Absurd arguments

Written By: - Date published: 1:45 pm, November 4th, 2011 - 69 comments
Categories: election 2011, labour, national - Tags:

One of the tactics that National is using in the election campaign taking any Labour proposal and trying to discredit it by extending it to logical absurdity. They’ve done it with the minimum wage proposal (if $15 why not $30?). They’ve done it with buying back assets (why not 100% of Air NZ?). They’re doing it now with Labour borrowing $6b to invest in NZ Super (neutral because the asset is on the books). Key says:

If it’s such a great idea and so guaranteed despite the fact that the world’s stock markets are more volatile now than ever before, why doesn’t he go and borrow $100b?

Labour needs to get out there and start applying the same absurdist logic to Nat policies:

If low youth wages are so good for youth employment, then why not cut them to $1 per hour?

If lower tax rates for the rich are so good for the economy, then why not cut them to 10%?

If selling state assets is such a good idea, then why not sell 100% of them?

If sacking “back room bureaucrats” has no bad consequences, then why not sack all of them?

If getting tough on crime is the solution, then why not life imprisonment for a first offence?

If getting tough on beneficiaries is the way to get people back in to work, then why not just abolish the benefit?

And so on – I’m sure you can add your own. The point is that extending almost any idea to the point of absurdity is – absurd.

69 comments on “Absurd arguments ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. toad 1
    4 November 2011 at 1:47 pm

    Hey, r0b, aren’t those all ACT’s policies?

  2. gingercrush 2
    4 November 2011 at 1:57 pm

    Personally I think Labour should counter with John Key is only looking short-term and Labour has a long-term strategy. I’d even use National’s 2025 analogy to go with it.

    If you vote Labour in 2011 by 2025:

    * Superannuation will be secure for all New Zealanders.
    – Labour is committed to keeping Superannuation at 2/3 media wage.
    – Labour will be putting money into the Cullen Superfund.
    – Labour will be making kiwisaver compulsory for all New Zealanders.

    * Capital Gains Tax will secure future government revenue
    – Labour will be able to put more money into health and education

    * Labour will cut greenhouse emissions
    – And under Labour those who contribute to greenhouse emissions will be paying for it not you the taxpayer

    etc.

  3. Lanthanide 3
    4 November 2011 at 1:59 pm

    Key admitted he’s a monkey’s uncle today.

  4. The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 4
    4 November 2011 at 2:20 pm

    Good to know you think owning 100% of Air New Zealand is “absurd”.

    So why is it also not absurd to own 100% of Meridian Energy?

    • felix 4.1
      4 November 2011 at 2:35 pm

      “Good to know you think owning 100% of Air New Zealand is “absurd”.”

      It’s National who think it’s absurd to own 100% of air NZ. Don’t ask r0b, ask them.

      Oops Ole.

      • Chris 4.1.1
        4 November 2011 at 2:39 pm

        The post states that National takes arguments to logical absurdities and then uses that as an example. So it is fair to say that r0b also thinks it is absurd.

        • Enough is Enough 4.1.1.1
          4 November 2011 at 2:56 pm

          Air New Zealand is interesting.

          I don’t think it is absurd. It should be on the table, in the medium term, to return to 100% public ownership.

          There is no good reason why private investors should be drawing profits from our airline when they could and should be reinvested in New Zealand infrastructure.

          • Ari 4.1.1.1.1
            4 November 2011 at 3:19 pm

            Personally, I’d nationalise it from straight under them, they’ve had enough return as-is.

          • insider 4.1.1.1.2
            4 November 2011 at 4:11 pm

            Air NZ is something you’d probably want to sell for something better

            Return on assets 1.71%
            Return on equity 5.28%
            Return on investment 2.67%
            Div yield 5.24%

            Telecom

            Return on assets 2.50%
            Return on equity 6.77%
            Return on investment 3.31%
            Div yield 10.27%

            • lprent 4.1.1.1.2.1
              4 November 2011 at 4:28 pm

              I guess you don’t understand the economic effect of infrastructure.

              One of the main reasons to keep Air NZ as a state owned asset is that it provides the only reliable air-freight company that NZ has. Over the years virtually every other one has come and gone, but Air NZ has kept going. Air-freight capacity has gone up and down like a yoyo as carriers enter and exit the market, at various price levels – but air NZ provides the base price signal to exporters.

              There are entire industries that I have been involved with that completely depend on air freight (including my current one). Flowers to Japan for the various festival weeks. Electronics going in and out to customers. Whatever. I’m quite certain that in economic terms for Air NZ the air freight is not the profit maker that passenger freight is during good times. But they carry on providing the capacity.

              Most export companies don’t use anyone else simply because they are unreliable when you need them. Air NZ is the lifeline to an large number of businesses. In turn the state collects taxes from those businesses.

              Factor that in and you’ll find quite a different picture. But I guess you don’t export. Otherwise you wouldn’t make such a short-sighted foolish statement.

              • fmacskasy …
                4 November 2011 at 9:18 pm

                Lprent. I recall when Air New Zealand went bankrupt and was facing collapse.

                Businesses around the country were begging the incoming Labour Government to bail out the airline and save it from being liquidated. millions of dollars worth of exports were at risk. And yes, I recall one particular flower exporter who stated on TV that if Air NZ went under, so would his flower exporting company.

                The so-called “free market” is “free”, until we have to pay the cost of essential services failing. Then we all pay.

                • mik e …
                  4 November 2011 at 9:49 pm

                  Frank Air New Zealand has returned nearly a billion dollrs in profits for the taxpayer as well not bad considering it went bankrupt nearly twice under private ownership. once when it bought ansett and then it did go bakrupt after 9/11 because airlines went under all over.

                  • fmacskasy …
                    5 November 2011 at 12:25 am

                    Indeed, Mik e – one cannot argue with $1 billion!!

                    It’s also a scandal that Winston Peters did not fulfill his election promise in 1996 to “hand back the cheque” to the Fletcher Challenge consortium that bought NZ Forest Corp in 1996: http://www.treasury.govt.nz/government/assets/saleshistory

                    That’s a lot of wealth and potential jobs for timber processing that we ended up loosing, due to our collective short-sightedness.

            • mik e 4.1.1.1.2.2
              4 November 2011 at 5:31 pm

              Wouldn,t it be better to sell your best performing assets to invest in unprofitable assets like Kiwibank and air New Zealand thats whats spin national are having us on with
              like we will pay down debt with asset sales when our assets are returning in excess of 20% for every dollar invested. While the debt we owe is only costing us 6%
              dumb
              silly
              stupid
              economic lunacy Only National could come up with such a Dumb idea
              National have never explained the rational
              but spun and lied their way through this argument

        • felix 4.1.1.2
          4 November 2011 at 3:24 pm

          Only if you don’t know how to read, Chris.

          Or if you don’t know what an “example” is.

          Or if you’re just an all-round simpleton.

          Allow me to demonstrate: My dog likes to roll in disgusting things, for example rotting seagull carcasses.

          According to your reasoning (and I use that word very loosely) it’s fair to say that I also like to roll in rotting seagull carcasses because I used it as an example.

          As it happens, I generally don’t.

          • Chris 4.1.1.2.1
            4 November 2011 at 3:35 pm

            It seems you don’t know how to read. If you actually followed my reasoning in your example the conclusion would have been that you find rotting seagull carcasses to be a disgusting thing.

            To put it another way what exactly was he providing an example of – National taking an argument to a logical absurdity.

            Yet you are trying to say the example he used was not something he considered to be a logical absurdity?

            If it isn’t it must be the worst example of all time.

            • felix 4.1.1.2.1.1
              4 November 2011 at 3:47 pm

              No, buying 100% of AirNZ is something National consider to be a logical absurdity which is why they use it as an example of the folly of not selling assets. r0b just wrote about them doing it.

              It’s not a hypothetical example that r0b made up to demonstrate the type of argument National make, it’s an actual example of an argument that National actually make.

              Want me to type slower?

              • Enough is Enough …
                4 November 2011 at 3:55 pm

                Felix

                So you are saying National thinks 100% ownership is a logical absurdity, but it is in fact a reasonable position to hold.

                That would also mean that National thinks a $30 minum wage is a logical absurdity but it is in fact a reasonable position to hold.

                ?

                • Colonial Viper …
                  4 November 2011 at 4:03 pm

                  This ain’t about clever logic, this is about kicking the blue team’s ass.

                • felix …
                  4 November 2011 at 4:08 pm

                  Enough is Enough,

                  Nothing in your first sentence supports the assertion in your second.

                  This really isn’t all that complicated.

                  • Enough is Enough …
                    4 November 2011 at 4:18 pm

                    Follow robs two examples through.

                    “They’ve done it with the minimum wage proposal (if $15 why not $30?). They’ve done it with buying back assets (why not 100% of Air NZ?).”

                    $15 minimum wage- reasonable position
                    $30 minimum wage – Logically absurd

                    Current Air New Zealand shareholding – reasonable position
                    100% Air New Zealand shareholding – logically absurd

                    We all agree a $30 mimum wage is logically absurd. Many of us however think Air New Zealand should be a public company and 100% owned by the public.

                    Now do you see what Chris was saying?

                    • felix …
                      4 November 2011 at 4:41 pm

                      Chris isn’t arguing the same point as you.

                      ps you’re still trying to argue a logical fallacy though, the relationship between (a) and (x) doesn’t define the relationship between (b) and (y). Or between (a) and (x) for that matter.

                    • Chris …
                      4 November 2011 at 4:52 pm

                      No felix that is exactly what I am arguing.

                      Basically r0b is saying that National asking Labour if that is there position on the mixed ownership of assets why don’t you just buy back 100% of Air NZ is taking the argument to its logical absurdity.

                      Maybe you could explain why r0b would post something as an example of a logical absurdity if he didn’t think it was a logical absurdity. In other words why would he provide it as an example if he didn’t think it illustrated his point.

                  • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell …
                    4 November 2011 at 4:21 pm

                    One of the tactics that National is using in the election campaign taking any Labour proposal and trying to discredit it by extending it to logical absurdity.

                    r0b accuses National of extending Labour proposals to a logical absurdity.

                    Are we agreed so far, Felix?

                    They’ve done it with buying back assets (why not 100% of Air NZ?)

                    So, r0b alleges that it is a “logical absurdity” to propose buying back 100% of Air New Zealand.

                    Are we still agreed?

                    • felix …
                      4 November 2011 at 4:28 pm

                      No, he’s saying that National alleges it.

                      FFS just learn to read.

                    • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell …
                      4 November 2011 at 4:34 pm

                      National is not alleging it is a logical absurdity to buy back all of Air New Zealand. r0b is.

                    • felix …
                      4 November 2011 at 4:44 pm

                      National is not alleging it is a logical absurdity to buy back all of Air New Zealand. r0b is.

                      As above, learn to read.

                    • Enough is Enough …
                      4 November 2011 at 4:48 pm

                      come in rob…

                    • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell …
                      4 November 2011 at 4:52 pm

                      No. You learn to read.

                      r0b says:

                      One of the tactics that National is using in the election campaign taking any Labour proposal and trying to discredit it by extending it to logical absurdity…They’ve done it with buying back assets (why not 100% of Air NZ?).

                      r0b is alleging National is taking Labour’s proposal to a logical absurdity.

                      You are not normally this thick. Are you being wilfully mendacious?

                    • r0b …
                      4 November 2011 at 8:42 pm

                      Sorry I’m late to this (just another lazy socialist with a busy job eh).  Goodness – you just never know how a post is going to turn out, or what small element of it will cause a war. Thanks to felix and others for arguing the case!

                      Yeah the post is about the Nats taking arguments to absurd extremes.  Mostly stuff that Labour has proposed to do, but in the case of Air NZ it’s something Labour hasn’t done.  Labour hasn’t bought back 100% of Air NZ.  The Nats try and argue that this means that it must be OK to to hock off 49% of some of our best assets.

                      So it fits the theme of the post in that its an argument that tries to take something to an extreme to make an absurd point.  But it’s not like the other points in the post because its about something Labour didn’t do rather than something they are proposing.

                      Hope that’s clear – a post is always a balance between spelling everything out clearly and overloading the thing with too much waffle.

                    • fmacskasy …
                      4 November 2011 at 9:26 pm

                      Actually, Ole, the government has no need to buy all 100% of Air New Zealand because the current ownership model suits our purpose, as a nation: a stable airline service.

                      As for why we want to keep 100% of Meridian? Because that is the CURRENT model that suits our purposes, as a nation.

                      There is no reason to sell any of Meridian, or any other SOEs. They make good profits for us. If they weren’t profitable, no one would wqant to buy them.

                      Kinda logical really, when one thinks about it…

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      4 November 2011 at 10:18 pm

                      Kinda logical really, when one thinks about it…

                      Which should tell you the problem – none of the RWNJs can understand logic or think.

                • mik e …
                  4 November 2011 at 8:46 pm

                  Thats the sort of wage we need to catch Australia

  5. Colonial Viper 5
    4 November 2011 at 2:42 pm

    Better to say that National is treating this election like a joke, and insulting tens of thousands who are struggling when their plan is no plan, only absurdities.

  6. giovani 6
    4 November 2011 at 3:32 pm

    Nattionals plan to reward the rich and destroy the poor why else would you do what they plan to do?

    And everything else in this nation make us a low wages third world country.
    No thanks shonKey sooner your gone the better.

    I think the people of this country aren’t as stupid as the shonky polls say we are.

  7. Uturn 7
    4 November 2011 at 3:38 pm

    If a 90 day probation period grows businesses and jobs, then everyone should be on probation permanently and no company should be allowed to operate for more than 90 days.

    If national debt is such a big concern to the rich, then they will gladly make large voluntary contributions to the IRD.

    If building the holiday highway helps the poor, then building a bridge between the North and South Islands will end poverty.

    If having a spreadsheet of figures assures the success of the economy, then exhibiting a business plan in the window of every start-up business will stave off liquidation.

  8. deservingpoor 8
    4 November 2011 at 4:02 pm

    Warning: Sarcasm follows:
    National need to cut the crap and show us their willy instead of being leftist pussies:
    -Abolish benefits and reintroduce work houses. 1000 people a week have decided they’re too lazy to work since the recession began. National need to show they mean business. If the poor die, fuckem, they clearly had it coming.
    -Stop all government borrowing, for anything. Make repayment of existing debt within 1 financial year a priority, then we can start talking about spending on ourselves.
    -Forget about these namby pamby prisons. Public floggings and summary executions are far cheaper.
    -Cap tax. If you make over the median wage, you are obviously one of the virtuous and have been blessed by God. Its your money and you shouldn’t be forced to give a toss about anyone else.
    -Youth rates should not only be reintroduced but extended to age 40. Anyone younger than me is still a kid.

    🙂 This is fun, I could go on like this all day. Why the hell aren’t Labour?

  9. tsmithfield 9
    4 November 2011 at 4:34 pm

    Labour needs to get out there and start applying the same absurdist logic to Nat policies:

    If low youth wages are so good for youth employment, then why not cut them to $1 per hour?

    If lower tax rates for the rich are so good for the economy, then why not cut them to 10%?

    If selling state assets is such a good idea, then why not sell 100% of them?

    If sacking “back room bureaucrats” has no bad consequences, then why not sack all of them?

    If getting tough on crime is the solution, then why not life imprisonment for a first offence?

    If getting tough on beneficiaries is the way to get people back in to work, then why not just abolish the benefit?

    None of those points are absurdities for me. 🙂

    • felix 9.1
      4 November 2011 at 4:47 pm

      Then why should anyone take anything you say seriously, ever?

    • mik e 9.2
      4 November 2011 at 7:38 pm

      What is absurd is selling your best performing assets which are returning in excess of 20% to the tax payer
      To fund Kiwi bank a virtually zero profit company

    • RedLogix 9.3
      4 November 2011 at 8:13 pm

      If sacking “back room bureaucrats” has no bad consequences, then why not sack all of them?

      Does your business have an accountant? (Or indeed are you one yourself?)

    • mik e 9.4
      4 November 2011 at 8:50 pm

      Tsm the only sensible thing you said all day which makes me think you are going to vote UF this election

    • Vicky32 9.5
      5 November 2011 at 12:23 am

      None of those points are absurdities for me.

      Does not compute! You’re a sane adult, hey? 😀

  10. Nick C 10
    4 November 2011 at 5:12 pm

    “If low youth wages are so good for youth employment, then why not cut them to $1 per hour?”

    Because the natural counterpoint to ‘youth wages should be as high as possible’ is not logically ‘youth wages should be as low as possible’. It is that youth wages should be at the rate at which supply meets demand so that as many people as possible can get a job.

  11. Nick C 11
    4 November 2011 at 5:15 pm

    “If sacking “back room bureaucrats” has no bad consequences, then why not sack all of them?”

    This is the wrong issue to apply the logical extremity analysis to. Clearly we need ‘bureaucrats’, the real question is what is the ideal number to have. Its logically consistent for National to reduce the number of bureaucrats without firing every single bureaucrat.

    • mik e 11.1
      4 November 2011 at 5:33 pm

      They are hiring consultants at twice the price.

      • Nick C 11.1.1
        5 November 2011 at 2:35 pm

        That makes sense in many senarios. E.g. even major companies with their own legal departments will sometimes hire specialist legal firms for particularly difficult or rare cases.

        • felix 11.1.1.1
          5 November 2011 at 2:39 pm

          It’s not for particularly difficult or rare cases though Nick. Just like it wasn’t in the 90s.

          You may well have been born yesterday but don’t insult everyone else’s intelligence by assuming the rest of us were too.

        • Colonial Viper 11.1.1.2
          5 November 2011 at 2:56 pm

          However it doesn’t make sense if they are hiring the same peeps back at twice the price. Or farming out exactly the same work at twice the price.

  12. thejackal 12
    4 November 2011 at 6:19 pm

    Speaking of absurd, did anybody else watch Duncan Garner on TV3 news at six O’clock tonight?

    His argument was that John Key “crucified” Phil Goff by saying “show me the money.”

    Already debunked Garner you hack! In some ways I really do hope they keep up with the ludicrous spin.

    • Hami Shearlie 12.1
      4 November 2011 at 8:20 pm

      Key crucified Goff? Phil still looks pretty sprightly to me! Phil’s released Labour’s figures , now Monkey-Boy, where are the jobs? Phil showed you his, now you show him yours – oh, sorry, you ain’t got any!! A derivatives trader( which was JK’s last job at Merrill Lynch) can hardly claim to be a financial genius, it’s more akin to a used car salesman, shady and dubious, trading peoples debts! It was trading in derivatives that was a huge part of the cause of the global financial crisis!

  13. RedBaron 13
    4 November 2011 at 8:20 pm

    When Labour mentioned looking at the foreign ownership rules a while back the Media suddenly seemed to be a little less hostile. Perhaps the Media should be reminded that the Nacts won’t be in power forever and someday soon they will be dealing with Labour.
    Nor should we forget that one of them owes $42m to the Crown which can be included in Labour’s budget.
    Actually, if they go into default (or could be persuaded! to) on the loan the Crown could appoint the liquidator and take the lot over. Nice way to get some state owned Media and assets on the cheap ………..

  14. vto 14
    4 November 2011 at 8:27 pm

    show me the money
    shonky
    embarassing

    you fullas need to toughen up and fire the shit back.

    call Key a liar again
    bring up mining
    use words like dodgy
    untrustworthy
    banker
    remind people he is a money trader. again and again and again
    play your opening vid every night during the news

    fight man fight

    • M 14.1
      5 November 2011 at 10:03 am

      For Key:

      Show me the drop in unemployment

      Show me the rise in prosperity

      Show me the dearth of foodbanks

      Show me the retieval of the miners entombed liked you promised

      Show me the people of Christchurch are adequately if modestly accommodated

      Show me more than the class clown and mincing

      Show me some intellect and humanity

  15. NZ Printing 15
    4 November 2011 at 9:05 pm

    Only a few blogger would discuss this subject the way you do.

  16. Ed 16
    4 November 2011 at 10:17 pm

    As far as borrowing to invest is concerned, do National really mean capitalism is so flawed that savings will never retain their real value, and it is never worth borrowing at low rates to invest with professional fund managers – that will always result in a loss?
     
    Besides, didn’t Bill English borrow an extra $5 billion this year to get in before the credit downgrades and borrow ahead of the announcement at lower rates? Are they saying Bill English was wrong?