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.

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.

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?

Burt
Passing laws under urgency to take away the working rights of people (90 day) is bad.

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.

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!).

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.

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.

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)..

” . . . 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.

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.

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.

Sorry Burt, throw away mispreresentations get no traction here

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.

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”.