Kiwi-Made kafuffle
Apologies for the lack of posts last week - fortunately there’s been excellent discussion on the Lebanon thread in my absence - thanks guys!
It was annoying to see confusion develop over the Buy Kiwi-Made programme on Friday, with some media going, frankly, over the top.
It’s hard to negotiate via the news media! Because negotiations with the Government are still in progress, there is confusion over the final shape of the programme - which has made it very hard for Sue B to answer media queries looking for a definitive answer on whether or not products manufactured overseas will derive some benefit from it. The core focus of the programme has always been on New Zealand jobs and on encouraging local production to insulate against the shocks of peak oil and climate change, and this hasn’t changed. The programme is on track, and at the end of the day, no product manufactured overseas will have a tag saying “Buy Kiwi-Made” on it. That, IMHO, is the core of the issue.
August 14th, 2006 at 11:13 am
The media seems to have actually contradicted itself…
http://www.additiverich.com/morgue/archives/001591.html
August 14th, 2006 at 11:51 am
does that mean coke which is 99% manufactrued in NZ can be part of the “buy NZ” campaign? -
August 14th, 2006 at 12:54 pm
NZ Made seems like a pretty simple concept to me - the thing needs to be made in NZ…the only grey area is sourcing the materials. At one end of the spectrum I saw an in-house brand of sugar in the supermarket made “in NZ from imported ingredients”. Given it only had one ingredient I thought this was a bit rich. At the other end, if you disallowed products that were not 100% local materials, processes and labour you would probably have a fairly small list of products.
I love Icebreaker clothing as much as the next guy (although I wish it was made here and would happily pay a little more if it were, but that’s for another post) but if we do water down the entry requirements for off-shore produced goods, where does it end? “Well, we play kiwi music in our sweatshop, so do we qualify for the programme?”
Despite the best efforts of the media to paint the issue as a Green capitulation or a Labour walk-over (or whatever tomorrow’s headline will be) there’s no point getting too excited until the actual policy is available for debate.
August 14th, 2006 at 1:29 pm
“Because negotiations with the Government are still in progress, there is confusion over the final shape of the programme - which has made it very hard for Sue B to answer media queries looking for a definitive answer on whether or not products manufactured overseas will derive some benefit from it.”
Wasn’t this part of the agreement between the Greens and Labour to buy the former’s support for the latter? Didn’t anybody sort out what it was they were agreeing with? When making political deals one has to remember they are only worth whatever remains after they have been thoroughly minced, stretched, masticated and reintepreted by a team of highly creative Transylvanian poodle-lawyers.
August 14th, 2006 at 2:05 pm
The real issue seems to me to be whether the Greens let the wealthy manufacturers nobble the campaign, on the excuse of portraying the country as an enterprising self-sufficient one with a huge list of successes. As an alternative to showing up just how pathetically small the exclusive club really is. Which might galvanise the whole thing (urban and off-shore drift, unemployment, neglect of primary producers and scientists, and small entre-preneureal high tech industries) into urgent action.
The world, for example, has been manufacturing paper for 2200 years. But when Esther James held the first “NZ made” campaign in 1931, everything she carried on the famous walk had to be made IN NZ. Especially the log-book recording it. And the best they could do was brown paper, because white wasn’t made in NZ. This had great impact on Forest Products (we had oodles of water and trees), Kraft, newspaper imports, food-wrapping, Whakatane Board Mills. Big companies grew out of SHAME, not money. The list in 1931 was small - hotels (but hardly any tourism), canneries, food chains, Cremota, some clothing, boot-polish, etc. Perhaps the Greens fondly think things have changed from 75 years ago this December. At least they care; whereas the big firms care about public relations and income only!
August 14th, 2006 at 2:30 pm
Right on farmgeek.
The Cooperation Agreement between the Greens & Labour signed after the 2005 election states:
“The government will ensure that the Green Party is briefed on a six monthly basis on the forward programme for policy development in environment, energy, sustainable economics, transport, conservation, health and social development, in order that specific areas for joint work can be agreed upon from time to time.
The government and the Green Party have agreed that involvement in the programme of policy development will occur at three different levels
Categorisation of issues at particular levels will occur by agreement between the Prime Minister and the Green Leadership.
Level 1
For issues identified as level 1 the Green Party spokesperson will be fully involved in the detailed development and implementation of policy proposals on the basis set out in appendix 1.
In the first instance it is agreed that two areas will be categorised as level 1:
* An enhanced energy efficiency programme including promotion of a solar energy programme
* A Buy Kiwi Made programme.”
The Appendices for the Agreement then set out the processes:
“Appendix 1
Level 1 issues.
Where an issue has been identified as a level 1 issue the following arrangements will be put in place, in addition to those set out in appendix 2.
1. the Minister will set out in writing the scope of the agreed area of involvement and the arrangements for interaction with officials
2. the agreed Green representative will have direct access to officials and will be able to request reports from officials
3. budget documentation will specify the funding which is associated with the identified area
4. the Green Party representative will report regularly to the Minister on progress on policy development or implementation in the area
5. any cabinet committee papers arising from work in the area will be presented by the responsible Minister
6. if such a paper is on a committee agenda the green representative will be invited to the committee to take part in the discussion relating to the paper
7. the responsible Minister will keep the Green representative briefed on other aspects of the portfolio which may impinge on the designated area
8. the government will publicly acknowledge the area as being one of specific green party influence and the green party representative will be a designated spokesperson in the area
Appendix 2
Level 2 policy areas and legislation will be specified and jointly agreed by the parties at quarterly meetings of Green Party Co-Leaders and the Prime Minister.
Where the Green Party and government have agreed to work together on level 2 policy areas and legislation it is expected that the parties will work in good faith towards an agreed outcome that advances the policies of both parties, including negotiating any resources required to implement agreed policies.
To this end there will be:
* full participation by the Green Party in the policy development process and development of legislation with the aim of developing jointly agreed positions
* access to relevant Cabinet Ministers and, through the Minister to officials where appropriate, for designated Green Party MPs
* access to relevant papers
* public acknowledgement of the Green Party’s contribution through measures such as: press releases; speeches; or supporting agreed Green Party amendments to legislation
* agreement on the timetable for policy development and passage of legislation through Parliament
* advance notification of any significant announcements by either party
* support from the Green Party for procedural motions in the House or select committees on any legislation coming out of this process
* full confidentiality, in line with the provisions in the agreement.
Where a policy and/or legislation has been developed within the guidelines set out above, and both parties have agreed on the outcome, both parties will publicly support the process and the outcome.”
The agreement was therefore primarily about process, rather than substance. All the agreement itself says about the substance of Buy Kiwi Made is that the Government and the Greens agree that there will be a Buy Kiwi Made programme, and that the Green Party spokesperson will be fully involved in the detailed development and implementation of the policy proposals for it.
The one thing I don’t think can be disputed by either Party though, is that it is a Buy Kiwi MADE programme, and that goods that are wholly manufactured overseas cannot be Kiwi MADE, even if the components are made or grown in New Zealand and the design occurs in New Zealand.
But there certainly is room in the agreement to negotiate about the extent to which the components have to be made and the manufacturing undertaken in New Zealand. For example, if a good is 80% manufactured here, and 20% overseas, can it still be called “Kiwi Made”? Or what if 100% of the finished product is manufactured here, but 50% of its raw materials are produced overseas? Is this still “Kiwi Made”?
August 14th, 2006 at 2:57 pm
I’d be going for NZ manufactured products made by majority NZ-ownership companies using 80% NZ raw materials. that probably isn’t much, but that’s the point really.
August 14th, 2006 at 5:11 pm
There’s going to have to be a balancing act - if we set this threshold too high, we run the risk of excluding too many local businesses. Set it too low and we drive consumers to businesses that aren’t really adding to the campaign. Either extreme will be a waste of tax dollars.
I’ve added a few thoughts to my blog - Pwww.farmgeek.co.nz
August 14th, 2006 at 6:04 pm
A NZ-made campaign should have a CLEAR rating system.
Manufacturers should be able to submit their products for rating, and be permitted to promote them with that rating.
e.g. a system of one to five stars.
A rough rating guide to get the ball rolling (please refine it if you feel so inclined):
5 stars***** for products in which all materials and components are produced in NZ and all manufacturing is done in NZ.
4 stars**** for products whose materials are at least 75% (by value) produced in NZ and all value-added manufacturing is done in NZ.
3 stars*** for products made of at least 50% NZ materials (by value) and at least 50% of value-added manufactuing is done in NZ; and, products whose materials are not made in NZ but all value-added manufacturing is done in NZ
2 stars** for products made of at least 50% NZ materials (by value) and at least 25% of value-added manufactuing is done in NZ.
1 star* for products made of at least 50% NZ materials (by value) and which are designed in NZ
NZ’s garment industry is an interesting case in point: apart from wool, leather and possibly flax-based linen (does anyone manufacture linen in NZ?), all the materials have to be imported. Even woven wool products generally need to come from overseas. But manufacturers can choose to import fabrics and do all value-added in NZ if they want. Very few do. Keith Matheson and a few other designers are probably all that’s left now. Women’s and mens undergarments have all gone off-shore AFAIK. So, where does NZ-made clothing fit in if all the fabrics are imported? And with Icebreaker, they were NZ-made before, but last time I looked only a few items were made in NZ, the majority made in China. But they are NZ-designed and use NZ merino. Wht rating do you give them?
And to end, another example to mull over:
Where would NZ bottled water fit in? What is the value of the water versus the packaging (imported? locally made from imported PET resins?)? What NZ value-added manufacturing is included?
August 17th, 2006 at 12:07 pm
This is where definitions to a formula become difficult.
We have designed a range of advanced energy system controllers.
All the high technology electronic parts are sourced from overseas, there is absolutely no option there (plants to make computer chips costs billions of dollars). The intellectual input to the design, the assembly, the local sub-manufacturing is all NZ based.
A buy NZ would help level the extremely unlevel playing field we have to deal with now by way of imported products, compliance costs (not incurred overseas), higher local wages, foreign products subsidised and trade tariffs excluding us from entry into numerous markets all take their toll.
Our products are clearly thought of as NZ made by those we sell to yet under definitions of NZ content we may well not even rate a “1 star”.
A bigger vision than primary produce items needs to come into the equation here.
August 17th, 2006 at 12:48 pm
I can see your point of view lancenz
Obviously you need rules to stop the programme being hijacked by business for their own ends, but is there room for a more qualitative measure?
To me, the important parameters are 1) where is it physically made (or assembled, value-added etc), 2) where do the bits come from and 3) Is the company NZ owned?
Coming up with a star rating with strict formulaic logic that gives every company the “right” rating would prove to be very difficult I suspect. Heaven forbid if we dumb consumers have to contend with a rating system that has more than one dimension :- )
August 17th, 2006 at 1:12 pm
lancenz,
Under my proposed rating system above, your product would get three stars***:
“3 stars*** for products made of at least 50% NZ materials (by value) and at least 50% of value-added manufactuing is done in NZ; and, products whose materials are not made in NZ but all value-added manufacturing is done in NZ“
August 17th, 2006 at 4:02 pm
I really think any “Buy NZ-Made” campaign needs to focus primarily on the “Made” aspect.
I can think of five criteria, and this is how I would rank them in descending order of importance:
1. Where is the product manufactured?
2. Where was the design work done?
3. Where are the raw materials and components sourced from?
4. Where is the marketing operation based?
5. In which country is the company based?
Value-added manufacturing is clearly what brings skills and jobs to NZers, so it gets top priority.
Next is design, for similar reasons.
NZ doesn’t have a lot of raw materials and componets to begin with outside pastoral farming, forestry, horticulture and fishing, so focusing on this low-value-added criteria is a mistake IMHO.
Marketing operations and corporate headquarters are worth a look, but get low weightings.
If a company such as Icebreaker wants to get NZ-made recognition, then they should manufacture their excellent clothing in NZ! Simple as that. Their choice.
August 17th, 2006 at 4:12 pm
Nicely put tochigi
August 18th, 2006 at 9:29 am
Maybe they’d be something in labelling things “Most New Zealand made in this class of goods”, and get manufacturers competing for the title. Then things like the stuff lancenz mentions, that is necessarily made from overseas components, gets recognition as at least more NZ than other similar products.
August 22nd, 2006 at 3:09 pm
I guess there won’t be many takers here for these free “I buy goods from poorer countries” wristbands then:-
http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/index.php/blog/individual/supporting_fre e_trade_with_abandon/
What wristband should you wear instead? “I’m not smart enough to see when I’m being manipulated”? “What Would Winston Do?”? “Just wave the flag and I bend over”? Hmm. Choices.
I notice in your painstaking and fastidious analysis above you haven’t touched on the subject of whether goods and services provided by immigrants should be eligible for your scheme. I mean, accrediting someone who has just stepped off the boat would surely make a mockery of the whole exercise? He steps over an entirely arbitrary political boundary and, voila, you’re suddenly prepared to trade with him. Good grief. What sad people.
Maybe it’s because you live on an island that you have this mindset? I mean, how dumb would it look for North Arizona to discriminate against goods from South Arizona? Yet that’s precisely what you’re advocating.
Personally I try to avoid buying anything overtly labelled with jingoistic, nationalistic tags, and steer clear of any establishment that proclaims itself “proudly New Zealand owned and operated” when there is a convenient alternative. But what I object to most is you and your new best mate Winston forcing me to pay taxes so you can indulge your redneck prejudices.
August 22nd, 2006 at 3:34 pm
Mouldwarp,
We don’t have trading partners just over the state line via convenient highway. There’s a bunch of water between us and all of our trading partners (even the South Island, to use your analogy) and it takes a lot of energy (and pollution) to get goods to us. So my perspective on a buy NZ made campaign is that it reduces the ecological footprint of our trading activity if we have to ship less goods halfway around the world. (even importing raw materials vs finished products will be an improvement).
If it helps to stop skilled jobs being exported and has a positive impact on our balance of trade then they will be nice bonuses too.
August 23rd, 2006 at 11:59 am
Mouldwarp,
It would be a good idea to find out what we are discussing here before launching into purile “put downs” and insults. (You do yourself no favours.)
Aotearoa/NZ is our economic unit: our equivalent of the entire USA. Whether garments are made (for example) in Napier or Oamaru doesn’t make a difference in the terms you are talking about. Similarly, immigrants are, by definition, New Zealand residents and thus part of our economic system.
Providing productive employment for Kiwis AND our “balance of payments” when we spend overseas more than we earn are two issues of concern to us.
Then there is the whole looming question (for the Planet) of the unnecessary use of fossil fuels in the name of “free trade” and “Gobal markets”.
August 23rd, 2006 at 3:34 pm
farmgeek,
A “Made in NZ” label tells you nothing about how much energy was expended in an item’s production. Exploiting the concept of comparative advantage is surely the best way to ensure that goods are produced most efficiently globally. Deliberately breaking down that mechanism to favour local production is a sure-fire way to introduce gross inefficiencies throughout the world and increase the total energy usage significantly.
Certainly geographical isolation is an issue for little New Zealand, but then geographical *size* is an issue for Canada, the US, Russia, China and India etc. They need to make heavy use of land transport, New Zealand needs a bit more shipping. That’s just the way it is.
As a reliable rule, anything the excrable Winston favours is both wrong and bad. His wrapping himself in the flag like this surely qualifies as a form of desecration under the 1981 Flags, Emblems and Names Protection Act.
> “If it helps to stop skilled jobs being exported and has a positive impact on our balance of trade then they will be nice bonuses too.”
How could it possibly do either of these things?
eredwin,
> “Aotearoa/NZ is our economic unit”
No. Your family is your economic unit. You and I both trade almost exclusively with complete strangers. Why do you want me to check the colour of their passports before I do business with them? Whilst I support your right to irrationally discriminate against any group, race or creed, I would make the point that it has no economic merit.
That said, NZ is certainly a *political* unit and it is in the nature of states to trample over people’s freedoms and impose whatever trade restrictions it thinks will be politically advantageous. The answer here is not to become complicit with the charade of the nation state as an “economic unit” but to oppose its attempts to rob consumers for the benefit of a select few.
Witness Australia’s embargo of NZ apples. Australians are the real losers here, deprived of choice, competition and the basic freedom to trade with whoever they wish. The same with the notorious sugar tariffs in the US - the real victims are the hundreds of millions of American consumers. Politicians are laughing up their sleeves when they see people like you actually lobbying to have such resrictions imposed locally. They know full well that you’re all turkeys voting for Christmas.
> “Providing productive employment for Kiwis AND our “balance of paymentsâ€? when we spend overseas more than we earn are two issues of concern to us.”
But obviously not of sufficient concern to go to the trouble of aquiring even basic economic literacy or you wouldn’t be peddling the Lump of Labour fallacy or expressing baseless fears about the balance of trade.
Honestly, it’s like someone saying that the environment is an issue of concern for them and then confusing the global warming issue with the hole in the ozone layer.
And finally, a piece about the wicked Walmart from the equally wicked tcs.com site:-
‘Between 1990 and 2002 more than 174 million people escaped poverty in China, about 1.2 million per month. With an estimated $23 billion in Chinese exports in 2005 (out of a total of $713 billion in manufacturing exports), Wal-Mart might well be single-handedly responsible for bringing about 38,000 people out of poverty in China each month, about 460,000 per year.
There are estimates that 70 percent of Wal-Mart’s products are made in China. One writer vividly suggests that “One way to think of Wal-Mart is as a vast pipeline that gives non-U.S. companies direct access to the American market.” Even without considering the $263 billion in consumer savings that Wal-Mart provides for low-income Americans, or the millions lifted out of poverty by Wal-Mart in other developing nations, it is unlikely that there is any single organization on the planet that alleviates poverty so effectively for so many people.’
August 23rd, 2006 at 4:21 pm
To our dearest ad hominem specialist:
It’s only a “baseless fear” if one does not mind the way in which we fund our persistent current account deficits: persistent capital inflows, which under our present set-up mean we have either sold a large proportion of our productive assets and infrastructure to overseas interests, or we are running up massive debts to overseas lenders.
Whether one sees this as good, bad or neutral is a value judgement, and nothing to do with “economic literacy”.
August 23rd, 2006 at 4:27 pm
Mouldwarp quoted “One way to think of Wal-Mart is as a vast pipeline that gives non-U.S. companies direct access to the American market.�
Or you could look at Wal-Mart as a vast pipeline through which the US exports skilled (value-add) jobs, while replacing them with minimum-wage McJobs at home in the “service” industry. And that gurgling is the sound of local communities’ retail and manufacturing infrastructure disappearing in favour of a monoculture supply chain that is completely dependant on cheap transport and the continuing goodwill of China.
August 24th, 2006 at 1:08 pm
Well replied tochigi and farmgeek! (thank you!)
Mouldwarp: Your reply reminds me of the saying: “We are so far on opposite sides of the fence that we can’t even throw rocks at each other”, and as you might have noticed, rock throwing is not what we come here for.
NOW could we get back to the topic of “Buy Kiwi Made”?
toshigi: I like your idea of a possibile “star system” with packaging/labelling and possibly advertising(?) designed to be a standard “quick-check” on the product (and packaging) for purchasers. It would be an excellent ongoing educational tool too.
Your question:
“Where would NZ bottled water fit in? What is the value of the water versus the packaging (imported? locally made from imported PET resins?)? What NZ value-added manufacturing is included?”
This brings up THE pet hate of mine. Living in Christchurch with Canterbury’s pure alluvial/artesian water, I have found this whole concept first of all unbelievable, and now ludicrous …
(the fact that people here BUY bottled water, less pure than our local tap water, that has been “manufactured” and carted around the country using fossil fuels … Some of it is even imported from overseas!) It is an EXCELLENT example of the idiocy of non-thinking consumerism.
I continue to fill my sturdy bottle from the tap (and have a larger container with me in the car when I travel). Meanwhile the piles of empty plastic bottles grow. “But they can be recycled” people cry!
Where does THIS fit into the Buy Kiwi Made campaign indeed! With bottled water as a prime example, maybe we could think of ways to “killing two birds with one stone” within the Buy Kiwi Made Campaign …
August 25th, 2006 at 5:58 pm
tochigi,
>> “It’s only a “baseless fearâ€? if one does not mind the way in which we fund our persistent current account deficits: persistent capital inflows, which under our present set-up mean we have either sold a large proportion of our productive assets and infrastructure to overseas interests, or we are running up massive debts to overseas lenders.”
There is no “we.” If you are living within your means then why are you bothered about other people’s finances?
And what’s this talk about “our” productive assets and alarm about how “we” are running up massive debts? Unless you own a business you don’t *have* any productive assets, and you personally will have a “massive debt” if you borrow too much to buy consumer goods whether they are made in NZ or Timbuktu.
There’s your stuff and then there’s other people’s stuff, okay? What others choose do do with their stuff is really none of your business. Trademe was created then sold for $700m to an Australian company. According to your theory, NZ is now worse off by $700m. This is wrong in so many ways.
The US attracts an astonishing amount of foreign capital because it is the most dynamic wealth-creating place on earth, yet you’d have us believe that such capital inflows and foreigners’ buying shares in these American companies are bad for the US. Madness!
But the specific point I made was about eredwin’s assertion that an increase in free trade must inevitably result in an increased trade deficit. This is palpable nonsense. We can debate the nature and implications of trade deficits, but to claim that more trade equals bigger deficit is ridiculous. Germany, for example, runs a huge trade surplus.
farmgeek,
>> “Or you could look at Wal-Mart as a vast pipeline through which the US exports skilled (value-add) jobs, while replacing them with minimum-wage McJobs at home in the “serviceâ€? industry.”
Where to begin?
I hope you would agree that everyone has the right to trade freely with whoever they want and that you simply don’t have any right to impose your preferences and prejudices on other people? This is in fact the main argument for free trade; discussions about the *effects* of such trade are entirely secondary.
You condemn the effect of increased free trade between America and China because you believe (wrongly) it has had a net negative effect on Americans, yet you don’t dispute that that same process has lifted hundreds of millions of Chinese out of poverty. Why no consideration of them? In an economic analysis everyone is considered to have equal value. By all means favour Americans over Chinese in your own dealings, but don’t force your choices on the rest of us.
The usual complaint (and one that actually has some foundation) is that *unskilled* workers can suffer when trade barriers are removed. Yet you’d have us believe that it’s *skilled* workers who get the short end of the stick.
You are obviously not aware that first-world economies around the world have significant skilled labour *shortages*. Just one headline: “Manufacturers Struggle to Fill Highly Paid Jobs”
(http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-manufacture14aug 14,0,5735356.story?coll=la-home-headlines)
>> “And that gurgling is the sound of local communities’ retail and manufacturing infrastructure disappearing in favour of a monoculture supply chain that is completely dependant on cheap transport and the continuing goodwill of China.”
Pure fantasy. It’s like the old “race to the bottom” argument against free trade - the evidence against such a phenomenon is overwhelming yet it is such a *necessary* green belief that all the concrete evidence in the world won’t shake it.
So what are the facts? Here’s a fact for you: “Real output of U.S. factories has increased by 50 percent since 1994.” (http://www.freetrade.org/pubs/briefs/tbp-023.pdf)
And if you haven’t noticed, increased free trade with China hasn’t reduced us all to penury and living in rags. Far from it. Unemployment in NZ is effectively zero and there is a significant shortage of skilled workers. Wages are on the up and things have never been more prosperous. And cheap imports from China are as good as a hefty wage increase all round.
Do you really think that it would be a sign of prosperity if labour-intensive clothing manufacturers were flocking to NZ? Of course not. The fact is that NZ productivity is sufficiently high that - *thanks to trade* - we are freed to engage in higher-value work and enjoy the great standard of living that comes with it.
Why, for example, don’t you stop what you are doing and open a shoe or clothing factory in NZ? The answer is that the pittance you could afford to pay your staff wouldn’t attract a single applicant. Yet that’s precisely the fate you would force on us with your trade barriers.
August 26th, 2006 at 12:19 pm
Does anyone want to factor in whether the company manufacturing the goods is NZ owned? This would then take into account an advantage where a NZ manufactured item in production is more likely to encourage shareholders to reinvest in NZ production, as well as ensuring that ’surplus profits’ are more likely to recycle in NZ. .
August 27th, 2006 at 10:41 pm
To our dearest ad hominem specialist,
Hello there? Do you actually read anything anyone else writes before jumping in boots and all? No? Didn’t think so. It seems you are only intent on knocking down your own straw men. You quoted a paragraph I wrote, and conveniently (deliberately? misleadingly?) left out the key sentence the key final sentence of my comment:
tochigi wrote:
“Whether one sees this as good, bad or neutral is a value judgement, and nothing to do with “economic literacyâ€?”.
FYI, you made an ad hominem attack on eredwen, questioning her “economic literacy”. And you represented my reply to this as taking some particular position on the discussion, but as anyone can see, the final sentence quite clearly was not taking any position but pointing out the “baselessness” of your uncalled for ad hominem attack.
eredwen wrote:
“Providing productive employment for Kiwis AND our “balance of paymentsâ€? when we spend overseas more than we earn are two issues of concern to us”.
ad hom/straw man specialist wrote:
“But the specific point I made was about eredwin’s assertion that an increase in free trade must inevitably result in an increased trade deficit. This is palpable nonsense. We can debate the nature and implications of trade deficits, but to claim that more trade equals bigger deficit is ridiculous”.
Would you mind not making things up about what other people write? If you want to imagine all sorts of straw men leaping out of the shadows to argue with you, that’s your business. Please do it in private and stop intentionally misrepresenting what other people write.
eredwen never asserted anything of the sort. This is purely a figment of your vivid imagination.
She was talking about “two issues of concern to us”, and said not a word implying that “an increase in free trade must inevitably result in an increased trade deficit”. Where did you dream this stuff up? This type of “straw-man” debating tactic is so tiresome and utterly pointless, and very rude IMO. Please get over yourself and try to show some civility, and maybe the substance of your comments might be worth actually replying to.
August 27th, 2006 at 10:55 pm
Mouldwarp wrote:
“There’s your stuff and then there’s other people’s stuff, okay?”
No, I don’t agree with this statement.
Whose “stuff” is our air and water quality? Whose “stuff” is the gold deposits on public and private land? Oil? Natural gas? Whose “stuff” is motor vehicle pollution? Chemical runoff from farms into lakes? Dairy farm effluent? Dairy factory effluent? Lake water used for hydro generation? And whose “stuff” is the scenery all the overseas visitors see when they come to NZ, and which is used as a backdrop in countless films?
Your assertion that all “stuff” is owned by either you (me) or “other people” doesn’t seem to stand up to the evidence, so I would suggest your assertion that it is “none of your (my) business” is equally invalid.
Explanation please?
August 28th, 2006 at 2:33 pm
tochigi,
> ‘FYI, you made an ad hominem attack on eredwen, questioning her “economic literacyâ€?.’
You are mistaken. That was not an insult but a simple statement of fact. And it was very obvious - despite your exhaustive denial - that part of her argument against free trade was an unfounded fear of an automatically worsening trade deficit.
Let’s be quite clear that this is not a simple difference of personal opinion, this is about people here being blissfully unaware that they are displaying a complete ignorance of the most basic economic principles when they favour us with their opinions on the subject.
As for your second posting, about ownership, it could not have been more clear that that the point being made concerned your bizarre delusion that you own other people’s productive assets and your fears that you might be liable for their debts. Such beliefs are the economic equivalent of imagining yourself to be Napoleon.
If you wish to debate the issue of externalities and commons then feel free, but that was very obviously not what we were discussing at the time so please don’t twist my point like that.
rsuggate,
Ownership of a company is of absolutely no concern. If a foreign company opens an operation in NZ it creates wealth here, from which it pays salaries, suppliers and local and national taxes. It brings competition which drives value for consumers. It may well bring world-class technology and know-how.
Now, after that wealth has been created and lots of it has been paid out locally, any small remaining surplus will go to shareholders who may be foreigners. Good luck to them, they took the risk of opening a business here. Of course, there is nothing to stop you buying shares in that company or any other global company if you so wish. Hopefully your international investments will be profitable and you can spend some of your earnings back here in NZ.
And what is an NZ-owned company anyway? One where at least 51% of the shares are owned by Kiwis? What if it drops to 49%? What if some of those Kiwis shareholders live overseas? What if some of the shareholders are foreigners living in NZ? Why should anyone give a damn?
August 28th, 2006 at 2:53 pm
to our dearest ad hominem specialist,
thanks for confirming that you do not read what others have written and making it clear that you consider intentionally misrepresenting other people’s comments is ok. no need, then,to carry on this pointless exchange with your little army of straw men.