Open mike 15/04/2010

19 comments on “Open mike 15/04/2010 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Bored 1

   15 April 2010 at 7:15 am

   Theres one very big unsolved mystery out there. One of my daily pit stops to get the temperature of the world is the stock exchange reports on the New York Times. What you will find upon close inspection is that stocks and shares world wide have post crash during the last year valued up by 40-50%. Some questions:

   * if the market can boom at this rate did it crash too low?
   * who is making the money and how are they funding it?
   * is this another bubble or a massive wealth transfer?
   * production and profitability numbers are not keeping pace at all…..so why is the price going up so fast?
   * does anybody listed on the market actually produce anything anymore?

   As I said its a mystery to me (I have my interpretation), but anybody out there who wants to shed some wisdom please enlighten me.
   • pollywog 1.1

     15 April 2010 at 8:53 am

     The second stage of the global capitalist crisis
     By Nick Beams
     12 April 2010

     We can see more clearly the meaning of the fiscal crisis of the state. All government spending on social services, health, education etc. is, in the final analysis, a deduction from the surplus value available to capital. The cuts in social spending now being implemented by capitalist governments around the world, together with attacks on the social position of the working class, are the means by which the state will appropriate the surplus value needed to fund the bailout of the banks and financial institutions.

     This process is creating the objective foundations for a new period of revolutionary struggles. The confrontation cannot be averted—there is not some new technology, or fresh source of cheap labour, that can pump the vast quantities of surplus value into the capitalist economy needed to match the wealth already handed to the banks. The capitalist state must claw back massive amounts of surplus value previously appropriated for social spending. In short, we have the emerging objective conditions for social revolution. The capitalist state cannot continue to rule in the old way and the working class cannot live under the new regime.

     http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/apr2010/bnrt-a12.shtml
     • prism 1.1.1

       15 April 2010 at 9:42 am

       Put this piece in open mike yesterday. It seems to fit with pollywogs excerpt above.
       Reading an old encyclopaedia and saw a listing for the peasants revolt in Germany in Martin Luther’s time. They wanted him to support them as they tried to improve their lot. The book says that instead he encouraged the nobles to take a firm hand with them and about 100,000 were killed. The final sentence says that this put paid to any peasant movements for 300 years.

       Are we on this continuing cycle? Is this the inevitable to put paid to an intrinsically unfair system when negotiation, reason and fairness points are disregarded? If things get bad enough, then the possibility of improving life through direct action, weighs more than the fear of suffering in the fight and possible defeat. Of course during the Depression the farmers turned out to bludgeon the marching townies – which was sort of a landless peasants revolt.

       I have been living in hope that tomorrow we will get government that is responsible, capable, experienced, runs effective services, and ensures a vibrant, responsible business base returning money to the economy. Silly dreams.

       National now have chosen an overseas company to do government business on maintaining the NIWA ship, which will have to be paid out of our hard-won exports. These mainly come from drought-hit farmers keen to sell out but unable to find NZ buyers because the overseas banks won’t lend money to NZ farmers, and we don’t have a bank that supports NZ interests dedicated to farming and business funding.

       So the farms of megalomaniacs like the Crafurs may be sold to overseas interests who can scoop up enough money, further cutting into the NZ main earner, which will increase our overseas debt further. Also the integrity of our dairy industry, already under a cloud, can be wrecked by further jiggery pokery for profit as in the melamine scandal.

       Labour in Britain and Australia don’t appear to be responsive to the aspirations of their country’s people, here people got tired of waiting and felt harangued by Helen Clark. Now with National we are moving to a tragedy where the pollys and their friends open up our body and sell all the organs, just leaving the head on life support so it can mutter something indistinct when asked ‘How yur doin’ mate?’
       • pollywog 1.1.1.1

         15 April 2010 at 11:09 am

         It’s a bloody struggle out here so I’m holding out for the budget and if things look like i ‘should be no better off’ I’m probably gonna look for work overseas.
2. mickysavage 2

   15 April 2010 at 8:13 am

   What is it with Morning Report?

   This morning Geoff Robinson was his cooperative best and gave Bill English an armchair ride of an interview without asking any difficult questions like how can a private company build and maintain a school, and hand it over in 30 years without making huge profits each year.

   By contrast Plunkett was at his belligerent worst, continuously interrupting Phil Goff as he tried to answer the questions directly put to him and then tops it off by branding the speech as a political stunt.

   What gives?
   • Bored 2.1

     15 April 2010 at 8:31 am

     There is one well known way of making oodles of cash from the scenario you describe, and it explains a lot about how we afforded a lot of what we have today (i.e how those who purchased houses etc twenty years ago managed to pay for them at a discount). The answer is set price contracts plus inflation.

     In an economy that takes price inflation for granted a private entity makes money on schools as follows. First sign a fixed price twenty year contract, inflation (but not deflation) indexed and non renegotiable. The private investor then gets to put up the price annually whilst his capital cost remains static. Second, dont pay back capital, the inflation over the years will vastly exceed this. Third, plenty of tax claw backs which in effect mean the tax payer subsidises the investor.

     As you see the only risk is price deflation (housing boom bubble bursting a good example) but in this scenario you can always as a good capitalist go bankrupt having never stumped up much of the capital yourself. The banks who you owe then only need ask the taxpayers to bail them out whist your safetly stashed profits elude everybody else.
     • prism 2.1.1

       15 April 2010 at 9:51 am

       That summary is not at all boring. Very instructive thanks.
   • Marty G 2.2

     15 April 2010 at 9:01 am

     yeah, they just commented on the feedback they got. unusually, they didn’t read out any of the emails. Plunkett just said ‘this is a tough interview show’

     obviously got a lot of complaints about the good cop for national, bad cop for labour routine.
   • Stacktwo 2.3

     15 April 2010 at 9:32 am

     In the item on superannuitants’ concerns about the effect of the tax proposals, Plunkett also gave the Grey Power rep a hard time, trying in that derisive manner he adopts to get him to say that most super beneficiaries are in an upper tax bracket anyway, because of “all their investments”.

     Geoff had to tidy up later after an emailer pointed out that a recent study found 75% of superannuitants relied solely on Govt Super.
3. r0b 3

   15 April 2010 at 8:50 am

   Lynn – we’re still seeing email addresses used in place of names (happens if name field is left blank?). Just fixed mickysavage above.
   • lprent 3.1

     15 April 2010 at 9:25 am

     Yeah, the patch I put in for the auto entry of names from cookies has some kind of issue. But I was busy setting up the new server last night. So I’d expect it on in the next couple of days. Then I’ll change the code back and check the supercache. If needs be, I’ll turn that off.
4. Adrian 4

   15 April 2010 at 9:28 am

   In answer to Bored at 7.15, even after the crash, 90% of people still kept their jobs and so kept paying into their super and other retirment funds, particulary in the US so that money ( and it’s a helluva lot) had to go somewhere, and if stocks and shares were cheap they were the obvious destination. Also, as I recall the Yanks with their typical zenophobia assumed the rest of the world was also in the shit and repatriated a lot of money home, thus exacerbating the credit squeeze worldwide.
   • Bored 4.1

     15 April 2010 at 4:47 pm

     Which is true Adrian, which also begs the question of the reality factor in share prices (its supposed after all to have some basis in reality aswell as emotion).?…..Love your xenophobic Yanks, so true.
5. Anne 5

   15 April 2010 at 9:43 am

   It’s by no means the first time Plunkett has done that to Goff. It happened last week. Why does Goff take it? He should turn it back on Plunkett and give him a piece of his mind. Goff is too polite. It makes him look weak. In my view that is his biggest problem!
   • prism 5.1

     15 April 2010 at 9:58 am

     Goff could do with adopting some of Winston’s fire and cheek – don’t play by other people’s rules, get your point over and criticise the interviewer’s approach. I must look up my copy of Stephen Prices ironical advice to new politicians about techniques for handling the media successfully. Anybody here heard it – it’s funny and true?
     • marty mars 5.1.1

       15 April 2010 at 11:42 am

       or some of tariana’s – I’m not taking shit off you – approach
6. Anne 6

   15 April 2010 at 10:13 am

   @ prism
   When you find it how about sending a copy to Goff.
7. ianmac 7

   15 April 2010 at 10:32 am

   Morning Report. I can understand an interviewer asking a question and interrupting if it looks like the answer is heading off in another direction, but this should be even-handed. When Mr English avoided a straight answer he was allowed to plug his particular spin instead. This happens with Plunkett and Key, and Plunkett and English especially.
8. Anne 8

   15 April 2010 at 12:11 pm

   I’ve seen it happen many times during question time in the House where Key has ridiculed a valid question from Goff. While there are occasions when it is probably wiser to ignore it, there are times when Key goes too far and Goff should respond but invariably doesn’t. I’m not suggesting he compromise his integrity, but he needs to go a bit feral sometimes.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS