Open mike is your post.
It’s open for discussing topics of interest, making announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.
Comment on whatever takes your fancy.
The usual good behaviour rules apply (see the link to Policy in the banner).
Step right up to the mike…
Jackson, who has called the union an “Aussie bully”, said actors were independent contractors, which made union representation illegal under New Zealand law.
As an Independent Contractor I would like to know why is, and should union representation be illegal under New Zealand law
It’s not illegal under NZ law at all and anyway, they are only independent contractors because Jackson and other producers prefer it that way. The union is not trying to change that aspect, but to make sure there are the usual minimum standards apply in all contracts. It’s not just about wages, it’s about residuals, length of engagement, the rules around the ending of the contract and similar stuff that is standard in the industry. That’s how it works in Oz, the UK and the US and that’s how Jackson got to be rich in the first place.
Jackson got to be rich by making a successful film that was paid for largely by financiers (with govt tax assistance and grants) and was finished despite the inevitable problems.
We shouldn’t get stuck on his financial success, yesterday he was compared to Graeme Hart. Hart bought up companies and followed a Brierley approach, sharpening them to be profitable, selling off bits, cutting out others – he’s a business surgeon? He has grand houses and all that a human could dream about. But he didn’t create a business, make a New Zealand icon out of an idea like Jackson. And Jackson has skills that he has been honing since he was a kid that are outstanding.
Most businesses greatest cost is labour, so numbers of people and wages need to be controlled. This contract approach is used widely in NZ, overused I think. But people can’t be offered all the conditions of a long-term, stable job when doing one-off projects that can blow out budgets for numerous reasons.
Coronation Street and Ken Roache – how many years has he been working in it – 25, more? The employment conditions they offer are probably what actors everywhere would like. Temp agencies offer short-term work for all sorts of work skills. If NZ actors are treated the same when working for an agency or an individual in a temporary position, isn’t that fair.
Contract exist between parties and are related to local conditions. When competing with lots of other industries for workers, workers have much more incentive to force changes on government that protect themselves and make negotiation easier and quicker. But because we have no CGT in NZ the business model is much more free for all, and why not since the labour force is so sparse, not only because we have a low population but because we export the most efficient hardworking workers overseas (young skilled people). The Austalian unions spy that NZ will be better placed in the downturn to make films, so rightly like any business serving their customers seeks to remove the advantage or atleast remove the excessive abuse. We sell kiwi workers cheap, we reap exporting our youth overseas in high wages for Doctors, Nurses (and still can’t attract enough of them), and all because we have no CGT. The people who would vote for a CGT so they can live in NZ are currently paying CGT in the UK, OZ…
…we won’t get fair conditions for workers in NZ until we get fair taxation. A CGT that takes the incentive out of low wages.
Super city candidate outed as a veteran Holocaust denier and racist:
What on Earth has got into Waitakere Mayor Bob Harvey? Now that he’s landed his “sweet-as” corporate job he deems it okay to lash out at community activist Mels Barton with weirdo emails send from his office.
A small part of Mels’ activities includes running a wee email list keeping subscribers up to date with all sorts of activities and news. Lately, the list has been concentrating on the upcoming Super Shitty sale of Auckland, detailing who’s who and what’s what. The email on Monday noted Matt McCarten’s “recommendations” and quoted Matt as saying:
Mayor Bob’s response:
Odd, to say the least, and copied to his Waitakere Council colleagues. Mels sends out Bob’s response to her email:
And, Bob can’t resist a patronising response repeating his strange accusation that Mels is some sort of paid PR munchkin:
Sad times when a Labour Mayor attacks community activists seeking to encourage voters to get out there and have their say.
Mels, sweetheartBob, you dick, it isn’t slander it’s the truth – something that you are somewhat a stranger to – but then like all PR peoplepoliticians who turn traitor and after being bribed with cushy board room jobs you get paid for stretching it. This is a serious election and there is no need for tourists or people like you trying to make a quick buck by dumping on community people – so as they say MelsBob, “Swallow some sawdust, and take the money”. BobLove BLiP
Blip Thank you for that. It’s both informative and funny in a sad way. It seems that power (after having it for long enough) does corrupt and rust the fine shining ideas of good lefties.
It is pretty sad. Bob was the genius behind the Eco City concept and it is a damned good one.
But he has recently been trashing all of the residue good will that the left had for him.
Mels Barton is a seriously intelligent, dedicated and determined activist and you trifle with her at your peril.
Not only has Bob done this but he has also come out and supporter Alex Swney for the Waitemata seat ahead of Mike Lee. I am still shaking my head about this one.
He accepted appointment by Hide to a CCO thereby giving Hide some underserved cover for the well founded allegation that he is appointing his mates to these positions.
To cap things off Waitakere Council is trying to get through greater subdivision rights in the Henderson Valley area despite Bob’s “support” for protection of the Waitakere Ranges. The land ownership of the affected pieces of land makes very interesting reading.
Good on you Blip for highlighting this. I can assure you that local Labour activists do not see things the same way as Bob.
Fruit and vegetables GST debacle. Labour going to change the GST regime for this, adding costs to retailers in administration. Labour has always resisted this sort of change, as the one tax is easy to understand, cheaper for business to handle etc. I say what about bread (and circuses. Send in the clowns).
The object is to encourage healthy eating at affordable prices. Even when apples were free at one time in my town, people didn’t bother to come and get them. Using tax money on different approaches to healthy eating would be more effective. Could have summer community salad and fruit lunches etc. paid for under special nutrition funds that promoted and showed how tasty and easy to prepare such food can be. Getting good food habits starting early with preschoolers etc. Dunnne of course says ‘Nonsense’. He seems to have a small vocabulary describing his thoughts. Nonsense or commonsense that’s all.
It’s a small change in the computer software. That’s it. After that all the “administration” is automated.
Probably be simpler just to put cooking classes into primary schools with the food supplied. All the kids learn good cooking skills and get fed as well.
Yes the kids love it, especially eating their own creations.
The numbers quoted for the Auckland Super City in todays Herald astound me.
To sum up the cost of setting up is $200mlln, plus atleast $20mlln in redundancy pay outs etc.total a minimum of $220 million.
In savings the wage bill will fall by $65mlln as 1220 staff are laid off (average $53K p.a. each), and eventually to $91 mlln as another 300 go (average $86K p.a. each) in 2 years.
To put this in stark terms what are the savings / costs?
* to the rate payers zero given that all mayoral candidates state they dont foresee rate decreases. So what is the financial point of the whole exercise? Who benefits?
* to the new council around $91 mlln per annum in wages after about 3 years (covering the cost of the new city set up ($220 mlln plus). So what I wonder were all these people doing that will no longer need too be done? Or put another way what will ratepayers lose in services? Or who will now do this, and what will the cost be?
* to the taxpayers of NZ the full costs of unemployment. If as is reasonable to assume that 50% of the redundant find no work benefits will cost around $8 mlln per annum. One has to ask is Key so stupid that he will transfer a rate payers cost to the general taxpayer just for the sake of pleasing Wodders or is there something else in it for the backers of National?
* to the ratepayers lost services OR the same services at a lower standard of delivery. Will we see rubbish on the streets of Reemers?
I could go on to add the loss of income from assets (if Hides real plan, the privatisation of the assets of Auckland comes to pass), plus the cost of having too purchase the services of these assets from the new owners.
What a f****g fiasco.
Not to mention, I’m expecting loads of c**k-ups as this has been rushed through. Consider all the things that need changing: signs across the supercity that had the individual cities’ logos on them, forms and systems for various applications to council by members of the public…. just a couple of things that come to mind. And all this being managed by less people, and people who possibly weren’t familiar with how the systems worked previously in the separate cities.
Wonder how long it will take for a ratepayer to get through to a department or whoever serving the Supershitty to get information or correction of some problem?
What’s the bet there will be a female voice giving 20 options to which you have to listen twice to decide which is right, then ‘Please hold’ and some suitably soothing music, Nature enter me or something. (Wouldn’t it be good if you got an option of music – Press 1 for Topp Twins, 2 for Right said Fred (climbing up the ladder), 3 for cannons firing in the 1812 Overture.
Then you will get We are sorry all our operators are busy right now, and will be with you as soon as possible (your concerns are important to us), or you could leave a short message and your phone number. Probably the last thing you will hear as you give up is ‘Have a good day’.
It does seem incredible that the same services can be run by about 2000 fewer people. There is still the same population. There are still the same needs. Either there was a huge wastage before or a huge diminishing of services in the future.
I think that the NZRail used to employ about 20,000+ people. After the sale that workforce dropped to fewer than 5,000.
But the rail system severely degraded.
Now Auckland Super-City????? Mmmm.
Same with Telecom.
More unemployment lowers wages and, as Jonkey said, National want wages lowered.
This is the big one – Act may want privatisation for ideological purposes but National want it to boost their and their rich mates profits.
Get active you lazy slobs ………. and that’s no joke.
Annual gym membership sale now on
[lprent: You’re not advertising are you? There is a rate card around somewhere (and it wouldn’t be in comments). ]
Nah just advertising a good deal – and if people(like me) got off their bums and exercised a bit more we’d have far less concerns about obesity
Peter Dunns contribution to NZ needs to be re iterated. Day light savings was brought in earlier and look what we have … Sun and fine weather for the school holidays ;-).
But my curtains will fade more!
And that those dairy farmers cannot cope, or was it the cows get confused as to what IS the time. Well at least they are creaming it financially at the moment to soften for their troubles !!
Also will not the sun wear out earlier with all the extra hydrogen required to burn longer for the extra day light 😉
Good for the tomatoes, though.
Looks like another “farmer with a Dutch name” (Henry Van Der Heyden), has been caught out over dairy farmer cow welfare. Perhaps someone could tell us if his organisation lobbied the previous Labour Govt to “phase in” the proposed ban on inducing dairy cows.
Even some fresh produce retailers think removing GST from fruit and vegetables a bad idea, even if it will help their stores financially:
“Funky Pumpkin owner Rod Fairlie said removing GST from fresh produce would be “incredibly complex”.
The Vege Pot owner John Trott said anything that encouraged people to eat more fruit and vegetables was good, but if it was not a complicated process the Government would have already removed GST on those items.
“I’m not sure it would make our job any easier, but it would be good for our industry as a whole,” he said.
However, Trott said he did not think removing GST from fresh produce would encourage more people to buy fruit and vegetables.
“People who already do will probably buy more, but I don’t know if it’ll change people’s eating habits.””
There is no hope for Labour.
Nine years to reverse the mistakes of the 80’s and only nibbled around the edges.
Voting for the Dictatorship enabling act and now the best they can come up with is remove GST on fruit and veges.
Not only A truly dumb idea, but a total waste of time and effort while the country and its people desperately need an alternative to neo-liberal madness, and the exporting of our wealth and sovereignty to overseas money jugglers. .
Try voting with your conscience: New Zealand Democrats for Social Credit
Kudos to Phil Twyford for demanding to see the payouts/golden handshakes to council execs prior to voting in the super shitehole elections.
FFS “gimme back my rwates !”
Kia ora ano tatou e hoa ma!
There is a great new documentary on Economics freely available on the web. It features many great “renegade” / “alternative” economists who are not brainwashed by “neo-liberal” / “neo-classical” economics.
The video is “The Secret of Oz” and was written, produced and directed by Bill Still, the writer/producer/director of “The Money Masters”
You can download it from here (flv / flash video format)
“The Secret of Oz”
For a little light humour…
This GuardianUK article sounds like every scientific article on stuff.co.nz / nzherald …
NZFP, you should look at the link I posted near the top of this thread to see where the conspiracy theories about cabals of bankers controlling the world which you are promoting lead. The conspiracy theorists you are promoting are only one or two steps away from anti-semitism and even neo-Nazism. There’s a good expose of Ellen Brown, one of the people you discuss on your blog, here:
That article is full of logical fallacies including but not limited to:
1. “argumentum ad hominem” – This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. Brown is personally attacked rather then the economic theories in her book. You should judge for yourself by reading her book. It is available at the public library. There is nothing racist in her book at all.
2. “Post hoc ergo propter hoc” – This is the fallacy of assuming that A caused B simply because A happened prior to B. A favorite example: “Most rapists read pornography when they were teenagers; obviously, pornography causes violence toward women.”. In this case alledged neo-Nazis read Browns work, therefore Brown is a neo-Nazi Jew hating anti-semite racist. The accusation that Ellen H. Brown is either a neo-Nazi or an anti-semite would be news to her greatsest fan – the very Jewish pro-American, former US Army, prolific author and left leaning political commentator “Stephen Lendman”.
Stephen Lendman frequently interviews Ellen Brown on his radio show on the Progressive Radio Network. You can listen to many interviews between the very Jewish Stephen Lendman and Ellen Brown HERE
Stephen Lendman and Ellen H. Brown are both contributing authors to the “Center for Research on Globalization” headed by the very Jewish Canadian Economist Professor Michel Chossudovsky.
So as you can see, the neo-Nazi anti-semite Jew hating smear is just that – a smear. This calls into question the credentials of the authors of the leftbusinessobserver website. The information I’ve supplied is easily searchable on the web and freely avaiable.
Who are you Scott and who runs the leftbusinessobserver website?
I’m not attacking you mate, however I would be very concerned with comments from the authors of the leftbusinessobserver website. For example:
This is entirely false. The US Greenbacks were backed by nothing but the full faith and credit of the United States itself. The currency introduced by Adolph Hitler in response to the failures of the Weimar Republic was also backed entirely by the faith and credit of the Reich – it should be noted that Hitler merely introduced a monetary system that had already been proposed by monetary specialists outside of the NAZI party.
Again this is completely false, the monetary system that preceded the FED was the US greenbacks introduced by US Congressman E. G. Spaulding of Buffalo, New York. Spauldings legal tender law was passed by 93 to 59 on February 25th, 1862.
While it is true that previously treasury notes that were issued from 1812 and on were always later redeemable in metal, it should be noted that Greenbacks were not paper promises to pay money later, the greenbacks were themselves the money.
Since the greenbacks were not borrowed there was no interest payment on them – unlike the private federal reserve system – and they did not add to the national debt – to a private central bank.
And this is true – however the authors of the leftbusinessobserver have failed to identify that boom / bust cycles are caused by the emmission and contraction of credit caused by the expansion and contraction of debt. The FED caused an instant and massive expansion of debt during the roaring 20’s which led to a crash and a FED imposed contraction of credit. The contraction of credit is the definition of depression. The lack of money circulating in the economy caused “[c]ommodity prices [to] decline steadily” as there was no money to buy the commodities, consequently the commodity prices dropped to match the lack of money. This in turn caused a “great strain on farmers in particular”.
This leaves me to wonder just who the authors of the leftbusinessobservera are. They either have a primitive grasp of economics or they are purposefully presenting a primitive economic view – either way the effect is the same and that is to obvuscate the economic history of the world.
The rest of the attack on Brown is trivial, fallacious and sensationalist and adds nothing.
Just been talking with my sons friends, a whole group who went to school with him, now in their twenties and most are out of work. These are clever motivated kids but there is only junk jobs and part time work. Then theres a number who now have degrees and student debt, still no work. These are not just kids from poor suburbs, most of their parents are well educated middle class and reasonably well off. The problem is right across society. Most have been looking and applying for wrk for over a year.
Can somebody at the Standard please run a story on youth unemployment (would do it but dont have time)? I am bloody concerned these kids see no future in terms of employment, careers, jobs, prospects etc. They dont see either Labour or National as anything other than artifacts of a system that has failed them. There is a timebomb ticking here.
It’s scary all right. My niece couldn’t even get to the student loan stage. She delayed going to university for 6 months then found she couldnt’t get in because the rules changed – no places available. Working at Macca’s in the hope she’ll manage it it the new year
I’m somewhat concerned about that. I’m more concerned about the damage that the benefit bashing and derogation that’s coming out of the NACTs will do. These kids are already at the bottom – kicking them while they’re down, which is basic NACT strategy, isn’t going to help.
To protect their own elitism and privileges, these Kickers seem determined to keep other kids down and at the bottom
WTF!!! Why does this not surorise me?
Yeah, the Tories will make anything up to divert attention away from their own shenanigans
Yeah, I’m not surprised either. The C&R will make all sorts of allegations in their desperation to retain power in Ak. It’d be funny if it turned out they wrote the letter themselves. Thanks for pointing it out, TB.
(Just noticed BLiP beat me too it! Great minds etc.)
I have just sent myself a letter, warning myself that I was on a hit list. I wrote it in red crayon, but it looks a bit like blood. I put “From Cityzenns and Ratepyers Yes Really!” at the bottom, just to make sure everyone understands.
When I get my letter from myself I hope it will be in the Herald, then on the blogs, hopefully on TV.
They might not buy it, but at least “True Blue” will. Why does that not surprise me?
Lest we forget:
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN:
I am aware of many countries that have appallingly inefficient GST systems where they exempt various articles, where they have differential rates, and where one has to differentiate between food taken away from a place and food consumed within a place. Thank goodness we have not followed those very bad policies.
[lprent: Off-topic – moved to OpenMike. I’d suggest that you don’t waste my time. ]
You realise that nothing in this post had anything to do with Labour suggesting GST be taken off fruit and vegetables, right? If you want to talk about that, use open mic or the other thread on GST on fruit and vegetables.
[lprent: thanks ]
‘it should be noted that Hitler merely introduced a monetary system that had already been proposed by monetary specialists outside of the NAZI party’
Don’t tell me that you’re one of the not inconsiderable number of Social Crediters that believe Hitler was some sort progressive figure, NZFP? I blogged about this delusion at:
If you’ve gone so far down the rabbit hole that you’re prepared to see Hitler in a progressive light, then you’re an example of where these conspiracy theories which posit a group of Jewish/illuminati/shapeshifting lizard bankers controlling the world economy lead.
I said that Hitler introduced a monetary policy developed by monetary specialists outside of the Nazi Party. Are you denying that Hitlers economic policy turned Germany from a basket case into an economic powerhouse?
What else do you deny?
What you have just done is a logical fallacy, you’ve created a straw man and you are attacking it with gusto and I need to call you out on it. Where did I state Hitler was Progressive? Quote me directly please – if you can’t you can apologise publicly and retract your accusation!
By the way – get off the anti-semite bandwagon. That old smear needs to be put to bed. History and facts are not anti-semitic.
It has been well established that Jewish bankers have been involved in many financial frauds throughout history – just as it has been established that Scottish and Dutch and English and German (and many more) bankers have also been involved in financial fraud.
Do you deny this Scott?
Are you serious? Are you trying to say that any criticism of globalisation and the private fractional banking systems are really anti-Jewish hate rhetoric? Seriously?
You may want to let the very Jewish Stephen Lendman and Canadian Jewish Economist Professor Michel Chossudovsky know this (two of my favourite authors)! You may also want to let the Jewish descendent Karl Marx know that too! You should also tell the Jewish Classical Economist – one of my favourites and one of the inspirations for Major Clifford H. Douglas – The English Jew David Ricrado know as well.
Since you are calling everyone who criticises private banking an anti-semite you should start with these two Jewish Classical economists (Ricardo/Marx) and then move on to the two economists and political commentators (Chossudovsky/Lendman).
What a joke!
Well, you’re certainly providing a good example of where anti-semitic conspiracy theories lead, NZFP. You are now openly praising Adolf Hitler, on the basis that he turned Germany from a ‘basket case’ into a roaring ‘economic powerhouse’. You think he did this by reforming the country’s banking sector. In fact, economic growth in Nazi Germany came as a result of the destruction of the union movement, the use of hundreds of thousands of slave labourers, and the expropriation and redistribution of the assets of enemies of the Nazi regime. By driving down labour costs using fascistic policies and by gifting stolen assets to provate sector supporters, Hitler helped restore profit levels.
The measures Hitler used in the ’30s were replicated in Spain under Franco and in Chile in the 1970s. Fascism is the set of measures that a capitalist class uses when it is placed under extreme pressure by an insurgent labour movement and an economic crisis. If you think the sort of economic ‘success’ that Hitler achieved is in any way admirable, then you should not be commenting on a left-wing messageboard. I wonder what the poor old Social Democrats for Social Credit think about you promoting them and defending Hitler in the same thread, as well.
This doesn’t count as a response. Logical fallacies are the tool of the uneducated with nothing worth saying. You are guilty of:
Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument to ignorance): this is the fallacy of assuming something is true simply because it hasn’t been proven false, in this example you assert (without evidence) that Germany’s economic changes happened only because of Hitlers attacks on Labour and had nothing to do with monetary reform.
Argumentum ad misericordiam (argument or appeal to pity): the English translation pretty much says it all. Example: “Think of all the poor, Jehovah’s Wittnesses, Jews, Poles, Gays, Romany’s, Communists who were sent to the slave labour camps! Obviously monetary reform is to blame”.
Argumentum ad nauseam (argument to the point of disgust; i.e., by repitition): this is the fallacy of trying to prove something by saying it again and again. In this example you state over and over that monetary reformers are neo-Nazis, because Hitler was a Nazi therefore monetary reformers are neo-Nazis. Which finds you guilty of:
Circulus in demonstrando (circular argument): a circular argumentation occurs when someone uses what they are trying to prove as part of the proof of that thing. In this example you accuse me of being a neo-Nazi because you have stated that monetary reform advocates are neo-Nazis who believe in global banking cabals because you have accused me of believing in these cabals (without evidence). Which means you are guilty of:
Cum hoc ergo propter hoc (with this, therefore because of this): this is the familiar fallacy of mistaking correlation for causation. In this example you are conflating Hitlers anti-semitism with all people who advocate monetary reform. You believe that Hitler implemented monetary reform (proposed by economists outside of the Nazi party before Hitler became chancellor by the way), however Hitler also did many other terrible things. Consequently according to you, with this monetary reform, therefore neo-Nazi because of monetary reform.
This is pathetic and your arguments and accusations are pathetic. I’m going to let a Maori friend of mine I’m meeting at a Waananga in two weeks read your comments. His whanaunga are Jewish and Ringatu, and he – like me – is sick of losers like you throwing the “anti-semite” smear at people without cause (koretake – just like you).
It is well known that people who use the “anti-semite” slur without cause have … something … to hide. What are you hiding Scott? Who are you Scott?
By the way Scott. Monetary reform of the type I advocate was proposed by:
ARISTOTLE (384-322 BC) – When he stated “All goods must therefore be measured by some one thing…now this unit is in truth, demand, which holds all things together…but money has become by convention a sort of representative of demand; and this is why it has the name nomisma – because it …. [Money] exists not by nature, but by law” (Ethics 1133)
LYCURGUS SPARTAN PELANORS (800-730 BC) Lycurgus banned using gold and silver and instituted iron slugs called Pelanors for Sparta’s money system. Furthermore those iron pieces were dipped in vinegar while hot, to render them brittle and to purposely destroy any commodity value that they had as iron! They received their value through legal sanction. This system of iron nomisma lasted about 350 years and Sparta became a premier power.
But of course according to you Scott – Aristotle and Lycurgus are just neo-Nazis who believe in a Cabal of Jewish bankers that rule the world and that their monetary reforms had nothing to do with scientific observation of monetary systems?
Considering your obsession – and your obsession alone – with Nazis – it begs the question of your intentions – are you a racist for suggesting that monetary reform is linked to Nazis and Jews?
I’ve proven absolutely that this is not the case because Nazi’s did not exist in 800 BC. What are your intentions Scott? I find your obsession with Cabals of Jewish bankers anti-semitic!
Which begs the question Scott – why are you commenting on a left-wing message board attacking monetary reform advocates by calling them anti-semite neo-nazis. Is this the new “Funny Money ” slur for social democratic economic reform? If so, that is pathetic and a disgrace not to mention dishonorable to the names of the 60 million+ people – of all nations and religions – who died in the Holocaust that was World War 2!
Rave on as much as you like, old boy, but the fact is that you’ve argued that “Hitler introduced a monetary policy” which “turned Germany from a basket case into an economic powerhouse”. This is not only nonsense but counts as a defence of at least one aspect of the Nazi programme.
You’ve gone on cite a grab-bag of thinkers, some of whom, like Marx, Ricardo, and (!) Aristotle, have nothing at all to do with the views you advance, and some of whom, like Douglas and the 9/11 Troofer and Holocaust denier Chussodovsky, have a record of anti-semitism. My advice to you is to try to find out something about how capitalism and the world work. You’d be better off in an offline library than on the internet, where you seem to fall prey to all sorts of strange conspiratorial websites. Good luck with the studies.
Why don’t you go to an off-line library Scott you don’t seem interested in discussing anything just attacking from a point of your own superiority and purity of intellect.
Anti spam annoys ha!
The right hand turning preference over left turns is to change soon. The AA says the current law is partly to blame for more than 2500 accidents a year. Of those, 73 involve injuries, with one or two deaths, and cost $22 million.
It is a rule that is unique to New Zealand and has baffled visitors and locals alike. It was introduced in 1977…New Zealand was copying the Australian state of Victoria in decreeing that anyone turning left must give way to those turning right. (They brought it in to accommodate the trams apparently). But Victoria scrapped the rule 17 years ago, (1993) despite fears the change back would cause carnage.
The public didn’t want to change in 1977 but some bright bloke/s forced it through and then we were stuck with it for 33 years. That’s how long it takes NZ government to make necessary changes to laws! I think many should have a sort of pilot period, be monitored, assessed and changes made and checked again after a set period.
Here’s a quote from my offline library, prism: it comes from ‘Social Credit’, the magnum opus of Clifford Douglas, the father of the Social Credit movement and the man NZFP cites as a key influence on his ideas (NZFP is indignant, of course, at the notion that Douglas was an anti-semite):
‘In a remarkable document which received some publicity years ago, under the title of ‘The Protocols of the Elders of Zion’, a Machiavellian scheme for the enslavement of the world was outlined. The authenticity of this document is a matter of little importance; what is interesting about it, is the fidelity with which the methods by which such enslavement might be brought about can be seen reflected in the facts of everyday experience’ [ungrammatical second sentence reproduced accurately]
That passage occurs on page 146 of the 1937 edition of Douglas’ book, on the first page of his chapter on ‘Taxation and Servitude’. Douglas goes on to support the Protocols’ claims that a tiny group of Jewish bankers are controlling the world economy and engineering conflicts like the Great War. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is of course the most notorious anti-semitic text in history, a crude forgery produced in Russia at the end of the nineteenth century which is still used by neo-Nazis and various other conspiracy theorists as ‘evidence’ that the Jews are behind all that ills of the world. At the same time that Douglas was citing the ridiculous Protocols as a credible guide to world events, Hitler was using them as an excuse to drive Jews into concentration camps. Douglas’ book doesn’t mention this, of course, and nor does it criticise Hitler in any way. On the contrary, it praises Hitler as a Social Crediter, in the same way that NZFP has praised him in this thread. I’ve never suggested that all Social Crediters are anti-semites, but there is a deep strain of anti-semitism in the history of the movement, and this strain certainly manifests itself in NZFP’s bizarre statements on this thread. My point is fairly simple: I don’t think people should be able to promote anti-semitic bigots like Douglas and defend Hitler’s economic policies on left-wing blogs.
“but counts as a defense of at least one aspect of the Nazi programme”
Which distills your entire argument to the definition of the logical fallacy “Cum hoc ergo propter hoc”, because Nazis implemented credit as a public utility therefore anybody who advocates credit as a public utility also advocates slave labour camps. That makes you a bigot!
Considering your entire argument is a fallacy, your entire argument – just like you – can be dismissed.
Which begs the question – why would somebody who claims to have a PHD be soo academically illiterate – assuming the Maps of readingthemaps is the Scott (Maps) that posts regularly on this left-leaning forum?
If you are not (Maps) – then I apologise to (Maps) for slandering his/her name.
I cite Aristotle all the time Scott, as well as Ricardo and Marx as well as many other economists who you would describe as neo-nazi anti semites with your fallacious false rhetoric – particularly in reference to tax reform (something I advocate all the time) and classical vs neo-classical economics.
You should really do some research into me before you start sluring me as an anti semite. A simple search of this forum with the keys nzfp Aristotle, David Ricardo, John Stuart Mills, Adam Smith and Marx will return many responses. Have a go – you’ll be embarrassed by your behavior when you do!
If you can’t do that then click here and here and here and here and here and here and here … you can look for the rest yourself.
My advice to you is to grow some ***** and stop hiding behind false rhetoric, logical fallacies and baseless slurs because you’re just showing yourself to be academically disingenuous.
I could go on, but I can see that you’ll only ever respond with fallacies which makes your responses irrelevant and debate with you pointless.
As for your comments about the Protocols – have you ever read it Scott? I doubt very much you have? For a document that has received so much notoriety and is referenced to in your “offline archive” – I’ve personally never met anyone who has read it. I wonder if you’ve read Rushdies Satanic Versus – you did know that merely reading that book makes you an anti-Muslim don’t you? If you haven’t read the protocols then you don’t know what your talking about!
What is interesting about your quote is this “the fidelity with which the methods by which such enslavement might be brought about can be seen reflected in the facts of everyday experience”. Is that true or untrue – you haven’t made that clear either way, instead you’ve used it as a device to slur Douglas – pretty academically disingenuous – but what else should anyone expect from you.
Maybe you should read it – or is merely reading a book now considered anti-semitic? You’re the expert on what is and isn’t anti-semitic. According to you the Jewish David Ricardo is anti-semitic and so is Adam Smith, Alexander Del Mar, Stephen Lendman (Jew), Michel Chossudovsky (Jew), Lysurges and Aristotle (maybe not those two because the term anti-semitic was invented in the 1800’s) and many others.
pffftttt talking to you is a waste of time.
“the fidelity with which the methods by which such enslavement might be brought about can be seen reflected in the facts of everyday experience”. Is that true or untrue?’
Er, it’s untrue, NZFP, as any sane and non-bigoted person should know. The ‘facts of everyday experience’ do not show that a tiny group of Jews is enslaving the world using the banking sector. The Protocols, which I’ve of course read, are a load of anti-semitic nonsense. Douglas’ claim in his key work that the Protocols are proven correct by events in the twentieth century is anti-semitic nonsense. And you make a fool of yourself when you try to defend Douglas’ nonsense.
As I say, go offline, do some reading, and have a think. And for goodness’ sake stop trying to drag people who have nothing to do with your weird views into your arguments. If you want to find about something about Marx – hint, he wasn’t a conspiracy theorist or a Social Crediter – then read something about him based on scholarship, like the forthcoming book based on my PhD ( http://www.manchesteruniversitypress.co.uk/catalogue/book.asp?id=1204782) or, even better, try reading the man’s works (http://www.marxists.org).
More false rhetoric and logical fallacies.
Did I say Marx was a conspiracy theorist or Social Creditor… no… God you are truly academically disabled! Everything you state is cum hoc ergo propter hoc or guilt by association or ad hominem.
However because I advocate Social Credit economic policies as well as Georgist land tax reform and progressive land regulation you assert I’m an anti semite – ad hominem.
By the way – Marx was wrong! Read Capital (all three volumes) and compare it with vulture capitalism today and you’ll see I’m right. Marx thought Industrial Capatialism would transform Financial Capitalism – wrong, completely and totally wrong – how do we know this – obvious, GM, Ford and Chrrysler got no bailout but Goldman Sachs, Citi, Chase et al did… You think you can read I’m sure you can find out yourself.
Marx had a primitive view of money based on Adam Smiths primitive ponderata definition of metals – wrong again – and proven absolutely wrong by events in the US, by Aristotle and Lysurgus, by Del Mar, by Spaulding by many many others – including Douglas. But don’t worry because even my favorite economist David Ricardo was wrong – although his famous attacks on the Bank of England showed that he understood the importance of credit as a public and not private utility even if he did still think money should be based on metals.
Even the great American thinker Thomas Paine never truly understood the difference between truly FIAT public credit and metals, but he was almost there – someone well read like you would know this, right? Oh you didn’t read that you academic elite, koretake!
God I hope that forthcoming book – is not – based on your PhD because it sounds like it’s going to be more rubbish! You really need to throw out all the rubbish you think you know and get a real education. How you got a PhD is truly beyond me!
Seriously go away!
P.S. “Hitler was using them as an excuse to drive Jews into concentration camps” was it just Jews in those camps? That’s news to the purple triangle Jehovah’s Witness friends of mine!
Narrow intellectual bookish smarts =! Wisdom, heart, broad perspective
The scales have fallen from my eyes, NZFP. You are right, and Marx and the thousands of scholars who have elaborated and applied his work are wrong. How can we argue with sentences are superbly constructed as yours?
The scales have fallen from my eyes, NZFP. You are right, and the thousands of scholars who have elaborated and applied Marx’s work are wrong. Not only that, but you can show that Ricardo and Smith were silly buggers too. You also have the real deal on Aristotle. And to think that you’ve done it all without ever publishing so much as an article in a peer-reviewed journal! You truly show the obsolescence of old-fashioned universities, in the face of the new scholarly tools offered by google and nutty conspiracy websites.
I can’t help noticing, though, that, according to the media, GM did get bailed out by the US government last year. Like the claim that Douglas endorsed the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in ‘Social Credit’, though, I’m sure this is a nefarious distortion of reality perpetrated by the sinister cabal that controls the world from a beige room somewhere in Tel Aviv.
Don’t forget that the ‘peer-reviewed journal’ discipline of Economics, as defined and elaborated by the Chicago school, the Austrian school, and the freshwater schools, and the agents thereof spread throughout every Government and financial authority in the world, have led the world into an inequitable financial disaster.
Chump change, cents in the dollar, compared to what was gifted to the financial sector.
You see, the financial asset wealthy interests don’t care about the real economy any more, they are more interested in the trillions they can play with in the financial merry go around.
“GM did get bailed out by the US government” sure Scott, to the same tune as AIG, didn’t GM, Ford and Chrysler literally have to beg – no taking private jets now? I don’t remember Goldman begging, former Goldman CEO and former US Treasury secretary Paulson had Goldman sorted both directly and indirectly through covering AIG bad CDS held for Goldman? Didn’t you read that too? Oops you need a PhD to be able to read according to you.
Hey do I need a PhD to be able to read? Seems like the only people qualified to talk economics are PhD’s named Scott! Well guess what – I’m not letting that stop me. Doesn’t Bernanke have a PhD too – he’s doing a great job with the US economy (sarcasm). He should get some advice from you Scott you know everything there is to know about everyuthing as you’ve just demonstrated with your wonderful command of logical fallacies and false rhetoric. Now books are being written based on your PhD thesis – Bernanke would get great advice from you – he could write poetry while he borrows more money from a private bank.
“thousands of scholars” Argumentum ad numerum (argument or appeal to numbers). This fallacy is the attempt to prove something by showing how many people think that it’s true, you haven’t proved this so you’re just talking out of our tero! You know what a tero is eh Scott.
“you can show that Ricardo and Smith were silly buggers too” – Appeal to ridicule, you haven’t proven anything here just talking out of your tero again.
“You truly show the obsolescence of old-fashioned universities” – Appeal to ridicule, except in this case you’ve really shown how academically arrogant and ignorant you are – where did you get your PhD, I’m truly concerned with the quality of those fake Indian universities – they seem to have dropped to a real low with you.
“sinister cabal that controls the world from a beige room somewhere in Tel Aviv” – Ignoratio elenchi. The fallacy of Irrelevant Conclusion consists of claiming that an argument supports a particular conclusion when it is actually logically nothing to do with that conclusion. Now you are really talking out of your tero – keep going Scott, you really sound like a PhD scholar now!
Seriously, it’s been a pleasure but you’re a bigot.
‘the agents thereof spread throughout every Government and financial authority in the world’
Agents, eh? Is that the Twilight Zone theme I hear in the background? Be careful, old boy: they’re everywhere. Hasn’t that white van been parked across the road for a suspiciously long time?
You’re right I must’ve been thinking about the Goldman Sachs alumni spread throughout the US federal reserve banking system and also the White House. (Although NZ only got a Merrill Lynch guy as PM, what a downgrade).
And a tip: its not being paranoid if its really happening, in real life.
Scott the Troll
“And to think that you’ve done it all without ever publishing so much as an article in a peer-reviewed journal”
wow you refuted everything I said with … an ad hominem attack … you are soo intelligent.
“the 9/11 Troofer and Holocaust denier Chussodovsky”
wow you refuted everything the Canadian Jewish Economics Professor Michel Chossudovsky asserts with … wait for it … another ad hominem attack.
“Holocaust denier Chussodovsky”
wow you proved Chossudovsky was a holocaust denier by … stating he is a holocaust denier … your debating skills are excellent Scott.
Does Scotts behavior define the fool as a Troll? From the Policy section – specifically the Rules:
If you follow the thread above you can see how Scotts comments are spurious logical fallacies. Scott is making no attempt to engage in a discussion on economics, political economics or economic theory and is instead resorting to primarily ad hominem attacks against myself. You can see the many instances of Scotts use of sophistry – particularly with false rhetoric and logical fallacies – demonstrating that he isn’t interested in genuine economic discussion. This is clearly the definition of a troll.
Scotts continued use of false rhetoric and logical fallacies have been covered in this post as well as other responses on this page including HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE