Chart o’ the day: maybe we should buy back our shit

Written By: - Date published: 2:13 pm, June 8th, 2011 - 21 comments
Categories: overseas investment, privatisation - Tags:

I know, let’s sell more of our high-return assets offshore.

Sourced from stats.

21 comments on “Chart o’ the day: maybe we should buy back our shit ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. johnm 1
    8 June 2011 at 3:38 pm

    Shows the Ideological betrayal of New Zealanders since 1984 by the selling of income and wealth producing assets and now of course the same betrayers who do not acknowledge the “Commons” And the “Common Good”: That which enables a level of wealth and well-being for all New Zealanders irrespective of merit because they are part of our National Family (And can only be paid for by the Public’s ownership of wealth producing assets) are set to finish the job and then more because of the Political “I’m all right” attitude of the public no longer aware that the “Common Good” exists who are bought and paid for by tax cut sweeteners and the superficial empty good looks of National and Act’s Front Man. FOLLY TO SELL OFF OUR INHERITANCE FOR A MESS OF POTAGE! To belittle them as “Family Silver” is a gross misrepresentation of the seriousness of these treacherous actions led by the National’s chief hypnotist: John Key.

  2. NickC 2
    8 June 2011 at 4:26 pm

    Do that chart over 10 years and I might be interested.

    • Blighty 2.1
      8 June 2011 at 5:04 pm

      why don’t you do it and show us your findings?

      or are you just another lazy rightie that refuses to believe the facts in front of you, posits the existence of countervailing facts, and refuses to present them?

      • NickC 2.1.1
        8 June 2011 at 5:33 pm

        Eh? My only point was that that data is basically meaningless. That doesn’t impose a duty upon me to collect and present the more conclusive data.

        • Draco T Bastard 2.1.1.1
          8 June 2011 at 8:46 pm

          In what way is it useless?

          • NickC 2.1.1.1.1
            9 June 2011 at 1:51 pm

            Because it doesn’t show a trend. If our average return were significantly lower over a number of years then maybe. But it could well just be that 2010 was a bad year for NZ investments overseas, but over the past 10 years the average return is about equal.

            • Blighty 2.1.1.1.1.1
              9 June 2011 at 2:09 pm

              it should be fairly simple for you to show that 2010 was an exceptionally bad year for our foreign investments and/or a good one for foreigners’ investments here, if that is the case

              Until you can present any such evidence, you’re just pissing in the wind

              • Bazar …
                9 June 2011 at 3:01 pm

                Why should he have to go to the trouble to validate someone elses claims.

                The burden of proof has traditionally rested with the party making the claim.

                NickC has just pointed out that 1 year proves nothing, and you accuse him of pissing in the wind?

                Show actual proof that NZ investements constantly out perform foreign investment.
                Including what unit of mesurement as well would also be a good start.

                Until such data is provided, anyone reading into this actual graph is a fool.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  9 June 2011 at 3:04 pm

                  Laughable

                  Contact Energy was sold for a song and has so far pumped out roughly $1B from our economy into the hands of foreign shareholders over the last 10 years, as well as making foreign shareholders huge capital gains above and beyond what they paid NZ for it.

                  So there you are a 10 year timeframe

                  Good enough for you?

                  • NickC …
                    9 June 2011 at 3:41 pm

                    No – I won’t accept being told that one particular company of many in NZ owned by foreign investors has returned ‘huge’ capital gains and had ‘roughly $1B’ ‘pumped from our economy’, despite being sold for ‘a song’ as evidence of anything. You shouldn’t either.

  3. prism 3
    8 June 2011 at 4:34 pm

    We are paying today’s interest rates, exchange rates etc. We are looking at a recent snapshot to get our picture. Withe the GFC in the background so recently the figures going back are going give only indeterminate, confusing comparisons.

  4. Afewknowthetruth 4
    8 June 2011 at 4:39 pm

    ZETETIC

    You forgot to substact the devaluation of money, which is running at about 10% per annum in general terms, and about 30% per annum measured against gold.

    That would give you minus 6.5% vesius minus 4.5%.

    or against gold minus 26.5% vesus minus 24.5%

  5. queenstfarmer 5
    8 June 2011 at 4:41 pm

    Two questions:

    1. How would “we” (the Government, I presume) pay “them”? By borrowing money off “them” to buy their shit back? I’m sure “they’d” be happy to work up a proposal!

    2. If say in 2012, the chart flipped, would you demand that we sell our shit back?

    (ps I like the “sourced from stats”. Like saying “sourced from facts”).

    • Lanthanide 5.1
      8 June 2011 at 4:54 pm

      1. I think the idea is that we should nationalise the assets if we can’t afford to buy them back. Certainly selling more of them doesn’t seem like a good idea.
       
      2. No, it would just mean the foreigners were suckers.

  6. dave brown 6
    8 June 2011 at 5:43 pm

    Suggest take it back to 84 it would show much bigger disparity than put it on a poster.

  7. tsmithfield 7
    8 June 2011 at 9:11 pm

    Stupid analysis because it ignores the jobs created and the money multiplier effect due to the investment in NZ.

    Anyway, whether it is foreigners investing directly in NZ, or foreigners investing indirectly in NZ through NZ companies borrowing from our banks that source their funds off-shore, there will always be a heavy amount of foreign investment in NZ because we lack the capital resources to do it ourselves.

    • Draco T Bastard 7.1
      9 June 2011 at 12:38 am

      Got any research to back up the claim that foreign investors create jobs?

      NZPA closed with job losses.
      CAFCA: Key Facts

      The great majority of foreign “investment” is a takeover, not creating new assets.

      Foreign investors are not great for employment – they only employ 19% of the workforce, despite owning a huge proportion of the economy. Foreign ownership does not guarantee more jobs. In fact, it quite often adds to unemployment. TNCs have made tens of thousands jobless.

      And I wish I could find the article I read a few years ago that pointed out that a large number of firms had been bought up and then shipped out of NZ. The employees could have kept their jobs – if they’d wanted to move to another country. All the foreign “investors” had wanted was the IP that the firms owned.

    • Colonial Viper 7.2
      9 June 2011 at 12:55 am

      there will always be a heavy amount of foreign investment in NZ because we lack the capital resources to do it ourselves.

      Typical Right Wing lie

      The top 100 NZ rich list is worth $40B between them for starters.

      • Ari 7.2.1
        9 June 2011 at 10:28 pm

        Well, we certainly lack the willingness to spend those resources right now.

        I’m sure I said this elsewhere earlier today, but I have no beef with foreign investors, so long as they promote reinvestment in New Zealand and are willing to help build jobs. Of course, that’s by far the minority of investors.