Open mike 08/10/2010

53 comments on “Open mike 08/10/2010 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Lindsey 1

   8 October 2010 at 7:07 am

   Am I the only cynical cow who thinks that if that inquest had been held next week, John Banks would not have been sobbing in the witness box?
   • The Voice of Reason 1.1

     8 October 2010 at 7:30 am

     Damn right, Lindsey! And I don’t think he’d have been allowed to speak at all, given that he had nothing to add that was relevant to the proceedings, if he wasn’t a well known politician. It’s hard to know what effect it will have, but the irony of him having a Len Brown moment of his own isn’t lost on me either.
     • Tigger 1.1.1

       8 October 2010 at 8:03 am

       Indeed. He added zero. It was bizarrely all about him, not the deceased.
   • comedy 1.2

     8 October 2010 at 8:01 am

     “Am I the only cynical cow who thinks that if that inquest had been held next week, John Banks would not have been sobbing in the witness box?”

     No you are not the only complete arse out there.

     I didn’t vote for him and think he is overly odd, has been around too long and should retire from politics, however, I think it’s reasonable to say his reaction is that of a parent in this instance not a politician…….. just because he’s on the other team from your pick doesn’t mean he’s automatically the devil incarnate.
     • Joe Bloggs 1.2.1

       8 October 2010 at 8:10 am

       What a bunch of nasty arse-faced cynical cows you are Lindsey, VoR and Tigger – trying to turn parental despair over the death of a son’s schoolmate into a political stunt! Shame on you.

       Cheap, trashy, trailer-park talk.
       • The Voice of Reason 1.2.1.1

         8 October 2010 at 8:20 am

         I wasn’t the one in the witness stand, JB, so it ain’t me turning the death into a political stunt. Banks had all morning to think about the effect of his taking the stand, including the political ramifications. If he thought it would harm his campaign, he would not have done it. Desperate, duplicitous and dodgy to the max. Bye, Banksie.
       • prism 1.2.1.2

         8 October 2010 at 8:06 pm

         Joe B and comedy – When it comes to Banks you’re are all heart!
   • freedom 1.3

     8 October 2010 at 8:30 am

     WE were not in the court and have no way to verify the emotional reality of the moment. I actually believe that he was reacting honestly to what is an awful situation for any parent. Who can say how any of us would react when in a similar situation, trying to deal with the tragic death of a child’s friend and the causes of the death being so close to home.

     in this instance i think we should respect the person and forget the politician.
     • Craig Glen Eden 1.3.1

       8 October 2010 at 9:59 am

       Bullshit if you have read what Banks has said at this hearing it had nothing to do with how this boy died it was all about John. This was a shameful display by a wash up politician to get himself in front of the media one last time.

       Any person with any dignity who truly wanted to express regret or take responsibility for their poor parenting or express compassion would have done so in private to this young mans family.

       Politicians know that media will cover such events, this was not done for the purposes of the investigation or the families benefit, John Banks you are a disgrace shame on you.
   • BLiP 1.4

     8 October 2010 at 11:35 am

     No, you’re not the cynic Lindsey, Banks is the cynic. The fucker actually asked to address the hearing so as to use the death of an innocent and his own son to garner support for mendacious political ends. I knew he was desperate but, as usual, I underestimated the depths who would plumb. The New Zeland Fox New Herald lapped it up.
   • Vicky32 1.5

     8 October 2010 at 5:31 pm

     Not at all! I thought the same thing…
     Deb
   • millsy 1.6

     8 October 2010 at 6:54 pm

     To be fair, at least JB didnt pack his kid off to boarding school as soon as he hit puberty, to pretty much bring himself up.

     And I belive that is what killed that young boy.

     His parents just packed him off to boarding school and washed their hands of him.
2. the sprout 2

   8 October 2010 at 8:24 am

   John Banks was showboating in the witness box, that really is disgusting
   • comedy 2.1

     8 October 2010 at 8:45 am

     wow you really are a lower form of life.
     • come get some 2.1.1

       8 October 2010 at 8:53 am

       coming from yourself that’s pretty rich
       • comedy 2.1.1.1

         8 October 2010 at 8:57 am

         hello sprout

         [lprent: IP numbers say that is not the case. ]
         • Tigger 2.1.1.1.1

           8 October 2010 at 11:47 am

           My husband asked: ‘Why is he there?’ and I agree. Why was he there? What did he add to the inquest? And why was it filmed/broadcast?

           I find cyncism useful when dealing with anything political…
           • nzfp 2.1.1.1.1.1

             8 October 2010 at 12:33 pm

             I think he was speaking in defensive of / on behalf of his son at the inquest. I think that’s fair enough. If I was in his shoes I would do anything I could do for my boy.

             However what isn’t fair is the advantage that a full night of news coverage along with scenes of tears to tug at the heart strings gives to the John Banks for Mayor campaign right at the end of the Auckland super city election.

             It couldn’t have been more obvious if they tried!

             Captcha: users – the definition of the corporate media!
             • Tigger …

               8 October 2010 at 2:07 pm

               But his speech was basically about him. And apparently he turned up out of the blue (ie. he wasn’t asked to be there). Given the timing I see it as a last ditch effort to get votes – a little late in the day though…
3. Pascal's bookie 3

   8 October 2010 at 8:46 am

   Who said…

   “Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist the individuals in providing for those common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision. Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance – where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks – the case for the state’s helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong… Wherever communal action can mitigate disasters against which the individual can neither attempt to guard himself nor make the provision for the consequences, such communal action should undoubtedly be taken,”

   ?
   • comedy 3.1

     8 October 2010 at 8:52 am

     Hayek
   • Bored 3.2

     8 October 2010 at 11:44 am

     Hahaha Hayek…..I suspect he might have shown a little more compassion and common sense than Ryall in the provision of health services.
   • nzfp 3.3

     8 October 2010 at 12:05 pm

     “The Road to Serfdom”

     I have to admit I had to search for this quote.

     On June 25, 2008 radio host “Bonnie Faulkner” on the KPFA show “Guns and Butter” interviewed American financial economist and historian Dr Michael Hudson

     You can listen to the entire interview here: “Michael Hudson — The New Road To Serfdom”

     At 49mins 44seconds, Bonnie Faulkner (BF) and Dr Michael Hudson (MH) discuss the Chicago School’s “Old Road to Serfdom” and compare it with Friedrich Hayek’s 1944 book “The Road To Serfdom”:

     BF: Dr. Hudson, describe what you mean by the “New Road to Serfdom”. How does it differ from the “Old Road to Serfdom”?

     MH: The old road to serfdom was written by [essentially] neo-fascist writers from the University of Chicago [who said] that the road to serfdom was the government protecting people to promote free markets. They said that promoting free market is the road to serfdom because of government planners. The new road to serfdom is when the financial industry knocks the government out of the picture and centralizes planning in the hands of the banks. As you’ve seen on Wall Street, when economic planning is centralized in the hands of Bear Stearns, Citibank, Chase Manhattan, Morgan Stanley, their objective is to get as many customers for the product they produce as possible. And the product they produce is debt. So the real road to serfdom is the road to debt peonage and it was the same road to serfdom that Rome followed and every country that’s fallen into serfdom that’s followed. [essentially] the wealthy people will only provide food, resources, education, essentials to people in exchange for credit and the credit is extended up to the point where the interest charges absorb the entire economic surplus over and above basic living costs.

     BF: Now have you just described the new road to serfdom?

     MH: Yes. In other words, the new road to serfdom is what Chicago School Bush Administration free-market policies lead to.

     BF: And what about the old road to serfdom?

     MH: That was Hayek’s book who was Margaret Thatcher’s hero. He wrote it in 1944 saying any government planning, any consumer protection, any attempts to help people is going to lead to serfdom because that’s fascism. And if you believe that then you’re falling for the Chicago School propaganda.

     BF: Well it sounds like the new road to serfdom and the old road to serfdom are both pretty bad.

     MH: Not really, because the government, the fact is, that progressive government planning such as the United States had between the civil war and World War II wasn’t bad at all. Every classical economist, every futurist writer of the 19th century expected governments to play the role of the economic planner in society. The role of government was to regulate fair markets, to create a system of equity where they would uplift the poor and enable everybody to become self-sustaining. So [essentially] democratic governments are not the roads to serfdom. An oligarchic government and a military government is the road to serfdom and that’s what we have today ruling under the rhetoric of free markets, which actually is not free at all.

     You can read the entire transcript for this interview in two parts here: part-1 and part-2
     • Draco T Bastard 3.3.1

       8 October 2010 at 12:32 pm

       Thanx for that.
4. pollywog 4

   8 October 2010 at 8:47 am

   Ewwww…creepy little man
5. I dreamed a dream 5

   8 October 2010 at 9:19 am

   This is hilarious!

   ==> John Banks crowd surfing at the Super City music awards…
   • pollywog 5.1

     8 October 2010 at 9:33 am

     A trick worthy of Moses.

     …like parting the red sea
6. Adrian 6

   8 October 2010 at 9:30 am

   Banks was shitting himself that somebody i.e parents are going to get charged over this and he was in personal damage control. What a cynical arse. I think MFAT should issue a travel and attendance advisory on Kings College, it’s a lot more dangerous than Delhi could ever be.
7. Draco T Bastard 7

   8 October 2010 at 11:12 am

   Grim and Grimmer
   1 hour video, including Paul Krugman, on the US economy. Wish we’d get more stuff like this for the NZ economy.

   I.E., the Fabian lectures available on video would be great.
   • Bored 7.1

     8 October 2010 at 11:39 am

     Its quite interesting really…I pointed out that we were likely to be in a deflationary cycle for a long time ahead and that cash will be short….in a reasonable society we might have a means of deciding how we all share the losses (i.e something like a national wage cut). Instead we will fight to keep what we have at the risk of losing the lot. And those that have most will as usual fight hardest to keep what they have.
     • Draco T Bastard 7.1.1

       8 October 2010 at 11:55 am

       And those that have most will as usual fight hardest to keep what they have.

       And will most likely lose the least (relatively speaking). It’s the people who have very little that will be hurt the most.
     • nzfp 7.1.2

       8 October 2010 at 1:16 pm

       Hey Bored,

       … in a reasonable society we might have a means of deciding how we all share the losses (i.e something like a national wage cut) …

       I don’t see any reason why we have to take a wage cut or why we have to share losses, just because we are in a debt deflationary spiral.

       Yes it’s true the Austrian catch cry is Austerity Austerity – but as you well know many economists from John Maynard Keynes to Wladimir Woytinsky to Clifford Hugh Douglas have proposed methods of halting deflation by Government creation of credit – without debt to private banks – via direct spending on infrastructure projects to stimulate the economy.

       Douglas took the concept further with the creation of the A+B theorem and the proposal of a national dividend provided directly to citizens to stimulate the economy and bridge the difference between productive and un-productive costs in the form of labour and production costs vs interest and other extractive costs.

       The point is that we don’t have to accept austerity or wage cuts – not when we have public central bank which could create the necessary credit to rebuild our nation and re-ignite our economy.

       Captcha: OPTION – what we have many of – specifically for monetary and economic policy.
       • Bored 7.1.2.1

         8 October 2010 at 2:24 pm

         NZFP, To explain why I said “I don’t see any reason why we have to take a wage cut or why we have to share losses, just because we are in a debt deflationary spiral”…

         The reason we cant halt defaltion is because our whole economy is based upon forever increasing productive output. This is based upon the availability of energy and resources. If available energy is in decline so is the total output of good and services ergo shrinking economy, thus deflation. That in short is the reality of peak oil (and living on a planet that has finite resources).

         The failure of Keynes / Woytinsky / Douglas methods of credit expansion is that regardless of who owns the promissary notes that are leveraged to provide “credit” today, the debt is “owed” tomorrow. And all of these economists have based their economic models on the concept of “continuous growth” enabling us to forever expand credit. My feeling is that we will naturally try and put off the day of reckoning till tomorrow and beyond, but it will eventually catch up.

         What is inevitable is that the same number of us will end up with a smaller pie to divide. Which brings me back to why we will have to fight to make sure those able to tighten their belt will be made to do so by those of us whose belts are already too tight.
         • nzfp 7.1.2.1.1

           8 October 2010 at 3:43 pm

           Hey Bored,

           The reason we cant halt defaltion is because our whole economy is based upon forever increasing productive output

           Agreed – right now it is. However, we both know that this is a systemic fault in the economic system we currently live in – namely a system that has given the right to create credit – at interest – to private interest so that there is always more interest owed then money in existence. consequently the economy is forced to incrase production – at waste – to secure revenue to pay the interest on the debt owed. Our economy is one giant ponzi scheme near the peak of it’s debt limit.

           The failure of Keynes / Woytinsky / Douglas methods of credit expansion is that regardless of who owns the promissary notes that are leveraged to provide “credit” today, the debt is “owed” tomorrow.

           I don’t agree – because Keynes, Douglas and Woytinsky all advocate for public credit. In the case of Keynes it is in the form of borrowing from publicly owned central banks like the RBNZ where the RBNZ creates the money – from nothing at zero or low interest for the Treasury.

           Either way the point is that there is either zero interest owed to the central bank or if there is interest owed – it is owed to the public who can then spend money directly back into circulation to cover the debt.

           The economic system as described by Douglas et al removes the requirement for industry to continually produce and for consumers to continually consume and waste because the economy creates a system that removes the requirement to service debt – especially as there is no longer any public debt and what private debt there is could/should/would be provided at very low interest – if any at all (c.f. Islamic banking with fees instead of interest). Consequently there is less dependence on energy as the economy no longer needs to grow and can adapt to a lower energy – low waste – low production system.

           We could re-inflate our economy while fundamentally changing the paradigm to remove the economic rules which are destroying our society and our environment.

           The choice is ours – we have the options – unfortunately we are not presented with these options from Labour or NAct.

           There is a great book on the subject by Michael Rowbotham called “The grip of death : a study of modern money, debt slavery, and destructive economics” which I recommend and goes into detail on how destructive to our environment and society a debt based economy is and how it could be completely reversed by changing to public credit.
           • Bored 7.1.2.1.1.1

             8 October 2010 at 4:10 pm

             NZFP, I think you are right that we can do what we wish with the money supply, the mechanisms you describe are probably far preferable to the systems we use today and they may ease us into a better future.

             Where we disagree is that even if we get rid of “created” financial debt, any credit we extend even at a zero interest rate still creates debt that must be repaid from future production. When we reach a balanced input to output economy (i.e when available sustainable energy / resource inputs create a stable sustainable output of good and services),this may work, I really hope so. And that is the crunch point, todays output will decline in line with dropping energy supply, until then we will have deflation regardless of the financial mechanisms.
           • Quoth the Raven 7.1.2.1.1.2

             8 October 2010 at 4:46 pm

             I don’t agree – because Keynes, Douglas and Woytinsky all advocate for public credit. In the case of Keynes it is in the form of borrowing from publicly owned central banks like the RBNZ where the RBNZ creates the money – from nothing at zero or low interest for the Treasury.

             You don’t see any problem with this creatio ex nihilo money without relation to the real world of resources and scarcity?

             Either way the point is that there is either zero interest owed to the central bank or if there is interest owed – it is owed to the public who can then spend money directly back into circulation to cover the debt.

             And how would this (the scenario without interest) not lead to a credit bubble? and inflation? What of savers?

             This page links to What everyone should know about social credit.

             A lot of the problems related to social credit relates to the current world of central banks lending at low interest to private banks and the concomitant excessive credit creation through the fractional reserve system. The situation of which social creditors ironically lament.

             Another good article – Inflationists’ Fears of Deflation Create a Monetary Dystopia
         • nzfp 7.1.2.1.2

           8 October 2010 at 4:00 pm

           Remember that public credit is based on defining money as nothing more then an accounting measure. Public credit does not define money as a promise to pay the bearer gold or oil or anything else – it is merely a receipt for goods or services received.

           A public system that creates 10 Billion credits (public receipts) could spend those 10 Billion credits directly on infrastructure – where the credits are used as a receipt for 10 Billion credits worth of infrastructure. We get the infrastructure – the companies / SOE’s etc… get 10 Billion in credits as a receipt which they use as receipts for goods and services received in the economy.

           To ensure the credits flow – the Government requires that the credits are used to pay land and economic rent taxes – this means land owners demand the credit/receipts in payment for rent, and oil / coal / mining companies demand the same tokens in payment for their commodities which creates demand in the economy for the interest free credits.

           To boost the economy the government could spend credits directly into the bank accounts of every citizen as a national dividend.

           No interest, no requirement to pay a promise.

           Captcha: DOUBTS – do you have any?
           • Bored 7.1.2.1.2.1

             8 October 2010 at 4:16 pm

             If we were to try this, (and note my above comments about balanced input /output economies) we would have to do the unthinkable first ….the Wisdom of Solon…the cancellation of all current debts. Literally 30 years worth of todays total world economic output, all currently to be paid for by a declining energy base. Or perhaps we just let it fall apart? Either way it will be “interesting”.
             • Draco T Bastard …

               8 October 2010 at 10:58 pm

               the cancellation of all current debts. Literally 30 years worth of todays total world economic output,

               It can’t be paid anyway so I really don’t see any problem with that. It would mean explaining to people that money is nothing though and that seems to be the hard part.
8. BLiP 8

   8 October 2010 at 11:27 am

   RIP – Ian Morris.

   Just 53.
   • Vicky32 8.1

     8 October 2010 at 5:42 pm

     Yes, I was shocked to hear about that this morning!
     Deb
9. joe90 9

   8 October 2010 at 11:45 am

   At the Windsor Castle, 1977.
10. come get some 10

    8 October 2010 at 12:33 pm

    Name suppresion in the South Auckland electoral fraud case have just been lifted

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10678790
    • Roflcopter 10.1

      8 October 2010 at 12:55 pm

      lol, who’d have guessed it was him eh?

      Yet another Labour party member defrauding NZ, the willingness to be totally corrupt must be a pre-requisite to joining the party.
      • nzfp 10.1.1

        8 October 2010 at 1:02 pm

        Come on mate,

        the willingness to be totally corrupt must be a pre-requisite to joining the party

        That’s the same as saying that if one person in a political party is corrupt then by definition all people in the political party are corrupt.

        That is a clear example of the logical fallacy Dicto simpliciter (spoken simply, i.e., sweeping generalization).

        This is the fallacy of making a sweeping statement and expecting it to be true of every specific case — in other words, stereotyping. Example: “Women are on average not as strong as men and less able to carry a gun. Therefore women can’t pull their weight in a military unit.” The problem is that the sweeping statement may be true (on average, women are indeed weaker than men), but it is not necessarily true for every member of the group in question (there are some women who are much stronger than the average).

        Captcha: ADVANCED – what your debating skills are not 😉
        • Pascal's bookie 10.1.1.1

          8 October 2010 at 1:18 pm

          When he applies his logic the National Party a particularly ugly picture emerges. (article behind a paywall, but it is exactly what it says in the headline).

          rofl has a low view of the National Party indeed. I don’t think they are as bad as all that.
        • Joe Bloggs 10.1.1.2

          8 October 2010 at 1:18 pm

          bloody funny though
11. Roflcopter 11

    8 October 2010 at 1:14 pm

    “That’s the same as saying that if one person in a political party is corrupt then by definition all people in the political party are corrupt.”

    Yup, that’s what I’m saying…. that’s the Labour Party
    • Draco T Bastard 11.1

      8 October 2010 at 1:51 pm

      Except it’s not the Labour party but one individual unlike the NACT party where it pretty much is the entire party (Blinglish, Richard Worth (what did he do?), Jonkey, and others).
12. Sonny Blount 12

    8 October 2010 at 1:36 pm

    Re. LABOUR PARTY CANDIDATE DALJIT SINGH ACCUSED OF TAMPERING WITH AN ELECTION.

    This is the terribly sad thing about these events. One or two individuals in this case may have caused massive damage to all the hard working and honest members of the Labour Party and the NZ Indian community at a time when many people will relish an opportunity to point the finger at them.

    I am of the opinion that our democracy is to valuable to allow this practise. Regardless of cost, the Auckland local body elections should be postponed. I would not expect this to have any effect on the significant outcome (a Len Brown win), but these things must be put right, and be seen to be put right.
    • Draco T Bastard 12.1

      8 October 2010 at 1:51 pm

      A revote, rather than a recount, should probably be called for.
13. Carol 13

    8 October 2010 at 6:32 pm

    Bernard Hickey was interviewed on the Panel this afternoon. You can listen to him on The Panel part 2, from about 10.18 mins:
    http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/afternoons/20101008
    At about 16 mins, Bomber Bradbury asked Hickey, after his conversion, which economisis did he now favour, Keynes etc? Hickey replied that he agrees a lot with Marx on his analysis of how capitalism works. Hickey added he doesn’t agree with Marx’s prescriptions for fixing things. (Bomber was singing hallelujahs!)

    Bomber asked Hickey again if he favoured Keynes, or the Austrians etc. Hickey said he leaned more towards the Austrians. He said that what we need to do now is produce more, spend less, embrace more austerity, and live simpler, cleaner, less consumptive lives. He added he’s sounding a bit like a greenie now.

Links to post

1. The Standard: posted on 7 October 2010 at 5:00 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS