Simmons destroys asset sale talking points

21 comments on “Simmons destroys asset sale talking points ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Lanthanide 1

   8 February 2011 at 1:57 pm

   Fonterra is our biggest company, and they’re a co-operative.

   Why can’t the power companies be made into co-operatives owned by their customers? This would guarantee the ownership stays in NZ and also that the prices won’t be hiked.
   • Marty (Other) 1.1

     8 February 2011 at 2:16 pm

     Why not? Why can’t the Cullen Fund buy up the companies and farms currently going to foreign interests. Keep the dividend flow in NZ, for the common good!

     [lprent: You should probably use another pseudonym (like your previous one) to prevent confusion with the author Marty G. I’ve adjusted this one ]
     • Lanthanide 1.1.1

       8 February 2011 at 2:45 pm

       The purpose of the Cullen fund is to get a better return on the money invested than they could in government bonds.

       Now, you may wish to alter the purpose of the fund, to support NZ businesses or such-like. But at the moment it is striving for the best return on investment, so investing in companies in NZ may not be the road to achieving that goal.
   • Rich 1.2

     8 February 2011 at 2:38 pm

     For once I (almost) agree with you.

     Staff and customers though. That way people working at the firms (and I would expand that to include long term contractors) have a real stake in their jobs and an incentive to work together for positive results.
   • Bright Red 1.3

     8 February 2011 at 4:08 pm

     they already are owned by their customers through the cooperative enterprise known as the state.
   • KJT 1.4

     8 February 2011 at 4:27 pm

     Because they already are.
2. SHG 2

   8 February 2011 at 2:10 pm

   Tax. Cuts. For. The. Old.

   Fixed that for you.
3. Marty (Other) 3

   8 February 2011 at 2:18 pm

   A pity that the Herald has not asked for comments on the article and its editorial. I suspect there would be an avalanche of anti-National opinion.

   [lprent: You should probably use another pseudonym (like your previous one) to prevent confusion with the author Marty G. I’ve adjusted this one ]
   • Irascible 3.1

     8 February 2011 at 2:51 pm

     It is noticeable that the Herald doesn’t put up the comment allowed link when it publishes comments on a similar story or editorial comment. I wonder why?
     • jimmy 3.1.1

       8 February 2011 at 8:47 pm

       You want an example of Herald opinion that needs comment thread look no further than this one.

       Warning! May contain Garth George
4. Oscar 4

   8 February 2011 at 4:32 pm

   The opportunity cost if the SOE’s were sold given away, would be far higher than the 210$ million quoted I would surmise.

   Im amazed at the number of people I talk to about this, who think it’s a good idea because “we need the money”, notwithstanding the fact that in August 2008, NZ was in a position to be a lender, rather than a borrower, thanks to Michael Cullen (give that man a knighthood)
   Just 30 months later, we’re in a hole that’s getting bigger, and no way out unless the tax cuts are reversed.

   But try telling that to “Mum and Dad” and they’ll look at you like you’re a filthy commie. Of course, it’s not the myth I’m talking to. This is what I’m hearing from Labours traditional support base.
5. Drakula 5

   8 February 2011 at 9:57 pm

   I hate to sound cynical, but this seems to be history repeating itself and Trans Rail comes to mind when that was run into the ground by a private operator; and the government bought it back.

   Public assets like electricity, water, roads, railways should be kept in the commons as a service to both the public and private enterprise.

   What is radical about that?

   You can’t compare the running of the above like Ma and Pa run a bloody cake shop can you?

   Yet that is what the neo liberals are trying to do! and when they have stripped all the public assets and profiteered from them there is nothing left.

   Completely predatory!!!they are a bunch of criminals!!!! It’s about time we put the bastards in the dock or send them to Campbell Island!!!!!
   • M 5.1

     8 February 2011 at 11:34 pm

     Drakula

     Campbell Island? I think White Island might suit them better.
6. SPC 6

   8 February 2011 at 11:35 pm

   The Herald editorial somply shows an ignorance of the purpose of interest free student debt and WFF and a sycophancy to the latest economic spin from the Beehive – so now we have a debt problem – when whatever foreign debt problem we did have when the GFC occured has actually got better (falling against GDP) since then. Our public debt level is one of the best in the OECD and still will be till we balance the budget again.

   The interest free loans are one reason for workers to stay, rather than migrate. WFF enables people to afford families, despite our low wages. Without WFF we would face the prospect of 50% of children being raised in poverty (rather than the mere 20% supported by parents on benefits). Then only those managing their assets, or those unable to get jobs across the Tasman, would remain, them and those who migrated here to qualify to go to Australia with us.

   Even National realises these policies and universal Super at a rate to keep the old out of poverty is all that is holding our society together. And the Heraldines/Heraldettes would give that away for the chance of another tax cut for themselves. The TINA line is, as usual, more of the same aplogia for class war against the weak underclass of the poor and the young.

   Any good international credit agency would distinguish between debt, as either a bad debt risk or debt as a valuable asset – thus that New Zealand home-owners are a good asset for the bank, we own the debt and we pay it back with interest. As most of the foreign debt is here we have no foreign debt problem. An asset that a foreign corporate would buy up, given the chance, is not the basis for a debt problem.

   Countries in as good a position as we are should be looking to increase ownership of assets, not sell any.
7. Fair Trade 7

   10 February 2011 at 9:52 am

   Anyone opposed to free trade and privatisation sign up and get involved in protecting public assets:

   http://www.nznotforsale.org/
   campaign update:

   Bryan Gould, the well known economic commentator and author, former Vice-Chancellor of Waikato University and senior British Labour MP, has accepted the invitation to become Patron of the New Zealand Not For Sale Campaign, a network of groups formed to fight the Tran-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA), which is currently being negotiated in secret.
   • Colonial Viper 7.1

     10 February 2011 at 10:14 am

     Brilliant, thanks.
8. Sponge1972 8

   10 February 2011 at 8:35 pm

   Any householder knows that selling your assets doesn’t necessarily lift your savings. Sure, debts cost us money, but assets usually earn us money too,

   But this is just nonsense – how much money does your microwave earn you, the drapes, the lawnmower? The only assest that is likely to earn you any money as a householder is the house itself and even then over a long period of time. SOEs are a whole different matter and cannot sensibly be compared to a household (and I am not saying I support them being sold – just that the comparison is, at best, silly).
   • KJT 8.1

     10 February 2011 at 10:31 pm

     No. The correct analogy would be a builder selling his drop saw to pay this weeks mince pie bill.
9. Sponge1972 9

   10 February 2011 at 10:42 pm

   Rubbish – Thats an even worse analogy – a microwave is not productive in itself but a drop saw for a builder is.
   • KJT 9.1

     11 February 2011 at 3:22 pm

     Exactly.

Links to post

1. The Standard: posted on 8 February 2011 at 12:44 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS