True lies

Written By: - Date published: 7:42 am, July 23rd, 2012 - 207 comments
Categories: john key, privatisation - Tags:

On Breakfast just now, Petra Bagust asked John Key what’s so great for the economy about listing our assets on the stockmarket. A good question. The answer was pure lies:

“our companies need capital and they can raise that one of two ways, borrow the money from the bank so that’s debt or they can go out and raise it in the form of equity and that equity stays with the firm permanently and that’s what a share float’s all about”

Not a cent of the money that would be raised from asset sales is to stay with the companies, it’s all going to the Crown.

“So, for New Zealanders potentially branching out and having some shares in some cash and some bonds or whatever is the logical thing to do”

Strange leap there.

“It helps those companies get access to that equity. And they can use that equity to go out there and grow”

Remember, these share floats will not add a cent of equity to the companies Key wants to sell and he knows it.

“So, if you take a company that comes to the market that’s owned by maybe a small group of people, family members whatever they might be, and they only have a certain amount of cash and coming t0 the market allows lots of other investor to put their money in and on a share of hopefully the upside of that company and from there that company can use that money to grow their business.”

That’s the textbook story of floating a company. But it’s not what the Government is doing. It’s not using the float to inject capital in the businesses. In fact, floating will make it harder for the companies to raise money via equity because the Government will be legally required to but 51% of it. And, unlike Key’s example, the current owners aren’t short of cash. If the companies needed more cash, the cheapest way to get it would be a Crown capital injection or they could do what they already do and issue bonds.

Key knows all this. And he just sits there and lies. And, seemingly, no-one who interviews him has enough knowledge to know that he’s lying.

207 comments on “True lies ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Kotahi Tane Huna 1
    23 July 2012 at 7:50 am

    At what point do a Prime Minster’s lies to the nation become treason?

    • Kotahi Tane Huna 1.1
      23 July 2012 at 9:04 am

      Answer – never.

      But what about threats of harm to people or property?

      (1)Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years if, without lawful justification or reasonable excuse, and intending to achieve the effect stated in subsection (2), he or she—
      (a)threatens to do an act likely to have 1 or more of the results described in subsection (3); or
      (b)communicates information—
      (i)that purports to be about an act likely to have 1 or more of the results described in subsection (3); and
      (ii)that he or she believes to be false.
      (2)The effect is causing a significant disruption of 1 or more of the following things:
      (a)the activities of the civilian population of New Zealand:
      (b)something that is or forms part of an infrastructure facility in New Zealand:
      …
      (3)The results are…
      (c)causing major economic loss to 1 or more persons:
      (d)causing major damage to the national economy of New Zealand.…

      Chance of Key being prosecuted: zero.

      • Gosman 1.1.1
        23 July 2012 at 9:07 am

        Tell you what, you spend some of your hard earned leftist money on taking a private prosecution. See where that gets you.

        • Colonial Viper 1.1.1.1
          23 July 2012 at 9:10 am

          Forget that, just re-nationalise the assets.

          • Gosman 1.1.1.1.1
            23 July 2012 at 9:24 am

            I look forward to a left leaning political party making that their number one policy priority for the next election.

        • Tracey 1.1.1.2
          23 July 2012 at 10:24 am

          Gosman do you agree that what the Pm described in his answer to a direct question is not what will actually be happening with these PP’s’?

          • Gosman 1.1.1.2.1
            23 July 2012 at 10:27 am

            No I don’t agree.

            • Tracey 1.1.1.2.1.1
              23 July 2012 at 10:42 am

              Can you explain how it is correct, and if you mean in years to come, then why do you think the PM didn’t make it clear he meant in years to come, the company can raise capital…. can you explain how the company raising capital will impact the 51% holding of the Govt, and implications for that portion?

              • Gosman …
                23 July 2012 at 10:48 am

                The company can raise capital via the Sharemarket where the Government and private investors would share the purchase costs of new shares. Currently the firms have to go ask the Government for any extra capital they need or retain dividends, (which the Goverment hasn’t been entirely flexible with in the past).

    • Gosman 1.2
      23 July 2012 at 9:06 am

      Yeah this is EXACTLY the same as Treason.

      When you over use such hyperbole as this it eventually loses it’s meaning. On top of this apparently is his treasous behaviour on the TPPA, the Crafe Farm issue, Immigration, yadda yadda yadda..

      If someone who actually believed that nonsense ever got into power the courts would be frozen up with all the trason trials we would be holding.

      • Kotahi Tane Huna 1.2.1
        23 July 2012 at 9:10 am

        It’s a fair question Gosman: I can’t see why anyone should tolerate being lied to by an elected official on a matter as significant as this. Be that as it may, look up the legal definition of treason – Key’s lies don’t meet it.

        Perhaps they should. We might get a better standard of politician if their liberty depended on their honesty.

        • Gosman 1.2.1.1
          23 July 2012 at 9:21 am

          Go for it. I suggest you will be wasting your money. As I made clear below it is easy enough to provide an explanation how partially privatising assets provides easier access to capital for growth.

        • Cnut 1.2.1.2
          23 July 2012 at 1:03 pm

          I didn’t hear it, but from the above it is quite clear that Key answered a question he wasn’t asked – ie what is the benefit of a share float for a company – and did so with the standard and quite correct answer.

          Normally the proceeds of a share issue to accrue to the Company, giving it cash it can use to expand or plough into R&D or employ hopefully talented people by offering top pay &tc. while the liability to pay dividends instead of bank borrowing costs permits flexibility (dividends can be low initially, against the hope of better returns when the company’s investment pays off) and cheaper than borrowing for the company if set above what most investors could get from their money at the bank, but less than the company would pay to borrow from the bank.

          Of course that isn’t the case here – none of the sale proceeds will accrue to the company. They will accrue to the tax-payer through the Crown as current owner of the company. To the extent that it will relieve the taxpayer of raising the equivalent amount for the public good through either borrowing or taxation it can be said to be “good for the economy’. However the fact that Key feels the need to be, ah, ‘disengenious’ and hopes he can pull the wool over the eyes of voters shows that he knows the truth won’t stand up.

          But hey, he’s a politician. They develop a forked-tongue the moment they stand for office.

      • Colonial Viper 1.2.2
        23 July 2012 at 9:11 am

        Its fraud against the people, fraud which damages the nation for the future. Comes pretty close to treason.

        • Gosman 1.2.2.1
          23 July 2012 at 9:23 am

          The great thing about you CV is you’re all talk and no action. You could possibly be quite damaging to my beloved Capitalist system if you actually bothered to do anything beyond pontificating about it’s evils on web forums like this.

        • jack 1.2.2.2
          23 July 2012 at 2:41 pm

          That’s debatle in court… morally, it’s pure treason.. By the way.. if Key reversed his tax cuts in 2010, that would give us 7 billion in about 5 years and we can keep the assets on top of that. This is a scheme to get his rich offhsore mates very wealthy. He knows ma and pa don’t have a clue how the stock market works. I see why he was head of Derivatives for Merril Lynch in Europe.. It’s pretty blatant we see some of his work, Ireland. Derivatives, keep it complicated and the salesman can slip a few billion in his wallet.

    • Rodel 1.3
      23 July 2012 at 1:04 pm

      KTH Precisely. Ask the Thai people about that.They reached that point with their millionaire PM. .It’s time kiwis opened their eyes.

  2. marty mars 2
    23 July 2012 at 7:53 am

    Good post James – It is important that all key’s many many many lies get pulled together and as you have pointed out, this interview is deliberate misinformation from start to finish.

  3. freedom 3
    23 July 2012 at 7:59 am

    Ooops, I may be getting a quiet word from the Hotel owner as I think the guest in the next room may have been awoken by my involuntary vocalisation of disgust that was directed at that man’s lies and the ignorant fawning shown by Petra Lookatmynewhaircut.

  4. mickysavage 4
    23 July 2012 at 7:59 am

    What a great businessman Key is.

    He can sell half of the power company shares, use all of the proceeds to pay down debt, fund the construction of new science labs in schools, irrigate the Canterbury Plains and use the proceeds to fund the expansion of said power companies.  He can even through mind control persuade the world’s markets to ensure that mum and dad kiwis retain most of the shares and can magic money out of nowhere so that said mums and dads can buy the shares with money they do not have.

    I bet he wears fancy coloured underwear under his business suits and can leap tall buildings in a single bound …

    Either that or he is the world’s biggest fibber … 

    • Gosman 4.1
      23 July 2012 at 9:09 am

      Either that or he realises that if the partially privatised SOE needs to raise capital it now has the extra flexibility of going to the private sector as well as requesting additional funds from the Government.

      • Kotahi Tane Huna 4.1.1
        23 July 2012 at 9:27 am

        “Extra flexibility”? Extra interest more like.

        Why go to the private sector for a loan when the government can lend at a lower rate?

        “Extra flexibility” – translation: some words Gosman put together that sound good and mean nothing.

        • Gosman 4.1.1.1
          23 July 2012 at 9:31 am

          Why don’t you ask the Greeks about that?

          While you are at it you can ask the majority of the leftist Governments in the World why their Government owned businesses aren’t beating the private sector ones hands down in the battle for market domination. After all they have access to all this cheap capital.

          • Bunji 4.1.1.1.1
            23 July 2012 at 11:03 am

            Once again Gosman, the Greeks didn’t have a “leftist” government until just before the crisis – the debt build-up and other problems came from your beloved right.

            And if govt-owned businesses are so bad, how come we’re having to sell off successful power companies to give the private sector something to invest in – why hasn’t the private sector come up with something better?

            And why does the modern private British rail system cost so many times more (accounting for inflation) than the much derided, terribly inefficient British Rail that existed before it?

            Why do Americans spend twice as much on health as any other country, with their super efficient private health care system that even then only covers 60% of the population…

            I could go on, but don’t let my facts get in the way of your faith in the private sector as the answer to everything…

            • Gosman 4.1.1.1.1.1
              23 July 2012 at 11:06 am

              Ummmm… just because a political party in Government declares itself to be on a particular part of the ideological spectrum doesn’t mean it actually is. You should have known this if you had taken notice, (or perhaps been alive), during the 1980’s in NZ.

              • Bunji …
                23 July 2012 at 11:34 am

                I’m guessing you get to define what a true “Right” party is, and also what a true Scotsman is as well?

                And you didn’t address all those inefficient private sector companies failing to keep up with the public sector which goes against your beliefs…

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  23 July 2012 at 12:45 pm

                  I’m guessing you get to define what a true “Right” party is, and also what a true Scotsman is as well?

                  You should know by now that anything that proves the RWNJs wrong is not of the right despite them crowing about how good it would be before it was proved a failure.

          • starlight 4.1.1.1.2
            23 July 2012 at 7:42 pm

            Yes sir,why dont you ask the greek about their banking demise ?
            If you care to look without one eye open you will find that ‘Goldman
            Sachs’ infiltrated the parliament and conned their way into the political
            system and sold derivatives to the greek government,hence everything
            collapsed and the rest is history and yes it is the people of the land that
            suffer because of corrupt practices in a country.
            Guess who is in control of our assets in the sell off,yes you guessed it
            ‘Goldman Sachs’,so open thy eyes my friend.

      • DH 4.1.2
        23 July 2012 at 9:27 am

        If he realised that then he’d be as ignorant about business as you obviously are. It doesn’t have the extra option of going to the private sector, any capital raising via share issues has to include all shareholders. It can’t request additional funds from the Govt either, Govt is merely a shareholder once these SOEs are listed on the NZX.

        • Gosman 4.1.2.1
          23 July 2012 at 9:39 am

          Bollocks. The Government can inject capital into these firms by purchasing low interest bonds from them. They don’t NEED to go directly to the Share market.

          • DH 4.1.2.1.1
            23 July 2012 at 9:49 am

            Wake up buddy, once listed on the NZX it is subject to the same rules as every other publicly listed company. The Govt can’t inject capital into it, the company has to ask for capital. Sure it can sell bonds, it does that already so what’s your point?

            • Gosman 4.1.2.1.1.1
              23 July 2012 at 10:12 am

              Yep, and it can sell Bonds directly to the Government at a cheaper than market rate. So it has multiple ways to raise capital as I stated.

              • DH …
                23 July 2012 at 10:15 am

                Don’t be stupid. The Govt can’t buy bonds from a publicly listed company at below market rates. That would be a taxpayer subsidy directly benefiting the 49% of private shareholders.

                Seriously, do you have an argument or are you just farting here?

                • Gosman …
                  23 July 2012 at 10:21 am

                  Ummmm… the Government can do what it likes. If it decides to lend money to the SOE’s at below market rates tell me one law that precludes it from EVER doing so?

                  • DH …
                    23 July 2012 at 10:30 am

                    Oh, right. So now we’ve gone from nonsensical arguments about the ‘benefits’ of floating these SOEs to equally puerile justifications for state intervention in the market. Don’t let the door hit your arse on the way out will ya.

                    • Gosman …
                      23 July 2012 at 10:35 am

                      Just pointing out how your knowledge of business isn’t as great as you like to think it is.

                  • Tracey …
                    23 July 2012 at 10:37 am

                    Isnt that govt meddling in business which you abhore???

                    • Gosman …
                      23 July 2012 at 10:45 am

                      That’s right. The Government should sell the entire lot and not just 49%. I’d be much happier.

                • Gosman …
                  23 July 2012 at 10:34 am

                  BTW the Government took a similar action with regard to providing low cost financing when it helped Media works with a deferred payment plan for the spectrum licence. So all your pontificating about how the Government can’t do this is a load of nonsense.

                  • DH …
                    23 July 2012 at 10:56 am

                    It’s not even remotely similar. For starters it wasn’t low cost financing, the Govt has stated loudly and repeatedly that it was at market rates. I’ll agree it was a state subsidy though, and you being a fan of the free market wouldn’t support that kind of activity of course.

                    Isn’t it interesting how quickly the right-wing pundits of the free market fall back to promoting state intervention when their bubbles are popped.

                    • Gosman …
                      23 July 2012 at 11:03 am

                      Where did I promote state intervention here?

                    • DH …
                      23 July 2012 at 11:08 am

                      Hey, you’re the one saying the Govt can buy bonds from the SOEs at below market rates after they’ve been floated. That’s state intervention in the market buddy…. and we can’t have that can we.

                    • Gosman …
                      23 July 2012 at 11:13 am

                      I’m not promoting it at all though. Just stating that the Government can do this if they so wish.

                    • DH …
                      23 July 2012 at 11:23 am

                      Oh, right. So that’s the sum of your argument is it. The Govt can do it so therefore it must be so.

                      The Govt could also arrest you & hang you, if they so wished. But they won’t will they?

                    • Gosman …
                      23 July 2012 at 11:25 am

                      No, that is not the sum total of my argument. However it seems to be the only aspect that you picked up on. Perhaps you have a comprehension problem.

                    • DH …
                      23 July 2012 at 11:37 am

                      I comprehend very well. I comprehend that you can’t stand being shown up as ignorant and you’ll wriggle & squirm until people get sick of your obfuscation. It’s a pity your depth of knowledge isn’t as large as your ego.

                  • North …
                    23 July 2012 at 7:23 pm

                    DH has done you like a dog’s dinner Gosman.

                    He shows you up on one idiotic assertion……..you ain’t got what it takes to acknowledge……..you make another idiotic assertion slightly off the mark of the first……..he shows you up again……..you ain’t got what it takes……….etc etc etc.

                    On and on and on……..have you no intellectual honesty man, or are you just a right wing zealot ?

                  • starlight …
                    23 July 2012 at 7:46 pm

                    Yes was that because joyce still had an interest.

      • Tracey 4.1.3
        23 July 2012 at 10:26 am

        You mean, foe example, like Air New Zealand????

  5. glg 5
    23 July 2012 at 8:05 am

    It makes me feel sick.

  6. Dv 6
    23 July 2012 at 8:06 am

    At what point does this ‘information’ become finacial advice and covered by law?

    The acess to more capital from that market MEANS that the shareholder has to front with MORE money!

  7. DH 7
    23 July 2012 at 8:11 am

    This to me has always been the most outrageous and infuriating claim from the pundits of asset sales. It’s blatant deceit for the reasons James has given, not a single cent of this float goes to the company it’s a sale of shares not an issue of shares.

    If the company tries to raise any capital the Govt will have to pony up 51% of it. That’s why Key tried to introduce non-voting shares; so the business could raise capital by issuing more shares without removing the Govts 51% controlling interest and the Govt also not having to buy 51% of the new shares.

    Dishonest bastards.

  8. marsman 8
    23 July 2012 at 8:18 am

    Maori TV showed a Norwegian film last night, ‘Max Manus’. It is about a man who used sabotage to undermine and thwart the Nazis who were stealing his country, he was never caught. Very timely viewing!

  9. Dv 9
    23 July 2012 at 8:27 am

    AND what is the difference bewteen Key and Doug Graham, richard Long etc

    The more i see of this the more i am reminded of the pump and dump schemes in the 80’s and the dodgey finance companies of the last10 years.

    Has anyone seen a statement of expected return?

  10. Carol 10
    23 July 2012 at 8:31 am

    And still Key and the rest of the Nats are sticking to the grand lie of “Mum and Dad” investors.

    Every time I hear them using that term my blood starts to boil. How many parents can and/or will buy these shares?

    And as neither a mother nor a father (“Mum” and “Dad” have such a down homey, faux-egalitarian feel to it), I am insulted by being made invisible in Key’s grand scheme.

    Just as well I don’t want to buy any of Key’s dodgy shares, because, clearly, they are not meant for the likes of me.

    • Mooloo magic 10.1
      23 July 2012 at 10:00 am

      I too, am sick and tired of so called “Mum and Dad investors”. I don’t know anyone who can be called that. The so called mum and dad investors only live in Plant Key’s mind; it’s just pure spin from our disingenuous PM.

  11. Tom Gould 11
    23 July 2012 at 8:37 am

    This is just a version of the old Ponzi scheme scam, but this time the bonus for the new shareholders is paid by the owners of the legacy shares. So those privileged enough to buy the new shares get bonus shares paid for by the owners of the other 51% of the shares. And Key says that is foolish. At last a fact.

    • Dv 11.1
      23 July 2012 at 8:52 am

      And the bonus issue will dilute the share pool, and wont that will depress the share price?
      Thus you effectively pay for your own shares.

    • Gosman 11.2
      23 July 2012 at 9:34 am

      Explain how it is a Ponzi scheme exactly.

      • Fortran 11.2.1
        23 July 2012 at 9:46 am

        I’m with Gosman waiting to be told by the experts what a Ponzi Scheme is.

        And Petra is great looking too.

        • Johnm 11.2.1.1
          23 July 2012 at 11:37 am

          Hi Gosman and Fortran
          Here’s what a Ponzi scheme is: taken from the U$$$$ economy, which our Key looks to for much guidance:

          “For nearly three decades, corporations, banks, and the ultra-wealthy have reaped financial rewards from America’s bubble economy at the expense of working-class Americans. During this stretch, the majority of the gains from US productivity have been disproportionately distributed to the top income earners. Over the years, these inequities have accumulated into an ever-increasing wealth and income disparity. ”

          A Ponzi situation is shown when Income and wealth inequalities are extreme and worse much of the inequality is coming from essentially unearned wealth through speculation in asset bubbles and wealth transfers such as unnecessary tax cuts, such that the actual workers strangely see their share of the pie getting less and less.

          This is happening in NZ as well as the U$$$

          LInk:http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/07/22/252153/americas-second-great-depression/

          The U$$ is extreme the wealthy got richer and richer from profits by offshoring manufacturing to China while the former US workers ended up on food stamps.

          The whole NeoLiberal ideology is to favour Capital and to drive down the cost of Labour and of course to completely destroy the Commonwealth of the People.
          Where’s this ideology got the U$$$? Disaster a collapsing looted economy and society. That is why Ponzi schemes ultimately are unsustainable and collapse.

          • Gosman 11.2.1.1.1
            23 July 2012 at 11:41 am

            Ummmm… that isn’t a Ponzi scheme. You might regard it as unfair and ultimately doomed for one reason or another but it isn’t a Ponzi Scheme. If you are going to throw the term around I suggest it might pay to understand what it is.

            • Johnm 11.2.1.1.1.1
              23 July 2012 at 12:01 pm

              Hi Gosman
              Key epitomises the current Global Ponzi Scheme! He’s worth $50,000,000. He didn’t get that money doing real work! He got it from bonuses working at currency manipulation, sitting on his Butt at a computer monitor. He added not a jot to human wellbeing by producing anything. In Social Terms a Ponzi is when people access excessive unearned unworked for wealth through manipulation of the market system. This is usually paid for by exploitation of real workers through dirt cheap wage levels and if necessary by exporting your countrymen’s work to slave labour in China.
              You then protect your unearned wealth with tax havens and knocking down tax rates and selling of the Public wealth domain in a word naked GREED!

              • Gosman …
                23 July 2012 at 12:15 pm

                Yes and Black is White and Up is Down.

                Do you make a habit of redefining terms to suit your own purposes?

              • Te Reo Putake …
                23 July 2012 at 12:17 pm

                Great summary, JohnM. Without wanting to encourage Gossie’s PG impersonation, I think it’s worth pointing out that ‘Ponzi scheme’ now has a generic meaning, in that any shonky investment plan tends to get called that, even if it is not, technically, the kind of fraud that Ponzi, Madoff et al went to jail for. I suspect that is the meaning Cosgrove attributed to the asset sales. That is, that they are a collosal rip off, though not technically illegal.

                • Gosman …
                  23 July 2012 at 1:54 pm

                  No, only pig ignorant financial illiterates call all financial arrangements they disagree with Ponzi schemes. The rest of us tend to call them by what they actually are, not what we pretend they might be.

                  • Te Reo Putake …
                    23 July 2012 at 2:11 pm

                    Oh dear. Was ‘generic’ too difficult a concept for you, Gossie? I know you’re having a bad day here, what with you being clue batted senseless an’ all, but I would have thought you’d be able to get your head round what I was saying. Which is that Ponzi is, on occasion, used in a generic sense, much as Hoover is for vacuum cleaner.

                    • Gosman …
                      23 July 2012 at 2:38 pm

                      Example please. Since it is obviously such a generic term you should have no problem finding a raft of these.

                  • Puddleglum …
                    23 July 2012 at 9:39 pm

                    Hi Gosman,

                    I think the analogy to a Ponzi scheme is based on the ‘bonus share’ offer being perpetually required to escalate if the shares are to remain in the hands of ‘Mum and Dad’ kiwi investors. The bonus shares represent abnormally high returns on an investment which can only be maintained by constant injections of ‘new investors” money at higher and higher levels, ad infinitum.

                    That is because the bonus shares would have to maintain the initial abnormally high return on investment for the shares to continue to be held in New Zealanders’ hands. Whatever ‘bonus rate’ was thought to be a necessary incentive to do so initially will, presumably, be necessary for the future.

                    That means that, as New Zealanders’ holdings of shares increase (because of the bonus shares) – compounded by the, presumably, decrease in value of each share as more are issued (it doesn’t actually matter even if they don’t decrease in value, for the logic of a Ponzi scheme to hold) – the number of bonus shares that will need to keep being issued to them in order for them not to sell them will have to keep increasing at an exponential rate.

                    Of course the ‘new investors’ are nothing other than the taxpayer whose return is a function of the 51% holding that, presumably, will need to be maintained as well.

                    I think it’s something like that. Sure, it may not be exact, but it’s a pretty close relative – if, that is, we assume that this is the grand, continuing scheme to maintain the shares in New Zealanders’ hands.

                    If it isn’t, then its simply a piece of political fraud to make people think that the government has a plan to keep the shares in New Zealanders’ hands.

                    Here’s the Wikipedia definition for those who haven’t been bothered to look it up:

                    “A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent operation that pays returns to its investors from their own money or the money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from profit earned by the individual or organization running the operation. The Ponzi scheme usually entices new investors by offering higher returns than other investments, in the form of short-term returns that are either abnormally high or unusually consistent. Perpetuation of the high returns requires an ever-increasing flow of money from new investors to keep the scheme going” 

                    Edit: If it’s a ‘one off’ then it’s a plain old bribe- and I mean ‘political bribe’ rather than simply a financial one (i.e., to gain political support for the sales).

                    • mike e …
                      23 July 2012 at 9:49 pm

                      +$ 600 million in bribes

                    • fender …
                      23 July 2012 at 10:02 pm

                      Great comment as usual Puddleglum.

                      It is a bribe as you say. And how can such a bribe be justified when all that’s required is to keep the shares for three years ?, hardly long enough to ensure long term kiwi ownership, but it is a very convenient time frame to secure the votes of share holders of course.

      • Tom Gould 11.2.2
        23 July 2012 at 11:45 am

        It is like a ponzi scam because Key is promising a windfall bonus to get people to buy the new shares, but is funding it from the existing shareholders without telling them. Get it?

  12. Glg 12
    23 July 2012 at 8:41 am

    I am currently subsidising my Dads pension by $250 per month. I don’t think he will be buying shares.

  13. tc 13
    23 July 2012 at 8:43 am

    Tvnz doing its job of providing him with patsy questions being asked by a vacuous personality on his regular weekly national soapbox…..what a joke our MSM are.

  14. Gosman 14
    23 July 2012 at 9:12 am

    Brilliant slap down of Clayton Cosgrove on Radio Nz National this morning. Called him out on the BS statement he made equating the loyalty bonus share scheme to a Ponzi. Key called Cosgrove a fool (which he is). Cosgrove may as well called it a Lottery or a Blamange and it would be just as accurate.

    • Colonial Viper 14.1
      23 July 2012 at 9:20 am

      Key called Cosgrove a fool? Well that’s definitive then 🙄

      • Dv 14.1.1
        23 July 2012 at 9:23 am

        WAS key on Morning report?

        • Carol 14.1.1.1
          23 July 2012 at 9:25 am

          Yep: 8.17am:

          http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/20120723

          Must be worried about the way his ponzi scheme is being seen/reported.

          • Gosman 14.1.1.1.1
            23 July 2012 at 9:29 am

            You do realise that a Ponzi scheme is not a cover all for any financial arrangement that you personally disagree with don’t you?

            When a bank charges you a dishonour fee because you have insufficient funds in your bank account it isn’t a Ponzi Scheme.

            • mike e 14.1.1.1.1.1
              23 July 2012 at 4:35 pm

              Key knows what a ponzi scheme is that’s because Merrill Lynch were running such schemes amongst other types of fraud mainly around money trading and derivatives.

          • prism 14.1.1.1.2
            23 July 2012 at 11:52 am

            I heard a smooth talking salesman for financial investment in shares
            talking on Radionz this a.m. Then I realised it was John Key.

        • Gosman 14.1.1.2
          23 July 2012 at 9:25 am

          Yep, obviously have made a decision to become far more agressive and front foot these issues.

      • Gosman 14.1.2
        23 July 2012 at 9:26 am

        Cosgrove’s statement was foolish. About as intellectually empty headed as the ‘Once the assets are sold they are gone for good’ nonsense spouted by other opponents of the MOM.

        • Lanthanide 14.1.2.1
          23 July 2012 at 9:52 am

          A ponzi scheme is where returns to some investors come out of the deposits from other investors.

          In this case, the bonus shares allocated to the investors come out of the shares that would otherwise be held by the government in trust for all taxpayers.

          While not a ‘classic’ ponzi scheme, it certainly fits within the idea of one.

          • Gosman 14.1.2.1.1
            23 July 2012 at 10:16 am

            You almost got it but then you failed. A Ponzi scheme is when you use the capital of NEW investors to pay the higher returns of EXISTING investors. You therefore requre more and more new investors to keep the scheme going until eventually it falls over. Nothing in the Bonus scheme is remotely like that. It is a standard Bonus share scheme much like it offered by many Publically listed companies to their employees for example. Are they Ponzi Schemes as well?

            • felix 14.1.2.1.1.1
              23 July 2012 at 10:28 am

              Unusual as it might be, Gos is right about this.

              The bonus shares may well be a waste of money, they may well be a highly ineffective mechanism to achieve a short-term aim that the govt doesn’t even believe is important, and they may well be a cynical vote-buying/voter pacifying exercise, but a ponzi scheme they ain’t.

              Probably too late though, it’s in the wild now.

        • AAMC 14.1.2.2
          23 July 2012 at 9:55 am

          I’m not going to have time income on here and argue with you today Gosman. But your whole beloved private banking system is a ponzi scheme, with it endogenous fiat money creation and the Minsky singularity brought on by it’s liquidity binge – http://econintersect.com/b2evolution/blog2.php/2012/07/21/forget-the-minsky-moment-could-it-be-a-minsky-century-1. And now it’s proving itself to be overtly criminal with LIBOR, BOE & the Fed, MG Global, JP Morgan, PFG, Goldman Sacs European takeover.

          That you continue to defend behaviour which clearly isn’t your beloved Capitalism undermines you. Show me the Free Market! There has never been one, and neo-liberals have never tried to organise one.

          There isn’t a libertarian bone in your body (or you would have the honesty to attack these predatory criminals), your a classic neo-liberal defender. And as Hudson wrote last week, neo-liberalism is the weapon ideation of economics. http://michael-hudson.com/2012/07/the-weaponization-of-economic-theory/

          I also see the failings of central planning, but our current Cronyism and Kleptocracy is as far from Capitalism and Satlinism is from Scandinavia.

          That uou’d defend it to the last will at least give us all the pleasure of seeing you come unstuck as this bank initiated crisis continues to roll out.

          • AAMC 14.1.2.2.1
            23 July 2012 at 9:58 am

            Excuse the spelling ppl, typing quickly on a phone, can’t seem to edit.

          • Gosman 14.1.2.2.2
            23 July 2012 at 10:18 am

            Ahhh… so Cosgrove’s point was that the ENTIRE financial system is one giant Ponzi scheme. I wonder if that is the official Labour party view.

            • AAMC 14.1.2.2.2.1
              23 July 2012 at 10:36 am

              I’m not interested in Cosgroves comments, I didn’t hear them. I’m
              Interested in your incessant defense of a Free Market that’s never existed and a banking system that has proved itself totally corrupt. If you really believed in a Free Market, you would be attacking Key and the Fed as vehemently – if from the other side of the political spectrum – as those who regularly comment on here.

              That you don’t exposes that in fact you don’t believe in what you espouse but rather continue to support criminality from Govt and from the Corporatocracy.

              You should actually read those links, Hudson as critical of the neo-classical left as of the Right

              • Gosman …
                23 July 2012 at 10:39 am

                And I’m not interested in your wacky ideas about the evils of fractional reserve banking or whatever conspiratorial rant you are pushing this week.

                • vto …
                  23 July 2012 at 12:28 pm

                  Ha Ha Ha.

                  Gosman always does this when he doesn’t like the questions, or cannot come up with an answer. Gosman is not able to answer these sorts of questions and goes straight to dissing them as something wacky.

                  Pathetic.

                  Gosman does not want to defend the evil ponzi scheme nature of fractional reserve banking. Nor its private ownership. He seems to think we should just trust the system ha ha ha – what a fool.

                  Similarly, a while ago he could not answer the question – why don’t New Zealand business maestros go and create their own electricity companies to invest in instead of taking the taxpayers ones? After all, it is a free market and it is supposed to create these opportunities…. ha ha ha.

                  Gosman is not worth debating with because he refuses to engage.

                  • Rodel …
                    23 July 2012 at 1:15 pm

                    VTO funny I ‘ve noticed that lack of engagement too..It’s not even up to psych 101 tactics.much like ‘hootenstrategies’ or trout fishing.

            • AAMC 14.1.2.2.2.2
              23 July 2012 at 10:40 am

              And can I add HSBC’s laundering Mexican drug money to my list, and how about the 32 trillion elite dollars hidden from the tax man? http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE86L03U20120722?irpc=932

              Those you defend Gosman are criminals.

              • Gosman …
                23 July 2012 at 10:43 am

                Do you want me to dig up a bunch of news stories showing corrupt leftist politicians and managers of SOE’s in places like Cuba and South America and suggest that somehow makes your entire system corrupt as well? Your argument is so purile I feel dirty actually having responded to it.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  23 July 2012 at 9:12 pm

                  btw Goldman Sachs, Credit Suisse, JP Morgue and Wachovia are the very same corporate bankers who help those corrupt leftist politicians move and hide their money.

              • muzza …
                23 July 2012 at 11:50 am

                AAMC – Don’t waste your energy, type such as Gosman are not interested in self challenging, it reveals too many home truth, like what suckers, w*nkers and, parasites they, and their idols are.

                Integrity is not for them, best leave them to it.

    • Tracey 14.2
      23 July 2012 at 10:28 am

      So now you are taking the opposition to task over their falsehoods while defending the PM’s? What a great country we live in. I agree Cosgrove is a doofus.

  15. Arthur 15
    23 July 2012 at 9:45 am

    OK, if Kiwi mums and dads get to buy the shares in the Mighty River float, how many Kiwi mums and dads will have sufficient remaining funds to be able to purchase shares in the next asset sale or those remaining?

    • Fortran 15.1
      23 July 2012 at 10:07 am

      Arthur

      Called budgetting ?

      • felix 15.1.1
        23 July 2012 at 10:13 am

        What’s the median income for “kiwi mums and dads” again, Fortran?

      • Deano 15.1.2
        23 July 2012 at 10:21 am

        The median family has $2,000 in the bank. You can’t really call that savings – it’s operating cash.

        But, say you put half of that into Mighty River.

        What happens when meridian, genesis, solid energy, Air NZ are floated within the next two years?

        Or is the median family with a net income of $56,000 and a 1% saving rate meant to somehow quadruple their savings rate to put it all into shares?

        And that’s just the median. What about the 505 with less money/lower incomes?

      • Tracey 15.1.3
        23 July 2012 at 10:31 am

        Truly folks this is actually what people like Key and Fortran believe, namely that average mums and dads are wasting their hard earned money and just need to budget better to get in on the shares. Funny thing is that no matter how hard you budget if pwoer, telephone, water, transport, accommodation , food, clothes and books for kids cost more than you earn, all the budgeting in the world will not manufacture more money.

        • North 15.1.3.1
          23 July 2012 at 7:49 pm

          Yeah…….like a few weeks ago Michelle Boag was on Radio NZ Afternoons with Mora, nutting on about having purchased a half head of cauliflower at some supermarket for $1.99. Better……..it lasted TWO meals.

          This was in the context of a discussion about the prohibitive cost of food items for many, many families. Miss Home Economist Michelle had obviously persuaded herself that this stunning empiricism on her part was a sufficient counterpoint to reports of the pain and deprivation that hundreds of thousands suffer daily.

          As sickening was that Hurrah Henry of a Mora affably, chuckingly, letting her get away with it.

          • prism 15.1.3.1.1
            23 July 2012 at 7:53 pm

            North Your description of Mora’s delivery is spot on “affably chuckling”. A bit of a sponge.

            • mike e 15.1.3.1.1.1
              23 July 2012 at 8:17 pm

              yeah boag constrictor said it was 99c on a clearance special in some wealthy suburb like people from poorer areas are going to spend $10 on petrol or bus fares to save a couple of dollars.
              Brian Edwards put her in her place

        • UpandComer 15.1.3.2
          23 July 2012 at 11:53 pm

          Then don’t have more kids then you can afford – really really simple. And what you can afford, depends on your attitude. You can have a huge number of kids and a successful family without being able to afford shares if you are really disciplined. Believe it or not, people actually succeed at doing that all over NZ. They don’t adopt this mindless negative useless pathetic attitude that you attribute to anyone who is earning under the median wage with your patronisation. They don’t whine, or kite, or go on about non-existent make-believe ‘ponzi’ schemes, or go on silly rants about capitalism. They get on with it and their kids do really well and help their parents out later. These people vote national, and that’s why national is holding the most votes as a single party and why no one is listening to your caterwauling, mistruths, and whimisical blah because everyone else lives in the real world. Cheers.

          • Colonial Viper 15.1.3.2.1
            24 July 2012 at 12:30 am

            Of course the parasites in our economy are the ones who make unearned wealth. Whether corporations or individuals.

            They need to be shut down and those money flows directed towards the bottom 95% in society.

            The other change to make is to realise that people work to live, not the other way around.

      • muzza 15.1.4
        23 July 2012 at 11:56 am

        The only people I have heard mention possible investment in power companies, are by those who are towards the very top of the NZ pyramid, in terms of income and descrstionary savings.

        I’ve not even had a reaction to buy from friends and family who might regards themselves as solid middle class…

        And those I know in the lower half, mostly do not even involve themselves in caring, its more important to put food on th table and pay the bills.

        The Mum and Dad catch cry is simply another lie!

      • mike e 15.1.5
        23 July 2012 at 8:20 pm

        Fartrain like to see you feed a family on $100 a week .
        Fartrain your factious!

  16. xtasy 16
    23 July 2012 at 10:04 am

    The partial asset sales are nothing much than going to a pawn shop to get some quick cash that is needed to pay for essentials. Those essentials are building and fixing schools (billions of damage due to leaky building scandal by the way), hospitals, new prisons, highways, possibly extension of broadband network and some extra funds for rebuilding Christchurch.

    Yes, those “investments” will hardly be “companies”, so Key seems to think that his viewers and listeners are just dumb dickheads.

    The 49 per cent asset ownership will be gone for good, a selected few will earn the dividends for their own discretionary spending or investments, that will at the same time be lost prospective revenue for the state, and all this is done while interest rates for possible borrowing on international finance markets are at an all time low.

    Key believes in handing in his tool box to the pawn shop owner, in return to get some cash to pay for the plumber to fix the broken pipe in the home, kind of. Not really smart, but when caught out, the sweetener is offered to the prospective buyers, trying to save a rotten deal by making it look oh so nice.

  17. Gosman 17
    23 July 2012 at 10:19 am

    “The 49 per cent asset ownership will be gone for good,”

    What absolute rubbish. What evidence do you have for making this compltely outrageous statement?

    • xtasy 17.1
      23 July 2012 at 12:15 pm

      Last news I heard was: The government want to sell up to 49 per cent of shares in Mighty River Power, Meridian, Genesis and one other energy state owned enterprise.

      Private shareholders will buy these, so the state (represented by all NZers) loses 49 per cent ownership!

      Simple maths really. You will argue the new mixed ownership model companies will still largely be owned by NZers, but that will not be in the form of the state. It will be owned the the selected few (who also benefited nicely from National’s tax cuts a few years back), who have the extra money and wealth to buy the shares.

      They will use dividends according to their personal interest, which will not be the same as the collective interests.

      Assets gone, revenue gone, to a selected few, catered for by NatACT to keep their supporters and donors happy.

      It is nice of NZ First and Mana to talk about buying the shares back, but that will come at a price that will likely be too high for a future government to pay. Maybe renationalise it like in some South American countries, but will Labour have the clout and guts to do this?

      So the chances are extremely high that the 49 per cent ownership and prospective revenue will be lost for good.

      • Gosman 17.1.1
        23 July 2012 at 1:25 pm

        You obviously failed maths if you think that qualifies as a simple maths answer.

        • xtasy 17.1.1.1
          23 July 2012 at 6:31 pm

          Short, unqualified, evasive response = NO real response to prove your case

  18. Tracey 18
    23 July 2012 at 10:34 am

    It may not be gone for good but it is a fallacy that the government’s 51% guarantees them king position in all voting. That’s simply not factually correct. There may be situations where the Govt has a conflict of interest and accordingly cannot apply its votes to an issue.

    There is no proof of the 49% being gone til its gone. All we have is past behaviour by which to judge future behaviour. But unless it’s a bad buy it would be odd to not see substantial foreign ownership within ten years (as Treasury suggests). I dont think Contact is primarily made up of mum and dad investors ?
    Still, little being made in the media of English contradicting his PM by basically saying people worried about closing the gap with Oz or stopping the migration there are cry babies, in total contradiction of his leader in 2011 who “reassured” everyone it was still a legitimate target…

    • Gosman 18.1
      23 July 2012 at 1:22 pm

      “There may be situations where the Govt has a conflict of interest and accordingly cannot apply its votes to an issue.”

      I suggest you are scaremongering.

      Care to expand on how a sceanrio involving the situation you postulate would play out?

  19. Carol 19
    23 July 2012 at 10:35 am

    Rod Oram refers to evidence that indicates bonus schemes may not do the job of keeping the shares in the hands of ordinary Kiwis in the long run.

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/111338/long-term-share-ownership-a-goal-pm

    Financial journalist Rod Oram says bonus schemes in countries such as the UK have been shown to deter investors from selling shares to make a quick profit.

    Once the bonus period was up there was often a heavy selldown, especially of the free shares, but after that many investors were content to hold onto their remaining shares for years, he says.

    • Gosman 19.1
      23 July 2012 at 10:40 am

      Does he call it a Ponzi Scheme?

      • McFlock 19.1.1
        23 July 2012 at 3:19 pm

        idiot gos obviously replied to the wrong comment by accident.
        I mean, it’s not like he’d use an irrelevant comment to distract from someone else’s good point, would he? 

        • Gosman 19.1.1.1
          23 July 2012 at 4:13 pm

          No idiot gos replied to the correct post. Idiot mcflap just wasted your time but obviously that doesn’t worry you.

          • mike e 19.1.1.1.1
            23 July 2012 at 4:53 pm

            The taxpayer is subsidizing the investor.
            By the time Goldman Sachs gets their cut and the taxpayer subsidy comes through .
            The low market value blinglish is expecting this is just going to be another GS scam.

          • McFlock 19.1.1.1.2
            23 July 2012 at 5:15 pm

            Idiot Gos thinks the definition of ponzi is relevant to “bonus schemes may not do the job of keeping the shares in the hands of ordinary Kiwis in the long run.”.
                  
                 
            Silly Gos trying to distract from the point that shares currently owned by all New Zealanders will end up  in the hands of the rich and/or overseas investors.
                 
            You flap and you blather, but in the end you can’t hide the fact that asset sales are a moral (if sadly legal) theft from current and future New Zealanders. I’m sure Key’s “blind” trust could do well out of it, though.
             

  20. Johnm 20
    23 July 2012 at 10:38 am

    Snake oil salesman Key, he’s a slippery so and so!

    “Our Companies need Capital…..”
    Our Power generation Companies are not any old Companies they are Strategic assets owned by the people for the benefit of the people. If they want capital they can accumulate it from income streams or receive a Crown cash injection. What Key does is to trot out: I’ll only play in my ball park your ball park Public Ownership and benefits doesn’t exist!

    “So for New Zealanders…..”
    Rubbish nothing to do with the wrongness of selling off our assets

    “So, if you take a company….”
    He’s trotting out Company Accounting 101 like a Uni lecturer to the new batch of business studies idiots. How patronising and insulting that he will not address the real issue That Public ownership is best for all.

    He switches into business lecturer mode completely ignoring the real issue here the immorality of the Ponzi scheme which is the rich getting richer and taking from the Commonwealth of the poorer kiwi.

    He’s a Wall Street style slime merchant stealing from you while he smiles at you in his $1000 suit making you feel privileged that somehow this is the natural order of things. He’s a salesman without a conscience.

    Part of his smokescreen is getting you to argue over trivial technicalities of accuracy while ignoring the Elephant in the room: The outrageous wealth transfer of these asset sales!

  21. Tracey 21
    23 July 2012 at 10:39 am

    Oh but Carol, rod is a lefty so not a real economist and has too much vested interest… unlike, well, you know, say Don Brash’s view or the CEO of Tower! No vested interest in their views.

    has the Gummint told us how much the loyalty programme is expected to cost? It might give a clue as to how many mums and dads they REALLY think will buy in.

    • Bunji 21.1
      23 July 2012 at 11:06 am

      And we only ‘know’ Rod’s a lefty because he criticises John Key. Therefore anyone who disagrees with Key is not a real economist, and their argument is invalid.

      Gotta love circular logic… 😉

  22. Te Reo Putake 22
    23 July 2012 at 10:49 am

    What Clayton Cosgrove actually said:
     
     

    John Key’s ‘loyalty scheme’ for New Zealanders who buy shares in state assets simply means those that can’t afford shares will be forced to subsidise those who can, says Labour’s State Owned Enterprises spokesperson Clayton Cosgrove.
    “This is a ponzi scheme that punishes taxpayers in more ways than one.
    “The proposal to give New Zealanders who invest in companies like Mighty River Power a loyalty bonus for hanging onto their shares shifts the burden of National’s bad idea on to taxpayers who can’t afford to buy in,” Clayton Cosgrove said.
    “Why should those who don’t plan to buy shares, for whatever reason, have their taxpayer dollars spent subsidising those who can?
    “This is a tactic to placate Kiwis concerns about giving up our assets to foreign interests, which under this government’s stewardship is inevitable.
    “If I was Joe Public listening to John Key’s speech today, I’d be raising my eyebrows. We are told again and again that these are tight fiscal times, but are expected to fund a political sweetener to take the heat off the National Government.
    “New Zealanders already own these assets. If Kiwi ‘mums and dads’ have a couple of thousand dollars the best advice would surely be to pay down the credit card.
    “Taxpayers are already taking a hit in lost dividends, this is a second blow.
    “The Government says it is serious about paying down debt. But basic arithmetic will tell you that we can gain more from the revenue generated from these well-performing assets than the cost of borrowing.
    “You can’t sweeten a sour deal. John Key can’t sell his ideas using rhetoric about access for all New Zealanders. The fact is we all already own these assets. Giving them up now won’t just be our loss, but a loss felt by generations to come,” Clayton Cosgrove said.
    • Gosman 22.1
      23 July 2012 at 10:52 am

      Yeah, what a fool.

      • Bunji 22.1.1
        23 July 2012 at 11:08 am

        How so Gosman? Make an argument or don’t bother commenting…

        • Gosman 22.1.1.1
          23 July 2012 at 11:16 am

          Already commented on this in numerous comments above. Try and keep up Bunji.

          • Bunji 22.1.1.1.1
            23 July 2012 at 11:24 am

            Try to keep up Gosman. As you’ve already commented above, why was this pointless abuse necessary then?

            • framu 22.1.1.1.1.1
              23 July 2012 at 12:27 pm

              also he hasnt actually described why cosgrove is a fool in his opinion – in ANY of his comments

              • Gosman …
                23 July 2012 at 1:27 pm

                Yes I have. Cosgrove misunderstood and misapplied the term Ponzi Scheme to the bonus scheme for the partial asset sales. That is why he is a fool.

                • felix …
                  23 July 2012 at 1:40 pm

                  And it’s taken up the best part of your whole day to impart this most important piece of information.

                  Seriously Gos, get a life.

                  • Gosman …
                    23 July 2012 at 1:47 pm

                    It took me all of 5 minutes to convey that information. It has taken you lot the rest of the day to understand that. Personally I think that speaks volumes on the comprehension levels of the average lefty but hey some of you might be having a slow day.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      23 July 2012 at 1:58 pm

                      Hey Gossie you financial illiterate

                      If you need to borrow money to generate additional “investment returns” to investors in your scheme:

                      IT’S A PONZI SCHEME

                    • felix …
                      23 July 2012 at 1:58 pm

                      Ah, so you conveyed it in 5 minutes but you thought you’d hang around for the rest of the day repeating yourself.

                      “It has taken you lot the rest of the day to understand that.”

                      Are you accusing me of something here Gos? What exactly? Be precise and yes there will be a test at the end.

                    • Gosman …
                      23 July 2012 at 2:07 pm

                      Is this the same sort of test as the one involving your view that the BNZ needed bailing out in 1945 but which you provided not a shred of evidence when asked to? If so, I think I’ll pass on that.

                    • felix …
                      23 July 2012 at 2:14 pm

                      Why would I? The evidence you provided was fine for my purposes, Gosman.

                      Pity you didn’t bother reading it.

                      ps how many comments from Gosman on this thread so far? And is anyone finding any of them interesting or worthwhile in any way?

                    • framu …
                      23 July 2012 at 2:23 pm

                      just curious here gossie – exactly what kind of vehicle does one have to invest in to operate a goal post shifting operation such as yours?

                      Judging by the display here today, the number of goal posts – and logistics of moving them from point A to B – must be a huge strain on an ordinary chasis.

                      I mean, i dont think an ordinary tradies van would cut it – something with a long wheel base and multiple axles at the rear perhaps?

                    • felix …
                      23 July 2012 at 2:28 pm

                      In fairness to Gozzie, he wouldn’t last long if he stayed on a subject for more than a couple of comments in a row.

                    • Gosman …
                      23 July 2012 at 2:36 pm

                      Stop making stuff up. Even McFlock basically admitted you had no basis for making such an outright fabrication of the facts.

                    • felix …
                      23 July 2012 at 2:39 pm

                      Yawn.

                      Any more exciting tales before you get back to the topic?

                    • McFlock …
                      23 July 2012 at 3:24 pm
                      Stop making stuff up. Even McFlock basically admitted you had no basis for making such an outright fabrication of the facts.

                       
                      Great. Now the slathering trool is taking my pseudonym in vain. I feel dirty. 

                       
                       
  23. Socialist Paddy 23
    23 July 2012 at 10:59 am

    Feck 27 comments by Gosman saying that it is not a ponzi scheme.
     
    I agree.  It is the following:
     
    1.  Financially disasterous.
    2.  Strategically insane.
    3.  It does not make sense in that the proceeds have been spent four times over.
     
    It is not a ponzi scheme only in that the money will not be used to pay out investors to keep them happy.  But it may as well be such will be the loss to ordinary kiwis.
     
     

  24. Tracey 24
    23 July 2012 at 11:00 am

    we will not raise taxes
    we stop the brain drain
    we will close the wage gap with Australia

    Saying it’s not a ponzi scheme does not address that it requires those who do not buy shares (can’t afford them) to have taxpayer money diverted to reward those who can, in what we are told are fiscally difficult times and every dollar has to be treated as sacred… Cosgrove is a foll and he has given the diversion to the Nats but the diversion doesn’t render the original issue false.

  25. prism 25
    23 July 2012 at 11:02 am

    78 comments from all at 11 a.m. 27 of these from Gosman. Seems
    like a domination of the thread and I hope not a trend.

    • Tiger Mountain 25.1
      23 July 2012 at 12:00 pm

      Gozzie may be all fired up after the tory conference on the weekend.

      All I can say is any personal acquaintance of mine that buys “asset steals” shares will be well and truly off the xmas card list (mostly a digital card these days). Random people that I discover have purchased will get an even harsher reaction.

      Buying ShonKey’s projected shares is tantamount to scabbing on our country and the taxpayers and intellectual and physical effort that went into the hydro schemes.

      • Gosman 25.1.1
        23 July 2012 at 1:51 pm

        I’m sure National are reconsidering their plans now. Cutting off people from your Christmas card list – Oh the humanity!

      • Cnut 25.1.2
        23 July 2012 at 2:12 pm

        Subject to seeing what the Prospectus says about water issues and more information about how the ‘bonus shares’ are to be funded I intend applying for at least $50,000 worth of Mighty River shares in the hope of getting a sizeable holding.

        No, I didn’t vote for National, or Act. I actually voted Green last time as I don’t consider Labour far enough to the left for me to support. John Key physically nauseates me and when I once bumped into John Banks at Wellington Airport before knowing who he was something about the man instantly repelled me at gut level. I think selling state assets is stupid and believe the county as a whole will come to regret it but as they are going to be sold whatever I think, I’ll probably buy as many shares as I can.

        Am I a ‘Mum-and-Dad’ investor? No, because 30 years ago I made the choice not to have children because I didn’t see then a world I wanted to bring children into, and think it a damn sight worse now. Because I didn’t have children but lived frugally working hard at a business I believed useful but which wore me out I was able to retire at 50 with reasonable savings and now live quietly with a fifteen-year-old car and no debts on around $20,000 p.a. gardening, walking on the beach, playing at writing a novel and watching the world go to hell in a hand-basket, hopefully from the rear stalls. I still hold all the shares I bought in Contact in 1999 and about 40% of my portfolio is in New Zealand equities, including some in Windflow the Christchurch wind-generator company that employed New Zealanders and might have made a difference on many levels with even a little Goverment support but which is now going under costing me my investment, those New Zealanders their jobs, Christchurch a little bit of its future and dreams of renewable energy another set-back

        So I don’t disagree with any of the comments on this site regarding the sale of Crown assets and it won’t bother me if I don’t get an Xmas card from Tiger Mountain, but when some of you guys set up your guillotine in the town square and drag to any everyone who doesn’t labour from 9-to-5 in the public good with a little woman and 2.4 children at home learning their catechism from the People’s Flag, I do hope you might take a moment to reflect that the world is not entirely red and blue.

        • Tiger Mountain 25.1.2.1
          23 July 2012 at 3:13 pm

          Must you be so pathetic Gozzie and Cnut? the point is in my third sentence. Self absorbed aspirational “portfolio” holders are a classic example of the false consciousness which ponzi ops and the likes of ShonKey depend upon.

          It’s all about me! did I mention me?

          • UpandComer 25.1.2.1.1
            23 July 2012 at 11:55 pm

            Hey Mr classic holier then thou, if you don’t agree with the concept of money, then why don’t you go and give all of yours away to the poor? plenty of people have done this over history.

            • fender 25.1.2.1.1.1
              24 July 2012 at 12:08 am

              Dont fret, theres plenty of taxpayer money going to the poor consultants and cronies like Goldman Sachs etc

            • Colonial Viper 25.1.2.1.1.2
              24 July 2012 at 12:27 am

              I agree with money, I just think the Government should issue it interest free and free of debt, and not the private banks.

  26. Te Reo Putake 26
    23 July 2012 at 11:49 am

    Great opinion piece in the Taranaki Daily News from local unionist Ross Henderson.
     
    “Let’s see this selloff for what it is – a huge transfer of the nation’s wealth from public ownership that benefits us all to the comparatively small number who can afford to buy shares”

    • Kevin 26.1
      23 July 2012 at 12:17 pm

      That statement from Ross Henderson sums up the process for the sale of public utilities anywhere in the world,from public to private, from the majority to the minority.

  27. captain hook 27
    23 July 2012 at 12:31 pm

    +1 tiger mountain.
    goozie doesn’t even know what century he is in!

    • Gosman 28.1
      23 July 2012 at 1:48 pm

      Is this the protest where the protesters were outnumbered by the Police?

      • felix 28.1.1
        23 July 2012 at 2:01 pm

        Is that the governing party who are so useless they can’t have a meeting in their own casino without an army of cops to make them feel safe?

        • Gosman 28.1.1.1
          23 July 2012 at 2:05 pm

          Are you stating that members of the National party interfered with an operational decision by the Police about the numbers of officers assigned to maintain law and order around the coference venue?

          • felix 28.1.1.1.1
            23 July 2012 at 2:09 pm

            Where did I say any such thing, Gosman? Lern to reed moar.

            • Gosman 28.1.1.1.1.1
              23 July 2012 at 2:16 pm

              I didn’t state you did say it. I basically asked you if that was the implication one should take from your previous statement about the National party requiring an army of cops to make them feel safe.

              • felix …
                23 July 2012 at 2:25 pm

                Oh good, well as long as you’re not saying that, and you’re not saying anything else either, then… what the fuck are you doing here?

                • McFlock …
                  23 July 2012 at 3:26 pm

                  he’s wanking. That ain’t twink on the screen he leaves when he makes a stupid comment.

                  • mac1 …
                    23 July 2012 at 6:45 pm

                    Thanks, Mc, from a cleaner who cleans twink off school desks (or believed so till now) and school computer screens. I did wonder about the Rm 7 chocolate yoghurt today though. 🙂

              • mike e …
                23 July 2012 at 4:48 pm

                Of course Goose stepper bullying every body into submission like a good we troll.
                You would know all about crony ism given it was Goldman Sachs (your former employer)that defrauded Greece Germany the IMF just about all the major banks of Europe out of $100s of billions .
                Yes Keep blaming Greece when its been proven it was Goldman Sachs who corrupted Greek officials and defrauded the lenders

                • UpandComer …
                  24 July 2012 at 12:02 am

                  Greek banks didn’t buy any poisoned shares. You live in la la land. Greece is what it frikken is, a socialist heaven that ended how it must. They got billions of dollars from their neighbours in Germany and did a Labour par excellence and now they are stuffed. Greece stuffed itself with Goldman Sachs by engaging in one off swaps to hide the true extent of it’s soveriegn debt to meet Maastricht treaty obligations. That went bad. Basically they borrowed and gambled and lost. Sound familiar? If Greece, and other entities that did the same thing like harvard, hadn’t tried to hide or artificially decrease their debt so they could keep borrowing, they would be better off today. You live on a different planet.

                  • fender …
                    24 July 2012 at 12:15 am

                    Oh and they forgot to collect the tax that the rich refused to hand over.

                    Yes this Goldman Sachs sounds like a fine gang to get involved with.

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    24 July 2012 at 12:26 am

                    Actually Greece is stuffed because it didn’t follow the example of Iceland. Kill the zombie banks, and tell the bondholders and shareholders to walk into the ocean.

                    To address your other points: reckless lenders who lent to Greece should take 100% losses.

                    Greece did hide its true financial position. With the help of Goldman Sachs, who profit enormously from Greek financial difficulties.

              • North …
                23 July 2012 at 8:02 pm

                Be honest fool GossamerMan……..you were darkly implying innuendo.

          • Murray Olsen 28.1.1.1.2
            23 July 2012 at 7:13 pm

            I’ll infer it if it makes you happy. Or sad. I don’t really care about your feelings.

    • RobertM 28.2
      23 July 2012 at 2:20 pm

      Capitalism has never existed in NZ. The country and Auckland are a regressing feudal estate. The real capitalist classes and business enterprises were destroyed betwee 1935-49. By 1949 hard core communsits were in charge of all the key educational colleges, university departments, trade and industry and foreign affairs. The sort of industrial control and ruthless employment relations that are standard in US industry and retail eg Walmart have never been seen in NZ and there industrial enterprise , productivity and decent wages are an impossibility outside the retail business.
      Anybody playing pokies is beyond help- there are many more respectable and intelligent forms of addiction. Even in pornography there are a large variety of bodies and the average film provides plently of excitement for every sexual orientation.Its quite democratic and beautiful. The point about Casino’s in NZ is that everbody other than the staff are ugly and stupid. When Douglas and his mates decended on the Chrsitchurch Casino to demonstrate the merits of Capitalism, I realised they hadn’t a clue. Capitalism is what happens in the now mindblowing clubs around Vegas and the brothels furthur out , the actual casinos themselves are only interesting for the associated floor shores and for those wanting to study particularly mind numbing forms of self destruction. Those playing those machines are way beyond saving. Getting drunk in a reasonably good bar almost guarantees someone interesting will turn up maybe of class, beauty and contacts- as long as you have 6 drinks in each bar along the way.
      What I find particularly mystfying is why Bright would actually want anyone in those in poor white suburbs like Ellerslie, Kinsgland, the state house zones west of the Grey Lynn supermarket or Avondale, ( I rarely drift furthur into the dangerous zone-inbreeding and obesity is too shocking) is why people like Bradford or Bright acutally believe anyone there would benefit from being forced to work for the minimum wage if your a long time kiwi , over 30. To me there would be no sense of gain for anyone to have any sort of life here at least they got a 1,000 a week or 2,000 if you had a family. The answer isn’t rail or jobs for those who have zero chance of social mobility. Its to give these women the chance of immediate abortion on demand up to 8 months.Intelligent TReaganism and crime control is what abortion on demand means.

      • Draco T Bastard 28.2.1
        23 July 2012 at 3:24 pm

        Capitalism has never existed in NZ. The country and Auckland are a regressing feudal estate.

        That’s what capitalism is. So, yes, capitalism does exist in NZ and it’s getting worse.

      • Murray Olsen 28.2.2
        24 July 2012 at 12:12 am

        All I get from your rave, Robert, is that you watch a lot of porn and have trouble differentiating between fantasy and reality. In other words, just another NAct supporter.

  29. Dr Terry 29
    23 July 2012 at 2:04 pm

    Well, what a fascinatingly boring spiel we have seen from Gosman in this column! As one might have expected, to date he has “had the last word”. He might yet succeed in convincing himself! He sure is making hard work of doing so. You know, I am beginning to pine for the return of poor old Pete George. That is how bad it gets!

    • felix 29.1
      23 July 2012 at 2:11 pm

      Gos is a terrible bore alright. But you just can’t criticise John Key around here without drawing him out for some reason.

  30. captain hook 30
    23 July 2012 at 2:12 pm

    Gossman is a neanderthal that has somehow learned to type words.
    He should be thanking the Labour Party for providing a decent education system even for lunkheads like him.

    • Carol 30.1
      23 July 2012 at 2:21 pm

      I stopped reading the goose’s posts long ago – no value, better things to do with my time. Is he/she/it a person, a sp@mbot, or a person imitating an SB?

  31. Head Been 31
    23 July 2012 at 2:26 pm

    Here’s my band’s commentary on this s**t.

    http://thebeens.bandcamp.com/

    • Te Reo Putake 31.1
      23 July 2012 at 4:25 pm

      Nice work, that Been! Got a touch of Elvis Costello’s world weary bitterness about it (that’s a good thing!).

  32. bad12 32
    23 July 2012 at 3:29 pm

    What Slippery the Prime Minister a LIAR, who would have thought that, it’s way deeper then just the odd LIE, from ”National will not be raising GST” prior to the 2008 election the Prime Minister has let loose a torrent of utter Bullshit on an on-going basis,

    The brainy people with the degrees in looking into other peoples head spaces call the behavior exhibited by our Slippery Prime Minister ‘compulsive lying’ in other words He don’t actually think up the lies most of the time, the processes going on in His head at any given time simply distort everything into a lie,

    Those that know these things are unsure if such ‘compulsive lying’ is ‘learned’ behavior’ or is a ‘skill’ those who possess such were born with,

    ‘Compulsive lying’ on the scale as used by Slippery tho is a defense reaction born deep in the ‘flight or flight’ primitive parts of all our brains, initially such lying is not easily detected in the individual until such time as repeated exposure exposes the pattern of lies,

    There’s more out-right Bullshit being promulgated by Slippery in today’s Granny-Herald piece on the cigarette advertising ban, and, every utterance from the Slippery one has become more a game of ‘spot the lie’ as opposed to reading a Prime Ministerial statement,

    The Standard could just about run a ‘Slippery’s Daily Lie’ post every day and catch the little shyster out on one or more of His public utterances, i believe the ‘flood’ of lies emanating from that one is in fact triggered by the ‘flight mechanism’, He knows He has lost the smile’n’wave advantage He had for His 1st term as Prime Minister and the real Him we are seeing now in the continous stream of Bullshit is as good as it’s going to get until He is given the kick…

  33. Karl Sinclair 33
    23 July 2012 at 5:35 pm

    When one looks at the Mr Keys approach you’d think he’d been reading A Peoples History of the United States by Howard Zinn. This may explain why so many right wingers are scratching their heads saying, he must know what he’s doing? and still voting for him.

    Seem familiar anyone, check out the approach:

    ‘One can lie outright about the past. Or one can omit facts which might lead to unacceptable conclusions…………….

    But he does something else-he mentions the truth quickly and goes on to other things more important to him. Outright lying or quiet omission takes the risk of discovery which, when made, might arouse the reader to rebel against the writer. To state the facts, however, and then to bury them in a mass of other information is to say to the reader with a certain infectious calm: yes, worngs took place, but it’s not that important-it should weigh very little in our final judgments; it should affect very little what we do in the world.

    It is not that the historian can avoid emphasis of some facts and not of others. This is as natural to him as to the mapmaker, who, in order to produce a usable drawing for practical purposes, must first flatten and distort the shape of the earth, then choose out of the bewildering mass of geographic information those things needed for the purpose of this or that particular map.

    My argument cannot be against selection, simplification, emphasis, which are inevitable for both cartographers and historians. But the map-maker’s distortion is a technical necessity for a common purpose shared by all people who need maps. The historian’s distortion is more than technical, it is ideological; it is released into a world of contending interests, where any chosen emphasis supports (whether the historian means to or not) some kind of interest, whether economic or political or racial or national or sexual.

    Furthermore, this ideological interest is not openly expressed in the way a mapmaker’s technical interest is obvious (“This is a Mercator projection for long-range navigation-for short-range, you’d better use a different projection”). No, it is presented as if all readers of history had a common interest which historians serve to the best of their ability. This is not intentional deception; the historian has been trained in a society in which education and knowledge are put forward as technical problems of excellence and not as tools for contending social classes, races, nations.

    This is far more deadly…..

  34. Murray Olsen 34
    23 July 2012 at 6:58 pm

    Neoliberalism is so bad that people like Gooseman aren’t even following a religion – they’re following a cult. I can only hope tht one day a responsible government will ban it, just as they have banned other antisocial behaviours.

    • mike e 34.1
      23 July 2012 at 10:22 pm

      Bank of America in more scandal huge losses could go bankrupt.
      Merrill lynch scandals one very corrupt company
      Penn state football sex predator linked to 326 corporate employees associated with Merrill Lynch BofA racist sexist behaviour leading to huge fines.
      Have a look on GOOGLE.
      Merrill Lynch have a history of corruption going right back to the 1920’s
      How Shonkey is not associated with their litany of scandal

    • Colonial Viper 34.2
      24 July 2012 at 12:31 am

      Time to learn something: the weaponisation of economic theory

      I’ve posted this link before but its worth another go

      http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-07-20/weaponization-economic-theory

  35. Colonial Viper 35
    24 July 2012 at 12:33 am

    UAC: if you don’t learn how to work with others in a not-for-profit community context you’re going to be crushed in the coming long economic decline. Good luck.

    I suspect you are much younger than me, so you are going to see much worse of it than I am.

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.