And the people behind Labour are impoverished…. You have gone on about Labour supporters as being thinking intellectuals then listed a whole bunch of stereotypes. Umm, how smart is Jum…..

Roger Douglas?
John Key?
Paula Bennett?
John Banks?
Mike Lee?
Theresa Gattung?

The trouble with the term ‘working class’ is the use of it, usually by the left, to describe themselves. The NActs don’t. They refer to their individual working title as if to infer it is not working class but rather the ruling class. My national supporter friend would never call herself working class even though she works to pay her bills, just like everyone else. A great disservice is done when people place themselves at a disadvantage by accepting a name tag which ties them to a particular group, because it plays into the right’s hands. Thinking people respect the working ethos. The right disrespect the worker. The right has deliberately insulted the term ‘working class’ and unthinking Kiwis absorb that myth. Unthinking Kiwis want to improve their lot and being described as ‘working class’ by the media and the NActs reduces their ambition for themselves. Perception is everything, Snoozer.

“working class (whatever that means!)”

if your political analysis does not include an understanding of class and the power relations inherent in a class-based system like capitalism you are out of touch.

Labour on the other hand extends the hand to all people. National can’t because it is all about selling out the poor to pay out to the rich. They ensure by their 90day probation and their lower wages that there will always be a gap and many desperate unemployed to clean their mansions. That’s the ‘key’ to National’s psyche.

Key won the last election because he did the joe bloggs act. He did the Bill English accent with the moneyman’s financial gamble and the wife and two kids, which are nothing like the average wife and two kids. He is a consummate liar and a puppet of overseas. He will do whatever is required to win the next election whereby he can enact the wishlist of his benefactors. He is not a nice man. His ‘act’ is brilliant. His public face is perfect. Kiwis have always been swayed by the family man – I find that personally disgraceful when we have such a terrible domestic violence legacy from the rugby/racing/beer mentality.

Labour rejects its Helen Clark years for the blokey years now. I’d watch that if I were them. The ‘it’s time for a change’ only came about because Key intimated he was a Clark think-a-like – another lie from him and his backers.

I almost think NZers should be led to the slaughter one final time to understand what National is all about. In 2011 they will vote for ownership by the (NZ)Business Roundtable or vote for a life. Ownership of their own assets or the yoke of foreign ownership. I thought the obvious choice would be owning ourselves. Since Kiwis voted in National I am no longer certain.

The Nanny State was a NAct invention. The fascist global freemarket state will be a National/Act reality.

Extra welfare distribution isn’t a tax cut Mr Semmens. Dr Cullen railed against tax cuts for a long time,”

Just to illustrate who the real manipulators are and they aint Labour:

Labour said in 2000: “”Tax cuts are a path to inequality and underdevelopment in today’s circumstances. They are the promises of vision-less and intellectually bankrupt people’

National lied once by John Key, the National leader and again by Bill English just before the 2008 election: “In 2000 Helen Clark was saying: ‘tax cuts are the promises of a visionless and bankrupt people’.

She was right about the character of NAct. They have no vision apart from manipulating the desperate unemployed that’s come to fruition and to ensure both unemployed, all women and the working poor have no support systems.

But, they actually do have support systems. The Standard is just one of them.

Labour said in 2000: “”Tax cuts are a path to inequality and underdevelopment in today’s circumstances. They are the promises of vision-less and intellectually bankrupt people’

National lied once by John Key, the National leader and again by Bill English just before the 2008 election: “In 2000 Helen Clark was saying: ‘tax cuts are the promises of a visionless and bankrupt people’.

She was right about the character of NAct. They have no vision apart from manipulating the desperate unemployed – that’s come to fruition – and to ensure both unemployed, women and the working poor have no support systems.

But, they actually do have support systems. The Standard is just one of them.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I’m very please that National didn’t (and are unlikely in the future) to get enough votes to govern alone.

My point is that the major parties have solidly campaigned “Two ticks [insert_party_name_here]” since they first had delusions of representing the view of the people. These organisations (both the red one and the blue one) are self serving enough to actually believe their BS that one size fits all.

Relying on coalition partners is indeed a good thing but the major parties remember the good old days of FPP and with their “two ticks” policy clearly don’t want to share anything.

When I said “dinosaur major parties were only holding 25-30 seats each” I was meaning both major parties. I don’t care for a blue FPP style parliament anymore than I care for a red FPP style parliament.

People can clean up their mess, they submit themselves to the fumes and the noise is something that has to be worked out by the poeple involved. Like I said criticise them if you wish, but I still see no excuse for state violence and absolutely no justification for banning it.

That alone is a radical enough suggestion, if you want to go the next step and fully nationalise the entire housing stock… I think you’re dreaming.

Burning couches produces lots of sparks that can start a fire which then burns a house down. Then there’s the poisonous fumes that the burning foam in the couch gives off.

I wasn’t there this year and I’ve never participated in it but I have seen the results. It’s a mess and it’s expensive. Like I said before – if the students weren’t being stupid it wouldn’t be a problem.

I agree with that last sentence that relates to the law of equal liberty and no government in existence adheres to it.

And that’s just something else we need to work on then as a society then isn’t it?

not the least of which is that it is based on false assumptions

And if you look real close you’ll notice that all of those false assumptions support capitalism. Remove those and the model starts to make a bit more sense. It’s still not perfect and probably shouldn’t be used for modeling the real world but it does show an interesting point.

In the perfect market with infinite competition and perfect knowledge there is always someone who will sell you the same item cheaper but nothing can be supplied at less than cost price. Everything has a cost, labour, resources, everything. In a perfect market these costs will be more or less constant and can’t be cut. So the person who is willing to sell you the same item cheaper must be cutting something else and there’s only one thing that can be cut – profit. The real value of financial capital in a perfect market is zero.

I’m pretty sure the capitalists are quite happy that the market is highly restricted and owned by them.

Private ownership is the heart of capitalism and is the true source of poverty in the world.

Growth is required to cover the interest charged and no other reason. Our productivity is already such that we could probably support ourselves on about 2 hours work per day each. Everything above that is make work.

Tragedy of the Commons Revisited

A commons is destroyed by uncontrolled use—neither intent of the user, nor ownership are important. An example of uncontrolled use is when one can use land (part of our commons) any way one wants.

The argument that people who own the land/water/resource will take better care of it than common land has been disproved time and time again over the centuries. As you say, it’s an outdated concept and one that is a complete failure.

Talking about the term free-market I believe that I may be using a slightly different meaning than the one generally accepted. I should probably get around to defining my terminology and think up another phrase for it.