Stockholm syndrome

22 comments on “Stockholm syndrome ”

• Comments are now closed

1. s y d 1

   25 May 2012 at 10:04 am

   lol, whole lotta f****n idiots…still slight question bias in giving the “NO but, yes but, no” option.
   • Carol 1.1

     25 May 2012 at 10:10 am

     It has a very big question bias.

     Firstly, it targets individuals, as is the standard right wing and neoliberal bias – i.e. it’s all about individualism and not what people think is good for the country and society as a whole, or whether it’s fair etc.

     There’s an option about not benefiting but it’ll be good for the economy (only for those who don’t benefit individually from the budget), but none about it being bad for the economy.
2. Maggie May 2

   25 May 2012 at 10:36 am

   Tipical Double Dipton budget, even take away the incentive for kids to do a paper round so he and his ilk don’t have to give up anything.
3. ad 3

   25 May 2012 at 11:23 am

   Well to put a couple of alternative factors up there;

   – We have been living within stronger or milder forms of money-focussed structural adjustment in this country for about 27 years, so only those older than say 37 would remember economic circumstances from the government being any different. Even the first two terms of the Helen Clark administration when we were booming are now well beyond the media’s memory.

   – Neither National nor Labour in the last 27 years have generated an economic plan within a budget for the country of any strength and have left most of that to a fully independent Reserve Bank.

   – Neither National nor Labour have made really big cuts to the social welfare net in the last 15 years, and instead have either grown it massively (such as Working for Families), or gradually chipped away at bits of it year on year.

   – Since 2008 the mainstream media have saturated us with fear and panic about any economic programme other than “tighten your belts”, from either the US or Europe. Rather than – say -alternative stories from Argentina.

   – Perhaps increasingly those who are left in New Zealand, given the volume of emigration, are those who have a different opinion to “this kind of national budget is good for the economy”.

   First party/ies who can shift the public antipathy towards the poor and put hope and confidence back into the economy will win the next election, and the next.
   • Gosman 3.1

     25 May 2012 at 4:42 pm

     Alternative stories from say Argentina?

     You mean like how it’s policies have led it to becoming a net importer of energy rather than an exporter

     http://www.economist.com/node/21553070

     You mean like how it’s policies have led it to becoming a net importer of beef rather than an exporter

     http://latamthought.org/2009/08/12/a-shortage-of-meat-in-argentina/

     You mean like how it is now experiencing problems with it’s finances and it’s economy is getting into problems, not helped by the massive amounts of Government money pumped into uneconomic subsidies

     http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gFxhXZkGS-ZsYtYFaHivzhozzgXg?docId=d68c0930941c4a9d9e6a6b5ac4c80cc5
     • Ad 3.1.1

       25 May 2012 at 8:43 pm

       Precisely. A comparable economy to ours with problems like ours.

       I particularly enjoyed the one where the Government nationalized a Spanish company and simply refused to reimburse the Spanish.

       And in previous years defaulted on international debt rather than pay it.

       I would rather hear news form comparable, vulnerable economies making brave, sometimes perverse, and sometimes strange calls, than the usual Economist news.
     • BillODrees 3.1.2

       25 May 2012 at 11:41 pm

       The Conventional Wisdom, Gosmam, got the world the current messy state.   So you are advocating more of the same?  And hoping for adifferent outcome? 
        
     • Draco T Bastard 3.1.3

       26 May 2012 at 1:23 am

       From the economist article:

       But as old gasfields have dried up and the economy has grown, the country has suffered an energy crunch.

       Hmmm, seems policies weren’t the problem but their own local Peak Oil.

       The second article says:

       The second reason is the drought that has ravaged Argentina’s pampas. Argentina is in the midst of it’s worst drought in over 45 years, which has led to the premature death of millions of cattle and the loss of billions of dollars in lost revenue.

       The third reason is the implementation of vast soy plantations where cattle ranching farms used to be. The surge in global demand for the soy crop, whose planting and harvesting practices can cause irrevocable damage to the land depending on the scale, has led Argentina to become one of the world’s leading soy exporters.

       So, yeah, policies probably aren’t that much of an influence there either. And that last bit just shows the stupidity of the author: Meat production is probably just as damaging and uses more energy per joule of food produced than growing soy.

       And the last one seems to be about a bunch of rich people whinging.
       • Ad 3.1.3.1

         26 May 2012 at 8:22 am

         Pretty chilling to map any of those onto New Zealand. Our oil fields at this point are long gone, our vulnerability to pastoral drought or flood massive, our vulnerability to ‘soil mining’ also massive. A helluva lot more relevant than Greece, or the US, or the whole of the EU.

         From the original point about why our psyches may be the way they are, that’s where the better comparators are.
4. Dr Terry 4

   25 May 2012 at 11:59 am

   This represents very much the “thinking” of New Zealanders who claim in large numbers that “the country is going in the right direction” (in other words, the increasing pain of the less privileged must eventually result in a good outcome for all). People would do well to study an old book entitled “Straight and Crooked Thinking”. But will they ever get it straight?
   • Draco T Bastard 4.1

     25 May 2012 at 3:34 pm

     (in other words, the increasing pain of the less privileged must eventually result in a good outcome for all)

     And it probably will – Vive la révolution
   • Colonial Viper 4.2

     25 May 2012 at 3:43 pm

     People would do well to study an old book entitled “Straight and Crooked Thinking”.

     I never have to pick up my dog-eared copy these days, I just read the NZ Herald.
5. Rosie 5

   25 May 2012 at 12:50 pm

   One thing to remember, this IS a stuff.co.nz poll. If you read the comments that people leave on that site you will gasp at the idiotic observation and and rationalising of many of the posters. One thing that always shines through in many posts is the level of cognitive dissonance. The third question in the poll “No but it will be good for the country” is a classic example of cognitive dissonance. It is something that brings pain or inconvenience but the subject believes this will be helpful in some way.

   Alongside apathy and ignorance I do belive the third contributing factor to our election result last year was cognitive dissonance. Dr Terry gives an example of the thinking of NZers/voters above with the statement “the country is going in the right direction……in other words the increasing pain of the less priveleged must eventually result in a good outcome for all).” How many people do you hear expressing this sentiment? Lots! Maybe this is where cognitive dissonance and ignorance overlap.

   In regard to stockholm syndrome on a national scale – I think we have it! We are population infatuated with its captor. One of the most mind blowing things I heard during the time of the election was a woman being interviewed on Campbell Live. She was in the Epsom electorate, a sickness beneficiary and she was voting National for her Party vote. She said this with a smile on her face and said “they’re doing a good job aren’ they”. Go figure!!!
   • Rosie 5.1

     25 May 2012 at 12:57 pm

     And I know I’ve posted this meme before but for the sake of illustrating my reaction to the subject above and reaction to everything our government has done since 2008 I’ve got to say that this is my permanant expression:

     http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/are-you-serious-face-seriously

     Maybe it’s your face too……………….
6. joe90 6

   25 May 2012 at 1:01 pm

   The Tories know that Kiwi last place aversion coupled with the Dunning–Kruger effect guarantees their success.
   • Matthew Whitehead 6.1

     25 May 2012 at 4:58 pm

     Last-place aversion won’t help this budget as it doesn’t really bash minorities enough for people who are motivated by that sort of reasoning, it’s all about class warfare, because the Nats have begun to learn they can’t get away with anything but the most subtle bigotry if they want to be in government.
7. Matthew Whitehead 7

   25 May 2012 at 1:17 pm

   They should EITHER ask if the budget is good for the country OR good for us personally. Mixing both questions together in one of the options is stupid.

   (The good news is that both the “yes” and the “I hate myself” options have shrunk since that picture was taken)
8. rosy 8

   25 May 2012 at 10:04 pm

   Crazy isn’t it? People just accepting losing ground. John Armstrong calls it a responsible budget. How responsible can it be to wring the economic life out of a country? He also says their are few losers. I love this reply to him from Dean at 10:11 AM Friday, 25 May 2012

   “It produces few winners and even fewer losers.”
   Losers from this budget:
   160,000 kids in ECE having their funding cut
   600,000 schoolkids getting larger classes and fewer teachers
   68,000 kids losing their tax rebate
   Thousands of post-graduate students losing their student allowances
   600,000 people with student loans, including most young families
   Tens of thousands of low-income earners losing the under $9,880 rebate
   Hundreds of thousands of families who use community groups every year that have had their funding cut or frozen.
   The 40,000 people who were promised jobs by 2013 that now won’t be created.
   Elderly people who will have reduced access to aged care subsidies.
   Everyone that ever needs to get a prescription medicine
   The people of Christchurch
   Parents who don’t want to see their kids leave for Australia.

   Not losers in this budget:
   Property speculators
   Greenhouse gas polluters
   People who polluter our rivers
   Wealthy people who got thousand dollar a week tax cuts in 2010 that have cost $2 billion so far

   Reads like a list of National MPs, eh?

   Take note Mr Armstrong and then come back with some real analysis of a partisan & mean budget effort from Mr English.
   • Draco T Bastard 8.1

     25 May 2012 at 10:18 pm

     Wow, that is a good reply and Armstrong probably ignored it like he ignored all the evidence in the budget that showed that most people in this country will be worse off after it.
   • Ad 8.2

     25 May 2012 at 11:00 pm

     Great find Rosy. Let’s make sure this gets to Greens and Labour and see this stuff get into their speeches. Love to hear more from Dean if you can get him onto this site.
9. fabregas4 9

   26 May 2012 at 7:42 pm

   I spent a couple of hours collecting signatures on the asset sale petition. I was truly amazed by the number of people who said that they didn’t know much about asset sales! Are we a nation of dummy’s!
   • Carol 9.1

     26 May 2012 at 7:48 pm

     Ah. That’s a bit depressing. There was one in the lunchroom where I work….petition that is, not a dummy.

     Good on you being out there helping inform people.

     I don’t know how people compare with 2-3 decades ago. But over that time, news media seem to have done their best to entertain and sensationalise rather than inform.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS