Written By: - Date published: 10:09 am, January 28th, 2012 - 701 comments
Categories: Economy, farming, food, International, overseas investment -
Tags:
Fran O’Sullivan is an enemy of the people. Her article in this morning’s Herald will forever brand her as a traitor to this country. She will be shunned and reviled by people who understand what a disgusting sell-out she has become. There is no coming back from this.
The Crafar decision is a victory for economic rationalism over blind xenophobic nationalism. Long may the former reign.
Xenophobic being used here as a fancy code word for ‘racist’. Well she’s just branded some 80% or more of New Zealanders as racists. Personally I have two close members of my family who are of Asian descent. The mother of my oldest and closest friend is Chinese; several good and excellent colleauges whom I work with on a daily basis are Chinese. Pull that r-word on me and I spit in your face Fran. Yes I’m angry at your venal, offensive smear. You’ve pulled no punches Fran; neither am I.
As for ‘economic rationalism’ … risible nonsense. The Shanghai Pengxin Group is paying at least 15% more than any other bidder thinks the farms are worth not so much for economic reasons, but because they have non-economic strategic reasons in mind as well. A closely related Herald editorial goes on in the same vein:
The day is past when state ownership is thought capable of finding their most efficient use. These days a free market is considered better at ensuring resources pass into the hands of those who will extract most value from them. The question that must be asked about the Crafar farms sale is whether the purchaser is a state agency or a market participant.
Sub-cretinous drivel. Where the hell was the precious ‘free market’ when all these magically efficient the private sector business’ collapsed the world economy in this last three years? And then dumped the costs onto taxpayers all over the world at metaphorical gunpoint?
And then knowing that the link between Shanghai Pengxin and the CCP controlled totalitarian, non-democratic Chinese state is political dynamite goes on to try and minimise it by pretending they doesn’t know how tightly interwoven the state and the business sector are in that country.
But it is clearly a price the Shanghai Pengxin chairman is willing to pay to get a toe-hold in New Zealand as the first step towards expanding his footprint in the Kiwi dairy industry.
In other words this sale is just the start of a wider process of colonisation of our dairy industry by the Chinese. Great news Kiwi farmers…did you vote for this? Certainly not the two I’ve spoken to in the last three weeks. (One of them used the word ‘gutted’… )
The approval for the Chinese bid by John Key’s government is a welcome sign that he intends to hit his stride in his second term and make the most of the economic opportunities that are available to New Zealand.
So far the ONLY visible economic strategy from John Key’s government is to sell off assets. The vast majority of National Party supporters know that this is mad. Farmers know it’s wrong, business people know it’s wrong… that as a nation our most persistent economic weakness is that too much of our productive business assets are already owned overseas. Most of our banks were lost decades ago and we export about 10% of our GDP as profit to overseas owners each and every year…and something in the order of 10% of our productive farmland has been already been lost to overseas owners. This continued loss of economic sovereignty is madness…yet Key’s government chooses to accelerate this process and undermine this nation further. Treachery.
John Key explicitly campaigned this last election on seeing this alarming trend of “New Zealanders becoming tenants in their own country”… and immediately after the election he not only approves this highly visible, contentious and now very symbolic transaction… he lends his approval to an aceleration of this land sale process. Anyone now doubt what Key is and more importantly WHY he left a very well paid, highly influential job in the merchant banking industry back in 2000 to become a very lowly back-bench MP for a party that had been firmly booted from power just a year before?
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
In which case we have a problem then, don’t we, Wayne?
If we have lost control over who we sell our farmland to (and I make zero distrinction between our German, Swiss, Chinese, American, et al, cuzzies) – then we have lost control over our sovereignty.
It means we are no longer a soveriegn nation.
And it means we have become party to a regime we had no say in agreeing to. It’s akin to “taxation without representation”.
Nonsense.
Any position we have relates to the positive fiscal position that Labour left this country in, in 2008; http://fmacskasy.wordpress.com/2011/11/16/labour-the-economic-record-2000-2008/
Nett foreign debt was all but paid off.
Australia also has had compulsory super savings since 1992, and has a strong Union movemrent that has resisted down-ward pressures on local wages – unlike New Zealand, which has been driving down wage-rates.
So, tell us, Wayne – how do you feel about losing sovereignty to another nation?
If we have lost control over who we will/won’t sell our land or assets to – where does that lreave us in terms of sovereignty?
Because really, it make Parliament irrelevant and our elections a waste of time.
I have no problem with that.
In fact, I don’t want our farmland sold to the Germans or Americans either.
By the way Frank it was the same Labour led Government you praise which essentially sold more of our precious farmland into overseas hands than the current Government. It is also the same Labour led Government that signed the free trade agreement with China that is a major stumbling block to discriminating against the Chinese buying the land.
“If we have lost control over who we sell our farmland to (and I make zero distrinction between our German, Swiss, Chinese, American, et al, cuzzies) – then we have lost control over our sovereignty.”
We have not lost control over it. The simple fact is this. If for this one particular sale had been refused after it met all the criteria, after hundreds of thousands of hectares had already been sold off to largely white foreign buyers, that would have been construed as racially motivated (for good reason). This of course could well have impacted on other areas of our relationship with China.
The way to get around this of course, is to change the laws. And to avoid controversy perhaps do it while there is not a big Chinese offer on the horizon, or do it by rejecting the next American or European bid. Because Americans and Europeans have already bought up so much, that could hardly be seen as anti-American, or anti-European. Also course because Americans, Europeans, and New Zealanders are still largely populated by white people.
And of course where you have the case of a non-white people involved, there will always be sensitivity over whether or not they are treated equally with white people. Especially in light of the recent history of colonisation and invasion.
So I was the government I would be looking to change the laws, in light of the public outcry, and applying this law to the next big offer which comes through (although of course if the buyers were not Chinese there would be little public outcry).
I guess that is what they will be looking at now.
From me;
Your response;
Wayne, you’ve actually confirmed that we’ve lost soverereignty by stating “If for this one particular sale had been refused after it met all the criteria, after hundreds of thousands of hectares had already been sold off to largely white foreign buyers, that would have been construed as racially motivated (for good reason). This of course could well have impacted on other areas of our relationship with China.”
In effect, If we had done “A” then “B” would have happened, and “C” would have been the result.
so would the chinese send a gunboat or an aircraft carrier down here just for a a few farms?
Gunboats? Unlikely.
It is the UK, US, and their Canadian, Australian, and New Zealand lackeys (Christ Trotter’s Anglo Saxon ‘fist’) which does that type of stuff to non-white people.
When the Egyptians nationalised the Suez canal, the British (and French) carried out an invasion.
When the Kenyan people demanded independence, the British interred about 1/8th of the population, committing unspeakable atrocities against women and children.
More recently of course the US and UK have killed at least a couple of hundred thousand civilians in Iraq. Madeleine Albright famously described the deaths of half a million Iraqi children as ‘worth it’.
Of course an obviously dumb stupid cunt like Randal (who waxes lyrical about american ‘values’ and their supposed respect for the ‘rule of law’) has no ideas of such things.
Yes Wayne, the same people who protected stopped the Bosnian Serbs getting slaughtered, the Iraqi kurds getting slaughtered, the Lybian Rebels getting slaughtered… And it was also the US who told the UK to piss off out of Suez. Oh, what about the Springbok protests too, while we’re at it. You use the term Anglo-saxon in a very peculiar way – most curious. Actually while the Anglos did quite well, they were only amateurs compared to the Romans, the Greeks, the Spanish, the Portuguese, and were no more vicious in their expansions than Japan or Germany. As per usual, any thesis based on racial characteristics is nonsense.
However, if you want to talk about atrocities, here’s a few names you might be familiar with: Tiananmen, the Uyghers of Xinjiang, Tibet, one could go on – suffice to say no one has a monopoly on the moral high ground or inhuman behaviour. It has nothing to do with race. I have a chilly feeling your IP address would ping back to Beijing.
There are a couple of additional questions that opposition to the sale of farm land raises.
Firstly, does this mean people are opposed to the concept of Sharemilking and if so should this profession be discouraged?
Secondly, this leftist concer with the agricultural sector seems to fly in the face of the political reality that Farmers generally vote National. Do you really think farmers are going to be itching to jump over to left leaning parties based on this issue?
God you really have run out of steam.
“Do you really think farmers are going to be itching to jump over to left leaning parties based on this issue?”
If the conversation in the rural pub I was in on Friday night is anything to go by, the answer is “Yes”. Most of the cockies are already under pressure to sell their farms to giant aggregating companies and the old plan of passing the farm on to the kids is now a distant memory.
When I pointed out to one grizzled old coot that Labour would have stopped this sale if they were the Government he was rather taken aback. He asked my why the policy wasn’t publicised, but I didn’t have all night to tell him how the NZ media works.
Rationally, I don’t think the old boy really would vote Labour. But if he were to choose Winnie next time, that’s one less tick for the pricks in blue anyway.
If this issue starts to hit the National party’s traditional support base then I’d expect them to look to change the rules. However Key and co currently don’t have a revolt on their hands large enough to make them rethink the policy. I very much doubt Farmers will care enough especially considering that many of them benefit from increased interest in their farmland meaning they get more when they sell up.
Sell “up”? I think you mean “out”
…the old plan of passing the farm on to the kids is now a distant memory.
My God! Have they made it compulsory to sell your land to the Chinese? When will this madness end?
And what if your kid is Chinese? Are you able to pass it on to him or her then?
What they are failing to address is whether or not it is a good thing that NZ farmers passed on their farms to their kids and why should they care.
Settle down, Gormless. I didn’t mention race and while I guess the nearest you get to farmers is when the department store of the same name has a sale, if you were to talk to them, you would know that what I say is correct.
A combination of the next generation not wanting to stay on the farm, changes in the leagl ability to pass on the farm as a complete entity, the conversion of sheep stations to dairy and the aggressive purchsing of farm land by big corporations has meant that the farming model that sustained us through last century no longer exists. These changes were all in train well before the Crafar farms went bust.
Yeah, it is called change. It happens in economies all the time. It is in fact the strength of the Capitalist model. You might like to freeze things for all time but I prefer my economy to be a little more dynamic and responsive than that. a little over 100 years ago more people in NZ lived in rerual areas than urban. Now it is massively the other way around. We could try and turn back the clock like they did in Cambodia circa 1975 but I think it might mess with people’s human rights a tad.
If your final comments were aimed at me, you are way off track, Gossie. But some of what you say makes sense, particularly the urbanisation you mention. Just the other day, the world shifted from a rural majority to an urban majority. The pressure to convert farmland to housing is also affecting farmers and while there can often be excellent one off returns in subdividing the land, it’s often a dead end street (no pun intended).
But the real problem is corporatisation, which, ironically, is indeed like Brother No1′s Kampuchea, in that it removes ownership of the land from those that work it and concentrates power in fewer and fewer hands. It’s this alienation from our sources of wealth that really worries me.
I’m sorry but trying to stop some sort of natural economic movement because you don’t like the fact that increased efficiencies in an area tend to lead to increased returns for fewer people is essentially luddite. It would be like trying to state that we should restrict the use of Word processors, Spreadsheets, and e-mail because it has enabled offices to function more effectively with fewer staff. A farm is simply a business no different, other than what it produces, from any other type of business.
Leaving aside your misuse use of the term Luddite, I think you are starting to get it. The one mistake you are making is confusing efficiency with ownership. Corporatisation stifles capitalism, Gosman, and dairy farming in NZ is rapidly heading towards the domination of the industry by just a few players.
Right now, if you are starting out in the industry as a share milker, it’s almost certain that you wil be in partnership with a Queen St accountant, not Fred Dagg.
Ah. Onto dinnamic and Cambodia now. Enough, you got us.
Give up, brothers and sisters. Gosman, Gormless, Roger Douglas and John Key are right. If you can’t follow the glorious logic of their argument, at least look to the fruits of their collective economic genii:
It explains clearly why farmers are lining up to sell their farms (and Fonterra) to foreigners, why land sales worked out so well for Maori, why we’re now Roger’s “Switzerland of the South Pacific” and young Australians are flocking to these shores to share our bounty, and why those dumb old non-land-selling Chinese are so far behind the rest of the world. And why Gossy and co are so highly respected and successful.
I’m voting ACT now.
“…why land sales worked out so well for Maori, ”
Following that logic the areas where Maori were able to hold onto much of their land should be the areas that they are doing the best in. Do you happen to know the areas with the largest amount of land still in Maori ownership?
New Zealand.
“Do you happen to know the areas with the largest amount of land still in Maori ownership?”
Hang on. Let me spend the next two or three hours this evening researching that information for you. Then you can either ignore it or deflect from it or state that you meant something else entirely.
Would you like to know anything else? Perhaps the number of left-handed, vegetarian, Capricorns in Zimbabwe?
We live to serve by answering your most inane questions.
Why?
Dunno. Let me look it up for you…
It isn’t irrelevant Frank. I am simply pointing out the flaw in the reasoning of ak. If Maori being deprived of their own land was the main cause of their economic position then it should stand to reason they would be economically better off in the areas of the country where they still control much of the land. However this isn’t the case. The poorest parts of the country are in places like East Cape and Northland, which coincidentally also have the lowest degree of alienation of Maori land. Land doesn’t count for anything unless you have the capital and infrastructure required to make it profitable.
I see your simplicity of understanding isn’t limited to foreign ownership
I didn’t say “irrelevant”. I said “inane”. (To be followed by 50 posts on the difference between “inane” and “irrelevent”, followed about a couple of deflections, and requests for information about the number of grains of sand on Ninety Mile Beach… )
Care to explain why the places with the highest rates of land ownership by Maori are amongst the most economically deprived then vto if it isn’t to do with lack of investment?
Many on the left, (seemingly including you Frank), seem to think that a farm is somehow different in some kind of special way over other types of businesses. It simply isn’t. In fact farms can have much lower ROI over time than something like TradeMe has. If I make 10% ROI on an investment it doesn’t matter if it is from growing corn or from selling a computer programme.
You might like to theorise a time when suddenly the world collapses to explain why farmland is important for a country. If that happens then food prices tend to go with it as well. Food is not usually a store of value in times of trouble. The economy collapses so does the cost of milk.
The only way we would have a strategic problem is if the foreign owners were deliberately circumventing NZ laws or they had the ability to set these laws themselves. This is what happened in India and Ireland under British rule. Because the Brits set the laws they were able to decree that food was exported when people were starving. As we are not giving away that ability then there is little risk of this happening with the sale of farm land.
Gosman’s stupidity it stupid.
If you look at what happened during the Great Depression, deflationary effects on food prices did not keep up with the absolute plunge in peoples’ incomes.
Hence hunger and an inability to afford even the ‘cheaper’ food which was on sale (when you could find it).
Your amnesiac, highly financialised viewpoint is extremely limiting and irrelevant to the real world, you should really look at growing beyond it.
Hey Gosman Bro, Bastion Point and huge swathes of the bountiful Waikato were “acquired” at gunpoint. Maori were once wealthy landowners but something called the “Land Wars” took away their heritage, dispossessed them and nearly wiped them out.
Hey Ropata. I call BS on that. Large parts of the North Island are still Maori land and were NEVER taken from Maori. This is especially true of places like BOP and East Cape. As for the land wars nearly wiping them out I suggest you have next to no evidence for that hysterical nonsense.
SO now you are claiming land is NOT wealth?
Pray tell why are there so many foreigners buying up the countryside o sagacious one?
Owning land does’t guarrantee wealth ropata. There are a number of examples of land owning aristocrats in the UK going broke because they couldn’t afford the up keep of their estates.
It is what you DO with the land that is key. If you use it to produce something people want then you can make money. If you use it to produce something that noone is interested in then you won’t.
To do this requires a combination of capital, both physical and intellectual and labour. If you don’t have enough of these then you won’t get the economic outcome that you want.
“I’m voting ACT now.”
Heh heh heh…
“Firstly, does this mean people are opposed to the concept of Sharemilking and if so should this profession be discouraged?”
Nah, I’d be milking shares for all they’re worth, Gosman… *winks*
“Do you really think farmers are going to be itching to jump over to left leaning parties based on this issue?”
I prescribe a decent sheep-drench to take care of that itch. There are several good brands “Labour 4eva”, “Green & Mean”, and “NZ First-Right Wing Parasites Last”.
Any other questions?
farmers will vote labour at the next election.
because national is forcing fonterra to sell milk to other businesses who instead of competing in the local market are selling it overseas and competing against fonterra for export receipts.
farmers dont just vote because of the colour of the ads.
they have more nous than that.
Indeed, Randal. Or even NZ First may pick up a few votes (if Winston’s fellow NZF colleagues don’t stuff things up like that did in the late 1990s).
Key has mis-judged this one badly.
And having Williamson deride legitamate concerns by New Zealanders as “racist” – well, not exactly the best way to win friends and influence people…
You always think Key has misjudged badly and then it doesn’t have an effect or much of one. Then you blame the media, which is always the resort of someone who has lost the argument. “Oh no my prediction didn’t come true. It is because the media is in bed with the right wing parties”.I think a drinking game could almost be made out of that Frank. It could be called “Frankly speaking bollocks.”
National’s coalition is 4 seats down on 2008. That’s not a reasonable sized effect.
Which parts of New Zealand felix?
Irrelevant, your question presupposes that land ownership is the only variable in the equation.
We call that a strawman, as you well know.
I recall that there was a fair amount of discussion when shania twain was allowed to buy up big in wanake area too.
Indeed, you’re correct, DV; http://fmacskasy.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/land-sales-a-sorry-saga-of-sheer-stupidity/
Claims by Maurice Williamson that New Zealanders did not get upset over past land sales to foreign owners is patently false; http://tvnz.co.nz/view/news_national_story_skin/117876
At the time of writing, this thread has 436 comments, of which 55 are from one person.
That’s 12.5% , all written by the cowboy who claimed he didn’t really care one way or the other about land ownership.
I hope he’s well remunerated by his Masters, Felix. It might make up for the loss of profits from overseas-owned farms..
Paranoid conspiracy theories much Frank?
Someone holds a differing opinion from yours and somehow he is being paid to expouse it. What utter nonsense you spout off sometimes.
Methinks doth protest too much.
But you don’t hold an opinion Gosman. You don’t care one way or the other. Remember?
They should pay me instead. I’m doing a much better job.
I think the opposition should be paying Gos, he’s exposing the paucity of thought behind the govt better than they ever could.
Speaking of the Opposition, did you hear Parker on Checkpoint saying that, while as Minister he had authorised the sale of much farmland to foreigners, he wouldn’t authorise any at all from now on?
Hi-lar-i-ous.
Or a good start, depending on your p.o.v.
Now if they’d only get serious about rejecting the rest of the pretend-free-market corporatist ideology and get back to looking after the interests of NZ instead of the interests of global capital…
It’s called a “policy change”.
Be grateful for it – it is why slavery is illegal, the speed limit is now generally 50kph in urban areas, 10 year-olds aren’t sent down the mines, animals aren’t allowed to be beaten to death, and women have the vote.
Not sure if you’re going to be able to sell those to right-wingers as improvements…
aye, it is the flaw in my argument. Perhaps National with the wage&price freeze?
Gosman, please initiate an emergency re-boot of your sense of humour.
After all, if you take the piss out of people, or accuse them of certain things – expect to get it back.
if gosman knows so much then let him tell us why the the east coast and northland are economically deprived.
why gosman why?
*waiting*
Well that’s easy, those are areas full of lazy Maori, good for nothing DPB mums and dole bludgers, and lacking investment from mainland Chinese /sarc
Because they lack investment to develop the resources.
So, yet again, after about one million posts, still nobody in favour of selling land to foreigners has put together a cogent set of points in simple explanation of the net benefits (please please please, nobody let gosman see this..).
Not over at kiwiblob.
Not by John Key or Maurice Williamson. They just talk like Winston Peters.
Not over here.
Not over there.
Not under the couch and not in the garden.
Not at the table and no beg your pardon.
Not up a tree. Not in a lee.
Not Fran O’Sullivan. But tried by Spike Milligan (I mean gosman.)
I really would so like someone to outline the benefits.
Heh heh heh… very good… *thumbs up*
Tim Watkins has tried on Pundit,but even he ends up saying that after listing some benefits he has to ask himself why he is still uneasy at the sale. His answer…….because ownership matters.!!
http://www.pundit.co.nz/content/crafar-farms-deal-ticks-the-boxes-%E2%80%93-but-where-does-it-end
Tried to hide this from Gos…
You’ve been given an explanation you just don’t accept it.
It would be like me stating noone has given a cogent explanation of why foreign ownership is bad for us. There has been a number of posters making a claim but I just disagree with them.
I will state though that noone has really made a coherent argument over why selling a farm to an overseas investor is worse than selling a factory.
Strawman. No difference in theory as I’ve been saying and you’ve been ignoring all along.
Great news Gosman!!!!
Policy Central has decided that your genius idea of selling everything is the final solution. However it’s been determined that the rather luddite farming lobby is resistant; and some of the committee members own a few themselves, so we’ve decided to trial the concept on an even more unproductive class of asset …all the houses and homes.
We were on the verge of calling for volunteers for a pilot programme when it occured to us that YOU … our loyal and faithful servant Gosman … are the ideal standard-bearer to show the way to the ordinary people.
In order to get things moving we took the liberty of selling your home and sent the proceeds directly to the Consolidated Account in order to clearly show the ‘net benefit’ to the nation. Hope you don’t mind… the paper-work you need to sign is in the mail.
btw, I wonder who gosman’s time got charged up to today?
Hmmmm, another interesting point to consider;
If it’s true that under the FTA with China we cannot deny them the right to bid for things they wish to buy – how is John Key going to ensure that “mum & dad” investors get first rights to buy into our power companies that are shortly to be privatised?
Methinks John Key is about to do another major flip-flop…
Also, under the FTA, how is it that the NZ government cannot deny a Chinese firm the right to buy an NZ farm, but China can deny any NZ request to buy a farm, or land, in China?
And why are the details around the TPPA hidden for the first four years – FTA looking great for NZ so far!
Wonder what else we can look forward to no longer being able to say no to..
Yes.
What are the details around the TPPA? If they are hidden, why are they hidden?
Anyone?
Perhaps the same person who has explained the benefits of selling our land to foreigners? … oh wait ….
You mean a major flip flop like what the Labour Party is currently performing on this very issue?
Or the one Key looks like he’s going to make as well. After spending a week lecturing us all about being racists… suddenly it’s all about ‘public opinion’.
Poor old Gosman, now he’s going to have to come back here and argue how all these farm sales are not such a wonderful thing after all… work, work, work…nothing but work. Shame how they shitcanned those overtime rates Gossy. If it all gets a bit much for you maybe they could contract it out.
Why would John Key’s opinion matter to me?
We know you don’t care… just looking forward to seeing you flip-flop when the message changes.
Considering I don’t really care what John Key’s position is on this it is irrelevant.
lolz
that kweewee really knows how to make a deal.
Monique Watson, the only people who are spitting are the likes of you and Fran, who are busy spitting on the New Zealand flag.
I hope you enjoy your Chinese gold. The price of that will be eternal slavery.
I love my country, and IMO those who wish to see it sold into overseas ownership are traitors.
The views here of some of the right wing commentators speaks volumes about their patriotism.
They only really care about one thing: money.
They will have every square inch of this great country sold into Chinese ownership because all they care about is money.
Selling land overseas doesn’t impact sovereignty. The Government can still do what it likes. Youjust need to look at Zimbabwe to see that in action.
Or Chile. Or Cuba. That’s the funny thing about foreign ownership – foreign secret services feel obliged to try to preserve that ownership.
Or Somalia – that Libertarian region where sovereignty isn’t an issue, and government barely exists?
“Sovereignty” has no financial value therefore I expect you to place no value on it.
Not sure how you can make the claim that selling land “doesn’t impact on sovereignty” as you do not understand the concept of “sovereignty”.
BTW the fact that the Govt might not legally be able to turn down the land sale because of the FTA demonstrates that the FTA might be a sovereignty destroying document.
Some good news:
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/rural/97103/dairy-holdings-sold
Interesting that it could be the Super Fund….
Well well, it took a while but finally Gosman clearly articulates the National Party’s vision:
There it is, the brighter future. Ambitious for New Zealand.
And given that he’s comprehensively argued that there is no fundamental difference between farmland and any other business… we should hock all them off too.
And as for that really underperforming class of asset … our houses and homes… absolutely they have to go.
Why didn’t we see this before… we’re rich beyond our wildest dreams felix!!
Simple questor you Red Logix. Which is better economically – NZers makes a 10 % return on investments in NZ or NZers make 20 % return on investment off shore?
The only way you can make 20% pa (or even 10% pa) is by participating in a ponzi scheme or asset price bubble.
Your suggestions are both unrealistic and unsustainable. I suggest you grow out of your highly financialised view of decision making.
When you grow out of your infantile winner takes all leftist view of the world CV.
“Winner takes all” – ironic as this is the capitalist’s view of the world, as is evidenced by the 0.1% hoarding 20% or more of the world’s weath for themselves.
Gosman prefers to see it as a “natural economic movement” in which “increased efficiencies in an area tend to lead to increased returns for fewer people”.
Apparently it’s also “essentially luddite” to attempt any reversal of said trend and ultimately we’d all be better off selling everything.
I suppose he hasn’t quite cottoned on to the fact that the chances of him being included in this exclusive club of the better off “fewer people” = fuck all.
Where were you guys when this one happened:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/5712149/Ngai-Tahu-sells-Canterbury-forestry-land?
I think quite a few commentators on The Std made relevant parallel points when it became known that iwi corporates were using foreign fishing boats with foreign fishing crews.
I look forward to Millsy insisting that they be hanged.
Actually they usually just end up sinking in the Ross Sea, so gallows costs are saved.
You’re pretty much correct Millsy. Apart from standing up to bullies, money is all I care about. Enough money to raise my kids and do a bit of good for the community. I don’t give a shit who owns the land to be honest. Our feet all touch the same earth. You find wankers everywhere so it doesn’t matter what colour they are.
” standing up to bullies”
Which is what you are Monique. Calling your tenants cockroaches and oxygen theives, and wanting the poor to be thrown on the street.
So how much have you benefited from the changes to state housing as a rental property, having all those DPB mums to charge 80% of their income in rent, because they find they cannot get a state house?
“You find wankers everywhere so it doesn’t matter what colour they are.”
The Baron, Gosman, Wayne, and a couple of the others have been trying to find examples of the kind of racism you’re implying for about four days now.
Let’s see you try Monique. Give us one example of someone on this site who opposes the sale of land to one race or nationality but not to another.
Where have I been trying to find examples of racism? Just because you wanted us to doesn’t mean we tried to. It would be like me stating that you tried to explain why the Tumeke blog views about this issue being used to dog whistle to racists was wrong. You never did that at all. To claim that you did would be lying.
Then it’s about time you admitted that you can’t find any.
I’m not looking for examples of racism so why would it be time for me to admit I can’t find any?
I’m also not looking for pink unicorns. Do you think it is time to admit I can’t find any of those?
Then you need to retract and apologise for comments like this one you silly boy.
Actually, your use of Phoebe Fletcher’s article is unfair. She wasn’t making any such suggestion at all. Not that you care, but let’s stick to facts, eh?
Are you going to finally acknowledge you need help with understanding basic economic concepts Frank?
Says the guy who thinks we’d be better off if we sold all of NZ’s farms to overseas interests (along with all of the other businesses as they’re no different to farms).
I fully acknowledge that my understanding of economics is not at your “level”, Gosman.
For which I am quite grateful.
Back on topic; your mis-use of Phoebe Fletcher’s blogpiece on “Tumeke: is dishonest.
You cannot find any rational argument or evidence to support the Crafar sale to overseas investors – so you try to mis-represent what Ms Fletcher wrote?
Bad form, mate. Intellectually dishonest.
By the way. Still no answers?
Oh dear, you right wingers really have run out of steam. Little wonder that National has resorted to it’s own deflection; using “racism” and “xenophobia”, as you do Gosman.
Phoebe tends to distance herself from her views when people take the obvious implications about what she writes. I actually agreed with your assessment of what she wrote when you originally pulled her up on it. Phoebe tries to have it both ways. It is a rather bad trait.
By the way I thought it was quite pathetic when you apologised and reversed your original comments about her post. The fact that you took from her post the logical implication that you did and she reckons it wasn’t states more about how she put forward her views than it does your interpretation.
Once more, just because it’s so teh awesome. Gosman provides a glimpse of the brighter future:
That’s where he’s at.
According to Gosman, if it isn’t making money it should be sold. So there goes our national parks and marine reserves.
Good lord!! How the hell did I miss that crap?
To requote,
That has to be the most naive, si mplistic view of economics since my nephew asked why he couldn’t have $100 pocket money instead of $10. (He was about 8 or 9.) At least my nephew understood when it was patiently explained to him.
And no wonder Gosman evades direct questioons or issues put to him; he truly is clueless.
(As usual, I’ve noticed that it is the Left that has to explain economic realities to Right Wingers. For Right Wingers, asset/farm sales = Money trees. And as we all know, there ain’t no such thing. )
I was hypthesising an example. I neither advcate for or against that position. In fact I care not a jot how much of our land is owned by overseas interests. I note noone has identified exactly why the scenario isn’t beneficial to NZers just tried to imply that is what I am advocating, (which it is not).
By the way Frank, I think not knowing the difference between the Balance of Trade and Balance of Payments is about as stupid in economics as you can get. So you get the award on that front.
There y’go again, squire, with that personal derision. You must feel quite threatened by my ” stupid economics”…
By the way… just where did I confuse BoP with BoT?
Care to share that with us?
Really???
REALLY????
So you didn’t write,
“It would actually be incredibly beneficial to NZers” seems to me to be advocating precisely that.
Do you now resile from that statement?
(Waits for evasion; a couple of jibes; and delection to conquest of Aztecs by the Conquistadores…)
If you look at the reason for m post Frank you will see I was taking to the logical conclusion someone elses ridiculous suggestion that all NZ land could end up in foreign hands. All I did was point out the potential economic benefits from such a hypotheric situation (which was suggested by a hysterical lefty and not by me). You disagree with my scenario then perhaps you could explain why having a huges amount of Capital influx at one time driving up the value of NZ owned assets to unheard of levels, (beyond what is sustainable via a simple ROI) wouldn’t benefit NZers.
WowI think this is the 600th comment on this post and at least of them must be by Gosman …
Oops meant to say “WowI think this is the 600th comment on this post and at least half of them must be by Gosman …”
And Lprent the edit function does not work.
It’s a triumph of quantity over quality … Gosman; subtracting value from your internet experience since forever.
go on…..gossy just likes to see his name inprint.
he like some sort of junkie.
he craves attention and here is the only place in the world he can get it.
anywhere else no one would take him seriously.
we on the left know how to be kind to dumb animals.
ha ha, I reckon this has turned into the funniest thread in ages…..
Indeed, vto. It seems to be descending into farce… my “lack of economic knowledge”, y’know…
Look at post 67.3 and 67.3.1.1
“Nations have Balance of Trade figures. This affects their credit rating, and the cost of capital they may borrow from Banks.”
“Do you mean to say with a straight face that losing export income is not going to impact on our Balance of Payments?!?!”
Balance of Trade won’t really be impacted by this sale unless the Chinese decide to stop exporting or to export far more. Yet you somehow think it will be.
Then you swap this over to Balance of Payments and try to equate the loss of profits offshore with a fall in export income. The two are unrelated and repatriation of profits does not impact the Balance of Trade or Exports one bit.
You are seemingly mixing up your basic macroeconomic meassures.
Go back a couple of comments and sort out your bullshit before you start new threads please Gosman. You’ve been caught in a whopping lie about “hypthesising” (lol) and you still haven’t retracted your disgraceful racist smears.
Stop making BS up felix. I have asked you to show where I have claimed this is racist. You have yet to do so. You have tried to argue that I have failed to show how it is racist. I stated I wasn’t even looking to do this yet the fact that I failed to show how it was racist when I wasn’t even claiming it was somehow proves that I am lying about it being racist. Your logic is truly astounding. You must amaze yourself every time you do this.
I linked, you ignored. As usual.
Back up, check again. This is the trouble with you writing several hundred comments a day, you have no way to keep track of the discussion.
I didn’t ignore I didn’t see. That comment was me taking the mick. If you followed my comment on the Racist thread you will see where I specifically state that opposition is not racist but it is xenophobic.
No, you’re not getting away with that.
Either you were parodying your opponents or you meant it yourself.
You choose.
I was parodying a certain type of opponent to the sale for comedy effect i.e. I was not being entirely serious. I am sure you agree there is the possibility that a small number of people might not like the sale based on the ethnic background of the purchases don’t you? It would be naiive to suggest otherwise. That is not to state that the mainstream opposition to the purchase is motivated by this racism. I certainly don’t belive that. However as stated it is not racist but it is Xenophobic. I am not interested in finding out if the opposition to the purchase is racist because I think the issue is about problems with foreigners not with race.
I was parodying a certain type of opponent to the sale for comedy effect i.e. I was not being entirely serious.
Oh, the fuckwit who cried “wolf” syndrome?
Oh so you were parodying someone, but not anyone here. Some other person you were having a similar discussion with on at the same time on the other side of town, no doubt.
But either way, you definitely weren’t implying that anyone was a racist.
Let’s just quote what you actually said then and let people decide for themselves what they think your intentions were.
I’m not laughing at you Gosman, I just remembered a funny story.
See comment 6 in this thread http://thestandard.org.nz/its-not-racist-to-want-self-determination/
I specifically state that opposition is not racist.
out of interest, why didn’t you link to the comment itself?
I think I can hazzard a guess.
And this, Gosman; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_payments
Note the first paragraph, foolish little man.
Ummmm… Frank why were you mentioning Balance of Trade in relation to this? Care to explain that rather than linking to Wikipedia for definitions of Balance of Payments?
Because those links show that you haven’t a clue, sunshine.
I’ve given you the information – deal with it. You’ve made assumptions that are incorrect.
However, knowing your predilection to evasion and ducking for cover, no, you won’t look at the links. Because then you’ll realise how you’ve embarressed yourself.
As I said; pathetic.
You haven’t given me squat except two links to wikipedia which basically describe something very similar. You haven’t explained why you mentioned Balance of Trade, which is unaffected by this issue. Care to explain how the Balance of Trade comes into the equation Frank? I mean it was you who brought it up in the first place. By the way the Balance of Trade is not the same as the Balance of Payments.
So what does the Crafar deal do to our balance of payments? Does it improve it or worsen it?
Unclear at this time. Considering the farms weren’t making any profits before being put into receivership it isn’t as if we are losing those profits offshore is it. The other thing is that the farms were paying interest to Aussie owned banks which supposedly repatriated some of this interest income to their parent companies. Now this interest isn’t going to be paid to Aussie owned banks so therefore there isn’t going to be the same amount of money flowing over to Aussie. There is also the impact of reducing the debt burden of NZ citizens by the forced sale. If the Chinese increase production on the farms and sell more produce offshore then the Export side of the BOP increases. It therefore depends on the amount of profits the Chinese make and if the repatriate the entire lot without reinvestment and improvement in the land. In short it is too early to state whether this will be a negative or positive to BOP.
Short answer: it worsens it, when the farms start making a profit.
Simple really.
Not necessarily.
Now care to explain why you brought the balance of trade and Exports going overseas into this discussion?
Not necessarily.
Now care to explain …
1. Why you think the right to vote in central or local govt elections has never been and is not today tied to land ownership?
2. Why you think that the foreign owners of land will never come to NZ?
3. Why you think that the foreign owners of land will never try to influence anything which affects the property they own here?
4. Why you refuse to answer the simple question – which is better for NZ, either all land owned by foreigners or all land owned by NZers?
5. Why you think Maori problems are all due solely to a lack of investment?
6. Why neither the national govt nor John Key has published a detailed and simple account of the reasons why foreign ownership of land is beneficial to NZ?
7. Why you cannot understand the difference between a business and its ownership?
8. Why you seem tto think the entire world and its history and ways can be explained by financial measures?
9. Why so many people here get pissed off with you and accuse of evading their questions, diversion, etc?
10. Who has been paying you?
What a BS Strawman argument you have created vto.
I might as well be concerned about males voting because they used to be the only ones allowed to vote.
I might as well be worried about foreign trade becuase that lead to colonialism and slavery.
I might as well worry about Socialised medicine because that led to forced sterilisation and horrigic abuse of mental patients.
Just because something happened in the past doesn’t mean it WILL happen again or even there is a good chance that it will happen. We have moved on as a society.
Your concerns would be valid if there was a serious political movement to return to a property owning franchise and even then it wouldn’t apply in this case as it still requires individuals, not corporate entities, to be living in a place to be able to exercise that franchise.
That is exactly what a racist would say.
What’s Vienna like, KK?
Piss off Kong, adults are talking. To Gosman.
You twat!
Here, read this and educate yourself; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_account
Pathetic!
I guess Gossie’s knowledge of “basic economic principles” is rather more shit than he thinks it is.
Indeed, Viper.
At first I didn’t get what Gosman was rabbitting on about. But the moment he identified the paragraphs concerned was when he tripped himself up.
The trouble with Gosman is his fixation on believing only what he wants to. Everything else is dismissed, derided, or deflected. (Hey, not bad alliteration… )
But eventually, his lack of comprehension is his(and other right wingers) undoing. It’s not enough to know about economics – one has to comprehend their overall effects. Ie; the whole picture, not just a few pixels.
Good lord… *facepalm*
Why did you bring Balance of Trade into the discussion Frank? How is this affected exactly?
How do exports fall Frank when profits are repatriated?
The more you ignore the obvious the dumber you’re going to be in your next incarnation Gosman.
Care to explain then why the Balance of Trade is applicable in this situation CV?
By the way I anwered your question about the BOP impact above. In short I think it is not possible to state for sure the impact. It could well be negative.
Why were you mentioning Balance of Trade in relation to this issue?
Care to explain that rather than linking to Wikipedia for definitions of Balance of Payments?
You’re losing it, Gosman. Repetition doesn’t make it reality.
Why can’t you explain why you brought the Balance of Trade and falling exports into this discussion Frank?
You do accept you brought them indon’t you? It was your own words, noone elses was it?
so kling klung is drinking the canal water again.
he might catch something?
I would like to toss another grenade into the ring…..
People like gosman and other people who think it is beneficial if all of our land is sold to foreigners ALSO constantly run this line that it has no effect on sovereignty.
But that is just patently untrue isn’t it. Two examples for ponderation;
1. Ratepayers are the ones who get to vote in local body elections. They are the ones who own the land.
2. Early democracy was for land-owners only. If you owned land then you got to have a say in the election of rule-makers.
Now please nobody come out and wrap little excuses around this. The point here is that with regard to sovereignty there is a very strong past and current history of sovereignty being tied to land ownership.
Selling land to foreigners has an effect on sovereignty.
Only in your mind. All your loss of sovereignty issues are hypothetical. Also I’m not sure if corporate bodies are able to vote in local government elections so that is just a big fat red herring.
You deny the truth that soveriegnty has been in the past, and is today, tied to land ownership.
I cannot believe that you deny that. Yes I can.
I am basing my entire world view on my opinion that tomorrow the sun will not come up.
VTO – I think people like Gosman show that they often aren’t thinking very clearly. Obviously, they identify so deepy with a given ideology that they turn a blind eye to anything that doesn’t sustain their worldview.
In the case of politicians, they simply use media advisors (spin doctors) to repeat a given mantra.
Eg; “There is no alternative”. “Private management is more efficient than State ownership”. “Employment contracts will raise wages”. “Removing zoning gives choice in schools”. And the latest, “Opposition to farmland to XYZ is racist/xenophobic”.
Right wingers are wedded to their neo-liberal religion because the alternative – to them – is too frightening to contemplate.
I think that’s why Gosman has lost the plot here. This is too threatening to his belief-system, and he’s not coping very well…
And it’s why other right wingers (with exceptions) tend to get fairly hysterical on matters like these..
And one final one for gosman… which of these is more beneficial for New Zealand (New Zealand being its people, cultures, history, economy, land, future, everything about it)?
1. All of the land being owned by foreigners.
2. All of the land being owned by New Zealanders.
It helps with evaluating the issue at hand. Starter for 10.
(I try to keep these things simple, but lordy it is difficult to avoid a diversion…)
Tell me this vto. Does it matter that the vast majority of the NZ banking system is Australian owned in terms of Sovereignty? Were we less sovereign prior to Kiwibank starting up in the early 2000? Much of the private property in the country is currently mortgaged and is therefore technically foreign owned. Have you noted something concrete that this has impacted? Do we speak with more of an Australian twang? Is our culture diminished because of this fact?
answer the question fool and wanker
I don’t think it makes a blind bit of difference. It will only impact things if the foreign owners come here or try and influence things from afar. If the people who live here still set the rules and define the culture land ownership is irrelevant.
