Your Tory: A Care Guide

44 comments on “Your Tory: A Care Guide ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Colonial Viper 1

   22 August 2011 at 5:53 pm

   Holy crap I had to clean the coffee off my keyboard!
2. Vicky32 2

   22 August 2011 at 5:56 pm

   Oh, excellent! 🙂
3. Lanthanide 3

   22 August 2011 at 6:14 pm

   Troubleshooting is the best bit.
4. Afewknowthetruth 4

   22 August 2011 at 6:17 pm

   It was clearly a big mistake to give in to the barons and agree the Magna Carta. Should’ve had them all beheaded.

   And whose stupid idea was it to allow non-land-owners to vote?

   Your Tory will do his/her best to re-establish feudalism.
   • Colonial Viper 4.1

     22 August 2011 at 6:26 pm

     And whose stupid idea was it to allow non-land-owners to vote?

     Exactly.

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forty_Shilling_Freeholders

     Although its quite likely the real decline started with women voting 😛
     • billy fish 4.1.1

       23 August 2011 at 9:37 am

       Personally I think it all went wrong in 1066….. bloody Normans grumble moan complain
5. Ianupnorth 5

   22 August 2011 at 8:27 pm

   My Tory has come into contact with evidence-based policy: Your Tory has a thick outer coat that will resist almost all forms of evidence. In the unlikely event that evidence should affect your Tory, please take your Tory to a Business Roundtable meeting for reprogramming.

   I have been wondering why they don’t understand evidence; now I know why!
6. Tazirev 6

   22 August 2011 at 8:49 pm

   HaHaHa Classic
7. William Joyce 7

   22 August 2011 at 8:59 pm

   Superb! Are they house trained? Do they drunkenly fall off their chairs as they reach for another roast peasant pheasant?
    
8. Jan 8

   22 August 2011 at 10:44 pm

   Thanks so much for this!
   It’d be good to put these in a Wiki so other disatisfied users can understand the implementation problems they may face if they choose a Tory later this year. I know customer care isn’t what it used to be but i’m wondering if you can help with the following:-

   I’ve been worrying that my Tory rushes to urgency.
   Is there a way of implementing my Tory’s the ethical module or is it still vapourware as iu the earlier nodel?

   Are you considering entries in the trouble shooting guide for :
   Your Tory repeats the same sound-bites irrespective of context
   Your Tory plucks statistics from his imagination
   Your Tory claims he lives in Dipton contrary to all the evidence.
   • McFlock 8.1

     22 August 2011 at 11:11 pm

     Nope-that’s the full extent of customer support from Tories R Us. In fact, if your Tory does anything wrong, Tories R Us will actually deny they ever had anything to do with its design, production, or distribution – even if you provide them with TV footage ofyour Tory in full blue branding. For example: Rick Giles, followed by an interview in Salient with some interesting comments-section activity.
9. vto 9

   23 August 2011 at 7:49 am

   David Cunliffe’s piece should be on the box.
10. Oligarkey 10

    23 August 2011 at 9:54 am

    The business round table are the representative organisation of the New World Order cabal in NZ.

    “According to former British intelligence agent John Coleman’s book, The Committee of 300, the Rothschilds exert political control through the secretive Business Roundtable, which they created in 1909 with the help of Lord Alfred Milner and South African industrialist Cecil Rhodes.”

    They push for the Washington consensus policies which are concentrated on global economic integration. They want a world without borders, that is run by a committee of banks and corporations. We’re almost there!

    http://real-agenda.com/2011/06/15/the-federal-reserve-cartel-part-iii-the-roundtable-the-illuminati/
11. Thomas 11

    25 August 2011 at 12:20 am

    Your Socialist: A Care Guide

    Congratulations, you have just elected a socialist. You will be pleased to know that it comes with an unlimited warranty. Yes, even when the economy falls apart, your socialist will continue to blame capitalism for its failure. (However, we do not guarantee satisfaction with your socialist.)

    Operating Instructions

    Robin Hood Mode

    When an election approaches your socialist will enter Robin Hood mode. The primary function of this mode is to introduce election-bribe subsidies for urban middle-class voters. Do not be alarmed when your socialist raises taxes. This is normal and your socialist will emit reassuring rhetoric claiming that the tax rise is fair and that someone else is paying for your subsidy.

    Economic Management Feature

    Your socialist comes with a degree in political science, gender studies, and art history. As such, it is capable of managing all economic affairs. Please inform your socialist of any economic problems. It will pass a law that makes the problems go away immediately, painlessly, and without side effects. Your socialist is capable of understanding all aspects of the economy from prices, supply and demand, risk, and capital to resource constraints, individual preferences, and incentives. Consequently your socialist is qualified to disregard all of these factors.

    Control System

    An essential part of your socialist’s normal operation is regulation. It is important that people are not allowed to trade freely, as all trades are zero-sum games. Your socialist will approve or decline all large transactions to ensure that unaffected parties are given influence. Your socialist may also introduce price and wage controls to ensure that its supporters are unaffected by their dwindling productivity. If supplies become insufficient, your socialist will create subsidies to support the price and wage controls.

    Troubleshooting

    My socialist is espousing a conspiracy theory. This is a vital part of your socialist’s logic and fact system. This allows it to accelerate reasoning by immediately dismissing unwanted arguments, evidence, and people as being part of a capitalist conspiracy involving a large portion of the population.

    My socialist is insufficiently radical. Check whether your socialist has Marx enabled. This is indicated by vilification of all who disagree with it and the continual assertion that productivity is negatively correlated with income.

    My socialist is running a large structural deficit. Deficits and debts are normal and will disappear eventually. The economy will soon begin growing faster than the debt; your children will easily pay off the debt, as they will inherit a highly efficient and productive economy.

    My socialist has begun to allow individuals to spend their own money. This is a serious problem and the economy will soon run out of control. Please obtain a replacement socialist immediately.

    The economy has begun to stagnate. This is only temporary; your socialist will grow the economy by spending on highly productive programs possibly involving unemployed youth. If the problem persists, please upgrade to a heavy-duty model.

    My socialist has begun cutting unproductive sectors. Your socialist is responding to changing economic conditions against the wishes of special interest groups. This indicates insufficient populism; please turn the knob labelled “union influence” counter-clockwise until subsidies appear.

    My socialist has outlawed some products. Your socialist knows what you need better than you do; it is for your own good.

    My socialist has begun listening to economists and/or has realised the lessons of history. Please install a new know-it-all module. This will ensure that your socialist returns to dogmatically building a utopia.

    My socialist has not been giving me enough subsidies, favourable price and wage controls, and has increased my taxes. Your socialist benefits its supporters at the expense of others and you have been excluded. Please elect a different socialist that will favour you.
    • lprent 11.1

      25 August 2011 at 8:21 am

      Not bad, but shows considerable immaturity in the choice of stereotypes. If you want to to do satire then the stereotypes must be something that you actually find in real life

      For instance where socialists have degrees you tend to find that they are more often than not technically related. Like my science and business qualifications, or the many engineers around here.

      Around the Labour party I have always noted the techs being the prevalent degrees. I haven’t met anyone with either gender studies or art history. There are polsci grads – but they tend to be pretty damn tech as well. A union organiser stereotype would have been more appropriate – for some reason people a the sharp end of inequities tend to get involved in politics.

      On the other hand, I have met many alcohol spraying tory fools braying an absolute certainty that the nonsense they were taught at their fathers lap reflects the real world. There have been many Waikato or North Shore BBQ’s where I have had ‘fun’ tormenting that certainty.

      That is what makes Scotts post funny – we’ve met these people. Your one is just done by a poor cartoonist who doesn’t observe and substitutes cliches that show you haven’t talked your target.
      • Thomas 11.1.1

        25 August 2011 at 10:44 am

        lprent: I have to say the same about the original. There certainly are some idiots who support the right, but I haven’t met many. Most of the ones I know are intelligent, educated, and realistic, but they tend to keep quiet about politics because they have better things to do with their time. (Yes, sadly I don’t have better things to do with my time.) On the other hand, I’ve met plenty of idiots who support the left and few intelligent folk capable of defending their beliefs.

        Re. degrees: My experience is that those who go on to be Labour staffers are the ones who did useless degrees and couldn’t find a real job. Clark and Goff both did polsci.

        My observations are mostly based on history and my experiences at The Standard. Mostly I’m not talking about the average run-of-the-mill socialist; I’m talking about socialist governments and politicians actually say and do.

        Was it too subtle?
        • KJT 11.1.1.1

          25 August 2011 at 12:44 pm

          Com’n Thomas. Anyone who supports the current Neo-Liberal right wing policies, after decades of proven failure, are, by definition, either an idiot, ignorant or a thief. Can’t blame the ignorant or idiotic. It is genetic. The thieves should be given a one way ticket to their ultimate free market, tax free paradise, Somalia.

          Which one are you?
          • Thomas 11.1.1.1.1

            25 August 2011 at 3:47 pm

            Anyone who supports the current Neo-Liberal right wing policies, after decades of proven failure, are, by definition, either an idiot, ignorant or a thief.

            Sigh… Where have we seen failures of the free market? Where have we seen successes of socialism? Name one!

            On the other hand, we’ve seen socialist policies failing and being abandoned in the USSR, Eastern Europe, China, USA, UK, Australia, New Zealand, and India. And we have seen free markets succeed in all those places and others like Hong Kong and Korea.
            • KJT 11.1.1.1.1.1

              25 August 2011 at 5:49 pm

              It what alternative universe are free market policies succeeding in these places.

              USSR was as socialist as Nazi Germany. China is State capitalist.

              The Western countries you name have all, gone rapidly downhill since they became more “free market”. The leaders in the “free market’, Ireland, UK and USA, and NZ soon, are on their way to becoming failed States since they abandoned socialist policies to pander to Neo-Liberal thieves and vandals.

              Neo-Liberal policies have been an object failure in New Zealand, as anyone without blinkers well knows. Ask almost any Kiwi about the benefits of asset sales. the only advocates are ideological fruitcakes and those who stand to gain from them at our expense.

              If you think the market is “free” in Hong Kong, Korea, China or Singapore, you have no idea what you are talking about. They all have a degree of State presence in their economies way in excess of any thing in the West. Temesek in Singapore for example.

              The most successful economies ever were the socialist democracies of Western Europe. Proof positive that the more socialist and equal a country the more prosperity for everyone.

              unfortunately the Neo-Liberal theives are trying to repeat their burglaries there also.
              • Thomas …

                26 August 2011 at 12:38 am

                KJT: Free-market policies are succeeding. They aren’t creating a utopia, but they are much better than the alternative. Let’s look at the NZ case.

                The economic situation in 1984 was dire. Basically, we were in the same fiscal situation as we are now in terms of the deficit and debt. The crucial difference is that we are currently recovering from a global bust and in 1984 the world was at the boom end of the business cycle. Inflation was high, which meant incomes were struggling to keep pace with the cost of living. And there was a real danger of a run on the New Zealand Dollar and the government running out of foreign currency reserves. See http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/briefings/1984i/

                It is nice to sit back and blame the reforms of the 80s and 90s for our and the world’s problems. But the fact is that the alternative would be much worse. Do you think the government going bankrupt would have been better? Stagflation came to an end because of the policies of the 80s.

                Many people think Roger Douglas damaged NZ. Nothing could be further from the truth. He saved us from bankruptcy, inflation, currency collapse, and economic stagnation. His reforms were necessary. Those who vilify Douglas need to read history.

                Australia is one of the best examples. They have a more liberal economy than we do and lower government spending. Partly this is because liberalisation went much more smoothly politically than it did here and thus it was more extensive.

                Yes, China is becoming more capitalist. Mao personally controlled many aspects of the economy (right down to how fields were tilled), resulting in famine and starvation. In 1978 Deng Xiaoping began liberalising the Chinese economy. Lo and behold, soon the massive growth we see today began. The soviet union is also no exception. We saw Krushchev abandon Stalinist policies and the USSR’s economy grew faster than that of the USA. But then Brezhnev stagnation took over when they returned to orthodox socialism.

                Temasek in Singapore is another great example. Rather than politicians deciding how government investments should be made—i.e. trying to use them as election bribes. An independent body controls state assets and runs them like a private business. The government has very little intervention in the economy.

                Now to western Europe, in particular Germany. The German economy is described as a “social market economy”, but don’t let the name fool you. Germany has one of the freest economies in Europe. Financial, renting, and business activities make up more of the German economy than manufacturing! It started in 1948 when the government abolished price controls and introduced a new stable currency. This led to the Wirschaftswunder—the growth of Europe’s largest economy. The Minister of Economy Ludwig Erhard who instituted these reforms was a staunch economic liberal and a member of the Mont Pelerin Society, which was founded by Milton Friedman and includes Ruth Richardson.

                History speaks with one voice: Free markets are better than socialism.
                • KJT …

                  26 August 2011 at 9:57 am

                  The cognitive dissonance is strong in this one.
                  Google authoritarian followers.

                  In fact the more “free market” the country the worse they are doing. Are you really trying to claim we are doing better than Australia or Norway.

                  Australia more Neo-Liberal than us?

                  Bullshit. They have been doing much better than us because they went a lot less far down the “free market” road. Just one example. Because they did not kill union power, much more of the wealth earned in Australia stays there.

                  You are Naive to think that the Singapore Government does not control business closely. They are not stupid enough to leave business to its own devices to the detriment of the country.

                  Germany has union reps on company boards, heavy Government regulation of industry and high social welfare spending. The most successful part of the German economy, and what makes it a standout is manufacturing. Supported by Government rules and tax benefits.

                  Some reforms were necessary to fix the damage done by Muldoon. Like reducing social welfare for farmers.
                  Unfortunately Douglas let idealogy get in the way of reality. He not only threw out the dirty bathwater, but the baby the bath and the house.
                  Douglas did even more damage than Muldoon. We could have recovered from Muldoon, but we are still paying for Douglas’ giveaway of assets, union busting, welfare busting and general destruction of community.

                  Even by the RWNJ’s own measures, like investment, GDP and local equity, we have gone down the gurgler, compared with more socialist countries, since 1984.

                  Both the USA and USA at their times of greatest prosperity were protectionist, interventionist and centrally planned to support their industry. The USA had 90% tax on the wealthy. UK only taxed landowners. The more they have gone down the Chicago school road the worst they are doing.

                  You can even compare socialist and less socialist US States. The best performing are the ones with State banking and socialist type initiatives. The worst are were the nut jobs have taken over with caps on taxation and removing regulation.

                  That is why you lot are RWNJ’s. Because you cannot follow a line of reasoning..
                  • Thomas …

                    26 August 2011 at 11:46 am

                    KJT: You are denying the facts. Your assertions are simply false. I’m not going to go through and debunk them one by one, like I did with your assertion that western Europe is socialist.

                    But I’ll deny them, which is about all you’ve done.

                    * Australia is more liberal than NZ in almost every aspect: lower government spending, acceptance of foreign investment, and less regulation.

                    * Singapore is ranked first or second in the world in most measure of economic freedom, it has a free economy, as that is the only way it can survive without natural resources.

                    * Germany is ranked as one of the freest economies in continental Europe; the big secret to its success is that it adopted free-market in the 40s and 50s rather than waiting until the 80s.

                    * Muldoon paralysed the economy with price controls, subsidies, and tariffs. Liberalisation was the only option. Roger Douglas should be regarded as a national hero.

                    * The NZ economy grew more under Roger Douglas than it did under Muldoon, despite Douglas having to deal with the Black Monday crash. Which socialist countries have done better than us since 1984?

                    * Why did the USA and UK elect Reagan and Thatcher? The answer is because the 70s saw stagflation. It was no socialist utopia. Their economies were not growing and they had cripplingly high inflation. The same story as we had under Muldoon.

                    * Which US states are more socialist? Be careful when you compare them, as there are a lot of transfers taking place.

                    What line of reasoning? You don’t have a line of reasoning, just a bunch of false assertions. Wake up and open your eyes. History shows very clearly that government intervention in economic affairs is almost always disastrous.
                    • KJT …

                      26 August 2011 at 1:04 pm

                      You are not going to debunk my facts because you cannot.

                      All your statements have been thoroughly debunked on this site and others.

                      Whenever yet another nut job troll pokes his head up with a bunch of total counter-factual analysis like yours.

                      There is a reason why only 2% vote for no tax, no social welfare, no regulation Actiods like you. “You cannot fool all of the people all of the time”.
                    • Thomas …

                      26 August 2011 at 1:12 pm

                      KJT: As strong as your “I’m right and you’re wrong” argument is, there is a long list of failed socialist experiments and you have failed to provide even one good example of a successful one.
                    • KJT …

                      26 August 2011 at 3:07 pm

                      New Zealand before Muldoon.
                      Sweden. Denmark. Norway. Germany. France. Belgium. Argentina after 2002.

                      OECD numbers clearly show which ones have the biggest State sector. And it is the ones that are doing best by all measures, including equality!.

                      “History shows very clearly that government intervention in economic affairs is almost always disastrous”.
                      Like the US health system compared to most of the State run ones elsewhere.
                      Like the withdrawal of building regulation in NZ.
                      Like the USA repealing Glass-Steagal.

                      Yeah right.

                      I can show step by step with facts and figures why you are talking absolutely dogmatic crap.

                      History shows that if the people lose democratic control of their country to a few failure always follows.

                      But why let evidence get in the way of a good story.
                    • Thomas …

                      26 August 2011 at 4:38 pm

                      KJT:

                      Before Muldoon, NZ had preferential access to the UK market. Farming exports were very profitable, but that ended with EEC in 1973. The UK consumers were paying for our prosperity. Similarly, Norway is living off North Sea oil and you are paying for their prosperity at the pump.

                      Germany I have already mentioned. They adopted liberal policies in the late 40s and have largely continued them.

                      Sweden is no longer socialist. The system fell apart in the 90s http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Sweden#Crisis_of_the_1990s Now it ranks highly on most scales of economic freedom. Sweden is often held up as a model of liberal reforms.

                      Belgium also went through economic restructuring in the 1980s.

                      Denmark began reforms in 2007, because they were facing economic problems.

                      France is the most socialist country on your list. It also has some of the highest levels of inequality in Western Europe and lags behind the UK and Germany in terms of GDP (PPP) per capita.

                      You mentioned the size of government spending in Western Europe. If you look into the details, most of that spending goes towards supporting an ageing population. Almost half of German government expenditure goes to welfare and much of that is pensions.

                      Your examples are hardly convincing.

                      Now to your other points.

                      The US health system has deep problems I don’t want to get into. A big part of the problem is that there are six registered health care lobbyists for every member of Congress and a highly monopolistic system. But let’s comapare like with like. GP practices in NZ are private businesses, whereas hospitals are centrally controlled. Which performs better?

                      I assume you are referring to the leaky homes crisis. That wasn’t a lack of government regulation, that was poor government oversight. Government inspectors approved shoddy building practices. That lulled people into a false sense of security and the crisis ensued.

                      The Glass-Steagal repeal often gets blamed for the financial crisis. Yet the role of government through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is ignored. It is naive to suggest that deregulation is the sole cause of the crisis.

                      There is some room for limited government oversight. I don’t dispute that. Natural monopolies and public goods are clear examples. But socialism is much more than oversight, it is wrestling with the market.

                      History shows that if the people lose democratic control of their country to a few failure always follows.

                      You are missing my last troubleshooting point. Socialism comes in different flavours. Muldoon’s socialism favoured farmers and another rural voters. Clark’s socialism favoured students and other middle-class urban voters. The “democratic control” is not fair; the equilibrium is for 51% of people to steal from the other 49%. To quote Don Brash “taking $1,000 off one taxpayer and giving $200 to each of five taxpayers wins them four votes.” The only fair way to run an economy is through a minimal government control.
        • lprent 11.1.1.2

          25 August 2011 at 1:12 pm

          Yeah, and that is where you have a perception issue. As you said you described a stereotype of left politicians and their staff.

          Scott’s one described tory’s who are a particular sub-breed of the right. Commonly they are not conservative MP’s or their staffers, they are just one very vocal part of their constituency. There are a few MP’s I can think of who’d fit the criteria, but they typically don’t last long (like National’s previous MP for Tauranga with his dick issues). But I surely see a lot of the type at social functions (I have family everywhere in NZ). I don’t see them too often at work because the dickheads are usually incompetent except by some very narrow measures. As the guide said…

          Despite having never in his life done a hard day’s labour, your Tory may while switched to born-to-rule begin opining loudly about the laziness of the lower classes. If this occurs immerse your Tory in gin until the braying stops.

          Incidentally, there is a slowly diminishing population with similar attitudes on the left as well. The rationales are different. Instead of born-to-rule, they bemoan that life hasn’t provided them opportunities that they expected and blame it all on someone else. I call them chip-on-the-shoulder. Fortunately they seem to be migrating to the right these days and you can see them every day in the sewer.. They appear to be the main target of the Act party these days.

          As for the Standard, with a few notable exceptions we don’t have too many politicians (a few candidates like mickey or squirrel) or their staffers writing comment here (I suspect that many read it from the occasional comment they leave). What you’re generally seeing is a small minority of active party members from various parties who are usually quite open about their affiliations. Then there are a whole lot of others most of whom would be swinging voters of the left or right. And of course a whole pile of activists for single issue causes. It is the variation between them that I find interesting.

          It is quite a different group to that which reads the site (I can tell by looking at a statistical analysis of IP’s between the population of comments to readers). It is also quite a different group to those I have seen as party members (I know Labour the best, but I know a lot of people who are party active across the spectrum). It is quite different to the political mechanics that you’re describing.

          But in my observation, you don’t seem to distinguish the differences between them when you’re commenting. Neither does your satire which falls into the boring old caricature trap. Perhaps you should write about the actual people you know about?
          • Thomas 11.1.1.2.1

            25 August 2011 at 3:37 pm

            lprent: We can debate which side has more idiots all day long. It doesn’t matter. Policy is what matters. That is why I targeted policy rather than a subgroup of supporters (with the exception of the first two troubleshooting points).

            Sometimes I feel that it isn’t a caricature…
            • lprent 11.1.1.2.1.1

              25 August 2011 at 3:55 pm

              Nope. Fail again.

              What you pointed were the policies that you considered were those of a ‘socialist’. Just a brief glance through them and the policies of every party in parliament will allow you to conclude that every actual political party are socialists. Only some mythical Randian party is not – which probably explains why they do not exist.

              For instance National during my lifetime have consistently run much higher structural deficits than Labour has. I guess they’re socialists.

              In addition to such wonderfully ‘socialist’ things as the coercive three strikes legislation and the Auckland super city acts, the Act party appears to increasingly descending into telling people how they should live their lives.

              I’m afraid that you’re just one of those people who consists of a party of one. I guess there is a reason that people don’t listen to what you write that much…
              • Thomas …

                25 August 2011 at 4:22 pm

                lprent: I agree. National has a socialist/populist element to it. I think ACT are the only party that don’t have socialist *economic* policy.

                The current deficit is a result of the global financial crisis and the spending programs National inherited from Labour. The previous Labour government ran a surplus because of the global boom and the fiscal policy it inherited from National.

                Here is a good graph showing NZ government expenditure relative to the size of the economy with Australia as a comparison:
                http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=ltjib1m1uf3pf_&ctype=l&strail=false&nselm=h&met_y=govdefct_t3&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country&idim=country:AUS:NZL&ifdim=country&tstart=-610804800000&tend=2544955200000&icfg&uniSize=0.035&iconSize=0.5
                Expenditure came down under Douglas, Richardson, and Birch and began to rise again under Peters and Cullen—not immediately, slowly. And English has to pay for that now.

                I’m referring to economic policy, not social policy. Yes, National has introduced some awful social policy—skynet, three strikes, etc.

                I’m socially and economically liberal. The left is socially liberal and economically conservative, whereas the right is socially conservative and economically liberal. I find that frustrating (and hypocritical). However, in the 80s National was socially and economically conservative and Labour was socially and economically liberal. I want the Labour party of the 80s back!
                • Colonial Viper …

                  25 August 2011 at 4:27 pm

                  Left and Right is all a bit meh now, its the top 1% against the other 99%.

                  Or on a global basis, the top 0.01% against the remaining 99.99%. There are about 1,500 billionaires in the world. And 2B people who go hungry every day. Fucking ridicuous.

                  Social conservatism or liberalism doesn’t mean a thing now except as window dressing, as scraping by day to day is the major concern for the majority of people.

                  How does disadvantaging beneficiaries, the infirm and poor people count as being “socially liberal”.
                • KJT …

                  25 August 2011 at 6:10 pm

                  Thomas. You have just proven your side has at least one idiot.

                  Calling the fiscal contraction and recession caused by Richardson a “boom”.

                  Next you will be claiming the GFC was caused by “Socialists’. Instead of the “free marketers having to be bailed out of their failures by the State and those who did not steal the wealth for financial gambling.
                • KJT …

                  26 August 2011 at 10:11 am

                  Yes. We are having to pay for expenditure coming down under Douglas, Richardson and Birch.

                  The effect of years of RW meanness on our social fabric.
                  A permanent underclass, increased crime, lack of opportunities.

                  The expenses incurred from the disastrous effects of deregulation.
                  Finance companies. Leaky homes. Lost manufacturing.

                  The effects of asset giveaways.
                  Marsden point. 300million upgrade. Sold for 300mill. Made 300 mil profit the next year. 14 billion in interest and profits going offshore which should have stayed as our profit on “think big” an other infrastructure investments.

                  Lost businesses and manufacturing from their deliberate demolition of the local economy.

                  The Labour party did not exist in the 80’s. It was the first ACT Government. There are good reason why they only get 2% of the vote.
              • Thomas …

                25 August 2011 at 4:32 pm

                lprent: Also, I don’t like being compared to Ayn Rand. I’m a supporter of welfare, regulation of natural monopolies, and wealth redistribution—just like the Labour party of the 80s and all the other famous neoliberals. My main objection is to the idea that government should micromanage the economy—if you look it up, that is what socialism means. You’re extrapolating my views to mean anarchy/libertarianism.
                • McFlock …

                  25 August 2011 at 5:26 pm

                  “My main objection is to the idea that government should micromanage the economy—if you look it up, that is what socialism means”
                     
                  Oh, okay, I will:
                     
                  OED: “2. Freq. with capital initial. A theory or system of social organization based on state or collective ownership and regulation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange for the common benefit of all members of society; advocacy or practice of such a system, esp. as a political movement. Now also: any of various systems of liberal social democracy which retain a commitment to social justice and social reform, or feature some degree of state intervention in the running of the economy.”[my emphasis].
                    
                    
                  • Thomas …

                    25 August 2011 at 5:41 pm

                    McFlock: Yes, it is the first definition I was referring to. The original meaning of socialism was state control of the means of production—i.e. capital. The meaning has been blurred and that is what the second definition reflects. However, it still largely means state intervention in the economy. And I oppose that unless there is a strong and clear reason.
                    • KJT …

                      25 August 2011 at 5:57 pm

                      So you would rather have us controlled by overseas corporations and parasitic bankers rather than self determination.

                      It would help of course if the Anglo Saxon countries had democracy, like Switzerland instead of a 3 yearly choice of which dictators the newspaper proprietors prefer this week.

                      “The greatest obstacle to democracy is the delusion of the poor, that we have it, and the abject fear of the rich, least we get it”.

                      Or. “If voting made any difference they would abolish it”.
                    • McFlock …

                      25 August 2011 at 6:33 pm

                      So you’re using a very precise definition of the word (“communisim” might be less ambiguous) in order to create a gap between “socialism” and “Randian”, which you lovingly call “neoliberal”. 
                       
                      Unfortunately for you, it’s a continuum, not an arbitrary collection of discontinuous labels.
                    • Colonial Viper …

                      25 August 2011 at 7:11 pm

                      Could someone please destroy the cloning facility that these RWNJs are getting pumped out of.
                    • Thomas …

                      26 August 2011 at 12:56 am

                      KJT: Quit the xenophobia. NZ will never prosper if we follow isolationist policies; our domestic market is too small. An important part of economic growth is capital and part of that will be foreign capital.

                      Take Auckland Airport as an example. It’s a national embarrassment. Christchurch airport is better, as is any random airport in China. In 2007 a foreign group offered to invest in it. This would have seen a massive upgrade of the airport. They were planning to make Auckland a hub for traffic between the Middle East, Asia, and South America. The economic benefits of that would have been astronomical; we would overcome much of the tyranny of distance by being directly linked to some of the worlds fastest growing economies.

                      So obviously we should have thanked these investors. They would have poured millions, if not billions into our economy. But no, Labour vetoed the deal. Why? No reason. Just xenophobia. F***ing racists.

                      It would help of course if the Anglo Saxon countries had democracy,

                      Here come the conspiracy theories… I acknowledge that there is some political corruption, especially in the US. But the elections themselves are free and fair. I’m glad we have the electoral finance act, but it doesn’t go far enough. However, it is interesting to see that all the third-party advertisers registered under the act for this year’s election are unions, not business types.
                    • Colonial Viper …

                      26 August 2011 at 1:32 am

                      Here come the conspiracy theories… I acknowledge that there is some political corruption, especially in the US. But the elections themselves are free and fair

                      Oh FFS you can’t be that ignorant. Here’s a clue: its not a conspiracy if its true.

                      Between hanging chads and electronic voting machines which can be hacked by a 15 year old, between the Koch Bros and Governor Scott Walker, between Barack Obama and his senior economic team of former Goldman Sachs executives, between the US Supreme Court striking down all corporate campaign spending limits and giving corporations the Right of Free Speech of human citizens, between the tie ups of Cheney, Haliburton and the Iraq War

                      I mean

                      Were you born yesterday?

                      However, it is interesting to see that all the third-party advertisers registered under the act for this year’s election are unions, not business types.

                      yeah thats because the business types launder their contributions through the Waitemata Trust.

                      How else did the National Party get more campaign funds “than ever before” as announced at their recent conference??? It wasn’t through bake stalls.
                • KJT …

                  26 August 2011 at 10:18 am

                  In private enterprise if the management do not strategically plan for the future, and try and manipulate the market to make the company successful, the shareholders are rightfully upset.

                  Why should we be happy for the management of our country to leave our future to a blind faith in “the free market”.
                  • Colonial Viper …

                    26 August 2011 at 10:28 am

                    Private sector corporations are excellent at identifying market opportunities and at building the capabilities needed to exploit those opportunities.

                    Their aim is to advantage their major stakeholders: the Board of Directors and the major institutional investors.

                    What we need is a Government which is quite willing to do exactly the same thing to advantage all NZer’s without apologising for it, and without serving just small sections of our citizens – the ones they consider their own friends.
        • rd 11.1.1.3

          25 August 2011 at 1:16 pm

          Tory
          Ideology before evidence?

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS