Selling Mighty River cost you $100m

158 comments on “Selling Mighty River cost you $100m ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Lanthanide 1

   9 May 2013 at 7:43 pm

   It didn’t cost me $100m. It may have cost *us* $100m though.

   “Surely, if you have money for a punt on a power company, you would have gone for Mighty River.”

   Why? Just ’cause it’s first? IMO Meridian is better – the Tiwai Point closure might hurt them in the short term, but in the long term they’ll be better off than the other generators since they’ll now be able to sell the same power for more, whereas the others will only sell less power.
   • Colonial Viper 1.1

     9 May 2013 at 7:51 pm

     You’re really going to wait the 20 years its going to take after the smelter closure for Meridians spare capacity to be absorbed? I’ll put it another way. As a retail investor, you’re ripe to be scammed by the inside knowledge of the institutions..
     • Lanthanide 1.1.1

       9 May 2013 at 8:05 pm

       Given that the infrastructure is already in place for the Manapouri electricity to be transmitted to the North Island, Manapouri gets a large amount of rainfall, I think it’s more the case that other, more expensive generation will be displaced. Sure, Meridian will also have some excess capacity due to oversupply, but if they’re going from a situation of selling the power at 2c kwh to ~15c, it’s pretty easy to see that their revenue and profits will increase.
       • Colonial Viper 1.1.1.1

         9 May 2013 at 8:42 pm

         Well, here’s hoping some gutsy future government will regulate the entire market down closer to 2c/kWh
2. Colonial Viper 2

   9 May 2013 at 7:45 pm

   That’s just the thing. MRPs poor float performance was not a failure for National’s constituents.
3. vto 3

   9 May 2013 at 7:59 pm

   I fail to see why the need for spending this sort of money on sales commission (mostly).

   There was sufficient demand for the government to do it itself. Or even trademe would have been cheaper.

   Why would they not do this do you think? Because it is ‘investmen ‘banks’ that get the fees? Because John Key made his millions with investment banks? Because that’s the way they spread the money around their mates?

   There was no need.
   • Lanthanide 3.1

     9 May 2013 at 8:06 pm

     “There was sufficient demand for the government to do it itself. Or even trademe would have been cheaper.”

     We have these things call laws, which require things like share floats to be done in a certain way. They were tightened recently after the GFC and debacle of the finance companies. Listing it on trademe wouldn’t satisfy those laws, and likely the government wouldn’t be able to do it themselves either.
     • Macro 3.1.1

       10 May 2013 at 8:00 pm

       “We have these things call laws, which require things like share floats to be done in a certain way.”

       and yet it costs $100m to do this??
4. mickysavage 4

   9 May 2013 at 8:05 pm

   And the bit that will really do your head in is the amount of power that could be saved by properly insulating homes. The Government would be way better on behalf of all of us insulating our homes and reducing consumption. But that would adversely affect the power companies bottom lines …
5. logie97 5

   9 May 2013 at 8:19 pm

   Just asking. If every eligible NZ mum and/or dad had registered and applied for shares in the MRP float, would they all have got their wish? Where would an over subscription sit with the philosophy of people being able to participate in the property owning democracy?
   • Ross 5.1

     10 May 2013 at 6:59 am

     Logie

     Only 3% of the population applied for shares, yet some mum and dad investors didn’t get what they asked for. Some asked for 2000 shares and got 1600. Then again, if mums and dads believe what their esteemed PM tells them, they really are guillible.
     • Ennui 5.1.1

       10 May 2013 at 11:10 am

       Ross. these “ma and pa” investors…they had $8K up their sleeves! Common garden good old fashioned Kiwis investing in their country, lovely soft cuddly grandmas…reminds me of the wolf in Red Riding Hood.
     • Graham 5.1.2

       11 May 2013 at 8:02 am

       “Some asked for 2000 shares and got 1600”.
       If they had pre-registered then they would have been allocated the lot. Scaling back for those who pre-registered kicked in above the $15,000 mark.
6. Tamati 6

   9 May 2013 at 8:28 pm

   The real cost of the IPO will be apparent when it lists tomorrow. Usually shares are issued at a discount, to ensure that they sell well. In all likelihood, the shares will rise on their first day and the true value of the shares will apparent. The difference between the two prices is the “cost” of the underpricing.
7. Tigger 7

   9 May 2013 at 8:38 pm

   I was thinking of bringing a private prosecution against Blinglish and Ryall for selling property that does not belong to them. This was my/our company. They’ve hocked it off. I figure that’s criminal behaviour no different to if they’d sold a police car or stationery from a government office.
   • Lanthanide 7.1

     9 May 2013 at 9:34 pm

     Everything the government does is on behalf of the public. You’d be just as able to bring a private prosecution against any random minister for spending money on the unemployment benefit.
   • Chris 7.2

     10 May 2013 at 7:20 am

     You do know they regularly sell old police cars? I think Turners has the contract (at least they used to).
     • Tim 7.2.1

       10 May 2013 at 3:59 pm

       They used to give them away too – to those poor Pacific cousins like Fiji – till they realised Turners could flik them a bit of cash instead (even with clipping the ticket).
   • johnm 7.3

     10 May 2013 at 10:46 am

     100% right Tigger, they’re a bunch of sleazy white collar crims aided and abetted by the rich minority of money grubbers in this divided land.
     • Tim 7.3.1

       10 May 2013 at 4:03 pm

       They don’t call it a divided land these days John – it’s ‘dividend’ land.
8. Yes 8

   9 May 2013 at 9:22 pm

   You guys talk rubbish
   
   [let me guess, your argument’s so powerful that it’s not necessary to explain it.Eddie]
   • Hayden 8.1

     9 May 2013 at 10:07 pm

     Sweet argument bro.
   • Yes 8.2

     11 May 2013 at 1:03 pm

     Explain what? Govt sold 49% of a state owned asset and 1.6b into future development. Labour under Clarke and Cullen squandered our wealth and surplus and let’s not forget the multi billion dollar bill from ACC. National has done a great job and while I accept people migrating is more than I would like people move. You can’t tell people what to do.
     If you guys should back and reflected for a moment and said where are we now compared to where we we say 5 years ago I would be pretty positive. Whether a left wing government gets in or not national has set up the foundations for a strong economy. Give them some credit. I just think you guys talk continued rubbish on here.
     • Colonial Viper 8.2.1

       11 May 2013 at 1:10 pm

       Uh, want a strange and twisted recollection you have

       And selling profitable family assets to pay for day to day running expenses is sorta stupid, yeah?
       • Yes 8.2.1.1

         11 May 2013 at 6:58 pm

         Ummm labour NZ power plan is zero based profit formula so you are wrong
         • Colonial Viper 8.2.1.1.1

           11 May 2013 at 7:07 pm

           A zero profit formula?

           If there are going to be zero profis, why did lots of international financial institutions buy into MRP?
           • Yes 8.2.1.1.1.1

             11 May 2013 at 8:35 pm

             Because their model says take away the super profit under NZ power and give back cheaper prices. Isn’t that stealing. The people who will benefit most under NZ power will be the rich and companies which the owners will get more money. Have you read whale oil, kiwiblog, the owl and the nbr
             • Colonial Viper …

               11 May 2013 at 8:47 pm

               It’s such a shame that the investor classes won’t get their super-profits. Super-profits they steal from ordinary NZers by systematic over-charging. I guess the investor classes will just have to settle for average profits eh.

               Have you read whale oil, kiwiblog, the owl and the nbr

               You have to be kidding, seriously.
               • Yes …

                 11 May 2013 at 9:00 pm

                 Yes read lots of people’s view national voter I declare but MRP has got me very interested. Convince me
               • Colonial Viper …

                 11 May 2013 at 9:06 pm

                 It’s really a simple idea: MRP is a wealth pump. Originally 100% owned by the NZ government, it took money from households and businesses all around the country and pumped it into Treasury.

                 Now, 49% of that wealth pump has been sold to foreign institutions, and a small number of wealthy NZ investors. Instead of Treasury collecting 100% of the monies from the wealth pump, 49% of the monies goes overseas and into the hands of a small number of already rich people.
                 • Yes …

                   12 May 2013 at 4:01 am

                   Only 13.5% is overseas investment..kiwisaver has more money than that in overseas investment – why don’t you complain about that.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     12 May 2013 at 4:09 am

                     That’s 13.5% too much. And why should ownership of a public good be concentrated in the hands of a few rich people?

                     kiwisaver has more money than that in overseas investment – why don’t you complain about that.

                     Because those investments pump money back into NZ. That is good for the country.

                     You still don’t get the difference between a wealth pump emptying out the country and one which pumps wealth into NZ, do you?
           • Yes 8.2.1.1.1.2

             12 May 2013 at 6:45 am

             But wait you are stealing other people’s wealth from other countries under kiwisaver…we as a country are doing the same. Your argument is flawed
9. tc 9

   9 May 2013 at 9:24 pm

   ‘He is so out of touch he doesn’t see the problem’ should read he knows what the problem is, he just doesn’t give a F.
   • paul andersen 9.1

     10 May 2013 at 9:20 am

     no, he is out of touch. english still thinks it;s the nineties ,and he is still praying to an old black and white photo of ruth richardson.
     • Colonial Viper 9.1.1

       11 May 2013 at 1:16 pm

       Quite wrong, English is certainly not doing that. If you think he is, you haven’t picked up on his fiscal management style at all.
10. Saarbo 10

    9 May 2013 at 9:30 pm

    That is an interesting point that English made at 5m.30 s in the second clip, he reckoned that Contact and Trust Power share prices are at a lower price now that they were 5 years ago. I guess utility stocks tend to be dividend stocks, so they don’t necessarily go up a lot over time but this is still good fodder to scare the 2.5% away from the next share floats…Bill better be careful what comes out of his mouth.
11. Ed 11

    9 May 2013 at 9:38 pm

    There was a lot of consultancy cost before the asset sales process – which may or may not have been included in the answer from the Finance Minister . . .
12. RJLC 12

    9 May 2013 at 9:54 pm

    Great performance by Labour.

    Not.

    It’s clear who are the real opposition.
13. Tim 13

    9 May 2013 at 9:56 pm

    I’m no expert by any means, but one of the reasons people invest in the share ‘market’ relates to the fact that shares are a tradable commodity yes?
    I also notice that share trading is fairly regularly suspended at various times – often because of ‘uncertain’ situations and at the request of companies involved.

    There are a host of reasons why trading in MRP shares might be suspended – and for quite a long period of time.
    • Colonial Viper 13.1

      9 May 2013 at 10:01 pm

      Retail investors in the share market are lambs to the slaughter nowadays. High speed automated trading algorithms (high frequency trading) has completely screwed the market and allows large trading institutions to direct the market upwards or downwards at will.
      • Tim 13.1.1

        10 May 2013 at 6:50 am

        Agreed re hft – which is why the whole concept of the ‘free market’ is just such a load of tosh.
        I was thinking more along the lines of first steps towards returning things to public ownership when we finally get a new gubbamint.
        • Colonial Viper 13.1.1.1

          11 May 2013 at 1:18 pm

          Well, in that case you don’t actually want MRP share trading to be suspended, you want the share price to gradually decline and for the govt to start picking up large parcels of shares at a significant discount.
14. Swan 14

    9 May 2013 at 10:01 pm

    Norman is looking a bit beaten and desperate isn’t he. I guess we’re not pleased, are we Clint?
    • infused 14.1

      9 May 2013 at 10:37 pm

      He always does.
      • felix 14.1.1

        9 May 2013 at 11:04 pm

        Funny, you’d think he’d be stoked. According to English, Key, and the share-buying public, he’s on his way to the Govt benches.
        • Swan 14.1.1.1

          9 May 2013 at 11:26 pm

          I think $2.50 a share means the market has the Nats out in front by a nose.
          • felix 14.1.1.1.1

            10 May 2013 at 7:22 am

            Then I guess you don’t know much about markets.
          • Te Reo Putake 14.1.1.1.2

            10 May 2013 at 8:36 am

            The market didn’t set that $2.50 price, Swan, the Government did. We’ll see what the market thinks later today.
            • Ennui 14.1.1.1.2.1

              10 May 2013 at 11:12 am

              Leads me to think dark thoughts that the raising of cash was highly secondary to the sale of shares to their mates (Nat voters, corporate funds etc) at a very cut price.
            • Swan 14.1.1.1.2.2

              10 May 2013 at 3:49 pm

              Unless the govt chose to sell at a discount (in which case the market was picking even better odds for national), then yes the market did effectively set the price. National couldn’t sell them at an inflated price or no institutions would have bought them. The institutions bid.
            • dumrse 14.1.1.1.2.3

              10 May 2013 at 6:48 pm

              And your answer is………..peaked at $2.72. Govt 1, Labour….fuck all.
              • One Anonymous Knucklehead …

