Iwi to charge Mighty River Power - Page 2

CCS · 11th April 2013, 12:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by chubby

^^are you confessing to being unable to distinguish between corporate and social drivers in business?

no

Lightspeed · 11th April 2013, 13:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by CCS

Am I wrong? Does the shareholder not get a chunk of the profit?

You're not wrong. You're ignoring that the group "shareholder" is different to the group "public". It seems because shareholder is a member of public you think they are equivalent. They are not.

CCS · 11th April 2013, 13:33

Lolspeed, do not presume to tell me what I think when you clearly don't understand what I'm saying.

When the iwi said that they wouldn't charge MRP for water because it was for the public good, what do you think they meant? Surely it's because the govt was the sole shareholder, therefore it is the public that benefits. Do you have a different interpretation?

Now that MRP is going mixed ownership, it will be a mixture of public ownership (51%) and individual members of the public (49%).

Continuing to not charge MRP for their water under mixed ownership would still be just as much for the public good as when it was all govt owned.

The analogy comparing an SOE to a charity is moronic.

Ab · 11th April 2013, 13:37

No, it's that you didn't understand the analogy.

aR Que · 11th April 2013, 13:56

the more i think about this, the better it gets.
mrp 'pays for water' ,so their op cost increases. they maintain their profit margin. (which is a %) but that equates to an increase in gross profit. (10% of a million is more than 10% of 500 thou) does that not = a higher dividend payout and thus an increase in share value?.
so, if the 'moari tax' is high enough, the govts dividend return would remain unchanged,or similar, they'd get a lump sum injection, they'd be helping out 'their mates' by selling them shares and passing the cost on to poor suffering nga puhi mother fuckers struggling to pay their power bill to run their fan heater.

this has got to be a right wing plot, imo.

CCS · 11th April 2013, 14:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ab

No, it's that you didn't understand the analogy.

Maybe because it was a faulty analogy?

Ab · 11th April 2013, 14:25

Hint: I am the subject of each sentence, not the clients. Thus it's what I am thinking that's important, not what sort of business the clients are in.

_indigo1 · 11th April 2013, 15:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ab

Tuwharetoa own the physical space where the water will be stored before Mighty River Power makes millions of dollars by using it to generate electricity for sale; yet Mighty River Power seems to expect this storage to be provided to it at no cost. Compensation seems perfectly reasonable.

Discussions like these around locality of water are ridiculous.

The fact that water happens to pool on their land is not a free pay slip.
It can just as easily be changed if Maori are going to be stupid about it; just dam up the lakes water resupply routes and see how they like it. They can have their dry lake bed.
No disputable changes to their land directly - the water just 'happened' to not pool there anymore.

Or how about we charge them for the water flowing INTO their lake, if locality of water is a commodity.

CCS · 11th April 2013, 15:26

Don't be so fucking stupid, Simon. You know better than that. The analogy completely fails when your analogy has you doing work for a analogy when in fact that 'charity' is supposed to be analogous to an SOE

If you analogy is only partially true in a very narrow way - the work that you do and not that of the clients - it's not an analogy, is it? It's just a made up situation that bears no relation to what we're talking about.

In any case, your shitty analogy is a distraction from what we're talking about. Let me make it clear so that you don't go around pretending any further that my argument is something other than what I've stated: I'm not saying that the iwi can't make this out as a business case. What I'm saying is that it is disingenuous to claim that the business case is the motivation to charge MRP when it's clear to anyone who is not naive that the real motivation is to try to play havoc with MRP's share offering. Why? Because they are opposed to asset sales.

Lightspeed · 11th April 2013, 15:33

What a load of tripe. You're seeing them as spiteful because that's what you want to see. They may well be being spiteful, but you don't know that. More accurately there are probably a range of motivations by a range of individuals and groups within the Iwi.

If you want to boil it down to spite, that's really only because you want to see it that way.

As I see it, the Iwi are claiming they were happy to support the community at large, but now that what they see as their resources are going towards a money making venture for specific individuals, their support has changed.

CCS · 11th April 2013, 15:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

They may well be being spiteful, but you don't know that.

Robust argument, lolspeed

fixed_truth · 11th April 2013, 15:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by CCS

Continuing to not charge MRP for their water under mixed ownership would still be just as much for the public good as when it was all govt owned.

See that's where you're wrong. It wouldn't be "just as much for the public good" at all. 49% of earnings won't be going to all New Zealand anymore (including poor Maori). It will be going to those wealthy few who have money to play on the market with.

That's more than enough justification for Tuwharetoa's decision without your 'in spite' allegation.

Ab · 11th April 2013, 16:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by CCS

Don't be so fucking stupid, Simon. You know better than that. The analogy completely fails when your analogy has you doing work for a analogy when in fact that 'charity' is supposed to be analogous to an SOE

If you analogy is only partially true in a very narrow way - the work that you do and not that of the clients - it's not an analogy, is it? It's just a made up situation that bears no relation to what we're talking about.

In any case, your shitty analogy is a distraction from what we're talking about. Let me make it clear so that you don't go around pretending any further that my argument is something other than what I've stated: I'm not saying that the iwi can't make this out as a business case. What I'm saying is that it is disingenuous to claim that the business case is the motivation to charge MRP when it's clear to anyone who is not naive that the real motivation is to try to play havoc with MRP's share offering. Why? Because they are opposed to asset sales.

Not at all. Once again, it's me and my intentions that are the subject of the analogy, not the nature of the charity/business/SOE. When I was asked to do some work by a charity, I offered to do it for free because that made me feel all warm and fuzzy and I appreciate the work that this charity does for the community. If that charity became a for-profit enterprise I would not feel all warm and fuzzy any more because the organisation would be working for the benefit of investors rather than the community - and so I would refuse to do work for free.

My refusal would not be based on spite or on a desire to cause harm to some third party.

Lightspeed · 11th April 2013, 16:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by CCS

Robust argument, lolspeed

I dunno, seems a little weak to argue about the motivation of others. If they're acting within their rights, fuck it, people can do what they want. Who am I, boss Pakeha telling people what's right and wrong in the world?

chubby · 11th April 2013, 20:37

no.
ccs is.

pretty sure he'd defend to the death the right of a rich old white man to do this same thing.
no assumption of malice.

aR Que · 24th June 2013, 18:42

|...\...........................
|.....\../--\..................
|......--.....\......--........
|...............\.../...\/--\..
|................--...........\.
-------------------------

Amirite?

11th April 2013, 13:33	#43
CCS Stunt Pants	Lolspeed, do not presume to tell me what I think when you clearly don't understand what I'm saying. When the iwi said that they wouldn't charge MRP for water because it was for the public good, what do you think they meant? Surely it's because the govt was the sole shareholder, therefore it is the public that benefits. Do you have a different interpretation? Now that MRP is going mixed ownership, it will be a mixture of public ownership (51%) and individual members of the public (49%). Continuing to not charge MRP for their water under mixed ownership would still be just as much for the public good as when it was all govt owned. The analogy comparing an SOE to a charity is moronic. __________________ I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner?

11th April 2013, 15:26	#49
CCS Stunt Pants	Don't be so fucking stupid, Simon. You know better than that. The analogy completely fails when your analogy has you doing work for a analogy when in fact that 'charity' is supposed to be analogous to an SOE If you analogy is only partially true in a very narrow way - the work that you do and not that of the clients - it's not an analogy, is it? It's just a made up situation that bears no relation to what we're talking about. In any case, your shitty analogy is a distraction from what we're talking about. Let me make it clear so that you don't go around pretending any further that my argument is something other than what I've stated: I'm not saying that the iwi can't make this out as a business case. What I'm saying is that it is disingenuous to claim that the business case is the motivation to charge MRP when it's clear to anyone who is not naive that the real motivation is to try to play havoc with MRP's share offering. Why? Because they are opposed to asset sales. __________________ I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner?

11th April 2013, 13:37	#44
Ab A mariachi ogre snorkel	No, it's that you didn't understand the analogy.

11th April 2013, 13:56	#45
aR Que	the more i think about this, the better it gets. mrp 'pays for water' ,so their op cost increases. they maintain their profit margin. (which is a %) but that equates to an increase in gross profit. (10% of a million is more than 10% of 500 thou) does that not = a higher dividend payout and thus an increase in share value?. so, if the 'moari tax' is high enough, the govts dividend return would remain unchanged,or similar, they'd get a lump sum injection, they'd be helping out 'their mates' by selling them shares and passing the cost on to poor suffering nga puhi mother fuckers struggling to pay their power bill to run their fan heater. this has got to be a right wing plot, imo.

11th April 2013, 14:25	#47
Ab A mariachi ogre snorkel	Hint: I am the subject of each sentence, not the clients. Thus it's what I am thinking that's important, not what sort of business the clients are in.

11th April 2013, 15:33	#50
Lightspeed	What a load of tripe. You're seeing them as spiteful because that's what you want to see. They may well be being spiteful, but you don't know that. More accurately there are probably a range of motivations by a range of individuals and groups within the Iwi. If you want to boil it down to spite, that's really only because you want to see it that way. As I see it, the Iwi are claiming they were happy to support the community at large, but now that what they see as their resources are going towards a money making venture for specific individuals, their support has changed. __________________ Stay shook. No sook.

11th April 2013, 20:37	#55
chubby	no. ccs is. pretty sure he'd defend to the death the right of a rich old white man to do this same thing. no assumption of malice. __________________ "Take four red capsules, in ten minutes-take two more. Help is on the way."

24th June 2013, 18:42	#56
aR Que	\|...\........................... \|.....\../--\.................. \|......--.....\......--........ \|...............\.../...\/--\.. \|................--...........\. ------------------------- Amirite?