Well see here you are actually arguing against yourself again…
“It will only impact things if the foreign owners come here or try and influence things from afar.”
1. You are right that none of these foreign owners will come here. The Chinese have said they are never coming to the Crafar farms. Shania Twain has never visited.
2. You are also right that an owner of something will never try and influence things which affect the thing they own.
I bow down to your greater knowledge and wisdon in the ways of the world. I cannot believe I have had these things completely arse-about all of my life.
I would actually be ok with Shania Twain as our head of state – she had a couple of danceable tunes.
Could be a bonus for tourism?
Maybe the OIO decision to let her buy the high stations should have included;
* doing a few chairity gigs here in NZ each year,
* running a training centre for up-and-coming singers,
* and fronting as our HoS. (She can’t be worse than you-know-who in London.)
Able to appear on Letterman without reinforcing the belief that we’re all hick hobbits.
Oh yes you are right in the other point you make here too…
” If the people who live here still set the rules …..”
It has never been the case at any time or place in the whole world that the people who live in a place have not got to set the rules, has it. You are quite right.
Women have always had the vote.
The people of Iraq, Egypt, Tunisia and Libya always set the rules, nottheir rulers.
Ghenghis Khan never set the rules for the people who loved outside Mongolia.
Same same re Rome’s rulers and the English (never got the scots – ha)
… back on track… screeeech … gosman, you really do keep on keeping on when it comes to exposing your simple lack of knowledge, history and basic understanding of the world.
I can tell you what’s “diminished” here, Gosman, and it ain’t “our culture”…
Because god knows the effect of all of those embassies in Wellington has completely fucked our sovereignty. I will concede that land ownership is a factor in sovereignty, but so is national law,democracy, and self determination, none of which are particularly affected.
Just out of curiosity, should Canberra be worried about the number of Kiwis who own property in Australia?
Obviouly Mr Pop, it is a question of degree. That shouldn’t need spelling out. And the degree is not the point. The fact of it is the point.
But thanks for confirming the point that soveriegnty is tied to land ownership because many many people have tried claiming that it is not. And that is simply untrue. Has been in the past and it is today. Fact.
Dunno.
But they were certainly worried enough about New Zealanders in Australia to deny them access to social services – even though many paid taxes any other time.
I suspect that with the flow of profits from NZ to Australia, Canberra isn’t worrid at all. Why should they? They’re profitting from the outflow of profits from here to there.
vto, there is always one more thing that can be said about anything and gosman will say it just because he can.
hehasn’t really contributed anything to this thread except keep it going so all of new zealand can see what a creepy bunch the tories are who would sell everything and everybody if they could get away with it.
they need money to make themselves feel good and will do anything to get it including prostituting themselves to the highest bidder.
People still needed to be present to partake in the democratic process in those times and corporate bodies weren’t entitled to vote. So your analogy is irrelevant to the proposed sale of land to a corporate body from China.
blah blah blah gosman.
yo still haven’t answered the question as to why the east coast and northland are economically deprived.
when are you going to do that.
Ummm… I think you will find I have. I stated quite categorically that it was due to lack of investment.
I agree there is a lack of investment in the people of Northland and their wellbeing. Maybe you ought to vote for Mana next time.
For his next trick, Gos will explain that people are starving in Africa because they are not eating enough.
Yeah, but he’ll frame it as a question; post it a dozren times; and ignore every response he’s give…
Randal,
Mentioned by Ashley, No 4 commenter, on NZ Herald – Editorial, 26 Jan 2012
Why not develop ‘Whangarei which is a natural deep water port as the primary port for big ocean going vessels.
It is a lesser distance for the ships to travel, it can accommodate the bigger ships and with a proper and efficient rail link with Auckland goods could be cleared for customs and in Auckland within hours. Not only would this bring considerable work opportunities to Northland (an area with high unemployment) but it would also see meaningful capital structural investment taking place where it is much needed.’
Would that be useful, but still protecting the current Auckland port and not endangering jobs?
Oh I like that.
Big job with excitement and potential and all sorts of other goodness. Problem being double-handling for the Ak marketplace. But not rest of NZ – get it on train and choo choo it everywhereabouts.
Go the north! Oldest and bestest
There is a disused rail line that goes way North.. it could work in conjunction with a Whangarei Port
Except it stops in the middle of nowhere at Ohaiwai because when they were building it, the Government of the time didn’t believe there was anything worthwhile north of there. (Read no one voting their way, don’t know which Government.)
This lack of decent freight services to Northland has kept it disadvantaged for a long time.
I’m getting fatigued with all your crap gosamn.
have a couple of days off and give the world a break.
In victorian england the waders in the sewers were called toshers and I aint going shit diving for you or anyone.
You asked me a question and I provided you with the ar (yet again) and you claim you are sick of my replies. Well don’t ask me questions then. Simple really.
“You asked me a question and I provided you with the arSE (yet again) and you claim you are sick of my replies. Well don’t ask me questions then. Simple really.”
There. Fixed it for you.
no its not simple gosman.
so is it no investment in some of the east coast and northland.
or some investment in some of the east coast or norhtland
or no investment in alll of th eeast coast or northland or is it just one of those shibboleths you invented off the cuff so you wouldn’t have to provide a proper answer?
foreign $$$ good
government $$$ bad
see?
http://www.labour.org.nz/news/government-wrong-to-blame-fta-for-crafar-sales
Excuse if this has been posted somewhere up the blog, i didnt fancy reading all the way through the new posts…
That confirms John Key as the incompetent arse he is…
John Key’s incompetence seems conveniently matched to decisions which fit the neolib agenda.
It is not incompetence, it is willful deceit i.e. he is a bare-faced liar.
http://www.3news.co.nz/Growing-demand-for-dairy-fuels-interest-in-Crafar-farms/tabid/367/articleID/240807/Default.aspx
Winston seems to think as much also….second half of the video!