                10 May 2013 at 6:55 pm

                2.85% is pitiful: a vote loser.
                • Colonial Viper …

                  11 May 2013 at 1:22 pm

                  Don’t forget the $60 brokerage commission on selling…basically means someone who owns 1000 shares of MRP makes fuck all, as expected only the brokerages and bankers make the big money.
          • paul andersen 14.1.1.1.3

            10 May 2013 at 9:23 am

            no , the nats have got their noses in the trough.
        • infused 14.1.1.2

          10 May 2013 at 7:05 pm

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMkDnuySfzo looks tired and defeated.
          • Arfamo 14.1.1.2.1

            10 May 2013 at 7:20 pm

            The clip title’s mis-spelled. It should say “English – Sludge of the Day“.
15. Ross 15

    10 May 2013 at 6:52 am

    What’s interesting that some mum and dad investors, those investors who, according to John Key, were the “number one priority”, had their shares scaled. Some investors wanting a mere 2000 shares received only 1600. Clearly, insitutional investors were more important than the mums and dads which Key banged on about.

    http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/govt-details-mighty-river-share-allocations-refunds-nz-individual-investors-ck-139904

    http://www.interest.co.nz/news/58248/new-zealand-mum-and-dad-investors-number-one-priority-pm-key-when-it-comes-soe-share-allo
    • Alanz 15.1

      10 May 2013 at 7:15 am

      ‘Well done’, John Key! Our trusting and honest mums and dads are getting played by him. Well and truly done by John Key.
    • felix 15.2

      10 May 2013 at 7:41 am

      Didn’t Key and English explicitly promise that everyone who wanted 2000 would get 2000? And that scaling would kick in after that?
      • Chris 15.2.1

        10 May 2013 at 9:06 am

        That was $2,000 worth not 2,000 shares from memory.
    • xtasy 15.3

      10 May 2013 at 9:56 pm

      “Mums and dads” as “investors” are just the convenient “pawns” in a larger game, that is! Most cannot afford to buy such shares anyway, that is the issue of concern here.
16. andy (the other one) 16

    10 May 2013 at 8:13 am

    Just heard Brian Gaynor on radio, and he said the Institutional investors do not settle on MRP shares until next Wednesday 15th May

    So the Govt does not even have the money in the bank. They get to trade shares and possibly make profit for nothing.

    So we have effectively given them a interest free loan for 3-4 trading days so they can try and extract profit, while the Mum and Dad investors had the cash taken in April.

    Talk about great odds for the institutional investors, as expectations are for a rise in value at the start of trading.
17. TheContrarian 17

    10 May 2013 at 8:26 am

    “Surely, if you have money for a punt on a power company, you would have gone for Mighty River.”

    Not necessarily true at all. I have the money and didn’t as I am waiting to see what happens with MRP first. I know plenty of others in the same boat.
18. Neil 18

    10 May 2013 at 8:42 am

    Remember, 113 000 NZers took up shares. Out of 400 000 who registered this is still 25%. After all, it took nothing to register. This time you had to write a cheque out or have the dosh in the bank.
    Ordinary NZers, I’m one who has saved hard, was a teacher, invested carefully and am now enjoying the fruits of MY labour. I have taken control of MY destiny like many other senior Kiwis NOT waiting for the golden goose Labor/Greens to give me an illusionary $300 savings in power.
    A last comment,any politician promising you to give you money is in most cases a snake oil salesman dressed up in a smooth suit and white shoes.
    • xtasy 18.1

      10 May 2013 at 10:03 pm

      “I have taken control of MY destiny like many other senior Kiwis NOT waiting for the golden goose Labor/Greens to give me an illusionary $300 savings in power.”

      This is the exact proof I need for stating once again, NZ is a divided country, and it is so, by the design and interest of those that are better qualified, better equipped, that have more resources, that likely had a much easier head start than others, that ended up getting FREE university or other TERTIARY EDUCATION, that could sell their acquired skills for nice salaries every year, that did well despite of Rogernomics, and that do NOT REALLY CARE at all for those that do not meet their social class and circles.

      And for that sake, being rather social and whatever, I have not that much time for many teachers, as you are a prime example of the “professional class” that only sees their own entitlements, and consider others as less worthy for whatever judgmental cause.

      It is despicable to even make such comments as you made.

      YOU are UP THERE, UP Y-self, I suppose, and the rest bloody learn to work harder, right? So you must be pleased with the present government introducing new youth rates at $ 10.80 an hour for many aged 16 to 19 in supermarkets, fast food outlets and more.

      Enjoy your burger and smiling checkout operator working for shit pay to keep your trolley and stomach full!
19. Neil 19

    10 May 2013 at 8:46 am

    Ross made the comment that people who had applied for $2 000 of shares had theirs scaled back to 1 600. How convenient that Ross did not add that was because those people had not pre-registered,. If you pre-registered you either got the full amount or one quarter extra.
    Tell the whole story !!!
    • Ross 19.1

      10 May 2013 at 3:28 pm

      Neil,

      I said that some buyers had had their allocation scaled. They were buyers who has bought only 2000 shares. You will recall that your beloved John Key said earlier this year:

      “What we’ve said is, when it comes to Mum and Dad, if they want to buy 1,000 shares or whatever it might be, I want to make sure that they get their allocation, they’re not scaled, and they’re at the front of the queue,” he said.

      That seems pretty unequivocal. Why did some mum and dad investors – buying a measly 2000 shares – get scaled in favour of institutional investors?
20. Rich the other 20

    10 May 2013 at 9:46 am

    Wake up to green/labour , truly dangerous.

    By the end of the day a reliable calculation of how much the green/labours attempt at economic sabotage has cost hard working NZ tax payers, it’s starting to look like .30c per share.

    They are about go into hiding.
    • Winston Smith 20.1

      10 May 2013 at 9:49 am

      Its funny, if the Greens (lets face it Labours doing nothing) had done nothing then the price of the shares would have been higher and the govt would have gained more money but instead the Greens wasted a whole bunch of money, the govt got less money and I gained more shares…
    • framu 20.2

      10 May 2013 at 12:15 pm

      “a reliable calculation”

      care to show us the maths on that one?
    • Colonial Viper 20.3

      10 May 2013 at 12:41 pm

      RTO serves your crew right for trying to financialise core NZ infrastructure.

      Best thing is to depress the MRP share price so that it can be renationalised at half the cost.
    • Rich the other 20.4

      10 May 2013 at 12:47 pm

      $ 2.69 and $45 mill in sales as at 12.46.

      ..19c per share above issue price.
      • framu 20.4.1

        10 May 2013 at 4:09 pm

        who are you replying to? yourself?
21. mikesh 21

    10 May 2013 at 10:54 am

    Loks like a good day for the stags. According to the “depth” the buying offers range from 2,59 to 3.20.
    • Colonial Viper 21.1

      10 May 2013 at 12:42 pm

      Bet you that sweet f.a. volume will move above 3.10

      They just put those top bids in there to make the market look good
22. kahu 22

    10 May 2013 at 12:41 pm

    MRP up 20 cents! Terrific, a nice little profit. Thanks National!
    • mickysavage 22.1

      10 May 2013 at 1:06 pm

      Yep 30 minutes after listing about 25 million shares have been sold in the range of $2.67 to $2.73 per share representing a cool profit in the vicinity of $5 million. And this just the first day …

      Imagine how much NZ Inc is going to lose over the next few decades …
      • King Kong 22.1.1

        10 May 2013 at 3:00 pm

        Why? NZ Inc already got out of the thing at $2.50.

        Can’t sell the rest so why does NZ Inc give a shit where the price is.
        • QoT 22.1.1.1

          10 May 2013 at 8:14 pm

          I do love how you say “NZ Inc already got out of the thing” like MRP was a bad deal … while arguing against the idea that the increase in its price shows it’s actually [now] a desirable commodity.
23. kahu 23

    10 May 2013 at 1:10 pm

    Easiest money I’ve ever made. Now to go spend it and further help the economy! The wonders of privatization eh?!
    • aerobubble 23.1

      10 May 2013 at 2:02 pm

      Remember English rushing to London to stop a rate hike on NZ. How he sat down with a bunch of neo-liberal bankers, and I’m guessing promised to increase the size of the share market in order to give tax cuts to the wealthiest, etc. National is the classic bend over to the great Thatcherite experiment that has left NZ economy hollowed out, ready to raid by Chinese investors and leaving farmers and home owners heavily indebted after pay over the top bubble prices for real estate.

      Oh, how you loe the trickle down, you mug, you’re being paid off with funny money, the world is awash with the stuff, our currency is heavily over priced because the US and Japan are printing the stuff, that is directly coming off the top of our exports.
      • Hayden 23.1.1

        10 May 2013 at 11:47 pm

        Are you crowing about making $200? That’s what my plumber charges for 2.5 hours’ work.
        • Colonial Viper 23.1.1.1

          11 May 2013 at 8:51 pm

          Less $60 brokerage.
24. tsmithfield 24

    10 May 2013 at 2:43 pm

    Does the left believe that babies and children should be able to buy shares?

    When the figure of “just under 3%” is quoted, it is factoring the number purchasing shares against the total population of New Zealand. Along with those who have money to invest, the figure for the population also includes babies, children, families where shares may have been purchased by the partners together, and deadbeats who’s idea of an investment is $20 on a tinnie. So, a large proportion of the population wouldn’t have been able to buy shares no matter how good the deal.

    If the percentage was quoted as a percentage of those who could afford to invest and could legally do so, then it would be substantially higher than 3%
    • Hayden 24.1

      10 May 2013 at 2:51 pm

      Does the left believe that babies and children should be able to buy shares?

      Children can buy shares, or at least can have them bought for them.

      Here’s a press release talking about it, specifically in regards to MRP.
    • xtasy 24.2

      10 May 2013 at 9:53 pm

      tsmithfiled: Well every New Zealander should have shares, babies included, as the power companies were so far SOEs, owned, managed and operated by the state, for all of us.

      Every New Zealander should have a stake in everything that affects the whole of society, that is of importance and crucial to run and manage in this society, and having such stake-holding, that would make people feel to be part of what goes on.

      Putting ownership and controls in a few hands, and leaving the others out, that creates divisions, which exactly lead to some feeling worthless, disowned and disempowered. so a tinnie is the artificial side kick they allow themselves to feel a bit better, just for a short time.

      And the biggest problem with that is, there are some “capitalist” minded jerks taking advantage of them also, be they gangs, be they corrupt police officers, be they growers that sell for unreasonable profits and what else there is.

      Your arrogance is unsurpassable accusing those that are disowned and disenfranchised as “dead beats”, while you sit in your cosy armchair in your home in Remuera, Kohi, Epsom, Parnell or wherever else, and frown on those that sit outside in the cold, in damp homes and that have to run around proving to employers they can justify getting paid, or to WINZ they have done all to keep them paying them a meagre benefit.

      Shame on you, you divider of your own nation!
25. tsmithfield 25

    10 May 2013 at 2:55 pm

    If you want to use the line of argument that children count because shares can be purchased on their behalf, then you would also have to accept that members of kiwi saver funds that have purchased MRP shares also count. So, again, the figure would be much higher than 3%.
    • Hayden 25.1

      10 May 2013 at 3:10 pm

      And if the NZ Super Fund bought some shares, then 100% of us did too! Magic!
    • Ross 25.2

      10 May 2013 at 3:30 pm

      It’s not much higher at all. Even excluding kids, the take-up rate is no higher than 4%.
      • tsmithfield 25.2.1

        10 May 2013 at 7:20 pm

        Are you thick or what? You didn’t even read my post by the looks.
    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 25.3

      10 May 2013 at 6:59 pm

      TSmithfield: do the numbers then, or are you afraid it’ll mean 3.2% rather than 2.85?
26. tsmithfield 26

    10 May 2013 at 3:14 pm

    Just taking your own argument to its logical conclusion. Not saying I agree with it. 🙂

    The fact remains that there would have been a large proportion of the population, who for one reason or another, were unable to participate in the share float even if they wanted to.

    So, it is fallacious to claim a percentage uptake based on the whole population.
    • Hayden 26.1

      10 May 2013 at 3:32 pm

      Learn to use the Reply function, for fuck’s sake.

      The fact remains that there would have been a large proportion of the population, who for one reason or another, were unable to participate in the share float even if they wanted to.

      And this is a good thing? I thought this was about the average “mum and dad” investor.
      • tsmithfield 26.1.1

        10 May 2013 at 4:52 pm

        You need to read the last word of what you have just typed. There are a lot of “mum and dads”, but there are a lot less “mum and dads” who are in the position to be “investors”.
        • Hayden 26.1.1.1

          10 May 2013 at 6:18 pm

          Given that you’ve only just learnt that children can own shares, I think I’ll look after my own education, thanks. No one’s interested in your semantics.
          • tsmithfield 26.1.1.1.1

            10 May 2013 at 7:51 pm

            Maths obviously isn’t your strong point.
            • Hayden 26.1.1.1.1.1

              10 May 2013 at 8:32 pm

              I’ll give you credit; most people, having dropped a clanger like

              Does the left believe that babies and children should be able to buy shares

              would have just slunk away quietly, yet here you are blithely carrying on as if you’ve just made, personally, the frankly fucking startling discovery that not everyone has $2000 with which to buy shares. How that relates to “maths” isn’t quite clear, but here’s an idea: you go away, find out exactly how many New Zealanders have the wherewithal to purchase the shares and then come back with another percentage.
              • tsmithfield …

                10 May 2013 at 8:44 pm

                And you continue to mis-represent what I said, and what you said yourself.

                I said that babies and children couldn’t buy shares. You pointed me to an article that said that others could buy shares on the behalf of their children. That is an entirely different scenario. I actually included your scenario in my opening statement when I referred to partners purchasing shares on behalf of their families.

                I countered your argument, but you don’t seem to be able to realise it.

                You definitely have a problem with reading and comprehension.
                • Hayden …

                  10 May 2013 at 11:45 pm

                  Actually, you originally said:

                  When the figure of “just under 3%” is quoted, it is factoring the number purchasing shares against the total population of New Zealand. Along with those who have money to invest, the figure for the population also includes babies, children, families where shares may have been purchased by the partners together, and deadbeats who’s [sic] idea of an investment is $20 on a tinnie. So, a large proportion of the population wouldn’t have been able to buy shares no matter how good the deal.

                  Anyway, you can bet your pimply arse that every name on the ownership list has been counted individually, so who actually bought the shares for whom is irrelevant.
27. Brett Dale 27

    10 May 2013 at 3:49 pm

    Kiwis that had courage made some money today, they’re the ones that didn’t listen to the fear tactics of the greens and labour.
    • Arfamo 27.1

      10 May 2013 at 3:56 pm

      Kiwis who are happy to price-gouge their less well-off compatriots made some money today. Probably they’ll make more money for themselves selling their shares off to foreign buyers next.
      • Winston Smith 27.1.1

        10 May 2013 at 4:14 pm

        Nope we’re patriots keeping NZ assets in NZ hands
        • Arfamo 27.1.1.1

          10 May 2013 at 5:38 pm

          You’re economic & social predators, like Key and Shipley et al. Stop kidding yourself.
          • Macro 27.1.1.1.1

            10 May 2013 at 7:51 pm

            +1000

            Pariah’s….

            And before anyone accuses me of envy – I have a spare $1/2 m sitting in the bank. I would never touch these “shares”. They are not mine to own – nor are they anyone else’s. They belong to every person in NZ, and that includes the little girl who lives over the road.

            Those who “bought” just stole out of the hands of children.
        • Hayden 27.1.1.2

          10 May 2013 at 8:33 pm

          Which is it? Either you made some money selling it, or you’re holding it in a nice patriotic fashion. Because the only way anyone made money off it today was by trading it.
    • xtasy 27.2

      10 May 2013 at 9:31 pm

      Brett Dale – Kiwis that would have courage would take it off you without any compensation (re-nationalise it) and get you working in the trenches, to get your hands dirty, like real workers do every day!

      It takes NO courage to follow the easy way of all others, who follow a rotten system that rewards those that have to make more of it with little effort, by having others do the hard work, to pay them the dividends and profits.

      Sucking blood out a stone you may try, there will be limits to what your MRP company will be able to suck out of the average power consumer, and you will learn the hard lesson one day soon!
28. Appleboy 28

    10 May 2013 at 6:45 pm

    Hey TSmithfield

    4.4 million people in NZ

    let’s say less 25% (NZ Statistics site info says 23% of people are children under 15)

    what percent is 113,000 of 3.3 million?

    I’ll tell you …it’s 3.7%

    Close enough to make you a prat who doesn’t know what he’s talking about
    • tsmithfield 28.1

      10 May 2013 at 7:19 pm

      Moron.

      If the government was selling investments in MacDonald’s franchises there would be a substantial proportion of the population that wouldn’t have the money for it. So calculating a percentage on the basis that includes the people that can’t afford to make any investment is totally erroneous.

      The percentage of investors should be calculated on the basis of the pool of investors who can afford to invest the equivalent money in something. If calculated on that basis the share up-take would look very good.
      • Lanthanide 28.1.1

        10 May 2013 at 8:12 pm

        The percentage of investors should be calculated on the basis of the pool of investors who can afford to invest the equivalent money in something. If calculated on that basis the share up-take would look very good.

        Nah, it wouldn’t be that different. The minimum investment was $1,000. Anyone who owns an asset worth $1,000 or more, such as a car, or a house, could have invested in MRP. For the majority of people, it would be an utterly inane decision, but the threshold you’ve described is really quite low.

        Hell, people could have taken $1,000 cash advances on their credit cards and used that to buy MRP shares.

        Therefore, you threshold of “people who could invest equivalent money in something” is so low as to be meaningless.

        So instead of excluding 25% of the population ’cause they’re children under 15, let’s exclude 40% of the population, on the grounds that most people would have been able to scrape together $1,000 in some way, no matter how inane or stupid that decision would have been. That gives us 4.3% take up (113k / 2.64m).

        Pretty lame, Milhouse.
        • tsmithfield 28.1.1.1

          10 May 2013 at 8:24 pm

          You’re contradicting lefty dogma there, Lanth.

          According to lefty dogma the vast multitude can hardly scrape together enough to buy a loaf of bread or give their kids breakfast. So, on that basis $1000 would be too rich for a large proportion of the population.
          • Puddleglum 28.1.1.1.1

            10 May 2013 at 8:54 pm

            Hi tsmithfield,

            By far the more important question (and calculation) is ‘what percentage of eligible voters took up the share offer’?

            After all, the percentage of ‘investors’ who took it up is politically unimportant, especially if we assume that a large proportion of actual or potential (i.e., those inclined and able to invest) probably tend to the right.
            • tsmithfield 28.1.1.1.1.1

              10 May 2013 at 9:58 pm

              Hi Puddlegum. What we are talking about is conditional probability.

              Given that x number of people had the financial resources to invest, which percentage of those actually did so?

              All that Lanth and I disagree on is the value of x.
          • Colonial Viper 28.1.1.1.2

            10 May 2013 at 9:02 pm

            Nah, Lefty dogma is that the top 2% need to have their wealth redistributed out.
          • felix 28.1.1.1.3

            11 May 2013 at 4:10 am

            “According to lefty dogma the vast multitude can hardly scrape together enough to buy a loaf of bread or give their kids breakfast. So, on that basis $1000 would be too rich for a large proportion of the population.”

            But Key said this was something all kiwis could take part in. Are you calling him a liar?

            Lanth is right. Anyone with more than $1000 equity could potentially have bought shares. Whichever way you slice it, almost all of those people decided not to.
          • Lanthanide 28.1.1.1.4

            11 May 2013 at 8:51 am

            No, not contradicting ‘lefty dogma’ at all.

            ‘Lefty dogma’ says that people don’t earn enough money to live a decent lifestyle. My example here underscores that: people with cars could sell them, to get $1,000 to invest. People with houses could sell them, to get $1,000 to invest. People with credit cards could take $1,000 out on cash advance to invest.

            These decisions would be utterly stupid and insane for the vast bulk of the population, but the point is, THEY COULD HAVE DONE IT if investing in MRP made sense for them. It doesn’t, so they didn’t.

            I’m just pointing out how stupidly low your threshold was, and that even discounting 40% of the population (largely comprising children, and then those without any assets at all), it hardly makes the uptake figure look any better.

            Thus highlighting the fact that you’re spinning a shit take-up rate. Even if you cut the population down to 20% (say top 20% of earners, who are likely to have disposable income), the takeup rate is still only 12.8% out of those remaining – 13 people out of every 100, even you only include the top 20% in the country.
      • xtasy 28.1.2

        10 May 2013 at 9:34 pm

        tsmithfield

        According to your kind of logic, one may argue, that the percentage of voters that voted for the National Party last election should be calculated also on the basis that includes ALL the people that can and are entitled to vote, perhaps, right? So where then is your “majority” to justify stealing the state owned shares off the people representing the state owning them?
29. dumrse 29

    10 May 2013 at 6:56 pm

    I don’t see any updated analysis from Eddie today……. Cat got your tongue ?
    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 29.1

      10 May 2013 at 6:57 pm

      2.85% buy-in. Feeble.
    • xtasy 29.2

      10 May 2013 at 9:36 pm

      You chose the appropriate name and I sense you are pleased with what people think of it. As for commenting on an author and contributer to this forum, in this manner, one could ask similar silly questions of you.
30. tsmithfield 30

    10 May 2013 at 8:20 pm

    Here is how lefty logic works.

    1. Only 100 people in NZ have enough money to buy a Ferrari.
    2. Out of that 100, 20 actually by a Ferrari.

    Lefty conclusion:

    Look at the terrible job Ferrari has done marketing its product. Only 20 people out of 4 million in NZ purchased a Ferrari.
    • Arfamo 30.1

      10 May 2013 at 8:28 pm

      And that’s how wingnut predatory logic works. Invent a completely irrelevant and ridiculously inapposite analogy and falsely claim that’s what your opposition is saying.
      • tsmithfield 30.1.1

        10 May 2013 at 8:33 pm

        Its just demonstrating the stupidity of the lefty argument by posing an extreme example to make the point. This analogy varies only in degree, not in principle.
        • Arfamo 30.1.1.1

          10 May 2013 at 8:34 pm

          No it’s demonstrating you hate people with a social conscience to such an extent you’ll make up any lie to besmirch them. But if you’re a National supporter that’s completely understandable and to be expected.
          • tsmithfield 30.1.1.1.1

            10 May 2013 at 8:40 pm

            Maths definitely doesn’t seem to be the strong point with lefties.
            • Arfamo 30.1.1.1.1.1

              10 May 2013 at 8:45 pm

              Avarice is certainly a strong point with you right-wingnuts.
              • tsmithfield …

                10 May 2013 at 9:51 pm

                Na. What it is actually called is conditional probability. The problem with the lefty analysis of this is that they have completely over-looked the conditional part of it.

                Take a look at Lanth’s response to me above. I disagree with him in terms of emphasis. But we agree on the principle of the argument. Lanth is a lefty I respect because he is able to grasp these sorts of concepts.
                • David Jones …

                  10 May 2013 at 10:28 pm

                  I actually have a Ferrari albeit an old one (and an Aston Martin, a Mercedes-Benz and 3 Ducatis,) but the gain I’ve made in MRP shares mean I could either fuel them all up on the first day of the IPO, or take the long view and hold shares until they get me my next car or bike I want. I’m taking the long view and aiming for a vintage car next like a Model T. MRP capital gain will pay for that.
                  • xtasy …

                    10 May 2013 at 11:13 pm

                    David Jones, in a country, where ancestors were happy to go to war for some colonial Mother(f**er) land and get themselves killed and incapacitated or whatever else, and where that is held in high honour here, where division amongst the populace, brainwashed by commercial advertising and dumbing down media, is rampant, where it is selfishness galore, where everyone I see and know is only after their own pound of flesh, you will likely succeed, as this is a country of yours full of suckers and cowardly losers.

                    So I congratulate you, you are successful to pull the wool over the rest of your compatriates, outside the fenced off area or gated communities that is, you are doing well, really well!

                    They are so dumb and useless here, you do not even need the army or full police force to protect you from your blatant, rude selfishness.
                    • David Jones …

                      10 May 2013 at 11:17 pm

                      WTF? Are you in a secure unit? I hope so.
                    • xtasy …

                      10 May 2013 at 11:29 pm

                      David Jones – I suggest you consult the “secure unit”, given your instability and insecurity just shining through your silly response. I tried to do you a favour and compliment you on your self ar(you)seholedness, but you seem to think this is all just a fun game, to crap on most of society while you shit on them and have fun.

                      There are some they would love to “embrace” you (and more) for a haagi! They “love” your flavour, mate, keep it up.
                    • David Jones …

                      10 May 2013 at 11:54 pm

                      Jesus wept. And this is Labour in 2013. Fuck me.

                      [lprent: This isn’t a Labour party site. Many commentators here don’t support the NZLP. Many are even from the right. So long as they offer interesting opinions and follow the site rules we tend to let commentators rip.

                      Read the about and policy before commenting again because being a complete ignorant fuckwit who is too stupid or possibly incapable of understanding that you should read the local ordinances before making a complete dork of yourself tends to attract my attention.

                      It also indicates someone as being incapable of providing value to the comments section because they are more interested in jerking off in public rather than using their brains. Gets kind of boring listening to yet another testosterone driven braggart. If that is what you want to do, then you should try Whaleoil’s site which is where those posturing fools hang about, ]
                    • felix …

                      11 May 2013 at 4:15 am

                      No David, you are mistaken. The Labour party website is called redalert.
                  • Te Reo Putake …

                    10 May 2013 at 11:23 pm

                    If TS ever felt the need for a Pseuds Corner, can I nominate David Jones? That opening sentence is breathtaking in its pomposity.
                    • David Jones …

                      10 May 2013 at 11:31 pm

                      Tsmithfield started it, but what’s your point?
                    • David Jones …

                      10 May 2013 at 11:37 pm

                      Fuck me, you lot are weird. I’m not sure what xtasy’s problem is, but I suspect the answer lies a lot in that nickname. Watch out for those grinding teeth dude.
                    • xtasy …

                      10 May 2013 at 11:41 pm

                      TRP, excuse me, but I think what the point is that some here have is with TS (Tsmithfiled) that he or she comes with arguments that do not convince.

                      For instance arguing only those capable of, or having the dosh to, who can buy such MRP shares, should be considered for comparative percentage calculations of who “bought” shares.

                      On that argument we may as well argue, what “majority” did John Don Key get as member and leader of his grandiose National (Natzi) Party to win the election and the “mandate” to sell what is state (and therefore socially) owned?

                      If you look at the ones who “can” afford to buy such shares in MRP, you must treat elections the same way, as to who “could” vote and were legally “entitled to” vote. As there was sadly the large abstention, that means Nats and allies did NOT get a majority of the VOTE to form a government with full and wider support, and certainly did NOT get the mandate to sell the half of shares of SOEs.

                      So I am awaiting David Jones’ and other’s arguments, which I think already, has not even a weak and sick fly’s leg to stand on.
                    • xtasy …

                      10 May 2013 at 11:47 pm

                      I have just got a new entrepreneurial idea: I will “invent” a Ferrari Coffin, that will suit the rich pricks with previously high testosterone levels, who want and equally fast “driven”, “hot” and elite funeral, out of the ordinary. Thank you David Jones, for giving me the incentive and ideas to start a NEW successful business in Key’s Promised Land of Aoteaora! Great, unbeatable!
                    • xtasy …

                      10 May 2013 at 11:59 pm

                      The Ferrari coffin idea was not meant to drive someone to an early grave, I apologise, if that has happened in the meantime, I though claim that I am NOT responsible. I do not want to stop any expedient departure that is expected by higher powers, but apart from that every one is their own master of fortune, for sure this applies especially for the rich pricks like David Jones and ilk, who think they have a special right, can frown on others and deserve a better and cleaner coffin than others. Excuse me, I expect egality, equality in English, and more fairness and respect for all, dear folk!
                    • David Jones …

                      11 May 2013 at 12:05 am

                      Oh come on, bet ya you wanna take one from my garages out for a drive round the bays, or do you really prefer the bus?
                    • xtasy …

                      11 May 2013 at 12:21 am

                      Davinci Jones – I prefer the rollin coffin, for sure, with heated bottom cushioning, and then racing down Tamaki Drive with you in the side car, that will make my day. No need for a stupid old car or a bus there, right?
                    • xtasy …

                      11 May 2013 at 12:23 am

                      David oooh dear, I knew someone exactly like you, who also admired STASI as the best secret service there ever was, apart from Mossad that is. You got your pullover well knitted with the right knitwear! Excellent, we can become a team really!
                • Arfamo …

                  10 May 2013 at 10:30 pm

                  The fallaciousness of your analogy is not with your maths. It’s with your ridiculous conclusion that all those “lefty”s opposed to the sale of state assets are now critical of the government for badly marketing the sale. Which is self-evidently daft.
                  • tsmithfield …

                    11 May 2013 at 9:11 am

                    “It’s with your ridiculous conclusion that all those “lefty”s opposed to the sale of state assets are now critical of the government for badly marketing the sale.”

                    I will stop making sweeping generalisations when all those here stop doing the same (eg RWNJ and the like).

                    So, other than for the fact I have made a broad generalisation, it appears you agree with me, in principle at least.
                    • Arfamo …

                      11 May 2013 at 1:16 pm

                      I agree in principle you are enjoying an irrelevant pinpricking mathematical debate about the treacherous decision by this morally, economically & socially destructive government to sell a portion of a publicly owned utility which previously returned 100% of profits to all NZers as ongoing government revenue, and which will now return considerably less ongoing revenue and, if all utilities are privatised, will result in further price increases simply to feed predatory, morally bankrupt private domestic and foreign investors, and further impoverish the disempowered middle to low income earners in this country.

                      Our economy grew under the last Labour government. The whole of NZ and the economy was benefiting from its prudent tax and investment policies. By comparison, the Natzy’s regressive neo-liberal policies of massive tax reductions for the wealthy (with basically zip for the bottom end), and increased GST & indirect levies & taxes, are continually eroding the living standards of low and middle wage earners, while having zero negative impact on those with high incomes and assets and access to subsidised legal tax shelters.

                      Then there’s the ongoing job losses across sectors, benefit cutting, endless repeater media-assisted demonisation of those driven into poverty and benefit queues, ideologically-driven dumb blunt-axe slashing of government staffing and services when they now simply have to rehire many they’d sacked,(http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/17101074/extra-biosecurity-staff-calls-into-question-earlier-cuts-psa/), reductions in employees’ wages and bargaining power, and the horrendous offshore borrowing the Natzy’s embarked on to paper over the massive hole their badly-miscalculated tax cuts gouged in government revenues. All these rort and ripoff policies are now well documented, here and overseas, as likely only to further impoverish the less-well off sectors of our society, whilst massively enriching the already wealthy who only see other people as “assets” – suckers to be exploited.

                      John Key and the Natzy administration are governing for the benefit of themselves and the top end of town at the expense of the remaining citizenry. That is simply not what a democratic government should be elected to do. A country is not a fucking corporation or an investment bank. The electorate needs to wake up. So do opposition parties.
    • Colonial Viper 30.2

      10 May 2013 at 8:28 pm

      Well, given that expectations were for 400,000 Ferrari sales, 20 seems pretty shit
    • xtasy 30.3

      10 May 2013 at 9:41 pm

      tsmithfiled: Twisted logic, I must say. A true lefty would ask why there would be any need or justification to buy a Ferrari, being an extremely gas guzzling racing vehicle, being totally uneconomical, and clearly built either for just frivolous or commercially run racing – for the sheer, selfish indulgence of some self-focused, single minded, testosterone driven drivers, who just want to get their “kicks”, disregarding any sense for using their capital and resources for more sensible, efficient and effective modes of transport investment.
31. felix 31

    10 May 2013 at 9:00 pm

    I don’t know what all the whinging is about, it’s all gone according to plan.

    The richest 2.5% just got a bit richer and everyone else got fucked.
    • xtasy 31.1

      10 May 2013 at 9:20 pm

      Exactly, felix, it was all so damned predictable, and it is what is going on day in and out in this country and all over the world. It was only due to the opposition having made this such a big issue, also an emotive one, that so many got all worked up about it.

      There are so many other examples one can take and raise issue with, like public transport ownership, like water supplies, like ferry and train operation and who runs it, like ports, like airports, like this that and the other, and most is now run by private enterprises, by partly owned private investors and otherwise public investors, by a mix of interests, and we have moved so far, this is just another step down the same way, to enable “investors” that have money to put onto the monopoly board, to play with us, to make themselves richer, to allow a few others to participate as small but insignificant share-holders, all designed to divide and rule, to turn more into mere modern day landless peasants and slaves, to work hard and harder, to afford the profits of the few that hold the bulk of ownership.

      Key is a prime player in this, and he and his dumb-wits in National follow him to turn this country further into another little America, that is with a dream for most, that they will never realise, but the selling of the dream is as cunning and successful as selling the same in film format, as done by Hollywood film and entertainment production enterprises.

      They have their “American Dream”, we get sold the “Kiwi Dream”, of perhaps one day striking it lucky also, or at least work hard, harder and yet harder, to save morsels, to one day bake a big cake from. Hah, what a sick joke it is.
    • Colonial Viper 31.2

      10 May 2013 at 9:30 pm

      I really enjoyed the experience, didn’t you?
32. xtasy 32

    10 May 2013 at 9:09 pm

    Kiwi “mum and dad investors”, yeah right, and there are a vast diversity of such mums and dads, also a growing number of singles and couples without children in this country, most of whom would not have the spare bit of “cash” to buy such shares with. So it doomed on many that they could not really afford the shares, after preregistering for them, hence they did not buy any in the end. Only about 26 or so per cent of the preregistered prospective buyers actually signed up to go ahead and buy shares.

    I actually doubt that the “fear” of the NZ Power proposals by Labour and Greens really was the main reason for the numbers to have dwindled down to 113 thousand. Many may also have preregistered, just to get papers to look at what is involved, or to even have the government on.

    I also would not be surprised that there were a fair number of people who signed up for the petition to hold a referendum on the partial asset sales only did so, because they were actually pro government, or indifferent, and signed with fake names, signed twice or more times, or did fail to put in other details, just with the intention to sabotage the referendum efforts.

    Having watched Parliament’s Question Time yesterday was a revelation, about how much spinning and manipulating is going on, and I must say, it is also attempted from the opposition side.

    It is a tiny percentage of New Zealanders who bought shares, who own shares anyway, who have the spare funds, and they are likely to be in their majority Nat voters, ACT voters, other right wingers and self serving upper middle class members, of the ilk like David Peter Farrar (“fart….), who expressed his great excitement about his registered interest, when the price of $ 2.50 per share was announced.

    This is all just more of the same old agenda, of divide and rule, to concentrate the ownership of the assets, shares and property in this country in a few and ever fewer hands and pockets. No surprises, but the mainstream media present it like Joe Average just hit the lotto jackpot, so that must be so goooood and well deserved!

    Or auntie Jane who went to the casino for a night and hit it big, ooh yeah, hooray, wonderful, right?
33. Green machine UpandComer 33

    11 May 2013 at 2:45 am

    self serving upperclassmen?! $2000 in the bank. My mates Dad has 11 kids he fed with his wife looking after them all at home (willingly) while he worked as a janitor and non-union mechanic. He’s bought $5000 worth of shares and is buying more in the next run because he’s sick of inflation eroded bank percentage earnings on term deposits and savings accounts. I’ll have to show him this bloody site so he can read the comments and laugh his head off at being part of the Tory upper class greed merchant Right wing vast conspiracy bankers conglomerates or whatever the hell you are bleating about today. He’s the voter and the reason why the nats are in govt, you guys are from some odd planet.
    • felix 33.1

      11 May 2013 at 4:18 am

      What’s a janitor?
      • Rogue Trooper 33.1.1

        11 May 2013 at 8:57 pm

        Hong Kong Phooey
    • Colonial Viper 33.2

      11 May 2013 at 8:54 pm

      So he has not problem with increased money flows going to overseas investors just as long as his family is OK?

      Good to know.

      BTW if this guy has $5K to splash out on this share float, it suggests that he has an investment portfolio of at least $100K.

      Which puts him in the top 10% of NZers.
    • xtasy 33.3

      12 May 2013 at 1:29 am

      The few people that I ever met in New Zealand that had around 10 or more kids tended to be mainly religious nutters, who’d fall for any nonsense indoctrinated into them. So let me guess, is he one of such?

      As for him “investing” his savings into MRP shares, he has clearly fallen for the lies of this government and the many share offering financial advisors, who will get their high fees out of him.

      I do not believe your story for starters, as a person cleaning toilets and the likes is unlikely to ever earn enough to feed 13 mouths on his own.

      Come down from your “upper” cloud, dear friend, and tell us true stories, not such fiction nonsense!
34. Lloyd 34

    11 May 2013 at 10:35 pm

    I wonder what the conversation was like at the Marae after the muskets and blankets were handed out? “Those whiteys will never use that crappy land? “We really made a killing with all these muskets?”. “The muskets are worth so much more than the land?” “We are better off as result of this land sale?”

    What is the difference with crowing about how much money we made? We lost. Big time.

    We sold what our parents made for us and sold our children’s heritage.

    Anyone who crows about their ‘profit’ of a measly handful of dollars needs to consider that they were willing contributors to a financial insult to every individual in New Zealand. They will probably find that the overall financial outcome in their favour will be negative, with the likely steep rise in electricity prices they are likely to pay in the future as a result of this sale, even with the probable Green/Labour Electricity price control in future

    It has been another neo-liberal insult on the economy of New Zealand.

    I look forward to a day when the country will celebrate an ANZAC style day celebrating the defeat of the evil of neo-liberalism.

Links to post

1. The Daily Blog Watch Thursday 9 April « The Daily Blog: posted on 11 May 2013 at 8:01 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS