ImperatorFish: Poor, sick, and unemployed looking forward to MRP share offer

19 comments on “ImperatorFish: Poor, sick, and unemployed looking forward to MRP share offer ”

• Comments are now closed

1. ropata 1

   6 March 2013 at 1:18 pm

   It’s absolutely marvellous that average mum and dad kiwi investors like Ron Brierly, Bob Jones, and Mark Hotchins will be at the front of the queue, participating in a fair and democratically apportioned share offer.
   (comment recycled from IF)
   • kiwi_prometheus 1.1

     6 March 2013 at 2:20 pm

     Actually when Contact Energy was sold in 1999, it created 225 000 share holders mostly of the “mum and dad” sorts.

     Within 2 years 100 000 of them has bailed.

     “Ensuring strong demand for Mighty River Power shares in Australia is key to the Government’s partial privatisation plan…

     …For whatever reason Kiwis don’t seem to make natural share investors. Putting money into a company for the medium to long term just doesn’t seem to appeal. Lack of patience? Lack of understanding? Whatever the reason, there doesn’t seem to be that stickability when it comes to share investment.”

     http://www.interest.co.nz/opinion/63413/opinion-ensuring-strong-demand-mighty-river-power-shares-australia-key-government%E2%80%99s-pa
     • geoff 1.1.1

       6 March 2013 at 4:23 pm

       …For whatever reason Kiwis don’t seem to make natural share investors.

       Right, so they should never have sold Contact.
       • kiwi_prometheus 1.1.1.1

         6 March 2013 at 7:32 pm

         Maybe. I’m not a fan of public asset sales.

         But it is happening and this article makes an interesting read on the event and as it points out there will be plenty of mum and dad investors lining up.
         • Bunji 1.1.1.1.1

           6 March 2013 at 10:16 pm

           Dude, it’s satire! That’s exactly what it’s not saying…
2. AsleepWhileWalking 2

   6 March 2013 at 2:17 pm

   I particularly enjoying this post, possibly because I actually registered my interest in the fervent hope that I would win ozlotto and be able to buy some shares, thereby positioning myself for life.

   In real life I’m stuck on an Invalids benefit and in treatment most days of the week.

   [NZ lotteries are too expensive and the prizes suck – and what’s with that winning wheel crap? Like I’d wanna advertise I was in the money to a bunch of long lost relies and “friends” who don’t even get along with me on FB].
   • Descendant Of Sssmith 2.1

     6 March 2013 at 6:42 pm

     No doubt as the PM thinks that this is so really really important beneficiaries will be able to get a special one off advance to buy their share of the shares.

     This will ensure the most disadvantaged can have access
     Won’t cost the government any more money as advances have to be paid back – beneficiaries would be using their own money
     Maximise the number of NZer’s that can buy shares
     Given the expectations of good returns reduce beneficiary dependancy via fewer food grants paid out
     To ensure they keep the shares they should be exempted from consideration in all asset tests etc like the government currently does with Kiwisaver funds – it’s your own special slice of NZ.

     For low income earners they could be allowed to capitalise their WFF or other entitlements such as help with accommodation.

     Seems to me a great opportunity to help ensure mum and dads actually get the shares.
   • xtasy 2.2

     7 March 2013 at 12:32 am

     Out of mischief, I think that all beneficiaries in this country should simply have their interests registered, and in the final minute withdraw or cancel it, turning the whole exercise into a gigantic shambles!

     Now what about that strategy???

     Yes more than the 340 thousand beneficiaries could do so, it could be half the population, who opposed all this, thus upset the whole registration and sales process, creating immense costs and inconveniencing the government in their plans.
3. Karl Sinclair 3

   6 March 2013 at 3:32 pm

   Check this out 2.2 Million + views and counting:
   (substitute New Zealanders and use the video as a metaphor for the current sale of Assets scam)

   Why Do Americans Tolerate Extreme Wealth Inequality?

   From Big Think: http://bigthink.com/praxis/why-do-americans-tolerate-extreme-wealth-inequality

   “New data shows Americans haven’t a clue how stunningly massive the wealth gap in their country really is. An excellent video blowing up on YouTube depicts this disparity and explains how badly Americans tend to underestimate it. No matter how many statistics you’ve read on the subject, the video deserves six minutes of your time”

   or here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM&feature=player_embedded#!

   Oh gee, I wonder how many NZ mums and dads are rushing to the asset sale website….

   Remember pessimism and skepticism will not be tolerated, you must be in OPTIMISTIC THINK…. all is good with NZ, nothing is bad, everyone can be who they want to be………………
   • freedom 3.1

     6 March 2013 at 3:42 pm

     snap, was just about to post it 🙂
     something every banker/trader or money lender at the temple should be made to watch before they start work,
     or sit to eat with their family
     • Arfamo 3.1.1

       6 March 2013 at 3:45 pm

       That’s a great way to show what’s happened in the US, but the average voter here will go so what? That’s the US. I’d love to see a similar set of graphs for NZ.
       • geoff 3.1.1.1

         6 March 2013 at 4:36 pm

         From MSD:

         In 2011 NZ gini coefficient was 0.34
         the USA was 0.38

         not wildly different so the overall distribution will probably be similar.
         • geoff 3.1.1.1.1

           6 March 2013 at 4:39 pm

           I should say that was for income.
           For wealth, the NZ figures are even more unequal than for income:

           (from the same source)
           
           6 Wealth is distributed more unequally than income.

           Wealth Gini scores are typically two to three times those for income.
           In New Zealand, those in the top income decile receive 25% of gross income; those in the top wealth decile hold 50% of the total wealth.
           New Zealand’s top decile wealth share is similar to those found in many other OECD countries: Australia and the UK (45%), Germany (52%), Canada (53%) and Sweden (58%). For the US it is around 70%.
           
         • Arfamo 3.1.1.1.2

           6 March 2013 at 4:49 pm

           Probably, but the graphs would make an impact only if they’re charting NZ’s wealth distribution over time. They’d be a handy tool for someone in an election year, but a possible handicap for any party that can be accused of having green lighted the wealth transfer unless they can say they’ve had an epiphany since then and are now on a totally different track.
           • Murray Olsen 3.1.1.1.2.1

             6 March 2013 at 9:27 pm

             I’m just guessing, but I think that party might be Labour. I can’t see any sign of caucus being on a different track. If the members get the say they’re supposed to, the party as a whole might be. How they would get that message across with an ABC frontbench, I just don’t know.
     • Karl Sinclair 3.1.2

       7 March 2013 at 2:23 pm

       Hey Freedom, LOL…

       The great thing about the internet is you can start to compare and contrast different data that is objective and based on fact. Unfortunately it does not get any better…… Funny how this does not really make the mainstream media in NZ. Check this out:

       1.
       http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html
       Here is some sound data on economic inequality, and it shows it gets worse when rich and poor are too far apart: real effects on health, lifespan, even such basic values as trust.

       2.
       Then combine it with: The Whitehall Study
       http://www.ucl.ac.uk/whitehallII/pdf/Whitehallbooklet_1_.pdf

       “The Whitehall studies have dispelled two myths. The first
       is that people in high status jobs have higher risks of
       heart disease. The second is that the gradient of health in
       industrialised societies is simply a matter of poor health
       for the disadvantaged and good health for everyone else. ”

       3. Just to top it off with the latest data:
       Child poverty in the US has reached record levels, with almost 17 million children now affected. A growing number are also going hungry on a daily basis.

       http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21636723

       Sigh……. where the hell is the prozac and what are those ABs up to…………………
4. Anne 4

   7 March 2013 at 11:11 am

   I think we need to separate the fourth Labour govt. from the Labour Party. It was an aberration. At the time few people understood what was going on. The agenda was rolled out over 3 to 4 years and by the time the penny dropped it was too late. Helen Clark was one of the few who did understand, and I was witness to the extraordinary effort of the rogernome clique to vilify her for that reason. She was criticised in later years for staying quiet but she had no choice. The rogernomes were the dominant force and would have hounded her out of parliament had she poked as much as her nose above the parapet.

   David Cunliffe is in a similar position today but for slightly different reasons although there are a few parallels. There will come a time in the near future (I hope) when the ABC club will no longer be a force to contend with and Labour once again reasserts its basic principles, and proves it can be a strong, stable partner in a left of centre coalition government. Perhaps for the first time the wrongs of the 80s and 90s can at last be fully righted.

   Oh well, hope springs eternal.
   • Treetop 4.1

     7 March 2013 at 3:21 pm

     Good analysis. It took Clark 18 years to be PM.

     Is there something in the NZ psyche which prefers to hang onto a government for nine years, if so what is it?

     I reiterate, “Cunliffe attacks the problem better than Shearer does.”
     • Treetop 4.1.1

       7 March 2013 at 3:30 pm

       I forgot to add that in 1984 Lange was the clear winner as Labour leader and in 1999 so was Clark. Labour voters really liked them and both Lange and Clark were capable caucus leaders.

       Do the Labour voters really like Shearer?

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS