons.
Gets votes, sells articles I guess. Some one has to fill the gap, right?
IB, how is it relevant to the discussion that the parliamentary library was used to prepare the speech? Are you saying that ACT MP’s should not be allowed to use it? Or maybe only MP’s from parties who you agree with can use it?
And just to show that he doesn’t want to throw the low paid on the scrap heap he is proposing a guaranteed minimum income for families. This after criticising working for families.
Er yeah, anyone in the know want to point out the difference between the two?
vto
February 10, 2009 at 8:26 am
That’s what I liked about our democracy under Clark. Enough individual responsibility and freedom for everyone without the Douglas’ and Richardson’s trying to turn it into the black hole of freemarket thinking, where the only people with freedom are the rich and the only people with responsibility are the powerless.
Food and shelter left to the market… Didn’t you spot the wee comparison in the paper about the income for the grower and the strangely disparate huge income for the supermarkets? I’m not into communism which you are so obvious about hinting at which wasn’t what Labour is about, but if the Government did look after food the growers would get more than they are now and the supermarkets/shareholders/businessroundtable would get less which is what they deserve as parasites on the back of the growers/transporters.
Jum and ieuan, big topic which I shouldn’t have started as I have no time today to continue it. I do think tho that Douglas et al ideas have great merit but lacked in their initial implementation leading to the known problems with parts of it. A case of devil in the detail etc. And now of course those ideas struggle for traction becuase of that poor, and probably excessive, implementation.
Things work better when the people involved have responsibility. Transfer that responsibility to someone else and things fall apart.
Jum
I think you missed two words, I have inserted them in bold for you.
Lukas said:
” . . . how is it relevant to the discussion that the parliamentary library was used to prepare the speech? Are you saying that ACT MP’s should not be allowed to use it? Or maybe only MP’s from parties who you agree with can use it? . . . ”
Can’t you see the irony? What about the sheer hypocrisy? A politician spouting private enterprise, market-driven, individual responsibility yet sucking at the state’s tit to gather supporting data for the elimination of the state? The other point is that Douglas used his experience of the system to swamp the library with his demands before any other politician could have a go, thus ensuring his work was given priority while the actual government ministers had to sit and wait.
Douglas clearly belongs in a home for the bewildered yet retains his reptilian cunning.
“burt:
Jum
I think you missed two words, I have inserted them in bold for you.
That’s what I liked about our retrospectively validated democracy under Clark.”
Sorry Burt, throw away mispreresentations get no traction here
Strange, it said my first post didn’t work.
Can’t you see the irony? What about the sheer hypocrisy? A politician spouting private enterprise, market-driven, individual responsibility yet sucking at the state’s tit to gather supporting data for the elimination of the state?
Considering the Guaranteed Minimum Family Income, and school choice (taxpayer funded) and the fact he still wants the state to have a role in health, it’s not total hypocrisy, I would’ve thought. Those are the main reason the Libertarianz consider him a socialist of sorts (yes i know they think everyone is, but still). He doesn’t advocate the MPs paying for their own research/transport/office electricity either, does he?
PB.
Interesting, thank you.
Re “taking responsibility over their lives” we have a wonderful example of exactly that in macroeconomic terms for what global financiers today have termed the hedge fund of the North Atlantic..
In terms if one of its forerunners, what we might term Douglas’s entrancing hedge fund of the South Pacific, there is genuine learning (from experience) and instruction at the link.
Yet again.
My point is simply that blind prejudice can only remain so. And that intending or even still committed followers retain a choice over “responsibility for their lives”.
@work
You are right, I’m the only one who picked up on Jum’s inaccurate association of Clark and democracy and challenged it reminding people that democracy is not democracy when parliament needs to pass laws under urgency to validate an election.
Dean
February 9, 2009 at 8:21 pm said “Are you honestly saying you’ve never heard Helen or Michael talk about tax cuts being bad?”
In 2000, Helen Clark said tax cuts were not appropriate in this time of underdevelopment and were the promises of visionless and ?bankrupt people.
John Key changed the entire meaning of her words. He left out the ‘in this time of underdevelopment’ and added ‘a’ before ‘visionless’ to make it sound like she accused NZers of being visionless, etc.
Then on 1 October 2008 English started ‘In 2000 Helen Clark was saying ‘tax cuts are the promises of a visionless and bankrupt people’. More misinformation from National; more lies to make Helen Clark look bad, just before an election.
That doesn’t say much for the people who support National, who suck up this disgraceful lying propaganda.
Burt
Passing laws under urgency to take away the working rights of people (90 day) is bad.
Businesses not even having to give a reason for firing workers, even though they can still fire them regardless is pure authoritarianism.
NAct is not about democracy, unless you call democracy the freedom of the powerful and wealthy with the workers just trying to survive, without the energy to fight for their personal democratic rights.
Refer to my 11.51 post. Lying about Helen Clark’s comments is libelous. Nice people you support Burt.
Stephen said:
” . . . Guaranteed Minimum Family Income, and school choice (taxpayer funded) and the fact he still wants the state to have a role in health, it’s not total hypocrisy, I would’ve thought . . . ”
Well, fair enough, I suppose, kind of, yeah – still, ironic all the same.
And, as we all know, the measures you mention are the lube and the policy the anal dildo; once the public gets used to the policy, those measures will evaporate into whatever universe would have a planet so daft as to adopt such idiocy.
vto: Things work better when the people involved have responsibility. Transfer that responsibility to someone else and things fall apart.
You missed something out. When you transfer responsibility then you also have to transfer authority.
For instance and just off the top of my head (and as a stir) on education. Give the students the authority to shoot bad providers. I’ve seen a number of people who have had bad experiences of coughing up large amounts of money to receive an inadequate private tertiary level education. Trying to get a redress on that without coughing up even more major amounts of money is not effective.
I think that simply removing those unrequired layers of justice would fit with the general right philosophy. Just allow the students a clear shot at their teachers and educational institution owners. The would put both the responsibility and authority directly with the owners of their own education – the students.
Of course there wouldn’t be many teachers or educational institutions (left)..
The productivity thing needs to be blown out of the water.
If a worker digs a hole with a pick and shovel the worker has a lower productivity than if dug with a digger. The productivity looks like 1/2 a day as opposed to 1/2 an hour.
It is not the worker who is less productive but the tools by which the under capitalised industry chooses to work with.
It is the high invester returns that have crippled industry through taking profit out of the industry as investments in plant and training are diverting it to their holiday homes.
A model of increased productivity requires further investment in the industry, not in extravagant excesses.
His policies are guaranteed to do one thing, make the rich richer and the poor poorer, nice guy, why does anyone listen to him?
Because the non-productive rich like having government backing.
We need to create more liquidity in the economy and have that money invested in businesses.
I agree – increasing wages is a bloody good idea. (In a free-market everyone is a business not just the rich)
And that includes capital.
We started losing capital the day we started selling our assets and businesses to foreign owners.
I seriously struggle with the idea that health and education are too important to leave to the private sector. If that is so then how come two even more important aspects of life on earth are quite happily left to the private sector – the provision of food and shelter?
Actually, that comes down to competition. Food can be easily transported to any market meaning that food will be supplied @ near cost (in theory). Build two schools next to each other to compete for the same pupils and you’ve just doubled your expenses without any increase in benefits. Same applies to hospitals which helps explain why the US health service is the most expensive in the world. Housing – well, you may not have noticed but the government does have its hand in providing housing because the market generally fails there as well.
I remember now; I think it was ‘visionless and morally bankrupt people’ meaning the National opposition who sought to give tax cuts to the rich at that time and at the expense of weakened infrastructure and support both financially and community-wise for the poor and vulnerable.
Now Douglas is trying it on again.
The speech is relevant again today with the failure of the Finance Coys.
‘(Unequal) Tax cuts are not appropriate in a time of underdevelopment (change to ‘unemployment’) and are the promises of visionless and morally bankrupt people’ (National – no change there!).
Jum
They did it too…. I need to remind my kids that “He/She did it too” is not an excuse for bad behaviour. I don’t expect it from intelligent adults. You on the other hand…. Yes Jum – National did it too… Whatever.
Oh yes, Sir Roger is wrong because you on the left say so. I suspect you suffer from a form of “living so far away from the real world” syndrome. Funnily enough, other countries are embracing much of what you call this out of touch policy, and if I recall, Canada recently honoured Sir Roger for his ability and skill.
I love it that you get on your high horse about the nasty behaviour on Kiwiblog, only to descend into ageist abuse of a guy almost the same age as Anderton. I am sure you speak to your grandparents the same way too right?
Was that the Fraser Institute, or some other Canadian wackos? Or was it the widely detested Harper?
It’s funny that Douglas would give this speech right at the point where neoliberalism has been completely discredited. At least he’ll die knowing he’s been a complete failure.
Clint – it’s not his age, it’s his zombieness and wretchedness that people make fun of. The man is a wretched zombie.