10 Jacks are as good as their master

128 comments on “10 Jacks are as good as their master ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Zorr 1

   21 August 2012 at 7:32 am

   But… but… if we don’t pay them enough their awesomeness will forever leave our shores and leave us destitute!!! DESTITUTE I TELL YOUUUU!!!!

   And now that I have got the retarded argument that I expect all RWNJs that come to comment in this thread to regurgitate, the discussion can continue on the fact that this is as unsustainable as current energy policy practices in our economic reality.
   • Rodel 1.1

     21 August 2012 at 8:23 pm

     Zorr When God made humans the organs of the body argued over who should be the CEO (Controlling Executive Organ). The brain, argued convincingly, as the main decision maker, but the arms hands and legs thought they should be CEO as nothing could be achieved without them.
     The stomach tried as the engine of the body and even the arsehole put in a bid.
     All the other organs laughed at the arsehole’s bid, so it, closed up sulked and stopped functioning. Gradually as toxins built up, the organs became weaker and weaker. The brain couldn’t function: the legs and arms weakened and the stomach was bloated.
     Finally they succumbed and voted the arsehole as the boss, who became functional again.
     Which shows that to be a CEO you don’t need to be a brain, just an arsehole.
2. xtasy 2

   21 August 2012 at 7:37 am

   According to this scheme, we should all join the JK gang and become CEOs of merchant and investment banks, of corporate units of any type, and screw the hell ouf the rest of the world (besides of honest, hard working and slaving, desperate, highly indebted NZers and others) and ALL get filthily rich on high risk investment dividends, returns on debit swap papers and whatever instruments.

   Casino is the game, black jack, then blank jack, full blown jack and hunkey doorey, whatever, drum the cards on the table it is all on now.

   A few losses here, a few gains there, balance it out, get an insider job advice, chat with them mates, jack up a trade and we go, go and go. 50 mil, 500 mil, a billion or more or less, this is all just a monopoly game. Have some fun and get there now, commodities are the best bet at present, no big risk, the farmers in US are starving and dying due to the worst drought in history, same in India (little rain), the people are hungry and prices rising. The gains could never be better. Fuck the starvers, you are losers, we are in on it now, and the profits are sky high.

   Buy the NZ farms and SOEs and cut the cake too, they are too ignorant in majority to even realise we pull the chair away under their arses. There will NEVER be a revolution here, they love to slave, slug it out and work their guts out for nothing. Best country to suck dry, I’d say.
   • tc 2.1

     21 August 2012 at 11:36 am

     +1 It’s scary how stoopid the sheeple are with the power generators being flogged off and as for the Farmers I guess the current generation are too busy sucking on the Fonterra tit to notice the hands going behind their back and whipping away their independance, ownership and control.

     Imagine a NZ in 10 years time where milk protein is in the permanent doldrums as China/Chile etc control the market. How will they afford to fix up the waterways, erosion from dairying….guess who gets to fix that up folks…..sucker taxpayers.
   • Fortran 2.2

     21 August 2012 at 1:44 pm

     xtasy

     Can you (or somebody) please tell me where these figures come from as would like to look further. No source for figures shown – or I cannot see.
3. Carol 3

   21 August 2012 at 7:59 am

   Ah. A timely post. I was just thinking about this injustice when I woke this morning.

   But….

   given most Kiwis have incomes of around the full-time minimum wage, half get less

   eh? Is that right?
   • infused 3.1

     21 August 2012 at 8:03 am

     No, it’s not. Good way to get you all worked up though.
     • Carol 3.1.1

       21 August 2012 at 8:10 am

       Well using the chart linked to for the median weekly income in 2011: 550

       550/40 (ours per week) = $13.75 per hour for median income per hour.

       Minimum wage = $13.00 per hour.

       But surely half of the population can’t be earning less than the minimum wage?
       • Clashman 3.1.1.1

         21 August 2012 at 8:16 am

         You wouldn’t think so would you but it shows how many people arent getting 40 hours per week.
         I have two children 17 and 20 and dont think any of the jobs they have applied for or got have been for more than 25 hours per week.
         When wanKEY comes out and says we have added x number of jobs this month these are the type of jobs he means – shit ones.
       • mickysavage 3.1.1.2

         21 August 2012 at 8:18 am

         I read this twice as well.  If you include students, supernatants and beneficiaries then it could be close.
         • Colonial Viper 3.1.1.2.1

           21 August 2012 at 9:00 am

           Median adult NZ income is just over $28K pa IIRC. ie half of adults have an income over that figure, half under. That includes people on super, unemployment benefit, CEOs wages etc.
           • Carol 3.1.1.2.1.1

             21 August 2012 at 9:07 am

             That still works out at $13.48 per hour if the annual income is calculated as if all workers were doing a regular 40 hour week.

             Appalling.

             And it really shows that any statement about average/median income needs to be followed by statistics about the spread of hours that workers normally work.
     • deano 3.1.2

       21 August 2012 at 11:07 am

       The median income, of course, includes people who are not in full-time work or not working.

       They’re real people too, you know.
       • Carol 3.1.2.1

         21 August 2012 at 11:20 am

         Indeed, and I am one of those people.

         But the figures in the post were presented in the post above, as income earned on an hourly basis, which is confusing. But actually the idea being presented is that many people’s total income is equivalent to a fulltime worker on a minimum wage.
   • Mike 3.2

     22 August 2012 at 8:21 pm

     Last I read I think that around 75% of all wage and salary earners receive less than the average weekly wage, which is somewhere around $1000 a week. I’ll check my figures when I’ve got the time later on
4. infused 4

   21 August 2012 at 8:02 am

   ceos are generally a shit load more experienced than min wage worker… generally, there are some shit ceos.

   Also remember, most ceos jobs are very short lived. Most are only there 2-3 years max.
   • Carol 4.1

     21 August 2012 at 8:11 am

     Most are only there 2-3 years max

     That’s the way it is also for jobs for many low wage workers.
     • infused 4.1.1

       21 August 2012 at 8:32 am

       Yeah, that’s mostly their choice.
       • Clashman 4.1.1.1

         21 August 2012 at 8:34 am

         So are you saying it’s not the CEOs choice, as in they get removed from thier jobs after 2-3 years? And that justifies the huge salaries?
         Can’t stop laughing…..at you.
         • Carol 4.1.1.1.1

           21 August 2012 at 8:41 am

           I think he’s saying it’s the choice of low wage workers to only stay a short time in a job….?
       • Colonial Viper 4.1.1.2

         21 August 2012 at 9:01 am

         And we can all choose to be CEOs too can we infused? Where do we sign up? (LIke the American dream where everyone pretends they can be a multimillionaire despite the fact that 1/5 the population lives near or under the poverty line).
       • bbfloyd 4.1.1.3

         21 August 2012 at 10:10 am

         “that’s mostly their choice”… got any examples to show that? or is this just another example of speaking from utter ignorance??

         How many people do you know who change, or give up minimum wage jobs on a whim, unless they have got a better one, or don’t need the money?….

         You wouldn’t have a clue would you lad…….
   • Richard Christie 4.2

     21 August 2012 at 8:12 am

     @infused
     Spoken like a true serf.
     • infused 4.2.1

       21 August 2012 at 8:32 am

       Oh you.
5. ropata 5

   21 August 2012 at 8:20 am

   In the last 30 years, the top 1 percent of households have secured a very large share of all of the gains in income—59.9 percent of the gains from 1979–2007, while the top 0.1 percent seized an even more disproportionate share: 36 percent. In comparison, only 8.6 percent of income gains have gone to the bottom 90 percent.

   Graphically illstrated here:
   http://www.epi.org/publication/ib330-productivity-vs-compensation/
   • Colonial Viper 5.1

     21 August 2012 at 9:02 am

     🙁
6. Hilary 6

   21 August 2012 at 8:27 am

   One problem (of many ) with the CEOs’ salary going up so much is that it drags the average wage up and that figure is what journalists and others usually quote. But it is an unrealistic measure, as mentioned above, and the Standard has often provided useful graphs to show this visually. The median is the actual half point measure and it is way below the average (because of the few very high earners skewing it). The full time minimum wage is an even lower figure. But when you consider what people actually live on – such as benefits, super, part time work etc, the greatest number of people in NZ actually earn (survive on) about $14,000. So graphically by far the larger numbers of people are under $20,000 while only a tiny proportion are over $100,000.

   Unfortunately, most media and economic commentary is done by those earning high incomes and they just cannot understand that most NZers are actually surviving on much less than they are.
   • Colonial Viper 6.1

     21 August 2012 at 9:03 am

     media by the rich, from the rich, of the rich.
7. vto 7

   21 August 2012 at 8:39 am

   So a community of people produce, say, a $100,000 gold bar which they can sell and provide for themselves.

   How should that gold bar be divided up?

   How much should go to those who dug up the gold with their bare hands?
   How much should go to the people who last night fed and clothed those who dug with their bare hands?
   How much should go to those who made the roads on which the gold was delivered?
   How much should go to those who gave birth to and raised those who dug the gold up?
   How much should go to the gold explorer who found it?
   How much should go to the administrators who ensure stable contractual paths to the gold sale?
   How much should go to the cleaner of the clothes and dwellings and toilets?

   Because you see each of those compnents is absolutely crucial for that community to produce that $100,000 gold bar. If just one of them fails then the gold will not produce the $100,000. They are each essential.

   This must be our starting point. The capitalists and ceo’s can fuck off – unnecessary tits on a bull.
   • Colonial Viper 7.1

     21 August 2012 at 9:12 am

     So people produce and support the producers. A relative few have decided to work as plunderers, simply skimming off what the producers and their supporters create. Infused says that these plunderers are “more experienced”. And they may well be.

     But nothing excuses outfits like ANZ National Bank, cruising in towards another consecutive record profit of over $1B, while the rest of the economy staggers and the majority of NZers are doing it tough at the same time. Is it a surprise that as the leeches get bigger the host gets weaker?

     Beyond the individual “CEO parasites” there are the far more important and powerful financial/corporate parasites.
8. Carol 8

   21 August 2012 at 9:14 am

   On the plus side for Labour, Parker has issued a press release on this:

   http://www.labour.org.nz/news/top-earners-still-gaining-as-middle-nz-languishes

   But….. what a weak response! Targeting the response on the problems for “middle New Zealand”!

   And those at the bottom of the unfair system? The ones REALLY suffering! But all Parker can say is:

   “While the economy hasn’t grown much and wages haven’t grown much, those on the highest incomes are still netting the most gain. At the same time the economy is being hollowed out and middle New Zealand isn’t growing.

   “Whatever CEOs are paid, their income is still taxable. The real unfairness in our economy is that income made through capital gains goes untaxed, which skews the whole economy to speculative investment,” David Parker said.

   More managerial speak. Where’s the indignation at the suffering this produces?! Where’s the concern for those suffering the most!?
   • Mike 8.1

     22 August 2012 at 8:31 pm

     Middle NZ are the voters, which is really all any politician cares about in my opinion.

     Our political system is an illusion of democracy. We’re given an election every few years which makes the majority of the population think that they have a vote and that they can make a difference. In reality there is left or right, red or blue and although portrayed as opposites, the main parties are very similar in that the overall agenda is the same regardless. There are few differences in regards to policy, etc but they follow the same path.

     We live in a plutocracy and have done for 30 years. The corporates control policy, politicians are simply their policy delivery mechanisms. You hear politicians on both sides mentioning how good a policy is for businesses or for the economy or for growth or for investment and so on. You very rarely hear how any paticular policy might be great for actual real people.
9. DH 9

   21 August 2012 at 9:24 am

   “The average CEO gets 10 times the pay of a full-time minimum wage worker or the income of the typical Kiwi.”

   General manager of Parliamentary Services collects $320,000 to $329,999. That’s about 11x what his cleaners get.

   I can think of three reasons why these corporate troughers ended up getting so much…..

   1/ They deliberately internationalised their wages by hiring from wealthier countries.
   (We could halt that by not giving them work permits. )

   2/ Unions lost their power, management are now free to take all the wages pool for themselves.

   3/ They brought in pay parity between private & state sector. That created a ratchet effect where both use each other to push their salaries up

   IMO this is an area where the left have long struggled, people have difficulty facing up to the fact that these CEOs are workers like every other wage slave. Capitalism is blamed yet these troughers aren’t capitalists. They’re on a wage, they don’t own the businesses and few of them have ever made any real money of their own. They’d work for less than half of what they get, what alternatives do they have?
   • Kotahi Tāne Huna 9.1

     21 August 2012 at 10:39 am

     Very good points DH – Bruce Sheppard had a great analysis of the transfer of wealth to managers – although his take was that it was business owners getting shafted.

     Diversified portfolio theory leads to large investors (pension funds etc.) having little interest in the individual companies they invest in. This creates a power vacuum which directors and managers have filled.

     Of the points you make, I think the lack of union power is the strongest – the other factors are present in Australia, for example.
     • insider 9.1.1

       21 August 2012 at 10:53 am

       Not every investor is a diversified portfolio investor. Some investors are very very interested in the management of businesses they invest in. If those diversified funds take their eyes off the ball that leaves opportunities for others who are more focussed to move in and make changes. It’s disinterested and unaccountable directors that allow managers to prosper.
       • Kotahi Tāne Huna 9.1.1.1

         21 August 2012 at 11:20 am

         Sheppard’s point was – if I can summarise it correctly – that the large investors have a similarly large voting block – which tends to “rubber-stamp” directorial decisions, leaving interested small investors relatively disenfranchised.
         • DH 9.1.1.1.1

           21 August 2012 at 11:40 am

           Yeah they do, the large ‘investors’ are usually highly-paid employees themselves and their own pay packet is closely linked to the salaries of management in general. There’s a definite “you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours” approach to management salaries. They’re all on the make, they’ll rubber stamp increases in CEO salaries because they know it will help to leverage their own wages higher.
     • Colonial Viper 9.1.2

       21 August 2012 at 11:04 am

       Forget about targetting CEOs I reckon.

       Target organisations.

       Like ANZ National Bank on track to make another record billion dollar profit.

       They can pay their CEO $50M a year as far as I care, if they didn’t suck out any of that profit from the country.

       Focus on the real big dollars
       • DH 9.1.2.1

         21 August 2012 at 12:14 pm

         I don’t agree. These troughers higher up expect to get paid the same wage as a person from a wealthier country yet there’s plenty of capable managers in poorer countries who’d leap at the chance to work here for less than what these pigs are pulling in.

         Wages don’t appear out of thin air, the money to pay these fat cats comes out of the wages of the lower paid. Those at the bottom of the heap are being paid NZ wages, any decent leftist govt should be making sure that every worker gets paid NZ wages & then there might be enough to go around. Especially the bureaucrats, it’s fucking obscene that we’re hiring foreigners to work in our civil service. These troughers are vultures feeding off the carcass of egalitarian NZ.
         • Draco T Bastard 9.1.2.1.1

           21 August 2012 at 12:34 pm

           These troughers higher up expect to get paid the same wage as a person from a wealthier country yet there’s plenty of capable managers in poorer countries who’d leap at the chance to work here for less than what these pigs are pulling in.

           I think you’ll find that there’s plenty of capable managers in NZ that’d leap at the position for less as well.
   • Draco T Bastard 9.2

     21 August 2012 at 12:30 pm

     4.) The books are hidden from the producers
     5.) The producers don’t get a say in how the wealth they created is distributed

     …people have difficulty facing up to the fact that these CEOs are workers like every other wage slave.

     Nope, they’re the ones in charge of the books and set how much the producers are paid.
10. RedBat 10

    21 August 2012 at 11:02 am

    What business is it of your what anybody earns?
    • Kotahi Tāne Huna 10.1

      21 August 2012 at 11:22 am

      There is plenty of evidence that too large a wage gap creates costs that are borne by all of us, hence “our business”.
    • felix 10.2

      21 August 2012 at 11:36 am

      “What business is it of your what anybody earns?”

      Who said anything about “earns”?
    • Colonial Viper 10.3

      21 August 2012 at 11:41 am

      What business is it of your what plunder gets taken from your communities?

      FIFY
    • prism 10.4

      21 August 2012 at 12:48 pm

      RedBat
      C’mon don’t you wonder what your mate is getting if you don’t already know? Particularly if you suspect that he’s getting more than you. Unfair! Anybody with a bit of grit would be trying to get a raise to the same asap. And how much extra does the next step on the ladder get you?

      If you are prepared to just get what you are handed with no aspiration to get on and get more, then you don’t have much initiative. But when the boss has huge monetary reward, and still lives in the same 24 hour world as you, don’t you crease your brow occasionally and think – is this reasonable? Or are you already on the heights of salary plus perks, and nudge nudge wink wink, you don’t want the masses talking about that.
11. Polish Pride 11

    21 August 2012 at 11:07 am

    Complain, Complain, Complain but keep voting and thus supporting the system that enables it!

    You have a choice
    1.continue to complain about this
    or
    2.start looking at other options that fix this problem. Then help educate others about alternatives.

    Voting Rights obviously not going to fix it, but guess what… neither is voting Left!
    • Kotahi Tāne Huna 11.1

      21 August 2012 at 11:25 am

      Bollocks. There is a role for government in wealth distribution as well as wealth creation – NZ left wing governments have consistently proven that they are better at it than the governmentally challenged right.
      • Polish Pride 11.1.1

        21 August 2012 at 12:20 pm

        “Bollocks. There is a role for government in wealth distribution as well as wealth creation – NZ left wing governments have consistently proven that they are better at it than the governmentally challenged right.”

        Then unfortunately you do not understand the true nature of the system well enough and still buy into the left vs right paradigm.
        Voters are right accross the right vs left spectrum. As a result under the current system policy will only ever fall left of centre or right of centre. Anything beyond that such as Very Left or Very Right will likely and simply be repealed when a party from the opposite side regains power which they eventually will.

        Until we can think and shift beyond the Left vs Right paradigm the real problems that plague our society (and to a large degree these problems always have) will NEVER be fixed. The very best you can possibly hope for is a fix that at best will be temporary as the system by its very design perpetuates the problems.

        For me to finally understand this I tried to understand why it was that no matter what party was in power the real problems never got resolved. This is the reason.
        • McFlock 11.1.1.1

          21 August 2012 at 12:31 pm

          As a result under the current system policy will only ever fall left of centre or right of centre.

          So the swing of the last thirty or forty years didn’t happen?
          Norman Kirk to Key? 
          • Polish Pride 11.1.1.1.1

            21 August 2012 at 12:41 pm

            And in the big scheme Mcflock of the real problems facing society what has been fixed?
            Poverty?
            Environmental destruction?
            Oil Dependance?
            Child Abuse?
            Crime?
            War?
            • Kotahi Tāne Huna 11.1.1.1.1.1

              21 August 2012 at 12:45 pm

              “what has been fixed?”

              Why don’t you go and check the facts? Violent deaths globally continue to decrease, for example. Did you even know?
              Or how about the global rise in life expectancy over the last 100 years? Or the improvements in child mortality?

              Do any of these actual realities enter your world view at all?
              • Polish Pride …

                21 August 2012 at 12:48 pm

                No because they haven’t been fixed by politics!
                • Kotahi Tāne Huna …

                  21 August 2012 at 12:51 pm

                  That’s right! Governments and people just spontaneously decided to do things differently for no reason at all with no plan or discussion beforehand.

                  What colour is the sky on your planet?
                  • Polish Pride …

                    21 August 2012 at 2:34 pm

                    The sky on my planet is the same as yours, medical advances among other things were the reasons behind longer life expectancy, not politics! – you have a choice try to look at why I have said what I have said or ignore it. it matters not to me I took my ego out of the euqation long ago….
                    • Kotahi Tāne Huna …

                      21 August 2012 at 3:17 pm

                      I already looked at what you have said; according to you, I do not understand the true nature of the system, but I think you’re engaging in semantic games. I thought I’d made that clear.

                      Medical advances, better nutrition, fewer violent conflicts, etc. etc. The fact that you think these things are unaffected by politics says little other than that your definition of politics is probably unique and special.
                    • Polish Pride …

                      21 August 2012 at 3:53 pm

                      Or perhaps it says that you credit politics with far too much and that many advances are completely independant of politics…

                      The simple discovery of the importance of washing ones hands before and after dealing with patients with contageious deseases and other medical ailments saved millions of lives yet politics had nothing to do with it.

                      Either way we will have to agree to disagree on this. You see the current system and politics as the answer to many of our problems. I on the other hand see it as the cause. But hey still happy to have you explain how our current political system can solve the problems. I think you hit the nail on the head when you said the current political system mitigates risk.. If that is acceptable to you then I believe you expect to little from the system which is in nearly every part of your life.
                    • Kotahi Tāne Huna …

                      21 August 2012 at 4:02 pm

                      Don’t flatter yourself: you haven’t the first clue what I credit politics with. You can’t even tell the difference between “affected by” and “the answer to”!
                    • Draco T Bastard …

                      21 August 2012 at 4:34 pm

                      The simple discovery of the importance of washing ones hands before and after dealing with patients with contageious deseases and other medical ailments saved millions of lives yet politics had nothing to do with it.

                      Well, there you would be wrong as it was the politics that got it in every hospital.

                      Setting such standards and regulations is where politics is good. IMO, This is the major difference between left and right – the left put in such standards regulations to make life better and the right try to get rid of them so that they can make more profit no matter how much it costs any body else.

                      No matter what happens we’re always going have politics, that’s a given, the system that needs changing/removing is capitalism which is the system that shifts the distribution and control of the communities resources into the hands of private individuals.
                    • mike e …

                      21 August 2012 at 5:39 pm

                      Polish prude or prune so cheap education healthcare and housing hasn.t made a difference maybe you shoild vote for UF.
                    • Polish Pride …

                      21 August 2012 at 6:00 pm

                      Fair enough Draco – I had not looked at it from that point of view.
                    • Polish Pride …

                      21 August 2012 at 6:21 pm

                      Possibly a better way to explain what I am trying to get across is we have a set of problems that have always existed. Determine the ideal solution that you want and design a system that fits these starting with satisfying peoples needs and wants.. then solving the problems (assuming that is your ultimate goal).
                      Is the system we have today still the one you come up with.

                      It isn’t the one I came up with when I did this exercise over 6 months.
                  • Polish Pride …

                    21 August 2012 at 6:09 pm

                    Mike E
                    cheap education has made a difference – it has taught a few generations what to think, not how to think. 🙂

                    ok fair enough these things have made a difference sure but I guess what I am saying is that many of the problems we have are because of the system and the way it is set up. The system as it is will never solve them.
                    Even the things you mention have limitations because of the way the system is.
                    example Not everyone has a good quality well insulated home – why? cost of providing to everyone…..?

                    Remove the need to pay. The resources are still available.. Take away the middle man in the equation i.e. money.
              • Populuxe1 …

                21 August 2012 at 5:32 pm

                Seriously, don’t feed the Truther!
                • Polish Pride …

                  21 August 2012 at 6:16 pm

                  Wow Populuxe and it only took you all day to come up with that one
                  If you want to call me that because I question the official version then so be it.
                  I am a firm believer in questioning government on everything though.
                  Perhaps you do not think governments including ours should be questioned ..!?!
            • McFlock 11.1.1.1.1.2

              21 August 2012 at 12:50 pm

              Um, actually, yeah. 
                   
              The halcyon days weren’t perfect by any means, but the problems that were evident at the time were seen as solvable, and the government took responsibility for solving them. E.g. state housing and keeping unemployment down.
                           
              Some of the problems you mentioned were barely being identified at the time, but sometime in the 1980s there was a dramatic shift to the right which has not yet been reversed. The result of that shift is that the government  no longer tries to solve systemic problems. Hell, it’s even trying to get out of measuring them.
              • Polish Pride …

                21 August 2012 at 1:16 pm

                Some perhaps but poverty and war are two that have always existed. We life with a system that encourages both of these.
                Environmental destruction has been in full swing for the past 100 years yet we are now seeing the effects of it and their impact on us.

                I see the shift to the right of the 80s as the rise of capitalism in full swing. You are arguably seeing the peak times of the system.
                The problem is we still have that system. So what we have today is the Left and the Right of the current system.
                If you want things to change then the system needs to be changed and we need to evolve.

                When I say the reason they will not be fixed by voting Left. It is because the Right exists. The right have a competing set of goals and solutions to the problems. People will vote for the party which they best feel will solve the problems. Labour is arguably left of centre National is arguably right of centre. ( at least lets have it that way for the sake of the example)….
                With the current system lets say that with our elected dictatorship system Labour gets into power next and says We are going to fix this wealth redistribution problem. We are going to Cap CEO salariesl, raise taxes and redistribute wealth to those on low incomes. What do you think will happen at the next election(or the next)?
                chances are it will shift back to the right who will do what they have just done this past couple of years.
                We will keep shifting a few degrees to the left and then a few degrees to the right. To really change things we need a significant change such as a change of system.

                Have to go to lunch can go into other areas later like needing to shift thinking around having to have everyone employed as a goal of society or GDP as the primary indicator as to whether or not society is doing well…
                • McFlock …

                  22 August 2012 at 12:28 am

                  That’s the thing about democracy: people disagree, and there will be always some people who are stupid or selfish but very good at persuading others.
                       
                  I don’t see direct democracy solving that. Exacerbating it, maybe.
                  • Polish Pride …

                    22 August 2012 at 9:10 am

                    Unfortunately the system we have now allows 61 people to ignore the collective will of a couple of million.
                    Direct Democracy doesn’t have this problem and if carefully considered with exactly the problem you raise there are ways to ensure that the risk is minimised through how it is implemented.
                    In fact under with direct democracy under a different system (not capitalism) I would actually see the values held by the left prevailing.
                    • Polish Pride …

                      23 August 2012 at 3:27 pm

                      I think something like that would be worth serious consideration in a direct democracy to ensure that you don’t just have mob rule.
                  • KJT …

                    22 August 2012 at 9:21 am

                    Rubbish.

                    Research shows that the majority of the population holds views well to the left of Parliament. Including a lot of NACT voters, funnily enough.

                    Voting policy by policy will, on the whole, favour sensible options.

                    It is also proven that the more people are involved in decision making, and the more options are considered, the better the decisions. They teach that in MBA courses!

                    And. Even if it is the wrong decision, it should be ours to make.
                    What gives 61 people, or McFlock, the moral right to decide for 4 million.

                    Capitalism works fine on the micro level, if it is democratically regulated.
                    • McFlock …

                      22 August 2012 at 12:28 pm

                      I wasn’t suggesting a dictatorship led by me.
                             
                      Far be it for me to criticise MBAs, the flipside is that crowds are ugly, dangerous, stupid organisms prone to panic. Maybe the fact that I’ve faced a fair few of them colours my attitudes, though, fair enough. Although some of the referenda in the last 15 years have been bloody stupid, yet still garnered much support. Not just that I disagree with them, but as in “nonsensical”.
                             
                      Personally, I was kicking around the idea of making the citizenry sort of an upper house, especially for constitutional issues. But most of this stuff was kicked around by Socrates and Plato, and people still disagree.   
                             
                       
        • Kotahi Tāne Huna 11.1.1.2

          21 August 2012 at 12:41 pm

          “…you do not understand the true nature of the system as defined by me…”

          FIFY
          • Polish Pride 11.1.1.2.1

            21 August 2012 at 12:46 pm

            Take a step back look at yourself – ask why do the real problems never get fixed?????
            They are fixable so why don’t they?

            If you truly believe it will be fixed by the left vs right paradigm….. explain how….
            • Kotahi Tāne Huna 11.1.1.2.1.1

              21 August 2012 at 12:54 pm

              “Fixed” – lol – like a dripping tap, perhaps?

              Things go wrong. We manage risk, or not. Government plays a significant role in deciding how we do that. If you can explain how your position is grounded in anything other than empty slogans, please do.
              • Polish Pride …

                21 August 2012 at 3:39 pm

                “Things go wrong. We manage risk, or not. Government plays a significant role in deciding how we do that.”

                Perfect summary of what happens now under the current system. Problem arises, risk is managed to the satisfaction of the masses to retain enough votes to get the party in question back into power. – yes that is a cynical view vut it is not too far from the truth.

                If you can explain how your position is grounded in anything other than empty slogans, please do.

                To understand why I came to the conclusion I have come to, it needs to be looked at on a global scale.
                War – There has always been war
                Historically war has and still continues to be over resources.
                Because we live in a capitalist system the reason above still holds true. However we now add to the something else that has come from Capitalism and corporations. Profit above all else.
                War is profitable for a large number of corporations. Hallibutron, Lockheed Martin, Construction Companies. These same companies have lobbyists in the halls of power overseas. These same companies have politicians and very wealthy people that have invested in them. Because of this you have an additional driver that will always result in war.

                Under Capitalism we can also see that we have an abundance (not unlimited) of resorces in many areas. ‘Planned Obselesence’ is one factor that goes towards proving this. We produce enough food to feed the world many times over. but because it is not profitable to feed the poor or Africa or insert here whoever needs to be fed…..we do not.
                Instead western countries are facuing an obesity epidemic. Why? because it IS profitable to overfeed the west.
                Look at the way things are designed under planned obselecence in the capitalist system. We have built buildings that have stood for hundreds of years yet we can’t build a mobile phine to last more than 2 years on average??
                If a part of your computer breaks it can often be cheaper to replace the entire computer rather than fix the part that has broken???

                We have people being made technologically redundant! Be it because of Computer software, automation robotics or whatever… Technology has reached a level where a person or many people can be replaced and made redundant. (I have done this in my job for almost 20 years by the way). Yet under the current system where employment and the level of it is a political football, these people MUST find a job asap in order to survive effectively.

                Child Abuse in my view is closely linked to poverty (not the only factor but an importnat one) We know the importance of a healthy home and a loving family. Yet a healthy home must be bought or rented and continuously paid for. Yet some families with very little money will be under immense pressure just trying to make ends meet. When you are under immense pressure for a sustained amount of time, human nature will look to be free of it (humans by their very nature like freedom) They will look for an escape, drugs, alcohol provide that. They are also often factors in child abuse.
                A living wage although an admirable idea is very short sighted and to deliver it you must take from others. Others who are more than likely on the opposite end of the voting spectrum (or at least to the right of centre) and they will always vote against such measures (hence the left vs right paradigm) and their party WILL eventually get back into power and things will be shifted back the other way. The living wage also is a very sad alternative to moving to a system that by its very design sets out to provide for the needs and wants of all individuals that make up the society. Such a system would also ensure a far better use of resources.
                A living wage also indicates sticking with the current addiction that we have of having to work. We know that a healthy home and loving family are very important factors in any society yet One parent spends a minimum of 9(?) hours a day away from his/her family in order for his/her family to survive in this system. Our society is now at the point where to get ahead many feel that they need to ship children off to day care and have both parents work full time.

                Environment…. ETS bullshit – If you want to fix the environment plant trees, reforest using biodiversity as would be found in nature. But no instead we have another tax!?! This will NEVER fix the problem and that is the beauty of it at least for the government. It is simply another way to extract wealth indefinitely as it will never fix the problem. This is the short version on environment

                I can go on and break down each and every topic if you want me too..

                It does not have to be this way and I mean none of it has to be this way.
                You can have a system where the goal is to free people from having to work or at least have them work a lot less. It is NOT utopian people still have to work. But the reasources are there to provide for the needs and wants of everyone. You just have to try to see and understand how the current system by its very design keeps people locked in at every single level including and especially the Left vs Right political system. It is by its very design, not able to solve the problems I have mentioned. It has by its very design to opposing and competing solutions to keep you locked into and engaged by the system. Because whilst the problems exist and keep peoples attention, they will always default to the current system looking for the solution rather than asking can the system actually provide it with the way it operates. The answer is of course No! and most will never even get to the point where they stop and ask the question.

                Now I have been to a very influential MP who many know and love. I have said If you had a way and had the power to solve these problems would you?

                He said yes of course!

                I laid out the nature of the problem

                I said I also understand the solutions required. Solutions that will provide everyone a far better world to live in.
                (now please understand the solutions are not mine a very wise man came to these solutions 20-30 years ago having lived through a world war and seeing society follow the same patterns over and over and over and decided that there must be a better way).

                He effectively told me – can’t do it we are the party that supports the Unions and or goal is to ensure people have work (more or less).

                He was not even interested in explorung the solutions to see if there was a better way for society. He was not even interested in the discussion.

                Lastly this is not his fault This took place over about 4 half hour meetings as that was all he ever had time for. This is also by the design of the system so that MPs do not have time to properly consider legislation (hence it is always easier to vote on party lines) or better alternatives even when they can solve the problems of our society rather than simply manage the risk……….
                • Kotahi Tāne Huna …

                  21 August 2012 at 3:48 pm

                  A brief response to your essay –

                  War – cf: the trend: reduced violent deaths per capita.

                  Resources: cheap oil-based economies waste resources. Politics will be part of the transition to future energy scarcity.

                  Climate: you’ve already had your tree planting scenario fully debunked and yet here it is again: a zombie argument.

                  ETS: I share your suspicions, but I note that “cap and trade” policies helped improve US air quality.

                  The rest seems pretty vague – I think I’ll pass.
                  • Polish Pride …

                    21 August 2012 at 4:06 pm

                    War – cf: the trend: reduced violent deaths per capita.
                    What because we haven’t had world wars – suggest you look at the real reasons wars are now waged strting with GDP

                    Resources: cheap oil-based economies waste resources. Politics will be part of the transition to future energy scarcity.
                    No it won’t because the very companies whose profits depend on those resources have too many people in their back pocket – have you not seen what is happening in this country

                    Climate: you’ve already had your tree planting scenario fully debunked and yet here it is again: a zombie argument.
                    Then you and the so called ‘debunkers’ do not understand how nature works, why we are where we are today. Ask did their paycheck depend on debunking it in favour of ETS or Cap and trade. Who was paying their salaries. Often the most interesting things about statistics and studies is the information they don’t show…..
                    I know you have no clue who I am but as a side note about 5 years ago I ent to the government to determine hwat we should do from an environmental perspective….? The response I got – We don’t know we will be looking at you to see what you do!

                    ETS: I share your suspicions, but I note that “cap and trade” policies helped improve US air quality.

                    I apologise for the essay but there are better ways. Much better ways but all are not contained by continuing with the current solution.

                    The current system can be summarised into profit above all else! This and Money can be found in every single problem that we have! Be prepared to look at solutions that do not involve money but instead focus on satisfying needs and wants and you will finally be able to solve any problem rather than just mitigate risk.

                    Unfortunately to do this you need to look at the world with a fresh set of eyes and be able to take your ego out of the equation. I know you won’t like that and I am sorry… but until then your views are somewhat tainted by your faith in said system.. sorry buddy..
                    • Kotahi Tāne Huna …

                      21 August 2012 at 6:21 pm

                      “What because we haven’t had world wars” – no. Look up Stephen Pinker’s work.

                      Climate: “do not understand how nature works”. Oh for fuck’s sake you patronising toe-rag (I am not your “buddy”).

                      Ditto the rest of your drivel. Whenever you have stated an opinion that can be fact-checked it turns out to be wrong. Every single time. Does that not give you pause? Of course not.
                    • Polish pride …

                      21 August 2012 at 11:18 pm

                      Do you not realise that for every bs study you present attempting to debunk tree planting as part of the solution for climate change I could find 5 times the number of references to say otherwise. Do you even understand how trees work? Please post your debunking study.

                      Fact under the current system there will always be poverty. There will always be the haves and the have nots.

                      Fact under a hierarchical system (especially capitalism) you will always have war.

                      I hope like hell I am wrong but history is unfortunately on my side it appears.
                      But then you’d rather stick with the system that places profit above all else….

                      On Steven pinker, in my life time I have seen a greater level of violence with less and less personal responsibility. He is talking about times when new lands where being discovered and their were constant battles over resources fine no problem but are you seriously trying to tell me Nz is becoming safer based on the last 40 years!?! Not from my viewpoint.
                    • Polish pride …

                      21 August 2012 at 11:49 pm

                      That said I did watch Steven pinker give a presentation on YouTube I did find it interesting, thought provoking and even a little uplifting so thanks …
                    • Kotahi Tāne Huna …

                      22 August 2012 at 7:09 am

                      “You’d rather stick with the system that places profit above all else” – no – that is your self-serving misrepresentation of my position. I note that under this “system” global violence has reduced, health care and life expectancy have improved, etc etc.

                      I suspect your perceptions of the causes of war (“Capitalism”) may be somewhat simplistic.

                      The reforestation argument is not as simple as you make out – “plantations substantially reduce carbon stock in ecosystems in comparison with natural forests.” Even if it could be achieved at the scale required (I note that deforestation continues apace) it would only mitigate a fraction of the problem, and that is without even considering consequent changes to albedo. Reducing carbon emissions will be more effective.

                      I’m glad Pinker opened your eyes a bit. His work has been subject to much critical analysis and the consensus appears to be that he is right. As for whether NZ is safer, I note the observed correlation between age and perceptions of crime. How many of your opinions are subject to age bias?

                      Edit: PS: if the system puts profit above all else, whence the quadruple bottom line?
                    • Polish Pride …

                      22 August 2012 at 10:08 am

                      “You’d rather stick with the system that places profit above all else” – no – that is your self-serving misrepresentation of my position. I note that under this “system” global violence has reduced, health care and life expectancy have improved, etc etc.

                      Ok fair enough…. Any thoughts on shifting towards a system that aims to actively free people from having to work where possible whilst still providing access to resouyrces to ensure needs and wants are met. Thus giving people more time to do the things they’d prefer to be doing?

                      I suspect your perceptions of the causes of war (“Capitalism”) may be somewhat simplistic.

                      Possibly – I thought about this too and my views on Capitalism aren’t likely to change because of my desire to see people not having to work. I can’t see that under Capitalism without continuing ‘the haves’ and the ‘have nots’. After watching Pinker though I did think about the wars around the world and looking at the scenario in recent times did come to the conclusion that without America the world (as far as war goes) has probably reached a fairly peaceful point in time. A time that could even have no wars being waged anywhere for possibly the first time in human history.

                      The reforestation argument is not as simple as you make out – “plantations substantially reduce carbon stock in ecosystems in comparison with natural forests.” Even if it could be achieved at the scale required (I note that deforestation continues apace) it would only mitigate a fraction of the problem, and that is without even considering consequent changes to albedo. Reducing carbon emissions will be more effective.

                      I would agree with you on that. Perhaps just simply stating tree planting was misleading. I am referring to forest restoration with principles of biodiversity found in approaches such as such as permaculture and food foresting but on performed on a massive scale. All countries also have unemployed and probably a number of volunteers that could be trained in these principles, learn propogation techniques and start this. Once set up this is possibly a very cost effective method in tackling climate change as well as continuing the reduction of emissions.

                      I note the observed correlation between age and perceptions of crime. How many of your opinions are subject to age bias?
                      Possibly a lot. simple things such as seeing hitchhickers everywhere in NZ. A practice far too dangerous to do these days. Then there is what to me appears to be an increase in violent crimes by younger and younger people. That said Gangs appear to be less active when it comes to violent crime compared to a couple of decades ago.
                    • Polish Pride …

                      22 August 2012 at 10:24 am

                      Edit: PS: if the system puts profit above all else, whence the quadruple bottom line?
                      Under Capitalism I agree with the need for the quadruple bottom line….under Capitalism..

                      Look at America where Corporations have bought politicians. Legislation has been skewed to favour those corporations. Whether its failing banks receiving bailouts that the public pays for, Pharmacuetical companies being protected by legislative attempts to curtail natural alternatives. Oil companies still receiving tax breaks despit recording record profits when the rest of the world is suffering a depression or whatever industry you choose that has grown to have significant size and thus has political influence.

                      My concern is that these corporations and many other businesses see QBL as a cost.
                      Why pay people if you can automate. No rest breaks needed, no labor problems, no need to stop working and go home to see tghe family.
                      Why pay for better sytems that don’t impact the environment when you have paid for politicians that can water down or kill of any attempt to legislate environmental controls for your industry.
                      Why use resources prudently when it may cost me more and my competitors are not.
                      Obviously this is not sustainable and will end in the total collapse of the system. But I am not sure that they see this or care about it enough yet if they do. And if not what additional pain and suffering will humanity have to endure and what position will they be left in if they do?

                      I agree with the quadruple bottom line in the capitalist system…
                      But my preference is to have a system that focuses only on 3
                      1. Social progress which recognises the needs of everyone;
                      2. Effective protection of the environment;
                      3. Prudent use of natural resources;

                      but not
                      Maintenance of high and stable levels of economic growth and employment.

                      We have the technology available to free people from having to be employed. Unfortunately because of the way the system currently operates and allocates resources to satisfy needs and wants. You have to work. If a computer system replaces 100 people, those 100 people still have to find another job. to earn money to satisfy their needs and wants.
                      The resources they would use obviously do not dissapear from the system. They are still there and available.
                      It is time we rethought this and looked at shifting to a system that does not require people to work to survive. Eventually even money could be removed from the equation. The resources would still exist.

                      I am really sorry about the Essays I can’t find a way to communicate such a significant shift without one.
              • Polish Pride …

                21 August 2012 at 3:46 pm

                Oh sorry the ingredients to fix our problems

                Resource Based Economy
                Direct Democracy
                The man who decided that their must be a better way after living through a world war (possibly both) and seeing society repeat the same mistakes over and over and over.
                Jacque Fresco
                http://www.thevenusproject.com/
                Mpvie giving good explanation – Zietgiest Moving Forward free on Youtube
            • Mike 11.1.1.2.1.2

              22 August 2012 at 8:37 pm

              A small start might be that we make politicians and their parties legally accountable for any promises or policy offerings, etc made during elections.
      • Polish Pride 11.1.2

        21 August 2012 at 12:36 pm

        It is always about wealth redistribution. whether it is the Right or the Lefts version of it, it’s always about wealth redistribution.

        The focus of the system is wrong and needs to change. It needs to be about distribution of resources to satisfy needs and wants. Not redistribution of wealth.
        • KJT 11.1.2.1

          22 August 2012 at 9:55 pm

          PP. What is the difference between access to resources and wealth?
    • Dr Terry 11.2

      21 August 2012 at 3:28 pm

      What still calls itself the “left” NZ is the same as the USA – the choice is between the “right” and the other “right”. Will there ever be a bona fide “left” party again? Probably only through unlikely revolution.
12. aerobubble 12

    21 August 2012 at 11:20 am

    Regulation failed, a huge hole allowed bankers to print money, and there is no legal recourse to send them to prison. This says quite clearly that there are many sitting on huge amounts of wealth who did not earn it, that government can be leveler to open these lawful money scams, and so the basic integrity of the monetary system exposed. No amount of re-legislation will stop future rot.

    Its how the system works, a breakdown in integrity leads inevitably to a general collapse in the market, aka depression, when people stop trusting money, and its worse, the money is now so irrationally virtual (phone payment), that once they remove the coins and paper, there is no backup system.

    Its called mass stupidity and its only to get worse. They had to have two world wars to stimulate some backbone into society and stop greed for its eventual consequences. Douglas and Thatcher did away with that uncommon sense.
    • Colonial Viper 12.1

      21 August 2012 at 12:02 pm

      Regulation failed,

      Not quite; if you look at the history of the 19th and early 20th century US you will see that regulation did not fail. It was simply removed/enacted to favour the financial sector. Glass Steagal is another more recent example.

      The banking lobby worked very hard over a century to get what it wanted, through the elected politicians of the day.

      It took very strong Presidents to stand up against the banksters, but eventually, from the signing of the Federal Reserve Act it was essentially all over.

      Giving private banks the ability to print and leverage money is giving too much power to a small part of the private sector to hold entire economies to ransom. Which again we saw with the 2008 GFC: “give us these bailout billions, or the banking system will crash and burn taking all of you with it! Mwahahahaha”. And it was just like that.
13. captain hook 13

    21 August 2012 at 12:19 pm

    anybody reading this mornings dompost will see Ralph Norris, ex ceo of Air New Zealand getting $9.5million for 5 months work while on the same page RAKON is proud to have done $56 million worth of business in one year.
    There seems to be a severe disjunction here between making something and ripping off the customers.
    • prism 13.1

      21 August 2012 at 1:13 pm

      http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/world/7513646/Norris-receives-A-9-61m-for-final-months-at-CBA

      Former Commonwealth Bank chief executive Ralph Norris received a total
      package of A$9.61 million in his final five months at the bank, annual accounts reveal.
      The payout for Norris, who retired from the bank on November 30 last year, amounted to about $63,000 a day for that period – more than the average full-year salary of Australians.

      Are these salaries worked out on a Return on Investment basis. Or what? It just keeps churning out for these big boys and girls if they can organise it. There is something about the salary regime that goes to the head, ‘I’m worth it’.

      About the Rakon report –
      Shares in Rakon surged today after the Auckland firm said could quadruple its sales to Chinese technology manufacturer Huawei to US$56 million (NZ$70m) over the next five years.
      Rakon, which makes crystal oscillators, will today sign a letter of intent with Huawei – which will use the components in its smartphones, smart devices and infrastructure programmes.
      • Tom Gould 13.1.1

        21 August 2012 at 1:57 pm

        Frankly, I don’t give a damn how much a handful of our local bank CEOs get paid in salary and bonus. They had the smarts over the last few years to stick to plain old fashioned banking. Gotta be worth a hat tip at least?
        • tc 13.1.1.1

          21 August 2012 at 2:22 pm

          ‘plain old fashioned banking’ a.k.a ensuring you never lose and if you do the taxpayer underwrites it and they didn’t have the smarts Tom there simply was no alternative as they had gov’ts watching and a dead economic situation so back to basics was obvious.
          Sounds like you may have shares Tom as that’s the other big winners, pity about the customers.
          • Tom Gould 13.1.1.1.1

            21 August 2012 at 3:06 pm

            @ tc, the decisions to stick to ‘plain old fashioned banking’ were made when the economy was doing well, when the overseas banks were going nuts. That level of prudence and caution was not entirely due to regulatory constraint, so I have no problem with giving them some credit for it.
            • KJT 13.1.1.1.1.1

              22 August 2012 at 10:04 pm

              The decision by the Aussie banks to stick to old fashioned banking was forced on them by Paul Keating.
        • mike e 13.1.1.2

          21 August 2012 at 3:03 pm

          Yeah Right T Gould farmers and big companies that export and rely on eurobor liebor nippionbor etc, are spewing tom that their profits have been compromised by these very banks yes the Aussie banks were involved too ,time for the SFO and commerce commission .
          Likewise the Aussie Securities commission should be looking hard.
14. RedBat 14

    21 August 2012 at 3:28 pm

    Even for an old socialist like me, this blog is a dirty, immoral place of force, dogma and the Dunning-Kruger effect.
    • Te Reo Putake 14.1

      21 August 2012 at 3:36 pm

      Yep, as your contribution handily confirms.
      • RedBat 14.1.1

        21 August 2012 at 3:47 pm

        How?
        • Te Reo Putake 14.1.1.1

          21 August 2012 at 3:57 pm

          You appear to be stuck in the first stage of D-K; ignorance combined with an unfounded sense of superiority.
          • RedBat 14.1.1.1.1

            21 August 2012 at 4:07 pm

            Your ad-hominems may even be founded.

            You reflect the success of Labour at the moment, methinks.

            Good for you.

            Let the Tories reign supreme.

            I am sure you are right.

            I need to go wash my hands.
            • mike e 14.1.1.1.1.1

              21 August 2012 at 5:04 pm

              RED BAT or baiter which team are you batting for.
              • Colonial Viper …

                23 August 2012 at 4:12 pm

                😈
    • prism 14.2

      21 August 2012 at 9:25 pm

      RedBat
      Give us your superior knowledge and explain the Dunning-Kruger effect. Are diamonds involved at all?
      • TheContrarian 14.2.1

        22 August 2012 at 8:52 am

        Or you could look it up?
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect  
        • prism 14.2.1.1

          22 August 2012 at 9:06 pm

          The Contrarian
          Or people writing comments could give some source for whatever opinion or authority they refer to?
          Opinions that appear half-baked could strengthen the case by providing references. If a commenter hasn’t time to do this, why should a reader have more time to make up the deficit. It’s a busy life.
          I actually do provide links myself most of the time.
15. Dr Terry 15

    21 August 2012 at 3:34 pm

    The filthy rich will get yet filthier, when before too long they turn to ash or buried bones. Even they have yet to find a way to beat this!
16. Wayne 16

    21 August 2012 at 3:44 pm

    It is not a valid comparison to compare CEO’s income to the average per capita income. Comparing like with like means comparing average incomes of full time workers with CEO’s. That works out to around $40,000, (Stats NZ). And that is the average of all workers, not the age cohort from which CEO’s are drawn, which will be higher than the average.
    • Draco T Bastard 16.1

      21 August 2012 at 4:55 pm

      Everybody works and works hard. Considering only paid employment is to restrictive.
17. Michael 17

    21 August 2012 at 4:10 pm

    Aristotle got it right, in Book V of his “Nicomachean Ethics”, when he wrote that distributive justice must be geometrically proportional. Admittedly, his writing on this point is obscure, but I think it means that Aristotle reckons the proper proportion, or ratio, of wealth between richest and poorest is 4:1. In other words, the richest person in the community must not be more than 4 times richer than the poorest person in the community. Of course, Aristotle excluded women and slaves from his calculations, entirely, but even so, it is apparent that our current distribution of wealth, and resulting levels of inequality, are grossly unjust, from an Aristotelian perspective, at least. What has this got to do with 21st century NZ? Aristotle’s point is that democracy cannot be sustained amid conditions of gross inequality (more than 4:1, if my reading is correct), and that the polity degenerates into oligarchy (the few oppressing the many), after which the oppressed turn to a tyrant to slaughter the oligarchs. IMHO, we are now well into the oligarchic stage of government. I don’t know if it is possible to regress back into democracy, or whether we must endure tyranny first, but I guess we’ll find out.
    • Gosman 17.1

      21 August 2012 at 5:28 pm

      The trouble is there isn’t much in the way of evidence that increased wealth gives you more in the way of influence in election outcomes. If there was then your hypothesis would make more sense.
      • Polish Pride 17.1.1

        21 August 2012 at 5:58 pm

        Ummm Gos have you followed the US elections……!?!
        • Phil 17.1.1.1

          21 August 2012 at 6:32 pm

          Gosman’s got it right – there’s actually more evidence to favour the idea that money follows electoral popularity. That is; the candidate that has the best chance of winning to begin with is the one that gets the campaign contributions. This appears true at a corporate as well as individual donor level.

          I’d recommend hunting down the Freakonomics podcast on the subject of elections and campaign spending. It includes a good line from Rudy Guiliani which goes something like “all other things being equal, I’d rather be the guy with more money. But having more money doesn’t help if you don’t spend it wisely.”
          • fatty 17.1.1.1.1

            21 August 2012 at 8:01 pm

            “there’s actually more evidence to favour the idea that money follows electoral popularity. That is; the candidate that has the best chance of winning to begin with is the one that gets the campaign contributions.”

            Can you provide a link to that evidence please?
      • North 17.1.2

        21 August 2012 at 8:13 pm

        Just have a look at recent history Gosman. Kiwi Dotcom had bucks. Botox had the spot (potentially). KDC’s bucks promised Botox a smoother ride to the spot. Wouldn’t Botox view KDC very kindly if, with the support of KDC’s bucks, he Botox, made the spot.

        Botox is a bottom-dweller not essentially unlike Garrett and Love Perks Rodney. Of course he would.

        We’re not complete idiots, even if still and even now, after all that’s happened, old Botox has the gall to lecture us ! Money doesn’t buy influence ? Bah !

        A right wing article of faith.
      • Mike 17.1.3

        22 August 2012 at 10:50 pm

        Oh for goodness sakes, why the fuck would any corporation or person give huge sums of money to political campaigns then? Can you really convince yourself that a corporation like say Sky City for example, donates money to politicians and political parties simply because they want to give away some of their profit for no particular reason? Of course you can’t. (Well, if you can then you need to try expanding your thinking to include the critical kind)

        What more evidence do you need, for example than in that beacon of democracy, the USA, where BILLIONS of dollars of corporate cash fund political campaigns. Of course they give away their money for fun, they don’t expect or get anything in return. You know as well as any normally functioning human being that the more wealthy the corporation or person, then the more the means and capability of political influence.

        If I am a foreigner with millions of dollars to invest in New Zealand, I can easily get permission to live and operate here. If I am a foreigner with no money to invest in New Zealand, will I find it just as easy to come and live here? No, of course not because money buys political influence, in this case immigration.

        At the other extreme, If I pay $10 and join the labour party, I will have far better chance of gaining access to and putting viewpoints to labour party politicians than if I don’t have $10 to join the party. So even at the very small money end, increased wealth (a spare 10 bucks) will buy me more political influence. (than no 10 bucks)
    • North 17.2

      21 August 2012 at 7:57 pm

      Thank you Michael. You have really made me think.
    • Herodotus 17.3

      21 August 2012 at 8:06 pm

      From “The Persian Expedition” – Xenophon book 7 ch 2 the pay gap of foot soldier to generals 380 bc “ each soldier a starter of Cyzicus every month, double pay for a captain and 4 times as much for a general …” Now way back 2400 years there was a very flat pay scale from the boss down to those who were arrow and chariot fodder !!!
      – A wee history lesson on pay scales.
      Sometimes those old timers had a better perspective on things !!
18. Herodotus 18

    21 August 2012 at 8:00 pm

    IMO most coys succeed by good fortune, or right place right time. Good CEO’s that I have worked for “lead”
    http://www.shirlawsonline.com/editorials/1-are-you-a-good-ceo
    most at best are adequate most …….. hopefully cause little damage.
    It’s those golden handouts that get me… Paid out for failure. I wonder how many lower down the food chain are treated wg=hen they are let go for reasons of restructuring or a down turn in the economy?
    http://nz.finance.yahoo.com/news/reynolds-gets-1-75m-termination-200240143.html
    http://gordoncampbell.scoop.co.nz/2010/03/05/gordon-campbell-gattung’s-attack-on-telecom/
    “…but her own $3 million package was OK and the $5.4 million payout she received in 2007 was also value for money” Love to hear the CEO’s support for all those contracted out
    The Legitimacy of CEO Pay: The Discourse of Telecom, the Media and the Public
    http://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/bitstream/10092/6219/1/12636336_TelecomCeoPay-WorkingPaper.pdf
    At least these incomes that are “earned” are taxed. So NZ inc benefits from 28% of this income. Unlike those who accumulate wealth from other untaxed sources.
19. KJT 19

    21 August 2012 at 10:35 pm

    Already commented on this here.

    http://kjt-kt.blogspot.co.nz/2011/04/kia-ora-corporatism-and-neo-liberalism.html

    “”The idea that individual shareholders, managers or directors are the main contributors to the success of a corporation, and thence the economy. And deserve the greatest share of the rewards. The jobs and income of all other employees and State servants is a generous charitable gift from these people.

    Except, maybe in the case of genuine entrepreneurs, we all know this is not true.

    Many corporations and State or private enterprises run despite management, not because of them. In fact the constant parade of new brooms trying to make a name for themselves, with rapid changes and cost cutting, cause competent staff to resign and demoralise the rest.””
20. Polish pride 20

    21 August 2012 at 11:06 pm

    Everything I have said is wrong!?! Interesting I guess on your planet war is no more. Poverty no longer exists. And you don’t have any environmental problems etc. etc.
    Difference is I have the ability to look and see what is happening in the world and can think for myself. As a result I can see better options. You on the other hand are so blinkered to the flaws of the current system that you cannot see them. I wonder party member by any chance!?! I don’t believe the bs the govt shovels. You clearly still do. I also don’t want to wait another 50 – 100 years to solve problems than can be fixed now. Even if that means changing from your preslcious elected dictatorship model. You have completely missed the message and when you wake up in 15 years to find bugger all has changed it will be because of the current left vs right paradigm but you’ll still be scratching your head thinking if only everyone would vote left. I was where you are several years ago… Then I woke up. Well done on confirming your inability to take your ego out of the equation – your little bit about pointing out I’m not your buddy… That’s your ego :). The bit about me being a patronizing toe rag ( not my intention btw so apologies for that) but that is also your ego!
    • Kotahi Tāne Huna 20.1

      22 August 2012 at 7:56 am

      War – one word – Pinker. Your perceptions proved inaccurate.
      Poverty – again, great improvements over the last 150 years – look up Hans Rosling’s video presentations. Check your perceptions.
      Environmental problems – reforestation looks good but falls over in reality. For one thing, massive die-off of existing forests is now in progress – Pine Bark Beetles ring a bell?

      I am acutely aware of the “flaws of the current system” – it is you who are wearing blinkers as to its benefits.
    • Kotahi Tāne Huna 20.2

      22 August 2012 at 9:34 am

      PS: you were the one who started with the “buddy” business. Does that make you an egotist or a hypocrite? Check your perceptions.
21. locus 21

    22 August 2012 at 7:17 am

    just assuming that a CEO in NZ is on about 270k per annum and continues to get a 9% payrise per year.

    And assuming a teacher is earning 50k per annum (an average NZ wage) and gets a 3% payrise annually.

    By 2020 the CEO will be earning $538k and the teacher $63k i.e. $475k wage gap

    By 2030 the CEO will be earning $1,273,000 and the teacher $85,000 i.e. $1,188,000 wage gap
    • RedBat 21.1

      22 August 2012 at 9:30 am

      Perhaps it is better to be a CEO.
      • locus 21.1.1

        23 August 2012 at 7:09 am

        it’s always ‘bettter’ for the top 0.1 percent of society …

        But the point of this discussion is that it’s time the 99.9 % put a stop to this s*it and changed the game so income is distributed more fairly. Let’s say we introduce a labour law which limits the money and other rewards paid to a CEO to 5 times the pay of the office cleaner.

        And guess what…. it would still be ‘better’ to be a CEO.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS