Random Politics

[cyc]

And Phil Goff is a fundamentally dishonest jerk. NZ is not a direct, representative democraZy where constitutionally our MPs are obligated to just parrot whatever the fuck the mob wants. Don't go around changing the rules just because you got kicked out of power, Goffey.

Moreover, even if mob rule is our way (and it's not YET), it's funny how the mob didn't matter when LABOUR first proposed the laws to disconnect pirates off the internet and there was a whole lot of outrage. It's also funny how it wasn't that interested in all the widespread opposition to the extremes of the Electoral Finances Act.

And a parliamentarian ought to know that NZ -- for better or worse -- has no entrenched consitution and operates on a model of legislative supremacy, i.e. Parliament's laws are supreme and every parliament has the right to change the law as it sees fit. There is no constitutional and legal mandate for Labour to attempt to bind another parliament using a mere statute. More importantly, any subsequent parliament can/will just abrogate this law even if it were enacted if a majority so desired. If Phil Goff cares so much about the "rules" and the will of the people, there's actually a process under our system to get legislations entrenched. Why doesn't he have the guts to do that?

More importantly, will Phil Goff accept another government endevouring to bind his hands as to policy-making via an ordinary statute? Doubt it.

Fucking contemptible hypocrite.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by cyc

Fucking contemptible hypocrite.

Yeah, it's like he's a politician or some shit like that!

[fixed_truth]

OMG Someone disagrees with me . . . I must insult them!?!. Derp. Yawn. Derp

Originally Posted by cyc

If we are serious about promoting savings and moving people off property speculation, it would help if there were more floats on the sharemarket.

Don’t be so naive. Contact Energy is a good example of how quickly ‘Mum and Dad’ investor’s shares head overseas. It’s a short term solution at the expense of our economic sovereignty.

Originally Posted by cyc

With idiots like the Greens and Labour around and should such a stupid law pass, you'll NEVER see any proposed asset sale evaluated on its merits. All Labour and the Greens will do is object, object, and object based on their ideology.

I know that this line helps NACT apologists like you keep up the “extreme left” delusion, but the reality is quite different.

Originally Posted by Standard & Poor's

Furthermore, Curry said New Zealand was "relatively light" in government related entities. He noted the Government's plans for partial asset sales, "but if you look at what's left, the sorts of government related businesses in New Zealand are quite minimal compared to a lot of other countries".

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=10706501

Asset sale arguments on wobbly ground (from the Herald's “extreme left” Economics Editor) http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/ne...ectid=10705195

Geoff Simmons: Little substance to the asset sales reasoning (Economist at Morgan Foundation) http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=10704747

[cyc]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=10706501

Asset sale arguments on wobbly ground (from the Herald's “extreme left” Economics Editor) http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/ne...ectid=10705195

Geoff Simmons: Little substance to the asset sales reasoning (Economist at Morgan Foundation) http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=10704747

Err, you do realise that I actually DON'T really buy into the "government has lots of fat" argument? Nice ASSuming, as always, brainless leftie. My problem is with the intellectually dishonest ignoring of the reality and significance of ONLY selling 49% of a company AND the fact that NZ's capital markets are completely moribund and we need to actually do something about this to maintain some semblance of being a first world country. These are the reasons for my support of the proposed sales -- nothing more and nothing less.

But facts don't matter to you, do they?

[Ab]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Labour proposes a new law to stop asset sales
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA110...sset-sales.htm

Good shit.

No, a hollow gesture, nothing more.

You know how National has been criticised for doing so much under urgency? That's because during this session Labour is stubbornly filibustering every. single. bill. in order to try and disrupt passage of the VSM legislation. That means there is no chance whatsoever of this private members bill appearing before the house before the election.

Phil Goff is putting this forward as a private members bill specifically because that means it will never appear before Parliament. If it was put forward as an official Labour policy that would mean that Labour would have to debate it and argue in favour of it and defend it from criticism. But doing it this way means that they'll never have to do any of that - so this is all being done for appearances' sake.

It's just another "AXE THE TAX*" bit of posturing. It's pathetic.





* disclaimer: tax may not in fact be axed. Conditions apply. Vote Labour!

[cyc]

OMG HANG THAT FUCKING NACT APOLOGIST AB ALREADY!

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by cyc

My problem is with the intellectually dishonest ignoring of the reality and significance of ONLY selling 49% of a company AND the fact that NZ's capital markets are completely moribund and we need to actually do something about this to maintain some semblance of being a first world country. These are the reasons for my support of the proposed sales -- nothing more and nothing less.

But facts don't matter to you, do they?

Facts? Did you even bother to read the links?

Originally Posted by Geoff Simmons

Foreign interests will likely buy up some of the assets, resulting in a one-off fillip to the national accounts, but result in a drain on our economy in the long term as profits disappear overseas.
In sum, asset sales will (at best) have a negligible impact on national savings, reducing our chances of economic meltdown, or exports.

Originally Posted by Brian Fallow

As for the potential shot in the arm to the sharemarket, it is true that in principle deeper and more liquid capital markets should lower the cost of capital for New Zealand companies. In theory. But as the Treasury notes, sharemarket liquidity is heavily concentrated in the big-cap stocks. Adding a few more of them would not do much for the smaller fry.
Nor would it make the market more diversified and representative of the economy as a whole.

(also the critiques also concerned partial sales)

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by Ab

Phil Goff is putting this forward as a private members bill specifically because that means it will never appear before Parliament. If it was put forward as an official Labour policy that would mean that Labour would have to debate it and argue in favour of it and defend it from criticism. But doing it this way means that they'll never have to do any of that - so this is all being done for appearances' sake.

Why will it "never appear before Parliament". If Labour can form a majority coalition Govt (& National cannot) then they can try and implement this. If they end up still being in opposition then the bill is still in the ballot.

Do you think that not selling assets isn't Labour policy or something?

[fixed_truth]

Also

The bogus benefits of PPPs

Surely, this has to be a joke? In the wake of the global failure of private sector capitalism, of private sector ‘commercial discipline’ running Air New Zealand into bankruptcy and the cost over-runs and boondoggles involved with PPP transport projects in Australia and Britain – all faithfully recorded in various OECD reports – are we still trying to claim that private industry is intrinsically more efficient than government? What planet have these people been living on for the past decade?

[cyc]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Facts? Did you even bother to read the links?



(also the critiques also concerned partial sales)

HI I AM GOING TO QUOTE SOME OPINIONS THAT SUPPORT ME AND PRETEND THAT CONCLUDES THE ISSUE! Look, Fixed_truth, stop quoting stuff from the internet and pretend that those bits from the net which support your POV is the be-all-end-all.

[cyc]

BTW, selling shares on the sharemarket isn't the same thing as a PPP, you dumb fuck.

[fixed_truth]

I didn't say it concludes the issue.

But it does show up your emotive BS - ie

Originally Posted by cyc

With idiots like the Greens and Labour around and should such a stupid law pass, you'll NEVER see any proposed asset sale evaluated on its merits. All Labour and the Greens will do is object, object, and object based on their ideology. . . My problem is with the intellectually dishonest ignoring of the reality and significance of ONLY selling 49%

[cyc]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

I didn't say it concludes the issue.

But it does show up your emotive BS - ie

HI BRIAN FALLOW AND GEOFF SIMMONDS = LABOUR AND GREENS!

REALLY... cuz fixed_truth said so!

[cyc]

Let's look at what the Green Party retards (for example) really think about asset sales.

http://www.greens.org.nz/node/25768#poassets

The National Government plans to partially sell off Meridian Energy, Mighty River Power, Genesis Energy and Solid Energy.

The Greens oppose this plan because the assets will end up in foreign ownership with the profits going overseas; partial privatisation will inevitably lead to full privatisation; loss of government control of the electricity market will lead to higher prices as there is very little real competition (like banking); and we will lose the chance to have a coordinated approach to electricity generation.

One of the major grounds of objection is that the assets will "inevitably" go into full foreign ownership. How this is so is not explained. Non idelogy-based objection? Yeah, right.

[chubby]

^^ increasingly shrill and self-deluded.

step away from the mint-julips, freak.

[cyc]

Originally Posted by chubby

^^ increasingly shrill and self-deluded.

step away from the mint-julips, freak.

Dear Chubby,

Get some originality.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by cyc

One of the major grounds of objection is that the assets will "inevitably" go into full foreign ownership. How this is so is not explained. Non idelogy-based objection? Yeah, right.

Ideology based objection lol? I see ideology based as not evidence based.

Also the Greens aren't opposed to the private sector being involved with the public sector. Just not in a way that's shown (contact) to result in half the profits going overseas and further selling off as the company struggles to operate in a competitive market.
http://auckland.scoop.co.nz/2011/06/...my-that-works/

[cyc]

So where's the evidence that selling 49% of the shares will inevitably lead to full privatisation? Stop dodging the question, dishonest leftie.

[adonis]

Originally Posted by cyc

So where's the evidence that selling 49% of the shares will inevitably lead to full privatisation? Stop dodging the question, dishonest leftie.

I agree that it's not inevitable, but what is inevitable is that the right will try and push for full privatisation, with similar reasoning behind the current plans. If people buy the current line why wouldn't they buy that? It's the same 'magic of the marketplace' bullshit the right have been peddling for decades.

The fact is there is no evidence or reasoning that these asset sales would be beneficial to the NZ taxpayer. People invest in shares to make money. With a majority share hold remaining with the government there will be no operational changes that you would not expect see if the government retained full ownership. Bill English says that 'market pressure' will make them more efficient, but this view is completely idiotic.

'Mum&Dad Investors' already get the benefit of these assets as NZ taxpayers. All this is, is a land-grab for overseas interests. In the long term all these asset sales will create is higher taxes or more public service cuts.

[cyc]

Originally Posted by adonis

The fact is there is no evidence or reasoning that these asset sales would be beneficial to the NZ taxpayer. People invest in shares to make money. With a majority share hold remaining with the government there will be no operational changes that you would not expect see if the government retained full ownership. Bill English says that 'market pressure' will make them more efficient, but this view is completely idiotic.

No evidence? Look, I agree these things are debatable but don't insult the intelligence of people who don't just suck up extreme left-shit views -- clearly there are intelligent people who believe otherwise. I am not here concerned with who's right -- it's just rather amusing to see idiotic lefties throw out one-liners as though they are indisputable truth. "No operational changes"? Well, you might like to take a look at the Companies Act for the first time about what it says in relation to the appointment of directors by shareholders.

Again, needing/desiring to make profits does not by itself guarantee price rises. Increased profits can be achieved through efficiency gains, rationalisation, changes of operation, alternate investments etc etc.

No ideology-based objections? Yeah right.

[adonis]

Originally Posted by cyc

I am not here concerned with who's right

Maybe you should be?

Do you agree that any changes in operational efficiency have to offset the fact that profits will go off-shore? Or at least be diverted away from the government?

[cyc]

Originally Posted by adonis

Maybe you should be?

Do you agree that any changes in operational efficiency have to offset the fact that profits will go off-shore? Or at least be diverted away from the government?

Err, I've already answered some of these questions. Nothing you've posted has in any way justified the claim you've made.

[chubby]

what about the claims you've made,nimrod.
you do realise that just saying something is a fact,dosent make it so?

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by cyc

So where's the evidence that selling 49% of the shares will inevitably lead to full privatisation? Stop dodging the question, dishonest leftie.

I’d guess that here the Greens are making a safe generalisation based on the poor history of the partial sale of vital infrastructure in NZ, particularly Contact.

Originally Posted by adonis

The fact is there is no evidence or reasoning that these asset sales would be beneficial to the NZ taxpayer.

You're wasting your time trying to get this guy to back-up his viewpoint. To him a centre-left party is "extreme left" and anyone who disagrees is a "a brainless leftie" and an "idiot".

[DrTiTus]

[cyc]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

I’d guess that here the Greens are making a safe generalisation based on the poor history of the partial sale of vital infrastructure in NZ, particularly Contact.

You're wasting your time trying to get this guy to back-up his viewpoint. To him a centre-left party is "extreme left" and anyone who disagrees is a "a brainless leftie" and an "idiot".

Yes, like how you backup your viewpoints eh, Fixed_truth? Why don't you trawl the internet some more??

[cyc]

Originally Posted by cyc

There is no constitutional and legal mandate for Labour to attempt to bind another parliament using a mere statute. More importantly, any subsequent parliament can/will just abrogate this law even if it were enacted if a majority so desired. If Phil Goff cares so much about the "rules" and the will of the people, there's actually a process under our system to get legislations entrenched. Why doesn't he have the guts to do that?

HAHAHAHAHAH one of fixed_truth's favourite source of support basically makes the above point and, of course, Fixed_truth won't be relying on this op-ed:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/ne...ectid=10733430

The clause requiring any asset sale to have 75 per cent parliamentary backing would never take effect. That is because Parliament's rules stipulate that such an "entrenching" clause itself requires 75 per cent backing from the House to be enacted.

For that to happen, National's party vote in November would have to fall below 25 per cent, along with Act and United Future not being re-elected. All in all, hardly likely.

Labour's rationale is that John Key cannot claim that victory at the election would give him a mandate for a plan to partly-privatise the assets.

Phil Goff argues that a "specific" mandate should be obtained for each privatisation because once such assets are sold, they are sold forever. That would require the support of 75 per cent of Parliament or a simple majority at a referendum.

It is here the problems start. First, the bill has to be lucky enough to be drawn in the irregular ballot of private member's bills. At last count there were 24 other competing bills in the ballot.

As Labour's opponents point out, the order paper is now clogged with 11 private member's bills at various stages of debate because Labour has been filibustering an Act bill promoting voluntary membership of student unions.

The killer blow, however, is the provision in the 1995 rewrite of Parliament's standing orders that any requirement for a 75 per cent majority for altering or removing something must itself get a 75 per cent majority to become entrenched.

To top things off, were the bill to hurdle that obstacle and become law, a future National-led Government could still repeal it with a simple 50 per cent-plus majority.

Phil Goff, (re)-exposed as a fraud. Now that was a surprise. Oh and isn't it nice how Fixed_dishonesty changes the goal post to defend his leftie friends? When the Greens tell porkies or ignore the rules of logic, it's just a "safe generalisation". When anyone makes a point/takes on a POV he doesn't like, he's required to prove it. AWESOME!

[Ab]

"Mr Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has a fair point."

[fixed_truth]

The clause requiring any asset sale to have 75 per cent parliamentary backing would never take effect. That is because Parliament's rules stipulate that such an "entrenching" clause itself requires 75 per cent backing from the House to be enacted.
For that to happen, National's party vote in November would have to fall below 25 per cent, along with Act and United Future not being re-elected. All in all, hardly likely.

Getting it endorsed by a public referendum is an option if in this scenario National want a public mandate. But the real fraud is that even then National wouldn't care about enormous public opposition and would be willing to sell public assets without a mandate.

[cyc]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Getting it endorsed by a public referendum is an option if in this scenario National want a public mandate. But the real fraud is that even then National wouldn't care about enormous public opposition and would be willing to sell public assets without a mandate.

No, they are not required to just parrot the mob. This is not a direct representative democracy. Should the mob disagree with National, it can go and vote it out of government.

[xor]

Originally Posted by Ab

"Mr Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has a fair point."

John Key is bit of a mincer with the way he holds himself. I bet he throws like a girl.

[adonis]

Originally Posted by Ab

"Mr Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has a fair point."

Yep, we've been there, done that as a country. Time to move on and learn from the mistakes of the past. Oh wait, sorry, National would rather keep doing the same thing while expecting different results.

A market is not always the most efficient way of organising an industry. Competition costs resources, companies have to pay money for a market share. As an industry develops the resources required to keep this market share increases, it becomes a constant state of one-up-manship with rival companies, which makes it more difficult for new players to enter the market.

The benefits of a market have to outweigh the cost of competition. In industries that have to cater to ever changing consumer demands, a market works well, since it can adapt better than a centrally planned industry. If an industry is driven by innovation, a market can perform well since it provides a platform to test those innovations.

However, many industries that have been introduced to competition recently do not benefit enough from competition to overtake the costs of it. Take power for example, there is some degree of innovation there, but the power that comes out of your socket is the same regardless of what power company you buy it from. Competition in the power sector has driven prices up. The benefits of a market have not been enough to overtake the costs of competition, a monopoly would be more efficient.

[adonis]

Originally Posted by cyc

No, they are not required to just parrot the mob. This is not a direct representative democracy. Should the mob disagree with National, it can go and vote it out of government.

Please, go ahead and tell this to AS MANY PEOPLE AS YOU CAN.

[crocos]

Originally Posted by Ab

"Mr Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has a fair point."

That's actually quite funny - Key indirectly said he would be open to selling Kiwibank.

Admittedly it was a nastily phrased question from Goff, but I reckon Key did not handle that one well.

[Golden Teapot]

I hope Hone wins. I can't stand his politics or approach but I can see he's probably the best option in terms of representing that electorate. If only his mother would retire.

His view that land-line polls don't work for measuring the mood of this demographic I think is entirely valid too. Poor people are going to have a prepay cellphone and not a land-line.

Of course if it's raining on the day poor people will stay home rather than getting wet walking to the voting booth. And, if it's sunny they'll go and do something more interesting. So, there's undoubtedly a chance that labour will win on the day.

[aR Que]

Originally Posted by Golden Teapot

[Hone], he's probably the best option in terms of representing that electorate.

Get fucked. I'm no Davis fan but at least he didn't want to spit on me last time i talked to him.

[ZoSo]

Hone and Winston could easily end up a lifeline for Goffle. A token win for Davis would be more ideal.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by aR Que

Get fucked. I'm no Davis fan but at least he didn't want to spit on me last time i talked to him.

Well, you are as white as muthafuckas get.

[aR Que]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Well, you are as white as muthafuckas get.

If i'd been more on my game (aka, less busy) I'd have made a mock sign with hones head and a speech bubble 'All you white mother fuckers, vote for me.'

[StN]

Originally Posted by aR Que

If i'd been more on my game (aka, less busy) I'd have made a mock sign with hones head and a speech bubble 'All you white mother fuckers, vote for me.'

They let whities on the Maori role now?