Open Mike 19/07/2017

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, July 19th, 2017 - 151 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 Policy).

Step up to the mike …

151 comments on “Open Mike 19/07/2017 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Carolyn_nth 1
    19 July 2017 at 6:40 am

    #IamMetiria top trending fore NZ on twitter this morning… and still the stories keep coming.

    For example this one:

    My sister had been diagnosed with a terminal illness, she was asked if it was too soon to talk about retraining! #IamMetiria

    and this one:

    Like any one of us I’m only one injury, illness or redundancy away from being on a govt benefit. So I want them to be liveable. #IAmMetiria

    And the few lame troll attempts get buried by the continuing legit tweets…. including one attempted troll tweet from Sean Plunket, doing anti-PR for TOP.

    • Robert Guyton 1.1
      19 July 2017 at 6:56 am

      The thumbs of Norfolk Traveller and James must still be asleep.

      • tc 1.1.1
        19 July 2017 at 7:01 am

        Nah probably observing and seeing if DP central has issued any nuanced dog whistling directives to help a busy tr0ll pass the day.

        • Carolyn_nth 1.1.1.1
          19 July 2017 at 7:16 am

          The sporadic, blink-and-they’re-gone, troll tweets are pretty lame and tired RW spinlines.

          And Plunket, TOP’s communications man, shows TOP’s UBI is not designed with any understanding of the struggles of the precarious and struggling classes, or the dispossessed, in mind.

          • RedLogix 1.1.1.1.1
            19 July 2017 at 8:30 am

            And Plunket, TOP’s communications man, shows TOP’s UBI is not designed with any understanding of the struggles of the precarious and struggling classes, or the dispossessed, in mind.

            And meanwhile the Greens and Labour mumble about a UBI from time to time … but never commit any political capital to designing or promoting one.

            • Incognito 1.1.1.1.1.1
              19 July 2017 at 8:36 am

              I think the difference is that Labour and the Greens badly want to be in the next government while TOP has no such desire.

              I’m keen on UBI but I assume it’s a step too far for most voters at this time.

              • RedLogix …
                19 July 2017 at 8:52 am

                OK so Lab/Grn position is “we believe in a UBI but don’t think we get enough left-wing voters to give a shit”.

                While TOP’s position is ” we believe in a UBI and we’re going to frame it so it has potential cross-party appeal to all voters”

                First position is self-limiting and defeatist; and while TOP won’t win first time out the door, their persistence and visibility has the potential to ultimately succeed.

                Imagine a scenario where a National govt, with pressure from TOP, did head down the path of a UBI. The Nats are in some circumstances quite capable of making big changes. Who introduced MMP for example?

                Then you may well get a UBI alright, but on whose terms?

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  19 July 2017 at 11:41 am

                  First position is self-limiting and defeatist; and while TOP won’t win first time out the door, their persistence and visibility has the potential to ultimately succeed.

                  QFT

                  The problem of that a UBI has is that people are still wedded to the fictitious idea that the government has to raise funds before it can spend them.

                  This needs to be changed. TOP won’t do it as they’re led by a traditionally trained economist and so that leaves it to the Greens and Labour and Labour are still hanging on to the failed economics paradigm as well.

              • weka …
                19 July 2017 at 9:56 am

                “I’m keen on UBI but I assume it’s a step too far for most voters at this time.”

                Not sure about that. Actual GP policy (in their Income Support policy, and it’s been there a long time) says this,

                1. Universal Basic Income (UBI)

                The Green Party supports a full and wide-ranging public debate on the nature of UBI and the details of a UBI system, and government funding for detailed studies of the impacts of UBI. The Green Party will:

                1. Investigate the implementation of a Universal Basic Income for every New Zealander.

                This being the Greens, how I interpret this is that they will take the issue to NZers and ask them what they think. Like they’ve been doing with homelessness, poverty, benefits etc. In other words, they don’t believe it’s their place to design a UBI that dictates to NZ what it should be, they will first want people to be educated about what it is and then they will want to hear what people think.

                Labour also appear to be very supportive of a UBI (Little has said he is and they produced a paper on this last year), although for them I think it’s more about the automation of work issue. For obvious reasons Labour won’t be moving on this pre-election, but I would expect it to come up again in the first term if the Greens have a strong presence in govt.

                • gsays …
                  19 July 2017 at 10:19 am

                  Hi weka, the frustration I have and red logix highlighted, do you need to hold the levers of power to initiate or lead a conversation about a UBI?

                  Leaders lead. “We are doing this for reasons ABC, and XYZ will be the result”.
                  I would love to vote for a party stating a UBI as a central plank of their manifesto.
                  I have no time for an enquiry, report, maybes, committee, delayed promises once in power.
                  Then the lobbyists and their beguiling ways, other duties and on going power struggles become more important.

                  • weka …
                    19 July 2017 at 11:01 am

                    “do you need to hold the levers of power to initiate or lead a conversation about a UBI?”

                    Of course not, lots of conversation about UBI is happening on social media including TS. If you mean do you need to be in government, my position on TOP is that Morgan would have had better influence if he’d worked from outside of parliament. He has some good ideas but I would never want to see him near actual govt policy development. A UBI is a good idea, Morgan’s one has lots of problems with it, and the fact that he won’t discuss those is a huge issue.

                    “I have no time for an enquiry, report, maybes, committee, delayed promises once in power.”

                    I can’t see why that would happen. The Greens have been pushing forward on other issues, why not this one?

                    “Leaders lead. “We are doing this for reasons ABC, and XYZ will be the result”.”

                    Ok, so you’re ok with top down policy. I’m not. I want policy that is based around what people actually need.

                    “I would love to vote for a party stating a UBI as a central plank of their manifesto.”

                    Yes, me too, just not Morgan’s UBI. And of course voting for TOP lessens the chance of a UBI. No way are National going near it, and TOP will just pull some votes away from the left and lessen their ability to form govt, or form govt without Peters.

                    • RedLogix …
                      19 July 2017 at 11:23 am

                      Yes, me too, just not Morgan’s UBI.

                      So where is your ‘people centred’ UBI design? All the left has are some worthless promises to ‘ maybe have a think about it’.

                      No way are National going near it,

                      With ACT, MP and UF all dead in the water, I can easily imagine Nat strategists casting about for another potential partner they can either get over 5% or an electorate seat.

                      Nor would I underestimate the Nats ability to move when they want to. I guarantee you many of them are no more fans of the current welfare system than we are.

                    • weka …
                      19 July 2017 at 11:35 am

                      “All the left has are some worthless promises to ‘ maybe have a think about it’.”

                      If you think that’s what the GP policy says, you’re an idiot.

                      Even if National did do a deal with TOP that included a UBI, it would be a starkly neoliberal one which would monkey wrench the whole concept. But good for you if any UBI is worth that risk, rather than voting in a left wing govt.

                    • RedLogix …
                      19 July 2017 at 11:50 am

                      From the Greens detailed Income Support policy document:

                      The Green Party supports a full and wide-ranging public debate on the nature of UBI and the details of a UBI system, and government funding for detailed studies of the impacts of UBI. The Green Party will:

                      1. Investigate the implementation of a Universal Basic Income for every New Zealander.

                      No details, no numbers, no integration with tax reform, no sense of how the numbers might stack up. Worthless.

                      At this point we have a minor party that has firmly put a UBI on the table. With numbers, with details, with a clear sense of why they are doing it and how it integrates across their entire policy platform. They’ve smartly framed it so it potentially has wide cross party appeal.

                      The left has a choice of engaging with it constructively and seeing where it goes, or shitting all over it and leaving it lying there for National to pick up.

                    • weka …
                      19 July 2017 at 12:09 pm

                      Explanation here about on how it’s better to design policy that listens first to the people affected than it is to impose top down policy,

                      https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-19072017/#comment-1354539

                    • RedLogix …
                      19 July 2017 at 12:34 pm

                      @weka

                      So you don’t have a policy to point to because any such thing has to be the result of endless consultation and listening to the people and their needs.

                      I do get it that this sounds like a really fine idea. But none of that is going to happen before this election, nor I suspect any election anytime soon.

                      If the Greens were going to do this kind of extensive and time consuming research, their chance was at least decade ago when they first wrote this policy.

                      Now is a bit late don’t you think?

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      19 July 2017 at 1:10 pm

                      If the Greens were going to do this kind of extensive and time consuming research, their chance was at least decade ago when they first wrote this policy.

                      Now is a bit late don’t you think?

                      QFT

                      They should have stuck with Russel Norman’s printing of money and used that to fund the UBI. From there they’d have a great case to stop the private banks from creating money.

                    • gsays …
                      19 July 2017 at 1:21 pm

                      I didn’t mean that to sound as ringing an endorsement to Morgan’s top as it sounds.
                      It’s more that I might have to wait for the next election for greens to have something concrete to tick.

                      Top down/benevolent dictator.
                      More appealing to me than a ‘poll driven’ leader.

                    • weka …
                      19 July 2017 at 1:43 pm

                      “So you don’t have a policy to point to because any such thing has to be the result of endless consultation and listening to the people and their needs.”

                      It’s ok, I get it. You think designing policy based on the needs and views of the people who are most affected equals endless consultation. Myself, I’d settle for involving people in the process within a timeframe.

                      A UBI is already on the public agenda. Partly because of Morgan, but also because of Labour and all the other people who’ve done work on this including you and me.

                      As I’ve said, I’m in favour of a socially-designed UBI. I’d prefer to take the time to get it right. Not endless time, so maybe you could drop that false argument. But next year seems a really good time to push L/G to move on this. With the Greens that can happen through the membership or by the usual other ways that the Greens take notice of things. If we have a 4th term Nact govt, a UBI will be less of an issue for me, because there will be some seriously urgent activism needed.

                    • Loop …
                      20 July 2017 at 6:45 am

                      Here is a question about a Labour/ Top coalition. Weka, you argue, scratching the surface, Morgans policy has some imperfections. Is there something in the law/ political environment that dictates the coalition partners cannot nut out the imperfections after the government is formed?
                      If Morgan is not willing to discuss or change to me is neither here nor there, as a coalition he will not hold ultimate power, so , if I am understanding correctly, he will need to have these conversations with the major governing party before policy is introduced?
                      I know we need a change from the present government, fact. Voting for a minor party to govern is a wasted vote, national will be in for a 4th.
                      Being undecided, national in for a 4th.
                      L/G would give us very little change from what we have presently. People label TOP policy radical. i don’t see a lot of their policy as radical, I see it a necessary step in the direction to an equitably (if that is a word) fairer country.

                    • weka …
                      20 July 2017 at 12:28 pm

                      @Loop.

                      There are other kinds of influences in parliament too. The kaupapa and values of the parties for instance. Hence you can see the big difference between Labour and the Greens on welfare.

                      I don’t want to see the left having to push back against values as well as poor policy.

                      As for TOP policy, the Green policies are still better formed and more left than what TOP are doing. Or at least, they can be seen both as radical in their own ways compared to the more centrist policies of Labour or the RW ones. Welfare is the easiest one to see that at the moment.

                  • Draco T Bastard …
                    19 July 2017 at 11:44 am

                    I would love to vote for a party stating a UBI as a central plank of their manifesto.

                    So would I but I’m damned well not going to vote for TOP even if I do like some of their policies.

                    • RedLogix …
                      19 July 2017 at 11:58 am

                      And the reason why so many Greenies irrationally hate TOP is they viscerally understand Morgan is eating their lunch.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      19 July 2017 at 12:19 pm

                      I think you’re reaching there Red.

                      I dislike TOP because it’s run by traditionally trained economists who haven’t yet worked out that their training was a load of bollocks.

                    • RedLogix …
                      19 July 2017 at 1:01 pm

                      Nah … look at TOP’s policies; they all map directly into the same space as the Greens. Oh they are differently framed and even I don’t agree with them all. Some of them need a more work, but given the party didn’t even exist six months ago, they haven’t done too badly either.

                      But note carefully, the most vociferous people hating on Morgan here are largely identified Green party supporters.

                      Now if Steven Keen would come to NZ and start a political party ….

                    • weka …
                      19 July 2017 at 2:34 pm

                      I was concerned last election about IMP wasting left wing votes, and I spoke about that at the time. I didn’t have a problem with HH or even KDC though, or most of their policies.

                      My antipathy towards Morgan and TOP is twofold. One is that his policies look good but when you scratch the surface that are issues. The other is that people have tried to talk to him and Geoff Simmons and both now have a reputation of being impossible to talk to. They abuse people who ask questions about policy or challenge their ideas, and they’re *really bad at engaging with the punters. Not what I want in parliament as representatives

                      Morgan would have had far better influence had he stayed out of parliamentary politics and lobbied instead.

                      Thought I’d clear that up so you don’t have to keep making shit up about my motives.

                    • RedLogix …
                      19 July 2017 at 4:27 pm

                      Get back to me when the Greens have a detailed, costed and designed UBI policy that you approve of. Then maybe we can start scratching under the surface for ‘issues’.

                      And Morgan did stay out of politics for years, and lobbied hard. Reasonable to say he stirred up awareness, but no action from either the left or the right.

                      Right now the Greens have nothing to show for more than a decade of having a UBI policy. Is this how long it usually takes? It may not be ‘endless’ but I’m growing old waiting.

            • Carolyn_nth 1.1.1.1.1.2
              19 July 2017 at 8:42 am

              I prefer people in power who understand the struggles of those on the lowest incomes.

              I also note, Audrey Young’s piece saying that the election is anybody’s, then ends slamming the GP and promoting TOP, while the NZ Herald editorial slams Metiria. it’s easy to see who the ruling elites favour.

              Maybe they favour TOP as a disrupter, to prevent the GP getting too much traction.

              • RedLogix …
                19 July 2017 at 9:00 am

                I prefer people in power who understand the struggles of those on the lowest incomes.

                So is this an example of the Morgans not understanding the struggles of those on the lowest incomes?

                Gareth And Joanne Morgan Investing In Timor Leste Pre-Schools

                On a recent visit to Timor Leste, UNICEF Ambassadors Gareth and Joanne Morgan saw first-hand the enormity of the challenge of providing childhood education in isolated villages where children are currently missing out.

                https://www.unicef.org.nz/news/2016/october-2016/gareth-morgan-investing-in-timor-leste-pre-schools

                The most dramatic thing we see is the lack of opportunity given to women and girls. I think societies which have this at their core will never get anywhere until the imbalance is addressed.

                I was raised with the belief that when you work hard enough, anything is possible. But as I grew up, I realised that’s not sufficient; people need equality of opportunity.

                https://www.unicef.org.nz/news/kiwi-childhoods/gareth-morgan

                It’s quite bizzare how so many people here believe that wealthy people must always be amoral sociopaths of some kind.

                • weka …
                  19 July 2017 at 9:58 am

                  Morgan doesn’t strike me as an amoral sociopath. Plunket, harder to tell.

                  • garibaldi …
                    19 July 2017 at 10:42 am

                    Morgan is more of a do-gooder, as long as you do it in his enlightened capitalist way. He has had an epiphany since his early days (and then creaming it from his son’s sale of Trade me ). There’s a disconnect in his clever analysis and policies that makes one think yeah nah. Sure much of it is ‘good looking’, but it is handicapped by it’s all or nothing dogma.He is not achieving anything near 5% and is probably just a wasted vote.

                    • RedLogix …
                      19 July 2017 at 11:00 am

                      Funny how one moment Morgan’s a ‘parasite with no social conscience’, the next he’s a ‘do-gooder’ but still somehow an arsehole.

                      Tough crowd.

                    • weka …
                      19 July 2017 at 11:02 am

                      A man of many talents.

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  19 July 2017 at 12:25 pm

                  It’s quite bizzare how so many people here believe that wealthy people must always be amoral sociopaths of some kind.

                  It’s simply the nature of being rich. You really can’t get rich without stealing from others even though that theft is sanctioned by our laws. That tells me that the laws need changing but that will have the rich and greedy up in arms about them not being allowed to be rich any more which proves the sociopathy.

                  • RedLogix …
                    19 July 2017 at 12:42 pm

                    I do think you are reaching a bit there DtB 🙂

                    I’ve argued against the extremes of wealth and poverty consistently and forcefully. But it’s an equally absurdist extreme to propose eliminating all wealth differences by law.

                    And it’s not at all uncommon for rich people to understand that with their wealth has come a moral obligation to use it constructively for the benefit of the wider community. Philanthropy will never be the flavour of the month for most lefties; but it’s scarcely evidence of sociopathy either.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      19 July 2017 at 1:04 pm

                      I’ve argued against the extremes of wealth and poverty consistently and forcefully.

                      The problem is ownership which conveys wealth from those who produce to those who don’t.

                      But it’s an equally absurdist extreme to propose eliminating all wealth differences by law.

                      Even I’ve never done that. What I’ve said is that ownership should be limited so as to prevent the above and that there be a minimum and a maximum income.

                      And it’s not at all uncommon for rich people to understand that with their wealth has come a moral obligation to use it constructively for the benefit of the wider community.

                      Actually, that’s very uncommon which, of course, is why people who know this tend to be against charity.

                      Philanthropy will never be the flavour of the month for most lefties; but it’s scarcely evidence of sociopathy either.

                      The evidence of sociopathy is that they are rich and will argue to continue to allow massive inequality so that they can continue to be rich.

                    • RedLogix …
                      19 July 2017 at 1:42 pm

                      No you do this as a debating trick all the time.

                      Here we are talking about a UBI within the context of the upcoming election. You claim you want an UBI, but can’t support what’s on offer despite the fact that it ticks 80-90% of what is realistically achievable in the present political environment.

                      Then suddenly do an end run around the whole debate and denounce the entire kit and caboodle, demand everything gets thrown out and replaced with your loosely expressed, utterly hypothetical and completely unachievable utopia.

                      Note carefully. I’m not knocking your ideas. But absolutely there is NO party on offer in this election who comes remotely near a policy position you keep insisting is the only way forward. Not even the Greens.

                      It’s a neat way of de-railing a discussion into a dead-end, but I’m kind of over it.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      19 July 2017 at 1:55 pm

                      Here we are talking about a UBI within the context of the upcoming election.

                      I just followed the thread in replying to a point you made in it.

                      You claim you want an UBI, but can’t support what’s on offer despite the fact that it ticks 80-90% of what is realistically achievable in the present political environment.

                      I didn’t say that I didn’t support TOP’s UBI – I said that I didn’t support TOP because it’s based upon traditional neo-classical/neo-liberal economics. So are the Greens to some degree but that has to do more with shifting the present paradigm.

                      Then suddenly do an end run around the whole debate and denounce the entire kit and caboodle, demand everything gets thrown out and replaced with your loosely expressed, utterly hypothetical and completely unachievable utopia.

                      Nope, never done that. I have tried to point out that that is where we need to head but I point out that it’s going to take steps over time to do it.

                      Note carefully. I’m not knocking your ideas. But absolutely there is NO party on offer in this election who comes remotely near a policy position you keep insisting is the only way forward. Not even the Greens.

                      I have no problems with valid criticism – it helps me learn and improve my ideas.

                      And, yes, I’m aware that not party comes close what I think needs to happen thus I vote for the party that I think will do the best in the present paradigm.

                      And, yes, I’m even aware of how contradictory that is.

                • Carolyn_nth …
                  19 July 2017 at 6:44 pm

                  RedL: It’s quite bizzare how so many people here believe that wealthy people must always be amoral sociopaths of some kind.

                  What in my comment thus…

                  I prefer people in power who understand the struggles of those on the lowest incomes.

                  … indicated I was making a judgement about wealthy people?

                  My comment this morning was largely motivated by Sean Plunket’s mean spiritied tweet on the #IamMetiria discussion.

                  Sean Plunket’s tweet:

                  Sorry the #iammetiria hashtag is just a little #iamafraudster

                  In a discussion where people are disclosing some of the harsh realities of being on benefits, Plunket was being a plonker. He shows no awareness of the ways people need to sometimes break laws/regulations to survive on those benefits.

                  And it is jaw dropping that he is spokesperson for a party promoting a UBI – if not to end a system that pressures people to law breaking, what is TOP’s UBI for?

                  And for Gareth Morgan to employ a man of such sentiments as a comms person for his party, also demonstrates a lack of understanding of the realities of the low income people he claims to support.

                  Plus, the TOP policies I’ve looked at do not indicate any in depth awareness of the way our system disadvantages the least well off and/or creates inequalities.

                  e.g. “Equality of opportunity” (as in your quotes above) assume a level playing field. It is equality of outcomes that is particularly important.

              • Loop …
                20 July 2017 at 6:56 am

                “I prefer people in power who understand the struggles of those on the lowest incomes.”
                Understanding, or for that matter, experiencing the struggles/ hardships of poverty doesn’t necessarily equate to empathy being shown towards or policy made to give a hand up for those at the bottom. It in fact has had the opposite effect with the present government. Paula has seen to it all that follow her in the poverty trap will be less able to manipulate the system that she herself used.

          • Philj 1.1.1.1.2
            20 July 2017 at 11:06 am

            I laugh when Tory’s like Plunket finally wake up to the obvious failure of corporate right wing policies. Your pay depends upon it I suppose Mr Plunket.

      • james 1.1.2
        19 July 2017 at 9:35 am

        Nope – I dont “do” twitter. Occasionally pop in there but never tweeted. No need to start now.

  2. BM 2
    19 July 2017 at 8:02 am

    What triggered the Greens massive lurch to the far left?

    I was under the impression the MOU was about giving the Greens credibility and demonstrating that they weren’t this scary extremist party but a party that could be a stable segment of a new government.

    What Turei has done is put the Greens back out on the fringes again and locked the greens out of power for the foreseeable future, hopefully, a more moderate James Shaw/Julie Genter led Greens will appear after this years election.

    • garibaldi 2.1
      19 July 2017 at 8:10 am

      Bullshit BM. It is not the far left, as you right wingers rant about , it is simply good left policy.
      You really are full of it. If you want a right wing green party go form your own (by the way, it would not/could not work).
      The Greens will not move to the right because social justice and a sustainable future are not possible from the right. Get it?

      • BM 2.1.1
        19 July 2017 at 8:30 am

        it is simply good left policy

        If that’s good left wing policy then the left is so far out of sync with most New Zealanders it isn’t funny.

        Using my middle NZ political barometer( Trademe General forums) there was at least 5 threads running which were all very hostile to what Turei did and what the Greens were proposing.

        This is a board where politics is never discussed for example Todd Barcley never got a mention.

        • weka 2.1.1.1
          19 July 2017 at 10:01 am

          Using my middle NZ political barometer( Trademe General forums)

          ha, ha, hahahahahaha.

          Very funny BM, well done.

          • gsays 2.1.1.1.1
            19 July 2017 at 10:30 am

            As you have said weka, the Overton window has moved.
            The reason the Tories are freaking out is they are looking at the wall, the view has changed.
            These suggestions aren’t hard anything.
            They are a return to decency, being civil, looking out for the most vulnerable in our communities.

            Hopefully when a recently widowed 60 year old goes, for the first time ever, to the local winz, she will not be asked to get a CV together, and look at getting a job. This done by a pimply barely 20 something thumbing through a manual during the ‘interview’.

        • mauī 2.1.1.2
          19 July 2017 at 12:11 pm

          This isn’t playing out well in the media in my opinion. Turei has been attacked left right and centre and the middle class are more than happy to join in this kind of lark.

          I hope the Greens get a boost from it but people have to see through the media spin first. That or the missing million has to get in behind her and come out and vote for once.

        • Draco T Bastard 2.1.1.3
          19 July 2017 at 1:57 pm

          If that’s good left wing policy then the left is so far out of sync with most New Zealanders it isn’t funny.

          This may come as a surprise to you and your ego but you’re not most NZers.

      • Wayne 2.1.2
        19 July 2017 at 8:39 am

        The Greens policy is far left. BM is correct on that one.

        It is not just the increase in benefits by 20%, it is also the zero accountability that goes with it. In fact that is the worst aspect of the policy.

        You go on the UB. No obligation to go to interviews, no obligation to look for jobs, apparently no obligation to do anything. I presume if you eventually get a job, you then have to go off the benefit.

        No requirement to name the father (another no responsibility approach) also means the govt cannot go for child support. There are already appropriate exemptions not to name the the father. While they could be looked at, that is not a reason to abandon the obligation altogether

        Stats NZ has the average wage at $1,141per week and hourly rate of $29.90, so a minimum wage of 66% is basically $20. I guarantee that would be a job killer. At 60% it would be $17.94, which is very close to the increase in the minimum wage that would take effect immediately. Which though relatively high, would not have the same job killing effect.

        TOP’s idea of a UBI at $10,000 for young people has more appeal to me. It seems fundamentally more imaginative, and would not have the disincentive effects that the Green policy is chockablock with.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1.2.1
          19 July 2017 at 8:42 am

          disincentive effects

          [citation needed]

          I don’t believe you. Either prove that these disincentives exist or admit your ignorance and bias. Then people will see whether you should ever have been trusted with office in the first place.

          • Wayne 2.1.2.1.1
            19 July 2017 at 9:37 am

            OAB,

            There are a large number of studies on the effects of minimum wages on employment. Most show that having a minimum wage that is a moderate percentage of the average wage have little adverse effects on employment. But too high a percentage of the average wage does.

            66% would be too high a percentage. The current level is just over 50%. The Greens propose an immediate lift to 60%. I am sure that will have some effect, but perhaps not too serious. But 66% would be a problem. In particular it would really harm the job prospects of school leavers aged 16 to 18 with limited skills, perhaps not even NCEA 1.

            If this policy is so good, was hasn’t Labour adopted it? The reason is that it goes too far.

            On this issue, especially as it relates to young people, TOP has a much more interesting policy. It would be worth other parties having a serous look at the TOP policy.

            • Psycho Milt 2.1.2.1.1.1
              19 July 2017 at 10:36 am

              Most show that having a minimum wage that is a moderate percentage of the average wage have little adverse effects on employment. But too high a percentage of the average wage does

              An approach to research that treats the average wage as a constant is not a good approach. All that these studies say to me is that if a minimum wage that’s enough to live on is so close to the average wage that it kills jobs, we need to look into why the average wage is so low, not just shrug our shoulders and say it’s best if the minimum wage isn’t enough to live on.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1.2.1.1.2
              19 July 2017 at 3:43 pm

              There are a large number of studies that purport to show that minimum wages cost jobs too, like the one your dirty friend Farrar is touting.

              See response to RL at 2.1.2.1.2.2. The real world doesn’t comply with your beliefs.

          • RedLogix 2.1.2.1.2
            19 July 2017 at 9:43 am

            @OAB

            The disincentive effect is real.

            The problem is not that people are too lazy, but when benefits are too close to minimum wage entry level incomes the effective marginal tax rate when transitioning into work becomes starts to get over 80% or so.

            Rationally there are real and invisible opportunity costs to working. Combine this with having to put up with some incompetent bullying little boss who treats you like shit … well the incentive to stay at home is real.

            Alternatively if you have one household holding down several shitty low wage jobs, working split shifts and doing it tough and they look over the back fence to see another household apparently lounging about and not all that worse off; well it’s not hard to see the resentment factor in play either.

            Yes we could raise minimum wages substantially in order to ameliorate this. But that needs to be made an integral part of the discussion, part of a coherent tax and welfare system designed that’s broadly acceptable across the electorate.

            • Draco T Bastard 2.1.2.1.2.1
              19 July 2017 at 2:18 pm

              Combine this with having to put up with some incompetent bullying little boss who treats you like shit … well the incentive to stay at home is real.

              Unfortunately we don’t see this as an incentive for the Little Hitler to become a better boss.

              Alternatively if you have one household holding down several shitty low wage jobs, working split shifts and doing it tough and they look over the back fence to see another household apparently lounging about and not all that worse off; well it’s not hard to see the resentment factor in play either.

              True but then that should be an incentive to initiate a UBI and improve wages and work conditions across the board.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1.2.1.2.2
              19 July 2017 at 3:41 pm

              “Real”.

              So therefore, the countries with the highest benefit rates should have higher unemployment rates. So I looked it up, and they don’t.

              Oops.

              • RedLogix …
                19 July 2017 at 4:21 pm

                Now look at the gap between benefits and minimum wages in those countries.

                Oops yourself.

                What probably makes for a better correlation is wages and productivity. In places where wages are generally high, it employers have a big incentive to move away from cheap, low-end commodity markets into high value, high margin goods and services that pay well.

                What’s called a virtuous circle. NZ being long trapped in a dismal one.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  19 July 2017 at 4:29 pm

                  I wondered if you’d say that, so I checked prior to commenting.

                  Laid-off Danes who have worked 52 weeks over the previous three years are eligible to receive 90% of their average earnings for up to four years…Denmark’s unemployment stands at 3.1%…

                  Plenty more where that came from.

                  Other studies discuss eg: the various ways in which (eg: WINZ) case worker behaviour makes it difficult to tease out any “disincentive” signal from the noise.

                  What makes you so sure it isn’t just yet another case of when Economics is full of it?

          • Red 2.1.2.1.3
            19 July 2017 at 10:02 am

            Since when was this site and academic research centre where every fkn opinion needs a citation from a left wing academic to OABs benefit

            • marty mars 2.1.2.1.3.1
              19 July 2017 at 10:43 am

              Yeah facts always freak out fakers for sure. Failred. Sad.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1.2.1.3.2
              19 July 2017 at 4:00 pm

              If the real world doesn’t support your beliefs you can expect me to notice and point and laugh.

              5. Has anyone gone out of the way to disprove the claim, or has only supportive evidence been sought?
              This is the confirmation bias, or the tendency to seek confirmatory evidence and to reject or ignore disconfirmatory evidence. The confirmation bias is powerful, pervasive and almost impossible for any of us to avoid. It is why the methods of science that emphasize checking and rechecking, verification and replication, and especially attempts to falsify a claim, are so critical.

              Michael Shermer, The Baloney Detection Kit

              I doubt you have ever once looked for facts that would contradict your dogma.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1.2.2
          19 July 2017 at 8:46 am

          Job Killer

          Once again, reciting the litany of your rote-learned beliefs is utterly unconvincing. I note your dirty associate Farrar running the same lies re: Seattle.

          Why are all your beliefs so obviously false? Cullen had to forcibly educate Treasury on this in the 2000’s and you still haven’t caught up.

          Edit: I note that high salaries for corrupt National Party cronies are all good where you’re concerned. Are you even aware of your own gross hypocrisy? What’s a Law Commissioner bring home, eh, Job Killer?

        • marty mars 2.1.2.3
          19 July 2017 at 9:01 am

          If two rabid hard right wingers like bm and wayne can’t srand or understand the greens that shows me the greens are on the correct track. The fear and weakness emanating from the hard right is funny – more please lol.

          • Nick 2.1.2.3.1
            19 July 2017 at 9:11 am

            +1

          • james 2.1.2.3.2
            19 July 2017 at 9:41 am

            Its not fear and weakness – its simply pointing out what normal rational ‘middle of the road’ people believe.

            Im confident that this will be backed up in votes at the election.

            Im with Wayne that the lack of accountability items are the worse of the (bad) bunch.

            Benefit fraud will go thru the roof.

            • marty mars 2.1.2.3.2.1
              19 July 2017 at 10:00 am

              You are frightened, lost and bewildered – keep talking james you might get promoted to hard right lol just shows the panic is affecting even the remorea fish.

            • WILD KATIPO 2.1.2.3.2.2
              19 July 2017 at 10:47 am

              You obviously didn’t read yesterdays post on tax evasion and benefit fraud then , James…

              If you had of, … you would have discovered that benefit fraud accounts for around 30 -33 million dollars per annum,… whereas tax evasion costs this economy over one billion dollars per annum.

              So here’s a question , James … how many more millions is one billion after subtracting 33 million ?….

              You right wingers are laughable in your ignorance of facts and your moralization’s .

              • james …
                19 July 2017 at 4:23 pm

                “You obviously didn’t read yesterdays post on tax evasion and benefit fraud then , James…”

                BUT – My view is the same – illegal tax evasion should be punished.

                If its legal – then its not evasion. I think a lot of people on here miss that point.

            • weka 2.1.2.3.2.3
              19 July 2017 at 11:07 am

              “Benefit fraud will go thru the roof.”

              Sounds like fear to me.

              You appear to have missed the whole point james. If you give people enough to live on then they don’t need to lie to get it. Whether that’s through decent wages, or a humane welfare system, or supporting initiative, etc, most people want to do the right thing and do well by their families.

              Your fixation on fraud tells us quite a bit. For one, you’re have no interest in the real reasons why so many beneficiaries have to lie. It’s all about FRAUD. But you’ve failed to understand that WINZ routinely recovers debt and never goes near the term fraud. Most of the stories fit into that category. Of course you will still insist it’s FRAUD, but I don’t see you jumping up and down about all the other low level things that people in NZ do all the time to make their lives better that are against the rules. Too busy shouting FRAUD.

              The other thing it tells me is that you really don’t give a shit about fraud. Because if you did you would be on board with reducing the reasons for it. Instead I think you can’t stand the idea that people aren’t all selfish greedy fucks like yourself, so you have to see everyone through that lens.

              Hypocrite comes to mind too.

        • WILD KATIPO 2.1.2.4
          19 July 2017 at 9:11 am

          ‘ Job Killer ‘

          Good you pointed that out , OAB.

          This is the favorite one they like to wheel out to induce hesitation in demanding a more fair slice of the pie. Of course , … all that would be needed if they threatened to go offshore is if they continued being registered as a NZ based company. Then we not only bill em tax but we slap on a tariff / tax for selling their produce back here.

          Meanwhile , those company’s that choose to remain and employ Kiwis gain a tax break incentive.

          … ” You go on the UB. No obligation to go to interviews, no obligation to look for jobs, apparently no obligation to do anything. I presume if you eventually get a job, you then have to go off the benefit ”…

          * And no more perks and bonuses for employees for completing their quotas for kicking people off the benefit either. Oh dear. Such a pity. Never mind.

          … ” Stats NZ has the average wage at $1,141per week and hourly rate of $29.90, so a minimum wage of 66% is basically $20. I guarantee that would be a job killer. At 60% it would be $17.94, which is very close to the increase in the minimum wage that would take effect immediately. Which though relatively high, would not have the same job killing effect ” …

          * And wheres the evidence of Todd Barclay getting off the taxpayers tit in the next three months , eh , Wayne?

          * Are we or are we not living in the rockstar economy , Wayne? … so you are telling us that the rockstar economy cannot survive paying people a proper living wage ?

          * Are you telling us that the rockstar economy cannot function unless it has a large pool of low wage workers ? Seems like a rather bogus definition about the so called ‘ stable , well managed economy ‘ under National if it has to rely on low wages to function.

          * And … heres the kicker. Who the fuck are you or National to demand that someone goes out to work in such a dysfunctional job market digging a hole for a living when they’ve been trained to perform brain surgery ? or have some bright young person putting stickers on boxes when they could have been training to be a bio fuel engineer?

          Who the fuck are you to demand that someone works for less than the costs of living anyway?

          When you would NEVER dare to work for such a paltry excuse for a wage anyway?

          Now we start to see just how dishonest YOU are Wayne, – coming on here trying to lecture us about morality. Pointing the finger at those with the least while you have abundance and would not dream of sharing unless it came from any unneeded surplus !!!

          You Hypocrite !!!

          • Draco T Bastard 2.1.2.4.1
            19 July 2017 at 2:27 pm

            Are you telling us that the rockstar economy cannot function unless it has a large pool of low wage workers ?

            That’s certainly what Adam Smith thought when he said that 500 poor people are needed to support one rich person.

        • Reality 2.1.2.5
          19 July 2017 at 9:50 am

          The thing that is so mind blowing Wayne, is the cold hearted judgemental thinking of people like yourself, who have so much. Do you ever feel compassion or empathy towards people whose daily lives are a never-ending struggle?

        • gsays 2.1.2.6
          19 July 2017 at 10:38 am

          Hi Wayne, in respect to your knowledge of wages I have a question.

          What hourly rate should a fully qualified chef, working in a busy modern restaurant kitchen, (mains at$30-$40), everything prepped ‘in house’ be on?
          Brigade of 5 full time chefs and 2 chefs @30 hours.
          Keen to hear a dollar amount answer to the question.
          You can’t be wrong, I am curious to what you think it is.

            • gsays 2.1.2.6.1.1
              19 July 2017 at 1:37 pm

              Ok you posted a link to more statistics, I ask you the same question as Wayne.
              How many $an hour?

              • BM …
                19 July 2017 at 2:03 pm

                No idea, which is why I posted the link
                Could be anything between $16-$50 per hour.

                • gsays …
                  19 July 2017 at 2:10 pm

                  Less than $20.
                  Able to run any station (pizza, the pass, the grill, desserts),
                  Shift work, weekends, evenings,working with highly perishable goods.
                  No penals, hot, unsocial.
                  $29.90 hahahaha…

                  • Wayne …
                    19 July 2017 at 3:56 pm

                    I reckon there would not be many fully qualified chefs working in high quality restaurants at $20 per hour. I reckon the typical level will be $25 to $35 per hour depending on their experience.

                    But it is not my area of knowledge, so maybe NZ Stats is right on the range of $16 to $25. But really, how many fully qualified chefs are going to be on the minimum wage, which is what $16 virtually is.

                    The average wage of $29.90 as set out by NZ Stats seems about right, from my knowledge of wages and salaries across a range of enterprises (govt and non govt). Every fully qualified tradesperson in building and related trades would be on about $30 per hour.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      19 July 2017 at 4:05 pm

                      But really, anecdata means nothing at all, and you just wasted three paragraphs reasserting what we already know: the things you believe.

                      Maybe NZ stats is right, and you aren’t. Maybe 🙄

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      19 July 2017 at 7:49 pm

                      And if you have “some guts”, answer Adrian at 2.1.2.8, and more importantly, if you discover some of your beliefs are completely wrong, consider applying a better bullshit detector to the rest of them while you can still make a contribution.

        • Stuart Munro 2.1.2.7
          19 July 2017 at 10:58 am

          Right… so as a shill for the current pack of scoundrels you are concerned about a lack of accountability…

          You need to clean up your own mess before you can have any credibility on that.

        • Adrian 2.1.2.8
          19 July 2017 at 12:59 pm

          Where do these bullshit figures come from Wayne?
          My wife is a tenured Nursing tutor with a masters for a portion of the working week and a highly qualified ICU and palliative nurse for the rest.
          She gets about $33 an hour.
          I’m a vineyard manager on $26 an hour, and I pay 22 to 23 dollars to my workers, just who the fuck is actually getting the magical 30 bucks let alone the vast numbers who have to be earning lots more to establish the average.
          It doesn’t add up and doesn’t make sense.

          • gsays 2.1.2.8.1
            19 July 2017 at 1:42 pm

            Too right, something doesn’t add up and there a lot of university degrees involved too.

        • Draco T Bastard 2.1.2.9
          19 July 2017 at 2:10 pm

          The Greens policy is far left. BM is correct on that one.

          Nope. It’s that the ‘centre’ is now far right-wing.

          No obligation to go to interviews, no obligation to look for jobs, apparently no obligation to do anything.

          And it’s that type of BS that turned WINZ into a torture chamber rather than the social assistance that it’s supposed to be.

          Isn’t getting a higher income from working supposed to be enough? If it’s not working then perhaps employers need to pay more.

          No requirement to name the father (another no responsibility approach) also means the govt cannot go for child support.

          If we made child support universal, as we should, then the child support is inherent in the tax take. no need to waste time and resources to chase after some arsehole.

          Stats NZ has the average wage at $1,141per week and hourly rate of $29.90, so a minimum wage of 66% is basically $20. I guarantee that would be a job killer.

          No you can’t because raising the minimum wage doesn’t do that. In fact, it’s likely to increase jobs as more people will be able to afford more services.

          • Wayne 2.1.2.9.1
            19 July 2017 at 4:04 pm

            Where on earth do you get your statement that “if we made child support universal then child support is inherent in the tax take.”

            Liable parent contributions are intended to reimburse the govt (when it is paying the DPB to the custodial parent) for both the child and the custodial parent costs. Children don’t raise themselves.

            If there is no DPB, then the payment goes direct to the custodial parent.

            That is why liable parent contributions are typically in the hundreds of dollars per week.

            It is simply not rational to design a tax system whereby the actual parents have no more financial liability for their children than the general taxpayer. Not even the Greens suggest that.

            • Draco T Bastard 2.1.2.9.1.1
              19 July 2017 at 5:39 pm

              Universal support of children precludes the need to chase fathers that either don’t want to have anything to do with their children or fathers that the mother doesn’t want to have anything to do with the children.

    • WILD KATIPO 2.2
      19 July 2017 at 8:28 am

      Fool ! – go drink another coffee and wake up !

      This statement:

      ‘ What triggered the Greens massive lurch to the far left?’

      And all the Greens are doing is restoring some small modicum of the social net we used to have before 1984. And even then , – it is only in modest increments.

      Either you don’t even know your own country’s history or you’re some sort of arrogant , ignorant right wing neo liberal foreigner that’s trying to tell us our own history to the contrary.

      That so called ‘ far left’ label you try to use in a pejorative sense was the actual accepted social / economic setting of both Labour AND the National party pre 1984.

      So much so Robert Muldoon fought against Douglas knowing full well what was going to come. Rob Muldoon of the bloody National party , you idiot !

      It was not until the Mont Pelerin inspired subversive Business Roundtable ( now called the New Zealand Initiative ) that backed Roger Douglas and later Ruth Richardson (both Board of Directors of the London based Mont Pelerin Society ) introduced their anti social democratic anti sovereign and anti Keynesian neo liberal politico / economic ideology that we saw the wealth of the Commons redistributed into the wealthy elite.

      So after 3 decades we now have homeless dying from the cold in our streets , living in cars, a less than subsistence low wage economy , all manner of deliberately gutted social services and housing that is un – affordable.

      So dont you come around here trying to normalize neo liberalism as if it was always the historical economic setting in New Zealand buddy.

      That filthy ideology is a Johnny come lately – and btw – because of the former social democracy we enjoyed with its Keynesian economic system pre 1984 , – per capita the citizens of NZ were ranked around the 6th bloody wealthiest in the world.

      So you can fuck off with your shitarse crapping on about far left . You wouldn’t know far left if it jumped up and bit you on the arse !!!

      Go take a bloody history lesson , idiot.

      This ones for you BM.

      I’m a Right Wing Nut Job – YouTube
      you tube▶ 0:58

  3. Andre 3
    19 July 2017 at 8:25 am

    On the subject of news stories that rely on unnamed sources…

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/when-to-trust-a-story-that-uses-unnamed-sources/

    I would also add that a story that discusses limits and conditions on the reliability and completeness of the information is likely to be more reliable than one that omits those caveats. Such as whether a reporter is accompanied by government minders while gathering information.

  4. Ad 4
    19 July 2017 at 8:28 am

    Not a good week for the small handfull of Green MP’s in the Australian Senate, with two Green Senators resigning:

    https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/jul/18/australian-greens-lose-two-senators-dual-citizenship-larissa-waters-scott-ludlam

    You can’t hold dual citizenship and be in the Senate in Australia. Scott Ludlam shifted from New Zealand as a young child, and Larissa Waters didn’t realise (!) she had dual citizenship with Canada.

    Turnbull’s numbers are so fine it could take something like this to tilt in favour of passing that media deregulation legislation.

    Does show the kind of discipline that would be required if by some miracle Labour-Greens-NZFirst form a government here: the numbers will be so tight that losing even one or two could be deadly to governmental stability.

  5. Andre 5
    19 July 2017 at 8:53 am

    Another excellent rant from billionaire plutocrat Nick Hanauer.

    http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/07/18/to-my-fellow-plutocrats-you-can-cure-trumpism-215347

    tl;dr For a better society that everyone’s happier to live in, lift the incomes of people at the bottom end and shift more of the fiscal responsibility for maintaining that stable productive society to people at the top end that benefit most from a stable productive society. Because the thing most disruptive to accumulated wealth is widespread war or even civil unrest.

    • Ad 5.1
      19 July 2017 at 9:11 am

      Mr Hanauer must have had a revelation watching Bushwick, where Texas secedes from the Union:

      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4720702/

      Or maybe it was Planet of the Apes, now in a theatre near you.

      But otherwise, paying people a reasonable wage because otherwise there could be a revolution is a near-fantasy. New Zealand for example. Has appallingly low wages, and incredibly high costs of living, and few professions paying anything good, but there sure ain’t no sign of revolution on the horizon.

      You pay people good wages when you make expensive stuff the world wants to buy. Not commodities. We are a cheap commodity country.

      • RedLogix 5.1.1
        19 July 2017 at 9:27 am

        And we will remain a cheap commodity country as long as the left provides no competition to an entrenched National power block.

        When the left first collaborated with, and then capitulated to neo-liberalism, we retreated into feel good welfarism and identity politics in the aftermath. For decades all the important decisions, the ones that directly impact people’s incomes, security and health have been made with no reference to any left wing agenda.

        We could be as caring and inclusive as we liked, just so long as we never bothered the important people running the big money.

      • Andre 5.1.2
        19 July 2017 at 9:31 am

        Hanauer’s been going on about this for years, starting long before Bushwick come out.

        Every now and then locals come up with good high value-added products that can be sold overseas for good margins. But then what usually happens is they sell the whole enterprise lock stock and barrel to overseas interests.

        I agree a traditional Che-style revolution is pretty far-fetched. But some sort of widespread society breakdown where the privileged spend more and more of their resources protecting their privilege from the majority that’s falling further behind thereby draining the vitality of society, doesn’t seem quite as far-fetched.

        On the other hand, paying people at the bottom a decent wage to create the rising tide that lifts the fancy boats is an easy argument to make with actual evidence to back it up.

        • Ad 5.1.2.1
          19 July 2017 at 10:31 am

          We are really lucky for an OECD country that we have a conservative government that spends on social services like a left government. They are getting more and more high-spending every budget. They are continuing all the previous governments’ social compact, and expanding into other areas.

          So what is hollowing our society out are forces greater than our political mood or direction. Hanauer is right that businesses should pay their staff more … but so far business investment is in no way increasing multi-factor productivity that would enable that to occur.

          • garibaldi 5.1.2.1.1
            19 July 2017 at 11:03 am

            I think you are wrong there Ad….”Lucky we have a Conservative govt that spends on social services like a left govt”. If only that was true. Not much point spending $1 more in a budget when it requires $100 to fix, which is what National does ie underfunding deliberately. Worse still it then sells things off to be further run down.

        • greywarshark 5.1.2.2
          19 July 2017 at 3:13 pm

          andre
          +111

      • WILD KATIPO 5.1.3
        19 July 2017 at 9:37 am

        Funny that.

        Wasn’t that way in the 1960’s and 1970’s despite the Arab oil shocks and despite the fact that Britain joined the EEC. And we were ranked around 6th or less in the per capita wealthiest nations of the world…

        These days everybody’s trying to cut down on petroleum consumption and there’s a surplus of oil ,… and we replaced the British market with the Free Trade Deal with China for primary produce…

        So whats changed ?

        Ill tell you whats changed – despite not making ‘expensive stuff’ and only ‘cheap commodities ‘ , – we changed from a Keynesian economic model and a true social democratic society into an individualist society dominated by the greedy politico/ economic system of neo liberalism.

        That’s whats changed, mate.

        That and that only.

        And that’s why we have such viciously low wages in this country.

        And NOT because we do not produce ‘ expensive stuff’ .

        • Ad 5.1.3.1
          19 July 2017 at 10:19 am

          There are plenty of ways to get wealthy irrespective of whether the country is either “a Keynsian economic model and a true social democratic society” or “an individualist society dominated by the greedy politico/economic system of neo liberalism.”

          Some parts of the New Zealand economy (excluding construction) are advancing really well. Others continue down the commodification route and essentially hold us back.

          I’m looking for a political party that has a plan (or at least coherent things to say) about how to alter our economic future for the better.

          • WILD KATIPO 5.1.3.1.1
            19 July 2017 at 1:34 pm

            I see… well they did have a host of ‘ summits’ of brightsparks who used to talk of developing value added industry’s in NZ … however that was deemed too hard because it required govt backed initiatives to kickstart them into being in the first place and since those ‘summits’ took place post 1984 meant those ‘summits’ were on a road to nowhere fast because since 1984 its all been about small government and privatization.

            Which meant the summiteers sucked a very large Kumara , indeed.

            Meanwhile the free marketeers such as the then called Business Roundtable were too busy buying up all our utility’s and state owned assets for a song and busily asset stripping them and making large numbers of people redundant whilst jacking up the prices for such basics as electricity – and were quite happy in NOT investing in any new progressive industry’s and totally and emphatically ESCHEWED the notion of allowing anything BUT their monopoly’s to make a substantial capital return which in turn meant retaining only those primary industry’s that DID make a profit .

            However in history there are such things that even the greedy elite cannot always foresee and the newly birthed IT industry was one of them. But being the ruthless opportunists and social deviants that most of them are , – it wasn’t long before they saw a new angle on how to manipulate even that because of the dubious blessings of the unregulated free market – which they engineered , – and thus the age of the FIRE industry’s that Professor Jane Kelsey has so graciously informed us off became a reality.

            Therefore the free movement of capital became even more unrestricted in a global sense and these dashing latter day emulators of 19th century imperialists foresaw that labour in general did not enjoy that same freedom of movement for obvious reasons such as being restricted to any one geographic location at any one given time.

            And also because most of them owned pets such as cats and hamsters and landlords are rather adverse to having tenants with cats and hamsters.

            Particularly cats and hamsters that speak a different language and come from a different country than they do.

            So this all meant that a simple relocation of their enterprises to poorer country’s would ensure not only lesser production and wages costs with even greater profits , – it would also ensure a downwards pressure in the costs of labour due to lowered wages in wealthier country’s due to the balance of trade and lack of tariffs and thus because of that competition , – pressure could then be applied to trade union collectives in those wealthier country’s to further knock out competition and more importantly , – increase their profits.

            So in conclusion , it is rather difficult if one does not have a regulated Keynesian economy , – ideally based around social democracy – for any government to come up with a marvelous new plan to genuinely and emphatically advance the cause of true social equity and equal opportunity when our world trade and economics is dominated by such as the above. This may in some ways , however , go to explain the new interest in the legalization of hemp products among certain government circles with a view towards a valuable new export crop.

            That is , of course, providing the whole initiative does not entail labour from this country having to up stakes and take their cats and hamsters with them which may complicate issues regarding finding suitable foreign accommodation.

          • greywarshark 5.1.3.1.2
            19 July 2017 at 3:16 pm

            AD
            let us know when u find it.

        • Draco T Bastard 5.1.3.2
          19 July 2017 at 2:40 pm

          Ill tell you whats changed – despite not making ‘expensive stuff’ and only ‘cheap commodities ‘ ,

          Wrong. We actually did make expensive stuff and we did at least some R&D to develop further as well.

          What’s changed is that we no longer do the former and we’ve reduced the latter so that a few rich people can have more.

          • WILD KATIPO 5.1.3.2.1
            19 July 2017 at 3:19 pm

            Indeed,… however I was humoring someone ,silly…

            And btw… when the day comes when you actually present something other than that favorite line about ‘capitalism doesn’t work’ and rather than just presenting some nebulous set of ideals, and actually present something pragmatic in its place,… I’ll humour you as well..

  6. james 6
    19 July 2017 at 9:50 am

    Well – the pic says “speak the truth” and she lied. All the time defrauding money from the tax payer.

    Its pretty simple really.

    But none so blind as they refuse to see.

    Yes – there is a lot of twitter #whatever – but there is also a lot of people just as unhappy about what she has done – and the fact that she has made no effort to pay it back at any time since (until she mentions it for political purposes).

    [TheStandard: A moderator moved this comment to Open Mike as being off topic or irrelevant in the post it was made in. Be more careful in future.]

    • marty mars 6.1
      19 July 2017 at 10:03 am

      Splutter splitter slpotter

    • Cinny 6.2
      19 July 2017 at 10:30 am

      James why not get up WINZ for not taking action? As I see it the ball’s in WINZ court now, Meti has fronted for media, said she is happy for WINZ to investigate.

      Maybe at the same time you could do something to help feed hungry nz children, who have no choice or control of their situation.

    • Kevin 6.3
      19 July 2017 at 10:32 am

      Looking forward to all those tradies who do ‘cashies’, real estate ‘developers’ who buy and sell without paying the appropriate tax, rich listers who hide and evade their tax responsibilities also coming forth and admitting their wrongdoing.

      In general, those that support this government who are seething in their righteous anger over this.

      But we know the answer to that, don’t we…

    • gsays 6.4
      19 July 2017 at 2:13 pm

      I assume you are answering me.
      Obviously I was looking at the image Helen kelly then read yr outburst.

  7. james 7
    19 July 2017 at 9:50 am

    Well – you understand that it is the opposite right?

    [TheStandard: A moderator moved this comment to Open Mike as being off topic or irrelevant in the post it was made in. Be more careful in future.]

  8. CLEANGREEN 8
    19 July 2017 at 10:36 am

    My general comment today is the news on Radio NZ saying that hospitals are so full of sick people waiting that a shortage of beds is the issue???

    Not only beds, mr coleman; – it is a chronic lack of staffing to, so I want to say this to Jonathan Coleman today.

    Yes that’s for sure the hospital service is poor and to Mr Coleman; – “Winter ills fill hospitals: ‘We simply haven’t got the space’ ” says senior staff.

    MY EXPERIENCE TWO DAYS AGO.
    JONATHON,- have you visited one of your so-called world class medical hospitals Emergency department lately?????

    I did as I was in such pain I got 2 hours broken sleep last night and came in almost crawling as the pain walking on my leg knee was so painful words can’t express it.

    And then the receptionist asked coldly, “and what do you want us to do for it????

    That was just after midday after me & my Wife drove 80 kms to our nearest Emergency department so I could get some relief before the knee goes rotten after an acident!!!!

    No sense of care at all was shown, but when I looked around the room their were many sick folks before me.

    3 hours after waiting my name came up and a doctor said, we cant do any surgery here or any injections with Cortisone or any other treatment.

    But he gave me a script for Codene, (a barbituate drug).

    Many sick folks there were coughing up sputum and shivering in that cold atmosphere, so Mr Coleman, is this the “Brighter future you said we will get??????

    I have now witnessed our former world class health system has been systematically destroyed as the government has done to other services, for example they have systematically destroyed most regional rail services as Kiwirail railway has experienced.
    This government has sold our assets and said theywould put that money into medical services!!!!!

    And is this just all we got was a third class medical system here now????

    I now also have contracted the flu after sitting in that “Emergency” room full of poor souls coughing up sputum for three hours!!!!!

    Pathetic Dr Colman. Nactional = gone by september.

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/335368/winter-ills-fill-hospitals-we-simply-haven-t-got-the-space

    Winter ills fill hospitals: ‘We simply haven’t got the space’
    New Zealand Health
    less than a minute ago
    Hospitals have been forced to leave patients to wait in ambulances due to a lack of space as emergency services and departments are overwhelmed by a surge in winter illnesses.

    • BM 8.1
      19 July 2017 at 11:56 am

      The problem is all these useless pricks going to the A and E and clogging it up with their petty bullshit instead of going and seeing a doctor at a medical centre.

      • dv 8.1.1
        19 July 2017 at 12:04 pm

        Don’t you believe in the market BM

        Lets see free at ER, $60 at Dr.

      • Cinny 8.1.2
        19 July 2017 at 12:29 pm

        There’s the people who don’t go to the Dr because it’s too expensive, then what was a minor complaint turns into a life/death situation, off to A&E they go.

        How about the weekend at A&E when staff brace themselves for the onslaught of drunks and abuse they have to deal with because National lowered the drinking age and introduced alcohol into supermarkets.

        Underfunded mental health services, leading to waiting weeks or months for an appointment, as a result they continue to suffer and suicide attempts arrive at A&E.

        And it falls on the shoulders of already understaffed, overworked and underfunded A&E. Then the A&E staff fall apart due to stress from working in such conditions, and who would blame them, they work bloody hard at their jobs because they want to help ease peoples suffering

        BM, why not rock on down to the hospital, stand outside A&E and tell everyone all about it.

        • dv 8.1.2.1
          19 July 2017 at 12:59 pm

          Hey Cinny
          Re alcohol admissions to A&E.
          Why dont we charge alcohol industry the cost of treatment of alcohol related admissions?

          • Adrian 8.1.2.1.1
            19 July 2017 at 1:12 pm

            We do, the Govt gets $3 a litre for wine, the grower ( of grapes ) gets $1.50.
            And pays 22 cents of that as GST.

            • dv 8.1.2.1.1.1
              19 July 2017 at 1:26 pm

              That is a good start Adrian but I mean the real costs of the treatment.

              • gsays …
                19 July 2017 at 2:12 pm

                Because the booze industry and supermarket lobbying is strong.

                • garibaldi …
                  19 July 2017 at 5:30 pm

                  It’s not so much the supermarkets , it’s the corner liquor stores with their RTDs etc. The supermarket trade is well policed by the operators.

              • Adrian …
                19 July 2017 at 3:53 pm

                It’s probably not as much as you think because the fuckwits that end up in A&E will always find more and more inventive ways to get there.
                Your argument is probably the best reason not to legalise dope, ironically.

          • Cinny 8.1.2.1.2
            19 July 2017 at 2:27 pm

            That could help and is a really good idea, but I doubt the alcohol industry will want to pay the full cost as Adrian points out.

            It’s a dam shame there aren’t enough re hab centres and related funding in NZ to help any who are affected by drug and alcohol issues.

            Far out booze costs us dearly in NZ, so many wonderful solutions have been put forward and nothing seems to change. Just like G says, it has much to do with lobbying.

            I’m voting to change the government, am so sick of all these issues that seem to come up again and again due to a lack of action and lack of progress

          • Psycho Milt 8.1.2.1.3
            19 July 2017 at 2:43 pm

            Why dont we charge alcohol industry the cost of treatment of alcohol related admissions?

            For the same reason we don’t charge sports bodies the cost of treatment of sports-related admissions. User pays has no place in the public health system.

            • Cinny 8.1.2.1.3.1
              19 July 2017 at 2:44 pm

              Aha that makes sense PM

            • Loop 8.1.2.1.3.2
              20 July 2017 at 3:00 pm

              “Why dont we charge alcohol industry the cost of treatment of alcohol related admissions?”
              I already get taxed to death by others irresponsibility. Please can’t I have this one, already overtaxed, luxury and not tax it out of my affordability as well.
              The alcohol industry isn’t forcing people to drink. Education and a suitably funded enforcement agency would help.
              We could have everything this country needs including properly funded hospitals, if people voted on policy instead of aesthetics and charisma and be bold enough to vote for a coalition of unlikely partners. I believe a more analytical view needs to be used for the initial change for the betterment of the country. The risk needs to be taken unless we want more of the same for the next 3 years, whether labour or natz get in with the same old minor coalition partners.
              It is going to take a long time to repair the damage of successive labour and national governments have done over the last 30.
              I see natz in for a 4th. Makes me sick to the stomach.

        • Loop 8.1.2.2
          20 July 2017 at 2:42 pm

          “lowered the drinking age and introduced alcohol into supermarkets.”

          Think you’ll find the 20-…… year olds just as drunk and abusive. The under 20’s can’t take all the credit.
          I do think it was a dumb, vote grabbing ploy by natz though. EnZed doesn’t seem to have the maturity when it comes to things like alcohol and sex. Binge drinking and unprotected sex.

      • joe90 8.1.3
        19 July 2017 at 2:39 pm

        going to the A and E and clogging it up

        Best of both here in Whanganui – a GP clinic attached to the hospital ED.

        http://www.wrhn.org.nz/practices/whanganui-accident-medical

        http://www.wrhn.org.nz/practices

  9. greywarshark 9
    19 July 2017 at 11:46 am

    Warning. Thinking required and touches of Green will be encountered!

    http://mailchi.mp/ae7bdfe4cea7/tieke-eco-alerts-events-26-april-763913?e=4d85dd3e6c

    Cautions, anxiety about the government taking further irresponsible steps for the country’s good management and environmental and social wellbeing.
    This is about Special Economic Zones.

    Tieke 19 July 2017
    News of environmental, heritage and conservation happenings brought to you by the Environment and Conservation Organisations of New Zealand.
    Special Economic Zones: ECO strongly opposed

    Forest and Bird has revealed that the government has been secretly working on creating “special economic zones” which would allow it to push through contentious developments such as allowing coal mining on the Buller Plateau. The zones would give the government power to take conservation land and private land and the normal environmental, social and democratic safeguards will not apply….

    You can read the Forest and Bird press release and background papers at this link and ECO’s press statement on the matter at this link.

    Please joining us in letting the relevant Ministers know what you think. If the current government has a majority after 23rd September there is a real danger that the legislation may go through.

    This is another TPPA-type raid on NZ and its resources and for every benefit is likely to leave us with a double deficit, likely to be permanent. Don’t forget this sentence when you hear people crowing about TPPA, TPPA2, TPP, TP or whatever is the acronym or term for the latest onslaught.

  10. swordfish 10
    19 July 2017 at 11:47 am

    Our close chums & former confidantes – the Nats – sit on 42% in the latest UMR Poll

    How does this compare with their poll support in the UMRs 2 months out from the 2008, 2011 & 2014 Elections ?

    UMR 2 months out 2008-2017
    Nat ………………………51% … 42% … Down 9

    UMR 2 months out 2011-2017
    Nat ………………………54%… 42%… Down 12

    UMR 2 months out 2014-2017
    Nat ………………………48% … 42%… Down 6

    • ianmac 10.1
      19 July 2017 at 12:05 pm

      No doubt Mr Joyce will be making very reassuring noises to the Nat MPs especially those who will no doubt loose their seats later this year. Bill is a List MP. Hope his position is not at risk?

    • Cinny 10.2
      19 July 2017 at 2:32 pm

      There’s that downward trend again that James laughs off or rejects if mentioned.

      Thanks for the stats and trends Swordfish

  11. ianmac 11
    19 July 2017 at 12:07 pm

    “Labour’s fiscal plan hints at $10 billion for campaign surprise.”

    Notice that National counter attack is pending. Waiting for the shoe to drop 5,4,3,…
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11892512

  12. Andre 12
    19 July 2017 at 1:10 pm

    Oddly enough, the very few women in the Republican caucus form the majority of those Republicans that keep the interests of their constituents (rather than their donors) in mind when choosing their position on healthcare proposals…

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/3-republican-women-effectively-killed-mcconnells-latest-repeal-plan_us_596e44bde4b00db3d0f374ea?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

  13. greywarshark 13
    19 July 2017 at 2:36 pm

    If you are not understanding the polly talk then feel lucky that you are not in Brit.
    These are for light relief when your eyes have started to water.
    Hale and Pace
    (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qr2XOhgSVoY
    and
    (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BO8EpfyCG2Y

  14. Cinny 14
    19 July 2017 at 2:47 pm

    Question please.. if the IRD are cutting it’s workforce by 30% (around 4000 jobs affected), does that mean there will be less people to go after the tax dodgers, white collar tax criminals, dodgy trusts etc?

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/94881890/inland-revenue-pulls-down-the-shutters-for-staff-briefings

    • Red 14.1
      19 July 2017 at 2:54 pm

      And welfare fraudsters re cross referencing data bases Heres a question for you if a person dodges business tax as he or she makes very little and needs to provide for their family, is this ok, I am assuming so based on the I am Meteria meme

      • Cinny 14.1.1
        19 July 2017 at 3:16 pm

        I’d say it would be on a case by case basis, am no expert re tax.

        With tax…is bartering covered please? Or does one have to declare any food they may have taken out of the supermarket skip etc?

        But if I had to be economical with the truth to put food in front of my child, I’d do it, I’d take that risk all day everyday, no child of mine would ever starve. It’s the maternal instinct.

        Would be interesting to know if more women than men support Meti because of that instinct. Maybe a man would rather kill to obtain food, maybe that is the male hunter instinct kicking in. So many variables when it comes to feeding ones family.

        • Red 14.1.1.1
          19 July 2017 at 4:19 pm

          No I am simply saying he doctors his numbers to avoid paying tax on his already limited profits either year end or provisional tax or spends his employee PAYE all on the basis he needed the money to cover his family living costs as Meteria did All ok I assume on green logic

      • In Vino 14.1.2
        19 July 2017 at 6:05 pm

        Not if you get caught, buddy. (Red @14.1)
        But suppose that later on you want to improve the system, so you tell your story… Still feel good about your shallow sanctimony?

        • In Vino 14.1.2.1
          19 July 2017 at 6:08 pm

          Thanks Red – you have just explained how your ilk rip the country off far worse than Metriria did. But none of you confess publicly afterwards in order to improve the system, do you..

    • Sacha 14.2
      19 July 2017 at 3:40 pm

      They are spending over $1b on a huge new IT system, hence do not need as many humans. Those who remain are more likely to be in customer service and investigatory roles than administrative/processing roles.

  15. Andre 15
    19 July 2017 at 4:38 pm

    Novel idea. Instead of dealing to an obsolete bridge with dynamite, how about taking it apart carefully and using the bits to refurbish other bridges around the place.

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/07/18/remains-tappan-zee-bridge-scattered-across-new-york/490341001/