Wealth creators or life-blood suckers?

38 comments on “Wealth creators or life-blood suckers? ”

• Comments are now closed

1. The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 1

   8 August 2011 at 12:55 pm

   New plan. Write complete sentences. Elite hates grammar. That’ll stick it to ’em.
   • bbfloyd 1.1

     9 August 2011 at 9:36 am

     still living up to your moniker i see.
2. travellerev 2

   8 August 2011 at 1:13 pm

   Uhh, They are whole sentences. Just a bit short perhaps but they say that if you want to explain things to people you have to keep it simple, stupid!
3. Lanthanide 3

   8 August 2011 at 1:16 pm

   I don’t think it’s a simple dichotomy of one or the other.
4. just saying 4

   8 August 2011 at 1:20 pm

   Hey Zeitec,
   Would love to read the study. Where did you read it?
   • Lanthanide 4.1

     8 August 2011 at 1:27 pm

     Not sure if this is it, but is in a similar vein anyway: http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/local-news/5403225/Horrible-bosses-flush-staff-down-the-brain-drain
   • Draco T Bastard 4.2

     8 August 2011 at 1:41 pm

     We Have the Worst Managers in the World……

     In May 2009 a New Zealand survey on leadership and workplace culture found that poor work culture and a lack of workplace leadership was costing NZ business more than 2.6 billion a year
     The survey went on to say that less than 45 percent of those surveyed had trust and confidence in their work leadership and less than 47 percent felt their leader’s management style improved their productivity.

     NZ managers are some of the worst in the world and, IME, their efforts to boost profits seem to almost always focus on cutting costs such as wages rather than finding a better way to do something.
     • SHG 4.2.1

       8 August 2011 at 1:44 pm

       I’ve had some terrible managers in my professional life, and not one of them was an owner of the business.
       • Draco T Bastard 4.2.1.1

         8 August 2011 at 2:26 pm

         The worst manager I’ve ever worked for was the owner of the business. I’m amazed that he actually managed to make money.
         • Vicky32 4.2.1.1.1

           8 August 2011 at 6:07 pm

           The worst manager I’ve ever worked for was the owner of the business. I’m amazed that he actually managed to make money.

           I had the same experience, and she failed! That is to say, the business crashed on her watch… 🙁
       • mik e 4.2.1.2

         8 August 2011 at 6:04 pm

         you were lucky .the company owners can’t have been any better
     • Rob M 4.2.2

       8 August 2011 at 2:06 pm

       Yes, nasty and dim. They promote the unthreatening dullards, who eventually replace them, and as a result our organizations get progressively dumber.
5. Arandar 5

   8 August 2011 at 1:46 pm

   Most employers in my experience are neither. They just do what they always did. Most are SME, most are not ambitious for themselves or NZ, most have little or no management skill either for managing people or for managing a business. Most are people with a particular skill, let’s say carpentery, shall we, or sales? So they go into business for themselves and employ a few people to help them. They grow in the good times. They stagnate in the bad. They perceive staff as a cost not a resource. They perceive the best, the energetic, ambitious, imaginative as a threat; they soak up their energy and their ideas and call them their own; they hold them back because they fear their own weaknesses might be exposed if they were to reward them or promote them. And, then, they wonder why there is a lack of commitment and loyalty and why their staff, on whom they ‘lavished’ a job, find it hard to find a reason to stay.
   • Draco T Bastard 5.1

     8 August 2011 at 2:28 pm

     They perceive staff as a cost not a resource.

     Which is why they’re always seeking to push wages down.
     • Macro 5.1.1

       8 August 2011 at 3:06 pm

       Frankly I’d much prefer it if they viewed employees neither as costs nor as resources, but as people who are helping them make a profit!
       The newspeak of “Human Resource” is to depersonalise employees resulting in the sort of employment practices that lead to the mistrust and contempt with which employers are now perceived. They created the rod for their own back.
6. Oligarkey 6

   8 August 2011 at 1:50 pm

   Ah – the brave new world of free market capitalism. While it may have been compelling to some abstract, mathematical ideologues 25 years ago, it’s difficult to defend once you have a look at its effects on people and the environment. You just feel like grabbing hold of them and shaking them, saying “it’s not all about money and competition”.
7. Brett 7

   8 August 2011 at 1:56 pm

   Are you saying, all business owners are parasites?
   • Vicky32 7.1

     8 August 2011 at 6:10 pm

     Are you saying, all business owners are parasites?

     A frightening number are, yes…
8. tc 8

   8 August 2011 at 2:01 pm

   It’s a closed shop here, unless you went to right school, played the right code or rubbed shoulders with the right connections no amount of ability will elevate you based on merit because it’s based on who you know not how good you are or could be.

   Look at the ankle deep gene pool that pervades our public companies and SOE’s….I see Moller got another bone last week to go with his already bulging swagbag, where’s the fresh thinking and generational change it’s all shades of gone by the wayside grey in a model we know to be broken now.

   When another old boy can’t be found they often go offshore (Reynolds/Morrison at sky) rather than appoint someone who may challenge their cosy little world by actually valuing a well paid loyal workforce and building for the future not profit taking every time…..that’s not on the BRT’s agenda. Beware of any who talk like AB’s, full of cliches with no actual new content.
   • aerobubble 8.1

     8 August 2011 at 2:37 pm

     Auckland Boys Grammer accent opens doors?
9. Afewknowthetruth 9

   8 August 2011 at 3:56 pm

   Natural resource + energy > product + waste

   Since nature provides the natural resources and the energy needed to carry out the conversion of natural resources into products I am perplexed to see how any wealth (other than imaginary wealth) is created by people.
10. Colonial Viper 10

    8 August 2011 at 5:38 pm

    Democratic socialism please. Place the capital wealth of the country in the hands of the workers who create the actual economic value.

    PS the capitalists have long decided that you can make far more money quicker by breaking stuff down and selling it off (like a scavenger) than by tediously year by year building a business (or a country) up to create lasting value.

    That second route is hard work and takes way too long. The flipping of public assets like NZ Rail and Contact are obvious cases in point.
11. ropata 11

    8 August 2011 at 5:48 pm

    Catherine Austin Fitts tries to compare US empire with ancient Rome, but concludes it is more akin to a tapeworm:

    If my rudimentary understanding of the rise and fall of ancient empires is useful, the Roman Empire brought an advancement of science, infrastructure, technology and material progress to many of the poorer lands that it conquered. In essence, Rome’s territory grew in part from its ability to increase the ‘return on investment” of many of the places it conquered.

    While those who believe in self-determination may not approve of the Romans right to do so, or their methods, those of us who appreciate roads, bridges and infrastructure understand the positive investment yields that the introduction of intellectual capital to a place can generate. From one point of view, Rome financed its conquests not just by ransacking them — but by making places smarter in the material sense.

    The tapeworm — a parasite that over time eats its host —can more accurately describe the demonic patterns of stripping places of intellectual capital that come with American imperial conquest. The “dumbing down” so often complained about within America’s borders is a phenomenon that our military appears to be implementing globally. We seem intent on removing spiritual power and intellectual IQ as we depopulate globally, moving out the honest and competent and putting the corrupt and bureaucratic in charge.
    • Afewknowthetruth 11.1

      8 August 2011 at 6:16 pm

      In practice the Roman Empire was built on looting, slavery and unsustainable agricultural practices. The most successful phase was when proceeds from looting exceeded the cost of maintaining the army.

      American imperial conquest was initially successful because the USA was the only significantly industrialised nation in its hemisphere. The next phases were on the back of incredibly cheap oil. After WW2 the US was the only major industrial nation that had not been devastated. That allowed global domination via the establishment of the US dollar as the world’s reserve currency and promotion of consumerism.

      None of the factors that allowed expansion of capitalism or US domination now apply. We are now living in a world of contraction -especially energy and resource contraction- but most people are attempting to hang on to redundant paradigms founded on expansion.

      When there is nothing left to eat ‘the beast’ begins to consume itself/.
12. Lets be rational 12

    8 August 2011 at 6:02 pm

    I’m not going to take a position on this because through experience, regardless of what you say people will disagree and are unlikely to be convinced…. but i find this an interesting video to spark debate
    • mik e 12.1

      8 August 2011 at 6:09 pm

      Lets be rational or national. Show me a country that has got sustained growth without market intervention
      • Lets be rational 12.1.1

        8 August 2011 at 6:17 pm

        It is a slightly unorthodox example and probably impossible to replicate elsewhere but the middle east and more specifically dubai, abu dhabi seem to do pretty well. From what I hear from a friend living there, income tax is 0%. I’m not for zero govt by any means but I do appeal to the idea that most of the best science innovation and tech etc seems to come from commercial institution as opposed to the opposite.
        I do understand that the management calibre in NZ is not great but its a little unfair to generalise that across the board, we do have some pretty good businesses which dervie from the manager (often owners), chances are people remember the bad more than the good.
        • felix 12.1.1.1

          8 August 2011 at 6:26 pm

          lol, your only example is based on slave labour.

          Why am I not surprised?
          • Lets be rational 12.1.1.1.1

            8 August 2011 at 6:33 pm

            I’m more than certain that those two economies are not built on slave labour.. but if you do compare it to NZs “bubblewrap” employment relations it may appear that way.
            • felix 12.1.1.1.1.1

              8 August 2011 at 7:12 pm

              The “bubblewrap” comment gives you away. You’re no sensible moderate.

              p.s. There are probably many things that you’re “more than certain” of that you’re also wrong about. http://www.google.co.nz/search?q=dubai+slave+labour
        • RedLogix 12.1.1.2

          8 August 2011 at 6:30 pm

          From what I hear from a friend living there, income tax is 0%.

          Umm… yes but from what I read a while back the Dubai govt owns much of the country’s commercial real-estate. They have taxation alright, just not in the traditional forms we expect.
        • Colonial Viper 12.1.1.3

          8 August 2011 at 6:30 pm

          Uh….you just used fiefdom petrostates as an example of countries who do well without market interventions. However:

          The crude market that they rely upon is one of the most heavily controlled and manipulated markets in the world.

          And what do you think OPEC was formed as? A cartel. And what do cartels do huh? Control markets. (Except OPEC can’t any more as the laws of physics are now against it).

          I do appeal to the idea that most of the best science innovation and tech etc seems to come from commercial institution as opposed to the opposite.

          This is totally totally totally untrue. From nuclear warheads and vast military tech, to jet engines, transistors and computer chips, to the internet, the high risk basic research was all government based or government funded.

          Where do you get your ideas from, seriously.
      • Libra 12.1.2

        12 August 2011 at 12:56 am

        Hong Kong.
        • Colonial Viper 12.1.2.1

          12 August 2011 at 1:19 am

          Wait…is this the same Hong Kong which the British built up over decades after obtaining it by the most classic market intervention of all? Military victory?

          And which the British then used as a trading port to abrogate the sovereign rights of China?

          And which around the time of handover, the British were rumoured to have sucked many billions out of before giving the colony back to the Chinese?

          And whose economy is currently afloat with a huge flood of money from mainland China?

          Perhaps none of these things are associated with ‘market interventions’. Or they all are.
          • Libra 12.1.2.1.1

            12 August 2011 at 1:24 am

            That’s their history. Economies change. The US is the prime example. Just because a country started well off doesn’t mean it can’t fail.

            “And which around the time of handover, the British were rumoured to have sucked many billions out of before giving the colony back to the Chinese?”
            Oh, so maybe it didn’t start off so well.

            And since when has China propped up Hong Kong’s economy?
          • rosy 12.1.2.1.2

            12 August 2011 at 1:31 am

            1998 Asian Crisis:
            “That step was taken in 1998 by the Hong Kong Monetary Authority, which purchased $15 billion of stocks as the territory was rocked by the Asian financial crisis. Hong Kong’s was about the only government intervention in asset markets in history that worked”

            http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-08/g-7-vows-to-take-all-necessary-measures-to-stabilize-economies-markets.html
13. Gosman 13

    9 August 2011 at 10:20 am

    Ummmmm…. so your solution to this perceived problem is what exactly?
    • ropata 13.1

      12 August 2011 at 1:22 am

      CGT, close tax loopholes, reduce barriers to housing market, regulate & disincent rentier behaviour, outlaw insider trading, better tariffs and protection for local industry, stronger unions, tougher financial monitoring …

      a lot of basic things that sensible democracies have done for decades, it is obvious that having an elite of 1% with greater wealth than the other 95% is a recipe for riots

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS