Open mike 06/12/2011

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, December 6th, 2011 - 83 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

Open mike is your post. For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the link to Policy in the banner).

Step right up to the mike…

83 comments on “Open mike 06/12/2011 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. mickysavage 1
    6 December 2011 at 6:17 am

    Yesterday’s politics on Radio New Zealand’s nine to noon show left me with a familiar yet unusual feeling.  John Pagani was there to represent the left and Matthew Hooton to represent the right.  I expected the usual beat up on the left and claims of extremism and for such comments to be met with a reasoned and fact based response.

    This duly occurred.  There was the claim that David Cunliffe, one of Labour’s leadership candidates, had advocated for the forced renationalisation of privatised assets.  Forced renationalisation I tell you, forced renationalisation.  This was met with the calm response that the claim was “a bit extreme”.

    What was unusual however was that Pagani was the one who made the extreme comment and Hooton was the reasoned and fact based responder.

    Pagani’s claim that Cunliffe said he will forcibly renationalise sold assets has the unfortunate feature that Cunliffe actually did not say this.  Cunliffe actually said, when asked about what he would do about privatisation, that he would not rule out renationalising some sold assets and would look hard at buying them back.

    Somehow to Pagani this means that all sold assets will be forcibly renationalised, presumably without compensation.  If you think about it you will do it.  If only.

    He then had the cheek to suggest that the commentary around this particular issue was building up.  He neglected to mention that he was the one busily constructing the theme as fast as he could do so.

    The suggestion that the support for Shearer is essentially coming from the old guard yesterday became even more credible.

    • Pete George 1.1
      6 December 2011 at 7:21 am

      What Cunliffe said:

      “I don’t stand for a paler shade of blue, and I want to look down the barrel and say this: if the Government is going to sell off precious state assets then we would not rule out re-nationalising some of them. And people need to be aware of that regulatory risk.”

      So he started talking tough, then softened substantially. It’s difficult trying to talk to multiple audiences at the same time. And is now he seems to be fizzling out on it.

      http://yourdunedin.org/2011/12/06/labour-leadership-maneuvering/

    • Colonial Viper 1.2
      6 December 2011 at 7:48 am

      Pagani’s claim that Cunliffe said he will forcibly renationalise sold assets has the unfortunate feature that Cunliffe actually did not say this.

      🙁

  2. kriswgtn 2
    6 December 2011 at 6:37 am

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/6089778/Superannuation-debate-part-of-election-deal

    “Mr Key had previously promised to resign as prime minister rather than support a change in the age of eligibility for superannuation. Yesterday he said a change of the kind proposed by UnitedFuture would not violate that pledge.””

    Guess its all in the wording aye

    • rosy 2.1
      6 December 2011 at 7:14 am

      Yeah – I can only see 3 possibles for this:
      1. The debate is a non-debate
      2. Key is going to resign
      3. A promise will be broken – probably due to a dynamic environment

    • Pete George 2.2
      6 December 2011 at 7:24 am

      The United Future flexible super proposal wouldn’t violate Key’s pledge, it still provides the option of the status quo plus offers choice of earlier or later uptake.

      • chris73 2.2.1
        6 December 2011 at 8:07 am

        I think Dunnes idea of superannuation is the best I’ve heard so far (if the numbers do stack up)

        • Afewknowthetruth 2.2.1.1
          6 December 2011 at 8:38 am

          chris.

          I know you ar not keen on informed analysis but for the sake of getting the truth out:

          In the past it was possible for governments of western nations to provide most people with a high standard of living because large amounts of resources (trees, oil, rubber, gold, diamonds etc.) were being stolen from poor countries (especially those in Africa, South America and Asia) while the populations of those nations lived [by western standards] in extreme poverty, coal was being dug out the ground very cheaply, and oil was coming out the ground at very low cost.

          Those arrangements gradually came to an end in the latter part of the twentieth century and the first few years of the twenty-first century, and ceased around 2008. Add to the mix the fact that global population tripled in the last half of the twentieth century, so there are now three times as many people as in 1950 chasing less resources. The numbers do not stack up and never will.

          What we have at the moment is a system of financial fraud, whereby the reality of collapse of the system is being concealed from the general public via massive amounts of borrowing which devalues all the money already in the system -hence the cost of all the basics are rising rapidly.

          Since the entire Ponzi scheme is dependent on perpetual economic growth [on a finite planet], which is a mathematical impossibility and is gringing to a halt (as it must ) , and since the entire Ponzi scheme is dependent on creating money out of thin air via the international bond market, expect all super schemes to ‘go up in smoke’ over the next few years, just as has been happening in the US recently.

          Also expect to be utterly ‘shafted’ by Dunne over the next few years.

          .

      • rosy 2.2.2
        6 December 2011 at 8:09 am

        That’s the least obvious option that I can see – for a start the administrative costs will either make super more expensive, or they’ll be clawed back. But, we’ll see I guess.

        • chris73 2.2.2.1
          6 December 2011 at 8:49 am

          Well on theory it sounds good, retire early get less or retire later get more as some people don’t want to retire at 65 so its good to let people have choice in these matters

          I’d be curious to see the numbers if everyone retired early or later as that could get interesting

          • locus 2.2.2.1.1
            6 December 2011 at 9:20 am

            i think there’s a heck of a lot more people who want to retire as early as possible.

            “Most workers in most OECD countries leave the labour market before the standard pension eligibility age.”
            http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/download/fulltext/8111011ec006.pdf?expires=1323116591&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=5E9193C181FFAB6BBB6DCD4E6F93843C

            Mind you, kiwis may not conform to the average 🙂

            • chris73 2.2.2.1.1.1
              6 December 2011 at 9:55 am

              I know I would

              • Afewknowthetruth …
                6 December 2011 at 10:11 am

                chris

                Don’t forget that back in the 1980s the retrement age was 60 and many supernnuanants took two or three overseas holidays a year to prevent their bank balances getting too high.

                How times have changed as more and more resources have been consumed and converted into waste.

                If you were born in 1973 you will never receive a retirement benefit at 60, 65, 67, 70 or any other number. The present economic system will not endure beyond 2020, and many parts of it will collapse before then.

            • Puddleglum 2.2.2.1.1.2
              6 December 2011 at 11:46 am

              I think Dunne’s policy would build in further inequality into our society.

              Those able to retire early on reduced superannuation would be those who either have substantial assets or private super schemes to supplement a reduced entitlement for the rest of their lives.

              As I read it (hopefully I’m wrong), any low income worker who retired earlier would be consigned, for the rest of their lives, to a lower superannuation than someone who retired at 65 or later. Such low income workers would likely be those who, for (mental and/or physical) health reasons needed to retire sooner. Given that the present entitlement is very restrictive for those who have no other means of support, expect old age poverty to reappear in significant numbers in New Zealand.

              Typically, those low income workers still able to work would ‘choose’ to work beyond 65 in order to gain the higher rate. Yet, those same workers are less likely to live as long – and working longer at the jobs they work at may well further reduce their life expectancy.

              Overall, many bad ‘unintended’ consequences for poorer people is what I foresee. 

              • rosy …
                7 December 2011 at 3:40 am

                Yes, a typical example of why UF is more at home with National than Labour. Nothing about this policy supports equitable distribution of resources. A bit like their income-splitting, it sounds oh so reasonable but the costs of the policy are superficially hidden in the end wil be borne by the less well-off.

    • travellerev 2.3
      6 December 2011 at 9:02 am

      It’s all dinamic environment, ain’t it!

  3. tc 3
    6 December 2011 at 7:07 am

    Can anybody enlighten me about changes to legislation being passed under WTO mandates that govern such issues as food sharing and what seed you can base your crops on.

    Keep hearing from concerned rural folk who want a simple life and not be told what to grow and what they can do with it.

    • Afewknowthetruth 3.1
      6 December 2011 at 9:49 am

      tc.

      People around here who are awake are very concerned that legislation is well on the way to being passed by [NZ] parliament. The fascists who make up the majority of MPs will facilitate the next phase of the corporate takeover of society soon.

      People will soon be getting what they voted for -more frankenfood (of low nutritional value) distributed at high cost via frankenoutlets (which transfer wealth to those who already have far too much).

      Those who don’t wish to be part of this dytopian future are keeping their heads down and getting on with what needs to be done to live healthy lives and survive the impending crash of the system.

      • AAMC 3.1.1
        6 December 2011 at 10:37 am

        Dig up your lawn, plant only orgainc seeds, save seeds from each crop and distribute both crop and seed amongst friends, plant seedlings around your neigbourhood as living urban sculptures, leave trays of seedlings where there is foot traffic with take me home and plant me signs. Lead by example, prepare for this law, defy false authority.

        Watch this clip… #occupyfood

        [lprent: Another bug to fix. ]

  4. Chris Oden 4
    6 December 2011 at 8:07 am

    Just because I could I googled Laurel and Hardy and found a clip of them from “Way out West” doing an extremely funny dance.Now I know where Key was cloned from.I forget who is who but Key is the absolute dead spit for the little one. Even the dancing is exactly like Key.Right down to the fatuous grin and the mincing walk.A must see.

    • mac1 4.1
      6 December 2011 at 12:16 pm

      Oy, Chris Oden, that sequence is one of my favourite funny memories from childhood reconfirmed by the magic of Youtube- and now ruined by the thought of Stan Laurel as Key.

      Heh. Perhaps Stephen Joyce is Oliver Hardy?

  5. In Vino Veritas 5
    6 December 2011 at 8:11 am

    Thought for today:

    “Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy.” – Winston Churchill

    • Uturn 5.1
      6 December 2011 at 8:28 am

      Freedom in capitalist society always remains about the same as it was in ancient Greek republics: Freedom for slave owners. – Vladimir Lenin

    • millsy 5.2
      6 December 2011 at 8:35 am

      I dont recall Winston Churchill selling off the coal mines that the Atlee government nationalised.

    • joe90 5.3
      6 December 2011 at 8:43 am

      Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.

      Abraham Lincoln: State of the Union Address 1861

    • locus 5.4
      6 December 2011 at 8:46 am

      Reply to thought for the day:

      IVV – you missed the beginning of the Churchill quote which was “The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; ……”

      And it’s instructive that in 1945, Churchill’s anti soicialist rhetoric contributed to a landslide victory for the British Labour Party

    • Bored 5.5
      6 December 2011 at 9:03 am

      The counterpoint of envy is charity, something in pitifully short supply in the Randian psychopathy we describe as neo liberal political economy.

      That system is driven by greed, so to St Thomas Aquinas on greed…”a sin against God, just as all mortal sins, in as much as man condemns things eternal for the sake of temporal things.”

    • Afewknowthetruth 5.6
      6 December 2011 at 9:29 am

      IVV

      ‘Churchill’s wry comment on the business was that he’d supposed the miners to be the most unreasonable people he had ever met, until he met the mine owners’. -British General Strike 1926.

      Life and Times of Winston Churchill

    • AAMC 5.7
      6 December 2011 at 10:39 am

      “Capitalism is the legitimate racket of the ruling class.”
      Al Capone

    • Draco T Bastard 5.8
      6 December 2011 at 1:37 pm

      Oh, look at that, a Pisshead agreeing with a Pisshead.

      Capitalism is the failure and the cause of poverty. If you still “believe” in it after it just fell over again then it is you that is ignorant and wilfully so.

    • the pink postman 5.9
      6 December 2011 at 2:02 pm

      Well he would say that would he not.? After all in 1912 he wanted to shoot the striking miners.

    • Treetop 5.10
      6 December 2011 at 11:25 pm

      “We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.” – Albert Einstein

      What would Einstein make of asset sales?

  6. Afewknowthetruth 6
    6 December 2011 at 8:57 am

    Another elephant in the room:

    ‘New Zealand homes are overvalued by 25 per cent and the country is one of nine under threat of a housing bubble burst, says the Economist.’

    http://msn.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10771182&ref=rss

    NZ does seem to have divided into two nations over recent years: Auckland, which has been turned into a gigantic speculative casiono, and the rest of the country.

    ‘New Zealand’s QV agency has found house prices nationally have dropped only 4.4 per cent below the peak in 2007, and yesterday Barfoot & Thompson released data showing the November average selling price rose by 2.5 per cent on October to $567,489, its second-highest average monthly price ever.’

    • In Vino Veritas 6.1
      6 December 2011 at 10:45 am

      25%? You won’t be too worried then Afew, your bunker in the wops won’t be under threat, though your internet connection might be. Surely you should be using carrier pigeons?

    • vto 6.2
      6 December 2011 at 11:49 am

      I struggle with that. House values today are generally below cost already. Unless the underlying land values go through the floor into subterranean territory…

      • Afewknowthetruth 6.2.1
        6 December 2011 at 12:57 pm

        vto

        The last time I was in Orewa (about 6 years ago) specualtors were asking (and getting) $350,000 for fairly standard a piece of dirt to build on.

        Yes, the cost of building materials, labour and compliance costs have pushed the cost of new housing beyond what can be regarded as sane.

        However, Auckland is in a fairly unique position of attracting economic and environmental refugees from overseas and is not a sane place. The huge pressure for accommodation is totally skewing everything.

        In Taranaki things are failry stable. In the Manawatu things are looking pretty dire from what I have heard. In Canterbury there is huge demand within commuting distance of Christchurch, but beyond that things are fairly dire (falling prices) from what I have heard

        Because Auckland and Christchurch together make up such a huge portion of national statistics and because the A + C markest are so skewed at the moment weird things are happening.

  7. uke 7
    6 December 2011 at 9:32 am

    Isn’t it interesting how, after months of refusing to appear on RNZ, PM Key seems to be popping up every morning for a chat?

    • Afewknowthetruth 7.1
      6 December 2011 at 9:58 am

      uke

      I wouldn’t know. I gave up listening to the propaganda NR churns out years ago. It’s very bad for one’s mental health.

      Bill English used have entertainment value because what he said was so ludicrous, but now that he is in power and digging NZ into an ever deeper hole he’s not funny anymore.

      • uke 7.1.1
        6 December 2011 at 10:08 am

        AFKTT: I agree. In the past I have stopped listening to RNZ for long spells  but tend to drift back. It’s not nearly so mentally harmful as TV, which we gave away completely in our household about three years ago. That helped a lot. Recently we viewed a DVD which had some of the latest advertisements on it. That was a shock. Until you stop watching those things every day, you don’t realise how overbearing and aggressive they are. I think it was Frank Zappa who termed TV ads “the dreamtime of a capitalist society”.
         
        BTW, in your setup that you have designed to withstand looming socio-economic collapse, how are you going to contend with the inevitable gate-crashers who turn up wanting the fruits of your garden?

        • Afewknowthetruth 7.1.1.1
          6 December 2011 at 11:13 am

          uke.

          That is a commonly discussed topic here:

          http://guymcpherson.com/

          I have a theory that society is now so dumbed-down that when ‘the shit hits the fan’ a large portion of society (especially those living in big cities) will sit in front of their television sets and wait for the government or the council to save them. They are literally addicted to nonsense.

        • Tiger Mountain 7.1.1.2
          6 December 2011 at 2:50 pm

          Well there could be a lot of gate crashers if you factor in the paltry number of days foodstocks held by major ‘just in time’ retailers in cities and towns. Civil defence know this stuff. Idiot consumers don’t.

          I actually feel lucky to live in the Far North with 10,000 litres of rain water in tanks, vege garden, gas or wood for cooking if power goes out and I am not even an eco warrior. In a serious breakdown hungry city folks or even non farming rural folks seeking kai will get the hunting guns turned on them and the farmers will keep the meat.

          AFKTT makes some good points, just the posts are a little long sometimes.

  8. s y d 8
    6 December 2011 at 10:00 am

    what is going on here….more chump change maybe, or maybe just gifting assets now?

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/business/93038/whirinaki-sold-to-contact

    http://tvnz.co.nz/content/428631/2556418.xhtml

  9. joe90 9
    6 December 2011 at 10:19 am

    Why this country continues to support the incumbent regime is beyond me.

    Afghanistan’s women languishing in prisons 10 years after fall of Taliban

    Figures disclosed to The Daily Telegraph show that half of the country’s jailed women — about 350 — have been sentenced for “moral crimes”. For girls aged 12 to 18 in prison, the figure rises to four-fifths.

    The latest United Nations figures estimate that the women’s prison population has risen to 600, up from 380 two years ago.

    A further 114 girls aged 12 to 18 are locked up, of which 80 per cent are serving sentences for either running away from home or extramarital sex, an Afghan justice official said

  10. David 10
    6 December 2011 at 10:28 am

    Ok, so let’s have a debate about Labour’s economic policy, who fronts it from here, and the relationship with the leader and (looks like) his office.

    There is a real opportunity here and NOW for us to present a coherent alternative economic policy to the friendly, ‘inclusive’ neoliberalism that has run things here for the last 15 or so years. The GFC, the housing bubbles and private debt blowout, questions of whether ownership of revenue and profit producing assets and companies really matters or not, economic geography and how a small place like ours copes with increasing scale returns that would see all regional head offices in Melbourne or Sydney, monetary policy and how to actually enable exports, building something new on the back of primary production, dealing with inequalities and the labour market, how to deal with fundmanagers who via Kiwisaver will run much of the nations savings, deal with the housing market which has probably done more than anything else to contribute to rising child poverty (rising real rents) and suck money out of productive investments, deal with the utilities ‘market’ which ditto has added vast amounts of household outgoings, deal with duopoly in supermarkets, deal with the sugar lobby who have stymieed public health reform, deal with strategic national investment coming out from from the Cullen and other sovereign wealth funds, deal with regulating Aussie banks and building KiwiBank and Kiwisafe and govt Kiwisaver into …. and plenty more.

    We had the large bits of this going into the last election: but for whatever reason (I have my suspicions) we didnt stitch it together into a coherent narrative people could get. We didnt sell it as a story, because I think ultimately leadership and campaign strategy didnt really see or believe it was a compelling alternative economic narrative. Was this because they were lite blue? Not sure that is the whole story. But i couldnt honestly rule it out. Was it because they lacked an overall political economic analytic framework within which the real dimensions of a real alternative would become clear? Yes. Was it because they were driven by fragmented polling questions not framed against an overall analytic framing? yes. was it because this left them in reactionary and negative mode, mainly opposing things, rather than looking forward to and projecting a vision what the economy etc might be ? yes.

    Now, what next for labour economic policy wise: you could sit and wait for Treasury to offer some strategic social democratically oriented advice in one or two of these areas. Ok sorry back the question. You could formulate policy at arms length from leadership, but risk they dont get the overall narrative and analysis and cant plausibly and personally sell it effectively as an alternative (but will bust off and poll against bits of it like ‘no GST on food’ and throw that out there like a fizzing firecracker). You could trust this to smart people like Parker and Jones who have some great ideas and some balls, but from what I have seen, forgive me guys not the bigger overall vision and expertise/ confidence in dealing with things like Telecom, etc. Or you could have the best closest relationship possible (after some lumps are sorted) between a brilliant overall economic strategist and an emerging political maestro: a kind of Clark Cullen for the 6th Labour government.

    I know what i would like to see. But I am on the outside, and maybe there is something here no-one is telling me.

    meantime I wonder: can David Shearer really lead the nation on this stuff? David Parker? even Grant? not so sure…. Should we let them have a go and see how we get on?? Hmm.

    And without getting this economic vision etc right, there just arent going to be $$ for dealing with the fruits of 6 years of Nats: funding public schools and hospitals to the point where they can compete with / offer comparable standards to the charter schools and private hospitals the Nats will have subsidised and moved into ‘mainstream’ education. The money to do serious social housing, which is what the kids freezing in one room of an uninsulated state house mum cant afford to heat need. and I could go on.

    For god’s sake let’s make the most of the team we have, and make sure it’s lead by someone who really can lead when it comes to policy, presenting it, defending it, and getting the better of the nats and Key on it. .

    • Afewknowthetruth 10.1
      6 December 2011 at 11:48 am

      David

      It would make a lot of sense to start from scratch. However, that will not happen because of the psychology of previous investment. And ego. There are far too many people in Labour who would have to admit they’ve been barking up the wrong tree for decades. They just will not do that.

      The most important lesson of history is that the lessons of history are not learned.

      Political parties rarely reform themselves. They normally keep banging away with whatever they’ve always done until they can’t.

      Humanity is on the cusp of the greatest discontininuity in all of history and most Labour MPs:

      1. don’t know

      2. don’t want to know.

      3. are in denial

      4. are too cowardly to speak the truth.

      • David 10.1.1
        6 December 2011 at 2:00 pm

        Thanks afkt: I have heard your wise voice before, I think. I do think though think there are some people who will listen to this kind of analysis, and I intend to make sure they hear it. Value any further guidance, as ever. would like to hear/ see your version of this.

        Glad, though, we are all having some of this debate!! It’s a breath of fresh air.

      • Draco T Bastard 10.1.2
        6 December 2011 at 2:10 pm

        There are far too many people in Labour who would have to admit they’ve been barking up the wrong tree for decades. They just will not do that.

        Agreed. I see passion and willingness to help eradicate some of the imbalances caused by capitalism but they won’t accept that capitalism and the profit driven free-market is the problem. Because of this they’re stuck in the mindset of helping business grow.

  11. Jackal 11
    6 December 2011 at 11:18 am

    New Zealand ripped off

    Being that National has managed to more than double our total government debt, could somebody please explain why they’re borrowing so heavily?

    • Draco T Bastard 11.1
      6 December 2011 at 2:12 pm

      The article I linked to in comment 12 tells you.

      • Jackal 11.1.1
        6 December 2011 at 5:11 pm

        Thanks DTB. I particularly like this bit though:

        The failure to take the wishes of voters into consideration leaves the resulting national debts on shaky ground politically and even legally. Debts imposed by fiat, by governments or foreign financial agencies in the face of strong popular opposition may be as tenuous as those of the Habsburgs and other despots in past epochs. Lacking popular validation, they may die with the regime that contracted them. New governments may act democratically to subordinate the banking and financial sector to serve the economy, not the other way around.

        One can only hope. Interesting read but not specific to National’s borrowing regime. Even accounting for the global recession, downturn and Christchurch earthquakes, I don’t see how National is managing to borrow so much?

  12. Draco T Bastard 12
    6 December 2011 at 11:18 am

    Democracy and Debt

    This is turning international finance into a new mode of warfare. Its objective is the same as military conquest in times past: to appropriate land and mineral resources, communal infrastructure and extract tribute.

    Among Rome’s leading historians, Livy, Plutarch and Diodorus blamed the fall of the Republic on creditor intransigence in waging the century-long Social War marked by political murder from 133 to 29 BC. Populist leaders sought to gain a following by advocating debt cancellations (e.g., the Catiline conspiracy in 63-62 BC). They were killed. By the second century AD about a quarter of the population was reduced to bondage. By the fifth century Rome’s economy collapsed, stripped of money. Subsistence life reverted to the countryside as a Dark Age descended.

    Seems that debt being used to accumulate communal land and rent has been around for some time and it brought about the same problems then as it does now – poverty, war and the collapse of the economy.

    • Afewknowthetruth 12.1
      6 December 2011 at 1:10 pm

      DTB

      Yes, the money system and debt was one of many factors that led to the collapse of the Roman Empire.

      Other factors were the ‘drying up’ of readily obtainable loot (the army was at its best when the treasure stolen from newly colonised lands could be used to pay for conquest), environmental destruction, poor farming practices.

      It’s always easier to build an empire than keep it.

      Every empire that ever emerged collapsed.

      The present global industrial-financial empire will be one of the most short-lived of all empires.

      • McFlock 12.1.1
        6 December 2011 at 2:57 pm

        DTB was talking the roman republic, not empire. Republic fell, triumvirate/triumvirate/Augustus.

        • Draco T Bastard 12.1.1.1
          6 December 2011 at 4:04 pm

          Actually, I was talking general history. Capitalism has been a failure for the last 5000 years and the reason is because a few people charge rent/interest in such a way as to accumulate all the wealth in a few hands which eventually trashes the economy. Combined with the mismanagement of resources due to the resultant dictatorship brings about the collapse of the civilisation/empire. The same thing is happening to the present globalised economy.

          • McFlock 12.1.1.1.1
            6 December 2011 at 4:21 pm

            whoops, missed the second half of the paragraph. My bad.
            I think the credit issue is especially relevant at the moment, because the immediate aftermath in rome was civil war and dictatorship. The resource-related collapse might or might not happen on the same timescale, but uk, greece etc tend to suggest anarchy then dictatorship is a possibility.

    • Bored 12.2
      6 December 2011 at 3:44 pm

      Athens had a similar problem: Solon cancelled debt leading to the golden age. They are still doing it, expect default any time soon.

  13. In Vino Veritas 13
    6 December 2011 at 3:34 pm

    I note that Maersk have pulled out from Ports of Auckland, costing nearly $20m in revenue. When the final washup is done, and jobs have been lost, there’ll be some port workers who will be wondering why they went on strike, since it’s unlikely they’ll be able to get another $91K job. Well done the Maritime Union, thats looking after your constituents.

    • Bored 13.1
      6 December 2011 at 3:42 pm

      Yeah right VV, great press, means fuck all. Its posturing, the buggers will always go where they can to get the best deals. Wager they will be back next week.

    • Draco T Bastard 13.2
      6 December 2011 at 4:05 pm

      I see you’re missing facts again. Maersk shifted ports because they’d been wooed to another port.

      • Ianupnorth 13.2.1
        6 December 2011 at 4:13 pm

        IVV did you ever managed to get a wage slip from one of those wharfies? Remember, they are claiming they get $13 per hour, which as I pointed out to you, means they’d need to work about 20 hours per day. Unlike the CEO who reportedly gets $3000 per day.

        • McFlock 13.2.1.1
          6 December 2011 at 4:24 pm

          yup – the tyranny of averages. The “Average Wage” for a “wharfie” depends entirely on who you count as a “wharfie” – supervisor? Manager? CEO?

          • Tiger Mountain 13.2.1.1.1
            6 December 2011 at 4:45 pm

            eff off IVV, it is such a classic corporate bait and switch move, if the Tauranga and Auckland port companies were amalgamated, competition removed, game over. Cargo would go to the best location.

            Workers are never right in a market scenario. But, workers who organise at least get a chance of dignity, better wages and kicking against the pricks.

          • In Vino Veritas 13.2.1.1.2
            7 December 2011 at 7:58 am

            McFlock, the Herald reported that the average wage for a full time stevedore at POA is $91480. I’m sure you’ll concede that the CEO wouldnt be counted as a stevedore.

            Further to that, 53% of full time stevedores (123 indviduals) earn over $80,000, with 28% (23 individuals) earning over $100,000. Plus they receive other benefits, including 5 weeks holiday and health insurance for themselves AND their families, amongst other things.

            Guess what McFlock? These guys are the rich pricks you and your ilk constantly rail against! Ironic, isnt it?

            Then there’s the crane drivers and deck foremen who work on average 5.33 hours for every 8 hours paid and straddle drivers who work an average 6 hours for every 8 paid . So, using Upnorths $13 per hour (if it were so), they are actually getting $19.52 for cranies and deck foremen, and $17.34 for straddle drivers.

            Then there’s the most probable reason for the lock out. Union thinking it was being clever, strikes Friday and Monday, with workers available Saturday and Sunday. Of course, all the shipping due diverts to other ports, meaning our erstwhile port workers get two days of sitting round on their arse getting paid.

            • McFlock 13.2.1.1.2.1
              7 December 2011 at 12:12 pm

              How many hours do they work? Does that include overtime for working stat holidays or night shifts? Does that include the wages for supervisory staff? Are there two tiers of staff, casual staff waiting for a cellphone call to see if they’re needed vs fulltime?
                
              Lastly, get over yourself – it’s not wealth that I find repugnant, it’s wealth accrued without work. Hereditary wealth, proceeds of gambling with other people’s money, monopoly exploitation, rent farming – that sort of thing.
                
               

        • Jackal 13.2.1.2
          6 December 2011 at 4:38 pm

          Cathy Odgers lost credibility when she claimed the wharfies are “rich pricks“. Mind you she never had any credibility to begin with… so I guess it doesn’t really matter.

  14. Jackal 14
    6 December 2011 at 4:26 pm

    Propaganda to discredit strike

    The ports of Auckland strike has certainly brought out the worst in some people, particularly the usual right wing bloggers that wouldn’t know the truth if it bit them on the arse. What they’re ignoring is that the proposal for shipping giant Maersk to move its operations to Port Tauranga has been around since August 2006…

  15. Afewknowthetruth 15
    6 December 2011 at 4:26 pm

    David.

    ‘Value any further guidance, as ever. would like to hear/ see your version of this.’

    I can only suggest you read this.

    http://www.publishme.co.nz/shop/theeasyway-p-684.html

    Practically everything you need to know is there.

    Available by inter-library loan if you genuinely cannot afford $20.

  16. Bored 16
    6 December 2011 at 4:30 pm

    Mentioned Randian psychopathy earlier. Just listened to some idiot over lunch (names not given) who honestly thought that we could cure any issue through the market…by rational selfishness aka greed, self interest. Rather than just crucify the bastard in an honest bit of charity to my fellow citizens I thought about what was said.

    Then I got really angry because I could envisage the antisocial construct that is “rational positivism” excluding any hint of charity except for selfish reasons. Or the doing of good for the reason that it was good regardless of any negative impact oneself. Or of pure altruism…in effect the selfish rationalism that underpins our current commercial and political construct is rotten to the core and can not be reformed. Which is why we should not trust “Blue Greens”……or banksters.

    • joe90 16.1
      6 December 2011 at 5:48 pm

      Uber-randian Ron Paul defends the 99%: In many ways, it’s a very healthy movement.

    • Afewknowthetruth 16.2
      6 December 2011 at 6:39 pm

      Bored.

      Randian psychopathy very much embraces the cult of technofundamentalism I mentioned earluer. To such people everything has an engineering solution and there are no limits.

      Earth overheating? -we’ll just put mirrors into orbit to reflect sunlight.

      Overpopulation a problem? -we’ll just build underwater cities.

      Earth runniing out of resources? -we’ll just mine Mars and Venus and bring back what we need.

      I must go. I need to replace the trilithium crystals in my warp drive.

      .

  18. logie97 18
    6 December 2011 at 7:48 pm

    So Pete Dunne retains the Family whatsit. Who will it be as it is now down to one? Given that Christine Rankin was seconded without a job description, will she be the chosen one for this undefined role or is she now history?

  19. joe90 19
    6 December 2011 at 8:19 pm

    Twelve heartbreaking facts I reckon.

    http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/12-extremely-disappointing-facts-about-popular-mus

    9. Barbra Streisand has sold more records (140 million) than Pearl Jam, Johnny Cash, and Tom Petty combined

  20. logie97 20
    6 December 2011 at 9:39 pm

    John Armstrong in the Herald today

    Quote… John Banks is nobody’s poodle. No poodle could have won the gains Banks has secured in return for Act guaranteeing National its support. …unquote

    Nah Armstrong, you just didn’t do your job leading up to the election. Banks is just articulating the National Party’s hidden agenda. And if it turns to custard, Key can blame ACT.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10771213

  21. Georgecom 21
    6 December 2011 at 10:33 pm

    Today I have come to the conclusion that we have a celebrity PM. That is, a PM famous for being famous rather than for what he has done. He is the political expression of the 21st century consumerist popular culture. The Kim Kardashian of NZ politics.