Sale of the century

Written By: - Date published: 12:02 pm, July 2nd, 2012 - 71 comments
Categories: john key, Privatisation - Tags: ,

If anyone knows the original source of this please post it in comments.

71 comments on “Sale of the century ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Mighty Kites 1
    2 July 2012 at 12:03 pm

    Looks like the Dom Post

  2. Kotahi Tane Huna 2
    2 July 2012 at 12:06 pm

    “The Diary” is from the Herald, isn’t it? That’s where it resides these days at any rate…

  3. Hayley 3
    2 July 2012 at 12:09 pm

    I am pretty sure the Dom Post has Diary as part of its “Capital Day” section, but I could be mistaken.

  4. ad 4
    2 July 2012 at 12:52 pm

    In terms of who did well out of the last lot of asset sales, might want to have a chat with Infratil. They did great thanks!

  5. dan1 5
    2 July 2012 at 12:52 pm

    Don’t ask John Key. He won’t remember.

    • the pink postman 5.1
      3 July 2012 at 2:19 pm

      He is certainly very forgetfull he can’t even remember if he was pro-tour or not.According to Tom Scott (channel 7) last week Scott says that Key was pro-tour.I find that rather disturbing .how can a person of Jewish decent support apartheid ? I have never heard of it before, what a two faced slime bag this Key is . Love of money is what drives him ,it will be his failure maybe sooner than we think.

      • Te Reo Putake 5.1.1
        3 July 2012 at 2:41 pm

        To be fair, Postie, Key isn’t a devout Jew. He seems to hedge on his religious beliefs, much like he does on any issue that requires him to make a moral judgement.
         
        Apartheid South Africa’s most consistent international friend during the eighties, and a regular sanction buster, was Israel. Mainly for business reasons, I suspect. Ironic, huh?

      • jack 5.1.2
        4 July 2012 at 3:36 pm

        I remember his response in the last debate with Helen Clark. He was going to school and didn’t care at all about the demonstrations. He said he was studying and dating his girlfriend which I believe is his wife, not sure. Anyway, fast forward and things have changed a little. He’s making a shit load of money off the taxpayer’s back instead of studying and he’s doing to this country now what he was trying to do to his girlfriend back then.

  6. Newt 6
    2 July 2012 at 1:17 pm

    It’s not online on The Herald… but if you want to share it on Facebook use this one: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150904947906190

    • Akldnut 6.1
      2 July 2012 at 4:31 pm

      I shared that link on facebook yesterday morning and it was still up last night but it’s gone now.
      Methinks the influence of the govt over facebook in NZ may have had a bit to play!
      I’m glad someone saved it.

  7. Phaedrus 7
    2 July 2012 at 1:19 pm

    DomPost Saturday 30th June 2012

  9. ropata 9
    2 July 2012 at 1:57 pm

    The biggest bludgers in NZ are not welfare beneficiaries…

    • Draco T Bastard 9.1
      2 July 2012 at 5:45 pm

      The biggest bludgers have always been the rich. They bludge off the work of everyone else and whinge when everyone else wants more their own wealth.

      • Frank Macskasy 9.1.1
        2 July 2012 at 9:49 pm

        Indeed, Draco.

        But I nthink, this time, they’ve scored an own-goal with their greed. Chester Borrows was only too happy to make an admission on the last episode of ‘Backbenches’. If this isn’t a comnflict of interest – I don’t know what is…

        “Conflicts of Interest?”
        – http://fmacskasy.wordpress.com/2012/07/02/conflicts-of-interest/

        I’ve emailed a link to my blogpost to the msm. It’ll be interesting what, if anything develops from this…

  10. captain hook 10
    2 July 2012 at 2:16 pm

    thats right.
    all asset buyers should be drug tested.

    • weka 10.1
      2 July 2012 at 3:04 pm

      And be sterilised.

      • TheContrarian 10.1.1
        2 July 2012 at 3:08 pm

        I should be sterilised for wanting to purchase shares in Mighty River? 

        Interesting perspective 

        • felix 10.1.1.1
          2 July 2012 at 5:58 pm

          The justification for drug-testing beneficiaries is that being in receipt of public money carries certain obligations, one of those is that the money is not being spent on drugs.

          If you make a profit from our energy companies it could be argued that you’re in receipt of the benefit of the hard work and taxes of several generations of New Zealanders that it took to build up those energy and profit-producing assets, and that you owe an obligation that their hard work and taxes are not being frittered away on your drug habit.

          It’s a spurious argument in some respects, I know, but in others it’s not far removed from the one Paula Bennett is using.

          • TheContrarian 10.1.1.1.1
            2 July 2012 at 6:15 pm

            I don’t agree with drug testing of beneficiaries.

            • felix 10.1.1.1.1.1
              2 July 2012 at 6:25 pm

              Nor do I. And not with drug-testing the beneficiaries of share floats either. Or the beneficiaries of family trusts or anything else.

              But It might be interesting to see someone argue for one but not the other.

            • McFlock 10.1.1.1.1.2
              2 July 2012 at 8:57 pm

              Actually the issue was sterilization of beneficaries of asset sales.
                     
              Sadly, while tempting, it rests on the logic of euthenasia. The fact is that behavioural variation within chromosomal variation is wider than that between chomosomal variation. So sterilizining people who think “society” is spelt with an “m” and an “e” will not produce the desired result, i.e. a society made of people who know that profiteering off their neighbours weakens all concerned.

            • Frank Macskasy 10.1.1.1.1.3
              2 July 2012 at 9:52 pm

              +1

              I wonder if we can breath-test politicians who have been drinking booze at work?

              “I’m sorry, Minister, but that’s a ‘positive’ return. I now require you to accompany me to an authorised place for an evidential breath test or blood sample…”

        • mike e 10.1.1.2
          2 July 2012 at 8:04 pm

          You need adult nappies incontenaryan

          • TheContrarian 10.1.1.2.1
            2 July 2012 at 8:12 pm

            Another of those high quality comments that makes The Standard an enlightening, adult and intellectual resource for the studious left-wing man (or woman) of today.

            Hat’s off to you mike e.

      • ropata 10.1.2
        2 July 2012 at 3:08 pm

        And regularly humiliated and required to justify their existence

        • TheContrarian 10.1.2.1
          2 July 2012 at 3:13 pm

          well, I haven’t decided yet anyway – see what my financial advisor  recommends.

          • John M 10.1.2.1.1
            2 July 2012 at 4:13 pm

            He’d probably recommend regular humiliation, wouldn’t he? I don’t think financial advisors do justification of your existence very well. He’d probably have to refer you on for that.

            • TheContrarian 10.1.2.1.1.1
              2 July 2012 at 4:23 pm

              I generally only accept financial advice from him.
              But hey, if shares in NZ companies are to be floated better I buy them than a foreigner, no? 

              • John M …
                2 July 2012 at 4:36 pm

                Well, only if you think it’d be easier for government to buy them back, but I think the best bet is for Shearer and the Greens to say now that they’d re-nationalise and at the rate the shares are sold for, no inflation adjustment, to put all buyers off which would have the effect of scuppering the greedy bastards’ plan – like when locals quite rightly trash buildings put up on waterfront sub-divisions sold for millions but which are potentially subject to claims and which the Crown didn’t have the balls to buy – a bit of direct action.

                • Rodel …
                  2 July 2012 at 5:39 pm

                  John M Yes Yes Yes! C’mon Shearer..Show some grit..Show me why I should vote for you.

                • Ben …
                  4 July 2012 at 1:17 pm

                  I don’t understand why they haven’t said this.

                  I suppose it may be because the books might look quite unhealthy /when/ the left get in 2014. (The books looking bad that’s probably a safe assumption given who’s currently at the wheel and how much of a hash they’re making of economic policy.)

                  Given that it might be financially irresponsible to re-nationalise in 2014 – and you can bet that NActUF will try to make it a financial impossibility – it would have to be couched in language where it was a serious threat rather than a promise. Promote it well enough and say that the shares will be bought back at original cost price (no inflation), and that should get investors worried: Who’d want to put thousands of dollars in to an investment for a 0% return? (Could even be a negative return once inflation is taken into account.)

                  Getting that message out would decrease the value of the shares, making NActUF’s figures even more shakey, and damaging the (already brittle) case for their sale in the first place.

                  Sounds like a good idea to me.

                  • Frank Macskasy …
                    4 July 2012 at 2:36 pm

                    “Getting that message out would decrease the value of the shares, making NActUF’s figures even more shakey, and damaging the (already brittle) case for their sale in the first place.”

                    Precisely.

                    The only way to undermine and subvert National’s campaign.

                  • why pay? …
                    4 July 2012 at 3:41 pm

                    I agree Ben, but here’s a stronger idea:

                    John M said “the best bet is for Shearer and the Greens to say now that they’d re-nationalise and at the rate the shares are sold for, no inflation adjustment”

                    If buyers are clearly warned with big, strong “caveat emptor” signals from credible future governments, then why do those clear warnings need to promise to pay the IPO price?

                    Why not clearly warn prospective buyers that the “re-nationalise” price will be $zero?

                    • Frank Macskasy …
                      5 July 2012 at 8:26 pm

                      Because that would spook the Middle Classes, ‘Why Pay’, and we’d end up with a Thousand Year Reign of the Key Reich.

                      We want to sooth the punters – not freak’em out and send them into the waiting arms of Key & Co…

              • bbfloyd …
                2 July 2012 at 4:49 pm

                No difference little cont….. you have no more interest in the health of nz society than any corporation ceo sitting in his office in “hawaii”…

                You havn’t even the wit to hide your smugness over your wealth…..

                What would be the odds on arseholes selling their shares to those same corporations the second they make a better profit from that than any dividends payable?

                Evens, i would confidently guess….

                • TheContrarian …
                  2 July 2012 at 4:55 pm

                  Funnily enough I was thinking about taking a Christmas holiday to Hawaii because they had some good specials at Flight Centre. 

                  (FYI – As a member of NZ society I am keenly interested in its health.)

              • darkhorse …
                3 July 2012 at 10:31 pm

                Amazing how people like the contrarian think that selling  power companies they already own so they can buy them back in a different form so they can pay higher power bills to get a better return on their investment makes sense.

                Maybe he should just keep warm by burning his money in the fireplace – it is a more direct way of getting rid of it and no less wasteful

                I wish I could find gullible fools like him to do deals with.

              • Frank Macskasy …
                4 July 2012 at 2:44 pm

                No.

                Because unless you have money saved, if potential investors have to borrow money from the babk to buy shares – then that’s pretty much the same as people borrowing money to buy investment properties.

                Essentially, it’s specualtion using funds borrowed from offshore – worsening our private debt.

                “Key: Private sector debt NZ’s biggest concern”
                http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10765329

                “NZ dangerously in debt: top businessman ”
                http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/5051060/NZ-dangerously-in-debt-top-businessman

                Which is ironic, considering Dear Leader recently said that investing in SOE shares is better than rental properties… Twat.

          • mike e 10.1.2.1.2
            2 July 2012 at 9:15 pm

            the incontenaryan Poise

        • mike e 10.1.2.2
          2 July 2012 at 9:17 pm

          He would recommend Poise

  11. guestasaurusrex 11
    2 July 2012 at 2:31 pm

    Does anyone know an online source for the video clip? There’s this one where he says the same quote, but not in relation to asset sales http://www.3news.co.nz/Whizz-kid-John-Key-in-1987—video/tabid/423/articleID/173895/Default.aspx

  12. captain hook 12
    2 July 2012 at 2:45 pm

    who makes money out of asset sales?
    the insiders in the know who can buy cheap and sell dear.

  13. Rupert 13
    2 July 2012 at 2:56 pm

    Of course, this was without a buyer’s bonus, which the Nats are suggesting this time.

  14. PoliticallyCorrected 14
    2 July 2012 at 3:27 pm

    Old piece from Fran O’Sullivan:-

    Key believes too much of New Zealand’s foreign investment has been based on investment in existing businesses – not on completely new ventures.

    “From New Zealand’s perspective there is the opportunity, if we wish to consider it, of saying how can we explore and grow new industries.”

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/company-taxation/news/article.cfm?c_id=691&objectid=10336608

    • Frank Macskasy 14.1
      4 July 2012 at 2:46 pm

      Ta for that, PC.

      Interesting and useful, as a backgrounder.

      Strangely, it has no date of publication… Bugger.

    • Frank Macskasy 14.2
      4 July 2012 at 2:49 pm

      Hmmm, according to Iain Parker, writing 13 Apr 12, 8:30pm on Interest.co.nz;

      “Quite ironic that John Key who played a major part in Ireland banking crisis induced receivership from other side of the fence now downunder overseeing that of New Zealand;
      Article by Fran O’Sullivan titled – Key chases luck o’ the Irish – published New Zealand Herald July 20 2005”

  15. PoliticallyCorrected 15
    2 July 2012 at 3:32 pm

    I want to see a clip of Chester Burrows on the last Back Benchers show crowing how he is a “Mum & Dad investor” with a his parliamentary salary flashing up on the screen, and how much he received in tax cuts. Would be good to see that done with any politician who has said on camera they would buy shares in the asset sell down.

  16. Alison Withers 16
    2 July 2012 at 5:14 pm

    I’m still researching to find out where the source of this article is from, it wouldn’t surprise me if it was created by one of those online newspaper generators that chop off the newspaper name, Lol, but it’s definitely doing the rounds on facebook now. 🙂

    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=434806936551017&set=a.111096488922065.9523.100000651420214&type=1

    [Bunji: it’s the same one the posts about, so it’s DomPost Saturday 30th June 2012, page A23 – but good to have another facebook link to share as the previous ones have been taken down… Looks like people will have to keep putting it up…]

  17. Karl Sinclair 17
    3 July 2012 at 11:23 am

    Just for the fun of it (believe it or not), lets look at the book ‘People of the lie, by M. Scott Peck (a book about evil)
    and compare that to Mien Leader J. Keys:

    Page 129 “Evil people would be distinguished by these traits:

    a) Consistent destructive, scapegoating behavior, which may often be quite subtle
    b) Excessive, albeit usually covert, intolerance to criticism and other forms of narcissistic injury
    c) Pronounced concern with a public image and self-image of respectability, contributing to a stability of lifestyle but also to pretentiousness and denial of hateful feelings or vengeful motives.
    d) intellectual deviousness, with an increased likelihood of a mild schizophreniclike disturbance of thinking at times of stress.”

    Page 104 “Those who are evil are masters of disguise; they are not apt to wittingly disclose their true colors – either to others or to themselves. It is not without reason that the serpent is renowned for his subtlety. We therefore cannot pass judgment on a person for a single act. Instead judgment must be made on the basis of a whole PATTERN of acts as well as their manner and style.”

    People of the Lie: The Hope for Healing Human Evil
    by M. Scott Peck, M.D.

    “This is a dangerous book.” warns M. Scott Peck in the first sentence of “People of the Lie.” It’s true. Reading this best-selling book is a look straight into the face of evil.

    This and Peck’s other book, “The Road Less Traveled,” were mentioned in a sermon I enjoyed in mid 1998. I got this book expecting discussions of Hitler, Stalin, Idi Amin and other monsters from the past. Instead, Peck uses “case studies” from his practice (altered to protect the identities of the patients) to illustrate his points and explain clinical concepts (e.g. psychopathology, revulsion countertransference, and malignant narcissism) for the lay reader. Despite Peck’s claim that the scientific integrity was not compromised in these alterations, I had initial difficulty with these examples. But as I saw traces of people I have met or read about, I began to trust his judgment.

    Peck carefully lays the logical groundwork for his theory, a psychology of evil, and also professes his personal Christian faith. His religious perspective may cause some to question his objectivity. After all, evil has mostly been relegated to the realm of religion. Exactly for this reason it seems to me to be more of an asset than a liability. Evil has been observed, documented, and battled by religious people for centuries and this body of knowledge cannot be ignored. In any case, a true scientist reveals all relevant facts and lets those reviewing his work judge for themselves. Incidentally, Peck makes no apologies for his faith

  18. Lloyd 18
    3 July 2012 at 8:13 pm

    Surely the drug-testing should be a requirement of any board-member or CEO of any of the publicly stolen companies.

    Hang on, shouldn’t it be the board of any public company?

  19. darkhorse 19
    5 July 2012 at 8:08 am

    And now Bill English is saying the average household can put their average life savings of $1000 into power company shares so that they can get better returns on their money from this investment. They can use what is left of the interest after they have paid tax in the interest to pay the additional cost of electricity that will be required to pay the higher returns on the asset.

    And this fool is running our economy.