One of the notions our society runs on is that the pursuit of wealth is good in and of itself as eventually everyone will benefit. The idea comes from Adams Smiths observation that it isn’t altruism that causes the baker to light his ovens in the morning (etc). Beyond that, however there comes a point where one person is just a giant tree shading others, (for example someone who owns 18 dairy farms, or 100 houses). Those sort of achievements aren’t necessarily due to being a better farmer, just (perhaps) to being well connected and/or having better entrepreneurial skills. Poor people can be greedy too of course.
One of the green ideas (I would have thought ) is the notion that there are limits to growth and therefore how much you (think you should have, or deserve) is an issue for everybody.

The way I see it everyone needs a share in a supporting ecosystem: essentially fertile land with a water source and trees etc. In a modern economy we specialize, engage in trade,and get creative by using money as a medium of exchange, but I worry, I would like to think that if it all turns to custard, I can head back to the (non existent) family farm with its fruit trees and duck pond and cruise along for a millennium.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

JH

“Lets not make a virtue out of greed (That’s ACT’s policy)”

Are the poor people not greedy by wanting to be rich?

Or is greed a reserved for the wealthy only?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

even that should read: “Please Helen, let the exclusive brethen put phamplets in every mailbox of NZ condemning “Democrats for Social Creditâ€? in the next election.”

Helen Clark is the one stopping the EB campaigning at the next election, not God.

“Then we’ll win by a landslide and if i’m in parliament, my salary will be nothing more than the median salary earnt in the country.”

But why win democratically even? Why not just take control of the country through armed resistance? The ‘peace’ activists in Wellington are trying to do it.

“profiteers bent on making New Zealand society completely repressed n subservient to international finance”

Please show me a link to a place which shows that is national policy. But its pretty clear what green/Labour party policy is even. They want to take control of New ZEaland families through the S59 repel and they want to turn NZ into a dictatorship where no one can speak out aginst the govt through the EFB.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Who the F#$%s gonna vote for what the exclusive brethen are promoting?
If they had any sense they should have produced phamplets condemming NAtional(not cause they are an irresponsible bunch of profiteers bent on making New Zealand society completely repressed n subservient to international finance) but to get them more votes.
Please God, let the exclusive brethen put phamplets in every mailbox of NZ condemning “Democrats for Social Credit” in the next election. Then we’ll win by a landslide and if i’m in parliament, my salary will be nothing more than the median salary earnt in the country.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

I see landlords are saying rents will have rise. That’s not surprising as every unearned dollar in the property market creates a hole that has to be filled. Or to put it another way, the property gurus call themselves “wealth creators”. This isn’t correct they are wealth redistributers> from the many to the few.
Lets not make a virtue out of greed (That’s ACT’s policy)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Nick. My recollection was that the Brethren admitted to having a war chest of 1.2 million dollars, but they spent much less than that amount.

The printed an anti-Green brochure, an anti-Labour brochure and a few pages of advertisements (vaguely Nationalesque) in the Auckland rags. The brochures did not make it to all letter boxes in NZ.

Given NZ Labour claim the election pledge cards cost about $400K to print and distribute NZ wide, and that the proponents of the EFB think $120K is heaps of money to spend on a series of full page advertisements in the paper, their actual expenditure was more likely around the 800K mark. One interview I saw they said they spent 550K, but I’m not sure if all expenditure had been completed by then.

The various pundits keep inflating and talking about their budget as if it were their actuals. If anyone has definitive evidence of expenditure, I’d appreciate seeing it.

They had a name and address on the Green pamphlet (“Authorised by Stephen Win, Favona Road, Mangere”), but people are annoyed because they consider it necessary to list your name, address and religion on a pamphlet. In the case of the EB no doubt they also expect bar code tattoos on their arms. Maybe the name and address was not a full disclosure in the right form, and maybe it was missing from other publications – I haven’t actually seen any specific evidence other than what people say as ‘statement of fact’.

I agree with the point about new limits set in the revised bill – for spending – why these limits? What logic exactly? How does this cost relate to typical costs and expenditures to pay for an advertisement a week up to an election? Why is it not inflation adjusted?

For donations – it works out at some percentage of the party budget. But why this percentage? Why continue to allow anon donations? Why allow Owen Glenn and other non residents to put huge sums of money into the Labour party when they don’t live here?

This whole process is not allowing a wide ranging discussion of detailed aspects of the revised bill, and its to be forced through under urgency.

If the Greens continue to support this totally undemocratic process (and cannot see the need to manage changes to the Election Process with more rigor than changing the bail laws, say) then …. well, I’ll chip in for the mirror if you pay for the polish on the jack boots.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

OMG bogle. NO ONE BOUGHT THE 2005 ELECTION! The only thing the Exclusive Brethrean bought was 1.5 million dollars worth of phamplets (with their own money), not votes pamphlets! I would say that they have every right to do that, provided they identify themselfs on the pamphlets (which they should have). I doubt that the pamphlets swung a single vote. If you take away peoples rights to advertise you take away their right to freedom of speech not to mention all the other things that this bill does.

This is a bill introduced purely in self interest. The $240,000 number for anon donations was hand picked to favour Labour and the green party sold out their beliefs and agreed to it. If i was a union member I would call Russel a scab.

The only criminal activity at the 2005 election was when Labour stole $850,000 of TAXPAYERS money to pay for advertising.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

So it’s OK to buy an election?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Even your man of the left, Chris Trotter, is finally coming round. It’s fair to say he’s not so hot for the EFB.

Is anyone – outside The Greens & Labour?

tinyurl.com/2udnv2

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Bill English gives a great speech in responce to the revised bill:
http://nz.youtube.com/watch?v=TexP6VACeCM

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

It disgusts me the money in politics…i’m talkin about the gravy train our “public servants” recieve in what is known as the first law of nature..self preservation.
Backbenchers alone recieve $126,200 without even mentioning all the extra allowances, an accomodation supplement of $460 a week just one example.
Oh yeah, everyone wants “democracy” but the fear of losing is such that few, when push comes to shove, will not take all advantages in order to win for themselves. That is the real reality of our democracy constantly bulging at the unraveled seams of society, degenerated to the point where property is the biggest employer in the country and 40-50% percent own less then 5% of the wealth while 5% own more than 50%.
If Norman thinks democracy is a fundamental principle in society then i suggest he doesn’t know what a fundamental principle is, as that would make a democratic society to mean no more than an charad; and the monetary reform conference he attended in America should have shown him that there is a fundamentally better way, for it is not economic inequality that creates democracy but rather a strong and abundant common wealth. Only then will the veil of the first law of nature be revealed as being the first law of illusion and collective self-destruction.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

If you want to read a good counter to Trotter’s column on the EFB, check out Jane Clifton’s piece in the latest Listener – it’s very good.

I’ve written a commentary on Clifton’s column at:
http://liberation.typepad.com/liberation/2007/11/jane-clifton-mo.html

Bryce

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Trotters article was a load of crap, as usual he is living in the Communist manifesto, not New Zealand. He essentailly asserts that the only true form of democracy is one where wealth is shared.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

I haven’t been taking much interest in the EFB but I was impressed by Chris Trotters piece a couple of days ago in the Otago Daily:

Putting a price on free speech
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/4285561a1861.html

Old story “when farmers are doing well everybody’s doing well”
when building industry is doing well everyone is doing well….????????????????

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

$240,000 of dirty money is not a small sum. Got to wonder who is paying the Greens and Labour and NZ First this much and why do they need to remain secret.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

alistair Says:

November 22nd, 2007 at 2:45 am
I’m surprised and delighted to see the cap on anonymous donations!
I don’t see any justification whatever for large anonymous donations, it certainly isn’t a matter of free speech to be allowed to buy political influence covertly. So that’s a major win for transparency to the Greens (albeit a compromise).

Its a sad day for a dictatorship ….Opps …i mean a democracy ! cough …. When a party can no longer win by unfair advantage and the money of the rich brothers behind you has dried up .. choke …. its enough to make a man turn in his grave …. I mean it will bring about disaster ….. These greens they do go on about conservation and things ….. climate change blah blah… yes well the climates changing with this bill thats for sure …heating up ..yes you can just feel the heat on these pages over that bill ! hmm heh heh heh ….And what about extinction of critters ?? hmmm …have the greens thought about that ?? …without nats …. that fine animal the pink elephant might be a dieing species ! ….Anyone thought about that ?? .. .. I tell you we didnt get by in my day without taking good care of them ! …. just terrible what happening these days

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

I have just heard Chris FInlayson call this disgusting bill “a piece of Utu legislation”

That is the best description I have heard.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

As I write this Metiria is speaking in the house, until now I had a little bit of respect for her.
She is another of the Greens afflicted by an irrational hatred of the EB and a naked hatred of the Nat’s.
The line she is using reeks of back room deals, it is time that the Greens came out and told the truth to all Kiwi’s.
She even has the hard neck to claim that this disgusting piece of legislation protects the freedom of speech.
I have not always agreed with the Greens but at least their MP’s (with the exception of Bradford) could be trusted, sadly it seems that Metiria has spent far to long in the company of the Labour party, she seems to have problems with the truth.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Then how about the green party stops doing back room deals to rig election law in favour of one party, as the $240,000 limit on anonymous donations clearly does.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

I hope I never see another opponent of the Greens use the name of the late Rod Donald in support of their criticism of the party or its legislation.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)