Exporting Dunedin

50 comments on “Exporting Dunedin ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Scarfie 1

   11 October 2010 at 10:08 am

   The ODT had a feature on Distiller here:

   http://www.odt.co.nz/news/business/130699/minding-others-business

   Good luck to them.
2. The Baron 2

   11 October 2010 at 10:16 am

   Agree with everything, apart from this:

   “The Key Government has shied away from real investment in getting decent internet access for people everywhere”

   Pardon? Have you heard of the UFB/RBI?
   • r0b 2.1

     11 October 2010 at 10:26 am

     I’ve heard about them. I’ve heard lots of promises about broadband since, after tax cuts, it was more or less the Nats only significant pre election promise. I’ve heard about it and heard about it and heard about it – so much so that I’ve stopped paying attention. So I might have missed it, but where is the government, as compared to Telecom or others, investing?

     In other news – the speed of my broadband hasn’t changed, and nor is it likely to in the foreseeable future.
   • felix 2.2

     11 October 2010 at 1:20 pm

     I’ve also heard of EBTTH but I haven’t seen any evidence of its existence yet.
3. Carol 3

   11 October 2010 at 10:48 am

   I’m for supporting improved broadband, and creative NZ enterprises that produce neccessary goods and services. But to me David’s focus on economic growth, exports etc, sounds a lot like the old neoliberal approach, which is increasingly being shown to be totally dysfunctional. How does much does David’s approach contribute to a new direction for the left?
   • Bill 3.1

     11 October 2010 at 12:11 pm

     “…to me David’s focus on economic growth, exports etc, sounds a lot like the old neoliberal approach, which is increasingly being shown to be totally dysfunctional”

     Sounds that way to me too. Thing is, Labour will never be a part of any new direction for the left. They are very much a part and parcel of capitalism’s managerial culture, ie they are in the business of keeping capitalism functioning after some fashion or other. (Last managerial fashion was neo-liberalism. Next one will be whatever it is that a culture of crisis management decides might work for or prolong capitalism.)

     Should the left strike out in a new direction, I think it is fair to assume that the Labour Party will be part of any reactionary impediment. Sadly.
   • David Clark 3.2

     11 October 2010 at 12:39 pm

     Hi Carol,

     Agree that trad neoliberal agenda has plenty of shortcomings and won’t bother rehearsing the arguments here. I think if you have a look at some of my other posts, you’ll find my view hard to conflate with trad neoliberalism, e.g. http://www.davidclark.org.nz/2010/08/killing-the-new-zealand-dream/

     That said, I am not going to apologise for a focus on exports and the economy. Trading is in good part responsible for the way Western countries have made the money that buys public services like decent hospitals and schools. It is how cancer medications and computers are afforded. I don’t think for one second that it would be good to stop trading. We need an emphasis on fair trade. Condemning most of the world to ongoing poverty through cessation of trade is not on my agenda.

     Good ideas should be shared, and currently trade is the best available mechanism to encourage both development and propagation of good ideas. Weightless exports have the additional advantage of being friendly on the environment.
     • Draco T Bastard 3.2.1

       11 October 2010 at 1:20 pm

       We have the resources to produce everything we need here. International trading is only needed to procure something that we don’t presently produce. The corollary is that we then need to develop a local source of those items.

       Trading is in good part responsible for the way Western countries have made the money…

       Here your making the usual mistake of confusing money for a resource. What actually makes hospitals and schools is people. Amazingly enough, people already living here from resources that are also already here (this is why foreign investment is a load of bollocks).

       I don’t think for one second that it would be good to stop trading.

       Probably not and probably impossible anyway but minimising it is certainly doable and better for us as a society.

       Condemning most of the world to ongoing poverty through cessation of trade is not on my agenda.

       We’ve already done that. There isn’t enough resources in the world for everyone to have the same level of living standards that we have. You’ll note, though, that the poor countries are the ones that exported all their raw resources rather than developing local education and industry.

       Trade doesn’t produce any more wealth – what it does is transfers it from place to another. Due to the deadweight loss of profit someone, usually the poorer, is always worse off after the trade.

       Good ideas should be shared, and currently trade is the best available mechanism to encourage both development and propagation of good ideas.

       Yes, good ideas should be shared but trade isn’t a good way to do it. Open and free discussion is with the removal of patents so that people who hear the idea can develop it locally.
       • comedy 3.2.1.1

         11 October 2010 at 1:27 pm

         “What actually makes hospitals and schools is people”

         Yes without people there would be no need for either but we also need buildings, computers, capital equipment, drugs, surgical equipment etc etc etc. We cannot produce all of these ourselves the best way to get those things we need but cannot produce ourselves is via trade.
         • Draco T Bastard 3.2.1.1.1

           11 October 2010 at 1:37 pm

           We’ve had this conversation. The answer “Yes, we can” as I proved to you before and if we did so it would actually bring about a better society rather than the race to the bottom that we presently engage in with every other nation.
           • comedy 3.2.1.1.1.1

             11 October 2010 at 2:01 pm

             Really, we can manufacture CT scanners, MRIs and Linear accelerators in NZ can we ?

             And all the joints and intraoclar lenses for our elderly ?

             And all the beta blockers, ACE inhibitors Calcium antagonists for those with high blood pressure ?

             SUs, biguanides and insulins for diabetics can we make those as well ?
             • nzfp …

               11 October 2010 at 2:17 pm

               Sounds like a great opportunity for technology incubation comedy!

               If I was Finance Minister I would create 10 Billion dollars to develop FREE clean de-centralised renewable energy alternatives to oil!

               I would give 5 million to each University and Polytech to come up with a plan for research and development – and then fund them another 5 million each to execute the research.

               I would then spend 1 Billion per university to implement the research in production.

               The result of research and development as well as the creation of FREE clean de-centralised renewable energy would be:

               1. Technology incubation as new materials science and engineering would be required to create FREE de-centralised energy alternatives to oil. This was the result the US experienced during the Apollo moon program.
               2. A reduction in manufacturing costs for anything produced in New Zealand
               3. A reduction in transport costs for anything or anyone – free electricity based public transport anyone?
               4. The implementation of each Universities findings would create employment for New Zealanders.
               5. The new technologies developed could be licensed or sold or outright given to other countries. If we gave FREE de-centralised renewable clean energy systems to China we would end the central Asian resource wars currently plaguing Iraq, Iran, The Central Asian -Stans as well as Afghanistan and Pakistan.

               The resulting influx of revenue to pay for the new products produced in New Zealand as a result of the technology incubation would on its own outweigh the initial 10 Billion in capital.

               The initial 10 Billion in capital would cost us nothing at all – because the Government would print the damn money from nothing at zero interest instead of borrowing it at interest payable in a foreign currency from a foreign private bank that prints the money from nothing at all!

               So yeah comedy – Draco’s right!
             • Colonial Viper …

               11 October 2010 at 2:26 pm

               Insulin is no problem if you have pigs. And there will be less need for high BP meds if we decide as a society that the 24/7 grind is stupid and generally fruitless.

               But yeah, some of the other stuff is not going to be able to be put together in the shed.
               • comedy …

                 11 October 2010 at 2:32 pm

                 I don’t think the diabetics of NZ or the animal rights movement will be particularly impressed if we had to return to porcine insulin, agreed there are non pharmaceutical interventions that can help with high BP however there will always be a significant need for these type of meds.

                 NZFP sorry haven’t got the time to deconstruct your argument at present I might fisk it tonight if that’s OK.
                 • nzfp …

                   11 October 2010 at 2:36 pm

                   Don’t worry about it comedy,
                   I covered a lot that you may find issue with. Bear in mind that my comment is meant in a light hearted manner.

                   The only thing that you should have any real issue with is the means to fund any project of this type.

                   If you can find an issue with that – raise what the issue is specifically and I’ll do my best to address it for you.
             • Draco T Bastard …

               11 October 2010 at 2:53 pm

               Really, we can manufacture CT scanners, MRIs and Linear accelerators in NZ can we ?

               /facepalm

               Yes, actually, we can. After all, we already do the research and development. Just a question of getting the manufacturing to go with it.

               If anything can be done we can do it here just as well. Throw in some decent R&D and we could even do it better.
               • Chris …

                 11 October 2010 at 3:26 pm

                 sorry, but Draco, you’re crazy
                 • Draco T Bastard …

                   11 October 2010 at 3:32 pm

                   There are two types of blind people, those who cannot see and those who will not see.
                   • The Baron …

                     11 October 2010 at 3:55 pm

                     Draco, what are your thoughts on comparative advantage as a contrary argument?
                   • Draco T Bastard …

                     11 October 2010 at 4:21 pm

                     There’s no such thing as a factory in NZ is just as efficient as a factory in China (or anywhere else for that matter). The inputs are the same and the required skills are the same. The only difference is the cost of transport. The only reason why Chinese made goods are cheaper than NZ made ones are because the of the exchange rate which is artificially kept low through the Chinese keeping their currency low, ours through the high interest rates keeping it artificially high and the US trying to inflate it’s way out of debt.

                     Ricardo may have been right at the time (not that I think he was) but things have changed. It’s no longer more efficient to have a large factory exporting to the world than a small factory(ies) supplying only the local community. Socially, it’s always better to have the country to be self-sufficient. Trade then becomes an option rather than a necessity and the societies culture etc will develop rather than staying stuck in the same old mould (which, in NZ, seems to be farm, farm, farm).
                   • The Baron …

                     12 October 2010 at 10:13 am

                     Hmm, I’ll need to think about that… but it doesn’t sound entirely nuts. Pleasant surprise.

                     What about economies of scale though? Our local, domestic version of a widget factory is built for serving a market of 4.X million. The chinese one is built for a factor of 1000 greater. There will be some circumstances whereby even once transport is included, we would be net worse off from doing it ourselves – even if wages and all other factors were equal?
                   • lprent []

                     12 October 2010 at 10:45 am

                     At various times I write code for widgets (like right now). Sometimes the widgets are made here. Sometimes they’re made offshore. The decision is a complex one based on a lot of factors. But in the worldwide vertical markets we’re looking at (it has been decades since I worked in company that was planning on doing more than 10% of their sales in NZ), we’re typically only selling thousands or tens of thousands of product. The production cost per unit is far far less than the development costs.

                     Both the hardware design and software design are done here. The question of economies of scale scarcely come into the type of brain powered tech that we sell.
                   • The Baron …

                     12 October 2010 at 1:53 pm

                     Absolutely right, Lynn – it is meaningless when you are talking about “weightless” digital economy products, which is why ideas like David’s are so attractive.

                     But I get the distinct impression that Draco is also considering traditional, physical goods too – where plants, factories, manufacturing etc etc is absolutely reliant on economies of scale, and access to raw materials – both of which could render this idea pretty moot…
                   • nzfp …

                     12 October 2010 at 2:17 pm

                     Hey Baron,
                     Consider this. German economist and environmentalist Margrit Kennedy , who’s work on ecological architecture in 1982 led her to the discovery, that it is “virtually impossible to carry out sound ecological concepts on the scale required today, without fundamentally altering the present money system or creating new complementary currencies, demonstrated in her 1987 book (free to read online) “Interest and Inflation Free Money (ISBN 0-9643025-0-0)” that all widgets produced in a debt based economy such as ours incur interest costs totaling 50% of the total cost of production for each item.

                     That means a can of L&P that costs $1.00 to the consumer, incurs $0.50 of interest throughout the chain of production to consumption.

                     Kennedy also demonstrates that we can remove the interest load of 50% of the cost of each item, by replacing a private debt based system with credit as a public utility issued by the Government.

                     If New Zealand implemented a system like this – the cost of production for anything in our Nation would drop – potentially – by 50%.

                     You can scale that as large as you like, but $500 Million USD is still less then $1 Billion USD.
                   • The Baron …

                     12 October 2010 at 2:41 pm

                     Thanks for the link NZFP. I won’t read it now, but will come back in some other appropriate thread once I have had a look at the ideas in a bit of detail.
                   • lprent …

                     12 October 2010 at 3:24 pm

                     Bloody hell a thread that has maxed out on depth and is still on-going…..

                     Baron: If it is hard commodity goods then there are very very few things that NZ has any significant advantage in. Apart from resource extractive industries like farming I can only really think of a few. That was a secondary reason why I dropped out of production and operations management 20 odd years ago (the primary being that programming was more fun).

                     We really have to sell brains and design skills because there are bugger all other resources (Brownlee is pretty much an idiot to think otherwise). Besides when the final ore is pulled out of the ground, the final river polluted with effluent, and the final aquifer pillaged – we still need to have an income.

                     The only reason that I stayed in NZ was because the net came along. It means that we are able to trade worldwide in high design value goods where the shipping costs essentially don’t matter.
     • Bill 3.2.2

       11 October 2010 at 3:30 pm

       Jeez. I kind of despair sometimes.

       There is nothing at all wrong with trade, David.

       But there is a lot wrong with the market, ie the environment that determines terms of trade. In short, it encourages thuggery and penalises decency.

       And it wasn’t simply trade that got the anglo-saxon world ahead. It was advantageous trade arrangements ‘agreed to’ at the point of a gun, ie colonialism. For example, Indian cotton manufacturing was outlawed and weavers had their thumbs cut off as a matter of course. The exported raw material then led to Paisley and Manchester becoming world centres for cotton manufacturing.

       Which means that trade within a market environment impoverished both British workers and Indian weavers. And then it got worse, with opium being forcibly planted where rice used to grow leading to starvation in India and a nice export crop to China. It’s beyond me where you get this idea that trade necessarily enriches. More recently, we could consider SAPs in the context of trade enriching people or societies.

       On the idea that trade is a mechanism for sharing ideas, I’m tempted to simply pass. Trade is a mechanism for exchanging tradeable goods. Which means you are saying that only ideas that can be monetized are to be considered good ideas.
4. burt 4

   11 October 2010 at 11:56 am

   So have I got this right, a lefty thinks we should be directing tax payers money to private enterprise – but not just any private enterprise, private enterprise in his local area.

   How can we implement the great socialist dream of the state being in control of giant monopolies for the production and delivery of all good and services in a perfect one size fits all model where nobody earns too much and nobody earns too little when we keep reverting to Tory tactics of encouraging innovation, competition and growth in the private sector? What sort of future is there for NZ when tax payers money is directed into the pockets of people with great ideas and vision rather than lavished on people only to win their votes every three years.

   This chap isn’t a true Labour man is he – he’s an extreme right wing plant trying to divert tax payers money to his old school mates. He should be protesting outside these organisations reminding them that their profits are unpaid wages and that their low staff numbers which give them a disgraceful level of agility is only because they are exploiting people under individual contracts.

   I bet both of these companies have people working for them that are being paid based on their value to the business rather than from a schedule of remuneration rates set in Wellington based on comparable roles in the public sector…. Shame – shut them down…. It’s not fair these people earn more than a beneficiary simply because they produce stuff the world wants – not everyone can be innovators and it’s not fair that innovators profit from things we all want…. The products these greedy capitalists are producing must be commandeered and repackaged by the state for the good of all.
   • r0b 4.1

     11 October 2010 at 12:03 pm

     Feel better now Burt?
   • burt 4.2

     11 October 2010 at 12:19 pm

     I’ll feel better when these companies have all their employees on a collective agreement and have massive tax hikes imposed on them to return their filthy profits to the state. There is an election next year, the unions needs funds to donate to Labour or there will be no big red billboards or pledge cards to remind people the country works best under Labour.
     • Bill 4.2.1

       11 October 2010 at 12:38 pm

       Why not have all the companies set up as a single entity under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act which would allow them to explore and develop highly equitable and innovative organisational structures (eg worker collectives incorporating mixed job complexes etc) ) as well as novel renumeration systems (eg income sharing)?

       I think your harking on about the role of the state signifies a fundamental lack of understanding on the nature of socialism, Burt.

       It might please you to know that under the above scenario far more money would stay with those involved. The tax system doesn’t deal very well with returns (whose size is democratically determined by participants in the businesses after taking into account the cost of pre agreed criteria…such as reinvestment percentages etc) being paid from nominal shares as opposed to wages or salaries being paid.
5. Hilary 5

   11 October 2010 at 12:20 pm

   Testing of IT products is an area with great potential for the employment of people with high functioning autism or Aspergers syndrome. The pioneer in this work is Thorkil Sonne from Denmark who has now franchised his Specialisterne ASD employment concept internationally. He has a goal to employ 1 million people with autism in this field. It would be great if David and the LP could also pick up this idea.
   • burt 5.1

     11 October 2010 at 12:41 pm

     Hilary

     What a great idea. I’m not convinced that people with Autism or Aspergers syndrome will be well placed to get a good grasp of business, user and functional requirements in a cohesive way that allows them to perform robust testing against detailed and sometimes complex real world requirements. But what a great idea – I hope Thorkil Sonne is onto something big here.
6. nzfp 6

   11 October 2010 at 12:44 pm

   […] there are some frustrating barriers to success. Here are a few […] Lack of funding for […]

   Lack of funding should never be a barrier – especially if the funding is required to create products and services that will add to the well being of the community.

   There is and has always been provision in the Public Finance Act that allows local government bodies to borrow at zero interest directly from the RBNZ. I made this point in another post HERE with regard to Len Brown and the Super City election.

   To recap, it goes like this:

   […] The Public Finance Act 1989 No 44 (as at 30 July 2010), Public Act section 65L and section 47 explicity states that the “Minister, on behalf of the Crown, may lend money to a person or organisation […] on any terms and conditions that the Minister thinks fit” […]

   To summarise, the “The Public Finance Act 1989 No 44 (as at 30 July 2010)” provides mechanisms which allow the Finance Minister, via the Reserve Bank, to lend to any institution it chooses on any terms it chooses – such as zero interest at a period of 100 years.

   Dunedin North could borrow what ever it needs to repay any outstanding debts it currently has to Private Banks that incurs an interest fee. Consequently, capital will be released from servicing interest on bebts – this newely freed capital could then be used to build high speed broadband as well as fund testing (and anyting else for that matter).

   A justification for funding of this type can be found HERE.

   Captcha: THERE – you go – no problem – no barrier – no frustration!
7. Draco T Bastard 7

   11 October 2010 at 1:35 pm

   High-speed Broadband for teaching. Videoconferencing is becoming an increasingly important teaching tool for the University of Otago with its distance students. The Key Government has shied away from real investment in getting decent internet access for people everywhere.

   If we got broadband out to everyone, as is essential in today’s economy, then people shouldn’t need to enrol in a university to see, and participate, in the lectures. This could bring about all sorts of efficiencies as far as our advanced education goes and would open up even more human and social development. Would require that all universities be fully government funded though.

   Lack of funding for testing.

   Print the bloody money @ 0% interest. It’ll be a lot cheaper than borrowing (governments should never need to borrow) and then brings about the more rational affect of maintaining $$$ value by taxes rather than interest rates as presently happens.
   • Colonial Viper 7.1

     11 October 2010 at 1:41 pm

     Print the bloody money @ 0% interest.

     Yes. The Government must restore its natural right to produce money. Why should the banks be permitted to keep producing bank money out of thin air and then charge us high levels of interest on it.
   • nzfp 7.2

     11 October 2010 at 1:54 pm

     Actually there is a lot of frustration – “Print the bloody money @ 0% interest” – damn right print the bloody money!!

     Afterall it explicitly states in NZ law that the NZ government can do this.

     Not doing this is costing our Nation.

     Our Government is required to implement a tender process when procuring any goods or services from any institution (public or private). Our Government should be required to implement a tender process for the cheapest system to create New Zealand dollars. It is immediately obvious that no Private Bank can create New Zealand public credit cheaper or with more stability then the Publicly Owned RBNZ!

     Capthca: restores – Credit as a public utility restores economic and social democracy!

     Even better – instead of printing themoney to lend – the Government should just print the money to spend – then there is no debt at all.

     For those people who get all caught up with the inflation fallacy – what do you think tax is for?

     If there is too much money sloshing around – a simple tax on bank trades will pull out the excess money!
8. Colonial Viper 8

   11 October 2010 at 1:38 pm

   One basic recognition is that international trade is being directed primarily for the good of corporations and other major business interests at the moment, and not for the good of the citizens of the countries involved (or their living environments). What % of oil wealth is distributed to the peoples of the Niger? What % of diamond wealth is distributed to the peoples of Angola and Sierra Leone? What % of Apple’s wealth is distributed to its contracted manufacturing workers in Shenzhen?

   Its the usual story. A few do reap most of the benefit, mainly in western developed countries (who incidentally direct organisations such as the World Bank and the IMF). And the many, often in poorer ethnic countries, get only a little if anything at all.
9. Chris Bull 9

   11 October 2010 at 5:40 pm

   I’m part of the Distiller, though I am writing this in a personal capacity and in no way does anything i write represent the group – I’m no official spokesman. We’re a completely community based effort that exists in order to help people grow technology startups in a “loving” environment, with the end goal being that the companies grow up much the same way that someone who was raised in a good, loving home would grow up – sympathetic to the environment that they exist in and aware of their responsibilities hence.

   As far as our group is concerned, we’re apolitical. Personally, I’m on the urban liberal end of the labour party spectrum, but this is in no way representative of the group as a whole, though I will comment that the extreme, cut-throat capitalists seem to go other places to further their Atlas fantasies.

   I feel very comfortable that I can be both pro-entrepreneurship and also support left-wing positions on things like health, infrastructure, culture etc. Sure, extremists like Draco will never be happy until revolution, but I don’t understand why running a community based “Incubator” is being so criticised – the quotation marks were used because we exist in someways as a reaction to the incubation system. As far as I’m concerned the Distiller is one of the most positive groups I’ve been involved with and think that, as the companies grow, we will make a good contribution to NZ society.

   In the end, businesses are an important part of our society, whether Draco likes it or not. Sure, positions around who should own natural monopolies are a different area, but in the space we work in to me it seems natural for a Labour candidate to approve of such a system. Being left wing doesn’t mean being anti-business/entrepreneurship as far as I’m concerned, maybe in 1917, but since then the world has moved on.
   • Colonial Viper 9.1

     11 October 2010 at 6:00 pm

     Hi Chris, sounds like your team have put into practice what management science has known for decades but the Right Wing constantly ignores – entrepreneurial people and innovators are typically motivated by different things, of which money is just one. Great job and best wishes for continued ‘success’ – however your organisation defines it.

     And yes, I agree with you, the Left need to be strong supporters of kiwi innovation, team work and entrepreneurship. Its the only way we will become less dependent on external factors, and the only way we will develop and keep home grown talent.
   • Carol 9.2

     11 October 2010 at 6:35 pm

     Sounds good, Chris. Thanks for the explanation. All the best with it.
   • lprent 9.3

     11 October 2010 at 7:55 pm

     We run this site pretty much on an “agree to disagree” basis where we constrain the trolls and anyone else who wants to disrupt debate (outlined in the policy). It means that you can get a pretty wide range of opinion, often strongly put, and frequently deliberately designed by the author or commentator to forment debate and responses like yours. Don’t bother getting upset. Just argue your viewpoint as you have done.

     There are a wide range of opinions here. Personally I support incubators, but I’m an Otago MBA who has spent the last 20 years almost entirely working in high tech startups. But I have qualms about incubators that are to do with how to move the resulting companies out into commercialization, and how to recover funds to start new incubator businesses.
   • nzfp 9.4

     11 October 2010 at 8:16 pm

     Hi Chris,
     I can’t speak for Draco – but I know we share economic viewpoints.

     Something I was trying to put across was that ample funding should be made available – directly from the Government via the RBNZ as explicitly stated in the The Public Finance Act 1989 No 44 (as at 30 July 2010), Public Act section 65L and section 47 – for such things as Technology Incubators – just like the Distiller group you have described.

     Your group could/should be funded by your local body Government – via zero interest loans from the RBNZ and Treasury – or even better by a National fund specifically for the purpose.

     The benefits are many and obvious.

     Good luck to you – read “The Public Finance Act 1989 No 44 (as at 30 July 2010), Public Act section 65L and section 47” and agitate for the new Dunedin mayor to setup a fund for you using this Act!

     Captcha: REGARDS – to you.
   • Draco T Bastard 9.5

     11 October 2010 at 8:23 pm

     I don’t know why you’re mentioning me in there in the way that you do. I didn’t criticise your incubator. In fact, if I was still in Dunedin I’d consider joining it.

     In the end, businesses are an important part of our society,

     The services that businesses provide society (well, some of them are, others are just money making ponzi schemes) are important. It’s not business that I’m against – it’s the ownership and authoritarian bent of capitalism.

     Being left wing doesn’t mean being anti-business/entrepreneurship as far as I’m concerned, maybe in 1917, but since then the world has moved on.

     Go study history a bit more as it’s not that we’ve moved on but that we’ve gone backwards 2 centuries over the last 3 decades.

     Sure, extremists like Draco will never be happy until revolution,

     He who would move a mountain, starts by moving small stones.
     • Chris Bull 9.5.1

       11 October 2010 at 9:18 pm

       Sorry, Draco. Reading your above posts you gave off a pretty hostile to business and trade attitude – unfairly so, in my opinion.
10. Trevor Mallard 10

    11 October 2010 at 10:21 pm

    Would have sort weightless exports such as these environmentally as well as economically good. Important we keep developing systems of keeping as much of the ownership here as is possible.
    • Draco T Bastard 10.1

      12 October 2010 at 8:52 am

      We can’t export ourselves out of debt when everybody else is trying to do the same thing and everybody else has the same problem – excess production. It’s why there’s a global currency war heating up.
      • nzfp 10.1.1

        12 October 2010 at 10:45 am

        We can’t export ourselves out of debt when everybody else is trying to do the same thing

        Not at all – and to add to that – (to quote American economist Professor Michael Hudson):

        debts that can’t be paid won’t be paid

        That’s another reason why there is a currency war.

        The debt deflation and conditions of the currency war we are in the middle of has been mathematical modeled and demonstrated by Australian economist Steve Keen in a recent presentation to the American Monetary Institute (AMI). Keen has shown that private debt based economies – such as ours – that become financialised and parasitical – such as ours – are doomed to debt deflation and crash.

        Keens presentation shows that exports will not lead to a global recovery – especially as Draco has pointed out – every man and his dog will be attempting the same strategy – and we cannot compete with China on this.

        However, we can change our economy and monetary system and focus on technology and business incubation for internal demand and where it fits external exports. It should be noted that a fundamental change in our economy will promote a more local – business and entrpreneur friendly – economy which is sustainable and environmentally responsible anyway.

        You can read the details and watch a video of Keens presentation, as well as download the software and datasets Keen used to model the system – for yourself from his website:

        http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/2010/10/04/jubilee-shares-and-the-american-monetary-act/

Links to post

1. The Standard: posted on 10 October 2010 at 8:53 pm
2. Francois Bondiguel: posted on 11 October 2010 at 4:35 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS